[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 115 (Monday, September 25, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9142-S9181]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2000
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, what is the pending
business before the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 3:50
p.m. having arrived, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 2796,
which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2796) 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
other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 1 hour for closing remarks.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, this is the first major
piece of environmental legislation debated on the floor since I assumed
the chairmanship of this committee nearly 1 year ago. I am proud to
bring the Water Resources Development Act before the Senate, of which a
major portion is the Everglades which I will talk about in a moment.
This is a good bill. I am very proud of it. It is fiscally
responsible. At the same time, it recognizes our obligation to preserve
one of the most important and endangered ecosystems in the Nation, if
not the world--America's Everglades.
This bill gets us back on track toward regular biennial Water
Resources Development Act bills. The committee produced a so-called
WRDA bill last year, but that bill was 1 year late.
I am proud of the WRDA portion of this bill. This is not a bill that
includes numerous unnecessary projects. The committee established some
tough criteria on which we worked very closely. We evaluated the old
criteria and put in new criteria. We scrupulously followed this
criteria in an effort to not let projects make their way into this bill
that did not belong there.
As I noted in my opening statement a few days ago, the committee
received requests to authorize more than 300 new projects. By holding
firm on our criteria in this WRDA bill, we only authorized 23 new
projects. We authorize 40 feasibility studies, and the bill contains 65
project-related provisions or modifications that affect existing
projects.
I remain very concerned about clearing the backlog of previously
authorized projects that will not or should not be constructed. Along
with Senator Voinovich, we are working very hard to clear that backlog.
Called the deauthorization process, this will be an element of the
committee's efforts to reform the Corps and to get those projects
deauthorized that should not be there.
This bill tightens that process by shortening the length of time that
an authorized project can stay on the books without actual funding. It
is not the full answer, but it is a good answer, and it is a good
beginning.
During floor consideration of the bill last week, we accepted an
amendment that requires the National Academy of Sciences to perform two
studies relating to independent peer review of the analyses performed
by the Corps of Engineers.
I would like to make a few points about that amendment because it was
a very important amendment. We certainly have read a lot about Corps
reform in the local newspapers, specifically the Washington Post, over
the last few months. The stories raised very legitimate issues about
the economic modeling used to justify some of these water resources
projects.
However, it is important to understand that a series of articles in a
newspaper is no substitute for careful consideration of the facts and
of the issues by the Congress. We have the oversight responsibility for
the Army Corps, not the Washington Post.
Some Senators, such as Senator Feingold, have proposed reforms that
focus on one element in the Corps reform--whether or not to impose a
requirement that the feasibility reports for certain water resources
projects be subject to peer review. Others, such as Senator Daschle,
introduced more comprehensive bills that would examine a number of the
Corps reform issues, including peer review.
The committee needs more information before we can proceed with any
bill that would impose peer review on the lengthy project development
process that is already in place. We need to know the benefits of peer
review and its impacts before starting down that road.
Senator Baucus and I are committed to examining this issue and other
issues related to the operation and management of the Corps of
Engineers next year. This will include hearings on Corps reform.
The hearings will take comments on the NAS study--the National
Academy of Sciences study--the bills that have been introduced, as well
as the issue in general.
I was very encouraged that the nominee to be the next Chief of
Engineers, General Flowers, is receptive to working with the Congress
on a wide range of reform-related issues.
I want to speak specifically about one major element in this
legislation, the Everglades. There is an important element that
separates this WRDA bill from all others, something that makes this
WRDA truly historic. This WRDA bill includes our landmark Everglades
bill, S. 2797, the Restoring of the Everglades, an American Legacy Act,
very carefully named because it is an American legacy. We do have to
restore it. That is what we have done. We have begun the process.
So many have asked--especially some of my conservative friends--why
should the Federal Government, why should this Congress take on this
long-term expensive effort? The answers really are not that difficult,
if you look at them.
First, the Everglades is in real trouble, deep trouble. We could lose
what is left of the Everglades in this very generation.
Secondly, the Federal Government, despite the best of intentions, is
largely responsible for the damage that was done to the Everglades. The
Congress
[[Page S9143]]
told the Corps of Engineers to drain that swamp in 1948--and drain it
they did, all too well.
Finally, the lands owned or managed by the Federal Government--four
national parks and 16 national wildlife refuges which comprise half of
the remaining Everglades--will receive the benefits of the restoration.
So there is a lot of Federal involvement here. This is a Federal
responsibility. There is a compelling Federal interest. The State of
Florida, to its credit, has already stepped up and committed $2 billion
to the effort. And Congress needs to respond to that pledge.
Let's be clear on one thing right now: This plan is not without
risks. This comprehensive plan is based on the best science we have.
Because of the very nature of the plan, and the additional requirements
in the bill, we are certain we will know more about the Everglades and
the success of the plan in the future.
To those of you who want guarantees, who want to be absolutely
certain every dime we spend is going to be spent in a way that is going
to restore the Everglades, then I say to you you probably should not
support us because I cannot make that guarantee. But what I can say to
you is, if we do nothing we lose the Everglades. So if you want to
restore this precious national treasure, then you have to be willing to
take the risk. And we are cutting that risk dramatically by the way we
are doing this.
But we take risks all the time. We take risks every time we invest in
a new weapons program for the Defense Department or when we invest in
cancer research. I am sure there would be no Senator who would come to
the floor and say: We have not yet found a cure for cancer; therefore,
we should not risk any more money.
We need to take this risk to save this precious ecosystem. It is well
worth it. We have cut the odds. Because of the nature of this plan, and
the additional requirements in our bill, we are certain we are going to
know much more about the Everglades in the future; and we are going to
be able, through the process of adaptive management, to change every
year or so. If something is not going right, we can pull back, try
something new, so we do not waste a lot of dollars doing things that we
do not want to do.
We acknowledge uncertainty. The plan acknowledges uncertainty. So
when my colleagues come down and say there is some uncertainty about
this, we know that. We anticipate that this plan will change as we gain
more knowledge, while we implement it over the next 36 years.
This is a 36-year plan that is going to spend in the vicinity of $8
billion, split equally between the State of Florida and the Federal
Government. It works out to a can of Coke per U.S. citizen per year.
That is not a bad investment to be able to save the wading birds and
the alligators and this precious river of grass of which we are all so
proud.
I am confident, because of the time I have spent on this issue, that
adaptive assessment or adaptive management--whatever you want to call
it--will succeed, even if the plan is modified based on the new
information that we get in the future.
The Everglades portion of WRDA has broad bipartisan support. Every
major constituency involved in the Everglades restoration supports this
bill--every one of them.
Is it perfect? Did everybody get exactly what they wanted? No. But
everybody is on board. It is bipartisan and it is wide ranging. It goes
from the liberal side of the equation to the conservative side. It
includes the administration. It includes both Presidential candidates:
Vice President Gore and Gov. George Bush. It includes the Florida
Governor, Jeb Bush. It includes the Florida Legislature, both sides of
the aisle unanimously. It includes the Seminole Tribe of Florida and
the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians in Florida.
It includes major industry groups, such as the Florida Citrus Mutual,
Florida Farm Bureau, Florida Home Builders, The American Water Works
Association, Florida Chamber of Commerce, Florida Fruit and Vegetable
Association, Southeast Florida Utility Council, Gulf Citrus Growers
Association, Florida Sugar Cane League, Florida Water Environmental
Utility Council, Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida, Florida
Fertilizer and Agri-chemical Association; and environmental groups as
well, including the National Audubon Society, National Wildlife
Federation, World Wildlife Fund, Center for Marine Conservation,
Defenders of Wildlife, National Parks Conservation Association, The
Everglades Foundation, The Everglades Trust, Audubon of Florida, 1000
Friends of Florida, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental
Defense, and the Sierra Club.
I think it is pretty unusual to bring a major environmental bill to
the Senate floor with that breadth of support. Support for the bill, as
it stands today, is even broader than the support that existed for the
administration's comprehensive plan.
We have taken a good product and have made it better. How have we
made it better? It is more fiscally responsible. We defer decisions on
some of the riskiest new technologies until we have more information
from the pilot projects, which will help us to understand whether these
projects should be continued. It has ground-breaking provisions to
assure that the plan attains its restoration goals. It has the creation
of a true partnership between the Federal Government and the State.
This type of partnership--State concurrence in all important decisions
and regulations--has no precedent in our environmental statutes. It has
more detailed and meaningful reports to Congress on the progress of the
plan, almost on a yearly basis.
The Everglades bill is a great model for environmental policy
development, a model I endorse, a model I have worked hard to implement
since I have been the chairman. It is cooperative. It is not
confrontational. It is bipartisan. It is flexible. It is adaptive. It
establishes a partnership between the Federal Government and the State.
Already, there is support for this bill in the House. Congressman
Clay Shaw introduced this bill as H.R. 5121 on September 7. He deserves
credit for his leadership in that regard. Many others in the House on
both sides of the aisle are ready to join the effort. I am asking my
colleagues to join with me in support of this major piece of
legislation.
I see my colleague and good friend from the State of Florida, Senator
Graham, is on the floor at this time. I will yield the floor in just a
moment so he may speak.
Before doing so, I thank him, as well as Senator Mack, for his
absolute and resolute involvement in this project. I went to Florida in
early January at the request of Senator Graham and Senator Mack to see
for myself what the situation was. I spent several days there. We had a
hearing in Florida. We listened to the people who were speaking on this
issue.
I made a promise at that hearing that I would bring this bill to the
Senate floor before the end of the year. With the help of good people
such as Senator Bob Graham of Florida and Senator Mack, Senator Baucus,
and others, we have made that happen. I thank Senator Graham publicly
and personally for that. His cooperation has been splendid. Without
him, we would not be here.
I yield the floor so my colleague from Florida may have a chance to
address this issue that is so important to his State and to the Nation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair. I express my deepest appreciation and
gratitude to Senator Smith for the great leadership he has provided to
the Environment and Public Works Committee in many areas but especially
for what he has done for the Florida Everglades, America's Everglades.
Senator Smith, shortly after he assumed the chairmanship of the
committee, after the untimely death of our friend and colleague Senator
Chafee, made one of his first acts as chairman of the committee coming
to the American Everglades. He did not just come. He absorbed the
American Everglades through a series of briefings, field visits, and
then concluded with a very long hearing before the annual Everglades
Conference.
At that hearing, Senator Smith gave a forum to all the diverse points
of view as to what should be appropriate national policy as it relates
to America's Everglades. He gave comfort to the people there that these
decisions were going to be made in a rational,
[[Page S9144]]
thoughtful manner. That contributed immeasurably to the bringing
together of all of those groups behind the plan which is before us
today. I take this opportunity to thank the Presiding Officer's
neighbor from New Hampshire for the tremendous leadership he has given.
Earlier today I was listening to National Public Radio where there
was some grousing about the fact that bipartisanship seems to be a lost
component of the congressional process. It is not lost on the Senator
from New Hampshire because he has displayed it at its very best. On
behalf of Senator Mack, I express our appreciation for that fact.
The legislation before us today represents an unprecedented
compromise by national and State environmental groups, agriculture and
industry. These diverse interests are united in support of the
Everglades restoration bill, title VI of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000. This is the legislation we will have the
opportunity to pass through the Senate today.
I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support for this bill be
printed in the Record. This letter carries with it the names of many of
the groups just listed by Chairman Smith.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
September 14, 2000.
An Open Letter on Restoration of America's Everglades
Dear Florida Congressional Delegation, Congressional
Leadership, and Committee Leadership: We are writing to urge
Congress to take immediate and decisive action on a historic
accord recently reached on legislation to protect one of the
nation's most precious natural resources, America's
Everglades. We present a diverse group of interests that
includes conservation organizations, agricultural producers,
homebuilders, water utilities, and others that don't always
agree on Everglades issues. However, we are united with
Florida's two Senators, the bipartisan leadership of the
Senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works, the
Clinton Administration, and Florida's Governor Jeb Bush to
endorse a legislative package that will protect America's
Everglades while respecting the needs of all water users in
Florida.
This legislation, currently embodied in a manager's
amendment to S. 2797 and recently introduced in the House by
Congressman Clay Shaw, H.R. 5121, was agreed to as a package
and on the condition that all parties would support it in the
Senate and the House. We are greatly encouraged that an
agreement has been reached on this basis.
This legislation can be a sound framework for future
management of South Florida's water resources and Congress
should approve its orderly implementation as soon as
possible. We consider this legislation as currently drafted
to be a fair and balanced plan to restore the Everglades
while meeting the water-related needs of the region. While
there are other changes we all would have preferred, we
believe the long and difficult process has produced a
reasonable compromise.
This agreement has brought an unprecedented level of
support for Everglades' restoration legislation. The greatest
threat now facing the Everglades is the profound lack of time
left in this Congressional session. We urge the Senate to
pass expeditiously S. 2797, Restoration of the Everglades, An
American Legacy Act. We further urge the Florida
Congressional delegation, the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee, its Water Resources and Environment
Subcommittee, and House Leadership to unite with the State,
Administration, environmental organizations, and the
agriculture, water utilities and homebuilders stakeholder
coalition, to pass the bill in the House of Representatives
and send it to the President for his signature before
Congress adjourns for the November elections.
Sincerely,
Florida Citrus Mutual, Ken Keck; Florida Farm Bureau,
Carl B. Loop, Jr.; Florida Home Builders, Keith
Hetrick; 1000 Friends of Florida, Nathaniel Reed;
Audubon of Florida, Stuart D. Strahl Ph.D.; Center for
Marine Conservation, David Guggenheim.
The American Water Works Association, Florida Section
Utility Council, Fred Rapach; Florida Chamber, Chuck
Littlejohn; Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association,
Mike Stuart; Southeast Florida Utility Council, Vernon
Hargrave; Gulf Citrus Growers Association Association,
Ron Hamel; Florida Sugar Can League, Phil Parsons; The
Florida Water Environmental Association Utility
Council, Fred Rapach; Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of
Florida, George Wedgworth; Florida Fertilizer and Agri-
chemical Association, Mary Hartney.
Defenders of Wildlife, Rodger Schlickheinsen; The
Everglades Foundation, Mary Barley; The Everglades
Trust, Tom Rumberger; National Audubon Society, Tom
Adams; National Parks Conservation, Mary Munson;
National Wildlife Federation, Malia Hale; World
Wildlife Fund, Shannon Estenoz; Natural Resources
Defense Council, Brad Sewell.
Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately
following my remarks, a letter from the Environmental Protection Agency
Administrator, Ms. Browner; Secretary of Interior, Mr. Babbitt; and
Assistant Secretary for Civil Works, Mr. Westphal; expressing their
support for this legislation also be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. GRAHAM. The Everglades is sick. This sickness has been long
coming.
It was approximately 120 years ago that man looked at the Everglades
and realized that it was different, different than almost anything he
or she had seen before, and seeing this phenomenon of the Everglades,
made a commitment. The commitment was to turn the unique into the
pedestrian by converting the Everglades into something that would look
more like man and woman had seen in other areas of this country or
other areas of the world.
The result of that has been 120 years of an effort to change the
Everglades, to convert the singular into the common. The results of
that 120 years have brought the Everglades to their current position.
This cannot be cured without the serious surgery that we are about to
sanction by the passage of this legislation.
Since the passage of the central and south Florida flood control
project in 1948, placing the Everglades in the responsibility of the
Corps of Engineers at the direction of Congress, nearly half of the
original Everglades have been drained or otherwise altered. According
to the National Parks and Conservation Association, the parks and the
preserves of the Everglades, of whichever Everglades National Park is
the jewel, are among the 10 most endangered national parks in the
country.
As Florida's Governor in 1983, I launched an effort known as ``Save
Our Everglades.'' Its purpose was to revitalize this precious
ecosystem. The goal was simple. We wanted to turn back time. We wanted
the Everglades to look and function more as they had at the end of the
19th century than they did in 1983.
In 1983, restoring the natural health and function of this precious
system seemed to be a distant dream. But after 17 years of bipartisan
progress in the context of a strong Federal-State partnership, we now
stand on the brink of this dream becoming a reality.
I will speak for a moment about this unprecedented Federal-State
partnership. I often compare this unique partnership to a marriage. If
both partners respect each other and pledge to work through any
challenges together, if they are willing to grow together, the marriage
will be strong and successful.
Today, we are again celebrating the strength of that marriage. This
legislation contains several provisions which were born out of the
respect that sustains this marriage.
It offers assurances to both the Federal and the State governments on
the use and distribution of water in the Everglades ecosystem.
It requires that State government pay half the costs of construction.
It requires the Federal Government to pay half the costs of operation
and maintenance. Everglades restoration cannot work unless the
executive branch, Congress, and State government move forward together.
The legislation before us today accomplishes that goal.
The legislation before us today represents not only unprecedented
compromise and partnership but also unprecedented complexity. Just as
the Panama Canal, which this Congress authorized almost a hundred years
ago, was the first of its kind, so is Everglades restoration. It is the
largest, most complex environmental restoration project not only in the
history of the United States of America but in the history of the
world.
The lessons we will learn here will be exported to other projects
throughout America and throughout the world. I trust that today the
Senate will make the right choice. Today will be the day the Senate has
an opportunity to make
[[Page S9145]]
a bipartisan commitment to an Everglades restoration plan that reflects
a true partnership between the State and Federal governments. If we
accomplish the historic goal of restoring America's Everglades, then
today will be one of the most precious memories of our children and
grandchildren.
In the words of President Lyndon Johnson:
If future generations are to remember us with gratitude
rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the
miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the
world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got
through with it.
Today is the day we have an opportunity to leave a glimpse of
America's Everglades as they were when we first found them for future
generations--beautiful, serene, a river of grass.
Madam President, we have commended a number of people who have worked
hard to bring us to this day. I want to take this opportunity to
commend members of the individual and committee staffs in the Senate
who have played an immeasurable role in the success we will soon
celebrate. Many people have worked with Senator Smith, and I want to
particularly recognize Chelsea Henderson, Tom Gibson, and Stephanie
Daigle for their work on behalf of the American Everglades. With
Senator Baucus, I thank Jo-Ellen Darcy and Peter Washburn. With Senator
Mack, I thank C.K. Lee. And from my office, I thank Catherine Cyr, who
has done work of negotiation that would do the most experienced
diplomat honor.
So it is my hope we will grasp the opportunity that is before us and
commence a long adventure--as long an adventure as is required to
overturn 120 years of attempts to convert the Everglades into the
common, so that we can leave to our children and grandchildren an
American Everglades which salutes the highest standards of the words
``unique,'' ``special,'' and ``unprecedented.'' Those are the words
that properly describe this marvelous system of nature.
Thank you.
Exhibit 1
Department of the Interior, Environmental Protection
Agency, Department of the Army,
Washington, DC, August 21, 2000.
Hon. Robert Smith,
Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: We strongly support your bill. S. 2797,
``Restoring the Everglades, an American Legacy Act,'' and
recommend its passage by the Senate and House of
Representatives as soon as possible. If enacted, this bill
will help achieve the bipartisan goal of re storing a
national treasure, America's Everglades.
S. 2797 is the product of hard work and negotiation among
the Administration, the State of Florida and your Committee.
Indeed, the proposed manager's amendment reflects full
agreement between the Administration and the State of Florida
on the bill. Accordingly, with adoption of the manager's
amendment, we will recommend that the President sign the
bill. The bill represents a highly effective approach for
meeting essential restoration objectives while recognizing
other issues important to the citizens of Florida.
We commend you, along with Senators Max Baucus, Bob Graham
and Connie Mack, for your leadership and commitment to making
Everglades legislation a top priority. We stand ready to do
all we can to secure passage their year.
Sincerely,
Bruce Babbitt,
Secretary of the Interior.
Carol Browner,
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency.
Joseph W. Westphal,
Assistant Secretary for Civil Works Department of the Army.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I thank my colleague for
his very kind remarks. I very much appreciate his hard work on behalf
of the Everglades, which dates back prior to his time in the Senate, as
we all know, when he was the Governor of Florida. Then-Governor Graham
was very instrumental in keeping this project on line.
I think it is also important to understand that the Founding Fathers
were a lot more brilliant than we sometimes give them credit. In this
process, I think they foresaw an opportunity where a Senator from a
State such as New Hampshire, which has nothing to do with the
Everglades, could be chairman of a committee that would bring forth a
major piece of environmental legislation in conjunction with the
Florida Senators--a piece of environmental legislation as to another
State about 2,000 miles to the south. It is a remarkable process we
have here that would see that happening. I think the founders knew it.
That is why we have a Senate, where we can work these things through in
a way that has a national touch.
As I went down there and saw the Everglades firsthand and had the
opportunity to have a hearing with Senators Graham and Voinovich, who
was also there, I realized--and I had visited there many times as a
tourist--that the Everglades was in fact draining, that some 90 percent
of the wading birds were lost, and animals and plant life were dying.
On the one hand, on one side of the Tamiami Trial you had a desert; on
the other side you basically had the wetlands that it was supposed to
be. But the Tamiami Trail is a dam that needs to be removed to allow
that water to flow all through that ecosystem from Lake Okeechobee to
the Gulf of Mexico. It is a great project.
People might say, What is the Senator from New Hampshire doing here?
Well, I remember the first time my son saw an alligator in Florida as a
6-year-old boy. It was a very poignant moment, and you don't forget
those things. In talking to the park rangers over the years--and, most
specifically, the last time I was there in January--you realize that
the Everglades are in trouble. As I said earlier, there are no
guarantees here, but I think we have cut the odds dramatically. I am
very optimistic that this will work and work well. So I am certainly
looking forward to the passage of this bill. I hope the House will
quickly follow suit so that we can make this law before the end of the
year.
I see Senator Baucus has arrived. I want to say before yielding to
him how much I appreciate his help throughout this process. It has been
a bipartisan effort. We are all guilty of partisanship from time to
time, as well we should be; I think there are times when partisanship
is important. But there was no partisanship on this issue. We worked
together on it to bring this bill forward. Senator Baucus and his staff
were very helpful, and we are grateful.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I thank my good friend, Senator Smith,
for his comments.
I join him in urging my colleagues to support final passage of the
legislation before us.
As we stated on the floor last week, this important bill authorizes
projects for flood control, navigation, shore protection, environmental
restoration, water supply storage, and recreation. All very important
matters across the country. These projects often don't get headlines or
much attention, but they clearly mean a lot to many people.
Each of these projects meet our committee criteria. That is
important, too, because the Environment and Public Works Committee gets
lots of requests. The projects are technologically feasible,
economically justified, and environmentally sound. In addition, each
project has a local sponsor willing to share a portion of the cost,
which is something we insist upon in order to show that the project is
important locally.
Passage of this bill will advance two projects that are very
important for my State of Montana--the fish hatchery at Fort Peck Lake
and the exchange of cabin site leases in the C.M. Russell Wildlife
Refuge.
The fish hatchery is particularly important since it will create more
jobs and help our State's economy in northeastern Montana, a part of
the State which is, frankly, hurting.
The cabin lease exchange provision will also benefit the government,
sportsmen, and cabin site owners by acquiring inholdings that are
within the refuge and that have high value for wildlife in return for
cabin sites now managed by the Corps.
Finally, this bill will start us on the path to restoration of that
unique national treasure known as the Everglades.
Last week we heard my colleagues from Florida, as well as the leaders
of
[[Page S9146]]
the Environment and Public Works Committee elaborate on the importance
of this effort. We all know how important it is. It is one of our
natural treasures.
This provision is a testament to true bipartisanship. Senators Graham
and Mack have been at the forefront of this effort. Governor Jeb Bush
and the Clinton administration, particularly Interior Secretary Bruce
Babbitt, have also worked closely to achieve this result.
And, of course, it could not have happened without the support of
Senator Smith, our chairman, who put this issue at the top of the
committee's agenda this year and has worked tirelessly throughout the
year to make this bill happen, and Senator, Voinovich, the subcommittee
chairman. This has been an effort of his as well.
Without this bipartisan support in Washington, and throughout
Florida, this project would not be where it is today. It would still be
on the drawing board. And the Everglades would still be destined to
die.
In conclusion, I want to assure our colleagues that this bill is the
right thing to do. And it is worthy of their support.
Before yielding the floor, let me also mention some of the staff who
deserve recognition for putting this bill together. I will submit a
longer list for the Record.
But let me mention here my fine staff, particularly Jo-Ellen Darcy,
who is sitting to my immediate left. Her expertise and experience in
water issues has been a real asset to me and the committee.
I'll also tell you that she has become more familiar with the State
of Florida than I think she ever imagined.
And Peter Washburn, who is sitting to Jo-Ellen's left, a fellow from
EPA on the staff of the Environment Committee. He has provided
invaluable assistance in shepherding this bill through the legislative
process, and on many other issues before the committee.
Senator Smith's staff, Chelsea Henderson, Stephanie Daigle, and Tom
Gibson have similarly provided the leadership necessary to get this
bill done. And Senator Voinovich's staff, Ellen Stein and Rich
Worthington, were instrumental in negotiating this bill from the
beginning.
Finally, staff from Senator Graham's office, Catharine Cyr, and from
Senator Mack's office, C.K. Lee, at times probably felt that they were
on the staff of the committee for all the time they put into this
effort.
All of us in the Senate, and all Floridians, should appreciate their
dedication and hard work. They are people whose names aren't often
mentioned. In fact, to be honest about it, they do most of the hard
work. They are true servants in the best sense of the term because they
are doing work for our country, yet do not seek to have their names in
headlines.
I ask unanimous consent that a list of the many other people who
deserve thanks for their part in making this bill a reality be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Senate Staff Deserving Thanks
EPW Committee: Tom Sliter, David Conover, Tom Gibson,
Chelsea Henderson, Stephanie Daigle, Peter Washburn, and Jo-
Ellen Darcy.
Catherine Cyr with Senator Graham; C.K. Lee with Senator
Mack; Ellen Stein with Senator Voinovich; Rich Worthington
with Senator Voinovich; Kasey Gilette with Senator Graham;
Ann Loomis with Senator Warner; and Janine Johnson and Darcie
Tomasallo-Chen with Legislative Counsel.
Army WRDA or Everglades Participants: Assistant Secretary
of the Army for Civil Works, Dr. Joseph Westphal; Michael
Davis; Jim Smyth; Chip Smith; Earl Stockdale; Susan Bond;
Larry Prather; Gary Campbell; Milton Rider; and Stu
Appelbaum.
Department of the Interior CERP legislative team: Secretary
Bruce Babbitt; Mary Doyle, Acting Assistant Secretary for
Water and Science; Peter Umhofer, Senior Advisor; Don Jodrey,
Attorney, Office of the Solicitor; David Watts, Attorney,
Office of the Solicitor; and Dick Ring, Superintendent,
Everglades National Park.
Environmental Protection Agency: Administrator Carol
Browner; Gary Guzy; Bob Dreher; Jamie Grodsky; John
Hankinson; Richard Harvey; Philip Mancusi-Ungaro; Eric
Hughes; and Dana Minerva.
White House Council of Environmental Quality: Bill Leary.
state of florida everglades team
Florida Governors Office: Governor Jeb Bush, J. Allison
DeFoor, R. Clarke Cooper, Rick Smith, and Nina Oviedo.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection: Secretary
David B. Struhs, Ernie Barnett, Leslie Palmer, John Outland,
and Jennifer Fitzwater.
South Florida Water Management District: Executive Director
Frank Finch, Kathy Copeland, Mike Collins, Tom Teets, John
Fumero, Elena Bernando, Paul Warner, Abe Cooper, and Cecile
Ross.
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force: Rock Salt.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, since both Senator
Graham and Senator Baucus have both mentioned so many people to thank,
we always run the risk of leaving someone out whenever we do that. With
apologies to anyone that I do, I would like to reiterate and reinforce
some of those who have already been thanked as well as perhaps a couple
more.
I think first and foremost we should mention Senator John Chafee who
certainly started the process of the efforts on the Everglades, along
with Senator Baucus. I know that John Chafee would be very proud of
this moment because he felt deeply about this ecosystem. I think it is
a great honor to be here now and be at this point knowing that John
Chafee would have wanted this. It is a great tribute to him because he
started the process. All we did was jump into the harness that he had
already put on the team.
I also thank Senator Voinovich, subcommittee chairman, because he
brought a lot of debate on this issue. He helped us correct many
provisions--certainly on the financing end and the cost end. We look a
lot more closely at projects because of him. He was certainly a
stalwart in seeing that this was a more fiscally responsible item than
perhaps it may have otherwise been.
Certainly Senator Baucus, who I already thanked, and Senators Mack
and Graham. As Senator Baucus correctly said, it seemed as if Senator
Mack was on the committee. But that is the way we worked it. They are
the two Senators. We worked with them. Senator Graham, of course, is on
the committee. But we worked together, knowing that we wanted all the
input we could get from all of them.
The administration was helpful. Mary Doyle and Peter Umhofer at the
Department of the Interior. And Secretary Babbitt who was here for a
press conference when we announced and released the bill; Joe Westphal
and Mike Davis from the Department of the Army; Gary Guzy from EPA; Stu
Applebaum, Larry Prather, and many others from the Corps of Engineers;
and Bill Leary from CEQ.
From the State of Florida--they have been absolutely fantastic on
both sides of the aisle: David Struhs, Leslie Palmer, and Ernie Barnett
from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection; Governor Bush
himself, who has just been outstanding in conversation after
conversation, working together on all of the provisions of this bill;
and Kathy Copeland from the South Florida Water Management District.
From Senator Bob Graham's staff, Catharine Cyr Ranson and Kasey
Gilletteand, have been wonderful. We appreciate all they have done.
Senator Mack's staff has already been mentioned by Senator Baucus.
But I would also like to thank C.K. Lee, who was really the honorary
member of the committee staff.
Senator Voinovich's staff: Ellen Stein, Rich Worthington; and, of
course, Senator Baucus' staff: Tom Sliter, Jo-Ellen Darcy, and Peter
Washburn, all worked together in a nonpartisan way. We tried to keep
the doors open at all times.
Of course, my own staff, Dave Conover, who is the chief of staff on
the committee; Ann Klee, Angie Giancarlo, and Chelsea Henderson, now
Maxwell--she found time to get married after they got the Everglades
set and ready to go. We let her get married and go on her honeymoon and
come back to be here for the finale--and Stephanie Daigle and Tom
Gibson, all brought a great blend of knowledge of the water issues and
engineering, as well, to the whole debate.
Let me say in closing to my colleagues that when you look back on
your career in the Senate, I think you can be very proud of what you
did. When you cast a vote to save the Everglades, I don't know if you
are ever going to regret it. I think it is going to be a defining
moment. Fifty years from
[[Page S9147]]
now when the historians look back, they are going to say when it came
time to stand up for the Everglades, they did. I think it will be one
of the finest things that you have done in your careers. I certainly
feel that way about mine. The only regret would be if we didn't try. We
did try, and I believe we will succeed as a result of the fact that we
took this risk.
Some have said it would be ``bad politics,''--bad politics for the
administration to work with the Republican Congress on an environmental
issue; bad politics for Republicans to work with the administration
with Florida as a ``swing State''; that maybe Governor George Bush will
get too much credit, or Al Gore, who has been closely associated with
the Everglades, is going to get too much credit. There is enough credit
to go around. Who cares.
The point is that most everyone in Florida--and I do not know too
many on the other side who do not--supports restoring the Everglades.
Let the credit fall where it may. Let the credit be taken where people
want to take it. But the truth is we did the right thing. That is all
that matters in the long run.
There is a lot of history here. Congress initiated this plan in WRDA
in 1992 when George Bush was in office and the Democrats were in the
majority. It then refocused the Everglades effort in WRDA in 1996 when
the Republicans were in the majority and Bill Clinton was in the White
House.
I think you see that there is plenty of evidence of bipartisan
support.
Congress set up the process under which this comprehensive plan was
developed, but it was developed by this administration in cooperation
with Florida, with tribes, and all other stakeholders.
Florida, under Jeb Bush, stepped up to the plate and passed the
legislation, along with the funding, to keep this moving forward even
before the Federal Government made its commitment. Florida made its
commitment to put their money up.
When I became chairman, as has already been said, I took up the
mantle and made this a priority. I believe in it. I made this
restoration of the Everglades my highest priority. I am very grateful
that my colleagues felt the same way and joined with me because,
obviously, we wouldn't be here if it was just my priority. It takes at
least 51 Senators to have that priority as well or we wouldn't be here.
The Senate took the plan and made some important modifications,
strengthened it, broadened the support; Senator Voinovich's input
strengthened it.
We are poised to send the bill to the House, a bill that has the
support of every major south Florida stakeholder, the State of Florida,
the administration, and I think most Members of the Senate.
Restoration of the Everglades is not a partisan issue. I ask my
colleagues, if you have any doubts and you are worried about every
single ``i'' being dotted and every ``t'' being crossed, take the risk.
You will be glad you did. This is the right thing to do.
I am very excited about this action. I am very excited by the fact we
have looked to the future. In politics, sometimes we look to the next
election. This time, with this vote, we are going to look to the next
generation and respond so our grandchildren and their children will
enjoy alligators and wading birds and the river of grass once again--
not only those who have had the chance to experience it now, but it
will still be there for centuries to come because of what we did. I am
proud of everyone for help in doing this.
everglades ecosystem
Mr. MACK. Madam President, I rise today to engage my colleague from
Florida in a colloquy. Specifically, I want to clarify our
understanding of the portion of the legislation we're considering today
to restore, preserve and protect the Everglades ecosystem. My
understanding is that the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan
authorized by this bill create a balance between state and federal
interests in ensuring that the predicted Plan benefits--including
benefits to both state and federal lands--are attained. It is my view
that this bill is intended to recognize and maintain the State's
interest in preserving the sovereignty, in State law, over the
reservation and allocation of water within the State's boundaries. It
is my further understanding that the Agreement called for between the
President and the Governor of Florida will not result in a
federalization of State water law. Florida water law requires that all
reasonable beneficial water uses and natural system demands are subject
to a public interest balancing test. Implementation of the Plan will
rely upon State law and processes for reserving and allocating water
for all users, according to the principles set out in the legislation
before us. It is not the intent of this Act, or the President/Governor
Agreement required by this Act, to create a procedure where all of the
new water made available by the Plan will be allocated to the natural
system leaving nothing for other water users. Rather, the agreement
will simply ensure that water for the natural system is reserved first,
and any remaining water may be allocated among other users according to
the provisions of State water law. I yield to my colleague from
Florida, Senator Graham.
Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I would join my colleague from Florida,
Mr. Mack in clarifying our understanding. I agree with his remarks, and
make the further point that the Plan authorized by this bill will
capture a large percentage of the water lost to tide or lost through
evapotranspiration for use by both the built and natural systems, with
the natural system having priority over the water generated by the
Plan.
Mr. MACK. I appreciate the comments of my colleague and yield the
floor.
secton 211, project deauthorization
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, Sec. 211 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 includes a provision to accelerate the process
to deauthorize inactive civil works projects. I am concerned, however,
that this provision will have unintended consequences for deep-draft
navigation projects.
In 1986 the Congress authorized many port improvement projects after
a 16-year deadlock with the Executive Branch. At that time, these
projects were authorized according to the Report of the Chief of
Engineers. Subsequently, with the concurrence of the non-Federal
sponsor, elements of these major projects were constructed in phases.
For example, in the case of the Norfolk Harbor and Channels Deepening
Project, the project authorizes the deepening of the main channels to
55 feet, deepening anchorages to 55 feet and deepening secondary
channels to 45 feet.
Significant progress has been made to deepen our nation's most active
ports. These projects are critical to America's competitiveness in the
global marketplace and to securing a favorable balance of trade. Like
other major port navigation projects, construction under the Norfolk
Harbor and Channels project has occurred in increments or phases. The
outbound channel, anchorages and Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River
have all been deepened under the current authorization. Work is
underway to deepen the inbound channel to 50-feet, and the Commonwealth
has fully funded this increment.
