[Senate Report 109-274]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 504
109th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 109-274
======================================================================
ENERGY AND WATER APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2007
_______
June 29, 2006.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Domenici, from the Committee on Appropriations,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 5427]
The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 0000)
making appropriations for energy and water development for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes,
favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass. deg.
The Committee on Appropriations, to which was referred the
bill (H.R. 5427) making appropriations for energy and water
development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and
for other purposes, reports the same to the Senate with an
amendment, and an amendment to the title, and recommends that
the bill as amended do pass.
Amount in new budget (obligational) authority, fiscal year 2007
Total of bill as reported to the Senate................. $31,238,000,000
Amount of 2006 appropriations.........................\1\ 37,299,714,000
Amount of 2007 budget estimate.......................... 29,980,227,000
Amount of House allowance............................... 30,526,000,000
Bill as recommended to Senate compared to--
2006 appropriations................................. -6,061,714,000
2007 budget estimate................................ +1,257,773,000
House allowance..................................... +712,000,000
\1\ Includes Emergency Appropriations of $6,600,473,000.
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Purpose.......................................................... 4
Summary of Estimates and Recommendations......................... 4
Title I:
Department of Defense--Civil: Department of the Army:
Corps of Engineers--Civil:
General Investigations............................... 24
Construction, General................................ 44
Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries..... 64
Operation and Maintenance, General................... 67
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies................ 89
Regulatory Program................................... 89
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program...... 90
General Expenses..................................... 91
General Provisions--Corps of Engineers--Civil........ 94
Title II:
Department of the Interior:
Central Utah Project Completion Account.................. 97
Bureau of Reclamation:
Water and Related Resources.......................... 97
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund.............. 109
California Bay-Delta Restoration..................... 110
Policy and Administration............................ 110
General Provisions--Department of the Interior........... 110
Title III:
Department of Energy:
Energy Supply and Conservation........................... 114
Office of Electricity Delivery Energy Reliability.... 122
Nuclear Energy Programs.............................. 123
Environment, Safety, and Health...................... 128
Fossil Energy Research and Development............... 129
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves............... 131
Elk Hills School Lands Fund.......................... 132
Strategic Petroleum Reserve.......................... 132
Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve................... 132
Energy Information Administration.................... 132
Non-defense Environmental Cleanup........................ 133
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning
Fund................................................... 133
Science.................................................. 134
High Energy Physics.................................. 135
Nuclear Physics...................................... 138
Biological and Environmental Research................ 138
Basic Energy Sciences................................ 140
Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund.............................. 143
Departmental Administration.............................. 144
Office of Inspector General.............................. 145
Atomic Energy Defense Activities:
National Nuclear Security Administration:
Weapons Activities............................... 145
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation................. 157
Naval Reactors................................... 160
Office of the Administrator...................... 161
Environmental and Other Defense Activities:
Defense Environmental Cleanup........................ 162
Other Defense Activities............................. 167
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal....................... 168
Power Marketing Administrations:
Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power
Administration................................. 168
Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power
Administration................................. 169
Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and
Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration. 169
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Salaries and
Expenses........................................... 170
General Provisions--Department of Energy................. 195
Title IV:
Independent Agencies:
Appalachian Regional Commission.......................... 197
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.................. 198
Delta Regional Authority................................. 198
Denali Commission........................................ 198
Nuclear Regulatory Commission............................ 198
Office of Inspector General.......................... 199
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board..................... 200
Tennessee Valley Authority Office of the Inspector
General................................................ 200
Title V: General Provisions...................................... 201
Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of
the
Senate......................................................... 202
Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules
of the
Senate......................................................... 202
Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of
the
Senate......................................................... 203
Budgetary Impact Statement....................................... 212
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to provide appropriations for
the fiscal year 2007 beginning October 1, 2006, and ending
September 30, 2007, 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, 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 2007 budget estimates for the bill total
$31,238,000,000 in new budget (obligational) authority. The
recommendation of the Committee totals $31,238,000,000. This is
$1,257,773,000 above the budget estimates and $6,061,714,000
under the enacted appropriation for the current fiscal year.
Subcommittee Hearings
The Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water held
four sessions in connection with the fiscal year 2007
appropriation bill. Witnesses included officials and
representatives of the Federal agencies under the
subcommittee's jurisdiction.
The subcommittee received numerous statements and letters
from Members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives,
Governors, State and local officials and representatives, and
hundreds of private citizens of all walks of life throughout
the United States. Information, both for and against many
items, was presented to the subcommittee. The recommendations
for fiscal year 2007 therefore, have been developed after
careful consideration of available data.
Votes in the Committee
By a vote of 28 to 0 the Committee on June 29, 2006,
recommended that the bill, as amended, be reported to the
Senate.
TITLE I
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Corps of Engineers--Civil
INTRODUCTION
The Corps of Engineers is made up of approximately 35,000
civilian and 650 military members that perform both military
and civil works functions. The military and civilian engineers,
scientists and other specialists work hand in hand as leaders
in engineering and environmental matters. The diverse workforce
of biologists, engineers, geologists, hydrologists, natural
resource managers and other professionals meets the demands of
changing times and requirements as a vital part of America's
Army.
The Corps' mission is to provide quality, responsive
engineering services to the Nation including:
--Planning, designing, building and operating water resources
and other civil works projects, (Navigation, Flood
Control, Environmental Protection, Disaster Response,
etc.)
--Designing and managing the construction of military
facilities for the Army and Air Force. (Military
Construction)
--Providing design and construction management support for
other Defense and Federal agencies. (Interagency and
International Services)
The Energy and Water Bill only funds the Civil Works
missions of the Corps of Engineers. Approximately 23,000
civilians and about 190 military officers are responsible for
this nationwide mission.
From our hundreds of rivers, lakes and wetlands to our
thousands of miles of coastal shoreline, we are fortunate in
America to enjoy an abundance of water resources. As a Nation,
we value these resources for their natural beauty; for the many
ways they help meet human needs; and for the fact that they
provide habitat for thousands of species of plants, fish and
wildlife.
The Congress has given the Corps of Engineers the
responsibility of helping to care for these important aquatic
resources.
Through its Civil Works program the Corps carries out a
wide array of projects that provide:
--Coastal storm damage reduction
--Disaster preparedness and response
--Environmental protection and restoration
--Flood damage reduction
--Hydropower
--Navigable waters
--Recreational opportunities
--Regulatory oversight
--Water supply
One of the biggest challenges the Corps and other
Government agencies face is finding the right balance among the
often conflicting concerns our society has related to our water
resources. Society wants these resources to help fuel economic
growth (navigation, hydropower). Society wants them to provide
social benefits (recreation). And finally society wants to be
sure that they are available for future generations
(environmental protection and restoration).
The Corps is charged with seeking to achieve the best
possible balance among these competing demands through an
integrated approach to water resources management that focuses
on regional solutions, involving an array of stakeholders (i.e.
other Government agencies, environmental groups, businesses and
private organizations). In recent years, the Corps has
implemented this approach largely by concentrating on
watersheds.
FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET OVERVIEW
The fiscal year 2007 budget request for the Corps of
Engineers is composed of $4,733,000,000 in new budgetary
authority.
The Committee recommends a total of $5,139,430,000 for the
Corps of Engineers, a decrease of $189,740,000 from fiscal year
2006 enacted levels (adjusted for emergency spending of
$6,600,473,000). The Committee recommendation is $406,430,000
above the request. The Committee recommendation provides for a
robust planning program as well as providing increases to the
construction and operation and maintenance accounts.
Unfortunately, even with this increase the Committee
recommendation falls short of what is actually needed to
provide efficient levels of funding for all on-going work.
The budget request was again prepared using performance
based budgeting. The budget for the construction account
allocates funds based on the following seven performance-based
guidelines, redirecting funds to high-performing projects and
limiting new construction starts. In summary, the guidelines
dictate that:
--All ongoing, specifically authorized construction projects,
including projects funded in the Mississippi River and
Tributaries account, are assigned based upon their
primary purpose to one of the main mission areas of the
Corps (flood and storm damage reduction; commercial
navigation; aquatic ecosystem restoration [AER]) or to
hydropower. Projects, except AER projects, are ranked
by their remaining benefits divided by their remaining
costs [RBRC], calculated at a 7 percent discount rate.
AER projects will be ranked by the extent to which they
cost effectively contribute to the restoration of a
nationally or regionally significant aquatic ecosystem
that has become degraded as a result of a civil works
project, or to a restoration effort for which the Corps
is otherwise uniquely well-suited (e.g., because the
solution requires complex alterations to the hydrology
and hydraulics of a river system).
--Each project with an RBRC of 3.0 or greater and each AER
project that cost-effectively contributes to the
restoration of a nationally or regionally significant
aquatic ecosystem that has become degraded as a result
of a civil works project, or to a restoration effort
for which the Corps is uniquely well-suited, that can
be completed in the budget year, received, the balance
of funding needed to complete construction and related
administrative activities.
--The projects with the highest RBRCs or the most cost
effective AER projects received not less than 80
percent of the maximum level of funding that the Corps
can spend efficiently in each fiscal year.
--All ongoing flood and storm damage reduction, commercial
navigation, and hydropower construction projects that
have RBRCs below 3.0, except those projects that are
funded in the budget to address significant risk to
human safety, and all ongoing AER projects that do not
cost-effectively contribute to the restoration of a
nationally or regionally significant aquatic ecosystem
that has become degraded as a result of a civil works
project, and do not address a problem for which the
Corps is otherwise uniquely well-suited, and are less
than 50 percent complete will be considered for
deferral. Where a project considered for deferral was
previously budgeted, the budget includes funding to
cover the cost of terminating or completing each
ongoing contract, whichever is less. Any savings from
project suspensions will be used to accelerate the
projects with the highest returns.
--New construction projects and resumptions to ongoing
construction projects on which the Corps has not
performed any physical work under a construction
contract during the past 3 consecutive fiscal years,
must be ranked in the top 20 percent of the ongoing
construction projects in its mission area to be
considered.
--Flood and storm damage reduction projects that are funded
in the budget to address significant risk to human
safety, which will receive at least the funding needed
to pay contractor earnings and related costs. All other
ongoing construction projects will receive not more
than the amount needed to meet earnings permitted under
ongoing multi-year contracts and related costs. Dam
safety assurance, seepage control, and static
instability correction projects received the maximum
level of construction funding that the Corps can spend
efficiently. Construction projects received the amount
needed to ensure that they comply with treaties and
with biological opinions pursuant to the Endangered
Species Act, and meet authorized mitigation
requirements.
--10 percent of the funding available for construction may be
allocated to ongoing construction projects regardless
of the guidelines above but not to start up or resume
any project.
The Budget proposes that the administration and the
Congress apply these guidelines to the Corps construction
account and to the construction activities in the Mississippi
River and Tributaries account.
The Committee has watched with interest over the last 3
years as the Corps has moved to this ``performance based
budget'' model. Unfortunately, the Committee does not see
improvement in the budgeting of the Nation's Civil Works
infrastructure program. In fact, the Committee believes quite
the opposite is true. Rather than an integrated program, the
budget for the Civil Works program seems to be degenerating
toward a yearly collection of interchangeable projects
dependent only on the budgetary whims and criteria in use in
that particular year. The budget ignores infrastructure
maintenance requirements that are costing this country
business, investment, jobs, income, and tax receipts. The
current method of performance based budgeting utilized in this
budget preparation leads the Nation to turn away infrastructure
investments that return two and even three times their cost.
From the Committee's perspective, the Corps' budget seems
to be developed exactly in the opposite manner that it should
be. It appears that overall spending targets are set by the
administration, their priority projects are then inserted
within these targets and the remaining funds are available for
the remaining needs that meet the criteria for lower priority
projects. The problem with budgeting in this manner is evident
in the construction account for fiscal year 2007. Ten priority
projects consume more than 40 percent of the requested dollars
in this account. That means that some 75 projects have to split
the remaining construction dollars.
In fiscal year 2005, more than 130 projects were budgeted
by the administration for construction; this year there are
only about 85. However, Congress funded more than 300 projects
in fiscal year 2006 and has averaged about 315 annually since
fiscal year 2000. Budgetary criteria established for the fiscal
year 2007 budget required that eight projects that were
budgeted in fiscal year 2006 could not be budgeted in fiscal
year 2007. These projects were scheduled for termination or
suspension. These termination/suspension projects are in
addition to the more than 30 projects that were budgeted in
fiscal year 2005, that were recommended for termination or
suspension in the fiscal year 2006 budget based on that year's
budget criteria. In other words projects aren't being completed
by these budget proposals, they are being terminated or
suspended. It has been up to Congress to provide funding for
these projects.
The logic behind this budgeting rational appears to be that
concentrating scarce resources on finishing a few higher
performing projects will allow the Nation to reap the benefits
of these projects sooner. The trouble with this is that these
are long term projects that take many years to complete. At the
rate the budget is headed, we will only be funding these
projects in another couple of years with little else in the
pipeline. The Committee questions this rationale when compared
to the value of the benefits that are deferred by suspending or
terminating these other projects in order to concentrate
resources on such a few projects. In some cases these deferred
benefits may never be realized due to these terminations. Local
sponsors who share in these projects' cost may lose their
ability to share these costs or may lose public support for
finishing these projects. Once these priority projects are
completed, one has to wonder whether there will be any projects
or sponsors interested in resuming construction in an
infrastructure program that suspends projects based on
changeable annual criteria.
In the past, Corps budgets were developed from the bottom
up, District to Division to Headquarters to ASA to OMB.
District commanders were responsible for developing and
managing a program within their geographic area. Division
Commanders were responsible for integrating the District office
programs into a single Division-wide program. The Headquarters
office integrated the Division Programs into a single national
program. The OASA assured that the program complied with
administration policy and budgetary guidance and OMB developed
the budgetary guidance and provided funding levels. Decisions
for budgeting were made within the framework of administration
policy by those who knew the projects and programs best, not
Washington level bureaucrats.
Another benefit of this type of budgeting was that it
allowed the Corps to undertake workforce planning to distribute
their work across the Nation. When one chooses to put 40-50
percent of the budget in 10-12 projects, there is no way the
workload can be balanced across the remainder of the Nation
with what is left. Unlike other Federal agencies that have a
salaries and expense component to their budget, the Corps does
not, at least not at the District office level. Virtually all
costs at District offices (rent, utilities, labor, materials,
etc) are charged to projects and studies. When dealing with
such large differences in workload from fiscal year to fiscal
year it is clear that the administration gave no thought to how
this budget would impact the Corps' organizational structure or
ability to maintain a technically competent workforce. Congress
has repeatedly demonstrated that it desires to keep the
structure of the Corps of Engineers as it is currently
configured. Yet if the budget were enacted, there would be no
way to maintain this workforce, due to how budgetary criteria
skewed the projects to certain areas of the country.
Funding only the ``highest potential return'' projects to
the detriment of many other projects that provide a future
vision or address far-reaching problems while not yet showing
any BCR data, is ``penny wise and pound foolish.'' These
projects add value and importance and have a place in the
problem solving needs of the overall Nation's water
infrastructure. While this budget process may have led to a
very focused performance-based set of final projects to study,
design and construct, the metrics used led to a very skewed set
of results with a few strong regional winners and many losers.
The RBRC ratios provide a ``snapshot'' view of a project. It
tells one nothing of the overall value of one project to
another. Projects in rural areas with fewer beneficiaries will
never compete effectively. Does that mean that homes, property
and lives in these less urbanized areas are worth less? It
would certainly appear so from the budget criteria.
The Congress will likely consider the passage of a water
resources development bill this year. In this bill the benefit
to cost ratio necessary for a project to be authorized for
construction is 1.0 to 1. The criteria mentioned above requires
remaining benefits to remaining costs to be 3.0 to 1 for
budgeting with very specific exceptions. This performance based
budgeting criteria furthers the divide between what is required
for authorization and what is required to be budgeted. These
criteria use to be one and the same. Most of the projects in
the water resources development bill will likely not meet this
criteria, increasing the backlog of authorized but
unconstructed projects. These new projects, along with the
deferrals in the budget and the major rehabilitations needed
for aging infrastructure, are affecting and will continue to
affect the national economy. Existing water resources
infrastructure is wearing out. The Nation needs to recapitalize
if we are to remain competitive in a global marketplace.
Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Initiatives
The administration has proposed several changes to how the
civil works program is appropriated for fiscal year 2007. These
include the regionalization of operations and maintenance
funding and migrating four categories of projects from the
Construction, General Account to the Operations and Maintenance
Account. The Committee has rejected all of these initiatives.
Regionalized operations and maintenance funding segregates
funding for projects into 21 watershed regions around the
country as opposed to displaying operations and maintenance
costs by project as has been the tradition. As projects, not
regions, are authorized and funded by Congress, the Committee
must reject this proposal. Operation and Maintenance budgets
are developed on a project by project basis. For large river
basins such as the Ohio or the Missouri, budgeting for the
individual projects, as authorized, involve multiple Districts
and Divisions. As the proposals in the budget are not developed
as a systemized budget, aggregating them in the fashion
proposed does not lead to the ``true costs'' of operating the
system, it just adds up the various parts. The Committee does
not believe that this proposal advances the budgeting for
operations and maintenance. Rather it hides the serious
underfunding that is contained in the budget.
The Committee believes that an integrated watershed
approach, much like the current Mississippi River and
Tributaries Project [MR&T] would be a better model than the
aggregated watershed approach proposed in the budget. The MR&T
system-wide approach was developed after the devastating 1927
Mississippi River flood. The project not only integrates all of
the operations and maintenance of the various completed
components, it also integrates studies of new water resource
problems and needs and on-going and new construction activities
into a single project. Budgeting for the various components is
seamlessly integrated from the six District offices and
overseen by a single Division office. The multitude of project
components are comprehensively planned, constructed, and
maintained for flood damage reduction, navigation and
environmental protection/restoration throughout the entire
mainline Mississippi River Valley.
The Committee is puzzled by the initiatives to move
Endangered Species Act [ESA] compliance activities from
Construction, General to Operations and Maintenance. The stated
reason was budget transparency, or to more appropriately show
the true costs of operating these projects. The Committee has
two issues with this logic. Budget transparency fades when the
costs are rolled into the regionalized budgets. However, even
if they were budgeted on a project by project basis, the casual
observer would have no notion of how much of the operational
costs of these projects is related to ESA compliance. Second,
these are only being considered as operational costs because
mitigation for these projects was not undertaken when they were
constructed as is now required by subsequent laws. Were these
projects constructed today, formulation of the projects would
have required avoidance and minimization measures for the
endangered species. By retaining the ESA compliance measures as
a separate line item in the construction category, it is much
more transparent as to how much is being spent for these
activities.
The budget has proposed moving major rehabilitation for
locks and dams from the Construction, General account to the
Operations and Maintenance account. Corresponding to this is a
legislative proposal to allow the proceeds from the Inland
Waterway Trust Fund to be utilized in the Operations and
Maintenance account. Current law only allows these funds to be
utilized in the Construction, General account. The Congress
moved major rehabilitation from the Construction, General
account to the Operation and Maintenance account in fiscal year
1985. Subsequently as the backlog increased, it was returned to
the Construction, General account in the fiscal year 1993
budget. The stipulations involved in moving it back to the
Construction account included that these rehabilitations could
involve more than a simple rehabbing of the project.
Operational improvements were considered as a part of the
rehab. As such, the rehab projects were considered new
investment opportunities for the country the same as other new
projects and had to compete as new starts in the Construction,
General program. To help fund these rehabs, legislation allowed
half the costs of the rehab to be borne by the Inland Waterway
Trust Fund with the other half to come from the General
Treasury. The Committee does not believe moving these projects
back to the Operations and Maintenance account will solve the
backlog of major rehabs. This only skirts the new start issue.
As the inventory of maintenance projects ages, more rehabs will
be required to maintain the current level of service. Only
providing additional funding can solve that problem.
The Committee is disappointed that the administration has
included another ``new'' beach policy. This is only a slight
tweak to last year's proposed policy that was rejected by the
Congress. The Committee rejects the new policy as well. The
Committee notes that beaches are the leading tourist
destination in the United States. Typically beach projects are
justified on storm damages prevented alone, and the recreation
benefits only enhance the benefit to cost ratio. The maximum
Federal Government contribution to Federal shore protection
projects is 65 percent of the total project cost but the
Government receives all the benefits in reducing Federal
disaster assistance payments. By paying for Federal shore
protection projects now, we can avoid many of the catastrophic
losses and disaster assistance payments associated with
hurricanes and coastal storms. Simply stated, the Nation can
pay now to avoid losses or pay more later to recover from
severe impacts. It truly makes sense to be proactive and not
reactive in this environment.
It is instructive to compare the Federal investment in
beach infrastructure (beach nourishment) versus Federal tax
revenues from tourists. The annual Federal investment in beach
nourishment is approximately $100,000,000 a year. Travel and
tourism in the United States produce $223,900,000,000 in tax
revenues and growth in this sector exceeds 5 percent annually.
About 53 percent or $119,000,000,000 of these tax revenues go
to the Federal Government. Assuming that half of these tourists
are beach tourists (beaches are the leading U.S. tourist
destination by more than a 2-1 margin), beach tourists produce
Federal taxes of about $60,000,000,000 a year. Therefore, for
every dollar in annual Federal expenditures for beach
nourishment, the Federal Government is receiving tax revenues
of approximately $600 from beach tourists.
The Committee notes the costs that have been required to
recover from the 2005 hurricane season. Had many of these flood
damage reduction projects been completed, damages would have
likely been much less severe. The drain on the economy for
rebuilding as well as the impact to our citizen's lives has
been unprecedented in modern times. The Committee also notes
the unscheduled outages on our Nation's inland waterway system
due to failures of critical equipment. These failures at locks
and dams have caused serious business disruptions, loss of
income and loss of tax revenues. Unplanned outages are
increasing and unit availability of hydropower plants is
decreasing requiring replacement of this renewable power source
with electricity from non-renewable sources. Had more funding
been provided for maintenance of these aging facilities, most
of these outages would have been avoided.
The Committee has also noted the reduced service at our
Nation's multipurpose projects, antiquated recreation
facilities, and shuttered recreation facilities. While the
Committee agrees that there are more pressing needs than
recreation at Federal projects, the Federal Government did
provide these facilities and they provide substantial positive
regional and national economic as well as non-economic
benefits. Upkeep of these facilities should not be ignored.
Additional user fees--which seems to be the preferred budget
mechanism to address this issue--will never provide sufficient
income to rehabilitate all of these facilities.
The Committee believes that this is no way to run a robust
national infrastructure program. Last year the Committee
recommended that the Corps include additional criteria into the
project prioritization process. It commends the administration
for having incorporated additional criteria into the fiscal
year 2007 budget. However, the mix of projects is substantially
unchanged. The Committee does not believe that this
prioritization method can be salvaged into a useable system and
believes the Corps needs to scrap its strict adherence to the
high RBRCR ``business line'' budget model. The Committee has
seen no evidence that it has improved the budget process.
Rather than trying new budget models and new prioritization
criteria, the country needs to invest more heavily in its water
resources. Water resource projects are some of the only Federal
expenditures that go through a rigorous benefit to cost process
to determine benefits to the national economy. The standard of
living that we currently enjoy is due to the excess capacity
that was built into our water resources infrastructure by
previous generations. By failing to make new investments and
rehabilitating aging infrastructure, the Nation is not only
falling behind our competition around the world, but is
jeopardizing our future economic growth.
Budget Justifications
The Committee is concerned about the manner that budget
justifications were prepared for the fiscal year 2007 budget.
In the past, the Corps provided justification sheets for each
project and presented them in budget order by Division across
the country. For fiscal year 2007, a single book of
justification sheets was provided by business lines. The
Committee finds this manner of displaying the budget virtually
useless in being able to find meaningful information on
individual projects and studies. While the Committee believes
that budget justifications could be improved by providing more
relevant budget information, particularly for operations and
maintenance projects, the method used for display in fiscal
year 2007 was a giant step backwards. Further, the Committee
notes that budget justifications were not delivered to the
Committee until nearly a month after the President's budget was
released. This is totally unacceptable, especially in light of
the fact that every other agency that the Committee oversees
managed to present their budget justifications on the day that
the President's budget was released. For fiscal year 2008, the
Committee instructs that the budget justifications should be
prepared in the format used for fiscal year 2004, that is,
prior to the business line budget model. Further the Committee
directs that budget justifications shall be delivered to the
Committee no later than the day the President's budget is
released.
Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force Report on Hurricane
Katrina
The Chief of Engineers of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
created an Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force [IPET]
to perform an evaluation of the New Orleans and Southeast
Louisiana hurricane protection system during Hurricane Katrina.
This team consists of more than 150 government, academic, and
private sector scientists and engineers who dedicated
themselves solely to this task for the last 8 months. The draft
final report is posted on the worldwide web at https://
ipet.wes.army.mil. Volume VIII, Risk and Reliability is
currently under independent technical review and should be
posted in August 2006. The final report should be posted in
September 2006. The American Society of Civil Engineers is
performing an external peer review of the findings and their
draft report will be available in July 2006. This report is not
intended as a final expression of the findings or conclusions
of the United States Army Corps of Engineers, nor has it been
adopted by the Corps as such. Rather, this is a preliminary
report summarizing data and interim results compiled to date.
As a preliminary report, this document and the information
contained therein are subject to revisions and changes as
additional information is obtained.
IPET also is conducting a risk and reliability assessment
of the entire system to aid in understanding the levels of
protection that will exist for the future. This methodology
will support the Louisiana Comprehensive Protection and
Restoration Study due for submittal to congress in December
2007.
There was no evidence of government or contractor
negligence or malfeasance. The team determined that the system
generally was built as designed, and design approaches were
consistent with local engineering practice. However, several
factors significantly impacted the system's performance.
Sections of the system were built below specified design
elevations due to errors made in the vertical datum that left
decision makers without an accurate understanding of the level
of protection. The original design developed through use of the
Standard Project Hurricane in 1965 and used in the late 1980s
was not representative of the hurricane hazard at the time of
the design. The hurricane protection was designed and developed
in a piecemeal fashion, resulting in inconsistent levels of
protection.
Much has been made by the media of the strength of
Hurricane Katrina. The Saffer-Simpson Hurricane rating scale is
presented below. It should be noted that more than one variable
defines hurricane strength.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pressure Winds
Type Category -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Storm Surge Feet
Millibars Inches Knots MPH
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tropical Depression............. TD................ .................. .................. over 34........... over 39........... ..................
Tropical Storm.................. TS................ .................. .................. 34-63............. 39-73............. ..................
Hurricane....................... 1................. Over 980.......... over 28.94........ 64-82............. 74-95............. 4-5
Hurricane....................... 2................. 965-980........... 28.5 28.93........ 83-95............. 96-110............ 6-8
Hurricane....................... 3................. 945-965........... 27.91-28.49....... 96-112............ 111-130........... 9-12
Hurricane....................... 4................. 920-945........... 27.17-27.90....... 113-134........... 131-155........... 13-18
Hurricane....................... 5................. less than 920..... less than 27.17... over 134.......... over 155.......... over 18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hurricane Katrina was one of the strongest storms to impact
the coast of the United States during the last 100 years. At
landfall, sustained winds were 127 mph (a strong Category 3
hurricane, and the minimum central pressure was the third
lowest on record (920 mb). Only a couple of hours before
landfall at Buras, Louisiana, a National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Buoy located about 50 miles east of the mouth of
the Mississippi River reported wave heights of over 55 feet in
the Gulf. At landfall, hurricane wind gusts were being
experienced more than 125 miles from the center of the storm.
Though wind damage was significant, the legacy of Hurricane
Katrina will be the horrific storm surge which accompanied the
storm, appearing to have exceeded 25 feet in some locations in
Mississippi where it utterly obliterated entire communities.
Even though weakening before landfall, several factors
contributed to the extreme storm surge: (a) the massive size of
the storm, (b) the strength of the system (Category 5) just
prior to landfall, (c) the 920 mb central pressure at landfall,
and (d) the shallow offshore waters. The storm generated water
levels that for much of the system significantly exceeded the
design criteria, particularly in the St. Bernard and
Plaquemines Parishes.
Of the 50 major breaches experienced by the hurricane
protection system, all but four were due to overtopping and
erosion. Those four breaches, all in the outfall canals and one
in the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal, and all involving I-
walls, occurred before water levels reached the top of the
floodwalls. All were caused by foundation failures induced by
the formation of a gap along the canal side of the floodwall.
The combination of factors that led to this failure mode was
not anticipated to occur at these locations by the levee and
floodwall designers. The most serious direct impact was the
high number of deaths. While a large number of people were able
to evacuate, the groups least likely to be able to so on their
own, the poor, elderly, and disabled, were hardest hit. Direct
property losses were over $20,000,000,000; approximately 78
percent are attributed to residential losses.
The findings indicate projects need resilience, an ability
to withstand forces and conditions beyond those intended or
estimated in design without catastrophic failure. This includes
recognizing risk always exists and flood reduction projects
need appropriate emergency preparedness and response. The
planning and design of flood damage reduction projects should
be based on a system-wide performance to manage a piecemeal
development of a project. A risk-based planning and design
approach would provide a more viable capability to inform
decisions on complex infrastructure where it is described in
consistent terms to include uncertainty. Lastly, continued
investment in effort and resources is needed to update design
criteria and planning capabilities to keep pace with fast
changing technology.
The Committee recognizes that this disaster recovery is an
unprecedented undertaking, and the Committee commends the Corps
for the astonishing amount of progress made since the
hurricanes struck the area. However, the Committee has noted
that sponsors and stakeholders in southeast Louisiana are very
concerned about the seeming lack of a cogent, comprehensive,
consistent plan for the execution of work funded in the region
and the lack of consistent communications and coordination with
their elected leaders in the area. The Committee has noted the
fact that different information comes from different places
within the Corps, doesn't seem coordinated, and seems to change
almost daily--providing a confusing environment for resolving
these difficult issues. The Committee directs the Corps to
restructure its disaster recovery missions to report to the
Chief so that consistent information is provided to State and
Federal agencies, the public and the Congress.
The Committee has been briefed on the interim Louisiana
Coastal Restoration and Protection Plan and looks forward to
the final recommendations for the next steps in improving
coastal storm defenses.
Based on the briefing, the Committee emphasizes that the
Chief has been directed to conduct an analysis and design, not
a traditional study, developing and presenting a full range of
protection measures exclusive of normal policy considerations.
The Committee expects information based on the Corps' expertise
in a timely manner and unfiltered by policy goals of the
administration. Furthermore, the Committee emphasizes that the
Chief may submit reports on component areas of the larger
protection program for authorization as soon as practicable and
urges the Chief to utilize this discretion.
Continuing Contracts and Reprogramming
Traditionally, the Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works
Program has been a truly integrated nationwide water
infrastructure program. As such, flexibility was required to
manage the program. Congress has given the Chief of Engineers
great latitude in management of this program in order to expend
annual appropriations as efficiently and effectively as
possible.
Water resources projects, because of the nature of the work
involved, are funded on an incremental annual basis. As far
back as 1922, Congress recognized the need for flexibility in
management and execution and provided the Corps with
legislation that allowed the use of continuing contracts for
specifically authorized projects. Congress recognized that by
providing this flexibility it was relinquishing some measure of
control over future appropriations; however, Congress believed
that that was an acceptable trade-off for the efficient use of
limited funds.
In a 1977 decision, the Comptroller General confirmed that
the authority found in the 1922 law constituted an exception to
the Anti-Deficiency Act. Accordingly, the Corps has had the
discretion to use continuing contracts to execute any of its
specifically authorized water resources projects since at least
1977. In the late 1990s, the administration proposed that all
Corps construction projects be fully funded, rather than be
incrementally funded as had been the norm. Congress rejected
this proposal in section 101 of the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act of 1999, Public Law 105-245.
Further, the Water Resources Development Act of 1999,
Public Law 106-53 contained a provision (section 206) relating
to continuing contracts. Among other things, this legislation
required the Corps to award a continuing contract for virtually
all water resources projects. This position was confirmed by
the Corps of Engineers Chief Legal Counsel in 2005.
An often misunderstood and closely related issue to
continuing contracts is reprogramming of project funds.
Reprogramming is a legitimate management technique that
maximizes utilization of constrained resources. Reprogramming
is generally defined as reallocation of funding from one
program, project, or activity to another within an
appropriation, to promote efficient, effective use of available
funding, for optimum progress under changing conditions.
The history of reprogramming goes back to at least the
1950s when the Comptroller General ruled that the Department of
the Army has almost unlimited legal authority to transfer
appropriated funds between projects. In the ensuing 50 years
after the Comptroller General's decision, policy concerning
reprogramming was incrementally developed.
The Congress allowed reprogrammings for many reasons.
Congress has traditionally viewed water resource projects as
investments in our national economy. As such, once a project
was started by the Congress, the Congress intended for the
project to be completed. Congress recognized that the Corps,
being much closer to the actual work of project implementation,
was better situated to determine the proper funding levels for
projects in a given work year, and that this may involve moving
funds around in order to maintain the most efficient use of
funding.
A corollary to this efficient use of funds was that the
Corps was to ensure that funds which had been reprogrammed away
from a project were made available when they were needed by
that project. It was not considered appropriate to request
donated funds as part of a budget request or as a capability
statement as these funds had already been appropriated once.
Movement of these funds was supposed to be transparent and
seamless in order to execute a program as efficiently as
possible.
This system worked for many years. However, in the late
1990s through the early 2000s, a combination of events occurred
that stretched the system to its breaking point. Congress
noticed in the mid to late 1990s that project execution by the
Corps had slipped dramatically. It was not uncommon to see
execution rates of 60-65 percent for construction projects
during that period. The Appropriations Committee expressed
concern about lagging execution to the Corps and the large
carryover balances in the Civil Works Program. Upon hearing
Congress' concerns about project execution, the Corps set about
to determine how to fix this problem.
The congressional authorizers reacting to administration
proposals for fully funding projects enacted legislation
modifying the Corps' traditional selective use of continuing
contracts by ensuring that virtually all contracts had to be
continuing contracts. In an effort to address Congress' concern
about project execution, the Corps response was to aim for full
execution of annual appropriations. The required use of
continuing contracts for virtually all work made this
significantly easier. The Corps geared up to fully execute
their annual program and spend down their carryover balances.
Other events were also taking place during this same period
that did not attract the notice of the Corps or the Congress as
much as perhaps it should have. Annual budgets were becoming
tighter. The desire for new projects intensified due to back-
to-back Water Resources Development Acts. To accommodate these
twin issues, savings and slippage rates for all Corps accounts
were increased.
Savings and slippage [S&S] is a budgetary term that
recognizes that nothing ever goes completely as planned. As
Corps budgets are initiated some 22 months before they are
presented to Congress a myriad of changes occur between this
initial budget submission and when funds are actually
appropriated. Projects speed up and slow down for a number of
reasons. Hazardous wastes or a cultural resources site is
discovered in the project right-of-way; a local sponsor may not
have his cost share in-place; additional alternatives may need
to be examined in a study; studies or even projects are
terminated. All of these things lead to uncertainties which
impact Corps budgets.
When viewed in the historical context of annual Corps
spending rates, reasonable percentages of S&S made sense as a
way to accommodate all projects needs, even if funding was
insufficient, especially when combined with large carryovers of
funds from year to year. Around 2001-2002 Corps program
execution had substantially improved such that they were
executing nearly 100 percent of their annual program and had
spent down their carryover balances. However, annual budgets
were constrained, the pressure to add projects continued and
S&S rates continued to climb.
The cumulative effect adding additional projects and
raising S&S rates resulted in considerably more active projects
than the annual appropriation could fund at optimal levels.
This contributed to the inability to fulfill reprogramming
commitments as the Corps spent down carryover. Around 2003, the
effects of these events combined to force the Corps to adopt a
``just-in-time'' reprogramming policy. The problem was funding
had gotten so tight, the Corps began to have trouble meeting
their reprogramming commitments. Just in time started meaning,
hopefully, within the same year funds were needed.
Members of Congress whose projects had donated surplus
funding were understandably upset when these funds could not be
returned to these projects when they were needed. This
situation continued through 2004. In 2005, Congress recognized
that reprogramming issues were a problem that had to be
addressed. Two things were done in fiscal year 2005 to address
these problems. One was to lower the S&S rates to more historic
levels and Congress undertook a comprehensive review and
revision on reprogramming. However, the Corps did not put any
reins on their efforts to execute 100 percent of their annual
program. Funding shortages continued. This resulted in the
reforms enacted in the fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water Act.
This act significantly altered the focus and management of
the Corps Civil Works program. Major changes to both continuing
contract authority and reprogramming guidance were enacted.
Virtually all reprogramming guidance up until then had been in
the report that accompanied the bill, rather than in the bill
text, giving the Corps flexibility when it was needed.
Two other pieces of legislation in the act severely
restricted the Corps' ability to award continuing contracts.
This continuing contract legislation forces the Corps to
construct projects within arbitrary funding limits. This
creates inefficiencies that waste resources. Corps' contracts
will have to be broken up into uneconomical pieces. Multiple
contracts will be required instead of a single contrct, thus
increasing costs. Contractors' costs will increase as multiple
mobilizations and demobilizations occur where one may have
sufficed in the past. This will show up in higher bids.
Probably the most devastating impact to the Corps is that
starting and stopping funding streams makes the Corps an
unreliable partner. If the Corps is seen as unreliable,
contractor costs will increase based on risk and uncertainty,
increasing project costs. Instead of inefficiently starting and
stopping project funding each year depending on different
criteria, we need to go back to the traditional congressional
philosophy of finishing what we start.
Another major change is that the Office of the Assistant
Secretary of the Army was given a much greater role in daily
execution of the program than had ever been. Execution
decisions that were traditionally exercised by the Chief of
Engineers in previous years now must be coordinated through
another bureaucracy. The Chief has to seek permission to
utilize continuing contracts or for reprogramming actions that
require congressional notification. All of these decisions are
filtered through OMB for ``administration policy compliance''
reviews. This is both time consuming and costly.
The Committee believes changes are necessary in both the
continuing contracts and reprogramming guidance from fiscal
year 2006 if the Corps is going to be able to continue to
deliver the projects and services that the country and the
Congress expects of them. The reprogramming guidance that was
enacted in fiscal year 2006 is much too restrictive. Under the
current law, the Committee has had to approve reprogramming
actions for as little as $12,000. In a $5,000,000,000 program
this is unreasonable. Further, in order for a reprogramming to
get to the Committee for approval, it must be approved at the
Corps District level, Division level, Headquarters level,
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army level and the
Office of Management and Budget level. Further, the affected
congressional Members of both the donating and the receiving
project can object to the reprogramming starting the process
anew. It is no wonder that reprogramming actions have come to a
virtual standstill this fiscal year resulting in project
delays, contract terminations, large carryover balances and
general uncertainties throughout the Civil Works program.
Reprogramming
Reprogramming of civil works project funds has a long
history in the Corps as noted above. A unique system of
definitions and terminology for moving project funds was
promulgated. For years, this guidance worked well. However, in
the last few years, these definitions and terminology have
become problematic. The Committee recognizes that this is
largely due to the Corps attempt to comply with congressional
desires to expend funding, in the fiscal year appropriated, as
efficiently and effectively as possible in an era when funding
was constrained, but the desire to fund more projects was not.
Reprogramming guidance was substantially altered in Public
Law 109-103 to address the issues of definitions and
terminology. The Committee believes this directive went too far
and has virtually made the reprogramming of funds impossible.
As evidence of this, the Committee notes that the
administration has proposed funding projects in the Operations
and Maintenance account in watershed regions as opposed to the
traditional method of budgeting by individual projects. While
there may be legitimate reasons for budgeting in this manner,
the only one offered to the Committee by administration
officials was that this method would circumvent the
reprogramming directive currently in law. When the
administration develops an entirely new budget strategy to
circumvent legislative direction, the Committee believes that
the legislative direction needs modification.
The Committee is concerned that the issues currently
associated with civil works reprogramming were initiated by
prior Committee comments concerning the level of carryover in
the budget from one year to the next. At the time that was
noted, carryover amounts were in the range of $800,000,000
annually. The Corps was successful in lowering that carryover
to about $300,000,000 by fiscal year 2005. With the changes
made in fiscal year 2006, the civil works carryover balance is
estimated to be nearly $1,500,000,000. While the Committee
believes that a certain level of carryover is unavoidable and
desirable, nearly one-fifth of the annual program is not
acceptable. Changes must be made by Congress and the Corps to
efficiently and effectively utilize annual appropriations and
reduce the carryover balance to more reasonable levels. With
the exceptionally large carryover balances, the Committee has
continued to include small percentages of savings and slippage
on all accounts to maximize resources.
The Committee expects the Chief of Engineers to execute the
Civil Works program generally in accordance with congressional
direction. This includes moving individual projects forward in
accordance with the funds annually appropriated. However, the
Committee realizes that many factors outside the Corps' control
may dictate the progress of any given project or study.
Therefore, the Committee believes that it is imperative to give
the Chief of Engineers ample flexibility to manage the program
and to utilize excess funds as they become available on a
particular project in order to move the entire program forward,
effectively advancing projects to completion and accruing the
benefits and services for which they were authorized, as soon
as practicable. However, the Committee notes that granting this
flexibility also requires responsibility to insure that
appropriated funds are available for projects for which they
were appropriated, when needed.
The Committee further notes that current reprogramming
recommendations have come to be elevated to the highest levels
of the Corps, the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)
and OMB. The Committee believes that reprogrammings are
operational decisions which should be delegated. The Committee
believes that the Chief should delegate recommendation of
reprogramming decisions to as low of a level as possible in
order to expedite reprogramming actions in order to efficiently
and effectively utilize scarce funds. The Civil Works Program
Integration Division's mission is to develop the Civil Works
Budget and to support the Division and Districts, in resolution
of project issues pending in Headquarters as well as to monitor
and assess program execution. Further, they provide procedures
and guidance for program and project management functions. The
Committee believes that the chief of this office would be
ideally suited for this delegated authority.
Reprogramming Guidance
The Committee expects the Chief of Engineers to develop
specific execution guidance to control and manage the
reprogramming of funds, which is consistent with law and
prudent fiscal policy, and to carry out the Civil Works program
efficiently. New legislative language is provided for
reprogramming actions in fiscal year 2007. The Committee
expects the Chief to maximize the use of the annual funding
provided by the Congress. The Committee understands that this
may create ``paybacks'' in future years and cautions that the
reprogramming actions recommended should be necessary to
advance projects or studies and that the funds from donating
projects are truly surplus for the needs in the current year
and the budget year as there will be no way to budget for
return of these funds until the following budget year.
The Committee is convinced that separate and unique
reprogramming guidance is necessary for the various
appropriations accounts of the Corps due to the very differing
activities funded by these accounts. The Committee recognizes
that General Investigations, Construction, General and
Operations and Maintenance are managed very differently within
the Corps. The General Investigations account is generally the
poorest fiscal performing account due to the myriad of unknowns
in the planning process. These range from forecasting local
sponsor abilities to provide their mandatory share of funding
in a timely manner and on schedule, to unknowns discovered
during implementation of the planning process. The projects
funded in the Operations and Maintenance account are generally
the easiest to forecast as these are planned expenditures for
typically known issues or routine services. Where this becomes
a problem in Operations and Maintenance is when unanticipated
and unfunded failures occur, which must be dealt with on an
emergency basis. For these reasons the Committee has provided
different thresholds for approval of reprogrammings.
A reprogramming is defined as either the change in purpose,
or the movement of funds into or out of a program, project or
activity funded by one of the civil works appropriation
accounts of the Army Corps of Engineers. A reprogramming action
may not be used to initiate a program, project or activity.
Multiple reprogrammings into or out of projects is discouraged;
however, the Committee recognizes that there may be cases,
particularly in the Construction, General and Operations and
Maintenance accounts where multiple transactions may be
appropriate. Each of these transactions shall count toward the
reprogramming thresholds. They shall not be viewed individually
nor should the Corps use multiple transactions from multiple
projects in order to stay below the established threshold
reporting requirements. The Corps shall provide a quarterly
report to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees
reporting all reprogramming actions in the previous quarter.
Approval of both House and Senate Appropriations Committees is
required in advance for reprogramming actions that exceed the
thresholds described below.
General Investigations.--Reprogramming a cumulative total
of 50 percent or $1,000,000, whichever is less, is permitted
for each study, program or activity in this account. However,
in no case should a reprogramming action under this account for
less than $25,000 be submitted to the Committees for approval.
The Committee does not object to reprogramming up to $50,000 to
any continuing study or program that did not receive an
appropriation in the current year.
Construction, General.--Reprogramming a cumulative total of
50 percent or $3,000,000, whichever is less, is permitted for
each study, program or activity in this account. However, in no
case should a reprogramming action under this account for less
than $50,000 be submitted to the Committees for approval. The
Committee does not object to reprogramming of up to $300,000 to
any continuing project or program that did not receive an
appropriation in the current year.
Operations and Maintenance.--Unlimited reprogramming
authority is granted in order for the Corps to be able to
respond to emergencies. The Chief of Engineers must notify the
House and Senate Appropriations Committees of these emergency
actions as soon thereafter as practicable. For all other
situations, reprogramming a cumulative total of 50 percent or
$5,000,000, whichever is less, is permitted for each study,
program or activity in this account. However, in no case should
a reprogramming action under this account for less than $75,000
be submitted to the Committees for approval. The Committee does
not object to reprogramming of up to $500,000 to any continuing
project or program that did not receive an appropriation in the
current year.
Mississippi River and Tributaries.--The Corps should follow
the same reprogramming guidelines for the General
Investigations, Construction, General and Operation and
Maintenance portions of the Mississippi River and Tributaries
Account as listed above.
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program.--The Corps
may reprogram up to 15 percent of the base of the receiving
project.
Construction Contracting
The Committee believes that the Corps needs flexibility in
the types of contracting methods used for construction of water
resource projects. Currently, three main types of contracts are
used. Lump sum contracts, fully funded continuing contracts and
partially funded continuing contracts. Between August 17, 1999
and November 15, 2006, the Corps relied almost entirely on
partially funded continuing contracts, as required by law.
Public Law 109-103 challenged this reliance on partially funded
continuing contracts and changed the requirement to use
continuing contracts and made it optional. Another provision of
Public Law 109-103 made the use of partially funded continuing
contracts difficult. The unfortunate result has become an
almost total reliance on fully funded contracts. The Committee
believes that a balance of contracting mechanisms is necessary
in order to prosecute the Corps' work. The Committee expects
the Corps to avail themselves of the ability to use partially
funded continuing contracts where this is the best use of
funding and use other contracting vehicles where appropriate.
The Committee is aware that there are numerous other types
of contracting mechanisms that are in use by the Federal
Government, but may not be available to the Corps due to
statutory limitations. The Committee directs the Chief of
Engineers to submit a report, by September 30, 2006, to the
Senate Appropriations Committee with his views on current
contracting mechanisms available to him and his recommendations
as to other contracting mechanisms that would be beneficial in
executing the Corps' mission.
The House Report (109-275) that accompanies Public Law 109-
103 gives the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works
approval for use of continuing contracts. This puts the
Assistant Secretary's office squarely in the day-to-day
operations of the Corps. The Committee does not believe that
this office has the staff or expertise to make these types of
operational decisions nor does the Committee think that it is
appropriate. District Commanders are the appropriate officials
to determine contracting mechanisms as they are closest to the
work being performed. Elevating these decisions to Division
offices or higher only promotes delays and inefficiencies.
Executive Direction and Management
The Committee continues to believe that the Chief of
Engineers should be responsible for the overall management and
execution of the Civil Works Program of the Corps of Engineers.
Day to day operational management and execution of the program
are inherent functions of his subordinates, but he is
ultimately responsible. The Committee is encouraged that the
Chief has managed to reassert some measure of control over the
program. The Committee hopes that the Chief will continue along
this path.
Five Year Comprehensive Budget Planning
While the Committee appreciates the Corps' attempts to
provide a meaningful 5-year budget plan, it recognizes the
inherent difficulties between the legislative and executive
branches in preparing a useful plan. The executive branch is
unwilling to project a 5-year horizon for projects for which
they do not budget leaving a sizeable percentage of the Corps
annual appropriations with a year to year event horizon for
planning purposes. The fact that a sizeable portion of the
annual appropriations are dedicated to congressional priorities
is not a new phenomenon. Many major public works projects over
the last two centuries have been funded on an annual basis
without a clear budget strategy. The Committee would welcome
the ideas and the opportunity to work with the executive branch
to determine a mutually agreeable way to develop an integrated
5-year comprehensive budget that displays true funding needs
for congressional as well as administration priorities.
Anything less will only give a partial view of the investments
needed in water resources infrastructure.
Study and Project Reviews
The Committee notes that review times have markedly
improved for Corps of Engineers documents at the Headquarters,
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) and
the Office of Management and Budget since statutory time frames
and notifications were imposed on these reviews. This is shown
in the table below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Date to OMB Date review completed Date to Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J.T. Myers/Greenup L&Ds KY, OH, IN.. 23 Aug 01............... 3 May 05............... 4 Jan 06
Stillaguamish River, WA............. 18 Apr 02............... 28 Nov 05.............. 16 Dec 05
Duwamish-Green Rivers, WA........... 9 May 02................ 21 Nov 05.............. 16 Dec 05
Napa River Salt Marsh Restoration, 17 Aug 04............... 1 Nov 05............... 16 Nov 05
CA.
Turkey Creek, KS & MO............... 28 Oct 04............... 14 Oct 05.............. 12 Dec 05
Hamilton Airfield, Bel Marin, CA.... 4 Feb 05................ 20 Apr 05.............. 3 May 05
Silver Strand, CA................... 17 Feb 05............... 22 Apr 05.............. 6 May 05
Southwest Valley, NM................ 18 Apr 05............... 14 Jun 05.............. 1 Jul 05
Centralia, WA....................... 2 May 05................ 15 Jun 05.............. 1 Jul 05
Jacksonville Harbor, FL............. 26 May 05............... 22 Jul 05.............. 3 Aug 05
Indian River Lagoon, FL............. 22 Jun 05............... 17 Oct 05.............. 1 Feb 06
Denver Co. Reach, South Platte R, CO 5 Jul 05................ 2 Sep 05............... 13 Oct 05
Louisiana Coastal Area, LA.......... 1 Sep 05................ 1 Nov 05............... 18 Nov 05
Dare County Beaches, NC............. 1 Nov 05................ 6 Jan 06............... 27 Jan 06
Chickamauga L&D, TN................. 16 Jun 04............... 11 Jan 06.............. 24 Jan 06
Miami Harbor, FL.................... 23 Feb 06............... 24 Apr 06.............. 5 May 06
Rilito River, Pima County, AZ....... 1 Mar 06................ 1 May 06............... 16 May 06
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the Committee is not pleased that this improved
review time only applies to new documents that have been
forwarded for review. Many documents have been languishing for
3 to 4 years. This is unacceptable to the Committee and should
be to OMB as well. The following table shows the name of the
document, when it was forwarded to OMB and the current status.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Date to OMB Status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delaware Coastline, Port Mahon, DE...... 7 Jun 99 & 8 Jan 02............... Pending
Rio de Flag, AZ......................... 18 Sep 03......................... Pending
Breckinridge, MN........................ 10 Jul 04......................... Pending
Park River at Grafton, ND............... 27 May 04......................... Pending
Jackson Hole, Snake River, WY........... 4 Mar 02.......................... Active Review
Dallas Floodway Extension, TX........... 18 Aug 04......................... Pending
Whitewater River Basin, CA.............. 9 May 02.......................... Pending
Ohio River Restoration, OH.............. 4 Mar 02.......................... Returned to ASA(CW)
Port Sutton, FL......................... 27 Sep 03......................... Pending
Port Monmouth, NJ....................... 19 May 03......................... Pending
Deep Creek Bridge, VA................... 27 Aug 03......................... Active Review
Matagorda Bay Re-Route, TX.............. 8 Sep 03.......................... Pending
Morganza to the Gulf, LA................ 8 May 04.......................... Pending
Smith Island, MD........................ 22 Oct 02......................... Pending
Peoria Riverfront Development, IL....... 28 Feb 04......................... Pending
Tanque Verde, AZ........................ 2 Jun 04.......................... Pending
Riverside Oxbow, TX..................... 30 Jul 04 & 26 May 05............. Pending
Corpus Christi Ship Channel, TX......... 16 Sep 04......................... Pending
GIWW, High Island to Brazo, T........... 8 Oct 04.......................... Pending
American River Watershed, Long-Term 8 Oct 04.......................... Pending
Study, CA.
Swope Park Industrial Area, MO.......... 28 Oct 04......................... Pending
South River, Raritan River Basin, NJ.... 5 Nov 04.......................... Pending
False Pass, AK.......................... 3 Dec 04.......................... Pending
Puget Sound, WA......................... 2 May 05.......................... Returned to ASA(CW) \1\
Missouri and Middle Mississippi River... 30 Aug 05......................... Returned to ASA(CW) \1\
Upper Mississippi River Navigation Study 2 Feb 06.......................... Withdrawn \2\
Rilito River, Pima County, AZ........... 1 Mar 06.......................... Approved
East Baton Rouge, LA.................... 16 Mar 06......................... Pending
St. Clair River/Lake St. Clair, MI...... 22 Mar 06......................... Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Programmatic Document (no Chief's Report).
\2\ Chief's Rpt withdrawn pending economic revaluation.
The Committee directs the Chief of Engineers to work with
the ASA[CW] and OMB to develop a plan to complete these policy
compliance reviews as expeditiously as possible and forward the
recommendations of these reports to Congress. This plan should
be presented to the appropriate House and Senate authorizing
and Appropriations Committees no later than September 30, 2006.
The Committee directs that reviews of all of these documents
should be completed no later than December 31, 2007.
GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS
Appropriations, 2006...................................\1\ $162,360,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 94,000,000
House allowance......................................... 128,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 168,517,000
\1\ Excludes emergency appropriations of $40,600,000.
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 planning program is the entry point for Federal
involvement in solutions to the Nation's water resource
problems and needs. Unfortunately, the General Investigations
[GI] account is eviscerated in the budget request. Two studies,
Louisiana Coastal Area and the National Flood Project
Inventory, consume 48 percent of the administration's GI
request. This budget seems to be saying that the Nation should
concentrate scarce resources on completing construction of
projects underway as rapidly as possible. The Committee
believes this argument is remarkably shortsighted. It assumes
that the country will stop growing and that new investment
opportunities will not be present.
In truth, as the country grows, new investment
opportunities will be presented and some previously authorized
projects may no longer make sense or may be less competitive.
The Corps should keep presenting the administration and
Congress with new investment opportunities in order for the
Nation to remain competitive in a global economy. The only
conclusion one can draw from the administration's GI proposal
is that they are determined to redirect the Corps towards
construction, operation and maintenance by strangling their
ability to evaluate water resource problems and needs.
Planning is a very specialized discipline within the Corps.
The Committee recognizes that the Corps has been hemorrhaging
talent in this area for years and has been unable to hire
replacements due to budget constraints. Once this planning
capability is lost, the Corps will be unable to rebuild it
rapidly, if ever. This will greatly impact their relevance to
water resource development.
The Committee notes that much of the public discourse over
Corps of Engineers projects has revolved around the formulation
of water resource projects. One possible reason is the loss of
the professional talent in this specialized era. Another
possible reason is that the the policies that the Corps uses
for determining investment decisions were developed more than
20 years ago. The Corps is one of the few Federal agencies that
can project returns on investment to the national economy from
the projects and programs that they undertake. However, the
Committee recognizes that the world economy has changed
dramatically in the intervening years since this guidance was
developed.
The administration's economic theory of estimating
``national economic development benefits'' and not counting the
effects of regional benefits assumes that if an investment
decision is not made in a particular State or region, the
industry will simply move to another, more efficient location
and or mode of transportation, elsewhere in the United States.
Current polices do not take into account the amount of private
investment that follows these Federal investments. Water
compelled rates for alternate modes of transportation are
ignored in benefit to cost calculations.
The current theory in the administration's policies holds
that the country will eventually get the benefits, just
somewhere else within the country. The preponderance of
evidence over the last 5-7 years leads the Committee to believe
that this economic theory has changed. When American businesses
become inefficient now, the investment, the industry and the
jobs move overseas--away from the United States.
Unfortunately the opportunities for investments are being
ignored by the administration and, to some extent, by the
Congress. The Committee believes that water resources
investments provide positive returns to the economy and that
they should be given the same consideration as funding for any
other homeland or national security investment within the
national budget. The Committee believes that the administration
should substantially overhaul guidance for development of water
resources projects to maximize the investment decisions
available to the administration to improve the Nation's
competitiveness.
The Committee has provided for a robust and balanced
planning program for fiscal year 2007. The Committee has
included a limited number of new study starts as well as
provided completion funds for a number of studies. The
Committee has used the traditional view within the Corps
planning program that only considers new starts as those that
have never received GI funds before. To provide additional
transparency in the budget process, the Committee has
segregated the budget into three columns in the following
table.
The first column represents the reconnaissance phase of the
planning process. These cursory studies determine if there is a
Federal interest in a water resource problem or need and if
there is a cost sharing sponsor willing to move forward with
the study. The next column represents the feasibility phase of
the study. These detailed studies determine the selected
alternative to be recommended to the Congress for construction.
The third column represents the Preconstruction engineering and
design phase. These detailed designs are prepared while the
project recommended to Congress is authorized for construction.
The Committee believes that by segregating the table in
this manner that more attention will be focused on the various
study phases, and a more balanced planning program will be
developed. As the last two columns are generally cost shared,
they demonstrate the commitment by cost sharing sponsors to be
a part of the Federal planning process. By the same token, it
also shows the level of commitment of the Federal Government to
these cost sharing sponsors. The Committee directs that the
fiscal year 2008 planning budget be presented to the Committee
in this fashion.
The budget request, the House allowance 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 ---------------------------- House -----------------------------------
Investigations Planning allowance RECON FEAS PED
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALASKA
ANCHORAGE HARBOR DEEPENING, AK...... .............. .......... .......... .......... 1,000 ..........
ATAKA HARBOR, AK.................... .............. .......... .......... 200 .......... ..........
BARROW COASTAL STORM DAMAGE .............. .......... .......... .......... 400 ..........
DEEPENING, AK......................
DELONG MOUNTAIN HARBOR, AK.......... .............. .......... .......... .......... 100 400
HAINES HARBOR, AK................... .............. .......... .......... .......... .......... 350
HOMER HARBOR MODIFICATION, AK....... .............. .......... .......... .......... 500 ..........
KENAI RIVER BLUFF EROSION, AK....... .............. .......... .......... .......... 400 ..........
KLAWOK HARBOR, AK................... .............. .......... .......... 90 210 ..........
KOTZEBUE SMALL BOAT HARBOR, AK...... .............. .......... .......... .......... 350 ..........
LITTLE DIOMEDE HARBOR, AK........... .............. .......... .......... .......... 600 ..........
MCGRATH, AK......................... .............. .......... .......... .......... 200 ..........
MEKORYUK HARBOR, AK................. .............. .......... .......... .......... 200 ..........
YAKUTAT HARBOR, AK.................. 300 .......... 300 .......... 300 ..........
WHITTIER BREAKWATER, AK............. .............. .......... .......... .......... 1,000 ..........
ARIZONA
PIMA COUNTY (TRES RIOS DEL NORTE), .............. .......... 250 .......... .......... ..........
AZ.................................
RILLITO RIVER, PIMA COUNTY, AZ...... .............. 300 .......... .......... .......... 300
RIO SALADO OESTE, SALT RIVER, AZ.... .............. .......... 250 .......... 250 ..........
VA SHLY-AY AKIMEL SALT RIVER .............. 200 200 .......... .......... 200
RESTORATION, AZ....................
ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS CREEK, AR............... 200 .......... 200 .......... 200 ..........
LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER RESOURCE .............. .......... .......... 250 .......... ..........
ASSESMENT, AR, IL, KY IA, MS, MO, &
TN.................................
MAY BRANCH, FORTS SMITH, AR......... .............. .......... .......... .......... .......... 250
PINE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR.............. .............. .......... 400 .......... .......... 200
RED RIVER NAVIGATION STUDY, SW .............. .......... .......... .......... .......... 400
ARKANSAS, AR.......................
WHITE RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE, AR .............. .......... .......... .......... 200 ..........
& MO...............................
WHITE RIVER NAVIGATION TO NEWPORT, .............. .......... .......... .......... .......... 125
AR.................................
CALIFORNIA
ARROYO SECO WATERSHED............... .............. .......... 200 .......... 400 ..........
BALLONA CREEK ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, .............. .......... .......... .......... 450 ..........
CA.................................
BIG BEAR LAKE, SANTA ANNA RIVER, CA. .............. .......... 850 .......... .......... ..........
BOLINAS LAGOON, CA.................. .............. .......... .......... .......... 597 ..........
CALIFORNIA COASTAL SEDIMENT MASTER 300 .......... 300 .......... 300 ..........
PLAN, CA...........................
CARPINTERIA SHORELINE STUDY, CA..... .............. .......... .......... .......... 200 ..........
CITY OF INGLEWOOD, CA............... .............. .......... 175 .......... 175 ..........
CITY OF NORWALK, CA................. .............. .......... 200 .......... .......... ..........
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CA........... .............. .......... 550 .......... .......... ..........
COAST OF CA, SOUTH COAST REGION (LA .............. .......... 200 .......... .......... ..........
COUNTY), CA........................
CORNFIELDS, CA...................... .............. .......... 500 .......... .......... ..........
CORTE MADERA CREEK WATERSHED, CA.... .............. .......... 200 .......... .......... ..........
COYOTE CREEK, CA.................... .............. .......... .......... 100 .......... ..........
DESERT HOT SPRINGS, CA.............. .............. .......... 600 .......... .......... ..........
ESTUDILLO CANAL, CA................. 600 .......... 600 .......... 600 ..........
GRAYSONS AND MURDERS CREEK, CA...... .............. .......... 200 .......... 200 ..........
HAMILTON CITY, CA................... .............. .......... .......... .......... .......... 600
HUMBOLT BAY LONG TERM SHOAL MGMT, CA .............. .......... .......... .......... 250 ..........
IMPERIAL BEACH, SILVER STRAND .............. .......... .......... .......... .......... 167
SHORELINE, CA......................
LAGUNA DE SANTA ROSA, CA............ .............. .......... 200 .......... .......... ..........
LLAGAS CREEK, CA.................... .............. .......... 250 .......... .......... 250
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA.............. .............. .......... 200 .......... 300 ..........
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, .............. .......... .......... .......... 500 ..........
CORNFIELDS, CA.....................
LOS ANGELES RIVER RESTORATION, CA... .............. .......... 200 .......... .......... ..........
LOS ANGELES RIVER WATERCOURSE .............. .......... .......... .......... 562 ..........
IMPROVEMENT, HEADWORKS CA..........
MALIBU CREEK WATERSHED, CA.......... .............. .......... .......... .......... 608 ..........
MATILIJA DAM, CA.................... .............. 400 500 .......... .......... 1,000
MIDDLE CREEK, CA.................... .............. .......... .......... .......... .......... 500
MORRO BAY ESTUARY, CA............... .............. .......... .......... .......... .......... 275
NAPA RIVER, SALT MARSH RESTORATION, .............. 300 300 .......... .......... 300
CA.................................
OCEAN BEACH, SAN FRANCISCO, CA...... .............. .......... 500 .......... 300 ..........
PAJARO RIVER AT WATSONVILLE, CA..... .............. .......... 750 .......... .......... 750
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAMP, CA........... .............. .......... .......... .......... 250 ..........
RUSSIAN RIVER RESTORATION, CA....... .............. .......... 200 .......... .......... ..........
SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN, DELTA .............. .......... .......... .......... 2,000 ..........
ISLANDS & LEEVES, CA...............
SAN BERNARDINO LAKES AND STREAMS, CA .............. .......... 1,000 .......... .......... ..........
SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE, CA.......... .............. .......... 300 .......... 329 ..........
SAN DIEGO SAMP, CA.................. .............. .......... .......... .......... 250 ..........
SAN FRANSIQUITO CREEK, CA........... .............. .......... 225 .......... 225 ..........
SAN JACINTO RIVER RESTORATION, CA... .............. .......... 1,000 .......... .......... ..........
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, WEST .............. .......... 200 .......... .......... ..........
STANISLAUS, CA.....................
SANTA ANA RIVER & TRIBURARIES, BIG .............. .......... .......... .......... 200 ..........
BEAR LAKE, CA......................
SANTA ROSA CREEK, CA................ .............. .......... 300 .......... 300 ..........
SEVEN OAKS & PRADO DAMS WATER CONS., .............. .......... 1,500 .......... .......... ..........
CA.................................
SOLANA-ENCINITAS SHORELINE, CA...... .............. .......... .......... .......... .......... 500
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SHORELINE, CA... .............. .......... .......... .......... 1,000 ..........
SUN VALLEY WATERSHED, CA............ .............. .......... 200 .......... 200 ..........
SUTTER COUNTY, CA................... 339 .......... 400 .......... 339 ..........
TAHOE BASIN, CA & NV................ .............. .......... .......... .......... .......... 1,000
UPPER PENITENCIA CREEK, CA.......... 319 .......... 319 .......... 319 ..........
WESTMINISTER, EAST GARDEN GROVE, CA. .............. .......... .......... .......... 300 ..........
WEST STANISLAUS COUNTY, ORESTIMBA .............. .......... .......... .......... 400 ..........
CREEK, CA..........................
WILSON AND OAK GLEN CREEKS, CA...... .............. .......... 800 .......... .......... ..........
COLORADO
CACHE LA POUDRE, CO................. 304 .......... .......... .......... 304 ..........
CHATFIELD, CHERRY CREEK & BEAR CREEK .............. .......... .......... .......... 400 ..........
RESERVOIRS, CO.....................
FOUNTAIN CREEK & TRIBUTARIES, CO.... .............. .......... .......... .......... 449 ..........
SOUTH BOULDER CREEK, CO............. .............. .......... .......... 100 .......... ..........
DELAWARE
BENEFICIAL USE OF DREDGED MATERIAL .............. .......... .......... 125 .......... ..........
IN THE DELAWARE ESTUARY, DE........
DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE, .............. .......... .......... .......... 175 ..........
DE, NJ, NY, PA.....................
FLORIDA
BREVARD COUNTY, FL.................. .............. .......... 315 .......... .......... ..........
EGMONT KEY, FL...................... .............. .......... 350 .......... .......... ..........
FLAGLER BEACH, FL................... .............. .......... .......... .......... 250 ..........
LAKE WORTH INLET FEASIBILITY STUDY.. .............. .......... .......... .......... 250 ..........
MILE POINT, FL...................... .............. .......... 200 .......... .......... ..........
ST JOHNS COUNTY SHORE PROTECTION, FL .............. .......... 200 .......... .......... ..........
