[DOCID: f:sr127.110] From the Senate Reports Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] Calendar No. 263 110th Congress Report SENATE 1st Session 110-127 ====================================================================== ENERGY AND WATER APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2008 _______ July 9, 2007.--Ordered to be printed _______ Mr. Dorgan, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany S. 1751] The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 1751) making appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass. Amount in new budget (obligational) authority, fiscal year 2008 Total of bill as reported to the Senate................. $32,791,321,000 Amount of 2007 appropriations..........................\1\32,562,190,000 Amount of 2008 budget estimate.......................... 30,887,838,000 Bill as recommended to Senate compared to-- 2007 appropriations................................. +229,131,000 2008 budget estimate................................ +1,903,483,000 \1\Includes Emergency Appropriations of $1,761,665,000. CONTENTS ---------- Page Purpose.......................................................... 4 Summary of Estimates and Recommendations......................... 4 Transparency in Congressional Directives......................... 4 Title I: Department of Defense--Civil: Department of the Army: Corps of Engineers--Civil: General Investigations............................... 21 Construction, General................................ 38 Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries..... 63 Operation and Maintenance, General................... 68 Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies................ 100 Regulatory Program................................... 101 Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program...... 102 General Expenses..................................... 102 General Provisions--Corps of Engineers--Civil........ 106 Title II: Department of the Interior: Central Utah Project Completion Account.................. 109 Bureau of Reclamation: Water and Related Resources.......................... 109 Central Valley Project Restoration Fund.............. 121 California Bay-Delta Restoration..................... 122 Policy and Administration............................ 122 General Provisions--Department of the Interior........... 122 Title III: Department of Energy: Energy Supply and Conservation........................... 125 Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.......... 132 Nuclear Energy....................................... 134 Fossil Energy Research and Development............... 137 Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves............... 140 Elk Hills School Lands Fund.......................... 140 Strategic Petroleum Reserve.......................... 140 Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve................... 141 Energy Information Administration.................... 141 Non-defense Environmental Cleanup........................ 141 Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund................................................... 143 Science.................................................. 143 High Energy Physics.................................. 144 Nuclear Physics...................................... 144 Biological and Environmental Research................ 145 Basic Energy Sciences................................ 146 Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund.............................. 148 Departmental Administration.............................. 149 Office of Inspector General.............................. 149 Atomic Energy Defense Activities: National Nuclear Security Administration: Weapons Activities............................... 150 Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation................. 160 Naval Reactors................................... 163 Office of the Administrator...................... 164 Environmental and Other Defense Activities: Defense Environmental Cleanup........................ 164 Other Defense Activities............................. 168 Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal....................... 169 Power Marketing Administrations: Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration................................. 170 Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration................................. 170 Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration. 170 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Salaries and Expenses........................................... 171 General Provisions--Department of Energy................. 194 Title IV: Independent Agencies: Appalachian Regional Commission.......................... 196 Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.................. 196 Delta Regional Authority................................. 197 Denali Commission........................................ 197 Nuclear Regulatory Commission............................ 197 Office of Inspector General.......................... 198 Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board..................... 198 Tennessee Valley Authority Office of the Inspector General................................................ 199 Title V: General Provisions...................................... 200 Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of the Senate......................................................... 201 Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of the Senate......................................................... 201 Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of the Senate......................................................... 202 Budgetary Impact Statement....................................... 214 PURPOSE The purpose of this bill is to provide appropriations for the fiscal year 2008 beginning October 1, 2007, and ending September 30, 2008, 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 2008 budget estimates for the bill total $30,887,838,000 in new budget (obligational) authority. The recommendation of the Committee totals $32,791,321,000. This is $1,903,483,000 above the budget estimates and $229,131,000 above the enacted appropriation for the current fiscal year. Subcommittee Hearings The Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water held five sessions in connection with the fiscal year 2008 appropriation bill. Witnesses included officials and representatives of the Federal agencies under the subcommittee's jurisdiction. The subcommittee received numerous statements and letters from Members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, Governors, State and local officials and representatives, and hundreds of private citizens throughout the United States. Information, both for and against many items, was presented to the subcommittee. The recommendations for fiscal year 2008 therefore, have been developed after careful consideration of available data. Votes in the Committee By a vote of 28 to 1 the Committee on June 28, 2007, recommended that the bill, as amended, be reported to the Senate. TRANSPARENCY IN CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTIVES On January 18, 2007, the Senate passed S. 1, The Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007, by a vote of 96-2. While the Committee awaits final action on this legislation, the chairman and ranking member of the Committee issued interim requirements to ensure that the goals of S. 1 are in place for the appropriations bills for fiscal year 2008. The Constitution vests in the Congress the power of the purse. The Committee believes strongly that Congress should make the decisions on how to allocate the people's money. In order to improve transparency and accountability in the process of approving earmarks (as defined in S. 1) in appropriations measures, each Committee report includes, for each earmark: --(1) the name of the Member(s) making the request, and where appropriate, the President; --(2) the name and location of the intended recipient or, if there is no specifically intended recipient, the intended location of the activity; and --(3) the purpose of such earmark. The term ``congressional earmark'' means a provision or report language included primarily at the request of a Senator, providing, authorizing, or recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific state, locality or congressional district, other than through a statutory or administrative, formula-driven, or competitive award process. For each earmark, a Member is required to provide a certification that neither the Member (nor his or her spouse) has a pecuniary interest in such earmark, consistent with Senate Rule XXXVII(4). Such certifications are available to the public at http://appropriations.senate.gov/senators.cfm or go to appropriations.senate.gov and click on ``Members''. TITLE I DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY Corps of Engineers--Civil INTRODUCTION The Corps of Engineers is made up of approximately 35,000 civilian and 650 military members that perform both military and civil works functions. The military and civilian engineers, scientists and other specialists work hand in hand as leaders in engineering and environmental matters. The diverse workforce of biologists, engineers, geologists, hydrologists, natural resource managers and other professionals meets the demands of changing times and requirements as a vital part of America's Army. The Corps' mission is to provide quality, responsive engineering services to the Nation including: --Planning, designing, building and operating water resources and other civil works projects, (Navigation, Flood Control, Environmental Protection, Disaster Response, etc.) --Designing and managing the construction of military facilities for the Army and Air Force. (Military Construction) --Providing design and construction management support for other Defense and Federal agencies. (Interagency and International Services) The Energy and Water bill only funds the Civil Works missions of the Corps of Engineers. Approximately 23,000 civilians and about 190 military officers are responsible for this nationwide mission. From our hundreds of rivers, lakes and wetlands to our thousands of miles of coastal shoreline, we are fortunate in America to enjoy an abundance of water resources. As a Nation, we value these resources for their natural beauty; for the many ways they help meet human needs; and for the fact that they provide habitat for thousands of species of plants, fish and wildlife. The Congress has given the Corps of Engineers the responsibility of helping to care for these important aquatic resources. Through its Civil Works program the Corps carries out a wide array of projects that provide: --Coastal storm damage reduction --Disaster preparedness and response --Environmental protection and restoration --Flood damage reduction --Hydropower --Navigable waters --Recreational opportunities --Regulatory oversight --Water supply One of the biggest challenges the Corps and other Government agencies face is finding the right balance among the often conflicting concerns our society has related to our water resources. Society wants these resources to help fuel economic growth (navigation, hydropower). Society wants them to provide social benefits (recreation). And finally society wants to be sure that they are available for future generations (environmental protection and restoration). The Corps is charged with seeking to achieve the best possible balance among these competing demands through an integrated approach to water resources management that focuses on regional solutions, involving an array of stakeholders (i.e. other Government agencies, environmental groups, businesses and private organizations). In recent years, the Corps has implemented this approach largely by concentrating on watersheds. OVERVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET REQUEST The fiscal year 2008 budget request for the Corps of Engineers is composed of $4,871,000,000 in new budget authority. This is the largest budget that the administration has ever recommended for the Corps. However it is more than $460,000,000 less than the fiscal year 2007 enacted budget for the Corps. This budget request continues this administration's policy of drastic underfunding of domestic infrastructure. At a time when this existing infrastructure, the foundation of our economic security and quality of life, is depreciating much faster than it is being recapitalized, when our increasing population is placing much greater stress on the Nation's vital water resources, when shifts in population centers mean new and different problems and when a growing environmental awareness requires new solutions to persistent problems, this underfunding is unacceptable and threatens our continued well- being. In a particularly egregious example of this inattention, the administration budget continues the trend of ever lower General Investigations [GI] funding thereby depriving us of the Nation's primary tool to identify future challenges and develop innovative solutions to water resources challenges and needs. The fiscal year 2002 GI request was $130,000,000. This has declined to $90,000,000 in fiscal year 2008. This decline is not due to a reduction in water resources needs, rather, it appears to be a deliberate attempt to choke off the Corps planning program. Of the $90,000,000 recommended in the budget request only about one-third of it is for actual studies that might eventually become projects. This is unconscionable given the enormous water resource needs facing our Nation. Worse still, it eviscerates the Corps ability to do proper planning. It is clear that in assembling this budget, no thought was given to how these recommendations would impact the workload and workforce in the various district offices of the Corps. Planning in the Corps is a specialized skillset and once that ability is lost, it is difficult to reestablish. Most of the criticisms of the Corps project development process in recent years have centered on the planning process. The administration is providing funding for some improvements to the Planning program such as funding the Planning Associates Program and Planning Centers of Expertise. However, if there are no planning studies to be undertaken this funding is wasted. The Committee believes that the Corps should have a robust planning program to not only address new water resource needs but to evaluate changes throughout the project development process. Continued budgets like this will lead to a complete loss of this vital Corps of Engineers' competency. The administration should seriously revise their priorities for this account in the fiscal year 2009 budget. The Construction, General [CG] and Operation and Maintenance [O&M] accounts have to be discussed jointly due to the way the budget request blurs the line between the traditional project split between the two accounts. Priorities for the CG account are based on six criteria for fiscal year 2008. The primary criteria is the project's benefit to cost ratio [BCR]. This is a welcome change from previous budgets that judged a program on its remaining cost to remaining benefits, which put rural projects a significant disadvantage. Projects with on going contracts and a BCR greater than 1.5 or are significant or cost effective aquatic ecosystem restoration projects are given funding for current contract needs. Projects that address significant risks to human health and safety are given sufficient funding to support an uninterrupted level of funding in fiscal year 2008. Projects with a BCR less than 1.5 are considered for deferral. No new construction starts met the administration's new start criteria for fiscal year 2008. Projects complying with treaties and biological opinions and/or meeting mitigation requirements as well as dam safety, seepage control and static instability correction were given the maximum funding for efficient and effective execution. The O&M account appears to have been increased by nearly $500,000,000 above the fiscal year 2007 enacted amount. However this is very misleading. The administration has again proposed shifting major project rehabilitations and environmental compliance activities associated with completed projects from CG to O&M. Also shifted to O&M are dredged material disposal projects, beach erosion restoration due to completed navigation projects and initial nourishment of beach projects. This shifting of projects was allegedly done in the name of budget transparency--trying to show the true costs of project operations. This seems to be a very weak justification in that the Bureau of Reclamation which has similar projects in their construction accounts did not get similar guidance in their budget preparation. By shifting some of these projects such as major rehabs and beach nourishments to O&M it appears that the administration was able to circumvent their own new start criteria. Further, by funding environmental compliance activities in the individual O&M projects seems to make the budget process less transparent by hiding how much these activities are costing the Nation by distributing these costs across multiple projects as opposed to a single line item in previous budgets. Finally, the administration's budget proposal limits coastal storm damage reduction projects that require periodic sand renourishments to those where the erosion is due to navigation projects. It also proposes to limit Federal participation to initial beach nourishment. Shifting of projects from the two accounts totals almost $300,000,000 of the $500,000,000 increase to O&M. This also corresponds to a similar decrease in CG funding for fiscal year 2008. That still leaves an increase of $200,000,000 for traditional O&M projects. The Committee is pleased that the administration has provided this increase to O&M for fiscal year 2008. This is the first real increase in many years. Unfortunately, the Committee notes that the Corps maintenance backlog is more than $1,000,000,000 and increases by about $100,000,000 annually as the inventory of projects ages. O&M is again presented as 21 separate regions based on watersheds as opposed to discrete projects. The Committee has indicated in the past that this so called ``regional budget'' is no more than an aggregation of the projects within a specific watershed. It does not appear that this budget is any different. The budget for these projects appears to be developed in the same way that it has always been and then aggregated with the other discrete projects in the watershed. The regional budgeting proposed in the last 2 years appears to serve no real budgetary purpose other than to circumvent the reprogramming guidance provided by the Committee. The regulatory budget gets a substantial increase to $180,000,000 for fiscal year 2008. This is more than $20,000,000 over the amount provided in fiscal year 2007. However, the Committee recognizes the substantial increased burden to establishing new regulatory guidance in the wake of the Rapanos Supreme Court decision. The Committee is disappointed that funding for the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program [FUSRAP] was cut by nearly $10,000,000 from the fiscal year 2007 amount of $138,672,000. 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. The Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies account is funded at $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2008. The Committee supports this funding for disaster readiness and preparedness activities of the Corps of Engineers. The budget request again combines the budget request for the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) with the General Expenses [GE] account. The Committee continues to believe that the Assistant Secretary's office should be funded in the Defense Appropriations bill. However, until such time as that can be reintegrated into that bill, the Committee believes that it 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 Committee is pleased to see an increase in the GE budget for fiscal year 2008. With the increases in responsibilities for the headquarters of the Corps in overseeing larger budgets as well as the massive rebuilding of the flood and storm damage reduction measures in the New Orleans area, it is appropriate that this account should be increased. 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 their headquarters level as opposed to 10 percent or more for comparable agencies in the National Capital region. PERFORMANCE BASED BUDGETING The Committee has watched with interest over the last 4 years as the Corps has moved to a ``performance based budget'' model. Unfortunately, the Committee does not see improvement in the budgeting of the Nation's Civil Works infrastructure program. In fact, the Committee believes quite the opposite is true. Rather than an integrated program, the budget for the Civil Works program seems to be degenerating toward a yearly collection of interchangeable projects dependent only on the budgetary whims and criteria in use in that particular year. The current method of performance based budgeting utilized in this budget preparation turns the Nation away from infrastructure investments that return two and even three times their cost. In fiscal year 2005, more than 130 projects were budgeted by the administration for construction; this year there are only about 66. However, Congress funded more than 300 projects in fiscal year 2006 and has averaged about 315 annually since fiscal year 2000. Due to the joint funding resolution for fiscal year 2007, Congress did not propose any projects for construction within the $2,336,368,000 in Construction, General funding provided to the executive branch but left that task to the administration. The administration funded 244 construction projects in their fiscal year 2007 work plan. They could have chosen to only fund the 85 proposed in the fiscal year 2007 budget request, but they didn't. This demonstrates a recognition by the administration that their budget proposal only partially addressed the Nation's needs. The work plan also demonstrated that the administration finds value in many of the projects that Congress annually funds. Unfortunately, the budget request pretends that these on going projects which have been funded annually for many years in enacted legislation do not exist. Further the budget assumes it costs nothing to ignore these projects. If Congress funded only the budget request for Construction, General, the administration would quickly discover that termination costs for unfunded on going projects could easily exceed the request. This is irresponsible budgeting on the part of the administration. From the Committee's perspective, the Corps' budget seems to be developed exactly in the opposite manner that it should be. It appears that overall spending targets are set by the administration and then their priority projects are inserted within these targets. Criteria are then established to justify funding the lower priority projects within the remaining funding targets. The problem with budgeting in this manner is evident in the construction account for fiscal year 2008. Six priority projects consume nearly 30 percent of the requested dollars in this account. Another nine projects related to dam safety consume another 20 percent. That means that some 51 projects have to split the remaining construction dollars. The logic behind this budgeting rational appears to be that concentrating scarce resources on finishing a few higher performing projects will allow the Nation to reap the benefits of these projects sooner. The trouble with this is that these are long-term projects that take many years to complete. At the rate the budget is headed, we will only be funding the administration's six priority projects and the dam safety repairs in another couple of years with little else in the pipeline. The Committee questions this rationale when compared to the value of the benefits that are deferred by suspending or terminating these other projects in order to concentrate resources on such a few projects. In some cases these deferred benefits may never be realized due to these terminations. Local sponsors who share in these projects' cost may lose their ability to share these costs or may lose public support for finishing these projects. Once these priority projects are completed, one has to wonder whether there will be any projects or sponsors interested in resuming construction in an infrastructure program that suspends projects based on changeable annual criteria. In the past, Corps budgets were developed from the bottom up, District to Division to Headquarters to ASA to OMB. District commanders were responsible for developing and managing a program within their geographic area. Division Commanders were responsible for integrating the District office programs into a single Division-wide program. The Headquarters office integrated the Division Programs into a single national program. The OASA assured that the program complied with administration policy and budgetary guidance and OMB developed the budgetary guidance and provided funding levels. Decisions for budgeting were made within the framework of administration policy by those who knew the projects and programs best, not Washington level bureaucrats. Another benefit of budgeting in this manner is that it allows the Corps to undertake workforce planning to distribute their work across the Nation. When one chooses to put 40-50 percent of the budget in a handful of projects, there is no way the workload can be balanced across the remainder of the Nation with what is left. Unlike other Federal agencies that have a salaries and expense component to their budget, the Corps does not, at least not at the District office level. Virtually all costs at District offices (rent, utilities, labor, materials, etc.) are charged to projects and studies as directed by Congress. This enables the public to be informed of the true cost of all projects. Accordingly, it is necessary that the budget process be consistent with the accounting practice. When dealing with such large differences in workload from fiscal year to fiscal year it is clear that the administration gave no thought to how this budget would impact the Corps' organizational structure or ability to maintain a technically competent workforce. Congress has repeatedly demonstrated that it desires to keep the structure of the Corps of Engineers as it is currently configured. Yet, if the budget were enacted, there would be no way to maintain this workforce, due to how budgetary criteria skewed the projects to certain areas of the country. Neither a pure ``bottom up'' budget process, nor a performance-based budget process is perfect. Experienced decision makers are expected to exercise informed judgment to achieve a balanced program considering all factors. Once more, the administration appears to have submitted a very unbalanced program using oversimplified decision metrics to consider only a few objectives (e.g. BCR and efficient completion of a few projects) that do not take into account the long- term needs of the Nation or the organization expected to manage the program. The Congress will likely consider the passage of a water resources development bill this year. In this bill the BCR necessary for a project to be authorized for construction is 1.0 to 1. The criteria mentioned above requires a BCR to be 3.0 to 1 for budgeting. This performance based budgeting criteria furthers the divide between what is required for authorization and what is required to be budgeted. These criteria use to be one and the same. Most of the projects in the water resources development bill will likely not meet this criteria, increasing the backlog of authorized but unconstructed projects. These new projects, along with the deferrals in the budget and the major rehabilitations needed for aging infrastructure, are affecting and will continue to affect the national economy. Existing water resources infrastructure is wearing out. The Nation needs to recapitalize if we are to remain competitive in a global marketplace. FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET INITIATIVES The administration has proposed several changes to how the civil works program is appropriated for fiscal year 2007. These include the regionalization of operations and maintenance funding and migrating four categories of projects from the Construction, General account to the Operations and Maintenance account. The Committee has rejected all of these initiatives. Regionalized operations and maintenance funding segregates funding for projects into 21 watershed regions around the country as opposed to displaying operations and maintenance costs by project as has been the tradition. As projects, not regions, are authorized and funded by Congress, the Committee must reject this proposal. Operation and Maintenance budgets are developed on a project by project basis. For large river basins such as the Ohio or the Missouri, budgeting for the individual projects, as authorized, involve multiple Districts and Divisions. As the proposals in the budget are not developed as a systemized budget, aggregating them in the fashion proposed does not lead to the ``true costs'' of operating the system, it just adds up the various parts. The Committee does not believe that this proposal advances the budgeting for operations and maintenance. The Committee is not opposed to a systemized budget for projects. However, the Corps must demonstrate the value of this approach to the Committee. The Corps is directed to prepare four systemized, integrated budgets for four different areas of the Nation, the Ohio River, the Great Lakes, the Texas Coast and the California coast, to demonstrate the value of system or watershed based planning and budgeting. Should the Corps want to select different areas they must coordinate their recommendations with the Committees prior to implementation. This process should start at the initial development phases of the budget so that goals can be developed and carried through the entire budget development process. The Committee rejects the initiative to move Endangered Species Act [ESA] compliance activities from Construction, General to Operations and Maintenance. The stated reason was budget transparency, or to more appropriately show the true costs of operating these projects. The Committee has two issues with this logic. Budget transparency fades when the costs are rolled into the regionalized budgets. However, even if they were budgeted on a project by project basis, the casual observer would have no notion of how much of the operational costs of these projects is related to ESA compliance. Second, these are only being considered as operational costs because mitigation for these projects was not undertaken when the projects were constructed as is now required by subsequent laws. Were these projects constructed today, formulation of the projects would have required avoidance and minimization measures for the endangered species. If one wanted to take this argument to the extreme, all of the Everglades Restoration should be budgeted under the Central and South Florida O&M project since construction of this project resulted in the environmental restorations that are now being implemented. However, the costs for this work would not be transparent in the budget. By retaining the ESA compliance measures as separate line items in the CG account, it is much more transparent as to how much is being funded for these activities. The budget has proposed moving major rehabilitation for locks and dams from the Construction, General account to the Operations and Maintenance account. Corresponding to this is a legislative proposal to allow the proceeds from the Inland Waterway Trust Fund to be utilized in the Operations and Maintenance account. Current law only allows these funds to be utilized in the Construction, General account. The Congress moved major rehabilitation from the Construction, General account to the Operation and Maintenance account in fiscal year 1985. Subsequently as the backlog increased, it was returned to the Construction, General account in the fiscal year 1993 budget. The stipulations involved in moving it back to the Construction account included that these major rehabilitations would involve more than a simple restoration of project function. Operational improvements were considered as a part of the rehab. As such, the rehabilitated, or recapitalized, projects were considered new investment opportunities for the country, the same as other new projects, and had to compete as new starts in the Construction, General program. This is entirely appropriate as these recapitalized projects provide increased levels of service and performance not envisioned in their original construction. If they didn't, under existing adminstration policy, the repairs would be considered major maintenance and would be funded under the Operation and Maintenance Account. To help fund these major rehabs, legislation allowed half the costs of the major rehab to be borne by the Inland Waterway Trust Fund with the other half to come from the General Treasury. The Committee does not believe moving these projects back to the Operations and Maintenance account will solve the backlog of major rehabs and rejects this proposal. The Committee believes that the real intent of this proposal is to skirt the new start issue in the CG account. The Committee is disappointed that the administration has recycled their beach policy from the fiscal year 2007 budget. This was only a slight tweak to the fiscal year 2006 proposal that was rejected by the Congress. The Committee rejects the new policy as well. The Committee notes that beaches are the leading tourist destination in the United States. Typically beach projects are justified on storm damages prevented alone, and the recreation benefits only enhance the benefit to cost ratio. The maximum Federal Government contribution to Federal shore protection projects is 65 percent of the total project cost but the Government receives all the benefits in reducing Federal disaster assistance payments. By paying for Federal shore protection projects now, we can avoid many of the catastrophic losses and disaster assistance payments associated with hurricanes and coastal storms. Simply stated, the Nation can pay now to avoid losses or pay more later to recover from severe impacts. It truly makes sense to be proactive and not reactive in this environment. It is instructive to compare the Federal investment in beach infrastructure (beach nourishment) versus Federal tax revenues from tourists. The annual Federal investment in beach nourishment is approximately $100,000,000 a year. Travel and tourism in the United States produce $223,900,000,000 in tax revenues and growth in this sector exceeds 5 percent annually. About 53 percent or $119,000,000,000 of these tax revenues go to the Federal Government. Assuming that half of these tourists are beach tourists (beaches are the leading U.S. tourist destination by more than a 2 to 1 margin), beach tourists produce Federal taxes of about $60,000,000,000 a year. Therefore, for every dollar in annual Federal expenditures for beach nourishment, the Federal Government is receiving tax revenues of approximately $600 from beach tourists. Interestingly, the administration has been pursuing authorization for coastal wetland restoration projects to protect coastal areas from hurricane storm surge. Yet the placement of sand in coastal areas for the exact same reason is given no priority by the administration in the budget process. While the Committee supports restoration of the coastal wetlands, it is difficult to imagine that wetlands will provide a greater national economic impact than placing sand on public beaches to mitigate storm surges on our densely populated coastal areas. The Committee believes that this budget proposal is no way to run a robust national infrastructure program. The Committee recommended that the Corps include additional criteria into the project prioritization process and commends the administration for having done so for the fiscal year 2008 budget request. The Committee also commends the administration for changing from the Remaining Benefits/Remaining Costs Ratio to the projects actual Benefit to Cost Ratio. However, the net result is that the mix of projects is substantially unchanged and fewer projects are proposed for funding in fiscal year 2008. The Committee does not believe that this prioritization method can be salvaged into a useable system. Further, the Committee has seen no evidence that it has improved the budget process. Rather than trying new budget models and new prioritization criteria, the country needs to invest more heavily in its water resources. Water resource projects are some of the only Federal expenditures that go through a rigorous benefit to cost process to determine benefits to the national economy. The standard of living that we currently enjoy is due to the excess capacity that was built into our water resources infrastructure by previous generations. By failing to make new investments and recapitalizing aging infrastructure, the Nation is not only falling behind our competition around the world, but is jeopardizing our future economic growth. BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS The Committee continues to be concerned about the manner that budget justifications were prepared for the fiscal year 2008 budget. In the past, the Corps provided justification sheets for each project and presented them in budget order by Division across the country. Again for fiscal year 2008, a single book of justification sheets was provided by business lines. The Committee finds this manner of displaying the budget not very helpful in being able to find meaningful information on individual projects and studies. While the Committee believes that budget justifications could be improved by providing more relevant budget information, particularly for operations and maintenance projects, the method used for display in fiscal year 2008 provides less useful information, not more. For fiscal year 2009, the Committee instructs that the budget justifications should be prepared in the format used for fiscal year 2004, that is, prior to the business line budget model. This should include information on fund items in preceding acts that will have out year funding requirements as well as budgeted items. If the administration chooses to continue to provide the business line information, it may be provided as a separate appendix to the justifications. CONTINUING CONTRACTS AND REPROGRAMMING Traditionally, the Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Program has been a truly integrated nationwide water infrastructure program. As such, flexibility was required to manage the program. Congress has given the Chief of Engineers great latitude in management of this program in order to expend annual appropriations as efficiently and effectively as possible. Water resources projects, because of the nature of the work involved, are funded on an incremental annual basis. While aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines and even spacecraft have been constructed without the use of continuing contracts Congress recognized that those amounts of budget resources would never be available to the Corps, so they provided continuing contract authority to allow them to construct large scale projects without the Congress having to provide all of the budget authority up front. Additionally, this method of funding the Corps allowed the Congress to have more projects underway at the same time with the same budget authority. Congress recognized that by providing this flexibility it was relinquishing some measure of control over future appropriations; however, Congress believed that this was an acceptable trade off for the efficient use of limited funds. This system worked well from the 1920s until 2005. For the few years prior to fiscal year 2006, the Corps had gotten somewhat sloppy in their management of continuing contracts as well as reprogramming of project funds. This sloppiness gave the appearance that construction contractors were dictating program execution. As the Committee has discussed in prior years, this perception was due to a number of factors some of them initiated by the Congress and other by the Corps' interpretation of congressional directives. Unfortunately restrictions placed on the Corps in the fiscal year 2006 budget, that are still in effect, have severely limited, if not prohibited the Corps from entering into new continuing contracts as well as virtually prohibited reprogramming of project funds. These factors have led to a dramatic increase in carryover of project funds which can only mean that projects are still being delayed even with the new guidance from fiscal year 2006. Carryover from fiscal year 2005 into fiscal year 2006 was about $300,000,000. With the new guidance from the fiscal year 2006 act, carryover ballooned to $1,400,000,000 from fiscal year 2006 into fiscal year 2007. Preliminary indications are that carryover from fiscal year 2007 into fiscal year 2008 will exceed $1,000,000,000 and may be as high as $1,200,000,000. While the Committee accepts that some level of carryover is unavoidable and desirable, carrying over nearly 20 percent of the Corps' annual appropriations is unacceptable. Changes must be made by Congress and the Corps to efficiently and effectively utilize annual appropriations and reduce carryover balances to more reasonable levels. Noting these exceptionally large carryover balances, the Committee has continued to include small percentages of savings and slippage on all accounts to maximize resources. The fiscal year 2006 guidance has also had a significant impact on continuing contracts in effect prior to the guidance being implemented as contracts cannot be unilaterally modified by the Corps to adopt these changes to the law. The Committee expects the Chief of Engineers to execute the Civil Works program generally in accordance with congressional direction. This includes moving individual projects forward in accordance with the funds annually appropriated. However, the Committee realizes that many factors outside the Corps' control may dictate the progress of any given project or study. Therefore, the Committee believes that it is imperative to give the Chief of Engineers ample flexibility to manage the program and to utilize excess funds as they become available on a particular project in order to move the entire program forward, effectively advancing projects to completion and accruing the benefits and services for which they were authorized, as soon as practicable. However, the Committee notes that granting this flexibility also requires responsibility to insure that appropriated funds are available for projects for which they were appropriated, when needed. The Committee believes that properly utilized continuing contracts serve a vital purpose in executing civil works projects. The Committee also believes that judicious use of reprogramming authority also contributes to an efficient and effectively run program. Therefore the Committee is repealing section 108 of Public Law 109-103 pertaining to limitation on funding to continuing contracts. The Committee is leaving in place the provisions of section 106 as they restore the traditional uses of continuing contracts. The Committee directs that in utilizing continuing contracts that they should be for long term, large scale projects. The Committee's expectation is that for a continuing contract to be utilized, the contract value should exceed $5,000,000 and have a minimum contract duration of 24 months. Anything less than these amounts should be considered for full funding. However, this should not be considered an endorsement by the Committee that only continuing contracts should be awarded above these thresholds. The Committee expects the Corps to use the proper contracting vehicle for each situation. For continuing contracts this should include the reasonable expectation of future funding. Authority for awarding continuing contracts should be at the lowest practical level. Exceptions to these limits should be forwarded to the Chief of Engineers for review and approval. The Committee further notes that current reprogramming recommendations have come to be elevated to the highest levels of the Corps, the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) and OMB. The Committee believes that reprogrammings are operational decisions which should be delegated. The Committee believes that the Chief should delegate recommendation of reprogramming decisions to as low of a level as possible in order to expedite reprogramming actions in order to efficiently and effectively utilize scarce funds. The Committee is also revamping reprogramming guidance for the Corps. The Committee believes that the reprogramming guidance that is currently being utilized is too restrictive and does not address the inherent differences in the various accounts of the Corps of Engineers. For fiscal year 2008, reprogramming limitations will be tied to the base funding amounts available for the project, study, or activity for which funding is available. In other words, the base for each project, study or activity amounts to the new budget authority made available, excluding supplemental funds, coupled with previously provided unexpended funding for the project, study or activity. For reprogramming actions that must come to the Committee for approval, the Committee expects the Corps to fully coordinate the actions with the affected Members of Congress before the action is formally submitted to the Committees. In no case should a reprogramming action for less than $50,000 be submitted to the Committees for approval. The authority for each account is as follows: General Investigations.--For a base funding level less than $100,000, the reprogramming limit is $25,000. For a base level over $100,000, 25 percent up to a limit of $150,000 per study or activity. Amounts over this limit will require approval of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, except that the Committee does not object to reprogramming up to $25,000 to any continuing study or activity that did not receive an appropriation in the current year. Construction, General.--For a base less than $2,000,000, the reprogramming limit is $300,000. For a base level over $2,000,000, 15 percent up to a limit of $3,000,000 per project or activity. The Committee will allow reprogramming up to $3,000,000 for settled contractor claims, accelerated earnings or real estate deficiency judgments. Amounts over this limit require approval of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. Reprogramming within each section of the Continuing Authorities is unlimited however, the percentages between studies and implementation must be maintained as directed in this report. Further, no reprogramming is allowed between sections nor into or out of the overall CG account. The Committee does not object to reprogramming of up to $300,000 to any continuing project or program that did not receive an appropriation in the current year. Operations and Maintenance.--Unlimited reprogramming authority is granted in order for the Corps to be able to respond to emergency situations. The Chief of Engineers must notify the House and Senate Appropriations Committees of these emergency actions as soon thereafter as practicable. For all other situations, for a base less than $1,000,000, the reprogramming limit is $150,000. For a base over $1,000,000, 15 percent up to a limit of $5,000,000 per project or activity. Amounts over this limit require approval of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. The Committee does not object reprogramming up to $150,000 to any continuing project or program that did not receive an appropriation in the current year. Mississippi River and Tributaries.--The Corps should follow the same reprogramming guidelines for the General Investigations, Construction, General and Operation and Maintenance portions of the Mississippi River and Tributaries account as listed above. Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program.--The Corps may reprogram up to 15 percent of the base of the receiving project. This revised continuing contract and reprogramming guidance should help the Corps effectively manage their program while honoring the intent of Congress. These items reinvigorate the idea that once the Congress funds a study, that it intends for the study phase to be completed to determine if Federal investment is warranted. By the same token, once the Congress commits to initiation of construction of a project that it intends for the project to be completed and the national economy to accrue the project benefits. Five Year Comprehensive Budget Planning While the Committee appreciates the Corps' attempts to provide a meaningful 5-year budget plan, it recognizes the inherent difficulties between the legislative and executive branches in preparing a useful plan. The executive branch is unwilling to project a 5-year horizon for projects for which they do not budget leaving a sizeable percentage of the Corps annual appropriations with a year to year event horizon for planning purposes. The fact that a sizeable portion of the annual appropriations are dedicated to congressional priorities is not a new phenomenon. Many major public works projects over the last two centuries have been funded on an annual basis without a clear budget strategy. The Committee would welcome the ideas and the opportunity to work with the executive branch to determine a mutually agreeable way to develop an integrated 5-year comprehensive budget that displays true funding needs for congressional as well as administration priorities. Anything less will only give a partial view of the investments needed in water resources infrastructure. Study and Project Reviews The Committee notes that review times have markedly improved for Corps of Engineers documents at the Headquarters, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) and the Office of Management and Budget since statutory timeframes and notifications were imposed on these reviews. This is shown in the table below. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Project Date to OMB Date review completed Date to Congress ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Smith Island, MD.................... 22 Oct 02............... 18 Apr 05\1\........... 02 Aug 06 Hamilton Airfield, CA............... 24 Jan 05............... 20 Apr 05.............. 03 May 05 Silver Strand/Imperial Beach, CA.... 03 Jan 05............... 22 Apr 05.............. 06 May 05 Western Sarpy, NE................... 25 Feb 04............... 22 Apr 05.............. 15 Jul 05 J.T. Myers/Greenup L&Ds KY, OH, IN.. 23 Aug 03............... 03 May 05.............. 04 Jan 06 Southwest Valley, NM................ 06 Apr 05............... 14 Jun 05.............. 29 Jun 05 Centralia, WA....................... 25 Apr 05............... 15 Jun 05.............. 01 Jul 05 Jacksonville Harbor, FL............. 18 May 05............... 25 Jul 05.............. 03 Aug 05 Denver County Streams, CO........... 21 Jun 05............... 02 Sep 05.............. 13 Oct 05 Indian River Lagoon, FL............. 22 Jun 05............... 17 Oct 05.............. 01 Feb 06 Louisiana Coastal Area, LA.......... 26 Aug 05............... 01 Nov 05.............. 21 Nov 05 Napa River Salt Marsh, CA........... 17 Aug 05............... 01 Nov 05.............. 21 Nov 05 Duwamish-Green Rivers, WA........... 09 May 02............... 28 Nov 05.............. 21 Dec 05 Stillaguamish River, WA............. 18 Apr 02............... 28 Nov 05.............. 21 Dec 05 Dare County Beaches, NC............. 01 Nov 05............... 06 Jan 06.............. 27 Jan 06 Chickamauga L&D, TN................. 16 Jun 04............... 11 Jan 06.............. 25 Jan 06 Miami Harbor, FL.................... 17 Feb 06............... 24 Apr 06.............. 25 May 06 Rilito River, Pima County, AZ....... 17 Feb 06............... 01 May 06.............. 19 May 06 Great Lakes Fish & Ecosystem Rest... 07 Apr 06............... 15 Jun 06.............. Complete\2\ Missouri & Middle Mississippi River. 30 Aug 05............... 15 Jun 06.............. Complete\2\ Ohio River Restoration, OH.......... 04 Mar 02............... 15 Jun 06.............. Complete\2\ Puget Sound, WA..................... 02 May 05............... 15 Jun 06.............. Complete\2\ Bayou Sorrel, LA.................... 10 Jul 06............... 15 Sep 06.............. 04 Oct 06 Poplar Island, MD................... 03 Aug 06............... 03 Oct 06.............. 11 Oct 06 Matilija Dam, CA.................... 25 Sep 06............... 27 Nov 06.............. 09 Apr 07 Hamilton City, CA................... 25 Sep 06............... 22 Nov 06.............. 21 Dec 06 Bloomsburg, PA...................... 11 Oct 06............... 20 Dec 06.............. 11 Jan 07 Matagorda Bay Re-Route, TX.......... 08 Sep 03............... 06 Feb 07.............. 05 Mar 07 GIWW, High Island to Brazos, TX..... 08 Oct 04............... 06 Feb 07.............. 09 Mar 07 Deep Creek Bridge, VA............... 27 Aug 03............... 23 Feb 07.............. 23 Mar 07 Jackson Hole, Snake River, WY....... 04 Mar 02............... 08 Mar 07............. 12 Mar 07 Picayune Strand, FL................. 17 Jan 07............... 19 Mar 07.............. 19 Apr 07 Montauk Point, NY................... 05 Feb 07............... 19 Apr 07.............. 03 May 07 MS Coastal Improvements Program..... 20 Feb 07............... 23 Apr 07.............. 04 May 07 Breckinridge, MN.................... 15 Jul 04............... 20 Mar 07.............. 07 May 07 Chesterfield, MO.................... 13 Jun 06............... 01 May 07.............. 30 May 07 Lido Key, Lee County Shore, FL...... 04 Aug 06............... 25 May 07.............. ....................... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\Received June 27, 2006. \2\Returned to DCW as complete by letter dated 17 Jul 06. Programmatic documents not to be reviewed by OMB. However, the Committee is not pleased that this improved review time only applies to new documents that have been forwarded for review. Many documents have been languishing for 3 to 4 years. This is unacceptable to the Committee and should be to OMB as well. The following table shows the name of the document, when it was forwarded to OMB and the current status. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Project Date to OMB Status ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Delaware Coastline, Port Mahon, DE...... 07 Jun 99 & 08 Jan 02............. Pending Whitewater River Basin, CA.............. 09 May 02......................... Pending Port Monmouth, NJ....................... 19 May 03......................... Pending Rio de Flag, AZ......................... 18 Sep 03......................... Pending Port Sutton, FL......................... 01 Oct 03......................... Pending Peoria Riverfront Development, IL....... 28 Feb 04......................... Pending\1\ Park River at Grafton, ND............... 28 May 04......................... Pending Tanque Verde, AZ........................ 02 Jun 04......................... Pending Dallas Floodway Extension, TX........... 23 Aug 04......................... Pending Corpus Christi Ship Channel, TX......... 16 Sep 04......................... Active Review Swope Park Industrial Area, MO.......... 28 Oct 04......................... Pending South River, Raritan River Basin, NJ.... 05 Nov 04......................... Pending St. Clair River/Lake St. Clair, MI...... 22 Mar 06......................... Pending Manasquan to Barnegat Inlet, NJ......... 25 Sep 06......................... On Hold\2\ CERP--Site 1 Impoundment................ 25 Apr 07......................... Pending Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers, IA....... 25 Apr 07......................... Pending Craney Island Expansion, VA............. 07 Jun 07......................... Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\Project Scope reduced by partial implementation authorized by section 519 of WRDA 2000. \2\District answering questions on cumulative effects and air quality. The Committee directs the Chief of Engineers to work with the ASA[CW] and OMB to develop a plan to complete these policy compliance reviews as expeditiously as possible and forward the recommendations of these reports to Congress. This plan should be presented to the appropriate House and Senate authorizing and Appropriations Committees no later than September 30, 2007. The Committee directs that reviews of all of these documents should be completed no later than December 31, 2008. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION The Committee recommendation includes a total of $5,448,092,000. This is $577,092,000 over the administration's budget request and $109,722,000 over the fiscal year 2007 enacted amount. Funding is displayed in the following tables in the accounts where projects have been traditionally located and comparisons to the budget request are made as if the request was presented in the traditional manner. Funding by account is as follows: [In millions of dollars] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year 2007 Committee Request vs. request recommedation recommendation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- General Investigations.................................... 90,000 172,147 +82,147 Construction, General..................................... 1,818,811 2,059,474 +240,663 Mississippi River and Tributaries......................... 260,000 375,000 +115,000 Operation and Maintenance................................. 2,175,189 2,291,971 +116,782 Regulatory................................................ 180,000 180,000 ................ Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies..................... 40,000 50,000 +10,000 Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program........... 130,000 140,000 +10,000 Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil 6,000 4,500 -1,500 Works)................................................... General Expenses.......................................... 171,000 175,000 +4,000 ----------------------------------------------------- Total............................................... 4,871,000 5,448,092 +577,092 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCLOSURE PROVISIONS The Committee received more than 2,500 requests for projects, programs, studies or activities for the Corps of Engineers for fiscal year 2008. These were items that were in addition to the budget request as well as those included in the budget request. The Committee obviously was unable to accommodate all of these requests. In the interest of providing full disclosure of funding provided in the Energy and Water bill, all disclosures are made in this report accompanying the Bill. All of the projects funded in this report have gone through the same rigorous public review and approval process as those proposed for funding by the President. The difference in these projects, of course, is that the congressionally directed projects are not subject to the artificial budgetary prioritization criteria that the administration utilizes to decide what not to fund. A new column has been added to the tables to show the requestors of the various projects. For those programs, projects, or studies that were included in the budgetary documents provided in the budget request, the word President has been added to denote this administration request. The level of funding provided for each of these programs projects or studies should not be construed as what was requested. Rather, the only intent is to disclose the requestor. It should be noted that many line items only have President listed as the requestor. It should not be inferred that the affected Members are not interested in these projects studies or activities. Rather this is due to Committee direction that the President's budget requests are assumed to be requested by the affected Members unless they notify the Committee to the contrary. The purposes for the funding provided in the various accounts is described in the paragraphs associated with each account. The location of the programs, projects or studies are denoted in the account tables. GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS Appropriations, 2007.................................... $162,916,000 Budget estimate, 2008................................... 90,000,000 Committee recommendation................................ 172,147,000 \1\Excludes emergency appropriations of $8,165,000. This appropriation funds studies to determine the need, engineering feasibility, economic justification, and the environmental and social suitability of solutions to water and related land resource problems; and for preconstruction engineering and design work, data collection, and interagency coordination and research activities. The planning program is the entry point for Federal involvement in solutions to the Nation's water resource problems and needs. Unfortunately, the General Investigations [GI] account is eviscerated in the budget request. Nationwide studies and programs consume nearly two-thirds of the administration's GI request. This budget is saying that the Nation should concentrate scarce resources on completing studies but not carrying forward ongoing studies or allowing new starts. The Committee believes this argument is remarkably shortsighted. It assumes that the country will stop growing and that new investment opportunities will not be present. In truth, as the country grows, new investment opportunities will be presented and some previously authorized projects may no longer make sense or may be less competitive. The Corps should keep presenting the administration and Congress with new investment opportunities in order for the Nation to remain competitive in a global economy. The only conclusion one can draw from the administration's GI proposal is that they are determined to redirect the Corps towards construction, operation and maintenance by strangling their ability to evaluate water resource problems and needs. The Committee has provided for a robust and balanced planning program for fiscal year 2008. The Committee has used the traditional view within the Corps planning program that only considers new starts as those that have never received GI funds before. The Committee believes that to maintain a robust planning program, a mix of new reconnaissance studies must be included with the existing feasibility and PED studies. As such the Committee has included several new reconnaissance studies in this account. To provide additional transparency in the budget process, the Committee has segregated the budget into three columns in the following table. The first column represents the reconnaissance phase of the planning process. These 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 that more attention will be focused on the various study phases, and a more balanced planning program will 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 Committee directs that the fiscal year 2009 planning budget be presented to the Committee in this fashion. 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Requested by Investigations Planning RECON FEAS PED -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ALASKA ANCHORAGE HARBOR DEEPENING, AK......... .............. .......... .......... 500 .......... STEVENS ATKA BOAT HARBOR, AK................... .............. .......... 200 .......... .......... STEVENS BARROW COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION, .............. .......... .......... 400 .......... STEVENS AK. DELONG MOUNTAIN DOCK, AK............... .............. .......... .......... 100 400 STEVENS HAINES HARBOR, AK...................... .............. .......... .......... .......... 350 STEVENS HOMER HARBOR MODIFICATION, AK.......... .............. .......... .......... 400 .......... STEVENS KENAI RIVER BLUFF EROSION, AK.......... .............. .......... .......... 500 .......... STEVENS LITTLE DIOMEDE HARBOR, AK.............. .............. .......... .......... 600 .......... STEVENS MATANUSKA RIVER WATERSHED, AK.......... .............. .......... 300 .......... .......... STEVENS MCGRATH, AK............................ .............. .......... 600 .......... .......... STEVENS WHITTIER BREAKWATER, AK................ .............. .......... .......... 400 .......... STEVENS YAKUTAT HARBOR, AK..................... 300 .......... .......... 600 .......... PRESIDENT, STEVENS ARIZONA RILLITO RIVER, PIMA COUNTY, AZ......... .............. 300 .......... .......... 300 PRESIDENT VA SHLY-AY AKIMEL SALT RIVER .............. 658 .......... .......... 658 PRESIDENT RESTORATION, AZ. ARKANSAS LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER RESOURCE STUDY. .............. .......... 250 .......... .......... COCHRAN, LINCOLN, PRYOR MAY BRANCH, FORT SMITH, AR............. .............. .......... .......... .......... 250 LINCOLN, PRYOR PINE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR................. .............. .......... .......... .......... 500 LINCOLN, PRYOR RED RIVER NAVIGATION STUDY, SOUTHWEST .............. .......... .......... 200 200 LANDRIEU, LINCOLN, PRYOR, INHOFE ARKANSAS, AR. WHITE RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE, AR & .............. .......... .......... 325 .......... BOND, LINCOLN, PRYOR MO. WHITE RIVER MINIMUM FLOWS, AR.......... .............. .......... .......... .......... 475 LINCOLN, PRYOR WHITE RIVER NAVIGATION TO NEWPORT, AR.. .............. .......... .......... .......... 200 LINCOLN, PRYOR CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA COASTAL SEDIMENT MASTER 300 .......... .......... 450 .......... PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN PLAN, CA. CARPINTERIA SHORELINE STUDY............ .............. .......... .......... 200 .......... FEINSTEIN COYOTE & BERRYESSA CREEKS, CA.......... 700 250 .......... 700 250 PRESIDENT COYOTE DAM, CA......................... .............. .......... .......... 250 .......... FEINSTEIN ESTUDILLO CANAL, CA.................... 425 .......... .......... 425 .......... PRESIDENT HAMILTON CITY, CA...................... .............. .......... .......... .......... 800 FEINSTEIN HEACOCK AND CACTUS CHANNELS, CA........ .............. .......... .......... 500 .......... FEINSTEIN HUMBOLT BAY LONG TERM SEDIMENT .............. .......... .......... 250 .......... FEINSTEIN MANAGEMENT, CA. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, .............. .......... .......... 750 .......... FEINSTEIN CORNFIELDS, CA. LOS ANGELES RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION .............. .......... .......... 500 .......... BOXER LOS ANGELES RIVER WATERCOURSE .............. .......... .......... 300 .......... FEINSTEIN IMPROVEMENT--HEADWORKS). LOWER CACHE CREEK, YOLO COUNTY, .............. .......... .......... 40 .......... FEINSTEIN WOODLAND AND VICINITY. LOWER MISSION CREEK, CA................ .............. .......... .......... .......... 500 FEINSTEIN MALIBU CREEK WATERSHED, CA............. .............. .......... .......... .......... 158 FEINSTEIN MATILIJA DAM, CA....................... .............. .......... .......... .......... 1,000 FEINSTEIN, BOXER MIDDLE CREEK, CA....................... .............. .......... .......... 30 500 FEINSTEIN RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAMP, CA.............. .............. .......... .......... 227 .......... FEINSTEIN ROCK CREEK, KEEFER SLOUGH, CA.......... .............. .......... .......... 250 .......... FEINSTEIN SAC-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ISLANDS AND .............. .......... .......... 2,000 .......... FEINSTEIN LEVEES, CA. SAN DIEGO COUNTY SAMP, CA.............. .............. .......... .......... 200 .......... FEINSTEIN SAN JOAQUIN RB, WEST STANISLAUS COUNTY, .............. .......... .......... 300 .......... FEINSTEIN ORESTIMBA CREE. SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN (SJRB), FRAZIER .............. .......... .......... 250 .......... FEINSTEIN CREEK/STRATHMO. SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN (SJRB), LOWER .............. .......... .......... 300 .......... FEINSTEIN SAN JOAQUIN RIVE. SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN (SJRB), WHITE .............. .......... .......... 250 .......... FEINSTEIN RIVER/DRY CREEK. SOLANA-ENCINITAS SHORELINE, CA......... .............. .......... .......... 171 50 FEINSTEIN SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SHORELINE, CA...... .............. .......... .......... 1,250 .......... FEINSTEIN SUTTER COUNTY, CA...................... 339 .......... .......... 339 .......... PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN TAHOE BASIN, CA & NV................... .............. .......... .......... .......... 300 REID TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING, CA AND NV (SEC .............. .......... .......... 250 .......... REID, ENSIGN 503). UPPER PENITENCIA CREEK, CA............. 191 .......... .......... 191 .......... PRESIDENT COLORADO CACHE LA POUDRE, CO.................... 340 .......... .......... 340 .......... PRESIDENT CHATFIELD, CHERRY CREEK AND BEAR CREEK .............. .......... .......... 273 .......... ALLARD, SALAZAR RESERVOIRS, CO. FOUNTAIN CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, CO..... .............. .......... .......... 149 .......... ALLARD, SALAZAR SOUTH BOULDER CREEK, CO................ .............. .......... 100 .......... .......... SALAZAR CONNECTICUT CONNECTICUT RIVER BASIN WATERSHED .............. .......... .......... 200 .......... GREGG, DODD, LIEBERMAN STUDY, CT, MA, NH AN. DELAWARE DELAWARE RVR COMP, NY, NJ, PA & DE .............. .......... .......... 300 .......... LAUTENBERG, SPECTER, MENENDEZ, SCHUMER (WATERSHED FLD MGT. RED CLAY CREEK, CHRISTINA RIVER .............. .......... .......... 250 .......... BIDEN, CARPER WATERSHED, DE. FLORIDA INDIAN RIVER LAGOON NORTH, FL.......... .............. .......... .......... 500 .......... MARTINEZ FLAGLER BEACH, FL...................... .............. .......... .......... 250 .......... BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ LAKE WORTH INLET, FL................... .............. .......... .......... 250 .......... BILL NELSON PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR, FL............. .............. .......... .......... 300 .......... BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ WALTON COUNTY FL....................... .............. .......... .......... .......... 375 BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ GEORGIA AUGUSTA, GA............................ .............. 750 .......... .......... 750 PRESIDENT LONG ISLAND, MARSH AND JOHNS CREEKS, GA 531 .......... .......... 531 .......... PRESIDENT SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, GA.......... .............. 700 .......... .......... 700 PRESIDENT GUAM HAGATNA RIVER FLOOD CONTROL,........... 100 .......... .......... 100 .......... PRESIDENT HAWAII ALA WAI CANAL, OAHU, HI................ 300 .......... .......... 700 .......... PRESIDENT, INOUYE BARBERS POINT HARBOR MODIFICATION, 50 .......... .......... 141 .......... PRESIDENT, INOUYE OAHU, HI. KAHUKU, HI............................. 60 .......... .......... .......... 260 PRESIDENT, INOUYE MAALAEA HARBOR, MAUI, HI............... .............. 150 .......... .......... 150 PRESIDENT NAWILIWILI HARBOR MODIFICATION, KAUAI, .............. .......... .......... 450 .......... INOUYE, AKAKA HI. WAILUPE STREAM, OAHU, HI............... .............. .......... .......... .......... 350 INOUYE, AKAKA WEST MAUI WATERSHED , HI............... .............. .......... 300 .......... .......... INOUYE, AKAKA KAHULUI HARBOR MODIFICATION STUDY, HI.. .............. .......... 100 .......... .......... INOUYE, AKAKA IDAHO BOISE RIVER, ID........................ .............. .......... .......... 400 .......... CRAIG ILLINOIS DES PLAINES RIVER, IL (PHASE II)....... .............. .......... .......... 500 .......... DURBIN ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN RESTORATION, IL... 400 .......... .......... 1,000 .......... PRESIDENT, DURBIN PEORIA RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT, IL...... .............. .......... .......... .......... 250 DURBIN SOUTH FORK OF SOUTH BRANCH OF CHICAGO .............. .......... .......... 500 .......... DURBIN RIVER (BUBBLY CR. UPPER MISS RIVER--ILLINOIS WW SYSTEM, .............. .......... .......... .......... 12,000 DURBIN, BOND, OBAMA, GRASSLEY, KLOBUCHAR IL, IA, MN, MO. UPPER MISS RVR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IL, .............. .......... 386 .......... .......... DURBIN, BOND, GRASSLEY IA, MO, MN & WI. INDIANA INDIANA HARBOR, IN..................... 300 .......... .......... 300 .......... PRESIDENT IOWA CEDAR RIVER (TIME CHECK AREA), CEDAR .............. .......... .......... 150 .......... HARKIN, GRASSLEY RAPIDS, IA. DES MOINES AND RACCOON RIVERS, IA...... .............. .......... .......... .......... 440 HARKIN, GRASSLEY KANSAS MANHATTAN, KS.......................... .............. .......... .......... 200 .......... BROWNBACK MISSOURRI RIVER DEGRADATION STUDY, KS.. .............. .......... 300 .......... .......... BOND, ROBERTS TOPEKA, KS............................. .............. 100 .......... .......... 100 PRESIDENT UPPER TURKEY CREEK, KS................. .............. .......... .......... 231 .......... BROWNBACK LOUISIANA BAYOU SORREL LOCK, LA.................. .............. 1,371 .......... .......... 1,371 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU BOSSIER PARISH, LA..................... .............. .......... .......... 300 .......... LANDRIEU, VITTER CALCASIEU RIVER AND SHIP CHANNEL .............. .......... .......... 361 .......... LANDRIEU, VITTER ENLARGEMENT, LA. CALCASIEU RIVER BASIN, LA.............. 395 .......... .......... 395 .......... PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU CROSS LAKE, LA WATER SUPPLY .............. .......... .......... 384 .......... LANDRIEU, VITTER IMPROVEMENTS. LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM REST, 5,000 .......... .......... .......... .......... PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU, VITTER LA (SCIENCE PRO. LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM 8,000 .......... .......... 12,000 .......... PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU, VITTER RESTORATION, LA. LOUISIANA COASTAL PROTECTION AND .............. .......... .......... 2,000 .......... LANDRIEU RESTORATION, LA (LACP. PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LA (FC)............ .............. .......... .......... 250 .......... LANDRIEU PORT OF IBERIA, LA..................... .............. .......... .......... .......... 1,000 LANDRIEU SOUTHWEST COASTAL HURRICANE PROTECTION, .............. .......... .......... 400 .......... LANDRIEU, VITTER LA. ST. CHARLES PARISH URBAN FLOOD CONTROL, .............. .......... .......... 