The remaining elements of the project are still vitally important and
wholly supported by the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Port of Virginia
is the second busiest general cargo port on the East Coast and the
largest port in terms of total cargoes, which include bulk commodities
such as coal and grain. The port complex consists of the Newport News
Marine Terminal, Norfolk International Terminals, Portsmouth Marine
Terminals, and the Virginia Inland Port.
In fiscal year 2000, over 12 million tons of containerized cargo
moved through the ports. Virginia's general cargo facilities are
responsible for more than $800 million a year in commerce and tax
revenue. Also, Hampton Roads ranks among the world's largest coal
exporting ports--handling more than 50 tons annually. Virginia's ports
are one of the few in this country capable of loading and unloading the
new generation of container ships.
I am concerned that the provision in section 211 relating to
separable elements in subsection (b)(2), will deauthorize the 55-foot
phases of this project within 1 year. This section fails to recognize
that it makes good economic sense, from the federal and state
perspective, to construct these large projects in phases.
[[Page S9148]]
I would ask the Chairman if my understanding of this section is
correct?
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. The Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, is
correct in his understanding of the potential impact of the provision.
However, it is not my intent to deauthorize large navigation projects
which enjoy strong state and federal support. The Committee has
discussed this matter with the Corps of Engineers and we are aware that
the provision may inadvertently capture a universe of active, ongoing
projects. I can assure my colleague that we will work in conference to
be sure that projects like the Norfolk Harbor and Channels project, as
well as other critically important projects are not deauthorized as a
result of this provision.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chairman and I look forward to working with
him on this issue. I have offered two provisions to clarify the intent
of this section to the Chairman. I am aware that the Assistant
Secretary of the Army's office also has provided technical assistance
on this matter. I trust that before we conference with the House of
Representatives, we will have language recommended by the Corps to
correct the scope of this section.
homestead air force base
Mr. MACK. Madam President, I rise today to call the Senate's
attention to a provision of the bill before us expressing the sense of
the Senate concerning Homestead Air Force Base in Florida. I want to
take a moment of the Senate's time today to express my understanding of
this resolution and my own intent in agreeing to its inclusion in the
bill before us today.
As my colleagues are aware, this Air Force base is currently in the
disposal process set forth by Congress when it established a fair and
impartial system for closing military facilities around the country.
Since Hurricane Andrew devastated the region in 1992, the citizens of
South Florida have waited for a disposal decision from the federal
government. It is anticipated the property could provide a stable
economic platform for a community that is in need of jobs and economic
development. Clearly, it is my intent that whatever use to which the
property is ultimately put be accomplished in a manner that does not
adversely impact the surrounding environment or the Everglades
restoration plan we're considering today.
But let me be clear, Mr. President. It is emphatically not my intent
that this resolution be read by the United States Air Force to mean
they should add to, alter, or amend the existing process for disposing
the property at Homestead Air Force Base. It is my strong view that the
process for conveying surplus military property is clearly set forth in
the law and that process should be followed until the final
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on the property is
completed and the Air Force disposes the property.
Mr. GRAHAM. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MACK. Yes.
Mr. GRAHAM. I agree with the remarks by my colleague from Florida,
and I would add that, in my view, the resolution makes clear that--once
the conveyance process is complete--the Secretary of the Army should
work closely with the parties to which the property is conveyed to
ensure compatibility with the surrounding environment and the
restoration plan. Further, the resolution requests the Secretary of the
Army report to Congress in two years on any steps taken to ensure this
compatibility and any recommendations for consideration by the
Congress. While this is laudable, and has my full support, this
resolution should not be read to mean the Air Force must add any new
hurdles to the existing base closure and disposal process.
I notice my colleague, Senator Inhofe, on the floor. I would ask my
colleague for his thoughts on the Homestead matter and ask him if it is
his understanding that the base closure law clearly sets out the
process for disposing surplus military facilities and that this
resolution does not alter or amend that law?
Mr. INHOFE. I appreciate the comments of my colleagues from Florida.
I have worked in the Armed Services Committee of the Senate to protect
and defend the base closure and disposal process from political
manipulation. I would agree that the resolution in the legislation
before us today should not be read to mean the Air Force should delay
its decision on the disposal of Homestead Air Force Base or otherwise
alter its decision making process. The law is clear on how surplus
military facilities in this country are disposed and it is my intent
that this law be followed and adhered to by the Air Force. I note the
presence on the floor of the distinguished chairman of the Armed
Services Committee on the floor. I yield to Senator Warner.
Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague for his courtesy. I have listened
carefully to the discussion between my colleagues. I would agree with
the remarks of Senator Inhofe. The base closure process now in law
should work its will in the case of Homestead Air Force Base according
to the principles set forth in the law. No new layers of decision
should be added as a result of the action we're taking here today.
Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I rise today in support of S. 2796, The
Water Resources Development Act of 2000. I want to thank the Chairman
of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Smith of New
Hampshire, and my colleague from Montana, Senator Baucus for working
with me to include two provisions in this year's bill.
Earlier this year, I introduced the Fort Peck Fish Hatchery
Authorization Act of 2000. As you may know, the Fort Peck Reservoir is
a very prominent feature of North Eastern Montana. The Fort Peck
project was built in the 1930s to dam the Upper Missouri River. The
result was a massive reservoir that spans across my great state.
The original authorization legislation for the Fort Peck project, and
subsequent revisions and additions, left a great many promises unmet. A
valley was flooded, but originally Montana was promised increased
irrigation, low-cost power, and economic development. Since the
original legislation, numerous laws have been enacted promising
increased recreational activities on the lake, and also that the
federal government would do more to support the fish and wildlife
resources in the area.
In this day and age, economic development in rural areas is becoming
more and more dependent upon recreation and strong fish and wildlife
numbers. The Fort Peck area is faced with a number of realities. First,
the area is in dire need of a fish hatchery. The only hatchery in the
region to support warm water species is found in Miles City, Montana.
It is struggling to meet the needs of the fisheries in the area, yet it
continues to fall short. Additionally, an outbreak of disease or
failure in the infrastructure at the Miles City hatchery would leave
the entire region reeling with no secondary source to support the
area's fisheries.
We are also faced with the reality that despite the promises given,
the State of Montana has had to foot the bill for fish hatchery
operations in the area. Since about 1950 the State has been funding
these operations with little to no support from the Corps of Engineers.
A citizens group spanning the State of Montana finally decided to make
the federal government keep its promises.
Last year the citizens group organized, and state legislation
subsequently passed to authorize the sale of a warm water fishing stamp
to begin collecting funds for the eventual operation and maintenance of
the hatchery. I helped the group work with the Corps of Engineers to
ensure that $125,000 in last year's budget was allocated to a
feasibility study for the project, and Montanans kept their end of the
bargain by finding another $125,000 to match the Corps expenditure.
Clearly, we are putting our money, along with our sweat, where our
mouth is.
Recreation is part of the local economy. But the buzzword today is
diversity. Diversify your economy. The Fort Peck area depends almost
solely on agriculture. More irrigated acres probably aren't going to
help the area pull itself up by its boot straps. But a stronger
recreational and tourism industry sure will help speed things up.
A lot of effort has already gone into this project. A state bill has
been passed. The Corps has dedicated a project manager to the project.
Citizens have raised money and jumped over more hurdles than I care to
count. But the bottom line is that this is a great project with immense
support. It is a good investment in the area, and it
[[Page S9149]]
helps the federal government fulfill one thing that it ought to--its
promises.
Unfortunately, everything we wanted wasn't included in this
legislation. As I originally drafted the legislation it ensured that
the federal government would pick up part of the tab for operation and
maintenance. Unfortunately, as Chairman Smith and Senator Baucus worked
out the details of the legislation for inclusion in the Water Resources
Development Act, they were unable to support this provision. I had
hoped that, as in the portion of this bill dealing with the Everglades,
they would allow the federal government to pick up a larger portion of
the operation and maintenance overhead.
Second, the legislation continues to include a section for power
delivery that directs the Secretary of the Army to deliver low cost
Pick-Sloan project power to the hatchery. This provision in the bill
has raised the concerns of the local electric co-operatives and those
that use Pick-Sloan power. I have worked with the Corps and the local
interests to assure that this provision is not needed as drafted. I
have discussed the need for changes with both the Chairman and Senator
Baucus. I have secured a commitment from both of them to resolve this
issue when the legislation goes to conference committee.
Despite this shortcoming with the legislation, I am have worked hard
on the hatchery project and feel it is necessary that we must move
ahead as it has been included. I thank the Committee for working with
me to ensure the hatchery project was included on my behalf.
Another Montana specific provision, recently added to the
legislation, allows the Corps of Engineers and the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service to dispose of sites that are currently occupied by
cabin leases and use the proceeds to purchase land in, or adjacent to,
the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge that surrounds Fort
Peck Reservoir. This provision is a classic example of a win-win
situation that will help support recreation and wildlife habitat in the
region. By selling these cabin sites, we are reducing government
management considerations, offering stability to the cabin owners, and
providing a revenue source to purchase inholdings. Senator Baucus and I
have been working on this legislation for a few years, and to see it
included in this legislation is a great accomplishment for both of us.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Madam President, I rise to address a provision
included in WRDA that will help local communities in many parts of the
nation deal with the burden they often face when the federal government
undertake dredging projects in their region.
Before discussing the merits of this legislation, I want to first
thank my colleagues, particularly Senators Smith, Baucus, and Voinovich
for their assistance and cooperation. My colleagues have been
remarkably helpful in this matter, they have understood the need, and I
am grateful that they have agreed to include it in the managers
package.
Within WRDA there is a $2 million annual authorization to allow the
U.S. Army Corp of engineers to develop a program that will allow all
eight of its regional offices to market eligible dredged material to
public agencies and private entities for beneficial reuse.
Beneficial reuse is a concept which has largely been largely
underutilized. As a result, dredged material is often dumped on the
shorelines of local communities to their disadvantage, instead of sold
to construction companies and other developers who would be eager to
have this material available. We have known about this strange and
ironic, even tragic, situation for some time, yet until now, not enough
has been done to bring relief to these communities.
The people of southern New Jersey are all too familiar with this
situation. Current plans by the U.S. Army Corps call for more than 20
million cubic yards of material dredged from the Delaware River to be
placed on prime waterfront property along the Southern New Jersey
shoreline. However, with some effort and encouragement, the Army corps
has recently identified nearly 13 million cubic yards of that material
for beneficial reuse in transportation and construction projects that
would have otherwise been simply placed in upland sites.
From this experience, which is also happening in port projects in
other parts of the country, we should learn that contracting companies,
land development companies, and major corporations want this material.
This means we need to encourage the Army corps to be thinking about
ways to beneficially reuse dredged material up-front so that
communities will not be confronted with the same problems faced by the
citizens of Southern New Jersey.
The program created by this legislation will give the Army Corps the
authority and the funding they require to begin actively marketing
dredged material from projects all across the United States. It
recognizes the need to keep our nation's rivers and channels efficient
and available to maritime traffic while ensuring that local communities
are treated fairly.
I would again like to thank chairman Smith, Ranking Member Baucus,
and Senator Voinovich for their commitment and attention to this
important issue.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Madam President, I rise to express my support
for S. 2796, the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. This bill,
which authorizes numerous Army Corps of Engineers' programs throughout
the Nation, is of vital importance to my state of Oregon.
Oregon has both coastal and inland ports that rely heavily on the
technical assistance provided by the Corps' programs for their
continued operation. Dredging and flood control activities are also
important to the economic vitality of Oregon. The Corps also operates a
number of dams in the Columbia River basin and the Willamette River
basin that generate clean hydroelectric power.
S. 2796 authorizes the study of several small aquatic ecosystem
restoration projects in Oregon. It also designated the Willamette River
basin, Oregon, as a priority watershed for a water resource needs
assessment.
I would like to express my deep concerns about one provision in the
bill, however. It has come to my attention that Section 207 of the
bill, which is worded very innocuously, would allow for contracting out
of operations and maintenance activities at Federal hydropower
facilities. The dedicated men and women, many of whom are my
constituents, who currently provide operations and maintenance at
Corps' hydropower facilities in the Pacific Northwest are professionals
of the highest order. Any problems related to the operations and
maintenance at hydropower facilities on the Columbia River are the
result of the Corps' failure to sign a direct funding agreement with
the Bonneville Power Administration for almost 7 years after being
authorized to do so.
As the Water Resources Development Act moves to conference, I urge
that this provision be deleted from the bill, as it already has been in
the House version.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, I rise today to offer my thanks to
Senator Smith, the chairman of the Environment Committee and commend
him for his successful effort to pass the Water Resources Development
Act of 2000.
Included in this legislation is language I crafted with
Representatives Ehlers and Camp to further clarify the extent of the
Great Lakes Governors' authority over diversions of Great Lakes water
to locations outside the basin. This amendment makes clear that both
diversions of water for use within the U.S. and exports of water to
locations outside the U.S. may occur only with the consent of all eight
Great Lakes governors. Questions over the definition of ``diversion''
made this clarification necessary.
Almost as important, this amendment demonstrates that it is the
intent of the Congress that the states work cooperatively with the
Provinces of Ontario and Quebec to develop common standards for
conservation of Great Lakes water and mechanisms for withdrawals. Such
cooperation is crucial if we are to have equal and effective programs
for conserving these waters and maintaining the health of the Great
Lakes.
In closing, let me state that I regret that my colleague, the senior
Senator from Michigan did not join me in this effort. We share
differing opinions over
[[Page S9150]]
the need for clarification of the 1986 act. And while I disagreed with
his interpretation of the definition of ``bulk fresh water,'' because
diversions of water for use within the U.S. are already distinctly
covered in the 1986 act, I nevertheless modified the amendment at his
request, and I share his commitment to protecting the tremendous
resources for future generations.
Mr. MACK. Madam President, I will only take a moment of the Senate's
time today--prior to the vote on the Water Resources Development Act--
to acknowledge the importance of this moment and the action the Senate
will take today to restore and preserve America's Everglades.
My colleague, Senator Graham, and I have worked for eight years to
bring this bill to the floor and it gives me great satisfaction that
today it will be approved by the Senate.
I want especially to thank Chairman Smith for his dedication to this
effort over the past few months. He has worked side-by-side with us to
develop the consensus product we're voting on today. As we developed
this legislation, he and his staff provided valuable input into the
process and we appreciate the long hours they put in on our behalf.
Further, I want to--once again--acknowledge my colleague, Senator
Graham. He has worked on Everglades issues for years--even prior to his
time in the Senate--and it has been a pleasure to work with him over
the years as we worked on the legislation before us.
The Corps of Engineers, the Department of Interior, and the Council
on Environmental Quality have worked long hours to turn this bill into
reality. I appreciate the support of these agencies throughout the
process and for the proof--once again--that saving the Everglades is
not a partisan issue.
And finally, I want to acknowledge the hard work and steadfast
support of Governor Bush. The State of Florida is a full partner with
us in this restoration effort, and I believe the work we've put in
together in writing this bill bodes well for a lasting partnership on
behalf of the Everglades.
The Everglades is an American treasure. Today we in the Senate will
take a major step forward in passing a restoration plan that is rooted
in good science, common sense, and consensus. I thank everyone who
participated in this process for their hard work and dedication to the
effort.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I am pleased that the Senate is poised
to pass the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (WRDA). This
legislation includes critical provisions to restore the Florida
Everglades and the Missouri River in South Dakota and I am hopeful that
it will be enacted this year.
Among the provisions of WRDA that will most benefit South Dakota is a
section incorporating elements of S. 2291, the Missouri River
Restoration Act. I introduced this legislation last May to address the
siltation of the Missouri River in South Dakota and the threat to
Indian cultural and historic sites that border the river. The WRDA bill
under consideration today takes an important first step to address
these problems, and I want to thank all of my colleagues for their help
to secure the passage of this legislation. In particular, Senator
Johnson, Senator Baucus, Senator Smith of New Hampshire and Senator
Voinovich deserve praise for their efforts to incorporate this
legislation into the larger bill. It is my hope that Congress will
adopt the remaining elements of my comprehensive proposal to restore
the Missouri River, including the creation of a Missouri River Trust
Fund, in the foreseeable future.
The need for this legislation stems from the construction of a series
of federal dams along the Missouri River in the 1950s and 1960s that
forever changed its flow. For decades, these dams have provided
affordable electricity for millions of Americans and prevented billions
of dollars of damage to downstream states by preventing flooding. They
have also created an economically important recreation industry in
South Dakota.
However, one of the consequences of the dams is that they have
virtually eliminated the ability of the Missouri River to carry
sediment downstream. Before the dams, the Missouri was known as the Big
Muddy because of the heavy sediment load it carried. Today, that
sediment is deposited on the river bottom in South Dakota, and
significant build-ups have occurred where tributaries like the Bad
River, White River and Niobrara River empty into the Missouri.
The Bad River, for example, deposits millions of tons of silt into
the Missouri River each year. This sediment builds up near the cities
of Pierre and Ft. Pierre, where it has raised the local water table and
flooded area homes. Already, Congress has had to authorize a $35
million project to relocate hundreds of families. To prevent more
serious flooding, the Corps has had to lower releases from the Oahe
dam, causing a $12 million annual loss due to restricted power
generation.
Farther south, near the city of Springfield, sediment from the
Niobrara River clogs the Missouri's channel for miles. Boats that used
to sail from Yankton to Springfield can no longer navigate the channel,
eroding the area's economy. This problem will only grow worse.
According to the Corps of Engineers, in less than 75 years Lewis and
Clark lake will fill entirely with sediment, ending the ability of that
reservoir to provide flood control and seriously threatening the
economies of cities like Yankton and Vermillion.
In addition to the impact of sediment on flood control, over 3000
cultural and historic sites important to Indian tribes, including
burial grounds, campsites, and ancient villages, are found along the
Missouri River in the Dakotas. Many of these sites are threatened by
erosion, and each year some of them are irretrievably lost as they
tumble into the river. Critical points of the Lewis and Clark trail
also follow the Missouri through South Dakota, and they are threatened
by erosion as well.
The elements of the Missouri River Restoration Act included in WRDA
today address these problems by establishing a Missouri River Task
Force composed of federal officials, representatives of the State of
South Dakota and area Indian tribes. It will be responsible for
developing and implementing a Missouri River Restoration Program to
reduce sedimentation and protect cultural and historic sites along the
river.
I would like to take a few minutes to explain in detail how this
process will work First, the bill establishes a 25-member Missouri
River Trust. Appointments will be made to the Trust by the Secretary of
the Army. These appointments must be in accordance with the
recommendations of the Governor of South Dakota and area Indian tribes
to ensure that there is a strong local voice on the Trust. Second, the
bill establishes a Missouri River Task Force, chaired by the Secretary
of the Army and including representatives of the Department of
Interior, Department of Energy and Department of Agriculture. It also
includes the Missouri River Trust.
Once funding for this legislation becomes available, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers will prepare an assessment of the Missouri River
watershed in South Dakota that reviews the impact of siltation on the
river, including its impact on a variety of issues: the Federal, State
and regional economies; recreation; hydropower; fish and wildlife; and
flood control. Based upon this assessment and other pertinent
information, the Task Force will develop a plan to improve conservation
in the Missouri River watershed; control and remove sediment from the
Missouri River; protect recreation on the Missouri from sedimentation;
protect Indian and non-Indian cultural and historic sites from erosion;
and improve erosion control along the river.
Once this plan is approved by the Task Force, the Task Force will
review proposals from local, state, federal and other entities to meet
the goals of the plan and recommend to the Secretary of the Army which
of these proposals to carry out. It is the intention of this
legislation that the Corps contract with, or provide grants to, other
agencies and local entities to carry out these projects. To the extent
possible, the Secretary should ensure that approximately 30 percent of
the funds used to carry out these projects are spent on projects within
Indian reservations or administered by Indian tribes. The bill
authorizes a total of $4 million per year for the next 10 years to
carry out these goals.
While the Task Force will have the flexibility it needs to take
appropriate actions to restore the Missouri River,
[[Page S9151]]
it is my expectation that a significant effort will be made to improve
conservation in the Missouri River watershed. Pilot projects have shown
already that the amount of sediment flowing into the Missouri's
tributaries can be reduced by as much as 50 percent with appropriate
conservation practices. If requested, the Task Force will also have the
authority to work with farmers across the river in Nebraska, for
example, to reduce the amount of sediment flowing in from the Niobrara
River.
The conceptual underpinnings of this legislation were developed
through numerous public discussions that I have held in South Dakota
over the last year. Last January, I held a Missouri River Summit in the
town of Springfield with Governor Janklow, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe
Chairman Mike Jandreau, and other experts to discuss how to address
these critical problems. In April, Governor Janklow and I held a
hearing in Pierre to gather public comment about proposals to restore
the river.
I have been pleased by the outpouring of support I have seen for
efforts to restore the river. Dozens of communities such as Yankton,
Chamberlain, Springfield, Wagner, Pickstown, Mitchell and others have
passed resolutions in support river restoration. American Rivers, a
national leader in river protection, has recognized this need as well.
The legislation passed today takes the first important step we need to
take to get this job done. I'd like to thank all those in South Dakota
who contributed to this process, and my colleagues in the Senate for
all of their support. I look forward to our continued work together.
Finally, the WRDA bill includes an amendment to the Cheyenne River
Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and State of South Dakota
Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Act. This amendment requires
the Corps of Engineers to meet its legal responsibilities to identify
and stabilize Indian cultural sites, clean up open dumps, and mitigate
wildlife habitat along the river. It also makes important technical
changes to that law that will help ensure its smooth implementation. It
is my hope that the Corps of Engineers will respond by working closely
with the tribes and the state to clean up those lands, stabilize Indian
cultural sites, and transfer the lands along the river to the tribes
and state in a timely manner.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, in a few minutes we will vote on
final passage of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. The bill
is a product of months of hard work by the Committee on Environment and
Public Works and the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
I thank those Senators and staff members whose efforts have brought us
where we are today.
First, I thank Ellen Stein, Rich Worthington, and Karen Bachman of my
staff for their dedicated effort on this bill. The number of hours they
put in on this is unbelievable.
I also thank my chairman, Bob Smith, and his staff for all their
efforts in making this bill a reality, particularly in the very
difficult negotiations on the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
Plan.
My thanks to staff director Dave Conover, Tom Gibson, Stephanie
Daigle, and Chelsea Henderson Maxwell for all the hard work they put in
on this piece of legislation.
As most successful bills in the Senate--and I am learning this pretty
quickly as a new Member of the Senate--ours has been a product of
bipartisanship. Senator Max Baucus and his staff, in putting this bill
together, have put in long hours. I recognize the efforts of minority
staff director Tom Sliter, Jo-Ellen Darcy, and Peter Washburn for the
good work they did in putting this legislation together.
I also acknowledge the work of Senator Bob Graham and Senator Connie
Mack and their staff in helping to forge a consensus on the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. I suspect they looked at
some of the things I was involved in as maybe getting in the way and
holding things up, but I want them and their staff to know we were
conscientiously trying to make this something we could all be proud of
and get the support of the Senate. I particularly thank C.K. Lee of
Senator Mack's staff and Catherine Cyr Ranson of Senator Graham's staff
for their work.
We know the essential role of the Senate Legislative Counsel's Office
in helping to draft legislation. I thank Janine Johnson for her
invaluable help. Again, I think so often we take for granted the
terrific work these folks do in putting these bills together.
Further, any water resources development bill involves the
evaluations of hundreds of projects and proposals. We depend on the
Corps of Engineers in supplying information and expertise in this
process. Larry Prather and his staff at the Legislative Management
Branch at the Corps have provided invaluable assistance to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works and to this Senator. I give
them the recognition they deserve.
As I stated in my opening remarks, when we began debate on this
legislation, I am proud of the work our committee and subcommittee have
accomplished in putting together this bill. This is a disciplined bill
that maintains the committee's commitment to the principles of high
standards of engineering, economic, and environmental analysis, and
adherence to cost-sharing principles and resistance to mission creep.
This has not been an easy process, and we have not always agreed on
the content of the legislation. But this effort has been marked
throughout by cooperation and compromise. To me, this was highlighted
dramatically in the negotiation over the bill's discussion of the
relationship between Homestead Air Force Base and Everglades
restoration. I particularly thank the environmental groups--
specifically, the National Resource Defense Council and the Sierra
Club--for their critical roles in this effort.
All in all, I think this is a well-balanced bill that provides
authorization to a number of needed water development projects across
this Nation. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
I yield the floor.
Amendment No. 4188
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment currently at the desk be agreed to. This amendment has been
agreed to by the minority.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 4188) was agreed to, as follows:
amendment no. 4188
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Congress with respect to U.S.-
Canadian cooperation on development of conservation standards embodying
the principles of water conservation and resource improvement for
making decisions concerning the withdrawal and use of water from the
Great Lakes Basin, and for other purposes)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. . EXPORT OF WATER FROM GREAT LAKES.
(a) Additional Finding. Section 1109(b) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-20(b)) is
amended by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs
(3) and (4), and by inserting after paragraph (1) the
following:
(2) to encourage the Grant Lakes States, in consultation
with the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec, to develop and
implement a mechanism that provides a common conservation
standard embodying the principles of water conservation and
resource improvement for making decisions concerning the
withdrawal and use of water from the Great Lakes Basin;
(b) Approval of Governors for Export of Water. Section
1109(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (42
U.S.C. 1962d-20(d)) is amended by
(1) inserting or exported after diverted; and
(2) inserting or export after diversion.
(c) Sense of the Congress. It is the Sense of the Congress
that the Secretary of State should work with the Canadian
Government to encourage and support the Provinces in the
development and implementation of a mechanism and standard
concerning the withdrawal and use of water from the Great
Lakes Basin consistent with those mechanisms and standards
developed by the Great Lakes States.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, we have before the Senate the Water
Resources Development Act of 2000. I had great concern with the
amendment offered last week by Senator Abraham because the amendment
sought to define terms which could have resulted in
[[Page S9152]]
increased domestic diversion of Great Lakes water. This amendment,
which was accepted as part of the manager's package until I asked that
it be removed, could have led to the opposite of what we need for the
Great Lakes. Specially, the amendment as accepted by the managers last
week defined bulk fresh water as ``fresh water extracted in amounts
intended for transportation outside the United States by commercial
vessel or similar form of mass transportation, without further
processing.'' This definition could have been interpreted as allowing
more diversion of Great Lakes water within the United States. This
threat to the Great Lakes was unacceptable and I would have strongly
opposed the amendment with that definition.
I still have reservations about the amendment because some might try
to use it to argue that the current protections against diversions of
Great Lakes water provided by existing law are not sufficient. We
currently have an effective veto over bulk removals of Great Lakes
water outside of the Great Lakes basin. When we passed WRDA in 1986, we
acted to make sure that each Great Lakes governor would have a veto
over such removals. This protection is legally sufficient and we should
do nothing to imply otherwise.
If the states formally adopt a conservation strategy and standards,
and the governors are currently working on those standards, such
standards might provide an additional safeguard to strengthen our
position that our current gubernatorial veto policy over bulk removals
of Great Lakes water is consistent with the rules of international
trade. This conservation strategy and standards might also provide
additional protection against removals from the basin. But I favor
seeking that additional strength for our position in a way which has no
possible implication that it is necessary. While this amendment falls
short in this regard, once offered, it would be worse if it were not
adopted so I will not object to it.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield the remainder of time to the
Senator from Oklahoma.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. INHOFE. I thank the leader. First of all, there are no two people
I respect more than the two Senators from Florida. They certainly have
done a very good job on the Everglades portion of the bill.
However, I have to get on record. I will oppose the bill because of
these elements that have been introduced. This is of great concern to
me. Looking at the fiscal end, I see four reasons we should not have
this on the bill. First of all, if we do this, and we have already done
it--and on the Everglades portion I pleaded with everyone it should
have been a stand-alone bill because it is too big to be incorporated
into this resources bill--this will be the first time we have actually
had projects without first having the Chief of the Corps of Engineers
give a report. That has been something we have said is necessary.
Second, we are looking at questionable technology. Everyone has
admitted this. Certainly, the chairman of the committee, the
distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, was very honest about it and
straightforward. He said he felt strongly enough about it that we will
have to try some things that perhaps have not been proven. This is
unprecedented.
Third, the amount of money we are talking about is open ended. We say
this will be $7.8 billion in 38 years. But when we first started
Medicare, approximately the same length of time ago, they said it would
cost $3.4 billion, and this year it is $232 billion.
A major concern I have is changing a precedent that has been there
for 16 years; that is, that the operation and maintenance costs should
come from the States. Now we are absorbing those costs, or at least 50
percent of those costs, operation and maintenance, by the Federal
Government.
I think we are opening up something here. Yes, it is popular. There
is a big constituency. It is open ended. It could end up costing us a
tremendous amount of money.
I wanted a chance, Madam President, to explain why I have to vote
against this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for the third reading and was
read the third time.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall it
pass?
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kentucky (Mr.
McConnell), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Thomas), the Senator from
Wyoming (Mr. Enzi), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator
from Oregon (Mr. Smith) the Senator from Washington (Mr. Gorton), and
the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) are necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the
Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman), the Senator from California
(Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg), the
Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) the Senator from California
(Mr. Miller), and the Senator from New York (Mr. Schumer) are
necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 85, nays 1, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 255 Leg.]
YEAS--85
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee, L.
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--1
Inhofe
NOT VOTING--14
Akaka
Bingaman
Enzi
Feinstein
Gorton
Jeffords
Lautenberg
Lieberman
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Schumer
Smith (OR)
Thomas
The bill (S. 2796), as amended, was passed, as follows:
S. 2796
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water
Resources Development Act of 2000''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definition of Secretary.
TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS
Sec. 101. Project authorizations.
Sec. 102. Small shore protection projects.
Sec. 103. Small navigation projects.
Sec. 104. Removal of snags and clearing and straightening of channels
in navigable waters.
Sec. 105. Small bank stabilization projects.
Sec. 106. Small flood control projects.
Sec. 107. Small projects for improvement of the quality of the
environment.
Sec. 108. Beneficial uses of dredged material.
Sec. 109. Small aquatic ecosystem restoration projects.
Sec. 110. Flood mitigation and riverine restoration.
Sec. 111. Disposal of dredged material on beaches.
TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 201. Cooperation agreements with counties.
Sec. 202. Watershed and river basin assessments.
Sec. 203. Tribal partnership program.
Sec. 204. Ability to pay.
Sec. 205. Property protection program.
Sec. 206. National Recreation Reservation Service.
Sec. 207. Operation and maintenance of hydroelectric facilities.
Sec. 208. Interagency and international support.
Sec. 209. Reburial and conveyance authority.
[[Page S9153]]
Sec. 210. Approval of construction of dams and dikes.
Sec. 211. Project deauthorization authority.
Sec. 212. Floodplain management requirements.
Sec. 213. Environmental dredging.
Sec. 214. Regulatory analysis and management systems data.
Sec. 215. Performance of specialized or technical services.
Sec. 216. Hydroelectric power project funding.
Sec. 217. Assistance programs.
Sec. 218. Funding to process permits.
Sec. 219. Program to market dredged material.
Sec. 220. National Academy of Sciences studies.
TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway Wildlife Mitigation Project,
Alabama and Mississippi.
Sec. 302. Boydsville, Arkansas.
Sec. 303. White River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.
Sec. 304. Petaluma, California.
Sec. 305. Gasparilla and Estero Islands, Florida.
Sec. 306. Illinois River basin restoration, Illinois.
Sec. 307. Upper Des Plaines River and tributaries, Illinois.
Sec. 308. Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana.
Sec. 309. Red River Waterway, Louisiana.
Sec. 310. Narraguagus River, Milbridge, Maine.
Sec. 311. William Jennings Randolph Lake, Maryland.
Sec. 312. Breckenridge, Minnesota.
Sec. 313. Missouri River Valley, Missouri.
Sec. 314. New Madrid County, Missouri.
Sec. 315. Pemiscot County Harbor, Missouri.
Sec. 316. Pike County, Missouri.
Sec. 317. Fort Peck fish hatchery, Montana.
Sec. 318. Sagamore Creek, New Hampshire.
Sec. 319. Passaic River Basin flood management, New Jersey.
Sec. 320. Rockaway Inlet to Norton Point, New York.
Sec. 321. John Day Pool, Oregon and Washington.
Sec. 322. Fox Point hurricane barrier, Providence, Rhode Island.
Sec. 323. Charleston Harbor, South Carolina.
Sec. 324. Savannah River, South Carolina.
Sec. 325. Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels, Texas.
Sec. 326. Joe Pool Lake, Trinity River basin, Texas.
Sec. 327. Lake Champlain watershed, Vermont and New York.
Sec. 328. Mount St. Helens, Washington.
Sec. 329. Puget Sound and adjacent waters restoration, Washington.
Sec. 330. Fox River System, Wisconsin.
Sec. 331. Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration.
Sec. 332. Great Lakes dredging levels adjustment.
Sec. 333. Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 334. Great Lakes remedial action plans and sediment remediation.
Sec. 335. Great Lakes tributary model.
Sec. 336. Treatment of dredged material from Long Island Sound.
Sec. 337. New England water resources and ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 338. Project deauthorizations.
Sec. 339. Bogue Banks, Carteret County, North Carolina.
TITLE IV--STUDIES
Sec. 401. Baldwin County, Alabama.
Sec. 402. Bono, Arkansas.
Sec. 403. Cache Creek Basin, California.
Sec. 404. Estudillo Canal watershed, California.
Sec. 405. Laguna Creek watershed, California.
Sec. 406. Oceanside, California.
Sec. 407. San Jacinto watershed, California.
Sec. 408. Choctawhatchee River, Florida.
Sec. 409. Egmont Key, Florida.
Sec. 410. Fernandina Harbor, Florida.
Sec. 411. Upper Ocklawaha River and Apopka/Palatlakaha River basins,
Florida.
Sec. 412. Boise River, Idaho.
Sec. 413. Wood River, Idaho.
Sec. 414. Chicago, Illinois.
Sec. 415. Boeuf and Black, Louisiana.
Sec. 416. Port of Iberia, Louisiana.
Sec. 417. South Louisiana.
Sec. 418. St. John the Baptist Parish, Louisiana.
Sec. 419. Portland Harbor, Maine.
Sec. 420. Portsmouth Harbor and Piscataqua River, Maine and New
Hampshire.
Sec. 421. Searsport Harbor, Maine.
Sec. 422. Merrimack River basin, Massachusetts and New Hampshire.
Sec. 423. Port of Gulfport, Mississippi.
Sec. 424. Upland disposal sites in New Hampshire.
Sec. 425. Southwest Valley, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Sec. 426. Cuyahoga River, Ohio.
Sec. 427. Duck Creek Watershed, Ohio.
Sec. 428. Fremont, Ohio.
Sec. 429. Grand Lake, Oklahoma.
Sec. 430. Dredged material disposal site, Rhode Island.
Sec. 431. Chickamauga Lock and Dam, Tennessee.
Sec. 432. Germantown, Tennessee.
Sec. 433. Horn Lake Creek and Tributaries, Tennessee and Mississippi.
Sec. 434. Cedar Bayou, Texas.
Sec. 435. Houston Ship Channel, Texas.
Sec. 436. San Antonio Channel, Texas.
Sec. 437. Vermont dams remediation.
Sec. 438. White River watershed below Mud Mountain Dam, Washington.
Sec. 439. Willapa Bay, Washington.
Sec. 440. Upper Mississippi River basin sediment and nutrient study.
Sec. 441. Cliff Walk in Newport, Rhode Island.
Sec. 442. Quonset Point Channel reconnaissance study.
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec. 501. Visitors centers.
Sec. 502. CALFED Bay-Delta Program assistance, California.
Sec. 503. Lake Sidney Lanier, Georgia, home preservation.
Sec. 504. Conveyance of lighthouse, Ontonagon, Michigan.
