[Senate Report 106-34]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 72
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
106th Congress Report
1st Session SENATE 106-34
_______________________________________________________________________
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
ACT OF 1999
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
to accompany
S. 507
March 23, 1999.--Ordered to be printed.
--------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
69-010 WASHINGTON : 1999
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
JOHN H. CHAFEE, Rhode Island, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia MAX BAUCUS, Montana
ROBERT SMITH, New Hampshire DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming HARRY REID, Nevada
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri BOB GRAHAM, Florida
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho BARBARA BOXER, California
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah RON WYDEN, Oregon
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
Jimmie Powell, Staff Director
J. Thomas Sliter, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
__________
Page
General statement................................................ 1
Statement of committee policy.................................... 2
The Water Resources Development Act.............................. 4
Section 201--Flood Hazard Mitigation and Riverine Ecosystem
Restoration Program............................................ 4
Section 202--Shore Protection Projects...........................
Section 209--Recreational User Fees.............................. 5
Section-by-Section Analysis:
Sec. 1. Short Title; Table of Contents....................... 4
Sec. 2. Definition of Secretary.............................. 4
Title I--Water Resources Projects
Sec. 101. Project Authorizations:
(a) Projects with Chief's Reports:
Sand Point Harbor, Alaska................................ 5
Rio Salado (Salt River), Arizona......................... 5
Tucson Drainage Area, Arizona............................ 6
American River Watershed, California..................... 6
Llagas Creek, California................................. 7
South Sacramento County Streams, California.............. 7
Upper Guadalupe River, California........................ 7
Yuba River Basin, California............................. 8
Delaware Bay Coastline: Delaware and New Jersey-Broadkill
Beach, Delaware........................................ 8
Delaware Bay Coastline: Delaware and New Jersey-Port
Mahon, Delaware........................................ 9
Hillsboro and Okeechobee Aquifer Storage and Recovery
Project, Florida....................................... 9
Indian River County, Florida............................. 9
Lido Key Beach, Sarasota, Florida........................ 10
Tampa Harbor-Big Bend Channel, Florida................... 10
Brunswick Harbor, Georgia................................ 11
Beargrass Creek, Kentucky................................ 11
Amite River and Tributaries, Louisiana, East Baton Rouge
Parish Watershed....................................... 11
Baltimore Harbor Anchorages and Channels, Maryland and
Virginia............................................... 12
Red Lake River at Crookston, Minnesota................... 11
New Jersey Shore Protection, Townsends Inlet to Cape May
Inlet, New Jersey...................................... 12
Park River, North Dakota................................. 13
Salt Creek, Graham, Texas................................ 13
(b) Project Authorizations Subject to a Final Report:
Nome Harbor Improvements, Alaska......................... 14
Seward Harbor, Alaska.................................... 14
Hamilton Airfield Wetland Restoration, California........ 15
Oakland Harbor, California............................... 15
Delaware Bay Coastline: Delaware and New Jersey-Roosevelt
Inlet-Lewes Beach, Delaware............................ 16
Delaware Coast From Cape Henelopen to Fenwick Island,
Bethany Beach/SouthBethany Beach, Delaware............. 16
Jacksonville Harbor, Florida............................. 17
Little Talbot Island, Duval County, Florida.............. 17
Ponce De Leon Inlet, Volusic County, Florida............. 17
Savannah Harbor Expansion, Georgia....................... 18
Turkey Creek Basin, Kansas City, Missouri................ 18
Delaware Bay Coastline, Oakwood Beach, New Jersey........ 19
Delaware Bay Coastline, Reeds Beach and Pierces Point,
New Jersey............................................. 19
Delaware Bay Coastline, Villas and Vicinity, New Jersey.. 19
Lower Cape May Meadow, Cape May Point, New Jersey........ 20
New Jersey Shore Protection, Brigantine Inlet to Great
Egg Harbor, Brigantine Island, New Jersey.............. 20
Columbia River Channel Deepening, Oregon and Washington.. 20
Memphis Harbor, Memphis, Tennessee....................... 21
Johnson Creek, Arlington, Texas.......................... 21
Howard Hanson Dam, Washington............................ 21
Sec. 103. Project Modifications:
San Lorenzo River, California............................ 22
St. John's County Shore Protection, Florida.............. 22
Wood River, Grand Island, Nebraska....................... 22
Absecon Island, New Jersey............................... 22
Arthur Kill, New York and New Jersey..................... 22
Waurika Lake, Oklahoma, Water Conveyance Facilities...... 23
(b) Projects Subject to Reports:
Thornton Reservoir, Cook County, Illinois................ 23
Wells Harbor, Wells, Maine............................... 23
New York Harbor and Adjacent Channels, Port Jersey, New
Jersey................................................. 23
(c) Beaver Lake, Arkansas, Water Supply Storage Reallocation. 23
(d) Tolchester Channel S-Turn, Baltimore, Maryland........... 23
(e) Tropicana Wash and Flamingo Wash, Nevada................. 24
(f) Rediversion Project, Cooper River, Charleston Harbor,
South Carolina............................................. 24
(g) Trinity River and Tributaries, Texas..................... 24
(h) Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection, Virginia
Beach, Virginia............................................ 24
(i) Elizabeth River, Chesapeake, Virginia.................... 24
(j) Payment Option, Moorefield, West Virginia................ 24
(k) Miami Dade Agricultural and Rural Land Retention Plan and
South Biscayne, Florida.................................... 24
(l) Lake Michigan, Illinois.................................. 24
(m) Measurements of Lake Michigan Diversions, Illinois....... 25
(n) Project for Navigation, Dubuque, Iowa.................... 24
(o) Louisiana State Penitentiary Levee....................... 25
(p) Jackson County, Mississippi.............................. 25
(q) Richard B. Russell Dam and Lake, South Carolina.......... 25
(r) Land Conveyance, Clarkston, Washington................... 25
(s) White River, Indiana..................................... 25
(t) Fox Point Hurricane Barrier, Providence, Rhode Island.... 25
Sec. 104. Project Deauthorizations:
(a) Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut........................... 26
(b) Bass Harbor, Maine....................................... 26
(c) Boothbay Harbor, Maine................................... 26
(d) East Boothbay Harbor, Maine.............................. 26
Sec. 105. Studies:
(a) Caddo Levee, Red River below Denison Dam Arizona,
Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas............................. 26
(b) Fields Landing Channel, Humboldt Harbor, California...... 26
(c) Strawberry Creek, Berkeley, California................... 26
(d) West Side Storm Water Retention Facility, City of
Lancaster, California...................................... 26
(e) Apalachicola River, Florida.............................. 26
(f) Broward County, Sand Bypassing at Port Everglades Inlet,
Florida.................................................... 27
(g) City of Destin-Noriega Point Breakwater, Florida......... 27
(h) Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area, Florida............. 27
(i) City of Plant City, Florida.............................. 27
(j) Goose Creek Watershed, Oakley, Idaho..................... 27
(k) Little Wood River, Gooding, Idaho........................ 27
(l) Snake River and Payette River, Idaho..................... 27
(m) Acadiana Navigation Channel, Louisiana................... 27
(n) Cameron Parish Wets of Calcasieu River, Louisiana........ 27
(o) Beneficial Use of Dredged Material, Coastal Louisiana.... 28
(p) Contraband Bayou Navigation Channel, Louisiana........... 28
(q) Golden Meadow Lock, Louisiana............................ 28
(r) Gulf Intercoastal Waterway Ecosystem Protection, Chef
Menteur to Sabine River, Louisiana......................... 28
(s) Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, and Vicinity, St. Charles
Parish Pumps............................................... 28
(t) Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, and Vicinity Seawall
Restoration, Louisiana..................................... 28
(u) Detroit River, Michigan, Greenway Corridor Study......... 28
(v) St. Clair Shores Flood Control, Michigan................. 28
(w) Woodtick Peninsula, Michigan, and Toledo Harbor, Ohio.... 28
(x) Tunica Lake Weir, Mississippi............................ 29
(y) Protective Facilities for the St. Louis, Missouri,
Riverfront Area............................................ 29
(z) Yellowstone River, Montana............................... 29
(aa) Las Vegas Valley, Nevada................................ 29
(bb) Oswego River Basin, New York............................ 29
(cc) Port of New York-New Jersey Navigation Study and
Environmental Restoration Study, Port of New York-New
Jersey..................................................... 29
(dd) Bank Stabilization, Missouri River, North Dakota........ 30
(ee) Cleveland Harbor, Cleveland, Ohio....................... 29
(ff) East Lake, Vermillion and Chagrin, Ohio................. 30
(gg) Toussaint River, Carroll Township, Ohio................. 30
(hh) Santee Delta Wetland Habitat, South Carolina............ 30
(ii) Waccamaw River, South Carolina.......................... 30
(jj) Upper Susquehanna-Lackawanna, Pennsylvania, Watershed
Management and Restoration Study........................... 30
(ll) Santa Clara River, Utah................................. 30
(mm) Agat Small Boat Harbor, Guam............................ 31
(nn) Apra Harbor Seawall, Guam............................... 31
(oo) Apra Harbor Fuel Piers, Guam............................ 31
(pp) Maintenance Dredging of Harbor Piers, Guam.............. 31
(qq) Alternative Water Source Study.......................... 31
Title II--General Provisions
Sec. 201. Flood Hazard Mitigation and Riverine Ecosystem
Restoration Program............................................ 31
Sec. 202. Shore Protection....................................... 32
Sec. 203. Small Flood Control Authority.......................... 33
Sec. 204. Use of Non-Federal Funds for Compiling and
Disseminating Information on Flood and Flood Damages........... 33
Sec. 205. Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration.......................... 33
Sec. 206. Beneficial Uses of Dredged Materials................... 33
Sec. 207. Voluntary Contributions by States and Political
Subdivisions................................................... 34
Sec. 208. Recreation User Fees................................... 34
Sec. 209. Water Resources Development Studies for the Pacific
Region......................................................... 34
Sec. 210. Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers Enhancement
Project........................................................ 34
Sec. 211. Outer Continental Shelf................................ 34
Sec. 212. Environmental Dredging................................. 35
Sec. 213. Benefit of Primary Flood Damages Avoided Included in
Benefit-Cost Analysis.......................................... 35
Sec. 214. Control of Aquatic Plant Growth........................ 35
Sec. 215. Environmental Infrastructure........................... 35
Sec. 216. Watershed Management, Restoration, and Development..... 35
Sec. 217. Lakes Program.......................................... 35
Sec. 218. Sediments Decontamination Policy....................... 35
Sec. 219. Disposal of Dredged Material on Beaches................ 36
Sec. 220. Fish and Wildlife Mitigation........................... 36
Sec. 221. Reimbursement of Non-Federal Interest.................. 36
Sec. 222. National Contaminated Sediment Task Force.............. 36
Sec. 223. Great Lakes Basin Program.............................. 37
Sec. 224. Projects for Improvement of the Environment............ 37
Sec. 225. Water Quality, Environmental Quality, Recreation, Fish
and Wildlife, Flood Control, and Navigation.................... 37
Sec. 226. Irrigation Diversion Protection and Fisheries
Enhancement Assistance......................................... 37
Sec. 227. Small Storm Damage Reduction Projects.................. 37
Sec. 228. Shore Damage Prevention or Mitigation.................. 37
Sec. 229. Atlantic Coast of New York............................. 38
Sec. 230. Accelerated Adoption of Innovative Technologies for
Containmented Sediments........................................ 38
Title III--Project-Related Provisions
Sec. 301. Dredging of Salt Ponds in the State of Rhode Island.... 38
Sec. 302. Upper Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and New
York........................................................... 38
Sec. 303. Small Flood Control Projects........................... 38
Sec. 304. Small Navigation Projects.............................. 38
Sec. 305. Streambank Protection Projects......................... 38
Sec. 306. Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration, Springfield, Oregon..... 38
Sec. 307. Guilford and New Haven, Connecticut.................... 39
Sec. 308. Francis Bland Floodway Ditch........................... 39
Sec. 309. Caloosahatchee River Basin, Florida.................... 39
Sec. 310. Cumberland, Maryland, Flood Project Mitigation......... 39
Sec. 311. City of Miami Beach, Florida........................... 39
Sec. 312. Sardis Reservoir, Oklahoma............................. 39
Sec. 313. Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System
Navigation Modernization....................................... 40
Sec. 314. Upper Mississippi River Management..................... 40
Sec. 315. Research and Development Program for Columbia and Snake
Rivers Salmon Survival......................................... 40
Sec. 316. Nine Mile Run Habitat Restoration, Pennsylvania........ 41
Sec. 317. Larkspur Ferry Channel, California..................... 40
Sec. 318. Comprehensive Flood Impact-Response Modeling System.... 40
Sec. 319. Study Regarding Innovative Financing for Small and
Medium-sized Ports............................................. 41
Sec. 320. Candy Lake Project, Osage County, Oklahoma............. 41
Sec. 321. Salcha River and Piledriver Slough, Fairbanks, Alaska.. 41
Sec. 322. Eyak River, Cordova, Alaska............................ 41
Sec. 323. North Padre Island Storm Damage Reduction and
Environmental Restoration Project.............................. 41
Sec. 324. Kanopolis Lake, Kansas................................. 42
Sec. 325. New York City Watershed................................ 42
Sec. 326. City of Charlevoix Reimbursement, Michigan............. 42
Sec. 327. Hamilton Dam Flood Control Project, Michigan........... 42
Sec. 328. Holes Creek Flood Control Project, Ohio................ 42
Sec. 329. Overflow Management Facility, Rhode Island............. 42
Sec. 330. Anacostia River Aquatic System Restoration, District of
Columbia and Maryland.......................................... 42
Sec. 331. Everglades and South Florida Ecosystem Restoration..... 43
Hearings......................................................... 43
Rollcall votes................................................... 43
Regulatory impact statement...................................... 43
Mandates assessment.............................................. 43
Cost of legislation.............................................. 43
Changes to existing law.......................................... 44
Calendar No. 72
106th Congress Report
1st Session SENATE 106-34
=======================================================================
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1999
_______
March 23, 1999.--Ordered to be printed.
Mr. Chafee, from the Committee on Environment and Public Works,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 507]
The Committee on Environment and Public Works, to which was
referred the bill (S. 507) to provide for the conservation and
development of water and related resources, to authorize the
Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for
improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and
for other purposes, having considered the same, reports
favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that the
bill do pass.
General Statement
In reporting the Water Resources Development Act of 1999,
the Committee has chosen to adhere to the policies established
in the 1986 Water Resources Development Act (P.L. 99-662), and
continued in subsequent Acts, regarding the authorization of
projects within the civil works program of the Army Corps of
Engineers. This bill includes authorization for 43 new
construction projects, for flood control, navigation, hurricane
protection and beach erosion control, and environmental
restoration.
The Water Resources Development Act of 1986, signed into
law on November 17, 1986, marked the end of a 16-year deadlock,
between the Congress and the executive branch regarding
authorization of the public works program. In addition to
authorizing numerous projects, the 1986 Act resolved
longstanding disputes relating to cost-sharing, user fees, and
environmental requirements.
Prior to 1986, disputes over these and other matters had
prevented enactment of major civil works legislation since
1970. Between 1947 and 1970, civil works authorization bills
were enacted every 2 to 3 years. This regular schedule had many
advantages. It helped to avoid long delays between the planning
and the execution of projects; assured that engineering work
and economic analysis were applicable to current conditions;
minimized the backlog of projects that have been considered but
not authorized by Congress; and allowed the Public Works
Committees of the Congress to review proposed projects,
programs and agency policies on a regular schedule.
Nevertheless, this system broke down in the 1970's. There
was no legislation enacted between 1970 and 1986 to authorize
civil works projects for construction. The Water Resources
Development Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-587) made some changes
to Corps policies, but authorized no projects.
In 1986, a House-Senate Conference Committee produced a
Conference Report (H. Rept. 99 1013) which was passed by the
House and the Senate and signed into law on November 17, 1986
(Public Law 99-662). The Water Resources Development Act of
1986 was the largest and most comprehensive authorization of
the Corps' Civil Works Program since the Senate Public Works
Committee was created in 1947.
Some of the major reforms included in the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (and maintained in this legislation)
are listed below:
Cost-sharing formulas were established for deep draft
harbor dredging (section 101), flood control (section 103),
shoreline protection (section 103), streambanks erosion control
(section 603), and other projects. Local Cooperation Agreements
were required for all such projects. Projects for enhancement
of fish and wildlife resources were allowed to be carried out
at up to 100 percent Federal expense under section 906 and
environmental restoration at 75 percent Federal expense under
section 1135.
The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, capitalized by a new
Harbor Maintenance Fee, was established to pay 40 percent of
the Federal cost of maintaining authorized deep draft
navigation channels (sections 210, 1402 and 1403), and was
subsequently increased to 100 percent under the 1990 Water
Resources Development Act.
Projects authorized prior to 1986 that were incomplete
would be deauthorized without congressional action if no funds
were expended on the project for a period of 10 years; projects
authorized in 1986 or thereafter would be deauthorized if not
funded for a period of 5 years (section 1001).
These policy changes applied to all projects contained in
the Water Resources Development Acts of 1988 (Public Law 100-
676); 1990 (Public Law 101-640); 1992 (Public Law 102-580);
1996 (Public Law 104-303) and will continue to apply to all
projects contained in the Water Resources Development Act of
1999.
Statement of Committee Policy
Since 1986, it has been the policy of the Committee to
authorize only those construction projects that conform with
cost-sharing and other policies established in the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986. In addition, it has been the
policy of the Committee to require projects to have undergone
full and final engineering, economic and environmental review
by the Chief of Engineers prior to project approvals by the
Committee.
The Corps of Engineers water resources project study
process can be initiated when either of the two Public Works
Committees of the Congress approves a committee resolution
requesting that the study of a potential project area be
undertaken. Once such a resolution is approved by either
committee, the Corps is authorized to proceed with a
reconnaissance study of the proposed project at 100 percent
Federal cost. The purpose of a reconnaissance study is to
determine whether or not there is a Federal interest in the
project. Authorization of a reconnaissance study may also be
provided by statute. Army Corps policy now requires all
reconnaissance studies to completed within 12 months and at a
cost of no greater than $100,000.
If, after completion of the reconnaissance study, a project
is deemed to be in the Federal interest, the Federal Government
and a non-Federal sponsor may enter into an equally cost-shared
feasibility study. The feasibility study includes a more
detailed set of engineering, economic and environmental
analyses to determine whether a project is justified to advance
to the construction phase. When the feasibility study is
completed, the Corps District Engineer reviews the results and
forwards a recommendation on the project to the Division
Engineer. The Division Engineer issues a Division Engineer's
notice and then submits the report to Corps Headquarters.
