[Senate Report 114-54]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 96
114th Congress } { Report
SENATE
1st Session } { 114-54
===================================================================
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2016
_______
May 21, 2015.--Ordered to be printed
Mr. Alexander, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the
following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 2028]
The Committee on Appropriations, to which was referred the
bill (H.R. 2028) making appropriations for energy and water
development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2016, and for other purposes, reports the same
with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, and recommends
that the bill as amended do pass.
New obligational authority
Total of bill as reported to the Senate................. $36,118,168,000
Amount of 2015 appropriations........................... 34,780,277,000
Amount of 2016 budget estimate.......................... 36,646,014,000
Amount of House allowance............................... 36,010,658,000
Bill as recommended to Senate compared to--
2015 appropriations................................. +1,337,891,000
2016 budget estimate................................ -527,846,000
House allowance..................................... +107,510,000
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Purpose.......................................................... 4
Summary of Estimates and Recommendations......................... 4
Introduction..................................................... 4
Title I:
Department of Defense--Civil: Department of the Army:
Corps of Engineers--Civil:
Investigations....................................... 9
Construction......................................... 19
Mississippi River and Tributaries.................... 25
Operations and Maintenance........................... 28
Regulatory Program................................... 47
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program...... 47
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies................ 47
Expenses............................................. 48
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil
Works)............................................. 48
General Provisions--Corps of Engineers--Civil........ 48
Title II:
Department of the Interior:
Central Utah Project Completion Account.................. 49
Bureau of Reclamation:
Water and Related Resources.......................... 51
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund.............. 62
California Bay-Delta Restoration..................... 62
Policy and Administration............................ 63
Indian Water Rights Settlements...................... 63
San Joaquin Restoration Fund......................... 63
General Provisions--Department of the Interior........... 63
Title III:
Department of Energy:
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy................... 69
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.............. 75
Nuclear Energy........................................... 79
Fossil Energy Research and Development................... 81
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves................... 85
Strategic Petroleum Reserve.............................. 85
Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve....................... 85
Energy Information Administration........................ 86
Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup........................ 86
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning
Fund................................................... 87
Science.................................................. 88
Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy................ 93
Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs.............. 93
Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program............. 93
Tribal Indian Energy Loan Guarantee Program.............. 94
Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program.. 94
Departmental Administration.............................. 94
Office of the Inspector General.......................... 96
Weapons Activities....................................... 97
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation......................... 101
Naval Reactors........................................... 102
Federal Salaries and Expenses............................ 103
Defense Environmental Cleanup............................ 104
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning
Federal Contribution................................... 106
Other Defense Activities................................. 106
Power Marketing Administrations:
Bonneville Power Administration Fund................. 106
Operations and Maintenance, Southeastern Power
Administration..................................... 106
Operations and Maintenance, Southwestern Power
Administration..................................... 106
Construction, Rehabilitation, Operations and
Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration..... 107
Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund.... 107
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Salaries and
Expenses............................................... 107
General Provisions--Department of Energy................. 132
Title IV:
Independent Agencies:
Appalachian Regional Commission.......................... 133
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.................. 133
Delta Regional Authority................................. 134
Denali Commission........................................ 134
Northern Border Regional Commission...................... 134
Southeast Crescent Regional Commission................... 134
Nuclear Regulatory Commission............................ 135
Office of Inspector General.......................... 137
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board..................... 138
Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas
Transportation Projects................................ 138
Title IV: General Provisions..................................... 138
Title V: General Provisions...................................... 139
Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI, of the Standing Rules of
the
Senate......................................................... 139
Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules
of the
Senate......................................................... 140
Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of
the
Senate......................................................... 141
Budgetary Impact of Bill......................................... 145
Comparative Statement of Budget Authority........................ 146
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to provide appropriations for
fiscal year 2016, beginning October 1, 2015, and ending
September 30, 2016, for energy and water development, and for
other related purposes. It supplies funds for water resources
development programs and related activities of the 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 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 2016 budget estimates for the bill total
$36,646,014,000 in new budget (obligational) authority. The
recommendation of the Committee totals $36,118,168,000. This is
$527,846,000 below the budget estimates and $1,337,891,000
above the enacted appropriation for the current fiscal year.
Subcommittee Hearings
The Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development held four sessions in connection with the fiscal
year 2016 appropriations bill. Witnesses included officials and
representatives of the Federal agencies under the
subcommittee's jurisdiction.
The recommendations for fiscal year 2016, therefore, have
been developed after careful consideration of available data.
Votes in the Committee
By a vote of ---- to ---- the Committee on ----------,
recommended that the bill, as amended, be reported to the
Senate.
INTRODUCTION
The Committee recommends $35,368,000,000 for the Energy and
Water Development appropriations bill for fiscal year 2016,
including adjustments, an increase of $1,165,723,000 over
fiscal year 2015. Within the amount recommended,
$19,002,000,000 is classified as defense and $16,366,000,000 is
classified as non-defense spending. The Committee
recommendation complies with the Budget Control Act of 2011, as
amended.
The Committee's constitutional responsibility to oversee
the Federal Government's expenditure of taxpayer dollars
requires setting priorities and ensuring these funds are
executed as Congress has directed. To develop this
recommendation, the Committee held four budget hearings in
March and April 2015 to examine the budget requests for the
Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of
Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, and the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The hearings provided officials
from the agencies an opportunity to present their most pressing
priorities to the Committee. The Committee also invited and
received recommendations from Senators.
The Committee's recommendation reflects that process, and
includes funding for the highest priority activities across
several Federal agencies. The recommendation includes funds for
critical water infrastructure, including our Nation's inland
waterways, ports, and harbors; agricultural water supply and
drought relief in the West; groundbreaking scientific research
and development, including world-class supercomputing; support
for the Nation's nuclear weapons, non-proliferation, and
nuclear Navy programs; and critical economic development. The
Committee did not recommend funding for low-priority programs,
and rescinded unused funds from prior years.
Oversight
To ensure appropriate oversight of taxpayer dollars, the
Committee's recommendation includes financial reporting
requirements in each title of the bill, and provides additional
Congressional control points in the recommendation for the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Committee describes these
new requirements in detail in the relevant sections.
TITLE I
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Corps of Engineers--Civil
OVERVIEW OF RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $5,499,500,000 for the Corps of
Engineers, an increase of $767,500,000 from the budget request.
The Committee also recommends rescinding $128,000,000 of
unobligated prior year balances, for a net appropriation of
$5,371,500,000.
The Committee recommendation sets priorities by supporting
our Nation's infrastructure. Specifically, the Committee
recommendation provides adequate appropriations to utilize all
of the estimated fiscal year 2016 revenues from the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund and meets the target prescribed in the
Water Resources Reform and Development Act [WRRDA] of 2014 for
projects eligible for Harbor Maintenance Trust Funds. This
level of funding will help modernize our Nation's ports and
waterways as we prepare for completion of the Panama Canal
expansion.
INTRODUCTION
The Corps of Engineers' civil works mission is to provide
quality, responsive engineering services to the Nation in peace
and war. Approximately 23,000 civilians and about 290 military
officers are responsible for executing the civil works mission.
This bill only funds the civil works functions of the Corps of
Engineers.
The Corps of Engineers maintains our inland waterways,
keeps our ports open, manages a portion of our drinking water
supply, provides emission free electricity from dams, looks
after many of our recreational waters, helps manage the river
levels during flooding, provides environmental stewardship, and
emergency response to natural disasters. The annual net
economic benefit generated by the Corps of Engineers' civil
works mission is estimated to be $87,000,000,000, which equates
to a return of about $16 for every $1 expended.
The Corps of Engineers' responsibilities include:
--navigation systems, including 13,000 miles of deep draft
channels, 12,000 miles of inland waterways, 236 lock
chambers, and 926 harbors which handle over 2.3 billion
tons of cargo annually;
--flood risk management infrastructure, including 707 dams,
14,700 miles of levees, and multiple hurricane and
storm damage risk reduction projects along the coast;
--municipal and industrial water supply storage at 136
projects spread across 25 States;
--environmental stewardship, infrastructure, and ecosystem
restoration;
--recreation for approximately 370 million recreation visits
per year to Corps of Engineers' projects;
--regulation of waters under Federal statutes; and
--maintaining hydropower capacity of nearly 24,000 megawatts
at 75 projects.
PROGRAM COORDINATION AND EXECUTION
The Committee expects the Corps of Engineers to execute the
civil works program in accordance with congressional direction
included in this report and the accompanying act. This includes
moving individual projects forward in accordance with the funds
annually appropriated. However, the Committee realizes that
many factors outside the Corps of Engineers' control may
dictate the progress of any given project or study. The
Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to notify the
Committee of any major deviations as soon as practicable,
including a detailed justification and updates of cost,
schedule, or scope for the project or study. A major deviation
is defined as any reprogramming action that requires Committee
notification as identified in the Energy and Water Development
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015, or a schedule
change that causes completions, as identified in the fiscal
year 2015 or fiscal year 2016 budget requests to be delayed
beyond the fiscal year stated.
FISCAL YEAR 2016 WORK PLAN
The Committee has recommended funding above the budget
request for Investigations, Construction, Operations and
Maintenance, and Mississippi River and Tributaries. The Corps
of Engineers is directed to submit a work plan, not later than
45 days after the date of enactment of this act, to the
Committee proposing its allocation of these additional funds.
The Corps of Engineers is directed not to obligate any funding
above the budget request for studies or projects until the
Committee has approved the work plan for fiscal year 2016. The
work plan shall be consistent with the following general
guidance, as well as the specific direction the Committee
provides within each account.
--None of the funds may be used for any item for which the
Committee has specifically denied funding.
--Except for funds proposed for new starts, the additional
funds are provided for ongoing studies or projects that
were either not included in the budget request or for
which the budget request was inadequate.
--The work plan shall include a single group of new starts
for Investigations and Construction.
--Funding associated with a category may be allocated to
eligible studies or projects within that category.
--Funding associated with a subcategory may be allocated only
to eligible studies or projects within that
subcategory.
--The Corps of Engineers may not withhold funding from a
study or project because it is inconsistent with the
administration's policy.
--The Committee notes that these funds are in excess of the
administration's budget request, and that
administration budget metrics should not disqualify a
study or project from being funded.
PROCUREMENT
The Committee remains concerned about the high unemployment
rate of the Nation's construction industry. Despite the efforts
of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy to increase
communication between procurement officers and industry, the
Committee believes that local contractors very often do not
know about nor have the opportunity to compete for local
construction projects funded in this act. Therefore, the
Committee directs the Secretary to ensure that regional/
district offices responsible for construction projects inform
and engage local construction industry contractors, especially
small businesses, minority-owned businesses, and women-owned
businesses, about Federal procurement opportunities and the
bidding process. The Committee requests a clear outreach plan
from the Secretary no later than 90 days after enactment of
this act. This plan should modernize traditional outreach
methods to reach a broader group of local contractors.
REPROGRAMMING
The Committee is retaining the reprogramming legislation
provided in the Energy and Water Development and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015.
NEW STARTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016
The Committee recommends new starts in both the
Investigations and Construction accounts for fiscal year 2016.
The Committee decision is based, in part, on the budget request
providing funding to complete 11 feasibility studies, 2
preconstruction engineering design [PED] studies, and 9
construction projects.
Investments in our infrastructure are investments in our
economy. These investments should be continued even during
constrained budgets, as the benefits continue to accrue for
decades. The Committee recommends up to 10 new feasibility
study starts, and 6 new construction starts, including the
following 4 proposed in the administration's budget request for
fiscal year 2016: Port Lions Harbor, Alaska; Coyote & Berryessa
Creeks, California; Ohio River Shoreline, Paducah, Kentucky;
and, Marsh Lake, Minnesota.
The Corps of Engineers is directed to propose, not later
than 45 days after the date of enactment of this act, a single
group of new starts to the Committee as a part of the work
plan, under the direction included above under the heading
``Fiscal Year 2016 Work Plan''.
SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE
Savings and slippage [S&S] is a budgetary term that
recognizes that nothing ever goes completely as planned. The
Committee recognizes that many changes may occur between the
Corps of Engineers' budget formulation--beginning 22 months
before it is submitted to the Committee--and when funds are
actually appropriated. Although the Committee has attempted to
identify and address changes through coordination with the
Corps of Engineers, the Committee realizes that actual
appropriations may not be enacted until later in the year.
Accordingly, the Committee has included, as in prior years, a
reasonable percentage of S&S within Investigations,
Construction, and Operations and Maintenance as a way to
accommodate additional project needs, even if funding is
insufficient. Upon applying the S&S amounts, normal
reprogramming procedures should be undertaken to account for
schedule slippages, accelerations, or other unforeseen
conditions.
CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING
The Committee did not accept or include Congressionally
Directed Spending, as defined in section 5(a) of rule XLIV of
the Standing Rules of the Senate. However, the Committee has
recommended additional programmatic funds for Investigations,
Construction, Operations and Maintenance, and Mississippi River
and Tributaries to address deficiencies in the budget request.
In some cases, these additional funds have been included within
defined categories, as in prior years, and are described in
more detail in their respective sections, below.
ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY
The Comptroller General of the Government Accountability
Office is directed to study the cumulative economic impact of
all the shallow draft ports on the Mississippi River between
St. Louis, Missouri, and Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The study
should include the revenue and jobs created locally and
nationally, the importance of these ports to inland waterways
shippers, the economic effects that would result from any
single port closing down, the economic effects that would
result from all ports closing down, the increase in barge
traffic that these ports may see with the expansion of the
Panama Canal, and the ability or inability of these ports to
meet that expansion under the current funding environment.
Finally, the study shall make a recommendation regarding the
establishment of one funding stream for dredging these small
inland ports as compared to historical funding mechanisms.
INVESTIGATIONS
Appropriations, 2015.................................. $122,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................ 97,000,000
House allowance....................................... 113,000,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 109,000,000
The Committee recommends $109,000,000 for Investigations,
an increase of $12,000,000 from the budget request. The
Committee's recommendation allows the Corps of Engineers to
begin up to 10 new feasibility study starts.
INTRODUCTION
Funding in this account is used to develop feasibility and
PED studies to address the Nation's water infrastructure needs,
in support of project authorization. The Committee is very
concerned that only one-third of the budget request for
Investigations is directed to specifically authorized studies,
with the remainder directed to nationwide programs that will
not result in construction recommendations. Further, the budget
request proposes funding for only 51 specifically authorized
feasibility studies, as compared to over 100 studies receiving
appropriations in fiscal year 2015. Additional funding
recommended for Investigations will allow a more balanced
planning program.
The Committee is also concerned about the administration's
failure to efficiently fund ongoing studies to completion, with
completion being defined as the end of the PED phase. The
budget request does not include funding to move any of the 34
feasibility studies that were completed in the prior fiscal
year into the PED study phase. If the Committee were to adopt
the budget request without modification, a backlog of at least
40 studies would be created from just the past 2 fiscal years.
The Committee recognizes that the administration's budget does
not provide adequate Investigations, and specifically PED
funding to allow many of America's most important waterways to
move efficiently from planning to construction. The Committee
therefore recommends additional funding to be used to
seamlessly continue feasibility studies into the PED study
phase.
NEW STARTS
The Committee's recommendation includes funding for up to
10 new feasibility study starts. Each new feasibility study
shall be selected based on the Corps of Engineers'
prioritization process and included as a part of the
Investigations work plan. Not less than 50 percent of the
additional funds recommended for Investigations shall be used
to seamlessly continue studies into the PED phase, which have a
Chief's Report dated prior to October 1, 2015.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The table below displays the budget request and the
Committee's recommendation for Investigations. Funding is
classified as either for feasibility or PED studies, as
indicated in the columns, to provide greater transparency in
the study phases.
CORPS OF ENGINEERS--INVESTIGATIONS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate House allowance Committee
-------------------------------------------- recommendation
Project title ---------------------
FEAS PED FEAS PED FEAS PED
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA
MOBILE HARBOR DEEPENING AND WIDENING, AL...... 400 ......... 400 ......... 400 .........
ALASKA
CRAIG HARBOR, AK.............................. 535 ......... 535 ......... 535 .........
KOTZEBUE SMALL BOAT HARBOR, AK................ 700 ......... 700 ......... 700 .........
PERRYVILLE HARBOR, AK......................... 700 ......... 700 ......... 700 .........
SAINT GEORGE HARBOR IMPROVEMENT, AK........... 700 ......... 700 ......... 700 .........
ARIZONA
LITTLE COLORADO RIVER (WINSLOW), AZ........... 100 ......... 100 ......... 100 .........
LOWER SANTA CRUZ RIVER, AZ.................... 700 ......... 700 ......... 700 .........
ARKANSAS
THREE RIVERS, AR.............................. 700 ......... 700 ......... 700 .........
CALIFORNIA
AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES, ......... 3,500 ......... 3,500 ......... 3,500
NATOMAS BASIN, CA............................
DRY CREEK (WARM SPRINGS) RESTORATION, CA...... 700 ......... 700 ......... 700 .........
LOWER CACHE CRK, YOLO CNTY, WOODLAND & VIC, CA 570 ......... 570 ......... 570 .........
PORT OF LONG BEACH NAV IMP, CA................ 700 ......... 700 ......... 700 .........
SACRAMENTO RIVER BANK PROTECTION (PHASE 3) 500 ......... 500 ......... 500 .........
(GENERAL REEVALUATION REPORT), CA............
SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK, CA.................... 331 ......... 331 ......... 331 .........
YUBA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA.......... 700 ......... 700 ......... 700 .........
COLORADO
ADAMS AND DENVER COUNTIES, CO................. 700 ......... 700 ......... 700 .........
COMMONWEALTH NORTHERN MARIANAS
ROTA HARBOR MODIFICATIONS, CNMI............... 700 ......... 700 ......... 700 .........
TINIAN HARBOR MODIFICATIONS, CNMI............. 700 ......... 700 ......... 700 .........
CONNECTICUT
FAIRFIELD AND NEW HAVEN COUNTIES (FLOODING), 700 ......... 700 ......... 700 .........
CT...........................................
NEW HAVEN HARBOR DEEPENING, CT................ 700 ......... 700 ......... 700 .........
FLORIDA
MANATEE HARBOR, FL............................ 700 ......... 700 ......... 700 .........
GEORGIA
PROCTOR CREEK, GA............................. 700 ......... 700 ......... 700 .........
SATILLA RIVER BASIN WATERSHED, GA............. 700 ......... 700 ......... 700 .........
IDAHO
BOISE RIVER, BOISE, ID........................ 275 ......... 275 ......... 275 .........
ILLINOIS
DU PAGE RIVER, IL............................. 700 ......... 700 ......... 700 .........
ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN RESTORATION, IL.......... 400 ......... 400 ......... 400 .........
INTERBASIN CONTROL OF GREAT LAKES-MISSISSIPPI 500 ......... 500 ......... 500 .........
RIVER AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES, IL, IN, OH &
WI...........................................
KASKASKIA RIVER BASIN, IL..................... 500 ......... 500 ......... 500 .........
IOWA
DES MOINES LEVEE SYSTEM, DES MOINES AND 700 ......... 700 ......... 700 .........
RACCOON RIVERS, IA...........................
LOUISIANA
INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL LOCK, LA 1,400 ......... 1,400 ......... 1,400 .........
(GENERAL REEVALUATION REPORT)................
LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, 50 ......... 50 ......... 50 .........
LA...........................................
MISSISSIPPI RIVER SHIP CHANNEL, GULF TO BATON 550 ......... 550 ......... 550 .........
ROUGE, LA....................................
MARYLAND
CHESAPEAKE BAY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, MD, PA & VA 250 ......... 250 ......... 250 .........
MASSACHUSETTS
BOSTON HARBOR DEEP DRAFT INVESTIGATION, MA.... ......... 1,835 ......... 1,835 ......... 1,835
MICHIGAN
SAGINAW RIVER DEEPENING, SAGINAW, MI (GENERAL 100 ......... 100 ......... 100 .........
REEVALUATION REPORT).........................
MINNESOTA
MINNESOTA RIVER WATERSHED STUDY, MN & SD 600 ......... 600 ......... 600 .........
(MINNESOTA RIVER AUTHORITY)..................
MISSOURI
ST LOUIS RIVERFRONT, MO & IL.................. 700 ......... 700 ......... 700 .........
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY BACKBAY, NJ........................ ......... ......... 300 ......... ......... .........
PASSAIC RIVER MAINSTEM, NJ (GENERAL 982 ......... 982 ......... 982 .........
REEVALUATION REPORT).........................
RAHWAY RIVR BASIN (UPPER BASIN), NJ........... 500 ......... 500 ......... 500 .........
NEW YORK
NEW YORK--NEW JERSEY HARBOR & TRIBUTARIES, NY ......... ......... 400 ......... ......... .........
& NJ.........................................
UPPER SUSQUEHANNA COMPREHENSIVE FLOOD DAMAGE 600 ......... 600 ......... 600 .........
REDUCTION, NY................................
WESTCHESTER COUNTY STREAMS, BYRAM RIVER BASIN, 703 ......... 703 ......... 703 .........
NY & CT......................................
NORTH DAKOTA
RED RIVER OF THE NORTH BASIN, ND, MN, SD & 786 ......... 786 ......... 786 .........
MANITOBA, CANADA.............................
OKLAHOMA
ARKANSAS RIVER CORRIDOR, OK................... 815 ......... 815 ......... 815 .........
PENNSYLVANIA
DELAWARE RIVER DREDGE MATERIAL UTILIZATION, PA 700 ......... 700 ......... 700 .........
PUERTO RICO
SAN JUAN HARBOR CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT STUDY, PR. 700 ......... 700 ......... 700 .........
TEXAS
COASTAL TEXAS PROTECTION AND RESTORATION 700 ......... 700 ......... 700 .........
STUDY, TX....................................
HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX...................... 700 ......... 700 ......... 700 .........
SABINE PASS TO GALVESTON BAY, TX.............. 600 ......... 600 ......... 600 .........
SPARKS ARROYO COLONIA, EL PASO COUNTY, TX..... 200 ......... 200 ......... 200 .........
SULPHUR RIVER BASIN, TX....................... 500 ......... 500 ......... 500 .........
VIRGINIA
CITY OF NORFOLK, VA........................... ......... ......... 300 ......... ......... .........
NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS (55-FOOT), VA 800 ......... 800 ......... 800 .........
(GENERAL REEVALUATION REPORT)................
WASHINGTON
DUNGENESS RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, 700 ......... 700 ......... 700 .........
WA...........................................
SEATTLE HARBOR, WA............................ 500 ......... 500 ......... 500 .........
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, ITEMS UNDER STATES............ 30,847 5,335 31,847 5,335 30,847 5,335
REMAINING ITEMS
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK:
FLOOD AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION.......... ......... ......... 6,500 ......... 1,000 1,000
FLOOD CONTROL......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 1,000
SHORE PROTECTION...................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
NAVIGATION................................ ......... ......... 4,000 ......... ......... 1,000
COASTAL AND DEEP-DRAFT................ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 5,031
INLAND................................ ......... ......... ......... ......... 500 500
SMALL, REMOTE, OR SUBSISTENCE......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 1,158
OTHER AUTHORIZED PROJECT PURPOSES......... ......... ......... 2,000 ......... 1,000 .........
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION OR COMPLIANCE... ......... ......... ......... ......... 500 .........
REMOTE, COASTAL, OR SMALL WATERSHED....... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
COORDINATION STUDIES WITH OTHER AGENCIES:
ACCESS TO WATER DATA...................... 750 ......... 750 ......... 750 .........
COMMITTEE ON MARINE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS 100 ......... 100 ......... 100 .........
OTHER COORDINATION PROGRAMS:
CALFED................................ 100 ......... 100 ......... 100 .........
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM................ 75 ......... 75 ......... 75 .........
COORDINATION WITH OTHER WATER RESOURCE 398 ......... 398 ......... 398 .........
AGENCIES.............................
GULF OF MEXICO........................ 100 ......... 100 ......... 100 .........
INTERAGENCY AND INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT. 400 ......... 400 ......... 400 .........
INTERAGENCY WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT 721 ......... 721 ......... 721 .........
INVENTORY OF DAMS..................... 400 ......... 400 ......... 400 .........
LAKE TAHOE............................ 50 ......... 50 ......... 50 .........
PACIFIC NW FOREST CASE................ 10 ......... 10 ......... 10 .........
SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS................ 1,350 ......... 1,350 ......... 1,350 .........
FERC LICENSING........................ 200 ......... 200 ......... 200 .........
PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES............. 5,500 ......... 6,000 ......... 6,000 .........
COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA:
AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEMS SUPPORT TRI- 251 ......... 251 ......... 251 .........
CADD.....................................
COASTAL FIELD DATA COLLECTION............. 1,000 ......... 1,000 ......... 1,000 .........
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA STUDIES................ 75 ......... 75 ......... 75 .........
FLOOD DAMAGE DATA......................... 220 ......... 220 ......... 220 .........
FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT SERVICES........... 15,000 ......... 15,000 ......... 15,000 .........
HYDROLOGIC STUDIES........................ 1,743 ......... 1,743 ......... 1,743 .........
INTERNATIONAL WATER STUDIES............... 150 ......... 150 ......... 150 .........
PRECIPITATION STUDIES..................... 225 ......... 225 ......... 225 .........
REMOTE SENSING/GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 75 ......... 75 ......... 75 .........
SYSTEM SUPPORT...........................
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION 47 ......... 47 ......... 47 .........
CENTERS..................................
STREAM GAGING............................. 550 ......... 550 ......... 550 .........
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS.................... 385 ......... 385 ......... 385 .........
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT...................... 18,143 ......... 18,143 ......... 22,000 .........
OTHER--MISC:
DISPOSITION OF COMPLETED PROJECTS......... 800 ......... 800 ......... 800 .........
NORTH ATLANTIC COAST COMPREHENSIVE STUDY 1,000 ......... ......... ......... 1,800 .........
FOCUS AREA...............................
NATIONAL FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.... 6,000 ......... 6,000 ......... 6,000 .........
NATIONAL SHORELINE........................ 400 ......... 400 ......... 400 .........
PLANNING SUPPORT PROGRAM.................. 3,100 ......... 3,100 ......... 3,100 .........
TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM................ 1,500 ......... 1,500 ......... 1,500 .........
HOUSE FLOOR AMENDMENTS........................ ......... ......... 3,500 ......... ......... .........
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL................................ 60,818 ......... 76,318 ......... 68,975 9,689
SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE.......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... -5,081 -765
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL................................... 91,665 5,335 108,165 5,335 94,741 14,259
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL............................. ......... 97,000 ......... 113,500 ......... 109,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Plan.--The Committee
understands that during the 2011 flooding on the Mississippi
River, much of the damage was concentrated on the Upper
Mississippi River Basin, where there is no final flood risk
management plan. An appropriate Upper Mississippi River
Comprehensive Plan would help work toward flood risk management
goals. The Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to provide,
not later than 60 days after the enactment of this act, a
comprehensive survey of the authorization and funding
requirements necessary for the Corps of Engineers to continue
work on the Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Plan,
including work on alternative scenarios for the 500 year flood
(included in the current plan, Plan H). The report shall also
outline the perceived challenges to, and recommendations for,
working toward the creation of an overall flood risk management
plan for the entire main stem of the Mississippi River.
Mobile Harbor, Alabama Limited Reevaluation Report.--The
Committee directs the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil
Works [Secretary] to budget for this project at the rate
indicated in Section 110 of the Energy and Water Development
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015. In future budget
submissions, the Secretary shall adhere to Congressional
direction included in statute regarding this project. The
Committee expects the Secretary to allocate funds provided in
this act in a manner that is consistent with statutory cost
sharing requirements.
Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway System.--The
Committee recognizes that the bipartisan support for the
Navigation and Ecosystem Sustainability Program [NESP],
spanning almost a decade, has not resulted in NESP's
implementation. The Committee recognizes that NESP is now so
delayed that new economic and cost-benefit analyses must be
performed before it can move forward. The Committee also
recognizes that although the Corps of Engineers has
reprogrammed funding into NESP, this funding has not been used
to deliver updated analysis.
Consequently, the Committee directs the Corps of Engineers,
not later than 30 days after the enactment of this act, to
provide a report detailing the scope, schedule, and budget for
delivering the updated economic analysis and cost
recertification so the Corps of Engineers can begin
implementing NESP.
Mud Mountain Dam.--The Committee commends the Corps of
Engineers and the National Marine Fisheries Service for
reaching agreement on a biological opinion [BiOp] to mitigate
the impact of the ongoing operation of Mud Mountain Dam on
species listed under the Endangered Species Act [ESA] by
replacing the barrier structure and building a new fish trap
facility. The Committee is aware that the Corps of Engineers is
scheduled to complete the decision document in May 2015, which
will inform design and construction work. The Committee
encourages the Corps of Engineers to uphold its ESA and Tribal
treaty responsibilities by requesting sufficient funding in
future budgets to implement the BiOp requirements and complete
construction by 2020.
Puget Sound Nearshore Study.--The Committee is aware that
the Corps of Engineers completed public review on the draft
Puget Sound Nearshore Feasibility Report and Environmental
Impact Statement [Report] in December 2014. If the final Report
does not identify an implementable Federal project, the
Committee encourages the Corps of Engineers to identify other
existing authorities and resources that could assist with
timely construction of alternatives included in the Report. The
Committee further encourages the Corps of Engineers to
acknowledge early action restoration efforts by the State of
Washington as part of the overall plan, including cost share
obligations when a project cost share agreement is executed.
Tribal Communities Located in Remote Areas.--The Committee
recognizes that Tribal communities located in remote areas that
experience severe, weather-related conditions that jeopardize
public health and safety, face a significant disadvantage in
the Corps of Engineers' utilization of benefit-cost ratios in
the budgeting process. The Committee urges the Corps of
Engineers to consider Federal trust and treaty obligations and
the need to protect public health and safety in severe weather
situations in determining future budget priorities.
National Mall and Federal Triangle Flood Protection.--The
Committee expects the Corps of Engineers to provide information
and cooperate with other Federal agencies, the District of
Columbia government, and nonprofit interests, including the
National Coalition to Save Our Mall and Federal City Council,
to address ongoing flood risks facing the Federal Triangle/
National Mall area. The Committee directs the Corps of
Engineers to provide unclassified information to the
aforementioned interests for the purposes of developing a
report on a proposed cost-neutral, public-private partnership
approach to combine flood protection with underground visitor
amenities and parking in order to address flood risks to the
Federal Triangle/National Mall area, as well as the need to
improve visitor access to National Mall museums, monuments, and
activities.
Aquatic Nuisance Species.--The Committee is aware that the
Corps of Engineers is capable of utilizing funding beyond what
was in the administration's fiscal year 2016 budget request to
further ongoing studies, including ongoing projects to address
the threat of aquatic nuisance species in the Great Lakes
Basin. The Committee encourages the Corps of Engineers to
consider funding the program to address the threat of aquatic
nuisance species in the Great Lakes Basin to its full
capability in the fiscal year 2016 work plan.
The Committee further understands that under the Great
Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin Study, the Corps of
Engineers has initiated a feasibility study to investigate
near-term options and technologies to prevent the one-way
transfer of aquatic nuisance species from the Mississippi River
Basin into the Great Lakes Basin. Considering the pressing and
potentially devastating harm aquatic nuisance species pose to
the Great Lakes fishery and economy, the Committee is concerned
that the Corps issued a waiver from the 3x3x3 rule to allow the
feasibility study to take more than 3 years. The Committee
believes that the Brandon Road Lock and Dam offers great
promise as a single point to control the upstream transfer of
aquatic nuisance species and that delays would be a major
setback. Therefore, the Committee urges the Corps of Engineers
to consider alternative ways to accelerate the feasibility
study and to complete it within 3 years.
Research and Development, Additional Topic--Urban Flood
Damage Reduction and Stream Restoration in Arid Regions.--The
Committee encourages the Corps of Engineers' research and
development [R&D] program to focus on the management of water
resources projects that promote public safety; reduce risk;
improve operational efficiencies; reduce flood damage in arid
and semi-arid regions; sustain the environment; and position
our water resource systems to be managed as systems and
adaptable due to the implications of a changing climate. The
R&D program should also continue its focus on science and
technology efforts to address needs for resilient water
resources infrastructure.
Export Terminals.--The Committee strongly encourages the
Corps of Engineers to complete environmental review for export
terminal projects as expeditiously as possible, in a
transparent manner, and in a reasonable timeframe. In addition,
the Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to thoroughly
consult with the Secretary of the Interior, and all affected
Tribal nations regarding the environmental and economic impacts
as well as treaty rights of all Tribes affected by export
terminal projects undergoing environmental review.
Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.--The Committee
recommendation includes $12,000,000 in additional funds for
Investigations. From these additional funds, the Corps of
Engineers is authorized to begin up to 10 new feasibility
studies. The Corps of Engineers is directed to allocate these
additional funds in accordance with the direction in the front
matter under the heading ``Fiscal Year 2016 Work Plan''.
Additionally, the Corps of Engineers shall comply with the
following direction in allocating funds made available for
Investigations:
--Allocating funds for PED and new feasibility studies shall
take priority over allocating funds for ongoing
feasibility studies.
--The Corps of Engineers shall not apply new start criteria
to studies moving from the feasibility phase to the PED
phase.
--The Corps of Engineers shall consider PED phase work as a
continuation of the investigations and by definition, a
study is not completed until PED is completed.
--When evaluating proposals for new feasibility studies, the
Corps of Engineers should give higher priority to those
studies that have an identifiable sponsor with the
ability to provide any necessary cost share for the
study phase, and are regional in scope, have the
potential to provide greater national benefits; address
endangered species concerns; or provide protection to
large numbers of our citizens.
--When evaluating ongoing studies to propose for funding, the
Corps of Engineers shall consider completing or
accelerating ongoing studies which will enhance the
Nation's economic development, job growth, and
international competitiveness; studies located in areas
that have suffered recent natural disasters; or studies
for areas where revisions to flood frequency flow lines
may result in existing infrastructure failing to meet
the requirements under the National Flood Insurance
Program.
--The Corps of Engineers shall include appropriate requests
for funding in future budget submissions for PED and
new feasibility studies initiated in fiscal year 2016.
--Funding shall be available for existing studies, including
studies in the PED phase, that were either not included
in the budget request or for which the recommendation
in the budget request was inadequate. Ongoing studies
that are actively progressing and can utilize the
funding in a timely manner are eligible for these
additional funds.
--The Corps of Engineers, in future fiscal years, shall
prepare the budget to reflect study completions,
defined as completion of PED.
CONSTRUCTION
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $1,639,489,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 1,172,000,000
House allowance......................................... 1,635,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,641,000,000
The Committee recommends $1,641,000,000 for Construction,
an increase of $469,000,000 from the budget request. The
Committee's recommendation allows the Corps of Engineers to
select up to 6 new construction starts to begin in fiscal year
2016.
INTRODUCTION
Funding in this account is used 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. 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 is concerned that the budget request is
inadequate to meet the needs of projects that depend on funding
from this account. Consequently, the recommendation includes
$469,000,000 in additional funding for ongoing work.
NEW STARTS
The Committee recommends up to 6 new construction starts,
including the 4 proposed in the budget request.
INLAND WATERWAYS TRUST FUND
The Committee recognizes the administration has not had
adequate time to react to the Inland Waterways Trust Fund
[IWTF] revenues that were expanded by the passage of the Able
Act and expanded authority received in the Water Resources
Reform and Development Act of 2014 [WRRDA]. Therefore, the
Committee recommends an additional $108,600,000 for inland
waterway projects to continue with construction on the priority
projects as designated in the Inland Marine Transportation
Systems [IMTS] Capital Projects Business Model Final Report,
dated April 13, 2010. The Committee is aware that the Corps of
Engineers is developing a new report describing a 20-year
program for making capital investments on the inland and
intracoastal waterways, pursuant to WRRDA section 2002(d). This
report is due to be submitted to Congress in June 2015. The
Committee requires an opportunity to review any new report
prior to the Corps of Engineers incorporating any part of the
report into funding decisions. Therefore, when allocating the
fiscal year 2016 additional funding provided in the Remaining
Items--Inland Waterways Trust Fund Projects account, the Corps
of Engineers shall not use the report being developed pursuant
to WRRDA. The Corps of Engineers shall continue to use, as
appropriate, the IMTS report as the applicable 20-year plan.
With the exception of the Olmsted Locks and Dam project on
the Ohio River between Kentucky and Illinois [Olmsted project],
the construction and major rehabilitation of designated
projects for inland and coastal waterways derives one-half of
the funding from the IWTF and one-half of the funding from the
General Treasury. All funds are appropriated in the
Construction account. The cost sharing for the Olmsted project
has been modified from the traditional 50/50 cost share to 85
percent from the General Treasury and 15 percent from the IWTF.
The net effect of this change allows additional investments on
other inland waterways projects that are cost shared with the
IWTF. The Committee expects the administration to address these
increased investment opportunities for the inland waterways
system in future budget submissions.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The table below displays the budget request and Committee's
recommendation for Construction:
CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CONSTRUCTION
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget House Committee
Item estimate allowance recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALASKA
PORT LIONS HARBOR, AK (DEEPENING AND BREAKWATER)................ 7,928 .............. 7,928
CALIFORNIA
AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM MODIFICATIONS), CA......... 56,024 56,024 56,024
AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM RAISE), CA................. 18,641 18,641 18,641
COYOTE & BERRYESSA CREEK, CA.................................... 12,739 .............. 12,739
HAMILTON CITY, CA............................................... 15,000 15,000 15,000
ISABELLA LAKE, CA (DAM SAFETY).................................. 49,900 49,900 49,900
OAKLAND HARBOR (50 FOOT PROJECT), CA............................ 1,200 1,200 1,200
SACRAMENTO RIVER BANK PROTECTION PROJECT, CA.................... 6,000 6,000 6,000
SANTA ANA RIVER MAINSTEM, CA.................................... 21,500 21,500 21,500
YUBA RIVER BASIN, CA............................................ 7,361 7,361 7,361
FLORIDA
HERBERT HOOVER DIKE, FL (SEEPAGE CONTROL)....................... 64,141 64,141 64,141
SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, FL......................... 123,742 123,742 123,742
GEORGIA
RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA & SC......................... 770 770 770
SAVANNAH HARBOR DISPOSAL AREAS, DREDGED MATERIAL CONTAINMENT 8,663 8,663 8,663
AREA 13A, GA & SC (DMDF).......................................
SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, GA................................... 21,050 21,050 21,050
ILLINOIS
CALUMET HARBOR AND RIVER, IL & IN............................... 1,100 1,100 1,100
CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL DISPERSAL BARRIER, IL........... 28,000 28,000 28,000
EAST ST LOUIS, IL............................................... 50 50 50
MCCOOK AND THORNTON RESERVOIRS, IL.............................. 9,000 9,000 9,000
MELVIN PRICE LOCK AND DAM, IL & MO.............................. 2,000 2,000 2,000
OLMSTED LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, IL & KY...................... 180,000 180,000 180,000
UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER RESTORATION, IL, IA, MN, MO & WI........ 19,787 19,787 19,787
WOOD RIVER LEVEE, DEFICIENCY CORRECTION, IL..................... 50 50 50
IOWA
MISSOURI RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE RECOVERY, IA, KS, MO, MT, NE, 47,127 47,127 47,127
ND & SD........................................................
KANSAS
TOPEKA, KS...................................................... 7,000 7,000 7,000
KENTUCKY
OHIO RIVER SHORELINE, PADUCAH, KY............................... 5,500 .............. 5,500
LOUISIANA
LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA................ 10,000 10,000 10,000
MARYLAND
ASSATEAGUE ISLAND, MD........................................... 600 600 600
CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RECOVERY, MD & VA......................... 1,970 1,970 1,970
POPLAR ISLAND, MD............................................... 26,500 26,500 26,500
MINNESOTA
MARSH LAKE, MN (MINNESOTA RIVER AUTHORITY)...................... 2,700 .............. 2,700
MISSOURI
KANSAS CITYS, MO & KS........................................... 1,815 1,815 1,815
MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN THE OHIO AND MISSOURI RIVERS (REG 50 50 50
WORKS), MO & IL................................................
MONARCH--CHESTERFIELD, MO....................................... 1,275 1,275 1,275
NEW JERSEY
RARITAN RIVER BASIN, GREEN BROOK SUB-BASIN, NJ.................. 7,500 7,500 7,500
OHIO
BOLIVAR DAM, OH (DAM SAFETY).................................... 3,500 3,500 3,500
OKLAHOMA
CANTON LAKE, OK................................................. 3,632 3,632 3,632
PINE CREEK LAKE, OK............................................. 1,957 1,957 1,957
OREGON
COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR & WA............................ 11,000 11,000 11,000
LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OR & WA............. 13,300 13,300 13,300
PENNSYLVANIA
EAST BRANCH CLARION RIVER LAKE, PA.............................. 59,000 59,000 59,000
LOCKS AND DAMS 2, 3 AND 4, MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA................ 52,000 52,000 52,000
WYOMING VALLEY, PA (LEVEE RAISING).............................. 1,000 1,000 1,000
PUERTO RICO
RIO PUERTO NUEVO, PR............................................ 1,700 1,700 1,700
SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC........................................... 2,893 2,893 2,893
TENNESSEE
CENTER HILL LAKE, TN............................................ 30,000 30,000 30,000
TEXAS
BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TX............................... 36,410 36,410 36,410
GIWW, CHOCOLATE BAYOU, TX....................................... 13,913 13,913 13,913
GREENS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX....................................... 16,287 16,287 16,287
LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN (WHARTON/ONION), TX.................. 10,000 10,000 10,000
WASHINGTON
COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, WA, OR & ID..................... 85,300 85,300 85,300
GRAYS HARBOR (38-FOOT DEEPENING), WA............................ 7,000 7,000 7,000
WEST VIRGINIA
BLUESTONE LAKE, WV.............................................. 9,400 9,400 9,400
-----------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, ITEMS UNDER STATES.............................. 1,124,975 1,096,108 1,124,975
REMAINING ITEMS
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK FLOOD AND STORM DAMAGE .............. 136,117 60,000
REDUCTION......................................................
FLOOD CONTROL............................................... .............. 105,000 50,000
SHORE PROTECTION............................................ .............. 45,000 ..............
NAVIGATION.................................................. .............. 49,500 112,305
INLAND WATERWAYS TRUST FUND PROJECTS........................ .............. 108,000 108,600
OTHER AUTHORIZED PROJECT PURPOSES........................... .............. 10,000 25,000
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION OR COMPLIANCE..................... .............. .............. 40,000
ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCURE PROJECTS........................ .............. 10,000 60,000
HYDROPOWER PROJECTS......................................... .............. .............. ..............
AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL PROGRAM................................... .............. 4,000 4,000
CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROJECTS NOT REQUIRING SPECIFIC
LEGISLATION:
EMERGENCY STREAMBANK AND SHORELINE PROTECTION (SECTION 14).. .............. 3,000 1,000
SHORE PROTECTION (SECTION 103).............................. .............. 1,250 ..............
NAVIGATION PROGRAM (SECTION 107)............................ .............. 2,500 5,000
NAVIGATION MITIGATION PROJECT (SECTION 111)................. .............. 750 500
BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL (SECTION 204, 207, 933). 2,000 2,750 500
FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS (SECTION 205)........................ 500 8,000 500
AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION (SECTION 206)................. 500 2,500 10,000
PROJECT MODIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT 500 3,000 3,000
(SECTION 1135).............................................