Sec. 505. Land conveyance, Candy Lake, Oklahoma.
Sec. 506. Land conveyance, Richard B. Russell Dam and Lake, South
Carolina.
Sec. 507. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and
State of South Dakota terrestrial wildlife habitat
restoration.
Sec. 508. Export of water from Great Lakes.
TITLE VI--COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN
Sec. 601. Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.
Sec. 602. Sense of the Senate concerning Homestead Air Force Base.
TITLE VII--MISSOURI RIVER PROTECTION AND IMPROVEMENT
Sec. 701. Short title.
Sec. 702. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 703. Definitions.
Sec. 704. Missouri River Trust.
Sec. 705. Missouri River Task Force.
Sec. 706. Administration.
Sec. 707. Authorization of appropriations.
TITLE VIII--WILDLIFE REFUGE ENHANCEMENT
Sec. 801. Short title.
Sec. 802. Purpose.
Sec. 803. Definitions.
Sec. 804. Conveyance of cabin sites.
Sec. 805. Rights of nonparticipating lessees.
Sec. 806. Conveyance to third parties.
Sec. 807. Use of proceeds.
Sec. 808. Administrative costs.
Sec. 809. Termination of wildlife designation.
Sec. 810. Authorization of appropriations.
TITLE IX--MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION
Sec. 901. Short title.
Sec. 902. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 903. Definitions.
Sec. 904. Missouri River Trust.
Sec. 905. Missouri River Task Force.
Sec. 906. Administration.
Sec. 907. Authorization of appropriations.
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SECRETARY.
In this Act, the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of
the Army.
TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS
SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.
(a) Projects With Chief's Reports.--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, described in the respective reports
designated in this subsection:
(1) Barnegat inlet to little egg inlet, new jersey.--The
project for shore protection, Barnegat Inlet to Little Egg
Inlet, New Jersey, at a total cost of $51,203,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $33,282,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $17,921,000, and at an estimated average
annual cost of $1,751,000 for periodic nourishment over the
50-year life of the project, with an estimated annual Federal
cost of $1,138,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost
of $613,000.
(2) New york-new jersey harbor.--The project for
navigation, New York-New Jersey Harbor: Report of the Chief
of Engineers dated May 2, 2000, at a total cost of
$1,781,234,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$743,954,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$1,037,280,000.
(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 if a favorable report of the Chief is
completed not later than December 31, 2000:
(1) False pass harbor, alaska.--The project for navigation,
False Pass Harbor, Alaska, at a total cost of $15,164,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $8,238,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $6,926,000.
(2) Unalaska harbor, alaska.--The project for navigation,
Unalaska Harbor, Alaska, at a total cost of $20,000,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $12,000,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $8,000,000.
(3) Rio de flag, arizona.--The project for flood damage
reduction, Rio de Flag, Arizona, at a total cost of
$24,072,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $15,576,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $8,496,000.
(4) Tres rios, arizona.--The project for environmental
restoration, Tres Rios, Arizona, at a total cost of
$99,320,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $62,755,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $36,565,000.
(5) Los angeles harbor, california.--The project for
navigation, Los Angeles Harbor, California, at a total cost
of $153,313,000, with
[[Page S9154]]
an estimated Federal cost of $43,735,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $109,578,000.
(6) Murrieta creek, california.--The project for flood
control, Murrieta Creek, California, at a total cost of
$90,865,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $25,555,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $65,310,000.
(7) Pine flat dam, california.--The project for fish and
wildlife restoration, Pine Flat Dam, California, at a total
cost of $34,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$22,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $12,000,000.
(8) Ranchos palos verdes, california.--The project for
environmental restoration, Ranchos Palos Verdes, California,
at a total cost of $18,100,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $11,800,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$6,300,000.
(9) Santa barbara streams, california.--The project for
flood damage reduction, Santa Barbara Streams, Lower Mission
Creek, California, at a total cost of $18,300,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $9,200,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $9,100,000.
(10) Upper newport bay harbor, california.--The project for
environmental restoration, Upper Newport Bay Harbor,
California, at a total cost of $32,475,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $21,109,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $11,366,000.
(11) Whitewater river basin, california.--The project for
flood damage reduction, Whitewater River basin, California,
at a total cost of $27,570,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $17,920,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$9,650,000.
(12) Delaware coast from cape henlopen to fenwick island,
delaware.--The project for shore protection, Delaware Coast
from Cape Henlopen to Fenwick Island, Delaware, at a total
cost of $5,633,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$3,661,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $1,972,000,
and at an estimated average annual cost of $920,000 for
periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project,
with an estimated annual Federal cost of $460,000 and an
estimated annual non-Federal cost of $460,000.
(13) Tampa harbor, florida.--Modification of the project
for navigation, Tampa Harbor, Florida, authorized by section
4 of the Act of September 22, 1922 (42 Stat. 1042, chapter
427), to deepen the Port Sutton Channel, at a total cost of
$6,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $4,000,000 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,000,000.
(14) John t. myers lock and dam, indiana and kentucky.--The
project for navigation, John T. Myers Lock and Dam, Ohio
River, Indiana and Kentucky, at a total cost of $182,000,000.
The costs of construction of the project shall be paid \1/2\
from amounts appropriated from the general fund of the
Treasury and \1/2\ from amounts appropriated from the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund.
(15) Greenup lock and dam, kentucky.--The project for
navigation, Greenup Lock and Dam, Ohio River, Kentucky, at a
total cost of $175,500,000. The costs of construction of the
project shall be paid \1/2\ from amounts appropriated from
the general fund of the Treasury and \1/2\ from amounts
appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
(16) Morganza, louisiana, to gulf of mexico.--
(A) In general.--The project for hurricane protection,
Morganza, Louisiana, to the Gulf of Mexico, at a total cost
of $550,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$358,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$192,000,000.
(B) Credit.--The non-Federal interests shall receive credit
toward the non-Federal share of project costs for the costs
of any work carried out by the non-Federal interests for
interim flood protection after March 31, 1989, if the
Secretary finds that the work is compatible with, and
integral to, the project.
(17) Chesterfield, missouri.--The project to implement
structural and nonstructural measures to prevent flood damage
to Chesterfield, Missouri, and the surrounding area, at a
total cost of $67,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$44,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $23,700,000.
(18) Raritan bay and sandy hook bay, port monmouth, new
jersey.--The project for shore protection, Raritan Bay and
Sandy Hook Bay, Port Monmouth, New Jersey, at a total cost of
$32,064,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $20,842,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $11,222,000, and at an
estimated average annual cost of $2,468,000 for periodic
nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an
estimated annual Federal cost of $1,234,000 and an estimated
annual non-Federal cost of $1,234,000.
(19) Memphis, tennessee.--The project for ecosystem
restoration, Wolf River, Memphis, Tennessee, at a total cost
of $10,933,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $7,106,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,827,000.
(20) Jackson hole, wyoming.--
(A) In general.--The project for environmental restoration,
Jackson Hole, Wyoming, at a total cost of $52,242,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $33,957,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $18,285,000.
(B) Non-federal share.--
(i) In general.--The non-Federal share of the costs of the
project may be provided in cash or in the form of in-kind
services or materials.
(ii) Credit.--The non-Federal interest shall receive credit
toward the non-Federal share of project costs for design and
construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest
before the date of execution of a project cooperation
agreement for the project, if the Secretary finds that the
work is integral to the project.
(21) Ohio river.--
(A) In general.--The program for protection and restoration
of fish and wildlife habitat in and along the main stem of
the Ohio River, consisting of projects described in a
comprehensive plan, at a total cost of $307,700,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $200,000,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $107,700,000.
(B) Non-federal share.--
(i) In general.--The non-Federal share of the costs of any
project under the program may be provided in cash or in the
form of in-kind services or materials.
(ii) Credit.--The non-Federal interest shall receive credit
toward the non-Federal share of project costs for design and
construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest
before the date of execution of a project cooperation
agreement for the project, if the Secretary finds that the
work is integral to the project.
SEC. 102. SMALL SHORE PROTECTION PROJECTS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the
following projects, and if the Secretary determines that a
project is feasible, may carry out the project under section
3 of the Act of August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426g):
(1) Lake palourde, louisiana.--Project for beach
restoration and protection, Highway 70, Lake Palourde, St.
Mary and St. Martin Parishes, Louisiana.
(2) St. bernard, louisiana.--Project for beach restoration
and protection, Bayou Road, St. Bernard, Louisiana.
SEC. 103. SMALL NAVIGATION PROJECTS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the
following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a
project is feasible, may carry out the project under section
107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577):
(1) Cape coral south spreader waterway, florida.--Project
for navigation, Cape Coral South Spreader Waterway, Lee
County, Florida.
(2) Houma navigation canal, louisiana.--Project for
navigation, Houma Navigation Canal, Terrebonne Parish,
Louisiana.
(3) Vidalia port, louisiana.--Project for navigation,
Vidalia Port, Louisiana.
SEC. 104. REMOVAL OF SNAGS AND CLEARING AND STRAIGHTENING OF
CHANNELS IN NAVIGABLE WATERS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the
following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a
project is appropriate, may carry out the project under
section 3 of the Act of March 2, 1945 (33 U.S.C. 604):
(1) Bayou manchac, louisiana.--Project for removal of snags
and clearing and straightening of channels for flood control,
Bayou Manchac, Ascension Parish, Louisiana.
(2) Black bayou and hippolyte coulee, louisiana.--Project
for removal of snags and clearing and straightening of
channels for flood control, Black Bayou and Hippolyte Coulee,
Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana.
SEC. 105. SMALL BANK STABILIZATION PROJECTS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the
following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a
project is feasible, may carry out the project under section
14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r):
(1) Bayou des glaises, louisiana.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, Bayou des Glaises (Lee Chatelain
Road), Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana.
(2) Bayou plaquemine, louisiana.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, Highway 77, Bayou Plaquemine,
Iberville Parish, Louisiana.
(3) Hammond, louisiana.--Project for emergency streambank
protection, Fagan Drive Bridge, Hammond, Louisiana.
(4) Iberville parish, louisiana.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, Iberville Parish, Louisiana.
(5) Lake arthur, louisiana.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, Parish Road 120 at Lake Arthur,
Louisiana.
(6) Lake charles, louisiana.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, Pithon Coulee, Lake Charles, Calcasieu
Parish, Louisiana.
(7) Loggy bayou, louisiana.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, Loggy Bayou, Bienville Parish,
Louisiana.
(8) Scotlandville bluff, louisiana.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, Scotlandville Bluff, East Baton Rouge
Parish, Louisiana.
SEC. 106. SMALL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the
following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a
project is feasible, may carry out the project under section
205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s):
(1) Weiser river, idaho.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Weiser River, Idaho.
(2) Bayou tete l'ours, louisiana.--Project for flood
control, Bayou Tete L'Ours, Louisiana.
(3) Bossier city, louisiana.--Project for flood control,
Red Chute Bayou levee, Bossier City, Louisiana.
(4) Braithwaite park, louisiana.--Project for flood
control, Braithwaite Park, Louisiana.
(5) Cane bend subdivision, louisiana.--Project for flood
control, Cane Bend Subdivision, Bossier Parish, Louisiana.
(6) Crown point, louisiana.--Project for flood control,
Crown Point, Louisiana.
(7) Donaldsonville canals, louisiana.--Project for flood
control, Donaldsonville Canals, Louisiana.
[[Page S9155]]
(8) Goose bayou, louisiana.--Project for flood control,
Goose Bayou, Louisiana.
(9) Gumby dam, louisiana.--Project for flood control, Gumby
Dam, Richland Parish, Louisiana.
(10) Hope canal, louisiana.--Project for flood control,
Hope Canal, Louisiana.
(11) Jean lafitte, louisiana.--Project for flood control,
Jean Lafitte, Louisiana.
(12) Lockport to larose, louisiana.--Project for flood
control, Lockport to Larose, Louisiana.
(13) Lower lafitte basin, louisiana.--Project for flood
control, Lower Lafitte Basin, Louisiana.
(14) Oakville to lareussite, louisiana.--Project for flood
control, Oakville to LaReussite, Louisiana.
(15) Pailet basin, louisiana.--Project for flood control,
Pailet Basin, Louisiana.
(16) Pochitolawa creek, louisiana.--Project for flood
control, Pochitolawa Creek, Louisiana.
(17) Rosethorn basin, louisiana.--Project for flood
control, Rosethorn Basin, Louisiana.
(18) Shreveport, louisiana.--Project for flood control,
Twelve Mile Bayou, Shreveport, Louisiana.
(19) Stephensville, louisiana.--Project for flood control,
Stephensville, Louisiana.
(20) St. john the baptist parish, louisiana.--Project for
flood control, St. John the Baptist Parish, Louisiana.
(21) Magby creek and vernon branch, mississippi.--Project
for flood control, Magby Creek and Vernon Branch, Lowndes
County, Mississippi.
(22) Fritz landing, tennessee.--Project for flood control,
Fritz Landing, Tennessee.
SEC. 107. SMALL PROJECTS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE QUALITY OF
THE ENVIRONMENT.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the
following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a
project is appropriate, may carry out the project under
section 1135(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a(a)):
(1) Bayou sauvage national wildlife refuge, louisiana.--
Project for improvement of the quality of the environment,
Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge, Orleans Parish,
Louisiana.
(2) Gulf intracoastal waterway, bayou plaquemine,
louisiana.--Project for improvement of the quality of the
environment, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Bayou Plaquemine,
Iberville Parish, Louisiana.
(3) Gulf intracoastal waterway, miles 220 to 222.5,
louisiana.--Project for improvement of the quality of the
environment, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, miles 220 to 222.5,
Vermilion Parish, Louisiana.
(4) Gulf intracoastal waterway, weeks bay, louisiana.--
Project for improvement of the quality of the environment,
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Weeks Bay, Iberia Parish,
Louisiana.
(5) Lake fausse point, louisiana.--Project for improvement
of the quality of the environment, Lake Fausse Point,
Louisiana.
(6) Lake providence, louisiana.--Project for improvement of
the quality of the environment, Old River, Lake Providence,
Louisiana.
(7) New river, louisiana.--Project for improvement of the
quality of the environment, New River, Ascension Parish,
Louisiana.
(8) Erie county, ohio.--Project for improvement of the
quality of the environment, Sheldon's Marsh State Nature
Preserve, Erie County, Ohio.
(9) Mushingum county, ohio.--Project for improvement of the
quality of the environment, Dillon Reservoir watershed,
Licking River, Mushingum County, Ohio.
SEC. 108. BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL.
The Secretary may carry out the following projects under
section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992
(33 U.S.C. 2326):
(1) Houma navigation canal, louisiana.--Project to make
beneficial use of dredged material from a Federal navigation
project that includes barrier island restoration at the Houma
Navigation Canal, Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana.
(2) Mississippi river gulf outlet, mile -3 to mile -9,
louisiana.--Project to make beneficial use of dredged
material from a Federal navigation project that includes
dredging of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, mile -3 to
mile -9, St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana.
(3) Mississippi river gulf outlet, mile 11 to mile 4,
louisiana.--Project to make beneficial use of dredged
material from a Federal navigation project that includes
dredging of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, mile 11 to
mile 4, St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana.
(4) Plaquemines parish, louisiana.--Project to make
beneficial use of dredged material from a Federal navigation
project that includes marsh creation at the contained
submarine maintenance dredge sediment trap, Plaquemines
Parish, Louisiana.
(5) Ottawa county, ohio.--Project to protect, restore, and
create aquatic and related habitat using dredged material,
East Harbor State Park, Ottawa County, Ohio.
SEC. 109. SMALL AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECTS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may carry out the following
projects under section 206 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330):
(1) Braud bayou, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Braud Bayou, Spanish Lake, Ascension Parish,
Louisiana.
(2) Buras marina, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Buras Marina, Buras, Plaquemines Parish,
Louisiana.
(3) Comite river, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Comite River at Hooper Road, Louisiana.
(4) Department of energy 21-inch pipeline canal,
louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration,
Department of Energy 21-inch Pipeline Canal, St. Martin
Parish, Louisiana.
(5) Lake borgne, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, southern shores of Lake Borgne, Louisiana.
(6) Lake martin, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Lake Martin, Louisiana.
(7) Luling, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Luling Oxidation Pond, St. Charles Parish,
Louisiana.
(8) Mandeville, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Mandeville, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana.
(9) St. james, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, St. James, Louisiana.
(10) Mines falls park, new hampshire.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Mines Falls Park, New Hampshire.
(11) North hampton, new hampshire.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Little River Salt Marsh, North
Hampton, New Hampshire.
(12) Highland county, ohio.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Rocky Fork Lake, Clear Creek floodplain,
Highland County, Ohio.
(13) Hocking county, ohio.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Long Hollow Mine, Hocking County, Ohio.
(14) Tuscarawas county, ohio.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Huff Run, Tuscarawas County, Ohio.
(15) Central amazon creek, oregon.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Central Amazon Creek, Oregon.
(16) Delta ponds, oregon.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Delta Ponds, Oregon.
(17) Eugene millrace, oregon.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Eugene Millrace, Oregon.
(18) Medford, oregon.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Bear Creek watershed, Medford, Oregon.
(19) Roslyn lake, oregon.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Roslyn Lake, Oregon.
(b) Salmon River, Idaho.--
(1) Credit.--The non-Federal interests with respect to the
proposed project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Salmon
River, Idaho, may receive credit toward the non-Federal share
of project costs for work, consisting of surveys, studies,
and development of technical data, that is carried out by the
non-Federal interests in connection with the project, if the
Secretary finds that the work is integral to the project.
(2) Maximum amount of credit.--The amount of the credit
under paragraph (1), together with other credit afforded,
shall not exceed the non-Federal share of the cost of the
project under section 206 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330).
SEC. 110. FLOOD MITIGATION AND RIVERINE RESTORATION.
Section 212(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1999 (33 U.S.C. 2332(e)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (22), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (23), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(24) Perry Creek, Iowa.''.
SEC. 111. DISPOSAL OF DREDGED MATERIAL ON BEACHES.
Section 217 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
(113 Stat. 294) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(f) Fort Canby State Park, Benson Beach, Washington.--The
Secretary may design and construct a shore protection project
at Fort Canby State Park, Benson Beach, Washington, including
beneficial use of dredged material from Federal navigation
projects as provided under section 145 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C. 426j).''.
TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 201. COOPERATION AGREEMENTS WITH COUNTIES.
Section 221(a) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C.
1962d-5b(a)) is amended in the second sentence--
(1) by striking ``State legislative''; and
(2) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``of the State or a body politic of the State''.
SEC. 202. WATERSHED AND RIVER BASIN ASSESSMENTS.
Section 729 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(100 Stat. 4164) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 729. WATERSHED AND RIVER BASIN ASSESSMENTS.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary may assess the water
resources needs of river basins and watersheds of the United
States, including needs relating to--
``(1) ecosystem protection and restoration;
``(2) flood damage reduction;
``(3) navigation and ports;
``(4) watershed protection;
``(5) water supply; and
``(6) drought preparedness.
``(b) Cooperation.--An assessment under subsection (a)
shall be carried out in cooperation and coordination with--
[[Page S9156]]
``(1) the Secretary of the Interior;
``(2) the Secretary of Agriculture;
``(3) the Secretary of Commerce;
``(4) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency; and
``(5) the heads of other appropriate agencies.
``(c) Consultation.--In carrying out an assessment under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with Federal,
tribal, State, interstate, and local governmental entities.
``(d) Priority River Basins and Watersheds.--In selecting
river basins and watersheds for assessment under this
section, the Secretary shall give priority to--
``(1) the Delaware River basin; and
``(2) the Willamette River basin, Oregon.
``(e) Acceptance of Contributions.--In carrying out an
assessment under subsection (a), the Secretary may accept
contributions, in cash or in kind, from Federal, tribal,
State, interstate, and local governmental entities to the
extent that the Secretary determines that the contributions
will facilitate completion of the assessment.
``(f) Cost-Sharing Requirements.--
``(1) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the
costs of an assessment carried out under this section shall
be 50 percent.
``(2) Credit.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the non-
Federal interests may receive credit toward the non-Federal
share required under paragraph (1) for the provision of
services, materials, supplies, or other in-kind
contributions.
``(B) Maximum amount of credit.--Credit under subparagraph
(A) shall not exceed an amount equal to 25 percent of the
costs of the assessment.
``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000.''.
SEC. 203. TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.
(a) Definition of Indian Tribe.--In this section, the term
``Indian tribe'' has the meaning given the term in section 4
of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
(25 U.S.C. 450b).
(b) Program.--
(1) In general.--In cooperation with Indian tribes and the
heads of other Federal agencies, the Secretary may study and
determine the feasibility of carrying out water resources
development projects that--
(A) will substantially benefit Indian tribes; and
(B) are located primarily within Indian country (as defined
in section 1151 of title 18, United States Code) or in
proximity to Alaska Native villages.
(2) Matters to be studied.--A study conducted under
paragraph (1) may address--
(A) projects for flood damage reduction, environmental
restoration and protection, and preservation of cultural and
natural resources; and
(B) such other projects as the Secretary, in cooperation
with Indian tribes and the heads of other Federal agencies,
determines to be appropriate.
(c) Consultation and Coordination With Secretary of the
Interior.--
(1) In general.--In recognition of the unique role of the
Secretary of the Interior concerning trust responsibilities
with Indian tribes, and in recognition of mutual trust
responsibilities, the Secretary shall consult with the
Secretary of the Interior concerning studies conducted under
subsection (b).
(2) Integration of activities.--The Secretary shall--
(A) integrate civil works activities of the Department of
the Army with activities of the Department of the Interior to
avoid conflicts, duplications of effort, or unanticipated
adverse effects on Indian tribes; and
(B) consider the authorities and programs of the Department
of the Interior and other Federal agencies in any
recommendations concerning carrying out projects studied
under subsection (b).
(d) Priority Projects.--In selecting water resources
development projects for study under this section, the
Secretary shall give priority to the project for the Tribal
Reservation of the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe on Willapa
Bay, Washington, authorized by section 439(b).
(e) Cost Sharing.--
(1) Ability to pay.--
(A) In general.--Any cost-sharing agreement for a study
under subsection (b) shall be subject to the ability of the
non-Federal interest to pay.
(B) Use of procedures.--The ability of a non-Federal
interest to pay shall be determined by the Secretary in
accordance with procedures established by the Secretary.
(2) Credit.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), in conducting
studies of projects under subsection (b), the Secretary may
provide credit to the non-Federal interest for the provision
of services, studies, supplies, or other in-kind
contributions to the extent that the Secretary determines
that the services, studies, supplies, and other in-kind
contributions will facilitate completion of the project.
(B) Maximum amount of credit.--Credit under subparagraph
(A) shall not exceed an amount equal to the non-Federal share
of the costs of the study.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out subsection (b) $5,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2002 through 2006, of which not more
than $1,000,000 may be used with respect to any 1 Indian
tribe.
SEC. 204. ABILITY TO PAY.
Section 103(m) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--Any cost-sharing agreement under this
section for a feasibility study, or for construction of an
environmental protection and restoration project, a flood
control project, a project for navigation, storm damage
protection, shoreline erosion, hurricane protection, or
recreation, or an agricultural water supply project, shall be
subject to the ability of the non-Federal interest to pay.
``(2) Criteria and procedures.--
``(A) In general.--The ability of a non-Federal interest to
pay shall be determined by the Secretary in accordance with--
``(i) during the period ending on the date on which revised
criteria and procedures are promulgated under subparagraph
(B), criteria and procedures in effect on the day before the
date of enactment of this subparagraph; and
``(ii) after the date on which revised criteria and
procedures are promulgated under subparagraph (B), the
revised criteria and procedures promulgated under
subparagraph (B).
``(B) Revised criteria and procedures.--Not later than 18
months after the date of enactment of this subparagraph, in
accordance with paragraph (3), the Secretary shall promulgate
revised criteria and procedures governing the ability of a
non-Federal interest to pay.''; and
(2) in paragraph (3)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by adding ``and'' at the end;
and
(B) by striking subparagraphs (B) and (C) and inserting the
following:
``(B) may consider additional criteria relating to--
``(i) the financial ability of the non-Federal interest to
carry out its cost-sharing responsibilities; or
``(ii) additional assistance that may be available from
other Federal or State sources.''.
SEC. 205. PROPERTY PROTECTION PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may carry out a program to
reduce vandalism and destruction of property at water
resources development projects under the jurisdiction of the
Department of the Army.
(b) Provision of Rewards.--In carrying out the program, the
Secretary may provide rewards (including cash rewards) to
individuals who provide information or evidence leading to
the arrest and prosecution of individuals causing damage to
Federal property.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $500,000 for
each fiscal year.
SEC. 206. NATIONAL RECREATION RESERVATION SERVICE.
Notwithstanding section 611 of the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-277; 112
Stat. 2681-515), the Secretary may--
(1) participate in the National Recreation Reservation
Service on an interagency basis; and
(2) pay the Department of the Army's share of the
activities required to implement, operate, and maintain the
Service.
SEC. 207. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF HYDROELECTRIC
FACILITIES.
Section 314 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990
(33 U.S.C. 2321) is amended in the first sentence by
inserting before the period at the end the following: ``in
cases in which the activities require specialized training
relating to hydroelectric power generation''.
SEC. 208. INTERAGENCY AND INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT.
Section 234(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (33 U.S.C. 2323a(d)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by striking ``$1,000,000'' and
inserting ``$2,000,000''; and
(2) in the second sentence, by inserting ``out'' after
``carry''.
SEC. 209. REBURIAL AND CONVEYANCE AUTHORITY.
(a) Definition of Indian Tribe.--In this section, the term
``Indian tribe'' has the meaning given the term in section 4
of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
(25 U.S.C. 450b).
(b) Reburial.--
(1) Reburial areas.--In consultation with affected Indian
tribes, the Secretary may identify and set aside areas at
civil works projects of the Department of the Army that may
be used to rebury Native American remains that--
(A) have been discovered on project land; and
(B) have been rightfully claimed by a lineal descendant or
Indian tribe in accordance with applicable Federal law.
(2) Reburial.--In consultation with and with the consent of
the lineal descendant or the affected Indian tribe, the
Secretary may recover and rebury, at full Federal expense,
the remains at the areas identified and set aside under
subsection (b)(1).
(c) Conveyance Authority.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), notwithstanding
any other provision of law, the Secretary may convey to an
Indian tribe for use as a cemetery an area at a civil works
project that is identified and set aside by the Secretary
under subsection (b)(1).
(2) Retention of necessary property interests.--In carrying
out paragraph (1), the Secretary shall retain any necessary
right-
[[Page S9157]]
of-way, easement, or other property interest that the
Secretary determines to be necessary to carry out the
authorized purposes of the project.
SEC. 210. APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION OF DAMS AND DIKES.
Section 9 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401), is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``It shall'';
(2) by striking ``However, such structures'' and inserting
the following:
``(b) Waterways Within a Single State.--Notwithstanding
subsection (a), structures described in subsection (a)'';
(3) by striking ``When plans'' and inserting the following:
``(c) Modification of Plans.--When plans'';
(4) by striking ``The approval'' and inserting the
following:
``(d) Applicability.--
``(1) Bridges and causeways.--The approval''; and
(5) in subsection (d) (as designated by paragraph (4)), by
adding at the end the following:
``(2) Dams and dikes.--
``(A) In general.--The approval required by this section of
the location and plans, or any modification of plans, of any
dam or dike, applies only to a dam or dike that, if
constructed, would completely span a waterway used to
transport interstate or foreign commerce, in such a manner
that actual, existing interstate or foreign commerce could be
adversely affected.
``(B) Other dams and dikes.--Any dam or dike (other than a
dam or dike described in subparagraph (A)) that is proposed
to be built in any other navigable water of the United
States--
``(i) shall be subject to section 10; and
``(ii) shall not be subject to the approval requirements of
this section.''.
SEC. 211. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATION AUTHORITY.
Section 1001 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(33 U.S.C. 579a) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 1001. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Construction.--The term `construction', with respect
to a project or separable element, means--
``(A) in the case of--
``(i) a nonstructural flood control project, the
acquisition of land, an easement, or a right-of-way primarily
to relocate a structure; and
``(ii) in the case of any other nonstructural measure, the
performance of physical work under a construction contract;
``(B) in the case of an environmental protection and
restoration project--
``(i) the acquisition of land, an easement, or a right-of-
way primarily to facilitate the restoration of wetland or a
similar habitat; or
``(ii) the performance of physical work under a
construction contract to modify an existing project facility
or to construct a new environmental protection and
restoration measure; and
``(C) in the case of any other water resources project, the
performance of physical work under a construction contract.
``(2) Physical work under a construction contract.--The
term `physical work under a construction contract' does not
include any activity related to project planning, engineering
and design, relocation, or the acquisition of land, an
easement, or a right-of-way.
``(b) Projects Never Under Construction.--
``(1) List of projects.--The Secretary shall annually
submit to Congress a list of projects and separable elements
of projects that--
``(A) are authorized for construction; and
``(B) for which no Federal funds were obligated for
construction during the 4 full fiscal years preceding the
date of submission of the list.
``(2) Deauthorization.--Any water resources project, or
separable element of a water resources project, authorized
for construction shall be deauthorized effective at the end
of the 7-year period beginning on the date of the most recent
authorization or reauthorization of the project or separable
element unless Federal funds have been obligated for
preconstruction engineering and design or for construction of
the project or separable element by the end of that period.
``(c) Projects for Which Construction Has Been Suspended.--
``(1) List of projects.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall annually submit to
Congress a list of projects and separable elements of
projects--
``(i) that are authorized for construction;
``(ii) for which Federal funds have been obligated for
construction of the project or separable element; and
``(iii) for which no Federal funds have been obligated for
construction of the project or separable element during the 2
full fiscal years preceding the date of submission of the
list.
``(B) Projects with initial placement of fill.--The
Secretary shall not include on a list submitted under
subparagraph (A) any shore protection project with respect to
which there has been, before the date of submission of the
list, any placement of fill unless the Secretary determines
that the project no longer has a willing and financially
capable non-Federal interest.
``(2) Deauthorization.--Any water resources project, or
separable element of a water resources project, for which
Federal funds have been obligated for construction shall be
deauthorized effective at the end of any 5-fiscal year period
during which Federal funds specifically identified for
construction of the project or separable element (in an Act
of Congress or in the accompanying legislative report
language) have not been obligated for construction.
``(d) Congressional Notifications.--Upon submission of the
lists under subsections (b)(1) and (c)(1), the Secretary
shall notify each Senator in whose State, and each Member of
the House of Representatives in whose district, the affected
project or separable element is or would be located.
``(e) Final Deauthorization List.--The Secretary shall
publish annually in the Federal Register a list of all
projects and separable elements deauthorized under subsection
(b)(2) or (c)(2).
``(f) Effective Date.--Subsections (b)(2) and (c)(2) take
effect 1 year after the date of enactment of this
subsection.''.
SEC. 212. FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS.
(a) In General.--Section 402(c) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 701b-12(c)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence of paragraph (1), by striking
``Within 6 months after the date of the enactment of this
subsection, the'' and inserting ``The'';
(2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3);
(3) by striking ``Such guidelines shall address'' and
inserting the following:
``(2) Required elements.--The guidelines developed under
paragraph (1) shall--
``(A) address''; and
(4) in paragraph (2) (as designated by paragraph (3))--
(A) by inserting ``that non-Federal interests shall adopt
and enforce'' after ``policies'';
(B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) require non-Federal interests to take measures to
preserve the level of flood protection provided by a project
to which subsection (a) applies.''.
(b) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply to any project or separable element of a project
with respect to which the Secretary and the non-Federal
interest have not entered a project cooperation agreement on
or before the date of enactment of this Act.
(c) Technical Amendments.--Section 402(b) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 701b-12(b)) is
amended--
(1) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Flood Plain''
and inserting ``Floodplain''; and
(2) in the first sentence, by striking ``flood plain'' and
inserting ``floodplain''.
SEC. 213. ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING.
Section 312 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990
(33 U.S.C. 1272) 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), for any
project carried out under this section, a non-Federal sponsor
may include a nonprofit entity, with the consent of the
affected local government.''.
SEC. 214. REGULATORY ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS DATA.
(a) In General.--Beginning October 1, 2000, the Secretary,
acting through the Chief of Engineers, shall publish, on the
Army Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program website,
quarterly reports that include all Regulatory Analysis and
Management Systems (RAMS) data.
(b) Data.--Such RAMS data shall include--
(1) the date on which an individual or nationwide permit
application under section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) is first received by the Corps;
(2) the date on which the application is considered
complete;
(3) the date on which the Corps either grants (with or
without conditions) or denies the permit; and
(4) if the application is not considered complete when
first received by the Corps, a description of the reason the
application was not considered complete.
SEC. 215. PERFORMANCE OF SPECIALIZED OR TECHNICAL SERVICES.
(a) Definition of State.--In this section, the term
``State'' has the meaning given the term in section 6501 of
title 31, United States Code.
(b) Authority.--The Corps of Engineers may provide
specialized or technical services to a Federal agency (other
than a Department of Defense agency), State, or local
government of the United States under section 6505 of title
31, United States Code, only if the chief executive of the
requesting entity submits to the Secretary--
(1) a written request describing the scope of the services
to be performed and agreeing to reimburse the Corps for all
costs associated with the performance of the services; and
(2) a certification that includes adequate facts to
establish that the services requested are not reasonably and
quickly available through ordinary business channels.
(c) Corps Agreement To Perform Services.--The Secretary,
after receiving a request described in subsection (b) to
provide specialized or technical services, shall, before
entering into an agreement to perform the services--
[[Page S9158]]
(1) ensure that the requirements of subsection (b) are met
with regard to the request for services; and
(2) execute a certification that includes adequate facts to
establish that the Corps is uniquely equipped to perform such
services.
(d) Annual Report to Congress.--
(1) In general.--Not later than the end of each calendar
year, the Secretary shall provide to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public
Works of the Senate a report identifying any request
submitted by a Federal agency (other than a Department of
Defense agency), State, or local government of the United
States to the Corps to provide specialized or technical
services.
(2) Contents of report.--The report shall include, with
respect to each request described in paragraph (1)--
(A) a description of the scope of services requested;
(B) the certifications required under subsection (b) and
(c);
(C) the status of the request;
(D) the estimated and final cost of the services;
(E) the status of reimbursement;
(F) a description of the scope of services performed; and
(G) copies of all certifications in support of the request.
SEC. 216. HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECT FUNDING.
Section 216 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
(33 U.S.C. 2321a) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``In carrying out'' and
all that follows through ``(1) is'' and inserting the
following: ``In carrying out the operation, maintenance,
rehabilitation, and modernization of a hydroelectric power
generating facility at a water resources project under the
jurisdiction of the Department of the Army, the Secretary
may, to the extent funds are made available in appropriations
Acts or in accordance with subsection (c), take such actions
as are necessary to optimize the efficiency of energy
production or increase the capacity of the facility, or both,
if, after consulting with the heads of other appropriate
Federal and State agencies, the Secretary determines that
such actions--
``(1) are'';
(2) in the first sentence of subsection (b), by striking
``the proposed uprating'' and inserting ``any proposed
uprating'';
(3) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (e); and
(4) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
``(c) Use of Funds Provided by Preference Customers.--In
carrying out this section, the Secretary may accept and
expend funds provided by preference customers under Federal
law relating to the marketing of power.
``(d) Application.--This section does not apply to any
facility of the Department of the Army that is authorized to
be funded under section 2406 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992
(16 U.S.C. 839d-1).''.
SEC. 217. ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.
(a) Conservation and Recreation Management.--To further
training and educational opportunities at water resources
development projects under the jurisdiction of the Secretary,
the Secretary may enter into cooperative agreements with non-
Federal public and nonprofit entities for services relating
to natural resources conservation or recreation management.
