Agriculture Appropriations Bill
(Funding in millions of dollars for selected national environemtnal programs)

  Department of Agriculture
Authorization Program Fiscal
1998		 President's
Request		 GLTF
Recommendation		 FY 99
House
Floor		 FY 99
Senate
Floor		 FY 99
Final
Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 Conservation Operations 633 742 — 641 638 641
Great Lakes Basin Program for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control 0.35 0.35 0.5 0.5 0.35 0.5
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 Environmental Conservation Acreage Reserve Program (ECARP)
includes:		 — — — — — —
   Conservation Reserve
   Program		 1,798 36.4 million acres
($1,694 million)		 — 36.4 million acres 36.4 million acres1 36.4 million
acres2
   Wetland Reserve 236 164,000 acres
($124 million)		 — 130,000 acres 120,000 acres3 120,000 acres4
   Environmental Quality
   Incentives Program 		200 300 — 174 200 174
1  The bill establishes a pilot program to permit haying and grazing on conservation reserve land.  The pilot program may include up to 7 states.
2  Conferees did not include Senate language on a haying and grazing pilot program.
3  WRP FY 1999 enrollment cap was changed from 140,000 acres to 120,000 acres on the Senate floor.  Language added as floor amendments states "Nothing in this Act shall be interpreted or construed to alter the current implementation of the Wetlands Reserve Program, unless expressly provided herein." and "to the maximum extent practicable should be interpreted to mean that acceptance of wetlands reserve program bids may be in proportion to landowner interest expressed in program options."
4  Conferees accepted Senate language referring to WRP bids and landowner interest.   However, Senate language referring to the appropriations act and the current implementation of WRP was not accepted by Conferees.  The conference report language also states "The conferees do not agree with the Senate report language citing problems that have arisen with the Wetlands Reserve Program.  However, the conferees concur with Senate report language that encourages the USDA to structure the terms of WRP contracts so that high priority is given to the consideration of adjacent landowners, including but not limited to the maintenance of watershed protection."

 



Commerce, Justice and State Appropriations Bill
(Funding in millions of dollars for selected national environmental programs)

  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Authorization Program Fiscal 1998 President's
Request		 GLTF
Recommendation		 FY 99
House Floor		 FY 99
Senate Floor		 FY 99
Final
Coastal Zone Management Act National Coastal Zone Mgmt. Program grants 49.7
+ 1.0 NPS		 49.7
+ 6.0 NPS
+ 6.0 Sec. 309 		national letter 52.7
+ 2 NPS
Sec. 3091		 49.7
0 NPS
+ 6 Sec. 309		 52.7
  National Estuarine Research Reserve System 5.65 4.3 — 4.3 10.52 4.3
  Coastal Ocean Program 17.2 17.8
Including
1.3 GL		 Support 1.3 for the Great Lakes in overall President's request 19.0 17.8 18.4
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act Marine Sanctuaries 14.0 13.2 — 15 14.253 14.35
National Sea Grant College Program National Sea Grant College Program 56 50.182 national letter 59 56 57.5
National Invasive Species Act Sea Grant ANS Research - including study of human health risks from pathogens in ballast Incl. Above
(+1 oysters)		 — national NISA letter:  2.8
including study of human health risks from pathogens in ballast		 2.8 including study of human health risks from pathogens in ballast 2.8
 incl. zebra mussel research and study of human health risks from pathogens in ballast
NOAA Authorization Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, base funding 6.0
(+0.825 permanent adjustment)		 6.025
(permanent adjustment included)		 level: 6.8 6.825 OAR 6.8254 6.825 OAR5
National Invasive Species Act National Aquatic Nuisance Task Force Program & Ballast Water Demonstration Program 1.5 0.8 national NISA letter:
2 		0.8 1.856 1.657
1  Up to 20% of the Sec. 306 funds (up to $10.54 million) may be used to fund Sec. 309 activities.
2  $5 million of this amount is for land aquisition at the Great Bay, New Hampshire NERR.
3  The increase is earmarked for a Washington State Demonstration Project.
4  The Senate committee approved the transfer of GLERL to NOS.
5  Report language indicates that "The transfer of GLERL can be reconsidered in the context of a reorganization proposal to more fully consolidate all related programs into NOS and NOAA is encouraged to consult with the committees prior to submission of a reorganization proposal.                                                                                                                                                                                                     6  $1 million for NISA implementation; $850,000 for ballast water research and small boat portage zebra mussel dispersion problems in the Chesapeake Bay and Great Lakes including Lake Champlain.     7   Includes $850,000 for ballast water demonstrations.