Headquarters performs a final policy review and submits the
report for the mandatory (33 U.S.C. 701 1(a)) 90-day State and
agency review period. After these reviews are complete and the
report is found favorable, a report is prepared for the final
recommendation of the Chief of Engineers. The report of the
Chief of Engineers is forwarded to the Assistant Secretary of
the Army (Civil Works) for Administration review and submission
to the Congress.
Some of the projects sent to the Assistant Secretary of the
Army by the Chief of Engineers are forwarded to the Congress
with a recommendation that construction be authorized. Such a
recommendation only occurs after the project has been reviewed
by the Office of Management and Budget. It is the prerogative
of the Administration to make recommendations regarding the
authorization of Corps projects. However, the Committee is not
bound by these recommendations. The decision to authorize a
project rests with the two Houses of Congress.
The review of projects by the Chief of Engineers is
technical in nature and does not involve either a political or
policy judgment. The Committee practice of using Chief of
Engineers' reports to measure the validity of projects does not
represent a pre-clearance of projects with the Administration.
If the technical Chief of Engineers' review process ever
becomes unduly influenced by political or policy-related
considerations, the Committee would reevaluate the practice of
using Chief of Engineers' reports for the purpose of helping to
determine project authorization.
The contingent authorization of water resources projects
not expected to have final reports of the Chief of Engineers in
the same calendar year as the Water Resources Development Act
under consideration is contrary to the policy of the Committee.
Exceptions to this fundamental Committee practice are not
supported.
The 1999 Water Resources Development Act
S. 507, the Water Resources Development Act of 1999,
introduced on March 2, 1999, by Senators Warner, Chafee,
Baucus, Voinovich, Lautenberg, Bennett, and Boxer, contains new
project authorizations and new programs, as requested by the
Administration, as well as several modifications to existing
projects and programs also requested by the Administration. S.
507, as reported by the Committee, incorporates some of these
provisions as outlined below.
Section 201--Flood Hazard Mitigation and Riverine Ecosystem Restoration
Program
One of the Administration's major proposals is to authorize
a new continuing authorities program (wherein the individual
projects do not require congressional authorization) for non-
structural flood control and riverine ecosystem restoration
projects. This section proposes a major new initiative which
would authorize the Secretary of the Army to construct non-
structural (upland water storage, voluntary buyouts, setback
levees, flood warning systems) flood control projects at a cost
share of 65 percent Federal and 35 percent non-Federal. The
legislation reported by the Committee recommends a 2-year
program with a total authorization level of $75 million and a
per project cap of $25 million. These numbers reflect a
reduction from the Administration's original proposal. Members
of the Committee reduced the cost and duration of the new
program in order to better assess its efficacy after 2 years.
Section 202--Shore Protection Projects
In 1998 the Administration proposed dramatic changes in
cost sharing for coastal shore protection projects. The current
cost sharing for shore protection projects is 65 percent
Federal and 35 percent non-Federal for initial construction and
for the 50-year renourishment life of the project. The
Administration proposed to modify the cost share so that the
renourishment work would be 35 percent Federal and 65 percent
non-Federal. After conducting detailed budgetary, economic and
equity analyses, the legislation reported by the Committee
instead proposes that the renourishment be cost shared equally
at 50-50 between the Federal and non-Federal project sponsors.
The reported legislation would apply the new equal cost share
to those projects (that advance to construction) not having a
completed feasibility study before December 31, 1999.
Section 209--Recreational User Fees
Additionally in 1998, the Administration proposed to modify
the expenditure of fees collected at Corps recreation sites.
The provision would allow the Corps to use any recreation fees
it collects above an annual, national baseline level of $34
million to remain at the park from which the fee originated.
For the portion of the fee that remains at the park, the Corps
can only fund maintenance activities, such as campground or
trail upkeep. The legislation reported by the Committee
includes said provision.
Section-by-Section Analysis
Sec. 1. Short Title; Table of Contents
This section designates the title of the bill as ``The
Water Resources Development Act of 1999'' and lists the table
of contents.
Sec. 2. Definition of Secretary
This section defines the term ``Secretary'' for the
purposes of this Act as the Secretary of the Army.
Title I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS
Sec. 101. Project Authorizations
This section provides authority for the Secretary to carry
out 43 projects for water resources development, conservation,
and other purposes substantially in accordance with the plans
recommended in the reports referenced in the bill language.
Descriptions of the projects are as follows:
(a) Projects with Chief's Reports
Subsection (a) of Section 101 authorizes the following 22
projects for water resources development, and conservation and
other purposes to be carried out by the Secretary substantially
in accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions
recommended in a final report of the Chief of Engineers.
Sand Point Harbor, Alaska
Location.--Sand Point, Alaska.
Purpose.--navigation.
Problem.--Sand Point is one of the Alaska's most productive
fishing areas. The harbor currently provides no permanent
protected moorage for vessels larger than 80 feet. In
recent years, the fleet operating in the Bering Sea/
Aleutian Island area, made up primarily of vessels ranging
from 80 to 160 feet, has grown significantly. Vessels
fishing in the Sand Point area currently travel long
distances to secure protected moorage.
Recommended Plan.--A mooring basin would be constructed
adjacent to the south of the existing harbor. It
incorporates the existing southern breakwater and the
causeway to the city dock by extending the existing
breakwater to form a basin for the design fleet. A second
breakwater, 730 feet long, will be constructed from shore.
Project Costs.--Total cost $11,760,000. Federal cost
$6,964,000; non-Federal cost $4,796,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio.--1.9 to 1
Rio Salado (Salt River), Arizona
Location.--Phoenix and Tempe, Arizona.
Purpose.--environmental restoration and recreation.
Problem.--Portions of the Indian Bend Wash and the Salt River
in Tempe, and a 5-mile section of the Salt River in Phoenix
have experienced destruction of native plant communities
and federally listed threatened and endangered species
habitat.
Recommended Plan.--The plan would provide for water supply
and infrastructure features to reestablish and support
native vegetation and wildlife habitat; drop structures and
low flow channels; monitoring and adaptive management
plans; and a recreational plan.
Project Costs.--Total cost $88,048,000. Federal cost
$56,355,000; non-Federal cost $31,693,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio.--The cost of the recommended plan is
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.
Tucson Drainage Area, Arizona
Location.--Tucson, Arizona.
Purpose.--flood damage reduction, environmental restoration,
and recreation.
Problem.--Flooding results from increased development and its
effect on rainfall runoff. Limited channel capacities of
the existing channels and tributaries cause frequent and
severe flooding.
Recommended Plan.--The plan consists of two large detention
basin complexes, one at Randolph Golf Course in the upper
watershed and the other upstream of Park Avenue in the
center of the basin. The recommended plan provides
protection from the 1-percent exceedance flood. The Park
Avenue complex also provides for environmental restoration
of approximately 10 acres of desert riparian habitat and
includes limited recreational facilities compatible with
the flood control and environmental purposes. Mitigation
for project construction included 6.8 acres of riparian
habitat and 0.4 acres of upland desert vegetation.
Project Costs.--Total cost $29,900,000. Federal cost
$16,768,000; non-Federal cost $13,132,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio.--1.3 to 1
American River Watershed, California
Location.--Sacramento, California.
Purpose.--flood damage reduction.
Problem.--The flood plain at the confluence of the Sacramento
and American Rivers has been widely developed over the past
150 years and now has approximately a 1 in 80 chance of
being flooded by the American River in any year. Because
the American River watershed is steep, runoff increases
very rapidly after a major storm. Approximately 400,00
people live in the 55,000 acre area which could be flooded
there are approximately 160,000 residential structures,
5,000 businesses and 1,200 government facilities including
the State Capitol in the potential flood plain.
Recommended Plan.--The Stepped Release flood damage reduction
project shall be implemented after the stabilization of
existing levees and development of flood warning features,
authorized in Water Resources Development Act of 1996, and
after reviewing the design of such Stepped Release project
features to determine if modifications are necessary to
account for changes in hydrological or other conditions.
The Committee has received assurances in a July 29, 1998,
letter from the Assistant Secretary of the Army that the
Corps has the discretionary authority to consider measures
to minimize adverse project impacts or allow for more
timely implementation of a project. The Assistant Secretary
further confirms that the measures developed by the Corps
as part of the Stepped Release Plan will adequately
mitigate for all potential downstream impacts.
Implementation of the remaining downstream elements may be
undertaken only after the Secretary, in consultation with
affected Federal, state, regional, and local entities, has
reviewed the elements to determine if modifications, as
called for in the March 1996 SIR, including stepped
operation of Folsom Dam and Reservoir, are necessary.
Project Costs.--Total cost $505,400,000. Federal cost
$329,300,000; non-Federal cost $176,100,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio.--1.6 to 1
Llagas Creek, California
Location.--Southern Santa Clara County, vicinity of the
communities of Morgan Hill, San Martin, and Gilroy,
California.
Purpose.--flood damage reduction.
Problem.--Due to commercial and residential growth in the
Santa Clara Valley, annual damages estimated during a 1 in
100 year flood event would inundate 5,300 acres.
Recommended Plan.--The plan recommends completion the
remaining reaches of the National Resources Conservation
Service flood control project at Llagas Creek, California.
The project consists of channel improvements and a
diversion channel providing a 100-year level of flood
protection, to 946 acres of urban land and 10 year
protection to 1,280 acres agricultural land.
Project Costs.--Total cost $45,000,000. Federal cost
$21,800,000; non-Federal cost $23,200,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio.--1.0 to 1.0
South Sacramento County Streams, California
Location.--San Joaquin County (South Sacramento County
Streams), California.
Purpose.--flood control, environmental restoration, and
recreation.
Problem.--High risk of flooding potentially impacting 100,000
people and causing between $1 and $2 billion in damages.
Recommended Plan.--The plan would address flood problems and
the need for additional water resources-related recreation
and environmental restoration.
Project Costs.--Total cost $65,500,000. Federal cost
$41,200,000; non-Federal cost $24,300,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio.--4.2 to 1
Upper Guadalupe River, California
Location.--San Jose, Santa Clara County, California.
Purpose.--flood damage reduction and recreation.
Problem.--The area has experienced severe flooding, most
recently in 1982, 1983, 1995, and 1998. Over 7,500 new
residential and commercial buildings lie within the Federal
Emergency Agency (FEMA) regulatory flood plain. The
estimated damages have ranged from $3 million to nearly $15
million. It is estimated that a 1 in 100 year flood would
result in approximately $280 million in damages within the
study area.
Recommended Plan.--The plan recommends construction of the
locally preferred plan described as the Bypass Channel
Plan, which combines channel widening bypass channels,
flood wall, and bridge replacement to increase channel
capacity throughout the bypass area. The Bypass Channel
Plan would remove over 6,600 buildings from the regulatory
flood plain by widening almost 2 miles of existing channel,
constructing over + mile of flood walls and levees,
constructing three bypass channels and replacing five
bridges.
Project Costs.--Total cost $137,600,000. Federal cost
$44,000,000; non-Federal cost $93,600,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio.--2.1 to 1
Yuba River Basin, California
Location.--Yuba City-Marysville, California.
Purpose.--flood damage reduction.
Problem.--Levee breaks in 1986 and 1997 inundated the two
towns, resulting in evacuation, damages and loss of life.
Recommended Plan.--The plan would provide protection from a
flood having 1 in 200 chance of occurring in any given year
along the Yuba and Feather Rivers in reach 1, the area
around and including the communities of Linda and
Olivehurst, and reach 2, the area around Best Slough/Lower
Reclamation District No. 784. The plan would also provide
protection from a flood having 1 in 300 chance of occurring
in any given year in reach 3, the City of Marysville. In
reaches 1 and 2, the major features of the recommended plan
include constructing a combination of new and deeper slurry
walls for a distance of 6.7 miles, deepening 9 miles of
interior toe drains, and constructing or modifying 9.5
miles of berms along sections of the Yuba and Feather
Rivers. Mitigation for this project would utilize credit at
the existing preservation banks established for the
Sacramento River Flood Control, Phase II, Project.
Project Costs.--Total cost $26,600,000. Federal cost
$17,350,000; non-Federal cost $9,250,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio.--2.6 to 1
Delaware Bay Coastline: Delaware and New Jersey-Broadkill Beach,
Delaware
Location.--Sussex County, Delaware, 3 miles northwest of
Lewes.
Purpose.--hurricane and storm damage reduction and shore
protection.
Problem.--The Broadkill beach area is vulnerable to hurricane
and storm induced damages, including long term erosion,
storm recession and inundation and wave attack. Storm
induced damages for Broadkill Beach can be reduced with the
construction of a shoreline protection project.
Recommended Plan.--The plan involves the placement of
1,305,000 cubic yards of sand to construct a beach berm and
dune to provide shoreline protection to Broadkill beach. In
addition, this section authorizes periodic nourishment of
358,000 cubic yards of sand every 5 years for a 50-year
period.
Project Costs.--total cost $9,049,000. Federal cost
$5,674,000; non-Federal cost $3,375,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio.--1.6 to 1
Delaware Bay Coastline: Delaware and New Jersey-Port Mahon, Delaware
Location.--Port Mahon, Kent County, Delaware, 7.5 miles east
of Dover, Delaware.
Purpose.--ecosystem restoration and shore protection.
Problem.--The Port Mahon area has experienced shoreline
erosion over the years, as well as the related problems of
loss of wetlands and beach habitat; encroachment of the
shoreline toward State Road 89 and potential loss of road
access to various state and private-owed facilities in the
area. Potential physical damages to structures in the area
(including the fuel dock and underground pipeline which
delivers jet fuel to Dover AFB; fishing piers; and boat
docks); and lack of sufficient depth to allow for
navigation of fishing vessels and fuel barges at low tide.
Recommended Plan.--The plan recommends construction of a
shore protection project for ecosystem restoration on the
Delaware Bay Coastline. Port Mahon is a significant
breeding site for horseshoe crabs, and the plan would
restore the horseshoe crab habitat through the placement of
306,000 cubic yards along the shoreline and subsequent
periodic nourishment. The plan would also raise State Road
89. In addition, this section authorizes periodic
nourishment of 150,000 cubic yards of sand every 7 years
for a 50-year period at an estimated average annual cost of
$234,000, with estimated annual Federal cost of $152,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $82,000
Project Costs.--Total cost $7,644,000. Federal cost
$4,969,000; non-Federal cost $2,675,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio.--The cost of the recommended plan is
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.
Hillsboro and Okeechobee Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project, Florida.
Location.--Florida.
Purpose.--aquifer storage and recovery projects.
Problem.--Increased development and intense agriculture
activity has depleted historic fresh water supplies
throughout South Central Florida.
Recommended Plan.--The plan recommends construction of
related aquifer storage and recovery projects at Hillsboro
and Okeechobee, described in the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Central and Southern Florida Water Supply Study,
dated April 1989.
Project Costs.--Total cost $27,000,000. Federal cost
$13,500,000; non-Federal cost $13,500,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio.--2.8 to 1
Indian River County, Florida
Location.--Florida.
Purpose.--shoreline protection.
Problem.--The shoreline in Indian River County is vulnerable
to hurricane and storm induced damages including long term
erosion, storm recession and inundation and wave attack.
Recommended Plan.--This shore protection project consists of
placing beachfill along two segments of shoreline in Indian
River County, a 1.7 mile stretch at the north end of the
county near Sebastian Inlet State Park and a 2.6 mile
stretch in the town of Vero Beach.
Project Costs.--Total cost $11,100,000. Federal cost
$6,800,000; non-Federal cost $4,300,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio.--Sebastian Inlet State Park--1.9 to 1.
Vero Beach--2.8 to 1.
Lido Key Beach, Sarasota, Florida
Location.--Small barrier island, west coast 45 miles south/
southwest of Tampa, Florida.
Purpose.--shore protection.
Problem.--Recent storms have accelerated beach erosion and
resulted in structural damages. A shore protection project
was authorized in 1970 which consisted of a protective and
elevated beach along 6,200 feet of Gulf shore near the
middle of Lido Key to alleviated beach erosion problems.
The City of Sarasota completed the northern half of the
project in 1970 without Federal participation. The Project
was never completed and deauthorized on 1 Jan 1990 in
accordance with the provision of section 1001(b) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986.
Recommended Plan.--The plan calls for re-authorizing shore
protection at Lido Key, and the calls for the Secretary to
use available fund or funds advanced by the non-Federal
sponsor to complete all studies, reports or other necessary
documents for the development of project.
Project Costs.--Total cost $5,200,000. Federal cost
$3,380,000; non-Federal cost $1,820,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio.--6.8 to 1
Tampa Harbor-Big Bend Channel, Florida
Location.--Florida.
Purpose.--navigation.
Problem.--The channel is primarily used by deep draft,
integrated tug-barges hauling phosphate rock to a terminal
near New Orleans (outbound) and coal to the Tampa Electric
Company facility(inbound). Navigation on the Big Bend
channel is difficult primary because of the narrow bottom
width of the existing channel. Frequent strong winds and
adverse weather conditions make navigation within the
existing channels extremely difficult. Additionally, the
34-feet deep channel restricts its use to shallow draft
vessels.
Recommended Plan.--The plan would modify the Tampa Harbor
navigation project to deepen the entrance channel, east
channel, and inner channel at Big Bend from 34 feet to 41
feet below mean low water (mlw). The entrance channel would
be widened from 200 feet to 250 feet for a length of 1.9
miles. Additionally, the existing turning basin would be
deepened to 41 feet mlw and expanded to provide a minimum
width of 1,200 feet. Approximately 3.5 million cubic yards
of dredged material would be placed on Disposal Island 3D.
Project Costs.--Total cost $12,356,000. Federal cost
$6,235,000; non-Federal cost $6,121,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio.--3.2 to 1
Brunswick Harbor, Georgia
Location.--Georgia.
Purpose.--navigation.
Problem.--Existing channel depths constrain traffic. Under
present conditions, ships incur costly tidal delays and
light loading especially bulk and breakbulk carriers. As
traffic continues to increase, and as vessels in the world
fleet continue to grow in size due to replacement of
smaller ships with larger, more efficient ships, the
problem will be exacerbated in the future. Also, ships
currently calling at the port are experiencing problems
with safe transit, turning capabilities and overall
maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner/upper
harbor.
Recommended Plan.--The plan consists of deepening the harbor
by 6 feet, changing the authorized project depth in the Bar
Channel from 32 feet below mean low water (mlw) to 38 feet
below mlw and in the Inner and Upper Harbor from 30 feet
below mlw to 36 feet below mlw. The channel will be widened
to 400 feet from the new bridge, which will replace the
existing Sidney Lanier Bridge. Also selected areas in Lower
Turtle River and Upper East River ranges will be widened to
400 feet. A new turning basin will be constructed in Upper
East River, and the existing basin in Lower Turtle River
will be expanded.