200 .......... LANDRIEU LA. WEST BATON ROUGE (RIVERFRONT .............. .......... .......... 250 .......... LANDRIEU DEVELOPMENT), LA. WEST PEARL RIVER NAVIGATION, LA AND MS. .............. .......... 100 .......... .......... COCHRAN WEST SHORE, LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN, LA..... .............. .......... .......... 498 280 LANDRIEU, VITTER MAINE PENOBSCOT RIVER RESTORATION, ME........ .............. .......... 100 .......... .......... SNOWE, COLLINS SEARSPORT HARBOR, ME................... .............. .......... .......... 125 .......... SNOWE, COLLINS MARYLAND ANACOSTIA RIVER & TRIBUTARIES .............. .......... .......... 500 .......... MIKULSKI, CARDIN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, MD. BALTIMORE METRO WTR RES.--PATAPSCO AND .............. .......... .......... .......... 600 MIKULSKI, CARDIN BACK RIVERS. CHESAPEAKE BAY MARSHLANDS, MD.......... .............. .......... 200 .......... .......... MIKULSKI, CARDIN CHESAPEAKE BAY SHORELINE, MARYLAND .............. .......... .......... 250 .......... MIKULSKI, CARDIN COASTAL MANAGEMENT,. EASTERN SHORE, MID CHESAPEAKE BAY .............. .......... .......... .......... 600 MIKULSKI, CARDIN ISLAND, MD. JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE REALLOCATION, MD .............. .......... 80 60 .......... MIKULSKI, CARDIN AND WV. LOWER POTOMAC ESTUARY WATERSHED, ST .............. .......... .......... 50 125 MIKULSKI, CARDIN MARY'S WATERSHED,. MIDDLE POTOMAC RIVER--GREATER SENECA/ .............. .......... .......... 300 .......... MIKULSKI, CARDIN MUDDY BRANCH, MD. MIDDLE POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED, MD, VA, .............. .......... .......... 50 150 MIKULSKI, CARDIN PA, WV, AMD DC. MASSACHUSETTS BLACKSTONE RIVER WATERSHED RESTORATION, .............. .......... 100 .......... .......... REED MA & RI. BOSTON HARBOR (45-FOOT CHANNEL), MA.... 377 .......... .......... 377 .......... PRESIDENT COASTAL MASSACHUSETTS ECOSYSTEM 100 .......... .......... 100 .......... PRESIDENT RESTORATION, MA. MICHIGAN GREAT LAKES NAV SYST STUDY, MI, IL, IN, 800 .......... 800 .......... .......... PRESIDENT, CLINTON, VOINOVICH MN, NY, OH, PA. GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS, MI.. .............. .......... .......... 1,000 .......... OBAMA, LUGAR, LEVIN, STABENOW, COLEMAN, SCHUMER, CLINTON, VOINOVICH, BROWN, KOHL MINNESOTA BLUE EARTH RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, .............. .......... .......... 100 .......... COLEMAN, KLOBUCHAR MN (MN RIVER A. FARGO,ND-MOORHEAD,MN & UPSTREAM SUB- .............. .......... .......... 250 .......... DORGAN, COLEMAN BASIN (RRN BASIN A. MARSH LAKE, MN (MN RIVER AUTHORITY).... .............. .......... .......... 150 .......... COLEMAN, KLOBUCHAR MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED, UMR LAKE .............. .......... .......... 125 .......... COLEMAN, KLOBUCHAR ITASCA TO L&D 2, M. MINNESOTA RIVER BASIN, MN & SD......... .............. .......... .......... 100 .......... COLEMAN WILD RICE RIVER, RED RIVER OF THE NORTH 270 .......... .......... 135 .......... PRESIDENT, COLEMAN BASIN, MN. MISSISSIPPI MISSISSIPPI COASTAL HURRICANE STUDY, MS .............. .......... .......... 1,153 .......... COCHRAN MISSOURI BRUSH CREEK BASIN, KS & MO............. .............. .......... .......... 200 .......... BOND, BROWNBACK, KANSAS CITYS, MO & KS.................. 589 100 .......... 589 100 PRESIDENT, ROBERTS, BOND SPRINGFIELD, MO........................ 354 .......... .......... 354 .......... PRESIDENT MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, UNITS L455 .............. .......... .......... .......... 350 BOND & R460-471, MO. RIVER DES PERES, MO.................... .............. .......... .......... 180 .......... BOND ST LOUIS FLOOD PROTECTION, MO.......... .............. 281 .......... .......... 281 PRESIDENT ST LOUIS MISSISSIPPI RIVERFRONT, MO & .............. .......... .......... 148 .......... BOND IL. SWOPE PARK INDUSTRIAL AREA, KANSAS .............. .......... .......... .......... 150 BOND CITY, MO. MONTANA YELLOWSTONE RIVER CORRIDOR, MT......... 200 .......... .......... 500 .......... PRESIDENT, BAUCUS, TESTER NEBRASKA LOWER PLATTE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NE. 130 .......... .......... 130 .......... PRESIDENT, HAGEL NEVADA TRUCKEE MEADOWS, NV.................... .............. .......... .......... .......... 5,000 REID, ENSIGN NEW HAMPSHIRE MERRIMACK RIVER WATERSHED STUDY, NH & 200 .......... .......... 200 .......... PRESIDENT, KENNEDY, KERRY MA. NEW JERSEY DELAWARE RIVER COMPREHENSIVE, NJ....... .............. .......... .......... 175 .......... LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ HUDSON--RARITAN ESTUARY, HACKENSACK 200 .......... .......... 350 .......... PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ MEADOWLANDS, NJ. HUDSON--RARITAN ESTUARY, LOWER PASSAIC 200 .......... .......... 500 .......... PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ RIVER, NJ. LOWER SADDLE RIVER, BERGEN COUNTY, NJ.. .............. .......... .......... .......... 125 LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ NEW JERSEY INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, ENV .............. .......... .......... .......... 125 LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ RESTORATION, NJ. NEW JERSEY SHORE PROTECTION, HEREFORD 256 .......... .......... 256 .......... PRESIDENT TO CAPE MAY INLE. NEW JERSEY SHORELINE ALTERNATIVE LONG- .............. .......... .......... 250 .......... LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ TERM NOURISHMENT. PASSAIC RIVER MAIN STEM, NJ............ .............. .......... .......... 125 .......... LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ PASSAIC RIVER, HARRISON, NJ............ .............. .......... .......... .......... 200 LAUTENBERG PECKMAN RIVER BASIN, NJ................ .............. .......... .......... 375 .......... LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ RAHWAY RIVER BASIN, NJ................. .............. .......... .......... 175 .......... LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, .............. .......... .......... 200 .......... LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ HIGHLANDS, NJ. RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, .............. .......... .......... 200 .......... LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ KEYPORT, NJ. RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, .............. .......... .......... 125 .......... LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ LEONARDO, NJ. RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, UNION .............. .......... .......... 100 .......... LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ BEACH, NJ. SHREWSBURY RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NJ... .............. .......... .......... 125 .......... LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ SOUTH RIVER, RARITAN RIVER BASIN, NJ... .............. .......... .......... .......... 375 LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ STONY BROOK, MILLSTONE RIVER BASIN, NJ. .............. .......... .......... 150 .......... LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ NEW MEXICO BERNALILLO, NM......................... .............. .......... 100 .......... .......... DOMENICI, BINGAMAN EAST MESA LAS CRUCES,NM................ .............. .......... .......... 200 .......... DOMENICI, BINGAMAN ESPANOLA VALLEY RIO GRANDE AND TRIBS, .............. .......... .......... 500 .......... DOMENICI, BINGAMAN NM. MIDDLE RIO GRANDE BOSQUE, NM........... 311 .......... .......... 311 .......... PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN RIO GRANDE BASIN, NM, CO & TX.......... .............. .......... .......... 250 .......... DOMENICI, BINGAMAN SANTA FE, NM........................... .............. .......... .......... 175 .......... DOMENICI, BINGAMAN SOCORRO COUNTY, NM..................... .............. .......... 100 .......... .......... DOMENICI, BINGAMAN SW VALLEY FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION, .............. .......... .......... .......... 200 DOMENICI ALBUQUERQUE, NM. NEW YORK BRONX RIVER BASIN, NY.................. .............. .......... .......... 375 .......... SCHUMER, CLINTON BUFFALO RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, 100 .......... .......... 100 .......... PRESIDENT NY. FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NY............. .............. .......... .......... .......... 100 SCHUMER, CLINTON HUDSON--RARITAN ESTUARY, GOWANUS CANAL, .............. .......... .......... 375 .......... SCHUMER, CLINTON NY. HUDSON--RARITAN ESTUARY, NY & NJ....... 200 .......... .......... 500 .......... PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ, SCHUMER, CLINTON LAKE MONTAUK HARBOR, NY................ .............. .......... .......... 175 .......... SCHUMER, CLINTON MONTAUK POINT, NY...................... .............. .......... .......... .......... 250 SCHUMER, CLINTON NORTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND, ASHAROKEN, .............. .......... .......... .......... 125 SCHUMER, CLINTON NY. NORTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND, BAYVILLE, .............. .......... .......... 200 .......... SCHUMER, CLINTON NY. SAW MILL RIVER AT ELSFORD/GREENBURGH, .............. .......... .......... .......... 250 SCHUMER, CLINTON NY. SOUTH SHORE OF STATEN ISLAND, NY....... .............. .......... .......... 150 .......... SCHUMER, CLINTON SUSQUEHANNA RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL .............. .......... 100 .......... .......... SCHUMER, CLINTON RESTORATION AND LOW FL. UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN ENVIRON .............. 102 .......... .......... 102 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON REST, COOPERSTOW. NORTH CAROLINA BOGUE BANKS, NC........................ .............. .......... .......... 125 .......... DOLE, BURR CURRITUCK SOUND, NC.................... 150 .......... .......... 150 .......... PRESIDENT NEUSE RIVER BASIN, NC.................. 554 .......... .......... 554 .......... PRESIDENT NORTH CAROLINA INTERNATIONAL PORT, NC.. .............. .......... 100 .......... .......... DOLE, BURR SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH, NC.. .............. .......... .......... 200 .......... DOLE, BURR NORTH DAKOTA RED RIVER OF THE NORTH BASIN, MN, ND, .............. .......... .......... 3,550 .......... DORGAN SD & MANITOBA, C. OHIO BELPRE, OH............................. .............. .......... .......... .......... 200 VOINOVICH CUYAHOGA RIVER BULKHEAD STUDY, OH...... .............. .......... .......... 150 .......... VOINOVICH HOCKING RIVER BASIN, MONDAY CREEK, OH.. .............. .......... .......... .......... 200 VOINOVICH MAHONING RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, .............. .......... .......... .......... 250 VOINOVICH OH. OHIO RIVERFRONT STUDY, CINCINNATI, OH.. .............. .......... .......... .......... 500 VOINOVICH WESTERN LAKE ERIE BASIN, OH, IN, & MI.. .............. .......... .......... 492 .......... VOINOVICH OKLAHOMA GRAND (NEOSHO) RIVER BASIN WATERSHED, .............. .......... .......... 225 .......... ROBERTS OK, KS, MO & AR. SOUTHEAST OKLAHOMA WATER RESOURCE .............. .......... .......... 150 .......... INHOFE STUDY, OK. WASHITA RIVER BASIN, OK................ .............. .......... .......... 268 .......... INHOFE OREGON LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM 100 .......... .......... 100 .......... PRESIDENT RESTORATION, OR & WA. WALLA WALLA RIVER WATERSHED, OR & WA... .............. .......... .......... .......... 100 MURRAY, WYDEN, SMITH, CANTWELL WILLAMETTE RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL .............. .......... .......... 375 .......... WYDEN, SMITH DREDGING, OR. WILLAMETTE RIVER FLOODPLAIN .............. .......... .......... 84 .......... WYDEN, SMITH RESTORATION, OR. PENNSYLVANIA BLOOMSBURG, PA......................... .............. .......... .......... .......... 400 SPECTER, CASEY UPPER OHIO NAVIGATION STUDY, PA........ .............. .......... .......... 3,000 .......... SPECTER, CASEY SOUTH CAROLINA EDISTO ISLAND, SC...................... 218 .......... .......... 218 .......... PRESIDENT SOUTH DAKOTA CANYON LAKE DAM, RAPID CITY, SD........ .............. .......... 100 .......... .......... JOHNSON JAMES RIVER, SD & ND................... .............. .......... .......... 500 .......... JOHNSON, THUNE WATERTOWN, SD.......................... .............. .......... .......... .......... 450 JOHNSON, THUNE TENNESSEE MILL CREEK WATERSHED, DAVIDSON COUNTY, 257 .......... .......... 257 .......... PRESIDENT TN. TEXAS ABILENE, TX (BRAZOS RIVER BASIN-ELM .............. .......... .......... 150 .......... CORNYN CREEK). BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, BROWNSVILLE 400 .......... .......... 400 .......... PRESIDENT, CORNYN CHANNEL, TX. DALLAS FLOODWAY, UPPER TRINITY RIVER .............. 100 .......... .......... 100 PRESIDENT BASIN, TX. FREEPORT HARBOR, TX.................... 721 .......... .......... 721 .......... PRESIDENT GREENS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX.............. .............. 488 .......... .......... 488 PRESIDENT GUADALUPE AND SAN ANTONIO RIVER BASINS, 300 .......... .......... 300 .......... PRESIDENT TX. LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN, TX......... 300 .......... .......... 450 .......... PRESIDENT, HUTCHISON, CORNYN LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN, WHARTON/ .............. .......... .......... .......... 600 CORNYN ONION, TX. NUECES RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, TX....... 250 .......... .......... 500 .......... PRESIDENT, HUTCHISON RAYMONDVILLE DRAIN, TX................. .............. .......... .......... .......... 750 HUTCHISON, CORNYN RIO GRANDE BASIN, TX................... 223 .......... .......... 223 .......... PRESIDENT SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY, TX............. .............. .......... .......... .......... 625 HUTCHISON SABINE PASS TO GALVESTON BAY, TX....... .............. .......... .......... 175 .......... CORNYN SPARKS ARROYO COLONIA, EL PASO COUNTY, .............. .......... .......... 125 .......... HUTCHISON, CORNYN TX. TEXAS CITY CHANNEL (50-FOOT PROJECT), .............. 300 .......... .......... 300 PRESIDENT, CORNYN TX. UPPER TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TX.......... .............. .......... .......... 1,500 .......... HUTCHISON UTAH PARK CITY REGIONAL WATER TRANSPORT .............. .......... .......... 250 .......... BENNETT, HATCH PROJECT, UT. VIRGINIA AIWW, BRIDGES AT DEEP CREEK, VA........ .............. .......... .......... .......... 46 WARNER, WEBB DISMAL SWAMP AND DISMAL SWAMP CANAL, VA 62 .......... .......... 62 .......... PRESIDENT, WARNER, WEBB EASTWARD EXPANSION CRANEY ISLAND, VA... .............. 3,000 .......... .......... 3,000 PRESIDENT, WARNER, WEBB ELIZABETH RIVER BASIN, ENV RESTORATION, .............. .......... .......... 90 .......... WARNER, WEBB VA (PHASE II). ELIZABETH RIVER, HAMPTON ROADS, VA..... .............. 97 .......... .......... 97 PRESIDENT, WARNER, WEBB FOURMILE RUN, VA....................... .............. .......... .......... 350 .......... WARNER, WEBB JOHN H KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA & NC 300 .......... .......... 300 .......... PRESIDENT (SECTION 216). LYNNHAVEN RIVER BASIN, VA.............. 300 .......... .......... 300 .......... PRESIDENT, WARNER, WEBB NEW RIVER, CLAYTOR LAKE, VA............ .............. .......... .......... 49 51 WARNER, WEBB NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, CRANEY .............. .......... .......... .......... .......... WARNER, WEBB ISLAND, VA. UPPER RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER, VA (PHASE II) .............. .......... .......... 200 .......... WARNER, WEBB VICINITY AND WILOUGHBY SPIT, VA........ .............. .......... .......... .......... 150 WARNER, WEBB WASHINGTON CENTRALIA, WA.......................... .............. .......... .......... .......... 150 MURRAY ELLIOTT BAY SEAWALL.................... .............. .......... .......... 750 .......... MURRAY, CANTWELL LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA......... .............. .......... .......... 400 .......... MURRAY, CANTWELL LOWER PUYALLUP RIVER ALTERNATIVES .............. .......... .......... 100 .......... CANTWELL STUDY, WA. PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE MARINE HABITAT 400 .......... .......... 1,500 .......... PRESIDENT, MURRAY, CANTWELL RESTORATION, WA. SKAGIT RIVER, WA....................... .............. .......... .......... 700 .......... MURRAY, CANTWELL SKOKOMISH RIVER BASIN, WA.............. .............. .......... .......... 375 .......... CANTWELL WEST VIRGINIA CHERRY RIVER BASIN, WV................. .............. .......... 50 .......... .......... BYRD LITTLE KANAWHA RIVER, WV............... .............. .......... .......... 88 .......... BYRD OHIO RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE STUDY, .............. .......... 400 .......... .......... BYRD WV, KY, OH, PA,. UPPER GUYANDOTTE RIVER BASIN, WV....... .............. .......... 150 .......... .......... BYRD WYOMING BEAR RIVER STUDY, WY................... 26,553 8,747 100 .......... .......... THOMAS, ENZI ---------------------------------------------------------------- SUBTOTAL FOR PROJECTS............ .............. .......... 5,116 73,450 42,582 AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEMS SUPPORT 350 .......... .......... 350 .......... PRESIDENT TRI-CADD. CHIEF'S 12 ACTIONS..................... 3,100 .......... .......... .......... .......... PRESIDENT COASTAL FIELD DATA COLLECTION.......... 1,400 .......... .......... 4,900 .......... PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN, INOUYE, CANTWELL ENVIRONMENTAL DATA STUDIES............. 75 .......... .......... 75 .......... PRESIDENT FEME/MAP MOD COORDINATION.............. 1,500 .......... .......... 1,500 .......... PRESIDENT FLOOD DAMAGE DATA PROGRAM.............. 220 .......... .......... 220 .......... PRESIDENT FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT SERVICES........ 5,625 .......... .......... 10,196 .......... PRESIDENT, INOUYE, LANDRIEU, BEN NELSON, REED, BIDEN, CARPER, CHAMBLISS, GRASSLEY, VITTER, HAGEL, WYDEN, SMITH, WHITEHOUSE FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT STUDY........... 1,000 .......... .......... 1,000 .......... PRESIDENT HYDROLOGIC STUDIES..................... 250 .......... .......... 250 .......... PRESIDENT INTERNATIONAL WATER STUDIES............ 200 .......... .......... 200 .......... PRESIDENT NATIONAL FLOOD INVENTORY............... 10,000 .......... .......... .......... .......... PRESIDENT NATIONAL SHORELINE STUDY............... 375 .......... .......... 875 .......... PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG OTHER COORDINATION PROGRAMS............ 3,880 .......... .......... 5,130 .......... PRESIDENT, REID, DOMENICI PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES.......... 4,550 .......... .......... 5,742 .......... PRESIDENT, INOUYE, BROWNBACK, MIKULSKI, LAUTENBERG, SPECTER, LIEBERMAN, BIDEN, CARPER, CARDIN, LUGAR, BAYH, GRASSLEY, MENENDEZ, CLINTON, DOLE, INHOFE PLANNING SUPPORT PROGRAM............... 2,500 .......... .......... 2,500 .......... PRESIDENT PRECIPITATION STUDIES (NATIONAL WEATHER 225 .......... .......... 225 .......... PRESIDENT SERVICE). REMOTE SENSING/GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION 150 .......... .......... 150 .......... PRESIDENT SYSTEM SUPPORT. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT............... 17,300 .......... .......... 31,050 .......... PRESIDENT, REID, COCHRAN, DOMENICI, MIKULSKI, CARDIN, CASEY, WARNER, WEBB SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION 50 .......... .......... 50 .......... PRESIDENT CENTERS. STREAM GAGING (U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY). 600 .......... .......... 600 .......... PRESIDENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.................. 350 .......... .......... 350 .......... PRESIDENT TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM............. 1,000 .......... .......... 1,000 .......... PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE................... .............. .......... .......... -15,364 .......... ---------------------------------------------------------------- Total............................ 81,253 8,747 5,116 124,449 42,582 ---------------------------------------------------------------- GRAND TOTAL...................... 190,000 .......... .......... 172,147 .......... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Atka Harbor, Alaska.--The Committee recommended $200,000 to initiate this reconnaissance study. DeLong Mountain Harbor, Alaska.--The Committee provided $100,000 to complete feasibility studies and $400,000 to initiate preconstruction engineering and design. Kenai River Bluff Erosion, Alaska.--The Committee recommended $500,000 to continue technical studies of the erosion problems. Lower Mississippi River Resource Assessment, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee.--The Committee recommends $250,000 to initiate an expanded reconnaissance study. The study will include three assessments: (1) a list which identifies data gaps in information needed for river-related management; (2) an assessment of natural resource habitat needs; and (3) a needs assessment for river-related recreation access. May Branch, Fort Smith, Arkansas.--$250,000 is provided to execute a design agreement and initiate preconstruction engineering and design. Red River Navigation, Southwest Arkansas, Arkansas and Louisiana.--The Committee recommends $200,000 to complete feasibility studies and $200,000 to initiate preconstruction engineering and design. Heacock and Cactus Channels, California.--The Committee includes $100,000 to continue feasibility studies. Feasibility studies were initiated under the Continuing Authorities Program. Los Angeles River Watercourse Improvement, Headworks, California.--$300,000 is provided to continue the feasibility studies. Malibu Creek Watershed, California.--The Committee recommendation includes $158,000 to complete the feasibility study. Rock Creek and Keefer Slough, California.--$250,000 is provided to execute the Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement and initiate the feasibility phase of the study. The study was initiated under the Continuing Authorities Program. Sacramento, San Joaquin Delta Islands and Levees, California.--The Committee included $2,000,000 to complete the feasibility study. Chatfield, Cheery Creek and Bear Creek, Reservoirs.--The recommendation includes $273,000 to complete feasibility studies. Fountain Creek and Tributaries, Colorado.--The Committee provides $149,000 to complete the feasibility study. Boulder Creek, Colorado.--The Committee included $100,000 to initiate this reconnaissance study. The Committee notes that studies were initiated under the Continuing Authorities Program. Flagler County, Florida.--$250,000 is provided to continue feasibility studies for shore damage reduction. The Committee notes that recent storms have begun to threaten the county's major evacuation route to State Road A1A. Walton County, Florida.--$375,000 is provided to continue the preconstruction, engineering and design phase. This study is a test bed for the Institute of Water Resources Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction model. West Maui Watershed, Hawaii.--The Committee provided $300,000 to initiate the reconnaissance study to investigate the comprehensive scope and extensive water resource problems in the watershed. Boise River, Idaho.--The Committee provided $400,000 to continue the feasibility study. Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway Navigation System, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin.-- The Committee recommendation includes $12,000,000 for continuation of preconstruction engineering and design studies. The Committee recognizes the need to modernize this more than 60-year-old navigation system and has provided continued funding for both structural design and environmental restoration work. Cedar Rapids, Iowa.--The Committee provided $150,000 to initiate a cost-shared feasibility study. Reconnaissance level studies were completed under the Continuing Authorities Program, however, the scope of the proposed project exceeds the limits of the Continuing Authorities Program. Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration, Louisiana.-- The Committee provides $12,000,000 for these important studies. The Committee has elected not to fund a separate Science and Technology line item under this study and directs the Corps not to include this line item in the fiscal year 2009 budget. This line item appears to be an attempt to fund other Federal agencies to undertake science activities that are not being funded within those agencies. If the administration believes this is worthwhile science, then they should budget for this work under the appropriate agency. Any funds from the fiscal year 2007 allocation that remain unexpended in the Science and Technology line should be utilized on advancing the study not science activities. West Pearl Navigation, Louisiana and Mississippi.--$100,000 is provided to initiate reconnaissance studies to deauthorize this antiquated navigation project. The project has been in caretaker status for more than 10 years. Eastern Shore-Chesapeake Bay Marshlands, Maryland (Blackwater Wildlife Refuge).--The Committee recommendation includes $200,000 for this study that was initiated under the Continuing Authorities Program in fiscal year 2006. Great Lakes Navigational System, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.--The funds provided are to be used to complete the supplement to the reconnaissance report of Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Navigation Study, which, based on previous agreement between the secretary, the ministry of transportation Canada, and the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation, is to be limited in scope to evaluating the economic, engineering and environmental impacts of maintaining the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway at current size draft and length of locks. The Secretary is directed to complete the supplemental report by September 2008, after which Congress, interested State and Federal agencies, and the public shall review the report for 1 year to determine whether additional study is warranted. Kansas Citys, Missouri and Kansas.--The Committee recommendation includes $689,000 for this effort. $589,000 is included for completion of the feasibility phase and $100,000 is for initiation of preconstruction engineering and design. Missouri River Degradation, Mile 340 to 400, Missouri and Kansas.--The Committee included $300,000 to initiate an expanded Reconnaissance Study. The Missouri River in this reach has experienced significant degradation or downcutting of the river bed. There is a strong indication that this degradation could impact navigation, flood control and other infrastructure in the area. Yellowstone River Corridor, Montana.--The Committee recommendation includes $500,000 to continue feasibility studies. Delaware Basin Comprehensive, New Jersey.--The Committee included $175,000 to continue evaluation of alternative solutions to the region's problems regarding flooding and environmental restoration along the New Jersey portion of the Delaware River and tributaries. Western Lake Erie Basin Study, Ohio, Indiana and Michigan.--$492,000 is included to complete feasibility studies. Walla Walla River Basin, Oregon and Washington.--$100,000 is provided to execute a design agreement and initiate preconstruction, engineering and design studies. Sabine-Neches Waterway, Texas.--$625,000 is provided to negotiate and execute a design agreement and initiate preconstruction engineering and design. Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Bridge Replacement at Deep Creek, Chesapeake, Virginia.--The Committee recommendation includes $46,000 to complete the preconstruction engineering and design phase. Eastward Expansion--Craney Island, Virginia.--$3,000,000 is provided to continue the preconstruction engineering and design phase. Vicinity of Willoughby Spit, Norfolk, Virginia.--The Committee recommendation includes $150,000 to continue the general reevaluation study. Bear River, Wyoming.--$100,000 is provided for reconnaissance studies for flood control and environmental restoration in the Bear River Basin above Bear Lake. Chief's 12 Actions.--The Committee did not include funding for this item. The Committee believes that the activities proposed in the budget request for this line item should be incorporated into the various funded planning activities that the Corps has underway. National Inventory of Flood/Storm Damage Reduction Projects.--No funds have been provided for this effort under this account. The Committee has chosen to fund this item under the Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies account where all previous funds have been provided. National Shoreline Study.--Additional funds have been provided above the budget request for the National Planning Center of Expertise for Coastal Storm Damage Reduction to develop a process for managing shore protection projects as part of a systems approach to coastal protection for the purpose of achieving improved project performance, increased cost effectiveness, and enhanced benefits. Other Coordination Programs.--An additional $250,000 is provided along with budgeted funds for Lake Tahoe coordination activities. Also additional funds are provided above the budget request for the Center for Computer Assisted Dispute Resolution [CADRE] within the Institute for Water Resources to undertake research, development, training and application activities consistent with the mission stated by the Office of Science and Technology Policy, Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality for collaborative tools and processes for U.S. water solutions in partnership with the Bureau of Reclamation, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy and its research laboratories, and other Federal and non-Federal parties to develop solutions to water availability and quality problems through public participation and collaboration processes, decision-support computer technologies, and techniques for integrating these within various water contexts using tools that include portable, physical and social simulation modules, software to link existing water management software, as well as interfaces for both collaborative model development and displaying modeling results and tradeoffs. Planning Assistance to States.--The Committee recommendation includes $5,742,000 for this nationwide cost- shared program, $1,192,000 over the budget request. The Committee recognizes that there are hundreds of these studies on-going at any given time. Within the funds provided the following studies are to be given priority if cost sharing funds are available from the local sponsors: Southington Water Supply Project, Connecticut; Honolulu, Hawaii; Wabash River Enhancement Project, Indiana; Sac and Fox Tribe, Iowa; Kansas River Basin Technical Assistance, Kansas; Delaware Estuary Salinity Monitoring Study; Port of Rochester Environmental Remediation Planning, New York; Bartlesville Water Supply, Bartlesville, Oklahoma; Lehigh Releases at FE Walter Dam, Pennsylvania; Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan, Oklahoma. Coastal Field Data Collection.--The Committee has provided $4,900,000 for this nationwide program. An additional $3,500,000 has been provided to continue the Coastal Data Information Program; the Southern California Beach Processes Study; Surge and Wave Island Modeling Studies, Hawaii; and the Pacific Island Land Ocean Typhoon Experiment Program. These are all studies that have been underway for a number of years and the Committee supports their continuation. Flood Plain Management Services Program.--The Committee recommendation includes $10,196,000. This is $4,571,000 above the budget request. Within this amount the Corps attention is directed to the following studies: White Clay Creek, New Castle, Delaware; Albany, Georgia [GIS]; Hurricane Evacuation Studies, Hawaii; Wapello, Iowa; Iowa Levee Certification; Maquoketa River Flood Warning, Iowa; Iowa Multi-site dam safety analyses; City of Gretna, Louisiana GIS; East Baton Rouge Parish Metropolitan GIS, Livingston Parish, Louisiana; Livingston Parish, Louisiana GIS; Papillion Creek Watershed, Flood Plain Mapping, Nebraska; Halfway Sediment Transport Assessment, Oregon; Rhode Island Ecosystem Restoration Study, Rhode Island. Research and Development.--The Committee has included $31,050,000 for the Corps nationwide research and development programs. The Committee believes that this is an important area of the Corps' program that should be supported and has provided $15,050,000 above the budget request. Within the funds provided, the Corps should continue submerged aquatic vegetation research in the Chesapeake Bay; the Southwest Flood Damage Development and Demonstration program to be conducted in close coordination and cooperation with the New Mexico District Office, the University of New Mexico and Sandia National Laboratories; innovative technology demonstrations for urban flooding and channel restoration in Nevada to be conducted in close coordination and cooperation with the Urban Water Research Program of the Desert Research Institute and the University of New Mexico. CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL Appropriations, 2007.................................... $2,336,368,000 Budget estimate, 2008................................... 1,523,000,000 Committee recommendation................................ 2,059,474,000 \1\Excludes emergency appropriations of $36,500. 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 projects for inland and costal waterways will derive one-half of the funding from the Inland Waterway Trust Fund. Funds to be derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund will be applied to cover the Federal share of the Dredged Material Disposal Facilities Program. The Committee has previously stated its rejection of the administration's proposal to move projects from this account to the Operations and Maintenance account. Consequently, the Committee has elected to display the President's budget request as if these projects had been requested in the CG account rather than the O&M account. This makes the actual budget request for CG, $1,818,811,000 rather than $1,523,000,000 as requested in the budget. The projects moved from the O&M request include: [In thousands of dollars] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Caragory Project Name Amount ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ESA............................ Columbia River Basin 92,560 Restoration OR & WA. ESA............................ Missouri R Fish and 85,000 Wildlife Recovery, IA, KS, MO, MT, NE, ND, SD. ESA............................ Chief Joseph Dam Gas 3,000 Abatment. ESA............................ Howard Hanson Dam 16,000 Ecosystem Restoration, WA. ESA............................ Williamette River 7,632 Temperature Control, OR. ESA............................ Lower Snake River...... 400 Nav. Mitigation................ Assategue, MD.......... 1,900 Nav. Mitigation................ Lower Cape May Meadows, 5,111 Cape May Point, NJ. Nav. Mitigation................ Folly Beach, SC........ 35 Nav. Mitigation................ Broward County, FL 250 (Canaveral Hbr). Nav. Mitigation................ Cape May Inlet to Lower 270 Township, NJ. Nav. Mitigation................ Delaware Bay Coastline, 105 Roosevelt Inlet to Lewes Beach, DE. Nav. Mitigation................ Nassau County, FL...... 6,000 Nav. Mitigation................ Surfside-Sunset-Newport 9,000 Beach, C A. Nav. Mitigation................ Lake Worth Sand 2,000 Transfer Plant, FL. Nav. Mitigation................ St. John's County, FL.. 200 Nav. Mitigation................ Section 111 Program.... 4,874 O&M Material................... Poplar Island, MD...... 9,825 O&M Material................... Dredged Material 8,241 Disposal Facilities. O&M Material................... Indiana Harbor 18,065 (Confined Disposal Facility), IN. O&M Material................... Section 204/145........ 2,663 Rehab.......................... Lock and Dam 19, 698 Mississippi River, IA. Rehab.......................... Lock and Dam 24, IL &MO 340 Rehab.......................... Markland Locks & Dam, 7,800 KY & IL. Rehab.......................... Locks No. 27, 7,542 Mississippi River, IL. Rehab.......................... Lock and Dam 11, 6,300 Mississippi River, IA. --------------- TOTAL.................... Projects Migrating from 295,811 Construction to O&M. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The projects that included in the line item above for Dredged Material Disposal Facilities are: [In thousands of dollars] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Amount ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CALCASIEU RIVER & PASS.................................. 2,000 CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC................................... 1,200 DILLINGHAM HARBOR (O&M)................................. 300 GEORGETOWN HARBOR, SC................................... 1,100 GRAND HAVEN HARBOR, MI.................................. 125 GREEN BAY HARBOR, WI.................................... 125 HOMER HARBOR............................................ 550 SAVANNAH HARBOR, GA..................................... 2,716 ST CLAIR RIVER, MI...................................... 125 --------------- TOTAL, DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITIES 8,241 PROGRAM [DMDF]................................... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Due to constrained funding, the Committee reduced the requested amounts for some administration projects. This should not be perceived as a lack of support for any of these projects, rather it is an attempt by the Committee to balance out the program across the Nation and fund most of the projects or studies that were funded in the work plan produced by the administration for the fiscal year 2007 joint funding resolution but were not addressed by the administration proposal. Even with a $577,000,000 increase to the Corps' accounts, the Committee is unable to address all of the needs. By the Committee's estimate, only about 60 percent of the needed funding is available for this account. Construction schedules will slip due to this constrained funding. This will result in deferred benefits to the national economy. The Committee does not believe that there is any way to prioritize our way out of this problem without serious unintended consequences. Adequate resources have been denied for too long. Only providing adequate resources for these national investments will resolve this situation. The Committee has included a limited number of new construction starts as well as provided completion funding for a number of projects. As in the General Investigations account, the Committee has embraced the traditional view of new starts. New starts are generally defined as those projects that have not received Construction, General funding in the past. The Committee has included all of the administration's proposed new construction starts, including the major rehabilitation projects that were proposed for funding in the Operations and Maintenance account. The appropriation provides funds for the Continuing Authorities Program (projects which do not require specific authorizing legislation), which includes projects for flood control (section 205), emergency streambank and shoreline protection (section 14), beach erosion control (section 103), mitigation of shore damages (section 111), navigation projects (section 107), snagging and clearing (section 208), aquatic ecosystem restoration (section 206), beneficial uses of dredged material (section 204), and project modifications for improvement of the environment (section 1135). The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are shown on the following table: CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL [In thousands of dollars] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Budget Committee Project title estimate recommendation Requested by ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ALABAMA TUSCALOOSA, AL..................... .............. 5,000 SHELBY MOBILE HARBOR TURNING BASIN, AL.... .............. 2,000 SHELBY, SESSIONS ALASKA ALASKA COASTAL EROSION, AK......... .............. 5,000 STEVENS, MURKOWSKI CHIGNIK HARBOR, AK................. .............. 1,000 STEVENS NOME HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS, AK....... .............. 1,500 STEVENS ST PAUL HARBOR, AK................. .............. 3,000 STEVENS SITKA HARBOR BREAKWATER UPGRADE, AK .............. 800 STEVENS AKUTAN HARBOR, AK.................. .............. 2,500 STEVENS UNALASKA, AK....................... .............. 7,000 STEVENS ARIZONA NOGALES WASH, AZ................... .............. 4,461 KYL RIO DE FLAG FLAGSTAFF, AZ.......... .............. 3,000 KYL TUSCON DRAINAGE AREA............... .............. 3,000 KYL ARKANSAS OZARK-JETA TAYLOR POWERHOUSE, AR 17,300 17,300 PRESIDENT, LINCOLN, PRYOR (MAJOR REHAB). RED RIVER BELOW DENISON DAM, LA, AR .............. 2,500 LANDRIEU, LINCOLN, PRYOR & TX. RED RIVER EMERGENCY BANK .............. 4,000 LANDRIEU, LINCOLN, PRYOR PROTECTION, AR & LA. CALIFORNIA AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (COMMON 12,000 12,000 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN, BOXER FEATURES), CA. AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM 6,000 6,000 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN, BOXER DAM MODIFICATIONS), C. AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM 18,500 18,500 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN, BOXER DAM RAISE), CA. CALFED LEVEE STABILITY PROGRAM..... .............. 5,000 FEINSTEIN CORONADO TRANSBAY WASTEWATER .............. 500 FEINSTEIN PIPELINE REIMBURSEMENT. GUADALUPE RIVER, CA................ .............. 3,000 FEINSTEIN HAMILTON AIRFIELD WETLANDS 4,900 4,900 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN, BOXER RESTORATION, CA. HARBOR/SOUTH BAY WATER RECYCLING .............. 3,000 FEINSTEIN STUDY, LOS ANGELES, C. LOS ANGELES HARBOR MAIN CHANNEL .............. 1,000 FEINSTEIN, BOXER DEEPENING, CA. MID-VALLEY AREA LEVEE .............. 500 FEINSTEIN RECONSTRUCTION. MURRIETA CREEK, CA................. .............. 2,000 FEINSTEIN NAPA RIVER, CA..................... 7,500 11,000 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN, BOXER OAKLAND HARBOR (50 FOOT PROJECT), 42,000 40,000 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN, BOXER CA. PORT OF LONG BEACH (DEEPENING), CA. .............. 2,000 FEINSTEIN SACRAMENTO DEEPWATER SHIP CHANNEL, 900 900 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN CA. SACRAMENTO RIVER BANK PROTECTION 21,528 21,528 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN PROJECT, CA. SACRAMENTO RIVER, GLENN-COLUSA 500 500 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT, CA. SAN FRANCISCO BAY TO STOCKTON, CA.. .............. 600 FEINSTEIN SAN LUIS REY RIVER, CA............. .............. 1,000 FEINSTEIN SAN RAMON VALLEY RECYCLED WATER, CA .............. 3,000 FEINSTEIN SANTA ANA RIVER MAINSTEM, CA....... 17,000 17,000 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN SANTA MARIA RIVER, CA.............. .............. 300 FEINSTEIN (BOXER) SOUTH SACRAMENTO COUNTY STREAMS, CA 8,000 8,000 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN, BOXER SUCCESS DAM, TULE RIVER, CA (DAM 18,000 18,000 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN, BOXER SAFETY). SURFSIDE-SUNSET-NEWPORT BEACH, CA.. 9,000 8,000 PRESIDENT TAHOE BASIN RESTORATION 108........ .............. 4,500 REID, ENSIGN UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER, CA.......... .............. 1,000 FEINSTEIN UPPER NEWPORT BAY, CA.............. .............. 4,000 FEINSTEIN WEST SACRAMENTO, CA................ .............. 900 FEINSTEIN, BOXER YUBA RIVER BASIN, CA............... .............. 1,100 FEINSTEIN CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT ENVIRONMENTAL .............. 200 LIEBERMAN INFRASTRUCTURE, CT. DELAWARE DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, BROADKILL .............. 250 BIDEN, CARPER BEACH, DE. DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, ROOSEVELT 105 105 PRESIDENT, BIDEN, CARPER INLET TO LEWES BEACH. DELAWARE COAST FROM CAPE HELOPEN TO .............. 105 BIDEN, CARPER FENWICK ISLAND, Fenwick Island, DE. DELAWARE COAST FROM CAPE HELOPEN TO .............. 2,700 PRESIDENT, BIDEN, CARPER FENWICK ISLAND, Rehobeth Beach to Dewey Beach, DE. DELAWARE COAST PROTECTION, DE...... .............. 390 BIDEN, CARPER FLORIDA BREVARD COUNTY, FL (MID REACH)..... .............. 200 BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ BROWARD COUNTY, FL (SEGMENT III .............. 1,000 BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ REIMBURSEMENT). CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL............... 250 250 PRESIDENT CEDAR HAMMOCK, WARES CREEK, FL..... 5,000 5,000 PRESIDENT, MARTINEZ CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL... 90,588 80,588 PRESIDENT, BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ ESTERO AND GASPARILLA SEGMENTS, FL .............. 1,000 BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ (LEE COUNTY). EVERGLADES AND SOUTH FLORIDA 4,310 4,310 PRESIDENT, BILL NELSON COSYSTEM RESTORATION, FL. FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY .............. 3,000 MARTINEZ IMPROVEMENTS, FL. HERBERT HOOVER DIKE, FL (SEEPAGE 55,776 55,776 PRESIDENT, BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ CONTROL). JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL............ .............. 3,000 BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ KISSIMMEE RIVER, FL................ 32,502 32,502 PRESIDENT, BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ LAKE WORTH SAND TRANSFER PLANT, FL. 2,000 2,000 PRESIDENT, BILL NELSON MODIFIED WATER DELIVERIES TO ENP... 35,000 .............. PRESIDENT, BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ NASSAU COUNTY, FL.................. 6,000 6,000 PRESIDENT, BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ PONCE DE LEON INLET, FL............ .............. 1,500 MARTINEZ ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FL............... 200 200 PRESIDENT TAMPA HARBOR, FL................... .............. 304 MARTINEZ GEORGIA ATLANTA, GA EI..................... .............. 2,000 CHAMBLISS, ISAKSON BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA............... 6,400 6,400 PRESIDENT RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA 6,900 6,900 PRESIDENT & SC. TYBEE ISLAND, GA................... .............. 2,000 CHAMBLISS, ISAKSON HAWAII IAO STREAMS, HI.................... .............. 500 INOUYE, AKAKA HAWAII WATER MANAGEMENT, HI........ .............. 2,000 INOUYE IDAHO RURAL IDAHO, ID.................... .............. 5,000 CRAIG, CRAPO ILLINOIS CHAIN OF ROCKS CANAL, MISSISSIPPI 4,500 4,500 PRESIDENT RIVER, IL (DEF CORR). CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL, 750 3,250 PRESIDENT, DURBIN, OBAMA, LUGAR, LEVIN, SECOND BARRIER, IL. STABENOW, COLEMAN, SCHUMER, CLINTON, VOINOVICH, BROWN, KOHL CHICAGO SHORELINE, IL.............. 9,000 9,000 PRESIDENT, DURBIN DES PLAINES RIVER, IL.............. 6,620 6,620 PRESIDENT, DURBIN EAST ST LOUIS, IL.................. 2,500 2,500 PRESIDENT ILLINOIS WATERWAY, LOCKPORT LOCK 20,445 20,445 PRESIDENT AND DAM, IL (REPLACEM. LOCK AND DAM 24, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, 340 340 PRESIDENT, BOND IL & MO (MAJOR REH. LOCK & DAM 27, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, 7,542 7,542 PRESIDENT, DURBIN, BOND IL (REHABILITATION). MCCOOK AND THORNTON RESERVOIRS, IL. 33,500 31,500 PRESIDENT, DURBIN NUTWOOD DRAINAGE AND LEVEE .............. 300 DURBIN DISTRICT, IL. OLMSTED LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, 104,000 94,000 PRESIDENT, MCCONNELL IL & KY. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER 23,464 18,000 PRESIDENT, DURBIN, GRASSLEY, COLEMAN, RESTORATION, IL, IA, MN, MO &. FEINGOLD INDIANA INDIANA HARBOR (CONFINED DISPOSAL 18,065 18,065 PRESIDENT FACILITY), IN. LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, IN........... 13,000 13,000 PRESIDENT IOWA DAVENPORT, IA...................... .............. 1,000 HARKIN, GRASSLEY DES MOINES RECREATION RIVER AND .............. 3,000 HARKIN, GRASSLEY GREENBELT, IA. LOCK AND DAM 11, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, 6,300 5,000 PRESIDENT, HARKIN, BOND, GRASSLEY IA (MAJOR REHAB). LOCK AND DAM 19, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, 698 698 PRESIDENT, HARKIN, BOND, GRASSLEY IA (MAJOR REHAB). MISSOURI R FISH AND WILDLIFE 85,000 50,000 PRESIDENT, GRASSLEY RECOVERY, IA,KS,MO,MT,NE,. KANSAS TURKEY CREEK BASIN, KS & MO........ 9,000 9,000 PRESIDENT, BOND, BROWNBACK, ROBERTS TUTTLE CREEK LAKE, KS (DAM SAFETY). 28,500 28,500 PRESIDENT, BROWNBACK, ROBERTS KENTUCKY KENTUCKY LOCK AND DAM, TENNESSEE 52,000 47,000 PRESIDENT, MCCONNELL, SHELBY RIVER, KY. MARKLAND LOCKS & DAM, KY & IL...... 7,800 7,000 PRESIDENT MCALPINE LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, 45,000 41,000 PRESIDENT, MCCONNELL KY & IN. WOLF CREEK, KY (SEEPAGE CONTROL)... 54,100 54,100 PRESIDENT, MCCONNELL, ALEXANDER, CORKER LOUISIANA COMITE RIVER, LA................... .............. 7,000 LANDRIEU, VITTER EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH, LA........ .............. 1,000 LANDRIEU INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL LOCK, .............. 2,000 LANDRIEU, VITTER LA. J BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA.... 1,500 7,000 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU, VITTER LAROSE TO GOLDEN MEADOW, LA........ .............. 2,200 LANDRIEU OUACHITA RIVER LEVEES, LA.......... .............. 1,400 LANDRIEU, VITTER SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA, LA............ .............. 18,500 LANDRIEU, VITTER MARYLAND ANACOSTIA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, MD .............. 308 CARDIN AND DC, PHASE I. ASSATEAGUE ISLAND, MD.............. 1,900 1,900 PRESIDENT, MIKULSKI, CARDIN ATLANTIC COAST OF MARYLAND, MD..... .............. 200 MIKULSKI, CARDIN BALTIMORE METROPOLITAN WATER .............. 1,000 MIKULSKI, CARDIN RESOURCES, GWYNNS FALLS,. CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL .............. 2,031 MIKULSKI, CARDIN, CASEY, WARNER, WEBB RESTORATION AND PROTECTIO. CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RECOVERY, MD .............. 2,000 MIKULSKI, CARDIN, CASEY, WARNER, WEBB & VA. CUMBERLAND, MD..................... .............. 700 MIKULSKI, CARDIN POPLAR ISLAND, MD.................. 9,825 10,374 PRESIDENT, MIKULSKI, CARDIN MASSACHUSETTS MUDDY RIVER, MA.................... 10,000 10,000 PRESIDENT, KENNEDY, KERRY MICHIGAN GENESEE COUNTY, MI................. .............. 600 LEVIN, STABENOW NEGAUNEE, MI....................... .............. 385 LEVIN, STABENOW MINNESOTA BRECKENRIDGE, MN................... .............. 4,000 COLEMAN, KLOBUCHAR LOCK AND DAM 3, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, .............. 2,250 COLEMAN, KLOBUCHAR MN (MAJOR REHAB). MARSHALL, MN....................... .............. 80 COLEMAN, KLOBUCHAR MISSISSIPPI MISSISSIPPI ENVIRONMENTAL .............. 19,000 COCHRAN, LOTT INFRASTRUCTURE, MS. DESOTO COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER .............. 10,000 COCHRAN, LOTT SYSTEM, MS. JACKSON COUNTY WATER SUPPLY .............. 5,519 COCHRAN, LOTT PROJECT, MS. MISSOURI BLUE RIVER BASIN, KANSAS CITY, MO.. .............. 4,117 BOND BLUE RIVER CHANNEL, KANSAS CITY, MO 3,500 3,500 PRESIDENT, BOND BOIS BRULE DRAINAGE AND LEVEE .............. 5,000 BOND DISTRICT, MISSOURI. CAPE GIRARDEAU (FLOODWALL), MO..... .............. 2,000 BOND CHESTERFIELD, MO................... .............. 2,500 BOND CLEARWATER LAKE, MO (SEEPAGE 25,000 25,000 PRESIDENT CONTROL). MISS RIVER BTWN THE OHIO AND MO 2,100 3,000 PRESIDENT, BOND RIVERS (REG WORKS), MO. MISSOURI & MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI .............. 500 BOND,GRASSLEY RIVERS ENHANCEMENT, MO. MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, IA, .............. 100 BOND NE, KS & MO. ST LOUIS FLOOD PROTECTION, MO...... .............. 2,000 BOND STE GENEVIEVE, MO.................. .............. 438 BOND MONTANA RURAL MONTANA, MT.................. .............. 5,000 BAUCUS, TESTER FT. PECK CABIN CONVEYANCE, MT...... .............. 500 TESTER NEBRASKA ANTELOPE CREEK, LINCOLN, NE........ 9,000 9,000 PRESIDENT, BEN NELSON, HAGEL MISSOURI NATIONAL RECREATIONAL .............. 1,000 HAGEL RIVER, NE & SD. SAND CREEK WATERSHED, SAUNDERS .............. 1,000 BEN NELSON, HAGEL COUNTY, NEBRASKA. WESTERN SARPY COUNTY AND CLEAR .............. 3,000 BEN NELSON, HAGEL CREEK. NEVADA RURAL NEVADA....................... .............. 19,000 REID, ENSIGN TROPICANA AND FLAMINGO WASHES, NV.. .............. 13,000 REID, ENSIGN NEW JERSEY BARNEGAT INLET TO LITTLE EGG .............. 5,000 LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ HARBOR, NJ (NJ SHORE PROT. CAPE MAY INLET TO LOWER TOWNSHIP, 270 270 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ NJ. DELAWARE RIVER MAIN CHANNEL .............. 2,500 SPECTOR, CASEY DEEPENING, NJ, PA & DE. HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS, NJ......... .............. 397 LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ JOSEPH G MINISH HISTORIC WATERFRONT .............. 3,000 LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ PARK, NJ. LOWER CAPE MAY MEADOWS, CAPE MAY 5,111 5,111 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ POINT, NJ. PASSAIC RIVER PRESERVATION OF .............. 2,000 LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ NATURAL STORAGE AREAS, N. RAMAPO AND MAHWAH RIVERS, MAHWAH, .............. 250 LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ, SCHUMER, CLINTON NJ AND SUFFERN, NY. RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, NJ. .............. 250 LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ RARITAN RIVER BASIN, GREEN BROOK 10,000 10,000 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ SUB-BASIN, NJ. SANDY HOOK TO BARNEGAT INLET, NJ... .............. 3,000 LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ TOWNSENDS INLET TO CAPE MAY INLET, .............. 3,000 LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ NJ. GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET TO PECK .............. 3,000 LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ BEACH (OCEAN CITY), NJ. RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, .............. 2,000 LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ PORT MONMOUTH, NJ. BRIGANTINE INLET TO GREAT EGG .............. 2,000 LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ HARBOR INLET (ABSECON),. BRIGANTINE INLET TO GREAT EGG .............. 80 LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ HARBOR INLET, BRIGANTINE. NEW MEXICO ACEQUIAS IRRIGATION SYSTEM, NM..... .............. 2,400 DOMENICI, BINGAMAN ALAMOGORDO, NM..................... 4,200 4,200 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN CENTRAL NEW MEXICO, NM............. .............. 7,500 DOMENICI, BINGAMAN COCHITI LAKE (DAM SAFETY), NM...... .............. 200 DOMENICI, BINGAMAN JEMEZ CANYON (DAM SAFETY), NM...... .............. 150 DOMENICI, BINGAMAN MIDDLE RIO GRANDE FLOOD PROTECTION, .............. 300 DOMENICI, BINGAMAN BERNALILLO TO BELE. NEW MEXICO, EI, NM................. .............. 10,000 DOMENICI, BINGAMAN RIO GRANDE FLOODWAY, SAN ACACIA TO 800 800 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN BOSQUE DEL APACHE,. NEW YORK ATLANTIC COAST OF NYC, ROCKAWAY 8,500 8,500 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON INLET TO NORTON POINT,. FIRE ISLAND INLET TO MONTAUK POINT, 4,150 4,400 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON NY. NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY HARBOR, NY 91,000 85,000 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ, SCHUMER, & NJ. CLINTON NORTH CAROLINA BRUNSWICK COUNTY BEACHES, NC....... .............. 400 DOLE, BURR DARE COUNTY BEACHES, NC............ .............. 2,000 DOLE, BURR WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC.............. .............. 3,000 DOLE, BURR WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, NC............. .............. 300 BURR NORTH DAKOTA GARRISON DAM AND POWER PLANT, ND 6,200 6,200 PRESIDENT (REPLACEMENT). HOMME DAM, ND (DAM SAFETY)......... .............. 235 DORGAN LAKE SAKAKAWEA PROJECT, ND......... .............. 3,000 DORGAN MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION, ND..... .............. 300 DORGAN NORTH DAKOTA ENVIRONMENTAL .............. 6,000 DORGAN INFRASTRUCTURE, ND. OHIO METROPOLITAN REGION OF CINCINNATI, 11,847 11,847 PRESIDENT DUCK CREEK, OH. OKLAHOMA CANTON LAKE, OK (DAM SAFETY)....... 17,300 17,300 PRESIDENT TAR CREEK CLEANUP, OK.............. .............. 3,500 INHOFE OREGON COLUMBIA RIVER CHANNEL 15,000 15,000 PRESIDENT, MURRAY, CRAPO, BAUCUS, TESTER, IMPROVEMENTS, OR & WA. WYDEN, SMITH, CANTWELL COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY FISHING .............. 3,800 WYDEN, SMITH, CANTWELL ACCESS SITES, OR & WA. ELK CREEK LAKE, OR................. 11,030 11,030 PRESIDENT LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM 1,000 1,500 PRESIDENT, MURRAY RESTORATION, OR & WA. WILLAMETTE RIVER TEMPERATURE 7,632 7,632 PRESIDENT CONTROL, OR. PENNSYLVANIA EMSWORTH L&D, OHIO RIVER, PA 43,000 43,000 PRESIDENT, SPECTER, CASEY (STATIC INSTABILITY CORRE. LOCKS AND DAMS 2, 3 AND 4, 70,300 65,300 PRESIDENT, SPECTER, CASEY MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA. PRESQUE ISLE PENINSULA, PA .............. 1,000 SPECTER, CASEY (PERMANENT). WYOMING VALLEY, PA (LEVEE RAISING). .............. 2,500 SPECTER, CASEY LACKAWANNA RIVER, SCRANTON, PA..... .............. 2,000 SPECTER, CASEY PUERTO RICO PORTUGUES AND BUCANA RIVERS, PR.... 35,000 35,000 PRESIDENT RIO PUERTO NUEVO, PR............... 11,500 11,500 PRESIDENT SOUTH CAROLINA FOLLY BEACH, SC.................... 35 35 PRESIDENT SOUTH DAKOTA BIG SIOUX RIVER, SIOUX FALLS, SD... .............. 3,000 JOHNSON, THUNE CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER .............. 4,000 JOHNSON, THUNE BRULE SIOUX, SD. MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION, SD..... .............. 100 JOHNSON TENNESSEE CENTER HILL DAM, TN (SEEPAGE 25,000 25,000 PRESIDENT, ALEXANDER, CORKER CONTROL). CHICKAMAUGA LOCK, TENNESSEE RIVER, 35,200 35,200 PRESIDENT, SHELBY, ALEXANDER, CORKER TN. TEXAS BRAYS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX........... 14,841 14,841 PRESIDENT, CORNYN CENTRAL CITY, FORT WORTH, UPPER .............. 500 HUTCHISON, CORNYN TRINITY RIVER BASIN, T. CLEAR CREEK, TX.................... .............. 1,000 CORNYN DALLAS FLOODWAY EXTENSION, TRINITY .............. 13,000 HUTCHISON, CORNYN RIVER PROJECT, TX. HOUSTON-GALVESTON NAVIGATION 16,320 16,320 PRESIDENT, HUTCHISON CHANNELS, TX. JOHNSON CREEK, UPPER TRINITY BASIN, .............. 1,000 HUTCHISON ARLINGTON, TX. RED RIVER BASIN CHLORIDE CONTROL, .............. 1,000 INHOFE TX & OK. SAN ANTONIO CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, TX .............. 10,000 HUTCHISON, CORNYN SIMS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX............ 24,154 20,000 PRESIDENT, CORNYN TEXAS CITY CHANNEL, TX............. .............. 2,500 HUTCHISON UTAH RURAL UTAH, UT (EI)................ .............. 10,000 BENNETT, HATCH VERMONT BURLINGTON HARBOR, VT.............. .............. 500 LEAHY LAKE CHAMPLAIN WATERSHED INITIATE, .............. 2,500 LEAHY VT. VIRGINIA JOHN H KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA & 13,000 13,000 PRESIDENT NC (REPLACEMENT). LYNCHBURG CSO, VA.................. .............. 300 WARNER, WEBB NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VA .............. 1,700 WARNER, WEBB (DEEPENING). RICHMOND CSO, VA................... .............. 300 WARNER, WEBB ROANOKE RIVER UPPER BASIN, 10,150 10,150 PRESIDENT, WARNER, WEBB HEADWATERS AREA, VA. SANDBRIDGE BEACH, VA............... .............. 2,000 WARNER, WEBB VIRGINIA BEACH, VA (HURRICANE .............. 3,000 WARNER, WEBB PROTECTION). WASHINGTON CHIEF JOSEPH DAM GAS ABATEMENT, WA. 3,000 6,000 PRESIDENT, MURRAY COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, WA, 92,560 83,500 PRESIDENT, MURRAY OR & ID. DUWAMISH AND GREEN RIVER BASIN, WA. .............. 2,000 MURRAY, CANTWELL HOWARD HANSON DAM ECOSYSTEM 16,000 16,000 PRESIDENT RESTORATION, WA. LOWER SNAKE RIVER FISH & WILDLIFE 400 400 PRESIDENT COMPENSATION, WA, OR. MT ST HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA.. 10,200 10,200 PRESIDENT, MURRAY MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA (FISH PASSAGE) 11,500 11,500 PRESIDENT, MURRAY, CANTWELL PUGET SOUND AND ADJACENT WATERS .............. 3,000 MURRAY, CANTWELL RESTORATION, WA. SHOALWATER BAY, WA (SEC 545 OF WRDA .............. 1,500 MURRAY 2000). WEST VIRGINIA BLUESTONE LAKE, WV (DAM SAFETY 12,000 12,000 PRESIDENT, BYRD ASSURANCE). GREENBRIER RIVER BASIN, WV......... .............. 1,500 BYRD ISLAND CREEK BASIN IN AND AROUND .............. 200 BYRD LOGAN, WEST VIRGINIA. LEVISA AND TUG FORKS AND UPPER .............. 26,500 BYRD, WARNER, WEBB CUMBERLAND RIVER, WV, V. LOWER MUD RIVER, MILTON, WV........ .............. 1,050 BYRD MARMET LOCK, KANAWHA RIVER, WV..... 25,000 30,000 PRESIDENT, BYRD ROBERT C BYRD LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO 1,000 1,000 PRESIDENT RIVER, WV & OH. WYOMING JACKSON HOLE ENVIRONMENTAL .............. 475 THOMAS RESTORATION, JACKSON, WY. -------------------------------- SUBTOTAL, FOR PROJECTS....... 1,687,308 1,987,854 ABANDONED MINE RESTORATION......... .............. 656 REID, FEINSTEIN, BAUCUS AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION 11,278 25,000 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, FEINSTEIN, ALLARD, (SECTION 206). INOUYE, CRAIG, DURBIN, HARKIN, LANDRIEU, MIKULSKI, LAUTENBERG, REED, ALEXANDER, LEAHY, SALAZAR, DODD, LIBERMAN, BILL NELSON, CHAMBLISS, ISAKSON, CRAPO, GRASSLEY, CARDIN, KENNEDY, KERRY, COLEMAN, MENENDEZ, BINGAMAN, SCHUMER, CLINTON, WYDEN, SMITH, CASEY, WHITEHOUSE, CORNYN, WARNER, WEBB, CANTWELL, FEINGOLD AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL.............. 3,000 4,000 PRESIDENT BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL 2,663 5,000 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU, KOHL, GRASSLEY, (SECTION 204, 207, 933). FEINGOLD CHIEF'S 12 ACTIONS................. 4,600 .............. PRESIDENT DAM SAFETY AND SEEPAGE/STABILITY 39,000 39,000 PRESIDENT CORRECTION PROGRAM. DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL 8,241 8,241 PRESIDENT FACILITIES PROGRAM (DMDF). EMERGENCY STREAMBANK AND SHORELINE 907 12,000 PRESIDENT, BYRD, COCHRAN, DORGAN, LANDRIEU, PROTECTION (SECTION 14). GREGG, LAUTENBERG, KOHL, CHAMBLISS, GRASSLEY, SNOWE, COLLINS, MENENDEZ, VOINOVICH EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION FUND........ 21,000 21,000 PRESIDENT ESTUARY RESTORATION PROGRAM (PUBLIC 5,000 1,000 PRESIDENT LAW 106-457). FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS (SECTION 11,716 45,000 PRESIDENT, BYRD, COCHRAN, DOMENICI, 205). FEINSTEIN, INOUYE, BROWNBACK, LANDRIEU, MIKULSKI, BOND, BEN NELSON, LAUTENBERG, ALEXANDER, HUTCHISON, LINCOLN, PRYOR, BIDEN, CARPER, AKAKA, LUGAR, BAYH, GRASSLEY, ROBERTS, BUNNING, CARDIN, KENNEDY, KERRY, COLEMAN, HAGEL, MENENDEZ, BINGAMAN, SCHUMER, CLINTON INLAND WATERWAY USER BOARD (COE 185 185 PRESIDENT EXP). INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD (BOARD 40 40 PRESIDENT EXPENSES). MITIGATION OF SHORE DAMAGES 4,874 2,500 PRESIDENT, SNOWE, COLLINS, SCHUMER, CLINTON (SECTION 111). NAVIGATION PROJECTS (SECTION 107).. 477 10,000 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN, INOUYE, LANDRIEU, MIKULSKI, REED, PRYOR, AKAKA, SNOWE, COLLINS, CARDIN, KENNEDY, KERRY, LEVIN, STABENOW, VOINOVICH PROJECT MODS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE 11,190 25,000 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, FEINSTEIN, INOUYE, ENVIRONMENT (SECTION 1135). HARKIN, LANDRIEU, MIKULSKI, BOND, LAUTENBERG, LEAHY, MURRAY, LINCOLN, PRYOR, BIDEN, CARPER, AKAKA, GRASSLEY, CARDIN, KENNEDY, KERRY, WARNER, WEBB, CANTWELL, FEINGOLD SHORE PROTECTION (SECTION 103)..... 422 5,000 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN, MIKULSKI, CARDIN, CASEY SNAGGING AND CLEARING (SECTION 208) 10 500 PRESIDENT -------------------------------- SUBTOTAL, FOR PROJECTS NOT 124,603 204,122 LISTED UNDER STATES. REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS .............. -126,030 AND SLIPPAGE. USE OF PRIOR BALANCES.............. .............. -6,472 -------------------------------- TOTAL CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL.. 1,818,811 2,059,474 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tuscaloosa, Alabama.--The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for the relocation project at Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Akutan Harbor, Alaska.--The Committee recommendation includes $2,500,000 to initiate construction of this project. Alaska Coastal Erosion, Alaska.--The Committee recommendation provides $5,000,000 for Alaska Coastal Erosion. The following communities are eligible recipients of these funds: Kivalina, Newtok, Shishmaref, Koyukuk, Barrow, Kaktovik, Point Hope, Unalakleet, and Bethel. Nogales Wash, Arizona.--The Committee provides $4,461,000 for completion of this project. Red River Below Denison Dam, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas.--The Committee provides $2,500,000 to continue levee rehabilitation work in Arkansas and Louisiana. Red River Emergency Bank Protection, Arkansas and Louisiana.--The Committee provides $4,000,000 for bank stabilization along the Red River below Index, Arkansas. American River Watershed, California.--The Committee has chosen not to combine the various, separately authorized, components of the project into a single line item as was proposed in the budget. The Committee believes that it is prudent to maintain visibility of the various project elements in the budget process. American River Watershed (Folsom Dam Miniraise), California.--The Committee provides $18,500,000. Within the funds provided, $14,000,000 is for completion of the bridge. CALFED Levee Stability Program, California.--The Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 to initiate this program. Within the funds provided, the Committee has provided $500,000 for the Corps to coordinate and complete within 6 months a review of Delta levees emergency preparedness and response planning with appropriate Federal and State agencies. The review will address preparation and response to protect (1) life and property within the Delta and (2) statewide interests reliant on water and other resources of the Delta, including measures to prevent salt water contamination of fresh water supplies consistent with the Delta Levee Stability Program High Priority, Priority Group A projects. Mid Valley Area Levee Reconstruction, California.--The Committee recommendation includes $500,000 for a limited reevaluation report as well as other necessary studies in advance of reconstruction. Oakland Harbor, California.--The Committee recommends $40,000,000 to continue construction of this project. The reduction made to this project should not be viewed as any diminution of support for this project, rather an attempt to balance out the Corps of Engineers nationwide program among the various missions of the Corps. Santa Ana River, California.--The Committee provides $17,000,000 to continue construction of this project. West Sacramento, California.--The Committee recommendation includes $900,000 for a general reevaluation of the project and other project needs. Delaware Coast, Cape Henlopen to Fenwick Island, Rehobeth Beach to Dewey Beach, Delaware.--The Committee recommendation includes $2,700,000 to complete the second nourishment cycle. Everglades and South Florida Ecosystem Restoration, Florida.--The Committee has chosen not to combine the various, separately authorized components of the project into a single line item as was proposed in the budget. The Committee believes that it is prudent to maintain visibility of the various project elements in the budget process. The reduction made to the various component projects under this heading should not be viewed as any diminution of support for this project, rather an attempt to balance out the Corps of Engineers nationwide program among the various missions of the Corps. The Committee has chosen not to fund the $35,000,000 request for the Modified Waters Delivery Plan as proposed in the budget. The Committee does not believe that it is appropriate for the Corps to fund this work. This is not a traditional authorization of work for the Corps. It is direction for the Corps to be involved in the implementation of the project. As the work involved primarily benefits Everglades National Park, budgeting for this work should be continued by the Interior Department as was the practice prior to fiscal year 2006. The Committee has included legislative language that limits the Corps of Engineers share of this project to the amount previously appropriated. The Committee directs the administration to include the Modified Waters Delivery Plan funding in the Interior budget in future budget submissions. Central and South Florida, Florida.--Within the funds provided, the Corps shall continue work on the Upper St. Johns River project. Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements, Florida.--The Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000 for continued implementation of this project. The Committee urges the administration to budget for this project due to the interrelationship of this work to the Everglades Restoration project, Biscayne Bay and southern Florida's nearshore waters. Jacksonville Harbor, Florida.--The Committee has provided $3,000,000 to continue work on the project as well as for a second general reevaluation report. Tampa Harbor, Florida.--$304,000 is provided to complete the General Reevaluation Report. Atlanta, Georgia.--The Committee recommendation includes $2,000,000 to continue this project. Tybee Island, Georgia.--The Committee recommendation provides $2,000,000 for the next scheduled renourishment. Rural Idaho Environmental Infrastructure, Idaho.--The Committee provides $5,000,000 for this project. Within the funds provided the Corps should give consideration to projects at Emmett, Burley, Deary, Rupert, Donnelly, East Idaho Regional Water Authority, and Smelterville. Other communities that meet the program criteria should be considered as funding allows. Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Illinois.--The Committee has provided $3,250,000 for construction on Barriers I and II. Legislative language has been included for these projects as requested in the budget. McCook and Thornton Reservoirs, Illinois.--The Committee includes $31,500,000 for continued construction of this project. The reduction made to this project should not be viewed as any diminution of support for this project, rather an attempt to balance out the Corps of Engineers nationwide program among the various missions of the Corps. Olmsted Locks and Dam, Ohio River, Illinois and Kentucky.-- The Committee provides $94,000,000 to continue construction of this project. The reduction made to this project should not be viewed as any diminution of support for this project, rather an attempt to balance out the Corps of Engineers nationwide program among the various missions of the Corps. None of the funds provided for the Olmsted Locks and Dam Project are to be used to reimburse the Claims and Judgment Fund. Indiana Harbor (Confined Disposal Facility), Indiana.--The Committee has retained funding for this project in the Construction, General account rather than moving it to the Operations and Maintenance account as proposed in the budget. Missouri Fish and Wildlife Recovery, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota.-- The Committee provides $50,000,000 for this project. Legislative language is included in the bill that accompanies this report to make modifications to the Intake Dam, as requested by the administration, to provide additional habitat for the pallid sturgeon. Funding for the modifications to Intake Dam are provided in this account rather than as a separate line as proposed in the budget. Turkey Creek, Kansas and Missouri.--The Committee recommendation includes $9,000,000 to continue construction of this project. Kentucky Lock and Dam, Tennessee River, Kentucky.--The Committee recommendation includes $47,000,000 to continue construction of this project. The reduction made to this project should not be viewed as any diminution of support for this project, rather an attempt to balance out the Corps of Engineers nationwide program among the various missions of the Corps. Markland Locks and Dam, Kentucky and Illinois.--The Committee has provided $7,000,000 to initiate construction on this major rehabilitation requested by the administration. The Committee has provided these funds here rather than in O&M as proposed in the budget request. McAlpine Locks and Dam, Ohio River, Kentucky and Indiana.-- The Committee has provided $57,000,000 to continue construction of this project and legislative language, as requested in the budget request, to raise the cost ceiling for the project so the funds can be utilized in fiscal year 2008. The reduction made to this project should not be viewed as any diminution of support for this project, rather an attempt to balance out the Corps of Engineers nationwide program among the various missions of the Corps. J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Louisiana.--The Committee has provided $7,000,000 for navigation channel refinement features, land purchases and development for mitigation of project impacts, and construction of project recreation and appurtenant features. Southeast Louisiana project, Louisiana.