Senate Report 114-236 - ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2017

[Senate Report 114-236]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

Calendar No. 420
114th Congress } { Report
SENATE
2d Session } { 114-236

======================================================================

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2017

_______

April 14, 2016.--Ordered to be printed

_______

Mr. Alexander, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the
following

REPORT

[To accompany S. 2804]

The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 2804)
making appropriations for energy and water development and
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2017,
and for other purposes, reports favorably thereon and
recommends that the bill do pass.

New obligational authority

Total of bill as reported to the Senate................. $38,370,741,000
Amount of 2016 appropriations........................... 37,322,990,000
Amount of 2017 budget estimate.......................... 37,547,285,000
Bill as recommended to Senate compared to--
2016 appropriations................................. +1,047,751,000
2017 budget estimate................................ +823,456,000

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....................................... 8
Construction......................................... 15
Mississippi River and Tributaries.................... 23
Operations and Maintenance........................... 25
Regulatory Program................................... 43
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program...... 43
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies................ 43
Expenses............................................. 43
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil
Works)............................................. 43
General Provisions--Corps of Engineers--Civil............ 44
Title II:
Department of the Interior:
Central Utah Project Completion Account.................. 45
Bureau of Reclamation:
Water and Related Resources.......................... 47
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund.............. 54
California Bay-Delta Restoration..................... 55
Policy and Administration............................ 55
Indian Water Rights Settlements...................... 55
San Joaquin Restoration Fund......................... 56
General Provisions--Department of the Interior........... 56
Title III:
Department of Energy:
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy................... 63
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.............. 70
Nuclear Energy........................................... 73
Fossil Energy Research and Development................... 76
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves................... 80
Strategic Petroleum Reserve.............................. 80
Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve....................... 81
Energy Information Administration........................ 81
Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup........................ 81
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning
Fund................................................... 82
Science.................................................. 83
Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy................ 88
Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs.............. 88
Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program............. 89
Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program.. 89
Departmental Administration.............................. 90
Office of the Inspector General.......................... 91
Weapons Activities....................................... 92
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation......................... 95
Naval Reactors........................................... 97
Federal Salaries and Expenses............................ 98
Defense Environmental Cleanup............................ 98
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning
Federal Contribution................................... 101
Other Defense Activities................................. 101
Power Marketing Administrations:
Operations and Maintenance, Southeastern Power
Administration..................................... 101
Construction, Rehabilitation, Operations and
Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration..... 102
Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund.... 102
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Salaries and
Expenses............................................... 102
General Provisions--Department of Energy................. 126
Title IV:
Independent Agencies:
Appalachian Regional Commission.......................... 127
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.................. 127
Delta Regional Authority................................. 128
Denali Commission........................................ 128
Northern Border Regional Commission...................... 128
Nuclear Regulatory Commission............................ 128
Office of Inspector General.......................... 131
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board..................... 132
General Provisions........................................... 132
Title V: General Provisions...................................... 133
Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI, of the Standing Rules of
the
Senate......................................................... 134
Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules
of the
Senate......................................................... 134
Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of
the
Senate......................................................... 135
Budgetary Impact of Bill......................................... 137
Comparative Statement of Budget Authority........................ 138

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to provide appropriations for
fiscal year 2017, beginning October 1, 2016, and ending
September 30, 2017, 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 and Central Utah
Project 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 2017 budget estimates for the bill total
$37,547,285,000 in new budget (obligational) authority. The
recommendation of the Committee totals $38,370,741,000. This is
$823,456,000 above the budget estimates and $1,047,751,000
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 2017 appropriations bill. Witnesses included officials and
representatives of the Federal agencies under the
subcommittee's jurisdiction.
The recommendations for fiscal year 2017, therefore, have
been developed after careful consideration of available data.

INTRODUCTION

The Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development's allocation totals $37,537,000,000 of net budget
authority for fiscal year 2017, including adjustments, which
represents an increase of $355,010,000 over fiscal year 2016.
Within the amount recommended, $20,023,000,000 is classified as
defense (050) spending and $17,514,000,000 is classified as
non-defense (non-050) spending.
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
February and March 2016 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 with an opportunity to present the
administration's 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 the
agencies funded in the bill. 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 creates additional
budget control points for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

TITLE I

CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

Corps of Engineers--Civil

OVERVIEW OF RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $6,000,000,000 for the Corps of
Engineers, an increase of $1,380,000,000 from the budget
request.
The Committee recommendation sets priorities by supporting
our Nation's infrastructure. Specifically, the Committee
recommendation provides adequate appropriations to utilize all
of the estimated $106,000,000 of fiscal year 2017 revenues from
the Inland Waterways Trust Fund and meets the target for Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund expenditures prescribed for the Corps of
Engineers in the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of
2014 [WRRDA].

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 $109,830,000,000, which
equates to a return of about $16.60 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, 239 lock
chambers, and 1,067 harbors which handle over 2.3
billion tons of cargo annually;
--flood risk management infrastructure, including 709 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.

FISCAL YEAR 2017 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 to the Committee a work
plan, not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of
this act, subject to the Committee's approval, 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 2017. 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.

REPROGRAMMING

The Committee is retaining the reprogramming legislation
provided in the Energy and Water Development and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016.

AQUACULTURE ACTIVITIES

Since 2007, shellfish growers in the State of Washington
have submitted approximately 1,000 requests to initiate or
expand aquaculture activities. To date, the Corps of Engineers
has not processed any of these requests and the Committee is
concerned with this ongoing delay. The Committee directs the
Corps of Engineers to work with the National Marine Fisheries
Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to complete
Endangered Species Act consultations, finalize the associated
Biological Opinion(s), and process the shellfish growers'
requests. The Committee further encourages the Corps of
Engineers to communicate directly with the regulated industry
and other interested stakeholders to ensure all have clarity on
permitting requirements.

NEW STARTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017

The Committee recommends new starts in both the
Investigations and Construction accounts for fiscal year 2017.
The Committee decision is based, in part, on the budget request
which provides funding to complete 11 feasibility studies, 1
preconstruction engineering design [PED] studies, and 6
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 5 new feasibility study
starts, and 8 new construction starts.
The Corps of Engineers is directed to propose, not later
than 60 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 2017 Work Plan''.
A new start construction shall not be required for work
undertaken to correct a design deficiency on an existing
Federal project; it shall be considered ongoing work.

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.

INVESTIGATIONS

Appropriations, 2016.................................... $121,000,000
Budget estimate, 2017................................... 85,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 126,522,000

The Committee recommends $126,522,000 for Investigations,
an increase of $41,522,000 from the budget request. The
Committee's recommendation allows the Corps of Engineers to
begin up to 5 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. The Committee
recognizes that the administration's budget does not provide
adequate funding for 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 5
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.

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 Committee
---------------------- recommendation
Project title ---------------------
FEAS PED FEAS PED
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA

MOBILE HARBOR DEEPENING AND 1,246 ......... 1,246 .........
WIDENING, AL (GENERAL
REEVALUATION REPORT).......

ALASKA

LOWELL CREEK TUNNEL FLOOD 500 ......... 500 .........
DIVERSION, AK..............
UNALASKA (DUTCH) HARBOR, AK. 500 ......... 500 .........

ARIZONA

LOWER SANTA CRUZ RIVER, AZ.. 400 ......... 400 .........

ARKANSAS

THREE RIVERS, AR............ 580 ......... 580 .........

CALIFORNIA

DRY CREEK (WARM SPRINGS) 425 ......... 425 .........
RESTORATION, CA............
LOS ANGELES RIVER ECOSYSTEM ......... 400 ......... 400
RESTORATION, CA............
PORT OF LONG BEACH NAV IMP, 400 ......... 400 .........
CA.........................
SACRAMENTO RIVER BANK 625 ......... 625 .........
PROTECTION (PHASE 3)
(GENERAL REEVALUATION
REPORT), CA................
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY ......... 500 ......... 500
SHORELINE, CA..............
YUBA RIVER FISH PASSAGE, CA 590 ......... 590 .........
(ENGLEBRIGHT & DAGUERRE
POINT DAMS)................

COLORADO

ADAMS AND DENVER COUNTIES, 175 ......... 175 .........
CO.........................

CONNECTICUT

NEW HAVEN HARBOR DEEPENING, 500 ......... 500 .........
CT.........................

DELAWARE

DELAWARE INLAND BAYS AND 300 ......... 300 .........
DELAWARE BAY COAST, DE.....

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, DC 300 ......... 300 .........

FLORIDA

MANATEE HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS, 275 ......... 275 .........
FL.........................

GEORGIA

PROCTOR CREEK WATERSHED, 200 ......... 200 .........
FULTON COUNTY, GA..........
SAVANNAH HARBOR BELOW 500 ......... 500 .........
AUGUSTA ECOSYSTEM
RESTORATION, GA............
SWEETWATER CREEK, GA........ 500 ......... 500 .........

IDAHO

BOISE RIVER, BOISE, ID...... 73 ......... 73 .........

ILLINOIS

DU PAGE RIVER, IL........... 400 ......... 400 .........
INTERBASIN CONTROL OF GREAT 2,600 ......... 2,600 .........
LAKES- MISSISSIPPI RIVER
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES,
IL, IN, OH & WI (BRANDON
ROAD)......................
KASKASKIA RIVER BASIN, IL... 600 ......... 600 .........
ST LOUIS MISSISSIPPI ......... ......... ......... .........
RIVERFRONT, MO & IL (SEE
MISSOURI)..................

INDIANA

INTERBASIN CONTROL OF GREAT ......... ......... ......... .........
LAKES--MISSISSIPPI RIVER
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES,
IL, IN, OH & WI (BRANDON
ROAD) (SEE ILLINOIS).......

IOWA

DES MOINES LEVEE SYSTEM, DES 300 ......... 300 .........
MOINES AND RACCOON RIVERS,
IA.........................
GRAND RIVER BASIN, IA & MO.. 500 ......... 500 .........

LOUISIANA

INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION 550 ......... 550 .........
CANAL LOCK REPLACEMENT, LA
(GENERAL REEVALUATION
REPORT)....................
LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA 520 ......... 520 .........
ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA..
MISSISSIPPI RIVER SHIP 450 ......... 450 .........
CHANNEL, GULF TO BATON
ROUGE, LA (GENERAL
REEVALUATION REPORT).......

MARYLAND

CHESAPEAKE BAY COMPREHENSIVE 1,950 ......... 1,950 .........
PLAN, MD, PA, & VA.........

MINNESOTA

MINNESOTA RIVER WATERSHED 873 ......... 873 .........
STUDY, MN & SD (MINNESOTA
RIVER AUTHORITY)...........
RED RIVER OF THE NORTH ......... ......... ......... .........
BASIN, ND, MN, SD &
MANITOBA, CANADA (SEE NORTH
DAKOTA)....................

MISSOURI

GRAND RIVER BASIN, IA & MO ......... ......... ......... .........
(SEE IOWA).................
ST LOUIS MISSISSIPPI 150 ......... 150 .........
RIVERFRONT, MO & IL........

NEW JERSEY

NEW JERSEY BACKBAYS, NJ..... 575 ......... 575 .........
NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ......... ......... ......... .........
AND TRIBUTARIES, NY & NJ
(SEE NEW YORK).............
RAHWAY RIVER BASIN (UPPER 379 ......... 379 .........
BASIN), NJ.................

NEW MEXICO

RIO GRANDE, SANDIA PUEBLO TO 500 ......... 500 .........
ISLETA PUEBLO, NM..........

NEW YORK

NASSAU COUNTY BACK BAYS, NY. 300 ......... 300 .........
NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR 575 ......... 575 .........
AND TRIBUTARIES, NY & NJ...

NORTH DAKOTA

RED RIVER OF THE NORTH 496 ......... 496 .........
BASIN, ND, MN, SD &
MANITOBA, CANADA...........
SOURIS RIVER, ND............ 500 ......... 500 .........

OHIO

INTERBASIN CONTROL OF GREAT ......... ......... ......... .........
LAKES-MISSISSIPPI RIVER
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES,
IL, IN, OH & WI (BRANDON
ROAD) (SEE ILLINOIS).......

OKLAHOMA

ARKANSAS RIVER CORRIDOR, OK. 415 ......... 415 .........

PENNSYLVANIA

CHESAPEAKE BAY COMPREHENSIVE ......... ......... ......... .........
PLAN, MD, PA, & VA (SEE
MARYLAND)..................

PUERTO RICO

CANO MARTIN PENA, SAN JUAN, ......... 750 ......... 750
PR (ENVIRONMENTAL
RESTORATION)...............
SAN JUAN HARBOR CHANNEL 730 ......... 730 .........
IMPROVEMENT, PR............

TEXAS

COASTAL TEXAS PROTECTION AND 1,825 ......... 1,825 .........
RESTORATION STUDY, TX......
GIWW-BRAZOS RIVER FLOODGATES 1,000 ......... 1,000 .........
& COLORADO RIVER LOCK, TX..
HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX.... 1,750 ......... 1,750 .........
MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL, TX.. 500 ......... 500 .........
SPARKS ARROYO COLONIA, EL 47 ......... 47 .........
PASO COUNTY, TX............

VIRGINIA

CITY OF NORFOLK, VA......... 575 ......... 575 .........
NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, 350 ......... 350 .........
VA (55-FOOT DEEPENING)
(GENERAL REEVALUATION
REPORT), VA................

WASHINGTON

SEATTLE HARBOR, WA.......... 500 ......... 500 .........
-------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, ITEMS UNDER 27,999 1,650 27,999 1,650
STATES...............
===========================================

REMAINING ITEMS

ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR
ONGOING WORK:..............
FLOOD AND STORM DAMAGE ......... ......... 5,000 .........
REDUCTION..............
FLOOD CONTROL....... ......... ......... 4,000 .........
SHORE PROTECTION.... ......... ......... 2,500 .........
NAVIGATION:............. ......... ......... 5,000 .........
COASTAL AND DEEP- ......... ......... 5,000 .........
DRAFT..............
INLAND.............. ......... ......... 5,000 .........
OTHER AUTHORIZED PROJECT ......... ......... 2,340 .........
PURPOSES:..............
ENVIRONMENTAL ......... ......... 1,500 .........
RESTORATION OR
COMPLIANCE.............
COORDINATION STUDIES WITH
OTHER AGENCIES:
ACCESS TO WATER DATA.... 360 ......... 360 .........
COMMITTEE ON MARINE 90 ......... 90 .........
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS.
OTHER COORDINATION
PROGRAMS:
COORDINATION WITH 455 ......... 455 .........
OTHER WATER
RESOURCE AGENCIES..
INTERAGENCY AND 300 ......... 300 .........
INTERNATIONAL
SUPPORT............
INTERAGENCY WATER 175 ......... 175 .........
RESOURCE
DEVELOPMENT........
INVENTORY OF DAMS... 400 ......... 400 .........
SPECIAL 1,300 ......... 1,300 .........
INVESTIGATIONS.....
FERC LICENSING...... 100 ......... 100 .........
PLANNING ASSISTANCE 5,500 ......... 6,000 .........
TO STATES..........

COLLECTION AND STUDY OF
BASIC DATA:
AUTOMATED INFORMATION 251 ......... 251 .........
SYSTEMS SUPPORT TRI-
CADD...................
COASTAL FIELD DATA 1,000 ......... 1,000 .........
COLLECTION.............
FLOOD DAMAGE DATA....... 220 ......... 220 .........
FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT 15,000 ......... 16,000 .........
SERVICES...............
HYDROLOGIC STUDIES...... 500 ......... 500 .........
INTERNATIONAL WATER 125 ......... 125 .........
STUDIES................
PRECIPITATION STUDIES... 200 ......... 200 .........
REMOTE SENSING/ 75 ......... 75 .........
GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
SYSTEM SUPPORT.........
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL 47 ......... 47 .........
INFORMATION CENTERS....
STREAM GAGING........... 550 ......... 550 .........
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS.. 985 ......... 985 .........
WATER RESOURCES 1,000 ......... 1,000 .........
PRIORITIES STUDY.......
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.... 16,818 ......... 25,000 .........

OTHER-MISC:
DISPOSITION OF COMPLETED 1,000 ......... 1,000 .........
PROJECTS...............
NATIONAL FLOOD RISK 5,000 ......... 5,000 .........
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.....
NATIONAL SHORELINE 400 ......... 400 .........
MANAGEMENT STUDY.......
PLANNING SUPPORT PROGRAM 3,000 ......... 3,000 .........
TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP 500 ......... 2,000 .........
PROGRAM................
-------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL.............. 55,351 ......... 96,873 .........
===========================================
TOTAL................. 83,350 1,650 124,872 1,650
===========================================
GRAND TOTAL........... ......... 85,000 ......... 126,522
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arctic Deep Draft Port Study.--The Committee encourages the
Corps of Engineers to continue to thoroughly evaluate the
proposed deep draft port in Nome, taking into account the wide
range of economic benefits the project would bring to the
region, the expansion of search and rescue capabilities it
would provide, and the national security reasons for its
construction. The President noted during his visit to Alaska
that an Arctic port north of Dutch Harbor is needed, and the
Committee supports that goal.
Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway System.--In the
Fiscal Year 2016 Omnibus, the Committee required the Corps of
Engineers to provide a report detailing the scope, schedule,
and budget for completing any update or reanalysis of the
Navigation and Ecosystem Sustainability Program [NESP]. The
Committee is aware that this report is under review, but the
Administration has now missed the Committee's deadline by at
least 3 months. While an updated economic analysis may be
required, the Administration has failed to tell the Committee
what it believes is necessary to move forward and complete PED.
This information is fundamental to the Committee's ability to
conduct oversight of the program. The Corps of Engineers is
directed to provide this report to the Committee expeditiously.
Puget Sound Nearshore Study.--The Committee commends the
Corps of Engineers for developing an implementation strategy
for the Puget Sound Nearshore Study with the State of
Washington in June 2015. The Committee encourages the Corps of
Engineers to proceed with the tiered implementation strategy by
advancing four projects through authorities under section 544
of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 and an
additional eight projects through section 206 of the Continuing
Authorities Program. The Committee directs the Puget Sound
Nearshore Study to be recognized as the feasibility component
for the purposes of section 544. The Committee further
encourages the Corps of Engineers to acknowledge early action
restoration efforts by the State of Washington as part of the
overall implementation strategy, including cost share
obligations.
Puget Sound Federal Caucus.--The Committee commends the
Corps of Engineers for signing the Puget Sound Federal Caucus
Memorandum of Understanding [MOU] on March 23, 2014. The
recovery and cleanup of Puget Sound is essential to our
Nation's economy and continued coordination and sharing of
expertise among Federal partners is critical to furthering
current efforts. The Committee encourages the Corps of
Engineers to work with their counterparts in the Puget Sound
Federal Caucus to renew and strengthen the MOU prior to its
expiration on March 27, 2017.
Missouri River Projects.--None of the funds made available
by this act may be used for the study of the Missouri River
Projects authorized in section 108 of the Energy and Water
Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2009
(Public Law 111-8).
Aquatic Nuisance Species.--The Corps of Engineers is
directed to expedite authorized actions related to addressing
the threat Asian carp pose to the Great Lakes basin, including
the Brandon Road Study. Given the promise Brandon Road Lock and
Dam holds as a single point to control transfer of invasive
species, including Asian carp, delays to this study would pose
an unnecessary threat to the Great Lakes and Mississippi River
Basin. Upon completion of the study, the Corps of Engineers is
directed to expeditiously pursue authorization of any proposed
modification to Brandon Road Lock and Dam through the
appropriate congressional committees.
The Corps of Engineers is further directed to establish
formal emergency procedures under the authorities provided
under section 1039 of the Water Resources Reform and
Development Act of 2014 (Public Law 113-121), including rapid
response protocols, monitoring, and other countermeasures, that
are appropriate to prevent Asian carp from passing beyond the
Brandon Road Lock and Dam while still complying with the Lock's
existing authorized purposes and the River and Harbor Act of
1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). These procedures shall be
established in coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and the Asian Carp Regional Coordinating Committee.
Research and Development, Additional Topic--Urban Flood
Damage Reduction and Stream Restoration in Arid Regions.--The
Committee recommendation includes $2,500,000 for the Corps of
Engineers' research and development [R&D] program to continue
its 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.
Disposition of Completed Projects.--The Committee
recommendation includes $1,000,000 for disposition of completed
projects to be administered as provided in the budget request.
The Corps of Engineers is encouraged to work with State and
local stakeholders on these projects.
Coastal Resiliency Projects.--In the Consolidated and
Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (Public Law 113-
235), the Committee directed the Corps of Engineers and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to work
collaboratively to identify projects that would enhance the
resiliency of ocean and coastal ecosystems, communities, and
economies. With this initial phase of identification now
complete, the Committee expects the Corps of Engineers to begin
implementation of these projects through the Continuing
Authorities Program or other Corps of Engineers authorities, as
required by WRRDA section 4014. The Committee also urges the
Corps of Engineers to complete its Implementation Guidance for
WRRDA Section 4014 as soon as practicable.
San Francisquito.--The Committee is concerned by repeated
delays with the San Francisquito Creek flood control study, 18
years after a significant flood event. The Committee urges the
Corps of Engineers to proceed at an expeditious pace to achieve
a Chief's Report by early 2018 and involve other Federal
agencies so as to avoid future permitting delays.
Hydraulic Modeling.--The Committee recommends $1,000,000 to
develop a hydraulic model to assist in the regional strategic
flood risk management decisions of at least five States along a
major navigable waterway.
Oyster Reefs.--The Committee encourages the Corps of
Engineers when conducting or reviewing environmental
assessments or impact statements for navigation or coastal
restoration projects in areas where oyster reefs exist to
consider water quality impacts on those reefs and where
feasible mitigate any negative impacts.
Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.--The Committee
recommendation includes $30,340,000 in additional funds for
Investigations. From these additional funds, the Corps of
Engineers is authorized to begin up to 5 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 2017 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 is encouraged to give priority to
those studies with executed Feasibility Cost Sharing
Agreements and a sponsor with the ability to provide
any necessary cost share for the study phase. The Corps
of Engineers is encouraged to support opportunities to
restore critical habitat and enhance the Nation's
economic development, job growth, and international
competitiveness.
--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 2017.
--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, 2016.................................... $1,862,250,000
Budget estimate, 2017................................... 1,090,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,813,649,000

The Committee recommends $1,813,649,000 for Construction,
an increase of $723,649,000 above the budget request. The
Committee's recommendation allows the Corps of Engineers to
select up to 8 new construction starts to begin in fiscal year
2017.

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
$696,649,000 in additional funding for ongoing work.

NEW STARTS

The Committee recommends up to 8 new construction starts.
Of the new construction starts, at least one shall be for an
environmental infrastructure project with priority given to
projects that use advanced technologies to diversify and
improve the efficiency of water supplies, and at least one
navigation project. The Committee considers the Mud Mountain
Dam project--proposed in the budget request as a new start--to
be ongoing construction and therefore not subject to a new
start determination.

INLAND WATERWAYS TRUST FUND

The Committee notes that the budget request only proposed
to spend $33,750,000 of the estimated $106,000,000 deposits for
fiscal year 2017 into the Inland Waterways Trust Fund [IWTF].
This would leave an estimated $72,250,000 of fiscal year 2017
IWTF deposits unspent. Congress has taken several steps in
recent years to provide additional funding to our Nation's
inland waterways. First, Congress passed WRRDA 2014, which
reduced the amount of money that is required from the IWTF to
replace Olmsted Lock. Second, Congress worked with the
commercial waterways industry to establish a priority list for
projects that needed to be funded. Third, in 2014, Congress
enacted the bipartisan Able Act, which increased the user fee
that commercial barge owners had asked to pay in order to
provide more money to replace locks and dams across the
country. These steps increased the amount of funding that was
available annually for inland waterways projects from the IWTF
from about $85,000,000 in fiscal year 2014 to now $106,000,000
this year. Unfortunately, the President's budget request
severely underfunds inland waterways projects, and in fact,
only proposes to fund a single project, the Olmsted Locks and
Dam project, and providing no funding for the other three
ongoing construction projects, the Locks and Dams 2, 3, and 4,
Monongahela River Navigation Project, the Kentucky Lock
Addition, and the Chickamauga Lock. The Committee recommends
using an additional $75,325,000 of IWTF deposits above the
budget request to address this deficiency.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The table below displays the budget request and Committee's
recommendation for Construction:

CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CONSTRUCTION
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
recommendation
Item Budget Committee compared to
estimate recommendation budget
estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALIFORNIA

AMERICAN RIVER COMMON FEATURES, NATOMAS BASIN, CA............... 21,150 21,150 ..............
AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM MODIFICATIONS), CA......... 20,740 20,740 ..............
AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM RAISE), CA................. 21,040 21,040 ..............
HAMILTON CITY, CA............................................... 8,500 8,500 ..............
ISABELLA LAKE, CA (DAM SAFETY).................................. 70,500 70,500 ..............
OAKLAND HARBOR (50 FOOT PROJECT), CA............................ 1,056 1,056 ..............
SACRAMENTO RIVER BANK PROTECTION PROJECT, CA.................... 8,000 8,000 ..............
SANTA ANA RIVER MAINSTEM, CA.................................... 37,200 37,200 ..............
YUBA RIVER BASIN, CA............................................ 7,000 7,000 ..............

DELAWARE

DELAWARE RIVER MAIN CHANNEL, NJ, PA, & DE (SEE NEW JERSEY)...... .............. .............. ..............

FLORIDA

HERBERT HOOVER DIKE, FL (SEEPAGE CONTROL)....................... 49,500 49,500 ..............
SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION (EVERGLADES), FL............ 106,000 106,000 ..............

GEORGIA

RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA & SC......................... 930 930 ..............
SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, GA................................... 42,700 42,700 ..............

IDAHO

COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, WA, OR & ID (CRFM) (SEE .............. .............. ..............
WASHINGTON)....................................................

ILLINOIS

OLMSTED LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, IL & KY...................... 225,000 225,000 ..............
UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER RESTORATION, IL, IA, MN, MO & WI........ 20,000 20,000 ..............

IOWA

MISSOURI RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE RECOVERY, IA, KS, MO, MT, NE, 18,000 18,000 ..............
ND & SD........................................................
UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER RESTORATION, IL, IA, MN, MO & WI (SEE .............. .............. ..............
ILLINOIS)......................................................

KANSAS

KENTUCKY

OLMSTED LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, IL & KY (SEE ILLINOIS)....... .............. .............. ..............

LOUISIANA

LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA................ 9,000 9,000 ..............

MARYLAND

ASSATEAGUE, MD.................................................. 600 600 ..............
POPLAR ISLAND, MD............................................... 62,300 62,300

MINNESOTA

UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER RESTORATION, IL, IA, MN, MO & WI (SEE .............. .............. ..............
ILLINOIS)......................................................

MISSOURI

MISSOURI RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE RECOVERY, IA, KS, MO, MT, NE, .............. .............. ..............
ND & SD (SEE IOWA).............................................
MONARCH- CHESTERFIELD, MO....................................... 7,000 7,000 ..............
UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER RESTORATION, IL, IA, MN, MO & WI (SEE .............. .............. ..............
ILLINOIS)......................................................

MONTANA

MISSOURI RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE RECOVERY, IA, KS, MO, MT, NE, .............. .............. ..............
ND & SD (SEE IOWA).............................................

NEBRASKA

MISSOURI RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE RECOVERY, IA, KS, MO, MT, NE, .............. .............. ..............
ND & SD (SEE IOWA).............................................

NEW JERSEY

DELAWARE RIVER MAIN CHANNEL, NJ, PA, & DE....................... 33,125 33,125 ..............
RARITAN RIVER BASIN, GREEN BROOK SUB-BASIN, NJ.................. 10,000 10,000 ..............

NORTH DAKOTA

MISSOURI RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE RECOVERY, IA, KS, MO, MT, NE, .............. .............. ..............
ND & SD (SEE IOWA).............................................

OHIO

BOLIVAR DAM, OH (SEEPAGE CONTROL)............................... 5,000 5,000 ..............

OREGON

COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR & WA............................ 21,900 21,900 ..............
COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, WA, OR & ID (CRFM) (SEE .............. .............. ..............
WASHINGTON)....................................................

PENNSYLVANIA

DELAWARE RIVER MAIN CHANNEL, NJ, PA, DE (SEE NEW JERSEY)........ .............. .............. ..............
EAST BRANCH CLARION RIVER LAKE, PA.............................. 56,250 56,250 ..............

SOUTH CAROLINA

RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA & SC (SEE GEORGIA)........... .............. .............. ..............

SOUTH DAKOTA

MISSOURI RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE RECOVERY, IA, KS, MO, MT, NE, .............. .............. ..............
ND & SD (SEE IOWA).............................................

TENNESSEE

CENTER HILL LAKE, TN............................................ 40,000 40,000 ..............

TEXAS

BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TX............................... 13,300 13,300 ..............

VIRGINIA

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AT DEEP CREEK, 12,000 12,000 ..............
CHESAPEAKE, VA.................................................

WASHINGTON

COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR & WA (SEE OREGON)............... .............. .............. ..............
COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, WA, OR & ID (CRFM).............. 84,000 84,000 ..............
MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA............................................ 22,350 22,350 ..............

WEST VIRGINIA

BLUESTONE LAKE, WV.............................................. 4,000 4,000 ..............

WISCONSIN

UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER RESTORATION, IL, IA, MN, MO & WI (SEE .............. .............. ..............
ILLINOIS)......................................................
-----------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, ITEMS UNDER STATES................................ 1,046,175 1,046,175 ..............
===============================================

REMAINING ITEMS

ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK FLOOD AND STORM DAMAGE .............. 62,000 +62,000
REDUCTION......................................................
FLOOD CONTROL............................................... .............. 125,000 +125,000
SHORE PROTECTION............................................ .............. 50,000 +50,000
NAVIGATION.................................................. .............. 227,374 +227,374
INLAND WATERWAYS TRUST FUND PROJECTS........................ .............. 75,325 +75,325
OTHER AUTHORIZED PROJECT PURPOSES........................... .............. 48,000 +48,000
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION OR COMPLIANCE..................... .............. 40,000 +40,000
ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCURE PROJECTS........................ .............. 68,950 +68,950
AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL PROGRAM................................... .............. 9,000 +9,000
CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROJECTS NOT REQUIRING SPECIFIC
LEGISLATION:...............................................
NAVIGATION PROGRAM (SECTION 107)............................ .............. 7,000 +7,000
BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL (SECTION 204)........... 1,000 1,000 ..............
FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS (SECTION 205)........................ 500 500 ..............
AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION (SECTION 206)................. 1,000 8,000 +7,000
PROJECT MODIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT 1,000 3,000 +2,000
(SECTION 1135).............................................
DAM SAFETY AND SEEPAGE/STABILITY CORRECTION PROGRAM............. 21,000 21,000 ..............
EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION......................................... 19,000 19,000 ..............
INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD - BOARD EXPENSE.................... 50 50 ..............
INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD--CORPS EXPENSE..................... 275 275 ..............
RESTORATION OF ABANDONED MINES.................................. .............. 2,000 +2,000
-----------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, REMAINING ITEMS................................. 43,825 767,474 +723,649
===============================================
TOTAL..................................................... 1,090,000 1,813,649 +723,649
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal Barrier,
Illinois.--The issue of hydrologic separation shall 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 $9,000,000 for the Aquatic Plant
Control Program. Within available funds, $4,000,000 is
recommended for nationwide research and development to address
invasive aquatic plants; $4,000,000 is for watercraft
inspection stations, as authorized by section 1039(d) of WRRDA;
and $1,000,000 is for monitoring and contingency planning
associated with watercraft inspection stations as authorized by
section 1039(e) of WRRDA. The Corps of Engineers is encouraged
to support cost-shared aquatic plant management programs.
Continuing Authorities Program.--The Committee recommends
$19,500,000 for the Continuing Authorities Program [CAP], an
increase of $16,000,000 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 five of the nine sections rather than only
the four sections proposed in the budget request.
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.
Hawaii Water Management, Oahu, Hawaii.--The Committee is
encouraged by the progress of the Hawaii Water Management
Project, and encourages the Corps of Engineers to utilize funds
appropriated in prior years to this project to continue
progress in rehabilitating aged Hawaii irrigation
infrastructure.
Public-Private Partnerships.--The Committee notes that the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works and the Chief
of Engineers have expressed strong support for public-private
partnerships as a method to reduce the Federal cost of future
construction projects, and selected one such project as a new
start in the fiscal year 2016 workplan. The Committee continues
to support the idea of partnerships and recommends that the
Corps of Engineers identify new construction starts that
leverage the private sector through partnerships in fiscal year
2017.
Reimbursements.--The Committee directs the Secretary to
prioritize the Corps of Engineers' reimbursement obligations
based on projects with signed Project Partnership Agreements.
The Secretary shall demonstrate plans for the additional
funding provided by Congress to meet the Project Partnership
Agreement and Federal Government's fiscal responsibilities. The
Committee encourages the Corps of Engineers to consider
prioritizing projects where non-Federal sponsors intend to use
the funds for additional water resources development
activities.
McCook and Thornton Reservoirs, Illinois.--The Committee is
disappointed by the Corps of Engineer's failure to provide
funding for McCook Reservoir, and concerned by the Corps of
Engineers' decision to reject congressional intent and its own
history on this project. Congressional intent has been clear
since its authorization in 1988, and in subsequent
modification; the project is 75 percent complete and the
Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to complete the project.
The McCook Reservoir was authorized for flood risk management
and constructed to help alleviate flooding problems in the
Metropolitan area of Chicago, Illinois.
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.
Metro East Saint Louis, Illinois.--The Committee is
disappointed by the lack of funding provided to the Metro East
levee system, which is critical to protecting 288,000 residents
and employees, 111,700 acres and more than $7,000,000,000 in
property and infrastructure in the Metro East region from
rising waters on the Mississippi River. These levees are more
than 70 years old, in need of repair, and have been prioritized
by the Corps of Engineers in the past. Further, the Committee
urges the Corps of Engineers to engage in heightened
cooperation with non-Federal sponsors. The Committee urges the
Corps of Engineers to enter a cost share agreement with the
non-Federal sponsors.
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 directs that a new construction start
shall not be required for the Mud Mountain fish passage project
based on how the Corps of Engineers has treated this and
similar projects in the past. First, this project has received
funding from the Construction account in prior years, and has
received more than $13,000,000 during just the last two fiscal
years. Second, the Corps of Engineers has not considered
similar projects associated with BiOp compliance as requiring
new start determinations. Finally, this project is replacing
existing infrastructure. Accordingly, no new start
determination shall be required for this project. The Committee
further encourages the Corps of Engineers to uphold the
agency's ESA and tribal treaty responsibilities by requesting
sufficient funding in future budgets to implement the BiOp
requirements and complete construction by 2020.
Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.--The Committee
recommendation includes $696,649,000 in additional funds for
Construction. From these additional funds, the Corps of
Engineers is authorized to begin up to eight new construction
starts. 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 2017 Work Plan''.
Additionally, the Corps of Engineers shall comply with the
following direction in allocating funds made available for
Construction:
--Of the additional funds provided in this account for flood
and storm damage reduction and flood control, the Corps
of Engineers shall allocate not less than $20,000,000
to continue construction of projects which principally
address drainage in urban areas.
--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 2017; 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.
When allocating the additional funding provided in this
account, the Corps of Engineers shall consider giving priority
to the following:
--the benefits of the funded work to the national economy;
--extent to which the work will enhance national, regional,
or local economic development;
--number of jobs created directly by the funded activity;
--ability to obligate the funds allocated within the fiscal
year, including consideration of the ability of the
non-federal sponsor to provide any required cost-share;
--ability to complete the project, separable element, or
project phase with the funds allocated;
--for flood and storm damage reduction projects (including
authorized nonstructural measures and periodic beach
renourishments),
--population, economic activity, or public infrastructure
at risk, as appropriate; and
--the severity of risk of flooding or the frequency with
which an area has experienced flooding;
--for navigation projects, the number of jobs or level of
economic activity to be supported by completion of the
project, separable element, or project phase;
--for projects cost shared with the Inland Waterways Trust
Fund [IWTF], the economic impact on the local,
regional, and national economy if the project is not
funded, as well as discrete elements of work that can
be completed within the funding provided in this line
item;
--for other authorized project purposes and environmental
restoration or compliance projects, to include the
beneficial use of dredged material; and
--for environmental infrastructure, projects with the greater
economic impact, projects in rural communities, and
projects that benefit counties or parishes with high
poverty rates.
Environmental Infrastructure.--The Committee recommends an
additional $68,950,000 in the Construction account for
environmental infrastructure. The Corps of Engineers is
encouraged to give priority to projects that could be completed
in fiscal year 2017; projects in rural areas; and projects
located in towns, cities, and municipalities experiencing
compliance difficulties with Federal environmental regulations.
Within available funds, $10,000,000 is for projects authorized
under section 595 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1999, as amended.
Prioritization of Corps of Engineers Projects in Drought
Stricken Areas.--The Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to
prioritize any authorized projects that would alleviate water
supply issues in areas that have been afflicted by severe
droughts in the last three fiscal years, to include projects
focused on the treatment of brackish water.
Efficiency Review.--The Corps of Engineers is directed to
initiate the efficiency review required by WRRDA section 1012
and the evaluation of project partnership agreements required
by WRRDA section 1013.

MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES

Appropriations, 2016.................................... $345,000,000
Budget estimate, 2017................................... 222,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 368,000,000

The Committee recommends $368,000,000 for Mississippi River
and Tributaries, an increase of $146,000,000 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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
recommendation
Item Budget Committee compared to
estimate recommendation budget
estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSTRUCTION

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, REVETMENTS, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN.... 36,669 36,669 ..............
MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO &TN............ 21,600 21,600 ..............
CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, DIKES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO &TN.......... 3,100 3,100 ..............
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA........................................... 2,505 2,505 ..............
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA........................... 400 400 ..............
-----------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, CONSTRUCTION.................................... 64,274 64,274 ..............
===============================================
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, REVETMENTS, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN.... 45,605 45,605 ..............
CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, DREDGING, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN...... 15,370 15,370 ..............
CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, DIKES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN......... 2,515 2,515 ..............
MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO &TN............ 9,795 9,795 ..............
HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR.............................. 15 15 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR............................... 532 532 ..............
LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, NORTH BANK, AR............................ 294 294 ..............
LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, SOUTH BANK, AR............................ 198 198 ..............
ST FRANCIS BASIN, AR & MO....................................... 5,900 5,900 ..............
TENSAS BASIN, BOEUF AND TENSAS RIVERS, AR & LA.................. 2,579 2,579 ..............
WHITE RIVER BACKWATER, AR....................................... 1,000 1,000 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL............................... 38 38 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY............................... 28 28 ..............
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA........................................... 12,898 12,898 ..............
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA........................... 1,692 1,692 ..............
BATON ROUGE HARBOR, DEVIL SWAMP, LA............................. 55 55 ..............
BAYOU COCODRIE AND TRIBUTARIES, LA.............................. 48 48 ..............
BONNET CARRE, LA................................................ 2,331 2,331 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA............................... 1,106 1,106 ..............
LOWER RED RIVER, SOUTH BANK LEVEES, LA.......................... 498 498 ..............
MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA.................................... 496 496 ..............
OLD RIVER, LA................................................... 8,086 8,086 ..............
TENSAS BASIN, RED RIVER BACKWATER, LA........................... 3,345 3,345 ..............
GREENVILLE HARBOR, MS........................................... 24 24 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS............................... 67 67 ..............
VICKSBURG HARBOR, MS............................................ 42 42 ..............
YAZOO BASIN, ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS................................. 5,483 5,483 ..............
YAZOO BASIN, BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS............................ 185 185 ..............
YAZOO BASIN, ENID LAKE, MS...................................... 5,024 5,024 ..............
YAZOO BASIN, GREENWOOD, MS...................................... 807 807 ..............
YAZOO BASIN, GRENADA LAKE, MS................................... 5,487 5,487 ..............
YAZOO BASIN, MAIN STEM, MS...................................... 1,344 1,344 ..............
YAZOO BASIN, SARDIS LAKE, MS.................................... 6,668 6,668 ..............
YAZOO BASIN, TRIBUTARIES, MS.................................... 967 967 ..............
YAZOO BASIN, WILL M WHITTINGTON AUX CHAN, MS.................... 384 384 ..............
YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO BACKWATER AREA, MS........................... 544 544 ..............
YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO CITY, MS..................................... 731 731 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO............................... 237 237 ..............
WAPPAPELLO LAKE, MO............................................. 4,912 4,912 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN............................... 47 47 ..............
MEMPHIS HARBOR, MCKELLAR LAKE, TN............................... 2,132 2,132 ..............
-----------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE....................... 149,509 149,509 ..............
===============================================
REMAINING ITEMS

ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK
CONSTRUCTION: CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & .............. 15,462 +15,462
TN.........................................................
O & M: CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN..... .............. 13,634 +13,634

CONSTRUCTION: MISSISSIPPI RIVER MAIN STEM :
MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES.................................... .............. 3,400 +3,400
O & M: LMRMS PROJECT; MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES.................. .............. 1,381 +1,381
DREDGING.................................................... .............. 8,090 +8,090
FLOOD CONTROL............................................... .............. 64,033 +64,033
OTHER AUTHORIZED PURPOSES................................... .............. 40,000 +40,000
COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA.............................. 7,000 7,000 ..............
MAPPING......................................................... 1,127 1,127 ..............
MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION.................................... 90 90 ..............
-----------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, REMAINING ITEMS................................. 8,217 154,217 +146,000
===============================================
REDUCTION FOR SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE.............................. .............. .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------
TOTAL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES.................. 222,000 368,000 +146,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional Funding for Ongoing Work--Flood Control.--Of the
additional funds provided in this account, the Corps of
Engineers shall allocate not less than $30,000,000 for
additional flood control construction projects outside of the
Lower Mississippi River Main Stem.
Additional Funding for Ongoing Work--Other Authorized
Purposes.--Of the additional funds provided in this account for
other authorized project purposes, the Corps of Engineers shall
allocate not less than $5,000,000 for operation and maintenance
of facilities that are educational or to continue land
management of mitigation features.
Additional Funding for Ongoing Work--Dredging.--Of the
additional funds provided in this account for dredging, the
Corps of Engineers shall allocate not less than $7,000,000 for
maintenance dredging of ports and harbors. Within that amount,
no port or harbor funded by this account shall receive less
than $900,000 unless such sums exceed a port's fiscal year 2017
total capability.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Appropriations, 2016.................................... $3,137,000,000
Budget estimate, 2017................................... 2,705,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,173,829,000

The Committee recommends $3,173,829,000 for Operation and
Maintenance, an increase of $468,829,000 over the budget
request.

INTRODUCTION

Funding in this account is used to fund operation,
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 Operation and Maintenance.

CORPS OF ENGINEERS--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
recommendation
Item Budget Committee compared to
estimate recommendation budget
estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA

ALABAMA--COOSA COMPREHENSIVE WATER STUDY, AL.................... 176 176 ..............
ALABAMA RIVER LAKES, AL......................................... 14,080 14,080 ..............
BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, AL.......................... 24,101 24,101 ..............
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, AL.................................. 6,075 6,075 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AL............................... 215 215 ..............
MOBILE HARBOR, AL............................................... 23,389 23,389 ..............
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AL................................... 190 190 ..............
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AL............................. 100 100 ..............
TENNESSEE--TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY WILDLIFE MITIGATION, AL & MS...... 1,700 1,700 ..............
TENNESSEE--TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY, AL & MS.......................... 29,218 29,218 ..............
WALTER F GEORGE LOCK AND DAM, AL & GA........................... 11,930 11,930 ..............
WATER/ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION, AL........................... 20 20 ..............

ALASKA

ANCHORAGE HARBOR, AK............................................ 11,868 11,868 ..............
CHENA RIVER LAKES, AK........................................... 9,663 9,663 ..............
CHIGNIK HARBOR, AK.............................................. 200 200 ..............
DILLINGHAM HARBOR, AK........................................... 1,050 1,050 ..............
HOMER HARBOR, AK................................................ 462 462 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AK............................... 225 225 ..............
KETCHIKAN, THOMAS BASIN, AK..................................... 3,100 3,100 ..............
LOWELL CREEK TUNNEL (SEWARD) AK................................. 591 591 ..............
NINILCHIK HARBOR, AK............................................ 345 345 ..............
NOME HARBOR, AK................................................. 2,920 2,920 ..............
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AK................................... 700 700 ..............

ARIZONA

ALAMO LAKE, AZ.................................................. 1,260 1,260 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AZ............................... 96 96 ..............
PAINTED ROCK DAM, AZ............................................ 830 830 ..............
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AZ............................. 102 102 ..............
WHITLOW RANCH DAM, AZ........................................... 317 317 ..............

ARKANSAS

BEAVER LAKE, AR................................................. 9,019 9,019 ..............
BLAKELY MT DAM, LAKE OUACHITA, AR............................... 8,157 8,157 ..............
BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR.......................................... 1,908 1,908 ..............
BULL SHOALS LAKE, AR............................................ 8,305 8,305 ..............
DEGRAY LAKE, AR................................................. 6,121 6,121 ..............
DEQUEEN LAKE, AR................................................ 1,780 1,780 ..............
DIERKS LAKE, AR................................................. 1,768 1,768 ..............
GILLHAM LAKE, AR................................................ 1,556 1,556 ..............
GREERS FERRY LAKE, AR........................................... 9,403 9,403 ..............
HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR.............................. 15 15 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR............................... 490 490 ..............
MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, AR............. 42,464 42,464 ..............
MILLWOOD LAKE, AR............................................... 2,631 2,631 ..............
NARROWS DAM, LAKE GREESON, AR................................... 4,912 4,912 ..............
NIMROD LAKE, AR................................................. 2,163 2,163 ..............
NORFORK LAKE, AR................................................ 5,098 5,098 ..............
OSCEOLA HARBOR, AR.............................................. 515 515 ..............
OUACHITA AND BLACK RIVERS, AR & LA.............................. 8,445 8,445 ..............
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AR................................... 1 1 ..............
WHITE RIVER, AR................................................. 25 25 ..............
YELLOW BEND PORT, AR............................................ 115 115 ..............

CALIFORNIA

BLACK BUTTE LAKE, CA............................................ 3,040 3,040 ..............
BODEGA BAY, CA.................................................. 4,285 4,285 ..............
BUCHANAN DAM, HV EASTMAN LAKE, CA............................... 2,078 2,078 ..............
CHANNEL ISLANDS HARBOR, CA...................................... 7,980 7,980 ..............
COYOTE VALLEY DAM, LAKE MENDOCINO, CA........................... 4,284 4,284 ..............
DRY CREEK (WARM SPRINGS) LAKE AND CHANNEL, CA................... 6,888 6,888 ..............
FARMINGTON DAM, CA.............................................. 478 478 ..............
HIDDEN DAM, HENSLEY LAKE, CA.................................... 2,377 2,377 ..............
HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY, CA..................................... 3,000 3,000 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, CA.............. 6 6 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CA............................... 3,588 3,588 ..............
ISABELLA LAKE, CA............................................... 1,582 1,582 ..............
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CA............................ 17,447 17,447 ..............
MERCED COUNTY STREAMS, CA....................................... 484 484 ..............
MOJAVE RIVER DAM, CA............................................ 375 375 ..............
MORRO BAY HARBOR, CA............................................ 4,400 4,400 ..............
NAPA RIVER, CA.................................................. 350 350 ..............
NEW HOGAN LAKE, CA.............................................. 3,058 3,058 ..............
NEW MELONES LAKE, DOWNSTREAM CHANNEL, CA........................ 2,695 2,695 ..............
OAKLAND HARBOR, CA.............................................. 17,155 17,155 ..............
OCEANSIDE HARBOR, CA............................................ 2,275 2,275 ..............
PINE FLAT LAKE, CA.............................................. 3,440 3,440 ..............
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CA................................... 1,698 1,698 ..............
REDWOOD CITY HARBOR, CA......................................... 4,201 4,201 ..............
RICHMOND HARBOR, CA............................................. 8,132 8,132 ..............
SACRAMENTO RIVER (30 FOOT PROJECT), CA.......................... 1,600 1,600 ..............
SACRAMENTO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES (DEBRIS CONTROL), CA........... 1,548 1,548 ..............
SACRAMENTO RIVER SHALLOW DRAFT CHANNEL, CA...................... 175 175 ..............
SALINAS DAM, CA................................................. 1 1 ..............
SAN FRANCISCO BAY DELTA MODEL STRUCTURE, CA..................... 1,096 1,096 ..............
SAN FRANCISCO BAY LONG TERM MANAGEMENT STRATEGY, CA............. 600 600 ..............
SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR AND BAY, CA (DRIFT REMOVAL)................ 3,870 3,870 ..............
SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR, CA........................................ 3,220 3,220 ..............
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER, PORT OF STOCKTON, CA......................... 3,242 3,242 ..............
SAN PABLO BAY AND MARE ISLAND STRAIT, CA........................ 2,025 2,025 ..............
SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CA....................................... 4,871 4,871 ..............
SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CA........................................ 2,695 2,695 ..............
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CA............................. 1,198 1,198 ..............
SUCCESS LAKE, CA................................................ 2,509 2,509 ..............
SUISUN BAY CHANNEL, CA.......................................... 4,031 4,031 ..............
TERMINUS DAM, LAKE KAWEAH, CA (DAM SAFETY)...................... 2,227 2,227 ..............
VENTURA HARBOR, CA.............................................. 4,300 4,300 ..............
YUBA RIVER, CA.................................................. 1,422 1,422 ..............

COLORADO

BEAR CREEK LAKE, CO............................................. 437 437 ..............
CHATFIELD LAKE, CO.............................................. 1,702 1,702 ..............
CHERRY CREEK LAKE, CO........................................... 1,159 1,159 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CO............................... 376 376 ..............
JOHN MARTIN RESERVOIR, CO....................................... 2,951 2,951 ..............
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CO............................. 576 576 ..............
TRINIDAD LAKE, CO............................................... 1,565 1,565 ..............

CONNECTICUT

BLACK ROCK LAKE, CT............................................. 601 601 ..............
COLEBROOK RIVER LAKE, CT........................................ 709 709 ..............
HANCOCK BROOK LAKE, CT.......................................... 448 448 ..............
HOP BROOK LAKE, CT.............................................. 1,203 1,203 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CT............................... 345 345 ..............
MANSFIELD HOLLOW LAKE, CT....................................... 605 605 ..............
NORTHFIELD BROOK LAKE, CT....................................... 491 491 ..............
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CT................................... 850 850 ..............
STAMFORD HURRICANE BARRIER, CT.................................. 626 626 ..............
THOMASTON DAM, CT............................................... 800 800 ..............
WEST THOMPSON LAKE, CT.......................................... 661 661 ..............

DELAWARE

HARBOR OF REFUGE, DELAWARE BAY, DE.............................. 45 45 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, DE............................... 58 58 ..............
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, DELAWARE RIVER TO CHESAPEAKE BAY, DE & MD 21,622 21,622 ..............
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DE................................... 200 200 ..............
WILMINGTON HARBOR, DE........................................... 4,355 4,355 ..............

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, DC............................... 72 72 ..............
POTOMAC AND ANACOSTIA RIVERS, DC (DRIFT REMOVAL)................ 875 875 ..............
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DC................................... 25 25 ..............
WASHINGTON HARBOR, DC........................................... 25 25 ..............

FLORIDA

CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL............................................ 4,069 4,069 ..............
CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL................................ 14,889 14,889 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, FL............................... 1,272 1,272 ..............
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI, FL................ 850 850 ..............
JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL......................................... 7,280 7,280 ..............
JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM, LAKE SEMINOLE, FL, AL & GA........... 6,506 6,506 ..............
MANATEE HARBOR, FL.............................................. 500 500 ..............
MIAMI HARBOR, FL................................................ 100 100 ..............
OKEECHOBEE WATERWAY, FL......................................... 2,790 2,790 ..............
PALM BEACH HARBOR, FL........................................... 3,330 3,330 ..............
PENSACOLA HARBOR, FL............................................ 1,915 1,915 ..............
PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR, FL...................................... 300 300 ..............
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, FL................................... 1,425 1,425 ..............
REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, FL................................... 3,130 3,130 ..............
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, FL............................. 33 33 ..............
SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, FL......................... 299 299 ..............
TAMPA HARBOR, FL................................................ 8,715 8,715 ..............
WATER / ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION, FL......................... 165 165 ..............

GEORGIA

ALLATOONA LAKE, GA.............................................. 7,925 7,925 ..............
APALACHICOLA, CHATTAHOOCHEE AND FLINT RIVERS, GA, AL & FL....... 1,026 1,026 ..............
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, GA.............................. 181 181 ..............
BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA............................................ 4,528 4,528 ..............
BUFORD DAM AND LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, GA........................... 9,823 9,823 ..............
CARTERS DAM AND LAKE, GA........................................ 7,724 7,724 ..............
HARTWELL LAKE, GA & SC.......................................... 11,343 11,343 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, GA............................... 227 227 ..............
J STROM THURMOND LAKE, GA & SC.................................. 18,399 18,399 ..............
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, GA................................... 128 128 ..............
RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA & SC......................... 7,842 7,842 ..............
SAVANNAH HARBOR, GA............................................. 23,527 23,527 ..............
SAVANNAH RIVER BELOW AUGUSTA, GA................................ 137 137 ..............
WEST POINT DAM AND LAKE, GA & AL................................ 8,450 8,450 ..............

HAWAII

BARBERS POINT HARBOR, HI........................................ 319 319 ..............
HILO HARBOR, HI................................................. 400 400 ..............
HONOLULU HARBOR, HI............................................. 400 400 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, HI............................... 600 600 ..............
NAWILIWILI HARBOR, HI........................................... 400 400 ..............
PORT ALLEN HARBOR, KAUAI, HI.................................... 275 275 ..............
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, HI................................... 706 706 ..............

IDAHO

ALBENI FALLS DAM, ID............................................ 1,274 1,274 ..............
DWORSHAK DAM AND RESERVOIR, ID.................................. 2,862 2,862 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ID............................... 361 361 ..............
LUCKY PEAK LAKE, ID............................................. 4,405 4,405 ..............
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ID............................. 640 640 ..............

ILLINOIS

CALUMET HARBOR AND RIVER, IL & IN............................... 2,827 2,827 ..............
CARLYLE LAKE, IL................................................ 6,287 6,287 ..............
CHICAGO HARBOR, IL.............................................. 2,824 2,824 ..............
CHICAGO RIVER, IL............................................... 572 572 ..............
CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL DISPERSAL BARRIER, IL........... 12,000 12,000 ..............
FARM CREEK RESERVOIRS, IL....................................... 446 446 ..............
ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVR PORTION), IL & IN........................ 34,059 34,059 ..............
ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVS PORTION), IL & IN........................ 1,847 1,847 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL............................... 2,560 2,560 ..............
KASKASKIA RIVER NAVIGATION, IL.................................. 2,093 2,093 ..............
LAKE MICHIGAN DIVERSION, IL..................................... 800 800 ..............
LAKE SHELBYVILLE, IL............................................ 5,975 5,975 ..............
MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVR 84,666 84,666 ..............
PORTION), IL...................................................
MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVS 21,968 21,968 ..............
PORTION), IL...................................................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IL................................... 105 105 ..............
REND LAKE, IL................................................... 5,655 5,655 ..............
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IL.................... 719 719 ..............
WAUKEGAN HARBOR, IL............................................. 1,580 1,580 ..............

INDIANA

BROOKVILLE LAKE, IN............................................. 1,357 1,357 ..............
BURNS WATERWAY HARBOR, IN....................................... 3,034 3,034 ..............
CAGLES MILL LAKE, IN............................................ 1,074 1,074 ..............
CECIL M HARDEN LAKE, IN......................................... 1,180 1,180 ..............
INDIANA HARBOR, IN.............................................. 11,795 11,795 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IN............................... 1,316 1,316 ..............
J EDWARD ROUSH LAKE, IN......................................... 1,136 1,136 ..............
MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN........................................... 1,168 1,168 ..............
MONROE LAKE, IN................................................. 1,324 1,324 ..............
PATOKA LAKE, IN................................................. 1,136 1,136 ..............
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IN................................... 185 185 ..............
SALAMONIE LAKE, IN.............................................. 1,253 1,253 ..............
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IN.................... 143 143 ..............

IOWA

CORALVILLE LAKE, IA............................................. 4,326 4,326 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, IA.............. 21 21 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IA............................... 1,370 1,370 ..............
MISSOURI RIVER--SIOUX CITY TO THE MOUTH, IA, KS, MO & NE........ 9,049 9,049 ..............
MISSOURI RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE RECOVERY, IA, KS, MO, MT, NE, 2,810 2,810 ..............
ND & SD........................................................
RATHBUN LAKE, IA................................................ 2,484 2,484 ..............
RED ROCK DAM AND LAKE RED ROCK, IA.............................. 4,711 4,711 ..............
SAYLORVILLE LAKE, IA............................................ 5,526 5,526 ..............

KANSAS

CLINTON LAKE, KS................................................ 2,953 2,953 ..............
COUNCIL GROVE LAKE, KS.......................................... 1,535 1,535 ..............
EL DORADO LAKE, KS.............................................. 801 801 ..............
ELK CITY LAKE, KS............................................... 970 970 ..............
FALL RIVER LAKE, KS............................................. 1,581 1,581 ..............
HILLSDALE LAKE, KS.............................................. 891 891 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, KS.............. 4 4 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KS............................... 1,206 1,206 ..............
JOHN REDMOND DAM AND RESERVOIR, KS.............................. 1,565 1,565 ..............
KANOPOLIS LAKE, KS.............................................. 4,968 4,968 ..............
MARION LAKE, KS................................................. 4,482 4,482 ..............
MELVERN LAKE, KS................................................ 2,490 2,490 ..............
MILFORD LAKE, KS................................................ 2,549 2,549 ..............
PEARSON--SKUBITZ BIG HILL LAKE, KS.............................. 1,392 1,392 ..............
PERRY LAKE, KS.................................................. 2,845 2,845 ..............
POMONA LAKE, KS................................................. 2,480 2,480 ..............
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, KS............................. 369 369 ..............
TORONTO LAKE, KS................................................ 1,191 1,191 ..............
TUTTLE CREEK LAKE, KS........................................... 7,464 7,464 ..............
WILSON LAKE, KS................................................. 1,711 1,711 ..............

KENTUCKY

BARKLEY DAM AND LAKE BARKLEY, KY & TN........................... 11,404 11,404 ..............
BARREN RIVER LAKE, KY........................................... 2,754 2,754 ..............
BIG SANDY HARBOR, KY............................................ 1,908 1,908 ..............
BUCKHORN LAKE, KY............................................... 1,693 1,693 ..............
CARR CREEK LAKE, KY............................................. 1,882 1,882 ..............
CAVE RUN LAKE, KY............................................... 1,094 1,094 ..............
DEWEY LAKE, KY.................................................. 1,749 1,749 ..............
ELVIS STAHR (HICKMAN) HARBOR, KY................................ 925 925 ..............
FALLS OF THE OHIO NATIONAL WILDLIFE, KY & IN.................... 223 223 ..............
FISHTRAP LAKE, KY............................................... 2,190 2,190 ..............
GRAYSON LAKE, KY................................................ 1,525 1,525 ..............
GREEN AND BARREN RIVERS, KY..................................... 2,180 2,180 ..............
GREEN RIVER LAKE, KY............................................ 2,575 2,575 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY............................... 1,301 1,301 ..............
KENTUCKY RIVER, KY.............................................. 10 10 ..............
LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KY........................................... 2,173 2,173 ..............
MARTINS FORK LAKE, KY........................................... 1,193 1,193 ..............
MIDDLESBORO CUMBERLAND RIVER BASIN, KY.......................... 264 264 ..............
NOLIN LAKE, KY.................................................. 2,709 2,709 ..............
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, KY, IL, IN & OH...................... 30,930 30,930 ..............
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, KY, IL, IN, OH, PA & WV........... 5,600 5,600 ..............
PAINTSVILLE LAKE, KY............................................ 1,263 1,263 ..............
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, KY................................... 1 1 ..............
ROUGH RIVER LAKE, KY............................................ 3,116 3,116 ..............
TAYLORSVILLE LAKE, KY........................................... 1,096 1,096 ..............
WOLF CREEK DAM, LAKE CUMBERLAND, KY............................. 9,195 9,195 ..............
YATESVILLE LAKE, KY............................................. 1,279 1,279 ..............

LOUISIANA

ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS CHENE, BOEUF & BLACK, LA........... 6,645 6,645 ..............
BARATARIA BAY WATERWAY, LA...................................... 100 100 ..............
BAYOU BODCAU RESERVOIR, LA...................................... 1,471 1,471 ..............
BAYOU LAFOURCHE AND LAFOURCHE JUMP WATERWAY, LA................. 911 911 ..............
BAYOU PIERRE, LA................................................ 23 23 ..............
BAYOU SEGNETTE WATERWAY, LA..................................... 20 20 ..............
BAYOU TECHE AND VERMILION RIVER, LA............................. 12 12 ..............
BAYOU TECHE, LA................................................. 50 50 ..............
CADDO LAKE, LA.................................................. 209 209 ..............
CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LA.................................... 21,393 21,393 ..............
FRESHWATER BAYOU, LA............................................ 1,424 1,424 ..............
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, LA.................................. 32,844 32,844 ..............
HOUMA NAVIGATION CANAL, LA...................................... 1,057 1,057 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA............................... 962 962 ..............
J BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA................................. 8,714 8,714 ..............
LAKE PROVIDENCE HARBOR, LA...................................... 14 14 ..............
MADISON PARISH PORT, LA......................................... 150 150 ..............
MERMENTAU RIVER, LA............................................. 1,297 1,297 ..............
MISSISSIPPI RIVER OUTLETS AT VENICE, LA......................... 1,449 1,449 ..............
MISSISSIPPI RIVER, BATON ROUGE TO THE GULF OF MEXICO, LA........ 82,885 82,885 ..............
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, LA................................... 54 54 ..............
REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, LA................................... 200 200 ..............
WALLACE LAKE, LA................................................ 226 226 ..............
WATERWAY FROM EMPIRE TO THE GULF, LA............................ 8 8 ..............
WATERWAY FROM INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY TO BAYOU DULAC, LA.......... 22 22 ..............

MAINE

DISPOSAL AREA MONITORING, ME.................................... 1,050 1,050 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ME............................... 104 104 ..............
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, ME................................... 1,100 1,100 ..............
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, ME.................... 25 25 ..............

MARYLAND

BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS (50 FOOT), MD..................... 20,575 20,575 ..............
BALTIMORE HARBOR, MD (DRIFT REMOVAL)............................ 325 325 ..............
CUMBERLAND, MD AND RIDGELEY, WV................................. 186 186 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MD............................... 119 119 ..............
JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE, MD & WV................................. 2,151 2,151 ..............
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MD................................... 450 450 ..............
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MD............................. 78 78 ..............
WICOMICO RIVER, MD.............................................. 2,000 2,000 ..............

MASSACHUSETTS

BARRE FALLS DAM, MA............................................. 1,081 1,081 ..............
BIRCH HILL DAM, MA.............................................. 926 926 ..............
BOSTON HARBOR, MA............................................... 12,000 12,000 ..............
BUFFUMVILLE LAKE, MA............................................ 740 740 ..............
CAPE COD CANAL, MA.............................................. 10,552 10,552 ..............
CHARLES RIVER NATURAL VALLEY STORAGE AREA, MA................... 332 332 ..............
CHATHAM (STAGE) HARBOR, MA...................................... 470 470 ..............
CONANT BROOK LAKE, MA........................................... 703 703 ..............
EAST BRIMFIELD LAKE, MA......................................... 687 687 ..............
GLOUCESTER HARBOR AND ANNISQUAM RIVER, MA....................... 150 150 ..............
GREEN HARBOR, MA................................................ 350 350 ..............
HODGES VILLAGE DAM, MA.......................................... 609 609 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MA............................... 328 328 ..............
KNIGHTVILLE DAM, MA............................................. 1,019 1,019 ..............
LITTLEVILLE LAKE, MA............................................ 742 742 ..............
NEW BEDFORD FAIRHAVEN AND ACUSHNET HURRICANE BARRIER, MA........ 489 489 ..............
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MA................................... 900 900 ..............
TULLY LAKE, MA.................................................. 911 911 ..............
WEST HILL DAM, MA............................................... 727 727 ..............
WESTVILLE LAKE, MA.............................................. 572 572 ..............

MICHIGAN

CHANNELS IN LAKE ST CLAIR, MI................................... 1,580 1,580 ..............
DETROIT RIVER, MI............................................... 5,241 5,241 ..............
GRAND HAVEN HARBOR, MI.......................................... 511 511 ..............
HOLLAND HARBOR, MI.............................................. 650 650 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MI............................... 215 215 ..............
KEWEENAW WATERWAY, MI........................................... 906 906 ..............
MONROE HARBOR, MI............................................... 500 500 ..............
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MI................................... 720 720 ..............
SAGINAW RIVER, MI............................................... 3,973 3,973 ..............
SEBEWAING RIVER, MI............................................. 52 52 ..............
ST CLAIR RIVER, MI.............................................. 680 680 ..............
ST JOSEPH HARBOR, MI............................................ 750 750 ..............
ST MARYS RIVER, MI.............................................. 31,549 31,549 ..............
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MI.................... 2,825 2,825 ..............

MINNESOTA

BIGSTONE LAKE--WHETSTONE RIVER, MN & SD......................... 257 257 ..............
DULUTH--SUPERIOR HARBOR, MN & WI................................ 7,166 7,166 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MN............................... 408 408 ..............
LAC QUI PARLE LAKES, MINNESOTA RIVER, MN........................ 891 891 ..............
MINNESOTA RIVER, MN............................................. 260 260 ..............
MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVP 66,866 66,866 ..............
PORTION), MN...................................................
ORWELL LAKE, MN................................................. 475 475 ..............
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MN................................... 93 93 ..............
RED LAKE RESERVOIR, MN.......................................... 165 165 ..............
RESERVOIRS AT HEADWATERS OF MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MN............... 3,648 3,648 ..............
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MN.................... 490 490 ..............

MISSISSIPPI

BILOXI HARBOR, MS............................................... 1,812 1,812 ..............
CLAIBORNE COUNTY PORT, MS....................................... 1 1 ..............
EAST FORK, TOMBIGBEE RIVER, MS.................................. 285 285 ..............
GULFPORT HARBOR, MS............................................. 5,222 5,222 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS............................... 110 110 ..............
MOUTH OF YAZOO RIVER, MS........................................ 34 34 ..............
OKATIBBEE LAKE, MS.............................................. 2,150 2,150 ..............
PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS........................................... 1,360 1,360 ..............
PEARL RIVER, MS & LA............................................ 150 150 ..............
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MS................................... 151 151 ..............
ROSEDALE HARBOR, MS............................................. 9 9 ..............
WATER/ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION, MS........................... 20 20 ..............
YAZOO RIVER, MS................................................. 21 21 ..............