U.S. Department of State
(Funding in millions of dollars for selected national environmental programs)

  U.S. Department of State
Authorization Program Fiscal 1998 President's
Request		 GLTF
Recommendation		 FY 99
House
Floor		 FY 99
Senate
Floor		 FY 99
Final
State Department Authorization Great Lakes Fishery Commission 8.353 8.353 12.5
+ specific mention of St. Marys River treatment needs		 8.353 9.3531 8.353
  International Joint Commission 3.189 3.432 support President's request of 3.432 3.189 3.4322 3.432
1  Senate language:   "of which not less than $1 million shall be used to treat the St. Marys River in Michigan."
2  The IJC is directed to develop the necessary mechanism for monitoring and accurately assessing existing diversions and consumptive uses of Great Lakes water in line with the recommendations in its own report, ‘Great Lakes Diversions and Consumptive Uses.’














 


Energy and Water Appropriations Bill
(Funding in millions of dollars for selected national environmental programs)

  Army Corps of Engineers
Authorization Program Fiscal
1998		 President's
Request		 GLTF
Recommendation		 FY 99
House Floor		 FY 99
Senate Floor		 FY 99
Final
Water Resources Development Act National Contaminated Sed. T.F.
WRDA Sec. 502		 — — — — 0.25 0
  Environmental Dredging
WRDA Sec. 312 (National Program)		 0.125 Buffalo 0 support continued authorization of program — 0 —
  Restoration of Environmental Quality, WRDA Sec. 1135 21.175 5.3 — 4.1 151 112
  Sediment Remediation
Technology Demonstration (ARCS II) WRDA Sec. 515		 0 0 2 0 0.5 within
Sec. 11351		 02
  Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration
WRDA Sec. 206		 6 2 6
+ funds used for sea lamprey barriers in cooperation with Great Lakes Fishery Com.		 11.2 6
+ 0.2 for lamprey barriers in cooperation with Great Lakes Fishery Com.		 11.2
lamprey barriers not included
  Beneficial Use of Dredged Materials WRDA Sec. 204 2 0.2 2
 0.5 0.2 0.35
  Dredging Operations Environmental Research 4 8 support President's request of 8
+ language on contaminated sediments		 4.0 + language on contaminated sediments3 8 5
House language
stands
  Duluth Alternative Technology Project  WRDA Sec. 541 0.20 0 0.5 0.5 0 0.5
  Sediment Transport Models and Sediment Management Planning
WRDA Sec. 516		 0.5 0 1 0.5 0.5 0.5


Energy and Water Appropriations Bill
(Funding in millions of dollars for selected national environmental programs)

  Army Corps of Engineers (continued)
Authorization Program Fiscal
1998		 President's
Request		 GLTF
Recommendation		 FY 99
House Floor		 FY 99
Senate Floor		 FY 99
Final
  Assessment of Existing CDFs Study/Report
WRDA Sec. 234		 0 0 report language to direct Corps & EPA to finish study language4 0 0
House language
stands
  Planning Assistance to States
WRDA Sec. 221		 6 5 — 5.3 7.55 6.3
  RAP Assistance
WRDA Sec. 401		 0.50 0 0.5 0.5 05 0.5
  Interagency and International Support 0 0.30 1 0.3 0.3 0.3
  Improvement of the Soo lock system, Sault Ste. Marie 0.1 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
  Lake MI Diversion
Accounting - Chicago		 0.537 ? 0.537 separate letter : 1.6 additional funds (2.137 Total) 1.036 0.537 1.037
National Invasive Species Act Public Facility R&D
NISA Sec. 1202		 2.0 1.5 national NISA letter:
2		 1.5 1.5
assumed		 0.75
  Dispersal Barrier
Demonstration NISA Sec. 1202		 0.50 0 0.5 0.5 0 0.3
Rivers and Harbors Act Aquatic Nuisance Plant Control Research 5 2.6 national NISA letter:
5		 2.5 47 3.0

1  Section 1135 appropriation includes a $0.5 million for sediment remediation technology demonstrations.
2  House and Senate conferees decided not to include $0.5 million for sediment remediation technology demonstrations.
3  House includes the following language (DOER): "...The  Committee has provided $4,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue its research effort on contaminated sediments and dredged material management.  The Committee expects the Corps to focus its efforts principally on the area of contaminated sediment characterization, management and treatment."
4  House report language (CDF study) directs, "...urges the Corps of Engineers to initiate its assessment of the general conditions of confined disposal facilities in the Great Lakes, using available funds."
5  Levin floor statement indicates that a portion of the increase to Planning Assistance to States may be used to fund Remedial Action Planning Assistance activities under WRDA
Section 401.
6  The House mark provides for the first year of the 3 year dual accounting system.
7  Report language indicates that actual control rather than research should take priority within this account.