DAM SAFETY AND SEEPAGE/STABILITY CORRECTION PROGRAM............. 24,200 24,200 24,200
EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION......................................... 19,000 19,000 19,000
INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD--BOARD EXPENSE..................... 50 50 50
INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD--CORPS EXPENSE..................... 275 275 275
RESTORATION OF ABANDONED MINES.................................. .............. .............. 2,000
HOUSE FLOOR AMENDMENTS.......................................... .............. 4,000 ..............
-----------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, REMAINING ITEMS................................. 47,025 538,892 525,930
SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE............................................ .............. .............. -9,905
-----------------------------------------------
TOTAL..................................................... 1,172,000 1,635,000 1,641,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal Barrier,
Illinois.--The issue of hydrologic separation should be fully
studied by the Corps of Engineers and vetted by the appropriate
congressional authorizing committees and specifically enacted
into law. No funds provided in this act may be used for
construction of hydrologic separation measures.
Aquatic Plant Control Program.--The Committee
recommendation includes $4,000,000 for this program, which is
the only nationwide R&D program to address invasive aquatic
plants. The Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to continue
to support cost shared aquatic plant management programs.
Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge.--The Corps of
Engineers has completed the final cabin sale at the Charles M.
Russell National Wildlife Refuge. The Committee instructs the
Secretary to reconcile all remaining funds in accordance with
the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge Enhancement Act
of 2000. The Committee requests final accounting of the
proceeds and administrative costs reimbursed to the Corps of
Engineers under 808(b) within 1 year of enactment of this act.
Continuing Authorities Program.--The Committee recommends
$20,500,000 for the Continuing Authorities Program [CAP], an
increase of $17,000,000 from the budget request. CAP is a
useful tool for the Corps of Engineers to undertake small
localized projects without being encumbered by the lengthy
study and authorization phases typical of most Corps of
Engineers projects. The standing CAP authorities are: flood
control (section 205), emergency streambank and shoreline
protection (section 14), beach erosion control (section 103),
mitigation of shore damages (section 111), navigation projects
(section 107), snagging and clearing (section 208), aquatic
ecosystem restoration (section 206), beneficial uses of dredged
material (section 204), and project modifications for
improvement of the environment (section 1135). The Committee
has chosen to fund seven of the nine sections rather than only
the four sections proposed in the budget request. The Committee
has not recommended funding for section 208, as these projects
can be accommodated under the authority of section 205. The
Committee has not recommended funding for section 103 because
the Corps of Engineers is projecting an $8,000,000 carryover of
unobligated balances from prior appropriations.
The Committee urges the administration to execute the CAP
program laid out by the Committee and include sufficient
funding for this program in future budget requests. The Corps
of Engineers shall continue the ongoing processes for
initiating, suspending, and terminating projects. Suspended
projects shall not be reactivated or funded unless the sponsor
reaffirms in writing its support for the project and
establishes its willingness and capability to execute its
project responsibilities. The Chief of Engineers shall provide
an annual report within 60 days of the end of each fiscal year
detailing the progress made on the backlog of projects. The
report shall include the completions and terminations as well
as progress of ongoing work.
Restoration of Abandoned Mines.--The Corps of Engineers is
directed to continue working closely with Federal land
management agencies, western States, and Tribes with abandoned
non-coal mine sites to cost-effectively address the greatest
number of those sites presenting threats to public health and
safety.
Public-Private Partnerships.--The Committee notes that the
Secretary and the Chief of Engineers expressed strong support
for a public-private partnerships [Partnership] as a method to
reduce the Federal cost of future construction projects. The
acronyms P3, P4, etcetera are interchangeable and represent the
number of public and/or private entities that comprise the
Partnership. The Committee believes the Corps of Engineers
should demonstrate the value of projects that use a Partnership
model and directs that, of the six new construction starts, at
least one shall be either a navigation or flood risk management
project that utilizes such a Partnership. The Committee further
directs that the selected Partnership project should have a
Chief's Report showing a benefit-cost ratio greater than one
for the Federal investment only, but shall not be subject to
any other restrictions applicable to traditional construction
new starts to ensure that multiple projects qualify for
selection as a Partnership project.
Reimbursements.--The Committee directs the Secretary to
prioritize the Corps of Engineers' reimbursement obligations
based on projects with signed project cooperation agreements.
The Secretary shall demonstrate plans for the additional
funding provided by Congress to meet the project cooperation
agreement and Federal Government's fiscal responsibilities.
Metro East Saint Louis, Illinois.--This levee
rehabilitation project will help protect communities in the
Metro East region from rising waters on the Mississippi River.
The non-Federal sponsors remain very interested in continuing
implementation of the project, have raised sufficient cost
share, and should be given heightened cooperation by the Corps
of Engineers. The Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to
enter a cost share agreement with the non-Federal sponsors.
Melvin Price Lock and Dam, Illinois and Missouri.--The
length of time it is taking the Corps of Engineers to rectify
the seepage problems that the impoundment of the navigation
pool is causing to the Wood River Levee, as well as escalating
cost estimates, continues to be troublesome. The Corps of
Engineers is encouraged to ensure that the Independent External
Peer Review and oversight of this project continues and is
conducted in a manner that will not lengthen an already long
schedule.
Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.--The Committee
recommendation includes $469,000,000 in additional funds for
Construction. The Corps of Engineers is directed to allocate
these additional funds in accordance with the direction in the
front matter under the heading ``Fiscal Year 2016 Work Plan''.
Additionally, the Corps of Engineers shall comply with the
following direction in allocating funds made available for
Construction:
--Additional considerations include whether the project is
positioned to permit award of significant items of
construction, achieve necessary milestones, or
otherwise realize notable construction progress in
fiscal year 2016; and the project sponsor expended
funds under an existing Project Partnership Agreement
for creditable work, including acquisition of rights-
of-way.
--None of these funds shall be used for projects in the
Continuing Authorities Program.
--Funding may be for all categories including periodic beach
renourishments and reimbursements.
--Funding may be made available to projects for which the
sponsor is awaiting reimbursement from the Federal
Government to continue with construction of remaining
authorized project features.
In prioritizing projects for environmental infrastructure
assistance, the Committee recognizes that these authorities
were originally created to assist communities that were unable
to compete well in the Statewide revolving fund authorities
under the jurisdiction of the Environmental Protection Agency.
While the Committee believes it is appropriate to prioritize
those projects with the greater economic impact, it recognizes
that such rigid criteria may exclude rural underserved
communities with greater needs and projects located in towns,
cities, and municipalities experiencing compliance difficulties
with Federal environmental regulations. When allocating these
funds, the Committee encourages the Corps of Engineers to
consider counties or parishes where the average family income
is below the national poverty level.
MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $302,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 225,000,000
House allowance......................................... 275,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 330,000,000
The Committee recommends $330,000,000 for Mississippi River
and Tributaries, an increase of $105,000,000 over the budget
request. Funds recommended in this account are for planning,
construction, and operations 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 table below displays the budget request and Committee's
recommendation:
MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Committee
recommendation compared with
Budget House Committee (+ or -)
Item estimate allowance recommendation -------------------------------
Budget House
estimate allowance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSTRUCTION
CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, 43,231 43,231 43,231 .............. ..............
LA, MS, MO & TN................
MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, 15,909 15,909 15,909 .............. ..............
IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN........
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA........... 2,709 2,709 2,709 .............. ..............
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY 758 758 758 .............. ..............
SYSTEM, LA.....................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, CONSTRUCTION.... 62,607 62,607 62,607 .............. ..............
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, 65,124 65,124 65,124 .............. ..............
LA, MS, MO & TN................
HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, 15 15 15 .............. ..............
AR.............................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, 250 250 250 .............. ..............
AR.............................
LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, NORTH 294 294 294 .............. ..............
BANK, AR.......................
LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, SOUTH 198 198 198 .............. ..............
BANK, AR.......................
MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, 9,175 9,175 9,175 .............. ..............
IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN........
ST FRANCIS BASIN, AR & MO....... 5,900 5,900 5,900 .............. ..............
TENSAS BASIN, BOEUF AND TENSAS 2,589 2,589 2,589 .............. ..............
RIVERS, AR & LA................
WHITE RIVER BACKWATER, AR....... 1,000 1,000 1,000 .............. ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, 170 170 170 .............. ..............
IL.............................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, 100 100 100 .............. ..............
KY.............................
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA........... 12,085 12,085 12,085 .............. ..............
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY 1,889 1,889 1,889 .............. ..............
SYSTEM, LA.....................
BATON ROUGE HARBOR, DEVIL SWAMP, 53 53 53 .............. ..............
LA.............................
BAYOU COCODRIE AND TRIBUTARIES, 48 48 48 .............. ..............
LA.............................
BONNET CARRE, LA................ 2,909 2,909 2,909 .............. ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, 1,399 1,399 1,399 .............. ..............
LA.............................
LOWER RED RIVER, SOUTH BANK 498 498 498 .............. ..............
LEVEES, LA.....................
MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA.... 567 567 567 .............. ..............
OLD RIVER, LA................... 9,246 9,246 9,246 .............. ..............
TENSAS BASIN, RED RIVER 3,345 3,345 3,345 .............. ..............
BACKWATER, LA..................
GREENVILLE HARBOR, MS........... 24 24 24 .............. ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, 130 130 130 .............. ..............
MS.............................
VICKSBURG HARBOR, MS............ 42 42 42 .............. ..............
YAZOO BASIN, ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS. 5,483 5,483 5,483 .............. ..............
YAZOO BASIN, BIG SUNFLOWER 185 185 185 .............. ..............
RIVER, MS......................
YAZOO BASIN, ENID LAKE, MS...... 4,924 4,924 4,924 .............. ..............
YAZOO BASIN, GREENWOOD, MS...... 807 807 807 .............. ..............
YAZOO BASIN, GRENADA LAKE, MS... 5,487 5,487 5,487 .............. ..............
YAZOO BASIN, MAIN STEM, MS...... 1,344 1,344 1,344 .............. ..............
YAZOO BASIN, SARDIS LAKE, MS.... 6,640 6,640 6,640 .............. ..............
YAZOO BASIN, TRIBUTARIES, MS.... 967 967 967 .............. ..............
YAZOO BASIN, WILL M WHITTINGTON 384 384 384 .............. ..............
AUX CHAN, MS...................
YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO BACKWATER 544 544 544 .............. ..............
AREA, MS.......................
YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO CITY, MS..... 731 731 731 .............. ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, 220 220 220 .............. ..............
MO.............................
WAPPAPELLO LAKE, MO............. 4,512 4,512 4,512 .............. ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, 80 80 80 .............. ..............
TN.............................
MEMPHIS HARBOR, MCKELLAR LAKE, 2,107 2,107 2,107 .............. ..............
TN.............................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, OPERATION AND 151,465 151,465 151,465 .............. ..............
MAINTENANCE..............
REMAINING ITEMS
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING
WORK:
DREDGING.................... .............. 6,000 10,090 +10,090 +4,090
FLOOD CONTROL............... .............. 39,090 60,000 +60,000 +20,910
WATER SUPPLY AND RELATED .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
AUTHORIZED PURPOSES........
OTHER AUTHORIZED PURPOSES... .............. 5,000 35,000 +35,000 +30,000
COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC 9,700 9,700 9,700 .............. ..............
DATA...........................
MAPPING......................... 1,138 1,138 1,138 .............. ..............
MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION.... 90 .............. .............. -90 ..............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, REMAINING ITEMS. 10,928 60,928 115,928 +105,000 +55,000
REDUCTION FOR SAVINGS AND .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
SLIPPAGE.......................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER 225,000 275,000 330,000 +105,000 +55,000
AND TRIBUTARIES..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee's recommendation includes not less than
$1,000,000 for the competitive procurement of modern land
surveying equipment for Corps of Engineers districts.
Additional Funding for Ongoing Work--Flood Control.--Within
the amounts available for flood control, the Committee
recommendation provides not less than $25,000,000 for ongoing
construction projects outside of the Lower Mississippi River
main stem that were not included in the administration's
request, and which provide benefits and value to the Nation.
Additional Funding for Ongoing Work--Other Authorized
Purposes.--Within the amounts available for other authorized
purposes, the Committee recommendation provides not less than
$3,000,000 for maintenance projects with recreational or
environmental stewardship components. Funding associated with
this category should be used to perform routine and non-routine
operations and maintenance of facilities that are both
recreational and educational, or to continue management of
mitigation features in order to meet requirements set forth
under the Corps of Engineers' plans.
Additional Funding for Ongoing Work--Dredging.--In
considering dredging projects for funding, the Corps of
Engineers shall give priority to annual tonnage and the total
work capability that can be completed in fiscal year 2016.
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $2,908,511,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 2,710,000,000
House allowance......................................... 3,094,306,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,909,000,000
The Committee recommends $2,909,000,000 for Operations and
Maintenance, an increase of $199,000,000 over the budget
request.
INTRODUCTION
Funding in this account is used to fund operations,
maintenance, and related activities at water resource projects
that the Corps of Engineers operates and maintains. These
activities include 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.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The table below displays the budget request and Committee's
recommendation for Operations and Maintenance.
CORPS OF ENGINEERS--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget House Committee
Item estimate allowance recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA
ALABAMA--COOSA COMPREHENSIVE WATER STUDY, AL.................... 158 158 158
ALABAMA RIVER LAKES, AL......................................... 21,238 21,238 21,238
BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, AL.......................... 43,295 43,295 43,295
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, AL.................................. 5,869 5,869 5,869
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AL............................... 65 65 65
MOBILE HARBOR, AL............................................... 23,230 23,230 23,230
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AL................................... 148 148 148
TENNESSEE--TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY WILDLIFE MITIGATION, AL & MS...... 1,700 1,700 1,700
TENNESSEE--TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY, AL & MS.......................... 24,725 24,725 24,725
WALTER F GEORGE LOCK AND DAM, AL & GA........................... 10,644 10,644 10,644
WATER/ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION, AL........................... 25 25 25
ALASKA
ANCHORAGE HARBOR, AK............................................ 11,904 11,904 11,904
CHENA RIVER LAKES, AK........................................... 3,615 3,615 3,615
CHIGNIK HARBOR, AK.............................................. 400 400 400
DILLINGHAM HARBOR, AK........................................... 1,231 1,231 1,231
HOMER HARBOR, AK................................................ 462 462 462
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AK............................... 180 180 180
KETCHIKAN, THOMAS BASIN, AK..................................... 334 334 334
LOWELL CREEK TUNNELL (SEWARD) AK................................ 2,286 2,286 2,286
NINILCHIK HARBOR, AK............................................ 345 345 345
NOME HARBOR, AK................................................. 1,550 1,550 1,550
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AK................................... 700 700 700
ST. PAUL HARBOR, AK............................................. 4,000 4,000 4,000
ARIZONA
ALAMO LAKE, AZ.................................................. 1,472 1,472 1,472
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AZ............................... 71 71 71
PAINTED ROCK DAM, AZ............................................ 1,024 1,024 1,024
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AZ............................. 133 133 133
WHITLOW RANCH DAM, AZ........................................... 367 367 367
ARKANSAS
BEAVER LAKE, AR................................................. 7,632 7,632 7,632
BLAKELY MT DAM, LAKE OUACHITA, AR............................... 7,513 7,513 7,513
BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR.......................................... 2,496 2,496 2,496
BULL SHOALS LAKE, AR............................................ 9,646 9,646 9,646
DARDANELLE LOCK AND DAM, AR..................................... 8,183 8,183 8,183
DEGRAY LAKE, AR................................................. 6,121 6,121 6,121
DEQUEEN LAKE, AR................................................ 1,754 1,754 1,754
DIERKS LAKE, AR................................................. 1,702 1,702 1,702
GILLHAM LAKE, AR................................................ 1,519 1,519 1,519
GREERS FERRY LAKE, AR........................................... 9,474 9,474 9,474
HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR.............................. 15 15 15
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR............................... 538 538 538
MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, AR............. 30,554 30,554 30,554
MILLWOOD LAKE, AR............................................... 2,946 2,946 2,946
NARROWS DAM, LAKE GREESON, AR................................... 8,975 8,975 8,975
NIMROD LAKE, AR................................................. 2,520 2,520 2,520
NORFORK LAKE, AR................................................ 5,172 5,172 5,172
OSCEOLA HARBOR, AR.............................................. 15 15 15
OUACHITA AND BLACK RIVERS, AR & LA.............................. 8,076 8,076 8,076
OZARK--JETA TAYLOR LOCK AND DAM, AR............................. 6,611 6,611 6,611
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AR................................... 2 2 2
WHITE RIVER, AR................................................. 25 25 25
YELLOW BEND PORT, AR............................................ 3 3 3
CALIFORNIA
BLACK BUTTE LAKE, CA............................................ 2,777 2,777 2,777
BUCHANAN DAM, HV EASTMAN LAKE, CA............................... 2,001 2,001 2,001
COYOTE VALLEY DAM, LAKE MENDOCINO, CA........................... 4,001 4,001 4,001
DRY CREEK (WARM SPRINGS) LAKE AND CHANNEL, CA................... 6,411 6,411 6,411
FARMINGTON DAM, CA.............................................. 431 431 431
HIDDEN DAM, HENSLEY LAKE, CA.................................... 2,180 2,180 2,180
HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY, CA..................................... 3,106 3,106 3,106
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CA............................... 4,198 4,198 4,198
ISABELLA LAKE, CA............................................... 1,550 1,550 1,550
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CA............................ 7,327 7,327 7,327
MARINA DEL REY, CA.............................................. 3,846 3,846 3,846
MERCED COUNTY STREAMS, CA....................................... 387 387 387
MOJAVE RIVER DAM, CA............................................ 389 389 389
MORRO BAY HARBOR, CA............................................ 3,070 3,070 3,070
NEW HOGAN LAKE, CA.............................................. 2,993 2,993 2,993
NEW MELONES LAKE, DOWNSTREAM CHANNEL, CA........................ 1,998 1,998 1,998
NOYO RIVER AND HARBOR, CA....................................... 2,365 2,365 2,365
OAKLAND HARBOR, CA.............................................. 15,000 15,000 15,000
OCEANSIDE HARBOR, CA............................................ 2,285 2,285 2,285
PINE FLAT LAKE, CA.............................................. 3,409 3,409 3,409
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CA................................... 1,794 1,794 1,794
REDWOOD CITY HARBOR, CA......................................... 4,500 4,500 4,500
RICHMOND HARBOR, CA............................................. 12,243 12,243 12,243
SACRAMENTO RIVER (30 FOOT PROJECT), CA.......................... 1,100 1,100 1,100
SACRAMENTO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES (DEBRIS CONTROL), CA........... 2,042 2,042 2,042
SACRAMENTO RIVER SHALLOW DRAFT CHANNEL, CA...................... 160 160 160
SAN FRANCISCO BAY DELTA MODEL STRUCTURE, CA..................... 1,001 1,001 1,001
SAN FRANCISCO BAY LONG TERM MANAGEMENT STRATEGY, CA............. 500 500 500
SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR AND BAY, CA (DRIFT REMOVAL)................ 4,240 4,240 4,240
SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR, CA........................................ 3,220 3,220 3,220
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER, PORT OF STOCKTON, CA......................... 4,442 4,442 4,442
SAN PABLO BAY AND MARE ISLAND STRAIT, CA........................ 1,180 1,180 1,180
SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CA....................................... 4,521 4,521 4,521
SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CA........................................ 2,760 2,760 2,760
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CA............................. 1,310 1,310 1,310
SUCCESS LAKE, CA................................................ 2,423 2,423 2,423
SUISUN BAY CHANNEL, CA.......................................... 3,250 3,250 3,250
TERMINUS DAM, LAKE KAWEAH, CA (DAM SAFETY)...................... 2,212 2,212 2,212
VENTURA HARBOR, CA.............................................. 4,830 4,830 4,830
YUBA RIVER, CA.................................................. 1,450 1,450 1,450
COLORADO
BEAR CREEK LAKE, CO............................................. 883 883 883
CHATFIELD LAKE, CO.............................................. 1,919 1,919 1,919
CHERRY CREEK LAKE, CO........................................... 1,677 1,677 1,677
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CO............................... 364 364 364
JOHN MARTIN RESERVOIR, CO....................................... 2,865 2,865 2,865
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CO............................. 529 529 529
TRINIDAD LAKE, CO............................................... 1,449 1,449 1,449
CONNECTICUT
BLACK ROCK LAKE, CT............................................. 603 603 603
COLEBROOK RIVER LAKE, CT........................................ 708 708 708
HANCOCK BROOK LAKE, CT.......................................... 686 686 686
HOP BROOK LAKE, CT.............................................. 1,113 1,113 1,113
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, CT.............. 10 10 10
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CT............................... 260 260 260
MANSFIELD HOLLOW LAKE, CT....................................... 647 647 647
NORTHFIELD BROOK LAKE, CT....................................... 743 743 743
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CT................................... 850 850 850
STAMFORD HURRICANE BARRIER, CT.................................. 566 566 566
THOMASTON DAM, CT............................................... 1,026 1,026 1,026
WEST THOMPSON LAKE, CT.......................................... 1,753 1,753 1,753
DELAWARE
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, DE............................... 40 40 40
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, DELAWARE RIVER TO CHESAPEAKE BAY, DE & MD 13,429 13,429 13,429
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DE................................... 200 200 200
WILMINGTON HARBOR, DE........................................... 3,845 3,845 3,845
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, DC............................... 142 142 142
POTOMAC AND ANACOSTIA RIVERS, DC (DRIFT REMOVAL)................ 875 875 875
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DC................................... 25 25 25
WASHINGTON HARBOR, DC........................................... 25 25 25
FLORIDA
CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL............................................ 4,430 4,430 4,430
CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL................................ 14,683 14,683 14,683
ESCAMBIA AND CONECUH RIVERS, FL & AL............................ 1,123 1,123 1,123
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, FL............................... 1,450 1,450 1,450
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI, FL................ 700 700 700
JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL......................................... 6,100 6,100 6,100
JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM, LAKE SEMINOLE, FL, AL & GA........... 7,269 7,269 7,269
MANATEE HARBOR, FL.............................................. 400 400 400
MIAMI HARBOR, FL................................................ 250 250 250
OKEECHOBEE WATERWAY, FL......................................... 2,750 2,750 2,750
PALM BEACH HARBOR, FL........................................... 3,200 3,200 3,200
PENSACOLA HARBOR, FL............................................ 1,840 1,840 1,840
PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR, FL...................................... 300 300 300
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, FL................................... 1,425 1,425 1,425
REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, FL................................... 3,200 3,200 3,200
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, FL............................. 33 33 33
SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, FL......................... 7,181 7,181 7,181
TAMPA HARBOR, FL................................................ 9,500 9,500 9,500
WATER / ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION, FL......................... 40 40 40
GEORGIA
ALLATOONA LAKE, GA.............................................. 7,406 7,406 7,406
APALACHICOLA, CHATTAHOOCHEE AND FLINT RIVERS, GA, AL & FL....... 1,525 1,525 1,525
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, GA.............................. 176 176 176
BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA............................................ 5,808 5,808 5,808
BUFORD DAM AND LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, GA........................... 12,141 12,141 12,141
CARTERS DAM AND LAKE, GA........................................ 7,584 7,584 7,584
HARTWELL LAKE, GA & SC.......................................... 11,175 11,175 11,175
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, GA.............. 12 12 12
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, GA............................... 190 190 190
J STROM THURMOND LAKE, GA & SC.................................. 9,887 9,887 9,887
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, GA................................... 125 125 125
RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA & SC......................... 8,065 8,065 8,065
SAVANNAH HARBOR, GA............................................. 17,321 17,321 17,321
SAVANNAH RIVER BELOW AUGUSTA, GA................................ 105 105 105
WEST POINT DAM AND LAKE, GA & AL................................ 7,000 7,000 7,000
HAWAII
BARBERS POINT HARBOR, HI........................................ 317 317 317
HONOLULU HARBOR, HI............................................. 5,600 5,600 5,600
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, HI............................... 725 725 725
KIKIAOLA SMALL BOAT HARBOR, KAUAI, HI........................... 5,000 5,000 5,000
PORT ALLEN HARBOR, KAUAI, HI.................................... 773 773 773
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, HI................................... 798 798 798
IDAHO
ALBENI FALLS DAM, ID............................................ 1,337 1,337 1,337
DWORSHAK DAM AND RESERVOIR, ID.................................. 2,983 2,983 2,983
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ID............................... 377 377 377
LUCKY PEAK LAKE, ID............................................. 2,806 2,806 2,806
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ID............................. 623 623 623
ILLINOIS
CALUMET HARBOR AND RIVER, IL & IN............................... 4,506 4,506 4,506
CARLYLE LAKE, IL................................................ 5,837 5,837 5,837
CHICAGO HARBOR, IL.............................................. 3,735 3,735 3,735
CHICAGO RIVER, IL............................................... 560 560 560
FARM CREEK RESERVOIRS, IL....................................... 296 296 296
ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVR PORTION), IL & IN........................ 48,709 48,709 48,709
ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVS PORTION), IL & IN........................ 1,826 1,826 1,826
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, IL.............. 50 50 50
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL............................... 2,393 2,393 2,393
KASKASKIA RIVER NAVIGATION, IL.................................. 3,648 3,648 3,648
LAKE MICHIGAN DIVERSION, IL..................................... 784 784 784
LAKE SHELBYVILLE, IL............................................ 6,208 6,208 6,208
MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVR 82,208 82,208 82,208
PORTION), IL...................................................
MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVS 22,226 22,226 22,226
PORTION), IL...................................................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IL................................... 104 104 104
REND LAKE, IL................................................... 5,606 5,606 5,606
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IL.................... 741 741 741
WAUKEGAN HARBOR, IL............................................. 1,439 1,439 1,439
INDIANA
BROOKVILLE LAKE, IN............................................. 1,128 1,128 1,128
BURNS WATERWAY HARBOR, IN....................................... 1,852 1,852 1,852
CAGLES MILL LAKE, IN............................................ 1,628 1,628 1,628
CECIL M HARDEN LAKE, IN......................................... 1,656 1,656 1,656
INDIANA HARBOR, IN.............................................. 11,339 11,339 11,339
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IN............................... 1,124 1,124 1,124
J EDWARD ROUSH LAKE, IN......................................... 1,950 1,950 1,950
MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN........................................... 1,235 1,235 1,235
MONROE LAKE, IN................................................. 1,226 1,226 1,226
PATOKA LAKE, IN................................................. 1,222 1,222 1,222
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IN................................... 185 185 185
SALAMONIE LAKE, IN.............................................. 1,154 1,154 1,154
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IN.................... 141 141 141
IOWA
CORALVILLE LAKE, IA............................................. 4,204 4,204 4,204
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IA............................... 762 762 762
MISSOURI RIVER--SIOUX CITY TO THE MOUTH, IA, KS, MO & NE........ 9,143 9,143 9,143
MISSOURI RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE RECOVERY, IA, KS, MO, MT, NE, 5,436 5,436 5,436
ND & SD........................................................
RATHBUN LAKE, IA................................................ 2,913 2,913 2,913
RED ROCK DAM AND LAKE RED ROCK, IA.............................. 4,725 4,725 4,725
SAYLORVILLE LAKE, IA............................................ 5,266 5,266 5,266
KANSAS
CLINTON LAKE, KS................................................ 2,441 2,441 2,441
COUNCIL GROVE LAKE, KS.......................................... 1,502 1,502 1,502
EL DORADO LAKE, KS.............................................. 2,701 2,701 2,701
ELK CITY LAKE, KS............................................... 951 951 951
FALL RIVER LAKE, KS............................................. 1,136 1,136 1,136
HILLSDALE LAKE, KS.............................................. 976 976 976
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KS............................... 944 944 944
JOHN REDMOND DAM AND RESERVOIR, KS.............................. 1,549 1,549 1,549
KANOPOLIS LAKE, KS.............................................. 2,915 2,915 2,915
MARION LAKE, KS................................................. 3,207 3,207 3,207
MELVERN LAKE, KS................................................ 2,444 2,444 2,444
MILFORD LAKE, KS................................................ 2,376 2,376 2,376
PEARSON--SKUBITZ BIG HILL LAKE, KS.............................. 1,552 1,552 1,552
PERRY LAKE, KS.................................................. 2,485 2,485 2,485
POMONA LAKE, KS................................................. 2,259 2,259 2,259
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, KS............................. 290 290 290
TORONTO LAKE, KS................................................ 724 724 724
TUTTLE CREEK LAKE, KS........................................... 3,142 3,142 3,142
WILSON LAKE, KS................................................. 1,911 1,911 1,911
KENTUCKY
BARKLEY DAM AND LAKE BARKLEY, KY & TN........................... 11,554 11,554 11,554
BARREN RIVER LAKE, KY........................................... 2,993 2,993 2,993
BIG SANDY HARBOR, KY............................................ 1,904 1,904 1,904
BUCKHORN LAKE, KY............................................... 1,725 1,725 1,725
CARR CREEK LAKE, KY............................................. 1,969 1,969 1,969
CAVE RUN LAKE, KY............................................... 1,038 1,038 1,038
DEWEY LAKE, KY.................................................. 1,853 1,853 1,853
ELVIS STAHR (HICKMAN) HARBOR, KY................................ 15 15 15
FALLS OF THE OHIO NATIONAL WILDLIFE, KY & IN.................... 19 19 19
FISHTRAP LAKE, KY............................................... 2,075 2,075 2,075
GRAYSON LAKE, KY................................................ 1,526 1,526 1,526
GREEN AND BARREN RIVERS, KY..................................... 2,139 2,139 2,139
GREEN RIVER LAKE, KY............................................ 2,709 2,709 2,709
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY............................... 975 975 975
KENTUCKY RIVER, KY.............................................. 10 10 10
LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KY........................................... 2,042 2,042 2,042
MARTINS FORK LAKE, KY........................................... 1,091 1,091 1,091
MIDDLESBORO CUMBERLAND RIVER BASIN, KY.......................... 264 264 264
NOLIN LAKE, KY.................................................. 2,743 2,743 2,743
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, KY, IL, IN & OH...................... 31,219 31,219 31,219
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, KY, IL, IN, OH, PA & WV........... 5,600 5,600 5,600
PAINTSVILLE LAKE, KY............................................ 1,430 1,430 1,430
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, KY................................... 2 2 2
ROUGH RIVER LAKE, KY............................................ 2,826 2,826 2,826
TAYLORSVILLE LAKE, KY........................................... 1,444 1,444 1,444
WOLF CREEK DAM, LAKE CUMBERLAND, KY............................. 9,189 9,189 9,189
YATESVILLE LAKE, KY............................................. 1,215 1,215 1,215
LOUISIANA
ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS CHENE, BOEUF & BLACK, LA........... 7,051 7,051 7,051
BARATARIA BAY WATERWAY, LA...................................... 108 108 108
BAYOU BODCAU RESERVOIR, LA...................................... 1,221 1,221 1,221
BAYOU LAFOURCHE AND LAFOURCHE JUMP WATERWAY, LA................. 956 956 956
BAYOU PIERRE, LA................................................ 23 23 23
BAYOU SEGNETTE WATERWAY, LA..................................... 15 15 15
BAYOU TECHE AND VERMILION RIVER, LA............................. 5 5 5
BAYOU TECHE, LA................................................. 72 72 72
CADDO LAKE, LA.................................................. 209 209 209
CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LA.................................... 20,386 20,386 20,386
FRESHWATER BAYOU, LA............................................ 1,547 1,547 1,547
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, LA.................................. 19,681 19,681 19,681
HOUMA NAVIGATION CANAL, LA...................................... 1,276 1,276 1,276
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA............................... 961 961 961
J BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA................................. 8,782 8,782 8,782
LAKE PROVIDENCE HARBOR, LA...................................... 14 14 14
MADISON PARISH PORT, LA......................................... 4 4 4
MERMENTAU RIVER, LA............................................. 1,374 1,374 1,374
MISSISSIPPI RIVER OUTLETS AT VENICE, LA......................... 1,575 1,575 1,575
MISSISSIPPI RIVER, BATON ROUGE TO THE GULF OF MEXICO, LA........ 85,866 85,866 85,866
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, LA................................... 49 49 49
REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, LA................................... 384 384 384
WALLACE LAKE, LA................................................ 226 226 226
WATERWAY FROM EMPIRE TO THE GULF, LA............................ 6 6 6
WATERWAY FROM INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY TO BAYOU DULAC, LA.......... 15 15 15
MAINE
DISPOSAL AREA MONITORING, ME.................................... 1,050 1,050 1,050
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, ME.............. 5 5 5
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ME............................... 111 111 111
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, ME................................... 1,100 1,100 1,100
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, ME.................... 25 25 25
MARYLAND
BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS (50 FOOT), MD..................... 18,925 18,925 18,925
BALTIMORE HARBOR, MD (DRIFT REMOVAL)............................ 325 325 325
CUMBERLAND, MD AND RIDGELEY, WV................................. 150 150 150
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MD............................... 162 162 162
JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE, MD & WV................................. 1,905 1,905 1,905
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MD................................... 450 450 450
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MD............................. 61 61 61
WICOMICO RIVER, MD.............................................. 1,500 1,500 1,500
MASSACHUSETTS
BARRE FALLS DAM, MA............................................. 718 718 718
BIRCH HILL DAM, MA.............................................. 933 933 933
BUFFUMVILLE LAKE, MA............................................ 609 609 609
CAPE COD CANAL, MA.............................................. 9,665 9,665 9,665
CHARLES RIVER NATURAL VALLEY STORAGE AREA, MA................... 388 388 388
CONANT BROOK LAKE, MA........................................... 609 609 609
EAST BRIMFIELD LAKE, MA......................................... 772 772 772
HODGES VILLAGE DAM, MA.......................................... 620 620 620
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, MA.............. 20 20 20
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MA............................... 331 331 331
KNIGHTVILLE DAM, MA............................................. 841 841 841
LITTLEVILLE LAKE, MA............................................ 790 790 790
NEW BEDFORD FAIRHAVEN AND ACUSHNET HURRICANE BARRIER, MA........ 806 806 806
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MA................................... 900 900 900
TULLY LAKE, MA.................................................. 721 721 721
WEST HILL DAM, MA............................................... 831 831 831
WESTVILLE LAKE, MA.............................................. 603 603 603
WEYMOUTH-FORE RIVER, MA......................................... 500 500 500
MICHIGAN
CHANNELS IN LAKE ST CLAIR, MI................................... 180 180 180
DETROIT RIVER, MI............................................... 5,475 5,475 5,475
GRAND HAVEN HARBOR, MI.......................................... 1,015 1,015 1,015
HOLLAND HARBOR, MI.............................................. 750 750 750
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MI............................... 210 210 210
KEWEENAW WATERWAY, MI........................................... 28 28 28
LUDINGTON HARBOR, MI............................................ 590 590 590
MANISTEE HARBOR, MI............................................. 650 650 650
MUSKEGON HARBOR, MI............................................. 1,400 1,400 1,400
ONTONAGON HARBOR, MI............................................ 850 850 850
PRESQUE ISLE HARBOR, MI......................................... 596 596 596
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MI................................... 710 710 710
ROUGE RIVER, MI................................................. 900 900 900
SAGINAW RIVER, MI............................................... 2,775 2,775 2,775
SEBEWAING RIVER, MI............................................. 40 40 40
ST CLAIR RIVER, MI.............................................. 665 665 665
ST JOSEPH HARBOR, MI............................................ 1,590 1,590 1,590
ST MARYS RIVER, MI.............................................. 31,160 31,160 31,160
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MI.................... 2,788 2,788 2,788
MINNESOTA
BIGSTONE LAKE--WHETSTONE RIVER, MN & SD......................... 257 257 257
DULUTH--SUPERIOR HARBOR, MN & WI................................ 6,641 6,641 6,641
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MN............................... 332 332 332
LAC QUI PARLE LAKES, MINNESOTA RIVER, MN........................ 1,805 1,805 1,805
MINNESOTA RIVER, MN............................................. 262 262 262
MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVP 58,644 58,644 58,644
PORTION), MN...................................................
ORWELL LAKE, MN................................................. 468 468 468
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MN................................... 88 88 88
RED LAKE RESERVOIR, MN.......................................... 184 184 184
RESERVOIRS AT HEADWATERS OF MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MN............... 4,240 4,240 4,240
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MN.................... 490 490 490
TWO HARBORS, MN................................................. 1,000 1,000 1,000
MISSISSIPPI
CLAIBORNE COUNTY PORT, MS....................................... 1 1 1
EAST FORK, TOMBIGBEE RIVER, MS.................................. 285 285 285
GULFPORT HARBOR, MS............................................. 4,492 4,492 4,492
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS............................... 92 92 92
MOUTH OF YAZOO RIVER, MS........................................ 34 34 34
OKATIBBEE LAKE, MS.............................................. 1,569 1,569 1,569
PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS........................................... 7,055 7,055 7,055
PEARL RIVER, MS & LA............................................ 150 150 150
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MS................................... 150 150 150
ROSEDALE HARBOR, MS............................................. 9 9 9
WATER/ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION, MS........................... 15 15 15
YAZOO RIVER, MS................................................. 21 21 21
MISSOURI
CARUTHERSVILLE HARBOR, MO....................................... 15 15 15
CLARENCE CANNON DAM AND MARK TWAIN LAKE, MO..................... 8,813 8,813 8,813
CLEARWATER LAKE, MO............................................. 3,353 3,353 3,353
HARRY S TRUMAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, MO............................ 9,698 9,698 9,698
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO............................... 1,401 1,401 1,401
LITTLE BLUE RIVER LAKES, MO..................................... 950 950 950
LONG BRANCH LAKE, MO............................................ 882 882 882
MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN THE OHIO AND MISSOURI RIVERS (REG 24,487 24,487 24,487
WORKS), MO & IL................................................