WALTON COUNTY, FL................... .............. .......... .......... .......... .......... 553
GEORGIA
AUGUSTA, GA......................... .............. .......... 55 .......... .......... ..........
LONG ISLAND, MARSH AND JOHNS CREEKS, 200 .......... .......... .......... 200 ..........
GA.................................
OATES CREEK, AUGUSTA, GA............ .............. .......... 750 .......... .......... ..........
SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, GA....... .............. .......... 1,750 .......... .......... 500
GUAM
HAGATNA RIVER FLOOD CONTROL, GUAM... 100 .......... 100 .......... 100 ..........
HAWAII
ALA WAI CANAL, OAHU, HI............. 300 .......... 300 .......... 300 ..........
BARBERS POINT HARBOR MODIFICATION, .............. .......... .......... .......... 39 ..........
OAHU, HI...........................
KAHUKU, HI.......................... .............. .......... .......... .......... 203 ..........
KAHULUI WEST HARBOR EXPANSION, HI... .............. .......... .......... 100 .......... ..........
KAWAIHAE HARBOR, HI................. .............. .......... .......... .......... 311 ..........
LAUPAHOEHOE HARBOR, HI.............. .............. .......... .......... .......... .......... 300
MOANALUA STREAM FLOOD DAMAGE .............. .......... .......... 100 .......... ..........
REDUCTION, HI......................
NAWILIWILI HARBOR MODIFICATION, .............. .......... .......... .......... 125 ..........
KAUAI, HI..........................
WAIALUA-KAIAKA WATERSHED RESTORATION .............. .......... .......... 200 .......... ..........
STUDY, HI..........................
WAILUPE STREAM, OAHU, HI............ .............. .......... .......... .......... .......... 350
IDAHO
BOISE RIVER, BOISE, ID.............. .............. .......... .......... 44 286 ..........
ILLINOIS
DES PLAINES RIVER (PHASE II), IL.... .............. .......... 500 .......... 1,000 ..........
ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN RESTORATION, IL 400 .......... 400 .......... 750 ..........
KEITH CREEK, IL..................... .............. .......... 300 .......... .......... ..........
PEORIA RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT, IL... .............. .......... .......... .......... .......... 250
SOUTHEAST ILLINOIS SHORELINE, IL.... .............. .......... 200 .......... .......... ..........
SOUTH FORK, SOUTH BRANCH, CHICAGO .............. .......... .......... .......... 750 ..........
RIVER, IL..........................
UPPER MISS & ILLINOIS NAV .............. .......... .......... .......... .......... 20,000
IMPORVEMENT, IL, IA, MN, MO, WI....
UPPER MISSISSIPPI COMP PLAN, IL, IA, .............. .......... 500 .......... 784 ..........
MO, MN, WI.........................
INDIANA
INDIANA HARBOR, IN.................. 300 .......... 750 .......... 300 ..........
IOWA
CEDAR RAPIDS, IA (CEDAR RAPIDS TIME .............. .......... .......... .......... 150 ..........
CHECK AREA)........................
CHARITON RIVER COMPREHENSIVE STUDY, .............. .......... .......... 100 .......... ..........
IA.................................
DAVENPORT , IA...................... .............. .......... .......... .......... .......... 173
DES MOINES & RACCOON RIVERS, IA..... .............. .......... .......... .......... .......... 300
KANSAS
BRUSH CREEK BASIN , KS & MO......... .............. .......... .......... .......... 150 ..........
MARION RESERVOIR WATERSHED ECOSYSTEM .............. .......... .......... .......... 150 ..........
RESTORATION, KS....................
TOPEKA, KS.......................... .............. 100 200 .......... 100 ..........
UPPER ARKANSAS RIVER, KS............ .............. .......... .......... 100 .......... ..........
UPPER TURKEY CREEK, KS.............. .............. .......... .......... .......... 225 ..........
WALNUT AND WHITEWATER RIVER 80 .......... 200 .......... 80 ..........
WATERSHEDS, KS.....................
KENTUCKY
METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, SOUTHWEST, .............. .......... 200 .......... .......... ..........
KY.................................
NORTHERN KENTUCKY, KY............... .............. .......... 300 .......... .......... ..........
WILLIAMSTOWN, KY.................... .............. .......... 500 .......... .......... ..........
LOUISIANA
AMITE RIVER & TRIBUTARIES ECOSYSTEM .............. .......... .......... .......... 500 ..........
RESTORATION, LA....................
AMITE RIVER & TRIBUTARIES, BAYOU .............. .......... .......... .......... 350 ..........
MANCHAC, LA........................
ATCHAFALAYA RIVER & BAYOUS CHENE, .............. .......... .......... .......... 650 ..........
BOEUF & BLACK, LA..................
BAYOU SORREL LOCK, LA............... .............. 1,500 1,500 .......... .......... 1,500
BOSSIER PARISH, LA.................. .............. .......... .......... .......... 200 ..........
CALCASIEU LOCK, LA.................. .............. .......... 400 .......... 400 ..........
CALCASIEU RIVER BASIN, LA........... 247 .......... 500 .......... 125 ..........
CALCASIEU RIVER PASS SHIP CHANNEL .............. .......... 500 .......... 350 ..........
ENLARGEMENT, LA....................
CROSS LAKE, LA...................... .............. .......... 300 .......... 150 ..........
LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYST REST, 5,000 .......... 5,000 .......... .......... ..........
LA (SCIENCE & TEC..................
LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM 20,000 .......... 20,000 .......... 15,000 ..........
RESTORATION, LA....................
PORT OF IBERIA, LA.................. .............. .......... .......... .......... .......... 500
SOUTHWEST COASTAL LOUSIANA HURRICANE .............. .......... .......... .......... 250 ..........
PROTECTION, LA.....................
ST. CHARLES PARISH URBAN FLOOD .............. .......... .......... .......... 200 ..........
CONTROL, LA........................
WEST PEARL NAVIGATION, LA & MS...... .............. .......... .......... 100 .......... ..........
WEST SHORE LAKE PONCHARTRAIN, LA.... .............. .......... .......... .......... .......... 200
MAINE
PENOBSCOT RIVER RESTORATION, ME..... .............. .......... .......... 100 .......... ..........
SEARSPORT HARBOR, ME................ .............. .......... .......... .......... 125 ..........
MARYLAND
ANACOSTIA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, MD .............. .......... 400 .......... 200 ..........
AND DC.............................
BALTIMORE METRO WTR RES--PATAPSCO & .............. .......... .......... .......... 600 ..........
BACK RIVERS, MD....................
CHES BAY SHORELINE--SEMI BUDG, MODEL .............. .......... .......... .......... 350 ..........
CHESAPEAKE BAY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, .............. .......... .......... 150 .......... ..........
MD.................................
CHESAPEAKE BAY SHORELINE, MARYLAND .............. .......... .......... .......... 500 ..........
COASTAL MANAGEMENT, MD.............
CHESAPEAKE BAY WERLANDS, MD .............. .......... .......... 100 325 ..........
(BLACKWATER REFUGE)................
EASTERN SHORE, MID CHESAPEAKE BAY .............. .......... .......... .......... .......... 300
ISLAND, MD.........................
JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE RELLOCATION, .............. .......... .......... 80 100 ..........
MD & WV............................
MIDDLE POTOMAC RIVER GREATER SENECA/ .............. .......... .......... .......... 300 ..........
MUDDY BRANCH, MD...................
MIDDLE POTOMAC WATERSHED STUDY, MD.. .............. .......... .......... 50 .......... ..........
MASSACHUSETTS
BOSTON HARBOR (45-FOOT CHANNEL), MA. 300 .......... 300 .......... 300 ..........
MICHIGAN
DETROIT RIVER GREENWAY, MI.......... .............. .......... 250 .......... 500 ..........
DETROIT RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL .............. .......... .......... 50 50 ..........
DREDGING, MI.......................
GREAT LAKES NAV SYST STUDY, MI, IL, 300 .......... 2,034 .......... 300 ..........
IN, MN, NY, OH, PA.................
GREAT LAKE REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS .............. .......... .......... .......... 300 ..........
(RAP) & SEDIMENT REMEDIATION, MI,
NY, OH, PA, IN, EL, WI, & MN.......
MINNESOTA
BLUE EARTH RIVER ECOSYSTEM .............. .......... .......... .......... 60 ..........
RESTORATION, MN, SD, IA, ND........
MARSH LAKE DAM ECOSYSTEM .............. .......... .......... .......... 125 ..........
RESTORATION, MINNESOTA (MINNESOTA
RIVER BASIN, MN & SD)..............
ROSEAU RIVER, MN.................... .............. .......... .......... .......... .......... 326
WILD RICE RIVER, RED RIVER OF THE 300 .......... .......... .......... 150 ..........
NORTH BASIN, MN....................
MISSOURI
JORDAN CREEK, SPRINGFIELD, MO....... .............. .......... 600 .......... .......... ..........
HIGH SCHOOL BRANCH--NEOSHO, MO...... .............. .......... 175 .......... .......... ..........
KANSAS CITYS, MO & KS............... 500 .......... 750 .......... 500 250
LITTLE BLUE RIVER BASIN, JACKSON .............. .......... .......... 100 .......... ..........
COUNTY, MO.........................
MISSOURI RIVER DEGRADATION, MILE 340 .............. .......... .......... 300 .......... ..........
TO 400, MO & KS....................
MISSOURI LEVEE SYSTEM, UNITS L455 & .............. .......... .......... .......... 27 350
R460-471, MO & KS..................
SPRINGFIELD, MO..................... 250 .......... 250 .......... 310 ..........
ST LOUIS FLOOD PROTECTION, MO....... .............. 243 350 .......... .......... 519
ST LOUIS MISSISSIPPI RIVERFRONT, MO .............. .......... 200 .......... .......... ..........
& IL...............................
SWOPE PARK INDUSTRIAL AREA, KANSAS .............. .......... .......... .......... .......... 158
CITY, MO...........................
WEARS CREEK, JEFFERSON CITY, MO..... 150 .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
MONTANA
YELLOWSTONE RIVER CORRIDOR, MT...... 200 .......... 250 .......... 1,000 ..........
NEBRASKA
LOWER PLATTE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, 130 .......... 175 .......... 175 ..........
NE.................................
NEVADA
TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING, NV & CA.... .............. .......... .......... .......... 725 ..........
TRUCKEE MEADOWS, NV................. .............. .......... .......... .......... .......... 1,500
NEW HAMPSHIRE
CONNECTICUT RIVER WATERSHED STUDY, .............. .......... .......... .......... 200 ..........
NH, CT, MA & VT....................
MERRIMACK RIVER WATERSHED STUDY, NH 200 .......... .......... .......... 250 ..........
& MA...............................
PORTSMOUTH HARBOR & PISCATAQUA .............. .......... 200 .......... .......... ..........
RIVER, NH..........................
NEW JERSEY
HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS, HUDSON- 200 .......... 500 .......... .......... ..........
RATITAN, NJ........................
HIGHLANDS, RARITAN BAY & SANDY HOOK .............. .......... 200 .......... .......... ..........
BAY, NJ............................
HUDSON RARITAN ESTUARY, HACKENSACK .............. .......... .......... .......... 500 ..........
MEADOWS, NJ........................
HUDSON RARITAN ESTUARY, LOWER .............. .......... .......... .......... 1,000 ..........
PASSAIC RIVER, NJ..................
LOWER PASSAIC RIVER, HUDSON-RARITAN .............. .......... 1,000 .......... .......... ..........
EST., NJ...........................
LOWER SADDLE RIVER, BERGEN COUNTY, .............. .......... 250 .......... .......... 100
NJ.................................
NEW JERSEY, INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY .............. .......... .......... .......... 67 ..........
ENV. RESTORATION, NJ...............
NEW JERSEY SHORE PROTECTION, 200 .......... 200 .......... 304 ..........
HEREFORD TO CAPE MAY INLE..........
NEW JERSEY SHORELINE ALT .............. .......... 400 .......... 200 ..........
NOURISHMENT, NJ....................
PASSAIC RIVER, HARRISON, NJ......... .............. .......... .......... .......... .......... 250
PECKMAN RIVER BASIN, NJ............. .............. .......... .......... .......... 325 ..........
RAHWAY RIVER BASIN, NJ.............. .............. .......... .......... .......... 125 ..........
RARITAN BAY & SAND HOOK BAY, UNION .............. .......... .......... .......... .......... 125
BEACH, NJ..........................
RARITAN BAY & SANDY HOOK BAY, .............. .......... .......... .......... 100 ..........
HIGHLANDS, NJ......................
RARITAN BAY & SANDY HOOK BAY, .............. .......... .......... .......... 100 ..........
KEYPORT, NJ........................
RARITAN BAY & SANDY HOOK BAY, .............. .......... .......... .......... .......... 125
LEONARDO, NJ.......................
SHREWSBURY RIVER & TRIBUTARIES, NJ.. .............. .......... .......... .......... 100 ..........
STONY BROOK, MILLSTONE RIVER BASIN, .............. .......... .......... .......... 150 ..........
NJ.................................
NEW MEXICO
EAST MESA, LAS CRUCES, NM........... .............. .......... .......... .......... 413 ..........
ESPANOLA VALLEY, RIO GRANDE & .............. .......... .......... .......... 500 ..........
TRIBUTARIES, NM....................
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE BOSQUE, NM........ 200 .......... 300 .......... 300 ..........
NAVAJO NATION, FLOOD PLAIN .............. .......... .......... .......... 500 ..........
DELINEATION, NM, AZ & UT...........
RIO GRANDE BASIN, NM, CO & TX....... .............. .......... .......... .......... 250 ..........
SANTA FE, NM........................ .............. .......... .......... .......... 250 ..........
SOUTHWEST VALLEY, ALBUQUERQUE, NM... .............. .......... 225 .......... .......... 180
NEW YORK
BRONX RIVER BASIN................... .............. .......... 400 .......... .......... ..........
CRESCENT BEACH, SOUTH SIDE OF STATEN .............. .......... 200 .......... .......... ..........
ISLAND, NY.........................
BUFFALO RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL 100 .......... 200 .......... 250 ..........
DREDGING, NY.......................
FLUSHING BAY & CREEK, NY............ .............. .......... .......... .......... .......... 125
HUDSON--RARITAN ESTUARY, GOWANUS .............. .......... .......... .......... 250 ..........
CANAL, NY..........................
HUDSON--RARITAN ESTUARY, NY & NJ.... 400 .......... 600 .......... 400 ..........
JAMAICA BAY, MARINE PARK & PLUM .............. .......... .......... .......... 250 ..........
BEACH, NY..........................
LAKE MONTAUK HARBOR, NY............. .............. .......... .......... .......... 175 ..........
MONTAUK POINT, NY................... .............. .......... .......... .......... .......... 250
ONONDAGA LAKE, NY................... .............. .......... 750 .......... .......... ..........
OSWEGO RIVER BASIN, NY.............. .............. .......... .......... .......... 100 ..........
SAW MILL RIVER BASIN, WESTCHESTER .............. .......... 200 .......... .......... 200
COUNTY, NY.........................
NORTH CAROLINA
BOUGE BANKS, NC..................... .............. .......... .......... .......... 48 ..........
CURRITUCK SOUND, NC................. 150 .......... .......... .......... 150 ..........
NEUSE RIVER BASIN, NC............... 150 .......... 150 .......... 150 ..........
SURF CITY & NORTH TOPSAIL, NC....... .............. .......... 100 .......... 200 ..........
OHIO
CUYAHOGA RIVER BULKHEAD STUDY, OH... .............. .......... .......... .......... 421 ..........
MAHONING RIVER, OH, ENVIRONMENTAL .............. .......... .......... .......... .......... 500
DREDGING PROJECT...................
OHIO RIVERFRONT, CINCINNATI, OH..... .............. .......... .......... .......... .......... 1,000
WESTERN LAKE ERIE, OH............... .............. .......... 300 .......... .......... ..........
WHEELING CREEK, OH WATERSHED .............. .......... .......... .......... 400 ..........
ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION..............
WOLF CREEK WATERSHED, OH............ .............. .......... .......... 200 .......... ..........
OKALHOMA
GRAND (NEOSHO) RIVER BASIN, OK, KS, .............. .......... .......... .......... 100 ..........
MO & AR............................
GRAND LAKE COMPREHENSIVE STUDY, OK.. .............. .......... .......... .......... 250 ..........
OOLOGAH LAKE WATERSHED, OK & KS..... .............. .......... .......... .......... 250 ..........
SE OKLAHOMA STUDY, OK............... .............. .......... .......... .......... 150 ..........
SPAVINAW CREEK WATERSHED, OK & AR... .............. .......... .......... .......... 100 ..........
WASHITA RIVER BASIN, OK............. .............. .......... .......... .......... 50 ..........
WISTER LAKE WATERSHED, OK........... .............. .......... .......... .......... 119 ..........
OREGON
AMAZON CREEK, OR.................... .............. .......... .......... .......... 250 ..........
LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM 100 .......... 200 .......... 100 ..........
RESTORATION, OR & WA...............
WALLA WALLA RIVER WATERSHED, OR & WA .............. .......... .......... .......... 650 ..........
WILLAMETTE RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL .............. .......... .......... .......... 250 ..........
DREDGING, OR.......................
WILLAMETTE RIVER FLOODPLAIN .............. .......... .......... .......... 436 ..........
RESTORATION, OR....................
PENNSYLVANIA
CHRISTINA RIVER WATERSHED, PA, DE, & .............. .......... .......... .......... 250 ..........
MD.................................
DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE, .............. .......... .......... .......... 175 ..........
PA.................................
DELAWARE RIVER DEEPENING DREDGED .............. .......... .......... 250 .......... ..........
MATERIAL UTILIZATION, PA, DE, NJ...
SCHUYLKILL RIVER BASIN, WISSAHICKON .............. .......... .......... .......... 100 ..........
CREEK BASIN, PA....................
UPPER OHIO NAVIGATION STUDY, PA..... .............. .......... 1,300 .......... 2,500 ..........
RHODE ISLAND
RHODE ISLAND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION .............. .......... .......... .......... 250 ..........
STUDY, RI..........................
SOUTH CAROLINA
EDISTO ISLAND, SC................... 100 .......... 200 .......... 100 ..........
PAWLEYS ISLAND, SC.................. .............. .......... .......... .......... .......... 109
SOUTH DAKOTA
WATERTOWN & VICINITY, SD............ .............. .......... .......... .......... .......... 450
CANYON LAKE DAM, RAPID CITY, SD..... .............. .......... .......... 100 .......... ..........
JAMES RIVER, SD..................... .............. .......... .......... .......... 602 ..........
TENNESSEE
MILL CREEK WATERSHED, DAVIDSON 150 .......... 150 .......... 150 ..........
COUNTY, TN.........................
NASHVILLE RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT, .............. .......... .......... 600 .......... ..........
DAVISON COUNTY, TN.................
TENNESSEE-CUMBERLAND RIVERS SYSTEM .............. .......... .......... 200 .......... ..........
STUDY, TN..........................
TEXAS
BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, BROWNSVILLE 500 .......... 500 .......... 500 ..........
CHANNEL, TX........................
BUFFALO BAYOU, TX................... .............. .......... 200 .......... .......... ..........
BUFFALO BAYOU & TRIBS, WHITE OAK .............. .......... 200 .......... .......... ..........
BAYOU, TX..........................
CEDAR BAYOU, TX..................... .............. .......... .......... .......... .......... 647
CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX..... .............. .......... .......... .......... .......... 114
FREEPORT HARBOR, TX................. 500 .......... 500 .......... 500 ..........
GIWW, VICINITY OF PORT ISABEL, TX... .............. .......... .......... .......... 500 ..........
GREENS BAYOU, TX.................... .............. .......... .......... .......... .......... 200
GUADALUPE AND SAN ANTONIO RIVER 300 .......... 650 .......... .......... ..........
BASINS, TX.........................
LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN, TX...... 300 .......... 400 .......... 500 ..........
LOWER COLORADO RIVER, WHARTON & .............. .......... .......... .......... .......... 1,000
ONION CREEKS, TX...................
LOWER SAN ANTONIO RIVER BASIC (TRI- .............. .......... 300 .......... .......... ..........
COUNTY), TX........................
MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL, TX.......... .............. .......... .......... .......... 400 ..........
MIDDLE BRAZOS RIVER, TX............. .............. .......... 325 .......... .......... ..........
NORTHWEST EL PASO, TX............... .............. .......... 200 .......... .......... ..........
NUECES RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, TX.... 250 .......... 250 .......... 400 ..........
RAYMONDVILLE DRAIN, TX.............. .............. .......... 300 .......... .......... 300
RESACAS AT BROWNSVILLE, TX.......... .............. .......... 250 .......... .......... ..........
RIO GRANDE BASIN, TX................ 50 .......... 50 .......... 50 ..........
SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY, TX.......... 400 .......... 400 .......... 400 ..........
SABINE PASS TO GALVESTON BAY, TX.... 270 .......... 300 .......... 600 ..........
SPARKS ARROYO COLONIA, EL PASO .............. .......... .......... .......... 125 ..........
COUNTY, TX.........................
TEXAS CITY CHANNEL (50-FOOT .............. 900 .......... .......... .......... 900
PROJECT), TX.......................
UPPER TRINITY RIVER, TX............. .............. .......... 1,600 .......... .......... ..........
UTAH
PARK CITY WATER INFRASTRUCTURE
PROJECT SUMMIT COUNTY, UTAH........
.............. .......... .......... .......... 500 ..........
VIRGINIA
AIWW BRIDGES AT DEEP CREEK, VA...... .............. .......... .......... .......... .......... 289
CHESAPEAKE BAY SHORELINE EROSION, 39 .......... 39 .......... 39 ..........
MATHEWS COUNTY, VA.................
CLINCH RIVER WATERSHED, WISE, LEE, .............. .......... .......... .......... 275 ..........
SCOTT, DICKENSON...................
DISMAL SWAMP AND DISMAL SWAMP CANAL, 62 .......... 62 .......... 152 ..........
VA.................................
ELIZABETH RIVER BASIN, ENV .............. .......... .......... .......... 175 ..........
RESTORATION, VA (PHASE II).........
ELIZABETH RIVER, HAMPTON ROADS, VA.. .............. .......... .......... .......... .......... 193
FOUR MILE RUN, VA................... .............. .......... 800 .......... .......... ..........
JOHN H KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA & 300 .......... 300 .......... .......... ..........
NC (SEC 216).......................
LYNNHAVEN RIVER BASIN, VA........... 349 .......... 349 .......... 403 ..........
MIDDLE POTOMAC, CAMERON/HOLMES RUN, .............. .......... 400 .......... .......... ..........
VA.................................
NORFOLK HARBOR & CHANNELS, CRANEY .............. .......... .......... .......... 175 2,000
ISLAND, VA.........................
PHILPOT LAKE, VA.................... .............. .......... 225 .......... .......... ..........
POWELL RIVER WATHERSHED, VA......... .............. .......... .......... .......... 300 ..........
VICINITY OF WILLOUGHBY SPIT, VA..... .............. .......... .......... .......... .......... 403
WASHINGTON
CENTRALIA, WA....................... .............. .......... .......... .......... .......... 150
ELLIOT BAY SEAWALL, WA.............. .............. .......... 225 .......... 500 ..........
GRAYS HARBOR AT CHEHALIS RIVER, WA.. .............. .......... 325 .......... .......... ..........
LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA...... .............. .......... .......... .......... 400 ..........
PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE MARINE HABITAT 400 .......... 500 .......... 1,500 ..........
RESTORATION, WA....................
SKAGIT RIVER, WA.................... .............. .......... 200 .......... 300 ..........
SKOKOMISH RIVER, WA................. .............. .......... 325 .......... .......... ..........
WEST VIRGINIA
CHERRY RIVER BASIN, WV.............. .............. .......... .......... 150 .......... ..........
LITTLE KANAWHA RIVER, WV............ .............. .......... .......... .......... 88 300
PARKERSBURG/VIENNA RIVERFRONT PARK, .............. .......... 325 .......... .......... ..........
WV.................................
UPPER GUYANDOTTE RIVER BASIN, WV.... .............. .......... .......... 150 .......... ..........
WISCONSIN
ST CROIX RIVER RELOCATION OF .............. .......... 325 .......... 325 ..........
ENDANGERED MUSSELS, WI.............
ST CROIX RIVER, WI & MN............. .............. .......... 250 .......... .......... ..........
WYOMING
BEAR RIVER FEASIBILITY STUDY, WY.... .............. .......... .......... 100 .......... ..........
MISCELLANEOUS
COASTAL FIELD DATA COLLECTION....... 1,400 .......... 1,400 .......... 4,900 ..........
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA STUDIES.......... 50 .......... 50 .......... 50 ..........
FLOOD DAMAGE DATA................... 220 .......... 220 .......... 220 ..........
FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT SERVICES..... 5,625 .......... 6,200 .......... 11,741 ..........
HYDROLOGIC STUDIES.................. 250 .......... 250 .......... 250 ..........
INTERNATIONAL WATER STUDIES......... 200 .......... 200 .......... 200 ..........
NATIONAL INVENTORY OF FLOOD/STORM 20,000 .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
DAMAGE REDUCTION PRO...............
NATIONAL SHORELINE STUDY............ 375 .......... 375 .......... 375 ..........
OTHER COORDINATION PROGRAMS......... 3,673 .......... 3,673 .......... 4,273 ..........
PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES....... 4,550 .......... 4,550 .......... 6,300 ..........
PRECIPITATION STUDIES (NATIONAL 225 .......... 225 .......... 225 ..........
WEATHER SERVICE)...................
REMOTE SENSING/GEOGRAPHIC 150 .......... 150 .......... 150 ..........
INFORMATION SYSTEM SUPPORT.........
REPROGRAMMING INVESTMENT FUND....... .............. .......... 15,000 .......... .......... ..........
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT............ 15,200 .......... 17,734 .......... 35,000 ..........
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION 50 .......... 50 .......... 50 ..........
CENTERS............................
STREAM GAGING (U.S. GEOLOGICAL 600 .......... 600 .......... 600 ..........
SURVEY)............................
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS.............. 350 .......... 350 .......... 350 ..........
TRI-SERVICE CADD/GIS TECHNOLOGY 350 .......... 350 .......... 350 ..........
CENTER.............................
USE OF PRIOR YEAR BALANCES.......... .............. .......... .......... .......... -961 ..........
SAVINGS & SLIPPAGE.................. .............. .......... .......... .......... -20,210 ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 90,057 3,943 128,000 4,289 118,732 45,506
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL................... 94,000 .......... 128,000 168,517 .......... ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atka Harbor, Alaska.--The Committee recommended $200,000 to
initiate this reconnaissance study.
DeLong Mountain Harbor, Alaska.--The Committee provided
$100,000 to complete feasibility studies and $400,000 to
initiate preconstruction engineering and design.
Kenai River Bluff Erosion, Alaska.--The Committee
recommended $400,000 to continue technical studies of the
erosion problems.
Lower Mississippi River Resource Assessment, Arkansas,
Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and
Tennessee.--The Committee recommends $250,000 to initiate an
expanded reconnaissance study. The study will include three
assessments: (1) a list which identifies data gaps in
information needed for river-related management; (2) an
assessment of natural resource habitat needs; and (3) a needs
assessment for river-related recreation access.
May Branch, Fort Smith, Arkansas.--$250,000 is provided to
execute a design agreement and initiate preconstruction
engineering and design.
Red River Navigation, Southwest Arkansas, Arkansas and
Louisiana.--The Committee recommends $400,000 to initiate
preconstruction engineering and design.
Coyote Creek Watershed, California.--The Committee included
$100,000 to initiate reconnaissance studies.
Los Angeles River Watercourse Improvement, Headworks,
California.--$562,000 is provided to complete the feasibility
studies.
Malibu Creek Watershed, California.--The Committee
recommendation includes $608,000 to complete the feasibility
study.
Morro Bay Estuary, California.--$275,000 is provided to
complete the feasibility study.
San Clemente Shoreline, California.--The Committee included
$329,000 to complete the feasibility study.
Fountain Creek and Tributaries, Colorado.--The Committee
provided $449,000 to complete the feasibility study.
Boulder Creek, Greeley, Colorado.--The Committee included
$100,000 to initiate this reconnaissance study. The Committee
notes that studies were initiated under the Continuing
Authorities Program, but that the scope of the study was
considered to large for the program.
Beneficial Use of Dredged Material in Delaware Estuary,
Delaware.--$125,000 is provided to initiate the reconnaissance
study. The study will be coordinated closely with ongoing
efforts that are being undertaken by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania in using dredged material to alleviate acid mine
drainage concerns.
Flagler County, Florida.--$250,000 is provided to continue
feasibility studies for shore damage reduction. The Committee
notes that recent storms have begun to threaten the county's
major evacuation route to State Road A1A.
Walton County, Florida.--$553,000 is provided to complete
the preconstruction, engineering and design phase. This study
is a test bed for the Institute of Water Resources Hurricane
and Storm Damage Reduction model.
Waialua-Kaiaka Watershed Restoration Study, Oahu, Hawaii.--
The Committee provided $200,000 to initiate the reconnaissance
study to investigate the comprehensive scope and extensive
water resource problems in the watershed.
Boise River, Idaho.--The Committee provided a total of
$330,000 for study efforts on this project. $44,000 is to
complete the reconnaissance phase with the remainder to be used
to initiate a cost shared feasibility study.
Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway Navigation
System, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin.--
The Committee recommendation includes $20,000,000 for
continuation of preconstruction engineering and design studies.
The Committee recognizes the need to modernize this more than
60-year-old navigation system and has provided continued
funding for both structural design and environmental
restoration work.
Cedar Rapids, Iowa.--The Committee provided $150,000 to
initiate a cost-shared feasibility study. Reconnaissance level
studies were completed under the Continuing Authorities
Program, however, the scope of the proposed project exceeds the
limits of the Continuing Authorities Program.
Marion Reservoir Watershed Ecosystem Restoration, Kansas.--
This feasibility study is an interim under the Grand (Neosho)
River Basin. The Committee provided $150,000 for this study.
Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration, Louisiana.--
The Committee provides $15,000,000 for these important studies.
The Committee has elected not to fund a separate Science and
Technology line item under this study and directs the Corps not
to include this line item in the fiscal year 2008 budget. This
line item appears to be an attempt to fund other Federal
agencies to undertake science activities that are not being
funded within those agencies. If the administration believes
this is worthwhile science, then they should budget for this
work under the appropriate agency. The Committee recommendation
is $10,000,000 less than the request as it is the Committee's
understanding that approximately that amount will be carried
over into fiscal year 2007 due to delays in the study. Any
funds from the fiscal year 2006 appropriation that remain
unexpended in the Science and Technology line should be
utilized on advancing the study not science activities.
West Pearl Navigation, Louisiana and Mississippi.--$100,000
is provided to initiate reconnaissance studies to deauthorize
this antiquated navigation project. The project has been in
caretaker status for more than 10 years.
Eastern Shore-Chesapeake Bay Marshlands, Maryland
(Blackwater Wildlife Refuge).--The Committee recommendation
includes $425,000 for this study that was initiated under the
Continuing Authorities Program in fiscal year 2006. $100,000 is
to complete the reconnaissance phase with the remainder to
initiate the feasibility phase.
Ecorse Creek, Michigan.--The Committee recommendation
includes $300,000 for the preconstruction engineering and
design phase to initiate the general reevaluation report.
Great Lakes Navigational System, Michigan, Illinois,
Indiana, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
Wisconsin.--The funds provided are to be used to complete the
supplement to the reconnaissance report of Great Lakes St.
Lawrence Seaway Navigation Study, which, based on previous
agreement between the secretary, the ministry of transportation
Canada, and the Secretary of the U.S. Department of
Transportation, is to be limited in scope to evaluating the
economic, engineering and environmental impacts of maintaining
the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway at current size draft and
length of locks. The secretary is directed to complete the
supplemental report by September 2007, after which Congress,
interested State and Federal agencies, and the public shall
review the report for 1 year to determine whether additional
study is warranted.
Roseau, Minnesota.--$326,000 is included to complete
preconstruction engineering and design.
Kansas Citys, Missouri and Kansas.--The Committee
recommendation includes $750,000 for this effort. $250,000 is
included for completion of the feasibility phase and $500,000
is for initiation of preconstruction engineering and design.
Missouri River Degradation, Mile 340 to 400, Missouri and
Kansas.--The Committee included $300,000 to initiate an
expanded Reconnaissance Study. The Missouri River in this reach
has experienced significant degradation or downcutting of the
river bed. There is a strong indication that this degradation
could impact navigation, flood control and other infrastructure
in the area.
Yellowstone River Corridor, Montana.--The Committee
recommendation includes $1,000,000 to complete topographic
mapping for the study.
New Jersey Shore Protection, Hereford Inlet to Cape May
Inlet, New Jersey.--The Committee included $104,000 over the
budget request to complete the preconstruction engineering and
design phase of this study.
Mahoning River, Ohio.--$500,000 is included to complete the
preconstruction engineering and design phase.
Walla Walla River Basin, Oregon and Washington.--$650,000
is provided to prepare and release the draft feasibility
report/environmental impact statement for public review.
Cedar Bayou, Texas.--$647,000 are provided to complete
preconstruction engineering and design.
Matagorda Ship Channel, Texas.--$400,000 is provided to
continue the major rehabilitation study of the safety and
reliability of the jettied entrance to the channel.
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Bridge Replacement at Deep
Creek, Chesapeake, Virginia.--The Committee recommendation
includes $289,000 to complete the preconstruction engineering
and design phase.
Dismal Swamp and Dismal Swamp Canal, Chesapeake,
Virginia.--$152,000 is provided to complete the final
feasibility study for Phase I and to develop the draft
feasibility study for Phase II.
Vicinity of Willoughby Spit, Norfolk, Virginia.--The
Committee recommendation includes $403,000 to complete the
preconstruction engineering and design phase.
Bear River, Wyoming.--$100,000 is provided for
reconnaissance studies for flood control and environmental
restoration in the Bear River Basin above Bear Lake.
National Inventory of Flood/Storm Damage Reduction
Projects.--No funds have been provided for this effort as
$30,000,000 was provided via supplemental appropriations to
initiate this effort in December 2005. The Committee is
supportive of this effort; however, the Committee believes that
the scope of this study effort is poorly defined. The Committee
notes that this study effort consumes a large portion of the
General Investigations budget over the next 5 years, yet it is
unclear what the outputs of the study will be. The Committee
recommends that the administration better define the scope of
the study and the intended outputs before additional funds are
provided. The Committee believes that providing additional
resources to Flood Plain Management Services and Planning
Assistance to States might achieve the same goals at a lower
cost.
Other Coordination Programs.--Within the funds provided,
$600,000 is provided for Lake Tahoe coordination activities.
Planning Assistance to States.--The Committee
recommendation includes $6,300,000 for this nationwide program.
Within the funds provided, $500,000 is for Kansas River Basin
Watershed and Streamways, Kansas; $110,000 is for Ground Water
Study, Greene County, Missouri; $150,000 is for Repaupo
Watershed Flooding, New Jersey; $200,000 is for the Delaware
Estuary Salinity Modeling Study, New Jersey and Delaware;
$59,000 to complete the Mangum Lake, Oklahoma, Phase V;
$253,000 to complete the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan,
Oklahoma; $75,000 to complete the Bartlesville Water Supply
Study, Oklahoma; $23,000 to complete the Port of Siuslaw,
Oregon-Dredged Material Placement Study; $200,000 is for the
Memphis Riverfront Development, Tennessee, N Phase 3; and
$60,000 is for the Flood Control and Storm Water Management,
Chesapeake, Virginia.
Coastal Field Data Collection.--The Committee has provided
$4,900,000 for this nationwide program. Within the funds
provided $1,000,000 for the Coastal Data Information Program;
$1,000,000 for the Southern California Beach Processes Study;
$750,000 is for the Surge and Wave Island Modeling Studies,
Hawaii; and $750,000 is for the Pacific Island Land Ocean
Typhoon Experiment Program.
Flood Plain Management Services Program.--The Committee
recommendation includes $11,741,000. Within the funds provided
$200,000 for White Clay Creek, Delaware; $500,000 is for
Albany, Georgia; $1,000,000 is for Hurricane Evacuation
Studies, Hawaii; $205,000 is for Kaaawa, Hawaii; $50,000 is for
Waikapu, Hawaii; $50,000 is for Wailuku, Hawaii; $300,000 is
for Will County, Illinois; $161,000 is for East Baton Rouge
Parish, Louisiana; $1,000,000 is for Livingston Parish,
Louisiana; and $1,900,000 is for Papillion Creek Watershed,
Nebraska.
Research and Development.--The Committee has included
$35,000,000 for the Corps nationwide research and development
programs. The Committee believes that this is an important area
of the Corps' program that should be supported and has provided
$19,800,000 above the budget request. Within the funds provided
$1,000,000 is provided for submerged aquatic vegetation
research in the Chesapeake Bay; $1,500,000 is provided for the
Center for Computer Assisted Dispute Resolution [CADRE] within
the Institute for Water Resources to undertake research,
development, training and application activities consistent
with the mission stated by the Office of Science and Technology
Policy, Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality for
collaborative tools and processes for U.S. water solutions in
partnership with the Bureau of Reclamation, the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Department of Energy and its research
laboratories, and other Federal and non-Federal parties to
develop solutions to water availability and quality problems
through public participation and collaboration processes,
decision-support computer technologies, and techniques for
integrating these within various water contexts using tools
that include portable, physical and social simulation modules,
software to link existing water management software, as well as
interfaces for both collaborative model development and
displaying modeling results and tradeoffs; $1,000,000 is
provided for the Southwest Flood Damage Development and
Demonstration program to be conducted in close coordination and
cooperation with the New Mexico District Office, the University
of New Mexico and Sandia National Laboratories; $2,000,000 is
provided for innovative technology demonstrations for urban
flooding and channel restoration in Nevada. These
demonstrations will be conducted in close coordination and
cooperation with the Urban Water Research Program of the Desert
Research Institute and the University of New Mexico; and
$1,500,000 is provided for implementation of the Collaborative
Planning and Management Demonstration Program within the
Institute for Water Resources in collaboration with Sandia
National Laboratories and the Idaho National Laboratory.
CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL
Appropriations, 2006..................................\1\ $2,348,280,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 1,555,000,000
House allowance......................................... 1,947,171,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,042,429,000
\1\ Excludes emergency appropriations of $650,817,000
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 Committee has previously stated its rejection of the
administration's proposal to move projects from this account to
the Operations and Maintenance account. Due to constrained
funding, the Committee reduced the requested amounts for some
administration projects. This should not be perceived as a lack
of support for any of these projects, rather it is an attempt
by the Committee to balance out the program across the Nation
and fund most of the more than 500 projects or studies that
were funded by Congress in the fiscal year 2006 Energy and
Water Appropriations Act but were not addressed by the
administration proposal.
Even with a more than $400,000,000 increase to the Corps'
accounts, the Committee is unable to address all of the needs.
By the Committee's estimate, only about 55-60 percent of the
needed funding is available for this account. Construction
schedules will slip due to this constrained funding. This will
result in deferred benefits to the national economy. The
Committee does not believe that we can prioritize our way out
of this problem. Adequate resources have been denied for too
long. Only providing adequate resources for these national
investments will resolve this situation.
The Committee has included a limited number of new
construction starts as well as provided completion funding for
a number of projects. As in the General Investigations account,
the Committee has embraced the traditional view of new starts.
New starts are generally defined as those projects that have
not received Construction, General funding in the past. The
Committee has included all of the administration's proposed new
construction starts, including the major rehabilitation
projects that were proposed for funding in the Operations and
Maintenance account.
The appropriation provides funds for the Continuing
Authorities Program (projects which do not require specific
authorizing legislation), which includes projects for flood
control (section 205), emergency streambank and shoreline
protection (section 14), beach erosion control (section 103),
mitigation of shore damages (section 111), navigation projects
(section 107), snagging and clearing (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, the House allowance and the approved
Committee allowance are shown on the following table:
CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget House Committee
Project title estimate allowance recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA
MOBILE HARBOR, AL............................................... 2,069 2,600 2,069
TUSCALOOSA, AL.................................................. .............. .............. 5,000
WALTER F GEORGE POWERPLANT, AL & GA (REPLACEMENT)............... 5,000 5,000 5,000
ALASKA
AKUTAN HARBOR, AK............................................... .............. .............. 9,000
ALASKA COASTAL EROSION, AK...................................... .............. .............. 5,000
CHIGNIK HARBOR, AK.............................................. 5,000 .............. 5,000
FALSE PASS HARBOR. AK........................................... .............. .............. 500
HAINES HARBOR, AK............................................... .............. .............. 1,000
NOME HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS, AK.................................... .............. .............. 3,000
SAND POINT HARBOR, AK........................................... 3,500 3,500 5,500
SITKA BREAKWATER, AK............................................ .............. .............. 6,300
ST. PAUL HARBOR, AK............................................. .............. .............. 3,000
UNALASKA HARBOR, AK............................................. .............. .............. 10,000
ARIZONA
NOGALES, AZ..................................................... .............. 1,000 3,000
RIO DEL FLAG, FLAGSTAFF, AZ..................................... .............. 1,500 3,000
RIO SALADA, PHOENIX AND TEMPE REACHES, AZ....................... .............. 8,400 ..............
TRES RIOS, AZ................................................... .............. 2,000 ..............
TUCSON DRAINAGE AREA, PIMA COUNTY, AZ........................... .............. 2,000 4,000
ARKANSAS
MONTGOMERY POINT LOCK AND DAM, AR............................... 14,000 14,000 13,000
MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, AR & OK........ .............. 300 ..............
RED RIVER BELOW DENISON DAM, LA, AR, OK, & TN................... .............. .............. 2,500
RED RIVER EMERGENCY BANK PROTECTION, AR & LA.................... .............. .............. 4,000
CALIFORNIA
AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (COMMON FEATURES), CA.................. .............. .............. 17,400
AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM MINI RAISE), CA............ .............. .............. 23,400
AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM MODIFICATION), CA.......... .............. .............. 6,000
AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED, CA.................................... 46,800 49,800 ..............
CALFED LEVEE STABILITY PROGRAM, CA.............................. .............. .............. 6,000
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CA....................................... .............. 1,000 ..............
CITY OF CORONADO TRANSBAY PROJECT, CA........................... .............. .............. 500
CORTE MADERA CREEK, CA.......................................... .............. 200 200
FARMINGTON GROUNDWATER, CA...................................... .............. 300 ..............
GUADALUPE RIVER, CA............................................. 5,000 6,700 3,000
HAMILTON AIRFIELD WETLANDS RESTORATION, CA...................... 11,700 11,700 10,000
HARBOR/SOUTH BAY WATER RECYCLING PROJECT, CA.................... .............. 800 4,000
HEACOCK & CACTUS CHANNELS....................................... .............. 900 ..............
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CA............................ 5,564 5,564 5,564
LOS ANGELES HARBOR DEEPENING, CA................................ .............. 2,000 1,000
MID-VALLEY AREA LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA........................ .............. .............. 475
MURRIETA CREEK, CA.............................................. .............. 2,000 2,000
NAPA RIVER, CA.................................................. 9,000 11,000 11,000
OAKLAND HARBOR (50 FOOT PROJECT), CA............................ 43,500 43,500 36,000
PETALUMA RIVER, CA.............................................. .............. 3,200 ..............
PLACER COUNTY SUB-REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT, CA............. .............. 2,000 ..............
PORT OF LONG BEACH (DEEPENING), CA.............................. 5,700 .............. 5,000
SACRAMENTO AREA, CA............................................. .............. 7,000 ..............
SACRAMENTO RIVER BANK PROTECTION PROJECT, CA.................... 10,960 15,000 10,960
SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL........................ .............. .............. 500
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TO STOCKTON, CA............................... .............. .............. 700
SAN LORENZO RIVER, CA........................................... .............. 500 ..............
SAN LUIS REY, CA................................................ .............. .............. 1,000
SAN RAMON VALLEY RECYCLED WATER, CA............................. .............. .............. 3,000
SANTA ANA RIVER MAINSTEM, CA.................................... 54,080 56,080 46,000
SANTA MARIA RIVER LEVEE, CA..................................... .............. .............. 300
SOUTH PERRIS PROJECT, CA........................................ .............. 2,000 ..............
SOUTH SACRAMENTO COUNTY STREAMS, CA............................. 7,313 9,700 7,313
STOCKTON METRO FLOOD CONTROL REIMBURSE, CA...................... .............. 1,500 ..............
SUCCESS DAM, TULE RIVER, CA (DAM SAFETY)........................ 25,000 25,000 25,000
SURFSIDE-SUNSET-NEWPORT BEACH, CA \1\........................... .............. 1,200 1,200
UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER, CA....................................... .............. .............. 1,000
UPPER NEWPORT, CA............................................... .............. 5,000 5,000
YUBA BASIN, CA.................................................. .............. 1,500 1,500
DELAWARE
DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, ROOSEVELT INLET TO LEWES \1\............ .............. 60 60
DELAWARE COAST, BETHANY BEACH TO SOUTH BETHATNY BEACH........... .............. .............. 3,000
DELAWARE COAST, CAPE HENLOPEN TO FENWICK ISLAND, DE............. .............. .............. 120
DELAWARE COAST, CAPE HENLOPEN TO FENWICK ISLAND, REHOBETH BEACH/ .............. .............. 100
DEWEY BEACH, DE................................................
DELAWARE COAST PROTECTION, DE................................... .............. .............. 360
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
WASHINGTON, DC & VICINITY....................................... 320 .............. 320
FLORIDA
BREVARD COUNTY SHORE PROTECTION PROJECT, FL (GRR)............... .............. .............. 315
BREVARD COUNTY, FL (CANAVERAL HARBOR) \1\....................... .............. 10,000 8,000
BROWARD COUNTY, FL.............................................. .............. 750 750
CEDAR HAMMOCK, WARES CREEK, FL.................................. 6,000 6,000 6,000
CENTRAL & SOUTH FLORIDA......................................... .............. .............. 55,000
DADE COUNDY, FL................................................. .............. .............. 1,500
EVERGLADES & SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION................ .............. .............. 8,289
FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY, FL.................................. .............. 1,300 3,000
FORT PIERCE BEACH, FL........................................... .............. .............. 1,500
HERBERT HOOVER DIKE, FL (SEEPAGE CONTROL)....................... 39,884 39,884 39,884
JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL......................................... .............. 200 500
KISSIMMEE RIVER, FL............................................. .............. .............. 40,000
LAKE WORTH SAND TRANSFER PLANT, FL \1\.......................... .............. 2,000 2,000
LEE COUNTY, FL.......................................... .............. .............. 1,500
MIAMI HARBOR, FL................................................ .............. .............. 500
NASSAU COUNTY, FL............................................... .............. 6,500 6,000
PINELLAS COUNTY, FL \1\......................................... .............. 1,000 ..............
PONCE DE LEON INLET, FL......................................... .............. .............. 1,000
PORT EVERGLADES, FL............................................. .............. 250 250
SOUTH FLORIDA EVERGLADES ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, FL.............. 164,000 164,000 ..............
ST JOHNS COUNTY, FL \1\......................................... .............. 200 200
ST LUCIE INLET, FL.............................................. .............. 1,000 1,000
TAMPA HARBOR, BIG BEND, FL...................................... 8,500 8,500 7,500
TAMPA HARBOR, SUTTON CHANNEL, FL................................ .............. .............. 1,000
GEORGIA
ATLANTA, GA (EI)................................................ .............. .............. 1,000
BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA............................................ .............. 19,700 15,000
OATES CREEK, AUGUSTA, GA (DEF CORR)............................. .............. 750 750
RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA & SC......................... 4,600 .............. 4,600
TYBEE ISLAND, GA................................................ .............. 2,000 2,000
HAWAII
HAWAII WATER MANAGEMENT, HI..................................... .............. .............. 1,500
IAO STREAM FLOOD CONTROL, MAUI, HI (DEF CORR)................... .............. .............. 300
KIKIAOLA SMALL BOAT HARBOR, KAUAI, HI........................... .............. .............. 14,500
IDAHO
RURAL IDAHO ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE........................ .............. 3,000 4,800
ILLINOIS
CHAIN OF ROCKS CANAL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL (DEF CORR).......... 6,800 6,800 6,800
CHICAGO SHORELINE, IL........................................... 10,000 10,000 10,000
COOK COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE........................ .............. 750 ..............
DES PLAINES RIVER, IL........................................... 6,000 7,000 6,000
EAST ST LOUIS, IL............................................... 2,960 .............. 2,960
LOCK NO 27, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL (REHAB) \1\................... .............. 3,400 2,500
LOCK & DAM 24, IL & MO (REHAB) \1\.............................. .............. 3,900 3,000
MCCOOK AND THORNTON RESERVOIRS, IL.............................. 45,000 45,000 36,000
NUTWOOD DRAINAGE & LEVEE DISTRICT, IL........................... .............. .............. 300
OLMSTED LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, IL & KY...................... 110,000 110,000 90,000
UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER RESTORATION, IL, IA, MN, MO &........... 26,800 20,000 16,000
WOOD RIVER DRAINAGE & LEVEE DISTRICT, IL........................ .............. 250 ..............
INDIANA
CADY MARSH DITCH, LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, IN...................... .............. 4,000 ..............
CALUMET REGION ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE..................... .............. 3,500 ..............
INDIANA HARBOR (CONFINED DISPOSAL FACILITY), IN................. .............. .............. 15,000
INDIANA SHORELINE, IN........................................... .............. 1,000 ..............
INDIANAPOLIS, WHITE RIVER (NORTH), IN........................... 2,787 .............. 2,787
INDIANAPOLIS ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE....................... .............. 500 ..............
JOHN T MEYERS LOCK & DAM, IN & KY............................... .............. 2,000 ..............
LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, IN........................................ 14,000 15,500 12,000
MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN (SEEPAGE CONTROL)......................... 6,000 6,000 6,000
IOWA
DES MOINES RECREATIONAL RIVER & GREENBELT, IA................... .............. 6,000 3,000
LOCK & DAM 11, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IA (REHAB) \1\................ .............. 20,300 18,320
LOCK & DAM 19, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IA (REHAB) \1\................ .............. 5,444 5,444
MISSOURI R FISH & WILDLIFE MITIGATION IA, KS, MO, MT, NE, ND, SD .............. .............. 54,000
MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, IA, NE, KS & MO.................... 2,500 .............. 2,500
PERRY CREEK, IA................................................. 1,500 1,500 1,500
KANSAS
TURKEY CREEK BASIN, KS & MO..................................... 4,000 4,000 5,000
TUTTLE CREEK LAKE, KS (DAM SAFETY).............................. 38,000 38,000 38,000
KENTUCKY
GREENUP LOCKS & DAM, OHIO RIVER, KY & OH........................ .............. 200 ..............
KENTUCKY LOCK & DAM, KY......................................... .............. 10,000 20,000
MARKLAND LOCKS & DAM, KY & IN (REHAB) \1\....................... .............. 8,000 6,000
MCALPINE LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, KY & IN..................... 70,000 70,000 57,000
METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, BEARGRASS CREEK, KY.................... 600 600 600
METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, POND CREEK, KY......................... 3,948 3,948 3,948
ROUGH RIVER LAKE, KY (DAM SAFETY ASSURANCE)..................... 1,991 1,991 1,991
SOUTHERN & EASTERN KENTUCKY, KY................................. .............. 1,000 ..............
WOLF CREEK, KY (SEEPAGE CONTROL)................................ 31,000 31,000 31,000
LOUISIANA
ASCENSION PARISH, LA (EI)....................................... .............. .............. 375
COMITE RIVER, LA................................................ .............. 15,000 8,000
EAST BATON ROUGE, LA (FC)....................................... .............. 5,000 1,000
EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH, LA (EI)................................ .............. .............. 750
IBERIA PARISH, LA (EI).......................................... .............. .............. 375
INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL LOCK, LA.......................... .............. 18,000 18,000
J BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA................................. 1,500 2,000 15,000
LIVINGSTON PARISH, LA (EI)...................................... .............. .............. 500
OUACHITA RIVER LEVEES, LA....................................... .............. .............. 1,960
MARYLAND
ANACOSTIA RIVER & TRIBURARIES, MD & DC.......................... .............. .............. 308
ASSATEAGUE, MD \1\.............................................. .............. 2,000 2,000
ATLANTIC COAST OF MARYLAND, MD.................................. .............. .............. 200
CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RECOVERY, MD & VA......................... .............. 2,000 2,000
BALTIMORE METRO-GWYNNS FALLS, MD................................ .............. .............. 1,500
CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM, MD, VA & PA............... .............. .............. 1,000
CUMBERLAND, MD.................................................. .............. .............. 500
LOWER POTOMAC ESTUARY, ST. MARY'S COUNTY, MD.................... .............. .............. 300
POPLAR ISLAND, MD............................................... .............. .............. 13,100
MASSACHUSETTS
MUDDY RIVER, BOSTON & BROOKLINE, MA............................. .............. 1,000 1,000
MICHIGAN
GENESSEE COUNTY, MI............................................. .............. 500 500
GEORGE W. KUHN DRAIN RETENTION FACILITY, MI..................... .............. .............. 300
GREAT LAKE FISHERY & ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION...................... .............. .............. 500
NEGAUNEE, MI.................................................... .............. .............. 375
SAULT STE. MARIE, MI............................................ .............. 2,200 1,500
MINNESOTA
BRECKENRIDGE, MN................................................ .............. 3,000 1,500
MILLE LACS, MN.................................................. .............. 3,000 ..............
NORTHEAST, MN................................................... .............. 1,000 ..............
MISSISSIPPI
DESOTO COUNTY, MS............................................... .............. 2,000 7,000
JACKSON COUNTY WATER SUPPLY PROJECTS, MS........................ .............. .............. 5,500
MISSISSIPPI, MS (EI)............................................ .............. .............. 25,000
MISSOURI
BLUE RIVER BASIN, KANSAS CITY, MO............................... 2,000 2,000 2,000
BLUE RIVER CHANNEL, KANSAS CITY, MO............................. 9,750 9,750 9,000
BOIS BRULE, MO.................................................. .............. 1,060 1,560
CAPE GIRARDEAU, MO.............................................. .............. 3,200 ..............
CHESTERFIELD, MO................................................ .............. 150 1,400
CLEARWATER LAKE, MO (SEEPAGE CONTROL)........................... 28,000 28,000 25,000
MISS RIVER BTWN THE OHIO AND MO RIVERS (REG WORKS), MO.......... 7,560 8,560 7,560
MISSOURI AND MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI RIVER ENHANCEMENT, MO........... .............. .............. 1,000
MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, IA, NE, KS & MO (L-142)............ .............. .............. 100
STE. GENEVIEVE, MO.............................................. .............. .............. 375
MONTANA
FT. PECK DAM & LAKE, MT......................................... .............. .............. 800
RURAL MONTANA, MT (EI).......................................... .............. .............. 4,200
NEBRASKA
ANTELOPE CREEK, LINCOLN, NE..................................... 7,500 7,500 7,500
SAND CREEK WATERSHED, NE........................................ .............. .............. 1,000
WESTERN SARPY & CLEAR CREEK, NE................................. .............. .............. 1,000
NEVADA
RURAL NEVADA, NV................................................ .............. 400 25,000
TAHOE BASIN RESTORATION, NV & CA (EI)........................... .............. .............. 3,500
TROPICANA AND FLAMINGO WASHES, NV............................... 12,400 12,400 22,000
NEW JERSEY
BARNEGAT INLET TO LITTLE EGG HARBOR, NJ......................... 2,500 6,000 2,500
CAPE MAY INLET TO LOWER TOWNSHIP, NJ \1\........................ .............. 360 360
DELAWARE RIVER MAIN HCANNEL, NJ, PA, & DE....................... .............. .............. 2,500
GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET & PECK BEACH, NJ......................... .............. .............. 2,000
HUDSON-RARITAN ESTUARY, HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS, NJ.............. .............. .............. 615
JOSEPH G. MINISH PASSAIC RIVER WATERFRONT PARK, NJ.............. .............. .............. 2,500
LOWER CAPE MAY MEADOWS, CAPE MAY POINT, NJ \1\.................. .............. 130 130
MANASQUAN INLET TO BARNEGAT INLET, NJ........................... .............. 100 ..............
MOLLY ANN'S BROOK AT HALEDON, PROSPECT PARK AND PATERS.......... 600 600 600
PASSAIC RIVER PRESERVATION OF NATURAL STORAGE, NJ............... .............. 4,000 1,800
RAMAPO & MAHAWAH RIVERS, NEW JERSEY & SUFFERN, NY............... .............. .............. 500
RAMAPO RIVER AT OAKLAND, NJ..................................... .............. 455 445
RARITAN BAY & SANDY HOOK BAY, NJ................................ .............. .............. 250
RARITAN BAY & SANDY HOOK BAY, NJ (PORT MONMOUTH)................ .............. .............. 1,000
RARITAN RIVER BASIN, GREENBROOK, NJ............................. .............. 5,000 5,000
SANDY HOOK TO BARNEGAT INLET, NJ................................ .............. .............. 3,000
TOWNSENDS INLET TO CAPE MAY INLET, NJ........................... 5,816 5,816 5,000
NEW MEXICO
ACEQUIAS IRRIGATION SYSTEM, NM.................................. 2,400 2,400 2,400
ALAMOGORDO, NM.................................................. 4,200 4,200 4,200
CENTRAL NEW MEXICO, NM (EI)..................................... .............. .............. 5,000
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE FLOOD PROTECTION, BERNALILLO TO BELEN......... .............. .............. 500
NEW MEXICO, NM (EI)............................................. .............. .............. 5,000
RIO GRANDE FLOODWAY, SAN ACACIA TO BOSQUE DEL APACHE,........... 600 600 800
SW VALLEY, ALBUQUERQUE, NM...................................... .............. .............. 100
NEW YORK
ATLANTIC COAST OF NYC, ROCKAWAY INLET TO NORTON POINT,.......... 2,400 2,400 2,400
FIRE ISLAND INLET TO JONES INLET, NY \1\........................ .............. 5,000 5,000
FIRE ISLAND INLET TO MONTAUK POINT, NY.......................... 2,500 2,500 2,500
JONES INLET TO EAST ROCKAWAY INLET, NY.......................... .............. 500 ..............
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY HARBOR, NY & NJ......................... 90,000 90,000 70,000
NEW YORK CITY WATERSHED, NY..................................... .............. .............. 750
ONONDAGA LAKE, NY............................................... .............. 2,000 500
ORCHARD BEACH, BRONX, NY........................................ .............. 250 ..............
NORTH CAROLINA
BRUNSWICK COUNTY BEACHES, NC.................................... .............. .............. 600
CAROLINA BEACH & KURE BEACH, NC................................. .............. .............. 1,000
DARE COUNTY BEACHES, NC......................................... .............. .............. 2,000
WEST ONSLOW BEACH & RIVER INLET, NC............................. .............. .............. 600
WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC........................................... .............. .............. 10,000
WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, NC.......................................... .............. .............. 300
NORTH DAKOTA
BUFORD-TRENTON IRRIGATION DISTRICT LAND AQUISITION, ND.......... .............. .............. 1,893
DEVILS LAKE WATER SUPPLY........................................ .............. .............. 4,972
GRAND FORKS, ND--EAST GRAND FORKS, MN........................... 12,018 12,018 12,018
MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION...................................... .............. .............. 300
SHEYENNE RIVER, ND.............................................. 1,740 .............. 1,740
OHIO
HOLES CREEK, WEST CARROLLTON, OH................................ .............. .............. 1,355
LOWER GIRARD DAM, OH............................................ .............. 785 ..............
METROPOLITAN REGION OF CINCINNATI, DUCK CREEK, OH............... 5,650 5,650 5,650
MILL CREEK, OH.................................................. 800 800 800
OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE............................... .............. 18,300 ..............
OKLAHOMA
CANTON LAKE, OK (DAM SAFETY).................................... 6,000 6,000 6,000
OREGON
COLUMBIA RIVER CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS, OR & WA.................... 15,000 15,000 15,000
COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY FISHING ACCESS SITES, OR & WA............. 6,300 6,300 6,300
ELK CREEK LAKE, OR.............................................. 1,440 1,440 1,440
LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OR & WA............. 2,200 2,200 2,000
WILLAMETTE RIVER TEMPERATURE CONTROL, OR........................ .............. .............. 2,470
PENNSYLVANIA
EMSWORTH L&D, OHIO RIVER, PA (STATIC INSTABILITY CORRE.......... 17,000 17,000 15,000
JOHNSTOWN, PA................................................... .............. 800 ..............
LOCKS AND DAMS 2, 3 AND 4, MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA................ 62,772 62,772 51,000
NORTHEAST PENNSYLVANIA, PA...................................... .............. 2,000 ..............
PRESQUE ISLE, PA................................................ .............. 200 620
SAW MILL RUN, PITTSBURGH, PA.................................... 2,300 .............. 2,300
SOUTH CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA, PA.................................. .............. 9,000 ..............
SOUTHEAST PENNSYLVANIA INFRASTRUCTURE, PA....................... .............. 1,190 ..............
THREE RIVERS WET WEATHER DEMO PROGRAM, PA....................... .............. .............. 1,000
WYOMING VALLEY, PA (LEVEE RAISING).............................. 5,600 5,600 5,600
PUERTO RICO
ARECIBO RIVER, PR............................................... 8,900 8,900 7,500
PORTUGUES & BUCANA RIVERS, PR................................... .............. .............. 5,000
RIO PUERTO NUEVO, PR............................................ 25,000 25,000 18,000
RHODE ISLAND
FOX POINT HURRICANE BARRIER, RI................................. .............. .............. 1,055
SOUTH CAROLINA
FOLLY BEACH, SC \1\............................................. .............. 25 80
LAKES MARION AND MOULTRIE, SC................................... .............. 7,000 ..............
SOUTH DAKOTA
BIG SIOUX RIVER, SIOUX FALLS, SD................................ .............. .............. 2,000
CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER BRULE SIOUX, SD............... .............. .............. 5,000
TENNESSEE
CHICKAMAUGA LOCK, TN............................................ 27,000 27,000 27,000
TEXAS
BRAYS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX........................................ 20,000 23,000 17,000
CENTRAL CITY, FORT WORTH, UPPER TRINITY RIVER, TX............... .............. 6,000 500
CLEAR CREEK, TX................................................. .............. .............. 1,000
DALLAS FLOODWAY, TX............................................. .............. 5,000 13,000
HOUSTON-GALVESTON NAVIGATION CHANNELS, TX....................... 43,076 43,076 37,000
JOHNSON CREEK, UPPER TRINITY BASIN, ARLINGTON, TX............... 500 500 500
NORTH PADRE ISLAND, TX.......................................... .............. 500 ..............
RED RIVER BASIN CHLORIDE CONTROL, OK, TX, AR & LA............... .............. .............. 1,500
SAN ANTONIO CHANNEL, TX......................................... .............. 2,350 10,000
SIMS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX......................................... 22,400 22,400 17,850
TEXAS CITY CHANNEL, TX.......................................... .............. .............. 2,500
UTAH
RURAL UTAH, UT (EI)............................................. .............. .............. 10,000
VERMONT
BURLINGTON HARBOR, VT........................................... .............. .............. 500
LAKE CHAMPLAIN WATERSHED, VT.................................... .............. .............. 3,000
VERMONT DAMS REMEDIATION, VT.................................... .............. .............. 200
VIRGINIA
JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA......................................... .............. .............. 425
JOHN H KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA & NC (REPLACEMENT)............ 11,000 11,000 10,000
LAKE MERRIWEATHER, GOSHEN DAM & SPILLWAY, VA.................... .............. .............. 1,000
LYNCHBURG (CSO), VA............................................. .............. .............. 400
NORFOLK HARBOR, VA.............................................. .............. 3,400 1,700
RICHMOND COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW, VA............................ .............. .............. 400
ROANOKE RIVER UPPER BASIN, HEADWATERS AREA, VA.................. 8,300 8,300 8,300
SANDBRIDGE, VA.................................................. .............. .............. 2,000
VIRGINIA BEACH HURRICANE PROTECTION, VA......................... .............. 11,700 6,000
WASHINGTON
CHIEF JOSEPH DAM GAS ABATEMENT, VA.............................. .............. .............. 8,000
COLUMBIA RIVER FISHING MITIGATION, WA, OR & ID.................. .............. .............. 83,000
DUWAMISH & GREEN RIVER BASIN, WA................................ .............. .............. 2,000
HOWARD HANSON DAM ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, VA..................... .............. .............. 16,658
LOWER SNAKE RIVER FISH & WILDLIFE COMPENSATION, WA, OR.......... 850 850 850
MT. ST. HELENS, WA.............................................. .............. 500 500
MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA (DAM SAFETY)............................... 5,470 5,470 5,470
PUGET SOUND ADJACENT WATER, WA.................................. .............. 500 1,500
SHOALWATER BAY, WA.............................................. .............. .............. 1,500
WEST VIRGINIA
BLUESTONE LAKE, WV (DAM SAFETY)................................. 15,200 15,200 15,200
GREENBRIER RIVER BASIN, WV...................................... .............. .............. 2,500
ISLAND CREEK AT LOGAN, WV....................................... .............. .............. 150
LEVISA & TUG FORKS, UPPER CUMBERLAND RIVER, WV, VA, KY.......... .............. 20,000 12,800
LOWER MUD RIVER, WV............................................. .............. .............. 750
MARMET LOCK, KANAWHA RIVER, WV.................................. 50,800 50,800 50,800
ROBERT C BYRD LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, WV & OH................ 1,800 1,800 1,800
SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA, WV...................................... .............. 1,000 ..............
WEST VIRGINIA AND PENNSYLVANIA FLOOD CONTROL, WV & PA........... .............. 750 ..............
WINFIELD LOCKS AND DAM, KANAWHA RIVER, WV....................... 4,300 4,300 4,300
WISCONSIN
NORTHERN WISCONSIN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSISTANCE, WI................. .............. 8,000 ..............
ST. CROIX FALLS ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, WI................ .............. 500 ..............
MISCELLANEOUS
ABANDONED MINE RESTORATION...................................... .............. .............. 746
AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION (SECTION 206)..................... 15,100 25,000 25,000
AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL PROGRAM................................... 3,000 4,000 5,000
BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL--SEC 204/207/933 \1\........ .............. 5,000 4,250
DAM SAFETY AND SEEPAGE/STABILITY CORRECTION PROGRAM............. 11,000 11,000 11,000
DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITY PROGRAM...................... .............. .............. 18,250
EMERGENCY STREAMBANK AND SHORELINE PROTECTION (SECTION.......... 1,330 15,000 12,000
EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION.......................................... 21,000 21,000 21,000
ESTUARY RESTORATION PROGRAM (PUBLIC LAW 106-457)................ 5,000 .............. 5,000
FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS (SECTION 205)............................ 16,075 29,933 45,000
INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD--BOARD EXPENSE..................... 40 40 40
INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD--CORPS EXPENSE..................... 170 170 170
NAVIGATION MITIGATION PROJECTS (SEC. 111) \1\................... .............. 2,500 1,250
NAVIGATION PROJECTS (SECTION 107)............................... 845 8,000 8,000
PROJECT MODIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE ENVIRONME.......... 15,000 25,000 25,000
REPROGRAMMING INVESTMENT FUND................................... .............. 40,000 ..............
SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL DEVELOPMENT AND DEMO PROGRAM.......... .............. .............. 5,000
SHORE PROTECTION PROJECTS (SECTION 103)......................... 550 2,000 5,000
SNAGGING AND CLEARING PROJECTS (SEC 208)........................ .............. 500 500
SUSPENSION FUND................................................. 41,372 .............. ..............
TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM...................................... .............. .............. 1,000
USE OF PRIOR YEAR BALANCES...................................... .............. .............. -6,472
REDUCTION FIR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS & SLIPPAGE.................... .............. .............. -81,468
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Construction....................................... 1,555,000 1,947,171 2,042,429
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Project contained in O&M budget request.
Tuscaloosa, Alabama.--The Committee recommends $5,000,000
for the relocation project at Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
Akutan Harbor, Alaska.--The Committee recommendation
includes $5,000,000 to initiate construction of this project.
Alaska Coastal Erosion, Alaska.--The Committee
recommendation provides $5,000,000 for Alaska Coastal Erosion.
The following communities are eligible recipients of these
funds: Kivalina, Newtok, Shishmaref, Koyukuk, Point Hope, and
Unalakleet. Section 117 of Public Law 108-447 will apply to
this project.
Unalaska, Alaska.--The Committee provides $10,000,000 to
initiate construction.
Tucson Drainage Area, Arizona.--The Committee provides
$4,000,000 for construction of this project.
Red River Below Denison Dam, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma
and Texas.--The Committee provides $2,500,000 to continue levee
rehabilitation work in Arkansas and Louisiana.
Red River Emergency Bank Protection, Arkansas and
Louisiana.--The Committee provides $4,000,000 for bank
stabilization along the Red River below Index, Arkansas.
American River Watershed, California.--The Committee has
chosen not to combine the various, separately authorized,
components of the project into a single line item as was
proposed in the budget. The Committee believes that it is
prudent to maintain visibility of the various project elements
in the budget process.
American River Watershed (Folsom Dam Miniraise),
California.--The Committee provides $23,400,000. Within the
funds provided, $15,000,000 is for construction of the bridge.
CALFED Levee Stability Program, California.--The Committee
recommendation includes $6,000,000 to initiate this program.
Within the funds provided, the Committee has provided $500,000
for the Corps to coordinate and complete within 6 months a
review of Delta levees emergency preparedness and response
planning with appropriate Federal and State agencies. The
review will address preparation and response to protect (1)
life and property within the Delta and (2) statewide interests
reliant on water and other resources of the Delta, including
measures to prevent salt water contamination of fresh water
supplies consistent with the Delta Levee Stability Program High
Priority, Priority Group A projects.
Mid Valley Area Levee Reconstruction, California.--The
Committee recommendation includes $475,000 for a limited
reevaluation report as well as other necessary studies in
advance of reconstruction.
Oakland Harbor, California.--The Committee recommends
$36,000,000 to continue construction of this project. The
reduction made to this project should not be viewed as any
diminution of support for this project, rather an attempt to
balance out the Corps of Engineers nationwide program among the
various missions of the Corps.
Santa Ana River, California.--The Committee provides
$46,000,000 to continue construction of this project. The
reduction made to this project should not be viewed as any
diminution of support for this project, rather an attempt to
balance out the Corps of Engineers nationwide program among the
various missions of the Corps.
Upper Guadalupe River, California.--The Committee
recommendation includes $5,000,000 to continue construction of
this project.
Delaware Bay Coastline, Bethany Beach to South Bethany
Beach, Delaware.--$3,000,000 is provided for construction of
this shore protection project.
Delaware Coast, Cape Henlopen to Fenwick Island,
Delaware.--The Committee has included $1,700,000 to continue
construction of this project.
Washington, DC and Vicinity, District of Columbia.--The
Committee provides $320,000 to initiate construction as
proposed in the budget request.
Brevard County Shore Protection Project, Florida.--The
Committee recommendation includes $315,000 for continuation of
the General Reevaluation Report.
Everglades and South Florida Ecosystem Restoration,
Florida.--The Committee has chosen not to combine the various,
separately authorized components of the project into a single
line item as was proposed in the budget. The Committee believes
that it is prudent to maintain visibility of the various
project elements in the budget process. The reduction made to
the various component projects under this heading should not be
viewed as any diminution of support for this project, rather an
attempt to balance out the Corps of Engineers nationwide
program among the various missions of the Corps.
The Committee has chosen not to fund the $35,000,000
request for the Modified Waters Delivery Plan as proposed in
the budget. The Committee does not believe that it is
appropriate for the Corps to fund this work. As the work
involved primarily benefits Everglades National Park, budgeting
for this work should be continued by the Interior Department as
has been past practice. The Committee has included legislative
language that limits the Corps of Engineers share of this
project to the amount previously appropriated.
The Committee directs the administration to include the
Modified Waters Delivery Plan funding in the Interior budget in
future budget submissions.
Central and South Florida, Florida.--Within the funds
provided, the Corps shall continue work on the Upper St. Johns
River project.
Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements, Florida.--The
Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000 for continued
implementation of this project. The Committee urges the
administration to budget for this project due to the
interrelationship of this work to the Everglades Restoration
project, Biscayne Bay and southern Florida's nearshore waters.
Jacksonville Harbor, Florida.--The Committee has provided
$500,000 to continue work on the General Reevaluation Report.
Tampa Harbor, Florida.--$7,500,000 is provided for the Big
Bend Channel and $1,000,000 is for the Sutton Channel.
Atlanta, Georgia.--The Committee recommendation includes
$1,000,000 to continue this project.
Brunswick Harbor, Georgia.--The Committee includes
$15,000,000 to continue construction of this project.
Oates Creek, Richmond County, Georgia.--The Committee
includes $750,000 to continue construction of this project.
Tybee Island, Georgia.--The Committee recommendation
provides $2,000,000 for the next scheduled renourishment.
Rural Idaho Environmental Infrastructure, Idaho.--The
Committee provides $4,800,000 for this project. Within the
funds provided the Corps should give consideration to projects
at Emmett, Burley, Deary, Rupert, Donnelly, Eastern Idaho
Regional Water Authority, and Smelterville. Other communities
that meet the program criteria should be considered as funding
allows.
Des Plaines River, Illinois.--The Committee includes
$6,000,000 to continue construction of this project.
McCook and Thornton Reservoirs, Illinois.--The Committee
includes $36,000,000 for continued construction of this
project. The reduction made to this project should not be
viewed as any diminution of support for this project, rather an
attempt to balance out the Corps of Engineers nationwide
program among the various missions of the Corps.
Olmsted Locks and Dam, Ohio River, Illinois and Kentucky.--
The Committee provides $90,000,000 to continue construction of
this project. The reduction made to this project should not be
viewed as any diminution of support for this project, rather an
attempt to balance out the Corps of Engineers nationwide
program among the various missions of the Corps. None of the
funds provided for the Olmsted Locks and Dam Project are to be
used to reimburse the Claims and Judgment Fund.
Indiana Harbor (Confined Disposal Facility), Indiana.--The
Committee has retained funding for this project in the
Construction, General account rather than moving it to the
Operations and Maintenance account as proposed in the budget.
Missouri Fish and Wildlife Recovery, Iowa, Kansas,
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota.--
The Committee provides $54,000,000 for this project.
Legislative language is included in the bill that accompanies
this report to make modifications to the Intake Dam in order to
provide additional habitat for the pallid sturgeon.
Turkey Creek, Kansas and Missouri.--The Committee
recommendation includes $5,000,000 to continue construction of
this project.
Kentucky Lock and Dam, Tennessee River, Kentucky.--The
Committee recommendation includes $20,000,000 to continue
construction of this project.
McAlpine Locks and Dam, Ohio River, Kentucky and Indiana.--
The Committee has provided $57,000,000 to continue construction
of this project. The reduction made to this project should not
be viewed as any diminution of support for this project, rather
an attempt to balance out the Corps of Engineers nationwide
program among the various missions of the Corps.
Inner Harbor Lock and Dam, Louisiana.--The Committee has
included $18,000,000 to continue construction of this project.
J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Louisiana.--The Committee has
provided $15,000,000 for navigation channel refinement
features, land purchases and development for mitigation of
project impacts, and construction of project recreation and
appurtenant features.
Ouachita River Levees, Louisiana.--The Committee
recommendation includes $1,960,000 to complete the project.
Chesapeake Bay Environmental Program, Maryland,
Pennsylvania and Virginia.--The Committee has included
$1,000,000 for continuation of this project. Within the funds
provided, $118,000 is included to continue the environmental
studies concerning non-native oysters.
Chesapeake Bay Oyster Recovery, Maryland and Virginia.--The
Committee includes $2,000,000 to continue construction of this
project.
Fort Peck Dam and Lake, Montana.--The Committee
recommendation includes $800,000 for continuation of Fort Peck
cabin sales.
Rural Montana, Montana.--The Committee provides $4,200,000
for this project. Within the funds provided the Corps should
give consideration to the following projects: Crow Tribe Water
and Wastewater System, Cabinet Heights Wastewater Collection
Systems, Helena-Missouri River Water Treatment Plant, Ranch
Water District, Bigfork, Froid Water System Improvement, Town
of Medicine Lake, County Water District of Billings Heights,
Power Water System improvements, Seely Lake Sewer, Greater
Woods Bay Wastewater System. Other communities that meet the
program criteria should be considered as funding allows.
Sand Creek, Nebraska.--The Committee includes $1,000,000 to
continue construction of this project.
Rural Nevada, Nevada.--The Committee recommendation
provides $25,000,000 for this project. Within the funds
provided the Corps should give consideration to projects at
North Lemmon Valley, Spanish Springs Valley Phase II, Huffaker
Hills Water Conservation, Lawton-Verdi, Boulder City, Lyon
County, Gerlach, Searchlight, Incline Village, Esmeralda
County, Churchill County, West Wendover, Yearington, Virgin
Valley Water District, Lovelock, Truckee Meadows Water
Authority, McGill-Ruth Consolidated Sewer and Water District,
Carlin, Moapa, Eldorado Valley, Ely and Carson City. Other
communities that meet the program criteria should be considered
as funding allows.
Tropicana and Flamingo Washes, Nevada.--The Committee
recommendation includes $22,000,000 to continue construction of
this flood control project. Within the funds provided
$9,600,000 is provided for work performed in accordance with
section 211 of Public Law 104-303.
Ramapo River at Oakland, New Jersey.--$445,000 is included
for this project.
Raritan River Basin, Green Brook Sub-basin, New Jersey.--
The Committee includes $5,000,000 to continue construction of
this project.
Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey.--The Committee
provides $3,000,000 to continue construction of this project.
Acequias Irrigation System, New Mexico.--The Committee
provides $2,400,000 to continue restoration of these historic
irrigation distribution systems.
Central New Mexico, New Mexico.--The Committee includes
$5,000,000 to continue construction of this project.
New Mexico [EI], New Mexico.--The Committee includes
$5,000,000 to continue construction of this project.
Buford Trenton Irrigation District, North Dakota.--The
Committee recommendation includes $1,893,000 to complete
construction of this project.
Locks and Dams 2, 3, and 4, Monongahela River,
Pennsylvania.--The Committee recommendation includes
$51,000,000 to continue construction of this project. The
reduction made to this project should not be viewed as any
dimunition of support for this project, rather an attempt to
balance out the Corps of Engineers nationwide program among the
various missions of the Corps.
Presque Isle, Pennsylvania.--The Committee provides
$620,000 to continue this project.
Big Sioux River, South Dakota.--The Committee includes
$2,000,000 to continue construction of this project.
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux, South
Dakota.--The Committee notes that title IV of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1999, Public Law 106-53 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. The Committee
includes $5,000,000 for this effort. 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 the remaining funds as directed by title IV to the
State of South Dakota, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the
Lower Brule Sioux Tribe.
Chickamauga Lock, Tennessee.--The Committee provides
$27,000,000 to continue construction of this project.
Central City, Fort Worth, Upper Trinity River Basin,
Texas.--The Committee recommendation includes $500,000 for the
Central City, Fort Worth, Texas, project. Within the funds
provided, the conferees direct the Corps of Engineers to
investigate the technical merits of combining the project with
the project for environmental restoration, Riverside Oxbow,
Fort Worth, Texas, described in the Report of the Chief of
Engineers dated May 29, 2003. In conducting this investigation,
the Corps of Engineers shall not conduct a feasibility level
review, but shall investigate the technical advantages,
environmental acceptability, the opportunities to achieve
synergy between the two projects and the views of the local
interests related to combining the projects. The Chief of
Engineers shall furnish a report containing his findings on
this matter within 90 days of enactment of this act. While
conducting this review, the Committee expects the Corps of
Engineers to continue to pursue design and construction
activities on the authorized Central City project in an
expeditious manner, maintaining all established project
schedules.
Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels, Texas.--The
Committee provides $37,000,000 for continued construction of
this project.
Sabine-Neches Waterway, Texas.--The Committee Expects the
Report of the Chief of Engineers for the Sabine-Neches
Waterway, Texas project for navigation and other allied
purposes to be expedited and completed by December 2006.
Red River Basin Chloride Control, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas
and Louisiana.--The Committee includes $1,500,000 to continue
construction.
Rural, Utah. Utah.--The Committee recommendation includes
$10,000,000 to continue construction of this project.
Burlington Harbor, Vermont.--The Committee includes
$500,000 to initiate removal of oil bollards in the harbor.
Columbia River Fish Recovery, Washington, Oregon, and
Idaho.--The Committee has chosen not to combine the various,
separately authorized, components of the project into a single
line item as was proposed in the budget. The Committee believes
that it is prudent to maintain visibility of the various
project elements in the budget process and has therefore funded
the three traditional line items combined in this heading in
the budget.
Mud Mountain, Washington.--Within the funds provided, the
Corps is directed to use up to $1,070,000 to complete final
design activities associated with the fish passage facilities.
Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Cumberland
River, West Virginia, Kentucky and Virginia.--The Committee
provides $12,800,000 for the continuation of the project.
Within the funds provided, the Committee recommendation
includes $5,300,000 for the Buchanan County, Dickenson County,
and Grundy, Virginia elements. Further, the recommendation
includes $7,500,000 for Kermit, Lower Mingo County, McDowell
County, Upper Mingo and Wayne County, West Virginia.
Aquatic Plant Control Program.--The Committee
recommendation includes $5,000,000 for this program. Within the
funds provided, the Committee has provided $600,000 for a cost-
shared program for Lake Gaston, North Carolina and $400,000 for
a cost-shared program for Lake Champlain, Vermont.
Dredged Material Disposal Facilities Program.--The
Committee has retained this program in the Construction,
General account rather than the Operations and Maintenance
account as proposed by the budget. $250,000 is provided above
the budget request for the Wilmington Harbor, Delaware, Dredged
Material Management Plan.
Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material.--The Committee
recommendation includes $5,000,000 for the program. Within the
funds provided, $3,000,000 is for Morehead City Harbor, North
Carolina.
Shore Line Erosion Control Development and Demonstration
Program.--The Committee provides $5,000,000 for this program.
Within the funds provided, $3,000,000 is for the Miami Beach
Alternative Sand Test Beach and Breakwater Project in Florida
and $2,000,000 is for the Sacred Falls Demonstration project in
Hawaii.
Tribal Partnership Program.--The Committee includes
$350,000 for Nevada for cultural resource restoration on
historic Washoe lands; $350,000 for New Mexico to further the
tribal assistance efforts by the Corps in New Mexico and
$300,000 for work with the Shoshone Bannick Tribes of Fort
Hall, Idaho.
Ability to Pay.--Section 103(m) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 Public Law 99-662, 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.
CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM
As was discussed in the fiscal year 2006 Senate Report,
when Congress authorized the initial Continuing Authorities in
the 1940s and 1950s, they were envisioned to provide a small
pool of money available to the Corps of Engineers to solve very
small localized problems without being encumbered by the longer
study and project authorization process. As more programs were
added to the Continuing Authorities Program [CAP] they became
increasingly popular with congressional Members and the public.
More and more congressionally directed projects began to appear
in the annual appropriations bills. At first these
congressionally directed projects were added to the base
program. As more and more of these congressionally directed
projects came into the program it became difficult for these
congressionally directed projects to be added to the base, and
as such, the base program began to shrink. Congressionally
directed projects now dominate all sections of the CAP Program.
Congressionally directed projects have proliferated to such an
extent that several of the sections are over-subscribed.
The Committee tried to address the oversubscribed nature of
some of the CAP sections by instituting a moratorium on new
cost sharing agreements in fiscal year 2006. Unfortunately,
this moratorium did not have the desired effect and the
Committee cannot recommend continuing it for fiscal year 2007.
The Committee now believes that this was a heavy-handed
approach to solving a problem that needed a more flexible
solution.
Prioritization of these projects by the Corps is still
essential. The Committee directs that the Corps should
prioritize projects in the following manner to try to get the
backlog of these projects reduced. The first priority for
funding should be for construction projects that already have
an executed Project Cooperation Agreements. The next priority
should be for projects with executed design agreements. Third
priority would be for those with executed feasibility
agreements. The fourth priority would be for those projects
progressing from design to construction. The fifth priority
would be for projects moving from feasibility to design and the
last priority should be new starts. Priority should be given to
those projects that have demonstrated capability to move
forward. This would include having non-Federal financing in
place and ready to be utilized. The Committee has provided
limited new starts in each of the sections.
After fiscal year 2007, the Committee will no longer
provide any congressional earmarks for the section 14,
Emergency Bank Stabilization authority. By definition these are
projects that are estimated to fail within 9-12 months. As an
``emergency situation'' the Chief of Engineers should have the
responsibility for determining how these funds are expended in
the most efficient and effective manner. Budget justifications
for this section should display the anticipated projects and
associated costs to be undertaken in the budget year as well as
the anticipated resources necessary to address emergencies that
arise in the budget year.
For fiscal year 2007, the Committee will not provide dollar
amounts for the projects that are named in the report. The
Committee directs that the Chief should have 100 percent
reprogramming flexibility within the various sections of the
CAP program in order to address the backlog. This reprogramming
guidance has been addressed in section 101 of the bill
accompanying this report. The Chief should provide a quarterly
report to the Committee displaying by CAP section the project
status and the allocations received by the projects/studies in
the previous quarter.
The Committee is concerned that if the Corps adhered
strictly to the priorities above, that all funding would be
exhausted for construction. Therefore, in order to provide a
mix of studies, design and construction within each CAP section
the Committee directs that funding be generally divided in the
following manner for each of the CAP sections. These
percentages should be considered upper limits in each section,
not absolutes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
CAP Section Available Available for
Funding Construction
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 103........................... $5,000,000 75
Section 107........................... 8,000,000 75
Section 1135.......................... 25,000,000 70
Section 14............................ 12,000,000 80
Sections 204, 207, 933................ 4,250,000 75
Section 205........................... 45,000,000 65
Section 206........................... 25,000,000 70
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even though the Committee is providing a listing of
projects that are of interest, the Corps should develop the
program based on all of the projects in each section whether
named or not. Priorities should be based on the factors
outlined above and should not consider prior year earmarks or a
listing in this report. The Committee understands that funding
in some sections may be insufficient to fund all current
obligations as well as the new projects added by the Committee.
The Corps is directed not to initiate any new continuing
authorities projects. Only projects that have been named in
prior appropriation bills or received prior year funds or are
listed in this bill should be considered for funding.
A listing of CAP projects follows:
Section 14, Emergency Bank Stabilization
Kwethluk, Alaska
27th St. Bridge, Colorado
Powers Boulevard, Colorado
Coal Creek, Monroe County, Iowa
Iowa River, Sac and Fox Tribe, Iowa
Ouachita River, City of Monroe, Louisiana
Tucker Road, East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana
Quoddy Narrows, South Lubec Road, Lubec, Maine
Patuxent River, Patuxent Beach Road, Maryland
Tallahatchie River, Site 3, Tallahatchie County,
Mississippi
Partridge Brook, Westmoreland, New Hampshire
Elizabeth River, Valleyview Road, Hillside, New Jersey
Mt. Pleasant Ave., Malapardis Brook, Township of Hanover,
New Jersey
South Branch Rahway River, Woodbridge, New Jersey
Fort Abercrombie, North Dakota
Tuscarawas County Road 1, Ohio
St. Johns Landfill, Oregon
City of Sunbury, Pennsylvania--Sunbury Riverfront Project
New Castle, Pennsylvania (Neshannock Creek)
Patrick Street to Magic Island, Charleston, West Virginia
Kenosha Harbor Retaining Wall, Kenosha, Wisconsin
Kinnickinnic River Storm Sewer, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin
Section 103 Shoreline Protection
Unalakleet, Alaska
Bay Farm Island Dike, California
Goleta Beach, California
Conquest Preserve, Maryland
Franklin Point Park, Maryland
Mayo Beach Park, Maryland
Pleasure Island, Baltimore County, Maryland
Philadelphia Shipyard Sea Wall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Section 107 Small Navigation Projects
Kahoolawe Small Boat Harbor, Hawaii
North Kohala Navigation Improvements, Hawaii
Port Fourchon Extension, Louisiana
Bass Harbor, Tremont, Maine
Bucks Harbor Navigation Improvement, Machiasport, Maine
Corea Harbor Navigation Improvement, Gouldsboro, Maine
Nanticoke Harbor Jetty/Nanticoke, Maryland
Woods Hole Great Harbor, Falmouth, Massachusetts
Northwestern Michigan College, Traverse City, Michigan
Coos Bay Turning Basin, Oregon
Charlestown Breachway and Ninigret Pond, Rhode Island
Northwest Tennessee Regional Harbor, Tennessee
Tangier Island Jetty, Accomack County, Virginia
Section 111 Mitigation of Shore Damages Attributable to Navigation
Projects
Saco River and Camp Ellis Beach, Saco, Maine
Mobile Pass, Alabama
Section 204, 207, 933 Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material
Blackhawk Bottoms, Pool 19, Burlington, Iowa
Atchafalaya River, Shell Island Pass, Louisiana
Calcasieu River Mile 5 to 14, Cameron Parish, Louisiana
Maumee Bay Habitat Restoration, Ohio
Restoration of the Cat Islands Chain, Green Bay, Wisconsin
Morehead City Harbor, North Carolina
Section 205 Small Flood Control Projects
Fort Yukon, Alaska
Skagway, Alaska
Cosgrove Creek, California
Heacock and Cactus Channels, California
New Hogan Reservoir Re-operation, California
Oak Creek, Florence, Colorado
Ben Hill County, Georgia
Kuliouou Stream, Hawaii
Palai Stream, Hawaii
Waiahole-Waikane Valley, Hawaii
Waiakea Stream, Hawaii
Wailele Stream, Hawaii
White River, Anderson, Indiana
Denison, Iowa
Indian and Dry Run Creeks, Cedar Rapids, Iowa
Mad Creek, Muscatine, Iowa
Red Oak Creek, Iowa
Winnebago River, Mason City, Iowa
Crown Point (Jean Lafitte), Jefferson Parish, Louisiana
Fisher School Basin, Jean Lafitte, Jefferson Parish,
Louisiana
Goose Bayou Basin, Jean Lafitte, Louisiana
Lockport to Larose, Louisiana
Pailet Basin, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana
Rosethorn Basin (Jean Lafitte), Louisiana
Snagging and Clearing, Bayou Sere, Louisiana
Town of Carenco, Lafayette Parish, Louisiana
Elkton, Cecil County, Maryland
North River, Peabody, Massachusetts
Montevideo, Minnesota
McKinney Bayou, Tunica County, Mississippi
Blacksnake Creek, St. Joseph, Missouri
Charleston, Missouri
Little River Diversion, Dutchtown, Missouri
Livingston, Montana
Platte River, Fremont, Nebraska
Platte River, Schuyler, Nebraska
Hatch, New Mexico
Battle Mountain, Nevada
Mill Brook, Highland Park, New Jersey
Poplar Brook, Monmouth County, New Jersey
Upper Passaic River and Tributaries, Long Hill Township,
New Jersey
Gila River, Grant, Hidalgo County, New Mexico
Fargo-Ridgewood Addition, North Dakota
Lower Lycoming Creek, Lycoming County, Pennsylvania
Montoursville Borough, Lycoming County, Pennsylvania
Chattanooga Creek Watershed Study, Tennessee
First Creek, Knoxville, Tennessee
Sandy Creek, Tennessee
West Virginia Statewide Flood Warning System
Williamstown, West Virginia
Root River, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin
Section 206 Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration
Eklutna, Alaska
Northway, Alaska
Brownsville Branch, Arkansas
Upper York Creek Dam Removal and Restoration, California
Arkansas River Fisheries Habitat Restoration, Colorado
North Fork Gunnison River Ecosystem Restoration, Colorado
Tamarisk Eradication, Colorado
Mill River, Stamford, Connecticut
Rose Bay, Florida
Chattahoochee Fall Line Ecosystem Restoration Program,
Georgia
Mokuhinia/Mokuula Ecsystem Restoration, Hawaii
Indian Creek, Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration, Caldwell,
Idaho
Paradise Creek Ecosystem Restoration, Idaho
Emiquon Preserve, Fulton County, Illinois
Squaw Creek Aquatic Restoration, Lake County, Illinois
Duck Creek, Davenport, Iowa
Iowa River, Clear Creek, Iowa City, Iowa
Storm Lake, Iowa
Ventura Marsh at Clear Lake, Iowa
Whitebreast Creek, Iowa
City of Mandeville, Ecosystem Restoration, Louisiana
False River Ecosystem Restoration, Louisiana
University Lakes, Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Anacostia River and Tribs, Maryland and the District of
Columbia, Northwest Branch
Deep Run/Tiber Hudson, Maryland
Paint Branch Fish Passage, Maryland
Parsons Creek, Dorchester County, Maryland
St. Martin's River, Worcester County, Maryland
Milford Pond Restoration, Milford, Massachusetts
Marion Mill Pond, Marion, Michigan
Missouri Stream Restoration Pilot Project, Missouri
Carson River, Nevada
Grovers Mill Pond, New Jersey
Blue Hole Lake, Santa Rosa, New Mexico
Bottomless Lakes State Park, Roswell, New Mexico
Janes-Wallace Memorial Dam, Santa Rosa, New Mexico
Lower Hempstead Harbor, Village of Sea Cliff, Town of North
Hempstead, Nassau County, New York
Manhasset Bay, New York
Soundview Park, New York
Fall Run, Wheeling Creek, Belmont, Ohio
Mineral Bayou Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration, Durant,
Oklahoma
Arrowhead Creek, Oregon
Camp Creek, Oregon
City of York-Codorus Creek, Pennsylvania
Nanticoke Creek Ecosystem Restoration Project, Pennsylvania
North Park Lake Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Project,
Pennsylvania
Sheraden Park and Chartiers Creek, Pennsylvania
Brush Neck Cove, Warwick, Rhode Island
Narrow River, Narragansett, Rhode Island
Ninigret and Cross Mills Ponds, Charlestown, Rhode Island
Ten Mile River, East Providence, Rhode Island
Winnapaug Pond, Westerly, Rhode Island
Jonesborough Watershed, Tennessee
Upper Jordan River Ecosystem Restoration, Utah
West Branch of the Little River, Stowe, Lamoille County,
Vermont
Carpenter Creek, Washington
Squak Valley Park Restoration Project, Washington
Menomonee River Watershed, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin
Tichigan Lake, Waterford, Wisconsin
Section 208 Clearing and Snagging
Upper Bayou Boeuf, Snagging and Clearing, Louisiana
Great Piece Meadows and Pompton River Clearing and
Snagging, Passaic, Essex and Morris Counties, New Jersey
Section 1135
Ditch 28, Arkansas
Millwood Lake, Grassey Lake, Arkansas
Tujunga Wash, California
Delaware Bay, Delaware and New Jersey Oyster Restoration
Delaware City, Delaware
Kaunakakai Stream Environmental Restoration, Hawaii
Kawainui Marsh, Hawaii
Rathbun Lake Habitat Restoration, Iowa
Rathbun Lake Shoreline Restoration, Iowa
Bayou Desiard, Monroe, Louisiana
Bayou Macon, E&W Carroll and Franklin Parishes
Frazier/Whitehorse Oxbow Lake Weir, Louisiana
Lake St. Joseph, Tensas Parish, Louisiana
Hart-Miller Island, Maryland
Broad Meadows Marsh, Quincy, Massachusetts
Blue Valley Wetlands, Jackson County, Missouri
Duck Creek, Stoddard County, Missouri
James River, Needmore Branch, Hidden Valley, Greene County,
Missouri
Lower Truckee River, McCarron Ranch, Nevada
Lincoln Park West, Jersey City, New Jersey
Rahway River Environmental Restoration, Union County, New
Jersey
Ecosystem Revitalization at Route 66, New Mexico
Las Cruces Dam--Environmental Restoration, Dona Ana County,
New Mexico
Riparian Wetland Restoration, Pueblo of Santa Ana
Reservation, New Mexico
Socorro County Bosque Restoration, New Mexico
Erie County, Smokes Creek, New York
Gerritsen Creek, New York
Spring Creek, New York
Whitney Point Lake, Broome County, New York
Fairmount Dam Fishladder, Pennsylvania
Boyd's Marsh (Town Pond), Portsmouth, Rhode Island
Lake Champlain Canal Barrier, Vermont
Lake Champlain Sea Lamprey Barriers, Vermont
Village of Oyster, Northampton County, Virginia
Union Slough, Washington
Wells Lock and Dam, West Virginia
Lake Poygan, Wisconsin
The Committee has included a rescission of $56,046,000 in
unobligated funds from the Construction account of the fiscal
year 2006 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act
(Public Law 109-103).
FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, ARKANSAS, ILLINOIS,
KENTUCKY, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, MISSOURI, AND TENNESSEE
Appropriations, 2006....................................\1\ $396,000,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 278,000,000
House allowance......................................... 290,607,000
Committee recommendation................................ 450,530,000
\1\ Excludes emergency appropriation of $153,750,000.
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
Committee wishes to reiterate that MR&T project is a good model
for the Corps to examine for moving towards a watershed
approach.
The budget request, the House allowance, and the approved
Committee allowance are shown on the following table:
CORPS OF ENGINEERS--FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget House Committee
Project title estimate allowance recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INVESTIGATIONS
ALEXANDRIA TO THE GULF, LA...................................... 200 200 200
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN FLOODWAY SYSTEM LAND STUDY, LA................ 100 100 100
DONALDSONVILLE TO THE GULF, LA.................................. .............. .............. 500
SPRING BAYOU, LA................................................ .............. .............. 500
BAYOU METO, AR.................................................. .............. 1,550 1,550
SOUTHEAST ARKANSAS, AR.......................................... .............. .............. 500
COLDWATER RIVER BELOW ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS........................ 300 300 495
QUIVER RIVER WATERSHED STUDY, MS................................ .............. .............. 100
COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA.............................. 400 400 400
MEMPHIS METRO AREA, STORM WATER MGMT STUDY, TN & MS............. .............. .............. 152
MILLINGTON & VICINITY, TN....................................... .............. 27 ..............
MORGANZA TO THE GULF............................................ .............. 2,800 4,000
CONSTRUCTION
CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN................ 43,092 43,092 47,000
GRAND PRAIRIE, AR............................................... .............. .............. 14,000
MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN........... 40,756 43,756 69,000
ST. FRANCIS BASIN, AR & MO...................................... .............. 4,230 6,000
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA.......................... 4,840 4,840 4,840
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA........................................... 27,600 27,600 27,600
MISSISSIPPI & LOUSIANA ESTUARINE AREAS, MS & LA................. .............. .............. 500
MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA.................................... 3,212 3,212 3,212
ST JOHNS BAYOU AND NEW MADRID FLOODWAY, MO...................... 2,500 4,000 10,000
SUSPENSION FUND................................................. 8,000 .............. ..............
NONCONNAH CREEK, TN & MS........................................ .............. .............. 500
WEST TENNESSEE TRIBUTARIES, TN.................................. .............. .............. 500
WOLF RIVER, MEMPHIS, TN......................................... .............. 500 1,500
YAZOO BACKWATER, LESS ROCKY BAYOU, MS........................... .............. .............. 700
YAZOO BASIN, BACKWATER PUMPING PLANT, MS........................ .............. .............. 15,000
YAZOO BASIN, BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS............................ .............. .............. 7,250
YAZOO BASIN, DELTA HEADWATERS, MS............................... .............. 5,000 25,000
YAZOO BASIN, MAINSTEM, MS....................................... .............. .............. 25
YAZOO BASIN, REFORMULATION UNIT, MS............................. .............. .............. 3,200
YAZOO BASIN, UPPER YAZOO PROJECTS, MS........................... .............. .............. 22,500
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
REGION 8 LOWER MISSISSIPPI...................................... 145,616 147,616 ..............
CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN................ .............. .............. 60,280
HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR.............................. .............. .............. 400
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR............................... .............. .............. 273
LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, NORTH BANK, AR............................ .............. .............. 560
LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, SOUTH BANK, AR............................ .............. .............. 310
MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN........... .............. .............. 8,400
ST FRANCIS BASIN, AR & MO....................................... .............. .............. 9,000
TENSAS BASIN, BOEUF AND TENSAS RIVERS, AR & LA.................. .............. .............. 2,600
WHITE RIVER BACKWATER, AR....................................... .............. .............. 1,200
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL............................... .............. .............. 165
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY............................... .............. .............. 84
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA.......................... .............. .............. 3,059
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA........................................... .............. .............. 18,655
BATON ROUGE HARBOR, DEVIL SWAMP, LA............................. .............. .............. 715
BAYOU COCODRIE AND TRIBUTARIES, LA.............................. .............. .............. 56
BONNET CARRE, LA................................................ .............. .............. 4,596
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA............................... .............. .............. 588
LOWER RED RIVER, SOUTH BANK LEVEES, LA.......................... .............. .............. 66
MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA.................................... .............. .............. 241
OLD RIVER, LA................................................... .............. .............. 11,110
TENSAS BASIN, RED RIVER BACKWATER, LA........................... .............. .............. 4,000
GREENVILLE HARBOUR, MS.......................................... .............. .............. 437
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS............................... .............. .............. 475
YAZOO BASIN, ARKABULTA LAKE, MS................................. .............. .............. 9,251
YAZOO BASIN, BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS............................ .............. .............. 2,209
YAZOO BASIN, ENID LAKE, MS...................................... .............. .............. 12,532
YAZOO BASIN, GREENWOOD, MS...................................... .............. .............. 1,020
YAZOO BASIN, GRENADA LAKE, MS................................... .............. .............. 10,949
YAZOO BASIN, MAIN STEM, MS...................................... .............. .............. 1,929
YAZOO BASIN, SARDIS LAKE, MS.................................... .............. .............. 12,425
YAZOO BASIN, TRIBUTARIES, MS.................................... .............. .............. 830
YAZOO BASIN, WILL M WHITTINGTON AUX CHAN, MS.................... .............. .............. 430
YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO BACKWATER AREA, MS........................... .............. .............. 734
YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO CITY, MS..................................... .............. .............. 770
VICKSBURG HARBOR, MS............................................ .............. .............. 387
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO............................... .............. .............. 195
WAPPAPELLO LAKE, MO............................................. .............. .............. 4,768
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN............................... .............. .............. 70
MEMPHIS HARBOUR, MICKELLAR LAKE, TN............................. .............. .............. 1,013
WOLF RIVER HARBOUR, TN.......................................... .............. .............. 540
MAPPING......................................................... 1,384 1,384 1,384
SAVINGS & SLIPPAGE.............................................. .............. .............. -5,000
-----------------------------------------------
TOTAL..................................................... 278,000 290,607 450,530
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 natural 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.
General Investigations
Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System Land Study, Louisiana.--
The Committee has provided $100,000 to initiate this study as
recommended in the budget request.
Morganza to the Gulf, Louisiana.--The Committee has
provided $4,000,000 to continue Preconstruction Engineering and
Design for this study.
Quiver River, Mississippi.--The Committee has provided
$100,000 to initiate this study.
Memphis Metro, Storm Water Management Study, Tennessee and
Mississippi.--The Committee has provided $152,000 to initiate
this study.
Construction
Grand Prairie, Arkansas.--The Committee has provided
$14,000,000 for continued construction of the project.
Mississippi River Levees, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky,
Louisisna, Mississippi, Missouri and Tennessee.--The Committee
has provided $69,000,000 to continue construction of this
project. Utilizing continuing contracts, where appropriate,
additional funds are provided for construction on St. John's-
New Madrid Levee Closure/Box Culvert, Missouri; complete Willow
Point-Youngs Point, Louisiana Items 445-R and 450-R; land
acquisition New Madrid Levee/Box Culvert; construction on
Carrollton M-104-10L; Lower Venice, 2nd Lift; Tallulah-Magna
Vista Item 474-L; Council Bend Relief Wells; Reid-Bedford-King
Items 424-R and 428-R; Cairo Grade Raise; West Memphis Relief
Wells; Vidalia-Morville Item 361-R; Gammon Relief Wells;
continue miscellaneous relocations and construction of the
LMRMRIS.
Yazoo Basin, Backwater Pumping Plant, Mississippi.--The
Committee has provided $15,000,000 to fully fund pump and motor
contracts and initiate purchase of conservation easements.
Yazoo Basin, Delta Headwaters Project, Mississippi.--The
Committee has provided $25,000,000 to continue construction of
this project.
Yazoo Basin, Upper Yazoo Project, Mississippi.--The
Committee has provided $22,500,000 to complete channel Item 6A;
fully fund channel Item 6B; relocate utility lines; continue
design of channel Item 7; initiate one bridge relocation;
purchase project and mitigation lands; and reforestation.
Maintenance
Mississippi River Levees, Arkasnas, Illinois, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Tennessee.--The Committee
has provided an additional $2,000,000 to resurface levees;
deliver levee gravel to the Laconia Circle Special Levee
District and Laconia District of Desha County.
The Committee has provided additional funding to address
the maintenance backlog at Arkabutla, Sardis, Enid and Grenada
Lakes in Mississippi.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL
Appropriations, 2006..................................\1\ $1,969,110,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 2,258,000,000
House allowance......................................... 2,195,471,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,030,000,000
\1\ Excludes emergency appropriation of $330,717,000.
The Committee continues to believe that it is essential to
provide adequate resources and attention to operation and
maintenance requirements in order to protect the large Federal
investment. Yet, current and projected budgetary constraints
require the Committee to limit the amount of work that can be
accomplished in the fiscal year. In order to cope with the
current situation, the Corps has had to defer or delay
scheduled maintenance activities.
The Committee is very concerned with the downward trend in
the Operation and Maintenance budget. The fiscal year 2007
budget proposal appears to show a significant increase in
funding, but this is due to the migration of projects from the
Construction, General account to the Operations and Maintenance
account. When these items are removed from the O&M account, the
total remaining is a decrease from the fiscal year 2006 enacted
amount. This is the wrong trend for O&M.
Maintenance of our aging water infrastructure inventory
gets more expensive every year, however, it is consistently
underfunded. If this trend continues, the Corps will not be
able to maintain expected levels of service at all of its
projects. The regionalization of the O&M budget this year
effectively disguises the underfunding of O&M projects. The
Committee has maintained its tradition of supporting what the
budget request terms as ``low use harbors and waterways''. The
Committee recognizes the importance of these facilities and
will continue to provide funding for them.
The Port of Lavaca-Point Comfort, Texas is an illustrative
example of what concerns the Committee about this budget
proposal. O&M funding has been insufficient to complete the
study to repair the channel and jetty. A catastrophic jetty
failure is a distinct possibility.
Further, O&M funding has been insufficient for maintaining
the channel at the authorized depth, nor has Federal
maintenance of the turning basin been undertaken as authorized.
GI funding has been insufficient to fund a deepening study. In
desperation the port has indicated that they will likely
finance the deepening study as well as the channel deepening
and seek Federal reimbursement.
The port supports 5,300 direct jobs, 4,590 induced jobs and
6,690 indirect jobs. It provides $273,000,000 in direct wages
and salaries, $1,000,000,000 of direct, induced and indirect
income. It pays $99,000,000 State and local taxes and
$178,000,000 Federal taxes.
The port commissioned a study that shows that failure to
maintain the 39 foot channel costs $9,000,000/year. Equally
importantly, the business managers at the port industries tell
the port and the Corps that their companies are moving
investments overseas because their Texas plants are failing to
compete on the margin with their companies' rival plants
overseas. The Port is unable to attract new investment, in
part, because the investors consider channel availability, at
authorized depth, to be a primary issue.
The Alcoa Aluminum plant is at the port. They turn bauxite
into aluminum ingots. Two years ago, when the channel was 18 to
24 inches above the authorized depth, they told the Corps that
it was costing them $150,000/inch to light load each ship or
about $7,000,000 per shipload. The aluminum ingots they produce
go primarily to car body plants in Waco, Texas and Detroit,
Michigan.
The plant managers and others from the Texas Alcoa
operation met with the Corps earlier this year and their plant
manager told Corps officials that Alcoa has nine plants around
the world and that this was the only plant remaining in the
United States. The U.S. plant is their least cost effective and
transportation of raw materials is part of the reason. They
usually keep about a 20-30 day supply of bauxite on hand at any
one time.
The plant manager is concerned that if they have to shut
down due to jetty failure, for example, they will not be
allowed to restart the plant. It takes about 40 days to
completely recover/restart from a shut down. The manager is
very concerned that the operation would move to one of their
more cost effective overseas plants.
There are hundreds of similar problems around the country.
The Committee believes that maintenance of our aging
infrastructure is imperative if the Nation is to remain
competitive in the global marketplace. Even with the increase
in funding provided by the Committee, O&M funding is barely
keeping up with inflation.
CORPS HOPPER DREDGE FLEET
During fiscal year 2002, the Committee requested the
General Accounting Office [GAO] to review the benefits and
effects of current and proposed restrictions on the Corps'
hopper dredge fleet. The Committee faces significant future
investments in the Corps hopper dredge fleet, as it is rapidly
aging. The Committee believes that the investment decisions
must take into consideration the subsequent use of the fleet.
The final GAO report, released March 2003, reviewed the impacts
of operational changes to the fleet since fiscal year 1993.
GAO's findings made it clear to the Committee that additional
costs have been imposed upon the Corps with the decreased use
of the fleet, but that the benefits have not been realized.
Additionally, the GAO found that the Corps' contracting process
for hopper dredges was not effective. Most importantly, the GAO
reported that the Corps of Engineers did not have even a
limited system to evaluate the costs and benefits of the
varying operational levels of its hopper dredge fleet, nor did
it have a means to make maintenance and repair decisions of the
fleet taking operational use into consideration. The Committee
remains concerned that since 2000, the Corps has provided a
report to Congress which has been found to have no analytical
basis, thus calling into question the ready reserve policy.
Therefore, the Committee has provided legislative language
which changes the current dredge policy.
The Committee is concerned that lead and asbestos abatement
measures have been deferred aboard the McFarland due to
guidance in prior Energy and Water Appropriation Acts and
uncertainties about its future based on the Corps' report
recommending its retirement. The Committee is understandably
skeptical of the findings of this report, particularly in light
of the GAO study mentioned above. As the McFarland is likely to
be in continued use for the foreseeable future, the Committee
believes that addressing these health and safety concerns are
critical and have provided legislative direction that the
Revolving Fund be utilized to expeditiously fund lead and
asbestos abatment.
CORPS OF ENGINEERS--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Project title Budget estimate House allowance recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA
ALABAMA--COOSA COMPREHENSIVE WATER STUDY, AL................. ............... ............... 180
ALABAMA--COOSA RIVER, AL..................................... ............... ............... 1,860
BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, AL....................... ............... ............... 21,093
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, AL............................... ............... ............... 5,510
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AL............................ ............... ............... 55
MILLERS FERRY LOCK AND DAM, WILLIAM.......................... ............... ............... 5,781
MOBILE HARBOR, AL............................................ ............... ............... 19,600
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AL................................ ............... ............... 100
ROBERT F HENRY LOCK AND DAM, AL.............................. ............... ............... 6,122
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AL.......................... ............... ............... 94
TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY WILDLIFE MITIGATION, AL......... ............... ............... 2,000
TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY, AL & MS........................ ............... ............... 28,500
WALTER F GEORGE LOCK AND DAM, AL & GA........................ ............... ............... 7,791
ALASKA
ANCHORAGE HARBOR, AK......................................... ............... ............... 15,300
CHENA RIVER LAKES, AK........................................ ............... ............... 1,875
CORDOVA HARBOR, AK........................................... ............... ............... 500
DILLINGHAM HARBOR, AK........................................ ............... ............... 781
HOMER HARBOR, AK............................................. ............... ............... 303
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AK............................ ............... ............... 47
KETCHIKAN HARBOR, BAR POINT, AK.............................. ............... ............... 625
NINILCHIK HARBOR, AK......................................... ............... ............... 251
NOME HARBOR, AK.............................................. ............... ............... 3,613
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AK................................ ............... ............... 474
ARIZONA
ALAMO LAKE, AZ............................................... ............... ............... 1,600
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AZ............................ ............... ............... 92
PAINTED ROCK DAM, AZ......................................... ............... ............... 1,211
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AZ.......................... ............... ............... 37
WHITLOW RANCH DAM, AZ........................................ ............... ............... 214
ARKANSAS
BEAVER LAKE, AR.............................................. ............... ............... 5,385
BLAKELY MT DAM, LAKE OUACHITA, AR............................ ............... ............... 8,442
BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR....................................... ............... ............... 1,412
BULL SHOALS LAKE, AR......................................... ............... ............... 6,292
DARDANELLE LOCK AND DAM, AR.................................. ............... ............... 6,576
DEGRAY LAKE, AR.............................................. ............... ............... 8,819
DEQUEEN LAKE, AR............................................. ............... ............... 1,222
DIERKS LAKE, AR.............................................. ............... ............... 1,194
GILLHAM LAKE, AR............................................. ............... ............... 1,127
GREERS FERRY LAKE, AR........................................ ............... ............... 5,952
HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR........................... ............... ............... 430
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR............................ ............... ............... 216
MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, AR.......... ............... ............... 35,849
MILLWOOD LAKE, AR............................................ ............... ............... 3,419
NARROWS DAM, LAKE GREESON, AR................................ ............... ............... 4,538
NIMROD LAKE, AR.............................................. ............... ............... 1,796
NORFORK LAKE, AR............................................. ............... ............... 4,539
OSCEOLA HARBOR, AR........................................... ............... ............... 590
OUACHITA AND BLACK RIVERS, AR & LA........................... ............... ............... 11,910
OZARK-JETA TAYLOR LOCK AND DAM, AR........................... ............... ............... 4,468
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AR................................ ............... ............... 2
WHITE RIVER, AR.............................................. ............... ............... 1,000
YELLOW BEND PORT, AR......................................... ............... ............... 176
CALIFORNIA
BLACK BUTTE LAKE, CA......................................... ............... ............... 2,156
BUCHANAN DAM, HV EASTMAN LAKE, CA............................ ............... ............... 2,287
CHANNEL ISLANDS HARBOR, CA................................... ............... ............... 5,086
COYOTE VALLEY DAM, LAKE MENDOCINO, CA........................ ............... ............... 3,314
CRESENT CITY HARBOR, CA...................................... ............... ............... 500
DRY CREEK (WARM SPRINGS) LAKE AND CHANNEL, CA................ ............... ............... 5,895
FARMINGTON DAM, CA........................................... ............... ............... 350
HIDDEN DAM, HENSLEY LAKE, CA................................. ............... ............... 2,427
HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY, CA.................................. ............... ............... 4,916
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CA............................ ............... ............... 1,534
ISABELLA LAKE, CA............................................ ............... ............... 4,050
JACK D. MALTESTER CHANNEL, CA (SAN LEANDRO).................. ............... ............... 500
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CA......................... ............... ............... 4,071
LOS ANGELES-LONG BEACH HARBOR, CA............................ ............... ............... 4,000
LOWER PETALUMA RIVER, CA..................................... ............... ............... 500
MARINA DEL REY, CA........................................... ............... ............... 1,460
MERCED COUNTY STREAMS, CA.................................... ............... ............... 331
MOJAVE RIVER DAM, CA......................................... ............... ............... 204
MORRO BAY HARBOR, CA......................................... ............... ............... 1,300
NAPA RIVER, CA............................................... ............... ............... 1,000
NEW HOGAN LAKE, CA........................................... ............... ............... 2,226
NEW MELONES LAKE, DOWNSTREAM CHANNEL, CA..................... ............... ............... 1,843
OAKLAND HARBOR, CA........................................... ............... ............... 8,543
OCEANSIDE HARBOR, CA......................................... ............... ............... 700
PILLAR POINT HARBOR, CA...................................... ............... ............... 1,000
PINE FLAT LAKE, CA........................................... ............... ............... 3,760
PINOLE SHOAL MANAGEMENT STUDY, CA............................ ............... ............... 500
PORT HUENEME, CA............................................. ............... ............... 500
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CA................................ ............... ............... 2,069
REDWOOD CITY HARBOR, CA...................................... ............... ............... 1,000
RICHMOND HARBOR, CA.......................................... ............... ............... 7,377
SACRAMENTO RIVER (30 FOOT PROJECT), CA....................... ............... ............... 3,124
SACRAMENTO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES (DEBRIS CONTROL), CA........ ............... ............... 1,418
SACRAMENTO RIVER SHALLOW DRAFT CHANNEL, CA................... ............... ............... 93
SAN FRANCISCO BAY, DELTA MODEL STRUCTURE, CA................. ............... ............... 1,124
SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR AND BAY, CA (DRIFT REMOVAL)............. ............... ............... 2,000
SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR, CA..................................... ............... ............... 2,447
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER, CA........................................ ............... ............... 3,070
SAN PABLO BAY AND MARE ISLAND STRAIT, CA..................... ............... ............... 2,498
SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CA.................................... ............... ............... 3,526
SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CA..................................... ............... ............... 1,200
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CA.......................... ............... ............... 1,593
SUCCESS LAKE, CA............................................. ............... ............... 2,308
SUISUN BAY CHANNEL, CA....................................... ............... ............... 2,833
TERMINUS DAM, LAKE KAWEAH, CA................................ ............... ............... 2,349
VENTURA HARBOR, CA........................................... ............... ............... 2,700
YUBA RIVER, CA............................................... ............... ............... 83
COLORADO
BEAR CREEK LAKE, CO.......................................... ............... ............... 339
CHATFIELD LAKE, CO........................................... ............... ............... 1,764
CHERRY CREEK LAKE, CO........................................ ............... ............... 2,653
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CO............................ ............... ............... 112
JOHN MARTIN RESERVOIR, CO.................................... ............... ............... 2,206
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CO.......................... ............... ............... 627
TRINIDAD LAKE, CO............................................ ............... ............... 1,456
COMMONWEATLTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLAND
ROTA HARBOR, CNMI............................................ ............... ............... 1,105
CONNECTICUT
BLACK ROCK LAKE, CT.......................................... ............... ............... 469
BRIDGEPORT HARBOR, CT........................................ ............... ............... 250
COLEBROOK RIVER LAKE, CT..................................... ............... ............... 612
HANCOCK BROOK LAKE, CT....................................... ............... ............... 359
HOP BROOK LAKE, CT........................................... ............... ............... 1,502
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CT............................ ............... ............... 64
LONG ISLAND SOUND, CT & NY................................... ............... ............... 1,742
MANSFIELD HOLLOW LAKE, CT.................................... ............... ............... 807
NORTH COVE HARBOR, CT........................................ ............... ............... 2,000
NORTHFIELD BROOK LAKE, CT.................................... ............... ............... 414
NORWALK FEDERAL NAVIGATION PROJECT, CT....................... ............... ............... 3,000
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CT................................ ............... ............... 1,000
STAMFORD HURRICANE BARRIER, CT............................... ............... ............... 450
THOMASTON DAM, CT............................................ ............... ............... 705
WEST THOMPSON LAKE, CT....................................... ............... ............... 646
DELAWARE
HARBOR OF REFUGE BREAKWATER, SUSSEX COUNTY, DE............... ............... ............... 600
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, DELAWARE R TO CHESAPEAKE BAY, D....... ............... ............... 12,008
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, REHOBETH BAY TO DELAWARE BAY, D....... ............... ............... 30
MISPILLION RIVER, DE......................................... ............... ............... 30
MURDERKILL RIVER, DE......................................... ............... ............... 30
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DE................................ ............... ............... 83
WILMINGTON HARBOR, DE........................................ ............... ............... 3,900
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, DC............................ ............... ............... 19
POTOMAC AND ANACOSTIA RIVERS, DC (DRIFT REMOVAL)............. ............... ............... 857
POTOMAC RIVER BELOW WASHINGTON, DC........................... ............... ............... 100
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DC................................ ............... ............... 25
WASHINGTON HARBOR, DC........................................ ............... ............... 20
FLORIDA
AIWW, NORFOLK, VA TO ST. JOHNS RIVER, FL, GA, SC, NC......... ............... ............... 2,100
CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL......................................... ............... ............... 4,600
CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL............................. ............... ............... 14,241
FERNANDINA HARBOR, FL........................................ ............... ............... 1,600
FORT MYERS BEACH, FL......................................... ............... ............... 150
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, FL............................ ............... ............... 300
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, CALOOSAHATCHEE TO ANCLOTE, FL......... ............... ............... 1,500
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI, FL............. ............... ............... 4,000
JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL...................................... ............... ............... 4,700
JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM, LAKE SEMINOLE, FL, AL & GA........ ............... ............... 7,896
MIAMI RIVER, FL.............................................. ............... ............... 7,000
OKEECHOBEE WATERWAY, FL...................................... ............... ............... 2,014
PALM BEACH HARBOR, FL........................................ ............... ............... 2,400
PENSACOLA HARBOR, FL......................................... ............... ............... 815
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, FL................................ ............... ............... 1,025
REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, FL................................ ............... ............... 3,325
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, FL.......................... ............... ............... 30
TAMPA HARBOR, FL............................................. ............... ............... 4,150
GEORGIA
ALLATOONA LAKE, GA........................................... ............... ............... 6,818
APALACHICOLA, CHATTAHOOCHEE AND FLINT RIVERS, GA, AL &....... ............... ............... 1,455
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, GA........................... ............... ............... 254
BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA......................................... ............... ............... 2,451
BUFORD DAM AND LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, GA........................ ............... ............... 7,473
CARTERS DAM AND LAKE, GA..................................... ............... ............... 6,958
HARTWELL LAKE, GA & SC....................................... ............... ............... 11,190
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, GA............................ ............... ............... 53
J STROM THURMOND LAKE, GA & SC............................... ............... ............... 10,720
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, GA................................ ............... ............... 15
RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA & SC...................... ............... ............... 7,163
SAVANNAH HARBOR, ADVANCED MAINTENANCE WIDENER, GA............ ............... ............... 500
SAVANNAH HARBOR, GA.......................................... ............... ............... 11,322
SAVANNAH RIVER BELOW AUGUSTA, GA............................. ............... ............... 124
WEST POINT DAM AND LAKE, GA & AL............................. ............... ............... 9,642
HAWAII
BARBERS POINT HARBOR, HI..................................... ............... ............... 245
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, HI............................ ............... ............... 205
POHIKI BAY, HAWAII, HI....................................... ............... ............... 220
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, HI................................ ............... ............... 440
IDAHO
ALBENI FALLS DAM, ID......................................... ............... ............... 1,653
DWORSHAK DAM AND RESERVOIR, ID............................... ............... ............... 3,069
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ID............................ ............... ............... 80
LUCKY PEAK LAKE, ID.......................................... ............... ............... 1,822
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ID.......................... ............... ............... 443
ILLINOIS
CALUMET HARBOR AND RIVER, IL & IN............................ ............... ............... 4,219
CARLYLE LAKE, IL............................................. ............... ............... 4,564
CHICAGO HARBOR, IL........................................... ............... ............... 1,904
CHICAGO RIVER, IL............................................ ............... ............... 398
FARM CREEK RESERVOIRS, IL.................................... ............... ............... 263
ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVR PORTION), IL & IN..................... ............... ............... 27,453
ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVS PORTION), IL & IN..................... ............... ............... 1,893
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL............................ ............... ............... 718
KASKASKIA RIVER NAVIGATION, IL............................... ............... ............... 1,819
LAKE MICHIGAN DIVERSION, IL.................................. ............... ............... 607
LAKE SHELBYVILLE, IL......................................... ............... ............... 5,291
MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVR PORTION)....... ............... ............... 40,790
MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVS PORTION)....... ............... ............... 22,501
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IL................................ ............... ............... 50
REND LAKE, IL................................................ ............... ............... 4,787
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IL................. ............... ............... 120
WAUKEGAN HARBOR, IL.......................................... ............... ............... 704
INDIANA
BROOKVILLE LAKE, IN.......................................... ............... ............... 694
BURNS WATERWAY HARBOR, IN.................................... ............... ............... 883
CAGLES MILL LAKE, IN......................................... ............... ............... 741
CECIL M HARDEN LAKE, IN...................................... ............... ............... 920
INDIANA HARBOR, IN........................................... ............... ............... 545
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IN............................ ............... ............... 272
J EDWARD ROUSH LAKE, IN...................................... ............... ............... 1,432
MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN........................................ ............... ............... 868
MONROE LAKE, IN.............................................. ............... ............... 801
PATOKA LAKE, IN.............................................. ............... ............... 814
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IN................................ ............... ............... 89
SALAMONIE LAKE, IN........................................... ............... ............... 1,179
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IN................. ............... ............... 113
IOWA
CORALVILLE LAKE, IA.......................................... ............... ............... 3,304
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IA............................ ............... ............... 205
MISSOURI RIVER--KENSLERS BEND, NE TO SIOUX CITY, IA.......... ............... ............... 152
MISSOURI RIVER--RULO TO MOUTH, IA, NE, KS & MO............... ............... ............... 5,580
MISSOURI RIVER--SIOUX CITY TO RULO, IA & NE.................. ............... ............... 1,860
RATHBUN LAKE, IA............................................. ............... ............... 2,204
RED ROCK DAM AND LAKE RED ROCK, IA........................... ............... ............... 3,902
SAYLORVILLE LAKE, IA......................................... ............... ............... 4,473
KANSAS
CLINTON LAKE, KS............................................. ............... ............... 1,917
COUNCIL GROVE LAKE, KS....................................... ............... ............... 1,164
EL DORADO LAKE, KS........................................... ............... ............... 585
ELK CITY LAKE, KS............................................ ............... ............... 688
FALL RIVER LAKE, KS.......................................... ............... ............... 1,128
HILLSDALE LAKE, KS........................................... ............... ............... 749
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KS............................ ............... ............... 123
JOHN REDMOND DAM AND RESERVOIR, KS........................... ............... ............... 1,256
KANOPOLIS LAKE, KS........................................... ............... ............... 1,484
MARION LAKE, KS.............................................. ............... ............... 1,322
MELVERN LAKE, KS............................................. ............... ............... 2,155
MILFORD LAKE, KS............................................. ............... ............... 2,166
PEARSON-SKUBITZ BIG HILL LAKE, KS............................ ............... ............... 1,118
PERRY LAKE, KS............................................... ............... ............... 2,160
POMONA LAKE, KS.............................................. ............... ............... 1,905
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, KS.......................... ............... ............... 64
TORONTO LAKE, KS............................................. ............... ............... 535
TUTTLE CREEK LAKE, KS........................................ ............... ............... 2,052
WILSON LAKE, KS.............................................. ............... ............... 1,512
KENTUCKY
BARKLEY DAM AND LAKE BARKLEY, KY & TN........................ ............... ............... 7,790
BARREN RIVER LAKE, KY........................................ ............... ............... 1,842
BIG SANDY HARBOR, KY......................................... ............... ............... 1,352
BUCKHORN LAKE, KY............................................ ............... ............... 1,288
CARR CREEK LAKE, KY.......................................... ............... ............... 1,607
CAVE RUN LAKE, KY............................................ ............... ............... 883
DEWEY LAKE, KY............................................... ............... ............... 1,224
ELVIS STAHR (HICKMAN) HARBOR, KY............................. ............... ............... 12
FISHTRAP LAKE, KY............................................ ............... ............... 1,580
GRAYSON LAKE, KY............................................. ............... ............... 1,122
GREEN AND BARREN RIVERS, KY.................................. ............... ............... 2,028
GREEN RIVER LAKE, KY......................................... ............... ............... 1,651
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY............................ ............... ............... 191
KENTUCKY RIVER, KY........................................... ............... ............... 4
LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KY........................................ ............... ............... 1,659
MARTINS FORK LAKE, KY........................................ ............... ............... 699
MIDDLESBORO CUMBERLAND RIVER BASIN, KY....................... ............... ............... 62
NOLIN LAKE, KY............................................... ............... ............... 1,886
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, KY, IL, IN & OH................... ............... ............... 39,243
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, KY, IL, IN & OH................ ............... ............... 4,040
PAINTSVILLE LAKE, KY......................................... ............... ............... 828
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, KY................................ ............... ............... 2
ROUGH RIVER LAKE, KY......................................... ............... ............... 2,479
TAYLORSVILLE LAKE, KY........................................ ............... ............... 1,002
WOLF CREEK DAM, LAKE CUMBERLAND, KY.......................... ............... ............... 7,008
YATESVILLE LAKE, KY.......................................... ............... ............... 823
LOUISIANA
ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS CHENE, BOEUF AND BLACK, L....... ............... ............... 16,000
BAYOU BODCAU RESERVOIR, LA................................... ............... ............... 1,104
BAYOU LACOMBE................................................ ............... ............... 900
BAYOU LAFOURCHE AND LAFOURCHE JUMP WATERWAY, LA.............. ............... ............... 1,697
BAYOU PIERRE, LA............................................. ............... ............... 32
BAYOU SEGNETTE, LA........................................... ............... ............... 1,750
BAYOU TECHE, LA.............................................. ............... ............... 110
CADDO LAKE, LA............................................... ............... ............... 190
CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LA................................. ............... ............... 16,000
FRESHWATER BAYOU, LA......................................... ............... ............... 1,505
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, LA............................... ............... ............... 19,443
HOUMA NAVIGATION CANAL, LA................................... ............... ............... 1,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA............................ ............... ............... 869
J BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA.............................. ............... ............... 13,000
LAKE PROVIDENCE HARBOR, LA................................... ............... ............... 491
MADISON PARISH PORT, LA...................................... ............... ............... 86
MERMENTAU RIVER, LA.......................................... ............... ............... 2,150
MISSISSIPPI RIVER OUTLETS AT VENICE, LA...................... ............... ............... 2,000
MISSISSIPPI RIVER, BATON ROUGE TO THE GULF OF MEXICO......... ............... ............... 54,074
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, LA................................ ............... ............... 60
REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, LA................................ ............... ............... 2,000
TANGIPAHOA RIVER, LA......................................... ............... ............... 650
TCHEFUNCTE RIVER & BOUGE FALIA, LA........................... ............... ............... 450
WALLACE LAKE, LA............................................. ............... ............... 200
WATERWAY FROM EMPIRE TO THE GULF, LA......................... ............... ............... 500
MAINE
BUCKS HARBOR, MACHIASPORT, ME................................ ............... ............... 330
DISPOSAL AREA MONITORING, ME................................. ............... ............... 1,100
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ME............................ ............... ............... 11
NARRAGAUGAS RIVER, MILBRIDGE, ME............................. ............... ............... 700
PORTLAND HARBOR, ME.......................................... ............... ............... 135
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, ME................................ ............... ............... 866
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, ME................. ............... ............... 17
MARYLAND
BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS (50 FOOT), MD.................. ............... ............... 15,482
BALTIMORE HARBOR, MD (DRIFT REMOVAL)......................... ............... ............... 330
CHESTER RIVER, MD............................................ ............... ............... 110
CUMBERLAND, MD AND RIDGELEY, WV.............................. ............... ............... 500
GOOSE CREEK, MD.............................................. ............... ............... 80
HERRING BAY & ROCKHOLD CREEK, MD............................. ............... ............... 550
HONGA RIVER & TAR BAY, MD.................................... ............... ............... 110
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MD............................ ............... ............... 32
JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE, MD & WV.............................. ............... ............... 1,992
OCEAN CITY HARBOR AND INLET AND SINEPUXENT BAY, MD........... ............... ............... 100
PARISH CREEK, MD............................................. ............... ............... 60
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MD................................ ............... ............... 467
RHODES POINT TO TYLERTON, MD................................. ............... ............... 110
ROCKALL HARBOR, MD........................................... ............... ............... 600
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MD.......................... ............... ............... 100
TWITCH COVE AND BIG THOROFARE RIVER, MD...................... ............... ............... 110
WICOMICO RIVER, MD........................................... ............... ............... 800
MASSACHUSETTS
BARRE FALLS DAM, MA.......................................... ............... ............... 641
BIRCH HILL DAM, MA........................................... ............... ............... 740
BOSTON HARBOR, MA............................................ ............... ............... 7,000
BUFFUMVILLE LAKE, MA......................................... ............... ............... 580
CAPE COD CANAL, MA........................................... ............... ............... 8,348
CHARLES RIVER NATURAL VALLEY STORAGE AREA, MA................ ............... ............... 314
CONANT BROOK LAKE, MA........................................ ............... ............... 260
EAST BRIMFIELD LAKE, MA...................................... ............... ............... 452
HODGES VILLAGE DAM, MA....................................... ............... ............... 571
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MA............................ ............... ............... 114
KNIGHTVILLE DAM, MA.......................................... ............... ............... 606
LITTLEVILLE LAKE, MA......................................... ............... ............... 568
NEW BEDFORD FAIRHAVEN AND ACUSHNET HURRICANE BARRIER......... ............... ............... 299
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MA................................ ............... ............... 1,100
SALEM HARBOR, MA............................................. ............... ............... 2,856
TULLY LAKE, MA............................................... ............... ............... 720
WEST HILL DAM, MA............................................ ............... ............... 729
WESTVILLE LAKE, MA........................................... ............... ............... 578
WEYMOUTH-FORE RIVER, MA...................................... ............... ............... 1,728
MICHIGAN
ALPENA HARBOR, MI............................................ ............... ............... 429
ARCADIA HARBOR, MI........................................... ............... ............... 80
CEDAR RIVER HARBOR, MI....................................... ............... ............... 300
CHANNELS IN LAKE ST CLAIR, MI................................ ............... ............... 87
CHARLEVOIX HARBOR, MI........................................ ............... ............... 137
CLINTON RIVER, MI............................................ ............... ............... 660
DETROIT RIVER, MI............................................ ............... ............... 5,331
GRAND HAVEN HARBOR, MI....................................... ............... ............... 455
GRAND MARAIS HARBOR, MI...................................... ............... ............... 1,500
GRAYS REEF PASSAGE, MI....................................... ............... ............... 112
HOLLAND HARBOR, MI........................................... ............... ............... 549
INLAND ROUTE, MI............................................. ............... ............... 950
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MI............................ ............... ............... 144
LELAND HARBOR, MI............................................ ............... ............... 110
LITTLE LAKE HARBOR, MI....................................... ............... ............... 186
LUDINGTON HARBOR, MI......................................... ............... ............... 177
MANISTEE HARBOR, MI.......................................... ............... ............... 47
MUSKEGON HARBOR, MI.......................................... ............... ............... 214
NEW BUFFALO HARBOR, MI....................................... ............... ............... 78
ONTONAGON HARBOR, MI......................................... ............... ............... 551
PENTWATER, MI................................................ ............... ............... 84
PETOSKEY HARBOR, MI.......................................... ............... ............... 1,000
PORTAGE LAKE HARBOR, MI...................................... ............... ............... 225
PRESQUE ISLE HARBOR.......................................... ............... ............... 292
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MI................................ ............... ............... 178
ROUGE RIVER, MI.............................................. ............... ............... 20
SAGINAW RIVER, MI............................................ ............... ............... 3,642
SEBEWAING RIVER, MI.......................................... ............... ............... 500
ST CLAIR RIVER, MI........................................... ............... ............... 1,471
ST JOSEPH HARBOR, MI......................................... ............... ............... 450
ST MARYS RIVER, MI........................................... ............... ............... 19,267
