    [House Report 104-695]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

    104th Congress                                                   Report
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

     2d Session                                                     104-695
    _______________________________________________________________________

                    WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1996

                                    _______

     July 22, 1996.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
                  State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                    _______

     Mr. Shuster, from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                            submitted the following

                                  R E P O R T

                                 together with

                                ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                            [To accompany H.R. 3592]

          [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

      The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom
    was referred the bill (H.R. 3592) to provide for 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, having considered the same, report
    favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill
    as amended do pass.
      The amendment is as follows:
      Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu
    thereof the following:

    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

      (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water Resources
    Development Act of 1996''.
      (b) Table of Contents.--
    Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
    Sec. 2. Definition.

                       TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

    Sec. 101. Project authorizations.
    Sec. 102. Small flood control projects.
    Sec. 103. Small bank stabilization projects.
    Sec. 104. Small navigation projects.
    Sec. 105. Small shoreline protection projects.
    Sec. 106. Small snagging and sediment removal project, Mississippi
    River, Little Falls, Minnesota.
    Sec. 107. Small projects for improvement of the environment.

                   TITLE II--GENERALLY APPLICABLE PROVISIONS

    Sec. 201. Cost sharing for dredged material disposal areas.
    Sec. 202. Flood control policy.
    Sec. 203. Feasibility study cost-sharing.
    Sec. 204. Restoration of environmental quality.
    Sec. 205. Environmental dredging.
    Sec. 206. Aquatic ecosystem restoration.
    Sec. 207. Beneficial uses of dredged material.
    Sec. 208. Recreation policy and user fees.
    Sec. 209. Recovery of costs.
    Sec. 210. Cost sharing of environmental projects.
    Sec. 211. Construction of flood control projects by non-Federal
    interests.
    Sec. 212. Engineering and environmental innovations of national
    significance.
    Sec. 213. Lease authority.
    Sec. 214. Collaborative research and development.
    Sec. 215. Dam safety program.
    Sec. 216. Maintenance, rehabilitation, and modernization of facilities.
    Sec. 217. Long-term sediment management strategies.
    Sec. 218. Dredged material disposal facility partnerships.
    Sec. 219. Obstruction removal requirement.
    Sec. 220. Small project authorizations.
    Sec. 221. Uneconomical cost-sharing requirements.
    Sec. 222. Planning assistance to States.
    Sec. 223. Corps of Engineers expenses.
    Sec. 224. State and Federal agency review period.
    Sec. 225. Limitation on reimbursement of non-Federal costs per project.
    Sec. 226. Aquatic plant control.
    Sec. 227. Sediments decontamination technology.
    Sec. 228. Shore protection.
    Sec. 229. Project deauthorizations.
    Sec. 230. Support of Army Civil Works Program.
    Sec. 231. Benefits to navigation.
    Sec. 232. Loss of life prevention.
    Sec. 233. Scenic and aesthetic considerations.
    Sec. 234. Removal of study prohibitions.
    Sec. 235. Sense of Congress; requirement regarding notice.
    Sec. 236. Reservoir Management Technical Advisory Committee.
    Sec. 237. Technical corrections.

                        TITLE III--PROJECT MODIFICATIONS

    Sec. 301. Mobile Harbor, Alabama.
    Sec. 302. Alamo Dam, Arizona.
    Sec. 303. Nogales Wash and Tributaries, Arizona.
    Sec. 304. Phoenix, Arizona.
    Sec. 305. San Francisco River at Clifton, Arizona.
    Sec. 306. Glenn-Colusa, California.
    Sec. 307. Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors, San Pedro Bay,
    California.
    Sec. 308. Oakland Harbor, California.
    Sec. 309. Queensway Bay, California.
    Sec. 310. San Luis Rey, California.
    Sec. 311. Thames River, Connecticut.
    Sec. 312. Potomac River, Washington, District Of Columbia.
    Sec. 313. Canaveral Harbor, Florida.
    Sec. 314. Central and southern Florida, Canal 51.
    Sec. 315. Central and southern Florida, Canal 111 (C-111).
    Sec. 316. Jacksonville Harbor (Mill Cove), Florida.
    Sec. 317. Tybee Island, Georgia.
    Sec. 318. White River, Indiana.
    Sec. 319. Chicago, Illinois.
    Sec. 320. Chicago Lock and Thomas J. O'Brien Lock, Illinois.
    Sec. 321. Kaskaskia River, Illinois.
    Sec. 322. Locks and Dam 26, Alton, Illinois and Missouri.
    Sec. 323. North Branch of Chicago River, Illinois.
    Sec. 324. Illinois and Michigan Canal.
    Sec. 325. Halstead, Kansas.
    Sec. 326. Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Cumberland
    River, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Virginia.
    Sec. 327. Comite River, Louisiana.
    Sec. 328. Grand Isle and Vicinity, Louisiana.
    Sec. 329. Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana.
    Sec. 330. Mississippi Delta Region, Louisiana.
    Sec. 331. Mississippi River Outlets, Venice, Louisiana.
    Sec. 332. Red River Waterway, Louisiana.
    Sec. 333. Tolchester Channel, Maryland.
    Sec. 334. Saginaw River, Michigan.
    Sec. 335. Sault Sainte Marie, Chippewa County, Michigan.
    Sec. 336. Stillwater, Minnesota.
    Sec. 337. Cape Girardeau, Missouri.
    Sec. 338. New Madrid Harbor, Missouri.
    Sec. 339. St. John's Bayou--New Madrid Floodway, Missouri.
    Sec. 340. Joseph G. Minish Passaic River Park, New Jersey.
    Sec. 341. Molly Ann's Brook, New Jersey.
    Sec. 342. Passaic River, New Jersey.
    Sec. 343. Ramapo River at Oakland, New Jersey and New York.
    Sec. 344. Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, New Jersey.
    Sec. 345. Arthur Kill, New York and New Jersey.
    Sec. 346. Jones Inlet, New York.
    Sec. 347. Kill Van Kull, New York and New Jersey.
    Sec. 348. Wilmington Harbor-Northeast Cape Fear River, North Carolina.
    Sec. 349. Garrison Dam, North Dakota.
    Sec. 350. Reno Beach-Howards Farm, Ohio.
    Sec. 351. Wister Lake, Oklahoma.
    Sec. 352. Bonneville Lock and Dam, Columbia River, Oregon and
    Washington.
    Sec. 353. Columbia River dredging, Oregon and Washington.
    Sec. 354. Grays Landing Lock and Dam, Monongahela River, Pennsylvania.
    Sec. 355. Lackawanna River at Scranton, Pennsylvania.
    Sec. 356. Mussers Dam, Middle Creek, Snyder County, Pennsylvania.
    Sec. 357. Saw Mill Run, Pennsylvania.
    Sec. 358. Schuylkill River, Pennsylvania.
    Sec. 359. South Central Pennsylvania.
    Sec. 360. Wyoming Valley, Pennsylvania.
    Sec. 361. San Juan Harbor, Puerto Rico.
    Sec. 362. Narragansett, Rhode Island.
    Sec. 363. Charleston Harbor, South Carolina.
    Sec. 364. Dallas Floodway Extension, Dallas, Texas.
    Sec. 365. Upper Jordan River, Utah.
    Sec. 366. Haysi Lake, Virginia.
    Sec. 367. Rudee Inlet, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
    Sec. 368. Virginia Beach, Virginia.
    Sec. 369. East Waterway, Washington.
    Sec. 370. Bluestone Lake, West Virginia.
    Sec. 371. Moorefield, West Virginia.
    Sec. 372. Southern West Virginia.
    Sec. 373. Kickapoo River, Wisconsin.
    Sec. 374. Teton County, Wyoming.

                               TITLE IV--STUDIES

    Sec. 401. Corps capability study, Alaska.
    Sec. 402. McDowell Mountain, Arizona.
    Sec. 403. Nogales Wash and Tributaries, Arizona.
    Sec. 404. Garden Grove, California.
    Sec. 405. Mugu Lagoon, California.
    Sec. 406. Santa Ynez, California.
    Sec. 407. Southern California infrastructure.
    Sec. 408. Yolo Bypass, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California.
    Sec. 409. Chain of Rocks Canal, Illinois.
    Sec. 410. Quincy, Illinois.
    Sec. 411. Springfield, Illinois.
    Sec. 412. Beauty Creek Watershed, Valparaiso City, Porter County,
    Indiana.
    Sec. 413. Grand Calumet River, Hammond, Indiana.
    Sec. 414. Indiana Harbor Canal, East Chicago, Lake County, Indiana.
    Sec. 415. Koontz Lake, Indiana.
    Sec. 416. Little Calumet River, Indiana.
    Sec. 417. Tippecanoe River Watershed, Indiana.
    Sec. 418. Calcasieu Ship Channel, Hackberry, Louisiana.
    Sec. 419. Huron River, Michigan.
    Sec. 420. Saco River, New Hampshire.
    Sec. 421. Buffalo River Greenway, New York.
    Sec. 422. Port of Newburgh, New York.
    Sec. 423. Port of New York-New Jersey sediment study.
    Sec. 424. Port of New York-New Jersey navigation study.
    Sec. 425. Chagrin River, Ohio.
    Sec. 426. Cuyahoga River, Ohio.
    Sec. 427. Charleston, South Carolina, estuary.
    Sec. 428. Mustang Island, Corpus Christi, Texas.
    Sec. 429. Prince William County, Virginia.
    Sec. 430. Pacific region.
    Sec. 431. Financing of infrastructure needs of small and medium ports.

                       TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

    Sec. 501. Project deauthorizations.
    Sec. 502. Project reauthorizations.
    Sec. 503. Continuation of authorization of certain projects.
    Sec. 504. Land conveyances.
    Sec. 505. Namings.
    Sec. 506. Watershed management, restoration, and development.
    Sec. 507. Lakes program.
    Sec. 508. Maintenance of navigation channels.
    Sec. 509. Great Lakes remedial action plans and sediment remediation.
    Sec. 510. Great Lakes dredged material testing and evaluation manual.
    Sec. 511. Great Lakes sediment reduction.
    Sec. 512. Great Lakes confined disposal facilities.
    Sec. 513. Chesapeake Bay restoration and protection program.
    Sec. 514. Extension of jurisdiction of Mississippi River Commission.
    Sec. 515. Alternative to annual passes.
    Sec. 516. Recreation partnership initiative.
    Sec. 517. Environmental infrastructure.
    Sec. 518. Corps capability to conserve fish and wildlife.
    Sec. 519. Periodic beach nourishment.
    Sec. 520. Control of aquatic plants.
    Sec. 521. Hopper dredges.
    Sec. 522. Design and construction assistance.
    Sec. 523. Field office headquarters facilities.
    Sec. 524. Lake Superior Center.
    Sec. 525. Jackson County, Alabama.
    Sec. 526. Earthquake Preparedness Center of Expertise Extension.
    Sec. 527. Quarantine facility.
    Sec. 528. Benton and Washington Counties, Arkansas.
    Sec. 529. Calaveras County, California.
    Sec. 530. Prado Dam safety improvements, California.
    Sec. 531. Manatee County, Florida.
    Sec. 532. Tampa, Florida.
    Sec. 533. Watershed management plan for Deep River Basin, Indiana.
    Sec. 534. Southern and eastern Kentucky.
    Sec. 535. Louisiana coastal wetlands restoration projects.
    Sec. 536. Southeast Louisiana.
    Sec. 537. Restoration projects for Maryland, Pennsylvania, and West
    Virginia.
    Sec. 538. Beneficial use of dredged material, Poplar Island, Maryland.
    Sec. 539. Erosion control measures, Smith Island, Maryland.
    Sec. 540. Beneficial use of dredged material, Worton Point, Kent
    County, Maryland.
    Sec. 541. Duluth, Minnesota, alternative technology project.
    Sec. 542. Redwood River Basin, Minnesota.
    Sec. 543. Natchez Bluffs, Mississippi.
    Sec. 544. Sardis Lake, Mississippi.
    Sec. 545. Missouri River management.
    Sec. 546. St. Charles County, Missouri, flood protection.
    Sec. 547. Cocheco River, New Hampshire.
    Sec. 548. Durham, New Hampshire.
    Sec. 549. Hackensack Meadowlands area, New Jersey.
    Sec. 550. Authorization of dredge material containment facility for
    Port of New York/New Jersey.
    Sec. 551. Hudson River habitat restoration, New York.
    Sec. 552. New York Bight and Harbor study.
    Sec. 553. New York State Canal System.
    Sec. 554. New York City Watershed.
    Sec. 555. Ohio River Greenway.
    Sec. 556. Northeastern Ohio.
    Sec. 557. Grand Lake, Oklahoma.
    Sec. 558. Broad Top region of Pennsylvania.
    Sec. 559. Hopper Dredge McFarland.
    Sec. 560. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
    Sec. 561. Upper Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and New York.
    Sec. 562. Seven Points Visitors Center, Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania.
    Sec. 563. Southeastern Pennsylvania.
    Sec. 564. Blackstone River Valley, Rhode Island and Massachusetts.
    Sec. 565. East Ridge, Tennessee.
    Sec. 566. Murfreesboro, Tennessee.
    Sec. 567. Buffalo Bayou, Texas.
    Sec. 568. Harris County, Texas.
    Sec. 569. Pierce County, Washington.
    Sec. 570. Washington Aqueduct.
    Sec. 571. Huntington, West Virginia.
    Sec. 572. Lower Mud River, Milton, West Virginia.
    Sec. 573. Evaluation of beach material.
    Sec. 574. Sense of Congress regarding St. Lawrence Seaway tolls.

    SEC. 2. DEFINITION.

      For purposes of this Act, the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
    of the Army.

                       TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

    SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

      Except as provided in this section, 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 section:
              (1) American river watershed, california.--
                      (A) In general.--The project for flood damage
                    reduction, American and Sacramento Rivers, California:
                    Supplemental Information Report for the American River
                    Watershed Project, California, dated March 1996, at a
                    total cost of $57,300,000, with an estimated Federal
                    cost of $42,975,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
                    of $14,325,000, consisting of the following:
                              (i) Approximately 24 miles of slurry wall in
                            the existing levees along the lower American
                            River.
                              (ii) Approximately 12 miles of levee
                            modifications along the east bank of the
                            Sacramento River downstream from the Natomas
                            Cross Canal.
                              (iii) 3 telemeter streamflow gages upstream
                            from the Folsom Reservoir.
                              (iv) Modifications to the existing flood
                            warning system along the lower American River.
                      (B) Credit toward non-federal share.--The non-Federal
                    sponsor shall receive credit toward the non-Federal
                    share of the cost of the project for expenses that the
                    sponsor has incurred for design and construction of any
                    of the features authorized pursuant to this paragraph
                    prior to the date on which Federal funds are
                    appropriated for construction of the project. The
                    amount of the credit shall be determined by the
                    Secretary.
                      (C) Operation of folsom dam.--The Secretary of the
                    Interior shall continue to operate the Folsom Dam and
                    Reservoir to the variable 400,000/670,000 acre-feet of
                    flood control storage capacity as an interim measure
                    and extend the agreement between the Bureau of
                    Reclamation and the Sacramento Area Flood Control
                    Agency until such date as a comprehensive flood control
                    plan for the American River Watershed has been
                    implemented.
                      (D) Responsibility of non-federal sponsor.--The non-
                    Federal sponsor shall be responsible for all operation,
                    maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation
                    costs associated with the improvements undertaken
                    pursuant to this paragraph, as well as, costs for the
                    variable flood control operation of the Folsom Dam and
                    Reservoir.
              (2) Santa barbara harbor, california.--The project for
            navigation, Santa Barbara Harbor, California: Report of the
            Chief of Engineers, dated April 26, 1994, at a total cost of
            $5,840,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $4,670,000 and an
            estimated non-Federal cost of $1,170,000.
              (3) San lorenzo river, santa cruz, california.--The project
            for flood control, San Lorenzo River, Santa Cruz, California:
            Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated June 30, 1994, at a
            total cost of $21,800,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
            $10,900,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $10,900,000.
              (4) Marin county shoreline, san rafael, california.--The
            project for storm damage reduction, Marin County shoreline, San
            Rafael, California: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated
            January 28, 1994, at a total cost of $28,300,000, with an
            estimated Federal cost of $18,400,000 and an estimated non-
            Federal cost of $9,900,000.
              (5) Humboldt harbor and bay, california.--The project for
            navigation, Humboldt Harbor and Bay, California: Report of the
            Chief of Engineers, dated October 30, 1995, at a total cost of
            $15,180,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $10,000,000 and
            an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,180,000.
              (6) Anacostia river and tributaries, district of columbia and
            maryland.--The project for environmental restoration, Anacostia
            River and Tributaries, District of Columbia and Maryland:
            Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated November 15, 1994, at a
            total cost of $17,144,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
            $12,858,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $4,286,000.
              (7) Atlantic intracoastal waterway, st. johns county,
            florida.--The project for navigation, Atlantic Intracoastal
            Waterway, St. Johns County, Florida: Report of the Chief of
            Engineers, dated June 24, 1994, at a total Federal cost of
            $15,881,000. Operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and
            rehabilitation shall be a non-Federal responsibility and the
            non-Federal interest must assume ownership of the bridge.
              (8) Lake michigan, illinois.--The project for storm damage
            reduction and shoreline erosion protection, Lake Michigan,
            Illinois, from Wilmette, Illinois, to the Illinois-Indiana
            State line: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated April 14,
            1994, at a total cost of $204,000,000, with an estimated
            Federal cost of $110,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
            of $94,000,000. The project shall include the breakwater near
            the South Water Filtration Plant described in the report as a
            separate element of the project, at a total cost of
            $11,470,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $7,460,000 and
            an estimated non-Federal cost of $4,010,000. The Secretary
            shall reimburse the non-Federal interest for the Federal share
            of any costs incurred by the non-Federal interest--
                      (A) in reconstructing the revetment structures
                    protecting Solidarity Drive in Chicago, Illinois, if
                    such work is determined by the Secretary to be a
                    component of the project; and
                      (B) in constructing the breakwater near the South
                    Water Filtration Plant in Chicago, Illinois.
              (9) Kentucky lock and dam, tennessee river, kentucky.--The
            project for navigation, Kentucky Lock and Dam, Tennessee River,
            Kentucky: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated June 1, 1992,
            at a total cost of $393,200,000. The costs of construction of
            the project are to 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.
              (10) Pond creek, jefferson county, kentucky.--The project for
            flood control, Pond Creek, Jefferson County, Kentucky: Report
            of the Chief of Engineers, dated June 28, 1994, at a total cost
            of $16,080,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $10,993,000
            and an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,087,000.
              (11) Wolf creek dam and lake cumberland, kentucky.--The
            project for hydropower, Wolf Creek Dam and Lake Cumberland,
            Kentucky: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated June 28,
            1994, at a total cost of $53,763,000, with an estimated non-
            Federal cost of $53,763,000. Funds derived by the Tennessee
            Valley Authority from its power program and funds derived from
            any private or public entity designated by the Southeastern
            Power Administration may be used to pay all or part of the
            costs of the project.
              (12) Port fourchon, lafourche parish, louisiana.--A project
            for navigation, Belle Pass and Bayou Lafourche, Louisiana:
            Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated April 7, 1995, at a
            total cost of $4,440,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
            $2,300,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,140,000.
              (13) West bank of the mississippi river, new orleans (east of
            harvey canal), louisiana.--The project for hurricane damage
            reduction, West Bank of the Mississippi River in the vicinity
            of New Orleans (East of Harvey Canal), Louisiana: Report of the
            Chief of Engineers, dated May 1, 1995, at a total cost of
            $126,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $82,200,000 and
            an estimated non-Federal cost of $43,800,000.
              (14) Wood river, grand island, nebraska.--The project for
            flood control, Wood River, Grand Island, Nebraska: Report of
            the Chief of Engineers, dated May 3, 1994, at a total cost of
            $11,800,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $6,040,000 and
            an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,760,000.
              (15) Long beach island, new york.--The project for storm
            damage reduction, Long Beach Island, New York: Report of the
            Chief of Engineers, dated April 5, 1996, at a total cost of
            $72,090,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $46,858,000 and
            an estimated non-Federal cost of $25,232,000.
              (16) Wilmington harbor, cape fear river, north carolina.--The
            project for navigation, Wilmington Harbor, Cape Fear and
            Northeast Cape Fear Rivers, North Carolina: Report of the Chief
            of Engineers, dated June 24, 1994, at a total cost of
            $23,953,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $15,032,000 and
            an estimated non-Federal cost of $8,921,000.
              (17) Duck creek, cincinnati, ohio.--The project for flood
            control, Duck Creek, Cincinnati, Ohio: Report of the Chief of
            Engineers, dated June 28, 1994, at a total cost of $15,947,000,
            with an estimated Federal cost of $11,960,000 and an estimated
            non-Federal cost of $3,987,000.
              (18) Willamette river temperature control, mckenzie subbasin,
            oregon.--The project for environmental restoration, Willamette
            River Temperature Control, McKenzie Subbasin, Oregon: Report of
            the Chief of Engineers, dated February 1, 1996, at a total cost
            of $38,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $38,000,000.
              (19) Rio grande de arecibo, puerto rico.--The project for
            flood control, Rio Grande de Arecibo, Puerto Rico: Report of
            the Chief of Engineers, dated April 5, 1994, at a total cost of
            $19,951,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $10,557,000 and
            an estimated non-Federal cost of $9,394,000.
              (20) Big sioux river and skunk creek, sioux falls, south
            dakota.--The project for flood control, Big Sioux River and
            Skunk Creek, Sioux Falls, South Dakota: Report of the Chief of
            Engineers, dated June 30, 1994, at a total cost of $34,600,000,
            with an estimated Federal cost of $25,900,000 and an estimated
            non-Federal cost of $8,700,000.
              (21) Watertown, south dakota.--The project for flood control,
            Watertown and Vicinity, South Dakota: Report of the Chief of
            Engineers, dated August 31, 1994, at a total cost of
            $18,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $13,200,000 and
            an estimated non-Federal cost of $4,800,000.
              (22) Gulf intracoastal waterway, aransas national wildlife
            refuge, texas.--The project for navigation and environmental
            preservation, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Aransas National
            Wildlife Refuge, Texas: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated
            May 28, 1996, at a total cost of $18,283,000, with an estimated
            Federal cost of $18,283,000.
              (23) Houston-galveston navigation channels, texas.--The
            project for navigation and environmental restoration, Houston-
            Galveston Navigation Channels, Texas: Report of the Chief of
            Engineers, dated May 9, 1996, at a total initial construction
            cost of $292,797,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
            $210,891,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $81,906,000.
            The project shall include deferred construction of additional
            environmental restoration features over the life of the
            project, at a total average annual cost of $786,000, with an
            estimated Federal cost of $590,000 and an estimated non-Federal
            cost of $196,000. The construction of berthing areas and the
            removal of pipelines and other obstructions that are necessary
            for the project shall be accomplished at non-Federal expense.
            Non-Federal interests shall receive credit toward cash
            contributions required during construction and subsequent to
            construction for design and construction management work that
            is performed by non-Federal interests and that the Secretary
            determines is necessary to implement the project.
              (24) Marmet lock, kanawha river, west virginia.--The project
            for navigation, Marmet Lock, Kanawha River, West Virginia:
            Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated June 24, 1994, at a
            total cost of $229,581,000. The costs of construction of the
            project are to 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. In
            conducting any real estate acquisition activities with respect
            to the project, the Secretary shall give priority consideration
            to those individuals who would be directly affected by any
            physical displacement due to project design and shall consider
            the financial circumstances of such individuals. The Secretary
            shall proceed with real estate acquisition in connection with
            the project expeditiously.

    SEC. 102. SMALL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS.

      (a) Project Descriptions.--The Secretary shall conduct a study for
    each of the following projects and, if the Secretary determines that
    the project is feasible, shall carry out the project under section 205
    of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s):
              (1) South upland, san bernadino county, california.--Project
            for flood control, South Upland, San Bernadino County,
            California.
              (2) Birds, lawrence county, illinois.--Project for flood
            control, Birds, Lawrence County, Illinois.
              (3) Bridgeport, lawrence county, illinois.--Project for flood
            control, Bridgeport, Lawrence County, Illinois.
              (4) Embarras river, villa grove, illinois.--Project for flood
            control, Embarras River, Villa Grove, Illinois.
              (5) Frankfort, will county, illinois.--Project for flood
            control, Frankfort, Will County, Illinois.
              (6) Sumner, lawrence county, illinois.--Project for flood
            control, Sumner, Lawrence County, Illinois.
              (7) Vermillion river, demanade park, lafayette, louisiana.--
            Project for nonstructural flood control, Vermillion River,
            Demanade Park, Lafayette, Louisiana. In carrying out the study
            and the project (if any) under this paragraph, the Secretary
            shall use relevant information from the Lafayette Parish
            feasibility study and expedite completion of the study under
            this paragraph.
              (8) Vermillion river, quail hollow subdivision, lafayette,
            louisiana.--Project for nonstructural flood control, Vermillion
            River, Quail Hollow Subdivision, Lafayette, Louisiana. In
            carrying out the study and the project (if any) under this
            paragraph, the Secretary shall use relevant information from
            the Lafayette Parish feasibility study and expedite completion
            of the study under this paragraph.
              (9) Kawkawlin river, bay county, michigan.--Project for flood
            control, Kawkawlin River, Bay County, Michigan.
              (10) Whitney drain, arenac county, michigan.--Project for
            flood control, Whitney Drain, Arenac County, Michigan.
              (11) Festus and crystal city, missouri.--Project for flood
            control, Festus and Crystal City, Missouri. In carrying out the
            study and the project (if any) under this paragraph, the
            Secretary shall use relevant information from the existing
            reconnaissance study and shall expedite completion of the study
            under this paragraph.
              (12) Kimmswick, missouri.--Project for flood control,
            Kimmswick, Missouri. In carrying out the study and the project
            (if any) under this paragraph, the Secretary shall use relevant
            information from the existing reconnaissance study and shall
            expedite completion of the study under this paragraph.
              (13) River Des Peres, St. Louis County, Missouri.--Project
            for flood control, River Des Peres, St. Louis County, Missouri.
            In carrying out the study and the project (if any), the
            Secretary shall determine the feasibility of potential flood
            control measures, consider potential storm water runoff and
            related improvements, and cooperate with the Metropolitan St.
            Louis Sewer District.
              (14) Buffalo creek, erie county, new york.--Project for flood
            control, Buffalo Creek, Erie County, New York.
              (15) Cazenovia creek, erie county, new york.--Project for
            flood control, Cazenovia Creek, Erie County, New York.
              (16) Cheektowaga, erie county, new york.--Project for flood
            control, Cheektowaga, Erie County, New York.
              (17) Fulmer creek, village of mohawk, new york.--Project for
            flood control, Fulmer Creek, Village of Mohawk, New York.
              (18) Moyer creek, village of frankfort, new york.--Project
            for flood control, Moyer Creek, Village of Frankfort, New York.
              (19) Sauquoit creek, whitesboro, new york.--Project for flood
            control, Sauquoit Creek, Whitesboro, New York.
              (20) Steele creek, village of ilion, new york.--Project for
            flood control, Steele Creek, Village of Ilion, New York.
              (21) Willamette river, oregon.--Project for nonstructural
            flood control, Willamette River, Oregon, including floodplain
            and ecosystem restoration.
              (22) Wills creek, hyndman, pennsylvania.--Project for flood
            control, Wills Creek, Borough of Hyndman, Pennsylvania. The
            Secretary shall reevaluate the project taking into
            consideration recent flooding and shall use relevant
            information from previous studies to expedite the project. In
            evaluating and implementing the project, the Secretary shall
            allow non-Federal interests to participate in financing of the
            project in accordance with section 903(c) of the Water
            Resources Development Act of 1986 to the extent that the
            Secretary's evaluation indicates that applying such section is
            necessary to implement the project.
              (23) Neabsco creek watershed, virginia.--Project for flood
            control, Neabsco Creek Watershed, Prince William County,
            Virginia. In evaluating and implementing the project, the
            Secretary shall allow the non-Federal interest to participate
            in financing of the project in accordance with section 903(c)
            of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, to the extent
            that the Secretary's evaluation indicates that applying such
            section is necessary to implement the project.
              (24) Greenbrier river basin, west virginia.--Project for
            flood control, consisting of an early flood warning system,
            Greenbrier River Basin, West Virginia.
      (b) Cost Allocations.--
              (1) Lake elsinore, california.--The maximum amount of Federal
            funds that may be allotted under section 205 of the Flood
            Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s) for the project for flood
            control, Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California, shall be
            $7,500,000.
              (2) Lost creek, columbus, nebraska.--The maximum amount of
            Federal funds that may be allotted under such section 205 for
            the project for flood control, Lost Creek, Columbus, Nebraska,
            shall be $5,500,000.
              (3) Revision of project cooperation agreement.--The Secretary
            shall revise the project cooperation agreement for the projects
            referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2) in order to take into
            account the change in the Federal participation in such
            projects pursuant to such paragraphs.
              (4) Cost sharing.--Nothing in this subsection shall be
            construed to affect any cost-sharing requirement applicable to
            the project referred to in paragraph (1) under the Water
            Resources Development Act of 1986.

    SEC. 103. SMALL BANK STABILIZATION PROJECTS.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following
    projects and, if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible,
    shall carry out the project under section 14 of the Flood Control Act
    of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r):
              (1) Allegheny river at oil city, pennsylvania.--Project for
            bank stabilization to address erosion problems affecting the
            pipeline crossing the Allegheny River at Oil City,
            Pennsylvania, including measures to address erosion affecting
            the pipeline in the bed of the Allegheny River and its adjacent
            banks.
              (2) Cumberland river, nashville, tennessee.--Project for bank
            stabilization, Cumberland River, Nashville, Tennessee.
              (3) Tennessee river, hamilton county, tennessee.--Project for
            bank stabilization, Tennessee River, Hamilton County,
            Tennessee; except that the maximum amount of Federal funds that
            may be allotted for the project shall be $7,500,000.

    SEC. 104. SMALL NAVIGATION PROJECTS.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following
    projects and, if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible,
    shall carry out the project under section 107 of the River and Harbor
    Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577):
              (1) Akutan, alaska.--Project for navigation, Akutan, Alaska,
            consisting of a bulkhead and a wave barrier, including
            application of innovative technology involving use of a
            permeable breakwater.
              (2) Grand marais harbor breakwater, michigan.--Project for
            navigation, Grand Marais Harbor breakwater, Michigan.
              (3) Duluth, minnesota.--Project for navigation, Duluth,
            Minnesota.
              (4) Taconite, minnesota.--Project for navigation, Taconite,
            Minnesota.
              (5) Two harbors, minnesota.--Project for navigation, Two
            Harbors, Minnesota.
              (6) Caruthersville harbor, pemiscot county, missouri.--
            Project for navigation, Caruthersville Harbor, Pemiscot County,
            Missouri, including enlargement of the existing harbor and bank
            stabilization measures.
              (7) New madrid county harbor, missouri.--Project for
            navigation, New Madrid County Harbor, Missouri, including
            enlargement of the existing harbor and bank stabilization
            measures.
              (8) Brooklyn, new york.--Project for navigation, Brooklyn,
            New York, including restoration of the pier and related
            navigation support structures, at the Sixty-Ninth Street Pier.
              (9) Buffalo inner harbor, buffalo, new york.--Project for
            navigation, Buffalo Inner Harbor, Buffalo, New York.
              (10) Union ship canal, buffalo and lackawanna, new york.--
            Project for navigation, Union Ship Canal, Buffalo and
            Lackawanna, New York.

    SEC. 105. SMALL SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECTS.

      (a) Project Authorizations.--The Secretary shall conduct a study for
    each of the following projects, and if the Secretary determines that
    the project is feasible, shall carry out the project under section 3 of
    the Shoreline Protection Act of August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426g):
              (1) Faulkner's island, connecticut.--Project for shoreline
            protection, Faulkner's Island, Connecticut; except that the
            maximum amount of Federal funds that may be allotted for the
            project shall be $4,500,000.
              (2) Fort pierce, florida.--Project for 1 mile of additional
            shoreline protection, Fort Pierce, Florida.
              (3) Sylvan beach breakwater, town of verona, oneida county,
            new york.--Project for shoreline protection, Sylvan Beach
            Breakwater, town of Verona, Oneida County, New York.
      (b) Cost Sharing Agreement.--In carrying out the project authorized
    by subsection (a)(1), the Secretary shall enter into an agreement with
    the property owner to determine allocation of the project costs.

    SEC. 106. SMALL SNAGGING AND SEDIMENT REMOVAL PROJECT, MISSISSIPPI
                        RIVER, LITTLE FALLS, MINNESOTA.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study for a project for clearing,
    snagging, and sediment removal, East Bank of the Mississippi River,
    Little Falls, Minnesota, including removal of sediment from culverts.
    The study shall include a determination of the adequacy of culverts to
    maintain flows through the channel. If the Secretary determines that
    the project is feasible, the Secretary shall carry out the project
    under section 3 of the River and Harbor Act of March 2, 1945 (33 U.S.C.
    603a; 59 Stat. 23).

    SEC. 107. SMALL PROJECTS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following
    projects and, if the Secretary determines that the project is
    appropriate, shall carry out the project under section 1135(a) of the
    Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309(a)):
              (1) Upper truckee river, el dorado county, california.--
            Project for environmental restoration, Upper Truckee River, El
            Dorado County, California, including measures for restoration
            of degraded wetlands and wildlife enhancement.
              (2) San lorenzo river, california.--Project for habitat
            restoration, San Lorenzo River, California.
              (3) Whittier narrows dam, california.--Project for
            environmental restoration and remediation of contaminated water
            sources, Whittier Narrows Dam, California.
              (4) Upper jordan river, salt lake county, utah.--Project for
            channel restoration and environmental improvement, Upper Jordan
            River, Salt Lake County, Utah.

                   TITLE II--GENERALLY APPLICABLE PROVISIONS

    SEC. 201. COST SHARING FOR DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL AREAS.

      (a) Construction.--Section 101(a) of the Water Resources Development
    Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211(a); 100 Stat. 4082-4083) is amended--
              (1) by striking the last sentence of paragraph (2) and
            inserting the following: ``The value of lands, easements,
            rights-of-way, and relocations provided under paragraph (3) and
            the costs of relocations borne by the non-Federal interests
            under paragraph (4) shall be credited toward the payment
            required under this paragraph.'';
              (2) in paragraph (3)--
                      (A) by inserting ``and'' after ``rights-of-way,'';
                      (B) by striking ``, and dredged material disposal
                    areas''; and
                      (C) by inserting ``, including any lands, easements,
                    rights-of-way, and relocations (other than utility
                    relocations accomplished under paragraph (4)) that are
                    necessary for dredged material disposal facilities''
                    before the period at the end of such paragraph; and
              (3) by adding at the end the following:
              ``(5) Dredged material disposal facilities for project
            construction.--For purposes of this subsection, the term
            `general navigation features' includes constructed land-based
            and aquatic dredged material disposal facilities that are
            necessary for the disposal of dredged material and for project
            construction and for which a contract for construction has not
            been awarded on or before the date of the enactment of this
            paragraph.''.
      (b) Operation and Maintenance.--Section 101(b) of such Act (33 U.S.C.
    2211(b); 100 Stat. 4083) is amended--
              (1) by inserting ``(1) In general.--'' before ``The
            Federal'';
              (2) by indenting and moving paragraph (1), as designated by
            paragraph (1) of this subsection, 2 ems to the right;
              (3) by striking ``pursuant to this Act'' and inserting ``by
            the Secretary pursuant to this Act or any other law approved
            after the date of the enactment of this Act''; and
              (4) by adding at the end thereof the following:
              ``(2) Dredged material disposal facilities.--The Federal
            share of the cost of constructing land-based and aquatic
            dredged material disposal facilities that are necessary for the
            disposal of dredged material required for the operation and
            maintenance of a project and for which a contract for
            construction has not been awarded on or before the date of the
            enactment of this paragraph shall be determined in accordance
            with subsection (a). The Federal share of operating and
            maintaining such facilities shall be determined in accordance
            with paragraph (1).''.
      (c) Agreement.--Section 101(e)(1) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2211(e)(1);
    100 Stat. 4083) is amended by striking ``and to provide dredged
    material disposal areas and perform'' and inserting ``including those
    necessary for dredged material disposal facilities, and to perform''.
      (d) Consideration of Funding Requirements and Equitable
    Apportionment.--Section 101 of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2211; 100 Stat.
    4082-4084) is further amended by adding at the end the following:
      ``(f) Consideration of Funding Requirements and Equitable
    Apportionment.--The Secretary shall ensure, to the extent practicable,
    that funding necessary for operation and maintenance dredging of
    commercial navigation harbors is provided before Federal funds are
    obligated for payment of the Federal share of costs associated with
    construction of dredged material disposal facilities in accordance with
    subsections (a) and (b) and that funds expended for such construction
    are equitably apportioned in accordance with regional needs.''.
      (e) Eligible Operations and Maintenance Defined.--Section 214(2)(A)
    of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2241; 100 Stat. 4108) is amended--
              (1) by inserting ``Federal'' after ``means all'';
              (2) by inserting ``(i)'' after ``including''; and
              (3) by inserting before the period at the end the following:
            ``; (ii) the construction of dredged material disposal
            facilities that are necessary for the operation and maintenance
            of any harbor or inland harbor; (iii) dredging and disposing of
            contaminated sediments which are in or which affect the
            maintenance of Federal navigation channels; (iv) mitigating for
            impacts resulting from Federal navigation operation and
            maintenance activities; and (v) operating and maintaining
            dredged material disposal facilities''.
      (f) Amendment of Cooperation Agreement.--If requested by the non-
    Federal interest, the Secretary shall amend a project cooperation
    agreement executed on or before the date of the enactment of this Act
    to reflect the application of the amendments made by this section to
    any project for which a contract for construction has not been awarded
    on or before such date of enactment.
      (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 210 of such Act (33
    U.S.C. 2238; 100 Stat. 4106) is amended--
              (1) by striking ``(a) Trust Fund.--'';
              (2) by striking ``1954'' and inserting ``1986''; and
              (3) by striking subsection (b).

    SEC. 202. FLOOD CONTROL POLICY.

      (a) Flood Control Cost Sharing.--
              (1) Increased non-federal contributions.--Subsections (a) and
            (b) of section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of
            1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(a) and (b)) are each amended by striking
            ``25 percent'' each place it appears and inserting ``35
            percent''.
              (2) Applicability.--The amendments made by paragraph (1)
            shall apply to projects authorized after the date of the
            enactment of this Act.
      (b) Ability To Pay.--
              (1) In general.--Section 103(m) of such Act (33 U.S.C.
            2213(m)) is amended to read as follows:
      ``(m) Ability To Pay.--
              ``(1) In general.--Any cost-sharing agreement under this
            section for flood control or agricultural water supply shall be
            subject to the ability of a non-Federal interest to pay.
              ``(2) Criteria and procedures.--The ability of any non-
            Federal interest to pay shall be determined by the Secretary in
            accordance with criteria and procedures in effect on the day
            before the date of the enactment of the Water Resources
            Development Act of 1996; except that such criteria and
            procedures shall be revised within 6 months after the date of
            such enactment to reflect the requirements of paragraph (3).
              ``(3) Revision of procedures.--In revising procedures
            pursuant to paragraph (1), the Secretary--
                      ``(A) shall consider--
                              ``(i) per capita income data for the county
                            or counties in which the project is to be
                            located; and
                              ``(ii) the per capita non-Federal cost of
                            construction of the project for the county or
                            counties in which the project is to be located;
                      ``(B) shall not consider criteria (other than
                    criteria described in subparagraph (A)) in effect on
                    the day before the date of the enactment of the Water
                    Resources Development Act of 1996; and
                      ``(C) may consider additional criteria relating to
                    the non-Federal interest's financial ability to carry
                    out its cost-sharing responsibilities, to the extent
                    that the application of such criteria does not
                    eliminate areas from eligibility for a reduction in the
                    non-Federal share as determined under subparagraph (A).
              ``(4) Non-federal share.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), the
            Secretary shall reduce or eliminate the requirement that a non-
            Federal interest make a cash contribution for any project that
            is determined to be eligible for a reduction in the non-Federal
            share under procedures in effect under paragraphs (1), (2), and
            (3).''.
              (2) Applicability.--
                      (A) Generally.--Subject to subparagraph (C), the
                    amendment made by paragraph (1) shall apply to any
                    project, or separable element thereof, with respect to
                    which the Secretary and the non-Federal interest have
                    not entered into a project cooperation agreement on or
                    before the date of the enactment of this Act.
                      (B) Amendment of cooperation agreement.--If requested
                    by the non-Federal interest, the Secretary shall amend
                    a project cooperation agreement executed on or before
                    the date of the enactment of this Act to reflect the
                    application of the amendment made by paragraph (1) to
                    any project for which a contract for construction has
                    not been awarded on or before such date of enactment.
                      (C) Non-federal option.--If requested by the non-
                    Federal interest, the Secretary shall apply the
                    criteria and procedures established pursuant to section
                    103(m) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
                    as in effect on the day before the date of the
                    enactment of this Act for projects that are authorized
                    before the date of the enactment of this Act.
      (c) Flood Plain Management Plans.--
              (1) In general.--Section 402 of such Act (33 U.S.C. 701b-12;
            100 Stat. 4133) is amended to read as follows:

    ``SEC. 402. FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS.

      ``(a) Compliance With Flood Plain Management and Insurance
    Programs.--Before construction of any project for local flood
    protection or any project for hurricane or storm damage reduction and
    involving Federal assistance from the Secretary, the non-Federal
    interest shall agree to participate in and comply with applicable
    Federal flood plain management and flood insurance programs.
      ``(b) Flood Plain Management Plans.--Within 1 year after the date of
    signing a project cooperation agreement for construction of a project
    to which subsection (a) applies, the non-Federal interest shall prepare
    a flood plain management plan designed to reduce the impacts of future
    flood events in the project area. Such plan shall be implemented by the
    non-Federal interest not later than 1 year after completion of
    construction of the project.
      ``(c) Guidelines.--
              ``(1) In general.--Within 6 months after the date of the
            enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall develop
            guidelines for preparation of flood plain management plans by
            non-Federal interests under subsection (b). Such guidelines
            shall address potential measures, practices and policies to
            reduce loss of life, injuries, damages to property and
            facilities, public expenditures, and other adverse impacts
            associated with flooding and to preserve and enhance natural
            flood plain values.
              ``(2) Limitation on statutory construction.--Nothing in this
            subsection shall be construed to confer any regulatory
            authority upon the Secretary.
      ``(d) Technical Support.--The Secretary is authorized to provide
    technical support to a non-Federal interest for a project to which
    subsection (a) applies for the development and implementation of plans
    prepared under subsection (b).''.
              (2) Applicability.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) shall
            apply to any project or separable element thereof with respect
            to which the Secretary and the non-Federal interest have not
            entered into a project cooperation agreement on or before the
            date of the enactment of this Act.
      (d) Non-Structural Flood Control Policy.--
              (1) Review.--The Secretary shall conduct a review of
            policies, procedures, and techniques relating to the evaluation
            and development of flood control measures with a view toward
            identifying impediments that may exist to justifying non-
            structural flood control measures as alternatives to structural
            measures.
              (2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
            enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress
            a report on the findings on the review conducted under this
            subsection, together with any recommendations for modifying
            existing law to remove any impediments identified under such
            review.
      (e) Emergency Response.--Section 5(a)(1) of the Act entitled ``An Act
    authorizing the construction of certain public works on rivers and
    harbors for flood control, and for other purposes'', approved August
    18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n(a)(1)), is amended by inserting before the
    first semicolon the following: ``, or in implementation of
    nonstructural alternatives to the repair or restoration of such flood
    control work if requested by the non-Federal sponsor''.
      (f) Nonstructural Alternatives.--Section 73 of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1974 (33 U.S.C. 701b-11; 88 Stat. 32) is amended by
    striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
      ``(a) In the survey, planning, or design by any Federal agency of any
    project involving flood protection, such agency, with a view toward
    formulating the most economically, socially, and environmentally
    acceptable means of reducing or preventing flood damages, shall
    consider and address in adequate detail nonstructural alternatives,
    including measures that may be implemented by others, to prevent or
    reduce flood damages. Such alternatives may include watershed
    management, wetlands restoration, elevation or flood proofing of
    structures, floodplain regulation, relocation, and acquisition of
    floodplain lands for recreational, fish and wildlife, and other public
    purposes.''.

    SEC. 203. FEASIBILITY STUDY COST-SHARING.

      (a) Non-Federal Share.--Section 105(a)(1) of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2215(a)(1)) is amended--
              (1) in the first sentence, by striking ``during the period of
            such study'';
              (2) by inserting after the first sentence the following:
            ``During the period of the study, the non-Federal share of the
            cost of the study shall be not more than 50 percent of the
            estimate of the cost of the study as contained in the
            feasibility cost-sharing agreement. The cost estimate may be
            amended only by mutual agreement of the Secretary and the non-
            Federal interests. The non-Federal share of any costs in excess
            of the cost estimate shall, except as otherwise mutually agreed
            by the Secretary and the non-Federal interests, be payable
            after the project has been authorized for construction and on
            the date on which the Secretary and non-Federal interests enter
            into an agreement pursuant to section 101(e) or 103(j). In the
            event the project which is the subject of the study is not
            authorized within the earlier of 5 years of the date of the
            final report of the Chief of Engineers concerning such study or
            2 years of the date of termination of the study, the non-
            Federal share of any such excess costs shall be paid to the
            United States on the last day of such period.''; and
              (3) in the second sentence, by striking ``such non-Federal
            contribution'' and inserting ``the non-Federal share required
            under this paragraph''.
      (b) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply
    notwithstanding any feasibility cost-sharing agreement entered into by
    the Secretary and non-Federal interests. Upon request of the non-
    Federal interest, the Secretary shall amend any feasibility cost-
    sharing agreements in effect on the date of enactment of this Act so as
    to conform the agreements with the amendments.
      (c) Limitation on Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this section or
    any amendment made by this section shall require the Secretary to
    reimburse the non-Federal interests for funds previously contributed
    for a study.

    SEC. 204. RESTORATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.

      (a) Review of Projects.--Section 1135(a) of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a(a)) is amended--
              (1) by striking ``the operation of''; and
              (2) by inserting before the period at the end the following:
            ``and to determine if the operation of such projects has
            contributed to the degradation of the quality of the
            environment''.
      (b) Program of Projects.--Section 1135(b) of such Act is amended by
    striking the last 2 sentences of subsection (b).
      (c) Restoration of Environmental Quality.--Section 1135 of such Act
    is further amended--
              (1) by redesignating subsections (c), (d), and (e) as
            subsections (e), (f), and (g), respectively;
              (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new
            subsections:
      ``(c) Restoration of Environmental Quality.--If the Secretary
    determines that construction of a water resource project by the
    Secretary or operation of a water resources project constructed by the
    Secretary has contributed to the degradation of the quality of the
    environment, the Secretary may undertake measures for restoration of
    environmental quality and measures for enhancement of environmental
    quality that are associated with the restoration, either through
    modifications at the project site or at other locations that have been
    affected by the construction or operation of the project, if such
    measures do not conflict with the authorized project purposes.
      ``(d) Non-Federal Share; Limitation on Maximum Federal Expenditure.--
    The non-Federal share of the cost of any modifications or measures
    carried out or undertaken pursuant to subsection (b) or (c) of this
    section shall be 25 percent. Not more than 80 percent of the non-
    Federal share may be in kind, including a facility, supply, or service
    that is necessary to carry out the modification. No more than
    $5,000,000 in Federal funds may be expended on any single modification
    or measure carried out or undertaken pursuant to this section.''; and
              (3) in subsection (f), as so redesignated, by striking
            ``program conducted under subsection (b)'' and inserting
            ``programs conducted under subsections (b) and (c)''.
      (d) Definition.--Section 1135 of such Act is further amended by
    adding at the end the following:
      ``(h) Definition.--In this section the term `water resources project
    constructed by the Secretary' includes a water resources project
    constructed or funded jointly by the Secretary and the head of any
    other Federal agency (including the Natural Resources Conservation
    Service).''.

    SEC. 205. ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING.

      Section 312 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat.
    4639-4640) is amended--
              (1) in each of subsections (a), (b), and (c) by inserting
            ``and remediate'' after ``remove'' each place it appears;
              (2) in subsection (b)(1) by inserting ``and remediation''
            after ``removal'' each place it appears;
              (3) in subsection (b)(2) by striking ``$10,000,000'' and
            inserting ``$30,000,000''; and
              (4) by striking subsection (f) and inserting the following:
      ``(f) In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall give priority
    to work in the following areas:
              ``(1) Brooklyn Waterfront, New York.
              ``(2) Buffalo Harbor and River, New York.
              ``(3) Ashtabula River, Ohio.
              ``(4) Mahoning River, Ohio.
              ``(5) Lower Fox River, Wisconsin.''.

    SEC. 206. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.

      (a) General Authority.--The Secretary is authorized to carry out
    aquatic ecosystem restoration and protection projects when the
    Secretary determines that such projects will improve the quality of the
    environment and are in the public interest and that the environmental
    and economic benefits, both monetary and nonmonetary, of the project to
    be undertaken pursuant to this section justify the cost.
      (b) Cost Sharing.--Non-Federal interests shall provide 50 percent of
    the cost of construction of any project carried out under this section,
    including provision of all lands, easements, rights-of-way, and
    necessary relocations.
      (c) Agreements.--Construction of a project under this section shall
    be initiated only after a non-Federal interest has entered into a
    binding agreement with the Secretary to pay the non-Federal share of
    the costs of construction required by this section and to pay 100
    percent of any operation, maintenance, and replacement and
    rehabilitation costs with respect to the project in accordance with
    regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
      (d) Cost Limitation.--Not more than $5,000,000 in Federal funds may
    be allotted under this section for a project at any single locality.
      (e) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated not to exceed
    $25,000,000 annually to carry out this section.

    SEC. 207. BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL.

      Section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat.
    4826) is amended--
              (1) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and
              (2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
      ``(e) Selection of Dredged Material Disposal Method.--In developing
    and carrying out a project for navigation involving the disposal of
    dredged material, the Secretary may select, with the consent of the
    non-Federal interest, a disposal method that is not the least-cost
    option if the Secretary determines that the incremental costs of such
    disposal method are minimal and that the benefits to the aquatic
    environment to be derived from such disposal method, including the
    creation of wetlands and control of shoreline erosion, justify its
    selection. The Federal share of such incremental costs shall be
    determined in accordance with subsection (c).''.

    SEC. 208. RECREATION POLICY AND USER FEES.

      (a) Recreation Policies.--
              (1) In general.--The Secretary shall provide increased
            emphasis on and opportunities for recreation at water resources
            projects operated, maintained, or constructed by the Corps of
            Engineers.
              (2) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the
            enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress
            a report on specific measures taken to implement this
            subsection.
      (b) Recreation User Fees.--Section 210(b) of the Flood Control Act of
    1968 (16 U.S.C. 460d-3(b)) is amended by adding at the end the
    following:
              ``(5) Use of fees collected at facility.--Subject to advance
            appropriations, the Secretary of the Army shall ensure that at
            least an amount equal to the total amount of fees collected at
            any project under this subsection in a fiscal year beginning
            after September 30, 1996, are expended in the succeeding fiscal
            year at such project for operation and maintenance of
            recreational facilities at such project.''.

    SEC. 209. RECOVERY OF COSTS.

      Amounts recovered under section 107 of the Comprehensive
    Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42
    U.S.C. 9607) for any response action taken by the Secretary in support
    of the Army Civil Works program and any other amounts recovered by the
    Secretary from a contractor, insurer, surety, or other person to
    reimburse the Army for any expenditure for environmental response
    activities in support of the Army civil works program shall be credited
    to the appropriate trust fund account from which the cost of such
    response action has been paid or will be charged.

    SEC. 210. COST SHARING OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS.

      (a) In General.--Section 103(c) of the Water Resources Development
    Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(c)) is amended--
              (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (5);
              (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (6) and
            inserting ``; and''; and
              (3) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following new
            paragraph:
              ``(7) subject to section 906 of this Act, environmental
            protection and restoration: 50 percent.''.
      (b) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsection (a) apply only
    to projects authorized after the date of the enactment of this Act.

    SEC. 211. CONSTRUCTION OF FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS BY NON-FEDERAL
                        INTERESTS.

      (a) Authority.--Non-Federal interests are authorized to undertake
    flood control projects in the United States, subject to obtaining any
    permits required pursuant to Federal and State laws in advance of
    actual construction.
      (b) Studies and Design Activities.--
              (1) By non-federal interests.--A non-Federal interest may
            prepare, for review and approval by the Secretary, the
            necessary studies and design documents for any construction to
            be undertaken pursuant to subsection (a).
              (2) By secretary.--Upon request of an appropriate non-Federal
            interest, the Secretary may undertake all necessary studies and
            design activities for any construction to be undertaken
            pursuant to subsection (a) and provide technical assistance in
            obtaining all necessary permits for such construction if the
            non-Federal interest contracts with the Secretary to furnish
            the United States funds for the studies and design activities
            during the period that the studies and design activities will
            be conducted.
      (c) Completion of Studies and Design Activities.--In the case of any
    study or design documents for a flood control project that were
    initiated before the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary
    is authorized to complete and transmit to the appropriate non-Federal
    interests the study or design documents or, upon the request of such
    non-Federal interests, to terminate the study or design activities and
    transmit the partially completed study or design documents to such non-
    Federal interests for completion. Studies and design documents subject
    to this subsection shall be completed without regard to the
    requirements of subsection (b).
      (d) Authority To Carry Out Improvement.--
              (1) In general.--Any non-Federal interest which has received
            from the Secretary pursuant to subsection (b) or (c) a
            favorable recommendation to carry out a flood control project
            or separable element thereof based on the results of completed
            studies and design documents for the project or element, may
            carry out the project or element if a final environmental
            impact statement has been filed for the project or element.
              (2) Permits.--Any plan of improvement proposed to be
            implemented in accordance with this subsection shall be deemed
            to satisfy the requirements for obtaining the appropriate
            permits required under the Secretary's authority and such
            permits shall be granted subject to the non-Federal interest's
            acceptance of the terms and conditions of such permits if the
            Secretary determines that the applicable regulatory criteria
            and procedures have been satisfied.
              (3) Monitoring.--The Secretary shall monitor any project for
            which a permit is granted under this subsection in order to
            ensure that such project is constructed, operated, and
            maintained in accordance with the terms and conditions of such
            permit.
      (e) Reimbursement.--
              (1) General rule.--Subject to appropriation Acts, the
            Secretary is authorized to reimburse any non-Federal interest
            an amount equal to the estimate of the Federal share, without
            interest, of the cost of any authorized flood control project,
            or separable element thereof, constructed pursuant to this
            section--
                      (A) if, after authorization and before initiation of
                    construction of the project or separable element, the
                    Secretary approves the plans for construction of such
                    project by the non-Federal interest; and
                      (B) if the Secretary finds, after a review of studies
                    and design documents prepared pursuant to this section,
                    that construction of the project or separable element
                    is economically justified and environmentally
                    acceptable.
              (2) Matters to be considered in reviewing plans.--In
            reviewing plans under this subsection, the Secretary shall
            consider budgetary and programmatic priorities and other
            factors that the Secretary deems appropriate.
              (3) Monitoring.--The Secretary shall regularly monitor and
            audit any project for flood control approved for construction
            under this section by a non-Federal interest in order to ensure
            that such construction is in compliance with the plans approved
            by the Secretary and that the costs are reasonable.
              (4) Limitation on reimbursements.--No reimbursement shall be
            made under this section unless and until the Secretary has
            certified that the work for which reimbursement is requested
            has been performed in accordance with applicable permits and
            approved plans.
      (f) Specific Projects.--For the purpose of demonstrating the
    potential advantages and effectiveness of non-Federal implementation of
    flood control projects, the Secretary shall enter into agreements
    pursuant to this section with non-Federal interests for development of
    the following flood control projects by such interests:
              (1) Los angeles county drainage area, california.--The
            project for flood control, Los Angeles County Drainage Area,
            California, authorized by section 101(b) of the Water Resources
            Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4611).
              (2) Stockton metropolitan area, california.--The project for
            flood control, Stockton Metropolitan Area, California.
              (3) Brays bayou, texas.--Flood control components comprising
            the Brays Bayou element of the project for flood control,
            Buffalo Bayou and Tributaries, Texas, authorized by section
            101(a)(21) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104
            Stat. 4610); except that the non-Federal interest may design
            and construct an alternative to the diversion component of such
            element.
              (4) Hunting bayou, texas.--The Hunting Bayou element of the
            project for flood control, Buffalo Bayou and Tributaries,
            Texas, authorized by such section; except that the non-Federal
            interest may design and construct an alternative to such
            element.
              (5) White oak bayou, texas.--The project for flood control,
            White Oak Bayou watershed, Texas.
      (g) Treatment of Flood Damage Prevention Measures.--For the purposes
    of this section, flood damage prevention measures at or in the vicinity
    of Morgan City and Berwick, Louisiana, shall be treated as an
    authorized element of the Atchafalaya Basin feature of the project for
    flood control, Mississippi River and Tributaries.

    SEC. 212. ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL INNOVATIONS OF NATIONAL
                        SIGNIFICANCE.

      (a) Surveys, Plans, and Studies.--To encourage innovative and
    environmentally sound engineering solutions and innovative
    environmental solutions to problems of national significance, the
    Secretary may undertake surveys, plans, and studies and prepare reports
    which may lead to work under existing civil works authorities or to
    recommendations for authorizations.
      (b) Funding.--
              (1) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized to
            be appropriated to carry out this section $3,000,000 for each
            fiscal year beginning after September 30, 1996.
              (2) Funding from other sources.--The Secretary may accept and
            expend additional funds from other Federal agencies, States, or
            non-Federal entities for purposes of carrying out this section.

    SEC. 213. LEASE AUTHORITY.

      Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary may lease
    space available in buildings for which funding for construction or
    purchase was provided from the revolving fund established by the 1st
    section of the Civil Functions Appropriations Act, 1954 (33 U.S.C. 576;
    67 Stat. 199) under such terms and conditions as are acceptable to the
    Secretary. The proceeds from such leases shall be credited to the
    revolving fund for the purposes set forth in such Act.

    SEC. 214. COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

      (a) Funding From Other Federal Sources.--Section 7 of the Water
    Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4022-4023) is amended--
              (1) in subsection (a) by inserting ``civil works'' before
            ``mission''; and
              (2) by striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:
      ``(e) Funding From Other Federal Sources.--The Secretary may accept
    and expend additional funds from other Federal programs, including
    other Department of Defense programs, to carry out the purposes of this
    section.''.
      (b) Pre-Agreement Temporary Protection of Technology.--Such section 7
    is further amended--
              (1) by redesignating subsections (b), (c), (d), and (e) as
            subsections (c), (d), (e), and (f), respectively;
              (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new
            subsection:
      ``(b) Pre-Agreement Temporary Protection of Technology.--
              ``(1) In general.--If the Secretary determines that
            information developed as a result of research and development
            activities conducted by the Corps of Engineers is likely to be
            subject to a cooperative research and development agreement
            within 2 years of its development and that such information
            would be a trade secret or commercial or financial information
            that would be privileged or confidential if the information had
            been obtained from a non-Federal party participating in a
            cooperative research and development agreement under section 12
            of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980, the
            Secretary may provide appropriate protection against the
            dissemination of such information, including exemption from
            subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code,
            until the earlier of the date the Secretary enters into such an
            agreement with respect to such technology or the last day of
            the 2-year period beginning on the date of such determination.
              ``(2) Treatment.--Any technology covered by this section
            which becomes the subject of a cooperative research and
            development agreement shall be accorded the protection provided
            under section 12(c)(7)(B) of such Act (15 U.S.C.
            3710a(c)(7)(B)) as if such technology had been developed under
            a cooperative research and development agreement.''; and
              (3) in subsection (d), as so redesignated, by striking
            ``(b)'' and inserting ``(c)''.

    SEC. 215. DAM SAFETY PROGRAM.

      (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``National Dam
    Safety Program Act of 1996''.
      (b) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
              (1) Dams are an essential part of the national
            infrastructure. Dams fail from time to time with catastrophic
            results; thus, dam safety is a vital public concern.
              (2) Dam failures have caused, and can cause in the future,
            enormous loss of life, injury, destruction of property, and
            economic and social disruption.
              (3) Some dams are at or near the end of their structural,
            useful, or operational life. With respect to future dam
            failures, the loss, destruction, and disruption can be
            substantially reduced through the development and
            implementation of dam safety hazard reduction measures,
            including--
                      (A) improved design and construction standards and
                    practices supported by a national dam performance
                    resource bank;
                      (B) safe operations and maintenance procedures;
                      (C) early warning systems;
                      (D) coordinated emergency preparedness plans; and
                      (E) public awareness and involvement programs.
              (4) Dam safety problems persist nationwide. The diversity in
            Federal and State dam safety programs calls for national
            leadership in a cooperative effort involving Federal and State
            governments and the private sector. An expertly staffed and
            adequately financed dam safety hazard reduction program, based
            on Federal, State, local, and private research, planning,
            decisionmaking, and contributions, would reduce the risk of
            such loss, destruction, and disruption from dam failure by an
            amount far greater than the cost of such program.
              (5) There is a fundamental need for a national dam safety
            program and the need will continue. An effective national
            program in dam safety hazards reduction will require input from
            and review by Federal and non-Federal experts in dams design,
            construction, operation, and maintenance and in the practical
            application of dam failure hazards reduction measures. At the
            present time, there is no national dam safety program.
              (6) The coordinating authority for national leadership is
            provided through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's
            (hereinafter in this section referred to as ``FEMA'') dam
            safety program through Executive Order 12148 in coordination
            with appropriate Federal agencies and the States.
              (7) While FEMA's dam safety program shall continue as a
            proper Federal undertaking and shall provide the foundation for
            a National Dam Safety Program, statutory authority to meet
            increasing needs and to discharge Federal responsibilities in
            national dam safety is needed.
              (8) Statutory authority will strengthen FEMA's leadership
            role, will codify the national dam safety program, and will
            authorize the Director of FEMA (hereinafter in this section
            referred to as the ``Director'') to communicate directly with
            Congress on authorizations and appropriations and to build upon
            the hazard reduction aspects of national dam safety.
      (c) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this section to reduce the risks
    to life and property from dam failure in the United States through the
    establishment and maintenance of an effective national dam safety
    program which will bring together the Federal and non-Federal
    communities' expertise and resources to achieve national dam safety
    hazard reduction. It is not the intent of this section to preempt any
    other Federal or State authorities nor is the intent of this section to
    mandate State participation in the grant assistance program to be
    established under this section.
      (d) Definitions.--In this section, the following definitions apply:
              (1) Federal agency.--The term ``Federal agency'' means any
            Federal agency that designs, finances, constructs, owns,
            operates, maintains, or regulates the construction, operation,
            or maintenance of any dam.
              (2) Non-federal agency.--The term ``non-Federal agency''
            means any State agency that has regulatory authority over the
            safety of non-Federal dams.
              (3) Federal guidelines for dam safety.--The term ``Federal
            Guidelines for Dam Safety'' refers to a FEMA publication number
            93, dated June 1979, which defines management practices for dam
            safety at all Federal agencies.
              (4) Program.--The term ``program'' means the national dam
            safety program established under subsection (e).
              (5) Dam.--The term ``dam'' means any artificial barrier with
            the ability to impound water, wastewater, or liquid-borne
            materials for the purpose of storage or control of water which
            is--
                      (A) 25 feet or more in height from (i) the natural
                    bed of the stream or watercourse measured at the
                    downstream toe of the barrier, or (ii) from the lowest
                    elevation of the outside limit of the barrier if the
                    barrier is not across a stream channel or watercourse,
                    to the maximum water storage elevation; or
                      (B) has an impounding capacity for maximum storage
                    elevation of 50 acre-feet or more.
            Such term does not include any such barrier which is not
            greater than 6 feet in height regardless of storage capacity or
            which has a storage capacity at maximum water storage elevation
            not greater than 15 acre-feet regardless of height, unless such
            barrier, due to its location or other physical characteristics,
            is likely to pose a significant threat to human life or
            property in the event of its failure. Such term does not
            include a levee.
              (6) Hazard reduction.--The term ``hazard reduction'' means
            those efforts utilized to reduce the potential consequences of
            dam failure to life and property.
              (7) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the 50 States of
            the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth
            of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the
            Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other
            territory or possession of the United States.
              (8) Participating state.--The term ``participating State''
            means any State that elects to participate in the grant
            assistance program established under this Act.
              (9) United states.--The term ``United States'' means, when
            used in a geographical sense, all of the States.
              (10) Model state dam safety program.--The term ``Model State
            Dam Safety Program'' refers to a document, published by FEMA
            (No. 123, dated April 1987) and its amendments, developed by
            State dam safety officials, which acts as a guideline to State
            dam safety agencies for establishing a dam safety regulatory
            program or improving an already-established program.
      (e) National Dam Safety Program.--
              (1) Authority.--The Director, in consultation with
            appropriate Federal agencies, State dam safety agencies, and
            the National Dam Safety Review Board established by paragraph
            (5)(C), shall establish and maintain, in accordance with the
            provisions and policies of this Act, a coordinated national dam
            safety program. This program shall--
                      (A) be administered by FEMA to achieve the objectives
                    set forth in paragraph (3);
                      (B) involve, where appropriate, the Departments of
                    Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior, and Labor, the
                    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Nuclear
                    Regulatory Commission, the International Boundaries
                    Commission (United States section), the Tennessee
                    Valley Authority, and FEMA; and
                      (C) include each of the components described in
                    paragraph (4), the implementation plan described in
                    paragraph (5), and the assistance for State dam safety
                    programs to be provided under this section.
              (2) Duties.--The Director--
                      (A) within 270 days after the date of the enactment
                    of this Act, shall develop the implementation plan
                    described in paragraph (5);
                      (B) within 300 days after such date of enactment,
                    shall submit to the appropriate authorizing committees
                    of Congress the implementation plan described in
                    paragraph (5); and
                      (C) by rule within 360 days after such date of
                    enactment--
                              (i) shall develop and implement the national
                            dam safety program under this section;
                              (ii) shall establish goals, priorities, and
                            target dates for implementation of the program;
                            and
                              (iii) shall provide a method for cooperation
                            and coordination with, and assistance to (as
                            feasible), interested governmental entities in
                            all States.
              (3) Objectives.--The objectives of the national dam safety
            program are as follows:
                      (A) To ensure that new and existing dams are safe
                    through the development of technologically and
                    economically feasible programs and procedures for
                    national dam safety hazard reduction.
                      (B) To encourage acceptable engineering policies and
                    procedures used for dam site investigation, design,
                    construction, operation and maintenance, and emergency
                    preparedness.
                      (C) To encourage establishment and implementation of
                    effective dam safety programs in each participating
                    State based on State standards.
                      (D) To develop and encourage public awareness
                    projects to increase public acceptance and support of
                    State dam safety programs.
                      (E) To develop technical assistance materials for
                    Federal and non-Federal dam safety programs.
                      (F) To develop mechanisms with which to provide
                    Federal technical assistance for dam safety to the non-
                    Federal sector.
              (4) Components.--
                      (A) In general.--The national dam safety program
                    shall consist of a Federal element and a non-Federal
                    element and 3 functional activities: leadership,
                    technical assistance, and public awareness.
                      (B) Elements.--
                              (i) Federal element.--The Federal element of
                            the program incorporates all the activities and
                            practices undertaken by Federal agencies to
                            implement the Federal Guidelines for Dam
                            Safety.
                              (ii) Non-federal element.--The non-Federal
                            element of the program involves the activities
                            and practices undertaken by participating
                            States, local governments, and the private
                            sector to safely build, regulate, operate, and
                            maintain dams and Federal activities which
                            foster State efforts to develop and implement
                            effective programs for the safety of dams.
                      (C) Activities.--
                              (i) Leadership activity.--The leadership
                            activity of the program shall be the
                            responsibility of FEMA. FEMA shall coordinate
                            Federal efforts in cooperation with appropriate
                            Federal agencies and State dam safety agencies.
                              (ii) Technical assistance activity.--The
                            technical assistance activity of the program
                            involves the transfer of knowledge and
                            technical information among the Federal and
                            non-Federal elements.
                              (iii) Public awareness activity.--The public
                            awareness activity provides for the education
                            of the public, including State and local
                            officials, to the hazards of dam failure and
                            ways to reduce the adverse consequences of dam
                            failure and related matters.
              (5) Grant assistance program.--The Director shall develop an
            implementation plan which shall demonstrate dam safety
            improvements through fiscal year 2001 and shall recommend
            appropriate roles for Federal agencies and for State and local
            units of government, individuals, and private organizations.
            The implementation plan shall provide, at a minimum, for the
            following:
                      (A) Assistance program.--In order to encourage the
                    establishment and maintenance of effective programs
                    intended to ensure dam safety to protect human life and
                    property and to improve such existing programs, the
                    Director shall provide, from amounts made available
                    under subsection (g) of this section, assistance to
                    participating States to establish and maintain dam
                    safety programs, first, according to the basic
                    provisions for a dam safety program listed below and,
                    second, according to more advanced requirements and
                    standards authorized by the review board under
                    subparagraph (C) and the Director with the assistance
                    of established criteria such as the Model State Dam
                    Safety Program. Participating State dam safety programs
                    must be working toward meeting the following primary
                    criteria to be eligible for primary assistance or must
                    meet the following primary criteria prior to working
                    toward advanced assistance:
                              (i) State legislation.--A dam safety program
                            must be authorized by State legislation to
                            include, at a minimum, the following:
                                      (I) Plan review and approval.--
                                    Authority to review and approve plans
                                    and specifications to construct,
                                    enlarge, modify, remove, or abandon
                                    dams.
                                      (II) Periodic inspections during
                                    construction.--Authority to perform
                                    periodic inspections during
                                    construction for the purpose of
                                    ensuring compliance with approved plans
                                    and specifications.
                                      (III) State approval.--Upon
                                    completion of construction, a
                                    requirement that, before operation of
                                    the structure, State approval is
                                    received.
                                      (IV) Safety inspections.--Authority
                                    to require or perform the inspection of
                                    all dams and reservoirs that pose a
                                    significant threat to human life and
                                    property in the event of failure at
                                    least every 5 years to determine their
                                    continued safety and a procedure for
                                    more detailed and frequent safety
                                    inspections.
                                      (V) Professional engineer.--A
                                    requirement that all inspections be
                                    performed under the supervision of a
                                    registered professional engineer with
                                    related experience in dam design and
                                    construction.
                                      (VI) Orders.--Authority to issue
                                    orders, when appropriate, to require
                                    owners of dams to perform necessary
                                    maintenance or remedial work, revise
                                    operating procedures, or take other
                                    actions, including breaching dams when
                                    deemed necessary.
                                      (VII) Regulations.--Rules and
                                    regulations for carrying out the
                                    provisions of the State's legislative
                                    authority.
                                      (VIII) Emergency funds.--Necessary
                                    emergency funds to assure timely
                                    repairs or other changes to, or removal
                                    of, a dam in order to protect human
                                    life and property and, if the owner
                                    does not take action, to take
                                    appropriate action as expeditiously as
                                    possible.
                                      (IX) Emergency procedures.--A system
                                    of emergency procedures that would be
                                    utilized in the event a dam fails or in
                                    the event a dam's failure is imminent,
                                    together with an identification of
                                    those dams where failure could be
                                    reasonably expected to endanger human
                                    life and of the maximum area that could
                                    be inundated in the event of a failure
                                    of the dam, as well as identification
                                    of those necessary public facilities
                                    that would be affected by such
                                    inundation.
                              (ii) State appropriations.--State
                            appropriations must be budgeted to carry out
                            the provisions of the State legislation.
                      (B) Work plan contracts.--The Director shall enter
                    into contracts with each participating State to
                    determine a work plan necessary for a particular State
                    dam safety program to reach a level of program
                    performance previously agreed upon in the contract.
                    Federal assistance under this section shall be provided
                    to aid the State dam safety program in achieving its
                    goal.
                      (C) National dam safety review board.--
                              (i) In general.--There is authorized to be
                            established a National Dam Safety Review Board
                            (hereinafter in this section referred to as the
                            ``Board''), which shall be responsible for
                            monitoring participating State implementation
                            of the requirements of the assistance program.
                            The Board is authorized to utilize the
                            expertise of other agencies of the United
                            States and to enter into contracts for
                            necessary studies to carry out the requirements
                            of this section. The Board shall consist of 11
                            members selected for their expertise in dam
                            safety as follows:
                                      (I) 5 to represent FEMA, the Federal
                                    Energy Regulatory Commission, and the
                                    Departments of Agriculture, Defense,
                                    and Interior.
                                      (II) 5 members selected by the
                                    Director who are dam safety officials
                                    of States.
                                      (III) 1 member selected by the
                                    Director to represent the United States
                                    Committee on Large Dams.
                              (ii) No compensation of members.--Each member
                            of the Board who is an officer or employee of
                            the United States shall serve without
                            compensation in addition to compensation
                            received for the services of the member as an
                            officer or employee of the United States. Each
                            member of the Board who is not an officer or
                            employee of the United States shall serve
                            without compensation.
                              (iii) Travel expenses.--Each member of the
                            Board shall be allowed travel expenses,
                            including per diem in lieu of subsistence, at
                            rates authorized for an employee of an agency
                            under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5,
                            United States Code, while away from home or
                            regular place of business of the member in the
                            performance of services for the Board.
                              (iv) Nonapplicability of federal advisory
                            committee act.--The Federal Advisory Committee
                            Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the
                            Board.
                      (D) Maintenance of effort.--No grant may be made to a
                    participating State under this subsection in any fiscal
                    year unless the State enters into such agreement with
                    the Director as the Director may require to ensure that
                    the participating State will maintain its aggregate
                    expenditures from all other sources for programs to
                    assure dam safety for the protection of human life and
                    property at or above the average level of such
                    expenditures in its 2 fiscal years preceding the date
                    of the enactment of this Act.
                      (E) Procedure for approval of state participation.--
                    Any program which is submitted to the Director for
                    participation in the assistance program under this
                    subsection shall be deemed approved 120 days following
                    its receipt by the Director unless the Director
                    determines within such 120-day period that the
                    submitted program fails to reasonably meet the
                    requirements of subparagraphs (A) and (B). If the
                    Director determines the submitted program cannot be
                    approved for participation, the Director shall
                    immediately notify the State in writing, together with
                    his or her reasons and those changes needed to enable
                    the submitted program to be approved.
                      (F) Review of state programs.--Utilizing the
                    expertise of the Board, the Director shall periodically
                    review the approved State dam safety programs. In the
                    event the Board finds that a program of a participating
                    State has proven inadequate to reasonably protect human
                    life and property and the Director agrees, the Director
                    shall revoke approval of the State's participation in
                    the assistance program and withhold assistance under
                    this section, until the State program has been
                    reapproved.
                      (G) Cooperation of federal agencies.--The head of any
                    Federal agency, when requested by any State dam safety
                    agency, shall provide information on the construction,
                    operation, or maintenance of any dam or allow officials
                    of the State agency to participate in any Federal
                    inspection of any dam.
                      (H) Dam insurance report.--Within 180 days after the
                    date of the enactment of this Act, the Director shall
                    report to the Congress on the availability of dam
                    insurance and make recommendations.
      (f) Biennial Report.--Within 90 days after the last day of each odd-
    numbered fiscal year, the Director shall submit a biennial report to
    Congress describing the status of the program being implemented under
    this section and describing the progress achieved by the Federal
    agencies during the 2 previous years in implementing the Federal
    Guidelines for Dam Safety. Each such report shall include any
    recommendations for legislative and other action deemed necessary and
    appropriate. The report shall also include a summary of the progress
    being made in improving dam safety by participating States.
      (g) Authorizing of Appropriations.--
              (1) General program.--
                      (A) Funding.--There are authorized to be appropriated
                    to the Director to carry out the provisions of
                    subsections (e) and (f) (in addition to any
                    authorizations for similar purposes included in other
                    Acts and the authorizations set forth in paragraphs (2)
                    through (5) of this subsection)--
                              (i) $1,000,000 for fiscal year 1997;
                              (ii) $2,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;
                              (iii) $4,000,000 for fiscal year 1999;
                              (iv) $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2000; and
                              (v) $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2001.
                      (B) Apportionment formula.--
                              (i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), sums
                            appropriated under this paragraph shall be
                            distributed annually among participating States
                            on the following basis: One-third among those
                            States determined in subsection (e) as
                            qualifying for funding, and two-thirds in
                            proportion to the number of dams and appearing
                            as State-regulated dams on the National Dam
                            Inventory in each participating State that has
                            been determined in subsection (e)(5)(A) as
                            qualifying for funding, to the number of dams
                            in all participating States.
                              (ii) Limitation to 50 percent of cost.--In no
                            event shall funds distributed to any State
                            under this paragraph exceed 50 percent of the
                            reasonable cost of implementing an approved dam
                            safety program in such State.
                              (iii) Allocation between primary and advanced
                            assistance programs.-- The Director and Review
                            Board shall determine how much of funds
                            appropriated under this paragraph is allotted
                            to participating States needing primary funding
                            and those needing advanced funding.
              (2) Training.--
                      (A) In general.--The Director shall, at the request
                    of any State that has or intends to develop a dam
                    safety program under subsection (e)(5)(A), provide
                    training for State dam safety staff and inspectors.
                      (B) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated
                    to carry out this paragraph $500,000 for each of fiscal
                    years 1997 through 2001.
              (3) Research.--
                      (A) In general.--The Director shall undertake a
                    program of technical and archival research in order to
                    develop improved techniques, historical experience, and
                    equipment for rapid and effective dam construction,
                    rehabilitation, and inspection, together with devices
                    for the continued monitoring, of dams for safety
                    purposes.
                      (B) State participation; reports.--The Director shall
                    provide for State participation in the research under
                    this paragraph and periodically advise all States and
                    Congress of the results of such research.
                      (C) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated
                    to carry out this paragraph $1,000,000 for each of
                    fiscal years 1997 through 2001.
              (4) Dam inventory.--
                      (A) Maintenance and publication.--The Secretary is
                    authorized to maintain and periodically publish updated
                    information on the inventory of dams.
                      (B) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated
                    to carry out this paragraph $500,000 for each of fiscal
                    years 1997 through 2001.
              (5) Personnel.--
                      (A) Employment.--The Director is authorized to employ
                    additional staff personnel in numbers sufficient to
                    carry out the provisions of this section.
                      (B) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated
                    to carry out this paragraph $400,000 for each of fiscal
                    years 1997 through 2001.
              (6) Limitation.--No funds authorized by this section shall be
            used to construct or repair any Federal or non-Federal dams.
      (h) Conforming Amendments.--The Act entitled ``An Act to authorize
    the Secretary of the Army to undertake a national program of inspection
    of dams'', approved August 8, 1972 (33 U.S.C 467-467m; Public Law 92-
    367), is amended--
              (1) in the first section by striking ``means any artificial
            barrier'' and all that follows through the period at the end
            and inserting ``has the meaning such term has under subsection
            (d) of the National Dam Safety Program Act of 1996.'';
              (2) by striking the 2d sentence of section 3;
              (3) by striking section 5 and sections 7 through 14; and
              (4) by redesignating section 6 as section 5.

    SEC. 216. MAINTENANCE, REHABILITATION, AND MODERNIZATION OF FACILITIES.

      In accomplishing the maintenance, rehabilitation, and modernization
    of hydroelectric power generating facilities at water resources
    projects under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Army, the
    Secretary is authorized to increase the efficiency of energy production
    and the capacity of these facilities if, after consulting with other
    appropriate Federal and State agencies, the Secretary determines that
    such uprating--
              (1) is economically justified and financially feasible;
              (2) will not result in significant adverse effects on the
            other purposes for which the project is authorized;
              (3) will not result in significant adverse environmental
            impacts; and
              (4) will not involve major structural or operation changes in
            the project.

    SEC. 217. LONG-TERM SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES.

      (a) Development.--The Secretary shall enter into cooperative
    agreements with non-Federal sponsors of navigation projects for
    development of long-term management strategies for controlling
    sediments in such projects.
      (b) Contents of Strategies.--Each strategy developed under this
    section for a navigation project--
              (1) shall include assessments of the following with respect
            to the project: sediment rates and composition, sediment
            reduction options, dredging practices, long-term management of
            any dredged material disposal facilities, remediation of such
            facilities, and alternative disposal and reuse options;
              (2) shall include a timetable for implementation of the
            strategy; and
              (3) shall incorporate, as much as possible, relevant ongoing
            planning efforts, including remedial action planning, dredged
            material management planning, harbor and waterfront development
            planning, and watershed management planning.
      (c) Consultation.--In developing strategies under this section, the
    Secretary shall consult with interested Federal agencies, States, and
    Indian tribes and provide an opportunity for public comment.

    SEC. 218. DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITY PARTNERSHIPS.

