[Senate Report 112-164]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 383
112th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 112-164
======================================================================
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2013
_______
April 26, 2012.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mrs. Feinstein, from the Committee on Appropriations,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 2465]
The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 2465)
making appropriations for energy and water development and
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013,
and for other purposes, favorably thereon and recommends that
the bill do pass.
New obligational authority
Total of bill as reported to the Senate................. $33,432,482,000
Amount of 2012 appropriations........................... 33,805,000,000
Amount of 2013 budget estimate.......................... 33,684,037,000
Bill as recommended to Senate compared to--
2012 appropriations................................. -372,518,000
2013 budget estimate................................ -251,555,000
CONTENTS
----------
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............................... 19
Construction, General................................ 27
Flood Control, Mississippi River, and Tributaries.... 34
Operation and Maintenance, General................... 36
Regulatory Program................................... 52
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program...... 53
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies................ 53
General Expenses..................................... 53
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil
Works)............................................. 54
General Provisions--Corps of Engineers--Civil........ 55
Title II:
Department of the Interior:
Central Utah Project Completion Account.................. 57
Bureau of Reclamation:
Water and Related Resources.......................... 59
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund.............. 66
California Bay-Delta Restoration..................... 67
Policy and Administration............................ 67
Indian Water Rights Settlements...................... 67
San Joaquin Restoration Fund......................... 67
General Provisions--Department of the Interior........... 68
Title III:
Department of Energy:
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy................... 72
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.............. 75
Nuclear Energy........................................... 76
Fossil Energy Research and Development................... 79
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves................... 80
Elk Hills School Lands Fund.............................. 80
Strategic Petroleum Reserve.............................. 80
Strategic Petroleum Account.............................. 80
Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve....................... 80
Energy Information Administration........................ 81
Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup........................ 81
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning
Fund................................................... 82
Science.................................................. 82
Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy................ 88
Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program............. 89
Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program.. 89
Departmental Administration.............................. 89
Office of the Inspector General.......................... 89
Weapons Activities....................................... 93
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation......................... 100
Naval Reactors........................................... 104
Office of the Administrator.............................. 104
Defense Environmental Cleanup............................ 105
Other Defense Activities................................. 107
Power Marketing Administrations:
Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power
Administration..................................... 108
Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power
Administration..................................... 108
Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and
Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration..... 109
Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund.... 109
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Salaries and
Expenses............................................... 109
General Provisions--Department of Energy................. 129
Title IV:
Independent Agencies:
Appalachian Regional Commission.......................... 130
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.................. 130
Delta Regional Authority................................. 130
Denali Commission........................................ 131
Northern Border Regional Commission...................... 131
Southeast Crescent Regional Commission................... 131
Nuclear Regulatory Commission............................ 131
Office of Inspector General.......................... 131
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board..................... 132
Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas
Transportation Projects................................ 132
Title V: General Provisions...................................... 133
Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI, of the Standing Rules of
the
Senate......................................................... 134
Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules
of the
Senate......................................................... 134
Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of
the
Senate......................................................... 135
Budgetary Impact of Bill......................................... 144
Comparative Statement of Budget Authority........................ 145
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to provide appropriations for
the fiscal year 2013 beginning October 1, 2012, and ending
September 30, 2013, 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 2013 budget estimates for the bill total
$33,684,037,000 in new budget (obligational) authority. The
recommendation of the Committee totals $33,432,482,000. This is
$251,555,000 below the budget estimates and $372,518,000 below
the enacted appropriation for the current fiscal year.
Subcommittee Hearings
The Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water held
three sessions in connection with the fiscal year 2013
appropriation bill. Witnesses included officials and
representatives of the Federal agencies under the
subcommittee's jurisdiction.
The recommendations for fiscal year 2013 therefore, have
been developed after careful consideration of available data.
Votes in the Committee
By a vote of 28 to 1 the Committee on April 26, 2012,
recommended that the bill, as amended, be reported to the
Senate.
Overhead Costs
Federal agencies have been directed by Executive Order
13589 to plan for reducing the combined costs of certain
activities by not less than 20 percent below fiscal year 2010
levels, in fiscal year 2013. The departments, agencies, boards,
and commissions funded in this bill should continue to seek to
reduce operating expenses by placing greater scrutiny on
overhead costs. Savings may be achieved by reducing
nonessential travel, office supply, rent, and utility costs.
The Committee directs each department, agency, board, and
commission funded in this bill to develop a plan to reduce such
costs by at least 10 percent in fiscal year 2013. Plans to
achieve these savings in fiscal year 2013 should be submitted
to the Committee no later than 30 days after enactment of this
act.
Conferences
The head of any department, agency, board or commission
funded by this act shall submit quarterly reports to the
Inspector General, or the senior ethics official for any entity
without an inspector general, of the appropriate department,
agency, board or commission regarding the costs and contracting
procedures relating to each conference held by the department,
agency, board or commission during fiscal year 2013 for which
the cost to the United States Government was more than $20,000.
Such quarterly reports shall be available electronically for
public access. No log-in shall be required to search or sort
the data contained in such reports. The term ``conference''
means a meeting that (1) is held for consultation, education,
awareness, or discussion; (2) involves costs associated with
travel and lodging for some participants.
Each report submitted shall include, for each conference
held during the applicable quarter--
--a description of the purpose of that conference;
--the number of participants attending that conference;
--a detailed statement of the costs to the United States
Government relating to that conference, including--
--the cost of any food or beverages;
--the cost of any audio-visual services; and
--a discussion of the methodology used to determine which
costs relate to that conference; and
--a description of the contracting procedures relating to
that conference, including--
--whether contracts were awarded on a competitive basis for
that conference; and
--a discussion of any cost comparison conducted by the
department, agency, board or commission in
evaluating potential contractors for that
conference.
A grant or contract funded by amounts appropriated by this
act may not be used for the purpose of defraying the costs of a
conference that is not directly and programmatically related to
the purpose for which the grant or contract was awarded, such
as a banquet or conference held in connection with planning,
training, assessment, review, or other routine purposes related
to a project funded by the grant or contract.
None of the funds made available in this act may be used to
send or otherwise pay for the attendance of more than 50
employees of a single department or agency, who are stationed
in the United States, at any single international conference
unless the department or agency head reports to the Committees
on Appropriations at least 5 days in advance that such
attendance is important to the national interest.
TITLE I
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Corps of Engineers--Civil
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Army 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, et cetera);
--Designing and managing the construction of military
facilities for the Army and Air Force (Military
Construction); and
--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 290 military officers are responsible for
this nationwide mission.
While the Corps Civil Works programs impact all 50 States
and virtually every citizen of our Nation, they are a
relatively minor part of the Federal budget. Funding for the
Corps comprises a little over 0.13 percent of the total Federal
budget for fiscal year 2013.
OVERVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET REQUEST
The fiscal year 2013 budget request for the Corps of
Engineers is composed of $4,731,000,000 in new budget
authority. This is a decrease of $271,000,000 from the fiscal
year 2012 enacted amount exclusive of $1,724,000,000 in
emergency funding.
The tradition of this bill has been that virtually all
funding for the Corps of Engineers is designated to specific
studies/projects. The administration's budget request for
fiscal year 2013 continues this tradition. The four major
study/project accounts (General Investigations, Construction,
General, Mississippi River and Tributaries, and Operation and
Maintenance) comprise $4,205,000,000 of the administration's
overall budget request of $4,731,000,000 for the Corps of
Engineers. Only $325,628,000 of the budget request in these
four accounts is considered as programmatic funding or national
programs. That is about 7.7 percent of the funding proposed in
these accounts. The remainder of the $3,798,802,000 proposed in
the four major accounts is divided among 914 individual line
item studies or projects proposed by the administration. As the
Corps of Engineers has no inherent programmatic authorities
under which the organization was created, all of these
individual studies, projects and programmatic authorities are
specifically authorized by Congress and specifically funded
through appropriations acts.
This Committee continues to believe that Members of
Congress are best positioned to know the unique needs of their
individual States and Congressional Districts. In past years,
Congress, exercising their prerogatives under the Constitution
would have added projects and studies to the administration's
request to ensure that the Nation's water resource needs were
met. As the four major study/project accounts in the Corps are
comprised of individual line items of studies or projects, the
Committee usually added line items for studies or projects that
were not included in the administration's budget request or,
alternatively, increased funding to items requested by the
administration to accelerate the project delivery process on
those items.
The line items that were added by Congress in previous
years were authorized and vetted in a public process identical
to those line items that the administration included in their
request. The difference between the items added by Congress and
those included by the administration is that the administration
applied a number of supplemental criterion for budgeting a
study or project that the authorizations for these studies or
projects does not require. Establishment of budget criteria
was, and continues to be, an administrative prerogative. It
should be understood that this criteria is established not
necessarily to meet the Nation's water resource needs, but
rather to help the administration decide which needs they
choose to include in their budget request. These are choices
made by the administration within the context of their
priorities. History has shown that this criteria is extremely
flexible depending on what an administration wants to fund in a
given year. This Committee does not believe that this budget
criteria, established by the administration without input from
the public or Congress, has any more validity than the criteria
that the Congress has used in the past to decide which projects
to fund.
Due to the vagaries of the administration's budget
criteria, the Congress has provided the consistency in funding
for items within the Corps of Engineers budget. Corps of
Engineers projects generally have two definitive points where
Congress can decide the Federal commitment to a water resources
development project. The first point is when an item is being
studied. By providing the initial study funding, the Congress
is making a tacit commitment that it intends to see the study
process through to completion. By the same token when a project
is authorized for construction and receives its initial
construction funding, that is a commitment that the Congress
intends to see the project through to completion. That is why
so few ``new'' studies and projects have been funded in recent
years. Congress has acknowledged the tight fiscal environment
by not creating tremendous outyear obligations for the Corps
with new work.
Nearly all Corps studies and projects are cost shared. That
means a local sponsor has contractually agreed to provide a
proportionate non-Federal share (ranging from 25 percent-50
percent) to match the Federal funds appropriated. When these
projects are not provided funding either through the budget or
an appropriations act, the work is deferred until funding is
appropriated. This inconsistent funding increases project
costs, defers the projects benefits to the national economy and
plays havoc with the non-Federal entities' financing plans for
projects and studies. Traditionally, Congress has provided the
consistency for studies and projects undertaken by the Corps of
Engineers through congressionally directed spending by
maintaining the commitments to local sponsors and insuring
consistent levels of funding for the projects or studies that
were initiated or funded in appropriation acts.
Overall navigation funding is increased $173,000,000 in
this budget proposal compared to what the administration
proposed in fiscal year 2012. It is still down from the enacted
amount for fiscal year 2012, but the Committee believes this is
a positive move by the administration. However, Flood Risk
Management is down $41,000,000 in this budget proposal when
compared to fiscal year 2012. The Committee is puzzled by this
cut, particularly after record setting floods on the Missouri
and Mississippi Rivers in 2011. While $1,724,000,000 in
emergency supplemental funding was provided in December 2011 to
address repairs to flood control infrastructure damaged by
natural disasters, that funding did not provide for all of the
needs to return existing infrastructure to pre-disaster
conditions. Fortunately, the funding allowed the Corps to
address the highest priorities. However, one would think that
flood control funding should have been increased in the budget
request to address the needs and weaknesses in existing flood
control infrastructure as well as the needs for new
infrastructure that the flooding and other natural disasters
revealed.
The General Investigations Program is proposed at
$102,000,000 for fiscal year 2013. This is a decrease of
$23,000,000 from the fiscal year 2012 enacted amount. This
account funds the preauthorization studies necessary to
determine the Federal interests in a water resource problem or
need. The request provides funding for 80 studies for a total
of almost $53,000,000 of the request. Of that amount, five
studies are funded at $24,000,000. The other 75 studies are
funded with the remaining $29,000,000. Four ecosystem
restoration, one deep-draft navigation and one nationwide study
are proposed as ``new study starts'' in the request.
The Construction, General account is proposed at
$1,471,000,000 for fiscal year 2013. The 95 line items proposed
for the construction, general account can be broken down as
follows:
--Dam safety activities $402,800,000 (27.4 percent);
--Environmental compliance activities comprise $196,000,000
(13.3 percent);
--Ecosystem or environmental restoration activities comprise
$251,000,000 (17.1 percent);
--Flood control and storm damage reduction activities
comprise $227,000,000 (15.4 percent);
--Coastal or deep draft navigation activities comprise
$141,100,000 (9.6 percent);
--Inland and shallow draft navigation activities comprise
$155,700,000 (10.6 percent); and
--An additional $97,400,000 is proposed for national programs
(6.6 percent).
This is a decrease of $223,000,000 from the fiscal year
2012 enacted amount for this account. This account funds
postauthorization studies and physical construction of
authorized projects. Dam safety assurance and flood control
projects that are primarily included due to their substantial
life savings benefits appear to have taken the biggest
reductions when compared to the fiscal year 2012 budget
request. One large ecosystem restoration project, one flood
control/ecosystem restoration project and one nonstructural
flood control project are proposed as ``new construction
starts'' in the request. Seven projects are projected for
completion.
The Mississippi River and Tributaries account is proposed
at $234,000,000. This account funds studies, construction and
operation and maintenance activities along the Mississippi
River and designated tributaries from Cape Giradeau, Missouri,
to the Gulf of Mexico. This is a decrease of $18,000,000 from
the fiscal year 2012 enacted amount. The request only provides
construction funding for projects along the main stem of the
Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers. No construction work is
proposed along the tributaries of the project.
The Operation and Maintenance account is proposed at
$2,398,000,000. This is a decrease of $14,000,000 from the
fiscal year 2012 enacted amount. This account funds post
authorization studies of operating projects, maintenance of
Federal facilities and Federal operation of facilities where
authorized by law. At this funding level, the Corps' budget
estimates that 186 partial and 57 full recreation area closings
will occur. Reduced recreational opportunities will occur at
one third of the budgeted projects. Navigation funding from the
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund [HMTF] is increased to an
estimated $848,000,000 in the request. This is a $90,000,000
increase over the fiscal year 2012 request but is still down
$43,000,000 from the fiscal year 2012 enacted amount.
The Regulatory Program is proposed at $205,000,000 for
fiscal year 2013. This is an increase of $12,000,000 over the
fiscal year 2012 enacted amount to this program that provides
the funding for the Corps nationwide regulatory roles primarily
under section 404 of the Clean Water Act and section 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.
The Committee is disappointed that funding for the Formerly
Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program [FUSRAP] proposed at
$104,000,000 was cut by $5,000,000 from the fiscal year 2012
enacted amount. This program was transferred to the Corps from
the Department of Energy, because the Committee was concerned
with management and cost issues of the program within the
Energy Department. This is a program that is being well-managed
by the Corps and should have stable, adequate budget resources
to continue these radiological clean-up activities. This
proposed decrease in funding will further stretch out the
clean-up of these sites.
The Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies account is
proposed at $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2013. This is an
increase of $3,000,000 over the fiscal year 2012 enacted
amount. These funds are proposed for readiness and preparedness
activities for the Corps of Engineers.
The Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil
Works) is proposed as a separate account for $5,000,000. This
is the same as provided in fiscal year 2012. The Committee
continues to believe that the Assistant Secretary's office
should be funded in the Defense appropriations bill. However,
until such time as this account can be reintegrated into that
bill, the Committee agrees that the office should be funded as
a separate account. The Assistant Secretary's duties encompass
much more than the Civil Works functions of the Corps of
Engineers and the budget needs of the office should be
addressed separately.
The General Expenses [GE] account is proposed at
$182,000,000 for fiscal year 2013. This is a $3,000,000
decrease from the fiscal year 2012 enacted amount. The
Committee notes that the Corps operates one of the most
efficient headquarters staffs in the National Capital region.
Only about 3.5 percent of their staffing is at headquarters as
opposed to 10 percent or more for comparable agencies in the
National Capital region.
THE NATION'S WATERWAY SYSTEM
The Nation's waterway system constructed, operated, and
maintained by the Corps is an incredibly versatile and
interconnected system providing vital linkages to other modes
of transportation as well as providing benefits to the national
economy of more than $7,000,000,000 through transportation
savings over other available modes of transportation. This
system has been developed over the past 200 years and is
showing its age. There are many lock chambers that are long
past their design life or that need to be enlarged to handle
increased traffic. Also, many harbor and channel projects need
to be deepened or enlarged to handle contemporary vessel sizes.
A major recapitalization of this infrastructure is needed,
particularly if the Nation is to meet the President's goal of
doubling exports in the next 5 years.
Two trust funds were set up to fund portions of our
navigation infrastructure. The HMTF provides for 100 percent of
the maintenance of eligible deep draft projects, and the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund [IWTF] provides for one-half of the
construction cost of designated projects on the Nation's inland
waterways. Both of these funds are subject to appropriation.
The HMTF does a good job of collecting revenues, but
appropriations generally lag considerably behind the
collections so the fund balance continues to grow. The IWTF
appropriations match the revenue collection, but the revenues
collected are insufficient to undertake all of the needed work.
Therefore the fund balance is essentially zero.
Past investments have provided adequate, albeit in some
cases inefficient, infrastructure to deal with current
commodity and cargo movements. Only about 20 percent of the
administration's proposed construction budget is dedicated to
navigation projects. Despite whatever other efforts may be
underway to meet the goal of doubling exports, the budget
request for the Corps for improvements and maintenance of the
waterway system falls woefully short of the needs. Ports are
routinely not dredged to their full authorized dimensions. It
is hard for this Committee to understand how exports can be
doubled without improvements and adequate maintenance to the
projects that provide for the transit and the exit points for
these commodities.
The Committee is concerned that there are major changes in
worldwide shipping and trade occurring and on the horizon that
our Nation's water infrastructure is not equipped to handle.
One of these changes is the enlargement and deepening of the
Panama Canal that will allow a shift to larger container
vessels with a need for deeper ports and navigation channels.
However, larger vessels are also transiting the Suez Canal and
more and more will likely be attempting to call at the Nation's
ports. If larger ships are unable to dock here, they may be
forced to dock in other countries with the appropriate
infrastructure and then reconfigure ships and cargos to
accommodate U.S. water infrastructure, leading to increased
transportation costs, higher end-unit prices and loss of jobs.
Along with deeper channels to accommodate these larger
vessels, ports will need efficient dockside infrastructure to
handle the throughput of this increased trade. Intermodal
improvements at ports and possibly short sea shipping will also
be a part of trade movements in and among ports. Without this
system, transportation of commodities, exports and imports,
would become vastly more expensive. For more than 25 years, the
current mechanisms have been in place. However, how water
transportation infrastructure is planned, designed,
constructed, maintained, and funded has not kept pace with the
pace of change in worldwide trade.
Water transportation infrastructure was and continues to be
a linchpin of our national economy. It is time to determine if
there is a better way to develop this infrastructure. The
Committee believes it is important for the Congress to rethink
the Federal role in water transportation to determine if there
is a better way to plan, build and finance this critical
infrastructure. The Committee will work with the appropriate
authorizing and tax writing committees as well as industry and
the administration to determine a path forward to provide the
water transportation infrastructure that will be required for
the next 50-100 years.
INLAND WATERWAYS TRUST FUND
The Committee remains concerned about the Nation's Inland
Waterways. This network of waterways moves nearly 600 million
tons of cargo annually or 16 percent of our domestic freight.
That is 600 million tons of cargo that are not moved on our
already overburdened rail and highway system.
The Inland Waterways System includes more than 12,000 miles
of waterways that serve 41 States, including all States east of
the Mississippi River. The Corps operates 238 lock chambers at
192 sites. Nearly 140 of these locks have been in operation
more than 50 years. This means that more than one-half of the
lock chambers that are vital parts of the Inland Waterways
System have exceeded the economic life of the projects.
These locks, with associated dam structures, along with
other waterway features provide other benefits for the Nation's
economy such as recreation, hydropower, water supply and in
some cases flood control. These other project benefits are a
direct result of the construction of these projects to fulfill
their navigation purpose.
These lock chambers are in various states of deterioration.
A properly funded maintenance program can stave off the
inevitable effects of this deterioration. However, it has been
a very long time since the Corps budget could be considered
adequate to properly fund maintenance of these structures.
Inevitably, these structures must be modernized or replaced,
depending on the deterioration, if they are to continue to
serve the purpose for which they were originally constructed.
Current law provides that maintenance of these structures
is funded from the general fund of the Treasury. This funding
is intended to cover routine maintenance of the structures that
maintain the functionality of the projects. Repairs are
becoming more frequent, extensive and costly. Scheduled and
unscheduled lock closures for maintenance purposes have almost
doubled in the last 10 years.
Whenever improvements to the functionality of the project
are considered for implementation they are generally cost
shared in the Construction, General account. These improvements
can include a major overhaul of the mechanisms that operate the
locks to improvements to the foundation or other major
structural elements to a complete replacement of an antiquated
lock facility. These major rehabilitations or new construction
are cost shared. Half comes from the General Treasury and half
comes from the IWTF.
The IWTF is funded through a 20-cent-per-gallon tax on fuel
used to transit the Inland Waterways System. This tax has
remained 20 cents-per-gallon since 1995. Just adjusting the tax
for inflation would make the fuel tax 30 cents per gallon to
provide equivalent revenues to what was produced by the tax in
1995. It is estimated that more than $340,000,000 has been lost
to the IWTF since 1996 because this tax has not been adjusted
for inflation.
However, it is clear that construction costs have risen
much faster than revenues available in the IWTF even if they
had been adjusted for inflation. Lengthening of project
construction schedules due to inadequate funding has caused
project costs to increase, but costs have also increased due to
other unknown factors.
The Olmsted lock and dam replacement project is a case in
point. This one lock and dam is intended to replace the
outdated Locks and Dams 52 and 53 on the lower Ohio River. The
project was authorized for construction in 1988 for a cost of
$775,000,000. Construction was initiated in 1992 and nearly
$1,500,000,000 have been appropriated towards construction
since that time. The twin 1,200-foot long lock chambers are
complete.
The administration's budget request indicates that the cost
of this single large project will have to be increased to
$2,918,000,000, a nearly $900,000,000 increase since the last
estimate reported to Congress. The Corps says the cost increase
is due to unforeseen challenges in the selected method of
construction for the dam section of the project.
Any cost increase of this magnitude is of great concern to
this Committee. However, this cost increase coupled with an
already inadequate funding source in the IWTF is a recipe for
disaster. The IWTF is essentially limited to incurring no more
costs than the revenues that are brought in during a given
year. In recent years that has limited work on the Inland
Waterways System to about $170,000,000 annually. The current
construction of Olmsted consumed 95 percent or more of the
revenues available in the IWTF for the last several years. With
this new cost estimate, that trend will likely continue for
another decade.
Abandoning the Olmsted project is not a viable option
because Locks and Dams 52 and 53 still would have to be
replaced, not to mention the $1,500,000,000 that has been
invested in completing the two replacement lock chambers at
Olmsted. Replacement costs of the two existing structures could
exceed $3,000,000,000. This would be an even more expensive
option than completing the work on Olmsted. The Committee
understands that the Corps is examining all options to reduce
remaining construction costs including changing the method of
construction for the navigation pass in the dam section. The
Corps should make every effort to expedite the construction
schedule for this project and reduce any future cost growth.
With all of the work needed to modernize our Inland
Waterways System, this funding situation for the inland
waterways is intolerable. To make the type of progress
necessary to modernize this system in a reasonable period of
time, a new financing model must be developed and implemented.
Simply increasing the fuel tax will not supply the necessary
revenues without a massive increase that would lead to
disruptions on the system. A new financing mechanism must be
considered, that not only provides the necessary revenues, but
has an inflation adjustment factor built into the financing
system.
The HMTF tax offers an instructive model to consider for
the IWTF. This tax is based on the value of the imports that
transit specific harbors and waterways. The fees are collected
by the customs department and deposited into the HMTF to be
utilized for the maintenance of these waterways. This tax
burden is shared by all who utilize these imported items,
whereas the Inland Waterways Tax is only contributed based on
the tax collected from the fuel used by vessels transporting
cargo on the Inland Waterways System.
It should be noted that the model used for the HMTF
provided the bulk of all Federal revenue from 1790 until the
eve of World War I, financing most Government operations. This
seems an inherently fair way to collect revenue to finance
waterways utilized to transport goods and materials that
benefit the national economy. Corps projects are justified
based on benefits to the national economy, so as the Nation
benefits, the Nation should contribute towards the
recapitalization of these assets.
The Inland Waterways System is far too important to allow
it to continue to languish with inadequate funding and
crumbling infrastructure. The Committee has been patiently
waiting for six budget cycles for a solution to these problems
from the administration and the appropriate congressional
committees. Since that has not happened, the Committee has
decided to take action on its own.
For fiscal year 2013, the Committee has included
legislative language directing that no more than 25 percent of
the costs for Olmsted Lock and Dam should be drawn from the
IWTF. This action frees up $36,000,000 in IWTF revenues. When
combined with $36,000,000 from the General Treasury $72,000,000
will be available to be expended on other portions of the
Inland Waterways System. These funds are included in the
Construction, General account under additional funding for
ongoing work. The Corps should propose IWTF-eligible projects
as a part of their work plan for these funds based on the
criteria that is found in that section of the report.
This action was not taken lightly by the Committee. It is a
recognition that something has got to change. It should not be
looked at as a permanent solution. This is a 1-year change in
the proportionality of the IWTF/General Treasury split for
fiscal year 2013. It does not change the ultimate cost sharing
for Olmsted. It only delays the inevitable day of reckoning
when the costs for Olmsted will have to be brought back into
the proper 50/50 balance. Legislation must be proposed and
enacted to ensure that sufficient funding is available to
ensure that this transportation infrastructure will continue to
function as designed providing benefits to the national
economy.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FUNDING FOR INLAND WATERWAYS
The administration segregates the Inland Waterways System
into at least two parts for budgeting purposes. Those that are
designated as ``low use'' are given considerably lower budget
priority for maintenance dollars than the remainder of the
system. While these ``low use'' waterways may not have a
significant impact on the national economy, they exert a
tremendous influence on local and regional economies.
When these projects were analyzed for implementation, the
maintenance costs for the project's 50-year economic life was
calculated as a part of the benefit to cost ratio. One would
assume that if the project were constructed, that the project's
benefits to the national economy had to exceed the costs
(including the maintenance costs) to the national economy.
Therefore the budget criterion currently being utilized to
determine funding for these projects has nothing to do with the
actual economics of the project. It is a judgment based solely
on the tonnage moved. No consideration is given to the
economics of whether the project benefits exceed the project
costs even though the benefit to cost ratio is the rationale of
choice behind other administration funding decisions in the
budget request.
The ``low use'' waterways move more than 50 million tons
annually. That obviously pales in comparison to the roughly 550
million tons moved on the ``high use'' waterways. However,
these 50 million tons of cargo would still have to be moved
somehow, if they are not moved by water transportation. The
only other candidates are truck and rail. It would require 2
million trucks or 455,000 rail cars to move the same amount of
cargo that can be moved on 33,500 barges. The shipping costs to
the national economy to move the same commodities to the same
destinations would likely increase by at least $500,000,000 by
rail or $1,500,000,000 by truck. The costs cited do not even
begin to include the costs to the economy of the increased
pollution, the likely increase in transportation fatalities or
other costs that are incurred. If maintenance of all ``low
use'' projects were fully funded, the Corps budget would be
increased by less than $200,000,000. The Committee urges the
administration to reconsider this short-sighted budgetary
decision in future budget submissions. Shortchanging
maintenance for these projects seems to be ``pennywise but
pound foolish.''
HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND
Available revenue from the 0.125 percent tax on the value
of imports at designated harbors provides roughly
$1,500,000,000 annually to this fund. These revenues can be
utilized for maintenance on more than 1,500 ports, harbors and
waterways. The fiscal year 2013 budget proposes $848,000,000
for maintenance of commercial waterways and ports to be
appropriated from the General Treasury and ultimately
reimbursed from the HMTF. This is down $43,000,000 from the
fiscal year 2012 enacted bill. This imbalance between receipts
and appropriations has led to a surplus in the HMTF of some
$6,000,000,000.
LEVEE SAFETY
One positive outcome from the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina
was that the public became more aware of the levees that
protect their communities. This new awareness resulted in an
examination of the conditions of these projects. Concurrent
with this new awareness was the Federal Emergency Management
Agency [FEMA] map modernization program for flood insurance
rate maps. With this remapping came the issue of certification
of existing levees and the need to determine how safe these
levees are. All of these factors have combined to cause a great
deal of uncertainty.
While the Committee would like to believe that engineered
structures will never fail, the reality is that all engineered
structures have the potential for failure if the right set of
circumstances happen at the right time. Risk is inherent in any
man-made structure and the Corps is charged with balancing that
risk with the costs of the risk reduction measures. The cost
for risk-free protection is more than the Nation has been
willing to consider for any project. There are always trade-
offs. This is especially true with flood control structures.
There is always a larger flood, or an unknown or unaccounted
for failure mode that can cause the structure to fail. The
Committee looks to the Corps to propose and build structures to
protect people based on the risks that they may face and to
communicate the residual risk that people protected by these
structure still face. It should be understood that while the
structures mitigate risk, they do not eliminate it.
The Committee fully supports the Corps' efforts on levee
safety. However, the Committee remains concerned that the costs
to repair levees may be overwhelming to local interests. The
Committee is not suggesting that the Corps should back away
from its safety culture, only that there should be checks and
balances to ensure that recommendations are not blindly made in
the name of safety without determining if the recommendations
actually provide cost effective safety improvements. The
Committee encourages the Corps when working with communities on
levee issues to be cognizant of the costs for proposed fixes
and the community's ability to fund the repairs.
The Committee notes that the role of the Corps in assisting
communities in developing data required for participation in
the National Flood Insurance Program continues to be unresolved
despite several years of dialogue between the Corps and FEMA.
The Committee therefore directs the Corps to report within 30
days of enactment of this act on the status of its joint task
force with FEMA to improve flood maps by leveraging existing
Federal resources and procedures to develop data on the actual
level of protection provided by flood control structures.
The Committee remains concerned about what it believes is
an overly broad reading of the definition of levees provided in
section 9002 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007.
The Committee understands that the National Committee on Levee
Safety [NCLS] has recommended two main exclusions in its
definitions: one for structures of limited height and limited
risks as well as one for canal structures already covered under
a safety program. These exclusions appear to cover most of the
areas of concern. While the Committee understands that the
recommendations of the NCLS are not actionable or even
considered as standards or a national definition under current
legislation, future legislation for a National Levee Safety
Program will likely be largely developed from the
recommendations of the NCLS. Therefore the Committee strongly
urges the NCLS to include these exclusions in any
recommendations that are made towards any type of National
Levee Safety Program.
LEVEE VEGETATION
The Committee is aware of the Corps' updated draft policy
regarding the consideration of vegetation variances for levees,
and appreciates the work of Corps Districts and Divisions in
working with affected levee sponsors and systems. The Committee
is aware that the Engineer Research and Development Center
completed an initial research effort to advance the Corps'
knowledge and understanding of the effects of woody vegetation
on levees which indicated that minimal data exists on the
scientific relationship between woody vegetation and levees.
The Committee urges the Corps to continue to conduct additional
scientific research on this topic. The Committee strongly
encourages the Corps to take seriously its requirements under
the Endangered Species Act and in meeting tribal treaty
obligations, and to clarify how it will apply those
considerations in the final vegetation variance policy.
PLANNING PROGRAM
The Committee is pleased that the Corps continues to review
its planning program and is trying to make it more responsive
to the local sponsors and Congress. The Committee is supportive
of the Corps' announced 3-3-3 concept to reduce the maximum
level of cost of completing a feasibility study to 3 years and
the sum spent to $3,000,000. While better, faster and cheaper
sounds desirable, in the Committee's experience only 2 out of
those 3 items ultimately get delivered. In the pursuit of the
3-3-3 plan the Committee would caution the Corps that
transferring tasks and costs to either the preconstruction
engineering and design phase or the construction phase of the
project is not really a solution--it just repackages the
problem.
The Committee remains concerned about the inconsistent
nature of the planning process across the Corps. While
shortening the planning process to 3 years is a laudable goal,
the Committee recognizes that some timeframes within the
planning process are statutory and cannot be shortened and some
studies require a more in-depth look. Items such as determining
the future without project conditions and determining the array
of alternatives that should be considered require careful
evaluation. The bedrock of any Corps study remains these
assumptions that are made at the beginning of the planning
process. If they are given short shrift, then the
recommendations of the planning study will be suspect.
The Committee urges the Corps to move forward to implement
the proposal by providing Corps District Offices with specific
guidance regarding all feasibility studies including narrowing
of scope, use of older data, limiting economic analysis when it
is clear that the cost benefit criteria will clearly be met and
how review processes can be accelerated or modified and other
methods that may be used to allow all or almost all feasibility
studies to meet the $3,000,000 and 3-year requirements. In
addition, this guidance should provide for exceptions to the 3-
3-3 plan, where appropriate. This guidance should include
feasibility studies undertaken at local sponsor's costs that
are or will be undertaken with the intent of meeting Corps
requirements.
There are certain times when speed is truly essential. One
such case is when an area with a flood control system that
currently is certified to meet the 100-year standard has a
change in estimates of river flow conditions. In such a case
the communities need to act to make improvements quickly to
minimize the time they may be found out of compliance with the
100-year standard. In such cases, where speed is of the essence
additional flexibility regarding the requirements should be
considered.
What is clear is that a one-size-fits-all approach will not
work due to the great variations in problems and needs
throughout the country. More consistency as to how these
problems and needs are evaluated should be the goal. The
importance of these study reports cannot be overstated. They
are the basis from which all of the Corps' work is derived and
Congress depends heavily on these planning reports to inform
the decisionmaking process for authorizing and funding these
infrastructure investments. The Committee will continue to
monitor the progress of improving the consistency of the
planning process.
CONTINUING CONTRACTS AND REPROGRAMMING
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.
The Committee is retaining the reprogramming legislation
provided in the Fiscal Year 2013 Energy and Water Development
Act.
NEW STARTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013
The Committee is including the following new starts
proposed in the administration's budget request for fiscal year
2013: Cano Martin Pena, Puerto Rico; Chesapeake Bay, Maryland,
Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, West Virginia, Delaware, and
the District of Columbia; Englebright and Daguerre Point Dams
(Yuba River), California; Louisiana Coastal Comprehensive
Study; Houston Ship Channel, Texas; Hamilton City, California
Flood Protection and Ecosystem Restoration; Louisiana Coastal
Area, Louisiana; and Lower Colorado River Basin, Onion Creek,
Texas.
In addition, the Secretary is directed to propose a single
group of new starts to the House and Senate Appropriation
Committees within 45 days of enactment of this act as a part of
the work plan. The new starts shall consist of five new study
starts and three new construction starts. The majority of the
benefits of the selected new starts must be derived from
navigation, storm damage reduction or flood control mission
areas of the Corps. The Committee is recommending this new
start proposal to provide some balance to the predominantly
ecosystem restoration new starts proposed in the
administration's budget request. By allowing the administration
to select these additional new start studies and projects and
directing that they come from the navigation and flood control
mission areas of the Corps the Committee is attempting to
ensure that the Corps' future programs will continue to balance
the various missions of the Corps.
SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE
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 its 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 make sense as a
way to accommodate additional projects needs, even if funding
is insufficient and has been utilized by the Committee for the
four major accounts. The Committee directs that the S&S amount
in each subaccount initially be applied uniformly across all
projects within the subaccounts. Upon applying the S&S amounts,
normal reprogramming procedures should be undertaken to account
for schedule slippages, accelerations, or other unforeseen
conditions.
CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING
Congressionally directed spending has become synonymous
with earmarks in recent debates, even for agencies such as the
Corps of Engineers where the majority of the budget request is
based on individual line item studies and projects. Due to this
ongoing debate, the Committee has voluntarily refused all
congressionally directed spending requests for fiscal year
2013. That means that the administration has total discretion
as to how the funding that this Committee appropriates will be
spent as it relates to individual studies and projects. The
Committee has retained the traditional tables for each of the
four major accounts delineating the 914 line items requested by
the President in the budget request. Due to inadequacies in the
administration's budget request, the Committee has also
inserted additional line item funding under the nationwide
heading for specific categories of studies or projects that the
Committee feels are underrepresented in the administration's
budget request. The Corps has discretion within the guidelines
provided in each account as to which line items this additional
funding will be applied to. The Committee has not included any
congressionally directed spending as defined in section 5(a) of
rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate.
GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS
Appropriations, 2012.................................... $125,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013................................... 102,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 125,000,000
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 amount proposed in the budget is generally the
same as what has been proposed in previous budgets. Nationwide
studies and programs consume almost one-half of the
administration's GI request. This budget asserts that the
Nation should concentrate scarce resources on completing
studies but not carrying forward ongoing studies.
The Committee has provided for a balanced planning program
for fiscal year 2013 with ten new study starts--five from the
budget request and an additional five to be selected based on
the Corps' prioritization process and included as a part of the
General Investigations work plan.
The first column in the table that follows represents the
reconnaissance phase of the planning process. These 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 cost-shared
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
cost-shared designs are prepared while the project recommended
to Congress is awaiting authorization for construction.
The Committee believes that by segregating the table in
this manner, more attention can be focused on the various study
phases, and a more balanced planning program can be developed
by the administration. 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 budget request and the recommended Committee allowance
are shown on the following table:
CORPS OF ENGINEERS--GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Committee recommendation
Project title -----------------------------------------------------------------
RECON FEAS PED RECON FEAS PED
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALASKA
ALASKA REGIONAL PORTS, AK..................... ......... 300 ......... ......... 300 .........
MATANUSKA RIVER WATERSHED, AK................. ......... 100 ......... ......... 100 .........
ARKANSAS
LOWER MISSISSIPPI RESOURCE ASSESSMENT, AR, IL, ......... 800 ......... ......... 800 .........
KY, LA.......................................
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA COASTAL SEDIMENT MASTER PLAN, CA... ......... 900 ......... ......... 900 .........
LOS ANGELES RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA... ......... 100 ......... ......... 100 .........
MALIBU CREEK WATERSHED, CA.................... ......... 420 ......... ......... 420 .........
SACRAMENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN COMPREHENSIVE BASIN ......... 300 ......... ......... 300 .........
STUDY, CA....................................
SAC-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ISLANDS AND LEVEES, CA.. ......... 1,015 ......... ......... 1,015 .........
SAN PABLO BAY WATERSHED, CA................... ......... 216 ......... ......... 216 .........
SOLANA BEACH, CA.............................. ......... 188 ......... ......... 188 .........
SUTTER COUNTY, CA............................. ......... 988 ......... ......... 988 .........
UPPER PENITENCIA CREEK, CA.................... ......... 541 ......... ......... 541 .........
YUBA RIVER FISH PASSAGE, CA................... 100 ......... ......... 100 ......... .........
COLORADO
CHATFIELD, CHERRY CREEK AND BEAR CREEK ......... 67 ......... ......... 67 .........
RESERVOIRS, CO...............................
FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL....................... ......... 1,400 ......... ......... 1,400 .........
MILE POINT, FL................................ ......... ......... 748 ......... ......... 748
GEORGIA
SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, GA................. ......... ......... 2,800 ......... ......... .........
HAWAII
ALA WAI CANAL, OAHU, HI....................... ......... 400 ......... ......... 400 .........
ILLINOIS
DES PLAINES RIVER, IL (PHASE II).............. ......... ......... 500 ......... ......... 500
ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN RESTORATION, IL.......... ......... 400 ......... ......... 400 .........
INTERBASIN CONTROL OF GREAT LAKES-MISSISSIPPI ......... 3,000 ......... ......... 3,000 .........
RIVER AQUIFIER...............................
IOWA
HUMBOLDT, IA.................................. ......... 230 ......... ......... 230 .........