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MI................. ............... ............... 2,594
WHITE LAKE HARBOR, MI........................................ ............... ............... 100
MINNESOTA
BIGSTONE LAKE WHETSTONE RIVER, MN & SD....................... ............... ............... 239
DULUTH-SUPERIOR HARBOR, MN & WI.............................. ............... ............... 4,890
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MN............................ ............... ............... 132
LAC QUI PARLE LAKES, MINNESOTA RIVER, MN..................... ............... ............... 594
MINNESOTA RIVER, MN.......................................... ............... ............... 188
MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVP PORTION)....... ............... ............... 59,296
ORWELL LAKE, MN.............................................. ............... ............... 339
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MN................................ ............... ............... 67
RED LAKE RESERVOIR, MN....................................... ............... ............... 147
RESERVOIRS AT HEADWATERS OF MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MN............ ............... ............... 2,928
ST. PAUL, HARRIET ISLANDS, LOWER HARBOR, MN.................. ............... ............... 200
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MN................. ............... ............... 314
TWO HARBORS, MN.............................................. ............... ............... 198
MISSISSIPPI
CLAIBORNE COUNTY PORT, MS.................................... ............... ............... 62
EAST FORK, TOMBIGBEE RIVER, MS............................... ............... ............... 210
GULFPORT HARBOR, MS.......................................... ............... ............... 3,683
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS............................ ............... ............... 61
MOUTH OF THE YAZOO RIVER, MS................................. ............... ............... 110
OKATIBBEE LAKE, MS........................................... ............... ............... 1,885
PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS........................................ ............... ............... 5,500
PEARL RIVER, MS & LA......................................... ............... ............... 283
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MS................................ ............... ............... 77
ROSEDALLE HARBOR, MS......................................... ............... ............... 600
YAZOO RIVER, MS.............................................. ............... ............... 140
MISSOURI
CARUTHERSVILLE HARBOR, MO.................................... ............... ............... 350
CLARENCE CANNON DAM AND MARK TWAIN LAKE, MO.................. ............... ............... 5,916
CLEARWATER LAKE, MO.......................................... ............... ............... 2,660
HARRY S TRUMAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, MO......................... ............... ............... 8,173
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO............................ ............... ............... 768
LITTLE BLUE RIVER LAKES, MO.................................. ............... ............... 795
LONG BRANCH LAKE, MO......................................... ............... ............... 860
MISS RIVER BTWN THE OHIO AND MO RIVERS (REG WORKS), MO....... ............... ............... 26,013
NEW MADRID HARBOR, MO........................................ ............... ............... 660
NEW MADRID HARBOR, MILE 889, MO.............................. ............... ............... 200
POMME DE TERRE LAKE, MO...................................... ............... ............... 2,080
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MO................................ ............... ............... 2
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MO.......................... ............... ............... 327
SMITHVILLE LAKE, MO.......................................... ............... ............... 1,137
STOCKTON LAKE, MO............................................ ............... ............... 3,775
TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO.......................................... ............... ............... 6,589
UNION LAKE, MO............................................... ............... ............... 6
MONTANA
FT PECK DAM AND LAKE, MT..................................... ............... ............... 4,076
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MT............................ ............... ............... 19
LIBBY DAM, LAKE KOOCANUSA, MT................................ ............... ............... 1,642
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MT.......................... ............... ............... 89
NEBRASKA
GAVINS POINT DAM, LEWIS AND CLARK LAKE, NE & SD.............. ............... ............... 5,803
HARLAN COUNTY LAKE, NE....................................... ............... ............... 3,133
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NE............................ ............... ............... 102
MISSOURI R MASTER WTR CONTROL MANUAL, NE, IA, KS, MO......... ............... ............... 350
PAPILLION CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES LAKES, NE.................... ............... ............... 583
PAPIO CREEK, NE.............................................. ............... ............... 1
SALT CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, NE............................... ............... ............... 734
NEVADA
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NV............................ ............... ............... 47
MARTIS CREEK LAKE, NV & CA................................... ............... ............... 1,820
PINE AND MATHEWS CANYONS LAKES, NV........................... ............... ............... 173
NEW HAMPSHIRE
BLACKWATER DAM, NH........................................... ............... ............... 659
COCHECO RIVER, NH............................................ ............... ............... 2,000
EDWARD MACDOWELL LAKE, NH.................................... ............... ............... 573
FRANKLIN FALLS DAM, NH....................................... ............... ............... 734
HOPKINTON-EVERETT LAKES, NH.................................. ............... ............... 1,488
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NH............................ ............... ............... 12
OTTER BROOK LAKE, NH......................................... ............... ............... 685
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NH................................ ............... ............... 231
SURRY MOUNTAIN LAKE, NH...................................... ............... ............... 659
NEW JERSEY
BARNEGAT INLET, NJ........................................... ............... ............... 75
COLD SPRING INLET, NJ........................................ ............... ............... 350
DELAWARE RIVER AT CAMDEN, NJ................................. ............... ............... 15
DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA TO THE SEA, NJ, PA & DE......... ............... ............... 17,909
DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA, PA TO TRENTON, NJ.............. ............... ............... 250
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NJ............................ ............... ............... 85
MANASQUAN RIVER, NJ.......................................... ............... ............... 335
NEW JERSEY INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NJ......................... ............... ............... 75
NEWARK BAY, HACKENSACK AND PASSAIC RIVERS, NJ................ ............... ............... 5,000
PASSAIC RIVER FLOOD WARNING SYSTEMS, NJ...................... ............... ............... 460
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NJ................................ ............... ............... 1,318
RARITAN RIVER, NJ............................................ ............... ............... 200
SALEM RIVER, NJ.............................................. ............... ............... 70
SANDY HOOK AT LEONARDO, NJ................................... ............... ............... 300
SHARK RIVER, NJ.............................................. ............... ............... 80
SHREWSBURY RIVER MAIN CHANNEL, NJ............................ ............... ............... 500
NEW MEXICO
ABIQUIU DAM, NM.............................................. ............... ............... 3,211
ALBUQUERQUE LEVEES, NM....................................... ............... ............... 500
COCHITI LAKE, NM............................................. ............... ............... 6,422
CONCHAS LAKE, NM............................................. ............... ............... 3,887
GALISTEO DAM, NM............................................. ............... ............... 1,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NM............................ ............... ............... 221
JEMEZ CANYON DAM, NM......................................... ............... ............... 2,733
RIO GRANDE BOSQUE REHABILITATION, NM......................... ............... ............... 4,000
SANTA ROSA DAM AND LAKE, NM.................................. ............... ............... 1,329
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, NM.......................... ............... ............... 1,471
TWO RIVERS DAM, NM........................................... ............... ............... 531
UPPER RIO GRANDE WATER OPERATIONS MODEL...................... ............... ............... 1,895
NEW YORK
ALMOND LAKE, NY.............................................. ............... ............... 473
ARKPORT DAM, NY.............................................. ............... ............... 280
BLACK ROCK CHANNEL AND TONAWANDA HARBOR, NY.................. ............... ............... 1,147
BUFFALO HARBOR, NY........................................... ............... ............... 332
DUNKIRK HARBOR, NY........................................... ............... ............... 19
EAST RIVER, NY............................................... ............... ............... 70
EAST ROCKAWAY INLET, NY...................................... ............... ............... 2,800
EAST SIDNEY LAKE, NY......................................... ............... ............... 592
EASTCHESTER CREEK, NY........................................ ............... ............... 250
FIRE ISLAND INLET TO JONES INLET, NY......................... ............... ............... 200
FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NY................................... ............... ............... 200
GLEN COVE CREEK, NY.......................................... ............... ............... 350
HUDSON RIVER CHANNEL, NY..................................... ............... ............... 5,410
HUDSON RIVER, NY (MAINT)..................................... ............... ............... 1,745
HUDSON RIVER, NY (O&C)....................................... ............... ............... 1,120
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NY............................ ............... ............... 507
JAMAICA BAY, NY.............................................. ............... ............... 200
JONES INLET, NY.............................................. ............... ............... 100
LITTLE SODUS BAY HARBOR, NY.................................. ............... ............... 15
LONG ISLAND INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NY........................ ............... ............... 100
MORICHES INLET, NY........................................... ............... ............... 100
MT MORRIS LAKE, NY........................................... ............... ............... 3,320
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY CHANNELS, NY......................... ............... ............... 6,735
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY AND NJ (PREV OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSI....... ............... ............... 700
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY.......................................... ............... ............... 3,475
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY & NJ (DRIFT REMOVAL)..................... ............... ............... 4,800
OSWEGO HARBOR, NY............................................ ............... ............... 844
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NY................................ ............... ............... 1,418
ROCHESTER HARBOR, NY......................................... ............... ............... 957
SHINNECOCK INLET, NY......................................... ............... ............... 100
SOUTHERN NEW YORK FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS, NY................. ............... ............... 618
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, NY................. ............... ............... 460
WHITNEY POINT LAKE, NY....................................... ............... ............... 722
NORTH CAROLINA
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NC........................... ............... ............... 3,370
B EVERETT JORDAN DAM AND LAKE, NC............................ ............... ............... 1,935
CAPE FEAR RIVER ABOVE WILMINGTON, NC......................... ............... ............... 558
CAROLINA BEACH INLET, NC..................................... ............... ............... 550
FALLS LAKE, NC............................................... ............... ............... 1,856
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NC............................ ............... ............... 79
LOCKWOODS FOLLY RIVER, NC.................................... ............... ............... 950
MANTEO (SHALLOWBAG) BAY, NC.................................. ............... ............... 10,000
MASONBORO INLET AND CONNECTING CHANNELS, NC.................. ............... ............... 500
MOREHEAD CITY HARBOR, NC..................................... ............... ............... 5,200
NEW RIVER INLET, NC.......................................... ............... ............... 820
NEW TOPSAIL INLET AND CONNECTING CHANNELS, NC................ ............... ............... 675
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NC................................ ............... ............... 675
ROLLINSON CHANNEL, NC........................................ ............... ............... 200
W KERR SCOTT DAM AND RESERVOIR, NC........................... ............... ............... 3,170
WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC........................................ ............... ............... 11,000
NORTH DAKOTA
BOWMAN--HALEY LAKE, ND....................................... ............... ............... 168
GARRISON DAM, LAKE SAKAKAWEA, ND............................. ............... ............... 14,245
HOMME LAKE, ND............................................... ............... ............... 184
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ND............................ ............... ............... 87
LAKE ASHTABULA AND BALDHILL DAM, ND.......................... ............... ............... 1,281
PIPESTEM LAKE, ND............................................ ............... ............... 499
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ND.......................... ............... ............... 118
SOURIS RIVER, ND............................................. ............... ............... 402
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, ND................. ............... ............... 32
OHIO
ALUM CREEK LAKE, OH.......................................... ............... ............... 1,243
ASHTABULA HARBOR, OH......................................... ............... ............... 676
BERLIN LAKE, OH.............................................. ............... ............... 1,714
CAESAR CREEK LAKE, OH........................................ ............... ............... 1,376
CLARENCE J BROWN DAM, OH..................................... ............... ............... 853
CLEVELAND HARBOR, OH......................................... ............... ............... 2,694
CONNEAUT HARBOR, OH.......................................... ............... ............... 1,033
DEER CREEK LAKE, OH.......................................... ............... ............... 1,006
DELAWARE LAKE, OH............................................ ............... ............... 1,000
DILLON LAKE, OH.............................................. ............... ............... 763
FAIRPORT HARBOR, OH.......................................... ............... ............... 1,941
HURON HARBOR, OH............................................. ............... ............... 690
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OH............................ ............... ............... 256
LORAIN HARBOR, OH............................................ ............... ............... 1,283
MICHAEL J KIRWAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, OH....................... ............... ............... 714
MOSQUITO CREEK LAKE, OH...................................... ............... ............... 832
MUSKINGUM RIVER LAKES, OH.................................... ............... ............... 7,986
NORTH BRANCH KOKOSING RIVER LAKE, OH......................... ............... ............... 169
PAINT CREEK LAKE, OH......................................... ............... ............... 976
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OH................................ ............... ............... 225
SANDUSKY HARBOR, OH.......................................... ............... ............... 397
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, OH................. ............... ............... 180
TOLEDO HARBOR, OH............................................ ............... ............... 4,010
TOM JENKINS DAM, OH.......................................... ............... ............... 567
WEST FORK OF MILL CREEK LAKE, OH............................. ............... ............... 560
WILLIAM H HARSHA LAKE, OH.................................... ............... ............... 923
OKLAHOMA
ARCADIA LAKE, OK............................................. ............... ............... 443
BIRCH LAKE, OK............................................... ............... ............... 736
BROKEN BOW LAKE, OK.......................................... ............... ............... 1,716
CANTON LAKE, OK.............................................. ............... ............... 2,360
COPAN LAKE, OK............................................... ............... ............... 974
EUFAULA LAKE, OK............................................. ............... ............... 5,055
FORT GIBSON LAKE, OK......................................... ............... ............... 5,404
FORT SUPPLY LAKE, OK......................................... ............... ............... 743
GREAT SALT PLAINS LAKE, OK................................... ............... ............... 411
HEYBURN LAKE, OK............................................. ............... ............... 567
HUGO LAKE, OK................................................ ............... ............... 1,412
HULAH LAKE, OK............................................... ............... ............... 506
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OK............................ ............... ............... 123
KAW LAKE, OK................................................. ............... ............... 3,012
KEYSTONE LAKE, OK............................................ ............... ............... 3,867
OOLOGAH LAKE, OK............................................. ............... ............... 3,149
OPTIMA LAKE, OK.............................................. ............... ............... 127
PENSACOLA RESERVOIR, LAKE OF THE CHEROKEES, OK............... ............... ............... 64
PINE CREEK LAKE, OK.......................................... ............... ............... 942
ROBERT S KERR LOCK AND DAM AND RESERVOIRS, OK................ ............... ............... 5,059
SARDIS LAKE, OK.............................................. ............... ............... 975
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OK.......................... ............... ............... 972
SKIATOOK LAKE, OK............................................ ............... ............... 1,700
TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK..................................... ............... ............... 4,039
WAURIKA LAKE, OK............................................. ............... ............... 1,445
WEBBERS FALLS LOCK AND DAM, OK............................... ............... ............... 4,164
WISTER LAKE, OK.............................................. ............... ............... 610
OREGON
APPLEGATE LAKE, OR........................................... ............... ............... 736
BLUE RIVER LAKE, OR.......................................... ............... ............... 287
BONNEVILLE LOCK AND DAM, OR & WA............................. ............... ............... 8,829
CHETCO RIVER, OR............................................. ............... ............... 451
COLUMBIA & LWR WILLAMETTE R BLW VANCOUVER, WA & PORTLA....... ............... ............... 17,800
COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR & WA......................... ............... ............... 20,189
COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN VANCOUVER, WA AND THE DALLES, O....... ............... ............... 415
COOS BAY, OR................................................. ............... ............... 4,189
COQUILLE RIVER, OR........................................... ............... ............... 275
COTTAGE GROVE LAKE, OR....................................... ............... ............... 876
COUGAR LAKE, OR.............................................. ............... ............... 993
DEPOE BAY, OR................................................ ............... ............... 3
DETROIT LAKE, OR............................................. ............... ............... 782
DORENA LAKE, OR.............................................. ............... ............... 704
FALL CREEK LAKE, OR.......................................... ............... ............... 853
FERN RIDGE LAKE, OR.......................................... ............... ............... 1,436
GREEN PETER-FOSTER LAKES, OR................................. ............... ............... 1,415
HILLS CREEK LAKE, OR......................................... ............... ............... 586
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OR............................ ............... ............... 168
JOHN DAY LOCK AND DAM, OR & WA............................... ............... ............... 5,571
LOOKOUT POINT LAKE, OR....................................... ............... ............... 1,692
LOST CREEK LAKE, OR.......................................... ............... ............... 2,842
MCNARY LOCK AND DAM, OR & WA................................. ............... ............... 5,845
PORT ORFORD, OR.............................................. ............... ............... 273
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OR................................ ............... ............... 180
ROGUE RIVER AT GOLD BEACH, OR................................ ............... ............... 483
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OR.......................... ............... ............... 62
SIUSLAW RIVER, OR............................................ ............... ............... 486
SKIPANON CHANNEL, OR......................................... ............... ............... 93
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, OR................. ............... ............... 400
TILLAMOOK BAY AND BAR, OR (PORT OF GARIBALDI)................ ............... ............... 1,500
UMPQUA RIVER, OR............................................. ............... ............... 979
WILLAMETTE RIVER AT WILLAMETTE FALLS, OR..................... ............... ............... 258
WILLAMETTE RIVER BANK PROTECTION, OR......................... ............... ............... 94
WILLOW CREEK LAKE, OR........................................ ............... ............... 612
YAQUINA BAY AND HARBOR, OR................................... ............... ............... 1,566
YAQUINA RIVER, OR............................................ ............... ............... 836
PENNSYLVANIA
ALLEGHENY RIVER, PA.......................................... ............... ............... 6,361
ALVIN R BUSH DAM, PA......................................... ............... ............... 641
AYLESWORTH CREEK LAKE, PA.................................... ............... ............... 283
BELTZVILLE LAKE, PA.......................................... ............... ............... 1,080
BLUE MARSH LAKE, PA.......................................... ............... ............... 2,411
CONEMAUGH RIVER LAKE, PA..................................... ............... ............... 1,144
COWANESQUE LAKE, PA.......................................... ............... ............... 2,023
CROOKED CREEK LAKE, PA....................................... ............... ............... 1,192
CURWENSVILLE LAKE, PA........................................ ............... ............... 741
EAST BRANCH CLARION RIVER LAKE, PA........................... ............... ............... 906
ERIE HARBOR, PA.............................................. ............... ............... 22
FOSTER JOSEPH SAYERS DAM, PA................................. ............... ............... 799
FRANCIS E WALTER DAM, PA..................................... ............... ............... 770
GENERAL EDGAR JADWIN DAM AND RESERVOIR, PA................... ............... ............... 223
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, PA............................ ............... ............... 311
JOHNSTOWN, PA................................................ ............... ............... 1,864
KINZUA DAM AND ALLEGHENY RESERVOIR, PA....................... ............... ............... 1,834
LOYALHANNA LAKE, PA.......................................... ............... ............... 1,699
MAHONING CREEK LAKE, PA...................................... ............... ............... 737
MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA........................................ ............... ............... 12,520
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, PA, OH & WV....................... ............... ............... 17,901
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, PA, OH & WV.................... ............... ............... 520
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, PA................................ ............... ............... 55
PROMPTON LAKE, PA............................................ ............... ............... 575
PUNXSUTAWNEY, PA............................................. ............... ............... 14
RAYSTOWN LAKE, PA............................................ ............... ............... 4,482
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, PA.......................... ............... ............... 57
SCHUYLKILL RIVER, PA......................................... ............... ............... 950
SHENANGO RIVER LAKE, PA...................................... ............... ............... 2,015
STILLWATER LAKE, PA.......................................... ............... ............... 405
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, PA................. ............... ............... 75
TIOGA-HAMMOND LAKES, PA...................................... ............... ............... 2,541
TIONESTA LAKE, PA............................................ ............... ............... 1,458
UNION CITY LAKE, PA.......................................... ............... ............... 242
WOODCOCK CREEK LAKE, PA...................................... ............... ............... 754
YORK INDIAN ROCK DAM, PA..................................... ............... ............... 663
YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER LAKE, PA & MD............................. ............... ............... 1,994
PUERTO RICO
SAN JUAN HARBOR, PR.......................................... ............... ............... 4,000
RHODE ISLAND
BLOCK ISLAND HARBOR, RI...................................... ............... ............... 850
BULLOCKS POINT COVE, RI...................................... ............... ............... 900
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, RI............................ ............... ............... 15
POINT JUDITH POND HARBOR OF REFUGE, RI....................... ............... ............... 1,866
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, RI................................ ............... ............... 400
SOUTH COAST, RHODE ISLAND, REGIONAL SEDIMENT MGMT, RI........ ............... ............... 250
SOUTH CAROLINA
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, SC........................... ............... ............... 539
CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC........................................ ............... ............... 7,655
COOPER RIVER, CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC.......................... ............... ............... 3,345
FOLLY RIVER, SC.............................................. ............... ............... 250
GEORGETOWN HARBOR, SC........................................ ............... ............... 3,644
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SC............................ ............... ............... 61
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, SC................................ ............... ............... 532
TOWN CREEK, SC............................................... ............... ............... 520
SOUTH DAKOTA
BIG BEND DAM, LAKE SHARPE, SD................................ ............... ............... 6,948
CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER BRULE SIOUS, SD............ ............... ............... 2,500
COLD BROOK LAKE, SD.......................................... ............... ............... 327
COTTONWOOD SPRINGS LAKE, SD.................................. ............... ............... 236
FORT RANDALL DAM, LAKE FRANCIS CASE, SD...................... ............... ............... 6,737
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SD............................ ............... ............... 17
LAKE TRAVERSE, SD & MN....................................... ............... ............... 561
MISSOURI R BETWEEN FORT PECK DAM AND GAVINS PT, SD, MT....... ............... ............... 200
OAHE DAM, LAKE OAHE, SD & ND................................. ............... ............... 9,133
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, SD.......................... ............... ............... 53
TENNESSEE
CENTER HILL LAKE, TN......................................... ............... ............... 4,817
CHEATHAM LOCK AND DAM, TN.................................... ............... ............... 5,677
CHICKAMAUGA LOCK, TN......................................... ............... ............... 1,250
CORDELL HULL DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN........................... ............... ............... 5,014
DALE HOLLOW LAKE, TN......................................... ............... ............... 4,256
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN............................ ............... ............... 141
J PERCY PRIEST DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN......................... ............... ............... 3,696
OLD HICKORY LOCK AND DAM, TN................................. ............... ............... 7,178
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TN................................ ............... ............... 2
TENNESSEE RIVER, TN.......................................... ............... ............... 19,306
WOLF RIVER HARBOR, TN........................................ ............... ............... 251
TEXAS
AQUILLA LAKE, TX............................................. ............... ............... 844
ARKANSAS--RED RIVER BASINS CHLORIDE CONTROL--AREA VI......... ............... ............... 1,153
BARDWELL LAKE, TX............................................ ............... ............... 1,741
BELTON LAKE, TX.............................................. ............... ............... 3,570
BENBROOK LAKE, TX............................................ ............... ............... 2,185
BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, TX..................................... ............... ............... 3,480
BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TX............................ ............... ............... 2,164
CANYON LAKE, TX.............................................. ............... ............... 3,494
CHANNEL TO PORT BOLIVAR, TX.................................. ............... ............... 310
CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX.............................. ............... ............... 7,000
DENISON DAM, LAKE TEXOMA, TX................................. ............... ............... 5,855
ESTELLINE SPRINGS EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT, TX................... ............... ............... 6
FERRELLS BRIDGE DAM, LAKE O' THE PINES, TX................... ............... ............... 3,146
FREEPORT HARBOR, TX.......................................... ............... ............... 4,400
GALVESTON HARBOR AND CHANNEL, TX............................. ............... ............... 2,600
GIWW, CHANNEL TO VICTORIA, TX................................ ............... ............... 3,120
GRANGER DAM AND LAKE, TX..................................... ............... ............... 1,822
GRAPEVINE LAKE, TX........................................... ............... ............... 2,717
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, TX............................... ............... ............... 35,190
HORDS CREEK LAKE, TX......................................... ............... ............... 1,270
HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX..................................... ............... ............... 15,225
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TX............................ ............... ............... 613
JIM CHAPMAN LAKE, TX......................................... ............... ............... 1,553
JOE POOL LAKE, TX............................................ ............... ............... 729
LAKE KEMP, TX................................................ ............... ............... 207
LAVON LAKE, TX............................................... ............... ............... 3,266
LEWISVILLE DAM, TX........................................... ............... ............... 3,373
MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL, TX................................... ............... ............... 5,367
NAVARRO MILLS LAKE, TX....................................... ............... ............... 2,871
NORTH SAN GABRIEL DAM AND LAKE GEORGETOWN, TX................ ............... ............... 2,261
O C FISHER DAM AND LAKE, TX.................................. ............... ............... 2,263
PAT MAYSE LAKE, TX........................................... ............... ............... 1,431
PROCTOR LAKE, TX............................................. ............... ............... 2,156
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TX................................ ............... ............... 500
RAY ROBERTS LAKE, TX......................................... ............... ............... 1,251
SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY, TX................................... ............... ............... 9,972
SAM RAYBURN DAM AND RESERVOIR, TX............................ ............... ............... 7,524
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, TX.......................... ............... ............... 103
SOMERVILLE LAKE, TX.......................................... ............... ............... 3,242
STILLHOUSE HOLLOW DAM, TX.................................... ............... ............... 2,068
TEXAS CITY SHIP CHANNEL, TX.................................. ............... ............... 850
TEXAS WATER ALLOCATION ASSESSMENT, TX........................ ............... ............... 1,000
TOWN BLUFF DAM, B A STEINHAGEN LAKE, TX...................... ............... ............... 2,694
WACO LAKE, TX................................................ ............... ............... 2,590
WALLISVILLE LAKE, TX......................................... ............... ............... 2,437
WHITNEY LAKE, TX............................................. ............... ............... 6,293
WRIGHT PATMAN DAM AND LAKE, TX............................... ............... ............... 4,036
UTAH
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, UT............................ ............... ............... 42
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, UT.......................... ............... ............... 672
VERMONT
BALL MOUNTAIN LAKE, VT....................................... ............... ............... 1,299
CONNECTICUT RIVER FLOOD CONTROL DAMS......................... ............... ............... 188
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VT............................ ............... ............... 49
NARROWS OF LAKE CHAMPLAIN, VT & NY........................... ............... ............... 10
NORTH HARTLAND LAKE, VT...................................... ............... ............... 850
NORTH SPRINGFIELD LAKE, VT................................... ............... ............... 981
TOWNSHEND LAKE, VT........................................... ............... ............... 873
UNION VILLAGE DAM, VT........................................ ............... ............... 666
VIRGINIA
APPOMATTOX RIVER, VA......................................... ............... ............... 500
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY--ACC, VA...................... ............... ............... 1,798
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY--DSC, VA...................... ............... ............... 867
CHINCOTEAGUE INLET, VA....................................... ............... ............... 852
GATHRIGHT DAM AND LAKE MOOMAW, VA............................ ............... ............... 2,082
HAMPTON RDS, NORFOLK & NEWPORT NEWS HBR, VA (DRIFT REM....... ............... ............... 920
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VA............................ ............... ............... 211
JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA...................................... ............... ............... 3,043
JOHN H KERR LAKE, VA & NC.................................... ............... ............... 11,060
JOHN W FLANNAGAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA....................... ............... ............... 1,366
NORFOLK HARBOR, VA........................................... ............... ............... 13,518
NORFOLK HARBOR, VA (PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS....... ............... ............... 221
NORTH FORK OF POUND RIVER LAKE, VA........................... ............... ............... 601
PHILPOTT LAKE, VA............................................ ............... ............... 4,688
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, VA................................ ............... ............... 840
RUDEE INLET, VA.............................................. ............... ............... 953
WASHINGTON
CHIEF JOSEPH DAM, WA......................................... ............... ............... 837
COLUMBIA RIVER AT BAKER BAY, WA (PORT OF ILWACO)............. ............... ............... 750
COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN CHINOOK AND THE HEAD OF SAND.......... ............... ............... 750
EDIZ HOOK, WA................................................ ............... ............... 310
EVERETT HARBOR AND SNOHOMISH RIVER, WA....................... ............... ............... 895
GRAYS HARBOR AND CHEHALIS RIVER, WA.......................... ............... ............... 6,679
HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA........................................ ............... ............... 1,232
ICE HARBOR LOCK AND DAM, WA.................................. ............... ............... 4,538
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WA............................ ............... ............... 311
LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA............................... ............... ............... 6,112
LITTLE GOOSE LOCK AND DAM, WA................................ ............... ............... 2,755
LOWER GRANITE LOCK AND DAM, WA............................... ............... ............... 3,280
LOWER MONUMENTAL LOCK AND DAM, WA............................ ............... ............... 2,398
MILL CREEK LAKE, WA.......................................... ............... ............... 1,584
MT ST HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA............................ ............... ............... 301
MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA......................................... ............... ............... 2,639
NEAH BAY, WA................................................. ............... ............... 33
OLYMPIA HARBOR, WA........................................... ............... ............... 1,918
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WA................................ ............... ............... 317
PUGET SOUND AND TRIBUTARY WATERS, WA......................... ............... ............... 907
QUILLAYUTE RIVER, WA......................................... ............... ............... 1,052
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WA.......................... ............... ............... 570
SEATTLE HARBOR, WA........................................... ............... ............... 66
STILLAGUAMISH RIVER, WA...................................... ............... ............... 128
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WA................. ............... ............... 98
SWINOMISH CHANNEL, WA........................................ ............... ............... 627
TACOMA, PUYALLUP RIVER, WA................................... ............... ............... 140
THE DALLES LOCK AND DAM, WA & OR............................. ............... ............... 3,432
WILLAPA RIVER AND HARBOR, WA................................. ............... ............... 84
WEST VIRGINIA
BEECH FORK LAKE, WV.......................................... ............... ............... 1,078
BLUESTONE LAKE, WV........................................... ............... ............... 1,098
BURNSVILLE LAKE, WV.......................................... ............... ............... 1,738
EAST LYNN LAKE, WV........................................... ............... ............... 1,699
ELKINS, WV................................................... ............... ............... 17
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WV............................ ............... ............... 129
KANAWHA RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV............................. ............... ............... 9,185
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV, KY & OH....................... ............... ............... 20,665
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, WV, KY & OH.................... ............... ............... 2,140
R D BAILEY LAKE, WV.......................................... ............... ............... 2,302
STONEWALL JACKSON LAKE, WV................................... ............... ............... 830
SUMMERSVILLE LAKE, WV........................................ ............... ............... 1,883
SUTTON LAKE, WV.............................................. ............... ............... 1,750
TYGART LAKE, WV.............................................. ............... ............... 1,350
WISCONSIN
EAU GALLE RIVER LAKE, WI..................................... ............... ............... 723
FOX RIVER, WI................................................ ............... ............... 2,147
GREEN BAY HARBOR, WI......................................... ............... ............... 3,607
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WI............................ ............... ............... 41
MANITOWOC HARBOR, WI......................................... ............... ............... 650
MILWAUKEE HARBOR, WI......................................... ............... ............... 176
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WI................................ ............... ............... 105
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WI................. ............... ............... 472
WYOMING
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WY............................ ............... ............... 11
JACKSON HOLE LEVEES, WY...................................... ............... ............... 853
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WY.......................... ............... ............... 87
--------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, PROJECTS LISTED UNDER STATES................. ............... ............... 2,008,455
O&M Regions:
NEW ENGLAND.............................................. 42,703 45,078 ...............
MID-ATLANTIC............................................. 146,700 143,250 ...............
SOUTH ATLANTIC-GULF...................................... 318,443 297,043 ...............
GREAT LAKES.............................................. 96,660 101,407 ...............
OHIO..................................................... 249,331 252,886 ...............
TENNESSEE................................................ 20,701 21,301 ...............
UPPER MISSISSIPPI........................................ 247,967 233,803 ...............
LOWER MISSISSIPPI........................................ 140,613 147,021 ...............
SOURIS-RED-RAINY......................................... 2,999 2,999 ...............
MISSOURI................................................. 180,200 151,180 ...............
ARKANSAS-WHITE-RED....................................... 176,934 178,084 ...............
TEXAS-GULF............................................... 147,422 141,113 ...............
RIO GRANDE............................................... 10,209 10,209 ...............
UPPER COLORADO........................................... 722 722 ...............
LOWER COLORADO........................................... 3,327 3,327 ...............
GREAT BASIN.............................................. 761 761 ...............
PACIFIC NORTHWEST........................................ 252,093 242,593 ...............
CALIFORNIA............................................... 98,232 102,461 ...............
ALASKA................................................... 22,204 22,204 ...............
HAWAII................................................... 1,995 1,995 ...............
CARIBBEAN................................................ 4,000 4,000 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, PROJECTS LISTED UNDER REGIONS................ 2,164,216 2,103,437 ...............
REMAINING ITEMS:
AQUATIC NUISANCE CONTROL RESEARCH........................ 690 690 690
ASSET MANAGEMENT/FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE.... 4,000 4,000 4,000
COASTAL INLET RESEARCH PROGRAM........................... 2,475 2,475 2,475
CULTURAL RESOURCES (NAGPRA/CURATION)..................... 2,000 2,000 2,000
DREDGE WHEELER READY RESERVE............................. 8,000 8,000 8,000
DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITIES PROGRAM............. 18,000 18,000 ...............
DREDGING DATA AND LOCK PERFORMANCE MONITORING SYSTEM..... 1,062 1,062 1,062
DREDGING OPERATIONS AND ENVRIONMENTAL RESEARCH (DOER).... 6,080 6,080 6,080
DREDGING OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT PROGRAM (DOTS)..... 1,391 1,391 1,391
EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM..................... 270 270 270
FACILITY PROTECTION...................................... 12,000 12,000 12,000
GREAT LAKES TRIBUTARY MODEL.............................. 900 900 900
INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP PR... 500 500 ...............
INLAND WATERWAY NAVIGATION CHARTS........................ 3,708 3,708 3,708
MONITORING OF COMPLETED NAVIGATION PROJECTS.............. 1,575 1,575 1,575
NATIONAL COASTAL MAPPING................................. 2,400 2,400 8,600
NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM.............................. 6,300 6,300 6,300
NATIONAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM (NEPP)........... 5,000 5,000 5,000
PERFORMANCE BASED BUDGETING SUPPORT PROGRAM.............. 2,540 2,540 2,540
PORTFOLIO ASSESSMENT FOR WATER STORAGE REALLOCA- TION... 300 300 300
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT TECHNICAL SUPPORT (ABS,P2,WINABS).... 300 300 300
PROTECTION OF NAVIGATION................................. 5,541 5,541 5,541
RECREATION MANAGEMENT SUPPORT PROGRAM (MSP).............. 1,600 1,600 1,600
REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM....... 1,391 3,641 2,041
RELIABILITY MODELS PROGRAM FOR MAJOR REHABILITATION...... 608 608 ...............
STEWARDSHIP SUPPORT PROGRAM.............................. 500 500 500
WATER OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT (WOTS)................ 653 653 653
--------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, REMAINING ITEMS............................. 89,784 92,034 78,634
SAVINGS & SLIPPAGE........................................... ............... ............... -57,089
--------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE....................... 2,254,000 2,195,471 2,030,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, Alabama and Mississippi.--The
Committee recommendation includes $4,000,000 for the
construction of mooring cells at Columbus, Mississippi and
additional funding for additional maintenance dredging, aquatic
plant control activities and backlog maintenance.
Cordova Harbor, Alaska.--The Committee has included
$500,000 for maintenance dredging of the harbor.
Helena Harbor, Arkansas.--The Committee includes $430,000
for maintenance dredging of this harbor.
McClellan-Kerr, Arkansas River Navigation System, Arkansas
and Oklahoma.--An additional $4,000,000 is provided to complete
the general reevaluation study to identify the long term fix
for the Arkansas-White Cutoff Structure and for repairs along
the existing Melinda Structure.
Ouachita and Black Rivers, Arkansas and Louisiana.--The
Committee recommendation includes an additional $2,000,000 for
backlog maintenance.
Crescent City, California.--The Committee has provided
$500,000 for dredging.
Oakland Harbor, California.--The Committee recommendation
includes $8,543,000 for dredging the Inner and Outer Harbors.
Los Angeles-Long Beach Harbor, California.--$4,000,000 is
provided for dredging the Los Angeles River Estuary.
Cherry Creek, Chatfield, and Trinidad Lakes, Colorado.--The
Committee has included an additional $2,000,000 for continued
repairs at 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 of the operation and maintenance of these recreation
facilities. Of the funds provided, the Corps is directed to
conduct a reallocation study for Chatfield Reservoir project.
Intracoastal Waterway, Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay,
Delaware and Maryland.--The Committee recommendation includes
$12,008,000 for this project.
AIWW, Norfolk, Virginia to St. Johns River, Florida,
Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia.--The
Committee includes $2,100,000 for maintenance dredging.
Intracoastal Waterway, Caloosahatchee to Anclote,
FLorida.--The Committee provides $1,500,000 for maintenance
dredging.
Intracoastal Waterway, Jacksonville to Miami, Florida.--The
Committee recommendation includes $4,000,000 for maintenance
dredging.
Miami River, Florida.--The Committee provides $7,000,000
for continued operations and maintenance of the Miami River
Channel. This project will provide the first maintenance
dredging of the Miami River since its original authorization in
1930. The Corps of Engineers is currently studying the economic
benefits of the dredging project. In so doing, the Secretary
should take into consideration the broad economic benefits of
this project, including the increase in maritime cargo, the
increased maritime business activity on the Miami River that
will result from the project, such as mega-yacht servicing, and
other economic and environmental benefits related to the
revitalization of the area bordering the Miami River.
Apalachiacola, Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers and Alabama,
Coosa and Tallapoosa Rivers, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida.--
Prior notification of the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees and affected congressional Members is required
before any funding shall be reprogrammed or otherwise used for
updating masterplans having to do with projects in these river
basins.
Pohiki Bay, Hawaii, Hawaii.--The Committee includes
$200,000 to complete plans and specifications for the
breakwater repair.
Mississippi River Between Missouri River and Minneapolis
(MVR Portion), Illinois.--The Committee recommendation includes
$40,790,000. Within the funds provided, $3,582,000 is for
continuation of the major maintenance of Lock and Dam 11 and
Lock and Dam 19 as well as dredging small boat harbors.
Atchafalaya River and Bayous Chene, Boeuf and Black,
Louisiana.--The Committee has provided an additional funds for
maintenance dredging activities.
Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana.--The Committee
provides additional funding for maintenance dredging of this
channel.
J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Louisiana.--The Committee
recommendation includes an additional $2,548,000 for bank
stabilization repairs, dredging entrances to oxbow lakes,
routine operation and maintenance activities, annual dredging
requirements, and backlog maintenance.
Herring Bay and Rockhold Creek, Maryland.--The Committee
recommendation includes funds to dredge this project.
Boston Harbor, Massachusetts.--The Committee has provided
$7,000,000 to initiate dredging in the Inner Harbor.
Weymouth-Fore River, Massachusetts.--$1,728,000 is provided
for dredging this project.
Grand Marais Harbor, Michigan.--The Committee provides
$1,500,000 to continue construction of the replacement
breakwater.
Mouth of the Yazoo River, Mississippi.--The Committee
includes additional funds for the maintenance dredging of the
entrance to Vicksburg Harbor.
Okatibbee Lake, Mississippi.--The Committee includes
additional funds for maintenance of public use facilities.
Rosedale Harbor, Mississippi.--The Committee recommendation
includes $600,000 for maintenance dredging of the harbor.
Cocheco River, New Hampshire.--The Committee provides
$2,000,000 continue dredging of the Cocheco River project.
Albuquerque Levees, New Mexico.--The Committee
recommendation provides $500,000 to complete plans and
specifications.
Cochiti Lake, New Mexico.--The Committee provides
additional funds to fully fund routine operation and
maintenance, campground construction, Cochiti baseline, gate
automation, grout control tower to stop all water leaks, and
structural review of the project water tower.
Rio Grande Bosque Rehabilitation, New Mexico.--The
Committee includes $4,000,000 to continue fire reduction work
and general Bosque rehabilitation in order to complete repairs
and fire protection resulting from 2003 and 2004 fires in the
urban interface.
Scheduling Reservoir Operations, New Mexico.--The Committee
recommendation provides $1,471,000. Within these funds,
$250,000 is provided to develop an outline for an Integrated
Management Plan of the Rio Grande in New Mexico in cooperation
with the Bureau of Reclamation, other Federal, State and local
agencies.
Upper Rio Grande Water Operations Model, New Mexico.--The
Committee recommendation includes $500,000 for assessment of
options to develop a conservation pool to assist in meeting ESA
requirements in the Middle Rio Grande.
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, North Carolina.--The
Committee includes an additional $3,370,000 for dredging of the
project. Within the funds provided, $500,000 is for dredging
Snow's cut.
Manteo (Shallowbag Bay), North Carolina.--The Committee
includes additional funds for dredging of the project.
Garrison Dam and Lake Sakakawea, North Dakota.--The
Committee provides $100,000 for mosquito control, $900,000 for
the Corps to work in cooperation with the Friends of Lake
Sakakawea to ensure the recreation sites around the lake can be
utilized, and $5,000,000, along with prior year unobligated
balances, shall be used for the relocation of the Fort
Stevenson marina.
Columbia and Lower Willamette River Below Vancouver,
Washington and Portland, Oregon.--The Committee recommendation
includes $17,800,000 for this project. Within the funds
provided, up to $1,384,000 shall be used for dredging the 43
foot channel and $470,000 is for dredging at the Old Mouth of
the Columbia River at Longview, Washington.
Columbia River at the Mouth, Oregon and Washington.--The
Committee recommendation includes $20,189,000 for the project.
Within these funds, $9,315,000 is provided to complete interim
repairs on the South jetty; complete the Phase 1 Major
Rehabilitation Report; and to initiate a Design Documentation
Report for Phase 1 and the Phase 2 Major Rehabilitation Report.
Cheyenne River Siuox Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux, South
Dakota.--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 provides
$2,500,000 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.
Houston Ship Channel, Texas.--The Committee includes an
additional $2,000,000 for additional dredging and dredging
related activities.
Texas Water Allocation Study, Texas.--The Committee
provides $1,000,000 for this ongoing study.
Connecticut River Flood Control Dams, Vermont.--$188,000 is
provided to complete the evaluation of structural modifications
to the five Corps dams within the Connecticut River Basin in
Vermont.
Norfolk Harbor, Virginia.--The Committee provides an
additional $3,747,000 for maintenance dredging and to raise the
containment dikes to provide the capacity needed for the
Norfolk Harbor Deepening project.
Mud Mountain Dam, Washington.--Within the funds provided,
the Corps is directed to use up to $500,000 to satisfy Federal
fish passage obligations for the term of the cooperative
agreement with Puget Sound Energy.
R.D. Bailey Lake, West Virginia.--The Committee includes an
additional $770,000 for drift removal and for drift removal
equipment.
Fox River, Wisconsin.--The Committee has included an
additional $1,000,000 to reimburse Wisconsin, in accordance
with the agreement, for the costs of repairs and rehabilitation
of the transferred property.
Independent Assessment of Environmental Stewardship
Program.--The Committee has not provided funding for this new
study.
Reliability Models Program for Major Rehabilitation.--The
Committee has not provided funding for this new study.
Regional Sediment Management Demonstration Program.--The
Committee has provided $2,041,000 for this program. Within the
funds provided, $500,000 is for the southeast coast of Oahu,
Hawaii and $250,000 for Ocean and Bay Coastlines in Virginia.
The Committee has not included funds for the Benson Beach
demonstration project. It is the Committee's understanding that
funds are available from prior year appropriations for this
project. The Committee directs the Corps to work with the State
of Washington to study the effects of nearshore disposal and
littoral drift on nourishment of Benson Beach.
National Coastal Mapping.--$8,600,000 is provided for this
program. Within the funds provided $1,600,000 is for collection
of LIDAR bathymetry and $4,600,000 is for Coastal Zone Mapping
and Imaging Laser to be conducted with the University of
Southern Mississippi.
FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES
Appropriations, 2006.................................... ( \1\ )
Budget estimate, 2007................................... $81,000,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 32,000,000
\1\ Excludes emergency appropriation of $5,422,989,000.
The Committee has included $32,000,000 for the FCCE
account. 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.
Since Hurricane Katrina made landfall in late August 2005,
nearly $5,500,000,000 has been provided to this account through
supplemental appropriations. The Committee believes that
carryover funds should be available to address unexpected
disasters that occur in fiscal year 2007. Therefore, the
Committee provides $32,000,000. This is the amount considered
necessary for annual readiness and preparedness activities of
the Corps.
REGULATORY PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $158,400,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 173,000,000
House allowance......................................... 173,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 168,000,000
An appropriation of $168,000,000 is recommended for the
regulatory program of the Corps of Engineers.
This appropriation provides for salaries and costs incurred
administering regulation of activities affecting U.S. waters,
including wetlands, in accordance with the Rivers and Harbors
Act of 1899 33 U.S.C. section 401, the Clean Water Act of 1977
Public Law 95-217, and the Marine Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972 Public Law 92-532.
The appropriation helps maintain program performance,
protects important aquatic resources, and supports partnerships
with States and local communities through watershed planning
efforts.
The Committee continues to be concerned about the backlog
of permit applications and the delay in making permit
decisions, especially in certain areas. Some of these permit
actions have major national or regional impacts and the delays
are, accordingly, having negative consequences on the Nation's
economy and environmental quality. To partially address this
concern, the Corps of Engineers is directed to initiate a
series of pilot programs aimed at streamlining decisions for
high impact permit applications with national or regional
implications, especially those which are repetitive or which
have common characteristics with other similar permit
applications. These pilot programs are to be designed to gain
efficiencies by sharing knowledge and expertise gained by Corps
regulators in processing similar types of applications in one
area with their colleagues facing similar applications in
another, promoting consistency, developing and sharing ``best
practices'' approaches to evaluating such permit applications,
and use of virtual or dedicated teams to expedite broad-impact
permit applications. In establishing these pilot programs, the
Corps shall give priority to applications aimed at streamlining
the expansion of interstate rail capacity in an economically
and environmentally sound manner and in reaching similarly
sound, streamlined decisions on large-scale commercial and
residential land developments involving complex land use
considerations.
The Committee is keenly aware that U.S. economic health and
national security depends on the continued availability of
reliable and affordable energy. The Committee is also aware
that the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Regulatory Branch
plays a key role by authorizing much of the 1.13 billion tons
of coal production expected this year through its regulatory
program.
Therefore, the Committee directs the Corps to work with the
Office of Surface Mining [OSM] to develop a more efficient
process for issuing permits associated with surface coal mining
operations. To avoid unnecessary time delays and duplication of
agency resources, the Corps shall maintain the availability of
a meaningful general permit for surface coal mining that may be
issued in coordination with and for the term of the permit
already required pursuant to the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act [SMCRA]. The Corps should also dedicate
sufficient personnel and financial resources to support a
consistent program for permit review and issuance.
FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $138,600,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 130,000,000
House allowance......................................... 130,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 140,000,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $140,000,000
to continue activities related to the Formerly Utilized Sites
Remedial Action Program [FUSRAP] in fiscal year 2005.
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 directs the Corps of Engineers during fiscal
year 2007 to complete expeditiously its Site Ownership and
Operational History review and continue its Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study toward the goal of initiating
any necessary remediation of the former Sylvania nuclear fuel
site at Hicksville, New York, in accordance with CERCLA.
The Committee directs the Corps to continue ongoing cleanup
efforts at the Former Linde Air Products, Tonawanda, New York,
consistent with current CERCLA cleanup standards.
GENERAL EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2006....................................\1\ $152,460,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 164,000,000
House allowance......................................... 142,100,000
Committee recommendation................................ 164,000,000
\1\ Excludes emergency appropriations of $1,600,000.
This appropriation finances the expenses of the Office,
Chief of Engineers, the Division Offices, and certain research
and statistical functions of the Corps of Engineers. The
Committee recommendation is $165,000,000. The Committee
understands that the cost of the required financial audit of
the Corps of Engineers may exceed $20,000,000 for fiscal year
2006. Therefore, the Committee encourages the Corps to use the
Revolving Fund to undertake this audit and budget appropriation
for this audit in future years.
Executive Direction and Management.--The Office of the
Chief of Engineers and eight division offices supervise work in
38 district offices.
Humphreys Engineer Center Support Activity.--This support
center provides administrative services (such as personnel,
logistics, information management, and finance and accounting)
for the Office of the Chief of Engineers and other separate
field operating activities.
Institute for Water Resources.--This institute performs
studies, analyses, and 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 centralized support for all Corps finance and
accounting.
Office of Congressional Affairs.--The Committee has
included statutory language for the past several years
prohibiting any funds from being used to fund an Office of
Congressional Affairs within the executive office of the Chief
of Engineers. The Committee believes that an Office of
Congressional Affairs for the Civil Works Program would hamper
the efficient and effective coordination of issues with the
Committee staff and Members of Congress. The Committee believes
that the technical knowledge and managerial expertise needed
for the Corps headquarters to effectively address Civil Works
authorization, appropriation, and Headquarters policy matters
resides in the Civil Works organization. Therefore, the
Committee strongly recommends that the Office of Congressional
Affairs not be a part of the process by which information on
Civil Works projects, programs, and activities is provided to
Congress.
The Committee reminds the Corps that the General Expenses
account is to be used exclusively for executive oversight and
management of the Civil Works Program.
In 1998, The Chief of Engineers issued a Command Directive
transferring the oversight and management of the General
Expenses account, as well as the manpower associated with this
function, from the Civil Works Directorate to the Resource
Management Office. General Expense funds are appropriated
solely for the executive management and oversight of the Civil
Works Program under the direction of the Director of Civil
Works.
The Committee is pleased with the efforts of the Corps to
restructure the management of general expense funds. It
continues to believe that the general expense dollars are
ultimately at the discretion of the Chief of Engineers and are
intended to be utilized in his effort to carry out the Corps'
mission. The new controls put in place to manage the general
expense dollars and evaluate the needs of the Corps address the
Committee's previous concerns. The Committee requests the Corps
continue to provide biannual written notification of the
dispersal of general expense funds.
Millions of dollars have been spent over the last several
years on an initiative to contract out Government jobs in order
to make the Government more efficient. However, in more than 70
percent of the cases Government employees win the competition
for their jobs. The Committee fails to see any evidence of cost
savings or increased efficiency by undergoing these expensive
competitions. Therefore, the Committee directs that no funds
provided in this account or otherwise available for expenditure
shall be used to comply with the competitive sourcing
initiative.
The Committee acknowledges that the General Expense account
has not kept pace with inflation. Over the last 6 years this
account has fluctuated. The low point was in fiscal year 2000,
when the account was funded at $149,500,000 for a
$4,100,000,000 program. The high point was in fiscal year 2005,
when the account was funded at $167,000,000 for a
$4,700,000,000 program. Both of these numbers represent about
3.6 percent of the total dollars appropriated. The Committee
recommendation for fiscal year 2007 program is about
$5,100,000,000. Using the same percentage, this translates to
$181,000,000 for the GE account for fiscal year 2007. Obviously
other variables must be considered than a single percentage,
but it is one way to approximate the level of funding needed in
the GE account to provide similar levels of service.
While the Committee did not provide $181,000,000 for the GE
account, it did retain the requested level of $164,000,000,
which includes $6,000,000 to fund the Office of the Assistant
Secretary of the Army (Civil Works). The Committee directs that
the funds proposed for the ASA[CW] along with the funds
proposed for competitive sourcing in the budget request be used
to provide up to 40 additional staff for the headquarters
office. Additional staff should also be provided for the
Mississippi Valley Division in order to oversee hurricane
recovery efforts and the more than $6,000,000,000 that Congress
has provided for that effort. Up to $1,500,000 may be used to
augment the General Expense budget of the Mississippi Valley
Division. The Committee expects the administration to budget
for this increased staffing in future budget submissions.
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS)
The Committee has provided no funding for the Office of the
Assitant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. The Committee
does not believe that the ASA[CW] has the time nor should be
involved in the day-to-day operational matters of the civil
works program. It is the Committee's opinion that the
traditional role of the ASA[CW] is to provide the Chief of
Engineers advice about policy matters and generally be the
political spokesperson for the administration's policies;
however, the Chief of Engineers is responsible for carrying out
the program.
The decisions of fiscal year 2005 and 2006 to fund the
expenses of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil
Works through Energy and Water appropriations were an
experiment in striving for management improvements in the Civil
Works program. The desired management improvements can be and
are being achieved but, based on the experience of these 2
years, it is apparent that funding the Assistant Secretary's
office out of Energy and Water appropriations, rather than the
military appropriation that funds the rest of the Army
Secretariat, is neither necessary to achieve these improvements
nor is it an efficient way to fund the office. As a result, the
Senate Appropriations Committee recommends that in fiscal year
2007 and thereafter the expenses of the Office of the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works again should be funded
through the Defense Department appropriations for Operation and
Maintenance, Army [OMA].
The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works advises
the Secretary of the Army on a variety of matters, including
the Civil Works program of the Corps of Engineers. The
Assistant Secretary is a member of the Army Secretariat with
responsibilities, such as participating in Continuity of
Government exercises that extend well beyond Civil Works. The
Assistant Secretary also oversees the administration, operation
and maintenance, and capital development of Arlington National
Cemetery and the Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemetery.
Congressional oversight of the Army Cemetery program lies not
with the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, but
rather with the Appropriation Subcommittee on Military
Construction and Veterans Affairs and with the Committee on
Veterans Affairs.
The Assistant Secretary has broad responsibilities to
oversee the Support for Others program of the Corps of
Engineers, totaling nearly $2,400,000,000 in fiscal year 2005.
Through this program, the Corps provides reimbursable
engineering and construction services for more than 70 other
Federal agencies and, under certain conditions specified in
law, provides services for States, localities and tribes. The
Assistant Secretary also has oversight over Corps international
activities that are not directly in support of U.S. military
forces overseas. These include more than $500,000,000 in design
and construction for the Defense Department's Foreign Military
Sales program and more than $150,000,000 in vertical
construction for the Department of State's Cooperative Threat
Reduction program. Oversight of domestic activities includes
support for the Department of Homeland Security (in both
national security activities and emergency response under the
Stafford Act in support of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency), the Environmental Protection Agency's Superfund
program, the Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, and many other agencies.
The Army's accounting system does not track OMA funding of
overhead or Army-wide support offices on the basis of which
office receives support, nor would it be efficient or effective
to do so for a 20 person office. Instead, expenses such as
legal support, personnel services, finance and accounting
services, the executive motor pool, travel on military
aircraft, and other support services are centrally funded and
managed on a department-wide basis. Transferring the funding
for the expenses of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Works to
a separate account has greatly complicated the Army's
accounting for such indirect and overhead expenses with no
commensurate benefit to justify the change.
GENERAL PROVISIONS--CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL
Section 101. The bill includes language concerning
reprogramming.
Section 102. The bill includes language limiting
reimbursements.
Section 103. The bill includes language prohibiting the
divesting or transferring Civil Works functions.
Section 104. The bill includes language prohibiting any
steps to dismantle the St. Georges Bridge in Delaware.
Section 105. The bill includes language concerning report
notifications.
Section 106. The bill includes language concerning
reallocations in Lake Cumberland, Kentucky.
Section 107. The bill includes language regarding the Lower
Mud River, Milton, West Virginia, project.
Section 108. The bill includes language allowing the use of
the revolving fund to construct two buildings.
Section 109. The bill includes language concerning
cooperative agreements.
Section 110. The bill includes language concerning in-kind
services for the Rio Grande Basin Watershed study.
Section 111. The bill includes language regarding the
Middle Rio Grande Collaborative Program, New Mexico.
Section 112. The bill includes language regarding
Apalachiacola, Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers and Alabama,
Coosa and Tallapoosa Rivers, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida.
Section 113. The bill includes language regarding the Rio
De Flag, Arizona, project.
Section 114. The bill includes language regarding Avian
Predation in the Columbia River Fish Mitigation project.
Section 115. The bill includes language regarding the Santa
Ana, California, project.
Section 116. The bill includes language regarding the Upper
Guadalupe, California, project.
Section 117. The bill includes language concerning the
conveyance of surplus property in Tate County, Mississippi.
Section 118. The bill includes language regarding two
environmental infrastructure projects in Nevada.
Section 119. The bill includes language regarding the
Devils Lake, North Dakota, environmental infrastructure.
Section 120. The bill includes language regarding the
Federal dredges.
Section 121. The bill includes language regarding the
Federal dredges.
Section 122. The bill includes language regarding the
Federal dredges.
Section 123. The bill includes language concerning Missouri
River mitigation.
Section 124. The bill includes language limiting Corps of
Engineers expenditure on a project.
Section 125. The bill includes language repealing two
sections of Public Law 109-103.
Section 126. The bill includes language concerning the
Shore Line Erosion Control Development and Demonstration
Program.
Section 127. The bill includes language regarding
congressional budget justifications.
Section 128. The bill includes language regarding non-
Federal sponsors.
Section 129. The bill includes language regarding
reimbursements.
Section 130. The bill includes language regarding Johnson
Creek, Texas.
Section 131. The bill includes language regarding McAlpine
Lock and Dam.
Section 132. The bill includes language regarding Federal
Civilian Employee Compensation.
Section 133. The bill includes language regarding crediting
of non-Federal expenditures.
Section 134. The bill includes language regarding the San
Lorenzo River, California.
Section 135. The bill includes a provision regarding the
Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers Enhancement Project.
TITLE II
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Central Utah Project Completion Account
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $34,007,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 40,155,000
House allowance......................................... 40,155,000
Committee recommendation................................ 40,155,000
The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2007 to carry
out the provisions of the Central Utah Project Completion Act
totals $40,155,000. An appropriation of $37,587,000 has been
provided for Central Utah project construction; $937,000 for
fish, wildlife, and recreation, mitigation and conservation.
The Committee recommendation provides $1,603,000 for program
administration and oversight.
Legislative language in the bill that accompanies this
report allows up to $1,500,000 to be used for administrative
costs. The one time increase in administrative expenses is to
provide funding for costs associated with securing new office
space and relocating the Commission's office, due to the
cancellation of its building lease.
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, 2006....................................\1\ $874,679,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... \2\ 745,424,000
House allowance......................................... \2\ 761,122,000
Committee recommendation................................ 888,994,000
\1\ Includes Emergency Supplemental Appropriations of $9,000,000.
\2\ Includes a rescission of $88,000,000.
An appropriation of $888,994,000 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 has divided underfinancing between the
Resources Management Subaccount and the Facilities Operation
and Maintenance Subaccount. The Committee directs that the
underfinancing amount in each subaccount initially be applied
uniformly across all projects within the subaccounts. Upon
applying the underfinanced amounts, normal reprogramming
procedures should be undertaken to account for schedule
slippages, accelerations or other unforeseen conditions.
The amounts recommended by the Committee are shown on the
following table along with the budget request and the House
allowance.
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION--WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate House allowance Committee
------------------------------------------------ recommendation
Project title -----------------------
Resources Facilities Resources Facilities Resources Facilities
management OM&R management OM&R management OM&R
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARIZONA
AK CHIN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT .......... 7,920 .......... 7,920 .......... 7,920
PROJECT................................
CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT, COLORADO RIVER 27,050 153 27,050 153 27,650 153
BASIN..................................
COLORADO RIVER FRONT WORK AND LEVEE 5,495 .......... 5,495 .......... 5,495 ..........
SYSTEM.................................
FORT MCDOWELL SETTLEMENT ACT............ 396 .......... 396 .......... 396 ..........
NORTHERN ARIZONA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM. 297 .......... 297 .......... 297 ..........
PHOENIX METROPOLITAN WATER REUSE PROJECT 198 .......... 198 .......... 198 ..........
SALT RIVER PROJECT...................... 297 .......... 297 .......... 297 ..........
SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE WATER SETTLEMENT 297 .......... 297 .......... 297 ..........
ACT....................................
SOUTHERN ARIZONA WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT 4,713 .......... 4,713 .......... 4,713 ..........
ACT PROJECT............................
SOUTH/CENTRAL ARIZONA INVESTIGATIONS 1,074 .......... 1,074 .......... 1,074 ..........
PROGRAM................................
TRES RIOS WETLANDS DEMONSTRATION........ 223 .......... 473 .......... 223 ..........
YUMA AREA PROJECTS...................... 1,652 21,080 2,147 21,080 1,652 21,080
YUMA EAST WETLANDS, AZ.................. .......... .......... .......... .......... 1,000 ..........
CALIFORNIA
CACHUMA PROJECT......................... 1,021 558 1,521 558 1,521 558
CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM....... 574 .......... 574 .......... 574 ..........
CALLEGUAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT 990 .......... 990 .......... 1,200 ..........
RECYCLING PLANT........................
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT:
AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION............. 1,815 7,158 3,065 7,158 1,815 7,158
AUBURN-FOLSOM SOUTH UNIT............ 4,025 .......... 5,025 .......... 4,025 ..........
DELTA DIVISION...................... 10,819 5,840 10,819 5,840 10,819 5,840
EAST SIDE DIVISION.................. 1,598 2,523 1,598 2,523 1,598 2,523
FRIANT DIVISION..................... 1,894 3,814 1,894 3,814 1,894 3,814
MISCELLANEOUS PROJECT PROGRAMS...... 13,658 1,259 13,658 1,259 13,658 1,259
REPLACEMENTS, ADDITIONS, AND .......... 18,315 .......... 18,315 .......... 18,315
EXTRAORDINARY MAINT................
SACRAMENTO RIVER DIVERSION.......... 2,445 1,740 2,445 1,740 4,395 1,740
SAN FELIPE DIVISION................. 1,015 .......... 1,015 .......... 1,015 ..........
SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION................ 309 .......... 309 .......... 309 ..........
SHASTA DIVISION..................... 802 7,625 802 7,625 802 7,625
TRINITY RIVER DIVISION.............. 7,379 3,318 7,379 3,318 9,379 3,318
WATER AND POWER OPERATIONS.......... 1,648 9,483 1,648 9,483 1,648 9,483
WEST SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION, SAN LUIS 3,921 6,992 3,921 6,992 3,921 6,992
UNIT...............................
YIELD FEASIBILITY INVESTIGATION..... 792 .......... 792 .......... 792 ..........
HI-DESERT WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND .......... .......... 500 .......... .......... ..........
REUSE..................................
LAKE TAHOE REGIONAL WETLANDS DEVELOPMENT .......... .......... .......... .......... 4,500 ..........
LONG BEACH AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND 743 .......... 743 .......... 907 ..........
REUSE PROJECT..........................
LONG BEACH DESALINATION PROJECT......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 1,000 ..........
IRVINE BASIN GROUND AND SURFACE WATER .......... .......... 1,000 .......... 250 ..........
IMPROVEMENT............................
NAPA-SONOMA-MARIN AGRICULTURAL REUSE .......... .......... .......... .......... 200 ..........
PROJECT................................
NORTH SAN DIEGO COUNTY AREA WATER 1,238 .......... 1,238 .......... 1,238 ..........
RECYCLING PROJECT......................
ORANGE COUNTY REGIONAL WATER RECLAMATION 1,238 .......... 1,238 .......... 2,500 ..........
PROJECT, PHAS..........................
ORLAND PROJECT.......................... 14 674 14 674 14 674
SACRAMENTO RIVER DIVERSION STUDY........ .......... .......... 1,000 .......... .......... ..........
SALTON SEA RESEARCH PROJECT............. 743 .......... 2,243 .......... 743 ..........
SAN DIEGO AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND 3,465 .......... 3,465 .......... 3,465 ..........
REUSE PROGRAM..........................
SAN GABRIEL BASIN PROJECT............... 743 .......... 743 .......... 743 ..........
SAN GABRIEL BASIN RESTORATION PROJECT... .......... .......... 10,000 .......... .......... ..........
SAN JOSE AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND 495 .......... 495 .......... 495 ..........
REUSE PROGRAM..........................
SANTA MARGARITA RIVER CONJUNCTIVE USE .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
PROJECT................................
SOLANO PROJECT.......................... 1,287 2,558 1,287 2,558 1,287 2,558
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATIONS 406 .......... 1,308 .......... 406 ..........
PROGRAM................................
WATSONVILLE AREA WATER RECYCLING PROJECT .......... .......... 1,000 .......... .......... ..........
VENTURA RIVER PROJECT................... 824 .......... 824 .......... 824 ..........
COLORADO
ANIMAS-LA PLATA PROJECT, CRSP SECTION 5 57,420 .......... 57,420 .......... 65,000 ..........
& 8....................................
COLLBRAN PROJECT........................ 170 1,370 170 1,370 170 1,370
COLORADO--BIG THOMPSON PROJECT.......... 334 14,861 334 14,861 334 14,861
COLORADO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM......... 396 .......... 396 .......... 396 ..........
FRUITGROWERS DAM PROJECT................ 81 144 81 144 81 144
FRYINGPAN--ARKANSAS PROJECT............. 196 6,868 196 6,868 196 6,868
GRAND VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II..... 167 882 167 882 167 882
LEADVILLE/ARKANSAS RIVER RECOVERY....... 74 1,970 74 1,970 74 1,970
MANCOS PROJECT.......................... 50 85 50 85 500 85
PARADOX VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II... 60 2,067 60 2,067 60 2,067
PINE RIVER PROJECT...................... 182 125 182 125 182 125
SAN LUIS VALLEY PROJECT................. 292 5,141 292 5,141 292 5,141
UNCOMPAHGRE PROJECT..................... 128 162 128 162 128 162
HAWAII
HAWAIIAN RECLAIM AND REUSE STUDY........ .......... .......... .......... .......... 500 ..........