--The Committee has provided $18,500,000 to continue construction of this vital interior drainage project. Additionally, the Committee has included legislative language directing the Secretary of the Army to include the Southeast Louisiana Flood Control project authorized in section 533 of Public Law 104-303, as amended, and other related internal pumping requirements as integral components of the comprehensive protection plan required to achieve certification for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program directed by Public Law 109-234. As the recent inundation study for the city of New Orleans and vicinity by the Corps of Engineers concluded, the improvements to the pumping capacity and levee system in the area have contributed to an improved mitigation of risk of catastrophic flooding in the region. However, a peripheral line of protection alone does not provide a truly comprehensive protection system without adding the ability to efficiently collect and evacuate the significant amounts of flood water that accumulate inside of this line of protection. The southeast Louisiana project and related interior pumping capacity projects are essential component pieces to such a comprehensive system and to the National Flood Insurance Program and, accordingly, must be designed and constructed concurrently with other projects in the area. Chesapeake Bay Environmental Program, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia.--The Committee has included $1,000,000 for continuation of this project. Within the funds provided, $450,000 is included to complete the environmental studies concerning non-native oysters. Chesapeake Bay Oyster Recovery, Maryland and Virginia.--The Committee includes $2,000,000 to continue construction of this project. Fort Peck Dam and Lake, Montana.--The Committee recommendation includes $500,000 for continuation of Fort Peck cabin sales. Rural Montana, Montana.--The Committee provides $5,000,000 for this project. Within the funds provided the Corps should give consideration to the following projects: Crow Tribe Water and Wastewater System; Cabinet Heights Wastewater Collection Systems; Ranch Water District, Bigfork; Town of Medicine Lake; County Water District of Billings Heights; Power Water System improvements; Seely Lake, Greater Woods Bay Wastewater System; Basin Creek Reservoir, Butte; Dayton Wastewater Collection and Treatment Facility; Phillipsburg Wastewater Improvements; Glasgow Wastewater; Whitehall Wastewater; Cut Bank Water; Hamiliton Wastewater; Conrad Wastewater; Billings, West Wicks Lane Water and Sewer; and Port of Montana Water. Other communities that meet the program criteria should be considered as funding allows. Sand Creek, Nebraska.--The Committee includes $1,000,000 to continue construction of this project. Rural Nevada, Nevada.--The Committee recommendation provides $19,000,000 for this project. Within the funds provided the Corps should give consideration to projects at North Lemmon Valley; Spanish Springs Valley Phase II; Huffaker Hills Water Conservation; Lawton-Verdi; Boulder City; Lyon County; Gerlach; Searchlight; Incline Village; Esmeralda County; Cold Springs; Fallon; Goldfield; Churchill County; West Wendover; Yearington; Virgin Valley Water District; Lovelock; Truckee Meadows Water Authority; McGill-Ruth Consolidated Sewer and Water District; Carlin; Moapa; Indian Springs; Eldorado Valley; Ely and Carson City. Other communities that meet the program criteria should be considered as funding allows. Tropicana and Flamingo Washes, Nevada.--The Committee recommendation includes $13,000,000 to continue construction of this flood control project. Within the funds provided $9,600,000 is provided for work performed in accordance with section 211 of Public Law 104-303. Raritan River Basin, Green Brook Sub-basin, New Jersey.-- The Committee includes $10,000,000 to continue construction of this project. Lower Cape May Meadows, Cape May Point, New Jersey.--The Committee provides $5,111,000 for this periodic renourishment here rather than in O&M as proposed by the administration's budget request. Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey.--The Committee provides $3,000,000 to continue construction of this project. Acequias Irrigation System, New Mexico.--The Committee provides $2,400,000 to continue restoration of these historic irrigation distribution systems. Central New Mexico [EI], New Mexico.--The Committee includes $7,500,000 to continue construction of this project. New Mexico [EI], New Mexico.--The Committee includes $10,000,000 to continue construction of this project. Lake Sakakawea, North Dakota.--The original health care facility for the Three Affiliated Tribes tribe was permanently inundated due to the impoundment of Lake Sakakawea. A replacement healthcare facility was promised but never constructed. Legislative text has been included in the Bill this report accompanies that directs the Corps to construct this replacement facility. The Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000 for design of the replacement health care facility. The Corps should work closely with the Indian Health Service and the Three Affiliated Tribes on the design and construction of this facility. The Committee suggests that the Corps utilize the expertise in their military programs office for this project. North Dakota [EI], North Dakota.--The Committee has provided up to $6,000,000 for work related to the replacement of the Devils Lake Water supply pipeline. The Committee has included legislative text that reallocates the unexpended balance of $4,972,000 from the Devils Lake outlet to this project. Locks and Dams 2, 3, and 4, Monongahela River, Pennsylvania.--The Committee recommendation includes $65,300,000 to continue construction of this project. The reduction made to this project should not be viewed as any dimunition of support for this project, rather an attempt to balance out the Corps of Engineers nationwide program among the various missions of the Corps. Presque Isle, Pennsylvania.--The Committee provides $1,000,000 to continue this project. Big Sioux River, South Dakota.--The Committee includes $3,000,000 to continue construction of this project. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux, South Dakota.--The Committee notes that title IV of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Public Law 106-53 as amended, authorizes funding to pay administrative expenses, implementation of terrestrial wildlife plans, activities associated with land transferred or to be transferred, and annual expenses for operating recreational areas. The Committee includes $4,000,000 for this effort. Within the funds provided, the Committee directs that not more than $1,000,000 shall be provided for administrative expenses, and that the Corps is to distribute the remaining funds as directed by title IV to the State of South Dakota, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe. Chickamauga Lock, Tennessee.--The Committee provides $35,200,000 to continue construction of this project. Central City, Fort Worth, Upper Trinity River Basin, Texas.--The Committee recommendation includes $500,000 for the Central City, Fort Worth, Texas, project. The Committee continues to be interested in the merits of combining the authorized Central City project with the proposed Riverside Oxbow project. The Committee understands that the Corps has an ongoing evaluation of the combined project and encourage that it be completed expeditiously and the results furnished to the Committee. Red River Basin Chloride Control, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana.--The Committee includes $1,000,000 to continue construction. San Antonio Channel Improvement, Texas.--The Committee recommendation include $10,000,000 to continue this flood control project. Sims Bayou, Houston, Texas.--The Committee recommendation includes $20,000,000 for this project. The reduction made to this project should not be viewed as any dimunition of support for this project, rather an attempt to balance out the Corps of Engineers nationwide program among the various missions of the Corps. Rural Utah, [EI], Utah.--The Committee recommendation includes $10,000,000 to continue construction of this project. Burlington Harbor, Vermont.--The Committee includes $500,000 to initiate removal of oil bollards in the harbor. Lake Champlain Watershed Initiative.--The Committee recommendation includes $2,500,000 for continuation of this project. The Committee has included legislative text that reallocates the unexpended balance of $1,500,000 from the completed Waterbury Dam Seepage Correction repairs to this project. Columbia River Fish Mitigation, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho.--The Committee has chosen not to follow the budget proposal to include this work within the various O&M items in the system. The Committee believes that it is prudent to maintain visibility of the costs of environmental compliance activities for this project and have included funding in this account in the traditional items. $83,500,000 is provided for this project. Mud Mountain, Washington.--The Corps has provided $11,500,000 for fish passage at this project. Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Cumberland River, West Virginia, Kentucky and Virginia.--The Committee provides $26,500,000 for the continuation of the project. Within the funds provided, the Committee recommendation includes $7,500,000 for the Buchanan County, Dickenson County, and Grundy, Virginia elements. Further, the recommendation includes $18,000,000 for Kermit, Lower Mingo County, McDowell County, Upper Mingo and Wayne County, West Virginia. Aquatic Plant Control Program.--The Committee recommendation includes $4,000,000 for this program. Funds above the budget requests are included for cost-shared programs for Lake Gaston, North Carolina; Lake Champlain, Vermont; and Lake Chautauqua, New York. Chief's 12 Actions.--The Committee did not include funding for this item. The Committee believes that the activities proposed in the budget request for this line item should be incorporated into the various funded construction activities that the Corps has underway. Dredged Material Disposal Facilities Program.--The Committee has retained this program in the Construction, General account rather than the Operations and Maintenance account as proposed by the budget. Shore Line Erosion Control Development and Demonstration Program.)--The Committee understands that this program will be considerably expanded and modified in the pending Water Resources Development Act. Therefore the Committee has included legislative text to extend the duration of this program so that the COE can continue monitoring of complete projects and finish work on projects, where possible with previousl appropriated funds. No new funds are provided. Collection and Study of Basic Data.--The recommendation includes $1,400,000 for these efforts. Funds provided above the budget request are for LIDAR mapping to be undertaken in the Delta portion of Mississippi. Ability to Pay.--Section 103(m) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 Public Law 99-662, as amended, requires that all project cooperation agreements for flood damage reduction projects, to which non-Federal cost sharing applies, will be subject to the ability of non-Federal sponsors to pay their shares. Congress included this section in the landmark 1986 act to ensure that as many communities as possible would qualify for Federal flood damage reduction projects, based more on needs and less on financial capabilities. The Secretary published eligibility criteria in 33 CFR 241, which requires a non-Federal sponsor to meet an ability-to-pay test. However, the Committee believes that the Secretary's test is too restrictive and operates to exclude most communities from qualifying for relief under the ability-to-pay provision. For example, 33 CFR 241.4(f) specifies that the test should be structured so that reductions in the level of cost sharing will be granted in ``only a limited number of cases of severe economic hardship,'' and should depend not only on the economic circumstances within a project area, but also on the conditions of the State in which the project area is located. CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM When Congress authorized the initial Continuing Authorities in the 1940s and 1950s, they were envisioned to provide a small pool of money available to the Corps of Engineers to solve very small localized problems without being encumbered by the longer study and project authorization process. As more programs were added to the Continuing Authorities Program [CAP] they became increasingly popular with congressional Members and the public. More and more congressionally directed projects began to appear in the annual appropriations bills. At first these congressionally directed projects were added to the base program. As more and more of these congressionally directed projects came into the program it became difficult for these congressionally directed projects to be added to the base, and as such, the base program began to shrink. Congressionally directed projects now dominate all sections of the CAP Program. Congressionally directed projects have proliferated to such an extent that several of the sections are over-subscribed. The table below shows the unfunded costs in each of the various sections of the CAP program along with the Statutory Limit of each section and the Mean Annual Allocation from 2001- 2007 for each section. At current levels of funding it will take nearly 16 years to clear out this backlog. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mean annual Section Statutory allocation Total unfunded limit 2001-2007 Federal cost ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14.............................................................. $15,000 $13,730 $43,193 103............................................................. 30,000 4,179 45,435 107............................................................. 35,000 8,389 148,262 111............................................................. (\1\) 1,417 38,279 145............................................................. (\1\) 904 2,700 204............................................................. 15,000 1,876 26,754 205............................................................. 50,000 31,664 547,862 206............................................................. 25,000 29,658 734,545 208............................................................. 7,500 233 1,151 1135............................................................ 25,000 28,951 323,226 ----------------------------------------------- Totals.................................................... +202,500 121,001 1,911,409 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\None. The Committee tried to address the oversubscribed nature of some of the CAP sections by instituting a moratorium on new cost sharing agreements in fiscal year 2006. Due to the Joint funding resolution for fiscal year 2007, the moratorium was continued through the current year. The Committee does not recommend that the moratorium be continued into fiscal year 2008. Prioritization of these projects by the Corps is still essential. The Committee directs the Corps to prioritize projects in the following manner to try to get the backlog of these projects reduced. The first priority for funding should be for construction projects that are ready to execute Project Cooperation Agreements. The next priority should be for projects that are ready to execute design agreements. Third priority would be for those that are ready to execute feasibility agreements. The fourth priority would be for those projects progressing from design to construction. The last priority should be new starts. Priority should be given to those projects that have demonstrated capability to move forward. This would include having non-Federal financing in place and ready to be utilized. The Committee has provided no new starts in any of the sections. Starting with fiscal year 2008 the Committee will no longer provide any congressional earmarks for the section 14, Emergency Bank Stabilization authority. By definition these are projects that are estimated to fail within 9-12 months. As an ``emergency situation'' the Chief of Engineers should have the responsibility for determining how these funds are expended in the most efficient and effective manner. Budget justifications for this section should display the anticipated projects and associated costs to be undertaken in the budget year as well as the anticipated resources necessary to address emergencies that arise in the budget year. The Committee will not provide dollar amounts for the projects that are named in the report. The Committee directs that the Chief should have 100 percent reprogramming flexibility within the various sections of the CAP program in order to address the backlog. This reprogramming guidance has been addressed in section 101 of the bill accompanying this report. The Chief of Engineers should provide a report to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees within 30 days of enactment of this bill detailing how funds will be distributed to the individual items in the various CAP sections for the fiscal year. The Chief should 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 on going work. The Committee would be willing to work with the Corps on any reforms that they might suggest to improve this program. The Committee is concerned that if the Corps adhered strictly to the priorities above, that all funding would be exhausted for construction. Therefore, in order to provide a mix of studies, design and construction within each CAP section the Committee directs that funding be generally divided in the following manner for each of the CAP sections. These percentages should be considered upper limits in each section, not absolutes. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Percent CAP Section Available Available for Funding Construction ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Section 103........................... $5,000,000 75 Section 107........................... 10,000,000 75 Section 1135.......................... 25,000,000 70 Section 14............................ 12,000,000 80 Sections 204, 207, 933................ 5,000,000 75 Section 205........................... 45,000,000 65 Section 206........................... 25,000,000 70 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Even though the Committee is providing a listing of projects that are of interest, the Corps should develop the program based on all of the projects in each section whether named or not. Priorities should be based on the factors outlined above and should not consider prior year earmarks or a listing in this report. The Corps is directed not to initiate any new continuing authorities projects without explicit congressional direction. Only projects that have been named in prior appropriation bills or received prior year funds or are listed in this bill should be considered for funding. A listing of CAP projects follows: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Project Requested by ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Section 103 Shoreline Protection: Goleta Beach, CA................... Feinstein Pismo Beach, CA.................... Feinstein Conquest Preserve, MD.............. Mikulski, Cardin Franklin Point Park, MD............ Mikulski, Cardin Mayo Beach Park, MD................ Mikulski, Cardin Pleasure Island, Baltimore County, Mikulski, Cardin MD. Philadelphia Shipyard Sea Wall, Casey Philadelphia, PA. Section 107 Small Navigation Projects: Blytheville Harbor, AR............. Pryor Kahoolawe Harbor, Kahoolawe, HI.... Inouye, Akaka Port Fourchon Extension, Lafourche Landrieu Parish, LA. Bucks Harbor, ME................... Snowe, Collins Naticoke Harbor, Wicomico, MD...... Mikulski, Cardin Rhodes Point, MD................... Mikulski, Cardin St. Jerome's Creek, St. Mary's Mikulski, Cardin County, MD. Woods Hole, Great Harbor, Woods Kennedy, Kerry Hole, MA. Northwestern Michigan College, Levin, Stabenow Great Lakes Maritime Academy, Harbor Renovation, Traverse City, MI:. Ontonagon Channel Extension, MI.... Levin, Stabenow Yazoo Diversion Canal, MS.......... Cochran Ottawa River Recreational Dredging, Voinovich NC. Charlestown Breachway, RI.......... Reed Section 111 Mitigation of Shore Damages Attributable to Navigation Projects: Camp Ellis Restoration Project, ME. Snowe, Collins Mattituck Harbor, NY............... Schumer, Clinton Sections 204, 207, 933 Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material: Blackhawk Bottoms, IA.............. Grassley Barataria Bay Waterway, LA......... Landrieu Calcasieu River, Cameron Parish, LA Landrieu Restoration of the Cat Islands Kohl Chain, Green Bay, WI. Section 205 Small Flood Control Projects: Wynne, AR.......................... Lincoln, Pryor Las Gallinas Creek/Santa Venetia Feinstein Levee, CA. Little Mill Creek, Elsemere, DE.... Biden, Carper Kuliouou Stream, Oahu, HI.......... Inouye Palai Stream, Hawaii, HI........... Inouye, Akaka Waiakea Stream, Hawaii, HI......... Inouye, Akaka White River, Anderson, IN.......... Lugar, Bayh Indian Creek, Cedar Rapids, IA..... Grassley Mad Creek, Muscatine, IA........... Grassley Red Oak Creek, Red Oak, IA......... Grassley Winnebago River, Mason City, IA.... Grassley Eureka Creek, Manhattan, KS........ Roberts, Brownback Red Duck Creek, Mayfield, KY....... Bunning Bayou Choupique, St Mary Parish, LA Landrieu Bayou Queue de Tortue, Vermillion Landrieu Parish, LA. Coushatta Indian Reservation, LA Landrieu [FC]. Jean Lafitte, Fisher School Basin, Landrieu LA. Pailet Basin, Barataria, LA........ Landrieu Rosethorn Basin, LA................ Landrieu Town of Carencro, Lafayette Parish, Landrieu LA. Elkton, MD......................... Mikulski, Cardin North River, Peabody, MA........... Kennedy, Kerry Ada, MN............................ Coleman Montevideo, MN..................... Coleman McKinney Bayou, Tunica County, MS.. Cochran Blacksnake Creek, St. Joseph, MO... Bond Festus-Crystal City, MO............ Bond Little River Diversion, Dutchtown, Bond MO. Fremont South,NE................... Hagel, Ben Nelson Schuyler, NE....................... Hagel, Ben Nelson Jackson Brook, Morris County, NJ... Lautenberg, Menendez Mill Brook, Highland Park, NJ...... Lautenberg, Menendez Upper Passaic River and Lautenberg, Menendez Tributaries, Long Hill Township, NJ. Hatch, NM.......................... Domenici, Bingaman Steel Creek, NY.................... Schumer, Clinton Poplar Brook, Deal and Ocean Lautenberg, Menendez Township, NJ. Beaver Creek, TN................... Alexander Pecan Creek, Gainesville, TX....... Hutchison WV Statewide Flood Warning System.. Byrd Section 206 Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration: Upper York Creek, Dam Removal, CA.. Feinstein Arkansas River Habitat Restoration Allard, Salazar Project, CO. Goose Creek, Boulder, CO........... Salazar Lower Boulder Creek, CO............ Salazar Tamarisk Eradication, CO........... Salazar Stamford Mill River Restoration, CT Dodd, Lieberman Rose Bay, FL....................... Nelson Chattahoochee Fall-Line Ecosystem Chambliss, Isakson Estoration, GA. Mokuhinia/Mokuula Restoration, HI.. Inouye Paradise Creek Ecosystem Craig, Crapo Restoration, Moscow, Idaho. Salmon River, Challis, ID.......... Craig, Crapo Emiquon Preserve, Fulton County, IL Durbin Squaw Creek Restoration, IL........ Durbin Chariton River/Rathbun Lake, Iowa.. Grassley Duck Creek, Davenport, IA.......... Grassley Iowa River/Clear Creek, Iowa City, Grassley IA. Storm Lake, IA..................... Grassley Ventura Marsh Habitat Restoration, Harkin, Grassley IA. Whitebreast Creek Watershed, IA.... Grassley Bayou Grosse Tete Restoration, Landrieu Iberville Parish, LA. Lake Fausse Pointe, Iberia Parish, Landrieu LA. Lake Killarney, Louisiana State Landrieu Penitentiary, LA. Lake Verret Assumption Parish, LA.. Landrieu Mandeville Ecosystem Restoration, Landrieu LA. University Lakes, Baton Rouge, LA.. Landrieu Vermillion River Ecosystem Landrieu Restoration, LA. Zemurray Park Lake Restoration, Landrieu Tangipahoa Parish, LA. Deep Run/Tiber Hudson, Howard Mikulski, Cardin County, MD. Dog Island Shoals, MD.............. Mikulski, Cardin Greenbury Point, Anne Arundel Mikulski, Cardin County, MD. Hanover Street Wetlands, Baltimore Mikulski, Cardin City, MD. North Beach Wetland Restoration, MD Mikulski, Cardin Northwest Branch Anacostia River, Mikulski, Cardin MD. Paint Branch Fish Passage, MD...... Mikulski, Cardin Tidal Middle Branch, MD............ Mikulski, Cardin Urieville Lake, Kent Conrad, MD.... Mikulski, Cardin Wright's Creek, Dorchester Creek, Mikulski, Cardin MD. Milford Pond, Milford, MA.......... Kennedy, Kerry Painters Creek, Minnehaha Creek, Coleman Watershed, MN. Rancocas Creek Fish Passage Lautenberg, Menendez Restoration Project, NJ. Blue Hole Lake State Park, NM...... Domenici, Bingaman Bottomless Lakes State Park, NM.... Domenici, Bingaman Janes-Wallace Memorial Dam, Santa Domenici, Bingaman Rosa, NM. Chenango Lake, NY.................. Schumer, Clinton Gerritsen Creek, Booklyn, NY....... Schumer, Clinton Lower Hempstead Harbor, NY......... Schumer, Clinton Manhasset Bay, NY.................. Schumer, Clinton Mud Creek, Great South Bay, NY..... Schumer, Clinton Northport Harbor, Huntington, NY... Schumer, Clinton Soundview Park, Bronx, NY.......... Schumer, Clinton Pennsville, Salem County, NJ....... Lautenberg, Menendez Christine and Hickson Dams, ND..... Dorgan Drayton Dam, ND.................... Dorgan Arrowhead Creek, OR................ Wyden, Smith Camp Creek-Zumwalt Prairie, OR..... Wyden, Smith Springfield Mill Race Stabilization Wyden, Smith and Protection, OR. Dents Run, Elk County, PA.......... Casey North Park Lake Restoration, PA.... Casey Brush Neck Cove, RI................ Reed, Whitehouse Narrow River Restoration, RI....... Reed Ten Mile River restoration, RI..... Reed, Whitehouse Winneapaug Pond Restoration, RI.... Reed, Whitehouse Pistol Creek, Maryville, TN........ Alexander San Marco River Ecosystem Cornyn Restoration, TX. West Branch of Little River, VT.... Leahy Wild Branch of Lamoille River, VT.. Leahy Elizabeth River, Scuffletown Creek, Warner, Webb Chesapeake, VA. Tangier Island, Accomack County, VA Warner, Webb Swift Creek Asbestos Sediment Cantwell Management, WA. Section 1135 Project Modifications for the Improvement of the Environment: Lower Cache Restoration, AR........ Lincoln, Pryor Millwood Lake, Grassy Lake, AR..... Lincoln, Pryor Tujunga Wash Environmental Feinstein Restoration, CA. Oyster Revitalization in the Biden, Carper Delaware Bay, DE. Kanaha Pond Wildlife Sanctuary Inouye Restoration, HI. Kaunakakai Stream Environmental Inouye, Akaka Restoration, HI. Kawainui Marsh Restoration, HI..... Inouye Charitan River, Rathbun Lake Harkin Watershed, IN. Rathbun Lake, South Fork Grassley Restoration, IA. Amite River Diversion Canal Bank Landrieu Gapping, LA. Frazier/Whitehouse Oxbow Lake Weir, Landrieu LA. Lake St. Joseph, Tensas Parish, LA. Landrieu Hart-Miller Island, MD............. Mikulski, Cardin Broad Meadows Marsh, Quincy, MA.... Kennedy, Kerry Duck Creek Conservation Area, Bond Stoddard County, MO. Assunpink Creek, NJ................ Lautenberg, Menendez Delaware Bay Oyster Restoration, NJ Lautenberg, Menendez Lincoln Park West, Ecosystem Lautenberg, Menendez Restoration Study, NJ. Lower Assunpink Creek, NJ.......... Lautenberg, Menendez Mordecai Island Coastal Wetland Lautenberg, Menendez Restoration, NJ. Pine Mount Creek, NJ............... Lautenberg, Menendez Pond Creek Salt Marsh Restoration, Lautenberg, Menendez Cape May County, NJ. Rahway River, Rahway, NJ........... Lautenberg, Menendez Las Cruces Dam environmental Domenici, Bingaman Restoration, Dona Ana County, NM. Pueblo of Santa Ana Aquatic Domenici, Bingaman Restoration, NM. Route 66 Environmental Restoration, Domenici, Bingaman Albuquerque, NM. Smokes Creek, NY................... Schumer, Clinton Spring Creek, NY................... Schumer, Clinton Whitney Point Lake, NY............. Schumer, Clinton Joe Creek restoration, OK.......... Inhofe Lake Champlain Lamprey Barriers, VT Leahy Village of Oyster, Northampton Warner, Webb County, VA. Mapes Creek Restoration, WA........ Murray, Cantwell ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Committee has included a rescission of $6,472,000 in unobligated funds from the Construction account of the fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act (Public Law 109-103). FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, ARKANSAS, ILLINOIS, KENTUCKY, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, MISSOURI, AND TENNESSEE Appropriations, 2007.................................... $396,565,000 Budget estimate, 2008................................... 260,000,000 Committee recommendation................................ 375,000,000 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 Committee wishes to reiterate that MR&T project is a good model for the Corps to examine for moving towards a watershed approach. The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are shown on the following table: CORPS OF ENGINEERS--FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES [In thousands of dollars] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Budget Committee Project title estimate recommendation Requested by ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- INVESTIGATIONS BAYOU METO BASIN, AR............... .............. 1,400 LINCOLN, PRYOR SOUTHEAST ARKANSAS, AR............. .............. 400 LINCOLN, PRYOR ALEXANDRIA TO THE GULF, LA......... 200 200 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU ATCHAFALAYA BASIN FLOODWAY SYSTEM 200 200 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU LAND STUDY, LA. MORGANZA TO THE GULF, LA........... .............. 4,000 LANDRIEU, VITTER SPRING BAYOU, LA................... .............. 100 LANDRIEU COLDWATER RIVER BASIN BELOW 300 300 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS. MEMPHIS METRO AREA, STORM WATER .............. 148 COCHRAN MGMT STUDY, T. COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA. 400 1,400 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN CONSTRUCTION CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, 53,395 55,414 PRESIDENT, LINCOLN, PRYOR LA, MS, MO & TN. GRAND PRAIRIE REGION, AR........... .............. 10,000 LINCOLN, PRYOR MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, 28,767 51,767 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN, LANDRIEU, BOND, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN. LINCOLN, PRYOR, VITTER ST FRANCIS RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, .............. 7,000 LINCOLN, PRYOR AR & MO. ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, 1,800 1,800 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU LA. ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA.............. 23,800 23,800 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA....... .............. 1,000 LANDRIEU YAZOO BASIN--BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, .............. 200 COCHRAN MS. YAZOO BASIN--DELTA HEADWATERS .............. 20,000 COCHRAN PROJECT, MS. YAZOO BASIN--MAIN STEM, MS......... .............. 25 COCHRAN YAZOO BASIN--REFORMULATION UNIT, MS .............. 1,500 COCHRAN YAZOO BASIN--UPPER YAZOO PROJECTS, .............. 13,000 COCHRAN MS. YAZOO BASIN--YAZOO BACKWATER F&WL .............. 50 COCHRAN MITIGATION LANDS, M. YAZOO BASIN--YAZOO BACKWATER, MS... .............. 10,000 COCHRAN ST JOHNS BAYOU AND NEW MADRID .............. 4,000 BOND FLOODWAY, MO. WEST TENNESSEE TRIBUTARIES, TN..... .............. 200 ALEXANDER, CORKER OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, 59,977 64,951 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN, LANDRIEU LA, MS, MO & TN. HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR. 63 400 PRESIDENT, LINCOLN, PRYOR INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR.. 249 249 PRESIDENT LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, NORTH BANK, 100 300 PRESIDENT AR. LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, SOUTH BANK, 115 115 PRESIDENT AR. MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, 10,726 11,800 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN, LANDRIEU, BOND, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN. LINCOLN, PRYOR, ST FRANCIS BASIN, AR & MO.......... 4,725 10,000 PRESIDENT, BOND, LINCOLN, PRYOR TENSAS BASIN, BOEUF AND TENSAS 2,667 2,667 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU, LINCOLN, PRYOR RIVERS, AR & LA. WHITE RIVER BACKWATER, AR.......... 900 1,000 PRESIDENT, LINCOLN, PRYOR INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL.. 170 170 PRESIDENT INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY.. 93 93 PRESIDENT ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, 2,291 2,700 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU LA. ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA.............. 11,019 12,500 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU BATON ROUGE HARBOR, DEVIL SWAMP, LA 17 400 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU BAYOU COCODRIE AND TRIBUTARIES, LA. 41 41 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU BONNET CARRE, LA................... 2,367 3,000 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA.. 1,037 1,237 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU LOWER RED RIVER, SOUTH BANK LEVEES, 45 80 PRESIDENT LA. MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA....... 125 125 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU OLD RIVER, LA...................... 9,045 10,000 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU TENSAS BASIN, RED RIVER BACKWATER, 2,500 4,000 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU LA. GREENVILLE HARBOR, MS.............. 30 300 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS.. 143 143 PRESIDENT VICKSBURG HARBOR, MS............... 71 300 PRESIDENT YAZOO BASIN, ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS.... 5,995 6,000 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN YAZOO BASIN, BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, 196 196 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN MS. YAZOO BASIN, ENID LAKE, MS......... 7,011 10,000 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN YAZOO BASIN, GREENWOOD, MS......... 1,558 1,500 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN YAZOO BASIN, GRENADA LAKE, MS...... 6,664 8,000 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN YAZOO BASIN, MAIN STEM, MS......... 2,075 3,000 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN YAZOO BASIN, SARDIS LAKE, MS....... 7,476 11,000 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN YAZOO BASIN, TRIBUTARIES, MS....... 818 1,000 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN YAZOO BASIN, WILL M WHITTINGTON AUX 191 191 PRESIDENT CHAN, MS. YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO BACKWATER AREA, 613 613 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN MS. YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO CITY, MS........ 578 578 PRESIDENT INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO.. 185 185 PRESIDENT WAPPAPELLO LAKE, MO................ 4,819 4,819 PRESIDENT, BOND INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN.. 81 81 PRESIDENT MEMPHIS HARBOR, MCKELLAR LAKE, TN.. 2,866 2,866 PRESIDENT, ALEXANDER, CORKER MAPPING............................ 1,496 1,496 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU ANTICIPATED REDUCTION FOR SAVINGS .............. -11,000 AND SLIPPAGE. -------------------------------- TOTAL........................ 260,000 375,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Committee believes that it is essential to provide adequate resources and funding to the Mississippi River and Tributaries program in order to protect the large investment in flood control facilities. Although much progress has been made, considerable work remains to be done for the protection and economic development of the rich natural resources in the Valley. The Committee expects the additional funds to be used to advance ongoing studies, initiate new studies, and advance important construction and maintenance work. General Investigations Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System Land Study, Louisiana.-- The Committee has provided $100,000 to initiate this study as recommended in the budget request. Morganza to the Gulf, Louisiana.--The Committee has provided $4,000,000 to continue Preconstruction Engineering and Design for this study. Memphis Metro, Storm Water Management Study, Tennessee and Mississippi.--The Committee has provided $148,000 to complete the reconnaissance phase and initiate feasibility studies. Construction Grand Prairie, Arkansas.--The Committee has provided $10,000,000 for continued construction of the project. Mississippi River Levees, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisisna, Mississippi, Missouri and Tennessee.--Additional funds above the budget request could be used to continue Item 2, New Madrid levee closure and box culvert and mitigation land acquisition for New Madrid levee closure and box culvert; award contracts for Reid-Bedford-King, Item 424-L; Magna Vista- Brunswick, Item 468-L; Bayou Vidal-Elkridge, Item 421-R; Carrollton Levee Enlargement; continue Floodway assessments; Trotters, Mississippi relief wells; Wilson, Arkansas relief wells; Cairo, Illinois Grade Raise and complete LMRMRIS. Yazoo Basin, Backwater Pumping Plant, Mississippi.--The Committee has provided $10,000,000 to fully fund pump and motor contracts and initiate purchase of conservation easements. Funds are also provided for the center associated with the Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge. Yazoo Basin, Delta Headwaters Project, Mississippi.--The Committee has provided $20,000,000 to continue construction of this project. Yazoo Basin, Upper Yazoo Project, Mississippi.--The Committee has provided $13,000,000 which could be used to fully fund a contract for Item 6B structures; fund a contract for one bridge relocation; fund a contract for Item 7 channel; continue design of Item 7 and Item 8 channel; purchase project and mitigation lands; and reforestation. Maintenance Mississippi River Levees, Arkasnas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Tennessee.--Funds provided above the budget request are to provide gravel surfacing to selected locations along roads on top of levees in Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana to ensure all weather access for flood fights and for other backlog maintenance. The Committee has provided additional funding to address the maintenance backlog at Arkabutla, Sardis, Enid and Grenada Lakes in Mississippi. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL Appropriations, 2007.................................... $1,973,347,000 Budget estimate, 2008................................... 2,471,000,000 Committee recommendation................................ 2,291,971,000 \1\Excludes emergency appropriation of $3,000,000. 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. The Committee continues to believe that it is essential to provide adequate resources and attention to operation and maintenance requirements in order to protect the large Federal investment. In order to cope with the current fiscal situation, the Corps has had to defer or delay scheduled maintenance activities. The O&M budget request appears to have been increased by nearly $500,000,000 above the fiscal year 2007 enacted amount. However this is very misleading. Shifting of projects from the CG account to the O&M account totals almost $300,000,000 of the $500,000,000 increase to O&M. That still leaves an increase of $200,000,000 for traditional O&M projects. The Committee is pleased that the administration has provided this increase to O&M for fiscal year 2008. This is the first real increase in many years. Unfortunately, the Committee notes that the Corps maintenance backlog is more than $1,000,000,000 and increases by about $100,000,000 annually as the inventory of projects ages. The Committee has chosen to display the budget request as the discreet projects that are the tradition as opposed to the regional budget proposed by the administration. Also the Committee has chosen to migrate the projects that the administration proposed in O&M back to their traditional location in the CG account. This makes the actual budget request for O&M $2,175,189,000 rather than $2,471,000,000 as presented in the budget. A list of these migrated projects is displayed under the CG heading earlier in this report. 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 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. CORPS HOPPER DREDGE FLEET During fiscal year 2002, the Committee requested the General Accounting Office [GAO] to review the benefits and effects of current and proposed restrictions on the Corps' hopper dredge fleet. The Committee faces significant future investments in the Corps hopper dredge fleet, as it is rapidly aging. The Committee believes that the investment decisions must take into consideration the subsequent use of the fleet. The final GAO report, released March 2003, reviewed the impacts of operational changes to the fleet since fiscal year 1993. GAO's findings made it clear to the Committee that additional costs have been imposed upon the Corps with the decreased use of the fleet, but that the benefits have not been realized. Additionally, the GAO found that the Corps' contracting process for hopper dredges was not effective. Most importantly, the GAO reported that the Corps of Engineers did not have even a limited system to evaluate the costs and benefits of the varying operational levels of its hopper dredge fleet, nor did it have a means to make maintenance and repair decisions of the fleet taking operational use into consideration. The Committee remains concerned that since 2000, the Corps has provided a report to Congress which has been found to have no analytical basis, thus calling into question the ready reserve policy. Therefore, the Committee has provided legislative language which changes the current dredge policy. The Committee is concerned that lead and asbestos abatement measures have been deferred aboard the McFarland due to guidance in prior Energy and Water Appropriation Acts and uncertainties about its future based on the Corps' report recommending its retirement. The Committee is understandably skeptical of the findings of this report, particularly in light of the GAO study mentioned above. As the McFarland is likely to be in continued use for the foreseeable future, the Committee believes that addressing these health and safety concerns are critical and have provided legislative direction that the Revolving Fund be utilized to expeditiously fund lead and asbestos abatment. CORPS OF ENGINEERS--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE [In thousands of dollars] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Committee Project title Budget estimate recommendation Requested by ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ALABAMA ALABAMA--COOSA COMPREHENSIVE WATER 500 500 PRESIDENT STUDY, AL. ALABAMA--COOSA RIVER, AL.......... 3,686 3,686 PRESIDENT, SHELBY, SESSIONS BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE 20,948 20,948 PRESIDENT, SHELBY RIVERS, AL. GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, AL.... 5,102 5,102 PRESIDENT MILLERS FERRY LOCK AND DAM, 5,564 5,564 PRESIDENT, SHELBY, SESSIONS WILLIAM ``BILL'' DANNELLY LA. MOBILE HARBOR, AL................. 20,000 20,000 PRESIDENT, SHELBY PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AL..... 125 125 PRESIDENT ROBERT F HENRY LOCK AND DAM, AL... 5,767 5,767 PRESIDENT, SHELBY SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, 99 99 PRESIDENT AL. TENNESSEE--TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY 1,967 2,000 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN, SHELBY WILDLIFE MITIGATION, AL. TENNESSEE--TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY, AL 21,848 26,848 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN, SHELBY & MS. WALTER F GEORGE LOCK AND DAM, AL & 7,039 7,039 PRESIDENT GA. WATER/ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION, 35 35 PRESIDENT AL. ALASKA ANCHORAGE HARBOR, AK.............. 16,115 16,115 PRESIDENT, STEVENS CHENA RIVER LAKES, AK............. 2,601 2,601 PRESIDENT, STEVENS CORDOVA HARBOR, AK................ 500 500 PRESIDENT, STEVENS DILLINGHAM HARBOR, AK............. 800 800 PRESIDENT, STEVENS HOMER HARBOR, AK.................. 350 350 PRESIDENT, STEVENS INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AK. 55 55 PRESIDENT, STEVENS KETCHIKAN HARBOR, BAR POINT, AK... 600 600 PRESIDENT, STEVENS NINILCHIK HARBOR, AK.............. 350 350 PRESIDENT, STEVENS NOME HARBOR, AK................... 1,650 1,650 PRESIDENT, STEVENS PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AK..... 525 525 PRESIDENT, STEVENS ARIZONA ALAMO LAKE, AZ.................... 1,783 1,783 PRESIDENT INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AZ. 95 95 PRESIDENT PAINTED ROCK DAM, AZ.............. 1,217 1,217 PRESIDENT SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, 37 37 PRESIDENT AZ. WHITLOW RANCH DAM, AZ............. 183 183 PRESIDENT ARKANSAS BEAVER LAKE, AR................... 5,204 5,204 PRESIDENT BLAKELY MT DAM, LAKE OUACHITA, AR. 8,043 8,043 PRESIDENT, LINCOLN, PRYOR BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR............ 2,068 2,068 PRESIDENT BULL SHOALS LAKE, AR.............. 6,864 6,864 PRESIDENT, BOND, LINCOLN, PRYOR DARDANELLE LOCK AND DAM, AR....... 7,006 7,006 PRESIDENT DEGRAY LAKE, AR................... 9,333 9,333 PRESIDENT, LINCOLN, PRYOR DEQUEEN LAKE, AR.................. 1,545 1,545 PRESIDENT DIERKS LAKE, AR................... 1,653 1,653 PRESIDENT GILLHAM LAKE, AR.................. 1,078 1,078 PRESIDENT GREERS FERRY LAKE, AR............. 6,945 6,945 PRESIDENT HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR 438 438 PRESIDENT, LINCOLN, PRYOR INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR. 228 228 PRESIDENT MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER 26,144 29,144 PRESIDENT, LINCOLN, PRYOR NAVIGATION SYSTEM, AR. MILLWOOD LAKE, AR................. 2,360 2,360 PRESIDENT, LINCOLN, PRYOR NARROWS DAM, LAKE GREESON, AR..... 4,179 4,179 PRESIDENT, LINCOLN, PRYOR NIMROD LAKE, AR................... 2,484 2,484 PRESIDENT NORFORK LAKE, AR.................. 5,794 5,794 PRESIDENT OSCEOLA HARBOR, AR................ 12 700 PRESIDENT, LINCOLN, PRYOR OUACHITA AND BLACK RIVERS, AR & LA 9,865 9,865 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU, LINCOLN, PRYOR, VITTER OZARK--JETA TAYLOR LOCK AND DAM, 4,855 4,855 PRESIDENT AR. PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AR..... 8 8 PRESIDENT WHITE RIVER, AR................... 30 1,000 PRESIDENT, LINCOLN, PRYOR YELLOW BEND PORT, AR.............. ............... 176 LINCOLN, PRYOR CALIFORNIA BLACK BUTTE LAKE, CA.............. 2,462 2,462 PRESIDENT BUCHANAN DAM, HV EASTMAN LAKE, CA. 2,257 2,257 PRESIDENT COYOTE VALLEY DAM, LAKE MENDOCINO, 7,165 7,165 PRESIDENT CA. CRESCENT CITY HARBOR, CA.......... ............... 500 FEINSTEIN, BOXER DRY CREEK (WARM SPRINGS) LAKE AND 6,893 6,893 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN CHANNEL, CA. FARMINGTON DAM, CA................ 453 453 PRESIDENT HIDDEN DAM, HENSLEY LAKE, CA...... 2,415 2,415 PRESIDENT HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY, CA....... 5,600 5,600 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN, BOXER INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CA. 1,796 1,796 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN ISABELLA LAKE, CA................. 1,414 1,414 PRESIDENT LOS ANGELES--LONG BEACH HARBORS, 2,560 4,560 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN, BOXER CA. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, 4,582 4,582 PRESIDENT CA. MARINA DEL REY, CA................ 2,550 2,550 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN MERCED COUNTY STREAMS, CA......... 351 351 PRESIDENT MOJAVE RIVER DAM, CA.............. 290 290 PRESIDENT MORRO BAY HARBOR, CA.............. 1,426 1,426 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN NAPA RIVER, CA.................... ............... 500 FEINSTEIN NEW HOGAN LAKE, CA................ 2,249 2,249 PRESIDENT NEW MELONES LAKE, DOWNSTREAM 1,764 1,764 PRESIDENT CHANNEL, CA. OAKLAND HARBOR, CA................ 7,510 7,510 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN OCEANSIDE HARBOR, CA.............. 1,115 1,115 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN PETALUMA RIVER, CA................ ............... 500 FEINSTEIN PINE FLAT LAKE, CA................ 3,395 3,395 PRESIDENT PINOLE SHOAL MANAGEMENT STUDY, CA. ............... 500 FEINSTEIN PORT HUENEME, CA.................. 1,309 1,309 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CA..... 2,422 2,422 PRESIDENT RICHMOND HARBOR, CA............... 7,775 7,775 PRESIDENT SACRAMENTO RIVER (30 FOOT 3,078 3,078 PRESIDENT PROJECT), CA. SACRAMENTO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES 1,432 1,432 PRESIDENT (DEBRIS CONTROL), CA. SACRAMENTO RIVER SHALLOW DRAFT 173 173 PRESIDENT CHANNEL, CA. SAN DIEGO HARBOR, CA.............. 2,471 2,471 PRESIDENT SAN FRANCISCO BAY LONG TERM ............... 1,000 FEINSTEIN MANAGEMENT STRATEGY, CA. SAN FRANCISCO BAY, DELTA MODEL 1,121 1,121 PRESIDENT STRUCTURE, CA. SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR AND BAY, CA 2,805 2,805 PRESIDENT (DRIFT REMOVAL). SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR, CA.......... 2,793 2,793 PRESIDENT SAN JOAQUIN RIVER, CA............. 3,094 3,094 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN, BOXER SAN PABLO BAY AND MARE ISLAND ............... 1,000 FEINSTEIN STRAIT, CA. SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CA......... 3,455 3,455 PRESIDENT SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CA.......... 1,940 1,940 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, 1,681 1,681 PRESIDENT CA. SUCCESS LAKE, CA.................. 2,156 2,156 PRESIDENT SUISUN BAY CHANNEL, CA............ 2,825 2,825 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN TERMINUS DAM, LAKE KAWEAH, CA..... 2,247 2,247 PRESIDENT VENTURA HARBOR, CA................ 3,695 3,695 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN YUBA RIVER, CA.................... 117 117 PRESIDENT COLORADO BEAR CREEK LAKE, CO............... 283 283 PRESIDENT CHATFIELD LAKE, CO................ 1,013 1,679 PRESIDENT, ALLARD, SALAZAR CHERRY CREEK LAKE, CO............. 612 1,280 PRESIDENT, ALLARD, SALAZAR INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CO. 165 165 PRESIDENT JOHN MARTIN RESERVOIR, CO......... 5,723 5,723 PRESIDENT SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, 713 713 PRESIDENT CO. TRINIDAD LAKE, CO................. 1,158 1,824 PRESIDENT, ALLARD, SALAZAR CONNECTICUT BLACK ROCK LAKE, CT............... 600 600 PRESIDENT BRIDGEPORT HARBOR DREDGING, CT.... ............... 500 DODD, LIEBERMAN COLEBROOK RIVER LAKE, CT.......... 858 858 PRESIDENT HANCOCK BROOK LAKE, CT............ 391 391 PRESIDENT HOP BROOK LAKE, CT................ 991 991 PRESIDENT INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CT. 90 90 PRESIDENT LONG ISLAND SOUND DMMP, CT........ 2,800 2,800 PRESIDENT MANSFIELD HOLLOW LAKE, CT......... 684 684 PRESIDENT NORTH COVE HARBOR, CT............. ............... 2,000 LIEBERMAN NORTHFIELD BROOK LAKE, CT......... 490 490 PRESIDENT NORWALK HARBOR DREDGING ............... 3,000 DODD, LIEBERMAN INITIATIVE, CT. PATCHOGUE RIVER, WESTBROOK, CT.... ............... 100 DODD, LIEBERMAN PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CT..... 1,000 1,000 PRESIDENT STAMFORD HURRICANE BARRIER, CT.... 649 649 PRESIDENT THOMASTON DAM, CT................. 826 826 PRESIDENT WEST THOMPSON LAKE, CT............ 681 681 PRESIDENT DELAWARE HARBOR OF REFUGE, LEWES, DE....... ............... 750 BIDEN, CARPER INDIAN RIVER INLET AND BAY, SUSSEX ............... 1,500 BIDEN, CARPER COUNTY, DE. INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, DELAWARE R 11,295 13,295 PRESIDENT, MIKULSKI, BIDEN, CARPER, CARDIN TO CHESAPEAKE BAY, D. INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, REHOBOTH 20 20 PRESIDENT BAY TO DELAWARE BAY, D. MISPILLION RIVER, DE.............. 20 850 PRESIDENT, BIDEN, CARPER MURDERKILL RIVER, DE.............. 20 20 PRESIDENT PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DE..... 131 131 PRESIDENT WILMINGTON HARBOR, DE............. 2,683 3,683 PRESIDENT, BIDEN, CARPER DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, DC. 25 25 PRESIDENT POTOMAC AND ANACOSTIA RIVERS, DC 850 850 PRESIDENT (DRIFT REMOVAL). PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DC..... 25 25 PRESIDENT WASHINGTON HARBOR, DC............. 20 20 PRESIDENT FLORIDA AIWW, NORFOLK, VA TO ST JOHNS 100 100 PRESIDENT RIVER, FL, GA, SC, NC &. CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL.............. 4,880 4,880 PRESIDENT, MARTINEZ CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL.. 13,971 13,971 PRESIDENT EAST PASS CHANNEL, FL............. ............... 500 BILL NELSON ESCAMBIA AND CONECUH RIVERS, FL... 930 930 PRESIDENT, BILL NELSON EVERGLADES AND SOUTH FLORIDA, SBC 300 300 PRESIDENT RESERVATION PLAN, FL. FERNANDINA HARBOR, FL............. 1,800 1,800 PRESIDENT INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, FL. 300 300 PRESIDENT INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, 150 1,000 PRESIDENT, BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ CALOOSAHATCHEE R TO ANCLOTE R,. INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, 325 4,000 PRESIDENT, BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI, FL. JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL........... 4,750 4,750 PRESIDENT JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM, LAKE 7,553 7,553 PRESIDENT, SHELBY SEMINOLE, FL, AL & GA. MANATEE HARBOR, FL................ 2,400 2,400 PRESIDENT, MARTINEZ MIAMI HARBOR, FL.................. 75 75 PRESIDENT MIAMI RIVER, FL................... 4,500 7,500 PRESIDENT, BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ OKEECHOBEE WATERWAY, FL........... 2,017 2,017 PRESIDENT PALM BEACH HARBOR, FL............. 2,170 2,170 PRESIDENT, MARTINEZ PANAMA CITY HARBOR, FL............ 953 953 PRESIDENT PENSACOLA HARBOR, FL.............. 935 935 PRESIDENT PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, FL..... 1,075 1,075 PRESIDENT REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, FL..... 3,650 3,650 PRESIDENT SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, 30 30 PRESIDENT FL. TAMPA HARBOR, FL.................. 4,250 4,250 PRESIDENT, BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ WATER/ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION, 300 300 PRESIDENT FL. GEORGIA ALLATOONA LAKE, GA................ 5,452 5,452 PRESIDENT APALACHICOLA, CHATTAHOOCHEE AND 4,045 2,000 PRESIDENT, SHELBY FLINT RIVERS, GA, AL &. ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, GA 257 1,000 PRESIDENT, CHAMBLISS, ISAKSON BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA.............. 4,993 4,993 PRESIDENT BUFORD DAM AND LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, 7,960 7,960 PRESIDENT GA. CARTERS DAM AND LAKE, GA.......... 7,445 7,445 PRESIDENT HARTWELL LAKE, GA & SC............ 10,774 10,774 PRESIDENT INSPECTION OF COMPLETED 50 50 PRESIDENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, GA. INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, GA. 48 48 PRESIDENT J STROM THURMOND LAKE, GA & SC.... 10,201 10,201 PRESIDENT PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, GA..... 325 325 PRESIDENT RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA 7,384 7,384 PRESIDENT & SC. SAVANNAH HARBOR, GA............... 12,906 12,906 PRESIDENT SAVANNAH RIVER BELOW AUGUSTA, GA.. 243 243 PRESIDENT WEST POINT DAM AND LAKE, GA & AL.. 12,147 12,147 PRESIDENT HAWAII BARBERS POINT HARBOR, HI.......... 218 218 PRESIDENT HALEIWA HARBOR, OAHU, HI.......... ............... 220 INOUYE INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, HI. 216 326 PRESIDENT, INOUYE PORT ALLEN, BREAKWATER REPAIR, HI. ............... 1,700 INOUYE PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, HI..... 360 360 PRESIDENT, INOUYE WAIANAE HARBOR, HI................ ............... 220 INOUYE IDAHO ALBENI FALLS DAM, ID.............. 1,614 1,614 PRESIDENT DWORSHAK DAM AND RESERVOIR, ID.... 4,073 4,073 PRESIDENT INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ID. 82 82 PRESIDENT LUCKY PEAK LAKE, ID............... 1,741 1,741 PRESIDENT SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, 456 456 PRESIDENT ID. ILLINOIS CALUMET HARBOR AND RIVER, IL & IN. 3,852 3,852 PRESIDENT CARLYLE LAKE, IL.................. 4,443 4,443 PRESIDENT CHICAGO HARBOR, IL................ 1,875 1,875 PRESIDENT CHICAGO RIVER, IL................. 450 450 PRESIDENT CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL... ............... 500 DURBIN FARM CREEK RESERVOIRS, IL......... 396 396 PRESIDENT ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVR PORTION), 31,379 31,379 PRESIDENT IL & IN. ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVS PORTION), 1,929 1,929 PRESIDENT IL & IN. INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL. 857 857 PRESIDENT KASKASKIA RIVER NAVIGATION, IL.... 3,175 3,175 PRESIDENT LAKE MICHIGAN DIVERSION, IL....... 624 624 PRESIDENT LAKE SHELBYVILLE, IL.............. 5,072 5,072 PRESIDENT, DURBIN MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND 48,425 49,970 PRESIDENT, BOND, GRASSLEY MINNEAPOLIS (MVR PORTION). MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND 26,657 26,657 PRESIDENT, GRASSLEY MINNEAPOLIS (MVS PORTION). PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IL..... 99 99 PRESIDENT REND LAKE, IL..................... 4,424 4,424 PRESIDENT SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 123 123 PRESIDENT WATERS, IL. WAUKEGAN HARBOR, IL............... 718 718 PRESIDENT INDIANA BROOKVILLE LAKE, IN............... 945 945 PRESIDENT BURNS WATERWAY HARBOR, IN......... 3,680 3,680 PRESIDENT CAGLES MILL LAKE, IN.............. 830 830 PRESIDENT CECIL M HARDEN LAKE, IN........... 916 916 PRESIDENT INDIANA HARBOR, IN................ 760 760 PRESIDENT INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IN. 300 300 PRESIDENT J EDWARD ROUSH LAKE, IN........... 2,022 2,022 PRESIDENT MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN............. 970 970 PRESIDENT MONROE LAKE, IN................... 971 971 PRESIDENT PATOKA LAKE, IN................... 952 952 PRESIDENT PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IN..... 177 177 PRESIDENT SALAMONIE LAKE, IN................ 831 831 PRESIDENT SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 117 117 PRESIDENT WATERS, IN. IOWA CORALVILLE LAKE, IA............... 3,169 3,169 PRESIDENT, GRASSLEY INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IA. 227 227 PRESIDENT MISSOURI RIVER--KENSLERS BEND, NE 161 161 PRESIDENT TO SIOUX CITY, IA. MISSOURI RIVER--RULO TO MOUTH, IA, 4,615 6,000 PRESIDENT, BOND, GRASSLEY NE, KS & MO. MISSOURI RIVER--SIOUX CITY TO 1,889 1,889 PRESIDENT RULO, IA & NE. RATHBUN LAKE, IA.................. 3,067 3,067 PRESIDENT, GRASSLEY RED ROCK DAM AND LAKE RED ROCK, IA 3,650 3,650 PRESIDENT, GRASSLEY SAYLORVILLE LAKE, IA.............. 4,308 4,308 PRESIDENT, GRASSLEY KANSAS CLINTON LAKE, KS.................. 2,112 2,112 PRESIDENT COUNCIL GROVE LAKE, KS............ 1,594 1,594 PRESIDENT EL DORADO LAKE, KS................ 402 402 PRESIDENT ELK CITY LAKE, KS................. 1,063 1,063 PRESIDENT FALL RIVER LAKE, KS............... 2,489 2,489 PRESIDENT HILLSDALE LAKE, KS................ 871 871 PRESIDENT INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KS. 222 222 PRESIDENT JOHN REDMOND DAM AND RESERVOIR, KS 2,689 2,689 PRESIDENT KANOPOLIS LAKE, KS................ 1,366 1,366 PRESIDENT MARION LAKE, KS................... 1,671 1,671 PRESIDENT MELVERN LAKE, KS.................. 2,099 2,099 PRESIDENT MILFORD LAKE, KS.................. 2,569 2,569 PRESIDENT PEARSON--SKUBITZ BIG HILL LAKE, KS 1,047 1,047 PRESIDENT PERRY LAKE, KS.................... 2,252 2,252 PRESIDENT POMONA LAKE, KS................... 2,174 2,174 PRESIDENT SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, 39 39 PRESIDENT KS. TORONTO LAKE, KS.................. 1,551 1,551 PRESIDENT TUTTLE CREEK LAKE, KS............. 2,406 2,406 PRESIDENT WILSON LAKE, KS................... 1,667 1,667 PRESIDENT, ROBERTS KENTUCKY BARKLEY DAM AND LAKE BARKLEY, KY & 10,975 10,975 PRESIDENT TN. BARREN RIVER LAKE, KY............. 2,007 2,007 PRESIDENT BIG SANDY HARBOR, KY.............. 1,393 1,393 PRESIDENT BUCKHORN LAKE, KY................. 1,734 1,734 PRESIDENT CARR CREEK LAKE, KY............... 1,644 1,644 PRESIDENT CAVE RUN LAKE, KY................. 1,039 1,039 PRESIDENT DEWEY LAKE, KY.................... 1,704 1,704 PRESIDENT ELVIS STAHR (HICKMAN) HARBOR, KY.. 9 9 PRESIDENT FISHTRAP LAKE, KY................. 2,162 2,162 PRESIDENT GRAYSON LAKE, KY.................. 1,316 1,316 PRESIDENT GREEN AND BARREN RIVERS, KY....... 2,294 2,294 PRESIDENT GREEN RIVER LAKE, KY.............. 1,838 1,838 PRESIDENT INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY. 237 237 PRESIDENT KENTUCKY RIVER, KY................ 20 20 PRESIDENT LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KY............. 1,587 1,587 PRESIDENT MARTINS FORK LAKE, KY............. 986 986 PRESIDENT MIDDLESBORO CUMBERLAND RIVER 897 897 PRESIDENT BASIN, KY. NOLIN LAKE, KY.................... 2,229 2,229 PRESIDENT OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, KY, IL, 38,861 38,861 PRESIDENT IN & OH. OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, KY, 4,330 4,330 PRESIDENT IL, IN & OH. PAINTSVILLE LAKE, KY.............. 857 857 PRESIDENT ROUGH RIVER LAKE, KY.............. 2,289 2,289 PRESIDENT TAYLORSVILLE LAKE, FALLS, OF OHIO, 16 16 PRESIDENT KY. TAYLORSVILLE LAKE, KY............. 955 955 PRESIDENT WOLF CREEK DAM, LAKE CUMBERLAND, 8,804 9,804 PRESIDENT, MCCONNELL KY. YATESVILLE LAKE, KY............... 1,028 1,028 PRESIDENT LOUISIANA ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS 6,717 14,000 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU, VITTER CHENE, BOEUF AND BLACK, L. BARATARIA BAY WATERWAY, LA........ ............... 1,000 LANDRIEU BAYOU BODCAU RESERVOIR, LA........ 766 766 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU BAYOU LACOMBE, LA................. ............... 450 LANDRIEU BAYOU LAFOURCHE AND LAFOURCHE JUMP 1,273 1,273 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU WATERWAY, LA. BAYOU PIERRE, LA.................. 35 35 PRESIDENT BAYOU SEGNETTE WATERWAY, LA....... ............... 750 LANDRIEU BAYOU TECHE AND VERMILION RIVER, 60 270 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU LA. BAYOU TECHE, LA................... 209 209 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU CADDO LAKE, LA.................... 196 196 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LA...... 16,108 20,000 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU, VITTER FRESHWATER BAYOU, LA.............. 5,570 5,570 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, LA.... 21,851 21,851 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU, VITTER HOUMA NAVIGATION CANAL, LA........ 135 2,000 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU, VITTER INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA. 1,025 1,025 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU J BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA... 10,431 12,431 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU, VITTER LAKE PROVIDENCE HARBOR, LA........ 25 546 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU, VITTER MADISON PARISH PORT, LA........... 4 81 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU MERMENTAU RIVER, LA............... 1,685 1,685 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU MISSISSIPPI RIVER OUTLETS AT 290 2,000 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU VENICE, LA. MISSISSIPPI RIVER, BATON ROUGE TO 59,424 59,424 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU THE GULF OF MEXICO. PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, LA..... 60 60 PRESIDENT REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, LA..... 2,000 2,000 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU TANGIPAHOA RIVER, LA.............. ............... 700 LANDRIEU TCHEFUNCTE RIVER & BOGUE FALIA, LA ............... 400 LANDRIEU WALLACE LAKE, LA.................. 211 211 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU WATERWAY FROM EMPIRE TO THE GULF, ............... 1,500 LANDRIEU LA. WATERWAY FROM INTRACOASTAL ............... 125 LANDRIEU WATERWAY TO BAYOU DULAC, LA. MAINE DISPOSAL AREA MONITORING, ME...... 1,100 1,100 PRESIDENT INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ME. 20 20 PRESIDENT NARRAGUAGUS RIVER, ME............. ............... 1,000 SNOWE, COLLINS PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, ME..... 760 760 PRESIDENT SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 17 17 PRESIDENT WATERS, ME. MARYLAND BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS (50 16,655 18,655 PRESIDENT, MIKULSKI, CARDIN FOOT), MD. BALTIMORE HARBOR, MD (DRIFT 335 335 PRESIDENT, MIKULSKI, CARDIN REMOVAL). CUMBERLAND, MD AND RIDGELEY, WV... 168 168 PRESIDENT GOOSE CREEK, MD................... ............... 120 MIKULSKI, CARDIN HERRING BAY AND ROCKHOLD, MD...... ............... 700 MIKULSKI, CARDIN HONGA RIVER AND TAR BAY, MD....... ............... 1,000 MIKULSKI, CARDIN INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MD. 40 40 PRESIDENT JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE, MD & WV... 1,722 1,722 PRESIDENT OCEAN CITY HARBOR AND INLET AND 150 150 PRESIDENT SINEPUXENT BAY, MD. PARISH CREEK, MD.................. ............... 60 MIKULSKI, CARDIN PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MD..... 380 380 PRESIDENT RHODES POINT TO TYLERTON, MD...... 140 140 PRESIDENT SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, 89 89 PRESIDENT MD. TWITCH COVE AND BIG THOROFARE ............... 140 MIKULSKI, CARDIN RIVER, MD. WICOMICO RIVER, MD................ 800 800 PRESIDENT, MIKULSKI, CARDIN MASSACHUSETTS BARRE FALLS DAM, MA............... 922 922 PRESIDENT BIRCH HILL DAM, MA................ 795 795 PRESIDENT BOSTON HARBOR, MA................. 7,000 7,000 PRESIDENT, KENNEDY, KERRY BUFFUMVILLE LAKE, MA.............. 637 637 PRESIDENT CAPE COD CANAL, MA................ 9,200 9,200 PRESIDENT CHARLES RIVER NATURAL VALLEY 358 358 PRESIDENT STORAGE AREA, MA. CONANT BROOK LAKE, MA............. 280 280 PRESIDENT EAST BRIMFIELD LAKE, MA........... 525 525 PRESIDENT HODGES VILLAGE DAM, MA............ 658 658 PRESIDENT INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MA. 129 129 PRESIDENT KNIGHTVILLE DAM, MA............... 728 728 PRESIDENT LITTLEVILLE LAKE, MA.............. 734 734 PRESIDENT NEW BEDFORD FAIRHAVEN AND ACUSHNET 385 385 PRESIDENT HURRICANE BARRIER. PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MA..... 1,100 1,100 PRESIDENT TULLY LAKE, MA.................... 852 852 PRESIDENT WEST HILL DAM, MA................. 767 767 PRESIDENT WESTVILLE LAKE, MA................ 691 691 PRESIDENT MICHIGAN ARCADIA HARBOR, MI................ ............... 159 LEVIN, STABENOW AU SABLE, MI...................... ............... 214 LEVIN, STABENOW BAY PORT HARBOR, MI............... ............... 550 LEVIN, STABENOW BOLLES HARBOR, MI................. ............... 388 LEVIN, STABENOW CASEVILLE HARBOR, MI.............. ............... 114 LEVIN, STABENOW CHANNELS IN LAKE ST CLAIR, MI..... 90 90 PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW CHARLEVOIX HARBOR, MI............. 188 188 PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW CLINTON RIVER, MI................. ............... 330 LEVIN, STABENOW CROOKED RIVER LOCK UPGRADES, MI... ............... 375 LEVIN, STABENOW DETROIT RIVER, MI................. 5,523 5,523 PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW FRANKFORT HARBOR, MI.............. ............... 237 LEVIN, STABENOW GRAND HAVEN HARBOR, MI............ 656 656 PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW GRAND MARAIS HARBOR, MI........... ............... 1,500 LEVIN, STABENOW GRAYS REEF PASSAGE, MI............ ............... 125 LEVIN, STABENOW HOLLAND HARBOR, MI................ 497 497 PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW INLAND ROUTE, MI.................. ............... 400 LEVIN, STABENOW INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MI. 149 149 PRESIDENT KEWEENAW WATERWAY, MI............. 15 250 PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW LELAND HARBOR, MI................. ............... 190 LEVIN, STABENOW LEXINGTON HARBOR, MI.............. ............... 175 LEVIN, STABENOW LITTLE LAKE HARBOR, MI............ ............... 311 LEVIN, STABENOW LUDINGTON HARBOR, MI.............. ............... 500 LEVIN, STABENOW MANISTEE HARBOR, MI............... 677 1,196 PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW MARQUETTE HARBOR, MI.............. 387 387 PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW MENOMINEE HARBOR, MI.............. ............... 300 LEVIN, STABENOW MONROE HARBOR, MI................. ............... 500 LEVIN, STABENOW MUSKEGON HARBOR, MI............... 566 566 PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW NEW BUFFALO HARBOR, MI............ ............... 130 LEVIN, STABENOW ONTONAGON HARBOR, MI.............. 643 643 PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW PENTWATER HARBOR, MI.............. ............... 163 LEVIN, STABENOW PETOSKEY HARBOR, MI............... ............... 3,198 LEVIN, STABENOW PORT SANILAC HARBOR, MI........... ............... 150 LEVIN, STABENOW PORTAGE HARBOR, MI................ ............... 245 LEVIN, STABENOW PRESQUE ISLE HARBOR, MI........... ............... 320 PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MI..... 184 184 PRESIDENT ROUGE RIVER, MI................... ............... 900 LEVIN, STABENOW SAGINAW RIVER, MI................. 2,148 2,148 PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW SAUGATUCK HARBOR, MI.............. ............... 315 LEVIN, STABENOW SEBEWAING RIVER, MI............... ............... 337 LEVIN, STABENOW SOUTH HAVEN HARBOR, MI............ ............... 302 LEVIN, STABENOW ST CLAIR RIVER, MI................ 1,515 1,515 PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW ST JOSEPH HARBOR, MI.............. 667 667 PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW ST MARYS RIVER, MI................ 21,999 21,999 PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 2,806 2,806 PRESIDENT WATERS, MI. WHITE LAKE HARBOR, MI............. ............... 319 LEVIN, STABENOW MINNESOTA BIGSTONE LAKE WHETSTONE RIVER, MN 242 242 PRESIDENT & SD. DULUTH--SUPERIOR HARBOR, MN & WI.. 3,794 3,794 PRESIDENT HARRIET ISLAND LOWER HARBOR ............... 100 COLEMAN, KLOBUCHAR DREDGING, MN. INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MN. 129 129 PRESIDENT INTERNATIONAL WATER STUDIES, MN... 105 105 PRESIDENT LAC QUI PARLE LAKES, MINNESOTA 713 713 PRESIDENT RIVER, MN. MINNESOTA RIVER, MN............... 194 194 PRESIDENT MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND 53,025 53,025 PRESIDENT MINNEAPOLIS (MVP PORTION). ORWELL LAKE, MN................... 341 341 PRESIDENT PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MN..... 70 70 PRESIDENT RED LAKE RESERVOIR, MN............ 133 133 PRESIDENT RESERVOIRS AT HEADWATERS OF 3,700 3,700 PRESIDENT, COLEMAN MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MN. SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 223 223 PRESIDENT WATERS, MN. TWO HARBORS, MN................... 368 368 PRESIDENT MISSISSIPPI BILOXI HARBOR, MS................. 1,250 1,250 PRESIDENT CLAIBORNE COUNTY PORT, MS......... ............... 63 COCHRAN EAST FORK, TOMBIGBEE RIVER, MS.... 135 135 PRESIDENT GULFPORT HARBOR, MS............... 3,559 5,059 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS. 153 153 PRESIDENT MOUTH OF YAZOO RIVER, MS.......... 110 134 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN OKATIBBEE LAKE, MS................ 1,455 1,895 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS............. 4,646 12,000 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN, LOTT PEARL RIVER, MS & LA.............. 212 212 PRESIDENT PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MS..... 100 100 PRESIDENT ROSEDALE HARBOR, MS............... 20 600 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN WATER/ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION, 25 25 PRESIDENT MS. YAZOO RIVER, MS................... ............... 140 COCHRAN MISSOURI CARUTHERSVILLE HARBOR, MO......... 10 500 PRESIDENT, BOND CLARENCE CANNON DAM AND MARK TWAIN 5,692 5,692 PRESIDENT, BOND LAKE, MO. CLEARWATER LAKE, MO............... 3,899 3,899 PRESIDENT, BOND HARRY S TRUMAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, 9,324 9,324 PRESIDENT, BOND MO. INSPECTION OF COMPLETED 62 62 PRESIDENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, MO. INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO. 799 799 PRESIDENT LITTLE BLUE RIVER LAKES, MO....... 1,065 1,065 PRESIDENT LONG BRANCH LAKE, MO.............. 1,036 1,036 PRESIDENT MISS RIVER BTWN THE OHIO AND MO 25,813 25,813 PRESIDENT, BOND RIVERS (LOWER RIVER). NEW MADRID HARBOR, MO............. 783 783 PRESIDENT, BOND NEW MADRID HARBOR, MO (MILE 889).. ............... 200 BOND POMME DE TERRE LAKE, MO........... 2,162 2,162 PRESIDENT SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, 327 327 PRESIDENT MO. SMITHVILLE LAKE, MO............... 1,376 1,376 PRESIDENT SOUTHEAST MISSOURI PORT, MO....... ............... 275 BOND STOCKTON LAKE, MO................. 3,776 3,776 PRESIDENT TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO............... 6,326 6,326 PRESIDENT, BOND UNION LAKE, MO.................... 6 6 PRESIDENT MONTANA FT PECK DAM AND LAKE, MT.......... 4,862 4,862 PRESIDENT INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MT. 32 32 PRESIDENT LIBBY DAM, LAKE KOOCANUSA, MT..... 1,891 1,891 PRESIDENT SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, 90 90 PRESIDENT MT. NEBRASKA GAVINS POINT DAM, LEWIS AND CLARK 5,625 5,625 PRESIDENT LAKE, NE & SD. HARLAN COUNTY LAKE, NE............ 2,173 2,173 PRESIDENT, HAGEL INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NE. 117 117 PRESIDENT PAPILLION CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES 387 387 PRESIDENT LAKES, NE. PAPIO CREEK, NE................... 40 40 PRESIDENT SALT CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, NE.... 585 585 PRESIDENT NEVADA INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NV. 48 48 PRESIDENT MARTIS CREEK LAKE, NV & CA........ 812 812 PRESIDENT PINE AND MATHEWS CANYONS LAKES, NV 247 247 PRESIDENT NEW HAMPSHIRE BLACKWATER DAM, NH................ 779 779 PRESIDENT COCHECO RIVER, NH................. ............... 3,000 GREGG EDWARD MACDOWELL LAKE, NH......... 667 667 PRESIDENT FRANKLIN FALLS DAM, NH............ 749 749 PRESIDENT HOPKINTON--EVERETT LAKES, NH...... 1,281 1,281 PRESIDENT INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NH. 28 28 PRESIDENT OTTER BROOK LAKE, NH.............. 802 802 PRESIDENT PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NH..... 233 233 PRESIDENT SURRY MOUNTAIN LAKE, NH........... 1,238 1,238 PRESIDENT NEW JERSEY ABSECON INLET, NJ................. ............... 