[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.]

                          ____________________