(b) Rural Community Assistance.--In carrying out studies
and projects under the jurisdiction of the Secretary, the
Secretary may enter into cooperative agreements with
multistate regional private nonprofit rural community
assistance entities for services, including water resource
assessment, community participation, planning, development,
and management activities.
(c) Cooperative Agreements.--A cooperative agreement
entered into under this section shall not be considered to
be, or treated as being, a cooperative agreement to which
chapter 63 of title 31, United States Code, applies.
SEC. 218. FUNDING TO PROCESS PERMITS.
(a) The Secretary, after public notice, may accept and
expend funds contributed by non-Federal public entities to
expedite the evaluation of permits under the jurisdiction of
the Department of the Army.
(b) In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall
ensure that the use of such funds as authorized in subsection
(a) will result in improved efficiencies in permit evaluation
and will not impact impartial decisionmaking in the
permitting process.
SEC. 219. PROGRAM TO MARKET DREDGED MATERIAL.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
``Dredged Material Reuse Act''.
(b) Finding.--Congress finds that the Secretary of the Army
should establish a program to reuse dredged material--
(1) to ensure the long-term viability of disposal capacity
for dredged material; and
(2) to encourage the reuse of dredged material for
environmental and economic purposes.
(c) Definition.--In this Act, the term ``Secretary'' means
the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of
Engineers.
(d) Program for Reuse of Dredged Material.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a
program to allow the direct marketing of dredged material to
public agencies and private entities.
(2) Limitations.--The Secretary shall not establish the
program under subsection (a) unless a determination is made
that such program is in the interest of the United States and
is economically justified, equitable, and environmentally
acceptable.
(3) Regional responsibility.--The program described in
subsection (a) may authorize each of the 8 division offices
of the Corps of Engineers to market to public agencies and
private entities any dredged material from projects under the
jurisdiction of the regional office. Any revenues generated
from any sale of dredged material to such entities shall be
deposited in the United States Treasury.
(4) Reports.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter for a period
of 4 years, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report
on the program established under subsection (a).
(5) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this Act $2,000,000 for each
fiscal year.
SEC. 220. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES STUDIES.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Academy.--The term ``Academy'' means the National
Academy of Sciences.
(2) Method.--The term ``method'' means a method, model,
assumption, or other pertinent planning tool used in
conducting an economic or environmental analysis of a water
resources project, including the formulation of a feasibility
report.
(3) Feasibility report.--The term ``feasibility report''
means each feasibility report, and each associated
environmental impact statement and mitigation plan, prepared
by the Corps of Engineers for a water resources project.
(4) Water resources project.--The term ``water resources
project'' means a project for navigation, a project for flood
control, a project for hurricane and storm damage reduction,
a project for emergency streambank and shore protection, a
project for ecosystem restoration and protection, and a water
resources project of any other type carried out by the Corps
of Engineers.
(b) Independent Peer Review of Projects.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall contract with the
Academy to study, and make recommendations relating to, the
independent peer review of feasibility reports.
(2) Study elements.--In carrying out a contract under
paragraph (1), the Academy shall study the practicality and
efficacy of the independent peer review of the feasibility
reports, including--
(A) the cost, time requirements, and other considerations
relating to the implementation of independent peer review;
and
(B) objective criteria that may be used to determine the
most effective application of independent peer review to
feasibility reports for each type of water resources project.
(3) Academy report.--Not later than 1 year after the date
of a contract under paragraph (1), the Academy shall submit
to the Secretary, the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, and the
Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a
report that includes--
(A) the results of the study conducted under paragraphs (1)
and (2); and
(B) in light of the results of the study, specific
recommendations, if any, on a program for implementing
independent peer review of feasibility reports.
(4) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $1,000,000,
to remain available until expended.
(c) Independent Peer Review of Methods for Project
Analysis.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall contract with the
Academy to conduct a study that includes--
(A) a review of state-of-the-art methods;
(B) a review of the methods currently used by the
Secretary;
(C) a review of a sample of instances in which the
Secretary has applied the methods identified under
subparagraph (B) in the analysis of each type of water
resources project; and
(D) a comparative evaluation of the basis and validity of
state-of-the-art methods identified under subparagraph (A)
and the methods identified under subparagraphs (B) and (C).
(2) Academy report.--Not later than 1 year after the date
of a contract under paragraph (1), the Academy shall submit
to the Secretary, the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, and the
Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a
report that includes--
(A) the results of the study conducted under paragraph (1);
and
(B) in light of the results of the study, specific
recommendations for modifying any of the methods currently
used by the Secretary for conducting economic and
environmental analyses of water resources projects.
(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $2,000,000,
to remain available until expended.
[[Page S9159]]
TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS
SEC. 301. TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY WILDLIFE MITIGATION
PROJECT, ALABAMA AND MISSISSIPPI.
(a) General.--The Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway Wildlife
Mitigation Project, Alabama and Mississippi, authorized by
section 601(a) of Public Law 99-662 (100 Stat. 4138) is
modified to authorize the Secretary to--
(1) remove the wildlife mitigation purpose designation from
up to 3,000 acres of land as necessary over the life of the
project from lands originally acquired for water resource
development projects included in the Mitigation Project in
accordance with the Report of the Chief of Engineers dated
August 31, 1985;
(2) sell or exchange such lands in accordance with
subsection (c)(1) and under such conditions as the Secretary
determines to be necessary to protect the interests of the
United States, utilize such lands as the Secretary determines
to be appropriate in connection with development, operation,
maintenance, or modification of the water resource
development projects, or grant such other interests as the
Secretary may determine to be reasonable in the public
interest; and
(3) acquire, in accordance with subsections (c) and (d),
lands from willing sellers to offset the removal of any lands
from the Mitigation Project for the purposes listed in
subsection (a)(2) of this section.
(b) Removal Process.--From the date of enactment of this
Act, the locations of these lands to be removed will be
determined at appropriate time intervals at the discretion of
the Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal and
State fish and wildlife agencies, to facilitate the operation
of the water resource development projects and to respond to
regional needs related to the project. Removals under this
subsection shall be restricted to Project Lands designated
for mitigation and shall not include lands purchased
exclusively for mitigation purposes (known as Separable
Mitigation Lands). Parcel identification, removal, and sale
may occur assuming acreage acquisitions pursuant to
subsection (d) are at least equal to the total acreage of the
lands removed.
(c) Lands To Be Sold.--
(1) Lands to be sold or exchanged pursuant to subsection
(a)(2) shall be made available for related uses consistent
with other uses of the water resource development project
lands (including port, industry, transportation, recreation,
and other regional needs for the project).
(2) Any valuation of land sold or exchanged pursuant to
this section shall be at fair market value as determined by
the Secretary.
(3) The Secretary is authorized to accept monetary
consideration and to use such funds without further
appropriation to carry out subsection (a)(3). All monetary
considerations made available to the Secretary under
subsection (a)(2) from the sale of lands shall be used for
and in support of acquisitions pursuant to subsection (d).
The Secretary is further authorized for purposes of this
section to purchase up to 1,000 acres from funds otherwise
available.
(d) Criteria for Land To Be Acquired.--The Secretary shall
consult with the appropriate Federal and State fish and
wildlife agencies in selecting the lands to be acquired
pursuant to subsection (a)(3). In selecting the lands to be
acquired, bottomland hardwood and associated habitats will
receive primary consideration. The lands shall be adjacent to
lands already in the Mitigation Project unless otherwise
agreed to by the Secretary and the fish and wildlife
agencies.
(e) Dredged Material Disposal Sites.--The Secretary shall
utilize dredge material disposal areas in such a manner as to
maximize their reuse by disposal and removal of dredged
materials, in order to conserve undisturbed disposal areas
for wildlife habitat to the maximum extent practicable. Where
the habitat value loss due to reuse of disposal areas cannot
be offset by the reduced need for other unused disposal
sites, the Secretary shall determine, in consultation with
Federal and State fish and wildlife agencies, and ensure full
mitigation for any habitat value lost as a result of such
reuse.
(f) Other Mitigation Lands.--The Secretary is also
authorized to outgrant by lease, easement, license, or permit
lands acquired for the Wildlife Mitigation Project pursuant
to section 601(a) of Public Law 99-662, in consultation with
Federal and State fish and wildlife agencies, when such
outgrants are necessary to address transportation, utility,
and related activities. The Secretary shall insure full
mitigation for any wildlife habitat value lost as a result of
such sale or outgrant. Habitat value replacement requirements
shall be determined by the Secretary in consultation with the
appropriate fish and wildlife agencies.
(g) Repeal.--Section 102 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4804) is amended by striking
subsection (a).
SEC. 302. BOYDSVILLE, ARKANSAS.
The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of
the costs of the study to determine the feasibility of the
reservoir and associated improvements in the vicinity of
Boydsville, Arkansas, authorized by section 402 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 322), not more
than $250,000 of the costs of the relevant planning and
engineering investigations carried out by State and local
agencies, if the Secretary finds that the investigations are
integral to the scope of the feasibility study.
SEC. 303. WHITE RIVER BASIN, ARKANSAS AND MISSOURI.
(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the project for
flood control, power generation, and other purposes at the
White River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri, authorized by
section 4 of the Act of June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1218, chapter
795), and modified by House Document 917, 76th Congress, 3d
Session, and House Document 290, 77th Congress, 1st Session,
approved August 18, 1941, and House Document 499, 83d
Congress, 2d Session, approved September 3, 1954, and by
section 304 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
(110 Stat. 3711), is further modified to authorize the
Secretary to provide minimum flows necessary to sustain tail
water trout fisheries by reallocating the following
recommended amounts of project storage:
(1) Beaver Lake, 1.5 feet.
(2) Table Rock, 2 feet.
(3) Bull Shoals Lake, 5 feet.
(4) Norfolk Lake, 3.5 feet.
(5) Greers Ferry Lake, 3 feet.
(b) Report.--
(1) In general.--No funds may be obligated to carry out
work on the modification under subsection (a) until the Chief
of Engineers, through completion of a final report,
determines that the work is technically sound,
environmentally acceptable, and economically justified.
(2) Timing.--Not later than January 1, 2002, the Secretary
shall submit to Congress the final report referred to in
paragraph (1).
(3) Contents.--The report shall include determinations
concerning whether--
(A) the modification under subsection (a) adversely affects
other authorized project purposes; and
(B) Federal costs will be incurred in connection with the
modification.
SEC. 304. PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may complete the project for
flood damage reduction, Petaluma River, Petaluma, California,
substantially in accordance with the Detailed Project Report
approved March 1995, at a total cost of $32,226,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $20,647,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $11,579,000.
(b) In-Kind Services.--The non-Federal interest may provide
its share of project costs in cash or in the form of in-kind
services or materials.
(c) Credit.--The non-Federal interest shall receive credit
toward the non-Federal share of project costs for design and
construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest
before the date of modification of the existing project
cooperation agreement or execution of a new project
cooperation agreement, if the Secretary determines that the
work is integral to the project.
SEC. 305. GASPARILLA AND ESTERO ISLANDS, FLORIDA.
The project for shore protection, Gasparilla and Estero
Island segments, Lee County, Florida, authorized under
section 201 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1073),
by Senate Resolution dated December 17, 1970, and by House
Resolution dated December 15, 1970, is modified to authorize
the Secretary to enter into an agreement with the non-Federal
interest to carry out the project in accordance with section
206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C.
426i-1), if the Secretary determines that the project is
technically sound, environmentally acceptable, and
economically justified.
SEC. 306. ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN RESTORATION, ILLINOIS.
(a) Definition of Illinois River Basin.--In this section,
the term ``Illinois River basin'' means the Illinois River,
Illinois, its backwaters, side channels, and all tributaries,
including their watersheds, draining into the Illinois River.
(b) Comprehensive Plan.--
(1) Development.--As expeditiously as practicable, the
Secretary shall develop a proposed comprehensive plan for the
purpose of restoring, preserving, and protecting the Illinois
River basin.
(2) Technologies and innovative approaches.--The
comprehensive plan shall provide for the development of new
technologies and innovative approaches--
(A) to enhance the Illinois River as a vital transportation
corridor;
(B) to improve water quality within the entire Illinois
River basin;
(C) to restore, enhance, and preserve habitat for plants
and wildlife; and
(D) to increase economic opportunity for agriculture and
business communities.
(3) Specific components.--The comprehensive plan shall
include such features as are necessary to provide for--
(A) the development and implementation of a program for
sediment removal technology, sediment characterization,
sediment transport, and beneficial uses of sediment;
(B) the development and implementation of a program for the
planning, conservation, evaluation, and construction of
measures for fish and wildlife habitat conservation and
rehabilitation, and stabilization and enhancement of land and
water resources in the Illinois River basin;
(C) the development and implementation of a long-term
resource monitoring program; and
(D) the development and implementation of a computerized
inventory and analysis system.
(4) Consultation.--The comprehensive plan shall be
developed by the Secretary in consultation with appropriate
Federal agencies and the State of Illinois.
(5) Report to congress.--Not later than 2 years after the
date of enactment of this
[[Page S9160]]
Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report
containing the comprehensive plan.
(6) Additional studies and analyses.--After submission of
the report under paragraph (5), the Secretary shall continue
to conduct such studies and analyses related to the
comprehensive plan as are necessary, consistent with this
subsection.
(c) Critical Restoration Projects.--
(1) In general.--If the Secretary, in cooperation with
appropriate Federal agencies and the State of Illinois,
determines that a restoration project for the Illinois River
basin will produce independent, immediate, and substantial
restoration, preservation, and protection benefits, the
Secretary shall proceed expeditiously with the implementation
of the project.
(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out projects under this
subsection $20,000,000.
(3) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of
carrying out any project under this subsection shall not
exceed $5,000,000.
(d) General Provisions.--
(1) Water quality.--In carrying out projects and activities
under this section, the Secretary shall take into account the
protection of water quality by considering applicable State
water quality standards.
(2) Public participation.--In developing the comprehensive
plan under subsection (b) and carrying out projects under
subsection (c), the Secretary shall implement procedures to
facilitate public participation, including--
(A) providing advance notice of meetings;
(B) providing adequate opportunity for public input and
comment;
(C) maintaining appropriate records; and
(D) making a record of the proceedings of meetings
available for public inspection.
(e) Coordination.--The Secretary shall integrate and
coordinate projects and activities carried out under this
section with ongoing Federal and State programs, projects,
and activities, including the following:
(1) Upper Mississippi River System-Environmental Management
Program authorized under section 1103 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 652).
(2) Upper Mississippi River Illinois Waterway System Study.
(3) Kankakee River Basin General Investigation.
(4) Peoria Riverfront Development General Investigation.
(5) Illinois River Ecosystem Restoration General
Investigation.
(6) Conservation reserve program and other farm programs of
the Department of Agriculture.
(7) Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (State) and
Conservation 2000, Ecosystem Program of the Illinois
Department of Natural Resources.
(8) Conservation 2000 Conservation Practices Program and
the Livestock Management Facilities Act administered by the
Department of Agriculture of the State of Illinois.
(9) National Buffer Initiative of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service.
(10) Nonpoint source grant program administered by the
Environmental Protection Agency of the State of Illinois.
(f) Justification.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 209 of the Flood
Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962-2) or any other provision
of law, in carrying out activities to restore, preserve, and
protect the Illinois River basin under this section, the
Secretary may determine that the activities--
(A) are justified by the environmental benefits derived by
the Illinois River basin; and
(B) shall not need further economic justification if the
Secretary determines that the activities are cost-effective.
(2) Applicability.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any
separable element intended to produce benefits that are
predominantly unrelated to the restoration, preservation, and
protection of the Illinois River basin.
(g) Cost Sharing.--
(1) In general.--The non-Federal share of the cost of
projects and activities carried out under this section shall
be 35 percent.
(2) Operation, maintenance, rehabilitation, and
replacement.--The operation, maintenance, rehabilitation, and
replacement of projects carried out under this section shall
be a non-Federal responsibility.
(3) In-kind services.--
(A) In general.--The value of in-kind services provided by
the non-Federal interest for a project or activity carried
out under this section may be credited toward not more than
80 percent of the non-Federal share of the cost of the
project or activity.
(B) Items included.--In-kind services shall include all
State funds expended on programs and projects that accomplish
the goals of this section, as determined by the Secretary,
including the Illinois River Conservation Reserve Program,
the Illinois Conservation 2000 Program, the Open Lands Trust
Fund, and other appropriate programs carried out in the
Illinois River basin.
(4) Credit.--
(A) Value of land.--If the Secretary determines that land
or an interest in land acquired by a non-Federal interest,
regardless of the date of acquisition, is integral to a
project or activity carried out under this section, the
Secretary may credit the value of the land or interest in
land toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project
or activity, as determined by the Secretary.
(B) Work.--If the Secretary determines that any work
completed by a non-Federal interest, regardless of the date
of completion, is integral to a project or activity carried
out under this section, the Secretary may credit the value of
the work toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the
project or activity, as determined by the Secretary.
SEC. 307. UPPER DES PLAINES RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, ILLINOIS.
The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of
the costs of the study to determine the feasibility of
improvements to the upper Des Plaines River and tributaries,
phase 2, Illinois and Wisconsin, authorized by section 419 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 324),
the costs of work carried out by the non-Federal interests in
Lake County, Illinois, before the date of execution of the
feasibility study cost-sharing agreement, if--
(1) the Secretary and the non-Federal interests enter into
a feasibility study cost-sharing agreement; and
(2) the Secretary finds that the work is integral to the
scope of the feasibility study.
SEC. 308. ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LOUISIANA.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding the Report of the Chief of
Engineers, dated February 28, 1983, for the project for flood
control, Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Louisiana,
authorized by section 601(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4142), which report refers
to recreational development in the Lower Atchafalaya Basin
Floodway, the Secretary--
(1) shall, in collaboration with the State of Louisiana,
initiate construction of the visitors center, authorized as
part of the project, at or near Lake End Park in Morgan City,
Louisiana; and
(2) shall construct other recreational features, authorized
as part of the project, within, and in the vicinity of, the
Lower Atchafalaya Basin protection levees.
(b) Authorities.--The Secretary shall carry out subsection
(a) in accordance with--
(1) the feasibility study for the Atchafalaya Basin
Floodway System, Louisiana, dated January 1982; and
(2) the recreation cost-sharing requirements under section
103(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33
U.S.C. 2213(c)).
SEC. 309. RED RIVER WATERWAY, LOUISIANA.
The project for mitigation of fish and wildlife losses, Red
River Waterway, Louisiana, authorized by section 601(a) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4142)
and modified by section 4(h) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4016), section 102(p) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4613),
and section 301(b)(7) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1996 (110 Stat. 3710), is further modified to authorize
the purchase of mitigation land from willing sellers in any
of the parishes that comprise the Red River Waterway
District, consisting of Avoyelles, Bossier, Caddo, Grant,
Natchitoches, Rapides, and Red River Parishes.
SEC. 310. NARRAGUAGUS RIVER, MILBRIDGE, MAINE.
(a) Redesignation.--The project for navigation, Narraguagus
River, Milbridge, Maine, authorized by section 101 of the
River and Harbor Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1173), is modified to
redesignate as anchorage the portion of the 11-foot channel
described as follows: beginning at a point with coordinates
N248,413.92, E668,000.24, thence running south 20 degrees 09
minutes 57.8 seconds east 1325.205 feet to a point
N247,169.95, E668,457.09, thence running north 51 degrees 30
minutes 05.7 seconds west 562.33 feet to a point N247,520.00,
E668,017.00, thence running north 01 degrees 04 minutes 26.8
seconds west 894.077 feet to the point of origin.
(b) Reauthorization.--The Secretary shall maintain as
anchorage the portions of the project for navigation,
Narraguagus River, Milbridge, Maine, authorized by section 2
of the Act of June 14, 1880 (21 Stat. 195, chapter 211), that
lie adjacent to and outside the limits of the 11-foot and 9-
foot channels and that are described as follows:
(1) The area located east of the 11-foot channel beginning
at a point with coordinates N248,060.52, E668,236.56, thence
running south 36 degrees 20 minutes 52.3 seconds east
1567.242 feet to a point N246,798.21, E669,165.44, thence
running north 51 degrees 30 minutes 06.2 seconds west 839.855
feet to a point N247,321.01, E668,508.15, thence running
north 20 degrees 09 minutes 58.1 seconds west 787.801 feet to
the point of origin.
(2) The area located west of the 9-foot channel beginning
at a point with coordinates N249,673.29, E667,537.73, thence
running south 20 degrees 09 minutes 57.8 seconds east
1341.616 feet to a point N248,413.92, E668,000.24, thence
running south 01 degrees 04 minutes 26.8 seconds east 371.688
feet to a point N248,042.30, E668,007.21, thence running
north 22 degrees 21 minutes 20.8 seconds west 474.096 feet to
a point N248,480.76, E667,826.88, thence running north 79
degrees 09 minutes 31.6 seconds east 100.872 feet to a point
N248,499.73, E667,925.95, thence running north 13 degrees 47
minutes 27.6 seconds west 95.126 feet to a point N248,592.12,
E667,903.28, thence running south 79 degrees 09 minutes 31.6
seconds west 115.330 feet to a point N248,570.42,
E667,790.01, thence running north 22 degrees 21 minutes 20.8
seconds west 816.885 feet to a point N249,325.91,
E667,479.30, thence running north 07 degrees 03 minutes 00.3
seconds west 305.680 feet to a point N249,629.28,
E667,441.78, thence running north 65 degrees 21 minutes
[[Page S9161]]
33.8 seconds east 105.561 feet to the point of origin.
SEC. 311. WILLIAM JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE, MARYLAND.
The Secretary--
(1) may provide design and construction assistance for
recreational facilities in the State of Maryland at the
William Jennings Randolph Lake (Bloomington Dam), Maryland
and West Virginia, project authorized by section 203 of the
Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1182); and
(2) shall require the non-Federal interest to provide 50
percent of the costs of designing and constructing the
recreational facilities.
SEC. 312. BRECKENRIDGE, MINNESOTA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may complete the project for
flood damage reduction, Breckenridge, Minnesota,
substantially in accordance with the Detailed Project Report
dated September 2000, at a total cost of $21,000,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $13,650,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $7,350,000.
(b) In-Kind Services.--The non-Federal interest may provide
its share of project costs in cash or in the form of in-kind
services or materials.
(c) Credit.--The non-Federal interest shall receive credit
toward the non-Federal share of project costs for design and
construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest
before the date of modification of the existing project
cooperation agreement or execution of a new project
cooperation agreement, if the Secretary determines that the
work is integral to the project.
SEC. 313. MISSOURI RIVER VALLEY, MISSOURI.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
``Missouri River Valley Improvement Act''.
(b) Findings and Purposes.--
(1) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(A) Lewis and Clark were pioneering naturalists that
recorded dozens of species previously unknown to science
while ascending the Missouri River in 1804;
(B) the Missouri River, which is 2,321 miles long, drains
\1/6\ of the United States, is home to approximately
10,000,000 people in 10 States and 28 Native American tribes,
and is a resource of incalculable value to the United States;
(C) the construction of dams, levees, and river training
structures in the past 150 years has aided navigation, flood
control, and water supply along the Missouri River, but has
reduced habitat for native river fish and wildlife;
(D) river organizations, including the Missouri River Basin
Association, support habitat restoration, riverfront
revitalization, and improved operational flexibility so long
as those efforts do not significantly interfere with uses of
the Missouri River; and
(E) restoring a string of natural places by the year 2004
would aid native river fish and wildlife, reduce flood
losses, enhance recreation and tourism, and celebrate the
bicentennial of Lewis and Clark's voyage.
(2) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are--
(A) to protect, restore, and enhance the fish, wildlife,
and plants, and the associated habitats on which they depend,
of the Missouri River;
(B) to restore a string of natural places that aid native
river fish and wildlife, reduce flood losses, and enhance
recreation and tourism;
(C) to revitalize historic riverfronts to improve quality
of life in riverside communities and attract recreation and
tourism;
(D) to monitor the health of the Missouri River and measure
biological, chemical, geological, and hydrological responses
to changes in Missouri River management;
(E) to allow the Corps of Engineers increased authority to
restore and protect fish and wildlife habitat on the Missouri
River;
(F) to protect and replenish cottonwoods, and their
associated riparian woodland communities, along the upper
Missouri River; and
(G) to educate the public about the economic,
environmental, and cultural importance of the Missouri River
and the scientific and cultural discoveries of Lewis and
Clark.
(c) Definition of Missouri River.--In this section, the
term ``Missouri River'' means the Missouri River and the
adjacent floodplain that extends from the mouth of the
Missouri River (RM 0) to the confluence of the Jefferson,
Madison, and Gallatin Rivers (RM 2341) in the State of
Montana.
(d) Authority To Protect, Enhance, and Restore Fish and
Wildlife Habitat.--Section 9(b) of the Act of December 22,
1944 (58 Stat. 891, chapter 665), is amended--
(1) by striking ``(b) The general'' and inserting the
following:
``(b) Comprehensive Plan.--
``(1) In general.--The general'';
(2) by striking ``paragraph'' and inserting ``subsection'';
and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Fish and wildlife habitat.--In addition to carrying
out the duties under the comprehensive plan described in
paragraph (1), the Chief of Engineers shall protect, enhance,
and restore fish and wildlife habitat on the Missouri River
to the extent consistent with other authorized project
purposes.''.
(e) Integration of Activities.--
(1) In general.--In carrying out this section and in
accordance with paragraph (2), the Secretary shall provide
for such activities as are necessary to protect and enhance
fish and wildlife habitat without adversely affecting--
(A) the water-related needs of the Missouri River basin,
including flood control, navigation, hydropower, water
supply, and recreation; and
(B) private property rights.
(2) New authority.--Nothing in this section confers any new
regulatory authority on any Federal or non-Federal entity
that carries out any activity under this section.
(f) Missouri River Mitigation Project.--The matter under
the heading ``missouri river mitigation, missouri, kansas,
iowa, and nebraska'' of section 601(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4143) is amended by adding
at the end the following: ``There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this paragraph $20,000,000 for each
of fiscal years 2001 through 2010, contingent on the
completion by December 31, 2000, of the study under this
heading.''.
(g) Upper Missouri River Aquatic and Riparian Habitat
Mitigation Program.--
(1) In general.--
(A) Study.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary, through an interagency
agreement with the Director of the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service and in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Act of 1980 (16 U.S.C. 2901 et seq.), shall
complete a study that--
(i) analyzes any adverse effects on aquatic and riparian-
dependent fish and wildlife resulting from the operation of
the Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir Project in the States
of Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Montana;
(ii) recommends measures appropriate to mitigate the
adverse effects described in clause (i); and
(iii) develops baseline geologic and hydrologic data
relating to aquatic and riparian habitat.
(B) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress
a report describing the results of the study under
subparagraph (A).
(2) Pilot program.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and
the affected State fish and wildlife agencies, shall develop
and administer a pilot mitigation program that--
(A) involves the experimental releases of warm water from
the spillways at Fort Peck Dam during the appropriate
spawning periods for native fish;
(B) involves the monitoring of the response of fish to and
the effectiveness of the preservation of native fish and
wildlife habitat of the releases described in subparagraph
(A); and
(C) shall not adversely impact a use of the reservoir
existing on the date on which the pilot program is
implemented.
(3) Reservoir fish loss study.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with
the North Dakota Game and Fish Department and the South
Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, shall complete a
study to analyze and recommend measures to avoid or reduce
the loss of fish, including rainbow smelt, through Garrison
Dam in North Dakota and Oahe Dam in South Dakota.
(B) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress
a report describing the results of the study under
subparagraph (A).
(4) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary--
(A) to complete the study required under paragraph (3),
$200,000; and
(B) to carry out the other provisions of this subsection,
$1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2010.
(h) Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers Enhancement
Project.--Section 514 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1999 (113 Stat. 342) is amended by striking subsection (g)
and inserting the following:
``(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 $5,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2001 through 2004.''.
SEC. 314. NEW MADRID COUNTY, MISSOURI.
(a) In General.--The project for navigation, New Madrid
County Harbor, New Madrid County, Missouri, authorized under
section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C.
577), is authorized as described in the feasibility report
for the project, including both phase 1 and phase 2 of the
project.
(b) Credit.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall provide credit to the
non-Federal interests for the costs incurred by the non-
Federal interests in carrying out construction work for phase
1 of the project, if the Secretary finds that the
construction work is integral to phase 2 of the project.
(2) Maximum amount of credit.--The amount of the credit
under paragraph (1) shall not exceed the required non-Federal
share for the project.
SEC. 315. PEMISCOT COUNTY HARBOR, MISSOURI.
(a) Credit.--With respect to the project for navigation,
Pemiscot County Harbor, Missouri, authorized under section
107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), the
Secretary shall provide credit to the Pemiscot County Port
Authority, or an agent of the authority, for the costs
incurred by the Authority or agent in carrying out
construction work for the project after December 31, 1997, if
the Secretary finds that
[[Page S9162]]
the construction work is integral to the project.
(b) Maximum Amount of Credit.--The amount of the credit
under subsection (a) shall not exceed the required non-
Federal share for the project, estimated as of the date of
enactment of this Act to be $222,000.
SEC. 316. PIKE COUNTY, MISSOURI.
(a) In General.--Subject to subsections (c) and (d), at
such time as S.S.S., Inc. conveys all right, title, and
interest in and to the parcel of land described in subsection
(b)(1) to the United States, the Secretary shall convey all
right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the
parcel of land described in subsection (b)(2) to S.S.S., Inc.
(b) Land Description.--The parcels of land referred to in
subsection (a) are the following:
(1) Non-federal land.--8.99 acres with existing flowage
easements, located in Pike County, Missouri, adjacent to land
being acquired from Holnam, Inc. by the Corps of Engineers.
(2) Federal land.--8.99 acres located in Pike County,
Missouri, known as ``Government Tract Numbers FM-46 and FM-
47'', administered by the Corps of Engineers.
(c) Conditions.--The land exchange under subsection (a)
shall be subject to the following conditions:
(1) Deeds.--
(A) Non-federal land.--The conveyance of the parcel of land
described in subsection (b)(1) to the Secretary shall be by a
warranty deed acceptable to the Secretary.
(B) Federal land.--The instrument of conveyance used to
convey the parcel of land described in subsection (b)(2) to
S.S.S., Inc. shall contain such reservations, terms, and
conditions as the Secretary considers necessary to allow the
United States to operate and maintain the Mississippi River
9-Foot Navigation Project.
(2) Removal of improvements.--
(A) In general.--S.S.S., Inc. may remove, and the Secretary
may require S.S.S., Inc. to remove, any improvements on the
parcel of land described in subsection (b)(1).
(B) No liability.--If S.S.S., Inc., voluntarily or under
direction from the Secretary, removes an improvement on the
parcel of land described in subsection (b)(1)--
(i) S.S.S., Inc. shall have no claim against the United
States for liability; and
(ii) the United States shall not incur or be liable for any
cost associated with the removal or relocation of the
improvement.
(3) Time limit for land exchange.--Not later than 2 years
after the date of enactment of this Act, the land exchange
under subsection (a) shall be completed.
(4) Legal description.--The Secretary shall provide legal
descriptions of the parcels of land described in subsection
(b), which shall be used in the instruments of conveyance of
the parcels.
(5) Administrative costs.--The Secretary shall require
S.S.S., Inc. to pay reasonable administrative costs
associated with the land exchange under subsection (a).
(d) Value of Properties.--If the appraised fair market
value, as determined by the Secretary, of the parcel of land
conveyed to S.S.S., Inc. by the Secretary under subsection
(a) exceeds the appraised fair market value, as determined by
the Secretary, of the parcel of land conveyed to the United
States by S.S.S., Inc. under that subsection, S.S.S., Inc.
shall pay to the United States, in cash or a cash equivalent,
an amount equal to the difference between the 2 values.
SEC. 317. FORT PECK FISH HATCHERY, MONTANA.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) Fort Peck Lake, Montana, is in need of a multispecies
fish hatchery;
(2) the burden of carrying out efforts to raise and stock
fish species in Fort Peck Lake has been disproportionately
borne by the State of Montana despite the existence of a
Federal project at Fort Peck Lake;
(3)(A) as of the date of enactment of this Act, eastern
Montana has only 1 warm water fish hatchery, which is
inadequate to meet the demands of the region; and
(B) a disease or infrastructure failure at that hatchery
could imperil fish populations throughout the region;
(4) although the multipurpose project at Fort Peck,
Montana, authorized by the first section of the Act of August
30, 1935 (49 Stat. 1034, chapter 831), was intended to
include irrigation projects and other activities designed to
promote economic growth, many of those projects were never
completed, to the detriment of the local communities flooded
by the Fort Peck Dam;
(5) the process of developing an environmental impact
statement for the update of the Corps of Engineers Master
Manual for the operation of the Missouri River recognized the
need for greater support of recreation activities and other
authorized purposes of the Fort Peck project;
(6)(A) although fish stocking is included among the
authorized purposes of the Fort Peck project, the State of
Montana has funded the stocking of Fort Peck Lake since 1947;
and
(B) the obligation to fund the stocking constitutes an
undue burden on the State; and
(7) a viable multispecies fishery would spur economic
development in the region.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are--
(1) to authorize and provide funding for the design and
construction of a multispecies fish hatchery at Fort Peck
Lake, Montana; and
(2) to ensure stable operation and maintenance of the fish
hatchery.
(c) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Fort peck lake.--The term ``Fort Peck Lake'' means the
reservoir created by the damming of the upper Missouri River
in northeastern Montana.
(2) Hatchery project.--The term ``hatchery project'' means
the project authorized by subsection (d).
(d) Authorization.--The Secretary shall carry out a project
at Fort Peck Lake, Montana, for the design and construction
of a fish hatchery and such associated facilities as are
necessary to sustain a multispecies fishery.
(e) Cost Sharing.--
(1) Design and construction.--
(A) Federal share.--The Federal share of the costs of
design and construction of the hatchery project shall be 75
percent.
(B) Form of non-federal share.--
(i) In general.--The non-Federal share of the costs of the
hatchery project may be provided in the form of cash or in
the form of land, easements, rights-of-way, services, roads,
or any other form of in-kind contribution determined by the
Secretary to be appropriate.
(ii) Required crediting.--The Secretary shall credit toward
the non-Federal share of the costs of the hatchery project--
(I) the costs to the State of Montana of stocking Fort Peck
Lake during the period beginning January 1, 1947; and
(II) the costs to the State of Montana and the counties
having jurisdiction over land surrounding Fort Peck Lake of
construction of local access roads to the lake.
(2) Operation, maintenance, repair, and replacement.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraphs (B)
and (C), the operation, maintenance, repair, and replacement
of the hatchery project shall be a non-Federal
responsibility.
(B) Costs associated with threatened and endangered
species.--The costs of operation and maintenance associated
with raising threatened or endangered species shall be a
Federal responsibility.
(C) Power.--The Secretary shall offer to the hatchery
project low-cost project power for all hatchery operations.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this section--
(A) $20,000,000; and
(B) such sums as are necessary to carry out subsection
(e)(2)(B).
(2) Availability of funds.--Sums made available under
paragraph (1) shall remain available until expended.
SEC. 318. SAGAMORE CREEK, NEW HAMPSHIRE.
The Secretary shall carry out maintenance dredging of the
Sagamore Creek Channel, New Hampshire.
SEC. 319. PASSAIC RIVER BASIN FLOOD MANAGEMENT, NEW JERSEY.
(a) In General.--The project for flood control, Passaic
River, New Jersey and New York, authorized by section
101(a)(18) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990
(104 Stat. 4607), is modified to emphasize nonstructural
approaches for flood control as alternatives to the
construction of the Passaic River tunnel element, while
maintaining the integrity of other separable mainstream
project elements, wetland banks, and other independent
projects that were authorized to be carried out in the
Passaic River Basin before the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Reevaluation of Floodway Study.--The Secretary shall
review the Passaic River Floodway Buyout Study, dated October
1995, to calculate the benefits of a buyout and environmental
restoration using the method used to calculate the benefits
of structural projects under section 308(b) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2318(b)).
