Congressional Record, Volume 146 Issue 132 (Thursday, October 19, 2000)

[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 132 (Thursday, October 19, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H10290-H10365]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 2796, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT
OF 2000

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 639 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 639

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the 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 for other purposes. The
bill shall be considered as read for amendment. The amendment
in the nature of a substitute printed in the Congressional
Record and numbered 2 pursuant to clause 8 of rule XVIII
shall be considered as adopted. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure; and (2) one
motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. If the Senate bill, as amended, is passed, then it
shall be in order to move that the House insist on its
amendment to S. 2796 and request a conference with the Senate
thereon.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Frost) pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
H. Res. 639 provides for consideration of S. 2796, better known as
the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. This closed rule waives
all points of order against consideration of the bill. It provides for
1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking member of the Committee on Transportation.
Further, the rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a
substitute printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 2 shall be
considered as adopted. The rule provides for one motion to recommit
with or without instructions.
Finally, the rule provides that, should the Senate bill, as amended,
pass the House, it then shall be in order to move that the House insist
on its amendment to S. 2796 and request a conference with the Senate.
I believe it is a very fair rule under the circumstances.
Mr. Speaker, as we know, the clock on the 106th Congress is running
out, and we do need to move quickly. In view of the strong bipartisan
support this bill enjoys and the constraints associated with the
calendar, I believe this is a very sensible way to proceed today and,
as I have said, extremely fair under the circumstances. I definitely
encourage my colleagues to support this rule so we can get on with this
very important legislation.
The WRDA bill is a critically important piece of environmental
legislation. Of particular note is that this year's WRDA bill contains
an initial authorization for a plan to restore the Florida Everglades,
unquestionably a unique national treasure of which we are very proud.
The Everglades Restoration Project represents the largest, most
comprehensive environmental restoration ever attempted.
Florida Governor Jeb Bush recently termed the Everglades restoration
effort ``perhaps the defining environmental issue of this new
century.'' Governor Bush is absolutely correct.
It should be noted that the State of Florida has already set aside
funds from its budget to meet its entire cost share of the restoration
effort for the next 10 years, an unprecedented step and an unmistakable
display of commitment. I am proud of the State of Florida for taking
that step.
The Everglades has always been a nonpartisan effort. Every Member of
the Florida delegation has been united in support of this treasure. Our
delegation has been especially well led on the Everglades issue by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the chairman of the Florida
delegation and the extremely capable man who has kept us in an
effective fighting team from Florida to bring attention to this.
The Clinton administration has also done quite an excellent job here
and deserves praise. I said this was a bipartisan effort. Even so, I
must say now that I have been somewhat disturbed at recent efforts to
drag the Everglades into presidential politics. It does not belong
there. I hope Vice President Gore will reverse course and recognize
what all of us do, that the Everglades is far too important to be
manipulated for short-term political gain.
Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, after months of negotiations, the
Senate crafted an initial authorization plan embodied in their version
of the WRDA bill. The Senate's plan was widely supported by all
stakeholders involved, quite a feat.
When the House began its work on its version of the WRDA bill, we
were cautioned not to tamper with the delicate balance of the Senate
Everglades proposal. While in the end, the Senate Transportation
Committee did make a number of changes to the Senate bill, changes
everyone enthusiastically supports and acknowledges improve on the
Senate product. So I am extremely grateful for the hard work and the
very responsible stewardship of the Everglades authorization by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) and his Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
Mr. Speaker, the challenge we have always faced is to put together a
restoration plan that will get it right, undoing years of neglect and
misunderstanding that have brought the Florida Everglades to the brink
of disaster. In my view, the Everglades provisions in the WRDA bill
will do just that, putting us now on solid footing for the next 10
years.
The Everglades is a national treasure, and the House action today to
implement a comprehensive plan to restore it is, indeed, historic, as
Governor Bush has said.
I hope all of my colleagues will support the water resources bill and
the restoration of the Everglades. Furthermore, I strongly urge support
of this rule so we can get on with this important debate.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this rule expedites moving the Senate bill S. 2796 to
conference and thus one step closer to being passed by the Congress and
sent to the President before the adjournment of the 106th Congress.
While this is a closed rule, it is supported by the majority of the
Democratic Members of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure; and for that reason, I will support it.
The rule provides that the text of an amendment in the nature of a
substitute to S. 2796, which was developed by the chairman and ranking
member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, shall be
considered as adopted. The substitute contains authorizations for
important water resources projects. It provides Army Corps of Engineers
policy and procedure reforms and the first increment of the important
comprehensive restoration of the Everglades plan, which I know is of
special importance to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss).
The rule also provides for 1 hour of general debate and for one
motion to recommit with or without instructions.
I should note, Mr. Speaker, this rule is not without controversy. The
Committee on Rules did not make in order several amendments offered by
other Members, including two offered by the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Sanford) and one by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Kind) and one by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer). While all
of these amendments may be worthy of consideration, I believe, given
the late hour of this Congress, these issues might best be left to the
next Congress so as to expedite the consideration of the important
projects contained in the substitute.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule and the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), who has participated
in every way in this arrangement for a number of years and is, indeed,
one of the leaders and champions of the Everglades.

[[Page H10291]]

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate certainly the leadership of the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), serving our west coast and working
so consistently on protecting our great natural treasure and national
treasure, the Everglades.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this bipartisan
legislation and urge all of my colleagues to support it. The
Everglades, as I just said, is a national treasure of benefit to the
entire country, and I applaud the leadership for scheduling this
important bill for consideration.
The legislation before us today represents a historic partnership
reached between all stakeholders in this debate. Agricultural
interests, the administration, utilities, environmentalists, the State
of Florida, our Native American Indian tribes came together in an
unprecedented show of cooperation to work out the agreement before us
today. It truly represents a balanced approach reached with equal input
from all these stakeholders in the public and one that we can all
support.
The Everglades ecosystem has been in steady decline over the past 50
years. In fact, back in the 1930s people ran for public office saying,
if you elect me governor, we will drain that swamp and make room for
development. How wrong they were, and how right we are to start anew to
correct the problems.
The population in south Florida has grown rapidly, and with the
growth come problems of water supply, flood control, and species and
habitat protection. This agreement will allow the Army Corps to help
provide for water needs of this population while protecting and
preserving the needs of the ecosystem.
Congress must pass this legislation this year. The Senate has acted.
It is now our turn in the House to send this bill speedily to the
President for signature.
The Water Resource Development Acts of 1992 and 1996 gave the Army
Corps of Engineers the authority to review the problems within the
Everglades and to recommend solutions from which evolve the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, or CERP. Those
recommendations form the basis for this legislation and will
incorporate a number of restoration projects already under way.
The legislation before us today calls for a series of water system
improvements over 30 years, the cost of which will be shared equally
between the Federal Government and the State of Florida.
We have today a great opportunity to save a national treasure,
protect the environment, and ensure water quality and safety for the
residents of Florida. I urge my colleagues to join together in this
historic opportunity and thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw),
thank former Governor Chiles, Governor Jeb Bush, Senator Connie Mack,
Senator Bob Graham, and all the Members of the Florida delegation who
have put aside partisanship at this rare and unique opportunity to join
together to commit the Federal Government in a partnership with the
State government in restoring the Everglades to the pristine wilderness
and wonderment that it is and hope at the end of the week that we will
all, again, join together at the White House for signature of this
very, very important environmental restoration effort.
Again, I want to single out the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), as
was mentioned by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss). He, as chairman
from the delegation, has remained persistent, vigilant to see that this
is accomplished.

{time} 1015

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding me
this time. While I am prepared to support the rule and the underlying
bill, I am disappointed that our proposed amendments were not ruled in
order. While more progress is possible on this bill, at this late date
in this session it may well be unrealistic, and there is, in fact, much
to celebrate.
The inclusion in the legislation of almost $8 billion to save the
Florida Everglades is symbolic of our changing attitudes towards water
resource management. It is also important to remember that we are
simply paying to undo our own bad decisions. This Congress told the
Corps of Engineers to drain the swamp in 1948, and drain it they did,
all too well, without comprehensive planning and environmental
assessment of its impact. We must do what we can to make sure that we
do not repeat those mistakes of the past.
Akin to the Everglades, the Columbia Slough, in my district, was cut
off from the Columbia River by a Corps project decades ago and today it
is stagnant and heavily polluted. This legislation directs the Corps to
work with the City of Portland to fix the problems associated with the
old Corps project. I am pleased that the bill incorporates my proposal
for $40 million in funding to protect and restore the lower Columbia
River and Tillamook estuaries, critical nurseries for endangered
salmon.
While there are some reform measures included in the bill, I would
hope that we can continue going further. I have enjoyed working with
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) on legislation which would
increase the Corps' transparency and accountability that would guaranty
more citizen participation and lead to a better balance between
economic and environmental considerations. This is an effort that I
will continue to pursue.
One particular area of Corps reform that I think we in this body need
to look at very carefully is the contentious beach nourishment program.
In too many cases, the program is washing taxpayer dollars out to sea
while actually hurting the environment. One simple change that we tried
to make in order would require communities with beaches to at least pay
full costs for any prospective Corps beach nourishment project if there
is no public access.
But the major reform of the Corps of Engineers is to be found on the
floor of this Congress. We need to be more careful of what we
authorize, what we require, and how all the complex pieces of our
waterways fit together. This bill can help start the process. I support
the rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the chairman of the Florida
delegation; and I would simply say that the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Shaw) has a very long history of careful and persistent work in dealing
with all parties interested in the Everglades, both as a Florida
resident, at the local government level, as a businessman and
interested citizen, in every way, shape, and form. For people who care
about the Everglades, it would be useful for them to give thanks to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time and for his kind remarks.
Mr. Speaker, this is an extraordinary time, and I think this is an
extraordinary moment. We are in now what is sometimes called the
``goofy season,'' the period of time when I think partisan politics
reaches its peak, and sometimes in not very constructive ways. But
today is an extraordinary day. And today we have bipartisan and true
leadership on display here in the House regarding this bill that we are
able to consider, a Water Resources Development Act containing historic
provisions to restore America's Everglades, which has always been
referred to as Florida's Everglades, but it is America's Everglades. We
all recognize the importance of this legacy, not only on the lands and
water but for the people who live in Florida and visit this national
treasure, and we want to make sure that it is there for all future
generations.
How we got to this point is what is so remarkable, and it is the
reason that we are bringing up a closed rule for debate as time grows
short in the waning days of this 106th Congress. Normally, the minority
party abhors closed rules. I know that, because I did in the 14 years
that I served in the Republican minority. But today we have a
bipartisan agreement on a bill and a process that helps us streamline
the consideration of this important landmark legislation.
Another passion of mine, besides the number of the intricacies of tax
and budget policy, has been the environment. In fact, I served on the
Committee on Public Works earlier in my House career. I have authored
several bills on the environment, but none makes me more proud to have
my

[[Page H10292]]

name on it than the comprehensive Everglades restoration bill. And
working with my colleagues in the Florida delegation, such as the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and I see the gentlewoman from
Florida (Mrs. Meek) on the other side of the aisle, who has been a
great crusader for the Everglades, we have seen all of the Florida
delegation gather together in support of this landmark legislation.
But our work is not over. We have little time left, but we have much
left to do. The tremendous effort that got us to this point of near
unanimous consensus is threatened by the clock. We must pass water
resources development legislation containing Everglades restoration
today. We need time to work out project differences with the Senate,
not only on the Everglades portion but on other portions of this bill.
In that regard, Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment both of
Florida's Senators, Senator Bob Graham and Senator Connie Mack, as well
as Senator Bob Smith, the chairman of the committee, for the wonderful
work that they have done in bringing this together; and I might also
say the administration, which was extraordinarily cooperative with all
in structuring this bill.
Organizations, from the environmental community, agricultural,
business, Native American tribes, both the Miccosukee and the
Seminoles, recreational users, the State, local and Federal
governments, all have had a hand in crafting the Everglades
legislation. And the delicate balance achieved in the other Chamber has
been enhanced by the work done here in this House. I must compliment
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and our chairman, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), for seeing that this comes
through and that this is done. As we know, there were some differences
early on; but they worked to get them straightened out and that has
brought us to where we are today.
This bill is the product of constant and consistent hours of
negotiation between the interested parties to reach a consensus on the
key points of this legislation. I am honored that those serving in the
other Chamber allowed me this rare opportunity to be a part of the
crafting of their bill prior to my introducing the companion bill in
this House, H.R. 5121. This helped us save precious time in arriving at
a compatible bill in the House and the Senate, and avoiding major
divisions in the few remaining days of this session. Now the House must
put this legislation to a vote so that we can resolve the remaining
differences in the other parts of the WRDA bill that the Senate has
already passed.
I also want to recognize the tremendous efforts of our previous
governor, Governor Childs, and of course our existing governor, Jeb
Bush, who has been so active in bringing this about. I was with him in
Fort Lauderdale yesterday, and that is all he wanted to talk about was
the status of this bill and where we are going.
So we are seeing a rare moment in the closing days of this Congress;
both great political parties coming together and doing the right thing.
I urge passage of this resolution and passage of the bill.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, but I
think that it is important for people to understand what is going on
here.
The leadership in the Republican Party has got us in a slow dance
here. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) has gone out and said that
he does not intend to negotiate with the President of the United States
about education or anything else. So today, a little later, we will
work on a continuing resolution. This continuing resolution takes us
until next Wednesday. That is 13 days before the election. Now, we
slowly waltz out of here with Everglades in our arms and everybody goes
home tonight sometime and goes to campaigning. And we will show up next
Wednesday, and we will have another continuing resolution for another
week so that we are here 6 days before the election.
Because the leadership of the Republican Party does not want to
negotiate with the President, these bills are going to be vetoed. We
are never going to see the Health and Human Services budget out here
because it has education at the center of it and the Republican Party
does not want to do anything about education. They do not want to deal
with the President because they know his proposal is right, and so we
are softly being slow danced out of here.
Now, some people may like that. They may think that they can go home
and, if they have got the Everglades in their arms they can get
reelected. They can say, well, I did this. But if we do not deal with
issues like the balanced budget amendments give-backs, that issue is
still there. Our hospitals are out there waiting to figure out what is
going to happen.
The President has said the bill that is on the table is going to be
vetoed because it is wrong and it is bad public policy. But the
Republican leadership does not care. If they did, they would bring it
out here, get the veto, then sit down and start negotiating. But they
do not want to do that. They want it as a campaign issue. The same is
true with education. They want to wait and sort of slow dance education
out of here and then say that they would have given us all this for
education, but the President would not do it.
So I would say that people today ought to vote ``no'' on the
continuing resolution.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just
to relieve any confusion there might be. This is actually the rule on
the WRDA bill. There will be an opportunity to talk about the
continuing resolution later. It is the normal routine business in the
House. And we will be doing 1-minutes later in the day for matters of
appropriate discussion under 1-minutes as well.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield
back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the
resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule, I call up the Senate
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 for other purposes, and ask for its unanimous
consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 639, the Senate
bill is considered as having been read for amendment.
The text of S. 2796 is 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 H10293]]

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.

[[Page H10294]]

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 H10295]]

(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 H10296]]

``(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 H10297]]

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 H10298]]

(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 H10299]]

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 H10300]]

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 H10301]]

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 H10302]]

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 H10303]]

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 H10304]]

(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 H10305]]

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 H10306]]

(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 H10307]]

(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 H10308]]

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 H10309]]

(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 H10310]]

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 H10311]]

``(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:

(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 H10312]]

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 H10313]]

(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 H10314]]

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 H10315]]

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.

[[Page H10316]]

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 H10317]]

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 H10318]]

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 H10319]]

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 H10320]]

(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.

(iii) Credit.--The non-Federal interest shall receive
credit for all contributions provided under clause (ii)(I).

SEC. 906. ADMINISTRATION.

[[Page H10321]]

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.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The amendment printed in the Congressional
Record and numbered 2 is considered adopted.
The text of S. 2796, as amended pursuant to House Resolution 639, is
as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

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.--

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definition of Secretary.

TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

Sec. 101. Project authorization.
Sec. 102. Small projects for flood damage reduction.
Sec. 103. Small project for bank stabilization.
Sec. 104. Small projects for navigation.
Sec. 105. Small project for improvement of the quality of the
environment.
Sec. 106. Small projects for aquatic ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 107. Small project for shoreline protection.
Sec. 108. Small project for snagging and sediment removal.
Sec. 109. Petaluma River, Petaluma, California.

TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 201. Cost sharing of certain flood damage reduction projects.
Sec. 202. Harbor cost sharing.
Sec. 203. Nonprofit entities.
Sec. 204. Rehabilitation of Federal flood control levees.
Sec. 205. Flood mitigation and riverine restoration program.
Sec. 206. Tribal partnership program.
Sec. 207. Native American reburial and transfer authority.
Sec. 208. Ability to pay.
Sec. 209. Interagency and international support authority.
Sec. 210. Property protection program.
Sec. 211. Engineering consulting services.
Sec. 212. Beach recreation.
Sec. 213. Performance of specialized or technical services.
Sec. 214. Design-build contracting.
Sec. 215. Independent review pilot program.
Sec. 216. Enhanced public participation.
Sec. 217. Monitoring.
Sec. 218. Reconnaissance studies.
Sec. 219. Fish and wildlife mitigation.
Sec. 220. Wetlands mitigation.
Sec. 221. Credit toward non-Federal share of navigation projects.
Sec. 222. Maximum program expenditures for small flood control
projects.
Sec. 223. Feasibility studies and planning, engineering, and design.
Sec. 224. Administrative costs of land conveyances.
Sec. 225. Dam safety.

TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS

Sec. 301. Nogales Wash and Tributaries, Nogales, Arizona.
Sec. 302. John Paul Hammerschmidt Visitor Center, Fort Smith, Arkansas.
Sec. 303. Greers Ferry Lake, Arkansas.
Sec. 304. Ten- and Fifteen-Mile Bayous, Arkansas.
Sec. 305. Cache Creek basin, California.
Sec. 306. Larkspur Ferry Channel, Larkspur, California.
Sec. 307. Norco Bluffs, Riverside County, California.
Sec. 308. Sacramento deep water ship channel, California.
Sec. 309. Sacramento River, Glenn-Colusa, California.
Sec. 310. Upper Guadalupe River, California.
Sec. 311. Brevard County, Florida.
Sec. 312. Fernandina Harbor, Florida.
Sec. 313. Tampa Harbor, Florida.
Sec. 314. East Saint Louis and vicinity, Illinois.
Sec. 315. Kaskaskia River, Kaskaskia, Illinois.
Sec. 316. Waukegan Harbor, Illinois.
Sec. 317. Cumberland, Kentucky.
Sec. 318. Lock and Dam 10, Kentucky River, Kentucky.
Sec. 319. Saint Joseph River, South Bend, Indiana.
Sec. 320. Mayfield Creek and tributaries, Kentucky.
Sec. 321. Amite River and tributaries, East Baton Rouge Parish,
Louisiana.
Sec. 322. Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Louisiana.
Sec. 323. Atchafalaya River, Bayous Chene, Boeuf, and Black Louisiana.
Sec. 324. Red River Waterway, Louisiana.
Sec. 325. Thomaston Harbor, Georges River, Maine.
Sec. 326. Breckenridge, Minnesota.
Sec. 327. Duluth Harbor, Minnesota.
Sec. 328. Little Falls, Minnesota.
Sec. 329. Poplar Island, Maryland.
Sec. 330. Green Brook Sub-Basin, Raritan River basin, New Jersey.
Sec. 331. New York Harbor and adjacent channels, Port Jersey, New
Jersey.
Sec. 332. Passaic River basin flood management, New Jersey.
Sec. 333. Times Beach nature preserve, Buffalo, New York.
Sec. 334. Garrison Dam, North Dakota.
Sec. 335. Duck Creek, Ohio.
Sec. 336. Astoria, Columbia River, Oregon.
Sec. 337. Nonconnah Creek, Tennessee and Mississippi.
Sec. 338. Bowie County levee, Texas.
Sec. 339. San Antonio Channel, San Antonio, Texas.
Sec. 340. Buchanan and Dickenson Counties, Virginia.
Sec. 341. Buchanan, Dickenson, and Russell Counties, Virginia.
Sec. 342. Sandbridge Beach, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Sec. 343. Wallops Island, Virginia.
Sec. 344. Columbia River, Washington.
Sec. 345. Mount St. Helens sediment control, Washington.
Sec. 346. Renton, Washington.
Sec. 347. Greenbrier Basin, West Virginia.
Sec. 348. Lower Mud River, Milton, West Virginia.
Sec. 349. Water quality projects.
Sec. 350. Project reauthorizations.
Sec. 351. Continuation of project authorizations.
Sec. 352. Declaration of nonnavigability for Lake Erie, New York.
Sec. 353. Project deauthorizations.
Sec. 354. Wyoming Valley, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 355. Rehoboth Beach and Dewey Beach, Delaware.

TITLE IV--STUDIES

Sec. 401. Studies of completed projects.
Sec. 402. Watershed and river basin assessments.
Sec. 403. Lower Mississippi River resource assessment.
Sec. 404. Upper Mississippi River basin sediment and nutrient study.
Sec. 405. Upper Mississippi River comprehensive plan.
Sec. 406. Ohio River System.
Sec. 407. Eastern Arkansas.
Sec. 408. Russell, Arkansas.
Sec. 409. Estudillo Canal, San Leandro, California.
Sec. 410. Laguna Creek, Fremont, California.
Sec. 411. Lake Merritt, Oakland, California.
Sec. 412. Lancaster, California.
Sec. 413. Napa County, California.
Sec. 414. Oceanside, California.
Sec. 415. Suisun Marsh, California.
Sec. 416. Lake Allatoona Watershed, Georgia.
Sec. 417. Chicago River, Chicago, Illinois.
Sec. 418. Chicago sanitary and ship canal system, Chicago, Illinois.
Sec. 419. Long Lake, Indiana.
Sec. 420. Brush and Rock Creeks, Mission Hills and Fairway, Kansas.
Sec. 421. Coastal areas of Louisiana.
Sec. 422. Iberia Port, Louisiana.
Sec. 423. Lake Pontchartrain seawall, Louisiana.
Sec. 424. Lower Atchafalaya basin, Louisiana.
Sec. 425. St. John the Baptist Parish, Louisiana.
Sec. 426. Las Vegas Valley, Nevada.
Sec. 427. Southwest Valley, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Sec. 428. Buffalo Harbor, Buffalo, New York.
Sec. 429. Hudson River, Manhattan, New York.
Sec. 430. Jamesville Reservoir, Onondaga County, New York.
Sec. 431. Steubenviille, Ohio.
Sec. 432. Grand Lake, Oklahoma.
Sec. 433. Columbia Slough, Oregon.
Sec. 434. Reedy River, Greenville, South Carolina.
Sec. 435. Germantown, Tennessee.
Sec. 436. Houston ship channel, Galveston, Texas.

[[Page H10322]]

Sec. 437. Park City, Utah.
Sec. 438. Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Sec. 439. Upper Des Plaines River and tributaries, Illinois and
Wisconsin.
Sec. 440. Delaware River watershed.

TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 501. Bridgeport, Alabama.
Sec. 502. Duck River, Cullman, Alabama.
Sec. 503. Seward, Alaska.
Sec. 504. Augusta and Devalls Bluff, Arkansas.
Sec. 505. Beaver Lake, Arkansas.
Sec. 506. McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River navigation system, Arkansas and
Oklahoma.
Sec. 507. Calfed Bay Delta program assistance, California.
Sec. 508. Clear Lake basin, California.
Sec. 509. Contra Costa Canal, Oakley and Knightsen, California.
Sec. 510. Huntington Beach, California.
Sec. 511. Mallard Slough, Pittsburg, California.
Sec. 512. Penn Mine, Calaveras County, California.
Sec. 513. Port of San Francisco, California.
Sec. 514. San Gabriel basin, California.
Sec. 515. Stockton, California.
Sec. 516. Port Everglades, Florida.
Sec. 517. Florida Keys water quality improvements.
Sec. 518. Ballard's Island, La Salle County, Illinois.
Sec. 519. Lake Michigan Diversion, Illinois.
Sec. 520. Koontz Lake, Indiana.
Sec. 521. Campbellsville Lake, Kentucky.
Sec. 522. West View Shores, Cecil County, Maryland.
Sec. 523. Conservation of fish and wildlife, Chesapeake Bay, Maryland
and Virginia.
Sec. 524. Muddy River, Brookline and Boston, Massachusetts.
Sec. 525. Soo Locks, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan.
Sec. 526. Duluth, Minnesota, alternative technology project.
Sec. 527. Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Sec. 528. St. Louis County, Minnesota.
Sec. 529. Wild Rice River, Minnesota.
Sec. 530. Coastal Mississippi wetlands restoration projects.
Sec. 531. Missouri River Valley improvements.
Sec. 532. New Madrid County, Missouri.
Sec. 533. Pemiscot County, Missouri.
Sec. 534. Las Vegas, Nevada.
Sec. 535. Newark, New Jersey.
Sec. 536. Urbanized peak flood management research, New Jersey.
Sec. 537. Black Rock Canal, Buffalo, New York.
Sec. 538. Hamburg, New York.
Sec. 539. Nepperhan River, Yonkers, New York.
Sec. 540. Rochester, New York.
Sec. 541. Upper Mohawk River basin, New York.
Sec. 542. Eastern North Carolina flood protection.
Sec. 543. Cuyahoga River, Ohio.
Sec. 544. Crowder Point, Crowder, Oklahoma.
Sec. 545. Oklahoma-tribal commission.
Sec. 546. Columbia River, Oregon and Washington.
Sec. 547. John Day Pool, Oregon and Washington.
Sec. 548. Lower Columbia River and Tillamook Bay estuary program,
Oregon and Washington.
Sec. 549. Skinner Butte Park, Eugene, Oregon.
Sec. 550. Willamette River basin, Oregon.
Sec. 551. Lackawanna River, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 552. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 553. Access improvements, Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 554. Upper Susquehanna River basin, Pennsylvania and New York.
Sec. 555. Chickamauga Lock, Chattanooga, Tennessee.
Sec. 556. Joe Pool Lake, Texas.
Sec. 557. Benson Beach, Fort Canby State Park, Washington.
Sec. 558. Puget Sound and adjacent waters restoration, Washington.
Sec. 559. Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe, Willapa Bay, Washington.
Sec. 560. Wynoochee Lake, Wynoochee River, Washington.
Sec. 561. Snohomish River, Washington.
Sec. 562. Bluestone, West Virginia.
Sec. 563. Lesage/Greenbottom Swamp, West Virginia.
Sec. 564. Tug Fork River, West Virginia.
Sec. 565. Virginia Point Riverfront Park, West Virginia.
Sec. 566. Southern West Virginia.
Sec. 567. Fox River system, Wisconsin.
Sec. 568. Surfside/Sunset and Newport Beach, California.
Sec. 569. Illinois River basin restoration.
Sec. 570. Great Lakes.
Sec. 571. Great Lakes remedial action plans and sediment remediation.
Sec. 572. Great Lakes dredging levels adjustment.
Sec. 573. Dredged material recyling.
Sec. 574. Watershed management, restoration, and development.
Sec. 575. Maintenance of navigation channels.
Sec. 576. Support of Army civil works program.
Sec. 577. National recreation reservation service.
Sec. 578. Hydrographic survey.
Sec. 579. Lakes program.
Sec. 580. Perchlorate.
Sec. 581. Abandoned and inactive noncoal mine restoration.
Sec. 582. Release of use restriction.
Sec. 583. Comprehensive environmental resources protection.
Sec. 584. Modification of authorizations for environmental projects.
Sec. 585. Land transfers.
Sec. 586. Bruce F. Vento Unit of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area
Wilderness, Minnesota.
Sec. 587. Waurika Lake, Oklahoma.
Sec. 588. Columbia River Treaty fishing access.
Sec. 589. Devils Lake, North Dakota.

TITLE VI--COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION

Sec. 601. Comprehensive Everglades restoration plan.
Sec. 602. Sense of Congress concerning Homestead Air Force Base.

TITLE VIII--MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION

Sec. 701. Definitions.
Sec. 702. Missouri River Trust.
Sec. 703. Missouri River Task Force.
Sec. 704. Administration.
Sec. 705. 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 AUTHORIZATION.

(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 hurricane and storm damage reduction, Barnegat
Inlet to Little Egg Inlet, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of
Engineers dated July 26, 2000, 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.
(2) Port of new york and new jersey, new york and new
jersey.--
(A) In general.--The project for navigation, Port of New
York and New Jersey, New York and New Jersey: Report of the
Chief of Engineers dated May 2, 2000, at a total cost of
$1,781,235,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$738,631,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$1,042,604,000.
(B) Credit.--The Secretary may provide the non-Federal
interests credit toward cash contributions required--
(i) before, during, and after construction for planning,
engineering and design, and construction management work that
is performed by the non-Federal interests and that the
Secretary determines is necessary to implement the project;
and
(ii) during and after construction for the costs of the
construction that the non-Federal interests carry out on
behalf of the Secretary and that the Secretary determines is
necessary to implement the project.
(b) Projects Subject to 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 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,
Unalska 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, flagstaff, arizona.--The project for flood
damage reduction, Rio de Flag, Flagstaff, 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 ecosystem 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 an estimated Federal cost of
$43,735,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$109,578,000.
(6) Murrietta creek, california.--The project for flood
damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, Murrietta Creek,
California, described as alternative 6, based on the District
Engineer's Murrietta Creek feasibility report and
environmental impact statement dated October 2000, at a total
cost of $89,850,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$57,735,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $32,115,000.
The locally preferred plan described as alternative 6 shall
be treated as a final favorable report of the Chief
Engineer's for purposes of this subsection.
(7) Santa barbara streams, lower mission creek,
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.
(8) Upper newport bay, california.--The project for
ecosystem restoration, Upper Newport Bay, California, at a
total cost of $32,475,000, with an estimated Federal cost of

[[Page H10323]]

$21,109,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $11,366,000.
(9) 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.
(10) Delaware coast from cape henlopen to fenwick island.--
The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction,
Delaware Coast from Cape Henlopen to Fenwick Island, 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.
(11) Port sutton, florida.--The project for navigation,
Port Sutton, Florida, 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.
(12) Barbers point harbor, hawaii.--The project for
navigation, Barbers Point Harbor, Hawaii, at a total cost of
$30,003,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $18,524,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $11,479,000.
(13) John myers lock and dam, indiana and kentucky.--The
project for navigation, John Myers Lock and Dam, 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.
(14) Greenup lock and dam, kentucky and ohio.--The project
for navigation, Greenup Lock and Dam, Kentucky and Ohio, at a
total cost of $175,000,000. 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) Ohio river mainstem, kentucky, illinois, indiana,
ohio, pennsylvania, and west virginia.--Projects for
ecosystem restoration, Ohio River Mainstem, Kentucky,
Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, 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.
(16) Monarch-chesterfield, missouri.--The project for flood
damage reduction, Monarch-Chesterfield, Missouri, 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.
(17) Antelope creek, lincoln, nebraska.--The project for
flood damage reduction, Antelope Creek, Lincoln, Nebraska, at
a total cost of $49,788,000, with an estimated Federal cost
of $24,894,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$24,894,000.
(18) Sand creek watershed, wahoo, nebraska.--The project
for ecosystem restoration and flood damage reduction, Sand
Creek watershed, Wahoo, Nebraska, at a total cost of
$29,212,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $17,586,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $11,626,000.
(19) Western sarpy and clear creek, nebraska.--The project
for flood damage reduction, Western Sarpy and Clear Creek,
Nebraska, at a total cost of $20,600,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $13,390,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $7,210,000.
(20) Raritan bay and sandy hook bay, cliffwood beach, new
jersey.--The project for hurricane and storm damage
reduction, Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, Cliffwood Beach,
New Jersey, at a total cost of $5,219,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $3,392,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $1,827,000.
(21) Raritan bay and sandy hook bay, port monmouth, new
jersey.--The project for hurricane and storm damage
reduction, 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.
(22) Dare county beaches, north carolina.--The project for
hurricane and storm damage reduction, Dare County beaches,
North Carolina, at a total cost of $69,518,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $49,846,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $19,672,000.
(23) Wolf river, tennessee.--The project for ecosystem
restoration, Wolf River, 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.
(24) Duwamish/green, washington.--The project for ecosystem
restoration, Duwamish/Green, Washington, at a total cost of
$115,879,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $75,322,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $40,557,000.
(25) Stillagumaish river basin, washington.--The project
for ecosystem restoration, Stillagumaish River basin,
Washington, at a total cost of $24,223,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $16,097,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $8,126,000.
(26) Jackson hole, wyoming.--The project for ecosystem
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.

SEC. 102. SMALL PROJECTS FOR FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION.

(a) In General.--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) Buffalo island, arkansas.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Buffalo Island, Arkansas.
(2) Anaverde creek, palmdale, california.--Project for
flood damage reduction, Anaverde Creek, Palmdale, California.
(3) Castaic creek, old road bridge, santa clarita,
california.--Project for flood damage reduction, Castaic
Creek, Old Road bridge, Santa Clarita, California.
(4) Santa clara river, old road bridge, santa clarita,
california.--Project for flood damage reduction, Santa Clara
River, Old Road bridge, Santa Clarita, California.
(5) Columbia levee, columbia, illinois.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Columbia Levee, Columbia, Illinois.
(6) East-west creek, riverton, illinois.--Project for flood
damage reduction, East-West Creek, Riverton, Illinois.
(7) Prairie du pont, illinois.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Prairie Du Pont, Illinois.
(8) Monroe county, illinois.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Monroe County, Illinois.
(9) Willow creek, meredosia, illinois.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Willow Creek, Meredosia, Illinois.
(10) Dykes branch channel, leawood, kansas.--Project for
flood damage reduction, Dykes Branch channel improvements,
Leawood, Kansas.
(11) Dykes branch tributaries, leawood, kansas.--Project
for flood damage reduction, Dykes Branch tributary
improvements, Leawood, Kansas.
(12) Kentucky river, frankfort, kentucky.--Project for
flood damage reduction, Kentucky River, Frankfort, Kentucky.
(13) Lakes maurepas and pontchartrain canals, st. john the
baptist parish, louisiana.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain Canals, St. John
the Baptist Parish, Louisiana.
(14) Pennsville township, salem county, new jersey.--The
project for flood damage reduction, Pennsville Township,
Salem County, New Jersey.
(15) Hempstead, new york.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Hempstead, New York.
(16) Highland brook, highland falls, new york.--Project for
flood damage reduction, Highland Brook, Highland Falls, New
York.
(17) Lafayette township, ohio.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Lafayette Township, Ohio.
(18) West lafayette, ohio.--Project for flood damage
reduction, West LaFayette, Ohio.
(19) Bear creek and tributaries, medford, oregon.--Project
for flood damage reduction, Bear Creek and tributaries,
Medford, Oregon.
(20) Delaware canal and brock creek, yardley borough,
pennsylvania.--Project for flood damage reduction, Delaware
Canal and Brock Creek, Yardley Borough, Pennsylvania.
(21) First creek, fountain city, knoxville, tennessee.--
Project for flood damage reduction, First Creek, Fountain
City, Knoxville, Tennessee.
(22) Mississippi river, ridgely, tennessee.--Project for
flood damage reduction, Mississippi River, Ridgely,
Tennessee.
(b) Magpie Creek, Sacramento County, California.--In
formulating the project for Magpie Creek, California,
authorized by section 102(a)(4) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 281) to be carried out
under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C.
701s), the Secretary shall consider benefits from the full
utilization of existing improvements at McClellan Air Force
Base that would result from the project after conversion of
the base to civilian use.

SEC. 103. SMALL PROJECTS FOR BANK STABILIZATION.

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) Maumee river, fort wayne, indiana.--Project for bank
stabilization, Maumee River, Fort Wayne, Indiana.
(2) Bayou sorrell, iberville parish, louisiana.--Project
for bank stabilization, Bayou Sorrell, Iberville Parish,
Louisiana.

SEC. 104. SMALL PROJECTS FOR NAVIGATION.

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) Whittier, alaska.--Project for navigation, Whittier,
Alaska.
(2) Cape coral, florida.--Project for navigation, Cape
Coral, Florida.
(3) East two lakes, tower, minnesota.--Project for
navigation, East Two Lakes, Tower, Minnesota.
(4) Erie basin marina, buffalo, new york.--Project for
navigation, Erie Basin marina, Buffalo, New York.
(5) Lake michigan, lakeshore state park, milwaukee,
wisconsin.--Project for navigation, Lake Michigan, Lakeshore
State Park, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
(6) Saxon harbor, francis, wisconsin.--Project for
navigation, Saxon Harbor, Francis, Wisconsin.

SEC. 105. SMALL PROJECT FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE QUALITY OF THE
ENVIRONMENT.

The Secretary shall conduct a study for a project for
improvement of the quality of the environment, Nahant Marsh,
Davenport, Iowa, and, if the Secretary determines that the
project is appropriate, may carry out the

[[Page H10324]]

project under section 1135(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a(a)).

SEC. 106. SMALL PROJECTS FOR AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.