MISSOURI

CARUTHERSVILLE HARBOR, MO....................................... 815 815 ..............
CLARENCE CANNON DAM AND MARK TWAIN LAKE, MO..................... 6,994 6,994 ..............
CLEARWATER LAKE, MO............................................. 3,328 3,328 ..............
HARRY S TRUMAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, MO............................ 11,087 11,087 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, MO.............. 2 2 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO............................... 1,606 1,606 ..............
LITTLE BLUE RIVER LAKES, MO..................................... 879 879 ..............
LONG BRANCH LAKE, MO............................................ 733 733 ..............
MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN THE OHIO AND MISSOURI RIVERS (REG 24,608 24,608 ..............
WORKS), MO & IL................................................
NEW MADRID COUNTY HARBOR, MO.................................... 10 10 ..............
NEW MADRID HARBOR, MO (MILE 889)................................ 15 15 ..............
POMME DE TERRE LAKE, MO......................................... 3,327 3,327 ..............
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MO................................... 1 1 ..............
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MO............................. 169 169 ..............
SMITHVILLE LAKE, MO............................................. 1,551 1,551 ..............
SOUTHEAST MISSOURI PORT, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MO.................. 401 401 ..............
STOCKTON LAKE, MO............................................... 5,857 5,857 ..............
TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO & AR........................................ 8,638 8,638 ..............

MONTANA

FT PECK DAM AND LAKE, MT........................................ 5,535 5,535 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MT............................... 274 274 ..............
LIBBY DAM, MT................................................... 2,025 2,025 ..............
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MT............................. 95 95 ..............

NEBRASKA

GAVINS POINT DAM, LEWIS AND CLARK LAKE, NE & SD................. 9,306 9,306 ..............
HARLAN COUNTY LAKE, NE.......................................... 4,393 4,393 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, NE.............. 33 33 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NE............................... 1,213 1,213 ..............
MISSOURI RIVER--KENSLERS BEND, NE TO SIOUX CITY, IA............. 90 90 ..............
PAPILLION CREEK, NE............................................. 880 880 ..............
SALT CREEKS AND TRIBUTARIES, NE................................. 2,934 2,934 ..............

NEVADA

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NV............................... 77 77 ..............
MARTIS CREEK LAKE, NV & CA...................................... 1,132 1,132 ..............
PINE AND MATHEWS CANYONS LAKES, NV.............................. 333 333 ..............

NEW HAMPSHIRE

BLACKWATER DAM, NH.............................................. 860 860 ..............
EDWARD MACDOWELL LAKE, NH....................................... 563 563 ..............
FRANKLIN FALLS DAM, NH.......................................... 809 809 ..............
HOPKINTON--EVERETT LAKES, NH.................................... 1,625 1,625 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NH............................... 71 71 ..............
OTTER BROOK LAKE, NH............................................ 775 775 ..............
PORTSMOUTH HARBOR AND PISCATAQUA RIVER, NH...................... 1,100 1,100 ..............
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NH................................... 250 250 ..............
SURRY MOUNTAIN LAKE, NH......................................... 810 810 ..............

NEW JERSEY

BARNEGAT INLET, NJ.............................................. 425 425 ..............
COLD SPRING INLET, NJ........................................... 375 375 ..............
DELAWARE RIVER AT CAMDEN, NJ.................................... 15 15 ..............
DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA TO THE SEA, NJ, PA & DE............ 28,455 28,455 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, NJ.............. 15 15 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NJ............................... 339 339 ..............
MANASQUAN RIVER, NJ............................................. 420 420 ..............
NEW JERSEY INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NJ............................ 960 960 ..............
NEWARK BAY, HACKENSACK AND PASSAIC RIVERS, NJ................... 3,635 3,635 ..............
PASSAIC RIVER FLOOD WARNING SYSTEMS, NJ......................... 600 600 ..............
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NJ................................... 1,944 1,944 ..............
SHARK RIVER, NJ................................................. 420 420 ..............

NEW MEXICO

ABIQUIU DAM, NM................................................. 3,263 3,263 ..............
COCHITI LAKE, NM................................................ 3,452 3,452 ..............
CONCHAS LAKE, NM................................................ 3,137 3,137 ..............
GALISTEO DAM, NM................................................ 772 772 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NM............................... 650 650 ..............
JEMEZ CANYON DAM, NM............................................ 1,085 1,085 ..............
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE ENDANGERED SPECIES COLLABORATIVE PROGRAM, NM.. 2,367 2,367 ..............
SANTA ROSA DAM AND LAKE, NM..................................... 1,712 1,712 ..............
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, NM............................. 213 213 ..............
TWO RIVERS DAM, NM.............................................. 599 599 ..............
UPPER RIO GRANDE WATER OPERATIONS MODEL STUDY, NM............... 1,300 1,300 ..............

NEW YORK

ALMOND LAKE, NY................................................. 437 437 ..............
ARKPORT DAM, NY................................................. 305 305 ..............
BLACK ROCK CHANNEL AND TONAWANDA HARBOR, NY..................... 1,785 1,785 ..............
BUFFALO HARBOR, NY.............................................. 2,650 2,650 ..............
EAST ROCKAWAY INLET, NY......................................... 7,000 7,000 ..............
EAST SIDNEY LAKE, NY............................................ 652 652 ..............
FIRE ISLAND INLET TO JONES INLET, NY............................ 50 50 ..............
HUDSON RIVER, NY (MAINT)........................................ 1,600 1,600 ..............
HUDSON RIVER, NY (O & C)........................................ 2,600 2,600 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NY............................... 1,011 1,011 ..............
MOUNT MORRIS DAM, NY............................................ 3,575 3,575 ..............
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY HARBOR, NY & NJ......................... 5,650 5,650 ..............
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY............................................. 5,977 5,977 ..............
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY & NJ (DRIFT REMOVAL)........................ 9,300 9,300 ..............
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY (PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS)........ 1,200 1,200 ..............
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NY................................... 2,252 2,252 ..............
SOUTHERN NEW YORK FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS, NY.................... 702 702 ..............
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, NY.................... 610 610 ..............
WHITNEY POINT LAKE, NY.......................................... 792 792 ..............

NORTH CAROLINA

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NC.............................. 1,750 1,750 ..............
B EVERETT JORDAN DAM AND LAKE, NC............................... 1,719 1,719 ..............
CAPE FEAR RIVER ABOVE WILMINGTON, NC............................ 931 931 ..............
FALLS LAKE, NC.................................................. 2,000 2,000 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NC............................... 200 200 ..............
MANTEO (SHALLOWBAG) BAY, NC..................................... 1,876 1,876 ..............
MASONBORO INLET AND CONNECTING CHANNELS, NC..................... 26 26 ..............
MOREHEAD CITY HARBOR, NC........................................ 5,950 5,950 ..............
NEW RIVER INLET, NC............................................. 220 220 ..............
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NC................................... 700 700 ..............
ROLLINSON CHANNEL, NC........................................... 765 765 ..............
SILVER LAKE HARBOR, NC.......................................... 580 580 ..............
W KERR SCOTT DAM AND RESERVOIR, NC.............................. 3,376 3,376 ..............
WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC........................................... 13,400 13,400 ..............

NORTH DAKOTA

BOWMAN HALEY, ND................................................ 195 195 ..............
GARRISON DAM, LAKE SAKAKAWEA, ND................................ 14,913 14,913 ..............
HOMME LAKE, ND.................................................. 285 285 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ND............................... 375 375 ..............
LAKE ASHTABULA AND BALDHILL DAM, ND............................. 1,510 1,510 ..............
PIPESTEM LAKE, ND............................................... 597 597 ..............
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ND............................. 95 95 ..............
SOURIS RIVER, ND................................................ 357 357 ..............
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, ND.................... 30 30 ..............

OHIO

ALUM CREEK LAKE, OH............................................. 1,553 1,553 ..............
ASHTABULA HARBOR, OH............................................ 2,315 2,315 ..............
BERLIN LAKE, OH................................................. 2,681 2,681 ..............
CAESAR CREEK LAKE, OH........................................... 2,061 2,061 ..............
CLARENCE J BROWN DAM, OH........................................ 1,232 1,232 ..............
CLEVELAND HARBOR, OH............................................ 5,855 5,855 ..............
DEER CREEK LAKE, OH............................................. 1,451 1,451 ..............
DELAWARE LAKE, OH............................................... 1,508 1,508 ..............
DILLON LAKE, OH................................................. 1,519 1,519 ..............
FAIRPORT HARBOR, OH............................................. 1,700 1,700 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OH............................... 836 836 ..............
MASSILLON LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH.......................... 86 86 ..............
MICHAEL J KIRWAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, OH.......................... 1,390 1,390 ..............
MOSQUITO CREEK LAKE, OH......................................... 1,222 1,222 ..............
MUSKINGUM RIVER LAKES, OH....................................... 11,281 11,281 ..............
NORTH BRANCH KOKOSING RIVER LAKE, OH............................ 517 517 ..............
OHIO-MISSISSIPPI FLOOD CONTROL, OH.............................. 1,840 1,840 ..............
PAINT CREEK LAKE, OH............................................ 1,403 1,403 ..............
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OH................................... 305 305 ..............
ROSEVILLE LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH.......................... 35 35 ..............
SANDUSKY HARBOR, OH............................................. 1,618 1,618 ..............
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, OH.................... 255 255 ..............
TOLEDO HARBOR, OH............................................... 5,905 5,905 ..............
TOM JENKINS DAM, OH............................................. 774 774 ..............
WEST FORK OF MILL CREEK LAKE, OH................................ 858 858 ..............
WILLIAM H HARSHA LAKE, OH....................................... 1,314 1,314 ..............

OKLAHOMA

ARCADIA LAKE, OK................................................ 3,122 3,122 ..............
BIRCH LAKE, OK.................................................. 674 674 ..............
BROKEN BOW LAKE, OK............................................. 2,788 2,788 ..............
CANTON LAKE, OK................................................. 2,341 2,341 ..............
COPAN LAKE, OK.................................................. 1,053 1,053 ..............
EUFAULA LAKE, OK................................................ 6,158 6,158 ..............
FORT GIBSON LAKE, OK............................................ 6,024 6,024 ..............
FORT SUPPLY LAKE, OK............................................ 1,072 1,072 ..............
GREAT SALT PLAINS LAKE, OK...................................... 340 340 ..............
HEYBURN LAKE, OK................................................ 638 638 ..............
HUGO LAKE, OK................................................... 1,813 1,813 ..............
HULAH LAKE, OK.................................................. 1,857 1,857 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OK............................... 221 221 ..............
KAW LAKE, OK.................................................... 2,000 2,000 ..............
KEYSTONE LAKE, OK............................................... 4,793 4,793 ..............
MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, OK............. 17,161 17,161 ..............
OOLOGAH LAKE, OK................................................ 2,485 2,485 ..............
OPTIMA LAKE, OK................................................. 112 112 ..............
PENSACOLA RESERVOIR, LAKE OF THE CHEROKEES, OK.................. 163 163 ..............
PINE CREEK LAKE, OK............................................. 6,535 6,535 ..............
SARDIS LAKE, OK................................................. 889 889 ..............
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OK............................. 1,200 1,200 ..............
SKIATOOK LAKE, OK............................................... 4,843 4,843 ..............
TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK........................................ 4,953 4,953 ..............
WAURIKA LAKE, OK................................................ 1,561 1,561 ..............
WISTER LAKE, OK................................................. 849 849 ..............

OREGON

APPLEGATE LAKE, OR.............................................. 1,180 1,180 ..............
BLUE RIVER LAKE, OR............................................. 4,189 4,189 ..............
BONNEVILLE LOCK AND DAM, OR & WA................................ 8,346 8,346 ..............
CHETCO RIVER, OR................................................ 734 734 ..............
COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR & WA............................ 18,118 18,118 ..............
COOS BAY, OR.................................................... 6,523 6,523 ..............
COTTAGE GROVE LAKE, OR.......................................... 1,332 1,332 ..............
COUGAR LAKE, OR................................................. 2,330 2,330 ..............
DETROIT LAKE, OR................................................ 1,007 1,007 ..............
DORENA LAKE, OR................................................. 1,324 1,324 ..............
ELK CREEK LAKE, OR.............................................. 390 390 ..............
FALL CREEK LAKE, OR............................................. 1,158 1,158 ..............
FERN RIDGE LAKE, OR............................................. 1,622 1,622 ..............
GREEN PETER--FOSTER LAKES, OR................................... 2,497 2,497 ..............
HILLS CREEK LAKE, OR............................................ 3,775 3,775 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OR............................... 1,066 1,066 ..............
JOHN DAY LOCK AND DAM, OR & WA.................................. 4,901 4,901 ..............
LOOKOUT POINT LAKE, OR.......................................... 1,937 1,937 ..............
LOST CREEK LAKE, OR............................................. 4,269 4,269 ..............
MCNARY LOCK AND DAM, OR & WA.................................... 8,252 8,252 ..............
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OR................................... 400 400 ..............
ROGUE RIVER AT GOLD BEACH, OH................................... 673 673 ..............
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OR............................. 98 98 ..............
SUISLAW RIVER, OR............................................... 746 746 ..............
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, OR.................... 5,300 5,300 ..............
WILLAMETTE RIVER AT WILLAMETTE FALLS, OR........................ 63 63 ..............
WILLAMETTE RIVER BANK PROTECTION, OR............................ 200 200 ..............
WILLOW CREEK LAKE, OR........................................... 977 977 ..............
YAQUINA BAY AND HARBOR, OR...................................... 2,806 2,806 ..............

PENNSYLVANIA

ALLEGHENY RIVER, PA............................................. 5,009 5,009 ..............
ALVIN R BUSH DAM, PA............................................ 627 627 ..............
AYLESWORTH CREEK LAKE, PA....................................... 278 278 ..............
BELTZVILLE LAKE, PA............................................. 1,410 1,410 ..............
BLUE MARSH LAKE, PA............................................. 2,981 2,981 ..............
CONEMAUGH RIVER LAKE, PA........................................ 1,346 1,346 ..............
COWANESQUE LAKE, PA............................................. 2,113 2,113 ..............
CROOKED CREEK LAKE, PA.......................................... 1,900 1,900 ..............
CURWENSVILLE LAKE, PA........................................... 876 876 ..............
DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA, PA TO TRENTON, NJ................. 11,985 11,985 ..............
EAST BRANCH CLARION RIVER LAKE, PA.............................. 1,408 1,408 ..............
FOSTER JOSEPH SAYERS DAM, PA.................................... 1,148 1,148 ..............
FRANCIS E WALTER DAM, PA........................................ 1,140 1,140 ..............
GENERAL EDGAR JADWIN DAM AND RESERVOIR, PA...................... 380 380 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, PA.............. 10 10 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, PA............................... 932 932 ..............
JOHNSTOWN, PA................................................... 46 46 ..............
KINZUA DAM AND ALLEGHENY RESERVOIR, PA.......................... 1,695 1,695 ..............
LOYALHANNA LAKE, PA............................................. 1,588 1,588 ..............
MAHONING CREEK LAKE, PA......................................... 1,449 1,449 ..............
MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA........................................... 17,905 17,905 ..............
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, PA, OH & WV.......................... 33,197 33,197 ..............
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, PA, OH & WV....................... 800 800 ..............
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, PA................................... 170 170 ..............
PROMPTON LAKE, PA............................................... 655 655 ..............
PUNXSUTAWNEY, PA................................................ 48 48 ..............
RAYSTOWN LAKE, PA............................................... 4,522 4,522 ..............
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, PA............................. 35 35 ..............
SHENANGO RIVER LAKE, PA......................................... 2,303 2,303 ..............
STILLWATER LAKE, PA............................................. 503 503 ..............
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, PA.................... 105 105 ..............
TIOGA--HAMMOND LAKES, PA........................................ 2,784 2,784 ..............
TIONESTA LAKE, PA............................................... 2,080 2,080 ..............
UNION CITY LAKE, PA............................................. 404 404 ..............
WOODCOCK CREEK LAKE, PA......................................... 1,120 1,120 ..............
YORK INDIAN ROCK DAM, PA........................................ 735 735 ..............
YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER LAKE, PA & MD................................ 2,523 2,523 ..............

PUERTO RICO

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, PR............................... 281 281 ..............
SAN JUAN HARBOR, PR............................................. 2,300 2,300 ..............

RHODE ISLAND

BLOCK ISLAND HARBOR OF REFUGE, RI............................... 350 350 ..............
FOX POINT BARRIER, NARRANGANSETT BAY, RI........................ 1,067 1,067 ..............
GREAT SALT POND, BLOCK ISLAND, RI............................... 350 350 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, RI............................... 52 52 ..............
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, RI................................... 350 350 ..............
PROVIDENCE RIVER AND HARBOR, RI................................. 200 200 ..............
WOONSOCKET, RI.................................................. 544 544 ..............

SOUTH CAROLINA

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, SC.............................. 100 100 ..............
CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC........................................... 13,920 13,920 ..............
COOPER RIVER, CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC............................. 6,370 6,370 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SC............................... 65 65 ..............
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, SC................................... 875 875 ..............

SOUTH DAKOTA

BIG BEND DAM, LAKE SHARPE, SD................................... 10,393 10,393 ..............
COLD BROOK LAKE, SD............................................. 346 346 ..............
COTTONWOOD SPRINGS LAKE, SD..................................... 258 258 ..............
FORT RANDALL DAM, LAKE FRANCIS CASE, SD......................... 11,139 11,139 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SD............................... 325 325 ..............
LAKE TRAVERSE, SD & MN.......................................... 579 579 ..............
OAHE DAM, LAKE OAHE, SD & ND.................................... 12,128 12,128 ..............
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, SD............................. 107 107 ..............

TENNESSEE

CENTER HILL LAKE, TN............................................ 6,675 6,675 ..............
CHEATHAM LOCK AND DAM, TN....................................... 7,787 7,787 ..............
CORDELL HULL DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN.............................. 7,255 7,255 ..............
DALE HOLLOW LAKE, TN............................................ 7,255 7,255 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN............................... 309 309 ..............
J PERCY PRIEST DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN............................ 5,244 5,244 ..............
NORTHWEST TENNESSEE REGIONAL HARBOR, LAKE COUNTY, TN............ 10 10 ..............
OLD HICKORY LOCK AND DAM, TN.................................... 9,636 9,636 ..............
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TN................................... 1 1 ..............
TENNESSEE RIVER, TN............................................. 23,386 23,386 ..............
WOLF RIVER HARBOR, TN........................................... 1,366 1,366 ..............

TEXAS

AQUILLA LAKE, TX................................................ 1,093 1,093 ..............
ARKANSAS--RED RIVER BASINS CHLORIDE CONTROL--AREA VIII, TX...... 1,575 1,575 ..............
BARDWELL LAKE, TX............................................... 1,629 1,629 ..............
BELTON LAKE, TX................................................. 4,135 4,135 ..............
BENBROOK LAKE, TX............................................... 2,582 2,582 ..............
BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, TX........................................ 2,700 2,700 ..............
BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TX............................... 2,912 2,912 ..............
CANYON LAKE, TX................................................. 3,711 3,711 ..............
CHANNEL TO HARLINGEN, TX........................................ 1,395 1,395 ..............
CHANNEL TO PORT BOLIVAR, TX..................................... 50 50 ..............
CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX................................. 7,400 7,400 ..............
DENISON DAM, LAKE TEXOMA, TX.................................... 17,854 17,854 ..............
ESTELLINE SPRINGS EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT, TX...................... 35 35 ..............
FERRELLS BRIDGE DAM, LAKE O' THE PINES, TX...................... 4,210 4,210 ..............
FREEPORT HARBOR, TX............................................. 8,300 8,300 ..............
GALVESTON HARBOR AND CHANNEL, TX................................ 10,350 10,350 ..............
GIWW, CHANNEL TO VICTORIA, TX................................... 2,700 2,700 ..............
GRANGER DAM AND LAKE, TX........................................ 2,877 2,877 ..............
GRAPEVINE LAKE, TX.............................................. 3,045 3,045 ..............
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, TX.................................. 21,871 21,871 ..............
HORDS CREEK LAKE, TX............................................ 1,734 1,734 ..............
HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX........................................ 30,000 30,000 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TX............................... 1,701 1,701 ..............
JIM CHAPMAN LAKE, TX............................................ 1,624 1,624 ..............
JOE POOL LAKE, TX............................................... 1,602 1,602 ..............
LAKE KEMP, TX................................................... 277 277 ..............
LAVON LAKE, TX.................................................. 3,579 3,579 ..............
LEWISVILLE DAM, TX.............................................. 4,639 4,639 ..............
MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL, TX...................................... 5,200 5,200 ..............
NAVARRO MILLS LAKE, TX.......................................... 3,072 3,072 ..............
NORTH SAN GABRIEL DAM AND LAKE GEORGETOWN, TX................... 2,355 2,355 ..............
O C FISHER DAM AND LAKE, TX..................................... 1,167 1,167 ..............
PAT MAYSE LAKE, TX.............................................. 1,287 1,287 ..............
PROCTOR LAKE, TX................................................ 2,603 2,603 ..............
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TX................................... 224 224 ..............
RAY ROBERTS LAKE, TX............................................ 1,530 1,530 ..............
SABINE--NECHES WATERWAY, TX..................................... 13,625 13,625 ..............
SAM RAYBURN DAM AND RESERVOIR, TX............................... 6,769 6,769 ..............
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, TX............................. 281 281 ..............
SOMERVILLE LAKE, TX............................................. 3,420 3,420 ..............
STILLHOUSE HOLLOW DAM, TX....................................... 2,448 2,448 ..............
TEXAS CITY SHIP CHANNEL, TX..................................... 4,000 4,000 ..............
TOWN BLUFF DAM, B A STEINHAGEN LAKE, TX......................... 2,968 2,968 ..............
WACO LAKE, TX................................................... 3,717 3,717 ..............
WALLISVILLE LAKE, TX............................................ 2,175 2,175 ..............
WHITNEY LAKE, TX................................................ 6,419 6,419 ..............
WRIGHT PATMAN DAM AND LAKE, TX.................................. 3,371 3,371 ..............

UTAH

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, UT............................... 40 40 ..............
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, UT............................. 506 506 ..............

VERMONT

BALL MOUNTAIN, VT............................................... 1,158 1,158 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VT............................... 88 88 ..............
NARROWS OF LAKE CHAMPLAIN, VT & NY.............................. 45 45 ..............
NORTH HARTLAND LAKE, VT......................................... 963 963 ..............
NORTH SPRINGFIELD LAKE, VT...................................... 923 923 ..............
TOWNSHEND LAKE, VT.............................................. 910 910 ..............
UNION VILLAGE DAM, VT........................................... 1,029 1,029 ..............

VIRGIN ISLANDS

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VI............................... 170 170 ..............

VIRGINIA

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY--ACC, VA......................... 2,650 2,650 ..............
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY--DSC, VA......................... 1,380 1,380 ..............
CHINCOTEAGUE INLET, VA.......................................... 511 511 ..............
GATHRIGHT DAM AND LAKE MOOMAW, VA............................... 2,223 2,223 ..............
HAMPTON ROADS, NORFOLK & NEWPORT NEWS HARBOR, VA (DRIFT REMOVAL) 1,500 1,500 ..............
HAMPTON ROADS, VA (PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS).......... 114 114 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VA............................... 372 372 ..............
JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA......................................... 4,100 4,100 ..............
JOHN H KERR LAKE, VA & NC....................................... 16,940 16,940 ..............
JOHN W FLANNAGAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA.......................... 2,292 2,292 ..............
LYNNHAVEN INLET, VA............................................. 300 300 ..............
NORFOLK HARBOR, VA.............................................. 10,390 10,390 ..............
NORTH FORK OF POUND RIVER LAKE, VA.............................. 619 619 ..............
PHILPOTT LAKE, VA............................................... 4,615 4,615 ..............
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, VA................................... 1,163 1,163 ..............
RUDEE INLET, VA................................................. 350 350 ..............
TANGIER CHANNEL, VA............................................. 500 500 ..............
WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATIONS, VA...................... 135 135 ..............
WATERWAY ON THE COAST OF VIRGINIA, VA........................... 100 100 ..............

WASHINGTON

CHIEF JOSEPH DAM, WA............................................ 628 628 ..............
COLUMBIA AND LOWER WILLAMETTE RIVERS BELOW VANCOUVER, WA & 38,181 38,181 ..............
PORTLAND, OR...................................................
COLUMBIA RIVER AT BAKER BAY, WA & OR............................ 1,959 1,959 ..............
COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN VANCOUVER, WA AND THE DALLES, OR......... 1,371 1,371 ..............
COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, WA, OR & ID..................... 2,194 2,194 ..............
EVERETT HARBOR AND SNOHOMISH RIVER, WA.......................... 1,638 1,638 ..............
GRAYS HARBOR(38-F00T DEEPENING), WA............................. 9,998 9,998 ..............
HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA........................................... 3,822 3,822 ..............
ICE HARBOR LOCK AND DAM, WA..................................... 4,760 4,760 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WA............................... 1,150 1,150 ..............
LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA.................................. 12,325 12,325 ..............
LITTLE GOOSE LOCK AND DAM, WA................................... 2,741 2,741 ..............
LOWER GRANITE LOCK AND DAM, WA.................................. 3,218 3,218 ..............
LOWER MONUMENTAL LOCK AND DAM, WA............................... 2,860 2,860 ..............
MILL CREEK LAKE, WA............................................. 2,490 2,490 ..............
MOUNT SAINT HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA......................... 399 399 ..............
MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA............................................ 12,106 12,106 ..............
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WA................................... 612 612 ..............
PUGET SOUND AND TRIBUTARY WATERS, WA............................ 1,240 1,240 ..............
QUILLAYUTE RIVER, WA............................................ 1,619 1,619 ..............
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WA............................. 423 423 ..............
SEATTLE HARBOR, WA.............................................. 1,547 1,547 ..............
STILLAGUAMISH RIVER, WA......................................... 292 292 ..............
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WA.................... 64 64 ..............
SWINOMISH CHANNEL, WA........................................... 436 436 ..............
TACOMA, PUYALLUP RIVER, WA...................................... 155 155 ..............
THE DALLES LOCK AND DAM, WA & OR................................ 4,206 4,206 ..............

WEST VIRGINIA

BEECH FORK LAKE, WV............................................. 1,386 1,386 ..............
BLUESTONE LAKE, WV.............................................. 2,000 2,000 ..............
BURNSVILLE LAKE, WV............................................. 2,768 2,768 ..............
EAST LYNN LAKE, WV.............................................. 2,564 2,564 ..............
ELKINS, WV...................................................... 46 46 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WV............................... 466 466 ..............
KANAWHA RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV................................ 8,927 8,927 ..............
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV, KY & OH.......................... 31,867 31,867 ..............
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, WV, KY & OH....................... 2,822 2,822 ..............
R D BAILEY LAKE, WV............................................. 2,183 2,183 ..............
STONEWALL JACKSON LAKE, WV...................................... 1,405 1,405 ..............
SUMMERSVILLE LAKE, WV........................................... 2,653 2,653 ..............
SUTTON LAKE, WV................................................. 2,525 2,525 ..............
TYGART LAKE, WV................................................. 1,453 1,453 ..............

WISCONSIN

EAU GALLE RIVER LAKE, WI........................................ 804 804 ..............
FOX RIVER, WI................................................... 2,378 2,378 ..............
GREEN BAY HARBOR, WI............................................ 3,895 3,895 ..............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WI............................... 54 54 ..............
KEWAUNEE HARBOR, WI............................................. 11 11 ..............
MILWAUKEE HARBOR, WI............................................ 1,250 1,250 ..............
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WI................................... 310 310 ..............
STURGEON BAY HARBOR AND LAKE MICHIGAN SHIP CANAL, WI............ 819 819 ..............
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WI.................... 575 575 ..............

WYOMING

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WY............................... 118 118 ..............
JACKSON HOLE LEVEES, WY......................................... 1,617 1,617 ..............
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WY............................. 85 85 ..............
-----------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, PROJECTS LISTED UNDER STATES.................... 2,536,111 2,536,111 ..............

REMAINING ITEMS

ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK:
NAVIGATION MAINTENANCE...................................... .............. 23,528 +23,528
DEEP-DRAFT HARBOR AND CHANNEL........................... .............. 250,000 +250,000
DONOR AND ENERGY TRANSFER PORTS......................... .............. 50,000 +50,000
INLAND WATERWAYS........................................ .............. 45,000 +45,000
SMALL, REMOTE, OR SUBSISTENCE HARBORS AND CHANNELS...... .............. 48,000 +48,000
OTHER AUTHORIZED PURPOSES................................... .............. 35,100 +35,100
AQUATIC NUISANCE CONTROL RESEARCH............................... 675 675 ..............
ASSET MANAGEMENT/FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT MANAGEMENT [FEM]...... 3,250 3,250 ..............

BUDGET/MANAGEMENT SUPPORT FOR O&M BUSINESS PROGRAMS:
STEWARDSHIP SUPPORT PROGRAM................................. 950 950 ..............
PERFORMANCE-BASED BUDGETING SUPPORT PROGRAM................. 4,200 4,200 ..............
RECREATION MANAGEMENT SUPPORT PROGRAM....................... 1,550 1,550 ..............
OPTIMIZATION TOOLS FOR NAVIGATION........................... 322 322 ..............
CIVIL WORKS WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (CWWMS)..................... 10,000 10,000 ..............
COASTAL DATA INFORMATION PROGRAM (CDIP)......................... 2,500 6,000 +3,500
COASTAL INLET RESEARCH PROGRAM.................................. 2,700 2,700 ..............
RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE AT CORPS PROJECTS.................... 6,000 6,000 ..............
CULTURAL RESOURCES.............................................. 1,500 1,500 ..............
DREDGE MCFARLAND READY RESERVE.................................. 11,690 11,690 ..............
DREDGE WHEELER READY RESERVE.................................... 15,000 15,000 ..............
DREDGING DATA AND LOCK PERFORMANCE MONITORING SYSTEM............ 1,119 1,119 ..............
DREDGING OPERATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH (DOER)........... 6,450 6,450 ..............
DREDGING OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT PROGRAM (DOTS)............ 2,820 2,820 ..............
EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM............................ 100 100 ..............
FACILITY PROTECTION............................................. 3,500 3,500 ..............
FISH & WILDLIFE OPERATING FISH HATCHERY REIMBURSEMENT........... 5,400 5,400 ..............
GREAT LAKES TRIBUTARY MODEL..................................... 600 600 ..............
INLAND WATERWAY NAVIGATION CHARTS............................... 4,500 4,500 ..............
INTERAGENCY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION TASK FORCE/HURRICANE 2,000 2,000 ..............
PROTECTION DECISION CHRONOLOGY (IPET/HPDC) LESSONS LEARNED
IMPLEMENTATION.................................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED FEDERAL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS.......... 30,500 30,500 ..............
MONITORING OF COMPLETED NAVIGATION PROJECTS..................... 2,300 8,000 +5,700
NATIONAL (LEVEE) FLOOD INVENTORY................................ 5,000 5,000 ..............
NATIONAL (MULTIPLE PROJECT) NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 5,000 5,000 ..............
ACTIVITIES.....................................................
NATIONAL COASTAL MAPPING PROGRAM................................ 6,300 9,300 +3,000
NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM (PORTFOLIO RISK ASSESSMENT)......... 10,000 10,000 ..............
NATIONAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM (NEPP).................. 4,500 4,500 ..............
NATIONAL PORTFOLIO ASSESSMENT FOR REALLOCATIONS................. 800 800 ..............
SUSTAINABLE RIVERS PROGRAM (SRP)................................ 400 400 ..............
VETERAN'S CURATION PROGRAM AND COLLECTIONS MANAGEMENT........... 6,500 6,500 ..............
WATERBORNE COMMERCE STATISTICS.................................. 4,669 4,669 ..............
HARBOR MAINTENANCE FEE DATA COLLECTION.......................... 795 795 ..............
REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM............................ 1,800 1,800 ..............
REVIEW OF NON-FEDERAL ALTERATIONS OF CIVIL WORKS PROJECTS 3,000 3,000 ..............
(SECTION 408)..................................................
WATER OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT (WOTS)....................... 500 5,500 +5,000
-----------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, REMAINING ITEMS................................. 168,890 637,718 +468,828
-----------------------------------------------
TOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.......................... 2,705,001 3,173,829 +468,828
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Monitoring of Completed Navigation Projects.--Of the
funding provided, $4,000,000 shall be for continued development
and field-testing of platforms to enable scalable, cost
effective structural health monitoring of critical civil
infrastructure.
Operations and Maintenance--Fisheries.--The Committee is
concerned that a reduction in or elimination of navigational
lock operations on the Nation's inland waterways is having a
negative impact on river ecosystems, particularly 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.
In fiscal year 2016, the Committee provided funding to continue
preliminary research on the impact of reduced lock operations
on riverine fish. The Committee understands the research
underway is proving valuable and, within available funds for
ongoing work, directs the Corps of Engineers to continue this
research at no less than the 2016 level. The goal of the
continued funding is to support the continuing research and,
where appropriate, expand the work to look at ecosystem level
impacts and additional waterways, lock structures, lock
operation methods and fish species that will more fully inform
the Corps of Engineers operations.
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 in the
Southwestern Division 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.
Dam Operations Manual Updates.--In the South Pacific
Division, the Corps of Engineers may accept and expend
contributions from non-Federal entities and other Federal
agencies to fund all or a portion of the cost of carrying out a
review or revision of operational documents, including water
control plans, water control manuals, water control diagrams,
release schedules, rule curves, operational agreements with
non-Federal entities, and any associated environmental
documentation for any Corps of Engineers project, non-Federal
projects regulated for flood control by the Secretary, or
Bureau of Reclamation transferred works regulated for flood
control by the Secretary.
The Dalles Dam.--The Committee is aware of a Corps of
Engineers legal analysis which finds that a new tribal village
can be constructed pursuant to section 204 of the Flood Control
Act authorizing construction of The Dalles Dam. The Corps of
Engineers is encouraged to complete a development plan for a
new tribal village at The Dalles Dam in consultation with
affected Columbia River tribes and the Bureau of Indian
Affairs.
WRRDA Section 6002.--The Committee supports the Corps of
Engineers performing a review of their inventory, in accordance
with section 6002 of the Water Resources Reform and Development
Act of 2014, not later than 1 year after the date of enactment
of this Act.
WRRDA Section 4001.--The Congress has made clear its intent
that the Susquehanna, Delaware, and Potomac River Basin
Commissions be supported, and the Corps of Engineers is
encouraged to budget accordingly.
Isle of Shoals North and Cape Arundel Dredged Material
Placement Site.--The Cape Arundel Disposal Site in the State of
Maine selected by the Department of the Army as an alternative
dredged material disposal site under section 103(b) of the
Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, shall
remain open until April, 15 2024, until the remaining disposal
capacity of the site has been utilized, or until final
designation of an Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site for
southern Maine under section 102(c) of the Marine Protection
Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, whichever first occurs,
provided that the site conditions remain suitable for such
purpose and that the site may not be used for disposal of more
than 80,000 cubic yards from any single dredging project.
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 notes the Corps of Engineers has failed to issue
implementation guidance for section 2106 as directed by the
Committee. 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.
Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.--The fiscal year 2017
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 maintaining authorized depths and widths of
harbors and shipping channels, including where contaminated
sediments are present, and for addressing critical maintenance
backlog. Particular emphasis should be placed on projects where
there is a U.S. Coast Guard presence; that will enhance
national, regional, or local economic development; or that will
promote job growth or international competitiveness.
The Committee is concerned that the administration's
criteria for navigation maintenance do 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 Committee supports including criteria to evaluate
the economic impact that these projects provide to local and
regional economies.
Water Operations Technical Support.--Funding in addition to
the budget request is included to continue research into
atmospheric rivers funded in fiscal year 2015.
Additional Funding for Ongoing Work--Deep Draft Harbor and
Channel.--The Committee recommendation includes $250,000,000 in
additional funding for deep-draft harbor and channel
maintenance. Within the amounts available, the Committee urges
the Corps of Engineers to give priority to funding strategic
commercial ports, as designated by the Department of Defense,
in the fiscal year 2017 work plan if their additional
maintenance dredging capability for fiscal year 2017 exceeds
the amount included in the budget request.
Additional Funding for Navigation Maintenance on Great
Lakes Navigation System.--The Committee encourages the Corps of
Engineers to direct additional funding for ongoing work under
O&M to navigation maintenance, specifically deep-draft harbor
and channel projects as well as small navigation projects
essential to the Great Lakes Navigation System.