NEW MADRID COUNTY HARBOR, MO.................................... 10 10 10
NEW MADRID HARBOR, MO (MILE 889)................................ 15 15 15
POMME DE TERRE LAKE, MO......................................... 2,739 2,739 2,739
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MO................................... 2 2 2
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MO............................. 90 90 90
SMITHVILLE LAKE, MO............................................. 1,620 1,620 1,620
SOUTHEAST MISSOURI PORT, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MO.................. 1 1 1
STOCKTON LAKE, MO............................................... 4,960 4,960 4,960
TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO & AR........................................ 9,352 9,352 9,352
MONTANA
FT PECK DAM AND LAKE, MT........................................ 5,271 5,271 5,271
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MT............................... 206 206 206
LIBBY DAM, MT................................................... 2,088 2,088 2,088
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MT............................. 125 125 125
NEBRASKA
GAVINS POINT DAM, LEWIS AND CLARK LAKE, NE & SD................. 9,726 9,726 9,726
HARLAN COUNTY LAKE, NE.......................................... 3,742 3,742 3,742
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NE............................... 505 505 505
MISSOURI RIVER--KENSLERS BEND, NE TO SIOUX CITY, IA............. 90 90 90
PAPILLION CREEK, NE............................................. 989 989 989
SALT CREEKS AND TRIBUTARIES, NE................................. 1,089 1,089 1,089
NEVADA
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NV............................... 75 75 75
MARTIS CREEK LAKE, NV & CA...................................... 1,163 1,163 1,163
PINE AND MATHEWS CANYONS LAKES, NV.............................. 353 353 353
NEW HAMPSHIRE
BLACKWATER DAM, NH.............................................. 674 674 674
EDWARD MACDOWELL LAKE, NH....................................... 863 863 863
FRANKLIN FALLS DAM, NH.......................................... 1,007 1,007 1,007
HOPKINTON--EVERETT LAKES, NH.................................... 1,348 1,348 1,348
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NH............................... 76 76 76
OTTER BROOK LAKE, NH............................................ 740 740 740
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NH................................... 250 250 250
SURRY MOUNTAIN LAKE, NH......................................... 1,139 1,139 1,139
NEW JERSEY
BARNEGAT INLET, NJ.............................................. 425 425 425
COLD SPRING INLET, NJ........................................... 375 375 375
DELAWARE RIVER AT CAMDEN, NJ.................................... 15 15 15
DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA TO THE SEA, NJ, PA & DE............ 23,305 23,305 23,305
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NJ............................... 285 285 285
MANASQUAN RIVER, NJ............................................. 420 420 420
NEW JERSEY INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NJ............................ 260 260 260
NEWARK BAY, HACKENSACK AND PASSAIC RIVERS, NJ................... 300 300 300
PASSAIC RIVER FLOOD WARNING SYSTEMS, NJ......................... 605 605 605
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NJ................................... 1,893 1,893 1,893
RARITAN RIVER TO ARTHUR KILL CUT-OFF, NJ........................ 150 150 150
RARITAN RIVER, NJ............................................... 150 150 150
SHARK RIVER, NJ................................................. 460 460 460
NEW MEXICO
ABIQUIU DAM, NM................................................. 3,357 3,357 3,357
COCHITI LAKE, NM................................................ 3,172 3,172 3,172
CONCHAS LAKE, NM................................................ 2,616 2,616 2,616
GALISTEO DAM, NM................................................ 762 762 762
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, NM.............. 20 20 20
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NM............................... 650 650 650
JEMEZ CANYON DAM, NM............................................ 1,047 1,047 1,047
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE ENDANGERED SPECIES COLLABORATIVE PROGRAM, NM.. 2,500 2,500 2,500
SANTA ROSA DAM AND LAKE, NM..................................... 1,894 1,894 1,894
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, NM............................. 330 330 330
TWO RIVERS DAM, NM.............................................. 1,028 1,028 1,028
UPPER RIO GRANDE WATER OPERATIONS MODEL STUDY, NM............... 1,300 1,300 1,300
NEW YORK
ALMOND LAKE, NY................................................. 439 439 439
ARKPORT DAM, NY................................................. 307 307 307
BLACK ROCK CHANNEL AND TONAWANDA HARBOR, NY..................... 1,735 1,735 1,735
BUFFALO HARBOR, NY.............................................. 320 320 320
BUTTERMILK CHANNEL, NY.......................................... 100 100 100
EAST ROCKAWAY INLET, NY......................................... 220 220 220
EAST SIDNEY LAKE, NY............................................ 906 906 906
FIRE ISLAND INLET TO JONES INLET, NY............................ 50 50 50
FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NY...................................... 50 50 50
HUDSON RIVER, NY (MAINT)........................................ 3,640 3,640 3,640
HUDSON RIVER, NY (O & C)........................................ 4,250 4,250 4,250
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NY............................... 1,220 1,220 1,220
JAMAICA BAY, NY................................................. 251 251 251
LONG ISLAND INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NY........................... 100 100 100
MOUNT MORRIS DAM, NY............................................ 3,595 3,595 3,595
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY CHANNELS, NY............................ 400 400 400
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY HARBOR, NY & NJ......................... 5,480 5,480 5,480
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY............................................. 3,650 3,650 3,650
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY & NJ (DRIFT REMOVAL)........................ 9,300 9,300 9,300
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY (PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS)........ 1,045 1,045 1,045
OSWEGO HARBOR, NY............................................... 1,285 1,285 1,285
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NY................................... 2,193 2,193 2,193
ROCHESTER HARBOR, NY............................................ 2,320 2,320 2,320
RONDOUT HARBOR, NY.............................................. 250 250 250
SOUTHERN NEW YORK FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS, NY.................... 587 587 587
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, NY.................... 616 616 616
WHITNEY POINT LAKE, NY.......................................... 1,120 1,120 1,120
NORTH CAROLINA
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NC.............................. 2,600 2,600 2,600
B EVERETT JORDAN DAM AND LAKE, NC............................... 2,049 2,049 2,049
CAPE FEAR RIVER ABOVE WILMINGTON, NC............................ 772 772 772
FALLS LAKE, NC.................................................. 1,776 1,776 1,776
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NC............................... 270 270 270
MANTEO (SHALLOWBAG) BAY, NC..................................... 2,000 2,000 2,000
MASONBORO INLET AND CONNECTING CHANNELS, NC..................... 50 50 50
MOREHEAD CITY HARBOR, NC........................................ 8,796 8,796 8,796
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NC................................... 700 700 700
ROLLINSON CHANNEL, NC........................................... 300 300 300
SILVER LAKE HARBOR, NC.......................................... 300 300 300
W KERR SCOTT DAM AND RESERVOIR, NC.............................. 3,363 3,363 3,363
WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC........................................... 15,019 15,019 15,019
NORTH DAKOTA
BOWMAN HALEY, ND................................................ 186 186 186
GARRISON DAM, LAKE SAKAKAWEA, ND................................ 13,290 13,290 13,290
HOMME LAKE, ND.................................................. 284 284 284
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ND............................... 332 332 332
LAKE ASHTABULA AND BALDHILL DAM, ND............................. 1,533 1,533 1,533
PIPESTEM LAKE, ND............................................... 518 518 518
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ND............................. 127 127 127
SOURIS RIVER, ND................................................ 382 382 382
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, ND.................... 32 32 32
OHIO
ALUM CREEK LAKE, OH............................................. 1,715 1,715 1,715
BERLIN LAKE, OH................................................. 2,360 2,360 2,360
CAESAR CREEK LAKE, OH........................................... 2,035 2,035 2,035
CLARENCE J BROWN DAM, OH........................................ 1,251 1,251 1,251
CLEVELAND HARBOR, OH............................................ 9,540 9,540 9,540
CONNEAUT HARBOR, OH............................................. 2,665 2,665 2,665
DEER CREEK LAKE, OH............................................. 1,398 1,398 1,398
DELAWARE LAKE, OH............................................... 1,773 1,773 1,773
DILLON LAKE, OH................................................. 1,333 1,333 1,333
FAIRPORT HARBOR, OH............................................. 190 190 190
HURON HARBOR, OH................................................ 3,200 3,200 3,200
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OH............................... 697 697 697
MASSILLON LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH.......................... 66 66 66
MICHAEL J KIRWAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, OH.......................... 1,201 1,201 1,201
MOSQUITO CREEK LAKE, OH......................................... 1,429 1,429 1,429
MUSKINGUM RIVER LAKES, OH....................................... 10,584 10,584 10,584
NORTH BRANCH KOKOSING RIVER LAKE, OH............................ 400 400 400
OHIO-MISSISSIPPI FLOOD CONTROL, OH.............................. 1,792 1,792 1,792
PAINT CREEK LAKE, OH............................................ 1,396 1,396 1,396
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OH................................... 305 305 305
ROSEVILLE LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH.......................... 36 36 36
SANDUSKY HARBOR, OH............................................. 1,700 1,700 1,700
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, OH.................... 258 258 258
TOLEDO HARBOR, OH............................................... 7,165 7,165 7,165
TOM JENKINS DAM, OH............................................. 780 780 780
WEST FORK OF MILL CREEK LAKE, OH................................ 959 959 959
WILLIAM H HARSHA LAKE, OH....................................... 1,595 1,595 1,595
OKLAHOMA
ARCADIA LAKE, OK................................................ 472 472 472
BIRCH LAKE, OK.................................................. 673 673 673
BROKEN BOW LAKE, OK............................................. 2,213 2,213 2,213
CANTON LAKE, OK................................................. 4,350 4,350 4,350
COPAN LAKE, OK.................................................. 1,666 1,666 1,666
EUFAULA LAKE, OK................................................ 5,748 5,748 5,748
FORT GIBSON LAKE, OK............................................ 5,593 5,593 5,593
FORT SUPPLY LAKE, OK............................................ 1,173 1,173 1,173
GREAT SALT PLAINS LAKE, OK...................................... 432 432 432
HEYBURN LAKE, OK................................................ 820 820 820
HUGO LAKE, OK................................................... 1,996 1,996 1,996
HULAH LAKE, OK.................................................. 3,792 3,792 3,792
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OK............................... 141 141 141
KAW LAKE, OK.................................................... 1,967 1,967 1,967
KEYSTONE LAKE, OK............................................... 3,891 3,891 3,891
MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, OK............. 5,662 5,662 5,662
OOLOGAH LAKE, OK................................................ 2,573 2,573 2,573
OPTIMA LAKE, OK................................................. 36 36 36
PENSACOLA RESERVOIR, LAKE OF THE CHEROKEES, OK.................. 148 148 148
PINE CREEK LAKE, OK............................................. 1,366 1,366 1,366
ROBERT S. KERR LOCK AND DAM AND RESERVOIR, OK................... 6,360 6,360 6,360
SARDIS LAKE, OK................................................. 991 991 991
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OK............................. 1,200 1,200 1,200
SKIATOOK LAKE, OK............................................... 1,676 1,676 1,676
TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK........................................ 4,697 4,697 4,697
WAURIKA LAKE, OK................................................ 1,622 1,622 1,622
WEBBERS FALLS LOCK AND DAM, OK.................................. 6,354 6,354 6,354
WISTER LAKE, OK................................................. 829 829 829
OREGON
APPLEGATE LAKE, OR.............................................. 1,018 1,018 1,018
BLUE RIVER LAKE, OR............................................. 1,128 1,128 1,128
BONNEVILLE LOCK AND DAM, OR & WA................................ 7,570 7,570 7,570
COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR & WA............................ 19,825 19,825 19,825
COOS BAY, OR.................................................... 6,239 6,239 6,239
COTTAGE GROVE LAKE, OR.......................................... 1,349 1,349 1,349
COUGAR LAKE, OR................................................. 5,466 5,466 5,466
DETROIT LAKE, OR................................................ 1,131 1,131 1,131
DORENA LAKE, OR................................................. 1,168 1,168 1,168
ELK CREEK LAKE, OR.............................................. 386 386 386
FALL CREEK LAKE, OR............................................. 5,224 5,224 5,224
FERN RIDGE LAKE, OR............................................. 1,727 1,727 1,727
GREEN PETER--FOSTER LAKES, OR................................... 2,161 2,161 2,161
HILLS CREEK LAKE, OR............................................ 1,381 1,381 1,381
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, OR.............. 20 20 20
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OR............................... 1,040 1,040 1,040
JOHN DAY LOCK AND DAM, OR & WA.................................. 4,865 4,865 4,865
LOOKOUT POINT LAKE, OR.......................................... 2,371 2,371 2,371
LOST CREEK LAKE, OR............................................. 4,004 4,004 4,004
MCNARY LOCK AND DAM, OR & WA.................................... 7,011 7,011 7,011
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OR................................... 400 400 400
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OR............................. 86 86 86
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, OR.................... 2,598 2,598 2,598
WILLAMETTE RIVER AT WILLAMETTE FALLS, OR........................ 128 128 128
WILLAMETTE RIVER BANK PROTECTION, OR............................ 200 200 200
WILLOW CREEK LAKE, OR........................................... 909 909 909
YAQUINA BAY AND HARBOR, OR...................................... 3,002 3,002 3,002
PENNSYLVANIA
ALLEGHENY RIVER, PA............................................. 5,317 5,317 5,317
ALVIN R BUSH DAM, PA............................................ 740 740 740
AYLESWORTH CREEK LAKE, PA....................................... 345 345 345
BELTZVILLE LAKE, PA............................................. 1,290 1,290 1,290
BLUE MARSH LAKE, PA............................................. 2,774 2,774 2,774
CONEMAUGH RIVER LAKE, PA........................................ 1,347 1,347 1,347
COWANESQUE LAKE, PA............................................. 1,896 1,896 1,896
CROOKED CREEK LAKE, PA.......................................... 1,731 1,731 1,731
CURWENSVILLE LAKE, PA........................................... 851 851 851
DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA, PA TO TRENTON, NJ................. 5,460 5,460 5,460
EAST BRANCH CLARION RIVER LAKE, PA.............................. 1,205 1,205 1,205
ERIE HARBOR, PA................................................. 1,500 1,500 1,500
FOSTER JOSEPH SAYERS DAM, PA.................................... 1,178 1,178 1,178
FRANCIS E WALTER DAM, PA........................................ 905 905 905
GENERAL EDGAR JADWIN DAM AND RESERVOIR, PA...................... 385 385 385
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, PA............................... 1,179 1,179 1,179
JOHNSTOWN, PA................................................... 62 62 62
KINZUA DAM AND ALLEGHENY RESERVOIR, PA.......................... 1,191 1,191 1,191
LOYALHANNA LAKE, PA............................................. 1,682 1,682 1,682
MAHONING CREEK LAKE, PA......................................... 1,308 1,308 1,308
MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA........................................... 15,986 15,986 15,986
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, PA, OH & WV.......................... 47,965 47,965 47,965
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, PA, OH & WV....................... 800 800 800
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, PA................................... 170 170 170
PROMPTON LAKE, PA............................................... 585 585 585
PUNXSUTAWNEY, PA................................................ 27 27 27
RAYSTOWN LAKE, PA............................................... 5,357 5,357 5,357
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, PA............................. 45 45 45
SHENANGO RIVER LAKE, PA......................................... 2,031 2,031 2,031
STILLWATER LAKE, PA............................................. 570 570 570
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, PA.................... 106 106 106
TIOGA--HAMMOND LAKES, PA........................................ 2,611 2,611 2,611
TIONESTA LAKE, PA............................................... 2,032 2,032 2,032
UNION CITY LAKE, PA............................................. 414 414 414
WOODCOCK CREEK LAKE, PA......................................... 944 944 944
YORK INDIAN ROCK DAM, PA........................................ 1,463 1,463 1,463
YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER LAKE, PA & MD................................ 3,274 3,274 3,274
PUERTO RICO
SAN JUAN HARBOR, PR............................................. 5,700 5,700 5,700
RHODE ISLAND
BLOCK ISLAND HARBOR OF REFUGE, RI............................... 350 350 350
FOX POINT BARRIER, NARRANGANSETT BAY, RI........................ 2,636 2,636 2,636
GREAT SALT POND, BLOCK ISLAND, RI............................... 350 350 350
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, RI.............. 25 25 25
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, RI............................... 48 48 48
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, RI................................... 350 350 350
WOONSOCKET, RI.................................................. 499 499 499
SOUTH CAROLINA
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, SC.............................. 100 100 100
CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC........................................... 17,059 17,059 17,059
COOPER RIVER, CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC............................. 6,930 6,930 6,930
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SC............................... 65 65 65
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, SC................................... 875 875 875
TOWN CREEK, SC.................................................. 530 530 530
SOUTH DAKOTA
BIG BEND DAM, LAKE SHARPE, SD................................... 10,363 10,363 10,363
COLD BROOK LAKE, SD............................................. 355 355 355
COTTONWOOD SPRINGS LAKE, SD..................................... 313 313 313
FORT RANDALL DAM, LAKE FRANCIS CASE, SD......................... 11,253 11,253 11,253
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SD............................... 169 169 169
LAKE TRAVERSE, SD & MN.......................................... 594 594 594
OAHE DAM, LAKE OAHE, SD & ND.................................... 12,222 12,222 12,222
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, SD............................. 143 143 143
TENNESSEE
CENTER HILL LAKE, TN............................................ 5,893 5,893 5,893
CHEATHAM LOCK AND DAM, TN....................................... 9,429 9,429 9,429
CHICKAMAUGA LOCK, TENNESSEE RIVER, TN........................... 1,630 1,630 1,630
CORDELL HULL DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN.............................. 7,210 7,210 7,210
DALE HOLLOW LAKE, TN............................................ 6,824 6,824 6,824
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN............................... 182 182 182
J PERCY PRIEST DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN............................ 5,060 5,060 5,060
NORTHWEST TENNESSEE REGIONAL HARBOR, LAKE COUNTY, TN............ 10 10 10
OLD HICKORY LOCK AND DAM, TN.................................... 10,416 10,416 10,416
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TN................................... 2 2 2
TENNESSEE RIVER, TN............................................. 23,759 23,759 23,759
WOLF RIVER HARBOR, TN........................................... 250 250 250
TEXAS
AQUILLA LAKE, TX................................................ 1,727 1,727 1,727
ARKANSAS--RED RIVER BASINS CHLORIDE CONTROL--AREA VIII, TX...... 1,660 1,660 1,660
BARDWELL LAKE, TX............................................... 2,621 2,621 2,621
BELTON LAKE, TX................................................. 4,654 4,654 4,654
BENBROOK LAKE, TX............................................... 2,612 2,612 2,612
BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, TX........................................ 2,700 2,700 2,700
BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TX............................... 2,612 2,612 2,612
CANYON LAKE, TX................................................. 3,897 3,897 3,897
CHANNEL TO HARLINGEN, TX........................................ 1,478 1,478 1,478
CHANNEL TO PORT BOLIVAR, TX..................................... 168 168 168
CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX................................. 8,750 8,750 8,750
DENISON DAM, LAKE TEXOMA, TX.................................... 9,656 9,656 9,656
ESTELLINE SPRINGS EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT, TX...................... 33 33 33
FERRELLS BRIDGE DAM, LAKE O' THE PINES, TX...................... 3,408 3,408 3,408
FREEPORT HARBOR, TX............................................. 5,800 5,800 5,800
GALVESTON HARBOR AND CHANNEL, TX................................ 10,900 10,900 10,900
GIWW, CHANNEL TO VICTORIA, TX................................... 2,700 2,700 2,700
GRANGER DAM AND LAKE, TX........................................ 2,624 2,624 2,624
GRAPEVINE LAKE, TX.............................................. 3,191 3,191 3,191
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, TX.................................. 23,785 23,785 23,785
HORDS CREEK LAKE, TX............................................ 1,555 1,555 1,555
HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX........................................ 32,633 32,633 32,633
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TX............................... 1,937 1,937 1,937
JIM CHAPMAN LAKE, TX............................................ 1,466 1,466 1,466
JOE POOL LAKE, TX............................................... 1,130 1,130 1,130
LAKE KEMP, TX................................................... 302 302 302
LAVON LAKE, TX.................................................. 4,267 4,267 4,267
LEWISVILLE DAM, TX.............................................. 4,035 4,035 4,035
MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL, TX...................................... 6,100 6,100 6,100
NAVARRO MILLS LAKE, TX.......................................... 3,839 3,839 3,839
NORTH SAN GABRIEL DAM AND LAKE GEORGETOWN, TX................... 2,226 2,226 2,226
O C FISHER DAM AND LAKE, TX..................................... 860 860 860
PAT MAYSE LAKE, TX.............................................. 1,065 1,065 1,065
PROCTOR LAKE, TX................................................ 2,644 2,644 2,644
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TX................................... 300 300 300
RAY ROBERTS LAKE, TX............................................ 2,217 2,217 2,217
SABINE--NECHES WATERWAY, TX..................................... 14,100 14,100 14,100
SAM RAYBURN DAM AND RESERVOIR, TX............................... 7,613 7,613 7,613
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, TX............................. 271 271 271
SOMERVILLE LAKE, TX............................................. 3,075 3,075 3,075
STILLHOUSE HOLLOW DAM, TX....................................... 2,413 2,413 2,413
TEXAS CITY SHIP CHANNEL, TX..................................... 1,000 1,000 1,000
TOWN BLUFF DAM, B A STEINHAGEN LAKE, TX......................... 3,894 3,894 3,894
WACO LAKE, TX................................................... 6,614 6,614 6,614
WALLISVILLE LAKE, TX............................................ 1,999 1,999 1,999
WHITNEY LAKE, TX................................................ 7,007 7,007 7,007
WRIGHT PATMAN DAM AND LAKE, TX.................................. 4,270 4,270 4,270
UTAH
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, UT............................... 40 40 40
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, UT............................. 655 655 655
VERMONT
BALL MOUNTAIN, VT............................................... 930 930 930
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VT............................... 46 46 46
NARROWS OF LAKE CHAMPLAIN, VT & NY.............................. 40 40 40
NORTH HARTLAND LAKE, VT......................................... 1,067 1,067 1,067
NORTH SPRINGFIELD LAKE, VT...................................... 1,038 1,038 1,038
TOWNSHEND LAKE, VT.............................................. 1,026 1,026 1,026
UNION VILLAGE DAM, VT........................................... 811 811 811
VIRGINIA
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY--ACC, VA......................... 2,525 2,525 2,525
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY--DSC, VA......................... 1,130 1,130 1,130
CHINCOTEAGUE INLET, VA.......................................... 600 600 600
GATHRIGHT DAM AND LAKE MOOMAW, VA............................... 2,070 2,070 2,070
HAMPTON ROADS, NORFOLK & NEWPORT NEWS HARBOR, VA (DRIFT REMOVAL) 1,500 1,500 1,500
HAMPTON ROADS, VA (PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS).......... 114 114 114
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VA............................... 297 297 297
JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA......................................... 4,006 4,006 4,006
JOHN H KERR LAKE, VA & NC....................................... 10,976 10,976 10,976
JOHN W FLANNAGAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA.......................... 2,347 2,347 2,347
LYNNHAVEN INLET, VA............................................. 500 500 500
NORFOLK HARBOR, VA.............................................. 12,543 12,543 12,543
NORTH FORK OF POUND RIVER LAKE, VA.............................. 685 685 685
PHILPOTT LAKE, VA............................................... 5,023 5,023 5,023
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, VA................................... 1,298 1,298 1,298
RUDEE INLET, VA................................................. 400 400 400
WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATIONS, VA...................... 135 135 135
WATERWAY ON THE COAST OF VIRGINIA, VA........................... 50 50 50
WASHINGTON
CHIEF JOSEPH DAM, WA............................................ 672 672 672
COLUMBIA AND LOWER WILLAMETTE RIVERS BELOW VANCOUVER, WA & 38,132 38,132 38,132
PORTLAND, OR...................................................
COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN VANCOUVER, WA AND THE DALLES, OR......... 1,001 1,001 1,001
COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, WA, OR & ID..................... 3,498 3,498 3,498
EVERETT HARBOR AND SNOHOMISH RIVER, WA.......................... 1,358 1,358 1,358
GRAYS HARBOR(38-F00T DEEPENING), WA............................. 12,018 12,018 12,018
HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA........................................... 3,347 3,347 3,347
ICE HARBOR LOCK AND DAM, WA..................................... 9,172 9,172 9,172
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, WA.............. 70 70 70
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WA............................... 1,087 1,087 1,087
LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA.................................. 8,872 8,872 8,872
LITTLE GOOSE LOCK AND DAM, WA................................... 7,267 7,267 7,267
LOWER GRANITE LOCK AND DAM, WA.................................. 3,222 3,222 3,222
LOWER MONUMENTAL LOCK AND DAM, WA............................... 6,695 6,695 6,695
MILL CREEK LAKE, WA............................................. 2,255 2,255 2,255
MOUNT SAINT HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA......................... 268 268 268
MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA............................................ 9,548 9,548 9,548
NEAH BAY, WA.................................................... 275 275 275
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WA................................... 580 580 580
PUGET SOUND AND TRIBUTARY WATERS, WA............................ 1,200 1,200 1,200
QUILLAYUTE RIVER, WA............................................ 100 100 100
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WA............................. 423 423 423
SEATTLE HARBOR, WA.............................................. 565 565 565
STILLAGUAMISH RIVER, WA......................................... 290 290 290
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WA.................... 64 64 64
TACOMA, PUYALLUP RIVER, WA...................................... 155 155 155
THE DALLES LOCK AND DAM, WA & OR................................ 10,931 10,931 10,931
WEST VIRGINIA
BEECH FORK LAKE, WV............................................. 1,330 1,330 1,330
BLUESTONE LAKE, WV.............................................. 2,043 2,043 2,043
BURNSVILLE LAKE, WV............................................. 2,458 2,458 2,458
EAST LYNN LAKE, WV.............................................. 2,497 2,497 2,497
ELKINS, WV...................................................... 55 55 55
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WV............................... 424 424 424
KANAWHA RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV................................ 8,258 8,258 8,258
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV, KY & OH.......................... 38,310 38,310 38,310
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, WV, KY & OH....................... 2,977 2,977 2,977
R D BAILEY LAKE, WV............................................. 2,266 2,266 2,266
STONEWALL JACKSON LAKE, WV...................................... 1,160 1,160 1,160
SUMMERSVILLE LAKE, WV........................................... 2,432 2,432 2,432
SUTTON LAKE, WV................................................. 2,412 2,412 2,412
TYGART LAKE, WV................................................. 2,397 2,397 2,397
WISCONSIN
EAU GALLE RIVER LAKE, WI........................................ 808 808 808
FOX RIVER, WI................................................... 2,489 2,489 2,489
GREEN BAY HARBOR, WI............................................ 2,885 2,885 2,885
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WI............................... 52 52 52
KEWAUNEE HARBOR, WI............................................. 15 15 15
MANITOWOC HARBOR, WI............................................ 845 845 845
MILWAUKEE HARBOR, WI............................................ 1,600 1,600 1,600
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WI................................... 304 304 304
STURGEON BAY HARBOR AND LAKE MICHIGAN SHIP CANAL, WI............ 19 19 19
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WI.................... 567 567 567
WYOMING
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, WY.............. 12 12 12
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WY............................... 74 74 74
JACKSON HOLE LEVEES, WY......................................... 2,104 2,104 2,104
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WY............................. 234 234 234
-----------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, PROJECTS LISTED UNDER STATES.................... 2,523,734 2,523,734 2,523,734
REMAINING ITEMS
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK
DONOR AND ENERGY PORTS.......................................... .............. .............. 50,000
NAVIGATION MAINTENANCE.......................................... .............. .............. 33,346
DEEP-DRAFT HARBOR AND CHANNEL............................... .............. 234,000 135,000
INLAND WATERWAYS............................................ .............. 42,000 45,000
SMALL, REMOTE, OR SUBSISTENCE HARBORS AND CHANNELS.......... .............. 42,500 50,000
OTHER AUTHORIZED PURPOSES....................................... .............. 35,100 20,000
AQUATIC NUISANCE CONTROL RESEARCH............................... 675 675 675
ASSET MANAGEMENT/FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT MANAGEMENT (FEM)...... 3,250 3,250 3,250
CIVIL WORKS WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (CWWMS)..................... 15,000 5,000 15,000
BUDGET/MANAGEMENT SUPPORT FOR O&M BUSINESS PROGRAMS
STEWARDSHIP SUPPORT PROGRAM..................................... 1,000 1,000 1,000
PERFORMANCE-BASED BUDGETING SUPPORT PROGRAM..................... 3,939 3,939 3,939
RECREATION MANAGEMENT SUPPORT PROGRAM........................... 1,650 1,650 1,650
OPTIMIZATION TOOLS FOR NAVIGATION............................... 322 322 322
COASTAL DATA INFORMATION PROGRAM (CDIP)......................... 3,000 5,400 5,400
COASTAL INLET RESEARCH PROGRAM.................................. 2,700 2,700 2,700
RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE AT CORPS PROJECTS.................... 6,000 6,000 6,000
CULTURAL RESOURCES (NAGPRA/CURATION)............................ 6,000 6,000 6,000
DREDGE MCFARLAND READY RESERVE.................................. 11,690 11,690 11,690
DREDGE WHEELER READY RESERVE.................................... 15,000 15,000 15,000
DREDGING DATA AND LOCK PERFORMANCE MONITORING SYSTEM............ 1,119 1,119 1,119
DREDGING OPERATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH (DOER)........... 6,450 6,450 6,450
DREDGING OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT PROGRAM (DOTS)............ 2,820 2,820 2,820
EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM............................ 270 270 270
FACILITY PROTECTION............................................. 4,000 4,000 4,000
FISH & WILDLIFE OPERATING FISH HATCHERY REIMBURSEMENT........... 4,700 4,700 5,400
GREAT LAKES TRIBUTARY MODEL..................................... 600 600 600
INLAND WATERWAY NAVIGATION CHARTS............................... 4,500 4,500 4,500
INTERAGENCY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION TASK FORCE/HURRICANE 2,800 2,800 2,800
PROTECTION DECISION CHRONOLOGY (IPET/HPDC) LESSONS LEARNED
IMPLEMENTATION.................................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED FEDERAL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS.......... 28,000 28,000 28,000
MONITORING OF COMPLETED NAVIGATION PROJECTS..................... 3,300 3,300 4,000
NATIONAL (LEVEE) FLOOD INVENTORY................................ 16,000 16,000 16,000
NATIONAL (MULTIPLE PROJECT) NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 6,000 6,000 6,000
ACTIVITIES.....................................................
NATIONAL COASTAL MAPPING PROGRAM................................ 6,300 6,300 6,300
NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM (PORTFOLIO RISK ASSESSMENT)......... 10,000 10,000 10,000
NATIONAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM (NEPP).................. 4,500 4,500 4,500
NATIONAL PORTFOLIO ASSESSMENT FOR REALLOCATIONS................. 1,071 1,071 1,071
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT TECHNICAL SUPPORT........................... 1,481 1,481 1,481
WATERBORNE COMMERCE STATISTICS.................................. 4,669 4,669 4,669
HARBOR MAINTENANCE FEE DATA COLLECTION.......................... 795 795 795
RECREATIONONESTOP (R1S) NATIONAL RECREATION RESERVATION SERVICE. 65 65 65
REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM............................ 1,800 1,800 1,800
REVIEW OF NON-FEDERAL ALTERATIONS OF CIVIL WORKS PROJECTS 4,000 4,000 4,000
(SECTION 408)..................................................
RELIABILITY MODELS PROGRAM FOR MAJOR REHAB...................... 300 300 300
WATER OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT (WOTS)....................... 500 2,500 5,500
HOUSE FLOOR AMENDMENTS.......................................... .............. 36,306 ..............
-----------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, REMAINING ITEMS................................. 186,266 570,572 528,412
REDUCTION FOR SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE.............................. .............. .............. -143,146
-----------------------------------------------
TOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.......................... 2,710,000 3,094,306 2,909,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lowell Creek Tunnel, Alaska.--The Committee recognizes the
current problems with the existing Lowell Creek Tunnel and
encourages the Corps of Engineers to undertake a study for an
alternative method of flood diversion for Lowell Canyon. The
Water Resources Development Act of 2007 transferred operations
and maintenance to the Corps of Engineers until a new
alternative was built, or for 15 years, whichever was earlier.
This bill includes a general provision to extend the Corps of
Engineers' operation and maintenance responsibility for this
project for another 5 years. The Corps of Engineers has not
progressed towards developing an alternative, and the City of
Seward cannot afford the estimated $1,500,000 per year in
operations and maintenance costs of the tunnel.
Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Recovery.--It has come to
the Committee's attention that the Corps of Engineers has
listed the Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Recovery program
under the navigation business line. The Missouri River Fish and
Wildlife Recovery program is associated with flood plain
mitigation and compliance with endangered species protection
requirements. The Committee seeks to understand how these
activities relate to the promotion of navigation. The Corps of
Engineers has recently classified the program under the
navigation business line. The Committee directs that, within 60
days of the date of enactment of this act, the Corps of
Engineers shall submit to the Committee the reasons for this
classification. The Corps of Engineers shall describe its plans
to ensure that it does not impact anticipated or needed work
under the Bank Stabilization and Navigation Program.
WRRDA Section 1039--Invasive Species.--Funding is provided
for watercraft inspection stations, as authorized by WRRDA
section 1039. The Secretary, in consultation with the States of
Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington, is required to
establish watercraft inspection stations in the vicinity of
reservoirs operated by the Corps of Engineers, including for
boat inspection stations in the Columbia River Basin States.
These inspection stations are the principal line of defense
against the spread of aquatic species at reservoirs operated
and maintained by the Secretary, such as entry of zebra and
quagga mussels into the Flathead Basin in Montana.
Monitoring of Completed Navigation Projects.--The Committee
recommends additional funding for the Corps of Engineers to
monitor aging navigation infrastructure to ensure that it
continues operating as planned.
Operations and Maintenance--Fisheries.--The Committee is
concerned that a reduction in or elimination of navigational
lock operations is having a negative impact on the ability of a
number of endangered, threatened, and game fish species to
migrate through waterways, particularly during critical
spawning periods. The Committee is aware of preliminary
research that indicates reduced lock operations on certain
Corps of Engineers' designated low-use waterways is directly
impacting migration and that there are effective means to
mitigate the impacts. The Committee believes maximizing the
ability of fish to use these locks to move past the dams has
the potential to restore natural and historic long-distance
river migrations that may well be critical to species survival.
The Committee provides $2,000,000 to continue external fish
behavior research to determine the appropriate time, frequency,
and number of mitigation lockages; how to increase the numbers
of fish entering locks during navigational and mitigation
operations; and how to get fish to stay in locks for the
optimal period of time. This research should be conducted in
coordination with both the Corps of Engineers and the Fish and
Wildlife Service.
Levels of Service.--The Committee is aware of recent
decisions to reduce service levels at locks across the country.
The Committee notes that the Corps of Engineers is authorized
to open locks independently of the established levels of
service [LoS] for specific and unique activities where such
opening and closing will be advantageous to fostering economic
and community development. The Committee remains concerned
about limited budgetary resources for infrastructure
improvements on the Nation's locks and dams, and encourages the
Corps of Engineers to consider all options within its statutory
authority to collect additional funds. Such efforts should
include acceptance of contributed funds under existing
authorities, to maintain robust lock operations. Such efforts
should also include public-private partnerships, which include
State agencies, to ensure locks are safe and operational for
economic growth and community development. Local economies
benefit from using locks and dams for commercial and
recreational uses that are unrelated to commercial barge
traffic. The Committee acknowledges that the Corps of Engineers
has given local communities assurances that, within its current
statutory authority, the Corps of Engineers will be sensitive
to economic impacts on local economies.
Dam Optimization.--The Corps of Engineers is urged not to
carry out any reservoir reoperation or reallocation for
authorized purposes at Corps of Engineers' facilities with
funds from any non-Federal entity other than the non-Federal
sponsor until the Corps of Engineers has completed all public
outreach and coordination, and submitted to the relevant
authorizing and appropriations Committees, and the
Congressional delegation representing such facility, a detailed
analysis of the change in operations of the reservoir, and
specific information on whether the activities would alter
availability of water for existing authorized purposes at such
facility, as well as compensation for lost water that would be
necessary to make users whole if such activities were carried
out.
Western Drought Contingency Plans.--The Committee notes
that the Corps of Engineers carries out water control
management activities for Corps of Engineers and non-Corps of
Engineers projects as required by Federal laws and directives,
and that these activities are governed by the establishment of
water control plans. The Committee understands that many of
these plans and manuals were developed decades ago and are
required to be revised as necessary to conform to changing
requirements. Continuous examination should be made of
regulation schedules and possible need for storage reallocation
within existing authority and constraints. Emphasis should be
placed on evaluating current or anticipated conditions that
could require deviation from normal release schedules as part
of drought contingency plans.
Not later than 90 days after enactment of this act, the
Secretary shall provide to the Committee a report including the
following information for any western State under a
gubernatorial drought declaration during water year 2015: (1) a
list of Corps of Engineers and non-Corps of Engineers (section
7 of the 1944 Flood Control Act) projects that have a Corps of
Engineers developed water control plan; (2) the year the
original water control manual was approved; (3) the year for
any subsequent revisions to the project's water control plan
and manual; (4) a list of projects where operational deviations
for drought contingency have been requested and the status of
the request; (5) how water conservation and water quality
improvements were addressed; (6) a list of projects where
permanent changes to storage allocations have been requested
and the status of the request.
Disposal of Dredged Sediment.--No funds recommended in this
act may be used for open lake disposal of dredged sediment
unless such disposal meets water and environmental standards
agreed to by the administrator of a State's water permitting
agency and is consistent with a State's Coastal Zone Management
Plan. If this standard is not met, the Corps of Engineers will
maintain its long-standing funding obligations for dredged
material management.
Bayport Flare--Houston Ship Channel, Texas.--The Committee
encourages the Corps of Engineers to utilize previously
appropriated funds to expeditiously complete necessary studies
to address safety and efficiency issues in a timely manner to
avoid property damage, injury, loss of life and economic
impacts on nationally significant deep draft, high commercial
use channels.
WRRDA Section 6002.--The Committee supports the Corps of
Engineers performing a review of its inventory, in accordance
with WRRDA section 6002.
WRRDA Section 4001.--The Committee urges the Secretary to
follow through on the direction provided by Congress in WRRDA
section 4001 to find and implement the means necessary to
financially support the Susquehanna, Delaware, and Potomac
River Basin Commissions. Congress has made clear its intent
that the 3 River Basin Commissions be supported and expects the
Corps of Engineers to act appropriately.
Donor Ports and Energy Transfer Ports.--The Committee
provides $50,000,000 for eligible donor ports and energy
transfer ports in accordance with WRRDA section 2106. The
Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to issue
implementation guidance for section 2106 within 30 days of
enactment of this act. With respect to eligible donor ports,
the Committee directs 50 percent of such funds be equally
divided between the eligible donor ports; and the remaining 50
percent of such funds be divided between the eligible donor
ports based on each eligible donor port's percentage of the
total Harbor Maintenance Tax revenues generated at such ports,
in accordance with WRRDA section 2101. Funds recommended for
section 2106 shall be used at the discretion of each eligible
donor port and energy transfer port in accordance with section
2106.
Monitoring Requirement.--The Committee directs the Corps of
Engineers to monitor the withdrawals for its existing water
contracts in the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa [ACT] river basin.
Upon determination of an exceedance of the contracted amounts,
the Corps of Engineers shall make notifications as required in
the contract and notify the Committee within 30 days of such
determination.
Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.--The fiscal year 2016
budget request does not fund operations, maintenance, and
rehabilitation of our Nation's aging infrastructure
sufficiently to ensure continued competitiveness in a global
marketplace. Federal navigation channels maintained at only a
fraction of authorized dimensions, and navigation locks and
hydropower facilities, well beyond their design life, result in
economic inefficiencies. The Committee believes that investing
in operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation of
infrastructure today will save taxpayers money in the future.
The Committee recommendation includes additional funds to
continue ongoing projects and activities, including periodic
dredging of ports and harbors.
The Committee directs that priority in allocating these
funds be given to completing ongoing work to maintain
authorized depths and widths of harbors and shipping channels,
including where contaminated sediments are present, and for
addressing critical maintenance backlog.
Particular emphasis should be placed on projects where
there is a Coast Guard or other water safety or police force
presence; that will enhance national, regional, or local
economic development; or that will promote job growth or
international competitiveness.
The Committee is concerned that the administration's
criteria for navigation maintenance does not allow small,
remote, or subsistence harbors and waterways to properly
compete for scarce navigation maintenance funds. The Committee
urges the Corps of Engineers to revise the criteria used for
determining which navigation maintenance projects are funded in
order to develop a reasonable and equitable allocation under
this account. The criteria should include the economic impact
that these projects provide to local and regional economies, in
particular, those with national defense or public health and
safety importance.
REGULATORY PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $200,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 205,000,000
House allowance......................................... 199,576,000
Committee recommendation................................ 200,000,000
The Committee recommends $200,000,000 for the Regulatory
Program of the Corps of Engineers, a decrease of $5,000,000
from the budget request. The Committee urges the Corps of
Engineers to continue to coordinate with the Department of the
Interior to analyze the environmental impacts of the proposed
marina development project in Coral Bay, St. John and provide
input into the permitting process.
FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $101,500,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 104,000,000
House allowance......................................... 104,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 101,500,000
The Committee recommends $101,500,000 for the Formerly
Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program, a decrease of
$2,500,000 from the budget request.
FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $28,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 34,000,000
House allowance......................................... 34,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 28,000,000
The Committee recommends $28,000,000 for Flood Control and
Coastal Emergencies, a decrease of $6,000,000 from the budget
request.
EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $178,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 180,000,000
House allowance......................................... 179,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 178,000,000
The Committee recommends $178,000,000 for Expenses, a
decrease of $2,000,000 from the budget request. This
appropriation finances the expenses for the Office of the Chief
of Engineers, the Division Offices, and certain research and
statistical functions of the Corps of Engineers. No funding is
recommended for creation of an Office of Congressional Affairs.
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS)
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $3,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 5,000,000
House allowance......................................... 4,750,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,000,000
The Committee recommends $3,000,000 for the Office of the
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), a decrease of
$2,000,000 from the budget request.
GENERAL PROVISIONS--CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL
Section 101. The bill includes language concerning
reprogramming guidelines.
Section 102. The bill includes language rescinding prior
year unobligated funding.
Section 103. The bill includes language concerning funding
transfers requested by the administration related to fish
hatcheries.
Section 104. The bill includes language concerning the
definitions of ``fill material'' or ``discharge of fill
material'' for purposes of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act.
Section 105. The bill contains language deauthorizing a
project.
Section 106. The bill includes language regarding the
Lowell Creek Tunnel project.
Section 107. The bill includes language regarding water
allocations.
TITLE II
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACCOUNT
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $9,874,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 7,300,000
House allowance......................................... 9,874,000
Committee recommendation................................ 9,874,000
The Committee recommends $9,874,000 for the Central Utah
Project Completion account which includes $6,024,000 for
Central Utah Project construction, $1,000,000 for transfer to
the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account for
use by the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation
Commission, $1,350,000 for necessary expenses of the Secretary
of the Interior, and up to $1,500,000 for the Commission's
administrative expenses. This allows Reclamation to develop
water supply facilities that will continue to sustain economic
growth and an enhanced quality of life in the western States,
the fastest growing region in the United States.
Bureau of Reclamation
Overview of Recommendation
The Committee recommends $1,133,159,000 for the Bureau of
Reclamation [Reclamation], an increase of $34,491,000 from the
budget request. The Committee recommendation sets priorities by
supporting our Nation's infrastructure.
INTRODUCTION
In addition to the traditional missions of bringing water
and power to the West, Reclamation continues to develop
programs, initiatives, and activities that will help meet new
water needs and balance the multitude of competing uses of
water in the West. Reclamation is the largest wholesaler of
water in the country, operating 348 reservoirs with a total
storage capacity of 245 million acre-feet. Reclamation projects
deliver 10 trillion gallons of water to more than 31 million
people each year, and provide 1 out of 5 western farmers with
irrigation water for 10 million acres of farmland that produce
60 percent of the Nation's vegetables and 25 percent of its
fruits and nuts. Reclamation manages, with partners, 289
recreation sites that have 90 million visits annually.
PROGRAM COORDINATION AND EXECUTION
The Committee expects Reclamation to execute its program in
accordance with congressional direction included in this report
and the accompanying act. This includes moving individual
projects forward in accordance with the funds annually
appropriated. However, the Committee realizes that many factors
outside Reclamation's control may dictate the progress of any
given project or study. The Committee directs Reclamation to
notify the Committee of any major deviations as soon as
practicable, including a detailed justification and updates of
cost, schedule, or scope for the project or study. A major
deviation is defined as any reprogramming action that requires
Committee notification as identified in the Energy and Water
Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015, or,
a schedule change that causes completions, as identified in the
fiscal year 2015 or fiscal year 2016 budget requests, to be
delayed beyond the fiscal year stated.
The Committee has divided underfinancing between the
Resources Management subaccount and the Facilities Operation
and Maintenance subaccount. Upon applying the underfinanced
amounts, normal reprogramming procedures should be undertaken
to account for schedule slippages, accelerations, or other
unforeseen conditions.
FISCAL YEAR 2016 WORK PLAN
The Committee has recommended funding above the budget
request for Water and Related Resources. Reclamation is
directed to submit a work plan, not later than 45 days after
the date of enactment of this act, to the Committee proposing
its allocation of these additional funds. Reclamation is
directed not to obligate any funding above the budget request
for studies or projects until the Committee has approved the
work plan for fiscal year 2016. The work plan shall be
consistent with the following general guidance.
--None of the funds may be used for any item for which the
Committee has specifically denied funding.
--The additional funds are provided for ongoing studies or
projects that were either not included in the budget
request or for which the budget request was inadequate.
--Funding associated with a category may be allocated to
eligible studies or projects within that category.
--Reclamation may not withhold funding from a study or
project because it is inconsistent with administration
policy. The Committee notes that these funds are in
excess of the administration's budget request, and that
administration budget metrics should not disqualify a
study or project from being funded.
REPROGRAMMING
The Committee is retaining the reprogramming legislation
provided in the Energy and Water Development and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015.
DROUGHT
The Committee is particularly concerned about the continued
drought in the West. The U.S. Drought Monitor for May 12, 2015,
shows that all Reclamation States are currently suffering from
drought conditions. Ten of the Reclamation States are suffering
from severe to exceptional drought over large portions of the
individual States. Nearly all of California, one-half of
Nevada, one-half of Oregon, and some areas of the southern
Great Plains are suffering from extreme to exceptional drought.
The Committee recognizes that drought is a difficult
condition to address while it is occurring. However, there are
many things that can be done to stretch available water
supplies. Reclamation and the Department of the Interior are
encouraged to use all of the flexibility and tools at their
disposal to mitigate the impacts of this drought. The Committee
is pleased to see that Reclamation has increased the funding
for WaterSmart grants that increase efficiencies in current
water uses. The Committee also appreciates Reclamation
including a line in the budget request under WaterSmart to
provide Drought Response and Comprehensive Drought Plans.
However, these efforts are insufficient to address the
current scope of this drought and do nothing to address future
droughts. The Committee believes that the only answer to these
chronic droughts is a combination of additional storage,
improved conveyance, and increased efficiencies in the uses of
water both for agriculture and potable purposes. As the West
has consistently been the fastest growing part of the country,
it is incumbent on Reclamation to lead the way in increasing
the water that is available from year to year and to
incentivize more efficient use of the water that is available.
CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING
The Committee did not accept or include Congressionally
Directed Spending, as defined in section 5(a) of rule XLIV of
the Standing Rules of the Senate. However, the Committee has
recommended additional programmatic funds for the Water and
Related Resources account. In some cases, these additional
funds have been included within defined categories, as in prior
years, and are described in more detail in their respective
sections, below.
WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $978,131,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 805,157,000
House allowance......................................... 950,640,000
Committee recommendation................................ 988,131,000
The Committee recommends $988,131,000 for Water and Related
Resources, an increase of $182,974,000 from the budget request.
Within this amount, the Committee recommendation includes
funding for Indian Water Rights Settlements and the San Joaquin
River Restoration Fund as in prior years.
INTRODUCTION
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 increased funding in the Water and
Related Resources account on a number of line items to better
allow Reclamation to address the immediate impacts of the
drought. These funds may be used for environmental restoration
and compliance activities; water conservation and delivery;
increased operations and maintenance funding; drought emergency
assistance planning; WaterSmart grants; and drought response
and comprehensive drought assistance. The Committee notes that
Reclamation included more funds in its fiscal year 2016 budget
to address the continuing impacts from this drought. The
Committee encourages Reclamation to maintain or increase these
levels in the development of its fiscal year 2017 budget
request.
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION--WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project title Resources Facilities Resources Facilities Resources Facilities
management OM&R management OM&R management OM&R
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARIZONA
AK CHIN INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT PROJECT...... .............. 15,341 .............. 15,341 .............. 15,341
COLORADO RIVER BASIN--CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT........... 6,620 458 6,620 458 6,620 458
COLORADO RIVER FRONT WORK AND LEVEE SYSTEM.............. 2,303 .............. 2,303 .............. 2,303 ..............
SALT RIVER PROJECT...................................... 649 250 649 250 649 250
SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE WATER SETTLEMENT ACT PROJECT.... 150 .............. 150 .............. 150 ..............