145 LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ BARNEGAT INLET, NJ................ 54 1,000 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ COLD SPRING INLET, NJ............. 250 650 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ DELAWARE RIVER AT CAMDEN, NJ...... 5 5 PRESIDENT DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA TO 20,005 20,005 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, SPECTER, MENENDEZ THE SEA, NJ, PA & DE. DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA, PA 870 2,375 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, SPECTER, MENENDEZ TO TRENTON, NJ. INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NJ. 120 123 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ MANASQUAN RIVER, NJ............... 200 200 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ NEW JERSEY INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, 50 2,110 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ NJ. NEWARK BAY, HACKENSACK AND PASSAIC 3,410 3,410 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ RIVERS, NJ. PASSAIC RIVER FLOOD WARNING 575 575 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ SYSTEMS, NJ. PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NJ..... 1,312 1,312 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ RARITAN RIVER, NJ................. 3,150 3,150 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ SALEM RIVER, NJ................... 25 25 PRESIDENT SHARK RIVER, NJ................... 300 300 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ SHOAL HARBOR AND COMPTON CREEK, NJ 175 175 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ SHREWSBURY RIVER, MAIN CHANNEL, NJ 150 150 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ NEW MEXICO ABIQUIU DAM, NM................... 2,693 3,097 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN COCHITI LAKE, NM.................. 4,493 7,815 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN CONCHAS LAKE, NM.................. 3,533 7,556 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN GALISTEO DAM, NM.................. 899 1,404 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NM. 166 1,060 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN JEMEZ CANYON DAM, NM.............. 13,868 2,177 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN RIO GRANDE BOSQUE REHABILITATION, ............... 4,000 DOMENICI, BINGAMAN NM. SANTA ROSA DAM AND LAKE, NM....... 1,711 2,210 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, 291 291 PRESIDENT NM. TWO RIVERS DAM, NM................ 689 781 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN UPPER RIO GRANDE WATER OPERATIONS 2,270 2,670 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN MODEL STUDY, NM. NEW YORK ALMOND LAKE, NY................... 583 583 PRESIDENT ARKPORT DAM, NY................... 320 320 PRESIDENT BLACK ROCK CHANNEL AND TONAWANDA 1,368 1,368 PRESIDENT HARBOR, NY. BRONX RIVER, NY................... ............... 1,000 SCHUMER, CLINTON BUFFALO HARBOR, NY................ 2,045 2,045 PRESIDENT BUTTERMILK CHANNEL, NY............ 300 300 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON EAST ROCKAWAY INLET, NY........... 480 480 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON EAST SIDNEY LAKE, NY.............. 671 671 PRESIDENT EASTCHESTER CREEK, NY............. 80 80 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON FIRE ISLAND INLET TO JONES INLET, 350 2,000 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON NY. FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NY........ 150 150 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON GLEN COVE CREEK, NY............... ............... 350 SCHUMER, CLINTON GREAT KILLS HARBOR, S.I., NY...... ............... 50 SCHUMER, CLINTON GREAT SOUTH BAY, NY............... 150 150 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON HUDSON RIVER CHANNEL, NY.......... 80 80 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON HUDSON RIVER, NY (MAINT).......... 3,190 3,190 PRESIDENT HUDSON RIVER, NY (O&C)............ 1,155 1,155 PRESIDENT INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NY. 809 809 PRESIDENT JAMAICA BAY, NY................... 3,400 3,400 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON JONES INLET, NY................... 100 3,000 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON LAKE MONTAUK HARBOR, NY........... 120 120 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON LITTLE SODUS BAY HARBOR, NY....... 10 10 PRESIDENT LONG ISLAND INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, 280 280 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON NY. MORICHES INLET, NY................ 180 900 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON MOUNT MORRIS DAM, NY.............. 3,985 3,985 PRESIDENT NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY CHANNELS, 7,960 7,960 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ, SCHUMER, NY. CLINTON NEW YORK HARBOR, NY............... 4,580 4,580 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ, SCHUMER, CLINTON NEW YORK HARBOR, NY & NJ (DRIFT 6,145 6,145 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ, SCHUMER, REMOVAL). CLINTON NEW YORK HARBOR, NY (PREVENTION OF 950 950 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ, SCHUMER, OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSIT. CLINTON PORTCHESTER HARBOR, NY............ 100 100 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NY..... 1,516 1,516 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON ROCHESTER HARBOR, NY.............. 10 10 PRESIDENT SHINNECOCK INLET, NY.............. 210 1,000 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON SOUTHERN NEW YORK FLOOD CONTROL 1,149 1,149 PRESIDENT PROJECTS, NY. SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 496 496 PRESIDENT WATERS, NY. WESTCHESTER CREEK, NY............. 80 80 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON WHITNEY POINT LAKE, NY............ 676 676 PRESIDENT NORTH CAROLINA ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NC 4,900 7,000 PRESIDENT, DOLE, BURR B EVERETT JORDAN DAM AND LAKE, NC. 1,817 1,817 PRESIDENT BOGUE INLET, NC................... ............... 900 DOLE, BURR CAPE FEAR RIVER ABOVE WILMINGTON, 588 588 PRESIDENT NC. CAROLINA BEACH INLET, NC.......... ............... 600 DOLE, BURR FALLS LAKE, NC.................... 2,013 2,013 PRESIDENT INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NC. 39 39 PRESIDENT LOCKWOODS FOLLY RIVER, NC......... ............... 1,000 DOLE, BURR MANTEO (SHALLOWBAG) BAY, NC....... 7,600 10,600 PRESIDENT, DOLE, BURR MASONBORO INLET AND CONNECTING 65 600 PRESIDENT, DOLE, BURR CHANNELS, NC. MOREHEAD CITY HARBOR, NC.......... 5,500 5,500 PRESIDENT, DOLE, BURR NEW RIVER INLET, NC............... 500 500 PRESIDENT, DOLE, BURR NEW TOPSAIL INLET, NC............. ............... 900 DOLE, BURR PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NC..... 675 675 PRESIDENT ROLLINSON CHANNEL, NC............. 650 650 PRESIDENT SILVER LAKE HARBOR, NC............ 900 900 PRESIDENT W KERR SCOTT DAM AND RESERVOIR, NC 3,050 3,050 PRESIDENT WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC............. 11,200 11,200 PRESIDENT, DOLE, BURR NORTH DAKOTA BOWMAN--HALEY LAKE, ND............ 140 140 PRESIDENT GARRISON DAM, LAKE SAKAKAWEA, ND.. 9,261 10,411 PRESIDENT, DORGAN HOMME LAKE, ND.................... 176 176 PRESIDENT INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ND. 91 91 PRESIDENT INTERNATIONAL WATER STUDIES, ND... 35 35 PRESIDENT LAKE ASHTABULA AND BALDHILL DAM, 1,289 1,289 PRESIDENT ND. PIPESTEM LAKE, ND................. 185 185 PRESIDENT PIPESTEM LAKE, ND................. 342 342 PRESIDENT SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, 120 120 PRESIDENT ND. SOURIS RIVER, ND.................. 279 279 PRESIDENT OHIO ALUM CREEK LAKE, OH............... 1,102 1,102 PRESIDENT ASHTABULA HARBOR, OH.............. 900 900 PRESIDENT, VOINOVICH BERLIN LAKE, OH................... 3,340 3,340 PRESIDENT CAESAR CREEK LAKE, OH............. 2,010 2,010 PRESIDENT CLARENCE J BROWN DAM, OH.......... 2,439 2,439 PRESIDENT CLEVELAND HARBOR, OH.............. 8,310 8,310 PRESIDENT, VOINOVICH CONNEAUT HARBOR, OH............... 840 840 PRESIDENT DEER CREEK LAKE, OH............... 1,414 1,414 PRESIDENT DELAWARE LAKE, OH................. 2,244 2,244 PRESIDENT DILLON LAKE, OH................... 5,840 5,840 PRESIDENT INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OH. 338 338 PRESIDENT LORAIN HARBOR, OH................. 1,040 1,040 PRESIDENT MASSILLON, OH..................... 155 155 PRESIDENT MICHAEL J KIRWAN DAM AND 1,523 1,523 PRESIDENT RESERVOIR, OH. MOSQUITO CREEK LAKE, OH........... 1,729 1,729 PRESIDENT MUSKINGUM RIVER LAKES, OH......... 7,505 7,505 PRESIDENT NORTH BRANCH KOKOSING RIVER LAKE, 268 268 PRESIDENT OH. PAINT CREEK LAKE, OH.............. 1,746 1,746 PRESIDENT PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OH..... 368 368 PRESIDENT ROSEVILLE, OH..................... 35 35 PRESIDENT SANDUSKY HARBOR, OH............... 1,050 1,050 PRESIDENT SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 195 195 PRESIDENT WATERS, OH. TOLEDO HARBOR, OH................. 3,975 3,975 PRESIDENT, VOINOVICH TOM JENKINS DAM, OH............... 550 550 PRESIDENT WEST FORK OF MILL CREEK LAKE, OH.. 701 701 PRESIDENT WILLIAM H HARSHA LAKE, OH......... 1,341 1,341 PRESIDENT OKLAHOMA ARCADIA LAKE, OK.................. 837 837 PRESIDENT, INHOFE BIRCH LAKE, OK.................... 602 602 PRESIDENT, INHOFE BROKEN BOW LAKE, OK............... 2,168 2,168 PRESIDENT, INHOFE CANTON LAKE, OK................... 1,604 1,604 PRESIDENT, INHOFE COPAN LAKE, OK.................... 1,118 1,118 PRESIDENT, INHOFE EUFAULA LAKE, OK.................. 5,095 5,095 PRESIDENT, INHOFE FORT GIBSON LAKE, OK.............. 6,536 6,536 PRESIDENT, INHOFE FORT SUPPLY LAKE, OK.............. 796 796 PRESIDENT, INHOFE GREAT SALT PLAINS LAKE, OK........ 254 254 PRESIDENT, INHOFE HEYBURN LAKE, OK.................. 855 855 PRESIDENT, INHOFE HUGO LAKE, OK..................... 1,292 1,292 PRESIDENT, INHOFE HULAH LAKE, OK.................... 996 996 PRESIDENT, INHOFE INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OK. 238 238 PRESIDENT KAW LAKE, OK...................... 2,145 2,145 PRESIDENT, INHOFE KEYSTONE LAKE, OK................. 4,173 4,173 PRESIDENT, INHOFE MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER 5,307 5,307 PRESIDENT, INHOFE NAVIGATION SYSTEM, OK. OOLOGAH LAKE, OK.................. 2,083 2,083 PRESIDENT, INHOFE OPTIMA LAKE, OK................... 231 231 PRESIDENT PENSACOLA RESERVOIR, LAKE OF THE 85 85 PRESIDENT CHEROKEES, OK. PINE CREEK LAKE, OK............... 1,197 1,197 PRESIDENT, INHOFE ROBERT S KERR LOCK AND DAM AND 5,131 5,131 PRESIDENT, INHOFE RESERVOIRS, OK. SARDIS LAKE, OK................... 1,056 1,056 PRESIDENT, INHOFE SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, 868 868 PRESIDENT OK. SKIATOOK LAKE, OK................. 1,743 1,743 PRESIDENT, INHOFE TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK.......... 3,700 3,700 PRESIDENT, INHOFE WAURIKA LAKE, OK.................. 1,371 1,371 PRESIDENT, INHOFE WEBBERS FALLS LOCK AND DAM, OK.... 3,783 3,783 PRESIDENT, INHOFE WISTER LAKE, OK................... 760 760 PRESIDENT, INHOFE OREGON APPLEGATE LAKE, OR................ 901 901 PRESIDENT BLUE RIVER LAKE, OR............... 400 400 PRESIDENT BONNEVILLE LOCK AND DAM, OR & WA.. 15,176 15,176 PRESIDENT CHETCO RIVER, OR.................. 443 443 PRESIDENT, WYDEN, SMITH COLUMBIA & LWR WILLAMETTE R BLW 25,212 25,512 PRESIDENT, MURRAY, WYDEN, SMITH VANCOUVER, WA & PORTLA. COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR & 12,050 14,820 PRESIDENT, MURRAY, WYDEN, SMITH WA. COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN VANCOUVER, 484 484 PRESIDENT WA AND THE DALLES, O. COOS BAY, OR...................... 3,967 3,967 PRESIDENT, WYDEN, SMITH COQUILLE RIVER, OR................ 275 275 PRESIDENT, WYDEN, SMITH COTTAGE GROVE LAKE, OR............ 968 968 PRESIDENT COUGAR LAKE, OR................... 1,324 1,324 PRESIDENT DETROIT LAKE, OR.................. 1,285 1,285 PRESIDENT DORENA LAKE, OR................... 1,044 1,044 PRESIDENT FALL CREEK LAKE, OR............... 1,099 1,099 PRESIDENT FERN RIDGE LAKE, OR............... 1,379 1,379 PRESIDENT GREEN PETER--FOSTER LAKES, OR..... 1,646 1,646 PRESIDENT HILLS CREEK LAKE, OR.............. 816 816 PRESIDENT INSPECTION OF COMPLETED 43 43 PRESIDENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, OR. INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OR. 174 174 PRESIDENT JOHN DAY LOCK AND DAM, OR & WA.... 4,686 4,686 PRESIDENT LOOKOUT POINT LAKE, OR............ 1,632 1,632 PRESIDENT LOST CREEK LAKE, OR............... 3,134 3,134 PRESIDENT MCNARY LOCK AND DAM, OR & WA...... 5,711 5,711 PRESIDENT PORT ORFORD, OR................... 333 333 PRESIDENT, WYDEN, SMITH PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OR..... 150 150 PRESIDENT ROGUE RIVER AT GOLD BEACH, OR..... 462 462 PRESIDENT, WYDEN, SMITH SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, 64 64 PRESIDENT OR. SIUSLAW RIVER, OR................. 520 520 PRESIDENT, WYDEN, SMITH SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 400 400 PRESIDENT WATERS, WA. TILLAMOOK BAY AND BAR, OR......... ............... 2,000 WYDEN, SMITH UMPQUA RIVER, OR.................. 974 974 PRESIDENT, WYDEN, SMITH WILLAMETTE RIVER AT WILLAMETTE 80 258 PRESIDENT, WYDEN, SMITH FALLS, OR. WILLAMETTE RIVER BANK PROTECTION, 62 62 PRESIDENT OR. WILLOW CREEK LAKE, OR............. 617 617 PRESIDENT YAQUINA BAY AND HARBOR, OR........ 1,348 1,348 PRESIDENT, WYDEN, SMITH YAQUINA RIVER, OR................. ............... 400 WYDEN, SMITH PENNSYLVANIA ALLEGHENY RIVER, PA............... 7,039 7,039 PRESIDENT, CASEY ALVIN R BUSH DAM, PA.............. 813 813 PRESIDENT AYLESWORTH CREEK LAKE, PA......... 320 320 PRESIDENT BELTZVILLE LAKE, PA............... 2,457 2,457 PRESIDENT BLUE MARSH LAKE, PA............... 3,115 3,115 PRESIDENT CONEMAUGH RIVER LAKE, PA.......... 1,630 1,630 PRESIDENT COWANESQUE LAKE, PA............... 2,326 2,326 PRESIDENT CROOKED CREEK LAKE, PA............ 1,457 1,457 PRESIDENT CURWENSVILLE LAKE, PA............. 805 805 PRESIDENT EAST BRANCH CLARION RIVER LAKE, PA 1,682 1,682 PRESIDENT FOSTER JOSEPH SAYERS DAM, PA...... 805 805 PRESIDENT FRANCIS E WALTER DAM, PA.......... 1,286 1,286 PRESIDENT GENERAL EDGAR JADWIN DAM AND 372 372 PRESIDENT RESERVOIR, PA. INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, PA. 456 456 PRESIDENT JOHNSTOWN, PA..................... 1,247 1,247 PRESIDENT KINZUA DAM AND ALLEGHENY 1,377 1,377 PRESIDENT RESERVOIR, PA. LOYALHANNA LAKE, PA............... 1,166 1,166 PRESIDENT MAHONING CREEK LAKE, PA........... 2,408 2,408 PRESIDENT MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA............. 17,170 17,170 PRESIDENT OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, PA, OH 24,723 24,723 PRESIDENT & WV. OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, PA, 520 520 PRESIDENT OH & WV. PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, PA..... 85 85 PRESIDENT PROMPTON LAKE, PA................. 792 792 PRESIDENT PUNXSUTAWNEY, PA.................. 786 786 PRESIDENT RAYSTOWN LAKE, PA................. 4,420 4,420 PRESIDENT SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, 63 63 PRESIDENT PA. SCHUYLKILL RIVER, PA.............. 150 1,500 PRESIDENT, SPECTER SHENANGO RIVER LAKE, PA........... 3,002 3,002 PRESIDENT STILLWATER LAKE, PA............... 572 572 PRESIDENT SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 87 87 PRESIDENT WATERS, PA. TIOGA--HAMMOND LAKES, PA.......... 2,760 2,760 PRESIDENT TIONESTA LAKE, PA................. 2,216 2,216 PRESIDENT UNION CITY LAKE, PA............... 320 320 PRESIDENT WOODCOCK CREEK LAKE, PA........... 956 956 PRESIDENT YORK INDIAN ROCK DAM, PA.......... 632 632 PRESIDENT YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER LAKE, PA & MD.. 2,149 2,149 PRESIDENT RHODE ISLAND INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, RI. 22 22 PRESIDENT POINT JUDITH HARBOR OF REUGE, RI.. ............... 200 REED, WHITEHOUSE PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, RI..... 400 400 PRESIDENT WARWICK COVE, RI.................. ............... 200 REED, WHITEHOUSE SOUTH CAROLINA ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, SC 872 3,872 PRESIDENT, GRAHAM CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC............. 9,342 9,342 PRESIDENT, GRAHAM COOPER RIVER, CHARLESTON HARBOR, 3,982 3,982 PRESIDENT, GRAHAM SC. FOLLY RIVER, SC................... ............... 500 GRAHAM GEORGETOWN HARBOR, SC............. 3,360 3,360 PRESIDENT, GRAHAM INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SC. 60 60 PRESIDENT PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, SC..... 593 593 PRESIDENT SOUTH DAKOTA BIG BEND DAM, LAKE SHARPE, SD..... 7,996 7,996 PRESIDENT CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER ............... 3,000 JOHNSON, THUNE BRULE SIOUX, SD. COLD BROOK LAKE, SD............... 237 237 PRESIDENT COTTONWOOD SPRINGS LAKE, SD....... 174 174 PRESIDENT FORT RANDALL DAM, LAKE FRANCIS 7,533 7,533 PRESIDENT CASE, SD. INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SD. 25 25 PRESIDENT LAKE TRAVERSE, SD & MN............ 570 570 PRESIDENT MISSOURI R BETWEEN FORT PECK DAM 150 150 PRESIDENT AND GAVINS PT, SD, MT. OAHE DAM, LAKE OAHE, SD & ND...... 9,079 9,379 PRESIDENT, DORGAN SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, 54 54 PRESIDENT SD. TENNESSEE CENTER HILL LAKE, TN.............. 5,431 5,431 PRESIDENT CHEATHAM LOCK AND DAM, TN......... 7,095 7,095 PRESIDENT CHICKAMAUGA LOCK, TENNESSEE RIVER, 1,140 1,140 PRESIDENT, ALEXANDER, CORKER TN. CORDELL HULL DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN 5,298 5,298 PRESIDENT DALE HOLLOW LAKE, TN.............. 6,414 6,414 PRESIDENT, ALEXANDER, CORKER INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN. 35 35 PRESIDENT J PERCY PRIEST DAM AND RESERVOIR, 4,240 4,240 PRESIDENT TN. OLD HICKORY LOCK AND DAM, TN...... 8,156 8,156 PRESIDENT PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TN..... 2 2 PRESIDENT TENNESSEE RIVER, TN............... 22,264 22,264 PRESIDENT, SHELBY WOLF RIVER HARBOR, TN............. 251 251 PRESIDENT TEXAS AQUILLA LAKE, TX.................. 944 944 PRESIDENT ARKANSAS--RED RIVER BASINS 1,410 1,410 PRESIDENT CHLORIDE CONTROL--AREA VI. BARBOUR TERMINAL CHANNEL, TX...... 188 188 PRESIDENT BARDWELL LAKE, TX................. 2,168 2,168 PRESIDENT BAYPORT SHIP CHANNEL, TX.......... 188 188 PRESIDENT BELTON LAKE, TX................... 3,227 3,227 PRESIDENT BENBROOK LAKE, TX................. 2,498 2,498 PRESIDENT BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, TX.......... ............... 1,000 CORNYN BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TX. 6,272 6,272 PRESIDENT CANYON LAKE, TX................... 3,219 3,219 PRESIDENT CHANNEL TO PORT BOLIVAR, TX....... 569 569 PRESIDENT CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX... 10,597 10,597 PRESIDENT DENISON DAM, LAKE TEXOMA, TX...... 7,415 7,415 PRESIDENT, INHOFE ESTELLINE SPRINGS EXPERIMENTAL 1 1 PRESIDENT PROJECT, TX. FERRELLS BRIDGE DAM, LAKE O' THE 3,251 3,251 PRESIDENT PINES, TX. FREEPORT HARBOR, TX............... 5,735 5,735 PRESIDENT, CORNYN GALVESTON HARBOR AND CHANNEL, TX.. 20,567 20,567 PRESIDENT GRANGER DAM AND LAKE, TX.......... 2,336 2,336 PRESIDENT GRAPEVINE LAKE, TX................ 3,047 3,047 PRESIDENT GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, TX.... 24,161 25,000 PRESIDENT, HUTCHISON HORDS CREEK LAKE, TX.............. 1,336 1,336 PRESIDENT HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX.......... 14,442 17,221 PRESIDENT, HUTCHISON, CORNYN INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TX. 713 713 PRESIDENT JIM CHAPMAN LAKE, TX.............. 1,748 1,748 PRESIDENT JOE POOL LAKE, TX................. 785 785 PRESIDENT LAKE KEMP, TX..................... 617 617 PRESIDENT LAVON LAKE, TX.................... 2,595 2,595 PRESIDENT LEWISVILLE DAM, TX................ 3,780 3,780 PRESIDENT MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL, TX........ 8,713 8,713 PRESIDENT, HUTCHISON NAVARRO MILLS LAKE, TX............ 2,266 2,266 PRESIDENT NORTH SAN GABRIEL DAM AND LAKE 2,007 2,007 PRESIDENT GEORGETOWN, TX. O C FISHER DAM AND LAKE, TX....... 871 871 PRESIDENT PAT MAYSE LAKE, TX................ 1,049 1,049 PRESIDENT PROCTOR LAKE, TX.................. 2,347 2,347 PRESIDENT RAY ROBERTS LAKE, TX.............. 1,421 1,421 PRESIDENT SABINE--NECHES WATERWAY, TX....... 12,612 12,612 PRESIDENT SAM RAYBURN DAM AND RESERVOIR, TX. 4,229 4,229 PRESIDENT SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, 196 196 PRESIDENT TX. SOMERVILLE LAKE, TX............... 3,932 3,932 PRESIDENT STILLHOUSE HOLLOW DAM, TX......... 1,912 1,912 PRESIDENT TEXAS CITY SHIP CHANNEL, TX....... 4,587 4,587 PRESIDENT TEXAS WATER ALLOCATION ASSESSMENT, 100 1,000 PRESIDENT, HUTCHISON, CORNYN TX. TOWN BLUFF DAM, B A STEINHAGEN 3,081 3,081 PRESIDENT LAKE, TX. WACO LAKE, TX..................... 2,669 2,669 PRESIDENT WALLISVILLE LAKE, TX.............. 2,358 2,358 PRESIDENT WHITNEY LAKE, TX.................. 6,493 6,493 PRESIDENT WRIGHT PATMAN DAM AND LAKE, TX.... 3,610 3,610 PRESIDENT UTAH INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, UT. 50 50 PRESIDENT SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, 695 695 PRESIDENT UT. VERMONT BALL MOUNTAIN LAKE, VT............ 988 988 PRESIDENT INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VT. 55 55 PRESIDENT NARROWS OF LAKE CHAMPLAIN, VT & NY 80 80 PRESIDENT NORTH HARTLAND LAKE, VT........... 1,229 1,229 PRESIDENT NORTH SPRINGFIELD LAKE, VT........ 951 951 PRESIDENT TOWNSHEND LAKE, VT................ 965 965 PRESIDENT UNION VILLAGE DAM, VT............. 695 695 PRESIDENT VIRGINIA APPOMATTOX RIVER, VA.............. ............... 750 WARNER, WEBB ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY-- 1,795 1,795 PRESIDENT ACC, VA. ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY-- 561 1,619 PRESIDENT, WARNER, WEBB DSC, VA. CHINCOTEAGUE INLET, VA............ 650 650 PRESIDENT GATHRIGHT DAM AND LAKE MOOMAW, VA. 2,019 2,019 PRESIDENT HAMPTON RDS, NORFOLK & NEWPORT 897 897 PRESIDENT NEWS HBR, VA (DRIFT REM. INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VA. 243 243 PRESIDENT JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA........... 4,320 4,320 PRESIDENT JOHN H KERR LAKE, VA & NC......... 11,102 11,102 PRESIDENT JOHN W FLANNAGAN DAM AND 1,730 1,730 PRESIDENT RESERVOIR, VA. LITTLE WICOMICO RIVER, VA......... 100 100 PRESIDENT NORFOLK HARBOR, VA................ 10,687 10,687 PRESIDENT, WARNER, WEBB NORFOLK HARBOR, VA (PREVENTION OF 210 210 PRESIDENT OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS. NORTH FORK OF POUND RIVER LAKE, VA 435 435 PRESIDENT ONANCOCK RIVER, VA................ ............... 1,400 WARNER, WEBB PHILPOTT LAKE, VA................. 4,875 4,875 PRESIDENT PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, VA..... 860 860 PRESIDENT RUDEE INLET, VA................... 1,023 1,023 PRESIDENT, WARNER, WEBB TYLERS BEACH, VA.................. 200 200 PRESIDENT WATERWAY ON THE COAST OF VIRGINIA, 190 190 PRESIDENT VA. YORK RIVER, VA.................... 50 50 PRESIDENT WASHINGTON CHIEF JOSEPH DAM, WA.............. 814 814 PRESIDENT COLUMBIA RIVER AT BAKER BAY, WA & ............... 500 MURRAY, CANTWELL OR. COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN CHINOOK AND ............... 500 MURRAY SAND ISLAND, WA. EVERETT HARBOR AND SNOHOMISH 1,637 1,637 PRESIDENT, MURRAY, CANTWELL RIVER, WA. GRAYS HARBOR AND CHEHALIS RIVER, 8,705 8,705 PRESIDENT WA. HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA............. 3,615 3,615 PRESIDENT ICE HARBOR LOCK AND DAM, WA....... 4,052 4,052 PRESIDENT INSPECTION OF COMPLETED 65 65 PRESIDENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, WA. INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WA. 320 320 PRESIDENT LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA.... 5,952 5,952 PRESIDENT, CANTWELL LITTLE GOOSE LOCK AND DAM, WA..... 1,467 1,467 PRESIDENT LOWER GRANITE LOCK AND DAM, WA.... 3,944 3,944 PRESIDENT LOWER MONUMENTAL LOCK AND DAM, WA. 3,202 3,202 PRESIDENT, CRAPO MILL CREEK LAKE, WA............... 1,539 1,539 PRESIDENT MT ST HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA. 278 278 PRESIDENT MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA.............. 3,830 3,830 PRESIDENT, MURRAY, CANTWELL NEAH BAY, WA...................... 33 33 PRESIDENT PORT TOWNSEND, WA................. 275 275 PRESIDENT PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WA..... 447 447 PRESIDENT PUGET SOUND AND TRIBUTARY WATERS, 910 910 PRESIDENT WA. QUILLAYUTE RIVER, WA.............. 66 66 PRESIDENT SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, 515 515 PRESIDENT WA. SEATTLE HARBOR, WA................ 55 55 PRESIDENT STILLAGUAMISH RIVER, WA........... 182 182 PRESIDENT SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 64 64 PRESIDENT WATERS, WA. SWINOMISH CHANNEL, WA............. ............... 500 MURRAY, CANTWELL TACOMA, PUYALLUP RIVER, WA........ 146 146 PRESIDENT THE DALLES LOCK AND DAM, WA & OR.. 3,978 3,978 PRESIDENT WILLAPA RIVER AND HARBOR, WA...... 34 34 PRESIDENT WEST VIRGINIA BEECH FORK LAKE, WV............... 1,236 1,236 PRESIDENT BLUESTONE LAKE, WV................ 2,592 2,592 PRESIDENT BURNSVILLE LAKE, WV............... 1,987 1,987 PRESIDENT EAST LYNN LAKE, WV................ 1,799 1,799 PRESIDENT ELKINS, WV........................ 13 13 PRESIDENT INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WV. 121 121 PRESIDENT KANAWHA RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV.. 10,293 10,293 PRESIDENT OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV, KY 31,709 31,709 PRESIDENT & OH. OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, WV, 2,541 2,541 PRESIDENT KY & OH. R D BAILEY LAKE, WV............... 1,994 1,994 PRESIDENT STONEWALL JACKSON LAKE, WV........ 1,120 1,120 PRESIDENT SUMMERSVILLE LAKE, WV............. 1,696 1,696 PRESIDENT SUTTON LAKE, WV................... 1,962 1,962 PRESIDENT TYGART LAKE, WV................... 3,753 3,753 PRESIDENT WISCONSIN EAU GALLE RIVER LAKE, WI.......... 789 789 PRESIDENT FOX RIVER, WI..................... 2,135 4,535 PRESIDENT, KOHL GREEN BAY HARBOR, WI.............. 2,845 4,970 PRESIDENT, KOHL INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WI. 42 42 PRESIDENT KEWAUNEE HARBOR, WI............... 8 8 PRESIDENT MILWAUKEE HARBOR, WI.............. 1,519 1,519 PRESIDENT PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WI..... 108 108 PRESIDENT STURGEON BAY, WI.................. 20 20 PRESIDENT SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 487 487 PRESIDENT WATERS, WI. TWO RIVERS HARBOR, WI............. ............... 2,000 KOHL WYOMING INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WY. 16 16 PRESIDENT JACKSON HOLE LEVEES, WY........... 332 332 PRESIDENT SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, 88 88 PRESIDENT WY. ---------------------------------- SUBTOTAL, PROJECTS LISTED 2,083,432 2,237,653 UNDER STATES. REMAINING ITEMS: AQUATIC NUISANCE CONTROL 690 690 PRESIDENT RESEARCH. ASSET MANAGEMENT/FACILITIES 4,000 4,000 PRESIDENT AND EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE. BUDGET/MANAGEMENT SUPPORT FOR 5,365 5,365 PRESIDENT O&M BUSINESS LINES. CHIEF'S 12 ACTIONS............ 8,737 8,737 PRESIDENT COASTAL INLET RESEARCH PROGRAM 2,475 2,475 PRESIDENT CULTURAL RESOURCES (NAGPRA/ 1,500 1,500 PRESIDENT CURATION). DREDGE WHEELER READY RESERVE.. 8,000 8,000 PRESIDENT DREDGING DATA AND LOCK 1,062 1,062 PRESIDENT PERFORMANCE MONITORING SYSTEM. DREDGING OPERATIONS AND 6,080 6,080 PRESIDENT ENVIRONMENTAL R. DREDGING OPERATIONS TECHNICAL 1,391 1,391 PRESIDENT SUPPORT PROGRAM. EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION 270 270 PRESIDENT PROGRAM. FACILITY PROTECTION........... 12,000 12,000 PRESIDENT GREAT LAKES SEDIMENT TRANSPORT 900 900 PRESIDENT MODEL. HARBOR MAINTENANCE FEE DATA 725 725 PRESIDENT COLLECTION. INLAND WATERWAY NAVIGATION 3,708 3,708 PRESIDENT CHARTS. INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS. 1,780 1,780 PRESIDENT MONITORING OF COASTAL 1,575 1,575 PRESIDENT NAVIGATION PROJECTS. NATIONAL COASTAL MAPPING...... 4,000 10,000 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM... 10,000 10,000 PRESIDENT NATIONAL EMERGENCY 5,000 5,000 PRESIDENT PREPAREDNESS (NEPP). NATIONAL NATURAL RESOURCES 3,296 3,296 PRESIDENT MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES. NATIONAL PORTFOLIO ASSESSMENT 300 300 PRESIDENT FOR REALLOCATION. PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT TECHNICAL 300 300 PRESIDENT SUPPORT. PROTECTION OF NAVIGATION-- 500 500 PRESIDENT REMOVAL OF SUNKEN VESSELS. PROTECTION OF NAVIGATION-- 50 50 PRESIDENT STRAIGHTENING OF CHANNELS. RECREATIONONESTOP(R1S) 1,130 1,130 PRESIDENT NATIONAL RECREATION RESERVATION. REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT 1,391 4,391 PRESIDENT, INOUYE, CARDIN, DOLE, BURR, PROGRAM. WYDEN, SMITH, REED, WHITEHOUSE, SCHUMER RELIABILITY MODELS PROGRAM FOR 608 608 PRESIDENT MAJOR REHAB. WATER OPERATIONS TECHNICAL 653 653 PRESIDENT SUPPORT (WOTS). WATERBORNE COMMERCE STATISTICS 4,271 4,271 PRESIDENT ---------------------------------- SUBTOTAL FOR ITEMS NOT 91,757 100,757 LISTED UNDER STATES. REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS ............... -46,439 AND SLIPPAGE. ---------------------------------- TOTAL, OPERATION AND 2,175,189 2,291,971 MAINTENANCE. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, Alabama and Mississippi.--The Committee recommendation includes $26,848,000. Funds provided above the budget request are provided for the construction of mooring cells near Columbus, Mississippi for safety of tows tying up during high water levels. Helena Harbor, Arkansas.--The Committee includes $438,000 for maintenance dredging of this harbor. McClellan-Kerr, Arkansas River Navigation System, Arkansas and Oklahoma.--An additional $3,000,000 is provided above the budget request to begin Planning, Engineering and Design [PED] for the Arkansas/White Cutoff project and to complete repairs on the Jim Smith Lake Structure, south end. Crescent City, California.--The Committee has provided $500,000 for dredging. Los Angeles-Long Beach Harbor, California.--An additional $2,000,000 is provided for dredging the Los Angeles River Estuary. Cherry Creek, Chatfield, and Trinidad Lakes, Colorado.--The Committee has included an additional $2,000,000 for continued repairs at these three lakes. This action in no way is intended to alter the Corps of Engineers' lease and property accountability policies. It is the Committee's understanding that the State of Colorado has agreed to cost share this project on a 50-50 basis. It is also the understanding of the Committee that the Secretary is not to assume, nor share in the future of the operation and maintenance of these recreation facilities. Of the funds provided, the Corps is directed to conduct a reallocation study for Chatfield Reservoir project. Intracoastal Waterway, Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay, Delaware and Maryland.--The Committee recommendation includes $13,295,000 for this project. Additional funds provided above the budget request are for repairs to the Summit Bridge. Intracoastal Waterway, Caloosahatchee to Anclote, Florida.--The Committee provides $1,000,000 for maintenance dredging. Intracoastal Waterway, Jacksonville to Miami, Florida.--The Committee recommendation includes $4,000,000 for maintenance dredging. Miami River, Florida.--The Committee provides $7,500,000 for continued operations and maintenance of the Miami River Channel. This project will provides the first maintenance dredging of the Miami River since its original authorization in 1930. Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Georgia.--$1,000,000 is provided for dredging critical areas of this waterway as well as for work related to new upland disposal sites. Port Allen Breakwater Repair, Hawaii.--The Committee includes $1,700,000 for the breakwater repair. Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Illinois.--The Committee has provided $500,000 for maintenance of the Asian Carp Barriers. Mississippi River Between Missouri River and Minneapolis (MVR Portion), Illinois.--The Committee recommendation includes $49,970,000. Additional funds are provided for backlogged maintenance. Missouri River--Rulo to the Mouth, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, and Missouri.--Additional funds provided above the budget request are for dike repairs. Wolf Creek Dam, Lake Cumberland, Kentucky.--The Committee notes that Lake Cumberland has been drastically lowered for on- going seepage/stability correction repairs to Wolf Creek Dam. Additional funds provided above the budget request are for pool lowering mitigation features. Atchafalaya River and Bayous Chene, Boeuf and Black, Louisiana.--The Committee has provided an additional funds for maintenance dredging activities. Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana.--The Committee provides additional funding for maintenance dredging of this channel. J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Louisiana.--The Committee recommendation includes an additional $2,000,000 for bank stabilization repairs, dredging entrances to oxbow lakes, routine operation and maintenance activities, annual dredging requirements, and backlog maintenance. Herring Bay and Rockhold Creek, Maryland.--The Committee recommendation includes funds to dredge this project. Boston Harbor, Massachusetts.--The Committee has provided $7,000,000 for dredging in the Harbor. Michigan Harbors, Michigan.--The Committee notes that there are some 30 federally maintained harbors in Michigan. However, the Committee also notes that fewer than 10 are budgeted. The Committee has attempted to provide for some of the dredging needs of the State. However, recognizing that conditions on these harbors are constantly changing and that the Great Lakes are continuing to suffer from historic low water levels, the Committee is directing the Corps to propose a dredging program for fiscal year 2008 that would most effectively utilize the scarce funds available for these harbor projects. This plan should be presented within 30 days of enactment of this act as a reprogramming action for approval by the House and Senate Appropriation Committees. Grand Marais Harbor, Michigan.--The Committee provides $1,500,000 to continue construction of the replacement breakwater. Mouth of the Yazoo River, Mississippi.--The Committee includes additional funds for the maintenance dredging of the entrance to Vicksburg Harbor. Pascagoula Harbor, Mississippi.--The Committee has provided $12,000,000 for this project. Additional funds above the budget request are to perform maintenance dredging of the Bar Channel, the Pascagoula River and Bayou Casotte channels. Rosedale Harbor, Mississippi.--The Committee recommendation includes $600,000 for maintenance dredging of the harbor. Cocheco River, New Hampshire.--The Committee provides $3,000,000 continue dredging of the Cocheco River project. Rio Grande Bosque Rehabilitation, New Mexico.--The Committee includes $4,000,000 to continue fire reduction work and general Bosque rehabilitation in order to complete repairs and fire protection resulting from 2003 and 2004 fires in the urban interface. Upper Rio Grande Water Operations Model, New Mexico.--The Committee recommendation includes $500,000 to develop an outline for an integrated management plan of the Rio Grande in New Mexico in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation. Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, North Carolina.--The Committee includes an additional $2,100,000 for dredging of the project. Manteo (Shallowbag Bay), North Carolina.--The Committee includes additional funds for dredging of the project. Garrison Dam and Lake Sakakawea, North Dakota.--The Committee provides $200,000 for mosquito control, $950,000 for the Corps to work in cooperation with the Friends of Lake Sakakawea to ensure the recreation sites around the lake can be utilized. Columbia River at the Mouth, Oregon and Washington.--The Committee recommendation includes $14,820,000 for the project. Additional funds above the budget request are to initiate a design documentation report to serve as supporting information for plans and specifications for the major rehabilitation of the jetties and to repair a foredune at the North Jetty that breached during the winter storms of 2007. Cheyenne River Siuox Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux, South Dakota.--The Committee notes that title VI of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, as amended, requires that funding to inventory and stabilize cultural and historic sites along the Missouri River in South Dakota, and to carry out the terrestrial wildlife habitat programs, shall be provided from the Operation and Maintenance account. The Committee provides $3,000,000 to protect cultural resource sites and provide funding to the State and tribes for approved restoration and stewardship plans and in compliance with the requirements of title VI, directs the Corps to contract with or reimburse the State of South Dakota and affected tribes to carry out these duties. Oahe Dam, Lake Oahe, South Dakota and North Dakota.--The Committee has provided additional funds above the budget request to allow the Corps to modify public facilities so that they can be utilized with the extreme low water levels currently being experienced on the lake. Houston Ship Channel, Texas.--The Committee includes an additional $2,779,000 for additional dredging and dredging related activities. Texas Water Allocation Study, Texas.--The Committee provides $1,000,000 for this ongoing study. Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway-DSC, Virginia.--The Committee has provided additional operation and maintenance funds for the project. Chinook, Head of Sand Island and Baker Bay, Washington.-- The conferees note the proximity of Corps navigation facilities on the Columbia River between Chinook and the Head of Sand Island, Washington, and at Baker Bay, Washington, and encourage the Corps of Engineers to seek ways to achieve cost savings and efficiency, such as by utilizing appropriate contracting methods while having these two projects be considered together when seeking bids and awarding contracts. Mud Mountain Dam, Washington.--Within the funds provided, the Corps is directed to use up to $903,000 to satisfy Federal fish passage obligations for the term of the cooperative agreement with Puget Sound Energy. Fox River, Wisconsin.--Additional funds above the budget request are to reimburse Wisconsin, in accordance with the agreement, for the costs of repairs and rehabilitation of the transferred locks and for the Corps of Engineers to undertake major repairs for the dams and associated infrastructure. Chief's 12 Actions.--The Committee has provided the Administration's request for this item. The Committee believes that these funds can serve to make significant improvements to the way the Corps administers completed projects to account for changed conditions since construction. National Coastal Mapping.--$10,000,000 is provided for this program. Additional funds provided above the budget request are for LIDAR bathymetry for use in regional sediment management and for Coastal Zone Mapping and Imaging LIDAR/LASER to be conducted with the University of Southern Mississippi. Regional Sediment Management Demonstration Program.--The Committee has provided $4,391,000 for this program, $3,000,000 above the budget request. Within the funds provided, the Corps is directed to undertake studies for the southeast coast of Oahu, Hawaii; the State of North Carolina; South Jetty and Clatsop Spit, Oregon; South Coastal Rhode Island; and for Long Island, New York coastal planning. FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES Appropriations, 2007.................................................... Budget estimate, 2008................................... $40,000,000 Committee recommendation................................ 50,000,000 \1\Excludes emergency appropriation of $1,561,000,000. The Committee has included $50,000,000 for the FCCE account. This account provides funds for preparedness activities for natural and other disasters, response, and emergency flood fighting and rescue operations, hurricane response, and emergency shore protection work. It also provides for emergency supplies of clean water where the source has been contaminated or where adequate supplies of water are needed for consumption. The Committee has provided an additional $10,000,000 in this account to continue the National Flood Inventory rather than authorize the work to be carried out in the General Investigations Account as proposed by the administration. The National Flood Inventory was initiated in this account through supplemental funding following Hurricane Katrina. It is an interagency effort to improve management of the Nation's flood and storm damage reduction infrastructure. To date, work has consisted of data collection and development of an assessment methodology specific to levees and floodwalls. The COE has also worked with the Federal Emergency Management agency on issues such as risk communication and revisions to the Corps' Rehabilitation and Inspection program. The recommended funds will be used to continue development of the inventory of both Federal and non-Federal projects, to initiate testing of a risk assessment methodology for levees and floodwalls, to begin preliminary identification of ``high risk'' levees and other for other associated items. The Committee directs that outyear funding should be budgeted in this account unless specific authorization is enacted for this study in a Water Resource Development Act. REGULATORY PROGRAM Appropriations, 2007.................................... $159,273,000 Budget estimate, 2008................................... 180,000,000 Committee recommendation................................ 180,000,000 An appropriation of $180,000,000 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 is aware that the Corps of Engineers has begun a pilot program aimed at streamlining decisions for certain complex, high impact permit applications which have national or large regional implications. Specifically, we understand this program is focusing on projects related to rail capacity expansion, highway construction and pipelines where knowledge and experience gained in one district can be shared with other districts facing similar challenges, thus promoting efficiencies, the development and sharing of ``best practices,'' and use of virtual or dedicated teams to expedite broad-impact permit applications. Since the Committee continues to be concerned about the permit application backlog and delays in making permit decisions, it fully supports this effort and encourages the Corps to dedicate even more attention and expand its efforts to an even greater extent in developing and using this pilot program to minimize negative impacts of the backlog and resulting delays, especially where there are significant impacts to the nation's economy and environmental health. The Committee further supports the three emphasis areas selected for the pilot program as it believes them to be critical elements of a healthy, expanding economy which must be vigorously developed, but in an environmentally sound manner. The Committee is keenly aware that U.S. economic health and national security depends on the continued availability of reliable and affordable energy. The Committee is also aware that the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Regulatory Branch plays a key role by authorizing much of the 1.13 billion tons of coal production expected this year through its regulatory program. Therefore, the Committee directs the Corps to work with the Office of Surface Mining [OSM] to develop a more efficient process for issuing permits associated with surface coal mining operations. To avoid unnecessary time delays and duplication of agency resources, the Corps shall maintain the availability of a meaningful general permit for surface coal mining that may be issued in coordination with and for the term of the permit already required pursuant to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act [SMCRA]. The Corps should also dedicate sufficient personnel and financial resources to support a consistent program for permit review and issuance. FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM Appropriations, 2007.................................... $138,672,000 Budget estimate, 2008................................... 130,000,000 Committee recommendation................................ 140,000,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $140,000,000 to continue activities related to the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program [FUSRAP] in fiscal year 2005. The responsibility for the cleanup of contaminated sites under the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program was transferred to the Army Corps of Engineers in the fiscal year 1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, Public Law 105-62. FUSRAP is not specifically defined by statute. The program was established in 1974 under the broad authority of the Atomic Energy Act and, until fiscal year 1998, funds for the cleanup of contaminated defense sites had been appropriated to the Department of Energy through existing appropriation accounts. In appropriating FUSRAP funds to the Corps of Engineers, the Committee intended to transfer only the responsibility for administration and execution of cleanup activities at eligible sites where remediation had not been completed. It did not intend to transfer ownership of and accountability for real property interests that remain with the Department of Energy. The Corps of Engineers has extensive experience in the cleanup of hazardous, toxic, and radioactive wastes through its work for the Department of Defense and other Federal agencies. The Committee always intended for the Corps' expertise be used in the same manner for the cleanup of contaminated sites under FUSRAP. The Committee expects the Corps to continue programming and budgeting for FUSRAP as part of the Corps of Engineers-- Civil program. The Committee directs the Corps to prioritize sites that are nearing completion during fiscal year 2008. GENERAL EXPENSES Appropriations, 2007.................................... $167,250,000 Budget estimate, 2008................................... 177,000,000 Committee recommendation................................ 175,000,000 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 $175,000,000. The Committee rejects the proposal to include the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) within the GE account. The Committee continues to believe that the office should be funded in the Defense Appropriations Act due to the other Army related duties of the Assistant Secretary's office and directs that it be funded in the Department of Defense, Operation and Maintenance--Army budget account in future budgets. However, the Committee recognizes that this office will likely be funded in this bill this year. The Committee believes that if the Secretary's office is going to be funded in this bill, it should be funded in a separate account. The Committee's recommendation includes funding for this office under a separate account. Executive Direction and Management.--The Office of the Chief of Engineers and eight division offices supervise work in 38 district offices. Humphreys Engineer Center Support Activity.--This support center provides administrative services (such as personnel, logistics, information management, and finance and accounting) for the Office of the Chief of Engineers and other separate field operating activities. Institute for Water Resources.--This institute performs studies, analyses, and develops planning techniques for the management and development of the Nation's water resources. United States Army Corps of Engineers Finance Center.--This center provides centralized support for all Corps finance and accounting. Office of Congressional Affairs.--The Committee has included statutory language for the past several years prohibiting any funds from being used to fund an Office of Congressional Affairs within the executive office of the Chief of Engineers. The Committee believes that an Office of Congressional Affairs for the Civil Works Program would hamper the efficient and effective coordination of issues with the Committee staff and Members of Congress. The Committee believes that the technical knowledge and managerial expertise needed for the Corps headquarters to effectively address Civil Works authorization, appropriation, and Headquarters policy matters resides in the Civil Works organization. Therefore, the Committee strongly recommends that the Office of Congressional Affairs not be a part of the process by which information on Civil Works projects, programs, and activities is provided to Congress. The Committee reminds the Corps that the General Expenses account is to be used exclusively for executive oversight and management of the Civil Works Program. In 1998, The Chief of Engineers issued a Command Directive transferring the oversight and management of the General Expenses account, as well as the manpower associated with this function, from the Civil Works Directorate to the Resource Management Office. 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. The Committee is pleased with the efforts of the Corps to restructure the management of general expense funds. It continues to believe that the general expense dollars are ultimately at the discretion of the Chief of Engineers and are intended to be utilized in his effort to carry out the Corps' civil works mission. The new controls put in place to manage the general expense dollars and evaluate the needs of the Corps address the Committee's previous concerns. The Committee requests the Corps continue to provide biannual written notification of the dispersal of general expense funds. Millions of dollars have been spent over the last several years on an initiative to contract out Government jobs in order to make the Government more efficient. However, in more than 70 percent of the cases Government employees win the competition for their jobs. The Committee fails to see any evidence of cost savings or increased efficiency by undergoing these expensive competitions. Therefore, the Committee directs that no funds provided in this account or otherwise available for expenditure shall be used to comply with the competitive sourcing initiative. The Committee acknowledges that the General Expense account has not kept pace with inflation. Over the last 6 years this account has fluctuated. The low point was in fiscal year 2000, when the account was funded at $149,500,000 for a $4,100,000,000 program. The high point was in fiscal year 2005, when the account was funded at $167,000,000 for a $4,700,000,000 program. Both of these numbers represent about 3.6 percent of the total dollars appropriated. The Committee recommendation for the fiscal year 2007 program is about $5,450,000,000. Using the same percentage, this translates to more than $196,000,000 for the GE account for fiscal year 2007. Obviously other variables must be considered than a single percentage, but it is one way to approximate the level of funding needed in the GE account to provide similar levels of service. While the Committee recommendation did not provide $192,000,000 for the GE account, it did increase the account by $3,000,000 to $175,000,000. These additional funds are provided in recognition of the heavier workload of the Corps Headquarters offices resulting from recent budget increases unrelated to hurricane Katrina. The costs for overseeing the New Orleans area are temporary and are being addressed in current budgets. The additional funds are provided for the recent budget increases to the Corps' program and that the recognition by this Committee that effective oversight of the Corps' program was being endangered by the lean budgets of the last few years. The Committee believes that these additional funds should be used to hire an additional 15-20 positions and that these additional positions should continue to be budgeted for in future budget submissions. OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS) Appropriations, 2007.................................................... Budget estimate, 2008................................................... Committee recommendation................................ $4,500,000 The Committee has recommended $4,500,000 for the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (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. The Committee continues to believe that the ASA(CW) has neither the time nor should he be involved in the day-to-day operational matters of the civil works program. It is the Committee's opinion that the traditional role of the ASA(CW) is to provide the Chief of Engineers advice about policy matters and generally be the political spokesperson for the administration's policies; however, the Chief of Engineers is responsible for carrying out the program. 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 decisions of fiscal year 2005 through 2007 to fund the expenses of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Works through Energy and Water appropriations were an experiment in striving for management improvements in the Civil Works program. The desired management improvements can be and are being achieved but, based on the experience of these 3 years, it is apparent that funding the Assistant Secretary's office out of Energy and Water appropriations, rather than the military appropriation that funds the rest of the Army Secretariat, is neither necessary to achieve these improvements nor is it an efficient way to fund the office. The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works advises the Secretary of the Army on a variety of matters, including the Civil Works program of the Corps of Engineers. The Assistant Secretary is a member of the Army Secretariat with responsibilities, such as participating in Continuity of Government exercises that extend well beyond Civil Works. The Assistant Secretary also oversees the administration, operation and maintenance, and capital development of Arlington National Cemetery and the Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemetery. Congressional oversight of the Army Cemetery program lies not with the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, but rather with the Appropriation Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and with the Committee on Veterans Affairs. The Assistant Secretary has broad responsibilities to oversee the Support for Others program of the Corps of Engineers, totaling nearly $2,400,000,000 in fiscal year 2005. Through this program, the Corps provides reimbursable engineering and construction services for more than 70 other Federal agencies and, under certain conditions specified in law, provides services for States, localities and tribes. The Assistant Secretary also has oversight over Corps international activities that are not directly in support of U.S. military forces overseas. These include more than $500,000,000 in design and construction for the Defense Department's Foreign Military Sales program and more than $150,000,000 in vertical construction for the Department of State's Cooperative Threat Reduction program. Oversight of domestic activities includes support for the Department of Homeland Security (in both national security activities and emergency response under the Stafford Act in support of the Federal Emergency Management Agency), the Environmental Protection Agency's Superfund program, the Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and many other agencies. The Army's accounting system does not track OMA funding of overhead or Army-wide support offices on the basis of which office receives support, nor would it be efficient or effective to do so for a 20 person office. Instead, expenses such as legal support, personnel services, finance and accounting services, the executive motor pool, travel on military aircraft, and other support services are centrally funded and managed on a department-wide basis. Transferring the funding for the expenses of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Works to a separate account has greatly complicated the Army's accounting for such indirect and overhead expenses with no commensurate benefit to justify the change. 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 prohibiting implementation of competitive sourcing or HPO. Section 103. The bill includes language prohibiting the divesting or transferring Civil Works functions. Section 104. The bill includes language prohibiting any steps to dismantle the St. Georges Bridge in Delaware. (Biden, Carper) Section 105. The bill includes language concerning report notifications. Section 106. The bill includes language concerning reallocations in Lake Cumberland, Kentucky. (McConnell) Section 107. The bill includes language regarding the Lower Mud River, Milton, West Virginia, project. (Byrd) Section 108. The bill includes language allowing the use of the revolving fund for construction of two buildings at the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Design Center. (Cochran) Section 109. The bill includes language concerning cooperative agreements. (Domenici) Section 110. The bill includes language concerning in-kind services for the Rio Grande Basin Watershed study. The provision allows for local sponsors of this project to be reimbursed for overpayment of the non-Federal share of the costs of the study. (Domenici) Section 111. The bill includes language regarding the Middle Rio Grande Collaborative Program, New Mexico. (Domenici) Section 112. The bill includes language regarding Apalachiacola, Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers and Alabama, Coosa and Tallapoosa Rivers, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida. (Shelby) Section 113. The bill includes language regarding the Rio De Flag, Arizona, project. The provision increases the cost ceiling on this ongoing project to allow progress on te project to continue uninterrupted. (Kyl) Section 114. The bill includes language regarding Avian Predation in the Columbia River Fish Mitigation project. The provision increases the authorization of funding to allow continued work on aviation predation. (Murray) Section 115. The bill includes language regarding the Santa Ana, California, project. The provision increases the cost ceiling for the project in order to allow incorporation of the replacement of an aging wastewater line to be incorporated as a project feature. The line is endangered by bank erosion caused by other features of the Santa Ana project. (Feinstein) Section 116. The bill includes language regarding the Upper Guadalupe, California, project. The provision increases the cost ceiling on this ongoing project to allow progress on te project to continue uninterrupted. (Feinstein) Section 117. The bill includes language concerning the conveyance of surplus property in Tate County, Mississippi. (Cochran) Section 118. The bill includes a modification to section 594 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The modification provides authority for North Dakota to be eligible for this assistance. (Dorgan) Section 119. The bill includes language regarding the Kahuku Storm Damage Reduction Project, Hawaii. This provision allows the Corps to initiate PED and to include interior drainage improvements as part of the project. (Inouye) Section 120. The bill includes language regarding the Federal dredge fleet. Section 121. The bill includes language regarding the Federal dredge fleet. Section 122. The bill includes language regarding the Federal dredge fleet. Section 123. The bill includes language concerning Missouri River mitigation. The provision authorizes provision of facilities at Intake Dam for endangered species recovery. (President, Baucus, Tester) Section 124. The bill includes language limiting Corps of Engineers expenditure on a project. Section 125. The bill includes language repealing a sections of Public Law 109-103 pertaining to continuing contracts. Section 126. The bill includes language concerning the Shore Line Erosion Control Development and Demonstration Program. This provision extends the authorization and will allow the Corps to expend funds that have been previously appropriated to complete on going projects and continue monitoring of completed projects. Section 127. The bill includes language regarding congressional budget justifications. Section 128. The bill includes language regarding a replacement health care facility at Lake Sakakawea, North Dakota. (Dorgan) Section 129. The bill includes language regarding reimbursements. This provision increases the limits allowed on certain reimbursements for work undertaken by local interests. Section 130. The bill includes language regarding Johnson Creek, Texas. This amends the previous authorization for the flood control project. (Hutchison) Section 131. The bill includes language regarding McAlpine Lock and Dam. The provision increases the cost ceiling on this ongoing project to allow progress on te project to continue uninterrupted. (President, McConnell) Section 132. The bill includes a provision concerning reimbursement for expenses incurred by locals carrying out portions of authorized Federal flood and storm damage reduction projects. (Landrieu, Vitter) Section 133. The bill includes language regarding crediting of non-Federal expenditures on the San Lorenzo River, California project. (Feinstein) Section 134. The bill includes a provision regarding the Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers Enhancement Project. (Bond) Section 135. The bill includes a provision concerning Nogales Wash, Arizona. The provision increases the cost ceiling on this ongoing project to allow progress on the project to continue uninterrupted. (Kyl) Section 136. The bill includes a provision concerning Tucson Drainage Area, Arizona. The provision increases the cost ceiling on this ongoing project to allow progress on the project to continue uninterrupted. (Kyl) Section 137. The bill includes a provision on the Coronado, California project. The provision allows the local project sponsor credit for work undertaken prior to a project cooperation agreement. (Feinstein) Section 138. The bill includes a provision concerning the Rural Utah [EI], Utah project. The provision increases the cost ceiling on this ongoing project to allow progress on the project to continue uninterrupted. (Bennett) Section 139. Te bill includes a provision for the Navajo Reservation, Arizona, Utah and New Mexico project. This provision modifies the project by allowing the non-Federal share to be in the form of in-kind services. (Domenici) Section 140. The bill contains a provision concerning the Connecticut River Watershed Study, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Vermont. The provision allows The Nature Conservancy to serve as the non-Federal sponsor of the study. (Lieberman, Gregg) Section 141. The bill contains a provision concerning the Asian carp barriers on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Illinois. (President, Durbin, Obama, Levin. Stabenow) Section 142. The bill contains a funding limitation on a project. Section 143. The bill contains a provision concerning the visitor reservation services for Corps of Engineers recreation sites. Section 144. The bill includes a provision concerning Marshall, Minnesota project. The provision increases the cost ceiling on this completed ongoing project allowing the Corps to do the final fiscal closeouts of the project. (Coleman, Klobuchar) Section 145. The bill includes a provision concerning the St. John's-New Madrid Floodway, Missouri. The provision makes the St. John's-New Madrid project a part of the Mississippi River Levees project. (Bond) Section 146. The bill contains a provision concerning the Southeast Louisiana, Louisiana project. The provision recognizes the Southeast Louisiana project as an integral part of the project to provide 100-year level of protection to certain areas of the New Orleans metropolitan area. (Landrieu) Section 147. The bill contains a provision allowing funds provided in Public Law 110-28 to be utilized for the purposes for which they were appropriated. TITLE II DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Central Utah Project Completion Account Appropriations, 2007.................................... $34,020,000 Budget estimate, 2008................................... 43,000,000 Committee recommendation................................ 43,000,000 The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2008 to carry out the provisions of the Central Utah Project Completion Act totals $43,000,000. An appropriation of $40,404,000 has been provided for Central Utah project construction; $976,000 for fish, wildlife, and recreation, mitigation and conservation. The Committee recommendation provides $1,620,000 for program administration and oversight. Legislative language in the bill that accompanies this report allows up to $1,500,000 to be used for administrative costs. The one time increase in administrative expenses is to provide funding for costs associated with securing new office space and relocating the Commission's office in fiscal year 2007. The Central Utah Project Completion Act (titles II-VI of Public Law 102-575) provides for the completion of the central Utah project by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District. The Act also authorizes the appropriation of funds for fish, wildlife, recreation, mitigation, and conservation; establishes an account in the Treasury for the deposit of these funds and of other contributions for mitigation and conservation activities; and establishes a Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission to administer funds in that account. The act further assigns responsibilities for carrying out the act to the Secretary of the Interior and prohibits delegation of those responsibilities to the Bureau of Reclamation. Bureau of Reclamation WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES Appropriations, 2007.................................... $878,623,000 Budget estimate, 2008................................... 816,197,000 Committee recommendation................................ 950,106,000 \1\Includes Emergency Supplemental Appropriations of $18,000,000. An appropriation of $950,106,000 is recommended by the Committee for general investigations of the Bureau of Reclamation. The water and related resources account supports the development, management, and restoration of water and related natural resources in the 17 Western States. The account includes funds for operating and maintaining existing facilities to obtain the greatest overall level of benefits, to protect public safety, and to conduct studies on ways to improve the use of water and related natural resources. Work will be done in partnership and cooperation with non-Federal entities and other Federal agencies. The Committee has divided underfinancing between the Resources Management Subaccount and the Facilities Operation and Maintenance subaccount. The Committee directs that the underfinancing amount in each subaccount initially be applied uniformly across all projects within the subaccounts. Upon applying the underfinanced amounts, normal reprogramming procedures should be undertaken to account for schedule slippages, accelerations or other unforeseen conditions. It has been nearly 10 years since the Committee addressed reprogramming guidance for Reclamation. The Committee believes that Reclamation is managing funds in the appropriate manner, but thinks that it would be prudent to reiterate the guidelines. The guidelines are as follows: The Bureau is permitted to transfer, without prior congressional approval and without regard to percentage limitation, not more than $5,000,000 in any one case to provide adequate funds for settled contractor claims, increased contractor earnings due to accelerated rates of operations, and real estate deficiency judgments, provided that such reprogramming is necessary to discharge legal obligations of the Bureau of Reclamation. As to each project within the Resources Management and Development category for which $2,000,000 or more is available at the beginning of the fiscal year, the Bureau is permitted to transfer to such project in that fiscal year no more than 15 percent of the amount available at the beginning of the fiscal year for such project, without prior congressional approval. As to each project within the Resources Management and Development category for which less than $2,000,000 is available at the beginning of the fiscal year, the Bureau is permitted to transfer to such project no more than $300,000 in that fiscal year without prior congressional approval. The Bureau is further permitted to transfer funds within the Facility Operation, Maintenance and Rehabilitation category without prior congressional approval and without regard to percentage or dollar limitation. The Bureau may not transfer, without prior congressional approval, more than $500,000 from either the Facilities Operation, Maintenance and Rehabilitation category or the Resources Management and Development category to any project in the other category. The Bureau is prohibited from initiating any program, project or activity through an internal reprogramming action. DISCLOSURE PROVISIONS The Committee received more than 130 requests for projects, programs, studies or activities for the Bureau of Reclamation for fiscal year 2008. These were items that were in addition to the budget request as well as those included in the budget request. The Committee obviously was unable to accommodate all of these requests. In the interest of providing full disclosure of funding provided in the Energy and Water bill, all disclosures are made in this report accompanying the bill. All of the projects funded in this report have gone through the same rigorous public review and approval process as those proposed for funding by the President. The difference in these projects, of course, is that the congressionally directed projects are not subject to the artificial budgetary prioritization criteria that the administration utilizes to decide what not to fund. A new column has been added to the tables to show the requestors of the various projects. For those programs, projects, or studies that were included in the budgetary documents provided in the budget request, the word President has been added to denote this administration request. The level of funding provided for each of these programs projects or studies should not be construed as what was requested. Rather, the only intent is to disclose the requestor. It should be noted that many line items only have President listed as the requestor. It should not be inferred that the affected members are not interested in these projects studies or activities. Rather this is due to Committee direction that the President's budget requests are assumed to be requested by the affected Members unless they notify the Committee to the contrary. The purposes for the funding provided in the various accounts is described in the paragraphs associated with each account. The location of the programs, projects or studies are denoted in the account tables. The amounts recommended by the Committee are shown on the following table along with the budget request. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION--WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES [In thousands of dollars] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Budget estimate Committee ------------------------ recommendation Project title ------------------------ Requested by Resources Facilities Resources Facilities management OM&R management OM&R -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ARIZONA AK CHIN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT PROJECT.... .......... 8,700 .......... 8,700 PRESIDENT CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT, COLORADO RIVER BASIN.. 26,961 218 27,811 218 PRESIDENT, KYL, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN COLORADO RIVER FRONT WORK AND LEVEE SYSTEM..... 3,312 .......... 3,312 .......... PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN NORTHERN ARIZONA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM........ 385 .......... 385 .......... PRESIDENT PHOENIX METROPOLITAN WATER REUSE PROJECT....... 200 .......... 200 .......... PRESIDENT SALT RIVER PROJECT............................. 360 240 360 240 PRESIDENT SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE WATER SETTLEMENT ACT... 310 .......... 310 .......... PRESIDENT SOUTH/CENTRAL ARIZONA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM... 915 .......... 915 .......... PRESIDENT SOUTHERN ARIZONA WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT 4,445 .......... 4,445 .......... PRESIDENT PROJECT. YUMA AREA PROJECTS............................. 1,652 21,257 1,652 21,257 PRESIDENT YUMA EAST WETLANDS............................. .......... .......... 1,500 .......... KYL CALIFORNIA CACHUMA PROJECT................................ 1,071 640 1,821 640 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.............. 460 .......... 460 .......... PRESIDENT CALLEGUAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT RECYCLING 900 .......... 900 .......... PRESIDENT PLANT. CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECTS: AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION.................... 1,903 7,725 1,903 7,725 PRESIDENT AUBURN-FOLSOM SOUTH UNIT................... 4,723 100 4,723 100 PRESIDENT DELTA DIVISION............................. 11,818 5,830 11,818 5,830 PRESIDENT EAST SIDE DIVISION......................... 1,551 2,903 1,551 2,903 PRESIDENT FRIANT DIVISION............................ 2,261 3,686 3,761 4,261 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN MISCELLANEOUS PROJECT PROGRAMS............. 12,697 1,083 14,697 1,083 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN REPLACEMENTS, ADDITIONS, AND EXTRAORDINARY .......... 19,410 .......... 19,410 PRESIDENT MAINT. SACRAMENTO RIVER DIVISION.................. 6,522 1,506 6,522 1,506 PRESIDENT SAN FELIPE DIVISION........................ 891 29 891 29 PRESIDENT SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION....................... 327 .......... 327 .......... PRESIDENT SHASTA DIVISION............................ 584 7,957 584 7,957 PRESIDENT TRINITY RIVER DIVISION..................... 7,329 3,133 9,329 3,133 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN WATER AND POWER OPERATIONS................. 1,407 8,874 1,407 8,874 PRESIDENT WEST SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION, SAN LUIS UNIT... 3,460 6,504 3,460 6,504 PRESIDENT YIELD FEASIBILITY INVESTIGATION............ 562 .......... 562 .......... PRESIDENT IRVINE BASIN GROUND AND SURFACE WATER .......... .......... 1,000 .......... FEINSTEIN IMPROVEMENT. LAKE TAHOE REGIONAL WETLANDS................... .......... .......... 2,300 .......... REID LONG BEACH AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE 600 .......... 600 .......... PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN PROJECT. LONG BEACH DESALINATION RESEARCH AND 250 .......... 