[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 140 (Thursday, October 8, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12073-S12087]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT 1998
Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now turn to the
consideration of Calendar No. 523, S. 2131.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2131) to provide for the conservation and
development of water and related resources, to authorize the
Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for
improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and
for other purposes.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
bill which had been reported from the Committee on Environment and
Public Works, with an amendment to strike all after the enacting clause
and inserting in lieu thereof the following
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water
Resources Development Act of 1998''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Sec. 101. Definitions.
Sec. 102. Project authorizations.
Sec. 103. Project modifications.
Sec. 104. Project deauthorizations.
Sec. 105. Studies.
Sec. 106. Flood hazard mitigation and riverine ecosystem restoration
program.
Sec. 107. Shore protection.
Sec. 108. Small flood control projects.
Sec. 109. Use of non-Federal funds for compiling and disseminating
information on floods and flood damages.
Sec. 110. Everglades and south Florida ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 111. Aquatic ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 112. Beneficial uses of dredged material.
Sec. 113. Voluntary contributions by States and political subdivisions.
Sec. 114. Recreation user fees.
Sec. 115. Water resources development studies for the Pacific region.
Sec. 116. Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers enhancement project.
Sec. 117. Outer Continental Shelf.
Sec. 118. Environmental dredging.
Sec. 119. Benefit of primary flood damages avoided included in benefit
cost analysis.
Sec. 120. Control of aquatic plant growth.
Sec. 121. Environmental infrastructure.
Sec. 122. Watershed management, restoration, and development.
Sec. 123. Lakes program.
Sec. 124. Dredging of salt ponds in the State of Rhode Island.
Sec. 125. Upper Susquehanna River basin, Pennsylvania and New York.
Sec. 126. Repaupo Creek and Delaware River, Gloucester County, New
Jersey.
Sec. 127. Small navigation projects.
Sec. 128. Streambank protection projects.
Sec. 129. Aquatic ecosystem restoration, Springfield, Oregon.
Sec. 130. Guilford and New Haven, Connecticut.
Sec. 131. Francis Bland, Arkansas Floodway Ditch No. 5.
Sec. 132. Point Judith breakwater.
Sec. 133. Caloosahatchee River basin, Florida.
Sec. 134. Cumberland, Maryland, flood project mitigation.
Sec. 135. Sediments decontamination policy.
Sec. 136. City of Miami Beach, Florida.
Sec. 137. Small storm damage reduction projects.
Sec. 138. Sardis Reservoir, Oklahoma.
Sec. 139. Upper Mississippi River and Illinois waterway system
navigation modernization.
Sec. 140. Disposal of dredged material on beaches.
Sec. 141. Fish and wildlife mitigation.
Sec. 142. Upper Mississippi River management.
Sec. 143. Reimbursement of non-Federal interest.
Sec. 144. Research and development program for Columbia and Snake
Rivers salmon survival.
TITLE II--CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER BRULE SIOUX TRIBE, AND
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE HABITAT RESTORATION
Sec. 201. Definitions.
Sec. 202. Terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration.
Sec. 203. South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust
Fund.
Sec. 204. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and Lower Brule Sioux Tribe
Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Funds.
Sec. 205. Transfer of Federal land to State of South Dakota.
Sec. 206. Transfer of Corps of Engineers land for Indian Tribes.
Sec. 207. Administration.
Sec. 208. Authorization of appropriations.
TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
SEC. 101. DEFINITIONS.
In this title, the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Army.
SEC. 102. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.
(a) Projects With Reports.--The following projects for
water resources development and
[[Page S12074]]
conservation and other purposes are authorized to be carried
out by the Secretary substantially in accordance with the
plans, and subject to the conditions, described in the
respective reports designated in this section:
(1) American river watershed, california.--
(A) In general.--The project for flood damage reduction
described as the Folsom Stepped Release Plan in the United
States Army Corps of Engineers Supplemental Information
Report for the American River Watershed Project, California,
dated March 1996, at a total cost of $464,600,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $302,000,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $162,600,000.
(B) Implementation.--
(i) In general.--Implementation of the measures by the
Secretary pursuant to subparagraph (A) of this subsection
shall be undertaken after completion of the levee
stabilization and strengthening and flood warning features
authorized in section 101(a)(1) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3662).
(ii) Folsom dam and reservoir.--The Secretary may undertake
measures at the Folsom Dam and Reservoir authorized under
subparagraph (A) only after reviewing the design of such
measures to determine if modifications are necessary to
account for changed hydrologic conditions and any other
changed conditions in the project area, including operational
and construction impacts that have occurred since completion
of the report referred to in subparagraph (A). The Secretary
shall conduct the review and develop such modifications to
the Folsom Dam and Reservoir with the full participation of
the Secretary of the Interior.
(iii) Remaining downstream elements.--Implementation of the
remaining downstream elements authorized pursuant to
subparagraph (A) may be undertaken only after the Secretary,
in consultation with affected Federal, State, regional, and
local entities, has reviewed the elements to determine if
modifications are necessary to address changes in the
hydrologic conditions, any other changed conditions in the
project area that have occurred since completion of the
report referred to in subparagraph (A) and any design
modifications for the Folsom Dam and Reservoir made by the
Secretary in implementing the measures referred to in
subparagraph (B)(ii), and has issued a report on the review.
The review shall be prepared in accordance with the economic
and environmental principles and guidelines for water and
related land resources implementation studies, and no
construction may be initiated unless the Secretary determines
that the remaining downstream elements are technically sound,
environmentally acceptable, and economically justified.
(2) Llagas creek, california.--The Secretary may complete
the remaining reaches of the National Resources Conservation
Services flood control project at Llagas Creek, California,
undertaken pursuant to section 5 of the Watershed Protection
and Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 1005) substantially in
accordance with the requirements of local cooperation as
specified in section 4 of that Act (16 U.S.C. 1004) at a
total cost of $34,300,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$16,600,000 and an estimated non-Federal share of
$17,700,000.
(3) Hillsboro and okeechobee aquifer storage and recovery
project, florida.--The project for aquifer storage and
recovery described in the United States Army Corps of
Engineers Central and Southern Florida Water Supply Study,
Florida, dated April 1989, and in House Document 369, dated
July 30, 1968, at a total cost of $27,000,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $13,500,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $13,500,000.
(4) Baltimore harbor anchorages and channels, maryland and
virginia.--The project for navigation Baltimore Harbor
Anchorages and Channels, Maryland and Virginia: Report of the
Chief of Engineers, dated June 8, 1998, at a total cost of
$27,692,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $19,126,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $8,566,000.
(5) Red lake river at crookston, minnesota.--The project
for flood damage reduction, Red Lake River at Crookston,
Minnesota: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated April 20,
1998, at a total cost of $8,720,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $5,567,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $3,153,000.
(6) Park river, north dakota.--
(A) In general.--Subject to the condition stated in
subparagraph (B), the project for flood control, Park River,
Grafton, North Dakota, authorized by section 401(a) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4121) and
deauthorized under section 1001(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a), is authorized to be
carried out by the Secretary at a total cost of $27,300,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $17,745,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $9,555,000.
(B) Condition.--No construction may be initiated unless the
Secretary determines through a general reevaluation report
using current data, that the project is technically sound,
environmentally acceptable, and economically justified.
(b) Projects Subject to a Final Report.--The following
projects for water resources development and conservation and
other purposes are authorized to be carried out by the
Secretary substantially in accordance with the plans, and
subject to the conditions recommended in a final report of
the Chief of Engineers as approved by the Secretary, if the
report of the Chief is completed not later than December 31,
1998.
(1) Hamilton airfield wetland restoration, california.--The
project for environmental restoration at Hamilton Airfield,
California, at a total cost of $39,000,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $29,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $10,000,000.
(2) Oakland, california.--
(A) In general.--The project for navigation and
environmental restoration, Oakland, California, at a total
cost of $202,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$120,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$82,000,000.
(B) Berthing areas and other local service facilities.--The
non-Federal interests shall provide berthing areas and other
local service facilities necessary for the project at an
estimated cost of $43,000,000.
(3) South sacramento county streams, california.--The
project for flood damage reduction, environmental restoration
and recreation, South Sacramento County Streams, California
at a total cost of $64,770,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $38,840,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$25,930,000.
(4) Upper guadalupe river, california.--The Secretary may
construct the locally preferred plan for flood damage
reduction and recreation, Upper Guadalupe River, California,
described as the Bypass Channel Plan of the Chief of
Engineers, at a total cost of $132,836,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $42,869,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $89,967,000.
(5) Yuba river basin, california.--The project for flood
damage reduction, Yuba River Basin, California at a total
cost of $25,850,000 with an estimated Federal cost of
$16,775,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $9,075,000.
(6) Delaware bay coastline: delaware and new jersey-
broadkill beach, delaware.--
(A) In general.--The shore protection project for hurricane
and storm damage reduction, Delaware Bay Coastline: Delaware
and New Jersey-Broadkill Beach, Delaware at a total cost of
$8,871,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $5,593,000 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,278,000.
(B) Periodic nourishment.--Periodic nourishment is
authorized for a 50-year period at an estimated average
annual cost of $651,000, with an estimated annual Federal
cost of $410,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of
$241,000.
(7) Delaware bay coastline: delaware and new jersey-port
mahon, delaware.--
(A) In general.--The shore protection project for ecosystem
restoration, Delaware Bay Coastline: Delaware and New Jersey-
Port Mahon, Delaware at a total cost of $7,563,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $4,916,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $2,647,000.
(B) Periodic nourishment.--Periodic nourishment is
authorized for a 50-year period at an estimated average
annual cost of $238,000, with an estimated annual Federal
cost of $155,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of
$83,000.
(8) Delaware bay coastline: delaware and new jersey-
roosevelt inlet-lewes beach, delaware.--
(A) In general.--The shore protection project for
navigation mitigation and hurricane and storm damage
reduction, Delaware Bay Coastline: Delaware and New Jersey-
Roosevelt Inlet-Lewes Beach, Delaware at a total cost of
$3,326,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $2,569,000 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,647,000.
(B) Periodic nourishment.--Periodic nourishment is
authorized for a 50-year period at an estimated average
annual cost of $207,000, with an estimated annual Federal
cost of $159,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of
$47,600.
(9) Delaware coast from cape henelopen to fenwick island,
bethany beach/south bethany beach, delaware.--
(A) In general.--The shore protection project for hurricane
storm damage reduction, Delaware Coast from Cape Henelopen to
Fenwick Island, Bethany Beach/South Bethany Beach, Delaware
at a total cost of $22,094,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $14,361,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$7,773,000.
(B) Periodic nourishment.--Periodic nourishment is
authorized for a 50-year period at an estimated average
annual cost of $1,573,000, with an estimated annual Federal
cost of $1,022,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost
of $551,000.
(10) Jacksonville harbor, florida.--The project for
navigation, Jacksonville Harbor, Florida at a total cost of
$27,758,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $9,632,000 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $18,126,000.
(11) Little talbot island, duval county, florida.--The
shore protection project for hurricane and storm damage
prevention, Little Talbot Island, Duval County, Florida at a
total cost of $5,802,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$3,771,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,031,000.
(12) Ponce de leon inlet, volusia county, florida.--The
project for navigation and recreation, Ponce de Leon Inlet,
Volusia County, Florida at a total cost of $5,533,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $3,408,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $2,125,000.
(13) Tampa harbor-big bend channel, florida.--The project
for navigation, Tampa Harbor-Big Bend Channel, Florida at a
total cost of $11,348,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$5,747,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,601,000.
(14) Brunswick harbor deepening, georgia.--The project for
navigation, Brunswick Harbor Deepening, Georgia at a total
cost of $49,433,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$32,083,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $17,350,000.
(15) Savannah harbor expansion, georgia.--The project for
navigation, Savannah Harbor Expansion, Georgia at a total
cost of $195,302,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$84,423,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$110,879,000.
(16) Grand forks, north dakota, and east grand forks,
minnesota.--The project for flood damage reduction and
recreation, Grand Forks, North Dakota and East Grand Forks,
Minnesota at a total cost of $281,754,000, with an estimated
[[Page S12075]]
Federal cost of $140,877,000 and an estimated non-Federal
cost of $140,877,000.
(17) Bayou cassotte extension, pascagoula harbor,
pascagoula, mississippi.--The project for navigation, Bayou
Cassotte Extension, Pascagoula Harbor, Pascagoula,
Mississippi at a total cost of $5,700,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $4,300,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $1,400,000.
(18) Turkey creek basin, kansas city, missouri and kansas
city, kansas.--The project for flood damage reduction, Turkey
Creek Basin, Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas City, Kansas at
a total cost of $38,594,000 with an estimated Federal cost of
$22,912,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $15,682,000.
(19) Lower cape may meadows, cape may point, new jersey.--
(A) In general.--The shore protection project for
navigation mitigation, ecosystem restoration and hurricane
and storm damage reduction, Lower Cape May Meadows, Cape May
Point, New Jersey at a total cost of $14,885,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $11,390,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $3,495,000.
(B) Periodic nourishment.--Periodic nourishment is
authorized for a 50-year period at an estimated average
annual cost of $4,565,000, with an estimated annual Federal
cost of $3,674,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost
of $891,000.
(20) New jersey shore protection, brigantine inlet to great
egg harbor, brigantine island, new jersey.--
(A) In general.--The shore protection project for hurricane
and storm damage reduction, New Jersey Shore Protection,
Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor, Brigantine Island, New
Jersey at a total cost of $4,861,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $3,160,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $1,701,000.