KANSAS
TOPEKA, KS.................................... ......... ......... 431 ......... ......... 431
UPPER TURKEY CREEK, KS........................ ......... ......... 500 ......... ......... 500
KENTUCKY
OHIO RIVER SHORELINE, PADUCAH, KY............. ......... ......... 500 ......... ......... 500
LOUISIANA
CALCASIEU LOCK, LA............................ ......... 750 ......... ......... 750 .........
LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, LA. ......... 100 ......... ......... 100 .........
LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, ......... 3,917 5,447 ......... 3,917 5,447
LA...........................................
MARYLAND
ANACOSTIA WATERSHED RESTORATION, MONTGOMERY ......... 250 ......... ......... 250 .........
COUNTY, MD...................................
ANACOSTIA WATERSHED RESTORATION, PRINCE ......... 250 ......... ......... 250 .........
GEORGE'S COUNTY..............................
CHESAPEAKE BAY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, MD, PA, AND 250 ......... ......... 250 ......... .........
VA...........................................
MASSACHUSETTS
BOSTON HARBOR DEEP DRAFT INVESTIGATION, MA.... ......... ......... 1,800 ......... ......... 1,800
MINNESOTA
MINNESOTA RIVER WATERSHED STUDY, MN AND SD ......... 350 ......... ......... 350 .........
(MINNESOTA RIVER)............................
MISSOURI
KANSAS CITYS, MO AND KS....................... ......... ......... 50 ......... ......... 50
MISSOURI RIVER DEGRADATION, MO................ ......... 200 ......... ......... 200 .........
MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, UNITS L455 AND ......... ......... 500 ......... ......... 500
R460-471, MO.................................
MONTANA
YELLOWSTONE RIVER CORRIDOR, MT................ ......... 200 ......... ......... 200 .........
NEW HAMPSHIRE
MERRIMACK RIVER WATERSHED STUDY, NH AND MA.... ......... 200 ......... ......... 200 .........
NEW JERSEY
DELAWARE RIVER COMPREHENSIVE, NJ.............. ......... 290 ......... ......... 290 .........
HUDSON-RARITAN ESTUARY, HACKENSACK ......... ......... 50 ......... ......... 50
MEADOWLANDS, NJ..............................
HUDSON-RARITAN ESTUARY, LOWER PASSAIC RIVER, ......... 50 ......... ......... 50 .........
NJ...........................................
PASSAIC RIVER MAINSTEM, NJ.................... ......... 1,000 ......... ......... 1,000 .........
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, HIGHLANDS, NJ. ......... 100 ......... ......... 100 .........
NEW MEXICO
RIO GRANDE BASIN, NM, CO, AND TX.............. ......... 300 ......... ......... 300 .........
NEW YORK
HUDSON-RARITAN ESTUARY, NY AND NJ............. ......... 400 ......... ......... 400 .........
JAMAICA BAY, MARINE PARK AND PLUMB BEACH, NY.. ......... ......... 100 ......... ......... 100
UPPER DELAWARE RIVER WATERSHED, LIVINGSTONE ......... 200 ......... ......... 200 .........
MANOR, NY....................................
WESTCHESTER COUNTY STREAMS, BYRAM RIVER BASIN, ......... 200 ......... ......... 200 .........
NY AND CT....................................
NORTH CAROLINA
BOGUE BANKS, NC............................... ......... 445 ......... ......... 445 .........
CURRITUCK SOUND, NC........................... ......... 358 ......... ......... 358 .........
NEUSE RIVER BASIN, NC......................... ......... ......... 450 ......... ......... 450
SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH, NC......... ......... ......... 225 ......... ......... 225
WILMINGTON HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS, NC............ ......... 250 ......... ......... 250 .........
NORTH DAKOTA
FARGO, ND--MOORHEAD, MN METRO................. ......... ......... 5,000 ......... ......... 5,000
RED RIVER OF THE NORTH BASIN, ND, MN, SD, AND ......... 433 ......... ......... 433 .........
MANITOBA, CANADA.............................
OREGON
LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OR ......... 300 ......... ......... 300 .........
AND WA.......................................
WALLA WALLA RIVER WATERSHED, OR AND WA........ ......... ......... 350 ......... ......... 350
WILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN REVIEW, OR............. ......... 200 ......... ......... 200 .........
WILLAMETTE RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, OR... ......... 80 500 ......... 80 500
WILLAMETTE RIVER FLOODPLAIN RESTORATION, OR... ......... 180 200 ......... 180 200
PENNSYLVANIA
SCHUYLKILL RIVER BASIN, WISSAHICKON CREEK ......... 200 ......... ......... 200 .........
BASIN, PA....................................
UPPER OHIO NAVIGATION STUDY, PA............... ......... 1,000 ......... ......... 1,000 .........
PUERTO RICO
CANO MARTIN PENA, PR.......................... ......... 100 ......... ......... 100 .........
SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC......................... ......... 3,549 ......... ......... 3,549 .........
EDISTO ISLAND, SC............................. ......... 328 ......... ......... 328 .........
TEXAS
BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, BROWNSVILLE CHANNEL, TX. ......... 726 ......... ......... 726 .........
DALLAS FLOODWAY, UPPER TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TX ......... 700 ......... ......... 700 .........
GUADALUPE AND SAN ANTONIO RIVER BASINS, TX.... ......... 400 ......... ......... 400 .........
HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX...................... 100 ......... ......... 100 ......... .........
LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN, TX................ ......... 425 ......... ......... 425 .........
NUECES RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, TX.............. ......... 650 ......... ......... 650 .........
SABINE PASS TO GALVESTON BAY, TX.............. ......... 200 ......... ......... 200 .........
VIRGINIA
JOHN H. KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA AND NC ......... 50 ......... ......... 50 .........
(SECTION 216)................................
LYNNHAVEN RIVER BASIN, VA..................... ......... ......... 300 ......... ......... 300
UPPER RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE, ......... ......... 50 ......... ......... 50
VA...........................................
WILLOUGHBY SPIT AND VICINITY, NORFOLK, VA..... ......... ......... 225 ......... ......... 225
WASHINGTON
MOUNT SAINT HELENS, WA........................ ......... 225 ......... ......... 225 .........
PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE MARINE HABITAT ......... 850 ......... ......... 850 .........
RESTORATION, WA..............................
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, ITEMS UNDER STATES............ 450 31,771 20,726 450 31,771 17,926
REMAINING ITEMS
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK:
FLOOD AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION.......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 2,000 .........
FLOOD CONTROL............................. ......... ......... ......... ......... 9,000 .........
SHORE PROTECTION.......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 5,000
NAVIGATION.................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 3,000 .........
COASTAL AND DEEP-DRAFT.................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 6,000 .........
INLAND.................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 4,000 .........
SMALL, REMOTE, OR SUBSISTENCE............. ......... ......... ......... ......... 3,000
OTHER AUTHORIZED PROJECT PURPOSES............. ......... ......... ......... ......... 2,000 .........
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION OR COMPLIANCE... ......... ......... ......... ......... 2,000 .........
REMOTE, COASTAL, OR SMALL WATERSHED....... ......... ......... ......... ......... 3,000 .........
COORDINATION STUDIES WITH OTHER AGENCIES:
ACCESS TO WATER DATA...................... ......... 750 ......... ......... 750
COMMITTEE ON MARINE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS ......... 100 ......... ......... 100
OTHER COORDINATION PROGRAMS:
CALFED.................................... ......... 100 ......... ......... 100 .........
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM.................... ......... 75 ......... ......... 75 .........
COORDINATION WITH OTHER WATER RESOURCE ......... 500 ......... ......... 500 .........
AGENCIES.................................
GULF OF MEXICO............................ ......... 100 ......... ......... 100 .........
INTERAGENCY AND INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT..... ......... 500 ......... ......... 500 .........
INTERAGENCY WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT.... ......... 955 ......... ......... 955 .........
INVENTORY OF DAMS......................... ......... 400 ......... ......... 400 .........
LAKE TAHOE................................ ......... 100 ......... ......... 100 .........
PACIFIC NW FOREST CASE.................... ......... 10 ......... ......... 10 .........
SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS.................... ......... 1,350 ......... ......... 1,350 .........
FERC LICENSING............................ ......... 200 ......... ......... 200
PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES................. ......... 4,000 ......... ......... 4,300 .........
COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA:
AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEMS SUPPORT TRI- ......... 350 ......... ......... 350
CADD.....................................
COASTAL FIELD DATA COLLECTION............. ......... 1,000 ......... ......... 1,000
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA STUDIES................ ......... 75 ......... ......... 75
FLOOD DAMAGE DATA......................... ......... 220 ......... ......... 220
FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT SERVICES........... ......... 9,500 ......... ......... 9,500
HYDROLOGIC STUDIES........................ ......... 250 ......... ......... 250
INTERNATIONAL WATER STUDIES............... ......... 200 ......... ......... 200
PRECIPITATION STUDIES..................... ......... 225 ......... ......... 225
REMOTE SENSING/GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION ......... 75 ......... ......... 75
SYSTEM SUPPORT...........................
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION ......... 50 ......... ......... 50
CENTERS..................................
STREAM GAGING............................. ......... 550 ......... ......... 550
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS.................... ......... 950 ......... ......... 950 .........
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT...................... ......... 16,143 ......... ......... 16,143 .........
OTHER--MISCELLANEOUS:
INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW................... ......... 300 ......... ......... 300
NATIONAL FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.... ......... 2,850 ......... ......... 2,850
NATIONAL SHORELINE........................ ......... 675 ......... ......... 675
PLANNING SUPPORT PROGRAM.................. ......... 4,000 ......... ......... 4,000
TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM................ ......... 500 ......... ......... 500
WATER RESOURCES PRIORITIES STUDY.......... ......... 2,000 ......... ......... ......... .........
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL................................ ......... 49,053 ......... ......... 86,353 .........
SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE.......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... -11,500 .........
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL................................... 450 80,824 20,726 450 106,624 17,926
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL............................. 102,000
....................
.................
125,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Savannah Harbor Expansion, Georgia.--The Committee has not
funded this item in the GI account as recommended by the
administration. The Committee has transferred the budget
request to the Construction, General account where the
Committee has funded it every year since fiscal year 2009.
Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.--The fiscal year 2013
budget request does not reflect the extent of need for project
studies funding. The Corps has numerous continuing studies that
will be suspended under the limits of the budget request. These
studies could lead to projects with significant economic
benefits, particularly by increasing national competitiveness
through marine transportation improvements and by avoiding
damages caused by flooding and coastal storms. The Committee
recommends additional funds to continue ongoing studies. None
of these funds may be used for any item where funding was
specifically denied. While this additional funding is shown in
the feasibility column, the Corps should utilize these funds in
any applicable phase of work. The intent of these funds is for
ongoing work that either was not included in the
administration's request or was inadequately budgeted.
Ongoing studies that are actively progressing and can
utilize the funding in a timely manner are eligible for these
additional funds. The five new study starts directed as part of
the work plan shall be funded from the appropriate additional
funding line item. It should be understood that the Committee
intends that there be only 10 new study starts in fiscal year
2013 owing to current and anticipated future budget
constraints. Funding associated with each category may be
allocated to any eligible study within that category; funding
associated with each subcategory may be allocated only to
eligible studies within that subcategory. The list of
subcategories is not meant to be exhaustive. The Committee
directs that priority in allocating these funds be given to
funding the five new starts directed by the Committee,
completing or accelerating ongoing studies which will enhance
the Nation's economic development, job growth and international
competitiveness, or are for projects located in areas that have
suffered recent natural disasters.
Within 45 days of enactment of this act, the Corps shall
provide to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a
work plan delineating how these funds are to be distributed and
in which phase the work is to be accomplished. The Committee
directs that a listing should accompany the work plan showing
all the ongoing studies that were considered eligible and could
have used funding for fiscal year 2013 and the reasons why
these items were considered as being less competitive for
inclusion in the work plan.
Water Resources Priorities Study.--No funding is included
for this new item.
CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL
Appropriations, 2012.................................... $1,694,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013................................... 1,471,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,700,000,000
This appropriation includes funds for construction, major
rehabilitation and related activities for water resources
development projects having navigation, flood and storm damage
reduction, water supply, hydroelectric, environmental
restoration, and other attendant benefits to the Nation. The
construction and major rehabilitation for designated projects
for inland and costal waterways will derive one-half of the
funding from the Inland Waterways 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 administration request for the Construction, General
account is $1,471,000,000, a decrease of $223,000,000 from the
fiscal year 2012 enacted amount. By the Committee's estimate,
less than 60 percent of the needed funding is available in this
account. Construction will slip due to constrained funding and
benefits to the national economy will be deferred. As the
Committee has noted over the last 7 years the funding proposed
for this account appears to be ``pennywise and pound foolish.''
Lack of investment in this infrastructure will inevitably lead
to another Katrina-style disaster somewhere in the Nation,
whether it is a catastrophic failure on the Inland Waterways
System or overwhelmed, incomplete or damaged flood control or
shore protection infrastructure. When that failure occurs, we
will expend billions trying to restore or accelerate the
construction of the infrastructure that failed all the while
lamenting how this could have been allowed to happen.
The Committee recommendation includes $1,700,000,000 in new
budget authority for this account. The Committee recognizes
that this is considerably less than the needs in the program
but is the best that can be accomplished in this constrained
fiscal environment.
The Committee has provided for six new construction starts
in fiscal year 2013--three new construction starts proposed in
the budget request and three to be selected based on the Corps'
prioritization process and included as a part of the
Construction, General work plan.
The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are
shown on the following table:
CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Committee
Item estimate recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALIFORNIA
AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (COMMON 6,400 6,400
FEATURES), CA..........................
AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM 86,700 86,700
MODIFICATIONS), CA.....................
AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM 5,100 5,100
RAISE), CA.............................
HAMILTON AIRFIELD WETLANDS RESTORATION, 2,200 2,200
CA.....................................
HAMILTON CITY, CA....................... 7,500 7,500
NAPA RIVER, SALT MARSH RESTORATION, CA.. 2,500 2,500
OAKLAND HARBOR (50 FOOT PROJECT), CA.... 500 500
SACRAMENTO RIVER BANK PROTECTION 3,000 3,000
PROJECT, CA............................
SANTA ANA RIVER MAINSTEM, CA............ 7,200 7,200
SUCCESS DAM, TULE RIVER, CA (DAM SAFETY) 3,000 3,000
YUBA RIVER BASIN, CA.................... 1,800 1,800
DELAWARE
DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, ROOSEVELT INLET 350 350
TO LEWES BEACH.........................
FLORIDA
BREVARD COUNTY, CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL.... 350 350
DUVAL COUNTY, FL........................ 100 100
FORT PIERCE BEACH, FL................... 350 350
HERBERT HOOVER DIKE, FL (SEEPAGE 153,000 153,000
CONTROL)...............................
JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL................. 3,195 3,195
MANATEE COUNTY, FL...................... 100 100
MARTIN COUNTY, FL....................... 350 350
NASSAU COUNTY, FL....................... 350 350
SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, FL. 153,324 153,324
ST. JOHN'S COUNTY, FL................... 350 350
TAMPA HARBOR, FL........................ 8,305 8,305
GEORGIA
LOWER SAVANNAH RIVER BASIN, GA.......... 30 30
RICHARD B. RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA AND 1,000 1,000
SC.....................................
SAVANNAH HARBOR DISPOSAL AREAS, GA AND 8,817 8,817
SC.....................................
SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, GA........... .............. 2,800
TYBEE ISLAND, GA........................ 150 150
ILLINOIS
CHAIN OF ROCKS CANAL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, 3,000 3,000
IL (DEF CORR)..........................
CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL 24,500 24,500
DISPERSAL BARRIER, IL..................
DES PLAINES RIVER, IL................... 2,300 2,300
EAST ST. LOUIS, IL...................... 1,290 1,290
ILLINOIS WATERWAY, LOCKPORT LOCK AND 3,600 3,600
DAM, IL (MAJOR REHAB)..................
LOCK AND DAM 27, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL 850 850
(MAJOR REHAB)..........................
MCCOOK AND THORNTON RESERVOIRS, IL...... 12,000 12,000
OLMSTED LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, IL 144,000 144,000
AND KY.................................
UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER RESTORATION, IL, 17,880 17,880
IA, MN, MO.............................
WOOD RIVER LEVEE, DEFICIENCY CORRECTION 4,202 4,202
AND RECONSTRUCTION.....................
IOWA
MISSOURI RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE 90,000 90,000
RECOVERY, IA, KS, MO...................
KANSAS
TURKEY CREEK BASIN, KS AND MO........... 4,000 4,000
KENTUCKY
WOLF CREEK DAM, LAKE CUMBERLAND, KY..... 85,000 85,000
LOUISIANA
CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LA............ 5,223 5,223
J. BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA........ 2,000 2,000
LAROSE TO GOLDEN MEADOW, LA (HURRICANE 5,000 5,000
PROTECTION)............................
LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM 16,825 16,825
RESTORATION, LA........................
MARYLAND
ASSATEAGUE, MD.......................... 1,200 1,200
CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RECOVERY, MD AND 5,000 5,000
VA.....................................
POPLAR ISLAND, MD....................... 13,500 13,500
MASSACHUSETTS
MUDDY RIVER, MA......................... 5,000 5,000
MISSOURI
BLUE RIVER CHANNEL, KANSAS CITY, MO..... 1,000 1,000
KANSAS CITYS, MO AND KS................. 7,734 7,734
MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN THE OHIO AND 7,938 7,938
MISSOURI RIVERS........................
MONARCH--CHESTERFIELD, MO............... 2,340 2,340
ST. LOUIS FLOOD PROTECTION, MO.......... 200 200
NEW JERSEY
BARNEGAT INLET TO LITTLE EGG HARBOR 600 600
INLET, NJ..............................
CAPE MAY INLET TO LOWER TOWNSHIP, NJ.... 200 200
DELAWARE RIVER MAIN CHANNEL, NJ, PA, AND 31,000 31,000
DE.....................................
GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET AND PECK BEACH, 7,000 7,000
NJ.....................................
LOWER CAPE MAY MEADOWS, CAPE MAY POINT, 400 400
NJ.....................................
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, PORT 1,000 1,000
MONMOUTH, NJ...........................
RARITAN RIVER BASIN, GREEN BROOK SUB- 1,000 1,000
BASIN, NJ..............................
NEW MEXICO
RIO GRANDE FLOODWAY, SAN ACACIA TO 10,000 10,000
BOSQUE DEL APACHE,.....................
SOUTHWEST VALLEY FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION, 5,709 5,709
ALBUQUERQUE, NM........................
NEW YORK
ATLANTIC COAST OF NYC, ROCKAWAY INLET TO 100 100
NORTON POINT, NY.......................
FIRE ISLAND INLET TO MONTAUK POINT, NY.. 5,550 5,550
LONG BEACH ISLAND, NY................... 500 500
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY HARBOR, NY AND 68,000 68,000
NJ.....................................
NORTH CAROLINA
MANTEO (SHALLOWBAG) BAY, NC............. 600 600
WEST ONSLOW BEACH AND NEW RIVER INLET, 200 200
NC.....................................
WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC................... 7,200 7,200
OHIO
BOLIVAR DAM, OH (DAM SAFETY)............ 13,800 13,800
DOVER DAM, MUSKINGUM RIVER, OH (DAM 1,750 1,750
SAFETY)................................
OKLAHOMA
CANTON LAKE, OK......................... 6,000 6,000
OREGON
COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY FISHING ACCESS 350 350
SITES, OR AND WA.......................
ELK CREEK LAKE, OR...................... 194 194
LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM 3,650 3,650
RESTORATION, OR AND WA.................
PENNSYLVANIA
EAST BRANCH CLARION RIVER LAKE, PA...... 15,000 15,000
LOCKS AND DAMS 2, 3, AND 4, MONONGAHELA 36,650 36,650
RIVER, PA..............................
PRESQUE ISLE PENINSULA, PA (PERMANENT).. 1,500 1,500
PUERTO RICO
PORTUGUES AND BUCANA RIVERS, PR......... 6,000 6,000
RIO PUERTO NUEVO, PR.................... 14,250 14,250
SOUTH CAROLINA
FOLLY BEACH, SC......................... 400 400
TENNESSEE
CENTER HILL LAKE, TN.................... 75,000 75,000
TEXAS
BRAYS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX................ 2,100 2,100
LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN (WHARTON/ 2,000 2,000
ONION), TX.............................
SIMS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX................. 2,171 2,171
VIRGINIA
LEVISA AND TUG FORKS AND UPPER 2,075 2,075
CUMBERLAND RIVER, VA...................
ROANOKE RIVER UPPER BASIN, HEADWATERS 300 300
AREA, VA...............................
WASHINGTON
COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, WA, OR, 98,000 98,000
AND ID.................................
DUWAMISH AND GREEN RIVER BASIN, WA...... 2,500 2,500
HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA................... 6,000 6,000
LOWER SNAKE RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE 2,000 2,000
COMPENSATION, WA.......................
MOUNT SAINT HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA. 3,500 3,500
MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA.................... 750 750
WEST VIRGINIA
BLUESTONE LAKE, WV...................... 10,000 10,000
WISCONSIN
GREEN BAY HARBOR, WI.................... 7,000 7,000
-------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, ITEMS UNDER STATES...... 1,373,602 1,376,402
REMAINING ITEMS
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK:
FLOOD AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION........ .............. 30,000
FLOOD CONTROL....................... .............. 50,000
SHORE PROTECTION.................... .............. 40,000
NAVIGATION.............................. .............. 30,000
INLAND WATERWAYS TRUST FUND PROJECTS .............. 72,000
OTHER AUTHORIZED PROJECT PURPOSES....... .............. 9,000
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION OR .............. 8,000
COMPLIANCE.........................
ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCURE PROJECTS .............. 40,000
HYDROPOWER PROJECTS................. .............. 9,000
AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL PROGRAM........... .............. 4,000
CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROJECTS NOT
REQUIRING SPECIFIC:
AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION 4,034 8,000
(SECTION 206)......................
BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL 4,995 7,500
(SECTIONS 204).....................
EMERGENCY STREAMBANK AND SHORELINE .............. 5,000
PROTECTION.........................
FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS (SECTION 205) 4,978 7,500
NAVIGATION MITIGATION PROJECT 4,806 6,000
(SECTION 111)......................
NAVIGATION PROGRAM (SECTION 107).... .............. 1,000
PROJECT MODIFICATIONS FOR 5,249 7,500
IMPROVEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT.....
SHORE PROTECTION (SECTION 103)...... .............. 2,500
DAM SAFETY AND SEEPAGE/STABILITY 47,750 47,750
CORRECTION PROGRAM.....................
EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION................. 23,726 20,226
INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD--BOARD 60 60
EXPENSE................................
INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD--CORPS 800 800
EXPENSE................................
ESTUARY RESTORATION PROGRAM (PUBLIC LAW 1,000 1,000
106-457)...............................
RESTORATION OF ABANDONED MINES.......... .............. 1,000
-------------------------------
SUBTOTAL.......................... 97,398 407,836
SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE.................... .............. -84,238
-------------------------------
TOTAL............................. 1,471,000 1,700,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Savannah Harbor Expansion, Georgia.--The administration
budget request for this item that was proposed in the GI
account has been moved to this account where it has been funded
since fiscal year 2009.
Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.--The Corps has
ongoing, authorized construction projects that would cost tens
of billions of dollars to complete, yet the administration
continues to request a mere fraction of the funding necessary
to complete those projects. The Committee recommends additional
funds to continue ongoing projects and activities to enhance
the Nation's economic growth and international competitiveness.
The intent of these funds is for ongoing work that either was
not included in the administration's request or was
inadequately budgeted. None of these funds shall be used for
projects in the Continuing Authorities Program. Funding
associated with each category may be allocated to any eligible
project within that category; funding associated with each
subcategory may be allocated only to eligible projects within
that subcategory. The list of subcategories is not meant to be
exhaustive.
Ongoing construction projects that are actively progressing
and can utilize the funding in a timely manner are eligible for
these additional funds. This includes periodic beach
renourishments. The three new project starts directed as part
of the work plan shall be funded from the appropriate
additional funding line-item. The Committee intends only six
new construction starts in fiscal year 2013, the three proposed
by the administration in the budget request and three
additional new starts provided by the Committee but selected by
the administration. Priority in allocating additional funding
should consider the following: number of jobs created directly
by the funded activity; the benefits of the funded work to the
national economy; ability to obligate the funds allocated
within the fiscal year, including consideration of the ability
of the non-Federal sponsor to provide any required cost-share;
ability to complete the project, separable element, or project
phase within the funds allocated; for flood and storm damage
reduction, population at risk and economic activity or public
infrastructure at risk; and for navigation, number of jobs or
level of economic activity to be supported by completion of the
project, separable element, or project phase. A major factor to
be considered for prioritizing inland waterway funding is the
economic impact on the local, regional, and national economy if
the project is not funded. In addition, priority should be
given to discrete elements of work that can be completed within
the funding provided in this line item.
Within 45 days of enactment of this act, the Corps shall
provide to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a
work plan delineating how these funds are to be distributed.
The Committee directs that a listing should accompany the work
plan showing all the ongoing construction projects that were
considered eligible and could have used funding for fiscal year
2013 and the reasons why these items were considered as being
less competitive for inclusion in the work plan.
Continuing Authorities Program [CAP].--The Continuing
Authorities Program (projects which do not require specific
authorizing legislation) 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 Committee has chosen to fund
eight of the nine sections of the CAP program rather than only
the five sections proposed in the budget request. The Committee
has not funded section 208 as it believes these projects can
easily be accommodated under the authority of section 205. The
Committee believes that CAP funds should be expended for the
CAP sections for which they were appropriated and should be
executed as quickly as possible. The Committee continues to
believe that the various sections of the CAP program provide a
useful tool for the Corps to undertake small localized projects
without being encumbered by the lengthy study and authorization
phases typical of most Corps projects.
The Committee has included a total of $45,000,000 spread
over the eight CAP sections for work in fiscal year 2013. The
Committee urges the administration to execute the program laid
out by the Committee and include funding for this program in
future budgets.
Continuing Authorities Program Direction.--For each CAP
section, available funds shall be allocated utilizing this
sequence of steps until the funds are exhausted:
--capability-level funds for ongoing projects that have
executed cost-sharing agreements for the applicable
phase;
--capability-level funds for projects that are ready for
execution of new cost-sharing agreements for the
applicable phase and for which Corps headquarters
authorizes execution of the agreements;
--funds, as permitted by Corps policies, for other projects
previously funded for the applicable phase but not
ready for execution of new cost-sharing agreements; and
--funds as permitted by Corps policies, for projects not
previously funded for the applicable phase.
Funds shall be allocated by headquarters to the appropriate
Field Operating Agency [FOA] for projects requested by that
FOA. If the FOA finds that the study/project for which funds
were requested cannot go forward, the funds are to be returned
to Corps headquarters to be reallocated based on the nationwide
priority listing. In no case should the FOA retain these funds
for use on a different project than the one for which the funds
were requested without the explicit approval of the Corps'
headquarters.
Within the step at which available funds are exhausted for
each CAP section, funds shall be allocated to the projects in
that section that rank high according to the following factors:
high overall performance based on outputs; high percent
fiscally complete; and high unobligated carry-in. Section 14
funds shall be allocated to the projects that address the most
significant risks and adverse consequences, irrespective of
phase or previous funding history.
The Corps shall continue the ongoing process for suspending
and terminating inactive projects. Suspended projects shall not
be reactivated or funded unless the sponsor reaffirms in
writing its support for the project and establishes its
willingness and capability to execute its project
responsibilities.
In order to provide a mix of studies, design and
construction within each CAP section, the Corps is directed to
divide the funding generally 80/20 between the Design and
Implementation and the Feasibility phases within each
authority. The Chief of Engineers shall provide a report to the
Committees on Appropriations within 30 days of enactment of
this act detailing how funds will be distributed to the
individual items in the various CAP sections for the fiscal
year. The Chief shall also provide an annual report at the end
of each fiscal year detailing the progress made on the backlog
of projects. The report should include the completions and
terminations as well as progress of ongoing work.
The Corps may initiate new continuing authorities projects
in all sections as funding allows. New projects may be
initiated after an assessment is made that such projects can be
funded over time based on historical averages of the
appropriation for that section and after prior approval by the
Committees on Appropriations.
Restoration of Abandoned Mines.--The Corps is directed to
work closely with those Federal land management agencies,
Western States and tribes with abandoned non-coal mine sites so
that the greatest number of those sites presenting threats to
public health and safety can be addressed in a cost-effective
manner.
FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, ARKANSAS, ILLINOIS,
KENTUCKY, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, MISSOURI, AND TENNESSEE
Appropriations, 2012.................................... $252,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013................................... 234,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 253,000,000
This appropriation funds planning, construction, and
operation and maintenance activities associated with water
resource projects located in the lower Mississippi River Valley
from Cape Girardeau, Missouri to the Gulf of Mexico.
The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are
shown on the following table:
MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Committee
Item estimate recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
INVESTIGATIONS
MEMPHIS METRO AREA, STORM WATER 100 100
MANAGEMENT STUDY, TN...................
-------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, INVESTIGATIONS............ 100 100
CONSTRUCTION
CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, 46,133 46,133
MO, AND TN.............................
MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, 45,187 45,187
LA, MS, MO, AND TN.....................
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA.. 1,650 1,650
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA................... 6,300 6,300
-------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, CONSTRUCTION............ 99,270 99,270
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, 56,001 56,001
MO, AND TN.............................
HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR...... 158 158
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR....... 250 250
LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, NORTH BANK, AR.... 287 287
LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, SOUTH BANK, AR.... 193 193
MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, 8,452 8,452
LA, MS, MO, AND TN.....................
ST. FRANCIS BASIN, AR AND MO............ 5,900 5,900
TENSAS BASIN, BOEUF AND TENSAS RIVERS, 1,839 1,839
AR AND LA..............................
WHITE RIVER BACKWATER, AR............... 1,142 1,142
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL....... 170 170
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY....... 100 100
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA.. 1,738 1,738
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA................... 9,747 9,747
BATON ROUGE HARBOR, DEVIL SWAMP, LA..... 60 60
BAYOU COCODRIE AND TRIBUTARIES, LA...... 46 46
BONNET CARRE, LA........................ 2,195 2,195
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA....... 997 997
LOWER RED RIVER, SOUTH BANK LEVEES, LA.. 368 368
MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA............ 472 472
OLD RIVER, LA........................... 8,050 8,050
TENSAS BASIN, RED RIVER BACKWATER, LA... 2,414 2,414
GREENVILLE HARBOR, MS................... 23 23
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS....... 121 121
VICKSBURG HARBOR, MS.................... 41 41
YAZOO BASIN, ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS......... 5,203 5,203
YAZOO BASIN, BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS.... 177 177
YAZOO BASIN, ENID LAKE, MS.............. 4,795 4,795
YAZOO BASIN, GREENWOOD, MS.............. 788 788
YAZOO BASIN, GRENADA LAKE, MS........... 5,222 5,222
YAZOO BASIN, MAIN STEM, MS.............. 1,273 1,273
YAZOO BASIN, SARDIS LAKE, MS............ 6,493 6,493
YAZOO BASIN, TRIBUTARIES, MS............ 944 944
YAZOO BASIN, WILL M. WHITTINGTON 375 375
AUXILARY CHANNEL, MS...................
YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO BACKWATER AREA, MS... 511 511
YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO CITY, MS............. 714 714
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO....... 200 200
WAPPAPELLO LAKE, MO..................... 4,064 4,064
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN....... 80 80
MEMPHIS HARBOR, MCKELLAR LAKE, TN....... 1,464 1,464
-------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, OPERATION AND 133,067 133,067
MAINTENANCE......................
REMAINING ITEMS
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK:
DREDGING............................ .............. 5,000
FLOOD CONTROL....................... .............. 10,000
WATER SUPPLY AND RELATED AUTHORIZED .............. 10,000
PURPOSES...........................
OTHER AUTHORIZED PROJECT PURPOSES... .............. 5,000
COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA...... 500 500
MAPPING................................. 1,063 1,063
-------------------------------
SUBTOTAL REMAINING ITEMS.......... 1,563 31,563
REDUCTION FOR SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE...... .............. -11,000
-------------------------------
TOTAL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND 234,000 253,000
TRIBUTARIES........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.--The Committee
recommendation includes additional funds above the budget
request to continue ongoing studies, projects or maintenance.
The Committee recommends that these funds be used for flood
control, navigation, water supply, ground water protection,
waterfowl management, bank stabilization, and environmental
restoration work. The intent of these funds is for ongoing work
primarily along the Mississippi River tributaries that either
was not included in the administration's request or was
inadequately budgeted. While this additional funding is shown
under remaining items, the Corps should utilize these funds in
any applicable phase of work. None of these funds may be used
to start new projects or activities.
The Committee directs that priority in allocating these
funds be given to completing or accelerating ongoing work which
will enhance the region and Nation's economic development, job
growth and international competitiveness, or is located in
areas that have suffered recent natural disasters. Within 45
days of enactment of this act, the Corps shall provide to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a work plan
delineating how these funds are to be distributed. The
Committee directs that a listing should accompany the work plan
showing all the studies and construction projects that were
considered eligible and could have used funding for fiscal year
2013 and the reasons why these items were considered as being
less competitive for inclusion in the work plan.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL
Appropriations, 2012.................................... $2,412,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013................................... 2,398,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,404,000,000
This appropriation funds operation, maintenance, and
related activities at the water resources projects that the
Corps operates and maintains. Work to be accomplished consists
of dredging, repair, and operation of structures and other
facilities, as authorized in the various river and harbor,
flood control, and water resources development acts. Related
activities include aquatic plant control, monitoring of
completed projects where appropriate, removal of sunken
vessels, and the collection of domestic waterborne commerce
statistics.
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 Committee is pleased that the budget request
increases spending from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund by
$90,000,000 over the fiscal year 2012 budget request, but by
the Committee's estimate, the estimate of $848,000,000 that is
anticipated to be expended from the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund in fiscal year 2013 is $43,000,000 below the fiscal year
2012 enacted amount.
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
Committee understands that the O&M budget fluctuates from year
to year due to periodic maintenance dredging requirements,
however, the general trend should be for this budget to
increase. Nearly 75 percent of the O&M budget consists of labor
and dredging costs in most years. Labor costs rarely decrease
for the Corps as it takes roughly the same amount of manpower
to operate Corps projects on a yearly basis. That means that
when the budget request is reduced, the only areas available to
reduce are dredging and maintenance items.
The Committee understands that the Corps is looking at a
variety of ways to reduce costs for operation and maintenance
[O&M] of projects--including reducing operations at locks and
dams. The Committee believes that in the current fiscal
environment it is appropriate to look at all manner of cost-
savings ideas, but that any options that involve major changes
should be discussed with the Committee before they appear in an
administration budget request.
The Corps is to be commended for managing to keep as much
of their infrastructure operable as they have with the O&M
budgets that have been put forward and enacted. The Committee
urges the administration to commit to a more realistic budget
for O&M in future fiscal years.
The budget request and the Committee recommendation are
shown on the following table:
CORPS OF ENGINEERS--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Committee
Item estimate recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA
ALABAMA-COOSA COMPREHENSIVE WATER STUDY, 246 246
AL.....................................
ALABAMA RIVER LAKES, AL................. 14,926 14,926
BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, AL.. 20,971 20,971
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, AL.......... 5,608 5,608
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AL....... 80 80
MOBILE HARBOR, AL....................... 30,071 30,071
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AL........... 100 100
TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY WILDLIFE 1,901 1,901
MITIGATION, AL.........................
TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY, AL AND MS. 22,852 22,852
WALTER F. GEORGE LOCK AND DAM, AL AND GA 8,042 8,042
ALASKA
ANCHORAGE HARBOR, AK.................... 13,930 13,930
CHENA RIVER LAKES, AK................... 3,328 3,328
DILLINGHAM HARBOR, AK................... 1,000 1,000
HOMER HARBOR, AK........................ 467 467
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AK....... 210 210
NINILCHIK HARBOR, AK.................... 454 454
NOME HARBOR, AK......................... 1,151 1,151
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AK........... 561 561
ARIZONA
ALAMO LAKE, AZ.......................... 1,621 1,621
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AZ....... 101 101
PAINTED ROCK DAM, AZ.................... 1,236 1,236
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AZ..... 157 157
WHITLOW RANCH DAM, AZ................... 297 297
ARKANSAS
BEAVER LAKE, AR......................... 5,929 5,929
BLAKELY MOUNTAIN DAM, LAKE OUACHITA, AR. 8,534 8,534
BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR.................. 1,864 1,864
BULL SHOALS LAKE, AR.................... 6,672 6,672
DARDANELLE LOCK AND DAM, AR............. 8,912 8,912
DEGRAY LAKE, AR......................... 6,881 6,881
DEQUEEN LAKE, AR........................ 1,870 1,870
DIERKS LAKE, AR......................... 1,567 1,567
GILLHAM LAKE, AR........................ 1,463 1,463
GREERS FERRY LAKE, AR................... 6,444 6,444
HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR...... 74 74
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR....... 448 448
MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION 24,961 24,961
SYSTEM, AR.............................
MILLWOOD LAKE, AR....................... 2,680 2,680
NARROWS DAM, LAKE GREESON, AR........... 4,659 4,659
NIMROD LAKE, AR......................... 2,020 2,020
NORFORK LAKE, AR........................ 8,146 8,146
OSCEOLA HARBOR, AR...................... 13 13
OUACHITA AND BLACK RIVERS, AR AND LA.... 7,507 7,507
OZARK-JETA TAYLOR LOCK AND DAM, AR...... 5,188 5,188
WHITE RIVER, AR......................... 39 39
YELLOW BEND PORT, AR.................... 3 3
CALIFORNIA
BLACK BUTTE LAKE, CA.................... 2,259 2,259
BUCHANAN DAM, H.V. EASTMAN LAKE, CA..... 1,919 1,919
CHANNEL ISLANDS HARBOR, CA.............. 4,500 4,500
COYOTE VALLEY DAM, LAKE MENDOCINO, CA... 3,624 3,624
DRY CREEK (WARM SPRINGS) LAKE AND 6,697 6,697
CHANNEL, CA............................
FARMINGTON DAM, CA...................... 450 450
HIDDEN DAM, HENSLEY LAKE, CA............ 2,018 2,018
HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY, CA............. 1,905 1,905
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CA....... 3,686 3,686
ISABELLA LAKE, CA....................... 1,080 1,080
LOS ANGELES-LONG BEACH HARBORS, CA...... 265 265
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CA.... 5,053 5,053
MERCED COUNTY STREAMS, CA............... 350 350
MOJAVE RIVER DAM, CA.................... 331 331
MORRO BAY HARBOR, CA.................... 2,200 2,200
NEW HOGAN LAKE, CA...................... 3,971 3,971
NEW MELONES LAKE, DOWNSTREAM CHANNEL, CA 1,806 1,806
OAKLAND HARBOR, CA...................... 17,200 17,200
OCEANSIDE HARBOR, CA.................... 1,600 1,600
PINE FLAT LAKE, CA...................... 3,218 3,218
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CA........... 1,707 1,707
RICHMOND HARBOR, CA..................... 10,700 10,700
SACRAMENTO RIVER (30 FOOT PROJECT), CA.. 1,443 1,443
SACRAMENTO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES (DEBRIS 1,382 1,382
CONTROL), CA...........................
SACRAMENTO RIVER SHALLOW DRAFT CHANNEL, 200 200
CA.....................................
SAN FRANCISCO BAY DELTA MODEL STRUCTURE, 901 901
CA.....................................
SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR AND BAY, CA (DRIFT 3,000 3,000
REMOVAL)...............................
SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR, CA................ 2,850 2,850
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER, PORT OF STOCKTON, CA. 5,525 5,525
SAN PABLO BAY AND MARE ISLAND STRAIT, CA 2,500 2,500
SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CA............... 3,988 3,988
SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CA................ 2,240 2,240
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CA..... 1,587 1,587
SUCCESS LAKE, CA........................ 2,328 2,328
SUISUN BAY CHANNEL, CA.................. 2,500 2,500
TERMINUS DAM, LAKE KAWEAH, CA........... 2,069 2,069
YUBA RIVER, CA.......................... 121 121
COLORADO
BEAR CREEK LAKE, CO..................... 840 840
CHATFIELD LAKE, CO...................... 1,445 1,445
CHERRY CREEK LAKE, CO................... 1,518 1,518
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CO....... 489 489
JOHN MARTIN RESERVOIR, CO............... 2,315 2,315
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CO..... 748 748
TRINIDAD LAKE, CO....................... 2,012 2,012
CONNECTICUT
BLACK ROCK LAKE, CT..................... 518 518
COLEBROOK RIVER LAKE, CT................ 884 884
HANCOCK BROOK LAKE, CT.................. 415 415
HOP BROOK LAKE, CT...................... 956 956
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CT....... 267 267
LONG ISLAND SOUND DMMP, CT.............. 2,500 2,500
MANSFIELD HOLLOW LAKE, CT............... 595 595
NORTHFIELD BROOK LAKE, CT............... 438 438
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CT........... 1,050 1,050
STAMFORD HURRICANE BARRIER, CT.......... 563 563
THOMASTON DAM, CT....................... 783 783
WEST THOMPSON LAKE, CT.................. 655 655
DELAWARE
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, DE....... 40 40
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, DELAWARE RIVER TO 17,375 17,375
CHESAPEAKE BAY.........................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DE........... 200 200
WILMINGTON HARBOR, DE................... 4,305 4,305
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, DC....... 25 25
POTOMAC AND ANACOSTIA RIVERS, DC (DRIFT 875 875
REMOVAL)...............................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DC........... 25 25
WASHINGTON HARBOR, DC................... 25 25
FLORIDA
CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL.................... 4,700 4,700
CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL........ 14,444 14,444
ESCAMBIA AND CONECUH RIVERS, FL AND AL.. 1,600 1,600
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, FL....... 1,400 1,400
JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL................. 6,063 6,063
JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM, LAKE 6,936 6,936
SEMINOLE, FL, AL AND GA................
MIAMI HARBOR, FL........................ 4,334 4,334
OKEECHOBEE WATERWAY, FL................. 3,000 3,000
PALM BEACH HARBOR, FL................... 2,500 2,500
PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR, FL.............. 3,084 3,084
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, FL........... 1,647 1,647
REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, FL........... 3,250 3,250
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, FL..... 22 22
SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, FL. 7,783 7,783
TAMPA HARBOR, FL........................ 8,150 8,150
WATER/ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION, FL... 80 80
GEORGIA
ALLATOONA LAKE, GA...................... 7,301 7,301
APALACHICOLA, CHATTAHOOCHEE AND FLINT 2,085 2,085
RIVERS, GA, AL.........................
BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA.................... 3,000 3,000
BUFORD DAM AND LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, GA... 8,611 8,611
CARTERS DAM AND LAKE, GA................ 7,999 7,999
HARTWELL LAKE, GA AND SC................ 9,903 9,903
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL 15 15
PROJECTS, GA...........................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, GA....... 120 120
J. STROM THURMOND LAKE, GA AND SC....... 9,546 9,546
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, GA........... 189 189
RICHARD B. RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA AND 8,488 8,488
SC.....................................
SAVANNAH HARBOR, GA..................... 22,039 22,039
SAVANNAH RIVER BELOW AUGUSTA, GA........ 90 90
WEST POINT DAM AND LAKE, GA AND AL...... 7,613 7,613
HAWAII
BARBERS POINT HARBOR, HI................ 238 238
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, HI....... 685 685
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, HI........... 737 737
IDAHO
ALBENI FALLS DAM, ID.................... 1,260 1,260
DWORSHAK DAM AND RESERVOIR, ID.......... 2,730 2,730
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ID....... 330 330
LUCKY PEAK LAKE, ID..................... 2,350 2,350
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ID..... 546 546
ILLINOIS
CALUMET HARBOR AND RIVER, IL AND IN..... 3,709 3,709
CARLYLE LAKE, IL........................ 5,462 5,462
CHICAGO HARBOR, IL...................... 2,000 2,000
CHICAGO RIVER, IL....................... 528 528
FARM CREEK RESERVOIRS, IL............... 457 457
ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVR PORTION), IL AND 32,727 32,727
IN.....................................
ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVS PORTION), IL AND 1,832 1,832
IN.....................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL 65 65
PROJECTS, IL...........................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL....... 2,549 2,549
KASKASKIA RIVER NAVIGATION, IL.......... 1,902 1,902
LAKE MICHIGAN DIVERSION, IL............. 1,025 1,025
LAKE SHELBYVILLE, IL.................... 5,412 5,412
MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER 56,758 56,758
AND MINNEAPOLIS........................
MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER 25,464 25,464
AND MINNEAPOLIS........................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IL........... 104 104
REND LAKE, IL........................... 5,487 5,487
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 672 672
WATERS, IL.............................
INDIANA
BROOKVILLE LAKE, IN..................... 1,109 1,109
BURNS WATERWAY HARBOR, IN............... 176 176
CAGLES MILL LAKE, IN.................... 1,125 1,125
CECIL M. HARDEN LAKE, IN................ 1,250 1,250
INDIANA HARBOR, IN...................... 10,915 10,915
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IN....... 992 992
J. EDWARD ROUSH LAKE, IN................ 1,126 1,126
MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN................... 1,780 1,780
MONROE LAKE, IN......................... 1,194 1,194
PATOKA LAKE, IN......................... 1,089 1,089
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IN........... 185 185
SALAMONIE LAKE, IN...................... 1,091 1,091
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 138 138
WATERS, IN.............................
IOWA
CORALVILLE LAKE, IA..................... 4,235 4,235
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IA....... 728 728
MISSOURI RIVER--SIOUX CITY TO THE MOUTH, 7,767 7,767
IA, KS, MO.............................
RATHBUN LAKE, IA........................ 2,359 2,359
RED ROCK DAM AND LAKE RED ROCK, IA...... 4,579 4,579
SAYLORVILLE LAKE, IA.................... 5,489 5,489
KANSAS
CLINTON LAKE, KS........................ 2,257 2,257
COUNCIL GROVE LAKE, KS.................. 2,115 2,115
EL DORADO LAKE, KS...................... 831 831
ELK CITY LAKE, KS....................... 795 795
FALL RIVER LAKE, KS..................... 1,429 1,429
HILLSDALE LAKE, KS...................... 835 835
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KS....... 984 984
JOHN REDMOND DAM AND RESERVOIR, KS...... 1,251 1,251
KANOPOLIS LAKE, KS...................... 1,513 1,513
MARION LAKE, KS......................... 2,578 2,578
MELVERN LAKE, KS........................ 2,092 2,092
MILFORD LAKE, KS........................ 2,113 2,113
PEARSON-SKUBITZ BIG HILL LAKE, KS....... 1,485 1,485
PERRY LAKE, KS.......................... 2,259 2,259
POMONA LAKE, KS......................... 2,053 2,053
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, KS..... 150 150
TORONTO LAKE, KS........................ 904 904
TUTTLE CREEK LAKE, KS................... 2,245 2,245
WILSON LAKE, KS......................... 1,515 1,515
KENTUCKY
BARKLEY DAM AND LAKE BARKLEY, KY AND TN. 9,594 9,594
BARREN RIVER LAKE, KY................... 2,454 2,454
BIG SANDY HARBOR, KY.................... 1,741 1,741
BUCKHORN LAKE, KY....................... 1,763 1,763
CARR CREEK LAKE, KY..................... 1,849 1,849
CAVE RUN LAKE, KY....................... 947 947
DEWEY LAKE, KY.......................... 2,279 2,279
ELVIS STAHR (HICKMAN) HARBOR, KY........ 13 13
FALLS OF THE OHIO NATIONAL WILDLIFE, KY 16 16
AND IN.................................
FISHTRAP LAKE, KY....................... 2,023 2,023
GRAYSON LAKE, KY........................ 1,554 1,554
GREEN AND BARREN RIVERS, KY............. 2,104 2,104
GREEN RIVER LAKE, KY.................... 2,334 2,334
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY....... 1,105 1,105
KENTUCKY RIVER, KY...................... 10 10
LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KY................... 1,999 1,999
MARTINS FORK LAKE, KY................... 1,194 1,194
MIDDLESBORO CUMBERLAND RIVER BASIN, KY.. 244 244
NOLIN LAKE, KY.......................... 2,675 2,675
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, KY, IL, IN, 34,665 34,665
AND OH.................................
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, KY, IL, 5,829 5,829
IN, OH, PA, AND WV.....................
PAINTSVILLE LAKE, KY.................... 1,224 1,224
ROUGH RIVER LAKE, KY.................... 2,723 2,723
TAYLORSVILLE LAKE, KY................... 1,198 1,198
WOLF CREEK DAM, LAKE CUMBERLAND, KY..... 7,987 7,987
YATESVILLE LAKE, KY..................... 1,528 1,528
LOUISIANA
ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS CHENE, 8,547 8,547
BOEUF AND BLACK, LA....................
BARATARIA BAY WATERWAY, LA.............. 92 92
BAYOU BODCAU RESERVOIR, LA.............. 1,041 1,041
BAYOU LAFOURCHE AND LAFOURCHE JUMP 1,089 1,089
WATERWAY, LA...........................
BAYOU PIERRE, LA........................ 24 24
BAYOU SEGNETTE WATERWAY, LA............. 15 15
BAYOU TECHE AND VERMILION RIVER, LA..... 17 17
BAYOU TECHE, LA......................... 135 135
CADDO LAKE, LA.......................... 216 216
CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LA............ 15,753 15,753
FRESHWATER BAYOU, LA.................... 1,695 1,695
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, LA.......... 19,929 19,929
HOUMA NAVIGATION CANAL, LA.............. 990 990
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA....... 1,002 1,002
J. BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA........ 8,434 8,434
LAKE PROVIDENCE HARBOR, LA.............. 17 17
MADISON PARISH PORT, LA................. 5 5
MERMENTAU RIVER, LA..................... 1,319 1,319
MISSISSIPPI RIVER OUTLETS AT VENICE, LA. 1,423 1,423
MISSISSIPPI RIVER, BATON ROUGE TO THE 81,670 81,670
GULF OF MEXICO.........................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, LA........... 46 46
REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, LA........... 200 200
WALLACE LAKE, LA........................ 232 232
WATERWAY FROM EMPIRE TO THE GULF, LA.... 9 9
WATERWAY FROM INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY TO 38 38
BAYOU DU LAC, LA.......................
MAINE
DISPOSAL AREA MONITORING, ME............ 1,050 1,050
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ME....... 95 95
PORTLAND HARBOR, ME..................... 13,000 13,000
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, ME........... 750 750
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 20 20
WATERS, ME.............................
MARYLAND
BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS (50 FOOT), 15,757 15,757
MD.....................................
BALTIMORE HARBOR, MD (DRIFT REMOVAL).... 325 325
CUMBERLAND, MD AND RIDGELEY, WV......... 115 115
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MD....... 75 75
JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE, MD AND WV....... 1,724 1,724
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MD........... 450 450
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MD..... 62 62
WICOMICO RIVER, MD...................... 1,500 1,500
MASSACHUSETTS
BARRE FALLS DAM, MA..................... 646 646
BIRCH HILL DAM, MA...................... 1,022 1,022
BUFFUMVILLE LAKE, MA.................... 599 599
CAPE COD CANAL, MA...................... 8,694 8,694
CHARLES RIVER NATURAL VALLEY STORAGE 322 322
AREA, MA...............................
CONANT BROOK LAKE, MA................... 285 285
EAST BRIMFIELD LAKE, MA................. 523 523
HODGES VILLAGE DAM, MA.................. 607 607
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MA....... 306 306
KNIGHTVILLE DAM, MA..................... 750 750
LITTLEVILLE LAKE, MA.................... 813 813
NEW BEDFORD FAIRHAVEN AND ACUSHNET 365 365
HURRICANE BARRIER......................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MA........... 1,200 1,200
TULLY LAKE, MA.......................... 644 644
WEST HILL DAM, MA....................... 690 690
WESTVILLE LAKE, MA...................... 584 584
MICHIGAN
CHANNELS IN LAKE ST. CLAIR, MI.......... 170 170
DETROIT RIVER, MI....................... 5,814 5,814
GRAND HAVEN HARBOR, MI.................. 1,358 1,358
HOLLAND HARBOR, MI...................... 668 668
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MI....... 200 200
KEWEENAW WATERWAY, MI................... 37 37
MANISTEE HARBOR, MI..................... 541 541
MUSKEGON HARBOR, MI..................... 611 611
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MI........... 670 670
SAGINAW RIVER, MI....................... 4,091 4,091
SEBEWAING RIVER, MI..................... 25 25
ST. CLAIR RIVER, MI..................... 618 618
ST. MARYS RIVER, MI..................... 26,766 26,766
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 2,653 2,653
WATERS, MI.............................
MINNESOTA
BIGSTONE LAKE-WHETSTONE RIVER, MN AND SD 272 272
DULUTH-SUPERIOR HARBOR, MN AND WI....... 5,494 5,494
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MN....... 387 387
LAC QUI PARLE LAKES, MINNESOTA RIVER, MN 760 760
MINNESOTA RIVER, MN..................... 275 275
MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER 49,549 49,549
AND MINNEAPOLIS........................
ORWELL LAKE, MN......................... 500 500
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MN........... 86 86
RED LAKE RESERVOIR, MN.................. 152 152
RESERVOIRS AT HEADWATERS OF MISSISSIPPI 3,686 3,686
RIVER, MN..............................
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 462 462
WATERS, MN.............................
TWO HARBORS, MN......................... 350 350
MISSISSIPPI
BILOXI HARBOR, MS....................... 1,805 1,805
CLAIBORNE COUNTY PORT, MS............... 1 1
EAST FORK, TOMBIGBEE RIVER, MS.......... 258 258
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS....... 122 122
MOUTH OF YAZOO RIVER, MS................ 30 30
OKATIBBEE LAKE, MS...................... 1,568 1,568
PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS................... 8,785 8,785
PEARL RIVER, MS AND LA.................. 145 145
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MS........... 177 177
ROSEDALE HARBOR, MS..................... 11 11
WATER/ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION, MS... 125 125
YAZOO RIVER, MS......................... 26 26
MISSOURI
CARUTHERSVILLE HARBOR, MO............... 10 10
CLARENCE CANNON DAM AND MARK TWAIN LAKE, 6,266 6,266
MO.....................................
CLEARWATER LAKE, MO..................... 3,291 3,291
HARRY S TRUMAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, MO.... 7,834 7,834
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO....... 1,619 1,619
LITTLE BLUE RIVER LAKES, MO............. 1,154 1,154
LONG BRANCH LAKE, MO.................... 1,093 1,093
MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN THE OHIO AND 25,710 25,710
MISSOURI RIVERS........................
NEW MADRID HARBOR, MO................... 51 51
POMME DE TERRE LAKE, MO................. 2,170 2,170
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MO........... 14 14
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MO..... 854 854
SMITHVILLE LAKE, MO..................... 1,312 1,312
SOUTHEAST MISSOURI PORT, MISSISSIPPI 1 1
RIVER, MO..............................
STOCKTON LAKE, MO....................... 4,664 4,664
TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO AND AR.............. 8,254 8,254
MONTANA
FT. PECK DAM AND LAKE, MT............... 5,235 5,235
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MT....... 169 169
LIBBY DAM, MT........................... 1,718 1,718
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MT..... 118 118
NEBRASKA
GAVINS POINT DAM, LEWIS AND CLARK LAKE, 8,018 8,018
NE AND SD..............................
HARLAN COUNTY LAKE, NE.................. 6,256 6,256
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NE....... 554 554
MISSOURI RIVER-KENSLERS BEND, NE TO 81 81
SIOUX CITY, IA.........................
PAPILLION CREEK, NE..................... 778 778
SALT CREEKS AND TRIBUTARIES, NE......... 1,025 1,025
NEVADA
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NV....... 53 53
MARTIS CREEK LAKE, NV AND CA............ 1,046 1,046
PINE AND MATHEWS CANYONS LAKES, NV...... 354 354
NEW HAMPSHIRE
BLACKWATER DAM, NH...................... 799 799
EDWARD MACDOWELL LAKE, NH............... 762 762
FRANKLIN FALLS DAM, NH.................. 868 868
HOPKINTON-EVERETT LAKES, NH............. 1,343 1,343
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NH....... 61 61
OTTER BROOK LAKE, NH.................... 943 943
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NH........... 275 275
SURRY MOUNTAIN LAKE, NH................. 776 776
NEW JERSEY
BARNEGAT INLET, NJ...................... 415 415
COLD SPRING INLET, NJ................... 395 395
DELAWARE RIVER AT CAMDEN, NJ............ 15 15
DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA TO THE SEA, 23,290 23,290
NJ, PA, AND DE.........................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NJ....... 242 242
MANASQUAN RIVER, NJ..................... 300 300
NEWARK BAY, HACKENSACK AND PASSAIC 450 450
RIVERS, NJ.............................
PASSAIC RIVER FLOOD WARNING SYSTEMS, NJ. 587 587
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NJ........... 1,610 1,610
RARITAN RIVER TO ARTHUR KILL CUT-OFF, NJ 60 60
RARITAN RIVER, NJ....................... 220 220
SALEM RIVER, NJ......................... 100 100
SHARK RIVER, NJ......................... 400 400
NEW MEXICO
ABIQUIU DAM, NM......................... 3,258 3,258
COCHITI LAKE, NM........................ 5,256 5,256
CONCHAS LAKE, NM........................ 2,864 2,864
GALISTEO DAM, NM........................ 882 882
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NM....... 759 759
JEMEZ CANYON DAM, NM.................... 1,299 1,299
RIO GRANDE ENDANGERED SPECIES 2,503 2,503
COLLABORATIVE PROGRAM, NM..............
SANTA ROSA DAM AND LAKE, NM............. 1,519 1,519
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, NM..... 547 547
TWO RIVERS DAM, NM...................... 916 916
UPPER RIO GRANDE WATER OPERATIONS MODEL 1,580 1,580
STUDY, NM..............................
NEW YORK
ALMOND LAKE, NY......................... 635 635
ARKPORT DAM, NY......................... 352 352
BAY RIDGE AND RED HOOK CHANNELS, NY..... 60 60
BLACK ROCK CHANNEL AND TONAWANDA HARBOR, 1,335 1,335
NY.....................................
BUTTERMILK CHANNEL, NY.................. 60 60
EAST RIVER, NY.......................... 150 150
EAST ROCKAWAY INLET, NY................. 100 100
EAST SIDNEY LAKE, NY.................... 662 662
FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NY.............. 100 100
HUDSON RIVER, NY (MAINT)................ 4,500 4,500
HUDSON RIVER, NY (O&C).................. 2,050 2,050
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NY....... 1,171 1,171
JAMAICA BAY, NY......................... 100 100
LITTLE SODUS BAY HARBOR, NY............. 5 5
MOUNT MORRIS DAM, NY.................... 3,926 3,926
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY CHANNELS, NY.... 7,297 7,297
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY..................... 5,857 5,857
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY AND NJ (DRIFT 9,236 9,236
REMOVAL)...............................
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY (PREVENTION OF 1,045 1,045
OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSIT)...................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NY........... 2,040 2,040
ROCHESTER HARBOR, NY.................... 5 5
SOUTHERN NEW YORK FLOOD CONTROL 686 686
PROJECTS, NY...........................
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 579 579
WATERS, NY.............................
WHITNEY POINT LAKE, NY.................. 780 780
NORTH CAROLINA
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NC...... 2,900 2,900
B. EVERETT JORDAN DAM AND LAKE, NC...... 1,679 1,679
CAPE FEAR RIVER ABOVE WILMINGTON, NC.... 489 489
FALLS LAKE, NC.......................... 1,782 1,782
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NC....... 261 261
MANTEO (SHALLOWBAG) BAY, NC............. 1,365 1,365
MOREHEAD CITY HARBOR, NC................ 5,800 5,800
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NC........... 736 736
ROLLINSON CHANNEL, NC................... 50 50
SILVER LAKE HARBOR, NC.................. 300 300
W. KERR SCOTT DAM AND RESERVOIR, NC..... 3,209 3,209
WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC................... 16,409 16,409
NORTH DAKOTA
BOWMAN HALEY, ND........................ 214 214
GARRISON DAM, LAKE SAKAKAWEA, ND........ 12,050 12,050
HOMME LAKE, ND.......................... 296 296
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ND....... 282 282
LAKE ASHTABULA AND BALDHILL DAM, ND..... 1,476 1,476
PIPESTEM LAKE, ND....................... 835 835
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ND..... 120 120
SOURIS RIVER, ND........................ 341 341
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 28 28
WATERS, ND.............................
OHIO
ALUM CREEK LAKE, OH..................... 1,424 1,424
ASHTABULA HARBOR, OH.................... 1,810 1,810
BERLIN LAKE, OH......................... 2,084 2,084
CAESAR CREEK LAKE, OH................... 1,698 1,698
CLARENCE J. BROWN DAM, OH............... 1,286 1,286
CLEVELAND HARBOR, OH.................... 8,959 8,959
CONNEAUT HARBOR, OH..................... 1,001 1,001
DEER CREEK LAKE, OH..................... 1,468 1,468
DELAWARE LAKE, OH....................... 1,471 1,471
DILLON LAKE, OH......................... 1,484 1,484
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OH....... 663 663
MASSILLON LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH.. 37 37
MICHAEL J. KIRWAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, OH. 1,096 1,096
MOSQUITO CREEK LAKE, OH................. 1,048 1,048
MUSKINGUM RIVER LAKES, OH............... 8,527 8,527
NORTH BRANCH KOKOSING RIVER LAKE, OH.... 467 467
OHIO-MISSISSIPPI FLOOD CONTROL, OH...... 1,856 1,856
PAINT CREEK LAKE, OH.................... 1,357 1,357
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OH........... 305 305
ROSEVILLE LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH.. 35 35
SANDUSKY HARBOR, OH..................... 983 983
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 244 244
WATERS, OH.............................
TOLEDO HARBOR, OH....................... 5,472 5,472
TOM JENKINS DAM, OH..................... 796 796
WEST FORK OF MILL CREEK LAKE, OH........ 873 873
WILLIAM H. HARSHA LAKE, OH.............. 1,586 1,586
OKLAHOMA
ARCADIA LAKE, OK........................ 521 521
BIRCH LAKE, OK.......................... 809 809
BROKEN BOW LAKE, OK..................... 2,425 2,425
CANTON LAKE, OK......................... 2,242 2,242
COPAN LAKE, OK.......................... 1,352 1,352
EUFAULA LAKE, OK........................ 5,494 5,494
FORT GIBSON LAKE, OK.................... 4,760 4,760
FORT SUPPLY LAKE, OK.................... 1,086 1,086
GREAT SALT PLAINS LAKE, OK.............. 501 501
HEYBURN LAKE, OK........................ 629 629
HUGO LAKE, OK........................... 1,716 1,716
HULAH LAKE, OK.......................... 1,751 1,751
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OK....... 155 155
KAW LAKE, OK............................ 2,413 2,413
KEYSTONE LAKE, OK....................... 13,468 13,468
MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION 5,552 5,552
SYSTEM, OK.............................
OOLOGAH LAKE, OK........................ 5,100 5,100
OPTIMA LAKE, OK......................... 49 49
PENSACOLA RESERVOIR, LAKE OF THE 133 133
CHEROKEES, OK..........................
PINE CREEK LAKE, OK..................... 1,053 1,053
ROBERT S. KERR LOCK AND DAM AND 5,476 5,476
RESERVOIR, OK..........................
SARDIS LAKE, OK......................... 3,801 3,801
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OK..... 1,000 1,000
SKIATOOK LAKE, OK....................... 2,012 2,012
TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK................ 5,055 5,055
WAURIKA LAKE, OK........................ 1,616 1,616
WEBBERS FALLS LOCK AND DAM, OK.......... 3,852 3,852
WISTER LAKE, OK......................... 738 738
OREGON
APPLEGATE LAKE, OR...................... 937 937
BLUE RIVER LAKE, OR..................... 579 579
BONNEVILLE LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA...... 7,039 7,039
COLUMBIA AND LOWER WILLAMETTE RIVERS 28,066 28,066
BELOW VANCOUVER........................
COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR AND WA.. 19,277 19,277
COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN VANCOUVER, WA AND 931 931
THE DALLES, OR.........................
COOS BAY, OR............................ 5,843 5,843
COTTAGE GROVE LAKE, OR.................. 1,266 1,266
COUGAR LAKE, OR......................... 1,934 1,934
DETROIT LAKE, OR........................ 1,008 1,008
DORENA LAKE, OR......................... 1,040 1,040
FALL CREEK LAKE, OR..................... 3,602 3,602
FERN RIDGE LAKE, OR..................... 1,791 1,791
GREEN PETER-FOSTER LAKES, OR............ 4,321 4,321
HILLS CREEK LAKE, OR.................... 1,257 1,257
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL 20 20
PROJECTS, OR...........................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OR....... 590 590
JOHN DAY LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA........ 4,329 4,329
LOOKOUT POINT LAKE, OR.................. 2,168 2,168
LOST CREEK LAKE, OR..................... 3,866 3,866
MCNARY LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA.......... 5,872 5,872
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OR........... 400 400
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OR..... 98 98
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 9,695 9,695
WATERS, OR.............................
WILLAMETTE RIVER AT WILLAMETTE FALLS, OR 110 110
WILLOW CREEK LAKE, OR................... 677 677
YAQUINA BAY AND HARBOR, OR.............. 2,780 2,780
PENNSYLVANIA
ALLEGHENY RIVER, PA..................... 4,317 4,317
ALVIN R. BUSH DAM, PA................... 747 747
AYLESWORTH CREEK LAKE, PA............... 351 351
BELTZVILLE LAKE, PA..................... 1,570 1,570
BLUE MARSH LAKE, PA..................... 2,688 2,688
CONEMAUGH RIVER LAKE, PA................ 1,252 1,252
COWANESQUE LAKE, PA..................... 2,269 2,269
CROOKED CREEK LAKE, PA.................. 1,632 1,632
CURWENSVILLE LAKE, PA................... 825 825
DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA, PA TO 920 920
TRENTON, NJ............................
EAST BRANCH CLARION RIVER LAKE, PA...... 1,725 1,725
FOSTER JOSEPH SAYERS DAM, PA............ 898 898
FRANCIS E. WALTER DAM, PA............... 1,156 1,156
GENERAL EDGAR JADWIN DAM AND RESERVOIR, 320 320
PA.....................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, PA....... 1,117 1,117
JOHNSTOWN, PA........................... 41 41
KINZUA DAM AND ALLEGHENY RESERVOIR, PA.. 1,777 1,777
LOYALHANNA LAKE, PA..................... 1,316 1,316
MAHONING CREEK LAKE, PA................. 3,333 3,333
MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA................... 13,267 13,267
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, PA, OH, AND 20,362 20,362
WV.....................................
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, PA, OH, 682 682
AND WV.................................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, PA........... 80 80
PROMPTON LAKE, PA....................... 492 492
PUNXSUTAWNEY, PA........................ 35 35
RAYSTOWN LAKE, PA....................... 4,206 4,206
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, PA..... 46 46
SCHUYLKILL RIVER, PA.................... 100 100
SHENANGO RIVER LAKE, PA................. 2,203 2,203
STILLWATER LAKE, PA..................... 511 511
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 101 101
WATERS, PA.............................
TIOGA-HAMMOND LAKES, PA................. 2,496 2,496
TIONESTA LAKE, PA....................... 1,735 1,735
UNION CITY LAKE, PA..................... 449 449
WOODCOCK CREEK LAKE, PA................. 1,419 1,419
YORK INDIAN ROCK DAM, PA................ 729 729
YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER LAKE, PA AND MD...... 2,451 2,451
RHODE ISLAND
FOX POINT BARRIER, NARRANGANSETT BAY, RI 2,030 2,030
GREAT SALT POND, BLOCK ISLAND, RI....... 250 250
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, RI....... 45 45
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, RI........... 500 500
WOONSOCKET, RI.......................... 679 679
SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC................... 15,883 15,883
COOPER RIVER, CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC..... 4,590 4,590
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SC....... 65 65
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, SC........... 875 875
SOUTH DAKOTA
BIG BEND DAM, LAKE SHARPE, SD........... 9,567 9,567
COLD BROOK LAKE, SD..................... 453 453
COTTONWOOD SPRINGS LAKE, SD............. 394 394
FORT RANDALL DAM, LAKE FRANCIS CASE, SD. 8,848 8,848
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SD....... 139 139
LAKE TRAVERSE, SD AND MN................ 583 583
OAHE DAM, LAKE OAHE, SD AND ND.......... 11,215 11,215
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, SD..... 120 120
TENNESSEE
CENTER HILL LAKE, TN.................... 5,299 5,299
CHEATHAM LOCK AND DAM, TN............... 8,369 8,369
CORDELL HULL DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN...... 6,430 6,430
DALE HOLLOW LAKE, TN.................... 6,650 6,650
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN....... 103 103
J. PERCY PRIEST DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN... 4,622 4,622
NORTHWEST TENNESSEE REGIONAL HARBOR, 10 10
LAKE COUNTY, TN........................
OLD HICKORY LOCK AND DAM, TN............ 9,755 9,755
TENNESSEE RIVER, TN..................... 20,726 20,726
WOLF RIVER HARBOR, TN................... 109 109
TEXAS
AQUILLA LAKE, TX........................ 1,176 1,176
ARKANSAS-RED RIVER BASINS CHLORIDE 1,529 1,529
CONTROL--AREA VI.......................
BARBOUR TERMINAL CHANNEL, TX............ 3,011 3,011
BARDWELL LAKE, TX....................... 1,915 1,915
BAYPORT SHIP CHANNEL, TX................ 1,398 1,398
BELTON LAKE, TX......................... 3,486 3,486
BENBROOK LAKE, TX....................... 2,313 2,313
BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, TX................ 3,560 3,560
BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TX....... 2,862 2,862
CANYON LAKE, TX......................... 3,321 3,321
CEDAR BAYOU, TX......................... 227 227
CHANNEL TO PORT BOLIVAR, TX............. 409 409
CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX......... 8,129 8,129
DENISON DAM, LAKE TEXOMA, TX............ 7,137 7,137
ESTELLINE SPRINGS EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT, 42 42
TX.....................................
FERRELLS BRIDGE DAM, LAKE O' THE PINES, 3,529 3,529
TX.....................................
FREEPORT HARBOR, TX..................... 8,848 8,848
GALVESTON HARBOR AND CHANNEL, TX........ 3,914 3,914
GIWW, CHANNEL TO VICTORIA, TX........... 363 363
GRANGER DAM AND LAKE, TX................ 2,298 2,298
GRAPEVINE LAKE, TX...................... 2,696 2,696
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, TX.......... 25,580 25,580
HORDS CREEK LAKE, TX.................... 1,895 1,895
HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX................ 19,701 19,701
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TX....... 1,863 1,863
JIM CHAPMAN LAKE, TX.................... 1,736 1,736
JOE POOL LAKE, TX....................... 1,309 1,309
LAKE KEMP, TX........................... 241 241
LAVON LAKE, TX.......................... 3,017 3,017
LEWISVILLE DAM, TX...................... 3,295 3,295
MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL, TX.............. 4,920 4,920
NAVARRO MILLS LAKE, TX.................. 3,151 3,151
NORTH SAN GABRIEL DAM AND LAKE 2,303 2,303
GEORGETOWN, TX.........................
O.C. FISHER DAM AND LAKE, TX............ 1,011 1,011
PAT MAYSE LAKE, TX...................... 1,148 1,148
PROCTOR LAKE, TX........................ 2,454 2,454
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TX........... 225 225
RAY ROBERTS LAKE, TX.................... 1,493 1,493
SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY, TX.............. 19,591 19,591
SAM RAYBURN DAM AND RESERVOIR, TX....... 5,881 5,881
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, TX..... 224 224
SOMERVILLE LAKE, TX..................... 3,190 3,190
STILLHOUSE HOLLOW DAM, TX............... 2,040 2,040
TEXAS CITY SHIP CHANNEL, TX............. 2,234 2,234
TEXAS WATER ALLOCATION ASSESSMENT, TX... 100 100
TOWN BLUFF DAM, B.A. STEINHAGEN LAKE, TX 2,769 2,769
WACO LAKE, TX........................... 3,036 3,036
WALLISVILLE LAKE, TX.................... 2,482 2,482
WHITNEY LAKE, TX........................ 6,725 6,725
WRIGHT PATMAN DAM AND LAKE, TX.......... 3,513 3,513
UTAH
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, UT....... 103 103
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, UT..... 642 642
VERMONT
BALL MOUNTAIN, VT....................... 1,016 1,016
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VT....... 208 208
NARROWS OF LAKE CHAMPLAIN, VT AND NY.... 30 30
NORTH HARTLAND LAKE, VT................. 1,001 1,001
NORTH SPRINGFIELD LAKE, VT.............. 854 854
TOWNSHEND LAKE, VT...................... 770 770
UNION VILLAGE DAM, VT................... 683 683
VIRGINIA
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY--ACC, VA. 2,260 2,260
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY--DSC, VA. 1,110 1,110
CHINCOTEAGUE INLET, VA.................. 329 329
GATHRIGHT DAM AND LAKE MOOMAW, VA....... 2,203 2,203
HAMPTON ROADS, NORFOLK AND NEWPORT NEWS 1,682 1,682
HARBOR, VA.............................
HAMPTON ROADS, VA (PREVENTION OF 75 75
OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS)..................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VA....... 349 349
JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA................. 3,948 3,948
JOHN H. KERR LAKE, VA AND NC............ 10,174 10,174
JOHN W. FLANNAGAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA. 2,608 2,608
LYNNHAVEN INLET, VA..................... 100 100
NORFOLK HARBOR, VA...................... 10,077 10,077
NORTH FORK OF POUND RIVER LAKE, VA...... 547 547
PHILPOTT LAKE, VA....................... 4,834 4,834
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, VA........... 1,373 1,373
RUDEE INLET, VA......................... 100 100
WATER/ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION, VA... 110 110
WASHINGTON
CHIEF JOSEPH DAM, WA.................... 653 653
EVERETT HARBOR AND SNOHOMISH RIVER, WA.. 851 851
GRAYS HARBOR, WA........................ 9,778 9,778
HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA................... 3,187 3,187
ICE HARBOR LOCK AND DAM, WA............. 4,237 4,237
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL 70 70
PROJECTS, WA...........................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WA....... 630 630
LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA.......... 8,646 8,646
LITTLE GOOSE LOCK AND DAM, WA........... 2,341 2,341
LOWER GRANITE LOCK AND DAM, WA.......... 3,062 3,062
LOWER MONUMENTAL LOCK AND DAM, WA....... 2,603 2,603
MILL CREEK LAKE, WA..................... 2,243 2,243
MOUNT SAINT HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA. 266 266
MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA.................... 3,698 3,698
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WA........... 595 595
PUGET SOUND AND TRIBUTARY WATERS, WA.... 1,057 1,057
QUILLAYUTE RIVER, WA.................... 1,140 1,140
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WA..... 453 453
SEATTLE HARBOR, WA...................... 957 957
STILLAGUAMISH RIVER, WA................. 273 273
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 55 55
WATERS, WA.............................
TACOMA HARBOR, WA....................... 1,033 1,033
TACOMA, PUYALLUP RIVER, WA.............. 144 144
THE DALLES LOCK AND DAM, WA AND OR...... 3,196 3,196
WEST VIRGINIA
BEECH FORK LAKE, WV..................... 1,648 1,648
BLUESTONE LAKE, WV...................... 1,885 1,885
BURNSVILLE LAKE, WV..................... 2,776 2,776
EAST LYNN LAKE, WV...................... 2,052 2,052
ELKINS, WV.............................. 32 32
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WV....... 389 389
KANAWHA RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV........ 10,164 10,164
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV, KY, AND 41,137 41,137
OH.....................................
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, WV, KY, 3,053 3,053
AND OH.................................
R.D. BAILEY LAKE, WV.................... 2,576 2,576
STONEWALL JACKSON LAKE, WV.............. 1,184 1,184
SUMMERSVILLE LAKE, WV................... 2,642 2,642
SUTTON LAKE, WV......................... 2,674 2,674
TYGART LAKE, WV......................... 1,399 1,399
WISCONSIN
EAU GALLE RIVER LAKE, WI................ 814 814
FOX RIVER, WI........................... 1,949 1,949
GREEN BAY HARBOR, WI.................... 3,180 3,180
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WI....... 51 51
KEWAUNEE HARBOR, WI..................... 14 14
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WI........... 288 288
STURGEON BAY HARBOR AND LAKE MICHIGAN 19 19
SHIP CANAL, WI.........................
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 540 540
WATERS, WI.............................
WYOMING
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WY....... 59 59
JACKSON HOLE LEVEES, WY................. 2,356 2,356
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WY..... 119 119
-------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, PROJECTS LISTED UNDER 2,220,386 2,220,386
STATES...........................
REMAINING ITEMS
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK..... .............. ..............
NAVIGATION MAINTENANCE.............. .............. 5,000
DEEP-DRAFT HARBOR AND CHANNEL... .............. 7,000
INLAND WATERWAYS................ .............. 12,000
SMALL, REMOTE, OR SUBSISTENCE .............. 30,000
NAVIGATION.....................
OTHER AUTHORIZED PURPOSES........... .............. 5,000
AQUATIC NUISANCE CONTROL RESEARCH....... 690 690
ASSET MANAGEMENT/FACILITIES AND 4,750 4,750
EQUIPMENT MANAGEMENT...................
BUDGET/MANAGEMENT SUPPORT FOR O&M .............. ..............
BUSINESS PROGRAMS......................
STEWARDSHIP SUPPORT PROGRAM......... 1,000 1,000
PERFORMANCE-BASED BUDGETING SUPPORT 4,000 4,000
PROGRAM............................
RECREATION MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 1,650 1,650
PROGRAM............................
OPTIMIZATION TOOLS FOR NAVIGATION... 392 392
COASTAL AND OCEAN DATA SYSTEM........... 3,000 5,000
COASTAL INLET RESEARCH PROGRAM.......... 2,700 2,700
RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE AT CORPS 5,000 5,000
PROJECTS...............................
CULTURAL RESOURCES (NAGPRA/CURATION).... 4,500 4,500
DREDGE MCFARLAND READY RESERVE.......... 11,857 11,857
DREDGE WHEELER READY RESERVE............ 12,000 12,000
DREDGING DATA AND LOCK PERFORMANCE 1,150 1,150
MONITORING SYSTEM......................
DREDGING OPERATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL 6,300 6,300
RESEARCH [DOER]........................
DREDGING OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT 2,820 2,820
PROGRAM [DOTS].........................
EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM.... 270 270
FACILITY PROTECTION [CISP].............. 5,500 5,500
FERC HYDROPOWER COORDINATION............ 3,000 3,000
FISH AND WILDLIFE OPERATING FISH 4,300 4,300
HATCHERY REIMBURSEMENT.................
GREAT LAKES TRIBUTARY MODEL............. 1,080 1,080
INLAND WATERWAY NAVIGATION CHARTS....... 3,420 3,420
INTERAGENCY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION TASK 7,000 7,000
FORCE/HURRICANE........................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED FEDERAL FLOOD 30,603 30,603
CONTROL PROJECTS.......................
MONITORING OF COMPLETED NAVIGATION 3,920 4,170
PROJECTS...............................
NATIONAL (LEVEE) FLOOD INVENTORY........ 10,000 10,000
NATIONAL (MULTIPLE PROJECT) NATURAL 6,530 6,530
RESOURCES MANAGEMENT...................