      (a) Additional Capacity.--
              (1) Provided by secretary.--At the request of a non-Federal
            project sponsor, the Secretary may provide additional capacity
            at a dredged material disposal facility constructed by the
            Department of the Army beyond that which would be required for
            project purposes if the non-Federal project sponsor agrees to
            pay, during the period of construction, all costs associated
            with the construction of the additional capacity.
              (2) Cost recovery authority.--The non-Federal project sponsor
            may recover the costs assigned to the additional capacity
            through fees assessed on 3rd parties whose dredged material is
            deposited in the facility and who enter into agreements with
            the non-Federal sponsor for the use of such facility. The
            amount of such fees may be determined by the non-Federal
            sponsor.
      (b) Non-Federal Use of Disposal Facilities.--
              (1) In general.--The Secretary--
                      (A) may permit the use of any dredged material
                    disposal facility under the jurisdiction of, or managed
                    by, the Secretary by a non-Federal interest if the
                    Secretary determines that such use will not reduce the
                    availability of the facility for project purposes; and
                      (B) may impose fees to recover capital, operation,
                    and maintenance costs associated with such use.
              (2) Use of fees.--Notwithstanding section 401(c) of the
            Federal Water Pollution Control Act but subject to advance
            appropriations, any monies received through collection of fees
            under this subsection shall be available to the Secretary, and
            shall be used by the Secretary, for the operation and
            maintenance of the disposal facility from which they were
            collected.

    SEC. 219. OBSTRUCTION REMOVAL REQUIREMENT.

      (a) Penalty.--Section 16 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 411;
    30 Stat. 1153), is amended--
              (1) by striking ``thirteen, fourteen, and fifteen'' each
            place it appears and inserting ``13, 14, 15, 19, and 20''; and
              (2) by striking ``not exceeding twenty-five hundred dollars
            nor less than five hundred dollars'' and inserting ``of up to
            $25,000 per day''.
      (b) General Authority.--Section 20 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33
    U.S.C. 415; 30 Stat. 1154), is amended--
              (1) by striking ``expense'' the first place it appears in
            subsection (a) and inserting ``actual expense, including
            administrative expenses,'';
              (2) in subsection (b) by striking ``cost'' and inserting
            ``actual cost, including administrative costs,'';
              (3) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
              (4) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new
            subsection:
      ``(b) Removal Requirement.--Within 24 hours after the Secretary of
    the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating issues an order to
    stop or delay navigation in any navigable waters of the United States
    because of conditions related to the sinking or grounding of a vessel,
    the owner or operator of the vessel, with the approval of the Secretary
    of the Army, shall begin removal of the vessel using the most
    expeditious removal method available or, if appropriate, secure the
    vessel pending removal to allow navigation to resume. If the owner or
    operator fails to begin removal or to secure the vessel pending removal
    or fails to complete removal as soon as possible, the Secretary of the
    Army shall remove or destroy the vessel using the summary removal
    procedures under subsection (a) of this section.''.

    SEC. 220. SMALL PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

      Section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r) is
    amended--
              (1) by striking ``$12,500,000'' and inserting
            ``$15,000,000''; and
              (2) by striking ``$500,000'' and inserting ``$1,500,000''.

    SEC. 221. UNECONOMICAL COST-SHARING REQUIREMENTS.

      Section 221(a) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b)
    is amended by striking the period at the end of the first sentence and
    inserting the following: ``; except that no such agreement shall be
    required if the Secretary determines that the administrative costs
    associated with negotiating, executing, or administering the agreement
    would exceed the amount of the contribution required from the non-
    Federal interest and are less than $25,000.''.

    SEC. 222. PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES.

      Section 22 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C.
    1962d-16) is amended--
              (1) in subsection (a) by inserting ``, watersheds, or
            ecosystems'' after ``basins'';
              (2) in subsection (b)--
                      (A) by striking paragraph (2); and
                      (B) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as
                    paragraphs (2) and (3), respectively; and
              (3) in subsection (c)--
                      (A) by striking ``$6,000,000'' and inserting
                    ``$10,000,000''; and
                      (B) by striking ``$300,000'' and inserting
                    ``$500,000''.

    SEC. 223. CORPS OF ENGINEERS EXPENSES.

      Section 211 of the Flood Control Act of 1950 (33 U.S.C. 701u; 64
    Stat. 183) is amended--
              (1) by striking ``continental limits of the''; and
              (2) by striking the 2d colon and all that follows through
            ``for this purpose''.

    SEC. 224. STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCY REVIEW PERIOD.

      The 1st section of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing the
    construction of certain public works on rivers and harbors for flood
    control, and other purposes'', approved December 22, 1944 (33 U.S.C.
    701-1(a); 58 Stat. 888), is amended--
              (1) by striking ``Within ninety'' and inserting ``Within
            30''; and
              (2) by striking ``ninety-day period.'' and inserting ``30-day
            period.''.

    SEC. 225. LIMITATION ON REIMBURSEMENT OF NON-FEDERAL COSTS PER PROJECT.

      Section 215(a) of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-
    5a(a)) is amended--
              (1) by striking ``$3,000,000'' and inserting ``$5,000,000'';
            and
              (2) by striking the final period.

    SEC. 226. AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL.

      (a) Additional Controlled Plants.--Section 104(a) of the River and
    Harbor Act of 1958 (33 U.S.C. 610(a)) is amended by inserting after
    ``alligatorweed,'' the following: ``melaleuca,''.
      (b) Authorization.--Section 104(b) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 610(b)) is
    amended by striking ``$12,000,000'' and inserting ``$15,000,000''.

    SEC. 227. SEDIMENTS DECONTAMINATION TECHNOLOGY.

      (a) Project Purpose.--Section 405(a) of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2239 note; 106 Stat. 4863) is
    amended by adding at the end the following:
              ``(3) Project purpose.--The purpose of the project to be
            carried out under this section is to provide for the
            development of 1 or more sediment decontamination technologies
            on a pilot scale demonstrating a capacity of at least 500,000
            cubic yards per year.''.
      (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--The first sentence of section
    405(c) of such Act is amended to read as follows: ``There is authorized
    to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 for fiscal
    years beginning after September 30, 1996.''.
      (c) Reports.--Section 405 of such Act is amended by adding at the end
    the following:
      ``(d) Reports.--Not later than September 30, 1998, and periodically
    thereafter, the Administrator and the Secretary shall transmit to
    Congress a report on the results of the project to be carried out under
    this section, including an assessment of the progress made in achieving
    the intent of the program set forth in subsection (a)(3).''.

    SEC. 228. SHORE PROTECTION.

      (a) Declaration of Policy.--Subsection (a) of the first section 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. 426e; 60 Stat. 1056), is amended--
              (1) by striking ``damage to the shores'' and inserting
            ``damage to the shores and beaches''; and
              (2) by striking ``the following provisions'' and all that
            follows through the period at the end of subsection (a) and
            inserting the following: ``this Act, to promote shore
            protection projects and related research that encourage the
            protection, restoration, and enhancement of sandy beaches,
            including beach restoration and periodic beach nourishment, on
            a comprehensive and coordinated basis by the Federal
            Government, States, localities, and private enterprises. In
            carrying out this policy, preference shall be given to areas in
            which there has been a Federal investment of funds and areas
            with respect to which the need for prevention or mitigation of
            damage to shores and beaches is attributable to Federal
            navigation projects or other Federal activities.''.
      (b) Nonpublic Shores.--Subsection (d) of such section is amended by
    striking ``or from the protection of nearby public property or'' and
    inserting ``, if there are sufficient benefits, including benefits to
    local and regional economic development and to the local and regional
    ecology (as determined under subsection (e)(2)(B)), or''; and
      (c) Authorization of Projects.--Subsection (e) of such section is
    amended--
              (1) by striking ``(e) No'' and inserting the following:
      ``(e) Authorization of Projects.--
              ``(1) In general.--No'';
              (2) by moving the remainder of the text of paragraph (1) (as
            designated by paragraph (1) of this subsection) 2 ems to the
            right; and
              (3) by adding at the end the following:
              ``(2) Studies.--
                      ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall--
                              ``(i) recommend to Congress studies
                            concerning shore protection projects that meet
                            the criteria established under this Act
                            (including subparagraph (B)(iii)) and other
                            applicable law;
                              ``(ii) conduct such studies as Congress
                            requires under applicable laws; and
                              ``(iii) report the results of the studies to
                            the appropriate committees of Congress.
                      ``(B) Recommendations for shore protection
                    projects.--
                              ``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall
                            recommend to Congress the authorization or
                            reauthorization of shore protection projects
                            based on the studies conducted under
                            subparagraph (A).
                              ``(ii) Considerations.--In making
                            recommendations, the Secretary shall consider
                            the economic and ecological benefits of a shore
                            protection project and the ability of the non-
                            Federal interest to participate in the project.
                              ``(iii) Consideration of local and regional
                            benefits.--In analyzing the economic and
                            ecological benefits of a shore protection
                            project, or a flood control or other water
                            resource project the purpose of which includes
                            shore protection, the Secretary shall consider
                            benefits to local and regional economic
                            development, and to the local and regional
                            ecology, in calculating the full economic and
                            ecological justifications for the project.
                      ``(C) Coordination of projects.--In conducting
                    studies and making recommendations for a shore
                    protection project under this paragraph, the Secretary
                    shall--
                              ``(i) determine whether there is any other
                            project being carried out by the Secretary or
                            the head of another Federal agency that may be
                            complementary to the shore protection project;
                            and
                              ``(ii) if there is such a complementary
                            project, describe the efforts that will be made
                            to coordinate the projects.
              ``(3) Shore protection projects.--
                      ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall construct, or
                    cause to be constructed, any shore protection project
                    authorized by Congress, or separable element of such a
                    project, for which funds have been appropriated by
                    Congress.
                      ``(B) Agreements.--
                              ``(i) Requirement.--After authorization by
                            Congress, and before commencement of
                            construction, of a shore protection project or
                            separable element, the Secretary shall enter
                            into a written agreement with a non-Federal
                            interest with respect to the project or
                            separable element.
                              ``(ii) Terms.--The agreement shall--
                                      ``(I) specify the life of the
                                    project; and
                                      ``(II) ensure that the Federal
                                    Government and the non-Federal interest
                                    will cooperate in carrying out the
                                    project or separable element.
                      ``(C) Coordination of projects.--In constructing a
                    shore protection project or separable element under
                    this paragraph, the Secretary shall, to the extent
                    practicable, coordinate the project or element with any
                    complementary project identified under paragraph
                    (2)(C).
              ``(4) Report to congress.--The Secretary shall report
            biennially to the appropriate committees of Congress on the
            status of all ongoing shore protection studies and shore
            protection projects carried out under the jurisdiction of the
            Secretary.''.
      (d) Requirement of Agreements Prior to Reimbursements.--
              (1) Small shore protection projects.--Section 2 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. 426f; 60 Stat. 1056), is amended--
                      (A) by striking ``Sec. 2. The Secretary of the Army''
                    and inserting the following:

    ``SEC. 2. REIMBURSEMENTS.

      ``(a) In General.--The Secretary'';
                      (B) in subsection (a) (as so designated)--
                              (i) by striking ``local interests'' and
                            inserting ``non-Federal interests'';
                              (ii) by inserting ``or separable element of
                            the project'' after ``project''; and
                              (iii) by inserting ``or separable elements''
                            after ``projects'' each place it appears; and
                      (C) by adding at the end the following:
      ``(b) Agreements.--
              ``(1) Requirement.--After authorization of reimbursement by
            the Secretary under this section, and before commencement of
            construction, of a shore protection project, the Secretary
            shall enter into a written agreement with the non-Federal
            interest with respect to the project or separable element.
              ``(2) Terms.--The agreement shall--
                      ``(A) specify the life of the project; and
                      ``(B) ensure that the Federal Government and the non-
                    Federal interest will cooperate in carrying out the
                    project or separable element.''.
              (2) Other shoreline protection projects.--Section
            206(e)(1)(A) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33
            U.S.C. 426i-1(e)(1)(A); 106 Stat. 4829) is amended by inserting
            before the semicolon the following: ``and enters into a written
            agreement with the non-Federal interest with respect to the
            project or separable element (including the terms of
            cooperation)''.
      (e) State and Regional Plans.--The Act entitled ``An Act authorizing
    Federal participation in the cost of protecting the shores of publicly
    owned property'', approved August 13, 1946, is further amended--
              (1) by redesignating section 4 (33 U.S.C. 426h) as section 5;
            and
              (2) by inserting after section 3 (33 U.S.C. 426g) the
            following:

    ``SEC. 4. STATE AND REGIONAL PLANS.

      ``The Secretary may--
              ``(1) cooperate with any State in the preparation of a
            comprehensive State or regional plan for the conservation of
            coastal resources located within the boundaries of the State;
              ``(2) encourage State participation in the implementation of
            the plan; and
              ``(3) submit to Congress reports and recommendations with
            respect to appropriate Federal participation in carrying out
            the plan.''.
      (f) Definitions.--
              (1) In general.--Section 5 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. 426h), (as redesignated by subsection (e)(1)) is
            amended to read as follows:

    ``SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

      ``In this Act, the following definitions apply:
              ``(1) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary of
            the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers.
              ``(2) Separable element.--The term `separable element' has
            the meaning provided by section 103(f) of the Water Resources
            Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(f)).
              ``(3) Shore.--The term `shore' includes each shoreline of the
            Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, the Gulf of Mexico, the Great
            Lakes, and lakes, estuaries, and bays directly connected
            therewith.
              ``(4) Shore protection project.--The term `shore protection
            project' includes a project for beach nourishment, including
            the replacement of sand.''.
              (2) Conforming amendments.--The Act entitled ``An Act
            authorizing Federal participation in the cost of protecting the
            shores of publicly owned property'', approved August 13, 1946,
            is amended--
                      (A) in subsection (b)(3) of the first section (33
                    U.S.C. 426e(b)(3)) by striking ``of the Army, acting
                    through the Chief of Engineers,'' and by striking the
                    final period; and
                      (B) in section 3 (33 U.S.C. 426g) by striking
                    ``Secretary of the Army'' and inserting ``Secretary''.
      (g) Objectives of Projects.--Section 209 of the Flood Control Act of
    1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962-2; 84 Stat. 1829) is amended by inserting
    ``(including shore protection projects such as projects for beach
    nourishment, including the replacement of sand)'' after ``water
    resource projects''.

    SEC. 229. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS.

      (a) In General.--Section 1001(b)(2) of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(2)) is amended--
              (1) by striking ``Before'' at the beginning of the second
            sentence and inserting ``Upon''; and
              (2) by inserting ``planning, designing, or'' before
            ``construction'' in the last sentence.
      (b) Technical Amendment.--Section 52 of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1988 (33 U.S.C. 579a note; 102 Stat. 4044) is
    amended--
              (1) by striking subsection (a); and
              (2) by redesignating subsections (b), (c), (d), and (e) as
            subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d), respectively.

    SEC. 230. SUPPORT OF ARMY CIVIL WORKS PROGRAM.

      (a) General Authority.--In carrying out research and development in
    support of the civil works program of the Department of the Army, the
    Secretary may utilize contracts, cooperative research and development
    agreements, cooperative agreements, and grants with non-Federal
    entities, including State and local governments, colleges and
    universities, consortia, professional and technical societies, public
    and private scientific and technical foundations, research
    institutions, educational organizations, and nonprofit organizations.
      (b) Special Rules.--With respect to contracts for research and
    development, the Secretary may include requirements that have potential
    commercial application and may also use such potential application as
    an evaluation factor where appropriate.

    SEC. 231. BENEFITS TO NAVIGATION.

      In evaluating potential improvements to navigation and the
    maintenance of navigation projects, the Secretary shall consider, and
    include for purposes of project justification, economic benefits
    generated by cruise ships as commercial navigation benefits.

    SEC. 232. LOSS OF LIFE PREVENTION.

      Section 904 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
    2281) is amended by inserting ``including the loss of life which may be
    associated with flooding and coastal storm events,'' after ``costs,''.

    SEC. 233. SCENIC AND AESTHETIC CONSIDERATIONS.

      In conducting studies of potential water resources projects, the
    Secretary shall consider measures to preserve and enhance scenic and
    aesthetic qualities in the vicinity of such projects.

    SEC. 234. REMOVAL OF STUDY PROHIBITIONS.

      Nothing in section 208 of the Urgent Supplemental Appropriations Act,
    1986 (100 Stat. 749), section 505 of the Energy and Water Development
    Appropriations Act, 1993 (106 Stat. 1343), or any other provision of
    law shall be deemed to limit the authority of the Secretary to
    undertake studies for the purpose of investigating alternative modes of
    financing hydroelectric power facilities under the jurisdiction of the
    Department of the Army with funds appropriated after the date of the
    enactment of this Act.

    SEC. 235. SENSE OF CONGRESS; REQUIREMENT REGARDING NOTICE.

      (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and Products.--It is the
    sense of Congress that, to the greatest extent practicable, all
    equipment and products purchased with funds made available under this
    Act should be American-made.
      (b) Notice to Recipients of Assistance.--In providing financial
    assistance under this Act, the Secretary, to the greatest extent
    practicable, shall provide to each recipient of the assistance a notice
    describing the statement made in subsection (a).

    SEC. 236. RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

      Section 310 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C.
    2319; 104 Stat. 4639) is amended--
              (1) by striking subsection (a); and
              (2) by striking ``(b) Public Participation.--''.

    SEC. 237. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.

      (a) Section  203 of 1992 Act.--Section 203(b) of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4826) is amended by striking
    ``(8662)'' and inserting ``(8862)''.
      (b) Section  225 of 1992 Act.--Section 225(c) of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4838) is amended by striking
    ``(8662)'' in the second sentence and inserting ``(8862)''.

                        TITLE III--PROJECT MODIFICATIONS

    SEC. 301. MOBILE HARBOR, ALABAMA.

      The undesignated paragraph under the heading ``mobile harbor,
    alabama'' in section 201(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
    1986 (100 Stat. 4090) is amended by striking the first semicolon and
    all that follows and inserting a period and the following: ``In
    disposing of dredged material from such project, the Secretary, after
    compliance with applicable laws and after opportunity for public review
    and comment, may consider alternatives to disposal of such material in
    the Gulf of Mexico, including environmentally acceptable alternatives
    for beneficial uses of dredged material and environmental
    restoration.''.

    SEC. 302. ALAMO DAM, ARIZONA.

      The project for flood control and other purposes, Alamo Dam and Lake,
    Arizona, authorized by section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of
    December 22, 1944, (58 Stat. 900), is modified to authorize the
    Secretary to operate the Alamo Dam to provide fish and wildlife
    benefits both upstream and downstream of the Dam. Such operation shall
    not reduce flood control and recreation benefits provided by the
    project.

    SEC. 303. NOGALES WASH AND TRIBUTARIES, ARIZONA.

      The project for flood control, Nogales Wash and tributaries, Arizona,
    authorized by section 101(a)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act
    of 1990 (104 Stat. 4606), is modified to direct the Secretary to permit
    the non-Federal contribution for the project to be determined in
    accordance with sections 103(k) and 103(m) of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1986 and to directthe Secretary to enter into
    negotiations with non-Federal interests pursuant to section 103(l) of
    such Act concerning the timing of the initial payment of the non-
    Federal contribution.

    SEC. 304. PHOENIX, ARIZONA.

      Section 321 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat.
    4848) is amended--
              (1) by striking ``control'' and inserting ``control,
            ecosystem restoration,''; and
              (2) by striking ``$6,500,000.'' and inserting ``$17,500,000.
            The non-Federal share for costs assigned to flood control
            measures to protect developed areas adjacent to the project
            shall be consistent with the cost sharing requirements of
            section 903(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of
            1986.''.

    SEC. 305. SAN FRANCISCO RIVER AT CLIFTON, ARIZONA.

      The project for flood control, San Francisco River, Clifton, Arizona,
    authorized by section 101(a)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act
    of 1990 (104 Stat. 4606), is modified to authorize the Secretary to
    construct the project at a total cost of $21,100,000, with an estimated
    Federal cost of $13,800,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
    $7,300,000.

    SEC. 306. 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 the Sacramento
    River, California, and for other purposes'', approved March 1, 1917 (39
    Stat. 948), and as modified by section 102 of the Energy and Water
    Development Appropriations Act, 1990 (103 Stat. 649), is further
    modified to authorize the Secretary to carry out the portion of the
    project at Glenn-Colusa, California, at a total cost of $14,200,000.

    SEC. 307. LOS ANGELES AND LONG BEACH HARBORS, SAN PEDRO BAY,
                        CALIFORNIA.

      The navigation project for Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors, San
    Pedro Bay, California, authorized by section 201(b) of the Water
    Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4091), is modified to
    provide that, notwithstanding section 101(a)(4) of such Act, the cost
    of the relocation of the sewer outfall by the Port of Los Angeles shall
    be credited toward the payment required from the non-Federal interest
    by section 101(a)(2) of such Act.

    SEC. 308. OAKLAND HARBOR, CALIFORNIA.

      The projects for navigation, Oakland Outer Harbor, California, and
    Oakland Inner Harbor, California, authorized by section 202 of the
    Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4092), are modified
    by combining the 2 projects into 1 project, to be designated as the
    Oakland Harbor, California, project. The Oakland Harbor, California,
    project shall be prosecuted by the Secretary substantially in
    accordance with the plans and subject to the conditions recommended in
    the reports designated in such section 202, at a total cost of
    $90,850,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $59,150,000 and an
    estimated non-Federal cost of $31,700,000. The non-Federal share of
    project costs and any available credits toward the non-Federal share
    shall be calculated on the basis of the total cost of the combined
    project.

    SEC. 309. QUEENSWAY BAY, CALIFORNIA.

      Section 4(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (102
    Stat. 4016) is amended by adding at the end the following sentence:
    ``In addition, the Secretary shall perform advance maintenance dredging
    in the Queensway Bay Channel, California, at a total cost of
    $5,000,000.''.

    SEC. 310. SAN LUIS REY, CALIFORNIA.

      The project for flood control of the San Luis Rey River, California,
    authorized pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (42
    U.S.C. 1962d-5; 79 Stat. 1073-1074), is modified to authorize the
    Secretary to construct the project at a total cost not to exceed
    $81,600,000 with an estimated Federal cost of $61,100,000 and an
    estimated non-Federal cost of $20,500,000.

    SEC. 311. THAMES RIVER, CONNECTICUT.

      (a) Reconfiguration of Turning Basin.--The project for navigation,
    Thames River, Connecticut, authorized by the first section of the Act
    entitled ``An Act authorizing construction, repair, and preservation of
    certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes'',
    approved August 30, 1935 (49 Stat. 1029), is modified to make the
    turning basin have the following alignment: Starting at a point on the
    eastern limit of the existing project, N251052.93, E783934.59, thence
    running north 5 degrees 25 minutes 21.3 seconds east 341.06 feet to a
    point, N251392.46, E783966.82, thence running north 47 degrees 24
    minutes 14.0 seconds west 268.72 feet to a point, N251574.34,
    E783769.00, thence running north 88 degrees 41 minutes 52.2 seconds
    west 249.06 feet to a point, N251580.00, E782520.00, thence running
    south 46 degrees 16 minutes 22.9 seconds west 318.28 feet to a point,
    N251360.00, E783290.00, thence running south 19 degrees 01 minute 32.2
    seconds east 306.76 feet to a point, N251070.00, E783390.00, thence
    running south 45 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds east 155.56 feet to a
    point, N250960.00, E783500.00 on the existing western limit.
      (b) Non-Federal Responsibility for Initial Dredging.--Any required
    initial dredging of the widened portions of the turning basin
    identified in subsection (a) shall be accomplished at non-Federal
    expense.
      (c) Conforming Deauthorization.--Those portions of the existing
    turning basin which are not included in the reconfigured turning basin
    as described in subsection (a) shall no longer be authorized after the
    date of the enactment of this Act.

    SEC. 312. POTOMAC RIVER, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

      The project for flood protection, Potomac River, Washington, District
    of Columbia, authorized by section 5 of the Flood Control Act of June
    22, 1936 (74 Stat. 1574), is modified to authorize the Secretary to
    construct the project substantially in accordance with the General
    Design Memorandum dated May 1992 at a Federal cost of $1,800,000;
    except that a temporary closure may be used instead of a permanent
    structure at 17th Street. Operation and maintenance of the project
    shall be a Federal responsibility.

    SEC. 313. CANAVERAL HARBOR, FLORIDA.

      The project for navigation, Canaveral Harbor, Florida, authorized by
    section 101(7) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106
    Stat. 4802), is modified to authorize the Secretary to reclassify the
    removal and replacement of stone protection on both sides of the
    channel as general navigation features. The Secretary shall reimburse
    any costs that are incurred by the non-Federal sponsor in connection
    with the reclassified work and that the Secretary determines to be in
    excess of the non-Federal share of costs for general navigation
    features. The Federal and non-Federal shares of the cost of the
    reclassified work shall be determined in accordance with section 101 of
    the Water Resources Development Act of 1986.

    SEC. 314. CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, CANAL 51.

      The project for flood protection of West Palm Beach, Florida (C-51),
    authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat.
    1183), is modified to provide for the construction of an enlarged
    stormwater detention area, Storm Water Treatment Area 1 East, generally
    in accordance with the plan of improvements described in the February
    15, 1994, report entitled ``Everglades Protection Project, Palm Beach
    County, Florida, Conceptual Design'', with such modifications as are
    approved by the Secretary. The additional work authorized by this
    subsection shall be accomplished at Federal expense. Operation and
    maintenance of the stormwater detention area shall be consistent with
    regulations prescribed by the Secretary for the Central and Southern
    Florida project, and all costs of such operation and maintenance shall
    be provided by non-Federal interests.

    SEC. 315. CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, CANAL 111 (C-111).

      (a) In General.--The project for Central and Southern Florida,
    authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (62 Stat.
    1176) and modified by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (82
    Stat. 740-741), is modified to authorize the Secretary to implement the
    recommended plan of improvement contained in a report entitled
    ``Central and Southern Florida Project, Final Integrated General
    Reevaluation Report and Environmental Impact Statement, Canal 111 (C-
    111), South Dade County, Florida'', dated May 1994, including
    acquisition by non-Federal interests of such portions of the Frog Pond
    and Rocky Glades areas as are needed for the project.
      (b) Cost Sharing.--
              (1) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of
            implementing the plan of improvement shall be 50 percent.
              (2) Department of interior responsibility.--The Department of
            the Interior shall pay 25 percent of the cost of acquiring such
            portions of the Frog Pond and Rocky Glades areas as are needed
            for the project. The amount paid by the Department of the
            Interior shall be included as part of the Federal share of the
            cost of implementing the plan.
              (3) Operation and maintenance.--The non-Federal share of
            operation and maintenance costs of the improvements undertaken
            pursuant to this subsection shall be 100 percent; except that
            the Federal Government shall reimburse the non-Federal project
            sponsor 60 percent of the costs of operating and maintaining
            pump stations that pump water into Taylor Slough in the
            Everglades National Park.

    SEC. 316. JACKSONVILLE HARBOR (MILL COVE), FLORIDA.

      The project for navigation, Jacksonville Harbor (Mill Cove), Florida,
    authorized by section 601(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
    1986 (100 Stat. 4139-4140), is modified to direct the Secretary to
    carry out a project for flow and circulation improvement within Mill
    Cove, at a total cost of $2,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
    $2,000,000.

    SEC. 317. TYBEE ISLAND, GEORGIA.

      The project for beach erosion control, Tybee Island, Georgia,
    authorized pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (42
    U.S.C. 1962d-5), is modified to include as part of the project the
    portion of the oceanshore of Tybee Island located south of the
    extension of 9th Street.

    SEC. 318. WHITE RIVER, INDIANA.

      The project for flood control, Indianapolis on West Fork of the White
    River, Indiana, authorized by section 5 of the Flood Control Act of
    June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1586), is modified to authorize the Secretary
    to undertake riverfront alterations as described in the Central
    Indianapolis Waterfront Concept Master Plan, dated February 1994, at a
    total cost of $85,975,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of
    $39,975,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $46,000,000. The
    cost of work, including relocations undertaken by the non-Federal
    interest after February 15, 1994, on features identified in the Master
    Plan shall be credited toward the non-Federal share of project costs.

    SEC. 319. CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.

      The project for flood control, Chicagoland Underflow Plan, Illinois,
    authorized by section 3(a)(5) of the Water Resources Development Act of
    1988 (102 Stat. 4013), is modified to limit the capacity of the
    reservoir project not to exceed 11,000,000,000 gallons or 32,000 acre-
    feet, to provide that the reservoir project may not be located north of
    55th Street or west of East Avenue in the vicinity of McCook, Illinois,
    and to provide that the reservoir project may only be constructed on
    the basis of a specific plan that has been evaluated by the Secretary
    under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

    SEC. 320. CHICAGO LOCK AND THOMAS J. O'BRIEN LOCK, ILLINOIS.

      The project for navigation, Chicago Harbor, Lake Michigan, Illinois,
    for which operation and maintenance responsibility was transferred to
    the Secretary under chapter IV of title I of the Supplemental
    Appropriations Act, 1983 (97 Stat. 311) and section 107 of the Energy
    and Water Development Appropriation Act, 1982 (95 Stat. 1137) is
    modified to direct the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of making such structural repairs as are necessary to
    prevent leakage through the Chicago Lock and the Thomas J. O'Brien
    Lock, Illinois, and to determine the need for installing permanent flow
    measurement equipment at such locks to measure any leakage. The
    Secretary is authorized to carry out such repairs and installations as
    are necessary following completion of the study.

    SEC. 321. KASKASKIA RIVER, ILLINOIS.

      The project for navigation, Kaskaskia River, Illinois, authorized by
    section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1175), is
    modified to add fish and wildlife and habitat restoration as project
    purposes.

    SEC. 322. LOCKS AND DAM 26, ALTON, ILLINOIS AND MISSOURI.

      Section 102(l) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104
    Stat. 4613) is amended--
              (1) by striking ``, that requires no separable project lands
            and'' and inserting ``on project lands and other contiguous
            nonproject lands, including those lands referred to as the
            Alton Commons. The recreational development'';
              (2) by inserting ``shall be'' before ``at a Federal
            construction''; and
              (3) by striking ``. The recreational development'' and
            inserting ``, and''.

    SEC. 323. NORTH BRANCH OF CHICAGO RIVER, ILLINOIS.

      The project for flood protection, North Branch of the Chicago River,
    Illinois, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4115), is modified to authorize the
    Secretary to carry out the project in accordance with the report of the
    Corps of Engineers dated March 1994, at a total cost of $34,228,000,
    with an estimated Federal cost of $20,905,000 and an estimated non-
    Federal cost of $13,323,000.

    SEC. 324. ILLINOIS AND MICHIGAN CANAL.

      Section 314(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106
    Stat. 4847) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``Such
    improvements shall include marina development at Lock 14, to be carried
    out in consultation with the Illinois Department of Natural Resources,
    at a total cost of $6,374,000.''.

    SEC. 325. HALSTEAD, KANSAS.

      The project for flood control, Halstead, Kansas, authorized by
    section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100
    Stat. 4116), is modified to authorize the Secretary to carry out the
    project in accordance with the report of the Corps of Engineers dated
    March 19, 1993, at a total cost of $11,100,000, with an estimated
    Federal cost of $8,325,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
    $2,775,000.

    SEC. 326. LEVISA AND TUG FORKS OF THE BIG SANDY RIVER AND CUMBERLAND
                        RIVER, KENTUCKY, WEST VIRGINIA, AND VIRGINIA.

      The project for flood control, Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy
    River and Cumberland River, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Virginia,
    authorized by section 202(a) of the Energy and Water Development
    Appropriation Act, 1981 (94 Stat. 1339), is modified to provide that
    the minimum level of flood protection to be afforded by the project
    shall be the level required to provide protection from a 100-year flood
    or from the flood of April 1977, whichever level of protection is
    greater.

    SEC. 327. COMITE RIVER, LOUISIANA.

      The Comite River Diversion project for flood control, authorized as
    part of the project for flood control, Amite River and Tributaries,
    Louisiana, by section 101(11) of the Water Resource Development Act of
    1992 (106 Stat. 4802-4803), is modified to authorize the Secretary to
    construct the project at a total cost of $121,600,000, with an
    estimated Federal cost of $70,577,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
    of $51,023,000.

    SEC. 328. GRAND ISLE AND VICINITY, LOUISIANA.

      The project for hurricane damage prevention, flood control, and beach
    erosion along Grand Isle and Vicinity, Louisiana, authorized by section
    204 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1077), is modified to
    authorize the Secretary to construct a permanent breakwater and levee
    system at a total cost of $17,000,000.

    SEC. 329. LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN, LOUISIANA.

      The project for hurricane damage prevention and flood control, Lake
    Pontchartrain, Louisiana, authorized by section 204 of the Flood
    Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1077), is modified to provide that St.
    Bernard Parish, Louisiana, and the Lake Borgne Basin Levee District,
    Louisiana, shall not be required to pay the unpaid balance, including
    interest, of the non-Federal cost-share of the project.

    SEC. 330. MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LOUISIANA.

      The Mississippi Delta Region project, Louisiana, authorized as part
    of the project for hurricane-flood protection project on Lake
    Pontchartrain, Louisiana, by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of
    1965 (79 Stat. 1077), is modified to direct the Secretary to provide a
    credit to the State of Louisiana toward its non-Federal share of the
    cost of the project. The credit shall be for the cost incurred by the
    State in developing and relocating oyster beds to offset the adverse
    impacts on active and productive oyster beds in the Davis Pond project
    area but shall not exceed $7,500,000.

    SEC. 331. MISSISSIPPI RIVER OUTLETS, VENICE, LOUISIANA.

      The project for navigation, Mississippi River Outlets, Venice,
    Louisiana, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of
    1968 (82 Stat. 731), is modified to provide for the extension of the
    16-foot deep by 250-foot wide Baptiste Collette Bayou entrance channel
    to approximately Mile 8 of the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet navigation
    channel, at a total estimated Federal cost of $80,000.

    SEC. 332. 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 and Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4142) and modified by
    section 102(p) of the Water Resources and Development Act of 1990 (104
    Stat. 4613), is further modified--
              (1) to authorize the Secretary to carry out the project at a
            total cost of $10,500,000; and
              (2) to provide that lands that are purchased adjacent to the
            Loggy Bayou Wildlife Management Area may be located in Caddo
            Parish or Red River Parish.

    SEC. 333. TOLCHESTER CHANNEL, MARYLAND.

      The project for navigation, Baltimore Harbor and Channels, Maryland,
    authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (72 Stat.
    297) is modified to direct the Secretary--
              (1) to expedite review of potential straightening of the
            channel at the Tolchester Channel S-Turn; and
              (2) if determined to be feasible and necessary for safe and
            efficient navigation, to implement such straightening as part
            of project maintenance.

    SEC. 334. SAGINAW RIVER, MICHIGAN.

      The project for flood protection, Saginaw River, Michigan, authorized
    by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 311) is
    modified to include as part of the project the design and construction
    of an inflatable dam on the Flint River, Michigan, at a total cost of
    $500,000.

    SEC. 335. SAULT SAINTE MARIE, CHIPPEWA COUNTY, MICHIGAN.

      (a) In General.--The project for navigation, Sault Sainte Marie,
    Chippewa County, Michigan, authorized by section 1149 of the Water
    Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4254-4255), is modified as
    provided by this subsection.
      (b) Payment of Non-Federal Share.--The non-Federal share of the cost
    of the project referred to in subsection (a) shall be paid as follows:
              (1) That portion of the non-Federal share which the Secretary
            determines is attributable to use of the lock by vessels
            calling at Canadian ports shall be paid by the United States.
              (2) The remaining portion of the non-Federal share shall be
            paid by the Great Lakes States pursuant to an agreement entered
            into by such States.
      (c) Payment Term of Additional Percentage.--The amount to be paid by
    non-Federal interests pursuant to section 101(a) of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211(a)) and this subsection with
    respect to the project referred to in subsection (a) may be paid over a
    period of 50 years or the expected life of the project, whichever is
    shorter.
      (d) Great Lakes States Defined.--For the purposes of this section,
    the term ``Great Lakes States'' means the States of Illinois, Indiana,
    Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

    SEC. 336. STILLWATER, MINNESOTA.

      Section 363 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat.
    4861-4862) is amended--
              (1) by inserting after ``riverfront,'' the following: ``or
            expansion of such system if the Secretary determines that the
            expansion is feasible,'';
              (2) by striking ``$3,200,000'' and inserting ``$11,600,000'';
              (3) by striking ``$2,400,000'' and inserting ``$8,700,000'';
            and
              (4) by striking ``$800,000'' and inserting ``$2,900,000''.

    SEC. 337. CAPE GIRARDEAU, MISSOURI.

      The project for flood control, Cape Girardeau, Jackson Metropolitan
    Area, Missouri, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4118-4119), is modified to authorize
    the Secretary to construct the project, including implementation of
    nonstructural measures, at a total cost of $45,414,000, with an
    estimated Federal cost of $33,030,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
    of $12,384,000.

    SEC. 338. NEW MADRID HARBOR, MISSOURI.

      The project for navigation, New Madrid Harbor, Missouri, authorized
    pursuant to section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C.
    577) and modified by section 102(n) of the Water Resources Development
    Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4807), is further modified to direct the
    Secretary to assume responsibility for maintenance of the existing
    Federal channel referred to in such section 102(n) in addition to
    maintaining New Madrid County Harbor.

    SEC. 339. ST. JOHN'S BAYOU--NEW MADRID FLOODWAY, MISSOURI.

      Notwithstanding any other provision of law, Federal assistance made
    available under the rural enterprise zone program of the Department of
    Agriculture may be used toward payment of the non-Federal share of the
    costs of the project for flood control, St. John's Bayou and New Madrid
    Floodway, Missouri, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4118).

    SEC. 340. JOSEPH G. MINISH PASSAIC RIVER PARK, NEW JERSEY.

      Section 101(a)(18)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990
    (104 Stat. 4608) is amended by striking ``$25,000,000'' and inserting
    ``$75,000,000''.

    SEC. 341. MOLLY ANN'S BROOK, NEW JERSEY.

      The project for flood control, Molly Ann's Brook, New Jersey,
    authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
    1986 (100 Stat. 4119), is modified to authorize the Secretary to carry
    out the project in accordance with the report of the Corps of Engineers
    dated April 3, 1996, at a total cost of $40,100,000, with an estimated
    Federal cost of $22,600,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
    $17,500,000.

    SEC. 342. PASSAIC RIVER, NEW JERSEY.

      Section 1148 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100
    Stat. 4254) is amended to read as follows:

    ``SEC. 1148. PASSAIC RIVER BASIN.

      ``(a) Acquisition of Lands.--The Secretary is authorized to acquire
    from willing sellers lands on which residential structures are located
    and which are subject to frequent and recurring flood damage, as
    identified in the supplemental floodway report of the Corps of
    Engineers, Passaic River Buyout Study, September 1995, at an estimated
    total cost of $194,000,000.
      ``(b) Retention of Lands for Flood Protection.--Lands acquired by the
    Secretary under this section shall be retained by the Secretary for
    future use in conjunction with flood protection and flood management in
    the Passaic River Basin.
      ``(c) Cost Sharing.--The non-Federal share of the cost of carrying
    out this section shall be 25 percent plus any amount that might result
    from application of the requirements of subsection (d).
      ``(d) Applicability of Benefit-Cost Ratio Waiver Authority.--In
    evaluating and implementing the project under this section, the
    Secretary shall allow the non-Federal interest to participate in
    financing of the project in accordance with section 903(c) of this Act,
    to the extent that the Secretary's evaluation indicates that applying
    such section is necessary to implement the project.''.

    SEC. 343. RAMAPO RIVER AT OAKLAND, NEW JERSEY AND NEW YORK.

      The project for flood control, Ramapo River at Oakland, New Jersey
    and New York, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4120), is modified to authorize the
    Secretary to carry out the project in accordance with the report of the
    Corps of Engineers dated May 1994, at a total cost of $11,300,000, with
    an estimated Federal cost of $8,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal
    cost of $2,800,000.

    SEC. 344. RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, NEW JERSEY.

      Section 102(q) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106
    Stat. 4808) is amended by striking ``for Cliffwood Beach''.

    SEC. 345. ARTHUR KILL, NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY.

      The project for navigation, Arthur Kill, New York and New Jersey,
    authorized by section 202(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of
    1986 (100 Stat. 4098), is modified to authorize the Secretary to carry
    out the project to a depth of not to exceed 45 feet if determined to be
    feasible by the Secretary at a total cost of $83,000,000.

    SEC. 346. JONES INLET, NEW YORK.

      The project for navigation, Jones Inlet, New York, authorized by
    section 2 of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing construction,
    repair, and preservation of certain public works on rivers and harbors,
    and for other purposes'', approved March 2, 1945 (59 Stat. 13), is
    modified to direct the Secretary to place uncontaminated dredged
    material on beach areas downdrift from the federally maintained channel
    for the purpose of mitigating the interruption of littoral system
    natural processes caused by the jetty and continued dredging of the
    federally maintained channel.

    SEC. 347. KILL VAN KULL, NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY.

      The project for navigation, Kill Van Kull, New York and New Jersey,
    authorized by section 202(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
    1986 (100 Stat. 4095), is modified to authorize the Secretary to carry
    out the project at a total cost of $750,000,000.

    SEC. 348. WILMINGTON HARBOR-NORTHEAST CAPE FEAR RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA.

      The project for navigation, Wilmington Harbor-Northeast Cape Fear
    River, North Carolina, authorized by section 202(a) of the Water
    Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4095), is modified to
    authorize the Secretary to construct the project substantially in
    accordance with the General Design Memorandum dated April 1990 and the
    General Design Memorandum Supplement dated February 1994, at a total
    cost of $52,041,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $25,729,000 and
    an estimated non-Federal cost of $26,312,000.

    SEC. 349. GARRISON DAM, NORTH DAKOTA.

      The project for flood control, Garrison Dam, North Dakota, authorized
    by section 9 of the Flood Control Act of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat.
    891), is modified to authorize the Secretary to acquire permanent
    flowage and saturation easements over the lands in Williams County,
    North Dakota, extending from the riverward margin of the Buford-Trenton
    Irrigation District main canal to the north bank of the Missouri River,
    beginning at the Buford-Trenton Irrigation District pumping station
    located in the northeast quarter of section 17, township 152 north,
    range 104 west, and continuing northeasterly downstream to the land
    referred to as the East Bottom, and any other lands outside of the
    boundaries of the Buford-Trenton Irrigation District which have been
    adversely affected by rising ground water and surface flooding. Any
    easement acquired by the Secretary pursuant to this subsection shall
    include the right, power, and privilege of the Government to submerge,
    overflow, percolate, and saturate the surface and subsurface of the
    land. The cost of acquiring such easements shall not exceed 90 percent,
    or be less than 75 percent, of the unaffected fee value of the lands.
    The project is further modified to authorize the Secretary to provide a
    lump sum payment of $60,000 to the Buford-Trenton Irrigation District
    for power requirements associated with operation of the drainage pumps
    and to relinquish all right, title, and interest of the United States
    to the drainage pumps located within the boundaries of the Irrigation
    District.

    SEC. 350. RENO BEACH-HOWARDS FARM, OHIO.

      The project for flood protection, Reno Beach-Howards Farm, Ohio,
    authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act, 1948 (62 Stat.
    1178), is modified to provide that the value of lands, easements,
    rights-of-way, and disposal areas shall be determined on the basis of
    the appraisal performed by the Corps of Engineers and dated April 4,
    1985.

    SEC. 351. WISTER LAKE, OKLAHOMA.

      The flood control project for Wister Lake, LeFlore County, Oklahoma,
    authorized by section 4 of the Flood Control Act of June 28, 1938 (52
    Stat. 1218), is modified to increase the elevation of the conservation
    pool to 478 feet and to adjust the seasonal pool operation to
    accommodate the change in the conservation pool elevation.

    SEC. 352. BONNEVILLE LOCK AND DAM, COLUMBIA RIVER, OREGON AND
                        WASHINGTON.

      (a) In General.--The project for Bonneville Lock and Dam, Columbia
    River, Oregon and Washington, authorized by the Act of August 20, 1937
    (50 Stat. 731), and modified by section 83 of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 35), is further modified to authorize
    the Secretary to convey to the city of North Bonneville, Washington, at
    no further cost to the city, all right, title and interest of the
    United States in and to the following:
              (1) Any municipal facilities, utilities fixtures, and
            equipment for the relocated city, and any remaining lands
            designated as open spaces or municipal lots not previously
            conveyed to the city, specifically, Lots M1 through M15, M16
            (the ``community center lot''), M18, M19, M22, M24, S42 through
            S45, and S52 through S60.
              (2) The ``school lot'' described as Lot 2, block 5, on the
            plat of relocated North Bonneville.
              (3) Parcels 2 and C, but only upon the completion of any
            environmental response actions required under applicable law.
              (4) That portion of Parcel B lying south of the existing city
            boundary, west of the sewage treatment plant, and north of the
            drainage ditch that is located adjacent to the northerly limit
            of the Hamilton Island landfill, provided the Secretary
            determines, at the time of the proposed conveyance, that the
            Army has taken all action necessary to protect human health and
            the environment.
              (5) Such portions of Parcel H which can be conveyed without a
            requirement for further investigation, inventory or other
            action by the Department of the Army under the provisions of
            the National Historic Preservation Act.
              (6) Such easements as the Secretary deems necessary for--
                      (A) sewer and water line crossings of relocated
                    Washington State Highway 14; and
                      (B) reasonable public access to the Columbia River
                    across those portions of Hamilton Island that remain
                    under the ownership of the United States.
      (b) Time Period for Conveyances.--The conveyances referred to in
    subsections (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(5), and (a)(6)(A) shall be completed
    within 180 days after the United States receives the release referred
    to in subsection (d). All other conveyances shall be completed
    expeditiously, subject to any conditions specified in the applicable
    subsection.
      (c) Purpose.--The purpose of the conveyances authorized by subsection
    (a) is to resolve all outstanding issues between the United States and
    the city of North Bonneville.
      (d) Acknowledgement of Payment; Release of Claims Relating to
    Relocation of City.--As a prerequisite to the conveyances authorized by
    subsection (a), the city of North Bonneville shall execute an
    acknowledgement of payment of just compensation and shall execute a
    release of any and all claims for relief of any kind against the United
    States growing out of the relocation of the city of North Bonneville,
    or any prior Federal legislation relating thereto, and shall dismiss,
    with prejudice, any pending litigation, if any, involving such matters.
      (e) Release by Attorney General.--Upon receipt of the city's
    acknowledgment and release referred to in subsection (d), the Attorney
    General of the United States shall dismiss any pending litigation, if
    any, arising out of the relocation of the city of North Bonneville, and
    execute a release of any and all rights to damages of any kind under
    the February 20, 1987, judgment of the United States Claims Court,
    including any interest thereon.
      (f) Acknowledgment of Entitlements; Release by City of Claims.--
    Within 60 days after the conveyances authorized by subsection (a)
    (other than paragraph (6)(B)) have been completed, the city shall
    execute an acknowledgement that all entitlements under such paragraph
    have been completed and shall execute a release of any and all claims
    for relief of any kind against the United States arising out of this
    subsection.
      (g) Effects on City.--Beginning on the date of the enactment of this
    Act, the city of North Bonneville, or any successor in interest
    thereto, shall--
              (1) be precluded from exercising any jurisdiction over any
            lands owned in whole or in part by the United States and
            administered by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in
            connection with the Bonneville project; and
              (2) be authorized to change the zoning designations of, sell,
            or resell Parcels S35 and S56, which are presently designated
            as open spaces.

    SEC. 353. COLUMBIA RIVER DREDGING, OREGON AND WASHINGTON.

      The project for navigation, Lower Willamette and Columbia Rivers
    below Vancouver, Washington and Portland, Oregon, authorized by the
    first section of the River and Harbor Appropriations Act of June 18,
    1878 (20 Stat. 152), is modified to direct the Secretary--
              (1) to conduct channel simulation and to carry out
            improvements to the existing deep draft channel between the
            mouth of the river and river mile 34 at a cost not to exceed
            $2,400,000; and
              (2) to conduct overdepth and advance maintenance dredging
            that is necessary to maintain authorized channel dimensions.

    SEC. 354. GRAYS LANDING LOCK AND DAM, MONONGAHELA RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA.

      The project for navigation Grays Landing Lock and Dam, Monongahela
    River, Pennsylvania, authorized by section 301(a) of the Water
    Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4110), is modified to
    authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of
    $181,000,000. The costs of construction of the project are to 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.

    SEC. 355. LACKAWANNA RIVER AT SCRANTON, PENNSYLVANIA.

      The project for flood control, Lackawanna River at Scranton,
    Pennsylvania, authorized by section 101(16) of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4803), is modified to direct the
    Secretary to carry out the project for flood control for the Plot and
    Green Ridge sections of the project. In evaluating and implementing the
    project, the Secretary shall allow the non-Federal interest to
    participate in financing of the project in accordance with section
    903(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, to the extent
    that the Secretary's evaluation indicates that applying such section is
    necessary to implement the project.

    SEC. 356. MUSSERS DAM, MIDDLE CREEK, SNYDER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.

      Section 209(e)(5) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106
    Stat. 4830) is amended by striking ``$3,000,000'' and inserting
    ``$5,000,000''.

    SEC. 357. SAW MILL RUN, PENNSYLVANIA.

      The project for flood control, Saw Mill Run, Pittsburgh,
    Pennsylvania, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4124), is modified to authorize the
    Secretary to carry out the project in accordance with the report of the
    Corps of Engineers dated April 8, 1994, at a total cost of $12,780,000,
    with an estimated Federal cost of $9,585,000 and an estimated non-
    Federal cost of $3,195,000.

    SEC. 358. SCHUYLKILL RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA.

      The navigation project for the Schuylkill River, Pennsylvania,
    authorized by the first section of the River and Harbor Appropriations
    Act of August 8, 1917 (40 Stat. 252), is modified to provide for the
    periodic removal and disposal of sediment to a depth of 6 feet detained
    within portions of the Fairmount pool between the Fairmount Dam and the
    Columbia Bridge, generally within the limits of the channel alignments
    referred to as the Schuylkill River Racecourse and return lane, and the
    Belmont Water Works intakes and Boathouse Row.

    SEC. 359. SOUTH CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA.

      Section 313(g)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106
    Stat. 4846) is amended by striking ``$50,000,000'' and inserting
    ``$90,000,000''.

    SEC. 360. WYOMING VALLEY, PENNSYLVANIA.

      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 to authorize the Secretary to
    undertake as part of the construction of the project mechanical and
    electrical upgrades to existing stormwater pumping stations in the
    Wyoming Valley and to undertake mitigation measures.

    SEC. 361. SAN JUAN HARBOR, PUERTO RICO.

      The project for navigation, San Juan Harbor, Puerto Rico, authorized
    by section 202(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100
    Stat. 4097), is modified to authorize the Secretary to deepen the bar
    channel to depths varying from 49 feet to 56 feet below mean low water
    with other modifications to authorized interior channels as generally
    described in the General Reevaluation Report and Environmental
    Assessment, dated March 1994, at a total cost of $43,993,000, with an
    estimated Federal cost of $27,341,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
    of $16,652,000.

    SEC. 362. NARRAGANSETT, RHODE ISLAND.

      Section 361(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106
    Stat. 4861) is amended--
              (1) by striking ``$200,000'' and inserting ``$1,900,000'';
              (2) by striking ``$150,000'' and inserting ``$1,425,000'';
            and
              (3) by striking ``$50,000'' and inserting ``$475,000''.

    SEC. 363. CHARLESTON HARBOR, SOUTH CAROLINA.

      The project for navigation, Charleston Harbor, South Carolina,
    authorized by section 202(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
    1986 (100 Stat. 4096), is modified to direct the Secretary to undertake
    ditching, clearing, spillway replacement, and dike reconstruction of
    the Clouter Creek Disposal Area, as a part of the operation and
    maintenance of the Charleston Harbor project.

    SEC. 364. DALLAS FLOODWAY EXTENSION, DALLAS, TEXAS.

      (a) In General.--The project for flood control, Dallas Floodway
    Extension, Dallas, Texas, authorized by section 301 of the River and
    Harbor Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1091), is modified to provide that flood
    protection works constructed by the non-Federal interests along the
    Trinity River in Dallas, Texas, for Rochester Park and the Central
    Wastewater Treatment Plant shall be included as a part of the project
    and the cost of such works shall be credited against the non-Federal
    share of project costs but shall not be included in calculating
    benefits of the project.
      (b) Determination of Amount.--The amount to be credited under
    subsection (a) shall be determined by the Secretary. In determining
    such amount, the Secretary may permit crediting only for that portion
    of the work performed by the non-Federal interests which is compatible
    with the project referred to in subsection (a), including any
    modification thereof, and which is required for construction of such
    project.
      (c) Cash Contribution.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to
    limit the applicability of the requirement contained in section
    103(a)(1)(A) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 to the
    project referred to in subsection (a).

    SEC. 365. UPPER JORDAN RIVER, UTAH.

      The project for flood control, Upper Jordan River, Utah, authorized
    by section 101(a)(23) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990
    (104 Stat. 4610), is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct
    the project at a total cost of $12,870,000, with an estimated Federal
    cost of $8,580,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $4,290,000.

    SEC. 366. HAYSI LAKE, VIRGINIA.

      The Haysi Lake, Virginia, feature of the project for flood control,
    Tug Fork of the Big Sandy River, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Virginia,
    authorized by section 202(a) of the Energy and Water Development
    Appropriation Act, 1981 (94 Stat. 1339), is modified--
              (1) to add recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement as
            project purposes;
              (2) to direct the Secretary to construct the Haysi Dam
            feature of the project substantially in accordance with Plan A
            as set forth in the Draft General Plan Supplement Report for
            the Levisa Fork Basin, Virginia and Kentucky, dated May 1995;
            and
              (3) to direct the Secretary to apply section 103(m) of the
            Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4087) to the
            construction of such feature in the same manner as that section
            is applied to other projects or project features construed
            pursuant to such section 202(a).

    SEC. 367. RUDEE INLET, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA.

      The project for navigation and shoreline protection, Rudee Inlet,
    Virginia Beach, Virginia, authorized by section 601(a) of the Water
    Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4148), is modified to
    authorize the Secretary to continue maintenance of the project for 50
    years beginning on the date of initial construction of the project. The
    Federal share of the cost of such maintenance shall be determined in
    accordance with title I of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986.

    SEC. 368. VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA.

      The non-Federal share of the costs of the project for beach erosion
    control and hurricane protection, Virginia Beach, Virginia, authorized
    by section 501(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100
    Stat. 4136), shall be reduced by $3,120,803, or by such amount as is
    determined by an audit carried out by the Secretary to be due to the
    city of Virginia Beach as reimbursement for the Federal share of beach
    nourishment activities carried out by the city between October 1, 1986,
    and September 30, 1993, if the Federal Government has not reimbursed
    the city for the activities prior to the date on which a project
    cooperative agreement is executed for the project.

    SEC. 369. EAST WATERWAY, WASHINGTON.

      The project for navigation, East and West waterways, Seattle Harbor,
    Washington, authorized by the first section of the River and Harbor
    Appropriations Act of March 2, 1919 (40 Stat. 1275), is modified to
    direct the Secretary--
              (1) to expedite review of potential deepening of the channel
            in the East waterway from Elliott Bay to Terminal 25 to a depth
            of up to 51 feet; and
              (2) if determined to be feasible, to implement such deepening
            as part of project maintenance.
    In carrying out work authorized by this section, the Secretary shall
    coordinate with the Port of Seattle regarding use of Slip 27 as a
    dredged material disposal area.

    SEC. 370. BLUESTONE LAKE, WEST VIRGINIA.

      Section 102(ff) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106
    Stat. 4810) is amended by inserting ``except for that organic matter
    necessary to maintain and enhance the biological resources of such
    waters and such nonobtrusive items of debris as may not be economically
    feasible to prevent being released through such project,'' after
    ``project,'' the first place it appears.

    SEC. 371. MOOREFIELD, WEST VIRGINIA.

      The project for flood control, Moorefield, West Virginia, authorized
    by section 101(a)(25) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990
    (104 Stat. 4610-4611), is modified to authorize the Secretary to
    construct the project at a total cost of $22,000,000, with an estimated
    Federal cost of $17,100,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
    $4,900,000.

    SEC. 372. SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA.

      (a) Cost Sharing.--Section 340(c)(3) of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4856) is amended to read as follows:
              ``(3) Cost sharing.--
                      ``(A) In general.--Total project costs under each
                    local cooperation agreement entered into under this
                    subsection shall be shared at 75 percent Federal and 25
                    percent non-Federal. The non-Federal interest shall
                    receive credit for the reasonable costs of design work
                    completed by such interest prior to entering into a
                    local cooperation agreement with the Secretary for a
                    project. The credit for such design work shall not
                    exceed 6 percent of the total construction costs of the
                    project. The Federal share may be in the form of grants
                    or reimbursements of project costs.
                      ``(B) Interest.--In the event of delays in the
                    funding of the non-Federal share of a project that is
                    the subject of an agreement under this section, the
                    non-Federal interest shall receive credit for
                    reasonable interest incurred in providing the non-
                    Federal share of a project's cost.
                      ``(C) Lands, easements, and rights-of-way credit.--
                    The non-Federal interest shall receive credit for
                    lands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations toward
                    its share of project costs, including all reasonable
                    costs associated with obtaining permits necessary for
                    the construction, operation, and maintenance of such
                    project on publicly owned or controlled lands, but not
                    to exceed 25 percent of total project costs.
                      ``(D) Operation and maintenance.--Operation and
                    maintenance costs for projects constructed with
                    assistance provided under this section shall be 100
                    percent non-Federal.''.
      (b) Funding.--Section 340(g) of the Water Resources Development Act
    of 1992 (106 Stat. 4856) is amended by striking ``$5,000,000'' and
    inserting ``$25,000,000''.

    SEC. 373. KICKAPOO RIVER, WISCONSIN.

      (a) In General.--The project for flood control and allied purposes,
    Kickapoo River, Wisconsin, authorized by section 203 of the Flood
    Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1190) and modified by section 814 of the
    Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4169), is further
    modified as provided by this section.
      (b) Transfer of Property.--
              (1) In general.--Subject to the requirements of this
            subsection, the Secretary shall transfer to the State of
            Wisconsin, without consideration, all right, title, and
            interest of the United States to the lands described in
            paragraph (3), including all works, structures, and other
            improvements to such lands.
              (2) Transfer to secretary of the interior.--Subject to the
            requirements of this subsection, on the date of the transfer
            under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall transfer to the
            Secretary of the Interior, without consideration, all right,
            title, and interest of the United States in and to lands that
            are culturally and religiously significant sites of the Ho-
            Chunk Nation (a federally recognized Indian tribe) and are
            located within the lands described in paragraph (3). Such lands
            shall be specified in accordance with paragraph (4)(C) and may
            not exceed a total of 1,200 acres.
              (3) Land description.--The lands to be transferred pursuant
            to paragraphs (1) and (2) are the approximately 8,569 acres of
            land associated with the LaFarge Dam and Lake portion of the
            project referred to in subsection (a) in Vernon County,
            Wisconsin, in the following sections:
                      (A) Section 31, Township 14 North, Range 1 West of
                    the 4th Principal Meridian.
                      (B) Sections 2 through 11, and 16, 17, 20, and 21,
                    Township 13 North, Range 2 West of the 4th Principal
                    Meridian.
                      (C) Sections 15, 16, 21 through 24, 26, 27, 31, and
                    33 through 36, Township 14 North, Range 2 West of the
                    4th Principal Meridian.
              (4) Terms and conditions.--
                      (A) Hold harmless; reimbursement of united states.--
                    The transfer under paragraph (1) shall be made on the
                    condition that the State of Wisconsin enters into a
                    written agreement with the Secretary to hold the United
                    States harmless from all claims arising from or through
                    the operation of the lands and improvements subject to
                    the transfer. If title to the lands described in
                    paragraph (3) is sold or transferred by the State, then
                    the State shall reimburse the United States for the
                    price originally paid by the United States for
                    purchasing such lands.
                      (B) In general.--The Secretary shall make the
                    transfers under paragraphs (1) and (2) only if on or
                    before October 31, 1997, the State of Wisconsin enters
                    into and submits to the Secretary a memorandum of
                    understanding, as specified in subparagraph (C), with
                    the tribal organization (as defined by section 4(l) of
                    the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance
                    Act (25 U.S.C. 450b(l))) of the Ho-Chunk Nation.
                      (C) Memorandum of understanding.--The memorandum of
                    understanding referred to in subparagraph (B) shall
                    contain, at a minimum, the following:
                              (i) A description of sites and associated
                            lands to be transferred to the Secretary of the
                            Interior under paragraph (2).
                              (ii) An agreement specifying that the lands
                            transferred under paragraphs (1) and (2) shall
                            be preserved in a natural state and developed
                            only to the extent necessary to enhance outdoor
                            recreational and educational opportunities.
                              (iii) An agreement specifying the terms and
                            conditions of a plan for the management of the
                            lands to be transferred under paragraphs (1)
                            and (2).
                              (iv) A provision requiring a review of the
                            plan referred to in clause (iii) to be
                            conducted every 10 years under which the State
                            of Wisconsin, acting through the Kickapoo
                            Valley Governing Board, and the Ho-Chunk Nation
                            may agree to revisions of the plan in order to
                            address changed circumstances on the lands
                            transferred under paragraph (2). Such provision
                            may include a plan for the transfer by the
                            State to the Secretary of the Interior of any
                            additional site discovered to be culturally and
                            religiously significant to the Ho-Chunk Nation.
              (5) Administration of lands.--The lands transferred to the
            Secretary of the Interior under paragraph (2), and any lands
            transferred to the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the
            memorandum of understanding entered into under paragraph (3),
            shall be held in trust for, and added to and administered as
            part of the reservation of, the Ho-Chunk Nation.
              (6) Transfer of flowage easements.--The Secretary shall
            transfer to the owner of the servient estate, without
            consideration, all right, title, and interest of the United
            States in and to each flowage easement acquired as part of the
            project referred to in subsection (a) within Township 14 North,
            Range 2 West of the 4th Principal Meridian, Vernon County,
            Wisconsin.
              (7) Deauthorization.--Except as provided in subsection (c),
            the LaFarge Dam and Lake portion of the project referred to in
            subsection (a) is not authorized after the date of the transfer
            under this subsection.
              (8) Interim management and maintenance.--The Secretary shall
            continue to manage and maintain the LaFarge Dam and Lake
            portion of the project referred to in subsection (a) until the
            date of the transfer under this section.
      (c) Completion of Project Features.--
              (1) Requirement.--The Secretary shall undertake the
            completion of the following features of the project referred to
            in subsection (a):
                      (A) The continued relocation of State highway route
                    131 and county highway routes P and F substantially in
                    accordance with plans contained in Design Memorandum
                    No. 6, Relocation-LaFarge Reservoir, dated June 1970;
                    except that the relocation shall generally follow the
                    existing road rights-of-way through the Kickapoo
                    Valley.
                      (B) Environmental cleanup and site restoration of
                    abandoned wells, farm sites, and safety modifications
                    to the water control structures.
                      (C) Cultural resource activities to meet the
                    requirements of Federal law.
              (2) Participation by state of wisconsin.--In undertaking the
            completion of the features described in paragraph (1), the
            Secretary shall determine the requirements of the State of
            Wisconsin on the location and design of each such feature.
      (d) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out
    this section for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1996,
    $17,000,000.

    SEC. 374. TETON COUNTY, WYOMING.

      Section 840 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat.
    4176) is amended--
              (1) by striking ``: Provided, That'' and inserting ``; except
            that'';
              (2) by striking ``in cash or materials'' and inserting ``,
            through providing in-kind services or cash or materials,''; and
              (3) by adding at the end the following: ``In carrying out
            this section, the Secretary may enter into agreements with the
            non-Federal sponsor permitting the non-Federal sponsor to
            perform operation and maintenance for the project on a cost-
            reimbursable basis.''.

                               TITLE IV--STUDIES

    SEC. 401. CORPS CAPABILITY STUDY, ALASKA.

      The Secretary shall review the capability of the Corps of Engineers
    to plan, design, construct, operate, and maintain rural sanitation
    projects for rural and Native villages in Alaska. Not later than 18
    months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall
    transmit findings and recommendations on the agency's capability,
    together with recommendations on the advisability of assuming such a
    mission.

    SEC. 402. MCDOWELL MOUNTAIN, ARIZONA.

      The Secretary shall credit the non-Federal share of the cost of the
    feasibility study on the McDowell Mountain project an amount equivalent
    to the cost of work performed by the city of Scottsdale, Arizona, and
    accomplished prior to the city's entering into an agreement with the
    Secretary if the Secretary determines that the work is necessary for
    the study.

    SEC. 403. NOGALES WASH AND TRIBUTARIES, ARIZONA.

      (a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of the relationship
    of flooding in Nogales, Arizona, and floodflows emanating from Mexico.
      (b) Report.--The Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the
    results of the study conducted under subsection (a), together with
    recommendations concerning the appropriate level of non-Federal
    participation in the project for flood control, Nogales Wash and
    tributaries, Arizona, authorized by section 101(a)(4) of the Water
    Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4606).

    SEC. 404. GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to assess the feasibility of
    implementing improvements in the regional flood control system within
    Garden Grove, California.

    SEC. 405. MUGU LAGOON, CALIFORNIA.

      (a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of the environmental
    impacts associated with sediment transport, flood flows, and upstream
    watershed land use practices on Mugu Lagoon, California. The study
    shall include an evaluation of alternatives for the restoration of the
    estuarine ecosystem functions and values associated with Mugu Lagoon
    and the endangered and threatened species inhabiting the area.
      (b) Consultation and Coordination.--In conducting the study, the
    Secretary shall consult with the Secretary of the Navy and shall
    coordinate with State and local resource agencies to assure that the
    study is compatible with restoration efforts for the Calleguas Creek
    watershed.
      (c) Report.--Not later than 24 months after the date of the enactment
    of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the
    results of the study.

    SEC. 406. SANTA YNEZ, CALIFORNIA.

      (a) Planning.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment
    of this Act, the Secretary shall prepare a comprehensive river basin
    management plan addressing the long term ecological, economic, and
    flood control needs of the Santa Ynez River basin, California. In
    preparing such plan, the Secretary shall consult the Santa Barbara
    Flood Control District and other affected local governmental entities.
      (b) Technical Assistance.--The Secretary shall provide technical
    assistance to the Santa Barbara Flood Control District with respect to
    implementation of the plan to be prepared under subsection (a).

    SEC. 407. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INFRASTRUCTURE.

      Section 116(d)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104
    Stat. 4624) is amended by striking ``$1,500,000'' and inserting
    ``$7,500,000''.

    SEC. 408. YOLO BYPASS, SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA, CALIFORNIA.

      The Secretary shall study the advisability of acquiring land in the
    vicinity of the Yolo Bypass in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta,
    California, for the purpose of environmental mitigation for the flood
    control project for Sacramento, California, and other water resources
    projects in the area.

    SEC. 409. CHAIN OF ROCKS CANAL, ILLINOIS.

      The Secretary shall complete a limited reevaluation of the authorized
    St. Louis Harbor Project in the vicinity of the Chain of Rocks Canal,
    Illinois, and consistent with the authorized purposes of that project,
    to include evacuation of waters interior to the Chain of Rocks Canal
    East Levee.

    SEC. 410. QUINCY, ILLINOIS.

      (a) Study.--The Secretary shall study and evaluate the critical
    infrastructure of the Fabius River Drainage District, the South Quincy
    Drainage and Levee District, the Sny Island Levee Drainage District,
    and the city of Quincy, Illinois--
              (1) to determine if additional flood protection needs of such
            infrastructure should be identified or implemented;
              (2) to produce a definition of critical infrastructure;
              (3) to develop evaluation criteria; and
              (4) to enhance existing geographic information system
            databases to encompass relevant data that identify critical
            infrastructure for use in emergencies and in routine operation
            and maintenance activities.
      (b) Consideration of Other Studies.--In conducting the study under
    this section, the Secretary shall consider the recommendations of the
    Interagency Floodplain Management Committee Report, the findings of the
    Floodplain Management Assessment of the Upper Mississippi River and
    Lower Missouri Rivers and Tributaries, and other relevant studies and
    findings.
      (c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of
    this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the
    results of the study, together with recommendations regarding each of
    the purposes of the study described in paragraphs (1) through (4) of
    subsection (a).

    SEC. 411. SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS.

      The Secretary shall provide technical, planning, and design
    assistance to the city of Springfield, Illinois, in developing--
              (1) an environmental impact statement for the proposed
            development of a water supply reservoir, including the
            preparation of necessary documentation in support of the
            environmental impact statement; and
              (2) an evaluation of technical, economic, and environmental
            impacts of such development.

    SEC. 412. BEAUTY CREEK WATERSHED, VALPARAISO CITY, PORTER COUNTY,
                        INDIANA.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to assess the feasibility of
    implementing streambank erosion control measures and flood control
    measures within the Beauty Creek watershed, Valparaiso City, Porter
    County, Indiana.

    SEC. 413. GRAND CALUMET RIVER, HAMMOND, INDIANA.

      (a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to establish a
    methodology and schedule to restore the wetlands at Wolf Lake and
    George Lake in Hammond, Indiana.
      (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of
    this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the
    results of the study conducted under subsection (a).

    SEC. 414. INDIANA HARBOR CANAL, EAST CHICAGO, LAKE COUNTY, INDIANA.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study of the feasibility of including
    environmental and recreational features, including a vegetation buffer,
    as part of the project for navigation, Indiana Harbor Canal, East
    Chicago, Lake County, Indiana, authorized by the first section of the
    Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act of June 25, 1910 (36 Stat. 657).

    SEC. 415. KOONTZ LAKE, INDIANA.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study of the feasibility of
    implementing measures to restore Koontz Lake, Indiana, including
    measures to remove silt, sediment, nutrients, aquatic growth, and other
    noxious materials from Koontz Lake, measures to improve public access
    facilities to Koontz Lake, and measures to prevent or abate the deposit
    of sediments and nutrients in Koontz Lake.

    SEC. 416. LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, INDIANA.

      (a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of the impact of the
    project for flood control, Little Calumet River, Indiana, authorized by
    section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100
    Stat. 4115), on flooding and water quality in the vicinity of the Black
    Oak area of Gary, Indiana.
      (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of
    this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the
    results of the study conducted under subsection (a), together with
    recommendations for cost-effective remediation of impacts described in
    subsection (a).
      (c) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of the study to be
    conducted under subsection (a) shall be 100 percent.

    SEC. 417. TIPPECANOE RIVER WATERSHED, INDIANA.

      (a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of water quality and
    environmental restoration needs in the Tippecanoe River watershed,
    Indiana, including measures necessary to reduce siltation in Lake
    Shafer and Lake Freeman.
      (b) Assistance.--The Secretary shall provide technical, planning, and
    design assistance to the Shafer Freeman Lakes Environmental
    Conservation Corporation in addressing potential environmental
    restoration activities determined as a result of the study conducted
    under subsection (a).

    SEC. 418. CALCASIEU SHIP CHANNEL, HACKBERRY, LOUISIANA.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the need for
    improved navigation and related support service structures in the
    vicinity of the Calcasieu Ship Channel, Hackberry, Louisiana.

    SEC. 419. HURON RIVER, MICHIGAN.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the need for channel
    improvements and associated modifications for the purpose of providing
    a harbor of refuge at Huron River, Michigan.

    SEC. 420. SACO RIVER, NEW HAMPSHIRE.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study of flood control problems along
    the Saco River in Hart's Location, New Hampshire, for the purpose of
    evaluating retaining walls, berms, and other structures with a view to
    potential solutions involving repair or replacement of existing
    structures and shall consider other alternatives for flood damage
    reduction.

    SEC. 421. BUFFALO RIVER GREENWAY, NEW YORK.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study of a potential greenway trail
    project along the Buffalo River between the park system of the city of
    Buffalo, New York, and Lake Erie. Such study shall include preparation
    of an integrated plan of development that takes into consideration the
    adjacent parks, nature preserves, bikeways, and related recreational
    facilities.

    SEC. 422. PORT OF NEWBURGH, NEW YORK.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study of the feasibility of carrying
    out improvements for navigation at the port of Newburgh, New York.

    SEC. 423. PORT OF NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY SEDIMENT STUDY.

      (a) Study of Measures To Reduce Sediment Deposition.--The Secretary
    shall conduct a study of measures that could reduce sediment deposition
    in the vicinity of the Port of New York-New Jersey for the purpose of
    reducing the volumes to be dredged for navigation projects in the Port.
      (b) Dredged Material Disposal Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a
    study to determine the feasibility of constructing and operating an
    underwater confined dredged material disposal site in the Port of New
    York-New Jersey which could accommodate as much as 250,000 cubic yards
    of dredged materials for the purpose of demonstrating the feasibility
    of an underwater confined disposal pit as an environmentally suitable
    method of containing certain sediments.
      (c) Report.--The Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the
    results of the studies conducted under this section, together with any
    recommendations of the Secretary concerning reduction of sediment
    deposition referred to in subsection (a).

    SEC. 424. PORT OF NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY NAVIGATION STUDY.

      The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive study of navigation needs
    at the Port of New York-New Jersey (including the South Brooklyn Marine
    and Red Hook Container Terminals, Staten Island, and adjacent areas) to
    address improvements, including deepening of existing channels to
    depths of 50 feet or greater, that are required to provide economically
    efficient and environmentally sound navigation to meet current and
    future requirements.

    SEC. 425. CHAGRIN RIVER, OHIO.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study of flooding problems along the
    Chagrin River in Eastlake, Ohio. In conducting such study, the
    Secretary shall evaluate potential solutions to flooding from all
    sources, including that resulting from ice jams, and shall evaluate the
    feasibility of a sedimentation collection pit and other potential
    measures to reduce flooding.

    SEC. 426. CUYAHOGA RIVER, OHIO.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to evaluate the integrity of the
    bulkhead system located on the Federal channel along the Cuyahoga River
    in the vicinity of Cleveland, Ohio, and shall provide to the non-
    Federal interest an analysis of costs and repairs of the bulkhead
    system.

    SEC. 427. CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA, ESTUARY.

      The Secretary is authorized to conduct a study of the Charleston
    estuary area located in Charleston, Berkeley, and Dorchester Counties,
    South Carolina, for the purpose of evaluating environmental conditions
    in the tidal reaches of the Ashley, Cooper, Stono, and Wando Rivers and
    the lower portions of Charleston Harbor.

    SEC. 428. MUSTANG ISLAND, CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study of navigation along the south-
    central coast of Texas near Corpus Christi for the purpose of
    determining the feasibility of constructing and maintaining the Packery
    Channel on the southern portion of Mustang Island.

    SEC. 429. PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY, VIRGINIA.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study of flooding, erosion, and other
    water resources problems in Prince William County, Virginia, including
    an assessment of wetlands protection, erosion control, and flood damage
    reduction needs of the County.

    SEC. 430. PACIFIC REGION.

      (a) Study.--The Secretary is authorized to conduct studies in the
    interest of navigation in that part of the Pacific region that includes
    American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
    Islands.
      (b) Cost Sharing.--The cost sharing provisions of section 105 of the
    Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2215; 100 Stat.
    4088-4089) shall apply to studies under this section.

    SEC. 431. FINANCING OF INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS OF SMALL AND MEDIUM PORTS.

      (a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of alternative
    financing mechanisms for ensuring adequate funding for the
    infrastructure needs of small and medium ports.
      (b) Mechanisms To Be Studied.--Mechanisms to be studied under
    subsection (a) shall include the establishment of revolving loan funds.
      (c) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment
    of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report
    containing the results of the study conducted under subsection (a).

                       TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

    SEC. 501. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS.