Project Costs.--Total cost $50,717,000. Federal cost
$32,966,000; non-Federal cost $17,751,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio.--1.6 to 1
Beargrass Creek, Kentucky
Location.--Kentucky.
Purpose.--flood damage reduction.
Problem.--Flooding occurred in 1937, 1964, 1970, 1973, 1990,
1993, and 1997. An occurrence of the 100-year flood will
affect an estimated 929 structures and cause $48 million in
damages.
Recommended Plan.--The plan would modification of 1 existing
detention basin, 7 new detention basins, 1,850 feet of
levee/floodwall, 2,000 feet of channel improvement, and 9
acres of trees and shrubs for environmental mitigation.
Project Costs.--Total cost $11,172,000. Federal cost
$7,262,000; non-Federal cost $3,910,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio.--2.7 to 1
Amite River and Tributaries, Louisiana, East Baton Rouge Parish
Watershed
Location.--Baton Rouge, Zachary, and Baker, Louisiana.
Purpose.--flood damage reduction and recreation.
Problem.--Flooding within watershed located in the parish of
East Baton Rouge threaten residential and commercial
structures.
Recommended Plan.--The plan will expand five watersheds
within the parish of East Baton Rouge to reduce damages
from larger floods. The project also includes a recreation
bike trail from one of the watersheds.
Project Costs.--Total cost $112,900,000. Federal cost
$73,400,000; non-Federal cost $39,500,000
Benefit/Cost Ratio.--2.5 to 1.
Baltimore Harbor Anchorages and Channels, Maryland and Virginia
Location.--Baltimore Harbor, Baltimore Harbor, Maryland and
Virginia.
Purpose.--navigation.
Problem.--The existing anchorages and branch channels are not
of substantial depth, length and width to accommodate
vessels.
Recommended Plan.--The plan calls widening and deepening of
Federal anchorage 3 and 4; widening and providing flared
corners for state owed east Dundalk, Seagirt, Connecting,
and West Dundalk branch channels; dredge a new channel and
south Locust Point; and dredge a turning basin at Fort
McHenry channel.
Project Costs.--Total cost $28,430,000. Federal cost
$19,000,000; non-Federal cost $9,430,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio.--4.3 to 1.
Red Lake River at Crookston, Minnesota
Location.--Crookston, Minnesota.
Purpose.--flood damage reduction.
Problem.--Recurring overland flooding from the Red Lake River
causes damages to residential, commercial and public
structures.
Recommended Plan.--The recommended plan consists of two
downstream high-flow channels, levees and road raises
providing flood damage reduction for the neighborhoods of
Woods Addition, Thorndale and Riverside/Downtown, and flood
plain management techniques for areas of the city not
protected by permanent levees. Once it is in place, the
proposed project would meet the National Flood Insurance
Program requirements as administered by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency. It would have a 1 percent
chance of being exceeded in any 1 year.
Project Costs.--Total cost $8,950,000. Federal cost
$5,720,000; non-Federal $3,230,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio.--1.5 to 1.
New Jersey Shore Protection, Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet, New
Jersey
Location.--New Jersey.
Purpose.--shore protection, ecosystem restoration and
hurricane and storm damage reduction.
Problem.--The Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet area is
vulnerable to hurricane and storm damages, including long
term erosion, storm recession and inundation and wave
attack. Storm induced damages can be reduced in this area
with the construction of a shoreline protection project.
Recommended Plan.--The plan involves the placement of
3,111,000 cubic yards of sand to construct a beach berm and
dune.
Project Costs.--Total $56,503,000. Federal cost $36,727,000;
non-Federal cost $19,776,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio.--1.8 to 1.
Park River, North Dakota
Location.--Park River, Grafton, Walsh County, North Dakota.
Purpose.--flood control project.
Problem.--Recurrent flooding along the main steam of the Park
River, causes significant flood problems at Grafton. The
largest flood of record which occurred in 1950, inundated
almost the entire city. More recent floods occurred in
1962, 1965, 1969, 1979, 1997.
Recommended Plan.--This project was authorized in section
401(a) of Water Resources Development Act 1986 and
subsequently deauthorized on November 18, 1991, in
accordance with section 1001(a) of Water Resources
Development Act 1986, therefore, no construction may be
initiated unless the General Re-evaluation report deems the
project still to be technically sound, environmentally
acceptable, and economically justified. The previously
authorized project provided flood protection for the City
of Grafton. It consisted of a 3.75 mile long bypass channel
that would extend upstream and tot the West of Grafton
along the South Branch park River. The tieback levee would
direct the flood flow to the inlet of the bypass channel a
diversion structure would be a the point where the levee
crosses the Park River. River flows that exceed 2,000 cubic
feet per second (CFS) would be diverted through the
proposed bypass channel. During period when the river flow
is less than 2,000 the entire flow would go through the
natural channel of the Park River, through Grafton.
Project Costs.--Total cost $28,100,000. Federal cost
$18,265,000; non-Federal cost $9,835,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio.--1.3 to 1.
Salt Creek, Graham, Texas
Location.--Salt Creek, Graham, Texas.
Purpose.--flood control, environmental restoration, and
recreation.
Problem.--Loss of property and injuries to flood victims as a
result of normal flooding of Salt Creek and backwater
effects from the Brazos River. Structures valued at
approximately $17 million are vulnerable to floods with a 1
percent probability of exceedance. Since 1972, eight
significant floods have occurred. In 1978, a flood resulted
in six deaths and property damage in excess of $62 million
for the area including surrounding counties. In 1990, a
flood on Salt Creek resulted in $625,000 damages to the
community.
Recommended Plan.--The plan provides for permanent evacuation
of 10-year floodplain containing 127 structures (94
residential, 30 commercial and 3 public); installation of a
flood warning system to protect residents above the buy-out
zone; installation of recreation amenities (trails and
picnic sites); and environmental restoration of floodplain
lands including replanting of native trees and shrubs.
Project Costs.--Total cost $10,080,000. Federal cost
$6,560,000; non-Federal $3,520,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio.--1.4 to 1.
(b). Project Authorizations Subject to a Final Report
Subsection (b) of Section 101 authorizes the following 20
projects for water resources development, and conservation and
other purposes to be carried out by the Secretary substantially
in accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions
recommended in a final report of the Chief of Engineers as
approved by the Secretary, if a favorable report of the Chief
is completed not later than December 31, 1999.
Nome Harbor Improvements, Alaska
Location.--Nome, Alaska.
Purpose.--navigation.
Problem.--The existing Federal navigation project at Nome is
not functionally adequate and requires major modifications
and/or replacement to meet the needs of the growing fishing
fleet and barge traffic.
Recommended Plan.--The major features of the recommended plan
are a new jetty/breakwater system, a new channel design and
configuration, a spur breakwater, and a sediment trap. The
proposed breakwater will be located on the east side of the
existing causeway, and the channel will be relocated to
between the new breakwater and the causeway. A new entrance
through the spit will be constructed. The breakwater spur
will be added to the end of the causeway to provide
additional protection to vessels using the causeway, and a
sediment trap will be constructed on the east side of the
existing breach in the causeway.
Project Costs.--Total cost $24,606,000. Federal cost
$18,406,000; non-Federal $6,200,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio.--1.5 to 1.
Seward Harbor, Alaska
Location.--Seward, Alaska.
Purpose.--navigation.
Problem.--Marine activities at Seward are driven primarily by
commercial fishing and tourism. The demand for moorage
space greatly exceeds the supply much of the year. All
assigned (permanent) slips have been fully occupied
throughout the summer for more than 15 years. Vessels and
the mooring facilities are damaged during peak periods from
minor impacts, overstressing of the float system, and other
incidents caused by overcrowding.
Recommended Plan.--A 1,700-foot-long rubble mound breakwater
would be constructed approximately 400 feet east of the
existing harbor in a north-south alignment for a length of
1,070 feet. The seaward toe of the breakwater would
maintain a minimum distance of 30 feet from the existing
piles supporting the coal trestle. The remainder of the new
breakwater would then change to a southwest alignment to
form the eastern side of the new entrance channel. The new
entrance channel would have the same configuration and
depth as the existing channel. The 330-foot gap of the old
entrance channel would be closed by construction of a
rubble mound structure. About 5.2 acres of additional
uplands would be created south of the harbor using dredged
materials. The basin would be dredged to -15 ft and -12.5
ft MLLW to optimize the requirements of the present and
anticipated fleet.
Project Costs.--Total cost $11,930,000. Federal cost
$4,019,000; non-Federal $7,911,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio.--1.7 to 1
Hamilton Airfield Wetland Restoration, California.
Location.--City of Novato, Marin County, California.
Purpose.--wetlands restoration and related environmental
improvements.
Problem.--the area is a former defense facility and includes
land and wetlands degradation.
Recommended Plan.--In the Water Resources Development Act of
1996, Congress provided that publicly or privately owned
upland sites may be considered for dredge disposal. The
Hamiltonsite should not be given priority over other upland
disposal sites that also are available in the San Francisco
Bay Area. Specifically, the private Montezuma Wetlands site
located in Solano County should be given fair and equal
consideration, provided that the Montezuma site proves to
be economically and environmentally feasible. The Secretary
should consider developing a management plan that addresses
the equitable distribution of the dredged material to
various upland sites in cases where dredged material from
Corps construction or maintenance dredging is available for
beneficial use or other upland disposal methods in the Bay
Area. In comparing the costs and benefits of public and
private disposal options, the Secretary shall consider all
costs and benefits, including all publicly funded costs, to
ensure than an objective and equitable comparison of
private and public facilities occurs.
Wetlands would be restored to the Hamilton Army Airfield
and adjacent properties including the former antenna field
using dredged material to accelerate marsh establishment and
raise elevations for seasonal wetlands. Approximately 700 acres
of habitat would be restored. The Secretary is directed to
coordinate remediation and closure of the Hamilton Air Field
site in Marin County, California, under the Base Realignment
and Closure Act to ensure that the site is cleaned to the level
that will allow implementation of the wetlands restoration
project and that any issues associated with base closure, such
as impacts to surrounding properties, are resolved by January
1, 2000. This plan would restore tidal salt marsh habitat in
San Francisco Bay.
Project Costs.--Total cost $55,200,000. Federal cost
$41,400,000; non-Federal $13,800,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio.--The cost of the recommended plan is
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.
Oakland Harbor, California
Location.--Oakland, California Eastern Shore of Central San
Francisco Bay.
Purpose.--navigation.
Problem.--Cargo movement into Oakland is hampered by the need
for channel and turning basin improvements. Vessel
dimensions are increasing, which cause further safety
concerns.
Recommended Plan.--This project would deepen the channel to a
depth of 50 feet. In addition, the non-Federal interests
shall provide berthing areas and other local service
facilities at an estimated cost of $43,000,000.
Approximately 7.0 mcy of dredged material would be
deposited in the middle harbor enhancement area,
approximately 2.5 mcy would be transported to the proposed
Hamilton Army Airfield wetlands restoration project,
approximately 2.9 mcy would be disposed of at the existing
Montezuma Wetlands restorationsite, approximately 0.4 mcy
would be disposed of in upland sites.
Project Costs.--Total cost $214,340,000. Federal cost
$143,450,000; non-Federal $70,890,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio.--7.5 to 1
Delaware Bay Coastline: Delaware and New Jersey-Roosevelt Inlet-Lewes
Beach, Delaware
Location.--Roosevelt Inlet-Lewes Beach, Sussex County,
Delaware.
Purpose.--navigation mitigation, shore protection, and
hurricane and storm damage reduction.
Problem.--Shoreline erosion at the western end of Lewes
beach. In an attempt to prevent further erosion the state
of Delaware has done several beach fills on an as needed
basis. The Corps has also done a number of maintenance
beach dredging and has placed the dredged material along
Lewes Beach. Despite this effort, the shoreline continues
to erode. Longterm erosion has resulted in destruction in
shoreline protection by reducing the height and width of
beach front.
Recommended Plan.--The proposed plan extends 1400 feet along
the western edge of Lewes Beach and provides for placement
of 174,000 cubic yards of sand to construct a berm and dune
as well as the reconstruction of the south jetty. In
addition, this section authorizes periodic nourishment for
a 50-year period at an estimated average annual cost of
$207,000, with an estimated annual Federal cost of $159,000
and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of $47,600.
Project Costs.--Total cost $3,393,000. Federal cost
$2,260,000; non-Federal $773,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio.--1.3 to 1.
Delaware Coast From Cape Henelopen to Fenwick Island, Bethany Beach/
South Bethany Beach, Delaware
Location.--Towns of Bethany Beach and South Bethany Beach,
Delaware.
Purpose.--shore protection project for hurricane storm damage
reduction.
Problem.--Long term erosion has resulted in a persistent
reduction in storm damage protection by reducing the height
and width of the beachfront.
Recommended Plan.--Authorize construction of a shoreline
protection project. Involves placement of 3,453,000 cubic
yards of sand along 14,950 feet of shoreline to construct a
berm and a dune. The plan also includes dune, dune fencing,
and periodic nourishment for a 50-year period to ensure the
integrity of the design.
Project Costs.--Total cost $22,205,000. Federal cost of
$14,433,000; non-Federal cost $7,772,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio.--1.7 to 1.
Jacksonville Harbor, Florida
Location.--Duval County, Jacksonville Harbor, Florida.
Purpose.--navigation.
Problem.--Due to the existing depths, many of the vessels
that currently use Jacksonville Harbor must light-load or
wait on high tides in order to enter or exit the harbor
causing increased transportation costs. The current 38-foot
mean low water project depth also impacts the introduction
of larger vessels into the fleet that would visit the
harbor.
Recommended Plan.--Deepen the main channel to a project depth
of 40 feet below mean low water (MLW) from the 40-foot
depth contour in the Atlantic Ocean to river mile 14.7;
realignment of cuts 39-41 of the main channel; deepening of
the West Blount Island Channel along cuts F and G to a 40-
foot depth; raising of the dikes of the existing upland
disposal area on the east end of Bartram Island.
Project Costs.--Total cost $26,116,000. Federal cost
$9,129,000; non-Federal cost $16,987,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio.--1.4 to 1.
Little Talbot Island, Duval County, Florida
Location.--Little Talbot Island, Duval County, Florida.
Purpose.--shore protection project for hurricane and storm
damage prevention.
Problem.--Several times yearly, coastal flooding, erosion,
and storm waves damage State Road A1A/SR-105, which is the
main route used to travel between Amelia Island and the
Jacksonville metropolitan area.
Recommended Plan.--Construction of a 3,300 foot long stone
revetment over the existing rubble on the east side of the
bridge. The Florida Department of Transportation intends to
rehabilitate the bridge within the next few years and will
raise the elevation of 2,400 feet of State Road A1A/SR-105
on the western approach of the bridge. Protection of this
reach is not necessary.
Project Costs.--Total cost $5,915,000. Federal cost
$3,839,000; non-Federal cost $2,076,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio.--2.8 to 1
Ponce De Leon Inlet, Volusic County, Florida
Location.--Ponce De Leon Inlet, Volusic County, Florida.
Purpose.--navigation and recreation.
Problem.--The existing channels in Ponce DeLeon Inlet are
experiencing extensive shoaling and costly maintenance. Of
specific concern are the impacts and needs of the Port
Authority, charter boat operators, commercial fishermen,
recreational boaters, and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). USCG
search and rescue data from 1981 to 1991 indicates that 20
lives have been lost in the area of the inlet.
Recommended Plan.--Extend the south jetty by 1,000 feet
oceanward and parallel to the existing north jetty.
Project Costs.--Total cost $5,454,000. Federal cost
$2,988,000; non-Federal cost $2,466,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio.--1.4 to 1.
Savannah Harbor Expansion, Georgia
Location.--Savannah Harbor, Georgia.
Purpose.--navigation.
Problem.--The existing channel at Savannah Harbor has
experienced shoaling. Turning and navigation-related
improvements are necessary.
Recommended Plan.--GPA has selected a plan that would provide
for a 48 feet deep below mean low water (mlw) channel
within the inner harbor and 48- 50 feet channels below mlw
in the entrance channel; constructing 10 wideners in the
inner harbor and 2 wideners in the entrance channel;
enlarging Kings Island Turning Basin to 1,676 feet.
The Georgia Ports Authority (GPA) is completing the
feasibility study on improvements to Savannah Harbor under the
authority of Section 203 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1986. This project may be carried out only after the
Secretary, in consultation with affected Federal, State
(including the state of South Carolina), regional, and local
entities, has reviewed and approved a feasibility report and an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that includes an analysis
of the impacts of project depth alternatives ranging from 42
feet through 48 feet, and a selected plan for navigation, and
an associated mitigation plan. Further, the Secretary of
Interior, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency, along with the Secretary,
must approve the select plan and determine that the mitigation
plan adequately address the potential environmental impacts of
the project. The mitigation plan shall be implemented in
advance of or concurrently with construction of the project.
Project Costs.--Total cost $230,174,000. Federal cost
$145,160,000; non-Federal cost $85,014,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio.--3.0 to 1.
Turkey Creek Basin, Kansas City, Missouri
Location.--Kansas City, Missouri.
Purpose.--flood damage reduction.
Problem.--Low lying developed areas in the reach above the
mouth of Turkey Creek experience flooding from channel
overflow from storms over the heavily urbanized upstream
basin produces flooding independently or in combination
with overland flow from the steep urbanized hillsides
immediately adjacent to the flood plain.
Recommended Plan.--Channel modification including a leveed
section with an embankment averaging 8 feet along 2,785
feet of the 5,730-foot modified channel; and three 4-
percent-chance Kansas Hillside interceptor diversion
structures and a 6.67-percent-chance Missouri Hillside
interceptor diversion structure.
Project Costs.--Total cost $42,875,000. Federal cost
$25,596,000; non-Federal cost $17,279,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio.--1.5 to 1.
Delaware Bay Coastline, Oakwood Beach, New Jersey
Location.--Oakwood Beach, New Jersey.
Purpose.--hurricane and storm damage reduction.
Problem.--Oakwood Beach area is vulnerable to shoreline
erosion and storm induced wave attack damages.
Recommended Plan.--The proposed project involves the
placement of 332,000 cubic yards of sand to construct a
beach berm. In addition, this section authorizes periodic
nourishment of 32,000 cubic yards every 8 years for a 50-
year period at an estimated average annual cost of $90,000,
with a Federal cost of $58,000 and a non-Federal cost of
$32,000.
Project Costs.--Total cost $3,320,000. Federal cost
$2,197,000; non-Federal cost $1,183,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio.--2.0 to 1.