250 .......... PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN DEVELOPMENT PROJ. NORTH SAN DIEGO COUNTY AREA WATER RECYCLING 1,500 .......... 1,500 .......... PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN PROJECT. ORANGE COUNTY REGIONAL WATER RECLAMATION 1,500 .......... 1,500 .......... PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN PROJECT, PHAS. ORLAND PROJECT................................. 15 702 15 702 PRESIDENT SALTON SEA RESEARCH PROJECT.................... 300 .......... 300 .......... PRESIDENT SAN DIEGO AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE 3,450 .......... 3,450 .......... PRESIDENT PROGRAM. SAN GABRIEL BASIN PROJECT...................... 700 .......... 700 .......... PRESIDENT SAN JOSE AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE 200 .......... 200 .......... PRESIDENT PROGRAM. SOLANO PROJECT................................. 1,452 2,533 1,452 2,533 PRESIDENT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM..... 190 .......... 237 .......... PRESIDENT VENTURA RIVER PROJECT.......................... 402 56 402 56 PRESIDENT COLORADO ANIMAS-LA PLATA PROJECT, CRSP.................. 57,750 250 63,000 250 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, ALLARD, SALAZAR, BINGAMAN COLLBRAN PROJECT............................... 172 1,321 172 1,321 PRESIDENT COLORADO-BIG THOMPSON PROJECT.................. 370 11,319 370 11,319 PRESIDENT COLORADO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM................ 304 .......... 304 .......... PRESIDENT FRUITGROWERS DAM PROJECT....................... 57 151 57 151 PRESIDENT FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT..................... 172 8,897 172 8,897 PRESIDENT GRAND VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II............ 144 1,014 144 1,014 PRESIDENT LEADVILLE/ARKANSAS RIVER RECOVERY.............. 36 1,994 36 1,994 PRESIDENT MANCOS PROJECT................................. 51 101 51 101 PRESIDENT PARADOX VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II.......... 62 2,501 62 2,501 PRESIDENT PINE RIVER PROJECT............................. 124 145 124 145 PRESIDENT SAN LUIS VALLEY PROJECT........................ 272 4,715 272 4,715 PRESIDENT UNCOMPAHGRE PROJECT............................ 108 132 108 132 PRESIDENT UPPER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS................ 200 .......... 200 .......... PRESIDENT HAWAII HAWAII RECLAIMATION PROJECTS--LAHAINA.......... .......... .......... 1,000 .......... INOUYE IDAHO BOISE AREA PROJECTS............................ 2,420 2,743 2,420 2,743 PRESIDENT COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVER SALMON RECOVERY 15,000 .......... 15,000 .......... PRESIDENT PROJECT. IDAHO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM................... 331 .......... 331 .......... PRESIDENT LEWISTON ORCHARDS PROJECTS..................... 576 27 576 27 PRESIDENT MINIDOKA AREA PROJECTS......................... 3,029 2,720 3,029 2,720 PRESIDENT KANSAS KANSAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.................. 72 .......... 72 .......... PRESIDENT WICHITA-CHENEY PROJECT......................... 8 419 8 419 PRESIDENT WICHTITA PROJECT--EQUUS BEDS DIVISION.......... .......... .......... 1,000 .......... ROBERTS MONTANA FORT PECK RESERVATION/DRY PRAIRIE RURAL WATER .......... .......... 10,000 .......... BAUCUS, TESTER SYSTEM. HUNGRY HORSE PROJECT........................... .......... 913 .......... 913 PRESIDENT HUNTLEY PROJECT................................ 56 105 56 105 PRESIDENT LOWER YELLOWSTONE PROJECT...................... 235 65 235 65 PRESIDENT MILK RIVER PROJECT............................. 471 1,255 471 1,255 PRESIDENT MONTANA INVESTIGATIONS......................... 23 .......... 23 .......... PRESIDENT ROCKY BOYS/NORTH CENTRAL MONTANA RURAL WATER .......... .......... 6,000 .......... BAUCUS, TESTER SYSTEM. SUN RIVER PROJECT.............................. 108 262 108 262 PRESIDENT NEBRASKA MIRAGE FLATS PROJECT........................... 29 111 29 111 PRESIDENT NEBRASKA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM................ 8 .......... 8 .......... PRESIDENT NEVADA HALFWAY WASH PROJECT STUDY..................... 175 .......... 175 .......... PRESIDENT LAHONTAN BASIN PROJECT......................... 4,875 3,704 4,875 3,704 PRESIDENT LAKE MEAD/LAS VEGAS WASH PROGRAM............... 900 .......... 2,750 .......... PRESIDENT, REID, ENSIGN NORTH LAS VEGAS WATER REUSE.................... .......... .......... 3,000 .......... REID NEW MEXICO ALBUQUERQUE METRO AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND .......... .......... 1,500 .......... DOMENICI, BINGAMAN REUSE. CARLSBAD PROJECT............................... 2,231 660 3,181 660 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN CHIMAYO WATER PLAN............................. .......... .......... 1,000 .......... DOMENICI, BINGAMAN EASTERN NEW MEXICO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAMS..... 38 .......... 38 .......... PRESIDENT, DOMENICI EASTERN NEW MEXICO WATER REUSE................. .......... .......... 500 .......... DOMENICI, BINGAMAN EASTERN NEW MEXICO RURAL WATER SUPPLY.......... .......... .......... 500 .......... DOMENICI, BINGAMAN MIDDLE RIO GRANDE PROJECT...................... 12,005 11,195 20,655 18,895 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN NAVAJO-GALLUP WATER SUPPLY, NM, UT, CO......... .......... .......... 500 .......... DOMENICI, BINGAMAN NAVAJO NATION INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM........... 84 .......... 84 .......... PRESIDENT, DOMENICI PECOS RIVER BASIN WATER SALVAGE PROJECT........ .......... 197 .......... 197 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI RIO GRANDE PROJECT............................. 833 3,683 833 3,683 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI SAN JUAN RIVER BASIN INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.... 133 .......... 133 .......... PRESIDENT, DOMENICI SANTA FE BUCKMAN DIVERSION, NM................. .......... .......... 500 .......... DOMENICI, BINGAMAN SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO/WEST TEXAS INVESTIGATIONS 140 .......... 140 .......... PRESIDENT, DOMENICI PROGRAM. TUCUMCARI PROJECT.............................. 23 10 23 10 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI UPPER RIO GRANDE BASIN INVESTIGATIONS.......... 76 .......... 76 .......... PRESIDENT, DOMENICI NORTH DAKOTA DAKOTAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM................. 204 .......... 204 .......... PRESIDENT PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN--GARRISON DIVERSION 15,495 4,725 64,275 4,725 PRESIDENT, DORGAN UNIT. OKLAHOMA ARBUCKLE PROJECT............................... 51 137 51 137 PRESIDENT MCGEE CREEK PROJECT............................ 42 568 42 568 PRESIDENT MOUNTAIN PARK PROJECT.......................... 15 400 15 400 PRESIDENT NORMAN PROJECT................................. 16 387 16 387 PRESIDENT WASHITA BASIN PROJECT.......................... 26 1,467 26 1,467 PRESIDENT W.C. AUSTIN PROJECT............................ 18 357 18 357 PRESIDENT OREGON BURNT, MALHEUR, OWYHEE, AND POWER RIVER BASIN .......... .......... 300 .......... WYDEN, SMITH WATER OPTIMAZATION FEASIBILITY STUDY. CROOKED RIVER PROJECT.......................... 426 548 426 548 PRESIDENT DESCHUTES PROJECT.............................. 264 172 264 172 PRESIDENT EASTERN OREGON PROJECTS........................ 521 289 521 289 PRESIDENT KLAMATH PROJECT................................ 23,605 1,395 23,605 1,395 PRESIDENT OREGON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.................. 232 .......... 732 .......... PRESIDENT, WYDEN, SMITH ROGUE RIVER BASIN PROJECT, TALENT DIVISION..... 851 490 851 490 PRESIDENT SAVAGE RAPIDS DAM REMOVAL...................... 15,000 .......... 15,000 .......... PRESIDENT TUALATIN BASIN WATER SUPPLY PROJECT............ .......... .......... 250 .......... WYDEN, SMITH TUALATIN PROJECT............................... 125 243 125 243 PRESIDENT TUALATIN PROJECT TITLE TRANSFER AND FACILITY .......... .......... 400 .......... WYDEN, SMITH ASSESMENT STUDY. UMATILLA PROJECT............................... 957 2,689 957 2,689 PRESIDENT SOUTH DAKOTA LEWIS AND CLARK RURAL WATER SYSTEM............. 15,000 .......... 28,000 .......... PRESIDENT, JOHNSON, HARKIN, GRASSLEY, COLEMAN KLOBUCHAR, THUNE MID-DAKOTA RURAL WATER PROJECT................. .......... 15 .......... 15 PRESIDENT MNI WICONI PROJECT............................. 19,474 9,526 30,909 9,526 PRESIDENT, JOHNSON, THUNE PERKINS COUNTY RURAL WATER SYSTEM, SD.......... .......... .......... 1,500 .......... JOHNSON, THUNE RAPID VALLEY PROJECT, DEERFIELD DAM............ .......... 74 .......... 74 PRESIDENT TEXAS BALMORHEA PROJECT.............................. 41 17 41 17 PRESIDENT CANADIAN RIVER PROJECT......................... 72 72 72 72 PRESIDENT DALLAS-TRINITY WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE .......... .......... 500 .......... HUTCHISON STUDY. LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY WATER RESOURCES........ 50 .......... 3,500 .......... PRESIDENT, HUTCHISON NUECES RIVER PROJECT........................... 29 718 29 718 PRESIDENT SAN ANGELO PROJECT............................. 10 331 10 331 PRESIDENT TEXAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM................... 114 .......... 114 .......... PRESIDENT UTAH HYRUM PROJECT.................................. 120 33 120 33 PRESIDENT MOON LAKE PROJECT.............................. 3 29 3 29 PRESIDENT NEWTON PROJECT................................. 54 25 54 25 PRESIDENT NORTHERN UTAH INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM........... 76 .......... 576 .......... PRESIDENT, BENNETT OGDEN RIVER PROJECT............................ 160 92 160 92 PRESIDENT PARK CITY FEASIBILLTY STUDY.................... .......... .......... 500 .......... BENNETT PROVO RIVER PROJECT............................ 553 314 553 314 PRESIDENT SCOFIELD PROJECT............................... 56 37 56 37 PRESIDENT SOUTHERN UTAH INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM........... 114 .......... 114 .......... PRESIDENT STRAWBERRY VALLEY PROJECT...................... 204 16 204 16 PRESIDENT WEBER BASIN PROJECT............................ 1,546 421 1,546 421 PRESIDENT WEBER RIVER PROJECT............................ 48 69 48 69 PRESIDENT WASHINGTON COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT......................... 3,658 8,299 5,658 8,299 PRESIDENT, MURRAY, CANTWELL MAKAH INDIAN COMMUNITY WATER SUPPLY............ .......... .......... 300 .......... MURRAY ODESSA SUBAREA SPECIAL STUDY................... 185 .......... 1,185 .......... PRESIDENT, MURRAY, CANTWELL STORAGE DAM FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY..... 400 .......... 400 .......... PRESIDENT WASHINGTON AREA PROJECTS....................... 82 10 82 10 PRESIDENT WASHINGTON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.............. 138 .......... 138 .......... PRESIDENT YAKIMA PROJECT................................. 1,155 6,789 1,155 6,789 PRESIDENT YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER ENHANCEMENT PROJECT... 8,470 .......... 8,470 .......... PRESIDENT YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER STORAGE PROJECT....... .......... .......... 1,000 .......... MURRAY, CANTWELL WYOMING KENDRICK PROJECT............................... 108 3,839 108 3,839 PRESIDENT NORTH PLATTE PROJECT........................... 323 1,816 323 1,816 PRESIDENT SHOSHONE PROJECT............................... 76 960 76 960 PRESIDENT ------------------------------------------------ SUBTOTAL FOR PROJECTS.................... 321,433 211,064 459,948 218,764 REGIONAL PROGRAMS COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL, TITLE I. .......... 9,441 .......... 9,441 PRESIDENT, KYL COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL, TITLE II 7,850 .......... 8,350 .......... PRESIDENT, BENNETT COLORADO RIVER STORAGE, SECTION 5.............. 2,110 3,884 2,110 3,884 PRESIDENT COLORADO RIVER STORAGE, SECTION 8.............. 4,690 .......... 4,690 .......... PRESIDENT COLORADO RIVER WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT 440 .......... 440 .......... PRESIDENT PROGRAM. DAM SAFETY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT DAM SAFETY PROGRAM.............. .......... 1,400 .......... 1,400 PRESIDENT INITIATE SOD CORRECTIVE ACTION............. .......... 57,100 .......... 57,100 PRESIDENT SAFETY OF EVALUATION OF EXISTING DAMS...... .......... 18,500 .......... 18,500 PRESIDENT DROUGHT EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM........... 436 .......... 436 .......... PRESIDENT, INOUYE EMERGENCY PLANNING & DISASTER RESPONSE PROGRAM. .......... 1,442 .......... 1,442 PRESIDENT ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION..... 16,614 .......... 16,614 .......... PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BENNETT, SALAZAR, BINGAMAN, HATCH ENVIRONMENTAL & INTERAGENCY COORDINATION 1,637 .......... 1,637 .......... PRESIDENT ACTIVITIES. ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION........... 855 .......... 855 .......... PRESIDENT EXAMINATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES............. .......... 6,440 .......... 6,440 PRESIDENT FEDERAL BUILDING SEISMIC SAFETY PROGRAM........ .......... 1,496 .......... 1,496 PRESIDENT GENERAL PLANNING STUDIES....................... 2,006 .......... 2,006 .......... PRESIDENT LAND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.............. 7,584 .......... 7,584 .......... PRESIDENT LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM......................... 1,000 .......... 1,000 .......... PRESIDENT LOWER COLORADO RIVER INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.... 236 .......... 236 .......... PRESIDENT LOWER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM........ 15,418 .......... 15,418 .......... PRESIDENT MISCELLANEOUS FLOOD CONTROL OPERATIONS......... .......... 675 .......... 675 PRESIDENT NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS PROGRAM................ 6,179 .......... 6,179 .......... PRESIDENT NEGOTIATION & ADMINISTRATION OF WATER MARKETING 1,597 .......... 1,597 .......... PRESIDENT OPERATIONS AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.............. 828 458 828 458 PRESIDENT PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN...................... 4,130 36,836 4,130 36,836 PRESIDENT POWER PROGRAM SERVICES......................... 786 240 786 240 PRESIDENT PUBLIC ACCESS AND SAFETY PROGRAM............... 1,088 155 1,088 155 PRESIDENT RECLAMATION LAW ADMINISTRATION................. 2,073 .......... 2,073 .......... PRESIDENT RECLAMATION RECREATION MANAGEMENT (TITLE XXVII) .......... .......... 1,000 .......... DOMENICI RECREATION & FISH & WILDLIFE PROGRAM 1,076 .......... 1,076 .......... PRESIDENT ADMINISTRATION. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT DESALINATION AND WATER 2,275 2,100 5,400 2,100 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN PURIFICATION PROGRAM. SALT CEDAR AND RUSSIAN OLIVE CONTROL PROGRAM... .......... .......... 600 .......... DOMENICI, BEN NELSON, BINGAMAN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM................. 9,003 .......... 9,003 .......... PRESIDENT SITE SECURITY.................................. .......... 35,500 .......... 35,500 PRESIDENT TITLE XVI WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROGRAM.. 800 .......... 3,800 .......... PRESIDENT, DOMENICI UNITED STATES/MEXICO BORDER ISSUES--TECHNICAL 90 .......... 90 .......... PRESIDENT SUPPORT. WATER CONSERVATION FIELD SERVICES PROGRAM...... 6,232 .......... 7,000 .......... PRESIDENT WATER 2025..................................... 11,000 .......... 14,000 .......... PRESIDENT, REID, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN UNDER FINANCING................................ .......... .......... -22,158 -3,688 PRESIDENT ------------------------------------------------ SUBTOTAL, WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES.... 429,466 386,731 559,363 390,743 ------------------------------------------------ TOTAL, WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES...... 816,197 .......... 950,106 .......... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Central Arizona Project, Colorado River Basin.--The Committee recommendation includes $600,000 for activities related to the Gila River Settlement in New Mexico and $500,000 to initiate environmental compliance for the San Carlos Irrigation Project. Central Valley Project--Friant Division.--The Committee recommendation includes an additional $1,000,000 for the Friant-Kern and Madera canals capacity improvements and an additional $500,000 for the Semi Tropic Phase II groundwater banking. Miscellaneous Project Programs.--An additional $2,000,000 above the budget request is provided for anadromous fish screen projects. Trinity River Division.--The Committee has provided $2,000,000 above the budget request to accelerate implementation of the Trinity River Restoration Program. Animas-La Plata, Colorado.--The Committee has provided $63,000,000 for construction of this project. Hawaii Reclamation Projects, Lahaina.--The Committee has included $1,000,000 for this water reuse project. Fort Peck, Dry Prairie Rural Water System, Montana.--The Committee has provided $10,000,000 for continued construction of the project. Carlsbad Project, New Mexico.--The committee provided an additional $200,000 to assess the rehabilitation of radial gates at Sumner Dam, New Mexico and $750,000 for implementation of water salvage in partnership with the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission under the Pecos River Settlement. Middle Rio Grande Project, New Mexico.--The Committee recommendation includes $39,550,000 for the Middle Rio Grande project, $20,655,000 for Resources Management and $18,895,000 for Operations, Maintenance and Replacements. Within the $20,655,000 for Resources Management, the Committee includes $16,271,000 for the Collaborative Program; and $1,000,000 for the Silvery Minnow Sanctuary operations. Within the $18,895,000 for Operations, Maintenance and Replacements, the Committee includes $2,200,000 for further development of the Upper Rio Grande Water Operations Model and ESA Water conservation planning; $500,000 for initial development of an integrated management plan in partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and $2,000,000 to be transferred to the USGS for stream gage repair and development in New Mexico. The Committee encourages the Bureau of Reclamation to be transparent in its communication of the cost of administration of the Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program and to rapidly implement project management improvements to address the issues and recommendations of the non-Federal partners to the Collaborative Program. The Committee also encourages the Bureau of Reclamation to work closely with the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to develop a rehabilitation plan for the levee system in the Middle Rio Grande. Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin, Garrison Diversion Unit, North Dakota.--An additional $48,780,000 has been provided for rural water projects. Of this amount, $24,390,000 shall be expended for the following projects: $10,000,000 for the Northwest Area Water Supply; $500,000 for the Lakota Water Supply; $3,000,000 for the South Central Regional Water District; $1,000,000 for the Walsh Rural Water District; $1,000,000 for the South Benson County/North Central Rural Water System; $1,000,000 for the Traill Rural Water District; $500,000 for the Upham/All Seasons Rural Water System;$2,000,000 for the Williston Water Treatment Plant; $4,000,000 for the Southwest Pipeline; and $1,390,000 for Garrison Water Treatment. Northern Utah Investigations Program, Utah.--The Committee has included an additional $500,000 for the Rural Water Technology Alliance. Odessa Subarea Special Study, Washington.--The Committee has provided $1,185,000 for this study. Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project, Title I.--In the fiscal year 2006 conference report (House Report 109-275), the conferees expressed their concern that the Bureau of Reclamation was making excess releases of approximately 100,000 acre-feet of water per year from storage in Colorado River reservoirs to help meet the United States' Colorado River water quality obligations to Mexico. The excess releases are being made because Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District's agricultural return flows--that bypass the Colorado River and are discharged to the Cienega de Santa Clara in Mexico (bypass flows)--are not counted as part of the 1.5 million acre-feet of water that the United States is required to deliver annually to Mexico. Because the bypass flows are not counted, system storage from the Colorado River has been used to make up for the bypass flows. The Yuma Desalting Plant was originally constructed to treat the flows and return a portion of them to the river, thus reducing excess releases from Colorado River reservoirs. The current drought and projected long-term water demands have heightened concern about this demand on the river system. Consequently, in fiscal year 2006, the conferees indicated their support for Reclamation's ongoing public process to address this complex hydrologic problem, considering various methods of recovering or replacing the flows, including options that address potential impacts to wetlands in the Cienega de Santa Clara. This Committee encourages Reclamation to continue this stakeholder process. In fiscal year 2006, the conferees also directed the Bureau of Reclamation to dedicate sufficient resources to the Yuma Desalting Plant so that one-third operational capacity may be achieved by the end of calendar year 2006. To date, the plant is not one-third operational, although Reclamation did conduct a demonstration run at one- tenth capacity for 90 days in 2007. The Committee, once again, directs the Bureau of Reclamation, within the funds provided for the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project, title I, to dedicate sufficient funds to the Yuma Desalting Plant so that one-third operational capacity may be achieved by the end of calendar year 2007. The Bureau of Reclamation is also directed to provide the Committee with a status report of the plant's operational status by no later than March 1, 2008. If the plant is not one-third operational by the end of calendar year 2007, the report shall include an explanation as to why the Bureau of Reclamation has failed to comply with the Committee's directive. Drought Emergency Assistance.--The Committee has provided the budget request for this program. Within the funds provided, the Committee urges the Bureau of Reclamation to provide full and fair consideration for drought assistance from the State of Hawaii. Research and Development, Desalination Research and Development Program.--The Committee has provided $7,500,000. Of the funds provided, $2,100,000 is provided to New Mexico State University to undertake operations and maintenance of the newly constructed National Inland Desalination Research Facility in Alamogordo, New Mexico, on behalf of the Bureau of Reclamation; $1,900,000 is provided to New Mexico State University for research activities undertaken at or associated with the National Inland Desalination Research Facility; and $3,000,000 is provided to New Mexico State University to undertake a research program for development and commercialization of water treatment technology in collaboration with Federal agencies, national laboratories, State agencies, local agencies, industry, educational institutions or other water research entities. Title XVI, Water Reclamation and Reuse.--The Committee has provided $3,800,000 for this program. Within the funds provided, the Committee has included $3,000,000 for the WateReuse Foundation. These are available to support the Foundation's research priorities. Water Conservation Field Service Program.--The Committee has provided $7,000,000 for the Water Conservation Field Services Program. Within the amounts provided, Reclamation is urged to continue urban water conservation projects identified through the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Innovative Conservation Program; industrial water efficiency surveys to assess opportunities to conserve water in industrial water use; and for weather based irrigation controller activities to pilot ways to speed distribution and acceptance of these landscape water efficiency devices. Water 2025.--The dire drought the West is currently experiencing, combined with an unprecedented number of water users and endangered species and related requirements, make water use efficiencies more critical than ever. The Committee has provided $14,000,000 for this initiative proposed by the administration. The Committee has included additional funds above the budget request to provide for continued efficiency and water improvements related to the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District. A critical component of reducing tension among multiple water users is collaborative planning and joint operations. Within the funds provided, funds are provided for the Desert Research Institute to address water quality and environmental issues in ways that will bring industry and regulators to mutually acceptable answers. CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND Appropriations, 2007.................................... $52,150,000 Budget estimate, 2008................................... \1\59,122,000 Committee recommendation................................ 51,622,000 \1\Includes $7,500,000 legislative proposal on which Congress has not acted. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $51,622,000 for the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund. The Committee recommendation does not reflect the establishment of the San Joaquin River Restoration Fund as proposed by the administration as this program is not yet authorized. Consequently the Budget request is reduced by $7,500,000. The Central Valley Project Restoration Fund was authorized in the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, title 34 of Public Law 102-575. This fund was established to provide funding from project beneficiaries for habitat restoration, improvement and acquisition, and other fish and wildlife restoration activities in the Central Valley project area of California. Revenues are derived from payments by project beneficiaries and from donations. Payments from project beneficiaries include several required by the act (Friant Division surcharges, higher charges on water transferred to non-CVP users, and tiered water prices) and, to the extent required in appropriations acts, additional annual mitigation and restoration payments. CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA RESTORATION (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS) Appropriations, 2007.................................... $36,648,000 Budget estimate, 2008................................... 31,750,000 Committee recommendation................................ 40,750,000 This account funds activities that are consistent with the CALFED Bay-Delta Program, a collaborative effort involving 18 State and Federal agencies and representatives of California's urban, agricultural, and environmental communities. The goals of the program are to improve fish and wildlife habitat, water supply reliability, and water quality in the San Francisco Bay- San Joaquin River Delta, the principle hub of California's water distribution system. POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION Appropriations, 2007.................................... $57,575,000 Budget estimate, 2008................................... 58,811,000 Committee recommendation................................ 58,811,000 The Committee recommendation for general administrative expenses is $58,811,000. This is the same as the budget request. The policy and administrative expenses program provides for the executive direction and management of all reclamation activities, as performed by the Commissioner's offices in Washington, DC, Denver, Colorado, and five regional offices. The Denver office and regional offices charge individual projects or activities for direct beneficial services and related administrative and technical costs. These charges are covered under other appropriations. General Provisions--Department of the Interior Section 201. The bill includes language regarding the San Luis Unit and the Kesterson Reservoir in California. (President) Section 202. The bill includes language that states requirements for purchase or lease of water from the Middle Rio Grande or Carlsbad Projects in New Mexico. (Domenici) Section 203. The bill includes language regarding Drought Emergency Assistance. Section 204. The bill includes language concerning Water 2025. Section 205. The bill includes language regarding the Rio Grande Collaborative water operations team. (Domenici) Section 206. The bill includes language concerning the project at Las Vegas Wash and Lake Mead. (Reid) Section 207. The bill includes language concerning expended funds from the Desert Terminus Lakes program for the Truckee River Settlement Act. (Reid) Section 208. The bill includes language concerning expended funds from the Desert Terminus Lakes program for a number of purposes within Nevada. (Reid) Section 209. The bill includes a provision extending the authorization of the Mni Wiconi project from 2008 until 2013. Without this provision work would have to stop during fiscal year 2008. (Johnson) Section 210. The bill includes a provision concerning operations of the Tularosa Basin National Desalination Research Facility. (Domenici) Section 211. The bill includes a provision for a reporting requirement to the appropriate House and Senate authorizing committees concerning changed land use determinations. (Dorgan) Section 212. The bill contains a provision that increases the appropriation ceiling for the Indian Irrigation projects in the Pick-Sloan--Garrison Diversion Unit, North Dakota and South Dakota. (Dorgan) TITLE III DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Laboratory Directed Research and Development [LDRD] The Committee recognizes the invaluable role the Laboratory Directed Research and Development [LDRD] program provides to the Federal Government and the Nation in general. Discretionary LDRD investments have been and will continue to be responsive to the energy needs of the Nation, as evidenced by recent R&D projects in materials science, optoelectronics, computer science, and high energy density physics. Cutting-edge LDRD research provides the science base for energy-specific applications such as fuel cells, hydrogen technologies, carbon management, nuclear energy and solid state lighting. In addition, LDRD is the national labs' most important tool for maintaining the vitality of the national labs in support of other national security missions. LDRD enables the labs to hire the ``best and brightest'' young scientists and engineers and allows them to seek innovative science and technology solutions for current or emerging national security issues, including those of energy security. LDRD investments have been effective in providing solutions for today's energy problems and demonstrate the inherent flexibility of the program to provide national security mission support on a very timely basis. Energy research needs can best be addressed by continuing a vibrant LDRD program at the national labs. Reprogramming Guidelines The Committee requires the Department to promptly and fully inform the Committee when a change in program execution or funding is required during the fiscal year. A reprogramming includes the reallocation of funds from one activity to another within an appropriation, or any significant departure from a program, project, or activity described in the agency's budget justification, including contemplated site budgets as presented to and approved or modified by Congress in an appropriations act or the accompanying statement of managers or report. For construction projects, a reprogramming constitutes the reallocation of funds from one construction project identified in the justifications to another or a significant change in the scope of an approved project. Reprogrammings should not be employed to initiate new programs or to change program, project, or activity allocations specifically denied, limited, or increased by Congress in the act or report. In cases where unforeseen events or conditions are deemed to require such changes, proposals shall be submitted in advance to the Committee and be fully explained and justified. The Committee has not provided the Department with any internal reprogramming flexibility in fiscal year 2008, unless specifically identified in the House, Senate, or conference reports. Any reallocation of new or prior year budget authority or prior year de-obligations must be submitted to the Committees in writing and may not be implemented prior to approval by the Committees on Appropriations. ENERGY SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Appropriations, 2007.................................... $1,474,285,000 Budget estimate, 2008................................... 1,236,199,000 Committee recommendation................................ 1,715,551,000 The Committee recommendation is $1,715,551,000 for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, $479,352,000 above the President's request. The Committee notes that virtually every program except Hydrogen Research and Development [R&D] suffers a reduction from the fiscal year 2007 Operating Plan. Hardest hit are the energy efficiency programs. Vehicle Technologies, Building Technologies, and Industrial Technologies are down about $40,000,000, while Weatherization grants are down over $60,000,000. The Department plays a key role in developing new energy-efficient technologies. For every dollar invested in Energy Efficiency R&D, the U.S. economy receives about $20 in return through energy savings, new jobs, and new products. This Committee sees wisdom in such investments, and supports increases above the President's request in the efficiency programs. The Committee understands the Department has made awards for projects within the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, but has not provided funding to carryout these awards. The Committee strongly urges the Department to fulfill it prior commitments, and to provide notification to the Committee on any awards that are not being funded and for what purpose. Hydrogen Technology.--The Committee recommends $228,000,000, a total of $15,000,000 above the request. The Committee notes that fiscal year 2008 request completes the President's 5-year, $1,200,000,000 commitment to the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. Along with the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy request, the President's budget also requests research and development funding for hydrogen projects in the budgets of the Office of Science ($59,500,000), the Office of Nuclear Energy ($22,600,000), and the Office of Fossil Energy ($12,450,000), as well as in the Department of Transportation ($1,425,000). In total, the fiscal year 2008 request amounts to $308,975,000 for hydrogen research and development, the largest for hydrogen in the 5-year period. Since the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, there has been insufficient attention paid to the guidance Congress gave the Department regarding the hydrogen program which had several purposes. It broadened the Secretary's authority to accelerate the research, development and demonstration process toward commercialization; made Government a more reliable partner in more ambitious public/private partnerships; and gave the program permanent authority beyond the 5-year span of the President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. The Committee is encouraged by the Department's efforts to establish a program facilitating the deployment of hydrogen and fuel cell technology and to cultivate a competitive market for such technologies as demonstrated by its recent request for information [DE-PS36-07GO37002]. The Committee believes that the Federal Government can be an early adopter of new technology and can play a role in its deployment. In order to facilitate Federal purchases it is essential to provide Federal procurement officials with proven validation of operational performance data and expected lifecycle costs of alternative energy technologies. The Department, using its extensive laboratory capabilities and in partnership with technology venders, could validate the operational and economic capabilities of specific technologies. This review is likely to provide procurement officials more confidence in deploying alternative, energy saving technologies. Within the additional funds provided, the Committee recommends an additional $5,000,000 to support the development of a technology validation strategy. The Department may establish a pilot program to demonstrate such a capability if it believes it will have a positive impact. The Committee authorizes the Department to recover all costs associated with the validation activities. The Committee also notes that the Department requested 24 percent less funding for Technology Validation Program than the enacted fiscal year 2007 program. This runs counter to the intent of the Energy Policy Act, and endangers the success of worthwhile public investments already made. The validation program has ambitious and critical goals concerning durability, vehicle range, storage, attainable hydrogen fuel cost, data reporting, technology evolution, renewable hydrogen feedstock generation, codes and standards coordination and public outreach. Within the funding available to the Program, the Committee directs that $40,000,000 be allocated to Technology Validation efforts in fiscal year 2008. The Committee appreciates that this program has achieved its objective and is beginning to phase out research on hydrogen production from natural gas starting in fiscal year 2008. The full benefits of a hydrogen economy will be realized when our Nation is able to generate hydrogen from renewable sources and nuclear energy rather than fossil fuels. The Committee supports continued research and development into solar-powered hydrogen generation research and development programs including both thermo-chemical and photolysis processes. The Committee commends the Department for this progress in these areas and urges the Department to provide additional funds to the Department's Hydrogen Production and Delivery program for its continuation. Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D.--The Committee strongly endorses the commitment to decrease our reliance on foreign oil. The President's goal of reducing gasoline usage by 20 percent in the next 10 years, coupled with growth in the Biomass R&D budget, could significantly reduce this Nation's ``oil addiction.'' Unfortunately, the President's request is $20,424,000 below the fiscal year 2007 Operating Plan, and well below this Committee's recommendation from last year. Therefore, the Committee recommends $244,000,000, an increase of $64,737,000 over the request. Of the increase, $32,897,000 is for the Integration of Biorefinery Technologies under the Utilization of Platform Outputs R&D subprogram, and $5,000,000 is for the Products Development element within this subprogram. Within the available funds, the Committee directs the Department to conduct a study on the feasibility of increasing consumption in the United States of ethanol-blended gasoline with levels of ethanol blends between 10-25 percent, including a study of production and infrastructure constraints on increasing the consumption. In addition, the Committee requests that Department provide periodic updates on the National Biofuels Action Plan and have a goal of providing the final plan to Congress no later than the submission of the fiscal year 2009 budget request. Within the available funds, the Committee recommends the Department provide a report to the House and Senate Appropriations Committee on how it intends to develop the proposed reverse auction as proposed in the fiscal year 2008 budget request before establishing such a program. The report should include information on market data and pricing and proposals as to which incentives would be the most effective in facilitating the deployment of cellulosic biomass and the expected costs. The Feedstock Infrastructure subprogram provides for work with the Department of Agriculture on biomass feedstock. Lowering feedstock costs and ensuring sustainable supplies of biomass are necessary to greatly increase the amount of Biofuels production in the United States. To meet this goal, the Department developed a Regional Feedstock Partnership and should continue to work with the Sun Grant Initiative as well as other laboratories, and universities to assess and improve biomass resource availability throughout five distinct regions. The Committee is encouraged by the Department commitment to developing a variety of biomass feedstock. The Committee expects the Department to evaluate all manner of regional feedstock materials that include sorghum, switch grass, rice straw, corn stover, as well as other feedstock material. The Committee also notes that the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is building on key competencies in the areas of catalysis and biotechnology, and conducts R&D with industry as part of the DOE/Office of Biomass core program. The core research program also is an important part of expanding research with Washington State University, in a new Bioproducts, Sciences, and Engineering Laboratory [BSEL] being constructed in Richland, Washington, by the State of Washington. Solar Energy.--The Committee recommends $180,000,000, an increase of $31,696,000 over the President's request. The Committee is pleased with the administration's efforts to diversify our energy supply while minimizing the generation of greenhouse gases. The Solar Energy Technology Program has established a target of making solar power cost-competitive by 2015, 5 years sooner than targeted in fiscal year 2006 budget request. Under this scenario, solar would provide hundreds of thousands of new high-tech jobs throughout the United States and would reduce natural gas demand on the order of billions of cubic feet. Unfortunately, as is painfully clear from the Department's budget, the promise of solar energy stretches back 33 years, to the 1974 Solar Heating and Cooling Demonstration Act, and the program has only lost ground to other nations ever since. Now, the United States must make substantial investments if it is to reclaim technological leadership in this critical sector. Therefore, the Committee directs an increase of $8,000,000 for Photovoltaic Energy Systems, an increase of $2,696,000 for Solar Heating and Lighting Systems to support deployment of this technology, and an increase of $16,000,000 for Concentrating Solar Power. The increase in Concentrating Solar Power is to help reduce the cost of heliostat technology to improve the economic performance of power towers and to facilitate the deployment of demonstration facilities. The Committee recommends $4,000,000 to demonstrate thermo-chemical processes in producing hydrogen using high temperature solar facilities. Wind Energy.--The recommendation is $57,500,000, a total of $17,431,000 above the request. Geothermal Technology.--The recommendation for Geothermal Technology is $25,000,000, similar to the fiscal year 2006 level, and above the administration's request of $0. The Committee notes the Massachusetts Institute of Technology report on the Impact of Enhanced Geothermal Systems on the United States in the 21st century recommended a number of actions that could be taken to encourage development of renewable energy sources. Among the short-term recommendations in this report is a call for more detailed and site-specific assessment of geothermal energy resources in the United States, as well as demonstrations of reservoir stimulation technology at as many as five enhanced geothermal systems within or on the edges of existing geothermal fields. The Committee urges the Department to build upon the success of its geothermal program and move the program forward. Hydropower.--The Committee provides $2,000,000 for continuation of the program. Water Power Energy R&D.--The Committee recommends creating a new program, authorized in EPACT 2005, which explores technologies that could convert the kinetic energy from non- impounded water sources, such as waves, currents and tidal streams, into renewable energy. The Committee recommends $8,000,000 to initiate this R&D effort. Vehicle Technologies.--The Committee provides $230,000,000 for vehicles technology. This is an increase of $53,862,000 over the request. The recommendation provides $100,000,000 for hybrid electric systems. The increase of $19,336,000 is for Energy Storage Research and Development to make improvements in plug-in hybrid technology. Other increases provide a total of $50,000,000 for Advanced Combustion Energy Research and Development, $45,000,000 for Materials Technology, $18,000,000 for Fuels Technology, and $17,000,000 for Technology Integration Innovative Concepts. The Committee urges the Department to continue to support the Advanced Reciprocating Engine Systems program. The Committee fully funds the fiscal year 2008 request for FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership, a $207,819,000 departmental effort of which $126,619,000 is requested under the Vehicle Technologies program. The Committee urges the Department to integrate the transportation sector's fuel and energy needs with zero emission and renewable electricity generation to improve the Nation's energy and environmental security by providing a minimum of $10,000,000 from the funds made available for Vehicles Technology in competitively awarded grants for developing, researching, testing and operating grid-enabled plug-in electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and batteries and technology, and related power electronics that use zero emission generated electricity for recharging. The Committee wishes to reinforce and recommend further enhancing research, development and demonstration of advanced battery technology (in partnership with the private sector), for electric, hybrid-electric, and plug-in hybrid vehicles. The Committee is concerned that many advanced batteries are currently being sourced from outside the United States. The prohibitively high costs of many advanced battery technologies must be addressed, along with the remaining performance barriers. The Committee includes $5,000,000 for Off-highway Engine R&D within the Advanced Combustion Engine R&D subprogram. Off- highway Engine R&D supports diesel engine research and development having a high potential for improving fuel efficiency and low emission engines. The Committee also supports the 21st Century Truck Partnership. This cooperative effort between commercial vehicle (truck and bus) industry and major Federal agencies is developing technologies that will make commercial vehicles more efficient, clean, and safe. The 21st Century Truck Partnership will use research and development funding to increase engine efficiency, improve hybrid powertrains, and reduce losses. The Committee directs the Department to study methods of increasing the fuel efficiency of alternative fueled vehicles by optimizing alternative fueled vehicles to operate using E-85 fuel. Within this funding the Committee directs the Department to use at least $2,000,000 for E-85 infrastructure deployment. Building Technologies.--The Committee provides $137,000,000, an increase of $50,544,000 above the request. The increase is distributed as follows: $7,300,000 for Residential Buildings Integration; $10,000,000 for Commercial Buildings Integration; $8,244,000 for Emerging Technologies; $18,639,000 for Technology Validation and Market Introduction; and $6,361,000 for Equipment Standards and Analysis. The increase supports technology deployment of increased energy efficiency technologies that can improve energy savings in the home and reduce the cost of operating lighting, heating and cooling, and electricity using energy efficient appliances in residential and commercial buildings. The Department has set a goal of achieving zero emission homes by 2020 using the most energy- efficient technology and applying state-of-the-art distributed renewable generation so as to achieve a net zero energy consumption. The Committee specifically recommends $24,283,000 for the solid state lighting research and development portion of the Emerging Technologies budget, an increase of $5,000,000 to support advanced research. The Committee recognizes the potential to achieve significant energy savings in this area. Industrial Technologies.--The Committee provides $57,000,000, an increase of $11,002,000 over the request. Of the increase, the Committee directs $6,000,000 to be applied to the specific industries budget subprogram to begin focusing on new process development that can provide energy savings, environmental and economic benefits. The Committee directs $2,002,000 to be applied to the combustion budget for continued development and deployment on Super Boiler technology. The Committee recommends that from within available funds, $3,000,000 is provided to support research and development to increase the efficiency of computer chips and systems. Federal Energy Management Program.--This program is intended to support the deployment of energy efficiency and renewable technology to U.S. Government buildings. Since 1985, the Program has assisted in the reduction of energy intensity in Federal buildings by nearly 30 percent. Considering today's energy challenges, it hardly seems the time to reduce funding for this Program. Therefore, the Committee recommends $23,000,000, a total of $6,209,000 above the request. Facilities and Infrastructure.--The Committee recommends $6,982,000, the same as the budget request. Weatherization.--The Committee provides $240,550,000, a total of $96,550,000 above the request. This program provides critical assistance to encourage the use of energy efficient technology to reduce energy costs for low and moderate income families hit hardest by high energy costs. The Secretary is directed to make fiscal year 2008 Weatherization funding available from October 1, 2007, through March 31, 2009, for States that submit plans requesting allocations for all or part of this period. The Committee also provides $55,000,000 to the State Energy Program Grants, $7,000,000 for Tribal Energy Activities, and $5,000,000 for Renewable Energy Production Incentive programs. The Committee eliminates funding for the Asia-Pacific Partnership [APP]. The Committee remains unclear about the goals and direction of APP. Program Direction.--The Committee recommends $105,013,000, the same as the budget request. Program Support.--The Committee recommends $13,481,000, consistent with the budget request. Congressionally Directed Projects.--The Committee recommendation includes the following congressionally directed projects, within available funds, for the purposes of research, development, and demonstration of energy efficiency or renewable energy technologies or programs. The Committee reminds recipients that statutory cost sharing requirements may apply to these projects. COMMITTEE DIRECTED ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Committee Project recommendation Requested by ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Auburn, NY, Auburn Regional $500,000 Schumer, Clinton Bioenergy Enterprise. Southern Illinois University, 300,000 Durbin Carbondale, Biofuels Research. Chariton Valley R.C.&D., 500,000 Harkin, Grassley Chariton Valley Biomass for Rural Development. Chautauqua County, NY, Methane 500,000 Schumer, Clinton Gas Utilization Project from landfill at Ellery. Department of Energy's Clean 600,000 Byrd Energy Technology Export Program (CETE), to export U.S. clean energy technologies. Compact Membrane Systems, Inc., 500,000 Biden, Carper Wilmington, DE, Development of Applied Membrane Technology for Processing Ethanol from Biomass. DBS Energy, Inc., Glastonbury 1,000,000 Dodd CT, Connecticut Biofuels Technology Project in Suffield, CT. Consortium for Plant 2,000,000 Stabenow, Brown, Kohl, Biotechnology Research, Inc., Inouye, Bayh, Levin, St. Simons Island, GA. Klobuchar, McConnell, Bunning, Bond, Chambliss, Lugar Costilla County, CO, and 275,000 Salazar Costilla County Economic Development Council, Inc., Biodiesel Project. Council of Energy Resource 500,000 Salazar Tribes, Denver, CO. Dakota Gold Research 1,000,000 Johnson Association, Sioux Falls, SD, Biomass. U. of Florida, Gainesville, 1,000,000 Nelson, Bill with the EARTH University Foundation, Biofuel Project. Eikos, Inc., Franklin, MA, 1,000,000 Kennedy, Kerry National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Conductive, Transparent Coatings for Solar Cells. Electro Energy, Inc., Danbury, 500,000 Lieberman CT, Development of bipolar wafer cell vehicle batteries. Foster-Glocester Regional 1,000,000 Reed, Whitehouse School District, RI, Ponaganset Alternative Energy Lab and Biomass Facilities Project. Hawaii Natural Energy 2,000,000 Inouye Institute, Honolulu, HA, Hawaii-New Mexico Sustainable Energy Security Partnership. Koochiching County, Renewable 400,000 Klobucher Energy Clean Air Project (RECAP), Koochiching County, MN, Plasma Gasification Waste- to-Energy project. Iowa Association of Municipal 1,500,000 Harkin Utilities, Iowa Stored Energy Plant. Iowa Central Community College, 1,000,000 Harkin, Grassley Iowa Renewable Fuels Testing Laboratory. Lilliputian Systems, Inc., 500,000 Kennedy, Kerry Woburn, MA, Silicon Based Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Chip for Portable Consumer Electronics. Louisiana State University, 1,000,000 Landrieu, Vitter Agriculture Center Biorefinery for Ethanol, Chemicals, Animal Feed and Biomaterials from Sugar Cane Bagasse. Michigan State University, 400,000 Levin Advanced Hybrid Vehicle Technology, Hybrid Electric Vehicle group. Michigan Technological 500,000 Stabenow, Levin University, Fuel Cell Research at the Center for Nanostructured and Lightweight Materials. National Center for 400,000 Levin Manufacturing Sciences, Ann Arbor, MI, Lightweight Automotive Materials for Increased Fuel Efficiency. Nevada Institute for Renewable 1,500,000 Reid Energy Commercialization, Reno, NV. North Dakota State University, 6,000,000 Dorgan Center for Nanoscale Energy. Oregon Institute of Technology, 1,000,000 Wyden, Smith Geothermal Power Generation Study. Pacific International Center 1,250,000 Inouye for High Technology Research, Honolulu, HI, Renewable Energy Development Venture. Pierce County, WA, Landfill Gas- 3,550,000 Murray to-Clean-Fuel Project, Biomass. Raceland Raw Sugar Corporation, 1,500,000 Landrieu Raceland, LA, Bio-Renewable Ethanol and Co-Generation Plant, Biomass. Stamford, CT, Waste-to-Energy 500,000 Lieberman Project. South Dakota State University, 3,500,000 Johnson SD, Sun Grant Initiative, Regional Biomass Feedstock Development Partnerships, Biomass. Snohomish County, WA, Biodiesel 100,000 Murray, Cantwell Project. Trenton, NJ, Trenton Fuel Works 1,500,000 Lautenberg, Menendez Biofuels Plant Re- Construction, Biomass. U. of Hawaii, College of 500,000 Inouye Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, Development of High Yield Tropical Feedstocks, Biomass. U. of Nebraska, Kearney, CIBS 950,000 Ben Nelson, Hagel Solar Cell Development, Solar. U. of Nebraska, Lincoln, 2,000,000 Ben Nelson, Hagel Bioenergy Demonstration Project: Value-Added Products from Renewable Fuels. U. of Nevada, Las Vegas, Light 600,000 Reid Emitting Diode Display Engineering. U. of Nevada, Las Vegas, Solar 750,000 Reid Cell Nanotechnology. U. of North Dakota, Grand 2,000,000 Dorgan Forks, Center for Biomass Utilization. U. of Northern Iowa, National 1,000,000 Harkin, Grassley Agriculture-Based Industrial Lubricants (NABL), Biomass. U. of Rhode Island, Research 1,500,000 Reed and Technology Development for genetic improvement of Switchgrass, Biomass. University of Akron, OH, Carbon 1,000,000 Brown Based Fuel Cell. Vermont Biomass Energy 1,000,000 Leahy Resources Center, Biomass. Vermont Public Power Supply 500,000 Sanders Authority, Renewable Energy from Animal Bio- mass. Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund, 500,000 Leahy Montpelier, VT, Central Vermont Recovered Biomass Facility, Biomass. Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund, 1,000,000 Leahy Montpelier, VT, Vermont Biofuels Initiative, Biomass. West Virginia University, 500,000 Byrd Lightweight Composite Material for Heavy Duty Vehicles. West Virginia University, 1,000,000 Byrd Transportable Emissions Testing Laboratory (TESL), for alternative vehicles emissions testing. City of Chula Vista, CA, 750,000 Boxer Alternative Fuels Pilot Project. Affordable, Energy Efficient, 300,000 Cochran Self Help Housing, Mississippi. Alternate Fuel Cell Membranes 1,000,000 Cochran for Energy Independence at USM, Mississippi. Alternate Fuel for Cement 1,500,000 Shelby Processing at Auburn University, Alabama. Center for Advanced Vehicular 4,000,000 Cochran Systems (CAVS) at MSU, Mississippi. Center for Producer-Owned 1,000,000 Coleman Energy, Minnesota. Cloud County Community College 1,000,000 Brownback Wind Turbine, Kansas. Cooling, Heating, and Power 2,000,000 Cochran (CHP) at MSU, Mississippi. Kansas City Area Transportation 1,000,000 Brownback Authority, Demonstration of Plug-in Vehicles, Kansas. Great Plains Wind Power Test 2,000,000 Hutchison Facility at Texas Tech University, Texas. Kentucky Rural Energy 2,000,000 McConnell Consortium at the University of Louisville, Kentucky. MidSouth/Southeast Bioenergy 2,000,000 Chambliss, Isakson Consortium, Georgia. Nanostructured Materials for 1,000,000 Dole Energy at NC State, North Carolina. Renewable Energy for Rural 1,000,000 Bennett Economic Development Program, Utah. Sandia National Lab 3,000,000 Domenici Concentrating Solar, New Mexico. Sustainable Buildings Project 400,000 McConnell at the University of Louisville, Kentucky. Sustainable Energy Research 11,000,000 Cochran Center at MSU, Mississippi. Ocean Power Technologies, 2,000,000 Smith, Wyden Reedsport, OR, Wave Energy Research and Demo Center, Reedsport, Oregon. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Appropriations, 2007.................................... $137,000,000 Budget estimate, 2008................................... 114,937,000 Committee recommendation................................ 168,437,000 The Committee recommendation is $168,437,000, a total of $53,500,000 above the request. The increase brings the High Temperature Superconductivity [HTS] R&D subaccount up to $40,242,000. As no technology has greater potential to resolve the transmission and distribution dilemma than HTS wire and cables and attendant HTS equipment can potentially provide, this funding level will permit continued strategic research at universities and National Laboratories; develop second generation (2G) wire; and will continue superconductivity industry partnerships which design, fabricate, test and demonstrate prototype products for the Nation's aging electric power grid. Additionally, $25,305,000 is provided for Visualization and Controls subaccount, the same as the request, from which the Committee encourages the Department to continue its efforts at the Electricity Infrastructure Operations Center at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. The Operations and Analysis subaccount recommendation is $19,500,000, $7,944,000 above the request. The Committee encourages continuation of the electricity transmission, distribution, and energy assurance activities including the Modern Grid Initiative, and, in particular, the Phase 2 Development Field Tests for the Allegheny Power Initiative. Renewable Energy Deployment.--In order to facilitate further deployment of renewable energy resources, the Committee has provided additional funding to support the development of large scale energy storage capabilities to mitigate the effects of the intermittent nature of wind and solar power. Developing low-cost, reliable technologies will have a positive impact on renewable energy deployment. The Committee expects the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy to work together developing transmission and distribution technologies to enable a smart, reliable grid; developing technical and regulatory standards for interconnecting our Nation's renewable and distributed energy portfolio; and enabling demand response. To the extent possible, the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability will be the primary Federal interface with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the States for the Department of Energy. The Committee is interested to understand the commercial potential of the distributed generation market, including deployment of fuel cells, combined heat and power systems or other technologies that will increase the efficiency of existing generating (electric and thermal) sources. The Committee encourages the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability to identify the possible energy savings that may be achieved from increased efficiency and from transmission line losses as a result of locating generating facilities closer to the users. The Committee hopes this study will provide a clearer potential of the best commercial opportunities that can be realized immediately and the possibilities of technologies in the future for both industrial and residential systems. The Committee recommends $21,803,000 for energy storage activities, and increase of $15,000,000. The Committee also provides $30,700,000 for Distributed systems integration, an increase of $5,000,000 in order to support the study on distributed generation and to enable this office to play a greater role in the deployment of renewable energy onto the transmission grid. Congressionally Directed Projects.--The Committee recommendation includes the following congressionally directed projects, within available funds for the purposes of research, development, and demonstration of electricity delivery and energy reliability technologies or programs. The Committee reminds recipients that statutory cost sharing requirements may apply to these projects. COMMITTEE DIRECTED OFFICE OF ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY PROJECTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Committee Project recommendation Requested by ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Gonzaga University, Spokane, $800,000 Murray, Cantwell WA, Electricity Utility Transmission and Distribution Line Engineering Program. Navajo Tribal Utility 2,000,000 Bingaman, Domenici Authority, Fort Defiance, AZ, Navajo Electrification Demonstration Program. Bismarck State College, Center 5,200,000 Dorgan of Excellence. Florida State University, FL, 1,000,000 Bill Nelson, Martinez Electric Power Infrastructure Security Research & Development. Rolls-Royce Fuel Cell Systems 500,000 Brown, Voinovich (US), Inc., Stark State College of Tech., Fuel Cell Prototyping Center, Canton, OH, solid oxide fuel cell. Energy Surety Research Center 2,000,000 Domenici at New Mexico Tech University, New Mexico. Alabama Power Project, 2,000,000 Shelby Integrated Distribution Management System, Alabama. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Nuclear Energy Appropriations, 2007.................................... $618,190,000 Budget estimate, 2008................................... 801,703,000 Committee recommendation................................ 720,558,000 The Committee recommendation for the Office of Nuclear Energy is $720,558,000. Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.--The Committee recognizes the administration, through the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, is seeking to reduce the amount of nuclear waste that will need to be placed in a permanent repository or repositories. The goal of providing a comprehensive solution to the nuclear fuel cycle is understandable in light global growth of nuclear power. The policy of reinitiating the recycling of spent nuclear fuel in the United States is a significant issue and one that has international implications. While the Committee has members who support the administration's efforts on GNEP there are also members who have questions regarding the cost, pace, science, technology, and nonproliferation implications underpinning the GNEP initiative. The Committee believes the administration must come forward with greater scientific, technical, and policy information that examines more alternatives in the fuel cycle and recycling process. The administration is directed to limit the fiscal year 2008 work scope to research and development and technology demonstrations at existing facilities. No funds may be used beyond conceptual design of new facilities or the sodium cooled fast burner reactor. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT The Committee recommendation for nuclear energy research and development includes a total of $470,600,000. This is $97,145,000 below the budget request of $567,745,000. University Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support.--For the second year, the Committee rejects the administration's proposal to include funding within the research and development accounts and provides $15,000,000 for this program. The Committee has decided to break this funding out of the research and development accounts, and therefore, doesn't expect the Department to duplicate these efforts. Nuclear Power 2010.--The Committee has included $135,000,000 to support the development of license applications for new nuclear power plant designs under the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's combined Construction and Operating License process, an increase of $21,000,000. Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative.--The Committee provides $22,600,000 for nuclear hydrogen research and development, as requested. The Committee recommends the Department work to accelerate the experiments for thermochemical and high- temperature electrolysis production methods and move to a hydrogen production pilot scale demonstration to test the system under extreme temperatures. Generation IV.--The Committee provides $55,000,000 for the Generation IV nuclear energy systems initiative. Of the total funding provided, $45,000,000 is for the Very High Temperature Reactor at Idaho National Laboratory. $7,000,000 is provided for continued research and development of gas cooled reactors. The Department is urged to coordinate research between the GenIV and AFCI programs was conducting this research, but diverted funding to GNEP activities. Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative.--The Committee recommends $243,000,000 for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative. The Committee notes that the Department seems to have decided on a recycling pathway that consists of the UREX+ separations technology and sodium cooled advanced burner reactors. Many feel the decision to down-select to these technologies was made too soon. The Committee directs the Department to support a broader technology research and development program that better defines the technical requirements, validates the proliferation resistance and demonstrates the commercial feasibility of various recycling technologies. In addition, the Committee does not support the integration of the NNSA's mixed oxide fuel facility into the GNEP. This technology is intended to support a key nonproliferation objective of destroying weapons grade plutonium. The Committee does not support additional delays that may result in attempt to redesign the plant to handle spent nuclear fuel. As such, the Committee expects the Department, on August 1, 2007, to proceed with the construction of the facilities that will support the MOX program in South Carolina. Of the funds provided, $50,000,000 is provided for separations technology development. DOE is directed to examine a broader array of technologies than UREX+, including pyroprocessing, and other technologies to determine the most cost-effective and proliferation resistant technology. $50,000,000 is provided for advanced fuels technology, including investments in testing facilities to support fuel irradiation experiments. Reactor and separations designs will be dependent on the type of fuel to be used, so fuels are on the critical path--and they pose substantial complexities. DOE is directed to examine different approaches for fuels that could be used for recycling, including, oxide, triso, metal, and nitride fuels; fuels with the plutonium and minor actinides together or separate; inert matrix fuels; and fuels that do or do not leave some of the fission products in the recycling fuel. $8,000,000 is provided for transmutation science. $50,000,000 is provided for systems analysis. DOE is urged to analyze a broad range of scenarios, including both once-through and recycling scenarios that include more than and UREX+. $25,000,000 is provided for reactor technology. DOE is directed to work with our international partners to examine other advanced burner reactor technology, including molten-salt, lead-cooled, and gas-cooled thermal fast-reactors, as well as sodium cooled reactors. DOE should focus on whether technical barriers can be overcome and costs reduced enough so that these reactors might make sense for commercial deployment. $5,000,000 is provided for the budget request related to small reactors that are passively safe and proliferation resistant. As the Committee recommends no funding to support the advanced fuel cycle facility for either technology development or demonstration, the Committee instead recommends $40,000,000 to be provided to make needed upgrades to existing hot cells at the NNSA and Department of Energy facilities. Of this funding, the Committee provides $10,000,000 to Oak Ridge National Laboratory, $7,000,000 to Idaho National Laboratory and $23,000,000 to Los Alamos National Laboratory to make badly needed investments to the existing infrastructure to support nuclear fuel production and testing. The Committee also recognizes the strong technical capabilities of the existing laboratory staff, and encourages the Department to make additional investment in upgrading existing nuclear facilities in future budget submissions. The Committee recommendation includes the following congressionally directed projects, within available funds. The Committee reminds recipients that statutory cost sharing requirements may apply to these projects. $3,000,000 is provided to Technologies Ventures Corporation for technology transfer activities (Domenici). RADIOLOGICAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT The Committee provides $53,021,000, the same as the budget request, for the Radiological Facilities Management program. IDAHO FACILITIES MANAGEMENT The Committee recommends $120,713,000, an increase of $16,000,000 to support nuclear research and development at the Idaho National Laboratory. The Committee has included an increase of $16,000,000 for research and development as well as planning design, modernization, and construction of safety posture improvements at the Advanced Test Reactor. PROGRAM DIRECTION The Committee provides $76,244,000 in Program Direction. IDAHO SITE-WIDE SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY The Committee recommends $75,949,000 consistent with the budget request and provided in 050 Defense Activity under the Other Defense Activities account. LEGACY MANAGEMENT The Committee provides $35,104,000 for Energy Supply- related activities of the Office of Legacy Management, the same the budget request. Funds will be used to protect human health and the environment through efficient long-term surveillance and maintenance, to protect and make accessible legacy records and information, and to ensure contractor worker pension and medical benefits. CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY (INCLUDING DEFERRAL AND RECISSION) The Committee recommends the deferral of $149,000,000 in the Clean Coal Technology funding until fiscal year 2009. The Committee is aware that not all of the previously awarded projects have been successfully developed for a variety of reasons and available balances will not be used. The Committee recommends that the Department transfer $166,000,000 from the Clean Coal Technology account and apply $88,000,000 in funding to the FutureGen project, $73,000,000 in funding to the Clean Coal Power Initiative for the current competitive solicitation, and $5,000,000 in funding to the Fossil Energy Research and Development program. Fossil Energy Research and Development Appropriations, 2007.................................... $592,621,000 Budget estimate, 2008................................... 566,801,000 Committee recommendation................................ 808,113,000 The Committee recommendation for Fossil Energy Research and Development is $808,113,000 an increase of $215,492,000 above the request. The Committee is concerned with the reduction in the fossil energy research and development activities proposed as part of this budget. In 2005, the Congress passed and the President signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This legislation provided incentives to support the deployment of clean coal technology that would provide reliable domestic energy supply and the potential to diversify our transportation fuel supply. The Department is challenged with developing new technology that will support the continued deployment of coal through affordable and environmentally sound generating facilities, while creating opportunities for production of hydrogen and other coal technologies. The Committee has provided additional funding to sustain technology development and to send a clear message to the administration that the Congress is serious about making a long-term investment in fossil energy. Clean Coal Power Initiative.--The Committee recommends $88,000,000. The Committee is frustrated by the remarkably low level of funding provided to this initiative which demonstrates advanced coal technologies including carbon sequestration, emission control and other co-production opportunities. The budget only provided $15,000,000 in new funding in addition to the $58,000,000 transferred from the Clean Coal Technology account. The Committee is aware that the Department has announced a new solicitation for the Clean Coal Power Initiative for the capture of carbon dioxide for sequestration or other beneficial uses. However, the Committee strongly urges the Department to select projects after September 30, 2008, so that sufficient funding will be available to award projects that will result in significant technological impact. Funds previously awarded for the WMPI project selected under DOE solicitation DE-PS26-02NT41428 shall remain available for obligation to the project provided that a cooperative agreement is awarded not later than September 30, 2008. FutureGen.