(B) Periodic nourishment.--Periodic nourishment is
authorized for a 50-year period at an estimated average
annual cost of $2,600,000, with an estimated annual Federal
cost of $1,700,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost
of $900,000.
(21) New jersey shore protection, townsends inlet to cape
may inlet, new jersey.--
(A) In general.--The shore protection project for hurricane
and storm damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, New
Jersey Shore Protection, Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet,
New Jersey at a total cost of $55,203,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $35,882,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $19,321,000.
(B) Periodic nourishment.--Periodic nourishment is
authorized for a 50-year period at an estimated average
annual cost of $6,319,000, with an estimated annual Federal
cost of $4,107,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost
of $2,212,000.
SEC. 103. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS.
(a) Projects With Reports.--
(1) Glenn-colusa, california.--The project for flood
control, Sacramento River California, authorized by section 2
of the Act entitled ``An Act to provide for the control of
floods of the Mississippi River and of the Sacramento River,
and for other purposes'', approved March 1, 1917 (39 Stat.
949), and modified by section 102 of the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act, 1990 (103 Stat. 649), and
further modified by section 301(b)(3) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3709) is further modified
to authorize the Secretary to carry out the portion of the
project in Glenn-Colusa, California in accordance with the
Corps of Engineers report dated May 22, 1998, at a total cost
of $20,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $15,570,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,130,000.
(2) San lorenzo river, california.--The project for flood
control, San Lorenzo River, California, authorized by section
101(a)(5) of Public Law 104-303 (110 Stat. 3663), is modified
to authorize the Secretary to include as a part of the
project streambank erosion control measures to be undertaken
substantially in accordance with the report entitled ``Bank
Stabilization Concept, Laurel Street Extension'', dated April
23, 1998, at a total cost of $4,000,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $2,600,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $1,400,000.
(3) Wood river, grand island, nebraska.--The project for
flood control, Wood River, Grand Island, Nebraska, authorized
by section 101(a)(19) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1996 (110 Stat. 3665) is modified to authorize the
Secretary to construct the project in accordance with the
Corps of Engineers report dated June 29, 1998, at a total
cost of $16,632,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$9,508,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $7,124,000.
(4) Absecon island, new jersey.--The project for Absecon
Island, New Jersey, authorized by section 101(h)(13) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3668) is
amended to authorize the Secretary to reimburse the non-
Federal sponsor for all work performed, consistent with the
authorized project.
(5) Waurika lake, oklahoma, water conveyance facilities.--
The requirement for the Waurika Project Master Conservancy
District to repay the $2,900,000 in costs (including
interest) resulting from the October 1991 settlement of the
claim of the Travelers Insurance Company before the United
States Claims Court related to construction of the water
conveyance facilities authorized by Public Law 88-253 (77
Stat. 841) is waived.
(b) Projects Subject to Reports.--The following projects
are modified as follows, except that no funds may be
obligated to carry out work under such modifications until
completion of a final report by the Chief of Engineers, as
approved by the Secretary, finding that such work is
technically sound, environmentally acceptable, and
economically justified, as applicable:
(1) Sacramento metro area, california.--The project for
flood control, Sacramento Metro Area, California authorized
by section 101(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1992 (106 Stat. 4801) is modified to authorize the Secretary
to construct the project at a total cost of $32,900,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $24,700,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $8,200,000.
(2) New york harbor and adjacent channels, port jersey, new
jersey.--The project for navigation, New York Harbor and
Adjacent Channels, Port Jersey, New Jersey, authorized by
section 202(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(100 Stat. 4098) is modified to authorize the Secretary to
construct the project at a total cost of $100,689,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $74,998,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $25,701,000.
(3) Arthur kill, new york and new jersey.--The project for
navigation, Arthur Kill, New York and New Jersey, authorized
by section 202(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (100 Stat. 4098) and modified by section 301(b)(11) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3711)
is further modified to authorize the Secretary to construct
the project at a total cost of $260,899,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $195,705,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $65,194,000.
(c) Beaver Lake, Arkansas, Water Supply Storage
Reallocation.--The Secretary shall reallocate approximately
31,000 additional acre-feet at Beaver Lake, Arkansas, to
water supply storage at no cost to the Beaver Water District
or the Carroll-Boone Water District, except that at no time
shall the bottom of the conservation pool be at an elevation
that is less than 1,076 feet, NGVD.
(d) Tolchester Channel S-Turn, Baltimore, Maryland.--The
project for navigation, Baltimore Harbor and Channels,
Maryland, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor
Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 297), is modified to direct the
Secretary to straighten the Tolchester Channel S-turn as part
of project maintenance.
(e) Tropicana Wash and Flamingo Wash, Nevada.--Any Federal
costs associated with the Tropicana and Flamingo Washes,
Nevada, authorized by section 101(13) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4803), incurred by the
non-Federal interest to accelerate or modify construction of
the project, in cooperation with the Corps of Engineers,
shall be considered to be eligible for reimbursement by the
Secretary.
(f) Flood Mitigation Near Pierre, South Dakota.--
(1) In general.--
(A) Land acquisition.--To provide full operational
capability to carry out the authorized purposes of the
Missouri River Main Stem dams that are part of the Pick-Sloan
Missouri River Basin Program authorized by section 9 of the
Act entitled ``An Act authorizing the construction of certain
public works on rivers and harbors for flood control, and
other purposes'' approved December 22, 1944, the Secretary
may acquire from willing sellers such land and property in
the vicinity of Pierre, South Dakota, or floodproof or
relocate such property within the project area, as the
Secretary determines is adversely affected by the full
wintertime Oahe Powerplant releases.
(B) Ownership and use.--Any land that is acquired under
this authority shall be kept in public ownership and will be
dedicated and maintained in perpetuity for a use that is
compatible with any remaining flood threat.
(C) Report.--
(i) In general.--The Secretary shall not obligate funds to
implement this paragraph until the Secretary has completed a
report addressing the criteria for selecting which properties
are to be acquired, relocated or floodproofed, and a plan for
implementing such measures and has made a determination that
the measures are economically justified.
(ii) Deadline.--The report shall be completed not later
than 180 days after funding is made available.
(D) Coordination and cooperation.--The report and
implementation plan--
(i) shall be coordinated with the Federal Emergency
Management Agency; and
(ii) shall be prepared in consultation with other Federal
agencies, and State and local officials, and residents.
(E) Considerations.--Such report should take into account
information from prior and ongoing studies.
(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $35,000,000.
(g) Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection,
Virginia Beach, Virginia.--
(1) Acceptance of funds.--In any fiscal year that the Corps
of Engineers does not receive appropriations sufficient to
meet expected project expenditures for that year, the
Secretary shall accept from the city of Virginia Beach,
Virginia, for purposes of the project for beach erosion
control and hurricane protection, Virginia Beach, Virginia,
authorized by section 501(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4136), such funds as the
city may advance for the project.
(2) Repayment.--Subject to the availability of
appropriations, the Secretary shall repay, without interest,
the amount of any advance made under paragraph (1), from
appropriations that may be provided by Congress for river and
harbor, flood control, shore protection, and related
projects.
(h) Elizabeth River, Chesapeake, Virginia.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of law, after the date of enactment of
this Act, the city of Chesapeake, Virginia, shall not be
obligated to make the annual cash contribution required under
paragraph 1(9) of the Local Cooperation Agreement dated
December 12, 1978, between the Government and the city for
the project for navigation, southern branch of Elizabeth
River, Chesapeake, Virginia.
[[Page S12076]]
(i) Payment Option, Moorefield, West Virginia.--The
Secretary may permit the non-Federal sponsor for the project
for flood control, Moorefield, West Virginia, to pay without
interest the remaining non-Federal cost over a period not to
exceed 30 years, to be determined by the Secretary.
SEC. 104. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS.
(a) Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut.--The portion of the
project for navigation, Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut
authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958
(72 Stat. 297), consisting of a 2.4-acre anchorage area 9
feet deep and an adjacent 0.60-acre anchorage 6 feet deep,
located on the west side of Johnsons River, Connecticut, is
not authorized after the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Bass Harbor, Maine.--
(1) Deauthorization.--The portions of the project for
navigation, Bass Harbor, Maine, authorized on May 7, 1962,
under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33
U.S.C. 577) described in paragraph (2) are not authorized
after the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Description.--The portions of the project referred to
in paragraph (1) are described as follows:
(A) Beginning at a bend in the project, N149040.00,
E538505.00, thence running easterly about 50.00 feet along
the northern limit of the project to a point N149061.55,
E538550.11, thence running southerly about 642.08 feet to a
point, N148477.64, E538817.18, thence running southwesterly
about 156.27 feet to a point on the westerly limit of the
project, N148348.50, E538737.02, thence running northerly
about 149.00 feet along the westerly limit of the project to
a bend in the project, N148489.22, E538768.09, thence running
northwesterly about 610.39 feet along the westerly limit of
the project to the point of origin.
(B) Beginning at a point on the westerly limit of the
project, N148118.55, E538689.05, thence running southeasterly
about 91.92 feet to a point, N148041.43, E538739.07, thence
running southerly about 65.00 feet to a point, N147977.86,
E538725.51, thence running southwesterly about 91.92 feet to
a point on the westerly limit of the project, N147927.84,
E538648.39, thence running northerly about 195.00 feet along
the westerly limit of the project to the point of origin.
(c) East Boothbay Harbor, Maine.--Section 364 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3731) is amended
by striking paragraph (9) and inserting the following:
``(9) East boothbay harbor, maine.--The project for
navigation, East Boothbay Harbor, Maine, authorized by the
first section of the Act entitled ``An Act making
appropriations for the construction, repair, and preservation
of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other
purposes'', approved June 25, 1910 (36 Stat. 657).''.
SEC. 105. STUDIES.
(a) Baldwin County, Alabama, Watersheds.--The Secretary of
the Army shall review the report of the Chief of Engineers on
the Alabama Coast published as House Document 108, 90th
Congress, 1st Session, and other pertinent reports with a
view to determining whether modifications of the
recommendations contained in the House Document are advisable
at this time in the interest of flood damage reduction,
environmental restoration and protection, water quality, and
other purposes, with a special emphasis on determining the
advisability of developing a comprehensive coordinated
watershed management plan for the development, conservation,
and utilization of water and related land resources in the
watersheds in Baldwin County, Alabama.
(b) Escambia River, Alabama and Florida.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall review the report of
the Chief of Engineers on the Escambia River, Alabama and
Florida, published as House Document 350, 71st Congress, 2d
Session, and other pertinent reports, to determine whether
modifications of any of the recommendations contained in the
House Document are advisable at this time with particular
reference to Burnt Corn Creek and Murder Creek in the
vicinity of Brewton, and East Brewton, Alabama, and the need
for flood control, floodplain evacuation, flood warning and
preparedness, environmental restoration and protection, and
bank stabilization in those areas.
(2) Coordination.--The review shall be coordinated with
plans of other local and Federal agencies.
(c) Strawberry Creek, Berkeley, California.--The Secretary
shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
restoring Strawberry Creek, Berkeley, California, to
determine the Federal interest in environmental restoration,
conservation of fish and wildlife resources, recreation, and
water quality.
(d) West Side Storm Water Retention Facility, City of
Lancaster, California.--The Secretary shall conduct a study
to determine the feasibility of undertaking measures to
construct the West Side Storm Water Retention Facility in the
city of Lancaster, California.
(e) Apalachicola River, Florida.--The Secretary shall
conduct a study for the purpose of identifying--
(1) alternatives for the management of material dredged in
connection with operation and maintenance of the Apalachicola
River Navigation Project; and
(2) alternatives which reduce the requirements for such
dredging.
(f) Broward County, Sand Bypassing at Port Everglades,
Florida.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine
the feasibility of constructing a sand bypassing project at
the Port Everglades Inlet, Florida.
(g) City of Destin-Noriega Point Breakwater, Florida.--The
Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility
of--
(1) restoring Noriega Point, Florida, to serve as a
breakwater for Destin Harbor; and
(2) including Noriega Point as part of the East Pass,
Florida navigation project.
(h) Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area, Florida.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of undertaking measures to reduce
the flooding problems in the vicinity of Gateway Triangle
Redevelopment Area, Florida.
(2) Studies and reports.--The study shall include a review
and consideration of studies and reports completed by the
non-Federal sponsor.
(i) Hillsborough River, Withlacoochee River Basins,
Florida.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to identify
appropriate measures that can be undertaken in the Green
Swamp, Withlacoochee River, and the Hillsborough River, the
Water Triangle of west central Florida to address
comprehensive watershed planning for water conservation,
water supply, restoration and protection of environmental
resources, and other water resource-related problems in the
area.
(j) City of Plant City, Florida.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of a flood control project in the
city of Plant City, Florida.
(2) Studies and reports.--In conducting the study, the
Secretary shall review and consider studies and reports
completed by the non-Federal sponsor.
(k) St. Lucie County, Florida, Shore Protection.--The
Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility
of a shore protection and hurricane and storm damage
reduction project to the shoreline areas in St. Lucie County
from the current project for Fort Pierce Beach, Florida
southward to the Martin County line.
(l) Acadiana Navigation Channel, Louisiana.--The Secretary
shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
assuming operations and maintenance for the Acadiana
Navigational Channel located in Iberia and Vermillion
Parishes, Louisiana.
(m) Contraband Bayou Navigation Channel, Louisiana.--The
Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility
of assuming the maintenance at Contraband Bayou, Calcasieu
River Ship Canal, Louisiana.