      The following projects are not authorized after the date of the
    enactment of this Act:
              (1) Branford harbor, connecticut.--The following portion of
            the project for navigation, Branford River, Connecticut,
            authorized by the first section of the Rivers and Harbors
            Appropriations Act of June 13, 1902 (32 Stat. 333): Starting at
            a point on the Federal channel line whose coordinates are
            N156181.32, E581572.38, running south 70 degrees 11 minutes 8
            seconds west a distance of 171.58 feet to another point on the
            Federal channel line whose coordinates are N156123.18,
            E581410.96.
              (2) Bridgeport harbor, connecticut.--The following portion of
            the project for navigation, Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut,
            authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958
            (72 Stat. 297): A 2.4-acre anchorage area, 9 feet deep, and an
            adjacent 0.6-acre anchorage, 6 feet deep, located on the west
            side of Johnsons River.
              (3) Guilford harbor, connecticut.--The following portion of
            the project for navigation, Guilford Harbor, Connecticut,
            authorized by section 2 of the Act entitled ``An Act
            authorizing construction, repair, and preservation of certain
            public works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes'',
            approved March 2, 1945 (50 Stat. 13): Starting at a point where
            the Sluice Creek Channel intersects with the main entrance
            channel, N159194.63, E623201.07, thence running north 24
            degrees 58 minutes 15.2 seconds west 478.40 feet to a point
            N159628.31, E622999.11, thence running north 20 degrees 18
            minutes 31.7 seconds west 351.53 feet to a point N159957.99,
            E622877.10, thence running north 69 degrees 41 minutes 37.9
            seconds east 55.000 feet to a point N159977.08, E622928.69,
            thence turning and running south 20 degrees 18 minutes 31.0
            seconds east 349.35 feet to a point N159649.45, E623049.94,
            thence turning and running south 24 degrees 58 minutes 11.1
            seconds east 341.36 feet to a point N159340.00, E623194.04,
            thence turning and running south 90 degrees 0 minutes 0 seconds
            east 78.86 feet to a point N159340.00, E623272.90.
              (4) Johnsons river channel, bridgeport harbor, connecticut.--
            The following portion of the project for navigation, Johnsons
            River Channel, Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut, authorized by
            the first section of the Rivers and Harbors Act of July 24,
            1946 (60 Stat. 634): Northerly of a line across the Federal
            channel. The coordinates of such line are N 123318.35, E
            486301.68 and N 123257.15, E 486380.77.
              (5) Mystic river, connecticut.--The following portion of the
            project for improving the Mystic River, Connecticut, authorized
            by the River and Harbor Act approved March 4, 1913 (37 Stat.
            802):
            Beginning in the 15-foot deep channel at coordinates north
            190860.82, east 814416.20, thence running southeast about 52.01
            feet to the coordinates north 190809.47, east 814424.49, thence
            running southwest about 34.02 feet to coordinates north
            190780.46, east 814406.70, thence running north about 80.91
            feet to the point of beginning.
              (6) Norwalk harbor, connecticut.--
                      (A) Deauthorization.--The portion of the project for
                    navigation, Norwalk Harbor, Connecticut, authorized by
                    the River and Harbor Act of March 2, 1919 (40 Stat.
                    1276), that lies northerly of a line across the Federal
                    channel having coordinates N104199.72, E417774.12 and
                    N104155.59, E417628.96, and those portions of the 6-
                    foot deep East Norwalk Channel and Anchorage,
                    authorized by section 2 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 (59 Stat. 13),
                    not included in the description of the realignment of
                    the project contained in subparagraph (B).
                      (B) Realignment description.--The realigned 6-foot
                    deep East Norwalk Channel and Anchorage is described as
                    follows: starting at a point on the East Norwalk
                    Channel, N95743.02, E419581.37, thence running
                    northwesterly about 463.96 feet to a point N96197.93,
                    E419490.18, thence running northwesterly about 549.32
                    feet to a point N96608.49, E419125.23, thence running
                    northwesterly about 384.06 feet to a point N96965.94,
                    E418984.75, thence running northwesterly about 407.26
                    feet to a point N97353.87, E418860.78, thence running
                    westerly about 58.26 feet to a point N97336.26,
                    E418805.24, thence running northwesterly about 70.99
                    feet to a point N97390.30, E418759.21, thence running
                    westerly about 71.78 feet to a point on the anchorage
                    limit N97405.26, E418689.01, thence running southerly
                    along the western limits of the existing Federal
                    anchorage until reaching a point N95893.74, E419449.17,
                    thence running in a southwesterly direction about 78.74
                    feet to a point on the East Norwalk Channel N95815.62,
                    E419439.33.
                      (C) Redesignation.--All of the realigned channel
                    shall be redesignated as anchorage, with the exception
                    of that portion of the channel which narrows to a width
                    of 100 feet and terminates at a line whose coordinates
                    are N96456.81, E419260.06, and N96390.37, E419185.32,
                    which shall remain as a channel.
              (7) Southport harbor, connecticut.--
                      (A) Deauthorization portion of project.--The
                    following portions of the project for navigation,
                    Southport Harbor, Connecticut, authorized by the first
                    section of the Rivers and Harbors Act of August 30,
                    1935 (49 Stat. 1029):
                              (i) The 6-foot deep anchorage located at the
                            head of the project.
                              (ii) The portion of the 9-foot deep channel
                            beginning at a bend in the channel whose
                            coordinates are north 109131.16, east 452653.32
                            running thence in a northeasterly direction
                            about 943.01 feet to a point whose coordinates
                            are north 109635.22, east 453450.31 running
                            thence in a southeasterly direction about 22.66
                            feet to a point whose coordinates are north
                            109617.15, east 453463.98 running thence in a
                            southwesterly direction about 945.18 feet to
                            the point of beginning.
                      (B) Remainder.--The remaining portion of the project
                    referred to in subparagraph (A) northerly of a line
                    whose coordinates are north 108699.15, east 452768.36
                    and north 108655.66, east 452858.73 shall be
                    redesignated as an anchorage.
              (8) Stony creek, branford, connecticut.--The following
            portion of the project for navigation, Stony Creek,
            Connecticut, authorized under section 107 of the River and
            Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577): The 6-foot maneuvering
            basin starting at a point N157031.91, E599030.79, thence
            running northeasterly about 221.16 feet to a point N157191.06,
            E599184.37, thence running northerly about 162.60 feet to a
            point N157353.56, E599189.99, thence running southwesterly
            about 358.90 feet to the point of origin.
              (9) York harbor, maine.--That portion of the project for
            navigation, York Harbor, Maine, authorized by section 101 of
            the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 480), located in the
            8-foot deep anchorage area beginning at coordinates N
            109340.19, E 372066.93, thence running north 65 degrees 12
            minutes 10.5 seconds E 423.27 feet to a point N 109517.71,
            E372451.17, thence running north 28 degrees 42 minutes 58.3
            seconds west 11.68 feet to a point N 109527.95, E 372445.56,
            thence running south 63 degrees 37 minutes 24.6 seconds west
            422.63 feet returning to the point of beginning and that
            portion in the 8-foot deep anchorage area beginning at
            coordinates N 108557.24, E 371645.88, thence running south 60
            degrees 41 minutes 17.2 seconds east 484.51 feet to a point N
            108320.04, E 372068.36, thence running north 29 degrees 12
            minutes 53.3 seconds east 15.28 feet to a point N 108333.38, E
            372075.82, thence running north 62 degrees 29 minutes 42.1
            seconds west 484.73 feet returning to the point of beginning.
              (10) Chelsea river, boston harbor, massachusetts.--The
            following portion of the project for navigation, Boston Harbor,
            Massachusetts, authorized by section 101 of the River and
            Harbor Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1173), consisting of a 35-foot
            deep channel in the Chelsea River: Beginning at a point on the
            northern limit of the existing project N505357.84, E724519.19,
            thence running northeasterly about 384.19 feet along the
            northern limit of the existing project to a bend on the
            northern limit of the existing project N505526.87, E724864.20,
            thence running southeasterly about 368.00 feet along the
            northern limit of the existing project to another point
            N505404.77, E725211.35, thence running westerly about 594.53
            feet to a point N505376.12, E724617.51, thence running
            southwesterly about 100.00 feet to the point of origin.
              (11) Cohasset harbor, cohasset, massachusetts.--The following
            portions of the project for navigation, Cohasset Harbor,
            Massachusetts, authorized under section 107 of the River and
            Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577):
                      (A) The portion starting at a point N453510.15,
                    E792664.63, thence running south 53 degrees 07 minutes
                    05.4 seconds west 307.00 feet to a point N453325.90,
                    E792419.07, thence running north 57 degrees 56 minutes
                    36.8 seconds west 201.00 feet to a point N453432.58,
                    E792248.72, thence running south 88 degrees 57 minutes
                    25.6 seconds west 50.00 feet to a point N453431.67,
                    E792198.73, thence running north 01 degree 02 minutes
                    52.3 seconds west 66.71 feet to a point N453498.37,
                    E792197.51, thence running north 69 degrees 12 minutes
                    52.3 seconds east 332.32 feet to a point N453616.30,
                    E792508.20, thence running south 55 degrees 50 minutes
                    24.1 seconds east 189.05 feet to the point of origin.
                      (B) The portion starting at a point N452886.64,
                    E791287.83, thence running south 00 degrees 00 minutes
                    00.0 seconds west 56.04 feet to a point N452830.60,
                    E791287.83, thence running north 90 degrees 00 minutes
                    00.0 seconds west 101.92 feet to a point, N452830.60,
                    E791185.91, thence running north 52 degrees 12 minutes
                    49.7 seconds east 89.42 feet to a point, N452885.39,
                    E791256.58, thence running north 87 degrees 42 minutes
                    33.8 seconds east 31.28 feet to the point of origin.
                      (C) The portion starting at a point, N452261.08,
                    E792040.24, thence running north 89 degrees 07 minutes
                    19.5 seconds east 118.78 feet to a point, N452262.90,
                    E792159.01, thence running south 43 degrees 39 minutes
                    06.8 seconds west 40.27 feet to a point, N452233.76,
                    E792131.21, thence running north 74 degrees 33 minutes
                    29.1 seconds west 94.42 feet to a point, N452258.90,
                    E792040.20, thence running north 01 degree 03 minutes
                    04.3 seconds east 2.18 feet to the point of origin.
              (12) Falmouth, massachusetts.--
                      (A) Deauthorizations.--The following portions of the
                    project for navigation, Falmouth Harbor, Massachusetts,
                    authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act
                    of 1948 (62 Stat. 1172):
                              (i) The portion commencing at a point north
                            199286.37 east 844394.81 a line running north
                            73 degrees 09 minutes 29 seconds east 440.34
                            feet to a point north 199413.99 east 844816.36,
                            thence turning and running north 43 degrees 09
                            minutes 34.5 seconds east 119.99 feet to a
                            point north 199501.52 east 844898.44, thence
                            turning and running south 66 degrees 52 minutes
                            03.5 seconds east 547.66 feet returning to a
                            point north 199286.41 east 844394.91.
                              (ii) The portion commencing at a point north
                            199647.41 east 845035.25 a line running north
                            43 degrees 09 minutes 33.1 seconds east 767.15
                            feet to a point north 200207.01 east 845560.00,
                            thence turning and running north 11 degrees 04
                            minutes 24.3 seconds west 380.08 feet to a
                            point north 200580.01 east 845487.00, thence
                            turning and running north 22 degrees 05 minutes
                            50.8 seconds east 1332.36 feet to a point north
                            201814.50 east 845988.21, thence turning and
                            running north 02 degrees 54 minutes 15.7
                            seconds east 15.0 feet to a point north
                            201829.48 east 845988.97, thence turning and
                            running south 24 degrees 56 minutes 42.3
                            seconds west 1410.29 feet returning to the
                            point north 200550.75 east 845394.18.
                      (B) Redesignation.--The portion of the project for
                    navigation Falmouth, Massachusetts, referred to in
                    subparagraph (A) upstream of a line designated by the 2
                    points north 199463.18 east 844496.40 and north
                    199350.36 east 844544.60 is redesignated as an
                    anchorage area.
              (13) Mystic river, massachusetts.--The following portion of
            the project for navigation, Mystic River, Massachusetts,
            authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1950
            (64 Stat. 164): The 35-foot deep channel beginning at a point
            on the northern limit of the existing project, N506243.78,
            E717600.27, thence running easterly about 1000.00 feet along
            the northern limit of the existing project to a point,
            N506083.42, E718587.33, thence running southerly about 40.00
            feet to a point, N506043.94, E718580.91, thence running
            westerly about 1000.00 feet to a point, N506204.29, E717593.85,
            thence running northerly about 40.00 feet to the point of
            origin.
              (14) Weymouth-fore and town rivers, massachusetts.--The
            following portions of the project for navigation, Weymouth-Fore
            and Town Rivers, Boston Harbor, Massachusetts, authorized by
            section 301 of the River and Harbor Act of 1965 (79 Stat.
            1089):
                      (A) The 35-foot deep channel beginning at a bend on
                    the southern limit of the existing project, N457394.01,
                    E741109.74, thence running westerly about 405.25 feet
                    to a point, N457334.64, E740708.86, thence running
                    southwesterly about 462.60 feet to another bend in the
                    southern limit of the existing project, N457132.00,
                    E740293.00, thence running northeasterly about 857.74
                    feet along the southern limit of the existing project
                    to the point of origin.
                      (B) The 15 and 35-foot deep channels beginning at a
                    point on the southern limit of the existing project,
                    N457163.41, E739903.49, thence running northerly about
                    111.99 feet to a point, N457275.37, E739900.76, thence
                    running westerly about 692.37 feet to a point
                    N457303.40, E739208.96, thence running southwesterly
                    about 190.01 feet to another point on the southern
                    limit of the existing project, N457233.17, E739032.41,
                    thence running easterly about 873.87 feet along the
                    southern limit of the existing project to the point of
                    origin.
              (15) Morristown harbor, new york.--The following portion of
            the project for navigation, Morristown Harbor, New York,
            authorized by the first section of the Rivers and Harbors Act
            of January 21, 1927 (44 Stat. 1011): The portion that lies
            north of the north boundary of Morris Street extended.
              (16) Conneaut harbor, ohio.--The most southerly 300 feet of
            the 1,670-foot long Shore Arm of the project for navigation,
            Conneaut Harbor, Ohio, authorized by the first section of the
            Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of June 25, 1910 (36 Stat.
            653).
              (17) Oswegatchie river, ogdensburg, new york.--The portion of
            the Federal channel of the project for navigation, Ogdensburg
            Harbor, New York, authorized by the first section of the Rivers
            and Harbors Appropriations Act of June 25, 1910 (36 Stat. 635),
            as modified by the first section of the Rivers and Harbors Act
            of August 30, 1935 (49 Stat. 1037), which is in the Oswegatchie
            River in Ogdensburg, New York, from the southernmost alignment
            of the Route 68 bridge upstream to the northernmost alignment
            of the Lake Street bridge.
              (18) Apponaug cove, warwick, rhode island.--The following
            portion of the project for navigation, Apponaug Cove, Rhode
            Island, authorized under section 101 of the River and Harbor
            Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 480): The 6-foot channel bounded by
            coordinates N223269.93, E513089.12; N223348.31, E512799.54;
            N223251.78, E512773.41; and N223178.0, E513046.0.
              (19) Port washington harbor, wisconsin.--The following
            portion of the navigation project for Port Washington Harbor,
            Wisconsin, authorized by the Rivers and Harbors Appropriations
            Act of July 11, 1870 (16 Stat. 223): Beginning at the northwest
            corner of project at Channel Pt. No. 36, of the Federal
            Navigation Project, Port Washington Harbor, Ozaukee County,
            Wisconsin, at coordinates N513529.68, E2535215.64, thence 188
            degrees 31 minutes 59 seconds, a distance of 178.32 feet,
            thence 196 degrees 47 minutes 17 seconds, a distance of 574.80
            feet, thence 270 degrees 58 minutes 25 seconds, a distance of
            465.50 feet, thence 178 degrees 56 minutes 17 seconds, a
            distance of 130.05 feet, thence 87 degrees 17 minutes 05
            seconds, a distance of 510.22 feet, thence 104 degrees 58
            minutes 31 seconds, a distance of 178.33 feet, thence 115
            degrees 47 minutes 55 seconds, a distance of 244.15 feet,
            thence 25 degrees 12 minutes 08 seconds, a distance of 310.00
            feet, thence 294 degrees 46 minutes 50 seconds, a distance of
            390.20 feet, thence 16 degrees 56 minutes 16 seconds, a
            distance of 570.90 feet, thence 266 degrees 01 minutes 25
            seconds, a distance of 190.78 feet to Channel Pt. No. 36, point
            of beginning.

    SEC. 502. PROJECT REAUTHORIZATIONS.

      (a) Grand Prairie Region and Bayou Meto Basin, Arkansas.--The project
    for flood control, Grand Prairie Region and Bayou Meto Basin, Arkansas,
    authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1950 (64 Stat.
    174) and deauthorized pursuant to section 1001(b)(1) of the Water
    Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(1)), is authorized
    to be carried out by the Secretary; except that the scope of the
    project includes ground water protection and conservation, agricultural
    water supply, and waterfowl management.
      (b) White River, Arkansas.--The project for navigation, White River
    Navigation to Batesville, Arkansas, authorized by section 601(a) of the
    Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4139) and
    deauthorized by section 52(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of
    1988 (102 Stat. 4045), is authorized to be carried out by the
    Secretary.
      (c) Des Plaines River, Illinois.--The project for wetlands research,
    Des Plaines River, Illinois, authorized by section 45 of the Water
    Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4041) and deauthorized
    pursuant to section 1001 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
    (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)), is authorized to be carried out by the Secretary.
      (d) Alpena Harbor, Michigan.--The project for navigation, Alpena
    Harbor, Michigan, authorized by section 301 of the River and Harbor Act
    of 1965 (79 Stat. 1090) and deauthorized pursuant to section 1001 of
    the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)), is
    authorized to be carried out by the Secretary.
      (e) Ontonagon Harbor, Ontonagon County, Michigan.--The project for
    navigation, Ontonagon Harbor, Ontonagon County, Michigan, authorized by
    section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1176) and
    deauthorized pursuant to section 1001 of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)), is authorized to be
    carried out by the Secretary.
      (f) Knife River Harbor, Minnesota.--The project for navigation, Knife
    River Harbor, Minnesota, authorized by section 100 of the Water
    Resources Development Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 41) and deauthorized
    pursuant to section 1001 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
    (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)), is authorized to be carried out by the Secretary.
      (g) Cliffwood Beach, New Jersey.--The project for hurricane-flood
    protection and beach erosion control on Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay,
    New Jersey, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1962
    (76 Stat. 118) and deauthorized pursuant to section 1001 of the Water
    Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)), is authorized to
    be carried out by the Secretary.

    SEC. 503. CONTINUATION OF AUTHORIZATION OF CERTAIN PROJECTS.

      (a) General Rule.--Notwithstanding section 1001 of the Water
    Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a), the following
    projects shall remain authorized to be carried out by the Secretary:
              (1) Cedar river harbor, michigan.--The project for
            navigation, Cedar River Harbor, Michigan, authorized by section
            301 of the River and Harbor Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1090).
              (2) Cross village harbor, michigan.--The project for
            navigation, Cross Village Harbor, Michigan, authorized by
            section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1966 (80 Stat.
            1405).
      (b) Limitation.--A project described in subsection (a) shall not be
    authorized for construction after the last day of the 5-year period
    that begins on the date of the enactment of this Act unless, during
    such period, funds have been obligated for the construction (including
    planning and design) of the project.

    SEC. 504. LAND CONVEYANCES.

      (a) Oakland Inner Harbor Tidal Canal Property, California.--Section
    205 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4633) is
    amended--
              (1) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new
            paragraph:
              ``(3) To adjacent land owners, the United States title to all
            or portions of that part of the Oakland Inner Harbor Tidal
            Canal which are located within the boundaries of the city in
            which such land rests. Such conveyance shall be at fair market
            value.'';
              (2) by inserting after ``right-of-way'' the following: ``or
            other rights deemed necessary by the Secretary''; and
              (3) by adding at the end the following: ``The conveyances and
            processes involved will be at no cost to the United States.''.
      (b) Mariemont, Ohio.--
              (1) In general.--The Secretary shall convey to the village of
            Mariemont, Ohio, for a sum of $85,000 all right, title, and
            interest of the United States in and to a parcel of land
            (including improvements thereto) under the jurisdiction of the
            Corps of Engineers and known as the ``Ohio River Division
            Laboratory'', as such parcel is described in paragraph (4).
              (2) Terms and conditions.--The conveyance under paragraph (1)
            shall be subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary
            considers necessary and appropriate to protect the interests of
            the United States.
              (3) Proceeds.--All proceeds from the conveyance under
            paragraph (1) shall be deposited in the general fund of the
            Treasury of the United States and credited as miscellaneous
            receipts.
              (4) Property description.--The parcel of land referred to in
            paragraph (1) is the parcel situated in the State of Ohio,
            County of Hamilton, Township 4, Fractional Range 2, Miami
            Purchase, Columbia Township, Section 15, being parts of Lots 5
            and 6 of the subdivision of the dower tract of the estate of
            Joseph Ferris as recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 112, of the Plat
            Records of Hamilton County, Ohio, Recorder's Office, and more
            particularly described as follows:
                      Beginning at an iron pin set to mark the intersection
                    of the easterly line of Lot 5 of said subdivision of
                    said dower tract with the northerly line of the right-
                    of-way of the Norfolk and Western Railway Company as
                    shown in Plat Book 27, Page 182, Hamilton County, Ohio,
                    Surveyor's Office, thence with said northerly right-of-
                    way line;
                      South 70 degrees 10 minutes 13 seconds west 258.52
                    feet to a point; thence leaving the northerly right-of-
                    way of the Norfolk and Western Railway Company;
                      North 18 degrees 22 minutes 02 seconds west 302.31
                    feet to a point in the south line of Mariemont Avenue;
                    thence along said south line;
                      North 72 degrees 34 minutes 35 seconds east 167.50
                    feet to a point; thence leaving the south line of
                    Mariemont Avenue;
                      North 17 degrees 25 minutes 25 seconds west 49.00
                    feet to a point; thence
                      North 72 degrees 34 minutes 35 seconds east 100.00
                    feet to a point; thence
                      South 17 degrees 25 minutes 25 seconds east 49.00
                    feet to a point; thence
                      North 72 degrees 34 minutes 35 seconds east 238.90
                    feet to a point; thence
                      South 00 degrees 52 minutes 07 seconds east 297.02
                    feet to a point in the northerly line of the Norfolk
                    and Western Railway Company; thence with said northerly
                    right-of-way;
                      South 70 degrees 10 minutes 13 seconds west 159.63
                    feet to a point of beginning, containing 3.22 acres,
                    more or less.
      (c) Eufaula Lake, Oklahoma.--
              (1) In general.--The Secretary shall convey to the city of
            Eufaula, Oklahoma, all right, title, and interest of the United
            States in and to a parcel of land consisting of approximately
            12.5 acres located at the Eufaula Lake project.
              (2) Consideration.--Consideration for the conveyance under
            paragraph (1) shall be the fair market value of the parcel (as
            determined by the Secretary) and payment of all costs of the
            United States in making the conveyance, including the costs
            of--
                      (A) the survey required under paragraph (4);
                      (B) any other necessary survey or survey
                    monumentation;
                      (C) compliance with the National Environmental Policy
                    Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and
                      (D) any coordination necessary with respect to
                    requirements relating to endangered species, cultural
                    resources, and clean air (including the costs of agency
                    consultation and public hearings).
              (3) Land surveys.--The exact acreage and description of the
            parcel to be conveyed under paragraph (1) shall be determined
            by such surveys as the Secretary considers necessary, which
            shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Secretary.
              (4) Environmental baseline survey.--Prior to making the
            conveyance under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall conduct an
            environmental baseline survey to determine the levels of any
            contamination (as of the date of the survey) for which the
            United States would be responsible under the Comprehensive
            Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
            (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) and any other applicable law.
              (5) Conditions concerning rights and easement.--The
            conveyance under paragraph (1) shall be subject to existing
            rights and to retention by the United States of a flowage
            easement over all portions of the parcel that lie at or below
            the flowage easement contour for the Eufaula Lake project.
              (6) Other terms and conditions.--The conveyance under
            paragraph (1) shall be subject to such other terms and
            conditions as the Secretary considers necessary and appropriate
            to protect the interests of the United States.
      (d) Boardman, Oregon.--
              (1) In general.--The Secretary shall convey to the city of
            Boardman, Oregon, all right, title, and interest of the United
            States in and to a parcel of land consisting of approximately
            141 acres acquired as part of the John Day Lock and Dam project
            in the vicinity of such city currently under lease to the
            Boardman Park and Recreation District.
              (2) Consideration.--
                      (A) Park and recreation properties.--Properties to be
                    conveyed under this subsection that will be retained in
                    public ownership and used for public park and
                    recreation purposes shall be conveyed without
                    consideration. If any such property is no longer used
                    for public park and recreation purposes, then title to
                    such property shall revert to the Secretary.
                      (B) Other properties.--Properties to be conveyed
                    under this subsection and not described in subparagraph
                    (A) shall be conveyed at fair market value.
              (3) Conditions concerning rights and easement.--The
            conveyance of properties under this subsection shall be subject
            to existing first rights of refusal regarding acquisition of
            such properties and to retention of a flowage easement over
            portions of the properties that the Secretary determines to be
            necessary for operation of the project.
              (4) Other terms and conditions.--The conveyance of properties
            under this subsection shall be subject to such other terms and
            conditions as the Secretary considers necessary and appropriate
            to protect the interests of the United States.
      (e) Tri-Cities Area, Washington.--
              (1) General authority.--As soon as practicable after the date
            of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall make the
            conveyances to the local governments referred to in paragraph
            (2) of all right, title, and interest of the United States in
            and to the property described in paragraph (2).
              (2) Property descriptions.--
                      (A) Benton county.--The property to be conveyed
                    pursuant to paragraph (1) to Benton County, Washington,
                    is the property in such county which is designated
                    ``Area D'' on Exhibit A to Army Lease No. DACW-68-1-81-
                    43.
                      (B) Franklin county, washington.--The property to be
                    conveyed pursuant to paragraph (1) to Franklin County,
                    Washington, is--
                              (i) the 105.01 acres of property leased
                            pursuant to Army Lease No. DACW-68-1-77-20 as
                            executed by Franklin County, Washington, on
                            April 7, 1977;
                              (ii) the 35 acres of property leased pursuant
                            to Supplemental Agreement No. 1 to Army Lease
                            No. DACW-68-1-77-20;
                              (iii) the 20 acres of property commonly known
                            as ``Richland Bend'' which is designated by the
                            shaded portion of Lot 1, Section 11, and the
                            shaded portion of Lot 1, Section 12, Township 9
                            North, Range 28 East, W.M. on Exhibit D to
                            Supplemental Agreement No. 2 to Army Lease No.
                            DACW-68-1-77-20;
                              (iv) the 7.05 acres of property commonly
                            known as ``Taylor Flat'' which is designated by
                            the shaded portion of Lot 1, Section 13,
                            Township 11 North, Range 28 East, W.M. on
                            Exhibit D to Supplemental Agreement No. 2 to
                            Army Lease No. DACW-68-1-77-20;
                              (v) the 14.69 acres of property commonly
                            known as ``Byers Landing'' which is designated
                            by the shaded portion of Lots 2 and 3, Section
                            2, Township 10 North, Range 28 East, W.M. on
                            Exhibit D to Supplemental Agreement No. 2 to
                            Army Lease No. DACW-68-1-77-20; and
                              (vi) all levees within Franklin County,
                            Washington, as of the date of the enactment of
                            this Act, and the property upon which the
                            levees are situated.
                      (C) City of kennewick, washington.--The property to
                    be conveyed pursuant to paragraph (1) to the city of
                    Kennewick, Washington, is the property within the city
                    which is subject to the Municipal Sublease Agreement
                    entered into on April 6, 1989, between Benton County,
                    Washington, and the cities of Kennewick and Richland,
                    Washington.
                      (D) City of richland, washington.--The property to be
                    conveyed pursuant to paragraph (1), to the city of
                    Richland, Washington, is the property within the city
                    which is subject to the Municipal Sublease Agreement
                    entered into on April 6, 1989, between Benton County,
                    Washington, and the Cities of Kennewick and Richland,
                    Washington.
                      (E) City of pasco, washington.--The property to be
                    conveyed pursuant to paragraph (1), to the city of
                    Pasco, Washington, is--
                              (i) the property within the city of Pasco,
                            Washington, which is leased pursuant to Army
                            Lease No. DACW-68-1-77-10; and
                              (ii) all levees within such city, as of the
                            date of the enactment of this Act, and the
                            property upon which the levees are situated.
                      (F) Port of pasco, washington.--The property to be
                    conveyed pursuant to paragraph (1) to the Port of
                    Pasco, Washington, is--
                              (i) the property owned by the United States
                            which is south of the Burlington Northern
                            Railroad tracks in Lots 1 and 2, Section 20,
                            Township 9 North, Range 31 East, W.M.; and
                              (ii) the property owned by the United States
                            which is south of the Burlington Northern
                            Railroad tracks in Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, in each
                            of Sections 21, 22, and 23, Township 9 North,
                            Range 31 East, W.M.
                      (G) Additional properties.--In addition to properties
                    described in subparagraphs (A) through (F), the
                    Secretary may convey to a local government referred to
                    in subparagraphs (A) through (F) such properties under
                    the jurisdiction of the Secretary in the Tri-Cities
                    area as the Secretary and the local government agree
                    are appropriate for conveyance.
              (3) Terms and conditions.--
                      (A) In general.--The conveyances under paragraph (1)
                    shall be subject to such terms and conditions as the
                    Secretary considers necessary and appropriate to
                    protect the interests of the United States.
                      (B) Special rules for franklin county.--The property
                    described in paragraph (2)(B)(vi) shall be conveyed
                    only after Franklin County, Washington, has entered
                    into a written agreement with the Secretary which
                    provides that the United States shall continue to
                    operate and maintain the flood control drainage areas
                    and pump stations on the property conveyed and that the
                    United States shall be provided all easements and
                    rights necessary to carry out that agreement.
                      (C) Special rule for city of pasco.--The property
                    described in paragraph (2)(E)(ii) shall be conveyed
                    only after the city of Pasco, Washington, has entered
                    into a written agreement with the Secretary which
                    provides that the United States shall continue to
                    operate and maintain the flood control drainage areas
                    and pump stations on the property conveyed and that the
                    United States shall be provided all easements and
                    rights necessary to carry out that agreement.
                      (D) Consideration.--
                              (i) Park and recreation properties.--
                            Properties to be conveyed under this subsection
                            that will be retained in public ownership and
                            used for public park and recreation purposes
                            shall be conveyed without consideration. If any
                            such property is no longer used for public park
                            and recreation purposes, then title to such
                            property shall revert to the Secretary.
                              (ii) Other properties.--Properties to be
                            conveyed under this subsection and not
                            described in clause (i) shall be conveyed at
                            fair market value.
              (4) Lake wallula levees.--
                      (A) Determination of minimum safe height.--
                              (i) Contract.--Within 30 days after the date
                            of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary
                            shall contract with a private entity agreed to
                            under clause (ii) to determine, within 6 months
                            after such date of enactment, the minimum safe
                            height for the levees of the project for flood
                            control, Lake Wallula, Washington. The
                            Secretary shall have final approval of the
                            minimum safe height.
                              (ii) Agreement of local officials.--A
                            contract shall be entered into under clause (i)
                            only with a private entity agreed to by the
                            Secretary, appropriate representatives of
                            Franklin County, Washington, and appropriate
                            representatives of the city of Pasco,
                            Washington.
                      (B) Authority.--A local government may reduce, at its
                    cost, the height of any levee of the project for flood
                    control, Lake Wallula, Washington, within the
                    boundaries of such local government to a height not
                    lower than the minimum safe height determined pursuant
                    to subparagraph (A).

    SEC. 505. NAMINGS.

      (a) Milt Brandt Visitors Center, California.--
              (1) Designation.--The visitors center at Warm Springs Dam,
            California, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act
            of 1962 (76 Stat. 1192), shall be known and designated as the
            ``Milt Brandt Visitors Center''.
              (2) Legal references.--Any reference in a law, map,
            regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United
            States to the visitors center referred to in paragraph (1)
            shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Milt Brandt Visitors
            Center''.
      (b) Carr Creek Lake, Kentucky.--
              (1) Designation.--Carr Fork Lake in Knott County, Kentucky,
            authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76
            Stat. 1188), shall be known and designated as the ``Carr Creek
            Lake''.
              (2) Legal references.--Any reference in a law, map,
            regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United
            States to the lake referred to in paragraph (1) shall be deemed
            to be a reference to the ``Carr Creek Lake''.
      (c) William H. Natcher Bridge, Maceo, Kentucky, and Rockport,
    Indiana.--
              (1) Designation.--The bridge on United States Route 231 which
            crosses the Ohio River between Maceo, Kentucky, and Rockport,
            Indiana, shall be known and designated as the ``William H.
            Natcher Bridge''.
              (2) Legal references.--Any reference in a law, map,
            regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United
            States to the bridge referred to in paragraph (1) shall be
            deemed to be a reference to the ``William H. Natcher Bridge''.
      (d) John T. Myers Lock and Dam, Indiana and Kentucky.--
              (1) Designation.--Uniontown Lock and Dam, on the Ohio River,
            Indiana and Kentucky, shall be known and designated as the
            ``John T. Myers Lock and Dam''.
              (2) Legal references.--Any reference in a law, map,
            regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United
            States to the lock and dam referred to in paragraph (1) shall
            be deemed to be a reference to the ``John T. Myers Lock and
            Dam''.
      (e) J. Edward Roush Lake, Indiana.--
              (1) Redesignation.--The lake on the Wabash River in
            Huntington and Wells Counties, Indiana, authorized by section
            203 of the Flood Control Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 312), and known
            as Huntington Lake, shall be known and designated as the ``J.
            Edward Roush Lake''.
              (2) Legal references.--Any reference in a law, map,
            regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United
            States to the lake referred to in paragraph (1) shall be deemed
            to be a reference to the ``J. Edward Roush Lake''.
      (f) Russell B. Long Lock and Dam, Red River Waterway, Louisiana.--
              (1) Designation.--Lock and Dam 4 of the Red River Waterway,
            Louisiana, shall be known and designated as the ``Russell B.
            Long Lock and Dam''.
              (2) Legal references.--A reference in any law, map,
            regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United
            States to the lock and dam referred to in paragraph (1) shall
            be deemed to be a reference to the ``Russell B. Long Lock and
            Dam''.
      (g) Aberdeen Lock and Dam, Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway.--
              (1) Designation.--The lock and dam at Mile 358 of the
            Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway is designated as the ``Aberdeen
            Lock and Dam''.
              (2) Legal reference.--Any reference in a law, map,
            regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United
            States to the lock and dam referred to in paragraph (1) is
            deemed to be a reference to the ``Aberdeen Lock and Dam''.
      (h) Amory Lock, Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway.--
              (1) Designation.--Lock A at Mile 371 of the Tennessee-
            Tombigbee Waterway is designated as the ``Amory Lock''.
              (2) Legal reference.--Any reference in a law, map,
            regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United
            States to the lock referred to in paragraph (1) is deemed to be
            a reference to the ``Amory Lock''.
      (i) Fulton Lock, Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway.--
              (1) Designation.--Lock C at Mile 391 of the Tennessee-
            Tombigbee Waterway is designated as the ``Fulton Lock''.
              (2) Legal reference.--Any reference in a law, map,
            regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United
            States to the lock referred to in paragraph (1) is deemed to be
            a reference to the ``Fulton Lock''.
      (j) Howell Heflin Lock and Dam, Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway.--
              (1) Redesignation.--The lock and dam at Mile 266 of the
            Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, known as the Gainesville Lock and
            Dam, is redesignated as the ``Howell Heflin Lock and Dam''.
              (2) Legal reference.--Any reference in a law, map,
            regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United
            States to the lock and dam referred to in paragraph (1) is
            deemed to be a reference to the ``Howell Heflin Lock and Dam''.
      (k) G.V. ``Sonny'' Montgomery Lock, Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway.--
              (1) Designation.--Lock E at Mile 407 of the Tennessee-
            Tombigbee Waterway is designated as the ``G.V. `Sonny'
            Montgomery Lock''.
              (2) Legal reference.--Any reference in a law, map,
            regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United
            States to the lock referred to in paragraph (1) is deemed to be
            a reference to the ``G.V. `Sonny' Montgomery Lock''.
      (l) John Rankin Lock, Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway.--
              (1) Designation.--Lock D at Mile 398 of the Tennessee-
            Tombigbee Waterway is designated as the ``John Rankin Lock''.
              (2) Legal reference.--Any reference in a law, map,
            regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United
            States to the lock referred to in paragraph (1) is deemed to be
            a reference to the ``John Rankin Lock''.
      (m) John C. Stennis Lock and Dam, Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway.--
              (1) Redesignation.--The lock and dam at Mile 335 of the
            Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, known as the Columbus Lock and
            Dam, is redesignated as the ``John C. Stennis Lock and Dam''.
              (2) Legal reference.--Any reference in a law, map,
            regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United
            States to the lock and dam referred to in paragraph (1) is
            deemed to be a reference to the ``John C. Stennis Lock and
            Dam''.
      (n) Jamie Whitten Lock and Dam, Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway.--
              (1) Redesignation.--The lock and dam at Mile 412 of the
            Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, known as the Bay Springs Lock and
            Dam, is redesignated as the ``Jamie Whitten Lock and Dam''.
              (2) Legal reference.--Any reference in a law, map,
            regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United
            States to the lock and dam referred to in paragraph (1) is
            deemed to be a reference to the ``Jamie Whitten Lock and Dam''.
      (o) Glover Wilkins Lock, Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway.--
              (1) Designation.--Lock B at Mile 376 of the Tennessee-
            Tombigbee Waterway is designated as the ``Glover Wilkins
            Lock''.
              (2) Legal reference.--Any reference in a law, map,
            regulation, document, paper, or other record to the lock
            referred to in paragraph (1) is deemed to be a reference to the
            ``Glover Wilkins Lock''.

    SEC. 506. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT, RESTORATION, AND DEVELOPMENT.

      (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to provide technical,
    planning, and design assistance to non-Federal interests for carrying
    out watershed management, restoration, and development projects at the
    locations described in subsection (d).
      (b) Specific Measures.--Assistance provided pursuant to subsection
    (a) may be in support of non-Federal projects for the following
    purposes:
              (1) Management and restoration of water quality.
              (2) Control and remediation of toxic sediments.
              (3) Restoration of degraded streams, rivers, wetlands, and
            other waterbodies to their natural condition as a means to
            control flooding, excessive erosion, and sedimentation.
              (4) Protection and restoration of watersheds, including urban
            watersheds.
              (5) Demonstration of technologies for nonstructural measures
            to reduce destructive impact of flooding.
      (c) Non-Federal Share.--The non-Federal share of the cost of
    assistance provided under this section shall be 50 percent.
      (d) Project Locations.--The Secretary may provide assistance under
    subsection (a) for projects at the following locations:
              (1) Gila River and Tributaries, Santa Cruz River, Arizona.
              (2) Rio Salado, Salt River, Phoenix and Tempe, Arizona.
              (3) Colusa basin, California.
              (4) Los Angeles River watershed, California.
              (5) Russian River watershed, California.
              (6) Sacramento River watershed, California.
              (7) Nancy Creek, Utoy Creek, and North Peachtree Creek and
            South Peachtree Creek basin, Georgia.
              (8) Lower Platte River watershed, Nebraska.
              (9) Juniata River watershed, Pennsylvania, including Raystown
            Lake.
              (10) Upper Potomac River watershed, Grant and Mineral
            Counties, West Virginia.
      (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
    appropriated to carry out this section $25,000,000 for fiscal years
    beginning after September 30, 1996.

    SEC. 507. LAKES PROGRAM.

      Section 602(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100
    Stat. 4148-4149) is amended--
              (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (10);
              (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (11) and
            inserting a semicolon; and
              (3) by adding at the end the following:
              ``(12) Goodyear Lake, Otsego County, New York, removal of
            silt and aquatic growth;
              ``(13) Otsego Lake, Otsego County, New York, removal of silt
            and aquatic growth and measures to address high nutrient
            concentration;
              ``(14) Oneida Lake, Oneida County, New York, removal of silt
            and aquatic growth;
              ``(15) Skaneateles and Owasco Lakes, New York, removal of
            silt and aquatic growth and prevention of sediment deposit; and
              ``(16) Twin Lakes, Paris, Illinois, removal of silt and
            excess aquatic vegetation, including measures to address
            excessive sedimentation, high nutrient concentration, and
            shoreline erosion.''.

    SEC. 508. MAINTENANCE OF NAVIGATION CHANNELS.

      (a) In General.--Upon request of the non-Federal interest, the
    Secretary shall be responsible for maintenance of the following
    navigation channels constructed or improved by non-Federal interests if
    the Secretary determines that such maintenance is economically
    justified and environmentally acceptable and that the channel was
    constructed in accordance with applicable permits and appropriate
    engineering and design standards:
              (1) Humboldt Harbor and Bay, Fields Landing Channel,
            California.
              (2) Mare Island Strait, California; except that, for purposes
            of this section, the navigation channel shall be deemed to have
            been constructed or improved by non-Federal interests.
              (3) Mississippi River Ship Channel, Chalmette Slip,
            Louisiana.
              (4) Greenville Inner Harbor Channel, Mississippi.
              (5) Providence Harbor Shipping Channel, Rhode Island.
              (6) Matagorda Ship Channel, Point Comfort Turning Basin,
            Texas.
              (7) Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Rincon Canal, Texas.
              (8) Brazos Island Harbor, Texas, connecting channel to
            Mexico.
              (9) Blair Waterway, Tacoma Harbor, Washington.
      (b) Completion of Assessment.--Within 6 months of receipt of a
    request from the non-Federal interest for Federal assumption of
    maintenance of a channel listed in subsection (a), the Secretary shall
    make a determination as provided in subsection (a) and advise the non-
    Federal interest of the Secretary's determination.

    SEC. 509. GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS AND SEDIMENT REMEDIATION.

      Section 401 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat.
    4644) is amended to read as follows:

    ``SEC. 401. GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS AND SEDIMENT REMEDIATION.

      ``(a) Great Lakes Remedial Action Plans.--
              ``(1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to provide
            technical, planning, and engineering assistance to State and
            local governments and nongovernmental entities designated by
            the State or local government in the development and
            implementation of remedial action plans for areas of concern in
            the Great Lakes identified under the Great Lakes Water Quality
            Agreement of 1978.
              ``(2) Non-federal share.--Non-Federal interests shall
            contribute, in cash or by providing in-kind contributions, 50
            percent of costs of activities for which assistance is provided
            under paragraph (1).
      ``(b) Sediment Remediation Demonstration Projects.--
              ``(1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
            Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (acting
            through the Great Lakes National Program Office), may conduct
            pilot- and full-scale demonstration projects of promising
            techniques to remediate contaminated sediments in freshwater
            coastal regions in the Great Lakes basin. The Secretary must
            conduct no fewer than 3 full-scale demonstration projects under
            this subsection.
              ``(2) Site selection for demonstration projects.--In
            selecting the sites for the technology demonstration projects,
            the Secretary shall give priority consideration to Saginaw Bay,
            Michigan, Sheboygan Harbor, Wisconsin, Grand Calumet River,
            Indiana, Ashtabula River, Ohio, Buffalo River, New York, and
            Duluth/Superior Harbor, Minnesota.
              ``(3) Deadline for identifications.--Within 18 months after
            the date of the enactment of this subsection, the Secretary
            shall identify the sites and technologies to be demonstrated
            and complete each such full-scale demonstration project within
            3 years after such date of enactment.
              ``(4) Non-federal share.--Non-Federal interests shall
            contribute 50 percent of costs of projects under this
            subsection. Such costs may be paid in cash or by providing in-
            kind contributions.
              ``(5) Authorizations.--There is authorized to be appropriated
            to the Secretary to carry out this section $5,000,000 for each
            of fiscal years 1997 through 2000.''.

    SEC. 510. GREAT LAKES DREDGED MATERIAL TESTING AND EVALUATION MANUAL.

      The Secretary, in cooperation with the Administrator of the
    Environmental Protection Agency, shall provide technical assistance to
    non-Federal interests on testing procedures contained in the Great
    Lakes Dredged Material Testing and Evaluation Manual developed pursuant
    to section 230.2(c) of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations.

    SEC. 511. GREAT LAKES SEDIMENT REDUCTION.

      (a) Great Lakes Tributary Sediment Transport Model.--For each major
    river system or set of major river systems depositing sediment into a
    Great Lakes federally authorized commercial harbor, channel maintenance
    project site, or Area of Concern identified under the Great Lakes Water
    Quality Agreement of 1978, the Secretary, in consultation and
    coordination with the Great Lakes States, shall develop a tributary
    sediment transport model.
      (b) Requirements for Models.--In developing a tributary sediment
    transport model under this section, the Secretary shall--
              (1) build upon data and monitoring information generated in
            earlier studies and programs of the Great Lakes and their
            tributaries; and
              (2) complete models for 30 major river systems, either
            individually or in combination as part of a set, within the 5-
            year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.

    SEC. 512. GREAT LAKES CONFINED DISPOSAL FACILITIES.

      (a) Assessment.--The Secretary shall conduct an assessment of the
    general conditions of confined disposal facilities in the Great Lakes.
      (b) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date of the enactment
    of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the
    results of the assessment conducted under subsection (a), including the
    following:
              (1) A description of the cumulative effects of confined
            disposal facilities in the Great Lakes.
              (2) Recommendations for specific remediation actions for each
            confined disposal facility in the Great Lakes.
              (3) An evaluation of, and recommendations for, confined
            disposal facility management practices and technologies to
            conserve capacity at such facilities and to minimize adverse
            environmental effects at such facilities throughout the Great
            Lakes system.

    SEC. 513. CHESAPEAKE BAY RESTORATION AND PROTECTION PROGRAM.

      (a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a pilot program to
    provide to non-Federal interests in the Chesapeake Bay watershed
    technical, planning, design, and construction assistance for water-
    related environmental infrastructure and resource protection and
    development projects affecting the Chesapeake Bay, including projects
    for sediment and erosion control, protection of eroding shorelines,
    protection of essential public works, wastewater treatment and related
    facilities, water supply and related facilities, and beneficial uses of
    dredged material, and other related projects.
      (b) Public Ownership Requirement.--The Secretary may provide
    assistance for a project under this section only if the project is
    publicly owned and will be publicly operated and maintained.
      (c) Cooperation Agreement.--
              (1) In general.--Before providing assistance under this
            section, the Secretary shall enter into a project cooperation
            agreement pursuant to section 221 of the Flood Control Act of
            1970 (84 Stat. 1818) with a non-Federal interest to provide for
            technical, planning, design, and construction assistance for
            the project.
              (2) Requirements.--Each agreement entered into pursuant to
            this subsection shall provide for the following:
                      (A) Plan.--Development by the Secretary, in
                    consultation with appropriate Federal, State, and local
                    officials, of a plan, including appropriate engineering
                    plans and specifications and an estimate of expected
                    benefits.
                      (B) Legal and institutional structures.--
                    Establishment of such legal and institutional
                    structures as are necessary to ensure the effective
                    long-term operation and maintenance of the project by
                    the non-Federal interest.
      (d) Cost Sharing.--
              (1) Federal share.--Except as provided in paragraph (2)(B),
            the Federal share of the total project costs of each local
            cooperation agreement entered into under this section shall be
            75 percent.
              (2) Non-federal share.--
                      (A) Provision of lands, easements, rights-of-way, and
                    relocations.--The non-Federal interests for a project
                    to which this section applies shall provide the lands,
                    easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and dredged
                    material disposal areas necessary for the project.
                      (B) Value of lands, easements, rights-of-way, and
                    relocations.--In determining the non-Federal
                    contribution toward carrying out a local cooperation
                    agreement entered into under this section, the
                    Secretary shall provide credit to a non-Federal
                    interest for the value of lands, easements, rights-of-
                    way, relocations, and dredged material disposal areas
                    provided by the non-Federal interest, except that the
                    amount of credit provided for a project under this
                    paragraph may not exceed 25 percent of total project
                    costs.
                      (C) Operation and maintenance costs.--The non-Federal
                    share of the costs of operation and maintenance of
                    carrying out the agreement under this section shall be
                    100 percent.
      (e) Applicability of Other Federal and State Laws and Agreements.--
              (1) In general.--Nothing in this section waives, limits, or
            otherwise affects the applicability of any provision of Federal
            or State law that would otherwise apply to a project carried
            out with assistance provided under this section.
              (2) Cooperation.--In carrying out this section, the Secretary
            shall cooperate with the heads of appropriate Federal agencies.
      (f) Report.--Not later than December 31, 1998, the Secretary shall
    transmit to Congress a report on the results of the program carried out
    under this section, together with a recommendation concerning whether
    or not the program should be implemented on a national basis.
      (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be
    appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000.

    SEC. 514. EXTENSION OF JURISDICTION OF MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION.

      The jurisdiction of the Mississippi River Commission, established by
    the first section of the Act of June 28, 1879 (33 U.S.C. 641; 21 Stat.
    37), is extended to include--
              (1) all of the area between the eastern side of the Bayou
            Lafourche Ridge from Donaldsonville, Louisiana, to the Gulf of
            Mexico and the west guide levee of the Mississippi River from
            Donaldsonville, Louisiana, to the Gulf of Mexico;
              (2) Alexander County, Illinois; and
              (3) the area in the State of Illinois from the confluence of
            the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers northward to the vicinity of
            Mississippi River mile 39.5, including the Len Small Drainage
            and Levee District, insofar as such area is affected by the
            flood waters of the Mississippi River.

    SEC. 515. ALTERNATIVE TO ANNUAL PASSES.

      (a) In General.--The Secretary shall evaluate the feasibility of
    implementing an alternative to the $25 annual pass that the Secretary
    currently offers to users of recreation facilities at water resources
    projects of the Corps of Engineers.
      (b) Annual Pass.--The evaluation under subsection (a) shall include
    the establishment of an annual pass which costs $10 or less for the use
    of recreation facilities at Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania.
      (c) Report.--Not later than December 31, 1998, the Secretary shall
    transmit to Congress a report on the results of the project carried out
    under this section, together with recommendations concerning whether
    annual passes for individual projects should be offered on a nationwide
    basis.

    SEC. 516. RECREATION PARTNERSHIP INITIATIVE.

      (a) In General.--The Secretary shall promote Federal, non-Federal,
    and private sector cooperation in creating public recreation
    opportunities and developing the necessary supporting infrastructure at
    water resources projects of the Corps of Engineers.
      (b) Infrastructure Improvements.--
              (1) Recreation infrastructure improvements.--In demonstrating
            the feasibility of the public-private cooperative, the
            Secretary shall provide, at Federal expense, such
            infrastructure improvements as are necessary to support a
            potential private recreational development at the Raystown Lake
            Project, Pennsylvania, generally in accordance with the Master
            Plan Update (1994) for the project.
              (2) Agreement.--The Secretary shall enter into an agreement
            with an appropriate non-Federal public entity to ensure that
            the infrastructure improvements constructed by the Secretary on
            non-project lands pursuant to paragraph (1) are transferred to
            and operated and maintained by the non-Federal public entity.
              (3) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized to
            be appropriated to carry out this subsection $4,500,000 for
            fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1996.
      (c) Report.--Not later than December 31, 1998, the Secretary shall
    transmit to Congress a report on the results of the cooperative efforts
    carried out under this section, including the improvements required by
    subsection (b).

    SEC. 517. ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE.

      Section 219 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat.
    4836-4837) is amended by adding at the end the following new
    subsection:
      ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
    appropriated for providing construction assistance under this section--
              ``(1) $10,000,000 for the project described in subsection
            (c)(5);
              ``(2) $2,000,000 for the project described in subsection
            (c)(6);
              ``(3) $10,000,000 for the project described in subsection
            (c)(7);
              ``(4) $11,000,000 for the project described in subsection
            (c)(8);
              ``(5) $20,000,000 for the project described in subsection
            (c)(16); and
              ``(6) $20,000,000 for the project described in subsection
            (c)(17).''.

    SEC. 518. CORPS CAPABILITY TO CONSERVE FISH AND WILDLIFE.

      Section 704(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33
    U.S.C. 2263(b); 100 Stat. 4157) is amended--
              (1) by striking ``$5,000,000''; and inserting
            ``$10,000,000''; and
              (2) in paragraph (4) by inserting ``and Virginia'' after
            ``Maryland''.

    SEC. 519. PERIODIC BEACH NOURISHMENT.

      The Secretary shall carry out periodic beach nourishment for each of
    the following projects for a period of 50 years beginning on the date
    of initiation of construction of such project:
              (1) Broward county, florida.--Project for shoreline
            protection, segments II and III, Broward County, Florida.
              (2) Fort pierce, florida.--Project for shoreline protection,
            Fort Pierce, Florida.
              (3) Lee county, florida.--Project for shoreline protection,
            Lee County, Captiva Island segment, Florida.
              (4) Palm beach county, florida.--Project for shoreline
            protection, Jupiter/Carlin, Ocean Ridge, and Boca Raton North
            Beach segments, Palm Beach County, Florida.
              (5) Panama city beaches, florida.--Project for shoreline
            protection, Panama City Beaches, Florida.
              (6) Tybee island, georgia.--Project for beach erosion
            control, Tybee Island, Georgia.

    SEC. 520. CONTROL OF AQUATIC PLANTS.

      The Secretary shall carry out under section 104(b) of the River and
    Harbor Act of 1958 (33 U.S.C. 610(b))--
              (1) a program to control aquatic plants in Lake St. Clair,
            Michigan; and
              (2) program to control aquatic plants in the Schuylkill
            River, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

    SEC. 521. HOPPER DREDGES.

      Section 3 of the Act of August 11, 1888 (33 U.S.C. 622; 25 Stat.
    423), is amended by adding at the end the following:
      ``(c) Program To Increase Use of Private Hopper Dredges.--
              ``(1) Initiation.--The Secretary shall initiate a program to
            increase the use of private industry hopper dredges for the
            construction and maintenance of Federal navigation channels.
              ``(2) Ready reserve status for hopper dredge wheeler.--In
            order to carry out the requirements of this subsection, the
            Secretary shall, not later than the earlier of 90 days after
            the date of completion of the rehabilitation of the hopper
            dredge McFarland pursuant to section 552 of the Water Resources
            Development Act of 1996 or January 1, 1998, place the Federal
            hopper dredge Wheeler in a ready reserve status.
              ``(3) Testing and use of ready reserve hopper dredge.--The
            Secretary may periodically perform routine tests of the
            equipment of the vessel placed in a ready reserve status under
            this subsection to ensure the vessel's ability to perform
            emergency work. The Secretary shall not assign any scheduled
            hopper dredging work to such vessel but shall perform any
            repairs needed to maintain the vessel in a fully operational
            condition. The Secretary may place the vessel in active status
            in order to perform any dredging work only in the event the
            Secretary determines that private industry has failed to submit
            a responsive and responsible bid for work advertised by the
            Secretary or to carry out the project as required pursuant to a
            contract with the Secretary.
              ``(4) Repair and rehabilitation.--The Secretary may undertake
            any repair and rehabilitation of any Federal hopper dredge,
            including the vessel placed in ready reserve status under
            paragraph (2) to allow the vessel to be placed into active
            status as provided in paragraph (3).
              ``(5) Procedures.--The Secretary shall develop and implement
            procedures to ensure that, to the maximum extent practicable,
            private industry hopper dredge capacity is available to meet
            both routine and time-sensitive dredging needs. Such procedures
            shall include--
                      ``(A) scheduling of contract solicitations to
                    effectively distribute dredging work throughout the
                    dredging season; and
                      ``(B) use of expedited contracting procedures to
                    allow dredges performing routine work to be made
                    available to meet time-sensitive, urgent, or emergency
                    dredging needs.
              ``(6) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the
            enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall report to
            Congress on whether the vessel placed in ready reserve status
            pursuant to paragraph (2) is needed to be returned to active
            status or continued in a ready reserve status or whether
            another Federal hopper dredge should be placed in a ready
            reserve status.
              ``(7) Limitations.--
                      ``(A) Reductions in status.--The Secretary may not
                    further reduce the readiness status of any Federal
                    hopper dredge below a ready reserve status except any
                    vessel placed in such status for not less than 5 years
                    which the Secretary determines has not been used
                    sufficiently to justify retaining the vessel in such
                    status.
                      ``(B) Increase in assignments of dredging work.--For
                    each fiscal year beginning after the date of the
                    enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall not
                    assign any greater quantity of dredging work to any
                    Federal hopper dredge in an active status than was
                    assigned to that vessel in the average of the 3 prior
                    fiscal years.
              ``(8) Contracts; payment of capital costs.--The Secretary may
            enter into a contract for the maintenance and crewing of any
            vessel retained in a ready reserve status. The capital costs
            (including depreciation costs) of any vessel retained in such
            status shall be paid for out of funds made available from the
            Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and shall not be charged against
            the Corps of Engineers' Revolving Fund Account or any
            individual project cost unless the vessel is specifically used
            in connection with that project.''.

    SEC. 522. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE.

      The Secretary shall provide design and construction assistance to
    non-Federal interests for the following projects:
              (1) Repair and rehabilitation of the Lower Girard Lake Dam,
            Girard, Ohio, at an estimated total cost of $2,500,000.
              (2) Repair and upgrade of the dam and appurtenant features at
            Lake Merriweather, Little Calfpasture River, Virginia, at an
            estimated total cost of $6,000,000.

    SEC. 523. FIELD OFFICE HEADQUARTERS FACILITIES.

      Subject to amounts being made available in advance in appropriations
    Acts, the Secretary may use Plant Replacement and Improvement Program
    funds to design and construct a new headquarters facility for--
              (1) the New England Division, Waltham, Massachusetts; and
              (2) the Jacksonville District, Jacksonville, Florida.

    SEC. 524. LAKE SUPERIOR CENTER.

      (a) Construction.--The Secretary, shall assist the Minnesota Lake
    Superior Center authority in the construction of an educational
    facility to be used in connection with efforts to educate the public in
    the economic, recreational, biological, aesthetic, and spiritual worth
    of Lake Superior and other large bodies of fresh water.
      (b) Public Ownership.--Prior to providing any assistance under
    subsection (a), the Secretary shall verify that the facility to be
    constructed under subsection (a) will be owned by the public authority
    established by the State of Minnesota to develop, operate, and maintain
    the Lake Superior Center.
      (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
    appropriated for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1996,
    $10,000,000 for the construction of the facility under subsection (a).

    SEC. 525. JACKSON COUNTY, ALABAMA.

      The Secretary shall provide technical, planning, and design
    assistance to non-Federal interests for wastewater treatment and
    related facilities, remediation of point and nonpoint sources of
    pollution and contaminated riverbed sediments, and related activities
    in Jackson County, Alabama, including the city of Stevenson. The
    Federal cost of such assistance may not exceed $5,000,000.

    SEC. 526. EARTHQUAKE PREPAREDNESS CENTER OF EXPERTISE EXTENSION.

      The Secretary shall establish an extension of the Earthquake
    Preparedness Center of Expertise for the central United States at an
    existing district office of the Corps of Engineers near the New Madrid
    fault.

    SEC. 527. QUARANTINE FACILITY.

      Section 108(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106
    Stat. 4816) is amended by striking ``$1,000,000'' and inserting
    ``$4,000,000''.

    SEC. 528. BENTON AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, ARKANSAS.

      Section 220 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat.
    4836-4837) is amended by adding at the end the following new
    subsection:
      ``(c) Use of Federal Funds.--The Secretary may make available to the
    non-Federal interests funds not to exceed an amount equal to the
    Federal share of the total project cost to be used by the non-Federal
    interests to undertake the work directly or by contract.''.

    SEC. 529. CALAVERAS COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

      The Secretary, in cooperation with Federal, State, and local
    agencies, is authorized--
              (1) to conduct investigations and surveys of the watershed of
            the Lower Mokelume River in Calaveras County, California; and
              (2) to provide technical, planning, and design assistance for
            abatement and mitigation of degradation caused by abandoned
            mines and mining activity in the vicinity of such river.

    SEC. 530. PRADO DAM SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS, CALIFORNIA.

      The Secretary, in coordination with the State of California, shall
    provide technical assistance to Orange County, California, in
    developing appropriate public safety and access improvements associated
    with that portion of California State Route 71 being relocated for the
    Prado Dam feature of the project authorized as part of the project for
    flood control, Santa Ana River Mainstem, California, by section 401(a)
    of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4113).

    SEC. 531. MANATEE COUNTY, FLORIDA.

      The project for flood control, Cedar Hammock (Wares Creek), Florida,
    is authorized to be carried out by the Secretary substantially in
    accordance with the Final Detailed Project Report and Environmental
    Assessment, dated April 1995, at a total cost of $13,846,000, with an
    estimated first Federal cost of $8,783,000 and an estimated non-Federal
    cost of $5,063,000.

    SEC. 532. TAMPA, FLORIDA.

      The Secretary may enter into a cooperative agreement under section
    230 of this Act with the Museum of Science and Industry, Tampa,
    Florida, to provide technical, planning, and design assistance to
    demonstrate the water quality functions found in wetlands, at an
    estimated total Federal cost of $500,000.

    SEC. 533. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR DEEP RIVER BASIN, INDIANA.

      (a) Development.--The Secretary, in consultation with the Natural
    Resources Conservation Service of the Department of Agriculture, shall
    develop a watershed management plan for the Deep River Basin, Indiana,
    which includes Deep River, Lake George, Turkey Creek, and other related
    tributaries in Indiana.
      (b) Contents.--The plan to be developed by the Secretary under
    subsection (a) shall address specific concerns related to the Deep
    River Basin area, including sediment flow into Deep River, Turkey
    Creek, and other tributaries; control of sediment quality in Lake
    George; flooding problems; the safety of the Lake George Dam; and
    watershed management.

    SEC. 534. SOUTHERN AND EASTERN KENTUCKY.

      (a) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary shall establish a
    program for providing environmental assistance to non-Federal interests
    in southern and eastern Kentucky. Such assistance may be in the form of
    design and construction assistance for water-related environmental
    infrastructure and resource protection and development projects in
    southern and eastern Kentucky, including projects for wastewater
    treatment and related facilities, water supply, storage, treatment, and
    distribution facilities, and surface water resource protection and
    development.
      (b) Public Ownership Requirement.--The Secretary may provide
    assistance for a project under this section only if the project is
    publicly owned.
      (c) Project Cooperation Agreements.--
              (1) In general.--Before providing assistance under this
            section, the Secretary shall enter into a project cooperation
            agreement with a non-Federal interest to provide for design and
            construction of the project to be carried out with such
            assistance.
              (2) Requirements.--Each agreement entered into under this
            subsection shall provide for the following:
                      (A) Plan.--Development by the Secretary, in
                    consultation with appropriate Federal and State
                    officials, of a facilities development plan or resource
                    protection plan, including appropriate plans and
                    specifications.
                      (B) Legal and institutional structures.--
                    Establishment of each such legal and institutional
                    structures as are necessary to assure the effective
                    long-term operation of the project by the non-Federal
                    interest.
              (3) Cost sharing.--
                      (A) In general.--Total project costs under each
                    agreement entered into under this subsection shall be
                    shared at 75 percent Federal and 25 percent non-
                    Federal, except that the non-Federal interest shall
                    receive credit for the reasonable costs of design work
                    completed by such interest before entry into the
                    agreement with the Secretary. The Federal share may be
                    in the form of grants or reimbursements of project
                    costs.
                      (B) Credit for certain financing costs.--In the event
                    of delays in the reimbursement of the non-Federal share
                    of a project, the non-Federal interest shall receive
                    credit for reasonable interest and other associated
                    financing costs necessary for such non-Federal interest
                    to provide the non-Federal share of the project's cost.
                      (C) Lands, easements, and rights-of-way.--The non-
                    Federal interest shall receive credit for lands,
                    easements, rights-of-way, and relocations provided by
                    the non-Federal interest toward its share of project
                    costs, including for costs associated with obtaining
                    permits necessary for the placement of such project on
                    publicly owned or controlled lands, but not to exceed
                    25 percent of total project costs.
                      (D) Operation and maintenance.--Operation and
                    maintenance costs shall be 100 percent non-Federal.
      (d) Applicability of Other Federal and State Laws.--Nothing in this
    section shall be construed as waiving, limiting, or otherwise affecting
    the applicability of any provision of Federal or State law which would
    otherwise apply to a project to be carried out with assistance provided
    under this section.
      (e) Report.--Not later than December 31, 1999, the Secretary shall
    transmit to Congress a report on the results of the program carried out
    under this section, together with recommendations concerning whether or
    not such program should be implemented on a national basis.
      (f) Southern and Eastern Kentucky Defined.--For purposes of this
    section, the term ``southern and eastern Kentucky'' means Morgan,
    Floyd, Pulaski, Wayne, Laurel, Knox, Pike, Menifee, Perry, Harlan,
    Breathitt, Martin, Jackson, Wolfe, Clay, Magoffin, Owsley, Johnson,
    Leslie, Lawrence, Knott, Bell, McCreary, Rockcastle, Whitley, Lee, and
    Letcher Counties, Kentucky.
      (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
    appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000.

    SEC. 535. LOUISIANA COASTAL WETLANDS RESTORATION PROJECTS.

      Section 303(f) of the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and
    Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 3952(f); 104 Stat. 4782-4783) is amended--
              (1) in paragraph (4) by striking ``and (3)'' and inserting
            ``(3), and (5)''; and
              (2) by adding at the end the following:
              ``(5) Federal share in calendar years 1996 and 1997.--
            Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), amounts made available
            in accordance with section 306 of this title to carry out
            coastal wetlands restoration projects under this section in
            calendar years 1996 and 1997 shall provide 90 percent of the
            cost of such projects.''.

    SEC. 536. SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA.

      (a) Flood Control.--The Secretary is directed to proceed with
    engineering, design, and construction of projects to provide for flood
    control and improvements to rainfall drainage systems in Jefferson,
    Orleans, and St. Tammany Parishes, Louisiana, in accordance with the
    following reports of the New Orleans District Engineer: Jefferson and
    Orleans Parishes, Louisiana, Urban Flood Control and Water Quality
    Management, July 1992; Tangipahoa, Techefuncte, and Tickfaw Rivers,
    Louisiana, June 1991; St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana, June 1996; and
    Schneider Canal, Slidell, Louisiana, Hurricane Protection, May 1990.
      (b) Cost Sharing.--The cost of any work performed by the non-Federal
    interests subsequent to the reports referred to in subsection (a) and
    determined by the Secretary to be a compatible and integral part of the
    projects shall be credited toward the non-Federal share of the
    projects.
      (c) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated $100,000,000 for
    the initiation and partial accomplishment of projects described in the
    reports referred to in subsection (a).

    SEC. 537. RESTORATION PROJECTS FOR MARYLAND, PENNSYLVANIA, AND WEST
                        VIRGINIA.

      (a) In General.--
              (1) Cooperation agreements.--The Secretary shall enter into
            cooperation agreements with non-Federal interests to develop
            and carry out, in cooperation with Federal and State agencies,
            reclamation and protection projects for the purpose of abating
            and mitigating surface water quality degradation caused by
            abandoned mines along--
                      (A) the North Branch of the Potomac River, Maryland,
                    Pennsylvania, and West Virginia; and
                      (B) the New River, West Virginia, watershed.
              (2) Additional measures.--Projects under paragraph (1) may
            also include measures for the abatement and mitigation of
            surface water quality degradation caused by the lack of
            sanitary wastewater treatment facilities or the need to enhance
            such facilities.
              (3) Consultation with federal entities.--Any project under
            paragraph (1) that is located on lands owned by the United
            States shall be undertaken in consultation with the Federal
            entity with administrative jurisdiction over such lands.
      (b) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of the activities
    conducted under cooperation agreements entered into under subsection
    (a)(1) shall be 75 percent; except that, with respect to projects
    located on lands owned by the United States, the Federal share shall be
    100 percent. The non-Federal share of project costs may be provided in
    the form of design and construction services. Non-Federal interests
    shall receive credit for the reasonable costs of such services
    completed by such interests prior to entering an agreement with the
    Secretary for a project.
      (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
    appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for projects
    undertaken under subsection (a)(1)(A) and $5,000,000 for projects
    undertaken under subsection (a)(1)(B).

    SEC. 538. BENEFICIAL USE OF DREDGED MATERIAL, POPLAR ISLAND, MARYLAND.

      The Secretary shall carry out a project for the beneficial use of
    dredged material at Poplar Island, Maryland, pursuant to section 204 of
    the Water Resources Development Act of 1992; except that,
    notwithstanding the limitation contained in subsection (e) of such
    section, the initial cost of constructing dikes for the project shall
    be $78,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $58,500,000 and an
    estimated non-Federal cost of $19,500,000.

    SEC. 539. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES, SMITH ISLAND, MARYLAND.

      (a) In General.--The Secretary shall implement erosion control
    measures in the vicinity of Rhodes Point, Smith Island, Maryland, at an
    estimated total Federal cost of $450,000.
      (b) Implementation on Emergency Basis.--The project under subsection
    (a) shall be carried out on an emergency basis in view of the national,
    historic, and cultural value of the island and in order to protect the
    Federal investment in infrastructure facilities.
      (c) Cost Sharing.--Cost sharing applicable to hurricane and storm
    damage reduction shall be applicable to the project to be carried out
    under subsection (a).

    SEC. 540. BENEFICIAL USE OF DREDGED MATERIAL, WORTON POINT, KENT
                        COUNTY, MARYLAND.

      The Secretary shall carry out a project for the beneficial use of
    dredged material at Worton Point, Kent County, Maryland, pursuant to
    section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992.

    SEC. 541. DULUTH, MINNESOTA, ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY PROJECT.

      (a) Project Authorization.--The Secretary shall develop and implement
    alternative methods for decontamination and disposal of contaminated
    dredged material at the Port of Duluth, Minnesota.
      (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
    appropriated for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1996, to
    carry out this section $1,000,000. Such sums shall remain available
    until expended.

    SEC. 542. REDWOOD RIVER BASIN, MINNESOTA.

      (a) Study and Strategy Development.--The Secretary, in cooperation
    with the Secretary of Agriculture and the State of Minnesota, shall
    conduct a study, and develop a strategy, for using wetland restoration,
    soil and water conservation practices, and nonstructural measures to
    reduce flood damages, improve water quality, and create wildlife
    habitat in the Redwood River basin and the subbasins draining into the
    Minnesota River, at an estimated Federal cost of $4,000,000.
      (b) Non-Federal Share.--The non-Federal share of the cost of the
    study and development of the strategy shall be 25 percent and may be
    provided through in-kind services and materials.
      (c) Cooperation Agreement.--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, including activities for
    the implementation of wetland restoration projects and soil and water
    conservation measures.
      (d) Implementation.--The Secretary shall undertake development and
    implementation of the strategy authorized by this section in
    cooperation with local landowners and local government officials.

    SEC. 543. NATCHEZ BLUFFS, MISSISSIPPI.

      (a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out the project for bluff
    stabilization, Natchez Bluffs, Natchez, Mississippi, substantially in
    accordance with (1) the Natchez Bluffs Study, dated September 1985, (2)
    the Natchez Bluffs Study: Supplement I, dated June 1990, and (3) the
    Natchez Bluffs Study: Supplement II, dated December 1993, in the
    portions of the bluffs described in subsection (b), at a total cost of
    $17,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $12,900,000 and an
    estimated non-Federal cost of $4,300,000.
      (b) Description of Project Location.--The portions of the Natchez
    Bluffs where the project is to be carried out under subsection (a) are
    described in the studies referred to in subsection (a) as--
              (1) Clifton Avenue, area 3;
              (2) the bluff above Silver Street, area 6;
              (3) the bluff above Natchez Under-the-Hill, area 7; and
              (4) Madison Street to State Street, area 4.

    SEC. 544. SARDIS LAKE, MISSISSIPPI.

      The Secretary shall work cooperatively with the State of Mississippi
    and the city of Sardis, Mississippi, to the maximum extent practicable,
    in the management of existing and proposed leases of land consistent
    with the master tourism and recreational plan for the economic
    development of the Sardis Lake area prepared by the city.

    SEC. 545. MISSOURI RIVER MANAGEMENT.

      (a) Navigation Season Extension.--
              (1) Increases.--The Secretary, working with the Secretary of
            Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior, shall
            incrementally increase the length of each navigation season for
            the Missouri River by 15 days from the length of the previous
            navigation season and those seasons thereafter, until such time
            as the navigation season for the Missouri River is increased by
            1 month from the length of the navigation season on April 1,
            1996.
              (2) Application of increases.--Increases in the length of the
            navigation season under paragraph (1) shall be applied in
            calendar year 1996 so that the navigation season in such
            calendar year for the Missouri River begins on April 1, 1996,
            and ends on December 15, 1996.
              (3) Adjustment of navigation levels.--Scheduled full
            navigation levels shall be incrementally increased to coincide
            with increases in the navigation season under paragraph (1).
      (b) Water Control Policies Affecting Navigation Channels.--The
    Secretary may not take any action which is inconsistent with a water
    control policy of the Corps of Engineers in effect on January 1, 1995,
    if such action would result in--
              (1) a reduction of 10 days or more in the total number of
            days in a year during which vessels are able to use navigation
            channels; or
              (2) a substantial increase in flood damage to lands adjacent
            to a navigation channel, unless such action is specifically
            authorized by a law enacted after the date of the enactment of
            this Act.
      (c) Economic and Environmental Impact Evaluation.--Whenever a Federal
    department, agency, or instrumentality conducts an environmental impact
    statement with respect to management of the Missouri River system, the
    head of such department, agency, or instrumentality shall also conduct
    a cost benefit analysis on any changes proposed in the management of
    the Missouri River.

    SEC. 546. ST. CHARLES COUNTY, MISSOURI, FLOOD PROTECTION.

      (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law or
    regulation, no county located at the confluence of the Missouri and
    Mississippi Rivers or community located in any county located at the
    confluence of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers shall have its
    participation in any Federal program suspended, revoked, or otherwise
    affected solely due to that county or community permitting the raising
    of levees by any public-sponsored levee district, along an alignment
    approved by the circuit court of such county, to a level sufficient to
    contain a 20-year flood.
      (b) Treatment of Existing Permits.--If any public-sponsored levee
    district has received a Federal permit valid during the Great Flood of
    1993 to improve or modify its levee system before the date of the
    enactment of this Act, such permit shall be considered adequate to
    allow the raising of the height of levees in such system under
    subsection (a).

    SEC. 547. COCHECO RIVER, NEW HAMPSHIRE.

      The Secretary is directed to provide technical assistance to the city
    of Dover, New Hampshire, in resolving encroachment issues related to
    maintenance dredging of the project for navigation on the Cocheco
    River, New Hampshire.

    SEC. 548. DURHAM, NEW HAMPSHIRE.

      The Secretary may enter into a cooperative agreement under section
    230 of this Act with the University of New Hampshire to provide
    technical assistance for a water treatment technology center addressing
    the needs of small communities.

    SEC. 549. HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS AREA, NEW JERSEY.

      Section 324(b)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106
    Stat. 4849) is amended to read as follows:
              ``(1) Mitigation, enhancement, and acquisition of significant
            wetlands that contribute to the Meadowlands ecosystem.''.

    SEC. 550. AUTHORIZATION OF DREDGE MATERIAL CONTAINMENT FACILITY FOR
                        PORT OF NEW YORK/NEW JERSEY.

      (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to construct, operate,
    and maintain a dredged material containment facility with a capacity
    commensurate with the long-term dredged material disposal needs of port
    facilities under the jurisdiction of the Port of New York/New Jersey.
    Such facility may be a near-shore dredged material disposal facility
    along the Brooklyn waterfront. The costs associated with feasibility
    studies, design, engineering, and construction shall be shared with the
    local sponsor in accordance with the provisions of section 101 of the
    Water Resources Development Act of 1986.
      (b) Beneficial Use.--After the facility to be constructed under
    subsection (a) has been filled to capacity with dredged material, the
    Secretary shall maintain the facility for the public benefit.

    SEC. 551. HUDSON RIVER HABITAT RESTORATION, NEW YORK.

      (a) Habitat Restoration Project.--The Secretary shall expedite the
    feasibility study of the Hudson River Habitat Restoration, Hudson River
    Basin, New York, and shall carry out no fewer than 4 projects for
    habitat restoration, to the extent the Secretary determines such work
    to be technically feasible. Such projects shall be designed to--
              (1) provide a pilot project to assess and improve habitat
            value and environmental outputs of recommended projects;
              (2) provide a demonstration project to evaluate various
            restoration techniques for effectiveness and cost;
              (3) fill an important local habitat need within a specific
            portion of the study area; and
              (4) take advantage of ongoing or planned actions by other
            agencies, local municipalities, or environmental groups that
            would increase the effectiveness or decrease the overall cost
            of implementing one of the recommended restoration project
            sites.
      (b) Non-Federal Share.--Non-Federal interests shall provide 25
    percent of the cost on each project undertaken under subsection (a).
    The non-Federal share may be in the form of cash or in-kind
    contributions.
      (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
    appropriated to carry out this section $11,000,000.

    SEC. 552. NEW YORK BIGHT AND HARBOR STUDY.

      Section 326(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106
    Stat. 4851) is amended by striking ``$1,000,000'' and inserting
    ``$5,000,000''.

    SEC. 553. NEW YORK STATE CANAL SYSTEM.

      (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to make capital
    improvements to the New York State Canal System.
      (b) Agreements.--The Secretary shall, with the consent of appropriate
    local and State entities, enter into such arrangements, contracts, and
    leases with public and private entities as may be necessary for the
    purposes of rehabilitation, renovation, preservation, and maintenance
    of the New York State Canal System and its related facilities,
    including trailside facilities and other recreational projects along
    the waterways of the canal system.
      (c) New York State Canal System Defined.--In this section, the term
    ``New York State Canal System'' means the Erie, Oswego, Champlain, and
    Cayuga-Seneca Canals.
      (d) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of capital
    improvements under this section shall be 50 percent.
      (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
    appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000.

    SEC. 554. NEW YORK CITY WATERSHED.

      (a) Establishment.--
              (1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a program for
            providing environmental assistance to non-Federal interests in
            the New York City Watershed.
              (2) Form.--Assistance provided under this section may be in
            the form of design and construction assistance for water-
            related environmental infrastructure and resource protection
            and development projects in the New York City Watershed,
            including projects for water supply, storage, treatment, and
            distribution facilities, and surface water resource protection
            and development.
      (b) Public Ownership Requirement.--The Secretary may provide
    assistance for a project under this section only if the project is
    publicly owned.
      (c) Eligible Projects.--
              (1) Certification.--A project shall be eligible for financial
            assistance under this section only if the State director for
            the project certifies to the Secretary that the project will
            contribute to the protection and enhancement of the quality or
            quantity of the New York City water supply.
              (2) Special consideration.--In certifying projects to the
            Secretary, the State director shall give special consideration
            to those projects implementing plans, agreements, and measures
            which preserve and enhance the economic and social character of
            the watershed communities.
              (3) Project descriptions.--Projects eligible for assistance
            under this section shall include the following:
                      (A) Implementation of intergovernmental agreements
                    for coordinating regulatory and management
                    responsibilities.
                      (B) Acceleration of whole farm planning to implement
                    best management practices to maintain or enhance water
                    quality and to promote agricultural land use.
                      (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.
                      (D) Natural resources stewardship on public and
                    private lands to promote land uses that preserve and
                    enhance the economic and social character of the
                    watershed communities and protect and enhance water
                    quality.
      (d) Cooperation Agreements.--Before providing assistance under this
    section, the Secretary shall enter into a project cooperation agreement
    with the State director for the project to be carried out with such
    assistance.
      (e) Cost Sharing.--
              (1) In general.--Total project costs under each agreement
            entered into under this section shall be shared at 75 percent
            Federal and 25 percent non-Federal. The non-Federal interest
            shall receive credit for the reasonable costs of design work
            completed by such interest prior to entering into the agreement
            with the Secretary for a project. The Federal share may be in
            the form of grants or reimbursements of project costs.
              (2) Interest.--In the event of delays in the reimbursement of
            the non-Federal share of a project, the non-Federal interest
            shall receive credit for reasonable interest costs incurred to
            provide the non-Federal share of a project's cost.
              (3) Lands, easements, and rights-of-way credit.--The non-
            Federal interest shall receive credit for lands, easements,
            rights-of-way, and relocations provided by the non-Federal
            interest toward its share of project costs, including direct
            costs associated with obtaining permits necessary for the
            placement of such project on public owned or controlled lands,
            but not to exceed 25 percent of total project costs.
              (4) Operation and maintenance.--Operation and maintenance
            costs for projects constructed with assistance provided under
            this section shall be 100 percent non-Federal.
      (f) Applicability of Other Federal and State Laws.--Nothing in this
    section shall be construed to waive, limit, or otherwise affect the
    applicability of any provision of Federal or State law that would
    otherwise apply to a project carried out with assistance provided under
    this section.
      (g) Report.--Not later than December 31, 2000, the Secretary shall
    transmit to Congress a report on the results of the program carried out
    under this section, together with recommendations concerning whether
    such program should be implemented on a national basis.
      (h) New York City Watershed Defined.--For purposes of this section,
    the term ``New York City Watershed'' means the land area within the
    counties of Delaware, Greene, Schoharie, Ulster, Sullivan, Westchester,
    Putnam, and Duchess which contributes water to the water supply system
    of New York City.
      (i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
    appropriated to carry out this section $25,000,000.

    SEC. 555. OHIO RIVER GREENWAY.

      (a) Expedited Completion of Study.--The Secretary is directed to
    expedite the completion of the study for the Ohio River Greenway,
    Jeffersonville, Clarksville, and New Albany, Indiana.
      (b) Construction.--Upon completion of the study, if the Secretary
    determines that the project is feasible, the Secretary shall
    participate with the non-Federal interests in the construction of the
    project.
      (c) Cost Sharing.--Total project costs under this section shall be
    shared at 50 percent Federal and 50 percent non-Federal.
      (d) Lands, Easements, and Rights-of-Way.--Non-Federal interests shall
    be responsible for providing all lands, easements, rights-of-way,
    relocations, and dredged material disposal areas necessary for the
    project.
      (e) Credit.--The non-Federal interests shall receive credit for those
    costs incurred by the non-Federal interests that the Secretary
    determines are compatible with the study, design, and implementation of
    the project.

    SEC. 556. NORTHEASTERN OHIO.

      The Secretary is authorized to provide technical assistance to local
    interests for planning the establishment of a regional water authority
    in northeastern Ohio to address the water problems of the region. The
    Federal share of the costs of such planning shall not exceed 75
    percent.

    SEC. 557. GRAND LAKE, OKLAHOMA.

      (a) Study.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of
    this Act, the Secretary of the Army shall carry out and complete a
    study of flood control in Grand/Neosho Basin and tributaries in the
    vicinity of Pensacola Dam in northeastern Oklahoma to determine the
    scope of the backwater effects of operation of the dam and to identify
    any lands which the Secretary determines have been adversely impacted
    by such operation or should have been originally purchased as flowage
    easement for the project.
      (b) Acquisition of Real Property.--Upon completion of the study and
    subject to advance appropriations, the Secretary shall acquire from
    willing sellers such real property interests in any lands identified in
    the study as the Secretary determines are necessary to reduce the
    adverse impacts identified in the study conducted under subsection (a).
      (c) Implementation Reports.--The Secretary shall transmit to Congress
    reports on the operation of the Pensacola Dam, including data on and a
    description of releases in anticipation of flooding (referred to as
    preoccupancy releases), and the implementation of this section. The
    first of such reports shall be transmitted not later than 2 years after
    the date of the enactment of this Act.
      (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--
              (1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
            carry out this section $25,000,000 for fiscal years beginning
            after September 30, 1996.
              (2) Maximum funding for study.--Of amounts appropriated to
            carry out this section, not to exceed $1,500,000 shall be
            available for carrying out the study under subsection (a).

    SEC. 558. BROAD TOP REGION OF PENNSYLVANIA.

      Section 304 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat.
    4840) is amended--
              (1) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
      ``(b) Cost Sharing.--The Federal share of the cost of the activities
    conducted under the cooperative agreement entered into under subsection
    (a) shall be 75 percent. The non-Federal share of project costs may be
    provided in the form of design and construction services. Non-Federal
    interests shall receive credit for the reasonable costs of such
    services completed by such interests prior to entering an agreement
    with the Secretary for a project.''; and
              (2) in subsection (c) by striking ``$5,500,000'' and
            inserting ``$11,000,000''.

    SEC. 559. HOPPER DREDGE MCFARLAND.

      (a) Project Authorization.--The Secretary shall carry out a project
    at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, Pennsylvania, to make modernization
    and efficiency improvements to the hopper dredge McFarland.
      (b) Requirements.--In carrying out the project under subsection (a),
    the Secretary shall--
              (1) determine whether the McFarland should be returned to
            active service or the reserve fleet after the project is
            completed; and
              (2) establish minimum standards of dredging service to be met
            in areas served by the McFarland while the drydocking is taking
            place.
      (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
    appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000 for fiscal years
    beginning after September 30, 1996.

    SEC. 560. PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA.

      (a) Water Works Restoration.--
              (1) In general.--The Secretary shall provide planning,
            design, and construction assistance for the protection and
            restoration of the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Water Works.
              (2) Coordination.--In providing assistance under this
            subsection, the Secretary shall coordinate with the Fairmount
            Park Commission and the Secretary of the Interior.
              (3) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated to carry
            out this subsection $1,000,000 for fiscal years beginning after
            September 30, 1996.
      (b) Cooperation Agreement for Schuylkill Navigation Canal.--
              (1) In general.--The Secretary shall enter into a cooperation
            agreement with the city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to
            participate in the operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation
            of the Schuylkill Navigation Canal at Manayunk.
              (2) Limitation on federal share.--The Federal share of the
            cost of the operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation under
            paragraph (1) shall not exceed $300,000 annually.
              (3) Area included.--For purposes of this subsection, the
            Schuylkill Navigation Canal includes the section approximately
            10,000 feet long extending between Lock and Fountain Streets,
            Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
      (c) Schuylkill River Park.--
              (1) Assistance.--The Secretary is authorized to provide
            technical, planning, design, and construction assistance for
            the Schuylkill River Park, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
              (2) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated
            $2,700,000 to carry out this subsection.
      (d) Pennypack Park.--
              (1) Assistance.--The Secretary is authorized to provide
            technical, design, construction, and financial assistance for
            measures for the improvement and restoration of aquatic
            habitats and aquatic resources at Pennypack Park, Philadelphia,
            Pennsylvania.
              (2) Cooperation agreements.--In providing assistance under
            this subsection, the Secretary shall enter into cooperation
            agreements with the city of Philadelphia, acting through the
            Fairmount Park Commission.
              (3) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated for
            fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1996, $15,000,000 to
            carry out this subsection.
      (e) Frankford Dam.--
              (1) Cooperation agreements.--The Secretary shall enter into
            cooperation agreements with the city of Philadelphia,
            Pennsylvania, acting through the Fairmount Park Commission, to
            provide assistance for the elimination of the Frankford Dam,
            the replacement of the Rhawn Street Dam, and modifications to
            the Roosevelt Dam and the Verree Road Dam.
              (2) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated for
            fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1996, $900,000, to
            carry out this subsection.

    SEC. 561. UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN, PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW YORK.