Delaware Bay Coastline, Reeds Beach and Pierces Point, New Jersey
Location.--Reeds Beach and Pierces Point, New Jersey.
Purpose.--environmental restoration.
Problem.--Shoreline erosion at Reeds Beach and Pierces Point
has resulted in the reduction of the height and the width
of the beach front. Various fish and wildlife habitat is
expected to be adversely impacted by future coastal storms.
Recommended Plan.--The plan calls for the construction of a
shore protection project for ecosystem restoration on the
Delaware Bay Coastline. Reeds Beach and Pierces Point are
significant breeding sites and the plan would restore
habitat through placement of 249,000 cubic yards of sand
along the shoreline.
Project Costs.--Total cost $4,057,000. Federal cost
$2,637,000; non-Federal cost $1,420,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio.--The cost of the recommended plan is
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.
Delaware Bay Coastline, Villas and Vicinity, New Jersey
Location.--Delaware Bay Coastline, Villas and Vicinity, New
Jersey.
Purpose.--environmental restoration.
Problem.--Shoreline erosion at villas and vicinity has
resulted in the reduction of the height and width of the
beach front. Shoreline erosion has adversely impacted on
horseshoe crab habitat, a critical food source to many
species of shorebirds and migratory birds, as well as the
habitat of diamond back terrapin. These habitats are
expected to be further impacted by future coastal storms.
Recommended Plan.--The plans calls for the construction of a
shore protection project for ecosystem restoration on the
Delaware Bay Coastline, including the placement of 950,000
cubic yards of sand along the shoreline restoring critical
habitat.
Project Costs.--Total cost $7,520,000. Federal cost
$4,888,000; non-Federal cost $2,632,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio.--The cost of the recommended plan is
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.
Lower Cape May Meadows, Cape May Point, New Jersey
Location.--Lower Cape May Meadows, Cape May Point, New
Jersey.
Purpose.--navigation mitigation, ecosystem restoration and
hurricane and storm damage reduction.
Problem.--The Federal navigation project adversely impacts
shoreline causing erosion, leaving habitat area and Cape
may Point vulnerable to storm damages.
Recommended Plan.--The plan also authorizes periodic
nourishment for a 50-year period at an annual cost of
$1,114,000, with a Federal cost of $897,000 and a non-
Federal cost of $217,000.
Project Costs.--Total cost $15,952,000. Federal cost
$12,118,000; non-Federal cost $3,834,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio.--N/A -Outputs are non-monetary--Ecosystem
Restoration. Storm damage increment has a 1.4 to 1 Benefit/
Cost Ratio.
New Jersey Shore Protection, Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor,
Brigantine Island, New Jersey
Location.--Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor, Brigantine
Island, New Jersey.
Purpose.--shore protection and hurricane and storm damage
reduction.
Problem.--Significant beach and dune erosion has left the
island vulnerable to storm damages.
Recommended Plan.--In addition, this section authorizes
periodic nourishment for a 50-year period at an estimated
average annual cost of $465,000, with a Federal cost of
$302,000 and a non-Federal cost of $163,000.
Project Costs.--Total cost $4,970,000. Federal cost
$3,230,000; non-Federal cost $1,740,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio.--1.2 to 1.
Columbia River Channel Deepening, Oregon and Washington
Location.--Oregon and Washington.
Purpose.--navigation.
Problem.--The existing 40-foot deep and 600-foot wide
navigation channel restricts vessels to partial loading,
and/or causes a sailing delay until the right combination
of river flow and tidal conditions occurs.
Recommended Plan.--To deepen the river channel to an
authorized depth of minus 43 feet Columbia River datum. The
project area covers 11.6 miles of the Willamette River
below Portland, OR and 103.5 miles of the Columbia River
below Vancouver, WA. The plan will provide an additional 5
feet of overdepth and 100 feet of overwidth, for efficient
maintenance on high shoaling areas.
Project Costs.--Total cost $182,423,000. Federal cost
$106,132,000; non-Federal cost $76,291,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio.--2.3 to 1.
Memphis Harbor, Memphis, Tennessee
Location.--Memphis Harbor, Memphis, Tennessee.
Purpose.--navigation.
Problem.--The available port facilities at Memphis are near
capacity. The Memphis and Shelby County Port Authority and
local interests have expressed support for reauthorization
of the project and the reformulation to achieve a smaller
more affordable project.
Recommended Plan.--The project consists of the creation of
new harbor facilities by dredging a channel of minimum
dimensions of 500 feet wide by 12 feet deep by 4.9 miles
long, extending from the Tennessee Chute to the west and
north of the existing harbor facilities. Hydraulic fill
from channel dredging will be used to create a 1,000-acre
industrial area to the west of the existing harbor fill.
Project Costs.--Total cost $115,400,000. Federal cost
$34,380,000; Non-Federal $81,020,000. These costs have not
been updated since 1988.
Benefit/Cost Ratio.--3.9 to 1.
Johnson Creek, Arlington, Texas
Location.--Arlington, Texas.
Purpose.--flood damage reduction, environmental restoration
and recreation.
Problem.--Loss of property and injuries to flood victims as a
result of normal flooding of Johnson Creek. The area along
Johnson Creek experienced severe damages in 1989 and 1990.
Recommended Plan.--The plan calls for permanent evacuation of
140 residential structures from the 25-year floodplain;
installation of recreation amenities; and environmental
restoration of floodplain lands including replanting of
native trees and shrubs.
Project Costs.--Total cost $20,300,000. Federal cost
$12,000,000; non-Federal cost $8,300,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio.--1.5 to 1
Howard Hanson Dam, Washington
Location.--Howard Hanson Dam, Washington.
Purpose.--water supply and ecosystem restoration.
Problem.--The authorized irrigation and water supply
components of the Howard Hanson Dam were not implemented
when the dam was constructed by the Corps of Engineers, in
the 1960's. The City of Tacoma Public Utility, Water
Division, in response to water shortages experienced in the
1987 and 1992 droughts, anticipated increases in water
demand in the Puget Sound Region, and a desire to correct
the decline in salmon and steelhead fisheries and other
natural resources in the Green River Basin.
Recommended Plan.--A dual-purpose water supply and ecosystem
restoration project implemented in two phases: Phase I
would provide for the construction of all mitigation
features required for raising the existing dam pool to
elevation 1,167 feet, and all ecosystem restoration
features. Phase II would provide for the construction of
all remaining additional water storage project mitigation
features required for a pool raise to elevation 1,177 feet;
under this phase, an additional 2,400 acre-feet of
Municipal and Industrial water supply storage plus 9,600-
acre-feet of low flow augmentation water will be stored for
a combined total of 32,000 acre-feet of water storage under
the Howard Hanson Dam Additional Water Supply project.
Project Costs.--Total cost $75,600,000. Federal cost
$36,900,000; non-Federal cost $38,700,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio.--1.1 to 1
Sec. 102. Project Modifications
(a) Projects with Reports. This section provides authority
for the Secretary to modify previously authorized projects for
water resources development, conservation, and other purposes
substantially in accordance with the plans recommended in the
reports referenced in the bill language.
San Lorenzo River, California
This provision authorizes the Secretary to modify the flood
control project for San Lorenzo River, California, authorized
by section 101(a)(5) of Public Law 104-303, to include as part
of the project, stream bank erosion control measures at a total
estimated cost of $4,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$2,600,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $1,400,000.
St. John's County Shore Protection, Florida
This provision modifies a project previously authorized
under section 501 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 to include navigation mitigation as a purpose of the
project in accordance with the filed Corps report, at a total
cost of $16,086,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$12,949,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3.137,000.
Wood River, Grand Island, Nebraska
This provision authorizes the Secretary to modify the flood
protection project authorized in section 101(a)(19) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303) in
accordance with the Corps report dated June 29, 1998, at a
total cost of $17,039,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$9,730,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $7,309,000.
Absecon Island, New Jersey
This provision authorizes the Secretary to reimburse the
non-Federal sponsor for work performed that would otherwise
have been the responsibility of the Federal Government at the
project authorized at Absecon Island, New Jersey, by section
101(h)(13) of Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (P.L.
104-303).
Arthur Kill, New York and New Jersey
This provision modifies the Arthur Kill, New York and New
Jersey navigation project authorized in section 202(b) of Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4098) and modified
by section 301(b)(11) of Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (110 Stat. 3711), to further modify the project to
authorize funds for the project at a total cost of $276,899,000
with an estimated Federal cost of $183,200,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $93,600,000
Waurika Lake, Oklahoma, Water Conveyance Facilities
This provision directs the Secretary to waive the
requirement for the Waurika Project Master Conservancy District
to repay the $2,900,000 in costs resulting from the October
1991 settlement of the claim of the Travelers Insurance
Company.
(b) Projects Subject to Reports
The following projects are modified as follows, except that
no funds may be obligated to carry out work under such
modifications until completion of a final report by the Chief
of Engineers, as approved by the Secretary, finding that such
work is technically sound, environmentally acceptable, and
economically justified, as applicable.
Thornton Reservoir, Cook County, Illinois
This provision modifies an element of the Chicagoland
Underflow Plan, authorized by previous law, to include
additional permanent flood control storage attributable to the
NRCS Thorton Reservoir, Little Calumet River Watershed,
Illinois. This project will be cost shared in accordance with
section 103 of Water Resources Development Act of 1986. The
Secretary of Agriculture may cooperate with the non-Federal
interests.
Wells Harbor, Wells, Maine
This provision modifies a project authorized by previous
law to include the realignment of the channel and anchorage
areas. This provisions also deauthorizes certain portions of
the project.
New York Harbor and Adjacent Channels, Port Jersey, New Jersey
This provision modifies the New York Harbor and Adjacent
Channels, Port Jersey, New Jersey navigation project,
authorized by previous law to allow for the construction at a
total cost of $100,689,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$74,998,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $25,701,000.
(c) Beaver Lake, Arkansas, Water Supply Storage Reallocation
This provision authorizes the Secretary to reallocate
approximately 31,000 additional acre-feet at Beaver Lake,
Arkansas, to water supply storage at no cost to the Beaver
Water District or the Carroll-Boone Water District, except that
at no time shall the bottom of the conservation pool be at an
elevation less than 1076 feet, NGVD.
(d) Tolchester Channel S-Turn, Baltimore, Maryland
This provision authorizes the Secretary to straighten the
Tolchester Channel S-Turn as part of the maintenance of the
navigation project for Baltimore Harbor, authorized by previous
law.
(e) Tropicana Wash and Flamingo Wash, Nevada
This provision directs the Secretary to reimburse any
Federal costs incurred by the non-Federal interest to
accelerate or modify construction of the Tropicana Wash and
Flamingo Washes, Nevada project, in cooperation with state and
local governments.
(f) Rediversion Project, Cooper River, Charleston Harbor, South
Carolina
This provision directs the Secretary to pay the State of
South Carolina not more than $3,750,000, if the State enters
into an agreement with the Secretary to perform all future
additional operation of the St. Stephen, South Carolina, fish
lift. Maintenance of the fish lift will remain a Federal
responsibility.
(g) Trinity River and Tributaries, Texas
This provision modifies a previously authorized project by
adding environmental restoration as a project purpose.
(h) Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection, Virginia Beach,
Virginia
This provision directs the Secretary to accept additional
annual payments from the City of Virginia Beach for the
hurricane protection in an effort to maintain the projects
construction schedule. Modification of the project cooperation
agreement is not required. The Secretary is further directed to
repay or credit the additional payments toward the non-Federal
cost sharing requirements.
(i) Elizabeth River, Chesapeake, Virginia
This provision provides relief to the City of Chesapeake,
Virginia for the annual cash payments made by the City for the
navigation project on the Elizabeth River. The local sponsor
has made the annual payments for twenty years.
(j) Payment Option, Moorefield, West Virginia
This provision authorizes the Secretary to permit the non-
Federal sponsor for the Moorefield, West Virginia flood control
project to pay, without interest, the remaining non-Federal
cost of the project over a period to be determined by the
Secretary, but not to exceed thirty years.
(k) Miami Dade Agricultural and Rural Land Retention Plan and South
Biscayne, Florida
This provision amends previous law to authorize the
Secretary to provide credit or to reimburse non-Federal
sponsors for the costs of work in connection with
preconstruction activities.
(l) Lake Michigan, Illinois
This provision modifies the project for storm damage
reduction and shoreline protection, Lake Michigan, Illinois,
from Wilmette, Illinois, to the Illinois-Indiana State line,
authorized by previous law, to provide for reimbursement to the
non-Federal sponsors for work done.
(m) Measurements of Lake Michigan Diversions, Illinois
This provision amends previous law to extend the
authorization through fiscal year 2003, and by increasing the
annual authorization level to $1,250,000.
(n) Project for Navigation, Dubuque, Iowa
This provision amends previous law to authorize the
Secretary to construct a wetlands demonstration area of
approximately 1.5 acres at the navigation project at Dubuque,
Iowa.
(o) Louisiana State Penitentiary Levee
This provision amends previous law to allows the Secretary
to credit against non-Federal share work performed in the
project area.
(p) Jackson County, Mississippi
This provision modifies a previously authorized project to
direct the Secretary to provide a credit not to exceed
$5,000,000, against the non-Federal share of the cost of the
project for the costs incurred by the Jackson County Board of
Supervisors since February 8, 1994, in constructing the
project, if the Secretary determines that such work was
compatible and integral to the project.
(q) Richard B. Russell Dam and Lake, South Carolina
This provision conveys to the State of South Carolina all
right, title, and interest of the United States in the parcels
of land that are currently being managed by the South Carolina
Department of Natural Resources for fish and wildlife
mitigation purposes for the dam and lake. The Secretary may pay
the State not more than $4,850,000, subject to the signing of a
binding agreement.
(r) Land Conveyance, Clarkston, Washington
This provision conveys approximately 31 acres of land to
the Port of Clarkston, Washington. Additional land in the
vicinity of Clarkston, Washington, may also be conveyed if the
Secretary determines that such land is excess. The Post of
Clarkston shall pay fair market values for any land not
retained in public ownership or that is used for other than
public park or recreation purposes.
(s) White River, Indiana
This provision modifies the existing project to authorize
the Secretary to undertake the riverfront alterations and the
Beveridge Paper feature at a total cost not to exceed
$25,000,000, of which $12,500,000 is the estimated Federal cost
and $12,500,000 is the estimated non-Federal cost.
(t) Fox Point Hurricane Barrier, Providence, Rhode Island
This provision amends previous law to authorize the
Secretary to undertake repairs to the Fox Point Hurricane
barrier, Providence Rhode Island. The provision authorizes a
total of $3,000,000, for such work, with an estimated Federal
cost of $1,950,000, and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$1,050,000.
Sec. 104. Project Deauthorizations
(a) Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut
The navigation project authorized by previous law in
Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut, consisting of a 2.4 acre
anchorage area 9 feet deep and an adjacent 0.60-area anchorage
6 feet deep, located on the west side of the Johnsons River,
Connecticut, is not authorized after the date of enactment of
this Act.
(b) Bass Harbor, Maine
The portions of the navigation project previously
authorized at Bass Harbor, Maine, described by this subsection
are not authorized after the date of enactment of this Act.
(c) Boothbay Harbor, Maine
The navigation project previously authorized at Boothbay
Harbor, Maine, is not authorized after the date of enactment of
this Act.
(d) East Boothbay Harbor, Maine
The remaining portions of the navigation project previously
authorized at East Boothbay Harbor, Maine is not authorized
after the date of enactment of this Act.
Sec. 105. Studies
(a) Caddo Levee, Red River below Denison Dam Arizona, Louisiana,
Oklahoma, and Texas
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of undertaking a project for flood control,
including incorporating the existing levee, on the Red River
below Denison Dam Arizona, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas.
(b) Fields Landing Channel, Humboldt Harbor, California
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of a navigation project at Fields Landing Channel,
Humboldt Harbor, California.
(c) Strawberry Creek, Berkeley, California
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of restoring Strawberry Creek, Berkeley,
California, for environmental restoration, conservation of fish
and wildlife resources, recreation, and water quality.
(d) West Side Storm Water Retention Facility, City of Lancaster,
California
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of undertaking measures to construct the West Side
Storm Water Retention Facility, Lancaster, California.
(e) Apalachicola River, Florida
The Secretary shall conduct a study for the purpose of
identifying alternatives for the management of material dredged
in connection with operation and maintenance of the
Apalachicola River navigation project, as well as alternatives
which reduce the requirements for such dredging.
(f) Broward County, Sand Bypassing at Port Everglades Inlet, Florida
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of constructing a sand bypassing project at Port
Everglades Inlet, Florida.
(g) City of Destin-Noriega Point Breakwater, Florida
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of restoring Noriega Point, Florida, to serve as a
breakwater for Destin Harbor, including the feasibility of
including Noriega Point as part of the East Pass, Florida,
navigation project.
(h) Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area, Florida
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of undertaking measures to reduce the flooding
problems in the vicinity of Gateway Triangle Redevelopment
Area, Florida. The study shall include a review and
consideration of studies and reports completed by the non-
Federal sponsor.
(i) City of Plant City, Florida
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of a flood control project in the city of Plant
City, Florida. In conducting this study, the Secretary shall
review and consider studies and reports completed by the non-
Federal sponsor.
(j) Goose Creek Watershed, Oakley, Idaho
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of a project for flood damage reduction, water
conservation, ground water recharge, and ecosystem restoration
project along the Goose Creek Watershed near Oakley, Idaho.
(k) Little Wood River, Gooding, Idaho
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of restoring and repairing the Lava Rock Little
Wood River Containment System to prevent flooding in the city.
(l) Snake River and Payette River, Idaho
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of a flood control project along the Snake River
and Payette River, Idaho.
(m) Acadiana Navigation Channel, Louisiana
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of assuming operations and maintenance for the
Acadiana Navigational Channel located in Iberia and Vermillion
Parishes, Louisiana.
(n) Cameron Parish Wets of Calcasieu River, Louisiana
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of a storm damage reduction and ecosystem
restoration project for Cameron Parish west of Calcasieu River,
Louisiana.
(o) Beneficial Use of Dredged Material, Coastal Louisiana
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of using dredged materials from maintenance
activities at Federal navigation projects in coastal Louisiana
to benefit coastal areas in Louisiana.
(p) Contraband Bayou Navigation Channel, Louisiana
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of assuming the maintenance of Contraband Bayou,
Calcasieu River Ship Canal, Louisiana.
(q) Golden Meadow Lock, Louisiana
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of converting the Golden Meadow floodgate into a
navigation lock to be included in the Larose to Golden Meadow
Hurricane Protection project.