(n) Golden Meadow Lock, Louisiana.--The Secretary shall
conduct a study to determine the feasibility of converting
the Golden Meadow floodgate into a navigation lock to be
included in the Larose to Golden Meadow Hurricane Protection
project.
(o) Gulf Intracoastal Waterway Ecosystem Protection, Chef
Menteur to Sabine River, Louisiana.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of undertaking ecosystem
restoration and protection measures along the Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway from Chef Menteur to Sabine River,
Louisiana.
(2) Matters to be addressed.--The study shall address
saltwater intrusion, tidal scour, erosion, and other water
resources related problems in this area.
(p) Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, and Vicinity, St.
Charles Parish Pumps.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of modifying the Lake Pontchartrain
Hurricane Protection project to include the St. Charles
Parish Pumps and the modification of the seawall fronting
protection along Lake Pontchartrain in Orleans, Parish, from
New Basin Canal on the west to the Inner Harbor Navigation
Canal on the east.
(q) Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Seawall Restoration,
Louisiana.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine
the feasibility of undertaking structural modifications of
that portion of the seawall fronting protection along the
south shore of Lake Pontchartrain in Orleans Parish,
Louisiana, extending approximately 5 miles from the new basin
Canal on the west to the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal on the
east as a part of the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity
Hurricane Protection Project, authorized by section 204 of
the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1077).
(r) Louisiana State Penitentiary Levee.--The Secretary
shall conduct a study of the impacts of crediting the non-
Federal sponsor for work performed in the project area of the
Louisiana State Penitentiary Levee.
(s) Tunica Lake Weir, Mississippi.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of constructing an outlet weir at
Tunica Lake, Tunica County, Mississippi, and Lee County,
Arkansas, for the purpose of stabilizing water levels in the
Lake.
(2) Economic analysis.--In carrying out the study, the
Secretary shall include as a part of the economic analysis
the benefits derived from recreation uses at the Lake and
economic benefits associated with restoration of fish and
wildlife habitat.
(t) Protective Facilities for the St. Louis, Missouri,
Riverfront Area.--
(1) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to
determine the optimal plan to protect facilities that are
located on the Mississippi River riverfront within the
boundaries of St. Louis, Missouri.
(2) Requirements.--In conducting the study, the Secretary--
(A) shall evaluate alternatives to offer safety and
security to facilities; and
(B) use state-of-the-art techniques to best evaluate the
current situation, probable solutions, and estimated costs.
(3) Report.--Not later than April 15, 1999, the Secretary
shall submit to Congress a report on the results of the
study.
(u) Yellowstone River, Montana.--
(1) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive
study of the Yellowstone River
[[Page S12077]]
from Gardiner, Montana to the confluence of the Missouri
River to determine the hydrologic, biological, and
socioeconomic cumulative impacts on the river.
(2) Consultation and coordination.--The Secretary shall
conduct the study in consultation with the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service, the United States Geological Survey,
and the Natural Resource Conservation Service and with the
full participation of the State of Montana, tribal and local
entities, and provide for public participation.
(3) Report.--Not later than 5 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a report to
Congress on the results of the study.
(v) Las Vegas Valley, Nevada.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a
comprehensive study of water resources located in the Las
Vegas Valley, Nevada.
(2) Objectives.--The study shall identify problems and
opportunities related to ecosystem restoration, water
quality, particularly the quality of surface runoff, water
supply, and flood control.
(w) Camden and Gloucester Counties, New Jersey, Streams and
Watersheds.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine
the feasibility of undertaking ecosystem restoration,
floodplain management, flood control, water quality control,
comprehensive watershed management, and other allied purposes
along tributaries of the Delaware River, Camden County and
Gloucester County, New Jersey.
(x) Oswego River Basin, New York.--The Secretary shall
conduct a study to determine the feasibility of establishing
a flood forecasting system within the Oswego River basin, New
York.
(y) Port of New York-New Jersey Navigation Study and
Environmental Restoration Study.--
(1) Navigation study.--The Secretary shall conduct a
comprehensive study of navigation needs at the Port of New
York-New Jersey (including the South Brooklyn Marine and Red
Hook Container Terminals, Staten Island, and adjacent areas)
to address improvements, including deepening of existing
channels to depths of 50 feet or greater, that are required
to provide economically efficient and environmentally sound
navigation to meet current and future requirements.
(2) Environmental remediation study.--The Secretary, acting
through the Chief of Engineers, shall review the reports of
the Chief of Engineers on the New York Harbor, printed in the
House Management Plan of the Harbor Estuary Program, and
other pertinent reports concerning the New York Harbor Region
and the Port of New York-New Jersey, to determine Federal
interest in advancing harbor environmental restoration.
(3) Report.--Both studies shall be completed by December,
1999, to identify opportunities to link navigation
improvements with possible environmental restoration
projects.
(z) Niobrara River and Missouri River Sedimentation Study,
South Dakota.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of the
Niobrara River watershed and the operations of Fort Randall
Dam and Gavins Point Dam on the Missouri River to determine
the feasibility of alleviating the bank erosion,
sedimentation, and related problems in the lower Niobrara
River and the Missouri River below Fort Randall Dam.
(aa) City of Ocean Shores Shore Protection Project,
Washington.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine
the feasibility of undertaking the project for beach erosion
and flood control, including relocation of a primary dune and
periodic nourishment, at Ocean Shores, Washington.
(bb) Alternative Water Sources Study.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency shall conduct a study of the water supply
needs of States that are not currently eligible for
assistance under title XVI of the Reclamation Projects
Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 (43 U.S.C. 390h et
seq.).
(2) Requirements.--The study shall--
(A) identify the water supply needs (including potable,
commercial, industrial, recreational and agricultural needs)
of each State described in paragraph (1) through the year
2020, making use of such State, regional, and local plans,
studies, and reports as may be available;
(B) evaluate the feasibility of various alternative water
source technologies such as reuse and reclamation of
wastewater and stormwater (including indirect potable reuse),
aquifer storage and recovery, and desalination to meet the
anticipated water supply needs of the States; and
(C) assess how alternative water sources technologies can
be utilized to meet the identified needs.
(3) Report.--The Administrator shall report to Congress on
the results of the study not more than 180 days after the
date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 106. FLOOD HAZARD MITIGATION AND RIVERINE ECOSYSTEM
RESTORATION PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--
(1) Authorization.--The Secretary may undertake a program
to reduce flood hazards and restore the natural functions and
values of riverine ecosystems throughout the United States.
(2) Studies.--In carrying out the program, the Secretary
shall conduct studies to identify appropriate flood damage
reduction, conservation, and restoration measures and may
design and implement watershed management and restoration
projects.
(3) Participation.--The studies and projects carried out
under this authority shall be conducted, to the extent
practicable, with the full participation of the appropriate
Federal agencies, including the Department of Agriculture,
the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Department of
the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the
Department of Commerce.
(4) Nonstructural approaches.--The studies and projects
shall, to the extent practicable, emphasize nonstructural
approaches to preventing or reducing flood damages.
(b) Cost-Sharing Requirements.--
(1) In general.--The cost of studies conducted under
subsection (a) shall be shared in accordance with section 105
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat.
4088; 110 Stat. 3677).
(2) Payment percentage.--The non-Federal interests shall
pay 35 percent of the cost of any project carried out under
this section.
(3) In-kind contributions.--The non-Federal interests shall
provide all land, easements, rights-of-way, dredged material
disposal areas, and relocations necessary for the projects,
and the value of the land, easements, rights-of-way, dredged
material disposal areas, and relocations shall be credited
toward the payment required under this subsection.
(4) Responsibilities of the non-federal interests.--The
non-Federal interests shall be responsible for all costs
associated with operating, maintaining, replacing, repairing,
and rehabilitating all projects carried out under this
authority.
(c) Project Justification.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may implement a project
under this section if the Secretary determines that the
project--
(A) will significantly reduce potential flood damages;
(B) will improve the quality of the environment; and
(C) is justified considering all costs and beneficial
outputs of the project.
(2) Selection criteria; policies and procedures.--Not later
than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Secretary shall--
(A) develop criteria for selecting and rating the projects
to be carried out as a part of the program authorized by this
section; and
(B) establish policies and procedures for carrying out the
studies and projects undertaken under this section.
(d) Reporting Requirement.--The Secretary may not implement
a project under this section until--
(1) the Secretary provides to the Committee on the
Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives a written notification describing the project
and the determinations made under subsection (c); and
(2) a period of 21 calendar days has expired following the
date on which the notification was received by the
Committees.
(e) Priority Areas.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary shall examine the potential for flood damage
reductions at appropriate locations, including--
(1) Saint Genevieve, Missouri;
(2) upper Delaware River basin, New York;
(3) Tillamook County, Oregon;
(4) Providence County, Rhode Island; and
(5) Willamette River basin, Oregon.
(f) Per-Project Limitation.--Not more than $25,000,000 in
Army Civil Works appropriations may be expended on any single
project undertaken under this section.
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this section $75,000,000 for the period of fiscal
years 2000 and 2001.
(2) Program funding levels.--All studies and projects
undertaken under this authority from Army Civil Works
appropriations shall be fully funded within the program
funding levels provided in this subsection.
SEC. 107. SHORE PROTECTION.
Section 103(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (100 Stat. 4085) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Costs of construction'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) Construction.--Costs of construction''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Periodic nourishment.--In the case of a project
authorized for construction after December 31, 1998, or for
which a feasibility study is completed after that date, the
non-Federal cost of the periodic nourishment of projects or
measures for shore protection or beach erosion control shall
be 50 percent, except that--
``(A) all costs assigned to benefits to privately owned
shores (where use of such shores is limited to private
interests) or to prevention of losses of private land shall
be borne by non-Federal interests; and
``(B) all costs assigned to the protection of federally
owned shores shall be borne by the United States.''.
SEC. 108. SMALL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS.
Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C.
701s) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by striking ``construction of
small projects'' and inserting ``implementation of small
structural and nonstructural projects''; and
(2) in the third sentence, by striking ``$5,000,000'' and
inserting ``$7,000,000''.
SEC. 109. USE OF NON-FEDERAL FUNDS FOR COMPILING AND
DISSEMINATING INFORMATION ON FLOODS AND FLOOD
DAMAGES.
The third sentence of section 206(b) of the Flood Control
Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 709a(b)) is amended by inserting
before the period at the end the following: ``, but the
Secretary of the Army may accept funds voluntarily
contributed by such entities for the purpose of expanding the
scope of the services requested by the entities''.
SEC. 110. EVERGLADES AND SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.
Subparagraphs (B) and (C)(i) of section 528(b)(3) of the
Water Resources Development
[[Page S12078]]
Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3769) are amended by striking ``1999''
and inserting ``2000''.
SEC. 111. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.
Section 206(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (110 Stat. 3679) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Construction'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--Construction''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Nonprofit entities.--Notwithstanding section 221 of
the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), for
any project undertaken under this section, a non-Federal
interest may include a nonprofit entity with the consent of
the affected local government.''.
SEC. 112. BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL.
Section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992
(106 Stat. 4826; 110 Stat. 3680) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(g) Nonprofit entities.--Notwithstanding section 221 of
the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), for
any project carried out under this section, a non-Federal
interest may include a nonprofit entity, with the consent of
the affected local government.''.
SEC. 113. VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS BY STATES AND POLITICAL
SUBDIVISIONS.
Section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1936 (33 U.S.C. 701h)
is amended by inserting ``or environmental restoration''
after ``flood control''.
SEC. 114. RECREATION USER FEES.
(a) Withholding of Amounts.--
(1) In general.--During fiscal years 1999 through 2002, the
Secretary may withhold from the special account established
under section 4(i)(1)(A) of the Land and Water Conservation
Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-6a(i)(1)(A)) 100 percent of
the amount of receipts above a baseline of $34,000,000 per
each fiscal year received from fees imposed at recreation
sites under the administrative jurisdiction of the Department
of the Army under section 4(b) of that Act (16 U.S.C. 460l-
6a(b)).
(2) Use.--The amounts withheld shall be retained by the
Secretary and shall be available, without further Act of
appropriation, for expenditure by the Secretary in accordance
with subsection (b).
(3) Availability.--The amounts withheld shall remain
available until September 30, 2005.
(b) Use of Amounts Withheld.--In order to increase the
quality of the visitor experience at public recreational
areas and to enhance the protection of resources, the amounts
withheld under subsection (a) may be used only for--
(1) repair and maintenance projects (including projects
relating to health and safety);
(2) interpretation;
(3) signage;
(4) habitat or facility enhancement;
(5) resource preservation;
(6) annual operation (including fee collection);
(7) maintenance; and
(8) law enforcement related to public use.
(c) Availability.--Each amount withheld by the Secretary
shall be available for expenditure, without further Act of
appropriation, at the specific project from which the amount,
above baseline, is collected.
SEC. 115. WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT STUDIES FOR THE PACIFIC
REGION.
Section 444 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
(110 Stat. 3747) is amended by striking ``interest of
navigation'' and inserting ``interests of water resources
development (including navigation, flood damage reduction,
and environmental restoration)''.
SEC. 116. MISSOURI AND MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI RIVERS ENHANCEMENT
PROJECT.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Middle mississippi river.--The term ``middle
Mississippi River'' means the reach of the Mississippi River
from the mouth of the Ohio River (river mile 0, upper
Mississippi River) to the mouth of the Missouri River (river
mile 195).
(2) Missouri river.--The term ``Missouri River'' means the
main stem and floodplain of the Missouri River (including
reservoirs) from its confluence with the Mississippi River at
St. Louis, Missouri, to its headwaters near Three Forks,
Montana.