--The Committee understands and recognizes the potential value of the FutureGen project. However, the Committee is concerned about maintaining adequate funding for the core fossil energy research, development, and demonstration programs. The Committee has emphatically stated its intent, and has warned that this R&D project must not be funded at the expense of the balance of the core coal R&D program. Yet the administration has continued to ignore congressional intent and has eliminated or decreased funding for other core coal programs. Therefore, the Committee provides $88,000,000 for the FutureGen project. This is $20,000,000 less than the budget request, but $34,000,000 more than was provided in fiscal year 2007. Fuels and Power Systems.--The Committee recommends $374,025,000 for fuels and power systems, an increase of $128,423,000. The recommendation includes $34,000,000 for Innovations for Existing Plants. Because carbon capture from existing plants is a substantial ongoing challenge to the existing fleet, the Innovations for Existing Plants program is directed to consider carbon capture as a future focus of this program. Included in Innovations for Existing Plants is $12,000,000 for Federal laboratories, in collaboration with research institutions, to conduct research and development on the critical link between water and fossil energy extraction and utilization and how different regions of the country can employ water efficiency technology. The Committee recommends $55,000,000 for the Advanced Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle activities and $25,000,000 for Advanced Turbines. The Committee recommends $132,000,000 for Carbon Sequestration activities. The Committee believes that carbon capture and sequestration must be accelerated while also advancing other important related coal research and development activities. The Committee urges the Department to continue to support the carbon sequestration demonstration projects authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, including section 413 of Public Law 109-58. Additional funds are needed for the Regional Partnerships to expand to field and large-scale injection in various geologic formations. The Committee encourages the Department to develop and validate a science-based, site- specific risk assessment framework based on appropriate field observations from pilot injections and analog sites, including both short-term and long-term risks; this framework should serve as a common resource for assessing large-scale demonstrations and storage efforts. The Committee recommends $10,000,000 within the available funds to support this report. Within available funds for Carbon Sequestration, the Committee encourages the program to study CO<INF>2</INF> accelerated growth algae technology to recycle carbon and produce fuels. The Committee recommends $30,000,000 for Fuels to support both fuels from coal liquids and hydrogen. Within available funds for Fuels, the Committee recommendation includes $10,000,000 to initiate an integrated coal and biomass research activity to address carbon emissions and technology barrier issues. The Committee recommends $65,025,000 for Fuel Cell Research. Within available funds for Fuel Cell Research, $5,000,000 is available for the manufacturing initiative for coal-based systems. The Committee recommends $33,000,000 for Advanced Research. Within available funds for Advanced Research, the Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 for computational energy sciences. Natural Gas Technology.--The Committee recommendation includes $20,000,000. Of this amount, $15,000,000 is provided for methane hydrates, and $5,000,000 for research in developing technology solutions to minimize the impact, or develop treatment technologies for produced water as a by-product of natural gas production. Oil Technology.--The Committee recommends $10,000,000. Within the available funds, the Committee provides $1,500,000 to continue support for the Risk Based Management System, a nationwide database for oil and gas regulations and technology developments. The Committee recommends the continuation of the stripper well program. Program Direction.--The Committee recommends $149,962,000 for Program Direction. Other Programs.--The Committee recommends $16,570,000 for fossil energy environmental restoration. The increase of $7,000,000 is to carryout research authorized in section 964 of EPACT 2005 that supports research in advanced coal mining recovery and to minimize the environmental impacts associated with underground mining. The Committee recommendation is $656,000 for the special recruitment program. The Committee recommendation for plant and capital equipment is $13,000,000. The Committee recommendation for cooperative research and development is $8,000,000. Congressionally Directed Projects.--The Committee recommendation includes the following congressionally directed projects, within available funds for the purposes of research, development, and demonstration of fossil energy related technologies or programs. The Committee reminds recipients that statutory cost sharing requirements may apply to these projects. COMMITTEE DIRECTED FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Committee Project recommendation Requested by ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Colorado School of Mines, $1,000,000 Salazar, Allard Golden, CO, Colorado Center for Sustainable Energy at the Colorado School of Mines. North Dakota Energy and 4,000,000 Dorgan Environment Research Center, Grand Forks, ND, Fossil Fuel Cooperative Research & Development. Ramgen, Bellevue, WA, CO2 1,200,000 Murray compression initiative utilizing shockwave/ramjet compression technology. Sparks, NV, City of Sparks 1,000,000 Reid Methane Reclamation project. US/China Energy and 1,200,000 Landrieu Environmental Center, Clean Coal Technologies, Tulene University, Louisiana. North Dakota Energy and 3,000,000 Dorgan Environment Research Center, Grand Forks, ND, National Center for Hydrogen Technology. West Virginia University, 350,000 Byrd Advanced coal technology (liquefaction) in China. Center for Zero Emissions 6,000,000 Baucus, Tester Technology, Montana State University, Clean Coal Technologies. Interdisciplinary Clean Energy 3,500,000 Bennett Program at the University of Utah, Utah. Shallow Carbon Sequestration 2,500,000 Bond Pilot Demonstration, Missouri. Gulf of Mexico Hydrates 1,000,000 Cochran Research Consortium at the University of Mississippi, MS. Membrane Technology for 1,500,000 Domenici Produced Water at Lea County, New Mexico. Carbon Sequestration Monitoring 1,650,000 Enzi Activities, Wyoming. Penn State University, Solid 4,000,000 Specter Oxide Fuel Cells, Pennsylvania. Arctic Energy Office, Alaska... 7,000,000 Stevens Center for Advanced Separation 1,000,000 Warner, Webb Technologies, Virginia. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves Appropriations, 2007.................................... $21,326,000 Budget estimate, 2008................................... 17,301,000 Committee recommendation................................ 21,301,000 The Committee recommends $21,301,000 for fiscal year 2008. $2,000,000 of the increase provided is for the operation of the naval petroleum and oil shale reserves. Within available funds and consistent with the budget request, $3,000,000 is provided to support the Rocky Mountain Oil Technology Centers and $3,810,000 is recommended to support NPR-3 to continue and maintain production. Congressionally Directed Projects.--The Committee recommendation includes the following congressionally directed projects, within available funds. The Committee reminds recipients that statutory cost sharing requirements may apply to these projects. $2,000,000 is provided to Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico to support research for inbasin scale environmental impacts for oil shale production (Domenici, Bingaman). Elk Hills School Lands Fund Appropriations, 2007.................................................... Budget estimate, 2008................................................... Committee recommendation................................................ The State of California maintains that they are due $9,710,000 under the Elk Hills program from fiscal year 2007. The Department disagrees. If this legal dispute is resolved prior to the completion of the conference report, this issue may be re-visited. Strategic Petroleum Reserve Appropriations, 2007.................................... $164,441,000 Budget estimate, 2008................................... 331,609,000 Committee recommendation................................ 163,472,000 The Committee supports maintaining the existing storage program but does not support the expansion program request at this time. Current cost estimates and schedule for an expansion are $10,000,000,000 for new facilities and $55,000,000,000 for the cost of the oil fill, which would not be complete until 2027. The Committee does not believe that it makes sense to spend Federal funds to take oil off the market when prices are at record levels when such funds can be used for more pressing needs. The Committee recommends $163,472,000 for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Within available funds for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, $10,000,000 is provided for the Secretary to conduct an updated inventory of the oil and natural gas resources of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico OCS planning area using the latest non-drilling seismic technologies. The committee has also included section 313 regarding land acquisition related to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve Appropriations, 2007.................................... $5,000,000 Budget estimate, 2008................................... 5,325,000 Committee recommendation................................ 12,825,000 The Committee recommends $12,825,000, an increase of $7,500,000 above the budget request. The Department will use the additional funds to meet costs associated with increased storage contracts. Energy Information Administration Appropriations, 2007.................................... $90,653,000 Budget estimate, 2008................................... 105,095,000 Committee recommendation................................ 105,095,000 The Committee recommends $105,095,000 for the Energy Information Administration. Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup Appropriations, 2007.................................... $349,687,000 Budget estimate, 2008................................... 180,937,000 Committee recommendation................................ 195,437,000 For the Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup program, the Committee recommends $195,437,000, a net increase of $14,500,000 above the President's request (this increase reflects an offset of $10,000,000 to prior year funds located at the Consolidated Business Center for which the program has no identified need). The Committee realizes that the Department's effort to complete cleanup in the future will be challenged by the failure to request sufficient funding. The Committee reminds the Department that it is not enough to simply fund projects that have the greatest perceived reduction to public risk; the Department committed to the public that it would meet regulatory agreements too. The Committee expects future funding requests to include sufficient funding to meet that commitment. Control Levels.--In fiscal year 2006, the Environmental Management Program's budget was restructured to better display site information, which paralleled its management of the program. However, Congress increased the number of congressional reprogramming control points from approximately 25 line items in fiscal year 2005 to nearly 100 in fiscal year 2006. This Committee understands and continues to support the need for site managers to have the flexibility to meet the changing requirements at the sites and recommends the following reprogramming control points for fiscal year 2008: --West Valley Demonstration Project; --Gaseous Diffusion Plants; --Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility Decontamination and Decommissioning; ---Small Sites; --All construction line items. Internal Reprogramming Authority.--In fiscal year 2008, Environmental Management may transfer up to $2,000,000, one time, between accounts listed below 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. This reprogramming authority may not be used to initiate new programs or to change funding levels for programs specifically denied, limited, or increased by Congress in the act or report. The Committee on Appropriations in the House and Senate must be notified within 30 days after the use of this internal reprogramming authority. The following is a list of account control points for internal reprogramming purposes: --West Valley Demonstration Project --Gaseous Diffusion Plants; --Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility Decontamination and Decommissioning; --Small Sites; --Transfers between construction line item(s) and operating projects within the same site, as applicable. West Valley Demonstration Project.--The Committee includes $78,895,000 for West Valley, $24,500,000 above the budget request. The Committee notes that this budget request is significantly lower than that enacted fiscal year 2006 or the program's own preferred funding level displayed in their fiscal year 2007 Operating Plan submitted to Congress in March 2007. The fiscal year 2008 reduction is puzzling considering the amount of waste, decontamination and decommissioning, and remediation of contaminated groundwater that still must be accomplished. The Committee therefore provides an additional $18,000,000 for decontamination and decommissioning of excess ancillary facilities, per the State agreement, as well as $6,500,000 for additional low-level waste shipments for disposal from the ongoing decontamination and decommissioning. Gaseous Diffusion Plants.--The Committee recommends $38,120,000 for operation of gaseous diffusion plant uranium conversion and stabilization activities, the same as the President's request. Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility Decontamination and Decommissioning Project.--The Committee recommends $10,342,000, the same as the budget request. Small Sites.--The Committee includes $78,080,000 for fiscal year 2008. These funds are distributed as follows: Argonne National Laboratory, $2,437,000; Brookhaven National Laboratory, $23,699,000; Idaho National Laboratory, $5,400,000; California Site Support, $160,000; Inhalation Toxicology, $427,000; Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, $5,900,000; Energy Technology Engineering Center, $13,000,000; Los Alamos National Laboratory, $1,905,000; Consolidated Business Center's Completed Sites Administration and Suppport, $1,200,000; and Moab, $23,952,000. The Committee is concerned with the lack of progress and funding in the request for Moab. The removal of the tailings pile must be accelerated to cut costs. The Committee expects to see increased funding in fiscal year 2009. The Committee is aware of the suspension of the Department's deactivation and decommissioning activities at the Energy Technology and Engineering Site, Santa Susanna Field Laboratory, in Simi Valley, California, while the Department evaluates stakeholder concerns and input regarding the deactivation and decommissioning activities at the site. The Department has placed all operations in a safe and stable configuration during this pause that allows time to complete the evaluation, but will continue to perform environmental monitoring activities. The Department claims it is committed to cleaning up the Energy Technology and Engineering Site in accordance with applicable Federal and State regulations. The Committee is very concerned with this situation and will be monitoring the Department's actions during the ``pause'' in cleanup. Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund Appropriations, 2007.................................... $556,606,000 Budget estimate, 2008................................... 573,509,000 Committee recommendation................................ 573,509,000 Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund.--The Committee provides $573,509,000, the same as the budget request. The Committee also recommends $250,406,000, an increase of $20,000,000, to keep the decontamination and decommissioning of the East Tennessee Technology Park's K-25 process building on schedule for completion by fiscal year 2010. This building is on the critical path for the regulatory-driven completion of the cleanup of East Tennessee Technology Park by fiscal year 2012. Uranium/Thorium Reimbursement.--The Committee recommends no funding for this activity, $20,000,000 below the request. SCIENCE Appropriations, 2007.................................... $3,797,294,000 Budget estimate, 2008................................... 4,397,876,000 Committee recommendation................................ 4,496,759,000 The Committee recommends $4,496,759,000 for the Office of Science. These funds represent an investment in basic research that is critical to both the future economic competitiveness of the United Sates and to the success of our national and energy security. Report on Scientific Cooperation.--The Department is directed to prepare a report supported by the Office of Science and the Office of Energy Supply and Conservation regarding the specific steps the Department is taking to ensure cooperation between the two offices in identifying broad research objectives and goals as well as specific R&D priorities required in the short term. This report should contain information as to how the various Department of Energy laboratories are supporting these activities and budget projections in the next 5 years. This report is due to the Committee concurrent with the President's fiscal year 2009 budget submission. Advanced Materials Testing.--Many of the stockpile stewardship, Office of Science, and nuclear energy R&D programs face scientific challenges posed by ultra high temperature and pressure and high radiation environments. As such, the Committee urges the Department to begin to develop a research and development roadmap that considers the questions of what types of facilities are needed to perform experiments on materials under extreme temperature and pressure. This facility should be shared between the Department of Energy and the National Nuclear Security Administration and likewise should contribute to the benefit of both programs. HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS For High Energy Physics, the Committee recommends $789,238,000. Understanding the way the universe works is the key mission of the High Energy Physics program, and it succeeds by probing interactions among matter, energy, space and time. The High Energy Physics program has many promising opportunities to advance our understanding of the universe and its makeup. However, the Department must make important decisions about the future of this program, including balancing the immediate opportunities provided through the Joint Dark Energy Mission and large future investments in the International Linear Collider. International Linear Collider.--The Committee provides $60,000,000 to support research to support the U.S. ILC effort within the Accelerator Development, International Linear Collider R&D activities. The Committee appreciates the scientific challenge of building the ILC in the United States, establishing our leadership in this discipline among an international team. Despite the large financial commitment by the President in scientific research, the Committee is concerned that the ILC will crowd out other valuable research as has been demonstrated with both the National Ignition Facility within the NNSA, the Rare Isotope Accelerator and ITER, both within the Office of Science. The Department must provide a cost estimate including an out year funding plan and an explanation of how this initiative will impact other facilities and scientific research. Joint Dark Energy Mission.--The Committee has consistently urged the Department to move forward toward launch of the Joint Dark Energy Mission [JDEM]. Unfortunately, in spite of the Committee's support and the Department's own scientific facilities planning process, this has not happened. The Department's fiscal year 2008 request for JDEM will cripple the Department's capacity to move forward either in partnership with NASA or as a single agency mission in 2008. Unfortunately, this budget reduction may also discourage international collaborations interested in a near term launch--collaborations which could significantly reduce the United States' costs. The Committee reasserts its strong support of JDEM, directs DOE to down select from among the three JDEM competitors immediately following the decision of the NRC committee, and provides $7,000,000 above the combined requests for JDEM, SNAP and other Dark Energy research programs to fund the competition and to aggressively ramp up activities focused on a launch in 2014. NUCLEAR PHYSICS The Committee provides $471,319,000 for Nuclear Physics. The Nuclear Physics program fosters fundamental research that will advance our understanding of nuclear matter, helping the United States maintain a leading role in developing nuclear energy, nuclear medicine, and national security. BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH For Biological and Environmental Research [BER], the Committee provides $605,320,000. BER uses competitive and peer- reviewed research at national laboratories, universities, and private institutions to further the Nation's competitiveness in the scientific arena. Low Dose Research.--The Committee supports the Department's ongoing research efforts to understand the relationship between low dose radiation exposure and the impact to human health. After eight years of research, the Department is now compiling the data for independent scientific review. Following this review, the Committee encourages the Department to share its finding with other agencies and Congress as it may support review of our existing regulatory thresholds. Medical Applications and Measurement Science.--Of the funds provided, $34,000,000 is for Medical Applications and Medical Science. The increase of $20,000,000 is for nuclear medicine research and should be distributed through a grant program. The Committee is disappointed that for the third year in a row the Department has eliminated from its budget funding for nuclear medicine research. The Committee recommends that funding by used to support new isotope development R&D and increased availability of research isotopes for critical nuclear medicine applications. The Committee also notes that diagnostics are currently in development between the University of New Mexico and Los Alamos utilizing the unique capabilities of Los Alamos at the IPF at LANSCE and the radiopharmaceutical expertise of UNM at the Center for Isotopes in Medicine. Congressionally Directed Projects.--The Committee recommendation includes the following congressionally directed projects, within available funds. The Committee reminds recipients that statutory cost sharing requirements may apply to these projects. $400,000 is provided to the University of Rochester in New York to support biosensor and fuel cell research (Schumer, Clinton); $2,000,000 is provided to the Neurosciences Institute in Morgantown, West Virginia, to support molecular genetics research (Byrd); $1,000,000 is provided to the Inland Northwest Research Alliance in Idaho Falls, Idaho, to support water research (Murray, Cantwell); $500,000 is provided to the Nevada Cancer Institute in Las Vegas to support research of cellular antigens and nuclei acids (Reid); $2,500,000 is provided to the University of North Dakota in Grand Forks to support antibodies research (Dorgan); $2,000,000 is provided to the University of California, San Diego to support seismic research (Feinstein); $500,000 is provided to the University of Massachusetts at Boston to support marine systems research (Kennedy, Kerry); $3,000,000 is provided to the University of Vermont in Burlington to support research in agricultural, environmental, and biological sciences (Leahy); $1,000,000 is provided to the University of Vermont in Burlington to conduct research of MRI science (Leahy); $250,000 is provided to the Center for Nanomedicine at the University of Maryland in Baltimore to support research into new nanoconstructs (Mikulski, Cardin); $2,000,000 is provided to the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha to conduct nanoscale imaging of proteins (Ben Nelson, Hagel); $1,500,000 is provided to WIPP in Carlsbad, New Mexico, to support neutrino research (Domenici, Bingaman); $12,000,000 is provided the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque, New Mexico, for the Mind Institute ongoing research into brain related research including supporting research of military personnel suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, depression and traumatic brain injuries (Domenici, Bingaman); $1,500,000 is provided to New Mexico Tech University in Socorro, New Mexico, for Applied Energy Science Design (Domenici); $2,000,000 is provided to Jackson State University in Jackson, Mississippi, for Bioengineering Research Training (Cochran); $600,000 is provided to the University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, Mississippi, to fund research in the areas of increasing efficiency by reducing the amount of contrast media needed for certain procedures (Cochran); $6,000,000 is provided to the University of California, Los Angeles for the Institute for Molecular Medicine radiation research (Stevens); $1,200,000 is provided to Northwest Missouri State University in Maryville, Missouri, for the Nanoscience Education Project (Bond); $1,000,000 is provided to The University of Louisville Regional NMR Facility in Louisville, Kentucky, to support ongoing research in fundamental processes of electron transport systems and the structural biology of proteins (McConnell); $1,000,000 is provided to Ultra-dense Supercomputing memory storage in Colorado for further research in this field (Allard); $1,000,000 is provided to Northern Hemisphere Pierre Auger Observatory in Colorado for the northern hemisphere location of a particle detection observatory (Allard); $1,000,000 is provided to University of Oklahoma in Norman, Oklahoma, for the Large Scale Application of Single-Walled Carbon Nanotubes (Inhofe); $1,000,000 is provided to the University of Maine in Orono, Maine, for research in Integrated Forest Products Refinery technology (Snowe, Collins); $1,000,000 is provided to Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for the Institute for Regenerative Medicine (Burr, Dole); $1,100,000 is provided to the South Dakota Catalyst Group for Alternative Energy to support research that will synthesize, characterize and scale up production of catalysts important for energy alternatives to fossil fuels (Thune); $1,500,000 is provided to Louisiana Tech University in Ruston, Louisiana, for research in nanotechnology (Vitter, Landrieu); $300,000 is provided to Dominican University in River Forest, Illinois for research related to the role of transglutaminases in Alzheimer's and Huntington's diseases (Durbin); $300,000 is provided to the University of Chicago to research multi- modality, image-based markers for assessing breast density and structure to determine risk of breast cancer (Durbin). BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES The Committee recommends $1,512,257,000 for Basic Energy Sciences, an increase of $13,760,000 from the budget request. The Committee fully funds facilities within this account including the four Nanoscale Science Research Centers and provides $15,992,000 for the Manuel Lujan, Jr., Neutron Scattering Center. The Committee provides $17,000,000 for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research [EPSCoR]. ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH The Committee provides $334,898 for Advanced Scientific Computing Research. The increase of $7,700,000 is for the Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility to maintain budget and cost schedule. The Committee has also included language in the NNSA Advanced Simulation and Computing program to encourage the Office of Science and the NNSA to work together to establish a high performance computing capability within the Department by joining the capabilities of both program support advanced computing architecture, improvements in cyber security and to support the development of advanced software and algorithms to increase the speed and efficiency of existing and future systems. The Committee does not support the Department transferring $19,000,000 to the Department of Defense to play a minor role in that effort. Instead, the Committee has shifted $13,000,000 from the Office of Science to the NNSA Advanced Computing and Simulation program to reestablish the Department leadership role in high performance computing. FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES For Fusion Energy Sciences, the Committee recommends $427,850,000. This program advances plasma science, fusion science, and fusion technology through collaborations among U.S. universities, industry, national research laboratories, and the international fusion community. High Energy Density Plasma Laboratory Program.--The Committee is pleased that the Department has developed a multidisciplinary research program, which this Committee has been an advocate for the past several years. The Committee believes this program will provide greater interaction between the Office of Science researchers and the NNSA scientists and provide greater access to user facilities such as the Z machine, NIF and Omega. While these activities have their primary responsibility in the weapons program, these facilities can offer scientists new capabilities to support their experiments. The Committee encourages the Department to increase their investment in this modest program to ensure it future success. The Committee supports the budget request of $12,281,000 for the Office of Science. The Committee notes a similar amount has been included in the NNSA program. SCIENCE LABORATORIES INFRASTRUCTURE The Committee provides $88,956,000 to support infrastructure activities, an increase of $10,000,000 over the budget request. The Committee continues to be supportive of the Physical Sciences Facility at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. The Physical Sciences Facility is supported by the Office of Science, the National Nuclear Security Administration [NNSA], and the Department of Homeland Security. The Committee is aware of the MOU that was signed by the three agencies in November 2006 but it is unable to understand why the fiscal year 2008 budget request does not support this interagency agreement. This Committee provides the requested amount of $35,000,000 from the Office of Science. The Committee is aware that a portion of this project is to be developed by a third party and that the financing proposal has not yet been approved by OMB. To prevent further delay of this project the Committee provides an additional $10,000,000 to proceed with the design of the buildings expected to be financed by the third party. All funding provided in fiscal year 2008 and all funds provided in previous bills for this project shall not be held in reserve. SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY The Committee recommendation provides $76,592,000 for Safeguards and Security activities, the same as the budget request. The Safeguards and Security program provides funding for physical security, information protection, and cyber security for the national laboratories and facilities of the Office of Science. SCIENCE PROGRAM DIRECTION The Committee recommends $184,934,000 for the Office of Science Program Direction, the same as the budget request. SCIENCE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT These initiatives support the missions of the Department's Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists program. The Committee provides $11,000,000. Nuclear Waste Disposal Appropriations, 2007.................................... $99,206,000 Budget estimate, 2008................................... 202,454,000 Committee recommendation................................ 204,054,000 The Committee recommendation for the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management include $202,454,000 from fees collected by the Secretary which are deposited into the fund established by Public Law 97-425 as amended and $242,046,000 provided from the defense appropriation. An additional $1,600,000 is provided for a total of $446,100,000. The Committee directs the Department to exercise great discretion to ensure that any work undertaken at or near Yucca Mountain is consistent with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act's requirements that no repository construction can be undertaken prior to the issuance of a repository license by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Committee provides $1,600,000 for the cooperative agreement between the Department of Energy and Inyo County, California. (Feinstein) Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program Appropriations, 2007.................................... $7,000,000 Budget estimate, 2008................................... 8,390,000 Committee recommendation................................ 8,390,000 The Committee recommendation to support the Office of Loan Guarantees is $8,390,000, as requested. The Committee has provided full funding to enable to the Department to hire experienced staff with a background in project finance or have experience with existing U.S. Government agencies such as the Overseas Private Investment Corporation or the Export-Import Bank. These entities have effectively utilized loan guarantees to encourage foreign countries to invest in U.S. technology, including the recent sale of nuclear reactor technology to China. The Committee strongly believes the administration should support a domestic initiative of greater proportion here in this country to diversity our energy portfolio. The Committee has included language regarding the terms and conditions of the loan guarantees provided under section 1702(b)(2) of the Energy Policy Act. The Committee does note that in an April 20, 2007 letter, the Government Accountability Office concluded the following: ``EPACT section 1702(b)(2) confers upon DOE independent authority to make loan guarantees, notwithstanding the FCRA requirements.'' The Committee agrees with this determination and doesn't believe Congress is required to provide statutory authorization in an appropriations bill to comply with the Fair Credit Reform Act. However, the Committee is taking this prudent step to avoid complications in the future over legal interpretations intended to frustrate the effectiveness of this program. The Committee expects the Department to move expeditiously to complete the rulemaking process and make awards on the first solicitation once the regulations have been finalized. The Committee, however, is concerned that the draft rules propose to limit the Federal guarantee to 90 percent of the debt portion, which is inconsistent with the statute, which allows for the Government to guarantee up to 100 percent of the debt portion. The Committee urges the administration to make the correction in order to optimize the effectiveness of the loan guarantee program to support the deployment of a diversified portfolio of energy saving applications and clean generation sources. Departmental Administration (GROSS) Appropriations, 2007.................................... $276,832,000 Budget estimate, 2008................................... 310,366,000 Committee recommendation................................ 308,596,000 (MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES) Appropriations, 2007.................................... -$123,000,000 Budget estimate, 2008................................... -161,818,000 Committee recommendation................................ -161,818,000 The Committee recommends $308,596,000 for Departmental Administration, a net appropriation of $146,778,000. The Departmental Administration account funds eleven Department- wide management organizations support administrative functions such as human resources, accounting, budgeting, workforce diversity and project management activities. Office of Inspector General Appropriations, 2007.................................... $41,819,000 Budget estimate, 2008................................... 47,732,000 Committee recommendation................................ 47,732,000 For the Office of Inspector General, the Committee recommends $47,732,000 consistent with the budget request. The Office of Inspector General identifies opportunities for cost savings and operational efficiencies and provides the Department of Energy with the assurance that those attempting to defraud the Government are apprehended. ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES National Nuclear Security Administration Weapons Activities Appropriations, 2007.................................... $6,275,583,000 Budget estimate, 2008................................... 6,511,312,000 Committee recommendation................................ 6,489,024,000 Reliable Replacement Warhead.--The Committee is divided on the Reliable Replacement Warhead [RRW] program, but unified in its desire to review and discuss our national strategic defense policy and the role of nuclear weapons in the post-cold war and post-September 11th world. The President requested $88,000,000 for the RRW program and the bill will provide funding of $66,000,000. This is the amount required to complete phase 2a, design definition and cost studies, of the RRW research and planning outline. Following the completion of phase 2a, Congress will have to authorize any continuation of the RRW program. The information developed from phase 2a will be helpful in assessing the role RRW might play in the reliability, safety, and nonproliferation areas of the nuclear weapon arsenal, but the information alone will not be enough upon which to base a decision on its construction or deployment. Congress should have a more vigorous analysis and debate of our national strategic defense policy prior to deciding whether to continue or terminate RRW development. Specifically, we need to decide the type and size of our future inventory of nuclear weapons. We have thousands of warheads. Under treaties we have committed to substantial reductions and eventual elimination of nuclear warheads. We must decide the methodology of meeting those obligations and over what time. In the meantime, we also have to determine how we maintain the warheads we decide we must keep. Do we continue the Stockpile Stewardship Program, which has been used for many years to maintain our nuclear deterrence, or do we develop the RRW program to replace the current nuclear warheads with new ones? These are important questions that must be answered before we decide whether to continue with or terminate the RRW program. Some of these answers will be influenced by how long the current nuclear warheads can be maintained in the Stockpile Stewardship Program without degradation. New evidence suggests that the life of those warheads is decades longer than previously estimated. The future funding requirements for a new RRW program will also have to be weighed against and compared to the costs of the Life Extension Program within the Stockpile Stewardship Program. We should also consider what impact the RRW program would have on international nonproliferation efforts. The United States is engaged around the world on trying to halt the spread of nuclear weapon capability and we must consider the role of RRW in those efforts. These are among the most important issues policy makers will face in the months and years ahead. The question of whether the RRW program should be continued must be based on accurate information and thorough debate. The Committee favors the development of a bipartisan commission created by the Congress to evaluate and make recommendations on the role of nuclear weapons in our future strategic posture. That commission should engage the administration, the Congress and the best minds in the public and private sector to evaluate the future role of nuclear weapons as a part of our defense and strategic policies. That Commission report can form the basis of information and advice from which the President and the Congress can make decisions about the future of RRW and other weapons programs. Complex 2030.--The Committee rejects the Department's premature deployment of the NNSA Complex 2030 consolidation effort. This plan was based on the adoption and deployment of the Reliable Replacement Warhead systems. The Government Accountability Office found this proposal to be lacking critical details about the size and military mission of the RRW system, which of course would dictate the size and makeup of the future stockpile including the necessity for a new pit manufacturing capability. The Committee has previously canceled the Modern Pit Facility, because the National Nuclear Security Administration, the Nuclear Weapons Council and the Department of Defense were unable to make a compelling case for a significantly larger pit manufacturing need. The Committee has not provided any funding for the Consolidated Pit Center for the very same reason. For as much thought as the Department has given to supporting Complex 2030 and its deployment, the Committee is concerned about sustaining the science capability at the laboratories and ensuring a balanced program that continues to make critical investment in improving the scientific mission. For example, the NNSA has established a preeminent capability in super computing to simulate warhead reliability without underground testing. However, the Department has no plans to advance the field of high performance computing, but instead proposes to reduce computing capacity within the laboratory system. This, however, doesn't mean that the NNSA doesn't have plans to purchase additional platforms in the future, but it is unclear what is driving these decisions. The Committee is frustrated by the lack of planning to ensure that the laboratory mission is not compromised. The Committee directs the Department to provide a comprehensive computing proposal that involves the input from the weapons laboratories that includes a long term strategy to maintain the necessary simulation capabilities within the complex and to drive innovation and competition for technology and performance. The Committee is also frustrated with the lack of scientific development vision for the labs. The NNSA has focused on its transformational plan, based on the RRW systems, but appears to have given little thought to the scientific path forward. The Committee directs the Department, drawing on the resources within NNSA and the Office of Science, to provide to the Committee a research and development plan that addresses unresolved physics and materials questions that will support national security mission as well as contributed to improving our energy independence, nonproliferation mission and to support biomedical applications. This plan should explore technology options that can be deployed and provide an added capability to our R&D program to update the scientific capabilities at each of the laboratories. Consolidation.--The Committee does believe the consolidation for disposal of the various amounts of special nuclear material, including highly enriched uranium; plutonium and excess pits should be aggressively pursued. The Committee is concerned that rising security costs continue to erode mission critical funding. The Committee encourages the administration to careful evaluate the future mission need for all special nuclear material. Any and all material that no longer has a specific mission need should be consolidated and destroyed, preferably into other forms that can be reused in other applications such as light water reactor fuel if possible. The Committee also supports utilizing existing facilities to recycle or destroy excess material at the H Canyon at the Savannah River Site. The facility, which is the last of its kind, can play a key role in down-blending a significant and varied amount of highly enriched uranium and various forms of plutonium and uranium. The cost of running this facility to support the consolidation campaign appears to be much more cost effective than attempting to develop a new capability. The Committee continues to encourage the Department to maintain its campaign to remove plutonium from the Livermore National Laboratory as soon as possible and urges the Department to give greater consideration to expanding the amount of plutonium that can be added to the 34 tons of weapons grade material that will be turned in to mixed oxide fuel for use in civilian reactors for electric generation. DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK The Committee recommendation provides $1,409,521,000 for the Directed Stockpile Activities, a reduction of $37,715,000. These activities support the activities needed to provide critical surveillance, engineering, research and development, maintenance, and dismantlement of the stockpile. Life Extension Programs.--The Committee recommends $238,686,000, as requested. The Committee is concerned about the growing costs associated with the Life Extension Program for the W-76. The Committee is aware of the fact that the NNSA is facing a challenge posed by attempting to reengineer cold war capabilities. However, the Committee expects that Department to establish a better program assessment and reporting requirements to better manage this program. Stockpile Systems.--The Committee recommends $346,717,000 for the Stockpile Systems account as requested. Reliable Replacement Warhead.--The Committee recommends $66,000,000 and directs the Department to conduct the appropriate feasibility studies allowed under phase 2a. The Committee commends the NNSA and laboratories for their work in the design competition for the RRW program. The design teams made security, reliability and manufacturability the foundation of both designs and both teams should be commended for their effort. The Committee expects the NNSA to conduct a timely and thorough feasibility review of the weapon system in order to provide Congress with the necessary information to make an informed decision as to whether or not it will authorize the National Nuclear Security Administration to proceed with the next phase of development. It will be incumbent upon NNSA to provide specific details as to how many RRW weapons will be manufactured, how the Department of Defense intends to integrate the system into the stockpile and how many weapons from the existing deterrent can be retired. No funds may be used for initial research of a RRW2. Weapons Dismantlement.--The Committee provides the requested level of $52,500,000 as requested. The Committee commends the Department for their recent efforts to increase the number of dismantlement and fulfill the terms of the Washington-Moscow Treaty, which calls for the reduction of the active stockpile to the lowest level in over three decades. Stockpile Services.--The Committee recommends $705,868,000 for these activities, a reduction of $14,946,000. The Committee expects the Department to focus on providing adequate funding support to protect the ongoing research and development, engineering and production support to maintain the existing life extension program, and not to undertake significant transformational activities proposed as part of Complex 2030 or to accommodate the proposed RRW workload. The Committee recommends $284,979,000 for the Production support program as requested. The Committee provides no funding for the responsive infrastructure activity. The Committee recommends $205,576,000 for the Management, Technology and Production activity. The Committee provides full funding of the production of limited life components for the existing stockpile. Key limited life components, such as neutron generators, contain radiological sources that cannot be manufactured by private vendors. The Committee directs the NNSA to continue to provide full support for the continued production of neutron generators to support the existing stockpile. The Committee also supports the Department's efforts to deploy new core surveillance diagnostic capabilities developed in the Engineering Campaign. CAMPAIGNS The campaigns provide the foundation for the experimental science-based activities that support the NNSA Stockpile Stewardship mission. Research supported by the programs provide data that is used with the super computing capabilities at each of the laboratories needed to support the life extension program and to certify to the President the confidence of the nuclear deterrent. The Committee recommends $1,933,193,000, an increase of $66,973,000 above the budget request. Within the funds provided, for the various campaigns, the Committee supports the budget request for the university research program in robotics [URPR] for the development of advanced robotic technologies for strategic national applications Science Campaign.--The Committee recommends $273,075,000 as requested to support the science campaign. This is the same as the budget request. Engineering Campaign.--The Committee recommends $172,749,000, an increase of $20,000,000 for the engineering campaign. This account provides critical engineering support to the stockpile and can provide solutions to deploy state-of-the- art use control technologies. There remains a significant amount that still must be understood regarding limited life components. The Committee expects the NNSA to develop a better predictive capability to better understand why systems fail and what must be done to increase reliability and component lifetimes. The Committee recognizes the continued threat posed by international terrorist organizations that seek to acquire and detonate nuclear weapons within the stockpile of the United States and those possessed by other nations. The Committee recommends that the NNSA accelerate efforts within the Enhanced Surety subactivity of the engineering campaign to increase the safety, security and improved surveillance of nuclear weapons in the existing stockpile by developing modern surety technologies, and to take advantage of every opportunity to implement these technologies in any weapon program. Furthermore, the Committee recommends that the NNSA work with other nations to explore opportunities to share these technologies, within the bounds of existing laws and treaties so that nuclear weapons can be better secured against international terrorist threats. The Committee recommends $44,803,000, an increase of $20,000,000 above the request, to enhance these important activities. The Committee also requests the NNSA to report back by July 1, 2008 on progress made both in the inclusion of modern surety technologies in the RRW studies and the plan for making surety technologies available for other nations. The Committee expects the Department to complete the buildout of the MESA facility. The Committee also directs the NNSA to initiate the refurbishment of the Ion Beam Lab by reprogramming uncosted Microsystems and Engineering Science Applications and Exterior Communication Infrastructure Modernization contingency funds. This program is on the critical path and the replacement of these existing facilities will be offset against the increasing costly maintenance and repair activities. Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Campaign.--The Committee recommends $459,146,000 for the ICF campaign activities including $10,139,000 for the final year of construction of the National Ignition Facility as requested. The baseline ignition approach on NIF is x-ray or indirect drive. This approach was chosen after detailed review of its maturity and value to the weapons program. Significant challenges remain for the baseline approach as independent reviews have concluded. In addition there are severe budgetary constraints on the overall Stockpile Stewardship Program. The Department is therefore directed to allocate all of its resources for the first ignition demonstration with indirect drive and to defer other approaches such as direct drive until after achievement of x-ray driven ignition or after experiments have shown that the baseline approach will not succeed. The funds budgeted for direct drive should be used to increase the operating capacity of all other ICF funded facilities within the complex. Facility Operations and Target Production.--The Committee recommends $132,970,000 for the facility operations and target production. This funding increase reflects the Committee's desire to consolidate funding for the Z machine operations and experimentation into NNSA Science and ICF campaign accounts. The Z facility at Sandia National Laboratories is a model NNSA shared national user facility. The request for Z experiments continues to grow. Scientists at the NNSA weapons laboratories are focused on the mission needs of the Stockpile Stewardship Program, and the new initiative in high energy density laboratory plasmas will increase the interest from scientists in the fundamental research fields of high-energy-density science, planetary science, and laboratory astrophysics. NNSA has invested $120,000,000 in the Z facility and a petawatt- class laser. Despite this investment, the budget request fails to provide sufficient funding to reestablish experimental capabilities (precision, performance, and shot rate) required to support the many users of the facility. This funding shortfall will severely restrict the ability to conduct high- priority weapons science, ICF, and basic science research using the refurbished Z facility. The Committee concurs with the President's budget request for Z using $12,800,000 in the Science Campaign, $10,440,000 in the ICF Pulsed Power and $1,200,000 in the ICF National Ignition Campaign activities. The Committee has provided $58,357,000 in the Facility Operations and Target Production category of the ICF Campaign in order to fully reestablish experimental capabilities on the refurbished Z facility. The Committee shifts $28,887,000 from the RTBF Campaign budgeted for Z to the ICF Facility Operations and Target Production category. Within the available funds, $13,000,000 has been added to ensure full operations and target production on Z and $5,000,000 to support a new approach known as a Linear Transformer Driver or LTD to create high current pulsed power devices has recently been demonstrated at Sandia. The funding shall be used to refine the baseline design including all of the critical elements of rep-rated high yield fusion facility and begin component improvements and demonstrations as appropriate. The Committee expects that the Department will provide adequate funding for the full utilization of Z machine in the out-year budgets. Joint Program in High Energy Density Laboratory Plasmas.-- The Committee appreciates the Department's effort to establish the High Energy Density Laboratory Plasmas joint program. The Committee is encouraged the Department is taking the proper steps to coordinate research between the Office of Science and NNSA, and to expand it to other agencies as well. The Department has provided $24,637,000 divided equally between Fusion Energy Sciences and NNSA. The Committee recommends the entire NNSA contribution of $12,356,000 be provided in the High Energy Density Laboratory Plasma line. The Committee has shifted funds from experimental support activities. NIF Assembly and Installation.--The Committee provides $136,912,000 for NIF assembly and installation. Advanced Simulation and Computing.--The Committee recommends $610,738,000 for the activities with the Advanced Simulation and Computing program. This is an increase of $25,000,000 above the President's request. The Committee has provided an additional $12,000,000 for infrastructure improvements such as power, storage and visualization across the complex. The Committee has also reallocated funding targeted to subsidize the Department of Defense research program and applied it to support a joint NNSA and Office of Science high performance computing effort; $19,000,000 is reprioritized to support this initiative. The Committee expects the Department to complete work on this computing system before proceeding with other platform acquisitions. The National Nuclear Security Administration and the Office of Science both have major High Performance Computing [HPC] programs. These programs have provided national leadership in the development of HPC technologies and their application to stockpile stewardship and scientific discovery. To address emerging issues in the Nation's security, economic competitiveness and scientific leadership, advances in HPC need to be accelerated beyond what each office can accomplish individually. The Committee expects the Department to continue to diversify it computing potential and bring together national laboratories, computer industries and universities to develop critical technologies for future supercomputing platforms. Important areas for research and development include advanced supercomputer architectures, new algorithms and system software to enable efficient use of emerging architectures, advanced interconnection network technologies and advanced memory subsystems technologies that keep pace with advances in microprocessors. The Department is directed to establish a joint program office lead by the NNSA Administrator and the Under Secretary for Science. This office will have the primary responsibility to ensure the sustained availability of a well balanced, and hence productive and highly scalable, computing platforms for the DOE and the Nation and will serve the missions of NNSA, the Office of Science and emerging economic competitiveness initiatives. Within this responsibility, the institute will develop and maintaining a long-range HPC roadmap and create the strategy and guidelines for competitive acquisition of supercomputer platforms for the DOE including pre-competitive HPC R&D. These supercomputers protect national security information and thus have demanding cyber security requirements. The Department is expected to support research and development efforts to ensure these systems are protected from cyber attack. The Department of Energy has requested $19,000,000 to be provided to the Department of Defense to subsidize the creation of its own high performance computing program. Since the Department of Energy plays such a minor role in this effort, the Committee recommends no funding be provided to the Department of Defense from either the Office of Science or the NNSA and instead use the funds to revitalize the Department's own R&D capability. The Committee is aware of several competitive ideas for increased computing capacity from several different technology providers. The Committee encourages the NNSA to ensure the three laboratories have sufficient computing capacity to support each of the laboratory missions well into the future. The Committee supports the administration's request to provide $52,100,000 for the Roadrunner at Petaflop scale. Pit Manufacturing.--The Committee recommends $256,316,000 to support the Pit Manufacturing mission, down $24,914,000. The Committee does not endorse the consolidated plutonium center and has not provided any funding for this activity. The NNSA, Nuclear Weapons Council and the Defense Department have failed to clearly articulate its vision for the stockpile and the explain how it will utilize the proposed tools in the Complex 2030 plan to reduce the overall number of warheads as well as individual weapons systems. Readiness Campaign.--The Committee recommends $161,169,000, as requested. The Committee understands that $12,400,000 in uncosted obligations remain available from the completed Tritium Extraction Facility (98D125000). The Committee has rescinded these available funds for use in other priorities in the weapons program. This still leaves sufficient funding for closeout activities. READINESS IN TECHNICAL BASE AND FACILITIES The Committee provides $1,659,248,000. This funding is used to support the operations and maintenance of the NNSA laboratories, productions facility, equipment purchases and personnel. Operations of Facilities.--The Committee recommends $1,126,409,000 for this account. This funding level reflects a reduction of $32,896,000. Within this amount the Committee shifted $28,887,000 to the ICF Campaign in order to consolidate funding for operations of the Z machine. The Committee also recommends a reduction of $4,009,000 from the Institution Site Support activities. This cut is expected to be spread equally among all sites. Program Readiness.--The Committee provides the requested amount of $71,466,000. Material Recycle and Recovery.--The Committee notes this activity continues to have uncosted obligations. As such funding has been reduced by $5,000,000 to $64,962,000. Containers.--The Committee recommends $19,184,000. Storage.--The Committee recommendation included $25,133,000, a reduction of $10,000,000. According to the GAO, this activity also contains uncosted balances. Construction.--The Committee recommends $352,094,000, an increase of $45,000,000. The Committee has provided this funding increase to make key investments in laboratory infrastructure and security needs. Project 08-D-801, High Pressure Fire Loop, Pantex, Texas.-- The Committee recommends $7,000,000, the same as the request. --08-D-802, High Explosives Pressing Facility, Pantex, Texas.--The Committee recommends $25,300,000, the same as the request. --08-D-804, TA-55 Reinvestment Project, Los Alamos, New Mexico.--The Committee recommends $6,000,000, the same as the request. --08-D-805, Classified Vaults, Los Alamos, New Mexico.--The Committee recommends an additional $45,000,000 to demonstrate proposed super vault type rooms at Los Alamos to consolidate 142 existing vaults into 10 vaults. Consolidation of classified data will deploy advanced security technology to defeat both internal and external threats. --07-D-140 Project Engineering and Design, Various Locations.--The Committee recommends $2,500,000, the same as the request. --07-D-220 Radioactive Liquid Waste Treatment Facility Upgrade Project, LANL, New Mexico.--The Committee recommends $26,672,000, the same as the request. --06-D-140 Project Engineering and Design, Various Locations.--The recommendation for this activity is $23,862,000, the same as the budget request. --06-D-420 NTS Replace Fire Stations 1&2, Nevada Test Site, Nevada.--The Committee recommends $6,719,000, the same as the request. --05-D-140, Project Engineering and Design, Various Locations.--The Committee recommends $7,000,000, the same as the request. --04-D-125, Chemistry and Metallurgy Facility Replacement Project, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico.--The Committee recommends $95,586,000 for the Chemistry and Metallurgy Facility Replacement Project. The current authorization basis for the existing CMR lasts only through 2010, as it does not provide adequate worker safety or containment precautions. However, deep spending cuts implemented by the NNSA in the 2007 Spend Plan and a significant cut to the 2008 budget request will likely result in delays that will require the laboratory to continue operations in the existing CMR facility. Any further reductions below the $95,586,000 request, which is $65,000,000 below the proposed spend plan from the 2007 request, would stop all work on the Nuclear Facility and long lead equipment purchases and would result in the layoff of key design personnel. Attempting to reconstitute a new team at a later day would likely result in a new round of delays and cost increases. The NNSA's indecision regarding future facilities will also result in added costs, delays and keep workers in unsafe working conditions at least 2 years beyond the existing 2010 deadline. The Committee has not provided funding to initiate work on the new multibillion consolidated plutonium because the Defense Department has been unable to articulate a coherent policy and pit requirement for the stockpile. --04-D-128 TA-18 Criticality Experiments Facility [CEF], Los Alamos National Lab, Los Alamos, New Mexico.--The Committee recommends $29,455,000, the same as the request. --01-D-124 HEU Materials Facility, Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.--The Committee recommends $77,000,000, the same as the request. Test Capabilities Revitalization Phase II.--The Committee is very concerned about the lack of funding for the Test Capabilities Revitalization Phase II located at Sandia National Laboratory. The NNSA has previously indicated its desire to upgrade this testing facility, but has failed to provide any funding in the fiscal year 2008 budget request. The Committee is concerned that this facility, which represents a single point failure in the complex and cannot be operated for much longer in this State. The Committee directs the Department to provide a report to the Appropriations Committee identifying the options for the recovery of this facility and the expected cost and timetable. FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE RECAPITALIZATION The Committee recommends $262,743,000 for Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization activities, a decrease of $31,000,000. This program was developed to reduce the backlog of deferred maintenance of aging infrastructure facilities throughout the complex. The old facilities continue to be a drain on resources and should be demolished or disposed of as quickly as possible. The Committee recommends $200,023,000 to support the FIRP program and $62,720,000 to support construction activities as requested. SECURE TRANSPORTATION ASSET The Committee recommendation for the Secure Transportation Asset program is $215,646,000 as requested. This organization provides an invaluable service that is responsible for the safe and secure transport of our nuclear weapons, weapons components and special nuclear material. NUCLEAR WEAPONS INCIDENT RESPONSE The Committee recommends full funding for the nuclear weapons incident response program. The Committee provides $161,748,000 as requested. ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT AND OPERATIONS The Committee recommends $17,518,000 as requested for long term stewardship responsibilities. SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY The Committee recommendation for the Safeguards and Security program is $893,057,000, an increase of $12,000,000. The Committee is frustrated with the continued climb in funding for this activity and the constantly increasing demands for additional resources. Currently, the Department and laboratories spend over $1 billion on physical security costs. The ever increasing costs lies in the application of the Design Basis Threat, which is linked to manpower needs. The Committee continues to be concerned that the Department does not have a realistic threat assessment in which to accurately assign risk and allocate scarce resources. This view is based on the continued escalation of security costs around the complex that seem to have no ceiling. Therefore, the Committee recommends the National Academy of Sciences analyze how the Design Basis Threat is currently formulated along with the funding requests to meet these requirements and then build a comprehensive ``probabilistic risk assessment'' tool for comparison purposes and provide a report back to the Committee on Appropriations. The Committee expects the NAS to perform this evaluation for both the physical and cyber environments and to inform the Committee if the Department has identified the proper balance between the two activities. Operations.--The Committee recommends $733,318,000, an increase of $12,000,000 to be used to complete the cyber security upgrades of the red network at Los Alamos. This funding will provide the interconnectivity and hardening to facilitate this complete transformation of the site and allow the diskless classified workstation program to come rapidly to full implementation. Operating costs for classified computing and media will drop to provide annual savings that can continue to support world-class cyber security. Construction.--The Committee recommends $57,496,000, as requested to support the following projects: --08-D-701 Nuclear Materials S&S Upgrade Project Los Alamos National Laboratory.--The Committee provides $49,496,000 as requested. --05-D-170 Project Engineering and Design, Various Locations.--The Committee recommends $8,000,000 as requested. Cyber Security.--The Committee encourages this office to redouble its efforts to increase the level of cyber protection of national security data and help facilitate the deployment of new technology and red networks throughout the complex in order to better control classified data. Despite the constant and evolving cyber threat, the Committee is surprised that the rate of growth in cyber security has failed to keep pace with physical security demands. The Committee hopes the National Academy Study will shed some light on our best opportunity to defeat this growing danger. Congressionally Directed Projects.--The Committee recommendation includes the following congressionally directed projects, within available funds. The Committee reminds recipients that statutory cost sharing requirements may apply to these projects. The Committee provides $8,000,000 for North Dakota State University (Fargo) to support computing capability (Dorgan); $600,000 is provided to the Atomic Testing Museum in Las Vegas, Nevada, for operations and maintenance (Reid); $19,650,000 is provided to the Nevada Test Site for operations and infrastructure improvements (Reid); $1,000,000 is provided to Arrowhead Center at New Mexico State University to promote prosperity and public welfare in New Mexico through economic development (Domenici, Bingaman); $750,000 is provided to the National Museum of Nuclear Science and History in Albuquerque, New Mexico, for the museum site (Domenici); $3,500,000 is provided to the University of Texas in Austin, Texas, to complete the construction of the Petawatt Laser (Hutchison); $3,500,000 is provided to the Sandia Institute for Advanced Computing Algorithms, New Mexico, for high performance computing and advanced algorithm development (Domenici); $350,000 is provided to the University of Nevada-Las Vegas for in-situ nanomechanics (Reid). Unused Carryover Balances.--The Government Accountability Office has conducted a review of the NNSA budget and found that $67,000,000 in unobligated carryover balances are available for reuse. The Committee has shifted these funds to support vital activities with the weapons accounts. Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Appropriations, 2007.................................... $1,818,339,000 Budget estimate, 2008................................... 1,672,646,000 Committee recommendation................................ 1,872,646,000 NONPROLIFERATION AND VERIFICATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT The Committee recommends $322,252,000 for Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development activities, an increase of $57,000,000. The Committee is disappointed that the Department of Energy has reduced the funding for this activity over the past 2 years, despite out year budget estimates that show additional needs. The Committee recognizes this program provides a critical tool to prevent against technical surprise from other nations. The Committee recognizes it is the capabilities developed by this program that enable the Federal Government to monitor, detect and verify clandestine efforts by other countries to hide or disguise their nuclear capability. This program also plays a critical role in the development of technologies that secure civilian nuclear technology and to provide international monitoring of enrichment, reprocessing and reactor operations. The Committee also believes innovations in detection equipment can provide port and rail cargo better screening facilities and provide the NNSA with greater capability to screen more cargo in a timely fashion, including the deployment of mobile portal detection systems. Of the funding provided, $17,000,000 is for Project 06-D-180, National Security Laboratory at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. In providing this funding the Committee accelerates half of the NNSA's fiscal year 2009 funding share for this facility. Acceleration of completion of this facility is driven by the Department of Energy's environmental cleanup of the Hanford 300 Area. The NNSA is urged to meet its commitments to this replacement facility and continue to work closely with the Office of Science and the Department of Homeland Security. NONPROLIFERATION AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY For Nonproliferation and International Security, the Committee recommends $210,870,000, an increase of $86,000,000. These activities provide critical oversight capabilities to ensure compliance with international treaties and agreements to reduce and eliminate nuclear material that poses a proliferation threat. Within available funds, the Committee recommends $1,500,000 to New England Research in White River Junction, Vermont, for the Caucasus Seismic Network (Leahy). International Fuel Bank.--The Committee recommends an additional $50,000,000 to provide the U.S. contribution toward the establishment of an International Nuclear Fuel Bank under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency, [IAEA]. The fuel bank would accept contributions from many nations and private contributors to operate a civilian nuclear fuel reserve for countries that agree to forgo the development of a domestic enrichment capability. This international reserve will protect countries from potential economic and political disruptions in the nuclear fuel supply. Before the U.S. contribution is made to establish this international reserve, the Department will negotiate the terms and conditions for participation and use of the fuel bank and certify to Congress that the conditions are acceptable. Sixty days following the congressional notification, and assuming no legislative action is taken to prevent the Department from proceeding, the Department is directed to make the appropriated contribution. Global Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention.--The Committee recommends $28,000,000 for the Global Initiatives for Proliferation and Prevention. This is an increase of $8,000,000 to support international science collaboration. The Committee believes that the efforts to engage both Iraqi and Libyan scientific institutions are unlikely to bear significant results and the Committee authorizes the NNSA to use these funds and others to develop stronger research ties with China. Global Regimes.