(r) Gulf Intercoastal Waterway Ecosystem Protection, Chef Menteur to
Sabine River, Louisiana
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of undertaking ecosystem restoration and protection
measures along the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway from Chef Menteur
to Sabine River, Louisiana. The study shall address saltwater
intrusion, tidal scour, erosion and other water resource-
related problems in this area.
(s) Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, and Vicinity, St. Charles Parish
Pumps
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of modifying the Lake Pontchartrain Hurricane
Protection project to include the St. Charles Parish Pumps and
the modification of the seawall fronting protection along Lake
Pontchartrain in Orleans Parish, from New Basin Canal on the
west to the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal on the east.
(t) Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, and Vicinity Seawall Restoration,
Louisiana
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of modifying the existing seawall.
(u) Detroit River, Michigan, Greenway Corridor Study
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of a project for shoreline protection, frontal
erosion, and associated purposes in the Detroit River shoreline
area from Belle Isle Bridge to the Ambassador Bridge in
Detroit, Michigan.
(v) St. Clair Shores Flood Control, Michigan
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of constructing a flood control project at St.
Clair Shores, Michigan.
(w) Woodtick Peninsula, Michigan, and Toledo Harbor, Ohio
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of utilizing dredged materials from Toledo Harbor,
Ohio, to provide erosion reduction, navigation, and ecosystem
restoration at Woodtick Peninsula, Michigan.
(x) Tunica Lake Weir, Mississippi
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of constructing an outlet weir at Tunica Lake,
Tunica County, Mississippi for the purpose of stabilizing water
levels.
(y) Protective Facilities for the St. Louis, Missouri, Riverfront Area
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
optimal plan to protect facilities that are located on the
Mississippi River riverfront within the boundaries of St.
Louis, Missouri.
(z) Yellowstone River, Montana
The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive study to
determine the hydrologic, biological and socio-economic
cumulative impacts on the Yellowstone River. The study shall be
conducted in consultation with the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service, United States Geological Survey, and the
Natural Resources Conservation Service and with the full
participation of the State of Montana, tribal and local
entities, and provide public participation. This study shall be
submitted to Congress not later than 5 years after the date of
enactment of this Act.
The study should be designed to recognize the river
functions in relation to the cumulative effects of flood damage
and the resulting stabilization projects through the assessment
of river and riparian conditions and processes along the
Yellowstone River floodplain from Gardiner to the confluence of
the Missouri River. The study shall involve the public through
input provided by local groups such as the Upper Yellowstone
River Task Force.
(aa) Las Vegas Valley, Nevada
The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive study to
identify problems and opportunities related to ecosystem
restoration, water quality, particularly the quality of surface
run-off, water supply, and flood control within the Las Vegas
Valley, Nevada.
(bb) Oswego River Basin, New York
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of establishing a flood forecasting system within
the Oswego River basin, New York.
(cc) Port of New York-New Jersey Navigation Study and Environmental
Restoration Study, Port of New York-New Jersey
The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive study of
navigational needs to address improvements, including deepening
of existing channels. In determining navigational needs, the
Secretary shall examine other reports concerning the New York
Harbor to determine the Federal interest. Studies shall be
completed by December, 1999.
(dd) Bank Stabilization, Missouri River, North Dakota
The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive study of bank
stabilization on the Missouri River between the Garrison Dam
and Lake Oahe in North Dakota.
(ee) Cleveland Harbor, Cleveland, Ohio
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of undertaking repairs and related navigation
improvements at Dike 14, Cleveland, Ohio.
(ff) East Lake, Vermillion and Chagrin, Ohio
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of undertaking flood damage reduction at East Lake,
Vermillion and Chagrin, Ohio. The Secretary may specifically
consider construction of ice retention structures.
(gg) Toussaint River, Carroll Township, Ohio
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of undertaking navigation improvements at Toussaint
River, Carroll Township, Ohio.
(hh) Santee Delta Wetland Habitat, South Carolina
The Secretary shall complete not later than 18 months after
the enactment of this Act, a comprehensive study to determine
the feasibility of undertaking measures to enhance the wetland
habitat in the Santee Delta area of South Carolina.
(ii) Waccamaw River, South Carolina
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of a flood control project for the Waccamaw River
in Horry County, South Carolina.
(jj) Upper Susquehanna-Lackawanna, Pennsylvania, Watershed Management
and Restoration Study
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of a comprehensive flood plain management and
watershed restoration project at Upper Susquehanna-Lackawanna,
Pennsylvania.
(kk) Niobrara River and Missouri River Sedimentation Study, South
Dakota
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of alleviating the bank erosion, sedimentation, and
related problems of the lower Niobrara River and the Missouri
River below Fort Randall Dam.
(ll) Santa Clara River, Utah
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of undertaking measures to alleviate damage caused
by flooding, bank erosion, and sedimentation along the
watershed of the Santa Clara River, Utah.
(mm) Agat Small Boat Harbor, Guam
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of undertaking the repair and reconstruction of the
Agat Small Boat Harbor, Guam.
(nn) Apra Harbor Seawall, Guam
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of undertaking measures to repair, upgrade, and
extend the seawall at Apra Harbor Seawall, Guam.
(oo) Apra Harbor Fuel Piers, Guam
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of undertaking measures to upgrade the piers in the
Apra Harbor, Guam.
(pp) Maintenance Dredging of Harbor Piers, Guam
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of undertaking maintenance dredging measures of
areas adjacent to piers at Apra Harbor, Agat Harbor, and Agana
Mariana, Guam.
(qq) Alternative Water Source Study
The Administrator of the EPA shall conduct a study of the
water supply needs of States that are not currently eligible
for assistance under Title XVI of the Reclamation Projects
Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 (43 U.S.C. 390h et
seq.).
TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 201. Flood Hazard Mitigation and Riverine Ecosystem Restoration
Program
This provision authorizes the Secretary to work with other
Federal agencies to state and local governments both reduce
flood damages and conserve, restore, and manage riverine and
related land resources.
The program's emphasis will be placed on non-structural
flood damage reduction measures and riverine and wetland
ecosystem restoration measures that conserve, restore, and
manage hydrologic and hydraulic regimes and restore the natural
functions and values of the floodplain. Important related
benefits include prevention of future flood damages and Federal
flood disaster assistance costs, reduced risks and exposure to
flooding, reduced community displacement due to flooding,
improved water quality, improved habitat along streams,
additional open space, and overall improved community well
being. Modifying the use of upstream areas to reduce storm
water runoff is a key element in reducing future flood damages
and achieving revitalization of our riverine resources.
In the carrying out this program, the Secretary is expected
to ensure that each comprehensive planning initiative
emphasizes non-structural flood hazard reduction measures and
it is to be undertaken in collaboration and cooperation with
the respective Federal, state and local agencies that have
complementary programs and interests.
The Secretary may implement such projects after making a
determination that the projects will significantly reduce
potential flood damages, will improve the quality of the
environment, and are justified based on the monetary (National
Economic Development) and non-monetary environmental benefits
that the project provides. Federal and non-Federal cost sharing
for all studies and projects undertaken pursuant to this
authority will be in accordance with current laws and
regulations. No more than $25,000,000 in Army Civil Works
appropriations may be expended on any single project undertaken
under this authority. All studies and projects undertaken under
this authority from Army Civil Works appropriations shall be
fully funded within the program funding levels provided in this
subsection. Total Army Civil Works appropriations authorized
under this section are $75,000,000, to be expended over a total
of 2 years. The program established under this authority will
be subject to an independent review, the purpose of which will
be to evaluate the efficiency of the program in achieving the
dual goals of flood hazard mitigation and ecosystem
restoration.
This provision instructs the Secretary to examine the
potential for flood damage reductions in the following high
priority areas: Saint Genevieve, Missouri; Upper Delaware River
Basin; New York; Tillamook County, Oregon; Providence County,
Rhode Island; Willamette River Basin, Oregon; and Mill Creek,
Cincinnati, Ohio.
This provision authorizes $75,000,000 for the period of
fiscal years 2000 and 2001.
Sec. 202. Shore Protection
This provision creates a new cost sharing formula for the
periodic nourishment of shore protection projects. The non-
Federal share will be 50 percent of the cost of the periodic
nourishment except that the cost of the periodic nourishment of
privately owned shores will be borne by non-Federal interests,
and the cost of periodic nourishment of federally owned shores
will be borne by the Federal Government. The provision
maintains the Federal and non-Federal cost sharing provisions
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 for the initial
construction of shore protection projects. In addition, this
section makes it clear that those projects for shore protection
that are authorized in this Act, as well as those projects that
complete a feasibility study by December 31, 1999, shall be
cost shared at the current 65 percent Federal and 35 percent
non-Federal.
This proposal will provide for the orderly continuation of
the Federal and non-Federal partnerships on shore protection
projects by providing affordable projects in the context of a
balanced Federal budget. The majority of hurricane and storm
damage reduction projects are built in coastal areas. These
coastal projects most often involve the periodic nourishment of
beach areas over a 50-year project life. Besides reducing
hurricane and storm damages, which is essential to preserving
the viability of coastal areas, many of these projects are also
essential to the economic viability of State, regional, and
local recreation and tourism activities. To reflect the long-
term non-Federal benefits that accrue to such shoreline
protection projects, the provision amends section 103(d) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 to increase the non-
Federal contribution associated with the periodic nourishment
of such projects.
Sec. 203. Small Flood Control Authority
The Army Corps of Engineers' small flood control project
continuing authority program is a popular program that provides
a means for quick implementation for flood damage reduction
studies and projects. The Federal project limits for section
205 were last increased in the Water Resources Development Act
of 1986. This proposed increase in the Federal share of project
cost from $5,000,000 to $7,000,000 will offset the rise in
costs due to inflation during that period. Additionally, the
provision encourages consideration of non-structural flood
control measures in implementing projects under the authority.
Sec. 204. Use of Non-Federal Funds for Compiling and Disseminating
Information on Flood and Flood Damages
This provision allows the Secretary to accept and expend
certain funds provided by States and local governments to
compile and disseminate information on floods and flood
damages. The Water Resources Development Act of 1990 prohibited
the collection of fees from such entities; nevertheless, the
demand for information on floods and flood damages continues to
increase. There have been a number of instances where states
and local governments have offered to contribute funds to
expand the services provided pursuant to this authority, but
the agency has been unable to accept such contributions because
of the statutory prohibition on collecting fees for such
services. This section will allow the Secretary to accept
voluntary contributions from state and local governments. By
clarifying that this statutory prohibition does not apply to
funds voluntarily contributed, the agency will be able to
disseminate information on flooding and flood damages to a
wider segment of the public.
Sec. 205. Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration
This provision will allow non-profit entities to
participate as non-Federal project sponsors in aquatic
ecosystem restoration and protection projects carried out under
the authority of section 206 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303), thereby expanding the universe for
potential project sponsors beyond those that meet the
definition of ``non-Federal interest'' as set forth in section
221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970.
Sec. 206. Beneficial Uses of Dredged Materials
This provision will allow non-profit entities to
participate as non-Federal project sponsors in beneficial uses
of dredged material projects carried out under the authority of
section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992
(P.L. 102-580), thereby expanding the universe for potential
project sponsors beyond those that meet the definition of
``non-Federal interest'' as set forth in section 221 of the
Flood Control Act of 1970.
Sec. 207. Voluntary Contributions by States and Political Subdivisions
This provision expands the authority of the Secretary to
receive funds from states and political subdivisions to be
expended in connection with funds appropriated by the United
States for any authorized flood control work.
Sec. 208. Recreation User Fees
This provision allows the Secretary to retain and expend,
without further appropriation, 100 percent of recreation user
fee revenues above the base line of $34,000,000 for each fiscal
year 1999 through 2002. The revenues retained by the Corps
would be available through Fiscal Year 2005 for specific
purposes, including repair and maintenance work and habitat for
facility enhancement.
Under current law, all recreation user fee revenues
collected at water resources development projects under the
jurisdiction of the Department of the Army must be deposited
into a special account in the Treasury and are made available
to the Corps only after Congress provides an appropriation in
subsequent fiscal years. Although the Corps has authority to
collect recreation user fees and is encouraged to do so, to
maximize revenues, the cost of collecting those revenues is
provided for with funds that could be used for other recreation
activities. This reduces the funds available for those
activities. It also reduces the incentive for project managers
to pursue expanded fee collection aggressively, since the cost
of that collection is not reimbursed.
Sec. 209. Water Resources Development Studies for the Pacific Region
This provision expands studies authorized for the Pacific
Region that includes American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth
of the Northern Mariana Islands, to allow the Secretary to
investigate existing water resource needs.
Sec. 210. Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers Enhancement Project
This provision authorizes the Secretary to develop projects
to protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat of the
Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers. The projects shall
provide for such activities as are necessary to protect and
enhance fish and wildlife habitat without adversely affecting
flood control, navigation, recreation, enhancement of water
supply and private property rights. $30,000,000 is authorized
to carry out the section for the period of fiscal years 2000
and 2001. The Federal share of the cost of each project shall
not exceed $5,000,000 and the non-Federal share of the cost of
each project shall be 35 percent.
Sec. 211. Outer Continental Shelf
This provision amends section 8(k)(2)(B) of the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act to prohibit the Department of
Interior from assessing fees on non-Federal sponsors of water
resource projects. Currently, the Department of Interior is
precluded from collecting fees from other Federal agencies who
receive minerals, sand or other natural resources from the
outer continental shelf.
This section allows for the reimbursement of non-Federal
interests for fees assessed by the Department of Interior for
use of Outer Continental Shelf sand.
Sec. 212. Environmental Dredging
This provision adds Snake Creek in Bixby, Oklahoma, and
Willamette River, Oregon to the list of rivers contained in
section 312 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990
(P.L. 101-640) where the Corps is authorized to conduct
dredging to restore environmental resources.
Sec. 213. Benefit of Primary Flood Damages Avoided Included in Benefit-
Cost Analysis
This provision amends section 308(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-640) to direct the Secretary
to include primary flood damage reduction benefits in the
benefit base for justifying non-structural flood damage
reduction projects. Failure to count these essential benefits
in economic benefit cost evaluations has resulted in an
unwarranted impediment to justification of non-structural flood
damage reduction projects. These benefits, such as flood plain
evacuation and relocation, are appropriate to be counted in
benefit cost analysis for such projects. This provision does
not modify the existing calculation of benefits for structural
flood control projects.
Sec. 214. Control of Aquatic Plant Growth
This provision adds two plants, Arundo donax, and tarmarix,
to the list of noxious weeds that the Secretary has authority
to control and eradicate.
Sec. 215. Environmental Infrastructure
This provision amends section 219(c) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-580) by adding Lake Tahoe,
California and Nevada; Lancaster, California, and San Ramon,
California to the list of watersheds the Secretary is
authorized to provide technical and planning and design
assistance for water-related environmental infrastructure and
resource protection and development.
Sec. 216. Watershed Management, Restoration, and Development
This provision amends section 503(d) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303) by adding 11 watersheds
to the list of watersheds the Secretary is authorized to
provide technical, planning and design assistance for watershed
management, restoration and development projects.
Sec. 217. Lakes Program
This provision amends the existing silt and aquatic growth
removal program at specified lakes in the United States,
authorized by section 602(a) of the 1986 Water Resources
Development Act (100 Stat. 4148), by adding three additional
lakes, located in Clear Lake, Lake County, California; Flints
Pond, Hollis, New Hampshire; and Osgood Pond, Milford, New
Hampshire.
Sec. 218. Sediments Decontamination Policy
This provision amends section 405 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-580) by requiring that
sediment decontamination technologies result in practical end-
use products and increases the authorized program level from
$5,000,000 to $22,000,000.
Sec. 219. Disposal of Dredged Material on Beaches
This provision amends section 145 of Water Resources
Development Act of 1976 ( 33 U.S.C. 426j) by changing the non-
Federal cost share for beneficial reuse projects from 50
percent to 35 percent. This change is necessary to allow the
use of dredged materials from navigation projects on nearby
shoreline projects at a lower overall cost to the Federal
Government and state or local entities. It is noted that local
communities need to be advised of the cost-share provisions of
such beneficial use in a timely manner to budget for their
cost-share of such use.
Sec. 220. Fish and Wildlife Mitigation
This provision amends section 906(e) of Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 to allow non-Federal project sponsors
to contribute in-kind facilities, supplies and services for up
to 80 percent of allowable first costs of enhancement projects.
The Committee is including such modifications to make the cost-
sharing requirements with respect to Environmental Management
Program enhancements consistent with all other Corps
enhancement cost-share requirements,
Sec. 221. Reimbursement of Non-Federal Interest
This provision amends section 211(e) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 to clarify Congressional intent on
Federal reimbursement for flood control projects constructed by
non-Federal interests. The language makes it clear that any
reimbursement to a non-Federal interest on a specific flood
control project may occur only after appropriations have been
approved for such project.
Sec. 222. National Contaminated Sediment Task Force
This provision directs the National Sediment Task Force,
created under the National Contaminated Sediment Assessment and
Management Act (P.L.102-580), to report to Congress on the
status of remedial action plans in various areas of concern
across the United States. Such report will include information
on funding, the nature and sources of sediment contamination,
the need for remediation at individual sites, and other
associated issues related to contaminated sediment remediation.
Sec. 223. Great Lakes Basin Program
The proposed language directs the Corps to develop a
strategic plan for programs within the Great Lakes basin. This
plan will provide a means for assessing the ability of the
Corps projects and programs to meet regional water resources
needs. This plan should facilitate the integration of programs
and projects with common objectives and resolution of those
with conflicting objectives or consequences. It will also
assess factors which are limiting the use of Corps programs and
authorities.
The proposes language directs the Corps to develop an
inventory of existing physical and biological data relevant to
the Great Lakes biohydrogical projections, and biological
elements. The Corps is also directed to analyze this inventory
for data inconsistencies and gaps.
The proposed language directs the Corps to conduct an
economic study of the benefits from recreational activities at
Federal navigation projects ion the Great Lakes. This study
will provide data necessary for states to priorities resources
for recreational infrastructure and provide a more complex
picture of the economic value of Federal navigation projects in
the Great Lakes.
Sec. 224. Projects for Improvement of the Environment
This provision amends section 1135 of Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 to add the control of sea lamprey to
the authorized purposes. Section 1135 authorizes the Secretary
to make modifications to structures and operations at U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers projects for the purpose of improving the
quality of the environment.
Sec. 225. Water Quality, Environmental Quality, Recreation, Fish and
Wildlife, Flood Control, and Navigation
This provision directs the Secretary to report to the
Congress on water quality, environmental quality, flood
control, navigation, and other associated matters in the
western Lake Eerie watershed. The Secretary is directed to
cooperate with Federal, State, and local agencies and non-
governmental organizations in assembling such studies and
investigations.