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 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
(33 U.S.C. 2330):
(1) Arkansas river, pueblo, colorado.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Arkansas River, Pueblo, Colorado.
(2) Hayden diversion project, yampa river, colorado.--
Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Hayden Diversion
Project, Yampa River, Colorado.
(3) Little econlockhatchee river basin, florida.--Project
for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Little Econlockhatchee
River basin, Florida.
(4) Loxahatchee slough, palm beach county, florida.--
Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Loxahatchee
Slough, Palm Beach County, Florida.
(5) Stevenson creek estuary, florida.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Stevenson Creek estuary, Florida.
(6) Chouteau island, madison county, illinois.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Chouteau Island, Madison
County, Illinois.
(7) Saginaw bay, bay city, michigan.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Saginaw Bay, Bay City, Michigan.
(8) Rainwater basin, nebraska.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Rainwater Basin, Nebraska.
(9) Cazenovia lake, madison county, new york.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Cazenovia Lake, Madison
County, New York, including efforts to address aquatic
invasive plant species.
(10) Chenango lake, chenango county, new york.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Chenango Lake, Chenango
County, New York, including efforts to address aquatic
invasive plant species.
(11) Eagle lake, new york.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Eagle Lake, New York.
(12) Ossining, new york.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Ossining, New York.
(13) Saratoga lake, new york.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Saratoga Lake, New York.
(14) Schroon lake, new york.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Schroon Lake, New York.
(15) Middle cuyahoga river.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Middle Cuyahoga River, Kent, Ohio.
(16) Central amazon creek, eugene, oregon.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Central Amazon Creek, Eugene,
Oregon.
(17) Eugene millrace, eugene, oregon.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Eugene Millrace, Eugene, Oregon.
(18) Lone pine and lazy creeks, medford, oregon.--Project
for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Lone Pine and Lazy Creeks,
Medford, Oregon.
(19) Tullytown borough, pennsylvania.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Tullytown Borough, Pennsylvania.

SEC. 107. SMALL PROJECT FOR SHORELINE PROTECTION.

The Secretary shall conduct a study for a project for
shoreline protection, Hudson River, Dutchess County, New
York, and, if the Secretary determines that the project is
feasible, may carry out the project under section 3 of the
Act entitled ``An Act authorizing Federal participation in
the cost of protecting the shores of publicly owned
property'', approved August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426g; 60
Stat. 1056).

SEC. 108. SMALL PROJECT FOR SNAGGING AND SEDIMENT REMOVAL.

The Secretary shall conduct a study for a project for
clearing, snagging, and sediment removal, Sangamon River and
tributaries, Riverton, Illinois. If the Secretary determines
that the project is feasible, the Secretary may carry out the
project under section 2 of the Flood Control Act of August
28, 1937 (50 Stat. 177).

SEC. 109. PETALUMA RIVER, PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out the Petaluma
River project, at the city of Petaluma, Sonoma County,
California, to provide a 100-year level of flood protection
to the city in accordance with the detailed project report of
the San Francisco District Engineer, dated March 1995, at a
total cost of $32,227,000.
(b) Cost Sharing.--Cost sharing for the project shall be
determined in accordance with section 103(a) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(a)), as in
effect on October 11, 1996.
(c) Reimbursement.--The Secretary shall reimburse the non-
Federal sponsor for any project costs that the non-Federal
sponsor has incurred in excess of the non-Federal share of
project costs, regardless of the date such costs were
incurred.

TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

SEC. 201. COST SHARING OF CERTAIN FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION
PROJECTS.

Section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(33 U.S.C. 2213) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(n) Level of Flood Protection.--If the Secretary
determines that it is technically sound, environmentally
acceptable, and economically justified, to construct a flood
control project for an area using an alternative that will
afford a level of flood protection sufficient for the area
not to qualify as an area having special flood hazards for
the purposes of the national flood insurance program under
the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et
seq.), the Secretary, at the request of the non-Federal
interest, shall recommend the project using the alternative.
The non-Federal share of the cost of the project assigned to
providing the minimum amount of flood protection required for
the area not to qualify as an area having special flood
hazards shall be determined under subsections (a) and (b).''.

SEC. 202. HARBOR COST SHARING.

(a) In General.--Sections 101 and 214 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211 and 2241;
100 Stat. 4082-4084 and 4108-4109) are each amended by
striking ``45 feet'' each place it appears and inserting ``53
feet''.
(b) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply only to a project, or separable element of a
project, on which a contract for physical construction has
not been awarded before the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 203. NONPROFIT ENTITIES.

(a) 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), a non-
Federal sponsor for any project carried out under this
section may include a nonprofit entity, with the consent of
the affected local government.''.
(b) Project Modifications for Improvement of Environment.--
Section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(33 U.S.C. 2309a) is amended by redesignating subsection (e)
as subsection (f) and by inserting after subsection (d) the
following:
``(e) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221 of
the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), a non-
Federal sponsor for any project carried out under this
section may include a nonprofit entity, with the consent of
the affected local government.''.
(c) Lakes Program.--Section 602 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4148-4149) is amended by
redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e) and by
inserting after subsection (c) the following:
``(d) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221 of
the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), a non-
Federal sponsor for any project carried out under this
section may include a nonprofit entity, with the consent of
the affected local government.''.

SEC. 204. REHABILITATION OF FEDERAL FLOOD CONTROL LEVEES.

Section 110(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1990 (104 Stat. 4622) is amended by striking ``1992,'' and
all that follows through ``1996'' and inserting ``2001
through 2005''.

SEC. 205. FLOOD MITIGATION AND RIVERINE RESTORATION PROGRAM.

Section 212(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1999 (33 U.S.C. 2332(e)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (22);
(2) by striking the period at end of paragraph (23) and
inserting a semicolon;
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(24) Lester, St. Louis, East Savanna, and Floodwood
Rivers, Duluth, Minnesota;
``(25) Lower Hudson River and tributaries, New York;
``(26) Susquehanna River watershed, Bradford County,
Pennsylvania; and
``(27) Clear Creek, Harris, Galveston, and Brazoria
Counties, Texas.''.

SEC. 206. TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized, in
cooperation with Indian tribes and other Federal agencies, to
study and determine the feasibility of implementing water
resources development projects that will substantially
benefit Indian tribes, and are located primarily within
Indian country (as defined in section 1151 of title 18,
United States Code), or in proximity to an Alaska Native
village (as defined in, or established pursuant to, the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et
seq.)).
(b) Consultation and Coordination.--The Secretary shall
consult with the Secretary of the Interior on studies
conducted under this section.
(c) Credits.--For any study conducted under this section,
the Secretary may provide credit to the Indian tribe for
services, studies, supplies, and other in-kind consideration
where the Secretary determines that such services, studies,
supplies, and other in-kind consideration will facilitate
completion of the study. In no event shall such credit exceed
the Indian tribe's required share of the cost of the study.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2002 through 2006. Not more than
$1,000,000 appropriated to carry out this section for a
fiscal year may be used to substantially benefit any one
Indian tribe.
(e) Indian Tribe Defined.--In this section, the term
``Indian tribe'' means any tribe, band, nation, or other
organized group or community of Indians, including any Alaska

[[Page H10325]]

Native village, which is recognized as eligible for the
special programs and services provided by the United States
to Indians because of their status as Indians.

SEC. 207. NATIVE AMERICAN REBURIAL AND TRANSFER AUTHORITY.

(a) In General.--The Secretary, in consultation with
appropriate Indian tribes, may identify and set aside land at
civil works projects managed by the Secretary for use as a
cemetery for the remains of Native Americans that have been
discovered on project lands and that have been rightfully
claimed by a lineal descendant or Indian tribe in accordance
with applicable Federal law. The Secretary, in consultation
with and with the consent of the lineal descendant or Indian
tribe, may recover and rebury the remains at such cemetery at
Federal expense.
(b) Transfer Authority.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Secretary may transfer to an Indian
tribe land identified and set aside by the Secretary under
subsection (a) for use as a cemetery. The Secretary shall
retain any necessary rights-of-way, easements, or other
property interests that the Secretary determines necessary to
carry out the purpose of the project.
(c) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``Indian
tribe'' and ``Native American'' have the meaning such terms
have under section 2 of the Native American Graves Protection
and Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. 3001).

SEC. 208. ABILITY TO PAY.

SEC. 209. INTERAGENCY AND INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT AUTHORITY.

The first sentence of section 234(d) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2323a(d)) is amended to
read as follows: ``There is authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this section $250,000 per fiscal year for fiscal
years beginning after September 30, 2000.''.

SEC. 210. PROPERTY PROTECTION PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to implement a
program to reduce vandalism and destruction of property at
water resources development projects under the jurisdiction
of the Department of the Army. In carrying out the program,
the Secretary may provide rewards to individuals who provide
information or evidence leading to the arrest and prosecution
of individuals causing damage to Federal property, including
the payment of cash rewards.
(b) Report.--Not later than 4 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to
Congress a report on the results of the program.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $500,000 per
fiscal year for fiscal years beginning after September 30,
2000.

SEC. 211. ENGINEERING CONSULTING SERVICES.

In conducting a feasibility study for a water resources
project, the Secretary, to the maximum extent practicable,
should not employ a person for engineering and consulting
services if the same person is also employed by the non-
Federal interest for such services unless there is only 1
qualified and responsive bidder for such services.

SEC. 212. BEACH RECREATION.

(a) In General.--In studying the feasibility of and making
recommendations concerning potential beach restoration
projects, the Secretary may not implement any policy that has
the effect of disadvantaging any such project solely because
50 percent or more of its benefits are recreational in
nature.
(b) Procedures for Consideration and Reporting of
Benefits.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment
of this Act, the Secretary shall develop and implement
procedures to ensure that all of the benefits of a beach
restoration project, including those benefits attributable to
recreation, hurricane and storm damage reduction, and
environmental protection and restoration, are adequately
considered and displayed in reports for such projects.

SEC. 213. PERFORMANCE OF SPECIALIZED OR TECHNICAL SERVICES.

(a) In General.--Before entering into an agreement to
perform specialized or technical services for a State
(including the District of Columbia), a territory, or a local
government of a State or territory under section 6505 of
title 31, United States Code, the Secretary shall certify
that--
(1) the services requested are not reasonably and
expeditiously available through ordinary business channels;
and
(2) the Corps of Engineers is especially equipped to
perform such services.
(b) Supporting Materials.--The Secretary shall develop
materials supporting such certification under subsection (a).
(c) Annual Report to Congress.--
(1) In general.--Not later than December 31 of each
calendar year, the Secretary shall transmit 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 on the requests described in
subsection (a) that the Secretary received during such
calendar year.
(2) Contents.--With respect to each request, the report
transmitted under paragraph (1) shall include a copy of the
certification and supporting materials developed under this
section and information on each of the following:
(A) The scope of services requested.
(B) The status of the request.
(C) The estimated and final cost of the requested services.
(D) Each district and division office of the Corps of
Engineers that has supplied or will supply the requested
services.
(E) The number of personnel of the Corps of Engineers that
have performed or will perform any of the requested services.
(F) The status of any reimbursement.

SEC. 214. DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACTING.

(a) Pilot Program.--The Secretary may conduct a pilot
program consisting of not more than 5 projects to test the
design-build method of project delivery on various civil
engineering projects of the Corps of Engineers, including
levees, pumping plants, revetments, dikes, dredging, weirs,
dams, retaining walls, generation facilities, mattress
laying, recreation facilities, and other water resources
facilities.
(b) Design-Build Defined.--In this section, the term
``design-build'' means an agreement between the Federal
Government and a contractor that provides for both the design
and construction of a project by a single contract.
(c) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this section, the Secretary shall report on the
results of the pilot program.

SEC. 215. INDEPENDENT REVIEW PILOT PROGRAM.

Title IX of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(100 Stat. 4183 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``SEC. 952. INDEPENDENT REVIEW PILOT PROGRAM.

``(a) Projects Subject to Independent Review.--The
Secretary shall undertake a pilot program in fiscal years
2001 through 2003 to determine the practicality and efficacy
of having feasibility reports of the Corps of Engineers for
eligible projects reviewed by an independent panel of
experts. The pilot program shall be limited to the
establishment of panels for not to exceed 5 eligible
projects.
``(b) Establishment of Panels.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a panel of
experts for an eligible project under this section upon
identification of a preferred alternative in the development
of the feasibility report.
``(2) Membership.--A panel established under this section
shall be composed of not less than 5 and not more than 9
independent experts who represent a balance of areas of
expertise, including biologists, engineers, and economists.
``(3) Limitation on appointments.--The Secretary shall not
appoint an individual to serve on a panel of experts for a
project under this section if the individual has a financial
interest in the project or has with any organization a
professional relationship that the Secretary determines may
constitute a conflict of interest or the appearance of
impropriety.
``(4) Consultation.--The Secretary shall consult the
National Academy of Sciences in developing lists of
individuals to serve on panels of experts under this section.
``(5) Compensation.--An individual serving on a panel of
experts under this section may not be compensated but may
receive travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, in accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of
title 5, United States Code.
``(c) Duties of Panels.--A panel of experts established for
a project under this section shall--
``(1) review feasibility reports prepared for the project
after the identification of a preferred alternative;
``(2) receive written and oral comments of a technical
nature concerning the project from the public; and
``(3) transmit to the Secretary an evaluation containing
the panel's economic, engineering, and environmental analyses
of the project, including the panel's conclusions on the
feasibility report, with particular emphasis on areas of
public controversy.
``(d) Duration of Project Reviews.--A panel of experts
shall complete its review of a feasibility report for an
eligible project and transmit a report containing its
evaluation of the project to the Secretary not later than 180
days after the date of establishment of the panel.
``(e) Recommendations of Panel.--After receiving a timely
report on a project from a panel of experts under this
section, the Secretary shall--

[[Page H10326]]

``(1) consider any recommendations contained in the
evaluation;
``(2) make the evaluation available for public review; and
``(3) include a copy of the evaluation in any report
transmitted to Congress concerning the project.
``(f) Costs.--The cost of conducting a review of a project
under this section shall not exceed $250,000 and shall be a
Federal expense.
``(g) Report.--Not later than December 31, 2003, the
Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the results
of the pilot program together with the recommendations of the
Secretary regarding continuation, expansion, and modification
of the pilot program, including an assessment of the impact
that a peer review program would have on the overall cost and
length of project analyses and reviews associated with
feasibility reports and an assessment of the benefits of peer
review.
``(h) Eligible Project Defined.--In this section, the term
`eligible project' means--
``(1) a water resources project that has an estimated total
cost of more than $25,000,000, including mitigation costs;
and
``(2) a water resources project--
``(A) that has an estimated total cost of $25,000,000 or
less, including mitigation costs; and
``(B)(i) that the Secretary determines is subject to a
substantial degree of public controversy; or
``(ii) to which an affected State objects.''.

SEC. 216. ENHANCED PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.

(a) In General.--Section 905 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(e) Enhanced Public Participation.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish procedures
to enhance public participation in the development of each
feasibility study under subsection (a), including, if
appropriate, establishment of a stakeholder advisory group to
assist the Secretary with the development of the study.
``(2) Membership.--If the Secretary provides for the
establishment of a stakeholder advisory group under this
subsection, the membership of the advisory group shall
include balanced representation of social, economic, and
environmental interest groups, and such members shall serve
on a voluntary, uncompensated basis.
``(3) Limitation.--Procedures established under this
subsection shall not delay development of any feasibility
study under subsection (a).''.

SEC. 217. MONITORING.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a monitoring
program of the economic and environmental results of up to 5
eligible projects selected by the Secretary.
(b) Duration.--The monitoring of a project selected by the
Secretary under this section shall be for a period of not
less than 12 years beginning on the date of its selection.
(c) Reports.--The Secretary shall transmit to Congress
every 3 years a report on the performance of each project
selected under this section.
(d) Eligible Water Resources Project Defined.--In this
section, the term ``eligible project'' means a water
resources project, or separable element thereof--
(1) for which a contract for physical construction has not
been awarded before the date of enactment of this Act;
(2) that has a total cost of more than $25,000,000; and
(3)(A) that has as a benefit-to-cost ratio of less than 1.5
to 1; or
(B) that has significant environmental benefits or
significant environmental mitigation components.
(e) Costs.--The cost of conducting monitoring under this
section shall be a Federal expense.

SEC. 218. RECONNAISSANCE STUDIES.

Section 905(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282(b)) is amended--
(1) in the second sentence by inserting after
``environmental impacts'' the following: ``(including whether
a proposed project is likely to have environmental impacts
that cannot be successfully or cost-effectively mitigated)'';
and
(2) by inserting after the second sentence the following:
``The Secretary shall not recommend that a feasibility study
be conducted for a project based on a reconnaissance study if
the Secretary determines that the project is likely to have
environmental impacts that cannot be successfully or cost-
effectively mitigated.''.

SEC. 219. FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION.

(a) Design of Mitigation Projects.--Section 906(d) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(a))
is amended--
(1) by striking ``(1)'' and inserting ``(A)''; and
(2) by striking ``(2)'' and inserting ``(B)'';
(3) by striking ``(d) After the date'' and inserting the
following:
``(d) Mitigation Plans as Part of Project Proposals.--
``(1) In general.--After the date'';
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Design of mitigation projects.--The Secretary shall
design mitigation projects to reflect contemporary
understanding of the science of mitigating the adverse
environmental impacts of water resources projects.
``(3) Recommendation of projects.--The Secretary shall not
recommend a water resources project unless the Secretary
determines that the adverse impacts of the project on aquatic
resources and fish and wildlife can be cost-effectively and
successfully mitigated.''; and
(5) by aligning the remainder of the text of paragraph (1)
(as designated by paragraph (3) of this subsection) with
paragraph (2) (as added by paragraph (4) of this subsection).
(b) Concurrent Mitigation.--
(1) Investigation.--The Comptroller General shall conduct
an investigation of the effectiveness of the concurrent
mitigation requirements of section 906 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283). In conducting the
investigation, the Comptroller General shall determine
whether or not there are instances in which less than 50
percent of required mitigation is completed before initiation
of project construction and the number of such instances.
(2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall transmit
to Congress a report on the results of the investigation.

SEC. 220. WETLANDS MITIGATION.

In carrying out a water resources project that involves
wetlands mitigation and that has an impact that occurs within
the service area of a mitigation bank, the Secretary, to the
maximum extent practicable and where appropriate, shall give
preference to the use of the mitigation bank if the bank
contains sufficient available credits to offset the impact
and the bank is approved in accordance with the Federal
Guidance for the Establishment, Use and Operation of
Mitigation Banks (60 Fed. Reg. 58605 (November 28, 1995)) or
other applicable Federal law (including regulations).

SEC. 221. CREDIT TOWARD NON-FEDERAL SHARE OF NAVIGATION
PROJECTS.

The second sentence of section 101(a)(2) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211(a)(2)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``paragraph (3) and'' and inserting
``paragraph (3),''; and
(2) by striking ``paragraph (4)'' and inserting ``paragraph
(4), and the costs borne by the non-Federal interests in
providing additional capacity at dredged material disposal
areas, providing community access to the project (including
such disposal areas), and meeting applicable beautification
requirements''.

SEC. 222. MAXIMUM PROGRAM EXPENDITURES FOR SMALL FLOOD
CONTROL PROJECTS.

Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C.
701s) is amended by striking ``$40,000,000'' and inserting
``$50,000,000''.

SEC. 223. FEASIBILITY STUDIES AND PLANNING, ENGINEERING, AND
DESIGN.

Section 105(a)(1)(E) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2215(a)(1)(E)) is amended by striking
``Not more than \1/2\ of the'' and inserting ``The''.

SEC. 224. ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS OF LAND CONVEYANCES.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the administrative costs associated with the conveyance
of property to a non-Federal governmental or nonprofit entity
shall be limited to not more than 5 percent of the value of
the property to be conveyed to such entity if the Secretary
determines, based on the entity's ability to pay, that such
limitation is necessary to complete the conveyance. The
Federal cost associated with such limitation shall not exceed
$70,000 for any one conveyance.
(b) Specific Conveyance.--In carrying out subsection (a),
the Secretary shall give priority consideration to the
conveyance of 10 acres of Wister Lake project land to the
Summerfield Cemetery Association, Wister, Oklahoma,
authorized by section 563(f) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 359-360).
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $150,000 for
fiscal years 2001 through 2003.

SEC. 225. DAM SAFETY.

(a) Inventory and Assessment of Other Dams.--
(1) Inventory.--The Secretary shall establish an inventory
of dams constructed by and using funds made available through
the Works Progress Administration, the Works Projects
Administration, and the Civilian Conservation Corps.
(2) Assessment of rehabilitation needs.--In establishing
the inventory required under paragraph (1), the Secretary
shall also assess the condition of the dams on such inventory
and the need for rehabilitation or modification of the dams.
(b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 2 years after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit
to Congress a report containing the inventory and assessment
required by this section.
(c) Interim Actions.--
(1) In general.--If the Secretary determines that a dam
referred to in subsection (a) presents an imminent and
substantial risk to public safety, the Secretary is
authorized to carry out measures to prevent or mitigate
against such risk.
(2) Exclusion.--The assistance authorized under paragraph
(1) shall not be available to dams under the jurisdiction of
the Department of the Interior.
(3) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of
assistance provided under this subsection shall be 65 percent
of such cost.
(d) Coordination.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary shall coordinate with the appropriate State dam
safety officials and the Director of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency.

[[Page H10327]]

(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section a total of
$25,000,000 for fiscal years beginning after September 30,
1999, of which not more than $5,000,000 may be expended on
any one dam.

TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS

SEC. 301. NOGALES WASH AND TRIBUTARIES, NOGALES, ARIZONA.

The project for flood control, Nogales Wash and
Tributaries, Nogales, Arizona, authorized by section
101(a)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104
Stat. 4606), and modified by section 303 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3711), is
further modified to provide that the Federal share of the
costs associated with addressing flood control problems in
Nogales, Arizona, arising from floodwater flows originating
in Mexico shall be 100 percent.

SEC. 302. JOHN PAUL HAMMERSCHMIDT VISITOR CENTER, FORT SMITH,
ARKANSAS.

Section 103(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1992 (106 Stat. 4813) is amended--
(1) in the subsection heading by striking ``Lake'' and
inserting ``Visitor Center''; and
(2) in paragraph (1) by striking ``at the John Paul
Hammerschmidt Lake, Arkansas River, Arkansas'' and inserting
``on property provided by the city of Fort Smith, Arkansas,
in such city''.

SEC. 303. GREERS FERRY LAKE, ARKANSAS.

The project for flood control, Greers Ferry Lake, Arkansas,
authorized by the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing the
construction of certain public works on rivers and harbors
for flood control, and other purposes'', approved June 28,
1938 (52 Stat. 1218), is modified to authorize the Secretary
to construct water intake facilities for the benefit of
Lonoke and White Counties, Arkansas.

SEC. 304. TEN- AND FIFTEEN-MILE BAYOUS, ARKANSAS.

The project for flood control, Saint Francis River Basin,
Missouri and Arkansas, authorized by section 204 of the Flood
Control Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 172), is modified to expand the
boundaries of the project to include Ten- and Fifteen-Mile
Bayous near West Memphis, Arkansas. Notwithstanding section
103(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100
Stat. 4086), the flood control work at Ten- and Fifteen-Mile
Bayous shall not be considered separable elements of the
project.

SEC. 305. CACHE CREEK BASIN, CALIFORNIA.

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), is
modified to direct the Secretary to evaluate the impacts of
the new south levee of the Cache Creek settling basin on the
city of Woodland's storm drainage system and to mitigate such
impacts at Federal expense and a total cost of $2,800,000.

SEC. 306. LARKSPUR FERRY CHANNEL, LARKSPUR, CALIFORNIA.

The project for navigation, Larkspur Ferry Channel,
Larkspur, California, authorized by section 601(d) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4148), is
modified to direct the Secretary to prepare a limited
reevaluation report to determine whether maintenance of the
project is technically sound, environmentally acceptable, and
economically justified. If the Secretary determines that
maintenance of the project is technically sound,
environmentally acceptable, and economically justified, the
Secretary shall carry out the maintenance.

SEC. 307. NORCO BLUFFS, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

Section 101(b)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (110 Stat. 3667) is amended by striking ``$8,600,000''
and all that follows through ``$2,150,000'' and inserting
``$15,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $11,250,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,750,000''.

SEC. 308. SACRAMENTO DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CALIFORNIA.

The project for navigation, Sacramento Deep Water Ship
Channel, California, authorized by section 202(a) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4092), is
modified to authorize the Secretary to provide credit to the
non-Federal interest toward the non-Federal share of the cost
of the project for the value of dredged material from the
project that is purchased by public agencies or nonprofit
entities for environmental restoration or other beneficial
uses.

SEC. 309. SACRAMENTO RIVER, GLENN-COLUSA, CALIFORNIA.

The project for flood control, Sacramento River,
California, authorized by section 2 of the Act entitled ``An
Act to provide for the control of the floods of the
Mississippi River and of the Sacramento River, California,
and for other purposes'', approved March 1, 1917 (39 Stat.
949), and modified by section 102 of the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act, 1990 (103 Stat. 649), section
301(b)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110
Stat. 3110), title I of the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act, 1999 (112 Stat. 1841), and section 305 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 299),
is further modified to direct the Secretary to provide the
non-Federal interest a credit of up to $4,000,000 toward the
non-Federal share of the cost of the project for direct and
indirect costs incurred by the non-Federal interest in
carrying out activities (including the provision of lands,
easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and dredged material
disposal areas) associated with environmental compliance for
the project if the Secretary determines that the activities
are integral to the project. If any of such costs were
incurred by the non-Federal interests before execution of the
project cooperation agreement, the Secretary may reimburse
the non-Federal interest for such pre-agreement costs instead
of providing a credit for such pre-agreement costs to the
extent that the amount of the credit exceeds the remaining
non-Federal share of the cost of the project.

SEC. 310. UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER, CALIFORNIA.

The project for flood damage reduction and recreation,
Upper Guadalupe River, California, authorized by section
101(a)(9) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113
Stat. 275), is modified to provide that the non-Federal share
of the cost of the project shall be 50 percent, with an
estimated Federal cost and non-Federal cost of $70,164,000
each.

SEC. 311. BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA.

(a) Inclusion of Reach.--The project for shoreline
protection, Brevard County, Florida, authorized by section
101(b)(7) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110
Stat. 3667), is modified to provide that, notwithstanding
section 902 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986,
the Secretary may incorporate in the project any or all of
the 7.1-mile reach of the project that was deleted from the
south reach of the project, as described in paragraph (5) of
the Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated December 23,
1996, if the Secretary determines, in coordination with
appropriate local, State, and Federal agencies, that the
project as modified is technically sound, environmentally
acceptable, and economically justified.
(b) Clarification.--Section 310(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 301) is amended by
inserting ``shoreline associated with the'' after ``damage to
the''.

SEC. 312. FERNANDINA HARBOR, FLORIDA.

The project for navigation, Fernandina Harbor, Florida,
authorized by the first section of the Act entitled ``An Act
making appropriations for the construction, repair,
completion, and preservation of certain works on rivers and
harbors, and for other purposes'', approved June 14, 1880 (21
Stat. 186), is modified to authorize the Secretary to realign
the access channel in the vicinity of the Fernandina Beach
Municipal Marina 100 feet to the west. The cost of the
realignment, including acquisition of lands, easements,
rights-of-way, and dredged material disposal areas and
relocations, shall be a non-Federal expense.

SEC. 313. TAMPA HARBOR, FLORIDA.

The project for navigation, Tampa Harbor, Florida,
authorized by section 4 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of
September 22, 1922 (42 Stat. 1042), is modified to authorize
the Secretary to deepen and widen the Alafia Channel in
accordance with the plans described in the Draft Feasibility
Report, Alafia River, Tampa Harbor, Florida, dated May 2000,
at a total cost of $61,592,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $39,621,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$21,971,000.

SEC. 314. EAST SAINT LOUIS AND VICINITY, ILLINOIS.

The project for flood protection, East Saint Louis and
vicinity, Illinois (East Side levee and sanitary district),
authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1965
(79 Stat. 1082), is modified to include ecosystem restoration
as a project purpose.

SEC. 315. KASKASKIA RIVER, KASKASKIA, ILLINOIS.

The project for navigation, Kaskaskia River, Kaskaskia,
Illinois, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor
Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1175), is modified to include
recreation as a project purpose.

SEC. 316. WAUKEGAN HARBOR, ILLINOIS.

The project for navigation, Waukegan Harbor, Illinois,
authorized by the first section of the Act entitled ``An Act
making appropriations for the construction, repair,
completion, and preservation of certain works on rivers and
harbors, and for other purposes'', approved June 14, 1880 (21
Stat. 192), is modified to authorize the Secretary to extend
the upstream limit of the project 275 feet to the north at a
width of 375 feet if the Secretary determines that the
extension is feasible.

SEC. 317. CUMBERLAND, KENTUCKY.

Using continuing contracts, the Secretary shall initiate
construction of the flood control project, Cumberland,
Kentucky, authorized by section 202(a) of the Energy and
Water Development Appropriations Act, 1981 (94 Stat. 1339),
in accordance with option 4 contained in the draft detailed
project report of the Nashville District, dated September
1998, to provide flood protection from the 100-year frequency
flood event and to share all costs in accordance with section
103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
2213).

SEC. 318. LOCK AND DAM 10, KENTUCKY RIVER, KENTUCKY.

(a) In General.--The Secretary may take all necessary
measures to further stabilize and renovate Lock and Dam 10 at
Boonesborough, Kentucky, with the purpose of extending the
design life of the structure by an additional 50 years, at a
total cost of $24,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$12,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $12,000,000.
(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the term
``stabilize and renovate'' includes the following activities:
stabilization

[[Page H10328]]

of the main dam, auxiliary dam and lock; renovation of all
operational aspects of the lock; and elevation of the main
and auxiliary dams.

SEC. 319. SAINT JOSEPH RIVER, SOUTH BEND, INDIANA.

Section 321(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1999 (113 Stat. 303) is amended--
(1) in the subsection heading by striking ``Total'' and
inserting ``Federal''; and
(2) by striking ``total'' and inserting ``Federal''.

SEC. 320. MAYFIELD CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, KENTUCKY.

The project for flood control, Mayfield Creek and
tributaries, Kentucky, carried out under section 205 of the
Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), is modified to
provide that the non-Federal interest shall not be required
to pay the unpaid balance, including interest, of the non-
Federal share of the cost of the project.

SEC. 321. AMITE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, EAST BATON ROUGE
PARISH, LOUISIANA.

The project for flood damage reduction and recreation,
Amite River and Tributaries, East Baton Rouge Parish,
Louisiana, authorized by section 101(a)(21) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 277), is
modified to provide that cost sharing for the project shall
be determined in accordance with section 103(a) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213), as in
effect on October 11, 1996.

SEC. 322. ATCHAFALAYA BASIN FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LOUISIANA.

The Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System project, authorized
by section 601 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(100 Stat. 4142), is modified to authorize the Secretary to
construct the visitor center and other recreational features
identified in the 1982 project feasibility report of the
Corps of Engineers at or near the Lake End Park in Morgan
City, Louisiana.

SEC. 323. ATCHAFALAYA RIVER, BAYOUS CHENE, BOEUF, AND BLACK,
LOUISIANA.

The project for navigation Atchafalaya River and Bayous
Chene, Boeuf, and Black, Louisiana, authorized by section 101
of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 731), is
modified to direct the Secretary to investigate the problems
associated with the mixture of freshwater, saltwater, and
fine river silt in the channel and to develop and carry out a
solution to the problem if the Secretary determines that the
work is technically sound, environmentally acceptable, and
economically justified.

SEC. 324. RED RIVER WATERWAY, LOUISIANA.

The project for mitigation of fish and wildlife loses, 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 Secretary to purchase mitigation lands in any of the 7
parishes that make up the Red River Waterway District,
including the parishes of Caddo, Bossier, Red River,
Natchitoches, Grant, Rapides, and Avoyelles.

SEC. 325. THOMASTON HARBOR, GEORGES RIVER, MAINE.

The project for navigation, Georges River, Maine (Thomaston
Harbor), authorized by the first section of the Act entitled
``An Act making appropriations for the construction, repair,
and preservation of certain public works on rivers and
harbors, and for other purposes'', approved June 3, 1896 (29
Stat. 215), is modified to redesignate the following portion
of the project as an anchorage area: The portion lying
northwesterly of a line commencing at point N86,946.770,
E321,303.830 thence running northeasterly about 203.67 feet
to a point N86,994.750, E321,501.770.

SEC. 326. BRECKENRIDGE, MINNESOTA.

(a) Maximum Federal Expenditure.--The maximum amount of
Federal funds that may be expended for the project for flood
control, Breckenridge, Minnesota, carried out under section
205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), shall
be $10,500,000.
(b) Revision of Project Cooperation Agreement.--The
Secretary shall revise the project cooperation agreement for
the project described in subsection (a) to take into account
the change in the Federal participation in the project in
accordance with this section.

SEC. 327. DULUTH HARBOR, MINNESOTA.

The project for navigation, Duluth Harbor, Minnesota,
carried out under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of
1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), is modified to include the relocation
of Scenic Highway 61, including any required bridge
construction.

SEC. 328. LITTLE FALLS, MINNESOTA.

The project for clearing, snagging, and sediment removal,
East Bank of the Mississippi River, Little Falls, Minnesota,
authorized under section 3 of the Act entitled ``An Act
authorizing the construction, repair, and preservation of
certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other
purposes'', approved March 2, 1945 (33 U.S.C. 603a), is
modified to direct the Secretary to construct the project
substantially in accordance with the plans contained in the
feasibility report of the District Engineer, dated June 2000.

SEC. 329. POPLAR ISLAND, MARYLAND.

(a) In General.--The project for beneficial use of dredged
material at Poplar Island, Maryland, authorized by section
537 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat.
3776), is modified to authorize the Secretary to provide the
non-Federal interest credit toward cash contributions
required--
(1) before and during construction of the project, for the
costs of planning, engineering, and design and for
construction management work that is performed by the non-
Federal interest and that the Secretary determines is
necessary to implement the project; and
(2) during construction of the project, for the costs of
the construction that the non-Federal interest carries out on
behalf of the Secretary and that the Secretary determines is
necessary to carry out the project.
(b) Reduction.--The private sector performance goals for
engineering work of the Baltimore District of the Corps of
Engineers shall be reduced by the amount of the credit under
paragraph (1).

SEC. 330. GREEN BROOK SUB-BASIN, RARITAN RIVER BASIN, NEW
JERSEY.

The project for flood control, Green Brook Sub-Basin,
Raritan River Basin, New Jersey, authorized by section 401(a)
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat.
4119), is modified to direct the Secretary to prepare a
limited reevaluation report to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a nonstructural flood damage reduction project
at the Green Brook Sub-Basin. If the Secretary determines
that the nonstructural project is feasible, the Secretary may
carry out the nonstructural project.

SEC. 331. NEW YORK HARBOR AND ADJACENT CHANNELS, PORT JERSEY,
NEW JERSEY.

The project for navigation, New York Harbor and adjacent
channels, Port Jersey, New Jersey, authorized by section
202(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100
Stat. 4098) and modified by section 337 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 306-307), is
further modified to authorize the Secretary to provide the
non-Federal interests credit toward cash contributions
required--
(1) before, during, and after construction for planning,
engineering and design, and construction management work that
is performed by the non-Federal interests and that the
Secretary determines is necessary to implement the project;
and
(2) during and after construction for the costs of
construction that the non-Federal interests carry out on
behalf of the Secretary and that the Secretary determines is
necessary to implement the project.

SEC. 332. PASSAIC RIVER BASIN FLOOD MANAGEMENT, NEW JERSEY.

(a) Reevaluation of Floodway Study.--The Secretary shall
review the Passaic River Floodway Buyout Study, dated October
1995, conducted as part of the project for flood control,
Passaic River Main Stem, New Jersey and New York, authorized
by section 101(a)(18) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1990 (104 Stat. 4607-4610), 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)).
(b) 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, conducted as part of the
Passaic River Main Stem project 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) Preservation of Natural Storage Areas.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall reevaluate the
acquisition of wetlands in the Central Passaic River Basin
for flood protection purposes 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
cost-effective, the Secretary shall purchase the wetlands,
with the goal of purchasing not more than 8,200 acres.
(d) 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.
(e) 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 concerning reevaluation of
the Passaic River Main Stem project.
(2) Membership.--The task force shall be composed of 22
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 20 members to the task force, as
follows:
(i) 2 representatives of the New Jersey legislature who are
members of different political parties.

[[Page H10329]]

(ii) 3 representatives 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.
(f) Acquisition of Lands in the Floodway.--Section 1148 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4254;
110 Stat. 3718-3719), 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.''.
(g) 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).
(h) 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 Main Stem project.

SEC. 333. TIMES BEACH NATURE PRESERVE, BUFFALO, NEW YORK.

The project for improving the quality of the environment,
Times Beach Nature Preserve, Buffalo, New York, carried out
under section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a), is modified to include recreation as
a project purpose.

SEC. 334. GARRISON DAM, NORTH DAKOTA.

The Garrison Dam, North Dakota, feature of the project for
flood control, Missouri River Basin, authorized by section
9(a) of the Flood Control Act of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat.
891), is modified to direct the Secretary to mitigate damage
to the water transmission line for Williston, North Dakota,
at Federal expense and a total cost of $3,900,000.

SEC. 335. DUCK CREEK, OHIO.

The project for flood control, Duck Creek, Ohio, authorized
by section 101(a)(24) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1996 (110 Stat. 3665), is modified to authorize the
Secretary carry out the project at a total cost of
$36,323,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $27,242,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $9,081,000.