SIERRA VISTA SUBWATERSHED FEASIBILITY STUDY............. 2 .............. 2 .............. 2 ..............
YUMA AREA PROJECTS...................................... 1,324 24,640 1,324 24,640 1,324 24,640
CALIFORNIA
CACHUMA PROJECT......................................... 647 674 647 674 647 674
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECTS:
AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION, FOLSOM DAM UNIT/MORMON 1,577 9,138 1,577 9,138 1,577 9,138
ISLAND.............................................
AUBURN-FOLSOM SOUTH UNIT............................ 35 2,184 35 2,184 35 2,184
DELTA DIVISION...................................... 5,718 5,511 5,718 5,511 5,718 5,511
EAST SIDE DIVISION.................................. 1,290 2,772 1,290 2,772 1,290 2,772
FRIANT DIVISION..................................... 2,192 3,401 2,192 3,401 2,192 3,401
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION SETTLEMENT........ .............. .............. .............. .............. 35,000 ..............
MISCELLANEOUS PROJECT PROGRAMS...................... 7,596 454 7,596 454 7,596 454
REPLACEMENTS, ADDITIONS, AND EXTRAORDINARY MAINT. .............. 20,262 .............. 20,262 .............. 20,262
PROGRAM............................................
SACRAMENTO RIVER DIVISION........................... 1,307 944 1,307 944 1,307 944
SAN FELIPE DIVISION................................. 372 75 372 75 372 75
SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION................................ 52 .............. 52 .............. 52 ..............
SHASTA DIVISION..................................... 720 8,658 720 8,658 720 8,658
TRINITY RIVER DIVISION.............................. 12,309 5,177 12,309 5,177 12,309 5,177
WATER AND POWER OPERATIONS.......................... 4,389 10,393 4,389 10,393 4,389 10,393
WEST SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION, SAN LUIS UNIT............ 10,457 6,043 10,457 6,043 10,457 6,043
ORLAND PROJECT.......................................... .............. 930 .............. 930 .............. 930
SALTON SEA RESEARCH PROJECT............................. 300 .............. 300 .............. 300 ..............
SOLANO PROJECT.......................................... 1,329 2,367 1,329 2,367 1,329 2,367
VENTURA RIVER PROJECT................................... 313 33 313 33 313 33
COLORADO
ANIMAS-LA PLATA PROJECT................................. 949 1,943 949 1,943 949 1,943
ARMEL UNIT, P-SMBP...................................... 5 377 5 377 5 377
COLLBRAN PROJECT........................................ 237 1,684 237 1,684 237 1,684
COLORADO-BIG THOMPSON PROJECT........................... 707 13,230 707 13,230 707 13,230
FRUITGROWERS DAM PROJECT................................ 103 136 103 136 103 136
FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT.............................. 295 11,729 295 11,729 295 11,729
FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT--ARKANSAS VALLEY CONDUIT..... 500 .............. 500 .............. 500 ..............
GRAND VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II..................... 603 2,606 603 2,606 603 2,606
LEADVILLE/ARKANSAS RIVER RECOVERY PROJECT............... .............. 1,958 .............. 1,958 .............. 1,958
MANCOS PROJECT.......................................... 95 188 95 188 95 188
NARROWS UNIT, P-SMBP.................................... .............. 36 .............. 36 .............. 36
PARADOX VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II................... 1,293 2,679 1,293 2,679 1,293 2,679
PINE RIVER PROJECT...................................... 194 299 194 299 194 299
SAN LUIS VALLEY PROJECT, CLOSED BASIN................... 307 3,637 307 3,637 307 3,637
SAN LUIS VALLEY PROJECT, CONEJOS DIVISION............... 16 40 16 40 16 40
UNCOMPAHGRE PROJECT..................................... 849 193 849 193 849 193
UPPER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM................. 270 .............. 270 .............. 270 ..............
IDAHO
BOISE AREA PROJECTS..................................... 2,880 2,029 2,880 2,029 2,880 2,029
COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVER SALMON RECOVERY PROJECT........ 18,000 .............. 18,000 .............. 18,000 ..............
LEWISTON ORCHARDS PROJECTS.............................. 617 25 617 25 617 25
MINIDOKA AREA PROJECTS.................................. 2,435 2,183 2,435 2,183 2,435 2,183
PRESTON BENCH PROJECT................................... 4 8 4 8 4 8
KANSAS
ALMENA UNIT, P-SMBP..................................... 40 496 40 496 40 496
BOSTWICK UNIT, P-SMBP................................... 372 882 372 882 372 882
CEDAR BLUFF UNIT, P-SMBP................................ 35 547 35 547 35 547
GLEN ELDER UNIT, P-SMBP................................. 66 1,158 66 1,158 66 1,158
KANSAS RIVER UNIT, P-SMBP............................... .............. 100 .............. 100 .............. 100
KIRWIN UNIT, P-SMBP..................................... 36 408 36 408 36 408
WEBSTER UNIT, P-SMBP.................................... 12 1,629 12 1,629 12 1,629
WICHITA PROJECT--CHENEY DIVISION........................ 88 426 88 426 88 426
MONTANA
CANYON FERRY UNIT, P-SMBP............................... 246 6,268 246 6,268 246 6,268
EAST BENCH UNIT, P-SMBP................................. 202 661 202 661 202 661
FORT PECK RESERVATION / DRY PRAIRIE RURAL WATER SYSTEM.. 3,700 .............. 3,700 .............. 3,700 ..............
HELENA VALLEY UNIT, P-SMBP.............................. 19 164 19 164 19 164
HUNGRY HORSE PROJECT.................................... .............. 422 .............. 422 .............. 422
HUNTLEY PROJECT......................................... 12 45 12 45 12 45
LOWER MARIAS UNIT, P-SMBP............................... 102 1,613 102 1,613 102 1,613
LOWER YELLOWSTONE PROJECT............................... 364 16 364 16 364 16
MILK RIVER PROJECT...................................... 548 1,487 548 1,487 548 1,487
MISSOURI BASIN O&M, P-SMBP.............................. 1,028 269 1,028 269 1,028 269
ROCKY BOYS/NORTH CENTRAL MT RURAL WATER SYSTEM.......... 4,625 .............. 4,625 .............. 4,625 ..............
SUN RIVER PROJECT....................................... 153 253 153 253 153 253
YELLOWTAIL UNIT, P-SMBP................................. 22 7,067 22 7,067 22 7,067
NEBRASKA
AINSWORTH UNIT, P-SMBP.................................. 64 115 64 115 64 115
FRENCHMAN-CAMBRIDGE UNIT, P-SMBP........................ 335 2,065 335 2,065 335 2,065
MIRAGE FLATS PROJECT.................................... 13 110 13 110 13 110
NORTH LOUP UNIT, P-SMBP................................. 89 142 89 142 89 142
NEVADA
LAHONTAN BASIN PROJECT.................................. 6,325 3,476 6,325 3,476 6,325 3,476
LAKE TAHOE REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM................. 115 .............. 115 .............. 115 ..............
LAKE MEAD /LAS VEGAS WASH PROGRAM....................... 700 .............. 700 .............. 700 ..............
NEW MEXICO
CARLSBAD PROJECT........................................ 2,812 1,327 2,812 1,327 2,812 1,327
EASTERN NEW MEXICO RURAL WATER SUPPLY................... 47 .............. 47 .............. 47 ..............
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE PROJECT............................... 12,878 11,113 12,878 11,113 12,878 11,113
RIO GRANDE PROJECT...................................... 1,374 6,032 1,374 6,032 1,374 6,032
RIO GRANDE PEUBLOS PROJECT.............................. 300 .............. 300 .............. 300 ..............
TUCUMCARI PROJECT....................................... 17 9 17 9 17 9
NORTH DAKOTA
DICKINSON UNIT, P-SMBP.................................. 212 393 212 393 212 393
GARRISON DIVERSION UNIT, P-SMBP......................... 16,406 6,743 16,406 6,743 16,406 6,743
HEART BUTTE UNIT, P-SMBP................................ 82 1,196 82 1,196 82 1,196
OKLAHOMA
ARBUCKLE PROJECT........................................ 67 207 67 207 67 207
MCGEE CREEK PROJECT..................................... 91 851 91 851 91 851
MOUNTAIN PARK PROJECT................................... 25 587 25 587 25 587
NORMAN PROJECT.......................................... 48 303 48 303 48 303
WASHITA BASIN PROJECT................................... 160 1,083 160 1,083 160 1,083
W.C. AUSTIN PROJECT..................................... 59 629 59 629 59 629
OREGON
CROOKED RIVER PROJECT................................... 286 506 286 506 286 506
DESCHUTES PROJECT....................................... 372 211 372 211 372 211
EASTERN OREGON PROJECTS................................. 511 220 511 220 511 220
KLAMATH PROJECT......................................... 13,379 4,621 13,379 4,621 13,379 4,621
ROGUE RIVER BASIN PROJECT, TALENT DIVISION.............. 2,645 426 2,645 426 2,645 426
TUALATIN PROJECT........................................ 172 252 172 252 172 252
UMATILLA PROJECT........................................ 528 2,462 528 2,462 528 2,462
SOUTH DAKOTA
ANGOSTURA UNIT, P-SMBP.................................. 249 750 249 750 249 750
BELLEFOURCHE UNIT, P-SMBP............................... 270 1,006 270 1,006 270 1,006
KEYHOLE UNIT, P-SMBP.................................... 198 569 198 569 198 569
LEWIS AND CLARK RURAL WATER SYSTEM...................... 2,774 .............. 2,774 .............. 2,774 ..............
MID-DAKOTA RURAL WATER PROJECT.......................... .............. 15 .............. 15 .............. 15
MNI WICONI PROJECT...................................... .............. 12,000 .............. 12,000 .............. 12,000
OAHE UNIT, P-SMBP....................................... 36 58 36 58 36 58
RAPID VALLEY PROJECT.................................... .............. 69 .............. 69 .............. 69
RAPID VALLEY UNIT, P-SMBP............................... .............. 195 .............. 195 .............. 195
SHADEHILL UNIT, P-SMBP.................................. 75 469 75 469 75 469
TEXAS
BALMORHEA PROJECT....................................... 26 14 26 14 26 14
CANADIAN RIVER PROJECT.................................. 84 87 84 87 84 87
LOWER RIO GRANDE WATER RESOURCES CONSERVATION PROGRAM... 50 .............. 50 .............. 50 ..............
NUECES RIVER PROJECT.................................... 88 824 88 824 88 824
SAN ANGELO PROJECT...................................... 38 552 38 552 38 552
UTAH
HYRUM PROJECT........................................... 178 177 178 177 178 177
MOON LAKE PROJECT....................................... 9 86 9 86 9 86
NEWTON PROJECT.......................................... 50 75 50 75 50 75
OGDEN RIVER PROJECT..................................... 218 266 218 266 218 266
PROVO RIVER PROJECT..................................... 1,285 453 1,285 453 1,285 453
SANPETE PROJECT......................................... 60 10 60 10 60 10
SCOFIELD PROJECT........................................ 609 84 609 84 609 84
STRAWBERRY VALLEY PROJECT............................... 830 100 830 100 830 100
WEBER BASIN PROJECT..................................... 972 1,150 972 1,150 972 1,150
WEBER RIVER PROJECT..................................... 60 88 60 88 60 88
WASHINGTON
COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT.................................. 4,200 10,610 4,200 10,610 4,200 10,610
WASHINGTON AREA PROJECTS................................ 415 60 415 60 415 60
YAKIMA PROJECT.......................................... 787 6,784 787 6,784 787 6,784
YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER ENHANCEMENT PROJECT............ 12,811 .............. 12,811 .............. 12,811 ..............
WYOMING
BOYSEN UNIT, P-SMBP..................................... 231 1,828 231 1,828 231 1,828
BUFFALO BILL DAM, DAM MODIFICATION, P-SMBP.............. 32 2,669 32 2,669 32 2,669
KENDRICK PROJECT........................................ 107 4,547 107 4,547 107 4,547
NORTH PLATTE PROJECT.................................... 205 1,190 205 1,190 205 1,190
NORTH PLATTE AREA, P-SMBP............................... 111 5,012 111 5,012 111 5,012
OWL CREEK UNIT, P-SMBP.................................. 6 96 6 96 6 96
RIVERTON UNIT, P-SMBP................................... 12 651 12 651 12 651
SHOSHONE PROJECT........................................ 72 729 72 729 72 729
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, ITEMS UNDER STATES...................... 190,940 286,948 190,940 286,948 225,940 286,948
REMAINING ITEMS
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK:
RURAL WATER......................................... .............. .............. 28,750 .............. 29,705 ..............
FISH PASSAGE AND FISH SCREENS....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 4,000 ..............
WATER CONSERVATION AND DELIVERY..................... .............. .............. 2,250 .............. 8,000 ..............
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND COMPLIANCE............ .............. .............. .............. .............. 1,000 ..............
FACILITIES OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
REHABILITATION.....................................
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROJECT, TITLE I.. .............. 14,170 .............. 14,170 .............. 14,170
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROJECT, TITLE II. 8,423 .............. 8,423 .............. 8,423 ..............
COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT (CRSP), SECTION 5........ 3,936 5,735 3,936 5,735 3,936 5,735
COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT (CRSP), SECTION 8........ 2,250 .............. 2,250 .............. 2,250 ..............
COLORADO RIVER WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT........ 620 .............. 620 .............. 620 ..............
DAM SAFETY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DAM SAFETY .............. 1,300 .............. 1,300 .............. 1,300
PROGRAM................................................
INITIATE SAFETY OF DAMS CORRECTIVE ACTION........... .............. 66,500 .............. 66,500 .............. 66,500
SAFETY EVALUATION OF EXISTING DAMS.................. .............. 20,284 .............. 20,284 .............. 20,284
DROUGHT EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 50,000 ..............
EMERGENCY PLANNING & DISASTER RESPONSE PROGRAM.......... .............. 1,250 .............. 1,250 .............. 1,250
ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM...... 24,351 .............. 24,351 .............. 24,351 ..............
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION.................... 1,720 .............. 1,720 .............. 1,720 ..............
EXAMINATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES...................... .............. 8,809 .............. 8,809 .............. 8,809
GENERAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES............................. 2,000 .............. 2,000 .............. 2,000 ..............
INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENTS AAMODT LITIGATION .............. .............. 6,000 .............. 3,000 ..............
SETTLEMENT ACT.........................................
CROW TRIBE WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT OF 2010...... .............. .............. 12,772 .............. 2,000 ..............
NAVAJO-GALLUP WATER SUPPLY PROJECT.................. .............. .............. 89,663 .............. 81,000 ..............
TAOS PUEBLO INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT...... .............. .............. 4,048 .............. 4,048 ..............
LAND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM....................... 9,188 .............. 9,188 .............. 9,188 ..............
LOWER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM................. 28,345 .............. 28,345 .............. 28,345 ..............
MISCELLANEOUS FLOOD CONTROL OPERATIONS.................. .............. 817 .............. 817 .............. 817
NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS PROGRAM......................... 10,925 .............. 10,925 .............. 10,925 ..............
NEGOTIATION & ADMINISTRATION OF WATER MARKETING......... 1,728 .............. 1,728 .............. 1,728 ..............
OPERATION & PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.......................... 962 1,547 962 1,547 962 1,547
POWER PROGRAM SERVICES.................................. 2,391 307 2,391 307 2,391 307
PUBLIC ACCESS AND SAFETY PROGRAM........................ 596 206 596 206 596 206
RECLAMATION LAW ADMINISTRATION.......................... 2,323 .............. 2,323 .............. 2,323 ..............
RECREATION & FISH & WILDLIFE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION..... 2,202 .............. 2,202 .............. 2,202 ..............
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT:
DESALINATION AND WATER PURIFICATION PROGRAM......... 2,305 1,150 2,305 1,150 2,305 1,150
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM...................... 16,565 .............. 16,565 .............. 16,565 ..............
SITE SECURITY ACTIVITIES................................ .............. 26,220 .............. 26,220 .............. 26,220
UNITED STATES/MEXICO BORDER ISSUES--TECHNICAL SUPPORT... 90 .............. 90 .............. 90 ..............
WATERSMART PROGRAM WATERSMART GRANTS.................... 23,365 .............. 20,000 .............. 23,365 ..............
WATER CONSERVATION FIELD SERVICES PROGRAM........... 4,239 .............. 4,239 .............. 4,239 ..............
COOPERATIVE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT.................... 250 .............. 250 .............. 250 ..............
BASIN STUDIES....................................... 5,200 .............. 5,200 .............. 5,200 ..............
DROUGHT RESPONSE & COMPREHENSIVE DROUGHT PLANS...... 2,500 .............. 2,500 .............. 2,500 ..............
RESILIENT INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS................ .............. 2,500 .............. 2,500 .............. 2,500
TITLE XVI WATER RECLAMATION & REUSE PROGRAM......... 20,000 .............. 23,365 .............. 20,000 ..............
HOUSE FLOOR AMENDMENTS.................................. .............. .............. 2,000 .............. .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, REMAINING ITEMS......................... 176,474 150,795 321,957 150,795 359,227 150,795
UNDERFINANCING.......................................... .............. .............. .............. .............. -19,896 -14,883
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL............................................. 367,414 437,743 512,897 437,743 565,271 422,860
GRAND TOTAL, WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES.......... .............. 805,157 .............. 950,640 .............. 988,131
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALFED Water Storage Feasibility Studies.--The Committee
notes that with the passage of California Proposition 1 in
2014, the California Water Commission is expected to begin
allocating $2,700,000,000 for the public benefits of water
storage projects in early 2017. To ensure that the CALFED water
supply projects are able to compete for the available State
funding, the Committee directs Reclamation to take such steps
as are necessary to ensure that each of the authorized CALFED
water storage feasibility studies, and associated environmental
impact statements, are completed as soon as practicable, and
that, at a minimum, publicly available drafts of such studies
and environmental reviews are completed no later than November
30, 2016.
Safety of Dams Act of 1978, as amended.--The Committee
reiterates that Sisk Dam in California and its related
facilities are owned by the United States. If determined that
corrective actions are needed to reduce risk from seismic
activity, then, under the Safety of Dams Act of 1978, as
amended, 85 percent of all costs of those corrective actions
should be a nonreimbursable cost of the United States. The
other 15 percent of costs should be allocated to authorized
State and Federal purposes of the project pursuant to 43 U.S.C.
Sec. 508(c).
Scoggins Dam, Tualatin Project, Oregon.--As part of its Dam
Safety Program, Reclamation is working on a Corrective Action
Alternatives Study [CAS] for Scoggins Dam, the main feature of
the Tualatin Project. Working with local stakeholders,
Reclamation is evaluating how water supply objectives, such as
increased storage, may be coordinated with CAS implementation.
Phase 2 of the CAS, which is scheduled for completion in fiscal
year 2016, should evaluate alternatives including replacement
structures near the current dam to address Safety of Dams Act
of 1978 modifications and additional storage benefits. These
alternatives may reduce the obligation for both the Federal
Government and stakeholders. As requested in fiscal year 2015,
the Committee has included authorizing language to increase the
cost ceiling for the Safety of Dams program and allow for
concurrent safety modifications and additional storage capacity
if determined by the Secretary of the Interior to be feasible
and in the national interest.
Water Hyacinth.--The Committee notes that the aquatic
invasive water hyacinth has had harmful effects on navigation,
trade and commerce, the environment, wildlife, and water
supplies in the western United States. The Committee directs
Reclamation to coordinate with the United States Department of
Agriculture, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, National
Marine Fisheries Service, the Corps of Engineers, State and
local authorities, water districts, water contractors, and not-
for-profit organizations to establish best practices and
cooperative arrangements that could be implemented annually to
help mitigate and eliminate the spread of water hyacinth in
waterways in Reclamation States.
Non-native Predators.--The Committee is encouraged by the
steps that Reclamation has taken, in consultation with the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine
Fisheries Service, States, and other stakeholders, to evaluate
and implement projects that could improve protection and
recovery of endangered salmon and smelt. The Committee directs
Reclamation to continue consultations with Federal, State, and
local agencies to develop additional activities that could aid
in mitigating or removing non-native predators that prey on
endangered salmon and smelt.
Mni Wiconi Project, South Dakota.--Within the funds
provided for the operations and maintenance of the project,
Reclamation may use funds for upgrading existing community
systems that have always been intended to be part of the
project. Additionally, within 60 days of enactment of this act,
Reclamation shall provide a report on a plan to identify
existing resources and complete the needed community system
upgrades. This plan shall be coordinated with the United States
Departments of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, Housing
and Urban Development, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and
Environmental Protection Agency.
Rural Water Projects.--When allocating resources for rural
water projects, the Committee prohibits Reclamation from using
the ability of a non-Federal sponsor to contribute funds in
excess of the authorized non-Federal cost share as a criterion
for prioritizing these funds.
The Committee also directs Reclamation to work with the
United States Department of the Interior, the Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee, and House Natural Resources
Committee on legislative solutions to funding authorized
Reclamation Rural Water Projects.
WaterSMART Program.--The Committee recommends that grants
funded under the WaterSMART Program have a near-term impact on
water and energy conservation and improved water management.
Reclamation is urged to prioritize funding for projects in
regions most stricken by drought.
Additional Funding for Water and Related Resources Work.--
The Committee recommendation includes an additional
$182,974,000 above the budget request for Water and Related
Resources studies, projects, and activities. Priority in
allocating these funds should be given to advance and complete
ongoing work; improve water supply reliability; improve water
deliveries; enhance national, regional, or local economic
development; promote job growth; advance Tribal and non-Tribal
water settlement studies and activities; or address critical
backlog maintenance and rehabilitation activities. Funding
provided under the heading Additional Funding for Ongoing Work
may be utilized for ongoing work, including pre-construction
activities, on projects which provide new or existing water
supplies through additional infrastructure; provided, however,
that priority should be given in allocating funds to ongoing
work on authorized projects for which environmental compliance
has been completed. Funding provided under the heading Drought
Emergency Assistance Program may be allocated to any authorized
purposes, but shall be allocated to those activities that will
have the most direct, most immediate, and largest impact on
extending limited water supplies during current drought
conditions. Reclamation is encouraged to use all available
authorities to provide for additional water supplies through
conservation, minor changes to the operations of existing
projects, drilling emergency wells, or other means authorized
under current law. This additional funding may be used alone or
in combination with any other funding provided in a program,
project, or activity.
Buried Metallic Water Pipe.--Last year, the Committee
directed Reclamation to, among other things, conduct an
objective, independently peer-reviewed analysis of pipeline
reliability standards. Reclamation has yet to complete this
study, which is of particular concern to the Committee because
Reclamation's use of Technical Memorandum 8140-CC-2004-1
(``Corrosion Considerations for Buried Metallic Water Pipe'')
continues to hold different materials to different standards of
reliability and increases project costs. The Committee directs
that until this study is completed, Reclamation shall not use
the memorandum as the sole basis to deny funding or approval of
a project or to disqualify any material from use in highly
corrosive soils. The pipeline reliability study must provide an
objective, independently peer-reviewed analysis of pipeline
reliability standards and be completed as quickly as possible.
Reclamation is reminded that this study, including all data
assembly and analysis must be conducted by an appropriate,
independent third-party. Reclamation and its contractors
involved in these efforts are expected to protect business-
sensitive data that is collected during this process.
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $56,995,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 49,528,000
House allowance......................................... 49,528,000
Committee recommendation................................ 49,528,000
The Committee recommends $49,528,000 for the Central Valley
Project Restoration Fund, the same as the budget request. This
appropriation is fully offset by a scorekeeping adjustment from
revenues.
The Central Valley Project Restoration Fund was authorized
in the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, title 34 of
Public Law 102-575. This fund uses revenues from payments by
project beneficiaries and donations for habitat restoration,
improvement and acquisition, and other fish and wildlife
restoration activities in the Central Valley project area of
California. Payments from project beneficiaries include several
required by the act (Friant Division surcharges, higher charges
on water transferred to non-Central Valley Project 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, 2015.................................... $37,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 37,000,000
House allowance......................................... 37,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 37,000,000
The Committee recommends $37,000,000 for California Bay-
Delta Restoration, the same as the budget request.
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, 2015.................................... $58,500,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 59,500,000
House allowance......................................... 59,500,000
Committee recommendation................................ 58,500,000
The Committee recommends $58,500,000 for Policy and
Administration, a decrease of $1,000,000 from the budget
request.
This account funds the executive direction and management
of all Reclamation activities, as performed by the
Commissioner's offices in Washington, DC; Denver, Colorado; and
five regional offices. The Denver office and regional offices
charge individual projects or activities for direct beneficial
services and related administrative and technical costs. These
charges are covered under other appropriations.
INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENTS
Appropriations, 2015....................................................
Budget estimate, 2016................................... $112,483,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................................
The Committee recommends no funds for Indian Water Rights
Settlements in this account.
This account was proposed as a part of the administration
request to cover expenses associated with four Indian water
rights settlements contained in the Claims Resolution Act of
2010 (Public Law 111-291), title X of the Omnibus Public Lands
Management Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-11), and the White
Mountain Apache Tribe Rural Water System Loan Authorization Act
(Public Law 110-390). Rather than create a new account as
proposed, the Committee has recommended funding under the Water
and Related Resources account as similar work and funding has
been previously provided in that account.
SAN JOAQUIN RESTORATION FUND
Appropriations, 2015....................................................
Budget estimate, 2016................................... $35,000,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................................
The Committee recommends no funds for the San Joaquin
Restoration Fund in this account.
The Committee has provided this funding request under the
Central Valley Project, Friant Division of the Water and
Related Resources account as similar work and funding has been
provided in that account in prior years.
GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Section 201. The bill includes a provision regarding
reprogramming and transfer of funds.
Section 202. The bill includes a provision regarding the
San Luis Unit.
Section 203. The bill includes a provision regarding the
Secure Water Act.
Section 204. The bill includes a provision regarding Calfed
Bay Delta.
Section 205. The bill includes a provision regarding the
Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978.
Section 206. The bill includes a provision regarding the
Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978.
Section 207. The bill includes a provision regarding
feasibility studies.
Section 208. The bill includes a provision regarding
California Bay-Delta.
Section 209. The bill includes a provision regarding the
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund.
TITLE III
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Overview of Recommendation
The Committee recommends $29,429,115,000 for the Department
of Energy, a decrease of $1,098,021,000 from the budget
request. Within the funding recommendation, $18,956,437,000 is
classified as defense and $10,472,678,000 is classified as non-
defense.
The Committee recommendation sets priorities by supporting
basic energy research; reducing spending of mature
technologies; leading the world in scientific computing;
addressing the Federal Government's responsibility for
environmental cleanup and disposal of used nuclear fuel;
keeping large construction projects on time and on budget;
effectively maintaining our nuclear weapons stockpile; and
supporting our nuclear Navy.
Introduction
The mission of the Department of Energy [Department] is to
ensure America's security and prosperity by addressing its
energy, environmental, and nuclear challenges through
transformative science and technology solutions. To accomplish
this mission, the Secretary of Energy [Secretary] relies on a
world-class network of national laboratories, private industry,
universities, States, and Federal agencies, which allows our
brightest minds to solve our Nation's most important
challenges.
The Committee's recommendation for the Department includes
funding in both defense and non-defense budget categories.
Defense funding is recommended for atomic energy defense
activities, including the National Nuclear Security
Administration, which manages our Nation's stockpile of nuclear
weapons, and prevents proliferation of dangerous nuclear
materials, and supports the Navy's nuclear fleet; defense
environmental cleanup to remediate the former nuclear weapons
complex; and safeguards and security for Idaho National
Laboratory. Non-defense funding is recommended for the
Department's energy research and development programs
(including nuclear, fossil, and renewable energy, energy
efficiency, grid modernization and resiliency, and the Office
of Science), power marketing administrations, the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, and administrative expenses.
Reprogramming Guidelines
The Committee's recommendation includes control points to
ensure that the Secretary spends taxpayer funds in accordance
with congressional direction. The Committee's recommendation
also includes reprogramming guidelines to allow the Secretary
to request permission from the Committee for certain
expenditures, as defined below, which would not otherwise be
permissible. The Secretary's execution of appropriated funds
should be fully consistent with the direction provided under
this heading and in section 301 of the bill, unless the
Committee includes separate guidelines for specific actions in
this report.
Prior to obligating any funds for an action defined below
as a reprogramming, the Secretary shall notify and obtain
approval of the Committee. The Secretary should submit a
detailed reprogramming request in accordance with section 301
of the bill, which should, at a minimum, justify the deviation
from prior congressional direction and describe the proposed
funding adjustments with specificity. The Secretary shall not,
pending approval from the Committee, obligate any funds for the
action described in the reprogramming proposal.
The Secretary is also directed to inform the Committee
promptly and fully when a change in program execution and
funding is required during the fiscal year.
Definition.--A reprogramming includes:
--the reallocation of funds from one activity to another
within an appropriation;
--any significant departure from a program, project,
activity, or organization described in the agency's
budget justification as presented to and approved by
Congress;
--for construction projects, the reallocation of funds from
one construction project identified in the agency's
budget justification to another project or a
significant change in the scope of an approved project;
--adoption of any reorganization proposal which includes
moving prior appropriations between appropriations
accounts; and
--any reallocation of new or prior year budget authority, or
prior year deobligations.
Crosscutting Initiatives
The budget request proposes several crosscutting
initiatives that span several program offices. The Committee
supports the Secretary's efforts to reach outside of individual
program offices to draw on the diverse disciplines within the
agency as a whole. These initiatives, which address grid
modernization, supercritical CO2, subsurface
engineering, energy-water nexus, and cybersecurity would allow
a more comprehensive review of complex issues. Budgetary
constraints do not allow the Committee to recommend full
funding for these initiatives at this time, but the Committee
directs the Secretary to prioritize funds that are provided
within this recommendation to support these crosscutting
initiatives to the maximum extent possible. The Secretary is
further directed to provide the Committee, not later than 180
days after the enactment of this act, a comprehensive program
plan for crosscutting initiatives covering the next five fiscal
years, including proposed funding requirements and goals of
each new initiative.
Grid Modernization.--The Committee supports the Secretary's
decision to further coordinate what has been fragmented
research and development efforts on grid modernization into a
crosscutting initiative, as well as the effort to establish a
laboratory consortium to assist in this coordination.
University research teams and small-to-medium sized companies,
which are at the core of future power delivery systems
innovation, generally lack the research and development budgets
and advanced test capabilities for developing new high-power
prototypes and devices needed to integrate increasingly large
loads of renewable-sourced energy onto the grid. The Committee
encourages the Secretary to leverage existing national assets
for technical assistance and testing centers for grid and power
technologies.
The Committee is encouraged by the Secretary's efforts
toward grid modernization research and development planning
that will ensure a path toward an integrated, secure, clean,
and reliable electricity infrastructure while remaining
affordable to consumers. The Committee recognizes the valuable
role the national laboratories can play for advancements in
electric infrastructure to meet our Nation's energy needs and
is supportive of the grid modernization crosscut and the work
of the National Laboratory Grid Modernization Consortium. The
Committee also encourages the Department's continued
coordination to ensure grid-related research across the
Department complex is not duplicative. In addition, the
Committee directs the Secretary to provide within 180 days of
enactment of this act, a detailed implementation plan on the
grid crosscut, detailing funding requirements, specific
objectives, and delineation of responsibilities among the
program offices within the Department.
Energy-Water Nexus.--The Committee recognizes there is a
clear need to obtain reliable, current, and comprehensive data
on energy-for-water and water-for-energy use. Examples include
data on water use by power plants, water for fuel extraction
and liquid fuel production, energy use by water utilities, and
water reuse and replacement. More accurate data and analysis
can improve informed decision making; help prioritize
investments in energy-water infrastructure; contribute to the
research and development of related technologies; and lead to
more efficient and sustainable water and energy practices.
Transitioning to a more efficient water and energy
infrastructure will strengthen the manufacturing and production
sectors. In order to better understand water use for power
generation and fuel processing, the Committee recommends that
the Energy Information Administration [EIA] account for water
use in the energy policy analysis it undertakes.
Quadrennial Energy Review
The first installment of the Quadrennial Energy Review
[QER], as directed by the president in January 2014, was
released in April 2015. The QER makes recommendations to
modernize and improve our energy architecture and
infrastructure, specifically in the areas of transmission,
storage, and distribution [TS&D]. Modernizing our nation's
aging, extensive, vulnerable, and high-demand infrastructure is
made even more challenging due to our increasingly diverse
energy supply and competing uses of ports and railways for
energy transportation. Successfully addressing these critical
issues will require coordination among many levels of
government and private industry, and the Committee believes the
Secretary must solicit and rely on well-informed input from a
variety of stakeholders to support recommendations that will
lead to a more resilient, reliable and robust TS&D
infrastructure to meet the demands of our 21st century economy.
The Committee urges the Secretary to continue engagement with
State, local, tribal, and international jurisdictions to inform
future action on this modernization roadmap. The Committee
encourages and strongly supports the well-designed, purpose-
driven, public-private partnerships that have coordinated to
create this report.
The Committee directs the Secretary, within 180 days after
the enactment of this act, to provide the Committee with a
status of implementing the recommendations in the QER,
including what has been achieved through the shared interest of
involved parties, Federal Government actions cited in the
report, and an analysis of recommendations that have not been
adopted. The Edison Electric Institute estimated in 2008 that
by 2030, the U.S. electric utility industry would need to make
a total infrastructure investment of between $1,500,000,000,000
and $2,000,000,000,000, of which transmission and distribution
are expected to account for about $900,000,000,000. The
Committee looks forward to working with the Secretary to use
the QER as a roadmap to support Federal funding of potential
solutions, but recognizes that the vast majority of our
Nation's infrastructure is privately owned and sustained by the
private sector. Supporting the advancement of our energy
architecture and infrastructure will not be addressed solely by
Federal funding and private investment, but also through
changes in the regulatory environment, such as the Federal
process for permitting and siting of electrical transmission
facilities, to enable and support these critical investments.
COMMONLY RECYCLED PAPER
The Secretary shall not expend funds for projects that
knowingly use as a feedstock commonly recycled paper that is
segregated from municipal solid waste or collected as part of a
collection system that commingles commonly recycled paper with
other solid waste at any point from the time of collection
through materials recovery.
SOCIAL COST OF CARBON
The Secretary should not promulgate any regulations in
fiscal year 2016 using the May 2013 estimates for the social
cost of carbon until a new working group is convened. The
working group should include the relevant agencies and affected
stakeholders, re-examine the social cost of carbon using the
best available science, and revise the estimate using an
accurate discount rate and domestic estimate in accordance with
Executive Order 12866 and OMB Circular A-4. To increase
transparency, the working group should solicit public comments
prior to finalizing any updates.
5 YEAR PLAN
The Secretary is required by section 7279-a of title 42
U.S.C., enacted by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012,
to include in the Department's annual budget request proposed
funding levels for the request year and 4 subsequent years, at
a level of detail commensurate with the current budget
justification documents. This requirement is to ensure that the
Secretary is proposing a current budget that takes into account
realistic budget constraints in future years, and that Congress
has full visibility into the future implications of current
budget decisions across the Department's energy programs.
Unfortunately, the Secretary has chosen not to comply by
omitting any meaningful 5-year budgeting from its four budget
requests since enactment of this legal requirement. The
Committee directs the Secretary to submit a report, not later
than September 30, 2015, to the Committees on Appropriations of
both the House of Representatives and Senate, on the plan to
comply with section 7279a of title 42 in its fiscal year 2017
budget request. Failure to provide this report may result in
more directive measures to ensure the Secretary complies with
the law and engages in practices that safeguard taxpayer
dollars.
ENERGY PROGRAMS
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $1,923,935,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 2,722,987,000
House allowance......................................... 1,668,774,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,950,000,000
The Committee recommends $1,950,000,000 for Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy [EERE], a decrease of
$772,987,000 from the budget request. Within available funds,
the Committee recommends $160,000,000 for program direction.
VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES
The Committee recommends $292,000,000 for Vehicle
Technologies.
The Committee recommends not less than $20,000,000 for
applied research to overcome the barriers to widespread
adoption of lightweight material designs that include magnesium
alloys, aluminum alloys, high-strength steels, and fiber-
reinforced polymer composites. Further applied research is
needed to develop coatings, adhesives, high-strength
fiberglass, and other advanced materials to effectively join
mixed materials, prevent corrosion, reduce costs, and address
consumer requirements such as noise mitigation and appearance.
The Committee urges the Secretary to work with the natural
gas vehicle industry to identify needs and develop solutions
for additional engines and emissions control technologies in
order to obtain the emission advantages when using natural gas
in high efficiency engines.
The Committee directs the Secretary to work with heavy-duty
vehicle and engine manufacturers to develop an emissions
profile for heavy-duty, dual-fueled natural gas and diesel
automobiles to help determine what, if any, emissions control
technologies need to be installed on such vehicles to meet
environmental regulations. The Committee expects the Secretary
to seek the most cost-competitive options as it evaluates the
control technology options available to these equipment
manufacturers.
The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for Fuel and Lubricant
Technologies. Within available funds, the Committee recommends
up to $5,000,000 for research, development, and demonstration
supporting direct injection engines using propane or liquefied
petroleum gas.
The Committee acknowledges the success of the SuperTruck I
program in improving freight efficiency and heavy-duty vehicle
efficiency. The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for the
SuperTruck II program to further improve the efficiency of
heavy-duty class 8 long- and regional-haul vehicles. The
Secretary is directed to make up to 4 awards using the multi-
year allocation process that was used successfully by the
SuperTruck I program.
Within available funds, the Committee recommends
$10,000,000 for continued funding of section 131 of the 2007
Energy Independence and Security Act for transportation
electrification.
Within available funds, the Committee recommends not less
than $5,000,000 to support competitive demonstrations of energy
storage using electric vehicle batteries to evaluate residual
value. The Committee further encourages the Secretary to
develop opportunities to partner with nonprofit organizations
in deploying workplace electric vehicle charging
infrastructure.
The Committee recognizes local initiatives to deploy
alternative fuel vehicles and infrastructure are critical to
wider adoption of these technologies to diversify our fuel
supply and save consumers money. The Committee recommends
$49,000,000 for deployment of vehicles through the Clean Cities
Program. The Committee further recommends, within available
funds, not less than $20,000,000 to support the ``Alternative
Fuel Vehicle Community Partner Projects'' for competitive
demonstration of electric and advanced fuel deployment
programs, with a focus on larger scale deployment proposals.
The Committee supports the EcoCAR 3 competition, which
provides hands-on, real-world experience to demonstrate a
variety of advanced technologies and designs, and supports
development of a workforce trained in advanced vehicles. The
Committee recommends $2,500,000 for Advanced Vehicle
Competitions to develop and execute the second of the 4-year
collegiate engineering competition, EcoCAR 3.
BIOENERGY TECHNOLOGIES
The Committee recommends $225,000,000 for Bioenergy
Technologies.
Within available funds, the Committee directs the Secretary
to provide a total of $30,000,000 for algae biofuels. Within
available funds, the Committee recommends $45,000,000 for the
Department's final contribution to the Defense Production Act
collaboration with the Navy and Department of Agriculture.
The Committee recognizes research and development focused
on higher value co-products is an effective strategy for
lowering the cost of converting biomass to advanced biofuels.
However, the Committee also believes there is an opportunity
for the Secretary to invest in the development of broader
platforms and capabilities that may drive down conversion costs
more generally, and thereby provide additional returns on
Federal investment. The Committee encourages the Secretary to
explore these opportunities.
The Committee remains concerned the Secretary is
interpreting bioenergy too narrowly and failing to consider
biopower as a viable output of energy technology projects. When
issuing funding opportunities, the Secretary is directed to
include biopower projects as eligible recipients for technology
development support.
The Committee supports the Secretary's participation in the
Farm to Fly 2 Initiative with the Federal Aviation
Administration's Center of Excellence for Alternative Jet Fuels
and the Environment. The initiative is intended to be a cost-
sharing partnership between academia, industry, and the Federal
Government, and the Committee urges the Secretary, within 90
days after the enactment of this act, to provide to the
Committee the initiative's cost sharing plans, including
projected outyear budgetary requirements.
The Committee supports the Bioenergy Technologies mission
to develop and deploy commercially viable biofuels and
bioproducts from renewable biomass resources, and encourages
the Secretary to further the mission by testing and scaling up
new bio-based technologies by conducting a competitive
solicitation to establish demonstration-scale multi-user
facilities for the production of bio-based products and
chemicals.
HYDROGEN AND FUEL CELL TECHNOLOGIES
The Committee recommends $97,000,000 for Hydrogen and Fuel
Cell Technologies. The Committee continues to support fuel cell
and hydrogen energy systems for stationary, vehicle, motive,
and portable power applications. Within available funds, the
Committee recommends not less than $35,200,000 for hydrogen
research and development, including research both into direct
solar water splitting and near-term cost improvements for
hydrogen dispensed at refueling stations.
SOLAR ENERGY
The Committee recommends $241,600,000 for solar energy.
The Committee supports the Secretary's emphasis on
advancing integration of distributed solar generation with the
existing power grid and on lowering the soft costs of solar
installations for residential and small-scale commercial
customers. The financing, contracting, permitting, inspection,
and installation costs can add significantly to the overall
cost of solar system acquisition. The Secretary's efforts to
develop the workforce, regulatory and legal expertise, and
information technology tools are needed to drive down costs for
solar technology for every day consumers.
The Committee recognizes that solar energy is one of the
fastest growing industries in the United States, and employs
174,000 workers today. Within available funds, the Committee
recommends $1,000,000 for the Secretary's contribution to the
joint Solar Ready Vets program with the Department of Defense
as a way to train America's veterans to fill this growing skill
need.
Within available funds, the Committee recommends
$48,400,000 for concentrating solar power projects that lower
the cost of the technology, address electric grid reliability
integration of variable renewable power into the electric grid,
and support the Supercritical Transformational Electric Power
Generation Initiative. Areas of research and development should
include improved design of solar collection, higher cooperating
receivers, and the integration of higher temperature power
cycles.
WIND ENERGY
The Committee recommends $46,000,000 for Wind Energy.
Within these funds, the Committee recommends $40,000,000 for
offshore wind demonstration projects, and $6,000,000 to further
substantiate the design and economic value proposition of
alternative project designs for offshore wind power. No
additional funding is recommended for Wind Energy.
WATER POWER
The Committee recommends $65,000,000 for Water Power.
Within available funds, the Committee recommends $23,000,000
for conventional hydropower, including up to $3,900,000 for the
purposes of section 242 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and
not less than $5,000,000 shall support competitive
demonstrations of pumped hydroelectric storage projects.
Marine and Hydrokinetic Technology Research, Development,
and Deployment.--Within available funds, the Committee
recommends $42,000,000 for marine and hydrokinetic [MHK]
technology research, development, and deployment. Within this
amount, the Committee recommends $20,000,000 for a balanced
portfolio of competitive private sector-led research,
development and demonstrations of MHK technologies, including
wave and current (tidal, river, ocean) energy conversion
technologies. No funding is recommended for advanced design
tools, the incubator program, or for the clean energy
manufacturing initiative. Within available funds, the Committee
recommends $5,000,000 to continue its development and
construction for an open water, fully energetic, grid-connected
wave energy test facility. The Committee also directs the
Secretary to share with Congress the outcome of the ongoing
consultation with the MHK energy industry on the program's
research, development and deployment priorities, and to ensure
related activities by the national laboratories support
industry-driven technology advancement projects, with a
priority on the development of domestic technologies. The
Secretary is also encouraged to review and share the findings
with Congress on how the Small Business Innovation Research
program may be more effectively utilized to support the goals
of the Water Power Program.