(c) Reevaluation of 10-Year Floodplain Study.--The
Secretary shall review the Passaic River Buyout Study of the
10-year floodplain beyond the floodway of the Central Passaic
River Basin, dated September 1995, to calculate the benefits
of a buyout and environmental restoration using the method
used to calculate the benefits of structural projects under
section 308(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990
(33 U.S.C. 2318(b)).
(d) Preservation of Natural Storage Areas.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall reevaluate the
acquisition, from willing sellers, for flood protection
purposes, of wetlands in the Central Passaic River Basin to
supplement the wetland acquisition authorized by section
101(a)(18)(C)(vi) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1990 (104 Stat. 4609).
(2) Purchase.--If the Secretary determines that the
acquisition of wetlands evaluated under paragraph (1) is
economically justified, the Secretary shall purchase the
wetlands, with the goal of purchasing not more than 8,200
acres.
(e) Streambank Erosion Control Study.--The Secretary shall
review relevant reports and conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for environmental
restoration, erosion control, and streambank restoration
along the Passaic River, from Dundee Dam to Kearny Point, New
Jersey.
(f) Passaic River Flood Management Task Force.--
(1) Establishment.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the
non-Federal interest, shall establish a task force, to be
known as the ``Passaic River Flood Management Task Force'',
to provide advice to the Secretary
[[Page S9163]]
concerning all aspects of the Passaic River flood management
project.
(2) Membership.--The task force shall be composed of 20
members, appointed as follows:
(A) Appointment by secretary.--The Secretary shall appoint
1 member to represent the Corps of Engineers and to provide
technical advice to the task force.
(B) Appointments by governor of new jersey.--The Governor
of New Jersey shall appoint 18 members to the task force, as
follows:
(i) 2 representatives of the New Jersey legislature who are
members of different political parties.
(ii) 1 representative of the State of New Jersey.
(iii) 1 representative of each of Bergen, Essex, Morris,
and Passaic Counties, New Jersey.
(iv) 6 representatives of governments of municipalities
affected by flooding within the Passaic River Basin.
(v) 1 representative of the Palisades Interstate Park
Commission.
(vi) 1 representative of the North Jersey District Water
Supply Commission.
(vii) 1 representative of each of--
(I) the Association of New Jersey Environmental
Commissions;
(II) the Passaic River Coalition; and
(III) the Sierra Club.
(C) Appointment by governor of new york.--The Governor of
New York shall appoint 1 representative of the State of New
York to the task force.
(3) Meetings.--
(A) Regular meetings.--The task force shall hold regular
meetings.
(B) Open meetings.--The meetings of the task force shall be
open to the public.
(4) Annual report.--The task force shall submit annually to
the Secretary and to the non-Federal interest a report
describing the achievements of the Passaic River flood
management project in preventing flooding and any impediments
to completion of the project.
(5) Expenditure of funds.--The Secretary may use funds made
available to carry out the Passaic River Basin flood
management project to pay the administrative expenses of the
task force.
(6) Termination.--The task force shall terminate on the
date on which the Passaic River flood management project is
completed.
(g) Acquisition of Lands in the Floodway.--Section 1148 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4254;
110 Stat. 3718), is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(e) Consistency With New Jersey Blue Acres Program.--The
Secretary shall carry out this section in a manner that is
consistent with the Blue Acres Program of the State of New
Jersey.''.
(h) Study of Highlands Land Conservation.--The Secretary,
in cooperation with the Secretary of Agriculture and the
State of New Jersey, may study the feasibility of conserving
land in the Highlands region of New Jersey and New York to
provide additional flood protection for residents of the
Passaic River Basin in accordance with section 212 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (33 U.S.C. 2332).
(i) Restriction on Use of Funds.--The Secretary shall not
obligate any funds to carry out design or construction of the
tunnel element of the Passaic River flood control project, as
authorized by section 101(a)(18)(A) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4607).
(j) Conforming Amendment.--Section 101(a)(18) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4607) is amended
in the paragraph heading by striking ``main stem,'' and
inserting ``flood management project,''.
SEC. 320. ROCKAWAY INLET TO NORTON POINT, NEW YORK.
(a) In General.--The project for shoreline protection,
Atlantic Coast of New York City from Rockaway Inlet to Norton
Point (Coney Island Area), New York, authorized by section
501(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100
Stat. 4135) is modified to authorize the Secretary to
construct T-groins to improve sand retention down drift of
the West 37th Street groin, in the Sea Gate area of Coney
Island, New York, as identified in the March 1998 report
prepared for the Corps of Engineers, entitled ``Field Data
Gathering Project Performance Analysis and Design Alternative
Solutions to Improve Sandfill Retention'', at a total cost of
$9,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $5,850,000 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,150,000.
(b) Cost Sharing.--The non-Federal share of the costs of
constructing the T-groins under subsection (a) shall be 35
percent.
SEC. 321. JOHN DAY POOL, OREGON AND WASHINGTON.
(a) Extinguishment of Reversionary Interests and Use
Restrictions.--With respect to the land described in each
deed specified in subsection (b)--
(1) the reversionary interests and the use restrictions
relating to port or industrial purposes are extinguished;
(2) the human habitation or other building structure use
restriction is extinguished in each area where the elevation
is above the standard project flood elevation; and
(3) the use of fill material to raise low areas above the
standard project flood elevation is authorized, except in any
low area constituting wetland for which a permit under
section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1344) would be required.
(b) Affected Deeds.--Subsection (a) applies to deeds with
the following county auditors' numbers:
(1) Auditor's Microfilm Numbers 229 and 16226 of Morrow
County, Oregon, executed by the United States.
(2) The portion of the land conveyed in a deed executed by
the United States and bearing Benton County, Washington,
Auditor's File Number 601766, described as a tract of land
lying in sec. 7, T. 5 N., R. 28 E., Willamette meridian,
Benton County, Washington, being more particularly described
by the following boundaries:
(A) Commencing at the point of intersection of the
centerlines of Plymouth Street and Third Avenue in the First
Addition to the Town of Plymouth (according to the duly
recorded plat thereof).
(B) Thence west along the centerline of Third Avenue, a
distance of 565 feet.
(C) Thence south 54 deg. 10' west, to a point on the west
line of Tract 18 of that Addition and the true point of
beginning.
(D) Thence north, parallel with the west line of that sec.
7, to a point on the north line of that sec. 7.
(E) Thence west along the north line thereof to the
northwest corner of that sec. 7.
(F) Thence south along the west line of that sec. 7 to a
point on the ordinary high water line of the Columbia River.
(G) Thence northeast along that high water line to a point
on the north and south coordinate line of the Oregon
Coordinate System, North Zone, that coordinate line being
east 2,291,000 feet.
(H) Thence north along that line to a point on the south
line of First Avenue of that Addition.
(I) Thence west along First Avenue to a point on the
southerly extension of the west line of T. 18.
(J) Thence north along that west line of T. 18 to the point
of beginning.
SEC. 322. FOX POINT HURRICANE BARRIER, PROVIDENCE, RHODE
ISLAND.
Section 352 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
(113 Stat. 310) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``The''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Credit Toward Non-Federal Share.--The non-Federal
interest shall receive credit toward the non-Federal share of
project costs, or reimbursement, for the Federal share of the
costs of repairs authorized under subsection (a) that are
incurred by the non-Federal interest before the date of
execution of the project cooperation agreement.''.
SEC. 323. CHARLESTON HARBOR, SOUTH CAROLINA.
(a) Estuary Restoration.--
(1) Support plan.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop a plan for
activities of the Corps of Engineers to support the
restoration of the ecosystem of the Charleston Harbor
estuary, South Carolina.
(B) Cooperation.--The Secretary shall develop the plan in
cooperation with--
(i) the State of South Carolina; and
(ii) other affected Federal and non-Federal interests.
(2) Projects.--The Secretary shall plan, design, and
construct projects to support the restoration of the
ecosystem of the Charleston Harbor estuary.
(3) Evaluation program.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall develop a program to
evaluate the success of the projects carried out under
paragraph (2) in meeting ecosystem restoration goals.
(B) Studies.--Evaluations under subparagraph (A) shall be
conducted in consultation with the appropriate Federal,
State, and local agencies.
(b) Cost Sharing.--
(1) Development of plan.--The Federal share of the cost of
development of the plan under subsection (a)(1) shall be 65
percent.
(2) Project planning, design, construction, and
evaluation.--The Federal share of the cost of planning,
design, construction, and evaluation of a project under
paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (a) shall be 65 percent.
(3) Non-federal share.--
(A) Credit for land, easements, and rights-of-way.--The
non-Federal interest shall receive credit for the value of
any land, easement, right-of-way, relocation, or dredged
material disposal area provided for carrying out a project
under subsection (a)(2).
(B) Form.--The non-Federal interest may provide up to 50
percent of the non-Federal share in the form of services,
materials, supplies, or other in-kind contributions.
(4) Operation and maintenance.--The operation, maintenance,
repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of projects carried
out under this section shall be a non-Federal responsibility.
(5) Non-federal interests.--Notwithstanding section 221 of
the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), for any
project carried out under this section, a non-Federal
interest may include a private interest and a nonprofit
entity.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) Development of plan.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out subsection (a)(1) $300,000.
[[Page S9164]]
(2) Other activities.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out paragraphs (2) and (3) of
subsection (a) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001
through 2004.
SEC. 324. SAVANNAH RIVER, SOUTH CAROLINA.
(a) Definition of New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam.--In this
section, the term ``New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam'' means--
(1) the lock and dam at New Savannah Bluff, Savannah River,
Georgia and South Carolina; and
(2) the appurtenant features to the lock and dam,
including--
(A) the adjacent approximately 50-acre park and recreation
area with improvements made under the project for navigation,
Savannah River below Augusta, Georgia, authorized by the
first section of the Act of July 3, 1930 (46 Stat. 924,
chapter 847) and the first section of the Act of August 30,
1935 (49 Stat. 1032, chapter 831); and
(B) other land that is part of the project and that the
Secretary determines to be appropriate for conveyance under
this section.
(b) Repair and Conveyance.--After execution of an agreement
between the Secretary and the city of North Augusta and Aiken
County, South Carolina, the Secretary--
(1) shall repair and rehabilitate the New Savannah Bluff
Lock and Dam, at full Federal expense estimated at
$5,300,000; and
(2) after repair and rehabilitation, may convey the New
Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam, without consideration, to the
city of North Augusta and Aiken County, South Carolina.
(c) Treatment of New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam.--The New
Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam shall not be considered to be
part of any Federal project after the conveyance under
subsection (b).
(d) Operation and Maintenance.--
(1) Before conveyance.--Before the conveyance under
subsection (b), the Secretary shall continue to operate and
maintain the New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam.
(2) After conveyance.--After the conveyance under
subsection (b), operation and maintenance of all features of
the project for navigation, Savannah River below Augusta,
Georgia, described in subsection (a)(2)(A), other than the
New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam, shall continue to be a
Federal responsibility.
SEC. 325. HOUSTON-GALVESTON NAVIGATION CHANNELS, TEXAS.
(a) In General.--Subject to the completion, not later than
December 31, 2000, of a favorable report by the Chief of
Engineers, the project for navigation and environmental
restoration, Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels, Texas,
authorized by section 101(a)(30) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3666), is modified to
authorize the Secretary to design and construct barge lanes
adjacent to both sides of the Houston Ship Channel from
Redfish Reef to Morgan Point, a distance of approximately 15
miles, to a depth of 12 feet, at a total cost of $34,000,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $30,600,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $3,400,000.
(b) Cost Sharing.--The non-Federal interest shall pay a
portion of the costs of construction of the barge lanes under
subsection (a) in accordance with section 101 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211).
(c) Federal Interest.--If the modification under subsection
(a) is in compliance with all applicable environmental
requirements, the modification shall be considered to be in
the Federal interest.
(d) No Authorization of Maintenance.--No maintenance is
authorized to be carried out for the modification under
subsection (a).
SEC. 326. JOE POOL LAKE, TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TEXAS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall enter into an
agreement with the city of Grand Prairie, Texas, under which
the city agrees to assume all responsibilities of the Trinity
River Authority of the State of Texas under Contract No.
DACW63-76-C-0166, other than financial responsibilities,
except the responsibility described in subsection (d).
(b) Responsibilities of Trinity River Authority.--The
Trinity River Authority shall be relieved of all financial
responsibilities under the contract described in subsection
(a) as of the date on which the Secretary enters into the
agreement with the city under that subsection.
(c) Payments by City.--In consideration of the agreement
entered into under subsection (a), the city shall pay the
Federal Government $4,290,000 in 2 installments--
(1) 1 installment in the amount of $2,150,000, which shall
be due and payable not later than December 1, 2000; and
(2) 1 installment in the amount of $2,140,000, which shall
be due and payable not later than December 1, 2003.
(d) Operation and Maintenance Costs.--The agreement entered
into under subsection (a) shall include a provision requiring
the city to assume responsibility for all costs associated
with operation and maintenance of the recreation facilities
included in the contract described in that subsection.
SEC. 327. LAKE CHAMPLAIN WATERSHED, VERMONT AND NEW YORK.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Critical restoration project.--The term ``critical
restoration project'' means a project that will produce,
consistent with Federal programs, projects, and activities,
immediate and substantial ecosystem restoration,
preservation, and protection benefits.
(2) Lake champlain watershed.--The term ``Lake Champlain
watershed'' means--
(A) the land areas within Addison, Bennington, Caledonia,
Chittenden, Franklin, Grand Isle, Lamoille, Orange, Orleans,
Rutland, and Washington Counties in the State of Vermont; and
(B)(i) the land areas that drain into Lake Champlain and
that are located within Essex, Clinton, Franklin, Warren, and
Washington Counties in the State of New York; and
(ii) the near-shore areas of Lake Champlain within the
counties referred to in clause (i).
(b) Critical Restoration Projects.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may participate in critical
restoration projects in the Lake Champlain watershed.
(2) Types of projects.--A critical restoration project
shall be eligible for assistance under this section if the
critical restoration project consists of--
(A) implementation of an intergovernmental agreement for
coordinating regulatory and management responsibilities with
respect to the Lake Champlain watershed;
(B) acceleration of whole farm planning to implement best
management practices to maintain or enhance water quality and
to promote agricultural land use in the Lake Champlain
watershed;
(C) acceleration of whole community planning to promote
intergovernmental cooperation in the regulation and
management of activities consistent with the goal of
maintaining or enhancing water quality in the Lake Champlain
watershed;
(D) natural resource stewardship activities on public or
private land to promote land uses that--
(i) preserve and enhance the economic and social character
of the communities in the Lake Champlain watershed; and
(ii) protect and enhance water quality; or
(E) any other activity determined by the Secretary to be
appropriate.
(c) Public Ownership Requirement.--The Secretary may
provide assistance for a critical restoration project under
this section only if--
(1) the critical restoration project is publicly owned; or
(2) the non-Federal interest with respect to the critical
restoration project demonstrates that the critical
restoration project will provide a substantial public benefit
in the form of water quality improvement.
(d) Project Selection.--
(1) In general.--In consultation with the Lake Champlain
Basin Program and the heads of other appropriate Federal,
State, tribal, and local agencies, the Secretary may--
(A) identify critical restoration projects in the Lake
Champlain watershed; and
(B) carry out the critical restoration projects after
entering into an agreement with an appropriate non-Federal
interest in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control
Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b) and this section.
(2) Certification.--
(A) In general.--A critical restoration project shall be
eligible for financial assistance under this section only if
the State director for the critical restoration project
certifies to the Secretary that the critical restoration
project will contribute to the protection and enhancement of
the quality or quantity of the water resources of the Lake
Champlain watershed.
(B) Special consideration.--In certifying critical
restoration projects to the Secretary, State directors shall
give special consideration to projects that implement plans,
agreements, and measures that preserve and enhance the
economic and social character of the communities in the Lake
Champlain watershed.
(e) Cost Sharing.--
(1) In general.--Before providing assistance under this
section with respect to a critical restoration project, the
Secretary shall enter into a project cooperation agreement
that shall require the non-Federal interest--
(A) to pay 35 percent of the total costs of the critical
restoration project;
(B) to acquire any land, easements, rights-of-way,
relocations, and dredged material disposal areas necessary to
carry out the critical restoration project;
(C) to pay 100 percent of the operation, maintenance,
repair, replacement, and rehabilitation costs associated with
the critical restoration project; and
(D) to hold the United States harmless from any claim or
damage that may arise from carrying out the critical
restoration project, except any claim or damage that may
arise from the negligence of the Federal Government or a
contractor of the Federal Government.
(2) Non-federal share.--
(A) Credit for design work.--The non-Federal interest shall
receive credit for the reasonable costs of design work
carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of
execution of a project cooperation agreement for the critical
restoration project, if the Secretary finds that the design
work is integral to the critical restoration project.
(B) Credit for land, easements, and rights-of-way.--The
non-Federal interest shall receive credit for the value of
any land, easement, right-of-way, relocation, or dredged
material disposal area provided for carrying out the critical
restoration project.
(C) Form.--The non-Federal interest may provide up to 50
percent of the non-Federal
[[Page S9165]]
share in the form of services, materials, supplies, or other
in-kind contributions.
(f) Applicability of Other Federal and State Laws.--Nothing
in this section waives, limits, or otherwise affects the
applicability of Federal or State law with respect to a
critical restoration project carried out with assistance
provided under this section.
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000, to
remain available until expended.
SEC. 328. MOUNT ST. HELENS, WASHINGTON.
The project for sediment control, Mount St. Helens,
Washington, authorized by the matter under the heading
``transfer of federal townsites'' in chapter IV of title I of
the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1985 (99 Stat. 318), is
modified to authorize the Secretary to maintain, for
Longview, Kelso, Lexington, and Castle Rock on the Cowlitz
River, Washington, the flood protection levels specified in
the October 1985 report entitled ``Mount St. Helens,
Washington, Decision Document (Toutle, Cowlitz, and Columbia
Rivers)'', published as House Document No. 135, 99th
Congress, signed by the Chief of Engineers, and endorsed and
submitted to Congress by the Acting Assistant Secretary of
the Army.
SEC. 329. PUGET SOUND AND ADJACENT WATERS RESTORATION,
WASHINGTON.
(a) Definition of Critical Restoration Project.--In this
section, the term ``critical restoration project'' means a
project that will produce, consistent with Federal programs,
projects, and activities, immediate and substantial ecosystem
restoration, preservation, and protection benefits.
(b) Critical Restoration Projects.--The Secretary may
participate in critical restoration projects in the area of
Puget Sound, Washington, and adjacent waters, including--
(1) the watersheds that drain directly into Puget Sound;
(2) Admiralty Inlet;
(3) Hood Canal;
(4) Rosario Strait; and
(5) the Strait of Juan de Fuca to Cape Flattery.
(c) Project Selection.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may identify critical
restoration projects in the area described in subsection (b)
based on--
(A) studies to determine the feasibility of carrying out
the critical restoration projects; and
(B) analyses conducted before the date of enactment of this
Act by non-Federal interests.
(2) Criteria and procedures for review and approval.--
(A) In general.--In consultation with the Secretary of
Commerce, the Secretary of the Interior, the Governor of the
State of Washington, tribal governments, and the heads of
other appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, the
Secretary may develop criteria and procedures for
prioritizing critical restoration projects identified under
paragraph (1).
(B) Consistency with fish restoration goals.--The criteria
and procedures developed under subparagraph (A) shall be
consistent with fish restoration goals of the National Marine
Fisheries Service and the State of Washington.
(C) Use of existing studies and plans.--In carrying out
subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall use, to the maximum
extent practicable, studies and plans in existence on the
date of enactment of this Act to identify project needs and
priorities.
(3) Local participation.--In prioritizing critical
restoration projects for implementation under this section,
the Secretary shall consult with, and give full consideration
to the priorities of, public and private entities that are
active in watershed planning and ecosystem restoration in
Puget Sound watersheds, including--
(A) the Salmon Recovery Funding Board;
(B) the Northwest Straits Commission;
(C) the Hood Canal Coordinating Council;
(D) county watershed planning councils; and
(E) salmon enhancement groups.
(d) Implementation.--The Secretary may carry out critical
restoration projects identified under subsection (c) after
entering into an agreement with an appropriate non-Federal
interest in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control
Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b) and this section.
(e) Cost Sharing.--
(1) In general.--Before carrying out any critical
restoration project under this section, the Secretary shall
enter into a binding agreement with the non-Federal interest
that shall require the non-Federal interest--
(A) to pay 35 percent of the total costs of the critical
restoration project;
(B) to acquire any land, easements, rights-of-way,
relocations, and dredged material disposal areas necessary to
carry out the critical restoration project;
(C) to pay 100 percent of the operation, maintenance,
repair, replacement, and rehabilitation costs associated with
the critical restoration project; and
(D) to hold the United States harmless from any claim or
damage that may arise from carrying out the critical
restoration project, except any claim or damage that may
arise from the negligence of the Federal Government or a
contractor of the Federal Government.
(2) Credit.--
(A) In general.--The non-Federal interest shall receive
credit for the value of any land, easement, right-of-way,
relocation, or dredged material disposal area provided for
carrying out the critical restoration project.
(B) Form.--The non-Federal interest may provide up to 50
percent of the non-Federal share in the form of services,
materials, supplies, or other in-kind contributions.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000, of
which not more than $5,000,000 may be used to carry out any 1
critical restoration project.
SEC. 330. FOX RIVER SYSTEM, WISCONSIN.
Section 332(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1992 (106 Stat. 4852) is amended--
(1) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--The Secretary''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Payments to state.--The terms and conditions may
include 1 or more payments to the State of Wisconsin to
assist the State in paying the costs of repair and
rehabilitation of the transferred locks and appurtenant
features.''.
SEC. 331. CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RESTORATION.
Section 704(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2263(b)) is amended--
(1) in the second sentence, by striking ``$7,000,000'' and
inserting ``$20,000,000''; and
(2) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
``(4) the construction of reefs and related clean shell
substrate for fish habitat, including manmade 3-dimensional
oyster reefs, in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries in
Maryland and Virginia--
``(A) which reefs shall be preserved as permanent
sanctuaries by the non-Federal interests, consistent with the
recommendations of the scientific consensus document on
Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration dated June 1999; and
``(B) for assistance in the construction of which reefs the
Chief of Engineers shall solicit participation by and the
services of commercial watermen.''.
SEC. 332. GREAT LAKES DREDGING LEVELS ADJUSTMENT.
(a) Definition of Great Lake.--In this section, the term
``Great Lake'' means Lake Superior, Lake Michigan, Lake Huron
(including Lake St. Clair), Lake Erie, and Lake Ontario
(including the St. Lawrence River to the 45th parallel of
latitude).
(b) Dredging Levels.--In operating and maintaining Federal
channels and harbors of, and the connecting channels between,
the Great Lakes, the Secretary shall conduct such dredging as
is necessary to ensure minimal operation depths consistent
with the original authorized depths of the channels and
harbors when water levels in the Great Lakes are, or are
forecast to be, below the International Great Lakes Datum of
1985.
SEC. 333. GREAT LAKES FISHERY AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the Great Lakes comprise a nationally and
internationally significant fishery and ecosystem;
(2) the Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem should be
developed and enhanced in a coordinated manner; and
(3) the Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem provides a
diversity of opportunities, experiences, and beneficial uses.
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Great lake.--
(A) In general.--The term ``Great Lake'' means Lake
Superior, Lake Michigan, Lake Huron (including Lake St.
Clair), Lake Erie, and Lake Ontario (including the St.
Lawrence River to the 45th parallel of latitude).
(B) Inclusions.--The term ``Great Lake'' includes any
connecting channel, historically connected tributary, and
basin of a lake specified in subparagraph (A).
(2) Great lakes commission.--The term ``Great Lakes
Commission'' means The Great Lakes Commission established by
the Great Lakes Basin Compact (82 Stat. 414).
(3) Great lakes fishery commission.--The term ``Great Lakes
Fishery Commission'' has the meaning given the term
``Commission'' in section 2 of the Great Lakes Fishery Act of
1956 (16 U.S.C. 931).
(4) Great lakes state.--The term ``Great Lakes State''
means each of the States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, and Wisconsin.
(c) Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration.--
(1) Support plan.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop a plan for
activities of the Corps of Engineers that support the
management of Great Lakes fisheries.
(B) Use of existing documents.--To the maximum extent
practicable, the plan shall make use of and incorporate
documents that relate to the Great Lakes and are in existence
on the date of enactment of this Act, such as lakewide
management plans and remedial action plans.
(C) Cooperation.--The Secretary shall develop the plan in
cooperation with--
(i) the signatories to the Joint Strategic Plan for
Management of the Great Lakes Fisheries; and
(ii) other affected interests.
(2) Projects.--The Secretary shall plan, design, and
construct projects to support the restoration of the fishery,
ecosystem, and beneficial uses of the Great Lakes.
(3) Evaluation program.--
[[Page S9166]]
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall develop a program to
evaluate the success of the projects carried out under
paragraph (2) in meeting fishery and ecosystem restoration
goals.
(B) Studies.--Evaluations under subparagraph (A) shall be
conducted in consultation with the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission and appropriate Federal, State, and local
agencies.
(d) Cooperative Agreements.--In carrying out this section,
the Secretary may enter into a cooperative agreement with the
Great Lakes Commission or any other agency established to
facilitate active State participation in management of the
Great Lakes.
(e) Relationship to Other Great Lakes Activities.--No
activity under this section shall affect the date of
completion of any other activity relating to the Great Lakes
that is authorized under other law.
(f) Cost Sharing.--
(1) Development of plan.--The Federal share of the cost of
development of the plan under subsection (c)(1) shall be 65
percent.
(2) Project planning, design, construction, and
evaluation.--The Federal share of the cost of planning,
design, construction, and evaluation of a project under
paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection (c) shall be 65 percent.
(3) Non-federal share.--
(A) Credit for land, easements, and rights-of-way.--The
non-Federal interest shall receive credit for the value of
any land, easement, right-of-way, relocation, or dredged
material disposal area provided for carrying out a project
under subsection (c)(2).
(B) Form.--The non-Federal interest may provide up to 50
percent of the non-Federal share required under paragraphs
(1) and (2) in the form of services, materials, supplies, or
other in-kind contributions.
(4) Operation and maintenance.--The operation, maintenance,
repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of projects carried
out under this section shall be a non-Federal responsibility.
(5) Non-federal interests.--Notwithstanding section 221 of
the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), for any
project carried out under this section, a non-Federal
interest may include a private interest and a nonprofit
entity.
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) Development of plan.--There is authorized to be
appropriated for development of the plan under subsection
(c)(1) $300,000.
(2) Other activities.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out paragraphs (2) and (3) of
subsection (c) $8,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2002
through 2006.
SEC. 334. GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS AND SEDIMENT
REMEDIATION.
Section 401 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990
(33 U.S.C. 1268 note; 104 Stat. 4644; 110 Stat. 3763; 113
Stat. 338) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(2)(A), by striking ``50 percent'' and
inserting ``35 percent'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking paragraph (3);
(B) in the first sentence of paragraph (4), by striking
``50 percent'' and inserting ``35 percent''; and
(C) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (3); and
(3) in subsection (c), by striking ``$5,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 1998 through 2000.'' and inserting ``$10,000,000
for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2010.''.
SEC. 335. GREAT LAKES TRIBUTARY MODEL.
Section 516 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
(33 U.S.C. 2326b) is amended--
(1) in subsection (e), by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Cost sharing.--The non-Federal share of the costs of
developing a tributary sediment transport model under this
subsection shall be 50 percent.''; and
(2) in subsection (g)--
(A) by striking ``There is authorized'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--There is authorized''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Great lakes tributary model.--In addition to amounts
made available under paragraph (1), there is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out subsection (e) $5,000,000 for each
of fiscal years 2001 through 2008.''.
SEC. 336. TREATMENT OF DREDGED MATERIAL FROM LONG ISLAND
SOUND.
(a) In General.--Not later than December 31, 2002, the
Secretary shall carry out a demonstration project for the use
of innovative sediment treatment technologies for the
treatment of dredged material from Long Island Sound.
(b) Project Considerations.--In carrying out subsection
(a), the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable--
(1) encourage partnerships between the public and private
sectors;
(2) build on treatment technologies that have been used
successfully in demonstration or full-scale projects (such as
projects carried out in the State of New York, New Jersey, or
Illinois), such as technologies described in--
(A) section 405 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1992 (33 U.S.C. 2239 note; 106 Stat. 4863); or
(B) section 503 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1999 (33 U.S.C. 2314 note; 113 Stat. 337);
(3) ensure that dredged material from Long Island Sound
that is treated under the demonstration project is disposed
of by beneficial reuse, by open water disposal, or at a
licensed waste facility, as appropriate; and
(4) ensure that the demonstration project is consistent
with the findings and requirements of any draft environmental
impact statement on the designation of 1 or more dredged
material disposal sites in Long Island Sound that is
scheduled for completion in 2001.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000.
SEC. 337. NEW ENGLAND WATER RESOURCES AND ECOSYSTEM
RESTORATION.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Critical restoration project.--The term ``critical
restoration project'' means a project that will produce,
consistent with Federal programs, projects, and activities,
immediate and substantial ecosystem restoration,
preservation, and protection benefits.
(2) New england.--The term ``New England'' means all
watersheds, estuaries, and related coastal areas in the
States of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
Rhode Island, and Vermont.
(b) Assessment.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary, in coordination with
appropriate Federal, State, tribal, regional, and local
agencies, shall perform an assessment of the condition of
water resources and related ecosystems in New England to
identify problems and needs for restoring, preserving, and
protecting water resources, ecosystems, wildlife, and
fisheries.
(2) Matters to be addressed.--The assessment shall
include--
(A) development of criteria for identifying and
prioritizing the most critical problems and needs; and
(B) a framework for development of watershed or regional
restoration plans.
(3) Use of existing information.--In performing the
assessment, the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent
practicable, use--
(A) information that is available on the date of enactment
of this Act; and
(B) ongoing efforts of all participating agencies.
(4) Criteria; framework.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop and make
available for public review and comment--
(i) criteria for identifying and prioritizing critical
problems and needs; and
(ii) a framework for development of watershed or regional
restoration plans.
(B) Use of resources.--In developing the criteria and
framework, the Secretary shall make full use of all available
Federal, State, tribal, regional, and local resources.
(5) Report.--Not later than October l, 2002, the Secretary
shall submit to Congress a report on the assessment.
(c) Restoration Plans.--
(1) In general.--After the report is submitted under
subsection (b)(5), the Secretary, in coordination with
appropriate Federal, State, tribal, regional, and local
agencies, shall--
(A) develop a comprehensive plan for restoring, preserving,
and protecting the water resources and ecosystem in each
watershed and region in New England; and
(B) submit the plan to Congress.
(2) Contents.--Each restoration plan shall include--
(A) a feasibility report; and
(B) a programmatic environmental impact statement covering
the proposed Federal action.
(d) Critical Restoration Projects.--
(1) In general.--After the restoration plans are submitted
under subsection (c)(1)(B), the Secretary, in coordination
with appropriate Federal, State, tribal, regional, and local
agencies, shall identify critical restoration projects that
will produce independent, immediate, and substantial
restoration, preservation, and protection benefits.
(2) Agreements.--The Secretary may carry out a critical
restoration project after entering into an agreement with an
appropriate non-Federal interest in accordance with section
221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b) and
this section.
(3) Project justification.--Notwithstanding section 209 of
the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962-2) or any other
provision of law, in carrying out a critical restoration
project under this subsection, the Secretary may determine
that the project--
(A) is justified by the environmental benefits derived from
the ecosystem; and
(B) shall not need further economic justification if the
Secretary determines that the project is cost effective.
(4) Time limitation.--No critical restoration project may
be initiated under this subsection after September 30, 2005.
(5) Cost limitation.--Not more than $5,000,000 in Federal
funds may be used to carry out a critical restoration project
under this subsection.
(e) Cost Sharing.--
(1) Assessment.--
(A) In general.--The non-Federal share of the cost of the
assessment under subsection (b) shall be 25 percent.
(B) In-kind contributions.--The non-Federal share may be
provided in the form of services, materials, or other in-kind
contributions.
(2) Restoration plans.--
(A) In general.--The non-Federal share of the cost of
developing the restoration plans under subsection (c) shall
be 35 percent.
[[Page S9167]]
(B) In-kind contributions.--Up to 50 percent of the non-
Federal share may be provided in the form of services,
materials, or other in-kind contributions.
(3) Critical restoration projects.--
(A) In general.--The non-Federal share of the cost of
carrying out a critical restoration project under subsection
(d) shall be 35 percent.
(B) In-kind contributions.--Up to 50 percent of the non-
Federal share may be provided in the form of services,
materials, or other in-kind contributions.
(C) Required non-federal contribution.--For any critical
restoration project, the non-Federal interest shall--
(i) provide all land, easements, rights-of-way, dredged
material disposal areas, and relocations;
(ii) pay all operation, maintenance, replacement, repair,
and rehabilitation costs; and
(iii) hold the United States harmless from all claims
arising from the construction, operation, and maintenance of
the project.
(D) Credit.--The non-Federal interest shall receive credit
for the value of the land, easements, rights-of-way, dredged
material disposal areas, and relocations provided under
subparagraph (C).
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) Assessment and restoration plans.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out subsections (b) and (c)
$2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2005.
(2) Critical restoration projects.--There is authorized to
be appropriated to carry out subsection (d) $30,000,000.
SEC. 338. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS.
The following projects or portions of projects are not
authorized after the date of enactment of this Act:
(1) Kennebunk river, kennebunk and kennebunkport, maine.--
The following portion of the project for navigation,
Kennebunk River, Maine, authorized by section 101 of the
River and Harbor Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1173), is not
authorized after the date of enactment of this Act: the
portion of the northernmost 6-foot deep anchorage the
boundaries of which begin at a point with coordinates
N1904693.6500, E418084.2700, thence running south 01 degree
04 minutes 50.3 seconds 35 feet to a point with coordinates
N190434.6562, E418084.9301, thence running south 15 degrees
53 minutes 45.5 seconds 416.962 feet to a point with
coordinates N190033.6386, E418199.1325, thence running north
03 degrees 11 minutes 30.4 seconds 70 feet to a point with
coordinates N190103.5300, E418203.0300, thence running north
17 degrees 58 minutes 18.3 seconds west 384.900 feet to the
point of origin.
(2) Wallabout channel, brooklyn, new york.--
(A) In general.--The northeastern portion of the project
for navigation, Wallabout Channel, Brooklyn, New York,
authorized by the Act of March 3, 1899 (30 Stat. 1124,
chapter 425), beginning at a point N682,307.40, E638,918.10,
thence running along the courses and distances described in
subparagraph (B).
(B) Courses and distances.--The courses and distances
referred to in subparagraph (A) are the following:
(i) South 85 degrees, 44 minutes, 13 seconds East 87.94
feet (coordinate: N682,300.86, E639,005.80).
(ii) North 74 degrees, 41 minutes, 30 seconds East 271.54
feet (coordinate: N682,372.55, E639,267.71).
(iii) South 4 degrees, 46 minutes, 02 seconds West 170.95
feet (coordinate: N682,202.20, E639,253.50).
(iv) South 4 degrees, 46 minutes, 02 seconds West 239.97
feet (coordinate: N681,963.06, E639,233.56).
(v) North 50 degrees, 48 minutes, 26 seconds West 305.48
feet (coordinate: N682,156.10, E638,996.80).
(vi) North 3 degrees, 33 minutes, 25 seconds East 145.04
feet (coordinate: N682,300.86, E639,005.80).
(3) New york and new jersey channels, new york and new
jersey.--The portion of the project for navigation, New York
and New Jersey Channels, New York and New Jersey, authorized
by the first section of the Act of August 30, 1935 (49 Stat.