(3) Project.--The term ``project'' means the project
authorized by this section.
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Army.
(b) Protection and Enhancement Activities.--
(1) Plan.--
(A) Development.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop a plan for
a project to protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat of
the Missouri River and the middle Mississippi River.
(B) Activities.--
(i) In general.--The plan shall provide for such activities
as are necessary to protect and enhance fish and wildlife
habitat without adversely affecting--
(I) the water-related needs of the region surrounding the
Missouri River and the middle Mississippi River, including
flood control, navigation, recreation, and enhancement of
water supply; and
(II) private property rights.
(ii) Required activities.--The plan shall include--
(I) modification and improvement of navigation training
structures to protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat;
(II) modification and creation of side channels to protect
and enhance fish and wildlife habitat;
(III) restoration and creation of island fish and wildlife
habitat;
(IV) creation of riverine fish and wildlife habitat;
(V) establishment of criteria for prioritizing the type and
sequencing of activities based on cost-effectiveness and
likelihood of success; and
(VI) physical and biological monitoring for evaluating the
success of the project, to be performed by the River Studies
Center of the United States Geological Survey in Columbia,
Missouri.
(2) Implementation of activities.--
(A) In general.--Using funds made available to carry out
this section, the Secretary shall carry out the activities
described in the plan.
(B) Use of existing authority for unconstructed features of
the project.--Using funds made available to the Secretary
under other law, the Secretary shall design and construct any
feature of the project that may be carried out using the
authority of the Secretary to modify an authorized project,
if the Secretary determines that the design and construction
will--
(i) accelerate the completion of activities to protect and
enhance fish and wildlife habitat of the Missouri River or
the middle Mississippi River; and
(ii) be compatible with the project purposes described in
this section.
(c) Integration of Other Activities.--
(1) In general.--In carrying out the activities described
in subsection (b), the Secretary shall integrate the
activities with other Federal, State, and tribal activities.
(2) New authority.--Nothing in this section confers any new
regulatory authority on any Federal or non-Federal entity
that carries out any activity authorized by this section.
(d) Public Participation.--In developing and carrying out
the plan under subsection (b) and the activities described in
subsection (c), the Secretary shall provide for public review
and comment in accordance with applicable Federal law,
including--
(1) providing advance notice of meetings;
(2) providing adequate opportunity for public input and
comment;
(3) maintaining appropriate records; and
(4) compiling a record of the proceedings of meetings.
(e) Compliance With Applicable Law.--In carrying out the
activities described in subsections (b) and (c), the
Secretary shall comply with any applicable Federal law,
including the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
(f) Cost Sharing.--
(1) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the cost
of the project shall be 35 percent.
(2) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of any 1
activity described in subsection (b) shall not exceed
$5,000,000.
(3) Operation and maintenance.--The operation and
maintenance of the project shall be a non-Federal
responsibility.
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to pay the Federal share of the cost of
carrying out activities under this section $30,000,000 for
the period of fiscal years 2000 and 2001.
SEC. 117. OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF.
(a) Sand, Gravel, and Shell.--Section 8(k)(2)(B) of the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(k)(2)(B))
is amended by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``or any other non-Federal interest subject to an
agreement entered into under section 221 of the Flood Control
Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b)''.
(b) Reimbursement for Local Sponsor at Sandbridge Beach,
Virginia Beach, Virginia.--Any amounts paid by the non-
Federal sponsor for beach erosion control and hurricane
protection, Sandbridge Beach, Virginia Beach, Virginia, as a
result of an assessment under section 8(k) of the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(k)) shall be
fully reimbursed.
SEC. 118. ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING.
Section 312(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1990 (33 U.S.C. 1272(f)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(6) Snake Creek, Bixby, Oklahoma.''.
SEC. 119. BENEFIT OF PRIMARY FLOOD DAMAGES AVOIDED INCLUDED
IN BENEFIT COST ANALYSIS.
Section 308 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990
(33 U.S.C. 2318) is amended--
(1) in the heading of subsection (a), by striking
``Benefit-Cost Analysis'' and inserting ``Elements Excluded
From Cost-Benefit Analysis'';
(2) by redesignating subsections (b) through (e) as
subsections (c) through (f), respectively; and
(3) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
``(b) Elements Included in Cost-Benefit Analysis.--The
Secretary shall include primary flood damages avoided in the
benefit base for justifying Federal nonstructural flood
damage reduction projects.''.
SEC. 120. CONTROL OF AQUATIC PLANT GROWTH.
Section 104(a) of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (33
U.S.C. 610(a)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``Arundo dona,'' after ``water-
hyacinth,''; and
(2) by inserting ``tarmarix'' after ``melaleuca''.
SEC. 121. ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE.
Section 219(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1992 (106 Stat. 4835) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (19) as
paragraphs (3) through (23), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after ``as follows:'' the following:
``(1) Lake tahoe, california and nevada.--Regional water
system for Lake Tahoe, California and Nevada.
``(2) Lancaster, california.--Fox Field Industrial Corridor
water facilities, Lancaster, California.
``(3) San ramon, california.--San Ramon Valley recycled
water project, San Ramon, California.
[[Page S12079]]
SEC. 122. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT, RESTORATION, AND DEVELOPMENT.
Section 503(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (110 Stat. 3756) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(14) Clear Lake watershed, California.
``(15) Fresno Slough watershed, California.
``(16) Hayward Marsh, Southern San Francisco Bay watershed,
California.
``(17) Kaweah River watershed, California.
``(18) Lake Tahoe watershed, California and Nevada.
``(19) Malibu Creek watershed, California.
``(20) Truckee River basin, Nevada.
``(21) Walker River basin, Nevada.''.
SEC. 123. LAKES PROGRAM.
Section 602(a) of the Water Resources Act of 1986 (100
Stat. 4148) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (15);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (16) and
inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(17) Clear Lake, Lake County, California, removal of silt
and aquatic growth and development of a sustainable weed and
algae management program.
``(18) Osgood Pond, Milford, New Hampshire, removal of
excessive aquatic vegetation.''.
SEC. 124. DREDGING OF SALT PONDS IN THE STATE OF RHODE
ISLAND.
The Secretary may acquire for the State of Rhode Island a
dredge and associated equipment with the capacity to dredge
approximately 100 cubic yards per hour for use by the State
in dredging salt ponds in the State.
SEC. 125. UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN, PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW
YORK.
Section 567(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (110 Stat. 3787) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(3) The Chemung River watershed, New York, at an
estimated cost of $5,000,000.''.
SEC. 126. REPAUPO CREEK AND DELAWARE RIVER, GLOUCESTER
COUNTY, NEW JERSEY.
Section 102 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
(110 Stat. 3668) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (15) through (22) as
paragraphs (17) through (24), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (14) the following:
``(15) Repaupo creek and delaware river, gloucester county,
new jersey.--Project for tidegate and levee improvements for
Repaupo Creek and the Delaware River, Gloucester County, New
Jersey.
``(16) Tioga county, pennsylvania.--Project for flood
control, Tioga River and Cowanesque River and their
tributaries, Tioga County, Pennsylvania.''.
SEC. 127. SMALL NAVIGATION PROJECTS.
Section 104 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
(110 Stat. 3669) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (9) through (12) as
paragraphs (10) through (13), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (8) the following:
``(9) Fortescue inlet, delaware bay, new jersey.--Project
for navigation for Fortesque Inlet, Delaware Bay, New
Jersey.''.
SEC. 128. STREAMBANK PROTECTION PROJECTS.
The streambank protection project at Coulson Park, along
the Yellowstone River, Billings, Montana, shall be eligible
for assistance under section 14 of the Flood Control Act of
1946 (60 Stat. 653).
SEC. 129. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, SPRINGFIELD, OREGON.
(a) In General.--Under section 1135 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1990 (100 Stat. 4251) or other applicable
authority, the Secretary shall conduct measures to address
water quality, flows and fish habitat restoration in the
historic Springfield, Oregon, millrace through the
reconfiguration of the existing millpond, if the Secretary
determines that harmful impacts have occurred as the result
of a previously constructed flood control project by the Army
Corps of Engineers.
(b) Non-Federal Share.--The non-Federal share, excluding
lands, easements, rights-of-way, dredged material disposal
areas and relocations, shall be 25 percent.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $1,500,000.
SEC. 130. GUILFORD AND NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT.
The Secretary shall expeditiously complete the activities
authorized under section 346 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4858), including
activities associated with Sluice Creek in Guilford,
Connecticut, and Lighthouse Point Park in New Haven,
Connecticut.
SEC. 131. FRANCIS BLAND, ARKANSAS FLOODWAY DITCH NO. 5.
(a) Redesignation.--The project for flood control, Eight
Mile Creek, Paragould, Arkansas authorized by section 401(a)
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat.
4112) and known as ``Eight Mile Creek, Paragould, Arkansas'',
shall be known and designated as the ``Francis Bland,
Arkansas Floodway Ditch No. 5''.
(b) Legal Preferences.--Any reference in any law, map,
regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United
States to the project and creek referred to in subsection (a)
shall be deemed to be a reference to the Francis Bland,
Arkansas Floodway Ditch No. 5.
SEC. 132. POINT JUDITH BREAKWATER.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall restore the integrity
of the breakwater located at Point Judith, Rhode Island,
authorized by the first section of the Act of March 2, 1907
(commonly known as the ``River and Harbor Appropriations Act
of 1907'') (34 Stat. 1075, chapter 2509) and the first
section of the Act of June 25, 1910 (commonly known as the
``River and Harbor Appropriations Act of 1910'') (36 Stat.
632, chapter 382), at a total cost of $10,000,000 with an
estimated Federal cost of $6,500,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $3,500,000.
(b) Non-Federal Responsibility.--Operation, maintenance,
repair, replacement, and rehabilitation of the restored
breakwater shall be a non-Federal responsibility.
SEC. 133. CALOOSAHATCHEE RIVER BASIN, FLORIDA.
Section 528(e)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (110 Stat. 3770) is amended in the first sentence by
inserting before the period at the end the following: ``,
including potential land acquisition in the Caloosahatchee
River basin or other areas''.
SEC. 134. CUMBERLAND, MARYLAND, FLOOD PROJECT MITIGATION.
(a) In General.--The project for flood control and other
purposes, Cumberland, Maryland, authorized by section 5 of
the Act of June 22, 1936 (commonly known as the ``Flood
Control Act of 1936'') (49 Stat. 1574, chapter 688), is
modified to authorize the Secretary to undertake, as a
separate part of the project, restoration of the historic
Chesapeake and Ohio Canal substantially in accordance with
the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historic Park,
Cumberland, Maryland, Rewatering Design Analysis, dated
February 1998, at a total cost of $15,000,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $9,750,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $5,250,000.
(b) In-Kind Services.--The non-Federal interest for the
restoration project under subsection (a) may provide all or a
portion of the non-Federal share of project costs in the form
of in-kind services and shall receive credit toward the non-
Federal share of project costs for design and construction
work performed by the non-Federal interest before execution
of a project cooperation agreement and for land, easements,
and rights-of-way required for the restoration and acquired
by the non-Federal interest before execution of such an
agreement.
(c) Operation and Maintenance.--The operation and
maintenance of the restoration project under subsection (a)
shall be the full responsibility of the National Park
Service.
SEC. 135. SEDIMENTS DECONTAMINATION POLICY.
(a) Project Purpose.--Section 405 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2239 note; Public Law 102-
580) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Practical end-use products.--Technologies selected
for demonstration at the pilot scale shall result in
practical end-use products.
``(5) Assistance by the secretary.--The Secretary shall
assist the project to ensure expeditious completion by
providing sufficient quantities of contaminated dredged
material to conduct the full-scale demonstrations to stated
capacity.''; and
(2) in subsection (c), by striking the first sentence and
inserting the following: ``There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this section a total of $22,000,000
to complete technology testing, technology commercialization,
and the development of full scale processing facilities
within the New York-New Jersey Harbor.''.
SEC. 136. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA.
Section 5(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act of August 13, 1946 (33
U.S.C. 426h), is amended by inserting before the semicolon
the following; ``, including the city of Miami Beach,
Florida''.
SEC. 137. SMALL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECTS.
Section 3 of the Act of August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426g),
is amended by striking ``$2,000,000'' and inserting
``$3,000,000''.
SEC. 138. SARDIS RESERVOIR, OKLAHOMA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall accept from the State
of Oklahoma or an agent of the State an amount, as determined
under subsection (b), as prepayment of 100 percent of the
water supply cost obligation of the State under Contract No.
DACW56-74-JC-0314 for water supply storage at Sardis
Reservoir, Oklahoma.
(b) Determination of Amount.--The amount to be paid by the
State of Oklahoma under subsection (aa) shall be subject to
adjustment in accordance with accepted discount purchase
methods for Government properties as determined by an
independent accounting firm designated by the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget.
(c) Effect.--Nothing in this section shall otherwise affect
any of the rights or obligations of the parties to the
contract referred to in subsection (a).