The Committee encourages the Secretary to support
activities to develop advanced MHK systems and component
technologies to increase energy capture, reliability, and
survivability for lower costs and to assess and monitor
environmental effects.
GEOTHERMAL TECHNOLOGIES
The Committee recommends $71,000,000 for Geothermal
Technologies. Funds made available by this section shall be
disbursed to the full spectrum of geothermal technologies, as
authorized by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
(Public Law 110-140). The Secretary is encouraged to continue
to support comprehensive programs that foster academic and
professional development initiatives.
To facilitate necessary technology development and expand
understanding of subsurface dynamics, the Committee recommends
$35,000,000 for the Frontier Observatory for Research in
Geothermal Energy [FORGE], which will use a competitive process
to site and construct a facility for the design, development,
and testing of innovative methods of generating electricity for
geothermal resources.
ADVANCED MANUFACTURING
The Committee recommends $214,000,000 for Advanced
Manufacturing. The Committee recognizes the importance of the
manufacturing sector to the U.S. economy, which directly
generates 12 percent of the gross domestic product and employs
nearly 12 million people.
Within available funds, the Committee recommends
$84,000,000 to support the existing 3 Clean Energy
Manufacturing Institutes [CEMI], including $14,000,000 each for
the wide bandgap semiconductor institute, the advanced
composites institute, and the smart manufacturing institute, a
fourth institute to be awarded in fiscal year 2015. The
Committee recommendation includes funding to establish an
additional CEMI. The Committee is pleased that several diverse
consortia were formed to respond to these innovation
opportunities, but is concerned there are limited resources
available to support both the focus areas and additional teams
that were not selected for prior awards. The Committee urges
the Secretary to find mechanisms to support the ideas that were
not funded in previous awards, but have technical merit for
advanced manufacturing developments. For the fourth and each
subsequent institute, the Secretary shall conduct an open
solicitation and competitive, merit-based review process.
Should future requests propose funding for new institutes, the
Secretary shall continue to include in each budget
justification the potential specific research topics associated
with the proposed institutes. This will provide the Committee
with the necessary transparency to evaluate and prioritize
funding to ensure that only highly effective centers closely
aligned with the Advanced Manufacturing program missions are
funded.
The Committee recognizes that stranded, flared, and vented
natural gas is the result of low natural gas prices that make
transporting it uneconomic. As topics for additional Clean
Energy Manufacturing Institutes are evaluated, the Secretary is
encouraged to consider modular chemical processing as a way to
address the issue of natural gas flaring and enable advanced
manufacturing applications in the oil and gas industry.
The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for the Critical
Materials Hub aimed at improving critical material supply
chains that are prone to disruption. The Committee notes that
the Hub has focused on high-priority problems and has developed
strong milestones. The Committee supports the Hub's goal of
developing at least one technology adopted by U.S. companies
within each of its three focus areas: diversifying and
expanding production; reducing wastes; and developing
substitutes.
Related to critical materials and advanced fabrication
techniques, the Committee further recognizes the promise of new
nanostructured metals that can be used in structural
applications, extreme environments, and chemical synthesis with
direct relevance to advanced energy technologies. Within
available funds, the Committee recommends $3,000,000 for
university and industry support to help bridge the gap between
laboratory research and marketplace deployment of these new
materials.
The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for development of
additive manufacturing processes, low-cost carbon fiber, and
other manufacturing technologies at the existing Manufacturing
Demonstration Facility [MDF]. The Committee notes the ongoing
emphasis on assisting small- and medium-sized businesses
overcome the risks and challenges of investing in specialized,
high-technology equipment at the MDF. The Secretary is
encouraged to continue this emphasis in the coming year.
The Committee supports continued research and development
of technologies to produce low-cost carbon fiber. The Committee
encourages the Secretary to create a pilot program to make a
competitive award to produce at least 2 million pounds of
carbon fiber per year at a target price of less than $5 per
pound. The pilot program should require recipients to directly
synthesize carbon filament, eliminating dependence of filament
precursors and the requisite carbonization process, while
minimizing all post-processing while demonstrating
significantly less total energy consumption.
The Committee recommends $1,500,000 for the joint additive
manufacturing pilot institute with the Department of Defense.
BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES
The Committee recommends $178,000,000 for Building
Technologies. The Committee supports the focus on advanced
technologies for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
systems, recognizing that such technologies have the potential
to reduce the national cost of energy by 20 to 50 percent. The
Committee recognizes that most building standard codes are
developed and implemented by State and local governments.
Therefore, the Committee also supports ongoing efforts to work
with State and local agencies to incorporate the latest
technical knowledge and best practices into construction
requirements.
Within available funds, the Committee recommends
$26,000,000 for the Residential Building Integration Program.
Within this amount, funding should be concentrated on industry
teams to facilitate research; demonstrate and test new systems;
and encourage widespread deployment. These activities should be
coordinated through direct engagement with builders, the
construction trades, equipment manufacturers, smart grid
technology and systems suppliers, integrators, and State and
local governments.
The Committee recommends $60,000,000 for the Emerging
Technologies subprogram. Within available funds, the Committee
recommends $14,000,000 for transactive controls research and
development. Within available funds, the Committee recommends
$24,000,000 for solid-state lighting technology development to
focus on reducing the cost of organic light-emitting diodes and
other technologies. If the Secretary finds solid-state lighting
technology eligible for the Bright Tomorrow Lighting Prize,
specified under section 655 of the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007, $5,000,000 is included in addition to
funds for solid-state lighting research and development.
The Committee is concerned the Department's final rule
setting energy efficiency standards for commercial
refrigerators [Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial
Refrigeration Equipment; 79 FR 17725 (March 28, 2014)]
established its required energy efficiency targets based on the
performance of equipment using hydrofluorocarbons [HFCs],
refrigerants that have been in the marketplace for over 20
years. HFCs will be phased out of production by Environmental
Protection Agency [EPA] regulatory action before the
Department's standard takes effect. The Committee encourages
the Department to reassess its standards in light of the EPA
action and take necessary action to resolve any conflicts
between the two agencies' standards.
WEATHERIZATION AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL PROGRAM
The Committee recommends $197,000,000 for the
Weatherization Assistance Program, $3,000,000 for Training and
Technical Assistance, $400,000 for NREL Sitewide Facility
Support, and $50,000,000 for State Energy Program Grants. No
funding is recommended for the Local Technical Assistance
Program proposed in the budget request.
CORPORATE SUPPORT
The Committee recommends $243,000,000 for Corporate
Support, including $2,000,000 for the United States-Israel
energy cooperative agreement within Strategic Programs. The
Committee understands that the EERE has previously executed the
United States-Israel Binational Industrial R&D [BIRD] program
to include authorized energy efficiency and renewable energy
technologies. The Committee directs the Secretary, within 180
days of enactment of this act, to report on implementation and
coordination plans between EERE and the Office of Fossil Energy
to support research and development of natural gas energy
technologies, as section 12 in Public Law 113-296, the United
States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014, expanded the
scope of collaborative research and development to include
water technologies and natural gas energy, including
conventional, unconventional, and other associated natural gas
technologies.
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $147,306,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 270,100,000
House allowance......................................... 187,500,000
Committee recommendation................................ 152,306,000
The Committee recommends $152,306,000 for Electricity
Delivery and Energy Reliability, a decrease of $117,794,000
from the budget request. Within available funds, the Committee
recommends $27,000,000 for program direction. The Committee
directs the Secretary to provide regular updates of reported
data on the status of energy infrastructure and concerns
impacting the energy sector as they become available.
The modernization of the electrical grid is critical to
ensuring national security, sustaining our Nation's economic
growth, and maintaining our way of life. The electrical grid is
a complex system, owned and operated by numerous regulated and
non-regulated private and public entities. Implementation and
execution of these new technologies must be driven by private
market acceptance, and not forced on industry. Many
organizations throughout the United States, including national
laboratories, academia, and industry are leading the grid
modernization effort. To maximize the value of taxpayer
investment in the grid modernization strategy, the Committee
suggests that the Secretary's initiatives be fairly and
equitably competed to ensure the best ideas, technologies, and
teams are brought together to develop the best solutions for
the electric grid of the future.
To ensure our energy systems are safe, secure, reliable,
sustainable, and cost-effective, the Committee supports a
strategy that involves extensive partnerships between
government, academia, and industry to undertake the transition
and modernization of the electrical grid to address our major
energy issues. The Committee directs the Secretary to complete
an independent, third-party assessment of the United States'
capabilities to perform multi-megawatt testing that meets the
goals supporting the Grid Modernization Multi-Year Program
Plan. Following the completion of the assessment and if the
Secretary deems appropriate, the Committee urges the Secretary
to establish through a competitive bid process, a national user
center capable of operating in the multi-megawatt range, above
2 MW, to support the Nation's grid modernization efforts to
advance utility scale technologies like energy storage. World-
class testing facilities that can replicate real world
conditions, without risks to the existing grid, are needed at
the residential, commercial, and distribution level to test and
validate these innovations. The Committee is aware the
Secretary has invested in testing facilities of 2 MW and below,
and facilities are needed at the multi-megawatt level above 2
MW for technologies at the distribution level.
The Committee continues to support the Secretary's research
activities to ensure transmission reliability. Recent weather-
related events, however, have reinforced the need for
integration of local, regional, and national weather into
transmission reliability and resiliency modeling and simulation
activities to support the utility industry and emergency
response. The Committee encourages the Secretary to partner
with universities, national laboratories, and industry when
issuing competitively awarded research and development
activities to ensure regional weather and related environmental
variables are accounted for in advanced grid modeling research.
CLEAN ENERGY TRANSMISSION AND RELIABILITY
The Committee recommends $31,000,000 for Clean Energy
Transmission and Reliability. The Committee believes that the
integration of distributed and intermittent renewable sources
of generation into existing infrastructure and transmission and
distribution networks is critical to the effective deployment
of clean energy sources. Developing the analytical and modeling
tools in collaboration with utilities, grid operators, and
universities will lay the foundation for risk assessment.
The Committee supports the Secretary's proposed research on
advanced modeling capabilities to improve electric planning and
operations. Advances in big data analytic capabilities and
modeling and visualization technologies offer potential for
improving efficient operations of the electric grid
particularly when incorporating power from variable renewable
energy sources. Within Energy Systems Risk and Predictive
Capability and Advanced Modeling Grid Research, the Secretary
is directed to consider an expanded scope of projects, in
addition to response to energy supply disruption, and to
include university and industry teams for research and
workforce development. The Committee notes that workforce
education will be critical to the successful and rapid
transition of advanced modeling and simulation solutions
developed under this program. The Committee recognizes that
further investment is needed to maintain and expand power and
energy education programs, and secure industry partnerships to
facilitate the development of a highly skilled next-generation
technical and engineering workforce for the electric power
sector. Therefore, the Committee encourages the Secretary to
prioritize research and development investments to engage and
further develop the capabilities of university undergraduate
and graduate programs in power and energy.
The Committee also encourages the Secretary to consider
expanding research and development partnerships, including
those related to the development and deployment of microgrids.
Partnerships should engage stakeholders in diverse geographic
regions with unique market dynamics and policy challenges.
These partnerships should inform nationwide efforts to improve
grid resiliency, reliability, security, and integration of a
broad range of generation sources, and consumer empowerment.
SMART GRID RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
The Committee recommends $15,307,000 for Smart Grid
Research and Development. Within available funding, $5,000,000
is for development of advanced, secure, low-cost sensors that
measure, analyze, predict, and control the future grid during
steady state and under extreme conditions.
The Committee recognizes the opportunities presented by the
application, integration, and investment in grid technologies
across all sectors of the economy. The Secretary should ensure
that efforts in these areas are coordinated and focused on the
evolution to the grid of the future.
CYBER SECURITY FOR ENERGY DELIVERY SYSTEMS
The Committee recommends $45,999,000 for Cyber Security for
Energy Delivery Systems. Within available funds, the Committee
recommends not less than $5,000,000 to develop cyber and cyber-
physical solutions for advanced control concepts for
distribution and municipal utility companies. The potential
threat posed by cyber security attacks on our critical energy
infrastructure cannot be underemphasized and must be
appropriately guarded against.
ENERGY STORAGE
The Committee recommends $16,000,000 for Energy Storage.
Within available funds, the Committee supports a utility-
sponsored and operated energy storage test facility capable of
performance-driven data in a utility environment.
TRANSFORMER RESILIENCE AND ADVANCED COMPONENTS
The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for Transformer
Resilience and Advanced Components. The Committee directs the
Secretary to support research and development on low-cost,
power flow control devices, including both solid state and
hybrid concepts that use power electronics to control
electromagnetic devices and enable improved controllability,
flexibility, and resiliency.
NATIONAL ELECTRICITY DELIVERY
The Committee recommends $6,000,000 for National
Electricity Delivery. The Committee encourages the Secretary to
allocate a portion of this funding for a competitive grant
program to help States, regional, and tribal entities to
develop, refine, and improve their programs, policies, and laws
related to electricity in order to facilitate the development
and deployment of reliable and affordable energy
infrastructure, whether generation, transmission, distribution,
or demand side electricity resources.
INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY AND ENERGY RESTORATION
The Committee recommends $6,000,000 for Infrastructure
Security and Energy Restoration.
Energy Resilience and Operations Center.--No funding is
provided for the Energy Resilience and Operations Center
[Operations Center]. The Energy and Water Development and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015, provided up to
$8,000,000 to support construction of the Operations Center
within the Department's headquarters in Washington, DC. The
Committee understands that this office is now engaged in a
joint effort with the National Nuclear Security Administration,
and that construction of the Operations Center has been
delayed.
Although Congress included clear direction and funding in
fiscal year 2015 for this project, the Secretary chose to take
a different course without notifying the Committee. The
Committee understands that the Secretary may propose to use
less than the $8,000,000 made available for fiscal year 2015,
while asking for additional funds for fiscal year 2016. If, by
the date of enactment of this act, the Secretary has used, or
has proposed to use, less than the $8,000,000 that Congress
made available in fiscal year 2015 for the Operations Center,
the Secretary, within 30 days after the date of enactment of
this act, shall submit a report to the Committee describing the
amount of fiscal year 2015 funds proposed to be used to
construct the Operations Center; an explanation of why the
Secretary did not use or propose to use all funding that was
made available for the Operations Center; and which programs,
projects, or activities were a higher priority for funding.
The Committee further directs the Secretary to execute this
project in accordance with congressional direction, and to
provide the Committee with a monthly status report, until
construction has been completed, on changes to schedule, cost,
and scope. Because construction may not begin in fiscal year
2015, the Committee recommends no new funding for the
Operations Center for fiscal year 2016. If the Secretary
completes construction in fiscal year 2016, the Secretary may
reprogram up to $3,000,000 for the facility from funds made
available for Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability,
subject to the Committee's approval. If the Operations Center
becomes operational in fiscal year 2016, the Committee directs
the Secretary to notify the Committee each time the Operations
Center is activated.
STATE ENERGY RELIABILITY AND ASSURANCE
The Committee recommends no funds for State Energy
Reliability and Assurance.
Nuclear Energy
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $833,500,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 907,574,000
House allowance......................................... 936,161,000
Committee recommendation................................ 950,161,000
The Committee recommends $950,161,000 for Nuclear Energy,
an increase of $42,587,000 from the budget request. The
Committee's recommendation for nuclear power prioritizes
funding for programs, projects and activities that will ensure
a strong future for nuclear power in the United States.
Nuclear power provides more than 20 percent of our Nation's
electricity and more than 60 percent of our emissions-free
electricity. Electricity generation from our Nation's 99
operating nuclear power plants is critical to our national
security, economy, and way of life. Programs, projects, and
activities that are funded within the Nuclear Energy account.
The Committee supports the Secretary reconvening the
working group among the national laboratories with nuclear
capabilities, and directs the Secretary to continue those
efforts.
Research and Development
SMALL MODULAR REACTOR LICENSING TECHNICAL SUPPORT
The Committee recommends $62,500,000 for Small Modular
Reactor Licensing Technical Support, the same as the request.
The Committee notes that Small Modular Reactors may provide a
cost-effective method of generating electricity.
SUPERCRITICAL TRANSFORMATION ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION INITIATIVE
The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for the Supercritical
Transformational Electric Power Generation Initiative for an
industry cost-shared demonstration project.
REACTOR CONCEPTS RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION
The Committee recommends $117,874,000 for Reactor Concepts
Research, Development, and Demonstration. The Committee directs
the Nuclear Energy Program to focus funding for Reactor
Concepts Research, Development and Demonstration, which
includes funding for Advanced SMRs and Advanced Reactor
Concepts, on technologies that show clear potential to be
safer, less waste producing, more cost competitive, and more
proliferation-resistant than existing nuclear power
technologies. Within available amounts, the Committee
recommends up to $12,000,000 for industry-only competition to
further the development of deployable advanced reactor
components.
Light Water Reactor Sustainability.--Within available
funds, the Committee recommends $43,275,000. The most cost
effective way for the United States to maintain low-cost,
carbon-free electricity is to safely extend the lives of our
Nation's existing nuclear reactors from 60 to 80 years.
Therefore, the Committee recommends additional funding for this
activity as a priority. The Committee directs the Secretary to
use funding in this activity to continue research and
development work on the technical basis for subsequent license
renewal. The Secretary should focus funding in this program on
materials aging and degradation, advanced instrumentation and
control technologies, and component aging modeling and
simulation. The Secretary shall also coordinate with industry
to determine other areas of high-priority research and
development in this area.
FUEL CYCLE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
The Committee recommends $217,000,000 for Fuel Cycle
Research and Development within which, $97,000,000 is for the
Used Nuclear Fuel Disposition program.
The Committee continues to strongly support the
recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's
Nuclear Future and believes that near-term action is needed to
address this important national issue. Therefore, the Committee
again includes a general provision in section 306 of this bill
authorizing the Department of Energy to develop a pilot program
for a consolidated storage facility, pending enactment of more
comprehensive legislation. Furthermore, the Committee provides
a technical correction in section 311 that broadens the
contractual arrangements by which the government can acquire
spent fuel storage capabilities. The Committee recommends
$30,000,000 for used nuclear fuel disposition to implement
sections 306 and 311. Within this amount, funds are provided
for financial and technical assistance associated with a
consent-based siting process, including education, technical
analyses, and other support to entities considering hosting an
interim storage facility; and for incentive payments to
entities with signed agreements with eligible jurisdictions.
Transportation of spent nuclear fuel will require detailed
planning within the Department, coordination with state and
local governments, and the acquisition of specialized equipment
and capabilities. The Secretary should engage in these
activities so that it ready to transport spent nuclear fuel
when storage capabilities, however acquired, become available.
Within the funds provided, the Committee again recommends
$3,000,000 to design, procure, and test industry-standard
compliant rail rolling stock in a timeframe that supports the
transportation of spent fuel to the interim storage facility.
Within the amount recommended for used nuclear fuel
activities, $3,000,000 is provided for the Secretary to
continue to develop disposal pathways for defense high-level
radioactive waste.
Research and development activities on behavior of spent
fuel in long-term storage, under transportation conditions, and
in various geologic media will continue to be important to
developing a new solution to the waste problem. Within the
amounts recommended for used nuclear fuel disposition,
$64,000,000 shall be for continuance of these activities.
Priority should be placed on the ongoing study of the
performance of high-burnup fuel in dry storage and on the
potential for direct disposal of existing spent fuel dry
storage canister technologies.
The Committee recommends $60,100,000 for the Advanced Fuels
program. The Department is directed to continue implementation
of the accident tolerant fuels development program, the new
goal of which is development of accident tolerant nuclear fuels
leading to commercial reactor fuel assembly testing by 2022.
The Committee directs the Secretary to consult with industry,
universities and other interested organizations on a
commercialization roadmap for these technologies, including new
Silicon carbide based ceramic material. The Secretary is
directed to share the outcome of this consultation with the
Committee. While the benefit of incremental improvements to
existing commercially available fuels is acknowledged, there is
concern that the Department's ongoing activities on accident
tolerant fuels will not ultimately lead to meaningful
reductions in the consequences of unexpected severe accidents
in nuclear power plants. Therefore, $12,000,000 is provided for
the continued industry led cost-shared program on Accident
Tolerant Fuels, and $3,000,000 is provided for continuation of
the previously competitively awarded Small Business projects to
develop ceramic cladding for Accident Tolerant Fuels. Further,
the Committee continues to be concerned that the Secretary has
not yet provided to the Committee the plan for development of
accident tolerant fuels leading to in-reactor testing and
utilization as required by the Fiscal Year 2012 Consolidated
Appropriations Act (Report 112-75). The Committee directs the
Department to provide this report to the Committee no later
than 30 days after enactment of this act.
NUCLEAR ENERGY ENABLING TECHNOLOGIES
The Committee recommends $101,000,000 for Nuclear Energy
Enabling Technologies. The Committee recommends $24,300,000 for
the Energy Innovation Hub for Modeling and Simulation.
Infrastructure
RADIOLOGICAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
The Committee recommends $20,800,000 for Radiological
Facilities Management, including $14,000,000 for continued safe
operation of Oak Ridge National Laboratory hot cells. The
Committee commends that Secretary for including additional
funding for this activity in the Office of Science.
Fossil Energy Research and Development
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $571,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 560,000,000
House allowance......................................... 605,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 610,000,000
The Committee recommends $610,000,000 for Fossil Energy
Research and Development, an increase of $50,000,000 from the
budget request. Within available funds, the Committee
recommends $115,000,000 for program direction. The Committee
recognizes that this program supports vital research on clean
coal technologies, and has accordingly provided significant
funds above the budget request to accelerate these activities.
The Committee notes that clean coal technology affords our
Nation the ability to respond to environmental challenges by
improving the performance of our coal-based electricity fleet,
while also allowing for continued utilization of abundant and
affordable U.S. coal.
According to the Energy Information Administration, fossil
energy resources meet approximately 82 percent of the United
States demand. Fossil fuels support the activities of a modern
economy, and will continue to supply our Nation's energy needs
for the foreseeable future. Approximately 67 percent of the
electricity generated in the United States is from coal,
natural gas, and petroleum, and fossil fuel generation is and
will continue expanding across the world. The Committee notes
that the Department should allocate sufficient resources to
support fossil energy research, development, and demonstrations
to improve both existing technologies and develop the next
generation of clean, affordable, and safe systems.
The Committee notes the improved coordination among the
Office of Fossil Energy and other program office on work
examining the feasibility of recovering rare earth materials
from coal and coal-byproduct streams.
COAL, CCS AND POWER SYSTEMS
The Committee recommends $402,000,000 for CCS and Power
Systems. The Committee encourages the Secretary to establish
university partnerships to support ongoing fossil energy
programs, to promote broader research into CCS technologies,
and to expand its technology transfer efforts. The Secretary
has previously funded several university-based CCS projects,
and should build on an established research base to support
ongoing research, as well as address the wider implementation
of CCS technologies.
The Committee supports the Secretary's cooperative
agreements to develop cost sharing partnerships to conduct
basic, fundamental, and applied research that assist industry
in developing, deploying, and commercializing efficient, low-
carbon, non-polluting energy technologies that could compete
effectively in meeting requirements for clean fuels, chemical
feedstocks, electricity, and water resources.
The Secretary is further directed to report to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate not later than June 30, 2015, on the
reallocation of base funding to other ongoing large-scale Clean
Coal Power Initiative demonstration projects.
Carbon Capture.--Within the recommendation, $88,000,000 is
for Carbon Capture to support the R&D and scale-up of 2nd
generation and transformational technologies for capturing
CO2 from new and existing industrial and power-
producing plants. The Committee recommendation includes
$30,000,000 for the Department's National Carbon Capture
Center. The Committee recommends $250,000 for an assessment of
research and development needs to aid in the development and
commercialization of direct air capture technologies that
capture carbon dioxide from dilute sources, such as the
atmosphere, on a significant scale.
Carbon Storage.--Within the recommendation, $99,000,000 is
for Carbon Storage. Within funds available for Carbon Storage,
the Committee recommends $63,084,000 for Regional Carbon
Sequestration Partnerships, the same as the request, and
$10,000,000 for Carbon Use and Reuse for research and
development activities to support valuable and innovative uses
for carbon. The Committee recognizes that finding new
commercial uses for captured carbon could significantly offset
the costs of capturing and sequestering carbon from our
Nation's coal-fired power plants. The Committee encourages the
Secretary to use its existing authorities to fund activities
that promote the reuse of captured carbon from coal and other
sources in the production of fuels and other products. The
Committee also urges the Secretary to support other carbon
dioxide utilization technologies in addition to Enhanced Oil
Recovery [EOR], including using carbon dioxide to produce
algae. The Committee encourages the Office of Fossil Energy to
collaborate with the Bioenergy Technologies program within the
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy to support
projects that utilize carbon dioxide in the production of
algae.
Advanced Energy Systems.--Within the recommendation,
$103,000,000 is for Advanced Energy Systems, which supports
improving the efficiency of coal-based power systems, enabling
affordable CO2 capture, increasing plant
availability, and maintaining the highest environmental
standards. The Committee supports and encourages the Secretary
to fund research and development of Gasification Systems, which
focuses on technology developments to reduce the cost of coal
gasification and facilitates co-feeding of coal with biomass or
waste; Advanced Combustion Systems, which focuses on the
development of oxy-combustion and chemical looping processes
that are applicable to new and existing power plants; Coal and
Coal-Biomass to Liquids, which the Secretary did not include in
its budget request, and Solid Oxide Fuel Cells, which focuses
on research and development to enable efficient, cost-effective
electricity generation from coal and natural gas with near-zero
atmospheric emissions of CO2 and pollutants, as well
as minimal water use in central power generation applications
that can be integrated with carbon capture and storage. Within
available funding, the Committee urges the Secretary to fund
research and development activities to improve the efficiency
of gas turbines used in power generation systems, working
cooperatively with industry, small businesses, universities,
and other appropriate parties.
NETL Coal Research and Development.--Within the
recommendation, the Committee provides $53,000,000 for NETL
Coal Research and Development. The Committee is supportive of
the mission of conducting in-house research activities, such as
activities in Carbon Capture, Carbon Storage, Advanced Energy
Systems, and Cross-cutting research for the Coal R&D programs.
NATURAL GAS TECHNOLOGIES
The Committee recommends $43,000,000 for Natural Gas
Technologies. The recommendation does not include additional
funding for the joint research effort with the Environmental
Protection Agency and the U.S. Geological Survey into hydraulic
fracturing technologies. The Committee notes that it has
provided funding for this joint research effort over the prior
4 years, and that the Secretary is scheduled to submit a final
report to Congress during the summer of 2015. If the Department
chooses to pursue additional joint research after submission of
the final report, the Secretary may propose specified topics,
along with the total cost and expected duration of the
research, in the fiscal year 2017 budget request.
Risk-Based Data Management System.--Within available funds,
the Committee recommends $5,200,000 to continue the Risk-Based
Data Management System [RBDMS], and support the addition of
including water tracking in pre- and post-drilling applications
where States require them. Funds are also recommended to
integrate FracFocus and RBDMS for improved public access to
State oil and gas related data, as well as for State regulatory
agencies to support electronic permitting for operators, eForms
for improved processing time for new permits, operator training
for the improved FracFocus 3.0, and additional reports. The
Committee supports this initiative's continued efforts to
provide public transparency, while protecting proprietary
information.
Methane Hydrate Activities.--The Committee notes that the
request does not include funding for methane hydrate
activities. The Committee understands that instead of
requesting additional funds in fiscal year 2016 to continue
methane hydrates research, the Secretary instead elected to
spend the $15,000,000 provided in fiscal year 2015 more slowly,
contrary to the intent of Congress, and potentially delaying
important research activities for a year. The Committee
recommendation rejects the Secretary's approach, and provides,
within available funds, $19,800,000 for methane hydrates. The
Committee also encourages the Secretary to perform a long-term
methane hydrate production test in the Arctic, as proposed in
the Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee's May 21, 2014,
recommendations to the Secretary.
Environmentally Prudent Development.--The Committee
recommends $6,000,000 for Environmentally Prudent Development
subprogram.
Emissions Mitigations from Midstream Infrastructure.--The
Committee recommends $7,000,000 for Emissions Mitigation from
Midstream Infrastructure subprogram.
Emissions Quantification from Natural Gas Infrastructure.--
The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for Emissions
Quantification from Natural Gas Infrastructure research
subprogram.
UNCONVENTIONAL FOSSIL ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES
The Committee recommends $25,321,000 for Unconventional
Fossil Energy Technologies. The Secretary did not include any
funding in the fiscal year 2016 budget request, and the
Committee notes the importance of providing research support
that will assure sustainable, reliable, affordable, and
environmentally sound supplies of domestic unconventional
fossil energy resources.
In September 2011, the Secretary submitted its ``Domestic
Unconventional Fossil Energy Resource Opportunities and
Technology Applications'' report to Congress, as directed in
the fiscal year 2010 Energy and Water Development
Appropriations bill. The report outlines the domestic
unconventional resource opportunities and technology
applications of a comprehensive research, development, and
deployment [RD&D] strategy for unconventional oil, gas, and
coal resources. The Secretary is encouraged to fund high-
priority RD&D activities identified in the report, including
oil shale.
The Committee supports the Secretary's efforts to conduct
research on crude by rail safety. The Secretary is uniquely
suited to understand the characteristics of crude, including
volatility and other properties, which bear on safe methods of
transportation. Given the public safety concerns, the Committee
supports the joint effort with the Department of Transportation
to conduct and conclude the second phase of this study at the
soonest available time. Within funds available under this
heading, the Committee recommends up to $1,000,000 to provide
for the study. The Committee also encourages the Secretary to
examine the impacts of State and Federal regulations on
transportation and delivery of oil, including potential safety
and health risks.
Within available funds, the Committee encourages the
Secretary to support efforts to increase production of
unconventional fossil fuels through advanced technology and
modeling, including optimizing high resolution and time-lapse
geophysical methods for improved resource detection and better
rock characterization at the micro- and nano-scale. The
Committee also encourages the Secretary to examine the
feasibility of utilizing geothermal energy from produced fluids
for in-field energy requirements.
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $19,950,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 17,500,000
House Allowance......................................... 17,500,000
Committee recommendation................................ 17,500,000
The Committee recommends $17,500,000 for Naval Petroleum
and Oil Shale Reserves, the same as the budget request.
Strategic Petroleum Reserve
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $200,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 257,000,000
House Allowance......................................... 212,030,000
Committee recommendation................................ 200,000,000
The Committee recommends $200,000,000 for the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve, a decrease of $57,000,000 from the budget
request.
The Committee recognizes the work the Secretary is
undertaking to conduct a long-term strategic review of the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The Committee looks forward to the
results of the review, and the Secretary's recommendations on
future investments in infrastructure and associated
maintenance.
Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $1,600,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 7,600,000
House allowance......................................... 7,600,000
Committee recommendation................................ 7,600,000
The Committee recommends $7,600,000 for the Northeast Home
Heating Oil Reserve, the same as the request.
Energy Information Administration
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $117,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 131,000,000
House allowance......................................... 117,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 122,000,000
The Committee recommends $122,000,000 for the Energy
Information Administration, a decrease of $9,000,000 from the
budget request.
Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $246,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 220,185,000
House allowance......................................... 229,193,000
Committee recommendation................................ 244,000,000
The Committee recommends $244,000,000 for Non-Defense
Environmental Cleanup, an increase of $23,815,000 from the
budget request.
Small Sites.--The Committee recommends $77,822,000 for
Small Sites. Within the available funds, the Committee
recommends $6,000,000 to complete the design and initiate
construction of facilities pursuant to the agreement reached in
2012 between the Department of Energy, the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation, and State and local governments to
complete the demolition of K-25 in exchange for preserving the
historic contributions made by the K-25 site to the Manhattan
Project. The Secretary should consider this regulatory
requirement as no different than any other regulatory
requirement, and is directed to request appropriate funding to
satisfy the requirements of the National Historic Preservation
Act in future budget requests.
Within available funds, the Committee recommends
$17,000,000 to continue to deactivate, decommission, and
demolish facilities at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
Further, the Committee commends the Secretary for work to
preserve cultural and sacred sites at the Energy Technology
Engineering Center, and encourages the Secretary to continue
working with Native American tribes, the community, and other
Federal, State, and local agencies to ensure that this portion
of the property is preserved for future generations.
The Committee remains concerned that the Secretary is not
requesting adequate funding within the Non-Defense
Environmental Cleanup account. Further, the budget request
stated that the Department has no liability for the
decommissioning and decontamination of the Southwest
Experimental Fast Oxide Reactor, despite that facility being
constructed for, and used by, the Atomic Energy Commission.
Funding has been provided by Congress to complete the planning
work for cleanup. The Committee encourages the Secretary to
request sufficient funding to execute the work in future budget
requests, and execute the work via an innovative firm-fixed
price remediation contract.
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $625,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 542,289,000
House allowance......................................... 625,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 614,000,000
The Committee recommends $614,000,000 for Uranium
Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning [UED&D]
activities, an increase of $71,711,000 from the budget request.
The Committee recommendation includes $194,673,000 for East
Tennessee Technology Park [ETTP], $199,925,000 for Paducah, and
$165,417,000 for Portsmouth. Within available funds for ETTP,
the Committee recommendation includes up to $3,000,000 for
demolition of the Building K-1200 Complex if the Secretary
makes a determination under 42 U.S.C. 2296a-3(1)(b).
The Committee recommends $32,959,000 for the Title X
Uranium and Thorium Reimbursement Program. Title X of the
Energy Policy Act of 1992 authorizes the Secretary to reimburse
eligible licensees for the Federal Government's share of the
cost associated with cleaning up former uranium and thorium
processing sites across the country. The Committee continues to
be concerned about the accumulating balances and liabilities
owed to private licensees for the Department's failure to
address the Federal Government's cost share. The Committee
notes the administration requested funding for title X for the
first time since fiscal year 2008. Fulfilling the obligation to
fully reimburse licensees is important to the health and safety
of the impacted communities. Moving forward, the Committee
expects the Secretary to request sufficient resources within
its annual budget request to reimburse licensees for approved
claim balances.
The Committee directs the Secretary to provide a report
consistent with section 1805 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended by the Energy Policy Act of 1992, that requires the
Secretary to submit a report every 3 years to Congress on the
progress and success of the UED&D program. The report should
include an assessment of remaining facilities that require
UED&D cleanup along with any recommended changes to facilities
designated for cleanup funding. The last report was submitted
to Congress in December 2010.
Transparency on Uranium Transfers.--Congress included
permanent notification authority for the Secretary regarding
uranium transfers in the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act, 2015. The Committee supports increased
transparency in these transfers, and accordingly directs the
Secretary to make available to the public all secretarial
determinations under section 3112(d)(2)(B) of the USEC
Privatization Act, including all related reports, analyses,
data, and methodologies within 30 days after the notification
has been submitted or the determination has been made. The
Secretary is encouraged to develop and report recommendations
to the Committee, within 90 days after the enactment of this
act, to minimize the impact of uranium transfers on the
domestic uranium mining, conversion, and enrichment industries,
including any actions that would require new authority for the
Secretary to implement. The Secretary should also consider
measures that would allow the Department to contract directly
with domestic uranium industries to introduce uranium into the
market.
Science
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $5,071,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 5,339,794,000
House allowance......................................... 5,100,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,143,877,000
The Committee recommends $5,143,877,000 for Science, a
decrease of $195,917,000 from the budget request.
Distinguished Scientist Program.--The Committee recommends
directing up to $2,000,000 to support the Department's
Distinguished Scientist Program, as authorized in section 5011
of 42 U.S.C. 16537 to promote scientific and academic
excellence through collaborations between institutions of
higher education and National laboratories.
Brain Research through Advancing Innovative
Neurotechnologies [BRAIN] Initiative.--The Committee supports
the involvement of the Office of Science and both the
Interagency Working Group on Neuroscience and the National
Brain Observation Group, and encourages the Department to
collaborate with other agencies on the BRAIN Initiative. The
national laboratory system possesses skills, tools, and
methodologies to support the initiative, specifically through
the user facilities in high performance computing and
nanoscience supported by the Office of Science. Computational
resources at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory are already
being used to model and assess data to better understand brain
processes. Additionally, extensive biomedical imaging resources
and sensor technologies could be used to support this important
effort. This complementary, multi-agency initiative is
encouraged to take advantage of existing investments and
infrastructure while engaging closely with the neuroscience
community to accelerate our understanding of the brain.
ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH
The Committee recommends $620,994,000 for Advanced
Scientific Computing Research. The Committee believes its
recommendation would allow the Department to develop and
maintain world-class computing and network facilities for
science and deliver the necessary research in applied
mathematics, computer science, and advanced networking to
support the Department's missions.
The Committee strongly supports the exascale initiative,
which is critical to maintaining our Nation's global
competitiveness and supporting our national security. Exascale
computers will be capable of a thousand-fold increase in
sustained performance over today's petascale computers, which
have been in operation since 2008. The Committee understands
the goal of the Department's Exascale Computing Initiative is
to integrate efforts across industry, academia, and government
to address the technical challenges of exascale computing, and
to deploy by 2023, capable exascale computing systems.
Additional research is needed to achieve practical exascale
computing goals, and the Committee recommends including
$157,894,000 for exascale activities within the Office of
Science.
The Committee directs, within funds available, the
Secretary to broaden the Research Evaluation Prototype program
to support the design and development of node, system and
application prototypes. These efforts will support the
development of four exascale nodes, three system architecture
teams, and teams to develop initial plans for programming
exascale applications. Multiple teams are necessary to
adequately explore design options and to mitigate overall
project risk. Overall industry investment in this area is
significant, with billions of dollars in development costs for
next generation high performance computing systems. To
influence the trajectory of technology, the Department must
partner early with domestic vendors, and support a significant
share of these early design and development efforts.
The Committee also recommends $104,317,000 for the Oak
Ridge Leadership Computing Facility and $86,000,000 for the
National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center [NERSC]
facility at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Funding is
recommended to upgrade the NERSC infrastructure with power and
cooling within the new Computational Research and Theory [CRT]
building.
Within available funds, the Committee recommends
$38,000,000 for ESnet, the same as the budget request.
BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES
The Committee recommends $1,844,300,000 for Basic Energy
Sciences [BES]. Of these funds, $1,644,000,000 is for research.
Within available funds for operations and maintenance of
scientific user facilities, the Committee recommends
$254,990,000 for high-flux neutron sources, which will allow
for both Spallation Neutron Source [SNS] and High Flux Isotope
Reactor [HFIR] to proceed with the most critical deferred
repairs, replace outdated instruments, and make essential
machine improvements. Within available funds, $477,079,000 is
provided to support near-optimal operations for the five BES
light sources, including $125,500,000 the first full year of
operations for the newly constructed NSLS-II. The Committee
recognizes the critical role that light sources play in the
Nation's innovation ecosystem, and the growing reliance on them
by U.S. researchers and industry. In light of increased
international investment in these unique scientific resources
and the consequences for U.S. innovation leadership, the
Committee supports the Secretary's efforts to upgrade and renew
these facilities across the full spectrum of x-ray
capabilities. In addition to the operating budget request,
which is fully funded, an additional $10,000,000 is provided to
accelerate completion of the Conceptual Design Report for the
Second Target Station at the Spallation Neutron Source.
Further, $5,000,000 is provided for research and development
for the Advanced Light Source Upgrade. The Committee strongly
supports the continued upgrades to Generation IV facilities,
such as the Advanced Photon Source Upgrade project at Argonne
National Laboratory. Therefore, within available funds,
$20,000,000 is provided for the Advanced Photon Source Upgrade
project, the same as the budget request. To better plan for
costs of these upgrades and major construction projects, the
Committee requests the Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee
to provide a list prioritizing the order of the next five
projects not later than 90 days after enactment of this act.
The Committee also recommends $12,000,000 for exascale
systems, the same as the crosscut request for fiscal year 2016.
In future budget requests, the Committee directs the Office of
Science to work with the Office of Nuclear Energy to
demonstrate a commitment to operations and maintenance of
nuclear facilities at Oak Ridge National Laboratory that
supports multiple critical missions. As the Office of Science
considers what user facilities are needed for future scientific
research, the Secretary should have a balanced portfolio of
user facilities that gives researchers a breadth of ability to
make scientific discoveries.
Innovative new materials are needed that catalyze the
synthesis of ammonia without requiring an input of natural gas,
in order to reduce the overall energy budget of fertilizer
manufacturing, as well as ameliorate environmental concerns.
Given the production cost and century-old processes, the
Committee recommends within the funds provided $3,000,000 for a
competitive solicitation for universities to perform
fundamental research toward the development of a new generation
of nanostructured catalysts that can be used to synthesize
fertilizer and ammonia without any secondary greenhouse gases.
The Committee recommends $24,137,000 for the Batteries and
Energy Storage Hub, the Joint Center for Energy Storage
Research [JCESR]. The Committee is encouraged by the work of
JCESR which was initiated in fiscal year 2013 and focuses on
understanding the fundamental performance limitations for
electrochemical energy storage to launch the next generation,
beyond lithium-ion energy storage technologies relevant to both
the electrical grid and transportation. The Committee supports
the continued research and development for JCESR, to ensure the
outcome of basic research leads to practical solutions that are
competitive in the marketplace. The Committee commends JCESR
for expanding it partnership of national laboratories,
academia, and industry to additional members outside their
region.
The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for the Fuels from
Sunlight Hub, the Joint Center for Artificial Photosynthesis
[JCAP] which was established in fiscal year 2010, and extended
for a second 5-year term at a reduced scope. During the renewal
award period, JCAP will develop the knowledge, materials, and
components needed for generation of transportation fuel from
sunlight and carbon dioxide, with major emphasis on fundamental
discovery science of carbon dioxide reduction. The Committee is
aware of the positive changes evident in JCAP and the
milestone-driven research plan, and looks forward to the
capitalization on its scientific achievements, technology
development, and leveraging of public investment to advance
research efforts addressing critical needs in solar fuels
development.
The Committee also recommends $20,000,000 for the
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research
[EPSCoR]. The Committee recognizes the importance of supporting
basic research, spanning the broad range of the Department's
science and technology programs in States that have
historically received disproportionate Federal research funding
grants. The Committee encourages the Secretary to undertake
additional efforts to include EPSCoR States in energy research
activities related to the energy production and output
contribution of their State.
The Committee encourages the Secretary to continue funding
to support research and development needs of graduate and post-
graduate science programs at Historically Black Colleges and
Universities.
BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
The Committee recommends $610,000,000 for Biological and
Environmental Research. Within these funds, the Committee
recommends $294,271,000 for biological systems science and
$315,729,000 for climate and environmental sciences. Within
available funds, the Committee recommends $18,730,000 for
exascale computing, the same as the request for fiscal year
2016 crosscut.
Within available funds, the Committee recommends
$75,000,000 for three Bioenegy Research Centers. The Committee
recognizes the unique and beneficial role that the Department
plays for the Nation in the advancement of biosciences to
address core departmental missions in energy and the
environment. Therefore, the Committee strongly supports the
requested increases in funding for biosystems design to develop
new and transformative metabolic engineering capabilities for
bioenergy production and environmental solutions, and urges the
Secretary to consider opportunities to further support use-
inspired research in these areas with the increased funding.
The Committee encourages the Secretary to increase funding
for academia to perform climate model studies that include the
collection and evaluation of atmospheric data sets from
satellite observations obtained in cooperation with NASA.