      (a) Study and Strategy Development.--The Secretary, in cooperation
    with the Secretary of Agriculture, the State of Pennsylvania, and the
    State of New York, shall conduct a study, and develop a strategy, for
    using wetland restoration, soil and water conservation practices, and
    nonstructural measures to reduce flood damages, improve water quality,
    and create wildlife habitat in the following portions of the Upper
    Susquehanna River basin:
              (1) the Juniata River watershed, Pennsylvania, at an
            estimated Federal cost of $15,000,000; and
              (2) the Susquehanna River watershed upstream of the Chemung
            River, New York, at an estimated Federal cost of $10,000,000.
      (b) Non-Federal Share.--The non-Federal share of the cost of the
    study and development of the strategy shall be 25 percent and may be
    provided through in-kind services and materials.
      (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, including activities for
    the implementation of wetland restoration projects and soil and water
    conservation measures.
      (d) Implementation.--The Secretary shall undertake development and
    implementation of the strategy authorized by this section in
    cooperation with local landowners and local government officials.

    SEC. 562. SEVEN POINTS VISITORS CENTER, RAYSTOWN LAKE, PENNSYLVANIA.

      (a) In General.--The Secretary shall construct a visitors center and
    related public use facilities at the Seven Points Recreation Area at
    Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania, generally in accordance with the Master
    Plan Update (1994) for the Raystown Lake Project.
      (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
    appropriated to carry out this section $2,500,000.

    SEC. 563. SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA.

      (a) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary shall establish a pilot
    program for providing environmental assistance to non-Federal interests
    in southeastern Pennsylvania. Such assistance may be in the form of
    design and construction assistance for water-related environmental
    infrastructure and resource protection and development projects in
    southeastern Pennsylvania, including projects for waste water treatment
    and related facilities, water supply, storage, treatment, and
    distribution facilities, and surface water resource protection and
    development.
      (b) Public Ownership Requirement.--The Secretary may provide
    assistance for a project under this section only if the project is
    publicly owned.
      (c) Local Cooperation Agreements.--
              (1) In general.--Before providing assistance under this
            section, the Secretary shall enter into a local cooperation
            agreement with a non-Federal interest to provide for design and
            construction of the project to be carried out with such
            assistance.
              (2) Requirements.--Each local cooperation agreement entered
            into under this subsection shall provide for the following:
                      (A) Plan.--Development by the Secretary, in
                    consultation with appropriate Federal and State
                    officials, of a facilities or resource protection and
                    development plan, including appropriate engineering
                    plans and specifications.
                      (B) Legal and institutional structures.--
                    Establishment of each such legal and institutional
                    structures as are necessary to assure the effective
                    long-term operation of the project by the non-Federal
                    interest.
              (3) Cost sharing.--
                      (A) In general.--Total project costs under each local
                    cooperation agreement entered into under this
                    subsection shall be shared at 75 percent Federal and 25
                    percent non-Federal. The non-Federal interest shall
                    receive credit for the reasonable costs of design work
                    completed by such interest prior to entering into a
                    local cooperation agreement with the Secretary for a
                    project. The credit for such design work shall not
                    exceed 6 percent of the total construction costs of the
                    project. The Federal share may be in the form of grants
                    or reimbursements of project costs.
                      (B) Interest.--In the event of delays in the funding
                    of the non-Federal share of a project that is the
                    subject of an agreement under this section, the non-
                    Federal interest shall receive credit for reasonable
                    interest incurred in providing the non-Federal share of
                    a project's cost.
                      (C) Lands, easements, and rights-of-way credit.--The
                    non-Federal interest shall receive credit for lands,
                    easements, rights-of-way, and relocations toward its
                    share of project costs, including all reasonable costs
                    associated with obtaining permits necessary for the
                    construction, operation, and maintenance of such
                    project on publicly owned or controlled lands, but not
                    to exceed 25 percent of total project costs.
                      (D) Operation and maintenance.--Operation and
                    maintenance costs for projects constructed with
                    assistance provided under this section shall be 100
                    percent non-Federal.
      (d) Applicability of Other Federal and State Laws.--Nothing in this
    section shall be construed as waiving, limiting, or otherwise affecting
    the applicability of any provision of Federal or State law which would
    otherwise apply to a project to be carried out with assistance provided
    under this section.
      (e) Report.--Not later than December 31, 1998, the Secretary shall
    transmit to Congress a report on the results of the pilot program
    carried out under this section, together with recommendations
    concerning whether or not such program should be implemented on a
    national basis.
      (f) Southeastern Pennsylvania Defined.--For purposes of this section,
    the term ``Southeastern Pennsylvania'' means Philadelphia, Bucks,
    Chester, Delaware, and Montgomery Counties, Pennsylvania.
      (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
    appropriated to carry out this section $25,000,000 for fiscal years
    beginning after September 30, 1996. Such sums shall remain available
    until expended.

    SEC. 564. BLACKSTONE RIVER VALLEY, RHODE ISLAND AND MASSACHUSETTS.

      (a) In General.--The Secretary, in coordination with Federal, State,
    and local interests, shall provide technical, planning, and design
    assistance in the development and restoration of the Blackstone River
    Valley National Heritage Corridor, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts.
      (b) Federal Share.--Funds made available under this section for
    planning and design of a project may not exceed 75 percent of the total
    cost of such planning and design.

    SEC. 565. EAST RIDGE, TENNESSEE.

      The Secretary shall review the flood management study for the East
    Ridge and Hamilton County area undertaken by the Tennessee Valley
    Authority and shall carry out the project at an estimated total cost of
    $25,000,000.

    SEC. 566. MURFREESBORO, TENNESSEE.

      The Secretary shall carry out a project for environmental
    enhancement, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, in accordance with the Report and
    Environmental Assessment, Black Fox, Murfree and Oaklands Spring
    Wetlands, Murfreesboro, Rutherford County, Tennessee, dated August
    1994.

    SEC. 567. BUFFALO BAYOU, TEXAS.

      The non-Federal interest for the projects for flood control, Buffalo
    Bayou Basin, Texas, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act
    of 1954 (68 Stat. 1258), and Buffalo Bayou and tributaries, Texas,
    authorized by section 101 of the Water Resources Development Act of
    1990 (104 Stat. 4610), may be reimbursed by up to $5,000,000 or may
    receive a credit of up to $5,000,000 against required non-Federal
    project cost-sharing contributions for work performed by the non-
    Federal interest at each of the following locations if such work is
    compatible with the following authorized projects: White Oak Bayou,
    Brays Bayou, Hunting Bayou, Garners Bayou, and the Upper Reach on
    Greens Bayou.

    SEC. 568. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS.

      (a) In General.--During any evaluation of economic benefits and costs
    for projects set forth in subsection (b) that occurs after the date of
    the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall not consider flood
    control works constructed by non-Federal interests within the drainage
    area of such projects prior to the date of such evaluation in the
    determination of conditions existing prior to construction of the
    project.
      (b) Specific Projects.--The projects to which subsection (a) apply
    are--
              (1) the project for flood control, Buffalo Bayou and
            Tributaries, Texas, authorized by section 101(a) of the Water
            Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4610);
              (2) the project for flood control, Cypress Creek, Texas,
            authorized by section 3(a)(13) of the Water Resources
            Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4014); and
              (3) the project for flood control, Buffalo Bayou Basin,
            authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1954 (68
            Stat. 1258).

    SEC. 569. PIERCE COUNTY, WASHINGTON.

      (a) Technical Assistance.--The Secretary shall provide technical
    assistance to Pierce County, Washington, to address measures that are
    necessary to assure that non-Federal levees are adequately maintained
    and satisfy eligibility criteria for rehabilitation assistance under
    section 5 of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing the construction of
    certain public works on rivers and harbors for flood control, and for
    other purposes'', approved August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n; 55 Stat.
    650). Such assistance shall include a review of the requirements of the
    Puyallup Tribe of Indians Settlement Act of 1989 (Public Law 101-41)
    and standards for project maintenance and vegetation management used by
    the Secretary to determine eligibility for levee rehabilitation
    assistance with a view toward amending such standards as needed to make
    non-Federal levees eligible for assistance that may be necessary as a
    result of future flooding.
      (b) Levee Rehabilitation.--The Secretary shall expedite a review to
    determine the extent to which requirements of the Puyallup Tribe of
    Indians Settlement Act of 1989 limited the ability of non-Federal
    interests to adequately maintain existing non-Federal levees that were
    damaged by flooding in 1995 and 1996 and, to the extent that such
    ability was limited by such Act, the Secretary shall carry out the
    rehabilitation of such levees.

    SEC. 570. WASHINGTON AQUEDUCT.

      (a) Regional Entity.--
              (1) In general.--Congress encourages the non-Federal public
            water supply customers of the Washington Aqueduct to establish
            a non-Federal public or private entity, or to enter into an
            agreement with an existing non-Federal public or private
            entity, to receive title to the Washington Aqueduct and to
            operate, maintain, and manage the Washington Aqueduct in a
            manner that adequately represents all interests of such
            customers.
              (2) Consent of congress.--Congress grants consent to the
            jurisdictions which are customers of the Washington Aqueduct to
            establish a non-Federal entity to receive title to the
            Washington Aqueduct and to operate, maintain, and manage the
            Washington Aqueduct.
              (3) Limitation on statutory construction.--Nothing in this
            subsection shall preclude the jurisdictions referred to in this
            subsection from pursuing alternative options regarding
            ownership, operation, maintenance, and management of the
            Washington Aqueduct.
      (b) Progress Report and Plan.--Not later than 1 year after the date
    of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to the
    Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the
    Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
    Representatives a report on the progress in achieving the objectives of
    subsection (a) and a plan for the transfer of ownership, operation,
    maintenance, and management of the Washington Aqueduct to a non-Federal
    public or private entity. Such plan shall include a transfer of
    ownership, operation, maintenance, and management of the Washington
    Aqueduct that is consistent with the provisions of this section and a
    detailed consideration of any proposal to transfer such ownership or
    operation, maintenance, or management to a private entity.
      (c) Transfer.--
              (1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the
            enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transfer, without
            consideration but subject to such terms and conditions as the
            Secretary considers appropriate to protect the interests of the
            United States and the non-Federal public water supply
            customers, all right, title, and interest of the United States
            in the Washington Aqueduct, its real property, facilities,
            equipment, supplies, and personalty--
                      (A) to a non-Federal public or private entity
                    established pursuant to subsection (a); or
                      (B) in the event no entity is established pursuant to
                    subsection (a), a non-Federal public or private entity
                    selected by the Secretary which reflects, to the extent
                    possible, a consensus among the non-Federal public
                    water supply customers.
              (2) Transferee selection criteria.--The selection of a non-
            Federal public or private entity under paragraph (1)(B) shall
            be based on technical, managerial, and financial capabilities
            and on consultation with the non-Federal public water supply
            customers and after opportunity for public input.
              (3) Assumption of responsibilities.--The entity to whom
            transfer under paragraph (1) is made shall assume full
            responsibility for performing and financing the operation,
            maintenance, repair, replacement, rehabilitation, and necessary
            capital improvements of the Washington Aqueduct so as to ensure
            the continued operation of the Washington Aqueduct consistent
            with its intended purpose of providing an uninterrupted supply
            of potable water sufficient to meet the current and future
            needs of the Washington Aqueduct service area.
              (4) Extension.--Notwithstanding the 2-year deadline
            established in paragraph (1), the Secretary may provide a 1-
            time 6-month extension of such deadline if the Secretary
            determines that the non-Federal public water supply customers
            are making progress in establishing an entity pursuant to
            subsection (a) and that such an extension would likely result
            in the establishment of such an entity.
      (d) Interim Borrowing Authority.--
              (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), there is
            authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for fiscal years
            1997 and 1998 borrowing authority in amounts sufficient to
            cover those obligations which the Army Corps of Engineers is
            required to incur in carrying out capital improvements during
            such fiscal years for the Washington Aqueduct to assure its
            continued operation until such time as the transfer under
            subsection (c) has taken place, provided that such amounts do
            not exceed $16,000,000 for fiscal year 1997 and $54,000,000 for
            fiscal year 1998.
              (2) Terms and conditions.--The borrowing authority under
            paragraph (1) shall be provided to the Secretary by the
            Secretary of the Treasury under such terms and conditions as
            the Secretary of the Treasury determines to be necessary in the
            public interest and may be provided only after each of the non-
            Federal public water supply customers of the Washington
            Aqueduct has entered into a contractual agreement with the
            Secretary to pay its pro rata share of the costs associated
            with such borrowing.
              (3) Impact on improvement program.--Not later than 6 months
            after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in
            consultation with other Federal agencies, shall transmit to the
            Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the
            Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
            Representatives a report that assesses the impact of the
            borrowing authority provided under this subsection on near-term
            improvement projects under the Washington Aqueduct Improvement
            Program, work scheduled during fiscal years 1997 and 1998, and
            the financial liability to be incurred.
      (e) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the following
    definitions apply:
              (1) Washington aqueduct.--The term ``Washington Aqueduct''
            means the Washington Aqueduct facilities and related facilities
            owned by the Federal Government as of the date of the enactment
            of this Act, including the dams, intake works, conduits, and
            pump stations that capture and transport raw water from the
            Potomac River to the Dalecarlia Reservoir, the infrastructure
            and appurtenances used to treat water taken from the Potomac
            River by such facilities to potable standards, and related
            water distributions facilities.
              (2) Non-federal public water supply customers.--The term
            ``non-Federal public water supply customers'' means the
            District of Columbia, Arlington County, Virginia, and the city
            of Falls Church, Virginia.

    SEC. 571. HUNTINGTON, WEST VIRGINIA.

      The Secretary may enter into a cooperative agreement with Marshall
    University, Huntington, West Virginia, to provide technical assistance
    to the Center for Environmental, Geotechnical and Applied Sciences.

    SEC. 572. LOWER MUD RIVER, MILTON, WEST VIRGINIA.

      The Secretary shall review the watershed plan and the environmental
    impact statement prepared for the Lower Mud River, Milton, West
    Virginia by the Natural Resources Conservation Service pursuant to the
    Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.)
    and shall carry out the project.

    SEC. 573. EVALUATION OF BEACH MATERIAL.

      (a) In General.--The Secretary and the Secretary of the Interior
    shall evaluate procedures and requirements used in the selection and
    approval of materials to be used in the restoration and nourishment of
    beaches. Such evaluation shall address the potential effects of
    changing existing procedures and requirements on the implementation of
    beach restoration and nourishment projects and on the aquatic
    environment.
      (b) Consultation.--In conducting the evaluation under this section,
    the Secretaries shall consult with appropriate State agencies.
      (c) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment
    of this Act, the Secretaries shall transmit a report to Congress on
    their findings under this section.

    SEC. 574. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY TOLLS.

      It is the sense of Congress that the President should engage in
    negotiations with the Government of Canada for the purposes of--
              (1) eliminating tolls along the St. Lawrence Seaway system;
            and
              (2) identifying ways to maximize the movement of goods and
            commerce through the St. Lawrence Seaway.

                              Purpose and Summary

        The purpose of H.R. 3592, the ``Water Resources Development
    Act of 1996,'' (WRDA 96) is to authorize projects and programs
    of the civil works program of the Army Corps of Engineers and
    to modify certain policies relating to that program. The bill
    contains five titles. Title I authorizes projects for which
    final reports of the Chief of Engineers have been prepared and
    directs the Secretary to pursue specified projects under the
    Corps' ``continuing authorities program.'' Title II contains
    generally applicable provisions, such as modifications of
    selected cost-sharing requirements, creation or expansion of
    Corps authorities for protecting, restoring and enhancing the
    environment, and updating and streamlining Corps administrative
    procedures. Title III contains modifications to existing
    authorized projects, primarily for the purpose of increasing
    authorized total project costs due to changed project
    conditions. Title IV authorizes studies to address a variety of
    water resources problems and opportunities. Title V contains
    miscellaneous provisions addressing water resources issues.

                              Background and Need

        The Water Resources Development Act of 1996, H.R. 3592,
    demonstrates the continuing commitment of the Committee on
    Transportation and Infrastructure to the Nation's water
    infrastructure and the aquatic environment and to a regular
    authorization schedule for the Civil Works Program of the
    Department of the Army.
        H.R. 3592 was introduced on June 6, 1996 by Chairman Bud
    Shuster, full committee Ranking Democratic Member James
    Oberstar, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
    Chairman Sherry Boehlert, and Subcommittee Ranking Democratic
    Member Robert Borski. Prior to introduction of the bill, the
    Committee conducted hearings on February 7, 1995, February 27
    and 28, 1996, and March 21, 1996, receiving testimony from the
    Department of the Army, numerous Members of Congress, and
    public witnesses. On June 11, 1996, the Subcommittee on Water
    Resources and Environment ordered the bill, without amendment,
    reported to the full Committee on Transportation and
    Infrastructure, and the bill, as amended, was ordered reported
    by the Committee on June 27, 1996.
        Project authorizations adhere to the cost-sharing reforms
    contained in the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (WRDA
    86). H.R. 3592 balances the water resources needs of the Nation
    and the need to make the programs of the Corps of Engineers
    more responsive to fiscal and environmental concerns. The bill
    responds to water infrastructure needs, policy initiatives for
    updating existing water resources programs, and opportunities
    to restore, protect and enhance the aquatic environment.
    Project costs cited in the bill are based on October 1995,
    price levels unless otherwise stated.
        It is essential to the Nation's infrastructure and to the
    fulfillment of commitments to non-Federal sponsors to renew the
    biennial authorization process for the Corps of Engineers water
    resources program. On October 3, 1994, the House of
    Representatives passed H.R. 4460, the ``Water Resources
    Development Act of 1994.'' Unfortunately, congressional action
    on that bill was not completed before adjournment of the 103rd
    Congress. As a result, the 2-year cycle that provided certainty
    to Federal planners and non-Federal sponsors alike, as well as
    an update to the population of Federal projects available to
    receive appropriations, failed for the first time since the
    process was reinstated with the enactment of WRDA 86. The
    Committee believes that passage of WRDA 96 is vitally important
    to fulfill commitments to non-Federal sponsors, to be
    responsive to new and emerging water resources needs, to fine-
    tune the Corps' missions and responsibilities, and to
    accommodate the Administration's policy initiatives.
        During its deliberations on requests for project
    authorizations, the Committee declined to include a number of
    projects because they could be accomplished under existing
    Corps of Engineers authority, such as the authority to
    accomplish work as part of its normal operation and maintenance
    (or O&M) program, general authority for implementing
    recreational facilities at existing projects; or for which
    sufficient authority already exists. The following projects
    represent critically important activities that should move
    forward but do not require additional authorization from
    Congress:
              Arkansas City, Kansas, flood control project
              Passaic River Basin, New Jersey, acquisition of
            natural floodplain storage areas
              St. Joseph Harbor, Michigan, dredging of inner harbor
              Cocheco River (Dover) and Sagamore Creek
            (Portsmouth), New Hampshire, dredging
              Red River Waterway, Louisiana, dredging of oxbow
            lakes
              Atchafalaya River, Simmesport, Louisiana, river
            access
              Suwannee River, McGriff Pass, Florida, dredging
              Kawkawlin River, Michigan, dredging
              Use of cooperative agreements for activities at
            existing Corps projects, including fish passage for
            anadromous fish on the Columbia & Snake Rivers,
            Washington, Oregon and Idaho
              Little Sodus Bay Harbor, New York, rehabilitation of
            the East Breakwater
        The Committee is also aware that the Corps is not making
    sufficient progress with a number of previously authorized high
    priority studies and projects and directs the Secretary to
    expedite these activities. Among the studies and projects
    brought to the Committee's attention are the following:
              Kankakee River Basin, Illinois. A comprehensive flood
            control study is urgently needed to address flooding
            along the river and its tributaries.
              South Shore of Staten Island New York. The area is in
            urgent need of storm damage reduction and beach erosion
            control work.
              Green Brook (Raritan Sub-Basin), New Jersey. The New
            York office of the Corps has essentially completed a
            report on long-awaited flood protection for this area.
              Jacksonville Harbor, Florida. The Corps is currently
            studying the feasibility of deepening the existing
            channel to 44 feet. This project will have a
            significant impact on international commerce and has
            strategic importance to the U.S. military.
              Townsend Inlet to Cape May Inlet, New Jersey. The
            Corps is finalizing a study of potential storm damage
            reduction and environmental restoration projects at
            Avalon, Stone Harbor and North Wildwood.
        The Committee is also very concerned about the Corps'
    reluctance to proceed with justified and meritorious projects
    based on arbitrary considerations and internal policy
    decisions. For example, shallow-draft navigation channels and
    shoreline erosion projects providing recreational benefits are
    typically assigned low priority for studies as well as for
    construction. These projects often provide quantifiable
    economic benefits equal to or exceeding those from other types
    of projects, yet the Corps has decided that ``recreational
    outputs'' should be given low priority. The Committee finds
    this approach to be unacceptable and directs the Secretary to
    base future decisions on overall engineering, economic and
    environmental merit, not on arbitrary findings of low priority.
        The Committee is concerned about groundwater contamination
    at the Army's Sierra Depot, migration of this contamination
    into the Honey Valley Groundwater Basin, and the impact of such
    contamination on a proposed pipeline project to transfer water
    to the Reno-Sparks Metropolitan Area. The Committee directs the
    Secretary to instruct the appropriate Army officials to meet
    with affected parties and to determine fair compensation to
    those who have, in good faith, invested in this project but
    have been damaged by this unfortunate contamination problem.
        The Committee is aware of unclear and inconsistent
    interpretations of the American Society of Testing and
    Materials' (ASTM) requirements for steel sheet piling for civil
    works projects. By the Corps' own admission, a recent survey of
    Corps' districts indicated wide variations in the acceptance
    criteria for steel sheet piling--specifically with respect to
    hot-rolled and cold-formed sheet piling. The Committee has also
    been advised of specific instances where cold-formed sheet
    piling has not met ASTM specifications and has performed
    poorly. In response, the Corps issued an April 1996 guidance
    memorandum to division and district offices to ensure a clearer
    and more consistent interpretation of the ASTM requirements.
    The Committee directs the Corps Headquarters to take
    appropriate actions to ensure the districts properly implement
    the guidance and avoid instances where ASTM specifications are
    not met.
        Finally, Committee notes that other water resources
    infrastructure needs exist and warrant careful consideration in
    the future as planning efforts are completed and project
    designs become available for consideration. For example,
    structures on the Nation's inland waterways navigation system
    are aging and, in many cases, in need of replacement or
    rehabilitation. H.R. 3592 takes an important step in addressing
    this problem by authorizing two new navigation locks and
    modifying the authorization of another. Similar needs exist
    elsewhere on the inland waterways system. This bill authorizes
    Corps of Engineers projects. The Committee was not requested to
    include other projects in this legislation, such as the
    Chickamauga Lock on the Tennessee River, which is currently
    being considered for replacement by the Tennessee Valley
    Authority (TVA) under its authority in the TVA Act. The
    Committee views the replacement and modernization of aging
    infrastructure such as this as an essential issue for
    congressional deliberations.

        Discussion of the Committee Bill and Section-by-Section Analysis

    Section 1: Short title; table of contents

        This section provides that the Act may be referred to as
    the ``Water Resources Development Act of 1996.'' It also
    includes the table of contents for the bill.

    Section 2: Secretary defined

        This section defines the term ``Secretary,'' which is used
    throughout the bill, as the Secretary of the Army.

                       TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

    Section 101: Project authorizations

        This section authorizations 24 projects for water resources
    development and conservation to be carried out substantially in
    accordance with the reports of the Chief of Engineers cited for
    each project.

                    (1) american river watershed, california

        Location: The American River watershed extends from its
    upper reaches, located in the mostly mountainous area along the
    western face of the Sierra Nevada in the northern California
    counties of Placer and El Dorado, to its lower reaches,
    encompassing the California State capitol, Sacramento, and its
    highly urbanized metropolitan area in Sacramento County.
        Description of Problem and Recommended Plan: Folsom Dam and
    levees along the lower American River, Sacramento River, and
    tributary streams and channels provide some degree of flood
    protection to the highly urbanized Sacramento area. The storms
    of February 1986 filled Folsom Lake and necessitated record
    releases in excess of design flows downstream. An extension
    flood fighting effort was made by the Corps at a cost of $3
    million and an additional $10 million was required for post-
    flood repair work. Potentially flooded areas during more
    extreme flood events could have an impact on approximately
    400,000 people, and an estimated $38 billion in property value.
    It is estimated that a single flood event exceeding the
    capacity of the existing project could cause between $8 and $16
    billion in damages. The current level of flood protection in
    Sacramento is about 78 years without considering the
    reoperation of Folsom Reservoir for added flood control
    storage. When the continued reoperation of Folsom is
    considered, the level of protection is about 100 years. This is
    among the lowest levels of flood protection for major urban
    areas.
        The authorized project includes stabilizing or modifying
    approximately 24 miles of existing downstream levees on the
    lower American River, modifying 12 miles of Sacramento River
    levees adjacent to the Natomas area, implementation of a
    telemetered flood warning system, and continued flood control
    storage space in Folsom Reservoir to a minimum 400,000 acre-
    feet. The level of flood protection offered by the project is
    about 106 years. The project is viewed by the Corps of
    Engineers as not being a permanent solution addressing all
    flood damage reduction issues in the area.

    Physical data on project features

        a. Structural:
        (1) Levees and other facilities.
        Lower American River: Vertical cutoff slurry walls would be
    incorporated into 10.4 miles of levee along the left bank and
    about 13.5 miles along the right bank. The plan also includes
    improvements to the existing flood warning system.
        Sacramento River: Levee and stability berm raising would
    occur along the Sacramento River east levee from Verona Road
    downstream for a distance of about 12.1 miles
        (2) Lands, easements, rights-of-way and relocations.
        Lower American River: 6.08 acres in levee easements; 2.44
    acres in temporary easements.
        Sacramento River: Lands previously cost shared as part of
    prior project.
        b. Nonstructural:
        Telemetered flood warning system: work includes
    telemetering existing stream gages and the installation of
    additional gages.
        Folsom Dam and Reservoir: Flood control storage space
    within Folsom Reservoir would continue to be reoperated to
    provide between 400,000/670,000 acre-feet of flood storage.
        Views of States and Other Non-Federal Interests: The
    Governor and the State of California Reclamation Board and the
    Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency support the construction
    of a retention dam at Auburn. The California Department of Fish
    and Game has not commented on this particular plan.
        Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The Department of
    Interior has not provided comments on this particular plan; and
    the regional office of the Environmental Protection Agency
    agreed with construction of non-dam measures and concurred in
    continuing the variable operation of Folsom reservoir on an
    interim basis.
        Status of Final Environmental Impact Statement: The final
    environmental impact statement completed during preparation of
    the feasibility report was released in February 1996.

    Estimated Implementation Costs:
        Federal: Corps of Engineers/Flood Control...........     $42,975,000
        Non-Federal:
            Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency............      14,325,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
              Total.........................................      57,300,000

        Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: Lands,
    easements, rights-of-way, relocations and dredged material
    disposal areas (LERRDs) that are required for the project plus
    a sufficient cash contribution to total, when combined with the
    value of LERRDs, at least 25% of total project costs
    attributable to flood control.
        Description of Non-Federal O&M Cost: Operation and
    maintenance cost include operations of the levee system,
    periodic inspection of the project features, and repair,
    replacement, and rehabilitation of structures.
        Benefit-Cost Ration: 4.4.

                    (2) SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CALIFORNIA.--

        Location: Santa Barbara Harbor is located on the Southern
    California coast about 90 miles northwest of Los Angeles.
        Description of Problem and Recommended Plan: Severe
    Shoaling in the Santa Barbara Harbor Entrance Channel,
    particularly during the winter storm season, restricts access
    to the harbor. These conditions inhibit the use of the harbor
    by boaters, creating economic impacts and reducing its
    desirability as a harbor or refuge, one of the few available
    along the central California coastline.
        The recommended plan consists of Federal participation in
    acquiring a dredge system, including appurtenant facilities,
    for the city of Santa Barbara. The recommended plan also calls
    for the city of Santa Barbara to assume full responsibility for
    maintaining the existing Federal navigation channel of Santa
    Barbara Harbor, including operations, funding and maintenance
    and replacement of the dredge system.

    Physical data on project features

        The dredge plant would be a 1,000-kilowatt, electric-
    powered, 16-inch hydraulic dredge, with a full stock of
    required spare parts. Additional equipment would include a
    workboat and skiff, pipelines, shore support equipment such as
    a levee dozer and a crane, and electrical support gear
    including a reel barge and power cable. The dredge would be
    able to handle normal shoaling of a least 325,000 cubic yards
    per year, with the capability to pump up to 8,000 cubic yards
    per day as needed throughout the six-month period of maximum
    dredging operations.
        Views of States and Other Non-Federal Interests: By letter
    dated 16 December 1993, The Resources Agency of California
    indicated they have no comments or recommendations to offer.
    The city of Santa Barbara, by letter dated 3 August 1993,
    indicated their intent to cost share the implementation of the
    recommended plan.
        Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The Department of
    Interior, by letter dated 17 December 1993, had no objection to
    the recommended plan. The Department of Transportation had no
    comment.
        Status of Final Environmental Impact Statement: Finding of
    No Significant Impact was signed 8 August 1993.
        Description of the Non-Federal O&M Cost: The non-Federal
    interest will be responsible for the maintenance dredging of
    the existing Federal navigation channel at Santa Barbara
    Harbor, including operations, funding and maintenance and
    replacement of the dredge system.

    Estimated Implementation Costs:
        Federal: Corps of Engineers/Navigation..............      $4,670,000
        Non-Federal: City of Santa Barbara..................       1,170,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total.............................................       5,840,000

        Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: cash
    contribution.
        Benefit-Cost Ratio: ____________.

                 (3) SAN LORENZO RIVER, SANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA

        Location: The San Lorenzo River study area is located in
    the city of Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California,
    approximately 75 miles south of San Francisco.
        Description of Problem and Recommended Plan: In January
    1982, a major run-off event occurred on the San Lorenzo River
    that caused one span of the Soquel Avenue Bridge to collapse.
    The existing flood control system is estimated to provide
    protection to significantly less than the 100-year frequency
    flood. Nearly 1100 residential and 300 commercial structures
    and the principal commercial district of the city are at risk
    from flooding from the San Lorenzo River. There is an estimated
    $600,000,000 in property that would be damaged in the flood
    plain.
        The recommended plan of improvement will provide a 70-year
    level of flood protection (equivalent to a Federal Emergency
    Management Agency 100-year level) for much of the downtown area
    of Santa Cruz. The plan consists of construction of
    approximately 13,000 linear feet of floodwalls on top of
    existing levees, from the Southern Pacific railroad bridge near
    the San Lorenzo River mouth, upstream to Highway 1;
    modifications to the Water Street and Soquel Avenue bridges;
    initial dredging of approximately 65,000 cubic yards from the
    channel plus advance maintenance dredging of 10,000 cubic
    yards; toe drains along the landside of existing levees; a
    1200-foot long controlled overflow section in the upper reaches
    of the project; flood warning system and emergency response
    plan; and flood proofing improvements to the Santa Cruz County
    Government Center.

    Physical data on project features

        a. Structural:
        (1) Canal, channelization, levees, jetties, drainage
    systems, and other facilities.
        (a) 7,000 linear feet precast of block floodwall and 6,000
    linear feet of sheetpile floodwall ranging in height from 1.5
    to 4.5 feet.
        (b) Replace old span of the Water Street Bridge, replace
    older span and raise newer span of the Soquel Avenue Bridge.
        (c) Initial dredging of up to 65,000 cubic yards in the
    deposition zone upstream of Laurel Street plus advanced
    maintenance of 10,000 cubic yards.
        (d) Additional project features include approximately
    13,000 linear feet of toe drains and miscellaneous tie-in berms
    plus a stop log structure at the downstream end of the project.
    A controlled overflow section, approximately 1200-foot-long,
    lined with riprap on the west bank between Water and Josephine
    streets, is also included.
        (2) Lands, easements, rights-of-way and relocations.
        Acquisition of approximately 2.33 new acres of permanent
    easement are required to construct, inspect, operate and
    maintain the floodwalls and levees.
        b. Nonstructural:
        (1) Flood closures of the Santa Cruz County Government
    Center.
        (2) Flood warning system and emergency response plan.
        (3) Environmental Features:
        The Committee expect that the environmental restoration
    work associated with the San Lorenzo River flood control
    project should be undertaken associated with the construction
    of the flood control project itself, under the authority of
    section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 as
    addressed in section 107 of the bill. Significant savings can
    be achieved if these projects are undertaken together, because
    the environmental improvements would be constructed as a part
    of the existing flood control project.
        Views of States and Other Non-Federal Interests: By letter
    dated 21 January 1994, the city of Santa Cruz affirmed the
    local sponsor's interest in participating in the financing and
    construction of the recommended plan.
        Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service (USFWS) provided its recommendations pursuant
    to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. USFWS believes that
    adherence to a program of limited maintenance, mutually agreed
    upon by the local sponsor and resource agencies, and
    implementation of their mitigation recommendations would result
    in no net loss of existing habitat value. The USFWS
    recommendations also include input from the State Department of
    Fish and Game and the National Marine Fisheries Service.
        Status of Final Environmental Assessment: Finding Of No
    Significant Impact (FONSI), was signed 15 February 1994.

    Estimated Implementation Costs:
        Federal: Corps of Engineers/Flood Damage Reduction..     $10,900,000
        Non-Federal: City of Santa Cruz.....................      10,900,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
         Total..............................................      21,800,000

        Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: Real
    estate acquisition, cash and relocations, which include
    replacement of old span of the Water Street Bridge, replacement
    of older span and raising newer span of the Soquel Avenue
    Bridge.
        Description of Non-Federal O&M Cost: Operation and
    maintenance requirements include annual maintenance dredging
    and periodic inspection of the project features, and repair
    replacement and rehabilitation of structures.
        Benefit-Cost Ratio: 1.3.

               (4) marin county shoreline, san rafael, california

        Location: San Rafael Canal is located on the northwestern
    shoreline of San Francisco Bay in the city of San Rafael, about
    17 miles north of the city of San Francisco.
        Description of Problem and Recommended Plan: High tides in
    combination with low barometric pressure and surge effects in
    San Pablo Bay result in overtopping of the existing levees
    along the south bank of the San Rafael Canal. During the
    January 1983 tidal flood, which is estimated to have been a
    100-year tidal event, the depths of flooding varied from sheet
    flow (less than one foot depth) to as much as three feet.
    Damages for the 100-year and 500-year tidal flood events are
    estimated to be $56,100,000 and $83,100,000, respectively.
        Ground elevations between the south bank and highway 101
    are often lower than the top of the canal bank. Water
    overflowing the banks during high tides ponds in these areas.
    For more frequent tidal events, the volume of water flowing
    over the top of the south bank is not sufficient to result in
    significant damage. However, a large area is affected by the
    more severe tidal flooding events. It includes over 700
    residential structures, about 200 commercial structures, and
    the principal commercial district of the city. The total value
    of this flood plain property is estimated at $330 million. This
    contrasts with the tidal flood plain along the north bank of
    the canal. Here the areal extent and property affected by tidal
    flooding is relatively small. In total, the north bank flood
    plain includes about 120 residential structures and 20
    commercial structures.
        The recommended plan consists of approximately 10,000
    linear feet of sheetpile floodwall along portions of the south
    bank of the canal, 1,600 linear feet of sheetpile floodwall
    along the east bayfront levee crest, and 750 linear feet of new
    levee in Pickleweed Park. The plan also includes features to
    provide for continued tidal action through the wall in areas
    where the wall would be placed in the Canal. The recommended
    plan provides an estimated 100-year frequency tidal flood
    protection to the south bank of the canal. Low lying areas on
    the north bank of the canal would continue to be subject to
    tidal flooding. Habitat mitigation and endangered species
    impact avoidance measures include restoring tidal flows to 4.7
    acres of wetlands in Pickleweed Park, and improvement of tidal
    action to the 4.3 acres in Seastrand Marsh.
        a. Structural:
        (1) Channelization, levees, jetties, drainage systems, and
    other facilities.
        Approximately 750 linear feet of new levee and 11,600
    linear feet of sheetpile floodwall are proposed along the south
    bank of the canal and the bayfront levee.
        (2) Lands, easements, rights-of-way and relocations.
        Acquisition of a permanent channel improvement easement of
    3.5 acres of land for the floodwall and levee sections is
    required. An additional 8.05 acres of city-owned land would be
    required for habitat mitigation.
        b. Environmental Features:
        Habitat mitigation and endangered species impact avoidance
    would include tidal restoration of 4.72 acres of wetland at
    Pickleweed Park, and improvement of tidal action to the 4.32
    acres of existing wetlands and expansion of the wetland area at
    Seastrand Marsh. It would also include monitoring of the
    mitigation sites for a 20-year period and maintenance of the
    sites.
        Views of States and Other Non-Federal Interests: By letter
    dated 10 February 1993, The California Department of Fish and
    Game expressed concern about how increased human activity along
    the levee would have significant consequences to the wildlife
    species utilizing the inboard wetlands. By letter dated 29
    March 1993, The Resources Agency of California supported the
    concerns of the California Department of Fish and Game and
    requested that their recommendations concerning the use of
    fencing to preclude dogs and people from the inboard wetlands
    be carried out to offset any adverse impacts. The Corps
    response advised that the need for fencing is being evaluated
    in the preconstruction engineering and design phase of the
    project. Should fencing prove to be the most cost effective way
    to achieve the needed level of protection for the salt marsh
    harvest mouse, it would be included in the project. The city of
    San Rafael, by letter dated 30 November 1993, expressed
    continued support for the recommended plan and as the local
    sponsor understands the financial and implementation
    responsibilities.
        View of Federal and Regional Agencies: The Departments of
    Interior, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, and
    Health and Human Services had no objections or comments on the
    project.
        Status of Final Environmental Impact Statement: The final
    Environmental Impact Statement has been filed with the EPA.

    Estimated Implementation Costs:
        Federal: Corps of Engineers/Storm Damage Reduction..     $18,400,000
        Non-Federal: City of San Rafael.....................       9,900,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
         Total..............................................      28,300,000

        Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: The non-
    Federal sponsor is required to contribute 35 percent of all
    costs attributable to storm damage reduction. The non-Federal
    costs include lands, easements, rights-of-way and relocations
    required for the project and additional cash to bring the total
    contribution up to the 35 percent share of the total project
    costs.
        Description of Non-Federal O&M cost: Operation and
    maintenance costs include periodic inspection of the project
    features, and repair, replacement and rehabilitation of
    structures; and monitoring, operation and maintenance of fish
    and wildlife mitigation sites.
        Benefit-Cost Ratio: 2.0.

                    (5) HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY, CALIFORNIA

        Location: Humboldt Bay is an estuary located in Humboldt
    County, on the coast of northern California, approximately 225
    nautical miles north of San Francisco. The nearest city is
    Eureka, CA.
        Description of Recommended Plan: The recommended plan
    consists of deepening the Bar and Entrance Channel to a depth
    of -48 feet mean lower low water (MLLW); deepening the North
    Bay channel, Samoa Channel, and Samoa Turning Basin to a depth
    of -38 feet MLLW; widening the north side of the Entrance
    Channel, from the jetty heads to the turn into the North Bay
    Channel by an additional width varying from 275 feet at the
    jetty heads to 200 feet at the turn; moving the southern edge
    of the Entrance Channel away from the South Jetty and to the
    north by 100 feet; and widening and realigning the Samoa
    Turning Basin entrance. Approximately 5.6 million cubic yards
    of dredged sediments from this project would be deposited at an
    open ocean disposal site and approximately 26,000 cubic yards
    of material, considered to be unsuitable for unconfined aquatic
    disposal, would be placed on a confined upland dredged material
    site. The recommended project has negligible adverse impacts to
    fish and wildlife and separable mitigation is not required.

    Physical data on project features

        a. Structural:
        (1) Bar and Entrance Channel would be deepened from -45
    feet mean lower low water (MLLW) to -48 feet MLLW, with side
    slopes of 1-vertical to 2-horizontal. The Entrance Channel
    would be widened on the north side from the jetty heads to the
    turn into the North Bay channel by an additional width varying
    from 275 feet at the jetty heads to 200 feet at the turn. The
    southern edge of the Entrance Channel would be moved away from
    the South Jetty and to the north by 100 feet.
        (2) North Bay and Samoa Channel would be deepened from -35
    feet MLLW to a depth of -38 feet MLLW with side slopes of 1-
    vertical to 3-horizontal.
        (3) Samoa Turning Basin would be deepened from -35 feet
    MLLW to a depth of -38 feet MLLW with side slopes of 1-vertical
    to 3-horizontal, and widened at its southerly approach from 400
    feet to approximately 770 feet, with tapering widths both
    southerly and northerly of the 770 feet width.
        (4) Approximately 5.6 million cubic yards of dredged
    sediments from this project would be deposited at the EPA
    designated Section 102 Humboldt Open Ocean Disposal Site
    (HOODS) in the Pacific Ocean. Approximately 26,000 cubic yards
    of material, considered to be unsuitable for unconfined aquatic
    disposal, would be placed on a confined upland dredged material
    site consisting of about 23 acres and located on Louisiana
    Pacific property on the Humboldt Bay North Spit. Water overflow
    from the upland dredged material disposal site would be
    minimized by using the existing double basin design. Dredged
    material will be pumped into the main disposal basin with only
    high levels overflowing into the second basin. If the second
    basin water volume is exceeded, an effluent overflow pipe will
    be utilized. The overflow pipe leads into an open drainage
    ditch which flows into the Bay.
        b. Environmental Features:
        (1) As an additional consideration to avoid potential
    environmental impacts, a window of permissible days would be
    placed on dredging operations in the Samoa Turning Basin to
    avoid bird nesting on the adjacent Indian Island rookery.
        (2) A marine biologist would be on board the dredge during
    the herring spawning season to redirect the dredge work area
    away from any herring run activity. The recommended project has
    negligible adverse impact to fish and wildlife and separable
    mitigation is not required.
        Views of States and Other Non-Federal Interests: The
    Resources Agency of California coordinated review of the
    project with the California Coastal and State Lands
    Commissions; the Air Resources, Integrated Waste Management,
    and North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Boards; and the
    Departments of Fish and Game, Parks and Recreation, Toxic
    Substances Control, and Transportation. The Departments of
    Parks and Recreation, Office of Historic Preservation and the
    California Coastal Commission have issued statements that the
    project meets their respective requirements. The North Coast
    Regional Water Quality Control Board has determined that a
    waiver of Report of Waste Discharge is appropriate for the
    project. The Department of Fish and Game states that the
    project is acceptable.
        Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The Department of
    Transportation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency have no
    objections to the recommended plan. By letter dated 21 July
    1995, the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) expressed concerns
    regarding potential project environmental impacts. It is the
    position of DOI that long-term mitigation, monitoring, and
    remedial action plans must be included in the project to offset
    impacts to the benthic community, eelgrass beds, and the ocean
    disposal site. DOI states that full mitigation must be provided
    for (1) the loss of 45 acres of previously undredged harbor
    bottom, including benthic, flatfish, and dungeness crab
    habitats, and (2) secondary impacts to the water column, that
    would result from increased traffic and maintenance dredging.
    The reporting officers, supported by Washington level review,
    determined that DOI did not consider that the recommended
    project would result in a lower rate of shoaling, a reduced
    level of maintenance dredging compared to existing conditions,
    and a reduced level of ship traffic because the port would be
    able to accommodate larger ships. The recommended channel
    widening would result in deepening an area that is adjacent to
    the existing channel, however, this area of 45 acres has been
    dredged in the past to deeper than -20 feet MLLW and has very
    little potential to contain eelgrass based on depth and recent
    surveys. The project would directly impact 9,000 square feet of
    shallow (less than -20 feet MLLW) subtidal habitat, but this
    area is considered so small as to make the impact
    insignificant. Water column impacts resulting from dredging
    sand would be of short duration, and therefore, would not be
    significant enough to warrant mitigation.
        Status of Final Environmental Impact Statement: The Final
    EIS was filed with EPA the week of 5 June 1995.

    Estimated Implementation Costs:
        Federal Corps of Engineers/Navigation...............     $10,000,000
        Non-Federal:
            Humboldt Bay and Harbor Recreation and
              Conservation District/Navigation..............       5,180,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
              Total.........................................      15,180,000

        Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: Non-
    Federal costs include lands, easements, rights-of-way,
    relocations, and dredge material disposal areas required for
    the project and a cash payment.

    Estimated Annual O&M Costs:
        Federal Corps of Engineers..........................       $-236,000
        Non-Federal:
            Humboldt Bay and Harbor Recreation and
              Conservation District/Navigation..............               0
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
              Total.........................................        -236,000

        Note.--Annual O&M cost of the existing navigation project
    is $1,580,000; annual O&M cost of the recommended project would
    be $1,344,000. A savings of $236,000 would result with
    implementation of the recommended plan.
        Description of Non-Federal O&M cost: N/A.

     (6) anacostia river and tributaries, district of columbia and maryland

        Location: The study area is the 170-square mile watershed
    of the Anacostia River. The basin encompasses, approximately
    145 square miles in Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties,
    Maryland, and 25 square miles within the District of Columbia.
    The entire area is within the Washington, D.C. metropolitan
    area.
        Description of Problem and Recommended Plan: The primary
    water resources-related problems in the 170-square mile
    Anacostia River basin are the result of urbanization and
    previous construction of Federal projects to meet the flood
    control and navigation needs of the expanding population. The
    Corps of Engineers involvement in the Anacostia watershed dates
    back to the 1870's, and includes projects for navigation, flood
    control, debris removal, and aquatic vegetation control. The
    construction of these projects eliminated an estimated 2,600
    acres of wetlands, 500 acres of aquatic habitat, and 800 acres
    of bottomland hardwoods. The spatial impact of this
    construction extends from the confluence with the Potomac River
    as far upstream as Greenbelt, Maryland, a distance of over 15
    miles.
        The recommended plan provides for the construction of 80
    acres of tidal and non-tidal freshwater wetlands, the
    restoration of 5 miles of piedmont streams, and the planting of
    33 acres of bottomland hardwood forest within the highly
    urbanized Anacostia River basin. The construction is located at
    13 sites within the study area, within 3 independent political
    jurisdictions.

    Physical data on project features.

        (a) Within the District of Columbia, wetland restoration is
    proposed for 75 acres of freshwater tidal wetlands within
    Kingman Lake and along the river between Benning Road and New
    York Avenue. Reforestation is also proposed for an additional 6
    acres in the vicinity of Kingman Lake.
        (b) Within Prince Georges County, the construction of a 2-
    acre wetland (Fordham Street), restoration of 8,000 feet of the
    Northwest Branch, and reforestation of 16 acres of riparian
    area are proposed to restore fish and wildlife habitat.
        (c) Within Montgomery County, the retrofitting of three
    existing stormwater management ponds (Snowden's Mill I,
    Snowden's Mill II and Tanglewood), the construction of two new
    stormwater management wetlands (Lockridge Drive and Stewart/
    April Lane) and the restoration of 17,000 feet of Sligo Creek,
    Paint Branch and Northwest Branch are proposed to restore fish
    and wildlife habitat. A total of 2 acres of wetlands will be
    constructed along with 12 acres of reforestation.
        Views of States and Other Non-Federal Interests: The
    recommended plan has received strong, high-level support from
    the pertinent State and local natural resource agencies.
    Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, the State of Maryland,
    and the District of Columbia were extensively involved
    throughout the feasibility study and are very supportive of the
    selected plan. The local agencies view the Corps plan as a key
    element in the overall environmental restoration effort for the
    Anacostia watershed.
        Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The recommended
    plan has received strong support from the Federal and regional
    natural resource agencies. As a result of its unique location
    in the Nation's Capital and recent environmental justice
    concerns, the Anacostia restoration effort, of which the
    project is a significant part, has received far-reaching
    attention at all levels of government. The Metropolitan
    Washington Council of Governments, the regional planning agency
    is the Washington area, is a major proponent of the recommended
    plan.
        Status of Final Environmental Impact Statement: A final
    Environmental Impact Statement was distributed for agency and
    public comment in August-September 1994. No adverse comments
    were received.
        Estimated Implementation Costs:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Federal    Non-Federal     Total
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    District of Columbia.............   $6,308,000   $2,103,000   $8,411,000
    Montgomery County................    4,252,000    1,417,000    5,669,000
    Prince Georges County............    2,298,000      766,000    3,064,000
                                      --------------------------------------
          Total......................   12,858,000    4,286,000   17,144,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: The
    District of Columbia and Montgomery and Prince George's
    Counties are required to provide the 25-percent non-Federal
    share for their pertinent jurisdiction's project.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Prince
                                                                  District of   Montgomery    Georges    Non-Federal
                                                                    Columbia      County       County       total
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Lands.......................................................       $3,000      $75,000      $62,000     $140,000
    Relocations.................................................            0      323,000       31,000      354,000
    Cash........................................................    2,100,000    1,091,000      673,000    3,792,000
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------
          Total.................................................    2,103,000    1,417,000      766,000    4,286,000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Estimated Annual O&M Costs:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Federal    Non-Federal     Total
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    District of Columbia.............           $0       $9,000       $9,000
    Montgomery.......................            0       22,400       23,400
    Prince Georges County............            0        7,800        7,800
                                      --------------------------------------
          Total......................            0       38,300       40,200
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Description of Non-Federal O&M Costs: The local sponsors
    will have responsibility for performing all operation,
    maintenance, repair, rehabilitation and replacement activities.
    The tidal wetlands in Kingman Lake and on the river fringe will
    require the inspection and maintenance of habitat structures,
    maintenance of sediment control structures until the dredge
    material stabilizes, control and removal of exotic and noxious
    species, and removal of debris. The primary operation and
    maintenance activities for the wetland sites in Montgomery and
    Prince Georges Counties include annual grass mowing, annual
    maintenance of gate valves, quarterly removal of debris,
    sediment removal from forebays at 5-year intervals, and
    dredging of stormwater pond micropools at 20-year intervals.
    The stream restoration sites will require semi-annual
    inspection for damage or realignment of structures, bank
    erosion, or stream blockages from fallen trees.

         (7) atlantic intracoastal waterway, st. johns county, florida

        Location: Palm Valley Bridge replacement, Atlantic
    Intracoastal Waterway, Jacksonville to Miami, St. Johns County,
    Florida Location: The project is located in St. Johns County,
    Florida, approximately 40 miles south of the City of
    Jacksonville where County Road 210 crosses the Atlantic
    Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW).
        Description of Problem and Recommended Plan: The Palm
    Valley Bridge was constructed in 1937. Vehicle widths and
    weights have increased since 1937 causing the bridge's roadway
    width and load limit to become obsolete. Conditions on the
    bridge are especially hazardous for opposing traffic, such as
    school buses and trucks crossing in different directions. Also,
    heavy vehicles carrying construction material must take an
    alternative route and absorb higher costs. By Federal and State
    Transportation agency standards the bridge is termed
    ``functionally obsolete''. The 15-ton load limit precludes most
    garbage trucks and almost all heavy truck traffic. Depending on
    vehicle size, one way traffic sometimes results.
        Study results concluded that a two-lane, high level fixed-
    span bridge with an unrestricted horizontal clearance and a
    vertical clearance of 65 feet for navigation is the plan to
    satisfy existing and prospective needs in the study area. The
    width of the navigation channel passing under the bridge is 80
    feet between the fender system. The two-lane bridge will
    consist of two 12-foot travel lanes with 10-foot shoulders.
    Construction of the new bridge includes removal of the old
    structure and establishing the width of the waterway consistent
    with authorized upstream and downstream dimensions. Mitigation
    involves restoration of low to moderate value wetland habitat
    to high value habitat on State lands with the adjacent Guana
    River Wildlife Management Area. Loss of the historic existing
    bridge will be mitigated by documentation of the bridge in the
    Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) as approved by the
    Florida State Historic Preservation Officer on 20 August 1992.

    Physical data on project features

        The new bridge will consist of the following project
    features:
        a. Bridge Structure.--A high level fixed span bridge with
    an overall length of 4711 feet provides unrestricted horizontal
    clearance and a vertical clearance of 65 feet over the
    navigation channel. The typical approach span will be a cast-
    in-place concrete deck above six Type IV AASHTO prestressed
    concrete girders, 100 feet in length. The main span will
    consist of a cast-in-place concrete deck above twin, 145,-290,-
    145, three span continuous built-up steel trapezoidal box
    girders. Typical substructures for both approach and main spans
    will include a twin column pier tied together with a
    rectangular pier cap, which will rest on square prestressed
    concrete piles joined with a rectangular pile cap.
        b. Existing Bridge Removal.--The existing bridge, a narrow
    bascule bridge will be removed. That bridge will remain in
    service until traffic can be diverted to the new bridge.
    Removal of the existing bridge consists of recycling its steel
    and concrete. Any remaining materials from the bridge removal
    will be placed in a permitted landfill.
        c. AIWW Dredging.--The required channel dimensions upstream
    and downstream of the existing Palm Valley Bridge are a bottom
    width of 125 feet with a depth of 12 feet. The current
    topography is such that the channel deviates from the
    authorized centerline and tapers down near the entrance to the
    fender system of the existing bridge. Once the new bridge is
    constructed and open to traffic, the old bridge will be removed
    and the full AIWW channel dimensions will be provided by
    dredging.
        d. Environmental Mitigation.--Implementation of the project
    will require approximately 14 acres of wetlands to be filled.
    Mitigation for these losses includes restoration of low to
    moderate value wetlands to high value wetland habitat on State
    lands within the Guana River Wildlife Management Area.
    Coordination of the mitigation plan is complete and the Florida
    Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission and the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service fully endorse it.
        Since the existing bridge cannot be relocated or preserved
    in place, documentation of the bridge in the HAER with
    placement of a descriptive plaque will occur for mitigation as
    approved by the Florida State Historic Preservation Officer.
        Views of States and Other Non-Federal Interests: In an
    August 29, 1990 letter the sponsor, the Board of County
    Commissioners of St. Johns County, reaffirmed their support of
    Resolution No. 88-76 which says they will accept ownership,
    operation, and maintenance of the high level structure upon
    completion by the Corps of Engineers. By letter dated March 1,
    1994, the Florida State Clearinghouse reviewed the federal
    consistency determination provided for subject study and agreed
    that the project is consistent with the Florida Coastal Zone
    Management Program. Public meeting held on March 3, 1994,
    indicates strong public support for the bridge replacement.
        Views of Federal, and Regional Agencies: A draft report and
    EA was coordinated with all concerned agencies beginning in
    January 1994. There are no areas of controversy.
        Status of Final Environmental Impact Statement: The Finding
    of No Significant Impact was signed on March 14, 1994.
                                                                Cost-sharing
    Estimated Implementation Costs:
        Federal: Corps of Engineers.........................     $15,881,000
        Non-Federal: St. Johns County.......................               0
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total.............................................     15, 881,000

        Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: None.
        Description of Non-Federal O&M Costs: The estimated non-
    Federal annual operation and maintenance costs of the new
    bridge is $75,000.
        Benefit-Cost Ratio: 1.3.

                          (8) lake michigan, illinois

        Location: The Lake Michigan Shoreline between Wilmette,
    Illinois and the Illinois/Indiana State line, a distance of
    approximately 33 miles. Within this reach the City of Chicago
    is the primary municipality, accounting for over 85 percent of
    the shoreline miles within the study boundaries.
        Description of Problem and Recommended Plan: Along the
    Chicago shoreline from Montrose Avenue (4400 North) to South
    56th Street, it was found that the existing shore protection,
    consisting of wooden crib structures overlayed with capstones
    (built an average 60 years ago), is no longer functioning from
    a structural standpoint. Within the next 10-15 years, about 8
    miles of structure are expected to fail from a functional
    standpoint such that the existing backshore area will be
    vulnerable to the wind driven storm wave forces of Lake
    Michigan. When this occurs, park facilities and infrastructure
    will be lost, culminating with the loss of Lake Shore Drive. In
    addition, the breakwater protects the South Water Filtration
    Plant, which services 2.5 million persons. When the breakwater
    ceases to provide any functional protection, the plant will be
    directly impacted by storm action.
        Finally, two low lying areas subject to recurrent flooding
    were identified. This flooding, if not addressed, will continue
    to render Lake Shore Drive unusable to vehicular traffic during
    periods of high lake levels and storm conditions.
        Over the past two years, significant degradation of the
    existing shore structures has been noted. Large sections of
    revetment have collapsed as a result of medium duration and
    intensity storm events. The rates of degradation are increasing
    and short term changes in sections are easily recognizable. The
    filtration plant breakwater has collapsed to the point where
    visual gaps in the structure are noted.
        Storm damage problems in Wilmette and Evanston are minimal,
    due to the virtual complete armoring of the shoreline in this
    portion of the study area. Hence, there is no Federal interest
    in this reach of shoreline.
        Flood Wall/Flashboards.--Along a 3,200-foot reach of Lake
    Shore Drive near downtown Chicago subject to lake flooding, a
    low level flood wall (unbroken line of jersey barriers,
    modified for the addition of wooden flashboards to increase
    structure heights) will be placed to protect the Drive from
    flood damages under high lake level storm wave conditions.
        Rubble Revetment.--Along a 1,200-foot reach of shore at
    Meigs Field, a standard rubble revetment will be constructed.
    This revetment will act to protect existing airplane parking
    spaces at the airfield from storm damage and loss from storm
    driven wave action.
        Beach Nourishment.--Beach nourishment/replenishment will be
    project features at two shoreline reaches: a 700-foot reach
    near 31st Street within Burnham Park, and a 1,200-foot reach of
    shoreline at Fullerton Avenue in Lincoln Park. At Fullerton
    Avenue, the nourishment will primarily be near-shore stone and
    gravel fill designed to reduce near-shore water depths and
    storm damage to Lake Shore Drive from high waves. At 31st
    Street, the nourishment substitutes for steel sheet pile and
    step stone revetment, continuing the unbroken line of
    protection along Burnham Park.
        Views of States and Other Non-Federal Interests: Non-
    Federal interests support the recommended plan. The local
    sponsors, in letters dated March 1, 1993 (City of Chicago) and
    March 26, 1993 (Chicago Park District), reaffirmed their
    support for the recommended plan and their willingness to cost
    share in the project according to the apportionment of costs
    computed by the Corps.
        Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: All issues
    regarding the project have been addressed and resolved to the
    satisfaction of all participating and reviewing parties.
        Status of Final Environmental Impact Statement: The
    Environmental Assessment was signed by the District Engineer on
    3 July 1993.

                                                                Cost-sharing
    Estimated Implementation Costs:
        Federal: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers...............    $110,000,000
        Non-Federal: City of Chicago/Chicago Part Dist......      94,000,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total.............................................     204,000,000

        Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: The non-
    Federal sponsor is required to contribute 35 percent of all
    costs attributable to storm damage reduction. The non-Federal
    costs identified above would normally include lands, easements,
    rights-of-way, relocations and disposal areas (LERRDS) required
    for the project and additional cash to bring the total
    contribution up to the 35 percent share of the total project
    costs. However, since all lands required for the project are
    currently owned by the Chicago Park District, a ``Before and
    After'' Gross Appraisal identified an increase in the value of
    remaining lands which offset compensation for any temporary
    easements, and there are no severance damages, the value of
    LERRDs are essentially zero.
        Description of Non-Federal O&M Cost: Work will consist of
    replacement of the stone fronting steel sheet pile structures;
    replacement of breakwater and revetment stone; and replacement
    of beach fill. Depending upon the feature considered, work will
    be required every 10-20 years. The principal feature of the
    plan, vertical wall steel sheet pile revetment structures, will
    be essentially maintenance-free. Also, prior to construction,
    the non-Federal sponsor will agree to comply with applicable
    Federal laws and policies, including (as indicated in the items
    of local cooperation in the Report of the Chief of Engineers,
    dated 14 April 1994) the requirement to operate, maintain,
    repair, replace, and rehabilitate the South Water Filtration
    Plant cofferdam, at no cost to the Government, such that the
    structural integrity and crest of the cofferdam is preserved in
    a manner consistent with protection provided by the proposed
    breakwater.
        Approximately 41,000 feet of failed shoreline revetment
    protective structures would be replaced with step stone
    revetments. This would be done from Montrose to Fullerton
    Avenue on the north and from 26th Street to 56th Street on the
    south. A 2,800-foot breakwater would be reconstructed at the
    water filtration plant at 79th Street; 3,200 feet of flood wall
    would be constructed from Oak Street to North Avenue (1600
    North), and beach replenishment would be undertaken at
    Fullerton Avenue (1,200 feet) and south of 56th Street (700
    feet).

    Physical data on project features

        a. Step Stone Revetment.--This feature consists of steel
    sheet pile revetment, driven immediately lakeward of the
    existing deteriorated revetment remnants stabilized by ``H''
    pile ``deadmen'', backed with quarry run stone fill, capped
    with a concrete slab cap/walkway, and with large limestone
    blocks set back from the water's edge to give additional
    elevation to the revetment system and to act as a splash apron
    and walkway. The total length of this feature is about 41,000
    feet. The crest elevation of the concrete slab is +9.0 feet Low
    Water Datum (LWD), and the step stone crest will vary from
    +13.0 feet LWD to +15.0 feet LWD. The revetment will prevent
    storm damage losses of shoreline, Lake Shore Drive and other
    in-place municipal facilities, as well as prevent nearly all
    significant flood damage to the roads and these facilities.
        b. Breakwater:
        (1) This feature consists of reconstruction of a 2,800-foot
    rubble breakwater, with a crest elevation of +8.0 feet LWD and
    a crest width of 30 feet, over the remains of an existing
    breakwater. This reconstructed breakwater will protect the
    existing South Water Filtration Plant from storm damage losses
    and related malfunctions.
        (2) In addition, a short (80-150 foot) shore connected stub
    breakwater, constructed of steel sheet pile with stone fill,
    with a crest elevation of +10.0 feet LWD, would be constructed
    at Fullerton Avenue as part of a system of protection for a
    1,200-foot reach. The breakwater would act in a concert with
    other system elements to prevent storm damage losses and
    flooding to Lake Shore Drive at Fullerton Avenue.
        Benefit-Cost Ratio: 5.6.
        Remarks: Because of delays in project authorization the
    non-Federal sponsor has preceded with a plan to implement
    selected features of the project. The bill requires the
    Secretary to reimburse the sponsor for the Federal share of
    work that is determined to be a component of the project.

              (9) kentucky lock and dam, tennessee river, kentucky

        Location: The Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers provide the
    nation with over 1,037 miles of navigable waterway. Both rivers
    join the Ohio River in southwestern Kentucky, near Paducah.
    This study focuses on the Kentucky-Barkley portion of this
    system including the 30.6 miles of Cumberland River below
    Barkley Dam, the 22.4 miles of the Tennessee River below
    Kentucky Dam, and Barkley Canal which connects the two rivers
    above the dams.
        Description of Problem and Recommended Plan: The problem on
    the Kentucky-Barkley System is multifold: Currently, most
    system traffic uses Kentucky Lock because the lower Tennessee-
    River is broad and straight, therefore easier and safer to
    navigate resulting in lower costs. The lower Cumberland River
    is narrow and sinuous with over half the river limited to one-
    way traffic. This causes congestion and delay at Kentucky Lock.
    In addition, Kentucky's 600-foot chamber is too small to handle
    a modern 15-barge tow. It takes two lockages to pass the vast
    majority of tows through the lock. This lengthy lockage time,
    combined with the effects of congestion and delay, give
    Kentucky Lock one of the highest transit times on the inland
    waterway. These problems are compounded when the Kentucky or
    Barkley locks are closed for maintenance. Normal maintenance
    requires closing each lock for at least two weeks every five
    years. In addition, the aging chamber at Kentucky (built in
    1942 and in almost constant use) is scheduled for major
    rehabilitation in 2009 and 2010. This will force all system
    traffic to use Barkley Lock and the lower Cumberland River,
    causing delays of 85-93 hours at Barkley, and diverting
    millions of tons of traffic to more expensive overland
    transportation. Kentucky-Barkley system traffic is projected to
    approximately double by the year 2050, growing at 1.2 percent
    annually. Even this normal growth will dramatically compound
    the problems, such that by the year 2000, the costs of using
    the Kentucky-Barkley system will increase.
        The recommended plan calls for construction of a 110-by
    1200-foot lock adjacent to the existing lock at the Kentucky
    Project. Traffic management before and during lock construction
    and reduced operation and maintenance of Barkley Lock are also
    included in the recommendations.
        The recommended plan provides for the following features:
        a. Structural:
        The proposed lock is sited immediately landward of the
    existing lock with its upper miter sill about 300 feet
    downstream of the existing sill. The lock will be a concrete,
    gravity structure with steel miter gates. The downstream
    guidewall will be 1200 feet long and of gravity type
    construction. The upstream guidewall, also 1200 feet long, will
    be constructed on steel bearing piles enclosed in circular
    sheet pile cells filled with gravel. Nearly 1.7 million cubic
    yards of material will be excavated for the new lock and about
    145,000 cubic yards of material will be removed from the
    approaches to the lock. The existing navigation channel must be
    shifted toward the right bank to provide a safe entrance and
    exit to the new lock. The lock requires extensive relocations,
    all of which are within existing right-of-way. Relocating the
    Paducah and Louisville Railroad to a new bridge about one-half
    mile downstream of Kentucky Dam is the largest relocation,
    followed by elevating a short section of the US 62/641 bridge.
    The project also requires constructing new access to the
    powerhouse and modifying several TVA powerlines.
        b. Environmental Features:
        (1) Mitigation on separable lands.--Twenty-three acres are
    needed to connect the borrow/disposal site to land currently
    owned by TVA.
        (2) Mitigation on project lands.--A riparian strip, 50-100
    feet wide, will be established between the mouth of Russell
    Creek and 1-24. Aquatic habitat will be created using gravel
    dredged from the lower lock approach. Affected historic
    properties such as the existing lock operations building will
    be documented. If significant archaeological sites are found,
    data will be recovered. Taylor Park Campground will be
    relocated.
        (3) Enhancement measures.--A fish passage will be provided
    through the lock. Banks in the tailwater area will be armored
    using rock generated by construction. Short dikes will be
    constructed in the tailwater area to enhance fishing
    opportunities and fish habitat. Tailwater boat ramp and
    associated visitor amenities will be upgraded.
        Views of States and Other Non-Federal Interests: Letters
    supporting the recommended plan came from the Governor of
    Kentucky, numerous members of the towing industry, local
    citizens, and local businesses. All environmental agencies
    oppose use of a training dike because of likely impacts to
    mussels. The Commonwealth of Kentucky suggests further
    recreational enhancement features.
        Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: TVA fully supports
    the project, but opposes use of a training dike. USFWS states
    that the training dike could impact Federally endangered
    species and suggests further recreational enhancement features.
    USCG is a cooperating agency in the FEIS. EPA Region IV has
    concerns about the training dike.
        Status of Final Environmental Impact Statement: The Final
    Environmental Impact Statement was filed with the EPA on
    January 7, 1992.

    Estimated Implementation Costs:
        Federal: Corps of Engineers'........................    $393,200,000
        Non-Federal.........................................               0
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total.............................................    $393,200,000

    Cost-Sharing 50% from Inland Waterways Trust Fund.

        Benefit-Cost Ratio: 2.3.

                  (10) POND CREEK, JEFFERSON COUNTY, KENTUCKY

        Location: The Pond Creek basin has a total area of 126
    square miles and drains the western and southern portions of
    Jefferson County and the northwest portion of Bullitt County,
    Kentucky. The study area includes the central and eastern
    portions of the basin and begins on Pond Creek 12.6 miles
    upstream of the confluence with the Salt River, and 4.8 miles
    upstream of the backwater floodplain of the Ohio River. The
    study area extends upstream to the Shepherdsville Road bridge
    over Pond Creek tributaries Northern and Southern Ditches.
        Description of Problem and Recommended Plan: The streams
    studied include the Pond Creek mainstem, and tributaries
    Northern and Southern Ditches, Greasy Ditch, Slop Ditch, and
    Fishpool Creek. Major improvements were made to the streams in
    the 1950's and 1960's by Jefferson County. These channels
    currently provide very low levels of protection. This is due in
    part to the rapid residential and commercial development in the
    study area which has resulted in increased stormwater runoff,
    with increased frequency of flooding, and vulnerability to
    flash flooding. The majority of the development occurred prior
    to implementation of Flood Insurance Program restrictions.
    Based on zero damage elevations, an estimated 3,800 properties
    are vulnerable to flooding. Approximately 93 percent of those
    properties are residential. The community participates in the
    National Flood Insurance Program. Property in the floodplain is
    valued at $690 million. Flood damages which would result from
    floods having a 10%, or a 1% chance of being exceeded in any
    one year are $4.9 million, and $102.9 million, respectively.
    The 1964 flood, estimated at a 1% chance of being exceeded in
    any one year, is the flood of record in the basin. Since that
    time, widespread, shallow flooding has occurred. However,
    growth patterns and topography in the study area combine to
    create the potential for severe flooding problems. Average
    annual flood damages in the study area total $4.9 million at
    October 1995 price levels.
        The recommended plan provides for construction of two
    detention basins; an 80-acre basin adjacent to Northern Ditch
    (the Melco basin); a 40-acre basin adjacent to Fishpool Creek
    (the Vulcan Quarry basin); and channel enlargement along
    portions of Pond Creek and Northern Ditch. The recommended plan
    also includes: construction of a multipurpose maintenance road/
    hiking and bicycle trail along the Pond Creek channel
    improvement; and wetlands environmental restoration at a site
    adjacent to Southern Ditch.

    Physical data on project features

        a. Structural: Channel widening is planned along 2.4 miles
    of Pond Creek, and along 1.5 miles of Northern Ditch. Detention
    basin storage is planned at an 80 acre site adjacent to the
    south bank of Northern Ditch. The capacity of the basin will be
    1,567 acre-feet of storage. Two 50-cfs pumps will be used to
    aid during the basin emptying cycle. A detention basin is also
    planned at a former limestone quarry located immediately west
    of Fishpool Creek, a Southern Ditch tributary. The 40 acre
    basin has available storage of 3,800 acre feet, however, only
    418 acre feet are required for flood control. In addition to
    the flood control features described above a 12-foot wide
    multipurpose maintenance road/hiking and bicycle trail is
    planned along the channel improvement. The trail begins and
    terminates with upstream and downstream turnaround areas for
    maintenance vehicles. Lastly, restoration of fifteen acres of
    bottomland hardwood wetlands is planned adjacent to Southern
    Ditch at a site owned by the local sponsor.
        b. Environmental Features: No mitigation is required as
    part of the recommended plan. Opportunities to incorporate
    environmentally sound good engineering practices have been
    incorporated into the proposed project as follows:
        The interior slopes of the berm around the Melco basin
    would be planted with trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants
    suitable for wildlife. Approximately 11 acres of plantings
    would be supported around the interior of the berm. The bottom
    of the basin would be left to revegetate naturally.
        Channel modification on Pond Creek would be confined to the
    right bank. The left bank throughout the affected reach will
    remain undisturbed so as to provide shading for the stream and
    terrestrial habitat on the stream bank. Riprap will be placed
    at intervals along Pond Creek to create artificial riffles.
        The enlarged channel along Northern Ditch has been
    configured so as to retain the existing stream channel as a low
    flow channel. Riffles will be created in the low flow channel.
        The modified streambanks along Pond Creek and Northern
    Ditch will be seeded in herbaceous species (grasses and
    legumes) beneficial to wildlife. These areas will be placed on
    a less frequent mowing schedule to provide food and cover for
    longer periods. The 15 acre spoil disposal areas on Pond Creek
    will also be seeded in herbaceous species.
        Views of States and Other Non-Federal Interests: The
    Commonwealth of Kentucky supports the recommended plan. Letters
    supporting the recommended plan came from the Glengarry
    Homeowners Association, Inc., the Concerned Citizens Coalition,
    and the Valley Village Trustees. Support was also expressed by
    the Scottsdale Neighborhood Association.
        Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service (USFWS) had no comments beyond those expressed
    in earlier coordination in which support for the engineering
    practices (described above) was stated. The Kentucky
    Transportation Cabinet expressed support for the project. No
    other agency comments have been received.
        Status of Environmental Assessment/Finding of No
    Significant Impact: The FONSI was signed on 18 March 1994.
                                                                Cost-sharing
    Estimated Implementation Costs:
        Federal: (COE/Flood Control)........................     $10,993,000
        Non-Federal: (Metropolitan Sewer District)..........       5,087,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total.............................................      16,080,000
                        ========================================================
                        ____________________________________________________
    Estimated Annual O&M Costs:
        Federal (COE).......................................           2,400
        Non-Federal (Metropolitan Sewer District)...........          67,800

        Description of Non-Federal O&M Costs: The Louisville and
    Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District will be
    responsible for operation and maintenance of channels,
    detention basin, pump stations and drainage structures.
        Benefit-Cost Ratio: 2.7.

               (11) wolf creek dam and lake cumberland, kentucky

        Location: Wolf Creek Dam and Lake Cumberland are located in
    South-central Kentucky on the Cumberland River at river mile
    460.9. The Wolf Creek Dam controls drainage from almost 5,800
    square miles and impounds a large multipurpose storage
    reservoir (Lake Cumberland) on the Cumberland River near the
    city of Jamestown.
        Description of Problem and Recommended Plan: The Wolf Creek
    project, with a hydroelectric capacity of 270 megawatts (MW),
    operates primarily to meet intermediate load power demands, and
    full advantage has not been taken of the flexibility inherent
    in the large amount of storage available at the project.
    Alternatives have been investigated to determine the
    feasibility of uprating the powerplant to permit it to be
    operated more as a peaking plant, giving the energy output a
    higher dollar value.
        The recommended uprating will consist of selectively
    replacing key electrical/mechanical components within the
    existing hydroelectric units, which will result in higher
    generating efficiencies and greater peaking capabilities. The
    recommended plan would provide an updated capacity of
    approximately 390 MW.

    Physical Data on Project Features

        a. Water Use and Control:
        Hydroelectric storage and features: Due to the basic study
    constraint of preserving existing lake fluctuation
    characteristics, there would be no measurable impact on Lake
    Cumberland. The peaking hydropower operation would basically
    withdraw the same volumes of water from the reservoir as
    currently used for base load generation, but the timing of the
    withdrawals would change slightly.
        b. Environmental Features
        Mitigation on separable lands: Implementation of
    recommended uprating would have no adverse effect on Lake
    Cumberland. However, there would be a slight downstream impact,
    requiring mitigation for the loss of fish habitat. The plan
    would add two multicone aerators at the National Fish Hatchery,
    which is entirely on Fish and Wildlife Service lands, with
    Operations and Maintenance costs borne by that agency. Also,
    two existing users access areas would be improved, with O&M by
    the State of Kentucky.
        Views of States and Other Non-Federal Interests: Comments
    on this project were received from six agencies of the
    Commonwealth of Kentucky, mostly relating to environmental
    concerns. These concerns have been addressed and resolved.
        Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: Coordination with
    the Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources and the
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service resulted in the identification
    of opportunities to improve environmental conditions. A plan to
    mitigate fish habitat losses that would result from uprating
    the existing powerplant has been developed and included in the
    project. No other review comments were received.
        Status of Final Environmental Assessment: The final Report/
    Environmental Assessment was circulated to required agencies
    for review, and all comments were resolved or appropriate
    revisions made. A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was
    signed on 5 June 1989.

    Estimated Implementation Costs:
        Federal.............................................               0
        Non-Federal.........................................               0
        SEPA (selected sponsors)............................     $53,763,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total.............................................      53,763,000

        Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: All costs
    associated with the update would be borne by the non-Federal
    sponsor. The majority of this cost would be for the replacement
    of key mechanical/electrical equipment at the existing Wolf
    Creek power plant.
        Description of Non-Federal O&M Costs: The update would
    result in no increase in the operations and maintenance
    expense, over that associated with the existing power plant.
    However, for the selected plan there is an increment of
    additional annual cost ($42,000) associated with replacement of
    certain major components before the end of the project life.
    The mitigation measures identified with the recommended plan
    will require limited maintenance; the projected annual cost is
    $4,000. That cost will be borne by the State of Kentucky.
        Benefit-Cost Ratio: 1.2.

                (12) port fourchon, lafourche parish, louisiana

        Location: Port Fourchon is located near the mouth of Bayou
    Lafourche in southern Lafourche Parish.
        Description of Problem and Recommended Plan: The
    recommended plan provides for the enlargement of the access
    channel to Port Fourchon to a project depth of -24 feet Mean
    Lower Low Water (MLLW) over a 300-foot bottom width between
    mile 3.4 in Bayou Lafourche and the -26-foot MLLW contour in
    the Gulf of Mexico. The plan also provides for the use of all
    dredged material from the construction and maintenance of the
    navigation channel for wetlands creation and preservation.
        Views of Federal and Regional Agencies, States and Other
    Non-Federal Interests; Status of Environmental Impact
    Statement: The Greater Lafourche Port Commission is the non-
    Federal sponsor for the recommended plan. They have expressed
    their support for the recommended plan and their intent to
    provide all the lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations,
    cash contributions, and other non-Federal cooperation necessary
    for plan implementation.
        The draft feasibility report and environmental impact
    statement were distributed to Federal, state, and local
    agencies and other interested parties for review the week of
    July 27, 1994. A public meeting was held on August 2, 1994, to
    discuss the tentative recommendations presented in the draft
    report and to discuss the draft environmental impact statement.
        Estimated Implementation Costs: The estimated total first
    cost of the recommended plan is $4,440,000, including
    $2,300,000 Federal and $2,140,000 non-Federal. An additional
    associated non-Federal cost for deepening berthing areas at
    docks in the port is estimated at $74,000.

     (13) west bank of the mississippi river, new orleans (east of harvey
                               canal), louisiana

        Location: The study area is located on the west bank of the
    Mississippi River in the vicinity of New Orleans, Louisiana,
    and includes portions of Jefferson, Orleans, and Plaquemines
    Parishes. The study area is bounded by the Harvey Canal to the
    west, the Mississippi River to the north and east, and the Hero
    Canal to the south.
        Description of Problem and Recommended Plan: The study
    area, with a population of approximately 140,000 residents, has
    a relatively low level of hurricane protection and the surge
    produced by a severe hurricane could result in the catastrophic
    loss of life and property damage. Although Hurricane Juan
    (October 1985) was only a minimal category 1 hurricane,
    extensive sandbagging was required along the Harvey Canal to
    prevent overtopping of the existing protection. Hurricane
    Andrew (August 1992) ultimately made landfall in south-central
    Louisiana, however, evacuation orders were issued for the study
    area due to the low level of existing protection. Of the 31,650
    residential structures located within the study area, 12,627
    (40%) are located in areas vulnerable to flooding from the
    hurricane which has a 1% chance of recurrence in any one year
    and 26,098 (82%) are located in areas vulnerable to flooding
    from the standard project hurricane (SPH), which has a 0.4%
    chance of recurrence in any one year.
        The recommended plan would provide for the construction of
    a navigable floodgate in the Harvey Canal about 3,600 feet
    south of Lapalco Boulevard and the construction of levees and
    floodwalls along the east bank of the Harvey Canal between the
    floodgate and the Hero Pumping Station. A temporary by-pass
    channel would be constructed to temporarily accommodate Harvey
    Canal traffic while the floodgate is under construction. The
    by-pass channel would later serve as the outfall canal for the
    Cousins Pumping Station, the capacity of which would be
    increased by 1,000 cfs. When the floodgate is closed, the
    existing Harvey Pumping Station would be shut down and interior
    drainage would be diverted to the enlarged Cousins Pumping
    Station. The recommended plan would also provide for the
    enlargement of the existing levees along both the west and east
    banks of the Algiers Canal and along the north bank of the Hero
    Canal. The protection would wrap around the head of the Hero
    Canal and continue west along the south bank of the canal. A
    new levee would be constructed along the western edge of the
    community of Oakville connecting the Hero Canal levee with an
    existing Plaquemines Parish levee. The recommended plan would
    also provide for the acquisition of high quality wooded lands
    and the implementation of measures that would mitigate for all
    project-induced habitat losses to the fullest extent possible.

    Physical Data on Project

        a. Structural. The navigable floodgate would be a sector
    gate type structure consisting of a pile supported reinforced
    concrete structure with structural steel sector gates. The
    levees would be constructed in lifts using semicompacted and
    uncompacted fill. Grass would be planted on the levees for
    aesthetic reasons and to help reduce erosion of the levee
    slopes. The construction of I-walls, I-wall/earth combinations,
    vehicular gates, and inverted T-walls would assure a continuity
    of protection between full earth sections and pumping stations.
    The exposed areas of the floodwalls, particularly those in
    areas of high visibility, would be provided with architectural
    finishes for aesthetic reasons.
        The Planters, Orleans No. 11, Orleans No. 13, Hero and
    Plaquemines Pumping Stations would be modified by constructing
    floodwalls and modifying the discharge pipe and pipe valves on
    the discharge pipes for positive cut-off.
        Expansion and modification of the Cousins Pumping Station
    is planned to include an additional 1,000 cfs discharge
    capacity and associated station modifications. The existing 1st
    Avenue Canal, connecting the Cousins Pumping Station and the
    Harvey Pumping Station, would be enlarged to accommodate the
    additional capacity.
        b. Mitigation. The mitigation feature of the recommended
    plan would provide for the acquisition of 312 acres of
    bottomland hardwoods and swamp in the Bayou Bois Piquant
    fingerridge area near the Salvador Wildlife Management Area and
    the implementation of measures designed primarily to improve
    habitat quality.
        Views of States and Other Non-Federal Interests: In a
    letter dated 19 April 1994, the Louisiana Department of
    Transportation and Development (LDOTD) expressed their intent
    to serve as the non-Federal sponsor of the East of Harvey Canal
    project. Letters expressing support for the project were
    received from the West Jefferson Levee District, Orleans Levee
    District, Plaquemines Parish Government, Jefferson Parish
    Council, Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Louisiana
    Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, and State Senators and
    Representatives.
        Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The letters
    received from Federal agencies generally expressed support for
    the project.
        Status of Environmental Impact Statement: The FEIS was
    filed and notice of availability appeared in the Federal
    Register on 30 September 1994.
                                                     Traditioal Cost Sharing
    Estimated Implementation Costs:
        Federal (65.25%)....................................     $82,200,000
        Non-Federal (34.754%)...............................      43,800,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total.............................................     126,000,000

        Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: The non-
    Federal share ($43,800,000) includes all lands, easements,
    rights-of-way, including suitable borrow and dreaded or
    excavated material disposal areas ($22,500,000) and the cost
    for all utility and facility alterations and relocations
    ($5,000,000). The non-Federal interests have requested credit
    for work-in-kind to satisfy the remainder of the non-Federal
    share ($16,300,000).