Sec. 226. Irrigation Diversion Protection and Fisheries Enhancement
Assistance
This provision authorizes the Secretary to provide
technical and planning assistance to non-Federal interests to
formulate and evaluate fish screens, fish passage devices, and
other measures to decrease the incidence of juvenile and adult
fish inadvertently entering into irrigation systems. Such
assistance shall be cost-shared evenly between the Federal
Government and any non-Federal sponsor. Within 2 years of the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary is directed to
report to the Congress on fish mortality caused by irrigation
water intake devices, and on appropriate mitigation measures to
reduce such fish mortality.
Sec. 227. Small Storm Damage Reduction Projects
This provision amends section 3 of the Act of August 13,
1962 (33 U.S.C. 426g) by increasing the authorized level for
Federal funding of small storm damage reduction projects from
$2,000,000 to $3,000,000.
Sec. 228. Shore Damage Prevention or Mitigation
This provision amends Section 111 of the Rivers and Harbors
Act of 1968 to increase the annual programmatic authority for
shore damage mitigation from $2,000,000 to $5,000,000. The
Secretary is also directed to examine the appropriateness of
combining mitigation projects with other shore protection
projects in the same area.
Sec. 229. Atlantic Coast of New York
This provision amends section 403 of Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 to authorize additional funding of $2.5
million for the Atlianitc Coast of New York monitoring program.
Sec. 230. Accelerated Adoption of Innovative Technologies for
Containmented Sediments
This provision amends section 8 of Water Resources
Development Act of 1988 (33 U.S.C. 2314) to direct the
Secretary to approve projects to test innovative technologies
for environmental sound management of contaminated sediments.
TITLE III. PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. Dredging of Salt Ponds in the State of Rhode Island
This provision authorizes the Secretary to acquire a small
dredge for the state of Rhode Island to perform dredging for
environmental mitigation purposes at numerous coastal salt
ponds in the state.
Sec. 302. Upper Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and New York
This provision amends section 567(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303) by adding the Chemung
River watershed, New York, to the list of watersheds the
Secretary, in cooperation with the Secretary of Agriculture and
the states of Pennsylvania and New York, is authorized to
conduct a study and develop a strategy for using wetland
restoration, soil and water conservation practices, and
nonstructural measures to reduce flood damage, improve water
quality, and create wildlife habitat.
Sec. 303. Small Flood Control Projects
This provision amends Section 102 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3668) by adding Repaupo
Creek and Delaware River, Gloucester County, New Jersey;
Irondequoit Creek, New York; and Tioga County, Pennsylvania, to
the list of small flood control projects the Secretary is
authorized to conduct.
Sec. 304. Small Navigation Projects
This provision amends section 104 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303) by adding Fortescue
Inlet, Delaware Bay, New Jersey, and Braddock Bay, Greece, New
York, to the list of small navigation projects the Secretary is
authorized to study, and, if feasible, carry out under section
107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960.
Sec. 305. Streambank Protection Projects
This provision directs the secretary to carry out small
emergency streambank stabilization projects in Barrow, Alaska,
Bay City, Michigan, Billings, Montana, and Point Marion,
Pennsylvania.
Sec. 306. Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration, Springfield, Oregon
This provision authorizes the Secretary to reconfigure the
existing pond at Springfield, Oregon, if the Secretary
determines harmful impacts are a result of a previously
constructed flood control project by the Corps of Engineers.
Sec. 307. Guilford and New Haven, Connecticut
This provision directs the Secretary to expeditiously
complete the activities authorized under section 346 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-580) at
Sluice Creek in Guilford, Connecticut, and Lighthouse Point
Park in New Haven, Connecticut. In July 1998, the Corps
completed a reconnaissance study for Coastal Connecticut
Ecosystem Restoration. The completion of a feasibility study is
consistent with the long-term goal of the Corps' water
resources development program for increasing the quality and
quantity of the nation's wetlands and is of ecological
significance for the state of Connecticut, including Long
Island Sound. The Secretary is directed to complete the
feasibility study within 48 months of the date of enactment of
this Act.
Sec. 308. Francis Bland Floodway Ditch
This provision names the Eight Mile Creek, Paragould,
Arkansas, flood control project the ``Francis Bland Floodway
Ditch''.
Sec. 309. Caloosahatchee River Basin, Florida
This provision amends section 528(e)(4) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3770) by adding
the Caloosahatchee River Basin as a potential area which may be
acquired by the non-Federal sponsor for water storage purposes
within the Everglades and South Florida Ecosystem Restoration
project area. The terms of crediting the non-Federal sponsor
for land acquisition are not changed by this section.
Sec. 310. Cumberland, Maryland, Flood Project Mitigation
This provision authorizes the Secretary to participate in
the restoration of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, consistent
with the recommendations of the National Park Service's
Rewatering Design Analysis. The project will be cost shared and
operations and maintenance of the canal will be the full
responsibility of the National Park Service. The project will
be authorized at 65 percent Federal, 35 percent non-Federal.
Sec. 311. City of Miami Beach, Florida
This provision amends section 5(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act of
August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426h) by adding the City of Miami
Beach, Florida, to those areas eligible for assistance under
the National Shoreline Erosion Control Development and
Demonstration Program.
Sec. 312. Sardis Reservoir, Oklahoma
This provision authorizes the Secretary to accept a
prepayment of the full costs of water supply storage at Sardis
Reservoir, Oklahoma. The amount to be paid by the State of
Oklahoma will be determined through an independent audit.
Sec. 313. Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System
Navigation Modernization
This provision directs the Secretary, in accordance with
the Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway System Navigation
Study, to proceed immediately to prepare preconstruction
engineering design plans and specifications for 1,200 foot
extensions of locks 20-25 on the Mississippi River and the
LaGrange and Peoria Locks on the Illinois River. This provision
does not authorize construction and does not preempt the future
findings of the Secretary on the engineering, economic and
environmental feasibility of any specific approach to improve
navigation along these waterways.
This provision also includes ``findings'' to emphasize what
is at stake should the U.S. fail to modernize this critical
transportation option to meet the needs of the next century.
The U.S. is anticipated to experience increased trade activity
over the next 50 years that will place greater demands on our
transportation system. It should be the policy of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers to aggressively pursue modernization of
water transportation infrastructure authorized by the Congress
to promote the relative competitive position of the United
States in the international marketplace.
Sec. 314. Upper Mississippi River Management
This provision amends section 1103 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662) by extending the existing
authorization for the Upper Mississippi River Environmental
Management Program for the period from 2002 through 2009. In
addition, this provision increases the authorization level for
fish and wildlife habitat rehabilitation and enhancement
activities, from $8,200,000 to $22,750,000 for each of fiscal
years 1999 through 2009. For the long term resources monitoring
program, the authorization level is increased from $7,680,000
to $10,420,000 for each of fiscal years 1999 to 2009. For all
enhancement and mitigation projects carried out on non-Federal
land, the non-Federal share of the cost of each project shall
be 35 percent and the cost of operation and maintenance of each
project shall also be 100 percent non-Federal responsibility.
In addition, this provision authorizes the Secretary to
investigate, and, if appropriate, carry out restoration of
urban wildlife habitat in the St. Louis, Missouri, area with an
emphasis on greenways. To the extent possible this project
should include reclamation and wetlands restoration
opportunities such as the Columbia Bottoms and the Rivers South
Restoration Project near the River des Peres in LeMay in St.
Louis County.
Sec. 315. Research and Development Program for Columbia and Snake
Rivers Salmon Survival
This provision amends section 511 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303) by increasing the
existing authorization level in subsection 511(b)(2) from
$12,000,000 to $35,000,000 for the Advanced Turbine Development
program. Additionally, section 511 of P.L. 104-303 is modified
by providing the Secretary with authority to develop and carry
out methods to reduce caspian tern and cormorant nesting
populations on and in the vicinity of certain Army Corps dredge
spoil islands in the Columbia River. An authorization level of
$1,000,000 is provided for this purpose. Nothing in this
section shall interrupt or preclude any ongoing salmon recovery
program. It is noted that the report requested in 1999 on
activities under subsection 511(a) remains unchanged.
Sec. 316. Nine Mile Run Habitat Restoration, Pennsylvania
This provision authorizes the Secretary to provide credit
to the non-Federal interest for environmental and other pre-
construction work completed for a habitat restoration project
at Nine Mile Run Habitat Restoration, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 317. Larkspur Ferry Channel, California
This provision directs the Secretary to work with the
Secretary of Transportation to find a solution to fulfilling
the Federal commitment made to the local sponsor to take over
the operation and maintenance of Larkspur Ferry Channel.
Sec. 318. Comprehensive Flood Impact-Response Modeling System
This provision authorizes the Secretary to study and
implement a Comprehensive Flood Impact-Response Modeling System
for the Coralville Reservoir and the Iowa River Watershed. The
Secretary is directed to report to the Congress on the
hydrologic, geomorphic, economic, and other associated data
within the watershed, within 5 years after the date of
enactment of this Act. $2,250,000 is authorized to carry out
this provision.
Sec. 319. Study Regarding Innovative Financing for Small and Medium-
sized Ports
This provision directs the Comptroller General of the
United States to study various alternatives for innovative
financing of future construction, operation, and maintenance of
projects in small and medium-sized ports. The Comptroller
General is directed to report to the Congress on the results of
such study within 270 days of the date of enactment of this
Act.
Sec. 320. Candy Lake Project, Osage County, Oklahoma
This provision directs the Secretary to convey Federal land
at the Candy Lake Project in Osage County, Oklahoma, at fair
market value, to previous non-Federal owners of such land.
Sec. 321. Salcha River and Piledriver Slough, Fairbanks, Alaska
This provision directs the Secretary to further evaluate,
and if justified, carry out flood damage reduction measures
along the river, to protect against surface water flooding.
Sec. 322. Eyak River, Cordova, Alaska
This provision directs the Secretary to further evaluate,
and if justified, carry out flood damage reduction measures
along the river.
Sec. 323. North Padre Island Storm Damage Reduction and Environmental
Restoration Project
The Secretary is directed to carry out a project for
ecosystem restoration and storm damage reduction at North Padre
Island, Corpus Christi Bay, Texas, at a total estimated cost of
$30,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $19,500,000, and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $10,500,000, if the Secretary
finds that such work is technically sound, environmentally
acceptable, and economically justified.
Sec. 324. Kanopolis Lake, Kansas
After completing a water reallocation study at Kanopolis
Lake, Kansas, within 1 year of the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary is directed to enter into water reallocation
negotiations with non-Federal interests to determine the terms
and conditions of such reallocation. The Secretary may
negotiate a credit for a portion of the financial repayment to
the Federal Government for work performed by non-Federal
interests.
Sec. 325. New York City Watershed
This provision amends Section 552 of Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3780) to provide the state
director for the New York City Watershed greater flexibility in
entering into cooperative agreements with public entities for
projects authorized under Section 552(c).
Sec. 326. City of Charlevoix Reimbursement, Michigan
This provision authorizes the Secretary to reimburse the
City of Charlevoix, Michigan, for the Federal share of costs
associated with construction of a new revetment connection to
the Federal navigation project at Charlevoix Harbor, Michigan.
Sec. 327. Hamilton Dam Flood Control Project, Michigan
This provision authorizes the Secretary to construct the
Hamilton County flood control project using general authority
provided under 33 U.S.C. 701s.
Sec. 328. Holes Creek Flood Control Project, Ohio
This provision stipulates that the non-Federal share of
project costs for the flood control project, Holes Creek, Ohio,
shall not exceed the sum of the total amount projected as the
non-Federal share in the September 30, 1996, Project
Cooperation Agreement and 100 percent of the amount of any
increases in the cost of the locally preferred plan over the
cost estimated in the Project Cooperation Agreement.
Sec. 329. Overflow Management Facility, Rhode Island
This provision corrects a technical drafting error made in
section 585(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
(110 Stat. 3791) by replacing ``river'' with ``sewer''.
Sec. 330. Anacostia River Aquatic System Restoration, District of
Columbia and Maryland
This provision authorizes the Secretary to use the balance
of funds previously appropriated for the Anacostia River
Aquatic System Restoration project under section 1135 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 for construction of an
aquatic restoration system in the Anacostia River watershed
under section 206 of Water Resources Development Act of 1996.
Sec. 331. Everglades and South Florida Ecosystem Restoration
This provision amends section 528 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303) to extend the
authorization of appropriations for critical restoration
projects in South Florida through Fiscal Year 2003.
Hearings
On March 11, 1997, the Committee on Environment and Public
Works met to consider S. 507, a bill to provide for the
conservation and development of water and related resources,
and to authorize the Secretary of the Army to construct various
projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of the United
States, and the President's proposed budget request for fiscal
year 2000 for the Army Corps of Engineers. The committee
received testimony from Hon. Joseph W. Westphal, Assistant
Secretary for Civil Works, Department of the Army, and Michael
L. Davis, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Policy and Legislation,
Department of the Army.
Rollcall Votes
On March 17, 1999, the Committee on Environment and Public
Works met to consider S. 507, the Water Resources Development
Act of 1999. The committee agreed by voice vote to the
managers' amendments and an amendment by Senator Smith of New
Hampshire, relative to innovative technologies. The committee
by voice vote then ordered the bill to be reported as amended.
No rollcall votes occurred on the amendments or the bill.
Evaluation of Regulatory Impact
Section 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the
Senate requires publication in the report the committee's
estimate of the regulatory impact made by the bill as reported.
No regulatory impact is expected by the passage of S. 507. The
bill will not affect the personal privacy of individuals.
Mandates Assessment
In compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Public Law 104-4), the Committee finds that this bill would
impose no Federal intergovernmental unfunded mandates on State,
local, or tribal governments. All of its governmental
directives are imposed on Federal agencies. The bill does not
directly impose any private sector mandates.
Cost of Legislation
Section 403 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act
requires that a statement of the cost of a reported bill,
prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, be included in the
report. That statement has been requested. However, it is the
opinion of the committee that the business of the Senate should
proceed without delay, and that the CBO statement will be
printed in the Congressional Record when it is available.
Changes in Existing Law
In compliance with section 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing
Rules of the Senate, 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 italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown
in roman:
----------
UNITED STATES CODE
Title 33--Navigation and Navigable Waters
Chapter 9--Protection of Navigable Waters and of Harbor and River
* * * * * * *
Sec. 426g. Authorization of small projects not specifically authorized;
expenditures; local cooperation; work to be complete;
exceptions
The Secretary of the Army is authorized to undertake
construction of small shore and beach restoration and
protection projects not specifically authorized by Congress,
which otherwise comply with section 426e of this title, 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] $3,000,000
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
426e(c) of this title: Provided further, That the provisions of
local cooperation specified in section 426e of this title 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 426e(c) of this title, and as may result from the
normal procedure applying to projects authorized after
submission of survey reports.
Sec. 426h. ``Shores'' defined
As used in sections 426e to 426h of this title, 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, including the
city of Miami Beach, Florida.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 426i. Shore damage prevention or mitigation
[The Secretary] (a) In general.--The Secretary of the Army
is authorized to investigate, study, plan, and implement
structural and nonstructural measures for the prevention or
mitigation of shore damages attributable to Federal navigation
works, if a non-Federal public body agrees to operate and
maintain such measures, and, in the case of interests in real
property acquired in conjunction with nonstructural measures,
to operate and maintain the property for public purposes in
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary. [The
costs]
(b) Cost Sharing.--The costs of implementing measures under
this section shall be cost-shared in the same proportion as the
cost-sharing provisions applicable to the project causing the
shore damage. [No such]
(c) Requirement for Specific Authorization.--No such
project shall be initiated without specific authorization by
Congress if the Federal first cost exceeds [$2,000,000]
$5,000,000.
(d) Coordination.--The Secretary shall--
(1) coordinate the implementation of the measures
under this section with other Federal and non-Federal
shore protection projects in the same geographic area;
and
(2) to the extent practicable, combine mitigation
projects with other shore protection projects in the
same area into a comprehensive regional project.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 12--RIVER AND HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS GENERALLY
SUBCHAPTER IV--PARTICULAR WORK OR IMPROVEMENTS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 610. Control of aquatic plant growths
(a) There is hereby authorized a comprehensive program to
provide for control and progressive eradication of water-
hyacinth, Arundo dona, alligatorweed, Eurasian water milfoil,
malaleuca, tarmarix 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.
* * * * * * *
Chapter 15--Flood Control
* * * * * * *
Sec. 701h. Contributions by states and political subdivisions
The Secretary of the Army is authorized to receive from
States and political subdivisions thereof, such funds as may be
contributed by them to be expended in connection with funds
appropriated by the United States for any authorized flood
control or environmental restoration work whenever such work
and expenditure may be considered by the Secretary of the Army,
on recommendation of the Chief of Engineers, as advantageous in
the public interest, and the plans for any reservoir project
may, in the discretion of the Secretary of the Army, on
recommendation of the Chief of Engineers, be modified to
provide additional storage capaCity for domestic water supply
or other conservation storage, on condition that the cost of
such increased storage capacity is contributed by local
agencies and that the local agencies agree to utilize such
additional storage capacity in a manner consistent with Federal
uses and purposes: Provided, That when contributions made by
States and political subdivisions thereof, are in excess of the
actual cost of the work contemplated and properly chargeable to
such contributions, such excess contributions may, with the
approval of the Secretary of the Army, be returned to the
proper representatives of the contributing interests.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 701s. Small flood control projects; appropriations; amount
limitation for single locality; conditions
The Secretary of the Army is authorized to allot from any
appropriations heretofore or hereafter made for flood control,
not to exceed $40,000,000 for any one fiscal year, for the
[construction of small projects] implementation of small
structural and nonstructural projects for flood control and
related purposes not specifically authorized by Congress, which
come within the provisions of section 701a of this title, when
in the opinion of the Chief of Engineers such work is
advisable. The amount allotted for a project shall be
sufficient to complete Federal participation in the project.
Not more than [$5,000,000] $7,000,000 shall be allotted under
this section for a project at any single locality. The
provisions of local cooperation specified in section 701c of
this title shall apply. The work shall be complete in itself
and not commit the United States to any additional improvement
to insure its successful operation, except as may result from
the normal procedure applying to projects authorized after
submission of preliminary examination and survey reports.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 709a. Information on floods and flood damage
(a) Compilation and dissemination.-- * * *
(b) Fees.--The Secretary of the Army is authorized to
establish and collect fees from Federal agencies and private
persons for the purpose of recovering the cost of providing
services pursuant to this section. Funds collected pursuant to
this section shall be deposited into the account of the
Treasury of the United States entitled ``Contributions and
Advances, Rivers and Harbor, Corps of Engineers (8862)'' and
shall be available until expended to carry out this section. No
fees shall be collected from State, regional, or local
governments or other non-Federal public agencies for services
provided pursuant to this section, but the Secretary of the
Army may accept funds voluntarily contributed by such entities
for the purpose of expanding the scope of the services
requested by the entities.