SEC. 139. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND ILLINOIS WATERWAY
SYSTEM NAVIGATION MODERNIZATION.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) exports are necessary to ensure job creation and an
improved standard of living for the people of the United
States;
(2) the ability of producers of goods in the United States
to compete in the international marketplace depends on a
modern and efficient transportation network;
(3) a modern and efficient waterway system is a
transportation option necessary to provide United States
shippers a safe, reliable, and competitive means to win
foreign markets in an increasingly competitive
international marketplace;
(4) the need to modernize is heightened because the United
States is at risk of losing its competitive edge as a result
of the priority that foreign competitors are placing on
modernizing their own waterway systems;
(5) growing export demand projected over the coming decades
will force greater demands on waterway systems of the United
States and increase the cost to the economy if the system
[[Page S12080]]
proves inadequate to satisfy growing export opportunities;
(6) the locks and dams on the upper Mississippi River and
Illinois River waterway system were built in the 1930s and
have some of the highest average delays to commercial tows in
the country;
(7) inland barges carry freight at the lowest unit cost
while offering an alternative to truck and rail
transportation that is environmentally sound, is energy
efficient, is safe, causes little congestion, produces little
air or noise pollution, and has minimal social impact; and
(8) it should be the policy of the Corps of Engineers to
pursue aggressively modernization of the waterway system
authorized by Congress to promote the relative competitive
position of the United States in the international
marketplace.
(b) Preconstruction Engineering and Design.--In accordance
with the Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway System
Navigation Study, the Secretary shall proceed immediately to
prepare engineering design, plans, and specifications for
extension of locks 20, 21, 22, 24, 25 on the Mississippi
River and the LaGrange and Peoria Locks on the Illinois
River, to provide lock chambers 110 feet in width and 1,200
feet in length, so that construction can proceed immediately
upon completion of studies and authorization of projects by
Congress.
SEC. 140. DISPOSAL OF DREDGED MATERIAL ON BEACHES.
Section 145 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976
(33 U.S.C. 426j) is amended in the first sentence by striking
``50'' and inserting ``35''.
SEC. 141. FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION.
Section 906(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(e)) is amended by inserting after the
second sentence the following: ``Not more than 80 percent of
the non-Federal share of such first costs may be in kind,
including a facility, supply, or service that is necessary to
carry out the enhancement project.''.
SEC. 142. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER MANAGEMENT.
Section 1103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(33 U.S.C. 652) is amended--
(1) in subsection (e)--
(A) by striking ``(e)'' and all that follows through the
end of paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
``(e) Undertakings.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Authority.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Secretary of the Interior and the States of Illinois, Iowa,
Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin, may undertake, as
identified in the master plan--
``(i) a program for the planning, construction, and
evaluation of measures for fish and wildlife habitat
rehabilitation and enhancement;
``(ii) implementation of a long-term resource monitoring,
computerized data inventory and analysis, and applied
research program; and
``(iii) for each pool and the open reach, a natural
resource blueprint to guide habitat rehabilitation and long-
term resource monitoring.
``(B) Requirements for projects.--Each project carried out
under subparagraph (A) shall--
``(i) to the maximum extent practicable, simulate natural
river processes; and
``(ii) include an outreach and education component.
``(C) Review committee.--In carrying out subparagraph (A),
the Secretary shall create an independent technical review
committee to review projects, monitoring plans, and
blueprints.
``(D) Criteria for habitat rehabilitation.--In carrying out
subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall revise criteria for
habitat rehabilitation for projects to promote the simulation
of natural river processes, to the maximum extent
practicable.
``(E) Blueprints.--
``(i) Data.--The natural resource blueprint shall, to the
maximum extent practicable, use data in existence on the date
of enactment of this subparagraph.
``(ii) Timing.--The Secretary shall complete a natural
resource blueprint for each pool not later than 6 years after
the date of enactment of this subparagraph.
``(F) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this paragraph $350,000 for
each of fiscal years 1999 through 2009.
``(2) Reports.--On December 31, 2004, in consultation with
the Secretary of the Interior and the States of Illinois,
Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin, the Secretary shall
prepare and submit to Congress a report that--
``(A) contains an evaluation of the programs described in
paragraph (1);
``(B) describes the accomplishments of each program;
``(C) provide updates of a systemic habitat needs
assessment; and
``(D) identifies any needed adjustments in the
authorization under paragraph (1) or the authorized
appropriations under paragraphs (3) and (4).'';
(B) in paragraph (3)--
(i) by striking ``paragraph (1)(A)'' and inserting
``paragraph (1)(A)(i); and
(ii) by striking ``Secretary not to exceed'' and all that
follows and inserting ``Secretary not to exceed $22,750,000
for each of fiscal years 1999 through 2009.'';
(C) in paragraph (4)--
(i) by striking ``paragraph (1)(B)'' and inserting
``paragraph (1)(A)(ii); and
(ii) by striking ``$7,680,000'' and all that follows and
inserting ``$10,420,000 for each of fiscal years 1999 through
2009.'';
(D) by striking paragraphs (5) and (6) and inserting the
following:
``(5) Transfer of amounts.--For each fiscal year beginning
after September 30, 1992, the Secretary, in consultation with
the Secretary of the Interior and the States of Illinois,
Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin, may transfer
appropriated amounts between the programs under subparagraphs
(A) and (B) of paragraph (1).'';
(E) by redesignating paragraphs (7) and (8) as paragraphs
(6) and (7), respectively; and
(F) in paragraph (6) (as redesignated by subparagraph
(E))--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by inserting before the period the
following: ``and, in the case of any project carried out on
non-Federal land, the non-Federal share of the cost of the
project shall be 35 percent and the non-Federal share of the
cost of operation and maintenance of the project shall be 100
percent''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``paragraphs (1)(B)
and (1)(C) of this subsection'' and inserting ``paragraph
(1)(B)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(k) St. Louis Area Urban Wildlife Habitat.--The Secretary
shall investigate and, if appropriate, carry out restoration
of urban wildlife habitat, with a special emphasis on the
establishment of greenways in St. Louis, Missouri, area and
surrounding communities.''.
SEC. 143. REIMBURSEMENT OF NON-FEDERAL INTEREST.
Section 211(e)(2)(A) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1996 (110 Stat. 3684) is amended by striking ``subject to
amounts being made available in advance in appropriations
Acts'' and inserting ``subject to the availability of
appropriations''.
SEC. 144. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR COLUMBIA AND
SNAKE RIVERS SALMON SURVIVAL.
Section 511 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
(16 U.S.C. 3301 note) is amended by striking subsection (a)
and all that follows and inserting the following:
``(a) Salmon Survival Activities.--
``(1) In general.--In conjunction with the Secretary of
Commerce and Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary shall
accelerate ongoing research and development activities, and
may carry out or participate in additional research and
development activities, for the purpose of developing
innovative methods and technologies for improving the
survival of salmon, especially salmon in the Columbia/Snake
River Basin.
``(2) Accelerated activities.--Accelerated research and
development activities referred to in paragraph (1) may
include research and development related to--
``(A) impacts from water resources projects and other
impacts on salmon life cycles;
``(B) juvenile and adult salmon passage;
``(C) light and sound guidance systems;
``(D) surface-oriented collector systems;
``(E) transportation mechanisms; and
``(F) dissolved gas monitoring and abatement.
``(3) Additional activities.--Additional research and
development activities referred to in paragraph (1) may
include research and development related to--
``(A) studies of juvenile salmon survival in spawning and
rearing areas;
``(B) estuary and near-ocean juvenile and adult salmon
survival;
``(C) impacts on salmon life cycles from sources other than
water resources projects;
``(D) cryopreservation of fish gametes and formation of a
germ plasm repository for threatened and endangered
populations of native fish; and
``(E) other innovative technologies and actions intended to
improve fish survival, including the survival of resident
fish.
``(4) Coordination.--The Secretary shall coordinate any
activities carried out under this subsection with appropriate
Federal, State, and local agencies, affected Indian tribes,
and the Northwest Power Planning Council.
``(5) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to
Congress a report on the research and development activities
carried out under this subsection, including any
recommendations of the Secretary concerning the research and
development activities.
``(6) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated $10,000,000 to carry out research and
development activities under paragraph (3).
``(b) Advanced Turbine Development.--
``(1) In general.--In conjunction with the Secretary of
Energy, the Secretary shall accelerate efforts toward
developing and installing in Corps of Engineers operated dams
innovative, efficient, and environmentally safe hydropower
turbines, including design of ``fish-friendly'' turbines, for
use on the Columbia/Snake River hydrosystem.
``(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated $35,000,000 to carry out this subsection.
``(c) Management of Predation on Columbia/Snake River
System Native Fishes.--
``(1) Nesting avian predators.--In conjunction with the
Secretary of Commerce and Secretary of the Interior, and
consistent with a management plan to be developed by the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Secretary shall
carry out methods to reduce nesting populations of avian
predators on dredge spoil islands in the Columbia River under
the jurisdiction of the Secretary.
``(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated $1,000,000 to carry out research and
development activities under this subsection.
``(d) Implementation.--Nothing in this section affects the
authority of the Secretary to implement the results of the
research and development carried out under this section or
any other law.''.
TITLE II--CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER BRULE SIOUX TRIBE, AND
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE HABITAT RESTORATION
SEC. 201. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
[[Page S12081]]
(1) Restoration.--The term ``restoration'' means mitigation
of the habitat of wildlife.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Army, acting through the Assistant Secretary for Civil
Works.
(3) Terrestrial wildlife habitat.--The term ``terrestrial
wildlife habitat'' means a habitat for a wildlife species
(including game and nongame species) that existed or exists
on an upland habitat (including a prairie grassland,
woodland, bottom land forest, scrub, or shrub) or an emergent
wetland habitat.
(4) Wildlife.--The term ``wildlife'' has the meaning given
the term in section 8 of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act (16 U.S.C. 666b).
SEC. 202. TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE HABITAT RESTORATION.
(a) Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Plans.--
(1) In general.--In accordance with this subsection and in
consultation with the Secretary and the Secretary of the
Interior, the State of South Dakota, the Cheyenne River Sioux
Tribe, and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe shall, as a condition
of the receipt of funds under this title, each develop a plan
for the restoration of terrestrial wildlife habitat loss that
occurred as a result of flooding related to the Big Bend and
Oahe projects carried out as part of the Pick-Sloan Missouri
River Basin program.
(2) Submission of plan to secretary.--On completion of a
plan for terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration, the State
of South Dakota, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, and the
Lower Brule Sioux Tribe shall submit the plan to the
Secretary.
(3) Review by secretary and submission to committees.--The
Secretary shall review the plan and submit the plan, with any
comments, to--
(A) the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the
Senate; and
(B) the Committee on Resources of the House of
Representatives.
(4) Funding for carrying out plans.--
(A) State of south dakota.--
(i) Notification.--On receipt of the plan for terrestrial
wildlife habitat restoration submitted by the State of South
Dakota, each of the Committees referred to in paragraph (2)
shall notify the Secretary of the Treasury of the receipt of
the plan.
(ii) Availability of funds.--On notification in accordance
with clause (i), the Secretary of the Treasury shall make
available to the State of South Dakota funds from the South
Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Fund
established under section 203, to be used to carry out the
plan for terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration submitted
by the State.
(B) Cheyenne river sioux tribe and lower brule sioux
tribe.--
(i) Notification.--On receipt of the plan for terrestrial
wildlife habitat restoration submitted by the Cheyenne River
Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, each of the
Committees referred to in paragraph (2) shall notify the
Secretary of the Treasury of the receipt of each of the
plans.
(ii) Availability of funds.--On notification in accordance
with clause (i), the Secretary of the Treasury shall make
available to the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the Lower
Brule Sioux Tribe funds from the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe
Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Fund and the
Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat
Restoration Trust Fund, respectively, established under
section 204, to be used to carry out the plan for terrestrial
wildlife habitat restoration submitted by the Cheyenne River
Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, respectively.
(C) Transition period.--
(i) In general.--During the period described in clause
(ii), the Secretary shall--
(I) fund the terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration
programs being carried out on the date of enactment of this
Act on Oahe and Big Bend project land and the plans
established under this section at a level that does not
exceed the highest amount of funding that was provided for
the programs during a previous fiscal year; and
(II) implement the programs.
(ii) Period.--Clause (i) shall apply during the period--
(I) beginning on the date of enactment of this Act; and
(II) ending on the earlier of--
(aa) the date on which funds are made available for use
from the South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat
Restoration Trust Fund under section 203(d)(3)(A)(i) and the
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat
Restoration Trust Fund and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe
Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Fund under
section 204(d)(3)(A)(i); or
(bb) the date that is 4 years after the date of enactment
of this Act.
(b) Programs for the Purchase of Wildlife Habitat Leases.--
(1) In general.--The State of South Dakota may use funds
made available under section 203(d)(3)(A)(iii) to develop a
program for the purchase of wildlife habitat leases that
meets the requirements of this subsection.
(2) Development of a plan.--
(A) In general.--If the State of South Dakota, the Cheyenne
River Sioux Tribe, or the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe elects to
conduct a program under this subsection, the State of South
Dakota, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, or the Lower Brule
Sioux Tribe (in consultation with the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service and the Secretary and with an opportunity
for public comment) shall develop a plan to lease land for
the protection and development of wildlife habitat, including
habitat for threatened and endangered species, associated
with the Missouri River ecosystem.
(B) Use for program.--The plan shall be used by the State
of South Dakota, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, or the Lower
Brule Sioux Tribe in carrying out the program carried out
under paragraph (1).
(3) Conditions of leases.--Each lease covered under a
program carried out under paragraph (1) shall specify that
the owner of the property that is subject to the lease shall
provide--
(A) public access for sportsmen during hunting season; and
(B) public access for other outdoor uses covered under the
lease, as negotiated by the landowner and the State of South
Dakota, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, or the Lower Brule
Sioux Tribe.