Satellite observations of the atmosphere, within the context of
the Earth as a global system, provide information that is
critical in the interpretation of Earth-based observations. In
addition, the Committee encourages the Secretary to allocate 5
percent of the Department's funds spent on climate change
models, studies, or evaluations to create a Red Team, so as to
ensure science-based findings.
FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES
The Committee recommends $270,168,000 for Fusion Energy
Sciences.
U.S. Contribution to ITER.--The Committee recommends no
funding for the U.S. contribution to ITER.
The Committee has previously expressed and continues to
remain concerned about the rising cost of the United States'
participation in the International Thermonuclear Experimental
Reactor [ITER] under construction in Cadarache, France, as well
as management problems and continued delays. The United States
is to pay 9.09 percent of the projects' construction costs. In
2008, the total cost share for the United States was estimated
to be between $1,450,000,000 and $2,200,000,000, and is now
estimated to be somewhere between $4,000,000,000 and
$6,500,000,000. With declining budgets, the Committee believes
funding for the contribution to ITER is crowding out other
Federal science investments, including domestic fusion
research, as well as high performance computing and materials
science, where the United States has maintained leadership. In
addition, there is no approved cost or schedule baseline for
the project, and the Committee recommends not supporting a
project with no specified price tag or date of completion.
For these reasons, the Committee directs the Secretary to
work with the Department of State to withdraw from the ITER
project.
Within the funds for Fusion Energy Sciences, the Committee
recommends $2,750,000 to continue heavy ion fusion science
research at the Neutralized Drift Compression Experiment-II at
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS
The Committee recommends $788,100,000, for High Energy
Physics.
The Committee strongly supports the Secretary's efforts to
advance the recommendations of the Particle Physics Project
Prioritization Panel [P5] Report, which established clear
priorities for the domestic particle physics program over the
next 10 years under realistic budget scenarios. Within
available funds, the Committee recommends $19,000,000 for the
Long Baseline Neutrino Facility. The Committee supports ongoing
activities to advance project engineering and design, and site
preparation work at the Homestake Mine in South Dakota. The
Committee urges the Secretary to maintain a careful balance
among the competing priorities and among small, medium, and
large-scale projects. Therefore, to assist in implementation of
the P5 recommendations, the Committee recommendation provides
Cosmic Frontier Experimental Physics an additional $6,500,000
to fund the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument [DESI] at
$10,300,000 and the G2 Dark Matter Experiment LUX ZEPLIN at
$10,500,000, an increase of $6,500,000 above the request. The
Committee recommends $40,800,000 for the Large Synoptic Survey
Telescope Camera [LSSTcam], the same as the request.
NUCLEAR PHYSICS
The Committee recommends $591,500,000 for Nuclear Physics.
Within these funds, the Committee recommends $95,000,000 for
the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams and operations and research
for the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider [RHIC] for
$174,935,000.
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT FOR TEACHERS AND SCIENTISTS
The Committee recommends $19,500,000, for Workforce
Development for Teachers and Scientists. The Committee
recommends $1,000,000 to continue the Computational Sciences
Graduate Fellowship program.
SCIENCE LABORATORIES INFRASTRUCTURE
The Committee recommends $113,600,000 for Science
Laboratories Infrastructure. Within these funds, the Committee
recommends $12,000,000 for nuclear operations at Oak Ridge
National Laboratory and commends the Secretary for the cross-
cutting infrastructure initiative, which deals with long-
standing needs that underpin mission execution.
Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $280,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 325,000,000
House allowance......................................... 280,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 291,000,000
The Committee recommends $291,000,000 for the Advanced
Research Projects Agency--Energy [ARPA-E], a decrease of
$34,000,000 from the request. Within available funds, the
Committee recommends $28,000,000 for program direction. Since
receiving its first funding in fiscal year 2009, ARPA-E
continues to catalyze and support the development of
transformational, high-impact energy technologies to ensure the
Nation's economic and energy security and technological lead.
Project sponsors continue to form strategic partnerships and
new companies, as well as securing private sector funding to
help move ARPA-E technologies closer to the market. ARPA-E has,
in total, invested in more than 400 projects in 25 focused
program areas. The Committee supports the program's focus for
fiscal year 2016 on transportation fuels and feedstocks; energy
materials and processes; dispatchable energy; and sensors,
information and integration.
Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs
Appropriations, 2015....................................................
Budget estimate, 2016................................... $20,000,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................................
The Committee does not recommend funding for the Office of
Indian Energy Policy and Programs. The Committee recommendation
for the Department of Energy, however, includes funding for
activities proposed under this new account within the
Departmental Administration program, consistent with fiscal
year 2015.
Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
GROSS APPROPRIATION
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $42,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 42,000,000
House allowance......................................... 42,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 42,000,000
OFFSETTING RECEIPTS
Appropriations, 2015.................................... -$25,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... -25,000,000
House allowance......................................... -25,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ -25,000,000
NET APPROPRIATION
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $17,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 17,000,000
House allowance......................................... 17,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 17,000,000
The Committee recommends $42,000,000 in funding for the
Loan Guarantee Program, the same as the request. This funding
is offset by $25,000,000 in receipts from loan guarantee
applicants, for a net appropriation of $17,000,000. An
additional $68,000,000 in prior receipts from loan guarantee
applicants is credited to the bill as a scorekeeping
adjustment.
Tribal Indian Energy Loan Guarantee Program
Appropriations, 2015....................................................
Budget estimate, 2016................................... $11,000,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................................
The Committee recommends no funding for the Tribal Indian
Energy Loan Guarantee Program.
Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $4,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 6,000,000
House allowance......................................... 6,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 6,000,000
The Committee recommends $6,000,000 for the Advanced
Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program, the same as the
request.
Departmental Administration
(GROSS)
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $245,142,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 270,682,000
House allowance......................................... 191,200,000
Committee recommendation................................ 248,142,000
(MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES)
Appropriations, 2015.................................... -$119,171,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... -117,171,000
House allowance......................................... -117,171,000
Committee recommendation................................ -117,171,000
NET APPROPRIATION
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $125,971,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 153,511,000
House allowance......................................... 74,029,000
Committee recommendation................................ 130,971,000
The Committee recommends $248,142,000 in funding for
Departmental Administration, a decrease of $22,540,000 from the
request. This funding is offset by $117,171,000 in revenue for
a net appropriation of $130,971,000.
Nonprofit Cost Share.--The Committee notes that the
Secretary may reduce or eliminate the research and development
match requirement established in section 988 of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005, where necessary and appropriate. The
Committee encourages the Secretary to consider the use of this
discretion if the research goals of the Department of Energy
would be advanced by reducing or eliminating the match
requirement for nonprofit organizations and institutions.
Small Refinery Exemption.--Under section 211(o)(9)(B) of
the Clean Air Act, a small refinery may petition the EPA
Administrator for an exemption from the Renewable Fuel Standard
[RFS] on the basis that the refinery experiences a
disproportionate economic hardship under the RFS. When
evaluating a petition, the Administrator consults with the
Secretary of Energy to determine whether disproportionate
economic hardship exists. According to the Department's March
2011 Small Refinery Exemption Study, disproportionate economic
hardship must encompass two broad components: a high cost of
compliance relative to the industry average disproportionate
impacts, and an effect sufficient to cause a significant
impairment of the refinery operations viability.
If the Secretary finds that either of these two components
exists, the Committee directs the Secretary to recommend to the
EPA Administrator a 50 percent waiver of RFS requirements for
the petitioner. The Committee also directs the Secretary to
seek small refinery comment before making changes to its
scoring metrics for small refinery petitions for RFS waivers,
and to notify the Committee prior to making any final changes
to scoring metrics.
The Committee notes that the conference report accompanying
the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2010, addressed similar issues and directed
the Secretary to redo an earlier study done to evaluate whether
the RFS program imposes a disproportionate economic hardship on
small refineries. In calling for the Secretary to redo the
study, the conference report cited the lack of small refinery
input into the earlier study, concerns about regional RFS
compliance cost disparities, small refinery dependence on the
purchase of renewable fuel credits [RINs], and increasing RIN
costs. Since then, the dramatic rise in RIN prices has
amplified RFS compliance and competitive disparities,
especially where unique regional factors exist, including high
diesel demand, no export access, and limited biodiesel
infrastructure and production. In response to recent petitions,
the Secretary determined that the RFS program would impose a
disproportionate economic and structural impact on several
small refineries. Despite this determination, the Secretary did
not recommend, and EPA did not provide, any RFS relief because
it determined the refineries were profitable enough to afford
the cost of RFS compliance without substantially impacting
their viability. The Committee reminds the Secretary that the
RFS program may impose a disproportionate economic hardship on
a small refinery even if the refinery makes enough profit to
cover the cost of complying with the program. Small refinery
profitability does not justify a disproportionate regulatory
burden where Congress has explicitly given EPA authority, in
consultation with the Secretary, to reduce or eliminate this
burden.
Office of the Inspector General
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $40,500,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 46,424,000
House allowance......................................... 46,424,000
Committee recommendation................................ 46,424,000
The Committee recommends $46,424,000 for the Office of the
Inspector General, the same as the request.
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
The Committee recommends $12,263,276,000 for the National
Nuclear Security Administration [NNSA]. The Committee continues
funding for recapitalization of our nuclear weapons
infrastructure, while modernizing and maintaining a safe,
secure, and credible nuclear deterrent without testing. This is
among our most important national security priorities.
At the same time, the Committee supports continuing
important efforts to secure and permanently eliminate remaining
stockpiles of nuclear and radiological materials overseas and
in the United States that can be used for nuclear or
radiological weapons. In addition, the Committee supports Naval
Reactors and the important role they play in enabling the
Navy's nuclear fleet.
The Committee remains concerned about NNSA's ability to
concurrently execute multiple, highly complex life extension
programs and construction projects, but is encouraged by the
improved level of cooperation between NNSA and its primary
customer, the Department of Defense.
Use of Low-Enriched Uranium in Naval Reactors.--The
Committee notes that a window of opportunity exists to explore
and pursue the use of low-enriched uranium reactor fuel in the
Nation's submarine fleet as another round of replacements
approaches after the Ohio-class replacement. In addition to the
direction provided in the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
account, the NNSA Administrator is directed to develop a cost
estimate, budget profile, and schedule for undertaking this
effort; and determine the lead and participating organizations
in which such an effort should be executed. This assessment
shall be delivered to the Committee no later than 120 days
after enactment of this act.
Joint Effort on Energy Resilience and Operations Center.--
No NNSA fund in this act, or any other act, is available to
fund any effort in support of the Energy Resilience and
Operations Center, regardless of amount, unless it is submitted
to Congress as a reprogramming request in accordance with the
reprogramming requirements in this act.
INTEGRATED UNIVERSITY PROGRAM
The Committee directs the Secretary to carry out the
requirements of 42 U.S.C. 16274a in support of university
research and development in areas relevant to the NNSA's
mission. Within available funds, the Committee recommends not
less than $15,000,000 for the Integrated University Program to
cultivate the next generation of leaders in nonproliferation,
nuclear security, and international security. Together with
funds from the Office of Nuclear Energy and the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, this program ensures highly qualified
nuclear specialists will be available to meet national needs.
The Committee directs the Secretary to request funding for this
program in future budget years, and specifically highlight the
source of funds within the budget request. Further, funding for
this program shall not come from prior year funds.
COST ESTIMATING
The Committee is concerned with the continued poor cost
estimating by the Department, particularly within the NNSA.
Despite this problem having been the subject of many reviews
and studies over the past decade, the lack of progress shows
that the Department does not understand the root causes, and
has not implemented appropriate corrective actions. In November
2014, the Government Accountability Office [GAO] reported that
the Department's cost estimating requirements and guidance for
projects and programs generally do not reflect best practices
for developing cost estimates. GAO made a series of
recommendations to incorporate best practices into the
Department's requirements and guidance. While the Department
generally agreed with these recommendations, they have not
shown any urgency in implementing them. Similarly, in December
2014, GAO reported that several major construction projects had
incurred significant cost increases and schedule delays, and
that the Department was reassessing the originally selected
project alternative for these projects. When GAO assessed the
Department's process for selecting project alternatives, it
again found an overall lack of best practices. The Department
again agreed with the GAO recommendations, but was noncommittal
in providing dates for incorporating changes. The Secretary is
directed to provide a report to this Committee no later than 90
days after enactment of this act, that outlines the
Department's plan for improving cost estimating for major
projects and programs, including a line-by-line plan of action
for each open recommendation from the two GAO reports discussed
above.
Weapons Activities
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $8,186,657,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 8,846,948,000
House allowance......................................... 8,713,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 8,882,364,000
The Committee recommends $8,882,364,000 for Weapons
Activities, an increase of $35,416,000 from the budget request
to ensure the safety, security, reliability, and effectiveness
of the Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile without the need for
nuclear testing.
Directed Stockpile Work
The Committee recommends $3,039,474,000 for Directed
Stockpile Work.
Life Extension Programs.--The Committee recommends
$1,302,532,000 for Life Extension Programs and Major
Alterations, which fully funds all life extension programs and
major alterations in the budget request, consistent with the
plan of record approved by the Nuclear Weapons Council. NNSA
needs to ensure that Life Extension Programs are completed on
time and on budget to prevent impact on other high priorities,
such as modernizing aging infrastructure, critical
nonproliferation activities to combat nuclear terrorism, and
naval nuclear propulsion. As such, NNSA should consider
implementing a process for Life Extension Programs that is
similar to the process specified in DOE Order 413.3B for
capital projects.
W76 Life Extension Program.--The Committee recommends
$244,019,000 for the W76 Life Extension Program. Completing the
W76 Life Extension Program, which makes up the largest share of
the country's nuclear weapon deterrent on the most survivable
leg of the Triad, is this Committee's highest priority for life
extension programs.
B61 Life Extension Program.--The Committee recommends
$643,300,000 as requested for the B61 Life Extension Program.
The Committee supports the Nuclear Weapons Council plan to
retire the B83, the last megaton class weapon in the stockpile,
by 2025.
W88 Alt 370.--The Committee recommends $220,176,000 for the
W88 Alt 370. The Committee recognizes different categories of
nuclear weapon modernization programs. Life Extension Programs
include a comprehensive analysis of the weapon's components and
systems, followed by reuse, refurbishment or replacement of
those components and systems, to purposefully extend the life
of the weapon. Alterations are component changes, much less
intensive, and do not change the weapon's operational
capability. The distinction between a life extension program
and an alteration is important, and should be maintained.
Stockpile Services.--The Committee recommends $858,000,000
for stockpile services. Subcritical experiments at the Nevada
National Security Site provide the validation data for weapons
simulation codes and enhance the ability to predict the
behavior of aging weapons. NNSA is currently conducting one of
these experiments every 18 months, which limits participation
to one national laboratory. However, stockpile life extension
efforts may require greater participation by the national labs
and therefore, likely increased frequency of experiments.
Within funds provided in this account, NNSA is directed to plan
for two subcritical experiments per year to ensure that the
laboratories actively participating in life extension efforts
are involved in critical peer review and to realize shorter
cycle times in providing nuclear weapon designers needed
experimental data. This increased frequency could address key
certification issues associated with weapon systems scheduled
for Life Extension Program modernization.
Nuclear Material Commodities.--The Committee recommends
$344,516,000 for Nuclear Material Commodities.
Domestic Uranium Enrichment.--The Committee recommends
$50,000,000 for a domestic uranium enrichment capability. The
bill contains a provision that provides special reprogramming
authority of an additional $50,000,000 subject to the
Committee's normal notification guidelines. The Committee
directs that the Department of Energy shall use these funds
only to maintain existing centrifuges and facilities associated
with domestic enrichment capabilities and safeguard
intellectual property rights.
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND ENGINEERING
The Committee recommends $1,766,295,000 for Research,
Development, Technology, and Engineering.
Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High-Yield
Campaign.--The Committee recommends $511,050,000 for the
inertial confinement fusion ignition and high-yield campaign.
Within these funds, $329,000,000 shall be used for inertial
confinement fusion activities at the National Ignition Facility
[NIF], $44,500,000 shall be used for Sandia National
Laboratory's Z facility, and not less than $68,000,000 shall be
used for the University of Rochester's Omega facility. The
Committee supports ongoing efforts at NIF to operate more
efficiently and expand the base of academic users in order to
help attract top talent to stockpile stewardship. The Committee
supports NNSA efforts to better coordinate diagnostic
development efforts across national labs and universities for
use at the major inertial confinement fusion facilities to make
sure that critical diagnostics are available when needed.
Advanced Simulation and Computing.--The Committee
recommends $623,006,000 for advanced simulation and computing.
Within these funds, the Committee recommends no less than
$64,000,000 for activities associated with the exascale
initiative, such as advanced system architecture design
contracts with vendors and advanced weapons code development to
effectively use new high performance computing platforms.
READINESS IN TECHNICAL BASE AND FACILITIES
The Committee recommends $1,021,110,000 for Readiness in
Technical Base and Facilities.
Operations.--The Committee recommends $360,920,000 for
Operations. NNSA procedures require that the contracting
officer review each M&O contract at appropriate intervals, and
at least once every 5 years, and he or she should determine
whether meaningful improvement in performance or cost might
reasonably be achieved when making a final decision to compete
the existing contract. Within 120 days of enactment, NNSA
should provide a report to the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees that details the results of these reviews over the
last 5 years, and the schedule for reviews in the coming year.
Bannister Road Complex.--The Committee is concerned that
NNSA will not follow through on completion of all activities
needed to effectively turn over the Bannister Road Complex to a
private entity, consistent with section 3143 of the National
Defense Authorization Act, 2014. The Committee supports the
budget request for the Bannister Road Complex, and recommends,
within available funds, $7,800,000 for Site Surveillance,
$3,000,000 for long-term stewardship activities, and
$28,000,000 for Bannister Road Disposition. Further, the
Committee is concerned that while the budget request states
$200,000,000 will be required in fiscal year 2017 to complete
the transfer, funding has not been included in the current
outyear funding profile provided to the Committee with the
budget request. The Secretary is directed to provide a report
to the Committee no later than December 31, 2015 describing the
proposed schedule and funding plan for completing the transfer.
Construction.--The Committee recommends $660,190,000 for
major capital construction projects.
Project 06-D-141, Uranium Processing Facility, Y-12, Oak
Ridge, Tennessee.--The Committee recommends $430,000,000 to
continue design and engineering work as well as site readiness
and site preparation projects for the Uranium Processing
Facility.
The Committee supports efforts to replace existing enriched
uranium capabilities currently residing in Building 9212 by
2025 for not more than $6,500,000,000. The Committee believes
the recommendations from the Red Team are practical and lower
cost compared to the previous big box, single structure uranium
building design. The Committee believes NNSA should continue to
ensure full implementation of the Red Team recommendations to
maximize the use of existing facilities at Y-12 and build
smaller, more affordable facilities at the appropriate hazard
and security category, where needed. To accomplish this, NNSA
is breaking the project into more manageable sub-projects. This
practice is specifically permitted by DOE Order 413.3B, and is
a practical approach for this project. The Committee expects
the Secretary to ensure full compliance with the Department's
requirement to have a design that is at least 90 percent
complete before approving the start of construction for the
nuclear facilities. As such, the Committee specifically
authorizes site preparation and other construction activities
prior to completion of any required independent cost estimate
for the project.
Project 04-D-125, Chemistry and Metallurgy Research
Building Replacement Project, Los Alamos, New Mexico.--The
Committee recommends $155,610,000 to maximize the use of the
newly constructed Radiological Laboratory Utility Office
Building [RLUOB] and reuse laboratory space in PF-4 to
transition plutonium capabilities out of the aging Chemistry
and Metallurgy Research [CMR] building by 2019. Within these
funds, the Committee recommends organizing this work as sub-
projects under the existing CMRR line item project. The
Committee recommends $117,000,000 for the RLUOB Equipment
Installation Phase 2 sub-project, which transfers most
analytical chemistry capabilities from CMR to RLUOB, and
$38,610,000 for the PF-4 Equipment Installation sub-project
which transfers material characterization and remaining
analytical chemistry capabilities out of CMR to PF-4.
Secure Transportation Asset.--The Committee recommends
$219,000,000 for Secure Transportation Asset [STA]. The budget
request proposes a nearly 15 percent increase in funding for
STA, but does not provide adequate justification for the
increase. In addition, the recapitalization of STA equipment is
projected to cost more than originally thought. The Secretary
should ensure cost estimating and analysis of alternatives best
practices are incorporated into STA program planning before the
procurement plan is finalized.
DEFENSE NUCLEAR SECURITY
The Committee recommends $657,891,000 for Defense Nuclear
Security.
The recommendation provides additional funding above the
budget request to meet shortfalls anticipated for the
protective forces at Y-12 and other NNSA sites, and the need to
replace vital security infrastructure. The Committee is
concerned that NNSA has been overly aggressive in forecasting
savings from the new contract structure at Y-12 and Pantex, and
has not budgeted for a sufficient protective force to support
production work required in the life extension programs. The
Committee directs the Secretary to submit a report on the
processes NNSA follows to coordinate across the various NNSA
departments to ensure assumptions used in budget estimating for
support functions, such as security, are synchronized with the
primary missions of the site.
The Committee is concerned that the NNSA terminated the Y-
12 Security Improvements Project without completing the full
scope of work planned. The budget request also defers
improvements that are needed at the Pantex Plant. The Secretary
is encouraged to ensure that these investments are prioritized
and appropriately funded in future budget requests.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $1,616,638,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 1,940,302,000
House allowance......................................... 1,907,606,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,705,912,000
The Committee recommends $1,705,912,000 for Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation, a decrease of $234,390,000 from the budget
request.
DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION
Global Material Security.--The Committee recommends
$426,751,000 for Global Material Security to increase the
security of vulnerable stockpiles of nuclear weapons, weapons-
usable nuclear materials, and radiological materials and to
improve partner countries' abilities to deter, detect, and
interdict illicit trafficking. To ensure vital core
capabilities in this area are maintained, it is imperative that
the U.S. Government retain requisite expertise in uranium
science and engineering, with appropriate infrastructure
(laboratories, small-scale processing capability, and
equipment), and resources to support nonproliferation and
counter-proliferation efforts.
Of the amount provided, not less than $30,000,000 is for a
Uranium Science Institute for capacity building to both
preserve and advance uranium science and engineering expertise
and technology for national security and nonproliferation
initiatives. These efforts will include research and
development activities that improve and enhance knowledge of
uranium enrichment and processing, while establishing and
maintaining a core of personnel, laboratories, and equipment
that can address current and future U.S. Government needs.
Material Management and Minimization.--The Committee
recommends $311,584,000 for Material Management and
Minimization. Within these funds, the Committee recommends
$109,000,000 for Nuclear Material Removal. The removal of U.S.
and Russian origin HEU and LEU is an important mission, but
budget request proposes a greater than 65 percent increase
without sufficient justification. Also within these funds, the
Committee recommends $120,000,000 for HEU Reactor Conversion.
The Committee believes permanently eliminating supplies of HEU
around the world significantly reduces the threat of nuclear
terrorism. The Navy is the largest consumer of HEU for power
generation. Within the funds provided for HEU Reactor
Conversion, not less than $5,000,000 shall be used to start a
technical program managed by Naval Reactors to develop and
qualify an LEU fuel system for naval cores.
Moly-99.--The Committee remains concerned about the
development of domestic supplies of the medical isotope Moly-99
on a schedule necessary to assure the public health and meet
the expectations set forth in the Committee's fiscal year 2015
report. Further, NNSA's efforts to develop a domestic source of
Moly-99 from other than high-enriched uranium should include,
but not be limited to, low-enriched uranium and natural
molybdenum. The Committee directs NNSA to submit a report to
the Appropriations Committees by January 31, 2016 on ways it
plans to assure the deployment of two or more domestic sources
of Moly-99 into commercial distribution by January 1, 2019 or
sooner.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Research and
Development.--The Committee recommends $419,333,000 for Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation Research and Development, an increase
of $25,932,000 from the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. The
Committee supports a robust research and development capability
to support nonproliferation initiatives.
Nonproliferation Construction.--The Committee recommends
$345,000,000 and adopts the budget request for the Mixed Oxide
Fuel Fabrication Facility [MFFF]. The Committee directs the
Secretary to form a Red Team, similar to the UPF Red Team, to
review the project and make recommendations. The Red Team
review should be completed in sufficient time to inform the
fiscal year 2017 budget request.
Nuclear Counterterrorism and Incident Response.--The
Committee funds Nuclear Counterterrorism and Incident Response
within the Weapons Activities account, and accordingly
recommends no appropriation under Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation.
Legacy Contractor Pensions.--The Committee recommends
$94,617,000 for legacy contractor defined benefit pension
plans.
Naval Reactors
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $1,234,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 1,375,496,000
House allowance......................................... 1,322,820,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,300,000,000
The Committee recommends $1,300,000,000 for Naval Reactors,
a decrease of $75,496,000 from the budget request. The
Committee's recommendation fully funds important national
priorities, including the Ohio-class replacement submarine
design and the prototype refueling. The Committee also
recommends full funding for Naval Reactors Operations and
Infrastructure, recognizing the importance of safe operations
of the prototype reactors in New York and the spent fuel
facility in Idaho, while properly maintaining overall
infrastructure and facilities at four sites.
OHIO-CLASS REPLACEMENT REACTOR SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT
The Committee recommends $186,800,000 for Ohio-Class
Replacement Reactor Systems Development.
NAVAL REACTORS DEVELOPMENT
The Committee recommends $430,400,000 for Naval Reactors
Development.
Advanced Test Reactor.--The Committee encourages Naval
Reactors and the Office of Nuclear Energy to continue working
with the Idaho National Laboratory to establish and request
adequate funding in future budget requests to ensure the
continued reliable, safe operation of the Advanced Test
Reactor, a vital and unique research facility. The Committee
recommends $67,200,000 for ATR operation.
CONSTRUCTION
The Committee recommends $62,100,000 for Construction.
Within available funds, the Committee recommends $48,000,000
for the Spent Fuel Handling Facility in Idaho and $3,100,000
for the Engine Room Team Trainer. The requirements set forth in
50 U.S.C. 2406 make the Deputy Administrator for Naval
Reactors, within the Department of Energy, responsible for
training conducted at the prototype reactors, including
training and qualification of personnel who supervise, operate,
or maintain naval nuclear propulsion plants. For this reason,
and because this is a capital project required for that mission
at a NNSA site, this project should continue to be funded
through the Naval Reactors account within the NNSA.
PROGRAM DIRECTION
The Committee recommends $42,504,000 for Program Direction.
The Committee recommendation does not approve the requested
increase in FTEs, and restricts manning to 238 FTEs.
Federal Salaries and Expenses
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $370,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 402,654,000
House allowance......................................... 388,500,000
Committee recommendation................................ 375,000,000
The Committee recommends $375,000,000, a decrease of
$27,654,000 from the budget request. Within these funds, the
Committee recommends $2,000,000 for the Office of Cost
Estimating and Program Evaluation and $972,000 for improved
financial systems integration within the Department in
accordance with the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act,
section 3112. The Committee supports efforts to gain
consistency in accounting across the Nuclear Security
Enterprise so meaningful comparisons and analysis can be
conducted, and management can focus its effort on the
appropriate areas. The Committee urges the Secretary to
complete the report required in section 3112, which was due in
December 2014.
Defense Environmental Cleanup
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $5,000,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 5,055,550,000
House allowance......................................... 5,055,550,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,180,000,000
The Committee recommendation for Defense Environmental
Cleanup is $5,180,000,000, an increase of $124,450,000 from the
budget request. Within available funds, the Department is
directed to fund the Hazardous Waste Worker Training Program.
DEFERRED MAINTENANCE
The Committee is concerned that the Department is not
addressing the backlog of deferred maintenance across the
complex. Despite the stated goal of improving the facility
maintenance activities and reinvestment projects to arrest
growth in deferred maintenance, it is unclear how the
Department intends to accomplish this goal, or measure its
progress. The Secretary is directed to submit, as part of its
annual budget request starting with the fiscal year 2017
request, a prioritized list of the deferred maintenance it
intends to accomplish in each of the next 5 years, including
the rationale for the prioritization and the planned cost for
each item. Further, the Committee expects the Secretary to
request adequate funding to complete the maintenance consistent
with its plan.
Closure Sites.--The Committee recommends $4,889,000 for
Closure Sites activities.
Richland.--As a signatory to the Tri-Party Agreement, the
Department of Energy is required to meet specific compliance
milestones toward the cleanup of the Hanford site. Among other
things, the Department committed to provide the funding
necessary to enable full compliance with its cleanup
milestones. Unfortunately, if the Department's fiscal year 2016
budget request were enacted, several future fiscal year Tri-
Party Agreement milestones could be at risk, threatening high
risk cleanup projects near the city of Richland, Washington and
the economically and environmentally important Columbia River.
The Committee recognizes that significant progress has been
made at the Hanford Site. However, because the Department's
budget request could slow or halt critical cleanup work and
threaten the Department's compliance with its legal obligations
under the Tri-Party Agreement, the Committee recommends
$922,590,000 for Richland Operations. Additional funding is
provided for cleanup of the 300-296 waste site, continued
remediation of the 618-10 burial ground, and community and
regulatory support. Within available funds in the River
Corridor control point, the Department is directed to carry out
maintenance and public safety efforts at the B Reactor, the
Manhattan Project National Historical Park, and the Hazardous
Materials Management and Emergency Response facilities.
NNSA Sites.--The Committee recommends $254,876,000 for NNSA
sites.
Oak Ridge Reservation.--The Committee recommends
$223,050,000 for Oak Ridge Reservation. Within the funds
available for Nuclear Facility D&D, the Committee recommends an
additional $5,000,000 to support compliance and design life
extension of Waste Treatment Facilities at Oak Ridge National
Laboratory and $7,000,000 to support planning and preparation
for a new landfill for the Oak Ridge Reservation. The existing
on-site disposal facility is expected to reach capacity before
all cleanup activities are completed. Planning for a new
landfill is necessary to ensure that there is no interruption
of cleanup activities.
U-233 Disposition Program.--The Committee recommends
$35,895,000 for the cleanup of Building 3019. Removal of legacy
material from this building, an aging facility in the heart of
the Oak Ridge National Laboratory central campus, must remain a
high priority for the Department. Timely completion of this
effort will enable the overall security posture at the
laboratory to be relaxed, which will reduce costs and eliminate
nuclear safety issues, and make campus more conducive to
collaborative science.
Mercury Treatment Facility.--The Committee recommends
$9,400,000 for the Outfall 200 Mercury Treatment Facility, an
increase of $2,600,000 from the budget request. Remediation of
mercury contamination at the Oak Ridge Reservation is an
important precursor to full site remediation. Reducing the
mercury being released into the East Fork of Poplar Creek is a
high priority for the Environmental Management program. Given
the significant risk to public health, the Committee urges the
Department to continue to pursue efforts to prevent mercury
from escaping into the environment.
Office of River Protection.--The Committee recommends
$1,414,000,000 for the Office of River Protection.
The Committee is supportive of the Department's efforts at
technology development efforts to reduce the overall volume of
radioactive wastes needing treatment and disposal. Preliminary
work on technologies capable of removing the salts from the
low-activity tank waste streams has been undertaken. Within
available funds, the Department is directed to complete this
effort by conducting system conceptual design and cost estimate
activities in order to gain a deeper understanding of its
potential within recent waste treatment system changes.
Savannah River Site.--The Committee recommends
$1,208,421,000 for the Savannah River site. Within the funds
provided, $3,000,000 is provided for disposition of spent fuel
from the High Flux Isotope Reactor.
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.--The Committee recommends
$243,318,000 for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.
The Committee encourages the Secretary to take all
appropriate actions to reopen the facility on schedule and
demonstrate the ability operate in a safe manner. Worker safety
must continue to be a priority for the Department and its
contractors. The Committee is disappointed with the lack of a
detailed budget to adequately explain and justify the recovery
work and ensure that the recovery is not delayed by funding
issues. The Committee requests that the Department develop and
maintain a detailed budget of the WIPP recovery plan and
provide it to the Committee on a semi-annual basis to account
for work and needed projects.
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Federal
Contribution
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $463,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 471,797,000
House allowance......................................... 471,797,000
Committee recommendation................................ 614,000,000
The Committee recommends $614,000,000 to fully offset the
fiscal year 2016 appropriation for the Uranium Enrichment
Decontamination and Decommissioning account. The Committee
recommendation does not include authorization of a legislative
proposal to reinstate a tax on nuclear utilities.
Other Defense Activities
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $754,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 774,425,000
House allowance......................................... 767,570,000
Committee recommendation................................ 764,000,000
The Committee recommends $764,000,000 for Other Defense
Activities, a decrease of $10,425,000 from the budget request.
Within the funds provided, the Committee recommends
$215,000,000 for Specialized Security Activities.
POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS
Bonneville Power Administration Fund
Appropriations, 2015....................................................
Budget estimate, 2016...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................................
The bill approves expenditures from the Bonneville Power
Administration Fund for the Shoshone Paiute Trout Hatchery, the
Spokane Tribal Hatchery, the Snake River Sockeye Weirs.
Operations and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration
Appropriations, 2015....................................................
Budget estimate, 2016...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................................
The Committee recommends a net appropriation of $0 for the
Southeastern Power Administration. Appropriations of $6,900,000
are fully offset by collections.
Operations and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $11,400,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 11,400,000
House allowance......................................... 11,400,000
Committee recommendation................................ 11,400,000
The Committee recommends a net appropriation of $11,400,000
for the Southwestern Power Administration.
Construction, Rehabilitation, Operations and Maintenance, Western Area
Power Administration
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $93,372,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 93,372,000
House allowance......................................... 93,372,000
Committee recommendation................................ 93,372,000
The Committee recommends a net appropriation of $93,372,000
for the Western Area Power Administration.
Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $228,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 228,000
House allowance......................................... 228,000
Committee recommendation................................ 228,000
The Committee recommends a net appropriation of $228,000
for the Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $304,389,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 319,800,000
House allowance......................................... 319,800,000
Committee recommendation................................ 319,800,000
REVENUES APPLIED
Appropriations, 2015.................................... -$304,389,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... -319,800,000
House allowance......................................... -319,800,000
Committee recommendation................................ -319,800,000
The Committee recommends a net appropriation of $0 for the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee recommendation compared to--
Enacted Budget estimate House allowance Committee --------------------------------------------------
recommendation Enacted Budget estimate House allowance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENERGY PROGRAMS
ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE
ENERGY
Sustainable Transportation:
Vehicle technologies......... 280,000 444,000 255,400 292,000 +12,000 -152,000 +36,600
Bioenergy technologies....... 225,000 246,000 165,300 225,000 ............... -21,000 +59,700
Hydrogen and fuel cell 97,000 103,000 94,083 97,000 ............... -6,000 +2,917
technologies................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Sustainable 602,000 793,000 514,783 614,000 +12,000 -179,000 +99,217
Transportation............
Renewable Energy:
Solar energy................. 233,000 336,700 151,600 241,600 +8,600 -95,100 +90,000
Wind energy.................. 107,000 145,500 90,450 46,000 -61,000 -99,500 -44,450
Water power.................. 61,000 67,000 38,700 65,000 +4,000 -2,000 +26,300
Geothermal technologies...... 55,000 96,000 46,000 71,000 +16,000 -25,000 +25,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Renewable Energy. 456,000 645,200 326,750 423,600 -32,400 -221,600 +96,850
Energy Efficiency:
Advanced manufacturing....... 200,000 404,000 205,000 214,000 +14,000 -190,000 +9,000
Building technologies........ 172,000 264,000 150,362 178,000 +6,000 -86,000 +27,638
Federal energy management 27,000 43,088 18,800 27,000 ............... -16,088 +8,200
program.....................
Weatherization and
intergovernmental:
Weatherization:
Weatherization 190,000 223,999 190,000 197,000 +7,000 -26,999 +7,000
assistance program..
Training and 3,000 4,000 3,000 3,000 ............... -1,000 ...............
technical assistance
NREL Site-Wide ............... 400 400 400 +400 ............... ...............
Facility Support....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, 193,000 228,399 193,400 200,400 +7,400 -27,999 +7,000
Weatherization....
State energy program grants.. 50,000 70,100 50,000 50,000 ............... -20,100 ...............
Local technical assistance ............... 20,000 ............... ............... ............... -20,000 ...............
program.....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Weatherization 243,000 318,499 243,400 250,400 +7,400 -68,099 +7,000
and intergovernmental
program...................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Energy Efficiency 642,000 1,029,587 617,562 669,400 +27,400 -360,187 +51,838
Corporate Support:
Facilities and
infrastructure:
National Renewable Energy 56,000 62,000 56,000 62,000 +6,000 ............... +6,000
Laboratory [NREL].......
Program direction............ 160,000 165,330 150,000 160,000 ............... -5,330 +10,000
Strategic programs........... 21,000 27,870 12,000 21,000 ............... -6,870 +9,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Corporate Support 237,000 255,200 218,000 243,000 +6,000 -12,200 +25,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Energy efficiency 1,937,000 2,722,987 1,677,095 1,950,000 +13,000 -772,987 +272,905
and renewable energy......
Use of Prior Year Balances....... ............... ............... -19,321 ............... ............... ............... +19,321
Rescissions...................... -13,065 ............... ............... ............... +13,065 ............... ...............
Floor amendments................. ............... ............... 11,000 ............... ............... ............... -11,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, ENERGY EFFICENCY AND 1,923,935 2,722,987 1,668,774 1,950,000 +26,065 -772,987 +281,226
RENEWABLE ENERGY..........
======================================================================================================================
ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY
RELIABILITY
Research and development:
Clean energy transmission and 34,262 40,000 31,000 31,000 -3,262 -9,000 ...............
reliability.................
Smart grid research and 15,439 30,000 30,000 15,307 -132 -14,693 -14,693
development.................
Cyber security for energy 45,999 52,000 54,500 45,999 ............... -6,001 -8,501
delivery systems............
Energy storage............... 12,000 21,000 15,000 16,000 +4,000 -5,000 +1,000
Transformer resilience and ............... 10,000 10,000 5,000 +5,000 -5,000 -5,000
advanced components.........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 107,700 153,000 140,500 113,306 +5,606 -39,694 -27,194
National electricity delivery.... 6,000 7,500 6,000 6,000 ............... -1,500 ...............
Infrastructure security and 6,000 14,000 14,000 6,000 ............... -8,000 -8,000
energy restoration..............
State energy reliability and ............... 63,000 ............... ............... ............... -63,000 ...............
assurance.......................
Program direction................ 27,606 32,600 27,000 27,000 -606 -5,600 ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Electricity 147,306 270,100 187,500 152,306 +5,000 -117,794 -35,194
Delivery and Energy
Reliability...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, ELECTRICITY DELIVERY 147,306 270,100 187,500 152,306 +5,000 -117,794 -35,194
AND ENERGY RELIABILITY....
======================================================================================================================
NUCLEAR ENERGY
Research and development:
Integrated university program 5,000 ............... 5,000 5,000 ............... +5,000 ...............
STEP R&D..................... 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 ............... ............... ...............
Small modular reactor 54,500 62,500 62,500 62,500 +8,000 ............... ...............
licensing technical support.
Nuclear energy enabling 101,000 86,387 111,600 101,000 ............... +14,613 -10,600
technologies................
Reactor concepts RD&D........ 133,000 108,140 141,718 117,874 -15,126 +9,734 -23,844
Fuel cycle research and 197,000 217,760 175,800 217,000 +20,000 -760 +41,200
development.................
International nuclear energy 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 ............... ............... ...............
cooperation.................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 498,500 482,787 504,618 511,374 +12,874 +28,587 +6,756
Infrastructure:
Radiological facilities
management:
Space and defense 20,000 ............... ............... 14,000 -6,000 +14,000 +14,000
infrastructure..........
Research reactor 5,000 6,800 6,800 6,800 +1,800 ............... ...............
infrastructure..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............... 25,000 6,800 6,800 20,800 -4,200 +14,000 +14,000
INL facilities management:
INL operations and 200,631 209,826 216,582 209,826 +9,195 ............... -6,756
infrastructure..........
Construction:
16-E-200 Sample ............... 2,000 2,000 2,000 +2,000 ............... ...............
preparation
laboratory..........
13-D-905 Remote- 5,369 ............... ............... ............... -5,369 ............... ...............
handled low level
waste disposal
project, INL........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, 5,369 2,000 2,000 2,000 -3,369 ............... ...............
Construction......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, INL 206,000 211,826 218,582 211,826 +5,826 ............... -6,756
facilities
management........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, 231,000 218,626 225,382 232,626 +1,626 +14,000 +7,244
Infrastructure....
Idaho sitewide safeguards and 104,000 126,161 126,161 126,161 +22,161 ............... ...............
security........................
Program direction................ 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 ............... ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Nuclear Energy... 913,500 907,574 936,161 950,161 +36,661 +42,587 +14,000
Rescission....................... -80,000 ............... ............... ............... +80,000 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, NUCLEAR ENERGY...... 833,500 907,574 936,161 950,161 +116,661 +42,587 +14,000
======================================================================================================================
FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT
Coal CCS and power systems:
Carbon capture............... 88,000 116,631 97,800 88,000 ............... -28,631 -9,800
Carbon storage............... 100,000 108,768 104,000 99,000 -1,000 -9,768 -5,000
Advanced energy systems...... 103,000 39,385 105,000 103,000 ............... +63,615 -2,000
Cross cutting research....... 49,000 51,242 52,100 49,000 ............... -2,242 -3,100
NETL coal research and 50,000 34,031 50,000 53,000 +3,000 +18,969 +3,000
development.................
STEP (Supercritical CO2)..... 10,000 19,300 15,000 10,000 ............... -9,300 -5,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, CCS and power 400,000 369,357 423,900 402,000 +2,000 +32,643 -21,900
systems...................
Natural Gas Technologies:
CCS demonstrations:
Natural gas carbon ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
capture and storage.....
Research................. 25,121 44,000 21,200 43,000 +17,879 -1,000 +21,800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Natural Gas 25,121 44,000 21,200 43,000 +17,879 -1,000 +21,800
Technologies..........
Unconventional fossil energy 4,500 ............... 13,000 25,321 +20,821 +25,321 +12,321
technologies from petroleum--oil
technologies....................
Program direction................ 119,000 114,202 120,000 115,000 -4,000 +798 -5,000
Plant and capital equipment...... 15,782 18,044 18,003 15,782 ............... -2,262 -2,221
Fossil energy environmental 5,897 8,197 8,197 8,197 +2,300 ............... ...............
restoration.....................
Super computer................... ............... 5,500 ............... ............... ............... -5,500 ...............
Special recruitment programs..... 700 700 700 700 ............... ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, FOSSIL ENERGY 571,000 560,000 605,000 610,000 +39,000 +50,000 +5,000
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT..
======================================================================================================================
NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE 19,950 17,500 17,500 17,500 -2,450 ............... ...............
RESERVES........................
ELK HILLS SCHOOL LANDS FUND...... 15,580 ............... ............... ............... -15,580 ............... ...............
STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE...... 200,000 257,000 212,030 200,000 ............... -57,000 -12,030
NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL
RESERVE
NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL 7,600 7,600 7,600 7,600 ............... ............... ...............
RESERVE.........................
Rescission....................... -6,000 ............... ............... ............... +6,000 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, NORTHEAST HOME 1,600 7,600 7,600 7,600 +6,000 ............... ...............
HEATING OIL RESERVE.......
======================================================================================================================
ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION 117,000 131,000 117,000 122,000 +5,000 -9,000 +5,000
NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP
Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility 2,562 2,562 2,562 2,562 ............... ............... ...............