    Estimated Annual O&M Costs:
        Federal.............................................               0
        Non-Federal.........................................        $250,000

        Description of Non-Federal O&M Costs: The annual operation,
    maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation cost for
    the recommended plan is $237,000 west of Algiers Canal and
    $13,000 each of Algiers Canal.

    Benefit Cost Ratio:
        West of Algiers Canal...............................             4.7
        East of Algiers Canal...............................             1.6

                    (14) WOOD RIVER, GRAND ISLAND, NEBRASKA

        Location: The city of Grand Island, Nebraska and adjacent
    portions of Hall and Merrick Counties.
        Description of Problem and Recommended Plan: The city of
    Grand Island is subject to flooding from Warm Slough and the
    Wood River every 2 years on average. Wood River floods cause
    major widespread flooding in the Grand Island area because
    floodflows spread over a wide, relatively flat, highly
    developed flood plain. In addition, Wood River floodflows spill
    into the much smaller Warm Slough basin, causing the Warm
    Slough to flood into Grand Island. Major floods have occurred
    in 1923, 1947, 1949 and 1967. The most recent and serious
    flooding occurred in May 1967 causing over $14,900,000 (1993
    dollars) in flood damages throughout the Grand Island area.
        There are approximately 1755 structures in the 100-year
    flood plain, where the dominant land use is single-family
    residential. Approximately six percent of the structures in the
    flood plain are a mix of commercial, industrial, and public
    facilities. Grand Island is the third largest city in Nebraska.
        The recommended plan includes the construction of 2 miles
    of channel and levee; a diversion structure; 5 miles of
    diversion channel with levees on both sides; and measures to
    mitigate unavoidable impacts. The recommended plan also
    requires the construction of four new roadway bridges and the
    modification of one existing railroad bridge.

    Physical Data on Project Features

        a. Structural:
        (1) Canals, channelization, levees, jetties, drainage
    systems, and other facilities:
        A diversion channel approximately 5 miles long and 180 feet
    wide with levees on both sides averaging 5 feet in height.
    Construction of the diversion channel would require
    construction of 5 bridges including one railroad bridge. An
    upstream tie-off that includes a 30 foot wide channel about 2
    miles long with a levee on the left bank that averages 5 feet
    in height. Construction of the tie-off would also include one
    precast triple box culvert, one CMP culvert and raising of
    about one half mile of secondary road. A gated diversion
    structure on the Wood River that diverts flows in excess of 600
    c.f.s., with the gates fully open, and 250 c.f.s., with the
    gates fully closed. The structure diverts up to 4000 c.f.s.
    which is the diversion channel design capacity.
        (2) Lands, easements, rights-of-way and relocations:
        The proposed project would require the acquisition of
    several different real estate interests over a total of 610
    acres and involve 31 landowners. A total of 81 acres would be
    acquired under fee title, 428 acres under a permanent easement,
    61 acres of temporary construction easements, and 40 acres of
    borrow and spoil easements. No real estate relocations would be
    required. Some utility relocations would be required.
    Construction of four county road bridges is also required.
        b. Environmental Features:
        Mitigation on project lands; The proposed project would
    require replacement of 4.6 acres of palustrine wetlands on a 2-
    to-1 basis. Another 19 acres of wet meadow at the east terminus
    of the project would be managed to protect the Regal Fritillary
    butterfly. All other project lands would be planted in a native
    grassland seed mix to provide suitable habitat for wildlife.
        View of States and Other Non-Federal Interests: The
    Governor of Nebraska visited Grand Island in March 1993 and
    expressed support for the project. The State of Nebraska,
    acting through the Central Platte Natural Resources District,
    would provide 80 percent of the non-Federal funding. The City
    of Grand Island strongly supports the project and would provide
    12 percent of the non-Federal funding. Hall and Merrick
    counties also support the project and would each provide 4
    percent of the non-Federal funding.
        Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service supports the project with mitigation of
    impacts to wildlife and wetlands as proposed. The National Park
    Service supports the project with the appropriate replacement
    of park lands that were funded under the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund Program, and are now within the proposed
    project right-of-way.
        Status of Final Environmental Impact Statement: No EIS
    required. FONSI signed 30 April 1993.
    Estimated Implementation Costs:
        Federal:
            Federal Corps of Engineers/Flood Control........      $6,040,000
            Non-Federal.....................................       5,760,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
              Total:........................................      11,800,000

        Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: The non-
    Federal costs identified above are 50 percent of the total
    project costs.
        Description of Non-Federal OMRR&R Cost: The primary OMRR&R
    activities will involve haying, mowing and burning for the
    project grasslands as specified in the mitigation plan.
    Periodic removal of debris and sediment along the project
    alignment would also be required. Damaged or displaced rip-rap
    and bedding would also be replaced after each flood event. Data
    collection activities such as monitoring of groundwater are
    also included.
        Benefit to Cost Ratio: 2.1.

                        (15) long beach island, new york

        Location: The nine-mile long barrier island of Long Beach
    is located in Nassau County along the south shore of Long
    Island between Jones Inlet and East Rockaway, approximately
    from Manhattan, New York.
        Description of Problem and Recommended Plan: The primary
    problem facing this highly developed barrier island is that
    portions of the beach and adjacent development are subject to
    direct wave attack and inundation during major storms and
    hurricanes. The beaches in the project area are also being
    eroded which increases the potential for damages.
        A 110-foot wide beach berm at an elevation of +10 feet
    NGVD, backed by a dune system at an elevation of +15 feet NGVD
    with a crest width of 25 feet. The plan also includes
    rehabilitation of 16 of the existing groins, constructed of 6
    new groins in the most critical erosion area at the eastern end
    of barrier island, dune grass, dune fencing and suitable
    advance beachfill and periodic nourishment to ensure the
    integrity of the design. The plan would require approximately
    8.6 million cubic yards of initial fill to be placed and
    subsequent periodic nourishment of 2 million cubic yards of
    fill every five years for 50 years.

    Physical Data on Project Features

        a. A dune with a top elevation of +15 ft NGVD for a crest
    width of 25 ft, with 1 on 5 side slopes on the landward and
    seaward sides; a 15-to-25 ft maintenance area is included
    landward of the dune.
        b. A beach berm extending 110-ft from the seaward toe of
    the dune at an elevation of +10 ft NGVD, with a shore slope of
    1 on 25 for the easternmost 5,500 linear ft of the shoreline,
    thence transitioning to a 1-on-35 slope for the remaining
    shoreline.
        c. A total sand fill quantity of 8,642,000 cy for the
    initial fill placement, including tolerance, overfill and
    advanced nourishment.
        d. Renourishment of approximately 2,111,000 cy of sand fill
    from the offshore borrow area every 5 years for the 50 year
    project life.
        e. Total of 29 acres for planting dune grass and 90,000
    linear ft of sand fence for dune sand entrapment.
        f. Total of 16 dune walkovers and 13 timber ramps for
    boardwalk access, and 12 vehicle access ramps over the dune.
        g. Total of 6 new groins west of the existing groins at the
    eastern end of island, spaced approximately 1,200 ft apart
    across 6,000 linear ft of beach frontage.
        h. Rehabilitation of 16 of the existing groins, including
    rehabilitation of 640 ft of the existing revetment on the
    western side of Jones Inlet.
        Views of States and Other Non-Federal Interests: Local
    officials from the City of Long Beach, Town of Hempstead and
    Nassau County have expressed support of the recommended plan to
    provide storm damage protection. The New York State Department
    of Environmental Conservation has indicated that they support
    the project and will act as the non-Federal sponsor and fully
    understand their potential cost-sharing responsibility.
        Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: There are no known
    opposition by State or local regulatory agencies.
        Status of Final Environmental Impact Statement: Prepared
    February 1995. The final EIS and 90 days State and Agency
    review was completed on 6 December 1995. There were no adverse
    comments received.

    Estimated Implementation Cost:
        Initial Construction:
            Federal.........................................     $46,858,000
            Non-Federal.....................................      25,232,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
              Total.........................................      72,090,000
        Benefit-Cost Ratio: 1.9.

            (16) wilmington harbor, cape fear river, north carolina

        Location: The study area is the Cape Fear River, located
    between New Hanover and Brunswick Counties. The primary area of
    concern is between the mouth of the Cape Fear River and the
    turning basin above the North Carolina State Ports Authority
    terminal at Wilmington, a distance of about 26 miles.
        Description of Problem and Recommended Plan: Results of
    this study indicated that current channel widths are inadequate
    for the larger vessels now calling at the Port of Wilmington.
    The two principal problems identified are: (1) a need for
    widening five turns and bends, and (2) a need for construction
    of a passing lane at a central location between the Port and
    the Atlantic Ocean.
        The plan recommended consists of widening five turns and
    bends and construction of a passing lane 6.2 miles long.

    Physical data on project features

        a. Construction dredging quantities of sand and rock are
    presented below for the Selected Plan.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Location                                Sand volume     Rock volume    Total volume
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Turn 1..........................................................         205,550               0         205,550
    Turn, 2 & 3.....................................................         325,730          97,400         423,130
    Turn 4..........................................................         173,400          24,350         197,750
    Turn 5..........................................................          41,060               0          41,060
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          Subtotal turns............................................         745,740         121,750         867,490
    6.2-mile passing lane...........................................       3,137,030          80,000       3,217,030
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          Total volumes.............................................       3,882,770         201,750       4,084,520
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        b. Lands, easements, rights-of-way and relocations. No real
    estate acquisition will be necessary for the construction of
    the Selected Plan, and no real estate costs will be incurred.
    All areas to be dredged are below mean low water. Disposal of
    dredged material will be on diked disposal areas within an
    existing perpetual easement provided by the State of North
    Carolina. No relocations will be required for construction or
    maintenance of the Selected Plan.
        Views of States and Other Non-Federal Interests: The
    Selected Plan is supported by the project sponsor, the North
    Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
    Resources, Division of Water Resources; the North Carolina
    State Ports Authority; and the Wilmington Cape Fear Pilots
    Association.
        Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The National Marine
    Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
    respectively, concurred with our no effect determination, if
    blasting does not take place. If blasting occurs, then the
    Corps will reinitiate formal consultation with the NMFS and
    USFWS subject to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of
    1973, as amended.
        Status of Final Environmental Impact Statement: A final EIS
    was filed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on 31
    March 1994.

    Estimated Implementation Costs:
        Federal.............................................     $15,032,000
        Non-Federal.........................................       8,921,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total.............................................      23,953,000

        Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: The
    Selected Plan includes dredging within the range 20 and 45
    feet; therefore, the non-Federal share of dredging is 35
    percent. The non-Federal sponsor is responsible for lands,
    easements, and rights-of-way, dredged material disposal areas,
    and relocations determined to be necessary for the project. No
    relocations of utilities will be required. Adjustments to
    disposal area dikes are expected to cost the sponsor $762,000.
        Benefit Cost Ratio: 1.5.

                       (17) DUCK CREEK, CINCINNATI, OHIO

        Location: The Duck Creek watershed is in southeastern
    Hamilton County, Ohio. Its southern border is the Ohio River,
    and the Little Miami River forms a considerable portion of its
    eastern border. The study area begins at a point just beyond
    the backwater floodplain of the Ohio River, approximately 2
    miles upstream of a the confluence of Duck Creek with the
    Little Miami River, and near the corporate limits of the
    Village of Fairfax in Hamilton County, Ohio.
        Description of Problem and Recommended Plan: The Duck Creek
    floodplain is subject to frequent flooding, affecting
    businesses and industries, but with little flood damage to
    residential properties. Approximately two-thirds of the
    estimated flood damages in the Duck Creek floodplain are to the
    area along the left bank of Duck Creek above Madison Road.
    Floods along Duck Creek have threatened over a thousand jobs in
    manufacturing and disrupted production during the 1980's. The
    flooding has been relatively shallow to structures, less than
    three feet, and has been of short duration (3 to 4 hours) with
    very high velocities (9.5 to 10.5 feet per second). Numerous
    cars and other vehicles have been damaged and swept away by
    flooding. Damage (in FY 1995 dollar values) from the 1982 flood
    of record is estimated at $5.6 million. Threatening flood
    conditions occurred 5 times in a four month period during 1991,
    with plant closures during at least one of these events.
    Average annual flood related damages in the study area total
    $1,956,000.
        The Recommended Plan calls for construction of levee and
    flood wall segments providing a uniform level of protection in
    three reaches of Duck Creek, along with associated minor stream
    relocations, channel protection (riprap), closures, pump
    stations, and other work. The recommended plan is the Locally
    Preferred Plan. Once in place, the project will meet the
    National Flood Insurance Program requirements as administered
    by FEMA. The project when constructed would have a one percent
    chance of being exceeded in any one year.
        a. Structural: The selected plan consists of the
    construction of 14,000 feet of floodwalls or levees in three
    reaches of Duck Creek, 1,200 feet of steam relocation and 9,300
    feet of channel protection (riprap). An abandoned highway
    bridge at the downstream limits would be demolished and an
    existing Conrail Railroad bridge would be replaced to provide a
    wider stream opening. The project has 2 closures and 2 pump
    stations. For emergency vehicle access to the Steel Place
    industrial area during high water events an emergency road will
    be constructed from the industrial area to Oaklawn Drive.
        b. Environmental Features:
        (1) Mitigation on separable lands.--Twenty-three (23) acres
    would be planted with riparian and bottomland trees and shrubs
    to compensate for unavoidable project impacts on existing
    riparian habitat.
        (2) Mitigation and project lands.--Where practicable,
    project features have been modified to avoid or minimize
    adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Stream reaches
    which will be relocated or excavated will have channel
    dimensions, substrate, and pool/riffle-ratio returned to near
    natural conditions. The levees, levee/wall maintenance roads,
    and the borrow site will be seeded with grasses and legumes
    which have wildlife habitat value. To compensate for the
    removal of nesting trees, wooden nesting boxes will be placed
    among trees in other areas of Duck Creek. Where practicable,
    areas disturbed within temporary construction easements will be
    restored with plantings and seedings to compensate for habitat
    losses. No cultural resources will be affected by the project.
        Views of States and Other Non-Federal Interests: Letters
    supporting the recommended plan have been received from the
    City of Cincinnati and the Village of Fairfax. The local
    chapters of the Sierra Club, Preserve Ohio Wetlands, the
    Audubon Society, Rivers Unlimited, and American River opposed
    the project as an unnecessary tax subsidy for flood threatened
    businesses, and less important to the community than solving
    local problems with combined sewer overflows. The Cincinnati
    Metropolitan Sewer District and City Council have met with
    these groups on several occasions to discuss the proposed Corps
    project and resolve their concerns. The Ohio Environmental
    Protection Agency granted Section 401 water quality
    certification and HTRW clearance for the project. The Ohio
    Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) recognized the flooding
    problem, but expressed concern about the loss of riparian
    habitat to project construction. An acceptable mitigation plan
    has been developed in coordination with the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service, ODNR, and the city of Cincinnati to offset
    this loss of habitat. The residents of Oaklawn Drive objected
    to the emergency access road from their street to the Steel
    Place industrial park. The city of Cincinnati and the Corps met
    with residents and an alternative route will be investigated
    during the preconstruction engineering and design phase of the
    project. If the alternative route for the access road is
    selected for implementation, any additional project costs would
    be provided by the City.
        Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service (USFWS) had no comments beyond those in
    earlier coordination with recommended: (a) off-site mitigation
    for the loss of riparian habitat to project features; (b)
    seasonal restrictions on the removal of trees which could
    provide maternity roost sites for the Federally endangered
    Indiana bat; and (c) installation of nest boxes for wood ducks
    and squirrels. FEMA requested that it be provided as-built
    drawings, hydraulic data, and other related information upon
    completion of project construction. The recommendations of the
    USFWS and the requests of FEMA have been complied with. No
    other Federal agency provided comments.
        Status of Environmental Assessment/Finding of No
    Significant Impact (FONSI): The FONSI was signed on 14 January
    1994.

    Estimated Implementation Costs:
        Federal (COE).........................................   $11,960,000
        Non-Federal...........................................     3,987,000
                                                               -------------
          Total...............................................    15,947,000
                                                               =============
    Estimated Annual O&M Costs:
        Federal (COE) Annual Inspection.......................         1,000
        Non-Federal...........................................        45,000
                                                               -------------
          Total...............................................        46,000

        Description of Non-Federal O&M Cost: The Village of Fairfax
    and the City of Cincinnati are responsible for operation and
    maintenance of levees, floodwalls, ponding areas, drainage
    structures, mitigation wetland, and recreation facilities.
        Benefit-Cost Ratio: 1.3.

     (18) WILLAMETTE RIVER TEMPERATURE CONTROL, Mc KENZIE SUBBASIN, OREGON

        Location: The McKenzie River flows into the Willamette
    River at River Mile 171.8 near Eugene, the second largest city
    in Oregon. The study focuses on two existing Corps projects,
    Blue River and Cougar lakes, about 40 miles east of Eugene. The
    projects are located on tributaries to the McKenzie River, the
    Blue and South Fork McKenzie rivers, respectively.
        Description of Problem and Recommended Plan: Under existing
    conditions, the projects alter downstream water temperatures,
    which are cooler in the late spring/summer and warmer in the
    fall/winter than pre-project conditions. The existing outlets
    are located near the bottom of the reservoirs, which thermally
    stratify during portions of the year. The resulting cooler
    water released in the late spring/summer impedes upstream
    migration of the spring chinook salmon and growth of native
    trout, including bull trout. Warm water released in the fall/
    winter accelerates salmon egg incubation and fry emergence,
    leading to poor survival. Willamette spring chinook salmon is
    being reviewed for listing under the Endangered Species Act
    (ESA). Bull trout is also a candidate species under the ESA.
    This project will modify current downstream temperatures to
    more closely replicate pre-project conditions, thus improving
    conditions for spring chinook salmon and native trout,
    including bull trout.
        The recommended plan provides for installation of selective
    withdrawal structures. The selective withdrawal system will be
    added directly to the existing intake towers and positioned
    upstream over the existing regulating outlet works (and power
    penstock for Cougar). Water will be withdrawn from specific
    elevations in the reservoirs using temperature control ports to
    achieve desired release temperatures. A post-construction
    monitoring program will be refined during PED and will be used
    to evaluate the success of modifying temperatures.

    Physical data on project features

        a. Structural: The ported selective withdrawal structures
    will be added directly to the existing intake towers. Water
    will be withdrawn from specific elevations in the reservoir
    using 8 water temperature control ports and 2 bypass ports at
    Cougar, and 7 water temperature control ports and 2 bypass
    ports at Blue River. The water will be withdrawn from 1 to 3
    specific ports at a time. All lands required for the project
    are currently within Federal ownership.
        b. Environmental Features: Construction of the projects has
    been phased to limit impacts of the downstream watershed.
    Residual pools will be maintained during construction to limit
    sediment transfer downstream, reduce turbidity during
    construction, and provide habitat for bull trout in Cougar.
    Coordination with state and federal resource agencies will
    continue throughout the PED phase. Also, an interagency
    committee will be formed for coordination and response to
    unforeseen problems that may arise during construction.
        Views of States and Other Non-Federal Interests: The Oregon
    Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) recognized that the
    McKenzie drainage is the most important area remaining for
    natural production of spring chinook salmon in the Willamette
    basin. ODFW strongful supports the project, as do the comments
    received in response to review of the draft report and the
    DEIS. However, many commentators also expressed concerns on the
    four year construction schedule at each project. The VE study
    will focus on ways to reduce the overall construction periods.
        Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service (USFWS), Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife
    Authority, and National Marine Fisheries Service, the McKenzie
    Watershed Council, and other groups also strongly support the
    project. The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) provided some concerns
    on the South Fork McKenzie River above and below Cougar Lake,
    which is a national wild and scenic study river. Their primary
    concern is on construction impacts to the bull trout population
    in Cougar Lake. Additional coordination with ODFW, USFWS, and
    the USFS was accomplished to identify potential measures to
    reduce impacts to bull trout. This information has been
    included in the final EIS. USFS will make their final
    determination concerning the wild and scenic study river during
    review of the final EIS.
        The Final Environmental Impact Statement: The Final EIS was
    released by EPA in the Federal Register on 30 June 1995.

    Estimated Implementation Costs:
        Federal: Corps of Engineers...........................   $38,000,000
        Non-Federal...........................................             0
                                                               -------------
          Total...............................................    38,000,000

        Benefit to Cost Ratio: A benefit/cost ration has not been
    calculated since the environmental benefits are not monetarily
    quantified.

                    (19) RIO GRANDE DE ARECIBO, PUERTO RICO

        Location: City of Arecibo, North Central Coast of Puerto
    Rico.
        Description of Problem and Recommended Plan: Some 500 acres
    of high density urban area along the eastern part of the city
    of Arecibo is flooded by the Rio Grande de Arecibo. There are
    1,135 families and several hundred small business structures,
    public buildings, and facilities in the area. The 1985 flood
    resulted in about one meter of depth of flooding and caused
    over $12 million in damages.
        The recommended plan proposes constructing 4.2 kilometers
    of levees and 315 meters of floodwall along the western bank of
    the Rio Grande de Arecibo from its mouth to south of PR Highway
    22; 3.4 kilometers of earthen channel improvement along Rio
    Santiago from its outlet to PR Highway 22; 2.9 kilometers of
    channel diversion for Rio Santiago south of PR Highway 22 into
    Rio Grande de Arecibo; and 1.2 kilometers of levees along the
    north bank of Rio Anami. These improvements will protect the
    city of Arecibo from the 100-year flood event. A bicycle and
    jogging trail will be constructed along the top of the Rio
    Grande de Arecibo levee and along the Rio Santiago channel to
    connect with existing facilities in the Luis Rodriguez Olmo
    sports complex.

    Physical data on project features

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Tributaries
                                           Main River  ---------------------
                   Feature                 Rio Grande      Rio        Rio
                                           de Arecibo    Santiago    Tanama
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Levee...............................       4,165    .........      1,160
    Floodwalls..........................         315    .........  .........
    Channel improvement.................  ............      3,400  .........
    Channel diversion...................  ............      2,900  .........
    Jetty to ocean......................          30.5  .........  .........
    Wetland militation..................           7.2  .........  .........
    Bicycle and jogging trail...........         600          865  .........
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Views of States and Other Non-Federal Interests: The Puerto
    Rico Department of Natural Resources provided on November 6,
    1992, a letter of intent supporting conclusions and
    recommendations contained in the report. There are no known
    significant issues.
        Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: A draft report and
    EIS was coordinated with all concerned agencies beginning in
    October 1991. Questions relating to potential cumulative
    environmental impacts and wetlands investigation plans were
    addressed in the final EIS. There are no areas of controversy.
        Status of Final Environmental Impact Statement: Date of
    filing final EIS, 10 December 1993.

    Estimated Implementation Costs:
        Federal...............................................   $10,557,000
        Non-Federal...........................................     9,394,000
                                                               -------------
          Total...............................................    19,951,000

        Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: The non-
    Federal costs, would be those associated with lands, easements,
    and right-of-ways, relocation of bridges and roads, boat ramp,
    and utilities. The sponsor will also contribute 5% cash of the
    total first cost of the flood control project and 50% of the
    total recreation cost.
        Description of Non-Federal O&M Cost: Operation and
    maintenance of levees, floodwalls, channels, ponding areas,
    drainage structures, jetty, mitigation wetlands and recreation
    facilities.
        Benefit-to-Cost Ratio: 4.3.

        (20) BIG SIOUX RIVER AND SKUNK CREEK, SIOUX FALLS, SOUTH DAKOTA

        Location: City of Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
        Description of Problem and Recommended Plan: The Corps
    completed the existing flood control project at Sioux Falls in
    1961. The existing project was designed to contain floods up to
    24,400 c.f.s. on the Big Sioux River and 9,350 c.f.s. on Skunk
    Creek. Although the project meets these design goals, a longer
    period of record and high water flows in 1969 resulted in a
    change to the hydrology of the Big Sioux River and Skunk Creek.
    The existing project provides protection against the 3.3
    percent-chance flood on the Big Sioux River and 5 percent-
    chance flood protection on Skunk Creek. Major portions of the
    highly development areas of Sioux Falls are vulnerable to
    flooding. Today, a 1.0 percent-chance flood on the Big Sioux
    River would cause an estimated $111 million damage in Sioux
    Falls. A 1.0 percent-chance flood on Skunk Creek would cause an
    estimated $75 million damage. There are about 2,453 structures
    in the combined area that would be flooded by the 0.2 percent-
    chance flood plains. Sioux Falls is the largest and fastest
    growing city in South Dakota.
        The recommended plan consists of raising the existing
    diversion, levees and the levees along the Big Sioux River and
    Skunk Creek, raising the diversion dam, raising the walls of
    the existing spillway chute, deepening and extending the
    stilling basin, making selected bridge improvements, extending
    interior drainage structures, and mitigating small wetland
    areas on project lands. The project would provide protection
    from the 1.0 percent-chance flood. Because failure of the
    diversion levees would put at risk many lives and also threaten
    essential infrastructure in Sioux Falls, the project is also
    designed to avoid catastrophic type failure during floods up to
    the 0.2 percent-chance flood.
        a. Structural:
        (1) Canals, locks channelization, levees, jetties, drainage
    systems, and other facilities:
        Existing project levees on Big Sioux River and Skunk Creek,
    with a total combined length of approximately 16.5 miles, would
    be raised an average of 3.5 feet. Additional levee fill would
    be placed on the top and landward side of the existing levee so
    as not to disturb the channel area. The walls of the existing
    chute would be raised an average of 7.5 feet and counterforts
    would be added to support the increased height. The existing
    stilling basin would be removed and a larger basin built. The
    new basin would be 8 feet lower and measure 66 feet wide and
    158 feet long.
        (2) Lands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations:
        45 acres of land would be acquired along the existing levee
    right-of-way by way of permanent easements. An additional 7
    acres would be obtained by fee title for mitigation and borrow
    area.
        b. Environmental Features:
        Mitigation features would be needed to compensate the
    impact to wetlands and to avoid impact to clams during the
    raising of the 49th Street bridge. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service assigned a resource category of 2 to the wetland to be
    impacted and the goal to assure a no net loss of in-kind
    habitat value. A least cost plan for these features was
    formulated. The mitigation planning objective would create 1.62
    acres of shrub/scrub wetland to replace the 0.81 acres that
    would be destroyed.
        Views of States and Other Non-Federal Interests: The
    Governor of South Dakota and the State Departments of Game,
    Fish, and Parks; Transportation; and Environment and Natural
    Resources reviewed the feasibility report and support its
    recommendations. The South Dakota legislature has authorized
    the construction of the project and provided a State Grant
    Commitment in 1993 to provide 50 percent of the non-Federal
    share of the required construction funds. The city of Sioux
    Falls strongly supports the project and would also provide 50
    percent of the non-Federal share of the required construction
    funds. The city intends to finance their share of the cost with
    general obligation or revenue bonds, backed by the city sales
    tax.
        Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service determined there would be no long-term impacts
    to fish and wildlife resources. The report was also reviewed by
    the Environmental Protection Agency and the Soil Conservation
    Service and they had no comments on the proposed project.
        Status of Final Environmental Impact Statement: No EIS
    required. Finding Of No Significant Impact signed 19 November
    1993.

    Estimated Implementation costs:
        Federal.............................................     $25,900,000
        Non-Federal: Falls..................................       8,700,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total.............................................      34,600,000

        Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: The non-
    Federal costs identified above are 25.1 percent of the total
    projects costs and include $1,730,000 in cash; $3,728,000 for
    lands, damages, and relocations; and $3,242,000 for bridges.
    Description of Non-Federal O&M Cost: Because the potential
    project is a modification of an existing project, primary O&M
    activities will not change significantly. The total area to be
    moved would increase, but the cost of operation is not
    projected to increase measurably. The only increase in
    maintenance will be for the new relief wells. This will consist
    of yearly soundings of the wells to determine sediment
    deposits, regular testing, and cleanouts. Each well must be
    tested and cleaned every 5 years.
        Benefit to Cost Ratio: 1.2.

                          (21) watertown, south dakota

        Location: City of Watertown, Codington County, South
    Dakota.
        Description of Problem and Recommended Plan: The
    recommended plan consists of constructing a dam at the Mahoney
    Creek site on the Big Sioux River, approximately 10 river miles
    upstream from Watertown, for the purposes of flood damage
    prevention and public safety. Project features include
    constructing three adjacent earth filled dams with a maximum
    height above river bed of about 52 feet; constructing a 600-
    foot-wide emergency spillway; constructing an ungated outlet
    conduit including an inlet with a trash rack and a stilling
    basin; relocating roads and utilities; purchasing in fee about
    1,688 acres of land and acquiring approximately 4,575 acres of
    flowage easements; and constructing fish and wildlife impact
    mitigation features. Water would be stored in the reservoir
    only when necessary to protect downstream areas from floods.
    Agricultural production would continue on lands held under
    flowage easements at the discretion of the landowner. The plan
    would reduce flood damage costs, reduce the threat to loss of
    life, reduce health and safety services disruptions, and
    preserve the environmental resources of the area.

    Physical data on project features

        a. Structural:
        (1) Canals, channelization, levees, jetties, drainage
    systems, and other facilities:
        The main embankment will be 52 feet high, 4,860 feet long,
    and have a crest width of 20 feet. The west embankment will be
    41 feet high, 4,460 feet long, and have a crest width of 20
    feet. The dike will be 16 feet high, 1,850 feet long, and have
    a crest width of 10 feet. The spillway will be 600 feet wide
    and 5,750 feet long. Outlet Works and Stilling Basin: The
    outlet works will consist of an ungated 6.5 foot diameter
    precast reinforced concrete pipe approximately 315 feet long.
    The stilling basin will be a Saint Anthony Falls type, about 50
    feet by 19 feet.
        (2) Lands, easements rights-of-way, and relocations:
        Approximately 1,688 acres of land would be purchased in
    fee, and approximately 4,575 acres would be acquired as flowage
    easements. Some road and utility relocations would be required.
        (b) Environmental Features:
        Mitigation features would be needed to compensate the loss
    of habitat that would result from construction of the project.
    4.8 acres of wetland and spawning habitat would be created, and
    13.5 acres of native shrub trees would be planted to replace
    the acres that would be destroyed by construction of the
    project.
        Views of States and Other Non-Federal Interests: The report
    was reviewed by the city of Watertown, Codington County, South
    Dakota; Lake Kampeska Water Project District; Department of
    Game, Fish and Parks; and South Dakota Department of
    Environment and Natural Resources. Recent referendums in city
    and county have not supported this project.
        Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service determined that there would no long-term
    impacts on fish and wildlife resources. The report was also
    reviewed by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Soil
    Conservation Service. Neither agency had any comments.
        Status of Final Environmental Impact Statement: No EIS
    required. FONSI signed 12 August 1994.

    Estimated Implementation Costs:
        Federal: Corps of Engineers/Flood Control...........     $13,200,000
        Non-Federal: Lake Kampeska Water Project District...       4,800,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total.............................................      18,000,000

        Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: The non-
    Federal costs include $900,000 in cash and $3,900,000 for
    lands, damages and relocations.

    Estimated Annual O&M Costs:
        Non-Federal: Lake Kampeska Water Project District...         $59,000

        Description of Non-Federal O&M Cost: Routine O&M would
    consist of mowing the embankments and spillway, weed control,
    reseeding, debris removal, and vandalism repairs. Additional
    items of periodic maintenance would be sediment removal,
    resurfacing of project roads, riprap replacement, and
    instrumentation maintenance.
        Benefit to Cost Ratio: 1.07.

      (22) GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY--ARANSAS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE,
                                     TEXAS

        Location: The study area is located in Aransas and Calhoun
    Counties, about 35 miles northeast of Corpus Christi, Texas.
        Description of Problem and Recommended Plan: Approximately
    13 miles of the existing Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW)
    bisects the designated critical habitat of the rare and
    endangered whooping crane located in and adjacent to the
    Aransas National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). This reach of the GIWW
    transported approximately 14 million tons of cargo in 1992,
    most of which was petroleum, chemicals, and related products.
    Critical habitat is being lost at a rate of about 2 acres per
    year due to erosion caused by a combination of vessel traffic
    and natural currents and wave action. The shoreline regression
    destroys wetland habitat and the shallow potholes which are the
    cranes' preferred feeding areas. The problem is compounded by
    the fact that the cranes are territorial and return to the area
    in which they were raised. Other concerns associated with the
    operation and maintenance of the waterway include the impacts
    of dredging and dredged material disposal on aquatic resources
    and the possibility of a chemical or petroleum spill that would
    contaminate crane habitat.
        The recommended plan consists of providing 75,500 feet
    (14.3 miles) of bank protection for erosion control and the
    installation of permanent facilities for ready-deployment of
    spill containment measures. Associated with the plan, but not
    part of the recommendation for Congressional authorization, is
    the development of a long-term dredged material disposal plan
    for future maintenance activities along this reach of the
    waterway. The disposal plan provides for the beneficial use of
    dredged material to create 1,614 acres of new marsh over a 50-
    year period. The disposal plan will be implemented under the
    existing project authority using Operations and Maintenance
    funding.

    Physical data on project features

        a. structural:
        (1) 62,000 feet of articulated concrete mat bank
    protection.
        (2) 13,500 feet of grout-filled tube erosion protection.
        (3) Spill containment system consisting of pilings,
    mounting hardware, and containment booms.
        (4) Real estate consists of a Special use Permit from the
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (UFWS) for lands within ANWR and
    easement from private land owners outside the ANWR.
        Views of States and Other Non-Federal Interests: The non-
    Federal sponsor for the existing project, the Texas Department
    of Transportation, indicated their support for whatever plan
    the Corps of Engineers recommends. The State of Texas has also
    offered to participate in the cost to replace spill containment
    equipment.
        Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: There are no
    unresolved issues relating to the recommended bank protection
    and spill containment plan. The USFWS and National Marine
    Fisheries Service have concurred that the recommended bank
    protection and spill containment plan are in full compliance
    with the Endangered Species Act. the USFWS has issued a Final
    Coordination Act Report for this project. The report includes
    comments from other resource agencies on the recommended plan,
    and their need for more detailed design information for the
    beneficial use sites discussed in the 50-year disposal plan. An
    Interagency Coordination Team composed of members of
    appropriate Federal and State resource agencies will be formed
    to make recommendations on size, location, construction,
    filling, planting, and monitoring of the sites for the 50-year
    disposal plan.
        Status of Final Environmental Impact Statement: The Final
    Environmental Impact Statement was filed with EPA on 3 November
    1995.
        Estimated Implementation Costs: All costs are allocated to
    Ecosystem Protection.

    Federal.................................................     $18,300,000
    Non-Federal.............................................               0
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
      Total.................................................      18,300,000

        Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: None.

    Estimated Annual O&M Costs:
        Federal: Corps of Engineers:
            Erosion Protection..............................         $15,000
            Spill Containment...............................          35,000
        Non-Federal.........................................               0
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total.............................................          50,000

        Description of Non-Federal O&M Costs: None.
        Benefit Cost Ratio: The recommended plan is justified based
    on ecosystem protection benefits associated with the protection
    of criteria habitat of the endangered whooping crane. A benefit
    cost ratio has not been calculated because ecosystem protection
    benefits are difficult to measure in monetary units.

               (23) houston-galveston navigation channels, texas

        Location: The cities of Houston and Galveston are located
    on Galveston Bay, a tidal estuary which enters the Gulf of
    Mexico along the northeastern Texas coastline. Existing Federal
    navigation improvements provide channels depths of 40 feet from
    the Gulf to the ports of Houston, Texas City, and Galveston.
    The existing channels to Houston and Galveston have a length of
    51 miles and 4 miles, respectively, from the mouth of Galveston
    Bay. The common entrance channel from the mouth of the Bay to
    deep water in the Gulf is approximately 5 miles long.
        Description of Problem and Recommended Plan: The principal
    concerns of this area are the safety and efficiency of
    commercial navigation. Several problems were identified
    including vessel casualties, delays, congestion, and vessel
    size restrictions The study also determined that there is a
    need to address environmental concerns associated with the
    potential for spill of oil or other hazardous materials, and
    changes in salinity and circulation.
        The recommended navigation improvements consist of a
    channel depth of 45 feet. The ecosystem restoration features of
    the recommended plan consist of the creation of 4,250 acres of
    tidal marsh (over the 50-year project life) and a 12-acre
    colonial water bird nesting island through beneficial use of
    dredged material.

    Physical data on project features:

        a. Structural:
        (1) Navigation.--Improvements consist of an entrance
    channel 47 feet deep by 800 feet wide from the Gulf of Mexico
    to Bolivar Roads, a 45-foot deep channel with a varying width
    ranging from 650 to 1,112 feet from Bolivar Roads to the Port
    of Galveston, and enlargement of the Houston Ship channel to a
    depth of 45 feet and width of 530 feet from Bolivar Roads to
    Boggy Bayou.
        (2) Ecosystem Restoration--Improvements include the initial
    construction of 690 acres of marsh habitat and creation of a
    12-acre colonial water bird nesting island using new work
    dredged material and incremental development (deferred
    construction) of an additional 3,560 acres of marsh over the
    life of the navigation project using maintenance dredged
    material.
        b. Environmental Features: Construction of 118 acres of
    oyster reef for mitigation.
        Views of States and Other Non-Federal Interests: Public
    review comments on the draft Reevaluation Report and draft
    Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement were generally
    supportive of the planning process and recommended plan. The
    Port of Houston Authority and the City of Galveston, local
    sponsors for the project, have actively participated throughout
    the planning process, have provided letters of intent to
    participate in project construction of the project in 1996.
        Views of Federal, State and Regional Agencies: The
    recommended plan was developed with the assistance of the
    Interagency Coordination Team (ICT) comprised of
    representatives of the Galveston District, the project
    sponsors, and Federal and State resource agencies. Members of
    the ICT met regularly to discuss their concerns, scope the
    studies necessary to fully evaluate the concerns, and review
    the results of the studies. As a result of the successful
    coordination and cooperation of the ICT, there are no areas of
    controversy or unresolved issues associated with the
    recommended plan.
        The Final Environmental Impact Statement: The Final
    Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement was transmitted to
    EPA for filing on 17 November 1995.

    Estimated Implementation Costs, Initial Construction:
        Federal:
            Navigation:
                Corps of Engineers..........................    $165,000,000
                U.S. Coast Guard............................       2,670,000
            Ecosystem Restoration;
                Corps of Engineers..........................      43,000,000
        Non-Federal:
            Navigation:
                Port of Houston Authority...................      61,000,000
                City of Galveston...........................       5,700,000
            Ecosystem Restoration:
                Port of Houston Authority...................      14,400,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
                  Total Initial Construction................     293,000,000

        Deferred Construction of Ecosystem Restoration (Average
    Annual Cost of Future Construction Over the 50-Year Life of the
    Project, October 1995 Price Levels).

    Federal: Corps of Engineers................................    $590,000
    Non-Federal: Port of Houston Authority.....................     196,000
                                                                ------------
          Total Deferred Construction..........................     786,000

        Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: For
    initial construction, non-federal interests must provide all
    lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and disposal
    areas (LERRDS) valued at $12,500,000; and 25 percent of the
    general navigation features ($55,100,000); and 25 percent of
    the cost of ecosystem restoration features ($14,400,000). For
    the navigation project, the sponsors will have to pay, over a
    period not to exceed 30 years, an additional 10 percent of the
    cost of general navigation features less creditable LERRDS,
    which is currently estimated at $9,890,000. The owners of
    approximately 120 pipelines located beneath the channel will be
    required to bear the most of facility removal and replacement
    ($110,100,000). The sponsor will pay 25 percent of the costs of
    deferred construction for ecosystem restoration construction
    (average annual cost of future construction over the 50-year
    life of the project=$196,000) which is linked to maintenance of
    the Houston Ship Channel.

    Estimated Annual O&M Costs:
        Federal:
            Navigation:
                Corps of Engineers..........................      $1,020,000
                U.S. Coast Guard............................               0
        Non-Federal:
            Port of Houston Authority.......................         211,000
            City of Galveston...............................          17,000
    Ecosystem Restoration:
        Federal.............................................               0
        Non-Federal:
            Port of Houston Authority.......................         300,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
              Total Annual O&M Costs........................       1,550,000

        Benefit-Cost Ratio: 2.3. The benefits associated with the
    ecosystem restoration features have not been quantified
    monetarily; therefore, the costs for those features are not
    included when calculating the benefit cost ratio. The
    recommended ecosystem restoration features are justified based
    on benefits associated with the creation of wetlands and
    colonial bird nesting habitat. The scale of the recommended
    ecosystem restoration features has been optimized using the
    principles of incremental cost analysis.

                 (24) marmet lock, kanawha river, west virginia

        Location: The Kanawha River navigation system includes the
    lower 91 miles of the Kanawha River. The project area
    encompasses Marmet Locks and Dam, Mile 67.7, extending 15.1
    miles upstream to London Locks and Dam. Marmet Locks and Dam is
    located near the community of Belle approximately 5 miles
    upstream from Charleston, West Virginia.
        Description of Problem and Recommended Plan: The major
    problems at Marmet are the limited capacity of the small lock
    chambers (twin 56,  360,) which results in traffic
    delays and increased transportation costs, and deterioration of
    the project structures because of advanced age and heavy use.
    The lock chambers were designed primarily for standard barges
    at the time when this size barge dominated the waterway
    industry. Each chamber will hold four standard barges, but only
    one of the larger jumbo barges which now constitute about 62
    percent of the total barge fleet. The average delay per tow is
    6.2 hours (1992) with an average of 4.1 lockages per tow. The
    total processing time-lockage plus delay time-for an average
    tow at Mannet was 9.1 hours in 1992, one of the highest in the
    Ohio River system. The locks are approaching 60 years of age
    and some structural components have experiened high stresses
    because of high utilization. Consequently, there is substanial
    risk of unsatisfactory performance of some lock walls, which
    could result in closure of one or both chambers for an extended
    period of time.
        The recommended plan provides for construction of a new
    800,  110, lock on the right bank landward of and
    adjacent to the existing lock chambers. The existing locks will
    be used during lock construction, and will be available for
    future use when the new lock is not operational. The new lock
    is skewed one degree so construction will not impact the DuPont
    chemical plant located just upstream from the project. The
    existing dam and hydroelectric power plant will remain in
    operation.

    Physical data on project features

        a. Structural:
        (1) Lock: The new 800,  x  110, lock is sited immediately
    adjacent to the existing locks. The structure will have an
    upper guide wall 2,880 feet long and a lower guide wall 960
    feet long. The existing 360-foot upper guardwall which is
    misaligned will be removed and replaced with a new, ported
    guardwall 1,000 feet long. The new chamber will have a side
    wall port filling and emptying system. The upper and lower lock
    gates are of miter-type design, with a height of 53 feet above
    the sills.
        (2) Dam: Rehabilitation of the navigation dam is planned,
    but is not part of the project to be recommended for
    Congressional authorization. The dam rehabilitation would be
    accomplished under current authorities, and includes
    stabilizing the dam piers to meet current design criteria,
    replacing deteriorated concrete, and repairing or replacing
    certain electrical or mechanical components.
        (3) Relocations: Utilities in the project area, including
    water, sewer, telephone, gas and power facilities, will be
    impacted by construction. A public service district's sewer
    lines and a private utility's water lines will be relocated to
    maintain service to residences in West Belle not acquired for
    construction. Graves in an historic cemetery located in the
    Burning Springs disposal area will be relocated to other
    cemeteries in the project vicinity.
        (4) Real Estate: Project construction will require the
    acquisition of 98 acres in fee and 30 acres in construction
    easement. Included are 242 residential and 10 commercial units.
    No industrial lands and no flowage easement would be acquired.
        b. Environmental Features:
        (1) Mitigation on Project Lands: Mitigation measures will
    be developed at the Burning Springs disposal site to offset the
    impacts of project construction. The mitigation features
    include two shallow wetland ponds, an augmentation well with
    pump, two channels with overflow weirs, a shallow embayment for
    fish habitat, and vegetative plantings on the terraced disposal
    mound.
        To offset the impact of future navigation traffic,
    longitudinal soft dikes and gravel blankets will be placed on
    shallow bars located near the banks throughout the Marmet pool.
    The soft dikes will consist of fiber plant rolls installed at
    the water line atop brush bundles secured by cables. The fiber
    rolls will be planted with water tolerant herbaceous species.
        Views of States and Other Non-Federal Interests: The State
    of West Virginia Department of Natural Resources supports the
    project but has concerns about aquatic mitigation plans.
    Letters supporting the recommended plan have been received from
    members of the National and West Virginia Coal Associations,
    the West Virginia Mining and Reclamation Association, DINAMO,
    American Electric Power Company, and the Eastern Associated
    Coal Company. Opposition primarily is from local residents who
    would be adversely affected by project construction.
        Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The Department of
    Interior has expressed concerns whether the proposed systems
    for aquatic mitigation measures would perform as intended. The
    Corps and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service acknowledge the
    experimental nature of the proposed vegetative brush dikes and
    plan a joint demonstration project to test the performance and
    address concerns. If the demonstration project unexpectedly
    fails, alternative measures will be developed to mitigate the
    navigation system impacts. EPA Region III has concerns about
    the relocation procedures for the large number of families
    affected by construction. The Corps has completed real estate
    studies and has determined that sufficient homes are available
    in the Charleston regional area for those relocated families.
        The Final Environmental Impact Statement was filed on 29
    December 1993.

    Estimated Implementation Costs:
        a. Federal-(COE/Navigation):
            Work Requiring Authorization (One-half Federal
              and one-half from Inland Waterways Trust Fund)    $229,581,000
            Associated Federal Cost (Cost to rehab Marmet
              dam)..........................................      10,678,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
              Total Costs (rounded).........................     240,259,000
        b. Non-Federal......................................               0

        Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: None.
        Description of Non-Federal O&M Costs: None.
        Benefit-Cost Ratio: 2.8.
        Sections 102-107 direct the Secretary to take action to
    implement projects under its ``small projects'' or ``continuing
    authorities'' program. To the extent that projects listed in
    those sections provide flood control benefits or benefits to
    which flood control cost-sharing would be applied, the cost-
    sharing policy of section 202(a), applicable to flood control
    authorizations subsequent to this Act, shall not apply.
        Section 102: Small flood control projects.
        (a) Project Authorizations:
        This section directs the Secretary to study and carry out
    projects for flood control under the authority of section 205
    of the Flood Control Act of 1948, which authorizes the
    Secretary to participate in small projects for flood control
    and related purposes where the Federal contribution is not more
    than $5 million.
        (1) South Upland, San Bernadino County, California.
        (2) Birds, Lawrence County, Illinois.
        (3) Bridgeport, Lawrence County, Illinois.
        (4) Embarras River, Villa Grove, Illinois.
        (5) Frankfort, Will County, Illinois.
        (6) Summer, Lawrence County, Illinois.
        (7) Vermillion River, Demanade Park, Lafayette, Louisiana.
    In carrying out the study and any project under this paragraph,
    the Secretary shall use relevant information from the Lafayette
    Parish feasibility study and expedite completion of the study
    under this paragraph.
        (8) Vermillion River, Quail Hollow Subdivision, Lafayette,
    Louisiana. In carrying out the study and any project under this
    paragraph, the Secretary shall use relevant information from
    the Lafayette Parish feasibility study and expedite completion
    of the study under this paragraph.
        (9) Kawkawlin River, Bay County, Michigan.
        (10) Whitney Drain, Arenac County, Michigan.
        (11) Festus and Crystal City, Missouri. In carrying out the
    study and any project under this paragraph, the Secretary shall
    use relevant information from the existing reconnaissance
    study.
        (12) Kimmswick, Missouri. In carrying out the study and any
    project under this paragraph, the Secretary shall use relevant
    information from the existing reconnaissance study and shall
    expedite completion of the study under this paragraph.
        (13) River Des Peres, St. Louis County, Missouri.
        (14) Buffalo Creek, Erie County, New York.
        (15) Cazenovia Creek, Erie County, New York.
        (16) Cheektowaga, Erie County, New York.
        (17) Fulmer Creek, village of Mohawk, New York.
        (18) Moyer Creek, village of Frankfort, New York.
        (19) Sauquoit Creek, Whitesboro, New York.
        (20) Steele Creek, village of Ilion, New York.
        (21) Willamette River, Oregon. Non-structural flood
    control, including floodplain and ecosystem restoration.
        (22) Wills Creek, Hyndman, Pennsylvania.
        (23) Neabsco Creek watershed, Virginia.
        (24) Greenbrier River basin, West Virginia. Flood warning
    system.
        (b) Cost Allocations:
        (1) Lake Elsinore, California--The maximum amount of
    Federal funds that may be allotted under section 205 of the
    Flood Control Act of 1948 for the project for flood control,
    Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California, shall be
    $7,500,000. The Secretary shall revise the project cooperation
    agreement to take into account the change in Federal
    participation in such projects. This provision is not intended
    to alter the cost sharing allocation that would be applicable
    under the provisions of the Water Resources Development Act of
    1986, as in effect prior to the date of enactment of this Act.
        (2) Lost Creek, Columbus, Nebraska--The maximum amount of
    Federal funds that may be allotted under such section 205 for
    the project for flood control, Lost Creek Columbus, Nebraska,
    shall be $5,500,000. The Secretary shall revise the project
    cooperation agreement to take into account the change in
    Federal participation in such projects.

    Section 103: Small bank stabilization projects.

        Section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 as amended
    provides authority for the Secretary to undertake emergency
    measures to prevent erosion damage to endangered highways,
    public works, and non-profit public facilities. Projects
    conducted under this authority are subject to the normal cost-
    sharing requirements, as in effect prior to the date of
    enactment of this Act. The following projects are directed to
    be carried out under this section:
        (1) Allegheny River at Oil City, Pennsylvania
        (2) Cumberland River, Nashville, Tennessee
        (3) Tennessee River, Hamilton County, Tennessee--at total
    Federal expenditure of $7.5 million.

    Section 104: Small navigation projects.

        This section authorizes the study of construction of the
    following small navigation projects under the authority of
    section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960. Section 107
    authorizes federal participation in small navigation projects
    up to $4 million. Projects constructed under this authority are
    subject to the normal navigation and recreation cost-sharing.
        (1) Akutan, Alaska consisting of the bulkhead and a wave
    barrier.
        (2) Grand Marais, Michigan.
        (3) Duluth, Minnesota.
        (4) Taconite, Minnesota.
        (5) Two Harbors, Minnesota.
        (6) Caruthersville Harbor, Pemiscot County, Missouri, for
    enlargement of the existing harbor and bank stabilization.
        (7) New Madrid County Harbor, Missouri, including
    enlargement of the existing harbor and bank stabilization.
        (8) Brooklyn, New York, restoring the pier and related
    navigation support structures at the 69th Street Pier in
    Brooklyn, New York.
        (9) Buffalo Inner Harbor, Buffalo, New York.
        (10) Union Ship Canal, Buffalo and Lackawana, New York.

    Section 105: Small shoreline protection projects.

        (a) This section authorizes the Secretary to conduct a
    study for a project of shoreline protection and an increase in
    the amount of Federal funds to be allotted to $4,500,000, for
    Faulkner's Island, Connecticut, and also for projects at Fort
    Pierce, Florida and the Sylvan Beach Breakwater in the Town of
    Verona, Oneida County, New York. If the projects are feasible,
    the Secretary is to carry them out under the authority of
    section 3 of the Shoreline Protection Act of August 13, 1946.
        (b) Faulkner's Island is the property of the Federal
    government. The Secretary is directed to enter into an
    agreement with the Secretary of the Interior concerning the
    allocation of costs between the Secretaries of Army and
    Interior.

    Section 106: Small snagging and sediment removal project, Mississippi
            River, Little Falls, Minnesota.

        The Secretary directed to conduct a study for clearing,
    snagging and sediment removal under section 3 of the Rivers and
    Harbors Act of 1945. This section authorizes the Secretary to
    conduct a study, and if feasible, to carry out such a project
    for Mississippi River, Little Falls, Minnesota. The study is
    also to address the adequacy of culverts to maintain flows
    through the channel.

    Section 107: Small projects for improvement of the environment.

        This section directs the Secretary to study a project for
    environmental restoration under the authority of section 1135
    of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 for several
    projects. If the Secretary determines that the projects are
    appropriate, the Secretary is to carry out the projects.
        (1) Upper Truckee River, El Dorado, California. Measures
    for restoration of degraded wetlands and for wildlife
    enhancement for the Upper Truckee River, California.
        (2) a project for habitat restoration, San Lorenzo River,
    California.
        (3) a project for environmental restoration and remediation
    of contaminated waters, Whitter Narrows Dam, California.
        (4) a project for channel restoration and environmental
    improvement, Upper Jordan River, Salt Lake County, Utah.
        In carrying out the requirements of this section, the
    Secretary shall consider the modifications to the section 1135
    program that are made by section 204 of this Act. For example,
    application of such modifications to the Upper Jordan River
    project will allow the Secretary to carry out the project even
    though project effects may not be in close proximity to the
    original project.

                   TITLE II--GENERALLY APPLICABLE PROVISIONS

    Section 201: Cost sharing for dredged material disposal areas

        This provision establishes a consistent rule for Federal
    participation in the sharing of costs for the construction of
    dredged material disposal facilities associated with the
    construction, operation and maintenance of Federal navigation
    projects for harbors and inland harbors. Currently, Federal and
    non-Federal responsibilities for construction of disposal
    facilities vary from project to project, depending on when the
    project was authorized, and the method or site selected for
    disposal. At some projects the costs of providing dredged
    material disposal facilities are all Federal, while at other
    projects the non-Federal sponsor bears the entire cost of
    constructing disposal facilities.
        (a) Construction.--The costs of constructing dredged
    material disposal facilities, including diking, subaqueous
    constructed disposal areas and other improvements necessary for
    the proper disposal of dredged materials, shall be shared in
    accordance with the cost sharing established for general
    navigation features by section 101(a) of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1986. This subsection shall apply to new
    authorizations as well as previously authorized projects for
    which construction contracts have not yet been awarded.
        (b) Operation and Maintenance.--The cost sharing described
    in subsection (a) shall also apply to construction of dredged
    material disposal areas associated with maintenance dredging
    for which a contract for construction has not yet been awarded.
        (c) Agreement.--This subsection conforms the cooperation
    agreement provisions to the changes in cost-sharing made
    pursuant to this section.
        (d) Consideration of Funding Requirements.--Requires that
    funding preference be given, to the extent practicable, to
    funding operation and maintenance dredging over the
    construction of dredged material disposal facilities and that
    regional needs be considered when apportioning funds. The
    Committee expects the Secretary to continue to exercise
    judgment in selecting cost-effective means of disposal and to
    select the least cost option where appropriate.
        (e) Eligible Operations and Maintenance Defined.--Amends
    the definition of operation and maintenance costs eligible for
    payment from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund to include the
    Federal share of constructing dredged material disposal
    facilities that are necessary for the disposal of dredged
    material from maintenance dredging; dredging and disposal of
    contaminated sediments which are in the navigation channel or
    which may affect maintenance of such channel; mitigating the
    effects of operation and maintenance of navigation channels
    (such as the erosion of shoreline and beaches); and operation
    and maintenance of dredged material disposal facilities.
        (f) Cooperation Agreements.--If requested by the non-
    Federal sponsor, cooperation agreements executed before the
    date of enactment, but for which a construction contract has
    not been awarded, shall be amended to reflect the application
    of the provisions of this section.
        (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--Updates reference to
    Internal Revenue Code and deletes general fund authorization.
        The Committee notes that project costs cited for navigation
    projects in Title I and elsewhere in this bill may not fully
    reflect application of the requirements of this section. The
    Secretary shall apply the requirements of this section to all
    projects for which construction contracts are not awarded on or
    before the date of this Act, unless otherwise specified.

    Section 202: Flood control policy

        (a) Flood Control Policy.--Increases the minimum non-
    Federal contribution for flood control projects from 25% to 35%
    for projects authorized after the date of enactment of this
    Act.
        (b) Ability to Pay.--Requires the Secretary to modify the
    current ability to pay requirements to allow for a broader
    application of such requirements.
        First enacted in 1986, and modified in 1990 and 1992, the
    statutory ``ability to pay'' provisions and rules developed by
    the Secretary are widely viewed as being of little help to the
    vast majority of projects. This subsection addresses the issue
    by providing more explicit guidance to the Secretary while
    allowing continued flexibility in establishing detailed
    procedures. Simply put, the Committee's intent is that
    reductions in the non-Federal share are to be more attainable
    than under current interpretations. Of the procedures currently
    in effect, only local per capita income and high cost-per-
    capita criteria shall be used. The Secretary may develop
    additional criteria only to the extent that applications of
    such criteria result in increased instances of reduction in the
    non-Federal share or in greater reductions in such share. While
    the Committee anticipates that some authorized projects not yet
    having signed project cooperation agreements or not yet under
    construction will benefit from the new procedures, the greatest
    impact will occur to future authorizations, which will be
    subject to increased cost-sharing required in subsection (a).
        For projects determined to be eligible for a reduction in
    non-Federal cost-sharing pursuant to this subsection, the
    Secretary may reduce or completely eliminate any requirement
    for cash contributions.
        The Committee recognizes that in rare instances for
    previously authorized projects, the new procedures could
    increase the non-Federal share. In such cases, the non-Federal
    sponsor, at its sole discretion, may elect to remain under the
    current procedures.
        (c) Flood Plain Management Plans--Requires that the non-
    Federal interest participation in any flood control or
    hurricane/storm damage reduction project prepare and comply
    with a flood plain management plan designed to reduce impacts
    of future flooding. This plan shall be developed within one
    year of signing a project cooperation agreement for a
    structural flood control project and shall be implemented by
    the non-Federal sponsor within one year of completion of
    construction of that project. This section explicitly does not
    grant the Secretary any new regulatory authority. The Secretary
    is also granted the authority to provide technical assistance
    in the design and implementation of these flood plain
    management plans and policies. This section also re-states a
    provision of current law that requires the non-Federal sponsor
    to agree to participate in and comply with applicable Federal
    flood plain management and flood insurance programs.
        (d) Nonstructural Flood Control Policy.--The Secretary
    shall conduct a review of policies, procedures and techniques
    that may act to impede the equitable consideration of non-
    structural flood control measures as an alternative to
    structural flood control measures and report findings and
    recommendations to Congress within one year.
        (e) Emergency Response.--This subsection allows the
    Secretary to implement non-structural flood control measures as
    a means of emergency response, if the non-Federal sponsor
    requests such an effort.
        (f) Nonstructural Alternatives.--This subsection modifies
    existing law to increase the consideration of non-structural
    flood control alternatives in studying or designing flood
    control projects. Federal officials may consider a broad array
    of non-structural possibilities in preparing their reports,
    including those which could be implemented by others. This
    modification will facilitate less constrained, more
    comprehensive approaches to addressing flood problems.

    Section 203: Feasibility study cost-sharing

        This section requires that during a feasibility study, the
    non-Federal share is not to exceed 50 percent of the study cost
    as depicted in the feasibility cost-sharing agreement. Any
    agreed-to excess shall be paid after the project is authorized
    and a construction agreement is entered into, or within 5 years
    of the Chief of Engineers' final report or 2 years of the
    completion of the study whichever is earlier. This amendment
    applies to future costs under all feasibility cost-sharing
    agreements. This provision is included in response to growing
    concern that the cost of Corps feasibility studies is too
    expensive and unpredictable. The section acknowledges problems
    with Corps study cost estimates by allowing flexibility in the
    repayment of non-Federal costs that are in excess of original
    estimates, while assuring that such costs are ultimately
    repaid. The Committee directs the Secretary to review
    procedures for developing feasibility study cost estimates with
    a view toward improving their accuracy.

    Section 204: Restoration of environmental quality

        This section expands the authority provided in Section 1135
    of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 to allow the
    Secretary to implement environmental quality restoration
    projects in those situations where the project constructed by
    the Corps has contributed to the degradation of the quality of
    the environment and the measures do not conflict with
    authorized project purposes.
        Under current law, the Secretary can modify only the
    structures and operations of existing water resources projects
    in carrying out a section 1135 project. This provision provides
    authority for the Secretary to undertake other measures,
    including measures of project lands, for restoration of
    environmental quality when the Secretary determines that
    operation of the project has contributed to the degradation of
    the quality of the environment. Measures to enhance the
    environment may also be carried out if they are associated with
    restoration activities.
        The non-Federal share of the cost of such measures shall be
    25 per cent and no more than $5 million may be spent from
    Federal funds on any single restoration measure.
        Modifications made by this section are intended to give
    greater flexibility to the Secretary to use the ``1135''
    authority for environmental restoration at or near Corps
    projects or located not in close proximity to such projects but
    determined with reasonable certainty to be affected by them.
    For example, the Green Duwamish watershed in Washington, Lower
    Amazon Creek in Oregon, and Kings River in California should be
    considered to be high priority candidates for consideration
    under this broadened authority.

    Section 205: Environmental dredging

        Section 312 of the 1990 Water Resources Development Act
    established a 5-year program to allow the Corps of Engineers to
    perform dredging in and adjacent to navigation channels for
    environmental purposes if cost shared by non-Federal interests
    on a 50-50 basis. Section 205 makes several changes to that
    program. It authorizes the Secretary to remediate, as well as
    remove contaminated sediments; increases the annual funding
    authorization for this program from $10 million to $30 million;
    removes the sunset that existed in the 1990 Act. THe section
    also establishes a priority for 5 harbors and rivers:
        (1) Brooklyn Waterfront, New York, including the Atlantic
    Basin
        (2) Buffalo Harbor and River, New York
        (3) Ashtabula River, Ohio
        (4) Mahoning River, Ohio
        (5) Lower Fox River, Wisconsin
        The Secretary is directed to give immediate attention to
    addressing contaminated sediment problems at these high
    priority sites.
        The ongoing Lower Fox River, Wisconsin, contaminated
    sediments remediation project is an example of a cooperative
    partnership between State and local governments and private
    industry. These parties have pledged to work together to clean
    up contaminated sediments in the lower Fox River and to avoid
    an adversarial relationship which can lead to delays and
    increased costs. This provision will enable the Federal
    government to become a partner in this initiative, which can
    serve as a model for other contaminated sediment projects
    around this Nation.
        By directing the Secretary to give priority to five named
    projects in this section, the Committee does not necessarily
    intend that dredged material disposal activities at those
    locations be addressed solely under this section. For example,
    disposal activities in some cases may also be eligible for
    consideration under applicable cost sharing provisions of the
    Water Resources Development Act of 1986, as amended by section
    201 of this bill.

    Section 206: Aquatic ecosystem restoration

        This provision enables the Secretary to carry out ecosystem
    restoration and protection projects when the Secretary
    determines that such projects will improve the quality of the
    environment, are in the public interest, and are justified
    based on monetary and nonmonetary benefits. The non-Federal
    share of costs shall be 50% for construction costs and 100% for
    operation and maintenance costs. No more than $5 million in
    Federal funds may be alloted to a project in any single
    locality. This section authorizes $25 million annually to carry
    out this section.
        There is a need for ecosystem restoration projects which
    involve manipulation of the hydrology but which are not linked
    to existing Corps civil works projects. This program will
    utilize Corps expertise to solve these problems. At present,
    the Secretary is not authorized to pursue such projects without
    specific authorization. This provision would authorize the
    Secretary to pursue aquatic ecosystem restoration projects
    provided the projects fall within the cost limitation provided
    in the law and otherwise meet the requirements specified in
    this provision. Cost sharing is based on the recognition that
    the projects provide substantial local benefits, and that non-
    Federal interests need to fully share the responsibility and
    funding for carrying out such projects in these times of
    Federal fiscal constraints.

    Section 207: Beneficial uses of dredged material

        This section increases the flexibility of the Secretary to
    select a disposal method for dredged material generated by a
    navigation project that may result in additional environmental
    benefits despite the fact such a method may not be the least-
    cost option. In cases where there are significant benefits to
    the environment, such as the creation of wetlands or the
    restoration of eroded shoreline, and where added costs are
    minimal, the Secretary may pursue other than least-cost
    options.

    Section 208: Recreation policy and user fees

        Section 208 directs the Secretary to provide increased
    emphasis on and opportunities for recreation at Corps water
    resources projects. It amends the Flood Control Act of 1968 to
    require the Secretary to ensure that an amount equal to or
    greater than the amount of fees collected at a project after
    September 30, 1996, is spent at the project for operation and
    maintenance of recreational facilities in the succeeding fiscal
    year.
        Subsection (a) directs the Secretary to increase emphasis
    on recreational activities and reflects the Committee's view of
    the importance of recreation as one of the Corps' missions.
    There is concern that the Corps does not provide adequate
    recreation opportunities at some of its multi-purpose projects
    and that funding for recreational activities is given low
    priority. It also requires a report to Congress after 2 years.
    Nothing in this subsection is intended to affect or supersede
    other project purposes at Corps' facilities and reservoirs.
        Subsection (b) addresses some of the concerns regarding the
    Corps' recreation user fees authorized in the 1993 Omnibus
    Budget Reconcilation act. Proposals have been made to alter or
    repeal the fees. Rather than repeal the fees, the Committee
    intends that an amount at least equal to fees collected at
    project recreation sites be used in the succeeding year for
    operation and maintenance of recreation facilities at the
    project. Of course, amounts in addition to fees collected can
    and should be used to provide continued and enhanced recreation
    opportunities.

    Section 209: Recover of costs

        This section requires that monies recovered under section
    107 of the Comprehensive, Environmental Response, Compensation,
    and Liability Act of 1980 (Superfund) (CERCLA) for response
    actions undertaken by the Secretary, as well as other cost
    recoveries for environmental response activities, be credited
    to the trust fund account that paid or will pay for the
    response action.
        There are potentially a number of instances where the Corps
    of Engineers finds itself faced with cleaning up civil works
    properties that are contaminated with hazardous or toxic
    substances by other parties. In such instances, the Secretary
    can seek recovery from the responsible party under subsection
    107 of CERCLA. Section 107 of Superfund authorizes recovery of
    costs of such response actions from responsible parties.
    However, without specific authority, the funds recovered by the
    Corps pursuant to section 107 must be deposited into the
    general treasury rather than offset agency costs for the
    response action. This provision, which is similar to authority
    provided to the Secretary of Defense under the Defense
    Environmental Restoration Program, would enable a direct credit
    of the amounts recovered to the trust fund account from which
    the cost of the cleanup had been taken or will be used (the
    Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund or the Inland Waterways Trust
    Fund).

    Section 210: Cost sharing of environmental projects

        Section 210 establishes a 50 percent non-Federal share for
    costs of environmental protection and projects, applicable to
    projects authorized after the date of enactment.
        The Water Resources Development Act of 1990 established
    environmental protection as one of the missions of the Corps of
    Engineers. Section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act
    of 1986 sets forth the cost sharing formulas for water
    resources development projects, but does not include a cost
    sharing formula for environmental protection and restoration
    projects. Given the continued and increasing involvement of the
    Corps in environmental protection and restoration per se, it is
    important that a specific cost sharing formula for such
    projects be established.
        The provision creates a consistent cost sharing formula of
    50 percent Federal and 50 per non-Federal responsibility for
    the costs of projects for environmental protection and
    restoration that could be applied to the various authorities
    for the Corps to carry out such projects. This new category of
    cost sharing does not replace the cost sharing requirements of
    section 906 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986,
    which addresses cost-sharing for activities associated with
    mitigation of fish and wildlife losses or enhancement of fish
    and wildlife resources.

    Section 211: Construction of flood control projects by non-Federal
            interests

        Section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
    provided a mechanism for the construction of authorized port
    projects by non-Federal interests with subsequent reimbursement
    from the Federal government for the Federal share. A similar
    amendment in the Water Resources Development Act of 1992
    provided a mechanism for the construction of shoreline
    protection projects. Section 211 provides similar flexibility
    for non-Federal construction of floor control projects.
        (a) Authority.--Authorizes non-Federal interests to carry
    out flood control projects if appropriate permits are obtained.
    In addition to permitting requirements, non-Federal interests
    would be required to comply with other applicable laws, such as
    the National Environmental Policy Act.
        (b) Studies and design activities.--Authorizes non-Federal
    interests or the Secretary to develop necessary studies and
    design documents for projects to be undertaken by non-Federal
    interests.
        (c) Completion of Studies and Design Activities.--
    Authorizes the Secretary to complete studies and design
    initiatives started before enactment or to allow the non-
    Federal interest to complete such documents.
        (d) Authority to Carry Out Improvement.--Allows a non-
    Federal interest that has received approval from the Secretary
    to carry out a project if a final EIS has been filed. Work
    accomplished under this subsection is deemed to have satisfied
    regulatory requirements under the Secretary's authority. This
    is comparable to situations in which the Secretary is not
    required to go through permit requirements if impacts have been
    addressed and disclosed in an environmental impact statement.
        (e) Reimbursement.--The Secretary is authorized to
    reimburse non-Federal interests, subject to the enactment of
    appropriations act, an amount equal to the estimate of the
    Federal share of the cost of any flood control project or
    separable element thereof which is constructed under this
    section, if the Secretary has approved the plans for
    construction of the project after the project has been
    authorized and before initiation of construction and if the
    Secretary finds the construction of the project economically
    justified and environmentally acceptable.
        (f) Specific Projects.--Directs the Secretary to enter into
    agreements with non-Federal interests to carry out 5 specific
    projects under this section that are representative of various
    stages of development. In authorizing projects under this
    subsection the Committee intends to determine the capability of
    non-Federal interests to design and construct projects to
    Corps' specifications. Many highly capable non-Federal
    interests assert that they can undertake such projects cheaper
    and faster than the Corps. The projects at Los Angeles County
    Drainable Area, and Stockton, California and Brays Bayou, and
    Hunting Bayou, Texas will test the capability of a non-Federal
    interest to construct major elements of flood control projects.
    The project at White Oak, Texas will demonstrate the non-
    Federal capability to design from the original stages a major
    flood control project.
        (g) Treatment of Flood Damage Prevention Measures.--This
    subsection requires that flood damage prevention measures at or
    in the vicinity of Morgan City and Berwick, Louisiana, be
    treated as an authorized element of the Atchafalaya Basin
    feature of the project for floor control, Mississippi River and
    Tributaries, to use the capability of non-Federal interest to
    expedite the project.
        The Committee believes that capable non-Federal interests
    should be given the opportunity to address their own flooding
    problems without jeopardizing Federal participation in project
    funding. While five specific projects have been identified to
    test the feasibility of this approach, other projects are
    likely to be good candidates as well. For example, the
    Tropicana and Flamingo Workers in Nevada should also be given
    high priority.

    Section 212: Engineering and environmental innovations of national
            significance

        The Corps of Engineers must be ready to respond to future
    needs for environmentally sound engineering solutions or
    innovative environmental solutions to problems of national
    significance. Currently there is no clear authority for the
    Corps to utilize its multifaceted resources to undertake
    significant preparatory work to respond to such emerging
    national needs.
        Section 212 allows the Army to undertake surveys, plans,
    and studies and to prepare reports which may lead to work under
    existing civil works authorities or recommendations for
    authorizations. This legislation will enhance the Corps'
    ongoing partnership initiatives with other Federal agencies,
    state, and other non-Federal entities. It authorizes up to
    $3,000,000 each Fiscal Year for such purposes. In addition, the
    Secretary may accept and expend funds contributed by other
    Federal agencies, state, or other non-Federal entities. The
    Committee emphasizes, however, that activities undertaken under
    this authority must be closely related to the Corps' civil
    works mission.

    Section 213: Lease authority

        This section authorizes the Secretary to lease available
    space in buildings for which construction or purchase was
    provided from the Plant Replacement and Improvement Program
    (PRIP) account. The provision also directs that the proceeds
    from such leases be credited to the PRIP account for use for
    authorized PRIP purposes, rather than to miscellaneous receipts
    in the Treasury.

    Section 214: Collaborative research and development

        Section 214 amends section 7 of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1988 to authorize the Secretary to accept
    funding from other Federal sources to carry out the purpose of
    the section and to apply appropriate protections to technology
    developed by the Corps that is likely to be subject to a
    cooperative R&D agreement. Under current law, Federally
    developed software can only be protected after the Government
    enters into a cooperative research and development agreement
    with a non-Federal entity under the Stevenson-Wydler Technology
    Innovation Act. However, such protection only covers the
    jointly developed technology, not technology that was
    originally developed by the Government before entering into the
    agreement.
        This provision would encourage private entities to market
    software developed by the Corps, since it would enable the
    Corps to apply the protections of the Stevenson-Wydler
    Technology Innovation Act to software developed by the Corps.
    Under section 12(c)(7)(B) of such Act, the Secretary could
    protect from dissemination information that would be considered
    a trade secret or commercial information if it had been
    obtained from a private party for a period of up to two years
    after the development of the information

    Section 215: Dam safety program

        This section amends Federal dam safety legislation and
    significantly modifies the existing National Dam Safety
    Program. The purpose of the National Dam Safety Program is to
    reduce the risks to life and property due to dam failures by
    bringing together Federal and non-Federal expertise and
    resources. This program is not intended to preempt any other
    Federal or state authorities or make existing programs more
    complicated to administer. Federal agencies will continue to be
    responsible for the safety of their own dams. State governments
    currently regulate 95 percent of the approximately 74,000 dams
    within the National Inventory of Dams. The remaining 5 percent
    are regulated by the Federal government. The Federal
    authorization of $27,000,000 to provide for the Dam Safety
    Program over the next five years seems small compared to the
    $54.3 million that was spent just in 1994 on dam repairs and
    clean-up after dam failures. This investment in prevention will
    reduce the loss of life, property damage and much larger
    expenditures after dams fail.
        Dams are a vital part of the Nation's infrastructure. Dams
    pose unique public safety concerns as dam failures can cause
    sudden and large losses of life, injuries and property damage.
    The development and implementation of dam safety hazard
    mitigation measures, including improved design and construction
    standards, safe operations and maintenance procedures, early
    warning systems, coordinated emergency preparedness plans and
    public awareness and involvement programs, will substantially
    reduce the losses associated with future dam failures.
        Dam safety problems persist nationwide. An effective
    national program in dam safety hazard reduction which requires
    input from and review by Federal and non-Federal dam experts,
    as well as the application of dam failure hazard reduction
    measures, will address a pressing national need. While
    coordinated authority for national leadership is being provided
    through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) dam
    safety program under Executive Order 12148 and the states,
    statutory authority to meet increasing needs and to discharge
    Federal responsibilities in dam safety is needed. Statutory
    authority will strengthen FEMA's leadership role, codify the
    National Dam Safety Program and authorize certain functions to
    be performed by the Director of FEMA.
        Section 215(e) shifts the management of the Dam Safety
    Program from the Army Corps of Engineers to FEMA. FEMA is
    better suited to manage the Dam Safety Program as it currently
    coordinates the implementation of guidelines established in
    1977 and 1978 for Federal dam safety programs as authorized by
    Executive Order 12148. FEMA also performs hazard mitigation
    activities and administers grant programs for flood and
    earthquake hazards, which are significant causes of dam
    failures. The National Inventory of Dams remains under the
    management of the Corps of Engineers at an authorization of
    $500,000 for each Fiscal Year 1997 through 2001.
        Section 215(e) also establishes a National Dam Safety
    Review Board to monitor the implementation of the National Dam
    Safety Program and to assist FEMA. The Board may utilize the
    expertise of other Federal agencies and enter into contracts
    for necessary studies. The Board consists of 11 members
    selected for their dams safety expertise.
        Overall, the National Dam Safety Program consists of three
    components: a matching grant program (section 215(e)(5)), a
    training program (section 215(g)(2)), and a research program
    (section 215(g)(3)). The matching grant program authorizes the
    Director to fund state dam safety programs to assist states in
    improving their programs. The Director shall enter into a
    contract with each participating state that sets forth specific
    levels of state program performance. State participation in
    this program is voluntary.
        In order for a state to be eligible for assistance under
    the grant program state appropriations must be budgeted to
    carry out a state dam safety program, its dam safety program
    must meet minimum program requirements, and thereafter meet
    more advanced standards authorized by the Director and the
    Review Board. A state must work toward meeting the minimum
    criteria prescribed in the bill to receive primary assistance
    or must meet all of the minimum criteria to be eligible for
    advanced assistance.
        A grant may not be made to a state unless the state enters
    into an agreement with FEMA that assures continued state
    funding of the dam safety program at or above the average level
    of such expenditures over the two years prior to enactment of
    these amendments. The Director shall exercise approval
    authority over state program participation and shall utilize
    the expertise of the National Dam Safety Review Board to review
    state dam safety programs.
        Under section 215(g)(1) the grant assistance program is
    authorized to be appropriated $1,000,000 for Fiscal Year 1997;
    $2,000,000 for Fiscal Year 1998; and $4,000,000 for each Fiscal
    Year 1999 through 2001. The grant assistance funds are to be
    allocated by the following funding formula: one-third of the
    funds are distributed among the states participating in the
    matching grant program, and two-thirds of the funds are
    distributed in proportion to the number of dams appearing as
    state-regulated dams on the National Inventory of Dams in each
    of the participating states to the total number of dams in the
    participating states.
        The training program for state dam safety inspectors is
    available to all states by request, regardless of state
    participation in the matching grant program. The training
    program is authorized at a level of $500,000 for each Fiscal
    Year from 1997 through 2001.
        The research program authorizes the Director of FEMA to
    undertake a program of technical and archival research for
    developing improved techniques and equipment for rapid and
    effective dam inspection. The results of such research is
    available to all states regardless of their participation in
    the matching grant program. $1,000,000 is authorized for
    appropriation for the research program for each Fiscal Year
    1997 through 2001.
        The Director of FEMA is authorized to employ the additional
    staff necessary to implement the National Dam Safety Program at
    an annual authorization of $400,000 in Fiscal Year 1997 through
    2001.
        The 1996 amendment to the National Dam Safety Program
    reduces the total for this program from the previously
    authorized level of $13 million per year to $3.4 million in
    Fiscal Year 1997, $4.4 million in fiscal year 1998, and $6.4
    million in Fiscal Years 1999 through 2001. No funds authorized
    under the National Dam Safety Program Act of 1996 shall be used
    to construct or repair any Federal or non-Federal dam.

    Section 216: Maintenance, rehabilitation, and modernization of
            facilities

        The Corps of Engineers operates and maintains more than 70
    hydroelectric power facilities. The energy generated at these
    facilities is marketed to non-Federal electric utilities by the
    Department of Energy's Power Marketing Administrations. The
    rates charged for the energy are based on 100 percent repayment
    of those costs associated with hydroelectric power production,
    including both separable and joint cost of development, repair,
    rehabilitation, and operation and maintenance.
        This section authorizes the Secretary to increase the
    operating efficiency of hydroelectric power generation
    facilities, where economically justified and financially
    feasible, and where there are no significant adverse impacts on
    the project or the environment, and does not involve major
    structural change at existing projects.
        It is anticipated that most of the work will be done in the
    course of the Corps performing its operation and maintenance
    responsibilities at the hydroelectric power facilities under
    the jurisdiction of the Corps. Therefore, the proposal
    intentionally limits utilization of this authority at existing
    projects only to those cases where it is economically feasible,
    is environmentally compatible, has only minor impacts on other
    project purposes, and involves no major structural or
    operational changes to the project.

    Section 217: Long-term sediment management strategies

        Section 217 directs the Secretary to enter into a
    cooperative agreement with non-Federal sponsors of navigation
    projects for development of long-term management strategies for
    controlling sediments. Sediment deposition into harbors, and
    the increase of contaminated sediments into those harbors, have
    greatly increased the cost of safe, environmentally responsible
    dredging. Although the ports and other navigation interests
    share responsibility for cleaning up such sediments, a
    significant portion of the contamination comes from upstream.
    Traditionally, the Corps of Engineers has had a fairly narrow
    view of its responsibilities to keep channel and navigation
    areas properly dredged with little concern of the source of
    contamination. The strategies that are to be developed under
    this section shall include assessments of sediment rates,
    composition, sediment reduction options, dredging practices,
    long-term management of any dredged material disposal
    facilities, remediation of such facilities, and alternative
    disposal and reuse options. Interested Federal agencies, States
    and Indian tribes shall be consulted and the public shall be
    provided an opportunity for comment.

    Section 218: Dredged material disposal facility partnerships

        This section authorizes the Secretary to provide capacity
    at a dredged material disposal facility, beyond that required
    for project purposes, if added costs are paid by the non-
    Federal sponsor. It also authorizes the Secretary to allow the
    non-Federal use of dredged material disposal facilities under
    certain circumstances.
        Insufficient existing disposal facilities for contaminated
    dredged material have imperiled the continued operation of many
    ports and waterways in this country. The Committee intends the
    Corps should assist in expending the Nation's capacity for
    proper disposal of dredged material and make any existing
    excess capacity available at Corps operated dredged material
    disposal facilities available to alleviate this disposal
    capacity shortfall. The Committee believes that certain
    economies of scale can be achieved to maximize the usage of
    these facilities.
        This section allows for the imposition of fees by the non-
    Federal sponsor for use of dredge disposal facilities. The
    Committee believes that market forces should control the level
    of such fees between non-Federal project sponsors and other
    users of the disposal facility. The Committee also believes
    that the Secretary should impose such fees as are necessary to
    fully reimburse the pro-rata share of non-Federal use of
    existing Corps facilities. Those fees should be retained by the
    Secretary and used to operate and maintain the facility that
    collected such fees.