1030, chapter 831), and modified by section 101 of the River
and Harbor Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 164), consisting of a 35-
foot-deep channel beginning at a point along the western
limit of the authorized project, N644100.411, E2129256.91,
thence running southeast about 38.25 feet to a point
N644068.885, E2129278.565, thence running south about 1163.86
feet to a point N642912.127, E2129150.209, thence running
southwest about 56.9 feet to a point N642864.09,
E2129119.725, thence running north along the western limit of
the project to the point of origin.
(4) Warwick cove, rhode island.--The portion of the project
for navigation, Warwick Cove, Rhode Island, authorized under
section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C.
577), which is located within the 5-acre, 6-foot anchorage
area west of the channel: beginning at a point with
coordinates N221,150.027, E528,960.028, thence running
southerly about 257.39 feet to a point with coordinates
N220,892.638, E528,960.028, thence running northwesterly
about 346.41 feet to a point with coordinates N221,025.270,
E528,885.780, thence running northeasterly about 145.18 feet
to the point of origin.
SEC. 339. BOGUE BANKS, CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.
(a) Definition of Beaches.--In this section, the term
``beaches'' means the following beaches located in Carteret
County, North Carolina:
(1) Atlantic Beach.
(2) Pine Knoll Shores Beach.
(3) Salter Path Beach.
(4) Indian Beach.
(5) Emerald Isle Beach.
(b) Renourishment Study.--The Secretary shall expedite
completion of a study under section 145 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C. 426j) on the
expedited renourishment, through sharing of the costs of
deposition of sand and other material used for beach
renourishment, of the beaches of Bogue Banks in Carteret
County, North Carolina.
TITLE IV--STUDIES
SEC. 401. BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out beach erosion control, storm
damage reduction, and other measures along the shores of
Baldwin County, Alabama.
SEC. 402. BONO, ARKANSAS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of, and need for, a reservoir and associated
improvements to provide for flood control, recreation, water
quality, and fish and wildlife in the vicinity of Bono,
Arkansas.
SEC. 403. CACHE CREEK BASIN, CALIFORNIA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of modifying the project for flood
control, Cache Creek Basin, California, authorized by section
401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100
Stat. 4112), to authorize construction of features to
mitigate impacts of the project on the storm drainage system
of the city of Woodland, California, that have been caused by
construction of a new south levee of the Cache Creek Settling
Basin.
(b) Required Elements.--The study shall include
consideration of--
(1) an outlet works through the Yolo Bypass capable of
receiving up to 1,600 cubic feet per second of storm drainage
from the city of Woodland and Yolo County;
(2) a low-flow cross-channel across the Yolo Bypass,
including all appurtenant features, that is sufficient to
route storm flows of 1,600 cubic feet per second between the
old and new south levees of the Cache Creek Settling Basin,
across the Yolo Bypass, and into the Tule Canal; and
(3) such other features as the Secretary determines to be
appropriate.
SEC. 404. ESTUDILLO CANAL WATERSHED, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of constructing flood control measures in the
Estudillo Canal watershed, San Leandro, Calfornia.
SEC. 405. LAGUNA CREEK WATERSHED, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of constructing flood control measures in the
Laguna Creek watershed, Fremont, California, to provide a
100-year level of flood protection.
SEC. 406. OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA.
Not later than 32 months after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Secretary shall conduct a special study, at
full Federal expense, of plans--
(1) to mitigate for the erosion and other impacts resulting
from the construction of Camp Pendleton Harbor, Oceanside,
California, as a wartime measure; and
(2) to restore beach conditions along the affected public
and private shores to the conditions that existed before the
construction of Camp Pendleton Harbor.
SEC. 407. SAN JACINTO WATERSHED, CALIFORNIA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a watershed
study for the San Jacinto watershed, California.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $250,000.
SEC. 408. CHOCTAWHATCHEE RIVER, FLORIDA.
The Secretary shall conduct a reconnaissance study to
determine the Federal interest in dredging the mouth of the
Choctawhatchee River, Florida, to remove the sand plug.
SEC. 409. EGMONT KEY, FLORIDA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of stabilizing the historic fortifications and
beach areas of Egmont Key, Florida, that are threatened by
erosion.
SEC. 410. FERNANDINA HARBOR, FLORIDA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of realigning the access channel in the vicinity
of the Fernandina Beach Municipal Marina as part of project
for navigation, Fernandina, Florida, authorized by the first
section of the Act of June 14, 1880 (21 Stat. 186, chapter
211).
SEC. 411. UPPER OCKLAWAHA RIVER AND APOPKA/PALATLAKAHA RIVER
BASINS, FLORIDA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a restudy of
flooding and water quality issues in--
(1) the upper Ocklawaha River basin, south of the Silver
River; and
(2) the Apopka River and Palatlakaha River basins.
(b) Required Elements.--In carrying out subsection (a), the
Secretary shall review the report of the Chief of Engineers
on the Four River Basins, Florida, project, published as
House Document No. 585, 87th Congress, and
[[Page S9168]]
other pertinent reports to determine the feasibility of
measures relating to comprehensive watershed planning for
water conservation, flood control, environmental restoration
and protection, and other issues relating to water resources
in the river basins described in subsection (a).
SEC. 412. BOISE RIVER, IDAHO.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out multi-objective flood control
activities along the Boise River, Idaho.
SEC. 413. WOOD RIVER, IDAHO.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out multi-objective flood control and
flood mitigation planning projects along the Wood River in
Blaine County, Idaho.
SEC. 414. CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for water-
related urban improvements, including infrastructure
development and improvements, in Chicago, Illinois.
(b) Sites.--Under subsection (a), the Secretary shall
study--
(1) the USX/Southworks site;
(2) Calumet Lake and River;
(3) the Canal Origins Heritage Corridor; and
(4) Ping Tom Park.
(c) Use of Information; Consultation.--In carrying out this
section, the Secretary shall use available information from,
and consult with, appropriate Federal, State, and local
agencies.
SEC. 415. BOEUF AND BLACK, LOUISIANA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of deepening the navigation channel of the
Atchafalaya River and Bayous Chene, Boeuf and Black,
Louisiana, from 20 feet to 35 feet.
SEC. 416. PORT OF IBERIA, LOUISIANA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of constructing navigation improvements for
ingress and egress between the Port of Iberia, Louisiana, and
the Gulf of Mexico, including channel widening and deepening.
SEC. 417. SOUTH LOUISIANA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of constructing projects for hurricane protection
in the coastal area of the State of Louisiana between Morgan
City and the Pearl River.
SEC. 418. ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST PARISH, LOUISIANA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of constructing urban flood control measures on
the east bank of the Mississippi River in St. John the
Baptist Parish, Louisiana.
SEC. 419. PORTLAND HARBOR, MAINE.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
adequacy of the channel depth at Portland Harbor, Maine.
SEC. 420. PORTSMOUTH HARBOR AND PISCATAQUA RIVER, MAINE AND
NEW HAMPSHIRE.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of modifying the project for navigation,
Portsmouth Harbor and Piscataqua River, Maine and New
Hampshire, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor
Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1173) and modified by section 202(a) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4095),
to increase the authorized width of turning basins in the
Piscataqua River to 1,000 feet.
SEC. 421. SEARSPORT HARBOR, MAINE.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
adequacy of the channel depth at Searsport Harbor, Maine.
SEC. 422. MERRIMACK RIVER BASIN, MASSACHUSETTS AND NEW
HAMPSHIRE.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a
comprehensive study of the water resources needs of the
Merrimack River basin, Massachusetts and New Hampshire, in
the manner described in section 729 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4164).
(b) Consideration of Other Studies.--In carrying out this
section, the Secretary may take into consideration any
studies conducted by the University of New Hampshire on
environmental restoration of the Merrimack River System.
SEC. 423. PORT OF GULFPORT, MISSISSIPPI.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of modifying the project for navigation, Gulfport
Harbor, Mississippi, authorized by section 202(a) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4094) and
modified by section 4(n) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4017)--
(1) to widen the channel from 300 feet to 450 feet; and
(2) to deepen the South Harbor channel from 36 feet to 42
feet and the North Harbor channel from 32 feet to 36 feet.
SEC. 424. UPLAND DISPOSAL SITES IN NEW HAMPSHIRE.
In conjunction with the State of New Hampshire, the
Secretary shall conduct a study to identify and evaluate
potential upland disposal sites for dredged material
originating from harbor areas located within the State.
SEC. 425. SOUTHWEST VALLEY, ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO.
Section 433 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
(113 Stat. 327) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``The''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Evaluation of Flood Damage Reduction Measures.--In
conducting the study, the Secretary shall evaluate flood
damage reduction measures that would otherwise be excluded
from the feasibility analysis based on policies of the Corps
of Engineers concerning the frequency of flooding, the
drainage area, and the amount of runoff.''.
SEC. 426. CUYAHOGA RIVER, OHIO.
Section 438 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
(110 Stat. 3746) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 438. CUYAHOGA RIVER, OHIO.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall--
``(1) conduct a study to evaluate the structural integrity
of the bulkhead system located on the Federal navigation
channel along the Cuyahoga River near Cleveland, Ohio; and
``(2) provide to the non-Federal interest design analysis,
plans and specifications, and cost estimates for repair or
replacement of the bulkhead system.
``(b) Cost Sharing.--The non-Federal share of the cost of
the study shall be 35 percent.
``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $500,000.''.
SEC. 427. DUCK CREEK WATERSHED, OHIO.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out flood control, environmental
restoration, and aquatic ecosystem restoration measures in
the Duck Creek watershed, Ohio.
SEC. 428. FREMONT, OHIO.
In consultation with appropriate Federal, State, and local
agencies, the Secretary shall conduct a study to determine
the feasibility of carrying out projects for water supply and
environmental restoration at the Ballville Dam, on the
Sandusky River at Fremont, Ohio.
SEC. 429. GRAND LAKE, OKLAHOMA.
(a) Evaluation.--The Secretary shall--
(1) evaluate the backwater effects specifically due to
flood control operations on land around Grand Lake, Oklahoma;
and
(2) not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, submit to Congress a report on whether Federal
actions have been a significant cause of the backwater
effects.
(b) Feasibility Study.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of--
(A) addressing the backwater effects of the operation of
the Pensacola Dam, Grand/Neosho River basin; and
(B) purchasing easements for any land that has been
adversely affected by backwater flooding in the Grand/Neosho
River basin.
(2) Cost sharing.--If the Secretary determines under
subsection (a)(2) that Federal actions have been a
significant cause of the backwater effects, the Federal share
of the costs of the feasibility study under paragraph (1)
shall be 100 percent.
SEC. 430. DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE, RHODE ISLAND.
In consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Secretary shall conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of designating a permanent site in
the State of Rhode Island for the disposal of dredged
material.
SEC. 431. CHICKAMAUGA LOCK AND DAM, TENNESSEE.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall use $200,000, from
funds transferred from the Tennessee Valley Authority, to
prepare a report of the Chief of Engineers for a replacement
lock at Chickamauga Lock and Dam, Tennessee.
(b) Funding.--As soon as practicable after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Tennessee Valley Authority shall
transfer the funds described in subsection (a) to the
Secretary.
SEC. 432. GERMANTOWN, TENNESSEE.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
control and related purposes along Miller Farms Ditch, Howard
Road Drainage, and Wolf River Lateral D, Germantown,
Tennessee.
(b) Justification Analysis.--The Secretary shall include
environmental and water quality benefits in the justification
analysis for the project.
(c) Cost Sharing.--
(1) Federal share.--The Federal share of the costs of the
feasibility study under subsection (a) shall not exceed 25
percent.
(2) Non-federal share.--The Secretary--
(A) shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the costs
of the feasibility study the value of the in-kind services
provided by the non-Federal interests relating to the
planning, engineering, and design of the project, whether
carried out before or after execution of the feasibility
study cost-sharing agreement; and
(B) for the purposes of subparagraph (A), shall consider
the feasibility study to be conducted as part of the Memphis
Metro Tennessee and Mississippi study authorized by
resolution of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, dated March 7, 1996.
SEC. 433. HORN LAKE CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, TENNESSEE AND
MISSISSIPPI.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of modifying the project for flood
control, Horn Lake Creek and Tributaries, Tennessee and
Mississippi, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4124), to
provide a high level of urban flood protection to development
along Horn Lake Creek.
[[Page S9169]]
(b) Required Element.--The study shall include a limited
reevaluation of the project to determine the appropriate
design, as desired by the non-Federal interests.
SEC. 434. CEDAR BAYOU, TEXAS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of constructing a 12-foot-deep and 125-foot-wide
channel from the Houston Ship Channel to Cedar Bayou, mile
marker 11, Texas.
SEC. 435. HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TEXAS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of constructing barge lanes adjacent to both
sides of the Houston Ship Channel from Bolivar Roads to
Morgan Point, Texas, to a depth of 12 feet.
SEC. 436. SAN ANTONIO CHANNEL, TEXAS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of modifying the project for San Antonio Channel
improvement, Texas, authorized by section 203 of the Flood
Control Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 1259), and modified by section
103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat.
2921), to add environmental restoration and recreation as
project purposes.
SEC. 437. VERMONT DAMS REMEDIATION.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall--
(1) conduct a study to evaluate the structural integrity
and need for modification or removal of each dam located in
the State of Vermont and described in subsection (b); and
(2) provide to the non-Federal interest design analysis,
plans and specifications, and cost estimates for repair,
restoration, modification, and removal of each dam described
in subsection (b).
(b) Dams To Be Evaluated.--The dams referred to in
subsection (a) are the following:
(1) East Barre Dam, Barre Town.
(2) Wrightsville Dam, Middlesex-Montpelier.
(3) Lake Sadawga Dam, Whitingham.
(4) Dufresne Pond Dam, Manchester.
(5) Knapp Brook Site 1 Dam, Cavendish.
(6) Lake Bomoseen Dam, Castleton.
(7) Little Hosmer Dam, Craftsbury.
(8) Colby Pond Dam, Plymouth.
(9) Silver Lake Dam, Barnard.
(10) Gale Meadows Dam, Londonderry.
(c) Cost Sharing.--The non-Federal share of the cost of the
study under subsection (a) shall be 35 percent.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $500,000.
SEC. 438. WHITE RIVER WATERSHED BELOW MUD MOUNTAIN DAM,
WASHINGTON.
(a) Review.--The Secretary shall review the report of the
Chief of Engineers on the Upper Puyallup River, Washington,
dated 1936, authorized by section 5 of the Act of June 22,
1936 (49 Stat. 1591, chapter 688), the Puget Sound and
adjacent waters report authorized by section 209 of the Flood
Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1197), and other pertinent
reports, to determine whether modifications to the
recommendations contained in the reports are advisable to
provide improvements to the water resources and watershed of
the White River watershed downstream of Mud Mountain Dam,
Washington.
(b) Issues.--In conducting the review under subsection (a),
the Secretary shall review, with respect to the Lake Tapps
community and other parts of the watershed--
(1) constructed and natural environs;
(2) capital improvements;
(3) water resource infrastructure;
(4) ecosystem restoration;
(5) flood control;
(6) fish passage;
(7) collaboration by, and the interests of, regional
stakeholders;
(8) recreational and socioeconomic interests; and
(9) other issues determined by the Secretary.
SEC. 439. WILLAPA BAY, WASHINGTON.
(a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of providing coastal erosion
protection for the Tribal Reservation of the Shoalwater Bay
Indian Tribe on Willapa Bay, Washington.
(b) Project.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law
(including any requirement for economic justification), the
Secretary may construct and maintain a project to provide
coastal erosion protection for the Tribal Reservation of the
Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe on Willapa Bay, Washington, at
full Federal expense, if the Secretary determines that the
project--
(A) is a cost-effective means of providing erosion
protection;
(B) is environmentally acceptable and technically feasible;
and
(C) will improve the economic and social conditions of the
Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe.
(2) Land, easements, and rights-of-way.--As a condition of
the project described in paragraph (1), the Shoalwater Bay
Indian Tribe shall provide land, easements, rights-of-way,
and dredged material disposal areas necessary for the
implementation of the project.
SEC. 440. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN SEDIMENT AND NUTRIENT
STUDY.
(a) In General.--The Secretary, in conjunction with the
Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior,
shall conduct a study to--
(1) identify and evaluate significant sources of sediment
and nutrients in the upper Mississippi River basin;
(2) quantify the processes affecting mobilization,
transport, and fate of those sediments and nutrients on land
and in water; and
(3) quantify the transport of those sediments and nutrients
to the upper Mississippi River and the tributaries of the
upper Mississippi River.
(b) Study Components.--
(1) Computer modeling.--In carrying out the study under
this section, the Secretary shall develop computer models of
the upper Mississippi River basin, at the subwatershed and
basin scales, to--
(A) identify and quantify sources of sediment and
nutrients; and
(B) examine the effectiveness of alternative management
measures.
(2) Research.--In carrying out the study under this
section, the Secretary shall conduct research to improve the
understanding of--
(A) fate processes and processes affecting sediment and
nutrient transport, with emphasis on nitrogen and phosphorus
cycling and dynamics;
(B) the influences on sediment and nutrient losses of soil
type, slope, climate, vegetation cover, and modifications to
the stream drainage network; and
(C) river hydrodynamics, in relation to sediment and
nutrient transformations, retention, and transport.
(c) Use of Information.--On request of a relevant Federal
agency, the Secretary may provide information for use in
applying sediment and nutrient reduction programs associated
with land-use improvements and land management practices.
(d) Reports.--
(1) Preliminary report.--Not later than 2 years after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to
Congress a preliminary report that outlines work being
conducted on the study components described in subsection
(b).
(2) Final report.--Not later than 5 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress
a report describing the results of the study under this
section, including any findings and recommendations of the
study.
(e) Funding.--
(1) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2001 through 2005.
(2) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of
carrying out this section shall be 50 percent.
SEC. 441. CLIFF WALK IN NEWPORT, RHODE ISLAND.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
project deficiencies and identify the necessary measures to
restore the project for Cliff Walk in Newport, Rhode Island
to meet its authorized purpose.
SEC. 442. QUONSET POINT CHANNEL RECONNAISSANCE STUDY.
The Secretary shall conduct a reconnaissance study to
determine the Federal interest in dredging the Quonset Point
navigation channel in Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island.
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. 501. VISITORS CENTERS.
(a) John Paul Hammerschmidt Visitors Center, Arkansas.--
Section 103(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992
(106 Stat. 4813) is amended by striking ``Arkansas River,
Arkansas.'' and inserting ``at Fort Smith, Arkansas, on land
provided by the city of Fort Smith.''.
(b) Lower Mississippi River Museum and Riverfront
Interpretive Site, Mississippi.--Section 103(c)(2) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4811) is
amended in the first sentence by striking ``in the vicinity
of the Mississippi River Bridge in Vicksburg, Mississippi.''
and inserting ``between the Mississippi River Bridge and the
waterfront in downtown Vicksburg, Mississippi.''.
SEC. 502. CALFED BAY-DELTA PROGRAM ASSISTANCE, CALIFORNIA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary--
(1) may participate with the appropriate Federal and State
agencies in the planning and management activities associated
with the CALFED Bay-Delta Program referred to in the
California Bay-Delta Environmental Enhancement and Water
Security Act (division E of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat.
3009-748); and
(2) shall, to the maximum extent practicable and in
accordance with applicable law, integrate the activities of
the Corps of Engineers in the San Joaquin and Sacramento
River basins with the long-term goals of the CALFED Bay-Delta
Program.
(b) Cooperative Activities.--In participating in the CALFED
Bay-Delta Program under subsection (a), the Secretary may--
(1) accept and expend funds from other Federal agencies and
from non-Federal public, private, and nonprofit entities to
carry out ecosystem restoration projects and activities
associated with the CALFED Bay-Delta Program; and
(2) in carrying out the projects and activities, enter into
contracts, cooperative research and development agreements,
and cooperative agreements with Federal and non-Federal
private, public, and nonprofit entities.
(c) Area Covered by Program.--For the purposes of this
section, the area covered by the CALFED Bay-Delta Program
shall be the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
Estuary and its watershed (known as the ``Bay-Delta
Estuary''), as identified in the Framework Agreement Between
the Governor's Water Policy Council of the State of
California and the Federal Ecosystem Directorate.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to
[[Page S9170]]
carry out this section $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2002 through 2005.
SEC. 503. LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, GEORGIA, HOME PRESERVATION.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Easement prohibition.--The term ``easement
prohibition'' means the rights acquired by the United States
in the flowage easements to prohibit structures for human
habitation.
(2) Eligible property owner.--The term ``eligible property
owner'' means a person that owns a structure for human
habitation that was constructed before January 1, 2000, and
is located on fee land or in violation of the flowage
easement.
(3) Fee land.--The term ``fee land'' means the land
acquired in fee title by the United States for the Lake.
(4) Flowage easement.--The term ``flowage easement'' means
an interest in land that the United States acquired that
provides the right to flood, to the elevation of 1,085 feet
above mean sea level (among other rights), land surrounding
the Lake.
(5) Lake.--The term ``Lake'' means the Lake Sidney Lanier,
Georgia, project of the Corps of Engineers authorized by the
first section of the Act of July 24, 1946 (60 Stat. 635,
chapter 595).
(b) Establishment of Program.--Not later than 120 days
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall
establish, and provide public notice of, a program--
(1) to convey to eligible property owners the right to
maintain existing structures for human habitation on fee
land; or
(2) to release eligible property owners from the easement
prohibition as it applies to existing structures for human
habitation on the flowage easements (if the floor elevation
of the human habitation area is above the elevation of 1,085
feet above mean sea level).
(c) Regulations.--To carry out subsection (b), the
Secretary shall promulgate regulations that--
(1) require the Corps of Engineers to suspend any
activities to require eligible property owners to remove
structures for human habitation that encroach on fee land or
flowage easements;
(2) provide that a person that owns a structure for human
habitation on land adjacent to the Lake shall have a period
of 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act--
(A) to request that the Corps of Engineers resurvey the
property of the person to determine if the person is an
eligible property owner under this section; and
(B) to pay the costs of the resurvey to the Secretary for
deposit in the Corps of Engineers account in accordance with
section 2695 of title 10, United States Code;
(3) provide that when a determination is made, through a
private survey or through a boundary line maintenance survey
conducted by the Federal Government, that a structure for
human habitation is located on the fee land or a flowage
easement--
(A) the Corps of Engineers shall immediately notify the
property owner by certified mail; and
(B) the property owner shall have a period of 90 days from
receipt of the notice in which to establish that the
structure was constructed prior to January 1, 2000, and that
the property owner is an eligible property owner under this
section;
(4) provide that any private survey shall be subject to
review and approval by the Corps of Engineers to ensure that
the private survey conforms to the boundary line established
by the Federal Government;
(5) require the Corps of Engineers to offer to an eligible
property owner a conveyance or release that--
(A) on fee land, conveys by quitclaim deed the minimum land
required to maintain the human habitation structure,
reserving the right to flood to the elevation of 1,085 feet
above mean sea level, if applicable;
(B) in a flowage easement, releases by quitclaim deed the
easement prohibition;
(C) provides that--
(i) the existing structure shall not be extended further
onto fee land or into the flowage easement; and
(ii) additional structures for human habitation shall not
be placed on fee land or in a flowage easement; and
(D) provides that--
(i)(I) the United States shall not be liable or responsible
for damage to property or injury to persons caused by
operation of the Lake; and
(II) no claim to compensation shall accrue from the
exercise of the flowage easement rights; and
(ii) the waiver described in clause (i) of any and all
claims against the United States shall be a covenant running
with the land and shall be fully binding on heirs,
successors, assigns, and purchasers of the property subject
to the waiver; and
(6) provide that the eligible property owner shall--
(A) agree to an offer under paragraph (5) not later than 90
days after the offer is made by the Corps of Engineers; or
(B) comply with the real property rights of the United
States and remove the structure for human habitation and any
other unauthorized real or personal property.
(d) Option To Purchase Insurance.--Nothing in this section
precludes a property owner from purchasing flood insurance to
which the property owner may be eligible.
(e) Prior Encroachment Resolutions.--Nothing in this
section affects any resolution, before the date of enactment
of this Act, of an encroachment at the Lake, whether the
resolution was effected through sale, exchange, voluntary
removal, or alteration or removal through litigation.
(f) Prior Real Property Rights.--Nothing in this section--
(1) takes away, diminishes, or eliminates any other real
property rights acquired by the United States at the Lake; or
(2) affects the ability of the United States to require the
removal of any and all encroachments that are constructed or
placed on United States real property or flowage easements at
the Lake after December 31, 1999.
SEC. 504. CONVEYANCE OF LIGHTHOUSE, ONTONAGON, MICHIGAN.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may convey to the Ontonagon
County Historical Society, at full Federal expense--
(1) the lighthouse at Ontonagon, Michigan; and
(2) the land underlying and adjacent to the lighthouse
(including any improvements on the land) that is under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary.
(b) Map.--The Secretary shall--
(1) determine--
(A) the extent of the land conveyance under this section;
and
(B) the exact acreage and legal description of the land to
be conveyed under this section; and
(2) prepare a map that clearly identifies any land to be
conveyed.
(c) Conditions.--The Secretary may--
(1) obtain all necessary easements and rights-of-way; and
(2) impose such terms, conditions, reservations, and
restrictions on the conveyance;
as the Secretary determines to be necessary to protect the
public interest.
(d) Environmental Response.--To the extent required under
any applicable law, the Secretary shall be responsible for
any necessary environmental response required as a result of
the prior Federal use or ownership of the land and
improvements conveyed under this section.
(e) Responsibilities After Conveyance.--After the
conveyance of land under this section, the Ontonagon County
Historical Society shall be responsible for any additional
operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, or
replacement costs associated with--
(1) the lighthouse; or
(2) the conveyed land and improvements.
(f) Applicability of Environmental Law.--Nothing in this
section affects the potential liability of any person under
any applicable environmental law.
SEC. 505. LAND CONVEYANCE, CANDY LAKE, OKLAHOMA.
Section 563(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1999 (113 Stat. 357) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``a deceased'' and
inserting ``an''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Costs of nepa compliance.--The Federal Government
shall assume the costs of any Federal action under this
subsection that is carried out for the purpose of section 102
of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4332).
``(5) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to
carry out this subsection.''.
SEC. 506. LAND CONVEYANCE, RICHARD B. RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE,
SOUTH CAROLINA.
Section 563 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
(113 Stat. 355) is amended by striking subsection (i) and
inserting the following:
``(i) Richard B. Russell Dam and Lake, South Carolina.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall convey to the State
of South Carolina all right, title, and interest of the
United States in and to the parcels of land described in
paragraph (2)(A) that are being managed, as of August 17,
1999, by the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources
for fish and wildlife mitigation purposes for the Richard B.
Russell Dam and Lake, South Carolina, project authorized by
section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1966 (80 Stat. 1420).
``(2) Land description.--
``(A) In general.--The parcels of land to be conveyed are
described in Exhibits A, F, and H of Army Lease No. DACW21-1-
93-0910 and associated supplemental agreements.
``(B) Survey.--The exact acreage and legal description of
the land shall be determined by a survey satisfactory to the
Secretary, with the cost of the survey borne by the State.
``(3) Costs of conveyance.--The State shall be responsible
for all costs, including real estate transaction and
environmental compliance costs, associated with the
conveyance.
``(4) Perpetual status.--
``(A) In general.--All land conveyed under this subsection
shall be retained in public ownership and shall be managed in
perpetuity for fish and wildlife mitigation purposes in
accordance with a plan approved by the Secretary.
``(B) Reversion.--If any parcel of land is not managed for
fish and wildlife mitigation purposes in accordance with the
plan, title to the parcel shall revert to the United States.
``(5) Additional terms and conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyance under this subsection as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.
``(6) Fish and wildlife mitigation agreement.--
[[Page S9171]]
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall pay the State of
South Carolina $4,850,000, subject to the Secretary and the
State entering into a binding agreement for the State to
manage for fish and wildlife mitigation purposes in
perpetuity the parcels of land conveyed under this
subsection.
``(B) Failure of performance.--The agreement shall specify
the terms and conditions under which payment will be made and
the rights of, and remedies available to, the Federal
Government to recover all or a portion of the payment if the
State fails to manage any parcel in a manner satisfactory to
the Secretary.''.
SEC. 507. CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER BRULE SIOUX
TRIBE, AND STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA TERRESTRIAL
WILDLIFE HABITAT RESTORATION.
(a) Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration.--Section 602
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat.
385) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(4)(C)(i), by striking subclause (I)
and inserting the following:
``(I) fund, from funds made available for operation and
maintenance under the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin program
and through grants to the State of South Dakota, the Cheyenne
River Sioux Tribe, and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe--
``(aa) the terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration
programs being carried out as of August 17, 1999, on Oahe and
Big Bend project land at a level that does not exceed the
greatest amount of funding that was provided for the programs
during a previous fiscal year; and
``(bb) the carrying out of plans developed under this
section; and''; and
(2) in subsection (b)(4)(B), by striking ``section
604(d)(3)(A)(iii)'' and inserting ``section 604(d)(3)(A)''.
(b) South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration
Trust Fund.--Section 603 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 388) is amended--
(1) in subsection (c)(2), by striking ``The'' and inserting
``In consultation with the State of South Dakota, the''; and
(2) in subsection (d)--
(A) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``Department of Game,
Fish and Parks of the'' before ``State of''; and
(B) in paragraph (3)(A)(ii)--
(i) in subclause (I), by striking ``transferred'' and
inserting ``transferred, or to be transferred,''; and
(ii) by striking subclause (II) and inserting the
following:
``(II) fund all costs associated with the lease, ownership,
management, operation, administration, maintenance, or
development of recreation areas and other land that are
transferred, or to be transferred, to the State of South
Dakota by the Secretary;''.
(c) Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and Lower Brule Sioux Tribe
Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Funds.--
Section 604 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
(113 Stat. 389) is amended--
(1) in subsection (c)(2), by striking ``The'' and inserting
``In consultation with the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and
Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, the''; and
(2) in subsection (d)--
(A) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``as tribal funds''
after ``for use''; and
(B) in paragraph (3)(A)(ii)--
(i) in subclause (I), by striking ``transferred'' and
inserting ``transferred, or to be transferred,''; and
(ii) by striking subclause (II) and inserting the
following:
``(II) fund all costs associated with the lease, ownership,
management, operation, administration, maintenance, or
development of recreation areas and other land that are
transferred, or to be transferred, to the respective affected
Indian Tribe by the Secretary;''.
(d) Transfer of Federal Land to State of South Dakota.--
Section 605 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
(113 Stat. 390) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``in perpetuity'' and
inserting ``for the life of the Mni Wiconi project'';
(B) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C);
and
(C) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
``(B) Deadline for transfer of recreation areas.--Under
subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall transfer recreation
areas not later than January 1, 2002.'';
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) by redesignating paragraph (1) as paragraph (1)(A);
(B) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (4) as
subparagraphs (B) through (D), respectively, of paragraph
(1);
(C) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in subparagraph (C), (as redesignated by subparagraph
(B)), by inserting ``and'' after the semicolon; and
(ii) in subparagraph (D) (as redesignated by subparagraph
(B)), by striking ``and'' and inserting ``or''; and
(D) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (2);
(3) in subsection (d), by striking paragraph (2) and
inserting the following:
``(2) Structures.--
``(A) In general.--The map shall identify all land and
structures to be retained as necessary for continuation of
the operation, maintenance, repair, replacement,
rehabilitation, and structural integrity of the dams and
related flood control and hydropower structures.
``(B) Lease of recreation areas.--
``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall lease to the State
of South Dakota in perpetuity all or part of the following
recreation areas, within the boundaries determined under
clause (ii), that are adjacent to land received by the State
of South Dakota under this title:
``(I) Oahe dam and lake.--
``(aa) Downstream Recreation Area.
``(bb) West Shore Recreation Area.
``(cc) East Shore Recreation Area.
``(dd) Tailrace Recreation Area.
``(II) Fort randall dam and lake francis case.--
``(aa) Randall Creek Recreation Area.
``(bb) South Shore Recreation Area.
``(cc) Spillway Recreation Area.
``(III) Gavins point dam and lewis and clark lake.--Pierson
Ranch Recreation Area.
``(ii) Lease boundaries.--The Secretary shall determine the
boundaries of the recreation areas in consultation with the
State of South Dakota.'';
(4) in subsection (f)(1), by striking ``Federal law'' and
inserting ``a Federal law specified in section 607(a)(6) or
any other Federal law'';
(5) in subsection (g), by striking paragraph (3) and
inserting the following:
``(3) Easements and access.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after a request
by the State of South Dakota, the Secretary shall provide to
the State of South Dakota easements and access on land and
water below the level of the exclusive flood pool outside
Indian reservations in the State of South Dakota for
recreational and other purposes (including for boat docks,
boat ramps, and related structures).
``(B) No effect on mission.--The easements and access
referred to in subparagraph (A) shall not prevent the Corps
from carrying out its mission under the Act entitled `An Act
authorizing the construction of certain public works on
rivers and harbors for flood control, and for other
purposes', approved December 22, 1944 (commonly known as the
`Flood Control Act of 1944') (58 Stat. 887)).'';
(6) in subsection (h), by striking ``of this Act'' and
inserting ``of law''; and
(7) by adding at the end the following:
``(j) Cleanup of Land and Recreation Areas.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 10 years after the date
of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall clean up
each open dump and hazardous waste site identified by the
Secretary and located on the land and recreation areas
described in subsections (b) and (c).
``(2) Funding.--Cleanup activities under paragraph (1)
shall be funded solely from funds made available for
operation and maintenance under the Pick-Sloan Missouri River
Basin program.
``(k) Cultural Resources Advisory Commission.--
``(1) In general.--The State of South Dakota, the Cheyenne
River Sioux Tribe, and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe may
establish an advisory commission to be known as the `Cultural
Resources Advisory Commission' (referred to in this
subsection as the `Commission').
``(2) Membership.--The Commission shall be composed of--
``(A) 1 member representing the State of South Dakota;
``(B) 1 member representing the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe;
``(C) 1 member representing the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe;
and
``(D) upon unanimous vote of the members of the Commission
described in subparagraphs (A) through (C), a member
representing a federally recognized Indian Tribe located in
the State of North Dakota or South Dakota that is
historically or traditionally affiliated with the Missouri
River Basin in South Dakota.
``(3) Duty.--The duty of the Commission shall be to provide
advice on the identification, protection, and preservation of
cultural resources on the land and recreation areas described
in subsections (b) and (c) of this section and subsections
(b) and (c) of section 606.
``(4) Responsibilities, powers, and administration.--The
Governor of the State of South Dakota, the Chairman of the
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, and the Chairman of the Lower
Brule Sioux Tribe are encouraged to unanimously enter into a
formal written agreement, not later than 1 year after the
date of enactment of this subsection, to establish the role,
responsibilities, powers, and administration of the
Commission.
``(l) Inventory and Stabilization of Cultural and Historic
Sites.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 10 years after the date
of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary, through
contracts entered into with the State of South Dakota, the
affected Indian Tribes, and other Indian Tribes in the States
of North Dakota and South Dakota, shall inventory and
stabilize each cultural site and historic site located on the
land and recreation areas described in subsections (b) and
(c).
``(2) Funding.--Inventory and stabilization activities
under paragraph (1) shall be funded solely from funds made
available for operation and maintenance under the Pick-Sloan
Missouri River Basin program.''.
(e) Transfer of Corps of Engineers Land for Affected Indian
Tribes.--Section 606 of
[[Page S9172]]
the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 393)
is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``The Secretary'' and
inserting ``Not later than January 1, 2002, the Secretary'';
(2) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``Big Bend and Oahe''
and inserting ``Oahe, Big Bend, and Fort Randall'';
(3) in subsection (d), by striking paragraph (2) and
inserting the following:
``(2) Structures.--
``(A) In general.--The map shall identify all land and
structures to be retained as necessary for continuation of
the operation, maintenance, repair, replacement,
rehabilitation, and structural integrity of the dams and
related flood control and hydropower structures.