REGULATORY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2016.................................... $200,000,000
Budget estimate, 2017................................... 200,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 200,000,000

The Committee recommends $200,000,000 for the Regulatory
Program of the Corps of Engineers, the same as the budget
request.

FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2016.................................... $112,000,000
Budget estimate, 2017................................... 103,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 103,000,000

The Committee recommends $103,000,000 for the Formerly
Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program, the same as the budget
request.

FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES

Appropriations, 2016.................................... $28,000,000
Budget estimate, 2017................................... 30,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 30,000,000

The Committee recommends $30,000,000 for Flood Control and
Coastal Emergencies, the same as the budget request.

EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2016.................................... $179,000,000
Budget estimate, 2017................................... 180,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 180,000,000

The Committee recommends $180,000,000 for Expenses, the
same as 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, 2016.................................... $4,750,000
Budget estimate, 2017................................... 5,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,000,000

The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for the Office of the
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), the same as the
budget request.

GENERAL PROVISIONS--CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL

Section 101. The bill includes language concerning
reprogramming guidelines.
Section 102. The bill includes language concerning funding
transfers requested by the Administration related to fish
hatcheries.
Section 103. The bill includes language concerning the
definitions ``fill material'' or ``discharge of fill material''
for purposes of the Federal Pollution Control Act.
Section 104. The bill includes language concerning the open
lake placement of dredged material.

TITLE II

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 2016.................................... $10,000,000
Budget estimate, 2017................................... 5,600,000
Committee recommendation................................ 10,000,000

The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for the Central Utah
Project Completion account which includes $7,350,000 for
Central Utah Project construction, $1,300,000 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. The Committee
remains committed to complete the Central Utah Project, which
would enable the project to initiate repayment to the Federal
Government.

Bureau of Reclamation

OVERVIEW OF RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,265,000,000 for the Bureau of
Reclamation [Reclamation], an increase of $158,841,000 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.

FISCAL YEAR 2017 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 60 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 2017. 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, 2016.

DROUGHT

The Committee is particularly concerned about the continued
drought in the West. The U.S. Drought Monitor for May 12, 2016,
shows that all Reclamation States are currently suffering from
drought conditions. Ten of the seventeen 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 notes that although this year's El Nino
weather system resulted in increased precipitation overall, one
El Nino event is not sufficient to alleviate the severe drought
conditions facing Reclamation states. The State of California,
for example, estimates that the state would have needed a
snowpack total of 150 percent of the historical average by
April 1, 2016 in order to be able to consider the drought at an
end. However, California's snowpack, which supplies
approximately 30 percent of California's water needs in normal
years, is only at 87 percent of its historical average, despite
significant El Nino storms.
In order to address the continued drought in the West, the
Committee directs Reclamation and the Department of the
Interior to use all of the flexibility and tools at their
disposal to mitigate the impacts of this drought. In
particular, the Committee directs Reclamation to work with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries
Service, and relevant state agencies to undertake
comprehensive, around the clock, real-time monitoring of
drought conditions and their impact on endangered species and
rely upon the best available science. The Committee also
directs Reclamation to work with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture to expand efforts to supply small rural communities
with water during the current 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,
substantial investments in desalination and recycling, 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, 2016.................................... $1,118,972,000
Budget estimate, 2017................................... 813,402,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,114,394,000

The Committee recommends $1,114,394,000 for Water and
Related Resources, an increase of $158,841,000 when accounting
for the budget structure, which includes funding in this
account 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 2017 budget
request 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 2018 budget
request.

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION--WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Committee recommendation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Project title Resources Facilities Resources Facilities
management OM&R management OM&R
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARIZONA

AK CHIN INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT .............. 15,735 .............. 15,735
PROJECT........................................
COLORADO RIVER BASIN--CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT... 6,272 648 6,272 648
COLORADO RIVER FRONT WORK AND LEVEE SYSTEM...... 2,303 .............. 2,303 ..............
SALT RIVER PROJECT.............................. 649 250 649 250
SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE WATER SETTLEMENT ACT 1,550 .............. 1,550 ..............
PROJECT........................................
YUMA AREA PROJECTS.............................. 1,315 24,999 1,315 24,999

CALIFORNIA

CACHUMA PROJECT................................. 647 674 647 674
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECTS......................... .............. .............. .............. ..............
AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION, FOLSOM DAM UNIT/ 1,577 8,888 1,577 8,888
MORMON ISLAND..............................
AUBURN-FOLSOM SOUTH UNIT.................... 35 2,056 35 2,056
DELTA DIVISION.............................. 5,468 5,511 5,468 5,511
EAST SIDE DIVISION.......................... 1,290 2,644 1,290 2,644
FRIANT DIVISION............................. 2,192 3,273 2,192 3,273
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION SETTLEMENT .............. .............. .............. 36,000
MISCELLANEOUS PROJECT PROGRAMS.............. 8,589 454 8,589 454
REPLACEMENTS, ADDITIONS, AND EXTRAORDINARY .............. 16,362 .............. 16,362
MAINT. PROGRAM.............................
SACRAMENTO RIVER DIVISION................... 1,307 694 1,307 694
SAN FELIPE DIVISION......................... 271 75 271 75
SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION........................ 52 .............. 52 ..............
SHASTA DIVISION............................. 720 8,530 720 8,530
TRINITY RIVER DIVISION...................... 12,178 5,177 12,178 5,177
WATER AND POWER OPERATIONS.................. 3,989 10,543 3,989 10,543
WEST SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION, SAN LUIS UNIT.... 2,957 5,915 2,957 5,915
ORLAND PROJECT.................................. .............. 930 .............. 930
SALTON SEA RESEARCH PROJECT..................... 300 .............. 300 ..............
SOLANO PROJECT.................................. 1,329 2,367 1,329 2,367
VENTURA RIVER PROJECT........................... 313 33 313 33

COLORADO

ANIMAS-LA PLATA PROJECT......................... 669 1,983 669 1,983
ARMEL UNIT, P-SMBP.............................. 5 480 5 480
COLLBRAN PROJECT................................ 229 1,960 229 1,960
COLORADO-BIG THOMPSON PROJECT................... 732 16,024 732 16,024
FRUITGROWERS DAM PROJECT........................ 101 136 101 136
FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT...................... 141 12,574 141 12,574
FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT--ARKANSAS VALLEY 3,000 .............. 3,000 ..............
CONDUIT........................................
GRAND VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II............. 260 1,691 260 1,691
LEADVILLE/ARKANSAS RIVER RECOVERY PROJECT....... .............. 1,914 .............. 1,914
MANCOS PROJECT.................................. 61 237 61 237
NARROWS UNIT, P-SMBP............................ .............. 36 .............. 36
PARADOX VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II........... 399 3,000 399 3,000
PINE RIVER PROJECT.............................. 123 321 123 321
SAN LUIS VALLEY PROJECT, CLOSED BASIN........... 267 3,656 267 3,656
SAN LUIS VALLEY PROJECT, CONEJOS DIVISION....... 23 54 23 54
UNCOMPAHGRE PROJECT............................. 838 159 838 159
UPPER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM......... 270 .............. 270 ..............

IDAHO

BOISE AREA PROJECTS............................. 2,741 1,930 2,741 1,930
COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVER SALMON RECOVERY PROJECT 18,000 .............. 18,000 ..............
LEWISTON ORCHARDS PROJECTS...................... 3,578 27 3,578 27
MINIDOKA AREA PROJECTS.......................... 2,631 2,169 2,631 2,169
PRESTON BENCH PROJECT........................... 4 8 4 8

KANSAS

ALMENA UNIT, P-SMBP............................. 43 471 43 471
BOSTWICK UNIT, P-SMBP........................... 365 894 365 894
CEDAR BLUFF UNIT, P-SMBP........................ 40 541 40 541
GLEN ELDER UNIT, P-SMBP......................... 65 1,238 65 1,238
KANSAS RIVER UNIT, P-SMBP....................... .............. 100 .............. 100
KIRWIN UNIT, P-SMBP............................. 37 472 37 472
WEBSTER UNIT, P-SMBP............................ 15 490 15 490
WICHITA PROJECT--CHENEY DIVISION................ 147 384 147 384

MONTANA

CANYON FERRY UNIT, P-SMBP....................... 246 5,442 246 5,442
EAST BENCH UNIT, P-SMBP......................... 202 652 202 652
FORT PECK RESERVATION / DRY PRAIRIE RURAL WATER 4,625 .............. 4,625 ..............
SYSTEM.........................................
HELENA VALLEY UNIT, P-SMBP...................... 19 155 19 155
HUNGRY HORSE PROJECT............................ .............. 508 .............. 508
HUNTLEY PROJECT................................. 12 51 12 51
LOWER MARIAS UNIT, P-SMBP....................... 102 1,636 102 1,636
LOWER YELLOWSTONE PROJECT....................... 364 16 364 16
MILK RIVER PROJECT.............................. 548 1,148 548 1,148
MISSOURI BASIN O&M, P-SMBP...................... 1,028 273 1,028 273
ROCKY BOYS/NORTH CENTRAL MT RURAL WATER SYSTEM.. 3,700 .............. 3,700 ..............
SUN RIVER PROJECT............................... 153 260 153 260
YELLOWTAIL UNIT, P-SMBP......................... 22 6,780 22 6,780

NEBRASKA

AINSWORTH UNIT, P-SMBP.......................... 70 103 70 103
FRENCHMAN-CAMBRIDGE UNIT, P-SMBP................ 325 1,842 325 1,842
MIRAGE FLATS PROJECT............................ 13 98 13 98
NORTH LOUP UNIT, P-SMBP......................... 89 121 89 121

NEVADA

LAHONTAN BASIN PROJECT.......................... 6,325 3,526 6,325 3,526
LAKE TAHOE REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM......... 115 .............. 115 ..............
LAKE MEAD /LAS VEGAS WASH PROGRAM............... 700 .............. 700 ..............

NEW MEXICO

CARLSBAD PROJECT................................ 2,915 1,224 2,915 1,224
EASTERN NEW MEXICO RURAL WATER SUPPLY........... 1,000 .............. 1,000 ..............
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE PROJECT....................... 14,329 11,536 14,329 11,536
RIO GRANDE PROJECT.............................. 1,399 4,007 1,399 4,007
RIO GRANDE PEUBLOS PROJECT...................... 300 .............. 300 ..............
TUCUMCARI PROJECT............................... 18 5 18 5

NORTH DAKOTA

DICKINSON UNIT, P-SMBP.......................... 212 569 212 569
GARRISON DIVERSION UNIT, P-SMBP................. 16,406 7,122 16,406 7,122
HEART BUTTE UNIT, P-SMBP........................ 82 947 82 947

OKLAHOMA

ARBUCKLE PROJECT................................ 67 171 67 171
MCGEE CREEK PROJECT............................. 189 795 189 795
MOUNTAIN PARK PROJECT........................... 84 602 84 602
NORMAN PROJECT.................................. 71 298 71 298
WASHITA BASIN PROJECT........................... 244 1,006 244 1,006
W.C. AUSTIN PROJECT............................. 59 539 59 539

OREGON

CROOKED RIVER PROJECT........................... 284 516 284 516
DESCHUTES PROJECT............................... 367 205 367 205
EASTERN OREGON PROJECTS......................... 536 222 536 222
KLAMATH PROJECT................................. 11,379 4,621 11,379 4,621
ROGUE RIVER BASIN PROJECT, TALENT DIVISION...... 1,601 1,236 1,601 1,236
TUALATIN PROJECT................................ 367 223 367 223
UMATILLA PROJECT................................ 503 2,347 503 2,347

SOUTH DAKOTA

ANGOSTURA UNIT, P-SMBP.......................... 249 719 249 719
BELLE FOURCHE UNIT, P-SMBP...................... 270 1,025 270 1,025
KEYHOLE UNIT, P-SMBP............................ 198 577 198 577
LEWIS AND CLARK RURAL WATER SYSTEM.............. 2,775 .............. 2,775 ..............
MID-DAKOTA RURAL WATER PROJECT.................. .............. 15 .............. 15
MNI WICONI PROJECT.............................. .............. 12,200 .............. 12,200
OAHE UNIT, P-SMBP............................... 36 71 36 71
RAPID VALLEY PROJECT............................ .............. 69 .............. 69
RAPID VALLEY UNIT, P-SMBP....................... .............. 195 .............. 195
SHADEHILL UNIT, P-SMBP.......................... 75 456 75 456

TEXAS

BALMORHEA PROJECT............................... 27 13 27 13
CANADIAN RIVER PROJECT.......................... 84 135 84 135
LOWER RIO GRANDE WATER RESOURCES CONSERVATION 50 .............. 50 ..............
PROGRAM........................................
NUECES RIVER PROJECT............................ 108 708 108 708
SAN ANGELO PROJECT.............................. 38 597 38 597

UTAH

HYRUM PROJECT................................... 178 176 178 176
MOON LAKE PROJECT............................... 9 84 9 84
NEWTON PROJECT.................................. 29 95 29 95
OGDEN RIVER PROJECT............................. 218 256 218 256
PROVO RIVER PROJECT............................. 1,293 458 1,293 458
SANPETE PROJECT................................. 60 10 60 10
SCOFIELD PROJECT................................ 529 86 529 86
STRAWBERRY VALLEY PROJECT....................... 505 100 505 100
WEBER BASIN PROJECT............................. 1,135 925 1,135 925
WEBER RIVER PROJECT............................. 60 86 60 86

WASHINGTON

COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT.......................... 4,273 9,989 4,273 9,989
WASHINGTON AREA PROJECTS........................ 459 64 459 64
YAKIMA PROJECT.................................. 1,104 5,240 1,104 5,240
YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER ENHANCEMENT PROJECT.... 15,799 .............. 15,799 ..............

WYOMING

BOYSEN UNIT, P-SMBP............................. 231 1,872 231 1,872
BUFFALO BILL DAM, DAM MODIFICATION, P-SMBP...... 32 2,747 32 2,747
KENDRICK PROJECT................................ 106 3,692 106 3,692
NORTH PLATTE PROJECT............................ 205 1,153 205 1,153
NORTH PLATTE AREA, P-SMBP....................... 109 5,120 109 5,120
OWL CREEK UNIT, P-SMBP.......................... 6 105 6 105
RIVERTON UNIT, P-SMBP........................... 8 566 8 566
SHOSHONE PROJECT................................ 76 753 76 753
---------------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, ITEMS UNDER STATES.............. 191,491 279,866 191,491 315,866
===============================================================
REMAINING ITEMS

ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK:
RURAL WATER................................. .............. .............. 43,841 ..............
FISH PASSAGE AND FISH SCREENS............... .............. .............. 5,000 ..............
WATER CONSERVATION AND DELIVERY............. .............. .............. 10,000 ..............
WESTERN DROUGHT REPONSE..................... .............. .............. 100,000 ..............
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROJECT, .............. 15,453 .............. 15,453
TITLE I........................................
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROJECT, 8,162 .............. 8,162 ..............
TITLE II.......................................
COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT (CRSP), SECTION 5 3,935 6,500 3,935 6,500
COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT (CRSP), SECTION 8 2,765 .............. 2,765 ..............
COLORADO RIVER WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 620 .............. 620 ..............

DAM SAFETY PROGRAM:
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DAM SAFETY .............. 1,300 .............. 1,300
PROGRAM....................................
INITIATE SAFETY OF DAMS CORRECTIVE ACTION... .............. 64,500 .............. 64,500
SAFETY EVALUATION OF EXISTING DAMS.......... .............. 20,284 .............. 20,284
EMERGENCY PLANNING & DISASTER RESPONSE PROGRAM.. .............. 1,250 .............. 1,250
ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION 27,305 .............. 27,305 ..............
PROGRAM........................................
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION............ 1,828 .............. 1,828 ..............
EXAMINATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES.............. .............. 8,854 .............. 8,854
GENERAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES..................... 2,000 .............. 2,000 ..............

INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENTS:
AAMODT LITIGATION SETTLEMENT ACT............ .............. .............. 6,379 ..............
CROW TRIBE WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT OF .............. .............. 12,772 ..............
2010.......................................
NAVAJO-GALLUP WATER SUPPLY PROJECT.......... .............. .............. 87,000 ..............
LAND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM............... 9,813 .............. 9,813 ..............
LOWER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM......... 27,433 .............. 27,433 ..............
MISCELLANEOUS FLOOD CONTROL OPERATIONS.......... .............. 819 .............. 819
NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS PROGRAM................. 10,425 .............. 10,425 ..............
NEGOTIATION & ADMINISTRATION OF WATER MARKETING. 1,764 .............. 1,764 ..............
OPERATION & PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.................. 1,132 1,656 1,132 1,656
POWER PROGRAM SERVICES.......................... 2,391 307 2,391 307
PUBLIC ACCESS AND SAFETY PROGRAM................ 593 206 593 206
RECLAMATION LAW ADMINISTRATION.................. 2,189 .............. 2,189 ..............
RECREATION & FISH & WILDLIFE PROGRAM 2,189 .............. 2,189 ..............
ADMINISTRATION.................................

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT:
DESALINATION AND WATER PURIFICATION PROGRAM. 4,653 1,150 4,653 1,150
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM.............. 22,765 .............. 22,765 ..............
SITE SECURITY ACTIVITIES........................ .............. 26,220 .............. 26,220
UNITED STATES/MEXICO BORDER ISSUES--TECHNICAL 90 .............. 90 ..............
SUPPORT........................................

WATERSMART PROGRAM:
WATERSMART GRANTS........................... 23,365 .............. 23,365 ..............
WATER CONSERVATION FIELD SERVICES PROGRAM... 4,179 .............. 4,179 ..............
COOPERATIVE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT............ 1,750 .............. 1,750 ..............
BASIN STUDIES............................... 5,200 .............. 5,200 ..............
DROUGHT RESPONSE & COMPREHENSIVE DROUGHT 4,000 .............. 4,000 ..............
PLANS......................................
RESILIENT INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS........ .............. 1,500 .............. 1,500
TITLE XVI WATER RECLAMATION & REUSE PROGRAM. 21,500 .............. 21,500 ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, REMAINING ITEMS................. 192,046 149,999 457,038 149,999
===============================================================
UNDERFINANCING.................................. .............. .............. .............. ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL..................................... 383,537 429,865 648,529 465,865
===============================================================
GRAND TOTAL, WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES.. .............. 813,402 .............. 1,114,394
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 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 expeditiously in
accordance with Congressional direction.
Scoggins Dam, Tualatin Project, Oregon.--The Committee
recommends $2,000,000 for Safety of Dams preconstruction
activities at Scoggins Dam as requested. Consistent with the
Tualatin Project Water Supply Feasibility Study authorized in
Public Law 108-137 and statutory authority granted in the
fiscal year 2016 Omnibus Appropriation allowing for additional
benefits, such as storage, to be conducted simultaneously with
dam safety improvements for new or supplementary works, the
Committee directs the Bureau to evaluate alternatives,
including new or supplementary works provided that safety
remains the paramount consideration, to address dam safety
modifications and additional benefits. The Committee directs
Reclamation to prioritize this joint project including
commencement of feasibility and environmental review of the
preferred alternative in fiscal year 2017. The Committee
understands that a replacement structure downstream could
significantly reduce project costs for both the Federal
Government and local stakeholders. The Secretary may accept
contributed funds from non-Federal contractors to expedite
completion of any level of review.
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. The Committee urges
Reclamation to provide additional funds for the WaterSmart
program to fund projects that address water challenges in the
West, including projects that address drought or help
agricultural water users comply with the Endangered Species
Act, and projects that support collaborative approaches and
reduce conflict, including litigation, over water management.
Additional Funding for Water and Related Resources Work.--
The Committee recommendation includes an additional
$158,841,000 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 pre-construction activities and on projects
which provide new or existing water supplies through additional
infrastructure. Reclamation should give priority in allocating
funds to on-going work on authorized projects for which
environmental compliance has been completed.
Buried Metallic Water Pipe.--The Bureau of Reclamation has
repeatedly disregarded congressional directives related to
Technical Memorandum No. 8140-CC-2004-1 and the assembly and
analysis of data on pipeline reliability. Due to this repeated
pattern for a number of years and failure to meet congressional
deadlines, Reclamation shall treat the Technical Memorandum as
a set of non-binding guidelines, instead of a set of
requirements, as it has repeatedly told Congress. As a set of
non-binding guidelines, deviations from the Technical
Memorandum may occur without review and/or approval by any
Federal entity if the water project has been designed and
approved by a duly licensed and registered professional
engineer.
Water Pumping in California.--The Committee notes that
water pumping restrictions intended to protect endangered smelt
in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta have resulted in
roughly the same amount of water being pumped to Central and
Southern California during the beginning of 2016, an El Nino
year, than was pumped during the same period of 2015, an
extreme drought year. The Committee is deeply concerned that
Federal agencies responsible for determining when to restrict
water pumping are relying too heavily on assumptions and
intuition rather than actual and regular monitoring of water
conditions and Delta Smelt populations. In an effort to better
understand the exact impact of pumping operations on the
ability of Delta Smelt to survive, the Committee directs
Reclamation to coordinate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service to determine additional real-time monitoring is
necessary to accurately identify the effects of pumping on
smelt, specifically, whether Delta Smelt are capable of
migrating back out to the Central Delta when found further
south of Prisoner's Point, approximately 17 miles from the
water pumps. If the Department of the Interior finds that
additional monitoring or expeditious scientific study is
necessary to make this determination, the Department shall
promptly implement the necessary monitoring or study. The
Bureau of Reclamation shall brief the Committee on the results
of this coordinated inquiry with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
not later than 60 days after enactment of this act.
Fish monitoring.--The Committee notes that the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has made significant
progress in deploying acoustic tags to monitor the migration
and survival of salmonids between spawning areas and the
Pacific Ocean. In 2013, tags became small enough to implant in
endangered winter-run Chinook. The Committee also notes that
the Corps of Engineers is currently working on a prototype tag
small and flexible enough for injection into juvenile Pacific
Lamprey in the Columbia River Basin. The Committee directs
Reclamation to work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the
Corps of Engineers to coordinate and expand upon real time fish
monitoring programs, including the potential deployment of new
technology. The Bureau of Reclamation shall brief the Committee
on its efforts not later than 60 days after enactment of this
act.
Long-term Stewardship.--Walker Basin Restoration Program
funds awarded by Reclamation to the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation may be used to establish long-term stewardship
accounts to assist with the long-term management and
disposition of land, water and related interests acquired from
willing sellers, with continuing assistance from Reclamation
under new or extended grant agreements until all Program funds
have been expended.

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND

Appropriations, 2016.................................... $49,528,000
Budget estimate, 2017................................... 55,606,000
Committee recommendation................................ 55,606,000

The Committee recommends $55,606,000 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, 2016.................................... $37,000,000
Budget estimate, 2017................................... 36,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 36,000,000

The Committee recommends $36,000,000 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, 2016.................................... $59,500,000
Budget estimate, 2017................................... 59,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 59,000,000

The Committee recommends $59,000,000 for Policy and
Administration, the same as the 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, 2016....................................................
Budget estimate, 2017................................... $106,151,000
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, 2016....................................................
Budget estimate, 2017................................... $36,000,000
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 Calfed
Bay-Delta.
Section 204. The bill includes a provision regarding the
Secure Water Act.

TITLE III

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Overview of Recommendation

The Committee recommends $30,741,296,000 for the Department
of Energy, a decrease of $762,607,000 from the budget request.
Within the funding recommendation, $19,889,000,000 is
classified as defense and $10,852,296,000 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 the Energy-
Water Nexus; Exascale computing; the Grid Modernization
Initiative; subsurface science, technology and engineering
research, development, and deployment; supercritical carbon
dioxide; cybersecurity; and advanced materials, would allow for
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.
Grid Modernization.--The Committee remains 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 strategic goals of the grid
modernization crosscut activity and is supportive of the
valuable role of the Grid Modernization Laboratory Consortium,
which consists of 14 National Laboratories that work in concert
to address grid modernization challenges across the Department,
and looks forward to execution of the first year of the Grid
Multi-Year Program Plan. The Committee supports the continued
implementation of a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary research
and development program managed through the consortium of the
National Laboratories and cost-shared with non-Federal partners
to focus on six technical areas: institutional support; design
and planning tools; system operations, power flow, and control;
sensing and measurement; devices and integrated system testing;
and security and resilience. The Committee also encourages the
Department's continued coordination to ensure grid-related
research across the Department complex is not duplicative.
The Committee directs the Department of Energy to conduct a
study to determine the costs and benefits of net-metering and
distributed solar generation to the electrical grid, utilities
and ratepayers, no later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this act.
The Committee encourages the Department to support
partnership efforts involving an institution of higher
education, a National Laboratory, a State or local government,
a regional transmission organization or independent system
operator, technology provider, an electric utility or
cooperative in projects designed to improve the performance or
efficiency of the grid, including integration of distributed
generation, microgrids, energy storage, electric vehicles,
energy efficiency, demand response, intelligent loads, and
combined heat and power systems.
Energy-Water Nexus.--The Committee recognizes water and
energy are critical resources that are reciprocally linked. The
Energy-Water Nexus crosscut consists of a collaboration of
agencies, national laboratories, state and local governments,
utilities, industry, and the science community working
collectively to address energy and water resource challenges,
specifically as they relate to energy security and energy
sector water needs.
The Committee is aware that since the Energy Policy Act of
2005 was signed into law, the Government Accountability Office
issued a series of reports calling for improved information and
coordination from the Department at the energy-water nexus,
including improving federal data for power plant water use
(2009), improving information on water produced during oil and
gas production (2012), and increasing federal coordination to
better manage energy and water tradeoffs (2012). In response,
the Secretary hosted a series of roundtables to plan and
prioritize leveraging basic science, applied research, policy,
and outreach to move towards a more resilient and sustainable
coupled energy-water system. Additionally, the Department
established a domestic energy and water research investment as
part of a bilateral collaboration with China.
The Committee supports areas where innovative technology
advances could address the challenges faced in the energy-water
nexus, as highlighted in the 2015 Quadrennial Technology
Review. The Committee further supports an advanced, integrated
data, modeling, and analysis platform to improve understanding
and inform decision-making for a broad range of users and at
multiple scales, as well as investments in targeted technology
research opportunities within the system of water-energy flows
that offer the greatest potential for positive impact.
Advanced Materials.--The Committee supports the first year
for the Department-wide crosscut on advanced materials, with
focuses on lightweight materials and composites and corrosion
and materials under extremes. The Committee understands in
previous years, other program offices independently had
standalone existing materials programs, and supports formal
coordination across offices through the Materials Working
Group. This is an unprecedented opportunity to impact the
materials development cycle from scientific discovery to
technological innovation and deployment. The Committee directs
the Department to seek community input to further define the
highest priority research areas and critical funding
modalities, as well as provide updates on future identified
topics.
Cybersecurity.--The Cybersecurity Crosscut has clearly
defined objectives to protect the Department's enterprise
against cybersecurity threats and improve cybersecurity in the
electric power sector and the oil and natural gas sector. The
Committee acknowledges the paramount function of protecting the
Department's enterprise, which entails, among other things;
cybersecurity programs centralized within the Office of the
Chief Information Officer; situational awareness and incident
response; identity credential and access management; protection
of national laboratories; and oversight of classified and
unclassified systems.
The Committee also acknowledges the growing threat to the
critical infrastructure of the power grid that is primarily
owned and operated by the private sector. The Department,
through the Office of Electricity and Energy Delivery,
facilitates information sharing between the Federal Government
and the private sector to enhance situational awareness. The
Department of Energy has worked with the Department of Homeland
Security, the National Institute of Standards and Technology,
and industry to develop a set of best practices to assist
owners and operators of the grid who are making investments in
cybersecurity. The Department funds research and development
that aims to build security into energy delivery systems to
make the future grid more resilient to cyber threats. The
Committee supports the increasingly important role of the
Department in carrying out these activities, among many others,
to help develop the modernized power grid that the public and
private sectors seek to build in the coming decades.
The Committee supports the Department's cross-program
partnership on seismic simulation and recommends funds within
the National Nuclear Security Administration, the Office of
Science, Office of Nuclear Energy, and in-kind support provided
by the Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health,
Safety and Security.

REGIONAL PARTNERSHIPS

The Committee urges the Department to utilize investments
through existing regional capabilities that include industry,
universities, and State and regional economic development
assets. The Committee further encourages the national
laboratories to expand their geographic outreach through people
and access to specialized equipment and user facilities in
order to contribute to the success of these regional
initiatives.

Mission Innovation

The Committee supports the premise and goals set out by
Mission Innovation: to support innovative clean energy research
and development to accelerate access to affordable, deployable,
and transformative technologies. The Committee also supports
the goal to double Federal clean energy investment over the
next 5 years. The recommendations in this bill take the first
step in this effort, while working within the constraints on
discretionary funding.
It is imperative this effort have the support and
commitment of private industry as well, and the Breakthrough
Energy Coalition has provided that opportunity through a
separate, but parallel multinational initiative. Government
investment in research alone is not enough, but by providing
that public research pipeline, is integral to support a broad
partnership of private investors and entrepreneurs to take
risks to support innovative ideas in science and energy.
Accelerated and aggressive investment in basic research,
complimented with private sector investment, will provide
breakthrough technologies to support energy independence, as
well as drive those technologies to be affordable, resilient,
and reliable systems.
The Committee on Appropriations does not address mandatory
funding proposals requested by the administration.
The Committee believes the Secretary should focus more
investment to support the goals of Mission Innovation through
the national laboratory system, the Office of Science, and
ARPA-E. This is reflected in the funding provided to Department
of Energy programs.

Committee to Review the Effectiveness of the National Energy
Laboratories

The Committee appreciates the work of the Committee to
Review the Effectiveness of the National Energy Laboratories
[CRENEL]. CRENEL made recommendations to rebuild trust between
the Department and the national laboratories, maintaining the
focus and quality of the laboratory system, maximizing the
scientific and economic impact of the laboratories, and
increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of laboratory
operations. The Committee urges the Secretary to take these
recommendations seriously, particularly those regarding
repairing the relationship between the Department and the
national laboratories by increasing accountability and
transparency and reducing transactional oversight. The
Committee directs the Secretary to submit a report to the
Senate and House Committees on Appropriations within 180 days
of enactment on the progress made in implementing those CRENEL
recommendations directed to the Department.

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 2017 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, 2017, 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 2018
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.

Timely Apportionment of Appropriations

The Committee understands delays in the apportionment of
appropriated budget authority from the Office of Management
Budget to the Department are leading to program and project
management inefficiencies both at Department headquarters and
at the national laboratories. Monthly apportionments slow and
delay procurements, increase administrative costs for the
program and support staff allocating the funding, and lead to
uncertainty and disruption of annual planning. Once the
appropriation is signed into law, the Committee expects the
budget authority to be apportioned in a reasonable, timely
manner to maximize the efficient use of taxpayer dollars in
executing the Department's mission.

LABORATORY DIRECTED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The Committee directs the Department to ensure that
laboratory operating contractors do not allocate costs of
general and administrative overhead to laboratory directed
research and development.