--The Committee recommends $10,126,000 for the Global Regimes program, an increase of $8,000,000. This additional funding shall be used by the Department to conduct an international ministerial-level conference on nuclear nonproliferation goals and objectives. The Committee encourages the administration to press for new multilateral options to address the spread of fissile material, equipment and technology, particularly with respect to international supplier rules, strengthened IAEA safeguards and physical protection requirements, bilateral and multilateral cooperation to support implementation UNSCAR 1540 and the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, and multilateral cooperative agreements on civilian nuclear technology. INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR MATERIALS PROTECTION AND COOPERATION The Committee recommends $391,771,000, an increase of $20,000,000. The fiscal year 2007 global war on terror supplemental enacted on May 25, 2007 provided additional funding to support efforts to secure special nuclear material. The Committee will closely follow the Department's efforts as it works off the amount of un-obligated balances as a result of the supplemental appropriation. ELIMINATION OF WEAPONS-GRADE PLUTONIUM PRODUCTION The Committee recommends $152,593,000, a decrease of $29,000,000. This nominal reduction is enabled by the fact that the Department has succeeded in raising this amount of funding from other countries such as United Kingdom, Canada, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Republic of Finland and New Zealand. The Committee provided the Department with the statutory authority in 2005 to apply international contributions to the program and continues to encourage the Department to find offsetting contributions that allows the Department to provide funding to other priorities. FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION The Committee recommends $609,534,000 as requested to support the Fissile Materials Disposition program. The Committee provides full funding to the Plutonium Disposition Program and expects the Department to proceed expeditiously with construction of the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility a Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility. The Committee would note that the Department has also completed certification of the surplus pit shipping containers and are beginning to fabricate them. During the delay in the start of construction due to the 2007 joint resolution, the Department has undertaken a thorough review of all the options available in disposing of excess weapons-grade plutonium. Despite the increasing projects costs associated with the MOX facility, the Department has found the MOX path still offers the lowest cost and quickest path to disposal. The Committee expects the Department to focus on delivering this project at cost and on time. Russian Program.--The Committee continues to wait for an final agreement with the Russian Government as to terms and conditions Russian intends to fulfill the Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreements and dispose of 34 tons of excess Russian plutonium. The Committee is frustrated with the delay. The Committee is aware of the fact that more than $250,000,000 has been appropriated earmarked for Russia if they commit to a disposition pathway. The Committee directs the Department to rescind $57,000,000 in previously appropriated funds for the Russian program and apply it to the construction activities of the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility. This will increase that account from $333,849,000 to $390,849,000 for construction of the MOX facility on the currently validated baseline and schedule. The Committee is not backing away from the United States obligation to provide assistance to this program and will support future budget requests for the Russian program once the Russian Government commits to a specific disposal pathway that includes a cost-sharing arrangement and on a timetable consistent with the United States effort. Further, the plutonium discharged from the portion of the reactors used weapons plutonium must be less than the weapons plutonium loaded into these reactors, and any material eventually reprocessed from these operations should be mixed in such a way that any plutonium recovered is not weapons-grade. The Committee emphasizes the importance of reaching agreement with Russia quickly on a monitoring regime, so that disposition in those facilities that already exist can begin; it should not be difficult to reach agreement on measures that will confirm that weapon-grade plutonium is being dispositioned. The Committee is disappointed that the Department does not yet appear to have focused on (a) the measures needed to ensure that high levels of security are maintained throughout the disposition process in Russia, and (b) working with Russia to ensure that the disposition pathway chosen is expandable to handle much larger quantities of plutonium, should the two sides agree to disposition of much larger quantities (which the Committee believes would significantly enhance the national security value of this effort). In both cases, the needed measures will be more effective and less expensive if designed in from the outset. The Committee's future support for the Russian effort will be affected by the progress made in these two areas. GLOBAL THREAT REDUCTION INITIATIVE The Committee provides $185,626,000 for the Global Threat Reduction Initiative, an increase of $66,000,000 over the request. The program serves the important role of securing and reducing vulnerable nuclear and radiological materials located at civilian sites around the world. The program is central to our efforts to prevent the use of such materials in weapons of mass destruction and acts of terrorism. Naval Reactors Appropriations, 2007.................................... $781,800,000 Budget estimate, 2008................................... 808,219,000 Committee recommendation................................ 808,219,000 Through the Naval Reactors program, the National Nuclear Security Administration is working to provide the U.S. Navy with nuclear propulsion plants that are capable of responding to the challenges of 21st century security concerns. The Committee recommends $808,219,000 for the Naval Reactors program. Office of the Administrator Appropriations, 2007.................................... $340,291,000 Budget estimate, 2008................................... 394,656,000 Committee recommendation................................ 394,656,000 The Committee recommends $394,656,000 for the Office of the Administrator, the same as the President's request. ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES Defense Environmental Cleanup Appropriations, 2007.................................... $5,731,839,000 Budget estimate, 2008................................... 5,363,905,000 Committee recommendation................................ 5,690,380,000 For Defense Environmental Cleanup, the Committee provides $5,690,380,000, an increase of $326,475,000 above the President's request. This total includes $10,000,000 for Hazardous Waste Worker Training. The Committee recognizes the program's focus on project management and encourages the program to continue its disciplined approach to managing its projects under the Department's Project Management Order (DOE Order 413). Using this process, 73 percent (in terms of dollar value) of all near-term project baselines have been validated, and 96 percent of those baselines are operating within an acceptable performance range (plus or minus 10 percent). However, the program is only requesting sufficient funding to provide a 50 percent confidence that the objectives (cost, scope, and schedule) of its projects will remain unchanged. The Department's effort to complete clean up in the future will be challenged by the failure to request sufficient funding. More importantly, it is not enough to simply fund projects that have the greatest perceived reduction to public risk; the Department committed to the public that it would meet regulatory agreements too. The Committee expects future funding requests to include sufficient funding to meet that commitment. Recently, the Office of Envirenmental Management's Leadership determined that a number of activities that were directed by the Congress in the past have merit, benefiting the cleanup program as well as the taxpayer. Activities such as the historic preservation activities related to the Manhattan Project sites, the Self-Reliance Foundation/Hispanic Communications Network, the Diagnostic Instrumentation and Analysis Laboratory, and the Western Environmental Technology Office have now been incorporated into the fabric of the EM Cleanup program. The Committee recognizes that this determination came too late to be included in the fiscal year 2008 request, but will be supported within available funds. The Committee expects these meritorious activities to be supported in fiscal year 2009 and future budgets. Control Levels.--In fiscal year 2006, the Environmental Management Program's budget was restructured to better display site information, which paralleled its management of the program. However, Congress increased the number of congressional reprogramming control points from approximately 25 line items in fiscal year 2005 to nearly 100 in fiscal year 2006. This Committee understands and continues to support the need for site managers to have the flexibility to meet the changing requirements at the sites and recommends the following reprogramming control points for fiscal year 2008: --Closure sites; --Savannah River site, 2012 completion projects; --Savannah River site, 2035 completion projects; --Savannah River site, tank farm operations projects; --Waste Isolation Pilot Plant; --Idaho National Laboratory; --Oak Ridge Reservation; --Hanford site; 2012 completion projects; --Hanford site; 2035 completion projects; --Office of River Protection, tank farm operations projects; --Office of River Protection, Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant; --Program Direction; --Program Support; --Technology Development and Deployment; --All construction line items; --NNSA sites; --Safeguards and Security. Internal Reprogramming Authority.--In fiscal year 2008, Environmental Management may transfer up to $5,000,000, one time, between accounts listed below 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. This reprogramming authority may not be used to initiate new programs or to change funding levels for programs specifically denied, limited, or increased by Congress in the act or report. The Committee on Appropriations in the House and Senate must be notified within 30 days after the use of this internal reprogramming authority. The following is a list of account control points for internal reprogramming purposes: --Savannah River site, 2012 completion projects; --Savannah River site, 2035 completion projects; --Savannah River site, tank farm operations projects; --Hanford site; 2012 completion projects; --Hanford site; 2035 completion projects; --Transfers between construction line item(s) and operating projects within the same site, as applicable. Closure Sites.--The Committee includes $55,937,000, an increase of $13,500,000 above the request, to assure disposal of the Fernald Byproducts Waste. Miamisburg receives $30,308,000, Consolidated Business Center receives $11,834,000, and Ashtabula receives $295,000, all as requested. Hanford Site.--The Committee includes $950,376,000, a total of $73,296,000 above the budget request. The Committee recommendation includes an increase of $23,000,000 for solid waste activities, $19,400,000 for soil remediation in the Central Plateau (U Plant & BC Cribs), Plutonium-Uranium Extraction Facility remedial investigation/feasibility study to meet Tri-Party Agreement milestones, $23,000,000 for the River Corridor Closure project to meet near-term milestones and continue the deactivation of critical facilities to meet mid- term compliance milestones, and the transfer and combination of $471,000 from the Office of River Protection to the Hanford Office for Community and Regulatory Support. The Committee also recognizes that the program has determined the Hazardous Materials Management and Emergency Response [HAMMER] facility has merit to the needs of the cleanup program and is included in the Hanford budget. The program should separately provide funding for this activity in its fiscal year 2009 request. Office of River Protection.--The Committee is frustrated that the Department of Energy continues to request inadequate funds for Tank Farm Activities. The safe operation of the tank farms, retrieval of waste and the closure of the tank farms is an increasingly important activity as the underground storage tanks are past their planned life expectancy. Additionally, DOE has selected a supplemental treatment technology as part of its overall treatment plan for low-activity waste but has requested no funds for the demonstration project for the past 2 years. The delay of the Waste Treatment Plant highlights the need to test, evaluate, and ultimately deploy alternatives for treatment of liquid tank waste instead of relying solely on one solution. To support a robust program the Committee provides an additional $53,000,000 for the Tank Farm Activities. Funding at this level will keep an experienced, well-trained workforce on the job, achieving real cleanup results. The Committee also transfers $471,000 from the Office of River Protection to the Hanford Office to consolidate the Community and Regulatory Support function in one place. The total for the Tank Farm Activities is $325,972,000. The Committee includes $690,000,000 for the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant [WTP], bringing the site total to $1,015,972,000. A significant factor in establishing an annual funding level of $690,000,000 for this project was to moderate the Federal budget impact of significant year-to-year swings in actual construction costs by allowing for carryover of excess funds in years with lower costs to years where costs rise above the appropriation. Continued support for this funding level will provide both solutions to identified problems with the project as well as ramp up in construction. Idaho Cleanup Project.--The Committee recommends $532,926,000, an increase of $28,900,000. The increase supports shipping legacy mixed low-level waste offsite for disposal at the Nevada Test Site; plant and equipment upgrades that will permit Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Plant to operate at capacity to meet Settlement Agreement milestones; and completion of the remote handled-transuranic waste shipments to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant by the end of fiscal year 2008 to meet its operational requirements (to emplace remote-handled waste prior to emplacing contact-handled waste in disposal rooms). NNSA Sites.--The Committee recommendation is $361,663,000, a total of $90,533,000 above the request. The Committee recommends $222,000,000 for cleanup at Los Alamos National Laboratory, $82,533,000 above the request, of which $5,000,000 is to support environmental impact studies and environmental remediation to support land transfer activities from the Los Alamos National Laboratory to Los Alamos County. The increase is necessary to prevent the site from missing agreed upon cleanup milestones in fiscal year 2008, and will also enable the laboratory to undertake the necessary predatory work necessary to remain on schedule for fiscal year 2009. The Committee also provides $8,000,000 above the request of $81,106,000 for characterization and certification of remaining transuranic waste stored at Nevada for disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. The Committees also includes $8,680,000 for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, $1,511,000 for the NNSA Service Center, $27,585,000 for the Separations Process Research Unit, $12,411,000 for Pantex, and $370,000 for California Site Support, all as requested. Oak Ridge Reservation.--The recommendation is $179,284,000, the same as the budget request. Savannah River Site.--The Committee includes $1,200,090,000. Within the recommendation, the Committee provides $311,811,000 for the nuclear materials stabilization and disposition activity, the same as the budget request. Waste Isolation Pilot Plant [WIPP].--The recommendation is $250,739,000, an increase of $31,000,000 above the requested amount. The increase provides for equipment to maintain operational reliability, assurance of transuranic waste receipts at an average rate of 21 contact- and 5 remote-handled shipments per week, procurement of TRUPACT III shipping casks for large containers, and finally, monitoring and plugging of wells. The remaining funds are for Carlsbad educational support, infrastructure improvements resulting from of operations at WIPP and for construction of the WIPP digital records center, activities the Program found meritorious enough to support in fiscal year 2007. Program Direction.--The Committee includes $309,760,000, consistent with the requested amount. Program Support.--The Committee includes $41,946,000. Safeguards and Security.--The Committee recommends $273,581,000, an increase of $200,000, which is for WIPP. Technology Development and Deployment.--The Committee provides $55,106,000, which provides for additional research and development for High Level Waste retrieval, pretreatment and immobilization, and decontamination and decommissioning activities designed to reduce long-term costs. The Committee recommendation includes the following congressionally directed projects, within available funds. The Committee reminds recipients that statutory cost sharing requirements may apply to these projects. $3,000,000 is provided to the University of Nevada, Reno, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, for continued expansion of the James E. Rogers and Louis Weiner Jr. Large-Scale Structures Laboratory (Reid); $3,475,000 is provided to the University of Nevada, Reno, Center for Materials Reliability (Reid); $1,500,000 is provided to Cellular Bioengineering, Inc., Honolulu, Hawaii, to continue development of polymeric hydrogels for radiation decontamination (Inouye); $1,500,000 is provided to Cerematec Incorporated in Salt Lake City, Utah, for Remediation of Low-Level Nuclear Waste Utilizing Ceramic Ionic Transport Membranes (Bennett, Hatch); $1,000,000 is provided to Savannah River National Lab in South Carolina for Integrated Collaborative Prototyping Environment (Graham). Federal Contribution to Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund.--The recommendation is $463,000,000, the same as the request. Other Defense Activities Appropriations, 2007.................................... $636,271,000 Budget estimate, 2008................................... 763,974,000 Committee recommendation................................ 765,464,000 The Committee recommends $765,464,000 for Other Defense Activities. HEALTH, SAFETY AND SECURITY The Committee recommends $429,348,000, including $100,043,000 for Program Direction. The Committee does not recommend a reduction of $990,000 of prior-year balances, as these funds were not received by the program due to the year long continuing resolution in fiscal year 2007. The Office of Health, Safety and Security is the Department's central organization responsible for health, safety, environment, and security; providing corporate-level leadership and strategic vision to coordinate and integrate these programs. This Office provides the Department with effective and consistent policy, assistance, enforcement, and independent oversight activities. The integrated approach and functional alignment of responsibility alleviates overlap in reporting and provides consistency in policy and guidance while increasing the effectiveness of communication and accountability for worker health, safety and security. The Committee directs the Office of Health, Safety and Security to allocate $16,500,000 from within available funds for the former worker medical screening programs. The Office of Health, Safety and Security is directed to initiate an early lung cancer screening program using helical low dose CT scanning for former workers at Fernald facility in Harrison, Ohio, and the Mound facility in Miamisburg, Ohio, who are at elevated risk of lung cancer. Additionally, the Office of Health, Safety and Security is to extend early lung cancer screening at the three gaseous diffusion plants in Portsmouth, Ohio, Paducah, Kentucky, and Oak Ridge (K-25), Tennessee, for those who have not previously been screened but are now eligible according to established eligibility protocols. Given that lung cancer screening program carried out at the three gaseous diffusion plants since 2000 has identified the majority of lung cancers at early stages where surgical intervention has been demonstrated to be successful, and studies indicate this has led to an increase in survival rates, it is appropriate to extend lung screening to at-risk workers at the Fernald and Mound facilities. LEGACY MANAGEMENT The Committee recommends $159,063,000, the same as the request. This funding is in addition to $35,401,000 appropriated under the Energy Supply and Conservation appropriation of the Department. Funds are used to monitor closed cleanup sites and manage DOE property as well as manage the pension and benefit responsibilities of former DOE contractors employed by the closed sites. Congressionally Directed Projects.--The Committee recommendation includes the following congressionally directed projects, within available funds. The Committee reminds recipients that statutory cost sharing requirements may apply to these projects. $500,000 is provided to the Rocky Flats Cold War Museum in Colorado to recognize the work that went on at Rocky Flats and those who contributed to the history (Allard). FUNDING FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES AT IDAHO The recommendation is $75,949,000, the same as the request. This provides for Safeguards and Security of the entire Idaho National Laboratory, protecting both the Nuclear Energy and Environmental Management cleanup employees. DEFENSE RELATED ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT For Defense Related Administrative Support, the Committee recommends $99,000,000, the same as the request. These funds provide for departmental services which support the National Nuclear Security Administration. The Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Under Secretaries, and General Counsel are among the offices receiving funds. OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS The Committee provides $4,607,000 for the Office of Hearings and Appeals, the same as the President's request. The Office of Hearings and Appeals conducts hearings to issue decisions of the Department for any adjudicative proceedings that the Secretary may delegate. Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal Appropriations, 2007.................................... $346,500,000 Budget estimate, 2008................................... 292,046,000 Committee recommendation................................ 242,046,000 The Committee recommendation for the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management is $242,046,000. This total is $50,000,000 below the request. 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 2008. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION Appropriations, 2007.................................... $5,602,000 Budget estimate, 2008................................... 6,463,000 Committee recommendation................................ 6,463,000 For the Southeastern Power Administration, the Committee recommends $6,463,000 the same as the budget request. The Committee provides $62,215,000 for purchase power and wheeling. The Southeastern Power Administration markets hydroelectric power produced at Corps of Engineers projects in 11 Southeastern States. Southeastern does not own or operate any transmission facilities and carries out its marketing program by utilizing the existing transmission systems of the power utilities in the area. This is accomplished through transmission arrangements between Southeastern and each of the area utilities with transmission lines connected to the projects. The utility agrees to deliver specified amounts of Federal power to customers of the Government, and Southeastern agrees to compensate the utility for the wheeling service performed. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION Appropriations, 2007.................................... $29,998,000 Budget estimate, 2008................................... 30,442,000 Committee recommendation................................ 30,442,000 For the Southwestern Power Administration, the Committee recommends $30,442,000 the same as the budget request. The Committee provides $45,000,000 for purchase power and wheeling. The Southwestern Power Administration is the marketing agent for the power generated at the Corps of Engineers' hydroelectric plants in the six State area of Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana, with a total installed capacity of 2,158 megawatts. It operates and maintains some 1,380 miles of transmission lines, 24 generating projects, and 24 substations, and sells its power at wholesale, primarily to publicly and cooperatively-owned electric distribution utilities. CONSTRUCTION, REHABILITATION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION Appropriations, 2007.................................... $232,326,000 Budget estimate, 2008................................... 201,030,000 Committee recommendation................................ 231,030,000 The Western Power Administration is responsible for marketing the electric power generated by the Bureau of Reclamation, the Corps of Engineers, and the International Boundary and Water Commission. Western also operates and maintains a system of transmission lines nearly 17,000 miles long, providing electricity to 15 Central and Western States over a service area of 1.3 million square miles. The Committee notes that Western Area Power Administration funding for Construction, Rehabilitation, Operations and Maintenance is significantly reduced from prior levels. The budget proposes to offset this reduction by a far greater reliance on use of alternative financing. While direct customer financing is well established there are limits on the availability of this alternative financing mechanism. The Committee is concerned that continued reductions in Western's construction program could impair the reliability of the transmission systems. The Committee recommends $231,030,000 for the Western Area Power Administration. The total program level for Western in fiscal year 2008 is $755,911,000 which includes $62,915,000 for construction and rehabilitation, $53,271,000 for system power operation and maintenance, $475,254,000 for purchase power and wheeling, and $157,304,000 for program direction. The Committee recommendation includes $7,167,000 for the Utah Mitigation and Conservation Fund. Offsetting collections total $312,639,000; with the use of $3,937,000 of offsetting collections from the Colorado River Dam Fund (as authorized in Public Law 98-381), this requires a net appropriation of $231,030,000. FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND Appropriations, 2007.................................... $2,665,000 Budget estimate, 2008................................... 2,500,000 Committee recommendation................................ 2,500,000 The Falcon Dam and Amistad Dam on the Rio Grande River generate power through hydroelectric facilities and sell this power to public utilities through the Western Power Administration. This fund, created in the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, defrays the costs of operation, maintenance, and emergency activities and is administered by the Western Area Power Administration. For the Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund, the Committee recommends $2,500,000 the same as the request. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission SALARIES AND EXPENSES Appropriations, 2007.................................... $221,902,000 Budget estimate, 2008................................... 255,425,000 Committee recommendation................................ 255,425,000 REVENUES APPLIED Appropriations, 2007.................................... -$221,902,000 Budget estimate, 2008................................... -255,425,000 Committee recommendation................................ -255,425,000 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [In thousands of dollars] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Committee recommendation Committee compared to-- Revised enacted Budget estimate recommendation --------------------------------- Revised enacted Budget estimate -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ENERGY EFFICENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY Hydrogen Technology................................................ 193,551 213,000 228,000 +34,449 +15,000 Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D................................ 199,687 179,263 244,000 +44,313 +64,737 Solar energy....................................................... 159,372 148,304 180,000 +20,628 +31,696 Wind energy........................................................ 49,319 40,069 57,500 +8,181 +17,431 Geothermal technology.............................................. 5,000 ............... 25,000 +20,000 +25,000 Hydropower......................................................... ............... ............... 2,000 +2,000 +2,000 Ocean Tech......................................................... ............... ............... 8,000 +8,000 +8,000 Vehicle technologies............................................... 188,024 176,138 230,000 +41,976 +53,862 Building technologies.............................................. 104,329 86,456 137,000 +32,671 +50,544 Industrial technologies............................................ 56,563 45,998 57,000 +437 +11,002 Federal Energy Management Program: Departmental energy management program......................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... Federal energy management program.............................. 19,480 16,791 23,000 +3,520 +6,209 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, Federal Energy Management Program.................. 19,480 16,791 23,000 +3,520 +6,209 Facilities and infrastructure: National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).................... 24,035 6,982 6,982 -17,053 ............... Research Support Buildings..................................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... NREL Solar equipment recapitalization.......................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... NREL South-table Mountain infrastructure....................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... NREL energy systems integration facility....................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... Strategic investment facilities................................ ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... Construction: 07-EE-01 Integrated biorefinery research facility, NREL, 20,000 ............... ............... -20,000 ............... Golden, CO................................................ 06-EE-01 Research support facility Project-1 NREL, Golden, 63,000 ............... ............... -63,000 ............... CO........................................................ 02-E-001 Science and technology facility, NREL............. ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total, Construction...................................... 83,000 ............... ............... -83,000 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total, Facilities and infrastructure..................... 107,035 6,982 6,982 -100,053 ............... Program Support.................................................... 10,930 13,281 13,481 +2,551 +200 Program Direction.................................................. 99,264 105,013 105,013 +5,749 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total, Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation RDD&D........ 1,192,554 1,031,295 1,316,976 +124,422 +285,681 Federal energy assistance: Weatherization assistance...................................... 200,000 139,450 236,000 +36,000 +96,550 Training and technical assistance.............................. 4,550 4,550 4,550 ............... ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, Weatherization..................................... 204,550 144,000 240,550 +36,000 +96,550 Other: State energy program........................................... 49,457 45,501 55,000 +5,543 +9,499 State energy activities........................................ 9,348 ............... ............... -9,348 ............... Gateway deployment............................................. ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... International renewable energy program......................... 9,473 ............... ............... -9,473 ............... Tribal energy activities....................................... 3,957 2,957 7,000 +3,043 +4,043 Renewable energy production incentive.......................... 4,946 4,946 5,000 +54 +54 Asia pacific................................................... ............... 7,500 ............... ............... -7,500 Congressionally directed technology deployments................ ............... ............... 91,025 +91,025 +91,025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, Other.............................................. 77,181 60,904 158,025 +80,844 +97,121 Total, Federal energy assistance............................. 281,731 204,904 398,575 +116,844 +193,671 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL, ENERGY EFFICENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY................. 1,474,285 1,236,199 1,715,551 +241,266 +479,352 ==================================================================================== ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY High temperature superconductivity R&D............................. 47,000 28,186 40,242 -6,758 +12,056 Transmission reliability R&D....................................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... Electricity distribution transformation R&D........................ ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... Energy storage R&D................................................. ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... Gridwise........................................................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... Gridworks.......................................................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... Visiualization and controls........................................ 25,054 25,305 25,305 +251 ............... Energy storage and power electonics................................ 2,900 6,803 21,803 +18,903 +15,000 Distributed systems integration.................................... 24,189 25,700 30,700 +6,511 +5,000 Congressionally directed technology deployments.................... ............... ............... 13,500 +13,500 +13,500 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL, Research and development.............................. 99,143 85,994 131,550 +32,407 +45,556 Electricity restructuring.......................................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... Operations and analysis............................................ 20,500 11,556 19,500 -1,000 +7,944 Program direction.................................................. 17,357 17,387 17,387 +30 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL, ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY........... 137,000 114,937 168,437 +31,437 +53,500 NUCLEAR ENERGY Research and development: University reactor infrastructure and education assist......... 16,547 ............... 15,000 -1,547 +15,000 Nuclear power 2010............................................. 80,291 114,000 135,000 +54,709 +21,000 Generation IV nuclear energy systems initiative................ 35,586 36,145 55,000 +19,414 +18,855 Nuclear hydrogen initiative.................................... 19,265 22,600 22,600 +3,335 ............... Advanced fuel cycle initiative................................. 167,484 395,000 243,000 +75,516 -152,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total, Research and development.............................. 319,173 567,745 470,600 +151,427 -97,145 Infrastructure: Radiological facilities management: Space and defense infrastructure........................... 30,650 35,110 35,110 +4,460 ............... Medical isotopes infrastructure............................ 15,634 14,964 14,964 -670 ............... Enrichment facility and uranium management................. 491 ............... ............... -491 ............... Research reactor infrastructure............................ ............... 2,947 2,947 +2,947 ............... Oak Ridge nuclear infrastructure........................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, Radiological facilities management............. 46,775 53,021 53,021 +6,246 ............... Idaho facilities management: INL Operations and infrastructure.......................... 107,693 104,713 120,713 +13,020 +16,000 INL infrastructure: Construction: 06-E-200 Project engineering and design (PED), INL, 6,030 ............... ............... -6,030 ............... ID................................................ 06-E-201 Gas test loop in the ATR, INL, ID......... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, Idaho facilities management............ 113,723 104,713 120,713 +6,990 +16,000 Idaho sitewide safeguards and security......................... 75,919 ............... 75,949 +30 +75,949 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total, Infrastructure........................................ 236,417 157,734 249,683 +13,266 +91,949 Program direction.................................................. 62,600 76,224 76,224 +13,624 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, Nuclear Energy..................................... 618,190 801,703 795,507 +177,317 -6,196 ==================================================================================== Funding from other defense activities.............................. -122,634 ............... -75,949 +46,685 -75,949 Funding from Naval Reactors........................................ -13,365 ............... ............... +13,365 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL, NUCLEAR ENERGY........................................ 482,191 801,703 719,558 +237,367 -82,145 ==================================================================================== ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH Office of Environment, Safety and Health (non-defense)............. 7,848 ............... ............... -7,848 ............... Program direction.................................................. 19,993 ............... ............... -19,993 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL, ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH........................ 27,841 ............... ............... -27,841 ............... OFFICE OF LEGACY MANAGEMENT Legacy management.................................................. 33,187 35,104 35,104 +1,917 ............... ==================================================================================== TOTAL, ENERGY SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION........................ 2,154,504 2,187,943 2,639,650 +485,146 +451,707 ==================================================================================== CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY Deferral of unobligated balances, fiscal year 2005................. 257,000 ............... ............... -257,000 ............... Deferral of unobligated balances, fiscal year 2007................. -257,000 ............... ............... +257,000 ............... Deferral of unobligated balances, fiscal year 2008................. ............... 257,000 257,000 +257,000 ............... Rescission, uncommitted balances................................... ............... -149,000 -149,000 -149,000 ............... Transfer to Fossil Energy R&D (CCPI)............................... ............... -58,000 -73,000 -73,000 -15,000 Transfer to Fossil Energy R&D (FutureGen).......................... ............... -108,000 -88,000 -88,000 +20,000 Transfer to Fossil Energy R&D(Fuels & Power Systems)............... ............... ............... -5,000 -5,000 -5,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total, Clean Coal Technology................................. ............... -58,000 -58,000 -58,000 ............... FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT Clean coal power initiative........................................ 60,433 73,000 88,000 +27,567 +15,000 FutureGen.......................................................... 54,000 108,000 88,000 +34,000 -20,000 Fuels and Power Systems: Innovations for existing plants................................ 16,015 ............... 34,000 +17,985 +34,000 Advanced integrated gasification combined cycle................ 56,952 50,000 55,000 -1,952 +5,000 Advanced turbines.............................................. 20,000 22,000 25,000 +5,000 +3,000 Carbon sequestration........................................... 100,000 79,077 132,000 +32,000 +52,923 Fuels.......................................................... 22,127 10,000 30,000 +7,873 +20,000 Fuel cells..................................................... 63,352 62,025 65,025 +1,673 +3,000 Advanced research.............................................. 32,868 22,500 33,000 +132 +10,500 U.S./China Energy and environmental center..................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, Fuels and power systems............................ 311,314 245,602 374,025 +62,711 +128,423 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, Coal............................................... 425,747 426,602 550,025 +124,278 +123,423 Natural Gas Technologies........................................... 12,000 ............... 20,000 +8,000 +20,000 Petroleum-Oil Technologies......................................... 2,700 ............... 10,000 +7,300 +10,000 Program direction.................................................. 129,803 129,973 149,962 +20,159 +19,989 Plant and Capital Equipment........................................ 12,000 ............... 13,000 +1,000 +13,000 Fossil energy environmental restoration............................ 9,715 9,570 16,570 +6,855 +7,000 Import/export authorization........................................ ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... Advanced metallurgical research.................................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... Special recruitment programs....................................... 656 656 656 ............... ............... Cooperative research and development............................... ............... ............... 8,000 +8,000 +8,000 Congressionally directed technology deployments.................... ............... ............... 39,900 +39,900 +39,900 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL, FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT................ 592,621 566,801 808,113 +215,492 +241,312 ==================================================================================== NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE RESERVES............................. 21,316 17,301 21,301 -15 +4,000 ELK HILLS SCHOOL LANDS FUNDS....................................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE........................................ 164,441 331,609 163,472 -969 -168,137 NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE................................. 5,000 5,325 12,825 +7,825 +7,500 ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION.................................. 90,653 105,095 105,095 +14,442 ............... NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP West Valley Demonstration Project.................................. 78,591 54,395 78,895 +304 +24,500 Gaseous Diffusion Plants........................................... 66,860 38,120 38,120 -28,740 ............... Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion, 02-U-101................. 52,179 ............... ............... -52,179 ............... Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility (WA)............................... 34,843 10,342 10,342 -24,501 ............... Small Sites........................................................ 117,214 78,080 78,080 -39,134 ............... Legacy management.................................................. ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... Use of Prior year balances......................................... ............... ............... -10,000 -10,000 -10,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL, NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP..................... 349,687 180,937 195,437 -154,250 +14,500 ==================================================================================== URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING FUND Decontamination and decommissioning................................ 536,806 553,509 573,509 +36,703 +20,000 Uranium/thorium reimbursement...................................... 19,800 20,000 ............... -19,800 -20,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SUBTOTAL, URANIUM ENRICHMENT D&D FUND........................ 556,606 573,509 573,509 +16,903 ............... Uranium sales and barter (scorekeeping adjustment)................. ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL, UED&D FUND/URANIUM INVENTORY CLEANUP.................. 556,606 573,509 573,509 +16,903 ............... SCIENCE High energy physics: Proton accelerator-based physics............................... 374,733 389,672 389,672 +14,939 ............... Electron accelerator-based physics............................. 104,127 79,763 79,763 -24,364 ............... Non-accelerator physics........................................ 59,865 72,430 79,430 +19,565 +7,000 Theoretical physics............................................ 56,407 56,909 56,909 +502 ............... Advanced technology R&D........................................ 156,654 183,464 183,464 +26,810 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total, High energy physics................................... 751,786 782,238 789,238 +37,452 +7,000 Nuclear physics.................................................... 410,646 453,619 453,619 +42,973 ............... Construction: 07-SC-02 Electron beam ion source Brookhaven National 5,000 4,200 4,200 -800 ............... Laboratory, NY............................................ 06-SC-01 Project engineering and design (PED) 12 GeV 7,000 13,500 13,500 +6,500 ............... continuous electron beam accelerator facility upgrade, Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator facility (was project 07-SC-001), Newport News, VA...................... 06-SC-02 Project engineering and design (PED), Electron 120 ............... ............... -120 ............... beam ion source, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total, Nuclear physics................................. 422,766 471,319 471,319 +48,553 ............... Biological and environmental research: Biological research............................................ 349,097 393,773 467,196 +118,099 +73,423 Climate change research........................................ 134,398 138,124 138,124 +3,726 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total, Biological and environmental research................. 483,495 531,897 605,320 +121,825 +73,423 Basic energy sciences: Research: Materials sciences and engineering research................ 898,481 1,093,219 1,106,979 +208,498 +13,760 Chemical sciences, geosciences and energy biosciences...... 226,740 283,956 283,956 +57,216 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, Research....................................... 1,125,221 1,377,175 1,390,935 +265,714 +13,760 Construction: 08-SC-01 Advanced light source (ALS) user support building, ............... 17,200 17,200 +17,200 ............... LBNL, CA.................................................. 08-SC-10 Project engineering and design (PED) Photon ............... 950 950 +950 ............... ultrafast laser science and engineering (PULSE) building renovation, SLAC, CA...................................... 08-SC-11 Photon ultrafast laser science and engineering ............... 6,450 6,450 +6,450 ............... (PULSE) building renovation, SLAC, CA..................... 07-SC-06 Project engineering and design (PED) National 3,000 45,000 45,000 +42,000 ............... Synchrotron light source II (NSLS-II)..................... 07-SC-12 Project engineering and design (PED) Advanced 1,500 ............... ............... -1,500 ............... light source user building, LBNL.......................... 05-R-320 LINAC coherent light source (LCLS)................ 101,000 51,356 51,356 -49,644 ............... 05-R-321 Center for functional nanomaterials (BNL)......... 18,864 366 366 -18,498 ............... 04-R-313 The molecular foundry (LBNL)...................... 257 ............... ............... -257 ............... 03-SC-002 Project engineering & design (PED) SLAC.......... 161 ............... ............... -161 ............... 03-R-313 Center for Integrated Nanotechnology.............. 247 ............... ............... -247 ............... 99-E-334 Spallation neutron source (ORNL).................. ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, Construction................................... 125,029 121,322 121,322 -3,707 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total, Basic energy sciences............................. 1,250,250 1,498,497 1,512,257 +262,007 +13,760 Advanced scientific computing research............................. 283,415 340,198 334,898 +51,483 -5,300 Fusion energy sciences program..................................... 318,950 427,850 427,850 +108,900 ............... Science laboratories infrastructure: Laboratories facilities support: Infrastructure support..................................... 1,520 1,520 1,520 ............... ............... General plant projects..................................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... Construction: 07-SC-05 Physical science facilities, PNNL................. 10,000 ............... ............... -10,000 ............... 07-SC-04 Science laboratories infrastructure project 8,908 ............... ............... -8,908 ............... engineering and design (PED).............................. 04-SC-001 Project engineering and design (PED), various ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... locations................................................. 03-SC-001 Science laboratories infrastructure MEL-001 10,131 63,529 73,529 +63,398 +10,000 Multiprogram energy laboratory infrastructure projects, various locations......................................... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, Construction................................. 29,039 63,529 73,529 +44,490 +10,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, Laboratories facilities support.............. 30,559 65,049 75,049 +44,490 +10,000 Oak Ridge landlord............................................. 5,079 5,079 5,079 ............... ............... Excess facilities disposal..................................... 6,348 8,828 8,828 +2,480 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total, Science laboratories infrastructure................... 41,986 78,956 88,956 +46,970 +10,000 Safeguards and security............................................ 75,830 76,592 76,592 +762 ............... Workforce development for teachers and scientists.................. 7,952 11,000 11,000 +3,048 ............... Science program direction: Field offices.................................................. 95,716 104,193 104,193 +8,477 ............... Headquarters................................................... 70,753 80,741 80,741 +9,988 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total, Science program direction............................. 166,469 184,934 184,934 +18,465 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, Science............................................ 3,802,899 4,403,481 4,502,364 +699,465 +98,883 ==================================================================================== Less security charge for reimbursable work......................... -5,605 -5,605 -5,605 ............... ............... ==================================================================================== TOTAL, SCIENCE............................................... 3,797,294 4,397,876 4,496,759 +699,465 +98,883 ==================================================================================== NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL Repository program................................................. 33,566 127,780 129,380 +95,814 +1,600 Program direction.................................................. 65,640 74,674 74,674 +9,034 ............... Integrated spent fuel recycling.................................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ==================================================================================== TOTAL, NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL................................ 99,206 202,454 204,054 +104,848 +1,600 ==================================================================================== ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH Office of Environment, Safety and Health (non-defense)............. ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... Program direction.................................................. ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL, ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH........................ ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program administrative ............... 8,390 8,390 +8,390 ............... operations........................................................ DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION Administrative operations: Salaries and expenses: Office of the Secretary.................................... 5,429 5,787 5,787 +358 ............... Board of Contract Appeals.................................. 147 ............... ............... -147 ............... Chief Financial Officer.................................... 38,044 40,260 40,260 +2,216 ............... Management................................................. 54,161 63,939 63,939 +9,778 ............... Human capital management................................... 22,107 28,161 28,161 +6,054 ............... Chief Information Officer.................................. 39,172 47,502 47,502 +8,330 ............... Congressional and intergovernmental affairs................ 4,813 4,762 4,762 -51 ............... Economic impact and diversity.............................. 5,477 5,649 5,649 +172 ............... General Counsel............................................ 23,202 30,076 30,076 +6,874 ............... Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation................ ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... Policy and international affairs........................... 15,054 18,948 18,948 +3,894 ............... Public affairs............................................. 4,493 3,860 3,860 -633 ............... Loan guarantee office...................................... 7,000 ............... ............... -7,000 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, Salaries and expenses.......................... 219,099 248,944 248,944 +29,845 ............... Program support: Minority economic impact....................................... 677 834 834 +157 ............... Policy analysis and system studies............................. 389 625 625 +236 ............... Environmental policy studies................................... 558 531 531 -27 ............... Climate change technology program (prog. supp)................. 501 1,066 1,066 +565 ............... Cybersecurity and secure communications........................ 43,075 35,184 35,184 -7,891 ............... Corporate management information program....................... 22,825 28,421 28,421 +5,596 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, Program support.................................... 68,025 66,661 66,661 -1,364 ............... Competitive sourcing initiative (A-76)............................. 2,464 1,770 ............... -2,464 -1,770 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total, Administrative operations............................. 289,588 317,375 315,605 +26,017 -1,770 Cost of work for others............................................ 74,243 91,991 91,991 +17,748 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, Departmental Administration........................ 363,831 409,366 407,596 +43,765 -1,770 ==================================================================================== Funding from other defense activities.............................. -86,999 -99,000 -99,000 -12,001 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total, Departmental administration (gross)................... 276,832 310,366 308,596 +31,764 -1,770 ==================================================================================== Miscellaneous revenues............................................. -123,000 -161,818 -161,818 -38,818 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL, DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION (net)..................... 153,832 148,548 146,778 -7,054 -1,770 ==================================================================================== Office of Inspector General........................................ 41,819 47,732 47,732 +5,913 ............... ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION WEAPONS ACTIVITIES Life extension program: B61 Life extension program..................................... 58,302 63,115 63,115 +4,813 ............... W76 Life extension program..................................... 193,566 175,571 175,571 -17,995 ............... W80 Life extension program..................................... 12,491 ............... ............... -12,491 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, Life extension program............................. 264,359 238,686 238,686 -25,673 ............... Stockpile systems: B61 Stockpile systems.......................................... 67,879 75,091 75,091 +7,212 ............... W62 Stockpile systems.......................................... 2,075 2,153 2,153 +78 ............... W76 Stockpile systems.......................................... 62,481 69,238 69,238 +6,757 ............... W78 Stockpile systems.......................................... 38,667 38,991 38,991 +324 ............... W80 Stockpile systems.......................................... 36,558 32,372 32,372 -4,186 ............... B83 Stockpile systems.......................................... 24,412 25,012 25,012 +600 ............... W84 Stockpile systems.......................................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... W87 Stockpile systems.......................................... 63,098 57,147 57,147 -5,951 ............... W88 Stockpile systems.......................................... 41,024 46,713 46,713 +5,689 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, Stockpile systems.................................. 336,194 346,717 346,717 +10,523 ............... Reliable replacement warhead....................................... 35,846 88,769 66,000 +30,154 -22,769 Weapons dismantlement and disposition.............................. 75,000 52,250 52,250 -22,750 ............... Stockpile services: Production support............................................. 258,722 284,979 284,979 +26,257 ............... Research and development support............................... 68,245 33,329 33,329 -34,916 ............... Research and development certification and safety.............. 194,998 181,984 181,984 -13,014 ............... Management, technology, and production......................... 166,928 205,576 205,576 +38,648 ............... Responsive infrastructure...................................... 25,430 14,946 ............... -25,430 -14,946 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, Stockpile services................................. 714,323 720,814 705,868 -8,455 -14,946 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total, Directed stockpile work............................... 1,425,722 1,447,236 1,409,521 -16,201 -37,715 Campaigns: Science campaign: Primary assessment technologies............................ 54,844 63,527 63,527 +8,683 ............... Test readiness............................................. 14,644 ............... ............... -14,644 ............... Dynamic materials properties............................... 84,238 98,014 98,014 +13,776 ............... Advanced radiography....................................... 36,387 30,995 30,995 -5,392 ............... Secondary assessment technologies.......................... 80,345 80,539 80,539 +194 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, Science campaigns.............................. 270,458 273,075 273,075 +2,617 ............... Engineering campaign: Enhanced surety............................................ 26,666 24,803 44,803 +18,137 +20,000 Weapons system engineering assessment technology........... 21,102 19,691 19,691 -1,411 ............... Nuclear survivability...................................... 15,962 8,813 8,813 -7,149 ............... Enhanced surveillance...................................... 87,533 80,614 80,614 -6,919 ............... Microsystem and engineering science applications (MESA), 4,603 7,630 7,630 +3,027 ............... other project costs....................................... Construction: 01-D-108 Microsystem and engineering science 6,920 11,198 11,198 +4,278 ............... applications (MESA), SNL, Albuquerque, NM................. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, MESA......................................... 11,523 18,828 18,828 +7,305 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, Engineering campaign......................... 162,786 152,749 172,749 +9,963 +20,000 Inertial confinement fusion ignition and high yield campaign: Ignition....................................................... 78,827 97,537 97,537 +18,710 ............... Support of stockpile programs.................................. 5,872 ............... ............... -5,872 ............... NIF diagnostics, cryogenics and experimental support........... 45,959 67,935 58,792 +12,833 -9,143 Pulsed power inertial confinement fusion....................... 9,584 10,440 10,440 +856 ............... University grants/other ICF support............................ 12,186 ............... ............... -12,186 ............... Joint program in high energy density laboratory plasmas........ ............... 3,213 12,356 +12,356 +9,143 Facility operations and target production...................... 53,796 86,083 132,970 +79,174 +46,887 Inertial fusion technology..................................... 26,412 ............... ............... -26,412 ............... NIF demonstration program...................................... 143,438 136,912 136,912 -6,526 ............... High-energy petawatt laser development......................... 2,213 ............... ............... -2,213 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal..................................................... 378,287 402,120 449,007 +70,720 +46,887 Construction: 96-D-111 National ignition facility, LLNL........ 111,419 10,139 10,139 -101,280 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, Inertial confinement fusion........................ 489,706 412,259 459,146 -30,560 +46,887 Advanced simulation and computing.................................. 611,973 585,738 610,738 -1,235 +25,000 Pit manufacturing and certification: W88 pit manufacturing.......................................... 152,709 155,838 155,838 +3,129 ............... W88 pit certification.......................................... 55,536 45,999 45,999 -9,537 ............... Pit manufacturing capability................................... 34,147 54,479 54,479 +20,332 ............... Pit campaign support activities at NTS......................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... Consolidated plutonium center: other project cost.............. ............... 24,914 ............... ............... -24,914 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, Pit manufacturing and certification................ 242,392 281,230 256,316 +13,924 -24,914 Readiness campaign: Stockpile readiness............................................ 21,964 18,924 18,924 -3,040 ............... High explosives and weapon operations.......................... 19,256 9,835 9,835 -9,421 ............... Non-nuclear readiness.......................................... 31,139 25,592 25,592 -5,547 ............... Advanced design and production technologies.................... 51,609 33,587 33,587 -18,022 ............... Tritium readiness.............................................. 77,745 73,231 73,231 -4,514 Construction: 98-D-125 Tritium extraction facility, SR......... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, Tritium readiness.................................. 77,745 73,231 73,231 -4,514 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, Readiness campaign................................. 201,713 161,169 161,169 -40,544 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total, Campaigns............................................. 1,979,028 1,866,220 1,933,193 -45,835 +66,973 Readiness in technical base and facilities (RTBF): Operations of facilities....................................... 1,150,141 1,159,305 1,126,409 -23,732 -32,896 Program readiness.............................................. 75,167 71,466 71,466 -3,701 ............... Material recycle and recovery.................................. 69,982 69,962 64,962 -5,020 -5,000 Containers..................................................... 20,130 19,184 19,184 -946 ............... Storage........................................................ 35,285 35,133 25,133 -10,152 -10,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, Readiness in technical base and fac................ 1,350,705 1,355,050 1,307,154 -43,551 -47,896 Construction: 08-D-801 High pressure fire loop (HPFL) Pantex, TX............. ............... 7,000 7,000 +7,000 ............... 08-D-802 High explosive pressing facility Pantex Plant, ............... 25,300 25,300 +25,300 ............... Amerillo, TX.................................................. 08-D-804 TA-55 Reinvestment project Los Almos National ............... 6,000 6,000 +6,000 ............... Laboratory (LANL)............................................. 08-D-805 Classified Vault Los Almos National Laboratory (LANL). ............... ............... 45,000 +45,000 +45,000 07-D-140 Project engineering and design (PED), various ............... 2,500 2,500 +2,500 ............... locations..................................................... 07-D-220 Radioactive liquid waste treatment facility upgrade ............... 26,672 26,672 +26,672 ............... project, LANL................................................. 06-D-140 Project engineering and design (PED), various 16,577 23,862 23,862 +7,285 ............... locations..................................................... 06-D-402 NTS replace fire stations 1 & 2 Nevada Test Site, NV.. 13,919 6,719 6,719 -7,200 ............... 06-D-403 Tritium facility modernization Lawrence Livermore 7,926 ............... ............... -7,926 ............... National Laboratory, Livermore, CA............................ 06-D-404 Building remediation, restoration, and upgrade, Nevada ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... Test Site, NV................................................. 05-D-140 Project engineering and design (PED), various 9,615 7,000 7,000 -2,615 ............... locations..................................................... 05-D-401 Building 12-64 production bays upgrades, Pantex plant, ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... Amarillo, TX.................................................. 05-D-402 Berylium capability (BEC) project, Y-12 National 7,494 ............... ............... -7,494 ............... security complex, Oak Ridge, TN............................... 04-D-103 Project engineering and design (PED), various 3,478 ............... ............... -3,478 ............... locations..................................................... 04-D-125 Chemistry and metallurgy facility replacement project, 53,422 95,586 95,586 +42,164 ............... Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM................ 04-D-128 TA-18 mission relocation project, Los Alamos 24,197 29,455 29,455 +5,258 ............... Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM.................................... 03-D-103 Project engineering and design (PED), various 14,161 ............... ............... -14,161 ............... locations..................................................... 01-D-103 Project engineering and design (PED), various 1,565 ............... ............... -1,565 ............... locations..................................................... 01-D-124 HEU materials facility, Y-12 plant, Oak Ridge, TN..... 110,182 77,000 77,000 -33,182 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, Construction....................................... 262,536 307,094 352,094 +89,558 +45,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total, Readiness in technical base and facilities............ 1,613,241 1,662,144 1,659,248 +46,007 -2,896 Facilities and infrastructure recapitalization program............. 123,750 231,023 200,023 +76,273 -31,000 Construction: 08-D-601 Mercury highway, Nevada Test Site, NV............. ............... 7,800 7,800 +7,800 ............... 08-D-602 Portable water system upgrades Y-12 Plant, Oak ............... 22,500 22,500 +22,500 ............... Ridge, TN................................................. 07-D-253 TA 1 heating systems modernization (HSM) Sandia 14,500 13,000 13,000 -1,500 ............... National Laboratory....................................... 06-D-160 Project engioneering and design (PED), various 2,700 ............... ............... -2,700 ............... locations................................................. 06-D-601 Electrical distribution system upgrade, Pantex 6,429 2,500 2,500 -3,929 ............... Plant, Amarillo, TX....................................... 06-D-602 Gas main and distribution system upgrade, Pantex 3,145 1,900 1,900 -1,245 ............... Plant, Amarillo, TX....................................... 06-D-603 Steam plant life extension project (SLEP), Y-12 17,811 15,020 15,020 -2,791 ............... National Security Complex, Oak Ridge, TN.................. 05-D-160 Facilities and infrastructure recapitalization 1,048 ............... ............... -1,048 ............... program project engineering design (PED), various locations................................................. 05-D-601 Compressed air upgrades project (CAUP), Y-12, ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... National security complex, Oak Ridge, TN.................. 05-D-602 Power grid infrastructure upgrade (PGIU), Los ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM................ 05-D-603 New master substation (NMSU), SNL................. ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, Construction................................... 45,633 62,720 62,720 +17,087 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total, Facilities and infrastructure recapitalization 169,383 293,743 262,743 +93,360 -31,000 program................................................. Secure transportation asset: Operations and equipment....................................... 134,777 130,845 130,845 -3,932 ............... Program direction.............................................. 74,760 84,801 84,801 +10,041 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total, Secure transportation asset........................... 209,537 215,646 215,646 +6,109 ............... Nuclear weapons incident response.................................. 133,514 161,748 161,748 +28,234 ............... Environmental projects and operations: Long term stewardship....... ............... 17,518 17,518 +17,518 ............... Safeguards and security: Defense nuclear security....................................... 656,653 721,318 733,318 +76,665 +12,000 Cybersecurity.................................................. 104,505 102,243 102,243 -2,262 ............... Construction: 08-D-701 Nuclear materials S&S upgrade project Los Almos ............... 49,496 49,496 +49,496 ............... National Laboratory....................................... 05-D-170 Project engineering and design (PED), various ............... 8,000 8,000 +8,000 ............... locations................................................. Material security and consolidation project, Idaho National ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... Lab, ID................................................... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, Construction................................... ............... 57,496 57,496 +57,496 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, Defense nuclear security....................... 761,158 881,057 893,057 +131,899 +12,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, Safeguards and security........................ 761,158 881,057 893,057 +131,899 +12,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, Weapons activities............................. 6,291,583 6,545,312 6,552,674 +261,091 +7,362 Less security charge for reimbursable work......................... -33,000 -34,000 -34,000 -1,000 ............... Transfer to Office of the Administrator............................ 17,000 ............... ............... -17,000 ............... Congressionally directed technology deployments.................... ............... ............... 37,350 +37,350 +37,350 Use of prior year balances......................................... ............... ............... -67,000 -67,000 -67,000 ==================================================================================== TOTAL, WEAPONS ACTIVITIES.................................... 6,275,583 6,511,312 6,489,024 +213,441 -22,288 ==================================================================================== DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION Nonproliferation and verification, R&D............................. 262,467 265,252 305,252 +42,785 +40,000 Construction: 07-SC-05 Physical Science Facility, Pacific Northwest 4,220 ............... 