(4) Use of assistance.--
(A) State of south dakota.--If the State of South Dakota
conducts a program under this subsection, the State may use
funds made available under section 203(d)(3)(A)(iii) to--
(i) acquire easements, rights-of-way, or leases for
management and protection of wildlife habitat, including
habitat for threatened and endangered species, and public
access to wildlife on private property in the State of South
Dakota;
(ii) create public access to Federal or State land through
the purchase of easements or rights-of-way that traverse such
private property; or
(iii) lease land for the creation or restoration of a
wetland on such private property.
(B) Cheyenne river sioux tribe and lower brule sioux
tribe.--If the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe or the Lower Brule
Sioux Tribe conducts a program under this subsection, the
Tribe may use funds made available under section
204(d)(3)(A)(iii) for the purposes described in subparagraph
(A).
(c) Federal Obligation for Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat
Mitigation for the Big Bend and Oahe Projects in South
Dakota.--The establishment of the trust funds under sections
203 and 204 and the development and implementation of plans
for terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration developed by the
State of South Dakota, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, and
the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe in accordance with this section
shall be considered to satisfy the Federal obligation under
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et
seq.) for terrestrial wildlife habitat mitigation for the
State of South Dakota, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, and
the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe for the Big Bend and Oahe
projects carried out as part of the Pick-Sloan Missouri River
Basin program.
SEC. 203. SOUTH DAKOTA TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE HABITAT
RESTORATION TRUST FUND.
(a) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury of
the United States a fund to be known as the ``South Dakota
Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Fund''
(referred to in this section as the ``Fund'').
(b) Funding.--For the fiscal year during which this Act is
enacted and each fiscal year thereafter until the aggregate
amount deposited in the Fund under this subsection is equal
to at least $108,000,000, the Secretary of the Treasury shall
deposit in the Fund an amount equal to 15 percent of the
receipts from the deposits in the Treasury of the United
States for the preceding fiscal year from the power program
of the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin program, administered
by the Western Area Power Administration.
(c) Investments.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
invest the amounts deposited under subsection (b) only in
interest-bearing obligations of the United States or in
obligations guaranteed by the United States as to both
principal and interest.
(d) Payments.--
(1) In general.--All amounts credited as interest under
subsection (c) shall be available, without fiscal year
limitation, to the State of South Dakota for use in
accordance with paragraph (3).
(2) Withdrawal and transfer of funds.--Subject to section
202(a)(4)(A), the Secretary of the Treasury shall withdraw
amounts credited as interest under paragraph (1) and transfer
the amounts to the State of South Dakota for use as State
funds in accordance with paragraph (3).
(3) Use of transferred funds.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the State of
South Dakota shall use the amounts transferred under
paragraph (2) only to--
(i) fully fund the annually scheduled work described in the
terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration plan of the State
developed under section 202(a); and
(ii) with any remaining funds--
(I) protect archaeological, historical, and cultural sites
located along the Missouri River on land transferred to the
State;
(II) fund all costs associated with the ownership,
management, operation, administration, maintenance, and
development of recreation areas and other lands that are
transferred to the State of South Dakota by the Secretary;
(III) purchase and administer wildlife habitat leases under
section 202(b);
(IV) carry out other activities described in section 202;
and
(V) develop and maintain public access to, and protect,
wildlife habitat and recreation areas along the Missouri
River.
(B) Prohibition.--The amounts transferred under paragraph
(2) shall not be used for the purchase of land in fee title.
(e) Transfers and Withdrawals.--Except as provided in
subsection (d), the Secretary of the Treasury may not
transfer or withdraw any amount deposited under subsection
(b).
(f) Administrative Expenses.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary of the Treasury such sums as
are necessary to pay the administrative expenses of the Fund.
[[Page S12082]]
SEC. 204. CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE AND LOWER BRULE SIOUX
TRIBE TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE HABITAT RESTORATION
TRUST FUNDS.
(a) Establishment.--There are established in the Treasury
of the United States 2 funds to be known as the ``Cheyenne
River Sioux Tribe Terrestrial Wildlife Restoration Trust
Fund'' and the ``Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Terrestrial Wildlife
Habitat Restoration Trust Fund'' (each of which is referred
to in this section as a ``Fund'').
(b) Funding.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), for the fiscal
year during which this Act is enacted and each fiscal year
thereafter until the aggregate amount deposited in the Funds
under this subsection is equal to at least $57,400,000, the
Secretary of the Treasury shall deposit in the Funds an
amount equal to 10 percent of the receipts from the deposits
in the Treasury of the United States for the preceding fiscal
year from the power program of the Pick-Sloan Missouri River
Basin program, administered by the Western Area Power
Administration.
(2) Allocation.--Of the total amount of funds deposited
into the Funds for a fiscal year, the Secretary of the
Treasury shall deposit--
(A) 74 percent of the funds into the Cheyenne River Sioux
Tribe Terrestrial Wildlife Restoration Trust Fund; and
(B) 26 percent of the funds into the Lower Brule Sioux
Tribe Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Fund.
(c) Investments.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
invest the amounts deposited under subsection (b) only in
interest-bearing obligations of the United States or in
obligations guaranteed as to both principal and interest by
the United States.
(d) Payments.--
(1) In general.--All amounts credited as interest under
subsection (c) shall be available, without fiscal year
limitation, to the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the Lower
Brule Sioux Tribe for their use in accordance with paragraph
(3).
(2) Withdrawal and transfer of funds.--Subject to section
202(a)(4)(B), the Secretary of the Treasury shall withdraw
amounts credited as interest under paragraph (1) and transfer
the amounts to the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the Lower
Brule Sioux Tribe for use in accordance with paragraph (3).
(3) Use of transferred funds.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the Cheyenne
River Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe shall use
the amounts transferred under paragraph (2) only to--
(i) fully fund the annually scheduled work described in the
terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration plan of the
respective Tribe developed under section 202(a); and
(ii) with any remaining funds--
(I) protect archaeological, historical, and cultural States
located along the Missouri River on land transferred to the
respective Tribe;
(II) fund all costs associated with the ownership,
management, operation, administration, maintenance, and
development of recreation areas and other lands that are
transferred to the respective Tribe by the Secretary;
(III) purchase and administer wildlife habitat leases under
section 202(b);
(IV) carry out other activities described in section 202;
(V) develop and maintain public access to, and protect,
wildlife habitat and recreation areas along the Missouri
River.
(B) Prohibition.--The amounts transferred under paragraph
(2) shall not be used for the purchase of land in fee title.
(e) Transfers and Withdrawals.--Except as provided in
subsection (d), the Secretary of the Treasury may not
transfer or withdraw any amount deposited under subsection
(b).
(f) Administrative Expenses.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary of the Treasury such sums as
are necessary to pay the administrative expenses of the Fund.
SEC. 205. TRANSFER OF FEDERAL LAND TO STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA.
(a) In General.--
(1) Transfer.--The Secretary of the Army shall transfer to
the Department of Game, Fish and Parks of the State of South
Dakota (referred to in this section as the ``Department'')
the land and recreation areas described in subsections (b)
and (c) for fish and wildlife purposes, or public recreation
uses, in perpetuity.
(2) Uses.--The Department shall maintain and develop the
land and recreation areas for fish and wildlife purposes in
accordance with--
(A) fish and wildlife purposes in effect on the date of
enactment of this Act; or
(B) a plan developed under section 202.
(3) Corps of engineers.--The transfer shall not interfere
with the Corps of Engineers operation of a project under this
section for an authorized purpose of the project under the
Act of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 887, chapter 665; 33
U.S.C. 701-1 et seq.) or other applicable law.
(4) Secretary of the army.--The Secretary of the Army shall
retain the right to inundate with water the land transferred
to the Department under this section or draw down a project
reservoir, as necessary to carry out an authorized purpose of
a project.
(b) Land Transferred.--The land described in this
subsection is land that--
(1) is located above the top of the exclusive flood pool of
the Oahe Big Bend, Fort Randall, and Garvin's Point projects
of the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin program;
(2) was acquired by the Secretary of the Army for the
implementation of the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin
program;
(3) is located outside the external boundaries of a
reservation of an Indian Tribe; and
(4) is located within the State of South Dakota.
(c) Recreation Areas Transferred.--A recreation area
described in this section includes the land and waters within
a recreation area that--
(1) the Secretary of the Army determines, at the time of
the transfer, is a recreation area classified for recreation
use by the Corps of Engineers on the date of enactment of
this Act;
(2) is located outside the external boundaries of a
reservation of an Indian Tribe; and
(3) is located within the State of South Dakota.
(d) Map.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Army, in consultation
with the Department, shall prepare a map of the land and
recreation areas transferred under this section.
(2) Land.--The map shall identify--
(A) land reasonably expected to be required for project
purposes during the 20-year period beginning on the date of
enactment of this Act; and
(B) dams and related structures;
which shall be retained by the Secretary.
(3) Availability.--The map shall be on file in the
appropriate offices of the Secretary of the Army.
(e) Schedule for Transfer.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Army and the
Secretary of the South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks
Department shall jointly develop a schedule for transferring
the land and recreation areas under this section.
(2) Transfer deadline.--All land and recreation areas shall
be transferred not later than 1 year after the full
capitalization of the respective Trust Fund described in
section 204.
(f) Transfer Conditions.--The land and recreation areas
described in subsections (b) and (c) shall be transferred in
fee title to the Department on the following conditions:
(1) Responsibility for damage.--The Secretary of the Army
shall not be responsible for any damage to the land caused by
flooding, sloughing, erosion, or other changes to the land
caused by the operation of any project of the Pick-Sloan
Missouri River Basin program (except as otherwise provided by
Federal law).
(2) Easements, rights-of-way, leases, and cost-sharing
agreements.--The Department shall maintain all easements,
rights-of-way, leases, and cost-sharing agreements that are
in effect as of the date of the transfer.
(g) Hunting and Fishing.--Nothing in this title affects
jurisdiction over hunting and fishing on the waters of the
Missouri River. The State of South Dakota, the Lower Brule
Sioux Tribe, and the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe shall
continue to exercise the jurisdiction the State and Tribes
possess on the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 206. TRANSFER OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS LAND FOR INDIAN
TRIBES.
(a) In General.--
(1) Transfer.--The Secretary of the Army shall transfer to
the Secretary of the Interior the land and recreation areas
described in subsections (b) and (c).
(2) Corps of engineers.--The transfer shall not interfere
with the Corps of Engineers operation of a project under this
section for an authorized purpose of the project under the
Act of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 887, chapter 665; 33
U.S.C. 701-1 et seq.) or other applicable law.
(3) Secretary of the army.--The Secretary of the Army shall
retain the right to inundate with water the land transferred
to the Tribes under this section or draw down a project
reservoir, as necessary to carry out an authorized purpose of
a project.
(4) Trust.--The Secretary of the Interior shall hold in
trust for the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule
Sioux Tribe the land transferred under this section that is
located within the external boundaries of the reservation of
the Indian Tribes.
(b) Land Transferred.--The land described in this
subsection is land that--
(1) is located above the top of the exclusive flood pool of
the Big Bend and Oahe projects of the Pick-Sloan Missouri
River Basin program;
(2) was acquired by the Secretary of the Army for the
implementation of the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin
program; and
(3) is located within the external boundaries of the
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe.
(c) Recreation Areas Transferred.--A recreation area
described in this section includes the land and waters within
a recreation area that--
(1) the Secretary of the Army determines, at the time of
the transfer, is a recreation area classified for recreation
use by the Corps of Engineers on the date of enactment of
this Act;
(2) is located within the external boundaries of a
reservation of an Indian Tribe; and
(3) is located within the State of South Dakota.
(d) Map.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Army, in consultation
with the governing bodies of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe
and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, shall prepare a map of the
land transferred under this section.
(2) Land.--The map shall identify--
(A) land reasonably expected to be required for project
purposes during the 20-year period beginning on the date of
enactment of this Act; and
(B) dams and related structures;
which shall be retained by the Secretary.
(3) Availability.--The map shall be on file in the
appropriate offices of the Secretary of the Army.
(e) Schedule for Transfer.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Army and the
Chairmen of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the Lower
Brule Sioux
[[Page S12083]]
Tribe shall jointly develop a schedule for transferring the
land and recreation areas under this section.
(2) Transfer deadline.--All land and recreation areas shall
be transferred not later than 1 year after the full
capitalization of the respective Trust Fund described in
section 204.
(f) Transfer Conditions.--The land and recreation areas
described in subsections (b) and (c) shall be transferred to,
and held in trust by, the Secretary of the Interior on the
following conditions:
(1) Responsibility for damage.--The Secretary of the Army
shall not be responsible for any damage to the land caused by
flooding, sloughing, erosion, or other changes to the land
caused by the operation of any project of the Pick-Sloan
Missouri River Basin program (except as otherwise provided by
Federal law).
(2) Jurisdiction.--Nothing in this title affects
jurisdiction over the land and waters below the exclusive
flood pool and within the external boundaries of the Cheyenne
River Sioux Tribe and Lower Brule Sioux Tribe reservations.
Jurisdiction over the land and waters shall continue in
accordance with the Flood Control Act of 1944 (33 U.S.C. 701-
1 et seq.). Jurisdiction over the land transferred under this
section shall be the same as other land held in trust by the
Secretary of the Interior on the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe
reservation and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe reservation.
(3) Easements, rights-of-way, leases, and cost-sharing
agreements.--
(A) Maintenance.--The Secretary of the Interior shall
maintain all easements, rights-of-way, leases, and cost-
sharing agreements that are in effect as of the date of the
transfer.