ENERGY PROGRAMS

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Appropriations, 2016.................................... $2,073,000,000
Budget estimate, 2017................................... 2,898,400,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,073,000,000

The Committee recommends $2,073,000,000 for Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy [EERE], a decrease of
$825,400,000 from the budget request. Within available funds,
the Committee recommends $153,500,000 for program direction.
The Committee encourages the Department to continue the
progress being made on the Sustainable Transportation,
Renewable Power, and Energy Efficiency initiatives. These
investments are critical to expanding U.S. energy security and
global leadership, options for consumers, reducing the cost of
U.S.-generated energy, and job creation.
The Committee recommends that funding within EERE programs
be allocated to facilitate the development and management of
training and workforce development programs that assist and
support workers in trades and activities required for the
continued growth of the U.S. energy efficiency and clean energy
sectors.

VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES

The Committee recommends $308,300,000 for Vehicle
Technologies. Within this amount, the Committee recommends not
less than $32,000,000 for Electric Drive Technologies Research
and Development, $37,141,000 for Advanced Combustion Engine
Research and Development, $26,959,000 for Materials Technology,
and $40,000,000 for Vehicle Systems.
The Committee encourages the Department, when making grants
through the Vehicle Technologies Program, to expand
opportunities for the demonstration of zero-emissions
technologies that will be of practical use in areas of extreme
non-attainment with national ambient air quality standards.
The Committee is supportive of the Department's efforts in
the Co-optimization of Fuels and Engines activities in
coordination with the Bioenergy Technologies Program.
Establishing a link across fuels and engines early in the
research and development cycle will enable a new, synergistic,
and complete systems-based approach to creating optimized
powertrains.
Within available funds, 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 and continue support of the fiscal year 2016
SuperTruck II awards. The Department is directed to continue
with four awards using the multi-year allocation process that
was used successfully by the SuperTruck I program.
Within available funds, the Committee recommends not less
than $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
$40,700,000 for Outreach, Deployment, and Analysis to support
the Clean Cities Alternative Fuels and Vehicles Deployment
Program. Within this amount, $34,000,000 is provided for
Deployment through the Clean Cities Program. The Department is
encouraged to ensure balance in the award of funds to achieve
varied aims in fostering broader adoption of clean vehicles and
installation of supporting infrastructure.
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 year three of a 4-year
collegiate engineering competition, EcoCAR 3.
The Committee recognizes that the commercial off-road
vehicle sector, including industrial, mining, and farm
equipment, consumes over 2 Quads of energy per year and directs
the Department to establish a dedicated activity to reduce the
energy consumption of commercial off-road vehicles. The
Committee recommends not less than $5,000,000 to support
improving the energy efficiency of fluid power systems for
commercial off-road vehicles.

BIOENERGY TECHNOLOGIES

The Committee recommends $218,100,000 for Bioenergy
Technologies.
Within available funds, the Committee directs the Secretary
to provide a total of $30,000,000 for algal biofuels, and
expects the Department to sustain the investment in development
of algal biofuels.
The Committee also recommends $35,000,000, as requested, to
support the development of a Synthetic Biology Foundry to
leverage recently developed synthetic biology tools to enable
the biotechnology industry to achieve substantial improvements
in conversion efficiencies and the scale-up of biological
processes with lower development costs and lead times.
The Committee continues to support 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 Committee reiterates to the
Federal entities involved that this is a cost-sharing research
partnership among academia, industry, and the Federal
government, and urges full collaboration between the
Departments of Energy and Agriculture and other Federal
agencies in the Initiative.
Within available funds, the Committee recommends
$10,000,000 to establish a research, development, and
demonstration biopower program that makes full and innovative
use of biomass, municipally-derived biosolids, and municipal
solid waste.
The Committee further encourages the Bioenergy Technologies
Office to use its existing authorities to fund activities that
support the development and testing of new low-emission, high
efficiency, residential wood heaters that supply easily
accessed and affordable renewable energy and have the potential
to reduce the national costs associated with thermal energy.

HYDROGEN AND FUEL CELL TECHNOLOGIES

The Committee recommends $92,000,000 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 $7,000,000 to demonstrate an
integrated hydrogen renewable energy production, storage, and
transportation fuel distribution and retailing system.
Within Hydrogen Fuel research and development, the
Committee recommends $3,000,000 for carbon-free production of
hydrogen using new chemical synthesis methods that break apart
natural gas to solid carbon and hydrogen.
The Committee recommends $7,000,000 for Safety, Codes, and
Standards.

SOLAR ENERGY

The Committee recommends $222,400,000 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 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
$55,000,000 for concentrating solar power research,
development, and demonstration of technologies that reduce
overall system costs, better integrate subsystem components,
develop higher-temperature receivers, and improve the design of
solar collection and thermal energy storage. Within this amount
$15,000,000 is provided for competitively selected projects
focused on advanced thermal desalination techniques.
Research programs for high efficiency thin-film
photovoltaics and processes are encouraged to include
cooperation between industry and academia, and to include
advanced optical characterization that enables development of
strong correlations between materials and cell optical
properties, and the photovoltaic power performance of the
working solar cells.
The Committee encourages the Department of Energy to find
ways to expand access to solar energy to residences and
businesses in low-income communities. These efforts should
build upon lessons learned in earlier grants under the Solar
Market Pathways program.
No funds are provided for the Next Generation Renewable
Fuels and Chemicals Research and Development program.

WIND ENERGY

The Committee recommends $80,000,000 for Wind Energy.
The Committee directs the advancement of innovative
technologies for offshore wind development, including
freshwater, deepwater, shallow water, and transitional depth
installations. Within these funds, the Committee recommends
$40,000,000 for offshore wind demonstration projects, and
$10,000,000 to further substantiate the design and economic
value proposition of alternative project designs for offshore
wind power. The Committee expects funds for the offshore wind
demonstration projects be awarded for new and innovative
technologies, including for deepwater technologies that have
wide applications throughout the U.S. and have not yet been
demonstrated elsewhere in the world. The Committee further
directs the Department to support the deployment and testing of
scale floating wind turbines designed to further reduce energy
costs. The Committee also continues to support the Department's
efforts to competitively award funding for innovative
distributed wind projects.
Within available funds, the Committee directs the
Department to prioritize early stage research on materials and
manufacturing methods and advanced components that will enable
accessing high-quality wind resources, and on development that
will enable these technologies to compete in the marketplace
without the need for subsidies. The Committee supports research
using high-performance computing, modeling and simulation,
including the Atmosphere to Electrons initiative program,
reliability, and grid integration efforts. Further, the
Department is urged to give priority to stewarding the assets
and optimizing the operations of the Department-owned wind
research and testing facilities and provides no less than
$30,000,000 for the National Wind Technology Center.
No additional funding is recommended for Wind Energy.

WATER POWER

The Committee recommends $84,000,000 for Water Power.
Within available funds, the Committee recommends
$25,000,000 for conventional hydropower and pumped storage
activities, including up to $3,900,000 for the purposes of
section 242 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-
58).
Of the amount provided, $3,000,000 shall be used for a
thorough techno-economic analysis of the value of pumped
storage hydro at two sites with high-levels of intermittent
renewable energy generation in the United States to be
determined by the Secretary of Energy, and building off the
Department of Energy's pumped storage hydro work initiated in
fiscal year 2016. The techno-economic analysis shall include
sub-hourly economic analysis and accounting of the full range
of market-based revenue streams, regional cost savings and
environmental benefits pumped storage hydropower provides both
as a generation and transmission asset. Funding shall also be
provided for a National Association of Regulatory Utility
Commissioners committee to advise the Department's work in the
area of pumped hydro storage. Funding may also be used for
research and analysis that will improve the pumped storage
industry more broadly, building off the Department of Energy's
existing pumped storage hydro work initiated in fiscal year
2016.
Marine and Hydrokinetic Technology Research, Development,
and Deployment.--The Committee recommends $59,000,000 for
marine and hydrokinetic technology research, development, and
deployment activities. The Committee rejects the Department's
request to limit future competitive solicitations only to
projects that would at least double the energy capture per unit
of structural cost of wave energy convertor systems. Rather,
selected projects should maintain a robust technology support
pipeline from both advanced and low technology readiness level
marine energy conversion systems and components. Therefore, the
Committee recommends $25,000,000 for a balanced portfolio of
competitive solicitations to support industry-led research,
development, and demonstrations of wave and current (ocean,
river, tidal) technologies to increase energy capture,
reliability, and survivability at lower costs.
The Committee finds that the proposed open-water, fully-
energetic, grid-connected wave energy facility is a test
facility with the capability of evaluating a range of emerging
marine hydrokinetic components and systems. Therefore, the
Secretary is directed to utilize a 20 percent non-Federal
project construction cost share. With the funds provided in
fiscal year 2016, the Committee provides $35,000,000 in fiscal
year 2017 to complete construction of the test facility.
The Committee provides $4,000,000 to support collaborations
between universities and the National Laboratories, including
personnel exchanges, to support industry by conducting research
and testing of marine energy systems at facilities previously
designated by the Department as National Marine Renewable
Energy Centers. In addition, the Department is directed to
continue its coordination with the U.S. Navy on marine energy
technology demonstration.

GEOTHERMAL TECHNOLOGIES

The Committee recommends $70,500,000 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 continuation of activities of the Frontier
Observatory for Research in Geothermal Energy [FORGE], with
activities to include ongoing novel subsurface
characterization, full-scale well drilling, and technology
research and development to accelerate the commercial pathway
to large-scale enhanced geothermal systems power generation.
The Committee directs the Department to continue its
efforts to identify prospective geothermal resources in areas
with no obvious surface expressions.

ADVANCED MANUFACTURING

The Committee recommends $254,200,000 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
$70,000,000 to support the existing 5 Clean Energy
Manufacturing Institutes [CEMI], including $14,000,000 each for
wide bandgap power electronics institute, the advanced
composites institute, and the smart manufacturing institute,
and two to-be-announced Institutes from prior year funding
opportunities. The Committee is pleased with the ongoing work
to support innovative advanced manufacturing opportunities
through the Clean Energy Manufacturing Institutes. The
Committee recognizes the important role additive manufacturing
can play in helping to advance the deployment of clean energy
technologies. The Committee encourages the Department to
further foster the partnership between the National
Laboratories and industry to use 3D printing for renewable
energy to include overcoming challenges to the development and
implementation of innovative offshore wind technologies.
The Committee supports the Department's efforts to launch
the Energy-Water Desalination Hub to lower the cost and energy
intensity of technologies to provide clean, safe water. The
Committee recommends $20,000,000 for this effort.
The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for the Critical
Materials Hub. This is the first year of support for the second
5-year phase. The Committee supports the Hub's continued focus
on technologies that will enable domestic manufacturers to make
better use of the critical materials to which they have access,
as well as to reduce or eliminate the need for materials that
are subject to supply disruptions. 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.
The Committee recommends $3,000,000 for the final year of
focus on developing new nanostructured metals with direct
relevance to advanced energy technologies.
The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for development of
additive manufacturing processes, low-cost carbon fiber, and
other manufacturing technologies at the Manufacturing
Demonstration Facility [MDF]. The Committee notes the ongoing
emphasis on assisting small- and medium-sized businesses to
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 recommends $1,500,000 for the joint additive
manufacturing pilot institute with the Department of Defense.
Within the funds provided for the Industrial Assessment
Centers, the Committee provides $1,500,000 for the expansion of
wastewater treatment technical assistance.
The Committee supports efforts to research, develop and
demonstrate micro-combined heat and power in residential and
light commercial applications in coordination with industry to
reduce emissions and improve resilient infrastructure.

BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES

The Committee recommends $203,400,000 for Building
Technologies. The Committee 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
$23,000,000 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 facilitate widespread deployment through direct engagement
through direct engagement with builders, the construction
trades, equipment manufacturers, smart grid technology and
systems suppliers, integrators, and State and local
governments.
Within available funds, the Committee recommends
$28,000,000 for Commercial Buildings Integration. The Committee
recommends a program of core research and development of more
cost-effective integration techniques and technologies that
could help the transition towards deep retrofits. In addition,
the Committee recommends that DOE increase engagement with
private sector stakeholders to develop market transforming
policies and investments in commercial building retrofits.
The Committee recommends $98,400,000 for the Emerging
Technologies subprogram. Within available funds, the Committee
recommends not less than $23,000,000 for transactive controls
research and development. Within funds available for
transactive controls research and development, the Committee
recommends $5,000,000 to promote regional demonstrations of
new, utility-led, residential Connected Communities advancing
smart grid systems. Within available funds, the Committee
recommends $25,000,000 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 with the lack of funding for
natural gas research and development within the Buildings
Technology Program. Within available funds, the Committee
provides $10,000,000 for research and development for energy
efficiency efforts related to the direct use of natural gas in
residential applications, including gas heat pump heating and
water heating, on-site combine heat and power, and natural gas
appliance venting.
The Committee recommends $54,000,000 for Equipment and
Buildings Standards.

FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

The Committee encourages the Secretary of Energy, in
consultation with the Department of Defense, to create a pilot
program that would determine the potential for the use of
Energy Savings Performance Contracts to reduce energy
consumption and provide energy cost savings in non-building
applications.

WEATHERIZATION AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL PROGRAM

The Committee recommends $264,600,000 for the
Weatherization and Intergovernmental Program. Within this
amount, $214,600,000 is for the Weatherization Assistance
Program, and $50,000,000 is for State Energy Program Grants. No
funding is recommended for the Cities, Counties, and
Communities Energy Program proposed in the budget request.
Weatherization Assistance Program grant funds are to be
allocated and on a statutory formula basis.

CORPORATE SUPPORT PROGRAMS

The Committee recommends $264,500,000 for Corporate
Support, including $2,000,000 for the United States-Israel
energy cooperative agreement within Strategic Programs.

Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability

Appropriations, 2016.................................... $206,000,000
Budget estimate, 2017................................... 262,300,000
Committee recommendation................................ 206,000,000

The Committee recommends $206,000,000 for Electricity
Delivery and Energy Reliability, a decrease of $56,300,000 from
the budget request. Within available funds, the Committee
recommends $28,500,000 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. 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 understands 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 is currently ongoing, per
direction in the fiscal year 2016 report. 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.

CLEAN ENERGY TRANSMISSION AND RELIABILITY

The Committee recommends $36,000,000 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.

SMART GRID RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The Committee recommends $35,000,000 for Smart Grid
Research and Development.
Within available funding, $5,000,000 is recommended 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 supports the promotion of regional
demonstrations of new, utility-led, residential Connected
Communities advancing smart grid systems.
The Committee recognizes the opportunities presented by the
application, integration, and investment in grid technologies
across all sectors of the economy. The Committee encourages the
Secretary to ensure that efforts in these areas are coordinated
and focused on the evolution to the grid of the future.
The Committee recommends that funds provided for the
Advanced Grid Integration Division should focus on identifying
and addressing technical and regulatory barriers impeding grid
integration of distributed energy systems to reduce energy
costs and improve the resiliency and reliability of the
electric grid.

CYBER SECURITY FOR ENERGY DELIVERY SYSTEMS

The Committee recommends $50,500,000 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
overemphasized and must be appropriately guarded against.

ENERGY STORAGE

The Committee recommends $29,500,000 for Energy Storage.
Within available funds, the Committee supports developing
an operational energy storage test facility capable of
performance-driven data in a utility environment.
For energy storage systems to be supported and accepted by
industry, they must be validated and demonstrated to be safe
and reliable. The Committee is aware the utility sector is
concerned there is a disincentive for utilities to deploy
battery storage on a utility scale, as these technologies are
largely untested, and companies are risk-adverse to providing
access to their systems. In addition, regulated utilities have
difficulty convincing regulators that assets will live out
their expected life. Thus, the Committee directs the Department
to submit a report to the Committee, no later than 90 days
after enactment, detailing how investments in these
demonstrations address these concerns and will lead to broader
adoption and acceptance by the utility sector of commercial
scale energy storage in the U.S. In addition, the Committee
directs the Department to submit within this report, how
existing programs can be used to mitigate challenges for
deployment of utility scale projects by regulated utilities.
Offshore wind has tremendous capacity to generate
electricity. Ensuring that the power generated can be harnessed
and reserved for use during periods of peak demand would extend
the reach of this renewable resource. The Committee encourages
the Department to partner with leaders in the energy storage
industry to establish a pilot project in order to demonstrate
how energy storage technology can reserve electricity generated
offshore for use in meeting peak demand.
The Committee encourages the Secretary to consider
expanding research and development partnerships related to the
development and deployment of energy storage, with stakeholders
in diverse geographic regions with unique market dynamics and
policy challenges that can help to inform nationwide efforts to
improve grid resiliency, reliability, and security, empower
consumers, and increase integration of a broad range of
generation sources.
Within available funding, the Committee encourages the
Department to further the development and demonstration of non-
battery advanced storage components, including compressed air
energy storage development and demonstration to enable
efficiency improvements for utility-scale, bulk energy storage
solutions.

TRANSFORMER RESILIENCE AND ADVANCED COMPONENTS

The Committee recommends $8,500,000 for Transformer
Resilience and Advanced Components. Within available funds, 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 $7,500,000 for National
Electricity Delivery.

INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY AND ENERGY RESTORATION

The Committee recommends $10,500,000 for Infrastructure
Security and Energy Restoration.
The Committee supports further development of energy sector
situational awareness capabilities, and the work of Eagle-I,
the Federal Government's situational awareness tool for
national power outages. The Committee encourages the Department
to further illustrate how to benefit from increased access to
more varied sources of data.
The Committee also encourages the Department to continue to
develop implementation strategies and analysis with industry to
address potential impacts of geomagnetic disturbances and
electromagnetic pulse threats to the electric grid.
The Committee is supportive of proposed regional and State
activities to improve capabilities to characterize energy
sector supply disruptions, communication among local, State,
regional, Federal, and industry partners, and the
identification of gaps for use in energy planning and emergency
response training programs. The Committee encourages the
Department to support these efforts within Infrastructure
Security and Energy Restoration.

Nuclear Energy

Appropriations, 2016.................................... $986,161,000
Budget estimate, 2017................................... 993,896,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,057,903,000

The Committee recommends $1,057,903,000 for Nuclear Energy,
an increase of $64,007,000 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.
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. The Committee supports the Department's efforts to
conduct high-priority research and development in this area and
its cooperation with industry, but also recognizes that some
operating reactors will not be extended, while others have
already shut down. When power plants shut down, the social and
economic impacts to surrounding communities can be significant.
Communities often lack information and resources to assist with
the economic transition. The Committee is aware that the
Department is planning to convene a summit to address the early
closure of nuclear power plants later this spring. While the
summit will focus on stopping early plant closures, the
Committee urges the Secretary to also address the impact of
plants that have already shut down on communities, and ways the
communities can mitigate the impacts.
Within available funds, $600,000 is provided for the cross-
program partnership on seismic simulation.

Research and Development

INTEGRATED UNIVERSITY PROGRAM

The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for the Integrated
University Program, $5,000,000 above the budget request. The
Committee notes the administration repeatedly attempts to
defund this program, despite continued success in developing
highly qualified nuclear specialists to meet national needs.

SMALL MODULAR REACTOR LICENSING TECHNICAL SUPPORT

The Committee recommends $95,000,000 for Small Modular
Reactor Licensing Technical Support, $5,400,000 above the
request. Within this amount, $23,000,000 shall be for the first
award for design certification application development, siting
preparation, and combined operating license application
development. Further, $72,000,000 shall be for the second
awardee for design certification application development,
siting preparation, and combined operating license application
development. Small modular reactors have the potential to
provide reliable electricity generation to replace retiring
fossil plants and meet domestic clean power needs. The
Committee directs the Department to submit a report evaluating
and prioritizing government and private sector actions needed
for development and deployment of small modular reactors. The
report should evaluate completion of design and licensing of
small modular reactors, and licensing of deployment sites for
small modular reactors. The report should include advanced
manufacturing and supply chain development opportunities. The
report should also evaluate public and private sector
facilities that could be powered by small modular reactors.

REACTOR CONCEPTS RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION

The Committee recommends $129,760,000 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 $18,000,000 for the second year of the
advanced reactor concepts program and $3,000,000 for testing
and development of dynamic convection technology. The dynamic
convection technology work should include a business case
analysis that addresses cost, schedule, licensing, and other
risks of implementation in a commercial nuclear plant.
Light Water Reactor Sustainability.--Within available
funds, the Committee recommends $35,260,000. 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 $219,730,000 for Fuel Cycle
Research and Development. No Defense function funds are
provided.
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, and recommends
$61,040,000 for Integrated Waste Management System activities.
Funding should be used to advance plans to consolidate spent
nuclear fuel from around the United States to an interim
central storage facility(s), with priority given to shutdown
reactors, and to accelerate the development of a transportation
capability to move the commercial spent fuel from its current
storage locations.
The Committee supports the Department's efforts develop a
process for consent-based siting by engaging State, local, and
tribal government entities on the possible conditions under
which an interim storage facility could be sited within their
jurisdictions. Further, the Committee supports ongoing
coordination between the Department and the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission to clarify the regulatory framework under which
transportation and centralized interim storage of spent fuel
could occur. However, The Committee directs the Department to
take a more active role in future consent-based siting
processes for spent nuclear fuel or any other high level waste
than it has demonstrated in the deep borehole demonstration
project in North Dakota. The Department cannot avoid its
responsibilities of working with State and local communities by
hiring a contractor to oversee and execute the work. The
Secretary is encouraged to ensure lessons learned from the
demonstration project in North Dakota are incorporated into its
plan to develop a process for future consent-based siting.
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,
$14,250,000 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 $69,390,000 for the Advanced Fuels
program. The Department is directed to continue implementation
of the accident tolerant fuels development program, the goal of
which remains development of accident tolerant nuclear fuels
leading to commercial reactor fuel assembly testing by 2022.
The Secretary is directed to share with the Committee the
outcome of the consultation required in fiscal year 2016 with
industry, universities and other interested organizations on a
commercialization roadmap for these technologies, including new
ceramic cladding material. 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, not less
than $19,300,000 is provided to initiate Phase 2 of the
industry-led, appropriately cost-shared basic research 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.

NUCLEAR ENERGY ENABLING TECHNOLOGIES

The Committee recommends $83,925,000 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 $17,000,000 for Radiological
Facilities Management, including $10,000,000 for the
development of a radioactive liquid waste capability at Oak
Ridge National Laboratory.

IDAHO FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

The Committee recommends $295,185,000 for Idaho Facilities
Management, which includes $141,000,000 for operations and
maintenance of the Advanced Test Reactor. The Advanced Test
Reactor is a vital asset that provides research capability
across the Department. In order to provide better budget
clarity and consistency appropriate for an operating reactor
facility, a new control point for the Advanced Test Reactors
Operations and Maintenance is established that consolidates all
funding for the Advanced Test Reactor in the Nuclear Energy
account.

Fossil Energy Research and Development

Appropriations, 2016.................................... $632,000,000
Budget estimate, 2017................................... 360,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 632,000,000

The Committee recommends $632,000,000 for Fossil Energy
Research and Development, an increase of $272,000,000 above the
budget request. Within available funds, the Committee
recommends $60,000,000 for program direction. The Committee
does not adopt the proposed changes to the budget structure for
Fossil Energy Research and Development.
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.
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 is aware of Department's participation within
the Propulsion Instrumentation Working Group. Innovative
research is underway on dynamic sensors for turbine engines,
including for fossil-fuel fired power plants, which have the
potential to increase safety and fuel efficiency and decrease
costs. The Committee encourages the Department to continue to
support innovative research being carried out by the national
labs and universities on engine sensor technology, with the
goal of improving performance, safety, and fuel efficiency.
The Committee includes funding levels for the Department of
Energy's National Carbon Capture Center consistent with the
budget request. The Committee continues to encourage the
Department 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 Department has previously funded several
university-based CCS projects and is encouraged to build on an
established research base to support ongoing research and to
address the wider implementation of CCS technologies.

COAL, CCS AND POWER SYSTEMS

The Committee recommends $377,000,000 for CCS and Power
Systems.
The Committee recommends $30,000,000 to support a new
solicitation for two awards for post-combustion carbon capture
retrofits to existing coal plants greater than 350 MWe.
Carbon Capture.--Within the recommendation, $101,000,000 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.
Carbon Storage.--Within the recommendation, $106,000,000 is
for Carbon Storage. Within available funds, the Committee
recommends $10,000,000 for Carbon Use and Reuse to continue
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 is concerned that the Office of Fossil
Energy has not prioritized non-enhanced oil recovery
utilization of carbon dioxide since 2010. The Committee
believes the potential for carbon dioxide utilization
technologies to become economically viable has improved in
recent years and these technologies should receive renewed
attention from the Office of Fossil Energy. The Committee
encourages the Office of Fossil Energy to support other carbon
dioxide utilization technologies in addition to enhanced oil
recovery, including using carbon dioxide to produce algae. The
Committee further 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,
$105,000,000 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. The
Committee recommends $30,000,000 for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells.
The Committee encourages the Secretary to promote and assist in
the research and development of new higher efficiency gas
turbines used in power generation systems in order to upgrade
and increase the resiliency of the Nation's electrical grid
system, while reducing the cost of electricity and emissions.
This includes awarding grants and contract proposals from
industry, small businesses, universities and other appropriate
parties. The Committee encourages the Department to support a
pilot program to advance the application of solid state
reforming technology to commercial success.

NATURAL GAS TECHNOLOGIES

The Committee recommends $46,000,000 for Natural Gas
Technologies.
Risk-Based Data Management System.--Within available funds,
the Committee recommends $5,200,000 to continue the Risk Based
Data Management System [RBDMS] and supports including water
tracking in pre-and post-drilling applications where required
by States. The Committee also directs the Department to provide
these funds 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 from the improved FracFocus 3.0, and
additional reports. The Committee supports the continued
efforts to provide public transparency, while protecting
proprietary information.
Methane Hydrate Activities.--The Committee recommends
$19,800,000 for methane hydrates, and notes that the request
again does not include funding for methane hydrate research on
the methods for producing methane hydrates, only funding for a
fuel supply impact mitigation subprogram that will conduct
investigations to confirm the nature and regional context of
gas hydrate deposits in the Gulf of Mexico in conjunction with
the U.S. Geological Survey. The Committee rejects the
Secretary's approach to limit spending to such research and
encourages the Secretary to perform a long-term methane
hydrates production test in the Arctic, as proposed in the
Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee's May 21, 2014
recommendations to the Secretary.
The Committee encourages coordination with industry and
U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration on leak detection technology
development. The Committee remains supportive of investment in
smart pipeline sensors and controls, internal pipeline
inspection and repair, and composite and advanced material
science technologies. The Committee encourages the Secretary to
consider acoustic monitoring that can use ultrasonic sensors to
detect leaks based on changes in background noise patterns to
determine if acoustic sensors will respond to the sound
generated by escaping gas at ultrasonic frequencies.
Environmentally Prudent Development.--The Committee
recommends $9,000,000 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 $23,245,000 for Unconventional
Fossil Energy Technologies. The Secretary did not include any
funding in the fiscal year 2017 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.
Prior Federal and private investment in research led to the
current shale gas revolution, and continued research and
development is vital for the environmentally responsible
development of this resource. Within available funds, the
Committee directs the Department to support additional research
efforts, with priority given to continue the successful work at
the existing competitively awarded Unconventional Field Test
Sites.
The Secretary is encouraged to fund high-priority research,
development, and deployment activities for unconventional oil,
gas, and coal resources, including oil shale, as outlined in
the September 2011 ``Domestic Unconventional Fossil Energy
Resource Opportunities and Technology Applications'' report.
The Committee expects Tasks 1-4 of the joint Department of
Energy and Department of Transportation crude oil
characterization study to be complete and formalized by the end
of calendar year 2017. Both DOE and DOT shall use allocated
resources to meet funding obligations to complete the study.
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.

NATIONAL ENERGY TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY

Fossil energy is the backbone of the United States' energy
future, and the National Energy Technology Laboratory [NETL]
focuses on this critical national priority. The Committee
supports NETL's mission to discover, develop, and deploy new
technologies to support a strong domestic fossil energy path.
The Committee is supportive of the reorganization and
budget restructuring of NETL, as it increases consistency with
other National Laboratories. The new structure highlighting
research and operations, as well as infrastructure funding
requirements, reflects increased transparency in how funds are
utilized, promoting enhanced visibility and oversight into cost
drivers and more efficient resource allocation decisions.
Within NETL Infrastructure, the Committee directs the
Department to prioritize funds to provide site-wide upgrades
for safety, avoid an increase in deferred maintenance, and
provide for an update and refresh of a subset of the processing
units in the Joule high performance computer to upgrade the
processing speed to five PFLOPS, a tenfold increase, financed
through a 3-year lease. The Committee is aware that high
performance computing is an essential element of mission-
relevant research, development, and demonstration, and is
supportive of maintaining a world-class supercomputer to enable
key energy research.

Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves

Appropriations, 2016.................................... $17,500,000
Budget estimate, 2017................................... 14,950,000
Committee recommendation................................ 14,950,000

The Committee recommends $14,950,000 for Naval Petroleum
and Oil Shale Reserves, the same as the budget request.

Strategic Petroleum Reserve

Appropriations, 2016.................................... $212,000,000
Budget estimate, 2017................................... 257,000,000
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.
The Committee understands the importance of the Major
Maintenance Projects and preventive/corrective maintenance
activities needed at the Strategic Petroleum Reserve storage
facilities and related facilities, and encourages the
Department, when carrying out these maintenance and other
construction projects to use as much American-made iron, steel,
and other manufactured goods as possible. American
manufacturers are most suited, for national and economic
security reasons, to supply the materials for these critical
infrastructure improvements at the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve

Appropriations, 2016.................................... $7,600,000
Budget estimate, 2017................................... 6,500,000
Committee recommendation................................ 6,500,000

The Committee recommends $6,500,000 for the Northeast Home
Heating Oil Reserve, the same as the request.

Energy Information Administration

Appropriations, 2016.................................... $122,000,000
Budget estimate, 2017................................... 131,125,000
Committee recommendation................................ 122,000,000

The Committee recommends $122,000,000 for the Energy
Information Administration [EIA], a decrease of $9,125,000 from
the budget request.
The Committee supports the EIA's efforts to expand its
monthly State-level estimates of generation and capacity of
small-scale distributed generation systems.
The Committee is aware that EIA has not kept pace with
State-run databases and interfaces to provide near real-time
statistics on production of oil and natural gas and well
integrity. The EIA has initiated work with State agencies to
explore connecting State databases to create a national gateway
that would allow the public to easily access information in a
user-friendly manner. Accurate and accessible information about
oil and gas production and well integrity is a national
imperative. A National Oil and Gas Gateway that works in
concert with State-run databases is an essential component for
achieving this important objective. Within available funds, the
Committee recommends $1,500,000 for the creation that Gateway.
The Committee recognizes the importance of building energy
information and the opportunity for better data collection
presented by new technologies. The Secretary is encouraged to
upgrade the Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Surveys to
a real-time data collection system with rapid reporting of
results, without compromising statistical validity or data
security.

Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup

Appropriations, 2016.................................... $255,000,000
Budget estimate, 2017................................... 218,400,000
Committee recommendation................................ 255,000,000

The Committee recommends $255,000,000 for Non-Defense
Environmental Cleanup, an increase of $36,600,000 from the
budget request.
Small Sites.--The Committee recommends $85,043,000 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. Last year, the Committee directed the Secretary to
request appropriate funding to satisfy the requirements of the
National Historic Preservation Act in future budget requests,
including the regulatory requirements agreed to by the
Department of Energy, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, and State and local governments regarding the K-
25 site. The Manhattan Project National Historical Park tells
an important story in our Nation's history: the development and
production of the technology and materials necessary to create
the world's first atomic bomb. The new Park has locations in
Hanford, Washington, Los Alamos, New Mexico, and Oak Ridge,
Tennessee. It is administered and operated by the National Park
Service in conjunction with the Department of Energy, which is
working towards cleanup of these nuclear waste sites. The
Committee directs the Department of Energy to submit an
implementation plan to Committees on Appropriations of the
House and the Senate no later than 180 after enactment of this
act that details infrastructure needs, transition activities,
schedule, and funding requirements to make these sites fully
available to the public under the auspices of the National Park
Service.
Within available funds, the Committee recommends $9,200,000
to continue to deactivate, decommission, and demolish
facilities at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
The budget request did not include funding 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.
Within available funds, the Committee recommends $16,600,000
for the decommissioning and decontamination of the Southwest
Experimental Fast Oxide Reactor. Combined with previously
provided funding, this amount is sufficient to complete the
decommissioning and decontamination of the site, and the
Department will not provide any additional funding for this
purpose.

Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund

Appropriations, 2016.................................... $673,749,000
Budget estimate, 2017...................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 717,741,000

The Committee recommends $717,741,000 for Uranium
Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning [UED&D]
activities, an increase of $717,741,000 from the budget
request.
The Committee recommendation includes $194,673,000 for East
Tennessee Technology Park [ETTP], $205,530,000 for Paducah, and
$264,585,000 for Portsmouth. Within available funds for ETTP,
the Committee recommendation includes funding for preparation
and demolition of the buildings in the K-1200 Complex. These
funding levels are adequate to maintain current manpower levels
for decontamination and disposal work at all three sites based
on current forecasts. The Department is directed to use any
unexpended funds at the respective sites, if necessary, to
maintain current manpower levels.
The Committee directs the Department to develop long-term
plans to adequately clean up sites exclusively through the
annual appropriations process.
The Committee recommends $30,000,000 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. 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 budget request included no discretionary funding for
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning [UED&D]
activities. Instead, the Department recommended using mandatory
funding that is not authorized for these activities. The
Committee is concerned that such irresponsible budgeting
practices demonstrate the Department's lack of commitment to
the cleanup of the former enrichment sites in Kentucky,
Tennessee and Ohio. Going forward, the Department is directed
to request discretionary funding for this work unless they have
already obtained authorization for use of mandatory funds.