SEC. 336. ASTORIA, OREGON.

The project for navigation, Columbia River, Astoria,
Oregon, authorized by the first section of the Act entitled
``An Act authorizing the construction, repair, and
preservation of certain public works on rivers and harbors,
and for other purposes'', approved July 24, 1946 (60 Stat.
637), is modified to provide that the Federal share of the
cost of relocating causeway and mooring facilities located at
the Astoria East Boat Basin shall be 100 percent but shall
not exceed $500,000.

SEC. 337. NONCONNAH CREEK, TENNESSEE AND MISSISSIPPI.

The project for flood control, Nonconnah Creek, Tennessee
and Mississippi, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4124), is
modified to authorize the Secretary, if the Secretary
determines that it is feasible--
(1) to extend the area protected by the flood control
element of the project upstream approximately 5 miles to
Reynolds Road; and
(2) to extend the hiking and biking trails of the
recreational element of the project from 8.8 to 27 miles.

SEC. 338. BOWIE COUNTY LEVEE, TEXAS.

The project for flood control, Red River below Denison Dam,
Texas and Oklahoma, authorized by section 10 of the Flood
Control Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 647), is modified to direct the
Secretary to implement the Bowie County levee feature of the
project in accordance with the plan described as Alternative
B in the draft document entitled ``Bowie County Local Flood
Protection, Red River, Texas Project Design Memorandum No. 1,
Bowie County Levee'', dated April 1997. In evaluating and
implementing the modification, the Secretary shall allow the
non-Federal interest to participate in the financing of the
project in accordance with section 903(c) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184) to the
extent that the Secretary's evaluation of the modification
indicates that applying such section is necessary to
implement the modification.

SEC. 339. SAN ANTONIO CHANNEL, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS.

The project for flood control, San Antonio channel, Texas,
authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1954
(68 Stat. 1259) as part of the comprehensive plan for flood
protection on the Guadalupe and San Antonio Rivers in Texas,
and modified by section 103 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2921), is further modified
to include environmental restoration and recreation as
project purposes.

SEC. 340. BUCHANAN AND DICKENSON COUNTIES, VIRGINIA.

The project for flood control, Levisa and Tug Forks of the
Big Sandy River and Upper Cumberland River, authorized by
section 202 of the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act, 1981 (94 Stat. 1339), and modified by
section 352 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
(110 Stat. 3724-3725), is further modified to direct the
Secretary to determine the ability of Buchanan and Dickenson
Counties, Virginia, to pay the non-Federal share of the cost
of the project based solely on the criteria specified in
section 103(m)(3)(A)(i) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)(3)(A)(i)).

SEC. 341. BUCHANAN, DICKENSON, AND RUSSELL COUNTIES,
VIRGINIA.

At the request of the John Flannagan Water Authority,
Dickenson County, Virginia, the Secretary may reallocate,
under section 322 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1990 (104 Stat. 4643-4644), water supply storage space in the
John Flannagan Reservoir, Dickenson County, Virginia,
sufficient to yield water withdrawals in amounts not to
exceed 3,000,000 gallons per day in order to provide water
for the communities in Buchanan, Dickenson, and Russell
Counties, Virginia, notwithstanding the limitation in section
322(b) of such Act.

SEC. 342. SANDBRIDGE BEACH, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA.

The project for beach erosion control and hurricane
protection, Sandbridge Beach, Virginia Beach, Virginia,
authorized by section 101(22) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4804), is modified to
direct the Secretary to provide 50 years of periodic beach
nourishment beginning on the date on which construction of
the project was initiated in 1998.

SEC. 343. WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA.

Section 567(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1999 (113 Stat. 367) is amended by striking ``$8,000,000''
and inserting ``$20,000,000''.

SEC. 344. COLUMBIA RIVER, WASHINGTON.

(a) In General.--The project for navigation, Columbia
River, Washington, authorized by the first section of the Act
entitled ``An Act making appropriations for the construction,
repair, and preservation of certain public works on rivers
and harbors, and for other purposes'', approved June 13, 1902
(32 Stat. 369), is modified to direct the Secretary, in the
operation and maintenance of the project, to mitigate damages
to the shoreline of Puget Island, at a total cost of
$1,000,000.
(b) Allocation.--The cost of the mitigation shall be
allocated as an operation and maintenance cost of the Federal
navigation project.

SEC. 345. MOUNT ST. HELENS, WASHINGTON.

The project for sediment control, Mount St. Helens,
Washington, authorized by chapter IV of title I of the
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1985 (99 Stat. 318-319), is
modified to authorize the Secretary to provide such cost-
effective, environmentally acceptable measures as are
necessary to maintain the flood protection levels for
Longview, Kelso, Lexington, and Castle Rock on the Cowlitz
River, Washington, identified in the October 1985 report of
the Chief of Engineers entitled ``Mount St. Helens,
Washington, Decision Document (Toutle, Cowlitz, and Columbia
Rivers)'', printed as House Document number 99-135.

SEC. 346. RENTON, WASHINGTON.

(a) Maximum Federal Expenditure.--The maximum amount of
Federal funds that may be expended for the project for flood
control, Renton, Washington, carried out under section 205 of
the Flood Control Act of 1948, shall be $5,300,000.
(b) Revision of Project Cooperation Agreement.--The
Secretary shall revise the project cooperation agreement for
the project described in subsection (a) to take into account
the change in the Federal participation in the project in
accordance with this section.
(c) Reimbursement.--The Secretary may reimburse the non-
Federal interest for the project described in subsection (a)
for costs incurred to mitigate overdredging.

SEC. 347. GREENBRIER BASIN, WEST VIRGINIA.

Section 579(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (110 Stat. 3790) is amended by striking ``$12,000,000''
and inserting ``$73,000,000''.

SEC. 348. LOWER MUD RIVER, MILTON, WEST VIRGINIA.

The project for flood damage reduction, Lower Mud River,
Milton, West Virginia, authorized by section 580 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat.

[[Page H10330]]

3790), is modified to direct the Secretary to carry out the
project substantially in accordance with the plans, and
subject to the conditions, described in the watershed plan
prepared by the Natural Resources Conservation Service for
the project, dated 1992.

SEC. 349. WATER QUALITY PROJECTS.

Section 307(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1992 (106 Stat. 4841) is amended by striking ``Jefferson and
Orleans Parishes'' and inserting ``Jefferson, Orleans, and
St. Tammany Parishes''.

SEC. 350. PROJECT REAUTHORIZATIONS.

(a) In General.--Each of the following projects may be
carried out by the Secretary, and no construction on any such
project may be initiated until the Secretary determines that
the project is technically sound, environmentally acceptable,
and economically justified, as appropriate:
(1) Narraguagus river, milbridge, maine.--Only for the
purpose of maintenance as anchorage, those portions of the
project for navigation, Narraguagus River, Milbridge, Maine,
authorized by section 2 of the Act entitled ``An Act making
appropriations for the construction, repair, completion, and
preservation of certain works on rivers and harbors, and for
other purposes'', approved June 14, 1880 (21 Stat. 195), and
deauthorized under section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of
1962 (75 Stat. 1173), lying adjacent to and outside the
limits of the 11-foot and 9-foot channel authorized as part
of the project for navigation, authorized by such section
101, as follows:
(A) An area located east of the 11-foot channel starting 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.
(B) An area located west of the 9-foot channel starting 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 33.8
seconds east 105.561 feet to the point of origin.
(2) Cedar bayou, texas.--The project for navigation, Cedar
Bayou, Texas, authorized by the first section of the Act
entitled ``An Act making appropriations for the construction,
repair, and preservation of certain public works on rivers
and harbors, and for other purposes'', approved September 19,
1890 (26 Stat. 444), and modified by the first section of the
Act entitled ``An Act authorizing the construction, repair,
and preservation of certain public works on rivers and
harbors, and for other purposes'', approved July 3, 1930 (46
Stat. 926), and deauthorized by section 1002 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4219), except
that the project is authorized only for construction of a
navigation channel 12 feet deep by 125 feet wide from mile
-2.5 (at the junction with the Houston Ship Channel) to mile
11.0 on Cedar Bayou.
(b) Redesignation.--The following portion of the 11-foot
channel of the project for navigation, Narraguagus River,
Milbridge, Maine, referred to in subsection (a)(1) is
redesignated as anchorage: starting 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.

SEC. 351. CONTINUATION OF PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 1001(b)(2) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
579a(b)(2)), the following projects shall remain authorized
to be carried out by the Secretary:
(1) The projects for flood control, Sacramento River,
California, modified by section 10 of the Flood Control Act
of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 900-901).
(2) The project for flood protection, Sacramento River from
Chico Landing to Red Bluff, California, authorized by section
203 of the Flood Control Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 314).
(b) Limitation.--A project described in subsection (a)
shall not be authorized for construction after the last day
of the 7-year period beginning on the date of enactment of
this Act, unless, during such period, funds have been
obligated for the construction (including planning and
design) of the project.

SEC. 352. DECLARATION OF NONNAVIGABILITY FOR LAKE ERIE, NEW
YORK.

(a) Area To Be Declared Nonnavigable; Public Interest.--
Unless the Secretary finds, after consultation with local and
regional public officials (including local and regional
public planning organizations), that the proposed projects to
be undertaken within the boundaries in the portions of Erie
County, New York, described in subsection (b), are not in the
public interest then, subject to subsection (c), those
portions of such county that were once part of Lake Erie and
are now filled are declared to be nonnavigable waters of the
United States.
(b) Boundaries.--The portion of Erie County, New York,
referred to in subsection (a) are all that tract or parcel of
land, situate in the Town of Hamburg and the City of
Lackawanna, County of Erie, State of New York, being part of
Lots 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and
25 of the Ogden Gore Tract and part of Lots 23, 24, and 36 of
the Buffalo Creek Reservation, Township 10, Range 8 of the
Holland Land Company's Survey and more particularly bounded
and described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the westerly highway boundary of
Hamburg Turnpike (66.0 feet wide), said point being 547.89
feet South 19 deg.36'46'' East from the intersection of the
westerly highway boundary of Hamburg Turnpike (66.0 feet
wide) and the northerly line of the City of Lackawanna (also
being the southerly line of the City of Buffalo); thence
South 19 deg.36'46'' East along the westerly highway boundary
of Hamburg Turnpike (66.0 feet wide) a distance of 628.41
feet; thence along the westerly highway boundary of Hamburg
Turnpike as appropriated by the New York State Department of
Public Works as shown on Map No. 40-R2, Parcel No. 44 the
following 20 courses and distances:
(1) South 10 deg.00'07'' East a distance of 164.30 feet;
(2) South 18 deg.40'45'' East a distance of 355.00 feet;
(3) South 71 deg.23'35'' West a distance of 2.00 feet;
(4) South 18 deg.40'45'' East a distance of 223.00 feet;
(5) South 22 deg.29'36'' East a distance of 150.35 feet;
(6) South 18 deg.40'45'' East a distance of 512.00 feet;
(7) South 16 deg.49'53'' East a distance of 260.12 feet;
(8) South 18 deg.34'20'' East a distance of 793.00 feet;
(9) South 71 deg.23'35'' West a distance of 4.00 feet;
(10) South 18 deg.13'24'' East a distance of 132.00 feet;
(11) North 71 deg.23'35'' East a distance of 4.67 feet;
(12) South 18 deg.30'00'' East a distance of 38.00 feet;
(13) South 71 deg.23'35'' West a distance of 4.86 feet;
(14) South 18 deg.13'24'' East a distance of 160.00 feet;
(15) South 71 deg.23'35'' East a distance of 9.80 feet;
(16) South 18 deg.36'25'' East a distance of 159.00 feet;
(17) South 71 deg.23'35'' West a distance of 3.89 feet;
(18) South 18 deg.34'20'' East a distance of 180.00 feet;
(19) South 20 deg.56'05'' East a distance of 138.11 feet;
(20) South 22 deg.53'55'' East a distance of 272.45 feet to
a point on the westerly highway boundary of Hamburg Turnpike.
Thence southerly along the westerly highway boundary of
Hamburg Turnpike, South 18 deg.36'25'' East, a distance of
2228.31 feet; thence along the westerly highway boundary of
Hamburg Turnpike as appropriated by the New York State
Department of Public Works as shown on Map No. 27 Parcel No.
31 the following 2 courses and distances:
(1) South 16 deg.17'25'' East a distance of 74.93 feet;
(2) along a curve to the right having a radius of 1004.74
feet; a chord distance of 228.48 feet along a chord bearing
of South 08 deg.12'16'' East, a distance of 228.97 feet to a
point on the westerly highway boundary of Hamburg Turnpike.
Thence southerly along the westerly highway boundary of
Hamburg Turnpike, South 4 deg.35'35'' West a distance of
940.87 feet; thence along the westerly highway boundary of
Hamburg Turnpike as appropriated by the New York State
Department of Public Works as shown on Map No. 1 Parcel No. 1
and Map No. 5 Parcel No. 7 the following 18 courses and
distances:
(1) North 85 deg.24'25'' West a distance of 1.00 feet;
(2) South 7 deg.01'17'' West a distance of 170.15 feet;
(3) South 5 deg.02'54'' West a distance of 180.00 feet;
(4) North 85 deg.24'25'' West a distance of 3.00 feet;
(5) South 5 deg.02'54'' West a distance of 260.00 feet;
(6) South 5 deg.09'11'' West a distance of 110.00 feet;
(7) South 0 deg.34'35'' West a distance of 110.27 feet;
(8) South 4 deg.50'37'' West a distance of 220.00 feet;
(9) South 4 deg.50'37'' West a distance of 365.00 feet;
(10) South 85 deg.24'25'' East a distance of 5.00 feet;
(11) South 4 deg.06'20'' West a distance of 67.00 feet;
(12) South 6 deg.04'35'' West a distance of 248.08 feet;
(13) South 3 deg.18'27'' West a distance of 52.01 feet;
(14) South 4 deg.55'58'' West a distance of 133.00 feet;

[[Page H10331]]

(15) North 85 deg.24'25'' West a distance of 1.00 feet;
(16) South 4 deg.55'58'' West a distance of 45.00 feet;
(17) North 85 deg.24'25'' West a distance of 7.00 feet;
(18) South 4 deg.56'12'' West a distance of 90.00 feet.
Thence continuing along the westerly highway boundary of Lake
Shore Road as appropriated by the New York State Department
of Public Works as shown on Map No. 7, Parcel No. 7 the
following 2 courses and distances:
(1) South 4 deg.55'58'' West a distance of 127.00 feet;
(2) South 2 deg.29'25'' East a distance of 151.15 feet to a
point on the westerly former highway boundary of Lake Shore
Road.
Thence southerly along the westerly formerly highway boundary
of Lake Shore Road, South 4 deg.35'35'' West a distance of
148.90 feet; thence along the westerly highway boundary of
Lake Shore Road as appropriated by the New York State
Department of Public Works as shown on Map No. 7, Parcel No.
8 the following 3 courses and distances:
(1) South 55 deg.34'35'' West a distance of 12.55 feet;
(2) South 4 deg.35'35'' West a distance of 118.50 feet;
(3) South 3 deg.04'00'' West a distance of 62.95 feet to a
point on the south line of the lands of South Buffalo Railway
Company.
Thence southerly and easterly along the lands of South
Buffalo Railway Company the following 5 courses and
distances:
(1) North 89 deg.25'14'' West a distance of 697.64 feet;
(2) along a curve to the left having a radius of 645.0
feet; a chord distance of 214.38 feet along a chord bearing
of South 40 deg.16'48'' West, a distance of 215.38 feet;
(3) South 30 deg.42'49'' West a distance of 76.96 feet;
(4) South 22 deg.06'03'' West a distance of 689.43 feet;
(5) South 36 deg.09'23'' West a distance of 30.93 feet to
the northerly line of the lands of Buffalo Crushed Stone,
Inc.
Thence North 87 deg.13'38'' West a distance of 2452.08 feet
to the shore line of Lake Erie; thence northerly along the
shore of Lake Erie the following 43 courses and distances:
(1) North 16 deg.29'53'' West a distance of 267.84 feet;
(2) North 24 deg.25'00'' West a distance of 195.01 feet;
(3) North 26 deg.45'00'' West a distance of 250.00 feet;
(4) North 31 deg.15'00'' West a distance of 205.00 feet;
(5) North 21 deg.35'00'' West a distance of 110.00 feet;
(6) North 44 deg.00'53'' West a distance of 26.38 feet;
(7) North 33 deg.49'18'' West a distance of 74.86 feet;
(8) North 34 deg.26'26'' West a distance of 12.00 feet;
(9) North 31 deg.06'16'' West a distance of 72.06 feet;
(10) North 22 deg.35'00'' West a distance of 150.00 feet;
(11) North 16 deg.35'00'' West a distance of 420.00 feet;
(12) North 21 deg.l0'00'' West a distance of 440.00 feet;
(13) North 17 deg.55'00'' West a distance of 340.00 feet;
(14) North 28 deg.05'00'' West a distance of 375.00 feet;
(15) North 16 deg.25'00'' West a distance of 585.00 feet;
(16) North 22 deg.10'00'' West a distance of 160.00 feet;
(17) North 2 deg.46'36'' West a distance of 65.54 feet;
(18) North 16 deg.01'08'' West a distance of 70.04 feet;
(19) North 49 deg.07'00'' West a distance of 79.00 feet;
(20) North 19 deg.16'00'' West a distance of 425.00 feet;
(21) North 16 deg.37'00'' West a distance of 285.00 feet;
(22) North 25 deg.20'00'' West a distance of 360.00 feet;
(23) North 33 deg.00'00'' West a distance of 230.00 feet;
(24) North 32 deg.40'00'' West a distance of 310.00 feet;
(25) North 27 deg.10'00'' West a distance of 130.00 feet;
(26) North 23 deg.20'00'' West a distance of 315.00 feet;
(27) North 18 deg.20'04'' West a distance of 302.92 feet;
(28) North 20 deg.15'48'' West a distance of 387.18 feet;
(29) North 14 deg.20'00'' West a distance of 530.00 feet;
(30) North 16 deg.40'00'' West a distance of 260.00 feet;
(31) North 28 deg.35'00'' West a distance of 195.00 feet;
(32) North 18 deg.30'00'' West a distance of 170.00 feet;
(33) North 26 deg.30'00'' West a distance of 340.00 feet;
(34) North 32 deg.07'52'' West a distance of 232.38 feet;
(35) North 30 deg.04'26'' West a distance of 17.96 feet;
(36) North 23 deg.19'13'' West a distance of 111.23 feet;
(37) North 7 deg.07'58'' West a distance of 63.90 feet;
(38) North 8 deg.11'02'' West a distance of 378.90 feet;
(39) North 15 deg.01'02'' West a distance of 190.64 feet;
(40) North 2 deg.55'00'' West a distance of 170.00 feet;
(41) North 6 deg.45'00'' West a distance of 240.00 feet;
(42) North 0 deg.10'00'' East a distance of 465.00 feet;
(43) North 2 deg.00'38'' West a distance of 378.58 feet to
the northerly line of Letters Patent dated February 21, 1968
and recorded in the Erie County Clerk's Office under Liber
7453 of Deeds at Page 45.
Thence North 71 deg.23'35'' East along the north line of the
aforementioned Letters Patent a distance of 154.95 feet to
the shore line; thence along the shore line the following 6
courses and distances:
(1) South 80 deg.14'01'' East a distance of 119.30 feet;
(2) North 46 deg.15'13'' East a distance of 47.83 feet;
(3) North 59 deg.53'02'' East a distance of 53.32 feet;
(4) North 38 deg.20'43'' East a distance of 27.31 feet;
(5) North 68 deg.12'46'' East a distance of 48.67 feet;
(6) North 26 deg.11'47'' East a distance of 11.48 feet to
the northerly line of the aforementioned Letters Patent.
Thence along the northerly line of said Letters Patent, North
71 deg.23'35'' East a distance of 1755.19 feet; thence South
35 deg.27'25'' East a distance of 35.83 feet to a point on
the U.S. Harbor Line; thence, North 54 deg.02'35'' East along
the U.S. Harbor Line a distance of 200.00 feet; thence
continuing along the U.S. Harbor Line, North 50 deg.01'45''
East a distance of 379.54 feet to the westerly line of the
lands of Gateway Trade Center, Inc.; thence along the lands
of Gateway Trade Center, Inc. the following 27 courses and
distances:
(1) South 18 deg.44'53'' East a distance of 623.56 feet;
(2) South 34 deg.33'00'' East a distance of 200.00 feet;
(3) South 26 deg.18'55'' East a distance of 500.00 feet;
(4) South 19 deg.06'40'' East a distance of 1074.29 feet;
(5) South 28 deg.03'18'' East a distance of 242.44 feet;
(6) South 18 deg.38'50'' East a distance of 1010.95 feet;
(7) North 71 deg.20'51'' East a distance of 90.42 feet;
(8) South 18 deg.49'20'' East a distance of 158.61 feet;
(9) South 80 deg.55'10'' East a distance of 45.14 feet;
(10) South 18 deg.04'45'' East a distance of 52.13 feet;
(11) North 71 deg.07'23'' East a distance of 102.59 feet;
(12) South 18 deg.41'40'' East a distance of 63.00 feet;
(13) South 71 deg.07'23'' West a distance of 240.62 feet;
(14) South 18 deg.38'50'' East a distance of 668.13 feet;
(15) North 71 deg.28'46'' East a distance of 958.68 feet;
(16) North 18 deg.42'31'' West a distance of 1001.28 feet;
(17) South 71 deg.17'29'' West a distance of 168.48 feet;
(18) North 18 deg.42'31'' West a distance of 642.00 feet;
(19) North 71 deg.17'37'' East a distance of 17.30 feet;
(20) North 18 deg.42'31'' West a distance of 574.67 feet;
(21) North 71 deg.17'29'' East a distance of 151.18 feet;
(22) North 18 deg.42'31''West a distance of 1156.43 feet;
(23) North 71 deg.29'21'' East a distance of 569.24 feet;
(24) North 18 deg.30'39'' West a distance of 314.71 feet;
(25) North 70 deg.59'36'' East a distance of 386.47 feet;
(26) North 18 deg.30'39'' West a distance of 70.00 feet;
(27) North 70 deg.59'36'' East a distance of 400.00 feet to
the place or point of beginning.
Containing 1,142.958 acres.
(c) Limits on Applicability; Regulatory Requirements.--The
declaration under subsection (a) shall apply to those parts
of the areas described in subsection (b) which are filled
portions of Lake Erie. Any work on these filled portions is
subject to all applicable Federal statutes and regulations,
including sections 9 and 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (30
Stat. 1151; 33 U.S.C. 401 and 403), commonly known as the
River and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, section 404 of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), and
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
(d) Expiration Date.--If, 20 years from the date of
enactment of this Act, any area or part thereof described in
subsection (a) of this section is not occupied by permanent
structures in accordance with the requirements set out in
subsection (c) of this section, or if work in connection with
any activity permitted in subsection (c) is not commenced
within 5 years after issuance of such permits, then the
declaration of nonnavigability for such area or part thereof
shall expire.

SEC. 353. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS.

(a) In General.--The following projects or portions of
projects are not authorized after the date of enactment of
this Act:
(1) Black warrior and tombigbee rivers, jackson, alabama.--
The project for navigation, Black Warrior and Tombigbee
Rivers,

[[Page H10332]]

vicinity of Jackson, Alabama, authorized by section 106 of
the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 1987
(100 Stat. 3341-199).
(2) Sacramento deep water ship channel, california.--The
portion of the project for navigation, Sacramento Deep Water
Ship Channel, California, authorized by section 202(a) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4092),
beginning from the confluence of the Sacramento River and the
Barge Canal to a point 3,300 feet west of the William G.
Stone Lock western gate (including the William G. Stone Lock
and the Bascule Bridge and Barge Canal). All waters within
such portion of the project are declared to be nonnavigable
waters of the United States solely for purposes of the
General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 525 et seq.) and
section 9 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401),
commonly known as the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of
1899.
(3) Bay island channel, quincy, illinois.--The access
channel across Bay Island into Quincy Bay at Quincy,
Illinois, constructed under section 107 of the River and
Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577).
(4) Warsaw boat harbor, illinois.--The portion of the
project for navigation, Illinois Waterway, Illinois and
Indiana, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor
Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1175), known as the Warsaw Boat Harbor,
Illinois.
(5) Rockport harbor, rockport, massachusetts.--The
following portions of the project for navigation, Rockport
Harbor, Massachusetts, carried out under section 107 of the
River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577):
(A) The portion of the 10-foot harbor channel the
boundaries of which begin at a point with coordinates
N605,741.948, E838,031.378, thence running north 36 degrees
04 minutes 40.9 seconds east 123.386 feet to a point
N605,642.226, E838,104.039, thence running south 05 degrees
08 minutes 35.1 seconds east 24.223 feet to a point
N605,618.100, E838,106.210, thence running north 41 degrees
05 minutes 10.9 seconds west 141.830 feet to a point
N605,725.000, E838,013.000, thence running north 47 degrees
19 minutes 04.1 seconds east 25.000 feet to the point of
origin.
(B) The portion of the 8-foot north basin entrance channel
the boundaries of which begin at a point with coordinates
N605,742.699, E837,977.129, thence running south 89 degrees
12 minutes 27.1 seconds east 54.255 feet to a point
N605,741.948, E838,031.378, thence running south 47 degrees
19 minutes 04.1 seconds west 25.000 feet to a point
N605,725.000, E838,013.000, thence running north 63 degrees
44 minutes 19.0 seconds west 40.000 feet to the point of
origin.
(C) The portion of the 8-foot south basin anchorage the
boundaries of which begin at a point with coordinates
N605,563.770, E838,111.100, thence running south 05 degrees
08 minutes 35.1 seconds east 53.460 feet to a point
N605,510.525, E838,115.892, thence running south 52 degrees
10 minutes 55.5 seconds west 145.000 feet to a point
N605,421.618, E838,001.348, thence running north 37 degrees
49 minutes 04.5 seconds west feet to a point N605,480.960,
E837,955.287, thence running south 64 degrees 52 minutes 33.9
seconds east 33.823 feet to a point N605,466.600,
E837,985.910, thence running north 52 degrees 10 minutes 55.5
seconds east 158.476 feet to the point of origin.
(6) Scituate harbor, massachusetts.--The portion of the
project for navigation, Scituate Harbor, Massachusetts,
authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1954
(68 Stat. 1249), consisting of an 8-foot anchorage basin and
described as follows: Beginning at a point with coordinates
N438,739.53, E810,354.75, thence running northwesterly about
200.00 feet to coordinates N438,874.02, E810,206.72, thence
running northeasterly about 400.00 feet to coordinates
N439,170.07, E810,475,70, thence running southwesterly about
447.21 feet to the point of origin.
(7) Duluth-superior harbor, minnesota and wisconsin.--The
portion of the project for navigation, Duluth-Superior
Harbor, Minnesota and Wisconsin, authorized by the first
section of the Act entitled ``An Act making appropriations
for the construction, repair, and preservation of certain
public works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes'',
approved June 3, 1896 (29 Stat. 212), known as the 21st
Avenue West Channel, beginning at the most southeasterly
point of the channel N423074.09, E2871635.43 thence running
north-northwest about 1854.83 feet along the easterly limit
of the project to a point N424706.69, E2870755.48, thence
running northwesterly about 111.07 feet to a point on the
northerly limit of the project N424777.27, E2870669.46,
thence west-southwest 157.88 feet along the north limit of
the project to a point N424703.04, E2870530.38, thence south-
southeast 1978.27 feet to the most southwesterly point
N422961.45, E2871469.07, thence northeasterly 201.00 feet
along the southern limit of the project to the point of
origin.
(8) Tremley point, new jersey.--The portion of the Federal
navigation channel, New York and New Jersey Channels, New
York and New Jersey, authorized by the first section of the
Act entitled ``An Act authorizing the construction, repair,
and preservation of certain public works on rivers and
harbors, and for other purposes'', approved August 30, 1935
(49 Stat. 1028), and modified by section 101 of the River and
Harbor Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 164), that consists of a 35-foot
deep channel beginning at a point along the western limit of
the authorized project, N644100.411, E129256.91, thence
running southeasterly about 38.25 feet to a point
N644068.885, E129278.565, thence running southerly about
1,163.86 feet to a point N642912.127, E129150.209, thence
running southwesterly about 56.89 feet to a point N642864.09,
E2129119.725, thence running northerly along the existing
western limit of the existing project to the point of origin.
(9) Angola, new york.--The project for erosion protection,
Angola Water Treatment Plant, Angola, New York, constructed
under section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C.
701r).
(10) Wallabout channel, brooklyn, new york.--The portion of
the project for navigation, Wallabout Channel, Brooklyn, New
York, authorized by the first section of the Act entitled
``An Act making appropriations for the construction, repair,
and preservation of certain public works on rivers and
harbors, and for other purposes'', approved March 3, 1899 (30
Stat. 1124), that is located at the northeast corner of the
project and is described as follows:
Beginning at a point forming the northeast corner of the
project and designated with the coordinate of North N
682,307.40; East 638,918.10; thence along the following 6
courses and distances:
(A) South 85 degrees, 44 minutes, 13 seconds East 87.94
feet (coordinate: N 682,300.86 E 639,005.80).
(B) North 74 degrees, 41 minutes, 30 seconds East 271.54
feet (coordinate: N 682,372.55 E 639,267.71).
(C) South 4 degrees, 46 minutes, 02 seconds West 170.95
feet (coordinate: N 682,202.20 E 639,253.50).
(D) South 4 degrees, 46 minutes, 02 seconds West 239.97
feet (coordinate: N 681,963.06 E 639,233.56).
(E) North 50 degrees, 48 minutes, 26 seconds West 305.48
feet (coordinate: N 682,156.10 E 638,996.80).
(F) North 3 degrees, 33 minutes, 25 seconds East 145.04
feet (coordinate: N 682,300.86 E 639,005.80).
(b) Rockport Harbor, Massachusetts.--The project for
navigation, Rockport Harbor, Massachusetts, carried out under
section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C.
577), is modified--
(1) to redesignate a portion of the 8-foot north outer
anchorage as part of the 8-foot approach channel to the north
inner basin described as follows: the perimeter of the area
starts at a point with coordinates N605,792.110,
E838,020.009, thence running south 89 degrees 12 minutes 27.1
seconds east 64.794 feet to a point N605,791.214,
E838,084.797, thence running south 47 degrees 18 minutes 54.0
seconds west 40.495 feet to a point N605,763.760,
E838,055.030, thence running north 68 degrees 26 minutes 49.0
seconds west 43.533 feet to a point N605,779.750,
E838,014.540, thence running north 23 degrees 52 minutes 08.4
seconds east 13.514 feet to the point of origin; and
(2) to realign a portion of the 8-foot north inner basin
approach channel by adding an area described as follows: the
perimeter of the area starts at a point with coordinates
N605,792.637, E837,981.920, thence running south 89 degrees
12 minutes 27.1 seconds east 38.093 feet to a point
N605,792.110, E838,020.009, thence running south 23 degrees
52 minutes 08.4 seconds west 13.514 feet to a point
N605,779.752, E838,014.541, thence running north 68 degrees
26 minutes 49.0 seconds west 35.074 feet to the point of
origin.

SEC. 354. WYOMING VALLEY, PENNSYLVANIA.

(a) In General.--The project for flood control, Wyoming
Valley, Pennsylvania, authorized by section 401(a) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4124) is
modified as provided in this section.
(b) Additional Project Elements.--The Secretary shall
construct each of the following additional elements of the
project to the extent that the Secretary determines that the
element is technically feasible, environmentally acceptable,
and economically justified:
(1) The River Commons plan developed by the non-Federal
sponsor for both sides of the Susquehanna River beside
historic downtown Wilkes-Barre.
(2) Necessary portal modifications to the project to allow
at grade access from Wilkes-Barre to the Susquehanna River to
facilitate operation, maintenance, replacement, repair, and
rehabilitation of the project and to restore access to the
Susquehanna River for the public.
(3) A concrete capped sheet pile wall in lieu of raising an
earthen embankment to reduce the disturbance to the Historic
River Commons area.
(4) All necessary modifications to the Stormwater Pump
Stations in Wyoming Valley.
(5) All necessary evaluations and modifications to all
elements of the existing flood control projects to include
Coal Creek, Toby Creek, Abrahams Creek, and various relief
culverts and penetrations through the levee.
(c) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit the Luzerne County
Flood Protection Authority toward the non-Federal share of
the cost of the project for the value of the Forty-Fort
ponding basin area purchased after June 1, 1972, by Luzerne
County, Pennsylvania, for an estimated cost of $500,000 under
section 102(w) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992
(102 Stat. 508) to the extent that the Secretary determines
that the area purchased is integral to the project.
(d) Modification of Mitigation Plan and Project Cooperation
Agreement.--
(1) Modification of mitigation plan.--The Secretary shall
provide for the deletion,

[[Page H10333]]

from the Mitigation Plan for the Wyoming Valley Levees,
approved by the Secretary on February 15, 1996, the proposal
to remove the abandoned Bloomsburg Railroad Bridge.
(2) Modification of project cooperation agreement.--The
Secretary shall modify the project cooperation agreement,
executed in October 1996, to reflect removal of the railroad
bridge and its $1,800,000 total cost from the mitigation plan
under paragraph (1).
(e) Maximum Project Cost.--The total cost of the project,
as modified by this section, shall not exceed the amount
authorized in section 401(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4124), with increases
authorized by section 902 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4183).

SEC. 355. REHOBOTH BEACH AND DEWEY BEACH, DELAWARE.

The project for storm damage reduction and shoreline
protection, Rehoboth Beach and Dewey Beach, Delaware,
authorized by section 101(b)(6) of the Water Resources
development Act of 1996, is modified to authorize the project
at a total cost of $13,997,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $9,098,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$4,899,000, and an estimated average annual cost of
$1,320,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of
the project, with an estimated annual Federal cost of
$858,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of
$462,000.

TITLE IV--STUDIES

SEC. 401. STUDIES OF COMPLETED PROJECTS.

The Secretary shall conduct a study under section 216 of
the Flood Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1830) of each of the
following completed projects:
(1) Escambia bay and river, florida.--Project for
navigation, Escambia Bay and River, Florida.
(2) Illinois river, havana, illinois.--Project for flood
control, Illinois River, Havana, Illinois, authorized by
section 5 of the Flood Control Act of June 22, 1936 (49 Stat.
1583).
(3) Spring lake, illinois.--Project for flood control,
Spring Lake, Illinois, authorized by section 5 of the Flood
Control Act of June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1584).
(4) Port orford, oregon.--Project for flood control, Port
Orford, Oregon, authorized by section 301 of River and Harbor
Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1092).

SEC. 402. 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 interstate river basins and watersheds of
the United States. The assessments shall be undertaken in
cooperation and coordination with the Departments of the
Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce, the Environmental
Protection Agency, and other appropriate agencies, and may
include an evaluation of ecosystem protection and
restoration, flood damage reduction, navigation and port
needs, watershed protection, water supply, and drought
preparedness.
``(b) Consultation.--The Secretary shall consult with
Federal, tribal, State, interstate, and local governmental
entities in carrying out the assessments authorized by this
section. In conducting the assessments, the Secretary may
accept contributions of services, materials, supplies and
cash from Federal, tribal, State, interstate, and local
governmental entities where the Secretary determines that
such contributions will facilitate completion of the
assessments.
``(c) Priority Consideration.--The Secretary shall give
priority consideration to the following interstate river
basins and watersheds:
``(1) Delaware River.
``(2) Potomac River.
``(3) Susquehanna River.
``(4) Kentucky River.
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000.''.

SEC. 403. LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER RESOURCE ASSESSMENT.

(a) Assessments.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the
Secretary of the Interior and the States of Arkansas,
Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and
Tennessee, shall undertake, at Federal expense, for the Lower
Mississippi River system--
(1) an assessment of information needed for river-related
management;
(2) an assessment of natural resource habitat needs; and
(3) an assessment of the need for river-related recreation
and access.
(b) Period.--Each assessment referred to in subsection (a)
shall be carried out for 2 years.
(c) Reports.--Before the last day of the second year of an
assessment under subsection (a), the Secretary, in
cooperation with the Secretary of the Interior and the States
of Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Missouri, and Tennessee, shall transmit to Congress a report
on the results of the assessment to Congress. The report
shall contain recommendations for--
(1) the collection, availability, and use of information
needed for river-related management;
(2) the planning, construction, and evaluation of potential
restoration, protection, and enhancement measures to meet
identified habitat needs; and
(3) potential projects to meet identified river access and
recreation needs.
(d) Lower Mississippi River System Defined.--In this
section, the term ``Lower Mississippi River system'' means
those river reaches and adjacent floodplains within the Lower
Mississippi River alluvial valley having commercial
navigation channels on the Mississippi mainstem and
tributaries south of Cairo, Illinois, and the Atchafalaya
basin floodway system.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated $1,750,000 to carry out this section.