NATIONAL COASTAL MAPPING PROGRAM........ 6,300 8,300
NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM (PORTFOLIO 10,000 10,000
RISK ASSESSMENT).......................
NATIONAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM 6,200 6,200
[NEPP].................................
NATIONAL PORTFOLIO ASSESSMENT FOR 571 571
REALLOCATIONS..........................
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT TECHNICAL SUPPORT... 300 300
PROTECT, CLEAR, AND STRAIGHTEN CHANNELS. 50 50
REDUCING CIVIL WORKS VULNERABILITY...... 8,000 ..............
REMOVAL OF SUNKEN VESSELS............... 500 500
WATERBORNE COMMERCE STATISTICS.......... 4,771 4,771
HARBOR MAINTENANCE FEE DATA COLLECTION.. 825 825
RECREATIONONESTOP [R1S] NATIONAL 65 65
RECREATION RESERVATION.................
REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.... 1,800 4,000
RELIABILITY MODELS PROGRAM FOR MAJOR 300 300
REHABILITATION.........................
WATER OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT 500 500
[WOTS].................................
-------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, REMAINING ITEMS......... 177,614 235,064
REDUCTION FOR SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE...... .............. -51,450
-------------------------------
TOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.. 2,398,000 2,404,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zebra and Quagga Mussels.--The Committee understands the
challenges posed by the invasion of quagga and zebra mussels in
various places across the country, and that invasion has not
yet occurred in the Pacific Northwest and Lake Tahoe. Given the
significant Federal assets in the region, it would seem prudent
to determine the vulnerabilities of the infrastructure. The
Committee recognizes the work that is underway, but believes
more can and should be done to prevent invasion. Portions of
the country are already dealing with these invasive species and
the lessons learned should be applied to developing a strategy
of minimizing the impacts to vulnerable infrastructure in this
region. The Committee encourages the Corps of Engineers in
partnership with the Bonneville Power Administration, to
continue its efforts to develop invasive mussel vulnerability
assessments for federally owned hydropower projects, in the
Pacific Northwest, including an estimate of the annual cost of
protection and maintenance of this infrastructure, if
applicable. Further, the Committee urges the Corps, where
appropriate, to assist the States in their efforts to prevent
the spread of invasive mussels to Federal projects in the
region.
Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.--The fiscal year 2013
budget request does not fund operation, maintenance, and
rehabilitation of our Nation's aging infrastructure
sufficiently to ensure continued competitiveness in a global
marketplace. Federal navigation channels maintained at only a
fraction of authorized dimensions, and navigation locks and
hydropower facilities well beyond their design life result in
economic inefficiencies and risks infrastructure failure, which
cause substantial economic losses. The Committee believes that
investing in operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of
infrastructure today will save taxpayers money in the future.
The Committee recommendation includes additional funds to
continue ongoing projects and activities including periodic
dredging of ports and harbors. None of these funds may be used
for any item where funding was specifically denied. The intent
of these funds is for ongoing work that either was not included
in the administration's request or was inadequately budgeted.
The Committee directs that priority in allocating these funds
be given to completing ongoing work maintaining authorized
depths and widths of harbors and shipping channels, including
where contaminated sediments are present, and for addressing
critical maintenance backlog. Particular emphasis should be
placed on projects where there is a U.S. Coast Guard presence;
that will enhance national, regional, or local economic
development; or that will promote job growth or international
competitiveness.
The Committee is concerned that the administration's
criteria for navigation maintenance does not allow small,
remote, or subsistence harbors and waterways to properly
compete for scarce navigation maintenance funds. The Committee
urges the Corps to revise the criteria used for determining
which navigation maintenance projects are funded in order to
develop a reasonable and equitable allocation under this
account. The criteria should include the economic impact that
these projects provide to local and regional economies, in
particular, those with national defense or public health and
safety importance.
Funding associated with each category may be allocated to
any eligible project within that category; funding associated
with each subcategory may be allocated only to eligible
projects within that subcategory. The list of subcategories is
not meant to be exhaustive. Priority in allocating these funds
should consider the following: number of jobs created directly
by the funded activity; benefits to the local, regional, or
national economy; ability to obligate the funds allocated
within the fiscal year; ability to complete the project,
separable element, or project phase within the funds allocated;
and risk of imminent failure or closure of the facility.
Within 45 days of enactment of this act, the Corps shall
provide to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a
work plan delineating how these funds are to be distributed.
The Committee directs that a listing should accompany the work
plan showing all the ongoing projects that were considered
eligible and could have used funding for fiscal year 2013 and
the reasons why these items were considered as being less
competitive for inclusion in the work plan.
Reducing Civil Works Vulnerability.--No funding is included
for this new item.
REGULATORY PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2012.................................... $193,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013................................... 205,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 199,000,000
An appropriation of $199,000,000 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 believes compensatory mitigation is
appropriate for a permitted activity when that activity damages
or destroys the value of wetlands. However, the Committee is
concerned about the unevenness with which compensatory
mitigation for permitted activities is being addressed around
the country and the lack of consideration for how the various
methods can disproportionately impact vital public works
projects and economic development efforts. In the Lower
Mississippi River Valley, the ``modified Charleston method'' is
being used for determining compensatory mitigation. In many
cases this method is requiring permittees to acquire three
acres of mitigation for every one acre of habitat that is
damaged as a result of a permitted action. This has the impact
of increasing the cost of a project by 300-400 percent. The
Committee questions the reasonableness of this method of
compensatory mitigation. The Corps is directed to report to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 90 days of
enactment of this act the ways in which compensatory mitigation
are computed in the various field operating agencies of the
Corps around the Nation. Additionally, this report should
provide recommendations as to how compensatory mitigation can
be more equitably computed across the Corps, as well as how
economic interests are being considered. This should also
include proposals for alternative mitigation strategies and
broader options to meet mitigation requirements that would
ensure continued viability for essential community improvement
projects.
FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2012.................................... $109,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013................................... 104,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 109,000,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $109,000,000
to continue activities related to the Formerly Utilized Sites
Remedial Action Program [FUSRAP] in fiscal year 2013.
The responsibility for the cleanup of contaminated sites
under the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program was
transferred from the Department of Energy 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 Corps is directed to prioritize sites that are nearing
completion.
FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES
Appropriations, 2012.................................... $27,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013................................... 30,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 30,000,000
The Committee has recommended $30,000,000 for the Flood
Control and Coastal Emergencies 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.
GENERAL EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2012.................................... $185,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013................................... 182,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 182,000,000
This appropriation finances the expenses of the Office,
Chief of Engineers, the Division Offices, and certain research
and statistical functions of the Corps of Engineers. The
Committee recommendation is $182,000,000.
Executive Direction and Management.--The Office of the
Chief of Engineers and 8 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 and 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 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 Corps is reminded that 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.
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS)
Appropriations, 2012.................................... $5,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013................................... 5,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,000,000
The Committee has recommended $5,000,000 for the Office of
the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works [OASA[CW]].
As has been previously stated, the Committee believes that this
office should be funded through the Defense appropriations bill
and directs the administration to budget for this office under
the Department of Defense, Operation and Maintenance--Army
account in future budget submissions. 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. This is underscored
by the administration's budget documents that state that the
OASA[CW] provides policy direction and oversight for the civil
works program and the Headquarters of the Corps provides
executive direction and management of the civil works program.
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 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. The Committee does
not agree that these costs should be funded in this bill and
therefore has only provided funding for salaries and expenses
as in previous years.
GENERAL PROVISIONS--CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL
Section 101. The bill includes language concerning
reprogramming guidelines.
Section 102. The bill includes language concerning
continuing contracts and the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
Section 103. The bill includes language concerning report
notifications.
Section 104. The bill includes a provision requested by the
administration providing the Corps of Engineers authorization
for emergency measures to exclude Asian Carp from the Great
Lakes. It should be noted that when considering this language
for inclusion in this bill that the Committee did not consider
hydrologic separation of the Great Lakes Basin from the
Mississippi River Basin to be an emergency measure. The
Committee believes that the issue of hydrologic separation
should be fully studied by the Corps of Engineers and vetted by
the appropriate congressional authorizing committees and
specifically enacted into law rather than have implementation
be attempted through this limited provision.
Section 105. The bill includes language concerning funding
transfers requested by the administration related to fish
hatcheries.
Section 106. The bill includes language concerning a
project cost increase requested by the administration for the
Olmsted Lock and Dam Project.
Section 107. The bill includes language concerning a
project deauthorization in Massachusetts.
Section 108. The bill includes language concerning a
project deauthorization in Illinois.
Section 109. The bill includes language concerning the
deauthorization of a portion of a project in Rhode Island.
Section 110. The bill contains language concerning a
project cost increase requested by the administration for the
Little Calumet, Indiana, project.
Section 111. The bill contains language concerning the
combining of two projects and the sharing of credits between
two projects in Florida.
Section 112. The bill contains language concerning
expediting a study on preventing the spread of Asian Carp into
the Great Lakes.
TITLE II
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Central Utah Project Completion Account
Appropriations, 2012.................................... $28,704,000
Budget estimate, 2013\1\................................................
Committee recommendation\2\............................. 21,000,000
\1\The fiscal year 2013 budget request recommended $21,000,000 for the
Central Utah Project Completion Account as a separate account under the
Bureau of Reclamation.
\2\The Committee elected to retain the Central Utah Project Completion
Account as a separate account under the Department of Interior.
While the fiscal year 2013 budget request recommended
funding for the Central Utah Project Completion Act as a
separate account under the Bureau of Reclamation, the Committee
recommendation provides the budget request level of funding as
a separate account within the Department of Interior as has
been the tradition for nearly 20 years.
The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2013 to carry
out the provisions of the Central Utah Project Completion Act
totals $21,000,000. An appropriation of $19,800,000 has been
provided for Central Utah project construction; $1,200,000 for
fish, wildlife, and recreation, mitigation and conservation.
The Committee recommendation provides $1,300,000 for program
administration and oversight.
Legislative language is included which allows up to
$1,500,000 of the funds provided to be used for administrative
costs.
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
INTRODUCTION
The Bureau of Reclamation was established in 1902 with the
primary mission of harnessing the western rivers that led to
homesteading and the economic development in the West. Today,
Reclamation has evolved into a contemporary water management
agency. In addition to the traditional missions of bringing
water and power to the West, Reclamation has developed and
continues to develop programs, initiatives, and activities that
will help the Western States, Native American tribes, and
others meet new water needs and balance the multitude of
competing uses of water in the West.
While Reclamation only has projects in the 17 Western
States, its programs impact the entire Nation. Reclamation is
the largest wholesaler of water in the country, operating 348
reservoirs with a total storage capacity of 245 million acre-
feet. Reclamation projects deliver 10 trillion gallons of water
to more than 31 million people each year, and provide 1 out of
5 Western farmers (140,000) with irrigation water for 10
million acres of farmland that produce 60 percent of the
Nation's vegetables and 25 percent of its fruits and nuts.
Reclamation manages, with partners, 289 recreation sites that
have 90 million visits annually.
OVERVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET REQUEST
The fiscal year 2013 budget request for the Bureau of
Reclamation is composed of $1,034,018,000 in new budget
authority. The budget request is $19,701,000 less than the
fiscal year 2012 enacted amount.
The budget request for Reclamation includes $21,000,000 for
the Central Utah Project that the administration has proposed
to integrate under Reclamation's jurisdiction as a separate
account. The Committee has elected to retain the Central Utah
Project as a separate account under the Department of Interior.
With the Central Utah Project funding deleted, the fiscal year
2013 budget request for the Bureau of Reclamation is composed
of $1,013,018,000 in new budget authority, $34,701,000 less
than the fiscal year 2012 enacted amount.
The Committee believes that the budget request is
inadequate to fund the water and power needs in the West. Aging
infrastructure continues to be a major concern as to whether
projects will continue to provide the benefits to the economy
for which they were constructed. New stresses on water supplies
from population growth to drought require innovative ways to
wring every bit of efficiency that is possible out of the
existing infrastructure. While rural water funding is increased
over last year's request, it is still inadequate to allow any
of these projects to make substantial progress towards
completion.
The Central Valley Project Restoration Fund is proposed at
$39,883,000 for fiscal year 2013. This is a decrease of
$13,185,000 from the fiscal year 2012 enacted amount. This
account is primarily funded from revenues collected from water
and power customers. Levels of funding in this account are
based on a 3-year rolling average of revenues collected.
The California Bay-Delta Restoration account is proposed at
$36,000,000 for fiscal year 2013. This is down $3,651,000 from
the fiscal year 2012 enacted amount.
The Policy and Administration account is requested at
$60,000,000, the same as the fiscal year 2012 enacted amount.
WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES
Appropriations, 2012.................................... $895,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013\1\................................ 818,635,000
Committee recommendation\2\............................. 892,135,000
\1\The budget request includes the funding for the Central Utah Project
Completion Act.
\2\The Committee recommendation does not include funding for the Central
Utah Project Completion Act within this account as proposed in the
budget request, but does include the amounts proposed for Indian Water
Rights Settlements and the San Joaquin Restoration proposed as separate
accounts in the budget request.
An appropriation of $892,135,000 is recommended by the
Committee for the Bureau of Reclamation. This includes the
budget request for Water and Related Resources. Also included
within this amount are the proposed funding levels for Indian
Water Rights Settlements and the San Joaquin River Restoration.
As indicated, the Committee does not adopt the administration's
proposal to include funding for the Central Utah Project under
this account.
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.
CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING
The budget for the Bureau of Reclamation consists of
individual line-items of projects. As presented by the
President, the budget contains 195 specific line-item requests
for directed spending by the administration. An additional 46
line-item requests for funding by the administration are for
nationwide line-items. All of these line-items were specific
requests by the administration to be funded in fiscal year
2013. The administration did not request these funds
programmatically, but rather requested them for a specific
project in a specific location for a specific purpose.
Congressionally directed spending has become synonymous
with earmarks in recent debates, even for agencies such as the
Bureau of Reclamation where the majority of the budget request
is based on individual line-item studies and projects. Due to
this ongoing debate, the Committee has voluntarily refused all
congressionally directed spending requests for fiscal year
2013. Accordingly, the administration has total discretion as
to how the funding that this Committee appropriates will be
spent as it relates to individual studies and projects. The
Committee has retained the traditional table for the Water and
Related Resources Account delineating the line-items requested
by the President in the budget request. Due to inadequacies in
the administration's budget request, the Committee has also
inserted some additional line-item funding under the Regional
Programs heading for specific categories of studies or projects
that the Committee feels are underrepresented in the
administration's budget request. Reclamation has discretion
within the guidelines provided as to which line-items this
additional funding will be applied to. The Committee has not
included any congressionally directed spending as defined in
section 5(a) of rule XLIV of the standing rules of the Senate.
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION--WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Committee
------------------------ recommendation
Project title -----------------------
Resources Facilities Resources Facilities
management OM&R management OM&R
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARIZONA
AK CHIN INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT PROJECT.............. .......... 12,075 .......... 12,075
COLORADO RIVER BASIN--CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT................... 7,456 436 7,456 436
COLORADO RIVER FRONT WORK AND LEVEE SYSTEM...................... 1,907 .......... 1,907 ..........
SALT RIVER PROJECT.............................................. 684 231 684 231
SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE WATER SETTLEMENT ACT PROJECT............ 78 .......... 78 ..........
SIERRA VISTA SUBWATERSHED FEASIBILITY STUDY..................... 500 .......... 500 ..........
YUMA AREA PROJECTS.............................................. 1,585 20,430 1,585 20,430
CALIFORNIA
CACHUMA PROJECT................................................. 678 653 678 653
CENTRAL VALLY PROJECT:
AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION, FOLSOM DAM UNIT/MORMON ISLAND...... 1,480 9,086 1,480 9,086
AUBURN-FOLSOM SOUTH UNIT.................................... 33 3,132 33 3,132
DELTA DIVISION.............................................. 6,577 5,342 6,577 5,342
EAST SIDE DIVISION.......................................... 1,246 2,602 1,246 2,602
FRIANT DIVISION............................................. 2,252 3,307 2,252 3,307
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION SETTLEMENT................ .......... .......... 12,000 ..........
MISCELLANEOUS PROJECT PROGRAMS.............................. 9,508 935 9,508 935
REPLACEMENTS, ADDITIONS, AND EXTRAORDINARY MAINTENANCE...... .......... 17,230 .......... 17,230
SACRAMENTO RIVER DIVISION................................... 4,153 1,261 4,153 1,261
SAN FELIPE DIVISION......................................... 411 166 411 166
SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION........................................ 50 .......... 50 ..........
SHASTA DIVISION............................................. 416 7,956 416 7,956
TRINITY RIVER DIVISION...................................... 14,527 4,110 14,527 4,110
WATER AND POWER OPERATIONS.................................. 1,239 6,965 1,239 6,965
WEST SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION, SAN LUIS UNIT.................... 17,740 6,313 17,740 6,313
ORLAND PROJECT.................................................. .......... 633 .......... 633
SALTON SEA RESEARCH PROJECT..................................... 300 .......... 300 ..........
SOLANO PROJECT.................................................. 1,356 2,256 1,356 2,256
VENTURA RIVER PROJECT........................................... 348 29 348 29
COLORADO
ANIMAS-LA PLATA PROJECT......................................... 1,146 1,188 1,146 1,188
COLLBRAN PROJECT................................................ 242 1,511 242 1,511
COLORADO-BIG THOMPSON PROJECT................................... 277 13,369 277 13,369
FRUITGROWERS DAM PROJECT........................................ 129 171 129 171
FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT...................................... 324 8,494 324 8,494
FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT--ARKANSAS VALLEY CONDUIT............. 3,000 .......... 3,000 ..........
GRAND VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II............................. 631 1,338 631 1,338
LEADVILLE/ARKANSAS RIVER RECOVERY PROJECT....................... .......... 4,106 .......... 4,106
MANCOS PROJECT.................................................. 95 121 95 121
PARADOX VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II........................... 109 2,519 109 2,519
PINE RIVER PROJECT.............................................. 179 288 179 288
SAN LUIS VALLEY PROJECT......................................... 349 4,834 349 4,834
UNCOMPAHGRE PROJECT............................................. 783 209 783 209
UPPER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM......................... 265 .......... 265 ..........
IDAHO
BOISE AREA PROJECTS............................................. 2,878 2,696 2,878 2,696
COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVER SALMON RECOVERY PROJECT................ 18,000 .......... 18,000 ..........
LEWISTON ORCHARDS PROJECTS...................................... 689 30 689 30
MINIDOKA AREA PROJECTS.......................................... 2,160 7,417 2,160 7,417
PRESTON BENCH PROJECT........................................... 4 8 4 8
KANSAS
WICHITA PROJECT--CHENEY DIVISION................................ 46 534 46 534
WICHITA PROJECT--EQUUS BEDS DIVISION............................ 50 .......... 50 ..........
MONTANA
FORT PECK RESERVATION/DRY PRAIRIE RURAL WATER SYSTEM............ 7,500 .......... 7,500 ..........
HUNGRY HORSE PROJECT............................................ .......... 763 .......... 763
HUNTLEY PROJECT................................................. 32 56 32 56
LOWER YELLOWSTONE PROJECT....................................... 364 36 364 36
MILK RIVER PROJECT.............................................. 348 1,591 348 1,591
ROCKY BOYS/NORTH CENTRAL MONTANA RURAL WATER SYSTEM............. 4,000 .......... 4,000 ..........
SUN RIVER PROJECT............................................... 53 271 53 271
NEBRASKA
MIRAGE FLATS PROJECT............................................ 16 131 16 131
NEVADA
LAHONTAN BASIN PROJECT.......................................... 4,199 5,317 4,199 5,317
LAKE TAHOE REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM......................... 112 .......... 112 ..........
LAKE MEAD/LAS VEGAS WASH PROGRAM................................ 206 .......... 206 ..........
NEW MEXICO
CARLSBAD PROJECT................................................ 2,670 1,090 2,670 1,090
EASTERN NEW MEXICO RURAL WATER SUPPLY........................... 1,978 .......... 1,978 ..........
JICARILLA APACHE RURAL WATER SYSTEM............................. 500 .......... 500 ..........
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE PROJECT....................................... 9,838 12,699 9,838 12,699
RIO GRANDE PROJECT.............................................. 1,127 4,249 1,127 4,249
RIO GRANDE PUEBLOS PROJECT...................................... 250 .......... 250 ..........
TUCUMCARI PROJECT............................................... 45 45 45 45
NORTH DAKOTA
PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN--GARRISON DIVERSION UNIT.............. 19,106 6,413 19,106 6,413
OKLAHOMA
ARBUCKLE PROJECT................................................ 66 179 66 179
MCGEE CREEK PROJECT............................................. 37 801 37 801
MOUNTAIN PARK PROJECT........................................... 25 560 25 560
NORMAN PROJECT.................................................. 17 477 17 477
WASHITA BASIN PROJECT........................................... 95 1,483 95 1,483
W.C. AUSTIN PROJECT............................................. 57 608 57 608
OREGON
CROOKED RIVER PROJECT........................................... 367 400 367 400
DESCHUTES PROJECT............................................... 348 328 348 328
EASTERN OREGON PROJECTS......................................... 689 220 689 220
KLAMATH BASIN RESTORATION AGREEMENT............................. 7,101 .......... 7,101 ..........
KLAMATH PROJECT................................................. 16,503 2,130 16,503 2,130
ROGUE RIVER BASIN PROJECT, TALENT DIVISION...................... 478 285 478 285
TUALATIN PROJECT................................................ 102 158 102 158
UMATILLA PROJECT................................................ 787 3,019 787 3,019
SOUTH DAKOTA
LEWIS AND CLARK RURAL WATER SYSTEM.............................. 4,500 .......... 4,500 ..........
MID-DAKOTA RURAL WATER PROJECT.................................. .......... 15 .......... 15
MNI WICONI PROJECT.............................................. 23,000 12,200 23,000 12,200
RAPID VALLEY PROJECT............................................ .......... 92 .......... 92
TEXAS
BALMORHEA PROJECT............................................... 43 15 43 15
CANADIAN RIVER PROJECT.......................................... 80 121 80 121
LOWER RIO GRANDE WATER RESOURCES CONSERVATION PRO- GRAM........ 50 .......... 50 ..........
NUECES RIVER PROJECT............................................ 47 636 47 636
SAN ANGELO PROJECT.............................................. 56 537 56 537
UTAH
HYRUM PROJECT................................................... 238 145 238 145
MOON LAKE PROJECT............................................... 102 68 102 68
NEWTON PROJECT.................................................. 41 82 41 82
OGDEN RIVER PROJECT............................................. 220 229 220 229
PROVO RIVER PROJECT............................................. 1,213 415 1,213 415
SANPETE PROJECT................................................. 60 11 60 11
SCOFIELD PROJECT................................................ 253 55 253 55
STRAWBERRY VALLEY PROJECT....................................... 376 40 376 40
WEBER BASIN PROJECT............................................. 966 873 966 873
WEBER RIVER PROJECT............................................. 76 75 76 75
WASHINGTON
COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT.......................................... 3,595 5,436 3,595 5,436
WASHINGTON AREA PROJECTS........................................ 411 52 411 52
YAKIMA PROJECT.................................................. 801 6,617 801 6,617
YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER ENHANCEMENT PROJECT.................... 9,500 .......... 9,500 ..........
WYOMING
KENDRICK PROJECT................................................ 117 4,736 117 4,736
NORTH PLATTE PROJECT............................................ 240 1,340 240 1,340
SHOSHONE PROJECT................................................ 75 792 75 792
-----------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, ITEMS UNDER STATES.............................. 230,956 231,872 242,956 231,872
REMAINING ITEMS
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK:
RURAL WATER................................................. .......... .......... 15,000 ..........
FISH PASSAGE AND FISH SCREENS............................... .......... .......... 5,000 ..........
WATER CONSERVATION AND DELIVERY STUDIES, PROJECTS........... .......... .......... 8,000 ..........
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND COMPLIANCE.................... .......... .......... 5,000 ..........
FACILITIES OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND REHABILITATION....... .......... .......... .......... 9,300
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROJECT, TITLE I.......... .......... 10,706 .......... 10,706
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROJECT, TITLE I.......... 8,000 .......... 8,000 ..........
COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT [CRSP], SECTION 5................ 4,463 4,817 4,463 4,817
COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT [CRSP], SECTION 8................ 4,315 .......... 4,315 ..........
COLORADO RIVER WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT................ 537 .......... 537 ..........
DAM SAFETY PROGRAM:
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DAM SAFETY PROGRAM............... .......... 1,100 .......... 1,100
INITIATE SAFETY OF DAMS CORRECTIVE ACTION................... .......... 67,000 .......... 67,000
SAFETY EVALUATION OF EXISTING DAMS.............................. .......... 19,350 .......... 19,350
DROUGHT EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM............................ .......... .......... 500 ..........
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND DISASTER RESPONSE PROGRAM................ .......... 1,300 .......... 1,300
ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM.............. 18,890 .......... 18,890 ..........
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION............................ 1,670 .......... 1,670 ..........
EXAMINATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES.............................. .......... 8,760 .......... 8,760
FEDERAL BUILDING SEISMIC SAFETY PROGRAM......................... .......... 1,300 .......... 1,300
GENERAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES..................................... 2,532 .......... 2,532 ..........
INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENTS:
AAMODT...................................................... .......... .......... 5,000 ..........
CROW........................................................ .......... .......... 10,000 ..........
NAVAJO-GALLUP............................................... .......... .......... 25,000 ..........
TAOS........................................................ .......... .......... 4,000 ..........
WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE....................................... .......... .......... 2,500 ..........
LAND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM............................... 8,702 .......... 8,702 ..........
LOWER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM......................... 27,190 .......... 27,190 ..........
MISCELLANEOUS FLOOD CONTROL OPERATIONS.......................... .......... 871 .......... 871
NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS PROGRAM................................. 6,393 .......... 6,393 ..........
NEGOTIATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF WATER MARKETING............... 2,409 .......... 2,409 ..........
OPERATION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT................................ 1,007 1,210 1,007 1,210
PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN PROGRAM--OTHER PICK SLOAN............. 3,345 39,067 3,345 39,067
POWER PROGRAM SERVICES.......................................... 3,623 307 3,623 307
PUBLIC ACCESS AND SAFETY PROGRAM................................ 666 206 666 206
RECLAMATION-WIDE AGING INFRASTRUCTURE........................... .......... 7,300 .......... ..........
RECLAMATION LAW ADMINISTRATION.................................. 2,311 .......... 2,311 ..........
RECREATION AND FISH AND WILDLIFE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION......... 2,508 .......... 2,508 ..........
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT:
DESALINATION AND WATER PURIFICATION PROGRAM................. 2,000 998 2,000 998
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM.............................. 10,050 .......... 10,050 ..........
SITE SECURITY ACTIVITIES........................................ .......... 26,900 .......... 26,900
UNITED STATES/MEXICO BORDER ISSUES--TECHNICAL SUPPORT........... 97 .......... 97 ..........
WATERSMART PROGRAM:
WATERSMART GRANTS........................................... 21,500 .......... 21,500 ..........
WATER CONSERVATION FIELD SERVICES PROGRAM................... 5,886 .......... 5,886 ..........
COOPERATIVE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT............................ 250 .......... 250 ..........
BASIN STUDIES............................................... 6,000 .......... 6,000 ..........
TITLE XVI WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROGRAM:
COMMISSONER'S OFFICE TITLE XVI.......................... 16,560 .......... 16,560 ..........
PHOENIX METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE........ 200 .......... 200 ..........
LONG BEACH DESALINATION PROJECT, CA..................... 500 .......... 500 ..........
LONG BEACH AREA WATER RECLAMATION PROJECT, CA........... 500 .......... 500 ..........
SAN DIEGO AREA WATER RECLAMATION PROGRAM, CA............ 2,300 .......... 2,300 ..........
SAN JOSE AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROGRAM....... 211 .......... 211 ..........
-----------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, REMAINING ITEMS........................... 164,615 191,192 244,615 193,192
UNDERFINANCING.................................................. .......... .......... -11,759 -8,741
-----------------------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL, WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES.................. 818,635
892,135
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Central Valley Project, Friant Division, San Joaquin
Restoration.--The Committee has chosen not to include a
separate account for this item. Rather it is being funded as a
sub-element under the Friant Division of the Central Valley
Project. The Committee believes that this is prudent to keep
these funds within the Water and Related Resources account
maximizing the flexibility of the funding.
Indian Water Rights Settlements Account.--The Committee has
chosen not to include a separate account for this work. The
Committee recognizes that these are legal settlements with the
affected tribes, however, believe it is prudent to keep these
items within the Water and Related Resources Account. Beyond
the actual water rights settlement funding, many of these
settlements included construction components very similar to
rural water projects funded elsewhere in this account. The
Committee understands that, due to the way the settlements were
structured, some of the discretionary funding may not be
obligated in fiscal year 2013 and will be carried over into
later years. The Committee urges Reclamation to minimize this
practice to the extent practicable and within the confines of
these settlements. To maintain the visibility of these
projects, the Committee has included the five projects under
the Regional Programs heading with a subheading called Indian
Water Rights Settlements.
Kettleman City, California.--The Committee is concerned by
the immediate and long-term public health threat posed by
benzene and arsenic contamination of groundwater that the
Kettleman City Community Service District relies on to supply
its 1,500 residents. Despite the multi-year efforts of the
Bureau of Reclamation, California Department of Water
Resources, Kings County, and Central Valley Project and State
Water Project contractors to identify an alternative source of
clean drinking water and means for delivery, the problem
persists. The Committee urges the Secretary of the Interior,
acting through the Bureau of Reclamation and in collaboration
with state and local entities, including the California
Department of Public Health, and California's State Water
Resources Control Board, to develop and implement a plan to
provide the community with a reliable supply of uncontaminated
source water in the amount of 900 acre-feet no later than 180
days following enactment of this Act.
Expedite Water Transfers.--The Committee urges the
Secretary of the Interior to take all necessary actions to
facilitate and expedite transfers of Central Valley Project
water in accordance with this Act and other applicable
provisions of Federal and state law, including Federal
reclamation law and the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969. To ensure the expeditious review of water transfer
applications, the Secretary, acting through the Bureau of
Reclamation, is urged to adopt a policy to require Reclamation
to determine whether a written transfer proposal is complete
within 45 days after the date of submission of such proposal by
a contracting district. If Reclamation determines that a
proposal is incomplete, Reclamation shall notify the applicant
and the Secretary shall state with specificity what must be
added or revised in order for such proposal to be considered
complete.
Sierra Nevada Forest Watersheds.--The Committee directs the
Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Commissioner of
the Bureau of Reclamation and the Director of the United States
Geological Survey, and in cooperation with the Secretary of
Agriculture, to provide an assessment of the scientific
literature regarding current or proposed national forest
management practices in the Sierra Nevadas that could
potentially generate water supply or other benefits or impacts
to the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project. This
assessment should include cost-benefit analysis of potential
forest management actions that would be mutually beneficial to
national forest lands and water supply yield and, if merited,
recommendations for further congressional action.
Zebra and Quagga Mussels.--The Committee understands the
challenges posed by the invasion of quagga and zebra mussels in
various places across the country, and that invasion has not
yet occurred in the Pacific Northwest and Lake Tahoe. Given the
significant Federal assets in the region, it is prudent to
determine the vulnerabilities of the infrastructure. The
Committee recognizes the work that is underway, but believes
more can and should be done to prevent invasion. Portions of
the country are already dealing with these invasive species and
the lessons learned should be applied to develop a strategy of
minimizing the impacts to vulnerable infrastructure in this
region. The Committee encourages the Bureau of Reclamation, in
partnership with the Bonneville Power Administration, to
continue its efforts to develop invasive mussel vulnerability
assessments for federally owned hydropower projects, in the
Pacific Northwest, including an estimate of the annual cost of
protection and maintenance of this infrastructure, if
applicable. Further, the Committee urges Reclamation to assist
the States, where appropriate, in their efforts to prevent the
spread of invasive mussels to Federal projects in the region.
Additional Funding for Water and Related Resources Work.--
The Committee recommendation includes additional funds above
the budget request for Water and Related Resources studies,
projects, and activities. The Committee recommends that
priority in allocating these funds should be given to complete
ongoing work, improve water supply reliability, improve water
deliveries, tribal and nontribal water settlement studies,
ecosystem restoration, enhance national, regional, or local
economic development, promote job growth and for critical
backlog maintenance activities.
The intent of these funds is for work that either were
omitted from the budget request or were inadequately budgeted.
Within 30 days of enactment, Reclamation shall provide the
House and Senate Appropriations Committees a work plan
delineating how these funds are to be distributed and in which
phase the work is being accomplished.
WaterSmart Program, Title XVI Water Reclamation/Reuse
Projects.--The Committee believes there is an opportunity to
enhance the program's effectiveness through the advancement of
regional-scale projects that include multiple jurisdictions and
generate environmental as well as water supply benefits. These
regional projects can require longer planning and construction
timeframes than other more narrowly focused projects.
Accordingly, the Committee urges the Bureau of Reclamation to
consider allocating a portion of the funds within the overall
title XVI program in future budget requests to be used for
advancing of regional-scale water reclamation and reuse
projects by providing planning and construction assistance
grants that can each be used over a period of up to 5 years.
Additionally, the Committee is concerned that constrained
budgets impact the research and development initiatives vital
to improvements in water recycling and desalination
technologies development and applications. The Committee
believes that only through enhanced Federal and non-Federal
research partnerships can research and development vital to
much needed improvements in water recycling and desalination
technologies development and applications be accomplished. The
Bureau of Reclamation should consider budgeting for extramural
cost-shared research grants to fund high-priority research and
development initiatives on water reuse, recycling and
desalination by not-for-profit organizations who often partner
with the Bureau of Reclamation.
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND
Appropriations, 2012.................................... $53,068,000
Budget estimate, 2013................................... 39,883,000
Committee recommendation................................ 39,883,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $39,883,000
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 uses revenues from payments by
project beneficiaries and donations for habitat restoration,
improvement and acquisition, and other fish and wildlife
restoration activities in the Central Valley project area of
California. 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.
The Central Valley Project Improvement Act, enacted into
law in October 1992, established 34 activities to restore and
enhance fish and wildlife habitats in California's Central
Valley and Trinity Basins. The act established a Restoration
Fund for the deposit of contributions from CVP water and power
users to pay for those activities, along with contributions
from the State of California, Federal appropriations, and other
contributors. Unfortunately, a number of sources envisioned to
contribute to this fund never materialized or funding is no
longer available from those sources.
Power users, in particular, are paying a much greater share
than anyone anticipated. This has resulted in high CVP power
costs, and unpredictable fee assessments on power agencies. The
fees imposed on power users are unpredictable, since in low
water years the water users pay very little and the power users
make up the difference. The Restoration Fund collection in the
early years of the act was the equivalent of adding $1 per
megawatt hour to the cost of CVP power, but this has now
increased to an average cost of approximately $11 per megawatt
hour over the last 4 years.
Since the fund was established in 1992 more than
$1,400,000,000 has been spent for restoration activities, but
there has been little accountability on how effectively it has
been used. There is very little assurance that the goals of the
Restoration Fund will be met in the near future, such that the
fees could be reduced under the statute. Therefore, the
Committee urges the Commissioner to continue to work with power
users to determine a more predictable payment stream for power
users and to develop measures to provide more accountability
and transparency to the restoration process. Further, a report
covering the previous fiscal year activities should be
incorporated into the budget justifications submitted with the
President's budget request starting in fiscal year 2014.
CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA RESTORATION
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2012.................................... $39,651,000
Budget estimate, 2013................................... 36,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 36,000,000
The Committee recommendation includes an appropriation of
$36,000,000 for the CALFED Bay-Delta Program.
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, 2011.................................... $60,000,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................... 60,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 60,000,000
The Committee recommendation for general administrative
expenses is $60,000,000.
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.
INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENTS
Appropriations, 2012....................................................
Budget estimate, 2013................................... $46,500,000
Committee recommendation................................................
The Committee recommends no appropriation for the Indian
Water Rights Settlements Account.
This account was proposed as a part of the administration
request to cover expenses associated with four Indian water
rights settlements contained in the Claims Resolution Act of
2010 (Public Law 111-291), title X of the Omnibus Public Lands
Management Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-11), and the White
Mountain Apache Tribe Rural Water System Loan Authorization Act
(Public Law 110-390). Rather than create a new account as
proposed, the Committee has provided this funding request under
the Regional Programs section of the Water and Related
Resources Account as similar work and funding has been
previously provided in that account.
SAN JOAQUIN RESTORATION FUND
Appropriations, 2012....................................................
Budget estimate, 2013................................... $12,000,000
Committee recommendation................................................
The Committee recommends no appropriation for the San
Joaquin Restoration Fund Account.
This account was proposed to implement the provisions
described in the Stipulation of Settlement for the National
Resources Defense Council et al. v. Rodgers lawsuit. Rather
than provide discretionary funding in this account as proposed,
the Committee has provided this funding request under the
Central Valley Project, Friant Division of the Water and
Related Resources Account as similar work and funding has been
previously provided in that account.
GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Section 201. The bill includes language regarding Bureau of
Reclamation Reprogramming.
Section 202. The bill includes language regarding the San
Luis Unit and the Kesterson Reservoir in California.
Section 203. The bill includes language concerning
groundwater banking requested by the administration.
Section 204. The bill includes language concerning water
transfers requested by the administration.
Section 205. The bill includes language extending the
Drought Act and raising the appropriation ceiling.
Section 206. The bill includes language concerning drought
planning assistance in the Central Valley Project.
Section 207. The bill includes language concerning water
storage studies.
Section 208. This provision concerns the Friant prepayment
for the San Joaquin River Settlement currently authorized for
disbursement starting in 2019. The provision advances
disbursement of these prepaid funds to 2014 and limits
expenditure of these authorized mandatory funds to $40,000,000
per year. The section changes no other provisions of the San
Joaquin River Settlement.
Section 209. This section requires the Secretary of the
Interior to develop and issue a plan identifying strategies to
increase Central Valley Project water supplies during years
when water allocations are likely to be low. It is the
Committee's intent that this plan will be finalized and ready
for implementation within the 2013 water year.
The Committee acknowledges that the Secretary of the
Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation, implemented
an aggressive water supply initiative in 2010 that produced
more than 150,000 acre-feet of water through various
administrative actions. The intent of the plan required under
this section is to identify those actions utilized by
Reclamation in 2010 and any other measures which may provide
additional water supplies for CVP contractors in dry,
critically dry and below normal years.
Section 210. This bill includes language concerning the San
Gabriel Restoration Fund.
TITLE III
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
The Committee recommends $27,127,564,000 for the Department
of Energy. Within these funds, $11,510,886,000 is for the
National Nuclear Security Administration [NNSA]. The
Committee's highest priority is accelerating breakthroughs in
clean energy technologies to reduce the Nation's dependence on
foreign oil and developing carbon-free sources of energy that
will change the way the United States produces and consumes
energy. Moreover, the Committee recommends an increase of
$510,886,000 above fiscal year 2012 enacted levels for NNSA to
address critical national security missions. The increase would
allow NNSA to stay on track to meet its goal of securing all
vulnerable nuclear materials in 4 years to protect the United
States against nuclear terrorism, continue modernizing the
nuclear weapons complex consistent with the Nuclear Posture
Review and New START Treaty, and develop a new reactor core for
the OHIO-class submarine.
Exascale Initiative
The Committee continues to support the Department's
initiative to develop exascale computing--1,000 times more
powerful than today's most powerful computer. The Committee
recommends $137,500,000 to support this initiative, which
includes $68,500,000 for the Office of Science and $69,000,000
for the NNSA. The Committee understands that with today's
technology, an exascale computer would consume more than 200
megawatts of power at a cost of $200,000,000-$300,000,000 per
year, would have an extremely high failure rate, and be
difficult to program and use. For this reason, the committee
supports a focused research, development, and engineering
effort to address technical challenges and deploy an exascale
system by 2022 that uses no more than 20 megawatts of power.