Science

Appropriations, 2016.................................... $5,350,200,000
Budget estimate, 2017................................... 5,572,069,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,400,000,000

The Committee recommends $5,400,000,000 for Science, a
decrease of $172,069,000 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 Public Law 110-69 to promote scientific and academic
excellence through collaborations between institutions of
higher education and National laboratories to be funded from
across all Office of Science programs.
Brain Research through Advancing Innovative
Neurotechnologies [BRAIN] Initiative.--The Committee is aware
of the Department's partnership with the National Institutes of
Health [NIH] and coordination with the interagency BRAIN
initiative. The Committee supports the Department's
contributions to the BRAIN initiative through the development
of imaging and sensing tools and technologies at x-ray light
sources and nanoscale research centers, as well as
computational expertise, high performance computing, and data
management. 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. In
addition, the Committee also encourages and supports the use of
national laboratory system's user facilities for the National
Cancer Moonshot Initiative.

ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH

The Committee recommends $656,180,000 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 is supportive of the coordinated Federal
strategy in high performance computing research, development,
and deployment through the National Strategic Computing
Initiative. The Committee encourages further coordination
between the Office of Science and National Nuclear Security
Administration to support the Exascale Computing Initiative in
development of a long range plan. The Committee strongly
supports the Initiative, which is critical to maintaining our
Nation's global competitiveness and ensuring American
technology outpaces rivals like China to support our national
security. Exascale computers will be capable of a hundred-fold
increase in sustained performance over today's computing
capabilities. The Initiative is also a critical tool to
advancing energy technologies. In fiscal year 2017, the ASCR
portion of the Exascale Initiative is incorporated into a new
budget line listed as the Office of Science Exascale Computing
Project [SC-ECP] for activities required for the delivery of
exascale computers. The SC-ECP will be managed following the
principles of Order 413.3B, and a project management office has
been established at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, which has
expertise in developing computational science and engineering
applications, as well as managing high performance computing
facilities and large scale scientific research projects. The
Committee recommends including $154,000,000 for SC-ECP. This
funding will support hardware and software research and
development, including applications software, for the
development and deployment of a capable exascale system to meet
the scientific and national security mission needs of the
Nation by the mid-2020s.
The Committee recommends $110,000,000 for the Oak Ridge
Leadership Computing Facility to ensure that it is the most
capable, open computational system for science and maintains
U.S. leadership in supercomputing. The Committee also
recommends $80,000,000 for the Argonne Leadership Computing
Facility, $92,145,000 for the National Energy Research
Scientific Computing Center facility at Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory, and $45,000,000 for ESnet. The Committee
recommends $10,000,000 for the Computational Sciences Graduate
Program. Within available funds, the Committee recommends
$2,500,000 for the cross-program partnership on seismic
simulation.

BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

The Committee recommends $1,912,630,000 for Basic Energy
Sciences [BES]. Of these funds, $1,722,630,000 is for research.
The Committee is aware the Basic Sciences Advisory Committee
will provide an updated assessment and prioritization of the
next three to five projects by June, and will take into account
for a finalized fiscal year 2017 agreement. The Committee
recommends funding for optimal operations $489,059,000 for the
five BES light sources to fully support research and allow the
facilities to proceed with necessary maintenance, routine
accelerator and instrumentation improvements, and crucial staff
hires or replacements. 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. Within available funds for
operations and maintenance of scientific user facilities, the
Committee recommends $265,000,000 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. Further, the Committee
recommends optimal funding for the Nanoscale Science Research
Centers, and supports the development of capabilities with co-
located facilities.
The Committee recommends $190,000,000 to support the
continuation of the construction effort for LCLS-II. In
addition, the Committee is aware the Department did not provide
adequate funding within Major Items of Equipment for the
Advanced Photon Source Upgrade, which received approval for CD-
1 in January 2016, and is ready to move ahead with design and
procurement. The Committee rejects this approach, and provides
$50,000,000 for construction, as previously recommended by the
Department.
The Committee recommends $26,000,000 for exascale systems,
the same as the crosscut request for fiscal year 2017.
The Committee recommends within the funds provided,
$3,000,000 to continue to work on a new generation of
nanostructured catalysts that can be used to synthesize
fertilizer and ammonia without any secondary greenhouse gases.
The Committee recommends $24,088,000 for the Batteries and
Energy Storage Hub, the Joint Center for Energy Storage
Research [JCESR]. This is the last year of the first award
period, and the Committee is encouraged by the work of JCESR to
develop energy storage research prototypes for transportation
and grid applications based on beyond lithium ion concepts.
These protoypes will demonstrate the potential to scale up
manufacturing prototype batteries to deliver five times the
energy density of 2011 battery systems and one-fifth the cost.
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 in
September 2015 was renewed for a second award term of up to 5
years. The JCAP will continue to perform research on the
fundamental science of carbon dioxide reduction needed to
enable efficient, sustainable solar-driven production of liquid
transportation fuels, and will undergo a scientific and merit
review in fiscal year 2017 to assess progress towards meeting
project milestones and goals.
The Committee 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 further encourages the Secretary to undertake
additional efforts to perform energy research activities
related to enhanced efficiency in energy conversion and
utilization, including emergent polymer technologies, with a
focus on infrared optoelectronic devices to ensure continued
competitiveness in a global marketplace.
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 $637,000,000 for Biological and
Environmental Research. Within available funds, the Committee
recommends $10,000,000 for exascale computing, the same as the
request for fiscal year 2017 crosscut. The Department is urged
to give priority to optimizing the operation of Biological and
Environmental Research User Facilities.
Within available funds, the Committee recommends not less
than $75,000,000 for three Bioenergy Research Centers for the
final year of their funding period. 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.
The Committee encourages the Department 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.
As other nations have launched research programs on albedo
modification, the Committee recommends the Department review
the findings of the National Academy of Sciences report
entitled, ``Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool
Earth,'' and leverage existing computational and modeling
capabilities to explore the potential impacts of albedo
modification.

FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

The Committee recommends $280,110,000 for Fusion Energy
Sciences. The Committee directs the Department to provide a
prioritization and long-range plan for domestic Fusion Energy
Sciences research and development program.
U.S. Contribution to ITER.--The Committee recommends no
funding for the International Thermonuclear Experimental
Reactor [ITER] project. The Committee has previously expressed
and continues to remain concerned about the rising cost of the
United States' participation in ITER under construction in St.
Paul-lez-Durance, France. Funding for the contribution to ITER
continues to crowd 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. The Fiscal Year 2016 Omnibus
Appropriations Act directed a report from the Secretary of
Energy recommending either the United States to continue its
participation in the ITER project or terminate participation,
and that recommendation is expected not later than May 2, 2016.
The Committee is aware an updated project cost and long term
schedule are also under review by an independent panel, and
will be provided to the ITER Organization in April 2016.

HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS

The Committee recommends $832,997,000 for High Energy
Physics.
The Committee strongly supports the Secretary's efforts to
advance the recommendations of the Particle Physics Project
Prioritization Panel 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 $55,000,000 for the Long Baseline
Neutrino Facility/Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment to
ensure the United States meets its commitments to support joint
DUNE detector design and prototyping in partnership with CERN,
to complete site preparation and begin excavation for the far
detector site, and to secure and define technical contributions
from other international partners.
The Committee recommendation provides Cosmic Frontier
Experimental Physics an additional $5,000,000 to fund the Dark
Energy Spectroscopic Instrument at $12,000,000 and the G2 Dark
Matter Experiment LUX ZEPLIN at $12,500,000. The Committee
recommends $45,000,000 for the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope
Camera, the same as the request.

NUCLEAR PHYSICS

The Committee recommends $635,658,000 for Nuclear Physics.
The Committee is supportive of the 2015 Long Range Plan for
Nuclear Science released in October 2015 to address important
scientific questions with modest or constrained growth in the
nuclear science budgets, while still maintaining a strong,
vital and world leading program. Within these funds, the
Committee recommends $100,000,000 for the Facility for Rare
Isotope Beams and the budget request for the Relativistic Heavy
Ion Collider.

WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT FOR TEACHERS AND SCIENTISTS

The Committee recommends $20,925,000 for Workforce
Development for Teachers and Scientists.

SCIENCE LABORATORIES INFRASTRUCTURE

The Committee recommends $130,000,000 for Science
Laboratories Infrastructure consistent with the budget request.
Within these funds, the Committee recommends $26,000,000 for
nuclear operations at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 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.

Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy

Appropriations, 2016.................................... $291,000,000
Budget estimate, 2017................................... 350,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 292,669,000

The Committee recommends $292,669,000 for the Advanced
Research Projects Agency--Energy [ARPA-E], a decrease of
$57,331,000 from the request. Within available funds, the
Committee recommends $29,250,000 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 2017 on transportation fuels and feedstocks; energy
materials and processes; dispatchable energy; and sensors,
information and integration.

Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs

Appropriations, 2016....................................................
Budget estimate, 2017................................... $22,930,000
Committee recommendation................................ 20,000,000

The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for the Office of
Indian Energy. The activities of this office have previously
been funded through the Department of Administration
appropriation. The Committee notes that the Department did not
repeat its request to initiate a Tribal Indian Energy Loan
Guarantee Program for fiscal year 2017. Within available funds,
the Committee encourages the Office of Indian Energy to
facilitate the utilization of existing loan programs by tribal
governments, including the title 17 Innovative Technology Loan
Guarantee Program and the Transmission Infrastructure Program.
The Committee encourages the Office of Indian Energy to
facilitate better communication among different Federal
agencies regarding rules, regulations issued, and actions taken
by other Federal agencies impacting energy development on
Indian lands.

Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2016.................................... $42,000,000
Budget estimate, 2017................................... 1,057,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 37,000,000

OFFSETTING RECEIPTS

Appropriations, 2016.................................... -$25,000,000
Budget estimate, 2017................................... -30,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ -30,000,000

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2016.................................... $17,000,000
Budget estimate, 2017................................... 1,027,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 7,000,000

The Committee recommends $37,000,000 in funding for the
Loan Guarantee Program, the same as the request. This funding
is offset by $30,000,000 in receipts from loan guarantee
applicants, for a net appropriation of $7,000,000. An
additional $37,000,000 in prior receipts from loan guarantee
applicants is credited to the bill as a scorekeeping
adjustment. The Committee does not recommend any new loan
authority, as proposed in the budget request.
Not later than 45 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary shall provide the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress with a report that
includes the following information: (1) a list of each
conditional commitment the Secretary has offered and which has
not been closed or withdrawn as of the date of enactment of
this Act; (2) a status of each project listed under (1); and
(3) a justification by the Secretary as to why each conditional
commitment should continue to be pending and not withdrawn; and
(4) any specific legal hindrances to withdrawing conditional
commitments once the Secretary has offered them. The Committee
encourages the Department to make $9,000,000 of the current
renewable energy credit subsidy available for Indian Energy
proposals.

Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program

Appropriations, 2016.................................... $6,000,000
Budget estimate, 2017................................... 5,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,000,000

The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for the Advanced
Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program, the same as the
request.

Departmental Administration

(GROSS)

Appropriations, 2016.................................... $248,142,000
Budget estimate, 2017................................... 270,037,000
Committee recommendation................................ 232,142,000

(MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES)

Appropriations, 2016.................................... -$117,171,000
Budget estimate, 2017................................... -103,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ -103,000,000

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2016.................................... $130,971,000
Budget estimate, 2017................................... 167,037,000
Committee recommendation................................ 129,142,000

The Committee recommends $232,142,000 in funding for
Departmental Administration. Included within such amounts is
funding for the Department's activities related to
implementation of the Digital Accountability and Transparency
Act. This funding offset by $103,000,000 in revenue for a net
appropriation of $129,142,000.
The Committee has reduced the number of control points in
this account in order to provide flexibility to the Department
in its management and funding of its support functions. The
Department is directed to continue to submit its budget request
for this account in its current structure. The Other
Departmental Administration activity now includes Management,
Chief Human Capital Officer, Chief Information Officer, Office
of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, General
Counsel, Energy Policy and Systems Analysis, International
Affairs, Public Affairs, Economic Impact and Diversity, and
Office of Energy Jobs Development. The Office of Indian Energy
Programs is funded in a separate account for the first time
this year.
The Committee encourages the Secretary to provide technical
assistance, including studies or analysis, at the request of
State energy regulatory authorities, which capture the known
and measureable current and future benefits and costs of
distributed energy resources (such as distributed generation,
demand response, storage, and energy efficiency) to the
customers they serve and the utilities they regulate. The
studies may include, but are not limited to, the following
variables: (1) avoided energy, (2) line losses, (3) avoided
capacity, (4) ancillary services, (5) transmission and
distribution capacity, (6) avoided criteria pollutant costs,
(7) avoided carbon dioxide emission cost, (8) fuel hedging, (9)
utility integration and interconnection costs, (10) utility
administration costs, (11) environmental costs.
The Committee directs the Secretary to complete a survey of
previous energy plants that have shutdown, how communities
adapted, the opportunities and challenges facing these
communities, and resources available to assist with the
economic transition. Such a report is to be submitted to the
Senate Committee on Appropriations and the Senate Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources no later than 180 days after the
enactment of this act.
Technology Transfer.--In awarding funding from the
Technology Commercialization Fund, the Department shall assure
cost match with private partners is in accordance with cost
sharing in section 988 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42
U.S.C. 16352).
The Committee directs the Department to submit a report, no
later than 30 days after enactment of this act, detailing
projects approved under 42 U.S.C. 16421 and the Department's
efforts to ensure compliance with State laws, as applicable
under 42 U.S.C. 16421(d)(2).
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.--The Committee directs the
Secretary to continue to follow the direction included under
this heading in fiscal year 2016.

Office of the Inspector General

Appropriations, 2016.................................... $46,424,000
Budget estimate, 2017................................... 44,424,000
Committee recommendation................................ 44,424,000

The Committee recommends $44,424,000 for the Office of the
Inspector General, the same as the request.

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

The Committee recommends $12,867,186,000 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.

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 $5,000,000 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.

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

The Committee is concerned about NNSA's ability to properly
estimate costs and timelines for large projects. The NNSA is
encouraged to assess current performance on projects costing
more than $750,000,000, and make appropriate project management
changes. The Committee encourages the NNSA to identify problems
in cost and schedule estimates early, and provide updated
information to the Committee in a timely manner.

Weapons Activities

Appropriations, 2016.................................... $8,846,948,000
Budget estimate, 2017................................... 9,285,147,000
Committee recommendation................................ 9,285,147,000

The Committee recommends $9,285,147,000 for Weapons
Activities, the same as 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 $3,321,011,000 for Directed
Stockpile Work.
Life Extension Programs.--The Committee recommends
$1,340,341,000 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.
W76 Life Extension Program.--The Committee recommends
$222,880,000 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
$616,079,000 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 $281,129,000 for the
W88 Alt 370.
The Committee directs the Secretary of Energy, in
conjunction with the Nuclear Weapons Council, to submit a
report to the Committees on Appropriations of both the House
and Senate, no later than 180 days after enactment of this act,
to include: a military justification for the Long Range Stand-
Off missile and its operational capabilities; whether the
Nuclear Weapons Council has directed the study of additional
operational capabilities for the W80-4 relative to the W80-1
warhead; a detailed explanation of the extent to which
conventional explosive systems can meet the same or similar
military objectives as the Long Range Standoff weapon; a
description of the blast, thermal and radiation spread of an
atmospheric W80-4 nuclear explosion in representative
operational employment conditions; a description of
alternatives leading to the August, 2014 Nuclear Weapons
Council decision to use the W80 warhead for the Long Range
Standoff weapon; and a comprehensive description and
justification of all design options and associated systems and
subsystems under evaluation in Phase 6.2, including whether the
system or subsystem option is driven by aging, safety,
security, or use control concerns.
Weapons Dismantlement and Disposition.--The Committee
supports the administration's efforts to accelerate the
dismantlement of retired nuclear weapons removed from the
stockpile prior to 2009. Further, the Committee supports
accelerated dismantlements now as a way of preparing its
workforce for necessary stockpile production work beginning
later this decade.
Stockpile Services.--The Committee recommends $890,173,000
for stockpile services. Within Stockpile Services, the Nuclear
Materials Management Safeguards System [NMMSS] tracks
movements, uses, inventories, and locations of all nuclear
materials, including plutonium and high enriched uranium,
domestically and internationally. The Committee supports the
maintenance and expansion of NMMSS and encourages NNSA to
ensure that NMMSS receives the management visibility and
support needed to ensure technical and organizational
sustainability. Further, the Committee directs the Department
to submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations of both
the Senate and House no later than 90 days after enactment on
the activities and funding needed to enhance or expand the
system to provide greater transparency to in-transit materials,
delivery confirmation, excess materials awaiting disposal, and
historical information.
Strategic Materials.--The Committee recommends $577,837,000
for Strategic Materials.

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND ENGINEERING

The Committee recommends $1,839,130,000 for Research,
Development, Technology, and Engineering.
Science.--The Committee commends NNSA for completing the
Dynamic Compression Sector experiment at the Advanced Photon
Source at the Argonne National Laboratory on time and on
budget. This first of its kind experimental facility will help
address gaps in understanding materials at extreme conditions
that directly support the Stockpile Stewardship Mission and
train the next generation of researchers. The Committee
encourages NNSA to maximize the use of this new capability. As
the first successful collaboration between NNSA, the Office of
Science, and an academic institution, the Committee believes
this project should serve as a model for future scientific
collaborations between NNSA and the Office of Science to
address long-standing scientific challenges of stockpile
stewardship in a cost effective manner.
Current world events confirm the dynamic nature of the
global threats we face today and confirm the need for a safe,
secure, and effective nuclear deterrent. Central to this
priority is recruiting and retaining a world-class workforce
consisting of scientists, engineers, and technicians to sustain
the Nation's deterrent without nuclear explosive testing. The
nuclear security enterprise must be able to effectively respond
to emerging threats, unanticipated events, and technological
innovation through science and engineering--all while
continuing to carry out the necessary activities in support of
the stockpile. The Committee notes NNSA's successes in this
regard and encourages NNSA to continue to prioritize efforts
within Research, Development, Test & Evaluation to improve
certification capabilities. As such, within the funds available
for Advanced Certification, the Committee recommends
$10,000,000 above the budget request for NNSA to carry out
section 3112 of the fiscal year 2016 National Defense
Authorization Act.
Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High-Yield
Campaign.--The Committee recommends $522,959,000 for the
inertial confinement fusion ignition and high-yield campaign.
The Committee supports the recent comprehensive Inertial
Confinement Fusion Program Framework that details program
requirements, milestones and metrics, and clear priorities for
diagnostic investments that advance the three approaches to
ignition and thermonuclear burning plasma capabilities
primarily pursued at the National Ignition Facility, Z and
Omega for the Stockpile Stewardship Program.
Advanced Simulation and Computing.--The Committee
recommends $663,184,000 for advanced simulation and computing.
Within these funds, the Committee recommends no less than
$95,000,000 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. The
Committee is concerned that there is no clear distinction
between the efforts within the NNSA and the Office of Science,
and no way to determine if the work is complementary or
duplicative. The Secretary is directed to provide a report to
the Senate and House Appropriations Committees no later than 90
days after enactment of this act, which describes the roles and
responsibilities of the NNSA and the Office of Science
associated with exascale computing.

INFRASTRUCTURE AND OPERATIONS

The Committee recommends $2,731,952,000 for Infrastructure
and Operations. Within funding for Infrastructure and Safety,
$2,200,000 is provided for the cross-program partnership on
seismic simulation.
Operations.--The Committee recommends $834,000,000 for
Operations.
Bannister Road Complex.--The Committee supports NNSA's
proposal to turn over the Bannister Road Complex to a private
entity, consistent with section 3143 of the fiscal year 2014
National Defense Authorization Act. The Committee supports the
budget request and recommends $200,000,000 for the transfer of
the Bannister Road Complex, and notes that the transfer will
save the NNSA over $700,000,000 in cleanup costs.
Construction.--The Committee recommends $826,670,000 for
major capital construction projects.
Project 06-D-141, Uranium Processing Facility, Y-12, Oak
Ridge, Tennessee.--The Committee recommends $575,000,000 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 $6.5 billion. The Committee supports the
strategy of 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. The Committee is encouraged that
the NNSA plans to complete at least 90 percent of the design of
the project's nuclear facilities by the end of 2017, and
expects to start construction shortly thereafter. In order to
make a smooth transition from design to construction, the NNSA
must have adequate resources available to review Critical
Decision documents from the contractor. The Committee directs
the NNSA to provide the plan for reviewing those documents to
the Senate and House Appropriations Committees with the fiscal
year 2018 budget request.
Secure Transportation Asset.--The Committee recommends
$261,420,000 for Secure Transportation Asset [STA]. The budget
request for operations and equipment for fiscal year 2017
through 2020 has grown by more than 33 percent when compared to
that same timeframe in last year's budget request, but NNSA
does not explain the reason for the large increase. As such,
the Committee concludes that the STA program does not have a
stable procurement plan for replacing its assets.

DEFENSE NUCLEAR SECURITY

The Committee recommends $706,550,000 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 continues to be 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.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

Appropriations, 2016.................................... $1,940,302,000
Budget estimate, 2017................................... 1,821,916,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,821,916,000

The Committee recommends $1,821,916,000 for Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation, the same as the budget request.

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

Defense nuclear nonproliferation provides a vitally
important component of our national security--preventing
nuclear materials and weapons from falling into the wrong
hands, including non-weapons nations, terrorist organizations
and other non-state entities. This mission is challenged by an
increasingly dangerous world with emerging and evolving
threats, in addition to the proliferation of technologies that
simplify production, manufacturing and design of nuclear
materials and weapons. The Committee is concerned that there is
a disconnect between real-world threats and the planned work in
nonproliferation. For example, the administration agreed to the
Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action last year, but did not
request sufficient funds that could further directly support
verification of that agreement. NNSA is directed to provide the
Senate and House Appropriations Committees with a report that
prioritizes threats to national security and links the budget
request to those threats no later than June 30, 2017.
Global Material Security.--The Committee recommends
$344,108,000 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.
The Committee supports the mission of the Nuclear Smuggling
Detection and Deterrence program, but is also concerned about
the cost and pace of the deployment of radiation detection
equipment as part of this program. Specifically, over the last
5 years, the program has spent about $1 billion for work
carried out in the 59 partner countries including deploying
equipment, conducting training, and performing activities to
transition operating responsibility to partner countries.
Meanwhile, target dates for full transition to partner
countries have been repeatedly delayed, and it is presently
unclear when this work will be completed. Moreover, it is not
clear whether NNSA has identified all of the program's goals or
how and when it will achieve them. Accordingly, the Committee
directs the Secretary to submit a plan to the Senate and House
Appropriations Committees within 180 days of enactment for
completing the deployment and transition of radiation detection
technologies, including all program goals, meaningful
performance measures, and major milestones, and the cost,
scope, and schedule of achieving those goals and milestones for
all 59 partner countries. The Committee understands that some
program post-transition activities will continue over the long-
term to assist partner countries in combating nuclear
smuggling. Nonetheless, such a plan is necessary so NNSA and
Congress can assess progress in implementing the program.
Materials Management and Minimization.--The Committee
recommends $32,744,000 for the U.S. High Performance Research
Reactor Program, a reduction of $20,000,000 from the budget
request. Funds and program activities should be focused on fuel
development for research reactors with lower peak power density
requirements outside of the Department of Energy.
Molybdenum-99.--The Committee continues to place a high
priority on the development of domestic supplies of the medical
isotope Molybdenum-99 [Moly-99] on a schedule adequate to meet
public health needs. The Committee is encouraged by the
progress made in establishing two or more domestic sources of
Moly-99. NNSA is currently executing three cooperative
agreements. In addition, there are at least seven other
companies working to produce non-HEU-based Moly-99 without
Government support. The Committee directs the Department to
request funds sufficient to adequately support current and
future cooperative agreement commitments and urges the
Department to reconsider cost sharing caps as necessary in
order to ensure timely supplies of this critical medical
isotope.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Research and
Development.--The Committee recommends $406,922,000 for Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation Research and Development. Within
available funds, the Committee recommends not less than
$3,000,000 to be used for Ionizing Radiation Detector
Development. The Committee supports a robust research and
development capability to support nonproliferation initiatives,
and does not support the drastic reductions proposed in the
budget request. Proliferation of illicit nuclear materials and
weapons continues to be high-consequence threat, and our
ability to detect the production and movement of these
materials is vitally important. Research and development in
this area is especially important.
Nuclear Counterterrorism and Incident Response.--The
Committee recommends $271,881,000, an increase of $37,491,000
from fiscal year 2016 enacted for Nuclear Counterterrorism and
Incident Response.
None of the funds available in this act or any other act
are available for work under a Technical Engineering and
Programmatic Support Blanket Purchase Agreement. If the
Department wishes to place a contract under a Technical
Engineering and Programmatic Support Blanket Purchase
Agreement, the Department shall submit a reprogramming request
in accordance with the reprogramming requirements carried in
this act.

Naval Reactors

Appropriations, 2016.................................... $1,375,496,000
Budget estimate, 2017................................... 1,420,120,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,351,520,000

The Committee recommends $1,351,520,000 for Naval Reactors
equal to the budget request when accounting for the
programmatic transfer discussed below. 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 $213,700,000 for Ohio-Class
Replacement Reactor Systems Development.

NAVAL REACTORS DEVELOPMENT

The Committee recommends $451,338,000 for Naval Reactors
Development. Within the funds provided, the Committee
recommends $5,000,000 to continue the technical program to
develop and qualify a low enriched uranium fuel system for
naval cores.
Advanced Test Reactor.--The Advanced Test Reactor [ATR] is
an important research platform for nuclear testing and
development, and is operated as a User Facility with broad
applications across multiple programs. Historically, the
operations and maintenance of the ATR has been funded in both
the Naval Reactors and the Nuclear Energy accounts. External
users other than Naval Reactors only pay for the incremental
costs of their specific tests. The Committee supports adequate
funding for the operations and maintenance of the ATR, but is
consolidating the funding within the Nuclear Energy budget. As
such, no funding is provided within the Naval Reactors account
for ATR operations and maintenance. Naval Reactors should
continue to fund NR-specific needs at ATR just like any other
external user.

CONSTRUCTION

The Committee recommends $134,300,000 for Construction.
Within available funds, the Committee recommends $86,000,000
for the Spent Fuel Handling Facility in Idaho and $33,300,000
for the Engine Room Team Trainer.

Federal Salaries And Expenses

Appropriations, 2016.................................... $383,666,000
Budget estimate, 2017................................... 412,817,000
Committee recommendation................................ 408,603,000

The Committee recommends $408,603,000, a decrease of
$4,214,000 from the budget request.

Defense Environmental Cleanup

Appropriations, 2016.................................... $5,289,742,000
Budget estimate, 2017................................... 5,235,350,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,379,018,000

The Committee recommendation for Defense Environmental
Cleanup is $5,379,018,000, an increase of $143,668,000 from the
budget request. Within available funds, the Department is
directed to fund the Hazardous Waste Worker Training Program.
The Committee rejects the Department's inclusion of a
single control point for infrastructure recapitalization and
general plant projects for multiple sites. Further, the Office
of Environmental Management shall not establish any central or
consolidated appropriations accounts, or establish any separate
controls within individual site accounts in any future budget
request without prior agreement of the Senate and House
Appropriations Committees.
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 2017
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
$839,760,000 for Richland Operations. Additional funding is
provided for cleanup of the 300-296 waste site, continued
remediation of the 618-10 burial ground, groundwater treatment,
site-wide infrastructure, 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 $270,387,000 for NNSA
sites.
Oak Ridge Reservation.--The Committee recommends
$263,219,000 for Oak Ridge Reservation. Within the funds
available for Nuclear Facility D&D, the Committee recommends
$45,400,000 to continue to support characterization and
demolition of excess contaminated facilities and $6,000,000 to
support preliminary design of 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. Within funds
available for Cleanup and Waste Disposition, the Committee
recommends $48,600,000 for continuing transuranic waste
processing and storage to meet contractual and regulatory
commitments.
U-233 Disposition Program.--The Committee recommends
$43,311,000 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 the campus more conducive to
collaborative science.
Mercury Treatment Facility.--The Committee recommends
$5,100,000 to complete the design of the Outfall 200 Mercury
Treatment Facility. 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 continues to be a high priority for the
Environmental Management program.
Office of River Protection.--The Committee recommends
$1,499,965,000 for the Office of River Protection.
The Committee is aware of a recent ruling by the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Washington amending
the 2010 Consent Decree between the Department of Energy and
State of Washington, setting new deadlines and requirements for
the construction and operation of the Waste Treatment and
Immobilization Plant and tank waste retrievals. The Committee
directs the Department to request sufficient funding in future
budgets to ensure compliance with the 2016 Consent Decree.
Furthermore, the Committee encourages the Department to use all
means necessary to procure a spare A-E-1 reboiler for the 242-A
Evaporator by December 31, 2016 as required by the Consent
Decree.
Savannah River Site.--The Committee recommends
$1,268,668,000 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.
Idaho.--The Committee is concerned about the lack of
progress in starting operations at the Integrated Waste
Treatment Unit. Completed in 2012 at a cost of $571,000,000,
the facility is intended to treat 900,000 gallons of sodium-
bearing radioactive waste. Unfortunately, design flaws and
other problems have led to another $140,000,000 being spent
without startup of the facility. Treating this waste is
necessary for cleanup of the Idaho site and to meet regulatory
commitments to the State. The Committee appreciates the efforts
of the Department and its contractors to address the challenges
associated with the current waste treatment approach. However,
a new approach using different facilities may be necessary. The
Department is directed to submit a report to the Committees on
Appropriations of both the House and Senate within 60 days of
enactment on the viability of the current approach and
alternative approaches for treating the sodium-bearing waste in
a timely manner.
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.--The Committee recommends
$274,540,000 for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, including a
total of $26,800,000 for settlement costs associated with the
February 2014 incidents.
The Committee encourages the Secretary to take all
appropriate actions to reopen the facility on schedule at the
end of this year 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 also encourages
the Secretary to ensure that, once the site reopens and resumes
emplacement of waste, adequate funding is requested for longer-
term work required to return the site to its full operational
capability.
Technology Development and Demonstration.--The Committee
supports the Department's efforts to expand technology
development and demonstration to address its long-term and
technically complex cleanup challenges. Further, the Committee
supports the Department's efforts to award merit-based research
at the national laboratories to address long-term cleanup
mission needs. The Committee believes it is in the best
interest of all sites that these funds are competitively
awarded and managed by Department of Energy Headquarters. The
Committee directs the Department to submit a report to the
Committees on Appropriations of both the Senate and House
outlining its plans for cleanup technology development and
demonstration, including technical focus areas, intended
outcomes and performance measures, out-year funding needs, and
how the Department intends to use the broad technical expertise
of the national laboratories.
The Committee supports the Department's work to assess the
current status and long term requirements for the extended
storage and final disposition of spent fuel and high-level
wastes through Technology Development and National Spent
Nuclear Fuel programs. These programs are of vital importance,
especially given the Department's commitments to remove all
spent fuel from Idaho by 2035.

Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Federal
Contribution

Appropriations, 2016....................................................
Budget estimate, 2017................................... $155,100,000
Committee recommendation................................ 717,741,000

The Committee recommends $717,741,000 to fully offset the
fiscal year 2017 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, 2016.................................... $776,425,000
Budget estimate, 2017................................... 791,552,000
Committee recommendation................................ 791,552,000

The Committee recommends $791,552,000 for Other Defense
Activities, the same as the budget request. Within the funds
provided, the Committee recommends $239,912,000 for Specialized
Security Activities, and $63,698,000 for Environment, Health
and Safety. Within the funds available for Environment, Health
and Safety, the Committee recommends $50,510,000 for Health
Programs, including $1,000,000 for the Epidemiologic Study of
One Million U.S. Radiation Workers and Veterans, which was
originally approved by the Office of Science in 2012.

POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS

Operations and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration

Appropriations, 2016.................................... $11,400,000
Budget estimate, 2017................................... 11,057,000
Committee recommendation................................ 11,057,000

The Committee recommends a net appropriation of $11,057,000
for the Southwestern Power Administration.

Construction, Rehabilitation, Operations and Maintenance, Western Area
Power Administration

Appropriations, 2016.................................... $93,372,000
Budget estimate, 2017................................... 95,581,000
Committee recommendation................................ 95,581,000

The Committee recommends a net appropriation of $95,581,000
for the Western Area Power Administration.

Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund

Appropriations, 2016.................................... $228,000
Budget estimate, 2017................................... 232,000
Committee recommendation................................ 232,000

The Committee recommends a net appropriation of $232,000
for the Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2016.................................... $319,800,000
Budget estimate, 2017................................... 346,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 346,000,000

REVENUES APPLIED

Appropriations, 2016.................................... -$319,800,000
Budget estimate, 2017................................... -346,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ -346,000,000

The Committee recommends a net appropriation of $0 for the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
The Committee expects FERC to adhere to the schedule for
environmental review for the projects in Docket Nos. CP14-517-
000 and CP14-518-000 noticed by the agency on June 26, 2015.
The Committee encourages FERC, in accordance with Executive
Order 13604 (5 U.S.C. 601 note; relating to improving
performance of Federal permitting and review of infrastructure
projects), to prioritize meaningful opportunities for public
engagement and coordination with State and local governments in
the Federal permitting and review processes of energy
infrastructure proposals. Specifically, review processes should
remain transparent and consistent, and ensure the health,
safety, and security of the environment and each affected
community.
The Committee believes FERC should reopen its Rulemaking
Regarding Annual Charges for Use of Government Lands in Docket
No. RM11-6-000 and adopt a single per-acre rate to access
Federal land use fees in the State of Alaska.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee recommendation
Committee compared to--
Enacted Budget estimate recommendation ---------------------------------
Enacted Budget estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENERGY PROGRAMS

ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

Sustainable Transportation:
Vehicle technologies........................................... 310,000 468,500 308,300 -1,700 -160,200
Bioenergy technologies......................................... 225,000 278,900 218,100 -6,900 -60,800
Hydrogen and fuel cell technologies............................ 100,950 105,500 92,000 -8,950 -13,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Sustainable Transportation......................... 635,950 852,900 618,400 -17,550 -234,500

Renewable Energy:
Solar energy................................................... 241,600 285,100 222,400 -19,200 -62,700
Wind energy.................................................... 95,450 156,000 80,000 -15,450 -76,000
Water power.................................................... 70,000 80,000 84,000 +14,000 +4,000
Geothermal technologies........................................ 71,000 99,500 70,500 -500 -29,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Renewable Energy................................... 478,050 620,600 456,900 -21,150 -163,700

Energy Efficiency:
Advanced manufacturing......................................... 228,500 261,000 254,200 +25,700 -6,800
Building technologies.......................................... 200,500 289,000 203,400 +2,900 -85,600
Federal energy management program.............................. 27,000 43,000 27,000 ............... -16,000
Weatherization and intergovernmental:
Weatherization:
Weatherization assistance program...................... 211,600 225,000 211,600 ............... -13,400
Training and technical assistance...................... 3,000 5,000 3,000 ............... -2,000
NREL Site-Wide Facility Support........................ 400 ............... ............... -400 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Weatherization............................. 215,000 230,000 214,600 -400 -15,400

State energy program grants.................................... 50,000 70,000 50,000 ............... -20,000
Cities, counties and communities energy program................ ............... 26,000 ............... ............... -26,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Weatherization and intergovernmental program....... 265,000 326,000 264,600 -400 -61,400
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Energy Efficiency.................................. 721,000 919,000 749,200 +28,200 -169,800

Crosscutting Innovation Initiatives................................ ............... 215,000 ............... ............... -215,000

Corporate Support:
Facilities and infrastructure:
National Renewable Energy Laboratory [NREL]................ 62,000 92,000 90,000 +28,000 -2,000
Program direction.............................................. 155,000 170,900 153,500 -1,500 -17,400
Strategic programs............................................. 21,000 28,000 21,000 ............... -7,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Corporate Support.................................. 238,000 290,900 264,500 +26,500 -26,400
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Energy efficiency and renewable energy............. 2,073,000 2,898,400 2,089,000 +16,000 -809,400

Use of Prior Year Balances......................................... ............... ............... -16,000 -16,000 -16,000
Rescissions........................................................ ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Floor amendments................................................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, ENERGY EFFICENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY................. 2,073,000 2,898,400 2,073,000 ............... -825,400
====================================================================================
ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY

Research and development:
Clean energy transmission and reliability...................... 39,000 30,300 36,000 -3,000 +5,700
Smart grid research and development............................ 35,000 30,000 35,000 ............... +5,000
Cyber security for energy delivery systems..................... 62,000 45,500 50,500 -11,500 +5,000
Energy storage................................................. 20,500 44,500 29,500 +9,000 -15,000
Transformer resilience and advanced components................. 5,000 15,000 8,500 +3,500 -6,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 161,500 165,300 159,500 -2,000 -5,800

National electricity delivery...................................... 7,500 6,500 7,500 ............... +1,000
State Distribution-level Reform Program............................ ............... 15,000 ............... ............... -15,000
Infrastructure security and energy restoration..................... 9,000 17,500 10,500 +1,500 -7,000
State energy reliability and assurance............................. ............... 15,000 ............... ............... -15,000
Program direction.................................................. 28,000 29,000 28,500 +500 -500
Grid Institute..................................................... ............... 14,000 ............... ............... -14,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability........ 206,000 262,300 206,000 ............... -56,300
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY........... 206,000 262,300 206,000 ............... -56,300
====================================================================================
NUCLEAR ENERGY

Research and development:
Integrated university program.................................. 5,000 ............... 5,000 ............... +5,000
STEP R&D....................................................... 5,000 ............... ............... -5,000 ...............
Small modular reactor licensing technical support.............. 62,500 89,600 95,000 +32,500 +5,400
Nuclear energy enabling technologies........................... 111,600 89,510 83,925 -27,675 -5,585
Reactor concepts RD&D.......................................... 141,718 108,760 129,760 -11,958 +21,000
Fuel cycle research and development............................ 203,800 249,938 219,730 +15,930 -30,208
International nuclear energy cooperation....................... 3,000 4,500 3,000 ............... -1,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 532,618 542,308 536,415 +3,797 -5,893

Infrastructure:
Radiological facilities management:
Space and defense infrastructure........................... 18,000 ............... 10,000 -8,000 +10,000
Research reactor infrastructure............................ 6,800 7,000 7,000 +200 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................. 24,800 7,000 17,000 -7,800 +10,000

INL facilities management:
INL operations and infrastructure.......................... 220,582 220,585 220,585 +3 ...............
ATR Defense contribution................................... ............... ............... 68,600 +68,600 +68,600
Construction:
16-E-200 Sample preparation laboratory................. 2,000 6,000 6,000 +4,000 ...............
13-D-905 Remote-handled low level waste disposal ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
project, INL..........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction............................... 2,000 6,000 6,000 +4,000 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, INL facilities management.................. 222,582 226,585 295,185 +72,603 +68,600
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Infrastructure............................. 247,382 233,585 312,185 +64,803 +78,600

Idaho sitewide safeguards and security............................. 126,161 129,303 129,303 +3,142 ...............
Program direction.................................................. 80,000 88,700 80,000 ............... -8,700
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Nuclear Energy..................................... 986,161 993,896 1,057,903 +71,742 +64,007

Coal CCS and power systems:
Carbon capture................................................. 101,000 109,200 101,000 ............... -8,200
Carbon storage................................................. 106,000 90,875 106,000 ............... +15,125
Advanced energy systems........................................ 105,000 53,652 105,000 ............... +51,348
Cross cutting research......................................... 50,000 58,650 50,000 ............... -8,650
NETL coal research and development............................. 53,000 35,000 ............... -53,000 -35,000
STEP (Supercritical CO2)....................................... 15,000 24,300 15,000 ............... -9,300
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, CCS and power systems.............................. 430,000 371,677 377,000 -53,000 +5,323

Natural Gas Technologies:
Research....................................................... 43,000 26,500 46,000 +3,000 +19,500

CCS:
Natural gas carbon capture..................................... ............... 31,000 ............... ............... -31,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Natural gas technologies........................... 43,000 57,500 46,000 +3,000 -11,500

Unconventional fossil energy technologies.......................... 20,321 ............... 23,245 +2,924 +23,245
Program direction.................................................. 114,202 60,998 60,000 -54,202 -998
Plant and capital equipment........................................ 15,782 ............... ............... -15,782 ...............
Fossil energy environmental restoration............................ 7,995 ............... ............... -7,995 ...............
Super computer..................................................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Special recruitment programs....................................... 700 700 700 ............... ...............
NETL Research and Operations....................................... ............... 44,984 73,000 +73,000 +28,016
NETL Infrastructure................................................ ............... 64,141 52,055 +52,055 -12,086
Use of prior year balances..................................... ............... -240,000 ............... ............... +240,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT................ 632,000 360,000 632,000 ............... +272,000
====================================================================================
NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE RESERVES............................. 17,500 14,950 14,950 -2,550 ...............
STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE........................................ 212,000 257,000 200,000 -12,000 -57,000

NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE

NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE................................. 7,600 10,500 10,500 +2,900 ...............
Use of prior year balances......................................... ............... -4,000 -4,000 -4,000 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE.................... 7,600 6,500 6,500 -1,100 ...............
====================================================================================
ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION.................................. 122,000 131,125 122,000 ............... -9,125

NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility (WA)............................... 2,562 2,240 2,240 -322 ...............
Gaseous Diffusion Plants........................................... 104,403 101,304 101,304 -3,099 ...............
Small sites........................................................ 87,522 53,243 85,043 -2,479 +31,800
West Valley Demonstration Project.................................. 59,213 61,613 66,413 +7,200 +4,800
Mercury storage facility........................................... 1,300 ............... ............... -1,300 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP..................... 255,000 218,400 255,000 ............... +36,600
====================================================================================
URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING FUND

Oak Ridge.......................................................... 194,673 ............... 194,673 ............... +194,673

Paducah:
Nuclear facility D&D, Paducah.................................. 198,729 ............... 203,093 +4,364 +203,093
Construction:
15-U-407 On-site waste disposal facility, Paducah.............. ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
16-U-401 Solid waste management units 5&6...................... 1,196 ............... 2,437 +1,241 +2,437
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Paducah............................................... 199,925 ............... 205,530 +5,605 +205,530

Portsmouth:
Nuclear facility D&D, Portsmouth............................... 203,417 ............... 223,417 +20,000 +223,417
Construction:
15-U-408 On-site waste disposal facility, Portsmouth....... 21,749 ............... 41,168 +19,419 +41,168
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Portsmouth............................................ 225,166 ............... 264,585 +39,419 +264,585

Pension and community and regulatory support....................... 21,026 ............... 22,953 +1,927 +22,953
Title X uranium/thorium reimbursement program...................... 32,959 ............... 30,000 -2,959 +30,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, UED&D FUND............................................ 673,749 ............... 717,741 +43,992 +717,741
====================================================================================
SCIENCE

Advanced scientific computing research............................. 621,000 509,180 502,180 -118,820 -7,000
Construction:
17-SC-20 SC Exascale Computing Project......................... ............... 154,000 154,000 +154,000 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Advanced scientific computing research............. 621,000 663,180 656,180 +35,180 -7,000

Basic energy sciences:
Research....................................................... 1,648,700 1,746,730 1,722,630 +73,930 -24,100
Construction:
13-SC-10 LINAC coherent light source II, SLAC.............. 200,300 190,000 190,000 -10,300 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction................................... 200,300 190,000 190,000 -10,300 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Basic energy sciences.......................... 1,849,000 1,936,730 1,912,630 +63,630 -24,100

Biological and environmental research.............................. 609,000 661,920 637,000 +28,000 -24,920

Fusion energy sciences:
Research....................................................... 323,000 273,178 280,110 -42,890 +6,932
Construction:
14-SC-60 ITER.............................................. 115,000 125,000 ............... -115,000 -125,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Fusion energy sciences......................... 438,000 398,178 280,110 -157,890 -118,068

High energy physics:
Research....................................................... 728,900 729,476 734,476 +5,576 +5,000
Construction:
11-SC-40 Project engineering and design [PED] long baseline 26,000 45,021 55,021 +29,021 +10,000
neutrino experiment, FNAL.................................
11-SC-41 Muon to electron conversion experiment, FNAL...... 40,100 43,500 43,500 +3,400 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction................................... 66,100 88,521 98,521 +32,421 +10,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, High energy physics............................ 795,000 817,997 832,997 +37,997 +15,000

Nuclear physics:
Operations and maintenance..................................... 509,600 535,658 535,658 +26,058 ...............
Construction:
14-SC-50 Facility for rare isotope beams, Michigan State 100,000 100,000 100,000 ............... ...............
University................................................
06-SC-01 12 GeV continuous electron beam facility upgrade, 7,500 ............... ............... -7,500 ...............
TJNAF.....................................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction................................... 107,500 100,000 100,000 -7,500 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Nuclear physics................................ 617,100 635,658 635,658 +18,558 ...............

Workforce development for teachers and scientists.................. 19,500 20,925 20,925 +1,425 ...............

Science laboratories infrastructure:
Infrastructure support:
Payment in lieu of taxes................................... 1,713 1,764 1,764 +51 ...............
Oak Ridge landlord......................................... 6,177 6,182 6,182 +5 ...............
Facilities and infrastructure.............................. 24,800 32,603 32,603 +7,803 ...............
Oak Ridge nuclear operations............................... 12,000 26,000 26,000 +14,000 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................. 44,690 66,549 66,549 +21,859 ...............

Construction:
17-SC-71 Integrated Engineering Research Center, FNAL...... ............... 2,500 2,500 +2,500 ...............
17 SC-73 Core Facility Revitalization, BNL................. ............... 1,800 1,800 +1,800 ...............
15-SC-78 Integrative genomics building, LBNL............... 20,000 19,561 19,561 -439 ...............
15-SC-77 Photon science laboratory building, SLAC.......... 25,000 20,000 20,000 -5,000 ...............
15-SC-76 Materials design laboratory, ANL.................. 23,910 19,590 19,590 -4,320 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 68,910 63,451 63,451 -5,459 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Science laboratories infrastructure................ 113,600 130,000 130,000 +16,400 ...............

Safeguards and security............................................ 103,000 103,000 103,000 ............... ...............
Science program direction.......................................... 185,000 204,481 191,500 +6,500 -12,981
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Science............................................ 5,350,200 5,572,069 5,400,000 +49,800 -172,069
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, SCIENCE............................................... 5,350,200 5,572,069 5,400,000 +49,800 -172,069
====================================================================================
NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL............................................. ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............

ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY--ENERGY

ARPA-E projects.................................................... 261,750 318,000 263,419 +1,669 -54,581
Program direction.................................................. 29,250 32,000 29,250 ............... -2,750
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, ARPA-E................................................ 291,000 350,000 292,669 +1,669 -57,331
====================================================================================
INDIAN ENERGY PROGRAMS

Program direction.................................................. ............... 4,800 4,800 +4,800 ...............
Tribal energy program.............................................. ............... 18,130 15,200 +15,200 -2,930
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, INDIAN ENERGY PROGRAMS................................ ............... 22,930 20,000 +20,000 -2,930
====================================================================================
TITLE 17--INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY LOAN GUARANTEE PGM

Administrative expenses............................................ 42,000 37,000 37,000 -5,000 ...............
Offsetting collection.............................................. -25,000 -30,000 -30,000 -5,000 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, TITLE 17--INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM 17,000 7,000 7,000 -10,000 ...............
====================================================================================
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES MANUFACTURING LOAN PGM

Administrative expenses............................................ 6,000 5,000 5,000 -1,000 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES MANUFACTURING LOAN 6,000 5,000 5,000 -1,000 ...............
PROGRAM.....................................................

OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSITIONS................................... ............... 8,400 ............... ............... -8,400

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

Administrative operations:
Salaries and expenses:
Office of the Secretary:
Program direction.......................................... 5,008 5,300 5,300 +292 ...............
Chief Financial Officer.................................... 47,024 53,084 53,084 +6,060 ...............
Management................................................. 65,000 59,114 ............... -65,000 -59,114
Project Management Oversight and Assessments............... ............... 18,000 ............... ............... -18,000
Cost Estimating and Program Evaluation..................... ............... 5,000 ............... ............... -5,000
Office Of Energy jobs development.......................... ............... 3,700 ............... ............... -3,700
Chief human capital officer................................ 24,500 25,424 ............... -24,500 -25,424
Chief Information Officer.................................. 31,988 93,074 ............... -31,988 -93,074
Office of Indian energy policy and programs................ 16,000 ............... ............... -16,000 ...............
Congressional and intergovernmental affairs................ 6,300 6,200 6,200 -100 ...............
Office Of Small and disadvantaged business utilization..... 3,000 3,300 ............... -3,000 -3,300
Economic impact and diversity.............................. 10,000 11,319 ............... -10,000 -11,319
General Counsel............................................ 33,000 33,000 ............... -33,000 -33,000
Energy policy and systems analysis......................... 31,297 31,000 ............... -31,297 -31,000
International Affairs...................................... 18,000 19,107 ............... -18,000 -19,107
Public affairs............................................. 3,431 3,431 ............... -3,431 -3,431
Office of Technology transitions........................... ............... ............... 8,400 +5,157 +5,157
Other Departmental Administration.......................... ............... ............... 259,174 +262,417 +262,417
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Salaries and expenses.......................... 294,548 370,053 332,158 +37,610 -37,895

Program support:
Economic impact and diversity.............................. ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Policy analysis and system studies......................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Environmental policy studies............................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Climate change technology program (prog. supp)............. ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Cybersecurity and secure communications.................... 21,006 ............... ............... -21,006 ...............
Corporate IT program support (CIO)......................... 20,224 ............... ............... -20,224 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Program support.................................... 41,230 ............... ............... -41,230 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Administrative operations.......................... 335,778 370,053 332,158 -3,620 -37,895

Strategic partnership projects................................. 40,000 40,000 40,000 ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Departmental administration........................ 375,778 410,053 372,158 -3,620 -37,895

Use of prior-year balances......................................... -8,800 -20,300 -20,300 -11,500 ...............
Digital service team--CIO.......................................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Funding from other defense activities.............................. -118,836 -119,716 -119,716 -880 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Departmental administration (gross)................... 248,142 270,037 232,142 -16,000 -37,895

Miscellaneous revenues............................................. -117,171 -103,000 -103,000 +14,171 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION (net)..................... 130,971 167,037 129,142 -1,829 -37,895
====================================================================================
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

Office of the inspector general.................................... 46,424 44,424 44,424 -2,000 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL....................... 46,424 44,424 44,424 -2,000 ...............
====================================================================================
TOTAL, ENERGY PROGRAMS....................................... 11,026,605 11,319,431 11,183,329 +156,724 -136,102
====================================================================================
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

WEAPONS ACTIVITIES

Directed stockpile work:
B61 Life extension program..................................... 643,300 616,079 616,079 -27,221 ...............
W76 Life extension program..................................... 244,019 222,880 222,880 -21,139 ...............
W88 Alteration 370............................................. 220,176 281,129 281,129 +60,953 ...............
W80-4 Life extension program................................... 195,037 220,253 220,253 +25,216 ...............
Stockpile systems:
B61 Stockpile systems...................................... 52,247 57,313 57,313 +5,066 ...............
W76 Stockpile systems...................................... 50,921 38,604 38,604 -12,317 ...............
W78 Stockpile systems...................................... 64,092 56,413 56,413 -7,679 ...............
W80 Stockpile systems...................................... 68,005 64,631 64,631 -3,374 ...............
B83 Stockpile systems...................................... 42,177 41,659 41,659 -518 ...............
W87 Stockpile systems...................................... 89,299 81,982 81,982 -7,317 ...............
W88 Stockpile systems...................................... 115,685 103,074 103,074 -12,611 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................. 482,426 443,676 443,676 -38,750 ...............

Weapons dismantlement and disposition.......................... 52,000 68,984 68,984 +16,984 ...............
Stockpile services:
Production support......................................... 447,527 457,043 447,527 ............... -9,516
Research and Development support........................... 41,059 34,187 34,187 -6,872 ...............
R and D certification and safety........................... 185,000 156,481 156,481 -28,519 ...............
Management, technology, and production..................... 264,994 251,978 251,978 -13,016 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................. 938,580 899,689 890,173 -48,407 -9,516

Strategic materials:
Uranium sustainment........................................ 32,916 20,988 20,988 -11,928 ...............
Plutonium sustainment...................................... 174,698 184,970 184,970 +10,272 ...............
Tritium sustainment........................................ 104,600 109,787 109,787 +5,187 ...............
Domestic uranium enrichment................................ 50,000 50,000 50,000 ............... ...............
Strategic materials sustainment............................ 250,040 212,092 212,092 -37,948 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 612,254 577,837 577,837 -34,417 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Directed stockpile work............................ 3,387,792 3,330,527 3,321,011 -66,781 -9,516

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E):
Science:
Advanced certification..................................... 58,747 58,000 68,000 +9,253 +10,000
Primary assessment technologies............................ 95,512 99,000 99,000 +3,488 ...............
Dynamic materials properties............................... 100,400 106,000 106,000 +5,600 ...............
Advanced radiography....................................... 45,700 50,500 50,500 +4,800 ...............
Secondary assessment technologies.......................... 72,900 76,000 76,000 +3,100 ...............
Academic alliances and partnerships........................ 49,800 52,484 40,000 -9,800 -12,484
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................. 423,059 441,984 439,500 +16,441 -2,484

Engineering:
Enhanced surety............................................ 50,821 37,196 37,196 -13,625 ...............
Weapons system engineering assessment technology........... 17,371 16,958 16,958 -413 ...............
Nuclear survivability...................................... 24,461 43,105 30,000 +5,539 -13,105
Enhanced surveillance...................................... 38,724 42,228 42,228 +3,504 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................. 131,377 139,487 126,382 -4,995 -13,105

Inertial confinement fusion ignition and high yield:
Ignition................................................... 76,334 75,432 75,432 -902 ...............
Support of other stockpile programs........................ 22,843 23,363 23,363 +520 ...............
Diagnostics, cryogenics and experimental support........... 58,587 68,696 68,696 +10,109 ...............
Pulsed power inertial confinement fusion................... 4,963 5,616 5,616 +653 ...............
Joint program in high energy density laboratory plasmas.... 8,900 9,492 9,492 +592 ...............
Facility operations and target production.................. 339,423 340,360 340,360 +937 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................. 511,050 522,959 522,959 +11,909 ...............

Advanced simulation and computing.............................. 623,006 663,184 663,184 +40,178 ...............

Advanced manufacturing development:
Additive manfacturing.......................................... 12,600 12,000 12,000 -600 ...............
Component manufacturing development............................ 99,656 46,583 46,583 -53,073 ...............
Process technology development................................. 17,800 28,522 28,522 +10,722 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 130,056 87,105 87,105 -42,951 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, RDT&E.............................................. 1,818,548 1,854,719 1,839,130 +20,582 -15,589

Infrastructure and Operations (formerly RTBF):
Operations of facilities:
Kansas City Plant.......................................... 100,250 101,000 101,000 +750 ...............
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory..................... 70,671 70,500 70,500 -171 ...............
Los Alamos National Laboratory............................. 196,460 196,500 196,500 +40 ...............
Nevada Test Site........................................... 89,000 92,500 92,500 +3,500 ...............
Pantex..................................................... 58,021 55,000 55,000 -3,021 ...............
Sandia National Laboratory................................. 115,300 118,000 118,000 +2,700 ...............
Savannah River Site........................................ 80,463 83,500 83,500 +3,037 ...............
Y-12 National Security Complex............................. 120,625 107,000 117,000 -3,625 +10,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................. 830,790 824,000 834,000 +3,210 +10,000

Safety and environmental operations............................ 107,701 110,000 110,000 +2,299 ...............
Maintenance and repair of facilities........................... 277,000 294,000 294,000 +17,000 ...............

Recapitalization:
Infrastructure and safety...................................... 253,724 554,643 554,643 +300,919 ...............
Capability based investments................................... 98,800 112,639 112,639 +13,839 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Recapitalization................................... 352,524 667,282 667,282 +314,758 ...............

Construction:
17-D-640, U1a Complex Enhancements Project, NNSS........... ............... 11,500 11,500 +11,500 ...............
17-D-630, Electrical Distribution System, LLNL............. ............... 25,000 25,000 +25,000 ...............
16-D-515 Albuquerque Complex project....................... 8,000 15,047 15,047 +7,047 ...............
16-D-621 TA-3 Substation replacement, LANL................. 25,000 ............... ............... -25,000 ...............
15-D-613 Emergency Operations Center, Y-12................. 17,919 2,000 2,000 -15,919 ...............
15-D-301 HE Science & Engineering Facility, PX............. ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
15-D-302 TA-55 Reinvestment project III, LANL.............. 18,195 21,455 21,455 +3,260 ...............
12-D-301 TRU waste facility project, LANL.................. ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
11-D-801 TA-55 Reinvestment project II, LANL............... 3,903 ............... ............... -3,903 ...............
07-D-220 Radioactive liquid waste treatment facility, LANL. 11,533 ............... ............... -11,533 ...............
07-O-220-04 TRU liquid waste facility, LANL................ 40,949 17,053 17,053 -23,896 ...............
06-D-141 Uranium Processing Facility, Y-12................. 430,000 575,000 575,000 +145,000 ...............
Chemistry and metallurgy replacement (CMRR):
04-D-125 Chemistry and metallurgy replacement project, LANL ............... 159,615 159,615 +159,615 ...............
04-D-125-04 RLUOB equipment installation, phase 2.......... 117,000 ............... ............... -117,000 ...............
04-D-125-05 PF-4 equipment installation.................... 38,610 ............... ............... -38,610 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, CMRR............................................... 155,610 159,615 159,615 +4,005 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction....................................... 711,109 826,670 826,670 +115,561 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Infrastructure and Operations...................... 2,279,124 2,721,952 2,731,952 +452,828 +10,000

Secure transportation asset:
Operations and equipment....................................... 140,000 179,132 157,820 +17,820 -21,312
Program direction.............................................. 97,118 103,600 103,600 +6,482 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Secure transportation asset........................ 237,118 282,732 261,420 +24,302 -21,312

Site stewardship................................................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............

Defense nuclear security:
Defense nuclear security....................................... 639,891 657,133 673,550 +33,659 +16,417
Security improvements program.................................. 30,000 ............... 20,000 -10,000 +20,000
Construction:
14-D-710 Device assembly facility argus installation 13,000 13,000 13,000 ............... ...............
project, NV...............................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Defense nuclear security........................... 682,891 670,133 706,550 +23,659 +36,417

Information technology and cyber security.......................... 157,588 176,592 176,592 +19,004 ...............
Legacy contractor pensions......................................... 283,887 248,492 248,492 -35,395 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Weapons Activities................................. 8,846,948 9,285,147 9,285,147 +438,199 ...............

Rescission......................................................... ............... -50,400 ............... ............... +50,400
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, WEAPONS ACTIVITIES.................................... 8,846,948 9,234,747 9,285,147 +438,199 +50,400
====================================================================================
DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs:

Global material security:
International nuclear security................................. 130,527 46,027 46,027 -84,500 ...............
Radiological security.......................................... 153,749 146,106 153,106 -643 +7,000
Nuclear smuggling detection.................................... 142,475 144,975 144,975 +2,500 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Global material security........................... 426,751 337,108 344,108 -82,643 +7,000

Material management and minimization:
HEU reactor conversion......................................... 115,000 128,359 108,359 -6,641 -20,000
Nuclear material removal....................................... 115,000 68,902 68,902 -46,098 ...............
Material disposition........................................... 86,584 143,833 143,833 +57,249 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Material management and minimization............... 316,584 341,094 321,094 +4,510 -20,000

Nonproliferation and arms control.................................. 130,203 124,703 124,703 -5,500 ...............
Defense nuclear nonproliferation R&D............................... 419,333 393,922 406,922 -12,411 +13,000

Nonproliferation construction:
99-D-143 Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility, SRS.. 340,000 270,000 270,000 -70,000 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Nonproliferation construction.................. 340,000 270,000 270,000 -70,000 ...............

Legacy contractor pensions......................................... 94,617 83,208 83,208 -11,409 ...............
Nuclear counterterrorism and incident response program............. 234,390 271,881 271,881 +37,491 ...............
Use of prior-year balances......................................... -21,576 ............... ............... +21,576 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation................... 1,940,302 1,821,916 1,821,916 -118,386 ...............

Rescission......................................................... ............... -14,000 ............... ............... +14,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION...................... 1,940,302 1,807,916 1,821,916 -118,386 +14,000
====================================================================================
NAVAL REACTORS

Naval reactors development......................................... 446,896 437,338 451,338 +4,442 +14,000
OHIO replacement reactor systems development....................... 186,800 213,700 213,700 +26,900 ...............
S8G Prototype refueling............................................ 133,000 124,000 124,000 -9,000 ...............
Naval reactors operations and infrastructure....................... 445,196 449,682 381,082 -64,114 -68,600

Construction:
17-D-911 BL Fire System Upgrade................................ ............... 1,400 1,400 +1,400 ...............
15-D-904 NRF Overpack Storage Expansion 3...................... 900 700 700 -200 ...............
15-D-903 KL Fire System Upgrade................................ 600 ............... ............... -600 ...............
15-D-902 KS Engineroom team trainer facility................... 3,100 33,300 33,300 +30,200 ...............
14-D-902 KL Materials characterization laboratory expansion, 30,000 ............... ............... -30,000 ...............
KAPL..........................................................
14-D-901 Spent fuel handling recapitalization project, NRF..... 86,000 100,000 86,000 ............... -14,000
10-D-903, Security upgrades, KAPL.............................. 500 12,900 12,900 +12,400 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction....................................... 121,100 148,300 134,300 +13,200 -14,000

Program direction.................................................. 42,504 47,100 47,100 +4,596 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Naval Reactors..................................... 1,375,496 1,420,120 1,351,520 -23,976 -68,600
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, NAVAL REACTORS........................................ 1,375,496 1,420,120 1,351,520 -23,976 -68,600
====================================================================================
FEDERAL SALARIES AND EXPENSES...................................... 383,666 412,817 408,603 +24,937 -4,214
Rescission......................................................... -19,900 ............... ............... +19,900 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, FEDERAL SALARIES AND EXPENSES......................... 363,766 412,817 408,603 +44,837 -4,214
====================================================================================
TOTAL, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION.............. 12,526,512 12,875,600 12,867,186 +340,674 -8,414
====================================================================================
DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

Closure sites...................................................... 4,889 9,389 9,389 +4,500 ...............

Richland:
River corridor and other cleanup operations.................... 270,710 69,755 143,755 -126,955 +74,000
Central plateau remediation.................................... 555,163 620,869 650,869 +95,706 +30,000
RL community and regulatory support............................ 19,701 14,701 24,701 +5,000 +10,000
RL infrastructure recapitalization............................. ............... ............... 8,949 +8,949 +8,949
Construction:
15-D-401 Containerized sludge removal annex, RL............ 77,016 11,486 11,486 -65,530 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Richland........................................... 922,590 716,811 839,760 -82,830 +122,949

Office of River Protection:
Waste treatment and immobilization plant operations............ ............... 3,000 3,000 +3,000 ...............
Construction:
15-D-409 Low activity waste pretreatment sysem, ORP........ 75,000 73,000 73,000 -2,000 ...............
01-D-16 A-D, Waste treatment and immobilization plant, ORP. 595,000 593,000 593,000 -2,000 ...............
01-D-16 E, Waste treatment and immobilization plant, 95,000 97,000 97,000 +2,000 ...............
Pretreatment facility, ORP................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Construction.......................................... 765,000 763,000 763,000 -2,000 ...............

Tank farm activities:
Rad liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition........ 649,000 721,456 721,456 +72,456 ...............
ORP infrastructure recapitalization........................ ............... ............... 12,509 +12,509 +12,509
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Office of river protection......................... 1,414,000 1,487,456 1,499,965 +85,965 +12,509

Idaho National Laboratory:
Idaho cleanup and waste disposition............................ 393,000 359,088 359,088 -33,912 ...............
Idaho community and regulatory support......................... 3,000 3,000 3,000 ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Idaho National Laboratory............................. 396,000 362,088 362,088 -33,912 ...............

NNSA sites and Nevada offsites:
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory......................... 1,366 1,396 1,396 +30 ...............
Separations Process Research Unit.............................. ............... 3,685 3,685 +3,685 ...............
Nevada......................................................... 62,385 62,176 62,176 -209 ...............
Sandia National Laboratory..................................... 2,500 4,130 4,130 +1,630 ...............
Los Alamos National Laboratory................................. 185,000 189,000 199,000 +14,000 +10,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, NNSA sites and Nevada off-sites....................... 251,251 260,387 270,387 +19,136 +10,000

Oak Ridge Reservation:
OR Nuclear facility D&D........................................ 111,958 93,851 131,851 +19,893 +38,000
U233 disposition program....................................... 35,895 37,311 43,311 +7,416 +6,000
OR cleanup and waste disposition............................... 74,597 54,557 68,457 -6,140 +13,900
Construction:
14-D-403 Outfall 200 mercury treatment facility............ 9,400 5,100 5,100 -4,300 ...............
16-D-401 onsite displosal facility......................... ............... ............... 6,000 +6,000 +6,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction................................... 9,400 5,100 11,100 +1,700 +6,000

OR community & regulatory support.............................. 4,400 4,400 5,500 +1,100 +1,100
OR Technology development and deployment....................... 2,800 3,000 3,000 +200 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Oak Ridge Reservation................................. 239,050 198,219 263,219 +24,169 +65,000

Savannah River Site:
SR site risk management operations............................. 413,652 ............... ............... -413,652 ...............
Nuclear Material Management.................................... ............... 311,062 311,062 +311,062 ...............
Environmental Cleanup.......................................... ............... 152,504 152,504 +152,504 ...............
SR community and regulatory support............................ 11,249 11,249 11,249 ............... ...............
SR radioactive liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition. 554,878 645,332 600,000 +45,122 -45,332
SR infrastructure recapitalization............................. ............... ............... 16,547 +16,547 +16,547
Construction:
17-D-402 Saltstone disposal Unit #7, SRS................... ............... 9,729 9,729 +9,729 ...............
15-D-402 Saltstone disposal Unit #6, SRS................... 34,642 7,577 7,577 -27,065 ...............
05-D-405 Salt waste processing facility, SRS............... 194,000 160,000 160,000 -34,000 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Savannah River Site............................... 1,208,421 1,297,453 1,268,668 +60,247 -28,785

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant:
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.................................... 269,260 265,588 265,588 -3,672 ...............
Operations and maintenance..................................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Recovery activities............................................ ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Central characterization project............................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Transportation................................................. ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Carlsbad infrastructure recapitalization....................... ............... ............... 3,887 +3,887 +3,887
Construction:
15-D-411 Safety significant confinement ventilation system, 23,218 2,532 2,532 -20,686 ...............
WIPP......................................................
15-D-412 Exhaust shaft, WIPP............................... 7,500 2,533 2,533 -4,967 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Waste isolation pilot plant........................... 299,978 270,653 274,540 -25,438 +3,887

Program direction.................................................. 281,951 290,050 290,050 +8,099 ...............
Program support.................................................... 14,979 14,979 14,979 ............... ...............
Safeguards and Security:........................................... 236,633 ............... ............... -236,633 ...............
Carlsbad....................................................... ............... 4,860 4,860 +4,860 ...............
Oak Ridge...................................................... ............... 15,000 15,000 +15,000 ...............
Paducah........................................................ ............... 14,049 14,049 +14,049 ...............
Portsmouth..................................................... ............... 14,049 14,049 +14,049 ...............
Richland....................................................... ............... 72,000 72,000 +72,000 ...............
Savannah River................................................. ............... 134,000 134,000 +134,000 ...............
West Valley.................................................... ............... 2,015 2,015 +2,015 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 236,633 255,973 255,973 +19,340 ...............