    Section 219: Obstruction removal requirement

        Section 219 amends Federal law to require the owner or
    operator of a sunken or grounded vessel which is an obstruction
    to a navigable waterway, to begin the vessel's removal within
    24 hours if the Secretary or the Coast Guard stops or delays
    navigation in any U.S. navigable waters because of conditions
    relating to such sinking or grounding. It increases the civil
    penalty to up to $25,000 a day for the vessel owner or operator
    who fails to begin removal and requires the Secretary to remove
    or destroy the vessel using existing summary removal procedures
    if the owner or operator fails to begin removal or to secure
    the vessel pending removal or fails to complete removal as soon
    as possible. The section clarifies that administrative
    expenses, as well as actual removal expenses, are recoverable
    from the owner or operator for any removal action taken.

    Section 220: Small project authorizations

        Section 220 increases the authorization for emergency
    streambank and shoreline protection works to prevent damage to
    highways, bridges or ports, public works, churches, hospitals,
    schools and other non-profit public services from $12,500,000
    to $15,000,000 each year and increases from $500,000 to $1.5
    million the amount that may be allocated for any single
    locality for one fiscal year.

    Section 221: Uneconomical cost-sharing requirements

        This section authorizes the Secretary to waive the
    requirement for a non-Federal sponsor to share in the cost of
    any water resources development project, separable element
    thereof, or project modification if the administrative costs
    associated with negotiating, executing, or administering the
    agreement would exceed the amount of the contribution required
    from the non-Federal interest, and if such costs are less than
    $25,000.

    Section 222: Planning assistance to States

        Section 222 expands the existing ``planning assistance to
    states'' program to include watersheds and ecosystems and
    complements the current national emphasis placed on planning on
    a watershed or ecosystem basis. It also increases the annual
    program ceiling from $6,000,000 to $10,000,000, and the per
    state limit from $300,000 to $500,000. These increases are
    necessary to accommodate the growing number of demands placed
    on this important program and account for increases in the cost
    of providing such assistance.

    Section 223: Corps of engineers' expenses

        This section amends section 211 of the Flood Control Act of
    1950 to allow more flexibility to Corps personnel to travel to,
    and participate in, conferences and meetings outside the
    continental limits of the United States. This section maintains
    the existing limitation that no more than ten personnel may
    participate in such meetings or conferences.

    Section 224: State and Federal agency review period

        Section 224 reduces the 90-day review period requirement
    established in section 1 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 to a
    30-day period. In addition to the legislative requirement for
    coordination with each affected State, and the Department of
    the Interior if the project is located west of the ninety-
    seventh meridian (an area under the responsibility of the
    Bureau of Reclamation), the Corps uses this same time period to
    obtain comments on the proposed report of the Chief of
    Engineers from other affected and/or interested Federal
    agencies. In light of the significant involvement of State and
    Federal agencies in the development of the project proposal,
    the Corps has found this 90-day review by the Washington
    offices of Federal agencies to be lengthy and duplicative.
    Agencies comment on environmental aspects of project proposals
    within much shorter time periods. Agencies comment on
    environmental aspects of project proposals within much shorter
    time periods. The 30-day review period would be the same as the
    comment period for a final Environmental Impact Statement.
    Under the provision, the Corps would continue to coordinate the
    proposed recommendations of the Chief of Engineers with the
    affected State or States, and all other affected and/or
    interested Federal agencies. The Committee anticipates that
    reasonable requests for extensions will be granted to affected
    State or Federal agencies.

    Section 225: Limitation on reimbursement of non-Federal costs per
            project

        This section raises the cap on reimbursement for non-
    Federal construction of flood control projects under section
    215(a) of the Flood Control Act of 1968 from $3 million to $5
    million.

    Section 226: Aquatic plant control

        This section increases from $12 million to $15 million the
    annual authorization of the program under the River and Harbor
    Act of 1958 to provide for control and progressive eradication
    of noxious aquatic plants. It also adds ``malalauca'' to the
    list of controlled plants under that program. Melalauca is an
    extremely aggressive and noxious species of plant that is
    severely degrading numerous ecosystems throughout the
    southeastern United States, particularly in the State of
    Florida.

    Section 227: Sediments decontamination technology

        Section 405(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
    1992 authorizes the Port of New York-New Jersey to identify and
    demonstrate remediation technologies. The authorization limit
    is currently $5,000,000. Appropriations in that amount have
    been made and the project remains in its early stages. It is
    estimated that $10 million is needed in the next few years,
    beginning in Fiscal Year 1997.
        Section 227 directs that the project authorized under
    Section 405(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992
    provide for the development of one or more technologies on a
    pilot scale demonstrating capacity of at least 500,000 cubic
    yards per year and increases the project authorization to $10
    million.

    Section 228: Shore protection

        This section reaffirms, clarifies, and modifies the Federal
    government's involvement and policies regarding shore
    protection projects. Shore protection projects rebuild beaches
    so they can provide storm protection to property, much as
    Federally-funded flood control projects protect property from
    non-coastal storm damage. Shore protection projects are
    cooperative efforts involving State and local governments, with
    non-Federal entities paying up to half of the cost of beach
    reconstruction. Only beaches with sufficient public access and
    where the benefits exceed the cost of the reconstruction are
    eligible for Federal financial assistance. The project must be
    authorized by Congress to receive Federal funds from the budget
    of the Army Corps of Engineers, which also provides technical
    assistance. This section makes it clear that one of the
    missions of the Army Corps of Engineers is to promote shore
    protection projects that encourage the protection, restoration,
    and enhancement of sandy beaches.
        Subsection (a) is a declaration of policy which amends
    existing law in order to make it clear that it is the intent of
    Congress that the Federal government shall assist in those
    shore protection projects that involve the replacement of sand
    on beaches. It further states that it is the intent of Congress
    to provide assistance which encourages the protection,
    restoration, and enhancement of sandy beaches. Finally, it
    provides that in determining which projects shall receive
    Federal assistance, preference shall be given to areas in which
    there has been a previous investment of Federal funds as well
    as areas in which erosion damage has been caused by Federal
    navigation or other projects.
        Subsection (b) modifies the process for determining the
    benefit-cost ratio of a shore protection project. Under the new
    process, benefits the project provides to the local and
    regional economy and ecology would be considered in the overall
    cost-benefit analysis.
        Subsection (c) is intended to codify existing practice
    regarding the method by which shore protection projects are
    authorized. Current law provides the Secretary with significant
    discretion to decide which projects may be implemented. The
    Administration has proposed ending the Federal role in shore
    protection projects and the Committee is concerned that the
    Secretary's discretion may be used to halt the process of
    studying a prospective project, recommending suitable projects
    for congressional authorization, and entering into agreements
    with non-Federal sponsors to construct those projects that have
    been authorized by Congress and which are eligible to receive
    appropriated funds. This subsection makes it clear that the
    Secretary shall recommend to Congress studies of those projects
    it considers appropriate, conduct such studies as Congress
    authorizes, and report the results of those studies to the
    appropriate committees of Congress. In preparing its studies,
    the Corps is required to consider the estimated benefits to the
    local and regional economy and ecology of proceeding with the
    project.
        In addition, the Committee has added a requirement that the
    Secretary coordinate other Federal activities (such as
    navigation projects) in the region that includes the shore
    protection project to assure to the extent possible that such
    activities are complementary to the shore protection project.
    The Secretary is required to carry out shore protection
    projects that have been authorized and funded by Congress. This
    includes a requirement to enter into a written agreement with
    the non-Federal sponsor of the project which assures that the
    non-Federal share of the project's cost will be paid according
    to the terms established by the agreement. The agreement also
    specifies the ``life'' of the project and ensures that Federal
    and non-Federal interests will cooperate in carrying out the
    project during its life. Finally, this subsection adds language
    which assures that its provisions also apply to shore
    protection projects eligible for Federal reimbursement under
    existing provisions of law. The Committee intends that these
    provisions be construed to direct the Secretary of the Army to
    exercise his authority to reauthorize eligible shore protection
    projects whose ``life'' has expired. Further, it assures the
    Act's provisions apply to projects eligible for a reimbursement
    of Federal funds under existing provisions of Federal law.
        Subsection (e) encourages the Corps to cooperate with the
    States in developing comprehensive State and regional plans for
    the conservation of beach resources and work with the States in
    the implementation of these plans.
        Subsection (f) includes definitions for terms used in this
    section of the bill. The definition of ``shore protection
    project'' is amended to include projects for beach
    renourishment, including the replacement of sand. Further, the
    term ``shore'' is amended to include sandy beaches.

    Section 229: Project deauthorizations

        In 1986 Congress established a general deauthorization
    policy for authorized projects which do not go forward over an
    extended period of time. Under existing law, the Secretary is
    required to submit a biennial report to the Congress listing
    authorized projects which have received no obligations during
    the 10 full fiscal years preceding the transmission of such
    list. A project included in such list is not authorized 30
    months after the date the list is transmitted to the Congress
    if funds have not been obligated for construction of such
    projects. Section 229 clarifies project deauthorization policy
    to provide that if any planning or design funds are obligated
    during the 30 month period after the list of projects, that
    have received no obligations in the preceding 10 years, is
    transmitted to Congress, the project is not automatically
    deauthorized.

    Section 230: Support of army civil works program

        This section authorizes the Secretary to use contracts,
    cooperative research and development agreements, grants, and
    cooperative agreements with non-Federal entities to carry out
    research and development in support of the civil works program.
    Grants may be made with State and local governments, academic
    institutions, non-profit organizations and similar entities. It
    also allows the Secretary to consider the potential application
    of the results of research and development to the private
    sector in evaluating, selecting, and awarding contracts when
    appropriate. The Committee believes that this section gives the
    Secretary the needed flexibility to make broader use of
    existing capabilities for accomplishing research and
    development activity associated with water resources programs
    and projects. For example, research opportunities exist in
    developing restoration techniques for urban waterways and
    development of new non-structural flood control techniques
    through the use of volunteer and non-profit organizations.

    Section 231: Benefits to navigation

        Requires the Secretary to consider economic benefits
    generated by cruise ships as commercial navigation benefits.
    The Committee believes that past Corps practice of not
    including the economic benefits of Cruise Ship traffic in
    determining the costs and benefits of a navigational project is
    improper. Cruise vessel traffic represents a significant
    portion of the economic viability for many ports. This
    limitation is even more improper given the level of payment by
    the cruise ship industry into the Harbor Maintenance Trust
    Fund.

    Section 232: Loss of life prevention

        Before the Corps of Engineers will undertake a project it
    is required to determine the benefits and costs of such an
    activity. Projects, especially flood control projects, have a
    major impact on the safety of people who live along the
    Nation's waters. This section requires the Corps to include
    loss of life which may be associated with flooding and coastal
    storm events in its calculations of project costs and benefits.

    Section 233: Scenic and aesthetic considerations

        In conducting studies of potential water resources
    projects, the Secretary shall consider measures to preserve and
    enhance scenic and aesthetic qualities in the vicinity of such
    projects.

    Section 234: Removal of study prohibitions

        This section removes prohibitions that limit the Secretary
    from undertaking studies to investigate alternative financing
    modes for hydroelectric power facilities at water resources
    projects under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Army.

    Section 235: Sense of Congress; requirement regarding notice

        Section 235 states that it is the sense of Congress that to
    the greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products
    purchased with funds made available under this Act should be
    American made. It also directs the Secretary, to the greatest
    extent practicable, to provide to each recipient of any
    assistance under this Act, a notice describing the sense of
    Congress.

    Section 236: Reservoir management technical advisory committee

        Repeals provisions regarding a Technical Advisory Committee
    that has never been established.

    Section 237: Technical corrections

        Corrects inaccurate citations in the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1992.

                        TITLE III--PROJECT MODIFICATIONS

        This section modifies projects which had been previously
    authorized to be implemented by the Secretary.
        Section 301: Mobile Harbor, Alabama--modifies the
    navigation project, Mobile Harbor, Alabama to allow for the
    consideration of alternatives to disposing of dredged material
    in the Gulf of Mexico. The Committee believes that allowing
    alternatives to deepwater Gulf of Mexico disposal could be both
    environmentally and economically beneficial. This modification
    is not intended to create a bias toward any method of disposal
    and does not eliminate any requirement for consideration of
    environmental consequences of all disposal options.
        Section 302: Alamo Dam, Arizona--modifies the project for
    flood control and other purposes, Alamo Dam and Lake, Arizona,
    authorized by section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of
    December 22, 1944, to authorize the Secretary to operate Alamo
    Dam to provide fish and wildlife benefits both upstream and
    downstream of the Dam. Operation shall not reduce flood control
    and recreation benefits provided by the project. The Committee
    believes that changes in project operation can enhance both
    environmental and recreational opportunities in the region.
        Section 303: Nogales Wash and Tributaries, Arizona--
    modifies the project for flood control, Nogales Wash and
    Tributaries, Arizona to direct the Secretary to permit the non-
    Federal interest to delay the initial payment for up to one
    year after the date construction is begun on the project under
    authority of section 103(l) of the Water Resources Development
    Act of 1986. The Secretary is also directed to determine
    whether the cost sharing agreement should be modified under the
    authority of 103(m) of the Water Resources Development Act of
    1986 related to the non-Federal interest's ability to pay. The
    Secretary is also directed to use the authority of section
    103(k) to enter into negotiations with the non-Federal sponsor
    concerning payment options. Given the relatively poor financial
    position of the non-Federal sponsor, it is the Committee's hope
    that a suitable payment plan can be developed in an expeditious
    manner.
        Section 304: Phoenix, Arizona--modifies the Tres Rios
    wetlands project to add ecosystem restoration as a project
    purpose and to increase the authorized project cost from $6.5
    million to $17.5 million. The Committee believes that ecosystem
    restoration is an appropriate addition to this project and that
    the project cost ceiling should be increased to accommodate
    reasonable restoration actions.
        Section 305: San Francisco River at Clifton, Arizona--
    modifies the Clifton Flood Control Project, Clifton, Arizona to
    increase the cost ceiling for the project from $12,510,000 to
    $21,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $13,800,000 and
    non-Federal cost of $7,300,000. Inflation and other unforeseen
    factors have caused this project's overall cost to rise.
        Section 306: Glenn-Colusa, California--modifies the riffle
    restoration project at Glenn-Colusa, California to authorize a
    total cost of $14.2 million. The Committee believes that this
    project is an appropriate feature of the Sacramento River Flood
    Control System. The ecosystem restoration and non-structural
    flood control elements of this feature should significantly
    enhance the project.
        Section 307: Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors, San Pedro
    Bay, California--modifies the navigation project for Los
    Angeles and Long Beach Harbors, San Pedro Bay, California,
    authorized by section 201 of the Water Resources Development
    Act of 1986 to provide that, for the purpose of calculating the
    non-Federal share of costs under section 101(a)(2) of the Water
    Resources Development Act of 1986, the cost of altering the
    sewer outfall by the Port of Los Angeles at a cost of $12
    million shall be considered a relocation. Normally the non-
    Federal sponsor would be eligible for credit toward the non-
    Federal share of project costs for relocating such structures,
    but because the City of Los Angeles was the owner of the sewer
    outfall and the City of Los Angeles is one of several political
    subdivisions which make up the Port Authority of LA/Long Beach,
    the Secretary did not believe that legal authority existed to
    give credit for the cost of movement of the sewer outfall.
    Section 307 clarifies that credit is to be given.
        Section 308: Oakland Harbor, California--modifies the
    Oakland Inner and Outer Harbor, California, deep-draft
    navigation projects to modify the cost ceiling for the combined
    project. The projects were originally authorized by Section
    202(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 at a
    total combined cost of $74,000,000. The combined project is now
    estimated to cost $90,850,000, with a Federal cost of
    $59,150,000, and a non-Federal cost of $31,700,000.
        Section 309: Queensway Bay, California--modifies existing
    authority for the Secretary to perform maintenance dredging in
    the Los Angeles River Estuary at Queensway Bay. Originally
    authorized in section 4 of the Water Resources Development Act
    of 1988, this modification authorizes $5 million for advance
    maintenance dredging of a navigation channel to minimize future
    shoaling problems. This modification is necessary to excavate
    excessive siltation in the Queensbay area associated with
    several Corps of Engineers flood control projects.
        Section 310: San Luis Rey, California--modifies the San
    Luis Rey Flood Control Project to increase the cost ceiling for
    the project to $81,600,000 with an estimated Federal cost of
    $61,100,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $20,500,000.
    Inflation and other unforeseen factors have caused this
    project's cost to rise.
        Section 311: Thames River, Connecticut--deauthorizes and
    modifies portions of the turning basin at the Thomas River in
    Norwich, Connecticut. Relocating the existing turning basin
    will allow non-Federal projects within the harbor to be
    completed without interfering with public use of the existing
    Federal project.
        Section 312: Potomac River, Washington, District of
    Columbia--modifies the Potomac River Flood Protection Project
    for Washington, D.C. to provide for completion of the project
    in accordance with the General Design Memorandum dated May 1992
    at a Federal cost of $1.8 million. There is no non-Federal
    share since over 95% of the land protected is Federal property.
    This modification is necessary to assure adequate flood
    protection for such national treasures as the Smithsonian
    Institution. The provision gives the Secretary flexibility to
    use a temporary closure in lieu of a permanent structure, if
    appropriate.
        Section 313: Canaveral Harbor, Florida--modifies the
    project to reclassify the relocation of stone material at the
    navigation project at Canaveral Harbor as general navigation
    features, to be costshared accordingly.
        Section 314: Central and Southern Florida, Canal 51--
    modifies the flood control project for West Palm Beach Canal
    (Canal 51) to include authority for an enlarged stormwater
    retention area and additional work at Federal expense in
    accordance with the Everglades Protection Project. This project
    is essential to the overall Everglade restoration project by
    allowing for a greater availability of fresh water to the
    portion of the Everglades which are the most degraded.
        Section 315: Central and Southern Florida, Canal 111--
    modifies the flood control project for Canal 111 to implement
    the recommendations of a May 1994 report reevaluating the
    project and assessing its environmental impact. The
    modifications will improve freshwater flows to Everglades
    National Park and maintain agricultural water uses. The Federal
    share of costs other than operation and maintenance will be 50
    percent.
        Section 316: Jacksonville Harbor (Mill Cove), Florida--
    modifies the navigation project for Jacksonville Harbor,
    Florida to authorize the construction of a flow/circulation
    improvement channel to prevent shoaling in Mill Cove. The total
    cost, and Federal cost, of this modification is $2,000,000.
    This project is necessary to adequately protect the integrity
    of the Jacksonville Harbor and to compensate for the effects of
    the Federal navigation project.
        Section 317: Tybee Island, Georgia--modifies the project
    for beach erosion control, Tybee Island, Georgia to include the
    southern tip of the islands located south of the extension of
    Ninth Street. This project is necessary to protect an essential
    environmental and economic resource from further degradation.
        Section 318: White River, Indiana--modifies the flood
    control project for Indianapolis in the West Form of the White
    River, Indiana to increase the authorized total project cost to
    $85,975,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $39,975,000 and
    estimated first non-Federal cost of $46,000,000.
        Section 319: Chicago, Illinois--modifies the project for
    flood control, Chicagoland Underflow Plan, Illinois, to limit
    the capacity of the reservoir not to exceed 11 billion gallons
    and to provide that the reservoir project may not be located
    north of 55th Street or West of East Avenue in the vicinity of
    McCook, Illinois.
        Section 320: Chicago Lock and Thomas J. O'Brien Lock,
    Illinois--modifies the project at Chicago Lock and Thomas J.
    O'Brien Lock, Illinois to authorize the study and repair of
    leakage at these facilities. This modification will allow for
    the identification and measurement of the leakage and appraisal
    and implementation of leakage repair options. The Committee
    believes that any necessary repairs of these locks should be a
    Federal responsibility.
        Section 321: Kaskaskia River, Illinois--modifies the
    project for navigation, Kaskaskia River, Illinois to add fish
    and wildlife and habitat restoration as a project purpose. The
    Committee believes that this modification will significantly
    enhance the environmental and recreational aspects of this
    project.
        Section 322: Locks and Dam 26, Alton, Illinois and
    Missouri--modifies the Locks and Dam 26 project in Alton,
    Illinois and Missouri to allow recreational development to
    occur on lands adjacent to the project. Such development shall
    greatly enhance the recreational opportunities available in
    this region.
        Section 323: North Branch of Chicago River, Illinois--
    modifies the flood control project for North Branch of Chicago
    River, Illinois, to increase the cost ceiling for the project.
    The project was originally authorized in the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1986 at a total cost of $22,700,000, with an
    estimated Federal cost of $15,000,000 and an estimated non-
    Federal cost of $7,700,000. The project is now estimated to
    cost $34,228,000 with a Federal cost of $20,905,000 and a non-
    Federal cost of $13,323,000. Costs have increased because of
    increased construction material quantities, necessary
    engineering and design changes, inflation, and higher appraised
    land values.
        Section 324: Illinois and Michigan Canal, Illinois--
    modifies the navigation project for the Illinois and Michigan
    Canal to incorporate improvements near Lock #14 including a
    proposed marina at Huse Lake on the north side of the Illinois
    River in cooperation with the Illinois Department of Natural
    Resources. The total cost of the modification is estimated at
    $6,374,000. This modification will greatly enhance the
    recreational opportunities available in this region.
        Section 325: Halstead, Kansas--modifies the flood control
    project for Halstead, Kansas, to increase the cost ceiling for
    the project. The project was originally authorized in the Water
    Resources Development Act of 1986 at a total cost of
    $7,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $5,400,000 and an
    estimated non-Federal cost of $1,800,000. The project is now
    estimated to cost $11,100,000, with a Federal cost of
    $8,325,000 and a non-Federal cost of $2,775,000. Costs have
    increased because of overruns of construction material
    quantities, necessary design changes, inflation, and other
    factors.
        Section 326: Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River
    and Cumberland River, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Virginia--
    modifies the project for flood control, Levisa and Tug Fork of
    the Big Sandy River and Cumberland River, Kentucky, West
    Virginia and Virginia, to provide that a minimum level of flood
    protection provided by the project shall be at a level required
    to provide protection from a 100-year flood or from the flood
    of April 1977 whichever level of protection is greater. This
    amendment makes it clear that any Federal project will at least
    protect the residents at a level sufficient to qualify for
    Federal flood insurance.
        Section 327: Comite River, Louisiana--modifies the project
    for flood control, Comite River, Louisiana, to increase the
    cost ceiling for the project from $65,902,000 to $121,600,000
    with an estimated Federal cost of $70,577,000 and an estimated
    non-Federal cost of $51,023,000.
        Section 328: Grand Isle and Vicinity, Louisiana--The
    project for hurricane damage prevention, flood control and
    beach erosion along Grand Isle, Louisiana, authorized by
    section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 is modified to
    authorize the Secretary of the Army to construct a permanent
    breakwater and levee system at a total cost of $17,000,000.
    This provision modifies the authorized hurricane protection
    project to include the construction of a permanent breakwater
    and levee system on the south and north sides of Grand Isle,
    Louisiana.
        Section 329: Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity, Louisiana--
    The project for hurricane damage prevention and flood control
    authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 is
    modified to provide that St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana, and the
    Lake Borgne Basin Levee District, Louisiana, shall not be
    required to pay the unpaid balance, including interest of the
    non-Federal cost share of this project. The project benefits
    have not developed to the extent predicted by the Corps of
    Engineers.
        Section 330: Mississippi Delta Region, Louisiana--modifies
    the hurricane flood protection project on Lake Pontchartrain,
    Louisiana to require the Secretary to credit Louisiana, towards
    its non-Federal share of the project, for the cost of
    developing and relocating oyster beds to offset the adverse
    impacts on active oyster beds in the existing project area.
    Such credit shall not exceed $7.5 million. The Committee
    believes that the relocation of the existing oyster beds should
    have been an integral part of the original project. The damage
    to existing resources should have been foreseeable.
        Section 331: Mississippi River Outlets, Venice, Louisiana--
    modifies the Mississippi River Outlets, Venice, Louisiana
    project to provide for the extension of the 16-foot deep by
    250-wide Baptiste Collette Bayou entrance channel. As a
    Federally authorized channel, the Coast Guard will be
    authorized to mark the channel at an estimated cost of $76,000.
    Corps surveys are estimated to cost $4,000. The navigation
    channel will not require maintenance. This project should
    facilitate navigation and increased navigational safety in the
    region.
        Section 332: Red River Waterway, Louisiana--modifies the
    project for mitigation of fish and wildlife losses, Red River
    Waterway, Louisiana to increase the authorization level for the
    project from $9,420,000 to $10,500,000 and clarifies where
    lands may be purchased. The Committee believes that the
    increase in authorization level and the clarification of land
    acquisition are necessary to achieve mitigation of fish and
    wildlife losses as originally envisioned.
        Section 333: Tolchester Channel, Maryland--modifies the
    navigation project Baltimore Harbor and Channels, Maryland and
    directs the Secretary to expedite review of potentially
    straightening the Tolchester Channel to increase safety under
    its project operation and maintenance authorization. If
    straightening is feasible and necessary, the Secretary is to
    fund the channel straightening project as a part of project
    maintenance.
        Section 334: Saginaw River, Michigan--modifies the Saginaw
    River, Michigan, flood control project to include the design
    and construction of an inflatable dam on the Flint River at a
    total cost of $500,000. The original inflatable dam was
    constructed concurrently with the flood control project but
    fell into disrepair. This subsection allows for the replacement
    with a new inflatable dam.
        Section 335: Sault Sainte Marie, Chippewa County,
    Michigan--modifies the project at Sault Saint Marie, Michigan.
    This project consists of a new lock to serve traffic between
    Lake Superior and Lake Huron. Under the authorization, 25% of
    the cost must be paid by non-Federal interests. In most cases,
    the non-Federal interests are the local beneficiaries of a
    harbor. In the Saint Lawrence Seaway System there is no
    particular local interest to pay the non-Federal share.
        In addition, a significant part of the traffic through the
    Soo Locks will be traffic to and from Canadian ports. This
    amendment amends the cost sharing formula as follows:
        (1) The portion of the non-Federal share which the
    Secretary determines is attributable to the use of the lock by
    vessels calling at Canadian ports shall be paid by the United
    States. The government has the option of pursuing reimbursement
    from Canada.
        (2) The remaining portion of the non-Federal share shall be
    paid by the Great Lakes states pursuant to an agreement they
    enter into.
        (3) The repayment of the non-Federal project cost to be
    paid over 50 years or the expected life of the project,
    whichever is shorter.
        Section 336: Stillwater, Minnesota--modifies the
    Stillwater, Minnesota Floodwall Extension project to allow for
    the completion of the repair and extension of the levee wall
    system and a secondary landward floodwall, increasing the
    authorization from $3,200,000 to $11,600,000, with a Federal
    cost of $8,700,000 and a non-Federal cost of $2,900,000. This
    increase is required because costs have increased because of
    increased need for construction material, necessary design
    changes and inflation. The Committee has included language
    authorizing the Secretary to expand the reach of the floodwall.
    The Secretary should continue work on the project which is
    currently underway. If additional study or design is required
    because of modifications made by this section, such activities
    should be conducted concurrent with ongoing work so as not to
    delay work on this vital project.
        Section 337: New Madrid Harbor, Missiouri--modifies the
    navigation project New Madrid Harbor Missouri. It directs the
    Secretary to assume responsibility for maintenance of the
    existing Federal channel described in section 102(n) of the
    Water Resources Development Act of 1992 in addition to New
    Madrid County Harbor. This provision would treat the
    maintenance of the navigation project at New Madrid Harbor on
    an equal footing as other navigation projects.
        Section 338: Cape Giradeau, Missouri--modifies the flood
    control project for the Cape Girardeau-Jackson Metropolitan
    Area, Missouri, to increase the cost ceiling for the project.
    The project was originally authorized in the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1986 at a total cost of $25,100,000, with an
    estimated Federal cost of $18,700,000, and an estimated non-
    Federal cost of $6,400,000. The cost of project features for
    which non-Federal interests executed a Local Cooperation
    Agreement on May 31, 1990, and subsequently modified on October
    27, 1992, are now estimated at $45,414,000, with a Federal cost
    of $33,030,000, and a non-Federal cost of $12,384,000. Costs
    have increased due to inflation, higher than anticipated
    construction costs, additional engineering and design work,
    increased roadway and utility relocation costs, (additional
    costs to meet earthquake design criteria), increased land costs
    and non-structural measures favored by non-Federal interests.
        Section 339: St. John's Bayou, New Madrid Floodway,
    Missouri--modifies the flood control project at St. John's
    Bayou and New Madrid Floodway, Missouri to allow Federal
    assistance under the rural enterprise zone program to be used
    to pay the non-Federal share of the costs of the project. This
    provision is consistent with intended purposes of the rural
    enterprise zone to remove infrastructure limitations which harm
    rural development.
        Section 340: Joseph G. Minish Passaic River Park, New
    Jersey--section 101(a)(18)(B) of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1990 is modified to raise the authorized
    level from $25,000,000 to $75,000,000. Costs have increased due
    to inflation, higher than anticipated construction costs,
    additional engineering and design work, increased land costs
    and non-structural measures favored by non-Federal interests.
        Section 341: Passaic River, New Jersey--modifies the
    Passaic River flood control project to implemented sections of
    the passaic River Buyout Study, authorizing the Secretary to
    acquire and retain residential land in the floodway at a total
    estimated cost of $194 million. The non-Federal cost share is
    25 percent of the costs of acquisition plus an amount to be
    determined under application of section 903(c) of the Water
    Resources Development Act of 1986. This provision will allow
    for a significant increase in flood control protection in a
    cost effective and environmentally sensitive manner.
        Section 342: Molly Ann's Brook, New Jersey--modifies the
    flood control project at Molly Ann's Brook, New Jersey to
    increase the authorization level to $40,100,000 with a Federal
    cost to $22,600,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
    $17,500,000. Costs have increased because of overruns of
    construction materials quantities, necessary design changes,
    increased land values, higher engineering and legal costs, and
    inflation.
        Section 343: Ramapo River at Oakland, New Jersey and New
    York--modifies the flood control project along the Ramapo River
    at Oakland, New Jersey, to increase the cost ceiling for the
    project. The project was originally authorized by the Water
    Resources Development Act of 1986, at a total cost of
    $6,450,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $4,840,000 and an
    estimated non-Federal cost of $1,610,000. The project is now
    estimated to cost $11,300,000 with a Federal cost of $8,500,000
    and a non-Federal cost of $2,800,000. During the
    preconstruction engineering and design stage, channel and gate
    project features were redesigned to respond to changed
    conditions.
        Section 344: Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, New Jersey--
    modifies the project, Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, New
    Jersey, authorized by section 102(q) of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4808) to delete reference to
    Cliffwood Beach in the authorization.
        Section 345: Arthur Kill, New York and New Jersey--modifies
    the project for navigation, Arthur Kill, New York and New
    Jersey, authorized by section 202(b) of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1986 to authorize the Secretary to carry out
    the project at a total cost of $83,000,000. Costs have
    increased because of overruns of construction materials
    quantities, necessary design changes, increased land values,
    higher engineering and legal costs, and inflation.
        Section 346: Jones Inlet, New York--modifies the navigation
    project for Jones Inlet, New York, to direct the Secretary to
    place non-contaminated dredged material on beach areas
    downdrift to the federally maintained channel.
        Section 347: Kill Van Kull, New York and New Jersey--
    modifies the project for navigation, Kill Van Kull, New York
    and New Jersey, authorized by section 202(a) of the Water
    Resources Development Act of 1986 to authorize the Secretary to
    carry out the project at a total cost of $750,000,000. Costs
    have increased because of overruns of construction material
    quantities, necessary design changes for dredging and disposal
    activities, increased land values, higher engineering, and
    inflation.
        Section 348: Wilmington Harbor, Northeast Cape Fear River,
    North Carolina--modifies the navigation project for Wilmington
    Harbor, Northeast Cape Fear River, North Carolina, in
    accordance with the Corps General Design Memorandum of April
    1990 and Supplement of February 1994. During preconstruction
    design studies, additional information on subsurface conditions
    and utility relocations, together with project modifications,
    resulted in increasing project costs to the level where they
    now exceed the maximum allowed by law. The project was
    originally authorized by Section 202(a) of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1986, at a total cost of $10,000,000, with a
    Federal cost of $8,300,000 and a non-Federal cost of
    $1,700,000. The total cost of the project is now estimated at
    $52,041,000 with a Federal cost of $25,729,000, and a non-
    Federal cost of $26,312,000.
        Section 349: Garrison Dam, North Dakota--modifies the flood
    control project at Garrison Dam, North Dakota to authorize the
    Secretary to acquire permanent easements on approximately
    10,000 acres of land in and around the Burford-Trenton
    Irrigation District. The cost paid for such easements shall be
    between 75% and 90%.
        Section 350: Reno Beach-Howards Farm, Ohio--modifies the
    project for flood protection, Reno Beach-Howards Farm, Ohio,
    authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act, 1948 to
    provide that the value of lands, easements, rights-of-way, and
    disposal areas shall be determined on the basis of the
    appraisal performed by the Corps of Engineers and dated April
    4, 1985.
        Section 351: Wister Lake, Oklahoma--modifies the project at
    Wister Lake, Oklahoma to increase the elevation of the
    conservation pool to 478 feet and to adjust the seasonal pool
    operation to accommodate the change in the conservation pool
    elevation. Section 114(p) of the Water Resources Development
    Act of 1992, authorized a study to determine the feasibility of
    modifying the existing project to increase the level of the
    conservation pool by one foot. The report found that the
    increased level would increase dependable water supply and have
    a negligible effect on flood control as well as improved fish
    and wildlife habitat and recreation, and reduce adverse project
    impacts on cultural resources.
        Section 352: Bonneville Lock And Dam, Columbia River,
    Oregon and Washington--modifies the Bonneville Lock and Dam
    project to solve the longstanding problems involving the
    relocation of the Town of North Bonneville, Washington. During
    the 1970s, the Town of North Bonneville, on the Washington side
    of the Columbia River, was condemned to make room for the
    second powerhouse of Bonneville Dam. As a part of this project,
    Congress in section 83 of Public Law 83-251 required the Corps
    to relocate the town. Although a detailed relocation agreement
    between the Corps and the town was executed in 1975, the
    relocation effort became mired by litigation that has existed
    to this date. The Justice Department, Corps of Engineers and
    the Town have agreed on a settlement of the outstanding issues
    concerning which lands are to be deeded to the town and a final
    settlement of all outstanding litigation. This section provides
    the authority to implement that agreement.
        Section 353: Columbia River dredging, Oregon and
    Washington--modifies the project for navigation, Lower
    Willamette and Columbia River below Vancouver, Washington and
    Portland, Oregon, to direct the Secretary to conduct channel
    simulations and carry out improvements not to exceed $2.4
    million and to conduct overdraft dredging to maintain
    authorized channel dimensions.
        Section 354: Grays Landing Lock and Dam, Monongahela River,
    Pennsylvania--modifies the project for navigation Grays Landing
    Lock and Dam, Monongahela River, Pennsylvania, authorized by
    section 301(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
    (100 Stat. 4110), to authorize the Secretary to construct the
    project at a total cost of $181,000,000. The costs of
    construction of the project are to 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.
        Section 355: Lackawanna River At Scranton, Pennsylvania--
    modifies the flood control project, Lackawanna River at
    Scranton, Pennsylvania, to carry out the Plot and Green Ridge
    sections of the project. If the modified project does not meet
    benefit-cost requirements, this section allows non-Federal
    interests to assist in financing the project to the point where
    the Federal costs are no greater than the national benefits of
    the project, in accordance with the section 903(c) of the Water
    Resources Development Act of 1986.
        Section 356: Mussers Dam, Middle Creek, Snyder County,
    Pennsylvania--section 209(e) of the Water Resources Development
    Act of 1992 is amended to raise the authorized level from
    $3,000,000 to $5,000,000.
        Section 357: Saw Mill Run, Pennsylvania--modifies the flood
    control project for Saw Mill Run, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to
    increase the cost ceiling for the project. The project was
    originally authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of
    1986 at a total cost of $7,850,000, with an estimated Federal
    cost of $5,890,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
    $1,960,000. The project is now estimated to cost $12,780,000,
    with an estimated Federal cost of $9,585,000 and an estimated
    non-Federal cost of $3,195,000. Project costs have increased
    due to changes in the design of the authorized project and
    inflation. During the design of the project it was determined
    that the authorized project, which would have provided a 50-
    year level of flood protection, was no longer economically
    justified. A new plan was developed. The reformulated project
    is the same type of channel improvement project as the
    authorized project, only shorter in length, and provides for
    about a 20-year level of flood protection. The plan includes
    two upstream flood warning gages, has negligible adverse
    impacts on fish and wildlife resources, and is the national
    economic development plan.
        Section 358: Schuylkill River, Pennsylvania--modifies the
    navigation project for Schuylkill River, Pennsylvania, to
    provide for the removal and disposal of sediment detained in
    portions of the Fairmount pool. This modification will allow
    improved navigation, recreation and enhanced environmental
    quality for this important resource.
        Section 359: South Central Pennsylvania--section 313 of the
    Water Resources Development Act of 1992 is amended to raise the
    authorized level from $50,000,000 to $90,000,000.
        Section 360: Wyoming Valley, Pennsylvania--modifies the
    floor control project, Wyoming Valley, Pennsylvania, to
    authorize mechanical and electrical upgrades to thirteen
    stormwater pumping stations and to undertake induced flooding
    mitigation measures. These modifications are essential to
    improve the efficiency of flood control measures in this area.
    Recent severe flooding clearly demonstrated the need for this
    modification. The Secretary and the non-Federal interest have
    had extensive discussions on this project. This section
    provides the necessary authority to move forward on the needed
    works.
        Section 361: San Juan Harbor, Puerto Rico--modifies the
    navigation project for San Juan Harbor, Puerto Rico, to deepen
    the Bar Channel in steps from 49 feet to 56 feet, and with
    other modifications to the interior channels as generally
    described in the General Reevaluation Report and Environmental
    Assessment, dated March 1994. The project was originally
    authorized by Section 202(a) of the Water Resources Act of 1986
    at a total cost of $72,300,000, with an estimated Federal cost
    of $52,700,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
    $19,600,000. Ship simulation studies demonstrate that
    additional depths are needed in the Bar Channel to provide
    adequate underkeel clearance for vessels associated with
    authorized depths in interior channels. Those ship simulation
    studies also resulted in the elimination of the channel widener
    at the intersection of the Bar and Anegado Channels, a
    reduction in the widths of the Army Terminal and Graving Dock
    Channels, a reduction in the depth of the Puerto Nuevo Channel,
    and a reduction in mitigation for adverse impacts on algae
    beds. In addition, while economic studies reveal that the
    authorized improvement for the San Antonio Channel, Cruise Ship
    Basin, and Anchorage Area E are not needed at this time, these
    channels will remain authorized. The total cost of the project
    is estimated at $43,993,000, with a Federal cost of $27,341,000
    and a non-Federal cost of $16,652,000.
        Section 362: Narragansett, Rhode Island--modifies the
    navigation project to address removal of an abandoned and
    wrecked barge to increase the cost to $1,900,000, with a
    Federal cost of $1,425,000 and a non-Federal cost of $475,000.
    This modification is essential to removing a serious impediment
    to navigation in the Narragansett Bay.
        Section 363: Charleston Harbor, South Carolina--modifies
    the project for navigation, Charleston Harbor, South Carolina,
    authorized by section 202 of the Water Resources Development
    Act of 1986 to authorize the Secretary to undertake ditching,
    clearing, spillway replacement, and dike reconstruction of the
    Clouter Creek Disposal Area, as a part of the operation and
    maintenance of the Charleston Harbor project. This modification
    is required to maintain the primary disposal area which is
    essential for the normal operation and maintenance of
    Charleston Harbor, South Carolina.
        Section 364: Dallas Floodway Extension, Dallas, Texas--
    modifies the flood control project for the Dallas Floodway
    Extension to allow credit against the non-Federal share for the
    cost of work performed in constructing flood protection works
    for Rochester Park and the Central Waste Water Treatment Plant.
    Any work credited toward the non-Federal share must be
    compatible with the project plan and must be required for
    construction of the project.
        Section 365: Upper Jordan River, Utah--modifies the flood
    damage reduction project for the Upper Jordan River, Utah, to
    increase the cost ceiling for the project. The project was
    authorized by Section 101(a)(23) of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1990 at a total cost of $7,900,000, with a
    Federal cost of $5,200,000 and a non-Federal cost of
    $2,700,000. The project is now estimated to cost $12,870,000,
    with a Federal cost of $8,580,000 and a non-Federal cost of
    $4,290,000. Costs have increased due to inflation, increased
    real estate and relocation requirements, need for additional
    fish and wildlife mitigation, and associated increased costs
    for engineering, design and construction management.
        Section 366: Haysi Lake, Virginia--modifies the Haysi Lake
    feature of the project for flood control, Tug Fork of the Big
    Sandy River, Kentucky, West Virginia and Virginia, to add
    recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement as project
    purposes; to require the project to be built in accordance with
    the locally preferred plan; and to require an application of
    ability-to-pay rules. This modification would significantly
    improve the environmental and recreational resources available
    in the region.
        Section 367: Rudee Inlet, Virginia Beach, Virginia--
    modifies the project for navigation and shoreline protection,
    Rudee Inlet, Virginia Beach, Virginia to authorize the
    Secretary to continue maintenance of the project for the life
    of the project in accordance with the normal cost-sharing
    rules. The Committee believes that it is appropriate to
    continue operations and maintenance, and shoreline protection
    activities at this project.
        Section 368: Virginia Beach, Virginia--reduces the non-
    Federal share of the beach erosion and hurricane protection
    project, Virginia Beach, Virginia to account for the cost to
    the city of Virginia Beach for beach nourishment activities
    carried out between October 1986 through September 1993. The
    Committee believes that it is appropriate to credit the City of
    Virginia Beach for such activities.
        Section 369: East Waterway, Washington--modifies the
    project for navigation, East and West waterways, Seattle
    Harbor, authorized by the first section of the Act of March 2,
    1919 to direct the Secretary--
              (1) to expedite review of potential deepening of the
            channel in the East waterway from Elliott Bay to
            Terminal 25 to a depth of 51 feet; and
              (2) if determined to be feasible, to implement such
            deepening as part of project maintenance. In carrying
            out work authorized by this section, the Secretary
            shall coordinate with the Port of Seattle regarding use
            of Slip 27 as a dredged material disposal area. Slip 27
            is an area that the port wishes to use for the disposal
            of dredged material from this project, if feasible. The
            Committee believes that funding the Federal share of
            the project out of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is
            appropriate in this case. Deepening the project to 51
            feet would be sufficient for the new generation of
            vessels which are already calling at terminals on the
            East Waterway.
        Section 370: Bluestone Lake, West Virginia--modifies the
    project, Bluestone Lake, West Virginia to authorize the release
    of limited amounts of drift and debris from the Bluestone Dam
    to the extent that such releases are necessary to maintain and
    enhance the biological integrity of the New River. The
    amendment made by this section conforms this provision with the
    Secretary's responsibility under section 1110 of the National
    Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 to provide for the release of
    water from the Bluestone Lake project in a manner to facilitate
    protection of the biological resources of the New River.
        Section 371: Moorefield, West Virginia--modifies the
    project for flood control, Moorefield, West Virginia,
    authorized by section 101(a)(25) of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1990 to authorize the Secretary to construct
    the project at a total cost of $22,000,000, with an estimated
    Federal cost of $17,100,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
    of $4,900,000.
        Section 372: Southern West Virginia--modifies the
    environmental restoration project, Southern West Virginia, to
    increase the total authorized cost of the project to $25
    million. It also allows non-Federal interests to receive credit
    for the cost of initial design work completed prior to entering
    into the local cooperation agreement as long as such credit
    does not exceed 6 percent of the total construction cost of the
    project. Non-Federal interests could also receive credit for
    lands, easements, rights-of-way and relocations not to exceed
    25 percent of total project costs.
        Section 373: Kickapoo River, Wisconsin--modifies the flood
    control project, LaFarge Dam, Kickapoo River, Wisconsin, to
    transfer 8,569 acres of project lands to the State of
    Wisconsin, part of which is to be transferred to the Secretary
    of the Interior. Also deauthorizes the project. Authorizes the
    Secretary to complete the relocation of highway routes,
    environmental cleanup and site restoration, and the cultural
    resource activities of the project. Authorizes $17 million for
    these activities.
        Section 374: Teton County, Wyoming--modifies the project,
    Teton County, Wyoming, to authorize the Secretary to enter into
    agreements with Teton County permitting the County to perform
    operation and maintenance for the Jackson Hole Snake River,
    Wyoming project on a cost-reimbursable basis. Allows the County
    to meet its non-Federal responsibilities for the project
    through the provision of in-kind services, as well as cash
    contributions.

                               TITLE IV--STUDIES

    Section 401: Corps capability study, Alaska

        The Secretary shall review the capability of the Corps of
    Engineers to plan, design, construct, operate, and maintain
    rural sanitation projects for rural and Native villages in
    Alaska. Such a study, along with recommendations on the
    advisability of the Corps assuming such missions, shall be
    transmitted to the Congress, within 18 months.

    Section 402: McDowell Mountain, Arizona

        The Secretary shall give credit to the non-Federal interest
    toward the cost of the feasibility study on the McDowell
    Mountain project an amount equivalent to the cost of work
    performed by the city of Scottsdale, Arizona, and accomplished
    prior to the city's entering into an agreement with the
    Secretary, if the Secretary determines that the work is
    necessary for the study.

    Section 403: Nogales Wash and tributaries, Arizona

        The Secretary shall conduct a study of the relationship of
    flooding in Nogales, Arizona, and flood flows emanating from
    Mexico and shall transmit to Congress a report on the results
    of the study together with recommendations concerning the
    appropriate level of non-Federal participation in the
    previously authorized project for flood control, Nogales Wash
    and tributaries, Arizona.

    Section 404: Garden Grove, California

        The Secretary shall conduct a study to assess the
    feasibility of implementing improvements in the regional flood
    control system within Garden Grove, California.

    Section 405: Mugu Lagoon, California

        The Secretary shall conduct a study of the environmental
    impacts associated with sediment transport, flood flows, and
    upstream watershed land use practices on Mugu Lagoon,
    California. The study is to include an evaluation of
    alternatives for the restoration of the estuarine ecosystem
    functions and values associated with Mugu Lagoon and the
    endangered and threatened species inhabiting the area. In
    conducting the study, the Secretary is directed to consult with
    the Secretary of the Navy and to coordinate with State and
    local resource agencies to assure that the study is compatible
    with restoration efforts for the Calleguas Creek watershed. The
    Secretary is to transmit to Congress a report on the results of
    the study within 24 months.

    Section 406: Santa Ynez, California

        The Secretary is to prepare a comprehensive river basin
    management plan addressing the long term ecological, economic,
    and flood control needs of the Santa Ynez River basin,
    California. the Committee has determined that this plan must be
    completed as soon as possible, but not later than one year, in
    order to provide a basis for moving forward with solutions to
    flooding problems. In addition to preparing the comprehensive
    plan in consultation with local flood control interests, the
    Secretary is to provide technical assistance in implementing
    the plan.

    Section 407: Southern California infrastructure

        Section 116(d)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of
    1990, which authorizes a study of infrastructure needs, is
    amended by raising the authorized cost from $1,500,000 to
    $7,500,000.

    Section 408: Yolo Bypass, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California

        The Secretary shall study the advisability of acquiring
    land in the vicinity of the Yolo Bypass in the Sacramento-San
    Joaquin Delta, California, for the purpose of environmental
    mitigation for the flood control project for Sacramento,
    California, and other water resources projects in the area.

    Section 409: Quincy, Illinois

        the Secretary shall study and evaluate aspects of the
    critical infrastructure of drainage and levee districts in the
    vicinity of Quincy, Illinois.

    Section 410: Springfield, Illinois

        The Secretary shall provide technical, planning, and design
    assistance to the city of Springfield, Illinois, in developing
    an environmental impact statement for the proposed development
    of a water supply reservoir. This assistance shall include the
    preparation of necessary documentation in support of the
    environmental impact statement. The assistance shall also
    include an evaluation of technical, economic, and environmental
    impacts of such development. This section is necessary to
    facilitate development and approval of the proposed Hunter Lake
    project.

    Section 411: Chain of Rocks Canal, Illinois

        The Secretary is to complete a limited reevaluation of the
    authorized St. Louis Harbor Project in the vicinity of the
    Chain of Rocks Canal. The Committee is concerned about the
    deteriorating condition of the federally owned Chain of Rocks,
    East Canal Levee which provides flood protection for the East
    St. Louis metropolitan area. Recent floods in 1993 and 1995
    demonstrate that the levee is not performing as originally
    intended. Accordingly, the Secretary is to perform an
    expeditious review of the proposed work in this area so that
    these urgently needed construction efforts can begin.
    Consistent with the project's original authorization, it is the
    Committee's view that the remedial measures should not place
    additional financial burdens on local communities and
    industries.

    Section 412: Beauty Creek Watershed, Valparaiso City, Porter County,
            Indiana

        The Secretary shall conduct a study to assess the
    feasibility of implementing streambank erosion control measures
    and flood control measures within the Beauty Creek watershed,
    Valparaiso City, Porter County, Indiana.

    Section 413: Grand Calumet River, Hammond, Indiana

        The Secretary shall conduct a study to establish a
    methodology and schedule to restore the wetlands at Wolf Lake
    and George Lake in Hammond, Indiana and shall transmit to
    Congress a report on the results of the study within 1 year.

    Section 414: Indiana Harbor Canal, East Chicago, Lake County, Indiana

        The Secretary shall conduct a study of the feasibility of
    including environmental and recreational features, including a
    vegetation buffer, as part of the project for navigation,
    Indiana Harbor Canal, East Chicago, Lake County, Indiana.

    Section 415: Koontz Lake, Indiana

        The Secretary shall conduct a study of the feasibility of
    implementing measures to restore Koontz Lake, Indiana. The
    study shall include measures to remove silt, sediment,
    nutrients, aquatic growth, and other noxious materials from
    Koontz Lake. It shall also include measures to improve public
    access facilities to Koontz Lake, and measures to prevent or
    abate the deposit of sediments and nutrients in Koontz Lake.

    Section 416: Little Calumet River, Indiana

        The Secretary shall conduct a study of the impact of the
    project for flood control, Little Calumet River, Indiana,
    authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development
    Act of 1986, on flooding and water quality in the vicinity of
    the Black Oak area of Gary, Indiana. The Secretary shall
    transmit to Congress a report on the results of the study,
    together with recommendations for cost-effective remediation of
    impacts described in the study within 1 year. Because it is
    likely that Corps actions contributed to flooding in the Black
    Oak area, the Federal share of the cost of the study shall be
    100 percent.

    Section 417: Tippecanoe River Watershed, Indiana

        The Secretary shall conduct a study of water quality and
    environmental restoration needs in the Tippecanoe River
    watershed, Indiana, including measures necessary to reduce
    siltation in Lake Shafer and Lake Freeman. The Secretary also
    shall provide technical, planning, and design assistance to the
    Shafer Freeman Lakes Environmental Conservation Corporation in
    addressing potential environmental restoration activities
    determined as a result of the study.

    Section 418: Calcasieu Ship Channel, Hackberry, Louisiana

        The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the need
    for improved navigation and related support service structures
    in the vicinity of the Calcasieu Ship Channel, Hackberry,
    Louisiana.

    Section 419: Huron River, Michigan

        The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the need
    for channel improvements and associated modifications for the
    purpose of providing a harbor of refuge at Huron River,
    Michigan.

    Section 420: Saco River, New Hampshire

        The Secretary shall conduct a study of flooding problems
    along the Saco River in Hart's Location, New Hampshire, for the
    purpose of evaluating retaining walls, berms, and other
    structures with a view to potential solutions involving repair
    or replacement of existing structures and to consider other
    alternatives for flood damage reduction.

    Section 421: Buffalo River Greenway, New York

        The Secretary shall conduct a study of a potential greenway
    trail project along the Buffalo River beneath the park system
    of the city of Buffalo, New York, and Lake Erie. This study
    shall include preparation of an integrated plan of development
    that takes into consideration the adjacent parks, nature
    preserves, bikeways, and related recreational facilities.

    Section 422: Port of Newburgh, New York

        The Secretary shall conduct a study of the feasibility of
    carrying out improvements for navigation at the port of
    Newburgh, New York.

    Section 423: Port of New York-New Jersey sediment study

        The Secretary shall conduct a study of measures that could
    reduce sediment deposition in the vicinity of the Port of New
    York-New Jersey for the purpose of reducing the volumes to be
    dredged for navigation projects in the Port. The Secretary
    shall also conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    constructing and operating an underwater confined dredged
    material disposal site in the Port of New York-New Jersey which
    could accommodate as much as 250,000 cubic yards of dredged
    materials for the purpose of demonstrating the feasibility of
    an underwater confined disposal pit as an environmentally
    suitable method of containing certain sediments. The Secretary
    shall transmit to Congress a report on the results of the
    studies, together with any recommendations concerning reduction
    of sediment deposition referred to in the first study.

    Section 424: Port of New York-New Jersey navigation study

        The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive study of
    navigation needs at the Port of New York-New Jersey to address
    improvements, including deepening of existing channels, that
    are required to provide economically efficient and
    environmentally sound navigation to meet current and future
    requirements. The study is to also address potential deepening
    of channels at the South Brooklyn Marine and Red Hook Container
    terminals, Staten Island, and adjacent areas. The Secretary is
    to consider a full range of potential channel depths, including
    fifty feet or greater. The Committee notes that the provision
    authorizes study of potential navigation improvements in the
    entire port area, including New Jersey as well as New York.

    Section 425: Chagrin River, Ohio

        The Secretary is to conduct a study of flooding problems
    along the Chagrin River in Eastlake, Ohio. In conducting such
    study, the Secretary shall evaluate potential solutions to
    flooding from all sources, including ice jams and other causes.
    The Secretary shall also evaluate the feasibility of a
    sedimentation collection pit and other potential measures to
    reduce flooding.

    Section 426: Cuyahoga River, Ohio

        The Secretary shall conduct a study to evaluate the
    integrity of the bulkhead system located on the Federal channel
    along the Cuyahoga River in the vicinity of Cleveland, Ohio. In
    conducting the study, the Secretary is to provide local
    interests an analysis of potential repairs to the system,
    including the costs of such repairs.

    Section 427: Charleston, South Carolina, Estuary

        The Secretary shall conduct a study of the Charleston
    estuary area located in Charleston, Berkely, and Dorchester
    Counties, South Carolina, for the purpose of evaluating
    environmental conditions in the tidal reaches of the Ashley,
    Cooper, Stono, and Wando Rivers and the lower portions of
    Charleston Harbor.

    Section 428: Mustang Island, Corpus Christi, Texas

        The Secretary shall conduct a study of navigation along the
    south-central coast of Texas near the city of Corpus Christi
    for the purpose of determining the feasibility of constructing
    and maintaining the Packery Channel on the southern of Mustang
    Island.

    Section 429: Prince William County, Virginia

        The Secretary shall conduct a study of flooding, erosion,
    and other water resources problems in Prince William County,
    Virginia, including an assessment of wetlands protection,
    erosion control, and flood control damage reduction needs of
    the County.

    Section 430: Pacific region

        The Secretary is authorized to conduct studies in the
    interest of navigation in that part of the Pacific region that
    includes American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the
    Northern Mariana Islands. The cost sharing provisions of
    section 105 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
    shall apply to studies under this section.

    Section 431: Financing of infrastructure needs of small and medium
            ports

        The Secretary is to conduct a study of alternative
    financing mechanisms for funding infrastructure improvements at
    small and medium ports. The Committee believes that exploring
    alternative means of funding such improvements is essential to
    the continued vitality of small and medium-sized ports. Among
    the alternatives that must be considered is the potential
    establishment of revolving loan funds. Because of the pressing
    need to address this issue, the Secretary is required to
    transmit a report to Congress within 180 days.

                       TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

    Section 501: Project deauthorizations

        Section 501 deauthorizes a number of Corps of Engineers
    water resource projects and portions of projects. The Corps of
    Engineers has determined that none of these deauthorizations
    will have adverse effect on navigational or maintenance
    operations.
        Paragraph (1) deauthorizes a portion of the channel at
    Bradford Harbor, Connecticut.
        Paragraph (2) deauthorizes a portion of the anchorage at
    Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut.
        Paragraph (3) deauthorizes a portion of the channel at
    Guilford Harbor, Connecticut.
        Paragraph (4) deauthorizes a portion of the channel at
    Johnsons River, Bridgeport, Connecticut.
        Paragraph (5) deauthorizes a portion of the channel at
    Mystic River, Connecticut.
        Paragraph (6) deauthorizes a portion of the channel and
    anchorage at Norwalk Harbor, Connecticut.
        Paragraph (7) deauthorizes a portion of the anchorage at
    Southport Harbor, Connecticut.
        Paragraph (8) deauthorizes a portion of the channel at
    Stony Creek, Bradford, Connecticut.
        Paragraph (9) deauthorizes a portion of the anchorage at
    York Harbor, Connecticut.
        Paragraph (10) deauthorizes a portion of the channel at
    Chelsea River, Boston Harbor, Massachusetts.
        Paragraph (11) deauthorizes a portion of the project for
    navigation Cohasett Harbor, Cohasett, Massachusetts.
        Paragraph (12) deauthorizes a portion of the project for
    navigation Falmouth Harbor, Massachusetts.
        Paragraph (13) deauthorizes a portion of the channel at
    Mystic River, Massachusetts.
        Paragraph (14) deauthorizes a portion of the channel at
    Weymouth-Fore and Town River, Boston Harbor, Massachusetts.
        Paragraph (15) deauthorizes a portion of the project for
    navigation Morristown Harbor, New York.
        Paragraph (16) deauthorizes a portion of the project for
    navigation Connecticut Harbor, Ohio.
        Paragraph (17) deauthorizes a portion of the channel at
    Oswegatchie River, Ogdenburg Harbor, New York.
        Paragraph (18) deauthorizes a portion of the channel at
    Apponaug Cove, Warwick, Rhode Island.
        Paragraph (19) deauthorizes a portion of the navigation
    project at Port Washington Harbor, Wisconsin.

    Section 502: Project reauthorizations

        Section 502 negates previous project deauthorizations.
        Subsection (a) Grand Prairie Bayou-Meto Basin, Arkansas.--
    The authorization for the Grand Prairie Bayou-Meto, Arkansas
    project that was originally authorized in section 204 of the
    Flood Control Act of 1950, and which became deauthorized
    pursuant to section 1001(b) of the Water Resources Development
    Act of 1986. This subsection also clarifies that the project
    includes ground water protection and conservation, agricultural
    water supply, and waterfowl management as authorized project
    purposes.
        Subsection (b) White River, Arkansas.--The authorization
    for the White River navigation to Batesville, Arkansas project,
    which was authorized by section 601 of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1986. The project had been deauthorized in
    the Water Resources Development Act of 1988, apparently because
    of the lack of local interest. Local interests now wish to
    pursue the project.
        Subsection (c) Des Plaines River, Illinois.--The project
    for wetlands research, Des Plaines River, Illinois, authorized
    by section 45 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988
    and deauthorized pursuant to section 1001 of the Water
    Resources Development Act of 1986.
        Subsection (d) Alpena Harbor, Michigan.--The project for
    navigation, Alpena Harbor, Michigan, authorized by section 301
    of the River and Harbor Act of 1965 and deauthorized pursuant
    to section 1001 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986.
        Subsection (e) Ontonagon Harbor, Ontonagon County,
    Michigan.--The project for navigation, Ontonagon Harbor,
    Ontonagon County, Michigan, authorized by section 101 of the
    River and Harbor Act of 1962 and deauthorized pursuant to
    section 1001 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986.
        Subsection (f) Knife River Harbor, Minnesota.--The project
    for navigation, Knife River Harbor, Minnesota, authorized by
    section 100 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 and
    deauthorized pursuant to section 1001 of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1986.
        Subsection (g) Cliffwood Beach, New Jersey.--The project
    for hurricane-flood protection and beach erosion control on
    Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, New Jersey, authorized by
    section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 and deauthorized
    pursuant to section 1001 of the Water Resources Development Act
    of 1986.

    Section 503: Continuation of authorization of certain projects

        Subsection (a) continues the authorization for projects
    that would otherwise be automatically deauthorized under the
    provisions of section 1001 of the Water Resources Development
    Act of 1986: Cedar River Harbor, Michigan; and Cross Village
    Harbor, Michigan.
        Subsection (b) places a 5-year limitation on the continued
    authorization of these projects, unless funds are obligated for
    the projects during that period.

    Section 504: Land conveyances

        This section conveys certain lands currently owned by the
    Secretary. All lands conveyed under this section are currently
    surplus to the needs of the Secretary (or are transferred
    subject to protective easements) and the conveyances are to be
    carried out under such terms and conditions that the Secretary
    deems appropriate.
        Subsection (a) Oakland Inner Harbor Tidal Canal,
    California.--Modifies an existing land transfer provision to
    transfer at fair market value certain lands to adjacent land
    owners.
        Subsection (b) Mariemont, Ohio.--Transfers for $85,000 a
    parcel of land in the village of Mariemont, Ohio, to the
    village.
        Subsection (c) Eufaula Lake, Oklahoma.--Transfers at fair
    market value 12.5 acres of land at the Eufaula Lake project,
    Oklahoma, to the city of Eufaula.
        Subsection (d) Bordman, Oregon.--Transfers, without
    consideration, to the city of Bordman, Oregon, 141 acres at the
    John Day Lock and Dam project that is currently under lease to
    the city of Bordman Park and Recreation District for as long as
    these lands are used for public park and recreation purposes.
        Subsection (e) Tri-Cities Area, Washington.--Transfers
    certain lands in Benton County, Washington; Franklin County,
    Washington; the City of Kennewick, Washington; the City of
    Richland, Washington; the City of Pasco, Washington; and the
    Port of Pasco, Washington to those entities. Generally this
    subsection conveys without consideration any land that is to be
    used as a public park or recreation area for as long as those
    lands are used for public purposes and conveys all other lands
    for fair market value. The subsection also authorizes a study
    of the minimum safe height for levees of the Lake Wallula flood
    control project and conditional approval to lower the height of
    such levees.

    Section 505: Namings

        Section 505 renames selected Corps of Engineers projects or
    project features after distinguished citizens or, in several
    cases, nearby communities or other features.
        Subsection (a) designates the Visitors Center at Warm
    Springs Dam, California as the Milt Brandt Visitors Center.
        Subsection (b) designates the Carr Fork Lake in Kentucky as
    the Carr Creek Lake.
        Subsection (c) names a bridge on U.S. Route 231 crossing
    the Ohio River between Maceo, Kentucky and Rockport, Indiana in
    honor of Representatives William H. Natcher.
        Subsection (d) names the Uniontown Lock and Dam on the Ohio
    River, Indiana and Kentucky in honor of Representative John T.
    Myers.
        Subsection (e) designates the Lake on the Wabash River in
    Huntington and Wells County as the J. Edward Roush Lake.
        Subsection (f) names the Lock and Dam 4 of the Red River
    Waterway, Louisiana in honor of Senator Russell B. Long.
        Subsection (g) designates the lock and dam at Mile 358,
    Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway the Aberdeen Lock and Dam.
        Subsection (h) designates lock A at Mile 371 of the
    Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway as the Amory Lock.
        Subsection (i) designates lock C at Mile 391 of the
    Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway as the Fulton Lock.
        Subsection (j) names the Lock and Dam at Mile 266 of the
    Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway in honor of Senator Howell Heflin.
        Subsection (k) names Lock E at Mile 407 of the Tennessee-
    Tombigbee Water in honor of Representative G.V. `Sonny'
    Montgomery.
        Subsection (l) names Lock D at Mile 398 of the Tennessee-
    Tombigbee Water in honor of Representative John Rankin.
        Subsection (m) names the lock and dam at Mile 335 of the
    Tennessee-Tombigbee Water in honor of Senator John Stennis.
        Subsection (n) names of the lock and dam at Mile 412 of the
    Tennessee-Tombigbee Water in honor of Representative Jamie
    Whitten.
        Subsection (o) names Lock B at Mile 376 of the Tennessee-
    Tombigbee Waterway in honor of Glover Wilkins.

    Section 506: Watershed management, restoration, and development

        Under this section, the Secretary is authorized to provide
    technical, planning, and design assistance to non-Federal
    interests to carry out watershed management, restoration and
    development projects. The purposes of the projects may include
    management and restoration of water quality (which may include
    measures to prevent water quality degradation); control and
    remediation of toxic sediments; restoration of degraded
    streams, rivers, wetlands, and other water bodies to their
    natural state as a means to control flooding, excessive
    erosion, and sedimentation; protection and restoration of
    watersheds, including urban watersheds; and non-structural
    flood control measures. The non-Federal share of the costs of
    assistance to be provided is 50%. Projects that may receive
    assistance are Gila River and Tributaries, Santa Cruz River,
    Arizona; Rio Salado, Salt River, Phoenix and Tempe Arizona;
    Colusa Basin, California; Los Angeles River Watershed,
    California; Russian River Watershed, California; Sacramento
    River Watershed, California; Nancy Creek, Utoy Creek, and North
    Peachtree Creek and South Peachtree Creek Basin, Georgia; Lower
    Platte River Watershed, Nebraska; Juniata River Watershed,
    Pennsylvania including Raystown Lake; and the Upper Potomac
    River Watershed, Grant and Mineral Counties, West Virginia. The
    section authorizes $25 million for the Federal share of
    assistance provided under this section.
        This section is an important step in developing
    comprehensive watershed management, restoration, and
    development plans; however, it is not intended to restrict the
    Secretary from carrying out water resources studies and
    projects under the Corps of Engineers' regular authorities.
    This section is intended to complement, not conflict with,
    traditional water resources activities.

    Section 507: Lakes program

        Section 602 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
    establishes a program of lake restoration through the removal
    of silt, aquatic growth, and other materials in lakes. Section
    507 adds the following lakes to this program: Goodyear Lake,
    Otsego County, New York; Otsego Lake, Otsego County, New York;
    and Oneida Lake, Oneida County, New York, for removal of silt
    and aquatic growth; Skaneateles and Owasco Lakes, New York for
    removal of silt and aquatic growth and prevention of sediment
    deposit; and, Twin Lakes, Paris, Illinois for removal of silt
    and excess aquatic vegetation, including measures to address
    excessive sedimentation, high nutrient concentration and
    shoreline erosion.

    Section 508: Maintenance of navigation channels

        Upon request of the non-Federal interest, the Secretary
    shall assume responsibility for maintenance of the following
    navigation channels constructed or improved by non-Federal
    interests. Such maintenance shall be carried out if the
    Secretary determines that it is economically justified and
    environmentally acceptable and that the channel was constructed
    in accordance with applicable permits and appropriate
    engineering and design standards:
              (1) Humboldt Harbor and Bay, Fields Landing Channel,
            California.
              (2) Mare Island Strait, California; except that, the
            navigation channel constructed by and for the
            Department of Defense shall be deemed to have been
            constructed by non-Federal interests.
              (3) Mississippi River Ship Channel, Chalmette Slip,
            Louisiana.
              (4) Greenville Inner Harbor Channel, Mississippi.
              (5) Providence Harbor Shipping Channel, Rhode Island.
              (6) Matagorda Ship Channel, Point Comfort Turning
            Basin, Texas.
              (7) Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Rincon Canal, Texas.
              (8) Brazos Island Harbor, Texas, connecting channel
            to Mexico.
              (9) Blair Waterway, Tacoma Harbor, Washington.
        Within 6 months of receipt of a request from the non-
    Federal interest for Federal assumption of maintenance of a
    channel, the Secretary shall make a determination if the
    project meets the environmental, technical, and engineering
    criteria and advise the non-Federal interest of the Secretary's
    determination. Nothing in this section affects application of
    the Secretary's ``single beneficiary'' policy, which has been
    used to determine the advisability of Federal participation in
    navigation projects which have only one beneficiary.

    Section 509: Great Lakes remedial action plans and sediment remediation

        This section modifies section 401 of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1990 to:
        Authorize the Secretary to provide technical, planning and
    engineering assistance to state or local governments for the
    development and implementation of remedial action plans for
    areas identified under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
    of 1978. The non-Federal interest shall contribute 50% of the
    cost of the assistance.
        Authorize the Secretary in conjunction with EPA to
    establish no fewer than three demonstration projects. It gives
    priority consideration to Saginaw Bay, Michigan; Sheboygan
    Harbor, Wisconsin; Grand Calumet River, Indiana; Ashtabula
    River, Ohio; Buffalo River, New York; and Duluth/Superior
    Harbor, Minnesota. This provision requires the Secretary to
    identify the sites and technologies to be demonstrated within
    18 months and that the demonstration projects be completed
    within 3 years. The provision requires a 50% non-Federal cost
    share for these projects and authorizes $5 million per year for
    Fiscal Years 1997 through 2000.

    Section 510: Great Lakes dredged material testing and evaluation manual

        Section 510 directs the Secretary in cooperation with the
    Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, to
    provide technical assistance on testing procedures contained in
    the Great Lakes Material Testing and Evaluation Manual. It is
    expected that the Corps and EPA will conduct training of
    laboratory personnel, private laboratories and universities
    that are engaged in testing of dredged material. The Committee
    notes that this section does not confer any new regulatory
    authorization on the Secretary or the Administrator.

    Section 511: Great Lakes sediment reduction

        Reducing sediment deposition into the Great Lakes has been
    addressed in several laws over the past 10 years. Section 511
    directs the Secretary to develop a tributary sediment transport
    model for 30 major river systems that deposit sediments into
    the Great Lakes either individually or in combination as part
    of a set. The model should be developed in consultation and
    coordination with the Great Lakes states. It is expected that
    the Corps will build on previously generated studies of the
    Great Lakes and their tributaries. The Committee notes that
    this section is intended to develop information that will be
    useful to the Secretary and to the Great Lakes states in
    coordinating existing Federal and state programs and in future
    planning activities. It does not confer any new regulatory
    authority.

    Section 512: Great Lakes confined disposal facilities

        The Great Lakes are rapidly depleting their confined
    disposal facility capacity, while the need for dredging
    continues in harbors and channels. The Secretary is directed to
    conduct a study and assess the general conditions of confined
    disposal facilities in the Great Lakes including a description
    of their effects on the ecosystem of the Great Lakes; make
    recommendations for specific remediation action for each
    confined disposal facility; and make an evaluation and
    recommendation on practices and technologies that can conserve
    capacity at such facilities and minimize adverse environmental
    effects at such facilities.

    Section 513: Chesapeake Bay restoration and protection program

        This provision authorizes $15 million to establish a pilot
    program to provide public non-Federal interests in the
    Chesapeake Bay with watershed-based technical, planning, design
    and construction assistance for environmental infrastructure
    and resource protection and development projects affecting the
    Chesapeake Bay. The Federal share of assistance is to be 75%.

    Section 514: Extension of jurisdiction of Mississippi River Commission

        Section 514 extends the jurisdiction of the Mississippi
    River Commission to include:
              (1) all the area between the Eastern side of the
            Bayou LaFourche Ridge from Donaldsonville, Louisiana to
            the Gulf of Mexico and the west guide levee of the
            Mississippi River from Donaldsonville, Louisiana to the
            Gulf of Mexico;
              (2) Alexander County, Illinois; and
              (3) the area in the State of Illinois from the
            confluence of the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers northward
            to the vicinity of Mississippi River mile 39.5,
            including the Len Small Drainage and Levee District,
            insofar as such area is affected by the flood waters of
            the Mississippi River.

    Section 515: Alternative to annual passes

        Section 515 addresses concerns regarding Corps of Engineers
    user fees collected at its recreation facilities. While the
    Corps offers annual passes which may be used at any of its
    facilities nationwide, for many the $25 annual charge is
    prohibitive, especially when individuals purchasing the passes
    visit only one or two different projects a year. Section 515
    requires the Secretary to offer annual passes, for a cost of
    not more than $10, for the use of recreational facilities at
    the Raystown Lake Project, Pennsylvania. By December 31, 1998,
    the Secretary is required to report to Congress on the
    effectiveness and public acceptance of project-specific passes
    and to make recommendations on whether such an approach should
    be adopted nationwide.

    Section 516: Recreation partnership initiative

        This provision requires the Secretary to promote Federal,
    non-Federal, and private sector cooperation to improve the
    recreational infrastructure and operation at Corps projects,
    including the Raystown Lake Project, Pennsylvania. It
    authorizes $4.5 million to carry out this provision at Raystown
    Lake.

    Section 517: Environmental infrastructure

        This section authorizes construction assistance for certain
    environmental infrastructure projects for which technical
    assistance was first authorized in Section 219 of the Water
    Resources Development Act of 1992. The Committee believes that
    it is appropriate to proceed to the design and construction
    phase for those projects that were first addressed under
    Section 219. Therefore this section authorizes:
              (1) $10 million for Jackson County, Mississippi.
              (2) $2 million for Epping, New Hampshire.
              (3) $10 million for Manchester, New Hampshire.
              (4) $11 million for Rochester, New Hampshire.
              (5) $20 million for Lynchburg, Virginia.
              (6) $20 million for Richmond, Virginia.

    Section 518: Corps capability to conserve fish and wildlife

        This section would raise the authorization level from $5
    million to $10 million and include the Chesapeake Bay in
    Virginia in a program to conserve fish and wildlife authorized
    by Section 704(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of
    1986.

    Section 519: Periodic beach nourishment

        This section authorizes the Secretary to carry out periodic
    beach nourishment for each of the following projects for a
    period of 50 years beginning on the date of initiation of
    construction of such projects. Under section 156 of the Water
    Resources Development Act of 1976, as modified by section 934
    of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, the Secretary
    has authority to provide periodic beach nourishment following
    construction of the project. Unfortunately, the Secretary has
    chosen not to proceed with such work in many cases. Section 519
    reflects the emphasis the Committee places on such work and
    lists projects that are to receive priority under this program.
    The Committee expects the Secretary to move forward with other
    similar projects as well:
              (1) Broward County, Florida.
              (2) Fort Pierce, Florida.
              (3) Lee County, Florida.
              (4) Palm Beach County, Florida.
              (5) Panama City Beaches, Florida.
              (6) Tybee Island, Georgia.

    Section 520: Control of aquatic plants

        The Secretary is directed to carry out:
              (1) a program to control aquatic plants in Lake St.
            Clair, Michigan; and
              (2) a program to control aquatic plants in the
            Schuylkill River, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

    Section 521: Hopper dredges

        This section amends the Act of August 11, 1888 to require
    the Secretary to increase the use of privately owned and
    operated hopper dredges to maintain Federal navigation
    channels. It preserves the readiness of federally-owned hopper
    dredges by requiring the Secretary to place the Federal hopper
    dredge Wheeler in a ready reserve status and by allowing the
    Secretary to perform repair and rehabilitation of Federal
    dredges. It precludes the Secretary from further reducing the
    readiness of a Federal hopper dredge unless the vessel has been
    in that status for 5 years and the Secretary determines it has
    not been used sufficiently to justify it remaining in ready
    reserve.
        The Committee supports the general trend toward increased
    use of and reliance on the capability of the private industry
    in dredging activities. However, the Committee intends to move
    cautiously in reducing the Federal hopper dredge fleet. This
    section, which also includes a requirement that the Secretary
    implement procedures to facilitate increased usage of the
    private fleet, recognizes the industry's capability and
    performance while at the same time, preserves a Federal
    backstop in the event Corps hopper dredges are needed.

    Section 522: Design and construction assistance

        This section requires the Secretary to provide design and
    construction assistance to non-Federal interests to:
              (1) repair and rehabilitate the Lower Girard Lake
            Dam, Girard, Ohio at an estimated total cost of $2.5
            million.
              (2) repair and upgrade the dam and appurtenant
            features at lake Merriweather, Little Calfpasture
            River, Virginia at an estimated cost of $6 million.

    Section 523: Field office headquarters facilities

        This section allows the Secretary to use the Plant
    Replacement and Improvement Program to design and construct new
    headquarters facilities for (1) the New England Division of the
    Corps of Engineers, Waltham, Massachusetts; and (2) the Corps'
    Jacksonville District, Jacksonville, Florida.

    Section 524: Lake Superior center

        This section authorizes $10 million for the Secretary, to
    assist non-Federal interests in the construction of an
    educational facility to educate the public to the economic,
    recreational, biological, aesthetic, and spiritual worth of
    Lake Superior and other large bodies of fresh water. After
    construction the facility will be transferred to a public
    entity established by the State of Minnesota for operation and
    maintenance.

    Section 525: Jackson County, Alabama

        Section 525 authorizes $5 million for technical, planning,
    and design assistance to non-Federal interests for wastewater
    treatment and related facilities, remediation of point and
    nonpoint sources of pollution and contaminated riverbed
    sediments, and related activities in Jackson County, Alabama,
    including the city of Stevenson.

    Section 526: Earthquake preparedness center of expertise extension

        Sction 526 directs the Secretary to establish an extension
    of the Earthquake Preparedness Center of Expertise for the
    central United States at an existing district office of the
    Corps of Engineers. The Memphis District of the Corps, located
    near the New Madrid fault, is ideally positioned to serve in
    that capacity.

    Section 527: Quarantine facility

        Section 108 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992
    authorizes the Secretary to construct a Research and Quarantine
    Facility in Broward County, Florida to be used in connection
    with the control of Melaleuca and other exotic plant species
    that threaten the Everglades and other native ecosystems in
    Florida. Section 527 increases the authorization for that
    program to $4 million.

    Section 528: Benton and Washington Counties, Arkansas

        Section 528 amends section 220 of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1992. That section authorized the Secretary
    to provide assistance to non-Federal interests for design and
    construction of a water transmission line. Section 528
    clarifies that Federal funds may be made available to the local
    entities to undertake the work directly or by contract.

    Section 529: Calaveras County, California

        The Secretary in cooperation with other Federal, state and
    local agencies is authorized to conduct investigations and
    surveys of watershed of the Lower Mokelume River and to provide
    technical, planning, and design assistance for abatement and
    mitigation of degradation caused by abandoned mines and mining
    in the vicinity of the river. The Committee notes that this
    section does not give the Secretary of the Army any authority
    to regulate active mining activities or to undertake abandoned
    mine reclamation under the Surface Mining Control and
    Reclamation Act.

    Section 530: Prado Dam safety improvements, California

        This section authorizes the Secretary to provide technical
    assistance to Orange County, California for the relocation of
    California State Route 71 which must be relocated as part of
    the construction of Prado Dam feature of the flood control
    project, Santa Ana River Mainstem, California.

    Section 531: Manatee County, Florida

        This section authorizes a flood control project at Cedar
    Hammock (Wares Creek), Florida substantially in accordance with
    the Final Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment
    dated April 1995 at a total cost of $13,846,000, with an
    estimated first Federal cost of $8,783,000 and an estimated
    non-Federal cost of $5,063,000.

    Section 532: Tampa, Florida

        This section authorizes $500,000 for the Secretary to enter
    into a cooperative research and development agreement under
    section 230 of this Act with the Museum of Science and
    Industry, Tampa, Florida, and to provide technical, planning,
    and design assistance to the Museum to demonstrate the water
    quality functions found in wetlands.

    Section 533: Watershed Management Plan for Deep River Basin, Indiana

        In the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, the
    Secretary was directed to clean up accumulated sediment in Lake
    George. The Corps of Engineers is currently preparing a
    planning and engineering study that will identify the most
    feasible plan to accomplish this objective. This section
    authorizes a basinwide watershed management plan to analyze the
    sedimentation problem in Lake George and to develop alternative
    solutions to reducing the sedimentation problem and flooding
    problems throughout the basin. The plan is to be developed in
    consultation with the Natural Resource Conservation Service.

    Section 534: Southern and Eastern Kentucky

        This section authorizes $10 million for the establishment
    of a program for providing environmental infrastructure
    assistance to non-Federal interests in southern and eastern
    Kentucky. This assistance may be in the form of design and
    construction assistance for water-related environmental
    infrastructure, resource protection, and development projects
    in this region. This assistance is only available for projects
    that are to be publicly owned. These projects shall be subject
    to 75% Federal and 25% non-Federal cost sharing requirement and
    credit shall be given toward the non-Federal share for design
    work completed by the non-Federal interest prior to entering
    into a cost sharing agreement with the Secretary, certain
    financing cost in the event of project delays, and for all
    lands, easements and rights-of-way associated with the project.
    The provision also requires a study be transmitted to the
    Congress on the results of this program by December 31, 1999.

    Section 535: Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Restoration Projects

        This section temporarily adjusts the distribution formula
    to allow a 90% Federal participation for coastal Louisiana
    wetlands restored under Section 303(f) of the Coastal Wetlands
    Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act for calendar years
    1996 and 1997. This temporary adjustment is necessary to allow
    the State time to accumulate funds for its share of wetlands
    restoration projects. Otherwise, needed restoration efforts
    will be delayed.

    Section 536: Southeast Louisiana

        This section increases the amount authorized for flood
    control and improvements to drainage in Jefferson, Orleans, and
    St. Tammany Parishes, Louisiana to $100 million. The provision
    also allows for credit toward the non-Federal cost share for
    actions that are compatible with the project that were
    undertaken by the non-Federal interest subsequent to the report
    but prior to the authorization. It also clarifies the existing
    authorization by updating the relevant list of Corps of
    Engineers reports.