Interior Appropriations Bill
(Funding in millions of dollars for selected national environmental programs)

  U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service/Biological Resources Division of U.S. Geological Survey
Authorization Program Fiscal
1998		 President's Request GLTF
Recommendation
Subcommittee		 FY 99
House
Floor		 FY 99
Senate
Full Committee		 FY 99
Final

National Invasive Species Act

 FWS Aquatic Nuisance Species Program

Including:

 2.192 3.192 national NISA letter: support President's request of 3.2 2.192 2.192 2.192
     Regional Coordination
   NISA Sec. 1203		 0.05
0.03 GL		 0.075
0.045 GL		 included above — — —
     State Management Plans
   NISA Sec. 1204		 0.2 0.44 included above — — —
? USGS/BRD Aquatic Nuisance Species Program 0.75 Eastern Division ?1 — ?2 ?3 ?
? Great Lakes Science Center 5.9 6.5 support President's request of 6.5 Not specified 6.5 Not specified
Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act of 1990 Great Lakes Fish & Wildlife Restoration Program 1.578 1.578 5 1.578 1.578 1.578
1  The Aquatic Nuisance Species program was rolled into the base funding for USGS-BRD.  The Administration estimates that this program will be level funded from within the base.
2  The House mark for BRD is $7.441 million below the President’s request, but includes funds for fixed costs and the incinerator replacement.
3  The Senate mark is $3.731 million below the President’s request, but includes funds for restoration of across-the-board cuts, uncontrollables, incinerator replacement, chemical and drug registration work, $750,000 for aquatic systems, and grasslands research in the Great Lakes basin.  Report language "encourages the biological research program to incorporate studies on the existence of the blue pike in its work on Great Lakes fish and habitat restoration where feasible."

 

 



Transportation Appropriations Bill
(Funding in millions of dollars for selected national environmental programs)

  U.S. Coast Guard
Authorization Program Fiscal 1998 President's Request GLTF
Recommendation		 FY 99
House
Floor		 FY 99
Senate
Floor		 FY 99
Final
Coast Guard Authorization Icebreaking vessel Mackinaw Commit. to Continued Operation of the Mackinaw

2		 Commit. to Continued Operation of the Mackinaw

2		 6 (design contracts to shipyards) + letter from Cong. Oberstar's office
+ oppose fees for
Coast Guard
navigational services		 Commit. to Continued Operation of the Mackinaw
+ 6 (design contracts to shipyards)
+ oppose fees for
Coast Guard
navigational services		 Commit. to Continued Operation of the Mackinaw
+ 41
+ oppose fees for
Coast Guard
navigational services		 Commit. to Continued Operation of the Mackinaw
+ 5.3 (design contracts to shipyards)
+ oppose fees for
Coast Guard
navigational services
National Invasive Species Act Ballast Water Guidelines & Prevention Program
(Including Ballast Discharge Study and Information Clearinghouse)		 1.995 1.995 national NISA letter:
3.0		 3 22
+ 1 in R&D		 Not less than 3
? St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation 11.2 12.646 support President's request of 12.646 11.496 11.496 11.496
1  "$4 million for concept exploration to refine the specifications and costs for a heavy icebreaking replacement vessel, including a new multi-mission vessel", for the Mackinaw.  Report language also calls for an interim status report by January 31, 1999.
2  The Senate Committee recommends $2 million to implement the nationwide ballast water management program and provides $1 million in research and development funds for
"further invasive species research efforts."







VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Bill
(Funding in millions of dollars for selected national environmental programs)

  Environmental Protection Agency
Authorization Program Fiscal 1998 President's Request GLTF
Recommendation		 FY 99
House Floor		 FY 99
Senate Floor		 FY 99
Final
Clean Water Act Clean Water State
Revolving Fund		 1350 1075 NE-MW coalition letter 1,250 1,400 1,350
  Sec. 106, Water Quality Grants 95.5
(20.50 GL)		 115.5
(24.80 GL)		 — 115.5 100.5 115.5
  Sec. 319, Nonpoint Source Grants 105 195 support President's request of 195 + highlight Clean Lakes Program
+ language on TMDL demonstration site in
Great Lakes		 2001
+ highlight Clean Lakes Program
+ language on TMDL demonstration site in
Great Lakes		 155 2002
+ highlight Clean Lakes Program
+ language on TMDL demonstration site in
Great Lakes
  Sec. 314, Clean Lakes Program Inc. in
Sec. 319		 ?? Inc. in
Sec. 319		 — included in Sec. 319 not specified not specified
  Sec. 118, Great Lakes National Program Office 14.7
(15.7 actual)		 13.4 level: 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.7
  Environmental Research Labs:
Duluth & Grosse Ile		 13.228 not specified level: 13.228 not specified not specified not specified3
  Great Lakes Fish Consumption Study  

2.5 GL

 ATSDR: 64

GL not specified		 ATSDR: 67

3 for GL fish consumption study to be added to total request for ATSDR ($64 million)		 ATSDR: 74

includes 2.5 GL		 ATSDR: 74

includes 2 GL		 ATSDR: 76

includes 2.5 GL



 

VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Bill
(Funding in millions of dollars for selected national environmental programs)

  Environmental Protection Agency (continued)
Authorization Program Fiscal 1998 President's Request GLTF
Recommendation		 FY 99
House Floor		 FY 99
Senate Floor		 FY 99
Final
Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 Pollution Prevention
State Grants		 6 6 NE-MW coalition letter 6 6 6
Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund		 725 775 NE-MW coalition letter 775 800 775
Clean Air Act Great Waters Program 3
(1.47 GL)		 1.483 3.5 at least 3 at least 34 at least 3
National Invasive Species Act Dispersal Containment Analysis (NISA Sec. 1202) 0.25 not specified 0.5 0 0 0
House report language critical to the Great Lakes 1. The House Committee directs EPA  to take no action which will utilze dredging as a remediation tool until a National Academy of Sciences study (to evaluate the availibility, effectiveness, costs, and effects of technologies for the remediation of PCB contaminated sediments, including dredging and disposal) has been completed, distributed, and analyzed by all interested parties including Congress.  This study was requested to be completed by April 1, 1999.
2.   EPA is directed by the House to use available funds to "(1) complete the joint Federal-State Lake Superior study on mercury transport; (2) participate with the FDA and other government agencies to complete the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey on fish consumption and mercury ingestion; and (3) contract with the National Academy of Sciences to perform a comprehensive mercury study and prepare recommendations on the appropriate level for a mercury exposure reference dose.  It is the Committee’s intent that EPA not issue any regulatory determination for mercury emissions from utilities until these activities are completed."
Conference report language critical to the Great Lakes 1.  Conferees changed House language on dredging of contaminated sediment to "urge [instead of direct] EPA to await the completion of the NAS study before spending any superfund money on dredging, initiating any new dredging action, or issuing any more dredging orders.  Exceptions to this should be considered where EPA has found on the record that the contaminated sediment poses a significant threat to the public health to which an urgent or time critical response is necessary, remedial and/or removal alternatives to dredging have been fully evaluated, an appropriate site for disposal of the contaminated material has been selected, and the potential impacts of dredging, associated disposal, and alternatives have been explained to the affected community."
2.  Conferees reiterated House language on mercury research activities.  The NAS study on mercury health research and mercury exposure reference dose is directed to be completed within 18 months of entering into a contract with EPA and is directed to complete the work with a $1 million budget.  In addition, it is stipulated that EPA not issue
any regulatory determination for mercury emissions from utilities until EPA reviews the results of the NAS study.
1  Language indicates that activities under the Clean Lakes Program can be funded under Sec. 319, Nonpoint Source Grants.  In addition, "the Committee directs the Agency to work with a Great Lakes State, non-governmental organizations, and other relevant stakeholders to demonstrate how the total maximum daily load process can be implemented, including options for measuring and monitoring nonpoint sources of pollution."
2  House report language including Clean Lakes Program activities in 319 funding as well as language on a TMDL implementation demonstration in the Great Lakes was not contraindicated in the conference report.  In other words, the House language is considered to be included in the final legislation.
3  EPA staff have indicated that a funding level for the Environmental Research Labs will be determined by EPA budget staff.
4  Senators Levin and Bond had a colloquy on the floor clarifying that the Senate conferees would accept the House report language stating that the Great Waters Program would receive "at least $3 million."