[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.

                                   - 