SEC. 404. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN SEDIMENT AND NUTRIENT
STUDY.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct, at Federal
expense, a study--
(1) to identify significant sources of sediment and
nutrients in the Upper Mississippi River basin; and
(2) to describe and evaluate the processes by which the
sediments and nutrients move, on land and in water, from
their sources to the Upper Mississippi River and its
tributaries.
(b) Consultation.--In conducting the study, the Secretary
shall consult the Departments of Agriculture and the
Interior.
(c) Components of the Study.--
(1) Computer modeling.--As part of the study, the Secretary
shall develop computer models at the subwatershed and basin
level to identify and quantify the sources of sediment and
nutrients and to examine the effectiveness of alternative
management measures.
(2) Research.--As part of the study, the Secretary shall
conduct research to improve understanding of--
(A) the processes affecting sediment and nutrient (with
emphasis on nitrogen and phosphorus) movement;
(B) the influences of soil type, slope, climate, vegetation
cover, and modifications to the stream drainage network on
sediment and nutrient losses; and
(C) river hydrodynamics in relation to sediment and
nutrient transformations, retention, and movement.
(d) Use of Information.--Upon request of a Federal agency,
the Secretary may provide information to the agency for use
in sediment and nutrient reduction programs associated with
land use and land management practices.
(e) Report to Congress.--Not later than 3 years after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit
to Congress a report on the results of the study, including
findings and recommendations.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000.

SEC. 405. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

Section 459(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1999 (113 Stat. 333) is amended by striking ``date of
enactment of this Act'' and inserting ``first date on which
funds are appropriated to carry out this section.''.

SEC. 406. OHIO RIVER SYSTEM.

The Secretary may conduct a study of commodity flows on the
Ohio River system at Federal expense. The study shall include
an analysis of the commodities transported on the Ohio River
system, including information on the origins and destinations
of these commodities and market trends, both national and
international.

SEC. 407. EASTERN ARKANSAS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall reevaluate the
recommendations in the Eastern Arkansas Region Comprehensive
Study of the Memphis District Engineer, dated August 1990, to
determine whether the plans outlined in the study for
agricultural water supply from the Little Red River,
Arkansas, are feasible and in the Federal interest.
(b) Report.--Not later than September 30, 2001, the
Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the results
of the reevaluation.

SEC. 408. RUSSELL, ARKANSAS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall evaluate the
preliminary investigation report for agricultural water
supply, Russell, Arkansas, entitled ``Preliminary
Investigation: Lone Star Management Project'', prepared for
the Lone Star Water Irrigation District, to determine whether
the plans contained in the report are feasible and in the
Federal interest.
(b) Report.--Not later than September 30, 2001, the
Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the results
of the evaluation.

SEC. 409. ESTUDILLO CANAL, SAN LEANDRO, CALIFORNIA.

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction along the Estudillo Canal, San Leandro, California.

SEC. 410. LAGUNA CREEK, FREMONT, CALIFORNIA.

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction in the Laguna Creek watershed, Fremont, California.

SEC. 411. LAKE MERRITT, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA.

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for ecosystem
restoration, flood damage reduction, and recreation at Lake
Merritt, Oakland, California.

SEC. 412. LANCASTER, CALIFORNIA.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall evaluate the report of
the city of Lancaster,

[[Page H10334]]

California, entitled ``Master Plan of Drainage'', to
determine whether the plans contained in the report are
feasible and in the Federal interest, including plans
relating to drainage corridors located at 52nd Street West,
35th Street West, North Armargosa, and 20th Street East.
(b) Report.--Not later than September 30, 2001, the
Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the results
of the evaluation.

SEC. 413. NAPA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

(a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project to
address water supply, water quality, and groundwater problems
at Miliken, Sarco, and Tulocay Creeks in Napa County,
California.
(b) Use of Existing Data.--In conducting the study, the
Secretary shall use data and information developed by the
United States Geological Survey in the report entitled
``Geohydrologic Framework and Hydrologic Budget of the Lower
Miliken-Sarco-Tulocay Creeks Area of Napa, California''.

SEC. 414. OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA.

The Secretary shall conduct a study, at Federal expense, to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for
shoreline protection at Oceanside, California. In conducting
the study, the Secretary shall determine the portion of beach
erosion that is the result of a Navy navigation project at
Camp Pendleton Harbor, California.

SEC. 415. SUISUN MARSH, CALIFORNIA.

The investigation for Suisun Marsh, California, authorized
under the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act,
2000 (Public Law 106-60), shall be limited to evaluating the
feasibility of the levee enhancement and managed wetlands
protection program for Suisun Marsh, California.

SEC. 416. LAKE ALLATOONA WATERSHED, GEORGIA.

Section 413 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
(113 Stat. 324) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 413. LAKE ALLATOONA WATERSHED, GEORGIA.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a
comprehensive study of the Lake Allatoona watershed, Georgia,
to determine the feasibility of undertaking ecosystem
restoration and resource protection measures.
``(b) Matters To Be Addressed.--The study shall address
streambank and shoreline erosion, sedimentation, water
quality, fish and wildlife habitat degradation and other
problems relating to ecosystem restoration and resource
protection in the Lake Allatoona watershed.''.

SEC. 417. CHICAGO RIVER, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for
shoreline protection along the Chicago River, Chicago,
Illinois.
(b) Consultation.--In conducting the study, the Secretary
shall consult, and incorporate information available from,
appropriate Federal, State, and local government agencies.

SEC. 418. CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL SYSTEM, CHICAGO,
ILLINOIS.

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
advisability of reducing the use of the waters of Lake
Michigan to support navigation in the Chicago sanitary and
ship canal system, Chicago, Illinois.

SEC. 419. LONG LAKE, INDIANA.

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for environmental
restoration and protection, Long Lake, Indiana.

SEC. 420. BRUSH AND ROCK CREEKS, MISSION HILLS AND FAIRWAY,
KANSAS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall evaluate the
preliminary engineering report for the project for flood
control, Mission Hills and Fairway, Kansas, entitled
``Preliminary Engineering Report: Brush Creek/Rock Creek
Drainage Improvements, 66th Street to State Line Road'', to
determine whether the plans contained in the report are
feasible and in the Federal interest.
(b) Report.--Not later than September 30, 2001, the
Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the results
of the evaluation.

SEC. 421. COASTAL AREAS OF LOUISIANA.

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of developing measures to floodproof major
hurricane evacuation routes in the coastal areas of
Louisiana.

SEC. 422. IBERIA PORT, LOUISIANA.

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for navigation, Iberia
Port, Louisiana.

SEC. 423. LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN SEAWALL, LOUISIANA.

Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary shall complete a post-authorization change
report on the project for hurricane-flood protection, Lake
Pontchartrain, Louisiana, authorized by section 204 of the
Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1077), to incorporate and
accomplish structural modifications to the seawall providing
protection along the south shore of Lake Pontchartrain from
the New Basin Canal on the west to the Inner Harbor
Navigation Canal on the east.

SEC. 424. LOWER ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LOUISIANA.

As part of the Lower Atchafalaya basin reevaluation study,
the Secretary shall determine the feasibility of carrying out
a project for flood damage reduction, Stephensville,
Louisiana.

SEC. 425. ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST PARISH, LOUISIANA.

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction on the east bank of the Mississippi River in St.
John the Baptist Parish, Louisiana.

SEC. 426. LAS VEGAS VALLEY, NEVADA.

Section 432(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1999 (113 Stat. 327) is amended by inserting ``recreation,''
after ``runoff),''.

SEC. 427. SOUTHWEST VALLEY, ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO.

SEC. 428. BUFFALO HARBOR, BUFFALO, NEW YORK.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to
determine the advisability and potential impacts of declaring
as nonnavigable a portion of the channel at Control Point
Draw, Buffalo Harbor, Buffalo New York.
(b) Contents.--The study conducted under this section shall
include an examination of other options to meet intermodal
transportation needs in the area.

SEC. 429. HUDSON RIVER, MANHATTAN, NEW YORK.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of establishing a Hudson River Park
in Manhattan, New York City, New York. The study shall
address the issues of shoreline protection, environmental
protection and restoration, recreation, waterfront access,
and open space for the area between Battery Place and West
59th Street.
(b) Consultation.--In conducting the study under subsection
(a), the Secretary shall consult the Hudson River Park Trust.
(c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this section, the Secretary shall transmit to
Congress a report on the result of the study, including a
master plan for the park.

SEC. 430. JAMESVILLE RESERVOIR, ONONDAGA COUNTY, NEW YORK.

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, flood damage reduction, and water quality,
Jamesville Reservoir, Onondaga County, New York.

SEC. 431. STEUBENVIILLE, OHIO.

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of developing a public port along the Ohio River
in the vicinity of Steubenville, Ohio.

SEC. 432. GRAND LAKE, OKLAHOMA.

Section 560(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (110 Stat. 3783) is amended--
(1) by striking ``date of enactment of this Act'' and
inserting ``date of enactment of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000''; and
(2) by inserting ``and Miami'' after ``Pensacola Dam''.

SEC. 433. COLUMBIA SLOUGH, OREGON.

Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary shall complete under section 1135 of the
Water Resource Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a) a
feasiblility study for the ecosystem restoration project at
Columbia Slough, Oregon. If the Secretary determines that the
project is feasible, the Secretary may carry out the project
on an expedited basis under such section.

SEC. 434. REEDY RIVER, GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA.

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, flood damage reduction, and streambank
stabilization on the Reedy River, Cleveland Park West,
Greenville, South Carolina.

SEC. 435. 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) Cost Sharing.--The Secretary--
(1) 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 if the Secretary determines the
work is necessary for completion of the study; and
(2) for the purposes of paragraph (1), 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.
(c) Limitation.--The Secretary may not reject the project
under the feasibility study based solely on a minimum amount
of stream runoff.

SEC. 436. HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, GALVESTON, TEXAS.

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of constructing barge

[[Page H10335]]

lanes adjacent to the Houston Ship Channel from Redfish Reef
to Morgan Point in Galveston, Texas.

SEC. 437. PARK CITY, UTAH.

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply, Park
City, Utah.

SEC. 438. MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall evaluate the report
for the project for flood damage reduction and environmental
restoration, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, entitled ``Interim
Executive Summary: Menominee River Flood Management Plan'',
dated September 1999, to determine whether the plans
contained in the report are cost-effective, technically
sound, environmentally acceptable, and in the Federal
interest.
(b) Report.--Not later than September 30, 2001, the
Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the results
of the evaluation.

SEC. 439. UPPER DES PLAINES RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, ILLINOIS
AND WISCONSIN.

Section 419 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
(113 Stat. 324-325) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(d) Credit.--The Secretary shall provide the non-Federal
interest credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of
the study for work performed by the non-Federal interest
before the date of the study's feasibility cost-share
agreement if the Secretary determines that the work is
integral to the study.''.

SEC. 440. DELAWARE RIVER WATERSHED.

(a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct studies and
assessments to analyze the sources and impacts of sediment
contamination in the Delaware River watershed.
(b) Activities.--Activities authorized under this section
shall be conducted by a university with expertise in research
in contaminated sediment sciences.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section
$5,000,000. Such sums shall remain available until expended.
(2) Corps of engineers expenses.--10 percent of the amounts
appropriated to carry out this section may be used by the
Corps of Engineers district offices to administer and
implement studies and assessments under this section.

TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

SEC. 501. BRIDGEPORT, ALABAMA.

(a) Determination.--The Secretary shall review the
construction of a channel performed by the non-Federal
interest at the project for navigation, Tennessee River,
Bridgeport, Alabama, to determine the Federal navigation
interest in such work.
(b) Reimbursement.--If the Secretary determines under
subsection (a) that the work performed by the non-Federal
interest is consistent with the Federal navigation interest,
the Secretary shall reimburse the non-Federal interest an
amount equal to the Federal share of the cost of construction
of the channel.

SEC. 502. DUCK RIVER, CULLMAN, ALABAMA.

The Secretary shall provide technical assistance to the
city of Cullman, Alabama, in the management of construction
contracts for the reservoir project on the Duck River.

SEC. 503. SEWARD, ALASKA.

The Secretary shall carry out, on an emergency one-time
basis, necessary repairs of the Lowell Creek Tunnel in
Seward, Alaska, at Federal expense and a total cost of
$3,000,000.

SEC. 504. AUGUSTA AND DEVALLS BLUFF, ARKANSAS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary may operate, maintain, and
rehabilitate 37 miles of levees in and around Augusta and
Devalls Bluff, Arkansas.
(b) Reimbursement.--After incurring any cost for operation,
maintenance, or rehabilitation under subsection (a), the
Secretary may seek reimbursement from the Secretary of the
Interior of an amount equal to the portion of such cost that
the Secretary determines is a benefit to a Federal wildlife
refuge.

SEC. 505. BEAVER LAKE, ARKANSAS.

The contract price for additional storage for the Carroll-
Boone Water District beyond that which is provided for in
section 521 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
(113 Stat. 345) shall be based on the original construction
cost of Beaver Lake and adjusted to the 2000 price level net
of inflation between the date of initiation of construction
and the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 506. MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM,
ARKANSAS AND OKLAHOMA.

Taking into account the need to realize the total economic
potential of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River navigation
system, the Secretary shall expedite completion of the
Arkansas River navigation study, including the feasibility of
increasing the authorized channel from 9 feet to 12 feet and,
if justified, proceed directly to project preconstruction
engineering and design.

SEC. 507. CALFED BAY DELTA PROGRAM ASSISTANCE, CALIFORNIA.

(a) In General.--The Secretary may participate with
appropriate Federal and State agencies in planning and
management activities associated with the CALFED Bay Delta
Program (in this section referred to as the ``Program'') and
shall, to the maximum extent practicable and in accordance
with all applicable laws, integrate the activities of the
Corps of Engineers in the San Joaquin and Sacramento River
basins with the long-term goals of the Program.
(b) Cooperative Activities.--In carrying out this section,
the Secretary--
(1) may accept and expend funds from other Federal agencies
and from public, private, and non-profit entities to carry
out ecosystem restoration projects and activities associated
with the Program; and
(2) may enter into contracts, cooperative research and
development agreements, and cooperative agreements, with
Federal and public, private, and non-profit entities to carry
out such projects and activities.
(c) Geographic Scope.--For the purposes of the
participation of the Secretary under this section, the
geographic scope of the Program shall be the San Francisco
Bay and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary and their
watershed (also known as the ``Bay-Delta Estuary''), as
identified in the agreement entitled 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 carry out this section $5,000,000 for
fiscal years 2002 through 2005.

SEC. 508. CLEAR LAKE BASIN, CALIFORNIA.

Amounts made available to the Secretary by the Energy and
Water Appropriations Act, 2000 (113 Stat. 483 et seq.) for
the project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Clear Lake
basin, California, to be carried out under section 206 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), may
only be used for the wetlands restoration and creation
elements of the project.

SEC. 509. CONTRA COSTA CANAL, OAKLEY AND KNIGHTSEN,
CALIFORNIA.

The Secretary shall carry out a project for flood damage
reduction under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948
(33 U.S.C. 701s) at the Contra Costa Canal, Oakley and
Knightsen, California, if the Secretary determines that the
project is technically sound, environmentally acceptable, and
economically justified.

SEC. 510. HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA.

The Secretary shall carry out under section 205 of the
Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s) a project for
flood damage reduction in Huntington Beach, California, if
the Secretary determines that the project is technically
sound, environmentally acceptable, and economically
justified.

SEC. 511. MALLARD SLOUGH, PITTSBURG, CALIFORNIA.

The Secretary shall carry out under section 205 of the
Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s) a project for
flood damage reduction in Mallard Slough, Pittsburg,
California, if the Secretary determines that the project is
technically sound, environmentally acceptable, and
economically justified.

SEC. 512. PENN MINE, CALAVERAS COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall reimburse the non-
Federal interest for the project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Penn Mine, Calaveras County, California, carried
out under section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), $4,100,000 for the Federal share of
costs incurred by the non-Federal interest for work carried
out by the non-Federal interest for the project.
(b) Source of Funding.--Reimbursement under subsection (a)
shall be from amounts appropriated before the date of
enactment of this Act for the project described in subsection
(a).

SEC. 513. PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA.

(a) Emergency Measures.--The Secretary shall carry out, on
an emergency basis, measures to address health, safety, and
environmental risks posed by floatables and floating debris
originating from Piers 24 and 64 in the Port of San
Francisco, California, by removing such floatables and
debris.
(b) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to
determine the risk to navigation posed by floatables and
floating debris originating from Piers 24 and 64 in the Port
of San Francisco, California, and the cost of removing such
floatables and debris.
(c) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated
$3,000,000 to carry out this section.

SEC. 514. SAN GABRIEL BASIN, CALIFORNIA.

(a) San Gabriel Basin Restoration.--
(1) Establishment of fund.--There shall be established
within the Treasury of the United States an interest bearing
account to be known as the San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund
(in this section referred to as the ``Restoration Fund'').
(2) Administration of fund.--The Restoration Fund shall be
administered by the Secretary, in cooperation with the San
Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority or its successor
agency.
(3) Purposes of fund.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the amounts
in the Restoration Fund, including interest accrued, shall be
utilized by the Secretary--
(i) to design and construct water quality projects to be
administered by the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority
and the Central Basin Water Quality Project to be
administered by the Central Basin Municipal Water District;
and
(ii) to operate and maintain any project constructed under
this section for such period as the Secretary determines, but
not to exceed 10 years, following the initial date of
operation of the project.
(B) Cost-sharing limitation.--The Secretary may not
obligate any funds appropriated to the Restoration Fund in a
fiscal

[[Page H10336]]

year until the Secretary has deposited in the Fund an
amount provided by non-Federal interests sufficient to
ensure that at least 35 percent of any funds obligated by
the Secretary are from funds provided to the Secretary by
the non-Federal interests. The San Gabriel Basin Water
Quality Authority shall be responsible for providing the
non-Federal amount required by the preceding sentence. The
State of California, local government agencies, and
private entities may provide all or any portion of such
amount.
(b) Compliance With Applicable Law.--In carrying out the
activities described in this section, the Secretary shall
comply with any applicable Federal and State laws.
(c) Relationship to Other Activities.--Nothing in this
section shall be construed to affect other Federal or State
authorities that are being used or may be used to facilitate
the cleanup and protection of the San Gabriel and Central
groundwater basins. In carrying out the activities described
in this section, the Secretary shall integrate such
activities with ongoing Federal and State projects and
activities. None of the funds made available for such
activities pursuant to this section shall be counted against
any Federal authorization ceiling established for any
previously authorized Federal projects or activities.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
the Restoration Fund established under subsection (a)
$85,000,000. Such funds shall remain available until
expended.
(2) Set-aside.--Of the amounts appropriated under paragraph
(1), no more than $10,000,000 shall be available to carry out
the Central Basin Water Quality Project.
(e) Adjustment.--Of the $25,000,000 made available for San
Gabriel Basin Groundwater Restoration, California, under the
heading ``Construction, General'' in title I of the Energy
and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2001--
(1) $2,000,000 shall be available only for studies and
other investigative activities and planning and design of
projects determined by the Secretary to offer a long-term
solution to the problem of groundwater contamination caused
by perchlorates at sites located in the city of Santa
Clarita, California; and
(2) $23,000,000 shall be deposited in the Restoration Fund,
of which $4,000,000 shall be used for remediation in the
Central Basin, California.

SEC. 515. STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA.

The Secretary shall evaluate the feasibility of the Lower
Mosher Slough element and the levee extensions on the Upper
Calaveras River element of the project for flood control,
Stockton Metropolitan Area, California, carried out under
section 211(f)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (110 Stat. 3683), to determine the eligibility of such
elements for reimbursement under section 211 of such Act (33
U.S.C. 701b-13). If the Secretary determines that such
elements are technically sound, environmentally acceptable,
and economically justified, the Secretary shall reimburse
under section 211 of such Act the non-Federal interest for
the Federal share of the cost of such elements.

SEC. 516. PORT EVERGLADES, FLORIDA.

Notwithstanding the absence of a project cooperation
agreement, the Secretary shall reimburse the non-Federal
interest for the project for navigation, Port Everglades
Harbor, Florida, $15,003,000 for the Federal share of costs
incurred by the non-Federal interest in carrying out the
project and determined by the Secretary to be eligible for
reimbursement under the limited reevaluation report of the
Corps of Engineers, dated April 1998.

SEC. 517. FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS.

(a) In General.--In coordination with the Florida Keys
Aqueduct Authority, appropriate agencies of municipalities of
Monroe County, Florida, and other appropriate public agencies
of the State of Florida or Monroe County, the Secretary may
provide technical and financial assistance to carry out
projects for the planning, design, and construction of
treatment works to improve water quality in the Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary.
(b) Criteria for Projects.--Before entering into a
cooperation agreement to provide assistance with respect to a
project under this section, the Secretary shall ensure that--
(1) the non-Federal sponsor has completed adequate planning
and design activities, as applicable;
(2) the non-Federal sponsor has completed a financial plan
identifying sources of non-Federal funding for the project;
(3) the project complies with--
(A) applicable growth management ordinances of Monroe
County, Florida;
(B) applicable agreements between Monroe County, Florida,
and the State of Florida to manage growth in Monroe County,
Florida; and
(C) applicable water quality standards; and
(4) the project is consistent with the master wastewater
and stormwater plans for Monroe County, Florida.
(c) Consideration.--In selecting projects under subsection
(a), the Secretary shall consider whether a project will have
substantial water quality benefits relative to other projects
under consideration.
(d) Consultation.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary shall consult with--
(1) the Water Quality Steering Committee established under
section 8(d)(2)(A) of the Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary and Protection Act (106 Stat. 5054);
(2) the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force
established by section 528(f) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3771-3773);
(3) the Commission on the Everglades established by
executive order of the Governor of the State of Florida; and
(4) other appropriate State and local government officials.
(e) Non-Federal Share.--
(1) In general.--The non-Federal share of the cost of a
project carried out under this section shall be 35 percent.
(2) Credit.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary may provide the non-Federal
interest credit toward cash contributions required--
(i) before and during the construction of the project, for
the costs of planning, engineering, and design, and for the
construction management work that is performed by the non-
Federal interest and that the Secretary determines is
necessary to implement the project; and
(ii) during the construction of the project, for the
construction that the non-Federal interest carries out on
behalf of the Secretary and that the Secretary determines is
necessary to carry out the project.
(B) Treatment of credit between projects.--Any credit
provided under this paragraph may be carried over between
authorized projects.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $100,000,000.
Such sums shall remain available until expended.

SEC. 518. BALLARD'S ISLAND, LASALLE COUNTY, ILLINOIS.

The Secretary may provide the non-Federal interest for the
project for the improvement of the quality of the
environment, Ballard's Island, LaSalle County, Illinois,
carried out under section 1135 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C 2309a), credit toward the
non-Federal share of the cost of the project for work
performed by the non-Federal interest after July 1, 1999, if
the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the
project.

SEC. 519. LAKE MICHIGAN DIVERSION, ILLINOIS.

Section 1142(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (110 Stat. 4253; 113 Stat. 339) is amended by inserting
after ``2003'' the following: ``and $800,000 for each fiscal
year beginning after September 30, 2003,''.

SEC. 520. KOONTZ LAKE, INDIANA.

The Secretary shall provide the non-Federal interest for
the project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Koontz Lake,
Indiana, carried out under section 206 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (22 U.S.C. 2330), credit toward the
non-Federal share of the cost of the project for work
performed by the non-Federal interest before the date of
execution of the project cooperation agreement if the
Secretary determines that the work is integral to the
project.

SEC. 521. CAMPBELLSVILLE LAKE, KENTUCKY.

The Secretary shall repair the retaining wall and dam at
Campbellsville Lake, Kentucky, to protect the public road on
top of the dam at Federal expense and a total cost of
$200,000.

SEC. 522. WEST VIEW SHORES, CECIL COUNTY, MARYLAND.

Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary shall carry out an investigation of the
contamination of the well system in West View Shores, Cecil
County, Maryland. If the Secretary determines that a disposal
site for a Federal navigation project has contributed to the
contamination of the well system, the Secretary may provide
alternative water supplies, including replacement of wells,
at Federal expense.

SEC. 523. CONSERVATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE, CHESAPEAKE BAY,
MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA.

Section 704(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2263(b)) is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``In addition, there is authorized to be
appropriated $20,000,000 to carry out paragraph (4).''.

SEC. 524. MUDDY RIVER, BROOKLINE AND BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS.

The Secretary shall carry out the project for flood damage
reduction and environmental restoration, Muddy River,
Brookline and Boston, Massachusetts, substantially in
accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions,
described in the draft evaluation report of the New England
District Engineer entitled ``Phase I Muddy River Master
Plan'', dated June 2000.

SEC. 525. SOO LOCKS, SAULT STE. MARIE, MICHIGAN.

The Secretary may not require a cargo vessel equipped with
bow thrusters and friction winches that is transiting the Soo
Locks in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, to provide more than 2
crew members to serve as line handlers on the pier of a lock,
except in adverse weather conditions or if there is a
mechanical failure on the vessel.

SEC. 526. DULUTH, MINNESOTA, ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY PROJECT.

(a) Project Authorization.--Section 541(a) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3777) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``implement'' and inserting ``conduct full
scale demonstrations of''; and
(2) by inserting before the period the following: ``,
including technologies evaluated for the New York/New Jersey
Harbor under

[[Page H10337]]

section 405 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992
(33 U.S.C. 2239 note; 106 Stat. 4863)''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 541(b) of
such Act is amended by striking ``$1,000,000'' and inserting
``$3,000,000''.

SEC. 527. MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA.

(a) In General.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the
State of Minnesota, shall design and construct the project
for environmental restoration and recreation, Minneapolis,
Minnesota, substantially in accordance with the plans
described in the report entitled ``Feasibility Study for
Mississippi Whitewater Park, Minneapolis, Minnesota'',
prepared for the Minnesota department of natural resources,
dated June 30, 1999.
(b) Cost Sharing.--
(1) In general.--The non-Federal share of the cost of the
project shall be determined in accordance with title I of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211 et
seq.).
(2) Lands, easements, and rights-of-way.--The non-Federal
interest shall provide all lands, easements, rights-of-way,
relocations, and dredged material disposal areas necessary
for construction of the project and shall receive credit for
the cost of providing such lands, easements, rights-of-way,
relocations, and dredged material disposal areas toward the
non-Federal share of the cost of the project.
(3) Operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and
replacement.--The operation, maintenance, repair,
rehabilitation, and replacement of the project shall be a
non-Federal responsibility.
(4) Credit for non-federal work.--The non-Federal interest
shall receive credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost
of the project for work performed by the non-Federal interest
before the date of execution of the project cooperation
agreement if the Secretary determines that the work is
integral to the project.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated $10,000,000 to carry out this section.

SEC. 528. ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MINNESOTA.

The Secretary shall carry out under section 204 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326) a
project in St. Louis County, Minnesota, by making beneficial
use of dredged material from a Federal navigation project.

SEC. 529. WILD RICE RIVER, MINNESOTA.

The Secretary shall prepare a general reevaluation report
on the project for flood control, Wild Rice River, Minnesota,
authorized by section 201 of the Flood Control Act of 1970
(84 Stat. 1825), and, if the Secretary determines that the
project is technically sound, environmentally acceptable, and
economically justified, shall carry out the project. In
carrying out the reevaluation, the Secretary shall include
river dredging as a component of the study.

SEC. 530. COASTAL MISSISSIPPI WETLANDS RESTORATION PROJECTS.

(a) In General.--In order to further the purposes of
section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992
(33 U.S.C. 2326) and section 206 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), the Secretary shall
participate in restoration projects for critical coastal
wetlands and coastal barrier islands in the State of
Mississippi that will produce, consistent with existing
Federal programs, projects, and activities, immediate and
substantial restoration, preservation, and ecosystem
protection benefits, including the beneficial use of dredged
material if such use is a cost-effective means of disposal of
such material.
(b) Project Selection.--The Secretary, in coordination with
other Federal, tribal, State, and local agencies, may
identify and implement projects described in subsection (a)
after entering into an agreement with an appropriate non-
Federal interest in accordance with this section.
(c) Cost Sharing.--Before implementing any project under
this section, the Secretary shall enter into a binding
agreement with the non-Federal interests. The agreement shall
provide that the non-Federal responsibility for the project
shall be as follows:
(1) To acquire any lands, easements, rights-of-way,
relocations, and dredged material disposal areas necessary
for implementation of the project.
(2) To hold and save harmless the United States free from
claims or damages due to implementation of the project,
except for the negligence of the Federal Government or its
contractors.
(3) To pay 35 percent of project costs.
(d) Nonprofit Entity.--For any project undertaken under
this section, a non-Federal interest may include a nonprofit
entity with the consent of the affected local government.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000.

SEC. 531. MISSOURI RIVER VALLEY IMPROVEMENTS.

(a) Missouri River Mitigation Project.--The project for
mitigation of fish and wildlife losses, Missouri River Bank
Stabilization and Navigation Project, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa,
and Nebraska authorized by section 601(a) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4143) and
modified by section 334 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 306), is further modified to authorize
$200,000,000 for fiscal years 2001 through 2010 to be
appropriated to the Secretary for acquisition of 118,650
acres of land and interests in land for the project.
(b) Upper Missouri River Aquatic and Riparian Habitat
Mitigation Program.--
(1) In general.--
(A) Study.--The Secretary shall complete a study that
analyzes the need for additional measures for mitigation of
losses of aquatic and terrestrial habitat from Fort Peck Dam
to Sioux City, Iowa, resulting from the operation of the
Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir project in the States of
Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Montana.
(B) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to
Congress a report describing the results of the study.
(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 toward the preservation of native fish and
wildlife habitat as a result of, such releases; and
(C) requires the Secretary to provide compensation for any
loss of hydropower at Fort Peck Dam resulting from
implementation of the pilot program; and
(D) does not effect a change in the Missouri River Master
Water Control Manual.
(3) Reservoir fish loss study.--
(A) In general.--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 transmit to
Congress a report describing the results of the study.
(4) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated--
(A) to complete the study 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.
(c) Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers Enhancement
Project.--Section 514(g) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 342) is amended to read as follows:
``(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 2010.''.

SEC. 532. NEW MADRID COUNTY, MISSOURI.

For purposes of determining the non-Federal share for the
project for navigation, New Madrid County Harbor, Missouri,
carried out under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of
1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), the Secretary shall consider Phases 1
and 2 as described in the report of the District Engineer,
dated February 2000, as one project and provide credit to the
non-Federal interest toward the non-Federal share of the
combined project for work performed by the non-Federal
interest on Phase 1 of the project.

SEC. 533. PEMISCOT COUNTY, MISSOURI.

The Secretary shall provide the non-Federal interest for
the project for navigation, Caruthersville Harbor, Pemiscot
County, Missouri, carried out under section 107 of the River
and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), credit toward the
non-Federal share of the cost of the project for in-kind work
performed by the non-Federal interest after December 1, 1997,
if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the
project.

SEC. 534. LAS VEGAS, NEVADA.

(a) Definitions.--In this section, the following
definitions apply:
(1) Committee.--The term ``Committee'' means the Las Vegas
Wash Coordinating Committee.
(2) Plan.--The term ``Plan'' means the Las Vegas Wash
comprehensive adaptive management plan, developed by the
Committee and dated January 20, 2000.
(3) Project.--The term ``Project'' means the Las Vegas Wash
wetlands restoration and Lake Mead water quality improvement
project and includes the programs, features, components,
projects, and activities identified in the Plan.
(b) Participation in Project.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary, in conjunction with the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the
Secretary of Agriculture, and the Secretary of the Interior
and in partnership with the Committee, shall participate in
the implementation of the Project to restore wetlands at Las
Vegas Wash and to improve water quality in Lake Mead in
accordance with the Plan.
(2) Cost sharing requirements.--
(A) In general.--The non-Federal interests shall pay 35
percent of the cost of any project carried out under this
section.
(B) Operation and maintenance.--The non-Federal interests
shall be responsible for all costs associated with operating,
maintaining, replacing, repairing, and rehabilitating all
projects carried out under this section.
(C) Federal lands.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this subsection, the Federal share of the cost of a project
carried out under this section on Federal lands shall be 100
percent, including the costs of operation and maintenance.

[[Page H10338]]

(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated $10,000,000 to carry out this section.

SEC. 535. NEWARK, NEW JERSEY.

(a) In General.--Using authorities under law in effect on
the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, the
Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the
heads of other appropriate Federal agencies shall assist the
State of New Jersey in developing and implementing a
comprehensive basinwide strategy in the Passaic, Hackensack,
Raritan, and Atlantic Coast floodplain areas for coordinated
and integrated management of land and water resources to
improve water quality, reduce flood hazards, and ensure
sustainable economic activity.
(b) Technical Assistance, Staff, and Financial Support.--
The heads of the Federal agencies referred to in subsection
(a) may provide technical assistance, staff, and financial
support for the development of the floodplain management
strategy.
(c) Flexibility.--The heads of the Federal agencies
referred to in subsection (a) shall exercise flexibility to
reduce barriers to efficient and effective implementation of
the floodplain management strategy.
(d) Research.--In coordination with academic and research
institutions for support, the Secretary may conduct a study
to carry out this section.

SEC. 536. URBANIZED PEAK FLOOD MANAGEMENT RESEARCH, NEW
JERSEY.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall develop and implement
a research program to evaluate opportunities to manage peak
flood flows in urbanized watersheds located in the State of
New Jersey.
(b) Scope of Research.--The research program authorized by
subsection (a) shall be accomplished through the New York
District of Corps of Engineers. The research shall include
the following:
(1) Identification of key factors in the development of an
urbanized watershed that affect peak flows in the watershed
and downstream.
(2) Development of peak flow management models for 4 to 6
watersheds in urbanized areas with widely differing geology,
shapes, and soil types that can be used to determine optimal
flow reduction factors for individual watersheds.
(c) Location.--The activities authorized by this section
shall be carried out at the facility authorized by section
103(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 106
Stat. 4812-4813, which may be located on the campus of the
New Jersey Institute of Technology.
(d) Report to Congress.--The Secretary shall evaluate
policy changes in the planning process for flood damage
reduction projects based on the results of the research under
this section and transmit to Congress a report on such
results not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of
this Act.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $11,000,000 for
fiscal years beginning after September 30, 2000.

SEC. 537. BLACK ROCK CANAL, BUFFALO, NEW YORK.

The Secretary shall provide technical assistance in support
of activities of non-Federal interests related to the
dredging of Black Rock Canal in the area between the Ferry
Street Overpass and the Peace Bridge Overpass in Buffalo, New
York.

SEC. 538. HAMBURG, NEW YORK.

The Secretary shall complete the study of a project for
shoreline erosion, Old Lake Shore Road, Hamburg, New York,
and, if the Secretary determines that the project is
feasible, the Secretary shall carry out the project.

SEC. 539. NEPPERHAN RIVER, YONKERS, NEW YORK.

The Secretary shall provide technical assistance to the
city of Yonkers, New York, in support of activities relating
to the dredging of the Nepperhan River outlet, New York.

SEC. 540. ROCHESTER, NEW YORK.

The Secretary shall complete the study of a project for
navigation, Rochester Harbor, Rochester, New York, and, if
the Secretary determines that the project is feasible, the
Secretary shall carry out the project.

SEC. 541. UPPER MOHAWK RIVER BASIN, NEW YORK.

(a) In General.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the
Secretary of Agriculture and the State of New York, shall
conduct a study, develop a strategy, and implement a project
to reduce flood damages, improve water quality, and create
wildlife habitat through wetlands restoration, soil and water
conservation practices, nonstructural measures, and other
appropriate means in the Upper Mohawk River Basin, at an
estimated Federal cost of $10,000,000.
(b) Implementation of Strategy.--The Secretary shall
implement the strategy under this section in cooperation with
local landowners and local government. Projects to implement
the strategy shall be designed to take advantage of ongoing
or planned actions by other agencies, local municipalities,
or nonprofit, nongovernmental organizations with expertise in
wetlands restoration that would increase the effectiveness or
decrease the overall cost of implementing recommended
projects and may include the acquisition of wetlands, from
willing sellers, that contribute to the Upper Mohawk River
basin ecosystem.
(c) Cooperation Agreements.--In carrying out activities
under this section, the Secretary shall enter into
cooperation agreements to provide financial assistance to
appropriate Federal, State, and local government agencies as
well as appropriate nonprofit, nongovernmental organizations
with expertise in wetlands restoration, with the consent of
the affected local government. Financial assistance provided
may include activities for the implementation of wetlands
restoration projects and soil and water conservation
measures.
(d) Non-Federal Share.--The non-Federal share of the cost
of activities carried out under this section shall be 25
percent and may be provided through in-kind services and
materials.
(e) Upper Mohawk River Basin Defined.--In this section, the
term ``Upper Mohawk River basin'' means the Mohawk River, its
tributaries, and associated lands upstream of the confluence
of the Mohawk River and Canajoharie Creek, and including
Canajoharie Creek, New York.

SEC. 542. EASTERN NORTH CAROLINA FLOOD PROTECTION.

(a) In General.--In order to assist the State of North
Carolina and local governments in mitigating damages
resulting from a major disaster, the Secretary shall carry
out flood damage reduction projects in eastern North Carolina
by protecting, clearing, and restoring channel dimensions
(including removing accumulated snags and other debris) in
the following rivers and tributaries:
(1) New River and tributaries.
(2) White Oak River and tributaries.
(3) Neuse River and tributaries.
(4) Pamlico River and tributaries.
(b) Cost Share.--The non-Federal interest for a project
under this section shall--
(1) pay 35 percent of the cost of the project; and
(2) provide any lands, easements, rights-of-way,
relocations, and material disposal areas necessary for
implementation of the project.
(c) Conditions.--The Secretary may not reject a project
based solely on a minimum amount of stream runoff.
(d) Major Disaster Defined.--In this section, the term
``major disaster'' means a major disaster declared under
title IV of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170 et seq.) and
includes any major disaster declared before the date of
enactment of this Act.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $3,000,000 for
fiscal years 2001 through 2003.