IDAHO
BOISE AREA PROJECTS..................... 2,523 2,706 2,523 2,706 2,523 2,706
COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVER SALMON RECOVERY 17,325 .......... 17,325 .......... 17,325 ..........
PROJECT................................
IDAHO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM............ 574 .......... 574 .......... 574 ..........
LEWISTON ORCHARDS PROJECTS.............. 339 31 339 31 339 31
MINIDOKA AREA PROJECTS.................. 3,266 2,938 3,266 2,938 3,266 2,938
MINIDOKA NORTHSIDE DRAIN WATER 114 .......... 114 .......... 114 ..........
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.....................
MINIDOKA PROJECT, GRASSY LAKE SOD....... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
KANSAS
KANSAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM........... 150 .......... 150 .......... 150 ..........
WICHITA PROJECT......................... 15 436 15 436 15 436
MONTANA
FORT PECK DRY PRAIRIE RURAL WATER SYSTEM 5,000 .......... 6,000 .......... 10,000 ..........
HUNGRY HORSE PROJECT.................... .......... 990 .......... 990 .......... 990
HUNTLEY PROJECT......................... 50 131 50 131 50 131
MILK RIVER PROJECT...................... 487 1,099 487 1,099 487 1,099
MONTANA INVESTIGATIONS.................. 318 .......... 318 .......... 318 ..........
NORTH CENTRAL MONTANA RURAL WATER .......... .......... 5,500 .......... 6,000 ..........
PROJECT................................
ST. MARY'S FACILITIES REHABILIATION..... .......... .......... .......... .......... 5,000 ..........
SUN RIVER PROJECT....................... 98 249 98 249 98 249
NEBRASKA
MIRAGE FLATS PROJECT.................... 31 82 31 82 31 82
NEBRASKA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM......... 129 .......... 129 .......... 129 ..........
NEVADA
HALFWAY WASH PROJECT STUDY.............. 198 .......... 198 .......... 198 ..........
LAHONTAN BASIN PROJECT.................. 4,982 2,807 4,982 2,807 4,982 2,807
LAKE MEAD/LAS VEGAS WASH PROGRAM........ 476 .......... 476 .......... 2,274 ..........
NORTH LAS VEGAS WATER REUSE............. .......... .......... .......... .......... 3,000 ..........
NEW MEXICO
ALBUQUERQUE METRO AREA WATER & .......... .......... .......... .......... 2,770 ..........
RECLAMATION REUSE......................
CARLSBAD PROJECT........................ 2,031 1,604 2,031 1,604 2,031 2,804
CHIMAYO, NM............................. .......... .......... .......... .......... 2,000 ..........
EASTERN NEW MEXICO WATER SUPPLY......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 500 ..........
EASTERN NEW MEXICO INVESTIGATIONS 50 .......... 50 .......... 50 ..........
PROGRAMS...............................
JICARILLA APACHE RESERVATION RURAL WATER .......... .......... 500 .......... .......... ..........
SYSTEM.................................
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE PROJECT............... 15,470 8,290 15,470 8,290 23,980 15,520
NAVAJO GALLUP WATER SUPPLY.............. .......... .......... .......... .......... 500 ..........
NAVAJO NATION INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.... 50 .......... 50 .......... 50 ..........
PECOS RIVER BASIN WATER SALVAGE PROJECT. .......... 189 .......... 189 .......... 189
RIO GRANDE PROJECT...................... 960 3,564 960 3,564 960 3,564
SAN JUAN RIVER BASIN INVESTIGATIONS 149 .......... 149 .......... 149 ..........
PROGRAM................................
SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO/WEST TEXAS 179 .......... 179 .......... 179 ..........
INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.................
TUCUMCARI PROJECT....................... 23 13 23 13 23 13
UPPER RIO GRANDE BASIN INVESTIGATIONS... 99 .......... 99 .......... 99 ..........
NORTH DAKOTA
DAKOTAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.......... 378 .......... 378 .......... 378 ..........
DAKOTAS TRIBES INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
LOWER YELLOWSTONE PROJECT............... 30 64 30 64 30 64
GARRISON DIVERSION UNIT................. 19,255 4,966 20,255 4,966 24,255 4,966
OKLAHOMA
ARBUCKLE PROJECT........................ 37 151 37 151 37 151
MCGEE CREEK PROJECT..................... 26 545 26 545 26 545
MOUNTAIN PARK PROJECT................... 6 370 6 370 6 370
NORMAN PROJECT.......................... 12 332 12 332 12 332
OKLAHOMA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM......... 25 .......... 775 .......... 25 ..........
WASHITA BASIN PROJECT................... 10 1,187 10 1,187 10 1,187
W.C. AUSTIN PROJECT..................... 7 425 7 425 7 425
OREGON
CROOKED RIVER PROJECT................... 433 508 433 508 433 508
DESCHUTES PROJECT....................... 330 231 330 231 330 231
EASTERN OREGON PROJECTS................. 662 364 662 364 662 364
KLAMATH PROJECT......................... 23,504 1,246 23,504 1,246 23,504 1,246
MALHEYR, OWYHEE, POWDER,................ .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
BURNT RIVER BASIN FEASIBILITY ST.... .......... .......... .......... .......... 240 ..........
OREGON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM........... 389 .......... 389 .......... 389 ..........
ROGUE RIVER BASIN PROJECT, TALENT 756 418 756 418 756 418
DIVISION...............................
SAVAGE RAPIDS DAM REMOVAL............... 13,000 .......... 13,000 .......... 13,000 ..........
TUALATIN PROJECT........................ 165 216 165 216 165 216
TUALATIN VALLEY WATER SUPPLY FEASIBILITY .......... .......... 280 .......... 280 ..........
PROJECT................................
UMATILLA PROJECT........................ 721 3,006 721 3,006 721 3,006
SOUTH DAKOTA
LEWIS AND CLARK RURAL WATER SYSTEM...... 21,000 .......... 22,000 .......... 23,500 ..........
MID-DAKOTA RURAL WATER PROJECT.......... .......... 15 .......... 15 .......... ..........
MNI WICONI PROJECT...................... 22,914 9,256 22,914 9,256 23,914 9,256
PERKINS COUNTY RURAL WATER DISTRICT..... .......... .......... 1,250 .......... 1,000 ..........
RAPID VALLEY PROJECT, DEERFIELD DAM..... .......... 54 .......... 54 .......... 54
TEXAS
BALMORHEA PROJECT....................... 26 16 26 16 26 16
CANADIAN RIVER PROJECT.................. 68 87 68 87 68 87
DALLAS TRINITY WATER RECLAMATION AND .......... .......... .......... .......... 205 ..........
REUSE..................................
LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY WATER RESOURCES. 50 .......... 50 .......... 2,000 ..........
NUECES RIVER............................ 27 488 27 488 27 488
SAN ANGELO PROJECT...................... 6 367 6 367 6 367
TEXAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM............ 204 .......... 204 .......... 204 ..........
WILLIAMSON COUNTY WATER RECYCLING .......... .......... 750 .......... .......... ..........
PROJECT................................
UTAH
HYRUM PROJECT........................... 122 29 122 29 122 29
MOON LAKE PROJECT....................... 3 29 3 29 3 29
NEWTON PROJECT.......................... 55 25 55 25 55 25
NORTHERN UTAH INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.... 74 .......... 74 .......... 274 ..........
OGDEN RIVER PROJECT..................... 199 70 199 70 199 70
PARK CITY FEASIBILITY STUDY............. .......... .......... 200 .......... 200 ..........
PROVO RIVER PROJECT..................... 798 321 798 321 798 321
SCOFIELD PROJECT........................ 72 33 72 33 72 33
SOUTHERN UTAH INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.... 149 .......... 149 .......... 149 ..........
STRAWBERRY VALLEY PROJECT............... 199 14 199 14 199 14
WEBER BASIN PROJECT..................... 1,121 406 1,121 406 1,121 406
WEBER RIVER PROJECT..................... 46 66 46 66 46 66
WASHINGTON
COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT.................. 4,050 6,104 4,050 6,104 4,050 6,104
MAKAH INDIAN COMMUNITY WATER SUPPLY .......... .......... 200 .......... 200 ..........
FEASIBILITY STUDY......................
STORAGE DAM FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY 693 .......... 693 .......... 693 ..........
STUDY..................................
WASHINGTON AREA PROJECTS................ 104 5 104 5 104 5
WASHINGTON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM....... 352 .......... 352 .......... 952 ..........
YAKIMA PROJECT.......................... 2,267 6,890 2,267 6,890 2,267 6,890
YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER ENHANCEMENT 11,484 .......... 9,484 .......... 11,484 ..........
PROJECT................................
YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER STORAGE........ .......... .......... 2,500 .......... 2,000 ..........
WYOMING
KENDRICK PROJECT........................ 109 4,265 109 4,265 109 4,265
NORTH PLATTE PROJECT.................... 328 2,446 328 2,446 328 2,446
SHOSHONE PROJECT........................ 89 733 89 733 89 733
WYOMING INVESTIGATION PROGRAM........... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
VARIOUS
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL .......... 10,566 .......... 10,566 .......... 10,566
PROJECT, TITLE I.......................
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL, 8,910 .......... 8,910 .......... 8,910 ..........
TITLE II...............................
COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT, SECTION 2,455 3,291 2,455 3,291 2,455 3,291
5......................................
COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT, SECTION 4,455 .......... 4,455 .......... 4,455 ..........
8......................................
COLORADO RIVER WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT 401 .......... 401 .......... 401 ..........
PROGRAM................................
DAM SAFETY PROGRAM:
DEPARTMENT DAM SAFETY PROGRAM....... .......... 1,485 .......... 1,485 .......... 1,485
INITIATE SOD CORRECTIVE ACTION...... .......... 49,203 .......... 49,203 .......... 47,203
SAFETY OF EVALUATION OF EXISTING .......... 18,315 .......... 18,315 .......... 18,315
DAMS...............................
DROUGHT EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE............ 475 .......... 475 .......... 475 ..........
EMERGENCY PLANNING & DISASTER RESPONSE .......... 1,346 .......... 1,346 .......... 1,346
PROGRAM................................
ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY 11,299 .......... 10,190 .......... 11,299 ..........
IMPLEMENTATION.........................
ENVIRONMENTAL & INTERAGENCY COORDINATION 1,695 .......... 1,695 .......... 1,695 ..........
ACTIVITIES.............................
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION.... 836 .......... 836 .......... 836 ..........
EXAMINATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES...... 15 6,083 15 6,083 15 6,083
FEDERAL BUILDING SEISMIC SAFETY PROGRAM. .......... 1,559 .......... 1,559 .......... 1,559
GENERAL PLANNING STUDIES................ 1,986 .......... 1,466 .......... 1,986 ..........
LAND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM....... 8,461 .......... 8,461 .......... 8,461 ..........
LOWER COLORADO RIVER INVESTIGATIONS 297 .......... 297 .......... 297 ..........
PROGRAM................................
LOWER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM. 17,028 .......... 17,028 .......... 17,028 ..........
MISCELLANEOUS FLOOD CONTROL OPERATIONS.. .......... 653 .......... 653 .......... 653
NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS PROGRAM......... 6,307 .......... 6,307 .......... 6,307 ..........
NATURAL RESOURCES DAMAGE ASSESSMENT..... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
NEGOTIATION & ADMINISTRATION OF WATER 1,492 .......... 1,492 .......... 1,492 ..........
MARKETING..............................
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE PROGRAM .......... 1,176 .......... 1,176 .......... 1,176
MANAGEMENT.............................
PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN--OTHER 4,150 37,700 4,150 37,700 4,150 37,700
PROJECTS...............................
POWER PROGRAM SERVICES.................. 719 212 719 212 719 212
PUBLIC ACCESS AND SAFETY PROGRAM........ 624 147 624 147 624 147
RECLAMATION LAW ADMINISTRATION.......... 1,965 .......... 1,965 .......... 1,965 ..........
RECLAMATION RECREATION MANAGEMENT--TITLE .......... .......... .......... .......... 1,000 ..........
XXVIII.................................
RECREATION & FISH & WILDLIFE PROGRAM 1,201 .......... 1,201 .......... 1,201 ..........
ADMINISTRATION.........................
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT: DESALINATION 25 .......... 25 .......... 7,025 ..........
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.......
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM.......... 8,514 .......... 8,514 .......... 10,764 ..........
SITE SECURITY........................... .......... 39,600 .......... 39,600 .......... 39,600
SOIL AND MOISTURE CONSERVATION.......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO STATES.......... 1,832 .......... 832 .......... 1,832 ..........
TITLE XVI, WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE 990 .......... 990 .......... 4,740 ..........
PROGRAM................................
UNITED STATES/MEXICO BORDER ISSUES-- 89 .......... 89 .......... 89 ..........
TECHNICAL SUPPORT......................
WATER CONSERVATION FIELD SERVICE PROGRAM 7,221 .......... 7,221 .......... 8,421 ..........
\1\....................................
WATER 2025.............................. 14,500 .......... .......... .......... 14,500 ..........
UNDISTRIBUTED REDUCTION BASED ON .......... .......... .......... .......... -35,000 -3,664
ANTICIPATED DELAYS.....................
RESCISSION--Public Law 109-148.......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES. 456,526 376,898 471,724 376,898 509,345 379,649
=======================================================================
GRAND TOTAL....................... 833,424 .......... 849,122 .......... 888,994 ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Starting in fiscal year 2006 the new line item combines two previous line items: Efficiency Incentives
Program and Water Management Conservation Program.
Central Arizona Project, Colorado River Basin.--The
Committee recommendation includes $600,000 for activities
related to the Gila River Settlement in New Mexico.
Central Valley Project--Sacramento River Division.--The
Committee recommendation includes $450,000 for the Colusa Basin
Intergrated Resources Management Plan.
Miscellaneous Project Programs.--An additional $1,500,000
above the budget request is provided for the Sacramento Valley
Integrated Regional Water Management Program, $735,000 of which
shall be made available for a cooperative agreement or
agreements with the Northern California Water Association to be
provided to the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District for continued
work on the Stony Creek Fan Conjunctive Water Management
Program, $240,000 of which shall be available in the same
manner for the Sacramento Valley Conjunctive Water Management
Technical Investigation to be provided to the Stony Creek Fan
Partnership and the Natural Heritage Institute, and $525,000 of
which shall be made available in the same manner for the Lower
Tuscan Formation Aquifer System Recharge Investigation and
Environmental Monitoring Program to be provided to the counties
of Butte and Tehama, California.
Trinity River Division.--The Committee has provided
$2,000,000 above the budget request to accelerate
implementation of the Trinity River Restoration Program.
Animas-La Plata, Colorado.--The Committee has provided
$65,000,000 for construction of this project.
Fort Peck, Dry Prairie Rural Water System, Montana.--The
Committee has provided $10,000,000 for continued construction
of the project.
Carlsbad Project, New Mexico.--$200,000 is provided above
the request for rehabilitation of the radial gates at Sumner
Dam. $1,000,000 is provided for work related to water
efficiency and supply supplementation in the Pecos consistent
with the partnership between the Carlsbad Irrigation District
and the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission.
Chimayo, New Mexico.--The Committee has provided $2,000,000
to continue this project.
Middle Rio Grande Project, New Mexico.--The Committee
recommendation includes $39,500,000 for the Middle Rio Grande
project, $23,980,000 for Resources Management and $15,520,000
for Operations, Maintenance and Replacements. Within the
$23,980,000 for Resources Management, the Committee includes
$14,980,000 for the Collaborative Program; $5,000,000 for water
acquisition for the Collaborative Program; $1,000,000 to be
transferred to the USGS for stream gages for the Collaborative
Program; $1,000,000 for continued refinements to the Upper Rio
Grande Water Operations Model; and $2,000,000 for the Silvery
Minnow off-channel sanctuaries. Within the $15,520,000 for
Operations, Maintenance and Replacements, the Committee
includes $14,770,000 for Operations and Maintenance; $250,000
for an integrated management plan; and $500,000 to evaluate a
conservation pool.
The Committee is concerned with the significant amount of
funds spent by the Bureau of Reclamation on the administration
of the Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative
Program. The Committee directs the Secretary of Interior to
undertake a study of the administrative costs associated with
the Bureau of Reclamation's administration of the program and
opportunities to increase the percentage of funds that are
spent to comply with the 2003 Biological Opinion referenced in
section 205(b) of the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-447; 118 Stat. 2949)
as amended by section 121(b) of the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-103; 119
Stat. 2256).
Deschutes Ecosystem Restoration Project, Oregon.--The
Committee is supportive of this program, however the
authorization has expired. The Committee is unable to provide
funds for an unauthorized program.
Williamson County Water Reclamation and Reuse Project,
Texas.--The Committee has provided $200,000 to initiate this
project.
Northern Utah Investigations Program, Utah.--The Committee
has included an additional $500,000 for the Rural Water
Technology Alliance.
Washington Investigations Program, Washington.--The
Committee has provided $952,000 for this program. Within the
funds provided, $600,000 is for the Odessa Sub Area study, and
$50,000 is for the West Canal study.
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project, Title I.--In
the fiscal year 2006 conference report (House Report 109-275),
the conferees expressed their concern that the Bureau of
Reclamation was making excess releases of approximately 100,000
acre-feet of water per year from storage in Colorado River
reservoirs to help meet the United States' Colorado River water
quality obligations to Mexico. The excess releases are being
made because Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District's
agricultural return flows--that bypass the Colorado River and
are discharged to the Cienega de Santa Clara in Mexico (bypass
flows)--are not counted as part of the 1.5 million acre-feet of
water that the United States is required to deliver annually to
Mexico. Because the bypass flows are not counted, system
storage from the Colorado River has been used to make up for
the bypass flows. The Yuma Desalting Plant was originally
constructed to treat the flows and return a portion of them to
the river, thus reducing excess releases from Colorado River
reservoirs.
The current drought and projected long-term water demands
have heightened concern about this demand on the river system.
Consequently, in fiscal year 2006, the conferees indicated
their support for Reclamation's ongoing public process to
address this complex hydrologic problem, considering various
methods of recovering or replacing the flows, including options
that address potential impacts to wetlands in the Cienega de
Santa Clara. This Committee encourages Reclamation to continue
this stakeholder process. In fiscal year 2006, the conferees
also directed the Bureau of Reclamation to dedicate sufficient
resources to the Yuma Desalting Plant so that one-third
operational capacity may be achieved by the end of calendar
year 2006. To date, the plant is not one-third operational, and
the Committee is concerned that it will not be one-third
operational by the end of calendar year 2006. Accordingly, the
Committee, once again, directs the Bureau of Reclamation,
within the funds provided for the Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Project, title I, to dedicate sufficient funds to the
Yuma Desalting Plant so that one-third operational capacity may
be achieved by the end of calendar year 2006. The Bureau of
Reclamation is also directed to provide the Committee with a
status report of the plant's operational status by no later
than March 1, 2007. If the plant is not one-third operational
by the end of calendar year 2006, the report shall include an
explanation as to why the Bureau of Reclamation has failed to
comply with the Committee's directive.
Drought Emergency Assistance.--The Committee has provided
the budget request for this program. Within the funds provided,
the Committee urges the Bureau of Reclamation to provide full
and fair consideration for drought assistance from the State of
Hawaii.
Research and Development, Desalination Research and
Development Program.--The Committee has provided $7,025,000 for
this program. The Bureau of Reclamation is directed to develop
a cooperative agreement with New Mexico State University under
which Bureau transfers operations and maintenance of the
Tularosa Basin National Desalination Research Facility and
transfers the administration of research activities undertaken
at the Tularosa Facility to New Mexico State University
following the completion of construction of the Tularosa
Facility by the Bureau. Title to the facility shall remain in
the United States.
Of the funds provided, $4,000,000 is provided to New Mexico
State University of which $1,600,000 is provided for operations
and maintenance of the newly constructed Tularosa Basin
National Desalination Research Facility and $1,300,000 is
provided to New Mexico State University for research activities
undertaken at or associated with the Tularosa Facility.
An amount of $3,000,000 is provided to New Mexico State
University to undertake a research program for development and
commercialization of water treatment technology in
collaboration with Federal agencies, State agencies, local
agencies, industry, other educational institutions or other
water research entities New Mexico State University deems
necessary to carry out the program. New Mexico State University
may enter into any cost-sharing agreements, grants, contracts
or any other agreements necessary to carry out the program.
Research and Development, Science and Technology Program.--
$10,764,000 is provided for this program. Within the funds
provided, $250,000 is provided to initiate a salt cedar
management demonstration on the Canadian River. $1,000,000 is
provided to further a salt cedar management demonstration on
the Rio Grande River. $1,000,000 is provided to further a salt
cedar management demonstration on the Pecos River.
Title XVI, Water Reclamation and Reuse.--The Committee has
provided $4,740,000 for this program. Within the funds
provided, the Committee has included $3,000,000 for the
WateReuse Foundation. These funds shall be available to support
the Foundation's research priorities. $500,000 is for Sandoval
County, New Mexico, Desalination Project and $250,000 is for
Rio Rancho Recycled Water and Groundwater Recharge, New Mexico.
Water Conservation Field Service Program.--The Committee
has provided $8,421,000 for the Water Conservation Field
Services Program. Within the amounts provided, $400,000 shall
be allocated for urban water conservation projects identified
through the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
Innovative Conservation Program, including the California
Friendly program for water conservation in new home
construction; $100,000 shall be allocated for industrial water
efficiency surveys to assess opportunities to conserve water in
industrial water use; and $200,000 shall be allocated for
weather based irrigation controller activities to pilot ways to
speed distribution and acceptance of these landscape water
efficiency devices. $500,000 shall be for the Elephant Butte
Irrigation District for irrigation water efficiency
improvements.
Water 2025.--The dire drought the West is currently
experiencing, combined with an unprecedented number of water
users and endangered species and related requirements, make
water use efficiencies more critical than ever. The Committee
has provided $14,500,000 for this initiative proposed by the
administration. The Committee believes that water resource and
efficiency issues, combined with the drought and endangered
species listings, make the Rio Grande River in New Mexico the
embodiment of the Water 2025 initiative. Therefore, the
Committee has included $2,000,000 to provide for continued
efficiency and water improvements related to the Middle Rio
Grande Conservancy District. A critical component of reducing
tension among multiple water users is collaborative planning
and joint operations. Within the funds provided, $2,000,000 is
for the Desert Research Institute to address water quality and
environmental issues in ways that will bring industry and
regulators to mutually acceptable answers.
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $52,219,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 41,478,000
House allowance......................................... 41,478,000
Committee recommendation................................ 41,478,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $41,478,000,
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, 2006.................................... $36,630,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 38,610,000
House allowance......................................... 40,110,000
Committee recommendation................................ 38,610,000
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.
POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $57,338,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 58,069,000
House allowance......................................... 58,069,000
Committee recommendation................................ 58,069,000
The Committee recommendation for general administrative
expenses is $58,069,000. 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, Colorado, 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. The bill includes language regarding the San
Luis Unit and the Kesterson Reservoir in California.
Section 202. The bill includes language that states
requirements for purchase or lease of water from the Middle Rio
Grande or Carlsbad Projects in New Mexico.
Section 203. The bill includes language regarding Drought
Emergency Assistance.
Section 204. The bill includes language concerning Water
2025.
Section 205. The bill includes language regarding the Rio
Grande Collaborative water operations team.
Section 206. The bill includes language concerning the
project at Las Vegas Wash and Lake Mead.
Section 207. The bill includes language concerning the
Truckee River Settlement Act.
Section 208. The bill includes language regarding the All
American Canal. Z10rept.007
TITLE III
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
EPACT Implementation
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 [EPACT] is a landmark piece
of legislation which has begun to shape the future of America's
energy policy while supporting the President's Advanced Energy
Initiative through a wide variety of clean and economically
feasible alternative energy sources. It is critical at this
juncture that the United States decreases its dependence on
foreign oil, and the Energy Policy Act lays out a tangible plan
for action. Whether in the arena of ethanol, nuclear power,
solar power, or clean vehicles, the Energy Policy Act has set
the stage for a new wave of energy solutions.
A renewed focus on alternative sources of energy has the
potential to benefit communities throughout the country. The
Energy Policy Act has created an environment which has
stimulated renewed interest in the construction of nuclear
power plants. Already, companies have announced that they have
identified reactor technology for more than 20 new sites. If
built, these reactors will not only generate enough power for
15-19 million households, these plants will also create
thousands of new jobs across the country without contributing
to greenhouse gas emissions. Rural communities also have much
to gain from the EPACT legislation. Investment in ethanol
production will lead to the displacement of 2 billion barrels
of foreign oil over the next 6 years and to the construction
and expansion of ethanol plants in the rural United States.
Additionally, this legislation encourages clean coal
generation, a move that will bring about significant benefits
to the environment and attention to an industry that has been
and continues to be the major source of energy in America.
Asia Pacific Partnership
The Committee is unaware of the mission and goals of the
recently developed Asian Pacific Partnership, as it is not
described in the Department's budget justification, and the
Committee has no direction by which to designate funding. The
Committee understands that the administration has not requested
additional funding for this initiative, but has ``earmarked''
funding within available funds. Nevertheless, the Committee
understands this is a top priority for the administration.
Therefore the Committee directs the Department to fund this
activity in three parts and from within available funds. One-
third is to be provided from the Office of Policy and
International Affairs, one-third from the Office of Science,
Biological and Environmental Research, Climate Change Research
Account, and one-third from the Office of Energy Supply and
Conservation, Wind Energy activities. Prior to submitting an
official reprogramming request for the movement of these funds,
the Department shall provide a report to support the
justification of these activities and the impact this will have
on the programs from which the Department has withdrawn
funding.
This new partnership is directed to work in conjunction
with the existing Clean Energy Techology Exports program in
order to pursue project development, implementation assistance,
and capacity building and to work with foreign governments,
international financial insitutions, the private sector, and
non-governmental organizations to establish the appropriate
technology and investment frameworks and to improve governance
practices in emerging markets around the world.
Historically Black Colleges and Universities [HBCUs]
The Department has a long history of supporting HBCUs.
HBCUs receive support for research and development,
fellowships, scholarships, internships, administrative
infrastructure, and private sector partnerships. In recent
years, departmental programs have established innovative multi-
year programs to support various mission-focused programs. For
example, in 2005 and 2006 the National Nuclear Security
Administration within the Department established partnerships
with HBCUs to advance its national security and
nonproliferation missions. In 2007, the Department should
broaden its HBCU support to include each departmental
programmatic area, not just the NNSA. The Department's mission
includes activities where the HBCUs can be brought into the
energy supply and conservation, nuclear security, and science
based programs, which would represent a well-rounded program
supported by key DOE programs to further the Department's
mission. The Department should also consider initiating a
similar program with Hispanic-serving Institutions. The
Committee directs the Department to provide $2,000,000 for the
Jackson State University Bioengineering Research Training
Complex and $2,000,000 for the Morehouse College National
Nuclear Security Administration Research and Education Project.
Laboratory Directed Research and Development [LDRD]
The Committee recognizes the invaluable role the Laboratory
Directed Research and Development [LDRD] program provides to
the Federal Government and the Nation in general. Discretionary
LDRD investments have been and will continue to be responsive
to the energy needs of the Nation, as evidenced by recent R&D
projects in materials science, optoelectronics, computer
science, and high energy density physics. Cutting-edge LDRD
research provides the science base for energy-specific
applications such as fuel cells, hydrogen technologies, carbon
management, nuclear energy and solid state lighting. In
addition, LDRD is the national labs' most important tool for
maintaining the vitality of the national labs in support of
other national security missions. LDRD enables the labs to hire
the ``best and brightest'' young scientists and engineers and
allows them to seek innovative science and technology solutions
for current or emerging national security issues, including
those of energy security. LDRD investments have been effective
in providing solutions for today's energy problems and
demonstrate the inherent flexibility of the program to provide
national security mission support on a very timely basis.
Energy research needs can best be addressed by continuing a
vibrant LDRD program at the national labs.
The laboratories work in close partnership with DOE/NNSA to
ensure that the LDRD projects are providing strong support for
national security missions, which is the primary focus of our
laboratories. Because of the fundamental nature of R&D, LDRD
provides multiple benefits to the taxpayer across multiple
national security missions. For example, R&D in high energy
density physics [HEDP] is directly relevant to the R&D needs of
the nuclear weapons program, but it also has the potential to
support DOE's long-term energy security goal of controlled
nuclear fusion as a cheap and reliable energy source.
Similarly, LDRD projects that develop the tools to synthesize,
characterize, and understand novel materials for nuclear
weapons systems also have shown promise for the development of
fuel cell membranes. Because of LDRD projects' multiple
benefits, taxpayers obtain a greater return on their tax dollar
investment. Furthermore, this is an indicator of a successful
R&D program that continues to refocus on and provide solutions
for the national security challenges facing our Nation.
Reprogramming Guidelines
The Committee requires the Department to promptly and fully
inform the Committee when a change in program execution or
funding is required during the fiscal year. A reprogramming
includes the reallocation of funds from one activity to another
within an appropriation, or any significant departure from a
program, project, or activity described in the agency's budget
justification, including contemplated site budgets as presented
to and approved or modified by Congress in an appropriations
act or the accompanying statement of managers or report. For
construction projects, a reprogramming constitutes the
reallocation of funds from one construction project identified
in the justifications to another or a significant change in the
scope of an approved project.
Reprogrammings should not be employed to initiate new
programs or to change program, project, or activity allocations
specifically denied, limited, or increased by Congress in the
act or report. In cases where unforeseen events or conditions
are deemed to require such changes, proposals shall be
submitted in advance to the Committee and be fully explained
and justified. The Committee has not provided the Department
with any internal reprogramming flexibility in fiscal year
2007, unless specifically identified in the House, Senate, or
conference reports. Any reallocation of new or prior year
budget authority or prior year de-obligations must be submitted
to the Committees in writing and may not be implemented prior
to approval by the Committees on Appropriations.
Energy Supply and Conservation
ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $1,173,843,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 1,176,421,000
House allowance......................................... 1,319,434,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,385,504,000
The Committee recommendation provides $1,410,254,000 for
renewable energy resources, an increase of $211,660,000 from
the current year level. Within the funds provided, $4,000,000
is for the National Center on Energy Management and Building
Technologies and $3,000,000 for the UNR Renewable Energy Center
for Geothermal Energy and Hydrogen.
Hydrogen.--The Committee recommends $189,860,000, an
increase of $34,233,000 above current year levels. The
President's budget also provides additional R&D support to the
hydrogen program through the Office of Science, Office of
Nuclear Energy, and Fossil Energy for a total of just under
$290,000,000 in fiscal year 2007. The full benefits of a
hydrogen economy will be realized when we are able to generate
hydrogen from renewable sources and nuclear energy. At present,
our hydrogen economy remains far too reliant on natural gas.
The Committee recommends full funding for Technology Validation
at $39,566,000, which combines infrastructure and vehicle
validation accounts from the fiscal year 2006, as proposed by
the President. This demonstration program is unique in that for
the first time vehicles and energy infrastructure are
integrated in real world settings that serve as test
laboratories. The Department requires extensive data collection
and sharing that will be used to help advance this technology
toward commercialization. The program requires full cost
sharing. The Committee recommends an increased investment into
Hydrogen Storage R&D and provides $40,000,000 to advance this
critical research through the Hydrogen Centers of Excellence.
Consistent with the energy and water conference report for
fiscal year 2006 and the recommendation from the National
Academies, no funding is provided to support Distributed Energy
Fuel Cell Systems, as this technology is already fully
commercialized. The Committee provides $13,848,000 for Safety
Codes and Standards and Hydrogen Education Activities. The
Committee recommends $9,892,000 for Systems Analysis, which
represents an increase of $4,925,000 above current year levels.
The Committee directs the Department to provide $1,978,000 for
Manufacturing R&D activities from within the funds provided for
Systems Analysis.
Within available funds, $4,000,000 is provided for the UNLV
Research Foundation to continue evaluation of solar-powered
thermo-chemical production of hydrogen; $3,500,000 is for the
UNLV Research Foundation for hydrogen fuel cell and storage
research and development; $2,500,000 for the National Center
for Hydrogen Technology; $500,000 for Michigan Technical
University fuel cell research; and $3,400,000 for the UNLV
Research Foundation to continue development of photovoltaic
high pressure integrated electrolysis.
Biomass.--The Committee strongly endorses the President's
commitment to decreasing our reliance on foreign oil and has
made an investment in biomass research and development
commensurate with that goal. The President has set an ambitious
goal of 100 billion gallons of ethanol production by 2025. This
equals one-half of our domestic gasoline consumption today.
Consistent with the goals of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the
Committee recognizes an increased investment in demonstrating
first-of-its-kind technology to develop the refining and
production technologies that will lead to commercial deployment
of cellulosic biomass ethanol production facilities. The
Committee recommends $213,000,000, an increase of $63,313,000
above the President's request. The Committee provides the
authorized level of funding as provided in EPACT. The Committee
recommends $50,000,000 for the Integration of Biorefinery
Technologies program to support deployment of several pilot
scale demonstrations using a variety of feed stocks in order to
promote a competitive cellulosic biofuels industry. The
Department shall use a combination of competitive grants and
loan guarantees as provided in section 17 of EPACT to support
the deployment consistent with the goals of section 932(d) of
EPACT. The Secretary shall consider the following projects as
part of the open competition:
--Florida Farm to Fuel Project, Florida;
--Biorefinery and Hydrogen Fuel Cell Research, Development
and Demonstration, Georgia;
--Expanding Unique Plant Production for Alternative Energy,
Idaho;
--Chemistry Consortium Biomass Initiative, Maine;
--Minnesota Center for Renewable Energy Research, Minnesota;
--Center for Applied Biofuel Research, Minnesota;
--Laurentian Bioenergy Project, Minnesota;
--Biological and Economic Feasability Analysis of Wood Waste
to Energy, Missouri;
--Ohio University--Biorefining for Energy Security, Ohio;
--Biodiesel Injection Blending Facilities Project,
Pennsylvania;
--Messiah College Bio-Diesel Production Center, Pennsylvania.
--City of Stamford Waste-to-Energy Project, Connecticut;
--University of Connecticut Bio-Energy Project to Meet the
Renewable Energy needs of Connecticut, Connecticut;
--Development of Applied Membrane Technology for Processing
Ethanol from Biomass, Delaware;
--Chariton Valley Biomass Power for Rural Development
Project, Iowa;
--Bio-Waste to Bio-Energy Project at SUNY Cobleskill, New
York;
--Center for Bioproducts and Bioenergy, Washington;
--Snohomish County Biodiesiel Initiative, Washington
--Small Wood Biomass Project, Washington;
--Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe Energy Project, Nevada;
--North Spring Valley Pinyon Juniper Biomass Project, Nevada;
--UNR Renewable Energy Center Biofuels Project, Nevada;
--Aberdeen Biorefinery and ethanol production, Mississippi;
and
--National Com-to-Ethanol Research Center project, Illinois.
Feedstock Infrastructure.--The Committee recommends an
additional $13,000,000 to support demonstration activities
within the Feedstock Infrastructure account. Within the
additional funds provided, $10,000,000 is provided to the
Sustainable Energy Center, Mississippi. The Committee also
supports the Department's investment in research and
development for a variety of cellulosic feed stocks that will
encourage regional fuel supply diversity as provided in section
945 of the Energy Policy Act. The Committee directs the
Department to provide $3,000,000 to designate several
universities in different regions across the country as
``Department of Energy Biomass Centers of Excellence''. These
centers will recommend a cellulosic biomass fuel strategy that
identifies the variety of regionally available cellulosic feed
stocks and develops a strategy for the collection,
pretreatment, hydrolysis and fermentation process using
regionally available material. These centers will recommend any
additional research necessary to support the use of regional,
sustainable feedstocks for the conversion of that material into
cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel feedstock including using
brackish water.
Provided within the budget request, within the Feedstock
Infrastructure subprogram, is $4,500,000 to work with the
Department of Agriculture on biomass feedstock. The Committee
directs that the $4,500,000 be allocated among the Sun Grant
Initiative Centers (identified in section 9011, of the Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8190)) to
work in collaboration with the Department of Energy, on
consultation with the USDA, to facilitate regional feedstock
development.
The Committee understands the Department intends to pursue
a new solicitation for biomass research. However, the Committee
strongly recommends that the Department complete unfinished or
ongoing competitively awarded research to the greatest extent
possible before funding new biorefineries. In addition, the
Committee urges the Department to focus on supporting the
production of cellulosic ethanol to reduce our need for foreign
oil. The Committee is aware the Department solicited input on
implementation of reverse auction incentives. The Committee
directs the Department to make recommendations on the
implementation of section 942 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
The Department shall provide this report to Congress concurrent
with the President's budget submission for fiscal year 2008.
Within available funds, $4,000,000 is provided to the
Consortium for Plant Biomass Consortium Research and $500,000
for the Washington State University Bioproducts and Bioenergy
project. The Committee supports the budget request for biomass-
related activities at PNNL.
Solar.--The Committee applauds the efforts by the President
to diversify our energy supply and minimize the generation of
greenhouse gas emissions as part of his Advanced Energy
Initiative. To that end, the President has recommended a
significant funding increase in solar energy research as part
of the Solar America Initiative. The Committee recommends
$2,400,000 in support for the Southwestern Regional
Photovoltaic Experimental Station.
The Committee recommends $148,372,000 for the Solar America
Initiative. The Committee provides $130,472,000 for
Photovoltaic Energy Systems. The Committee wants to ensure that
the Department continues its support of a balanced research
program that focuses not only on major system breakthroughs,
but will support R&D efforts to improve the manufacture,
reliability and cost-effectiveness of solar technology
components and balance-of-systems through which breakthroughs
are likely to come from smaller corporations. Within available
funds, $5,000,000 is provided for solar heating and lighting.
The Committee is concerned that funding for the solar water
heater program was eliminated and directs the Department to
prepare a report, by January 31, 2007, on the potential energy
savings generated by solar water heaters, market impediments,
and strategy for wider deployment of this technology.
The Committee is concerned about the increasing cost of
silicon feedstock, the raw material used in photovoltaic cells.
Material costs have risen with the increasing demand for
computer chips and photovoltaic cells. The Committee urges the
Department to support research into solar technology that uses
materials other than silicon as a hedge against rising material
costs. The Committee directs the Department to provide a study
to the Committee by March 31, 2007, on the short- and long-term
market conditions of silicone and possible impacts it could
have on the photovoltaic market.
The Committee recommends $17,900,000 for concentrating
solar research and development. Within the available funding
for the Concentrating Solar Power program, the Committee
recommends that $9,000,000 be used in cooperation with the
Office of Nuclear Energy to support the deployment of a solar-
hydrogen pilot plant using sulfur based thermo-chemical process
consistent with sections 812, 934, and 974 of the Energy Policy
Act. Without a reactor available to support the nuclear
hydrogen program, the Office of Nuclear Energy can utilize the
National Thermal Test Facility as a suitable proxy for a high
temperature reactor at this stage of research. The Committee
recommendation includes $3,500,000 to continue the efforts of
the National Renewable Energy Laboratory [NREL] to develop
renewable energy resources uniquely suited to the Southwestern
United States through its virtual site office in Nevada;
$4,000,000 is provided for research and development into
advanced thermal management systems designed for, and
integrated into, high efficiency photovoltaic collector
modules.
The Committee directs that the funding of a 1 megawatt dish
sterling demonstration facility can only be used to support the
deployment in New Mexico.
Wind.--The Committee recommends $39,428,000 a reduction of
$4,391,000 below the budget request. The Committee has shifted
the funding to the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability to support the interconnection of wind, solar and
other renewable and distributed sources of electricity
consistent with the Senate and conference report for fiscal
year 2006. As such, the Committee provides no funding in the
System Integration Account. In addition, the Committee
recommends no funding for the distributed wind technology
accounts, of which the Department only allocated $481,000. The
Committee does not believe this level of funding will support
meaningful long-term research. Instead, the Department should
focus its efforts within the Technology Acceptance program to
support deployment in areas of the country where wind energy
can compete in a competitive marketplace and can make the
biggest impact in displacing natural gas and coal usage. By
March 2007, the Committee requests that the Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy and the Office of Electricity
Delivery and Energy Reliability provide a report to Congress as
to the location of the most promising wind resources and the
best opportunities to integrate that power into the electric
grid. The Department should also identify which States provide
incentives for the deployment of wind or other renewable energy
resources.
The Committee encourages the Department to convene an
interagency working group to promote renewable energy use and
production in all aspects of Federal agency operation and
particularly on Federal lands. In particular, such a working
group would be valuable in avoiding the delays on a variety of
wind energy projects that have been caused by inconsistent
Federal policies and approval procedures and the slow pace of
application of strategies and techniques to mitigate any
adverse radar effects.
While the Committee strongly supports the research
objective of the low wind speed technology program, which is to
reduce the cost of electricity from large onshore and offshore
wind systems, the Committee is concerned that the Department
has not fully funded the competitively awarded 2 megawatt
permanent magnet direct-drive [PMDD] wind turbine development
program. Therefore, the Committee recommends that $2,400,000 be
provided in fiscal year 2007 (as a competitive award) for
continued development of the 2 megawatt PMDD wind turbine,
which will eliminate the use of gearboxes, a main failure
mechanism in current generation wind turbines.
Geothermal Energy.--The Committee recommends $22,500,000
for geothermal research and development.
Hydropower.--The Committee provides $4,000,000 to support
research and development and a study of advanced hydropower
technology, including ocean energy. The study shall provide an
evaluation of the opportunities for development of these next
generation technologies and the technical justification for
such development. The study shall also evaluate the
characteristics of the various regions in the United States so
that likely candidates for demonstrating these technologies may
be identified. The Committee would also benefit from knowing
the electric generating potential and cost/kilowatt, as well as
developing a better understanding of the regulatory issues and
controlling legal authorities associated with the various
technology. Finally, the Committee expects the Department to
outline a thorough research and development roadmap and the
possible role for the Department in supporting the R&D efforts.
This report shall be delivered to the Committee by May 1, 2007.
Vehicles Technology.--The Committee recommends
$180,024,000, an increase of $14,000,000. This program seeks to
develop cars and trucks that are more energy-efficient in order
to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Transportation needs
consume over 50 percent of total U.S. oil consumption. The
Committee recommends $109,724,000, as requested for FreedomCAR
activities within this account. The Committee is encouraged by
the President's support of hybrid and electric propulsion
technologies, which support critical research into battery
storage R&D and provides full funding for this activity. The
Committee directs the Department to use the expertise in the
Vehicles Technology and the Office of Electricity Delivery and
Energy Reliability to study possible impacts to the electricity
supply and distribution networks if plug-in hybrids become
commercially viable. The study should pay particular attention
to urban areas, which are already transmission constrained and
also the most likely market for plug-in hybrids. The study
should also consider the net environmental demand as a result
of shifting from gasoline consumption to electricity
consumption. This report should be provided to the Congress by
March 31, 2007.
The Committee continues to recognize the need to ensure
that materials research funding within the vehicles technology
program supports strategic advances in science and innovation
and the long-term competitiveness of U.S. industry. The
Committee directs DOE to expand research in the area of
computational predictive engineering and testing of lightweight
thermoplastic polymer composites as an enabling technology
supporting the future design and manufacture of safer, more
fuel efficient, and lower emissions vehicles competitive in
global markets. In addition, the Committee acknowledges the
important work in this area being undertaken by Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory and Oak Ridge National Laboratory
in cooperation with the American Plastics Council.
The Committee provides $15,031,000, an increase of
$3,000,000, for the Technology Introduction activity, including
the Clean Cities activities that were previously funded in the
weatherization account. For the Clean Cities program the
Committee recommends $6,393,000, an additional $3,000,000, to
encourage the expansion of alternative fuel and vehicle
technology through competitive solicitation. The Committee
recommends $10,000,000 to support Advanced Materials and
Computer modeling at Mississippi State University; and
$1,000,000 for the lightweight composite materials for heavy-
duty vehicles program.
The Committee also recommends $4,534,000, an increase of
$1,000,000 for the Testing and Evaluation program to support
work with automakers to improve engine performance and increase
fuel mileage for higher octane ethanol based fuels.
Buildings Technologies.--The Committee recommends
$95,329,000, an increase of $26,063,000 to support technology
deployment of increased energy efficiency technologies that can
improve energy savings in the home and reduce the cost of
operating lighting, heating and cooling, and electricity using
energy efficient appliances in residential and commercial
buildings. The Department has set a goal of achieving zero
emission homes by 2020, using the most energy-efficient
technology and applying state-of-the-art distributed renewable
generation so as to achieve a net zero energy consumption. This
goal is important, and the timetable by which the homebuilders
across the country deploy the very best in energy saving
technology should be accelerated by at least 5 years. Based on
the administration's proposed reduction of the weatherization
accounts, it is incumbent on the Department to improve home
energy efficiency as soon as possible. By March 31, 2007, the
Department shall provide the Committee a technology road map
that will outline a strategy to accelerate the zero energy
goals by 5 to 7 years. The Committee encourages the Department
to support a Challenge X program for housing in the same manner
as the Department supports technology development in the auto
industry. Within the Research and Development program, the
Department should initiate design competitions in each of the
five climate regions identified by the Department in which
participants design a modest-sized home with the goal of
demonstrating how the Department's Zero Emission House goal of
2020 can be accelerated by at least 5 years. The Committee
recommends $5,000,000 for this activity. The Committee provides
$5,000,000 to implement section 140 of the Energy Policy Act of
2005 to establish an Energy Efficiency Pilot Program.
The Committee recommends $27,000,000 for the solid state
lighting program, an increase of $5,000,000. The Committee is
encouraged by the potential to realize significant energy
savings in the area. The Committee directs the Department to
provide $5,000,000 to the competitively awarded National Center
for Solid State Lighting consistent with funding provided in
the current year. The Committee recommendation includes
$3,000,000 for the UNLV Research Foundation for photonics
research including evaluation of advanced fiber optics and
LEDs.
Industrial Technologies.--The Committee recommends
$47,563,000 for the Industries of the Future, an increase of
$2,000,000 above the budget request. The mission of this
program is to reduce the energy intensity of the U.S.
industrial sector. The Committee recommends that from within
available funds, $2,000,000 is provided to Sandia National
Laboratories, in partnership with a computer chip manufacturer,
to support research into energy efficiency applications that
might decrease the amount of energy used by computer
technology. In a recent study conducted for the Department of
Energy, it was concluded that residential energy consumption
has escalated dramatically, due to the use of home computers
and other related technologies.
Federal Energy Management Program.--The Committee
recommends $16,906,000, as requested. This program is intended
to support the deployment of energy efficiency and renewable
technology to U.S. Government buildings. The Department should
lead by example within the Federal Government to demonstrate
state-of-the-art technology deployment. The Committee notes
that the PART score for program results and accountability were
50 percent in 2005. The Committee hopes that the Department can
deliver stronger results.
Facilities Infrastructure.--The Committee recommends
$5,935,000 for operations and maintenance costs and general
infrastructure upgrades at the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory.
Weatherization.--The Committee provides $204,550,000, an
increase of $40,352,000, to support Weatherization and
Intergovernmental Activities. This program provides critical
assistance to encourage the use of energy efficient technology
to reduce energy costs for low and moderate income families hit
hardest by high energy costs.
The Committee provides $49,457,000 to the State Energy
Program. The Committee also provides $2,473,000 for
International Renewable Energy Program; $4,957,000 for Tribal
Energy Activities, with $1,000,000 provided to the Council of
Renewable Energy Resource Tribes [CERT]; and $4,946,000 for
Renewable Energy Production Incentives.
Program Direction.--The Committee recommendation for
Program Direction is $91,024,000. The Committee recommends the
Department provide the necessary funding to support the Office
of Loan Guarantees as authorized in the Energy Policy Act of
2005, be provided from within available funds.
Program Support.--The Committee recommendation for Program
Support is $10,930,000.
CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED ENERGY SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION PROJECTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Project name recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Distribution Management System in Alabama $1,000,000
[OE].................................................
Distributed energy systems for telecommunications 1,500,000
applications in Kansas [OE]..........................
University of Missouri Rolla Energy Research and 1,000,000
Development Center [OE]..............................
Load Control System Reliability, Montana [OE]......... 1,000,000
Hawaii/New Mexico Sustainable Energy Project [OE]..... 2,000,000
Dine Power Authority, New Mexico [OE]................. 1,000,000
National Center for Reliable Electric Power 400,000
Transmission, Arkansas [OE]..........................
Electric Power Surety Institute, New Mexico [OE]...... 200,000
Navajo Electrification Program, New Mexico [OE]....... 1,000,000
New York Polytechnic University [OE].................. 500,000
Nevada Energy Independence Partnership [OE]........... 500,000
Gerlach Green Energy Project, Nevada [OE]............. 400,000
Transportable Emissions Testing Laboratory, West 2,000,000
Virginia [OE]........................................
Eastern Michigan University Coatings Research 400,000
Institute [OE].......................................
The University of Louisville Sustainable Buildings 400,000
Project, Kentucky (Buildings Tech)...................
Affordable, Energy Efficient Self-Help Housing, 300,000
Mississippi (Buildings Tech).........................
University of Dubuque Environmental Science Center, 500,000
Iowa (Buildings Tech)................................
Arts & Sciences Center at Quincy University, Illinois 250,000
(Buildings Tech).....................................
Green Shingle Initiative, Tennessee (Buildings Tech).. 500,000
Improved Materials for Fuel Cell Membranes at USM, 500,000
Mississippi (Hydrogen)...............................
University of Mississippi Bio-processing Research 1,500,000
Center (Biomass).....................................
Cooling, Heating, and Power [CHP] at MSU, Mississippi 2,000,000
(Biomass)............................................
Mississippi Ethanol (Biomass)......................... 1,000,000
Alternative Fuel for Cement Processing, Alabama 1,000,000
(Biomass)............................................
The Kentucky Rural Energy Consortium (Biomass)........ 1,000,000
Trees and Waste Wood to Energy in Missouri (Biomass).. 400,000
Biodiesel Injection Blending Facilities Project, 1,000,000
Pennsylvania (Biomass)...............................
Foster Glocester School District Biomass Project, 1,000,000
Rhode Island (Biomass)...............................
Sugar Ethanol Research at the University of Florida/ 250,000
Earth University (Biomass)...........................
National Ag-Based Industrial Lubricants Center at the 400,000
University of Northern Iowa (Biomass)................
Pecos Valley Biomass Cooperative, New Mexico (Biomass) 250,000
Michigan Biotechnology Initiative (Biomass)........... 500,000
Vermont Biomass Energy Resource Center (Biomass)...... 400,000
Oxydiesel Demonstration, Nevada (Biomass)............. 400,000
UNLV Research Foundation continued development of 2,000,000
biofuels utilizing ionic transfer membranes, Nevada
(Biomass)............................................
Biomass Research through Thermal Gasification 450,000
Technology Project, Nevada (Biomass).................
Chatauqua County, New York Landfill at Ellery 500,000
(Biomass)............................................
Demonstration of Plug-In Hybrid Vehicles, Kansas 1,000,000
(Vehicles Tech)......................................
Southern Regional Center for Lightweight Innovative 2,100,000
Design, Mississippi (Vehicles Tech)..................
Engine Turbocharger Research, Montana (Vehicles Tech). 1,000,000
Biodiesel Engine Testing Program, Missouri (Vehicles 1,500,000
Tech)................................................
National Ethanol Vehicle Coaltion: E-85 Fueling 250,000
Infrastructure in Montana (Clean Cities).............
Solar to Biofuels Research Program at USU, Utah 1,000,000
(Solar)..............................................
High Efficiency Cascade Solar Cells, New Mexico 1,500,000
(Solar)..............................................
Stirling Demonstration Concentrating Solar Program, 3,500,000
New Mexico (Solar)...................................
NCSU Nanostructures for Energy, North Carolina (Solar) 250,000
Ohlone College Energy Innovation & Conservation, 250,000
California (Solar)...................................
Tonopah Green Energy Feasibility Study, Nevada (Solar) 400,000
Texas Tech University Great Plains Wind Power Test 1,500,000
Facility (Wind)......................................
Renewable Energy for Rural Economic Development 500,000
Program, Utah (Wind).................................
Emissions Reduction Technologies related to megawatt- 500,000
scale solid oxide fuel cells, Ohio (Hydrogen)........
University of Tennessee, Chattanooga Fuel Cell 500,000
Reliability study (Hydrogen).........................
Hydrogen Fuel Cell Bus Project, Washoe County, RTC, 2,500,000
Nevada (Hydrogen)....................................
UNLV Research Foundation Photoelectric Chemical 2,500,000
Production of Hydrogen, Nevada (Hydrogen)............
Des Moines Hydrogen Fleet Vehicle Demonstration, Iowa 250,000
(Hydrogen)...........................................
National Center for Manufacturing Technologies, 400,000
Michigan (Hydrogen)..................................
Portland State University Science and Technology 400,000
Center, Oregon (Hydrogen)............................
Hydrogen and Alkane Generation from Biomass Derived 400,000
Carbohydrates, Wisconsin (Hydrogen)..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE OF ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $161,878,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 124,928,000
House allowance......................................... 144,028,000
Committee recommendation................................ 135,004,000
The Committee recognizes the hard work by staff of the
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability following
Hurricane Katrina. This Office worked to coordinate the Federal
Government's energy supply response to restore electricity and
pipeline capacity for natural gas and gasoline as quickly as
possible to ensure rescue and recovery efforts could proceed
unimpeded. In addition to responding during emergencies, this
Office supports fundamental R&D activities to increase the
efficiency, reliability and security of our electricity grid
and to minimize impacts during energy loss or operational
disturbances.
This Office has also been charged with the implementation
of several provisions in the Energy Policy Act 2005, to
encourage the identification and designation of energy
corridors that would help improve the reliability and capacity
of our national energy infrastructure. This Office also has the
expertise to lead the Department's technology deployment of
renewable technology including wind and various distributed
energy sources.
The Committee directs the Department to provide this Office
with the full responsibility to work at the local, State, and
Federal level to define constructive standards and policies
that are technically sound to support the effective integration
of renewable and distributed technology into the electricity
grid. The Committee strongly urges the Department to heed this
advice for fiscal year 2007 and beyond. The Committee
recommendation also includes $4,500,000 for research and
development of thermal and electrical components specific to
micro-grid systems and for optimizing the integration of
components of such systems.
The Committee recommendation is $135,004,000, an increase
of $10,076,000 above the budget request. The Committee provides
$105,636,000 for Research and Development activities, including
$45,468,000 for Superconductivity R&D and $27,551,000 for
Visualization Controls, as requested in the budget. The
Committee appreciates the fact that this Office has developed a
SCADA roadmap to prioritize critical research and industry
standardization. The Committee recommends $10,000,000 to
support continued research and development into the SCADA
systems R&D to be divided equally between Sandia and Idaho
National laboratories, consistent with current year levels. The
Committee encourages the Department to continue its efforts at
the Integrated Energy Operations Center at PNNL. The Committee
provides $5,000,000, within available funds, at the National
Energy Technology Laboratory associated with electricity
transmission, distribution, and energy assurance activities.
The Committee recommends $17,000,000, an increase of
$4,991,000, for Operations and Analysis. This funding is
provided for Permitting, Siting, and Analysis. These funds were
transferred from the Wind Energy Office to coordinate renewable
energy integration with the electricity system.
NUCLEAR ENERGY PROGRAMS
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $535,660,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 632,698,000
House allowance......................................... 499,805,000
Committee recommendation................................ 711,285,000
The Committee recommendation for the Office of Nuclear
Energy is $711,285,000, an increase of $151,533,000 above the
request.
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.--The Committee
recognizes and appreciates the considerable investment this
administration has made in this area and supports efforts to
close the nuclear fuel cycle. It is imperative that the Federal
Government support long-term research to discover ways to
reduce the amount of nuclear waste and recycle the vast amount
of untapped energy that remains in the current once-through
nuclear fuel cycle. Faced with the reality of long-term storage
needs and the fact that our Nation is unlikely to permit and
license more than one permanent repository, our best
alternative is to vastly reduce the amount of waste, the heat
content, and the radiotoxicity of the spent fuel before
permanent disposal. The President has proposed the Global
Nuclear Energy Partnership as a multi-pronged technical
approach to close the nuclear fuel cycle and encourage the
recycling of uranium and destruction of long-lived actinides
through advanced reactor technology. The budget supports the
development of recycling technologies that have the opportunity
to enhance the proliferation resistance of existing recycling
or separation technologies. By utilizing the proposed UREX
approach, scientists will not separate pure plutonium. The
Committee expects the Department to continue to fully integrate
proliferation resistant controls within the recycling
technology. The Committee has provided additional funding
within the National Nuclear Security Administration, Office of
Nuclear Nonproliferation to support long-term research and
deployment of improved nuclear safeguards to enhance
proliferation resistance and to allow for the safe expansion of
nuclear power. The Committee encourages the Department to
involve private industry in the GNEP program through
competitive grants.
University Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support.--From
within available funds provided to the NERI program, the
Committee recommends $10,000,000 to support fuels research for
the Next Generation Nuclear Reactor. The Committee is
disappointed the Department has eliminated funding for this
program without warning. Universities depend on technical
support from the Department, and the nuclear industry relies on
the Universities to provide academic training to the next
generation of nuclear scientists, reactor operators, and
experts trained in health physics. The Committee is pleased
with the success this program has had thus far and recognizes
that a more modest level of funding is appropriate. The
Committee supports this activity again this year and directs
the Department to provide $27,000,000 to support the University
Reactor Infrastructure and Education Initiative that was
eliminated in the fiscal year 2007 budget request and strongly
encourages the administration to budget for these activities in
fiscal year 2008.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
The Committee recommendation for nuclear energy research
and development includes a total of $446,655,000, an increase
of $99,533,000.
Nuclear Power 2010.--The Committee has included
$88,000,000, an increase of $33,969,000 to support the
development license application for new nuclear power plant
designs under the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Combined
Operating License [COL] process. The Committee believes this
program is critical and has consistently provided additional
funding to accelerate this effort in the past. The Committee
understands the appetite for funding this program continues to
grow beyond what the Department has budgeted and the level of
funding the Committee can provide. It is clear that the
original budget baselines were not sufficient and additional
work is needed. Therefore, the Department must ensure that the
limited Federal funds are applied in the most effective and
useful fashion. The Department should focus funding on
supporting the design and engineering work of the two reactors
designs. The Department should also eliminate any unnecessary
overhead charges incurred by the Department and its industry
partners for this program. The Committee supports the
Department's decision to contract directly with two reactor
vendors to support a standardized nuclear plant design that can
validate the untested regulatory licensing process. The
Committee also has significant concerns with financial conduct
of the industry consortium involved in the NP2010 program. The
Committee expects that the Department work with its industry
partners to instill fiscal discipline and ensure conformity to
the Federal budget rules and standards.
Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative.--The Committee recommends
$31,665,000 for nuclear hydrogen research and development, an
increase of $9,000,000. The added funding will be matched with
$9,000,000 from the Solar program to support the creation of a
hydrogen pilot plant using a sulfur-based thermo chemical
process coupled with the Department of Energy's National Solar
Thermal Test Facility as the proxy for a high temperature
nuclear reactor. Deployment of this pilot-scale demonstration
by 2010 will accelerate the completion of a commercial scale
facility by 2015, the date at which automakers are expected to
make a decision on commercial deployment of hydrogen cars. This
demonstration is also consistent with objectives established in
sections 643, 812(a), 934 and 974 of the Energy Policy Act,
2005. The Committee recommendation also includes $5,000,000 for
the UNLV Research Foundation to continue research and
development of high temperature heat exchangers and chemical
processing equipment to permit demonstration of nuclear-powered
production of hydrogen from water.
Generation IV.--The recommendation includes $48,000,000 for
the Generation IV nuclear energy systems initiative. The
Committee directs that within the available funds $40,000,000
be provided to support the Next Generation Nuclear Plant
[NGNP]. This level of funding is consistent with funding in
fiscal year 2006 and is $16,564,000 above the budget request.
The increased level of funding is provided to support research
on the Very High Temperature Reactor [VHTR] at Idaho National
Lab. This technology, if developed, is the only reactor
technology which supports the production of electricity and
hydrogen. The increased funds shall be used to support fuels
and material research and accelerate design activities
necessary to develop a Nuclear Regulatory Commission license
application. The Committee directs the Department to continue
its efforts to work with the private sector in VHTR technology.
The Committee directs the Department to provide a report as to
how the Department of Energy is implementing subtitle C of
EPACT 2005. The Committee recommendation includes $1,500,000
for completion of the IAC LCS upgrade.
Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative.--The Committee recommends
$279,000,000, an increase of $36,000,000 above the budget
request. The initiative should continue its focus on the
technological underpinnings of the closed fuel cycle through a
robust research and development program that includes the
national laboratories, the university community, industries,
and the international research community. The initiative should
also continue to develop designs for the facilities necessary
for demonstrating the technologies and the associated
environmental analyses.
In working with the Department, the Committee has
recommended significant changes to the budget priorities for
GNEP to encourage increased research and development on fuels,
separation, and transmutation research. The Committee
encourages the Department to coordinate the fuels research
within the Office of Nuclear Energy, including research of the
Next Generation Nuclear Plant. Within the Advanced Fuel Cycle
Initiative, the Committee provides $53,800,000 for separations
technology, $60,000,000 for advanced fuels development,
$25,000,000 for transmutation engineering, $35,000,000 for
systems analysis. Within the initiative, the Committee provides
$40,000,000 for design of an engineering scale demonstration of
a spent fuel separations facility, which will provide feedstock
of transuranic materials for remanufacture into reactor fuel
and dispose of waste products; $10,000,000 for design of this
advanced fuel cycle facility and the operational support for
the separations facility and burner reactor facility; and
$15,000,000 for design of an advanced burner reactor to be
powered by transuranic fuel. In addition, the Committee
recommends $10,000,000 to support the modernization of Wing 9
of the CMR facility, which contains hot cells capable of
accommodating fuel fabrication for the GNEP program. The
Committee recommends $5,000,000 for the material test station
at Los Alamos to support materials and fuel experiments using
fast neutron spectrum systems. Without the use of the Fast Flux
Test Facility, the United States has lost its domestic fast
neutron source needed to conduct actinide transmutation. The
Committee provides $2,000,000 for the UNLV Research Foundation
to extend fuel cycle studies to high temperature gas reactors.
Additionally, the Department is directed to enter into a 5 year
cooperative agreement with the UNLV Research Foundation for
these activities. Finally, the Committee provides $4,000,000
for the Center for Materials Reliability at the University of
Nevada Reno.
The Committee instructs the Department not to support any
further research with Russia or Russian entities until the
Russian Federation and U.S. Government are able to come to an
agreement on the disposal of 34 tons of Russian weapons-grade
plutonium.
Advanced Fuel Cycle Facility.--The Committee supports the
deployment of an engineering-design scale recycling facility to
demonstrate the feasibility and technical capacity of a
demonstration-scale advanced recycling facility. The Committee
has provided direction in section 311 in the report to the
Department to clarify the amount of spent nuclear fuel that can
be used for the demonstration and requires that the material be
removed from the site within 1 year, upon completion of the
demonstration.
Program Direction.--The Committee recommends $67,608,000 in
Program Direction, which includes $7,000,000 for the Federal
and contractor staff to plan, implement, and manage the
Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative research, development, and
demonstration activities.
CONSOLIDATION OF COMMERCIAL SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL
The Committee has included language to provide the
Secretary with expanded authority to consolidate commercial
spent nuclear fuel at a separate facility within a State or at
a regional site. Section 313 of the bill section requires the
Secretary of Energy to appoint a Director of Consolidation and
Preparation. Within 180 days of enactment, the CAP Director is
required to issue a report making recommendations to the
Secretary regarding the siting of a facility for the
consolidation and preparation of spent nuclear fuel (``AP
facility'') in each State containing a civilian nuclear power
reactor. Within 90 days of the issuance of the report, the
Secretary, in consultation with the Governor of each State
containing a civilian nuclear power reactor shall designate a
site for a CAP facility within that State. Recognizing that
Governors can recommend sites, the Committee also believes that
it is desirable for the Secretary, in selecting a site, to
first consider sites recommended by the Governors.
The Secretary may determine that it is in the National
interest to designate a regional CAP facility. No regional CAP
facility may be designated in a State in which a State-wide CAP
facility has previously been designated. The Committee believes
it is desirable that States address their own waste needs and
the Committee directs the Secretary to provide sufficient time
for a State site to be designated and licensed before making a
decision to designate a regional facility. A regional facility
cannot be located in a State with a designated and licensed
State site. Any site owned by the Federal Government, and any
site that can be purchased from a willing seller may be
designated as a CAP facility site. Nevada, as the State that
has been designated as the site of the permanent repository is
ineligible, along with any State in which a commercial, away-
from-reactor, dry cask storage facility is authorized. Lands
within national parks, wildlife refuges, or wilderness areas
are also ineligible.
The Secretary shall submit a license application to the NRC
no later than 30 days after the designation of a CAP facility
site. The license for a CAP facility shall be for a term of 25
years, and shall be non-renewable. The Secretary must submit an
environmental report with the license application to the NRC.
The NRC is required to issue an environmental impact statement
in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 prior to issuing a license. Judicial review of the EIS
will be consolidated with the review of the NRC's licensing
decision. The NRC is required to grant or deny a license
application for a CAP facility within 32 months.
In addition, at the request of the owner of a shut-down
reactor, the Secretary of Energy (the ``Secretary'') is
required to assume title to, and responsibility for, spent
nuclear fuel at the site of the shut-down reactor.
The provisions of this section, along with the Secretary's
obligation to develop a permanent repository under the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act of 1982, provide sufficient and independent
grounds for further findings by the NRC that spent nuclear fuel
will be disposed of safely for purposes of licensing civilian
nuclear power reactors.
Finally, this section provides that the Secretary shall
make expenditures from the Nuclear Waste Fund for the siting,
construction and operation of CAP facilities. Funding for this
activity is provided within the Office of Civilian Radioactive
Waste Management.
RADIOLOGICAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
The purpose of the Radiological Facilities Management
program is to maintain critical nuclear facilities in a safe,
environmentally-compliant and cost-effective manner. The
primary user is the Office of Nuclear Energy with facilities at
Idaho, Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, Sandia, and Brookhaven National
Laboratories. The Committee recommends $54,722,000 an increase
of $5,000,000, for the Radiological Facilities Management
program.