Streamlining Security Contracts
The Committee is concerned that the Department has
duplicative overhead costs in providing protection services for
laboratories and sensitive sites around the country. The
Committee is concerned that these contracts are not uniformly
managed, organized, or staffed, which creates concerns about
the safety of the national laboratories as well as fiscal
responsibility with taxpayer dollars. In November 2011, the
Department's Inspector General recommended that the Department
pursue either a master contract, consolidation by region, or
Federalizing the protective force to help reduce costs. The
Committee directs that no later than 60 days after enactment of
this act the Department provide the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees a plan to reduce the overhead costs
of protective forces at sensitive sites and laboratories which
includes one of the options recommended by the Inspector
General, or another option that may have equal or greater
contracting cost reductions.
Contractor Support Costs
The Committee notes the Government Accountability Office
[GAO] has identified Department of Energy contractor support
costs as an area where opportunities may exist to reduce costs.
Approximately 90 percent of the Department's budget is spent on
contractors to carry out its missions and operate its sites
nationwide. These management and operating contractors also
provide sites' support functions. According to GAO, the cost of
support functions at the NNSA and Office of Science sites
increased by 10 percent between fiscal year 2007 and 2009. The
Department is directed to take actions to manage cost growth in
support functions and related costs, and describe ongoing and
future efforts to meet GAO recommendations in this area and
report to the Committee within 30 days of enactment of this
act.
Small Business Contracting
The Committee directs the Department to make no changes to
its current small-business contracting processes related to the
Department's national laboratories. Under DOE's management and
operations contracts with the national laboratories, about 10
percent to 20 percent of total laboratory budgets are currently
subcontracted to small business and managed locally by each
laboratory. The Committee understands that the Department is
considering converting these laboratory-managed subcontracts to
primary contracts let and managed by the Department. The
Committee is concerned that such a change will not result in
any increase in funding available to small businesses. In fact,
the Committee is concerned that the Department's proposed plan
will increase contracting bureaucracy and result in a loss of
efficiencies derived from the localized management and
operation of the national laboratories. The Committee directs
the Department to consult Congress, including the Committee on
Small Business and Entrepreneurship, before making any changes
to small-business contracting procedures.
New Positions
The Committee is concerned about the Department's creation
of new senior-level positions without advance notification.
Such positions necessitate budgetary requirements, and as such
the Committee expects in the future to be notified of the
Department's plans (including those of the NNSA) to create new
senior level position, along with the budget needed to sustain
such positions.
Budget Justification
The Committee recognizes the progress the Department has
made on updating the format of the budget justification
submission. Although the format is more condensed, parts of the
justification--particularly the Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy [EERE] section--are nearly devoid of usable information
and make meaningful analysis of the budget impossible. For
example, the justification does not list how much funding was
proposed for either of the two hubs in EERE. The Committee
appreciates the Department's follow-up in providing needed
information. While the Committee supports displaying how
funding is distributed among technology readiness levels, the
narrative should pertain to a comparable structure to
previously enacted acts to enable comparison of activities, and
funding information should be displayed in comparable account
structures showing at least the program, project or activity
level. For the fiscal year 2014 budget justification, the
Committee directs the Department to implement these conforming
changes, and provide significantly more detail to the Committee
on Appropriations to enable adequate analysis of the budget
request. Any program, project or activity should be readily
identifiable and easy to locate in the budget justification.
Reprogramming Guidelines
The Department of Energy is directed to operate in a manner
fully consistent with the following reprogramming guidelines. A
reprogramming request must be submitted to the Committees on
Appropriations for consideration before any implementation of a
reorganization proposal which includes moving previous
appropriations between appropriation accounts. The Department
is directed to inform the Committees promptly and fully when a
change in program execution and funding is required during the
fiscal year. To assist the Department in this effort, the
following guidance is provided for programs and activities
funded in the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act. The Department is directed to follow this
guidance for all programs and activities unless specific
reprogramming guidance is provided for a program or activity.
Definition.--A reprogramming includes the reallocation of
funds from one activity to another within an appropriation, or
any significant departure from a program, project, activity, or
organization described in the agency's budget justification as
presented to and approved by Congress. For construction
projects, a reprogramming constitutes the reallocation of funds
from one construction project identified in the justifications
to another project or a significant change in the scope of an
approved project.
Any reallocation of new or prior year budget authority or
prior year deobligations must be submitted to the Committees in
writing and may not be implemented prior to approval by the
Committees on Appropriations.
ENERGY PROGRAMS
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
(INCLUDING RESCISSION)
Appropriations, 2012...................................\1\$1,825,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013................................... 2,337,000,000
Committee recommendation................................\2\1,985,735,000
\1\Does not include rescission of $9,909,000 under Public Law 112-331.
\2\Does not include proposed rescission of $69,667,000.
The Committee recommendation is $1,985,735,000 for Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
Quadrennial Technology Review.--Based on the results of the
Department's Quadrennial Technology Review, and the Nation's
many urgent energy challenges, the Committee strongly
recommends that the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy consider applying more funding toward near-term
commercialization efforts in partnership with the private
sector.
Budgeting for Facilities.--The Committee directs the
Department to provide support for the base operating costs of
the Energy Systems Integration Facility [ESIF], a new
technology user facility, which will begin operations in fiscal
year 2013 and transfer the necessary funds from the technology
programs into the Facilities and Infrastructure account.
Starting in fiscal year 2014, the Committee expects the
Department to request a ``Facility Management'' subprogram
budget within Facilities and Infrastructure to support ESIF
operations.
Hydrogen Technology.--The Committee continues to support
fuel cell and hydrogen energy systems for stationary, vehicle,
motive and portable power applications. The Committee
recommends $104,000,000 for the Fuel Cell Technologies program,
$24,000,000 above the request and consistent with last year's
appropriated funding. Within this total funding, $14,000,000 is
for Technology Validation focused on passenger vehicle and
hydrogen infrastructure applications where vehicles will be
deployed, $34,000,000 is for hydrogen fuels R&D, and
$15,000,000 is for Market Transformation for cost-shared
advanced demonstration and deployment of early market
stationary power and motive applications including material
handling equipment, ground support equipment, refrigerated
trucks, auxiliary power units and the associated hydrogen
infrastructure.
Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D.--The Committee
recommends $200,000,000 for biomass and biorefinery systems
R&D. Within the available funds, the Department is encouraged
to direct a total of $30,000,000 for algae biofuels. The
Committee is concerned the Department is interpreting biomass
too narrowly and failing to consider promising noncellulosic
forms of biomass energy technology projects. For purposes of
allocating resources, the Department is directed to include
biosolids derived from the municipal wastewater treatment
process and other similar renewables within the definition of
noncellulosic. In funding biomass and biofuels refinery
systems, the Department is encouraged to provide funding to
projects that utilize regionally available and appropriate wood
and agricultural biomass feedstock for thermal heating
applications. The Committee recognizes that quality and
reliability of supplies will be key in acceptance of advanced
drop-in biofuels into the supply chain once they are
demonstrated at a convincing scale. To that end, the Committee
is supportive of the collaboration between the Navy, Department
of Agriculture and DOE to develop innovative technologies for
jet and diesel fuels for military uses. With the Department of
Defense as an early adopter of these alternative fuels, the
wider marketplace will be more likely to follow.
Solar Energy.--The Committee recommends $293,000,000 for
solar energy. The Committee supports the budget increase in the
Market Barriers program to $25,000,000 and directs the
Department to prioritize the expansion of the Rooftop Solar
Challenge program, focused specifically on streamlining
permitting and inspection processes. Work in fiscal year 2013
will focus on applying best practices developed in fiscal year
2012 more broadly throughout the country. Further, the
Department of Energy shall continue to fund projects to
demonstrate innovative solar energy technologies including in
coordination with its regional testing centers to validate
these new technologies by developing the standards and
guidelines to certify the performance and operation of utility
scale solar energy projects.
Wind Energy.--The recommendation is $95,000,000 for wind
energy. The Committee directs $37,200,000 for offshore wind
technologies, including freshwater, deepwater, shallow water,
and transitional depth installations. The Committee understands
that the Department is making resources available on a
competitive basis for offshore wind advanced technology
demonstration projects and expects that such funds continue to
be awarded for new and innovative technologies. The Committee
encourages the Department to support collaborative industry/
university research involving modeling and visualization aimed
at extending the life of wind turbine blades.
Geothermal Technology.--The recommendation for geothermal
technology is $65,000,000. The funds made available by this
section shall be disbursed to the full spectrum of geothermal
technologies as authorized by the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-140) and the Department of
Energy shall continue its support of comprehensive programs
that support academic and professional development initiatives.
The Committee continues to have concerns about the level of
funding devoted to low-temperature geothermal research and
development and directs the Department to provide funding to
this geothermal area of research and development. The U.S.
Geological Survey has identified more than 120,000 MW of
untapped potential at these temperatures.
Water Power Energy R&D.--The Committee recommends
$59,000,000 for water power. The budget request of $20,000,000
allocated $15,000,000, or 75 percent, of the funding to marine
and hydrokinetic technology and $5,000,000, or 25 percent, of
the funding to conventional hydropower. The Committee believes
the budget request is inadequate for both categories of
technology, but accepts the proposed ratio of funding. Hence,
the Committee recommends $44,000,000 for marine and
hydrokinetic technology research, development and deployment
and $15,000,000 for conventional hydropower.
Within available funds, the Committee directs the
Department to provide up to $5,000,000 for the construction of
necessary testing infrastructure for marine and hydrokinetic
systems. The Committee encourages the Department to coordinate
with the Department of Defense and designated National Marine
Renewable Energy Centers for ocean renewable energy
demonstration activities. Additionally, the Committee directs
the Department to provide not less than $20,000,000 for
competitive demonstrations of marine and hydrokinetic
technologies. Not later than October 31, 2012, the Department
shall provide a briefing to the Committee on the report
required in fiscal year 2010 outlining the Department's
research and development priorities and goals for this program
during fiscal years 2011 through 2015 along with efforts to
further validate the economic and technical viability of a
variety of marine and hydrokinetic technologies.
Vehicle Technologies.--The Committee recommends
$330,000,000 for vehicle technologies. Within the available
funds, the Committee provides full funding for existing
contracts in the Super Truck program. The Committee is
concerned that the budget's proposed funding for Innovative and
Emerging Technologies related to aerodynamic drag reduction for
large trucks are insufficient to achieve the goal to improve
the fuel economy of heavy duty, class eight vehicles by fifty
percent. Within available funds, an increase of $10,000,000 is
provided to the Vehicle Systems, Simulations, and Testing sub-
activity. Further, within available funds, $4,000,000 is
provided for lightweight materials modeling and design for
vehicle optimization and $10,000,000 is provided to continue
funding of section 131 of the 2007 Energy Independence and
Security Act.
Building Technologies.--The Committee recommends
$220,000,000 for building technologies. The Committee funds the
Building Innovation Hub at $24,238,000 as requested in the
budget. The Committee is concerned about misinformation and
confusion among consumers and public officials that the energy
efficiency standards for incandescent light bulbs, effective
January 1, 2011, will ban incandescent bulbs. The Committee
notes that the standards require that incandescent bulbs be
more efficient, do not ban any type of product, and have the
support of the United States lighting industry. To increase
consumer awareness, the Committee directs the Secretary, in
coordination with manufacturers, retailers, consumer groups,
and energy efficiency advocacy organizations, to continue its
education campaign on the new light bulb standards, the new
bulb labels, and on the availability and benefits of high-
efficiency lighting products. The Department is encouraged to
provide no less than $10,000,000 to support research,
development, and strategic deployment of geothermal heat pump
technology.
The Committee recognizes that the Government Accountability
Office [GAO] recently reported that Federal agencies have
limited collaboration across initiatives to promote non-Federal
green buildings. Additionally, GAO found that only about one-
third of these initiatives have goals and performance measures,
making overall results and their related investments impossible
to quantify. The Committee directs the Department to
collaborate with other agencies identified in the GAO report to
ensure that funding provided in this Act is not overlapping or
duplicative of activities carried out by those agencies, and
provide clear, measurable metrics to assess the results of this
program.
Advanced Manufacturing.--The Committee recommends
$168,635,000. The recommendation includes funding for the
Critical Materials hub at the request level. The Department is
encouraged to utilize $500,000 to continue the mechanical
insulation campaign that was initiated in fiscal year 2010 and
is ongoing with industry cost-sharing and collaborating on
content.
Federal Energy Management Program.--The Committee
recommends $30,000,000 for the Federal Energy Management
Program.
Facilities and Infrastructure.--The Committee recommends
$26,400,000 for facilities and infrastructure consistent with
the budget request.
Program Direction.--The Committee recommends $164,700,000
for program direction.
Strategic Programs.--The Committee recommends $25,000,000
for strategic programs. The strategic priorities and impact
analysis subprogram is funded at $8,000,000.
Weatherization Assistance Program.--The Committee provides
$145,000,000, an increase of $6,000,000 over the budget
request. The Committee notes that while this level is an
increase over the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2012, it
represents a substantial reduction in total available funding
given that less will be available for carryover in fiscal year
2013. The Committee notes the important role that
weatherization plays in permanently reducing home energy costs
for low-income families, lessening our dependence on foreign
oil, and training a skilled workforce. The Committee is
concerned about the potential impact a lower funding level may
have on low-income households served by the program.
Intergovernmental Activities.--The Committee provides
$50,000,000 for State Energy Programs and $10,000,000 for
Tribal Energy Activities.
Rescission of Prior-Year Balances.--The Committee rescinds
$69,667,000 of prior-year balances as proposed in the budget
request.
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability
Appropriations, 2012.................................... $139,500,000
Budget estimate, 2013................................... 143,015,000
Committee recommendation................................ 143,015,000
The Committee recommends $143,015,000 for Electricity
Delivery and Energy Reliability. The funding is provided
consistent with the budget request and includes $20,000,000 for
the proposed Electricity Systems Hub. Within the funding
available for storage, the Department is encouraged to include
research and development of nano-structured materials, such as
nano-structured carbon electrodes. Further, the Department is
encouraged to use available funding to issue grants for
regional transmission planning to support or implement
accelerated deployment of new renewable electricity generation
in the Western and Eastern interconnections. The Department, in
working with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, shall
continue to provide technical assistance to states seeking to
form interstate compacts for the purposes of improving regional
transmission capacity, as provided for in section 1221 of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-58).
Nuclear Energy
Appropriations, 2012.................................... $768,663,000
Budget Estimate, 2013................................... 770,445,000
Committee recommendation................................ 785,445,000
The Committee recommends $785,445,000 for Nuclear Energy,
including $93,000,000 for safeguards and security at Idaho
National Laboratory. In addition, the Committee recommends use
of prior year balances in the amount of $17,700,000 for a total
budget of $803,145,000. The Committee notes that the Blue
Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future submitted its
final recommendations to the Secretary of Energy in January
2012. The Committee strongly supports these recommendations,
and provides funding in this account for the Department to
implement many of them in the short-term. Most notably, the
Committee provides both statutory authority and funding for the
Department to begin the processes to site, construct, and
operate a consolidated storage facility for spent nuclear fuel
and high-level radioactive waste. Additionally, the Committee
directs the Department to ensure that the public continues to
have access to the Blue Ribbon Commission's Web site and all
records and documents therein.
The Department of Energy's failure to begin disposing of
waste on January 31, 1998 has created a liability, based on the
Standard Contracts signed by the Department and each utility
operating a nuclear reactor. This liability is expected to
exceed $20,000,000,000 by 2020, and accruing an additional
$500,000,000 for each year after 2020 that the Department has
not accepted spent nuclear fuel. Although funding for these
liabilities does not come from the Energy and Water
appropriations bill, but is rather paid from the Judgment Fund
in the Department of the Treasury, it is, in the end, the
taxpayers that are severely penalized for the Federal
Government's inaction. This is an unacceptable outcome, and now
that the Blue Ribbon Commission has provided recommendations,
the Committee would be irresponsible in failing to act on them
in this legislation.
Nuclear Energy Research and Development
Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies.--The Committee
provides $65,318,000 for Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies,
the same as the budget request. Within available funds, the
Committee supports multiscale physics-based modeling and
simulation activities for engineering technology development of
safety and waste depositions of nuclear materials.
Small Modular Reactor Licensing Technical Support.--The
Committee provides $65,000,000 for Small Modular Reactor
Licensing Technical Support, the same as the budget request.
This is the second year of funding for a 5-year program capped
at $452,000,000. The fiscal year 2012 bill appropriated
$67,000,000. The Committee notes that the budget request level
for fiscal year 2013 will require the funding in fiscal years
2014-2016 to be just over $106,500,000 in order to fully fund
the program in 5 fiscal years. The Committee urges the
Department to set aggressive milestones for this program and
the program's industry partners, and develop a strategy to
track progress, meet milestones, and hold industry to its
commitments.
Reactor Concepts Research, Development, and
Demonstration.--The Committee provides $73,674,000 for Reactor
Concepts Research, Development, and Deployment, the same as the
budget request. The Committee notes theoretical potential for
new reactor concepts in general, and in particular very high
temperature nuclear reactors [VHTR], but see little mid-term
likelihood of such reactors being constructed in the United
States. The current and projected low price of natural gas will
continue to complicate the competitiveness of VHTRs in
providing process heat for industrial applications. It is
increasingly apparent that industry will not shoulder the cost
or risk of constructing an advanced reactor alone and the
current Federal budget climate makes it also unlikely that the
Federal government will spend billions of dollars on such an
undertaking. The goals and time-lines of the Reactor Concepts
sub-program remain unclear.
For the reasons above and given this year's budget
constraints, the Committee does not support continuing the Next
Generation Nuclear Plant demonstration project at this time,
and accordingly provides no funding for those activities.
Additionally, the Committee does not provide funding for
development of a public-private partnership or for studying a
business case for the demonstration project. Any funding the
Department provides for NGNP is limited to continuing
qualification of TRISO fuel and ongoing research and
development activities that started in prior fiscal years. The
Committee provides the budget request for Light Water
Sustainability. Under Advanced Reactor Concepts, the Committee
is uncertain of the budget requests focus on two concepts and
directs the Department to consider other reactor technologies
as well in fiscal year 2013. The Committee supports the
research and development of advanced reactor concepts that have
the potential to be safer and more cost effective than current
designs, while also reducing waste production and the risk of
nuclear proliferation. The Committee encourages the Department
to award a portion of these funds competitively in order to
assure that the most promising designs of private industry, the
DOE laboratories and universities are advanced.
Fuel Cycle Research and Development.--The Committee
recommends $193,138,000 for Fuel Cycle Research and
Development, including $40,378,000 for the Advanced Fuels
program, the same as the budget request. The Committee is
encouraged by the Department's expedient implementation of the
accident tolerant fuels development program, the goal of which
is the development of meltdown-resistant nuclear fuels leading
to reactor testing and utilization in 10 years. The Committee
urges the Department to establish a long-range, integrated
approach to this difficult and very important objective,
including the establishment of relevant testing facilities and
reliable milestones within its laboratories, and to place
special technical emphasis and funding priority on highly
innovative activities, such as its ceramic coated particle fuel
effort, that could significantly enhance the safety of present
and future generations of Light Water Reactors.
Section 312 in the bill establishes a pilot program under
which the Department may site, construct, and operate at least
one consolidated storage facility for spent nuclear fuel and
high-level radioactive waste subject to future authorization
and appropriation. The Committee provides a $2,000,000 increase
in program direction from within available funds to implement
this authority. The Committee directs the Department to use
$17,700,000 in unobligated, prior year funds appropriated from
the Nuclear Waste Fund. The Committee directs the Department to
solicit proposals for consolidated storage facilities within
120 days of enactment of this act. In evaluating proposals, the
Department should give priority to novel concepts, including
consolidated storage facilities proposed to be co-located with
potential permanent repositories, given that current volumes of
spent nuclear fuel now exceed the statutory limits established
in section 114(d) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act for the first
repository. The Committee expects that the Department will
consider only proposals it receives for the nuclear waste pilot
program, and encourages consideration of proposals developed in
a cooperative manner with an applying entity and States, local
jurisdictions, or affected Indian tribes. The Department should
at every step consider the views of the States, local
jurisdictions and affected Indian tribes, and should not expend
resources to consider sites that are unlikely to achieve
support of the host State, local jurisdictions, and affected
Indian tribes. The Committee directs the Department to exercise
this authority consistent with the recommendations in the Blue
Ribbon Commission's final report to the Secretary of Energy.
The Committee notes that the Blue Ribbon Commission found that
one or more consolidated storage facilities is required
regardless of the ultimate location of a permanent repository.
The Department currently lacks authority to conduct these
activities.
International Nuclear Energy Cooperation.--The Committee
provides $3,000,000 for International Nuclear Energy
Cooperation, the same as the budget request.
Radiological Facilities Management
Radiological Facilities Management.--The Committee provides
$66,000,000 for Radiological Facilities Management. Within
available funds, the Committee provides $15,000,000 for hot
cells at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. In future budget
requests, the Committee directs the Department to request
sufficient funding for radiological infrastructure to maintain
capabilities and regulatory compliance.
Idaho Facilities Management
Idaho Facilities Management.--The Committee provides
$152,000,000 for Idaho Facilities Management, the same as the
budget request. Funding provided will support moving forward
with both the Advanced Post Irradiation Examination Facility
and the restart of the Transient Reactor Experiment and Test
Facility.
Idaho Sitewide Safeguards and Security.--The Committee
provides $93,000,000 for Idaho Sitewide Safeguards and
Security, the same as the budget request. The Committee
supports transferring this sub-account from Other Defense
Activities to Nuclear Energy.
Program Direction.--The Committee provides $92,015,000 for
program direction.
Fossil Energy Research and Development
(INCLUDING RESCISSION)
Appropriations, 2012.................................... \1\$534,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013................................... 420,575,000
Committee recommendation................................ 460,575,000
\1\Does not include rescission of $187,000,000 under Public Law 112-331.
The Committee recommends $460,575,000 for Fossil Energy
Research and Development. This is $40,000,000 more than the
budget request.
CCS and Power Systems.--The Committee recommends
$301,622,000 for CCS and Power Systems. Within the available
funding, Advanced Energy Systems is funded at $80,946,000. Of
this funding, $25,000,000 is to continue the Department's
research, development, and demonstration of solid oxide fuel
cell systems, which have the potential to increase the
efficiency of clean coal power generation systems, to create
new opportunities for the efficient use of natural gas, and to
contribute significantly to the development of alternative-fuel
vehicles. Further, within Gasification Systems, a subprogram of
Advanced Energy Systems, the recommendation includes
$8,000,000, the same as provided in fiscal year 2012, to
continue activities improving advanced air separation
technologies.
The United States is experiencing a significant increase in
natural gas production and use in the United States. The
Committee is aware that some of the research and development
work being conducted within the CCS and Power Systems programs
for coal are also potentially applicable to natural gas. The
solid oxide fuel cell systems are an example of research and
development that is applicable to both coal and natural gas
power generation. The Department is directed to use funds from
this program for both coal and natural gas research and
development as it determines to be merited.
Program Direction.--The Committee recommends $120,000,000
for program direction, which will remain available until
September 30, 2014.
Other Programs.--The Committee recommends $13,294,000 for
Plant and Capital Equipment; $5,897,000 for Fossil Energy
Environmental Restoration; and $700,000 for Special Recruitment
Programs. Within available funds, the Committee directs the
Department to continue the Risk Based Data Management System.
The Committee recommends $22,000,000 for natural gas
technologies. Of this amount, $12,000,000 is for interagency
research and development initiatives and $10,000,000 is for
ongoing methane hydrates research and development.
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves
Appropriations, 2012.................................... $14,909,000
Budget estimate, 2013................................... 14,909,000
Committee recommendation................................ 14,909,000
The Committee recommends $14,909,000 for Naval Petroleum
and Oil Shale Reserves, the same as the budget request.
Elk Hills School Lands Fund
Appropriations, 2012....................................................
Budget estimate, 2013................................... $15,579,815
Committee recommendation................................ 15,579,815
The Committee recommends $15,579,815 for the Elk Hills
School Lands Fund, the same as the budget request. This is the
final payment of the settlement agreement.
Strategic Petroleum Reserve
Appropriations, 2012.................................... $192,704,000
Budget estimate, 2013................................... 195,609,000
Committee recommendation................................ 195,609,000
The Committee recommends $195,609,000 for the operation of
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
The Committee notes that the Department has continued to
ignore the statutory directive in Public Law 111-8 to submit a
report to Congress regarding the effects of expanding the
Reserve on the domestic petroleum market by April 27, 2009. The
Department has not yet submitted the report, and continues to
fail to meet other congressionally mandated deadlines without
explanation or cause. Although now nearly 3\1/2\ years delayed,
the information requested in the report continues to be
pertinent to policy decisions, and the Secretary is directed to
submit the report as expeditiously as possible to the
Committee.
Strategic Petroleum Account
Appropriations, 2012.................................... -$500,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013................................... -291,000,000
Committee recommendation................................................
The Committee does not recommend the proposed rescission of
$291,000,000 in balances from the Strategic Petroleum Account.
Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve
(INCLUDING RESCISSION)
Appropriations, 2012.................................... \1\$10,119,000
Budget estimate, 2013................................... \2\10,119,000
Committee recommendation................................ \2\10,119,000
\1\Does not include rescission of $100,000,000 under Public Law 112-331.
\2\Does not include proposed rescission of $6,000,000.
The Committee recommends $10,119,000 for the Northeast Home
Heating Oil Reserve as requested. The budget request proposes,
and the Committee supports, the rescission of $6,000,000.
Energy Information Administration
Appropriations, 2012.................................... $105,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013................................... 116,365,000
Committee recommendation................................ 116,365,000
The Committee recommends $116,365,000 for the Energy
Information Administration.
Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup
Appropriations, 2012.................................... $235,721,000
Budget estimate, 2013................................... 198,506,000
Committee recommendation................................ 228,506,000
The Committee's recommendation for Non-Defense
Environmental Cleanup is $228,506,000.
Reprogramming Control Levels.--In fiscal year 2013, the
Environmental Management program may transfer funding between
operating expense funded projects within the controls listed
below using guidance contained in the Department's budget
execution manual (DOE M 135.1-1A, chapter IV). All capital
construction line item projects remain separate controls from
the operating projects. The Committees on Appropriations in the
House and Senate must be formally notified in advance of all
reprogrammings, except internal reprogrammings, and the
Department is to take no financial action in anticipation of
congressional response. The Committee recommends the following
reprogramming control points for fiscal year 2013:
--Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility Decontamination and
Decommissioning;
--Gaseous Diffusion Plants;
--Small Sites; and
--West Valley Demonstration Project.
Internal Reprogramming Authority.--Headquarters
Environmental Management may transfer up to $2,000,000, one
time, between accounts listed above to reduce health and safety
risks, gain cost savings, or complete projects, as long as a
program or project is not increased or decreased by more than
$2,000,000 in total during the fiscal year.
The reprogramming authority--either formal or internal--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 the internal reprogramming authority.
Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility Decontamination and
Decommissioning.--The Committee recommends $2,704,000.
Gaseous Diffusion Plants.--The Committee recommends
$90,109,000.
Small Sites.--The Committee recommends $87,831,000. In
response to a lack of progress on addressing existing
contamination and seismic deficiencies within buildings that
are located in heavily used areas at some Department national
laboratories, the Department is directed to use additional
funding to improve health and safety by cleaning up existing
contamination and improving seismic standards of buildings
within Department laboratory grounds.
The Committee also encourages the Department to explore
remediation efforts at small sites which can demonstrate new
models for cleanup performed by private sector and third party
organizations, such as laboratories and universities, which
could save substantial resources compared to the traditional
agency-led cleanup model and result in faster cleanup without
compromising public safety. The Committee urges the Department
to budget for such cleanup models.
West Valley Demonstration Project.--The Committee
recommends $47,862,000.
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund
Appropriations, 2012.................................... $472,930,000
Budget estimate, 2013................................... 442,493,000
Committee recommendation................................ 442,493,000
The Committee recommends $442,493,000 for Uranium
Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning activities, the
same as the budget request.
Science
Appropriations, 2012.................................... $4,889,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013................................... 4,992,052,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,909,000,000
The Committee recommends $4,909,000,000, a decrease of
$83,052,000 below the budget request, for the Office of
Science. The Committee believes this level of funding will
maintain U.S. leadership in science and technology during a
time of significant funding constraints. Investments in basic
research will lead to new and improved energy technologies and
the construction and operation of new, large-scale scientific
facilities will be vitally important for many areas of science
as well as private industry, such as pharmaceutical and
aerospace companies. Funding for advanced computing will also
position the United States to maintain international leadership
in scientific computing and simulation over the next decade.
Office of Science Priorities.--The Committee continues to
support the three highest priorities for the Office of Science:
(1) the discovery and design of new materials for the
generation, storage, and use of energy; (2) better
understanding of microorganisms and plants for improved
biofuels production; and (3) the development and deployment of
more powerful computing capabilities to take advantage of
modeling and simulation to advance energy technologies and
maintain U.S. economic competitiveness.
Maintaining Program Balance for Lower-Priority
Activities.--The Committee commends the Office of Science for
identifying clear priorities and directing limited funding
toward those priorities. However, the Committee is concerned by
the Office of Science's lack of strategic guidance and
prioritization among lower priority research activities, such
as fusion energy science, nuclear physics, and high-energy
physics. The Committee is concerned that the scope of work,
which includes research, operations of existing facilities, and
new construction, has not changed while the budget for these
programs is decreasing. The Committee believes the Office of
Science must evaluate the highest-priority needs for these
programs in a fiscally constrained environment and make
difficult decisions, including delaying construction projects
and terminating research activities, to advance these fields of
science in areas where the United States can lead and be
competitive with other countries.
BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES
The Committee recommends $1,712,091,000, a decrease of
$87,501,000 below the budget request, for Basic Energy
Sciences. Of these funds, $110,703,000 is provided for
construction activities as requested, which includes
$47,203,000 for the National Synchrotron Light Source-II at
Brookhaven National Laboratory and $63,500,000 for the Linac
Coherent Light Source-II at SLAC. Of the remaining funds for
Basic Energy Sciences, $692,666,000 is for research activities
in materials science and engineering and chemical sciences,
geosciences, and biosciences, and $908,725,000, which is
$49,698,000 above fiscal year 2012 enacted levels, is to
increase operating times to near optimum levels of world-class
scientific user facilities. The Committee encourages DOE to
continue research and development activities that will lead to
even more powerful light source facilities, which are a key
part of the nation's innovation ecosystem and critical to
America's international economic competitiveness. The Committee
also encourages DOE to explore the suitability of using
existing U.S. synchotron radiation facilities, including non-
DOE user facilities, at universities to serve as training
grounds for beamline designers, machine physicists, and other
users.
Within the research funds provided, the Committee
recommends up to $100,000,000 to support the 46 Energy Frontier
Research Centers, $24,237,000 for the Fuels from Sunlight Hub,
and $24,237,000 for the Batteries and Energy Storage Hub. Up to
$10,000,000 shall be available for materials and chemistry by
design to improve predictive modeling and accelerate material
discovery for energy applications. The Committee encourages the
continuation of catalysis research and encourages partnerships
with universities to support research and development of novel
device materials for alternative energy applications.
The Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research
[EPSCoR] program was created by Congress over concerns about
the uneven distribution of Federal research and development
grants. The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for EPSCoR and
encourages DOE to sponsor a workshop to examine the geographic
distribution of its budget, how best to utilize states at the
forefront of energy production, and ensure that they are
included in important policy and research initiatives. The
Committee also encourages DOE to continue funding to support
research and development needs of graduate and post-graduate
science programs at Historically Black Colleges and
Universities.
Within the funds provided for scientific user facilities,
the Committee recommends $25,000,000 to support early
operations of the National Synchrotron Light Source-II at
Brookhaven National Laboratory and $32,000,000 for Major Items
of Equipment, which includes $20,000,000 to continue the
upgrade to the Advanced Photon Source at Argonne National
Laboratory and $12,000,000 for activities that add beamlines to
the National Synchrotron Light Source-II at Brookhaven National
Laboratory.
The President's budget request notes the cancellation of
the power upgrades project for the Spallation Neutron Source's
second target station. Given the large number of construction
projects currently underway in the Office of Science, the
Committee encourages the Office of Science to consider the
second target station as a long term planning item and include
it in the Office of Science's phased construction schedule for
major construction projects in the outyears.
No funding is provided for new collaborative efforts with
the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy that would
expand the scope of work of Energy Frontier Research Centers
and divert funding from operations of facilities. No funding is
provided to expand mesoscale research efforts. While the
Committee understands that there may be merit in pursuing
mesoscale science to advance future energy technologies, DOE
has not provided sufficient justification for a significant new
investment. The Committee directs the Office of Science to work
with the Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee to develop a
plan that can be presented to Congress for mesoscale science
that identifies the scientific needs for pursuing this
research, what facilities are available to effectively pursue
this research, and possible measureable outcomes.
BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
The Committee recommends $625,347,000 as requested for
Biological and Environmental Research. Within these funds, the
Committee recommends $309,773,000 for biological systems
science and $315,574,000 for climate and environmental
sciences.
Within the funds provided for biological systems science,
the Committee recommends $75,000,000 as requested for the
Bioenergy Research Centers. The Committee supports the
continuation of the 3 research centers and is encouraged by
some of the early successes related to developing next-
generation bioenergy crops, improving biomass deconstruction
with enzymes and microbes, and advancing biofuels synthesis.
The Committee is also encouraged that in the last 5 years the
Bioenergy Research Centers have released 914 publications and
237 invention disclosures that resulted in 115 patent
applications and 51 patent application licenses. The Committee
encourages the Office of Science to continue investing in
synthetic biology tools and biodesign technologies to
accelerate the cost-effective production of next generation
biofuels that could serve as secure, national energy resources.
The Committee commends the Department of Energy's National
Laboratories and the National Institutes of Health for their
collaboration on research and development projects. These
collaborations have resulted in advances in bioinformatics and
breakthroughs in atomic resolution structural biology. The
Committee strongly encourages the Department of Energy to
continue planning, discussions, and funding activities with the
National Institutes of Health to further research and
development efforts. The Committee understands that
Radiological Sciences is transitioning from its historical
focus on nuclear medicine research and applications for health
to research focused on metabolic imaging of plants and microbes
relevant to biofuels production. However, the Committee is
concerned that the Office of Science has not coordinated
research activities with other Federal agencies to continue
nuclear medicine research with human application. Within these
funds, the Committee recommends $5,000,000 to continue nuclear
medicine research with human application unless the Office of
Science can demonstrate this research is being continued more
effectively and efficiently by another Federal agency.
Within the funds provided for climate and environmental
sciences, the Committee recommends $47,700,000 as requested for
the operation of the Environmental Molecular Sciences
Laboratory at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. The
Committee also recommends $11,700,000 as requested for the Next
Generation Ecosystem Experiment in the Tropics, which will be
the first and only U.S. experiment in the tropics to help
predict climate change, reduce uncertainty, and improve
predictive modeling.
ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH
The Committee recommends $455,593,000 as requested for
Advanced Scientific Computing Research. Within these funds, the
Committee recommends $68,500,000 as requested for the exascale
initiative to spur U.S. innovation and increase the country's
ability to address critical national challenges.
The Committee also recommends $94,000,000 for the Oak Ridge
Leadership Computing Facility to move forward with upgrades to
its Cray XT5 with a peak capability of more than 20 petaflops,
$67,000,000 for the Argonne Leadership Computing Facility to
move forward with upgrades to its IBM Blue Gene/P systems with
a peak capability of 10 petaflops, $68,105,000 for the National
Energy Research Scientific Computing Center facility at
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory to support operations and
infrastructure expenses for the new Computational Research and
Theory Building, and $35,000,000 to help support extended
deployment of a 100 gigabit-per-second network to the national
laboratories. Having high end open science computing will not
only help the United States maintain leadership in computing
and develop breakthroughs that will improve the everyday lives
of our citizens through new technologies available to them, but
will also support breakthroughs in the other research areas in
the Office of Science. Research programs such as fusion energy
science, biofuels, and materials by design all stand to benefit
from investments in open science computer modeling and
simulation.
The Committee recommends that up to $8,000,000 shall be
available to pursue data-intensive science, but the Committee
directs the Office of Science to develop a plan that explains
the extent of the problem, how research efforts will address
data analysis problems, and the funding needed to overcome
these data challenges.
The Committee encourages the Office of Science to continue
working with small- and medium-sized manufacturers and
businesses to educate them about the benefits of using high
performance computing for modeling and simulations to solve
tough manufacturing and engineering challenges and reduce
development costs. The Committee also encourages the Office of
Science to simplify software and codes so a broader set of
businesses can take advantage of these powerful tools.
HIGH-ENERGY PHYSICS
The Committee recommends $781,521,000, an increase of
$5,000,000, for High-Energy Physics. Within these funds, the
Committee recommends $25,000,000 as requested for the Muon to
Electron Conversion Experiment, which includes $20,000,000 for
construction and $5,000,000 for other project costs. The
Committee also recommends $26,000,000 for the Long Baseline
Neutrino Experiment, which includes $10,000,000 for research
and development and $16,000,000 for project engineering and
design. The Committee is concerned about proposed cost
estimates for the Long Baseline Neutrino Experiment and
encourages the Office of Science to consider all alternatives
to reduce the cost of the experiment while still meeting the
highest priority scientific goals. The Committee recommends
that $730,521,000 of the remaining funds be used for research
in the energy, intensity, and cosmic frontiers. Within these
funds, the Committee recommends $15,000,000 to support minimal,
sustaining operations at the Homestake Mine in South Dakota.
NUCLEAR PHYSICS
The Committee recommends $539,938,000, an increase of
$13,000,000 above the budget request, for Nuclear Physics. The
Committee is concerned about the lack of strategic direction
for nuclear physics and the inability of the program to adapt
to a changing budget environment. The Committee believes that
the budget request puts at risk all major research and facility
operations activities without significantly advancing nuclear
physics goals. For example, the budget request reduces the
operating times of two major facilities--a 50 percent reduction
in operating time for the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at
Brookhaven National Laboratory and a 15 percent reduction at
the Argonne Tandem Linac Accelerator System at Argonne National
Laboratory. At the same time, the budget request does not
provide sufficient funds to advance the new Facility for Rare
Isotope Beams at Michigan State University, and the current
construction project to upgrade the Continuous Electron Beam
Accelerator Facility at the Thomas Jefferson National
Laboratory is at risk of falling behind schedule. The Committee
directs the Office of Science to charge the Nuclear Physics
Advisory Committee to submit a report by December 1, 2012 to
the Office of Science and the Committee that proposes research
and development activities for nuclear physics under a flat
budget scenario over the next 5 fiscal years. The report should
specifically identify priorities for facility construction and
facility decommissioning to meet those priorities.
To address some of these concerns, the Committee recommends
$40,572,000 in construction funds for the Continuous Electron
Beam Accelerator Facility, which the Nuclear Physics Advisory
Committee concluded was the highest priority for the Nation's
nuclear physics program. The Committee also recommends
$30,000,000 for the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams, which
includes funding to complete design and engineering work and,
if the Office of Science approves a performance baseline, site
preparation activities. The Committee also recommends
$163,600,000 for the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider to
maintain 20 weeks of operations.
FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES
The Committee recommends $398,324,000 as requested for
Fusion Energy Sciences. Within these funds, the Committee
recommends $150,000,000 as requested for the U.S. contribution
to ITER. Similar to the Nuclear Physics program, the Committee
is concerned by the lack of strategic direction for the fusion
energy program. The Committee understands that the budget
request provides a $45,000,000 increase to the U.S. ITER
contribution but even with the increase, the U.S. contribution
is still $50,000,000 short of the project plan. The Committee
also understands that the increase to the U.S. contribution
came at the expense of the domestic fusion program. The
Committee is concerned that additional cuts to the domestic
fusion energy program may undermine U.S. advances in fusion and
the U.S. ability to take advantage of scientific developments
of the ITER project.