SEC. 543. CUYAHOGA RIVER, OHIO.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall provide technical
assistance to non-Federal interests for an evaluation of the
structural integrity of the bulkhead system located along the
Cuyahoga River in the vicinity of Cleveland, Ohio, at a total
cost of $500,000.
(b) Evaluation.--The evaluation described in subsection (a)
shall include design analysis, plans and specifications, and
cost estimates for repair or replacement of the bulkhead
system.

SEC. 544. CROWDER POINT, CROWDER, OKLAHOMA.

At the request of the city of Crowder, Oklahoma, the
Secretary shall enter into a long-term lease, not to exceed
99 years, with the city under which the city may develop,
operate, and maintain as a public park all or a portion of
approximately 260 acres of land known as Crowder Point on
Lake Eufaula, Oklahoma. The lease shall include such terms
and conditions as the Secretary determines are necessary to
protect the interest of the United States and project
purposes and shall be made without consideration to the
United States.

SEC. 545. OKLAHOMA-TRIBAL COMMISSION.

(a) Findings.--The House of Representatives makes the
following findings:
(1) The unemployment rate in southeastern Oklahoma is 23
percent greater than the national average.
(2) The per capita income in southeastern Oklahoma is 62
percent of the national average.
(3) Reflecting the inadequate job opportunities and
dwindling resources in poor rural communities, southeastern
Oklahoma is experiencing an out-migration of people.
(4) Water represents a vitally important resource in
southeastern Oklahoma. Its abundance offers an opportunity
for the residents to benefit from their natural resources.
(5) Trends as described in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) are
not conducive to local economic development, and efforts to
improve the management of water in the region would have a
positive outside influence on the local economy, help reverse
these trends, and improve the lives of local residents.
(b) Sense of House of Representatives.--In view of the
findings described in subsection (a), and in order to assist
communities in southeastern Oklahoma in benefiting from their
local resources, it is the sense of the House of
Representatives that--
(1) the State of Oklahoma and the Choctaw Nation of
Oklahoma and the Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma, should establish
a State-tribal commission composed equally of representatives
of such Nations and residents of the water basins within the
boundaries of such Nations for the purpose of administering
and distributing from the sale of water any benefits and net
revenues to the tribes and local entities within the
respective basins;
(2) any sale of water to entities outside the basins should
be consistent with the procedures and requirements
established by the commission; and
(3) if requested, the Secretary should provide technical
assistance, as appropriate, to facilitate the efforts of the
commission.

[[Page H10339]]

SEC. 546. COLUMBIA RIVER, OREGON AND WASHINGTON.

(a) Modeling and Forecasting System.--The Secretary shall
develop and implement a modeling and forecasting system for
the Columbia River estuary, Oregon and Washington, to provide
real-time information on existing and future wave, current,
tide, and wind conditions.
(b) Use of Contracts and Grants.--In carrying out this
section, the Secretary is encouraged to use contracts,
cooperative agreements, and grants with colleges and
universities and other non-Federal entities.

SEC. 547. JOHN DAY POOL, OREGON AND WASHINGTON.

(a) Extinguishment of Reversionary Interests and Use
Restrictions.--With respect to the lands described in each
deed listed 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 areas above the
standard project flood elevation, without increasing the risk
of flooding in or outside of the floodplain, is authorized,
except in any 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.--The following deeds are referred to in
subsection (a):
(1) The deeds executed by the United States and bearing
Morrow County, Oregon, Auditor's Microfilm Numbers 229 and
16226.
(2) The deed executed by the United States and bearing
Benton County, Washington, Auditor's File Number 601766, but
only as that deed applies to the following portion of lands
conveyed by that deed:
A tract of land lying in Section 7, Township 5 north, Range
28 east of the Willamette meridian, Benton County,
Washington, said tract being more particularly described as
follows:
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);
thence westerly along the said centerline of Third Avenue,
a distance of 565 feet;
thence south 54 deg. 10' west, to a point on the west line
of Tract 18 of said Addition and the true point of beginning;
thence north, parallel with the west line of said Section
7, to a point on the north line of said Section 7;
thence west along the north line thereof to the northwest
corner of said Section 7;
thence south along the west line of said Section 7 to a
point on the ordinary high water line of the Columbia River;
thence northeasterly along said high water line to a point
on the north and south coordinate line of the Oregon
Coordinate System, North Zone, said coordinate line being
east 2,291,000 feet;
thence north along said line to a point on the south line
of First Avenue of said Addition;
thence westerly along First Avenue to a point on southerly
extension of the west line of Tract 18;
thence northerly along said west line of Tract 18 to the
point of beginning.
(3) The deed recorded October 17, 1967, in book 291, page
148, Deed of Records of Umatilla County, Oregon, executed by
the United States.
(c) No Effect on Other Needs.--Nothing in this section
affects the remaining rights and interests of the Corps of
Engineers for authorized project purposes.

SEC. 548. LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER AND TILLAMOOK BAY ESTUARY
PROGRAM, OREGON AND WASHINGTON.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct studies and
ecosystem restoration projects for the lower Columbia River
and Tillamook Bay estuaries, Oregon and Washington.
(b) Use of Management Plans.--
(1) Lower columbia river estuary.--
(A) In general.--In carrying out ecosystem restoration
projects under this section, the Secretary shall use as a
guide the Lower Columbia River estuary program's
comprehensive conservation and management plan developed
under section 320 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 1330).
(B) Consultation.--The Secretary shall carry out ecosystem
restoration projects under this section for the lower
Columbia River estuary in consultation with the States of
Oregon and Washington, the Environmental Protection Agency,
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the National
Marine Fisheries Service, and the Forest Service.
(2) Tillamook bay estuary.--
(A) In general.--In carrying out ecosystem restoration
projects under this section, the Secretary shall use as a
guide the Tillamook Bay national estuary project's
comprehensive conservation and management plan developed
under section 320 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 1330).
(B) Consultation.--The Secretary shall carry out ecosystem
restoration projects under this section for the Tillamook Bay
estuary in consultation with the State of Oregon, the
Environmental Protection Agency, the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and
the Forest Service.
(c) Authorized Activities.--
(1) In general.--In carrying out ecosystem restoration
projects under this section, the Secretary shall undertake
activities necessary to protect, monitor, and restore fish
and wildlife habitat.
(2) Limitations.--The Secretary may not carry out any
activity under this section that adversely affects--
(A) the water-related needs of the lower Columbia River
estuary or the Tillamook Bay estuary, including navigation,
recreation, and water supply needs; or
(B) private property rights.
(d) Priority.--In determining the priority of projects to
be carried out under this section, the Secretary shall
consult with the Implementation Committee of the Lower
Columbia River Estuary Program and the Performance
Partnership Council of the Tillamook Bay National Estuary
Project, and shall consider the recommendations of such
entities.
(e) Cost-Sharing Requirements.--
(1) Studies.--Studies conducted under this section shall be
subject to cost sharing in accordance with section 105 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2215).
(2) Ecosystem restoration projects.--
(A) In general.--Non-Federal interests shall pay 35 percent
of the cost of any ecosystem restoration project carried out
under this section.
(B) Items provided by non-federal interests.--Non-Federal
interests shall provide all land, easements, rights-of-way,
dredged material disposal areas, and relocations necessary
for ecosystem restoration projects to be carried out under
this section. The value of such land, easements, rights-of-
way, dredged material disposal areas, and relocations shall
be credited toward the payment required under this paragraph.
(C) In-kind contributions.--Not more than 50 percent of the
non-Federal share required under this subsection may be
satisfied by the provision of in-kind services.
(3) Operation and maintenance.--Non-Federal interests shall
be responsible for all costs associated with operating,
maintaining, replacing, repairing, and rehabilitating all
projects carried out under this section.
(4) Federal lands.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this subsection, the Federal share of the cost of a project
carried out under this section on Federal lands shall be 100
percent, including costs of operation and maintenance.
(f) Definitions.--In this section, the following
definitions apply:
(1) Lower columbia river estuary.--The term ``lower
Columbia River estuary'' means those river reaches having
navigation channels on the mainstem of the Columbia River in
Oregon and Washington west of Bonneville Dam, and the
tributaries of such reaches to the extent such tributaries
are tidally influenced.
(2) Tillamook bay estuary.--The term ``Tillamook Bay
estuary'' means those waters of Tillamook Bay in Oregon and
its tributaries that are tidally influenced.
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $40,000,000.

SEC. 549. SKINNER BUTTE PARK, EUGENE, OREGON.

Section 546(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1999 (113 Stat. 351) is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``If the Secretary participates in the project,
the Secretary shall carry out a monitoring program for 3
years after construction to evaluate the ecological and
engineering effectiveness of the project and its
applicability to other sites in the Willamette Valley.''

SEC. 550. WILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN, OREGON.

Section 547 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
(113 Stat. 351-352) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(d) Research.--In coordination with academic and research
institutions for support, the Secretary may conduct a study
to carry out this section.''.

SEC. 551. LACKAWANNA RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA.

(a) In General.--Section 539(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3776) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1)(A);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (1)(B)
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) the Lackawanna River, Pennsylvania.''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 539(d) of
such Act (110 Stat. 3776-3777) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(a)(1)(A) and'' and inserting
``(a)(1)(A),''; and
(2) by inserting ``, and $5,000,000 for projects undertaken
under subsection (a)(1)(C)'' before the period at the end.

SEC. 552. PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall provide assistance to
the Delaware River Port Authority to deepen the Delaware
River at Pier 122 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated $1,000,000 to carry out this section.

SEC. 553. ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS, RAYSTOWN LAKE, PENNSYLVANIA.

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania may transfer any
unobligated funds made available to the Commonwealth for item
number 1278 of the table contained in section 1602 of Public
Law 105-178, to the Secretary for access improvements at the
Raystown Lake project, Pennsylvania.

[[Page H10340]]

SEC. 554. UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN, PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW
YORK.

Section 567 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
(110 Stat. 3787-3788) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (a)(2) and inserting the
following:
``(2) The Susquehanna River watershed upstream of the
Chemung River, New York, at an estimated Federal cost of
$10,000,000.''; and
(2) by striking subsections (c) and (d) and inserting the
following:
``(c) Cooperation Agreements.--In conducting the study and
developing the strategy under this section, the Secretary
shall enter into cooperation agreements to provide financial
assistance to appropriate Federal, State, and local
government agencies as well as appropriate nonprofit,
nongovernmental organizations with expertise in wetlands
restoration, with the consent of the affected local
government. Financial assistance provided may include
activities for the implementation of wetlands restoration
projects and soil and water conservation measures.
``(d) Implementation of Strategy.--The Secretary shall
undertake development and implementation of the strategy
under this section in cooperation with local landowners and
local government officials. Projects to implement the
strategy shall be designed to take advantage of ongoing or
planned actions by other agencies, local municipalities, or
nonprofit, nongovernmental organizations with expertise in
wetlands restoration that would increase the effectiveness or
decrease the overall cost of implementing recommended
projects and may include the acquisition of wetlands, from
willing sellers, that contribute to the Upper Susquehanna
River basin ecosystem.''.

SEC. 555. CHICKAMAUGA LOCK, CHATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE.

(a) Transfer From TVA.--The Tennessee Valley Authority
shall transfer $200,000 to the Secretary for the preparation
of a report of the Chief of Engineers for a replacement lock
at Chickamauga Lock and Dam, Chattanooga, Tennessee.
(b) Report.--The Secretary shall accept and use the funds
transferred under subsection (a) to prepare the report
referred to in subsection (a).

SEC. 556. JOE POOL LAKE, TEXAS.

If the city of Grand Prairie, Texas, enters into a binding
agreement with the Secretary under which--
(1) the city agrees to assume all of the responsibilities
(other than financial responsibilities) of the Trinity River
Authority of Texas under Corps of Engineers contract #DACW63-
76-C-0166, including operation and maintenance of the
recreation facilities included in the contract; and
(2) to pay the Federal Government a total of $4,290,000 in
2 installments, 1 in the amount of $2,150,000, which shall be
due and payable no later than December 1, 2000, and 1 in the
amount of $2,140,000, which shall be due and payable no later
than December 1, 2003,
the Trinity River Authority shall be relieved of all of its
financial responsibilities under the contract as of the date
the Secretary enters into the agreement with the city.

SEC. 557. BENSON BEACH, FORT CANBY STATE PARK, WASHINGTON.

The Secretary shall place dredged material at Benson Beach,
Fort Canby State Park, Washington, in accordance with section
204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C.
2326).

SEC. 558. PUGET SOUND AND ADJACENT WATERS RESTORATION,
WASHINGTON.

(a) In General.--The Secretary may participate in critical
restoration projects in the area of the Puget Sound and its
adjacent waters, including the watersheds that drain directly
into Puget Sound, Admiralty Inlet, Hood Canal, Rosario
Strait, and the eastern portion of the Strait of Juan de
Fuca.
(b) Project Selection.--The Secretary, in consultation with
appropriate Federal, tribal, State, and local agencies,
(including the Salmon Recovery Funding Board, Northwest
Straits Commission, Hood Canal Coordinating Council, county
watershed planning councils, and salmon enhancement groups)
may identify critical restoration projects and may implement
those projects after entering into an agreement with an
appropriate non-Federal interest in accordance with the
requirements of section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970
(42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b) and this section.
(c) Project Cost Limitation.--Of amounts appropriated to
carry out this section, not more than $2,500,000 may be
allocated to carry out any project.
(d) Cost Sharing.--
(1) In general.--The non-Federal interest for a critical
restoration project under this section shall--
(A) pay 35 percent of the cost of the project;
(B) provide any lands, easements, rights-of-way,
relocations, and dredged material disposal areas necessary
for implementation of the project;
(C) pay 100 percent of the operation, maintenance, repair,
replacement, and rehabilitation costs associated with the
project; and
(D) hold the United States harmless from liability due to
implementation of the project, except for the negligence of
the Federal Government or its contractors.
(2) Credit.--The Secretary shall provide credit to the non-
Federal interest for a critical restoration project under
this section for the value of any lands, easements, rights-
of-way, relocations, and dredged material disposal areas
provided by the non-Federal interest for the project.
(3) Meeting non-federal cost share.--The non-Federal
interest may provide up to 50 percent of the non-Federal
share of the cost of a project under this section through the
provision of services, materials, supplies, or other in-kind
services.
(e) Critical Restoration Project Defined.--In this section,
the term ``critical restoration project'' means a water
resource project that will produce, consistent with existing
Federal programs, projects, and activities, immediate and
substantial environmental protection and restoration
benefits.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $40,000,000.

SEC. 559. SHOALWATER BAY INDIAN TRIBE, WILLAPA BAY,
WASHINGTON.

(a) Placement of Dredged Material on Shore.--For the
purpose of addressing coastal erosion, the Secretary shall
place, on an emergency one-time basis, dredged material from
a Federal navigation project on the shore of the tribal
reservation of the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe, Willapa Bay,
Washington, at Federal expense.
(b) Placement of Dredged Material on Protective Dunes.--The
Secretary shall place dredged material from Willapa Bay on
the remaining protective dunes on the tribal reservation of
the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe, at Federal expense.
(c) Study of Coastal Erosion.--The Secretary shall conduct
a study to develop long-term solutions to coastal erosion
problems at the tribal reservation of the Shoalwater Bay
Indian Tribe at Federal expense.

SEC. 560. WYNOOCHEE LAKE, WYNOOCHEE RIVER, WASHINGTON.

(a) In General.--The city of Aberdeen, Washington, may
transfer its rights, interests, and title in the land
transferred to the city under section 203 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4632) to the
city of Tacoma, Washington.
(b) Conditions.--The transfer under this section shall be
subject to the conditions set forth in section 203(b) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4632);
except that the condition set forth in paragraph (1) of such
section shall apply to the city of Tacoma only for so long as
the city of Tacoma has a valid license with the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission relating to operation of the
Wynoochee Dam, Washington.
(c) Limitation.--The transfer under subsection (a) may be
made only after the Secretary determines that the city of
Tacoma will be able to operate, maintain, repair, replace,
and rehabilitate the project for Wynoochee Lake, Wynoochee
River, Washington, authorized by section 203 of the Flood
Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1193), in accordance with such
regulations as the Secretary may issue to ensure that such
operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and
rehabilitation is consistent with project purposes.
(d) Water Supply Contract.--The water supply contract
designated as DACWD 67-68-C-0024 shall be null and void if
the Secretary exercises the reversionary right set forth in
section 203(b)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1990 (104 Stat. 4632).

SEC. 561. SNOHOMISH RIVER, WASHINGTON.

In coordination with appropriate Federal, tribal, and State
agencies, the Secretary may carry out a project to address
data needs regarding the outmigration of juvenile chinook
salmon in the Snohomish River, Washington.

SEC. 562. BLUESTONE, WEST VIRGINIA.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Tri-Cities Power Authority of West Virginia is
authorized to design and construct hydroelectric generating
facilities at the Bluestone Lake facility, West Virginia,
under the terms and conditions of the agreement referred to
in subsection (b).
(b) Agreement.--
(1) Agreement terms.--Conditioned upon the parties agreeing
to mutually acceptable terms and conditions, the Secretary
and the Secretary of Energy, acting through the Southeastern
Power Administration, may enter into a binding agreement with
the Tri-Cities Power Authority under which the Tri-Cities
Power Authority agrees to each of the following:
(A) To design and construct the generating facilities
referred to in subsection (a) within 4 years after the date
of such agreement.
(B) To reimburse the Secretary for--
(i) the cost of approving such design and inspecting such
construction;
(ii) the cost of providing any assistance authorized under
subsection (c)(2); and
(iii) the redistributed costs associated with the original
construction of the dam and dam safety if all parties agree
with the method of the development of the chargeable amounts
associated with hydropower at the facility.
(C) To release and indemnify the United States from any
claims, causes of action, or liabilities which may arise from
such design and construction of the facilities referred to in
subsection (a), including any liability that may arise out of
the removal of the facility if directed by the Secretary.
(2) Additional terms.--The agreement shall also specify
each of the following:
(A) The procedures and requirements for approval and
acceptance of design, construction, and operation and
maintenance of the facilities referred in subsection (a).

[[Page H10341]]

(B) The rights, responsibilities, and liabilities of each
party to the agreement.
(C) The amount of the payments under subsection (f) of this
section and the procedures under which such payments are to
be made.
(c) Other Requirements.--
(1) Prohibition.--No Federal funds may be expended for the
design, construction, and operation and maintenance of the
facilities referred to in subsection (a) prior to the date on
which such facilities are accepted by the Secretary under
subsection (d).
(2) Reimbursement.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, if requested by the Tri-Cities Power Authority, the
Secretary may provide, on a reimbursable basis, assistance in
connection with the design and construction of the generating
facilities referred to in subsection (a).
(d) Completion of Construction.--
(1) Transfer of facilities.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, upon completion of the construction of the
facilities referred to in subsection (a) and final approval
of such facility by the Secretary, the Tri-Cities Power
Authority shall transfer without consideration title to such
facilities to the United States, and the Secretary shall--
(A) accept the transfer of title to such facilities on
behalf of the United States; and
(B) operate and maintain the facilities referred to in
subsection (a).
(2) Certification.--The Secretary is authorized to accept
title to the facilities pursuant to paragraph (1) only after
certifying that the quality of the construction meets all
standards established for similar facilities constructed by
the Secretary.
(3) Authorized project purposes.--The operation and
maintenance of the facilities shall be conducted in a manner
that is consistent with other authorized project purposes of
the Bluestone Lake facility.
(e) Excess Power.--Pursuant to any agreement under
subsection (b), the Southeastern Power Administration shall
market the excess power produced by the facilities referred
to in subsection (a) in accordance with section 5 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act of December 22, 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s;
58 Stat. 890).
(f) Payments.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
the Secretary of Energy, acting through the Southeastern
Power Administration, is authorized to pay in accordance with
the terms of the agreement entered into under subsection (b)
out of the revenues from the sale of power produced by the
generating facility of the interconnected systems of
reservoirs operated by the Secretary and marketed by the
Southeastern Power Administration--
(1) to the Tri-Cities Power Authority all reasonable costs
incurred by the Tri-Cities Power Authority in the design and
construction of the facilities referred to in subsection (a),
including the capital investment in such facilities and a
reasonable rate of return on such capital investment; and
(2) to the Secretary, in accordance with the terms of the
agreement entered into under subsection (b) out of the
revenues from the sale of power produced by the generating
facility of the interconnected systems of reservoirs operated
by the Secretary and marketed by the Southeastern Power
Administration, all reasonable costs incurred by the
Secretary in the operation and maintenance of facilities
referred to in subsection (a).
(g) Authority of Secretary of Energy.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, the Secretary of Energy, acting
through the Southeastern Power Administration, is
authorized--
(1) to construct such transmission facilities as necessary
to market the power produced at the facilities referred to in
subsection (a) with funds contributed by the Tri-Cities Power
Authority; and
(2) to repay those funds, including interest and any
administrative expenses, directly from the revenues from the
sale of power produced by such facilities of the
interconnected systems of reservoirs operated by the
Secretary and marketed by the Southeastern Power
Administration.
(h) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section affects any
requirement under Federal or State environmental law relating
to the licensing or operation of such facilities.

SEC. 563. LESAGE/GREENBOTTOM SWAMP, WEST VIRGINIA.

Section 30 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988
(102 Stat. 4030) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(d) Historic Structure.--The Secretary shall ensure the
stabilization and preservation of the structure known as the
Jenkins House located within the Lesage/Greenbottom Swamp in
accordance with standards for sites listed on the National
Register of Historic Places.''.

SEC. 564. TUG FORK RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA.

(a) In General.--The Secretary may provide planning,
design, and construction assistance to non-Federal interests
for projects located along the Tug Fork River in West
Virginia and identified by the master plan developed pursuant
to section 114(t) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1992 (106 Stat. 4820).
(b) Priorities.--In providing assistance under this
section, the Secretary shall give priority to the primary
development demonstration sites in West Virginia identified
by the master plan referred to in subsection (a).
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $1,000,000.

SEC. 565. VIRGINIA POINT RIVERFRONT PARK, WEST VIRGINIA.

(a) In General.--The Secretary may provide planning,
design, and construction assistance to non-Federal interests
for the project at Virginia Point, located at the confluence
of the Ohio and Big Sandy Rivers in West Virginia, identified
by the preferred plan set forth in the feasibility study
dated September 1999, and carried out under the West
Virginia-Ohio River Comprehensive Study authorized by a
resolution dated September 8, 1988, by the Committee on
Public Works and Transportation of the House of
Representatives.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $3,100,000.

SEC. 566. SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA.

Section 340(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1992 (106 Stat. 4856) is amended by inserting ``environmental
restoration,'' after ``distribution facilities,''.

SEC. 567. FOX RIVER SYSTEM, WISCONSIN.

Section 332(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1992 (106 Stat. 4852) is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``Such terms and conditions may include a payment
or payments to the State of Wisconsin to be used toward the
repair and rehabilitation of the locks and appurtenant
features to be transferred.''.

SEC. 568. SURFSIDE/SUNSET AND NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA.

The Secretary shall treat the Surfside/Sunset Newport Beach
element of the project for beach erosion, Orange County,
California, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor
Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1177), as continuing construction.

SEC. 569. ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN RESTORATION.

(a) Illinois River Basin Defined.--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.--The Secretary shall develop, as
expeditiously as practicable, 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 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, the State of Illinois, and the Illinois
River Coordinating Council.
(5) Report to congress.--Not later than 2 years after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit
to Congress a report containing the comprehensive plan.
(6) Additional studies and analyses.--After transmission of
a 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 $100,000,000 for fiscal years 2001 through 2004.
(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 providing advance
notice of meetings, providing adequate opportunity for public
input and comment, maintaining appropriate records, and
making a record of

[[Page H10342]]

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
Illinois Department of Agriculture.
(9) National Buffer Initiative of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service.
(10) Nonpoint source grant program administered by the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.
(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.--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. In-kind services shall
include all State funds expended on programs and projects
which accomplish the goals of this section, as determined by
the Secretary. Such programs and projects may include 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 lands.--If the Secretary determines that lands
or interests in land acquired by a non-Federal interest,
regardless of the date of acquisition, are integral to a
project or activity carried out under this section, the
Secretary may credit the value of the lands or interests in
land toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project
or activity. Such value shall be 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. Such value shall be determined by the
Secretary.

SEC. 570. GREAT LAKES.

(a) Great Lakes Tributary Model.--Section 516 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2326b) is
amended--
(1) by adding at the end of subsection (e) the following:
``(3) Report.--Not later than December 31, 2003, the
Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the
Secretary's activities under this subsection.''; and
(2) in subsection (g)--
(A) by striking ``There is authorized'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--There is authorized'';
(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 2002 through 2006.''; and
(C) by aligning the remainder of the text of paragraph (1)
(as designated by subparagraph (A) of this paragraph) with
paragraph (2) (as added by subparagraph (B) of this
paragraph).
(b) Alternative Engineering Technologies.--
(1) Development of plan.--The Secretary shall develop and
transmit to Congress a plan to enhance the application of
ecological principles and practices to traditional
engineering problems at Great Lakes shores.
(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $200,000.
Activities under this subsection shall be carried out at
Federal expense.
(c) Fisheries and Ecosystem Restoration.--
(1) Development of plan.--The Secretary shall develop and
transmit to Congress a plan for implementing Corps of
Engineers activities, including ecosystem restoration, to
enhance the management of Great Lakes fisheries.
(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $300,000.
Activities under this subsection shall be carried out at
Federal expense.

SEC. 571. GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS AND SEDIMENT
REMEDIATION.

Section 401 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990
(33 U.S.C. 1268 note; 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 2005.''.

SEC. 572. GREAT LAKES DREDGING LEVELS ADJUSTMENT.

SEC. 573. DREDGED MATERIAL RECYCLING.

(a) Pilot Program.--The Secretary shall conduct a pilot
program to provide incentives for the removal of dredged
material from a confined disposal facility associated with a
harbor on the Great Lakes or the Saint Lawrence River and a
harbor on the Delaware River in Pennsylvania for the purpose
of recycling the dredged material and extending the life of
the confined disposal facility.
(b) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
completion of the pilot program, the Secretary shall transmit
to Congress a report on the results of the program.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $2,000,000.

SEC. 574. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT, RESTORATION, AND DEVELOPMENT.

Section 503(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (110 Stat. 3756-3757; 113 Stat. 288) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(28) Tomales Bay watershed, California.
``(29) Kaskaskia River watershed, Illinois.
``(30) Sangamon River watershed, Illinois.
``(31) Lackawanna River watershed, Pennsylvania.
``(32) Upper Charles River watershed, Massachusetts.
``(33) Brazos River watershed, Texas.''.

SEC. 575. MAINTENANCE OF NAVIGATION CHANNELS.

Section 509(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (110 Stat. 3759; 113 Stat. 339) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(16) Cameron Loop, Louisiana, as part of the Calcasieu
River and Pass Ship Channel.
``(17) Morehead City Harbor, North Carolina.''.

SEC. 576. SUPPORT OF ARMY CIVIL WORKS PROGRAM.

The requirements of section 2361 of title 10, United States
Code, shall not apply to any contract, cooperative research
and development agreement, cooperative agreement, or grant
entered into under section 229 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3703) between the
Secretary and Marshall University or entered into under
section 350 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
(113 Stat. 310) between the Secretary and Juniata College.

SEC. 577. NATIONAL RECREATION RESERVATION SERVICE.

Notwithstanding section 611 of the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (112 Stat. 2861-515), the
Secretary may participate in the National Recreation
Reservation Service on an interagency basis and fund the
Department of the Army's share of the cost of activities
required for implementing, operating, and maintaining the
Service.

SEC. 578. HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEY.

The Secretary shall enter into an agreement with the
Administrator of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration to require the Secretary, not later than 60
days after the Corps of Engineers completes a project
involving dredging of a channel, to provide data to the
Administration in a standard digital format on the results of
a hydrographic survey of the channel conducted by the Corps
of Engineers.

[[Page H10343]]

SEC. 579. PERCHLORATE.

(a) In General.--The Secretary, in cooperation with
Federal, State, and local government agencies, may
participate in studies and other investigative activities and
in the planning and design of projects determined by the
Secretary to offer a long-term solution to the problem of
groundwater contamination caused by perchlorates.
(b) Investigations and Projects.--
(1) Bosque and leon rivers.--The Secretary, in coordination
with other Federal agencies and the Brazos River Authority,
shall participate under subsection (a) in investigations and
projects in the Bosque and Leon River watersheds in Texas to
assess the impact of the perchlorate associated with the
former Naval ``Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant'' at
McGregor, Texas.
(2) Caddo lake.--The Secretary, in coordination with other
Federal agencies and the Northeast Texas Municipal Water
District, shall participate under subsection (a) in
investigations and projects relating to perchlorate
contamination in Caddo Lake, Texas.
(3) Eastern santa clara basin.--The Secretary, in
coordination with other Federal, State, and local government
agencies, shall participate under subsection (a) in
investigations and projects related to sites that are sources
of perchlorates and that are located in the city of Santa
Clarita, California.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purposes of
carrying out this section, there is authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary $25,000,000, of which not to
exceed $8,000,000 shall be available to carry out subsection
(b)(1), not to exceed $3,000,000 shall be available to carry
out subsection (b)(2), and not to exceed $7,000,000 shall be
available to carry out subsection (b)(3).

SEC. 580. ABANDONED AND INACTIVE NONCOAL MINE RESTORATION.

Section 560 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
(33 USC 2336; 113 Stat. 354-355) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a) by striking ``and design'' and
inserting ``design, and construction'';
(2) in subsection (c) by striking ``50'' and inserting
``35'';
(3) in subsection (e) by inserting ``and colleges and
universities, including the members of the Western
Universities Mine-Land Reclamation and Restoration
Consortium, for the purposes of assisting in the reclamation
of abandoned noncoal mines and'' after ``entities''; and
(4) by striking subsection (f) and inserting the following:
``(f) Non-Federal Interests.--In this section, the term
`non-Federal interests' includes, with the consent of the
affected local government, nonprofit entities,
notwithstanding section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970
(42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b).
``(g) Operation and Maintenance.--The non-Federal share of
the costs of operation and maintenance for a project carried
out under this section shall be 100 percent.
``(h) Credit.--A non-Federal interest shall receive credit
toward the non-Federal share of the cost of a project under
this section for design and construction services and other
in-kind consideration provided by the non-Federal interest if
the Secretary determines that such design and construction
services and other in-kind consideration are integral to the
project.
``(i) Cost Limitation.--Not more than $10,000,000 of the
amounts appropriated to carry out this section may be
allotted for projects in a single locality, but the Secretary
may accept funds voluntarily contributed by a non-Federal or
Federal entity for the purpose of expanding the scope of the
services requested by the non-Federal or Federal entity.
``(j) No Effect on Liability.--The provision of assistance
under this section shall not relieve from liability any
person that would otherwise be liable under Federal or State
law for damages, response costs, natural resource damages,
restitution, equitable relief, or any other relief.
``(k) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $45,000,000.
Such sums shall remain available until expended.''.

SEC. 581. LAKES PROGRAM.

Section 602 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(100 Stat. 4148-4149) is further amended--
(1) in subsection (b) by inserting ``and activity'' after
``project'';
(2) in subsection (c) by inserting ``and activities under
subsection (f)'' before the comma; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(f) Center for Lake Education and Research, Otsego Lake,
New York.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall construct an
environmental education and research facility at Otsego Lake,
New York. The purpose of the Center shall be to--
``(A) conduct nationwide research on the impacts of water
quality and water quantity on lake hydrology and the
hydrologic cycle;
``(B) develop technologies and strategies for monitoring
and improving water quality in the Nation's lakes; and
``(C) provide public education regarding the biological,
economic, recreational, and aesthetic value of the Nation's
lakes.
``(2) Use of research.--The results of research and
education activities carried out at the Center shall be
applied to the program under subsection (a) and to other
Federal programs, projects, and activities that are intended
to improve or otherwise affect lakes.
``(3) Biological monitoring station.--A central function of
the Center shall be to research, develop, test, and evaluate
biological monitoring technologies and techniques for
potential use at lakes listed in subsection (a) and
throughout the Nation.
``(4) Credit.--The non-Federal sponsor shall receive credit
for lands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations toward
its share of project costs.
``(5) Authorization of appropriations.--In addition to sums
authorized by subsection (d), there is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this subsection $6,000,000. Such
sums shall remain available until expended.''.

SEC. 582. RELEASE OF USE RESTRICTION.

(a) Release.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
the Tennessee Valley Authority shall grant a release or
releases, without monetary consideration, from the
restriction covenant which requires that property described
in subsection (b) shall at all times be used solely for the
purpose of erecting docks and buildings for shipbuilding
purposes or for the manufacture or storage of products for
the purpose of trading or shipping in transportation.
(b) Description of Property.--This section shall apply only
to those lands situated in the city of Decatur, Morgan
County, Alabama, and running along the easterly boundary of a
tract of land described in an indenture conveying such lands
to the Ingalls Shipbuilding Corporation dated July 29, 1954,
and recorded in deed book 535 at page 6 in the office of the
Probate Judge of Morgan County, Alabama, which are owned or
may hereafter be acquired by the Alabama Farmers Cooperative,
Inc.

SEC. 583. COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES PROTECTION.

(a) In General.--Under section 219(a) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835), the
Secretary may provide technical, planning, and design
assistance to non-Federal interests to carry out water-
related projects described in this section.
(b) Non-Federal Share.--Notwithstanding section 219(b) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835),
the non-Federal share of the cost of each project assisted in
accordance with this section shall be 25 percent.
(c) Project Descriptions.--The Secretary may provide
assistance in accordance with subsection (a) to each of the
following projects:
(1) Marana, arizona.--Wastewater treatment and
distribution infrastructure, Marana, Arizona.
(2) Eastern arkansas enterprise community, arkansas.--
Water-related infrastructure, Eastern Arkansas Enterprise
Community, Cross, Lee, Monroe, and St. Francis Counties,
Arkansas.
(3) Chino hills, california.--Storm water and sewage
collection infrastructure, Chino Hills, California.
(4) Clear lake basin, california.--Water-related
infrastructure and resource protection, Clear Lake Basin,
California.
(5) Desert hot springs, california.--Resource protection
and wastewater infrastructure, Desert Hot Springs,
California.
(6) Eastern municipal water district, california.--Regional
water-related infrastructure, Eastern Municipal Water
District, California.
(7) Huntington beach, california.--Water supply and
wastewater infrastructure, Huntington Beach, California.
(8) Inglewood, california.--Water infrastructure,
Inglewood, California.
(9) Los osos community service district, california.--
Wastewater infrastructure, Los Osos Community Service
District, California.
(10) Norwalk, california.--Water-related infrastructure,
Norwalk, California.
(11) Key biscayne, florida.--Sanitary sewer infrastructure,
Key Biscayne, Florida.
(12) South tampa, florida.--Water supply and aquifer
storage and recovery infrastructure, South Tampa, Florida.
(13) Fort wayne, indiana.--Combined sewer overflow
infrastructure and wetlands protection, Fort Wayne, Indiana.
(14) Indianapolis, indiana.--Combined sewer overflow
infrastructure, Indianapolis, Indiana.
(15) St. charles, st. bernard, and plaquemines parishes,
louisiana.--Water and wastewater infrastructure, St. Charles,
St. Bernard, and Plaquemines Parishes, Louisiana.
(16) St. john the baptist and st. james parishes,
louisiana.--Water and sewer improvements, St. John the
Baptist and St. James Parishes, Louisiana.
(17) Union county, north carolina.--Water infrastructure,
Union County, North Carolina.
(18) Hood river, oregon.--Water transmission
infrastructure, Hood River, Oregon.
(19) Medford, oregon.--Sewer collection infrastructure,
Medford, Oregon.
(20) Portland, oregon.--Water infrastructure and resource
protection, Portland, Oregon.
(21) Coudersport, pennsylvania.--Sewer system extensions
and improvements, Coudersport, Pennsylvania.
(22) Park city, utah.--Water supply infrastructure, Park
City, Utah.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated
$25,000,000 for providing assistance in accordance with
subsection (a) to the projects described in subsection (c).

