Money for Alaskan 'Bridges to Nowhere' no longer 'earmarked'?

This article (or press release?) from Sierra Club, via Raw Story is very interesting.

The Senate Appropriations Committee removed earmarks for two controversial "bridges to nowhere" in Alaska: the Gravina bridge, which would connect Ketchikan to an island of 50 people, and the Knik Arm bridge, which would link Anchorage to a sparsely populated area. The projects have been the subject of strong criticism because of the general backlog of existing roads and bridges in desperate need of repair, especially those affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

 

The only problem is, I'm not entirely sure what this means.

Is the money still going to the state, but to be used as the Governor sees fit?  And is this part of the budget bill the GOP is struggling to bring to a vote?

I do remember Ted Stevens (who has turned himself overnight into My Least Favorite Senator by trying to up the number of oil tankers that get to travel through Puget Sound in retaliation for our Sen. Cantwell's persistent opposition to opening ANWR) swearing to resign if the bridges lose their funding.  So there's that hope.  Yeah, right.

But seriously, if anyone out there with more knowledge of senate procedure, and what it means for a project to lose its 'earmark' status, has any input, I'd love to hear it.