The Office of Science believes that it can take advantage
of international programs and facilities to build and maintain
U.S. expertise in fusion energy sciences. However, a February
2012 Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee report cautioned
that international facilities in Asia and Europe will not be
operating for several more years and international
collaborations cannot come at the expense of a domestic
research program that can benefit from ITER. The Committee
directs the Office of Science to assess the impact to the
domestic fusion energy sciences workforce and the ability of
the United States to take advantage of ITER to advance fusion
energy before recommending any further cuts to the domestic
program. The Committee also directs the Office of Science to
assess alternatives to participating in the ITER project,
including reducing contributions to the project, and the impact
of withdrawing from the project, if necessary, to maintain
domestic capabilities.
Further, the Committee directs the Office of Science to
include a project data sheet with details of all project costs
until the completion of the project for ITER in the fiscal year
2014 budget submission. The Committee understands that DOE
provides funding for ITER as a Major Item of Equipment rather
than a line item construction project, which would be
consistent with DOE Order 413.3B. However, the Committee feels
that a multi-billion dollar project, especially of this scale
and complexity, should be treated as a construction project and
follow DOE Order 413.3B guidance.
SCIENCE LABORATORIES INFRASTRUCTURE
The Committee recommends $117,790,000 as requested to
support infrastructure activities.
SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY
The Committee recommends $83,000,000, a decrease of
$1,000,000, for Safeguards and Security activities. The
Committee encourages the Office of Safeguards and Security to
make cybersecurity its highest priority. The Committee is aware
that in mid-2011, three Office of Science national laboratories
were the targets of cyber attacks. Fortunately, the attacks
caused little disruption to lab activities, but mission impact
and associated costs could have been significant with more
sophisticated attacks to mission critical networks. The
Committee supports investments to improve the Office of
Science's security program to minimize the likelihood and
impact of future attacks.
SCIENCE PROGRAM DIRECTION
The Committee provides $190,000,000, a decrease of
$12,551,000 below the budget request, for the Office of Science
Program Direction.
SCIENCE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
The Committee provides $14,500,000 as requested. The
Committee supports the Office of Science's efforts in assessing
whether science workforce development programs meet established
goals by collecting and analyzing data, including pre- and
post-participation surveys and longitudinal participant
surveys. The Committee commends the Office of Science for
conducting the first longitudinal study by starting with the
Science Undergraduate Lab Internship program and encourages the
Office of Science to continue these efforts and expand them to
other programs. The Committee believes this data is critical to
determine whether these program are successful in attracting
students to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
careers relevant to the Department of Energy.
Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy
Appropriations, 2012.................................... $275,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013................................... 350,000,000
Committee Recommendation................................ 312,000,000
The Committee recommends $312,000,000 for the Advanced
Research Projects Agency-Energy [ARPA-E] which is the
authorized level under the America COMPETES Act. ARPA-E is
responsible for funding high-risk research and development
projects to meet long-term energy challenges. The Committee is
encouraged that, as an early indicator of success, 11 projects,
which received $40,000,000 from ARPA-E, have secured more than
$200,000,000 in outside private capital investment to further
develop these technologies. The Committee encourages DOE to
continue tracking these projects to demonstrate how Federal
investments have developed more energy efficient technologies
and potentially new industries.
Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
GROSS APPROPRIATION
Appropriations, 2012.................................... $38,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013................................... 38,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 38,000,000
OFFSETTING RECEIPTS
Appropriations, 2012.................................... -$38,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013................................... -38,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ -38,000,000
NET APPROPRIATION
Appropriations, 2012....................................................
Budget estimate, 2013...................................................
Committee recommendation................................................
The Committee recommends $38,000,000 in funding for the
Loan Guarantee Program. This funding is offset by $38,000,000
in receipts from loan guarantee applicants. The Committee does
not recommend any additional loan authority in fiscal year
2013.
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES MANUFACTURING LOAN PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2012.................................... $6,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013................................... 9,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 9,000,000
The Committee recommends $9,000,000 for the Advanced
Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program.
Departmental Administration
(GROSS)
Appropriations, 2012.................................... $237,623,000
Budget estimate, 2013................................... 230,783,000
Committee recommendation................................ 220,783,000
(MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES)
Appropriations, 2012.................................... -$111,623,000
Budget estimate, 2013................................... -108,188,000
Committee recommendation................................ -108,188,000
NET APPROPRIATION
Appropriations, 2012.................................... $126,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013................................... 122,595,000
Committee recommendation................................ 112,595,000
The Committee recommends $220,783,000 for Department
Administration. The Office of the Secretary of Energy shall
ensure that it is a full participant in the Administration's
efforts to identify the best locations to site interstate
transmission lines to maximize access to the nation's most
significant renewable energy resources. Additionally, the
Department is directed to collect, compile, and maintain data
on the efforts of the tax code on meeting the nation's energy
challenges, such as improving energy security, pollution
reduction, and improving energy technology innovation and
competitiveness, in a manner that will be useful during the tax
reform debates.
Office of the Inspector General
Appropriations, 2012.................................... $42,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013................................... 43,468,000
Committee recommendation................................ 43,468,000
The Committee recommends $43,468,000 for the Office of the
Inspector General.
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
The Committee recommends $11,510,886,000 for the National
Nuclear Security Administration [NNSA], an increase of
$510,886,000 above fiscal year 2012 and an increase of
$1,623,859,000, or 16.4 percent, compared to fiscal year 2010.
The Committee has provided significant increases to the NNSA
budget over the last 3 fiscal years to respond to important
national security imperatives, which include accelerating
efforts to secure all vulnerable nuclear materials by December
2013 and modernizing the nuclear weapons stockpile to sustain a
safe, secure, and reliable nuclear arsenal without testing.
Poor Project Management.--The Committee is concerned about
NNSA's record of inadequate project management and oversight.
The Committee is worried that large funding increases will make
NNSA more vulnerable to waste, abuse, duplication, and
mismanagement if NNSA does not take the necessary steps to
address project management weaknesses. All of NNSA's major
construction projects exceed the initial cost estimates. For
example, the cost of a new uranium facility at Y-12, known as
the Uranium Processing Facility, has grown from $600,000,000 to
$6,000,000,000--ten times more expensive than originally
projected. In addition, most of NNSA's major construction
projects are behind schedule. For example, a new facility at
Savannah River, known as the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility, is
nearing completion but is 14 years behind schedule. An even
greater concern is NNSA's inability to adequately assess
alternatives, including the use of existing facilities, before
embarking on multi-billion dollar projects. For example, NNSA
spent $700,000,000 over the last 13 years to design a plutonium
disposition facility at Savannah River only to terminate the
project in fiscal year 2012 and determine that existing
facilities could meet mission requirements.
The Committee is concerned that NNSA has not implemented a
number of recommendations made by the U.S. Government
Accountability Office [GAO] aimed at improving NNSA's project
management that could have avoided project management mistakes.
The Committee directs NNSA to implement the following
recommendations and report to GAO every 6 months beginning on
October 1, 2012 on the status of implementing these
recommendations until GAO validates that the recommendations
have been fully implemented: (1) NNSA should assess the risks,
costs, and schedule needs for all military requirements prior
to beginning a life extension program [LEP] and developing
realistic cost baselines and schedules that acknowledge
identified risks and reflect sufficient contingency for risk
mitigation; (2) NNSA should conduct independent cost estimates
for all major projects and revise its cost estimating guidance
to include reconciling differences between the results of
independent and other cost estimates; and (3) NNSA should
conduct rigorous analyses of alternatives to justify selected
project options.
GAO Study on NNSA Project Management.--Owing to the
Committee's ongoing concerns with the effectiveness of and
accountability for project management at NNSA, including
construction projects and life extension programs, the
Committee seeks a root cause assessment of project management.
Prior reports from the GAO on individual programs and projects
have provided evidence of schedule slips, significant cost
growth, reduced scope, and failure to adequately assess
alternatives. Many of the risks that contributed to these
outcomes could have been or were in fact anticipated early in
project design. As GAO has noted in numerous reports, adequate
front-end planning and the development of high-quality cost and
schedule estimates may help avoid the pitfalls that NNSA's
projects have frequently experienced. To assess NNSA's
management of projects in the early stages of project design,
the Committee directs the Comptroller General to conduct an
analysis with recommendations for improvement by May 1, 2013 of
(1) the effectiveness of the process by which NNSA conducts
analyses of alternatives prior to project starts; (2) how NNSA
plans for and executes its projects' design phases prior to the
establishment of a cost and schedule baseline; (3) the roles,
responsibilities, and accountability of Federal project
directors in the early stages of major projects; and (4) the
impact of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board reviews
on the cost, schedule, and scope of projects. In each of these
areas, the analysis shall consider NNSA's compliance with
Departmental orders, directives, and other guidance applicable
to project management.
Report on Changes to Cost, Schedule, and Scope of Major
Projects.--The Committee is concerned that NNSA is not
communicating changes in cost, schedule, and scope in a
transparent and timely manner. For example, a March 2012 GAO
study found that NNSA, to avoid more cost increases, would have
eliminated certain critical capabilities, such as plutonium-
related mission for homeland security and nonproliferation,
that were part of the original project scope for the new
plutonium facility at Los Alamos. These changes were not
communicated to the Committee. The Committee directs NNSA to
submit a report every 6 months on October 1 and April 1, with
the first report due on October 1, 2012, on the status of major
projects, such as construction projects and life extension
programs, which are estimated to cost a minimum of
$750,000,000. The report shall include, among other things, the
name of the project, a brief description of the mission need, a
brief summary of project status, the baseline cost or expected
cost range and contingencies, expected completion date, scope
of work, and an explanation of changes, if any, to cost,
schedule, scope, or contingencies.
JASON Study on Surveillance Program.--According to NNSA's
2011 Strategic Plan, NNSA will complete a transformation of the
weapons stockpile surveillance program by 2014 to better detect
initial design and production defects for life extended
weapons, materials aging defects, and predictive performance
trends for the enduring stockpile. The Committee understands
that this change in the surveillance program involves greater
emphasis on more extensive testing of weapons at the component
level to improve early identification of defects due to aging
and testing fewer weapons at a system-level. However, the
Committee is concerned about the consequences of this change on
annual assessments to the safety, security, and reliability of
the stockpile. The Committee directs the JASON group of
scientific advisers, which has not reviewed the surveillance
program in more than a decade, to submit to the Committee by
April 1, 2013 an assessment of NNSA's surveillance program. The
assessment should determine whether NNSA's changes to its
surveillance program raise any significant problems in the
annual assessment of the stockpile and whether NNSA's approach
is appropriate for a smaller and aging stockpile.
Plutonium Mission.--The Committee understands that
construction of a new plutonium facility at Los Alamos National
Laboratory, known as the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research
Replacement Nuclear Facility [CMRR], has been delayed by at
least 5 years.
However, the Committee is troubled that NNSA has failed to
put forth an alternative plutonium strategy. While it has
identified funds for some aspects of plutonium research and
sustainment requirements, NNSA does not have a comprehensive
plutonium plan including research and surveillance requirements
needed to support pit reuse, transportation, storage, and
security. As GAO reported in March 2012, NNSA decided to de-
inventory plutonium from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
before determining whether CMRR or other facilities could
accommodate the research, storage, and environmental testing
capabilities that Livermore possesses. In addition, NNSA is
focusing the design of CMRR strictly on meeting stockpile
requirements, without fully considering DOE's and other Federal
agencies' missions involving plutonium that need to be
accommodated in such areas as nuclear nonproliferation, nuclear
forensics, nuclear counterterrorism, and homeland security.
The Committee directs NNSA to submit a comprehensive
plutonium strategy by October 15, 2012 that assesses needed
plutonium research requirements for nuclear weapons stockpile
activities and other plutonium missions that details any
modifications to existing or planned facilities or any new
facilities that will be needed to support these missions, and
the funding and time needed to implement the new strategy,
including costs and schedules to upgrade existing facilities,
elevate or maintain security, and transport materials. NNSA's
comprehensive plutonium strategy should be incorporated into
future Stockpile Stewardship Management Plans consistent with
the reporting requirements of section 1043 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012.
While NNSA works toward this plan, the Committee supports
efforts to sustain pit sustainment and pit manufacturing
capabilities and move toward a new strategy, including
$35,000,000 to accelerate material stabilization, repackaging,
and de-inventory of the PF-4 vault, $141,685,000 for plutonium
sustainment activities at Los Alamos National Laboratory,
$8,889,000 to continue upgrades at PF-4, and $9,000,000 for pit
reuse studies. The Committee encourages NNSA to use available
funds to procure and install additional analytical chemistry
equipment to maximize the authorized use of nuclear material in
the new Radiological Laboratory, and to initiate facility start
up activities to enable full operation of Radiological
Laboratory capabilities. In order to ensure continuity of key
plutonium capabilities, the Committee also encourages NNSA to
use available funds to accelerate the relocation of sample
preparation activities from CMR to PF-4 and procuring and
installing material characterization equipment in PF-4.
Domestic Uranium Enrichment Research, Development, and
Demonstration Project.--The Committee recommends authorizing
the Secretary of Energy to transfer up to $150,000,000 in NNSA
funds to further develop and demonstrate the technical
feasibility of domestic national security-related enrichment
technologies. The transfer authority shall be contingent on the
Secretary of Energy securing $150,000,000 in fiscal year 2012
to support the first phase of the research, development, and
demonstration project as well securing a new management
structure and obtaining intellectual property and other rights
to protect taxpayers against possible technical failure. The
Committee recommends transfer authority across all of NNSA
because the primary justification for investing in indigenous
uranium enrichment technology is to provide a secure fuel
supply of low enriched uranium for tritium production--a
program funded under nuclear weapons activities--and to meet
future needs of highly enriched uranium for nuclear-powered
aircraft carriers and submarines--a program funded under naval
reactors.
Improving Relationship Between NNSA and Nuclear Weapons
Laboratories.--The Committee is concerned about recent findings
in a February 2012 National Research Council study that
concluded that the overall management relationship between NNSA
and its national security laboratories is dysfunctional. The
Committee recommends that NNSA and the laboratories identify
and eliminate unnecessary bureaucratic functions that affect
the quality of science and engineering at the labs and detract
from primary mission goals. The elimination of these functions
shall not undermine operational goals related to safety,
security, environmental responsibility and fiscal integrity.
The NNSA shall notify the Committee of the functions that are
to be eliminated. According to the National Research Council,
many of the bureaucratic problems are within the power of the
labs to address or driven by governance strategies that can be
changed. The Committee also recommends that NNSA establish a
technical advisory committee to resolve technical disputes on
science and engineering matters between NNSA and the
laboratories.
Joint Institutes.--The Committee is encouraged by NNSA's
efforts to develop joint institutes with universities to help
develop the future NNSA workforce and create learning and
research opportunities for universities. The Committee directs
NNSA to provide a report 90 days after enactment of this Act on
its work with universities, including the goals of the
partnerships, benefits to the taxpayer, and budget
requirements.
Weapons Activities
Appropriations, 2012.................................... $7,233,997,000
Budget estimate, 2013................................... 7,577,341,000
Committee recommendation................................ 7,577,341,000
The Committee recommends $7,577,341,000 for National
Nuclear Security Administration's [NNSA] Weapons Activities, an
increase of $343,344,000 above fiscal year 2012. The Committee
recommendation would fund all of the highest-priority
activities for nuclear weapons modernization, including
continuing production of refurbished W76 warheads, continuing
design and engineering work for the B61 life extension program,
continuing the life extension study for the W78, replacing
critical components, such as neutron generators and gas
transfer systems, on many of the currently deployed weapons,
sustaining funding for a strengthened surveillance program, and
accelerating construction of a new uranium facility at Y-12.
DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK
The Committee recommends $2,078,274,000, which is
$10,000,000 below the request, for directed stockpile work.
Life Extension Programs.--The Committee recommends
$543,931,000 as requested for Life Extension Programs.
B61 Life Extension Program.--The Committee recommends
$339,000,000, a decrease of $30,000,000 below the request, due
to carry over balances. The Committee is concerned about
significant delays in completing Phase 6.2A activities and
establishing a validated and precise cost, schedule, and scope
baseline. Without a validated cost, schedule, and scope
baseline, the Committee cannot evaluate the entire life-cycle
costs of the program, assess the impact on other weapons
activities and proposed offsets to pay for increasing costs for
the program, determine whether the proposed schedule meets
military requirements, or ensure that any modifications to the
weapon do not impact its safety, security, and reliability. The
Committee directs that no funding be used for B61 life
extension program activities until NNSA submits to the
Committee a validated cost, schedule, and scope baseline.
W76 Life Extension Program.--The Committee is concerned
about a significant funding decrease for a program that is
refurbishing a weapon that makes up the largest share of our
nuclear deterrent on the most survivable leg of the Triad. The
fiscal year 2013 budget request and future funding projections
would cause a 3 year delay in completing this program, increase
costs, and impact the Navy's operations. In addition, the shift
in funding to support the B61 is not fully justified because
the B61 life extension program is behind schedule and will not
be able to efficiently spend the requested amount. For these
reasons, the Committee recommends $204,931,000, an increase of
$30,000,000, for the W76 life extension program.
Stockpile Systems.--The Committee recommends $590,409,000
as requested. Of these funds, at least $181,000,000 shall be
used for surveillance activities. Within these funds, the
Committee also recommends $76,590,000, as requested, for the
W78 life extension Phase 6.2/2A study and $59,662,000, as
requested, for the W88 Alt 370 program.
Weapons Dismantlement.--The Committee recommends
$51,265,000 as requested. The Committee commends NNSA for
completing dismantlements of both the W62 and B53 one year
ahead of schedule. The Committee encourages NNSA to continue
this record of success for future weapons systems scheduled for
dismantlement.
Stockpile Services.--The Committee recommends $892,669,000,
a decrease of $10,000,000 below the request. Within these
funds, at least $57,000,000 shall be used to support
surveillance activities. Also within these funds, the Committee
recommends $199,632,000 for research and development
certification and safety activities, of which at least
$30,000,000 shall be used to prepare for the next Gemini
experiment and plutonium experiments on JASPER at the Nevada
Nuclear Security Site.
The Committee is concerned about significant increases to
the Production Support Account. Production Support represents a
base manufacturing capability and is relatively insensitive to
major shifts in activities, such as life extension programs,
dismantlement, and surveillance activities. However, the budget
requests over the last several fiscal years have included
significant increases for Production Support. The Committee
directs NNSA to provide additional information in future budget
justifications to explain these increasing costs.
CAMPAIGNS
The Committee recommends $1,710,770,000, an increase of
$20,000,000 above the request, for NNSA Campaigns.
Science Campaign.--The Committee recommends $350,104,000 as
requested. Within these funds, at least $34,000,000 shall be
used at Sandia's Z facility to continue critical plutonium and
other physics experiments to support the stockpile stewardship
program and improve the experimental capability of Z with
special nuclear materials.
Engineering Campaign.--The Committee recommends
$150,571,000 as requested. The Committee is concerned that the
core surveillance program and the enhanced surveillance
campaign are not properly integrated. One of the stated goals
of NNSA's 2011 Strategic Plan is to have a weapons stockpile
surveillance program that can detect materials aging defects
and predictive performance trends by 2014. According to a
February 2012 GAO assessment of the surveillance program, NNSA
will not be able to meet this goal if the core surveillance
program does not take advantage of new technologies and
approaches developed by the enhanced surveillance campaign, and
the research goals of the enhanced surveillance campaign are
not tied to specific mission needs. The Committee directs NNSA
to complete a corrective action plan, as recommended by GAO, as
expeditiously as possible, to better integrate these two
programs and establish metrics to measure progress in its
implementation.
Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High-Yield
Campaign.--The Committee recommends $460,000,000 as requested.
The Committee understands the importance of the National
Ignition Facility [NIF] and supports NNSA's efforts to ensure
the long term viability of the facility when the National
Ignition Campaign ends. The Committee encourages NNSA to work
closely with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to help
manage the required full transition of the facility to the
laboratory's standard cost accounting practices. The Committee
directs NNSA, with congressional notification to the House and
Senate Appropriations Committees, to use up to $140,000,000 of
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's internal additional
direct purchasing power--generated by the overall lowering of
the laboratory's ``Blended Rate'' resulting from NIF's
transition away from a Self Constructed Asset Pool indirect
rate and reduced management fee--to increase the level of the
laboratory's Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities funds
dedicated to supporting NIF. The Committee recommends that NNSA
move the NIF operating budget to the Readiness in Technical
Base and Facilities budget line, which would be consistent with
the facility's transition to regular operations and how other
facilities are funded. The Committee also recommends that NNSA
consider alternatives to operating the facility 24 hours a day,
7 days a week.
Also within the funds for inertial confinement fusion, at
least $62,000,000 and $55,000,000 shall be used for inertial
confinement fusion activities at the University of Rochester's
Omega facility and Sandia National Laboratory's Z facility,
respectively. The Committee also recommends at least $5,000,000
as requested for the Naval Research Laboratory to continue
operating laser facilities focused on laser plasma
interactions, target hydrodynamics, materials, and advanced
ignition concepts.
The Committee remains concerned about NIF's ability to
achieve ignition--the primary purpose of constructing the
facility--by the end of fiscal year 2012 when the National
Ignition Campaign ends and the facility is to transition to
regular ignition operations and pursue broad scientific
applications. The Committee directs NNSA to establish an
independent advisory committee as soon as possible to help set
a strategic direction for inertial confinement fusion and high-
energy density physics research and determine how best to use
current facilities to advance this scientific field. If NIF
does not achieve ignition by the end of fiscal year 2012 using
a cryogenically layered deuterium and tritium target that
produces a neutron yield with a gain greater than 1, the
Committee directs NNSA to submit a report by November 30, 2012
that (1) explains the scientific and technical barriers to
achieving ignition; (2) the steps NNSA will take to achieve
ignition with a revised schedule; and (3) the impact on the
stockpile stewardship program.
To meet the complex and increased mission requirements of
the Inertial Confinement Fusion and Science Campaigns at a
period of constrained funding, the Committee urges the
Department to continue its activities to ensure a multiple
vendor base capable of cost-effectively developing and
fabricating the full range of targets for inertial confinement
fusion facilities that support the stockpile stewardship
program.
Advanced Simulation and Computing.--The Committee
recommends $620,000,000, an increase of $20,000,000 above the
request. Within these funds, the Committee recommends
$69,000,000 for activities associated with the exascale
initiative, such as targeted research and development efforts
with major vendors and advanced memory research and development
activities.
Readiness Campaign.--The Committee recommends $130,095,000
as requested. The Committee is concerned about securing
sufficient quantities of unencumbered uranium fuel for tritium
production in Tennessee Valley Authority reactors. For
technical or economic reasons, indigenous U.S. enrichment
technologies may not be available in the future to supply low
enriched uranium for tritium production. For this reason, the
Committee directs NNSA to submit a report by February 1, 2013
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations that
describes current supplies of low enriched uranium for tritium
production, low enriched uranium supply options, and the costs
of these alternatives. The Committee also recommends
eliminating this campaign from the budget request starting in
fiscal year 2014. Instead, the Committee recommends moving
activities associated with non-nuclear readiness to Directed
Stockpile Work under Stockpile Services. Activities associated
with Tritium Readiness should appear as a separate Tritium
Production account with its own line item to increase
visibility of this program.
READINESS IN TECHNICAL BASE AND FACILITIES
The Committee recommends $2,239,828,000 as requested. The
Committee directs NNSA to provide in future budget
justifications an explanation as to why NNSA has proposed
funding for any construction project not originally included in
the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan.
Operations of Facilities.--The Committee recommends
$1,419,403,000 as requested. Within these funds, the Committee
recommends $5,100,000 for the purchase of a major item of
equipment--a high-resolution computed tomography system for pit
scanning at the Pantex Plant.
Nuclear Operations Capability Support.--The Committee
recommends $203,346,000 as requested. Within these funds, the
Committee recommends $35,000,000 as requested to accelerate
material stabilization, repackaging, and de-inventory of the
PF-4 vault at the Los Alamos National Laboratory to reduce
nuclear safety risks and meet future needs for a new plutonium
strategy.
Science, Technology, and Engineering Support.--The
Committee recommends $166,945,000 as requested. The Committee
supports NNSA's Capability Based Facilities and Infrastructure
initiative and recommends $73,000,000 as requested. Since the
Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program ends in
fiscal year 2012, the Committee believes it is important that
NNSA continue to reduce deferred maintenance on aging
infrastructure and reduce the size of its footprint. To
increase transparency in NNSA's efforts to sustain existing
physical infrastructure, the Committee directs NNSA to identify
funds for maintenance and operations by site as separate line
items under the Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities
Account starting with the fiscal year 2014 budget submission.
The sites include the three national security labs, the Y-12
National Security Complex, the Kansas City Plant, the Savannah
River Site, and the Nevada National Security Site. The budget
justification shall include an explanation of how NNSA plans to
manage deferred maintenance costs, including ways NNSA will
stabilize deferred maintenance for mission critical facilities
and dispose of excess capacity. Further, the budget shall
include total deferred maintenance backlog and how much NNSA is
spending at each site each year to reduce deferred maintenance.
The Committee recommends using the Office of Science's Science
Laboratories Infrastructure budget information on deferred
maintenance as a model.
Construction.--The Committee recommends $450,134,000 as
requested.
Project 13-D-301, Electrical Infrastructure Upgrades,
Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos National Laboratories.--The
Committee recommends $23,000,000 as requested to upgrade 50-
year-old electrical distribution systems at Lawrence Livermore
and Los Alamos National Laboratories.
Project 12-D-301, TRU Waste Facilities, Los Alamos, New
Mexico.--The Committee recommends $24,204,000 as requested to
begin construction of a new transuranic waste facility to meet
regulatory requirements of the State of New Mexico.
Project 11-D-801, TA-55 Reinvestment Project, Los Alamos,
New Mexico.--The Committee recommends $8,889,000 as requested
to continue the second phase of this effort to mitigate safety
risks to workers identified by the Defense Nuclear Facilities
Safety Board.
Project 10-D-501, Nuclear Facility Risk Reduction, Y-12,
Oak Ridge, Tennessee.--The Committee recommends $17,909,000 as
requested to complete upgrading equipment and infrastructure in
buildings 9212 and 9204-2E for continued safe uranium
operations until the new Uranium Processing Facility is
operational.
Project 09-D-404, Test Capabilities Revitalization Phase
II, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico.--The
Committee recommends $11,332,000 as requested to complete the
refurbishment of non-nuclear capabilities, such as rocket sled
tracks and mechanical shock facilities, to test weapons
components needed for the B61 and future life extension
programs.
Project 08-D-802, High Explosive Pressing Facility, Pantex
Plant, Amarillo, Texas.--The Committee recommends $24,800,000
as requested to build a new facility to make high explosive
hemispheres for nuclear weapons that is more reliable and can
meet the projected workload for life extension programs.
Project 06-D-141, PED, Uranium Process Facility, Y-12, Oak
Ridge, Tennessee.--The Committee recommends $340,000,000 as
requested to accelerate construction of a new uranium facility
with a goal of transitioning out of building 9212 beginning in
2019 and completing construction in 2022. Within these funds,
the Committee provides $160,000,000 as requested to complete
project, engineering, and design work and continue site
preparation work. The Committee recommends that the remaining
$180,000,000 for construction not be available until NNSA
reaches a 90 percent engineering design phase and develops a
cost, schedule, and scope project baseline, which is estimated
to occur by the end of calendar year 2012.
SECURE TRANSPORTATION ASSET
The Committee recommendation for the Secure Transportation
Asset program is $219,361,000 as requested. The Committee
directs the Secure Transportation Asset program to work with
Directed Stockpile Work and the Readiness in Technical Base and
Facilities programs to identify additional costs, if any, in
implementing a new plutonium strategy that may involve
additional transport of special nuclear materials and the
impact on its operations.
NUCLEAR COUNTERTERRORISM INCIDENT RESPONSE
The Committee recommends $247,552,000 as requested. The
Committee supports the evolution of the NNSA nuclear weapons
labs to national security labs. The Committee believes NNSA's
investment in infrastructure and expertise to support the
nuclear weapons program should be exploited for broader
national security missions, including nuclear counterterrorism
and counterproliferation. However, the Committee is concerned
that NNSA does not have a clear strategy in place that links
the unique capabilities of the labs and supporting NNSA
infrastructure to clear mission goals and funding requirements
to support the Department of Defense and the intelligence
community.
SITE STEWARDSHIP
The Committee recommends $88,249,000, a decrease of
$1,752,000 below the budget request. The Committee encourages
NNSA to report on cost savings and cost avoidances related to
its energy modernization and investment program.
DEFENSE NUCLEAR SECURITY
The Committee recommendation for the Defense Nuclear
Security program is $643,285,000 as requested. The Committee is
encouraged by NNSA's efforts to find cost efficiencies while
still meeting security requirements. The Committee encourages
NNSA to continue implementing security reform initiatives to
better understand and quantify risks and develop the most cost-
effective approach to security.
NNSA CIO ACTIVITIES
The Committee recommends $155,022,000 as requested to
support NNSA's information technology and cyber security
activities. The Committee supports NNSA's effort to consolidate
all information technology and cyber security activities under
the NNSA's Office of the Chief Information Officer. The
Committee believes a focused and common approach will be more
effective in identifying, mitigating, and combating risks to
NNSA's and the sites' computer networks.
SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND ENGINEERING CAPABILITY
The Committee recommends $10,000,000, a decrease of
$8,248,000, for Science, Technology, and Engineering Capability
activities. The funding shall be used to continue Advanced
Analysis, Tools, and Technologies activities to support the
intelligence community and maintain the nuclear technical
capabilities for nuclear weapons assessments.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Appropriations, 2012...................................\1\$2,324,303,000
Budget estimate, 2013................................... 2,458,631,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,458,631,000
\1\Does not include rescission of $21,000,000 under Public Law 112-331.
The Committee recommends $2,458,631,000 for Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation. The Committee commends NNSA for making
significant progress in meeting the goal of securing all
vulnerable nuclear materials within 4 years. Since April 2009,
when President Obama announced the 4-year goal, NNSA has
removed from international locations over 1,200 kilograms of
highly enriched uranium and plutonium--enough material for
approximately 50 nuclear weapons. As part of this effort, in
just 3 years NNSA has removed all highly enriched uranium from
eight countries, including Mexico and Ukraine in March 2012.
NNSA also removed over three kilograms of plutonium from Sweden
in March 2012 in its first shipment of plutonium to the United
States. Further, NNSA has completed security upgrades at 32
additional buildings in Russia containing weapons-usable
materials and downblended 2.9 metric tons of Russian highly
enriched uranium. The Committee provides funding to continue
NNSA's accelerated efforts to secure vulnerable nuclear
materials.
NONPROLIFERATION AND VERIFICATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
The Committee recommends $418,186,000, a decrease of
$130,000,000, to support investment in developing advanced
nuclear detection technologies. Within these funds, the
Committee recommends $65,000,000 for the National Center for
Nuclear Security at the Nevada National Security Center of
which $10,000,000 is for research and development activities
for technologies needed to verify future treaties and train
national and international arms control inspectors. Also within
these funds, the Committee recommends $158,650,000 for nuclear
detonation detection to meet production requirements of
satellite sensors. The Committee recommends no funds for a
domestic uranium enrichment research, development, and
demonstration project under this account. Rather, the Committee
recommends transfer authority to the Secretary of Energy of up
to $150,000,000 from NNSA to fund this project.
The Committee is concerned that current radiation detection
equipment is only capable of detecting certain nuclear
materials when they are unshielded or lightly shielded.
Therefore, the Committee directs that not less than $5,000,000
be made available to operationally test promising passive new
technologies that are able to detect both heavily shielded and
unshielded special nuclear material.
NONPROLIFERATION AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY
The Committee recommends $150,119,000 as requested. The
Committee recognizes NNSA's efforts in re-evaluating the need
for the Global Initiative for Proliferation Prevention, which
has been renamed Global Security Through Science Partnerships.
The Committee understands that the study concluded that the
transfer of weapons-usable information and knowledge remains a
threat, and that NNSA is well suited to help address this
threat because of its long-standing relationships with the
scientific and technical community worldwide. However, the
Committee is concerned that expanding the geographic reach of
the program and poorly defined, ambiguous strategies, such as
establishing a shared code of ethics and responsibility in the
global scientific community, within a constrained budget is not
the most efficient or effective use of funds. In addition, the
Committee is not convinced that NNSA is the best agency or
organization to carry out this activity. For this reason, the
Committee provides no funds for the Global Security Through
Science Partnerships unless NNSA provides the Committee by
November 1, 2012 a clear strategy and achievable performance
metrics that demonstrate how this effort will reduce the risk
of transferring weapons of mass destruction knowledge.
INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR MATERIALS PROTECTION AND COOPERATION
The Committee recommends $368,000,000, which is $57,000,000
above the request. The Committee is encouraged by NNSA's
efforts in completing security upgrades at 218 out of 229
buildings that store weapons usable nuclear material and
warheads in Russia and other former Soviet countries. The
Committee also supports NNSA's efforts to continue additional
upgrades at 18 sites to address insider threats and further
reduce the risk of material theft. These upgrades directly
support the U.S. effort to secure all vulnerable nuclear
materials around the world within 4 years by securing warheads
and weapons-exploitable nuclear materials at their source. The
Committee is also encouraged by NNSA's efforts in preventing
and detecting the illicit transfer of nuclear materials by
installing radiation detection equipment at 462 sites--421
borders, airports, and strategic ports and 41 Megaports across
the world. The Committee also supports NNSA's efforts in
deploying mobile detection systems to expand the reach of
detection capabilities.
The Committee is concerned, however, by NNSA's decision to
significantly curtail Second Line of Defense Activities. The
Core program installs radiation detection equipment at
strategic borders, airports, and shipping ports in Russia,
other Former Soviet Union states, Eastern Europe, and other key
countries. Complementing these activities is the Megaports
Initiative, which provides radiation detection equipment to key
international shipping seaports to enable screening of cargo
containers for nuclear and radiological materials. NNSA's
stated goal over the last several years was to accelerate
efforts to deploy detection equipment at 550 sites in 30
countries and 100 international seaports by the end of 2018. In
addition, a March 2012 program review found that Second Line of
Defense equipment is being effectively employed and adequately
maintained by the majority of partner countries and detection
capabilities of these countries have significant improved.
However, the fiscal year 2013 budget request proposed a cut of
$171,000,000, or 65 percent, to these activities. The main
justification for a pause in activities is the need to conduct
a strategic review of the program. The Committee supports
NNSA's decision to review the effectiveness of this program and
recommend new strategies to better detect nuclear smuggling.
However, a cut of this magnitude would not be sufficient to
sustain already deployed systems, retain expert personnel, and
meet international obligations to deploy additional radiation
detection systems. In addition, nuclear smuggling continues to
be a significant problem. According to the International Atomic
Energy Agency, there were 147 incidents of nuclear smuggling in
2011. Four incidents involved significant quantities of highly
enriched uranium and one of these incidents was related to an
attempted sale of this material.
The Committee directs NNSA to submit a new strategic plan
by December 1, 2012, which should include long-term goals and
objectives, approaches for accomplishing the goals and
objectives, performance goals that are objective, quantifiable,
and measurable, and the resources needed to meet the
performance goals. As part of its evaluation of the program,
NNSA should report on the percentage of global shipping traffic
currently scanned, incidents of nuclear and radiation
detection, the status and type of current inventory of
radiation portal monitors, and total equipment requirements
needed to meet the President's stated goal of scanning 50
percent of global shipping traffic by 2018. The strategy should
consider private-public partnerships that may reduce costs of
developing, deploying, and maintaining detection technologies.
As NNSA develops its strategy, the Committee recommends that it
adopt the goal of reducing the cost of installation beyond
current levels of $1,000,000-$2,000,000 per site for foreign
crossings and $8,000,000-$15,000,000 per seaport. The strategy
should also consider the viability of using managed service
agreements for the acquisition of detection technologies to
replace outdated equipment more frequently and at lower cost.
FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION
The Committee recommends $921,305,000 as requested to
support the plutonium disposition program and construction
projects.
U.S. Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition.--The Committee
recommends $528,715,000 including $498,979,000 as requested for
the U.S. plutonium disposition and $29,736,000 as requested for
the U.S. uranium disposition programs.
Construction.--The Committee recommends $388,802,000 as
requested to support construction of the MOX Fuel
Fabrication Facility [MFFF]. The Committee remains concerned
with the overall management of the U.S. plutonium disposition
program. The Committee supports NNSA's decision to terminate
the Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility because of
significant cost overruns. However, the Committee is concerned
by NNSA's failure to identify alternatives earlier, before
spending $700,000,000 over 13 years and determining that
existing facilities could be used to meet mission needs. The
Committee is also concerned by an increase in estimated annual
operating costs for the MOX facility. Estimated
operating costs have grown from $156,000,000 a year in fiscal
year 2011 to $356,000,000 a year in fiscal year 2012 and now
are estimated at $499,000,000 a year--an increase of more than
200 percent in just 2 years. NNSA has failed to provide a
sufficient justification for this increase. The Committee is
also concerned about testing needed to use fuel made from
weapons-grade plutonium for boiling water reactors. Testing may
significantly increase costs and it is not clear whether the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission [NRC] has sufficient resources to
evaluate the testing data to make a determination about the
safe use of this fuel. The Committee directs NNSA to work with
the NRC to identify the resources needed to evaluate these
tests and determine the impact resource shortfalls may have on
program execution.
Project 99-D-143, Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility,
Savannah River, South Carolina.--The Committee recommends
$388,802,000 as requested.
Russian Surplus Materials Disposition.--The Committee
recommends $3,788,000 as requested.
GLOBAL THREAT REDUCTION INITIATIVE
The Committee recommends $539,021,000, which is $73,000,000
above the request. Within these funds, the Committee recommends
$201,021,000 for the highly enriched uranium [HEU] reactor
conversion program, $213,000,000 for nuclear and radiological
material removal, and $125,000,000 for nuclear and radiological
material protection.
The Committee is concerned by NNSA's decision to delay the
shut down or conversion of research reactors that use HEU
around the world. HEU-fueled research reactors have some of the
world's weakest security measures and a determined terrorist
could use HEU reactor fuel for a nuclear device. NNSA's stated
goal was to convert or shut down 200 research reactors by 2022.
The fiscal year 2013 budget submission would delay this goal by
3 years. Because each reactor conversion takes approximately 2
to 5 years, depending on a variety of factors, such as time
needed to modify facilities to accept low enriched uranium
[LEU] fuel, funding is needed in advance to prepare for these
conversions. A funding shortfall in fiscal year 2013 means
three less reactors converted beginning in fiscal year 2014.
The Committee recommendation would allow NNSA to meet its
original goal of converting or shutting down 200 research
reactors by 2022. The Committee is encouraged by NNSA efforts
to engage Russia in shutting down or converting 71 HEU research
reactors. The United States has verified the shutdown of five
HEU Russian research reactors over the past 2 years and six
reactors are undergoing feasibility studies to convert them to
LEU use.
The Committee also supports NNSA efforts in developing a
capability which does not currently exist in the U.S. to
produce Moly-99--a medical isotope used in 16 million nuclear
medicine procedures in the United States each year--with LEU.
The Committee encourages NNSA to accelerate efforts to help
current producers convert to LEU as quickly as possible by
reducing the technical, political, economic, and regulatory
hurdles associated with non-HEU-based Moly-99 production. The
Committee encourages NNSA to work with other Federal agencies
to develop options and alternatives to ensure a reliable
domestic supply of non-HEU-based Moly-99, such as preferential
procurement of non-HEU-based Moly-99 by the medical community
and disincentives for the procurement of HEU-based Moly-99.