[[Page H10344]]

(2) Availability.--Sums authorized to be appropriated under
this subsection shall remain available until expended.
(e) Additional Assistance for Critical Resource Projects.--
The Secretary may provide assistance in accordance with
subsection (a) and assistance for construction for each the
following projects:
(1) Duck river, cullman, alabama.--$5,000,000 for water
supply infrastructure, Duck River, Cullman, Alabama.
(2) Union county, arkansas.--$52,000,000 for water supply
infrastructure, including facilities for withdrawal,
treatment, and distribution, Union County, Arkansas.
(3) Cambria, california.--$10,300,000 for desalination
infrastructure, Cambria, California.
(4) Los angeles harbor/terminal island, california.--
$6,500,000 for wastewater recycling infrastructure, Los
Angeles Harbor/Terminal Island, California.
(5) North valley region, lancaster, california.--
$14,500,000 for water infrastructure, North Valley Region,
Lancaster, California.
(6) San diego county, california.--$10,000,000 for water-
related infrastructure, San Diego County, California.
(7) South perris, california.--$25,000,000 for water supply
desalination infrastructure, South Perris, California.
(8) Aurora, illinois.--$8,000,000 for wastewater
infrastructure to reduce or eliminate combined sewer
overflows, Aurora, Illinois.
(9) Cook county, illinois.--$35,000,000 for water-related
infrastructure and resource protection and development, Cook
County, Illinois.
(10) Madison and st. clair counties, illinois.--$10,000,000
for water and wastewater assistance, Madison and St. Clair
Counties, Illinois.
(11) Iberia parish, louisiana.--$5,000,000 for water and
wastewater infrastructure, Iberia Parish, Louisiana.
(12) Kenner, louisiana.--$5,000,000 for wastewater
infrastructure, Kenner, Louisiana.
(13) Garrison and kathio township, minnesota.--$11,000,000
for a wastewater infrastructure project for the city of
Garrison and Kathio Township, Minnesota.
(14) Newton, new jersey.--$7,000,000 for water filtration
infrastructure, Newton, New Jersey.
(15) Liverpool, new york.--$2,000,000 for water
infrastructure, including a pump station, Liverpool, New
York.
(16) Stanly county, north carolina.--$8,900,000 for
wastewater infrastructure, Stanly County, North Carolina.
(17) Yukon, oklahoma.--$5,500,000 for water-related
infrastructure, including wells, booster stations, storage
tanks, and transmission lines, Yukon, Oklahoma.
(18) Allegheny county, pennsylvania.--$20,000,000 for
water-related environmental infrastructure, Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania.
(19) Mount joy township and conewago township,
pennsylvania.--$8,300,000 for water and wastewater
infrastructure, Mount Joy Township and Conewago Township,
Pennsylvania.
(20) Phoenixville borough, chester county, pennsylvania.--
$2,400,000 for water and sewer infrastructure, Phoenixville
Borough, Chester County, Pennsylvania.
(21) Titusville, pennsylvania.--$7,300,000 for storm water
separation and treatment plant upgrades, Titusville,
Pennsylvania.
(22) Washington, greene, westmoreland, and fayette
counties, pennsylvania.--$8,000,000 for water and wastewater
infrastructure, Washington, Greene, Westmoreland, and Fayette
Counties, Pennsylvania.

SEC. 584. MODIFICATION OF AUTHORIZATIONS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
PROJECTS.

Section 219 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992
(106 Stat. 4835, 4836) is amended--
(1) in subsection (e)(6) by striking ``$20,000,000'' and
inserting ``$30,000,000'';
(2) in subsection (f)(4) by striking ``$15,000,000'' and
inserting ``$35,000,000'';
(3) in subsection (f)(21) by striking ``$10,000,000'' and
inserting ``$20,000,000'';
(4) in subsection (f)(25) by striking ``$5,000,000'' and
inserting ``$15,000,000'';
(5) in subsection (f)(30) by striking ``$10,000,000'' and
inserting ``$20,000,000'';
(6) in subsection (f)(43) by striking ``$15,000,000'' and
inserting ``$35,000,000''; and
(7) in subsection (f) by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(44) Washington, d.c., and maryland.--$15,000,000 for the
project described in subsection (c)(1), modified to include
measures to eliminate or control combined sewer overflows in
the Anacostia River watershed.''.

SEC. 585. LAND CONVEYANCES.

(a) Thompson, Connecticut.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall convey by quitclaim
deed without consideration to the town of Thompson,
Connecticut, all right, title, and interest of the United
States in and to the approximately 1.36-acre parcel of land
described in paragraph (2) for public ownership and use by
the town for fire fighting and related emergency services
purposes.
(2) Land description.--The parcel of land referred to in
paragraph (1) is in the town of Thompson, county of Windham,
State of Connecticut, on the northerly side of West Thompson
Road owned by the United States and shown as Parcel A on a
plan by Provost, Rovero, Fitzback entitled ``Property Survey
Prepared for West Thompson Independent Firemen Association
#1'' dated August 24, 1998, bounded and described as follows:
Beginning at a bound labeled WT-276 on the northerly side
line of West Thompson Road, so called, at the most south
corner of the Parcel herein described and at land now or
formerly of West Thompson Independent Firemen Association No.
1;
Thence in a generally westerly direction by said northerly
side line of West Thompson Road, by a curve to the left,
having a radius of 640.00 feet a distance of 169.30 feet to a
point;
Thence North 13 degrees, 08 minutes, 37 seconds East by the
side line of said West Thompson Road a distance of 10.00 feet
to a point;
Thence in a generally westerly direction by the northerly
side line of said West Thompson Road, by a curve to the left
having a radius of 650.00 feet a distance of 109.88 feet to a
bound labeled WT-123, at land now or formerly of the United
States of America;
Thence North 44 degrees, 43 minutes, 07 seconds East by
said land now or formerly of the United States of America a
distance of 185.00 feet to a point;
Thence North 67 degrees, 34 minutes, 13 seconds East by
said land now or formerly of the United States of America a
distance of 200.19 feet to a point in a stonewall;
Thence South 20 degrees, 49 minutes, 17 seconds East by a
stonewall and by said land now or formerly of the United
States of America a distance of 253.10 feet to a point at
land now or formerly of West Thompson Independent Firemen
Association No. 1;
Thence North 57 degrees, 45 minutes, 25 seconds West by
land now or formerly of said West Thompson Independent
Firemen Association No. 1 a distance of 89.04 feet to a bound
labeled WT-277;
Thence South 32 degrees, 14 minutes, 35 seconds West by
land now or formerly of said West Thompson Independent
Firemen Association No. 1 a distance of 123.06 feet to the
point of beginning.
(3) Reversion.--If the Secretary determines that the parcel
described in paragraph (2) ceases to be held in public
ownership or used for fire fighting and related emergency
services, all right, title, and interest in and to the parcel
shall revert to the United States.
(b) Sibley Memorial Hospital, Washington, District of
Columbia.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall convey to the Lucy
Webb Hayes National Training School for Deaconesses and
Missionaries Conducting Sibley Memorial Hospital (in this
subsection referred to as the ``Hospital'') by quitclaim deed
under the terms of a negotiated sale, all right, title, and
interest of the United States in and to the 8.864-acre parcel
of land described in paragraph (2) for medical care and
parking purposes. The consideration paid under such
negotiated sale shall reflect the value of the parcel, taking
into consideration the terms and conditions of the conveyance
imposed under this subsection.
(2) Land description.--The parcel of land referred to in
paragraph (1) is the parcel described as follows: Beginning
at a point on the westerly right-of-way line of Dalecarlia
Parkway, said point also being on the southerly division line
of part of Square N1448, A&T Lot 801 as recorded in A&T 2387
and part of the property of the United States Government,
thence with said southerly division line now described:
(A) North 35 deg. 05' 40'' West--436.31 feet to a point,
thence
(B) South 89 deg. 59' 30'' West--550 feet to a point,
thence
(C) South 53 deg. 48' 00'' West--361.08 feet to a point,
thence
(D) South 89 deg. 59' 30'' West--466.76 feet to a point at
the southwesterly corner of the aforesaid A&T Lot 801, said
point also being on the easterly right-of-way line of
MacArthur Boulevard, thence with a portion of the westerly
division line of said A&T Lot 801 and the easterly right-of-
way line of MacArthur Boulevard, as now described.
(E) 78.62 feet along the arc of a curve to the right having
a radius of 650.98 feet, chord bearing and distance of North
06 deg. 17' 20'' West--78.57 feet to a point, thence crossing
to include a portion of aforesaid A&T Lot 801 and a portion
of the aforesaid Dalecarlia Reservoir Grounds, as now
described
(F) North 87 deg. 18' 21'' East--258.85 feet to a point,
thence
(G) North 02 deg. 49' 16'' West--214.18 feet to a point,
thence
(H) South 87 deg. 09' 00'' West--238.95 feet to a point on
the aforesaid easterly right-of-way line of MacArthur
Boulevard, thence with said easterly right-of-way line, as
now described
(I) North 08 deg. 41' 30'' East--30.62 feet to a point,
thence crossing to include a portion of aforesaid A&T Lot 801
and a portion of the aforesaid Dalecarlia Reservoir Grounds,
as now described
(J) North 87 deg. 09' 00'' East--373.96 feet to a point,
thence
(K) North 88 deg. 42' 48'' East--374.92 feet to a point,
thence
(L) North 56 deg. 53' 40'' East--53.16 feet to a point,
thence
(M) North 86 deg. 00' 15'' East--26.17 feet to a point,
thence
(N) South 87 deg. 24' 50'' East--464.01 feet to a point,
thence
(O) North 83 deg. 34' 31'' East--212.62 feet to a point,
thence
(P) South 30 deg. 16' 12'' East--108.97 feet to a point,
thence
(Q) South 38 deg. 30' 23'' East--287.46 feet to a point,
thence

[[Page H10345]]

(R) South 09 deg. 03' 38'' West--92.74 feet to the point on
the aforesaid westerly right-of-way line of Dalecarlia
Parkway, thence with said westerly right-of-way line, as now
described
(S) 197.74 feet along the arc of a curve to the right
having a radius of 916.00 feet, chord bearing and distance of
South 53 deg. 54' 43'' West--197.35 feet to the place of
beginning.
(3) Terms and conditions.--The conveyance under this
subsection shall be subject to the following terms and
conditions:
(A) Limitation on the use of certain portions of the
parcel.--The Secretary shall include in any deed conveying
the parcel under this section a restriction to prevent the
Hospital, and its successors and assigns, from constructing
any structure, other than a structure used exclusively for
the parking of motor vehicles, on the portion of the parcel
that lies between the Washington Aqueduct and Little Falls
Road.
(B) Limitation on certain legal challenges.--The Secretary
shall require the Hospital, and its successors and assigns,
to refrain from raising any legal challenge to the operations
of the Washington Aqueduct arising from any impact such
operations may have on the activities conducted by the
Hospital on the parcel.
(C) Easement.--The Secretary shall require that the
conveyance be subject to the retention of an easement
permitting the United States, and its successors and assigns,
to use and maintain the portion of the parcel described as
follows: Beginning at a point on the easterly or South
35 deg. 05' 40'' East--436.31 foot plat line of Lot 25 as
shown on a subdivision plat recorded in book 175 page 102
among the records of the Office of the Surveyor of the
District of Columbia, said point also being on the northerly
right-of-way line of Dalecarlia Parkway, thence running with
said easterly line of Lot 25 and crossing to include a
portion of the aforsaid Dalecarlia Reservoir Grounds as now
described:
(i) North 35 deg. 05' 40'' West--495.13 feet to a point,
thence
(ii) North 87 deg. 24' 50'' West--414.43 feet to a point,
thence
(iii) South 81 deg. 08' 00'' West--69.56 feet to a point,
thence
(iv) South 88 deg. 42' 48'' West--367.50 feet to a point,
thence
(v) South 87 deg. 09' 00'' West--379.68 feet to a point on
the easterly right-of-way line of MacArthur Boulevard, thence
with said easterly right-of-way line, as now described
(vi) North 08 deg. 41' 30'' East--30.62 feet to a point,
thence crossing to include a portion of the aforesaid
Dalecarlia Reservoir Grounds, as now described
(vii) North 87 deg. 09' 00'' East--373.96 feet to a point,
thence
(viii) North 88 deg. 42' 48'' East--374.92 feet to a point,
thence
(ix) North 56 deg. 53' 40'' East--53.16 feet to a point,
thence
(x) North 86 deg. 00' 15'' East--26.17 feet to a point,
thence
(xi) South 87 deg. 24' 50'' East--464.01 feet to a point,
thence
(xii) North 83 deg. 34' 31'' East--50.62 feet to a point,
thence
(xiii) South 02 deg. 35' 10'' West--46.46 feet to a point,
thence
(xiv) South 13 deg. 38' 12'' East--107.83 feet to a point,
thence
(xv) South 35 deg. 05' 40'' East--347.97 feet to a point on
the aforesaid northerly right-of-way line of Dalecarlia
Parkway, thence with said right-of-way line, as now described
(xvi) 44.12 feet along the arc of a curve to the right
having a radius of 855.00 feet, chord bearing and distance of
South 58 deg. 59' 22'' West--44.11 feet to the place of
beginning containing 1.7157 acres of land more or less as now
described by Maddox Engineers and Surveyors, Inc., June 2000,
Job #00015.
(4) Appraisal.--Before conveying any right, title, or
interest under this subsection, the Secretary shall obtain an
appraisal of the fair market value of the parcel.
(c) Ontonagon, Michigan.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall convey by quitclaim
deed without consideration to the Ontonagon County Historical
Society all right, title, and interest of the United States
in and to the parcel of land underlying and immediately
surrounding the lighthouse at Ontonagon, Michigan, consisting
of approximately 1.8 acres, together with any improvements
thereon, for public ownership and for public purposes.
(2) Survey to obtain legal description.--The exact acreage
and the legal description of the real property described in
paragraph (1) shall be determined by a survey that is
satisfactory to the Secretary.
(3) Reversion.--If the Secretary determines that the real
property described in paragraph (1) ceases to be held in
public ownership or used for public purposes, all right,
title, and interest in and to the property shall revert to
the United States.
(d) Pike County, Missouri.--
(1) Land exchange.--Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), at
such time as S.S.S., Inc. conveys all right, title, and
interest in and to the parcel of land described in paragraph
(2)(A) to the United States, the Secretary shall convey by
quitclaim deed all right, title, and interest in the parcel
of land described in paragraph (2)(B) to S.S.S., Inc.
(2) Land description.--The parcels of land referred to in
paragraph (1) are the following:
(A) Non-federal land.--8.99 acres with existing flowage
easements situated in Pike County, Missouri, adjacent to land
being acquired from Holnam, Inc. by the Corps of Engineers.
(B) Federal land.--8.99 acres situated in Pike County,
Missouri, known as Government Tract Numbers FM-46 and FM-47,
administered by the Corps of Engineers.
(3) Conditions.--The exchange of land under paragraph (1)
shall be subject to the following conditions:
(A) Deeds.--
(i) Non-federal land.--The conveyance of the land described
in paragraph (2)(A) to the Secretary shall be by a quitclaim
deed acceptable to the Secretary.
(ii) Federal land.--The instrument of conveyance used to
convey the land described in paragraph (2)(B) 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.
(B) Removal of improvements.--S.S.S., Inc. may remove any
improvements on the land described in paragraph (2)(A). The
Secretary may require S.S.S., Inc. to remove any improvements
on the land described in paragraph (2)(A). In either case,
S.S.S., Inc. shall hold the United States harmless from
liability, and the United States shall not incur costs
associated with the removal or relocation of any of the
improvements.
(C) Time limit for exchange.--The land exchange under
paragraph (1) shall be completed not later than 2 years after
the date of enactment of this Act.
(D) Legal description.--The Secretary shall provide the
legal description of the lands described in paragraph (2).
The legal description shall be used in the instruments of
conveyance of the lands.
(4) Value of properties.--If the appraised fair market
value, as determined by the Secretary, of the land conveyed
to S.S.S., Inc. by the Secretary under paragraph (1) exceeds
the appraised fair market value, as determined by the
Secretary, of the land conveyed to the United States by
S.S.S., Inc. under paragraph (1), S.S.S., Inc. shall make a
payment equal to the excess in cash or a cash equivalent to
the United States.
(e) Candy Lake Project, Osage County, Oklahoma.--Section
563(c)(1)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
(113 Stat. 357) is amended by striking ``a deceased
individual'' and inserting ``an individual''.
(f) Manor Township, Pennsylvania.--
(1) In general.--In accordance with this subsection, the
Secretary shall convey by quitclaim deed to the township of
Manor, Pennsylvania, all right, title, and interest of the
United States in and to the approximately 113 acres of real
property located at Crooked Creek Lake, together with any
improvements on the land.
(2) Survey to obtain legal description.--The exact acreage
and the legal description of the real property described in
paragraph (1) shall be determined by a survey that is
satisfactory to the Secretary.
(3) Consideration.--The Secretary may convey under this
subsection without consideration any portion of the real
property described in paragraph (1) if the portion is to be
retained in public ownership and be used for public park and
recreation or other public purposes.
(4) Reversion.--If the Secretary determines that any
portion of the property conveyed under paragraph (3) ceases
to be held in public ownership or to be used for public park
and recreation or other public purposes, all right, title,
and interest in and to such portion of property shall revert
to the Secretary.
(5) Payment of costs.--The township of Manor, Pennsylvania
shall be responsible for all costs associated with a
conveyance under this subsection, including the cost of
conducting the survey referred to in paragraph (2).
(g) New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam, Savannah River, South
Carolina, Below Augusta.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall convey by quitclaim
deed to the city of North Augusta and Aiken County, South
Carolina, the lock, dam, and appurtenant features at New
Savannah Bluff, including the adjacent approximately 50-acre
park and recreation area with improvements of the navigation
project, Savannah River Below Augusta, Georgia, authorized by
the first section of the River and Harbor Act of July 3, 1930
(46 Stat. 924), subject to the execution of an agreement by
the Secretary and the city of North Augusta and Aiken County,
South Carolina, that specifies the terms and conditions for
such conveyance.
(2) Treatment of lock, dam, appurtenant features, and park
and recreation area.--The lock, dam, appurtenant features,
adjacent park and recreation area, and other project lands,
to be conveyed under paragraph (1) shall not be treated as
part of any Federal water resources project after the
effective date of the transfer.
(3) Operation and maintenance.--Operation and maintenance
of all features of the navigation project, other than the
lock, dam, appurtenant features, adjacent park and recreation
area, and other project lands to be conveyed under paragraph
(1), shall continue to be a Federal responsibility after the
effective date of the transfer under paragraph (1).
(h) Tri-Cities Area, Washington.--Section 501(i) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3752-3753)
is amended--
(1) by inserting before the period at the end of paragraph
(1) the following: ``; except that any of such local
governments, with the agreement of the appropriate district
engineer, may exempt from the conveyance to the local
government all or any part of the

[[Page H10346]]

lands to be conveyed to the local government''; and
(2) by inserting before the period at the end of paragraph
(2)(C) the following: ``; except that approximately 7.4 acres
in Columbia Park, Kennewick, Washington, consisting of the
historic site located in the Park and known and referred to
as the Kennewick Man Site and such adjacent wooded areas as
the Secretary determines are necessary to protect the
historic site, shall remain in Federal ownership''.
(i) Bayou Teche, Louisiana.--
(1) In general.--After renovations of the Keystone Lock
facility have been completed, the Secretary may convey by
quitclaim deed without consideration to St. Martin Parish,
Louisiana, all rights, interests, and title of the United
States in the approximately 12.03 acres of land under the
administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary in Bayou Teche,
Louisiana, together with improvements thereon. The dam and
the authority to retain upstream pool elevations shall remain
under the jurisdiction of the Secretary. The Secretary shall
relinquish all operations and maintenance of the lock to St.
Martin Parish.
(2) Conditions.--The following conditions apply to the
transfer under paragraph (1):
(A) St. Martin Parish shall operate, maintain, repair,
replace, and rehabilitate the lock in accordance with
regulations prescribed by the Secretary which are consistent
with the project's authorized purposes.
(B) The Parish shall provide the Secretary access to the
dam whenever the Secretary notifies the Parish of a need for
access to the dam.
(C) If the Parish fails to comply with subparagraph (A),
the Secretary shall notify the Parish of such failure. If the
parish does not correct such failure during the 1-year period
beginning on the date of such notification, the Secretary
shall have a right of reverter to reclaim possession and
title to the land and improvements conveyed under this
section or, in the case of a failure to make necessary
repairs, the Secretary may effect the repairs and require
payment from the Parish for the repairs made by the
Secretary.
(j) Joliet, Illinois.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall convey by quitclaim
deed without consideration to the Joliet Park District in
Joliet, Illinois, all right, title, and interest of the
United States in and to the parcel of real property located
at 622 Railroad Street in the city of Joliet, consisting of
approximately 2 acres, together with any improvements
thereon, for public ownership and use as the site of the
headquarters of the park district.
(2) Survey to obtain legal description.--The exact acreage
and the legal description of the real property described in
paragraph (1) shall be determined by a survey that is
satisfactory to the Secretary.
(3) Reversion.--If the Secretary determines that the
property conveyed under paragraph (1) ceases to be held in
public ownership or to be used as headquarters of the park
district or for other purposes, all right, title, and
interest in and to such property shall revert to the United
States.
(k) Ottawa, Illinois.--
(1) Conveyance of property.--Subject to the terms,
conditions, and reservations of paragraph (2), the Secretary
shall convey by quitclaim deed to the Young Men's Christian
Association of Ottawa, Illinois (in this subsection referred
to as the ``YMCA''), all right, title, and interest of the
United States in and to a portion of the easements acquired
for the improvement of the Illinois Waterway project over a
parcel of real property owned by the YMCA, known as the
``Ottawa, Illinois YMCA Site'', and located at 201 E. Jackson
Street, Ottawa, La Salle County, Illinois (portion of NE \1/
4\, S11, T33N, R3E 3PM), except that portion lying below the
elevation of 461 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
(2) Conditions.--The following conditions apply to the
conveyance under paragraph (1):
(A) The exact acreage and the legal description of the real
property described in paragraph (1) shall be determined by a
survey that is satisfactory to the Secretary.
(B) The YMCA shall agree to hold and save the United States
harmless from liability associated with the operation and
maintenance of the Illinois Waterway project on the property
desscribed in paragraph (1).
(C) If the Secretary determines that any portion of the
property that is the subject of the easement conveyed under
paragraph (1) ceases to be used as the YMCA, all right,
title, and interest in and to such easement shall revert to
the Secretary.
(l) St. Clair and Benton Counties, Missouri.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall convey to the Iconium
Fire Protection District, St. Clair and Benton counties,
Missouri, by quitclaim deed and without consideration, all
right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the
parcel of land described in paragraph (2).
(2) Land description.--The parcel of land to be conveyed
under paragraph (1) is the tract of land located in the
Southeast \1/4\ of Section 13, Township 39 North, Range 25
West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian, St. Clair County,
Missouri, more particularly described as follows: Commencing
at the Southwest corner of Section 18, as designated by Corps
survey marker AP 18-1, thence northerly 11.22 feet to the
southeast corner of Section 13, thence 657.22 feet north
along the east line of Section 13 to Corps monument 18 1-C
lying within the right-of-way of State Highway C, being the
point of beginning of the tract of land herein described;
thence westerly approximately 210 feet, thence northerly 150
feet, thence easterly approximately 210 feet to the east line
of Section 13, thence southerly along said east line, 150
feet to the point of beginning, containing 0.723 acres, more
or less.
(3) Reversion.--If the Secretary determines that the
property conveyed under paragraph (1) ceases to be held in
public ownership or to be used as a site for a fire station,
all right, title, and interest in and to such property shall
revert to the United States.
(m) Generally Applicable Provisions.--
(1) Applicability of property screening provisions.--
Section 2696 of title 10, United States Code, shall not apply
to any conveyance under this section.
(2) Additional terms and conditions.--The Secretary may
require that any conveyance under this section be subject to
such additional terms and conditions as the Secretary
considers appropriate and necessary to protect the interests
of the United States.
(3) Costs of conveyance.--An entity to which a conveyance
is made under this section shall be responsible for all
reasonable and necessary costs, including real estate
transaction and environmental compliance costs, associated
with the conveyance.
(4) Liability.--An entity to which a conveyance is made
under this section shall hold the United States harmless from
any liability with respect to activities carried out, on or
after the date of the conveyance, on the real property
conveyed. The United States shall remain responsible for any
liability with respect to activities carried out, before such
date, on the real property conveyed.

SEC. 586. BRUCE F. VENTO UNIT OF THE BOUNDARY WATERS CANOE
AREA WILDERNESS, MINNESOTA.

(a) Designation.--The portion of the Boundary Waters Canoe
Area Wilderness, Minnesota, situated north and cast of the
Gunflint Corridor and that is bounded by the United States
border with Canada to the north shall be known and designated
as the ``Bruce F. Vento Unit of the Boundary Waters Canoe
Area Wilderness''.
(b) Legal Reference.--Any reference in a law, map,
regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United
States to the area referred to in paragraph (1) shall be
deemed to be a reference to the ``Bruce F. Vento Unit of the
Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness''.

SEC. 587. WAURIKA LAKE, OKLAHOMA.

The remaining obligation of the Waurika Project Master
Conservancy District payable to the United States Government
in the amounts, rates of interest, and payment schedules is
set at the amounts, rates of interest, and payment schedules
that existed, and that both parties agreed to, on June 3,
1986, and may not be adjusted, altered, or changed without a
specific, separate, and written agreement between the
District and the United States Government.

SEC. 588. COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY FISHING ACCESS.

Section 401(d) of the Act entitled ``An Act to establish
procedures for review of tribal constitutions and bylaws or
amendments thereto pursuant to the Act of June 18, 1934 (48
Stat. 987)'', approved November 1, 1988 (102 Stat. 2944), is
amended by striking ``$2,000,000'' and inserting
``$4,000,000''.

SEC. 589. DEVILS LAKE, NORTH DAKOTA.

No appropriation shall be made to construct an emergency
outlet from Devils Lake, North Dakota, to the Sheyenne River
if the final plans for the emergency outlet have 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.

TITLE VI--COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION

SEC. 601. COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN.

(a) Definitions.--In this section, the following
definitions apply:
(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.

[[Page H10347]]

(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--

[[Page H10348]]

(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. Furthermore, the Seminole Tribe of Florida
shall be responsible for 50 percent of the cost of operation,
maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation
activities for the Big Cypress Seminole Reservation Water
Conservation Plan Project.
(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--

(ii) Other monitoring.--The Secretary shall conduct
monitoring under clause (i) separately for the
preconstruction engineering and design phase and 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 complete,
after notice and opportunity for public comment and in
accordance with subsection (h), 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 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 and
the Governor receive 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

[[Page H10349]]

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, with the concurrence of the
Governor and the Secretary of the Interior, and in
consultation with the Seminole Tribe of Florida, the
Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency, the Secretary of
Commerce, and 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.--
(i) In general.--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.

(ii) Limitation on applicability of programmatic
regulations.--Programmatic regulations promulgated under this
paragraph shall expressly prohibit the requirement for
concurrence by the Secretary of the Interior or the Governor
on project implementation reports, project cooperation
agreements, operating manuals for individual projects
undertaken in the Plan, and any other documents relating to
the development, implementation, and management of individual
features of the Plan, unless such concurrence is provided for
in other Federal or State laws.
(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--

(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
(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.--

[[Page H10350]]

(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) Report on Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project.--Not
later than 180 after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report containing a
determination as to whether the ongoing Biscayne Aquifer
Storage and Recovery Program located in Miami-Dade County has
a substantial benefit to the restoration, preservation, and
protection of the South Florida ecosystem.
(n) Full Disclosure of Proposed Funding.--
(1) Funding from all sources.--The President, as part of
the annual budget of the United States Government, shall
display under the heading ``Everglades Restoration'' all
proposed funding for the Plan for all agency programs.
(2) Funding from corps of engineers civil works program.--
The President, as part of the annual budget of the United
States Government, shall display under the accounts
``Construction, General'' and ``Operation and Maintenance,
General'' of the title ``Department of Defense--Civil,
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers--Civil'', the
total proposed funding level for each account for the Plan
and the percentage such level represents of the overall
levels in such accounts. The President shall also include an
assessment of the impact such funding levels for the Plan
would have on the budget year and long-term funding levels
for the overall Corps of Engineers civil works program.
(o) Surplus Federal Lands.--Section 390(f)(2)(A)(i) of the
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (110
Stat. 1023) is amended by inserting after ``on or after the
date of enactment of this Act'' the following: ``and before
the date of enactment of the Water Resource Development Act
of 2000''.
(p) 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 CONGRESS CONCERNING HOMESTEAD AIR FORCE
BASE.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(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, Congress 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) Congress 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) Congress 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 Congress.--It is the sense of Congress 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 RESTORATION

SEC. 701. DEFINITIONS.

In this title, the following definitions apply:
(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).
(2) 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 705(e).
(3) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of South
Dakota.
(4) Task force.--The term ``Task Force'' means the Missouri
River Task Force established by section 705(a).
(6) Trust.--The term ``Trust'' means the Missouri River
Trust established by section 704(a).

SEC. 702. MISSOURI RIVER TRUST.

SEC. 703. MISSOURI RIVER TASK FORCE.

[[Page H10351]]

(2) Consultation.--In preparing the report under paragraph
(1), the Secretary shall consult with the Secretary of
Energy, the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of
Agriculture, the State, and Indian tribes in the State.
(e) Plan for Use of Funds Made Available by This Title.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 2 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 section
221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b).
(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 50
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 50 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--

(iii) Credit.--The non-Federal interest shall receive
credit for all contributions provided under clause (ii)(I).

SEC. 704. ADMINISTRATION.

SEC. 705. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to
carry out this title $4,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001
through 2005, $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006
through 2009, and $10,000,000 in fiscal year 2010. Such funds
shall remain available until expended.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 639, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The Water Resources Development Act of 2000, as amended, addresses
the civil works program of the United States Army Corps of Engineers,
providing water-related engineering services to the Nation. It
authorizes new water resource projects that are receiving favorable
review by the Army Corps of Engineers. It modifies existing water
resources projects to reflect changed conditions. It directs that new
studies be conducted to determine the feasibility and the Federal
interest in addressing water-related issues at various locations.
WRDA 2000 approves and authorizes the first increment of the
comprehensive Everglades restoration plan. The text is based on the
Senate-passed Everglades provision, with minor amendments which have
been made and which are acceptable to the Senate, to the Florida
Members of Congress, to the State of Florida, and to the
administration.
The bill modifies authorities and directives of the Army Corps of
Engineers to reform existing policies and procedures enhancing public
participation in feasibility studies, monitoring of completed projects,
and mitigation of environmental impacts.

{time} 1030

The bill authorizes and modifies environmental restoration and
environmental infrastructure projects and programs that address
national needs at several locations, including the lower Columbia River
Estuary, Puget Sound, San Gabriel Basin, as well as the Illinois,
Missouri, Mississippi and Ohio Rivers. The estimated Federal cost of
these provisions is $5 billion.
Mr. Speaker, this is a fair, balanced, bipartisan bill. It addresses
the water resources needs across the Nation. I certainly want to thank
my colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), for his
cooperation and leadership in developing this amendment. I also want to
thank the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Boehlert), and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), the
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,
for their leadership in this legislation.
I urge my colleagues to support this important bill, which invests in
America's environmental future.

[[Page H10352]]

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to express my great appreciation to
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) for the cooperation
that we have had and the close working relationship again on this
legislation, as on all the other bills that we have moved through this
body. It again shows that at a time when there is dispute and rancor in
the body politic in the broad public that in this body, where there is
respect and mutual understanding and openness, the Congress can work
and do the work of the public.
This committee has demonstrated time and again that we can do the
work of the public because of the mutual respect, the understanding,
cooperation and the consensus that the work that we do is for the
greater good of the country. And that is what this Water Resources
Development Act is all about.
It is among the best things we do in our committee and in this
Congress: invest in the well-being of our fellow citizens and future
growth and development of this country.
Since the landmark Water Resources Development Act of 1986, the
former Committee on Public Works and Transportation, now renamed the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, has worked to maintain
a 2-year authorization schedule for the Corps. In fact, that has been
the history since the reorganization of the Congress in 1946, to
maintain a 2-year cycle, to provide continuity for the program and
certainty to the non-Federal and local sponsors for these Corps
projects.
It also gives us in the Congress the opportunity to conduct oversight
over the Corps programs, to make fine-tuning adjustments as necessary
on individual projects, and to revisit major issues in a periodic
fashion.
This bill authorizes projects for the entirety of the Corps' civil
works program: navigation, flood control, shoreline protection,
environmental restoration and protection, and authorizations to restore
the Nation's environmental infrastructure, especially for smaller and,
in many cases, economically disadvantaged communities.
It builds and rebuilds the Nation's infrastructure. It allows us to
expand international trade through projects to improve our coastal
ports and our inland river navigation system. Through flood control and
hurricane and storm damage reduction measures, this legislation and the
general work of the Corps will again help to meet critical needs to
protect lives and property.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the able
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), the ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, who has my great
admiration for the splendid, scholarly way in which he approaches these
issues, thorough grasp of the subject matter, and painstaking work to
bring us to this point.
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill. This bill
represents what we do best in the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure. We invest in America's future by providing critical
infrastructure while working to restore and enhance and protect the
environment.
Mr. Speaker, I am particularly honored that we are considering this
bill today under the leadership of the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Chairman Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the
ranking member. This may be the last opportunity that many of us have
to pay tribute to the strong bipartisan leadership that the chairman
and ranking member have demonstrated over the past 6 years.
As a committee colleague and a fellow Pennsylvanian, I have often
sought the chairman's advice and counsel. Even on those few occasions
when we have disagreed, I have always been treated fair and with a
mutual respect for doing what each of us believes is right.
Even though the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) must
step down as chairman, I know that he will continue to be a leader on
the issues related to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, and I look forward to continuing to work closely with
him doing what is best for the Nation and for our great Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.
I would also like to acknowledge my close relationship with our
subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert). We
have worked closely together for the past 6 years in the great
tradition of this committee. We have had a few tough disputes, but we
always managed to retain the proper decorum and respect for each other.
I have greatly enjoyed working with the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Boehlert).
Many of the speakers today will describe the various projects that
are at the heart of this bill. I represent one of the Nation's great
seaports on the East Coast. The Corps is currently working to allow the
Port of Philadelphia to compete in the 21st century. Other Members
benefit from the efficient transportation system that allows barges to
move on the inland waters.
These projects form the water-based infrastructure that is such a key
component of the Nation's transportation system. The projects in this
and previous water resources bills protect lives and property from
floods and hurricanes, and they provide drinking water and electricity
to our cities and factories.
These projects are the more visible aspect of the bill, but there are
more important provisions of this bill that will improve the way in
which the Corps implements its program.
The bill will require the Corps to be more aware earlier in the study
process of whether adverse environmental effects can be successfully
and cost-effectively mitigated. Too often we can see the caution signs
before us, but we fail to heed their warning. While the Corps is
generally successful at mitigating potential environmental harm, it
cannot always be successful. And we can be aware of this early in the
study process.
This is why I support language in the bill that will require the
Corps to determine whether mitigation is likely to be successful and,
if it cannot be successful, to stop the Corps from recommending a
project for further study or authorization.
Additional areas of the bill that I would like to emphasize are two
pilot programs addressing independent review of proposed projects and
monitoring of completed projects.
On independent review, the bill requires the Secretary of the Army to
establish a 3-year program of independent peer review of up to five
projects. This review would apply to projects over $25 million and
projects with a substantial degree of public controversy. While some
have argued for a permanent peer review program, I believe that this
pilot program will allow the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure and the House to evaluate its effectiveness and to make
it permanent if it is warranted.
I also strongly support the requirement to monitor the performance of
up to five projects for 12 years. This will allow for the economic and
environmental results of projects to be evaluated following their
completion. Today, we authorize and construct projects, but we do not
adequately follow up on whether the expected benefits are ever
realized. The monitoring will be an important tool in helping the Corps
and the Congress produce a more effective civil works program.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to mention that this bill requires the
Corps to establish procedures to enhance public participation in the
development of feasibility studies. While the Corps already engages in
public meetings and public notice concerning its proposed projects, I
believe there is always room for improvement. By examining its current
procedures and making improvements where possible, the role of the
public will be enhanced; and I believe the Corps will recommend better,
more acceptable projects to the Congress.
Without a doubt, the program to restore the Everglades is the
centerpiece of this year's legislation. Responding to severe flooding
that devastated Florida, Congress in 1948 authorized the Corps to carry
out the Central and Southern Florida Project, with the aim of
controlling floods and providing water supply for urban and
agricultural uses. The project was a spectacular success in achieving
its purpose.