Technology development............................................. 20,000 30,000 30,000 +10,000 ...............
Infrastructure recapitalization.................................... ............... 41,892 ............... ............... -41,892
Defense Uranium enrichment D&D..................................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Defense Environmental Cleanup...................... 5,289,742 5,235,350 5,379,018 +89,276 +143,668

Rescission......................................................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEAN UP........................ 5,289,742 5,235,350 5,379,018 +89,276 +143,668
====================================================================================
Defense Environmental Cleanup (Legislative proposal)............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
DEFENSE URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING..... ............... 155,100 717,741 +717,741 +562,641

OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Environment, health, safety and security:
Environment, health, safety and security....................... 118,763 130,693 128,693 +9,930 -2,000
Program direction.............................................. 62,235 66,519 66,519 +4,284 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Environment, Health, safety and security........... 180,998 197,212 195,212 +14,214 -2,000

Independent enterprise assessments:
Independent enterprise assessments............................. 24,068 24,580 24,580 +512 ...............
Program direction.............................................. 49,466 51,893 51,893 +2,427 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Independent enterprise assessments................. 73,534 76,473 76,473 +2,939 ...............

Specialized security activities.................................... 230,377 237,912 239,912 +9,535 +2,000

Office of Legacy Management:
Legacy management.............................................. 154,080 140,306 140,306 -13,774 ...............
Program direction.............................................. 13,100 14,014 14,014 +914 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Office of Legacy Management........................ 167,180 154,320 154,320 -12,860 ...............

Defense related administrative support............................. 118,836 119,716 119,716 +880 ...............
Office of hearings and appeals..................................... 5,500 5,919 5,919 +419 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES.............................. 776,425 791,552 791,552 +15,127 ...............
====================================================================================
TOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES...................... 18,592,679 19,057,602 19,755,497 +1,162,818 +697,895
====================================================================================
POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS (1)

SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION

Operation and maintenance:
Purchase power and wheeling.................................... 83,600 78,929 78,929 -4,671 ...............
Program direction.............................................. 6,900 6,000 6,000 -900 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Operation and maintenance.......................... 90,500 84,929 84,929 -5,571 ...............

Less alternative financing [PPW]................................... -17,100 -18,169 -18,169 -1,069 ...............
Offsetting collections (for PPW)................................... -66,500 -60,760 -60,760 +5,740 ...............
Offsetting collections (PD)........................................ -6,900 -1,000 -1,000 +5,900 ...............
Use of prior-year balances......................................... ............... -5,000 -5,000 -5,000 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION..................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
====================================================================================
SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION

Operation and maintenance:
Operating expenses............................................. 19,279 13,896 13,896 -5,383 ...............
Purchase power and wheeling.................................... 73,000 83,000 83,000 +10,000 ...............
Program direction.............................................. 31,932 31,516 31,516 -416 ...............
Construction................................................... 12,012 12,486 12,486 +474 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Operation and maintenance.......................... 136,223 140,898 140,898 +4,675 ...............

Less alternative financing (for O&M)............................... -8,288 -6,269 -6,269 +2,019 ...............
Less alternative financing (for PPW)............................... -10,000 -10,000 -10,000 ............... ...............
Less alternative financing (Const)................................. -7,574 -5,986 -5,986 +1,588 ...............
Offsetting collections (PD)........................................ -29,938 -29,271 -29,271 +667 ...............
Offsetting collections (for O&M)................................... -6,023 -5,315 -5,315 +708 ...............
Offsetting collections (for PPW)................................... -63,000 -73,000 -73,000 -10,000 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION..................... 11,400 11,057 11,057 -343 ...............
====================================================================================
WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION

Operation and maintenance:
Construction and rehabilitation................................ 58,374 62,442 62,442 +4,068 ...............
Operation and maintenance...................................... 80,901 76,697 76,697 -4,204 ...............
Purchase power and wheeling.................................... 565,927 581,634 581,634 +15,707 ...............
Program direction.............................................. 236,398 226,497 226,497 -9,901 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Operation and maintenance.......................... 941,600 947,270 947,270 +5,670 ...............

Less alternative financing (for O&M)............................... -1,757 ............... ............... +1,757 ...............
Less alternative financing (for Construction)...................... -53,585 -43,884 -43,884 +9,701 ...............
Less alternative financing (for Program Dir.)...................... -5,273 -6,343 -6,343 -1,070 ...............
Less alternative financing (for PPW)............................... -213,114 -214,625 -214,625 -1,511 ...............
Offsetting collections (for program direction)..................... -177,697 -178,441 -178,441 -744 ...............
Offsetting collections (for O&M)................................... -36,645 -33,122 -33,122 +3,523 ...............
Offsetting collections (Public Law 108-477, Public Law 109-103).... -352,813 -367,009 -367,009 -14,196 ...............
Offsetting collections (Public Law 98-381)......................... -7,344 -8,265 -8,265 -921 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION..................... 93,372 95,581 95,581 +2,209 ...............
====================================================================================
FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND

Operation and maintenance.......................................... 4,950 4,393 4,393 -557 ...............
Offsetting collections............................................. -4,262 -3,838 -3,838 +424 ...............
Less alternative financing......................................... -460 -323 -323 +137 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, FALCON AND AMISTAD O&M FUND........................... 228 232 232 +4 ...............
====================================================================================
TOTAL, POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS....................... 105,000 106,870 106,870 +1,870 ...............
====================================================================================
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission............................... 319,800 346,800 346,800 +27,000 ...............
FERC revenues...................................................... -319,800 -346,800 -346,800 -27,000 ...............

General Provisions

Title III Rescissions:
Department of Energy:
Energy Efficiency and Energy Reliability................... -3,806 ............... ............... +3,806 ...............
Science.................................................... -3,200 ............... ............... +3,200 ...............
Nuclear Energy............................................. ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Fossil Energy Research and Development..................... ............... ............... -240,000 -240,000 -240,000
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability...... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy.................. ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Western Area Power Administration.........................
Weapons activities (050) (rescission)...................... ............... ............... -50,400 -50,400 -50,400
Office of the Administrator (050) (rescission)............. ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Departmental Administration................................ ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Defense Environmental Cleanup (050)........................ ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation (050)..................... ............... ............... -14,000 -14,000 -14,000
Naval Reactors (050)....................................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Other Defense Activities (050)............................. ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, General Provisions.................................... -7,006 ............... -304,400 -297,394 -304,400
====================================================================================
GRAND TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY............................ 29,717,278 30,483,903 30,741,296 +1,024,018 +257,393
(Total amount appropriated).................................. (29,744,184) (30,548,303) (31,045,696) (+1,301,512) (+497,393)
(Rescissions)........................................ (-26,906) (-64,400) (-304,400) (-277,494) (-240,000)
====================================================================================
SUMMARY OF ACCOUNTS

Energy efficiency and renewable energy............................. 2,073,000 2,898,400 2,073,000 ............... -825,400
Electricity delivery and energy reliability........................ 206,000 262,300 206,000 ............... -56,300
Nuclear energy..................................................... 986,161 993,896 1,057,903 +71,742 +64,007
Fossil Energy Research and Development............................. 632,000 360,000 632,000 ............... +272,000
Naval Petroleum & Oil Shale Reserves............................... 17,500 14,950 14,950 -2,550 ...............
Strategic petroleum reserves....................................... 212,000 257,000 200,000 -12,000 -57,000
Northeast home heating oil reserve................................. 7,600 6,500 6,500 -1,100 ...............
Energy Information Administration.................................. 122,000 131,125 122,000 ............... -9,125
Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup.................................. 255,000 218,400 255,000 ............... +36,600
Uranium enrichment D&D fund........................................ 673,749 ............... 717,741 +43,992 +717,741
Nuclear Waste Disposal............................................. ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Science............................................................ 5,350,200 5,572,069 5,400,000 +49,800 -172,069
Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy........................... 291,000 350,000 292,669 +1,669 -57,331
Departmental administration........................................ 130,971 167,037 129,142 -1,829 -37,895
Indian energy program.............................................. ............... 22,930 20,000 +20,000 -2,930
Office of the Inspector General.................................... 46,424 44,424 44,424 -2,000 ...............
Title 17 Innovative technology loan guarantee program.............. 17,000 7,000 7,000 -10,000 ...............
Advanced technology vehicles manufacturing loan pgm................ 6,000 5,000 5,000 -1,000 ...............
Office of the technology transitions............................... ............... 8,400 ............... ............... -8,400
Clean coal technology.............................................. ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............

Atomic energy defense activities:
National Nuclear Security Administration:
Weapons activities....................................... 8,846,948 9,234,747 9,285,147 +438,199 +50,400
Defense nuclear nonproliferation......................... 1,940,302 1,807,916 1,821,916 -118,386 +14,000
Naval reactors........................................... 1,375,496 1,420,120 1,351,520 -23,976 -68,600
Federal Salaries and Expenses............................ 363,766 412,817 408,603 +44,837 -4,214
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, National Nuclear Security Admin.............. 12,526,512 12,875,600 12,867,186 +340,674 -8,414

Defense environmental cleanup.................................. 5,289,742 5,235,350 5,379,018 +89,276 +143,668
Defense environmental cleanup (legislative proposal)........... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Defense uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning. ............... 155,100 717,741 +717,741 +562,641
Other defense activities....................................... 776,425 791,552 791,552 +15,127 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities...................... 18,592,679 19,057,602 19,755,497 +1,162,818 +697,895

Power marketing administrations:
Southeastern Power Administration.............................. ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Southwestern Power Administration.............................. 11,400 11,057 11,057 -343 ...............
Western Area Power Administration.............................. 93,372 95,581 95,581 +2,209 ...............
Falcon and Amistad operating and maintenance fund.............. 228 232 232 +4 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Power Marketing Administrations....................... 105,000 106,870 106,870 +1,870 ...............

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission:
Salaries and expenses.......................................... 319,800 346,800 346,800 +27,000 ...............
Revenues....................................................... -319,800 -346,800 -346,800 -27,000 ...............
General Provisions................................................. -7,006 ............... -304,400 -297,394 -304,400
====================================================================================
Total Summary of Accounts, Department of Energy.............. 29,717,278 30,483,903 30,741,296 +1,024,018 +257,393
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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

Section 301. Language is included on the execution of
appropriations, including reprogramming, and congressional
notification.
Section 302. Language is included rescinding unobligated
balances.
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.

TITLE IV

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Appalachian Regional Commission

Appropriations, 2016.................................... $146,000,000
Budget estimate, 2017................................... 120,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 151,000,000

The Committee recommends $151,000,000 for the Appalachian
Regional Commission [ARC], an increase of $31,000,000 above 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, $75,000,000 if provided
for base funds; and $20,000,000 is recommended for a program of
industrial site and workforce development in Southern and South
Central Appalachia, focused primarily on the automotive
supplier sector and the aviation sector. Up to $16,000,000 of
that amount is recommended for activities in South Central
Appalachia. The funds shall be distributed according to the
Commission's Distressed Counties Formula, which is comprised of
land area, population estimates, and a proportion of the number
of distressed counties. Within available funding, the Committee
recommends $6,000,000 for a program of basic infrastructure
improvements in distressed counties in Central Appalachia.
Funds shall be distributed according to ARC's distressed
counties formula and shall be in addition to the regular
allocation to distressed counties.
Within available funds, the Committee recommends
$50,000,000, the same as the budget request, for the POWER
Initiative 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, 2016.................................... $29,150,000
Budget estimate, 2017................................... 31,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 31,000,000

The Committee recommends $31,000,000 for the Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, the same as the budget
request. The Committee recognizes the important role of the
Board in continued safe operations of the Department of
Energy's nuclear facilities. The highly-skilled men and women
that comprise the Board's technical staff, along with the
current Board leadership, provide the Department of Energy and
Congress with valuable advice and recommendations. 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 $969,000 within the Office of Inspector
General of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to perform these
services.

Delta Regional Authority

Appropriations, 2016.................................... $25,000,000
Budget estimate, 2017................................... 15,936,000
Committee recommendation................................ 25,000,000

The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for the Delta Regional
Authority, an increase of $9,064,000 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, skill
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
public infrastructure development and transportation
improvements, which shall be allocated separate from the State
formula funding method. The Committee did not retain statutory
language in Public Law 114-113 waiving the requirements under
sections 382C(b)(2), 382F(d) and 382M of the Delta Regional
Authority Act of 2000. The Committee directs the Delta Regional
Authority to prioritize and allocate funding consistent with
its authorized purposes, and prevent administrative expenses
from exceeding 5 percent of the amount appropriated by this
act.

Denali Commission

Appropriations, 2016.................................... $11,000,000
Budget estimate, 2017................................... 15,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 15,000,000

The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for the Denali
Commission, the same as 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, 2016.................................... $7,500,000
Budget estimate, 2017................................... 5,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 10,000,000

The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for the Northern
Border Regional Commission, an increase of $5,000,000 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.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2016.................................... $990,000,000
Budget estimate, 2017................................... 970,163,000
Committee recommendation................................ 939,000,000

REVENUES

Appropriations, 2016.................................... -$872,864,000
Budget estimate, 2017................................... -851,161,000
Committee recommendation................................ -822,240,000

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2016.................................... $117,136,000
Budget estimate, 2017................................... 119,002,000
Committee recommendation................................ 116,760,000

The Committee recommends $939,000,000 for the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission [Commission], a decrease of $31,163,000
from the budget request. This amount is offset by estimated
revenues of $822,240,000, resulting in a net appropriation of
$116,760,000. 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.
Budget Execution Plan.--The Commission is directed to
provide the Committee with a specific budget execution plan no
later than 30 days after the enactment of this act. This plan
shall provide details at the product line level within each of
the control points, as applicable, included in the table after
the Office of Inspector General heading below.
Realignment of Overhead Activities.--The recommendation
adopts the Commission's proposed realignment of overhead
activities, which makes the Commission's accounting for these
activities more consistent with other Federal agencies. The
Commission is directed to execute the appropriations provided
for fiscal year 2017 consistent with the realignment as
proposed in the budget request without deviation, except as
authorized under section 401 of the bill. Any additional
realignments shall be proposed in subsequent budget requests
after consultation with the Committee.
Budget Control Points.--The recommendation includes
additional budget control points for fiscal year 2017 to ensure
the Commission's budget execution follows congressional intent.
These budget control points are included in the table following
the heading of Office of Inspector General. The Committee notes
that the Commission's initial execution plan for fiscal year
2016 did not comply with the budget control points included in
the explanatory statement accompanying the Energy and Water
Appropriations Act, 2016, and directs the Commission to execute
funds provided herein in accordance with the new control
points. Although the Commission subsequently realigned its
execution plan to comply with the budget control points, the
Committee's oversight responsibilities of taxpayer funds
requires additional safeguards. Accordingly, the Committee
includes statutory language incorporating the new control
points by reference into law, and notes that any breaches are
now subject to the reporting requirements and remedies of the
Antideficiency Act contained in title 31 of the United States
Code.
Reprogramming Authority.--Section 401 continues
reprogramming authority included in the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act, 2016, for the Commission
between the budget control points, subject to prior
congressional approval, with a provision made for emergency
circumstances. This reprogramming authority supersedes the
Commission's existing guidance on internal reprogrammings.
Unobligated Balances from Prior Appropriations.--The
Committee notes that the Commission carries unobligated
balances from appropriations received prior to fiscal year
2016. The Committee's recommendation requires the use of
$15,100,000 of these balances, derived from fee-based
activities. Because the Commission has already collected fees
corresponding to these activities in prior years, the Committee
does not include these funds within the fee base calculation
for determining authorized revenues, and does not provide
authority to collect additional offsetting receipts for their
use. The Committee notes that any remaining unobligated
balances carried forward from prior years are now subject to
the reprogramming guidelines in section 401, and shall not only
be used to supplement appropriations consistent with those
guidelines.
Advanced Nuclear Reactor Technologies.--The Committee
recommends $5,000,000 for activities related to the development
of regulatory infrastructure for advanced nuclear reactor
technologies, as requested. These funds are not subject to the
Commission's general fee recovery collection requirements.
Reductions from Efficiencies.--The recommendation includes
reductions to the budget request of $31,100,000 that were
identified as potential savings by the Commission's staff due
to discontinuation, de-prioritization, or incremental
reductions of activities. According to the Commission's staff,
including these savings would not adversely affect the
Commission's safety mission, and the Committee therefore adopts
these proposed reductions in their entirety. The Committee
applauds the Commission's reviews of its programs to find these
efficiencies, and urges the Commission to identify additional
efficiencies.
Integrated University Program.--The Committee recommends
$15,000,000 for the Integrated University Program, of which not
less than $5,000,000 is for grants to support research projects
that do not align with programmatic missions but are critical
to maintaining the discipline of nuclear science.
Rulemaking.--The Committee directs the Commission to
provide within 90 days after the enactment of this act, and
quarterly thereafter, an update of appendix G of the budget
request regarding planned rulemakings.
Reporting Requirement.--The Committee directs the
Commission to continue the reporting required in the
explanatory statement for the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act, 2016, relating to progress against the
Commission's licensing goals and right-sizing commitments.
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, 2016.................................... $12,136,000
Budget estimate, 2017................................... 12,129,000
Committee recommendation................................ 12,129,000

REVENUES

Appropriations, 2016.................................... -$10,060,000
Budget estimate, 2017................................... -10,044,000
Committee recommendation................................ -10,044,000

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2016.................................... $2,076,000
Budget estimate, 2017................................... 2,085,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,085,000

The Committee recommends $12,129,000 for the Office of
Inspector General, the same as the budget request, which is
offset by revenues estimated at $10,044,000, for a net
appropriation of $2,085,000. The Office of Inspector General
serves both the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, and the recommendation
includes $969,000 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.

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
recommendation
Item Budget Committee compared to
estimate recommendation budget
estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPERATING REACTORS

OPERATING REACTORS.............................................. 393,600 375,400 -18,200
CORPORATE SUPPORT............................................... 193,900 192,700 -1,200
-----------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, OPERATING REACTORS.............................. 587,500 568,100 -19,400

NEW REACTORS

NEW REACTORS.................................................... 113,200 107,900 -5,300
CORPORATE SUPPORT............................................... 56,600 54,800 -1,800
-----------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, NEW REACTORS.................................... 169,800 162,700 -7,100

FUEL FACILITIES

FUEL FACILITIES................................................. 27,000 24,900 -2,100
CORPORATE SUPPORT............................................... 14,500 13,600 -900
-----------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, FUEL FACILITIES................................. 41,500 38,500 -3,000

NUCLEAR MATERIALS USERS

NUCLEAR MATERIALS USERS......................................... 64,200 63,900 -300
CORPORATE SUPPORT............................................... 28,400 28,600 +200
-----------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, NUCLEAR MATERIALS USERS......................... 92,600 92,500 -100

SPENT FUEL STORAGE AND TRANSPORTATION

SPENT FUEL STORAGE AND TRANSPORTATION........................... 25,300 24,800 -500
CORPORATE SUPPORT............................................... 11,900 12,000 +100
-----------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, SPENT FUEL STORAGE AND TRANSPORTATION........... 37,200 36,800 -400

DECOMMISSIONING AND LOW-LEVEL WASTE

DECOMMISSIONING AND LOW-LEVEL WASTE............................. 27,800 26,700 -1,100
CORPORATE SUPPORT............................................... 13,800 13,800 ..............
-----------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, DECOMMISSIONING AND LOW-LEVEL WASTE............. 41,600 40,500 -1,100

INTEGRATED UNIVERSITY PROGRAM

INTEGRATED UNIVERSITY PROGRAM................................... .............. 15,000 +15,000
USE OF PRIOR YEAR BALANCES...................................... .............. -15,100 -15,100
-----------------------------------------------
TOTAL..................................................... 970,200 939,000 -31,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board

Appropriations, 2016.................................... $3,600,000
Budget estimate, 2017................................... 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.

GENERAL PROVISION

Section 401. The Committee includes reprogramming language
for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

TITLE V

The Committee is aware that agencies funded through this
bill do a variety of different types of advertising. The
Committee directs the agencies to clearly state within the
text, audio, or video used for advertising or educational
purposes, including emails or advertising/posting on the
Internet, that the communications is printed, published, or
produced and disseminated at U.S. taxpayer expense.

GENERAL PROVISIONS

The following list of general provisions is recommended by
the Committee:
Section 501. The provision prohibits the use of any funds
provided in this bill from being used to influence
congressional action.
Section 502. The provision addresses transfer authority
under this act.

Program, Project, and Activity

In fiscal year 2017, 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, 2017 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 2017 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 2017 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 2017:

APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW--FISCAL YEAR 2017
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation
Last Year of Authorization in Last Year Net
Agency/Program Authorization Level of Appropriation
Authorization in this Bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corps FUSRAP........................................ ............. \(1)\ ............. 103,000
EERE Program Direction.............................. 2006 110,500 164,198 153,500
EERE Weatherization Activities...................... 2012 1,400,000 68,000 214,600
EERE State Energy Programs.......................... 2012 125,000 50,000 50,000
Nuclear Energy...................................... 2009 495,000 792,000 1,057,903
Fossil Energy....................................... 2009 641,000 727,320 632,000
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves.............. 2014 20,000 20,000 14,950
Office of Science................................... 2013 6,007,000 4,876,000 5,400,000
Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy........... 2013 312,000 265,000 292,669
Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program... 2012 not specified 6,000 5,000
Non-Defense Environment Cleanup:
West Valley Demonstration....................... 1981 5,000 5,000 66,413
Departmental Administration......................... 1984 246,963 185,682 129,142
Atomic Energy Defense Activities:
National Nuclear Security Administration:
Weapons Activities.......................... 2015 8,210,560 8,231,770 9,285,147
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation............ 2015 1,774,758 1,641,369 1,821,916
Naval Reactors.............................. 2015 1,377,100 1,238,500 1,351,520
Federal Salaries and Expenses............... 2015 386,863 370,000 408,603
Defense Environmental Cleanup....................... 2015 4,884,538 5,010,830 5,379,018
Other Defense Activities............................ 2015 754,000 754,000 791,552
Power Marketing Administrations:
Southwestern.................................... 1984 40,254 36,229 11,057
Western Area.................................... 1984 259,700 194,630 95,581
Appalachian Regional Commission..................... 2013 110,000 68,263 151,000
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board............. 2015 30,150 28,500 31,000
Nuclear Regulatory Commission....................... 1985 460,000 448,200 118,845
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Program was initiated in 1972 and has never received a separate authorization.

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(c), RULE XXVI, OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE

Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on April 14, 2016,
the Committee ordered favorably reported a bill (S. 2804)
making appropriations for energy and water development and
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2017,
and for other purposes, provided, that the bill be subject to
amendment and that the bill be consistent with its budget
allocation, by a recorded vote of 30-0, a quorum being present.
The vote was as follows:
Yeas Nays
Chairman Cochran
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Shelby
Mr. Alexander
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. Murray
Mrs. Feinstein
Mr. Durbin
Mr. Reed
Mr. Tester
Mr. Udall
Mrs. Shaheen
Mr. Merkley
Mr. Coons
Mr. Schatz
Ms. Baldwin
Mr. Murphy

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 [$350,000,000] $400,000,000, to remain available until
expended.
------

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 [2017] 2019, 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
[2017] 2019.

* * * * * * *

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 [2017] 2019 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 [2017]
2019, to remain available until expended.
------

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
guidance Amount in bill guidance Amount in bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with
Committee guidance to its subcommittees
of amounts for 2017: Subcommittee on
Energy and Water Development:
Mandatory........................... ................ ................ ................ ................
Discretionary....................... 37,537 37,537 37,561 \1\37,560
Security........................ 20,023 20,023 NA NA
Nonsecurity..................... 17,514 17,514 NA NA
Projections of outlays associated with
the recommendation:
2017................................ ................ ................ ................ \2\21,874
2018................................ ................ ................ ................ 10,818
2019................................ ................ ................ ................ 3,724
2020................................ ................ ................ ................ 820
2021 and future years............... ................ ................ ................ 451
Financial assistance to State and local NA 176 NA \2\33
governments for 2017...................

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
\2\Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

NA: Not applicable.

NOTE.--The Committee guidance will be considered favorably reported as the fiscal year 2017 section 302(b)
budget allocations upon the filing by the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of an allocation pursuant to
section 102 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 to serve as a section 302(a) allocation for purposes of
budget enforcement in the Senate.

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2017
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Committee recommendation
compared with (+ or -)
Item 2016 Budget estimate Committee ---------------------------------
appropriation recommendation 2016
appropriation Budget estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

Corps of Engineers--Civil

Investigations..................................................... 121,000 85,000 126,522 +5,522 +41,522
Construction....................................................... 1,862,250 1,090,000 1,813,649 -48,601 +723,649
Mississippi River and Tributaries.................................. 345,000 222,000 368,000 +23,000 +146,000
Operation and Maintenance.......................................... 3,137,000 2,705,000 3,173,829 +36,829 +468,829
Regulatory Program................................................. 200,000 200,000 200,000 ............... ...............
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP)........... 112,000 103,000 103,000 -9,000 ...............
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies.............................. 28,000 30,000 30,000 +2,000 ...............
Expenses........................................................... 179,000 180,000 180,000 +1,000 ...............
Office of Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)............ 4,750 5,000 5,000 +250 ...............
====================================================================================
Total, title I, Department of Defense--Civil................. 5,989,000 4,620,000 6,000,000 +11,000 +1,380,000
====================================================================================
TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Central Utah Project Completion Account

Central Utah Project Completion Account............................ 10,000 5,600 10,000 ............... +4,400

Bureau of Reclamation

Water and Related Resources........................................ 1,118,972 813,402 1,114,394 -4,578 +300,992
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund............................ 49,528 55,606 55,606 +6,078 ...............
California Bay-Delta Restoration................................... 37,000 36,000 36,000 -1,000 ...............
Policy and Administration.......................................... 59,500 59,000 59,000 -500 ...............
Indian Water Rights Settlements.................................... ............... 106,151 ............... ............... -106,151
San Joaquin River Restoration Fund................................. ............... 36,000 ............... ............... -36,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Bureau of Reclamation................................. 1,265,000 1,106,159 1,265,000 ............... +158,841
====================================================================================
Total, title II, Department of the Interior.................. 1,275,000 1,111,759 1,275,000 ............... +163,241
====================================================================================
TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Energy Programs

Fossil Energy Research and Development............................. 632,000 360,000 632,000 ............... +272,000
Office of Technology Transitions................................... ............... 8,400 ............... ............... -8,400
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves............................. 17,500 14,950 14,950 -2,550 ...............
Strategic Petroleum Reserve........................................ 212,000 257,000 200,000 -12,000 -57,000
Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve................................. 7,600 6,500 6,500 -1,100 ...............
Energy Information Administration.................................. 122,000 131,125 122,000 ............... -9,125
Non-defense environmental cleanup.................................. 255,000 218,400 255,000 ............... +36,600
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund........ 673,749 ............... 717,741 +43,992 +717,741
Science............................................................ 5,350,200 5,572,069 5,400,000 +49,800 -172,069
Nuclear waste disposal............................................. ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy........................... 291,000 350,000 292,669 +1,669 -57,331
Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs........................ ............... 22,930 20,000 +20,000 -2,930
Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program.............. 42,000 37,000 37,000 -5,000 ...............
Offsetting collection.......................................... -25,000 -30,000 -30,000 -5,000 ...............
Proposed change in subsidy cost................................ ............... 1,020,000 ............... ............... -1,020,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 17,000 1,027,000 7,000 -10,000 -1,020,000

Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loans program........... 6,000 5,000 5,000 -1,000 ...............
Departmental administration........................................ 248,142 270,037 232,142 -16,000 -37,895
Miscellaneous revenues......................................... -117,171 -103,000 -103,000 +14,171 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net appropriation.......................................... 130,971 167,037 129,142 -1,829 -37,895
Office of the Inspector General.................................... 46,424 44,424 44,424 -2,000 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Energy programs....................................... 11,026,605 12,339,431 11,183,329 +156,724 -1,156,102
====================================================================================
Atomic Energy Defense Activities

National Nuclear Security Administration

Weapons activities................................................. 8,846,948 9,285,147 9,285,147 +438,199 ...............
Rescission..................................................... ............... -50,400 ............... ............... +50,400
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 8,846,948 9,234,747 9,285,147 +438,199 +50,400

Defense nuclear nonproliferation................................... 1,940,302 1,821,916 1,821,916 -118,386 ...............
Rescission..................................................... ............... -14,000 ............... ............... +14,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 1,940,302 1,807,916 1,821,916 -118,386 +14,000

Naval reactors..................................................... 1,375,496 1,420,120 1,351,520 -23,976 -68,600
Federal salaries and expenses...................................... 383,666 412,817 408,603 +24,937 -4,214
Rescission..................................................... -19,900 ............... ............... +19,900 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 363,766 412,817 408,603 +44,837 -4,214
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, National Nuclear Security Administration.............. 12,526,512 12,875,600 12,867,186 +340,674 -8,414
====================================================================================
Environmental and Other Defense Activities

Defense environmental cleanup...................................... 5,289,742 5,235,350 5,379,018 +89,276 +143,668
Defense Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning..... ............... 155,100 717,741 +717,741 +562,641
Other Defense activities........................................... 776,425 791,552 791,552 +15,127 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Environmental and other defense activities............ 6,066,167 6,182,002 6,888,311 +822,144 +706,309
====================================================================================
Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities...................... 18,592,679 19,057,602 19,755,497 +1,162,818 +697,895
====================================================================================
Power Marketing Administrations\1\

Operation and maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration....... 6,900 1,000 1,000 -5,900 ...............
Offsetting collections....................................... -6,900 -1,000 -1,000 +5,900 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............

Operation and maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration....... 47,361 45,643 45,643 -1,718 ...............
Offsetting collections....................................... -35,961 -34,586 -34,586 +1,375 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 11,400 11,057 11,057 -343 ...............

Construction, rehabilitation, operation and maintenance, Western 307,714 307,144 307,144 -570 ...............
Area Power Administration.........................................
Offsetting collections....................................... -214,342 -211,563 -211,563 +2,779 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 93,372 95,581 95,581 +2,209 ...............

Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund.................. 4,490 4,070 4,070 -420 ...............
Offsetting collections......................................... -4,262 -3,838 -3,838 +424 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 228 232 232 +4 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Power Marketing Administrations....................... 105,000 106,870 106,870 +1,870 ...............
====================================================================================
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Salaries and expenses.............................................. 319,800 346,800 346,800 +27,000 ...............
Revenues applied................................................... -319,800 -346,800 -346,800 -27,000 ...............

General Provisions

Title III Rescissions:
Department of Energy:
Energy efficiency and energy reliability....................... -3,806 ............... ............... +3,806 ...............
Science........................................................ -3,200 ............... ............... +3,200 ...............
Fossil Energy Research and Development......................... ............... ............... -240,000 -240,000 -240,000
Weapons activities............................................. ............... ............... -50,400 -50,400 -50,400
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation............................... ............... ............... -14,000 -14,000 -14,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... -7,006 ............... -304,400 -297,394 -304,400
====================================================================================
Total, title III, Department of Energy....................... 29,717,278 31,503,903 30,741,296 +1,024,018 -762,607
Appropriations........................................... (29,744,184) (31,568,303) (31,045,696) (+1,301,512) (-522,607)
Rescissions.............................................. (-26,906) (-64,400) (-304,400) (-277,494) (-240,000)
====================================================================================
TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Appalachian Regional Commission.................................... 146,000 120,000 151,000 +5,000 +31,000
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board............................ 29,150 31,000 31,000 +1,850 ...............
Delta Regional Authority........................................... 25,000 15,936 25,000 ............... +9,064
Denali Commission.................................................. 11,000 15,000 15,000 +4,000 ...............
Northern Border Regional Commission................................ 7,500 5,000 10,000 +2,500 +5,000
Southeast Crescent Regional Commission............................. 250 ............... ............... -250 ...............

Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
Salaries and expenses.......................................... 990,000 970,163 939,000 -51,000 -31,163
Revenues....................................................... -872,864 -851,161 -822,240 +50,624 +28,921
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 117,136 119,002 116,760 -376 -2,242

Office of Inspector General.................................... 12,136 12,129 12,129 -7 ...............
Revenues....................................................... -10,060 -10,044 -10,044 +16 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 2,076 2,085 2,085 +9 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Nuclear Regulatory Commission......................... 119,212 121,087 118,845 -367 -2,242

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board............................... 3,600 3,600 3,600 ............... ...............
====================================================================================
Total, title IV, Independent agencies........................ 341,712 311,623 354,445 +12,733 +42,822
Appropriations........................................... (341,712) (311,623) (354,445) (+12,733) (+42,822)
====================================================================================
Grand total.................................................. 37,322,990 37,547,285 38,370,741 +1,047,751 +823,456
Appropriations........................................... (37,349,896) (37,611,685) (38,675,141) (+1,325,245) (+1,063,456)
Rescissions.............................................. (-26,906) (-64,400) (-304,400) (-277,494) (-240,000)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Totals adjusted to net out alternative financing costs, reimbursable agreement funding, and power purchase and wheeling expenditures. Offsetting
collection totals only reflect funds collected for annual expenses, excluding power purchase wheeling.

[all]