The Committee is also concerned about a proposed 60 percent
reduction in activities to remove and dispose of excess or
abandoned radiological materials in other countries. While
radiological materials present a lower national security risk,
radiological materials could be used for a radiological
dispersion device that could have catastrophic consequences,
including infrastructure damage and radioactive contamination
that could prohibit the use of a large geographical area and
create economic losses in the billions of dollars. For this
reason, the Committee recommends $20,000,000, an increase of
$12,000,000, for the International Radiological Material
Removal program. The Committee also recommends $75,000,000 for
the Domestic Material Protection Program, of which not less
than $20,000,000 should be used to accelerate security upgrades
at U.S. hospitals and medical facilities. GAO recently found
several examples of radiological sources at hospitals and
medical facilities that were vulnerable to possible tampering,
sabotage, or outright theft. In the absence of accelerated
funding, it will be years before all radiological materials at
hospitals and medical facilities located in the United States
will be adequately secured from potential theft or diversion.
Naval Reactors
Appropriations, 2012.................................... $1,080,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013................................... 1,088,635,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,088,635,000
The Committee recommends $1,088,635,000 for Naval Reactors.
The Committee commends NNSA for clearly prioritizing work for
three new projects: refueling of a land-based reactor
prototype, design of a 40-year reactor plant for new OHIO-class
ballistic missile submarines, and construction of a new spent
fuel facility. The Committee understands that the land-based
prototype is the highest priority because it must be refueled
starting in 2018 to demonstrate critical technologies in
support of the Ohio-class replacement program, maintain vital
research and testing capabilities, and continue to train
nuclear operators for the Fleet. The Committee also understands
that the schedule for designing a new reactor for the Ohio-
class submarines has slipped by 2 years, but the schedule delay
is consistent with the delay in the Navy's construction
schedule. The Committee is concerned about construction of a
new spent fuel facility. The Committee understands that the
current Naval Reactors Facility at Idaho National Laboratory
continues to be maintained and operated in a safe and
environmentally responsible manner, but the existing
infrastructure and equipment is over 50 years old and does not
meet current standards or mission requirements. Based on
projections, the facility will be completed 2 years behind
schedule. The Committee directs NNSA to assess alternative
storage solutions and associated costs until the new facility
is operational to avoid disruptions to the Navy's mission and
report those alternatives and costs in the fiscal year 2014
budget submission.
Office of the Administrator
Appropriations, 2012.................................... $410,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013................................... 411,279,000
Committee recommendation................................ 386,279,000
The Committee recommends $386,279,000 for the Office of the
Administrator. Within the funds provided, the Committee
recommends $55,476,025 to support defense nuclear
nonproliferation activities. The Committee recommendation takes
into account the $25,000,000 functional transfer for
information technology activities out of the Office of the
Administrator to the Chief Information Officer under Weapons
Activities to consolidate information technology and cyber
security efforts.
The Committee is still concerned with overlap and
duplication between the NNSA Office of Congressional Affairs,
DOE's Office of Congressional Affairs, and the DOE Chief
Financial Officer's External Coordination Office [CFO ExCo]. In
addition, in November 2011, DOE's Inspector General found that
NNSA maintains a costly set of distinctly separate overhead and
indirect cost operations that often duplicated existing DOE
functions, such as Congressional Affairs, General Counsel,
Human Resources, and Public Affairs. The Committee directs NNSA
and DOE to submit a joint assessment to the Committee by
December 1, 2012 of the costs and benefits of consolidating
functions with DOE to reduce costs and improve communication
and program execution to respond to Congressional and Inspector
General concerns and propose options for implementing changes,
such as legislative changes.
The Committee is also concerned that government pay and
benefits in the Office of the Administrator at a time of pay
freezes are not matching the rate of pay and benefits increases
in the General Service pay plan. In general, pay and benefits
increases in a pay for performance system should not outpace
the General Service pay plan on average. However, the Committee
is concerned that the Office of the Administrator's pay for
performance implementation outpaces the General Service pay
plan on average. The Committee directs the Office of the
Administrator to work with the Office of Personnel Management
to implement a pay for performance system that is consistent
with the General Service pay plan and notify the Committee of
any changes that affect funding for the Office of the
Administrator.
The Committee is also troubled by NNSA's distribution of
full-time equivalents [FTEs] within the Office of the
Administrator. For example, more FTEs are dedicated to external
affairs than counterterrorism, which does not seem to be
consistent with the mission priorities of the agency. The
Committee directs NNSA to provide a clear explanation of how it
determines its FTE distribution in the next budget
justification.
Defense Environmental Cleanup
Appropriations, 2012.................................... $5,023,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013................................... 5,009,001,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,063,987,000
The Committee recommendation for Defense Environmental
Cleanup is $5,063,987,000. In addition, the Committee
recommends use of prior year balances in the amount of
$22,123,000 for a total budget of $5,086,110,000. Within the
total provided, the Department is directed to fund the
Hazardous Waste Worker Training Program.
Reprogramming Control Levels.--In fiscal year 2013, the
Environmental Management program may transfer funding between
operating expense funded projects within the controls listed
below using guidance contained in the Department's budget
execution manual (DOE M 135.1-1A, chapter IV). All capital
construction line item projects remain separate controls from
the operating projects. The Committees on Appropriations in the
House and Senate must be formally notified in advance of all
reprogrammings, except internal reprogrammings, and the
Department is to take no financial action in anticipation of
congressional response. The Committee recommends the following
reprogramming control points for fiscal year 2012:
--Closure Sites;
--Hanford Site;
--Idaho National Laboratory;
--NNSA Sites;
--Oak Ridge Reservation;
--Office of River Protection;
--Savannah River Site;
--Waste Isolation Pilot Plant;
--Program Direction;
--Program Support;
--Technology Development and Deployment;
--Safeguards and Security; and
--All Capital Construction Line Items, regardless of site.
Internal Reprogramming Authority.--The new reprogramming
control points above obviates, in most cases, the need for
internal reprogramming authority. However, at the few sites to
which the internal reprogramming statute still applies,
Environmental Management site managers may transfer up to
$5,000,000, one time, between accounts listed above to reduce
health and safety risks, gain cost savings, or complete
projects, as long as a program or project is not increased or
decreased by more than $5,000,000 in total during the fiscal
year.
The reprogramming authority--either formal or internal--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 the internal reprogramming authority.
Closure Sites.--The Committee recommends $1,990,000 for
Closure Sites activities.
Hanford Site.--The Committee recommends $975,423,000 for
Richland Operations. The Committee is aware that the B Reactor
has been identified as a National Historic Landmark and the
Department of Energy has stated that the intent is preserving
the reactor for public access. To ensure this intent is
accomplished, the Committee believes that it is appropriate to
use cleanup dollars for the maintenance and public safety
efforts at the B Reactor. Funding for the Hazardous Materials
Management and Emergency Response facilities are provided for
within available funds.
Idaho National Laboratory.--The Committee recommends
$399,607,000 for Idaho National Laboratory.
NNSA Sites.--The Committee recommends $334,268,000 for NNSA
sites.
Oak Ridge Reservation.--The Committee recommends
$213,495,000 for Oak Ridge Reservation.
Building 3019.--The Committee recommends $37,000,000 for
the cleanup of Building 3019. This project will result in
saving some $5,000,000 in annual security costs at Oak Ridge
National Laboratory once complete. The Committee directs the
Department to provide an updated plan within 60 days of
enactment of this act that keeps the project on a 5-year
schedule.
Oak Ridge Reservation Mercury Cleanup.--Remediation of
mercury contamination at Oak Ridge Reservation from work
performed at the Y-12 site during the Cold War is a high
priority for the Environmental Management program. While DOE
has taken some initial efforts to contain mercury, the
Committee believes a more aggressive effort is warranted. The
Committee recommends $25,000,000 for additional steps to
contain mercury and limit discharges into the surface water at
Oak Ridge. Mercury remediation will be a long-term effort
requiring significant investments, including demolition and
decontamination of 4 buildings. The Committee directs the
Department to submit within 60 days of enactment of this Act a
comprehensive plan for mercury remediation at Oak Ridge,
including costs and schedule.
Office of River Protection.--The Committee recommends
$1,172,113,000 for the Office of River Protection.
Savannah River Site.--The Committee recommends
$1,181,516,000 for the Savannah River site.
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.--The Committee recommends
$208,896,000 for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.
Program Direction.--The Committee recommends $323,504,000
for program direction.
Program Support.--The Committee recommends $18,279,000 for
program support.
Safeguards and Security.--The Committee recommends
$237,019,000 for safeguards and security.
Technology Development and Deployment.--The Committee
recommends $20,000,000 for technology development and
deployment.
Other Defense Activities
Appropriations, 2012.................................... $823,364,000
Budget estimate, 2013................................... 735,702,000
Committee recommendation................................ 735,702,000
The Committee recommendation is $735,702,000. The Committee
recognizes that the decrease relative to fiscal year 2012
reflects the transfer of funding related to safeguards and
security of the Idaho National Laboratory from Other Defense
Activities to the Nuclear Energy appropriations account.
Health, Safety and Security.--The Committee recommends
$245,500,000 as requested. Within these funds, the Committee
recommends $4,405,000, which is the same as fiscal year 2012
enacted levels, for domestic health research activities, of
which $1,500,000 shall be used to support the continuation of
the Illness and Injury Surveillance program. The Committee
supports the Illness and Injury Surveillance program because it
is the only active surveillance program across DOE that
monitors the potential health effects of workers at DOE and
NNSA sites and currently monitors the health of about 79,000
contract and Federal workers.
Specialized Security Activities.--The Committee recommends
$188,619,000 as requested.
Office of Legacy Management.--The Committee recommends
$177,946,000 as requested.
Defense-Related Administrative Support.--The Committee
recommends $118,836,000 as requested.
Office of Hearings and Appeals.--The Committee recommends
$4,801,000 as requested.
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 2013.
The Committee is aware of the Secretary of Energy's March
16, 2012, memorandum directed to the Administrators of the
Power Marketing Administrations, and understands that with
respect to the Bonneville Power Administration [BPA], the BPA
is currently meeting those directorates. The Committee is
disappointed that the proposals in this memorandum were
developed without any consultation with Members of Congress
representing the BPA service area or any public process with
BPA ratepayers. The Committee directs that the Secretary of
Energy or his designee to consult with appropriate Members of
Congress and conduct a public process in advance of use of any
funds appropriated to the Department of Energy under this act
to direct or implement proposals stemming from the Department
of Energy March 16, 2012, memorandum that would impact the
Bonneville Power Administration.
Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration
Appropriations, 2012....................................................
Budget estimate, 2013...................................................
Committee recommendation................................................
For the Southeastern Power Administration, the Committee
recommends a net appropriation of $0 as the appropriations are
offset by collections, the same as the budget request.
Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration
Appropriations, 2012.................................... $11,892,000
Budget estimate, 2013................................... 11,892,000
Committee recommendation................................ 11,892,000
For the Southwestern Power Administration, the Committee
recommends a net appropriation of $11,892,000, the same as the
budget request.
Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area
Power Administration
Appropriations, 2012.................................... $95,968,000
Budget estimate, 2013................................... 96,130,000
Committee recommendation................................ 96,130,000
For the Western Area Power Administration, the Committee
recommends a net appropriation of $96,130,000, the same as the
budget request. The Western Area Power Administration is
encouraged to continue its efforts to build a more secure and
sustainable electricity grid by pioneering programs and
activities to maximize the use and integration of energy
efficiency, renewable energy, distributed generation, and
demand response, as well as improving transmission access
between regions and interconnections.
The Committee notes that some of the Administration's
efforts in this area may have impacts on costs to consumers.
The Committee recommends the Administration work with customers
to address relevant concerns and inform Congress of major
initiatives.
Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund
Appropriations, 2012.................................... $220,000
Budget estimate, 2013................................... 220,000
Committee recommendation................................ 220,000
For the Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund,
the Committee recommends a net appropriation of $220,000 the
same as the request.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2012.................................... $304,600,000
Budget estimate, 2013................................... 304,600,000
Committee recommendation................................ 304,600,000
REVENUES APPLIED
Appropriations, 2012.................................... -$304,600,000
Budget estimate, 2013................................... -304,600,000
Committee recommendation................................ -304,600,000
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee recommendation
Committee compared to--
Enacted Budget estimate recommendation ---------------------------------
Enacted Budget estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENERGY PROGRAMS
ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy RDD&D:
Hydrogen and fuel cell technologies............................ 104,000 80,000 104,000 ............... +24,000
Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D............................ 200,000 270,000 200,000 ............... -70,000
Solar energy................................................... 290,000 310,000 293,000 +3,000 -17,000
Wind energy.................................................... 93,593 95,000 95,000 +1,407 ...............
Geothermal technology.......................................... 38,000 65,000 65,000 +27,000 ...............
Water power.................................................... 59,000 20,000 59,000 ............... +39,000
Vehicle technologies........................................... 330,000 420,000 330,000 ............... -90,000
Building technologies.......................................... 220,000 310,000 220,000 ............... -90,000
Advanced manufacturing......................................... ............... 290,000 168,635 +168,635 -121,365
Industrial technologies........................................ 116,000 ............... ............... -116,000 ...............
Federal energy management program.............................. 30,000 32,000 30,000 ............... -2,000
Facilities and infrastructure:
National Renewable Energy Laboratory [NREL]................ 26,407 26,400 26,400 -7 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Facilities and infrastructure.................. 26,407 26,400 26,400 -7 ...............
Program direction.............................................. 165,000 164,700 164,700 -300 ...............
Strategic programs............................................. 25,000 58,900 25,000 ............... -33,900
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy RDD&D....... 1,697,000 2,142,000 1,780,735 +83,735 -361,265
Weatherization and intragovernmental:
Weatherization:
Weatherization assistance.................................. 65,000 135,700 141,700 +76,700 +6,000
Training and technical assistance.......................... 3,000 3,300 3,300 +300 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................. 68,000 139,000 145,000 +77,000 +6,000
Other:
State energy program grants................................ 50,000 49,000 50,000 ............... +1,000
Tribal energy activities................................... 10,000 7,000 10,000 ............... +3,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................. 60,000 56,000 60,000 ............... +4,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Weatherization and intragovernmental........... 128,000 195,000 199,000 +71,000 +4,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Energy efficiency and renewable energy......... 1,825,000 2,337,000 1,985,735 +160,735 -351,265
Rescission......................................................... -9,909 -69,667 -69,667 -59,758 ...............
Sec. 309--Contractor pay freeze rescission......................... -5,453 ............... ............... +5,453 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, ENERGY EFFICENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY................. 1,809,638 2,267,333 1,916,068 +106,430 -351,265
====================================================================================
ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY
Research and development:
Electricity systems hub........................................ ............... 20,000 20,000 +20,000 ...............
Clean-energy transmission and reliability...................... 25,490 24,000 24,000 -1,490 ...............
Smart grid research and development............................ 24,000 14,400 14,400 -9,600 ...............
Energy storage................................................. 20,000 15,000 15,000 -5,000 ...............
Cyber security for energy delivery systems..................... 30,000 30,000 30,000 ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 99,490 103,400 103,400 +3,910 ...............
Permitting, siting, and analysis................................... 7,000 6,000 6,000 -1,000 ...............
Infrastructure security and energy restoration..................... 6,000 6,000 6,000 ............... ...............
Program direction.................................................. 27,010 27,615 27,615 +605 ...............
Sec. 309--Contractor pay freeze rescission......................... -397 ............... ............... +397 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY........... 139,103 143,015 143,015 +3,912 ...............
====================================================================================
NUCLEAR ENERGY
Research and development:
Nuclear energy-enabling technologies........................... 74,880 65,318 65,318 -9,562 ...............
Integrated university program.................................. 5,000 ............... ............... -5,000 ...............
Small modular reactor licensing technical support.............. 67,000 65,000 65,000 -2,000 ...............
Reactor concepts RD&D.......................................... 115,544 73,674 73,674 -41,870 ...............
Fuel-cycle research and development............................ 187,351 175,438 193,138 +5,787 +17,700
International nuclear energy cooperation....................... 3,000 3,000 3,000 ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 452,775 382,430 400,130 -52,645 +17,700
Infrastructure:
Radiological facilities management:
Space and defense infrastructure........................... 64,902 46,000 61,000 -3,902 +15,000
Research reactor infrastructure............................ 4,986 5,000 5,000 +14 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................. 69,888 51,000 66,000 -3,888 +15,000
====================================================================================
INL facilities management:
INL operations and infrastructure.......................... 155,000 144,220 144,220 -10,780 ...............
Construction:
13-D-905 RHLLW disposal project........................ ............... 6,280 6,280 +6,280 ...............
13-E-200 Advanced PIE capabilities..................... ............... 1,500 1,500 +1,500 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................. ............... 7,780 7,780 +7,780 ...............
Idaho sitewide safeguards and security......................... ............... 95,000 93,000 +93,000 -2,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Infrastructure..................................... 224,888 298,000 311,000 +86,112 +13,000
Program direction.................................................. 91,000 90,015 92,015 +1,015 +2,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Nuclear energy..................................... 768,663 770,445 803,145 +34,482 +32,700
Sec. 309--Contractor pay freeze rescission......................... -3,272 ............... ............... +3,272 ...............
Use of prior years balances........................................ ............... ............... -17,700 -17,700 -17,700
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, NUCLEAR ENERGY........................................ 765,391 770,445 785,445 +20,054 +15,000
====================================================================================
FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
CCS and power systems:
Carbon capture................................................. 68,938 60,438 60,438 -8,500 ...............
Carbon storage................................................. 115,477 95,477 95,477 -20,000 ...............
Advanced energy systems........................................ 100,000 55,193 80,946 -19,054 +25,753
Cross-cutting research......................................... 49,163 29,750 29,750 -19,413 ...............
NETL coal research and development............................. 35,031 35,011 35,011 -20 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, CCS and power systems.............................. 368,609 275,869 301,622 -66,987 +25,753
Natural gas technologies........................................... 15,000 17,000 22,000 +7,000 +5,000
Unconventional fossil energy technologies from petroleum--oil 5,000 ............... 5,000 ............... +5,000
technologies......................................................
Program direction.................................................. 120,000 115,753 120,000 ............... +4,247
Plant and capital equipment........................................ 16,794 13,294 13,294 -3,500 ...............
Fossil energy environmental restoration............................ 7,897 5,897 5,897 -2,000 ...............
Special recruitment programs....................................... 700 700 700 ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Fossil energy research and development............. 534,000 428,513 468,513 -65,487 +40,000
Use of prior year balances......................................... ............... -7,938 -7,938 -7,938 ...............
Rescission......................................................... -187,000 ............... ............... +187,000 ...............
Sec. 309--Contractor pay freeze rescission......................... -297 ............... ............... +297 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT................ 346,703 420,575 460,575 +113,872 +40,000
====================================================================================
Naval petroleum and oil shale reserves............................. 14,909 14,909 14,909 ............... ...............
Elk Hills School Lands Fund........................................ ............... 15,580 15,580 +15,580 ...............
Strategic Petroleum Reserve........................................ 192,704 195,609 195,609 +2,905 ...............
SPR PETROLEUM ACCOUNT
Rescission......................................................... -500,000 -291,000 ............... +500,000 +291,000
NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE
Northeast home heating oil reserve................................. 10,119 10,119 10,119 ............... ...............
Rescission......................................................... -100,000 -6,000 -6,000 +94,000 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE.................... -89,881 4,119 4,119 +94,000 ...............
====================================================================================
Energy Information Administration.................................. 105,000 116,365 116,365 +11,365 ...............
NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP
Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility (WA)............................... 2,703 2,704 2,704 +1 ...............
Gaseous diffusion plants........................................... 100,588 90,109 90,109 -10,479 ...............
Small sites........................................................ 67,430 57,831 87,831 +20,401 +30,000
West Valley Demonstration Project.................................. 65,000 47,862 47,862 -17,138 ...............
Sec. 309--Contractor pay freeze rescission......................... -415 ............... ............... +415 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP..................... 235,306 198,506 228,506 -6,800 +30,000
====================================================================================
URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING FUND
Oak Ridge.......................................................... 200,856 207,798 207,798 +6,942 ...............
Paducah............................................................ 81,807 90,142 90,142 +8,335 ...............
Portsmouth......................................................... 190,267 127,038 127,038 -63,229 ...............
Pension and community and regulatory support....................... ............... 17,515 17,515 +17,515 ...............
Sec. 309--Contractor pay freeze.................................... -750 ............... ............... +750 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING 472,180 442,493 442,493 -29,687 ...............
FUND/URANIUM INVENTORY CLEANUP..............................
====================================================================================
SCIENCE
Advanced scientific computing research............................. 442,000 455,593 455,593 +13,593 ...............
Basic energy sciences:
Research....................................................... 1,542,600 1,688,889 1,601,388 +58,788 -87,501
Construction:
07-SC-06 Project engineering and design [PED] National 151,400 47,203 47,203 -104,197 ...............
Synchrotron light source II [NSLS-II].....................
13-SC-10 LINAC coherent light source, II [SLAC]............ ............... 63,500 63,500 +63,500 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................. 151,400 110,703 110,703 -40,697 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Basic energy sciences.......................... 1,694,000 1,799,592 1,712,091 +18,091 -87,501
Biological and environmental research.............................. 611,823 625,347 625,347 +13,524 ...............
Fusion energy sciences program..................................... 402,177 398,324 398,324 -3,853 ...............
High-energy physics:
Research....................................................... 763,700 756,521 745,521 -18,179 -11,000
Construction:
11-SC-40 Project engineering and design [PED] long baseline 4,000 ............... 16,000 +12,000 +16,000
neutrino experiment, FNAL.................................
11-SC-41 Project engineering and design [PED] muon to 24,000 20,000 20,000 -4,000 ...............
electron conversion experiment, FNAL......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................. 28,000 20,000 36,000 +8,000 +16,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, High-energy physics............................ 791,700 776,521 781,521 -10,179 +5,000
Nuclear physics:
Operations and maintenance..................................... 500,000 486,366 499,366 -634 +13,000
Construction:
06-SC-01 Project engineering and design [PED] 12 GeV 50,000 40,572 40,572 -9,428 ...............
continuous electron beam accelerator facility upgrade,
Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator facility (was
project 07-SC-001), Newport News, Virginia...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Nuclear physics.............................. 550,000 526,938 539,938 -10,062 +13,000
Workforce development for teachers and scientists.................. 18,500 14,500 14,500 -4,000 ...............
Science laboratories infrastructure:
Infrastructure support:
Payment in lieu of taxes................................... 1,385 1,385 1,385 ............... ...............
Facilities and infrastructure.............................. ............... 900 900 +900 ...............
Oak Ridge landlord......................................... 5,493 5,934 5,934 +441 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................. 6,878 8,219 8,219 +1,341 ...............
Construction:
13-SC-70 utilities upgrade, FINAL.......................... ............... 2,500 2,500 +2,500 ...............
13-SC-71 Utility infrastructure modernization at TJNAF..... ............... 2,500 2,500 +2,500 ...............
12-SC-70 Science and user support building, SLAC........... 12,086 21,629 21,629 +9,543 ...............
10-SC-70 Research support building and infrastructure 12,024 36,382 36,382 +24,358 ...............
modernization, SLAC.......................................
10-SC-71 Energy sciences building, ANL..................... 40,000 32,030 32,030 -7,970 ...............
10-SC-72 Renovate science laboratory, phase II, BNL........ 15,500 14,530 14,530 -970 ...............
09-SC-72 Seismic life-safety, modernization and replacement 12,975 ............... ............... -12,975 ...............
of general purpose buildings, phase 2, PED/Construction,
LBNL......................................................
09-SC-74, Technology and engineering development facilities 12,337 ............... ............... -12,337 ...............
PED, TJNAF................................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................. 104,922 109,571 109,571 +4,649 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Science laboratories infrastructure............ 111,800 117,790 117,790 +5,990 ...............
Safeguards and security............................................ 82,000 84,000 83,000 +1,000 -1,000
Science program direction.......................................... 185,000 202,551 190,000 +5,000 -12,551
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Science............................................ 4,889,000 5,001,156 4,918,104 +29,104 -83,052
Use of prior year balances......................................... ............... -9,104 -9,104 -9,104 ...............
Sec. 309--Contractor pay freeze rescission......................... -15,366 ............... ............... +15,366 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, SCIENCE............................................... 4,873,634 4,992,052 4,909,000 +35,366 -83,052
====================================================================================
ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY-ENERGY
ARPA-E projects.................................................... 255,000 325,000 287,000 +32,000 -38,000
Program direction.................................................. 20,000 25,000 25,000 +5,000 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY-ENERGY.............. 275,000 350,000 312,000 +37,000 -38,000
====================================================================================
TITLE 17--INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM
Administrative expenses............................................ 38,000 38,000 38,000 ............... ...............
Offsetting collection.............................................. -38,000 -38,000 -38,000 ............... ...............
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES MANUFACTURING LOAN PROGRAM
Administrative expenses............................................ 6,000 9,000 9,000 +3,000 ...............
DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION
Administrative operations:
Salaries and expenses:
Office of the Secretary:
Program direction...................................... 5,030 4,986 4,986 -44 ...............
Chief Financial Officer.................................... 53,204 51,043 51,043 -2,161 ...............
Management................................................. 62,693 53,257 43,257 -19,436 -10,000
Human capital management................................... 23,089 23,286 23,286 +197 ...............
Chief Information Officer.................................. 36,615 36,243 36,243 -372 ...............
Congressional and intergovernmental affairs:
Program direction...................................... 4,690 4,076 4,076 -614 ...............
Economic impact and diversity.............................. 5,660 6,447 6,447 +787 ...............
General counsel............................................ 33,053 33,256 33,256 +203 ...............
Policy and international affairs........................... 20,518 20,781 20,781 +263 ...............
Public affairs............................................. 3,801 3,310 3,310 -491 ...............
Office of Indian energy policy and programs................ 2,000 2,506 2,506 +506 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Salaries and expenses.......................... 250,353 239,191 229,191 -21,162 -10,000
Program support:
Minority economic impact................................... 1,813 1,059 1,059 -754 ...............
Policy analysis and system studies......................... 441 400 400 -41 ...............
Environmental policy studies............................... 520 500 500 -20 ...............
Climate change technology program (program support)........ 5,482 5,600 5,600 +118 ...............
Cybersecurity and secure communications.................... 21,934 33,576 33,576 +11,642 ...............
Corporate IT program support [CIO]......................... 27,379 20,756 20,756 -6,623 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Program support................................ 57,569 61,891 61,891 +4,322 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Administrative operations...................... 307,922 301,082 291,082 -16,840 -10,000
Cost of work for others........................................ 48,537 48,537 48,537 ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Departmental administration........................ 356,459 349,619 339,619 -16,840 -10,000
Funding from other defense activities.............................. -118,836 -118,836 -118,836 ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Departmental administration (gross)................... 237,623 230,783 220,783 -16,840 -10,000
Miscellaneous revenues............................................. -111,623 -108,188 -108,188 +3,435 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION (net)..................... 126,000 122,595 112,595 -13,405 -10,000
====================================================================================
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.................................... 42,000 43,468 43,468 +1,468 ...............
====================================================================================
TOTAL, ENERGY PROGRAMS....................................... 8,813,687 9,815,064 9,708,747 +895,060 -106,317
====================================================================================
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
WEAPONS ACTIVITIES
Directed stockpile work:
Life extension program:
B61 Life extension program................................. 223,562 369,000 339,000 +115,438 -30,000
W76 Life extension program................................. 257,035 174,931 204,931 -52,104 +30,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................. 480,597 543,931 543,931 +63,334 ...............
Stockpile systems:
B61 Stockpile systems...................................... 72,396 72,364 72,364 -32 ...............
W76 Stockpile systems...................................... 63,383 65,445 65,445 +2,062 ...............
W78 Stockpile systems...................................... 99,518 139,207 139,207 +39,689 ...............
W80 Stockpile systems...................................... 44,444 46,540 46,540 +2,096 ...............
B83 Stockpile systems...................................... 48,215 57,947 57,947 +9,732 ...............
W87 Stockpile systems...................................... 83,943 85,689 85,689 +1,746 ...............
W88 Stockpile systems...................................... 75,728 123,217 123,217 +47,489 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................. 487,627 590,409 590,409 +102,782 ...............
Weapons dismantlement and disposition:
Operations and maintenance................................. 56,770 51,265 51,265 -5,505 ...............
====================================================================================
Stockpile services:
Production support......................................... 330,000 365,405 347,405 +17,405 -18,000
Research and development support........................... 30,264 28,103 28,103 -2,161 ...............
R & D certification and safety............................. 165,569 191,632 199,632 +34,063 +8,000
Management, technology, and production..................... 188,700 175,844 175,844 -12,856 ...............
Plutonium sustainment...................................... 140,000 141,685 141,685 +1,685 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................. 854,533 902,669 892,669 +38,136 -10,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Directed stockpile work........................ 1,879,527 2,088,274 2,078,274 +198,747 -10,000
Campaigns:
Science campaign:
Advanced certification..................................... 40,000 44,104 44,104 +4,104 ...............
Primary assessment technologies............................ 86,055 94,000 94,000 +7,945 ...............
Dynamic materials properties............................... 96,984 97,000 97,000 +16 ...............
Advanced radiography....................................... 26,000 30,000 30,000 +4,000 ...............
Secondary assessment technologies.......................... 85,000 85,000 85,000 ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................. 334,039 350,104 350,104 +16,065 ...............
Engineering campaign:
Enhanced surety............................................ 41,696 46,421 46,421 +4,725 ...............
Weapons system engineering assessment technology........... 15,663 18,983 18,983 +3,320 ...............
Nuclear survivability...................................... 19,545 21,788 21,788 +2,243 ...............
Enhanced surveillance...................................... 66,174 63,379 63,379 -2,795 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................. 143,078 150,571 150,571 +7,493 ...............
Inertial confinement fusion ignition and high-yield campaign:
Ignition................................................... 109,888 84,172 84,172 -25,716 ...............
Diagnostics, cryogenics, and experimental support.......... 86,259 81,942 81,942 -4,317 ...............
Pulsed power inertial confinement fusion................... 4,997 6,044 6,044 +1,047 ...............
Joint program in high-energy density laboratory plasmas.... 9,100 8,334 8,334 -766 ...............
Facility operations and target production.................. 266,030 264,691 264,691 -1,339 ...............
Support of other stockpile programs........................ ............... 14,817 14,817 +14,817 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................. 476,274 460,000 460,000 -16,274 ...............
Advanced simulation and computing.................................. 620,000 600,000 620,000 ............... +20,000
Readiness campaign:
Nonnuclear readiness....................................... 65,000 64,681 64,681 -319 ...............
Tritium readiness.......................................... 63,591 65,414 65,414 +1,823 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................. 128,591 130,095 130,095 +1,504 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Campaigns...................................... 1,701,982 1,690,770 1,710,770 +8,788 +20,000
Readiness in technical base and facilities [RTBF]:
Operations of facilities:
Kansas City Plant.......................................... 156,217 163,602 163,602 +7,385 ...............
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory..................... 83,990 89,048 89,048 +5,058 ...............
Los Alamos National Laboratory............................. 318,526 335,978 335,978 +17,452 ...............
Nevada Test Site........................................... 97,559 115,697 115,697 +18,138 ...............
Pantex..................................................... 164,848 172,020 172,020 +7,172 ...............
Sandia National Laboratory................................. 120,708 167,384 167,384 +46,676 ...............
Savannah River Site........................................ 97,767 120,577 120,577 +22,810 ...............
Y-12 Productions Plant..................................... 246,001 255,097 255,097 +9,096 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................. 1,285,616 1,419,403 1,419,403 +133,787 ...............
Program readiness.............................................. 74,180 ............... ............... -74,180 ...............
Material recycle and recovery.................................. 78,000 ............... ............... -78,000 ...............
Containers..................................................... 28,979 ............... ............... -28,979 ...............
Storage........................................................ 31,272 ............... ............... -31,272 ...............
Science, technology, and engineering capability support........ ............... 166,945 166,945 +166,945 ...............
Nuclear operations capability support.......................... ............... 203,346 203,346 +203,346 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Readiness in technical base and facilities......... 1,498,047 1,789,694 1,789,694 +291,647 ...............
Construction:
13-D-301 Electrical infrastructure upgrades, LANL/LLNL..... ............... 23,000 23,000 +23,000 ...............
12-D-301 TRU waste facility project, LANL.................. 9,881 24,204 24,204 +14,323 ...............
11-D-801 TA-55 Reinvestment project II, LANL............... 10,000 8,889 8,889 -1,111 ...............
10-D-501 Nuclear facilities risk reduction Y-12 National 35,387 17,909 17,909 -17,478 ...............
security complex, Oakridge, Tennessee.....................
09-D-404, Test capabilities revitalization II, Sandia 25,168 11,332 11,332 -13,836 ...............
National Laboratory, Albuquerque, New Mexico.............
08-D-802 High-explosive pressing facility Pantex Plant, 66,960 24,800 24,800 -42,160 ...............
Amarillo, Texas...........................................
07-D-140 Project engineering and design [PED], various 3,518 ............... ............... -3,518 ...............
locations.................................................
06-D-141 Project engineering and design [PED], Y-12 Uranium 160,194 340,000 340,000 +179,806 ...............
Processing Facility, Oak Ridge, Tennessee................
04-D-125 Chemistry and metallurgy replacement project, Los 200,000 ............... ............... -200,000 ...............
Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................... 511,108 450,134 450,134 -60,974 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Readiness in technical base and facilities... 2,009,155 2,239,828 2,239,828 +230,673 ...............
Secure transportation asset:
Operations and equipment....................................... 145,274 114,965 114,965 -30,309 ...............
Program direction.............................................. 98,002 104,396 104,396 +6,394 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 243,276 219,361 219,361 -23,915 ...............
Nuclear counterterrorism incident response......................... 222,147 247,552 247,552 +25,405 ...............
Facilities and infrastructure recapitalization program............. 96,380 ............... ............... -96,380 ...............
Site stewardship................................................... 78,680 90,001 88,249 +9,569 -1,752
Safeguards and security:
Defense nuclear security................................... 686,252 643,285 643,285 -42,967 ...............
Construction:
08-D-701 Nuclear materials S&S upgrade project Los 11,752 ............... ............... -11,752 ...............
Alamos National Laboratory............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Defense nuclear security................. 698,004 643,285 643,285 -54,719 ...............
Cybersecurity.................................................. 126,614 ............... ............... -126,614 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Safeguards and security............................... 824,618 643,285 643,285 -181,333 ...............
NNSA CIO activities............................................ ............... 155,022 155,022 +155,022 ...............
Legacy contractor pensions..................................... 168,232 185,000 185,000 +16,768 ...............
National security applications................................. 10,000 18,248 10,000 ............... -8,248
Sec. 309--Contractor pay freeze rescission..................... -19,877 ............... ............... +19,877 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, WEAPONS ACTIVITIES.................................... 7,214,120 7,577,341 7,577,341 +363,221 ...............
====================================================================================
DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION
Nonproliferation and verification, R&D............................. 356,150 548,186 418,186 +62,036 -130,000
Nonproliferation and international security........................ 155,305 150,119 150,119 -5,186 ...............
International nuclear materials protection and cooperation......... 571,639 311,000 368,000 -203,639 +57,000
Fissile materials disposition:
U.S. plutonium disposition..................................... 205,632 498,979 498,979 +293,347 ...............
U.S. uranium disposition....................................... 26,000 29,736 29,736 +3,736 ...............
Construction:
MOX fuel fabrication facilities:
99-D-143 Mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility, 435,172 388,802 388,802 -46,370 ...............
Savannah River, South Carolina........................
99-D-141-02 Waste solidification building, Savannah 17,582 ............... ............... -17,582 ...............
River, South Carolina.................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction............................. 452,754 388,802 388,802 -63,952 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, U.S. fissle materials disposition........ 684,386 917,517 917,517 +233,131 ...............
Russian surplus materials disposition.......................... 1,000 3,788 3,788 +2,788 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Fissile materials disposition......................... 685,386 921,305 921,305 +235,919 ...............
Global threat reduction initiative................................. 500,000 466,021 539,021 +39,021 +73,000
Legacy contractor pensions......................................... 55,823 62,000 62,000 +6,177 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation................... 2,324,303 2,458,631 2,458,631 +134,328 ...............
Rescission......................................................... -21,000 ............... ............... +21,000 ...............
Sec. 309--Contractor pay freeze rescission......................... -7,423 ............... ............... +7,423 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION...................... 2,295,880 2,458,631 2,458,631 +162,751 ...............
====================================================================================
NAVAL REACTORS
Naval reactors development......................................... 421,000 418,072 418,072 -2,928 ...............
OHIO replacement reactor systems development....................... 121,300 89,700 89,700 -31,600 ...............
S8G Prototype refueling............................................ 99,500 121,100 121,100 +21,600 ...............
Naval reactors operations and infrastructure....................... 358,300 366,961 366,961 +8,661 ...............
Construction:
13-D-905 Remote-handled low-level waste facility, INL.......... ............... 8,890 8,890 +8,890 ...............
13-D-904 KS Radiological work and storage building, KSO........ ............... 2,000 2,000 +2,000 ...............
13-D-903, KS prototype staff building, KSO..................... ............... 14,000 14,000 +14,000 ...............
10-D-903, Security upgrades, KAPL.............................. 100 19,000 19,000 +18,900 ...............
10-D-904, NRF infrastructure upgrades, Idaho................... 12,000 ............... ............... -12,000 ...............
08-D-190, Project engineering and design, Expended Core 27,800 5,700 5,700 -22,100 ...............
Facility M-290 recovering discharge station, Naval Reactor
Facility, Idaho...............................................
07-D-190, Materials research tech complex [MRTC]............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction....................................... 39,900 49,590 49,590 +9,690 ...............
Program direction.................................................. 40,000 43,212 43,212 +3,212 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, NAVAL REACTORS........................................ 1,080,000 1,088,635 1,088,635 +8,635 ...............
====================================================================================
Office of the Administrator........................................ 410,000 411,279 386,279 -23,721 -25,000
====================================================================================
TOTAL, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION.............. 11,000,000 11,535,886 11,510,886 +510,886 -25,000
====================================================================================
DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP
Closure sites...................................................... 5,375 1,990 1,990 -3,385 ...............
Hanford Site:
Central plateau remediation.................................... 546,890 558,820 570,920 +24,030 +12,100
River corridor and other cleanup operations.................... 386,822 389,347 389,347 +2,525 ...............
Richland community and regulatory support...................... 19,540 15,156 15,156 -4,384 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Hanford Site.......................................... 953,252 963,323 975,423 +22,171 +12,100
Idaho National Laboratory:
Idaho cleanup and waste disposition............................ 382,769 396,607 396,607 +13,838 ...............
Idaho community and regulatory support......................... 4,100 3,000 3,000 -1,100 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Idaho National Laboratory............................. 386,869 399,607 399,607 +12,738 ...............
NNSA sites and Nevada off-sites.................................... 282,393 334,268 334,268 +51,875 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, NNSA sites and Nevada off-sites....................... 282,393 334,268 334,268 +51,875 ...............
Oak Ridge Reservation:
Building 3019.................................................. 37,000 ............... ............... -37,000 ...............
OR Nuclear facility D&D........................................ 69,100 67,525 99,525 +30,425 +32,000
OR cleanup and disposition..................................... 87,000 109,470 109,470 +22,470 ...............
OR reservation community and regulatory support................ 6,409 4,500 4,500 -1,909 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Oak Ridge Reservation................................. 199,509 181,495 213,495 +13,986 +32,000
Office of River Protection:
Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant:
01-D-416 A-E/ORP-0060/Major construction....................... ............... 690,000 690,000 +690,000 ...............
Waste treatment and immobilization plant 01-D-16 A-D........... 430,000 ............... ............... -430,000 ...............
Waste treatment and immobilization plant 01-D-16 E............. 310,000 ............... ............... -310,000 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant........... 740,000 690,000 690,000 -50,000 ...............