Space and Defense Infrastructure.--The Committee recommends
$35,640,000, an increase of $5,000,000. The Committee
recommends $12,200,000 to support activities at Idaho,
$13,800,000 at Los Alamos, and $9,650,000 for Oak Ridge,
including an additional $5,000,000 to upgrade hot cells. The
Committee is aware of the fact that the Department has
conducted its mid-term report to Congress on the relocation of
the Nuclear Operations for Plutonium 238 activities, which
found that the total cost of moving the purification,
pelletization and encapsulation operations from Los Alamos to
Idaho would cost $100,000,000 to $250,000,000 in relocation
costs. The Committee appreciates the benefits that would be
gained by consolidating the mission, but requires more
information on the overall benefits to the program, including
what new activities will replace the existing PU-238 mission
within TA-55. The Committee directs the Department to provide a
more detailed breakdown of the costs to transition this mission
to Idaho by activity (i.e. transportation, security
requirements and facility construction). In addition, the
Department shall provide to the Congress options for replacing
the PU-238 mission within TA-55. The Department shall provide
this new analysis no later than March 31, 2008.
The Committee recommends $15,634,000, as requested for the
medical isotopes infrastructure, $491,000 for Enrichment
Facility Infrastructure, and $2,947,000 for the Research
Reactor Infrastructure programs.
IDAHO FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
The Committee recommends $115,290,000 to support nuclear
power research and development at the Idaho National
Laboratory. The Committee recommendation includes an increase
in funding of $15,000,000 for planning, design and
implementation of safety posture improvements at the Advanced
Test Reactor at Idaho National Laboratory. The Committee
recommends an additional $5,000,000 to support infrastructure
upgrades at Idaho National Laboratory. The Committee also
recommends $6,030,000, as requested, to support 06-E-200
Nuclear Energy Project Engineering and Design [PED].
IDAHO SITE-WIDE SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY
The Committee recommends $75,949,000, consistent with the
budget request and provided in 050 Defense Activity under the
Other Defense Activities account.
ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY, AND HEALTH
The Office of Environment, Safety, and Health is committed
to ensuring that the safety and health of the Department of
Energy workforce, the public, and the environment are
integrated into activities throughout the Department. The
Committee recommendation includes $19,993,000 for program
direction, the amount of the budget request. The Committee has
also provided $94,814,000 from Other Defense Activities.
LEGACY MANAGEMENT
The Committee provides $33,139,000 for Energy Supply-
related activities of the Office of Legacy Management, the same
the budget request. Funds will be used to protect human health
and the environment through efficient long-term surveillance
and maintenance, to protect and make accessible legacy records
and information, and to ensure contractor worker pension and
medical benefits. The Committee recommendation includes
$5,000,000 for the completion of the Office of Legacy
Management Records Management Facility.
CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY
(INCLUDING DEFERRAL AND RECISSION)
The Committee recommends the deferral of $203,000,000 in
clean coal technology funding until fiscal year 2008. The
Committee recommends that the Department rescind $50,000,000 of
prior year balances from excess contingency estimates in
demonstration projects.
FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $593,014,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 469,686,000
House allowance......................................... 558,204,000
Committee recommendation................................ 644,267,000
The Committee recommendation for Fossil Energy Research and
Development is $644,267,000, an increase of $174,581,000 above
the request.
The Committee is concerned with the reduction in the fossil
energy research and development activities proposed as part of
this budget. Last year, the Congress passed and the President
signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This legislation provided
for several incentives to support the deployment of clean coal
technology that would provide reliable domestic energy supply
and the potential to diversify our transportation fuel supply.
The Department is challenged with developing new technology
that will support the continued deployment of coal through
affordable and environmentally-sound generating facilities,
while creating opportunities for production of hydrogen or
other coal to liquid technologies at an affordable cost. The
Committee has provided additional funding to sustain technology
development and to send a clear message to the administration
that the Congress is serious about making a long-term
investment in fossil energy. The Committee also recognizes much
of the oil and gas research has been replaced by the Ultradeep
program authorized in section 999 of EPACT 2005. The Committee
still expects that this program will continue to support
transfer of oil and gas technology to small producers to
enhanced production technology development as directed in
section 999A(b)(3). The Committee recognizes that EPACT
provides 7.5 percent of the annual allocation of $50,000,000
provided from oil and gas lease income.
Clean Coal Power Initiative.--The Committee recommends
$70,000,000. The Committee is frustrated by the remarkably low
level of funding provided to this initiative which demonstrates
advanced coal technologies including carbon capture, mercury
control and other co-production opportunities. The budget only
provided $4,957,000. The Committee is aware that not all of the
previously awarded projects have been successfully developed
for a variety of reasons, and available balances will not be
used. The Department has identified one project that will not
be able to spend the remaining balances of $50,000,000. The
Committee directs the Department to rescind the available
balances and apply that funding to the Clean Coal Power
Initiatives for a future competitive award. In addition, the
Committee provides an additional $20,000,000.
Combined with existing balances of $70,000,000 provided in
the current year, the Department will have $140,000,000 to
commit to the next CCPI solicitation.
FutureGen.--The Committee recommends $54,000,000 for the
FutureGen program, as requested. The Committee understands and
recognizes the value of FutureGen project. However, the
Committee is concerned about maintaining adequate funding for
the core fossil energy research, development, and demonstration
programs, especially with the new programmatic demands of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005. The Committee will continue to give
full consideration to the FutureGen project, contingent upon
the administration maintaining adequate funding requests for
other related fossil energy programs.
Fuels and Power Systems.--The Committee recommends
$311,000,000 for fuels and power systems activity, an increase
of $39,838,000. The recommendation includes $25,000,000 for
Innovations for Existing Plants, including $10,000,000 to be
provided to support research and development of ways to
minimize the water usage at electric generating plants, with
particular attention paid to problems of the desert Southwest.
Within the available funds, $8,000,000 is provided to Sandia
National Lab energy-water technology research program to
support water reduction strategies for power plant operations.
Within available funds, the Committee urges the National
Environmental Technology Laboratory to work with the West
Virginia University on an Advanced Energy/Water Management
Initiative. The Committee recommends $54,000,000 for the
Advanced Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle activities. The
Committee recommends $90,000,000 for Carbon Sequestration
activities, including $10,000,000 for Los Alamos National Lab
to study the long term stability of deposited carbon dioxide in
geological reservoirs and $6,000,000 is provided to the Zero
Emissions Coal Research and Technology program. The Committee
recommends $29,000,000 for Fuels, $63,000,000 for Fuel Cell
Research and $30,000,000 for Advanced Research. Within
available funds for advanced research, the Committee
recommendation includes $8,000,000 for the advanced metals for
energy and industrial systems program, including $2,000,000 for
West Virginia University. From within available funds, the
Committee recommends $3,000,000 for the Center for Advanced
Separation Technology [CAST], and $700,000 for West Virginia
University to continue the long-term study of the environmental
and economic impacts of the development of coal liquefaction in
China. The Committee directs the Department to consider the
potential for a demonstration program of coal to liquid low-
rank coal water fuels produced from hydrothermal treatment of
lignite and sub-bituminous coals in Choctaw County,
Mississippi. The Committee directs the Department to consider
coal to liquid technology to be located in Natchez, Mississippi
for support under title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
The Committee recommends, from within available funds
$2,000,000 to complete research under the Ion Transportation
Membrane Syngas Project.
United States/China Energy and Environmental Centers.--No
funding is provided to support this activity.
Natural Gas Technology.--The Committee recommends
$17,000,000 to support natural gas production from gas hydrates
located in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico. Of this amount,
$1,000,000 is to be provided to University of Mississippi to
support gas hydrates research. From within available funds the
Committee recommends $7,000,000 for the Arctic Energy Office.
Oil Technology.--The Committee recommends $10,000,000 to
support oil technology research and development to reduce the
cost of domestic unconventional resources including oil shale
and tar sands extraction. The Committee recommends $1,500,000
to support the Risk Based Management System, a nationwide data
base of oil and gas regulations and technology developments.
Program Direction.--The committee recommendation includes
$142,396,000. The additional funds shall be provided to the
National Energy Technology Laboratory.
Plant and Capital Equipment.--The Committee recommendation
includes $12,000,000 for plant and capital equipment, an
increase of $12,000,000 above the budget request. Within these
funds, $8,000,000 is for the infrastructure improvement program
at the National Energy Technology Laboratory and $4,000,000 is
for General Plant Projects.
Fossil Energy Environmental Restoration.--The Committee
recommendation for fossil energy environmental restoration is
$11,700,000, $2,000,000 above the request. The Committee
recommendation includes $2,000,000 for the remediation of
environmental issues at the Albany Research Center.
CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED FUELS AND POWER PROJECTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Project name recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Western State IGCC CO2 Capture, Colorado.............. $1,850,000
Colorado Center for Sustainable Energy at Colorado 1,000,000
School of Mines......................................
University of Kentucky Coal-Derived Low Energy 1,000,000
Materials for Sustainable Construction Project.......
High Temperature Electrochemistry Center, Montana..... 4,000,000
Contribution of the Petroleum Industry to the Montana 150,000
Economy..............................................
Solid Oxide Fuel Cells, Pennsylvania.................. 750,000
Heavy Oil Research at University of Utah.............. 2,000,000
Mine of the Future, New Mexico........................ 1,750,000
Hardin Generating Station Coal-Fired Power Plant 1,000,000
Mercury Emission Control Demonstration project,
Montana..............................................
Truckee Meadows Water Reclamation Methane Conversion 1,000,000
Project, Nevada......................................
NOX Reduction Vehicle Project, Nevada................. 1,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE RESERVES
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $21,285,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 18,810,000
House allowance......................................... 18,810,000
Committee recommendation................................ 39,810,000
The Committee recommends $39,810,000, an increase of
$21,000,000 above the requested level. The Committee has
provided an additional $2,000,000 to support the activities
under the NPR/Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming program. Within the
available funds, $4,169,000 is provided to support the Rocky
Mountain Oil Technology Centers, $4,559,000 is recommended to
support NPR-3, and $3,276,000 is provided to cover operational
costs, including program direction, business management
activities, and salaries.
Development of Oil Shale and Tar Sands.--The Committee
recommends an increase of $10,000,000 above the budget estimate
to initiate a program to accelerate the commercial development
of oil shale and tar sands, as required in section 369 of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 and consistent with the
recommendations from the Taskforce on Strategic Unconventional
Fuels to support technology development and production from
unconventional resources. Within the available funding
$2,000,000 is provided to Los Alamos to support an
investigation of basin-scale environmental impacts of in-situ
production methods for oil shale development. The Committee
also includes $6,000,000 for the Energy and Environment
Research Center/Western Research Institute.
ELK HILLS SCHOOL LANDS FUND
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $83,160,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................................
The Committee requests no funds for the Elk Hills School
Lands Fund for fiscal year 2007, consistent with the budget
request. The State of California is to receive 9 percent of the
net sales proceeds generated from the sale of Elk Hills. The
level of future budget requests is dependent on the results of
the equity finalization process.
The State of California maintains that they are due
$9,000,000 under the Elk Hills program in fiscal year 2007. The
Department disagrees. If this legal dispute is resolved prior
to the completion of the conference report, this issue may be
re-visited.
STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $164,340,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 155,430,000
House allowance......................................... 155,430,000
Committee recommendation................................ 155,430,000
The Strategic Petroleum Reserve was created to reduce the
economic impact of a major petroleum supply interruption to the
United States and to carry obligations created by the
international energy program. The Committee recommends
$155,430,000 for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, consistent
with the budget request.
NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE
Appropriations, 2006....................................................
Budget estimate, 2007................................... $4,950,000
House allowance......................................... 4,950,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,950,000
The Committee recommends $4,950,000 for the Northeast Home
Heating Oil Reserve, the same as the President's request, for
storage, operation, and management in case of severe energy
supply interruption in the Northeast.
ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $85,314,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 89,769,000
House allowance......................................... 89,769,000
Committee recommendation................................ 93,032,000
The Committee recommends $93,032,000, for the Energy
Information Administration. The additional funds will be used
to support improved data collection and research into gasoline
markets and gasoline storage capacity, as well as ethanol-based
renewable fuels markets. A recent external study team
recommended that the EIA take precautions to protect the data
stored on the EIA computer systems and protect against
malicious use and unauthorized access. The Committee requests
that the Department provide a report to Congress on the
precautions being taken to protect the market sensitive data
and any needs related to upgrading the EIA computer facilities
to provide the necessary precautions. This report is due to the
Congress by March 1, 2008.
NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $349,687,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 310,358,000
House allowance......................................... 309,946,000
Committee recommendation................................ 310,358,000
The Committee recommends $310,358,000, as requested by the
President. The Committee recommendation includes $35,201,000
for the Paducah gaseous diffusion plant uranium conversion and
stabilization activities and $72,215,000 for Portsmouth gaseous
plants, including $32,700,000 for depleted uranium conversion.
The recommendation includes $34,843,000 for the Fast Flux Test
Reactor and $73,400,000 for West Valley Demonstration Project.
Small Sites.--The Committee recommendation provides the
President's request for the following projects: $10,726,000 for
Argonne National Laboratory; $28,272,000 for Brookhaven
National Laboratory; $16,000,000 for Energy Technology
Engineering Center; $22,865,000 for the Moab site and $500,000
is provided from within available for Grand County, Utah, for
soil and water remediation measures at the former Atlas Uranium
Mill Tailings site for infrastructure improvements, regulatory
support, public education and related activities; and
$5,720,000 for Stanford Linear Accelerator Center.
URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING FUND
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $556,606,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 579,368,000
House allowance......................................... 579,368,000
Committee recommendation................................ 573,368,000
For the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and
Decommissioning Fund, the Committee recommends $573,368,000.
The Committee provides $151,320,000 for cleanup activities at
the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, and $110,000,000 for
the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, an increase of
$14,000,000. The Department shall use the additional funds at
Paducah to accelerate the characterization and disposition of
waste offsite, including the Designated Material Storage Areas,
low-level wastes, TSCA waste and mixed low-level waste. In
2004, the Government Accountability Office was commissioned to
report on the outlook of the cleanup of the uranium enrichment
facilities using the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and
Decommissioning fund that was authorized in the 1992 Energy
Policy Act. The GAO found that under no plausible scenario
would the funds meet the cleanup needs at the three facilities.
The GAO made a recommendation that the fund be extended for 3
additional years beyond its expiration in 2007 to provide the
Department time to develop a plan to support long-term cleanup
needs at these enrichment facilities. Since the GAO's
recommendation, the Department has neither developed a plan,
nor extended the fee. The Committee directs the Department to
provide a long-term plan to the Committee on the baseline
cleanup schedules for each of the three facilities and how the
Department intends to cover the costs of the cleanup without
sufficient funding from the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination
and Decommissioning fund. The Committee expects the Department
to deliver this plan by March 31, 2007.
Uranium/Thorium Reimbursement.--The Committee recommends no
funding for this activity.
SCIENCE
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $3,596,393,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 4,101,710,000
House allowance......................................... 4,131,710,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,241,062,000
The Committee recommends $4,241,062,000 for the Office of
Science. These funds represent an investment in basic research
that is critical to both the future economic competitiveness of
the United Sates and to the success of our national and energy
security.
Economists estimate that about half of U.S. economic growth
since World War II has been the result of technological
innovation. Basic research and science education lay the
groundwork for tomorrow's technology breakthroughs. The DOE
Office of Science is the largest Federal provider of research
in the physical sciences. In July 2005, the Congress passed and
the President signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This
directed the Department to increase its investment in funding
for basic physical sciences. In his State of the Union address,
the President unveiled his vision for science, embodied in the
American Competitiveness Initiative [ACI], which proposes
doubling the appropriation to the Office of Science over 10
years. Congressional initiatives such as the PACE-Energy Act
propose a similar objective. The fiscal year 2007 request will
put the Office of Science on course to doubling the funding
over the next decade. This is critical to augmenting
fundamental research while also supporting the President's new
investment in energy technologies such as solar, hydrogen, coal
and nuclear power as outlined in the Advanced Energy Initiative
[AEI]. Increased support from both the Office of Energy Supply
and Conservation and the Office of Science should foster a
healthy partnership to transfer fundamental research in
genomic, advanced materials and biology into current and future
technology applications that will result in field-test
demonstrations. It will be incumbent of Federal managers and
the Department of Energy leadership to ensure that research in
both of these offices is shared in a mutually beneficial
manner, especially as it relates to energy technology.
Report on Scientific Cooperation.--The Department is
directed to prepare a report supported by the Office of Science
and the Office of Energy Supply and Conservation regarding the
specific steps the Department is taking to ensure cooperation
between the two offices in identifying broad research
objectives and goals as well as specific R&D priorities
required in the short term. This report should contain
information as to how the various Department of Energy
laboratories are supporting these activities and budget
projections in the next 5 years. This report is due to the
Committee concurrent with the President's fiscal year 2008
budget submission.
Science Education.--It is increasingly clear that the
economic future of the United States will be tied to our
ability to innovate and maintain a technological lead to ensure
reliable and affordable energy supplies, advanced technologies
that can be sold worldwide, and innovations that can deliver
increases in productivity. These advantages must be earned and
can only be guaranteed through investing in our education
system and teachers. In 1999, only 41 percent of U.S. eighth
graders received instruction from a teacher with specialization
in mathematics, compared to the international average of 71
percent. This is a frightening statistic, but one that can be
changed. A recent National Academy of Sciences report, Rising
Above the Gathering Storm, made several recommendations that
closely track the recommendations of the Secretary of Energy's
Advisory Board, Science and Mathematics Education Task Force.
The Task Force recently concluded that the Department of Energy
has a significant opportunity to enhance science and math
education in the Nation, and it is already well positioned to
take a leadership role. The Department of Energy's national
laboratories are home to many of the best scientific minds, but
are also geographically distributed over the country, allowing
access to teachers across the Nation. Moreover, the network of
national laboratories is also tightly linked with industrial
and academic resources, giving DOE the ability to forge
educational partnerships that can extend its reach, and
therefore also its capacity to enhance science, engineering and
math education nationwide. The Committee believes more should
and can be done to tap the significant teaching potential
within the labs, and therefore has supported several
initiatives within the Office of Science. As such, the
Committee recommends additional funding in the Workforce
Development account to support teacher training and primary and
secondary science and math education.
The Committee is concerned that the Department is no longer
abiding by the peer-reviewed 20 year Facilities plan the
Department produced less than 3 years ago. This document
established a prioritization of large investments and
facilities the Department intended to support based on input
from all of the scientific advisory boards within the
Department. These investments are sufficiently large that they
require long-term funding commitment that will exceed beyond a
specific administration. As such, continual reprioritization
will undermine the long-term goals and is likely to hinder the
ability of the Office of Science to plan and this Committee's
efforts to fund such long term investments. The Committee
expects the Department to clarify its current priorities and
update the 20 year plan to reflect these new priorities.
HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS
For High Energy Physics, the Committee recommends
$766,789,000. Understanding the way the universe works is the
key mission of the High Energy Physics program, and it succeeds
by probing interactions among matter, energy, space and time.
The Committee fully funds the investments at the user
facilities including the Tevatron Collider, the Neutrinos in
the Main Injector at Fermi Laboratory and the B-Factor at
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. In addition, the Committee
provides full funding for the Large Hadron Collider at the
European Organization for Nuclear Research Laboratory. The High
Energy Physics program has many promising opportunities to
advance our understanding of the universe and its makeup.
However, the Department must make important decisions about the
future of this program, including balancing the immediate
opportunities provided through the Joint Dark Energy Mission
and large future investments in the International Linear
Collider.
International Linear Collider.--The Committee provides
$45,000,000, an increase of $15,000,000 above current year
levels, to support pre-conceptual research to support the U.S.
ILC effort within the Accelerator Development, International
Linear Collider R&D activities. The Committee appreciates the
scientific challenge of building the ILC in the United States,
establishing our leadership in this discipline among an
international team. The budget calls for doubling the request
above current year to support pre-conceptual R&D, yet the
Committee does not have a clear understanding of the cost of
this international project, which has been reported to exceed
$8,000,000,000, twice the annual budget of the Office of
Science. Despite the large financial commitment by the
President in scientific research, the Committee is concerned
that the ILC will crowd out other valuable research as has been
demonstrated with both the National Ignition Facility within
the NNSA, the Rare Isotope Accelerator and ITER, both within
the Office of Science. Therefore, before the Committee agrees
to adopt large budget increases for the ILC, the Department
must provide a cost estimate including an out year funding plan
and an explanation of how this initiative will impact other
facilities and scientific research. In addition, the Committee
would like to see the initial results from the Large Hadron
Collider, which is set to begin operations in mid 2007 before
the Committee commits to a long-term investment toward the ILC.
The Committee looks forward to reviewing the data and visiting
this matter again in 2008.
Joint Dark Energy Mission.--The Committee has consistently
demonstrated its support of the Department's initiative to
launch a space probe to answer the fundamental physics question
of our time--what is the ``dark energy'' that constitutes the
majority of the universe? The Committee strongly believes that
this initiative should move forward. Unfortunately, the multi-
agency aspect of this initiative faces insurmountable problems
that imperil its future, and the Department risks losing a
world-class scientific team. The Committee is concerned that
the joint mission between the Department of Energy and NASA is
untenable because of NASA's reorganization and change in focus
toward manned space flight. The Committee directs the
Department to immediately begin planning for a single-agency
space-based dark energy mission and to conduct a peer-reviewed
competition to select a single winning proposal based both upon
the quality of the science and the overall cost to the
Department. The competition should be initiated by the end of
the calendar year 2006 and completed in 2007 with the goal of a
launch in fiscal year 2013. The Committee encourages the
Department to aggressively explore potential domestic and
international partnerships and launch options to help defray
the cost of the missions. The Committee provides $74,271,000
for Non-Accelerator Physics, an increase of $15,000,000 above
the request to support the Joint Dark Energy Mission. The
Committee has moved $8,310,000 from Theoretical Physics to the
High Energy Density Physics account.
HIGH ENERGY DENSITY SCIENCE
The Committee recommends the creation of a new discipline
within the Office of Science to support the growing research in
high energy density sciences currently being pursued within the
Office of Science, the National Nuclear Security Administration
and universities worldwide. With his recent elevation of
position, from Director to Under Secretary, the Under Secretary
is increasing his field of view and now has the responsibility
of developing science at all the labs within the Department,
not just the Office of Science. As such, the Committee
recommends that a new office be created to consolidate and
support research in high energy density physics. This office
will be charged with supporting research in inertial fusion
energy, fast ignition, petawatt laser development, plasma
accelerators and other laboratory and university sponsored
research related to high energy density science that is
presently funded within the Fusion Energy, Nuclear Physics,
High Energy Physics and the NNSA, ICF accounts. This research
has important applications ranging from materials research to
fusion energy and fundamental research into the make up and
reactions of nuclear matter. One of the of the primary
responsibilities for this new program will be to establish a
peer-reviewed technology and research and development roadmap
to support a robust experimental program. This R&D roadmap is
due to the Committee by March 31, 2007. The Committee directs
the Department to break out the funding within the existing
budgets and programs and consolidate within this new office.
The Committee provides $79,924,000 to support this new research
account, funded equally between the Office of Science and the
NNSA and consistent with the high energy density research
allocation within the Office of Science. Funding shall be drawn
from the following accounts: $11,949,000 from the Fusion Energy
Account, $20,000,000 from Nuclear Physics, and $8,310,000 from
High Energy Physics. In addition, the Committee has provided
funding from the ICF budget that includes the following:
$8,903,000 to support university grants and $30,000,000 to
support research on z pinches, high average power lasers and
other HED research that has been exclusively funded within the
NNSA accounts. The Committee provides $7,000,000 for the
continued operation and experimental program on the Atlas Pulse
Power Machine. This funding is in addition to the funding
provided within the NNSA. Additionally, the Committee
recommendation includes $2,000,000 for the Nevada Terawatt
Facility for joint research on dynamics of materials under
extreme conditions; and $2,000,000 for UNR to continue its
advanced research on Z-pinch and wire array physics. The
Committee directs the Department to renew its base Nevada
Terawatt Facility high energy density physics research
cooperative agreement at financial levels consistent with the
current year. The Committee recommendation includes $5,300,000
above the budget request for fast ignition research. The
Committee provides $3,000,000 in the ICF and High Yield Science
Campaign of the NNSA to continue the development of a short
pulse laser at the University of Texas at Austin, and
$2,000,000 for continued collaborative research under the z-
Petawatt Consortium for operations at the Z-Beamlet laser
facility at Sandia National Laboratories, and $1,000,000 for
collaborative research.
The Department is directed to convene an advisory board to
develop a technology roadmap for this program and provide the
Congress with a plan to support HED science while contributing
to the operations at the various facilities in the NNSA. The
Committee strongly urges the Department to eliminate barriers
to discovery that have developed by historic jurisdictional
boundaries and line management responsibility.
NUCLEAR PHYSICS
The Committee provides $434,060,000 for Nuclear Physics.
The Nuclear Physics program fosters fundamental research that
will advance our understanding of nuclear matter, helping the
United States maintain a leading role in developing nuclear
energy, nuclear medicine, and national security. The Committee
has shifted a portion of the funding budgeted for High Energy
Density R&D to the new High Energy Density Science program.
BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
For Biological and Environmental Research [BER], the
Committee provides $560,000,000, the same as the budget
request. BER uses competitive and peer-reviewed research at
national laboratories, universities, and private institutions
to further the Nation's competitiveness in the scientific
arena.
Genomes to Life.--The Committee strongly supports the GTL
program and provides full funding as requested. Even before the
Department mapped the first human genome, the Committee
encouraged the Department to expand its genomic research and
recommended that the Department accelerate the deployment of
the four Genomes to Life facilities as was proposed in the 20
year plan. Now, a National Academies report has also concluded
that the Department could greatly accelerate the research
needed to unlock the genome. The Committee supports the
Department's efforts to adjust its plan to move quickly to
award two energy-related GTL collaborative research facilities.
The Committee recommends full funding, as requested.
Medical Applications and Measurement Science.--Modern
nuclear medicine builds on the exploitation of nuclear energy
to promote human health, a concept that has been successful
since the middle of the 20th century. The Committee is
disappointed the Department has eliminated funding for nuclear
medicine for the second year in a row from its budget request.
The Committee understands the Department is working with the
National Institutes of Health on a research strategy between
the two entities, furthering research in the nuclear medicine
arena in a manner that does not duplicate efforts. However,
because the Committee lacks necessary information about this
partnership, the Committee is concerned that either research
might be duplicated or that the NIH might not have the means to
fund its share. Section 314 of the bill proposes to provide
funding derived from a research account charged against
Department of Energy research as provided in section 1001(e) of
title X of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The Committee expects
that $25,000,000 will be available to support nuclear medicine
research.
Asia Pacific Project.--The Committee recommends that up to
one-third of the funding be provided from the climate research
activities from within this account.
CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED OFFICE OF SCIENCE PROJECTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Project name recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Positron Emission Tomography [PET] Scanning for $1,000,000
Neurological Diseases, Alabama.......................
UCLA Institute for Molecular Medicine, California..... 3,700,000
Ultra Dense Supercomputing Memory Storage, Colorado... 1,000,000
Kansas University Cancer Center Laboratory 500,000
Reconfiguration, Kansas..............................
The University of Louisville Computational Biomarker 1,000,000
Discovery Center, Kentucky...........................
Tulane Environmental and Material Science Clean Room 800,000
Facility, Louisiana..................................
Contrast Media Savings Study-[MEDRAD], Mississippi.... 500,000
Health Sciences Research and Education Facility at 1,500,000
University of Missouri-Columbia......................
Billings Clinic Cancer Research Institute, Montana.... 1,300,000
PET Scanner, Middletown Regional Health System, Ohio.. 510,000
Enhanced Outpatient Cancer Services, Ohio............. 500,000
National Center for Regenerative Medicine, Ohio....... 500,000
Cuyahoga Community College, Ohio Alternative Energy 500,000
Training Program.....................................
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania..... 1,000,000
Texas A&M University Intelligent Power System 1,500,000
Monitoring and Diagnostics...........................
Center for River Dynamics and Restoration at USU, Utah 400,000
Blackstone River Science and Exploration Center, Rhode 250,000
Island...............................................
Fisk University Science Laboratory Improvements, 540,000
Tennessee............................................
MIND Institute, New Mexico............................ 12,000,000
University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences........... 1,000,000
Oakland Children's Hospital, California............... 225,000
St. Mary Medical Center, California................... 225,000
UCSD-NEES/NSF Outdoor Shake Table, California......... 600,000
St. John's Hospital Center, Santa Monica, California, 200,000
Women's Health Center................................
Costilla County Biodiesel Pilot Project, Colorado..... 80,000
Lower AK Valley Water Conservancy District Small-Scale 250,000
Biodiesel Plant, Colorado............................
Yale New Haven Health System Center for Public Health, 250,000
Connecticut..........................................
Stamford Health Systems, Connecticut.................. 250,000
Waterbury Hospital Clinical Information System 250,000
Initiative, Connecticut..............................
Norwalk Hospital Foundation, Connecticut.............. 250,000
University of Delaware Brown Laboratory Renovation.... 500,000
St. Francis Hospital, Delaware........................ 500,000
Mt. Sinai Medical Center, Florida..................... 500,000
Upgrade Electrical at Hawaii's Major Trauma Centers... 1,000,000
Edward Hospital Cancer Center, Illinois............... 250,000
University of Chicago Hospitals, Illinois............. 250,000
Franklin County Hospital, Illinois.................... 250,000
Rush University Medical Center, Illinois.............. 500,000
Benedictine University Science Lab., Lisle, Illinois.. 250,000
Marian College Biomedical Research Initiative, Indiana 400,000
University of Maryland-Baltimore Center for 250,000
Nanomedicine & Cellular Delivery.....................
Kennedy-Krieger Institute, Maryland................... 250,000
St. Agnes Hospital, Maryland.......................... 500,000
University of Massachusetts at Boston 500,000
Multidisciplinary Research Facility..................
Noble Hospital Diagnostic Imaging Project, 500,000
Massachusetts........................................
Montana Cardiology Telemedicine Network............... 500,000
University of Nebraska Medical Center................. 500,000
Virtua Memorial Hospital, New Jersey.................. 500,000
Atlantic Health System Comprehensive Cardiovascular 500,000
Initiative, New Jersey...............................
Hauptman-Woodward Medical Research Institute, New York 750,000
Central New York Biotechnology Research Center........ 250,000
Hospital for Special Surgery, New York................ 250,000
Heart Center of Niagara, New York..................... 750,000
Rochester General Hospital Heart Failure MYOTECH 400,000
Treatment, New York..................................
University of North Dakota Center for Biomass 1,000,000
Utilization..........................................
University of Rhode Island Transgenic & Genomic Center 500,000
University of Vermont Functional MRI Research......... 500,000
University Medical Center, Nevada..................... 500,000
Nevada Cancer Institute............................... 500,000
Black Mountain Institute, Nevada...................... 2,000,000
Tahoe Center for Environmental Sciences, Nevada....... 250,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES
The Committee recommends $1,445,930,000 for Basic Energy
Sciences, an increase of $24,950,000 from the budget request.
Basic Energy Sciences supports work on the natural sciences
emphasizing fundamental research in materials sciences,
chemistry, geosciences, and aspects of biosciences. The
Committee recommends $1,004,212,000 to support the Materials,
Sciences and Engineering research program. The Committee
recommends the following: $174,409,000 in fully operational
funding for Spallation Neutron Source; full funding for the
four Nanoscale Science Research Centers to support construction
and operations; full funding for Linac Coherent Light Source;
the requested level of $25,000,000 for National Synchrotron
Light Source-II; $10,582,000 to support operations for the
Manuel Lujan, Jr. Neutron Scattering Center and $8,000,000, as
requested for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive
Research.
The Committee recommends $293,449,000, an increase of
$24,950,000 for Chemical Sciences, Geosciences and Energy
Biosciences program. This program supports basic research in
atomic and molecular chemistry, chemical physics, radiation
chemistry, organic and inorganic chemistry, geochemistry and
geophysics.
Energy and Water Technology Development.--Consistent with
section 979 of the Energy Policy Act, 2005, the Committee
recommends $24,950,000 authorized by this section to support
research, development and demonstration of water technology
used in the production of energy. The Committee believes water
planning and water conservation are critical factors in
economic development, human health and environmental well
being. There are many regions in this country and across the
world facing severe water shortages that are forced to look to
water reclamation and desalination activities for adequate
supplies. The Committee urges the Department to draw on the
existing expertise within Department of Energy laboratories and
other Federal agencies to develop a program consistent with the
authorities provided in section 979 of Public Law 109-58; the
Committee provides $15,950,000 within the available funds to
support this activity. The Committee directs the Department to
provide Sandia National Lab with $10,000,000 for advanced
concept desalination and arsenic treatment research to be used
in partnership with other national laboratories and
universities.
The Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 for the
University of Vermont Plant Sciences Building and $500,000 for
the Environmental Learning Center, Nevada.
Construction.--The Committee recommends $148,269,000 to
support construction activities within the Basic Energy Science
activities, as requested. Full funding is provided to the
Nanocenters and the Linac Coherent Light Source at SLAC.
Construction funding for the Spallation Neutron Source is no
longer needed as the construction phase is complete.
ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH
For Advanced Scientific Computing Research, the Committee
provides $318,654,000, the same as the President's request. In
the past two decades, leadership in scientific computation has
become a cornerstone of the Department's strategy to ensure the
security of the Nation and success in the areas of science and
environmental quality. The Committee is supportive of advanced
computing as the Department has taken technological risks as
part of the weapons program. The decisions have paid off as the
Department deploys the Red Storm and Blue G architecture across
the complex to support fusion, nuclear energy, and other
disciplines in need of high speed computational capabilities to
support complex simulations.
The Committee is concerned with the relationship between
the Office of Science and the NNSA. As an example, the ASCR
strategic plan discusses the need to work with other Federal
agencies including several defense agencies, but only discusses
in general terms three areas of research where NNSA and the
Office of Science cooperated. In the area of basic research,
the strategic plan states that it is an area that is ``not
important enough to justify ASCI investment at this time.'' The
Committee is also aware that the Office of Science has budgeted
$13,000,000 for the DARPA to support a petaflop computer
deployment by 2010. The Committee believes this funding would
be better spent within the Department to support a petaflop
initiative. The Department is directed to divide the funds
equally between the Office of Science and the NNSA Advanced
Simulation and Computing activities to support development of
component architecture for high-performance software and
storage.
FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES
For Fusion Energy Sciences, the Committee recommends
$307,001,000. This program advances plasma science, fusion
science, and fusion technology through collaborations among
U.S. universities, industry, national research laboratories,
and the international fusion community. Consistent with budget
descriptions, the Committee has shifted $11,949,000 provided
for High Energy Density Science to the new office within the
Department of Energy.
SCIENCE LABORATORIES INFRASTRUCTURE
The Committee recommends $50,888,000, to support
infrastructure activities at the 10 Office of Science
laboratories and the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and
Education. Within available funds, $10,000,000 is provided as
the Office of Science fiscal year 2007 contribution to the
Capability Replacement Laboratory (300 Area) project. The
Committee reiterates its recent criticisms that the Department
has done a very poor job of coordinating this project between
offices internally and with the Department of Homeland
Security, the other 300 Area tenant.
SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY
The Committee recommendation provides $76,592,000 for
Safeguards and Security activities, the same as the budget
request. The Safeguards and Security program provides funding
for physical security, information protection, and cyber
security for the national laboratories and facilities of the
Office of Science.
SCIENCE PROGRAM DIRECTION
The Committee recommends $170,877,000 for the Office of
Science Program Direction, the same as the budget request. This
level of funding will support approximately 1,000 FTEs for
fiscal year 2007.
SCIENCE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
These initiatives support the missions of the Department's
Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists program. The
Committee provides $6,000,000 to establish the Protecting
America's Competitive Edge [PACE] fellows program as a
competitive, merit-based graduate fellowship program for
students pursuing doctoral degrees in a science or engineering
field related to a mission area of the Department. Fellowship
recipients must rank in the upper 10 percent of their class and
be citizens or permanent resident aliens of the United States.
Fellowships awarded under this program shall be portable with
the fellow.
The Committee recognizes that the scientific and
professional staff of the Department of Energy and National
Nuclear Security Administration laboratories are an untapped
resource that should be used to support mathematics, science
and engineering education and training in our primary and
secondary schools. The Committee provides $35,000,000 to
support this effort. Half of the funding will be used to
establish or expand summer institutes at National Laboratories
to provide additional training to strengthen the mathematics
and science teaching skills of teachers employed at public
schools in kindergarten through grade 12. The Committee directs
the remaining funds to be used to support at each of the
National Laboratories the establishment of a Center of
Excellence in Mathematics and Science at one public secondary
school located in the region of the National Laboratory. The
Secretary is directed to provide scientific and engineering
staff of the National Laboratories to assist in teaching
courses at these Centers, and to use National Laboratory
scientific equipment in the teaching of the courses. The
Secretary shall consider the results of performance assessments
of the Centers in any performance review of a National
Laboratories management and operations contractor.
Nuclear Waste Disposal
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $148,500,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 156,420,000
House allowance......................................... 186,420,000
Committee recommendation................................ 136,420,000
The Committee recommendation for the Office of Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management includes $136,420,000 from fees
collected by the Secretary which are deposited into the fund
established by Public Law 97-425 as amended and $358,080,000
provided from the defense contribution for a total of
$494,500,000. The Committee is frustrated by challenges facing
the Yucca Mountain project. The project is still recovering
from several setbacks in the license application including: the
remanding of the Environmental Protection Agency radiation
standards, the quality control of the U.S. Geological Survey
practices, and the subsequent rejection of the Department's
certification of its License Support Network. The Committee is
concerned that the Department is redesigning the repository
with significant changes, including plans for the surface
facility as well as changes to the in-mountain storage
configuration and cost re-estimate for the entire project that
will be included in the Total System Performance Assessment
[TSPA] model. As a result of the program setbacks and redesign
of repository, the Department does not intend to submit a
License Application until the second quarter of fiscal year
2008 at the earliest. These delays have forced the Committee to
reconsider the project's budget needs.
As a result of program design changes, the Department will
have a new conceptual design for the surface facilities and for
the canister retrieval and handling activities. The clean
canister approach is intended to minimize the need to handle
bare spent nuclear fuel with a goal to provide a uniform
storage solution by requiring fuel to be handled at the
individual utility or facility sites. However, the Department
needs to account for and plan how to package fuel for locations
where fuel handling facilities no longer exist. Without the
necessary cost data and a clear understanding of the specifics
of the TSPA, the Committee is greatly concerned with the
redesign effort and will withhold support of the initiative
until the TSPA is available for a more careful review.
The Committee directs the Department to support only the
preliminary design activities of the Canister Handling Facility
and not to proceed with performance based engineering or any
procurement or construction activities. In addition, the
Committee limits the Department to spending current year levels
for Disposable Canister work and Waste Package activities. The
Committee does support the budget request for the Initial
Infrastructure Readiness, Site Safety Upgrades work. The
Committee recognizes this investment is important to
maintaining a safe workplace. However, the Committee directs
the Department to exercise great discretion to ensure that any
construction undertaken at or near Yucca Mountain is consistent
with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act's requirements that no
repository construction can be undertaken prior to the issuance
of a repository license by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The Committee directs the Government Accountability Office to
review the fiscal year 2007 budget plan for the Office of
Civilian Nuclear Waste Management to ensure that all of the
activities planned for the fiscal year are consistent with the
requirements of the NWPA.
The Committee directs the Department to make funding
reductions in transportation activities and not reduce funding
for licensing support activities or infrastructure and safety
upgrades.
In the fiscal year 2006 energy and water conference report,
the conferees directed the Department to enter into a 3-year
cooperative agreement with Inyo County, California, to address
groundwater contamination concerns. Instead, the Department
provided a 5-year cooperative agreement. The Committee expects
the Department to be far more respectful of explicit
congressional direction and intent in the future and provides
$750,000 (in addition to the amounts provided in the
cooperative agreement) to accelerate the necessary drilling.
The Committee recommendation includes $750,000 for Nuclear
Transportation Hazard Research at the University of Nevada
Reno, and $1,000,000 for the Nye County Resource Assessment.
Departmental Administration
(GROSS)
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $250,289,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 278,382,000
House allowance......................................... 278,382,000
Committee recommendation................................ 281,382,000
(MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES)
Appropriations, 2006.................................... -$121,770,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... -123,000,000
House allowance......................................... -123,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ -123,000,000
The Committee recommends the President's request of
$278,382,000 for Departmental Administration, a net
appropriation of $158,382,000. The Departmental Administration
account funds eleven Department-wide management organizations
support administrative functions such as human resources,
accounting, budgeting, workforce diversity and project
management activities. The Committee is concerned with the lack
of qualified program managers within the Department.
Chief Financial Officer.--Last year, the Department
encountered a number of challenges resulting from the 2005
implement of the Standard Accounting and Reporting System
[STARS]. Despite the work of the staff, the auditors issued a
disclaimer of opinion on the Department's fiscal year 2005
consolidated financial statements. Despite the staff's best
effort, the Committee is skeptical that the fiscal year 2007
budget request of $36,790,000 is sufficient to address all the
issues identified in the financial audit. The Committee
believes the additional funding is needed to fully support the
transition to the Oracle-based accounting system and to hire
additional staff to broaden the skill mix among the staff. The
Committee recommends an additional $3,180,000 to support this
transition.
Policy and International Affairs.--The Committee
recommendation includes $600,000 within available funds for
continuation of the Clean Energy Technology Exports Initiative
[CETE]. The primary goals of CETE are to strengthen U.S.
Government interagency cooperation and private stakeholder
outreach, to support the deployment of clean energy projects,
and to open and expand clean energy markets abroad. CETE must
be enhanced and carried out in a manner that is consistent with
the 2002 strategic plan and should guide the implementation of
other international energy technology and market deployment
activities within the Department and other Federal agencies.
The Committee also reminds the Department that up to one-third
of the cost of the Asia Pacific Partnership can be taken from
this office.
Office of Inspector General
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $41,580,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 45,507,000
House allowance......................................... 45,507,000
Committee recommendation................................ 45,507,000
For the Office of Inspector General, the Committee
recommends $45,507,000, consistent with the budget request. The
Office of Inspector General identifies opportunities for cost
savings and operational efficiencies and provides the
Department of Energy with the assurance that those attempting
to defraud the Government are apprehended.
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
National Nuclear Security Administration
Weapons Activities
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $6,369,603,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 6,407,889,000
House allowance......................................... 6,412,001,000
Committee recommendation................................ 6,503,051,000
The Weapons Activities account provides for the
maintenance, refurbishment and scientific validation regarding
the reliability, security and safety of the nuclear weapons
stockpile. In addition, the NNSA is charged with certifying the
reliability of the stockpile without the use of underground
testing, so all changes and updates that are integrated into
the stockpile must utilize data from existing tests that are
also supported through independent experimentation and
validated using computer simulation. The NNSA is also working
to upgrade their capability to develop new designs and the
responsive nuclear weapons infrastructure needed to respond to
an evolving, threat based environment as determined by the
Nuclear Posture Review. The directors of Los Alamos, Sandia and
Livermore National Labs and the Commander, U.S. Strategic
Command share the belief that maintaining incremental
modifications to the existing and highly optimized legacy
systems is not sustainable. In order to reduce the concerns,
the laboratory initiated the development of the Reliable
Replacement Warhead. This program is intended to assure the
reliability of the stockpile. In addition the laboratory design
teams have been charged with developing a weapons system that
is much easier to manufacture and maintain, as well as
integrating 21st Century use controls to reduce the threat of
unintended use. A key component of this design will be to
increase the performance margins that will maintain the same
level of reliability and counter the effects of aging so as to
avoid the need for underground testing in the future. However,
until the NNSA can demonstrate the ability to design and
manufacture a weapon with the same or better performance
margins, the Department of Defense will continue to maintain a
significant hedge of reserve legacy systems and parts to
protect against technical challenges within the stockpile. The
Committee recognizes the need to protect against unforeseen
challenges and urges the NNSA to accelerate the transition to a
responsive infrastructure and to proceed expeditiously with the
RRW design. The Committee also realizes that a dual track
strategy of supporting eight legacy systems and a RRW program
is not sustainable and therefore has taken steps in this
legislation to reduce the number of legacy systems and begin
the replacement with RRW designs. The Committee has also
initiated a second design competition for another RRW design in
lieu of the W80 life extension activities, which are no longer
supported by the Nuclear Weapons Council and the Department of
Defense.
NNSA Act Reform.--The Committee is pleased that the
Administrator has recognized that the NNSA operational and
oversight culture was becoming risk-adverse and focused more on
oversight and compliance activities than on implementing the
mission and milestones. The Committee is aware of the numerous
activities underway in the Department of Defense and the
Department of Energy to address issues and recommendations of
the Defense Science Board [DSB] Task Force on Nuclear
Capabilities and the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board's
[SEAB] Nuclear Weapons Complex Infrastructure Task Force. Their
reports identified weaknesses and opportunities in the NNSA's
ability to meet the future needs for the Nation's nuclear
capabilities, including fundamental concerns with line
management authority and accountability, staff and advisory
groups directing line management, embedding safety and security
functions in line management, and consolidating and modernizing
the weapons complex. The Committee is also aware of responses
to these actions to date including: organizational alignments
to improve line management decision making; procedure changes
to improve interfaces with oversight groups within and outside
of the Department; formation of the Office of Transformation;
formation of a senior management team to improve throughput at
Pantex; review of certain orders, regulations and polices to
eliminate practices that weaken line responsibilities;
establishment of multi-site performance measures to increase
delivery of work for the Department of Defense. Hopefully,
these actions will address the fundamental concerns addressed
by the Defense Safety Board.
Material Consolidation.--The Committee recognizes the
Department's challenge in consolidating both the nuclear
weapons complex and the challenge to consolidate special
nuclear material [SNM]. The Committee is supportive of the
initiative taken by the Department to create the Nuclear
Materials Disposition and Consolidation Committee [NMDCC] to
develop a strategy to consolidate and dispose of special
nuclear material. The Committee has yet to see a plan for
consolidation of material outside of the broad goals included
in Complex 2030. The planning team is encouraged to provide
updates to the Committee on a regular basis and provide a
consolidation roadmap to the Congress as soon as possible. The
Committee also expects the Department to identify a disposal
pathway for all excess SNM. The Committee has provided
additional funding to initiate the first shipment of SNM out of
Lawrence Livermore National Lab in fiscal year 2007.
Indirect Security Funding.--The Committee understands the
Department continues to consider the policy of indirectly
funding security costs at NNSA facilities. The Committee
strongly opposes this proposal and directs the Department to
continue to provide transparency when it comes to its costs,
especially security costs, and directly fund all security costs
within the Department Energy and the NNSA.
DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK
The Committee recommendation includes $1,323,224,000 for
this activity. The Directed Stockpile Work [DSW] includes all
activities that directly support weapons in the nuclear
stockpile, including maintenance, research and development,
engineering, certification, dismantlement and disposal
activities.
Life Extension Program.--Within the Life Extension Program
[LEP], the Committee recommends $230,618,000 for LEP
activities. The Committee recommends $58,934,000 for the B61
LEP activities, as requested. The Committee recommends
$151,684,000 as requested to support W76 LEP efforts.
W80.--Based on the recent decision by the Nuclear Weapons
Council decision to terminate the W80 LEP, the Committee
allocates $20,000,000 to support the closeout of the W80 LEP
activities. Delay of the W80 Life Extension Plan will result in
a cost savings of $82,000,000 in fiscal year 2007 and
additional savings in the FYNSP. The savings from the W80 plan
should be used to support the Reliable Replacement Warhead and
responsive infrastructure, so that the transformation of the
stockpile and the NNSA infrastructure can proceed.
Additionally, Stockpile Services funding must be maintained to
enable NNSA to properly support the legacy stockpile, and this
requirement is unaffected by the cancellation of the W80 LEP.
Support for these legacy weapons is crucial since they will be
needed for many more years until they can be replaced with
Reliable Replacement Warhead systems. The Committee
acknowledges that any further cuts in the Directed Stockpile
Work and, in particular, the Stockpile Services, will further
add to the significant challenges NNSA has in supporting the
legacy stockpile.
Stockpile Systems.--The Committee supports the budget
request for the Stockpile Systems account and provides
$325,545,000, as requested. These activities are critical to
support the specific and routine repair and replacement of
various limited-life components and to sustain the necessary
surveillance activities of each weapons system. The Committee
recommends the following: $63,782,000 for the B61; $3,738,000
for the W62; $56,174,000 for the W76; $50,662,000 for the W78;
$27,230,000 for the W80; $23,365,000 for the B83; $1,465,000
for the W84; $59,333,000 for the W87; and $39,796,000 for the
W88.
Reliable Replacement Warhead [RRW].--The Committee
recommendation provides $62,707,000 for the Reliable
Replacement Warhead initiative, an increase of $35,000,000 from
the budget request. The additional funding is realigned from
savings realized by the Nuclear Weapons Council's decision to
cancel W80 LEP. The Committee expects the laboratories and
plants will utilize the unneeded resources in the Directed
Stockpile, Campaigns, and Readiness in Technical Based and
Facilities accounts where applicable to further the RRW design
options to support a Nuclear Weapons Council decision. The
Committee expects the initial RRW design approved by the
Department to be selected based on a combination of
considerations, including the ability to certify the warhead
without underground nuclear testing, cost production and ease
of maintenance and dismantlement. The Committee would oppose
the use of workload leveling among the labs as a factor in any
design selection decision. The design teams at both Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory and Los Alamos National
Laboratory have worked extremely hard on their respective
designs with the expectation that the best design would be
selected. Any selection that isn't decided purely on merits
would be a disservice to the Department of Defense, the RRW
design teams and the NNSA. The Committee continues to have
concerns regarding the slow pace of the Nuclear Weapons Complex
consolidation efforts and how those efforts pertain to the
future of the RRW. Rapid RRW development and deployment will
reduce the further need for many complex manufacturing
capabilities currently maintained by the NNSA. By utilizing a
RRW design, the stockpile will also contain systems that are
much easier to maintain and manufacture, apply enhanced surety
applications and retain the same level of reliability as can be
certified by the three laboratory directors. The Committee
believes that in order to maintain RRW on going basis and to
hedge against any unforeseen problems in any one particular
design, the Secretary and the Administrator should expand the
RRW program immediately to ensure that our strategic forces
have at least two different certified RRW warheads. Having
multiple strategic systems that continue to meet the existing
military requirements maintains the current strategic doctrine
of hedging against a single point failure in any one system.
The Committee provides $10,000,000 to support a second RRW
design competition. The Committee expects the NNSA to proceed
with this design competition in the same manner in which the
initial RRW was implemented. The funding shall be used to
support the following: establish a Project Officers Group to
undertake a feasibility evaluation for a first production goal
of fiscal year 2014; identify the appropriate military
characteristics in order to maintain existing military
capability; support a conceptual design competition within the
laboratory; establish a basis for selection, including support
of a responsive infrastructure and appropriate workload
balancing among the labs if necessary; and develop a
comparative cost assessment comparing implementing the RRW with
implementing the LEP program.
Dismantlement.--The Committee recommendation provides
$35,000,000 for the warhead dismantlement program. The
Committee expects the NNSA to implement an aggressive warhead
dismantlement program as part of a concerted effort to relieve
the weapons complex of excess cold war era warheads and
continue the development of a responsive infrastructure
consistent with the President's Nuclear Posture Review. The
Committee appreciates the efforts of the NNSA to implement a
streamlined dismantlement program, which requires numerous
changes within the complex to support this initiative. First,
the NNSA has made dismantlement and materials consolidation a
priority. Second, the NNSA plans incorporate a complex-wide
approach to balancing surveillance activities, meeting life
extension commitments and increasing the rate of dismantlement.
The Committee supports the NNSA's efforts to dismantle
unnecessary weapons, but reminds the NNSA that it must follow
through with elimination of excess weapons-grade material that
will be left over. Once disassembled, the material still poses
a proliferation threat and must be secured at a significant
cost to taxpayers. In order to fully address this problem, the
Department must develop and implement a comprehensive
dismantlement and consolidation program for the total
elimination and destruction of excess weapons-grade material.
The Committee supports the Department's efforts to
construct and operate the pit disassembly facility and mixed
oxide fabrication facility to turn weapons-usable pits into
commercial spent nuclear fuel. Before the Committee provides
full funding for the dismantlement program, the Committee would
like to ensure the pit disassembly and MOX fabrication facility
will be built. Therefore before the NNSA accelerates
dismantlement activities, the Committee directs the Department
to allocate only $35,000,000 for dismantlement work.
Stockpile Services.--The Committee recommends $669,354,000,
as provided in the budget. The Stockpile Services account
supports the research and development and production activities
for multiple weapon systems, but the costs are not allocated by
tail number in the same manner as the Stockpile Systems or Life
Extension Program. Therefore, despite a reduction in the LEP
activities for the W80, there are no savings within this
activity. The Committee recommends $236,115,000 for Production
Support work. This account supports the personnel costs
associated with weapons assembly, disassembly, and component
productions. Research and Development Support activities are
provided $63,948,000 to support R&D of component and surety
research such as neutron generations and other weapons systems.
The Committee recommendation for R&D Certification and Safety
is $194,199,000. Activities funded within this account are very
critical and support a broad range of stewardship activities
including plutonium experiments, sub critical tests, safety and
reliability analysis, and funding for the Nuclear Weapons Study
Groups of the various military services. The Committee
recommendation includes $9,000,000 above the budget request for
BEEF. This additional funding, coupled with $3,000,000 in RTBF,
will provide funding for critical high pressure experiments in
the Phoenix Program.
CAMPAIGNS
Campaigns focus on scientific, technical and engineering
efforts to develop and maintain critical capabilities and tools
needed to support the existing stockpile through continued
assessment and annual certification in the absence of
underground testing. The major elements of the campaign are:
Science, Engineering, Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and
High Yield Advanced Simulation and Computing, Pit
Manufacturing, and Certification and Readiness Campaigns.
Science Campaign
The Committee recommendation includes $268,762,000, as
requested in the budget. The Science campaign is the principal
program for supporting the science required to maintain the
technical viability of the physics package. Developing a better
understanding of the operating margins through the
Quantification of Margins and Uncertainties, using
experimentation and simulation, is critical to certification of
the current stockpile and the basis for which a RRW design can
be developed without underground testing. The focus of the
scientific research is code development in support of the
Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign for primaries and
secondaries associated with the RRW design and other
experimental technical milestones.
Primary Assessment Technologies.--The Committee recommends
$50,527,000, as requested in the budget, to improve the
understanding of boost physics, a complex challenge for weapons
designers. Funding supports experiments associated with
plutonium using hydrotests, proton radiography and subcritical
tests in Nevada.
Test Readiness.--The Committee recommends $14,757,000 for
Test Readiness as requested and a reduction of $5,000,000 from
current year levels.
Dynamic Materials Properties.--The Committee recommends
$85,727,000 for Dynamic Materials. Funding will be used to
support a variety of experiments on JASPER, TA-55 gas guns, Z/
R, LANSCE and U1A to understand plutonium dynamics.
Specifically, the Committee recommends an increase of
$5,000,000 above the budget request of $11,500,000 to support a
doubling of the shot rate for plutonium experiments at JASPER,
greatly improving efficiency in operation of the JASPER test
bed and DAF glove box for target assembly.
Advanced Radiography.--The Committee recommends $36,745,000
as requested in the budget to support hydrotest and
radiographic activities. The budget supports completion and
commissioning of the second axis cell refurbishment on DARHT.
The Committee expects the NNSA to deliver on the promise of
commissioning this facility in fiscal year 2008, when
hydrotests are needed.
Secondary Assessment Technologies.--The Committee
recommends $81,006,000 for Secondary Assessment Technologies.
Funding is provided in this subprogram to support high energy
density physics experiments on inertial confinement fusion
experimental facilities. The Committee recommends full funding
for the Z machine activities at $14,700,000, as requested in
the budget.
Engineering Campaign
The Committee recommends $207,033,000, an increase of
$46,114,000 above the requested level. This campaign provides
validation of engineering science, modeling and simulation
tools necessary to support design qualification and
certification of the stockpile. Critical elements of this
program are the Enhanced Surety and Surveillance activities
that are critical in applying the highest level of use controls
possible using engineered solutions developed at MESA at Sandia
National Laboratories.
Enhanced Surety.--The Committee recommends $41,200,000, an
increase of $14,469,000 above the budget request. The surety
systems are the means by which the safety, security and use
control of nuclear weapons are achieved. These high-consequence
systems require careful design and ultra-reliable components.
Weapons Systems.--The Committee recommends $28,000,000, an
increase of $6,800,000 above the budget request, to support
advance computer simulation and related code development. This
activity also supports manufacturing of critical design
components and microsystems.
Nuclear Survivability.--The Committee recommends
$23,000,000 to support the budget request. Within the available
funds, the Department is directed to use $6,000,000 to support
research into radiation hardening capabilities and to prevent
damage to critical electronics from electromagnetic pulse.
Enhanced Surveillance.--The Committee recommends
$103,200,000, an increase of $3,995,000 above the current year.
This funding will be used to accelerate the deployment of
advanced micro-engineering devices that can be used to adopt
advance surveillance devices into the RRW design. Applying
enhanced surveillance technology can provide a more accurate,
cost-effective and real time means of tracking performance of
existing stockpile systems.
Project 01-D-108 Microsystem and Engineering Science
Applications, SNL, Albuquerque, New Mexico.--The Committee
recommends $6,920,000, to complete the MESA project in fiscal
year 2007. The Committee recommends $4,613,000 for other MESA
project costs.
Inertial Confinement Fusion and High Yield Campaign
The Committee recommends $412,256,000, a reduction of
$38,935,000 from the budget request. The NNSA has implemented
the National Ignition Campaign and declared it an ``enhanced
management'' activity, which appears to be nothing more than a
NIF-at-all-costs-strategy. The NNSA has pursued this agenda as
a means to justify an aggressive spending baseline at the
expense of other compelling stewardship responsibilities in the
ICF campaign. The NNSA has proven unable to maintain a balanced
ICF and high yield research program. As such the Committee has
reallocated funding out of NIF demonstration and Construction
activities to ensure that there is adequate program balance.
Ignition.--The Committee recommends $69,763,000, a
reduction of $10,000,000, from the budget request. This
reduction has been used to offset an imbalance in research
priorities.
Support of Other Stockpile Programs.--The Committee
recommends $25,872,000. This account has also suffered as a
result of the NIF program. The additional funding provides for
the support of research into high energy density physics within
other campaigns. The additional funding will be to increase the
utilization of the Z machine and work to integrate the Z
petawatt laser and support stockpile stewardship activities
that are being delayed as a result of the NIF priorities. The
JASONS recommended in their review of NIF that the NNSA develop
an ``aggressive program of experiments on high energy density
laser and Z pinch facilities'' in order to understand the
physics challenges and understand computer models. The report
also found that the ``the plans to use LIL and Z/ZR are not yet
adequately developed.'' The Committee recognizes that the
Department just completed a refurbishment of Z/ZR making a
substantial investment of over $60,000,000 to improve the
operational capabilities. The Committee directs the Department
to fully utilize the Z machine. Funding is provided to support
expanded operations and HED stockpile stewardship R&D that has
been delayed until 2011.
NIF Diagnostics, Cryogenics and Experimental Support.--
Unlike the funding provided in the Support of Other Stockpile
Programs, the budget request provides a slight increase from
the current year levels. However, the Committee recommends
$42,578,000, the same level as current year, a reduction of
$3,381,000. These funds will be applied toward the joint HEDP
program.
Pulsed Power Inertial Confinement Fusion.--The Committee
recommends $10,603,000 to support experiments on the
refurbished Z facility.
University Grants.--The Committee believes these activities
would be better supported in a broader program that would
provide students and faculty broader research and experimental
opportunities.
Facility Operations and Target Production.--The Committee
recommendation is $53,021,000, as requested in the budget. The
Committee provides $10,000,000 above the budget request for
advanced ICF target design, fabrication and testing on the
OMEGA laser system at the LLE and the Z-machine at SNL.
NIF Demonstration Program.--The remaining work under the
Demonstration program activities includes assembly and
installation of optics into the remaining roughly 180 of the
192 beamlines. The Department is directed to work to find cost
savings by increasing the efficiency and productivity for
assembly activities. The Committee recommends $129,000,000 for
demonstration activities.
High-Energy Petawatt Laser Development.--The Committee
recommendation no funding for this activity. The funds that
were budgeted for this account have been shifted to the Office
of Science High Energy Density Physics program, an increase of
$27,693,000 above current year levels.
Construction--Project 96-D-111.--The Committee recommends
$81,419,000 and directs the NNSA to utilize available
contingency funds of $30,000,000 to make up any funding
shortfalls. Remaining contingency balances are sufficient to
cover the remaining costs of the construction project. This
funding will be used to support the NNSA's contribution to the
joint High Energy Density Physics program office.
Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign
The Committee recommends $695,995,000, an increase of
$78,040,000 above the request. The Committee supports the
program reforms made to improve budget clarity and program
focus. Of the additional funds provided, $60,000,000 shall be
used to support the purchase of a petaflop computing capability
at Los Alamos National Laboratory. This builds on the
additional funding provided by the Committee in fiscal year
2006 to increase computing capacity at Los Alamos. With these
resources, the United States will be in the best position to
deploy the first petaflop computer in the world. If successful,
this additional capacity will enable the Department of Energy
to develop new computer architectures to facilitate a leap
forward in high speed computing. The Department is directed to
continue activities consistent with fiscal year 2006 funding
under its renewed 5-year cooperative agreement with the
University of Nevada Las Vegas and the University of Nevada
Reno.
Pit Manufacturing and Certification Campaign
The Committee provides a total of $237,598,000 for the Pit
Manufacturing and Certification Campaign, consistent with the
request. Using the existing capabilities at Los Alamos, the
NNSA will demonstrate the ability to manufacture pits, to
confirm the nuclear performance of a W88 warhead without
nuclear testing, and establish a basis for certification of
future pits. The Committee supports the NNSA's decision to
commit out year funding for the Modern Pit Facility toward
demonstrating the capability to manufacture other stockpile
pits, including an RRW design at Los Alamos.
Readiness Campaign
The Committee recommends $205,965,000, as provided in the
budget.
Stockpile Readiness Campaign.--The Committee recommends
$17,576,000, as requested. The funding is intended to be used
to restore or replace aging production infrastructure within
the complex. The Committee is concerned with the decline in
funding considering the need and age of the existing complex.
High Explosives and Weapons Operations.--The Committee
recommendation is $17,188,000, a slight increase over current
funding and consistent the budget request.
Tritium Readiness.--The Committee supports the request of
$86,385,000. This funding will be used to maintain the national
inventory of tritium by irradiating tritium producing rods in a
commercial light-water reactor.
Advanced Design and Production Technologies.--The Committee
recommends $53,645,000 as requested in the budget.
READINESS IN TECHNICAL BASE AND FACILITIES
For Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities, the
Committee provides $1,780,772,000, and increase of $95,000,000
above the budget request to restore funding cut in fiscal year
2006. The activities funded in the RTBF account provide of the
operational funding, including salaries of thousands of staff
as well as the operating costs for the production complex. The
NNSA is facing a challenge in attempting to address the
consolidation of special nuclear material throughout the
complex, a lasting and costly legacy from the cold war. The
NNSA is also looking at consolidating and coordinating the
production mission in order to cut costs to meet tight budgets
and rising costs attributed to security needs and as well has
the rising cost of medical and pension costs. At the
Committee's insistence, the Department is pursuing a RRW
program that is the embodiment of a responsive infrastructure
desired by the Department of Defense. By demonstrating the
capability to respond to a threat based deterrent, the
Department will have the confidence to further reduce the
overall number of weapons and weapons systems in the stockpile.
Special Nuclear Materials Consolidation.--In fiscal year
2007, the Committee directs the NNSA to initiate the removal of
excess Special Nuclear Materials [SNM] from the Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory [LLNL] and develop a plan for
removal of all Category I/II SNM from LLNL by fiscal year 2012.
The Committee recommends $10,000,000 to support this activity
and to support disposition of nuclear materials at LLNL, SNL,
Y-12, and Pantex as well.
Operations of Facilities.--The Committee includes
$1,263,004,000, an increase of $59,218,000 above the budget
request, for Operations of Facilities. The budget provides for
modest growth in this account and supports both workforce
funding and facilities operation, which are the backbone of the
NNSA capability. The Department moved operational funding for
the Z machine to this account, but failed to increase the
budget to accommodate the additional responsibility. As such
the Committee recommends $30,000,000 to support Z operational
charges, as requested. The Committee recommendation includes
$3,000,000 above the budget request of $17,900,000 for BEEF.
This additional funding, coupled with $9,000,000 above the
request in DSW, will provide funding for critical high pressure
experiments in the Phoenix Program. The Committee also
recommends an increase of $6,000,000 above the budget request
of $34,300,000 for the Device Assembly Facility. This funding
will allow a ``Mission Capable'' level of support which is the
minimum required to reliably ensure compliance with Federal
regulations and standards. In addition, the Committee
recommends $13,500,000 to be divided evenly among the three
NNSA laboratories to upgrade facilities as necessary and
demonstrate the manufacturability of the new RRW designs.
Special Projects.--The Committee provides $28,782,000 for
the following activities. The Committee recommends $3,500,000
for the Technologies Ventures Corporation to support technology
transfer from each of the three weapons laboratories. These
balances will be expended, and the Committee provides funding
for the fourth year of a 5-year commitment. The Committee
recommends that $5,832,000 be provided to the grant-funded
University Research Program in Robotics [URPR], for research,
development, and technology transfer to NNSA laboratories. The
Committee provides $7,500,000 for the continued operation and
experimental program on the Atlas Pulse Power Machine. Included
within that amount, the Committee has provided $2,300,000 to
the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, for research,
experimentation, development, design and demonstration of
technologies for containment and confinement related to the
future employment of special nuclear materials on the Atlas
Pulse Power machine. This funding is in addition to the funding
provided in Science. Additionally, the Committee recommendation
includes $2,000,000 in enhanced funding for subcritical
experiments at NTS; $2,500,000 for the Consortium for Terrorism
and Fire Science at UNR-Elko; $250,000 for the Atomic Testing
History Institute; $1,000,000 to continue the on-going
infrastructure support grant for the UNLV Research Foundation;
$1,000,000 for the UNR/DRI Technology Transfer Initiative;
$1,000,000 to the UNLV Research Foundation to continue support
of the radioanalytical services laboratory; $400,000 for
virtual reality technologies for command and control of
security operations at the Nevada Test Site; and $1,500,000 for
the UNLV Research Foundation to support the ongoing programs of
the Institute for Security Studies. The Committee is concerned
that the ISS has not adequately fulfilled its key mission
objective of establishing an academic center of excellence on
national security and terrorism-related issues. Therefore the
Committee directs the ISS to allocate funding necessary to
fully implement its undergraduate and graduate level academic
program as well as its research and training mission. From
within available funds, the Committee recommends $1,000,000 for
the Arrowhead Center, New Mexico.
Program Readiness.--The Committee includes $75,167,000, the
same as the budget request, for Program Readiness.
