[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.