(WA)............................
Gaseous Diffusion Plants......... 104,403 104,403 104,403 104,403 ............... ............... ...............
Small sites...................... 80,049 54,007 61,715 77,822 -2,227 +23,815 +16,107
West Valley Demonstration Project 58,986 59,213 59,213 59,213 +227 ............... ...............
Construction:
Mercury storage facility..... ............... ............... 1,300 ............... ............... ............... -1,300
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, NON-DEFENSE 246,000 220,185 229,193 244,000 -2,000 +23,815 +14,807
ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP.....
======================================================================================================================
URANIUM ENRICHMENT
DECONTAMINATION
AND DECOMMISSIONING FUND
Oak Ridge........................ 167,898 154,235 163,946 194,673 +26,775 +40,438 +30,727
Paducah:
Nuclear facility D&D, Paducah 198,729 167,456 192,456 198,729 ............... +31,273 +6,273
Construction:
15-U-407 On-site waste 8,486 ............... ............... ............... -8,486 ............... ...............
disposal facility,
Paducah.................
16-U-401 Solid waste ............... 1,196 1,196 1,196 +1,196 ............... ...............
management units 5&6....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Paducah......... 207,215 168,652 193,652 199,925 -7,290 +31,273 +6,273
Portsmouth:
Nuclear facility D&D, 209,524 131,117 156,117 131,117 -78,407 ............... -25,000
Portsmouth..................
Construction:
15-U-408 On-site waste 4,500 34,300 57,300 34,300 +29,800 ............... -23,000
disposal facility,
Portsmouth..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Portsmouth...... 214,024 165,417 213,417 165,417 -48,607 ............... -48,000
Pension and community and 25,863 21,026 21,026 21,026 -4,837 ............... ...............
regulatory support..............
Title X uranium/thorium 10,000 32,959 32,959 32,959 +22,959 ............... ...............
reimbursement program...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, UED&D FUND.......... 625,000 542,289 625,000 614,000 -11,000 +71,711 -11,000
======================================================================================================================
SCIENCE
Advanced scientific computing 541,000 620,994 537,539 620,994 +79,994 ............... +83,455
research........................
Basic energy sciences:
Research..................... 1,594,500 1,649,000 1,578,440 1,644,000 +49,500 -5,000 +65,560
Construction:
13-SC-10 LINAC coherent 138,700 200,300 191,866 200,300 +61,600 ............... +8,434
light source II, SLAC...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction. 138,700 200,300 191,866 200,300 +61,600 ............... +8,434
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Basic energy 1,733,200 1,849,300 1,770,306 1,844,300 +111,100 -5,000 +73,994
sciences..............
Biological and environmental 592,000 612,400 538,000 610,000 +18,000 -2,400 +72,000
research........................
Fusion energy sciences:
Research..................... 317,500 270,000 317,600 270,168 -47,332 +168 -47,432
Construction:
14-SC-60 ITER............ 150,000 150,000 150,000 ............... -150,000 -150,000 -150,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Fusion energy 467,500 420,000 467,600 270,168 -197,332 -149,832 -197,432
sciences..............
High energy physics:
Research..................... 729,000 731,900 717,900 722,000 -7,000 -9,900 +4,100
Construction:
11-SC-40 Project 12,000 16,000 18,000 26,000 +14,000 +10,000 +8,000
engineering and design
[PED] long baseline
neutrino experiment,
FNAL....................
11-SC-41 Muon to electron 25,000 40,100 40,100 40,100 +15,100 ............... ...............
conversion experiment,
FNAL....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction. 37,000 56,100 58,100 66,100 +29,100 +10,000 +8,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, High energy 766,000 788,000 776,000 788,100 +22,100 +100 +12,100
physics...............
Nuclear physics:
Operations and maintenance... 489,000 517,100 510,665 489,000 ............... -28,100 -21,665
Construction:
14-SC-50 Facility for 90,000 100,000 98,000 95,000 +5,000 -5,000 -3,000
rare isotope beams,
Michigan State
University..............
06-SC-01 12 GeV 16,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 -9,000 ............... ...............
continuous electron beam
facility upgrade, TJNAF.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction. 106,500 107,500 105,500 102,500 -4,000 -5,000 -3,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Nuclear 595,500 624,600 616,165 591,500 -4,000 -33,100 -24,665
physics...............
Workforce development for 19,500 20,500 20,500 19,500 ............... -1,000 -1,000
teachers and scientists.........
Science laboratories
infrastructure:
Infrastructure support:
Payment in lieu of taxes. 1,713 1,713 1,713 1,713 ............... ............... ...............
Oak Ridge landlord....... 5,777 ............... 6,177 6,177 +400 +6,177 ...............
Facilities and 6,100 30,977 10,000 24,800 +18,700 -6,177 +14,800
infrastructure..........
Oak Ridge nuclear ............... 12,000 12,000 12,000 +12,000 ............... ...............
operations..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............... 13,590 44,690 29,890 44,690 +31,100 ............... +14,800
Construction:
15-SC-78 Integrative 12,090 20,000 16,000 20,000 +7,910 ............... +4,000
genomics building, LBNL.
15-SC-77 Photon science 10,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 +15,000 ............... ...............
laboratory building,
SLAC....................
15-SC-76 Materials design 7,000 23,910 19,000 23,910 +16,910 ............... +4,910
laboratory, ANL.........
15-SC-75 Infrastructure 25,000 ............... ............... ............... -25,000 ............... ...............
and operational
improvements, PPPL......
12-SC-70 Science and user 11,920 ............... ............... ............... -11,920 ............... ...............
support building, SLAC..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............... 66,010 68,910 60,000 68,910 +2,900 ............... +8,910
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Science 79,600 113,600 89,890 113,600 +34,000 ............... +23,710
laboratories
infrastructure........
Safeguards and security.......... 93,000 103,000 103,000 100,715 +7,715 -2,285 -2,285
Science program direction........ 183,700 187,400 181,000 185,000 +1,300 -2,400 +4,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Science.......... 5,071,000 5,339,794 5,100,000 5,143,877 +72,877 -195,917 +43,877
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, SCIENCE............. 5,071,000 5,339,794 5,100,000 5,143,877 +72,877 -195,917 +43,877
======================================================================================================================
NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL........... ............... ............... 150,000 ............... ............... ............... -150,000
ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY-
ENERGY
ARPA-E projects.................. 252,000 295,750 252,000 263,000 +11,000 -32,750 +11,000
Program direction................ 28,000 29,250 28,000 28,000 ............... -1,250 ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, ARPA-E.............. 280,000 325,000 280,000 291,000 +11,000 -34,000 +11,000
INDIAN ENERGY PROGRAMS
Program direction............ ............... 3,510 ............... ............... ............... -3,510 ...............
Tribal energy program........ ............... 16,490 ............... ............... ............... -16,490 ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, INDIAN ENERGY ............... 20,000 ............... ............... ............... -20,000 ...............
PROGRAMS..................
TITLE 17--INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY
LOAN GUARANTEE PGM
Administrative expenses.......... 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 ............... ............... ...............
Offsetting collection............ -25,000 -25,000 -25,000 -25,000 ............... ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, TITLE 17--INNOVATIVE 17,000 17,000 17,000 17,000 ............... ............... ...............
TECHNOLOGY LOAN GUARANTEE
PROGRAM...................
======================================================================================================================
TRIBAL INDIAN ENERGY LOAN
GUARANTEE PROGRAM
Loan guarantee credit subsidy ............... 9,000 ............... ............... ............... -9,000 ...............
costs.......................
Administrative operations.... ............... 2,000 ............... ............... ............... -2,000 ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, TRIBAL INDIAN ENERGY ............... 11,000 ............... ............... ............... -11,000 ...............
LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM....
======================================================================================================================
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES
MANUFACTURING LOAN PGM
Administrative expenses.......... 4,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 +2,000 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 4,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 +2,000 ............... ...............
VEHICLESMANUFACTURING LOAN
PROGRAM...................
======================================================================================================================
CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY -6,600 ............... ............... ............... +6,600 ............... ...............
(RESCISSION)....................
DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION
Administrative operations:
Salaries and expenses:
Office of the Secretary:
Program direction.... 5,008 5,300 5,008 5,008 ............... -292 ...............
Chief Financial 47,000 50,182 47,000 47,000 ............... -3,182 ...............
Officer.............
Management........... 62,946 76,227 64,598 62,946 ............... -13,281 -1,652
Chief human capital 24,500 25,400 24,500 24,500 ............... -900 ...............
officer.............
Chief Information 33,188 30,988 30,988 30,988 -2,200 ............... ...............
Officer.............
Office of Indian 16,000 ............... 16,000 16,000 ............... +16,000 ...............
energy policy and
programs............
Congressional and 6,300 6,300 6,300 6,300 ............... ............... ...............
intergovernmental
affairs.............
Office Of Small and 2,253 3,000 3,000 3,000 +747 ............... ...............
disadvantaged
business utilization
Economic impact and 6,200 10,000 10,000 10,000 +3,800 ............... ...............
diversity...........
General Counsel...... 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 ............... ............... ...............
Energy policy and 31,181 35,000 31,297 31,297 +116 -3,703 ...............
systems analysis....
International Affairs 13,000 23,600 13,000 18,000 +5,000 -5,600 +5,000
Public affairs....... 3,431 3,431 3,431 3,431 ............... ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Salaries and 284,007 302,428 288,122 291,470 +7,463 -10,958 +3,348
expenses..............
Program support:
Economic impact and 2,800 ............... ............... ............... -2,800 ............... ...............
diversity...............
Policy analysis and ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
system studies..........
Environmental policy ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
studies.................
Climate change technology ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
program (prog. supp)....
Cybersecurity and secure 21,364 21,006 21,006 21,006 -358 ............... ...............
communications..........
Corporate IT program 19,612 27,806 20,850 20,224 +612 -7,582 -626
support (CIO)...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Program 43,776 48,812 41,856 41,230 -2,546 -7,582 -626
support...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, 327,783 351,240 329,978 332,700 +4,917 -18,540 +2,722
Administrative
operations............
Strategic partnership 42,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 -2,000 ............... ...............
projects (SPP)..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Departmental 369,783 391,240 369,978 372,700 +2,917 -18,540 +2,722
administration............
Use of prior-year balances....... -5,805 -2,000 ............... -2,000 +3,805 ............... -2,000
Digital service team--CIO........ ............... 4,000 ............... ............... ............... -4,000 ...............
Funding from other defense -118,836 -122,558 -122,558 -122,558 -3,722 ............... ...............
activities......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Departmental 245,142 270,682 247,420 248,142 +3,000 -22,540 +722
administration (gross)....
======================================================================================================================
Miscellaneous revenues........... -119,171 -117,171 -117,171 -117,171 +2,000 ............... ...............
Floor amendments................. ............... ............... -56,220 ............... ............... ............... +56,220
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, DEPARTMENTAL 125,971 153,511 74,029 130,971 +5,000 -22,540 +56,942
ADMINISTRATION (net)......
======================================================================================================================
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
Office of the inspector general.. 40,500 46,424 46,000 46,424 +5,924 ............... +424
Floor amendments................. ............... ............... 424 ............... ............... ............... -424
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, OFFICE OF THE 40,500 46,424 46,424 46,424 +5,924 ............... ...............
INSPECTOR GENERAL.........
======================================================================================================================
TOTAL, ENERGY PROGRAMS..... 10,232,742 11,554,964 10,279,211 10,502,839 +270,097 -1,052,125 +223,628
======================================================================================================================
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION
WEAPONS ACTIVITIES
Directed stockpile work:
B61 Life extension program... 643,000 643,300 643,300 643,300 +300 ............... ...............
W76 Life extension program... 259,168 244,019 244,019 244,019 -15,149 ............... ...............
W88 Life extension program... 165,400 220,176 220,176 220,176 +54,776 ............... ...............
Cruise missile warhead life 9,418 ............... ............... ............... -9,418 ............... ...............
extension study.............
W80-4 Life extension program. ............... 195,037 195,037 195,037 +195,037 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 1,076,986 1,302,532 1,302,532 1,302,532 +225,546 ............... ...............
Stockpile systems:
B61 Stockpile systems.... 109,615 52,247 52,247 52,247 -57,368 ............... ...............
W76 Stockpile systems.... 45,728 50,921 50,921 50,921 +5,193 ............... ...............
W78 Stockpile systems.... 62,703 64,092 64,092 64,092 +1,389 ............... ...............
W80 Stockpile systems.... 70,610 68,005 68,005 68,005 -2,605 ............... ...............
B83 Stockpile systems.... 63,136 42,177 42,177 42,177 -20,959 ............... ...............
W87 Stockpile systems.... 91,255 89,299 89,299 89,299 -1,956 ............... ...............
W88 Stockpile systems.... 88,060 115,685 115,685 115,685 +27,625 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............... 531,107 482,426 482,426 482,426 -48,681 ............... ...............
Weapons dismantlement and 50,000 48,049 48,049 52,000 +2,000 +3,951 +3,951
disposition.................
Stockpile services:
Production support....... 350,942 447,527 447,527 430,000 +79,058 -17,527 -17,527
Research and Development 25,500 34,159 41,059 32,000 +6,500 -2,159 -9,059
support.................
R and D certification and 160,000 192,613 185,000 170,000 +10,000 -22,613 -15,000
safety..................
Management, technology, 226,000 264,994 258,527 226,000 ............... -38,994 -32,527
and production..........
Plutonium sustainment.... 132,000 ............... ............... ............... -132,000 ............... ...............
Tritium readiness........ 140,053 ............... ............... ............... -140,053 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............... 1,034,495 939,293 932,113 858,000 -176,495 -81,293 -74,113
Strategic materials:
Uranium sustainment...... ............... 32,916 32,916 32,916 +32,916 ............... ...............
Plutonium sustainment.... ............... 174,698 174,698 157,000 +157,000 -17,698 -17,698
Tritium sustainment...... ............... 107,345 107,345 104,600 +104,600 -2,745 -2,745
Domestic uranium ............... 100,000 50,000 50,000 +50,000 -50,000 ...............
enrichment..............
Strategic materials ............... ............... 224,217 ............... ............... ............... -224,217
sustainment.............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............... ............... 414,959 589,176 344,516 +344,516 -70,443 -244,660
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Directed 2,692,588 3,187,259 3,354,296 3,039,474 +346,886 -147,785 -314,822
stockpile work........
Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation (RDT&E):
Science:
Advanced certification... 58,747 50,714 58,747 50,714 -8,033 ............... -8,033
Primary assessment 109,000 98,500 104,100 98,500 -10,500 ............... -5,600
technologies............
Dynamic materials 109,000 109,000 100,400 109,000 ............... ............... +8,600
properties..............
Advanced radiography..... 47,000 47,000 27,000 47,000 ............... ............... +20,000
Secondary assessment 88,344 84,400 72,900 84,400 -3,944 ............... +11,500
technologies............
Academic alliances and ............... ............... 49,800 ............... ............... ............... -49,800
partnerships............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............... 412,091 389,614 412,947 389,614 -22,477 ............... -23,333
Engineering:
Enhanced surety.......... 52,003 50,821 50,821 50,821 -1,182 ............... ...............
Weapons system 20,832 17,371 17,371 17,371 -3,461 ............... ...............
engineering assessment
technology..............
Nuclear survivability.... 25,371 24,461 24,461 24,461 -910 ............... ...............
Enhanced surveillance.... 37,799 38,724 38,724 38,724 +925 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............... 136,005 131,377 131,377 131,377 -4,628 ............... ...............
Inertial confinement fusion
ignition and high yield:
Ignition................. 77,994 73,334 76,334 76,334 -1,660 +3,000 ...............
Support of other 23,598 22,843 22,843 22,843 -755 ............... ...............
stockpile programs......
Diagnostics, cryogenics 61,297 58,587 58,587 58,587 -2,710 ............... ...............
and experimental support
Pulsed power inertial 5,024 4,963 4,963 4,963 -61 ............... ...............
confinement fusion......
Joint program in high 9,100 8,900 8,900 8,900 -200 ............... ...............
energy density
laboratory plasmas......
Facility operations and 335,882 333,823 339,423 339,423 +3,541 +5,600 ...............
target production.......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............... 512,895 502,450 511,050 511,050 -1,845 +8,600 ...............
Advanced simulation and 598,000 623,006 605,000 623,006 +25,006 ............... +18,006
computing...................
Advanced manufacturing
development:
Additive manfacturing........ 12,600 ............... 16,000 ............... -12,600 ............... -16,000
Component manufacturing 75,000 112,256 80,000 93,448 +18,448 -18,808 +13,448
development.................
Process technology 19,600 17,800 17,800 17,800 -1,800 ............... ...............
development.................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 107,200 130,056 113,800 111,248 +4,048 -18,808 -2,552
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, RDT&E............ 1,766,191 1,776,503 1,774,174 1,766,295 +104 -10,208 -7,879
Infrastructure and Operations
(formerly RTBF):
Operations of facilities:
Kansas City Plant........ 125,000 ............... 100,250 ............... -125,000 ............... -100,250
Lawrence Livermore 71,000 ............... 70,671 ............... -71,000 ............... -70,671
National Laboratory.....
Los Alamos National 198,000 ............... 196,460 ............... -198,000 ............... -196,460
Laboratory..............
Nevada Test Site......... 89,000 ............... 89,000 ............... -89,000 ............... -89,000
Pantex................... 75,000 ............... 58,021 ............... -75,000 ............... -58,021
Sandia National 106,000 ............... 115,300 ............... -106,000 ............... -115,300
Laboratory..............
Savannah River Site...... 81,000 ............... 80,463 ............... -81,000 ............... -80,463
Y-12 National Security 151,000 ............... 120,625 ............... -151,000 ............... -120,625
Complex.................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............... 896,000 ............... 830,790 ............... -896,000 ............... -830,790
Program readiness............ 68,000 75,185 ............... 60,000 -8,000 -15,185 +60,000
Material recycle and recovery 126,000 173,859 ............... 160,000 +34,000 -13,859 +160,000
Containers................... 26,000 ............... ............... ............... -26,000 ............... ...............
Storage...................... 40,800 40,920 ............... 40,920 +120 ............... +40,920
Safety and environmental ............... ............... 107,701 ............... ............... ............... -107,701
operations..................
Maintenance and repair of
facilities:
Maintenance and repair of 227,000 ............... ............... ............... -227,000 ............... ...............
facilities..................
Site maintenance............. ............... ............... 252,000 ............... ............... ............... -252,000
High-risk excess facilities.. ............... ............... 25,000 ............... ............... ............... -25,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Maintenance and 227,000 ............... 277,000 ............... -227,000 ............... -277,000
repair of facilities......
Recapitalization:
Recapitalization............. 224,600 104,327 ............... 100,000 -124,600 -4,327 +100,000
Infrastructure and safety.... ............... ............... 253,724 ............... ............... ............... -253,724
Capability based investments. ............... ............... 98,800 ............... ............... ............... -98,800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Recapitalization. 224,600 104,327 352,524 100,000 -124,600 -4,327 -252,524
Construction:
16-D-140 Project ............... ............... 34,103 ............... ............... ............... -34,103
engineering and design,
various locations.......
16-D-621 TA-3 Substation ............... ............... 25,000 ............... ............... ............... -25,000
replacement, LANL.......
15-D-613 Emergency 2,000 ............... ............... ............... -2,000 ............... ...............
Operations Center, Y-12.
15-D-301 HE Science & 11,800 ............... ............... ............... -11,800 ............... ...............
Engineering Facility, PX
15-D-302 TA-55 16,062 18,195 ............... 18,195 +2,133 ............... +18,195
Reinvestment project
III, LANL...............
12-D-301 TRU waste 6,938 ............... ............... ............... -6,938 ............... ...............
facility project, LANL..
11-D-801 TA-55 10,000 3,903 3,903 3,903 -6,097 ............... ...............
Reinvestment project II,
LANL....................
07-D-220 Radioactive ............... 11,533 11,533 11,533 +11,533 ............... ...............
liquid waste treatment
facility, LANL..........
07-O-220-04 Transuranic 7,500 40,949 ............... 40,949 +33,449 ............... +40,949
liquid waste facility,
LANL....................
Uranium processing facility
(UPF):
06-D-141 Uranium 335,000 430,000 ............... 430,000 +95,000 ............... +430,000
Processing Facility, Y-
12......................
Project engineering and ............... ............... 289,128 ............... ............... ............... -289,128
design, UPF.............
06-D-141-02 Site ............... ............... 140,872 ............... ............... ............... -140,872
preparation, UPF........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, UPF.......... 335,000 430,000 430,000 430,000 +95,000 ............... ...............
Chemistry and metallurgy
replacement (CMRR):
04-D-125 Chemistry and 35,700 155,610 ............... 155,610 +119,910 ............... +155,610
metallurgy replacement
project, LANL...........
04-D-125-04 RLUOB ............... ............... 117,000 ............... ............... ............... -117,000
equipment installation,
phase 2.................
04-D-125-05 PF-4 ............... ............... 38,610 ............... ............... ............... -38,610
equipment installation..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, CMRR......... 35,700 155,610 155,610 155,610 +119,910 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction. 425,000 660,190 660,149 660,190 +235,190 ............... +41
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, 2,033,400 1,054,481 2,228,164 1,021,110 -1,012,290 -33,371 -1,207,054
Infrastructure and
Operations............
Secure transportation asset:
Operations and equipment..... 121,882 146,272 140,000 121,882 ............... -24,390 -18,118
Program direction............ 97,118 105,338 92,000 97,118 ............... -8,220 +5,118
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Secure 219,000 251,610 232,000 219,000 ............... -32,610 -13,000
transportation asset......
Nuclear counterterrorism incident 177,940 ............... ............... 234,390 +56,450 +234,390 +234,390
response........................
Counterterrorism and 46,093 ............... ............... ............... -46,093 ............... ...............
counterproliferation programs...
Infrastructure and safety
Operations of facilities ............... 100,250 ............... 100,250 +100,250 ............... +100,250
Kansas City Plant...........
Lawrence Livermore National ............... 70,671 ............... 70,671 +70,671 ............... +70,671
Laboratory..................
Los Alamos National ............... 196,460 ............... 196,460 +196,460 ............... +196,460
Laboratory..................
Nevada National Security Site ............... 89,000 ............... 89,000 +89,000 ............... +89,000
Pantex....................... ............... 58,021 ............... 58,021 +58,021 ............... +58,021
Sandia National Laboratory... ............... 115,300 ............... 115,300 +115,300 ............... +115,300
Savannah River Site.......... ............... 80,463 ............... 80,463 +80,463 ............... +80,463
Y-12 National security ............... 120,625 ............... 120,625 +120,625 ............... +120,625
complex.....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Operations of ............... 830,790 ............... 830,790 +830,790 ............... +830,790
facilities................
Safety operations............ ............... 107,701 ............... 107,701 +107,701 ............... +107,701
Maintenance.................. ............... 227,000 ............... 227,000 +227,000 ............... +227,000
Recapitalization............. ............... 257,724 ............... 257,724 +257,724 ............... +257,724
Construction:
16-D-621 Substation ............... 25,000 ............... 25,000 +25,000 ............... +25,000
replacement at TA-3,
LANL....................
15-D-613 Emergency ............... 17,919 ............... 17,919 +17,919 ............... +17,919
Operations Center, Y-12.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Construction.... ............... 42,919 ............... 42,919 +42,919 ............... +42,919
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Infrastructure ............... 1,466,134 ............... 1,466,134 +1,466,134 ............... +1,466,134
and safety............
Site stewardship................. 76,531 36,595 ............... 36,595 -39,936 ............... +36,595
Defense nuclear security:
Defense nuclear security..... 636,123 619,891 634,891 644,891 +8,768 +25,000 +10,000
Security improvements program ............... ............... 35,000 ............... ............... ............... -35,000
Construction:
14-D-710 Device assembly ............... 13,000 13,000 13,000 +13,000 ............... ...............
facility argus
installation project, NV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Defense 636,123 632,891 682,891 657,891 +21,768 +25,000 -25,000
nuclear security......
Information technology and cyber 179,646 157,588 157,588 157,588 -22,058 ............... ...............
security........................
Legacy contractor pensions....... 307,058 283,887 283,887 283,887 -23,171 ............... ...............
Domestic uranium enrichment...... 97,200 ............... ............... ............... -97,200 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Weapons 8,231,770 8,846,948 8,713,000 8,882,364 +650,594 +35,416 +169,364
Activities................
Rescission....................... -45,113 ............... ............... ............... +45,113 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, WEAPONS ACTIVITIES.. 8,186,657 8,846,948 8,713,000 8,882,364 +695,707 +35,416 +169,364
======================================================================================================================
DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Programs:
Global material security:
International nuclear ............... 130,527 130,527 130,527 +130,527 ............... ...............
security....................
Radiological security........ ............... 153,749 153,749 153,749 +153,749 ............... ...............
Nuclear smuggling detection.. ............... 142,475 138,673 142,475 +142,475 ............... +3,802
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Global material ............... 426,751 422,949 426,751 +426,751 ............... +3,802
security..................
Material management and
minimization:
HEU reactor conversion....... ............... 115,000 115,000 120,000 +120,000 +5,000 +5,000
Nuclear material removal..... ............... 114,000 114,000 109,000 +109,000 -5,000 -5,000
Material disposition......... ............... 82,584 81,584 82,584 +82,584 ............... +1,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Material ............... 311,584 310,584 311,584 +311,584 ............... +1,000
management and
minimization..............
Nonproliferation and arms control ............... 126,703 130,203 126,703 +126,703 ............... -3,500
Defense nuclear nonproliferation 393,401 419,333 419,333 419,333 +25,932 ............... ...............
R&D.............................
Nonproliferation construction:
99-D-143 Mixed Oxide (MOX) ............... 345,000 345,000 345,000 +345,000 ............... ...............
Fuel Fabrication Facility,
SRS.........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Nonproliferation ............... 345,000 345,000 345,000 +345,000 ............... ...............
construction..............
Global threat reduction
initiative:
HEU reactor conversion....... 119,383 ............... ............... ............... -119,383 ............... ...............
International nuclear and 117,737 ............... ............... ............... -117,737 ............... ...............
radiological material
removal and protection......
Domestic radiological 88,632 ............... ............... ............... -88,632 ............... ...............
material removal and
protection..................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Global threat 325,752 ............... ............... ............... -325,752 ............... ...............
reduction initiative......
Nonproliferation and 141,359 ............... ............... ............... -141,359 ............... ...............
international security..........
International materials 270,911 ............... ............... ............... -270,911 ............... ...............
protection and cooperation......
Fissile materials disposition:
U.S. plutonium disposition... 60,000 ............... ............... ............... -60,000 ............... ...............
U.S. uranium disposition..... 25,000 ............... ............... ............... -25,000 ............... ...............
Construction:
99-D-143 Mixed oxide fuel 345,000 ............... ............... ............... -345,000 ............... ...............
fabrication facility,
Savannah River, SC..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction..... 345,000 ............... ............... ............... -345,000 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Fissile materials 430,000 ............... ............... ............... -430,000 ............... ...............
disposition...............
Legacy contractor pensions....... 102,909 94,617 94,617 94,617 -8,292 ............... ...............
Nuclear counterterrorism and ............... 234,390 234,390 ............... ............... -234,390 -234,390
incident response program.......
Use of prior-year balances....... -22,963 -18,076 -39,076 -18,076 +4,887 ............... +21,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Defense Nuclear 1,641,369 1,940,302 1,918,000 1,705,912 +64,543 -234,390 -212,088
Nonproliferation..........
Rescission....................... -24,731 ............... -10,394 ............... +24,731 ............... +10,394
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, DEFENSE NUCLEAR 1,616,638 1,940,302 1,907,606 1,705,912 +89,274 -234,390 -201,694
NONPROLIFERATION..........
======================================================================================================================
NAVAL REACTORS
Naval reactors development....... 411,180 444,400 414,642 430,400 +19,220 -14,000 +15,758
OHIO replacement reactor systems 156,100 186,800 186,800 186,800 +30,700 ............... ...............
development.....................
S8G Prototype refueling.......... 126,400 133,000 133,000 133,000 +6,600 ............... ...............
Naval reactors operations and 390,000 445,196 424,452 445,196 +55,196 ............... +20,744
infrastructure..................
Construction:
15-D-904 NRF Overpack Storage 400 900 900 900 +500 ............... ...............
Expansion 3.................
15-D-903 KL Fire System 600 600 600 600 ............... ............... ...............
Upgrade.....................
15-D-902 KS Engineroom team ............... 3,100 ............... 3,100 +3,100 ............... +3,100
trainer facility............
14-D-902 KL Materials ............... 30,000 30,000 9,000 +9,000 -21,000 -21,000
characterization laboratory
expansion, KAPL.............
14-D-901 Spent fuel handling 70,000 86,000 86,000 48,000 -22,000 -38,000 -38,000
recapitalization project,
NRF.........................
13-D-905 Remote-handled low- 14,420 ............... ............... ............... -14,420 ............... ...............
level waste disposal
project, INL................
13-D-904 KS Radiological work 20,100 ............... ............... ............... -20,100 ............... ...............
and storage building, KSO...
10-D-903, Security upgrades, 7,400 500 500 500 -6,900 ............... ...............
KAPL........................
08-D-190 Expended Core 400 ............... ............... ............... -400 ............... ...............
Facility M-290 recovering
discharge station, NRF, ID..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction..... 113,320 121,100 118,000 62,100 -51,220 -59,000 -55,900
Program direction................ 41,500 45,000 43,500 42,504 +1,004 -2,496 -996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Naval Reactors... 1,238,500 1,375,496 1,320,394 1,300,000 +61,500 -75,496 -20,394
Rescission....................... -4,500 ............... ............... ............... +4,500 ............... ...............
Floor amendments................. ............... ............... 2,500 ............... ............... ............... -2,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, NAVAL REACTORS...... 1,234,000 1,375,496 1,322,894 1,300,000 +66,000 -75,496 -22,894
======================================================================================================================
FEDERAL SALARIES AND EXPENSES.... 370,000 402,654 388,000 375,000 +5,000 -27,654 -13,000
Floor amendments................. ............... ............... -2,426 ............... ............... ............... +2,426
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, FEDERAL SALARIES AND 370,000 402,654 385,574 375,000 +5,000 -27,654 -10,574
EXPENSES..................
======================================================================================================================
TOTAL, NATIONAL NUCLEAR 11,407,295 12,565,400 12,329,074 12,263,276 +855,981 -302,124 -65,798
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION...
======================================================================================================================
DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP
Closure sites.................... 4,889 4,889 4,889 4,889 ............... ............... ...............
Richland:
River corridor and other 377,788 196,957 275,831 270,710 -107,078 +73,753 -5,121
cleanup operations..........
Central plateau remediation.. 497,456 555,163 555,163 555,163 +57,707 ............... ...............
RL community and regulatory 19,701 14,701 14,701 19,701 ............... +5,000 +5,000
support.....................
Construction:
15-D-401 Containerized 46,055 77,016 77,016 77,016 +30,961 ............... ...............
sludge removal annex, RL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Richland..... 941,000 843,837 922,711 922,590 -18,410 +78,753 -121
Idaho National Laboratory:
Idaho cleanup and waste 377,293 357,783 387,783 357,783 -19,510 ............... -30,000
disposition.................
Idaho community and 2,910 3,000 3,000 3,000 +90 ............... ...............
regulatory support..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Idaho National 380,203 360,783 390,783 360,783 -19,420 ............... -30,000
Laboratory................
NNSA sites and Nevada offsites:
Lawrence Livermore National 1,366 1,366 1,366 1,366 ............... ............... ...............
Laboratory..................
Nevada....................... 64,851 62,385 62,385 62,385 -2,466 ............... ...............
Sandia National Laboratory... 2,801 2,500 2,500 2,500 -301 ............... ...............
Los Alamos National 185,000 188,625 180,000 188,625 +3,625 ............... +8,625
Laboratory..................
Construction:
15-D-406 Hexavalent 4,600 ............... ............... ............... -4,600 ............... ...............
chromium Pump and
Treatment facility, LANL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, NNSA sites and 258,618 254,876 246,251 254,876 -3,742 ............... +8,625
Nevada off-sites......
Oak Ridge Reservation:
OR Nuclear facility D&D...... 73,155 75,958 84,958 95,958 +22,803 +20,000 +11,000
U233 disposition program..... ............... 26,895 35,895 35,895 +35,895 +9,000 ...............
OR cleanup and waste 131,930 60,500 60,500 68,597 -63,333 +8,097 +8,097
disposition.................
Construction:
15-D-405 Sludge 4,200 ............... ............... ............... -4,200 ............... ...............
processing facility
buildouts...............
14-D-403 Outfall 200 9,400 6,800 9,400 9,400 ............... +2,600 ...............
mercury treatment
facility................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction. 13,600 6,800 9,400 9,400 -4,200 +2,600 ...............
OR community & regulatory 4,365 4,400 4,400 10,400 +6,035 +6,000 +6,000
support.....................
OR Technology development and ............... 2,800 2,800 2,800 +2,800 ............... ...............
deployment..................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Oak Ridge 223,050 177,353 197,953 223,050 ............... +45,697 +25,097
Reservation...............
Office of River Protection:
Construction:
15-D-409 Low activity 23,000 75,000 75,000 56,000 +33,000 -19,000 -19,000
waste pretreatment
sysem, ORP..............
01-D-16 A-D, Waste 563,000 595,000 545,000 595,000 +32,000 ............... +50,000
treatment and
immobilization plant,
ORP.....................
01-D-16 E, Waste 104,000 95,000 70,000 95,000 -9,000 ............... +25,000
treatment and
immobilization plant,
Pretreatment facility,
ORP.....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Construction.... 690,000 765,000 690,000 746,000 +56,000 -19,000 +56,000
Tank farm activities:
Rad liquid tank waste 522,000 649,000 578,000 668,000 +146,000 +19,000 +90,000
stabilization and
disposition.............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Office of 1,212,000 1,414,000 1,268,000 1,414,000 +202,000 ............... +146,000
river protection......
Savannah River Site:
SR site risk management 397,976 386,652 389,652 386,652 -11,324 ............... -3,000
operations..................
SR community and regulatory 11,013 11,249 11,249 11,249 +236 ............... ...............
support.....................
SR radioactive liquid tank 547,318 581,878 562,000 581,878 +34,560 ............... +19,878
waste stabilization and
disposition.................
Construction:
15-D-402 Saltstone 30,000 34,642 34,642 34,642 +4,642 ............... ...............
disposal Unit #6, SRS...
05-D-405 Salt waste 135,000 194,000 194,000 194,000 +59,000 ............... ...............
processing facility, SRS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Savannah River 1,121,307 1,208,421 1,191,543 1,208,421 +87,114 ............... +16,878
Site..................
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant:
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.. 304,000 212,600 ............... 212,600 -91,400 ............... +212,600
Operations and maintenance... ............... ............... 116,800 ............... ............... ............... -116,800
Recovery activities.......... ............... ............... 87,000 ............... ............... ............... -87,000
Central characterization ............... ............... 35,000 ............... ............... ............... -35,000
project.....................
Transportation............... ............... ............... 16,339 ............... ............... ............... -16,339
Construction:
15-D-411 Safety 12,000 23,218 23,218 23,218 +11,218 ............... ...............
significant confinement
ventilation system, WIPP
15-D-412 Exhaust shaft, 4,000 7,500 7,500 7,500 +3,500 ............... ...............
WIPP....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Waste isolation 320,000 243,318 285,857 243,318 -76,682 ............... -42,539
pilot plant...........
Program direction................ 280,784 281,951 281,951 281,951 +1,167 ............... ...............
Program support.................. 14,979 14,979 14,979 14,979 ............... ............... ...............
Safeguards and Security.......... 240,000 236,633 236,633 236,633 -3,367 ............... ...............
Technology development........... 14,000 14,510 14,000 14,510 +510 ............... +510
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Defense 5,010,830 5,055,550 5,055,550 5,180,000 +169,170 +124,450 +124,450
Environmental Cleanup.....
Rescission....................... -10,830 ............... ............... ............... +10,830 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, DEFENSE 5,000,000 5,055,550 5,055,550 5,180,000 +180,000 +124,450 +124,450
ENVIRONMENTAL CLEAN UP....
======================================================================================================================
Defense Environmental Cleanup ............... 471,797 ............... ............... ............... -471,797 ...............
(Legislative proposal)..........
DEFENSE URANIUM ENRICHMENT 463,000 ............... 471,797 614,000 +151,000 +614,000 +142,203
DECONTAMINATION AND
DECOMMISSIONING.................
OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
Environment, health, safety and
security:
Environment, health, safety 118,763 120,693 120,693 118,763 ............... -1,930 -1,930
and security................
Program direction............ 62,235 63,105 63,105 62,235 ............... -870 -870
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Environment, 180,998 183,798 183,798 180,998 ............... -2,800 -2,800
Health, safety and
security..................
Independent enterprise
assessments:
Independent enterprise 24,068 24,068 24,068 24,068 ............... ............... ...............
assessments.................
Program direction............ 49,466 49,466 49,466 49,466 ............... ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Independent 73,534 73,534 73,534 73,534 ............... ............... ...............
enterprise assessments....
Specialized security activities.. 203,152 221,855 215,000 217,952 +14,800 -3,903 +2,952
Office of Legacy Management:
Legacy management............ 158,639 154,080 154,080 154,080 -4,559 ............... ...............
Program direction............ 13,341 13,100 13,100 13,100 -241 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Office of Legacy 171,980 167,180 167,180 167,180 -4,800 ............... ...............
Management................
Defense related administrative 118,836 122,558 122,558 118,836 ............... -3,722 -3,722
support.........................
Office of hearings and appeals... 5,500 5,500 5,500 5,500 ............... ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, OTHER DEFENSE 754,000 774,425 767,570 764,000 +10,000 -10,425 -3,570
ACTIVITIES................
======================================================================================================================
TOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY 17,624,295 18,867,172 18,623,991 18,821,276 +1,196,981 -45,896 +197,285
DEFENSE ACTIVITIES........
======================================================================================================================
POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS
(1)
SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION
Operation and maintenance:
Purchase power and 89,710 83,600 83,600 83,600 -6,110 ............... ...............
wheeling................
Program direction........ 7,220 6,900 6,900 6,900 -320 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Operation and 96,930 90,500 90,500 90,500 -6,430 ............... ...............
maintenance...........
Less alternative financing -16,131 -17,100 -17,100 -17,100 -969 ............... ...............
[PPW].......................
Offsetting collections (for -73,579 -66,500 -66,500 -66,500 +7,079 ............... ...............
PPW)........................
Offsetting collections (PD).. -2,220 -6,900 -6,900 -6,900 -4,680 ............... ...............
Use of prior-year balances... -5,000 ............... ............... ............... +5,000 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, SOUTHEASTERN POWER ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
ADMINISTRATION............
======================================================================================================================
SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION
Operation and maintenance:
Operating expenses....... 15,174 19,279 19,279 19,279 +4,105 ............... ...............
Purchase power and 63,000 73,000 73,000 73,000 +10,000 ............... ...............
wheeling................
Program direction........ 31,089 31,932 31,932 31,932 +843 ............... ...............
Construction............. 13,403 12,012 12,012 12,012 -1,391 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Operation and 122,666 136,223 136,223 136,223 +13,557 ............... ...............
maintenance...........
Less alternative financing -5,934 -8,288 -8,288 -8,288 -2,354 ............... ...............
(for O&M)...................
Less alternative financing -10,000 -10,000 -10,000 -10,000 ............... ............... ...............
(for PPW)...................
Less alternative financing -7,492 -7,574 -7,574 -7,574 -82 ............... ...............
(Const).....................
Offsetting collections (PD).. -29,402 -29,938 -29,938 -29,938 -536 ............... ...............
Offsetting collections (for -5,438 -6,023 -6,023 -6,023 -585 ............... ...............
O&M)........................
Offsetting collections (for -53,000 -63,000 -63,000 -63,000 -10,000 ............... ...............
PPW)........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, SOUTHWESTERN POWER 11,400 11,400 11,400 11,400 ............... ............... ...............
ADMINISTRATION............
======================================================================================================================
WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION
Operation and maintenance:
Construction and 86,645 58,374 58,374 58,374 -28,271 ............... ...............
rehabilitation..........
Operation and maintenance 81,958 80,901 80,901 80,901 -1,057 ............... ...............
Purchase power and 441,223 565,927 565,927 565,927 +124,704 ............... ...............
wheeling................
Program direction........ 227,905 236,398 236,398 236,398 +8,493 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Operation and 837,731 941,600 941,600 941,600 +103,869 ............... ...............
maintenance...........
Less alternative financing -5,197 -1,757 -1,757 -1,757 +3,440 ............... ...............
(for O&M)...................
Less alternative financing -74,448 -53,585 -53,585 -53,585 +20,863 ............... ...............
(for Construction)..........
Less alternative financing -5,300 -5,273 -5,273 -5,273 +27 ............... ...............
(for Program Dir.)..........
Less alternative financing -180,713 -213,114 -213,114 -213,114 -32,401 ............... ...............
(for PPW)...................
Offsetting collections (for -174,285 -177,697 -177,697 -177,697 -3,412 ............... ...............
program direction)..........
Offsetting collections (for -36,745 -36,645 -36,645 -36,645 +100 ............... ...............
O&M)........................
Offsetting collections -260,510 -352,813 -352,813 -352,813 -92,303 ............... ...............
(Public Law 108-477, Public
Law 109-103)................
Offsetting collections -7,161 -7,344 -7,344 -7,344 -183 ............... ...............
(Public Law 98-381).........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, WESTERN AREA POWER 93,372 93,372 93,372 93,372 ............... ............... ...............
ADMINISTRATION............
======================================================================================================================
FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND
MAINTENANCE FUND
Operation and maintenance.... 5,529 4,950 4,950 4,950 -579 ............... ...............
Offsetting collections....... -4,499 -4,262 -4,262 -4,262 +237 ............... ...............
Less alternative financing... -802 -460 -460 -460 +342 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, FALCON AND AMISTAD 228 228 228 228 ............... ............... ...............
O&M FUND..................
======================================================================================================================
TOTAL, POWER MARKETING 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 ............... ............... ...............
ADMINISTRATIONS...........
======================================================================================================================
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Federal Energy Regulatory 304,389 319,800 319,800 319,800 +15,411 ............... ...............
Commission..................
FERC revenues................ -304,389 -319,800 -319,800 -319,800 -15,411 ............... ...............
General Provisions
Title III Rescissions:
Department of Energy:
Energy Efficiency and -9,740 ............... -16,677 -16,677 -6,937 -16,677 ...............
Energy Reliability......
Science.................. -3,262 ............... -4,717 -4,717 -1,455 -4,717 ...............
Nuclear Energy........... -121 ............... -1,665 -1,665 -1,544 -1,665 ...............
Fossil Energy Research -10,413 ............... -12,064 -12,064 -1,651 -12,064 ...............
and Development.........
Office of Electricity -331 ............... -900 -900 -569 -900 ...............
Delivery and Energy
Reliability.............
Advanced Research -18 ............... ............... ............... +18 ............... ...............
Projects Agency--Energy.
Construction, -1,632 ............... -4,832 -4,832 -3,200 -4,832 ...............
Rehabilitation,
Operation and
Maintenance, Western
Area Power
Administration..........
Weapons activities (050) -6,298 ............... ............... -65,135 -58,837 -65,135 -65,135
(rescission)............
Office of the -413 ............... ............... ............... +413 ............... ...............
Administrator (050)
(rescission)............
Departmental -928 ............... ............... ............... +928 ............... ...............