    Section 537: Restoration Projects for Maryland, West Virginia and
            Pennsylvania

        Section 537 authorizes $10 million for the Secretary, in
    cooperation with Federal, State and local agencies, to conduct
    investigations and surveys of the watersheds of the North
    Branch of the Potomac River, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and West
    Virginia; and New River, West Virginia; and to provide
    assistance for the abatement and mitigation of surface water
    quality in such watersheds caused by abandoned mines.
        With respect to the New River in the State of West
    Virginia, the Committee intends for the Secretary to undertake
    the activities authorized by this section in the Dunloup Creek
    watershed, the Manns Creek watershed, the Piney Creek watershed
    and the Wolf Creek watershed of the New River. In conducting
    investigations, surveys and in providing assistance under this
    section for the New River, the Secretary is to cooperate with
    the Federal entity with administrative jurisdiction over the
    lands within such watersheds (the National Park Service) and
    with the West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection.
    The Federal share of cost under this section shall be 75% for
    lands not owned by the Federal Government and 100% for lands
    owned by the Federal Government.
        The Committee notes that this section does not give the
    Secretary of the Army any authority to regulate mining
    activities or to undertake abandoned mine reclamation under the
    Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act.

    Section 538: Beneficial use of dredged material, Poplar Island,
            Maryland

        This section directs the Secretary to carry out a project
    for the beneficial use of dredged material at Poplar Island,
    Maryland, generally under the authority of section 204 of the
    Water Resources Development Act of 1992. That section
    authorizes the Secretary to carry out projects for the
    protection, restoration, and creation of aquatic and
    ecologically related habitats in connection with dredging for
    construction, operation, or maintenance by the Secretary of an
    authorized navigation project. Notwithstanding the cost
    limitation that would otherwise apply under the 204 program,
    under this section, the initial cost of construction of dikes
    under this section shall be a total of $78 million, with an
    estimated Federal cost of $58.5 million and an estimated non-
    Federal cost of $19.5 million.

    Section 539: Erosion control measures, Smith Island, Maryland

        Smith Island, Maryland, in the Chesapeake Bay is in
    imminent danger unless a long-term solution is found to restore
    the protective barrier island to the west of Rhodes Point. The
    historic community dates back to 1657 and is in need of
    emergency protection to protect the lives of the inhabitants
    and the historic nature of the island. Sections 539 authorizes
    the Corps to implement erosion control measures in the vicinity
    of Rhodes Point at an estimated total Federal cost of $450,000.
    Cost sharing applicable to hurricane and storm damage reduction
    will apply to this project.

    Section 540: Beneficial use of dredged material, Worton Point, Kent
            County, Maryland

        This section directs the Secretary to carry out a project
    for the beneficial use of dredged material at Worton Point,
    Kent County, Maryland, under the authority of section 204 of
    the Water Resources Development of 1992.

    Section 541: Duluth, Minnesota, alternative technology project

        This section authorizes $1 million for the development and
    implementation of alternative methods for decontamination and
    disposal of contaminated dredged material at the Port of
    Duluth, Minnesota.

    Section 542: Redwood River Basin, Minnesota

        This section authorizes $4 million for the Secretary, in
    cooperation with the Secretary of Agriculture and the State of
    Minnesota to conduct a study, develop a strategy, and implement
    (in cooperation with local landowners and local governments)
    the strategy for using wetland restoration, soil and water
    conservation practices, and nonstructural measures to reduce
    flood damages, improve water quality, and create wildlife
    habitat in the Redwood River basin and the subbasins draining
    into the Minnesota River. The non-Federal cost share shall be
    25% and may be provided through in-kind services and materials.

    Section 543: Natchez Bluffs, Mississippi

        Directs the Secretary to undertake a bluff stabilization
    project at Natchez, Mississippi for a total cost of $17.2
    million, with an estimated Federal cost of $12.9 million and
    non-Federal cost of $4.3 million, substantially in accordance
    with cited studies.

    Section 544: Sardis Lake, Mississippi

        Directs the Secretary to work cooperatively with the State
    of Mississippi and the city of Sardis, Mississippi in the
    management of existing and proposed leases of land related to
    tourism and recreation as was outlined in the plan for economic
    development of the Sardis Lake area prepared by the city.

    Section 545: Missouri River Management

        This section extends the navigation season on the Missouri
    River and addresses water management. Subsection (a) requires
    the Secretary to increase the length of the navigation season
    for the Missouri River by 15 days each year for two years.
        Subsection (b) prohibits the Secretary from taking actions
    that are inconsistent with the existing water control policy if
    such action would reduce navigability by 10 or more days or
    cause substantial increases in flood damages.
        Subsection (c) requires that any future EIS regarding
    management of the Missouri River include an analysis of
    economic impacts associated with proposed changes in management
    of the river.

    Section 546: St. Charles County, Missouri, Flood Protection

        This section prohibits any county or community located at
    the confluence of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers from
    having their participation in Federal programs affected solely
    due to the raising of a levee by a public levee district if
    such work is approved by the relevant circuit court and is
    limited to no greater than an elevation sufficient to contain a
    20-year flood. A prior Federal permit that was valued during
    the Midwest flood of 1993 is deemed to be adequate for raising
    the existing levees to such an elevation.

    Section 547: Cocheco River, New Hampshire

        This section directs the Secretary to provide technical
    assistance to resolve encroachment issues related to
    maintenance dredging of the navigation project on the Cocheco
    River. The Cocheco River provides a valuable link between the
    City of Dover and other deep water ports. As the current depths
    along the length of the Cocheco River severely restrict access
    of tourist and commercial vessels essential to the economic
    revitalization of the City of Dover, additional dredging is
    necessary at the earliest possible time to obtain a 70-foot
    wide navigable channel and a mean low water depth of seven
    feet. While the Secretary has sufficient authority to conduct
    dredging, encroachment into the channel must be addressed.
    Section 547 address this need.

    Section 548: Durham, New Hampshire

        This section authorizes the Secretary to enter into a
    cooperative agreement with the University of New Hampshire to
    provide technical assistance for a water treatment technology
    center addressing the needs of small communities.

    Section 549: Hackensack Meadowlands Area, New Jersey

        Section 549 adds land acquisition to the forms of
    assistance that the Secretary is authorized to provide under
    Section 324(b)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of
    1992, which will allow for the acquisition of critical wetlands
    in the Meadowlands area.

    Section 550: Authorization of dredge material containment facility for
            Port of New York/New Jersey

        Authorizes the construction, operation and maintenance of
    an adequate dredged material containment facility for the Port
    of New York/New Jersey. This facility is to be cost shared
    consistent with Section 101 of the Water Resources Development
    Act of 1986. Once completed the Secretary is to operate and
    maintain the facility for public benefit.

    Section 551: Hudson River Restoration, New York

        This section authorizes $11 million for at least 4 habitat
    restoration projects in the Hudson River Basin, New York. These
    projects shall be designed to:
        (1) Provide a pilot project to assess and improve habitat
    value and environmental outputs of projects;
        (2) Provide a demonstration project to evaluate various
    restoration techniques for effectiveness and cost;
        (3) Fill an important local habitat need within a specific
    portion of the study area; and
        (4) Take advantage of ongoing or planned actions by other
    agencies, local municipalities, or environmental groups that
    would increase the effectiveness or decrease the cost of the
    recommended restoration project sites. Non-Federal interests
    shall provide 25% of the cost of each project undertaken under
    this section.

    Section 552: New York Bight and Harbor study

        The Water Resources Development Act of 1992 reauthorized
    and broadened the New York Bight study originally authorized in
    the Water Resources Development of 1986. The 1992 amendments
    directed the development of a hydrologic computer model and
    measures to address local dioxin contamination issues. This
    section increases the authorization to $5 million to complete
    the study.

    Section 553: New York State Canal System

        Section 553 authorizes the Secretary to make capital
    improvements to the New York State Canal System. Hearings
    before this Committee demonstrated that a substantial long-term
    need for Corps technical and financial assistance exists on the
    New York State Canal System. The $10 million authorization
    included in this legislation for the New York State Canal
    System is critical to the viability of both commercial and
    recreational uses on America's first major canal system.

    Section 554: New York City watershed

        Section 554 directs the Secretary to establish a program
    for providing design and construction assistance to non-Federal
    interests in the 2,000 square mile New York City watershed.
    This region of New York State provides over one billion gallons
    of water per day to the more than 9 million residents of the
    New York Metropolitan area. The Committee recognizes the
    enormous importance of protecting the water supply for
    America's largest metropolitan area and has authorized the
    expenditure of $25 million for this purpose.
        The goal of the projects conducted under this section is to
    establish effective ways to protect the water supply for New
    York City without damaging prospects for a sustainable regional
    economy. Critical to the protection of the watershed is the
    enhancement of a natural resource and agriculture based economy
    in the region.
        In protecting the New York City Watershed, Federal
    resources should be directly available to assist members of the
    agriculture community in controlling non-point source
    pollution.
        The Committee notes that this program can materially assist
    in the development of infrastructure projects and monitoring
    programs that are needed to protect the New York City drinking
    water supply and avoid the costs of constructing and
    maintaining a multi-billion dollar filtration plant. The New
    York City Watershed protection program protects the Nation's
    largest surface drinking water source through implementation of
    projects and programs that prevent pollution from entering the
    Watershed and projects that control pollution at the source.
        The Committee encourages the Secretary and the non-Federal
    interests to be flexible in the development of projects to be
    funded under this section. Specifically, projects to be
    implemented pursuant to this section should preserve and
    enhance the economic and social character of the Watershed
    communities. The Committee notes that this program can set a
    model for the Nation as a comprehensive, watershed-based
    approach for long-term watershed protection. If done right,
    with locally driven, voluntary-based measures, such a program
    can prevent pollution and stem the need for a costly filtration
    plant.
        It is the Committee's intent that lands acquired by non-
    Federal interests for projects authorized by this section not
    be acquired for the primary purpose of a public park, forest
    reserve, or recreational use. However, this does not preclude
    lands acquired as part of a project undertaken under this
    section for the primary purpose of environmental infrastructure
    or resources protection and development from being designated
    as a park, forest reserve, or recreation area. The Committee
    also notes that Sterling Forest is not within the NYC watershed
    for purposes of subsection (h).

    Section 555: Ohio River Greenway

        Section 555 requires the Secretary to expedite the
    completion of the study for the Ohio River Greenway,
    Jeffersonville, Clarksville and New Albany, Indiana. Upon
    completion of the study, if the Secretary determines that the
    project is feasible, the Secretary shall participate with the
    non-Federal interest to construct the project. The Federal cost
    share shall be 50%. Non-Federal interests shall be responsible
    for providing all lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations,
    and dredged material disposal areas necessary for the project.
    The non-Federal interests shall receive credit for costs which
    the Secretary determines are compatible with study, design and
    implementation of the project.

    Section 556: Northeastern Ohio

        This section authorizes the Secretary to provide technical
    assistance to local interests in Northeastern, Ohio for
    planning and establishing a regional water authority. The
    Federal share of the cost of such planning shall not exceed 75%
    of the total.

    Section 557: Grand Lake, Oklahoma

        This section directs the Secretary to carry out a 1-year
    study of flood control in Grand/Neosho Basin and tributaries in
    the vicinity of Pensacola Dam in northeastern Oklahoma to
    determine the scope of the backwater effects of operation of
    the dam and to identify any lands that the Secretary determines
    are adversely impacted by the dam or flood control project's
    operation or those who should have been originally purchased as
    flowage easement for the project. It authorizes a total of $24
    million (not more than $1.5 million of which may be used for
    the study) for the acquisition of lands, and interests in
    lands, from willing sellers, identified by the Secretary as
    adversely impacted.

    Section 558: Board Top Region of Pennsylvania

        The section increases the authorization level for the
    program authorized in section 304 of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1992 for the Board Top Region of
    Pennsylvania to $11 million and allows for credit to be given
    for work performed by the non-Federal interest toward the 25%
    local cost share.

    Section 559: Hopper Dredge McFarland

        This section authorized $20 million and directs the
    Secretary to make modernization and efficiency improvements to
    the hopper dredge McFarland. It also directs the Secretary to
    determine whether the McFarland should be returned to active
    service or the reserve fleet after the project is completed and
    to establish minimum standards for dredging service to be met
    in areas served by the McFarland while the reconditioning is
    taking place. The Committee finds that maintaining a well-
    conditioned hopper dredge fleet is essential to assuring
    continued capability for maintenace of navigable waterways.
    Improvements to the McFarland support that goal.

    Section 560: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

        The section authorizes the Secretary to participate in the
    following projects in Philadelphia and vicinity, Pennsylvania:
        Subsection (a) authorizes $1 million for the restoration of
    the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Water Works.
        Subsection (b) authorizes $300,000 annually for the
    operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of the Schuylkill
    Navigation Canal at Manayunk.
        Subsection (c) authorizes $2.7 million for the Schuylkill
    River Park.
        Subsection (d) authorizes $15 million for the improvement
    and restoration of aquatic habitats and resources at Pennypack
    Park.
        Subsection (e) authorizes $900,000 for the elimination of
    the Frankfort Dam, replacement of the Rhawn Street Dam, and
    modifications to the Roosevelt and Verree Road Dam.

    Section 561: Upper Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and New York

        This section directs the Secretary to develop and implement
    strategies for wetlands restoration, non-structural flood
    control, and soil and water conservation for the following
    portions of the Upper Susquehanna River basin: (1) the Juniata
    River Watershed, at a Federal cost of $15 million; and (2) the
    Susquehanna River Watershed upstream of the Chemung River, New
    York, at a Federal cost of $10 million. The non-Federal share
    is to be 25% and may be provided through-in-kind services in
    lieu of cash.

    Section 562: Seven Points Visitors Center, Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania

        This section authorizes $2.5 million to construct a
    visitors center at the Seven Points Recreation Area at Raystown
    Lake, Pennsylvania.

    Section 563: Southeastern Pennsylvania

        This section authorizes $2.5 million for a pilot program
    for the design and construction of publicly-owned water-related
    environmental infrastructure, resource protection, and
    development projects in southeastern Pennsylvania. It requires
    the non-Federal interest to contribute 25% of the cost of any
    project undertaken but the non-Federal interest shall receive
    credit for lands, easements, and rights-of-way required by the
    project. All operation and maintenance costs shall be borne by
    the non-Federal interest.

    Section 564: Blackstone River Valley, Rhode Island and Massachusetts

        This section requires the Secretary to provide technical,
    planning, and design assistance in the development and
    restoration of the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage
    Corridor. It also caps the Federal share of the cost of such
    assistance at 75 percent.
        The Committee notes that this section does not affect the
    authority or management decisions of the Secretary of the
    Interior relating to the Blackstone River Valley Heritage
    Corridor or extend the authority for the Heritage Corridor
    itself.

    Section 565: East Ridge, Tennessee

        This section requires the Secretary to review the Tennessee
    Valley Authority flood management study for the East Ridge and
    Hamilton County area and to carry out the project at an
    estimated total cost of $25 million.

    Section 566: Murfreesboro, Tennessee

        This section requires the Secretary to carry out an
    environmental enhancement project pursuant to the August 1994
    Report and Environmental Assessment of the Black Fox, Murfree,
    and Oaklands Spring Wetlands.

    Section 567: Buffalo Bayou, Texas

        This section authorizes a reimbursement or credit to the
    non-Federal interest for the Buffalo Bayou Basin flood control
    project of up to $5 million for work performed by the non-
    Federal interest at specified locations, if the work is
    compatible with cited projects.

    Section 568: Harris County, Texas

        In determining the economic viability with respect to three
    named flood control projects in Harris County, the Secretary is
    not to consider the previously completed flood control works
    constructed by the non-Federal interests when determining the
    conditions existing prior to construction of the project. The
    projects are (1) Buffalo Bayou & Tributaries, TX; (2) Cypress
    Creek, TX; and (3) Buffalo Bayou Basin, TX. The intent of this
    provision is to not jeopardize the economic viability of the
    specified projects simply because non-Federal sponsors have
    demonstrated initiative in making advance drainage
    improvements.

    Section 569: Pierce County, Washington

        Section 569 requires the Secretary to provide technical
    assistance to Pierce County to ensure that non-Federal levees
    are adequately maintained and are eligible for rehabilitation
    assistance. It also requires the Secretary to carry out
    rehabilitation of such levees if the ability of non-Federal
    interest to maintain such levees has been limited by the
    Puyallup Tribe of Indians Settlement Act of 1989. The Committee
    had determined that the project's eligibility for
    rehabilitation assistance should not be unfairly jeopardized
    due to conflicting requirements of other statutes.

    Section 570: Washington Aqueduct

        Section 570 provides for the transfer of ownership,
    operation, maintenance, and management of the Washington
    Aqueduct and for interim borrowing authority to finance capital
    improvements at the Washington Aqueduct. The facilities,
    founded in 1853, are owned and operated by the Corps of
    Engineers and serve the Washington, D.C. area, including the
    District of Columbia, Arlington County, and the City of Falls
    Church, Virginia. A December 8, 1993 ``boil water advisory,''
    based on high turbidity levels and a concern about possible
    presence of cryptosporidium in the water supply, focused
    attention on the need for capital improvements at and improved
    management of the facility. Since then, the Committee has heard
    testimony regarding the Aqueduct on three separate occasions.
    Representatives from the Corps of Engineers, the Environmental
    Protection Agency, the user jurisdictions, and other entities
    have all expressed various concerns about the current
    situation. Sections 570 responds as follows:
        Subsection (a) encourages and provides a process for the
    establishment of a regional entity--or the use of an existing
    entity--to own, operate, maintain, and manage the Washington
    Aqueduct in a manner that adequately represents all interests
    of the non-Federal public water supply customers. Whether new
    or existing, the entity is to be non-Federal and either public
    or private. To the extent needed, Congressional consent is
    provided to allow the user jurisdictions to establish the non-
    Federal entity. Nothing in the subsection precludes the
    jurisdictions from pursuing alternative options regarding
    ownership, operation, maintenance, and management.
        Subsection (b) requires the Secretary to transmit a
    progress report and transfer plan to the authorizing Committees
    within one year after the enactment of this Act. The plan must
    include a transfer of ownership, operation, maintenance, and
    management of the Washington Aqueduct that is consistent with
    this section and a detailed consideration of any proposal to
    transfer such ownership or operation, maintenance, or
    management to a private entity.
        Subsection (c) provides for the transfer of the Washington
    Aqueduct. Paragraph (1) directs the Secretary to transfer,
    within two years after the date of enactment of this Act,
    without consideration and subject to terms and conditions
    deemed appropriate by the Secretary, all right title, and
    interest in the Washington Aqueduct, its real property,
    facilities, equipment, supplies, and personalty. The recipient
    is to be either a non-Federal public or private entity
    established pursuant to subsection (a) or, if such an entity
    has not been established, to a non-Federal public or private
    entity selected by the Secretary and reflecting, to the extent
    possible, a consensus among the non-Federal public water supply
    customers. The Committee has included this provision to
    facilitate the establishment of a regional entity and the
    transfer of the Washington Aqueduct to a non-Federal entity by
    a date certain.
        Paragraph (2) provides criteria for selection of a
    transferee. Paragraph (3) describes the responsibilities to be
    assumed by the transferee.
        Paragraph (4) contains a limited exception to the two-year
    deadline in paragraph (1). The Secretary may provide a one-
    time, six-month extension if the Secretary determines that the
    non-Federal public water supply customers are making progress
    in establishing an entity pursuant to subsection (a) and that
    such an extension would likely result in the establishment of
    such an entity. The Committee believes that every effort should
    be made to avoid the need to use this extension.
        Subsection (d) provides interim borrowing authority to the
    Secretary for Fiscal Years 1997 and 1998 for carrying out
    certain capital improvements to assure continued operation of
    the Washington Aqueduct until transfer under subsection (c)
    takes place. The authorized amounts, however, may not exceed
    $16 million for Fiscal Year 1997 and $54 million for Fiscal
    Year 1998. In choosing these amounts, the Committee does not
    intend to endorse any particular capital improvement project or
    projects. In fact, many interests within the user jurisdictions
    have expressed concern about the expenditure of funds for a
    residuals/solids facility.
        Paragraph (2) of subsection (d) refers to various terms and
    conditions that attach to the borrowing authority, including
    the requirement that each of the non-Federal public water
    supply customers enter into a contractual agreement with the
    Secretary to repay its pro rata share of the costs associated
    with the borrowing.
        Paragraph (3) requires the Secretary, in consultation with
    others, to transmit to the authorizing Committees within six
    months after the enactment of this Act a report that assesses
    the impact of the borrowing authority on near-term improvement
    projects under the Washington Aqueduct Improvement Program,
    work scheduled during Fiscal Years 1997 and 1998, and the
    financial liability to be incurred.
        Subsection (e) defines ``Secretary,'' ``Washington
    Aqueduct,'' and ``non-Federal public water supply customers''
    for purposes of the section.

    Section 571: Huntington, West Virginia

        This section authorizes the Secretary to enter into a
    cooperative agreement with Marshall University to provide
    technical assistance to the Center for Environmental,
    Geotechnical and Applied Sciences.

    Section 572: Lower Mud River, West Virginia

        This section requires the Secretary to review the watershed
    plan and the Environmental Impact Statement prepared by the
    Natural Resources Conservation Service for the Lower Mud River
    and to carry out the project.

    Section 573: Evaluation of beach material

        This section requires the Secretary and the Secretary of
    the Interior to evaluate procedures and requirements used to
    select and approve materials to be used for beach restoration
    and nourishment, and transmit a report to Congress on their
    findings within 6 months of enactment. The Committee notes that
    this section does not modify or effect the duties of the
    Secretary of the Interior with respect to the disposition of
    sand, gravel and shell resources from the Outer Continental
    Shelf as described in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.

    Section 574: Sense of Congress regarding St. Lawrence Seaway tolls

        This Sense of Congress states that the President should
    work with Canada to eliminate tolls along the St. Lawrence
    Seaway system and to identify ways to maximize the movement of
    goods and commerce through the Seaway.

                   Hearings and Previous Legislative Activity

        The Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
    conducted four hearings on projects, programs and policies
    considered during the development of H.R. 3592: on February 7,
    1995; February 27 and 28, 1996; and March 21, 1996. During
    these hearings, testimony was received from over 90 witnesses,
    including Members of Congress, the Administration, project
    sponsors, national water resources development and
    environmental organizations, and state and local officials.
    During the 103rd Congress, the Committee on Public Works and
    Transportation conducted hearings as well, leading to passage
    of H.R. 4460, the ``Water Resources Development Act of 1994,''
    by the House of Representatives on October 3, 1994. The 103rd
    Congress adjourned, however, before final action could be taken
    on the bill. Numerous provisions contained in H.R. 4460 have
    been included, some in modified form, in H.R. 3592.

                            Committee Consideration

        On June 11, 1996, the Subcommittee on Water Resources and
    Environment approved by voice vote H.R. 3592, without
    amendment. On June 27, 1996, the Committee on Transportation
    and Infrastructure adopted several amendments by voice vote and
    ordered the bill reported by voice vote. Amendments so adopted
    included an en bloc amendment by Mr. Shuster making changes to
    provisions of the introduced bill, adding certain provisions,
    and making technical and clerical corrections; an amendment by
    Mr. Oberstar to authorize flood control improvements for the
    American River watershed, California; and an amendment by Mr.
    Ewing regarding levee improvements in St. Charles County,
    Missouri.
        Clause 2(l)(2)(B) of rule XI requires each committee report
    to include the total number of votes cast for and against on
    each rollcall vote on a motion to report any measure or matter
    of a public character, and on any amendment offered to the
    measure or matter, and the names of those members voting for
    and against.

                     Young Amendment on Auburn Dam (28-35)

        This amendment would authorize a detention dam on the
    American River near Sacramento, California, to be constructed
    by the Secretary of the Army, conversion of the dam to a multi-
    purpose reservoir by non-Federal interests, and other
    miscellaneous flood control facilities.
            AYES                          NAYS
    Bachus                              Boehlert
    Baker, CA                           Brown
    Baker, LA                           Clement
    Barcia                              Coble
    Bateman                             Collins
    Blute                               Costello
    Borski                              Cramer
    Brewster                            Cummings
    Clinger                             Danner
    Clyburn                             DeFazio
    Ewing                               Ehlers
    Fowler                              Filner
    Frisa                               Franks
    Geren                               Gilchrest
    Horn                                Johnson
    Hutchinson                          Kelly
    Kim                                 LaHood
    Lipinski                            Latham
    Menendez                            LaTourette
    Mica                                McCarthy
    Molinari                            Martini
    Norton                              Mascara
    Poshard                             Millender-McDonald
    Seastrand                           Nadler
    Tiahrt                              Oberstar
    Traficant                           Petri
    Young                               Quinn
    Shuster                             Rahall
                                        Sawyer
                                        Tate
                                        Taylor
                                        Wamp
                                        Weller
                                        Wise
                                        Zeliff

        The Committee, in compliance with clause 2(l) of rule XI of
    the Rules of the House of Representatives, reports favorably
    the bill, H.R. 3592, as amended.

                          Committee Oversight Findings

        Clause 2(l)(3)(A) of rule XI requires each committee report
    to contain oversight findings and recommendations required
    pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X. The Committee has no
    specific oversight findings.

     Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee on Government
                              Reform and Oversight

        Clause 2(l)(3)(D) of rule XI requires each committee report
    to contain a summary of the oversight findings and
    recommendations made by the Government Reform and Oversight
    Committee pursuant to clause 4(c)(2) of rule X, whenever such
    findings have been timely submitted. The Committee on
    Transportation and Infrastructure has received no findings and
    recommendations from the Committee on Government Reform and
    Oversight.

                            Committee Cost Estimate

        Clause 2(l)(3)(B) of rule XI requires each committee report
    that accompanies a measure providing new budget authority, new
    spending authority, or new credit authority or changing
    revenues or tax expenditures to contain a cost estimate, as
    required by section 308(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act
    of 1974 and, when practicable with respect to estimates of new
    budget authority, a comparison of the total estimated funding
    levels for the relevant program (or programs) to the
    appropriate levels under current law.
        Clause 7(a) of rule XIII requires committees to include
    their own cost estimates in certain committee reports, which
    include, where practicable, a comparison of the total estimated
    funding level for the relevant program (for programs) with the
    appropriate levels under current law.
        The Committee adopts as it own the cost estimate prepared
    by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, pursuant to
    section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

                     Congressional Budget Office Estimates

        Clause 2(l)(3)(C) of rule XI requires each committee report
    to include a cost estimate prepared by the Director of the
    Congressional Budget Office, pursuant to section 403 of the
    Congressional Budget Act of 1974, if the cost estimate is
    timely submitted. The following is the Congressional Budget
    Office cost estimate.

                                         U.S. Congress,
                                   Congressional Budget Office,
                                         Washington, DC, July 18, 1996.
    Hon. Bud Shuster,
    Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of
            Representatives, Washington, DC.
        Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
    prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3592, the Water
    Resources Development Act of 1996.
        Enactment of H.R. 3592 would affect direct spending and
    receipts. Therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply to
    the bill.
        If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
    pleased to provide them.
                Sincerely,
                                                  James L. Blum
                                       (For June E. O'Neill, Director).
        Enclosure.

                   CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

        1. Bill number: H.R. 3592.
        2. Bill title: Water Resources Development Act of 1996.
        3. Bill status: As ordered reported by the House Committee
    on Transportation and Infrastructure on June 27, 1996.
        4. Bill purpose: Title I of the Water Resources Development
    Act (WRDA) would authorize the Secretary of the Army, acting
    through the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), to construct 24
    major projects for flood control, port development, inland
    navigation, storm damage reduction, and environmental
    restoration and numerous smaller projects. Title II contains
    general provisions related to Corps operations. Title III would
    modify 74 existing projects and Title IV would authorize the
    Corps to carry out 31 studies. Title V would deauthorize
    portions of projects already authorized, reauthorize or extend
    the reauthorization for projects for which an authorization has
    or is expected to expire in the near future, and authorize new
    or amend existing projects and programs.
        Specific provisions in H.R. 3592 would authorize the
    Secretary of the Army to:
              accept and expend without appropriation funds from
            other federal agencies, states and nonfederal entities
            for engineering surveys and studies (section 212);
              lease space available in buildings for which funding
            construction or purchase was provided from the Corps of
            Engineers revolving fund (section 213);
              project information developed as a result of research
            and development activities (section 214);
              permit the use of dredged material disposal
            facilities by nonfederal entities, and impose fees to
            recover the costs associated with such use (section
            218);
              increase criminal penalties for damaging river and
            harbor improvements and obstructing the passage of
            vessels in navigable channels (section 219);
              forgive the unpaid balance, including interest, of
            the nonfederal cost-share of the hurricane damage
            prevention and flood control project at Lake
            Pontchartrain, Louisiana (section 329);
              conveys lands in California, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,
            and Washington (section 504);
              lower the cost of the annual pass for using
            recreation facilities at Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania,
            from $25 to $10 and evaluate alternatives to the $25
            annual pass at other recreation facilities operated by
            the Corps (section 515);
              extend the navigation season on a portion of the
            Missouri River by adjusting water flows from Corps
            facilities (section 545); and
              authorize borrowing authority in amounts sufficient
            to cover the full costs of modernizing the Washington
            Aqueduct (section 570).
        5. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: Assuming
    appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO estimates that
    enacting the bill would result in new discretionary spending
    totaling $3.6 billion for fiscal years 1997 through 2002, as
    shown in Table 1. Under existing law, CBO estimates that the
    Corps will spend roughly $2.5 billion in fiscal year 1996 on
    construction, operation, and maintenance of projects that
    already have been authorized.

                                   TABLE 1.--ESTIMATED BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF H.R. 3592
                                        [By fiscal years, in millions of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  1997     1998     1999     2000     2001     2002
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Authorizations of Appropriations:
        Estimated authorization level.........................      713      893      734      575      501      340
        Estimated outlays.....................................      387      789      796      654      542      415
    Direct Spending:
        Estimated budget authority............................  .......      (1)      (1)      (1)      (1)      (1)
        Estimated outlays.....................................  .......      (1)      (1)      (1)      (1)      (1)
    Revenues:
        Estimated Revenues....................................      (1)      (1)      (1)      (1)      (1)     (1)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1 Less than $500,000.

        The cost of this bill fall within budget function 300.
        In addition to the amounts shown above, CBO estimates that
    the Corps would spend approximately $0.3 billion after 2002 to
    complete construction of the projects authorized by the bill.
    These amounts would be subject to appropriation, as are the
    1997-2002 amounts. The Corps would incur additional expenses in
    all years for operating and maintaining projects and for other
    activities that are authorized indefinitely under the bill.
    However, the Corps could not provide us with the data necessary
    to estimate these costs.
        CBO estimates that several provisions of H.R. 3592 would
    increase direct spending. For most of those provisions, we
    estimate that the increase in direct spending would total less
    than $500,000 a year over the 1997-2002 period. However,
    additional increases likely would occur from a provision that
    changes the Corps' management of water flows in the Missouri
    River. At this time, CBO is unable to estimate the effect of
    this provision on direct spending. Enacting the bill also would
    increase revenues by less than $500,000 a year over the 1997-
    2002 period. Finally, enacting the bill could result in the
    sale of certain federal lands, but we cannot estimate whether
    such lands would be sold, or the amounts of receipts from any
    land sales.
        6. Basis of estimate: For purposes of this estimate, CBO
    assumes that the amounts authorized will be appropriated. Where
    specific amounts are not authorized in the bill, we have used
    estimates of project costs provided to us by the Corps. In all
    cases, CBO adjusted the estimates to reflect the impact of
    inflation during the time between authorization, appropriation,
    and the beginning of construction. Outlays are estimated based
    on historical spending rates for each type of project.
        CBO did not estimate the cost of reauthorizing or extending
    the authorization for projects for which an authorization has
    or is expected to expire in the near future. The Corps was
    unable to provide current estimates of these project costs. The
    estimate also does not include any potential savings for the
    bill's deauthorization of funding for maintenance or additional
    construction on existing projects. The Corps does not currently
    maintain most of these projects and there are no plans for the
    Corps to conduct maintenance or begin additional construction.

    Title I--Project authorizations

        We assume that all projects authorized will be constructed.
    Some of the projects authorized in this title are still in the
    study or design phase and will not be ready to begin
    construction for a number of years. Although many projects in
    this bill would be subject to sunset provisions, we assume that
    all projects authorized and subject to these provisions would
    receive at least some funding within the stipulated periods.
    Estimates of annual budget authority needed to meet design and
    construction schedules were provided by the Corps.
        As shown in Table 2, CBO estimates that enacting Title I
    would result in discretionary spending totaling about $1.2
    billion over the 1997-2002 period, assuming appropriation of
    the necessary funds.

                                    TABLE 2.--ESTIMATED BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF TITLE I
                                        [By fiscal years, in millions of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  1997     1998     1999     2000     2001     2002
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Authorizations:
        Estimated authorization level.........................      100      231      280      271      238      212
        Estimated outlays.....................................       54      165      255      273      254      224
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In addition, CBO estimates that the Corps would spend about
    $0.2 billion after 2002 to complete construction of these
    projects.

    Title II--Generally applicable provisions

        This title would authorize appropriations for reducing
    storm damage, operations and maintenance, and other activities.
    This title also would change certain financial practices
    related to cost sharing, research and development, and the
    operation and maintenance of projects. CBO estimates that
    enacting this title would result in new discretionary spending
    totaling $0.5 billion over the 1997-2002 period, as shown in
    Table 3.

                                    TABLE 3.--ESTIMATED BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF TITLE II
                                        [By fiscal years, in millions of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  1997     1998     1999     2000     2001     2002
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Authorizations:
        Estimated authorization level.........................       97      102       99      103      107       79
        Estimated outlays.....................................       54       96      100      101      105       91
    Direct Spending:
        Estimated budget authority............................    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)
        Estimated outlays.....................................    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)
    Revenues:
        Estimated revenues....................................    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Less than $500,000.

        Discretionary outlays of approximately $0.2 billion would
    occur after 2002.
        Enacting Title II also would affect revenues and direct
    spending. Additional revenues of less than $500,000 a year
    would accrue from increased royalties and criminal penalties
    pursuant to sections 214 and 219 of the bill. Additional
    offsetting collections of less than $500,000 a year would
    accrue from sections 212, 213, and 218. These sections would
    authorize the Secretary to accept donations from nonfederal
    entities for certain types of studies, to lease space available
    in buildings operated by the Corps, and to impose fees on
    nonfederal entities for disposing of dredged material at sites
    operated by the Corps. Finally, CBO estimates additional direct
    spending of less than $500,000 a year from a portion of the
    revenues and offsetting collections received under this title.
        Section 214 would allow the Secretary to protect certain
    information acquired through research and development
    activities. This protection may allow the Corps to develop and
    earn additional royalties on future patents. All royalties
    would be treated as revenues. A portion of them would be
    deposited in the Treasury and other amounts would be provided
    to the Corps for spending without appropriation. CBO estimates
    that future increases in royalties would total less than
    $500,000 a year beginning in 2000 and that direct spending of
    the Corps' share of these amounts would occur with a one-year
    lag.
        Section 219 would increase criminal penalties for damaging
    river and harbor improvements and obstructing the passage of
    vessels in navigable channels. The expansion of criminal
    penalties could cause governmental receipts to increase, but
    CBO estimates that any such increase would be less than
    $500,000 annually. Criminal fines would be deposited in the
    Crime Victims Fund and could be spent without appropriation.
    CBO estimates that direct spending from the fund would match
    the increase in revenues with a one-year lag.
        Sections 212 and 213 would authorize the Secretary of the
    Army to accept funds from states and nonfederal entities for
    engineering surveys and studies and to lease space available in
    buildings operated by the Corps. These payments would be
    treated as offsetting collections and could be spent without
    appropriations. CBO estimates that these payments would total
    less than $500,000 a year beginning in 1997 and that direct
    spending of these amounts would match the increase in payments
    with a one-year lag.
        Section 218 would permit the use by nonfederal entities of
    all disposal facilities for dredged material operated by the
    Corps and allow the Secretary to collect fees for recovering
    the costs associated with such use. These fees could not be
    spent without appropriation. CBO estimates that these fees will
    total less than $500,000 a year beginning in fiscal year 1997.

    Title III--Project modifications

        Title III would authorize the Corps to modify existing
    projects and begin new activities at various locations around
    the country. CBO estimates that enacting this title would
    result in new discretionary spending totaling $0.7 billion over
    the 1997-2002 period, assuming appropriation of the authorized
    amounts. Table 4 summarizes the estimated budgetary effects of
    Title III.

                                   TABLE 4.--ESTIMATED BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF TITLE III
                                        [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  1997     1998     1999     2000     2001     2002
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Authorizations:
        Estimated authorization level.........................      265      226      128       74       50       42
        Estimated outlays.....................................      140      238      172      104       63       44
    Direct spending:
        Estimated budget authority............................    (\1\)  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......
        Estimated outlays.....................................    (\1\)  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Less than $500,000.

        CBO estimates that discretionary outlays of about $70
    million would occur after 2002, primarily to complete
    construction of projects authorized under this title.
        Section 329 of this title would direct the Secretary to
    forgive the unpaid balance, including interest, of the
    nonfederal cost-share of the hurricane damage prevention and
    flood control project at Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana. The
    Corps indicates that the unpaid balance of roughly $8 million
    has been due since the mid-1980s. Because it is unlikely that
    the government would ever receive this amount under current
    law, CBO estimates no loss of receipts from forgiving the debt.

    Title IV--Studies

        Title IV would authorize the Corps to conduct studies of
    new and existing projects. CBO estimates that enacting this
    title would result in new discretionary spending totaling $21
    million over the 1997-2002 period, assuming appropriations of
    the authorized amounts. Table 5 summarizes the estimated
    budgetary effects of Title IV.

                                    TABLE 5--ESTIMATED BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF TITLE IV
                                        [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  1997     1998     1999     2000     2001     2002
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Authorization:
        Estimated authorization level.........................        9        9        3        1  .......  .......
        Estimated outlays.....................................        5        9        5        1    (\1\)  .......
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Less than $500,000.

    Title V--Miscellaneous provisions

        Title V would deauthorize portions of projects already
    authorized, reauthorize or extend the authorization for
    projects for which an authorization has or is expected to
    expire in the near future, authorize new projects, and amend
    existing projects and programs. CBO estimates that enactment of
    this title would result in new discretionary spending totaling
    about $1 billion over the 1997-2002 period, assuming
    appropriation of the authorized amounts. We also estimate that
    this title would increase direct spending, but the increase
    from provisions which we can estimate at this time would be
    less than $500,000 annually. Table 6 summarizes the estimated
    budgetary effects of Title V.

                                    TABLE 6.--ESTIMATED BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF TITLE V
                                        [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  1997     1998     1999     2000     2001     2002
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Authorizations:
        Estimated authorization level.........................      242      326      224      126      106        8
        Estimated outlays.....................................      134      281      263      174      119       56
    Direct spending (section 545):
        Estimated budget authority............................    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)
        Estimated outlays.....................................    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)
    Direct spending (other sections):
        Estimated budget authority............................    (\2\)    (\2\)    (\2\)    (\2\)    (\2\)    (\2\)
        Estimated outlays.....................................    (\2\)    (\2\)    (\2\)    (\2\)    (\2\)    (\2\)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (\1\) Cannot be estimated.
    (\2\) Less than $500,000.

        CBO estimates that discretionary outlays of $0.1 billion
    would occur after 2002, primarily to complete construction of
    projects authorized under this title.
        Section 570 of Title V would authorize the Corps of
    Engineers to borrow $70 million from the Treasury to pay for
    capital improvements on the Washington Aqueduct, subject to
    appropriation of the necessary sums. The borrowing authority
    would not be provided to the Corps until the agency enters into
    a series of contracts with the three localities that receive
    water from the aqueduct to repay their respective shares of the
    principal and interest owed to the Treasury. CBO believes that
    this transaction--the spending of federal funds to modernize
    the aqueduct, to be repaid with interest by the localities--
    would represent authority to make a federal loan to the
    localities. In effect, the three localities would borrow money
    from the Treasury to pay for modernizing the aqueduct. Such a
    loan would be subject to the credit reform provisions of the
    Congressional Budget Act. Credit reform requires that the
    subsidy cost of any loan--estimated as a net present value--be
    recorded as an outlay in the year that the loan is disbursed.
    Since the bill does not stipulate the terms by which the three
    localities would have to pay back the loan, CBO estimates the
    cost of the provision at $70 million, the full principal amount
    of the loan.
        Enacting Title V also would affect direct spending. CBO
    estimates that receipts from recreational facilities at
    Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania, would decline by less than
    $500,000 a year beginning in 1997 pursuant to Section 515,
    which would direct the Secretary to lower the cost of an annual
    pass for visiting these facilities. Additional asset sale
    receipts could be collected pursuant to Section 504, which
    would direct the Secretary to Convey lands in California, Ohio,
    Oregon, Oklahoma, and Washington. Based on information provided
    by the Corps, however, many of these lands would likely be
    conveyed for recreational purposes and would therefore not
    require payment.
        Section 545, which directs the Secretary to extend the
    navigation season on a portion of the Missouri River by
    adjusting water flows, would likely result in a loss of
    receipts from hydropower facilities in that area. Actual
    receipts from these facilities vary depending on water flows
    and other factors and losses would be unmeasurable in certain
    years. However, the Corps was unable to provide CBO with an
    estimate at this time of any of the potential losses.
        7. Pay-as-you-go considerations: Section 252 of the
    Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 sets
    up pay-as-you-go procedures for legislation affecting direct
    spending or receipts through 1998. CBO estimates that enacting
    H.R. 3592 would affect both direct spending and receipts. We
    are unable to provide an estimate at this time for the
    provisions contained in section 545 that would increase direct
    spending by resulting in a loss of offsetting receipts from
    hydropower facilities on or related to Missouri River water
    flows. CBO estimates that all other provisions affecting direct
    spending would increase outlays by a total of less than
    $500,000 a year for fiscal years 1997 and 1998.
        Additional revenues of less than $500,000 a year would
    accrue from increased royalties and criminal penalties pursuant
    to section 214 and 219 of the bill; however, receipts from the
    former would not accrue until after 1998.
        The following table summarizes CBO's estimate of the pay-
    as-you-go impact of H.R. 3592.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     1996     1997     1998
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Change in outlays \1\........................        0        0        0
    Change in receipts...........................        0        0        0
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Additional amounts likely would occur from a provision that changes
      the Corps' management of water flows in the Missouri River, but CBO
      cannot estimate the effect of this provision on direct spending at
      this time.

        8. Impact on State, local, and tribal governments: H.R.
    3592 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined by the
    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). State
    and local governments that choose to participate in water
    resource development projects and programs carried out by the
    Corps would incur costs as described below.

    Authorizations of new projects

        CBO estimates that nonfederal entities (primarily state and
    local governments) who choose to participate in the new
    projects authorized by this bill would spend about $1.1 billion
    in 1996 dollars to help construct these projects. We assume
    that they would incur most of these costs in fiscal years 1997
    through 2003. These estimates are based on information provided
    by the Corps. In addition to these costs, nonfederal entities
    would pay for the operation and maintenance of many of the
    projects after they are constructed.

    Changes in cost-sharing policies

        H.R. 3592 would make a number of changes to federal laws
    that specify the share of water resources project costs borne
    by state and local governments. Section 201 would change
    federal law regarding the disposal on land of sediments dredged
    from ports and harbors. The bill would apply the existing cost-
    sharing ratio for harbor construction to new facilities
    necessary for disposing of dredged materials. Currently, the
    cost-sharing arrangements for these disposal facilities varies
    depending on when projects were authorized. In some cases,
    state and local governments must pay the entire cost of
    constructing disposal facilities. Based on information provided
    by the Corps, CBO estimates that this change would result in
    annual savings to state and local governments of about $10
    million.
        Section 202 would increase the minimum share of the cost of
    new flood-control projects that non-federal entities must pay
    from 25 percent to 35 percent. It would also create new
    conditions of aid for state or local governments that choose to
    participate in building new projects for flood-control,
    hurricane damage reduction, or storm damage reduction. To get
    federal assistance for these projects, governments would have
    to agree to participate in applicable federal flood plain
    management and flood insurance programs. They would also have
    to develop flood plain management plans based on Corps
    guidelines. CBO cannot estimate the amount of additional state
    and local spending that would result from this change.
        Section 202 would also alter the Corps' procedures for
    determining a community's ability to pay its share of the cost
    of a federal water project. Under current law, the Corps may
    reduce the cost-sharing requirement for poor communities.
    According to Corps officials, this change would make it easier
    for poor communities to qualify for more favorable cost-sharing
    arrangements with the federal government.

    Increase in existing authorizations

        Several sections of H.R. 3592 would increase amounts the
    federal government is authorized to provide for certain water
    resources programs and projects that are not specifically
    designated in law. In total, this additional federal spending--
    $27 million, annually--would have to be matched by the same
    amount of state and local spending. Specifically, the bill
    would authorize total additional annual federal spending of $20
    million for environmental dredging, $4 million for state
    planning assistance and $3 million for aquatic plant control.
    Each of the programs requires an identical amount of nonfederal
    matching funds.

    New programs

        In addition to funds authorized for designated projects,
    H.R. 3592 would authorize appropriations for two new programs
    that would assist state and local governments. Specifically,
    the bill would authorize annual appropriations of $25 million
    for the Corps to restore and protect aquatic ecosystems. State
    and local governments choosing to participate would have to
    provide 50 percent of construction costs--another $25 million
    per year--and would have to agree to pay all subsequent
    operation and maintenance costs.
        The bill would also direct Federal Emergency Management
    Agency (FEMA) to establish a national dam safety program. One
    of the objectives of the new program would be to encourage
    states to establish their own dam safety programs based on
    state standards. The bill would direct FEMA to develop a grant
    program to assist states in this effort. The bill would
    authorize appropriations totaling $15 million for fiscal years
    1997 through 2001 for this assistance. Federal aid would be
    limited to no more than 50 percent of the reasonable cost of
    implementing an approved dam safety program in each state, so
    states would be required to contribute another $15 million over
    that period. The bill also would authorize appropriations
    totaling $2.5 million over the same period for FEMA to provide
    training for state dam safety staff and inspectors.

    Washington Aqueduct

        H.R. 3592 would allow the District of Columbia, Arlington
    County, Virginia, and Falls Church, Virginia, to enter into
    agreements to take title to the Washington Aqueduct and to
    reimburse the federal government for expenses incurred by the
    Corps to modernize the facility. The bill would authorize the
    Corps to borrow from the Treasury and spend $70 million over
    fiscal years 1997 and 1998 for such activities, subject to
    appropriation action. The terms of the repayment by the
    localities are subject to negotiation. The three localities
    would likely raise the necessary funds through increased water
    rates charged to their customers. Their respective shares of
    the costs would be roughly as follows: District of Columbia (75
    percent); Arlington County (15 percent); and Falls Church (10
    percent).
        9. Impact on the private sector: This bill would impose no
    new private-sector mandates as defined in Public Law 104-4.
        10. Previous CBO estimate: None.
        11. Estimate prepared by: Federal Cost Estimate: Gary
    Brown. Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Marjorie
    Miller. Impact on the Private Sector: Amy Downs.
        12. Estimate approved by: Paul N. Van de Water, Assistant
    Director for Budget Analysis.

                         Inflationary Impact Statement

        Clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI requires each committee report on
    a bill or joint resolution of a public character to include an
    analytical statement describing what impact enactment of the
    measure would have on prices and costs in the operation of the
    national economy. The Committee has determined that H.R. 3592
    has no inflationary impact on the national economy.

             Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

      In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of the
    House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the
    bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed
    to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is
    printed in italics, existing law in which no change is proposed
    is shown in roman):

                    WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1986

              * * * * * * *

                             TITLE I--COST SHARING

    SEC. 101. HARBORS.

        (a) Construction.--
              (1) * * *
              (2) Additional 10 percent payment over 30 years.--The
            non-Federal interests for a project to which paragraph
            (1) applies shall pay an additional 10 percent of the
            cost of the general navigation features of the project
            in cash over a period not to exceed 30 years, at an
            interest rate determined pursuant to section 106. [The
            value of lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations,
            and dredged material disposal areas provided under
            paragraph (3) and the costs of relocations borne by the
            non-Federal interests under paragraph (4) shall be
            credited toward the payment required under this
            paragraph.] The value of lands, easements, rights-of-
            way, and relocations provided under paragraph (3) and
            the costs of relocations borne by the non-Federal
            interests under paragraph (4) shall be credited toward
            the payment required under this paragraph.
              (3) Lands, easements, and rights-of-way.--Except as
            provided under section 906(c), the non-Federal
            interests for a project to which paragraph (1) applies
            shall provide the lands, easements, rights-of-way, and
            relocations (other than utility relocations under
            paragraph (4))[, and dredged material disposal areas]
            necessary for the project, including any lands,
            easements, rights-of-way, and relocations (other than
            utility relocations accomplished under paragraph (4))
            that are necessary for dredged material disposal
            facilities.
              * * * * * * *
              (5) Dredged material disposal facilities for project
            construction.--For purposes of this subsection, the
            term `general navigation features' includes constructed
            land-based and aquatic dredged material disposal
            facilities that are necessary for the disposal of
            dredged material and for project construction and for
            which a contract for construction has not been awarded
            on or before the date of the enactment of this
            paragraph.
        (b) Operation and Maintenance.--
              (1) In general.--The Federal share of the cost of
            operation and maintenance of each navigation project
            for a harbor or inland harbor constructed [pursuant to
            this Act] by the Secretary pursuant to this Act or any
            other law approved after the date of the enactment of
            this Act shall be 100 percent, except that in the case
            of a deep-draft harbor, the non-Federal interests shall
            be responsible for an amount equal to 50 percent of the
            excess of the cost of the operation and maintenance of
            such project over the cost which the Secertary
            determines would be incurred for operation and
            maintenance of such project if such project had a depth
            of 45 feet.
              (2) Dredged material disposal facilities.--The
            Federal share of the cost of constructing land-based
            and aquatic dredged material disposal facilities that
            are necessary for the disposal of dredged material
            required for the operation and maintenance of a project
            and for which a contract for construction has not been
            awarded on or before the date of the enactment of this
            paragraph shall be determined in accordance with
            subsection (a). The Federal share of operating and
            maintaining such facilities shall be determined in
            accordance with paragraph (1).
              * * * * * * *
        (e) Agreement.--Before initiation of construction of a
    project to which this section applies, the Secertary and the
    non-Federal interests shall enter into a cooperative agreement
    according to the provisions of section 221 of the Flood Control
    Act of 1970. The non-Federal interests shall agree to--
              (1) provide to the Federal Government lands,
            easements, and rights-of-way, [and to provide dredged
            material disposal areas and perform] including those
            necessary for dredged material disposal facilities, and
            to perform the necessary relocations required or
            construction, operation, and maintenance of such
            project;
              * * * * * * *
      (f) Consideration of Funding Requirements and Equitable
    Apportionment.--The Secretary shall ensure, to the extent
    practicable, that funding necessary for operation and
    maintenance dredging of commercial navigation harbors is
    provided before Federal funds are obligated for payment of the
    Federal share of costs associated with construction of dredged
    material disposal facilities in accordance with subsections (a)
    and (b) and that funds expended for such construction are
    equitably apportioned in accordance with regional needs.
              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 103. FLOOD CONTROL AND OTHER PURPOSES.

        (a) Flood Control.--
              (1) * * *
              (2) [25] 35 percent minimum contribution.--If the
            value of the contributions required under paragraph (1)
            of this subsection is less than [25] 35 percent of the
            cost of the project assigned to flood control, the non-
            Federal interest shall pay during construction of the
            project such additional amounts as are necessary so
            that the total contribution of the non-Federal
            interests under this subsection is equal to [25] 35
            percent of the cost of the project assigned to flood
            control.
              * * * * * * *
        (b) Nonstructural Flood Control Projects.--The non-Federal
    share of the cost of nonstructural flood control measures shall
    be [25] 35 percent of the cost of such measures. The non-
    Federal interests for any such measures shall be required to
    provide all lands, easements, rights-of-way, dredged material
    disposal areas, and relocations necessary for the project, but
    shall not be required to contribute any amount in cash during
    construction of the project.
        (c) Other Purposes.--The non-Federal share of the cost
    assigned to other project purposes shall be as follows:
              (1) * * *
              * * * * * * *
              (5) hurricane and storm damage reduction: 35 percent;
            [and]
              (6) aquatic plant control: 50 percent of control
            operations[.]; and
              (7) subject to section 906 of this Act, environmental
            protection and restoration: 50 percent.
              * * * * * * *
      [(m) Ability To Pay.--Any cost-sharing agreement under this
    section for flood control or agricultural water supply shall be
    subject to the ability of a non-Federal interest to pay. The
    ability of any non-Federal interest to pay shall be determined
    by the Secretary in accordance with procedures established by
    the Secretary.]
      (m) Ability To Pay.--
              (1) In general.--Any cost-sharing agreement under
            this section for flood control or agricultural water
            supply shall be subject to the ability of a non-Federal
            interest to pay.
              (2) Criteria and procedures.--The ability of any non-
            Federal interest to pay shall be determined by the
            Secretary in accordance with criteria and procedures in
            effect on the day before the date of the enactment of
            the Water Resources Development Act of 1996; except
            that such criteria and procedures shall be revised
            within 6 months after the date of such enactment to
            reflect the requirements of paragraph (3).
              (3) Revision of procedures.--In revising procedures
            pursuant to paragraph (1), the Secretary--
                      (A) shall consider--
                              (i) per capita income data for the
                            county or counties in which the project
                            is to be located; and
                              (ii) the per capita non-Federal cost
                            of construction of the project for the
                            county or counties in which the project
                            is to be located;
                      (B) shall not consider criteria (other than
                    criteria described in subparagraph (A)) in
                    effect on the day before the date of the
                    enactment of the Water Resources Development
                    Act of 1996; and
                      (C) may consider additional criteria relating
                    to the non-Federal interest's financial ability
                    to carry out its cost-sharing responsibilities,
                    to the extent that the application of such
                    criteria does not eliminate areas from
                    eligibility for a reduction in the non-Federal
                    share as determined under subparagraph (A).
              (4) Non-federal share.--Notwithstanding subsection
            (a), the Secretary shall reduce or eliminate the
            requirement that a non-Federal interest make a cash
            contribution for any project that is determined to be
            eligible for a reduction in the non-Federal share under
            procedures in effect under paragraphs (1), (2), and
            (3).
              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 105. FEASIBILITY STUDIES; PLANNING, ENGINEERING, AND DESIGN.

        (a) Feasibility Studies.--(1) The Secretary shall not
    initiate any feasibility study for a water resources project
    after the date of enactment of this Act until appropriate non-
    Federal interests agree, by contract, to contribute 50 percent
    of the cost for such study [during the period of such study].
    During the period of the study, the non-Federal share of the
    cost of the study shall be not more than 50 percent of the
    estimate of the cost of the study as contained in the
    feasibility cost-sharing agreement. The cost estimate may be
    amended only by mutual agreement of the Secretary and the non-
    Federal interests. The non-Federal share of any costs in excess
    of the cost estimate shall, except as otherwise mutually agreed
    by the Secretary and the non-Federal interests, be payable
    after the project has been authorized for construction and on
    the date on which the Secretary and non-Federal interests enter
    into an agreement pursuant to section 101(e) or 103(j). In the
    event the project which is the subject of the study is not
    authorized within the earlier of 5 years of the date of the
    final report of the Chief of Engineers concerning such study or
    2 years of the date of termination of the study, the non-
    Federal share of any such excess costs shall be paid to the
    United States on the last day of such period. Not more than
    one-half of [such non-Federal contribution] the non-Federal
    share required under this paragraph may be made by the
    provision of services, materials, supplies, or other in-kind
    services necessary to prepare the feasibility report.
              * * * * * * *

                          TITLE II--HARBOR DEVELOPMENT

    SEC. 201. DEEP-DRAFT HARBOR PROJECTS.

      (a) Authorization of Construction.--The following projects
    for harbors are authorized to be prosecuted by the Secretary
    substantially in accordance with the plans and subject to the
    conditions recommended in the respective reports designated in
    this subsection, except as otherwise provided in this
    subsection:

                             mobile harbor, alabama

      The project for navigation, Mobile Harbor, Alabama: Report of
    the Chief of Engineers, dated November 18, 1981, at a total
    cost of $451,000,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of
    $255,000,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of
    $196,000,000[; except that if non-Federal interests construct a
    bulk material transshipment facility in lower Mobile Bay, the
    Secretary, upon request of such non-Federal interests, may
    limit construction of such project from the Gulf of Mexico to
    such facility and except that, for reasons of environmental
    quality, dredged material from such project shall be disposed
    of in open water in the Gulf of Mexico in accordance with all
    provisions of Federal law. Notwithstanding any other provision
    of law, no dredged or fill material shall be disposed of in the
    Brookley disposal area, referred to in such report of the Chief
    of Engineers.]. In disposing of dredged material from such
    project, the Secretary, after compliance with applicable laws
    and after opportunity for public review and comment, may
    consider alternatives to disposal of such material in the Gulf
    of Mexico, including environmentally acceptable alternatives
    for beneficial uses of dredged material and environmental
    restoration.
              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 210. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

      [(a) Trust Fund.--]There are authorized to be appropriated
    out of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, established by
    section 9505 of the Internal Revenue Code of [1954] 1986, for
    each fiscal year such sums as may be necessary to pay--
              (1) 100 percent of the eligible operations and
            maintenance costs of those portions of the Saint
            Lawrence Seaway operated and maintained by the Saint
            Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation for such fiscal
            year; and
              (2) up to 100 percent of the eligible operations and
            maintenance costs assigned to commercial navigation of
            all harbors and inland harbors within the United
            States.
      [(b) General Fund.--There are authorized to be appropriated
    out of the general fund of the Treasury of the United States
    for each fiscal year such sums as may be necessary to pay the
    balance of all eligible operations and maintenance costs not
    provided by payments from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
    under this section.]
              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 214. DEFINITIONS.

      For purposes of this title--
              (1) Deep-draft harbor.--The term ``deep-draft
            harbor'' means a harbor which is authorized to be
            constructed to a depth of more than 45 feet (other than
            a project which is authorized by section 202 of this
            title).
              (2) Eligible operations and maintenance.--(A) Except
            as provided in subparagraph (B), the term ``eligible
            operations and maintenance'' means all Federal
            operations, maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation,
            including (i) maintenance dredging reasonably necessary
            to maintain the width and nominal depth of any harbor
            or inland harbor; (ii) the construction of dredged
            material disposal facilities that are necessary for the
            operation and maintenance of any harbor or inland
            harbor; (iii) dredging and disposing of contaminated
            sediments which are in or which affect the maintenance
            of Federal navigation channels; (iv) mitigating for
            impacts resulting from Federal navigation operation and
            maintenance activities; and (v) operating and
            maintaining dredged material disposal facilities.
              * * * * * * *

                            TITLE IV--FLOOD CONTROL

              * * * * * * *

    [SEC. 402. COMPLIANCE WITH FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT AND INSURANCE
                        PROGRAMS.

      [Before construction of any project for local flood
    protection or any project for hurricane or storm damage
    reduction, the non-Federal interest shall agree to participate
    in and comply with applicable Federal flood plain management
    and flood insurance programs.]

    SEC. 402. FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS.

      (a) Compliance With Flood Plain Management and Insurance
    Programs.--Before construction of any project for local flood
    protection or any project for hurricane or storm damage
    reduction and involving Federal assistance from the Secretary,
    the non-Federal interest shall agree to participate in and
    comply with applicable Federal flood plain management and flood
    insurance programs.
      (b) Flood Plain Management Plans.--Within 1 year after the
    date of signing a project cooperation agreement for
    construction of a project to which subsection (a) applies, the
    non-Federal interest shall prepare a flood plain management
    plan designed to reduce the impacts of future flood events in
    the project area. Such plan shall be implemented by the non-
    Federal interest not later than 1 year after completion of
    construction of the project.
      (c) Guidelines.--
              (1) In general.--Within 6 months after the date of
            the enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall
            develop guidelines for preparation of flood plain
            management plans by non-Federal interests under
            subsection (b). Such guidelines shall address potential
            measures, practices and policies to reduce loss of
            life, injuries, damages to property and facilities,
            public expenditures, and other adverse impacts
            associated with flooding and to preserve and enhance
            natural flood plain values.
              (2) Limitation on statutory construction.--Nothing in
            this subsection shall be construed to confer any
            regulatory authority upon the Secretary.
      (d) Technical Support.--The Secretary is authorized to
    provide technical support to a non-Federal interest for a
    project to which subsection (a) applies for the development and
    implementation of plans prepared under subsection (b).
              * * * * * * *

             TITLE VI--WATER RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT

              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 602. LAKES PROGRAM.

      (a) Subject to section 903(a) of this Act, the Secretary
    shall carry out programs for the removal of silt, aquatic
    growth, and other material in the following lakes:
              (1) * * *
              * * * * * * *
              (10) Wappingers Lake, New York, for removal of silt
            and aquatic growth; [and]
              (11) Lake George, New York, for removal of silt and
            aquatic growth, stump removal, and the control of
            pollution[.];
              (12) Goodyear Lake, Otsego County, New York, removal
            of silt and aquatic growth;
              (13) Otsego Lake, Otsego County, New York, removal of
            silt and aquatic growth and measures to address high
            nutrient concentration;
              (14) Oneida Lake, Oneida County, New York, removal of
            silt and aquatic growth;
              (15) Skaneateles and Owasco Lakes, New York, removal
            of silt and aquatic growth and prevention of sediment
            deposit; and
              (16) Twin Lakes, Paris, Illinois, removal of silt and
            excess aquatic vegetation, including measures to
            address excessive sedimentation, high nutrient
            concentration, and shoreline erosion.
              * * * * * * *

                       TITLE VII--WATER RESOURCES STUDIES

              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 704. STUDY OF CORPS CAPABILITY TO CONSERVE FISH AND WILDLIFE.

      (a) * * *
      (b) The Secretary is further authorized to conduct projects
    of alternative or beneficially modified habitats for fish and
    wildlife, including but not limited to man-made reefs for fish.
    There is authorized to be appropriated not to exceed
    [$5,000,000] $10,000,000 to carry out such projects. Such
    projects shall be developed, and their effectiveness evaluated,
    in consultation with the Director of the Fish and Wildlife
    Service and the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries of the
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Such projects
    shall include--
              (1) the construction of a reef for fish habitat in
            Lake Erie in the vicinity of Buffalo, New York;
              (2) the construction of a reef for fish habitat in
            the Atlantic Ocean in the vicinity of Fort Lauderdale,
            Florida;
              (3) the construction of a reef for fish habitat in
            Lake Ontario in the vicinity of the town of Newfane,
            New York; and
              (4) the construction of a reef for fish habitat in
            the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland and Virginia.
    The non-Federal share of the cost of any project under this
    section shall be 25 percent.
              * * * * * * *

                       TITLE VIII--PROJECT MODIFICATIONS

              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 840. JACKSON HOLE SNAKE RIVER, WYOMING.

      The project for Jackson Hole Snake River local protection and
    levees, Wyoming, authorized by the River and Harbors Act of
    1950 (Public Law 81-516), is modified to provide that the
    operation and maintenance of the project, and additions and
    modifications thereto constructed by non-Federal sponsors,
    shall be the responsibility of the Secretary[: Provided, That];
    except that non-Federal sponsors shall pay the initial $35,000
    [in cash or materials], through providing in-kind services or
    cash or materials, of any such cost expended in any one year,
    plus inflation as of the date of enactment of this Act. In
    carrying out this section, the Secretary may enter into
    agreements with the non-Federal sponsor permitting the non-
    Federal sponsor to perform operation and maintenance for the
    project on a cost-reimbursable basis.
              * * * * * * *

                          TITLE IX--GENERAL PROVISIONS

              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 904. MATTERS TO BE ADDRESSED IN PLANNING.

        Enhancing national economic development (including benefits
    to particular regions of the Nation not involving the transfer
    of economic activity to such regions from other regions), the
    quality of the total environment (including preservation and
    enhancement of the environment), the well-being of the people
    of the United States, the prevention of loss of life, and the
    preservation of cultural and historical values shall be
    addressed in the formulation and evaluation of water resources
    projects to be carried out by the Secretary, and the associated
    benefits and costs, including the loss of life which may be
    associated with flooding and coastal storm events, both
    quantifiable and unquantifiable, shall be displayed in the
    benefits and costs of such projects.
              * * * * * * *

                       TITLE X--PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS

      Sec. 1001. (a) * * *
      (b)(1) * * *
      (2) Every two years after the transmittal of the list under
    paragraph (1), the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a list
    of projects or separable elements of projects which have been
    authorized, but have received no obligations during the 10 full
    fiscal years preceding the transmittal of such list. [Before]
    Upon submission of such list to Congress, the Secretary shall
    notify each Senator in whose State, and each Member of the
    House of Representatives in whose district, a project
    (including any part thereof) on such list would be located. A
    project or separable element included in such list is not
    authorized after the date which is 30 months after the date the
    list is so transmitted if funds have not been obligated for
    planning, designing, or construction of such project or element
    during such 30-month period.
              * * * * * * *

                 TITLE XI--MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS

              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 1135. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF ENVIRONMENT.

      (a) The Secretary is authorized to review [the operation of]
    water resources projects constructed by the Secretary to
    determine the need for modifications in the structures and
    operations of such projects for the purpose of improving the
    quality of the environment in the public interest and to
    determine if the operation of such projects has contributed to
    the degradation of the quality of the environment.
      (b) The Secretary is authorized to carry out a program for
    the purpose of making such modifications in the structures and
    operations of water resources projects constructed by the
    Secretary which the Secretary determines (1) are feasible and
    consistent with the authorized project purposes, and (2) will
    improve the quality of the environment in the public interest.
    [The non-Federal share of the cost of any modifications carried
    out under this section shall be 25 percent. No modification
    shall be carried out under this section without specific
    authorization by Congress if the estimated cost exceeds
    $5,000,000.]
      (c) Restoration of Environmental Quality.--If the Secretary
    determines that construction of a water resource project by the
    Secretary or operation of a water resources project constructed
    by the Secretary has contributed to the degradation of the
    quality of the environment, the Secretary may undertake
    measures for restoration of environmental quality and measures
    for enhancement of environmental quality that are associated
    with the restoration, either through modifications at the
    project site or at other locations that have been affected by
    the construction or operation of the project, if such measures
    do not conflict with the authorized project purposes.
      (d) Non-Federal Share; Limitation on Maximum Federal
    Expenditure.--The non-Federal share of the cost of any
    modifications or measures carried out or undertaken pursuant to
    subsection (b) or (c) of this section shall be 25 percent. Not
    more than 80 percent of the non-Federal share may be in kind,
    including a facility, supply, or service that is necessary to
    carry out the modification. No more than $5,000,000 in Federal
    funds may be expended on any single modification or measure
    carried out or undertaken pursuant to this section.
      [(c)] (e) The Secretary shall coordinate any actions taken
    pursuant to this section with appropriate Federal, State, and
    local agencies.
      [(d)] (f) Biennial Report.--Beginning in 1992 and every 2
    years thereafter, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a
    report on the results of reviews conducted under subsection (a)
    and on the [program conducted under subsection (b)] programs
    conducted under subsections (b) and (c).
      [(e)] (g) There is authorized to be appropriated not to
    exceed $25,000,000 annually to carry out this section.
      (h) Definition.--In this section the term ``water resources
    project constructed by the Secretary'' includes a water
    resources project constructed or funded jointly by the
    Secretary and the head of any other Federal agency (including
    the Natural Resources Conservation Service).
              * * * * * * *

    [SEC. 1148. PASSAIC RIVER BASIN.

      [Subject to section 903(a) of this Act, the Secretary is
    authorized to acquire from willing sellers lands on which
    residential structures are located, which lands are subject to
    frequent and recurring flood damage, within the area being
    studied pursuant to the Passaic River Basin flood control study
    authorized by section 101 of the Water Resources Development
    Act of 1976. Lands acquired by the Secretary under this section
    shall be retained by the Secretary for future use in
    conjunction with flood protection and flood management in the
    Passaic River Basin. There is authorized to be appropriated
    $50,000,000 to carry out this section. The non-Federal share of
    the cost of carrying out this section shall be 25 percent.]

    SEC. 1148. PASSAIC RIVER BASIN.

      (a) Acquisition of Lands.--The Secretary is authorized to
    acquire from willing sellers lands on which residential
    structures are located and which are subject to frequent and
    recurring flood damage, as identified in the supplemental
    floodway report of the Corps of Engineers, Passaic River Buyout
    Study, September 1995, at an estimated total cost of
    $194,000,000.
      (b) Retention of Lands for Flood Protection.--Lands acquired
    by the Secretary under this section shall be retained by the
    Secretary for future use in conjunction with flood protection
    and flood management in the Passaic River Basin.
      (c) Cost Sharing.--The non-Federal share of the cost of
    carrying out this section shall be 25 percent plus any amount
    that might result from application of the requirements of
    subsection (d).
      (d) Applicability of Benefit-Cost Ratio Waiver Authority.--In
    evaluating and implementing the project under this section, the
    Secretary shall allow the non-Federal interest to participate
    in financing of the project in accordance with section 903(c)
    of this Act, to the extent that the Secretary's evaluation
    indicates that applying such section is necessary to implement
    the project.
              * * * * * * *
                                  ----------

                    SECTION 5 OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 18, 1941

     AN ACT Authorizing the construction of certain public works on rivers
             and harbors for flood control, and for other purposes.

      Sec. 5. (a)(1) That there is hereby authorized an emergency
    fund to be expended in preparation for emergency response to
    any natural disaster, in flood fighting and rescue operation,
    or in the repair or restoration of any flood control work
    threatened or destroyed by flood, including the strengthening,
    raising, extending, or other modification thereof as may be
    necessary in the discretion of the Chief of Engineers for the
    adequate functioning of the work for flood control, or in
    implementation of nonstructural alternatives to the repair or
    restoration of such flood control work if requested by the non-
    Federal sponsor; in the emergency protection of federally
    authorized hurricane or shore protection being threatened when
    in the discretion of the Chief of Engineers such protection is
    warranted to protect against imminent and substantial loss to
    life and property; in the repair and restoration of any
    federally authorized hurricane or shore protective structure
    damaged or destroyed by wind, wave, or water action of other
    than an ordinary nature when in the discretion of the Chief of
    Engineers such repair and restoration is warranted for the
    adequate functioning of the structure for hurricane or shore
    protection. The emergency fund may also be expended for
    emergency dredging for restoration of authorized project depths
    for Federal navigable channels and waterways made necessary by
    flood, drought, earthquake, or other natural disaster. In any
    case in which the Chief of Engineers is otherwise performing
    work under this section in an area for which the Governor of
    the affected State has requested a determination that an
    emergency exists or a declaration that a major disaster exists
    under the Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, the
    Chief of Engineers is further authorized to perform on public
    and private lands and waters for a period of ten days following
    the Governor's request any emergency work made necessary by
    such emergency or disaster which is essential for the
    preservation of life and property, including, but not limited
    to, channel clearance, emergency shore protection, clearance
    and removal of debris and wreckage endangering public health
    and safety, and temporary restoration of essential public
    facilities and services. The Chief of Engineers, in the
    exercise of his discretion, is further authorized to provide
    emergency supplies of clean water, on such terms as he
    determines to be advisable, to any locality which he finds is
    confronted with a source of contaminated water causing or
    likely to cause a substantial threat to the public health and
    welfare of the inhabitants of the locality. The appropriation
    of such moneys for the initial establishment of this fund and
    for its replenishment on an annual basis, is hereby authorized:
    Provided, That pending the appropriation of sums to such
    emergency fund, the Secretary of the Army may allot, from
    existing flood-control appropriations, such sums as may be
    necessary for the immediate prosecution of the work herein
    authorized, such appropriations to be reimbursed from the
    appropriation herein authorized when made. The Chief of
    Engineers is authorized, in the prosecution of work in
    connection with rescue operations, or in conducting other flood
    emergency work, to acquire on a rental basis such motor
    vehicles, including passenger cars and buses, as in his
    discretion are deemed necessary.
              * * * * * * *
                                  ----------

                    WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1974

                      TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

              * * * * * * *
      Sec. 22. (a) The Secretary of the Army, acting through the
    Chief of Engineers, is authorized to cooperate with any State
    in the preparation of comprehensive plans for the development,
    utilization, and conservation of the water and related
    resources of drainage basins, watersheds, or ecosystems located
    within the boundaries of such State and to submit to Congress
    reports and recommendations with respect to appropriate Federal
    participation in carrying out such plans.
      (b) Fees.--
              (1) Establishment and collection.--For the purpose of
            recovering 50 percent of the total cost of providing
            assistance pursuant to this section, the Secretary of
            the Army is authorized to establish appropriate fees,
            as determined by the Secretary, and to collect such
            fees from States and other non-Federal public bodies to
            whom assistance is provided under this section.
              [(2) Phase-in.--The Secretary shall phase in the cost
            sharing program under this subsection by recovering--
                      [(A) approximately 10 percent of the total
                    cost of providing assistance in fiscal year
                    1991;
                      [(B) approximately 30 percent of the total
                    cost in fiscal year 1992; and
                      [(C) approximately 50 percent of the total
                    cost in fiscal year 1993 and each succeeding
                    fiscal year.]
              [(3)] (2) In-kind services.--Up to \1/2\ of the non-
            Federal contribution for preparation of a plan subject
            to the cost sharing program under this subsection may
            be made by the provision of services, materials,
            supplies, or other in-kind services necessary to
            prepare the plan.
              [(4)] (3) Deposit and use.--Fees collected under this
            subsection shall be deposited into the account in the
            Treasury of the United States entitled, ``Contributions
            and Advances, Rivers and Harbors, Corps of Engineers
            (8862)'' and shall be available until expended to carry
            out this section.
      (c) There is authorized to be appropriated not to exceed
    [$6,000,000] $10,000,000 annually to carry out the provisions
    of this section except that not more than [$300,000] $500,000
    shall be expended in any one year in any one State.
      (d) For the purposes of this section, the term ``State''
    means the several States of the United States, Indian tribes,
    the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the
    Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, and
    the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
              * * * * * * *
      Sec. 73. [(a) In the survey, planning, or design by any
    Federal agency of any project involving flood protection,
    consideration shall be given to nonstructural alternatives to
    prevent or reduce flood damages including, but not limited to,
    floodproofing of structures; flood plain regulation;
    acquisition of flood plain lands for recreational, fish and
    wildlife, and other public purposes; and relocation with a view
    toward formulating the most economically, socially, and
    environmentally acceptable means of reducing or preventing
    flood damages.] (a) In the survey, planning, or design by any
    Federal agency of any project involving flood protection, such
    agency, with a view toward formulating the most economically,
    socially, and environmentally acceptable means of reducing or
    preventing flood damages, shall consider and address in
    adequate detail nonstructural alternatives, including measures
    that may be implemented by others, to prevent or reduce flood
    damages. Such alternatives may include watershed management,
    wetlands restoration, elevation or flood proofing of
    structures, floodplain regulation, relocation, and acquisition
    of floodplain lands for recreational, fish and wildlife, and
    other public purposes.
              * * * * * * *
                                  ----------

                    WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1990

              * * * * * * *

                       TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

    SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

      (a) Projects With Report of the Chief of Engineers.--Except
    as provided in this subsection, the following projects for
    water resources development and conservation and other purposes
    are authorized to be carried out by the Secretary substantially
    in accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions,
    recommended in the respective reports designated in this
    subsection:
              (1) * * *
              * * * * * * *
              (18) Passaic river main stem, new jersey and new
            york.--
                      (A) * * *
                      (B) Streambank restoration measures.--The
                    project shall include the construction of
                    environmental and other streambank restoration
                    measures (including bulkheads, recreation,
                    greenbelt, scenic overlook facilities, and
                    public access to Route 21) on the west bank of
                    the Passaic River between Bridge and Brill
                    Streets in the city of Newark, New Jersey, at a
                    total cost of [$25,000,000] $75,000,000. The
                    project element authorized by this subparagraph
                    shall be carried out, in cooperation with the
                    city of Newark, so that it is compatible with
                    the proposed reconstruction plans for Route 21
                    and the proposed arts center. The non-Federal
                    share of the project element authorized by this
                    subparagraph shall be 25 percent. The value of
                    the lands, easements, and rights-of-way
                    provided by non-Federal interests shall be
                    credited to the non-Federal share. Construction
                    of the project element authorized by this
                    subparagraph shall be undertaken in advance of
                    the other project features and shall not await
                    implementation of the overall project.
              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 102. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS.

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (l) Locks and Dam 26, Mississippi River, Alton, Illinois and
    Missouri.--The navigation project for replacement of locks and
    dam 26, Mississippi River, Alton, Illinois and Missouri,
    authorized by section 102 of Public Law 95-502, is modified to
    authorize the Secretary to provide project-related recreational
    development in the State of Illinois[, that requires no
    separable project lands and] on project lands and other
    contiguous nonproject lands, including those lands referred to
    as the Alton Commons. The recreational development includes
    site preparations and infrastructure for a marina and docking
    facilities, access roads and parking, a boat launching ramp,
    hiking trails, and picnicking facilities, shall be at a Federal
    construction cost that will not increase the overall project
    cost estimate for recreational development[. The recreational
    development], and shall be subject to cost-sharing with the
    State of Illinois.
              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 116. STUDIES.

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (d) Southern California Infrastructure Restoration.--
              (1) * * *
              * * * * * * *
              (3) Authorization of appropriations.--There is
            authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
            subsection [$1,500,000] $7,500,000.
              * * * * * * *

                            TITLE II--LAND TRANSFERS

              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 205. CONVEYANCE OF OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL PROPERTY TO
                        CITIES OF OAKLAND AND ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA.

      The Secretary may convey, by quitclaim deed, the title of the
    United States in all or portions of the approximately 86 acres
    of uplands, tidelands, and submerged lands, commonly referred
    to as the Oakland Inner Harbor Tidal Canal, California, as
    follows:
              (1) To the city of Oakland, the United States title
            to all or portions of that part of the Oakland Inner
            Harbor Tidal Canal which are located within the
            boundaries of the city of Oakland.
              (2) To the city of Alameda, the United States title
            to all or portions of that part of the Oakland Inner
            Harbor Tidal Canal which are located within the
            boundaries of the city of Alameda.
              (3) To adjacent land owners, the United States title
            to all or portions of that part of the Oakland Inner
            Harbor Tidal Canal which are located within the
            boundaries of the city in which such land rests. Such
            conveyance shall be at fair market value.
    The Secretary may reserve and retain from any such conveyance a
    right-of-way or other rights deemed necessary by the Secretary
    for the operation and maintenance of the authorized Federal
    channel in the Oakland Inner Harbor Tidal Canal. The
    conveyances and processes involved will be at no cost to the
    United States.

                   TITLE III--GENERALLY APPLICABLE PROVISIONS

              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 310. RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT.

      [(a) Technical Advisory Committee.--Not later than 2 years
    after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary
    shall establish for major reservoirs under the jurisdiction of
    the Corps of Engineers a technical advisory committee to
    provide to the Secretary and Corps of Engineers recommendations
    on reservoir monitoring and options for reservoir research. The
    Secretary shall determine the membership of the committee,
    except that the Secretary may not appoint more than 6 members
    and shall ensure a predominance of members with appropriate
    academic, technical, or scientific qualifications. Members
    shall serve without pay, and the Secretary shall provide any
    necessary facilities, staff, and other support services in
    accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C.
    App. 1 et seq.).]
      [(b) Public Participation.--]The Secretary shall ensure that,
    in developing or revising reservoir operating manuals of the
    Corps of Engineers, the Corps shall provide significant
    opportunities for public participation, including opportunities
    for public hearings. The Secretary shall issue regulations to
    implement this subsection, including a requirement that all
    appropriate informational materials relating to proposed
    management decisions of the Corps be made available to the
    public sufficiently in advance of public hearings. Not later
    than January 1, 1992, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress
    a report on measures taken pursuant to this subsection.
              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 312. ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING.

      (a) Operation and Maintenance of Navigation Projects.--
    Whenever necessary to meet the requirements of the Federal
    Water Pollution Control Act, the Secretary, in consultation
    with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
    may remove and remediate, as part of operation and maintenance
    of a navigation project, contaminated sediments outside the
    boundaries of and adjacent to the navigation channel.
      (b) Nonproject Specific.--
              (1) In general.--The Secretary may remove and
            remediate contaminated sediments from the navigable
            waters of the United States for the purpose of
            environmental enhancement and water quality improvement
            if such removal and remediation is requested by a non-
            Federal sponsor and the sponsor agrees to pay 50
            percent of the cost of such removal and remediation.
              (2) Maximum amount.--The Secretary may not expend
            more than [$10,000,000] $30,000,000 in a fiscal year to
            carry out this subsection.
      (c) Joint Plan Requirement.--The Secretary may only remove
    and remediate contaminated sediments under subsection (b) in
    accordance with a joint plan developed by the Secretary and
    interested Federal, State, and local government officials. Such
    plan must include an opportunity for public comment, a
    description of the work to be undertaken, the method to be used
    for dredged material disposal, the roles and responsibilities
    of the Secretary and non-Federal sponsors, and identification
    of sources of funding.
              * * * * * * *
      [(f) Termination Date.--This section shall not be effective
    after the last day of the 5-year period beginning on the date
    of the enactment of this Act; except that the Secretary may
    complete any project commenced under this section on or before
    such last day.]
      (f) In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall give
    priority to work in the following areas:
              (1) Brooklyn Waterfront, New York.
              (2) Buffalo Harbor and River, New York.
              (3) Ashtabula River, Ohio.
              (4) Mahoning River, Ohio.
              (5) Lower Fox River, Wisconsin.
              * * * * * * *

                       TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

    [SEC. 401. GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS.