(B) Payments to county.--The Secretary of the Interior
shall pay any affected county 100 percent of the receipts
from the easements, rights-of-way, leases, and cost-sharing
agreements described in subparagraph (A).
SEC. 207. ADMINISTRATION.
(a) In General.--Nothing in this title diminishes or
affects--
(1) any water right of an Indian Tribe;
(2) any other right of an Indian Tribe, except as
specifically provided in another provision of this title;
(3) any valid, existing treaty right that is in effect on
the date of enactment of this Act;
(4) any external boundary of an Indian reservation of an
Indian Tribe;
(5) any authority of the State of South Dakota that relates
to the protection, regulation, or management of fish,
terrestrial wildlife, and cultural and archaeological
resources, except as specifically provided in this title; or
(6) any authority of the Secretary, the Secretary of the
Interior, or the head of any other Federal agency under a law
in effect on the date of enactment of this Act, including--
(A) the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470
et seq.);
(B) the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16
U.S.C. 470aa et seq.);
(C) the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661
et seq.);
(D) the Act entitled ``An Act for the protection of the
bald eagle'', approved June 8, 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.);
(E) the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.);
(F) the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.);
(G) the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation
Act (25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.);
(H) the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known
as the ``Clean Water Act'') (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.);
(I) the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.);
and
(J) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
(b) Power Rates.--No payment made under this title shall
affect any power rate under the Pick-Sloan Missouri River
Basin program.
(c) Federal Liability for Damage.--Nothing in this Act
shall relieve the Federal Government of liability for damage
to private land caused by the operation of the Pick-Sloan
Missouri River Basin program.
(d) Flood Control.--Notwithstanding any provision of this
title, the Secretary shall retain the authority to operate
the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin program for purposes of
meeting the requirements of the Flood Control Act of 1944 (33
U.S.C. 701-1 et seq.).
SEC. 208. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Secretary.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
the Secretary such sums as are necessary--
(1) to pay the administrative expenses incurred by the
Secretary in carrying out this title; and
(2) to fund the implementation of terrestrial wildlife
habitat restoration plans under section 202(a).
(b) Secretary of the Interior.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary of the Interior such sums as
are necessary to pay the administrative expenses incurred by
the Secretary of the Interior in carrying out this title.
Amendments Nos. 3798 And 3799, En Bloc
Mr. JEFFORDS. Senator Chafee has two amendments at the desk and I ask
for their consideration en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords], for Mr. Chafee,
proposes amendments numbered 3798 and 3799, en bloc.
(The text of the amendments is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today the Senate will consider S. 2131,
the Water Resources Development Act of 1998. This measure, similar to
water resources legislation enacted in 1986, 1988, 19990, 1992, and
1996, is comprised of water resources project and study authorizations
and policy modifications for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil
Works program.
S. 2131 was introduced on June 4 of this year and was reported by the
Environment and Public Works Committee to the full Senate on August 25,
1998.
Since that time, additional project and policy requests have been
presented to the Committee. Some have come from our Senate colleagues--
others have come from the administration. We have carefully reviewed
each such request and include those that are consistent with the
Committee's criteria in the manager's amendment being considered along
with S. 2131 today. Mr. President, let me take a few moments here to
discuss these criteria--that is--the criteria used by the Committee to
judge project authorization requests.
On November 17, 1986, President Reagan signed into law the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986. Importantly, the 1986 Act marked an
end to the 16-year deadlock between Congress and the Executive branch
regarding authorization of the Army Corps Civil Works program.
In addition to authorizing numerous projects, the 1986 Act resolved
longstanding disputes relating to cost-sharing between the Army Corps
and non-federal sponsors, waterway user fees, environmental
requirements and, importantly, the types of projects in which federal
involvement is appropriate and warranted.
The criteria used to develop the legislation before us are consistent
with the reforms and procedures established in the landmark Water
Resources Development Act of 1986.
Is a project for flood control, navigation or some other purpose
cost-shared in a manner consistent with the 1986 Act?
Have all of the requisite reports and studies on economic,
engineering and environmental feasibility been completed for a project?
Is a project consistent with the traditional and appropriate mission
of the Army Corps?
Should the Federal Government be involved?
These, Mr. President, are the fundamental questions that we have
applied to each and every project included here for authorization.
This legislation authorizes the Secretary of the Army to construct
some 36 projects for flood control, navigation, and environmental
restoration. The bill also modifies 43 existing Army Corps projects and
authorizes 29 project studies. In total, this bill and the manager's
amendment authorizes an estimated Federal cost of $2.3 billion.
Mr. President, this legislation includes other project-specific and
general provisions related to Army Corps operations, as I mentioned at
the outset. Among them are two provisions sought by Senator Bond and
others to enhance the environment along the Missouri and Mississippi
Rivers. We have also included a modified version of the
administration's so-called Challenge 21 initiative to encourage more
non-structural flood control and environmental projects. In addition,
we are recommending that the cost-sharing formula be changed for
maintenance of future shoreline protection projects.
Mr. President, this legislation is vitally important for countless
states and communities across the country. For economic and life-safety
reasons, we must maintain our harbors, ports and inland waterways, our
flood control levees and shorelines, and the environment. I strongly
urge adoption of the underlying bill and manager's amendment.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to support the adoption of S.
2131, the Water Resources Development Act of 1998. This legislation is
our usual biennial authorization for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
It includes authority to construct projects for navigation, flood
control, hurricane and storm damage reduction, emergency streambank and
shore protection, water supply storage, recreation and ecosystem
restoration and protection. These projects range from harbor
[[Page S12084]]
improvements in Nome, Alaska, to shore protection at Little Duval
Island in Florida.
Since this historic Water Resources Development Act of 1986, when
project cost-sharing was established, the Corps of Engineers has
established a successful working relationship with the local sponsors
of these projects. This partnership has proven to be beneficial for all
involved, and we have continued it in this bill. This important
principle, combined with technical soundness, environmental
acceptability and economic justification guided the selection of
projects in this legislation.
The legislation also contains several changes to the Corps' program.
It established new continuing authorities program that would allow the
Corps of Engineers to undertake nonstructural flood control projects.
It changes the periodic beach renourishment cost-share from the current
65 percent Federal, 35 percent non-Federal, to 50 percent Federal, 50
percent non-Federal. And it allows the Corps to use recreation fees
collected above the current baseline to remain at the park where they
were collected to be used for maintenance.
The legislation contains 2 provisions that are very important to my
State of Montana. One provision would allow the Corps of Engineers to
provided needed emergency streambank stabilization in Billings,
Montana. Another provision directs the Secretary of the Army, in
cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S.
Geological Survey, the Natural Resource Conservation Service, the State
of Montana and all local interests to conduct a comprehensive study of
the cumulative impacts of activities on the Yellowstone River. This
study will give us a better understanding of how the natural flow and
the man-made structures can best protect the river and its habitat.
I thank Senators Chafee and Warner and all members who worked with
us.
I urge the passage of this bill and swift consideration by the House
in order to enact this legislation in the Congress.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the distinguished
managers of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1998 have
agreed to incorporate into the managers' package several provisions
which I have proposed. These cover Michigan projects, Great Lakes Basin
matters, and contaminated sediments. I am hopeful that the House will
expedite passage of this important matter before concluding legislative
business this session.
There are several specific items in the managers' package that will
benefit Michigan. They include an Army Corps of Engineers' feasibility
study of improvements to the Detroit River waterfront between the Belle
Isle Bridge and the Ambassador Bridge, as part of the ongoing
revitalization of that area. The Corps will also prepare studies for
flood control projects in St. Clair Shores and along the Saginaw River
in Bay City to see what types of structures will be necessary to
protect shorelines and property. Similarly, the Corps will consider
reconstruction of the Hamilton Dam flood control project. And, lastly,
the Corps will review its denial of the city of Charlevoix's request
for reimbursement of construction costs that it incurred in building a
new revetment connection to the Federal navigation project at
Charlevoix Harbor.
Mr. President, I would like to bring my colleagues' attention to my
proposal, now in the amended bill, that the Great Lakes Basin program
be named the ``John Glenn Great Lakes Basin program.'' This is a small
tribute to our colleague for the hard work that he has done to promote
and protect the Great Lakes Basin region. As Democratic Co-Chairman of
the Senate Great Lakes Task Force and as a former Chairman and now
Ranking Member of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, he has
long advocated common sense and efficiency in government. He has sought
to coordinate Federal research, regulatory, and conservation activities
in the Great Lakes region for many years in areas as diverse as
shipping and wildlife restoration. The provisions in the ``John Glenn
Great Lakes Basin program'' are intended to echo his fine work and
enhance coordination in Corps' programs in the region and in Federal
activities relating to diversion and consumption of Great Lakes Basin
waters. The specifics of the program, including a special study on the
western Lake Erie watershed, are as follows:
Strategic Plans. The Army Corps of Engineers is directed to develop a
framework for their activities in the Great Lakes basin to be updated
biennially. Many Army Corps of Engineers divisions have developed and
use such strategic plans. Development of such a strategic plan for the
Great Lakes Basin has never been more important than at present, given
the potential implications of the restructuring plans for the Great
Lakes and Ohio River Division.
Great Lakes Biohydrological Information. The Army Corps of Engineers
is directed to inventory existing information relevant to the Great
Lakes biohydrological system and sustainable water use management. The
Corps is then to report the results of this inventory, including
recommendations on ways to improve the information base, to Congress,
the International Joint Commission and the eight Great Lakes states.
The report will consider and update Congress on the status of the
issues and the recommendations described in two IJC reports regarding
diversion and consumptive uses of Great Lakes waters and Lake levels.
This information will be crucial in ongoing debate regarding the
continued attempts to export or divert Great Lakes surface and ground
water out of the Basin.
Great Lakes Recreational Boating. The amendment directs the Army
Corps of Engineers to submit to Congress a report based on existing
information detailing the economic benefits of recreational boating in
the Great Lakes Basin. As many of my colleagues may know, despite
Congress' repeated objections, consecutive Administrations have
unwisely sought to limit the Corps' role in dredging so-called
recreational harbors. Clearly, these harbors' value should and can be
recognized in the cost-benefit analysis conducted in making dredging
decisions.
Water Use Activities and Policies. The amendment would allow the
Secretary to provide technical assistance to the Great Lakes States to
develop interstate guidelines to improve the consistency and efficiency
of State-level water use activities and policies in the Great Lakes
Basin.
Sea Lamprey Control Barriers. The amendment clarifies that the Army
Corps of Engineers may use Section 1135 funds to construct sea lamprey
barriers at any site in the Great Lakes. As my colleagues may know, the
invasive sea lamprey species was introduced into the Great Lakes
through construction of the Welland Canal, making control of the
lamprey clearly a Federal responsibility. Sea lamprey barriers are
among the most cost-effective methods available for the control of
lamprey in the Great Lakes and use of Corps expertise, especially in
conjunction with existing projects, helps to make this management tool
as effective and efficient as possible.
Study on Western Lake Erie watershed. This regional study for the
western basin of Lake Erie is a pilot project for efforts in the region
to understand the synergistic relationships within a natural watershed
and the interplay of human economic, agricultural and commercial
development with environmental quality objectives.
Mr. President, once again, I'd like to recognize Senator Glenn for
his dedication and devotion to the Great Lakes region, even when it
might have caused him some political difficulties at home. He was a
staunch supporter of the Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative, which
came under great attack from various places around the Lakes. Senator
Glenn happened to have some of the most vociferous opponents in his
state, but that never stopped him from advocating for uniform water
quality criteria across the Basin. All of us in the Great Lakes will
always be indebted to him for his support on that measure. By the way,
my colleagues might be interested to know that implementation of the
Great Lakes Initiative is proceeding nicely in all eight Great Lakes
States.
Mr. President, the managers have incorporated another very important
matter which I have been pressing them and Federal agencies on for some
[[Page S12085]]
time. The subject is aquatic contaminated sediments and they are a
potential threat to public and environmental health across the country.
EPA has begun to document this problem in the National Inventory of
Contaminated Sediments released earlier this year. That inventory
identifies 96 areas of probable concern which Congress and the public
should be concerned about and which require appropriate remedial
actions.
The provisions which I requested will require the Army Corps of
Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency to finally activate
the National Contaminated Sediment Task Force that was mandated by the
Water Resources Development Act of 1992. I am hopeful that convening
this Task Force will encourage the Federal agencies to work together to
combat this problem and create greater public awareness of the need to
address contaminated sediments. And, the Task Force will be required to
report to Congress on Federal actions to clean up contaminated
sediments around the country. The Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works has assured me by letter that the Army will support the
convening of the Task Force.
As the managers may know, WRDA 92 required the creation of a Task
Force to advise EPA and the Corps in implementation of the National
Contaminated Sediment Assessment and Management Act, to review and
comment on specific issues, including the extent and seriousness of the
problem and research and development priorities, and to make
recommendations on prevention and source control. WRDA 92 required the
Task Force to report to Congress with findings and recommendations
within two years of enactment of that Act. Though some time has
elapsed, the Task Force's responsibility to comply with that reporting
requirement and other statutory responsibilities has not. I fully
expect to see that the Task Force complies with its statutory
requirements under WRDA 92 and this Act and will be working to make
that happen. I will be doing whatever I can to help the Task Force
provide Congress with useful advice on contaminated sediment management
in advance of reauthorization of Superfund, the Clean Water Act, RCRA
and other pertinent laws.