[[Page H10353]]

Along the way, however, the fragile ecosystem of the historic
Everglades was seriously damaged.
During the 1990's, the State of Florida and the Federal Government
have undertaken a number of projects designed to mitigate some of the
adverse environmental impacts. The Water Resources Development Act of
1996 directed development of a comprehensive Everglades restoration
plan. It is an ambitious plan supported by an unlikely coalition of
stakeholders that includes Federal, State, regional and local agencies,
sugar and agricultural interests, Indian tribes, environment groups,
utilities, developers, and homeowners, and, I may add, from the entire
bipartisan Florida delegation.
The plan approved by the Chief of Engineers would cost at least $7.8
billion and take 36 years to construct.
The bill will approve the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan
as a framework for modification and operational changes to the Central
and South Florida Project to restore, reserve, and protect the
Everglades ecosystem. It would also authorize the first installment of
the plan.
Since 1986, Congress has tried to maintain a 2-year cycle to enact
water resources legislation. Such a cycle is important to providing
certainty and stability to the programs. This bill is a continuation of
that process and should receive strong bipartisan support today in the
House.
I ask my colleagues to join me in support of the bill.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the chairman of
our Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the amendment to S. 2796,
the Water Resources Development Act of 2000.
This comprehensive, bipartisan legislation will help save the
Everglades, restore rivers and watersheds throughout the country, keep
communities safe from floods and hurricanes, and repair and improve
America's water transportation infrastructure, the lifeblood of our
domestic and global economy.
First let me commend the chairman of the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster); the
ranking Democrat, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar); and the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), the ranking Democrat on the
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. Through their
leadership, and I might say inspired leadership and cooperation, we are
able to bring this broadly supported package to the House floor today.
As chairman of the subcommittee, I can tell my colleagues this
legislation has been long in the making. The subcommittee held hearings
throughout the year, as well as last year, on this bill's key issues
and provisions. We have, on a bipartisan basis, reviewed hundreds of
project requests and scores of important and timely water policies.
While no one is ever perfectly happy with every provision, I think
the committee leadership has done a good job balancing competing
interests and treating Members and their constituents fairly.
Mr. Speaker, this is truly landmark legislation. It is our best hope
to save the Everglades, to protect the egrets and alligators, and to
restore the balance between the human environment and the natural
system in south Florida.
The world is watching, and I am proud of what this institution has
produced at this critical moment.
Senator Bob Smith and his colleagues on and off the Committee on
Environment and Public Works on the other side and the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Shaw) and his colleagues in the House are to be
congratulated. They have provided leadership where leadership has been
needed. Through their efforts, we are able to move forward with a
consensus package that gives overall approval to the 36-year, $7.8
billion plan and specifically authorizes $1.4 billion in projects to
get the water right. That is very important.
I want to emphasize, as the bill itself does, that the primary
purpose of this landmark, unprecedented activity in the Everglades is
to restore the natural system.

{time} 1045

We are going to have to monitor this project closely and continue to
review the science to ensure that it accomplishes this fundamental
goal. Indeed, as the project moves forward, more legislative safeguards
may be necessary to ensure that the intent of this bill is met,
safeguards such as requiring explicitly that 50 percent of the
restoration benefits are achieved by the time that 50 percent of the
funds are spent.
For now, this bill sets us on the right path, sets clear goals, gives
needed authority to the Department of Interior and allows for
continuing scientific review. It is our best chance of reversing the
havoc which was inadvertently wreaked on the Everglades without
damaging the prosperity of Florida.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is about more than saving the Everglades. It
authorizes and directs the Army Corps of Engineers to restore and
protect scores of rivers throughout the country from the Upper
Susquehanna and the Ohio to the Mississippi and the Missouri and the
Columbia. The bill also restores watersheds and wetlands, cleans up
acid mine drainage, and remediates contaminated settlement in the Great
Lakes and groundwater in California. In short, it is environmentally
friendly, as it should be.
This bill is also about saving lives, protecting property, and
opening the gateways of commerce. New flood control and navigation
projects are authorized and existing projects are modified and
improved. For example, this legislation authorizes a critically
important project for the Ports of New York and New Jersey.
Mr. Speaker, this bill also takes the first important steps toward
reforming the Corps of Engineers. Our committee, particularly my
subcommittee, has looked into the various allegations leveled at the
Corps over the last year. These are serious allegations with serious
repercussions for the Nation's largest water resources program. This
legislation takes an important step in responding to those concerns.
For example, the bill authorizes an important pilot program for
independent peer review of proposed projects. I strongly support this
concept. The Corps needs to take this process seriously and to submit
to peer review of significant controversial projects that will truly
test this concept. I look forward to reviewing the results and working
with my colleagues to further improve the procedures and methodologies
for project development and selection.
This is a good bill put together by a good bipartisan team, and I
thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski) for his great work
for these past 6 years. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster). This is an
effective team that produces for America.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to extend my great appreciation to the very
diligent, thoughtful, hard-working, energetic, forward, progressive
Member, chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment, who has led that subcommittee through some very, very
difficult issues in the past several years, especially in the past 2
years, in Superfund and now on the Water Resources Development Act. The
gentleman has been very cooperative. We really appreciate the
bipartisanship that he has always demonstrated.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Deutsch).
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I too want to just thank the chairman of
the committee and the ranking member and the chairman of the
subcommittee and the ranking member. This is a great day, not just for
the Everglades in South Florida but really for Florida and America and
truly the entire country. This is Congress at its best, really doing
the work of the American people in creating legislation that really is
protecting our future for ourselves, our children, and our
grandchildren.
I am going to focus on what this bill does for the Florida
Everglades. This bill is truly historic. This is one of the historic
days over the 200-year history of this country and of this Congress. We
are about to pass the largest ecosystem restoration project in the
history of the world, in the history of the

[[Page H10354]]

world. It is a $7.8 billion restoration project for the Florida
Everglades. It is doing what needs to be done.
There is only one Everglades in the world. It happens to be in South
Florida. It is the Everglades; it is the River of Grass. It is a 100-
mile wide river that is only about a foot deep that flows, that is just
absolutely spectacular. I urge all of my colleagues to try to spend not
just an hour, not just a day but maybe a week traveling through the
Everglades to really appreciate the unique place on the planet Earth
that it is.
Unfortunately, sometimes people make mistakes, and the truth is the
United States, through Corps projects, made mistakes, and other
projects. The State of Florida made mistakes in terms of doing things
that have done damage to the Everglades over a long period of time. We
have shifted that around over the last couple of years, but this is the
bill that is putting into paper literally about a 30-year restoration
project and it is being done smart, it is being done right; it is
bipartisan without exception.
I also want to thank my colleague, who is in the chair now, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), in a neighboring district of mine.
He and I have worked very closely in terms of this, and both Republican
and governors of the State of Florida have worked very closely.
Governor Bush, Governor Graham before him, Governor Chiles, Governor
Martinez as well.
Again, I urge my colleagues to support it. I look forward to working
with them every year into the future to make sure the implementation is
done correctly.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Shuster) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman engaging me in a colloquy with
an issue in my district that has been ongoing for a number of years,
and many of us that live in the First Congressional District of
Maryland, which is the main stem of the Chesapeake watershed, for
discussing this issue. The previous speaker talked about the Corps of
Engineers restoring a rather unique body of water on the planet called
the Everglades, and the effort that our committee and this Congress has
done to restore the waters and the ecosystem for that magnificent
place.
What we are trying to do in the Chesapeake Bay is very similar. The
Chesapeake Bay has had a program to restore this estuary for about 20
years now, and we continue to make pretty good progress.
The Corps of Engineers, to a large extent, has been very helpful in
that effort. One of the problems in our area is, however, that there
are bits and pieces of human activity that continues to degrade our
watershed, our estuary, that marine ecosystem. One of those pieces that
will have an adverse effect on the Chesapeake Bay is the deepening
activity by the Corps of Engineers to an area called the Chesapeake and
Delaware Canal, or the northern approach to the Port of Baltimore. The
Corps of Engineers has conducted a feasibility study on whether or not
this will benefit the taxpayers, or even the port, since 1988.
From 1996 to this point, the Corps of Engineers has, through its own
numbers, recognized that the benefit to cost ratio or the benefit to
the taxpayers is not there; the financial justification for deepening
this canal has not met the Federal criteria, which means that there
will be no increase in commerce due to the deepening of the C&D Canal.
So, in my judgment, since there is some adverse environmental
degradation because of the deepening, there is no increase in commerce
based on the Corps' own numbers, we should not spend $100 million, and
that is the actual cost of this project to go forward. If we are going
to spend $100 million, it should have some justification or we should
have some value to that amount of money.
So I appreciate the chairman's concern over this issue, and we will
continue to work on this.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Gilchrest) for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I would say he has indeed shed some light on these
issues, and while I have concerns with some of the legislative
proposals that have been offered, I do, I believe, appreciate the
underlying concerns; and I look forward to working with the gentleman
to deal with this issue.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the very
distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek).
(Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful and privileged
to rise in strong support of the Water Resources Development Act, in
particular the section on the Everglades. Those of us in Florida, and
those of us throughout this country who cherish what we have in natural
resources, we owe a debt of gratitude to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the ranking member, the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), for their hard and diligent work in bringing
this important legislation to the floor and their strong support for
Everglades restoration.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), my chairman, has inspired each
member of the delegation to see the worth of this project and we are
very happy that the Congress has seen fit to include the Everglades in
their plans.
Mr. Speaker, the Everglades are dying and all of us know that we must
act now. We lose what is left of the Everglades within a year. We have
a lot of people to be thankful for it that worked on this, that we have
heard about this morning, including the administration, the State of
Florida administration, Senators Graham and Smith and others, and all
of the environmental community throughout this country.
We owe a great deal to the late Marjorie Stoneham Douglas as she
mentioned the Everglades as a ``river of grass,'' and now we have
sought to have it the way Marjorie would have liked it to be with
water.
No one disputes that the Federal Government was pretty much
responsible for what has happened in the Everglades. Fifty years ago,
the government decided it would establish the Everglades National Park,
but simultaneously they also set up a series of canals. I used to run
around those canals over in South Bay and Belle Glade and Immokalee and
all of those counties over there that they call on the muck, but as a
series of these levees and other flood control methods were put in, it
kind of disrupted the lifeblood of the Everglades.
So as a result of these 50 years of neglect, we now have to look at
the State of Florida that we have lost 46 percent of its wetlands and
50 percent of its historic Everglades ecosystem. If we look at this
chart here, we will see the Federal Government has a very clear
interest in restoring the ecosystem. Since a large part of the portions
of the lands are owned or managed by the Federal Government, they will
receive the benefits of the restoration. There are four national parks,
as we see here, belonging to the Federal Government; 16 national
wildlife refuges, which make up half of the remaining Everglades. So
this is an Everglades system that is pretty much in Florida, but the
interest of the Nation is here on the restoration of the Everglades.
The need for action is very clear. The legislation before us today,
thanks to this excellent committee, they present an unprecedented
compromise supported by the administration, State of Florida,
environmental groups and, thanks to the Congress, a bipartisan
Congress. They represent every major constituency, and here we will see
the departments of the agencies in Florida that are responsible. The
State of Florida has committed $2 billion to the restoration plan. Now
it is our turn to respond.
We need this bill, Mr. Speaker, and I know that they are monitoring
very closely what we do here. It is extremely important, and I urge all
of my colleagues to join me to preserve America's Everglades and ensure
that one of the world's most endangered ecosystems is not lost. We do
not need to lose the Everglades, because it is stability for the people
of Florida and for the Nation.

[[Page H10355]]

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Mica).
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, this morning we are really going to pass what
I consider the most significant environmental legislation of a
generation. This is really a historic occasion because we have replaced
talk with action. We have replaced rhetoric with hard cash. In 1976, I
was elected to the Florida legislature and they talked about restoring
the Everglades; and I heard talk for more than 2 decades but finally we
are taking action to restore the Everglades.
I want to thank personally a gentleman who is not in Congress, a
former majority leader, Bob Dole, who just down the hall from here
helped to make a decision that launched this effort. I want to thank
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and also the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the gentleman who is presiding now, who helped
make this legislation possible; and also Governor Bush, who made a
State commitment, replaced talk with action.

{time} 1100

I was raised in south Florida, and I saw what they did to the
Everglades. This is my district. It is to the north of the Everglades,
north of Orlando.
Just for the record, I am pleased that we have a balance, that areas
like the St. John's River, like north Florida, central Florida and the
Keys will also be protected and preserved, and also restored, so we do
not make the same mistakes we made in south Florida.
This bill has a balance. It is a great piece of legislation. I thank
those involved again for this historic occasion and also for listening
to our concerns in the north part of Florida, the central part of
Florida, the south part of Florida and the rest of the country; and I
urge passage of this historic measure.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
(Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KIND. I want to thank my ranking member for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 2796, WRDA 2000. I
especially want to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman
Shuster), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Boehlert), and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Borski) and their entire staffs for taking a step to address the
serious issue of reforming the Corps of Engineers in this legislation.
Despite its historic reputation for professionalism and integrity,
the Corps of Engineers is at present an embattled agency. Frequent
litigation and investigations into claims that Corps projects lack
sound economic justification or contain inadequate environmental
provisions point to deficiencies in the Corps process for planning and
approving water resources projects.
I am particularly pleased that this legislation takes the first step
in providing for an independent review of large or controversial water
development projects.
The language in the House version of WRDA 2000 is modeled after
legislation that I introduced earlier this year, H.R. 4879. The central
provision of that legislation was to create an independent panel of
water resource experts to review projects that would cost in excess of
$25 million or are subject to a substantial degree of public
controversy.
The House-worded bill creates a 3-year pilot program of the
independent review process. It was my hope that stronger provisions
than the pilot program would have been included in the bill before the
House today. However, due to the closed rule, an amendment that was
offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) and myself
obviously was not made in order.
But the central purpose of the independent review is to lift the
cloud currently hanging over the Corps and to enable the Corps to get
on with its important work on our Nation's rivers, lakes, coastlines,
and harbors. The best way to achieve this goal is to increase the level
of transparency and accountability in the Corps planning process and to
establish guidelines that strike a genuine balance between economic
development and other social and environmental priorities. I cannot
help but think if this pilot project or my legislation had been
included in the Corps' authorizing language 50 years ago, we may not be
here today talking about a big Florida Everglades restoration project.
I also want to thank Members and the committee staff for working with
me to include in this legislation a scientific modeling program for the
Upper Mississippi River Basin, so we can do a better job of protecting
and preserving one of America's greatest natural resources, the
Mississippi River. It is a small provision, but it is a very important
provision if we are to maintain the multiple uses of the Mississippi
River, recreation, tourism and commercial.
So, again, I want to thank the ranking members on the committee, the
staff for the assistance we received; and I would urge my colleagues to
support the House version of WRDA, given the important language and the
important pilot project that is included to reform the Corps of
Engineers.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
legislation.
I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster);
the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert); the ranking member,
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar); and the ranking member,
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), for their excellent work.
Mr. Speaker, as a first term Member of this committee, I am impressed
with the efficiency and the bipartisan cooperation and the outstanding
staff.
I want to thank the members for considering and authorizing on a
contingent basis the Antelope Creek Project, for the four-state
Missouri River Mitigation Project, and particularly for helping the
taxpayer by the coordination of flood control and highway construction
related to the Sand Creek Reservoir. It is an outstanding opportunity
to coordinate this. It was time-urgent, and, therefore, very much
appreciated that this legislation was moved forward.
I urge my colleagues to strongly support this legislation.
This Member is especially appreciative that he has had the
opportunity in the 106th Congress to serve on the Transportation
Committee and the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee.
Clearly, it has been one of the highlights of the 106th Congress for
this Member.
This important legislation presents a tremendous opportunity to
improve flood control, navigation, shore protection and environmental
protection. This Member is pleased that the bill we are considering
today includes contingent approval for the Sand Creek watershed project
in Saunders County, Nebraska. This proposed project, which is a result
of the Lower Platte River and Tributaries Flood Control Study, is
designed to meet Federal environmental restoration goals, help provide
state recreation needs, solve local flooding problems and preserve
water quality. It is sponsored jointly by the Lower Platte North NRD,
the City of Wahoo and Saunders County.
The plans for the project include a nearly 640-acre reservoir, known
as Lake Wanahoo, wetlands restoration and seven upstream sediment
nutrient traps. The Sand Creek watershed project would result in
important environmental and recreational benefits for the area and has
attracted widespread support. It is especially crucial that the Sand
Creek project is included in WRDA this year as the Nebraska Department
of Roads is ready to begin design of a freeway in that area that will
be routed across the top of a dam if the project is approved. If the
Sand Creek project is not included in WRDA, a new bridge will have to
be planned and built, which would make the project not economically
feasible. With this authorization, contingent because of facts yet to
be checked and planning study elements yet to be resolved, the way is
clear to save the taxpayers funds, secure mutual project benefits in
highway construction and flood control.
This Member is also very pleased that contingent authorization of the
Antelope Creek project is included in WRDA 2000. Antelope Creek runs
through the heart of Nebraska's capital city of Lincoln. The purpose of
the project is to solve multi-faceted problems involving the flood
control and drainage problems in Antelope Creek as well as existing
transportation and safety problems all within the context of broad land
use issues. This Member continues to have a strong interest in

[[Page H10356]]

this project since he was responsible for stimulating the city of
Lincoln, the Lower Platte South Natural Resources District, and the
University of Nebraska-Lincoln to work jointly and cooperatively with
the Army Corps of Engineers to identify an effective flood control
system for Antelope Creek in the downtown area of Lincoln.
Antelope Creek, which was originally a small meandering stream,
became a straightened urban drainage channel as Lincoln grew and
urbanized. Resulting erosion has deepened and widened the channel and
created an unstable situation. A ten-foot-by-twenty-foot (height and
width) closed underground conduit that was constructed between 1911 and
1916 now requires significant maintenance and major rehabilitation. A
dangerous flood threat to adjacent public and private facilities
exists.
The goals of the project are to construct a flood overflow conveyance
channel which would narrow the flood plain from up to seven blocks wide
to the 150-foot wide channel. The project will include trails and
bridges and improve bikeway and pedestrian systems.
Another Nebraska project was included on the contingent authorization
list is for Western Sarpy and Clear Creek for flood damage reduction.
Frankly, this Member must say he has substantial reservations about the
Clear Creek project in light of concerns expressed by constituents in
adjacent Saunders County and the lack of enthusiasm by relevant State
officials. This Member reserves judgment whether the benefits outweigh
costs and dislocation of property owners in the area.
This Member is pleased that at least part of the language regarding
the Missouri River Valley Improvement Act that he originally prepared
to be offered as an amendment during Subcommittee consideration of WRDA
is included in today's bill. Last year's WRDA legislation included a
provision this Member promoted which helps to ensure that the Missouri
River Mitigation Project can be implemented as envisioned. In 1986,
Congress authorized over $50 million (more than $79 million in today's
dollars if adjusted for inflation) to fund the Missouri River
Mitigation Project to restore fish and wildlife habitat that were lost
due to the construction of structures to implement the Pick-Sloan plan.
At that time the Corps did not choose to include funding requests for
implementing that Act in their budgeting process. That is why this
Member, with assistance from other Members who represent the four
states bordering the channelized Missouri River (Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas
and Missouri), has taken the lead in providing funding to implement the
Missouri River Mitigation Project which has just begun to become a
reality during the last few years.

This project is specifically needed to restore fish and wildlife
habitat lost due to the Federally sponsored channelization and
stabilization projects of the Pick-Sloan era. The islands, wetlands,
and flat floodplains that are needed to support the wildlife and
waterfowl that once lived along the river are dramatically reduced. An
estimated 475,000 acres of habitat in Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri and
Kansas have been lost because of Federal action in creating the flood
control projects and channelization of the Missouri River. Today's
fishery resources are estimated to be only one-fifth of those which
existed in pre-development days.
The success of the project has resulted in a concern related to the
original study that outlined habitat needs. Under this study, acreage
goals for each state were listed and these goals are generally
considered to be an acreage limitation for each state. Nebraska and
Kansas have already reached their acreage limits and Missouri is fast
approaching its ceiling. Before long, Iowa will also reach its acreage
limit.
To correct this problem, the WRDA legislation enacted last year
authorized provisions initiated by this Member to increase mitigation
lands in the four states of 25% of the lands lost, or 118,650 acres. In
addition, the Corps of Engineers--in conjunction with the four states--
was directed to study the amount of funds that would need to be
authorized to achieve that acreage goal.
The study has been completed and it appears that cost estimates for
restoring the acreage authorized in last year's WRDA will amount to
more than $700 million over the next 30-35 years. This Member greatly
appreciates the inclusion of an increased authorization level of
funding for the Missouri River Mitigation Project of $20,000,000 for
each fiscal year from FY2001 through FY2010.
This increase would allow the project to better balance the needs of
nature, recreation and navigation. It will also benefit communities
preparing for the bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark Expedition
beginning in 2003. Until funding authorization is increased, the Corps
and the states cannot finalize plans to add habitat restoration,
identify and prioritize sites for restoration, respond to willing
sellers, or engage in construction or maintenance activities. It is
important to note that many frequently flooded landowners along the
Missouri River have asked the Corps to buy their land to avoid annual
flood losses. However, in most years, the Corps has had insufficient
funds to meet the needs of these struggling landowners.
Finally, the WRDA bill also includes legislative language initiated
by this Member to authorize a pilot program to test the design-build
method of project delivery on a maximum of five civil engineering
projects. Such a program will provide significant benefits and yield
useful information.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, this Member urges his colleagues to support
this important bill. In the short time left in the 106th Congress, we
must work to ensure WRDA becomes law this year.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Rules.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. I should
state for the record that he was willing to offer me 1 minute during
this debate, until I told him I was going to extend compliments to him,
and that is how I got the 2 minutes of time here.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say how much I appreciate the great work
of the chairman of the committee, the chairman of the subcommittee and,
of course, the ranking members of both the full committee and the
subcommittee on this issue. As we look at the wide range of issues that
have been discussed over the last few minutes, reform of the Corps,
this important work in the Everglades, I am even more enthusiastic in
my support of this legislation.
But I rise to again extend compliments for the fact that this
committee chose to take and include the authorization on a very
important piece of legislation that is impacting not just the area
which I am privileged to represent in Los Angeles, but in fact the
entire country. In the middle part of the last decade, the discovery of
perchlorate in the groundwater was something that came to the forefront
in Southern California. Mr. Speaker, this came from the fact that
during the 1950s and 1960s, during the Cold War buildup, that companies
were in fact disposing of spent rocket fuel, legally, I should
underscore.
Well, since that time, some of the companies that were involved in
that buildup during the Cold War are still in existence, but many of
them are not in existence. I believe that those companies that are
responsible, obviously, should shoulder the burden of this. But we
obviously have potential legal problems, and this could be drawn out in
the courts for many, many years. During that period of time,
perchlorate will continues to seep into the groundwater.
That is why this legislation is so important to move forward, because
cleaning up the groundwater that has the potential of impacting 7
million people in Southern California, but also trying to figure out
how we will effectively address this in the future and for other parts
of country, is an important part of this measure.
So I again compliment my colleagues for their vision and for
including this very important measure, and I urge all to vote in favor
of this very important legislation.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that no bill is all good or all bad,
and we have certainly heard about the attributes of this bill. But I
come down on the side of this being a bad bill, for the simple reason
that if you care about Corps reform, or if you care about reform to the
agencies basically underlying this bill, this bill is a very bad bill.
I say that, first of all, if you look at the bill itself, we have in
place a somewhat bizarre process, and that is for weeks now we have
been sort of in the military mode of ``hurry up and wait'' and ``hurry
up and wait'' as we have been waiting for conference reports. Yet, when
this bill comes along, it basically speeds through the process with a
closed rule, despite the fact it has not been marked up in committee,
and the question is why? Why does this speed through this way? Why do
we not deal with reform right now? I think the answer, very clearly, is
in the way that this bill has spiralled out of control. It spiralled
from basically being a $2 billion bill to a $6 billion bill.

[[Page H10357]]

To me, this bill is similarly nothing more than a feeding frenzy.
Sharks are supposedly the ones that feed; but this is a piggy feeding
frenzy, when I think about this bill.
I will give an example of that. There is a long list of projects that
I have here on several sheets. But an example of one would be a $15
million navigation project in False Pass Harbor, Alaska, that would
serve a grand total of 86 boats; $15 million for 86 boats.
The other thing that I think is wrong with this bill from the
standpoint of reform is that it is dessert before dinner. Consistently
in the legislative process what we try and do is couple good with bad;
and if we can get enough of that together, we send the bill forward,
because reform is hard. Passing appropriations, passing $6 billion
worth of spending in terms of authorization, is very easy; but we need
to couple that with reform. That is not done in this bill.
There have been a number of very interesting articles within the
Washington Post talking about how the Corps of Engineers desperately
needs to be reformed, and we basically skip that, talking about how
there is, for lack of a better term, waste, fraud and abuse in the
Corps, and how the Corps has become something akin to or nothing more
than a ``water boy'' for the U.S. Congress.
This bill had in it the chance to deal with the Corps, and,
unfortunately, it does not. I would give an example of this. Right now
if you look at the benefit-to-cost ratio with Corps projects, it is
simply one-to-one. If you pass that threshold, it is something that can
be authorized. To me, that does not make sense, because what that means
fundamentally is if you put $10 into a project, you will get $10 back
out. You may get more. That is the minimum threshold. That is the
minimum threshold, one-to-one.
What that means to the United States taxpayer is he gets no return on
his investment on a one-to-one ratio. It may be good, if it is in South
Carolina, if it is in Alaska, if it is in California, for the
Congressman or the Senator in that local district or in that local
State; but it is not at all good for the United States taxpayer as a
whole.
If you look on the back of any penny, what you see are the words ``E
Pluribus Unum,'' from the many, one. This bill, unfortunately, does not
incorporate that.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes 40 seconds to the very
distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge).
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the ranking member for
yielding me time. I would also like to expression my appreciation to
the members of the committee and the chairman and the ranking member
for their work on this and other legislation.
I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) with respect to the scientific modeling that
is necessary with respect to the Upper Mississippi. We certainly need
to better understand our rivers and ensure that as we proceed with
projects and initiatives that affect these rivers, we implement
policies and the Corps implements legislation in a way that is
beneficial in the long term. We do have major proposals that are facing
us here in Congress with respect to the Upper Mississippi lock and dam
system.
The topic that I would like to address for the balance of my time has
to do with the Corps' administration of section 404 of the Clean Water
Act. I recognize that it is not in this bill, but I hope that before
long we are able to take this up and modernize the work of our Federal
agencies.
One of the most embarrassing experiences that I have had as a Member
of Congress occurred last summer when I hosted a meeting between the
Natural Resources and Conservation Service and the Army Corps of
Engineers at a location within my congressional district to explore
ways that we could better cooperate so that we could administer Federal
programs in a coordinated way, rather than having an adversarial
relationship between two Federal agencies.
I found, to my amazement and my embarrassment, that the Army Corps of
Engineers in particular was cavalier and was hostile to the concept of
trying to work with another agency. This, in my opinion, is
unacceptable; and it is unbecoming to the Federal Government, to have a
clash of agencies and a lack of interest in trying to identify a way to
work this clash out.
Mr. Speaker, whether this problem occurs at the national level or at
the St. Paul office of the Army Corps of Engineers, I do not know; but
I believe it is absolutely critical that we get to the bottom of it,
and that we end this type of bickering between Federal agencies.
We have hundreds of farmers that are being told, ``Our agency has
decided this. We have another agency, and we do not know what they will
do or when they will do it.'' This is what leads to cries for an
abolition, whether it is of the Corps or a variety of other programs.
I would like to simply ask my colleagues, the Chair of the committee
and the ranking member, if we could work together in the next year to
try to identify a way to solve this type of problem.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to say it is a
matter of concern to me that the gentleman brings this matter to the
floor. Certainly that should not have occurred, and we will work with
the gentleman in the future to address that matter and bring about
comity between the Corps and sister Federal agencies.

{time} 1115

Yes, we did have a memorandum of agreement earlier between these
agencies. I thought this had been worked out and, unfortunately, that
memorandum of agreement is now treated as if it is irrelevant.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge)
that I certainly want to work with him as well.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
California (Mr. Ose).
Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Chairman Shuster) for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his
leadership in bringing this bill to the floor and the hard work put in
by the gentleman and his staff to include the many projects needed to
provide critical flood control for so many.
Mr. Speaker, the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency has been
working with the Army Corps of Engineers to implement the historic
flood control project for the Sacramento region known as the Common
Elements. The Common Elements Project was authorized in the Water
Resources Development Act of 1999, and I thank the gentleman for his
work on that bill as well.
Unfortunately, recent analysis of the geology along the East Levee of
the Sacramento River has shown an extremely porous condition exists.
This condition can lead to seepage under the levee which will degrade
the levee foundation and weaken the levee's structural integrity.
In order to compensate for this serious problem, the Corps of
Engineers will need to significantly alter the design and construction
along this portion of the East Levee than was originally anticipated,
thus leading to significantly higher costs than authorized in WRDA in
1999.
I understand the reluctance of the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Chairman Shuster) to increase the authorized spending levels by $80
million. This is a significant cost increase, and Congress is entitled
to have specific information that justifies such a large additional
expenditure. While this additional cost may very well be justified, the
information given to date by both the Sacramento Area Flood Control
Agency and the Corps of Engineers to Congress is very minimal, and it
did not come until the committee was almost ready to bring the bill to
the floor.
In fact, the Corps of Engineers Sacramento District did not release
the increased cost estimate until August 16 of this year. The report
makes no mention of how the money would be spent, nor does it give any
specifics on the necessary changes. I look forward to working with the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) on getting more specific
information and accountability from the Sacramento

[[Page H10358]]

Area Flood Control Agency and the Corps of Engineers Sacramento
Division office on how this money will be spent before Congress
approves the increased costs. I thank the gentleman for his
consideration and cooperation.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OSE. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman he certainly
is correct that we have had little time to review this proposal.
Indeed, we still do not have enough information to make a sound
judgment on it; and hopefully over the coming days, the local sponsor
and the Corps will provide additional information which will be helpful
in evaluating the proposal.
I certainly agree that we should take every reasonable action to
assure that the water resources needs of the area are addressed.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OSE. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I concur in the gentleman's concern. I
make many visits to the Sacramento area to see my family there, my son
and daughter-in-law.
Mr. OSE. The gentleman is always welcome.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I have bicycled over those levies and
talked to the orchardmen on the other side, who can testify to the
seepage under those levies, and that is a matter that we need to
address and the Corps should be working on. And I concur in the
gentleman's concern and look forward to working with him on this
matter.
Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would tell the gentleman
from Minnesota he is always welcome in Sacramento.
Mr. OBERSTAR. There is great bicycling out there.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms.
Brown), our distinguished colleague on the Committee on Transportation.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank very
much the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for bringing this bill to the floor.
The Everglades project is very important to the State of Florida and,
in fact, to the entire country. But I do have a concern, and I thank
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for working with me on my
concerns.
This is the largest project in the history of the United States, and
it is important that this project is one of inclusion and that there is
minority and female participation, not only in contracting, but in
employment and in training. So I am very concerned that we have a
policy statement, the same kind of policy statement that we had when we
did the transportation TEA21.
Florida does not have a great history of inclusion and, in fact, with
our Governor Jeb Bush and his one Florida plan, we have gotten rid of
affirmative action, so there will not be opportunities to participate
in this project with taxpayers' dollars unless the policy is stated
from the Federal Government status.
This is very important. This is taxpayers' money. This project is
over 20 years, and we must have a public policy statement in this bill
as to how these taxpayers' dollars are going to be used.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Oberstar), our distinguished ranking member, and the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), our distinguished chairman, not only
for their leadership in this matter but all other matters that come
before the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the great
job that they do.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to engage the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Shuster), as well as the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) for
the purpose of a colloquy. I also rise to ask for the gentleman's
consideration in including the authorization language in this
legislation to benefit the lower Mississippi valley region.
As the gentleman may know, I have introduced bipartisan legislation,
H.R. 2911, that would create the Delta Regional Authority, an economic
development tool similar to the Appalachian Regional Authority.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to call the Arkansas portion of the Delta
my home, but the Delta region consistently ranks as one of the poorest
and most underdeveloped areas in the country.
This legislation would provide funds and resources specifically to
this region.
Due to the efforts of the representatives of this region, we have
been fortunate to receive $20 million in energy and water development
appropriations.
We simply wish to include the necessary authorization language in
this bill so we may begin to provide substantial assistance to the
Delta region.
As the bill before the House today, WRDA 2000, continues through the
legislative process, I hope the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Shuster) will consider including the authorizing language for the Delta
Regional Authority in this bill.
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BERRY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Missouri.
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
Arkansas for his yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Chairman Shuster) for the hard work and leadership the gentleman has
provided on this important piece of legislation and ask, along with the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), for the gentleman's consideration
of including authorizing language for the Delta Regional Authority as
WRDA 2000 moves towards a conference committee with the Senate.
As the gentleman knows, the Mississippi Delta is home to remarkable
history, culture and natural resources, and I am sure proud to
represent the wonderful people of this region; however, our Delta
communities have not shared in America's prospering economy of the last
few years and have historically faced unique economic challenges.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry)
has led a bipartisan effort to establish the Delta Regional Authority
and refocus our efforts on promoting jobs and economic development in
the region. His bipartisan proposal is contained in H.R. 2911 and is
supported by 21 Republicans and Democrats in the region, including our
colleagues, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Dickey) and the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), among others.
As WRDA 2000 continues through the legislative process, I hope the
gentleman will consider including the urgently needed authorizing
language for the Delta Regional Authority.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I, of course, have greatly sympathized with the concerns
of the Mississippi Delta Region counties and the area's Members of
Congress who are working on ways to address the economic distress this
area has experienced far beyond that of Appalachia.
President Clinton, while he was Governor of Arkansas, served as chair
of the Lower Mississippi Development Commission to study the needs of
the economically distressed area. There are some ways that we can help
establish the Mississippi Delta Commission in the course of further
work on this WRDA legislation as it moves through conference.
I know that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) is
sympathetic and I certainly am and we will see what we can do.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentlewoman from
Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) that representing part of Appalachia myself in
Pennsylvania, I sometimes feel as if I know more about the need for
economic development and the problems with lack of economic development
than I wish I knew. It is a terrible problem, and so I want to be very
helpful as we move forward. I hope we can do something.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H10359]]

Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers, but I will close for our
side.
Mr. Speaker, it has been widely reported that the issue or one of the
issues certainly that delayed this bill from floor consideration was
the applicability of the Davis-Bacon Act to the non-Federal
contributions to Corps projects. It has always been my belief and
experience that Davis-Bacon applies to all aspects of Federal public
works projects, regardless of whether the Corps is doing the work, or a
non-Federal sponsor is contributing to the work. These are Federal
public works projects. Davis-Bacon should apply.
The Corps was not consistently applying Davis-Bacon wage protections
to the non-Federal contribution for Corps projects, and I was prepared
to offer legislative language to remedy the situation. Such action is
not necessary now that the Corps, the Department of the Army, the
Department of Labor and the White House itself got together, reviewed
the matter in a meeting in my office and have come to an agreement that
Davis-Bacon does apply.
The wage provisions apply to non-Federal contributions to Corps of
Engineer projects and an appropriate statement of policy on this matter
is being formulated to make this matter very clear.
Mr. Speaker, the Corps of Engineers even in some debate here on the
floor, but also in news accounts widely distributed across the country
has come under assault. I would like to pay tribute to the Corps of
Engineers as they celebrate their 225th anniversary. During that 2\1/4\
centuries, it has established itself as the Nation's oldest, largest,
most experienced government organization in water and related land
engineering matters, extraordinary, competent, life-saving, economic-
development enhancing service has been provided to this country and its
people by the Corps of Engineers during these 2\1/4\ centuries.
Few people know that the Corps of Engineers once had jurisdiction
over Yellowstone Park and over Yosemite and Sequoia National Parks,
until the National Park Service was established in 1916. Lieutenant Dan
Kingman of the Corps in 1883, and later Kingman would become the Chief
of Engineers, wrote of the corps' work on Yellowstone, quote, ``The
plan of development which I have submitted is given upon the
supposition and in the earnest hope that it will preserve as nearly as
may be as the hand of nature left it, a source of pleasure to all who
visit and a source of wealth to none.''
A few years later, John Muir, the founder of the Sierra Club said,
quote, ``The best service in forest protection, almost the only
efficient service, is that rendered by the military. For many years,
they have guarded the great Yellowstone Park, and now they are guarding
Yosemite. They found it a desert, as far as underbrush, grass and
flowers are concerned. But in 2 years, the skin of the mountains is
healthy again; blessings on Uncle Sam's soldiers, as they have done the
job well, and every pine tree is waving its arms for joy.''

{time} 1130

Another great American said, ``The military engineers are taking upon
their shoulders the job of making the Mississippi River over again, a
job transcended in size only by the original job of creating it.'' That
was Mark Twain.
Together, those statements say a lot about the Corps of Engineers and
pay tribute to its work, to its legacy for all Americans: protecting
people, protecting cities against flood, enhancing river navigation,
America's most efficient means of transportation of goods; and, for me,
protection of the Great Lakes, one-fifth of all the fresh water on the
entire face of the Earth.
The Corps of Engineers deserves recognition, which it does not
sufficiently receive, for all of these works and the great contribution
it makes to the economic well-being, to the environmental enhancement
of this country.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention that there is a
provision in here that names a unit of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area
Wilderness in my district as the Bruce F. Vento Unit of the Boundary
Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.
Bruce Vento understood the great oration of Chief Seattle at the
signing of the treaty of 1854 when he said, ``The Earth does not belong
to man, man belongs to the Earth.'' Bruce Vento dedicated his career to
man's responsibility to the earth, to environmental protection. Cicero,
the great Roman orator and Senator said, ``Gratitude is not only the
greatest virtue, it is the parent of all others.'' In gratitude for
Bruce Vento's service to the enhancement of our environment, I am very
pleased that we are able to include this provision in this legislation.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this indeed is historic environmental legislation, not
only because it provides for water resource protection and development
throughout these United States, but most particularly because this is
the largest ecosystem restoration project in the history of the world.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), who deserves so much credit for
that, along with so many others around the country.
(Mr. SHAW asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me,
and I thank the chairman for giving me this privilege of being able to
close debate.
Mr. Speaker, we here in this Chamber are only the voices speaking out
for the millions of Americans who do care about the environment, and
leading that in this House, of course, we have our great chairman, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
I had the privilege of working with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar) both in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
and the Committee on Public Works; and the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Borski), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), who I think
thinks he is representing Florida for the great work he has done for
the restoration of the Everglades. Of course, we have many of the
gentleman's New Yorkers in Florida, so I am sure that has been a great
effort of his.
Also, thanks to the gentlemen from Florida (Chairman Young) and the
ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), for the
work they have done in their committees with regard to the Everglades.
Secretary Babbitt, whose name has been missing from this debate, he I
think has given us an extraordinary amount of attention in the
Everglades, and his name should certainly be referenced in our
discussion.
And in the other body we have our two great Senators from Florida,
Senator Connie Mack, who we are going to miss after this year, and
Senator Bob Graham, who has really gotten deeply involved in matters
pertaining to the Everglades.
This has truly been a great moment of great bipartisan effort. I
think the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) may have stated it
best in his closing remarks when he said that the Earth does not belong
to man, that man belongs to the Earth. This is certainly a recognition.
Many roads are paved with great intentions that go in the wrong
direction. This certainly is the case and has been the case with regard
to the ecosystem of south Florida. Starting from just south of Orlando
and going south to Lake Okeechobee, many years ago it was thought to be
a great idea to get rid of the flooding, straighten the Kissimmee
River, and have it dump directly into Lake Okeechobee.
It worked, but it worked too well, because it brought all of the
agricultural runoff down into the bottom, which has really changed the
very nature of Lake Okeechobee. Some of the oldtimers down there will
tell us that in the old days we could read the date off of a dime that
was laying on the bottom of Lake Okeechobee. Now we cannot find the
dime. It has changed considerably.
But we are addressing that issue, and thanks to this great committee
that this bill is coming out of, that restoration project is underway.
Now it is time to change the nature of the rest of the sheet flow,
the runoff that runs south over that great river of grass. It was once
thought that this ecosystem was indestructible, that we could do
anything and get away with it. Mother Nature had different ideas.