``(B) Lease of recreation areas.--
``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall lease to the Lower
Brule Sioux Tribe in perpetuity all or part of the following
recreation areas at Big Bend Dam and Lake Sharpe:
``(I) Left Tailrace Recreation Area.
``(II) Right Tailrace Recreation Area.
``(III) Good Soldier Creek Recreation Area.
``(ii) Lease boundaries.--The Secretary shall determine the
boundaries of the recreation areas in consultation with the
Lower Brule Sioux Tribe.'';
(4) in subsection (f)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Federal law'' and
inserting ``a Federal law specified in section 607(a)(6) or
any other Federal law'';
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking subparagraph (C) and
inserting the following:
``(C) Easements and access.--
``(i) In general.--Not later than 180 days after a request
by an affected Indian Tribe, the Secretary shall provide to
the affected Indian Tribe easements and access on land and
water below the level of the exclusive flood pool inside the
Indian reservation of the affected Indian Tribe for
recreational and other purposes (including for boat docks,
boat ramps, and related structures).
``(ii) No effect on mission.--The easements and access
referred to in clause (i) shall not prevent the Corps from
carrying out its mission under the Act entitled `An Act
authorizing the construction of certain public works on
rivers and harbors for flood control, and for other
purposes', approved December 22, 1944 (commonly known as the
`Flood Control Act of 1944') (58 Stat. 887)).''; and
(C) in paragraph (3)(B), by inserting before the period at
the end the following: ``that were administered by the Corps
of Engineers as of the date of the land transfer.''; and
(5) by adding at the end the following:
``(h) Cleanup of Land and Recreation Areas.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 10 years after the date
of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall clean up
each open dump and hazardous waste site identified by the
Secretary and located on the land and recreation areas
described in subsections (b) and (c).
``(2) Funding.--Cleanup activities under paragraph (1)
shall be funded solely from funds made available for
operation and maintenance under the Pick-Sloan Missouri River
Basin program.
``(i) Inventory and Stabilization of Cultural and Historic
Sites.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 10 years after the date
of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary, in
consultation with the Cultural Resources Advisory Commission
established under section 605(k) and through contracts
entered into with the State of South Dakota, the affected
Indian Tribes, and other Indian Tribes in the States of North
Dakota and South Dakota, shall inventory and stabilize each
cultural site and historic site located on the land and
recreation areas described in subsections (b) and (c).
``(2) Funding.--Inventory and stabilization activities
under paragraph (1) shall be funded solely from funds made
available for operation and maintenance under the Pick-Sloan
Missouri River Basin program.
``(j) Sediment Contamination.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 10 years after the date
of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall--
``(A) complete a study of sediment contamination in the
Cheyenne River; and
``(B) take appropriate remedial action to eliminate any
public health and environmental risk posed by the
contaminated sediment.
``(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to
carry out paragraph (1).''.
(f) Budget Considerations.--Section 607 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 395) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Budget Considerations.--
``(1) In general.--In developing an annual budget to carry
out this title, the Corps of Engineers shall consult with the
State of South Dakota and the affected Indian Tribes.
``(2) Inclusions; availability.--The budget referred to in
paragraph (1) shall--
``(A) be detailed;
``(B) include all necessary tasks and associated costs; and
``(C) be made available to the State of South Dakota and
the affected Indian Tribes at the time at which the Corps of
Engineers submits the budget to Congress.''.
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 609 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 396) is
amended by striking subsection (a) and inserting the
following:
``(a) Secretary.--
``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated
to the Secretary for each fiscal year such sums as are
necessary--
``(A) to pay the administrative expenses incurred by the
Secretary in carrying out this title;
``(B) to fund the implementation of terrestrial wildlife
habitat restoration plans under section 602(a);
``(C) to fund activities described in sections 603(d)(3)
and 604(d)(3) with respect to land and recreation areas
transferred, or to be transferred, to an affected Indian
Tribe or the State of South Dakota under section 605 or 606;
and
``(D) to fund the annual expenses (not to exceed the
Federal cost as of August 17, 1999) of operating recreation
areas transferred, or to be transferred, under sections
605(c) and 606(c) to, or leased by, the State of South Dakota
or an affected Indian Tribe, until such time as the trust
funds under sections 603 and 604 are fully capitalized.
``(2) Allocations.--
``(A) In general.--For each fiscal year, the Secretary
shall allocate the amounts made available under subparagraphs
(B), (C), and (D) of paragraph (1) as follows:
``(i) $1,000,000 (or, if a lesser amount is so made
available for the fiscal year, the lesser amount) shall be
allocated equally among the State of South Dakota, the
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe,
for use in accordance with paragraph (1).
``(ii) Any amounts remaining after the allocation under
clause (i) shall be allocated as follows:
``(I) 65 percent to the State of South Dakota.
``(II) 26 percent to the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe.
``(III) 9 percent to the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe.
``(B) Use of allocations.--Amounts allocated under
subparagraph (A) may be used at the option of the recipient
for any purpose described in subparagraph (B), (C), or (D) of
paragraph (1).''.
(h) Clarification of References to Indian Tribes.--
(1) Definitions.--Section 601 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 385) is amended by
striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) Affected indian tribe.--The term `affected Indian
Tribe' means each of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the
Lower Brule Sioux Tribe.''.
(2) Terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration.--Section
602(b)(4)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
(113 Stat. 388) is amended by striking ``the Tribe'' and
inserting ``the affected Indian Tribe''.
(3) Cheyenne river sioux tribe and lower brule sioux tribe
terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration trust funds.--
Section 604(d)(3)(A) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1999 (113 Stat. 390) is amended by striking ``the
respective Tribe'' each place it appears and inserting ``the
respective affected Indian Tribe''.
(4) Transfer of federal land to state of south dakota.--
Section 605 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
(113 Stat. 390) is amended--
(A) in subsection (b)(3), by striking ``an Indian Tribe''
and inserting ``any Indian Tribe''; and
(B) in subsection (c)(1)(B) (as redesignated by subsection
(d)(2)(B)), by striking ``an Indian Tribe'' and inserting
``any Indian Tribe''.
(5) Transfer of corps of engineers land for affected indian
tribes.--Section 606 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1999 (113 Stat. 393) is amended--
(A) in the section heading, by striking ``INDIAN TRIBES''
and inserting ``AFFECTED INDIAN TRIBES'';
(B) in paragraphs (1) and (4) of subsection (a), by
striking ``the Indian Tribes'' each place it appears and
inserting ``the affected Indian Tribes'';
(C) in subsection (c)(2), by striking ``an Indian Tribe''
and inserting ``any Indian Tribe'';
(D) in subsection (f)(2)(B)(i)--
(i) by striking ``the respective tribes'' and inserting
``the respective affected Indian Tribes''; and
(ii) by striking ``the respective Tribe's'' and inserting
``the respective affected Indian Tribe's''; and
(E) in subsection (g), by striking ``an Indian Tribe'' and
inserting ``any Indian Tribe''.
(6) Administration.--Section 607(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 395) is amended by
striking ``an Indian Tribe'' each place it appears and
inserting ``any Indian Tribe''.
SEC. 508. EXPORT OF WATER FROM GREAT LAKES.
(a) Additional Finding.--Section 1109(b) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-20(b)) is
amended by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs
(3) and (4), and by inserting after paragraph (1) the
following:
``(2) to encourage the Great Lakes States, in consultation
with the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec, to develop and
implement a mechanism that provides a common conservation
standard embodying the principles of water conservation and
resource improvement for making decisions concerning the
withdrawal and use of water from the Great Lakes Basin;''.
[[Page S9173]]
(b) Approval of Governors for Export of Water.--Section
1109(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (42
U.S.C. 1962d-20(d)) is amended by--
(1) inserting ``or exported'' after ``diverted''; and
(2) inserting ``or export'' after ``diversion''.
(c) Sense of the Congress.--It is the Sense of the Congress
that the Secretary of State should work with the Canadian
Government to encourage and support the Provinces in the
development and implementation of a mechanism and standard
concerning the withdrawal and use of water from the Great
Lakes Basin consistent with those mechanisms and standards
developed by the Great Lakes States.
TITLE VI--COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN
SEC. 601. COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Central and southern florida project.--
(A) In general.--The term ``Central and Southern Florida
Project'' means the project for Central and Southern Florida
authorized under the heading ``central and southern florida''
in section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (62 Stat.
1176).
(B) Inclusion.--The term ``Central and Southern Florida
Project'' includes any modification to the project authorized
by this section or any other provision of law.
(2) Governor.--The term ``Governor'' means the Governor of
the State of Florida.
(3) Natural system.--
(A) In general.--The term ``natural system'' means all land
and water managed by the Federal Government or the State
within the South Florida ecosystem.
(B) Inclusions.--The term ``natural system'' includes--
(i) water conservation areas;
(ii) sovereign submerged land;
(iii) Everglades National Park;
(iv) Biscayne National Park;
(v) Big Cypress National Preserve;
(vi) other Federal or State (including a political
subdivision of a State) land that is designated and managed
for conservation purposes; and
(vii) any tribal land that is designated and managed for
conservation purposes, as approved by the tribe.
(4) Plan.--The term ``Plan'' means the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan contained in the ``Final
Integrated Feasibility Report and Programmatic Environmental
Impact Statement'', dated April 1, 1999, as modified by this
section.
(5) South florida ecosystem.--
(A) In general.--The term ``South Florida ecosystem'' means
the area consisting of the land and water within the boundary
of the South Florida Water Management District in effect on
July 1, 1999.
(B) Inclusions.--The term ``South Florida ecosystem''
includes--
(i) the Everglades;
(ii) the Florida Keys; and
(iii) the contiguous near-shore coastal water of South
Florida.
(6) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of Florida.
(b) Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.--
(1) Approval.--
(A) In general.--Except as modified by this section, the
Plan is approved as a framework for modifications and
operational changes to the Central and Southern Florida
Project that are needed to restore, preserve, and protect the
South Florida ecosystem while providing for other water-
related needs of the region, including water supply and flood
protection. The Plan shall be implemented to ensure the
protection of water quality in, the reduction of the loss of
fresh water from, and the improvement of the environment of
the South Florida ecosystem and to achieve and maintain the
benefits to the natural system and human environment
described in the Plan, and required pursuant to this section,
for as long as the project is authorized.
(B) Integration.--In carrying out the Plan, the Secretary
shall integrate the activities described in subparagraph (A)
with ongoing Federal and State projects and activities in
accordance with section 528(c) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3769). Unless specifically
provided herein, nothing in this section shall be construed
to modify any existing cost share or responsibility for
projects as listed in subsection (c) or (e) of section 528 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3769).
(2) Specific authorizations.--
(A) In general.--
(i) Projects.--The Secretary shall carry out the projects
included in the Plan in accordance with subparagraphs (B),
(C), (D) and (E).
(ii) Considerations.--In carrying out activities described
in the Plan, the Secretary shall--
(I) take into account the protection of water quality by
considering applicable State water quality standards; and
(II) include such features as the Secretary determines are
necessary to ensure that all ground water and surface water
discharges from any project feature authorized by this
subsection will meet all applicable water quality standards
and applicable water quality permitting requirements.
(iii) Review and comment.--In developing the projects
authorized under subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall
provide for public review and comment in accordance with
applicable Federal law.
(B) Pilot projects.--The following pilot projects are
authorized for implementation, after review and approval by
the Secretary, at a total cost of $69,000,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $34,500,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $34,500,000:
(i) Caloosahatchee River (C-43) Basin ASR, at a total cost
of $6,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $3,000,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,000,000.
(ii) Lake Belt In-Ground Reservoir Technology, at a total
cost of $23,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$11,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $11,500,000.
(iii) L-31N Seepage Management, at a total cost of
$10,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $5,000,000 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,000,000.
(iv) Wastewater Reuse Technology, at a total cost of
$30,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $15,000,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $15,000,000.
(C) Initial projects.--The following projects are
authorized for implementation, after review and approval by
the Secretary, subject to the conditions stated in
subparagraph (D), at a total cost of $1,100,918,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $550,459,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $550,459,000:
(i) C-44 Basin Storage Reservoir, at a total cost of
$112,562,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $56,281,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $56,281,000.
(ii) Everglades Agricultural Area Storage Reservoirs--Phase
I, at a total cost of $233,408,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $116,704,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$116,704,000.
(iii) Site 1 Impoundment, at a total cost of $38,535,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $19,267,500 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $19,267,500.
(iv) Water Conservation Areas 3A/3B Levee Seepage
Management, at a total cost of $100,335,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $50,167,500 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $50,167,500.
(v) C-11 Impoundment and Stormwater Treatment Area, at a
total cost of $124,837,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$62,418,500 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $62,418,500.
(vi) C-9 Impoundment and Stormwater Treatment Area, at a
total cost of $89,146,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$44,573,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $44,573,000.
(vii) Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough Storage and Treatment
Area, at a total cost of $104,027,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $52,013,500 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $52,013,500.
(viii) Raise and Bridge East Portion of Tamiami Trail and
Fill Miami Canal within Water Conservation Area 3, at a total
cost of $26,946,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$13,473,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $13,473,000.
(ix) North New River Improvements, at a total cost of
$77,087,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $38,543,500
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $38,543,500.
(x) C-111 Spreader Canal, at a total cost of $94,035,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $47,017,500 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $47,017,500.
(xi) Adaptive Assessment and Monitoring Program, at a total
cost of $100,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$50,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $50,000,000.
(D) Conditions.--
(i) Project implementation reports.--Before implementation
of a project described in any of clauses (i) through (x) of
subparagraph (C), the Secretary shall review and approve for
the project a project implementation report prepared in
accordance with subsections (f) and (h).
(ii) Submission of report.--The Secretary shall submit to
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and
Public Works of the Senate the project implementation report
required by subsections (f) and (h) for each project under
this paragraph (including all relevant data and information
on all costs).
(iii) Funding contingent on approval.--No appropriation
shall be made to construct any project under this paragraph
if the project implementation report for the project has not
been approved by resolutions adopted by the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public
Works of the Senate.
(iv) Modified water delivery.--No appropriation shall be
made to construct the Water Conservation Area 3
Decompartmentalization and Sheetflow Enhancement Project
(including component AA, Additional S-345 Structures;
component QQ Phase 1, Raise and Bridge East Portion of
Tamiami Trail and Fill Miami Canal within WCA 3; component QQ
Phase 2, WCA 3 Decompartmentalization and Sheetflow
Enhancement; and component SS, North New River Improvements)
or the Central Lakebelt Storage Project (including components
S and EEE, Central Lake Belt Storage Area) until the
completion of the project to improve water deliveries to
Everglades National Park authorized by section 104 of the
Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989
(16 U.S.C. 410r-8).
(E) Maximum cost of projects.--Section 902 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2280) shall
apply to each
[[Page S9174]]
project feature authorized under this subsection.
(c) Additional Program Authority.--
(1) In general.--To expedite implementation of the Plan,
the Secretary may implement modifications to the Central and
Southern Florida Project that--
(A) are described in the Plan; and
(B) will produce a substantial benefit to the restoration,
preservation and protection of the South Florida ecosystem.
(2) Project implementation reports.--Before implementation
of any project feature authorized under this subsection, the
Secretary shall review and approve for the project feature a
project implementation report prepared in accordance with
subsections (f) and (h).
(3) Funding.--
(A) Individual project funding.--
(i) Federal cost.--The total Federal cost of each project
carried out under this subsection shall not exceed
$12,500,000.
(ii) Overall cost.--The total cost of each project carried
out under this subsection shall not exceed $25,000,000.
(B) Aggregate cost.--The total cost of all projects carried
out under this subsection shall not exceed $206,000,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $103,000,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $103,000,000.
(d) Authorization of Future Projects.--
(1) In general.--Except for a project authorized by
subsection (b) or (c), any project included in the Plan shall
require a specific authorization by Congress.
(2) Submission of report.--Before seeking congressional
authorization for a project under paragraph (1), the
Secretary shall submit to Congress--
(A) a description of the project; and
(B) a project implementation report for the project
prepared in accordance with subsections (f) and (h).
(e) Cost Sharing.--
(1) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of
carrying out a project authorized by subsection (b), (c), or
(d) shall be 50 percent.
(2) Non-federal responsibilities.--The non-Federal sponsor
with respect to a project described in subsection (b), (c),
or (d), shall be--
(A) responsible for all land, easements, rights-of-way, and
relocations necessary to implement the Plan; and
(B) afforded credit toward the non-Federal share of the
cost of carrying out the project in accordance with paragraph
(5)(A).
(3) Federal assistance.--
(A) In general.--The non-Federal sponsor with respect to a
project authorized by subsection (b), (c), or (d) may use
Federal funds for the purchase of any land, easement, rights-
of-way, or relocation that is necessary to carry out the
project if any funds so used are credited toward the Federal
share of the cost of the project.
(B) Agriculture funds.--Funds provided to the non-Federal
sponsor under the Conservation Restoration and Enhancement
Program (CREP) and the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) for
projects in the Plan shall be credited toward the non-Federal
share of the cost of the Plan if the Secretary of Agriculture
certifies that the funds provided may be used for that
purpose. Funds to be credited do not include funds provided
under section 390 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and
Reform Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 1022).
(4) Operation and maintenance.--Notwithstanding section
528(e)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110
Stat. 3770), the non-Federal sponsor shall be responsible for
50 percent of the cost of operation, maintenance, repair,
replacement, and rehabilitation activities authorized under
this section.
(5) Credit.--
(A) In general.--Notwithstanding section 528(e)(4) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3770), and
regardless of the date of acquisition, the value of lands or
interests in lands and incidental costs for land acquired by
a non-Federal sponsor in accordance with a project
implementation report for any project included in the Plan
and authorized by Congress shall be--
(i) included in the total cost of the project; and
(ii) credited toward the non-Federal share of the cost of
the project.
(B) Work.--The Secretary may provide credit, including in-
kind credit, toward the non-Federal share for the reasonable
cost of any work performed in connection with a study,
preconstruction engineering and design, or construction that
is necessary for the implementation of the Plan, if--
(i)(I) the credit is provided for work completed during the
period of design, as defined in a design agreement between
the Secretary and the non-Federal sponsor; or
(II) the credit is provided for work completed during the
period of construction, as defined in a project cooperation
agreement for an authorized project between the Secretary and
the non-Federal sponsor;
(ii) the design agreement or the project cooperation
agreement prescribes the terms and conditions of the credit;
and
(iii) the Secretary determines that the work performed by
the non-Federal sponsor is integral to the project.
(C) Treatment of credit between projects.--Any credit
provided under this paragraph may be carried over between
authorized projects in accordance with subparagraph (D).
(D) Periodic monitoring.--
(i) In general.--To ensure that the contributions of the
non-Federal sponsor equal 50 percent proportionate share for
projects in the Plan, during each 5-year period, beginning
with commencement of design of the Plan, the Secretary shall,
for each project--
(I) monitor the non-Federal provision of cash, in-kind
services, and land; and
(II) manage, to the maximum extent practicable, the
requirement of the non-Federal sponsor to provide cash, in-
kind services, and land.
(ii) Other monitoring.--The Secretary shall conduct
monitoring under clause (i) separately for--
(I) the preconstruction engineering and design phase; and
(II) the construction phase.
(E) Audits.--Credit for land (including land value and
incidental costs) or work provided under this subsection
shall be subject to audit by the Secretary.
(f) Evaluation of Projects.--
(1) In general.--Before implementation of a project
authorized by subsection (c) or (d) or any of clauses (i)
through (x) of subsection (b)(2)(C), the Secretary, in
cooperation with the non-Federal sponsor, shall, after notice
and opportunity for public comment and in accordance with
subsection (h), complete a project implementation report for
the project.
(2) Project justification.--
(A) In general.--Notwithstanding section 209 of the Flood
Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962-2) or any other provision
of law, in carrying out any activity authorized under this
section or any other provision of law to restore, preserve,
or protect the South Florida ecosystem, the Secretary may
determine that--
(i) the activity is justified by the environmental benefits
derived by the South Florida ecosystem; and
(ii) no further economic justification for the activity is
required, if the Secretary determines that the activity is
cost-effective.
(B) Applicability.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any
separable element intended to produce benefits that are
predominantly unrelated to the restoration, preservation, and
protection of the natural system.
(g) Exclusions and Limitations.--The following Plan
components are not approved for implementation:
(1) Water included in the plan.--
(A) In general.--Any project that is designed to implement
the capture and use of the approximately 245,000 acre-feet of
water described in section 7.7.2 of the Plan shall not be
implemented until such time as--
(i) the project-specific feasibility study described in
subparagraph (B) on the need for and physical delivery of the
approximately 245,000 acre-feet of water, conducted by the
Secretary, in cooperation with the non-Federal sponsor, is
completed;
(ii) the project is favorably recommended in a final report
of the Chief of Engineers; and
(iii) the project is authorized by Act of Congress.
(B) Project-specific feasibility study.--The project-
specific feasibility study referred to in subparagraph (A)
shall include--
(i) a comprehensive analysis of the structural facilities
proposed to deliver the approximately 245,000 acre-feet of
water to the natural system;
(ii) an assessment of the requirements to divert and treat
the water;
(iii) an assessment of delivery alternatives;
(iv) an assessment of the feasibility of delivering the
water downstream while maintaining current levels of flood
protection to affected property; and
(v) any other assessments that are determined by the
Secretary to be necessary to complete the study.
(2) Wastewater reuse.--
(A) In general.--On completion and evaluation of the
wastewater reuse pilot project described in subsection
(b)(2)(B)(iv), the Secretary, in an appropriately timed 5-
year report, shall describe the results of the evaluation of
advanced wastewater reuse in meeting, in a cost-effective
manner, the requirements of restoration of the natural
system.
(B) Submission.--The Secretary shall submit to Congress the
report described in subparagraph (A) before congressional
authorization for advanced wastewater reuse is sought.
(3) Projects approved with limitations.--The following
projects in the Plan are approved for implementation with
limitations:
(A) Loxahatchee national wildlife refuge.--The Federal
share for land acquisition in the project to enhance existing
wetland systems along the Loxahatchee National Wildlife
Refuge, including the Stazzulla tract, should be funded
through the budget of the Department of the Interior.
(B) Southern corkscrew regional ecosystem.--The Southern
Corkscrew regional ecosystem watershed addition should be
accomplished outside the scope of the Plan.
(h) Assurance of Project Benefits.--
(1) In general.--The overarching objective of the Plan is
the restoration, preservation, and protection of the South
Florida Ecosystem while providing for other water-related
needs of the region, including water supply and flood
protection. The Plan shall be implemented to ensure the
protection of water quality in, the reduction of the loss of
fresh water from, the improvement of the environment of the
South Florida Ecosystem and to achieve and maintain the
benefits to the natural system and human environment
described in the Plan, and required pursuant
[[Page S9175]]
to this section, for as long as the project is authorized.
(2) Agreement.--
(A) In general.--In order to ensure that water generated by
the Plan will be made available for the restoration of the
natural system, no appropriations, except for any pilot
project described in subsection (b)(2)(B), shall be made for
the construction of a project contained in the Plan until the
President and the Governor enter into a binding agreement
under which the State shall ensure, by regulation or other
appropriate means, that water made available by each project
in the Plan shall not be permitted for a consumptive use or
otherwise made unavailable by the State until such time as
sufficient reservations of water for the restoration of the
natural system are made under State law in accordance with
the project implementation report for that project and
consistent with the Plan.
(B) Enforcement.--
(i) In general.--Any person or entity that is aggrieved by
a failure of the United States or any other Federal
Government instrumentality or agency, or the Governor or any
other officer of a State instrumentality or agency, to comply
with any provision of the agreement entered into under
subparagraph (A) may bring a civil action in United States
district court for an injunction directing the United States
or any other Federal Government instrumentality or agency or
the Governor or any other officer of a State instrumentality
or agency, as the case may be, to comply with the agreement.
(ii) Limitations on commencement of civil action.--No civil
action may be commenced under clause (i)--
(I) before the date that is 60 days after the Secretary
receives written notice of a failure to comply with the
agreement; or
(II) if the United States has commenced and is diligently
prosecuting an action in a court of the United States or a
State to redress a failure to comply with the agreement.
(C) Trust responsibilities.--In carrying out his
responsibilities under this subsection with respect to the
restoration of the South Florida ecosystem, the Secretary of
the Interior shall fulfill his obligations to the Indian
tribes in South Florida under the Indian Trust Doctrine as
well as other applicable legal obligations.
(3) Programmatic regulations.--
(A) Issuance.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall, after notice and
opportunity for public comment--
(i) with the concurrence of--
(I) the Governor; and
(II) the Secretary of the Interior; and
(ii) in consultation with--
(I) the Seminole Tribe of Florida;
(II) the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida;
(III) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency;
(IV) the Secretary of Commerce; and
(V) other Federal, State, and local agencies;
promulgate programmatic regulations to ensure that the goals
and purposes of the Plan are achieved.
(B) Concurrency statement.--The Secretary of the Interior
and the Governor shall, not later than 180 days from the end
of the public comment period on proposed programmatic
regulations, provide the Secretary with a written statement
of concurrence or nonconcurrence. A failure to provide a
written statement of concurrence or nonconcurrence within
such time frame will be deemed as meeting the concurrency
requirements of subparagraph (A)(i). A copy of any
concurrency or nonconcurrency statements shall be made a part
of the administrative record and referenced in the final
programmatic regulations. Any nonconcurrency statement shall
specifically detail the reason or reasons for the
nonconcurrence.
(C) Content of regulations.--Programmatic regulations
promulgated under this paragraph shall establish a process--
(i) for the development of project implementation reports,
project cooperation agreements, and operating manuals that
ensure that the goals and objectives of the Plan are
achieved;
(ii) to ensure that new information resulting from changed
or unforeseen circumstances, new scientific or technical
information or information that is developed through the
principles of adaptive management contained in the Plan, or
future authorized changes to the Plan are integrated into the
implementation of the Plan; and
(iii) to ensure the protection of the natural system
consistent with the goals and purposes of the Plan, including
the establishment of interim goals to provide a means by
which the restoration success of the Plan may be evaluated
throughout the implementation process.
(D) Schedule and transition rule.--
(i) In general.--All project implementation reports
approved before the date of promulgation of the programmatic
regulations shall be consistent with the Plan.
(ii) Preamble.--The preamble of the programmatic
regulations shall include a statement concerning the
consistency with the programmatic regulations of any project
implementation reports that were approved before the date of
promulgation of the regulations.
(E) Review of programmatic regulations.--Whenever necessary
to attain Plan goals and purposes, but not less often than
every 5 years, the Secretary, in accordance with subparagraph
(A), shall review the programmatic regulations promulgated
under this paragraph.
(4) Project-specific assurances.--
(A) Project implementation reports.--
(i) In general.--The Secretary and the non-Federal sponsor
shall develop project implementation reports in accordance
with section 10.3.1 of the Plan.
(ii) Coordination.--In developing a project implementation
report, the Secretary and the non-Federal sponsor shall
coordinate with appropriate Federal, State, tribal, and local
governments.
(iii) Requirements.--A project implementation report
shall--
(I) be consistent with the Plan and the programmatic
regulations promulgated under paragraph (3);
(II) describe how each of the requirements stated in
paragraph (3)(B) is satisfied;
(III) comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.);
(IV) identify the appropriate quantity, timing, and
distribution of water dedicated and managed for the natural
system;
(V) identify the amount of water to be reserved or
allocated for the natural system necessary to implement,
under State law, subclauses (IV) and (VI);
(VI) comply with applicable water quality standards and
applicable water quality permitting requirements under
subsection (b)(2)(A)(ii);
(VII) be based on the best available science; and
(VIII) include an analysis concerning the cost-
effectiveness and engineering feasibility of the project.
(B) Project cooperation agreements.--
(i) In general.--The Secretary and the non-Federal sponsor
shall execute project cooperation agreements in accordance
with section 10 of the Plan.
(ii) Condition.--The Secretary shall not execute a project
cooperation agreement until any reservation or allocation of
water for the natural system identified in the project
implementation report is executed under State law.
(C) Operating manuals.--
(i) In general.--The Secretary and the non-Federal sponsor
shall develop and issue, for each project or group of
projects, an operating manual that is consistent with the
water reservation or allocation for the natural system
described in the project implementation report and the
project cooperation agreement for the project or group of
projects.
(ii) Modifications.--Any significant modification by the
Secretary and the non-Federal sponsor to an operating manual
after the operating manual is issued shall only be carried
out subject to notice and opportunity for public comment.
(5) Savings clause.--
(A) No elimination or transfer.--Until a new source of
water supply of comparable quantity and quality as that
available on the date of enactment of this Act is available
to replace the water to be lost as a result of implementation
of the Plan, the Secretary and the non-Federal sponsor shall
not eliminate or transfer existing legal sources of water,
including those for--
(i) an agricultural or urban water supply;
(ii) allocation or entitlement to the Seminole Indian Tribe
of Florida under section 7 of the Seminole Indian Land Claims
Settlement Act of 1987 (25 U.S.C. 1772e);
(iii) the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida;
(iv) water supply for Everglades National Park; or
(v) water supply for fish and wildlife.
(B) Maintenance of flood protection.--Implementation of the
Plan shall not reduce levels of service for flood protection
that are--
(i) in existence on the date of enactment of this Act; and
(ii) in accordance with applicable law.
(C) No effect on tribal compact.--Nothing in this section
amends, alters, prevents, or otherwise abrogates rights of
the Seminole Indian Tribe of Florida under the compact among
the Seminole Tribe of Florida, the State, and the South
Florida Water Management District, defining the scope and use
of water rights of the Seminole Tribe of Florida, as codified
by section 7 of the Seminole Indian Land Claims Settlement
Act of 1987 (25 U.S.C. 1772e).
(i) Dispute Resolution.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary and the Governor shall
within 180 days from the date of enactment of this Act
develop an agreement for resolving disputes between the Corps
of Engineers and the State associated with the implementation
of the Plan. Such agreement shall establish a mechanism for
the timely and efficient resolution of disputes, including--
(A) a preference for the resolution of disputes between the
Jacksonville District of the Corps of Engineers and the South
Florida Water Management District;
(B) a mechanism for the Jacksonville District of the Corps
of Engineers or the South Florida Water Management District
to initiate the dispute resolution process for unresolved
issues;
(C) the establishment of appropriate timeframes and
intermediate steps for the elevation of disputes to the
Governor and the Secretary; and
[[Page S9176]]
(D) a mechanism for the final resolution of disputes,
within 180 days from the date that the dispute resolution
process is initiated under subparagraph (B).
(2) Condition for report approval.--The Secretary shall not
approve a project implementation report under this section
until the agreement established under this subsection has
been executed.
(3) No effect on law.--Nothing in the agreement established
under this subsection shall alter or amend any existing
Federal or State law, or the responsibility of any party to
the agreement to comply with any Federal or State law.
(j) Independent Scientific Review.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary, the Secretary of the
Interior, and the Governor, in consultation with the South
Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, shall establish an
independent scientific review panel convened by a body, such
as the National Academy of Sciences, to review the Plan's
progress toward achieving the natural system restoration
goals of the Plan.
(2) Report.--The panel described in paragraph (1) shall
produce a biennial report to Congress, the Secretary, the
Secretary of the Interior, and the Governor that includes an
assessment of ecological indicators and other measures of
progress in restoring the ecology of the natural system,
based on the Plan.
(k) Outreach and Assistance.--
(1) Small business concerns owned and operated by socially
and economically disadvantaged individuals.--In executing the
Plan, the Secretary shall ensure that small business concerns
owned and controlled by socially and economically
disadvantaged individuals are provided opportunities to
participate under section 15(g) of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 644(g)).
(2) Community outreach and education.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall ensure that impacts on
socially and economically disadvantaged individuals,
including individuals with limited English proficiency, and
communities are considered during implementation of the Plan,
and that such individuals have opportunities to review and
comment on its implementation.
(B) Provision of opportunities.--The Secretary shall
ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that public
outreach and educational opportunities are provided, during
implementation of the Plan, to the individuals of South
Florida, including individuals with limited English
proficiency, and in particular for socially and economically
disadvantaged communities.
(l) Report to Congress.--Beginning on October 1, 2005, and
periodically thereafter until October 1, 2036, the Secretary
and the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Commerce,
and the State of Florida, shall jointly submit to Congress a
report on the implementation of the Plan. Such reports shall
be completed not less often than every 5 years. Such reports
shall include a description of planning, design, and
construction work completed, the amount of funds expended
during the period covered by the report (including a detailed
analysis of the funds expended for adaptive assessment under
subsection (b)(2)(C)(xi)), and the work anticipated over the
next 5-year period. In addition, each report shall include--
(1) the determination of each Secretary, and the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
concerning the benefits to the natural system and the human
environment achieved as of the date of the report and whether
the completed projects of the Plan are being operated in a
manner that is consistent with the requirements of subsection
(h);
(2) progress toward interim goals established in accordance
with subsection (h)(3)(B); and
(3) a review of the activities performed by the Secretary
under subsection (k) as they relate to socially and
economically disadvantaged individuals and individuals with
limited English proficiency.
(m) Severability.--If any provision or remedy provided by
this section is found to be unconstitutional or unenforceable
by any court of competent jurisdiction, any remaining
provisions in this section shall remain valid and
enforceable.
SEC. 602. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING HOMESTEAD AIR FORCE
BASE.
(a) In General.--(1) The Everglades is an American treasure
and includes uniquely-important and diverse wildlife
resources and recreational opportunities;
(2) the preservation of the pristine and natural character
of the South Florida ecosystem is critical to the regional
economy;
(3) as this legislation demonstrates, the Senate believes
it to be a vital national mission to restore and preserve
this ecosystem and accordingly is authorizing a significant
Federal investment to do so;
(4) the Senate seeks to have the remaining property at the
former Homestead Air Base conveyed and reused as
expeditiously as possible, and several options for base reuse
are being considered, including as a commercial airport; and
(5) the Senate is aware that the Homestead site is located
in a sensitive environmental location, and that Biscayne
National Park is only approximately 1.5 miles to the east,
Everglades National Park approximately 8 miles to the west,
and the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary approximately
10 miles to the south.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that--
(1) development at the Homestead site could potentially
cause significant air, water, and noise pollution and result
in the degradation of adjacent national parks and other
protected Federal resources;
(2) in their decisionmaking, the Federal agencies charged
with determining the reuse of the remaining property at the
Homestead base should carefully consider and weigh all
available information concerning potential environmental
impacts of various reuse options;
(3) the redevelopment of the former base should be
consistent with restoration goals, provide desirable numbers
of jobs and economic redevelopment for the community, and be
consistent with other applicable laws;
(4) consistent with applicable laws, the Secretary of the
Air Force should proceed as quickly as practicable to issue a
final SEIS and Record of Decision so that reuse of the former
air base can proceed expeditiously;
(5) following conveyance of the remaining surplus property,
the Secretary, as part of his oversight for Everglades
restoration, should cooperate with the entities to which the
various parcels of surplus property were conveyed so that the
planned use of those properties is implemented in such a
manner as to remain consistent with the goals of the
Everglades restoration plan; and
(6) by August 1, 2002, the Secretary should submit a report
to the appropriate committees of Congress on actions taken
and make any recommendations for consideration by Congress.
TITLE VII--MISSOURI RIVER PROTECTION AND IMPROVEMENT
SEC. 701. SHORT TITLE.
This title shall be known as the ``Missouri River
Protection and Improvement Act of 2000''.