Material Recycle and Recovery.--The Committee recommends
$69,982,000, consistent with the budget request, for Material
Recycle and Recovery. These activities include reuse of
plutonium, enriched uranium and tritium, limited life
components and dismantlement operations.
Construction Projects.--The Committee recommends $288,422,
000 for various construction projects, an increase of
$7,000,000. The Committee provides $112,442,000 for 04-D-125,
Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Facility Replacement, as
requested in the budget. This facility is critical to support
the only plutonium work at Los Alamos, and will provide
necessary laboratory support to the pit manufacturing mission.
The Committee has reviewed the Department's Complex 2030
proposal and notes several assumptions regarding mission scope
of the CMR-R facility that don't seem to match current planned
activities. The Committee directs the Administrator to deliver
a report by June 1, 2007, clarifying the cost and mission
requirements this facility will be expected to address. The
Committee firmly believes this facility will continue to play a
central role in the plutonium mission at Los Alamos and is
needed to support the research and chemistry mission of
plutonium activities. The Committee is skeptical the NNSA will
be able to site new plutonium facilitie that include storage
and manufacturing capabilities in the foreseeable future, let
alone find sufficient funding within the constrained budgets to
build a new facility. The Committee also reminds the Department
that it has been unable to secure funding in the current year
to support planning for a Modern Pit Facility. As such, the
Committee directs the Department to consider alternatives to
making changes to the CMR-R facility to accommodate an expanded
mission scope. Design changes related to security enhancements
and inadequate management controls during the construction of
the Highly Enriched Uranium Manufacturing Facility [HEUMF] at
the Y-12 National Security Complex (01-D-124) has resulted in a
significant delay in the completion of this facility and a
significant increase in the overall cost. The design of the
related Uranium Process Facility [UPF] is stretched out pending
resolution of the project management shortfalls and $35,000,000
of $40,000,000 PED requested by the administration is to be
applied against the HEUMF project. The Committee directs the
Department to use prior year funding from the Y-12 Readiness
Campaign and the down sized Security Improvement Program at Y-
12 for a total of $17,866,000 to support HEUMF construction.
The Committee is aware that even with this additional funding
the HEUMF project is still under funded in fiscal year 2007 and
the NNSA will identify additional sources in the near future to
support project completion in fiscal year 2008.
The Committee recommends $14,828,000 for 07-D-220,
Radioactive Liquid Waste Treatment Facility Upgrades. The
Committee is concerned by what it views as wavering support by
the Department for a major experimental science facility. The
Los Alamos Neutron Science Center [LANSCE] is an important
facility that supports the Laboratory's core weapons mission,
as well as a broad range of science in virtually every
technical division of the Laboratory. LANSCE also includes an
Office of Science User Facility and annual operating funds from
the Office of Science. LANSCE is in need of repair and
refurbishment to continue as a scientific engine and recruiting
tool for the Laboratory. The Committee urges the Department to
approve Critical Decision Zero for LANSCE refurbishment so that
the appropriate investment can be made. The Committee provides
$7,000,000 for project engineering and design work for LANSCE-
R. Full funding is provided to 06-D-402, NTS Replacement Fire
Stations. The Committee is concerned with the recent problems
associated with 01-D-124, Highly Enriched Uranium Materials
Facility. The Committee understands cost increases are a result
of a combination of poor NNSA oversight and poor contractor
execution. The Committee provides $21,267,000, as requested,
but expects an explanation of the cost increases.
FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE RECAPITALIZATION
The Committee recommends $283,205,000 for the Facilities
and Infrastructure Recapitalization, to restore, rebuild, and
revitalize the physical infrastructure of the nuclear weapons
complex.
SECURE TRANSPORTATION ASSET
The Committee recommends $209,264,000 for Secure
Transportation Asset, the same as the budget request. Funds are
used for the safe, secure transport of nuclear weapons, weapons
components, and Special Nuclear Materials for requirements set
by the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, and
other customers.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS INCIDENT RESPONSE
The Nuclear Weapons Incident Response program responds to
and mitigates worldwide nuclear and radiological incidents. The
Committee recommends $135,354,000, the same as the budget
request, for Nuclear Weapons Incident Response.
SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY
The Committee recommends $759,412,000, for Safeguards and
Security activities at laboratories and facilities managed by
the National Nuclear Security Administration.
The Committee recommends $5,000,000 to be provided to
Sandia National Laboratories to support research and
development activities to support enhanced security measures
that will provide improved early warning detection and use
denial strategies in order to reduce the overall security costs
for the Complex.
The Committee remains concerned that, despite the
expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars for information
security needs, a large percentage of all Federal agencies
received failing grades from both the GAO and OMB for their
cyber security management. The Department of Energy has
received an F as its computer security grade since 2001 by the
House Government Reform Committee and no higher than a 59 (out
of 100) for its FIMSA score over that same period of time.
The Committee provides $1,250,000, within available funds,
to allow the Department to develop a vulnerability and risk
management solution that continuously discovers and prioritizes
network exposures including integrated network topology risk
analysis. The solution should be appliance-based technology,
running a hardened operating system with an integrated database
and reporting services and must be certified at Common Criteria
EAL Level 3 (the NIST/NIAP standard). It must facilitate
Certification and Accreditation under FIMSA by performing the
Continuous Monitoring requirement as specified by NIST SP 800-
37 Section 2.7.
The Committee directs the Department to begin to the
necessary steps to protect personnel data at a level comparable
to classified material to prevent the misuse and unauthorized
access of such data. Within 60 days after enactment, the
Department is directed to provide a report to Congress
detailing activities and steps being taken to secure employee
data and other personnel records and the costs associated with
such security modifications.
FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS
The Committee recommends an offset of $33,000,000, the same
as the request, for the Safeguards and Security charge for
reimbursable work.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $1,631,839,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 1,726,213,000
House allowance......................................... 1,593,101,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,572,654,000
NONPROLIFERATION AND VERIFICATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
The Committee recommends $274,967,000 for Nonproliferation
and Verification Research and Development activities, an
increase of $14,000,000 above the request. The Committee
recommends $10,000,000 to restore funding for Nuclear Detection
R&D to be divided among Sandia and Los Alamos National
Laboratories. The Committee recommends $166,446,000 for
Proliferation Detection, $106,601,000 for Nuclear Explosion
Monitoring; $7,920,000 for construction of the Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory, Physical Sciences Facility;
$2,500,000 for the UNLV Research Foundation to continue support
of nonproliferation activities at the Institute for Security
Studies; and $1,500,000 for the UNLV Research Foundation
megacargo imaging development program at the NTS.
NONPROLIFERATION AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY
For Nonproliferation and International Security, the
Committee recommends $127,411,000, the same as the President's
request. The Department has reorganized several activities
under one program, including $38,967,000 for Dismantlement and
Transparency activities that provide technical support of
nonproliferation and arms control treaties. Of this amount,
$17,531,000 is provided to support the Highly Enriched Uranium
down blending under the HEU Purchase Agreement, and $14,814,000
is available to support Warhead Dismantlement and Fissile
Material Transparency activities. The Committee recommends
$50,232,000 for Global Security Engagement and Cooperation, to
engage former weapons scientists in non-weapons research and
commercial activities to discourage the sale and black-market
trade of nuclear technology. The Committee provides $31,787,000
for International Regimes and Agreements. The Committee
commends NNSA's support for the Northeast Asia Cooperation
Dialogue [NEACD], which provides a (an unofficial) security
forum for the United States in a region of great strategic and
economic importance, and encourages NNSA to continue to support
the program. Within available funds, the Committee recommends
$2,000,000 for the Caucasus Seismic Network.
INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR MATERIALS PROTECTION AND COOPERATION
The primary function of this program is to prevent the
diversion, sale or theft of nuclear material from Russia and
other countries by eliminating this threat through increasing
security at weapons facilities. The program also supports the
installation of detection equipment at border crossings and
ports to prevent illegal shipments. The Committee recommends
$427,182,000 for International Nuclear Materials Protection and
Cooperation, an increase of $14,000,000 above the request. The
additional funding is to be used to install mobile points of
need detector systems in overseas ports to demonstrate mobile,
enhanced detection of port cargo as part of the Megaports
program. The Committee recommends $17,330,000 for Navy Complex
subprogram, $129,245,000 to support the implementation of
securities measures at Russian Strategic Rocket Forces,
$56,505,000 for Rosatom Weapons Complex, and $123,973,000 for
Second Line of Defense Activities, including $55,118,000 for
the Megaports program.
ELIMINATION OF WEAPONS-GRADE PLUTONIUM PRODUCTION
The Committee is disappointed with the lack of cooperation
from the Russian Government in implementing the Fissile
Materials Disposition program. The Russians have recently
claimed that they will no longer commit to paying for the
operations of the mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility the G-8
partners have committed to build. This brand new facility would
provide the Russians with a western fuel fabrication capability
and the opportunity to sell MOX fuel worldwide in exchange for
the Russians fulfilling their commitment to destroy 34 tons of
weapons-grade plutonium. This Committee has run out of patience
with the Russians and believes that maintaining the unilateral
commitment by the U.S. Government to destroy 34 tons of weapons
grade material is a worthy endeavor. In order to restore
essential funding for construction of the U.S. MOX fuel
fabrication facility caused by Russian delays, funding
Plutonium Production Elimination has been eliminated. Using
their windfall gains from oil and gas sales, the Russian
Government can complete the remaining work on Sversk, which is
nearly complete and Zheleznogorsk on their own. The Committee
recommendation for the Elimination of Weapons-Grande Plutonium
Production is no funding, a decrease of $206,654,000.
FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION
The Committee recommends $618,356,000 for the Fissile
Materials Disposition, an increase of $15,095,000 above the
budget request. The Committee strongly supports the objective
of the bilateral Plutonium Management and Disposition
Agreement, which commits the United States and Russia to
dispose of 34 tons of weapons-grade plutonium. Until, now, the
United States and Russia have maintained parallel schedules as
required by the September 2000 Agreement. Recently, right
before the United States was to proceed with a new construction
start, the Russian Government declared it will not contribute
operational funding for the Russian facility, raising the
stakes for the United States and G-7 partners, who have already
committed over $800,000,000 toward construction of a new mixed
oxide fuel fabrication facility. Failure for the United States
to proceed with construction and long lead procurement will
have a devastating effect on the project and jeopardize the
largest nonproliferation project ever undertaken by the U.S.
Government. Further delays in construction would increase the
cost of the facility, threaten the Department's ability to meet
commitments to South Carolina, as set forth in existing law,
and significantly increase the likelihood that the Department
would have to pay penalties or take other actions under 50
U.S.C. 2566. In addition, proceeding with plutonium disposition
will further demonstrate to our international partners that the
United States is committed to nonproliferation. The planned
facilities in South Carolina also play a crucial role in the
Department's efforts to downsize the nuclear weapons complex,
increase nuclear material safety and reduce safeguards and
security costs. The Committee endorses the Department of Energy
proceeding with construction of the U.S. facility and
continuing its work with the Russians to find a mutually
acceptable solution that will guarantee the destruction of 34
tons of weapons grade plutonium from each of the United States
and Russian stockpiles over the same period of time it will
take the United States to destroy its own stockpile. The
Committee is aware of the recent Russian proposal to burn
plutonium using advanced reactor technology. The Committee
understands that this proposal can only destroy a small portion
of the material and does not provide a full solution. Likewise,
the Committee does not believe that the development of new
reactor technology is likely and does not support this
initiative. The Committee does not support activities to resume
the design of an immobilization facility under the Office of
Fissile Materials Disposition. The Committee recognizes that in
the past, Russia has indicated that it did not support
immobilization as a disposition option and would be unlikely to
go forward if the United States chooses to immobilize its 34
metric tons of plutonium. Furthermore, MOX is a mature,
accepted technology with fuel in use in over 30 reactors
worldwide. The technology supporting the immobilization of
weapon-grade plutonium is still in the research and development
stage. Even in an optimistic scenario, the Department would not
be able to begin construction of an immobilization facility for
at least 10 years. Moreover, irradiating MOX fuel in commercial
nuclear reactors would also serve as an important stepping-
stone for demonstrating this technology in the United States
and utilizing the energy value of the plutonium. The Committee
continues to view fissile materials disposition as an important
nonproliferation priority.
The Committee provides $235,051,000 for U.S. Plutonium
Disposition. The Committee doesn't provide any funding for the
Russian Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition program.
Construction.--
Project 99-D-141, Pit Disassembly and Conversion
Facility.--The Committee recommends $93,000,000, an
increase of $14,300,000 above the budget request. The
Pit Disassembly facility is critical not only to the
Fissile materials program, but it provides the only
means to convert weapons-grade plutonium metal into a
powder that can be turned into fuel.
Project 99-D-143, MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility.--The
Committee recommends $325,000,000, an increase of
$35,490,000 above the budget request.
GLOBAL THREAT REDUCTION INITIATIVE
The Committee recommends $116,818,000 for the Global Threat
Reduction Initiative, an increase of $10,000,000 above the
budget request. This program is charged with responsibility of
identifying and removing high-risk nuclear material and other
radioactive material around the world that pose a threat if
released either by accident or done maliciously. The additional
funding shall be used to support the International Radiological
Threat Reduction program to secure radioactive material that
might be used in medical or industrial applications or in a
radiological dispersal device. The Committee directs the
Department to use the funds to support work with other
countries to secure high-risk radioactive materials.
Naval Reactors
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $781,605,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 795,133,000
House allowance......................................... 795,133,000
Committee recommendation................................ 795,133,000
Through the Naval Reactors program, the National Nuclear
Security Administration is working to provide the U.S. Navy
with nuclear propulsion plants that are capable of responding
to the challenges of 21st century security concerns. The
Committee recommends $795,133,000 for the Naval Reactors
program.
Office of the Administrator
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $388,450,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 386,576,000
House allowance......................................... 399,576,000
Committee recommendation................................ 386,576,000
The Committee recommends $386,576,000 for the Office of the
Administrator, the same as the President's request. The
increase in funds is for expanding Federal staffing to support
defense nuclear nonproliferation, as well as positions
transferred to the NNSA from other organizations.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
Defense Environmental Cleanup
Reprogramming Authority.--The Committee understands and
continues to support the need for project managers to maintain
flexibility to meet the changing funding requirements at sites.
In fiscal year 2007, the Department may transfer up to
$5,000,000 between the accounts listed below to reduce health
or safety risks or to gain cost savings, as long as a program
or project is not increased or decreased by more than
$5,000,000 in total during the fiscal year. This reprogramming
authority may not be used to initiate new programs or to change
funding levels for programs specifically denied, limited, or
increased by Congress in the act or report. The Committee on
Appropriations in the House and Senate must be notified within
30 days after the use of this internal reprogramming authority.
The following is a list of account control points for
internal reprogramming purposes:
--Closure sites;
--Savannah River site, 2012 accelerations;
--Savannah River site, 2035 accelerations;
--Savannah River Tank Farm;
--Waste Isolation Pilot Plant;
--Idaho National Laboratory;
--Oak Ridge Reservation;
--Hanford site 2012 accelerated completions;
--Hanford site 2035 accelerated completions;
--Office of River Protection Tank Farms Operations and
Management;
--Office of River Protection [ORP] Waste Treatment and
Immobilization Plant;
--Program Direction;
--Program Support;
--UE D&D Fund contribution;
--Technology Development;
--All Construction Line Items;
--NNSA sites and Nevada off-sites; and
--Safeguards and Security.
Defense Environmental Cleanup
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $6,130,448,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 5,390,312,000
House allowance......................................... 5,551,812,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,479,070,000
For Defense Environmental Cleanup, the Committee provides
$5,479,070,000. The Committee is pleased with the program's
success in completing the cleanup at Rocky Flats and Fernald in
fiscal year 2006. The Department's effort to complete cleanups
in the future will be challenged by the failure to request
sufficient funding for future cleanups. The Department
continues to be plagued by project management challenges that
will require significant attention from senior management to
better define cleanup costs and schedules. The Committee will
continue to carefully monitor future high-risk cleanup
strategies undertaken by the Department to ensure the
Department is applying best business practices. Within
available funds, $1,300,000 is provided to support historic
preservation activities related to the Manhattan Project sites,
including Los Alamos, New Mexico, Hanford, Washington and
Eastern Tennessee Historical Park and $300,000 to support the
Rocky Flats historic preservation activities. The Committee
also recommends $1,000,000 for the Self Reliance Foundation/
Hispanic Communications Network. The Committee also provides
$5,000,000 to support the Diagnostic Instrumentation and
Analysis Laboratory, $2,500,000 to fund the WERC/Department of
Energy Cooperative Agreement, and $5,000,000 for the Western
Environmental Technology Office; and $10,000,000 for hazardous
waste worker training.
Closure Sites.--The Committee includes $320,937,000, the
same as the request. This includes funding for Ashtabula,
Columbus, Fernald, Miamisburg, and Rocky Flats all at the
requested level.
Savannah River Site.--The Committee includes
$1,064,394,000, consistent with the request. The Committee
recommends $216,468,000 consistent with the requested level for
2012 cleanup activities, including $212,468,000 for SR-0011B
Stabilization and Disposition activities. The Committee
provides $277,338,000 for 2035 projects cleanup activities as
provided in the budget. The Committee recommends the requested
level of $570,924,000 for SR-00114C Tank Waste Stabilization
and Disposition activities.
H Canyon located at Savannah River is the last remaining
large-scale chemical separations facility in this country and
provides a one-of-a-kind capability to facilitate the down
blend and disposal of the legacy nuclear fuel within the
Department of Energy complex. The Committee is concerned that
the Department, while maintaining the facility in a high state
of readiness, is not maximizing its potential for the
disposition of excess special nuclear material and spent
nuclear fuel. Recently the Department of Energy Inspector
General report found that the delays in developing a strategy
to address spent nuclear fuel at Savannah River will require
the Department to maintain the H Canyon facility in an idle
capacity for an additional 2 years at a cost of $300,000,000.
Based on a declining environmental cleanup budget, it is clear
that the Department can ill-afford to waste such sums without a
clear mission. However, the Committee recognizes that this
facility can play an important role in permanently disposing
tons of spent fuel as well as plutonium. Therefore, the
Committee directs the Department to submit, consistent with the
fiscal year 2008, an operations plan including costs and
schedule for utilizing H Canyon to dispose of nuclear material
and uranium alloy spent nuclear fuel stored throughout the
complex, or a plan for immediate shutdown and deactivation of
the H Canyon. Either path will ensure that the Department will
not waste funding to maintain an unused capability.
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant [WIPP].--The Committee
recommendation includes $232,278,000, an increase of
$17,000,000 above the requested amount. The Committee provides
$5,000,000 to support the consolidation of all Department of
Energy records in Carlsbad relevant to the operations of WIPP
and TRU waste stored in the repository. The Committee also
recommends $3,500,000 made available to the community of
Carlsbad for educational support, infrastructure improvements
and related initiatives to address the impacts of accelerated
operations at WIPP. The Committee directs the Department to
provide $2,000,000 from within available funds to support work
of the Center for Excellence in Hazardous Materials. The
Committee recommends $1,500,000 for work on neutrino research.
An additional $7,000,000 shall be used to support remote-
handled operations once the permits have been approved.
Idaho National Laboratory.--The Committee includes
$512,604,000, the same as the requested amount to support
cleanup of nuclear and hazardous waste from the Snake River
Plain at the Idaho National Laboratory. The Committee
recommends $193,910,000 for Solid Waste Stabilization (ID-
0013), and $120,510,000 for Soil and Water Remediation 2012
(ID-0030B).
NNSA Sites.--The Committee recommendation is $282,466,000.
The additional $50,000,000 is provided to offset reductions in
the Department's request for Los Alamos National Laboratory
cleanup activities. The Committee is very concerned with the
overall performance of the Legacy Waste Disposition project at
the Los Alamos National Laboratory [LANL]. The transfer of
transuranic [TRU] waste from LANL to the Waste Isolation Pilot
Plant [WIPP] has been significantly below the Committee's
expectations. Characterization costs from the facility are
significantly higher than at other Department of Energy [DOE]
sites, and the waste removal schedules are not meeting overall
program goals. Although the project has demonstrated some
recent improvement in the volume of shipments to WIPP, the
Committee expects the Department and the new LANL management
contractor to demonstrate significant progress in the near
term. The Department is directed to provide a report within 120
days of enactment of this legislation detailing the progress
being made at LANL with a particular emphasis on steps the
Department has taken to assist the new management team in
streamlining the overall TRU waste handling process. The
Committee is also concerned that joint reviews by DOE
Headquarters and the National Nuclear Security Administration
[NNSA] have revealed significant issues preventing the
independent validation of cost estimates and schedules for
LANL's Environmental Management [EM] Project Baseline Summaries
[PBS] in recent years. LANL must address these issues and
develop a compliant and independently validated baseline
against which future performance can be measured. The Committee
is disappointed with the deep cuts proposed by the Department
with the assumption that the new contractor will be able to
fund savings to make up the difference. This assumption by the
Department has the potential to backfire and increase costs by
extending the cost of cleanup and fines and penalties that can
be imposed by the State of New Mexico, as provided in the
Consent Order signed between the Department and the State of
New Mexico. The Committee understands that the State could
charge between $8,000,000 to $35,000,000 in penalties for
noncompliance. The Committee expects the Department to take a
more involved role in solving cleanup problem at the lab to
reduce costs and increase cleanup. Consequently, the Committee
allocates a total of $141,000,000 for environmental management
activities at LANL, an increase of $50,000,000 above the budget
request. However, since the Department has failed to make
specific recommendations to accelerate cleanup and provide
appropriate oversight, the Committee has required that any
penalties paid at Los Alamos as a consequence of non-
compliance, shall be paid out of the Program Direction account.
The Committee provides the requested level of funding for the
following projects: California Sites ($545,000), Kansas City
Plant ($4,481,000), Lawrence Livermore ($29,283,000), Nevada
Off-Sites ($2,818,000), Nevada ($84,177,000), NNSA Service
Center ($8,221,000), and Pantex ($23,726,000).
Oak Ridge Reservation.--The Committee includes
$179,222,000, an increase of $19,360,000 above the budget
request. The additional funding will be used to support Nuclear
Waste Facilities D&D activities at the Oak Ridge National
Laboratory. The Committee provides $41,316,000 to support these
activities.
Hanford Site.--The Committee includes $804,716,000, the
same as the President's request. The Committee recommendation
includes $423,618,000 for 2012 Completion Projects, including
$221,022,000 for River Corridor Closure projects. The Committee
recommends $81,651,000 for Nuclear Material Stabilization and
Disposition and $81,069,000 for SNF Stabilization and
Disposition. Within available funds, the Committee recommends
$6,000,000 for the HAMMER Facility. The Committee
recommendation includes $381,098,000 for the 2035 Completion
Projects, including $188,989,000 for the Solid Waste
Stabilization and Disposition 200 Area. The Committee provides
$75,973,000 for Vadose Zone cleanup and $94,270,000 for Nuclear
Facility D&D activities.
Office of River Protection.--The Committee includes
$964,127,000, as requested. The Government Accountability
Office identified three primary concerns with the Department's
management of the Waste Treatment Facility. The GAO's three
concerns include: (1) The Department has allowed the contractor
to utilize a design-build approach that does not allow adequate
time for Federal managers, independent oversight, or
construction teams to validate the designs; (2) the contractor
has failed to maintain oversight and adherence to cost and
schedules; and (3) the contract fails to provide proper
incentives and controls to encourage responsible management and
cost containment. The Committee does recognize that the change
in leadership within the Department of Energy has forced the
Department to take the necessary corrective steps to manage
this large, technically challenging construction project in a
more responsible and active manner. The Department is taking
corrective action in the following ways: First, the Department
has delayed construction, permitting the design teams to take
more time with the design and allowing for adequate review.
Second, the Secretary has taken steps to identify cost issues
and validate the data with several independent teams, including
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and an independent team of
industry experts, as well as a new headquarters senior level
management oversight team, all of whom will implement an Earned
Value Management System [EVMS]. The EVMS is a key project
management tool for assessing the cost and schedule performance
of a project. The lack of an effective EVMS was highlighted by
the dramatic increase in the cost of the WTP in 2005 within a
matter of months. This Committee understands that if an
effective EVMS had been in place, the Department would have had
early warning signs that the project was headed toward dramatic
increases in cost and delays in schedule. Therefore, the
Committee expects the Department to have a certified system in
place by the end of calendar year 2006, and this expectation
will be satisfied when the Defense Contract Management Agency
has certified that the earned value management system used to
track and report costs of the Waste Treatment and
Immobilization Plant is in place. Finally, the Committee is
also troubled by the fact that the Department has not yet
developed a contracting strategy to reward cost savings and
shrewd project oversight. Based on the initial Army Corps
evaluation, this project continues to carry massive contingency
to protect the contractor, not the taxpayer, from risk. GAO
found the contractor has added contingency to the project,
which has added over $2,000,000,000 to the cost of the project.
The Committee remains concerned that a large contingency
request is a clear indication the contractor lacks confidence
in their own cost estimates. If the Department expects the
Committee to support future appropriations for this project, it
must be more demanding and drive down costs and contingencies.
The Committee would like to see an incentive-based contract
that will encourage the contractor to reduce costs.
Seismic Evaluation.--Of the amount appropriated to the
Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant, none of the amount
may be obligated or expended for construction or procurement of
critical equipment affected by seismic criteria on the
Pretreatment Facility and the High-Level Waste Facility of the
Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant until the date on
which the Department certifies to the Congress that the final
seismic and ground motion criteria have been approved by the
Department. Additionally, funds are not to be used until the
contracting officer of the Waste Treatment and Immobilization
Plant Project has formally directed the final criteria for the
design of the Pretreatment Facility and the High-Level Waste
Facility of the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant. Due
to expected delays as a result of seismic work and necessary
evaluation, the Committee recommends a reduction in the
allocation for these two facilities. The Committee recommends
$690,000,000 for the major construction activities of the Waste
Treatment Plant. The Committee is concerned that the WTP
project still does not have a validated project baseline. The
Committee does feel, however, that the Department is on track
to completing this validation, but does not think it will be
completed in time to be useful in current budget deliberations.
Although this issue is significant, as are those raised by the
Government Accountability Office and the Department's own
chartered external reviews, the Committee recognizes and is
encouraged by the recent activities the Department has
initiated to improve project and contract management, to
resolve the higher-priority technical issues, and to validate
the project baseline that supports a funding level of
$690,000,000, as requested. The Department must understand that
funding beyond fiscal year 2007 is contingent on the successful
execution of this validated baseline. The Committee recommends
the following funding distribution for the Waste Treatment and
Immobilization Plant: $120,000,000 for the low activity waste
facility; $46,000,000 for the analytical laboratory;
$53,000,000 for the balance of facilities; $191,000,000 for the
high level waste facility; and $280,000,000 for the
pretreatment facility. This Committee is troubled by the
apparent failure of the Department to act in a timely manner on
issues raised by the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
[DNFSB]. The Committee does not support the removal of the
DNFSB from its congressionally mandated oversight
responsibilities at the WTP, but it does recognize that changes
do need to be made. Therefore, the Committee directs the
Department to submit a quarterly report to the Committee on
Appropriations describing all interactions between the
Department and the DNFSB regarding the WTP. The report should
include, but not be limited to, issues resolved, issues
unresolved and corrective actions taken by the Department.
Program Direction.--The Committee includes $291,216,000,
the same as the requested amount.
Program Support.--The Committee includes $37,881,000,
consistent with the request.
Technology Development and Deployment.--The Committee
includes $21,389,000, the same as the President's request. The
Committee recommends $5,000,000 to support the AEA Technology
Program in Pennsylvania; $1,500,000 for the Nye County
Groundwater Monitoring Program; $3,000,000 for the James E.
Rogers and Louis Weiner Jr., Large Scale Structures Laboratory;
$4,000,000 for the continuation of the remediation of low level
nuclear waste using ceramic ionic transport membranes project;
$1,000,000 for the Inland Northwest Research Alliance
consortium of universities; $4,000,000 for the Nevada Water
Resources Data, Modeling, and Visualization Center; $750,000
for polymeric hydrogels for radiation decontamination;
$1,000,000 for the UNR Center for Plasma Spectronomy; and
$1,000,000 for the Nevada Statewide Intermediate Scale Research
Facility.
The Department is directed to both continue activities
under its renewed NRAMP cooperative agreement at levels
consistent with prior years funding and renew its other
existing cooperative agreements with UNR and UNLV consistent
with current year levels.
Federal Contribution to Uranium Enrichment Decontamination
and Decommissioning Fund.--The Committee includes $452,000,000,
the same as the requested amount.
Safeguards and Security.--The Committee recommends
$295,840,000, the same as the budget request.
Other Defense Activities
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $635,577,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 717,788,000
House allowance......................................... 720,788,000
Committee recommendation................................ 734,791,000
The Committee recommends $734,791,000 for Other Defense
Activities, consistent with the budget request.
OFFICE OF SECURITY AND PERFORMANCE ASSURANCE
The Committee recommends $298,497,000 for the Office of
Security and Performance Assurance.
The Security Program consists of nuclear safeguards and
security, security investigations, and program direction. These
programs provide policy for the protection of the Department's
nuclear weapons, nuclear materials, classified information, and
facilities. They ensure a Department-wide capability to
continue essential functions across a wide range of potential
emergencies, allowing the DOE to uphold its national security
responsibilities and provide security clearances for Federal
and contractor personnel.
ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY, AND HEALTH (DEFENSE)
The Committee provides $94,814,000 for defense-related
Environment Safety and Health, of which $20,076,000 is provided
for program direction. The Committee recommendation includes
$5,000,000 for the DOE Worker Records Digitization project in
Nevada.
Former Medical Worker Screening.--The Committee allocates
an additional $14,000,000 for the former worker medical
screening program, which is equal to the appropriated levels in
fiscal year 2006. The Committee recommends $500,000 to screen
workers at Paducah, Portsmouth, and Oak Ridge, gaseous
diffusion plants. The Committee directs $500,000 to continue
medical screening and commence a 5-year Early Lung Cancer
Detection Screening Program for current and former Nevada Test
Site workers who worked during the nuclear weapons testing era.
The Committee intends to build on the success of the use of
ELCD for high risk workers in finding lung cancers when they
are small and can be removed at an early stage leading to a
normal life expectancy. The Committee urges DOE to request
sufficient funding for this program in fiscal year 2008.
LEGACY MANAGEMENT
For Legacy Management, the Committee recommends
$167,851,000, consistent with the budget request. Funds are
used to manage the long-term stewardship responsibilities at
Department of Energy cleanup sites.
FUNDING FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES IN IDAHO
The Committee recommends $75,949,000, the same as the
request, for defense-related activities at the Idaho National
Laboratory and associated Idaho cleanup sites.
DEFENSE RELATED ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT
For Defense Related Administrative Support, the Committee
recommends $93,258,000, the same as the request. These funds
provide for departmental services which support the National
Nuclear Security Administration. The Secretary, Deputy
Secretary, Under Secretaries, and General Counsel are among the
offices receiving funds.
OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
The Committee provides $4,422,000 for the Office of
Hearings and Appeals, the same as the President's request. The
Office of Hearings and Appeals conducts hearings to issue
decisions of the Department that the Secretary may delegate.
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $346,500,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 388,080,000
House allowance......................................... 388,080,000
Committee recommendation................................ 358,080,000
The Committee recommends $358,080,000 for defense nuclear
waste disposal; this is a reduction of $30,000,000 below the
request. The Committee directs the Department to find
reductions in the transportation activities.
Power Marketing Administrations
BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION
The Bonneville Power Administration is the Department of
Energy's marketing agency for electric power in the Pacific
Northwest. Bonneville provides electricity to a 300,000 square
mile service area in the Columbia River drainage basin.
Bonneville markets the power from Federal hydropower projects
in the Northwest, as well as power from non-Federal generating
facilities in the region. Bonneville also exchanges and markets
surplus power with Canada and California. The Committee
recommends no new borrowing authority for BPA during fiscal
year 2007.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $5,544,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 5,723,000
House allowance......................................... 5,723,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,723,000
For the Southeastern Power Administration, the Committee
recommends $5,723,000, the same as the budget request. The
Committee provides $48,003,000 for purchase power and wheeling.
The Southeastern Power Administration markets hydroelectric
power produced at Corps of Engineers projects in 11
Southeastern States. 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, 2006.................................... $29,864,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 31,539,000
House allowance......................................... 31,539,000
Committee recommendation................................ 31,539,000
For the Southwestern Power Administration, the Committee
recommends $31,539,000, the same as the budget request. Within
these funds, the Committee provides $13,600,000 for purchase
power and wheeling.
The Southwestern Power Administration is the marketing
agent for the power generated at the 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.
CONSTRUCTION, REHABILITATION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, WESTERN AREA
POWER ADMINISTRATION
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $231,652,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 212,213,000
House allowance......................................... 212,213,000
Committee recommendation................................ 212,213,000
The Western Power Administration is responsible for
marketing the electric power generated by the Bureau of
Reclamation, the Corps of Engineers, and the International
Boundary and Water Commission. Western also operates and
maintains a system of transmission lines nearly 17,000 miles
long, providing electricity to 15 Central and Western States
over a service area of 1.3 million square miles.
The Committee recommends $212,213,000 for the Western Area
Power Administration, the same as the budget request. The total
program level for Western in fiscal year 2007 is $688,511,000,
which includes $60,205,000 for construction and rehabilitation,
$45,734,000 for system power operation and maintenance,
$427,931,000 for purchase power and wheeling, and $147,748,000
for program direction. The Committee recommendation includes
$6,893,000 for the Utah Mitigation and Conservation Fund.
Additionally, the Administrator of the Western Area Power
Administration is directed to participate in the construction
of transmission lines and facilities in eastern Colorado and
western Kansas.
Offsetting collections total $472,593,000. With the use of
$3,705,000 of offsetting collections from the Colorado River
Dam Fund (as authorized in Public Law 98-381), this requires a
net appropriation of $212,213,000.
FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $2,665,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 2,500,000
House allowance......................................... 2,500,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,500,000
The Falcon Dam and Amistad Dam on the Rio Grande River
generate power through hydroelectric facilities and sell this
power to public utilities through the Western Power
Administration. This fund, created in the Foreign Relations
Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, defrays the
costs of operation, maintenance, and emergency activities and
is administered by the Western Area Power Administration. For
the Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund, the
Committee recommends $2,500,000, the same as the request.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $218,196,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 230,800,000
House allowance......................................... 230,800,000
Committee recommendation................................................
REVENUES APPLIED
Appropriations, 2006.................................... -$218,196,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... -230,800,000
House allowance......................................... -230,800,000
Committee recommendation................................................
As noted by the Committee in our 2004 report, the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission has the preemptive authority to
approve and site liquefied natural gas terminals on-shore or in
State waters. Congress reaffirmed this authority last year as
part of the Energy Policy Act. While the FERC is often
criticized by individual Members of Congress about specific
local decisions it makes with respect to natural gas
infrastructure, few express support for the overall success the
Commission has achieved in ensuring the timely development of
these critical energy facilities. We therefore want to state
our support for the thoughtful and balanced manner in which the
FERC has exercised its authority to approve natural gas
pipelines and LNG terminals, and encourage all relevant Federal
and State permitting agencies to fully cooperate with the
Commission in reviewing proposed natural gas infrastructure
projects.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee recommendation compared to--
Project title Revised enacted Budget estimate House allowance Committee --------------------------------------------------
recommendation Revised enacted Budget estimate House allowance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENERGY SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION
ENERGY EFFICENCY AND RENEWABLE
ENERGY
Hydrogen Technology:
1Hydrogen technology......... 80,288 195,801 195,801 189,860 +109,572 -5,941 -5,941
Fuel cell technologies....... 75,339 ............... ............... ............... -75,339 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, hydrogen 155,627 195,801 195,801 189,860 +34,233 -5,941 -5,941
technology................
Biomass and Biorefinery Systems 90,718 149,687 149,687 213,000 +122,282 +63,313 +63,313
R&D.............................
Solar energy..................... 83,113 148,372 148,372 148,372 +65,259 ............... ...............
Wind energy...................... 38,857 43,819 43,819 39,428 +571 -4,391 -4,391
Geothermal technology............ 23,066 ............... ............... 22,500 -566 +22,500 +22,500
Hydropower....................... 495 ............... ............... 4,000 +3,505 +4,000 +4,000
Vehicle technologies............. 182,104 166,024 177,538 180,024 -2,080 +14,000 +2,486
Building technologies............ 69,266 77,329 93,029 95,329 +26,063 +18,000 +2,300
Industrial technologies.......... 56,855 45,563 51,563 47,563 -9,292 +2,000 -4,000
Federal Energy Management
Program:
Departmental energy 1,999 ............... ............... ............... -1,999 ............... ...............
management program..........
Federal energy management 16,976 16,906 18,906 16,906 -70 ............... -2,000
program.....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Federal Energy 18,975 16,906 18,906 16,906 -2,069 ............... -2,000
Management Program........
Facilities and infrastructure:
National Renewable Energy 5,742 5,935 10,935 5,935 +193 ............... -5,000
Laboratory..................
Research Support Buildings... 9,900 ............... 5,000 ............... -9,900 ............... -5,000
Construction: 02-E-001 10,410 ............... ............... ............... -10,410 ............... ...............
Science and technology
facility, NREL..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Facilities and 26,052 5,935 15,935 5,935 -20,117 ............... -10,000
infrastructure............
Weatherization programs:
Weatherization assistance.... 237,996 159,648 250,000 200,000 -37,996 +40,352 -50,000
Training and technical 4,554 4,550 4,554 4,550 -4 ............... -4
assistance..................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Weatherization 242,550 164,198 254,554 204,550 -38,000 +40,352 -50,004
programs..................
Other:
State energy program grants.. 35,640 49,457 25,000 49,457 +13,817 ............... +24,457
State energy activities...... 495 ............... ............... ............... -495 ............... ...............
Gateway deployment........... 25,400 ............... ............... ............... -25,400 ............... ...............
International renewable 3,871 2,473 4,473 2,473 -1,398 ............... -2,000
energy program..............
Tribal energy activities..... 3,960 3,957 3,957 4,957 +997 +1,000 +1,000
Renewable energy production 4,950 4,946 4,946 4,946 -4 ............... ...............
incentive...................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Other............ 74,316 60,833 38,376 61,833 -12,483 +1,000 +23,457
Program Direction................ 98,529 91,024 91,024 91,024 -7,505 ............... ...............
Program Support.................. 13,321 10,930 10,930 10,930 -2,391 ............... ...............
Congressionally directed ............... ............... 54,900 54,250 +54,250 +54,250 -650
technology deployments..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, ENERGY EFFICENCY AND 1,173,844 1,176,421 1,344,434 1,385,504 +211,660 +209,083 +41,070
RENEWABLE ENERGY..........
======================================================================================================================
ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY
RELIABILITY
High temperature 49,995 45,468 45,468 45,468 -4,527 ............... ...............
superconductivity R&D...........
Transmission reliability R&D..... 12,870 ............... ............... ............... -12,870 ............... ...............
Electricity distribution 60,059 ............... ............... ............... -60,059 ............... ...............
transformation R&D..............
Energy storage R&D............... 2,970 ............... ............... ............... -2,970 ............... ...............
Gridwise......................... 5,445 ............... ............... ............... -5,445 ............... ...............
Gridworks........................ 4,950 ............... ............... ............... -4,950 ............... ...............
Visiualization and controls...... ............... 17,551 17,551 27,551 +27,551 +10,000 +10,000
Energy storage and power ............... 2,965 4,965 2,965 +2,965 ............... -2,000
electonics......................
Distributed energy resources..... ............... 29,652 29,652 24,737 +24,737 -4,915 -4,915
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Research and 136,289 95,636 97,636 100,721 -35,568 +5,085 +3,085
development...............
Electricity restructuring........ 12,276 ............... ............... ............... -12,276 ............... ...............
Operations and analysis.......... ............... 12,009 12,009 17,000 +17,000 +4,991 +4,991
Program direction................ 13,313 17,283 17,283 17,283 +3,970 ............... ...............
Congressionally directed ............... ............... 17,100 ............... ............... ............... -17,100
technology deployments..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, ELECTRICITY DELIVERY 161,878 124,928 144,028 135,004 -26,874 +10,076 -9,024
AND ENERGY RELIABILITY....
NUCLEAR ENERGY
University reactor infrastructure 26,730 ............... 27,000 27,000 +270 +27,000 ...............
and education assist............
Research and development:
Nuclear power 2010........... 65,340 54,031 54,031 88,000 +22,660 +33,969 +33,969
Generation IV nuclear energy 54,450 31,436 31,436 48,000 -6,450 +16,564 +16,564
systems initiative..........
Nuclear hydrogen initiative.. 24,750 18,665 18,665 31,665 +6,915 +13,000 +13,000
Advanced fuel cycle 79,200 243,000 120,000 279,000 +199,800 +36,000 +159,000
initiative..................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Research and 223,740 347,132 224,132 446,665 +222,925 +99,533 +222,533
development...............
Infrastructure:
Radiological facilities
management:
Space and defense 39,303 30,650 44,650 35,650 -3,653 +5,000 -9,000
infrastructure..........
Medical isotopes 14,251 15,634 15,634 15,634 +1,383 ............... ...............
infrastructure..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Medical 14,251 15,634 15,634 15,634 +1,383 ............... ...............
isotopes
infrastructure........
Enrichment facility and 495 491 491 491 -4 ............... ...............
uranium management......
Research reactor ............... 2,947 ............... 2,947 +2,947 ............... +2,947
infrastructure..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Radiological 54,049 49,722 60,775 54,722 +673 +5,000 -6,053
facilities management.
Idaho facilities management:
INL Operations and 101,878 89,260 97,260 104,260 +2,382 +15,000 +7,000
infrastructure..............
INL infrastructure:
Construction:
06-E-200 Project 7,791 6,030 6,030 6,030 -1,761 ............... ...............
engineering and
design (PED), INL,
ID..................
Research support ............... ............... 20,000 5,000 +5,000 +5,000 -15,000
buildings...........
06-E-201 Gas test 3,054 ............... ............... ............... -3,054 ............... ...............
loop in the ATR,
INL, ID.............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, 10,845 6,030 26,030 11,030 +185 +5,000 -15,000
Construction......
======================================================================================================================
Subtotal, Idaho 112,723 95,290 123,290 115,290 +2,567 +20,000 -8,000
facilities
management........
Idaho sitewide safeguards and 74,258 72,946 72,946 72,946 -1,312 ............... ...............
security........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Infrastructure...... 241,030 217,958 257,011 242,958 +1,928 +25,000 -14,053
Program direction................ 60,498 67,608 64,608 67,608 +7,110 ............... +3,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Nuclear Energy... 551,998 632,698 572,751 784,231 +232,233 +151,533 +211,480
======================================================================================================================
Funding from other defense -122,634 -72,946 -72,946 -72,946 +49,688 ............... ...............
activities......................
Funding from Naval Reactors...... -13,365 ............... ............... ............... +13,365 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, NUCLEAR ENERGY...... 415,999 559,752 499,805 711,285 +295,286 +151,533 +211,480
======================================================================================================================
ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH
Office of Environment, Safety and 7,029 9,128 9,128 9,128 +2,099 ............... ...............
Health (non-defense)............
Program direction................ 20,691 19,993 19,993 19,993 -698 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY 27,720 29,121 29,121 29,121 +1,401 ............... ...............
AND HEALTH................
OFFICE OF LEGACY MANAGEMENT
Legacy management................ 33,187 33,139 33,139 33,139 -48 ............... ...............
======================================================================================================================
TOTAL, ENERGY SUPPLY AND 1,812,628 1,923,361 2,050,527 2,294,053 +481,425 +370,692 +243,526
CONSERVATION..............
======================================================================================================================
CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY
Deferral of unobligated balances, 257,000 ............... ............... 257,000 ............... +257,000 +257,000
fiscal year 2005................
Deferral of unobligated balances, -257,000 257,000 257,000 -203,000 +54,000 -460,000 -460,000
fiscal year 2007................
Rescission Request............... ............... -203,000 -257,000 ............... ............... +203,000 +257,000
Rescission, uncommitted balances. -20,000 ............... ............... -50,000 -30,000 -50,000 -50,000
Transfer to Fossil Energy R&D ............... -54,000 ............... -54,000 -54,000 ............... -54,000
(FutureGen).....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Clean Coal -20,000 ............... ............... -50,000 -30,000 -50,000 -50,000
Technology................
FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT
Clean coal power initiative...... 49,500 4,957 36,400 70,000 +20,500 +65,043 +33,600
FutureGen........................ 17,820 54,000 54,000 54,000 +36,180 ............... ...............
Fuels and Power Systems:
Innovations for existing 25,146 16,015 25,000 25,000 -146 +8,985 ...............
plants......................
Advanced integrated 55,886 53,982 56,000 54,000 -1,886 +18 -2,000
gasification combined cycle.
Advanced turbines............ 17,820 12,801 20,000 20,000 +2,180 +7,199 ...............
Carbon sequestration......... 66,330 73,971 73,971 90,000 +23,670 +16,029 +16,029
Fuels........................ 28,710 22,127 29,000 29,000 +290 +6,873 ...............
Fuel cells................... 61,380 63,352 63,352 63,000 +1,620 -352 -352
Advanced research............ 52,622 28,914 28,914 30,000 -22,622 +1,086 +1,086
U.S./China Energy and 984 ............... ............... ............... -984 ............... ...............
environmental center........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Fuels and power 308,878 271,162 296,237 311,000 +2,122 +39,838 +14,763
systems...................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Coal............. 376,198 330,119 386,637 435,000 +58,802 +104,881 +48,363
Natural Gas Technologies......... 32,670 ............... ............... 17,000 -15,670 +17,000 +17,000
Petroleum--Oil Technologies...... 31,680 ............... 2,700 10,000 -21,680 +10,000 +7,300
Methane hydrates R&D............. ............... ............... 12,000 ............... ............... ............... -12,000
Program direction................ 105,872 129,196 126,496 142,396 +36,524 +13,200 +15,900
Plant and Capital Equipment...... 19,800 ............... ............... 12,000 -7,800 +12,000 +12,000
Fossil energy environmental 9,504 9,715 9,715 11,715 +2,211 +2,000 +2,000
restoration.....................
Import/export authorization...... 1,781 ............... ............... ............... -1,781 ............... ...............
Advanced metallurgical research.. 7,920 ............... ............... ............... -7,920 ............... ...............
Special recruitment programs..... 649 656 656 656 +7 ............... ...............
Cooperative research and 5,940 ............... ............... ............... -5,940 ............... ...............
development.....................
Congressionally directed ............... ............... 20,000 15,500 +15,500 +15,500 -4,500
technology deployments..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, FOSSIL ENERGY 592,014 469,686 558,204 644,267 +52,253 +174,581 +86,063
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT..
======================================================================================================================
NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE 21,285 18,810 18,810 39,810 +18,525 +21,000 +21,000
RESERVES........................
ELK HILLS SCHOOL LANDS FUNDS..... 83,160 ............... ............... ............... -83,160 ............... ...............
STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE...... 164,340 155,430 155,430 155,430 -8,910 ............... ...............
NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL ............... 4,950 4,950 4,950 +4,950 ............... ...............
RESERVE.........................
ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION 85,314 89,769 89,769 93,032 +7,718 +3,263 +3,263
NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP
West Valley Demonstration Project 76,329 73,400 73,400 73,400 -2,929 ............... ...............
Gaseous Diffusion Plants......... 48,325 74,860 74,860 74,860 +26,535 ............... ...............
Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride 84,945 32,556 32,556 32,556 -52,389 ............... ...............
Conversion, 02-U-101............
Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility 45,652 34,843 34,843 34,843 -10,809 ............... ...............
(WA)............................
Small Sites:
Argonne National Lab......... 10,382 10,726 11,726 10,726 +344 ............... -1,000
Brookhaven National Lab...... 33,985 28,272 28,860 28,272 -5,713 ............... -588
Idaho National Lab........... 5,221 7,000 7,000 7,000 +1,779 ............... ...............
Consolidated Business Center:
California Site support.. 99 160 160 160 +61 ............... ...............
Inhalation Toxicology Lab 302 2,931 3,431 2,931 +2,629 ............... -500
Lawrence Berkeley 3,861 ............... ............... ............... -3,861 ............... ...............
National Lab............
Stanford Linear 3,465 5,720 5,720 5,720 +2,255 ............... ...............
Accelerator Center......
Energy Technology 8,910 16,000 16,000 16,000 +7,090 ............... ...............
Engineering Center......
Los Alamos National Lab.. 485 1,025 1,025 1,025 +540 ............... ...............
Moab..................... 27,726 22,865 19,865 22,865 -4,861 ............... +3,000
UMTRA site litigation.... ............... ............... 500 ............... ............... ............... -500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, small sites.. 94,436 94,699 94,287 94,699 +263 ............... +412
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, NON-DEFENSE 349,687 310,358 309,946 310,358 -39,329 ............... +412
ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP.
======================================================================================================================
URANIUM ENRICHMENT
DECONTAMINATION AND
DECOMMISSIONING FUND
Decontamination and 536,806 559,368 559,368 573,368 +36,562 +14,000 +14,000
decommissioning.................
Uranium/thorium reimbursement.... 19,800 20,000 20,000 ............... -19,800 -20,000 -20,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, URANIUM 556,606 579,368 579,368 573,368 +16,762 -6,000 -6,000
ENRICHMENT D&D FUND.......
Uranium sales and barter (3,000) ............... ............... ............... (-3,000) ............... ...............
(scorekeeping adjustment).......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, UED&D FUND/URANIUM (556,606) (579,368) (579,368) (573,368) (+16,762) (-6,000) (-6,000)
INVENTORY CLEANUP.........
SCIENCE
High energy physics:
Proton accelerator-based 388,172 376,536 376,536 376,536 -11,636 ............... ...............
physics.....................
Electron accelerator-based 131,494 117,460 117,460 117,460 -14,034 ............... ...............
physics.....................
Non-accelerator physics...... 38,203 59,271 59,271 59,271 +21,068 ............... ...............
Theoretical physics.......... 48,612 52,056 52,056 43,746 -4,866 -8,310 -8,310
Advanced technology R&D...... 110,213 159,476 159,476 159,476 +49,263 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 716,694 764,799 764,799 756,489 +39,795 -8,310 -8,310
Construction: 07-SC-07 Project ............... 10,300 10,300 10,300 +10,300 ............... ...............
engineering and design (PED)
lectron neutrino appearance
(EvA)...........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, High energy physics. 716,694 775,099 775,099 766,789 +50,095 -8,310 -8,310
Nuclear physics.................. 365,054 439,540 439,540 419,540 +54,486 -20,000 -20,000
Construction:
07-SC-001 Project ............... 7,000 7,000 7,000 +7,000 ............... ...............
engineering and design
(PED) 12 GeV continuous
electron beam
accelerator facility
upgrade, Thomas
Jefferson National
Accelerator facility,
Newport News, VA........
07-SC-002 Electron beam ............... 7,400 7,400 7,400 +7,400 ............... ...............
ion source Brookhaven
National Laboratory, NY.
06-SC-02 Project 1,980 120 120 120 -1,860 ............... ...............
engineering and design
(PED), Electron beam ion
source, Brookhaven
National Laboratory,
Upton, NY...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Nuclear 367,034 454,060 454,060 434,060 +67,026 -20,000 -20,000
physics.............
Biological and environmental 579,831 510,263 540,263 560,000 -19,831 +49,737 +19,737
research........................
Basic energy sciences:
Research:
Materials sciences and 738,682 1,004,212 1,004,212 1,004,212 +265,530 ............... ...............
engineering research....
Chemical sciences, 219,583 268,499 268,499 293,449 +73,866 +24,950 +24,950
geosciences and energy
biosciences.............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Research..... 958,265 1,272,711 1,272,711 1,297,661 +339,396 +24,950 +24,950
Construction:
07-SC-06 Project ............... 20,000 20,000 20,000 +20,000 ............... ...............
engineering and design
(PED) National
Synchrotron light source
II (NSLS-II)............
07-SC-12 Project ............... 3,000 3,000 3,000 +3,000 ............... ...............
engineering and design
(PED) Advanced light
source user building,
LBNL....................
05-R-320 LINAC coherent 82,170 105,740 105,740 105,740 +23,570 ............... ...............
light source (LCLS).....
05-R-321 Center for 36,187 18,864 18,864 18,864 -17,323 ............... ...............
functional nanomaterials
(BNL)...................
04-R-313 The molecular 9,510 257 257 257 -9,253 ............... ...............
foundry (LBNL)..........
03-SC-002 Project 2,519 161 161 161 -2,358 ............... ...............
engineering & design
(PED) SLAC..............
03-R-313 Center for 4,580 247 247 247 -4,333 ............... ...............
Integrated
Nanotechnology..........
99-E-334 Spallation 41,327 ............... ............... ............... -41,327 ............... ...............
neutron source (ORNL)...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction. 176,293 148,269 148,269 148,269 -28,024 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Basic energy 1,134,558 1,420,980 1,420,980 1,445,930 +311,372 +24,950 +24,950
sciences..............
High Energy Density Physics...... ............... ............... ............... 79,924 +79,924 +79,924 +79,924
Advanced scientific computing 234,684 318,654 318,654 318,654 +83,970 ............... ...............
research........................
Fusion energy sciences program... 287,645 318,950 318,950 307,001 +19,356 -11,949 -11,949
Science laboratories
infrastructure:
Laboratories facilities
support:
Infrastructure support... 1,505 1,520 1,520 1,520 +15 ............... ...............
General plant projects... 2,970 ............... ............... ............... -2,970 ............... ...............
Construction:
07-SC-04 Science ............... 8,908 8,908 8,908 +8,908 ............... ...............
laboratories
infrastructure
project engineering
and design (PED)....
04-SC-001 Project 2,970 ............... ............... ............... -2,970 ............... ...............
engineering and
design (PED),
various locations...
03-SC-001 Science 14,720 19,033 19,033 19,033 +4,313 ............... ...............
laboratories
infrastructure MEL-
001 Multiprogram
energy laboratory
infrastructure
projects, various
locations...........
07-SC-05 Physical ............... ............... 7,000 ............... ............... ............... -7,000
sciences facility at
PNNL................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, 17,690 27,941 34,941 27,941 +10,251 ............... -7,000
Construction......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, 22,165 29,461 36,461 29,461 +7,296 ............... -7,000
Laboratories
facilities support
Oak Ridge landlord........... 5,028 5,079 5,079 5,079 +51 ............... ...............
Excess facilities disposal... 14,491 16,348 9,348 16,348 +1,857 ............... +7,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Science laboratories 41,684 50,888 50,888 50,888 +9,204 ............... ...............
infrastructure............
Safeguards and security.......... 73,574 76,592 76,592 76,592 +3,018 ............... ...............
Workforce development for 7,120 10,952 10,952 35,952 +28,832 +25,000 +25,000
teachers and scientists.........
Science program direction:
Field offices................ 90,677 95,832 95,832 95,832 +5,155 ............... ...............
Headquarters................. 68,441 75,045 75,045 75,045 +6,604 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Science program 159,118 170,877 170,877 170,877 +11,759 ............... ...............
direction.................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Science.......... 3,601,942 4,107,315 4,137,315 4,246,667 +644,725 +139,352 +109,352
======================================================================================================================
Less security charge for -5,549 -5,605 -5,605 -5,605 -56 ............... ...............
reimbursable work...............
======================================================================================================================
TOTAL, SCIENCE............. 3,596,393 4,101,710 4,131,710 4,241,062 +644,669 +139,352 +109,352
======================================================================================================================
NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL
Repository program............... 19,800 80,986 80,986 50,986 +31,186 -30,000 -30,000
Interim storage.................. ............... ............... 30,000 10,000 +10,000 +10,000 -20,000
Program direction................ 79,200 75,434 75,434 75,434 -3,766 ............... ...............
Integrated spent fuel recycling.. 49,500 ............... ............... ............... -49,500 ............... ...............
======================================================================================================================
TOTAL, NUCLEAR WASTE 148,500 156,420 186,420 136,420 -12,080 -20,000 -50,000
DISPOSAL..................
======================================================================================================================
DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION
Administrative operations:
Salaries and expenses:
Office of the Secretary.. 5,345 5,539 4,752 5,539 +194 ............... +787
Board of Contract Appeals 642 147 126 147 -495 ............... +21
Chief financial officer.. ............... 36,790 31,562 39,970 +39,970 +3,180 +8,408
Management............... ............... 55,237 47,391 55,237 +55,237 ............... +7,846
Human capital management. ............... 22,029 18,892 22,029 +22,029 ............... +3,137
Chief information officer 38,991 47,722 40,942 47,722 +8,731 ............... +6,780
Congressional and 4,778 4,866 4,174 4,866 +88 ............... +692
intergovernmental
affairs.................
Economic impact and 5,298 5,144 4,415 5,144 -154 ............... +729
diversity...............
General counsel.......... 22,985 24,725 21,214 24,725 +1,740 ............... +3,511
Office of Management, 108,207 ............... ............... ............... -108,207 ............... ...............
Budget and Evaluation...
Policy and international 14,843 18,744 16,083 18,744 +3,901 ............... +2,661
affairs.................
Public affairs........... 4,459 4,419 3,790 4,419 -40 ............... +629
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Salaries and 205,548 225,362 193,341 228,542 +22,994 +3,180 +35,201
expenses..............
Program support:
Minority economic impact. 815 825 709 825 +10 ............... +116
Policy analysis and 388 612 527 612 +224 ............... +85
system studies..........
Environmental policy 556 520 446 520 -36 ............... +74
studies.................
Cybersecurity and secure 24,486 38,183 32,760 38,183 +13,697 ............... +5,423
communications..........
Corporate management 22,824 22,917 19,659 22,917 +93 ............... +3,258
information program.....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Program 49,069 63,057 54,101 63,057 +13,988 ............... +8,956
support...............
Competitive sourcing 2,455 2,982 2,559 2,982 +527 ............... +423
initiative (A-76)...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Administrative 257,072 291,401 250,001 294,581 +37,509 +3,180 +44,580
operations................
Cost of work for others.......... 79,916 80,239 68,839 80,239 +323 ............... +11,400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Departmental 336,988 371,640 318,840 374,820 +37,832 +3,180 +55,980
Administration............
======================================================================================================================
Funding from other defense -86,699 -93,258 -93,258 -93,258 -6,559 ............... ...............
activities......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Departmental 250,289 278,382 225,582 281,562 +31,273 +3,180 +55,980
administration (gross)....
======================================================================================================================
Miscellaneous revenues........... -121,770 -123,000 -123,000 -123,000 -1,230 ............... ...............
======================================================================================================================
TOTAL, DEPARTMENTAL 128,519 155,382 102,582 158,562 +30,043 +3,180 +55,980
ADMINISTRATION (net)......
======================================================================================================================
Office of Inspector General...... 41,580 45,507 45,507 45,507 +3,927 ............... ...............
======================================================================================================================
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION
WEAPONS ACTIVITIES
Life extension program:
B61 Life extension program... 50,302 58,934 58,934 58,934 +8,632 ............... ...............
W76 Life extension program... 148,270 151,684 151,684 151,684 +3,414 ............... ...............
W80 Life extension program... 99,238 102,044 22,044 20,000 -79,238 -82,044 -2,044
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Life extension 297,810 312,662 232,662 230,618 -67,192 -82,044 -2,044
program...................
Stockpile systems:
B61 Stockpile systems........ 65,390 63,782 63,782 63,782 -1,608 ............... ...............
W62 Stockpile systems........ 8,877 3,738 3,738 3,738 -5,139 ............... ...............
W76 Stockpile systems........ 62,903 56,174 56,174 56,174 -6,729 ............... ...............
W78 Stockpile systems........ 32,306 50,662 50,662 50,662 +18,356 ............... ...............
W80 Stockpile systems........ 26,052 27,230 27,230 27,230 +1,178 ............... ...............
B83 Stockpile systems........ 26,127 23,365 23,365 23,365 -2,762 ............... ...............
W84 Stockpile systems........ 4,358 1,465 1,465 1,465 -2,893 ............... ...............
W87 Stockpile systems........ 50,171 59,333 59,333 59,333 +9,162 ............... ...............
W88 Stockpile systems........ 32,503 39,796 39,796 39,796 +7,293 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Stockpile systems 308,687 325,545 325,545 325,545 +16,858 ............... ...............
Reliable replacement warhead..... 24,750 27,707 52,707 62,707 +37,957 +35,000 +10,000
Warheads Dismantlement........... 59,400 75,000 105,000 35,000 -24,400 -40,000 -70,000
Stockpile services:
Production support........... 227,700 236,115 200,698 236,115 +8,415 ............... +35,417
Research and development 60,640 63,948 54,356 63,948 +3,308 ............... +9,592
support.....................
Research and development 225,450 194,199 165,069 194,199 -31,251 ............... +29,130
certification and safety....
Management, technology, and 167,891 159,662 135,713 159,662 -8,229 ............... +23,949
production..................
Responsive infrastructure.... ............... 15,430 40,430 15,430 +15,430 ............... -25,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Stockpile 681,681 669,354 596,266 669,354 -12,327 ............... +73,088
services..................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Directed stockpile 1,372,328 1,410,268 1,312,180 1,323,224 -49,104 -87,044 +11,044
work......................
Campaigns:
Science campaign:
Primary assessment 49,221 50,527 50,527 50,527 +1,306 ............... ...............
technologies............
Test readiness........... 19,800 14,757 14,757 14,757 -5,043 ............... ...............
Dynamic materials 83,055 80,727 80,727 85,727 +2,672 +5,000 +5,000
properties..............
Advanced radiography..... 49,025 36,745 36,745 36,745 -12,280 ............... ...............
Secondary assessment 75,569 81,006 81,006 81,006 +5,437 ............... ...............
technologies............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Science 276,670 263,762 263,762 268,762 -7,908 +5,000 +5,000
campaigns.............
Engineering campaign:
Enhanced surety.......... 39,600 26,731 26,731 41,200 +1,600 +14,469 +14,469
Weapons system 17,365 21,156 21,156 28,000 +10,635 +6,844 +6,844
engineering assessment
technology..............
Nuclear survivability.... 22,162 14,973 14,973 23,100 +938 +8,127 +8,127
Enhanced surveillance.... 99,205 86,526 86,526 103,200 +3,995 +16,674 +16,674
Microsystem and 4,667 4,613 4,613 4,613 -54 ............... ...............
engineering science
applications (MESA),
other project costs.....
Construction: 01-D-108 64,908 6,920 6,920 6,920 -57,988 ............... ...............
Microsystem and
engineering science
applications (MESA),
SNL, Albuquerque, NM....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, MESA....... 69,575 11,533 11,533 11,533 -58,042 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Engineering 247,907 160,919 160,919 207,033 -40,874 +46,114 +46,114
campaign............
Inertial confinement fusion
ignition and high yield
campaign:
Ignition..................... 74,859 79,763 79,763 69,763 -5,096 -10,000 -10,000
Support of stockpile programs 19,673 5,872 5,872 25,872 +6,199 +20,000 +20,000
NIF diagnostics, cryogenics 42,578 45,959 55,959 42,578 ............... -3,381 -13,381
and experiment support......
Pulsed power inertial 10,902 10,603 10,603 10,603 -299 ............... ...............
confinement fusion..........
University grants/other 7,623 8,903 8,903 ............... -7,623 -8,903 -8,903
support.....................
Facility operations and 63,977 43,021 58,021 53,021 -10,956 +10,000 -5,000
target production...........
Inertial fusion technology... 47,520 ............... 40,000 ............... -47,520 ............... -40,000
NIF demonstration program.... 101,307 143,438 143,438 129,000 +27,693 -14,438 -14,438
High-energy petawatt laser 34,650 2,213 14,213 ............... -34,650 -2,213 -14,213
development.................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 403,089 339,772 416,772 330,837 -72,252 -8,935 -85,935
Construction: 96-D-111 140,494 111,419 111,419 81,419 -59,075 -30,000 -30,000
National ignition facility,
LLNL........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Inertial 543,583 451,191 528,191 412,256 -131,327 -38,935 -115,935
confinement fusion........
Advanced simulation and computing 599,772 617,955 635,155 695,995 +96,223 +78,040 +60,840
Pit manufacturing and
certification:
W88 pit manufacturing........ 119,717 147,658 147,658 147,658 +27,941 ............... ...............
W88 pit certification........ 61,276 56,605 56,605 56,605 -4,671 ............... ...............
Pit manufacturing capability. 22,840 33,335 33,335 33,335 +10,495 ............... ...............
Pit campaign support 34,830 ............... ............... ............... -34,830 ............... ...............
activities at NTS...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Pit manufacturing 238,663 237,598 237,598 237,598 -1,065 ............... ...............
and certification.........
Readiness campaign:
Stockpile readiness.......... 31,086 17,576 17,576 17,576 -13,510 ............... ...............
High explosives and weapons 16,926 17,188 17,188 17,188 +262 ............... ...............
operations..................
Non-nuclear readiness........ 28,344 31,171 31,171 31,171 +2,827 ............... ...............
Advanced design and 53,500 53,645 55,645 53,645 +145 ............... -2,000
production technologies.....
Tritium readiness............ 62,067 86,385 86,385 86,385 +24,318 ............... ...............
Construction: 98-D-125 24,645 ............... ............... ............... -24,645 ............... ...............
Tritium extraction
facility, SR............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Tritium 86,712 86,385 86,385 86,385 -327 ............... ...............
readiness.............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Readiness 216,568 205,965 207,965 205,965 -10,603 ............... -2,000
campaign..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Campaigns....... 2,123,163 1,937,390 2,033,590 2,027,609 -95,554 +90,219 -5,981
Consolidated Production Center ............... ............... 100,000 ............... ............... ............... -100,000
(CPC)...........................
Readiness in technical base and
facilities (RTBF):
Operations of facilities..... ............... ............... ............... 1,263,004 +1,263,004 +1,263,004 +1,263,004
Kansas City Plant........ ............... 98,057 98,057 ............... ............... -98,057 -98,057
Lawrence Livermore ............... 96,906 106,906 ............... ............... -96,906 -106,906
National Laboratory.....
Los Alamos National ............... 306,258 306,258 ............... ............... -306,258 -306,258
Laboratory..............
Nevada Test Site......... ............... 67,687 67,687 ............... ............... -67,687 -67,687
Pantex................... ............... 96,124 116,124 ............... ............... -96,124 -116,124
Sandia National ............... 163,627 163,627 ............... ............... -163,627 -163,627
Laboratory..............
Savannah River Site...... ............... 100,013 100,013 ............... ............... -100,013 -100,013
Y-12 Production Plant.... ............... 191,092 234,092 ............... ............... -191,092 -234,092
Institutional Site ............... 84,022 84,022 ............... ............... -84,022 -84,022
Support.................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Operations and 1,159,192 1,203,786 1,276,786 1,263,004 +103,812 +59,218 -13,782
facilities............