Mr. President, contaminated sediments can pose a serious and
demonstrable risk to human health and the environment. Persistent,
bioaccumulative toxic substances in contaminated sediment can poison
the food chain, making fish and shellfish unsafe for humans and
wildlife to eat. Potential costs to society include long term health
effects such as cancer and children's neurological and IQ impairment.
Contamination of sediments can also interfere with recreational uses
and increase the costs of and time needed for navigational dredging and
subsequent disposal of dredged material.
Since enactment of the Great Lakes Critical Program Act of 1990, and
the National Contaminated Sediment Assessment and Management Act of
1992, the Nation has gained considerable experience and understanding
about sediment contamination. As I have mentioned, the report on the
Incidence and Severity of Sediment Contamination in Surface Waters of
the United States, required under section 503 of the National
Contaminated Sediment Assessment and Management Act of 1992, identified
96 areas of probable concern where contaminated sediments pose
potential risks to fish and wildlife, and to people who eat fish from
them
The Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS)
program under the Clean Water Act, and subsequent studies, have
demonstrated that there are some effective tools for determining the
extent and magnitude of sediment contamination, for assessing risk and
modeling the changes that would result from remedial action, and for
involving the public in solutions. Prompt response after discovery of
sediment contamination can prevent subsequent spread through storm
events and minimize environmental impacts and response costs.
Unfortunately, the resources of the Federal Government have not been
brought to bear on these problems in a well coordinated fashion. That
is the principle reason for pursuing the convening of the Task Force.
But, we also need a better understanding of the quantities and sources
of sediment contamination, to prevent subsequent recontamination and
minimize the recurrence of these costs and impacts, and to get a handle
on the extent of the public health threat. To that end, my provision
requires the Task Force to document in a report the status of remedial
action on contaminated sediments around the country, including a
description of the authorities used in cleanup, the nature and sources
of sediment contamination, the methods for determining the need for
cleanup, the fate of dredged materials, and barriers to swift
remediation.
The response to releases of contaminated sediments should reflect the
risk associated with the contamination, and remedies should reflect the
beneficial reuse of contaminants. To respond to the serious
environmental risks that can be posed by contaminated sediment sites,
the Federal Government should use funding and enforcement authorities
of existing programs to help remediate these sites.
Last year, the National Research Council's Committee on Contaminated
Marine Sediment published a report on Contaminated Sediments in Ports
and Waterways: Cleanup Strategies and Technologies. That report
highlights the problems with the existing regulatory framework for
addressing sediment contamination. While the EPA has put out a
``Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy'', the regulatory issues
raised by the NAS clearly go beyond the scope of the authority of any
single agency.
It is likely that the Clean Water Act, Superfund, and the next
biennial Water Resources Development Act will all be under
consideration in the next Congress. Prompt development of an
interagency strategy that addresses the problems identified by the
survey and the regulatory and technological issues raised by NAS could
make a substantial contribution to helping inform decisionmakers on
appropriate legislative changes. It is important that the agencies and
the Task Force pay close attention to the analysis and recommendations
in the 1997 NAS report.
The NAS report clearly sets out the problems posed by the existing
statutory and regulatory framework. It is also clear on the stakes
involved, observing that: ``The presence of contaminated sediments
poses a barrier to essential waterway maintenance and construction in
many ports, which support approximately 95 percent of U.S. foreign
trade.''
NAS identifies the ``complex and sometimes inconsistent regulatory
framework'' as one of the key challenges in managing contaminated
sediment, observing that ``at least six comprehensive acts of Congress,
with responsibilities spread over seven Federal agencies, govern
sediment remediation or dredging operations in settings that range from
the open ocean to the freshwater reaches of estuaries and wetlands.''
Many of the applicable authorities were not originally designed to
address contaminated sediments, and questions of risk and costs are not
considered in a consistent way across the statutes.
The NAS also observes that
. . . current laws and regulations affecting contaminated
sediments can impede efforts to implement the best management
practices and achieve efficient, risk-based, and cost-
effective solutions. This is a shortcoming of the governing
statutes, not a criticism of regulatory agencies charged with
implementing them. The timeliness of decision making is also
an issue, given that it typically takes years to implement
solutions to contaminated sediments problems. In the
committee's case histories, the delay between the discovery
of a problem and the implementation of a solution ranged from
approximately 3 to 15 years.
However, there are no risk-based cleanup standards for
underwater sediments. Insufficient attention to risks, costs,
and benefits impedes efforts to reach technically sound
decisions and mange sediments cost-effectively. Similar
inattention to risk is evident in the permitting processes
for sediment disposal.
NAS concludes that
In the committee's view, cost-effective management of
contaminated marine sediments will require a multifaceted
campaign as well as a willingness to innovate.
The Task Force is set up to involve different agencies and levels of
government, including States that have pioneered innovative approaches
for intergovernmental collaboration.
The NAS report did not actually make specific recommendations for
statutory language changes. That would be the function of the Task
[[Page S12086]]
Force and would require the participation and input of the affected
Federal agencies on the Task Force and the representatives on the Task
Force from the States, public interest groups with a demonstrated
interest in the matter, and from the ports, agriculture or
manufacturing sectors. Also, the existence and advice of the Task Force
should help eliminate Congress' perennial need to deal with
contaminated sediments in minute detail for individual watersheds.
Mr. President, I want to be clear that convening the Task Force
should not provide an excuse for delay or more inaction. The NAS has
already spoken against delay. The report observes that: . . . there is
no reason to delay urgent projects in anticipation of new technological
solutions; decision makers should continue to try to make incremental
improvements in the overall management process,. . .'' and that, ``The
need to meet these challenges [posed by contaminated sediment
management] is urgent.''
I appreciate my colleagues assistance in incorporating this and the
other matters I have discussed into the managers' amendment to S. 2131.
I look forward to working with them to get these important provisions
signed into law.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 2131, the Water
Resources Development Act of 1998, and the Committee amendment, which
provide for the development and improvement of our Nation's water
resources infrastructure. This legislation authorizes water resource
projects of vital importance to our nation's and our states' economy
and maritime industry as well as our environment.
I am particularly pleased that the measure includes a number of
provisions for which I have fought to ensure the future health of the
Port of Baltimore and of Maryland's environment.
First the bill authorizes nearly $28 million for needed improvements
to Baltimore Harbor Anchorages and Channels. Many of the existing
anchorages and branch channels within Baltimore Harbor were built in
the first half of this century and are no longer deep enough, wide
enough or long enough to accommodate the vessels now calling on the
Port of Baltimore. Many of the larger ships must now anchor some 25
miles south of Baltimore in naturally deep water, resulting in delays
and increased costs to the shipping industry. Also, the narrow widths
of some of the branch channels result in additional time for the pilots
to maneuver safely to and from their docking berths. In June 1998 the
Chief of Engineers approved a report which recommended a number of
improvements including: 1) widening and deepening Federal anchorages 3
and 4; 2) widening and providing flared corners for state-owned East
Dundalk, Seagirt, Connecting and West Dundalk branch Channels; 3)
dredging a new branch channel at South Locust Point; and 4) dredging a
turning basin at the head of the Fort McHenry Channel. The report
identified the project as ``technically sound, economically justified
and environmentally and socially acceptable.'' This project has been a
top priority of mine, of the Maryland Port Administration and of the
shipping community for many years and I am delighted that this
legislation will enable us to move forward with this important project.
Second, the legislation directs the Corps of Engineers to make
critically needed safety improvements to the Tolchester Channel in the
Chesapeake Bay. The Tolchester Channel is a vital link in the Baltimore
Port system. It was authorized in the River and Harbor Act of 1958 and
aligned to take advantage of the naturally deep water in the Chesapeake
Bay, along Maryland's Eastern Shore. This alignment, which is shaped
like an ``S,'' has posed a serious navigation problem and safety risks
for vessels. Ships must change course five times within three miles,
often beginning a new turn, sometimes in the opposite direction, before
completing a first turn. With vessels nearly 1,000 feet in length, it
is difficult to safely navigate the channel, particularly in poor
weather conditions. The U.S. Coast Guard and the Maryland Pilots
Association have expressed serious concerns over the safety of the area
and have long recommended straightening of the channel due to the
grounding and ``near misses'' which have occurred in the area. The cost
for straightening the Tolchester ``S-turn'' is estimated at $12.6
million with $1.3 million coming from non-federal sources. This
authorization enables the Corps to proceed expeditiously with these
improvements and address the serious concerns of those who must
navigate the treacherous channel.
Mr. President, the Port of Baltimore is one of the great ports of the
world and one of Maryland's most important economic assets. The Port
generates $2 billion in annual economic activity, provides for an
estimated 62,000 jobs, and over $500 million a year in State and local
tax revenues and customs receipts. These two projects will help assure
the continued vitality of the Port of Baltimore into the 21st Century.
In addition to port development and improvement projects, the measure
contains a provision which will help significantly to enhance
Maryland's environment and quality of life and help achieve the goals
and vision of the Potomac American Heritage River designation.
It authorizes $15 million for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to
modify the existing flood protection project at Cumberland, Maryland to
restore features of the historic Chesapeake and Ohio Canal adversely
affected by construction and operation of the project. Mr. President,
the C&O Canal is widely regarded as the Nation's finest relic of
America's canal building era. It was begun in 1828 as a transportation
route between commercial centers in the East and frontier resources of
the West. It reached Cumberland in 1850 and continued operating until
1924 when it succumbed to floods and financial failure. In the early
1950's, a section of the Canal and turning basin at its Cumberland
terminus was filled in by the Corps of Engineers during construction of
a local flood protection project. Portions of the Canal were proclaimed
a national monument in 1961 and it was officially established as a
national historical park in 1971. Justice Douglas described the park
``. . . not yet marred by the roar of wheels and the sound of horns . .
. The stretch of 185 miles of country from Washington to Cumberland,
Maryland, is one of the most fascinating and picturesque in the
Nation.''
The National Park Service, as part of its General Management Plan for
the Park, has long sought to rebuild and re-water the Canal at its
Cumberland terminus. The NPS entered into a Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) with the Corps to undertake a study of the feasibility of
reconstructing the last 2200 feet of the canal to the terminus, through
and adjacent to the Corps' flood protection project. The Corps
completed this study in July 1995 and determined that ``it is feasible
to re-water the canal successfully; the canal and flood protection
levee can co-exist on the site without compromising the flood
protection for the City of Cumberland; re-construction and partial
operation of the locks is feasible; and, based on the as-built
information available, underground utility impacts can be mitigated at
reasonable cost to allow construction of the canal and turning basin in
basically the same alignment and configuration as the original canal.''
A subsequent Rewatering Design Analysis estimated the total project
cost at $15 million. This authorization will enable the Corps to
proceed with restoring a 1.1 mile stretch of the C&O Canal and
revitalize the area as a major hub for tourism and economic
development.
I want to compliment the distinguished Chairmen of the Committee and
the Subcommittee, Senators Chafee and Warner, and the ranking member,
Senator Baucus, for their leadership in crafting this legislation and I
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure.
Savannah Harbor Deepening Project
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I rise to request that the Chairman of
the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee help me to clarify
the intent of the Savannah Harbor Expansion Project authorization that
appears in Section 102 of the 1998 Water Resources Development
Authorization Act. It is my understanding that this legislation
authorizes a project to deepen the Savannah River channel to a depth of
up to 48 feet subject to a favorable report by the Chief of Engineers
and a favorable recommendation of the Secretary by December 31, 1998.
Mr. CHAFFEE. The senior Senator from Georgia is correct.
[[Page S12087]]
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, it is my understanding as well, that
both the Chief of Engineer's Tier I Environmental Impact Statement and
Feasibility Report provide for the establishment of a stakeholders'
evaluation group which will have early and consistent involvement in
the project, and as part of the process, the EIS requires the
development of a mitigation plan to fully and adequately address
predicted and potential adverse impacts on, among other things, the
Savannah National Wildlife Refuge; striped base population; short-nose
sturgeon; salt water and fresh water wetlands; chloride levels;
dissolved oxygen levels; erosion; and historical resources. Is that
correct?
Mr. CHAFFEE. That is correct.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, it is my further understanding that
before this project is carried out, the Secretary, in consultation with
affected Federal and non-Federal entities, must develop a mitigation
plan addressing adverse project impacts and that the plan must be
implemented in advance of or concurrent with project construction and
must ensure that the project cost estimates are sufficient to address
all potential mitigation alternatives. Is that correct?
Mr. CHAFFEE. That is correct.
Mr. COVERDELL. I thank the Chairman for his assistance and look
forward to working with him on this important matter.
Mr. CLELAND. Would the Chairman yield for two additional questions on
this project?
Mr. CHAFFEE. I would be happy to answer any questions the Senator may
have.
Mr. CLELAND. It is my understanding that the authorization language
provides that neither the Secretary nor the Georgia Ports Authority
will proceed with the design or construction of the project until the
respective department heads concur on an appropriate implementation
plan and mitigation plan. Is that correct?
Mr. CHAFFEE. That is correct.
Mr. CLELAND. Any funds to be appropriated by Congress for the project
must be allocated in a manner that ensures that project impacts are
fully and adequately mitigated and are otherwise consistent with the
mitigation plan developed by the Secretary and the stakeholder
evaluation group. Is that correct?
Mr. CHAFFEE. That is correct.
Mr. CLELAND. I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to clarify
these understandings.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be agreed
to en bloc, the committee substitute be agreed to, the bill be
considered read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be
laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be
printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments (Nos. 3798 and 3799) were agreed to.
The committee substitute, as amended, was agreed to.
The bill (S. 2131), as amended, was passed.
[The bill was not available for printing. It will appear in a future
issue of the Record.]
____________________