17,000 +12,780 +17,000 National Laboratory, Richland, WA......................... 06-D-180 06-01 Project engineering and design [PED] 3,700 ............... ............... -3,700 ............... National Security Laboratory, PNNL........................ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, Nonproliferation & verification R&D............ 270,387 265,252 322,252 +51,865 +57,000 Nonproliferation and international security........................ 128,911 124,870 210,870 +81,959 +86,000 International nuclear materials protection and cooperation..... 472,730 371,771 391,771 -80,959 +20,000 Global initiatives for proliferation prevention................ ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... HEU transparency implementation................................ ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... Elimination of weapons-grade plutonium production program...... 225,754 181,593 152,593 -73,161 -29,000 Fissile materials disposition: U.S. surplus materials disposition............................. 159,273 148,842 148,842 -10,431 ............... Russian surplus materials disposition.......................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... U.S. uranium disposition....................................... ............... 66,843 66,843 +66,843 ............... Construction: 99-D-141 Pit disassembly and conversion facility, Savannah 48,289 60,000 60,000 +11,711 ............... River, SC................................................. 99-D-143 Mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility, Savannah 262,500 333,849 390,849 +128,349 +57,000 River, SC................................................. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, Construction................................... 310,789 393,849 450,849 +140,060 +57,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total, Fissile materials disposition..................... 470,062 609,534 666,534 +196,472 +57,000 Global threat reduction initiative................................. 115,495 119,626 185,626 +70,131 +66,000 International nuclear fuel bank.................................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation................... 1,683,339 1,672,646 1,929,646 +246,307 +257,000 Use of prior year balances--Russian Surplus Fissile Materials ............... ............... -57,000 -57,000 -57,000 Disposition program............................................... Use of prior year balances--Fissile Materials Disposition MOX ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... construction line................................................. Use of prior year balances for Emergency Supplemental for fiscal ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... year 1999 (H.R. 4328, Public Law 105-277)......................... Supplemental Appropriations--Public Law 110-28 (emergency)......... 135,000 ............... ............... -135,000 ............... ==================================================================================== TOTAL, DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION...................... 1,818,339 1,672,646 1,872,646 +54,307 +200,000 ==================================================================================== NAVAL REACTORS Naval reactors development......................................... 734,283 765,519 765,519 +31,236 ............... Transfer to Nuclear Energy......................................... 13,365 ............... ............... -13,365 ............... Construction: 08-D-901 Shipping and receiving and warehouse complex ............... 9,000 9,000 +9,000 ............... (SRWC), BAPL.............................................. 08-D-190 Project engineering and design Expended Core ............... 550 550 +550 ............... Facility M-290 recovering discharge station, Naval Reactor Facility, ID.............................................. 07-D-190 Materials research technology complex (MRTC)...... 1,485 450 450 -1,035 ............... 06-D-901 Central office building II........................ ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... Transfer to Nuclear Energy................................. ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... 05-N-900 Materials development facility building, 1,287 ............... ............... -1,287 ............... Schenectady, NY........................................... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, Construction....................................... 2,772 10,000 10,000 +7,228 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total, Naval reactors development............................ 750,420 775,519 775,519 +25,099 ............... Program direction.................................................. 31,380 32,700 32,700 +1,320 ............... ==================================================================================== TOTAL, NAVAL REACTORS........................................ 781,800 808,219 808,219 +26,419 ............... ==================================================================================== Office of the Adminstrator: Office of the Administrator.................................... 340,291 394,656 394,656 +54,365 ............... Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation........................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... All other Office of the Administrator...................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... HBCU contribution from NNSA.................................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... Use of prior year balances..................................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ES & H transfer................................................ ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ==================================================================================== TOTAL, OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR........................... 340,291 394,656 394,656 +54,365 ............... ==================================================================================== TOTAL, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION.............. 9,216,013 9,386,833 9,564,545 +348,532 +177,712 ==================================================================================== DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP Closure Sites...................................................... 468,063 42,437 55,937 -412,126 +13,500 Hanford Site: 2012 Completion projects....................................... 425,204 413,038 443,463 +18,259 +30,425 2035 Completion projects....................................... 410,112 464,042 506,913 +96,801 +42,871 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total, Hanford Site.......................................... 835,316 877,080 950,376 +115,060 +73,296 Office of River Protection: Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant....................... 690,000 690,000 690,000 ............... ............... Tank Farm activities........................................... 277,127 273,443 325,972 +48,845 +52,529 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total, Office of River Protection............................ 967,127 963,443 1,015,972 +48,845 +52,529 Idaho National Laboratory: Operating expenses...................... 495,904 391,226 420,126 -75,778 +28,900 Construction: 06-D-401, Sodium bearing waste treatment project, ID....... 31,000 112,800 112,800 +81,800 ............... 04-D-414, Sodium bearing waste treatment facility, PED ID.. ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total, Idaho National Laboratory......................... 526,904 504,026 532,926 +6,022 +28,900 NNSA............................................................... 306,509 271,130 361,663 +55,154 +90,533 Oak Ridge Reservation.............................................. 203,862 179,284 179,284 -24,578 ............... Savannah River site: 2012 Completion projects: Oerating expenses.................... 244,626 ............... ............... -244,626 ............... Construction: 04-D-423 Container surveillance capability in 235F......... ............... 31,000 31,000 +31,000 ............... 04-D-414 Project Engineering and Design, 105-K............. 2,935 ............... ............... -2,935 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, 2012 accelerated completions................... 247,561 31,000 31,000 -216,561 ............... 2035 Completion projects: Operating expenses......................................... 300,524 495,071 495,071 +194,547 ............... Construction: 08-D-414 Project engineering and design ............... 15,000 9,000 +9,000 -6,000 Plutonium Vitrification Facility, VL...................... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, 2035 accelerated completions................... 300,524 510,071 504,071 +203,547 -6,000 Tank Farm Activities: Radioactive liquid tank waste stabil & 513,809 524,018 524,018 +10,209 ............... disposition................................................... Construction: 05-D-405, Salt waste processing facility............... ............... 131,000 131,000 +131,000 ............... 04-D-408, Glass waste storage building #2.............. ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... 03-D-414, Salt waste processing facility PED SR........ 51,500 10,001 10,001 -41,499 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, Tank farm activities....................... 565,309 665,019 665,019 +99,710 ............... Nuclear material Stabilization and Disposition................. ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total, Savannah River site................................... 1,113,394 1,206,090 1,200,090 +86,696 -6,000 Waste Isolation Pilot Plant: Operating expenses.................... 228,818 219,739 250,739 +21,921 +31,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant........................... 228,818 219,739 250,739 +21,921 +31,000 Program direction.................................................. 294,516 309,760 309,760 +15,244 ............... Program support.................................................... 38,031 33,146 41,946 +3,915 +8,800 Safeguards and Security............................................ 275,920 273,381 273,581 -2,339 +200 Technology development............................................. 21,389 21,389 55,106 +33,717 +33,717 Uranium enrichment D&D fund contribution........................... 452,000 463,000 463,000 +11,000 ............... Material consolidation............................................. ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... Legacy Management.................................................. ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... Canyons and Pu Vitrification office................................ ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEAN UP........................ 5,731,849 5,363,905 5,690,380 -41,469 +326,475 ==================================================================================== OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES Health, safety and security: Health, safety and security.................................... ............... 329,305 329,305 +329,305 ............... Program direction.............................................. ............... 100,043 100,043 +100,043 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total, Health, safety and security........................... ............... 429,348 429,348 +429,348 ............... Office of Security and Safety Performance Assurance: Nuclear safeguards and security................................ 196,546 ............... ............... -196,546 ............... Security investigations........................................ 40,531 ............... ............... -40,531 ............... rogram direction............................................... 76,818 ............... ............... -76,818 ............... Use of prior year balances..................................... ............... -990 ............... ............... +990 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, Office of Security and Safety Performance Assurance 313,895 -990 ............... -313,895 +990 Environment, safety and health (Defense)........................... 60,304 ............... ............... -60,304 ............... Program direction--EH.......................................... 20,076 ............... ............... -20,076 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, Environment, safety & health (Defense)............. 80,380 ............... ............... -80,380 ............... Office of Legacy Management: Legacy management.......................................... 19,733 148,063 148,563 +128,830 +500 Program direction.......................................... 11,202 11,000 11,000 -202 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, Office of Legacy Management.................... 30,935 159,063 159,563 +128,628 +500 Nuclear energy: Infrastructure: Idaho facilities management............................ 15,923 ............... ............... -15,923 Idaho sitewide safeguards and security................. 75,949 75,949 75,949 ............... ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, Infrastruture.............................. 91,872 75,949 75,949 -15,923 ............... Program direction.......................................... 30,844 ............... ............... -30,844 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, Nuclear energy................................. 122,716 75,949 75,949 -46,767 ............... Defense related administrative support......................... 86,999 99,000 99,000 +12,001 ............... Office of Hearings and Appeals................................. 4,349 4,607 4,607 +258 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, Other Defense Activities........................... 639,274 766,977 768,467 +129,193 +1,490 ==================================================================================== Less security charge for reimbursable work..................... -3,003 -3,003 -3,003 ............... ............... ==================================================================================== TOTAL, OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES.............................. 636,271 763,974 765,464 +129,193 +1,490 ==================================================================================== DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL Defense nuclear waste disposal..................................... 346,500 292,046 242,046 -104,454 -50,000 ==================================================================================== TOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES...................... 15,930,633 15,806,758 16,262,435 +331,802 +455,677 ==================================================================================== POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION Operation and maintenance: Purchase power and wheeling.................................... 47,198 62,215 62,215 +15,017 ............... Program direction.............................................. 5,602 6,463 6,463 +861 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, Operation and maintenance.......................... 52,800 68,678 68,678 +15,878 ............... Less alternative financing (PPW)................................... -14,485 -13,802 -13,802 +683 ............... Offsetting collections............................................. -32,713 -48,413 -48,413 -15,700 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL, SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION..................... 5,602 6,463 6,463 +861 ............... ==================================================================================== SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION Operation and maintenance: Operating expenses............................................. 5,604 11,978 11,978 +6,374 ............... Purchase power and wheeling.................................... 12,400 45,000 45,000 +32,600 ............... Program direction.............................................. 20,782 22,214 22,214 +1,432 ............... Construction................................................... 3,612 4,300 4,300 +688 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, Operation and maintenance.......................... 42,398 83,492 83,492 +41,094 ............... Less alternative financing (for program direction)................. ............... -877 -877 -877 ............... Less alternative financing (for O&M)............................... ............... -6,304 -6,304 -6,304 ............... Less alternative financing (PPW)................................... -9,400 -10,000 -10,000 -600 ............... Less alternative financing (Const.)................................ ............... -869 -869 -869 ............... Offsetting collections............................................. -3,000 -35,000 -35,000 -32,000 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL, SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION..................... 29,998 30,442 30,442 +444 ............... ==================================================================================== WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION Operation and maintenance: Construction and rehabilitation................................ 60,205 62,915 62,915 +2,710 ............... Operation and maintenance...................................... 45,734 53,271 53,271 +7,537 ............... Purchase power and wheeling.................................... 427,931 425,254 475,254 +47,323 +50,000 Program direction.............................................. 147,748 157,304 157,304 +9,556 ............... Utah mitigation and conservation............................... 6,633 7,167 7,167 +534 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, Operation and maintenance.......................... 688,251 705,911 705,911 +17,660 ............... Less alternative financing (for O&M)............................... -2,058 -11,971 -5,000 -2,942 +6,971 Less alternative financing (for Const.)............................ -17,177 -47,915 -30,690 -13,513 +17,225 Less alternative financing (for Program direction)................. -5,054 -15,804 -10,000 -4,946 +5,804 Less alternative financing (for PPW)............................... -148,931 -166,552 -166,552 -17,621 ............... Offsetting collections (Public Law 108-477 and Public Law 109-103). -279,000 -258,702 -308,702 -29,702 -50,000 Offsetting collections (Public Law 98-381)......................... -3,705 -3,937 -3,937 -232 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL, WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION..................... 232,326 201,030 231,030 -1,296 +30,000 ==================================================================================== FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND Operation and maintenance.......................................... 2,665 2,500 2,500 -165 ............... ==================================================================================== TOTAL, POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS....................... 270,591 240,435 270,435 -156 +30,000 ==================================================================================== FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Federal energy regulatory commission............................... 221,902 255,425 255,425 +33,523 ............... FERC revenues...................................................... -221,902 -255,425 -255,425 -33,523 ............... ==================================================================================== GRAND TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY............................ 24,228,203 24,762,713 25,898,485 +1,670,282 +1,135,772 (Total amount appropriated).............................. (24,093,203) (24,911,713) (26,057,485) (+1,964,282) (+1,145,772) (Emergency appropriations)............................... (135,000) ............... ............... (-135,000) ............... (Rescissions)............................................ ............... (-149,000) (-159,000) (-159,000) (-10,000) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY The following list of general provisions is recommended by the Committee. The recommendation includes several provisions which have been included in previous Energy and Water Appropriations Acts and new provisions as follows: Section 301. Language is included under section 301 to prohibit the use of funds to make payments for a noncompetitive management and operating contract unless certain conditions have been met. Section 302. Language is included under section 302 which prohibits the use of funds for severance payments under the worker and community transition program under section 3161 of Public Law 102-484. Section 303. Language is included under section 303 to prohibit the augmentation of several payments under section 3161 of Public Law 102-484 unless a reprogramming request is submitted to Congress. Section 304. Language is included under section 304, which prohibits the use of funds in this act to initiate a request for proposal of expression of interest for new programs which have not yet been presented to Congress in the annual budget submission and which have not yet been approved and funded by Congress. Section 305. Language is included in section 305, which permits the transfer and merger of unexpended balances of prior appropriations with appropriation accounts established in this bill. Section 306. Language is included that prohibits the use of funds by the Bonneville Power Administration to enter into energy efficiency contracts outside its service area. Section 307. This section establishes certain notice and competition requirements for Department of Energy user facilities. Section 308. Language is included specifically authorizing intelligence activities pending enactment of the fiscal year 2008 Intelligence Authorization Act. Section 309. Language is included in section 309 regarding laboratory directed research and development activities. Section 310. Language is included in section 312 prohibiting the Department of Energy to modify a ratemaking policy by changing the interest rate on future obligation for the Southeastern, Southwest, and Western Area Power Administrations. The Committee rejects a pending proposal to require Southeastern Power Administration, Southwestern Power Administration, and the Western Area Power Administration to apply the interest rate charged Government corporations for new investment and instead instructs the Secretary to apply the yield rate for all new investment in hydroelectric plant. The average yield shall be computed as the average during the fiscal year of the daily bid prices. The Committee has consistently opposed the use of budget gimmicks carried in the budget request that will increase rates paid by power customers. The Committee recommends the Department of Energy heed this direction and refrain from requesting new regulations to modify ratemaking procedures for Southeastern Power Administration, Southwestern Power Administration, and the Western Area Power Administration. Section 311. The Committee has included a provision related to the Use Permit at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Section 312. The Committee has included a provision related to Bonneville Power Administration. Section 313. The Committee has included a provision related to the Strategic Petroleum Preserve. TITLE IV INDEPENDENT AGENCIES Appalachian Regional Commission Appropriations, 2007.................................... $64,858,000 Budget estimate, 2008................................... 65,000,000 Committee recommendation................................ 75,000,000 Established in 1965, the Appalachian Regional Commission is an economic development agency composed of 13 Appalachian States and a Federal co-chair appointed by the President. For fiscal year 2008, the Committee recommends the budget request of $75,000,000 for the ARC, of which $5,597,000 is for salaries and expenses and $64,087,000 is for area development and $5,316,000 is for local development districts. Area Development and Technical Assistant Program funds are used to increase job opportunities and income, improve education and health, strengthen infrastructure, and for the Appalachian Highway System. Such funds are allocated by formula, with assistance targeted to the most distressed and underdeveloped areas. Local Development Districts Program funds assist local governments in promoting sustainable community and economic development in the Appalachian region. The Committee recognizes the importance of trade and investment opportunities to the Appalachian Region and is encouraged by the findings in a report that Appalachian firms could find significant trade and investment opportunities, particularly in the energy, high technology, and transportation sectors in the Republic of Turkey and the surrounding region. In this regard, the Committee supports the Appalachian-Turkish Trade Project [ATTP], a project to promote opportunities to expand trade, encourage business interests, stimulate foreign studies, and to build a lasting and mutually meaningful relationship between Appalachian States and the Republic of Turkey, as well as the neighboring regions, such as Greece. The Committee commends the ARC for its leadership role in helping to implement the mission of the ATTP. The Committee expects the ARC to continue to be a prominent ATTP sponsor. Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board SALARIES AND EXPENSES Appropriations, 2007.................................... $21,914,000 Budget estimate, 2008................................... 22,499,000 Committee recommendation................................ 22,499,000 For fiscal year 2008, the Committee recommends $22,499,000, the same as the President's request, for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. This Board is responsible for evaluating the implementation of standards for design, construction, operation, and decommissioning of the Department of Energy's defense nuclear facilities. Based on these evaluations, the Board makes specific recommendations to the Secretary of Energy to ensure that both public and employee heath and safety are protected. Delta Regional Authority Appropriations, 2007.................................... $11,888,000 Budget estimate, 2008................................... 6,000,000 Committee recommendation................................ 12,000,000 For the Delta Regional Authority, the Committee recommends $12,000,000. 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. The Government Accountability Office recently reported that the DRA has a commendable record in the percentage of funds spent in rural America, and the Committee recognizes the DRA's role in bettering this underserved area of the Nation. Denali Commission Appropriations, 2007.................................... $49,509,000 Budget estimate, 2008................................... 1,800,000 Committee recommendation................................ 31,800,000 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 2008, the Committee recommends $31,800,000. Nuclear Regulatory Commission SALARIES AND EXPENSES Appropriations, 2007.................................... $816,639,000 Budget estimate, 2008................................... 908,409,000 Committee recommendation................................ 910,559,000 REVENUES Appropriations, 2007.................................... $659,328,000 Budget estimate, 2008................................... -757,720,000 Committee recommendation................................ -757,720,000 NET APPROPRIATION Appropriations, 2007.................................... $157,311,000 Budget estimate, 2008................................... 150,689,000 Committee recommendation................................ 152,839,000 The Committee recommendation for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for fiscal year 2008 is $910,559,000, an increase of $2,150,000 over the budget request. This amount is offset by estimated revenues of $757,720,000 resulting in a net appropriation of $152,839,000. The Committee provides an additional $2,150,000 to support enhancing foreign regulators' programs to enhance security over radioactive sources. The Commission should continue to coordinate its efforts with those at the Department of State and the Department of Energy. OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL GROSS APPROPRIATION Appropriations, 2007.................................... $8,285,000 Budget estimate, 2008................................... 8,144,000 Committee recommendation................................ 8,744,000 REVENUES Appropriations, 2007.................................... $7,410,000 Budget estimate, 2008................................... -7,330,000 House allowance......................................... -7,330,000 Committee recommendation................................ -7,870,000 NET APPROPRIATION Appropriations, 2007.................................... $875,000 Budget estimate, 2008................................... 814,000 Committee recommendation................................ 874,000 The Committee recommends $8,744,000, an increase of $600,000 over the budget request. The additional funds will provide the Office of Inspector General with the necessary resources to provide effective oversight of the agency's new licensing activities while fulfilling its statutory responsibilities under the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, and the Federal Information Security Management Act of 1992. The Committee also recommends that the current no year authority of the Office of Inspector General be retained. The Office of Inspector General, as an administrative entity, is fully integrated into the administrative processes at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to include its accounting, pay, and travel system, as well as other infrastructure support systems. In addition, the proposed two year funding authority could limit the continuity of the Inspector General's oversight. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board Appropriations, 2007.................................... $3,591,000 Budget estimate, 2008................................... 3,621,000 Committee recommendation................................ 3,621,000 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 2008, the Committee recommends $3,621,000. Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects Appropriation, 2007..................................................... Budget estimate, 2008................................... $2,322,000 Committee recommendation................................ 2,322,000 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, pursuant to the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act of 2004. The Committee recommends $2,322,000, the same as the budget request. Tennessee Valley Authority OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL GROSS APPROPRIATION Appropriations, 2007.................................................... Budget estimate, 2008................................... $15,100,000 Committee recommendation................................................ OFFSET FROM TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY FUND Appropriations, 2007.................................................... Budget estimate, 2008................................... -$15,100,000 Committee recommendation................................................ The Committee recommendation does not include the administration's proposal to establish a congressionally funded Office of the Inspector General to oversee the Tennessee Valley Authority. In recent years, the TVA has funded the requests of the TVA-IG office out of power revenues and receipts. This process has worked well, and the Committee sees no compelling reason to change that mechanism for funding the TVA-IG. GeneraL Provision, Independent Agencies The following general provision is recommended by the Committee. Section 401. The Committee has included a provision related to the Tennessee Valley Authority. 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. COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI, OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports on general appropriations bills identify each Committee amendment to the House bill ``which proposes an item of appropriation which is not made to carry out the provisions of an existing law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously passed by the Senate during that session.'' The Committee recommends funding for the following programs or activities which currently lack authorization for fiscal year 2006: The US Army Corps of Engineers: General Investigations; Construction, General; Mississippi River and Tributaries; Operations and Maintenance; Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program; Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation; Water and Related Resources; Department of Energy: Energy Conservation and Supply Activities: Office of Fossil Energy: Fossil Energy R&D, Clean Coal, Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Research; 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 June 28, 2007, the Committee ordered reported en bloc: an original bill (S. 1745) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, science, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and authorized the chairman of the committee or the chairman of the subcommittee to offer the text of the Senate bill as a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute to the House companion measure; an original bill (S. 1751) making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, and authorized the chairman of the committee or the chairman of the subcommittee to offer the text of the Senate bill as a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute to the House companion measure; and H.R. 2764, making appropriations for the Department of State, foreign operations, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute; with each bill subject to amendment and subject to the budget allocations, by a recorded vote of 28-1, a quorum being present. The vote was as follows: Yeas Nays Chairman Byrd Mr. Brownback Mr. Inouye Mr. Leahy Mr. Harkin Ms. Mikulski Mr. Kohl Mrs. Murray Mr. Dorgan Mrs. Feinstein Mr. Durbin Mr. Johnson Ms. Landrieu Mr. Reed Mr. Lautenberg Mr. Nelson Mr. Cochran Mr. Stevens Mr. Specter Mr. Domenici Mr. Bond Mr. McConnell Mr. Shelby Mr. Gregg Mr. Bennett Mr. Craig Mrs. Hutchison Mr. Allard Mr. Alexander 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 16--CONSERVATION * * * * * * * CHAPTER 12A--TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY * * * * * * * Sec. 831a. Membership, operation, and duties of the Board of Directors (a) * * * * * * * * * * (f) Compensation (1) * * * * * * * * * * (2) Adjustments in stipends The amount of the [stipend under paragraph (1)(A)(i)] stipends under paragraph (1)(A) shall be adjusted by the same percentage, at the same time and manner, and subject to the same limitations as are applicable to adjustments under section 5318 of title 5. * * * * * * * TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE * * * * * * * CHAPTER 19B--WATER RESOURCES PLANNING * * * * * * * SUBCHAPTER IV--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS * * * * * * * Sec. 1962d-5a. Reimbursement to States (a) Combination of reimbursement of installation costs and reduction in contributions; single project limitation The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, may, when he determines it to be in the public interest, enter into agreements providing for reimbursement to States or political subdivisions thereof for work to be performed by such non-Federal public bodies at water resources development projects authorized for construction under the Secretary of the Army and the supervision of the Chief of Engineers. Such agreements may provide for reimbursement of installation costs incurred by such entities or an equivalent reduction in the contributions they would otherwise be required to make, or in appropriate cases, for a combination thereof. The amount of Federal reimbursement, including reductions in contributions, for a single project shall not exceed $5,000,000 or 1 percent of the total project cost, whichever is greater; except that the amount of actual Federal reimbursement, including reductions in contributions, for such project may not exceed [$5,000,000] $7,000,000 in any fiscal year. * * * * * * * WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1990, PUBLIC LAW 101-640 * * * * * * * TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS. (a) * * * (1) * * * * * * * * * * (10) McAlpine Lock and Dam, Indiana and Kentucky.-- The project for navigation, McAlpine Lock and Dam, Indiana and Kentucky: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated June 29, 1990, at a total cost of [$219,600,000] $430,000,000, with a first Federal cost of [$219,600,000]$430,000,000. The Federal share of costs of construction of the project is to be paid one-half from amounts appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury and one-half from amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. * * * * * * * RECLAMATION PROJECTS AUTHORIZATION AND ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 1992, PUBLIC LAW 102-575 * * * * * * * TITLE XXXV--THREE AFFILIATED TRIBES AND STANDING ROCK SIOUX TRIBE EQUITABLE COMPENSATION PROGRAM, NORTH DAKOTA SEC. 3501. SHORT TITLE. This title may be cited as the `Three Affiliated Tribes and Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Equitable Compensation Act'. * * * * * * * SEC. 3507. STANDING ROCK SIOUX INDIAN RESERVATION. (a) * * * (b) Specific.--There is authorized to be appropriated, in addition to any other amounts authorized by this title, or any other law, to the Secretary of the Interior [$4,660,000] $12,660,000 for use by the Secretary of the Interior in carrying out irrigation projects for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. * * * * * * * WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1992, PUBLIC LAW 102-580 * * * * * * * TITLE II--GENERALLY APPLICABLE PROVISIONS SEC. 219. ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE. (a) * * * * * * * * * * (f) * * * * * * * * * * [(71) Coronado, california.--$10,000,000 is authorized for wastewater infrastructure, Coronado, California.] (71) Coronado, california.-- (A) $10,000,000 is authorized for wastewater infrastructure, Coronado, California. (B) The Federal Share may be in the form of grants or reimbursements of project costs incurred by the non-Federal sponsor for work performed by the non-Federal sponsor before or after the execution of a project cooperation agreement, if the Secretary determines that such work is integral to the project. (C) The Secretary is authorized to credit towards the non-Federal share of project costs the costs incurred by the non-Federal sponsor for work performed by the non-Federal sponsor before or after the execution of a project cooperation agreement, if the Secretary determines that such work is integral to the project. * * * * * * * YAVAPAI-PRESCOTT INDIAN TRIBE WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT OF 1994, PUBLIC LAW 103-434 * * * * * * * TITLE VIII--MNI WICONI RURAL WATER SUPPLY PROJECT * * * * * * * SEC. 813. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. Section 10 of the Act (102 Stat. 2571) is amended to read as follows: ``SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. ``(a) Planning, Design, and Construction.--There are authorized to be appropriated $263,241,000 for the planning, design, and construction of the Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System, the Rosebud Sioux Rural Water Supply System, the Lower Brule Sioux Rural Water Supply System, the West River Rural Water Supply System, and the Lyman-Jones Rural Water Supply System described in sections 3, 3A, 3B, and 4. Such funds are authorized to be appropriated only through the end of the year [2003] 2013. The funds authorized to be appropriated by the first sentence of this section, less any amounts previously obligated for the Systems, may be increased or decreased by such amounts as may be justified by reason of ordinary fluctuations in development costs incurred after October 1, 1992, as indicated by engineering costs indices applicable for the type of construction involved. * * * * * * * WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1996, PUBLIC LAW 104-303 * * * * * * * TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS. (a) * * * * * * * * * * (1) * * * * * * * * * * (5) San lorenzo river, california.-- (A) In General._The project for flood control, San Lorenzo River, California: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated June 30, 1994, at a total cost of $21,800,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $10,900,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $10,900,000 and habitat restoration, at a total cost of $4,050,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $3,040,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $1,010,000. (B) Credit Toward Non-Federal Share.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the project the costs expended by non- Federal interests for the replacement and reconstruction of the Soquel Avenue Bridge, if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project. (C) Maximum Amount of Credit.--The credit under paragraph (B) may not exceed $2,000,000. (D) Limitation of Total Project Cost.--The Secretary shall not include the costs to be credited under paragraphs (B) and (C) in total project costs in determining the amounts of the Federal and non-Federal contributions. * * * * * * * TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS * * * * * * * SEC. 227. SHORE PROTECTION. (a) * * * ``SEC. 5. NATIONAL SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM. ``(a) Establishment of Erosion Control Program.--The Secretary shall establish and conduct a national shoreline erosion control development and demonstration program for a period of [7] 12 years beginning on the date that funds are made available to carry out this section. * * * * * * * WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1999, PUBLIC LAW 106-53 * * * * * * * TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS * * * * * * * SEC. 514. MISSOURI AND MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI RIVERS ENHANCEMENT PROJECT. (a) * * * * * * * * * * (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be appropriated to pay the Federal share of the cost of carrying out this section $30,000,000 [for the period of fiscal years 2000 and 2001.] per year, and that authority shall extend until Federal fiscal year 2015. * * * * * * * SEC. 582. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVERS SALMON SURVIVAL. * * * * * * * ``(c) Management of Predation on Columbia/Snake River System Native Fishes.-- ``(1) Nesting avian predators.--In conjunction with the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of the Interior, and consistent with a management plan to be developed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Secretary shall carry out methods to reduce nesting populations of avian predators on dredge spoil islands in the Columbia River under the jurisdiction of the Secretary. ``(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized to be appropriated [$1,000,000] $2,000,000 to carry out research and development activities under this subsection. * * * * * * * SEC. 520. NAVAJO RESERVATION, ARIZONA, NEW MEXICO, AND UTAH. (a) * * * (b) Cost Sharing.--The Federal share of the cost of activities carried out under this section shall be 75 percent. Funds made available under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.) may be used by the Navajo Nation in meeting the non-Federal share of the cost of the activities. The local match for the funds appropriated for flood plain delineation on the Navajo reservation in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah may be provided as in-kind services. * * * * * * * [SEC. 594. OHIO.] SEC. 594. OHIO AND NORTH DAKOTA. (a) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary shall establish a program to provide environmental assistance to non- Federal interests in [Ohio.] Ohio and North Dakota. (b) Form of Assistance.--Assistance under this section maybe in the form of design and construction assistance for waterrelatedenvironmental infrastructure and resource protection anddevelopment projects in [Ohio,] Ohio and North Dakota, including projects for-- * * * * * * * (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorizedto be appropriated to carry out this section [$240,000,000.] $240,000,000 for Ohio and $100,000,000 for North Dakota. * * * * * * * ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004, PUBLIC LAW 108- 137 * * * * * * * TITLE I DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY Corps of Engineers-Civil * * * * * * * GENERAL PROVISIONS CORPS OF ENGINEERS-CIVIL * * * * * * * Sec. 117. Section 595 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 383; 117 Stat. 142) is amended-- * * * * * * * (4) in subsection (h), by striking ``2001--'' and all that follows and inserting ``2001 $25,000,000 for each of Idaho, Montana, [New Mexico, and rural Utah] and New Mexico and $50,000,000 for Rural Utah, to remain available until expended.''. * * * * * * * TITLE II * * * * * * * General Provisions * * * * * * * [Sec. 209. Endangered Species Collaborative Program. (a) Using funds previously appropriated, the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation and the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, for purposes of improving the efficiency and expediting the efforts of the Endangered Species Act Collaborative Program Workgroup, is directed to establish an executive committee of seven members consisting of-- [(1) one member from the Bureau of Reclamation; [(2) one member from the Fish and Wildlife Service; and [(3) one member at large representing each of the following seven entities (selected at the discretion of the entity in consultation with the Bureau of Reclamation and the Fish and Wildlife Service) currently participating as signatories to the existing Memorandum of Understanding: [(A) other Federal agencies; [(B) State agencies; [(C) municipalities; [(D) universities and environmental groups; [(E) agricultural communities; [(F) Middle Rio Grande Pueblos (Sandia, Isleta, San Felipe, Cochiti, Santa Ana, and Santo Domingo); and [(G) Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District. [(b) Formation of this Committee shall not occur later than 45 days after enactment of this Act. [(c) Fiscal year 2004 appropriations shall not be obligated or expended prior to approval of a detailed spending plan by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. [(d) The above section shall come into effect within 180 days of enactment of this Act, unless the Bureau of Reclamation, in consultation with the above listed parties, has provided an alternative workgroup structure which has been approved by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.] Sec. 210. Tularosa Basin National Desalination Research Facility. (a) Desalination Demonstration and Development.-- Pursuant to section 4(a) of Public Law 104-298; 110 Stat. 3622 (October 11, 1996), the Secretary may hereafter conduct or contract for the design, construction, [testing and operation] and testing of the Tularosa Basin National Desalination Research Facility. (b) The Tularosa Basin National Desalination Research Facility is hereafter exempt from all provisions of section 7 of Public Law 104-298; 110 Stat. 3622 (October 11, 1996). The Federal share of the cost of the Tularosa Basin National Desalination Research Facility may be up to 100 percent, including the cost of design, construction, operation, maintenance, repair and rehabilitation. (c) The Secretary shall enter into an agreement with New Mexico State University for the operations, maintenance, and the administration of research activities undertaken at the Tularosa Basin National Desalination Research Facility. Operation and maintenance shall occur at full Federal cost and title to the facility shall remain in the United States. * * * * * * * DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005, PUBLIC LAW 108-335 * * * * * * * TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS * * * * * * * [Sec. 345. The project for the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal Barrier, Illinois, initiated under section 1135 of Public Law 99-662, is authorized at a total cost of $9,100,000 with a Federal cost of $6,825,000 and a non-Federal cost of $2,275,000.] Sec. 345. There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out the Barrier II project of the project for the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal Barrier, Illinois, initiated pursuant to section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a). * * * * * * * ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005, PUBLIC LAW 109-58 * * * * * * * TITLE IX--RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT * * * * * * * SEC. 999H. FUNDING. (a) Oil and Gas Lease Income.--[For each of fiscal years] (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2017, from any Federal royalties, rents, and bonuses derived from Federal onshore and offshore oil and gas leases issued under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) and the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) which are deposited in the Treasury, and after distribution of any such funds as described in subsection (c), $50,000,000 shall be deposited into the Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional Natural Gas and Other Petroleum Research Fund (in this section referred to as the ``Fund''). [For purposes of this] (2) Strategic petroleum reserve.--For fiscal year 2008 the Secretary of Energy shall direct not more than $25,000,000 from Federal royalties, rents, and bonuses described in paragraph (1) shall be used to carry out land acquisition activities for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve required under section 301(e)(1). (3) Definition of royalties.--In this section, the term ``royalties'' excludes proceeds from the sale of royalty production taken in kind and royalty production that is transferred under section 27(a)(3) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1353(a)(3)). * * * * * * * ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006, PUBLIC LAW 109- 103 * * * * * * * TITLE I CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY Corps of Engineers--Civil * * * * * * * GENERAL PROVISIONS, CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL * * * * * * * [Sec. 108. None of the funds made available in title I of this Act may be used to award any continuing contract or to make modifications to any existing continuing contract that commits an amount for a project in excess of the amount appropriated for such project pursuant to this Act: Provided, That the amounts appropriated in this Act may be modified pursuant to the authorities provided in section 101 of this Act or through the application of unobligated balances for such project.] * * * * * * * Sec. 121. [(a) The Secretary of the Army may carry out and fund projects to comply with the 2003 Biological Opinion described in section 205(b) of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-447; 118 Stat. 2949) as amended by subsection (b) and may award grants and enter into contracts, cooperative agreements, or interagency agreements with participants in the Endangered Species Act Collaborative Program Workgroup referenced in section 209(a) of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2004 (Public Law 108- 137; 117 Stat. 1850) in order to carry out such projects. Any project undertaken under this subsection shall require a non-Federal cost share of 25 percent, which may be provided through in-kind services or direct cash contributions and which shall be credited on a programmatic basis instead of on a project-by-project basis, with reconciliation of total project costs and total non-Federal cost share calculated on a three year incremental basis. Non- Federal cost share that exceeds that which is required in any calculated three year increment shall be credited to subsequent three year increments.] (a) The Secretary of the Army may carry out and fund planning studies, watershed surveys and assessments, or technical studies at 100 percent Federal expense to accomplish the purposes of the 2003 Biological Opinion described in section 205(b) of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-447; 118 Stat. 2949) as amended by subsection (b) and the collaborative program long-term plan. In carrying out a study, survey, or assessment under this subsection, the Secretary of the Army shall consult with Federal, State, tribal and local governmental entities, as well as entities participating in the Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program referred to in section 205 of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2008. The Secretary of the Army may also provide planning and administrative assistance to the Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program, which shall not be subject to cost sharing requirements with non- Federal interests. * * * * * * * [Sec. 134. Project Modification. (a) In General.--The project for flood damage reduction, environmental restoration, recreation, Johnson Creek, Arlington, Texas, authorized by section 101(b)(14) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 280-281) is modified-- [(1) to deauthorize the ecosystem restoration portion of the project that consists of approximately 90 acres of land located between Randol Mill and the Union Pacific East/West line; and [(2) to authorize the Secretary of the Army to design and construct an ecosystem restoration project on lands identified in subsection (c) that will provide the same or greater level of national ecosystem restoration benefits as the portion of the project described in paragraph (1). [(b) Credit Toward Federal Share.--The Secretary of the Army shall credit toward the Federal share of the cost of the modified project the costs incurred by the Secretary to carry out the project as originally authorized under section 101(b)(14) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 280). The non-Federal interest shall not be responsible for reimbursing the Secretary for any amount credited under this subsection. [(c) Comparable Property.--Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the City of Arlington, Texas, shall identify lands, acceptable to the Secretary of the Army, amounting to not less than 90 acres within the City, where an ecosystem restoration project may be constructed to provide the same or greater level of National ecosystem restoration benefits as the land described in subsection (a)(1).] * * * * * * * EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR DEFENSE, THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR, AND HURRICANE RECOVERY, 2006, PUBLIC LAW 109-234 * * * * * * * TITLE II FURTHER HURRICANE DISASTER RELIEF AND RECOVERY * * * * * * * CHAPTER 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY Corps of Engineers--Civil * * * * * * * CONSTRUCTION For an additional amount for ``Construction'' for necessary expenses related to the consequences of Hurricane Katrina and other hurricanes of the 2005 season, $549,400,000, to remain available until expended, of which up to $20,200,000 may be used to reduce the risk of storm damage to the greater New Orleans metropolitan area, at full Federal expense, by restoring the surrounding wetlands through measures to begin to reverse wetland losses in areas affected by navigation, oil and gas, and other channels and through modification of the Caernarvon Freshwater Diversion structure or its operations; at least $495,300,000 shall be used consistent with the cost- sharing provisions under which the projects were originally constructed to raise levee heights where necessary and otherwise enhance the existing Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity project and the existing West Bank and Vicinity project to provide the levels of protection necessary to achieve the certification required for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program under the base flood elevations current at the time of this [construction: Provided,] : Provided, That the Secretary of the Army, in implementing projects and measures in the New Orleans metropolitan area required to achieve certification for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program as directed in Public Law 109-234 shall include all authorized features of the Southeast Louisiana Flood Control project and related internal pumping requirements as integral elements of the comprehensive protection system for the area and shall complete all authorized work for the Southeast Louisiana project concurrently and integrally with other area projects: Provided further, That the amount provided under this heading is designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006: Provided further, That $1,500,000 shall be for the North Padre Island, Texas project: Provided further, That $30,400,000 is available for flood control work in the Sacramento, California, Area: Provided further, That $2,000,000 shall be provided at full Federal expense for the Hawaii Water Systems Technical Assistance Program. * * * * * * * BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS AMENDED [In millions of dollars] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Budget authority Outlays --------------------------------------------------------- Committee Amount of Committee Amount of allocation\1\ bill allocation\1\ bill ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations to its subcommittees of budget totals for 2008: Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development: Mandatory......................................... .............. ........... 1 \1\1 Discretionary..................................... 32,273 32,273 33,229 \1\33,083 Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation: 2008.............................................. .............. ........... .............. \2\19,905 2009.............................................. .............. ........... .............. 9,152 2010.............................................. .............. ........... .............. 2,747 2011.............................................. .............. ........... .............. 203 2012 and future years............................. .............. ........... .............. 98 Financial assistance to State and local governments NA 111 NA 19 for 2008............................................ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \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 2007 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 [In thousands of dollars] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Senate Committee recommendation compared with (+ or -) Item 2007 Budget estimate Committee --------------------------------- appropriation recommendation 2007 appropriation Budget estimate -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY Corps of Engineers--Civil Investigations..................................................... 162,916 90,000 172,147 +9,231 +82,147 Rescission..................................................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... Emergency appropriations....................................... 8,165 ............... ............... -8,165 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total, Investigations........................................ 171,081 90,000 172,147 +1,066 +82,147 Construction....................................................... 2,336,368 1,523,000 2,059,474 -276,894 +536,474 Rescission..................................................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... Emergency appropriations....................................... 36,500 ............... ............... -36,500 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total, Construction.......................................... 2,372,868 1,523,000 2,059,474 -313,394 +536,474 Mississippi River and tributaries.................................. 396,565 260,000 375,000 -21,565 +115,000 Operations and Maintenance......................................... 1,973,347 2,471,000 2,291,971 +318,624 -179,029 Emergency appropriations....................................... 3,000 ............... ............... -3,000 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total, Operations and Maintenance............................ 1,976,347 2,471,000 2,291,971 +315,624 -179,029 Regulatory program................................................. 159,273 180,000 180,000 +20,727 ............... FUSRAP............................................................. 138,672 130,000 140,000 +1,328 +10,000 Flood control and coastal emergencies.............................. ............... 40,000 50,000 +50,000 +10,000 Emergency appropriations....................................... 1,561,000 ............... ............... -1,561,000 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total, Flood control and coastal emergencies................. 1,561,000 40,000 50,000 -1,511,000 +10,000 Expenses........................................................... 167,250 177,000 175,000 +7,750 -2,000 Office of Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)............ 3,979 ............... 4,500 +521 +4,500 ==================================================================================== Total, title I, Department of Defense--Civil................. 6,947,035 4,871,000 5,448,092 -1,498,943 +577,092 Appropriations........................................... (5,338,370) (4,871,000) (5,448,092) (+109,722) (+577,092) Emergency appropriations................................. (1,608,665) ............... ............... (-1,608,665) ............... Rescissions.............................................. ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ==================================================================================== TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Central Utah Project Completion Account Central Utah project construction.................................. 31,351 40,404 40,404 +9,053 ............... Fish, wildlife, and recreation mitigation and conservation......... 937 976 976 +39 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal..................................................... 32,288 41,380 41,380 +9,092 ............... Program oversight and administration............................... 1,732 1,620 1,620 -112 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total, Central Utah project completion account............... 34,020 43,000 43,000 +8,980 ............... Bureau of Reclamation Water and related resources........................................ 878,623 816,197 950,106 +71,483 +133,909 Emergency appropriations....................................... 18,000 ............... ............... -18,000 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total, Water and related resources........................... 896,623 816,197 950,106 +53,483 +133,909 Central Valley project restoration fund............................ 52,150 59,122 51,622 -528 -7,500 California Bay-Delta restoration................................... 36,648 31,750 40,750 +4,102 +9,000 Policy and administration.......................................... 57,575 58,811 58,811 +1,236 ............... Legislative proposal SJRRF......................................... ............... -7,500 ............... ............... +7,500 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total, Bureau of Reclamation................................. 1,042,996 958,380 1,101,289 +58,293 +142,909 ==================================================================================== Total, title II, Department of the Interior.................. 1,077,016 1,001,380 1,144,289 +67,273 +142,909 Appropriations........................................... (1,059,016) (1,001,380) (1,144,289) (+85,273) (+142,909) Emergency Appropriations................................. (18,000) ............... ............... (-18,000) ............... ==================================================================================== TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Energy Programs Energy efficiency and renewable energy............................. 1,474,285 1,236,199 1,715,551 +241,266 +479,352 Electricity delivery and energy reliability........................ 137,000 114,937 168,437 +31,437 +53,500 Nuclear energy..................................................... 482,191 801,703 720,558 +238,367 -81,145 (Reallocation from Energy supply and conservation)............. ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... (Reallocation from Nuclear nonproliferation)................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... Office of Legacy Management........................................ 33,187 35,104 35,104 +1,917 ............... Clean coal technology: Deferral of unobligated balances, fiscal year 2005............. 257,000 ............... ............... -257,000 ............... Deferral of unobligated balances, fiscal year 2007............. -257,000 ............... ............... +257,000 ............... Deferral of unobligated balances, fiscal year 2008............. ............... 257,000 257,000 +257,000 ............... Deferral of unobligated balances, fiscal year 2009............. ............... ............... -149,000 -149,000 -149,000 Rescission, uncommitted balances............................... ............... -149,000 ............... ............... +149,000 Transfer to Fossil Energy R&D.................................. ............... -166,000 -166,000 -166,000 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total, Clean coal technology................................. ............... -58,000 -58,000 -58,000 ............... Fossil Energy Research and Development............................. 592,621 400,801 642,113 +49,492 +241,312 Transfer from Clean Coal Technology............................ ............... 166,000 166,000 +166,000 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, Fossil Energy Research and Development............. 592,621 566,801 808,113 +215,492 +241,312 Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves............................. 21,316 17,301 21,301 -15 +4,000 Strategic petroleum reserve........................................ 164,441 331,609 163,472 -969 -168,137 Northeast home heating oil reserve................................. 5,000 5,325 12,825 +7,825 +7,500 Energy Information Administration.................................. 90,653 105,095 105,095 +14,442 ............... Non-defense environmental clean up................................. 349,687 180,937 195,437 -154,250 +14,500 (Reallocation from Energy supply and conservation)............. ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... Uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning fund........ 556,606 573,509 573,509 +16,903 ............... Science............................................................ 3,797,294 4,397,876 4,496,759 +699,465 +98,883 Nuclear Waste Disposal............................................. 99,206 202,454 204,054 +104,848 +1,600 Environment, safety and health (Reallocation from Energy supply and 27,841 ............... ............... -27,841 ............... conservation)..................................................... Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program....................... ............... 8,390 8,390 +8,390 ............... Departmental administration........................................ 276,832 310,366 308,596 +31,764 -1,770 Miscellaneous revenues......................................... -123,000 -161,818 -161,818 -38,818 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Net appropriation.......................................... 153,832 148,548 146,778 -7,054 -1,770 Office of the Inspector General.................................... 41,819 47,732 47,732 +5,913 ............... Atomic Energy Defense Activities National Nuclear Security Administration: Weapons activities............................................. 6,275,583 6,511,312 6,489,024 +213,441 -22,288 Defense nuclear nonproliferation............................... 1,683,339 1,672,646 1,872,646 +189,307 +200,000 (Reallocation to Nuclear energy)........................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... Emergency appropriations................................... 135,000 ............... ............... -135,000 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, Defense nuclear nonproliferation............... 1,818,339 1,672,646 1,872,646 +54,307 +200,000 Naval reactors................................................. 781,800 808,219 808,219 +26,419 ............... Office of the Administrator.................................... 340,291 394,656 394,656 +54,365 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, National Nuclear Security Administration........... 9,216,013 9,386,833 9,564,545 +348,532 +177,712 Defense environmental cleanup...................................... 5,731,839 5,363,905 5,690,380 -41,459 +326,475 Other defense activities........................................... 636,271 763,974 765,464 +129,193 +1,490 Defense nuclear waste disposal..................................... 346,500 292,046 242,046 -104,454 -50,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities...................... 15,930,623 15,806,758 16,262,435 +331,812 +455,677 ==================================================================================== Power Marketing Administrations Operation and maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration....... 38,315 54,876 54,876 +16,561 ............... Offsetting collection.......................................... -32,713 -48,413 -48,413 -15,700 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, O&M, Southeastern Power Administration............. 5,602 6,463 6,463 +861 ............... Operation and maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration....... 32,998 65,442 65,442 +32,444 ............... Offsetting collection.......................................... -3,000 -35,000 -35,000 -32,000 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, O&M, Southwestern Power Administration............. 29,998 30,442 30,442 +444 ............... Construction, rehabilitation, operation and maintenance, Western 515,031 463,669 493,669 -21,362 +30,000 Area Power Administration......................................... Offsetting collection.......................................... -279,000 -258,702 -262,639 +16,361 -3,937 Offsettting collection Colorado River Dam Fund................. -3,705 -3,937 ............... +3,705 +3,937 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, O&M, Western Area Power Administration............. 232,326 201,030 231,030 -1,296 +30,000 Falcon and Amistad operating and maintenance fund.................. 2,665 2,500 2,500 -165 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total, Power Marketing Administrations....................... 270,591 240,435 270,435 -156 +30,000 ==================================================================================== Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Salaries and expenses.............................................. 221,902 255,425 255,425 +33,523 ............... Revenues applied................................................... -221,902 -255,425 -255,425 -33,523 ............... ==================================================================================== Total, title III, Department of Energy....................... 24,228,193 24,762,713 25,897,985 +1,669,792 +1,135,272 Appropriations........................................... (24,093,193) (24,654,713) (25,789,985) (+1,696,792) (+1,135,272) Emergency appropriations................................. (135,000) ............... ............... (-135,000) ............... Rescissions.............................................. ............... (-149,000) ............... ............... (+149,000) ==================================================================================== TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES Appalachian Regional Commission.................................... 64,858 65,000 75,000 +10,142 +10,000 Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board............................ 21,914 22,499 22,499 +585 ............... Delta Regional Authority........................................... 11,888 6,000 12,000 +112 +6,000 Denali Commission.................................................. 49,509 1,800 31,800 -17,709 +30,000 Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Salaries and expenses.......................................... 816,639 908,409 910,559 +93,920 +2,150 Revenues....................................................... -659,328 -757,720 -757,720 -98,392 ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal..................................................... 157,311 150,689 152,839 -4,472 +2,150 Office of Inspector General.................................... 8,285 8,144 8,744 +459 +600 Revenues....................................................... -7,410 -7,330 -7,870 -460 -540 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal..................................................... 875 814 874 -1 +60 ==================================================================================== Total, Nuclear Regulatory Commission......................... 158,186 151,503 153,713 -4,473 +2,210 Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board............................... 3,591 3,621 3,621 +30 ............... Tennessee Valley Authority: Office of Inspector General............ ............... 15,000 ............... ............... -15,000 Offset......................................................... ............... -15,000 ............... ............... +15,000 Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas ............... 2,322 2,322 +2,322 ............... Transportation Projects........................................... ==================================================================================== Total, title IV, Independent agencies........................ 309,946 252,745 300,955 -8,991 +48,210 ==================================================================================== Grand total.................................................. 32,562,190 30,887,838 32,791,321 +229,131 +1,903,483 Appropriations........................................... (30,800,525) (31,036,838) (32,791,321) (+1,990,796) (+1,754,483) Emergency appropriations................................. (1,761,665) ............... ............... (-1,761,665) ............... Rescission............................................... ............... (-149,000) ............... ............... (+149,000) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <all>