Program readiness................ 104,681 75,167 75,167 75,167 -29,514 ............... ...............
Material recycle and recovery.... 72,003 69,982 69,982 69,982 -2,021 ............... ...............
Containers....................... 17,075 20,130 20,130 20,130 +3,055 ............... ...............
Storage.......................... 24,970 35,285 35,285 35,285 +10,315 ............... ...............
Special Projects................. ............... ............... ............... 28,782 +28,782 +28,782 +28,782
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Readiness in 1,377,921 1,404,350 1,477,350 1,492,350 +114,429 +88,000 +15,000
technical base and fac....
Construction:
07-D-140-03 Project ............... ............... ............... 7,000 +7,000 +7,000 +7,000
engineering and design (PED)
LANSCE-R....................
07-D-140 Project engineering ............... 4,977 4,977 4,977 +4,977 ............... ...............
and design (PED), various
locations...................
07-D-220 Radioactive liquid ............... 14,828 14,828 14,828 +14,828 ............... ...............
waste treatment facility
upgrade project, LANL.......
06-D-140 Project engineering 13,972 51,577 51,577 16,577 +2,605 -35,000 -35,000
and design (PED), various
locations...................
06-D-402 NTS replace fire 8,201 13,919 13,919 13,919 +5,718 ............... ...............
stations 1&2 Nevada Test
Site, NV....................
06-D-403 Tritium facility 2,574 7,810 7,810 7,810 +5,236 ............... ...............
modernization Lawrence
Livermore National
Laboratory, Livermore, CA...
06-D-404 Building 15,840 ............... ............... ............... -15,840 ............... ...............
remediation, restoration,
and upgrade, Nevada Test
Site, NV....................
05-D-140 Project engineering 6,930 9,615 9,615 9,615 +2,685 ............... ...............
and design (PED), various
locations...................
05-D-401 Building 12-64 10,890 ............... ............... ............... -10,890 ............... ...............
production bays upgrades,
Pantex plant, Amarillo, TX..
05-D-402 Berylium capability 7,623 5,084 5,084 5,084 -2,539 ............... ...............
(BEC) project, Y-12 National
security complex, Oak Ridge,
TN..........................
04-D-103 Project engineering 1,980 ............... ............... ............... -1,980 ............... ...............
and design (PED), various
locations...................
04-D-125 Chemistry and 54,450 112,422 12,422 112,422 +57,972 ............... +100,000
metallurgy facility
replacement project, Los
Alamos National Laboratory,
Los Alamos, NM..............
04-D-128 TA-18 mission 12,870 24,197 24,197 24,197 +11,327 ............... ...............
relocation project, Los
Alamos Laboratory, Los
Alamos, NM..................
03-D-103 Project engineering 28,710 14,161 14,161 14,161 -14,549 ............... ...............
and design (PED), various
locations...................
01-D-103 Project engineering 8,910 1,565 1,565 1,565 -7,345 ............... ...............
and design (PED), various
locations...................
01-D-124 HEU materials 80,537 21,267 21,267 56,267 -24,270 +35,000 +35,000
facility, Y-12 plant, Oak
Ridge, TN...................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction..... 253,487 281,422 181,422 288,422 +34,935 +7,000 +107,000
======================================================================================================================
Total, Readiness in 1,631,408 1,685,772 1,658,772 1,780,772 +149,364 +95,000 +122,000
technical base and
facilities................
Facilities and infrastructure 99,840 245,283 100,283 237,270 +137,430 -8,013 +136,987
recapitalization program........
Construction:
07-D-253 TA 1 heating ............... 14,500 14,500 14,500 +14,500 ............... ...............
systems modernization
(HSM) Sandia National
Laboratory..............
06-D-160 Project 5,753 2,700 2,700 2,700 -3,053 ............... ...............
engioneering and design
(PED), various loca-
tions...................
06-D-601 Electrical 3,960 6,429 6,429 6,429 +2,469 ............... ...............
distribution system
upgrade, Pantex Plant,
Amarillo, TX............
06-D-602 Gas main and 3,663 3,145 3,145 3,145 -518 ............... ...............
distribution system
upgrade, Pantex Plant,
Amarillo, TX............
06-D-603 Steam plant life 722 17,811 17,811 17,811 +17,089 ............... ...............
extension project
(SLEP), Y-12 National
Security Complex, Oak
Ridge, TN...............
05-D-160 Facilities and 10,538 648 648 648 -9,890 ............... ...............
infrastructure
recapitalization program
project engineering
design (PED), various
locations...............
05-D-601 Compressed air 9,644 702 702 702 -8,942 ............... ...............
upgrades project (CAUP),
Y-12, National security
complex, Oak Ridge, TN..
05-D-602 Power grid 8,415 ............... ............... ............... -8,415 ............... ...............
infrastructure upgrade
(PGIU), Los Alamos
National Laboratory, Los
Alamos, NM..............
05-D-603 New master 6,831 ............... ............... ............... -6,831 ............... ...............
substation (NMSU), SNL..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction. 49,526 45,935 45,935 45,935 -3,591 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Facilities and 149,366 291,218 146,218 283,205 +133,839 -8,013 +136,987
infrastructure
recapitalization
program...............
Secure transportation asset:
Operations and equipment..... 142,328 130,484 130,484 130,484 -11,844 ............... ...............
Program direction............ 67,651 78,780 78,780 78,780 +11,129 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Secure 209,979 209,264 209,264 209,264 -715 ............... ...............
transportation asset......
Nuclear weapons incident response 117,608 135,354 135,354 135,354 +17,746 ............... ...............
Environmental projects and ............... 17,211 17,211 17,211 +17,211 ............... ...............
operations: Long term response
actions.........................
Safeguards and security.......... 756,841 665,701 702,701 670,701 -86,140 +5,000 -32,000
Cybersecurity................ ............... 88,711 89,711 88,711 +88,711 ............... -1,000
Construction: 05-D-170 40,590 ............... ............... ............... -40,590 ............... ...............
Project engineering and
design (PED), various
locations...................
Material security and ............... ............... 40,000 ............... ............... ............... -40,000
consolidation project, Idaho
National Lab, ID............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Safeguards and 797,431 754,412 832,412 759,412 -38,019 +5,000 -73,000
security..................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Weapons 6,401,283 6,440,889 6,445,001 6,536,051 +134,768 +95,162 +91,050
activities................
Less security charge for -31,680 -33,000 -33,000 -33,000 -1,320 ............... ...............
reimbursable work...............
======================================================================================================================
TOTAL, WEAPONS ACTIVITIES.. 6,369,603 6,407,889 6,412,001 6,503,051 +133,448 +95,162 +91,050
======================================================================================================================
DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION
Nonproliferation and 305,910 260,967 290,160 274,967 -30,943 +14,000 -15,193
verification, R&D...............
Construction: 06-D-180 06-01 12,870 7,920 17,920 7,920 -4,950 ............... -10,000
Project engineering and design
(PED) National Security
Laboratory, PNNL................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Nonproliferation 318,780 268,887 308,080 282,887 -35,893 +14,000 -25,193
& verification R & D......
Nonproliferation and 74,250 127,411 127,411 127,411 +53,161 ............... ...............
international security..........
International nuclear 422,730 413,182 583,182 427,182 +4,452 +14,000 -156,000
materials protection and
cooperation.................
Global initiatives for 39,600 ............... ............... ............... -39,600 ............... ...............
proliferation prevention....
HEU transparency 19,288 ............... ............... ............... -19,288 ............... ...............
implementation..............
Elimination of weapons-grade 174,423 206,654 206,654 ............... -174,423 -206,654 -206,654
plutonium production program
Fissile materials disposition:
U.S. surplus materials 193,050 235,051 171,651 235,051 +42,001 ............... +63,400
disposition.................
Russian surplus materials 34,163 34,695 ............... ............... -34,163 -34,695 ...............
disposition.................
Construction:
99-D-141 Pit disassembly 23,760 78,700 ............... 93,000 +69,240 +14,300 +93,000
and conversion facility,
Savannah River, SC......
99-D-143 Mixed oxide fuel 217,800 289,510 ............... 325,000 +107,200 +35,490 +325,000
fabrication facility,
Savannah River, SC.....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, 241,560 368,210 ............... 418,000 +176,440 +49,790 +418,000
Construction........
Plutonium Immobilization, ............... ............... 111,000 ............... ............... ............... -111,000
Savannah River Site, SC.....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Fissile materials 468,773 637,956 282,651 653,051 +184,278 +15,095 +370,400
disposition...............
Use of prior year balances... ............... -34,695 -34,695 -34,695 -34,695 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Fissile materials 468,773 603,261 247,956 618,356 +149,583 +15,095 +370,400
disposition...............
Global threat reduction 96,995 106,818 147,618 116,818 +19,823 +10,000 -30,800
initiative......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Defense Nuclear 1,614,839 1,726,213 1,620,901 1,572,654 -42,185 -153,559 -48,247
Nonproliferation..........
======================================================================================================================
TOTAL, DEFENSE NUCLEAR 1,614,839 1,726,213 1,620,901 1,572,654 -42,185 -153,559 -48,247
NONPROLIFERATION..........
======================================================================================================================
NAVAL REACTORS
Naval reactors development....... 721,512 761,176 761,176 761,176 +39,664 ............... ...............
Construction:
07-D-190 Materials ............... 1,485 1,485 1,485 +1,485 ............... ...............
research technology
complex (MRTC)..........
06-D-901 Central office 6,930 ............... ............... ............... -6,930 ............... ...............
building II.............
Transfer to Nuclear 13,365 ............... ............... ............... -13,365 ............... ...............
Energy..................
05-N-900 Materials 9,801 1,287 1,287 1,287 -8,514 ............... ...............
development facility
building, Schenectady,
NY......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, 30,096 2,772 2,772 2,772 -27,324 ............... ...............
Construction........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Naval reactors 751,608 763,948 763,948 763,948 +12,340 ............... ...............
development.........
Program direction................ 29,997 31,185 31,185 31,185 +1,188 ............... ...............
======================================================================================================================
TOTAL, NAVAL REACTORS...... 781,605 795,133 795,133 795,133 +13,528 ............... ...............
======================================================================================================================
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
Office of the Administrator...... 345,277 386,576 399,576 386,576 +41,299 ............... -13,000
Use of prior year balances....... -6,827 ............... ............... ............... +6,827 ............... ...............
======================================================================================================================
TOTAL, OFFICE OF THE 338,450 386,576 399,576 386,576 +48,126 ............... -13,000
ADMINISTRATOR.............
======================================================================================================================
TOTAL, NATIONAL NUCLEAR 9,104,497 9,315,811 9,227,611 9,257,414 +152,917 -58,397 +29,803
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION...
======================================================================================================================
DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP
Closure Sites:
Ashtabula.................... 15,840 295 1,295 295 -15,545 ............... -1,000
Columbus..................... 9,405 ............... ............... ............... -9,405 ............... ...............
Closure sites administration. ............... 25,896 25,896 25,896 +25,896 ............... ...............
Fernald...................... 324,333 258,877 258,877 258,877 -65,456 ............... ...............
Miamisburg................... 104,475 34,869 34,869 34,869 -69,606 ............... ...............
Rocky Flats.................. 564,251 1,000 1,000 1,000 -563,251 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, closure sites....... 1,018,304 320,937 321,937 320,937 -697,367 ............... -1,000
Hanford Site:
Nuclear material 196,681 81,651 81,651 81,651 -115,030 ............... ...............
stabilization & disposition
PFP.........................
SNF stabilization and 57,894 81,069 78,937 81,069 +23,175 ............... +2,132
disposition.................
Nuclear facility D&D, river 176,716 221,022 221,022 221,022 +44,306 ............... ...............
corridor closure project....
Solid waste stablilzation and ............... 39,876 39,876 39,876 +39,876 ............... ...............
disposition.................
HAMMER facility.............. 7,425 ............... 7,500 ............... -7,425 ............... -7,500
B-reactor museum............. 1,980 ............... 500 ............... -1,980 ............... -500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, 2012 accelerated 440,696 423,618 429,486 423,618 -17,078 ............... -5,868
completions...............
Solid waste stabilization & 165,442 188,989 191,121 188,989 +23,547 ............... -2,132
disposition--2035...........
Soil & water remediation-- 73,750 75,973 75,973 75,973 +2,223 ............... ...............
groundwater/vadose zone.....
Nuclear facility D&D-- 70,104 94,270 94,270 94,270 +24,166 ............... ...............
remainder of Hanford........
Operate waste disposal 5,802 3,534 3,534 3,534 -2,268 ............... ...............
facility....................
SNF stabilization and 1,795 ............... ............... ............... -1,795 ............... ...............
disposition/storage.........
Richland community and 15,257 18,332 18,332 18,332 +3,075 ............... ...............
regulatory support..........
Columbia River Cleanup ............... ............... 20,000 ............... ............... ............... -20,000
Technologies................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, 2035 accelerated 332,150 381,098 403,230 381,098 +48,948 ............... -22,132
completions...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Hanford Site........ 772,846 804,716 832,716 804,716 +31,870 ............... -28,000
Office of River Protection:
01-D-16A Low activity waste 161,370 77,800 112,200 120,000 -41,370 +42,200 +7,800
facility....................
Analytical laboratory........ 44,550 21,800 45,200 46,000 +1,450 +24,200 +800
Balance of facilities........ 64,350 48,900 52,400 53,000 -11,350 +4,100 +600
High-level waste facility.... 102,960 253,700 171,700 191,000 +88,040 -62,700 +19,300
Pretreatment facility........ 147,510 287,800 218,500 280,000 +132,490 -7,800 +61,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Waste treatment & 520,740 690,000 600,000 690,000 +169,260 ............... +90,000
immobilization plant......
Tank Farm activities:
Rad liquid tank waste stabil. 325,710 273,656 293,656 273,656 -52,054 ............... -20,000
and disposition.............
River protection community 466 471 471 471 +5 ............... ...............
and regulatory support......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Tank Farm 326,176 274,127 294,127 274,127 -52,049 ............... -20,000
activities................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Office of River 846,916 964,127 894,127 964,127 +117,211 ............... +70,000
Protection................
Idaho National Laboratory:
SNF stabilization and 12,539 ............... ............... ............... -12,539 ............... ...............
disposition/storage.........
Nuclear material 1,539 1,000 1,000 1,000 -539 ............... ...............
stabilization and
disposition.................
SNF stabilization and 18,966 18,415 18,415 18,415 -551 ............... ...............
disposition--2012...........
Solid waste stabilization and 138,615 193,910 193,910 193,910 +55,295 ............... ...............
disposition.................
Radioactive liquid tank waste 91,273 73,514 73,514 73,514 -17,759 ............... ...............
stabilization and
disposition.................
06-D-401, Sodium bearing 53,727 31,000 31,000 31,000 -22,727 ............... ...............
waste treatment project, ID.
04-D-414, Sodium bearing 9,108 ............... 32,000 ............... -9,108 ............... -32,000
waste treatment facility,
PED ID......................
Soil and water remediation-- 159,874 120,510 120,510 120,510 -39,364 ............... ...............
2012........................
Nuclear facility D&D......... 4,976 67,562 67,562 67,562 +62,586 ............... ...............
Non-nuclear facility D&D..... 38,714 3,010 3,010 3,010 -35,704 ............... ...............
Idaho community and 3,511 3,683 3,683 3,683 +172 ............... ...............
regulatory support..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Idaho National 532,842 512,604 544,604 512,604 -20,238 ............... -32,000
Laboratory................
NNSA:
Lawrence Livermore National 29,282 11,580 11,580 11,580 -17,702 ............... ...............
Laboratory..................
NNSA Service Center.......... 8,221 26,122 26,122 26,122 +17,901 ............... ...............
Nevada....................... 84,174 79,668 79,668 79,668 -4,506 ............... ...............
Kansas City Plant............ 4,481 ............... ............... ............... -4,481 ............... ...............
California site support...... 545 370 370 370 -175 ............... ...............
Pantex....................... 19,457 23,726 23,726 23,726 +4,269 ............... ...............
Sandia National Laboratories. 9,671 ............... ............... ............... -9,671 ............... ...............
Nevada off-sites............. 2,818 ............... ............... ............... -2,818 ...............
Los Alamos National 140,787 90,602 90,602 141,000 +213 +50,398 +50,398
Laboratory..................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, NNSA sites and 299,436 232,068 232,068 282,466 -16,970 +50,398 +50,398
Nevada off-sites..........
Oak Ridge Reservation:
Solid waste stabilization and 4,584 ............... ............... ............... -4,584 ............... ...............
completion--2006............
Soil and water remediation-- 46,308 ............... ............... ............... -46,308 ............... ...............
Melton Valley...............
Solid waste stabilization and 67,676 48,888 68,809 48,888 -18,788 ............... -19,921
disposition--2012...........
Soil and water remediation-- 16,318 15,381 7,033 15,381 -937 ............... +8,348
offsites....................
Nuclear facility D&D, E. 5,974 10,094 11,056 10,094 +4,120 ............... -962
Tenn. Technology Park.......
Nuclear facility D&D Y-12.... 40,152 40,000 19,817 40,000 -152 ............... +20,183
Nuclear facility D&D ORNL.... 15,874 21,956 41,316 41,316 +25,442 +19,360 ...............
Solid waste stabilization & 18,084 18,544 21,332 18,544 +460 ............... -2,788
disp.--science current gen..
OR reservation community & 5,613 4,999 4,999 4,999 -614 ............... ...............
regulatory support..........
Building 3019................ 17,820 ............... 25,000 ............... -17,820 ............... -25,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Oak Ridge 238,403 159,862 199,362 179,222 -59,181 +19,360 -20,140
Reservation...............
Savannah River site:
Nuclear facility D&D......... ............... 3,664 3,664 3,664 +3,664 ............... ...............
Nuclear material 247,800 208,233 208,233 208,233 -39,567 ............... ...............
stabilization and
disposition 2012............
04-D-423 Container ............... 21,300 21,300 21,300 +21,300 ............... ...............
surveillance capability in
235F........................
04-D-414 Project Engineering 18,414 2,935 2,935 2,935 -15,479 ............... ...............
and Design, 105-K...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, 2012 accelerated 266,214 236,132 236,132 236,132 -30,082 ............... ...............
completions...............
SNF stabilization, 13,750 ............... ............... ............... -13,750 ............... ...............
disposition/storage.........
SR community and regulatory 12,916 12,542 12,542 12,542 -374 ............... ...............
support.....................
Nuclear material 74,354 41,160 41,160 41,160 -33,194 ............... ...............
stabilization and
disposition.................
Spent nuclear fuel 11,160 22,668 22,668 22,668 +11,508 ............... ...............
stabilization and
disposition.................
Solid waste stabilization and 111,863 85,276 85,276 85,276 -26,587 ............... ...............
disposition.................
Soil and water remediation... 93,421 103,150 103,150 103,150 +9,729 ............... ...............
Nuclear facility D&D......... 56,644 12,542 12,542 12,542 -44,102 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, 2035 accelerated 374,108 277,338 277,338 277,338 -96,770 ............... ...............
completions...............
Radioactive liquid tank waste 495,965 507,724 618,724 507,724 +11,759 ............... -111,000
stabil. & disposition.......
05-D-405, Salt waste 495 25,700 25,700 25,700 +25,205 ............... ...............
processing facility.........
04-D-408, Glass waste storage 6,905 ............... ............... ............... -6,905 ............... ...............
building....................
03-D-414, Salt waste 34,989 37,500 37,500 37,500 +2,511 ............... ...............
processing facility PED SR..
SWPF fiscal year 2005 -19,800 ............... ............... ............... +19,800 ............... ...............
uncosted balances...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Tank farm 518,554 570,924 681,924 570,924 +52,370 ............... -111,000
activities................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Savannah River site. 1,158,876 1,084,394 1,195,394 1,084,394 -74,482 ............... -111,000
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant:
Operate WIPP................. 116,769 132,026 132,026 139,026 +22,257 +7,000 +7,000
Central Characterization 38,117 23,190 23,190 23,190 -14,927 ............... ...............
Project.....................
Transportation............... 37,255 32,940 32,940 32,940 -4,315 ............... ...............
Community and regulatory 36,183 25,122 25,122 37,122 +939 +12,000 +12,000
support.....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Waste Isolation 228,324 213,278 213,278 232,278 +3,954 +19,000 +19,000
Pilot Plant...............
Program direction................ 241,378 291,216 301,216 291,216 +49,838 ............... -10,000
Program support.................. 32,518 37,881 37,881 37,881 +5,363 ............... ...............
Safeguards and Security:
Waste Isolation Pilot Project 4,181 4,324 4,324 4,324 +143 ............... ...............
Oak Ridge Reservation........ 28,566 22,889 22,889 22,889 -5,677 ............... ...............
Fernald...................... 1,377 1,216 1,216 1,216 -161 ............... ...............
West Valley.................. 1,782 1,600 1,600 1,600 -182 ............... ...............
Paducah...................... 10,904 8,707 8,707 8,707 -2,197 ............... ...............
Portsmouth................... 17,664 15,642 15,642 15,642 -2,022 ............... ...............
Richland/Hanford Site........ 81,333 77,836 77,836 77,836 -3,497 ............... ...............
Rocky Flats.................. 3,168 ............... ............... ............... -3,168 ............... ...............
Savannah River Site.......... 135,376 163,626 163,626 163,626 +28,250 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Safeguards and 284,351 295,840 295,840 295,840 +11,489 ............... ...............
Security..................
Technology development........... 29,764 21,389 31,389 21,389 -8,375 ............... -10,000
Uranium enrichment D&D fund 446,490 452,000 452,000 452,000 +5,510 ............... ...............
contribution....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, DEFENSE 6,130,448 5,390,312 5,551,812 5,479,070 -651,378 +88,758 -72,742
ENVIRONMENTAL CLEAN UP....
======================================================================================================================
OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
Office of Security and Safety
Performance Assurance:
Nuclear safeguards and 185,009 182,548 185,548 182,548 -2,461 ............... -3,000
security....................
Security investigations...... 46,258 40,000 40,000 40,000 -6,258 ............... ...............
Program direction............ 72,757 75,949 75,949 75,949 +3,192 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Office of 304,024 298,497 301,497 298,497 -5,527 ............... -3,000
Security and Safety
Performance Assurance.....
Environment, safety and health 56,908 60,738 60,738 74,738 +17,830 +14,000 +14,000
(Defense).......................
Program direction--EH........ 19,351 20,076 20,076 20,076 +725 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Environment, 76,259 80,814 80,814 94,814 +18,555 +14,000 +14,000
safety & health (Defense).
Office of Legacy Management:
Legacy management............ 31,107 156,790 156,790 156,790 +125,683 ............... ...............
Program direction............ 13,518 11,061 11,061 11,061 -2,457 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Office of Legacy 44,625 167,851 167,851 167,851 +123,226 ............... ...............
Management................
Nuclear energy:
Infrastructure:
Idaho facilities 17,584 ............... ............... ............... -17,584 ............... ...............
management..............
Idaho sitewide safeguards 74,258 75,949 75,949 75,949 +1,691 ............... ...............
and security............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Infrastruture 91,842 75,949 75,949 75,949 -15,893 ............... ...............
Program direction............ 30,792 ............... ............... ............... -30,792 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Nuclear energy... 122,634 75,949 75,949 75,949 -46,685 ............... ...............
Defense related administrative 86,699 93,258 93,258 93,258 +6,559 ............... ...............
support.........................
Office of Hearings and Appeals... 4,309 4,422 4,422 4,422 +113 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Other Defense 638,550 720,791 723,791 734,791 +96,241 +14,000 +11,000
Activities................
======================================================================================================================
Less security charge for -2,973 -3,003 -3,003 -3,003 -30 ............... ...............
reimbursable work...............
======================================================================================================================
TOTAL, OTHER DEFENSE 635,577 717,788 720,788 731,788 +96,211 +14,000 +11,000
ACTIVITIES................
======================================================================================================================
DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL
Defense nuclear waste disposal... 346,500 388,080 388,080 358,080 +11,580 -30,000 -30,000
======================================================================================================================
TOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY 16,217,022 15,811,991 15,888,291 15,826,352 -390,670 +14,361 -61,939
DEFENSE ACTIVITIES........
======================================================================================================================
POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS
SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION
Operation and maintenance:
Purchase power and wheeling.. 32,386 48,003 48,003 48,003 +15,617 ............... ...............
Program direction............ 5,544 5,723 5,723 5,723 +179 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Operation and 37,930 53,726 53,726 53,726 +15,796 ............... ...............
maintenance...............
Less alternative financing (PPW). ............... -13,611 ............... -13,611 -13,611 ............... -13,611
Offsetting collections........... -32,386 ............... -48,003 ............... +32,386 ............... +48,003
Offsetting collections (Public ............... -34,392 ............... -34,392 -34,392 ............... -34,392
Law 106-377)....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, SOUTHEASTERN POWER 5,544 5,723 5,723 5,723 +179 ............... ...............
ADMINISTRATION............
======================================================================================================================
SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION
Operation and maintenance:
Operating expenses........... 6,972 7,145 7,145 7,145 +173 ............... ...............
Purchase power and wheeling.. 2,970 13,600 13,600 40,600 +37,630 +27,000 +27,000
Program direction............ 19,758 20,782 20,782 20,782 +1,024 ............... ...............
Construction................. 3,134 3,612 3,612 3,612 +478 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Operation and 32,834 45,139 45,139 72,139 +39,305 +27,000 +27,000
maintenance...............
Less alternative financing ............... -10,600 ............... -10,600 -10,600 ............... -10,600
(PPW).......................
Offsetting collections....... -2,970 ............... -13,600 ............... +2,970 ............... +13,600
Offsetting collections ............... -3,000 ............... -30,000 -30,000 -27,000 -30,000
(Public Law 106-377)........
======================================================================================================================
TOTAL, SOUTHWESTERN POWER 29,864 31,539 31,539 31,539 +1,675 ............... ...............
ADMINISTRATION............
======================================================================================================================
WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION
Operation and maintenance:
Construction and 53,417 60,205 60,205 60,205 +6,788 ............... ...............
rehabilitation..............
Operation and maintenance.... 46,822 45,734 45,734 45,734 -1,088 ............... ...............
Purchase power and wheeling.. 276,210 427,931 427,931 427,931 +151,721 ............... ...............
Program direction............ 128,900 147,748 147,748 147,748 +18,848 ............... ...............
Utah mitigation and 6,633 6,893 6,893 6,893 +260 ............... ...............
conservation................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Operation and 511,982 688,511 688,511 688,511 +176,529 ............... ...............
maintenance...............
Less alternative financing (for ............... -1,091 ............... -1,091 -1,091 ............... -1,091
O&M)............................
Less alternative financing (for ............... -33,928 ............... -33,928 -33,928 ............... -33,928
O&M)............................
Less alternative financing (for ............... -9,643 ............... -9,643 -9,643 ............... -9,643
O&M)............................
Less alternative financing (for ............... -153,079 ............... -153,079 -153,079 ............... -153,079
O&M)............................
Offsetting collections........... -276,210 ............... -472,593 ............... +276,210 ............... +472,593
Offsetting collections (Public -4,120 -3,705 -3,705 -3,705 +415 ............... ...............
Law 98-381).....................
Offsetting collections (Public ............... -274,852 ............... -274,852 -274,852 ............... -274,852
Law 106-377)....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, WESTERN AREA POWER 231,652 212,213 212,213 212,213 -19,439 ............... ...............
ADMINISTRATION............
======================================================================================================================
FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND
MAINTENANCE FUND
Operation and maintenance........ 2,665 2,500 2,500 2,500 -165 ............... ...............
======================================================================================================================
TOTAL, POWER MARKETING 269,725 251,975 251,975 251,975 -17,750 ............... ...............
ADMINISTRATIONS...........
======================================================================================================================
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Federal Energy Regulatory 218,196 230,800 230,800 230,800 +12,604 ............... ...............
Commission......................
FERC revenues.................... -218,196 -230,800 -230,800 -230,800 -12,604 ............... ...............
======================================================================================================================
GRAND TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF 24,046,773 24,074,717 24,373,489 24,725,146 +678,373 +650,429 +351,657
ENERGY....................
(Total amount (24,031,133) (24,277,717) (24,630,489) (24,775,146) (+744,013) (+497,429) (+144,657)
appropriated).........
(Advance appropriations (35,640) ............... ............... ............... (-35,640) ............... ...............
from previous years)..
(Rescissions).......... (-20,000) (-203,000) (-257,000) (-50,000) (-30,000) (+153,000) (+207,000)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
The following list of general provisions is recommended by
the Committee. The recommendation includes several provisions
which have been included in previous Energy and Water
Appropriations Acts and new provisions as follows:
Section 301. Language is included under section 301 to
prohibit the use of funds to make payments for a noncompetitive
management and operating contract unless certain conditions
have been met.
Section 302. Language is included under section 302 which
prohibits the use of funds for severance payments under the
worker and community transition program under section 3161 of
Public Law 102-484.
Section 303. Language is included under section 303 to
prohibit the augmentation of several payments under section
3161 of Public Law 102-484 unless a reprogramming request is
submitted to Congress.
Section 304. Language is included under section 304, which
prohibits the use of funds in this act to initiate a request
for proposal of 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.
Section 305. Language is included in section 305, which
permits the transfer and merger of unexpended balances of prior
appropriations with appropriation accounts established in this
bill.
Section 306. Language is included that prohibits the use of
funds by the Bonneville Power Administration to enter into
energy efficiency contracts outside its service area.
Section 307. This section establishes certain notice and
competition requirements for Department of Energy user
facilities.
Section 308. Language is included specifically authorizing
intelligence activities pending enactment of the fiscal year
2007 Intelligence Authorization Act.
Section 309. Language is included in section 309 regarding
laboratory directed research and development activities.
Section 310. Language is included in section 310 regarding
the terms and conditions of loan guarantees provided under
section 1702(b)(2) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Section 311. Language is included regarding the terms and
conditions by which the Secretary of Energy is directed to
manage spent nuclear fuel with regard to demonstration of
advanced recycling technologies.
Section 312. Language is included in section 312
prohibiting the Department of Energy to modify a ratemaking
policy by changing the interest rate on future obligation for
the Southeastern, Southwest, and Western Area Power
Administrations. The Committee rejects a pending proposal to
require Southeastern Power Administration, Southwestern Power
Administration, and the Western Area Power Administration to
apply the interest rate charged Government corporations for new
investment and instead instructs the Secretary to apply the
yield rate for all new investment in hydroelectric plant. The
average yield shall be computed as the average during the
fiscal year of the daily bid prices. The Committee has
consistently opposed the use of budget gimmicks carried in the
budget request that will increase rates paid by power
customers. The Committee recommends the Department of Energy
heed this direction and refrain from requesting new regulations
to modify ratemaking procedures for Southeastern Power
Administration, Southwestern Power Administration, and the
Western Area Power Administration.
Section 313. Language is included regarding the
establishment of consolidation and preparation facilities
intended to store spent nuclear fuel for up to 25 years.
Language is also included regarding waste confidence standards.
TITLE IV
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Appalachian Regional Commission
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $64,817,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 65,472,000
House allowance......................................... 35,472,000
Committee recommendation................................ 65,472,000
Established in 1965, the Appalachian Regional Commission is
an economic development agency composed of 13 Appalachian
States and a Federal co-chair appointed by the President. For
fiscal year 2007, the Committee recommends the budget request
of $65,472,000 for the ARC, of which $6,000,000 is for salaries
and expenses and $58,472,000 is for programs development and
$1,000,000 is for the Appalachian Highway System.
The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users authorized $470,000,000
annually, from 2005-2009, from the Highway Trust Fund for
construction projects on the Appalachian Development Highway
System. The ARC exercises policy and programmatic control over
these funds.
Area Development and Technical Assistant Program funds are
used to increase job opportunities and income, improve
education and health, strengthen infrastructure, and for the
Appalachian Highway System. Such funds are allocated by
formula, with assistance targeted to the most distressed and
underdeveloped areas.
Local Development Districts Program funds assist local
governments in promoting sustainable community and economic
development in the Appalachian region.
The Committee recognizes the importance of trade and
investment opportunities to the Appalachian Region and is
encouraged by the findings in a report that Appalachian firms
could 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 Appalachian States and the Republic of
Turkey, as well as the neighboring regions, such as Greece. The
Committee commends the ARC for its leadership role in helping
to implement the mission of the ATTP. The Committee expects the
ARC to continue to be a prominent ATTP sponsor.
The Committee has included no earmarks in ARC funds. The
Commission allocates its funds by formula to its member States,
based primarily on need. Under the Commission's formula system,
earmarks out of ARC's base funding could come at the expense of
those States that have no earmarks. Accordingly, the Committee
directs that any future earmarks in any State be taken from
within that State's regular ARC allocation.
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $21,812,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 22,260,000
House allowance......................................... 22,260,000
Committee recommendation................................ 22,260,000
For fiscal year 2007, the Committee recommends $22,260,000,
the same as the President's request, for the Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board. This Board is responsible for
evaluating the implementation of standards for design,
construction, operation, and decommissioning of the Department
of Energy's defense nuclear facilities. Based on these
evaluations, the Board makes specific recommendations to the
Secretary of Energy to ensure that both public and employee
heath and safety are protected.
Delta Regional Authority
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $11,880,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 5,940,000
House allowance......................................... 5,940,000
Committee recommendation................................ 12,000,000
For the Delta Regional Authority, the Committee recommends
$12,000,000, an increase of $6,060,000 from the budget request.
The Delta Regional Authority was established to assist the
eight State Mississippi Delta Region in obtaining basic
infrastructure, transportation, skills training, and
opportunities for economic development. The Government
Accountability Office recently reported that the DRA has a
commendable record in the percentage of funds spent in rural
America, and the Committee recognizes the DRA's role in
bettering this underserved area of the Nation.
Denali Commission
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $49,500,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 2,536,000
House allowance......................................... 7,536,000
Committee recommendation................................ 50,000,000
The Denali Commission is a Federal-State partnership
responsible for promoting infrastructure development, job
training, and other economic development services in rural
areas throughout Alaska. For fiscal year 2007, the Committee
recommends $50,000,000, an increase of $47,464,000 above the
requested level.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $727,032,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 768,410,000
House allowance......................................... 808,410,000
Committee recommendation................................ 808,410,000
REVENUES
Appropriations, 2006.................................... -$611,010,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... -628,328,000
House allowance......................................... -656,328,000
Committee recommendation................................ 656,328,000
NET APPROPRIATION
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $116,022,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 148,896,000
House allowance......................................... 152,082,000
Committee recommendation................................ 152,082,000
The Committee recommendation for the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission for fiscal year 2007 is $808,410,000, an increase of
$40,000,000 over the budget request. This amount is offset by
estimated revenues of $656,328,000, resulting in a net
appropriation of $152,082,000.
The Committee provides an additional $38,000,000 to prepare
for the anticipated growth in new reactor licensing. The
additional funds are available to hire, relocate, and train
additional staff, support pre-application activities not
chargeable to a specific licensee, and build out, equip, and
rent additional office space.
The Committee also provides an additional $2,000,000 from
the General Fund for the Commission to update its regulatory
infrastructure for spent fuel recycling and keep pace with the
Department of Energy's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership [GNEP]
initiative. These funds are excluded from the Commission's fee
recovery requirements.
The Committee directs the Commission to continue to provide
quarterly reports on the status of its licensing and other
regulatory activities. The Committee further directs the
Commission to include in these quarterly reports the status of
actions and tasks that must be completed prior to and during
the new reactor licensing application process.
Within available funds provided new reactor licensing, the
Committee directs the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to
implement the Multinational Design Approval Process [MDAP]. The
objective of the MDAP is to improve the effectiveness and
efficiency of the regulatory design reviews of new nuclear
power reactors and enhance surety, clarity, predictability and
transparency by converging regulations, codes, and standards.
The Committee believes that MDAP will help to enhance both
national and international reactor safety.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
GROSS APPROPRIATION
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $8,233,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 8,144,000
House allowance......................................... 8,144,000
Committee recommendation................................ 8,144,000
REVENUES
Appropriations, 2006.................................... -$7,410,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... -7,330,000
House allowance......................................... -7,330,000
Committee recommendation................................ -7,330,000
NET APPROPRIATION
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $823,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 814,000
House allowance......................................... 814,000
Committee recommendation................................ 814,000
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $3,572,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 3,670,000
House allowance......................................... 3,670,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,670,000
The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board was established to
evaluate the scientific and technical validity of the
Department of Energy's nuclear waste disposal program. The
Board reports its findings no fewer than two times a year to
Congress and to the Secretary of Energy. For fiscal year 2007,
the Committee recommends $3,670,000.
Tennessee Valley Authority
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
GROSS APPROPRIATION
Appropriations, 2006....................................................
Budget estimate, 2007................................... $15,100,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................................
OFFSET FROM TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY FUND
Appropriations, 2006....................................................
Budget estimate, 2007................................... -$15,100,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................................
The Committee recommendation does not include the
administration's proposal to establish a congressionally funded
Office of the Inspector General to oversee the Tennessee Valley
Authority. In recent years, the TVA has funded the requests of
the TVA-IG office out of power revenues and receipts. This
process has worked well, and the Committee sees no compelling
reason to change that mechanism for funding the TVA-IG.
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:
Section 501. The provision prohibits the transfer of
unexpended balances of appropriations to another Federal
department, agency or instrumentality of the U.S. Government.
Section 502. The provision addresses part 750 of title 23.
Section 503. The provision addresses transfer authority
under this act.
Section 504. The provision addresses the submittal of
budget justifications.
Section 505. The bill includes a provision regarding the
North and Middle Forks of the American River.
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 Committee recommends funding for the following programs
or activities which currently lack authorization for fiscal
year 2006:
The US Army Corps of Engineers: General Investigations;
Construction, General; Mississippi River and Tributaries;
Operations and Maintenance; Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial
Action Program;
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation;
Water and Related Resources;
Department of Energy: Energy Conservation and Supply
Activities:
Office of Fossil Energy: Fossil Energy R&D, Clean Coal,
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Research;
Office of Environment, Safety and Health;
Non-Defense Environmental Management;
Office of Science;
Department of Administration;
National Nuclear Security Administration: Weapons
Activities; Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation; Naval Reactors;
Office of the Administrator;
Defense Environmental Management, Defense Site Acceleration
Completion;
Other Defense Activities;
Defense Nuclear Waste Fund;
Office of Security and Performance Assurance;
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission;
Power Marketing Administrations: Southeastern,
Southwestern, Western Area; and
Energy Information Administration.
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(C), RULE XXVI, OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on June 29, 2006,
the Committee ordered reported, en bloc: H.R. 5427, making
appropriations for Energy and Water for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2007, and for other purposes, with an amendment
in the nature of a substitute and an amendment to the title;
H.R. 5522, making appropriations for the Department of State,
foreign operations, and related programs for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes, with an
amendment in the nature of a substitute and an amendment to the
title; H.R. 5386, making appropriations for the Department of
the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes, with an
amendment in the nature of a substitute; and H.R. 5441, making
appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes,
with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, with each bill
subject to further amendment and each subject to the budget
allocation, by a recorded vote of 28-0, a quorum being present.
The vote was as follows:
Yeas Nays
Chairman Cochran
Mr. Stevens
Mr. Specter
Mr. Domenici
Mr. Bond
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Burns
Mr. Shelby
Mr. Gregg
Mr. Bennett
Mr. Craig
Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. DeWine
Mr. Brownback
Mr. Allard
Mr. Byrd
Mr. Inouye
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Harkin
Ms. Mikulski
Mr. Reid
Mr. Kohl
Mrs. Murray
Mr. Dorgan
Mrs. Feinstein
Mr. Durbin
Mr. Johnson
Ms. Landrieu
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI, OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports
on a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute
or part of any statute include ``(a) the text of the statute or
part thereof which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a
comparative print of that part of the bill or joint resolution
making the amendment and of the statute or part thereof
proposed to be amended, showing by stricken-through type and
italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical
devices the omissions and insertions which would be made by the
bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form recommended by
the Committee.''
In compliance with this rule, changes in existing law
proposed to be made by the bill are shown as follows: existing
law to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets; new matter is
printed in italic; and existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman.
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. deg.
TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 19B--WATER RESOURCES PLANNING
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER IV--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1962d-5a. Reimbursement to States
(a) Combination of reimbursement of installation costs and
reduction in contributions; single project
limitation
The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of
Engineers, may, when he determines it to be in the public
interest, enter into agreements providing for reimbursement to
States or political subdivisions thereof for work to be
performed by such non-Federal public bodies at water resources
development projects authorized for construction under the
Secretary of the Army and the supervision of the Chief of
Engineers. Such agreements may provide for reimbursement of
installation costs incurred by such entities or an equivalent
reduction in the contributions they would otherwise be required
to make, or in appropriate cases, for a combination thereof.
The amount of Federal reimbursement, including reductions in
contributions, for a single project shall not exceed $5,000,000
or 1 percent of the total project cost, whichever is greater;
except that the amount of actual Federal reimbursement,
including reductions in contributions, for such project may not
exceed [$5,000,000] $7,000,000 in any fiscal year.
* * * * * * *
SAN LUIS REY INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT, PUBLIC LAW 100-675
* * * * * * *
TITLE II--ALL AMERICAN CANAL LINING
* * * * * * *
SEC. 210. * * *
SEC. 211. ALL AMERICAN CANAL PROJECTS.
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon
enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall without delay
implement the All American Canal Lining Project identified as
the preferred alternative in the Record of Decision dated July
29, 1994, and as defined in the Allocation Agreement allocating
water from the All American Canal Lining Project entered into
as of October 10, 2003. If a State conducts a review or study
of the implications of the All American Canal Lining Project as
implemented, then upon request from the Governor of said State,
the Commissioner of Reclamation shall cooperate, to the extent
practicable, in such review or study: Provided, That in no
event shall the review or study delay implementation of the All
American Canal Lining Project.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon
enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall, pursuant to
authority granted by the Act of January 21, 1927 (44 Stat. 1010
et seq.), as amended by the Act of July 1, 1940 (54 Stat. 708),
the Act of June 28, 1946 (60 Stat. 338), and the Act of May 1,
1958 (72 Stat. 101), without delay proceed to design and
provide for the construction, operation and maintenance of a
regulated water storage facility, including all incidental
works that are reasonably necessary to operate the storage
facility, to provide additional storage capacity to reduce non-
storable flows on the Colorado River below Parker Dam. The
storage facility shall be located near or on the All American
Canal, including all incidental works.
(c) The Treaty between the United States of America and the
Republic of Mexico relating to Utilization of the Waters of the
Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande, Treaty
Series 994 (59 Stat. 1219), is the exclusive authority for
identifying, considering, analyzing, or addressing impacts
occurring outside the boundary of the United States of works
constructed, acquired or used within the territorial limits of
the United States.
* * * * * * *
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1990, PUBLIC LAW 101-640
* * * * * * *
TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS
SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(10) McAlpine Lock and Dam, Indiana and Kentucky.--
The project for navigation, McAlpine Lock and Dam,
Indiana and Kentucky: Report of the Chief of Engineers,
dated June 29, 1990, at a total cost of [$219,600,000]
$430,000,000, with a first Federal cost of
[$219,600,000]$430,000,000. The Federal share of costs
of construction of the project is to be paid one-half
from amounts appropriated from the general fund of the
Treasury and one-half from amounts appropriated from
the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
* * * * * * *
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1992, PUBLIC LAW 102-580
* * * * * * *
TITLE II--GENERALLY APPLICABLE PROVISIONS
SEC. 219. ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) * * *
* * * * * * *
(71) * * *
(72) Clark county, nevada.--$50,000,000 for
wastewater infrastructure, Clark County, Nevada.
(73) Henderson, nevada.--$15,000,000 for wastewater
infrastructure, Henderson, Nevada.
* * * * * * *
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1996, PUBLIC LAW 104-303
* * * * * * *
TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS
SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(5) San lorenzo river, california.--
(A) In General._The project for flood
control, San Lorenzo River, California: Report
of the Chief of Engineers, dated June 30, 1994,
at a total cost of $21,800,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $10,900,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $10,900,000 and
habitat restoration, at a total cost of
$4,050,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$3,040,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$1,010,000.
(B) Credit Toward Non-Federal Share.--The
Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal
share of the project the costs expended by non-
Federal interests for the replacement and
reconstruction of the Soquel Avenue Bridge, if
the Secretary determines that the work is
integral to the project.
(C) Maximum Amount of Credit.--The credit
under paragraph (B) may not exceed $2,000,000.
(D) Limitation of Total Project Cost.--The
Secretary shall not include the costs to be
credited under paragraphs (B) and (C) in total
project costs in determining the amounts of the
Federal and non-Federal contributions.
* * * * * * *
TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
SEC. 227. SHORE PROTECTION.
(a) * * *
``SEC. 5. NATIONAL SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.
``(a) Establishment of Erosion Control Program.--The
Secretary shall establish and conduct a national shoreline
erosion control development and demonstration program for a
period of [7] 12 years beginning on the date that funds are
made available to carry out this section.
* * * * * * *
``(e) Funding.--
``(1) Responsibility.--The cost of and
responsibility for operation and maintenance (excluding
monitoring) of a demonstration project under the
erosion control program shall be borne by non-Federal
interests on completion of construction of the
demonstration project.
``(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is
authorized to be appropriated [$25,000,000] $40,000,000
to carry out this section.
* * * * * * *
OMNIBUS CONSOLIDATED AND EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
1999, PUBLIC LAW 105-277
* * * * * * *
DIVISION C--OTHER MATTERS
TITLE I--OTHER MATTERS
* * * * * * *
TITLE III--DENALI COMMISSION
* * * * * * *
SEC. 306. COMMISSION PERSONNEL MATTERS.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Staff.--
(1) In general.--The Federal Cochairperson of the
Commission may, without regard to the civil service
laws and regulations, appoint and terminate such
personnel as may be necessary to enable the Commission
to perform its duties.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 309. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
the Commission to carry out the duties of the Commission
consistent with the purposes of this title and pursuant to the
work plan approved under section 4 under this Act, $20,000,000
for fiscal year 1999, and such sums as may be necessary for
fiscal years [2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003] 2007, 2008, 2009,
2010, and 2011.
* * * * * * *
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1999, PUBLIC LAW 106-53
* * * * * * *
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
SEC. 514. MISSOURI AND MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI RIVERS ENHANCEMENT PROJECT.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to pay the Federal share of the cost of
carrying out this section $30,000,000 for the period of [fiscal
years 2000 and 2001.] per year, and that authority shall extend
until Federal fiscal year 2015.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 582. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR COLUMBIA AND SNAKE
RIVERS SALMON SURVIVAL.
* * * * * * *
``(c) Management of Predation on Columbia/Snake River
System Native Fishes.--
``(1) Nesting avian predators.--In conjunction with
the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of the
Interior, and consistent with a management plan to be
developed by the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, the Secretary shall carry out methods to
reduce nesting populations of avian predators on dredge
spoil islands in the Columbia River under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary.
``(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is
authorized to be appropriated [$1,000,000] $2,000,000
to carry out research and development activities under
this subsection.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 597. NATIONAL HARBOR, MARYLAND.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Effect on Environmental Law.--Nothing in this section
abrogates any requirement of any environmental law.
SEC. 598. DEVILS LAKE, NORTH DAKOTA.
(a) Definition of Project.--In this section, the term
``project'' means a project to provide a continued safe and
reliable municipal water supply system for Devils Lake, North
Dakota.
(b) Project Cooperation Agreement.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the
Secretary shall enter into a project cooperation
agreement with the non-Federal interest to provide
assistance in designing and constructing the project.
(2) Responsibility for design work.--At the option
of the non-Federal interest, the non-Federal interest
may complete the design work for the project.
(3) NEPA.--The Secretary shall comply with all
applicable requirements under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) before beginning construction on the project.
(4) Requirements.--The project cooperation
agreement entered into under this subsection shall
provide for--
(A) the development by local officials of a
water supply project and related facilities,
and if the non-Federal interest elects to
complete the design work for the project,
appropriate engineering plans and
specifications; and
(B) the establishment of such legal and
institutional structures as are necessary to
ensure the effective long-term operation of the
project by the non-Federal interest.
(5) Cost sharing.--
(A) In general.--The project cooperation
agreement shall provide that the Federal share
of the cost of the project--
(i) shall be 75 percent; and
(ii) may be in the form of grants
or reimbursements of project costs.
(B) Credit for design and engineering
work.--The non-Federal interest shall receive
credit, not to exceed 6 percent of the total
construction costs of design and engineering
work completed by the non-Federal interest
before entering into a project cooperation
agreement with the Secretary under this
subsection for the project.
(C) Credit for land, easements, and rights-
of-way.--The non-Federal interest shall receive
credit, not to exceed 25 percent of the total
cost of the project, for lands, easements,
rights-of-way, and relocations toward the non-
Federal share of project costs (including all
reasonable costs associated with obtaining
permits necessary for the construction,
operation, and maintenance of the project on
publicly owned or controlled land).
(D) Operation and maintenance.--The non-
Federal share of operation and maintenance
costs for the project shall be 100 percent.
* * * * * * *
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004, PUBLIC LAW 108-
137
* * * * * * *
TITLE II
* * * * * * *
General Provisions
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 209. Endangered Species Collaborative Program. (a)
Using funds previously appropriated, the Secretary of the
Interior, acting through the Commissioner of the Bureau of
Reclamation and the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service,
for purposes of improving the efficiency and expediting the
efforts of the Endangered Species Act Collaborative Program
Workgroup, is directed to establish an executive committee of
seven members consisting of--
[(1) one member from the Bureau of Reclamation;
[(2) one member from the Fish and Wildlife Service;
and
[(3) one member at large representing each of the
following seven entities (selected at the discretion of
the entity in consultation with the Bureau of
Reclamation and the Fish and Wildlife Service)
currently participating as signatories to the existing
Memorandum of Understanding:
[(A) other Federal agencies;
[(B) State agencies;
[(C) municipalities;
[(D) universities and environmental groups;
[(E) agricultural communities;
[(F) Middle Rio Grande Pueblos (Sandia,
Isleta, San Felipe, Cochiti, Santa Ana, and
Santo Domingo); and
[(G) Middle Rio Grande Conservancy
District.
[(b) Formation of this Committee shall not occur later than
45 days after enactment of this Act.
[(c) Fiscal year 2004 appropriations shall not be obligated
or expended prior to approval of a detailed spending plan by
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
[(d) The above section shall come into effect within 180
days of enactment of this Act, unless the Bureau of
Reclamation, in consultation with the above listed parties, has
provided an alternative workgroup structure which has been
approved by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.]
* * * * * * *
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006, PUBLIC LAW 109-
103
* * * * * * *
TITLE I
CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Corps of Engineers--Civil
* * * * * * *
GENERAL PROVISIONS, CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 106. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
requirements regarding the use of continuing contracts under
the authority of section 206 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1999 (33 U.S.C. 2331) shall apply only to projects
funded under the Operation and Maintenance account and the
Operation and Maintenance subaccount of the Flood Control,
Mississippi River and Tributaries account.]
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 108. None of the funds made available in title I of
this Act may be used to award any continuing contract or to
make modifications to any existing continuing contract that
commits an amount for a project in excess of the amount
appropriated for such project pursuant to this Act: Provided,
That the amounts appropriated in this Act may be modified
pursuant to the authorities provided in section 101 of this Act
or through the application of unobligated balances for such
project.]
* * * * * * *
Sec. 121. [(a) The Secretary of the Army may carry out and
fund projects to comply with the 2003 Biological Opinion
described in section 205(b) of the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-447; 118 Stat. 2949)
as amended by subsection (b) and may award grants and enter
into contracts, cooperative agreements, or interagency
agreements with participants in the Endangered Species Act
Collaborative Program Workgroup referenced in section 209(a) of
the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2004
(Public Law 108- 137; 117 Stat. 1850) in order to carry out
such projects. Any project undertaken under this subsection
shall require a non-Federal cost share of 25 percent, which may
be provided through in-kind services or direct cash
contributions and which shall be credited on a programmatic
basis instead of on a project-by-project basis, with
reconciliation of total project costs and total non-Federal
cost share calculated on a three year incremental basis. Non-
Federal cost share that exceeds that which is required in any
calculated three year increment shall be credited to subsequent
three year increments.] (a) The Secretary of the Army may carry
out and fund planning studies, watershed surveys and
assessments, or technical studies at 100 percent Federal
expense to accomplish the purposes of the 2003 Biological
Opinion described in section 205(b) of the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-447; 118
Stat. 2949) as amended by subsection (b). In carrying out a
study, survey, or assessment under this subsection the
Secretary shall consult with Federal, State, tribal and local
governmental entities, as well as entities participating in the
Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program
referred to in section 205 of the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act, 2007. The Secretary may also provide
planning and administrative assistance to the Middle Rio Grande
Endangered Species Collaborative Program, which assistance
shall not be subject to cost sharing requirements with non-
Federal interests.
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 134. Project Modification. (a) In General.--The
project for flood damage reduction, environmental restoration,
recreation, Johnson Creek, Arlington, Texas, authorized by
section 101(b)(14) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1999 (113 Stat. 280-281) is modified--
[(1) to deauthorize the ecosystem restoration
portion of the project that consists of approximately
90 acres of land located between Randol Mill and the
Union Pacific East/West line; and
[(2) to authorize the Secretary of the Army to
design and construct an ecosystem restoration project
on lands identified in subsection (c) that will provide
the same or greater level of national ecosystem
restoration benefits as the portion of the project
described in paragraph (1).
[(b) Credit Toward Federal Share.--The Secretary of the
Army shall credit toward the Federal share of the cost of the
modified project the costs incurred by the Secretary to carry
out the project as originally authorized under section
101(b)(14) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113
Stat. 280). The non-Federal interest shall not be responsible
for reimbursing the Secretary for any amount credited under
this subsection.
[(c) Comparable Property.--Not later than 6 months after
the date of enactment of this Act, the City of Arlington,
Texas, shall identify lands, acceptable to the Secretary of the
Army, amounting to not less than 90 acres within the City,
where an ecosystem restoration project may be constructed to
provide the same or greater level of National ecosystem
restoration benefits as the land described in subsection
(a)(1).]
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 of budget totals for
2007: Subcommittee on Energy and Water:
Mandatory......................................... .............. ........... NA \1\ 5
Discretionary..................................... 30,731 30,731 NA \1\ 31,756
Projections of outlays associated with the
recommendation:
2007.............................................. .............. ........... .............. \2\ 19,132
2008.............................................. .............. ........... .............. 9,277
2009.............................................. .............. ........... .............. 2,117
2010.............................................. .............. ........... .............. 179
2011 and future years............................. .............. ........... .............. 81
Financial assistance to State and local governments NA 120 NA 25
for 2007............................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
\2\ Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
NA: Not applicable.
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2007
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Committee recommendation compared with (+
or -)
Item 2006 Budget estimate House allowance Committee --------------------------------------------------
appropriation recommendation 2006
appropriation Budget estimate House allowance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Investigations................... 162,360 94,000 128,000 168,517 +6,157 +74,517 +40,517
Emergency appropriations 37,300 ............... ............... ............... -37,300 ............... ...............
(Public Law 109-148)........
Emergency appropriations 3,300 ............... ............... ............... -3,300 ............... ...............
(Public Law 109-234)........
Construction..................... 2,348,280 1,555,000 1,947,171 2,042,429 -305,851 +487,429 +95,258
Emergency appropriations 101,417 ............... ............... ............... -101,417 ............... ...............
(Public Law 109-148)........
Emergency appropriations 549,400 ............... ............... ............... -549,400 ............... ...............
(Public Law 109-234)........
Rescission................... ............... ............... -56,046 -56,046 -56,046 -56,046 ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sutbtotal, Construction.... 2,999,097 1,555,000 1,891,125 1,986,383 -1,012,714 +431,383 +95,258
Flood control, Mississippi River 396,000 278,000 290,607 450,530 +54,530 +172,530 +159,923
and tributaries, Arkansas,
Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Missouri, and
Tennessee.......................
Emergency appropriations 153,750 ............... ............... ............... -153,750 ............... ...............
(Public Law 109-148)........
Operations and Maintenance....... 1,969,110 2,258,000 2,195,471 2,030,000 +60,890 -228,000 -165,471
Emergency appropriations 327,517 ............... ............... ............... -327,517 ............... ...............
(Public Law 109-148)........
Emergency appropriations 3,200 ............... ............... ............... -3,200 ............... ...............
(Public Law 109-234)........
Regulatory program............... 158,400 173,000 173,000 168,000 +9,600 -5,000 -5,000
FUSRAP........................... 138,600 130,000 130,000 140,000 +1,400 +10,000 +10,000
Flood control and coastal ............... 81,000 32,000 32,000 +32,000 -49,000 ...............
emergencies.....................
Emergency appropriations 2,277,965 ............... ............... ............... -2,277,965 ............... ...............
(Public Law 109-148)........
Emergency appropriations 3,145,024 ............... ............... ............... -3,145,024 ............... ...............
(Public Law 109-234)........
General expenses................. 152,460 164,000 142,100 164,000 +11,540 ............... +21,900
Emergency appropriations 1,600 ............... ............... ............... -1,600 ............... ...............
(Public Law 109-148)........
Office of Assistant Secretary of 3,960 ............... 1,500 ............... -3,960 ............... -1,500
the Army (Civil Works)..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, title I, Department 11,929,643 4,733,000 4,983,803 5,139,430 -6,790,213 +406,430 +155,627
of Defense--Civil.........
Appropriations......... (5,329,170) (4,733,000) (4,983,803) (5,139,430) (-189,740) (+406,430) (+155,627)
Emergency (6,600,473) ............... ............... ............... (-6,600,473) ............... ...............
appropriations........
======================================================================================================================
TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR
Central Utah Project Completion
Account
Central Utah project construction 31,351 37,587 37,587 37,587 +6,236 ............... ...............
Fish, wildlife, and recreation 937 965 965 965 +28 ............... ...............
mitigation and conservation.....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 32,288 38,552 38,552 38,552 +6,264 ............... ...............
Program oversight and 1,719 1,603 1,603 1,603 -116 ............... ...............
administration..................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Central Utah project 34,007 40,155 40,155 40,155 +6,148 ............... ...............
completion account........
Bureau of Reclamation
Water and related resources...... 874,679 833,424 849,122 888,994 +14,315 +55,570 +39,872
Rescission................... ............... -88,000 -88,000 ............... ............... +88,000 +88,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, water and related 874,679 745,424 761,122 888,994 +14,315 +143,570 +127,872
resources.................
Central Valley project 52,219 41,478 41,478 41,478 -10,741 ............... ...............
restoration fund................
California Bay-Delta restoration. 36,630 38,610 40,110 38,610 +1,980 ............... -1,500
Policy and administration........ 57,338 58,069 58,069 58,069 +731 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Bureau of 1,020,866 883,581 900,779 1,027,151 +6,285 +143,570 +126,372
Reclamation...............
======================================================================================================================
Total, title II, Department 1,054,873 923,736 940,934 1,067,306 +12,433 +143,570 +126,372
of the Interior...........
======================================================================================================================
TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Energy supply and conservation... 1,812,627 1,923,361 2,050,527 2,294,053 +481,426 +370,692 +243,526
Clean coal technology:
Deferral of unobligated 257,000 ............... ............... 257,000 ............... +257,000 +257,000
balances, fiscal year 2005..
Deferral of unobligated -257,000 257,000 257,000 -203,000 +54,000 -460,000 -460,000
balances, fiscal year 2007..
Rescission, uncommitted -20,000 -203,000 -257,000 -50,000 -30,000 +153,000 +207,000
balances....................
Transfer to Fossil Energy R&D ............... -54,000 ............... -54,000 -54,000 ............... -54,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Clean coal -20,000 ............... ............... -50,000 -30,000 -50,000 -50,000
technology................
Fossil Energy Research and 592,014 469,686 558,204 644,267 +52,253 +174,581 +86,063
Development.....................
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale 21,285 18,810 18,810 39,810 +18,525 +21,000 +21,000
Reserves........................
Elk Hills School Lands Fund...... 83,160 ............... ............... ............... -83,160 ............... ...............
Strategic petroleum reserve...... 164,340 155,430 155,430 155,430 -8,910 ............... ...............
Northeast home heating oil ............... 4,950 4,950 4,950 +4,950 ............... ...............
reserve.........................
Energy Information Administration 85,314 89,769 89,769 93,032 +7,718 +3,263 +3,263
Non-defense environmental clean 349,687 310,358 309,946 310,358 -39,329 ............... +412
up..............................
Uranium enrichment 556,606 579,368 579,368 573,368 +16,762 -6,000 -6,000
decontamination and
decommissioning fund............
Science.......................... 3,596,393 4,101,710 4,131,710 4,241,062 +644,669 +139,352 +109,352
Nuclear Waste Disposal........... 148,500 156,420 186,420 136,420 -12,080 -20,000 -50,000
Departmental administration...... 250,289 278,382 225,582 281,382 +31,093 +3,000 +55,800
Miscellaneous revenues....... -121,770 -123,000 -123,000 -123,000 -1,230 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net appropriation.......... 128,519 155,382 102,582 158,382 +29,863 +3,000 +55,800
Office of the Inspector General.. 41,580 45,507 45,507 45,507 +3,927 ............... ...............
Atomic Energy Defense Activities
National Nuclear Security
Administration:
Weapons activities........... 6,369,603 6,407,889 6,412,001 6,503,051 +133,448 +95,162 +91,050
Defense nuclear 1,614,839 1,726,213 1,620,901 1,572,654 -42,185 -153,559 -48,247
nonproliferation............
Naval reactors............... 781,605 795,133 795,133 795,133 +13,528 ............... ...............
Office of the Administrator.. 338,450 386,576 399,576 386,576 +48,126 ............... -13,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, National Nuclear 9,104,497 9,315,811 9,227,611 9,257,414 +152,917 -58,397 +29,803
Security Administration...
Defense environmental cleanup.... 6,130,448 5,390,312 5,551,812 5,479,070 -651,378 +88,758 -72,742
Other defense activities......... 635,577 717,788 720,788 731,788 +96,211 +14,000 +11,000
Defense nuclear waste disposal... 346,500 388,080 388,080 358,080 +11,580 -30,000 -30,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Atomic Energy 16,217,022 15,811,991 15,888,291 15,826,352 -390,670 +14,361 -61,939
Defense Activities........
======================================================================================================================
Power Marketing Administrations
Operation and maintenance, 37,930 40,115 53,726 40,115 +2,185 ............... -13,611
Southeastern Power
Administration..................
Offsetting collection........ -32,386 -34,392 -48,003 -34,392 -2,006 ............... +13,611
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, O&M, Southeastern 5,544 5,723 5,723 5,723 +179 ............... ...............
Power Administration......
Operation and maintenance, 32,834 34,539 45,139 34,539 +1,705 ............... -10,600
Southwestern Power
Administration..................
Offsetting collection........ -2,970 ............... -13,600 ............... +2,970 ............... +13,600
Offsetting collection (Public ............... -3,000 ............... -3,000 -3,000 ............... -3,000
Law106-377).................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, O&M, Southwestern 29,864 31,539 31,539 31,539 +1,675 ............... ...............
Power Administration......
Construction, rehabilitation, 511,982 490,770 688,511 490,770 -21,212 ............... -197,741
operation and maintenance,
Western Area Power
Administration..................
Offsetting collection........ -276,210 ............... -472,593 ............... +276,210 ............... +472,593
Offsetting collection (Public -4,120 -3,705 -3,705 -3,705 +415 ............... ...............
Law 98-381).................
Offsetting collection (Public ............... -274,852 ............... -274,852 -274,852 ............... -274,852
Law 106-377)................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, O&M, Western Area 231,652 212,213 212,213 212,213 -19,439 ............... ...............
Power Administration......
Falcon and Amistad operating and 2,665 2,500 2,500 2,500 -165 ............... ...............
maintenance fund................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Power Marketing 269,725 251,975 251,975 251,975 -17,750 ............... ...............
Administrations...........
======================================================================================================================
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
Salaries and expenses............ 218,196 230,800 230,800 230,800 +12,604 ............... ...............
Revenues applied................. -218,196 -230,800 -230,800 -230,800 -12,604 ............... ...............
======================================================================================================================
Total, title III, 24,046,772 24,074,717 24,373,489 24,724,966 +678,194 +650,249 +351,477
Department of Energy......
Appropriations......... (24,031,132) (24,277,717) (24,630,489) (24,774,966) (+743,834) (+497,249) (+144,477)
Advance appropriations (35,640) ............... ............... ............... (-35,640) ............... ...............
from previous years...
Rescissions............ (-20,000) (-203,000) (-257,000) (-50,000) (-30,000) (+153,000) (+207,000)
======================================================================================================================
TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Appalachian Regional Commission.. 64,817 65,472 35,472 65,472 +655 ............... +30,000
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety 21,812 22,260 22,260 22,260 +448 ............... ...............
Board...........................
Delta Regional Authority......... 11,880 5,940 5,940 12,000 +120 +6,060 +6,060
Denali Commission................ 49,500 2,536 7,536 50,000 +500 +47,464 +42,464
Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
Salaries and expenses........ 727,032 768,410 808,410 808,410 +81,378 +40,000 ...............
Revenues..................... -611,010 -620,328 -656,328 -656,328 -45,318 -36,000 ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 116,022 148,082 152,082 152,082 +36,060 +4,000 ...............
Office of Inspector General.. 8,233 8,144 8,144 8,144 -89 ............... ...............
Revenues..................... -7,410 -7,330 -7,330 -7,330 +80 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 823 814 814 814 -9 ............... ...............
======================================================================================================================
Total, Nuclear Regulatory 116,845 148,896 152,896 152,896 +36,051 +4,000 ...............
Commission................
Nuclear Waste Technical Review 3,572 3,670 3,670 3,670 +98 ............... ...............
Board...........................
Tennessee Valley Authority: ............... 15,100 ............... 15,100 +15,100 ............... +15,100
Office of Inspector General.....
Offset....................... ............... -15,100 ............... -15,100 -15,100 ............... -15,100
======================================================================================================================
Total, title IV, 268,426 248,774 227,774 306,298 +37,872 +57,524 +78,524
Independent agencies......
======================================================================================================================
Grand total................ 37,299,714 29,980,227 30,526,000 31,238,000 -6,061,714 +1,257,773 +712,000
Appropriations......... (30,683,601) (30,271,227) (30,871,000) (31,288,000) (+604,399) (+1,016,773) (+417,000)
Emergency (6,600,473) ............... ............... ............... (-6,600,473) ............... ...............
appropriations........
Rescission............. (-20,000) (-291,000) (-345,000) (-50,000) (-30,000) (+241,000) (+295,000)
Advance appropriations (35,640) ............... ............... ............... (-35,640) ............... ...............
from previous years...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------