Administration..........
Defense Environmental -9,983 ............... ............... ............... +9,983 ............... ...............
Cleanup (050)...........
Defense Nuclear -1,390 ............... ............... -19,324 -17,934 -19,324 -19,324
Nonproliferation (050)..
Naval Reactors (050)..... -160 ............... ............... -628 -468 -628 -628
Other Defense Activities -551 ............... ............... ............... +551 ............... ...............
(050)...................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, General -45,240 ............... -40,855 -125,942 -80,702 -125,942 -85,087
Provisions............
======================================================================================================================
GRAND TOTAL, DEPARTMENT 27,916,797 30,527,136 28,967,347 29,303,173 +1,386,376 -1,223,963 +335,826
OF ENERGY.............
(Total amount appropriated) (28,152,876) (30,527,136) (29,018,596) (29,429,115) (+1,276,239) (-1,098,021) (+410,519)
(Rescissions).......... (-236,079) ............... (-51,249) (-125,942) (+110,137) (-125,942) (-74,693)
======================================================================================================================
SUMMARY OF ACCOUNTS
Energy efficiency and renewable 1,923,935 2,722,987 1,668,774 1,950,000 +26,065 -772,987 +281,226
energy..........................
Electricity delivery and energy 147,306 270,100 187,500 152,306 +5,000 -117,794 -35,194
reliability.....................
Nuclear energy................... 833,500 907,574 936,161 950,161 +116,661 +42,587 +14,000
Fossil Energy Research and 571,000 560,000 605,000 610,000 +39,000 +50,000 +5,000
Development.....................
Naval Petroleum & Oil Shale 19,950 17,500 17,500 17,500 -2,450 ............... ...............
Reserves........................
Elk Hills School Lands Fund...... 15,580 ............... ............... ............... -15,580 ............... ...............
Strategic petroleum reserves..... 200,000 257,000 212,030 200,000 ............... -57,000 -12,030
Northeast home heating oil 1,600 7,600 7,600 7,600 +6,000 ............... ...............
reserve.........................
Energy Information Administration 117,000 131,000 117,000 122,000 +5,000 -9,000 +5,000
Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup 246,000 220,185 229,193 244,000 -2,000 +23,815 +14,807
Uranium enrichment D&D fund...... 625,000 542,289 625,000 614,000 -11,000 +71,711 -11,000
Nuclear Waste Disposal........... ............... ............... 150,000 ............... ............... ............... -150,000
Science.......................... 5,071,000 5,339,794 5,100,000 5,143,877 +72,877 -195,917 +43,877
Advanced Research Projects Agency- 280,000 325,000 280,000 291,000 +11,000 -34,000 +11,000
Energy..........................
Departmental administration...... 125,971 153,511 74,029 130,971 +5,000 -22,540 +56,942
Indian energy program............ ............... 20,000 ............... ............... ............... -20,000 ...............
Office of the Inspector General.. 40,500 46,424 46,424 46,424 +5,924 ............... ...............
Tribal Indian Energy Loan ............... 11,000 ............... ............... ............... -11,000 ...............
Guarantee Program...............
Title 17 Innovative technology 17,000 17,000 17,000 17,000 ............... ............... ...............
loan guarantee program..........
Advanced technology vehicles 4,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 +2,000 ............... ...............
manufacturing loan pgm..........
Clean coal technology............ -6,600 ............... ............... ............... +6,600 ............... ...............
Atomic energy defense activities:
National Nuclear Security
Administration:
Weapons activities..... 8,186,657 8,846,948 8,713,000 8,882,364 +695,707 +35,416 +169,364
Defense nuclear 1,616,638 1,940,302 1,907,606 1,705,912 +89,274 -234,390 -201,694
nonproliferation......
Naval reactors......... 1,234,000 1,375,496 1,322,894 1,300,000 +66,000 -75,496 -22,894
Federal Salaries and 370,000 402,654 385,574 375,000 +5,000 -27,654 -10,574
Expenses..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, National 11,407,295 12,565,400 12,329,074 12,263,276 +855,981 -302,124 -65,798
Nuclear Security
Admin...............
Defense environmental cleanup 5,000,000 5,055,550 5,055,550 5,180,000 +180,000 +124,450 +124,450
Defense environmental cleanup ............... 471,797 ............... ............... ............... -471,797 ...............
(legislative proposal)......
Defense uranium enrichment 463,000 ............... 471,797 614,000 +151,000 +614,000 +142,203
decontamination and
decommissioning.............
Other defense activities..... 754,000 774,425 767,570 764,000 +10,000 -10,425 -3,570
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Atomic Energy 17,624,295 18,867,172 18,623,991 18,821,276 +1,196,981 -45,896 +197,285
Defense Activities........
Power marketing administrations
(1):
Southeastern Power ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Administration..............
Southwestern Power 11,400 11,400 11,400 11,400 ............... ............... ...............
Administration..............
Western Area Power 93,372 93,372 93,372 93,372 ............... ............... ...............
Administration..............
Falcon and Amistad operating 228 228 228 228 ............... ............... ...............
and maintenance fund........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Power Marketing 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 ............... ............... ...............
Administrations...........
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission:
Salaries and expenses........ 304,389 319,800 319,800 319,800 +15,411 ............... ...............
Revenues..................... -304,389 -319,800 -319,800 -319,800 -15,411 ............... ...............
General Provisions............... -45,240 ............... -40,855 -125,942 -80,702 -125,942 -85,087
======================================================================================================================
Total Summary of Accounts, 27,916,797 30,527,136 28,967,347 29,303,173 +1,386,376 -1,223,963 +335,826
Department of Energy......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Totals include alternative financing costs, reimbursable agreement funding, and power purchase and wheeling expenditures. Offsetting collection
totals reflect funds collected for annual expenses, including power purchase and wheeling.
GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
The following list of general provisions is recommended by
the Committee. The recommendation includes several provisions
which have been included in previous Energy and Water
Appropriations Acts and new provisions as follows:
Section 301. Language is included on the execution of
appropriations, including reprogramming, and Congressional
notification.
Section 302. Language is included on merging the unexpended
balances of prior appropriations.
Section 303. Language is included specifically authorizing
intelligence activities pending enactment of the fiscal year
2016 Intelligence Authorization Act.
Section 304. The Committee has included a provision related
to nuclear safety requirements.
Section 305. The Committee has included language related to
independent cost estimates.
Section 306. The Committee has included a provision on a
pilot program related to consolidated storage of spent nuclear
fuel.
Section 307. Language is included regarding the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve.
Section 308. Language is included rescinding unobligated
balances.
Section 309. Language is included rescinding unobligated
balances.
Section 310. Language is included regarding domestic
uranium enrichment.
Section 311. Language is included as a technical correction
to the Secretary of Energy's authority.
Section 312. Language is included regarding the application
of funds for the Department of Energy.
TITLE IV
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Appalachian Regional Commission
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $90,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 95,000,000
House allowance......................................... 95,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 105,000,000
The Committee recommends $105,000,000 for the Appalachian
Regional Commission [ARC], an increase of $10,000,000 from the
budget request. 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. Within available funding, $10,000,000 is recommended
to foster and continue the workforce training program in
Southern Appalachia, primarily focused on the automotive
supplier industry and the aviation sector in South Central
Appalachia. The program will benefit economically distressed
counties in Southern and South Central Appalachia. This funding
shall be in addition to any funds otherwise directed to
distressed counties. The funds shall be distributed according
to ARC's Distressed Counties Formula, which includes land area,
population estimates, and the number of distressed counties.
Within available funds, the Committee recommends
$25,000,000, the same as the budget request, for the POWER Plus
Plan. This new activity is designed to support communities,
primarily in Appalachia, that have been adversely impacted by
the closure of coal-powered generating plants and a declining
coal industry by providing resources for economic
diversification, job creation, job training, and other
employment services.
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $28,500,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 29,150,000
House allowance......................................... 29,900,000
Committee recommendation................................ 29,150,000
The Committee recommends $29,150,000 for the Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, the same as the budget
request. The Committee notes that Congress permanently
authorized the Inspector General for the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission to serve as the Inspector General for the Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. The Committee recommendation
includes $958,000 in funding within the Office of Inspector
General of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to perform these
services.
Delta Regional Authority
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $12,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 14,936,000
House allowance......................................... 12,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 25,000,000
The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for the Delta Regional
Authority, an increase of $10,064,000 from the request. The
Delta Regional Authority is a Federal-State partnership that is
designed to assist the eight-State Mississippi Delta Region in
developing basic infrastructure, transportation, skills
training, and opportunities for economic development for
distressed counties and parishes. Within available funds, not
less than $10,000,000 shall be used for flood control, basic
infrastructure development and transportation improvements,
which shall be in addition to the State formula funding
allocations. The Federal co-chairman, in consultation with
State Governors, shall distribute funding to States and public
and nonprofit entities for projects that will benefit rural
communities with the greatest infrastructure needs.
Denali Commission
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $10,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 10,000,000
House allowance......................................... 10,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 11,000,000
The Committee recommends $11,000,000 for the Denali
Commission, an increase of $1,000,000 from the budget request.
The Denali Commission is a Federal-State partnership
responsible for promoting infrastructure development, job
training, and other economic support services in rural areas
throughout Alaska.
Northern Border Regional Commission
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $5,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 5,000,000
House allowance......................................... 3,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 7,500,000
The Committee recommends $7,500,000 for the Northern Border
Regional Commission, an increase of $2,500,000 from the budget
request. The Northern Border Regional Commission is a Federal-
State partnership intended to promote transportation, basic
public infrastructure, job skills training and business
development in areas of persistent economic distress in the
northern border region, which covers portions of Maine, New
Hampshire, New York, and Vermont. The Committee notes that
section 404 of the Energy and Water Appropriations Act, 2015,
required each independent agency funded in title IV of the bill
to submit a budget justification and a detailed annual report.
The Committee directs the Northern Border Regional Commission
to comply with this direction.
Southeast Crescent Regional Commission
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $250,000
Budget estimate, 2016...................................................
House allowance......................................... 250,000
Committee recommendation................................................
The Committee recommends no funds for the Southeast
Crescent Regional Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $1,003,233,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 1,020,119,000
House allowance......................................... 1,003,233,000
Committee recommendation................................ 990,000,000
REVENUES
Appropriations, 2015.................................... -$885,375,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... -899,971,000
House allowance......................................... -862,274,000
Committee recommendation................................ -872,864,000
NET APPROPRIATION
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $117,858,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 120,148,000
House allowance......................................... 140,959,000
Committee recommendation................................ 117,136,000
The Committee recommends $990,000,000 for the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission [Commission], a decrease of $30,119,000
from the budget request. This amount is offset by estimated
revenues of $872,864,000, resulting in a net appropriation of
$117,136,000. In developing this recommendation, the Committee
has consulted with the Commission to ensure it maintains its
gold-standard health and safety mission while reducing low-
priority work.
The recommendation includes three new control points to
provide additional transparency to the Commission's budget
execution process: Nuclear Reactor Safety; Nuclear Materials
and Waste Safety; and Decommissioning and Low-Level Waste, as
described below. Section 401 provides new reprogramming
authority to the Commission between the accounts, subject to
prior congressional approval, with a provision made for
emergency circumstances. This reprogramming authority
supersedes the Commission's existing guidance on internal
reprogrammings.
Nuclear Reactor Safety.--The Committee recommends
$771,852,000 for Nuclear Reactor Safety, including $270,150,000
for corporate support activities. This new control point
includes the Commission's Operating Reactors and New Reactors
business lines. The recommendation includes funding to continue
licensing activities associated with awards made under the
Department of Energy's Small Modular Reactor Licensing
Technical Support program. The Commission is directed to report
any transfer of more than $500,000 across business lines, as
identified in the budget request, to the Committee as soon as
practicable.
Nuclear Materials and Waste Safety.--The Committee
recommends $174,691,000 for Nuclear Materials and Waste Safety,
including $61,033,000 for corporate support activities. This
new control point includes the Commission's Fuel Facilities,
Nuclear Material Users, and Spent Fuel Storage and
Transportation business lines. The Committee notes that section
3 of title III includes a general provision for a pilot program
for the consolidated storage of used nuclear fuel. The
Committee urges the Commission to be prepared to act promptly
if this provision is enacted into law.
Decommissioning and Low-Level Waste.--The Committee
recommends $43,628,000 for Decommissioning and Low-Level Waste,
including $15,224,000 for corporate support.
Excess Unobligated Carryover.--The Committee recommendation
authorizes the Commission to reallocate up to $20,000,00 in
unobligated carryover balances to supplement its fiscal year
2016 appropriation. The Committee notes that between fiscal
year 2015 and fiscal year 2016 projections, the Commission will
have carried over more than $50,000,000 in unobligated
balances. The Committee directs the Commission to discontinue
its practice of carrying over such significant sums from prior
fiscal years, which is largely derived from revenues. The
Commission is directed to carry over only the minimum amount
necessary for efficient execution of its mission, and to ensure
that any rule or other requirement for collection of revenue or
fees is calculated accordingly.
Integrated University Program.--Within available funds, the
Committee recommends not less than $15,000,000 for the
Integrated University Program [IUP] to maintain specialists in
radiation safety needed in healthcare, energy, defense,
homeland security, environmental protection, agriculture,
science, space exploration, construction, and industrial
applications. Together with IUP funds from the Department of
Energy's Office of Nuclear Energy and the National Nuclear
Security Administration, this program ensures a highly
qualified next generation of nuclear specialists. Funding for
this program shall not be from prior year balances.
Agency Efficiency.--The Committee recognizes that the
Commission is taking important steps to make the agency run
more effectively. In February 2015, the Commission publicly
released its report on the Project Aim 2020 initiative which
forecasts the agency's workload over the next 5 years and
recommends 12 adjustments to staffing, planning, and processes
to make the Commission more effective in carrying out its
mission. Specifically, this report envisions a reduction of 10
percent to both staffing and budget authority by 2020 from
fiscal year 2015 levels due to a projected reduction in
workload. The Commission, however, has not yet formally adopted
the recommendations in the report, and consequently, the budget
request for fiscal year 2016 was not fully informed by these
recommendations. If the Committee were simply to adopt the
Commission's fiscal year 2016 budget as proposed, significant
time would be lost in implementing the recommendations,
resulting in a need for a steep decline in resources over the
next 3 fiscal years. Further, fully funding the Commission's
budget request with the understanding that such funds would
exceed the Commission's actual requirements would not be
consistent with the Committee's responsibility to ensure
taxpayer dollars are spent wisely.
The Committee recommendation, therefore, includes a
reduction of $30,119,000 from the Commission's request, with
the majority directed at low-priority work and corporate
support activities. This recommendation provides the Commission
with the opportunity to find savings and begin to implement the
Project Aim recommendations in earnest prior to fiscal year
2017. In choosing where to apply these reductions, the
Commission should consider eliminating low-value activities and
expenses, and consolidating programs or offices for efficiency.
The Commission is directed to not make reductions that would
impact safety. Further, the Commission should not make
reductions that would negatively impact the critical skill sets
and highly technical staff that are needed to fulfil the
agency's mission. Allowing the Commission to begin making
reductions this fiscal year will result in less drastic
reductions over the next three fiscal years. The Commission is
directed to report to the Committees on Appropriations of both
Houses of Congress within 30 days after the date of enactment
of this act on how it has applied the reductions to individual
business lines.
Rulemaking Process.--The Committee is concerned that the
staff-directed rulemaking process is inefficient and permits
expenditure of significant agency resources in developing the
technical basis and regulatory analysis for potential rules
without prior Commission approval. The Committee believes that,
in keeping with NRC's Principles of Good Regulation, the
Commission should return to the Commission-directed process
outlined in the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Regulations Handbook (NUREG/BR-0053, Revision 6) [Handbook].
The Committee therefore directs the Commission to make
conforming changes to NRC Management Directive 6.3, ``The
Rulemaking Process'' to be consistent with the Handbook's
Commission-directed process. The Commission is directed to
provide the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of
Congress with an updated directive not later than 90 days after
the enactment of this act. The Commission is further directed
to provide to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses
of Congress, not later than 30 days after the enactment of this
act, a report that includes a general description and status of
each proposed rule that is currently pending before the
Commission, including the date on which the proposed rule was
docketed.
Subsequent License Renewal.--The Committee continues to
encourage the Commission to act expeditiously to ensure that a
fair, effective, predictable, and efficient process for
subsequent licensing is available for licensees actively
planning to pursue second license renewal, including timely
issuance of updated regulatory guidance to support receipt of
the lead application in the 2018 timeframe.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
GROSS APPROPRIATION
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $12,071,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 12,136,000
House allowance......................................... 12,136,000
Committee recommendation................................ 12,136,000
REVENUES
Appropriations, 2015.................................... -$10,099,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... -10,060,000
House allowance......................................... -10,060,000
Committee recommendation................................ -10,060,000
NET APPROPRIATION
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $1,972,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 2,076,000
House allowance......................................... 2,076,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,076,000
The Committee recommends $12,136,000 for the Office of
Inspector General, the same as the budget request, which is
offset by revenues estimated at $10,060,000, for a net
appropriation of $2,076,000. The Office of Inspector General
serves both the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, and the recommendation
includes $958,000 for that purpose that is not available from
fee revenues.
The Committee encourages the Office of Inspector General to
examine, through its audit program, additional savings and
efficiencies at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that could be
realized through consolidations or other streamlining.
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board
Appropriations, 2015.................................... $3,400,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................... 3,600,000
House allowance......................................... 3,600,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,600,000
The Committee recommends $3,600,000 for the Nuclear Waste
Technical Review Board, the same as the budget request.
Office of the Federal Coordination for Alaska Natural Gas
Transportation Projects
Appropriations, 2015....................................................
Budget estimate, 2016................................... $1,000,000
House allowance......................................... 1,000,000
Committee recommendation................................................
The Committee does not recommend funding for the Office of
the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation
Projects.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 401. The Committee includes reprogramming language
for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Section 402. The Committee includes language on providing
information to Congress.
Section 403. The Committee includes a technical correction.
TITLE V
The Committee is concerned about the millions of taxpayer
dollars spent on wasteful printing practices each year and the
lack of clear printing policies within each of the agencies.
While progress has been made to better utilize the cloud and
digitalize records, little progress has been made to reform in-
house printing practices. The Committee directs each agency to
work with Office of Management and Budget to reduce printing
and reproduction by 34 percent and report to the Committee
within 60 days after enactment of this Act on what steps have
been taken to reduce printing volume and costs. The report
should specifically identify how much money each agency will be
saving.
The Committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to study the effects of forward capacity auctions and
other capacity mechanisms that have been established by
Independent System Operators or Regional Transmission
Organizations on (1) consumer prices for electricity; (2) the
installation of new electrical generation systems; (3) the
preservation of existing electrical generation systems; and (4)
competition in energy markets, including the potential for the
use of undue market power or manipulation in the auctions.
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.
Section 503. The provision relates to Executive Order No.
13690.
Program, Project, and Activity
In fiscal year 2016, for purposes of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-177),
as amended, the following information provides the definition
of the term ``program, project or activity'' for departments
and agencies under the jurisdiction of the Energy and Water
Development Appropriation bill. The term ``program, project or
activity'' shall include the most specific level of budget
items identified in the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Bill, 2016 and the report accompanying the bill.
If a sequestration order is necessary, in implementing the
Presidential order, departments and agencies shall apply any
percentage reduction required for fiscal year 2016 pursuant to
the provisions of Public Law 99-177 to all items specified in
the report accompanying the bill by the Senate Committee on
Appropriations in support of the fiscal year 2016 budget
estimates as modified by congressional action.
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI, OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports on
general appropriations bills identify each Committee amendment
to the House bill ``which proposes an item of appropriation
which is not made to carry out the provisions of an existing
law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously
passed by the Senate during that session.''
The Committee is filing an original bill, which is not
covered under this rule, but reports this information in the
spirit of full disclosure.
The Committee recommends funding for the following programs
or activities which currently lack authorization for fiscal
year 2016:
Corps of Engineers.--Individual studies and projects
proposed for appropriations within this bill are specifically
authorized by law. The appropriation accounts where the funding
for the studies and projects are recommended are not considered
to be authorized as there is no originating act providing for
these appropriation accounts.
Department of Energy: Energy Conservation and Supply
Activities:
Office of Fossil Energy: Fossil Energy R&D, Clean Coal,
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Research;
Health, Safety and Security;
Non-Defense Environmental Management;
Office of Science;
Department of Administration;
National Nuclear Security Administration: Weapons
Activities; Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation; Naval Reactors;
Office of the Administrator;
Defense Environmental Management, Defense Site Acceleration
Completion;
Other Defense Activities;
Defense Nuclear Waste Fund;
Office of Security and Performance Assurance;
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission;
Power Marketing Administrations: Southeastern,
Southwestern, Western Area; and
Energy Information Administration.
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(c), RULE XXVI, OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on May 21, 2015,
the Committee ordered favorably reported a bill (H.R. 2028)
making appropriations for energy and water development and
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016,
and for other purposes, provided, that the bill be subject to
further amendment and that the bill be consistent with its
budget allocation, by a recorded vote of 26-4, a quorum being
present. The vote was as follows:
Yeas Nays
Chairman Cochran Mrs. Murray
Mr. McConnell Mr. Reed
Mr. Shelby Mr. Tester
Mr. Alexander Mr. Murphy
Ms. Collins
Ms. Murkowski
Mr. Graham
Mr. Kirk
Mr. Blunt
Mr. Moran
Mr. Hoeven
Mr. Boozman
Mrs. Capito
Mr. Cassidy
Mr. Lankford
Mr. Daines
Ms. Mikulski
Mr. Leahy
Mrs. Feinstein
Mr. Durbin
Mr. Udall
Mrs. Shaheen
Mr. Merkley
Mr. Coons
Mr. Schatz
Ms. Baldwin
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI, OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports
on a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute
or part of any statute include ``(a) the text of the statute or
part thereof which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a
comparative print of that part of the bill or joint resolution
making the amendment and of the statute or part thereof
proposed to be amended, showing by stricken-through type and
italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical
devices the omissions and insertions which would be made by the
bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form recommended by
the Committee.''
In compliance with this rule, changes in existing law
proposed to be made by the bill are shown as follows: existing
law to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets; new matter is
printed in italic; and existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman.
TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
CHAPTER 109B--SECURE WATER
Sec. 10364. Water management improvement
(a) Authorization of grants and cooperative agreements
* * * * * * *
(e) Authorization of appropriations
There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
section [$300,000,000] $500,000,000, to remain available until
expended.
------
RECLAMATION SAFETY OF DAMS ACT OF 1978, PUBLIC LAW 95-578
Sec. 2 * * *
* * * * * * *
Sec. 3 [Construction] Except as provided in section 5B,
construction authorized by this subchapter shall be for the
purposes of dam safety and not for the specific purposes of
providing additional conservation storage capacity or of
developing benefits over and above those provided by the
original dams and reservoirs. Nothing in this subchapter shall
be construed to reduce the amount of project costs allocated to
reimbursable purposes heretofore authorized.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 5 There are hereby authorized to be appropriated for
fiscal year 1979 and ensuing fiscal years such sums as may be
necessary, but not to exceed $100,000,000 and, effective
October 1, 1983, not to exceed an additional $650,000,000
(October 1, 1983, price levels), and, effective October 1,
2000, not to exceed an additional $95,000,000 (October 1, 2000,
price levels), and, effective October 1, 2001, not to exceed an
additional $32,000,000 (October 1, 2001, price levels), and,
effective October 1, 2003, not to exceed an additional
$540,000,000 (October 1, 2003, price levels), and effective
October 1, 2015, not to exceed an additional $1,100,000,000
(October 1, 2003, price levels), plus or minus such amounts, if
any, as may be justified by reason of ordinary fluctuations in
construction costs as indicated by engineering cost indexes
applicable to the types of construction involved herein, to
carry out the provisions of this Act to remain available until
expended if so provided by the appropriations Act: Provided,
That no funds exceeding [$1,250,000] $20,000,000 (October 1,
2003, price levels), as adjusted to reflect any ordinary
fluctuations in construction costs indicated by applicable
engineering cost indexes, shall be obligated for carrying out
actual construction to modify an existing dam under authority
of this Act prior to 30 calendar days from that date that the
Secretary has transmitted a report on such existing dam to the
[Congress] Committee on Natural Resources of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources of the Senate. The report required to be submitted by
this section will consist of a finding by the Secretary of the
Interior to the effect that modifications are required to be
made to insure the safety of an existing dam. Such finding
shall be accompanied by a technical report containing
information on the need for structural modification, the
corrective action deemed to be required, alternative solutions
to structural modification that were considered, the estimated
cost of needed modifications, and environmental impacts if any
resulting from the implementation of the recommended plan of
modification. For modification expenditures between $1,800,000
and $20,000,000 (October 1, 2013, price levels), the Secretary
of the Interior shall, at least 30 days before the date on
which the funds are expended, submit written notice of the
expenditures to the Committee on Natural Resources of the House
of Representatives and Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources of the Senate that provides a summary of the project,
the cost of the project, and any alternatives that were
considered.
Sec. 5A. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) The Secretary may waive 1 or more of the requirements
of subsections (a), (b), and (c), if the Secretary determines
that implementation of the requirement could have an adverse
impact on dam safety or security.
Sec. 5B. Notwithstanding section 3, if the Secretary, in
her judgment, determines that additional project benefits,
including but not limited to additional conservation storage
capacity, are necessary and in the interests of the United
States and the project and are feasible and not inconsistent
with the purposes of this Act, the Secretary is authorized to
develop additional project benefits through the construction of
new or supplementary works on a project in conjunction with the
Secretary's activities under section 2 of this Act and subject
to the conditions described in the feasibility study, provided
the costs associated with developing the additional project
benefits are allocated to the authorized purposes of the
structure and repaid consistent with all provisions of Federal
Reclamation law (the Act of June 17, 1902, 43 U.S.C. 371 et
seq.) and acts supplemental to and amendatory of that Act.
------
OMNIBUS CONSOLIDATED AND EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
1999, PUBLIC LAW 105-277
DIVISION A--OMNIBUS CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS
* * * * * * *
TITLE III
GENERAL PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
Bulk Fuel Storage Tank
Sec. 329. (a) Transfer of Funds.--* * *
(b) Use of Interest Only.--The interest produced from the
investment of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Liability Fund balance
that is transferred and deposited into the Oil Spill Liability
Trust Fund under section 8102(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Oil Pollution
Act of 1990 (43 U.S.C. 1653 note) after June 16, 1998 shall be
transferred annually by the National Pollution Funds Center to
the Denali Commission for a program, to be developed in
consultation with the Coast Guard, to repair or replace bulk
fuel storage tanks in Alaska which are not in compliance with
federal law, including the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, or State
law or for the construction and repair of barge mooring points
and barge landing sites to facilitate pumping fuel from fuel
transport barges into bulk fuel storage tanks.
------
WATER SUPPLY, RELIABILITY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT ACT, 2005,
PUBLIC LAW 108-361
TITLE I--CALIFORNIA WATER SECURITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT
SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 103. BAY DELTA PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--
* * * * * * *
(e) New and Expanded Authorizations for Federal Agencies.--
(1) In general.--The heads of the Federal agencies
described in this subsection are authorized to carry
out the activities described in subsection (f) during
each of fiscal years 2005 through [2016] 2020, in
coordination with the Governor.
* * * * * * *
(f) Description of Activities Under New and Expanded
Authorizations.--
(1) Conveyance.-- * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) Levee stability.--
(A) In general.-- * * *
(B) Report.--Not later than 180 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of the Army shall submit to the
appropriate authorizing and appropriating
committees of the Senate and the House of
Representatives a report that describes the
levee stability reconstruction projects and
priorities that will be carried out under this
title during each of fiscal years 2005 through
[2016] 2020.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 107. FEDERAL SHARE OF COSTS.
(a) In General.--The Federal share of the cost of
implementing the Calfed Bay-Delta Program for fiscal years 2005
through [2016] 2020 in the aggregate, as set forth in the
Record of Decision, shall not exceed 33.3 percent.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 109. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATION.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary
and the heads of the Federal agencies to pay the Federal share
of the cost of carrying out the new and expanded authorities
described in subsections (e) and (f) of section 103
$389,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2005 through [2016]
2020, to remain available until expended.
------
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2007, PUBLIC LAW 110-114
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS
SEC. 5032. LOWELL CREEK TUNNEL, SEWARD, ALASKA.
(a) Long-Term Maintenance and Repair.--
(1) Maintenance and repair.--* * *
(2) Duration of responsibilities.--The
responsibility of the Secretary for long-term
maintenance and repair of the tunnel shall continue
until an alternative method of flood diversion is
constructed and operational under this section, or [15]
20 years after the date of enactment of this Act,
whichever is earlier.
------
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 Committee
allocation Amount in bill allocation Amount in bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with
the subcommittee allocation for 2016:
Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development:
Mandatory........................... ................ ................ ................ ................
Discretionary....................... 35,368 35,368 36,326 \1\36,316
Security........................ 19,002 19,002 NA NA
Nonsecurity..................... 16,366 16,366 NA NA
Projections of outlays associated with
the recommendation:
2016................................ ................ ................ ................ \2\20,739
2017................................ ................ ................ ................ 10,070
2018................................ ................ ................ ................ 3,452
2019................................ ................ ................ ................ 759
2020 and future years............... ................ ................ ................ 429
Financial assistance to State and local NA 131 NA 24
governments for 2016...................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 2015 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2016
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Committee recommendation compared with (+
or -)
Item 2015 Budget estimate House allowance Committee --------------------------------------------------
appropriation recommendation 2015
appropriation Budget estimate House allowance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--
CIVIL
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Investigations................... 122,000 97,000 113,500 109,000 -13,000 +12,000 -4,500
Construction..................... 1,639,489 1,172,000 1,635,000 1,641,000 +1,511 +469,000 +6,000
Mississippi River and Tributaries 302,000 225,000 275,000 330,000 +28,000 +105,000 +55,000
Operations and Maintenance....... 2,908,511 2,710,000 3,094,306 2,909,000 +489 +199,000 -185,306
Regulatory Program............... 200,000 205,000 199,576 200,000 ............... -5,000 +424
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial 101,500 104,000 104,000 101,500 ............... -2,500 -2,500
Action Program (FUSRAP).........
Flood Control and Coastal 28,000 34,000 34,000 28,000 ............... -6,000 -6,000
Emergencies.....................
Expenses......................... 178,000 180,000 179,000 178,000 ............... -2,000 -1,000
Office of Assistant Secretary of 3,000 5,000 4,750 3,000 ............... -2,000 -1,750
the Army (Civil Works)..........
General Provisions
Title I (rescission)............. -28,000 ............... ............... -128,000 -100,000 -128,000 -128,000
======================================================================================================================
Total, title I, Department 5,454,500 4,732,000 5,639,132 5,371,500 -83,000 +639,500 -267,632
of Defense--Civil.........
Appropriations......... (5,482,500) (4,732,000) (5,639,132) (5,499,500) (+17,000) (+767,500) (-139,632)
Rescissions............ (-28,000) ............... ............... (-128,000) (-100,000) (-128,000) (-128,000)
======================================================================================================================
TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR
Central Utah Project Completion
Account
Central Utah Project Completion 9,874 7,300 9,874 9,874 ............... +2,574 ...............
Account.........................
Bureau of Reclamation
Water and Related Resources...... 978,131 805,157 950,640 988,131 +10,000 +182,974 +37,491
Central Valley Project 56,995 49,528 49,528 49,528 -7,467 ............... ...............
Restoration Fund................
California Bay-Delta Restoration. 37,000 37,000 37,000 37,000 ............... ............... ...............
Policy and Administration........ 58,500 59,500 59,500 58,500 ............... -1,000 -1,000
Indian Water Rights Settlements.. ............... 112,483 ............... ............... ............... -112,483 ...............
San Joaquin River Restoration ............... 35,000 ............... ............... ............... -35,000 ...............
Fund............................
Bureau of Reclamation Loan -500 ............... ............... ............... +500 ............... ...............
Program Account (Rescission)....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Bureau of 1,130,126 1,098,668 1,096,668 1,133,159 +3,033 +34,491 +36,491
Reclamation...............
======================================================================================================================
Total, title II, Department 1,140,000 1,105,968 1,106,542 1,143,033 +3,033 +37,065 +36,491
of the Interior...........
Appropriations......... (1,140,500) (1,105,968) (1,106,542) (1,143,033) (+2,533) (+37,065) (+36,491)
Rescissions............ (-500) ............... ............... ............... (+500) ............... ...............
======================================================================================================================
TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Energy Programs
Energy efficiency and renewable 1,937,000 2,722,987 1,668,774 1,950,000 +13,000 -772,987 +281,226
energy..........................
Rescissions.................. -13,065 ............... ............... ............... +13,065 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Energy efficiency 1,923,935 2,722,987 1,668,774 1,950,000 +26,065 -772,987 +281,226
Electricity delivery and energy 147,306 270,100 187,500 152,306 +5,000 -117,794 -35,194
reliability.....................
Nuclear energy................... 805,000 772,413 810,000 815,000 +10,000 +42,587 +5,000
Defense function............. 108,500 135,161 126,161 135,161 +26,661 ............... +9,000
Rescission................... -80,000 ............... ............... ............... +80,000 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 833,500 907,574 936,161 950,161 +116,661 +42,587 +14,000
Fossil Energy Research and 571,000 560,000 605,000 610,000 +39,000 +50,000 +5,000
Development.....................
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale 19,950 17,500 17,500 17,500 -2,450 ............... ...............
Reserves........................
Elk Hills School Lands Fund...... 15,580 ............... ............... ............... -15,580 ............... ...............
Strategic Petroleum Reserve...... 200,000 257,000 212,030 200,000 ............... -57,000 -12,030
Northeast Home Heating Oil 7,600 7,600 7,600 7,600 ............... ............... ...............
Reserve.........................
Rescission................... -6,000 ............... ............... ............... +6,000 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 1,600 7,600 7,600 7,600 +6,000 ............... ...............
Energy Information Administration 117,000 131,000 117,000 122,000 +5,000 -9,000 +5,000
Non-defense environmental cleanup 246,000 220,185 229,193 244,000 -2,000 +23,815 +14,807
Uranium Enrichment 625,000 542,289 625,000 614,000 -11,000 +71,711 -11,000
Decontamination and
Decommissioning Fund............
Science.......................... 5,071,000 5,339,794 5,100,000 5,143,877 +72,877 -195,917 +43,877
Nuclear waste disposal........... ............... ............... 150,000 ............... ............... ............... -150,000
Advanced Research Projects Agency- 280,000 325,000 280,000 291,000 +11,000 -34,000 +11,000
Energy..........................
Office of Indian Energy Policy ............... 20,000 ............... ............... ............... -20,000 ...............
and Programs....................
Title 17 Innovative Technology 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 ............... ............... ...............
Loan Guarantee Program..........
Offsetting collection........ -25,000 -25,000 -25,000 -25,000 ............... ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 17,000 17,000 17,000 17,000 ............... ............... ...............
Tribal Indian Energy Loan ............... 11,000 ............... ............... ............... -11,000 ...............
Guarantee Program...............
Advanced Technology Vehicles 4,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 +2,000 ............... ...............
Manufacturing Loans program.....
Clean coal technology -6,600 ............... ............... ............... +6,600 ............... ...............
(rescission)....................
Departmental administration...... 245,142 270,682 191,200 248,142 +3,000 -22,540 +56,942
Miscellaneous revenues....... -119,171 -117,171 -117,171 -117,171 +2,000 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net appropriation........ 125,971 153,511 74,029 130,971 +5,000 -22,540 +56,942
Office of the Inspector General.. 40,500 46,424 46,424 46,424 +5,924 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Energy programs..... 10,232,742 11,554,964 10,279,211 10,502,839 +270,097 -1,052,125 +223,628
======================================================================================================================
Atomic Energy Defense Activities
National Nuclear Security
Administration
Weapons activities............... 8,231,770 8,846,948 8,713,000 8,882,364 +650,594 +35,416 +169,364
Rescission................... -45,113 ............... ............... ............... +45,113 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 8,186,657 8,846,948 8,713,000 8,882,364 +695,707 +35,416 +169,364
Defense nuclear nonproliferation. 1,641,369 1,940,302 1,918,000 1,705,912 +64,543 -234,390 -212,088
Rescission................... -24,731 ............... -10,394 ............... +24,731 ............... +10,394
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 1,616,638 1,940,302 1,907,606 1,705,912 +89,274 -234,390 -201,694
Naval reactors................... 1,238,500 1,375,496 1,322,820 1,300,000 +61,500 -75,496 -22,820
Rescission................... -4,500 ............... ............... ............... +4,500 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 1,234,000 1,375,496 1,322,820 1,300,000 +66,000 -75,496 -22,820
Federal salaries and expenses.... 370,000 402,654 385,500 375,000 +5,000 -27,654 -10,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, National Nuclear 11,407,295 12,565,400 12,328,926 12,263,276 +855,981 -302,124 -65,650
Security Administration...
======================================================================================================================
Environmental and Other Defense
Activities
Defense environmental cleanup.... 5,010,830 5,055,550 5,055,550 5,180,000 +169,170 +124,450 +124,450
Rescission................... -10,830 ............... ............... ............... +10,830 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 5,000,000 5,055,550 5,055,550 5,180,000 +180,000 +124,450 +124,450
Defense environmental cleanup ............... 471,797 ............... ............... ............... -471,797 ...............
(legislative proposal)..........
Defense Uranium Enrichment 463,000 ............... 471,797 614,000 +151,000 +614,000 +142,203
Decontamination and
Decommissioning.................
Other Defense activities......... 754,000 774,425 767,570 764,000 +10,000 -10,425 -3,570
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Environmental and 6,217,000 6,301,772 6,294,917 6,558,000 +341,000 +256,228 +263,083
Other Defense Activities..
======================================================================================================================
Total, Atomic Energy 17,624,295 18,867,172 18,623,843 18,821,276 +1,196,981 -45,896 +197,433
Defense Activities........
======================================================================================================================
Power Marketing
Administrations\1\
Operation and maintenance, 7,220 6,900 6,900 6,900 -320 ............... ...............
Southeastern Power
Administration..................
Offsetting collections....... -7,220 -6,900 -6,900 -6,900 +320 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Operation and maintenance, 46,240 47,361 47,361 47,361 +1,121 ............... ...............
Southwestern Power
Administration..................
Offsetting collections....... -34,840 -35,961 -35,961 -35,961 -1,121 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 11,400 11,400 11,400 11,400 ............... ............... ...............
Construction, rehabilitation, 304,402 307,714 307,714 307,714 +3,312 ............... ...............
operation and maintenance,
Western Area Power
Administration..................
Offsetting collections....... -211,030 -214,342 -214,342 -214,342 -3,312 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 93,372 93,372 93,372 93,372 ............... ............... ...............
Falcon and Amistad Operating and 4,727 4,490 4,490 4,490 -237 ............... ...............
Maintenance Fund................
Offsetting collections....... -4,499 -4,262 -4,262 -4,262 +237 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 228 228 228 228 ............... ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Power Marketing 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 ............... ............... ...............
Administrations...........
======================================================================================================================
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
Salaries and expenses............ 304,389 319,800 319,800 319,800 +15,411 ............... ...............
Revenues applied................. -304,389 -319,800 -319,800 -319,800 -15,411 ............... ...............
General Provisions
Title III Rescissions:
Department of Energy:
Energy efficiency and energy -9,740 ............... -16,677 -16,677 -6,937 -16,677 ...............
reliability.................
Science...................... -3,262 ............... -4,717 -4,717 -1,455 -4,717 ...............
Nuclear energy............... -121 ............... -1,665 -1,665 -1,544 -1,665 ...............
Fossil Energy Research and -10,413 ............... -12,064 -12,064 -1,651 -12,064 ...............
Development.................
Office of Electricity -331 ............... -900 -900 -569 -900 ...............
Delivery and Energy
Reliability.................
Advanced Research Projects -18 ............... ............... ............... +18 ............... ...............
Agency--Energy..............
Construction, rehabilitation, -1,632 ............... -4,832 -4,832 -3,200 -4,832 ...............
operation and maintenance,
Western Area Power
Administration..............
Weapons activities........... -6,298 ............... ............... -65,135 -58,837 -65,135 -65,135
Office of the Administrator.. -413 ............... ............... ............... +413 ............... ...............
Departmental administration.. -928 ............... ............... ............... +928 ............... ...............
Defense environmental cleanup -9,983 ............... ............... ............... +9,983 ............... ...............
Defense nuclear -1,390 ............... ............... -19,324 -17,934 -19,324 -19,324
nonproliferation............
Naval reactors............... -160 ............... ............... -628 -468 -628 -628
Other Defense activities..... -551 ............... ............... ............... +551 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... -45,240 ............... -40,855 -125,942 -80,702 -125,942 -85,087
======================================================================================================================
Total, title III, 27,916,797 30,527,136 28,967,199 29,303,173 +1,386,376 -1,223,963 +335,974
Department of Energy......
Appropriations......... (28,152,876) (30,527,136) (29,018,448) (29,429,115) (+1,276,239) (-1,098,021) (+410,667)
Rescissions............ (-236,079) ............... (-51,249) (-125,942) (+110,137) (-125,942) (-74,693)
======================================================================================================================
TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Appalachian Regional Commission.. 90,000 95,000 95,000 105,000 +15,000 +10,000 +10,000
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety 28,500 29,150 29,900 29,150 +650 ............... -750
Board...........................
Delta Regional Authority......... 12,000 14,936 12,000 25,000 +13,000 +10,064 +13,000
Denali Commission................ 10,000 10,000 10,000 11,000 +1,000 +1,000 +1,000
Northern Border Regional 5,000 5,000 3,000 7,500 +2,500 +2,500 +4,500
Commission......................
Southeast Crescent Regional 250 ............... 250 ............... -250 ............... -250
Commission......................
Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
Salaries and expenses........ 1,003,233 1,020,119 1,003,233 990,000 -13,233 -30,119 -13,233
Revenues..................... -885,375 -899,971 -862,274 -872,864 +12,511 +27,107 -10,590
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 117,858 120,148 140,959 117,136 -722 -3,012 -23,823
Office of Inspector General.. 12,071 12,136 12,136 12,136 +65 ............... ...............
Revenues..................... -10,099 -10,060 -10,060 -10,060 +39 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 1,972 2,076 2,076 2,076 +104 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Nuclear Regulatory 119,830 122,224 143,035 119,212 -618 -3,012 -23,823
Commission................
======================================================================================================================
Nuclear Waste Technical Review 3,400 3,600 3,600 3,600 +200 ............... ...............
Board...........................
Office of the Federal Coordinator ............... 1,000 1,000 ............... ............... -1,000 -1,000
for Alaska Natural Gas
Transportation Projects.........
======================================================================================================================
Total, title IV, 268,980 280,910 297,785 300,462 +31,482 +19,552 +2,677
Independent agencies......
======================================================================================================================
Grand total................ 34,780,277 36,646,014 36,010,658 36,118,168 +1,337,891 -527,846 +107,510
Appropriations......... (35,044,856) (36,646,014) (36,061,907) (36,372,110) (+1,327,254) (-273,904) (+310,203)
Rescissions............ (-264,579) ............... (-51,249) (-253,942) (+10,637) (-253,942) (-202,693)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Totals adjusted to net out alternative financing costs, reimbursable agreement funding, and power purchase and wheeling expenditures. Offsetting
collection totals only reflect funds collected for annual expenses, excluding power purchase wheeling.
[all]