[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.