Tank Farm activities:
Rad liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition........ 445,000 482,113 482,113 +37,113 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Office of River Protection........................ 1,185,000 1,172,113 1,172,113 -12,887 ...............
Savannah River site:
Savannah River community and regulatory support................ 9,584 16,584 16,584 +7,000 ...............
Savannah River site risk management operations................. 343,586 444,089 444,089 +100,503 ...............
Radioactive liquid tank waste:
Radioactive liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition 667,081 698,294 698,294 +31,213 ...............
Construction:
05-D-405 Salt waste processing facility, Savannah River.... 170,071 22,549 22,549 -147,522 ...............
PE&D Glass Waste Storage Building #3....................... 3,500 ............... ............... -3,500 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Radioactive liquid tank waste.................. 840,652 720,843 720,843 -119,809 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Savannah River site............................... 1,193,822 1,181,516 1,181,516 -12,306 ...............
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant........................................ 215,134 198,010 208,896 -6,238 +10,886
Program direction.................................................. 321,628 323,504 323,504 +1,876 ...............
Program support.................................................... 20,380 18,279 18,279 -2,101 ...............
Safeguards and Security............................................ 252,019 237,019 237,019 -15,000 ...............
Technology development............................................. 11,000 20,000 20,000 +9,000 ...............
Uranium enrichment D&D fund contribution........................... ............... 463,000 ............... ............... -463,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Defense Environmental Clean up..................... 5,026,381 5,494,124 5,086,110 +59,729 -408,014
Use of unobligated balances........................................ ............... -10,000 -10,000 -10,000 ...............
Use of prior year balances......................................... -3,381 -12,123 -12,123 -8,742 ...............
Sec. 309--Contractor pay freeze rescission......................... -20,050 ............... ............... +20,050 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEAN UP........................ 5,002,950 5,472,001 5,063,987 +61,037 -408,014
====================================================================================
OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
Health, safety, and security:
Health, safety, and security................................... 335,436 139,325 139,325 -196,111 ...............
Program direction.............................................. 102,000 106,175 106,175 +4,175 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Health, safety, and security.......................... 437,436 245,500 245,500 -191,936 ...............
Specialized security activities.................................... ............... 188,619 188,619 +188,619 ...............
Office of Legacy Management:
Legacy management.............................................. 157,514 164,477 164,477 +6,963 ...............
Program direction.............................................. 12,086 13,469 13,469 +1,383 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Office of Legacy Management........................... 169,600 177,946 177,946 +8,346 ...............
Idaho sitewide safeguards and security............................. 93,350 ............... ............... -93,350 ...............
Defense-related administrative support............................. 118,836 118,836 118,836 ............... ...............
Office of hearings and appeals..................................... 4,142 4,801 4,801 +659 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES.............................. 823,364 735,702 735,702 -87,662 ...............
====================================================================================
TOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES...................... 16,826,314 17,743,589 17,310,575 +484,261 -433,014
====================================================================================
POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS\1\
SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION
Operation and maintenance:
Purchase power and wheeling................................ 114,870 103,170 103,170 -11,700 ...............
Program direction.......................................... 8,428 8,732 8,732 +304 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Operation and maintenance...................... 123,298 111,902 111,902 -11,396 ...............
Less alternative financing [PPW]............................... -14,708 -15,474 -15,474 -766 ...............
Offsetting collections......................................... -108,590 -96,428 -96,428 +12,162 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION..................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
====================================================================================
SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION
Operation and maintenance:
Operating expenses......................................... 14,346 11,505 11,505 -2,841 ...............
Purchase power and wheeling................................ 50,000 51,000 51,000 +1,000 ...............
Program direction.......................................... 31,889 28,593 28,593 -3,296 ...............
Construction............................................... 10,772 7,931 7,931 -2,841 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Operation and maintenance...................... 107,007 99,029 99,029 -7,978 ...............
Less alternative financing..................................... -21,997 -13,829 -13,829 +8,168 ...............
Offsetting collections......................................... -73,118 -73,308 -73,308 -190 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION..................... 11,892 11,892 11,892 ............... ...............
====================================================================================
WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION
Operation and maintenance:
Construction and rehabilitation............................ 110,449 83,475 83,475 -26,974 ...............
Operation and maintenance.................................. 72,863 71,855 71,855 -1,008 ...............
Purchase power and wheeling................................ 471,535 422,225 422,225 -49,310 ...............
Program direction.......................................... 205,247 204,227 204,227 -1,020 ...............
Utah mitigation and conservation........................... 3,375 3,375 3,375 ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Operation and maintenance...................... 863,469 785,157 785,157 -78,312 ...............
Less alternative financing..................................... -266,207 -245,280 -245,280 +20,927 ...............
Offsetting collections (Public Law 108-477, Public Law 109-103) -306,541 -242,858 -242,858 +63,683 ...............
Offsetting collections (Public Law 98-381)..................... -4,821 -5,099 -5,099 -278 ...............
Offsetting collections (for program direction)................. -156,609 -159,703 -159,703 -3,094 ...............
Offsetting collections (for O&M)............................... -33,323 -36,087 -36,087 -2,764 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION..................... 95,968 96,130 96,130 +162 ...............
====================================================================================
FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND
Operation and maintenance...................................... 4,169 5,555 5,555 +1,386 ...............
Offsetting collections......................................... -3,949 -5,335 -5,335 -1,386 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND..... 220 220 220 ............... ...............
====================================================================================
TOTAL, POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS....................... 108,080 108,242 108,242 +162 ...............
====================================================================================
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission........................... 304,600 304,500 304,500 -100 ...............
FERC revenues.................................................. -304,600 -304,500 -304,500 +100 ...............
====================================================================================
GRAND TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY............................ 25,748,081 27,666,895 27,127,564 +1,379,483 -539,331
(Total amount appropriated).............................. (26,639,290) (28,033,562) (27,203,231) (+563,941) (-830,331)
(Rescissions)............................................ (-891,209) (-366,667) (-75,667) (+815,542) (+291,000)
====================================================================================
SUMMARY OF ACCOUNTS
Energy efficiency and renewable energy............................. 1,809,638 2,267,333 1,916,068 +106,430 -351,265
Electricity delivery and energy reliability........................ 139,103 143,015 143,015 +3,912 ...............
Nuclear energy..................................................... 765,391 770,445 785,445 +20,054 +15,000
Fossil energy research and development............................. 346,703 420,575 460,575 +113,872 +40,000
Naval petroleum and oil shale reserves............................. 14,909 14,909 14,909 ............... ...............
Strategic petroleum reserves....................................... 192,704 195,609 195,609 +2,905 ...............
Elk Hills School Lands Fund........................................ ............... 15,580 15,580 +15,580 ...............
SPR Petroleum Account.............................................. -500,000 -291,000 ............... +500,000 +291,000
Northeast home heating oil reserve................................. -89,881 4,119 4,119 +94,000 ...............
Energy Information Administration.................................. 105,000 116,365 116,365 +11,365 ...............
Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup.................................. 235,306 198,506 228,506 -6,800 +30,000
Uranium enrichment D&D fund........................................ 472,180 442,493 442,493 -29,687 ...............
Science............................................................ 4,873,634 4,992,052 4,909,000 +35,366 -83,052
Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy........................... 275,000 350,000 312,000 +37,000 -38,000
Advanced technology vehicles manufacturing loan program............ 6,000 9,000 9,000 +3,000 ...............
Departmental administration........................................ 126,000 122,595 112,595 -13,405 -10,000
Office of the Inspector General.................................... 42,000 43,468 43,468 +1,468 ...............
Atomic energy defense activities:
National Nuclear Security Administration:
Weapons activities......................................... 7,214,120 7,577,341 7,577,341 +363,221 ...............
Defense nuclear nonproliferation........................... 2,295,880 2,458,631 2,458,631 +162,751 ...............
Naval reactors............................................. 1,080,000 1,088,635 1,088,635 +8,635 ...............
Office of the Administrator................................ 410,000 411,279 386,279 -23,721 -25,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, National Nuclear Security Administration....... 11,000,000 11,535,886 11,510,886 +510,886 -25,000
Defense environmental cleanup.................................. 5,002,950 5,472,001 5,063,987 +61,037 -408,014
Other defense activities....................................... 823,364 735,702 735,702 -87,662 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities...................... 16,826,314 17,743,589 17,310,575 +484,261 -433,014
====================================================================================
Power marketing administrations:\1\
Southwestern Power Administration.............................. 11,892 11,892 11,892 ............... ...............
Western Area Power Administration.............................. 95,968 96,130 96,130 +162 ...............
Falcon and Amistad operating and maintenance fund.............. 220 220 220 ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Power Marketing Administrations....................... 108,080 108,242 108,242 +162 ...............
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission:
Salaries and expenses.......................................... 304,600 304,500 304,500 -100 ...............
Revenues....................................................... -304,600 -304,500 -304,500 +100 ...............
====================================================================================
Total Summary of Accounts, Department of Energy.............. 25,748,081 27,666,895 27,127,564 +1,379,483 -539,331
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Totals include alternative financing costs, reimbursable agreement funding, and power purchase and wheeling expenditures. Offsetting collection
totals reflect funds collected for annual expenses, including power purchase and wheeling.
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 on unexpended balances.
Section 302. Language is included specifically authorizing
intelligence activities pending enactment of the fiscal year
2013 Intelligence Authorization Act.
Section 303. The Committee has included a provision related
to nuclear safety requirements.
Section 304. The Committee has included language related to
independent cost estimates.
Section 305. Language is included related to the provision
of uranium.
Section 306. The Committee has included a provision
modifying an annual review.
Section 307. Language is included related to transfer
authority.
Section 308. The Committee has included a provision on
appointments.
Section 309. The Committee has included a provision on
hiring.
Section 310. The Committee has included a provision on
mandatory funding.
Section 311. The Committee has included a provision on the
eligibility for tribal energy activities.
Section 312. The Committee has included a provision on a
pilot program related to consolidated storage of spent nuclear
fuel.
Section 313. The Committee has included a provision to
repeal a reporting requirement.
Section 314. The Committee has included a provision
repealing a reporting requirement.
Section 315. The Committee has included a provision
amending a reporting requirement.
TITLE IV
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Appalachian Regional Commission
Appropriations, 2012.................................... $68,263,000
Budget estimate, 2013................................... 64,850,000
Committee recommendation................................ 64,850,000
Established in 1965, the Appalachian Regional Commission
[ARC] is an economic development agency composed of 13
Appalachian States and a Federal co-chair appointed by the
President. For fiscal year 2013, the Committee recommends
$64,850,000 for the ARC.
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2012.................................... $29,130,000
Budget estimate, 2013................................... 29,415,000
Committee recommendation................................ 27,425,000
The Committee recommends $27,425,000 for the Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. The Committee supports the
Board's efforts to independently review the design and
construction of new defense nuclear facilities to ensure that
eventual operation of these facilities will be safe for workers
and the public. However, the budget request did not take into
account a decreasing workload for the Board. The primary
justification of an increasing budget was a need for additional
FTEs to review the design and construction of two new, major
nuclear facilities, which combined were estimated to cost up to
$8,000,000,000--the Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility
[PDCF] at Savannah River Site and the Chemistry and Metallurgy
Research Replacement [CMRR] nuclear facility at Los Alamos
National Laboratory. PDCF has been terminated and construction
of CMRR has been delayed by at least 5 years. The Committee
recommendation provides funding to support oversight activities
over the remaining eight major construction projects.
Delta Regional Authority
Appropriations, 2012.................................... $11,677,000
Budget estimate, 2013................................... 11,315,000
Committee recommendation................................ 11,315,000
For the Delta Regional Authority, the Committee recommends
$11,315,000. 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.
Denali Commission
Appropriations, 2012.................................... $10,679,000
Budget estimate, 2013................................... 10,165,000
Committee recommendation................................ 10,165,000
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 2013, the Committee
recommends $10,165,000.
Northern Border Regional Commission
Appropriations, 2012.................................... $1,497,000
Budget estimate, 2013................................... 1,425,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,425,000
The Committee recommends $1,425,000 for the Northern Border
Regional Commission.
Southeast Crescent Regional Commission
Appropriations, 2012.................................... $250,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................................
Committee recommendation................................................
The Committee recommends no funding for the Southeast
Crescent Regional Commission consistent with the budget
request.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2012.................................... $1,027,240,000
Budget estimate, 2013................................... 1,042,200,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,042,200,000
REVENUES
Appropriations, 2012.................................... -$899,726,000
Budget estimate, 2013................................... -914,832,000
Committee recommendation................................ -914,832,000
NET APPROPRIATION
Appropriations, 2012.................................... $127,514,000
Budget estimate, 2013................................... 127,368,000
Committee recommendation................................ 127,368,000
The Committee recommendation for the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission for fiscal year 2013 is $1,042,200,000. This amount
is offset by estimated revenues of $914,832,000 resulting in a
net appropriation of $127,368,000.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
GROSS APPROPRIATION
Appropriations, 2012.................................... $10,860,000
Budget estimate, 2013................................... 11,020,000
Committee recommendation................................ 11,870,000
REVENUES
Appropriations, 2012.................................... -$9,774,000
Budget estimate, 2013................................... -9,918,000
Committee recommendation................................ -9,918,000
NET APPROPRIATION
Appropriations, 2012.................................... $1,086,000
Budget estimate, 2013................................... 1,102,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,952,000
The Committee recommends a net appropriation of $1,952,000.
The increase of $850,000 is provided for the Inspector General
to serve as the inspector general for the Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board [Board]. The funding for the inspector
general services for the Board is not offset by receipts.
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board
Appropriations, 2012.................................... $3,400,000
Budget estimate, 2013................................... 3,400,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,400,000
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 2013,
the Committee recommends $3,400,000.
Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation
Projects
Appropriation, 2012..................................... $1,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013................................... 3,084,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,000,000
The Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural
Gas Transportation Projects was established as an independent
agency in the executive branch on December 13, 2006. The
Committee recommends $1,000,000. The Committee notes that only
one joint venture is still pursuing the design and construction
of a natural gas pipeline from Alaska to the Lower 48. This
joint venture continues with extensive financial support from
the State of Alaska. The Committee further notes that the
Office of the Federal Coordinator is legally allowed to receive
funding from the companies for its work. The Committee urges
the agency to take advantage of this potential funding source
as the work of the agency directly benefits the companies.
GENERAL PROVISION
Section 401. The Committee has included a provision that
clarifies that the Denali Commission has authority to receive
conditional gifts and authority to receive transfers from other
Federal agencies. The provision also requires the Commission to
submit an annual report on conditional gifts and transfers.
TITLE V
GENERAL PROVISIONS
The following list of general provisions are recommended by
the Committee.
Section 501. The provision prohibits the use of any funds
provided in this bill from being used to influence
congressional action.
Section 502. The provision addresses transfer authority
under this act.
Program, Project, and Activity
In fiscal year 2013, for purposes of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-177),
as amended, the following information provides the definition
of the term ``program, project or activity'' for departments
and agencies under the jurisdiction of the Energy and Water
Development Appropriation bill. The term ``program, project or
activity'' shall include the most specific level of budget
items identified in the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Bill, 2013 and the report accompanying the bill.
If a sequestration order is necessary, in implementing the
Presidential order, departments and agencies shall apply any
percentage reduction required for fiscal year 2013 pursuant to
the provisions of Public Law 99-177 to all items specified in
the report accompanying the bill by the Senate Committee on
Appropriations in support of the fiscal year 2013 budget
estimates as modified by congressional action.
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 is filing an original bill, which is not
covered under this rule, but reports this information in the
spirit of full disclosure.
The Committee recommends funding for the following programs
or activities which currently lack authorization for fiscal
year 2013:
Corps of Engineers.--Individual studies and projects
proposed for appropriations within this bill are specifically
authorized by law. The appropriation accounts where the funding
for the studies and projects are recommended are not considered
to be authorized as there is no originating act providing for
these appropriation accounts.
Department of Energy: Energy Conservation and Supply
Activities:
Office of Fossil Energy: Fossil Energy R&D, Clean Coal,
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Research;
Health, Safety and Security;
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 April 26, 2012,
the Committee ordered favorably reported en bloc an original
bill (S. 2375) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for
other purposes, and reported an original bill (S. 2465) making
appropriations for energy and water development and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for
other purposes, provided, that each bill be subject to further
amendment and that each bill be consistent with its spending
allocations, by a recorded vote of 28-1, a quorum being
present. The vote was as follows:
Yeas Nays
Chairman Inouye Mr. Johnson (WI)
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Harkin
Ms. Mikulski
Mr. Kohl
Mrs. Murray
Mrs. Feinstein
Mr. Durbin
Mr. Johnson (SD)
Ms. Landrieu
Mr. Reed
Mr. Lautenberg
Mr. Nelson
Mr. Pryor
Mr. Tester
Mr. Brown
Mr. Cochran
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Shelby
Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. Alexander
Ms. Collins
Ms. Murkowski
Mr. Graham
Mr. Coats
Mr. Blunt
Mr. Moran
Mr. Hoeven
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.
TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
CHAPTER 84--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
SUBCHAPTER II--ESTABLISHMENT OF DEPARTMENT
Sec. 7135. Energy Information Administration.
(a) Establishment; appointment of Administrator; compensation;
qualifications; duties
* * * * * * *
(i) Manufacturers energy consumption survey
(1) The Administrator shall conduct and publish the
results of a survey of energy consumption in the
manufacturing industries in the United States at least
[once every two years] once every four years and in a
manner designed to protect the confidentiality of
individual responses. In conducting the survey, the
Administrator shall collect information, including--
* * * * * * *
(k) Survey procedure
* * * * * * *
(1) conduct surveys of residential and commercial
energy use at least [once every 3 years] once every
four years, and make such information available to the
public;
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 134--ENERGY POLICY
SUBCHAPTER VII--GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
[Sec. 13385. National inventory and voluntary reporting of greenhouse
gases
[(a) National inventory
[Not later than one year after October 24, 1992, the
Secretary, through the Energy Information Administration, shall
develop, based on data available to, and obtained by, the
Energy Information Administration, an inventory of the national
aggregate emissions of each greenhouse gas for each calendar
year of the baseline period of 1987 through 1990. The
Administrator of the Energy Information Administration shall
annually update and analyze such inventory using available
data. This subsection does not provide any new data collection
authority.
[(b) Voluntary reporting
[(1) Issuance of guidelines
[Not later than 18 months after October 24, 1992,
the Secretary shall, after opportunity for public
comment, issue guidelines for the voluntary collection
and reporting of information on sources of greenhouse
gases. Such guidelines shall establish procedures for
the accurate voluntary reporting of information on--
[(A) greenhouse gas emissions--
[(i) for the baseline period of 1987
through 1990; and
[(ii) for subsequent calendar years on
an annual basis;
[(B) annual reductions of greenhouse gas
emissions and carbon fixation achieved through
any measures, including fuel switching, forest
management practices, tree planting, use of
renewable energy, manufacture or use of
vehicles with reduced greenhouse gas emissions,
appliance efficiency, energy efficiency,
methane recovery, cogeneration,
chlorofluorocarbon capture and replacement, and
power plant heat rate improvement;
[(C) reductions in greenhouse gas emissions
achieved as a result of--
[(i) voluntary reductions;
[(ii) plant or facility closings; and
[(iii) State or Federal requirements;
and
[(D) an aggregate calculation of greenhouse gas
emissions by each reporting entity.
[Such guidelines shall also establish procedures for
taking into account the differential radiative activity
and atmospheric lifetimes of each greenhouse gas.
[(2) Reporting procedures
[The Administrator of the Energy Information
Administration shall develop forms for voluntary
reporting under the guidelines established under
paragraph (1), and shall make such forms available to
entities wishing to report such information. Persons
reporting under this subsection shall certify the
accuracy of the information reported.
[(3) Confidentiality
[Trade secret and commercial or financial
information that is privileged or confidential shall be
protected as provided in section 552(b)(4) of title 5.
[(4) Establishment of data base
[Not later than 18 months after October 24, 1992,
the Secretary, through the Administrator of the Energy
Information Administration, shall establish a data base
comprised of information voluntarily reported under
this subsection. Such information may be used by the
reporting entity to demonstrate achieved reductions of
greenhouse gases.
[(c) Consultation
[In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall consult,
as appropriate, with the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency.]
------
TITLE 43--PUBLIC LANDS
CHAPTER 40--RECLAMATION STATES
SUBCHAPTER I--DROUGHT PROGRAM
Sec. 2214. Applicable period of drought program
(a) In general
* * * * * * *
(c) Termination of authority
The authorities established under this subchapter shall
terminate on September 30, [2012] 2017.
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER III--GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec. 2241. Authorization of appropriations
Except as otherwise provided in section 2243 of this title
(relating to temperature control devices at Shasta Dam,
California), there is authorized to be appropriated not more
than [$90,000,000] $100,000,000 in total for the period of
fiscal years 2006 through [2012] 2017.
------
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1988, PUBLIC LAW 100-676
SEC. 3. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.
(a) Authorization of Construction.-- * * *
* * * * * * *
(1) Lower mission creek, santa barbara,
california.--* * *
* * * * * * *
(6) Lower ohio river, illinois and kentucky.--The
project for navigation, Lower Ohio River, Locks and
Dams 52 and 53, Illinois and Kentucky: Report of the
Chief of Engineers, dated August 20, 1986, at a total
cost of [$775,000,000] $2,918,000,000, with a first
Federal cost of [$775,000,000] $2,918,000,000, and with
the costs of construction of the project 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, 1992, PUBLIC LAW 102-580
SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.
* * * * * * *
(1) Southeast alaska harbors of refuge, alaska.-- *
* *
* * * * * * *
(8) Kissimmee river restoration, florida.--The
project for the ecosystem restoration of the Kissimmee
River, Florida: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated
March 17, 1992, [at a total cost of $426,885,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $139,943,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $286,942,000. The
Secretary is further authorized to construct] and the
Kissimmee River headwaters revitalization project in
accordance with the report prepared under section 1135
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100
Stat. 4251-4252) for such headwaters project and any
modifications as are recommended by the Secretary based
on the benefits derived for the environmental
restoration of the Kissimmee River basin[, at a total
cost of $92,210,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$46,105,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$46,105,000.]. The toal cost of the ecosystem
restoration and headwaters revitalization projects is
$519,095,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$186,048,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$333,047,000. The Secretary shall take such action as
may be necessary to ensure that implementation of the
project to restore the Kissimmee River will maintain
the same level of flood protection as is provided by
the current flood control project.
------
OMNIBUS CONSOLIDATED AND EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
1999, PUBLIC LAW 105-277
DIVISION C--OTHER MATTERS
TITLE III--DENALI COMMISSION
SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 305. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.
(a) Information From Federal Agencies.--
* * * * * * *
[(c) Gifts.--The Commission may accept, use, and dispose of
gifts or donations of services or property.]
(c) Gifts.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph
(2), the Commission, on behalf of the United States,
may accept use, and dispose of gifts or donations of
services, property, or money for purposes of 5 carrying
out this Act.
(2) Conditional.--With respect to conditional
gifts--
(A)(i) the Commission, on behalf of the
United States, may accept conditional gifts for
purposes of carrying out this Act, if approved
by the Federal Cochairperson; and
(ii) the principal of and income from any
such conditional gift shall be held, invested,
reinvested, and used in accordance with the
condition applicable to the gift; but
(B) no gift shall be accepted that is
conditioned on any expenditure not to be funded
from the gift or from the income generated by
the gift unless the expenditure has been
approved by Act of Congress; and
(C) the Commission shall submit an annual
report to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations that describes the amount and
terms of conditional gifts, the manner in which
such conditional gifts were or shall be used,
and any results achieved by such use.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 310. 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 2008.
(b) Availability.--Any sums appropriated under the
authorization contained in this section shall remain available
until expended.
SEC. 311. TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES.
(a) The Commission may accept transfers of funds from other
Federal agencies for purposes of this Act.
(b) Any Federal agency authorized to carry out an activity
that is within the authority of the Commission may transfer to
the Commission any appropriated funds available for such
activity. Funds transferred to the Commission under this
section shall be merged with and be available for the same time
period as the commission's appropriation.
(c) The Commission shall submit a report to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations detailing and summarizing
all transfers to and expenditures from the Denali Commission
under this section.
------
CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001, PUBLIC LAW 106-554
DIVISION B
TITLE I
Sec. 110. San Gabriel Basin, California. (a) San gabriel
basin restoration.--
(1) Establishment of fund.-- * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) Purposes of fund.--
(A) In general.-- * * *
(i) * * *
(ii) to operate and maintain any project
constructed under this section for such period
as the Secretary determines, but not to exceed
[10] 15 years, following the initial date of
operation of the project.
------
REVISED CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS RESOLUTION, 2007, PUBLIC LAW 110-5
``DIVISION B--CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS RESOLUTION, 2007
``TITLE II--ELIMINATION OF EARMARKS, ADJUSTMENTS IN FUNDING, AND OTHER
PROVISIONS
``CHAPTER 3--ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
``Sec. 20320. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
``(c) The Secretary of Energy shall enter into an
arrangement with an independent auditor for annual evaluations
of the program under title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of
2005. In addition to the independent audit, the Comptroller
General shall conduct [an annual review] a review every three
years of the Department's execution of the program under title
XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The results of the
independent audit and the Comptroller General's review shall be
provided directly to the Committees on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives and the Senate.
------
ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND SECURITY ACT, 2007, PUBLIC LAW 110-140
TITLE VIII--IMPROVED MANAGEMENT OF ENERGY POLICY
Subtitle A--Management Improvements
[SEC. 804. COORDINATION OF PLANNED REFINERY OUTAGES.
[(a) Definitions.--In this section:
[(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator''
means the Administrator of the Energy Information
Administration.
[(2) Planned refinery outage.--
[(A) In general.--The term ``planned
refinery outage'' means a removal, scheduled
before the date on which the removal occurs, of
a refinery, or any unit of a refinery, from
service for maintenance, repair, or
modification.
[(B) Exclusion.--The term ``planned
refinery outage'' does not include any
necessary and unplanned removal of a refinery,
or any unit of a refinery, from service as a
result of a component failure, safety hazard,
emergency, or action reasonably anticipated to
be necessary to prevent such events.
[(3) Refined petroleum product.--The term ``refined
petroleum product'' means any gasoline, diesel fuel,
fuel oil, lubricating oil, liquid petroleum gas, or
other petroleum distillate that is produced through the
refining or processing of crude oil or an oil derived
from tar sands, shale, or coal.
[(4) Refinery.--The term ``refinery'' means a
facility used in the production of a refined petroleum
product through distillation, cracking, or any other
process.
[(b) Review and Analysis of Available Information.--The
Administrator shall, on an ongoing basis--
[(1) review information on refinery outages that is
available from commercial reporting services;
[(2) analyze that information to determine whether
the scheduling of a refinery outage may nationally or
regionally substantially affect the price or supply of
any refined petroleum product by--
[(A) decreasing the production of the
refined petroleum product; and
[(B) causing or contributing to a retail or
wholesale supply shortage or disruption;
[(3) not less frequently than twice each year,
submit to the Secretary a report describing the results
of the review and analysis under paragraphs (1) and
(2); and
[(4) specifically alert the Secretary of any
refinery outage that the Administrator determines may
nationally or regionally substantially affect the price
or supply of a refined petroleum product.
[(c) Action by Secretary.--On a determination by the
Secretary, based on a report or alert under paragraph (3) or
(4) of subsection (b), that a refinery outage may affect the
price or supply of a refined petroleum product, the Secretary
shall make available to refinery operators information on
planned refinery outages to encourage reductions of the
quantity of refinery capacity that is out of service at any
time.
[(d) Limitation.--Nothing in this section shall alter any
existing legal obligation or responsibility of a refinery
operator, or create any legal right of action, nor shall this
section authorize the Secretary--
[(1) to prohibit a refinery operator from
conducting a planned refinery outage; or
[(2) to require a refinery operator to continue to
operate a refinery.]
------
OMNIBUS PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT ACT, 2009, PUBLIC LAW 111-11
TITLE X--WATER SETTLEMENTS
Subtitle A--San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement
PART I--SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION SETTLEMENT ACT
SEC. 10009. APPROPRIATIONS; SETTLEMENT FUND.
(a) Implementation Costs.--
* * * * * * *
(c) Fund.--
(1) In general.-- * * *
(2) Availability.--All funds deposited into the
Fund pursuant to subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of
paragraph (1) are authorized for appropriation to
implement the Settlement and this part, in addition to
the authorization provided in subsections (a) and (b)
of section 10203, except that $88,000,000 of such funds
are available for expenditure without further
appropriation; provided that after [October 1, 2019,
all funds in the Fund shall be available for
expenditure without further appropriation.] October 1,
2014, all funds in the Fund shall be available for
expenditure on an annual basis in an amount not to
exceed $40,000,000 without further appropriation.
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 bill allocation bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations
to its subcommittees of amounts in the Budget Resolution
for 2013: Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development:
Mandatory............................................... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Discretionary........................................... 33,361 33,361 41,110 \1\41,110
Security............................................ 17,550 17,550 NA NA
Nonsecurity......................................... 15,811 15,811 NA NA
Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation:
2013.................................................... ........... ........... ........... \2\19,775
2014.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 9,327
2015.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 2,990
2016.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 599
2017 and future years................................... ........... ........... ........... 533
Financial assistance to State and local governments for NA 80 NA 17
2013.......................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 2012 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2013
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Committee recommendation
compared with (+ or -)
Item 2012 Budget estimate Committee ---------------------------------
appropriation recommendation 2012
appropriation Budget estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Investigations..................................................... 125,000 102,000 125,000 ............... +23,000
Construction....................................................... 1,694,000 1,471,000 1,700,000 +6,000 +229,000
Mississippi River and Tributaries.................................. 252,000 234,000 253,000 +1,000 +19,000
Disaster relief category (Public Law 112-77)................... 802,000 ............... ............... -802,000 ...............
Operations and Maintenance......................................... 2,412,000 2,398,000 2,404,000 -8,000 +6,000
Disaster relief category (Public Law 112-77)................... 534,000 ............... ............... -534,000 ...............
Regulatory Program................................................. 193,000 205,000 199,000 +6,000 -6,000
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program [FUSRAP]........... 109,000 104,000 109,000 ............... +5,000
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies.............................. 27,000 30,000 30,000 +3,000 ...............
Disaster relief category (Public Law 112-77)................... 388,000 ............... ............... -388,000 ...............
Expenses........................................................... 185,000 182,000 182,000 -3,000 ...............
Office of Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)............ 5,000 5,000 5,000 ............... ...............
====================================================================================
Total, title I, Department of Defense--Civil................. 6,726,000 4,731,000 5,007,000 -1,719,000 +276,000
Appropriations........................................... (5,002,000) (4,731,000) (5,007,000) (+5,000) (+276,000)
Disaster relief category................................. (1,724,000) ............... ............... (-1,724,000) ...............
====================================================================================
TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Central Utah Project Completion Account
Central Utah Project construction.................................. 25,154 18,500 18,500 -6,654 ...............
Fish, wildlife, and recreation mitigation and conservation......... 2,000 1,200 1,200 -800 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 27,154 19,700 19,700 -7,454 ...............
Program oversight and administration............................... 1,550 1,300 1,300 -250 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Central Utah project completion account............... 28,704 21,000 21,000 -7,704 ...............
Bureau of Reclamation
San Joaquin Restoration Fund....................................... ............... 12,000 ............... ............... -12,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Bureau of Reclamation................................. 1,047,719 1,013,018 1,028,018 -19,701 +15,000
====================================================================================
Total, title II, Department of the Interior.................. 1,076,423 1,034,018 1,049,018 -27,405 +15,000
====================================================================================
TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Energy Programs
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy............................. 1,825,000 2,337,000 1,985,735 +160,735 -351,265
Rescission..................................................... -9,909 -69,667 -69,667 -59,758 ...............
Sec. 309--Contractor pay freeze rescission..................... -5,453 ............... ............... +5,453 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 1,809,638 2,267,333 1,916,068 +106,430 -351,265
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability........................ 139,500 138,015 138,015 -1,485 ...............
Defense function............................................... ............... 5,000 5,000 +5,000 ...............
Sec. 309--Contractor pay freeze rescission..................... -397 ............... ............... +397 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 139,103 143,015 143,015 +3,912 ...............
Nuclear Energy..................................................... 768,663 677,445 692,445 -76,218 +15,000
Defense function............................................... ............... 93,000 93,000 +93,000 ...............
Sec. 309--Contractor pay freeze rescission..................... -3,272 ............... ............... +3,272 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 765,391 770,445 785,445 +20,054 +15,000
Fossil Energy Research and Development............................. 534,000 420,575 460,575 -73,425 +40,000
Rescission..................................................... -187,000 ............... ............... +187,000 ...............
Sec. 309--Contractor pay freeze rescission..................... -297 ............... ............... +297 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 346,703 420,575 460,575 +113,872 +40,000
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves............................. 14,909 14,909 14,909 ............... ...............
Elk Hill School Lands Fund......................................... ............... 15,580 15,580 +15,580 ...............
Strategic Petroleum Reserve........................................ 192,704 195,609 195,609 +2,905 ...............
SPR Petroleum Account (rescission)................................. -500,000 -291,000 ............... +500,000 +291,000
Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve................................. 10,119 10,119 10,119 ............... ...............
Rescission..................................................... -100,000 -6,000 -6,000 +94,000 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... -89,881 4,119 4,119 +94,000 ...............
Energy Information Administration.................................. 105,000 116,365 116,365 +11,365 ...............
Non-defense Environmental Cleanup.................................. 235,721 198,506 228,506 -7,215 +30,000
Sec. 309--Contractor pay freeze rescission..................... -415 ............... ............... +415 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 235,306 198,506 228,506 -6,800 +30,000
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund........ 472,930 442,493 442,493 -30,437 ...............
Sec. 309--Contractor pay freeze rescission..................... -750 ............... ............... +750 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 472,180 442,493 442,493 -29,687 ...............
Science............................................................ 4,889,000 4,992,052 4,909,000 +20,000 -83,052
Sec. 309--Contractor pay freeze rescission..................... -15,366 ............... ............... +15,366 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 4,873,634 4,992,052 4,909,000 +35,366 -83,052
Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy........................... 275,000 350,000 312,000 +37,000 -38,000
Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program....................... 38,000 38,000 38,000 ............... ...............
Offsetting collection.......................................... -38,000 -38,000 -38,000 ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net appropriation............................................ ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loans program........... 6,000 9,000 9,000 +3,000 ...............
Departmental Administration........................................ 237,623 230,783 220,783 -16,840 -10,000
Miscellaneous revenues......................................... -111,623 -108,188 -108,188 +3,435 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net appropriation............................................ 126,000 122,595 112,595 -13,405 -10,000
Office of the Inspector General.................................... 42,000 43,468 43,468 +1,468 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Energy programs....................................... 8,813,687 9,815,064 9,708,747 +895,060 -106,317
====================================================================================
Atomic Energy Defense Activities
National Nuclear Security Administration
Weapons Activities................................................. 7,233,997 7,577,341 7,577,341 +343,344 ...............
Sec. 309--Contractor pay freeze rescission..................... -19,877 ............... ............... +19,877 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 7,214,120 7,577,341 7,577,341 +363,221 ...............
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation................................... 2,324,303 2,458,631 2,458,631 +134,328 ...............
Rescission..................................................... -21,000 ............... ............... +21,000 ...............
Sec. 309--Contractor pay freeze rescission..................... -7,423 ............... ............... +7,423 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 2,295,880 2,458,631 2,458,631 +162,751 ...............
Naval Reactors..................................................... 1,080,000 1,088,635 1,088,635 +8,635 ...............
Office of the Administrator........................................ 410,000 411,279 386,279 -23,721 -25,000
Security (rescission).......................................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, National Nuclear Security Administration.............. 11,000,000 11,535,886 11,510,886 +510,886 -25,000
Environmental and Other Defense Activities
Defense Environmental Cleanup...................................... 5,023,000 5,009,001 5,063,987 +40,987 +54,986
Sec. 309--Contractor pay freeze rescission..................... -20,050 ............... ............... +20,050 ...............
Defense Environmental Cleanup (legislative proposal)............... ............... 463,000 ............... ............... -463,000
Other Defense Activities........................................... 823,364 735,702 735,702 -87,662 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Environmental and Other Defense Activities............ 5,826,314 6,207,703 5,799,689 -26,625 -408,014
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities...................... 16,826,314 17,743,589 17,310,575 +484,261 -433,014
Power Marketing Administrations\1\
Operation and maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration....... 8,428 8,732 8,732 +304 ...............
Offsetting collections......................................... -8,428 -8,732 -8,732 -304 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Operation and maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration....... 45,010 44,200 44,200 -810 ...............
Offsetting collections......................................... -33,118 -32,308 -32,308 +810 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 11,892 11,892 11,892 ............... ...............
Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western 285,900 291,920 291,920 +6,020 ...............
Area Power Administration.........................................
Offsetting collections......................................... -189,932 -195,790 -195,790 -5,858 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 95,968 96,130 96,130 +162 ...............
Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund.................. 4,169 5,555 5,555 +1,386 ...............
Offsetting collections......................................... -3,949 -5,335 -5,335 -1,386 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 220 220 220 ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Power Marketing Administrations....................... 108,080 108,242 108,242 +162 ...............
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Salaries and expenses.............................................. 304,600 304,600 304,600 ............... ...............
Revenues applied................................................... -304,600 -304,600 -304,600 ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net appropriation............................................ ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
====================================================================================
Total, title III, Department of Energy....................... 25,748,081 27,666,895 27,127,564 +1,379,483 -539,331
Appropriations........................................... (26,639,290) (28,033,562) (27,203,231) (+563,941) (-830,331)
Rescissions.............................................. (-891,209) (-366,667) (-75,667) (+815,542) (+291,000)
====================================================================================
TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Appalachian Regional Commission.................................... 68,263 64,850 64,850 -3,413 ...............
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board............................ 29,130 29,415 27,425 -1,705 -1,990
Delta Regional Authority........................................... 11,677 11,315 11,315 -362 ...............
Denali Commission.................................................. 10,679 10,165 10,165 -514 ...............
Northern Border Regional Commission................................ 1,497 1,425 1,425 -72 ...............
Southeast Crescent Regional Commission............................. 250 ............... ............... -250 ...............
Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
Salaries and expenses.......................................... 1,027,240 1,042,200 1,042,200 +14,960 ...............
Revenues....................................................... -899,726 -914,832 -914,832 -15,106 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net appropriation............................................ 127,514 127,368 127,368 -146 ...............
Office of Inspector General.................................... 10,860 11,020 11,870 +1,010 +850
Revenues....................................................... -9,774 -9,918 -9,918 -144 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net appropriation............................................ 1,086 1,102 1,952 +866 +850
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Nuclear Regulatory Commission......................... 128,600 128,470 129,320 +720 +850
====================================================================================
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board............................... 3,400 3,400 3,400 ............... ...............
Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas 1,000 3,084 1,000 ............... -2,084
Transportation Projects...........................................
====================================================================================
Total, title IV, Independent agencies........................ 254,496 252,124 248,900 -5,596 -3,224
Appropriations........................................... (254,496) (252,124) (248,900) (-5,596) (-3,224)
Rescissions.............................................. ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
====================================================================================
Grand total.................................................. 33,805,000 33,684,037 33,432,482 -372,518 -251,555
Appropriations........................................... (32,972,209) (34,050,704) (33,508,149) (+535,940) (-542,555)
Disaster relief category................................. (1,724,000) ............... ............... (-1,724,000) ...............
Rescissions.............................................. (-891,209) (-366,667) (-75,667) (+815,542) (+291,000)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Totals adjusted to net out alternative financing costs, reimbursable agreement funding, and power purchase and wheeling expenditures. Offsetting
collection totals only reflect funds collected for annual expenses, excluding power purchase wheeling.