SEC. 702. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the Missouri River is--
(A) an invaluable economic, environmental, recreational,
and cultural resource to the people of the United States; and
(B) a critical source of water for drinking and irrigation;
(2) millions of people fish, hunt, and camp along the
Missouri River each year;
(3) thousands of sites of spiritual importance to Native
Americans line the shores of the Missouri River;
(4) the Missouri River provides critical wildlife habitat
for threatened and endangered species;
(5) in 1944, Congress approved the Pick-Sloan program--
(A) to promote the general economic development of the
United States;
(B) to provide for irrigation above Sioux City, Iowa;
(C) to protect urban and rural areas from devastating
floods of the Missouri River; and
(D) for other purposes;
(6) the Garrison Dam was constructed on the Missouri River
in North Dakota and the Oahe Dam was constructed in South
Dakota under the Pick-Sloan program;
(7) the dams referred to in paragraph (6)--
(A) generate low-cost electricity for millions of people in
the United States;
(B) provide revenue to the Treasury; and
(C) provide flood control that has prevented billions of
dollars of damage;
(8) the Garrison and Oahe Dams have reduced the ability of
the Missouri River to carry sediment downstream, resulting in
the accumulation of sediment in the reservoirs known as Lake
Sakakawea and Lake Oahe;
(9) the sediment depositions--
(A) cause shoreline flooding;
(B) destroy wildlife habitat;
(C) limit recreational opportunities;
(D) threaten the long-term ability of dams to provide
hydropower and flood control under the Pick-Sloan program;
(E) reduce water quality; and
(F) threaten intakes for drinking water and irrigation; and
(10) to meet the objectives established by Congress for the
Pick-Sloan program, it is necessary to establish a Missouri
River Restoration Program--
(A) to improve conservation;
(B) to reduce the deposition of sediment; and
(C) to take other steps necessary for proper management of
the Missouri River.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this title are--
(1) to reduce the siltation of the Missouri River in the
State of North Dakota;
(2) to meet the objectives of the Pick-Sloan program by
developing and implementing a long-term strategy--
(A) to improve conservation in the Missouri River
watershed;
(B) to protect recreation on the Missouri River from
sedimentation;
(C) to improve water quality in the Missouri River;
(D) to improve erosion control along the Missouri River;
and
(E) to protect Indian and non-Indian historical and
cultural sites along the Missouri River from erosion; and
(3) to meet the objectives described in paragraphs (1) and
(2) by developing and financing new programs in accordance
with the plan.
SEC. 703. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) Pick-sloan program.--The term ``Pick-Sloan program''
means the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin Program authorized
by section 9 of the Act of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 891,
chapter 665).
(2) Plan.--The term ``plan'' means the plan for the use of
funds made available by this
[[Page S9177]]
title that is required to be prepared under section 705(e).
(3) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of North
Dakota.
(4) Task force.--The term ``Task Force'' means the North
Dakota Missouri River Task Force established by section
705(a).
(5) Trust.--The term ``Trust'' means the North Dakota
Missouri River Trust established by section 704(a).
SEC. 704. MISSOURI RIVER TRUST.
(a) Establishment.--There is established a committee to be
known as the North Dakota Missouri River Trust.
(b) Membership.--The Trust shall be composed of 16 members
to be appointed by the Secretary, including--
(1) 12 members recommended by the Governor of North Dakota
that--
(A) represent equally the various interests of the public;
and
(B) include representatives of--
(i) the North Dakota Department of Health;
(ii) the North Dakota Department of Parks and Recreation;
(iii) the North Dakota Department of Game and Fish;
(iv) the North Dakota State Water Commission;
(v) the North Dakota Indian Affairs Commission;
(vi) agriculture groups;
(vii) environmental or conservation organizations;
(viii) the hydroelectric power industry;
(ix) recreation user groups;
(x) local governments; and
(xi) other appropriate interests;
(2) 4 members representing each of the 4 Indian tribes in
the State of North Dakota.
SEC. 705. MISSOURI RIVER TASK FORCE.
(a) Establishment.--There is established the Missouri River
Task Force.
(b) Membership.--The Task Force shall be composed of--
(1) the Secretary (or a designee), who shall serve as
Chairperson;
(2) the Secretary of Agriculture (or a designee);
(3) the Secretary of Energy (or a designee);
(4) the Secretary of the Interior (or a designee); and
(5) the Trust.
(c) Duties.--The Task Force shall--
(1) meet at least twice each year;
(2) vote on approval of the plan, with approval requiring
votes in favor of the plan by a majority of the members;
(3) review projects to meet the goals of the plan; and
(4) recommend to the Secretary critical projects for
implementation.
(d) Assessment.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date on
which funding authorized under this title becomes available,
the Secretary shall submit to the other members of the Task
Force a report on--
(A) the impact of the siltation of the Missouri River in
the State, including the impact on--
(i) the Federal, State, and regional economies;
(ii) recreation;
(iii) hydropower generation;
(iv) fish and wildlife; and
(v) flood control;
(B) the status of Indian and non-Indian historical and
cultural sites along the Missouri River;
(C) the extent of erosion along the Missouri River
(including tributaries of the Missouri River) in the State;
and
(D) other issues, as requested by the Task Force.
(2) Consultation.--In preparing the report under paragraph
(1), the Secretary shall consult with--
(A) the Secretary of Energy;
(B) the Secretary of the Interior;
(C) the Secretary of Agriculture;
(D) the State; and
(E) Indian tribes in the State.
(e) Plan for Use of Funds Made Available by This Title.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date on
which funding authorized under this title becomes available,
the Task Force shall prepare a plan for the use of funds made
available under this title.
(2) Contents of plan.--The plan shall provide for the
manner in which the Task Force shall develop and recommend
critical restoration projects to promote--
(A) conservation practices in the Missouri River watershed;
(B) the general control and removal of sediment from the
Missouri River;
(C) the protection of recreation on the Missouri River from
sedimentation;
(D) the protection of Indian and non-Indian historical and
cultural sites along the Missouri River from erosion;
(E) erosion control along the Missouri River; or
(F) any combination of the activities described in
subparagraphs (A) through (E).
(3) Plan review and revision.--
(A) In general.--The Task Force shall make a copy of the
plan available for public review and comment before the plan
becomes final, in accordance with procedures established by
the Task Force.
(B) Revision of plan.--
(i) In general.--The Task Force may, on an annual basis,
revise the plan.
(ii) Public review and comment.--In revising the plan, the
Task Force shall provide the public the opportunity to review
and comment on any proposed revision to the plan.
(f) Critical Restoration Projects.--
(1) In general.--After the plan is approved by the Task
Force under subsection (c)(2), the Secretary, in coordination
with the Task Force, shall identify critical restoration
projects to carry out the plan.
(2) Agreement.--The Secretary may carry out a critical
restoration project after entering into an agreement with an
appropriate non-Federal interest in accordance with--
(A) section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C.
1962d-5b); and
(B) this section.
(3) Indian projects.--To the maximum extent practicable,
the Secretary shall ensure that not less than 30 percent of
the funds made available for critical restoration projects
under this title shall be used exclusively for projects that
are--
(A) within the boundary of an Indian reservation; or
(B) administered by an Indian tribe.
(g) Cost Sharing.--
(1) Assessment.--
(A) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of
carrying out the assessment under subsection (d) shall be 75
percent.
(B) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the cost
of carrying out the assessment under subsection (d) may be
provided in the form of services, materials, or other in-kind
contributions.
(2) Plan.--
(A) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of
preparing the plan under subsection (e) shall be 75 percent.
(B) Non-federal share.--Not more than 50 percent of the
non-Federal share of the cost of preparing the plan under
subsection (e) may be provided in the form of services,
materials, or other in-kind contributions.
(3) Critical restoration projects.--
(A) In general.--A non-Federal cost share shall be required
to carry out any critical restoration project under
subsection (f) that does not primarily benefit the Federal
Government, as determined by the Task Force.
(B) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of
carrying out a critical restoration project under subsection
(f) for which the Task Force requires a non-Federal cost
share under subparagraph (A) shall be 65 percent, not to
exceed $5,000,000 for any critical restoration project.
(C) Non-federal share.--
(i) In general.--Not more than 50 percent of the non-
Federal share of the cost of carrying out a critical
restoration project described in subparagraph (B) may be
provided in the form of services, materials, or other in-kind
contributions.
(ii) Required non-federal contributions.--For any critical
restoration project described in subparagraph (B), the non-
Federal interest shall--
(I) provide all land, easements, rights-of-way, dredged
material disposal areas, and relocations;
(II) pay all operation, maintenance, replacement, repair,
and rehabilitation costs; and
(III) hold the United States harmless from all claims
arising from the construction, operation, and maintenance of
the project.
(iii) Credit.--The non-Federal interest shall receive
credit for all contributions provided under clause (ii)(I).
SEC. 706. 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 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 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 (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) Federal Liability for Damage.--Nothing in this title
relieves the Federal Government of liability for damage to
private property caused by the operation of the Pick-Sloan
program.
(c) Flood Control.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this title, the Secretary shall retain the authority to
operate the Pick-Sloan program for the purposes of
[[Page S9178]]
meeting the requirements of the Act of December 22, 1944 (58
Stat. 887, chapter 665; 33 U.S.C. 701-1 et seq.).
(d) Use of Funds.--Funds transferred to the Trust may be
used to pay the non-Federal share required under Federal
programs.
SEC. 707. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Initial Funding.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this title
$4,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2004, to
remain available until expended.
(b) Existing Programs.--The Secretary shall fund programs
authorized under the Pick-Sloan program in existence on the
date of enactment of this Act at levels that are not less
than funding levels for those programs as of that date.
TITLE VIII--WILDLIFE REFUGE ENHANCEMENT
SEC. 801. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Charles M. Russell
National Wildlife Refuge Enhancement Act of 2000''.
SEC. 802. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this title is to direct the Secretary, in
consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, to convey
cabin sites at Fort Peck Lake, Montana, and to acquire land
with greater wildlife and other public value for the Charles
M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, to--
(1) better achieve the wildlife conservation purposes for
which the Refuge was established;
(2) protect additional fish and wildlife habitat in and
adjacent to the Refuge;
(3) enhance public opportunities for hunting, fishing, and
other wildlife-dependent activities;
(4) improve management of the Refuge; and
(5) reduce Federal expenditures associated with the
administration of cabin site leases.
SEC. 803. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) Association.--The term ``Association'' means the Fort
Peck Lake Association.
(2) Cabin site.--
(A) In general.--The term ``cabin site'' means a parcel of
property within the Fort Peck, Hell Creek, Pines, or Rock
Creek Cabin areas that is--
(i) managed by the Army Corps of Engineers;
(ii) located in or near the eastern portion of Fort Peck
Lake, Montana; and
(iii) leased for individual use or occupancy.
(B) Inclusions.--The term ``cabin site'' includes all
right, title and interest of the United States in and to the
property, including--
(i) any permanent easement that is necessary to provide
vehicular access to the cabin site; and
(ii) the right to reconstruct, operate, and maintain an
easement described in clause (i).
(3) Cabin site area.--
(A) In general.--The term ``cabin site area'' means a
portion of the Fort Peck, Hell Creek, Pines, or Rock Creek
Cabin Areas referred to in paragraph (2) that is occupied by
1 or more cabin sites.
(B) Inclusion.--The term ``cabin site area'' includes such
immediately adjacent land, if any, as is needed for the cabin
site area to exist as a generally contiguous parcel of land,
as determined by the Secretary with the concurrence of the
Secretary of the Interior.
(4) Lessee.--The term ``lessee'' means a person that is
leasing a cabin site.
(5) Refuge.--The term ``Refuge'' means the Charles M.
Russell National Wildlife Refuge in Montana.
SEC. 804. CONVEYANCE OF CABIN SITES.
(a) In General.--
(1) Prohibition.--As soon as practicable after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall prohibit the
issuance of new cabin site leases within the Refuge, except
as is necessary to consolidate with, or substitute for, an
existing cabin lease site under paragraph (2).
(2) Determination; notice.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of enactment of this Act, and before proceeding with any
exchange under this title, the Secretary shall--
(A) with the concurrence of the Secretary of the Interior,
determine individual cabin sites that are not suitable for
conveyance to a lessee--
(i) because the sites are isolated so that conveyance of 1
or more of the sites would create an inholding that would
impair management of the Refuge; or
(ii) for any other reason that adversely impacts the future
habitability of the sites; and
(B) provide written notice to each lessee that specifies
any requirements concerning the form of a notice of interest
in acquiring a cabin site that the lessee may submit under
subsection (b)(1)(A) and the portion of administrative costs
that would be paid to the Secretary under section 808(b),
to--
(i) determine whether the lessee is interested in acquiring
the cabin site area of the lessee; and
(ii) inform each lessee of the rights of the lessee under
this title.
(3) Offer of comparable cabin site.--If the Secretary
determines that a cabin site is not suitable for conveyance
to a lessee under paragraph (2)(A), the Secretary, in
consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, shall offer
to the lessee the opportunity to acquire a comparable cabin
site within another cabin site area.
(b) Response.--
(1) Notice of interest.--
(A) In general.--Not later than July 1, 2003, a lessee
shall notify the Secretary in writing of an interest in
acquiring the cabin site of the lessee.
(B) Form.--The notice under this paragraph shall be
submitted in such form as is required by the Secretary under
subsection (a)(2)(B).
(2) Unpurchased cabin sites.--If the Secretary receives no
notice of interest or offer to purchase a cabin site from the
lessee under paragraph (1) or the lessee declines an
opportunity to purchase a comparable cabin site under
subsection (a)(3), the cabin site shall be subject to
sections 805 and 806.
(c) Process.--After providing notice to a lessee under
subsection (a)(2)(B), the Secretary shall--
(1) determine whether any small parcel of land contiguous
to any cabin site (not including shoreline or land needed to
provide public access to the shoreline of Fort Peck Lake)
should be conveyed as part of the cabin site to--
(A) protect water quality;
(B) eliminate an inholding; or
(C) facilitate administration of the land remaining in
Federal ownership;
(2) if the Secretary determines that a conveyance should be
completed under paragraph (1), provide notice of the intent
of the Secretary to complete the conveyance to the lessee of
each affected cabin site;
(3) survey each cabin site to determine the acreage and
legal description of the cabin site area, including land
identified under paragraph (1);
(4) take such actions as are necessary to ensure compliance
with all applicable environmental laws;
(5) with the concurrence of the Secretary of the Interior,
determine which covenants or deed restrictions, if any,
should be placed on a cabin site before conveyance out of
Federal ownership, including any covenant or deed restriction
that is required to comply with--
(A) the Act of May 18, 1938 (16 U.S.C. 833 et seq.);
(B) laws (including regulations) applicable to management
of the Refuge; and
(C) any other laws (including regulations) for which
compliance is necessary to--
(i) ensure the maintenance of existing and adequate public
access to and along Fort Peck Lake; and
(ii) limit future uses of a cabin site to--
(I) noncommercial, single-family use; and
(II) the type and intensity of use of the cabin site made
on the date of enactment of this Act, as limited by terms of
any lease applicable to the cabin site in effect on that
date; and
(6) conduct an appraisal of each cabin site (including any
expansion of the cabin site under paragraph (1)) that--
(A) is carried out in accordance with the Uniform Appraisal
Standards for Federal Land Acquisition;
(B) excludes the value of any private improvement to the
cabin sites; and
(C) takes into consideration any covenant or other
restriction determined to be necessary under paragraph (5)
and subsection (h).
(d) Consultation and Public Involvement.--The Secretary
shall--
(1) carry out subsections (b) and (c) in consultation
with--
(A) the Secretary of the Interior;
(B) affected lessees;
(C) affected counties in the State of Montana; and
(D) the Association; and
(2) hold public hearings, and provide all interested
parties with notice and an opportunity to comment, on the
activities carried out under this section.
(e) Conveyance.--Subject to subsections (h) and (i) and
section 808(b), the Secretary shall convey a cabin site by
individual patent or deed to the lessee under this title--
(1) if each cabin site complies with Federal, State, and
county septic and water quality laws (including regulations);
(2) if the lessee complies with other requirements of this
section; and
(3) after receipt of the payment for the cabin site from
the lessee in an amount equal to the appraised fair market
value of the cabin site as determined in accordance with
subsection (c)(6).
(f) Vehicular Access.--
(1) In general.--Nothing in this title authorizes any
addition to or improvement of vehicular access to a cabin
site.
(2) Construction.--The Secretary--
(A) shall not construct any road for the sole purpose of
providing access to land sold under this section; and
(B) shall be under no obligation to service or maintain any
existing road used primarily for access to that land (or to a
cabin site).
(3) Offer to convey.--The Secretary may offer to convey to
the State of Montana, any political subdivision of the State
of Montana, or the Association, any road determined by the
Secretary to primarily service the land sold under this
section.
(g) Utilities and Infrastructure.--
(1) In general.--The purchaser of a cabin site shall be
responsible for the acquisition of all utilities and
infrastructure necessary to support the cabin site.
(2) No federal assistance.--The Secretary shall not provide
any utilities or infrastructure to the cabin site.
(h) Covenants and Deed Restrictions.--
(1) In general.--Before conveying any cabin site under
subsection (e), the Secretary, in consultation with the
Secretary of the Interior, shall ensure that the title to the
cabin site includes such covenants and
[[Page S9179]]
deed restrictions as are determined, under subsection (c), to
be necessary to make binding on all subsequent purchasers of
the cabin site any other covenants or deed restrictions in
the title to the cabin site.
(2) Reservation of rights.--The Secretary may reserve the
perpetual right, power, privilege, and easement to
permanently overflow, flood, submerge, saturate, percolate,
or erode a cabin site (or any portion of a cabin site) that
the Secretary determines is necessary in the operation of the
Fort Peck Dam.
(i) No Conveyance of Unsuitable Cabin Sites.--A cabin site
that is determined to be unsuitable for conveyance under
subsection (a)(2) shall not be conveyed by the Secretary
under this section.
(j) Identification of Land for Exchange.--
(1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall
identify land that may be acquired that meets the purposes of
paragraphs (1) through (4) of section 802 and for which a
willing seller exists.
(2) Appraisal.--On a request by a willing seller, the
Secretary of the Interior shall appraise the land identified
under paragraph (1).
(3) Acquisition.--If the Secretary of the Interior
determines that the acquisition of the land would meet the
purposes of paragraphs (1) through (4) of section 802, the
Secretary of the Interior shall cooperate with the willing
seller to facilitate the acquisition of the property in
accordance with section 807.
(4) Public participation.--The Secretary of the Interior
shall hold public hearings, and provide all interested
parties with notice and an opportunity to comment, on the
activities carried out under this section.
SEC. 805. RIGHTS OF NONPARTICIPATING LESSEES.
(a) Continuation of Lease.--
(1) In general.--A lessee that does not provide the
Secretary with an offer to acquire the cabin site of the
lessee under section 804 (including a lessee who declines an
offer of a comparable cabin site under section 804(a)(3)) may
elect to continue to lease the cabin site for the remainder
of the current term of the lease, which, except as provided
in paragraph (2), shall not be renewed or otherwise extended.
(2) Expiration before 2010.--If the current term of a
lessee described in paragraph (1) expires or is scheduled to
expire before 2010, the Secretary shall offer to extend or
renew the lease through 2010.
(b) Improvements.--Any improvements and personal property
of the lessee that are not removed from the cabin site before
the termination of the lease shall be considered property of
the United States in accordance with the provisions of the
lease.
(c) Option To Purchase.--Subject to subsections (d) and (e)
and section 808(b), if at any time before termination of the
lease, a lessee described in subsection (a)(1)--
(1) notifies the Secretary of the intent of the lessee to
purchase the cabin site of the lessee; and
(2) pays for an updated appraisal of the site in accordance
with section 804(c)(6);
the Secretary shall convey the cabin site to the lessee, by
individual patent or deed, on receipt of payment for the site
from the lessee in an amount equal to the appraised fair
market value of the cabin site as determined by the updated
appraisal.
(d) Covenants and Deed Restrictions.--Before conveying any
cabin site under subsection (c), the Secretary, in
consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, shall ensure
that the title to the cabin site includes such covenants and
deed restrictions as are determined, under section 804(c), to
be necessary to make binding on all subsequent purchasers of
the cabin site any other covenants or deed restrictions in
the title to the cabin site.
(e) No Conveyance of Unsuitable Cabin Sites.--A cabin site
that is determined to be unsuitable for conveyance under
subsection 804(a)(2) shall not be conveyed by the Secretary
under this section.
(f) Report.--Not later than July 1, 2003, the Secretary
shall submit to Congress a report that--
(1) describes progress made in implementing this Act; and
(2) identifies cabin owners that have filed a notice of
interest under section 804(b) and have declined an
opportunity to acquire a comparable cabin site under section
804(a)(3).
SEC. 806. CONVEYANCE TO THIRD PARTIES.
(a) Conveyances to Third Parties.--As soon as practicable
after the expiration or surrender of a lease, the Secretary,
in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, may offer
for sale, by public auction, written invitation, or other
competitive sales procedure, and at the fair market value of
the cabin site determined under section 804(c)(6), any cabin
site that--
(1) is not conveyed to a lessee under this title; and
(2) has not been determined to be unsuitable for conveyance
under section 804(a)(2).
(b) Covenants and Deed Restrictions.--Before conveying any
cabin site under subsection (a), the Secretary shall ensure
that the title to the cabin site includes such covenants and
deed restrictions as are determined, under section 804(c), to
be necessary to make binding on all subsequent purchasers of
the cabin site any other covenants or deed restrictions
contained in the title to the cabin site.
(c) Conveyance to Association.--On the completion of all
individual conveyances of cabin sites under this title (or at
such prior time as the Secretary determines would be
practicable based on the location of property to be
conveyed), the Secretary shall convey to the Association all
land within the outer boundaries of cabin site areas that are
not conveyed to lessees under this title at fair market value
based on an appraisal carried out in accordance with the
Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisition.
SEC. 807. USE OF PROCEEDS.
(a) Proceeds.--All payments for the conveyance of cabin
sites under this title, except costs collected by the
Secretary under section 808(b), shall be deposited in a
special fund in the Treasury for use by the Secretary of the
Interior, acting through the Director of the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service and without further Act of
appropriation, solely for the acquisition from willing
sellers of property that--
(1) is within or adjacent to the Refuge;
(2) would be suitable to carry out the purposes of this Act
described in paragraphs (1) through (4) of section 802; and
(3) on acquisition by the Secretary of the Interior, would
be accessible to the general public for use in conducting
activities consistent with approved uses of the Refuge.
(b) Limitation.--To the maximum extent practicable,
acquisitions under this title shall be of land within the
Refuge boundary.
SEC. 808. ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.
(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the
Secretary shall pay all administrative costs incurred in
carrying out this title.
(b) Reimbursement.--As a condition of the conveyance of any
cabin site area under this title, the Secretary--
(1) may require the party to whom the property is conveyed
to reimburse the Secretary for a reasonable portion, as
determined by the Secretary, of the administrative costs
(including survey costs), incurred in carrying out this
title, with such portion to be described in the notice
provided to the Association and lessees under section
804(a)(2); and
(2) shall require the party to whom the property is
conveyed to reimburse the Association for a proportionate
share of the costs (including interest) incurred by the
Association in carrying out transactions under this Act.
SEC. 809. TERMINATION OF WILDLIFE DESIGNATION.
None of the land conveyed under this title shall be
designated, or shall remain designated as, part of the
National Wildlife Refuge System.
SEC. 810. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are
necessary to carry out this title.
TITLE IX--MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION
SEC. 901. SHORT TITLE.
This title shall be known as the ``Missouri River
Restoration Act of 2000''.
SEC. 902. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the Missouri River is--
(A) an invaluable economic, environmental, recreational,
and cultural resource to the people of the United States; and
(B) a critical source of water for drinking and irrigation;
(2) millions of people fish, hunt, and camp along the
Missouri River each year;
(3) thousands of sites of spiritual importance to Native
Americans line the shores of the Missouri River;
(4) the Missouri River provides critical wildlife habitat
for threatened and endangered species;
(5) in 1944, Congress approved the Pick-Sloan program--
(A) to promote the general economic development of the
United States;
(B) to provide for irrigation above Sioux City, Iowa;
(C) to protect urban and rural areas from devastating
floods of the Missouri River; and
(D) for other purposes;
(6) the Oahe, Big Bend, Fort Randall, and Gavins Point Dams
were constructed on the Missouri River in South Dakota under
the Pick-Sloan program;
(7) the dams referred to in paragraph (6)--
(A) generate low-cost electricity for millions of people in
the United States;
(B) provide revenue to the Treasury; and
(C) provide flood control that has prevented billions of
dollars of damage;
(8) the Oahe, Big Bend, Fort Randall, and Gavins Point Dams
have reduced the ability of the Missouri River to carry
sediment downstream, resulting in the accumulation of
sediment in the reservoirs known as Lake Oahe, Lake Sharpe,
Lake Francis Case, and Lewis and Clark Lake;
(9) the sediment depositions--
(A) cause shoreline flooding;
(B) destroy wildlife habitat;
(C) limit recreational opportunities;
(D) threaten the long-term ability of dams to provide
hydropower and flood control under the Pick-Sloan program;
(E) reduce water quality; and
(F) threaten intakes for drinking water and irrigation; and
(10) to meet the objectives established by Congress for the
Pick-Sloan program, it is necessary to establish a Missouri
River Restoration Program--
(A) to improve conservation;
(B) to reduce the deposition of sediment; and
[[Page S9180]]
(C) to take other steps necessary for proper management of
the Missouri River.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this title are--
(1) to reduce the siltation of the Missouri River in the
State of South Dakota;
(2) to meet the objectives of the Pick-Sloan program by
developing and implementing a long-term strategy--
(A) to improve conservation in the Missouri River
watershed;
(B) to protect recreation on the Missouri River from
sedimentation;
(C) to improve water quality in the Missouri River;
(D) to improve erosion control along the Missouri River;
and
(E) to protect Indian and non-Indian historical and
cultural sites along the Missouri River from erosion; and
(3) to meet the objectives described in paragraphs (1) and
(2) by developing and financing new programs in accordance
with the plan.
SEC. 903. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) Committee.--The term ``Committee'' means the Executive
Committee appointed under section 904(d).
(2) Pick-sloan program.--The term ``Pick-Sloan program''
means the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin Program authorized
by section 9 of the Act of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 891,
chapter 665).
(3) Plan.--The term ``plan'' means the plan for the use of
funds made available by this title that is required to be
prepared under section 905(e).
(4) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of South
Dakota.
(5) Task force.--The term ``Task Force'' means the Missouri
River Task Force established by section 905(a).
(6) Trust.--The term ``Trust'' means the Missouri River
Trust established by section 904(a).
SEC. 904. MISSOURI RIVER TRUST.
(a) Establishment.--There is established a committee to be
known as the Missouri River Trust.
(b) Membership.--The Trust shall be composed of 25 members
to be appointed by the Secretary, including--
(1) 15 members recommended by the Governor of South Dakota
that--
(A) represent equally the various interests of the public;
and
(B) include representatives of--
(i) the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural
Resources;
(ii) the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks;
(iii) environmental groups;
(iv) the hydroelectric power industry;
(v) local governments;
(vi) recreation user groups;
(vii) agricultural groups; and
(viii) other appropriate interests;
(2) 9 members, 1 of each of whom shall be recommended by
each of the 9 Indian tribes in the State of South Dakota; and
(3) 1 member recommended by the organization known as the
``Three Affiliated Tribes of North Dakota'' (composed of the
Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara tribes).
SEC. 905. MISSOURI RIVER TASK FORCE.
(a) Establishment.--There is established the Missouri River
Task Force.
(b) Membership.--The Task Force shall be composed of--
(1) the Secretary (or a designee), who shall serve as
Chairperson;
(2) the Secretary of Agriculture (or a designee);
(3) the Secretary of Energy (or a designee);
(4) the Secretary of the Interior (or a designee); and
(5) the Trust.
(c) Duties.--The Task Force shall--
(1) meet at least twice each year;
(2) vote on approval of the plan, with approval requiring
votes in favor of the plan by a majority of the members;
(3) review projects to meet the goals of the plan; and
(4) recommend to the Secretary critical projects for
implementation.
(d) Assessment.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date on
which funding authorized under this title becomes available,
the Secretary shall submit to the other members of the Task
Force a report on--
(A) the impact of the siltation of the Missouri River in
the State, including the impact on--
(i) the Federal, State, and regional economies;
(ii) recreation;
(iii) hydropower generation;
(iv) fish and wildlife; and
(v) flood control;
(B) the status of Indian and non-Indian historical and
cultural sites along the Missouri River;
(C) the extent of erosion along the Missouri River
(including tributaries of the Missouri River) in the State;
and
(D) other issues, as requested by the Task Force.
(2) Consultation.--In preparing the report under paragraph
(1), the Secretary shall consult with--
(A) the Secretary of Energy;
(B) the Secretary of the Interior;
(C) the Secretary of Agriculture;
(D) the State; and
(E) Indian tribes in the State.
(e) Plan for Use of Funds Made Available by This Title.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date on
which funding authorized under this title becomes available,
the Task Force shall prepare a plan for the use of funds made
available under this title.
(2) Contents of plan.--The plan shall provide for the
manner in which the Task Force shall develop and recommend
critical restoration projects to promote--
(A) conservation practices in the Missouri River watershed;
(B) the general control and removal of sediment from the
Missouri River;
(C) the protection of recreation on the Missouri River from
sedimentation;
(D) the protection of Indian and non-Indian historical and
cultural sites along the Missouri River from erosion;
(E) erosion control along the Missouri River; or
(F) any combination of the activities described in
subparagraphs (A) through (E).
(3) Plan review and revision.--
(A) In general.--The Task Force shall make a copy of the
plan available for public review and comment before the plan
becomes final, in accordance with procedures established by
the Task Force.
(B) Revision of plan.--
(i) In general.--The Task Force may, on an annual basis,
revise the plan.
(ii) Public review and comment.--In revising the plan, the
Task Force shall provide the public the opportunity to review
and comment on any proposed revision to the plan.
(f) Critical Restoration Projects.--
(1) In general.--After the plan is approved by the Task
Force under subsection (c)(2), the Secretary, in coordination
with the Task Force, shall identify critical restoration
projects to carry out the plan.
(2) Agreement.--The Secretary may carry out a critical
restoration project after entering into an agreement with an
appropriate non-Federal interest in accordance with--
(A) section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C.
1962d-5b); and
(B) this section.
(3) Indian projects.--To the maximum extent practicable,
the Secretary shall ensure that not less than 30 percent of
the funds made available for critical restoration projects
under this title shall be used exclusively for projects that
are--
(A) within the boundary of an Indian reservation; or
(B) administered by an Indian tribe.
(g) Cost Sharing.--
(1) Assessment.--
(A) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of
carrying out the assessment under subsection (d) shall be 75
percent.
(B) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the cost
of carrying out the assessment under subsection (d) may be
provided in the form of services, materials, or other in-kind
contributions.
(2) Plan.--
(A) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of
preparing the plan under subsection (e) shall be 75 percent.
(B) Non-federal share.--Not more than 50 percent of the
non-Federal share of the cost of preparing the plan under
subsection (e) may be provided in the form of services,
materials, or other in-kind contributions.
(3) Critical restoration projects.--
(A) In general.--A non-Federal cost share shall be required
to carry out any critical restoration project under
subsection (f) that does not primarily benefit the Federal
Government, as determined by the Task Force.
(B) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of
carrying out a critical restoration project under subsection
(f) for which the Task Force requires a non-Federal cost
share under subparagraph (A) shall be 65 percent, not to
exceed $5,000,000 for any critical restoration project.
(C) Non-federal share.--
(i) In general.--Not more than 50 percent of the non-
Federal share of the cost of carrying out a critical
restoration project described in subparagraph (B) may be
provided in the form of services, materials, or other in-kind
contributions.
(ii) Required non-federal contributions.--For any critical
restoration project described in subparagraph (B), the non-
Federal interest shall--
(I) provide all land, easements, rights-of-way, dredged
material disposal areas, and relocations;
(II) pay all operation, maintenance, replacement, repair,
and rehabilitation costs; and
(III) hold the United States harmless from all claims
arising from the construction, operation, and maintenance of
the project.
(iii) Credit.--The non-Federal interest shall receive
credit for all contributions provided under clause (ii)(I).
SEC. 906. 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 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 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
[[Page S9181]]
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 (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) Federal Liability for Damage.--Nothing in this title
relieves the Federal Government of liability for damage to
private property caused by the operation of the Pick-Sloan
program.
(c) Flood Control.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this title, the Secretary shall retain the authority to
operate the Pick-Sloan program for the purposes of meeting
the requirements of the Act of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat.
887, chapter 665; 33 U.S.C. 701-1 et seq.).
(d) Use of Funds.--Funds transferred to the Trust may be
used to pay the non-Federal share required under Federal
programs.
SEC. 907. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Initial Funding.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this title
$4,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2010, to
remain available until expended.
(b) Existing Programs.--The Secretary shall fund programs
authorized under the Pick-Sloan program in existence on the
date of enactment of this Act at levels that are not less
than funding levels for those programs as of that date.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask to reconsider the vote, and on
behalf of the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Smith, I move to table my
own motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. GORTON. Madam President, I regret I was unable to vote on
the final passage of the Water Resources Development Act, S. 2796. Had
I been present, I would have voted in favor of this legislation.
The bill contains authorizations for several important projects for
Washington State. I would like to thank the chairman of the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee. Senator Bob Smith, and the
chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Senator George Voinovich, for their assistance in addressing the water
resource needs of the Pacific Northwest. I'd like to highlight four
projects critical to my constituents.
The bill provides authorization for the Puget Sound Ecosystem
Restoration Project, an environmental restoration program designed to
improve habitat for four threatened anadromous fish species in the
Puget Sound basin. The Corps of Engineers, contingent on available
appropriations, will be authorized to spend $20 million in cooperation
with local governments, tribes, and restoration groups to make existing
Corps projects more salmon-friendly and enhance critical stream
habitat.
WRDA 2000 also includes an authorization for the Corps of Engineers
to study and construct an erosion control project for the Shoalwater
Bay Indian Tribe. The Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe, located on a 335-
acre reservation in southwest Washington, has experienced dramatic
erosion events for the past several winters. During the 1998-1999
winter storms alone, the tribe lost several hundred feet of shoreline.
These events have been particularly damaging to this small tribe of 245
people, most of whom depend on the tribe's shellfish resource along the
700 acres of tidelands.
Another provision will assist the communities along the Columbia,
Cowlitz, and Toutle rivers. During the early 1980s after the eruption
on Mount St. Helens on May 18, 1980, the Corps of Engineers engaged in
a series of emergency and congressionally authorized projects to stop
or control the flow of sediment from Mount St. Helens into the Toutle,
Cowlitz, and Columbia rivers. Since the major Northwest Washington
flood of 1996, which severely impacted the communities surrounding
these three rivers, the Corps of Engineers and county governments in
Southwest Washington have engaged in discussions over the level of
flood protection to be maintained for the Mount St. Helens Sediment
Control Project. The WRDA bill clarifies the Corps' responsibility to
maintain this project and provides certainty for the communities in the
future.
Finally, the bill includes authorization for the Corps to accept
funding from non-federal public entities to improve and enhance the
regulatory activities of the Corps of Engineers. Since the listing of
the four Puget Sound salmon species last year, the Seattle office of
the Corps of Engineers has been inundated with permits that requires
additional consultation order the Endangered Species Act.
Unfortunately, this additional responsibility requires additional staff
and resources to occur in a timely manner. At the beginning of this
year, the Seattle regulatory office had a backlog of 300 permit
applications. Today that backlog has grown to nearly 1,000. This
provision will provide the Corps the additional resources it needs to
comply with the Endangered Species Act.
Once again, I would like to thank the members of the Environment and
Public Works Committee for their assistance in providing authorization
for projects important to the residents of Washington state. I am
pleased the Senate passed this legislation today.
____________________