* * * * * * *
UNITED STATES CODE--TITLE 43--PUBLIC LANDS
CHAPTER 29--SUBMERGED LANDS
SUBCHAPTER III--OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LANDS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1337. Grant of leases by Secretary
(a) * * *
(k) Other mineral leases; award to highest bidder; terms
and conditions; agreements for use of resources for shore
protection, beach or coastal wetlands restoration, or other
projects.--
(1) The Secretary is authorized to grant to the
qualified persons offering the highest cash bonuses on
a basis of competitive bidding leases of any mineral
other than oil, gas, and sulphur in any area of the
outer Continental Shelf not then under lease for such
mineral upon such royalty, rental, and other terms and
conditions as the Secretary may prescribe at the time
of offering the area for lease.
(2)(A) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Secretary
may negotiate with any person an agreement for the use
of Outer Continental Shelf sand, gravel and shell
resources--
(i) for use in a program of, or project
for, shore protection, beach restoration, or
coastal wetlands restoration undertaken by a
Federal, State, or local government agency; or
(ii) for use in a construction project,
other than a project described in clause (i),
that is funded in whole or in part by or
authorized by the Federal Government.
(B) In carrying out a negotiation under this
paragraph, the Secretary may assess a fee based on an
assessment of the value of the resources and the public
interest served by promoting development of the
resources. No fee shall be assessed directly or
indirectly under this subparagraph against an agency of
the Federal Government or any other non-Federal
interest subject to an agreement entered into under
section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C.
1962d-5b).
* * * * * * *
Public Law 99-662
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1986
[As Amended Through P.L. 105-153, December 17, 1997]
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act many be cited as the ``Water
Resources Development Act of 1986''.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 103. FLOOD CONTROL AND OTHER PURPOSES.
(a) Flood Control.--
* * * * * * *
(d) Certain Other Costs Assigned to Project Purposes.--
[Costs of constructing]
(1) Construction.--Costs of constructing projects
or measures for beach erosion control and water quality
enhancement shall be assigned to appropriate project
purposes listed in subsections (a), (b), and (c) and
shall be shared in the same percentage as the purposes
to which the costs are assigned, except that all costs
assigned to benefits to privately owned shores (where
use of such shores is limited to private interests) or
to prevention of losses of private lands shall be borne
by non-Federal interests and all costs assigned to the
protection of federally owned shores shall be borne by
the United States.
(2) Periodic nourishment.--In the case of a project
authorized for construction after December 31, 1999, or
for which a feasibility study is completed after that
date, the non-Federal cost of the periodic nourishment
of projects or measures for shore protection or beach
erosion control shall be 50 percent, except that--
(A) all costs assigned to benefits to
privately owned shores (where use of such
shores is limited to private interests) or to
prevention of losses of private land shall be
borne by non-Federal interests; and
(B) all costs assigned to the protection of
federally owned shores shall be borne by the
United States.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 202. GENERAL CARGO AND SHALLOW HARBOR PROJECTS.
(a) Authorization of Construction.-- * * *
arthur kill, new york and new jersey
The project for navigation, Arthur Kill, New York and New
Jersey, Report of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and
Harbors, dated March 31, 1986, at a [total cost of $42,600,000,
with an estimated first Federal cost of $27,500,000, and an
estimated first non-Federal cost of $15,100,000] total cost of
$260,899,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $195,705,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $65,194,000. At such time
as construction may be initiated in accordance with the terms
of this subsection, the project shall be included in and joined
with the Kill van Kull and Newark Bay Channel, New York and New
Jersey project under subsection (a) of this section.
new york harbor and adjacent channels, new york and new jersey
The project for (1) an access channel 45 feet deep below
man low water and generally 450 feet wide with suitable bends
and turning areas to extend from deep water in the Anchorage
Channel, New York Harbor, westward approximately 12,000 feet
along the southern boundary of the Port Jersey peninsula to the
head of navigation in Jersey City, New Jersey, at [a total cost
of $29,700,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of
$21,000,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of
$8,700,000; and (2) for a channel 42 feet deep below mean low
water and generally 300 feet wide with suitable bends and
turning areas to extend from deep water in the Anchorage
Channel westward approximately 11,000 feet to the head of
navigation in Claremont Terminal Channel, at a total cost of
$16,000,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of
$11,300,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of
$4,700,000] at a total cost of $100,689,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $74,998,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $25,701,000. No disposal of dredged material from
construction, operation, and maintenance of such project shall
take place at Bowery Bay, Flushing Bay, Powell's Cove, Little
Bay, or Little Neck Bay, Queens, New York.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 401. AUTHORIZATION OF PROJECTS.
(a) Authorization for construction.--* * *
eight mile creek, paragould, arkansas
The project for flood control, [Eight Mile Creek,
Paragould, Arkansas] Francis Bland Floodway Ditch: Report of
the Chief of Engineers, dated August 10, 1979, at a total cost
of $16,100,000, with and estimated first Federal cost of
$11,200,000, and an estimated first non-Federal cost of
$4,900,000.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 602. LAKES PROGRAM.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(17) Clear Lake, Lake County, California, removal
of silt and aquatic growth and development of a
sustainable weed and algae management program.
(18) Flints Pond, Hollis, New Hampshire, removal of
excessive aquatic vegetation.
(19) Osgood Pond, Milford, New Hampshire, removal
of excessive aquatic vegetation.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1103. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER PLAN.
(a)(1) This section may be cited as the ``Upper Mississippi
River Management Act of 1986.''
* * * * * * *
[(e)(1) The Secretary, in consultation wit the Secretary of
the Interior and the States of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota,
Missouri, and Wisconsin, is authorized to undertake, as
identified in the master plan--
[(A) a program for the planning, construction, and
evaluation of measures for fish and wildlife habitat
rehabilitation and enhancement;
[(B) implementation of a long-term resource
monitoring program; and
[(C) implementation of a computerized inventory and
analysis system.
[(2) Each program referred to in paragraph (1) shall be
carried out for ten years. Before the last day of such ten-year
period, the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of
the Interior and the States of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota,
Missouri, and Wisconsin, shall conduct an evaluation of such
programs and submit a report on the results of such evaluation
to Congress. Such evaluation shall determine each such
program's effectiveness, strengths, and weaknesses and contain
recommendations for the modification and continuance or
termination of such program.]
(e) Undertakings.--
(1) In general.--
(A) Authority.--The Secretary, in
consultation with the Secretary of the Interior
and the States of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota,
Missouri, and Wisconsin, is authorized to
undertake--
(i) a program for the planning,
construction, and evaluation of
measures for fish and wildlife habitat
rehabilitation and enhancement; and
(ii) implementation of a program of
long-term resource monitoring,
computerized data inventory and
analysis, and applied research program;
and
(B) Requirements for projects.--Each
project carried out under subparagraph (A)
shall--
(i) to the maximum extent
practicable, simulate natural river
processes; and
(ii) include an outreach and
education component.
(iii) on completion of the
assessment under subparagraph (D),
address identified habitat and natural
resource needs.
(C) Advisory committee.--In carrying out
subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall create an
independent technical advisory committee to
review projects, monitoring plans, and habitat
and natural resource needs assessments.
(D) Habitat and natural resource needs
assessment.--
(i) Authority.--The Secretary is
authorized to undertake a systemic,
river reach, and pool scale assessment
of habitat and natural resource needs
to serve as a blueprint to guide
habitat rehabilitation and long-term
resource monitoring.
(ii) Data.--The habitat and natural
resource needs assessment shall, to the
maximum extent practicable, use data in
existence on the date of enactment of
this subparagraph.
(iii) Timing.--The Secretary shall
complete a habitat and natural resource
needs assessment not later than 3 years
after the date of enactment of this
subparagraph.
(2) Reports.--On December 31, 2005, in consultation
with the Secretary of the Interior and the States of
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin, the
Secretary shall prepare and submit to Congress a report
that--
(A) contains an evaluation of the programs
described in paragraph (1);
(B) describes the accomplishments of each
program;
(C) include results of a habitat and
natural resources needs assessment; and
(D) identifies any needed adjustments in
the authorization under paragraph (1) or the
authorized appropriations under paragraphs (3),
(4) and (5).
(3) For purposes of carrying out paragraph [1(A)] 1(A)(i)
of this subsection, there is authorized to be appropriated to
the [Secretary not to exceed $8,200,000 for the first fiscal
year beginning after the date of enactment of this Act, not to
exceed $12,400,000 for the second fiscal year beginning after
the date of enactment of this Act, and not to exceed
$13,000,000 per fiscal year for each of the succeeding eight
fiscal years] Secretary not to exceed $22,750,000 for each of
fiscal years 1999 through 2009.
(4) For purposes of carrying out paragraph [1(B)]
(1)(A)(ii) of this subsection, there is authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary not to exceed [$7,680,000 for the
first fiscal year beginning after the date of enactment of this
Act and not to exceed $5,080,000 per fiscal year for each of
the succeeding nine fiscal years] $10,420,000 for each of
fiscal years 1999 through 2009.
[(5) For purposes of carrying out paragraph 1(C) of this
subsection, there is authorized to be appropriated to the
Secretary not to exceed $40,000 for the first fiscal year
beginning after the enactment of this Act, not to exceed
$280,000 for the second fiscal year beginning after the
enactment of this Act, not to exceed $1,220,000 for the third
fiscal year beginning after the enactment of this Act, and not
to exceed $875,000 per fiscal year for each of the succeeding
seven fiscal years.
[(6)(A) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(2)
of this section, the costs of each project carried out pursuant
to paragraph (1)(A) of this subsection shall be allocated
between the Secretary and the appropriate non-Federal sponsor
in accordance with the provisions of section 906 of this Act.
[(B) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(2) of
this section, the cost of implementing the activities
authorized by paragraphs (1)(B) and (1)(C) of this subsection
shall be allocated in accordance with the provisions of section
906 of this Act, as if such activity was required to mitigate
losses of fish and wildlife.
(5) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out paragraph (1)(C) not to exceed
$350,000 for each of fiscal years 1999 through 2009.
(6) Transfer of amounts.--
(A) In general.--For each fiscal year
beginning after September 30, 1992, the
Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary
of the Interior and the States of Illinois,
Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin, may
transfer appropriated amounts between the
programs under clauses (i) and (ii) of
paragraph (1)(A) and paragraph (1)(C).
(B) Apportionment of costs.--In carrying
out paragraph (1)(D), the Secretary may
apportion the costs equally between the
programs authorized by paragraph (1)(A).
[(6)] (7)(A) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection
(a)(2) of this section, the costs of each project carried out
pursuant to paragraph (1)(A)(i) of this subsection shall be
allocated between the Secretary and the appropriate non-Federal
sponsor in accordance with the provisions of section 2283(e) of
this title; except that the costs of operation and maintenance
of projects located on Federal lands or lands owned or operated
by a State or local government shall be borne by the Federal,
State, or local agency that is responsible for management
activities for fish and wildlife on such lands and, in the case
of any project requiring non-Federal cost sharing, the non-
Federal share of the cost of the project shall be 35 percent.
(B) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(2) of
this section, the cost of implementing the activities
authorized by [paragraphs (1)(B) and (1)(C) of this subsection]
paragraph (1)(A)(ii) shall be allocated in accordance with the
provisions of section 2283 of this title, as if such activity
was required to mitigate losses to fish and wildlife.
[(7)] (8) None of the funds appropriated pursuant to any
authorization contained in this subsection shall be considered
to be chargeable to navigation.
(f)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(2)[(A)] For purposes of carrying out the program of
recreational projects authorized in paragraph (1) of this
subsection, there is authorized to be appropriated to the
Secretary not to exceed $500,000 per year for each of the first
ten fiscal years binning after the effective date of this
section.
[(B) For purposes of carrying out the assessment of the
economic benefits of recreational activities as authorized in
paragraph (1) of this subsection, there is authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary not to exceed $300,000 per fiscal
year for the first and second fiscal years beginning after the
computerized inventory and analysis system implemented pursuant
to subsection (e)(1)(C) of this section is fully functional and
$150,000 for the third such fiscal year.]
* * * * * * *
(k) St. Louis Area Urban Wildlife Habitat.--The Secretary
shall investigate and, if appropriate, carry out restoration of
urban wildlife habitat, with a special emphasis on the
establishment of greenways in the St. Louis, Missouri, area and
surrounding communities.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1135. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF ENVIRONMENT.
[(a) The Secretary] (1) In general.--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.
(2) Control of sea lamprey.--Congress finds that--
(A) the Great Lakes navigation system has
been instrumental in the spread of sea lamprey
and the associated impacts to its fishery; and
(B) the use of the authority under this
subsection for control of sea lamprey at any
Great Lakes basin location is appropriate.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1142. MEASUREMENTS OF LAKE MICHIGAN DIVERSIONS.
(a) * * *
(b)There are authorized to be appropriated [$250,000 per
fiscal year for each fiscal year beginning after September 30,
1986] a total of $1,250,000 for each of fiscal years 1999
through 2003, to carry out this section, including those funds
necessary to maintain the measurements and computations, as
well as necessary capital construction costs associated with
the installation of new flow measurement devices or structures
declared unnecessary and appropriate by the Secretary.
* * * * * * *
Public Law 100-676
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1988
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water
Resources Development Act of 1988''.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 8. INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY.
(a) Use.--The Secretary shall, whenever feasible, seek to
promote long- and short-term cost savings, increased
efficiency, reliability, and safety, and improved environmental
results through the use of innovative technology in all phases
of water resources development projects and programs under the
Secretary's jurisdiction. To further this goal, Congress
encourages the Secretary to--
(1) use procurement and contracting procedures that
encourage innovative project design, construction,
rehabilitation, repair, and operation and maintenance
technologies;
(2) frequently review technical and design criteria
to remove or modify unnecessary impediments to
innovation;
(3) increase timely exchange of technical
information with universities, private companies,
government agencies, and individuals;
(4) foster design competition; and
(5) encourage greater participation by non-Federal
project sponsors in the development and implementation
of projects.
(b) Accelerated Adoption of Innovative Technologies for
Management of Contaminated Sediments.--
(1) Test projects.--The Secretary shall approve an
appropriate number of projects to test, under actual
field conditions, innovative technologies for
environmentally sound management of contaminated
sediments.
(2) Demonstration projects.--The Secretary may
approve an appropriate number of projects to
demonstrate innovative technologies that have been
pilot tested under paragraph (1).
(3) Conduct of projects.--Each pilot project under
paragraph (1) and demonstration project under paragraph
(2) shall be conducted by a university with proven
expertise in the research and development of
contaminated sediment treatment technologies and
innovative applications using waste materials.
* * * * * * *
Public Law 101-640
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1990
[As Amended Through P.L. 105-153, December 17, 1997]
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water
Resources Development Act of 1990''.
* * * * * * *
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, recommended in the respective reports designated in
this section:
(1) Southeast alaska harbors of refuge, alaska.-- *
* *
(4) Sacramento metro area, california.--The project
for flood control, Sacramento Metro Area, California:
Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated June 29, 1992,
at a total cost of $17,000,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $12,800,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $4,200,000, is modified to authorize
the Secretary to construct the project at a total cost
of $32,900,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$24,700,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$8,200,000.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 308. FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT.
(a) [Benefit-Cost Analysis] Elements Excluded From Cost-
Benefit Analysis.--The Secretary shall not include in the
benefit base for justifying Federal flood damage reduction
projects--
(1)(A) any new or substantially improved structure
(other than a structure necessary for conducting a
water-dependent activity) built in the 100-year flood
plain with a first floor elevation less than the 100-
year flood elevation after July 1, 1991; or
(B) in the case of a county substantially located
within the 100-year flood plain, any new or
substantially improved structure (other than a
structure necessary for conducting a water-dependent
activity) built in the 10-year flood plain after July
1, 1991; and
(2) any structure which becomes located in the 100-
year flood plain with a first floor elevation less than
the 100-year flood elevation or in the 10-year flood
plain, as the case may be, by virtue of constrictions
placed in the flood plain after July 1, 1991.
(b) Elements Included in Cost-Benefit Analysis.--The
Secretary shall include primary flood damages avoided in the
benefit base for justifying Federal nonstructural flood damage
reduction projects.
[(b)] (c) Counties Substantially Located Within 100-Year
Flood Plain.--For the purposes of subsection (a), a county is
substantially located within the 100-year flood plain--
(1) if the county is comprised of lands of which 50
percent or more are located in the 100-year flood
plain; and
(2) if the Secretary determines that application of
the requirement contained in subsection (a)(1)(A) with
respect to the county would unreasonably restrain
continued economic development or unreasonably limit
the availability of needed flood control measures.
[(c)] (d) Cost Sharing.--Not later than January 1, 1992,
the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the
feasibility and advisability of increasing the non-Federal
share of costs for new projects in areas where new or
substantially improved structures and other constrictions are
built or placed in the 100-year flood plain or the 10-year
flood plain, as the case may be, after the initial date of the
affected governmental unit's entry into the regular program of
the national flood insurance program of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968.
[(d)] (e) Regulations.--Not later than 6 months after the
date on which a report is transmitted to Congress under
subsection (d), the Secretary, in consultation with the
Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, shall
issue regulations to implement subsection (a). Such regulations
shall define key terms, such as new or substantially improved
structure, constriction, 10-year flood plain, and 100-year
flood plain.
[(e)] (f) Applicability.--The provisions of this section
shall not apply to any project, or separable element thereof,
for which a final report of the Chief of Engineers has been
forwarded to the Secretary before the last day of the 6-month
period beginning on the date on which regulations are issued
pursuant to subsection (a) but not later than July 1, 1993.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 312. ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING.
(a) Operation and Maintenance of Navigation Projects.-- * *
*
(f) Priority Work.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary shall give priority to work in the following areas:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(6) Snake Creek, Bixby, Oklahoma.
(7) Willamette River, Oregon.
* * * * * * *
Public Law 102-580
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1992
[As Amended Through P.L. 105-153, December 17, 1997]
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water
Resources Development Act of 1992''.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 204. BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL.
(a) In General.-- * * *
* * * * * * *
(g) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221 of the
Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), for any
project carried out under this section, a non-Federal interest
may include a nonprofit entity, with the consent of the
affected local government.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 219. ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE.