[[Page H10360]]

We cannot. The very water that now shoots down in by ways of canals
into the Florida Bay has greatly changed the salinity of the Florida
Bay itself. The natural grasses that grew on the floor of Florida Bay
have been damaged because of the salinity and how it varies.
There are many other things that need to be studied, but we have a
great blueprint. That blueprint is the Everglades to be restored before
man changed it. We need to go back as close as we can.
But when we see the great cooperation that we have received not only
from this body, but we have to go to my own State of Florida and talk
about my Florida legislature that has stood up, stepped up to the plate
and has put the money up, the matching funds required in order to make
this happen; and all of the interests involved, the agricultural
interests that wanted to go one way, the environmental interests that
wanted to go the other way, the developers, the Miccosukee and Seminole
Indian tribes, we had a coming together that was absolutely incredible.
It was almost a magic moment.
It is very important on this bill that we not only vote it in today
by the great bipartisan vote that I am confident of, but that we
conference it promptly and get it passed into law and get it to the
President's desk for signature. This is tremendously important because
of that fragile balance that we have, the fragile balance of State and
all of the interests that I have mentioned.
I can tell the Members, this is really a wonderful, wonderful moment
in this institution and in the history of the country. It is not just a
Florida issue. I would like to say, and I would want to absolutely
recognize the greatness of our Florida delegation in working together,
with interest in north Florida as well as south Florida, in bringing
together what is going to happen here in just a minute or so; that is,
the passage of this great bill.
Mr. Speaker, this Congress, this 106th Congress, it can look back and
say that we put forth the greatest, largest environmental restoration
project in the history of this globe. It is a wonderful moment for this
institution. It is a wonderful moment for our country. I urge a yes
vote.
Mr. Speaker, it is remarkable to have this broad a cross-section of
Americans supporting legislation on any single issue. But protection of
the Everglades is a national priority, because most Americans speak of
this national treasure in the same breath as the Redwood Forests, the
Mississippi River, Old Faithful, the Appalachian Trail, or the Grand
Canyon.
Most Americans also understand the basic concepts of clean water and
the delicate balance that nature requires. Everglades restoration is
about restoring the balance that was disturbed by man-made structures
as we pursued the noble goal of flood protection in decades past.
That is why so many diverse interests have come together, in historic
fashion, to support enactment of a Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
Plan, as outlined by the Comprehensive Review Study undertaken by the
Central & Southern Florida Project, led by the U.S. Corps of Engineers
and the South Florida Water Management District. (A list of
participating organizations is submitted herein for the Record, with
much applause for their work.)
That is why our underlying Everglades restoration bill, H.R. 5121 and
S. 2796/2797, as modified by today's manager's amendment and the
stellar work undertaken in the other Chamber, has been endorsed by
numerous organizations, from environmental groups to agricultural
groups to home builders and other businesses, to utility districts and
other local governmental bodies, to recreational users and Native
American Indian tribes. (A list of organizations supporting the
legislation is also submitted for the Record.)
This legislation is as much about a process to make future decisions
affecting the ecology of South Florida as it is about specific projects
authorized by this bill. I am pleased that Members from other parts of
the country have respected our State's right to determine what is
correct within the context of our own State water laws. While
recognizing that Florida has come to the table as a full and equal
partner in this restoration effort, for the good of all Americans.
The State of Florida has already taken the extraordinary step of
putting up 50 percent of the up-front construction costs, which
Governor Jeb Bush has shepherded through the State legislature as a
commitment in anticipation of the federal response. We at the federal
level can no longer delay answering the call.
I thank Chairmen Bud Shuster, Don Young, and Sherry Boehlert, along
with the Ranking Members Oberstar, Miller, and Borski, my Florida
colleagues and co-sponsors from other states for their leadership and
support of doing the right thing.
Citizens from all over the country understand that this is not a
local issue affecting only South Florida--although not simply because
our state boasts tourists and future residents from all 50 states and
many foreign countries.
What is good for the environment is good for us all, and with a vote
to pass Everglades restoration in the House, we can truly lay claim to
a legacy for the 106th Congress:
We will have worked in bipartisan, bicameral fashion to deliver a
huge victory for the American people and a huge victory for the
environment, with the largest and most significant environmental
restoration project in the history of the United States, if not the
history of the world.
Let me discuss a little about the Everglades. There is no other
ecosystem like it anywhere in the world. It is home to 68 individual
endangered or threatened species of plants and animals, which are
threatened with extinction unless we act. The Everglades has also been
shown to play a significant role in global weather patterns.
Several years of research by state and federal scientists, private
environmental and agricultural experts and the Corps of Engineers
produced the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), which
includes 68 individual projects to be completed by the Corps of
Engineers over the next 36 years. The total cost of the plan is $7.8
billion, to be shared 50/50 with the state of Florida.
The CERP will restore more than 1.7 billion gallons of freshwater per
day to the natural system, which is currently lost to sea via the St.
John and Caloosahatchee rivers. Flood control projects constructed by
the Corps of Engineers in the 1940s destroyed the original freshwater
sheet flow through the natural system, and more than 50% of the
original ecosystem has been lost. This plan will restore the Everglades
to almost 80% of its original condition.
In its natural state, the Everglades covered over 18,000 square miles
and was connected by the flow of water from the Lake Okeechobee through
the vast freshwater marshes to Florida Bay and on to the coral reefs of
the Florida Keys.
The Everglades is the largest remaining tropical and subtropical
wilderness remaining in the United States. Its wonders include unique
habitats of sawgrass prairies, tree islands, estuaries and the vast
waters of Florida Bay.
The lands owned and managed by the Federal government--4 national
parks and 16 national wildlife refugees and 1 national marine sanctuary
which comprise half of the remaining Everglades--will receive the
benefits of the restoration.
But this legislation is designed to restore the entire ecosystem of
the Everglades, not just the national parks and federally owned lands.
This should be of comfort to those who enjoy the recreational benefits
of such wilderness areas, as well as those living in communities on the
periphery of the Everglades who are affected by the water flows of the
system. I have heard from local property owners, sportsmen's chapters,
airboat associations and Safari Club chapters and understand how
important this is to to them.
The compelling Federal interest has been matched by the State of
Florida, which has already stepped up and committed $2 billion to the
effort. Florida's Fish & Wildlife Agency will maintain its strong role.
Congress needs to respond to that pledge.
Finally, there are additional opportunities for community involvement
contemplated or even called for by this legislation. One area is in the
scientific verification procedures. Our Everglades legislation includes
a provision for independent scientific review, contemplating that the
National Academy of Sciences or some other qualified body or bodies
will convene a panel to review the Plan's progress towards achieving
the stated natural restoration goals. I believe it is appropriate to
point out that, in South Florida, we have a number of institutions that
could contribute significantly to such scientific research because of
their demonstrated competency in such areas.
For example, Florida international University, one of the leading
research universities in my State, has done a remarkable job in
fostering an ecosystem approach to meeting the challenges created by
population growth in one of the most environmentally sensitive regions
on Earth--the greater Everglades ecosystem. Spearheading this effort is
the Southeast Environmental Research Center (FIU-SERC) with its
experienced scientific staff and established network of collaboration
with university, federal, state, local, and private organizations. FIU-
SERC has extensive expertise in conducting monitoring assessments for
the Everglades that can contribute to the Adaptive Monitoring and
Assessment Program in

[[Page H10361]]

WRDA. The Corps of Engineers can greatly benefit from utilizing FIU-
SERC's existing resources to conduct future monitoring activities in
the Everglades.
In addition, the Museum of Discovery and Science in Fort Lauderdale,
Florida, is uniquely situated to provide an interpretive site to carry
out public outreach and educational opportunities pertaining to the
restoration of the Everglades. In August, 1999, the Museum signed an
agreement with the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force to
provide public education outreach in conjunction with the restoration
effort. The Museum has a 25-year history of providing environmental
science education to the public in innovative ways. It currently hosts
more than 500,000 visitors annually and plans to build a dynamic,
interactive facility called the Florida Environmental Education Center,
as well as expanding its Florida Ecoscapes Exhibition. I hope that such
activity would be looked upon favorably by the Corps of Engineers in
developing an interpretive site partnership initiative for community
outreach and assistance.
Mr. Speaker, I include the following material on this legislation:

The Central and Southern Florida Project Comprehensive
Review Study was led by the US Army Corps of Engineers,
Jacksonville District and the South Florida Water Management
District, located in West Palm Beach, Florida. Many other
federal, state, tribal and local agencies were active
partners in developing the Comprehensive Plan and that
partnership will continue through the implementation of the
Plan. Those agencies are listed below.
US Department of the Army:
US Army Corps of Engineers;
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil
Works.
US Department of Agriculture:
Agricultural Research Service;
Natural Resources Conservation Service.
US Department of the Interior:
US Fish and Wildlife Service;
US Geological Survey/Biological Resources Division;
Everglades National Park;
Everglades Research and Education Center;
Biscayne National Park;
Big Cypress National Preserve.
US Department of Commerce:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;
National Marine Fisheries Service;
National Ocean Service;
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research.
US Environmental Protection Agency.
Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida.
Seminole Tribe of Florida.
State of Florida:
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services;
Department of Environmental Protection;
Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission;
Governors Commission for a Sustainable South Florida;
Governor's Office;
South Florida Water Management District.
Local Agencies:
Broward County Department of Natural Resource Protection;
Broward County Office of Environmental Services;
Lee County Utility Department;
Martin County;
Miami-Dade Department of Environmental Resource Management;
Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department;
Palm Beach County Environmental Resource Management;
Palm Beach County Water Utilities.
Academic Institutions:
Florida International University;
University of Miami;
University of Tennessee.

supporters of the everglades restoration bill

The Clinton-Gore Administration
Governor Jeb Bush
Seminole Tribe of Florida
Miccosukee Tribe of Indians
National Audubon Society
National Wildlife Federation
Florida Wildlife Federation
World Wildlife Fund
Center for Marine Conservation
Defenders of Wildlife
National Parks and Conservation Association
The Everglades Foundation
The Everglades Trust
Audubon of Florida
1000 Friends of Florida
Natural Resources Defense Council
Environmental Defense
Florida Citrus Mutual
Florida Farm Bureau
Florida Home Builders
American Water Works Association
Florida Chamber of Commerce
Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association
Southeastern Florida Utility Council
Gulf Citrus Growers Association
Florida Sugar Cane League
Florida Water Environmental Utility Council
Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of America
Florida Fertilizer and Agrichemical Association
League of Women Voters of Florida
League of Women Voters of Dade County
Chamber South

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank and praise the leadership and hard
work of the following people, on behalf of those they represented in
creating a consensus product, legislation to restore the American
Everglades, as embodied in this bill:
Governor Jeb Bush and his staff, especially Nina Oviedo and Clarke
Cooper of the Governor's Washington office, Secretary David Struhs and
Leslie Palmer of the Department of Environmental Protection, and Kathy
Copeland of the South Florida Water Management District;
Senator Bob Graham and Catharine Cyr-Randsom of his staff;
Senator Connie Mack and C.K. Lee of his staff;
Mike Strachn and Ben Grumbles of the Transportation & Infrastructure
Committee;
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Michael Davis;
Acting Assistant Secretary Mary Doyle and Peter Umhofer of the
Department of the Interior;
Tom Adams of the Audubon Society;
Bob Dawson, representing the coalition of agriculture, home builders,
and utility districts;
Mary Barley, Bill Riley, and Fowler West of the Everglades Trust;
Col. Terry Rice of Florida International University;
Dexter Lehtinen, The Honorable Jimmy Hayes, and Lee Forsgren,
representing the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians; and finally, my own
staff, especially Donna Boyer, Mike Sewell, and Bob Castro.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 2796, the
Water Resources Development Act of 2000 and would like to emphasize my
support specifically for the Everglades language contained in it.
As many of my colleagues have already stated during this debate, the
Everglades provisions represent a major step toward restoration of this
unique ecosystem. As Chairman of the Interior Appropriations
Subcommittee, I have become involved in this restoration effort, as it
directly impacts the natural areas in federal ownership including
Everglades National Park, Big Cypress Natural Preserve and several
national wildlife refuges. Their future and that of the numerous
species who make the Everglades their home, depend upon the success of
this effort. Only if the Corps of Engineers carried out the restoration
initiative properly will they survive.
I commend the Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee for recognizing that the environment must be the primary
beneficiary of the water made available through the Comprehensive Plan
for the restoration. The object of the plan is to restore, preserve and
protect the natural system while also meeting the water supply, flood
protection and agricultural needs of the region.
As we make our way through this massive ecosystem restoration, I
intend to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure
that we remain focused on the restoration of the natural areas. I
commend the Members on their bipartisan work in bringing this
legislation to the floor today and urge the support of the House in
passing it.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support
for S. 2796, the Water Resources development act of 2000. This historic
legislation will provide funding for valuable projects across our
nation and the 11th Congressional District of Illinois.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that three projects that are very
important to my constituents were included in the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 (WRDA). Legislative language was included in
the bill which will ensure the continuation of valuable work by the
Army Corps of Engineers at Ballard's Island in the Illinois River; the
Ottawa YMCA will have land transferred to it from the Army Corps of
Engineers for expansion of its facilities; and the Joliet Park district
will have land transferred to it for use as their regional
headquarters.
Ballard's Island is a natural and historic treasure located in the
Illinois River. However, the side channel around Ballard's Island has
become severely clogged with sand and silt due to the Army Corps of
Engineers erection of a closure structure at the end of the side
channel of Ballard's Island in the 1940s. This side channel has since
become increasingly clogged with sand and silt, the problem becoming
severe over the past three decades. The original depth of the side
channel was 19 feet but today it has been reduced to two feet, making
the channel completely unusable. This channel was once a thriving and
vibrant aquatic ecosystem, but it is now so choked with mud and
sediment that it no longer supports the plants and animals it used to
and it is no longer productive for local citizens.
To solve these problems, the Army Corps is prepared to begin a
Section 1135 Preliminary Restoration Plan for solving the river's woes.
The Illinois Department of Natural Resources will be the 25% non-
federal sponsor for this project. However, the Illinois Department of
Natural Resources has already begun work on removing sediment from the
channel through a $250,000 state appropriation. The legislative

[[Page H10362]]

language included in this bill will ensure that the valuable work
already begun on the river will continue and its habitat and ecosystem
restored. This is a victory for the people who live on and love this
river who have watched it slowly die--their river will be returned to
them.
Two other projects in this bill will help the people of Ottawa and
Joliet, Illinois. The Ottawa YMCA is an outstanding community
organization which already provides health and recreational services to
hundreds of Illinois Valley families. In fact, because of the growing
demand for these services, the Ottawa YMCA has launched a capital
campaign to raise funds to expand its current facilities.

Earlier this year, with construction about to begin on the $1.3
million expansion project, YMCA officials learned that the U.S.
Government was granted an easement in 1933 on the very piece of
property intended as the site for the YMCA's expansion project. This
easement, although never utilized, was intended for use in conjunction
with the Army Corps of Engineers Illinois Waterway Project. On
September 19, 2000 with legislative language provided to me by the Rock
Island Army Corps district, I introduced H.R. 5216, a bill to convey
the Army Corps easement back to the YMCA, ensuring that there will be
no further questions about the land used by the YMCA for its expansion.
I am pleased that H.R. 5216 was included in the Water Resources
Development Act and that the good work of the Ottawa YMCA will be able
to continue.
WRDA also provides a new home for the Joliet Park District. The Army
Corps of Engineers currently owns property located at 622 Railroad
Street in Joliet, Illinois. The property has served several functions
in its official use but has recently been vacated. This property is no
longer used or needed by the Army Corps of Engineers and is in the
process of being deemed ``excess.''
The Joliet Park District has requested use of the land and buildings
for its new location for its headquarters. The Park District currently
has its headquarters and maintenance facilities in two separate, small
locations on opposite sides of the City of Joliet. The approval of this
property transfer will allow the Park District to increase its
efficiency and save time and funds which can be much better used to the
improvement of parks and recreation facilities. I am pleased that the
Water Resources Development Act included H.R. 5389, legislation I
introduced that conveys the land from the Army Corps of Engineers to
the Joliet Park District.
Mr. Speaker, this is good legislation and I commend Chairmen Boehlert
and Shuster for their work and efforts on this legislation. I urge
passage of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 by my
colleagues.
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, today we take an historic step to restoring
one of our nation's natural treasures, the Everglades. This will be the
largest environmental project the Corps of Engineers has ever
undertaken and Democrats and Republicans have come together to
accomplish this great task.
My friend and colleague Clay Shaw, the dean of our delegation,
successfully guided this legislation through the House. Also, our
Governor, Jeb Bush, has not wavered on his commitment to the
Everglades. His tireless efforts guarantee state funding for the
project over the next ten years.
This bipartisan plan will restore, preserve and protect the South
Florida ecosystem while saving generations from inheriting an
environmental nightmare. Over a million Americans visit the Everglades
system each year--enjoying the natural wonders of this remarkable spot.
Though we should be alarmed that this important ecosystem is now half
its original size. But today, we start to reverse that dangerous trend
and begin undoing the mistakes of the past. I know our children and
grandchildren will benefit from a stronger Everglades.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I wish to echo the sentiments of the
gentleman from Florida, Mr. Shaw, about the FIU Southeast Environmental
Research Center and reinforce the important contributions that the
Center has made in the area of monitoring assessments in the
Everglades. I would encourage the Corps of Engineers to explore ways to
collaborate with FIU-SERC and utilize the Center's expertise in
monitoring assessments. SERC has extensive expertise in Everglades
restoration and can provide research and monitoring, technical
assistance and infrastructure to support the Corps. FIU-SERC can also
serve to coordinate technology transfer and apply the techniques and
methodologies learned from CERP to other sustainable ecosystems.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 2796, the Water
Resources Development Act. The communities in my district have learned
first hand that the Army Corps of Engineers has become a large, bloated
and intransigent bureaucracy. Now is the time for reform, and while I
commend the Transportation Committee for their efforts to bring about
some reform in the area of peer-review for projects in S. 2796, I
believe more work must be done, and more efforts to shrink the size and
power of the Corps of Engineers should be made.
To illustrate the point, I am enclosing for the Record the following
Op-Ed I recently submitted to the Aurora Sentinel regarding the need
for reform in the Army Corps of Engineers.
On a related topic, I believe that the public image and reputation of
the Corps of Engineers might be improved tremendously if it would adopt
some of the recommended policy changes suggested by the 1999 National
Recreation Lakes Study Commission.
Specifically, I believe it is time for the Corps to reverse its long-
standing opposition to cost-share proposals that would rehabilitate
facilities on the recreational properties it leases to non-federal
entities such as the State of Colorado.
Over the last year and a half, I have worked with the interested
parties to encourage the Corps to enter into a cost-share agreement
with the state of Colorado to improve the recreational facilities of
Cherry Creek Reservoir, Chatfield Reservoir, and Trinidad Reservoir
State Parks.
Cherry Creek, Chatfield, and Trinidad Reservoirs are each operated
and maintained by the Corps, while the State manages all parks and
recreation facilities on the surrounding federally-owned land. These
reservoir-parks are the most valued sources of water recreation in
Colorado, a state where virtually no natural large body of water
exists. The three parks combined host almost 3.5 million visitors
annually.
Most recreational facilities in these parks were constructed over 25
years ago. Entrance gates, trails, campsites, and outhouses are near
states of disrepair. Worse, public safety is at risk if water, sewer,
and Americans with Disabilities Act compliance improvements are not
addressed. The State is not financially capable of meeting the repair
and renovation needs without matching federal assistance.
In a recent meeting with Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil
Works, Dr. Joseph Westphal, I was assured by Secretary Westphal that
the Corps is committed to beginning this cost share agreement as a
pilot project. Governor Bill Owens has also committed the State of
Colorado to meeting its financial obligation for the cost share
program. Unfortunately, the project has not progressed as planned.
As was demonstrated by previous recreational facility cost share
agreements with the Bureau of Reclamation, these agreements are a
tremendously efficient way to leverage federal dollars and to help
preserve Colorado's quality of life. In addition, the facilities
provided through the cost shares enable the Corps to meet their legal
obligation to provide recreation on these three reservoirs.
Because of the lack of an agreement, I proposed a policy reform in
the form of an amendment to S. 2796 that instructed the Corps of
Engineers to submit a plan in no less than one year on how it could
implement cost-share programs with non federal entities for
recreational purposes. While the amendment was not made in order, I
intend to craft legislation that will seek to reform and improve the
operations of the Corps of Engineers, and introduce the legislation
when the 107th Congress convenes.

A Bright Light Shed on the Army Corps of Engineers

(By Congressman Tom Tancredo)

The evidence is in, and it is conclusive. The Army Corps of
Engineers has tried to throw a blanket over the heads of
American taxpayers in order to advance their own projects and
agenda, and the citizens around the Cherry Creek Dam and
Reservoir have been a top target.
The Washington Post released an article on February 24th
entitled ``Generals Push Huge Growth for Engineers,'' which
details an internal push to expand the budget, size, and
scope of the Army Corps of Engineers.
At the surface, the Corps has internally planned for growth
of their budget to $6.5 billion by 2005, more than $2 billion
greater than their 2000 budget, which breaks down more
specifically within the agency.
The information obtained by the Washington Post also shows
that Corps officials had been pressured by superiors to ``get
creative with cost-benefit analysis in order to greenlight
major projects.''
The Cherry Creek Dam controversy that has developed between
the Corps, the local community and local public officials
over the expansion of flood controls around the dam is even
more alarming with the information contained in the Corps
report proposing a ``program with targeted studies that
should lead to target construction activities with
continuation of historical success rates.''
This answers a few questions I had surrounding the proposed
addition of flood controls to the Cherry Creek Dam. Why the
conflicting facts and figures from the Corps? And why have
they suppressed the concerns of local citizens and elected
officials, myself included? The answer to those questions is
evident in the report, the growth of the Corps is first and
foremost.

[[Page H10363]]

Like many, I was skeptical of the need to add more flood
control onto the Cherry Creek Dam when the Corps had admitted
that the chances of a flood capable of breaking the dam, 24.7
inches in 72 hours, is approximately one in a billion. With
Metro Denver averaging around fourteen inches of moisture a
year, this would be a flood of biblical proportions.
What the Corps has turned into is a major public works
department with over 37,000 workers attempting to capitalize
on the expansion of the American economy and proposed
government surpluses.
Let me be the first to inform the Army Corps of Engineers
that the days of reckless government and fraud is over.
America has more pressing needs--saving Social Security and
keeping our commitment to our nation's veterans--than to
needlessly expand the budget of an agency whose motto is,
``growth.''
I am just sorry that the citizens of this community have
had to endure what has become a stressful issue that has
scared many families and individuals and affected property
values in the proposed area.
As this process moves forward, and both Congressman Joel
Hefley and I are discussing legislation that would require
the Corps to use criteria for similar projects more in line
with what the State of Colorado uses, I will keep the
communities best interests, and not the Corps, at the
forefront of the debate.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong
support of the manager's amendment to the Water Resources Development
Act of 2000. This bipartisan piece of legislation is a tribute to the
outgoing Chairman Bud Shuster and Ranking Member Jim Oberstar. I want
to touch on two components of the legislation that I wholeheartedly
support.
Representing a district that sits within a 100-year floodplain along
Hurricane Alley is often a daunting but fulfilling task. Hurricane
Floyd ripped through Eastern North Carolina more than one year ago,
causing billions of dollars of damage and displacing thousands of
families.
While recovery is progressing and people's lives are slowing
returning to normal, our rivers and streams remain clogged with debris
from that horrific storm. If these streams are not immediately cleared
after major disasters, flooding problems will be exacerbated and North
Carolina will continue to remain vulnerable to extreme weather
conditions. For instance, one country in my district, Onslow County,
has almost 600 miles of rivers and streams that remain clogged, a
continuing threat to life, property and economic development.
Included in the legislation is a demonstration project authorizing
the Army Corps of Engineers to remove accumulated snags and debris in
Eastern North Carolina rivers and tributaries immediately following
major disasters. The accumulated debris in our rivers and streams are a
contributing factor in the disastrous floods experienced by eastern
North Carolina in the last few years.
Without this provision, flood control problems will worsen as urban
centers are now being impacted by floodwaters. This emergency authority
for the Army Corps of Engineers will help alleviate continued flooding
within Eastern North Carolina and supplement other flood control
programs.
The proposed program will not only aid navigation and safety, but it
will also help the flow of the rivers themselves. With this provision,
Eastern North Carolina will be better prepared to deal with extreme
weather events like Hurricanes Bertha, Fran, Dennis, Floyd and Irene in
the future.
The second provision I support is an authorization for hurricane and
storm damage reduction for Dare County, North Carolina. The
authorization affects the towns of Nags Head, Kill Devil Hills, and
Kitty Hawk. I am a strong supporter of beach nourishment, not just for
the 3 million tourists who visit our shores every year, but also for
storm protection for our homes and infrastructure.
It is not well remembered, but it is nevertheless a fact, that these
communities--indeed most of North Carolina's Outer Banks--have been
protected for well over a half a century by a line of dunes constructed
by the federal government under the Works Progress Administration.
These dunes have been a wise investment of resources. Now, however,
these dunes and berms have deteriorated and must be repaired.
Erosion along North Carolina's shoreline threatens the future
existence of these beaches and shore protection is truly the only
option available to ensure coastal areas will be here tomorrow.
Nourishment of these beaches will provide the best protection against
the devastating effects of storm surges on the dune system, private
property, roads and other critical public infrastructure guaranteeing a
healthy and fortified coastline.
Without beach nourishment these reinforcement measures cannot take
place. Unfortunately it takes years for the Army Corps of Engineers and
the local communities to actually place sand on the affected beaches.
Shore protection projects have become entangled with numerous state and
federal environmental regulations.
In addition, the projects are even further delayed by the Clinton-
Gore Administration's opposition to beach nourishment, under which
there have been no new startups of beach nourishment programs. I am
hopeful that a new Administration will support such a sound program to
protect both our communities and precious natural resources. Rest
assured that I will continue to support shore protection and other
initiatives along the North Carolina coast. It is essential that we
protect the entire coast for the inhabitants and visitors today as well
for future generations.
I commend the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for
bringing this important legislation to the House floor. I hope it will
be possible for us to improve this bill today and for the House and the
other body to agree on a final version of this critical legislation
prior to adjournment. This bill is a victory for Eastern North
Carolina, a victory for Congress, and a victory for America.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Water
Resources Development Act and I urge my colleagues to give it their
full support as well. Specifically, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of
one provision of this bill that will begin the long over due effort to
preserve the Everglades and restore them to their natural beauty.
Mr. Speaker, with this legislation, we will begin to correct the
mistakes we made over 40 years ago when we began development in and
around the Everglades area. In those years, we did not have the
scientific understanding of the ramifications of our actions, and the
result was enormous damage to this vital ecosystem. Yet since that
time, clear and compelling scientific data has shown the perilous state
of the Everglades.
Under the bill before us, 18,000 square miles of subtropical uplands,
coral reefs and wetlands will be preserved, in addition to the habitat
of 68 federally listed threatened and endangered species. Once
implemented, 2 million acres of Everglades will be restored with a 50/
50 cost share between the state of Florida and the federal government,
providing $100 million per year for 10 years.
While I am pleased with this, it is only a first step in the
preservation of the environment in Florida. As the state's population
increases, Florida will experience increasing demands on its water
resources. Mr. Speaker, I am committed to maintaining the federal-state
partnership we have built for the Everglades, and I am pleased to be
able to say that the legislation before this body has the support of a
broad spectrum of groups and individuals, ranging from
environmentalists, to agricultural and industry groups, to the Seminole
Indians and the state of Florida. That broad array of support
demonstrates just what we in this body can accomplish when we put
partisan differences aside.
Mr. Speaker, I was proud to work with my Republican and Democratic
colleagues from Florida on this measure, and I will continue to work in
the forefront of the effort to protect our state's unique environment.
This is prudent, scientifically sound legislation that will preserve a
valuable national asset for generations to come, and I urge my
colleagues to vote in favor of this investment in our nation's future.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I have some serious reservations
about this bill, especially those parts dealing with oceanfront
development, dredging, and other projects to be carried out by the
Corps of Engineers. I think the House should have had the chance to
consider amendments that would have improved the bill. I regret that
the rule adopted earlier does not permit that. However, I will vote the
bill because I strongly support authorizing the important program of
environmental restoration for the Everglades. The bill will now go to
conference with the Senate. I hope that will result in improvements in
the measure to make it one that everyone can support without
reservations.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, Marjory Stoneman Douglass, grand matron of the
Everglades immortalized the sprawling South Florida wetlands in her
classic book, Everglades: River of Grass. ``Nothing anywhere else is
like them,'' she wrote. ``They are, they have always been, one of the
unique regions of the earth, remote, never wholly known.''
I am not sure that there is any better way to describe what is one of
our nation's greatest natural wonders. But, I can tell you that even
though we will never fully know or understand the Everglades, we do
know a few things. The Everglades is home to a wide and rich bird
population, particularly large wading birds, such as the roseate
spoonbill, wood stork, great blue heron and a variety of egrets. It
contains both temperate and tropical plant communities, including
sawgrass prairies, mangrove and cypress swamps, pinelands and hardwood
hammocks, as well as marine and estuarine environments. It is the only
place in the world where alligators and crocodiles exist side by side.
However, man has also lived in and around the Everglades for

[[Page H10364]]

the past 2,000 years, sometimes with disastrous consequences. Starting
in the 1880's, man began diverting water from the Everglades to make it
more a hospitable place for people. Over the last century canals were
dug and impoundments were created to provide drinking water, protection
from floods and land for houses.
As a result of man's habitation and engineering, the Everglades are
dying. Many portions are drying out and many species are threatened
with extinction. We need to take immediate and long term steps to save
this massive ecosystem. The Water Resources Development Act includes a
$7.8 billion, 35-year federal-state plan to restore the Florida
Everglades that is a major step towards saving that goal. This
restoration plan will reverse the effects of the dams and waterways
that drain 1.7 billion gallons of water a day from the Everglades into
the Atlantic Ocean. This plan has 68 project components and will
restore the natural water flow while continuing to supply water to
South Florida. This legislation also requires that an ongoing,
independent scientific review be established to ensure that the plan is
progressing toward restoration.
I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support this plan to save
this truly unique natural resource.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in reluctant opposition to the
Water Resources Development Act. I do not oppose this bill for its
content. Rather, I oppose the measure because the rule did not provide
an opportunity to offer amendments. This bill does not include language
about preventing the withdrawal and diversion of water from the Great
Lakes. In 1998, a Canadian company planned to ship 3 billion liters of
water from Lake Superior over five years and sell it to Asia. I
authored legislation that passed the House of Representatives that
called on the United States government to oppose this action. The
permit was subsequently withdrawn. We must strengthen existing laws to
protect the possibility of other countries making similar requests in
the future. We owe it to the estimated 35 million people who reside in
the Great Lakes Basin.
I want to thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Oberstar for
their commitment to protecting our Great Lakes and I hope that similar
language will be inserted in the WRDA conference report. Another point
of concern for me in this bill concerns the transfer of a lighthouse in
Ontonagon, Michigan, from the Secretary of the Army to the Ontonagon
County Historical Society. This facility was built in 1866 and guided
ships through the seas of Lake Superior for more than 100 years.
Thanks to the Ontonagon County Historical Society's efforts, this
facility has been preserved for the public's enjoyment. To continue its
work, the non-profit organization is seeking to have the lighthouse and
the adjacent land of 1.8 acres transferred. Unfortunately, the Army
Corps of Engineers, which owns and uses the property, has witnessed
contamination of the property. Lead-based paint coats the interior
walls and the exterior gallery of the lighthouse. A 5,000-gallon fuel
tank, which may have leaked oil into the soil, sits idle near the
lighthouse. Finally, for 14 years coal has been stored onsite by a
company subletting the property; an action which has contaminated the
soil.
This bill, however, does not include language absolving the
organization of responsibility. And in no way should the Ontonagon
County Historical Society be held liable for environmental damage of
the property when it occurred during the ownership of the Army Corps of
Engineers. Such an omission forces me to oppose this bill. The Senate
version of WRDA would hold the Secretary of the Army responsible for
the removal of onsite contaminated soil and lead-based paint. I hope
that its language is retained in the bill's conference report.
Again, I reluctantly oppose this bill but wish to thank Mr. Shuster
and Mr. Oberstar for bringing this legislation to the floor, especially
given the session's time constraints. Their leadership in crafting a
bipartisan bill should be commended.
Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, today the House is considering S.
2796, the Water Resources and Development Act of 2000. I would like to
thank Chairman Shuster for his leadership in drafting this legislation
and I rise in strong support of its passage.
This legislation takes the necessary steps to address the many water
resources needs across the country. It does so by authorizing important
water programs such as those sponsored and constructed by the Army
Corps of Engineers. These projects provide important water resources to
the areas they serve. These water resources are crucial to the economic
development of many of these areas.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Shuster again for his
leadership on this legislation and I urge my colleagues in the House to
join me by casting their vote in favor of S. 2796.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 639, the previous question is ordered on
the Senate bill, as amended.
The question is on the third reading of the Senate bill.
The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, and was read the
third time.

Motion to Commit Offered by Mr. Rahall

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to commit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the Senate bill?
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, in its current form, I am opposed to the
Senate bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to commit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Rahall moves to commit the bill S. 2796 to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure with
instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith
with the following amendments:
Strike section 330 of the bill and redesignate subsequent
sections of title III of the bill, accordingly.
In section 348 of the bill, strike ``substantially'' and
all that follows through ``1992''.
Strike section 436 of the bill and redesignate subsequent
sections of title IV of the bill, accordingly.
In section 563 of the bill, strike ``stabilization and
preservation'' and insert ``preservation and restoration''.
Conform the table of contents of the bill by striking the
items relating to sections 330 and 436 and redesignate
subsequent items accordingly.
Mr. RAHALL (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the motion to commit be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from West Virginia?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr.
Rahall) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion to commit.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RAHALL. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, we accept the gentleman's motion.
Mr. RAHALL. I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any Member seek time in opposition?
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to
commit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to commit.
The motion to commit was agreed to.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, acting under the instructions of the House
and on behalf of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I
report the Senate bill, S. 2796, back to the House with an amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment:
Strike section 330 of the bill and redesignate subsequent
sections of title III of the bill, accordingly.
In section 348 of the bill, strike ``substantially'' and
all that follows through ``1992''.
Strike section 436 of the bill and redesignate subsequent
sections of title IV of the bill, accordingly.
In section 563 of the bill, strike ``stabilization and
preservation'' and insert ``preservation and restoration''.
Conform the table of contents of the bill by striking the
items relating to sections 330 and 436 and redesignate
subsequent items accordingly.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the third reading of the
Senate bill.
The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, and was read the
third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the Senate
bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 394,
nays 14, not voting 24, as follows:

[Roll No. 534]

YEAS--394

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Archer
Armey

[[Page H10365]]

Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hilleary
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--14

Andrews
Coburn
Doggett
Hill (MT)
Johnson, Sam
Paul
Ramstad
Royce
Sanford
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Shays
Stupak
Tancredo

NOT VOTING--24

Ballenger
Campbell
Chenoweth-Hage
Clay
Dingell
Franks (NJ)
Gephardt
Hansen
Hilliard
Houghton
Jones (OH)
Lazio
Lipinski
McCollum
McIntosh
Miller (FL)
Morella
Oxley
Rodriguez
Simpson
Stark
Talent
Turner
Wise

{time} 1206

Mr. SCHAFFER changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. PETRI and Mr. CHABOT changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the Senate bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 534, I was inadvertently
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

____________________