      [(a) Assistance.--The Secretary is authorized to provide
    technical, planning, and engineering assistance to States and
    local governments in the development and implementation of
    remedial action plans for areas of concern in the Great Lakes
    identified under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of
    1978. Non-Federal interests shall contribute 50 percent of the
    costs of such assistance.
      [(b) Maximum Amount.--The Secretary may not expend more than
    $3,000,000 in a fiscal year to carry out this section.]

    SEC. 401. GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS AND SEDIMENT REMEDIATION.

      (a) Great Lakes Remedial Action Plans.--
              (1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to
            provide technical, planning, and engineering assistance
            to State and local governments and nongovernmental
            entities designated by the State or local government in
            the development and implementation of remedial action
            plans for areas of concern in the Great Lakes
            identified under the Great Lakes Water Quality
            Agreement of 1978.
              (2) Non-federal share.--Non-Federal interests shall
            contribute, in cash or by providing in-kind
            contributions, 50 percent of costs of activities for
            which assistance is provided under paragraph (1).
      (b) Sediment Remediation Demonstration Projects.--
              (1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with
            the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
            Agency (acting through the Great Lakes National Program
            Office), may conduct pilot- and full-scale
            demonstration projects of promising techniques to
            remediate contaminated sediments in freshwater coastal
            regions in the Great Lakes basin. The Secretary must
            conduct no fewer than 3 full-scale demonstration
            projects under this subsection.
              (2) Site selection for demonstration projects.--In
            selecting the sites for the technology demonstration
            projects, the Secretary shall give priority
            consideration to Saginaw Bay, Michigan, Sheboygan
            Harbor, Wisconsin, Grand Calumet River, Indiana,
            Ashtabula River, Ohio, Buffalo River, New York, and
            Duluth/Superior Harbor, Minnesota.
              (3) Deadline for identifications.--Within 18 months
            after the date of the enactment of this subsection, the
            Secretary shall identify the sites and technologies to
            be demonstrated and complete each such full-scale
            demonstration project within 3 years after such date of
            enactment.
              (4) Non-federal share.--Non-Federal interests shall
            contribute 50 percent of costs of projects under this
            subsection. Such costs may be paid in cash or by
            providing in-kind contributions.
              (5) Authorizations.--There is authorized to be
            appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section
            $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1997 through 2000.
                                  ----------

                    WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1992

              * * * * * * *

                       TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 102. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS.

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (q)  Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, New Jersey.--The project
    for hurricane-flood protection, Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay,
    New Jersey, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act
    of 1962 (76 Stat. 1181), is modified to provide periodic beach
    nourishment [for Cliffwood Beach] for 50 years.
              * * * * * * *
      (ff) Bluestone Lake, Ohio River Basin, West Virginia.--The
    project for flood control, Bluestone Lake, Ohio River Basin,
    West Virginia, authorized by section 4 of the Flood Control Act
    of June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1217), is modified to direct the
    Secretary to take such measures as are technologically feasible
    to prohibit the release of drift and debris into waters
    downstream of the project, except for that organic matter
    necessary to maintain and enhance the biological resources of
    such waters and such nonobtrusive items of debris as may not be
    economically feasible to prevent being released through such
    project, including measures to prevent the accumulation of
    drift and debris at the project, the collection and removal of
    drift and debris on the segment of the New River upstream of
    the project, and the removal (through the use of temporary or
    permanent systems) and disposal of accumulated drift and debris
    at Bluestone Dam.
              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 108. QUARANTINE FACILITY.

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to
    be appropriated for fiscal years beginning after September 30,
    1992, [$1,000,000] $4,000,000 for the construction of the
    facility described in subsection (a). Such sums shall remain
    available until expended.
              * * * * * * *

                   TITLE II--GENERALLY APPLICABLE PROVISIONS

              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 203. VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND RECREATION
                        PROJECTS.

      (a) * * *
      (b) Deposit.--Any cash or funds received by the Secretary
    under subsection (a) shall be deposited into the account in the
    Treasury of the United States entitled ``Contributions and
    Advances, Rivers and Harbors, Corps of Engineers [(8662)]
    (8862)'' and shall be available until expended to carry out
    water resources projects described in subsection (a).

    SEC. 204. BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL.

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (e) Selection of Dredged Material Disposal Method.--In
    developing and carrying out a project for navigation involving
    the disposal of dredged material, the Secretary may select,
    with the consent of the non-Federal interest, a disposal method
    that is not the least-cost option if the Secretary determines
    that the incremental costs of such disposal method are minimal
    and that the benefits to the aquatic environment to be derived
    from such disposal method, including the creation of wetlands
    and control of shoreline erosion, justify its selection. The
    Federal share of such incremental costs shall be determined in
    accordance with subsection (c).
      [(e)] (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is
    authorized to be appropriated not to exceed $15,000,000
    annually to carry out this section. Such sums shall remain
    available until expended.
              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 206. CONSTRUCTION OF SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECTS BY NON-FEDERAL
                        INTERESTS.

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (e) Reimbursement.--
              (1) General rule.--Subject to the enactment of
            appropriation Acts, the Secretary is authorized to
            reimburse any non-Federal interest an amount equal to
            the estimate of the Federal share, without interest, of
            the cost of any authorized shoreline protection
            project, or separable element thereof, constructed
            under this section--
                      (A) if, after authorization and before
                    initiation of construction of the project or
                    separable element, the Secretary approves the
                    plans for construction of such project by such
                    non-Federal interest and enters into a written
                    agreement with the non-Federal interest with
                    respect to the project or separable element
                    (including the terms of cooperation); and
              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 209. DAM SAFETY PROGRAM EXTENSION.

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (e) Mussers Dam, Middle Creek, Snyder County, Pennsylvania.--
              (1) * * *
              * * * * * * *
              (5) Authorization of appropriations.--There is
            authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
            subsection [$3,000,000] $5,000,000 for fiscal years
            beginning after September 30, 1992. Such sums shall
            remain available until expended.
              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 219. ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE.

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to
    be appropriated for providing construction assistance under
    this section--
              (1) $10,000,000 for the project described in
            subsection (c)(5);
              (2) $2,000,000 for the project described in
            subsection (c)(6);
              (3) $10,000,000 for the project described in
            subsection (c)(7);
              (4) $11,000,000 for the project described in
            subsection (c)(8);
              (5) $20,000,000 for the project described in
            subsection (c)(16); and
              (6) $20,000,000 for the project described in
            subsection (c)(17).

    SEC. 220. ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE ASSISTANCE FOR BENTON AND
                        WASHINGTON COUNTIES, ARKANSAS.

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (c) Use of Federal Funds.--The Secretary may make available
    to the non-Federal interests funds not to exceed an amount
    equal to the Federal share of the total project cost to be used
    by the non-Federal interests to undertake the work directly or
    by contract.
              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 225. CHALLENGE COST-SHARING PROGRAM FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF
                        RECREATION FACILITIES.

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (c) Contributions.--For purposes of carrying out this section
    the Secretary may accept contributions of funds, materials, and
    services from non-Federal public and private entities. Any
    funds received by the Secretary under this section shall be
    deposited into the account in the Treasury of the United States
    entitled ``Contributions and Advances, Rivers and Harbors,
    Corps of Engineers [(8662)] (8862)'' and shall be available
    until expended to carry out the purposes of this section.
              * * * * * * *

                      TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 304. BROAD TOP REGION OF PENNSYLVANIA.

      (a) * * *
      [(b) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of the
    activities conducted under the cooperative agreement entered
    into under subsection (a) shall be 75 percent.]
      (b) Cost Sharing.--The Federal share of the cost of the
    activities conducted under the cooperative agreement entered
    into under subsection (a) shall be 75 percent. The non-Federal
    share of project costs may be provided in the form of design
    and construction services. Non-Federal interests shall receive
    credit for the reasonable costs of such services completed by
    such interests prior to entering an agreement with the
    Secretary for a project.
      (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to
    be appropriated to carry out this section [$5,500,000]
    $11,000,000. Such sums shall remain available until expended.
              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 313. SOUTH CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION
                        INFRASTRUCTURE AND RESOURCE PROTECTION DEVELOPMENT
                        PILOT PROGRAM.

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (g) Authorization and Allocation of Appropriations.--
              (1) Authorization of appropriations.--There is
            authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
            [$50,000,000] $90,000,000 for fiscal years beginning
            after September 30, 1992. Such sums shall remain
            available until expended.
              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 314. ILLINOIS AND MICHIGAN CANAL.

      (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to make capital
    improvements to the Illinois and Michigan Canal. Such
    improvements shall include marina development at Lock 14, to be
    carried out in consultation with the Illinois Department of
    Natural Resources, at a total cost of $6,374,000.
              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 321. PHOENIX, ARIZONA.

      The Secretary may participate in the study and construction
    of a water resources project in the vicinity of Phoenix,
    Arizona, for the purpose of providing flood control, ecosystem
    restoration, and improving water quality in the Tres Rios
    wetlands, Arizona, at a total cost of [$6,500,000.]
    $17,500,000. The non-Federal share for costs assigned to flood
    control measures to protect developed areas adjacent to the
    project shall be consistent with the cost sharing requirements
    of section 903(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of
    1986.
              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 324. HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS AREA, NEW JERSEY.

      (a) * * *
      (b) Required Elements.--The program to be developed under
    subsection (a) shall include at a minimum the following areas:
              [(1) Mitigation and enhancement for significant
            wetlands that contribute to the Meadowlands ecosystem.]
              (1) Mitigation, enhancement, and acquisition of
            significant wetlands that contribute to the Meadowlands
            ecosystem.
              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 326. NEW YORK BIGHT AND HARBOR STUDY.

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (f) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated
    [$1,000,000] $5,000,000 for fiscal years beginning after
    September 30, 1992. Such sums shall remain available until
    expended.
              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 340. SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION
                        INFRASTRUCTURE AND RESOURCE PROTECTION DEVELOPMENT
                        PILOT PROGRAM.

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (c) Local Cooperation Agreements.--
              (1) * * *
              * * * * * * *
              [(3) Cost-sharing.--Total project costs under each
            local cooperation agreement entered into under this
            subsection shall be shared at 75 percent Federal and 25
            percent non-Federal. The non-Federal interest shall
            receive credit for lands, easements, rights-of-way, and
            relocations toward its share of project costs but not
            to exceed 25 percent of total project costs. Operation
            and maintenance costs shall be 100 percent non-
            Federal.]
              (3) Cost sharing.--
                      (A) In general.--Total project costs under
                    each local cooperation agreement entered into
                    under this subsection shall be shared at 75
                    percent Federal and 25 percent non-Federal. The
                    non-Federal interest shall receive credit for
                    the reasonable costs of design work completed
                    by such interest prior to entering into a local
                    cooperation agreement with the Secretary for a
                    project. The credit for such design work shall
                    not exceed 6 percent of the total construction
                    costs of the project. The Federal share may be
                    in the form of grants or reimbursements of
                    project costs.
                      (B) Interest.--In the event of delays in the
                    funding of the non-Federal share of a project
                    that is the subject of an agreement under this
                    section, the non-Federal interest shall receive
                    credit for reasonable interest incurred in
                    providing the non-Federal share of a project's
                    cost.
                      (C) Lands, easements, and rights-of-way
                    credit.--The non-Federal interest shall receive
                    credit for lands, easements, rights-of-way, and
                    relocations toward its share of project costs,
                    including all reasonable costs associated with
                    obtaining permits necessary for the
                    construction, operation, and maintenance of
                    such project on publicly owned or controlled
                    lands, but not to exceed 25 percent of total
                    project costs.
                      (D) Operation and maintenance.--Operation and
                    maintenance costs for projects constructed with
                    assistance provided under this section shall be
                    100 percent non-Federal.
              * * * * * * *
      (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to
    be appropriated to carry out this section [$5,000,000]
    $25,000,000 for fiscal years beginning after September 30,
    1992. Such sums shall remain available until expended.
              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 361. ABANDONED AND WRECKED BARGE REMOVAL.

      (a) In General.--In order to alleviate a hazard to
    navigation, the Secretary is authorized to remove a sunken
    barge from waters off the shore of the Narragansett Town Beach
    in Narragansett, Rhode Island, at a total cost of [$200,000]
    $1,900,000, with an estimated Federal cost of [$150,000]
    $1,425,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of [$50,000]
    $475,000. The Secretary shall not remove the barge until title
    to such barge has been transferred to the United States.
              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 363. STILLWATER, MINNESOTA.

      The Secretary is authorized to undertake the repair and
    reconstruction of a flood wall system at Stillwater, Minnesota,
    including an extension of such system to prevent the continuous
    eroding of the riverfront, or expansion of such system if the
    Secretary determines that the expansion is feasible, at a total
    cost of [$3,200,000] $11,600,000, with an estimated Federal
    cost of [$2,400,000] $8,700,000 and an estimated non-Federal
    cost of [$800,000] $2,900,000.
              * * * * * * *

         TITLE IV--INFRASTRUCTURE TECHNOLOGY, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 405. SEDIMENTS DECONTAMINATION TECHNOLOGY.

      (a) Decontamination Project.--
              (1) * * *
              * * * * * * *
              (3) Project purpose.--The purpose of the project to
            be carried out under this section is to provide for the
            development of 1 or more sediment decontamination
            technologies on a pilot scale demonstrating a capacity
            of at least 500,000 cubic yards per year.
              * * * * * * *
      (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--[There is authorized to
    be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for fiscal
    years beginning after September 30, 1992.] There is authorized
    to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 for
    fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1996. Such sums
    shall remain available until expended.
      (d) Reports.--Not later than September 30, 1998, and
    periodically thereafter, the Administrator and the Secretary
    shall transmit to Congress a report on the results of the
    project to be carried out under this section, including an
    assessment of the progress made in achieving the intent of the
    program set forth in subsection (a)(3).
              * * * * * * *
                                  ----------

                           FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1968

              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 210. RECREATIONAL USER FEES.

      (a) * * *
      (b) Fees for Use of Developed Recreation Sites and
    Facilities.--
              (1) * * *
              * * * * * * *
              (5) Use of fees collected at facility.--Subject to
            advance appropriations, the Secretary of the Army shall
            ensure that at least an amount equal to the total
            amount of fees collected at any project under this
            subsection in a fiscal year beginning after September
            30, 1996, are expended in the succeeding fiscal year at
            such project for operation and maintenance of
            recreational facilities at such project.
              * * * * * * *
      Sec. 215. (a) The Secretary of the Army, acting through the
    Chief of Engineers, may, when he determines it to be in the
    public interest, enter into agreements providing for
    reimbursement to States or political subdivisions thereof for
    work to be performed by such non-Federal public bodies at water
    resources development projects authorized for construction
    under the Secretary of the Army and the supervision of the
    Chief of Engineers. Such agreements may provide for
    reimbursement of installation costs incurred by such entities
    or an equivalent reduction in the contributions they would
    otherwise be required to make, or in appropriate cases, for a
    combination thereof. The amount of Federal reimbursement,
    including reductions in contributions, for a single project
    shall not exceed [$3,000,000] $5,000,000 or 1 percent of the
    total project cost, whichever is greater; except that the
    amount of actual Federal reimbursement, including reductions in
    contributions, for such project may not exceed $5,000,000 in
    any fiscal year.[.]
              * * * * * * *
                                  ----------

                    WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1988

              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 4. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS.

      (a)  * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (e) Los Angeles River, California.--The Secretary is directed
    to perform maintenance dredging of the existing Federal project
    at the mouth of the Los Angeles River, California, to the
    authorized depth of 20 feet for the purpose of maintaining the
    flood control basin and navigation safety. In addition, the
    Secretary shall perform advance maintenance dredging in the
    Queensway Bay Channel, California, at a total cost of
    $5,000,000.
              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 7. COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

      (a) In General.--For the purpose of improving the state of
    engineering and construction in the United States and
    consistent with the civil works mission of the Army Corps of
    Engineers, the Secretary is authorized to utilize Army Corps of
    Engineers laboratories and research centers to undertake, on a
    cost-shared basis, collaborative research and development with
    non-Federal entities, including State and local government,
    colleges and universities, and corporations, partnerships, sole
    proprietorships, and trade associations which are incorporated
    or established under the laws of any of the several States of
    the United States or the District of Columbia.
      (b) Pre-Agreement Temporary Protection of Technology.--
              (1) In general.--If the Secretary determines that
            information developed as a result of research and
            development activities conducted by the Corps of
            Engineers is likely to be subject to a cooperative
            research and development agreement within 2 years of
            its development and that such information would be a
            trade secret or commercial or financial information
            that would be privileged or confidential if the
            information had been obtained from a non-Federal party
            participating in a cooperative research and development
            agreement under section 12 of the Stevenson-Wydler
            Technology Innovation Act of 1980, the Secretary may
            provide appropriate protection against the
            dissemination of such information, including exemption
            from subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5, United
            States Code, until the earlier of the date the
            Secretary enters into such an agreement with respect to
            such technology or the last day of the 2-year period
            beginning on the date of such determination.
              (2) Treatment.--Any technology covered by this
            section which becomes the subject of a cooperative
            research and development agreement shall be accorded
            the protection provided under section 12(c)(7)(B) of
            such Act (15 U.S.C. 3710a(c)(7)(B)) as if such
            technology had been developed under a cooperative
            research and development agreement.
      [(b)] (c) Administrative Provisions.--In carrying out this
    section, the Secretary may consider the recommendations of a
    non-Federal entity in identifying appropriate research or
    development projects and may enter into a cooperative research
    and development agreement, as defined in section 12 of the
    Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C.
    3710a); except that in such agreement, the Secretary may agree
    to provide not more than 50 percent of the cost of any research
    or development project selected by the Secretary under this
    section. Not less than 5 percent of the non-Federal entity's
    share of the cost of any such project shall be paid in cash.
      [(c)] (d) Applicability of Other Laws.--The research,
    development, or utilization of any technology pursuant to an
    agreement under subsection [(b)] (c), including the terms under
    which such technology may be licensed and the resulting
    royalties may be distributed, shall be subject to the
    provisions of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of
    1980 (15 U.S.C. 3701-3714).
      [(d)] (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--To carry out the
    purposes of this section, there is authorized to be
    appropriated to the Secretary of the Army civil works funds
    $3,000,000 for fiscal year 1989, $4,000,000 for fiscal year
    1990, $5,000,000 for fiscal year 1991, and $6,000,000 for each
    fiscal year thereafter.
      [(e) Additional Funding.--Notwithstanding the third proviso
    under the heading ``General Investigations'' of title I of the
    Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 1989 (102
    Stat. 857), an additional $3,000,000 of the funds appropriated
    under such heading shall be available to the Secretary for
    obligation to carry out the purposes of this section in fiscal
    year 1989.]
      (f) Funding From Other Federal Sources.--The Secretary may
    accept and expend additional funds from other Federal programs,
    including other Department of Defense programs, to carry out
    the purposes of this section.
              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 52. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS.

      [(a) Extension of Limitation on Period of Authorization.--
              [(1) Projects in this act.--The provisions of section
            1001(a) and section 1001(c) of the Water Resources
            Development Act of 1986 shall apply to the projects
            authorized for construction by this Act, except that
            the 5-year period during which funds must be obligated
            to prevent deauthorization shall begin on the date of
            the enactment of this Act.
              [(2) Projects thereafter.--The provisions of section
            1001(a) and section 1001(c) of the Water Resources
            Development Act of 1986 shall also apply to projects
            authorized for construction subsequent to this Act,
            except that the 5-year period during which funds must
            be obligated to prevent deauthorization shall begin on
            the date of the authorization of such projects.]
      [(b)] (a) Specified Projects.--The following projects are not
    authorized after the date of the enactment of this Act, except
    with respect to any portion of such a project which portion has
    been completed before such date of enactment or is under
    construction on such date of enactment:
              (1)  * * *
              * * * * * * *
      [(c)] (b) Algoma, Wisconsin, Outer Harbor.--
              (1) Deauthorization.--Except as provided in paragraph
            (2), the outer harbor basin feature of the navigation
            project for Algoma, Wisconsin, authorized by the Act
            entitled ``An Act making appropriations for
            construction, repair, and preservation of certain
            public works on rivers and harbors, and for other
            purposes'', approved March 2, 1907 (34 Stat. 1101), is
            not authorized after the date of the enactment of this
            Act.
              * * * * * * *
      [(d)] (c) Continuation of Project Authorizations.--
    Notwithstanding section 1001(b)(1) of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(1))--
              (1) the navigation project for Monterey Harbor
            (Monterey Bay), California, authorized by section 101
            of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 483),
              * * * * * * *
      [(e)] (d) Notice.--The Secretary shall publish in the Federal
    Register notice as to any project which would no longer have
    been authorized pursuant to the provisions of section 1001 of
    the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 or subsection (a)
    of this section but remains authorized due to enactment of law
    by Congress.
              * * * * * * *
                                  ----------

                             ACT OF AUGUST 8, 1972

     AN ACT To authorize the Secretary of the Army to undertake a national
                         program of inspection of dams.

      Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
    the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
    term ``dam'' as used in this Act [means any artificial barrier,
    including appurtenant works, which impounds or diverts water,
    and which (1) is twenty-five feet or more in height from the
    natural bed of the stream or watercourse measured at the
    downstream toe of the barrier, or from the lowest elevation of
    the outside limit of the barrier, if it is not across a stream
    channel or watercourse, to the maximum water storage elevation
    or (2) has an impounding capacity at maximum water storage
    elevation of fifty acre-feet or more. This Act does not apply
    to any such barrier which is not in excess of six feet in
    height, regardless of storage capacity or which has a storage
    capacity at maximum water storage elevation not in excess of
    fifteen acre-feet, regardless of height, unless such barrier,
    due to its location or other physical characteristics, is
    likely to pose a significant threat to human life or property
    in the event of its failure.] has the meaning such term has
    under subsection (d) of the National Dam Safety Program Act of
    1996.
              * * * * * * *
      Sec. 3. As soon as practicable after inspection of a dam, the
    Secretary shall notify the Governor of the State in which such
    dam is located the results of such investigation. [In any case
    in which any hazardous conditions are found during an
    inspection, upon request by the owner, the Secretary, acting
    through the Chief of Engineers, may perform detailed
    engineering studies to determine the structural integrity of
    the dam, subject to reimbursement of such expense by the owner
    of such dam.] The Secretary shall immediately notify the
    Governor of any hazardous conditions found during an
    inspection. The Secretary shall provide advice to the Governor,
    upon request, relating to timely remedial measures necessary to
    mitigate or obviate any hazardous conditions found during an
    inspection.
              * * * * * * *
      [Sec. 5. The Secretary shall report to the Congress on or
    before July 1, 1974, on his activities under the Act, which
    report shall include, but not be limited to--
              [(1) an inventory of all dams located in the United
            States;
              [(2) a review of each inspection made, the
            recommendations furnished to the Governor of the State
            in which such dam is located and information as to the
            implementation of such recommendation;
              [(3) recommendations for a comprehensive national
            program for the inspection, and regulation for safety
            purpose of dams of the Nation, and the respective
            responsibilities which should be assumed by Federal,
            State, and local governments and by public and private
            interests.]
      Sec. [6.] 5. Nothing contained in this Act and no action or
    failure to act under this Act shall be construed (1) to create
    any liability in the United States or its officers or employees
    for the recovery of damages caused by such action or failure to
    act; or (2) to relieve an owner or operator of a dam of the
    legal duties, obligations, or liabilities incident to the
    ownership or operation of the dam.
      [Sec. 7. (a) There is authorized to be appropriated to the
    Secretary of the Army (hereafter in this Act referred to as the
    ``Secretary''), $13,000,000 for each of the fiscal years ending
    September 30, 1988, through September 30, 1994. Sums
    appropriated under this section shall be distributed annually
    among States on the following basis: One-third equally among
    those States that have established dam safety programs approved
    under the terms of section 8 of this Act, and two-thirds in
    proportion to the number of dams located in each State that has
    an established dam safety program under the terms of section 8
    of this Act of the number of dams in all States with such
    approved programs. In no event shall funds distributed to any
    State under this section exceed 50 percent of the reasonable
    cost of implementing an approved dam safety program in such
    State.
      [(b) No grant may be made to a State under this section in
    any fiscal year unless such State enters into such agreements
    with the Secretary as the Secretary may require to ensure that
    such State will maintain its aggregate expenditures from all
    other sources for programs to assure dam safety for the
    protection of human life and property at or above the average
    level of such expenditures in its two fiscal years preceding
    the date of enactment of this section.
      [Sec. 8. (a) In order to encourage the establishment and
    maintenance of effective programs intended to assure dam safety
    to protect human life and property and to improve such existing
    programs, the Secretary shall provide assistance under the
    terms of section 7 of this Act to any State that establishes
    and maintains a dam safety program which is approved under this
    section. In evaluating a State's dam safety program, under the
    terms of subsections (b) and (c) of this section, the Secretary
    shall determine that such program includes the following:
              [(1) a procedure, whereby, prior to any construction
            the plans for any dam will be reviewed to provide
            reasonable assurance of the safety and integrity of
            such dam over its intended life;
              [(2) a procedure to determine, during and following
            construction and prior to operation of each dam built
            in the State, that such dam has been constructed and
            will be operated in a safe and reasonable manner;
              [(3) a procedure to inspect every dam within such
            State at least once every five years, except that such
            inspections shall be required at least every three
            years for any dam the failure of which is likely to
            result in the loss of human life;
              [(4) a procedure for more detailed and frequent
            safety inspections, when warranted;
              [(5) the State has or can be expected to have
            authority to require those changes or modifications in
            a dam, or its operation, necessary to assure the dam's
            safety;
              [(6) the State has or can be expected to develop a
            system of emergency procedures that would be utilized
            in the event a dam fails or in the event a dam's
            failure is imminent together with an identification of
            those dams where failure could be reasonably expected
            to endanger human life, and of the maximum area that
            could be inundated in the event of the failure of such
            dam, as well as identification of those necessary
            public facilities that would be affected by such
            inundation;
              [(7) the State has or can be expected to have the
            authority to assure that any repairs or other changes
            needed to maintain the integrity of any dam will be
            undertaken by the dam's owner, or other responsible
            party; and
              [(8) the State has or can be expected to have
            authority and necessary emergency funds to assure
            immediate repairs or other changes to, or removal of, a
            dam in order to protect human life and property, and if
            the owner does not take action, to take appropriate
            action as expeditiously as possible.
      [(b) Any program which is submitted to the Secretary under
    the authority of this section shall be deemed approved 120 days
    following its receipt by the Secretary unless the Secretary
    determines within such 120-day period that such program fails
    to reasonably meet the requirements of subsection (a) of this
    section. If the Secretary determines such a program cannot be
    approved, he shall immediately notify such State in writing,
    together with his reasons and those changes needed to enable
    such plan to be approved.
      [(c) Utilizing the expertise of the Board established under
    section 9 of this Act, the Secretary shall review periodically
    the implementation and effectiveness of approved State dam
    safety programs. In the event the Board finds that a State
    program under this Act has proven inadequate to reasonably
    protect human life and property, and the Secretary agrees, the
    Secretay shall revoke approval of such State program and
    withhold assistance under the terms of section 7 of this Act
    until such State program has been reapproved.
      [Sec. 9. (a) There is authorized to be established a National
    Dam Safety Review Board (hereinafter in this Act referred to as
    the ``Board''), which shall be responsible for reviewing and
    monitoring State implementation of this Act. The Board is
    authorized to utilize the expertise of other agencies of the
    United States and to enter into contracts for necessary studies
    to carry out the requirements of this section.
      [(b) The Board shall consist of seven members selected for
    their expertise in dam safety, to represent the Department of
    the Army, the Department of the Interior, the Tennessee Valley
    Authority, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the
    Department of Agriculture, plus two members, selected by the
    President, from employees or officials of States having an
    approved program under section 8 of this Act.
      [Sec. 10. The head of any agency of the United States that
    owns or operates a dam, or proposes to construct a dam in any
    State, shall, when requested by such State, consult fully with
    such State on the design and safety of such dam and allow
    officials of such State to participate with officials of such
    agency in all safety inspections of such dam.
      [Sec. 11. The Secretary shall, at the request of any State
    that has or intends to develop a dam safety program under
    section 8 of this Act, provide training for State dam safety
    inspectors. There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out
    this section $500,000 for each of the fiscal years ending
    September 30, 1988, through September 30, 1994.
      [Sec. 12. The Secretary, in cooperation with the National
    Bureau of Standards, shall undertake a program of research in
    order to develop improved techniques and equipment for rapid
    and effective dam inspection, together with devices for the
    continued monitoring of dams for safety purposes. The Secretary
    shall provide for State participation in such research and
    periodically advise all States and the Congress of the results
    of such research. There is authorized to be appropriated to
    carry out this section $2,000,000 for each of the fiscal years
    ending September 30, 1988, through September 30, 1994.
      [Sec. 13. The Secretary is authorized to maintain and
    periodically publish updated information on the inventory of
    dams authorized in section 5 of this Act. For the purpose of
    carrying out this section, there is authorized to be
    appropriated to the Secretary $500,000 for each of the fiscal
    years ending September 30, 1988, through September 30, 1994.
      [Sec. 14. No funds authorized in this Act shall be used to
    construct or repair any Federal or non-Federal dam.]
                                  ----------

                              ACT OF MARCH 3, 1899

       (COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE ``RIVERS AND HARBORS APPROPRIATION ACT OF
                                    1899'')

    CHAP. 425.--An Act Making appropriations for the construction, repair,
    and preservation of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for
                                other purposes.

              * * * * * * *
        Sec. 16. That every person and every corporation that shall
    violate, or that shall knowingly aid, abet, authorize, or
    instigate a violation of the provisions of sections [thirteen,
    fourteen, and fifteen] 13, 14, 15, 19, and 20 of this Act shall
    be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be
    punished by a fine [not exceeding twenty-five hundred dollars
    nor less than five hundred dollars] of up to $25,000 per day,
    or by imprisonment (in the case of a natural person) for not
    less than thirty days nor more than one year, or by both such
    fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court; one-half
    of said fine to be paid to the person or persons giving
    information which shall lead to conviction. And any and every
    master, pilot, and engineer, or person or persons acting in
    such capacity, respectively, on board of any boat or vessel who
    shall knowingly engage in towing any scow, boat, or vessel
    loaded with any material specified in section thirteen of this
    Act to any point or place of deposit or discharge in any harbor
    or navigable water, elsewhere than within the limits defined
    and permitted by the Secretary of War, or who shall willfully
    injure or destroy any work of the United States contemplated in
    section fourteen of this Act, or who shall willfully obstruct
    the channel of any waterway in the manner contemplated in
    section fifteen of this Act, shall be deemed guilty of a
    violation of this Act, and shall upon conviction be punished as
    hereinbefore provided in this section, and shall also have his
    license revoked or suspended for a term to be fixed by the
    judge before whom tried and convicted. And any boat, vessel,
    scow, raft, or other craft used or employed in violating any of
    the provisions of sections [thirteen, fourteen, and fifteen]
    13, 14, 15, 19, and 20 of this Act shall be liable for the
    pecuniary penalties specified in this section, and in addition
    thereto for the amount of the damages done by said boat,
    vessel, scow, raft, or other craft, which latter sum shall be
    placed to the credit of the appropriation for the improvement
    of the harbor or waterway in which the damage occurred, and
    said boat, vessel, scow, raft, or other craft may be proceeded
    against summarily by way of libel in any district court of the
    United States having jurisdiction thereof.
              * * * * * * *
        Sec. 20. (a) That under emergency, in the case of any
    vessel, boat, water craft, or raft, or other similar
    obstruction, sinking or grounding, or being unnecessarily
    delayed in any Government canal or lock, or in any navigable
    waters mentioned in section nineteen, in such manner as to
    stop, seriously interfere with, or specially endanger
    navigation, in the opinion of the Secretary of War, or any
    agent of the United States to whom the Secretary may delegate
    proper authority, the Secretary of War or any such agent shall
    have the right to take immediate possession of such boat,
    vessel, or other water craft, or raft, so far as to remove or
    to destroy it and to clear immediately the canal, lock, or
    navigable waters aforesaid of the obstruction thereby caused,
    using his best judgment to prevent any unnecessary injury; and
    no one shall interfere with or prevent such removal or
    destruction: Provided, That the officer or agent charged with
    the removal or destruction of an obstruction under this section
    may in his discretion give notice in writing to the owners of
    any such obstruction requiring them to remove it: And provided
    further, That the [expense] actual expense, including
    administrative expenses, of removing any such obstruction as
    aforesaid shall be a charge against such craft and cargo; and
    if the owners thereof fail or refuse to reimburse the United
    States for such expense within thirty days after notification,
    then the officer or agent aforesaid may sell the craft or
    cargo, or any part thereof that may not have been destroyed in
    removal, and the proceeds of such sale shall be covered into
    the Treasury of the United States.
      (b) Removal Requirement.--Within 24 hours after the Secretary
    of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating issues
    an order to stop or delay navigation in any navigable waters of
    the United States because of conditions related to the sinking
    or grounding of a vessel, the owner or operator of the vessel,
    with the approval of the Secretary of the Army, shall begin
    removal of the vessel using the most expeditious removal method
    available or, if appropriate, secure the vessel pending removal
    to allow navigation to resume. If the owner or operator fails
    to begin removal or to secure the vessel pending removal or
    fails to complete removal as soon as possible, the Secretary of
    the Army shall remove or destroy the vessel using the summary
    removal procedures under subsection (a) of this section.
        [(b)] (c) The owner, lessee, or operator of such vessel,
    boat, watercraft, raft, or other obstruction as described in
    this section shall be liable to the United States for the
    [cost] actual cost, including administrative costs, of removal
    or destruction and disposal as described which exceeds the
    costs recovered under subsection (a). Any amount recovered from
    the owner, lessee, or operator of such vessel pursuant to this
    subsection to recover costs in excess of the proceeds from the
    sale or disposition of such vessel shall be deposited in the
    general fund of the Treasury of the United States.
        Such sum of money as may be necessary to execute this
    section and the preceding section of this Act is hereby
    appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise
    appropriated, to be paid out on the requisition of the
    Secretary of War.
        That all laws or parts of laws inconsistent with the
    foregoing sections ten to twenty, inclusive, of this Act are
    hereby repealed: Provided, That no action begun, or right of
    action accrued, prior to the passage of this Act shall be
    affected by this repeal.
                                  ----------

                  SECTION 14 OF THE FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1946

      Sec. 14. That the Secretary of War is hereby authorized to
    allot from any appropriations heretofore or hereafter made for
    flood control, not to exceed [$12,500,000] $15,000,000 per
    year, for the construction, repair, restoration, modification,
    of emergency streambank and shoreline protection works to
    prevent damage to highways, bridge approaches, and public
    works, churches, hospitals, schools, and other nonprofit public
    services, when in the opinion of the Chief of Engineers such
    work is advisable: Provided, That not more than [$500,000]
    $1,500,000, shall be allotted for this purpose at any single
    locality from the appropriations for any one fiscal year.
                                  ----------

                           FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1970

              * * * * * * *

                            TITLE II--FLOOD CONTROL

              * * * * * * *
      Sec. 209. It is the intent of Congress that the objectives of
    enhancing regional economic development, the quality of the
    total environment, including its protection and improvement,
    the well-being of the people of the United States, and the
    national economic development are the objectives to be included
    in federally financed water resource projects (including shore
    protection projects such as projects for beach nourishment,
    including the replacement of sand), and in the evaluation of
    benefits and cost attributable thereto, giving due
    consideration to the most feasible alternative means of
    accomplishing these objectives.
              * * * * * * *
      Sec. 221. (a) After the date of enactment of this Act, the
    construction of any water resources project, or an acceptable
    separable element thereof, by the Secretary of the Army, acting
    through the Chief of Engineers, or by a non-Federal interest
    where such interest will be reimbursed for such construction
    under the provisions of section 215 of the Flood Control Act of
    1968 or under any other provision of law, shall not be
    commenced until each non-Federal interest has entered into a
    written agreement with the Secretary of the Army to furnish its
    required cooperation for the project or the appropriate element
    of the project, as the case may be[.]; except that no such
    agreement shall be required if the Secretary determines that
    the administrative costs associated with negotiating,
    executing, or administering the agreement would exceed the
    amount of the contribution required from the non-Federal
    interest and are less than $25,000. In any such agreement
    entered into by a State, or a body politic of the State which
    derives its powers from the State constitution, or a
    governmental entity created by the State legislature, the
    agreement may reflect that it does not obligate future State
    legislative appropriations for such performance and payment
    when obligating future appropriations would be inconsistent
    with State constitutional or statutory limitations.
              * * * * * * *
                                  ----------

                  SECTION 211 OF THE FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1950

      Sec. 211. The Secretary of the Army is hereby authorized to
    allot from any appropriations heretofore or hereafter made for
    flood control or rivers and harbors, funds for payment of
    expenses of representatives of the Corps of Engineers engaged
    on flood control and river and harbor work to international
    engineering or scientific conferences to be held outside the
    [continental limits of the] United States: Provided, That not
    more than ten representatives of the Corps of Engineers shall
    attend any one conference[: And provided further, That not more
    than $25,000 shall be allotted during any one fiscal year for
    this purpose].
                                  ----------

                            ACT OF DECEMBER 22, 1944

     AN ACT Authorizing the construction of certain public works on rivers
             and harbors for flood control, and for other purposes.

      Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
    the United States of America in Congress assembled, In
    connection with the exercise of jurisdiction over the rivers of
    the Nation through the construction of works of improvement,
    for navigation or flood control, as herein authorized, it is
    hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress to recognize
    the interests and rights of the States in determining the
    development of the watersheds within their borders and likewise
    their interests and rights in water utilization and control, as
    herein authorized to preserve and protect to the fullest
    possible extent established and potential uses, for all
    purposes, of the waters of the Nation's rivers; to facilitate
    the consideration of projects on a basis of comprehensive and
    coordinated development; and to limit the authorization and
    construction of navigation works to those in which a
    substantial benefit to navigation will be realized therefrom
    and which can be operated consistently with appropriate and
    economic use of the waters of such rivers by other users.
      In conformity with this policy:
      (a) Plans, proposals, or reports of the Chief of Engineers,
    War Department, for any works of improvement for navigation or
    flood control not heretofore or herein authorized, shall be
    submitted to the Congress only upon compliance with the
    provisions of this paragraph (a). Investigations which form the
    basis of any such plans, proposals, or reports shall be
    conducted in such a manner as to give to the affected State or
    States, during the course of the investigations, information
    developed by the investigations and also opportunity for
    consultation regarding plans and proposals, and, to the extent
    deemed practicable by the Chief of Engineers, opportunity to
    cooperate in the investigations. If such investigations in
    whole or part are concerned with the use or control of waters
    arising west of the ninety-seventh meridian, the Chief of
    Engineers shall give to the Secretary of the Interior, during
    the course of the investigations, information developed by the
    investigations and also opportunity for consultation regarding
    plans and proposals, and to the extent deemed practicable by
    the Chief of Engineers, opportunity to cooperate in the
    investigations. The relations of the Chief of Engineers with
    any State under this paragraph (a) shall be with the Governor
    of the State or such official or agency of the State as the
    Governor may designate. The term ``affected State or States''
    shall include those in which the works or any part thereof are
    proposed to be located; those which in whole or part are both
    within the drainage basin involved and situated in a State
    lying wholly or in part west of the ninety-eighth meridian; and
    such of those which are east of the ninety-eighth meridian as,
    in the judgment of the Chief of Engineers, will be
    substantially affected. Such plans, proposals, or reports and
    related investigations shall be made to the end, among other
    things, of facilitating the coordination of plans for the
    construction and operation of the proposed works with other
    plans involving the waters which would be used or controlled by
    such proposed works. Each report submitting any such plans or
    proposals to the Congress shall set out therein, among other
    things, the relationship between the plans for construction and
    operation of the proposed works and the plans, if any,
    submitted by the affected States and by the Secretary of the
    Interior. The Chief of Engineers shall transmit a copy of his
    proposed report to each affected State, and, in case the plans
    or proposals covered by the report are concerned with the use
    or control of waters which rise in whole or in part west of the
    ninety-seventh meridian, to the Secretary of the Interior.
    [Within ninety] Within 30 days from the date of receipt of said
    proposed report, the written views and recommendations of each
    affected State and of the Secretary of the Interior may be
    submitted to the Chief of Engineers. The Secretary of War shall
    transmit to the Congress, with such comments and
    recommendations as he deems appropriate, the proposed report
    together with the submitted views and recommendations of
    affected States and of the Secretary of the Interior. The
    Secretary of War may prepare and make said transmittal any time
    following said [ninety-day period.] 30-day period. The letter
    of transmittal and its attachments shall be printed as a House
    or Senate document.
              * * * * * * *
                                  ----------

                SECTION 104 OF THE RIVER AND HARBOR ACT OF 1958

      Sec. 104. (a) There is hereby authorized a comprehensive
    program to provide for control and progressive eradication of
    water-hyacinth, alligatorweed, melaleuca, Eurasian water
    milfoil, and other obnoxious aquatic plant growths, from the
    navigable waters, tributary streams, connecting channels, and
    other allied waters of the United States, in the combined
    interest of navigation, flood control, drainage, agriculture,
    fish and wildlife conservation, public health, and related
    purposes, including continued research for development of the
    most effective and economic control measures, to be
    administered by the Chief of Engineers, under the direction of
    the Secretary of the Army, in cooperation with other Federal
    and State agencies. Local interests shall agree to hold and
    save the United States free from claims that may occur from
    control operations and to participate to the extent of 30 per
    centum of the cost of such operations. Costs for research and
    planning undertaken pursuant to the authorities of this section
    shall be borne fully by the Federal Government.
      (b) There are authorized to be appropriated such amounts, not
    in excess of [$12,000,000] $15,000,000 annually, as may be
    necessary to carry out the provisions of this section. Any such
    funds employed for control operations shall be allocated by the
    Chief of Engineers on a priority basis, based upon the urgency
    and need of each area, and the availability of local funds.
                                  ----------

                             ACT OF AUGUST 13, 1946

    AN ACT Authorizing Federal participation in the cost of protecting the
                       shores of publicly owned property.

      Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
    the United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a)
    with the purpose of preventing damage to the shores and beaches
    of the United States, its Territories and possessions and
    promoting and encouraging the healthful recreation of the
    people, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the United
    States, subject to [the following provisions of this Act to
    assist in the construction, but not the maintenance, of works
    for the restoration and protection against erosion, by waves
    and currents, of the shores of the United States, its
    Territories and possessions.] this Act, to promote shore
    protection projects and related research that encourage the
    protection, restoration, and enhancement of sandy beaches,
    including beach restoration and periodic beach nourishment, on
    a comprehensive and coordinated basis by the Federal
    Government, States, localities, and private enterprises. In
    carrying out this policy, preference shall be given to areas in
    which there has been a Federal investment of funds and areas
    with respect to which the need for prevention or mitigation of
    damage to shores and beaches is attributable to Federal
    navigation projects or other Federal activities.
      (b) The Federal contribution in the case of any project
    referred to in subsection (a) shall not exceed one-half of the
    cost of the project, and the remainder shall be paid by the
    State, municipality, or other political subdivision in which
    the project is located, except that (1) the costs allocated to
    the restoration and protection of Federal property shall be
    borne fully by the Federal Government, (2) Federal
    participation in the cost of a project for restoration and
    protection of State, county, and other publicly owned shore
    parks and conservation areas may be, in the discretion of the
    Chief of Engineers, not more than 70 per centum of the total
    cost exclusive of land costs, when such areas: Include a zone
    which excludes permanent human habitation; include but are not
    limited to recreational beaches; satisfy adequate criteria for
    conservation and development of the natural resources of the
    environment; extend landward a sufficient distance to include,
    where appropriate, protective dunes, bluffs, or other natural
    features which serve to protect the uplands from damage; and
    provide essentially full park facilities for appropriate public
    use, all of which shall meet with the approval of the Chief of
    Engineers, and (3) Federal participation in the cost of a
    project providing hurricane protection may be, in the
    discretion of the Secretary [of the Army, acting through the
    Chief of Engineers,] not more than 70 per centum of the total
    cost exclusive of land costs.[.]
              * * * * * * *
      (d) Shores other than public will be eligible for Federal
    assistance if there is benefit such as that arising from public
    use [or from the protection of nearby public property or], if
    there are sufficient benefits, including benefits to local and
    regional economic development and to the local and regional
    ecology (as determined under subsection (e)(2)(B)), or if the
    benefits to those shores are incidental to the project, and the
    Federal contribution to the project shall be adjusted in
    accordance with the degree of such benefits.
      [(e) No] (e) Authorization of Projects.--
              (1) In general.--No Federal contribution shall be
            made with respect to a project under this Act unless
            the plan therefor shall have been specifically adopted
            and authorized by Congress after investigation and
            study by the Beach Erosion Board under the provisions
            of section 2 of the River and Harbor Act approved July
            3, 1930, as amended and supplemented, or, in the case
            of a small project under section 3 of this Act, unless
            the plan therefor has been approved by the Chief of
            Engineers.
              (2) Studies.--
                      (A) In general.--The Secretary shall--
                              (i) recommend to Congress studies
                            concerning shore protection projects
                            that meet the criteria established
                            under this Act (including subparagraph
                            (B)(iii)) and other applicable law;
                              (ii) conduct such studies as Congress
                            requires under applicable laws; and
                              (iii) report the results of the
                            studies to the appropriate committees
                            of Congress.
                      (B) Recommendations for shore protection
                    projects.--
                              (i) In general.--The Secretary shall
                            recommend to Congress the authorization
                            or reauthorization of shore protection
                            projects based on the studies conducted
                            under subparagraph (A).
                              (ii) Considerations.--In making
                            recommendations, the Secretary shall
                            consider the economic and ecological
                            benefits of a shore protection project
                            and the ability of the non-Federal
                            interest to participate in the project.
                              (iii) Consideration of local and
                            regional benefits.--In analyzing the
                            economic and ecological benefits of a
                            shore protection project, or a flood
                            control or other water resource project
                            the purpose of which includes shore
                            protection, the Secretary shall
                            consider benefits to local and regional
                            economic development, and to the local
                            and regional ecology, in calculating
                            the full economic and ecological
                            justifications for the project.
                      (C) Coordination of projects.--In conducting
                    studies and making recommendations for a shore
                    protection project under this paragraph, the
                    Secretary shall--
                              (i) determine whether there is any
                            other project being carried out by the
                            Secretary or the head of another
                            Federal agency that may be
                            complementary to the shore protection
                            project; and
                              (ii) if there is such a complementary
                            project, describe the efforts that will
                            be made to coordinate the projects.
              (3) Shore protection projects.--
                      (A) In general.--The Secretary shall
                    construct, or cause to be constructed, any
                    shore protection project authorized by
                    Congress, or separable element of such a
                    project, for which funds have been appropriated
                    by Congress.
                      (B) Agreements.--
                              (i) Requirement.--After authorization
                            by Congress, and before commencement of
                            construction, of a shore protection
                            project or separable element, the
                            Secretary shall enter into a written
                            agreement with a non-Federal interest
                            with respect to the project or
                            separable element.
                              (ii) Terms.--The agreement shall--
                                      (I) specify the life of the
                                    project; and
                                      (II) ensure that the Federal
                                    Government and the non-Federal
                                    interest will cooperate in
                                    carrying out the project or
                                    separable element.
                      (C) Coordination of projects.--In
                    constructing a shore protection project or
                    separable element under this paragraph, the
                    Secretary shall, to the extent practicable,
                    coordinate the project or element with any
                    complementary project identified under
                    paragraph (2)(C).
              (4) Report to congress.--The Secretary shall report
            biennially to the appropriate committees of Congress on
            the status of all ongoing shore protection studies and
            shore protection projects carried out under the
            jurisdiction of the Secretary.
      [Sec. 2. The Secretary of the Army]

    SEC. 2. REIMBURSEMENTS.

      (a) In General.--The Secretary is hereby authorized to
    reimburse [local] non-Federal interests for work done by them,
    after initiation of the survey studies which form the basis for
    the project or separable element of the project, on authorized
    projects or separable elements which individually do not exceed
    $1,000,000 in total cost: Provided, That the work which may
    have been done on the projects or separable elements is
    approved by the Chief of Engineers as being in accordance with
    the authorized projects or separable elements: Provided
    further, That such reimbursement shall be subject to
    appropriations applicable thereto or funds available therefor
    and shall not take precedence over other pending projects or
    separable elements of higher priority for improvements.
      (b) Agreements.--
              (1) Requirement.--After authorization of
            reimbursement by the Secretary under this section, and
            before commencement of construction, of a shore
            protection project, the Secretary shall enter into a
            written agreement with the non-Federal interest with
            respect to the project or separable element.
              (2) Terms.--The agreement shall--
                      (A) specify the life of the project; and
                      (B) ensure that the Federal Government and
                    the non-Federal interest will cooperate in
                    carrying out the project or separable element.
      Sec. 3. The Secretary [of the Army] is hereby authorized to
    undertake construction of small shore and beach restoration and
    protection projects not specifically authorized by Congress,
    which otherwise comply with section 1 of this Act, when he
    finds that such work is advisable, and he is further authorized
    to allot from any appropriations hereafter made for civil
    works, not to exceed $30,000,000 for any one fiscal year for
    the Federal share of the costs of construction of such
    projects: Provided, That not more than $2,000,000 shall be
    allotted for this purpose for any single project and the total
    amount allotted shall be sufficient to complete the Federal
    participation in the project under this section including
    periodic nourishment as provided for under section 1(c) of this
    Act: Provided further, That the provisions of local cooperation
    specified in section (1) of this Act shall apply: And provided
    further, That the work shall be complete in itself and shall
    not commit the United States to any additional improvement to
    insure its successful operation, except for participation in
    periodic beach nourishment in accordance with section 1(c) of
    this Act, and as may result from the normal procedure applying
    to projects authorized after submission of survey reports.
      [Sec. 4. As used in this Act, the word ``shores'' includes
    all the shorelines of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, the Gulf
    of Mexico, the Great Lakes, and lakes, estuaries, and bays
    directly connected therewith.]

    SEC. 4. STATE AND REGIONAL PLANS.

      The Secretary may--
              (1) cooperate with any State in the preparation of a
            comprehensive State or regional plan for the
            conservation of coastal resources located within the
            boundaries of the State;
              (2) encourage State participation in the
            implementation of the plan; and
              (3) submit to Congress reports and recommendations
            with respect to appropriate Federal participation in
            carrying out the plan.

    SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

      In this Act, the following definitions apply:
              (1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the
            Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of
            Engineers.
              (2) Separable element.--The term ``separable
            element'' has the meaning provided by section 103(f) of
            the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
            2213(f)).
              (3) Shore.--The term ``shore'' includes each
            shoreline of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, the Gulf
            of Mexico, the Great Lakes, and lakes, estuaries, and
            bays directly connected therewith.
              (4) Shore protection project.--The term ``shore
            protection project'' includes a project for beach
            nourishment, including the replacement of sand.
                                  ----------

                             ACT OF AUGUST 11, 1888

    CHAP. 860.--An act making appropriations for the construction, repairs,
    and preservation of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for
                                other purposes.

              * * * * * * *
      Sec. 3. (a)  * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (c) Program To Increase Use of Private Hopper Dredges.--
              (1) Initiation.--The Secretary shall initiate a
            program to increase the use of private industry hopper
            dredges for the construction and maintenance of Federal
            navigation channels.
              (2) Ready reserve status for hopper dredge wheeler.--
            In order to carry out the requirements of this
            subsection, the Secretary shall, not later than the
            earlier of 90 days after the date of completion of the
            rehabilitation of the hopper dredge McFarland pursuant
            to section 552 of the Water Resources Development Act
            of 1996 or January 1, 1998, place the Federal hopper
            dredge Wheeler in a ready reserve status.
              (3) Testing and use of ready reserve hopper dredge.--
            The Secretary may periodically perform routine tests of
            the equipment of the vessel placed in a ready reserve
            status under this subsection to ensure the vessel's
            ability to perform emergency work. The Secretary shall
            not assign any scheduled hopper dredging work to such
            vessel but shall perform any repairs needed to maintain
            the vessel in a fully operational condition. The
            Secretary may place the vessel in active status in
            order to perform any dredging work only in the event
            the Secretary determines that private industry has
            failed to submit a responsive and responsible bid for
            work advertised by the Secretary or to carry out the
            project as required pursuant to a contract with the
            Secretary.
              (4) Repair and rehabilitation.--The Secretary may
            undertake any repair and rehabilitation of any Federal
            hopper dredge, including the vessel placed in ready
            reserve status under paragraph (2) to allow the vessel
            to be placed into active status as provided in
            paragraph (3).
              (5) Procedures.--The Secretary shall develop and
            implement procedures to ensure that, to the maximum
            extent practicable, private industry hopper dredge
            capacity is available to meet both routine and time-
            sensitive dredging needs. Such procedures shall
            include--
                      (A) scheduling of contract solicitations to
                    effectively distribute dredging work throughout
                    the dredging season; and
                      (B) use of expedited contracting procedures
                    to allow dredges performing routine work to be
                    made available to meet time-sensitive, urgent,
                    or emergency dredging needs.
              (6) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
            the enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall
            report to Congress on whether the vessel placed in
            ready reserve status pursuant to paragraph (2) is
            needed to be returned to active status or continued in
            a ready reserve status or whether another Federal
            hopper dredge should be placed in a ready reserve
            status.
              (7) Limitations.--
                      (A) Reductions in status.--The Secretary may
                    not further reduce the readiness status of any
                    Federal hopper dredge below a ready reserve
                    status except any vessel placed in such status
                    for not less than 5 years which the Secretary
                    determines has not been used sufficiently to
                    justify retaining the vessel in such status.
                      (B) Increase in assignments of dredging
                    work.--For each fiscal year beginning after the
                    date of the enactment of this subsection, the
                    Secretary shall not assign any greater quantity
                    of dredging work to any Federal hopper dredge
                    in an active status than was assigned to that
                    vessel in the average of the 3 prior fiscal
                    years.
              (8) Contracts; payment of capital costs.--The
            Secretary may enter into a contract for the maintenance
            and crewing of any vessel retained in a ready reserve
            status. The capital costs (including depreciation
            costs) of any vessel retained in such status shall be
            paid for out of funds made available from the Harbor
            Maintenance Trust Fund and shall not be charged against
            the Corps of Engineers' Revolving Fund Account or any
            individual project cost unless the vessel is
            specifically used in connection with that project.
                                  ----------

         SECTION 303 OF THE COASTAL WETLANDS PLANNING, PROTECTION AND
                                RESTORATION ACT

    SEC. 303. PRIORITY LOUISIANA COASTAL WETLANDS RESTORATION PROJECTS.

      (a)  * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (f) Cost-Sharing.--
              (1)  * * *
              * * * * * * *
              (4) Paragraphs (1), (2), [and (3)] (3), and (5) of
            this subsection shall not affect the existing cost-
            sharing agreements for the following projects:
            Caernarvon Freshwater Diversion, Davis Pond Freshwater
            Diversion, and Bonnet Carre Freshwater Diversion.
              (5) Federal share in calendar years 1996 and 1997.--
            Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), amounts made
            available in accordance with section 306 of this title
            to carry out coastal wetlands restoration projects
            under this section in calendar years 1996 and 1997
            shall provide 90 percent of the cost of such projects.
                                ADDITIONAL VIEWS

        In 1978, the Congress directed the U.S. Army Corps of
    Engineers (Corps) to move towards a greater reliance on private
    hopper dredger capability if that capability was available at a
    reasonable cost and in a timely manner. To implement the law,
    the Corps allowed industry to compete directly with Federal
    hopper dredges. Private dredging firms showed their tremendous
    cost advantage and as a consequence, more than 25 Federal
    dredges were retired. However, the Corps continues to retain a
    hopper dredge fleet of four vessels located in Philadelphia,
    New Orleans, and two in the Pacific Northwest. Currently, in
    place of the open competition between industry and government
    vessels in the 1980's, a disproportionate share of hopper
    dredge work is siphoned off for the federal fleet of hopper
    dredges while the industry fleet of 15 hopper dredges, built at
    a cost of over $500 million and owned by seven companies,
    compete vigorously for the work not set aside to keep the
    Federal vessels occupied. The four Federal vessels represent
    only 20% of the total hopper dredging capacity yet consumed 30%
    of the workload and 40% of the funding.
        For several years, the private dredging industry has been
    seeking an opportunity to perform a greater share of this work,
    pointing out that it has the excess capacity and can do the
    work at a significant savings to the taxpayers. Studies by the
    Corps and independent consultants support their assertions. A
    1991 study by the Corps concluded that the Federal vessels were
    no longer justified under the law and that they were 41 percent
    more expensive to use. Private studies using Corps data
    demonstrate an even greater cost advantage for industry
    vessels. Language in the past four appropriations bills has
    required that the Corps advertise a portion of the work
    previously performed by Corps vessels and industry has
    incorporated the increased workload very successfully.
        We believe that industry is entitled to a ``real world''
    test of its ability to take on more work and allow our scarce
    dollars to go farther. We support efforts to gradually but
    deliberately place Federal vessels in a high readiness status
    while shifting their work to the private sector. Even with
    Federal vessels in reserve, we could realize significant
    savings while ensuring that we lose no dredging capability. We
    are encouraged that the Committee is moving in this direction.
    However, we are troubled by the language in the bill requiring
    the Secretary to delay moves toward greater privatization until
    1998 or after the overhaul of the oldest and arguably the least
    efficient of the Federal dredges, the McFarland, if that work
    is undertaken and completed earlier. We question the wisdom of
    spending $20 million to overhaul a vessel that the Secretary
    may well later decide is no longer needed to be placed in
    active service. Therefore, we hope to work with the Committee
    leadership and with the House as whole as the bill moves
    forward to address this issue in a way that moves us more
    rapidly toward greater privatization and reducing unnecessary
    expenditures on the Federal fleet.

                                       Jerry Weller.
                                       Bob Franks.
                                       John L. Mica.
                                       Vernon J. Ehlers.
                                       Steve C. LaTourette.
                                       Tom Petri.
                                       Andrea Seastrand.
                                       Tillie K. Fowler.
                                       Dan Frisa.
                                       Tim Hutchinson.
                                       Richard H. Baker.
                                       Bill Baker.
                                       Bill Martini.
                                       Susan Molinari.
                                       Sue Kelly.
                                       Tom Ewing.
                                       Peter Blute.
                                       Spencer Bachus.
                                    ------

                         Congress of the United States,
                          Committee on International Relations,
                                          Washington DC, July 12, 1996.
    Hon. Bud Shuster,
    Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington,
            DC.
        Dear Bud: H.R. 3592, ``The Water Resources Authorization
    Act of 1996'' contains a provision relating to future
    negotiations with the Government of Canada. Section 574 of the
    legislation expresses a Sense of Congress that the President
    should negotiate to eliminate tolls along the St. Lawrence
    Seaway System and to identify ways to increase the movement of
    goods along the Seaway. Pursuant to House Rule X, this
    provision falls within the jurisdiction of the International
    Relations Committee.
        In recognition of the desire of your Committee to bring
    this legislation expeditiously to the House Floor, the
    Committee on International Relations will forego taking any
    action on this bill, without, of course, waiving or diminishing
    its jurisdiction.
        I would like to thank your staff for keeping our Committee
    informed about the provisions in this bill.
        Thank you for your attention to this matter.
        With best wishes,
                Sincerely,
                                          Benjamin A. Gilman, Chairman.
                                    ------

                         Congress of the United States,
                Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                         Washington, DC, July 12, 1996.
    Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman,
    Chairman, Committee on International Relations, Rayburn House Office
            Building, Washington, DC.
        Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of July 12,
    1996, regarding section 754 of H.R. 3592, the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1996.
        As you know, this section relates to negotiations with the
    government of Canada regarding the St. Lawrence Seaway and, as
    such, would involve your Committee's jurisdiction.
        I appreciate your cooperation in not insisting on a
    sequential referral and look forward to continuing to work with
    you on this bill.
        With kind personal regards, I remain
                Sincerely,
                                                 Bud Shuster, Chairman.
                                    ------

                              House of Representatives,
                                        Committee on Resources,
                                         Washington, DC, July 15, 1996.
    Hon. Bud Shuster,
    Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Rayburn House
            Office Building, Washington, DC.
        Dear Mr. Chairman: I have reviewed the text of H.R. 3592,
    the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, as reported from
    the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and believe
    that the Committee on Resources has a substantial
    jurisdictional interest in many provisions of this important
    legislation affecting fish and wildlife (including restoration,
    refuges and conservation), Bureau of Reclamation and other
    irrigation projects and facilities, marine affairs, wetlands,
    Indians, public lands and mining interests generally.
        Recognizing that the House of Representatives has a
    dwindling number of legislative days left before the historic
    104th Congress adjourns, and with the understanding that the
    proposed manager's amendment for the bill and Committee report
    on the bill will reflect the comments enclosed with this
    letter, I will forego seeking a sequential referral of H.R.
    3592. Waiving the Committee on Resources' right to a referral
    in this case does not waive the Committee's jurisdiction over
    any provision in H.R. 3592 or similar provisions in other
    bills. In addition, I ask that you support my request to have
    the Committee on Resources represented on the conference on
    this bill, if a conference is necessary. Finally, I ask that
    you include this letter in the Committee on Transportation and
    Infrastructure's bill report.
        I appreciate your leadership on this bill and I look
    forward to working with you to see that H.R. 3592 is enacted
    into law soon.
                Sincerely,
                                                   Don Young, Chairman.
        Enclosure.

                             Committee on Resources

        (This does not represent a comprehensive list of those
    provisions of the bill within the Committee on Resources
    jurisdiction)

            [References are to sections of H.R. 3592 as introduced]

            oberstar amendment. american river watershed, california

        The Committee on Resources is concerned that the flood
    control features authorized in the bill for the American River
    watershed, California, will not be sufficient to provide the
    Sacramento area with flood protection in case of a major flood
    event. In addition, the Committee is concerned that language
    directing the extended reoperation for flood control of the
    Folsom Dam, a facility operated by the Bureau of Reclamation,
    will have a detrimental impact on the water supply for the
    State of California, and for efforts to meet the water quality
    requirements of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay Delta estuary.

          shuster en bloc amendment to section 214. dam safety program

        The Committee on Resources shares the concerns of the
    Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure with respect to
    dam safety problems nationwide. In fact, in March 1996, the
    Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources held an oversight
    hearing on dam safety at Bureau of Reclamation facilities.
    Given the Committee's support for enhanced dam safety, the
    Committee on Resources supports the National Dam Safety Program
    and the grant assistance program. However, the Committee is
    concerned that the language be clarified to ensure that the
    National Program does not, in practice, preempt any other
    Federal or State authorities, or make existing dam safety
    programs more complicated to administer.

                     section 370. kickapoo river, wisconsin

        We support the inclusion of this provision but suggest that
    the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure consider
    extending the time for entering into a Memorandum of
    Understanding between the State of Wisconsin and the Ho-Chunk
    Nation to two years until after the date of enactment of H.R.
    3592, rather than April 30, 1997. This could be accomplished by
    language in the manager's amendment.

                   section 526. calaveras county, california

      section 533. restoration projects for maryland, pennsylvania, west
                             virginia and kentucky

        Under title V of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation
    Act (SMCRA), the Secretary of the Interior actively regulates
    all aspects of surface mining activities. In addition, title IV
    of SMCRA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior and the
    appropriate State to reclaim abandoned mining sites, including
    lands and waters on those sites. Therefore, I ask for
    assurances that these two provisions are in no way intended to
    authorize the Secretary of the Army to regulate active mining
    activities or interfere with abandoned mine reclamation under
    SMCRA. In addition, we are also concerned that Section 526
    falsely implies that active regulated mining sites contribute
    to surface water quality degradation. Discharges from active
    mining sites are closely regulated under SMCRA, as well as the
    Federal Water Pollution Control Act. This is not the case with
    abandoned mines. Therefore, we suggest that the words ``and
    mining activity'' be deleted in section 526. Section 533 is
    restricted to abandoned mines only.

                      section 548. new york city watershed

        I have already expressed my concerns about the effect of
    language similar (if not identical) to this section during the
    consideration of H.R. 2747, the Water Supply Infrastructure
    Assistance Act of 1995, in the Committee on Transportation and
    Infrastructure. Therefore, I ask that the report language that
    was negotiated between our two committees and contained in
    House Report 104-515 regarding protection of the New York City
    watershed also be included in the bill report for this
    provision.

      section 556. blackstone river valley, rhode island and massachusetts

        The Committee on Resources has held hearings on H.R. 1447,
    which also deals with the Blackstone River Valley National
    Heritage Corridor established by Public Law 99-647. After
    consulting with the author of this provision, we understand
    that this language is intended only for the Corps to examine
    dams and waterways within its traditional authority. Therefore,
    we ask that the Committee bill report reflect that nothing in
    this section shall be construed to affect the authority or
    management decisions of the Secretary of the Interior in
    relation to the Blackstone River Valley Heritage Corridor or to
    extend the authority for the Heritage Corridor itself.

                   section 564. evaluation of beach material

        Where sand, gravel and shell resources from the Outer
    Continental Shelf are used ``in a program of, or project for,
    shore protection, beach restoration or coastal wetlands
    restoration undertaken by a Federal, State or local government
    agency'', the removal of these resources is regulated by the
    Secretary of the Interior under section 8(k) of the Outer
    Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA, Public Law 103-426).
    Certainly the activities contemplated in Section 564 for
    ``restoration and nourishment of beaches'' would be included in
    the OCSLA program, as it is quite reasonable to believe that
    many, if not most, new sources of beach sand for such
    replenishment projects will come from the Outer Continental
    Shelf. However, we recognize that the Army Corps of Engineers
    certainly has expertise in this subject and that consultation
    between the Secretaries of the Interior and Army would be
    useful. Therefore, I ask only for clarification that this
    section is not intended to modify or affect the duties of the
    Secretary of the Interior with respect to the disposition of
    sand, gravel and shell resources from the Outer Continental
    Shelf as described in Public Law 103-426.
                                    ------

                              House of Representatives,
                Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                         Washington, DC, July 18, 1996.
    Hon. Don Young,
    Chairman, Committee on Resources,
    House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
        Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of July 15th
    regarding H.R. 3592, the Water Resources Development Act of
    1996.
        I agree that there are a number of provisions in the bill
    that are of jurisdictional interest to the Committee on
    Resources and appreciate the cooperation and expeditious review
    that you and your staff have given. As discussed between our
    respective staffs, your specific comments will be addressed in
    changes to legislative language in the manager's amendment and/
    or in the committee report.
        I agree that in forgoing a sequential referral on matters
    that are within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Resources,
    the Committee does not waive its jurisdiction. If a conference
    becomes necessary, I will support your request to be
    represented on the conference on the bill for those provisions
    falling within its jurisdiction. In addition, our letter will
    be included in the Committee on Transportation and
    Infrastructure's report on the bill.
        Thank you for your cooperation in this matter and your
    continued leadership and support in water resources issues.
        With kind personal regards, I remain
                Sincerely,
                                                 Bud Shuster, Chairman.
                                    ------

                              House of Representatives,
                Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                         Washington, DC, July 16, 1996.
    Hon. Bill Archer,
    Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives,
            Washington, DC.
        Dear Mr. Chairman: On June 27, 1996, the Committee on
    Transportation and Infrastructure ordered reported the bill
    H.R. 3592, the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. A copy
    of relevant excerpts from the reported bill and background
    information have been provided previously to your staff.
        The reported bill authorizes numerous water resources
    development projects and programs of the Army Corps of
    Engineers. It also revises several Corps policies relating to
    the development of projects.
        One provision of particular interest will result in
    consistency in Federal/non-Federal cost-sharing partnerships in
    the implementation of dredged material containment facilities
    that are necessary for the maintenance of Federal navigation
    channels. Section 201 of H.R. 3592 will ``even the playing
    field'' with respect to the non-Federal share of project costs
    for such facilities by allowing the required non-Federal share
    for contained disposal to be the same as that required for
    open-water (or non-contained) disposal. This proposal enjoys
    widespread bipartisan support, is strongly supported by the
    Nation's port community, and also has been recommended by the
    Administration.
        An essential element of section 201 is subsection (e),
    which clarifies and redefines the term ``eligible operation and
    maintenance.'' This term is used in identifying those Corps of
    Engineers activities which qualify for funding out of the
    Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF). By clarifying that the
    HMTF may be used as a source of funds for such activities as
    the creation of dredged material disposal facilities that are
    necessary for maintenance, the bill will facilitate port
    development and give certainty to Federal planners and non-
    Federal project sponsors alike.
        We request that the Committee on Ways and Means approve a
    conforming amendment to the Internal Revenue Code Trust Fund
    statute governing this program to facilitate these
    expenditures. This amendment would be incorporated into H.R.
    3592 when that bill is considered by the House. Further, we
    would greatly appreciate the support of the Committee on Ways
    and Means for this conforming amendment when H.R. 3592 is taken
    to the House floor, hopefully before the August District Work
    Period. We would be pleased to supply any additional
    information you may need for your consideration of this
    request.
        Thank you and your staff for your cooperation.
        With kind personal regards, I remain
                Sincerely,
                                                 Bud Shuster, Chairman.
                                    ------

                              House of Representatives,
                                   Committee on Ways and Means,
                                         Washington, DC, July 17, 1996.
    Hon. Bud Shuster,
    Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of
            Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
        Dear Mr. Chairman: By letter of July 16, 1996, you notified
    me that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
    ordered reported new authorizing legislation (H.R. 3592) for
    the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (the ``Trust Fund''), and you
    requested that the Committee on Ways and Means amend the Trust
    Fund provisions within the Internal Revenue Code to allow
    certain of these expenditures to occur.
        H.R. 3592, as ordered reported by Committee on
    Transportation and Infrastructure, would expand the authorized
    expenditure purposes for the Trust Fund to include certain
    activities not included under present law. The Trust Fund
    provisions, including expenditure purposes and dedication of
    excise tax revenues, are contained in the Internal Revenue Code
    and are within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and
    Means.
        The Committee on Ways and Means held a markup on this issue
    today. At that markup, the committee approved by voice vote an
    amendment to be included in H.R. 3592 when that bill is
    considered by the House. The Ways and Means amendment would
    update the Trust Fund expenditure purposes in the Internal
    Revenue Code to allow the expenditures contemplated by H.R.
    3592. I am transmitting with this letter copies of the
    statutory language and an accompanying technical explanation,
    and request that all of these materials be included in the
    report of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on
    H.R. 3592.
        If you have questions regarding this matter, please do not
    hesitate to contact me.
                With best personal regards,
                                                 Bill Archer, Chairman.
        Enclosures.

         TITLE VI--EXTENSION OF EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY UNDER THE HARBOR
                             MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND

    SEC. 601. EXTENSION OF EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY UNDER HARBOR MAINTENANCE
                        TRUST FUND.

        Paragraph (1) of section 9505(c) of the Internal Revenue
    Code of 1986 (relating to expenditures from Harbor Maintenance
    Trust Fund) is amended to read as follows:
              ``(1) to carry out section 210 of the Water Resources
            Development Act of 1986 (as in effect on the date of
            the enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of
            1996),''.

     Explanation of Committee on Ways and Means Conforming Amendment To Be
      Included in H.R. 3592 (Water Resources Development Act of 1996) \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        \1\ The Committee on Ways and Means approved the conforming
    amendment by voice vote on July 17, 1996.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

           present law relating to the harbor maintenance trust fund

        The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (``Harbor Trust Fund'')
    was established in the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
    (sec. 9505 of the Code). Revenues from the harbor maintenance
    excise tax (``harbor tax'') are transferred to the Harbor Trust
    Fund. The harbor tax rate currently is 0.125 percent of the
    value of commercial cargo loaded or unloaded at U.S. harbors
    (sec. 4461); this tax is collected by the U.S. Customs Service.
    \2\ The harbor tax also applies to ship passengers, other than
    certain ferryboat passengers. The Harbor Trust Fund also
    receives revenues from the U.S. portion of Saint Lawrence
    Seaway tolls.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ On October 25, 1995, the United States Court of International
    Trade in United States Shoe Corp. v. United States, granted a summary
    judgment motion finding the harbor tax as applied to exports
    unconstitutional under the Export Clause of the Constitution, and
    enjoined the U.S. Customs Service from collecting the tax. However, a
    motion to stay the decision pending appeal was granted. Until a
    decision is rendered in the appellate process, the harbor tax on
    exports continues to be collected.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Amounts in the Harbor Trust Fund are available, as provided
    by appropriations Acts, for making expenditures for:
              (1) Eligible operations and maintenance costs
            relating to commercial navigation of all U.S. harbors
            and inland harbors under section 210(a) of the Water
            Resources Development Act of 1986 (as in effect on that
            Act's date of enactment);
              (2) Eligible operations and maintenance costs of
            those portions of the Saint Lawrence Seaway operated
            and maintained by the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development
            Corporation;
              (3) Payments of rebates of tolls or charges of the
            U.S. portion of the Saint Lawrence Seaway to payors;
            and
              (4) Payment of costs of administering the harbor tax,
            not to exceed $5 million per fiscal year.
        ``Eligible operations and maintenance'' means all
    operations, maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation expenses,
    including maintenance dredging necessary to maintain the width
    and nominal depth of any harbor or inland harbor.

           Provisions of H.R. 3592 Relating to the Harbor Trust Fund

        H.R. 3592 would amend the definition of expenditure
    purposes eligible for Harbor Trust Fund financing to include:
    (1) constructing dredged material disposal facilities that are
    necessary for the operation and maintenance of any harbor or
    inland harbor; (2) dredging and disposing of contaminated
    sediments which are in or which affect the maintenance of
    Federal navigation channels; (3) mitigating the impacts
    resulting from Federal navigation operation and maintenance
    activities; and (4) operating and maintaining dredged material
    disposal facilities.

                       ways and means committee amendment

        The Committee on Ways and Means approved a conforming
    amendment, to be incorporated as part of H.R. 3592, to update
    the Harbor Trust Fund expenditure purpose reference (sec.
    9505(c)) to include the expenditure purposes (as indicated
    above) under the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, as in
    effect on the date of enactment of that Act.

                              House of Representatives,
                                      Committee on Agriculture,
                                         Washington, DC, July 16, 1996.
    Hon. Bud Shuster,
    Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Rayburn HOB,
            Washington, DC.
        Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for the information that the
    Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure had reported
    H.R. 3592, the ``Water Resources Development Act of 1996''. I
    believe we can agree that the Committee on Agriculture could be
    successful in asserting a right to a sequential referral with
    respect to certain sections of the bill copies of which you
    have provided this Committee.
        The Committee on Agriculture recognizes the general
    importance of this legislation. Also, as you know as one of the
    Committees with jurisdiction over wetlands and other programs
    related to the conservation and environmental activities of the
    Department of Agriculture, this Committee is interested in the
    provisions of H.R. 3592 you called to our attention and similar
    provisions that may be addressed on the House Floor or in the
    Senate.
        The Committee on Agriculture, in subtitles A and C of the
    Food Security Act of 1985, in amendments, to those subtitles in
    the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990, and
    in Title III of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform
    Act of 1996, addressed the issues of wetlands as regards
    farmers and producers of agricultural commodities.
        However, in the interest of expediting the consideration of
    H.R. 3592, I do not intend to request a sequential referral of
    the bill to the Committee. However, I would appreciate
    receiving assurances that any Floor amendments in the House to
    H.R. 3592, or to its Senate amendment thereto or counterpart
    bill in the Senate, that affect this Committees' jurisdiction
    are worked out between our respective staffs. Meanwhile, my
    action here is not intended to waive the Committee's
    jurisdiction over this matter, and should this legislation go
    to a House-Senate Conference, the Committee on Agriculture
    reserves the right to request to be included as conferees on
    any provisions within this Committee's jurisdiction.
        Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
                Sincerely,
                                                 Pat Roberts, Chairman.
                                    ------

                              House of Representatives,
                Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                         Washington, DC, July 18, 1996.
    Hon. Pat Roberts,
    Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,
    House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
        Dear Mr. Chairman: I greatly appreciate your letter of July
    16, 1996, regarding the Committee on Agriculture's intention
    not to seek a sequential referral on H.R. 3592, the Water
    Resources Development Act of 1996. You can rest assured that as
    this legislation proceeds to the House Floor, and through the
    subsequent negotiations with the U.S. Senate, I will work with
    you and your staff on any issue that is within the jurisdiction
    of the Committee on Agriculture.
        I agree that in forgoing a sequential referral on matters
    that are within the jurisdiction of the Committee on
    Agriculture, the Committee does not waive its jurisdiction. If
    a conference becomes necessary, I will support your request to
    be represented on the conference on the bill for those
    provisions falling within its jurisdiction.
        Thank you again for your cooperation and expeditious review
    on this matter.
        With kind personal regards, I remain,
                Sincerely,
                                                 Bud Shuster, Chairman.
                                    ------

                              House of Representatives,
                Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                         Washington, DC, July 17, 1996.
    Hon. Robert S. Walker,
    Chairman, Committee on Science,
    House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
        Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your expeditious review of
    H.R. 3592, the Water Resources Development Act (or WRDA) of
    1996. The bill, which was ordered reported by the Committee on
    Transportation and Infrastructure on June 27, 1996, would
    authorize water resources projects and programs of the Army
    Corps of Engineers. It would also modify certain Corps policies
    and procedures.
        The bill enjoys strong bipartisan support and the
    Administration has indicated interest in moving legislation. In
    addition, the Senate passed its version of WRDA legislation
    last week. Therefore, we are optimistic that H.R. 3592 will
    become law this year. However, time is running out and it is
    important that we bring the bill to the floor as soon as
    possible.
        I believe that the Committee on Science has a valid claim
    to section 215 of the bill, Collaborative Research and
    Development. Section 214 would amend a previous WRDA to
    facilitate research and development activities related to the
    Corps' water resources programs by applying appropriate
    protections to technology developed by the Corps that is likely
    to be the subject to a cooperative research and development
    agreement.
        I understand that you will not seek a referral on this bill
    and I agree that this should not be viewed as a waive of your
    committee's jurisdictional claim. I appreciate your cooperation
    and timely consideration of this matter.
        With kind personal regards, I remain,
                Sincerely,
                                                 Bud Shuster, Chairman.
                                    ------

                              House of Representatives,
                                          Committee on Science,
                                         Washington, DC, July 17, 1996.
    Hon. Bud Shuster,
    Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of
            Representatives, Washington, DC.
        Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of July 16,
    1996. I appreciate your concerns about moving the bill, H.R.
    3592, the Water Resources Development Act of 1996,
    expeditiously.
        Based on your letter, I will not seek a sequential referral
    on H.R. 3592. As your letter points out, however, the Committee
    on Science has a valid jurisdictional claim to section 214,
    Collaborative Research and Development. The Committee continues
    to maintain this jurisdictional claim and its willingness to
    forgo referral should not be construed as a waiver of its
    jurisdiction.
        Thank you again for your letter.
                Cordially,
                                            Robert S. Walker, Chairman.
                                    ------

                              House of Representatives,
                                         Committee on Commerce,
                                         Washington, DC, July 22, 1996.
    Hon. Bud Shuster,
    Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of
            Representatives, Washington, DC.
        Dear Chairman Shuster: Thank you for bringing to my
    attention your intentions with respect to H.R. 3592, the Water
    Resources Development Act of 1996, which the Committee on
    Transportation and Infrastructure ordered reported on June 27,
    1996.
        The Commerce Committee has a jurisdictional interest in
    several provisions in the bill, including provisions relating
    to drinking water and compliance with environmental statutes
    within the Committee's jurisdiction.
        However, recognizing your desire to bring this legislation
    expeditiously before the House, and based on your agreement to
    include a mutually agreeable savings provision in the bill as a
    part of a manager's amendment, I will not seek a sequential
    referral of the bill. By agreeing not to seek a referral of the
    bill, the Commerce Committee does not waive its jurisdiction
    over any provision in the bill. In addition, I would appreciate
    receiving your assurance that you will support my request to
    have conferees from the Commerce Committee appointed on those
    provisions of H.R. 3592 and the Senate counterpart which fall
    within the jurisdiction of this Committee, if such a conference
    is required.
        Finally, I request that you include this letter as part of
    the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure's report on
    H.R. 3592.
        Thank you again for your cooperation and the cooperation of
    your staff.
                Sincerely,
                                       Thomas J. Bliley, Jr., Chairman.
                                    ------

                              House of Representatives,
                Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                         Washington, DC, July 22, 1996.
    Hon. Thomas J. Bliley,
    Chairman, Committee on Commerce,
    House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
        Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of July 22nd
    regarding H.R. 3592, the Water Resources Development Act (or
    WRDA) of 1996. The bill, which was ordered reported by the
    Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on June 27,
    1996, would authorize water resources projects and programs of
    the Army Corps of Engineers.
        I appreciate that the Committee on Commerce has a valid
    interest in several provisions. I understand that you will not
    seek a referral on this bill and I agree that this should not
    be viewed as a waiver of any jurisdictional claim that you
    might have.
        A mutually agreeable ``savings'' provision will be included
    in the manager's amendment to the bill. In addition, if a
    conference becomes necessary, I will support your request to be
    represented on the conference on the bill for those provisions
    falling within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce.
    Finally, your letter will be included in the Committee on
    Transportation and Infrastructure's report on the bill.
        I appreciate your cooperation and the cooperation of your
    staff.
        With kind personal regards, I remain,
                Sincerely,
                                                 Bud Shuster, Chairman.