(a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to provide
assistance to non-Federal interests for carrying out water-
related environmental infrastructure and resource protection
and development projects described in subsection (c), including
waste water treatment and related facilities and water supply,
storage, treatment, and distribution facilities. Such
assistance may be in the form of technical and planning and
design assistance. If the Secretary is to provide any design or
engineering assistance to carry out a project under this
section, the Secretary shall obtain by procurement from private
sources all services necessary for the Secretary to provide
such assistance, unless the Secretary finds that--
(1) the service would require the use of a new
technology unavailable in the private sector; or
(2) a solicitation or request for proposal has
failed to attract 2 or more bids or proposals.
(b) Non-Federal Share.--The non-Federal share of the cost
of projects for which assistance is provided under this section
shall not be less than 25 percent, except that such share shall
be subject to the ability of the non-Federal interest to pay,
including the procedures and regulations relating to ability to
pay established under section 103(m) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986.
(c) Project Descriptions.--The projects for which the
Secretary is authorized to provide assistance under subsection
(a) are as follows:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(19) Lake Tahoe, California and Nevada.--Regional
water system for Lake Tahoe, California and Nevada.
(20) Lancaster, California.--Fox Field Industrial
Corridor water facilities, Lancaster, California.
(21) San Ramon, California.--San Ramon Valley
recycled water project, San Ramon, California.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 404. ATLANTIC COAST OF NEW YORK.
(a) Development of Program.-- * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated [$1,400,000 for each of fiscal years 1993,
1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997] $2,500,000 to carry out this
section. Such sums shall remain available until expended.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 405. SEDIMENTS DECONTAMINATION TECHNOLOGY.
(a) Decontamination Project.--
(1) Selection of Technologies.--Based upon a review
of decontamination technologies identified pursuant to
section 412(c) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1990, the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Secretary shall, within 1
year after the date of the enactment of this Act,
jointly select removal, pre-treatment, post-treatment,
and decontamination technologies for contaminated
marine sediments for a decontamination project in the
New York/New Jersey Harbor.
(2) Recommended Program.--Upon selection of
technologies, the Administrator and the Secretary shall
jointly recommend a program of selected technologies to
assess their effectiveness in rendering sediments
acceptable for unrestricted ocean disposal or
beneficial reuse, or both.
(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.
(4) Practical end-use products.--Technologies
selected for demonstration at the pilot scale shall
result in practical end-use products.
(5) Assistance by the secretary.--The Secretary
shall assist the project to ensure expeditious
completion by providing sufficient quantities of
contaminated dredged material to conduct the full-scale
demonstrations to stated capacity.
(b) Decontamination Defined.--For purposes of this section,
`decontamination' may include local or remote prototype or
production and laboratory decontamination technologies,
sediment pre-treatment and post-treatment processes, and
siting, economic, or other measures necessary to develop a
matrix for selection of interim prototype of long-term
processes. Decontamination techniques need not be preproven in
terms of likely success.
(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. Such sums
shall remain available until expended] There is authorized to
be appropriated to carry out this section a total of
$22,000,000 to complete technology testing, technology
commercialization, and the development of full scale processing
facilities within the New York/New Jersey Harbor.
* * * * * * *
Public Law 104-303
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1996
[As Amended Through P.L. 105-153, December 17, 1997]
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water
Resources Development Act of 1996''.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.
(a) Projects With Chief's Reports.-- * * *
* * * * * * *
(5) San lorenzo river, california.--The project for
flood control, San Lorenzo River, 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 and habitat restoration, at a total cost of
$4,050,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$3,040,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$1,010,000; is modified to authorize the Secretary to
include as a part of the project streambank erosion
control measures to be undertaken substantially in
accordance with the report entitled ``Bank
Stabilization Concept, Laurel Street Extension'', dated
April 23, 1998, at a total cost of $4,000,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $2,600,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $1,400,000.
* * * * * * *
(19) 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; is modified to
authorize the Secretary to construct the project in
accordance with the Corps of Engineers report dated
June 29, 1998, at a total cost of $16,632,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $9,508,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $7,124,000.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 102. SMALL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the
following projects and, if the Secretary determines that the
project is feasible, may 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.-- * * *
* * * * * * *
(15) Repaupo Creek and Delaware River, Gloucester
County, New Jersey.--Project for tidegate and levee
improvements for Repaupo Creek and the Delaware River,
Gloucester County, New Jersey.
[(15)] (16) Buffalo Creek, Erie County, New York.--
Project for flood control, Buffalo Creek, Erie County,
New York.
[(16)] (17) Cazenovia Creek, Erie County, New
York.--Project for flood control, Cazenovia Creek, Erie
County, New York.
[(17)] (18) Cheektowaga, Erie County, New York.--
Project for flood control, Cheektowaga, Erie County,
New York.
[(18)] (19) Fulmer Creek, Village of Mohawk, New
York.--Project for flood control, Fulmer Creek, village
of Mohawk, New York.
[(19)] (20) Moyer Creek, Village of Frankfort, New
York.--Project for flood control, Moyer Creek, village
of Frankfort, New York.
[(20)] (21) Sauquoit Creek, Whitesboro, New York.--
Project for flood control, Sauquoit Creek, Whitesboro,
New York.
[(21)] (22) Steele Creek, Village of Ilion, New
York.--Project for flood control, Steele Creek, village
of Ilion, New York.
[(22)] (23) Willamette River, Oregon.--Project for
nonstructural flood control, Willamette River, Oregon,
including floodplain and ecosystem restoration.
(24) Irondequoit Creek, New York._Project for flood
control, Irondequoit Creek watershed, New York.
(25) Tioga County, Pennsylvania.--Project for flood
control, Tioga River and Cowanesque River and their
tributaries, Tioga County, Pennsylvania.
* * * * * * *
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, may carry out the project under section
107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577):
(1) Akutan, alaska.-- * * *
* * * * * * *
(9) Fortescue Inlet, Delaware Bay, New Jersey.--
Project for navigation for Fortesque Inlet, Delaware
Bay, New Jersey.
(10) Braddock Bay, Greece, New York.--Project for
navigation, Braddock Bay, Greece, New York.
[(9)] (11) 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.
[(10))] (12) Buffalo Inner Harbor, Buffalo, New
York.--Project for navigation, Buffalo Inner Harbor,
Buffalo, New York, including enlargement of the
existing harbor and bank stabilization measures.
[(11))] (13) Glenn Cove Creek, New York.--Project
for navigation, Glenn Cove Creek, New York, including
bulkheading.
[(12))] (14) Union ship canal, buffalo and
lackawanna, new york.-- Project for navigation, Union
Ship Canal, Buffalo and Lackawanna, New York.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 206. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.
(a) General Authority.-- * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Agreements.--[Construction]
(1) In general.--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.
(2) Nonprofit entities.--Notwithstanding section
221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-
5b(b)), for any project carried out under this section,
a non-Federal interest may include a nonprofit entity
with the consent of the affected local government.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 301. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS.
(a) Projects With Reports.-- * * *
(b) Projects Subject to Reports.--The following projects
are modified as follows, except that no funds may be obligated
to carry out work under such modifications until completion of
a report by the Corps of Engineers finding that such work is
technically sound, environmentally acceptable, and economic, as
applicable:
(1) Alamo dam, arizona.-- * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) Glenn-colusa, california.--The project for
flood control, Sacramento River, California, authorized
by section 2 of the Act entitled ``An Act to provide
for the control of the floods of the Mississippi River
and of the Sacramento River, California, and for other
purposes'', approved March 1, 1917 (39 Stat. 949), and
modified by section 102 of the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act, 1990 (103 Stat. 649),
and further modified by section 301(b)(3) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3709), [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] is further
modified to authorize the Secretary to carry out the
portion of the project in Glenn-Colusa, California in
accordance with the Corps of Engineers report dated May
22, 1998, at a total cost of $20,700,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $15,570,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $5,130,000.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 364. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS.
The following projects are not authorized after the date
of the enactment of this Act:
(1) Branford Harbor, Connecticut.-- * * *
* * * * * * *
[(9) East Boothbay Harbor, Maine.--The following
portion of the navigation project for East Boothbay
Harbor, Maine, authorized by the 1st section of the Act
entitled ``An Act making appropriations for the
construction, repair, and preservation of certain
public works on rivers and harbors, and for other
purposes'', approved June 25, 1910 (36 Stat. 657),
containing approximately 1.15 acres and described in
accordance with the Maine State Coordinate System, West
Zone: Beginning at a point noted as point number 6 and
shown as having plan coordinates of North 9, 722, East
9, 909, on the plan entitled, ``East Boothbay Harbor,
Maine, examination, 8- foot area'', and dated August 9,
1955, Drawing Number F1251 D-6- 2, that point having
Maine State Coordinate System, West Zone coordinates of
Northing 74514, Easting 698381. Thence, North 58
degrees, 12 minutes, 30 seconds East a distance of
120.9 feet to a point. Thence, South 72 degrees, 21
minutes, 50 seconds East a distance of 106.2 feet to a
point. Thence, South 32 degrees, 04 minutes, 55 seconds
East a distance of 218.9 feet to a point. Thence, South
61 degrees, 29 minutes, 40 seconds West a distance of
148.9 feet to a point. Thence, North 35 degrees, 14
minutes, 12 seconds West a distance of 87.5 feet to a
point. Thence, North 78 degrees, 30 minutes, 58 seconds
West a distance of 68.4 feet to a point. Thence, North
27 degrees, 11 minutes, 39 seconds West a distance of
157.3 feet to the point of beginning.]
(9) East Boothbay Harbor, Maine.--The project for
navigation, East Boothbay Harbor, Maine, authorized by
the first section of the Act entitled ``An Act making
appropriations for the construction, repair, and
preservation of certain public works on rivers and
harbors, and for other purposes'', approved June 25,
1910 (36 Stat. 657).
* * * * * * *
SEC. 444. PACIFIC REGION.
The Secretary may conduct studies in the [interest of
navigation] interests of water resources development (including
navigation, flood damage reduction, and environmental
restoration) in that part of the Pacific region that includes
American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 503. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT, RESTORATION, AND DEVELOPMENT.
(a) In General.--* * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Project Locations.-- * * *
* * * * * * *
[(10) Nancy Creek, Utoy Creek, and North Peachtree
Creek and South Peachtree Creek basin, Georgia.]
(10) Regional Atlanta Watershed, Atlanta, Georgia,
and Lake Lanier of Forsyth and Hall Counties, Georgia.
(11) Lower Platte River watershed, Nebraska.
(12) Juniata River watershed, Pennsylvania,
including Raystown Lake.
(13) Upper Potomac River watershed, Grant and
Mineral Counties, West Virginia.
(14) Clear Lake watershed, California.
(15) Fresno Slough watershed, California.
(16) Hayward Marsh, Southern San Francisco Bay
watershed, California.
(17) Kaweah River watershed, California.
(18) Lake Tahoe watershed, California and Nevada.
(19) Malibu Creek watershed, California.
(20) Truckee River basin, Nevada.
(21) Walker River basin, Nevada.
(22) Bronx River watershed, New York.
(23) Catawba River watershed, North Carolina.
(e) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) of
the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), for any
project undertaken under this section, with the consent of the
affected local government, a non-Federal interest may include a
nonprofit entity.
[(e)] (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$15,000,000.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 511. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM TO IMPROVE SALMON SURVIVAL.
[(a) Salmon Survival Activities.--
[(1) In general.--The Secretary shall accelerate
ongoing research and development activities, and may
carry out or participate in additional research and
development activities, for the purpose of developing
innovative methods and technologies for improving the
survival of salmon, especially salmon in the Columbia
River Basin.
[(2) Accelerated activities.--Accelerated research
and development activities referred to in paragraph (1)
may include research and development related to--
[(A) impacts from water resources projects
and other impacts on salmon life cycles;
[(B) juvenile and adult salmon passage;
[(C) light and sound guidance systems;
[(D) surface-oriented collector systems;
[(E) transportation mechanisms; and
[(F) dissolved gas monitoring and
abatement.
[(3) Additional activities.--Additional research
and development activities referred to in paragraph (1)
may include research and development related to--
[(A) marine mammal predation on salmon;
[(B) studies of juvenile salmon survival in
spawning and rearing areas;
[(C) estuary and near-ocean juvenile and
adult salmon survival;
[(D) impacts on salmon life cycles from
sources other than water resources projects;
and
[(E) other innovative technologies and
actions intended to improve fish survival,
including the survival of resident fish.
[(4) Coordination.--The Secretary shall coordinate
any activities carried out under this subsection with
appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies,
affected Indian tribes, and the Northwest Power
Planning Council.
[(5) 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 research and
development activities carried out under this
subsection, including any recommendations of the
Secretary concerning the research and development
activities.
[(6) Authorization of appropriations.--There is
authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 to carry out
research and development activities under paragraph
(3).
[(b) Advanced Turbine Development.--
[(1) In general.--In conjunction with the Secretary
of Energy, the Secretary shall accelerate efforts
toward developing innovative, efficient, and
environmentally safe hydropower tur bines, including
design of ``fish-friendly'' turbines, for use on the
Columbia River hydrosystem.
[(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is
authorized to be appropriated $12,000,000 to carry out
this subsection.
[(c) Implementation.--Nothing in this section affects the
authority of the Secretary to implement the results of the
research and development carried out under this section or any
other law.]
(a) Salmon Survival Activities.--
(1) In general.--In conjunction with the Secretary
of Commerce and Secretary of the Interior, the
Secretary shall accelerate ongoing research and
development activities, and may carry out or
participate in additional research and development
activities, for the purpose of developing innovative
methods and technologies for improving the survival of
salmon, especially salmon in the Columbia/Snake River
Basin.
(2) Accelerated activities.--Accelerated research
and development activities referred to in paragraph (1)
may include research and development related to--
(A) impacts from water resources projects
and other impacts on salmon life cycles;
(B) juvenile and adult salmon passage;
(C) light and sound guidance systems;
(D) surface-oriented collector systems;
(E) transportation mechanisms; and
(F) dissolved gas monitoring and abatement.
(3) Additional activities.--Additional research and
development activities referred to in paragraph (1) may
include research and development related to--
(A) studies of juvenile salmon survival in
spawning and rearing areas;
(B) estuary and near-ocean juvenile and
adult salmon survival;
(C) impacts on salmon life cycles from
sources other than water resources projects;
(D) cryopreservation of fish gametes and
formation of a germ plasm repository for
threatened and endangered populations of native
fish; and
(E) other innovative technologies and
actions intended to improve fish survival,
including the survival of resident fish.
(4) Coordination.--The Secretary shall coordinate
any activities carried out under this subsection with
appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies,
affected Indian tribes, and the Northwest Power
Planning Council.
(5) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date
of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall
submit to Congress a report on the research and
development activities carried out under this
subsection, including any recommendations of the
Secretary concerning the research and development
activities.
(6) Authorization of appropriations.--There is
authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 to carry out
research and development activities under paragraph
(3).
(b) Advanced Turbine Development.--
(1) In general.--In conjunction with the Secretary
of Energy, the Secretary shall accelerate efforts
toward developing and installing in Corps of Engineers
operated dams innovative, efficient, and
environmentally safe hydropower turbines, including
design of ``fish friendly'' turbines, for use on the
Columbia/Snake River hydrosystem.
(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is
authorized to be appropriated $35,000,000 to carry out
this subsection.
(c) Management of Predation on Columbia/Snake River System
Native Fishes.--
(1) Nesting avian predators.--In conjunction with
the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of the
Interior, and consistent with a management plan to be
developed by the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, the Secretary shall carry out methods to
reduce nesting populations of avian predators on dredge
spoil islands in the Columbia River under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary.
(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is
authorized to be appropriated $1,000,000 to carry out
research and development activities under this
subsection.
(d) Implementation.--Nothing in this section affects the
authority of the Secretary to implement the results of the
research and development carried out under this section or any
other law.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 528. EVERGLADES AND SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.
(a) Definitions.-- * * *
(b) Restoration Activities.--
(1) Comprehensive plan.-- * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) Critical restoration projects.--
(A) In general.--In addition to the
activities described in paragraphs (1) and (2),
if the Secretary, in cooperation with the non-
Federal project sponsor and the Task Force,
determines that a restoration project for the
South Florida ecosystem will produce
independent, immediate, and substantial
restoration, preservation, and protection
benefits, and will be generally consistent with
the conceptual framework described in paragraph
(1)(A)(ii)(II), the Secretary shall proceed
expeditiously with the implementation of the
restoration project.
(B) Initiation of projects.--After
September 30, [1999] 2003, no new projects may
be initiated under subparagraph (A).
(C) Authorization of appropriations.--
(i) In general.--There is
authorized to be appropriated to the
Department of the Army to pay the
Federal share of the cost of carrying
out projects under subparagraph (A)
$75,000,000 for the period consisting
of fiscal years 1997 through [1999]
2003.
(ii) Federal share.--The Federal
share of the cost of carrying out any 1
project under subparagraph (A) shall be
not more than $25,000,000.
(D) Credit and reimbursement of past and
future activities.--The Secretary may afford
credit to or reimburse the non-Federal sponsors
(using funds authorized by subparagraph (C))
for the reasonable costs of any work that has
been performed or will be performed in
connection with a study or activity meeting the
requirements of subparagraph (A) if--
(i) the Secretary determines that--
(I) the work performed by
the non-Federal sponsors will
substantially expedite
completion of a critical
restoration project; and
(II) the work is necessary
for a critical restoration
project; and
(ii) the credit or reimbursement is
granted pursuant to a project-specific
agreement that prescribes the terms and
conditions of the credit or
reimbursement.
* * * * * * *
(e) Cost Sharing.--
(1) In general.-- * * *
(4) Credit.--Regardless of the date of acquisition,
the value of lands or interests in land acquired by
non-Federal interests for any activity described in
subsection (b) shall be included in the total cost of
the activity and credited against the non-Federal share
of the cost of the activity, including potential land
acquisition in the Caloosahatchee River basin or other
areas. Such value shall be determined by the Secretary.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 552. NEW YORK CITY WATERSHED.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(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] .or a public entity
designated by the State director, to carry out the project with
such assistance, subject to the project's meeting the
certification requirement of subsection (c)(1).
* * * * * * *
SEC. 567. 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 damage, 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 $8,000,000.
(2) The Susquehanna River watershed upstream of the
Chemung River, New York, at an estimated Federal cost
of $5,000,000.
(3) The Chemung River watershed, New York, at an
estimated Federal cost of $5,000,000.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 585. OVERFLOW MANAGEMENT FACILITY.
(a) Assistance.--The Secretary shall provide assistance to
the Narragansett Bay Commission for the construction of a
combined [river] sewer overflow management facility in Rhode
Island.
(b) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this section $30,000,000.
-