Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?
[wais.access.gpo.gov]

106th Congress                                            Rept. 106-106
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                     Part 1

======================================================================



 
                WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1999

                                _______


 April 26, 1999.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 1480]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom 
was referred the bill (H.R. 1480) to provide for the 
conservation and development of water and related resources, to 
authorize the United States Army Corps of Engineers to 
construct various projects for improvements to rivers and 
harbors of the United States, and for other purposes, having 
considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment 
and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
  The amendment is as follows:
  Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
thereof the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

  (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water Resources 
Development Act of 1999''.
  (b) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Secretary defined.

                   TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

Sec. 101. Project authorizations.
Sec. 102. Small flood control projects.
Sec. 103. Small bank stabilization projects.
Sec. 104. Small navigation projects.
Sec. 105. Small projects for improvement of the environment.
Sec. 106. Small aquatic ecosystem restoration projects.

                      TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 201. Small flood control authority.
Sec. 202. Use of non-Federal funds for compiling and disseminating 
information on floods and flood damages.
Sec. 203. Contributions by States and political subdivisions.
Sec. 204. Sediment decontamination technology.
Sec. 205. Control of aquatic plants.
Sec. 206. Use of continuing contracts required for construction of 
certain projects.
Sec. 207. Support of Army civil works program.
Sec. 208. Water resources development studies for the Pacific region.
Sec. 209. Everglades and south Florida ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 210. Beneficial uses of dredged material.
Sec. 211. Harbor cost sharing.
Sec. 212. Aquatic ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 213. Watershed management, restoration, and development.
Sec. 214. Flood mitigation and riverine restoration pilot program.
Sec. 215. Shoreline management program.
Sec. 216. Assistance for remediation, restoration, and reuse.
Sec. 217. Shore damage mitigation.
Sec. 218. Shore protection.
Sec. 219. Flood prevention coordination.
Sec. 220. Annual passes for recreation.
Sec. 221. Cooperative agreements for environmental and recreational 
measures.
Sec. 222. Nonstructural flood control projects.
Sec. 223. Lakes program.
Sec. 224. Construction of flood control projects by non-Federal 
interests.
Sec. 225. Enhancement of fish and wildlife resources.
Sec. 226. Sense of Congress; requirement regarding notice.
Sec. 227. Periodic beach nourishment.
Sec. 228. Environmental dredging.

                 TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS

Sec. 301. Missouri River Levee System.
Sec. 302. Ouzinkie Harbor, Alaska.
Sec. 303. Greers Ferry Lake, Arkansas.
Sec. 304. Ten- and Fifteen-Mile Bayous, Arkansas.
Sec. 305. Loggy Bayou, Red River below Denison Dam, Arkansas, 
Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas.
Sec. 306. Sacramento River, Glenn-Colusa, California.
Sec. 307. San Lorenzo River, California.
Sec. 308. Terminus Dam, Kaweah River, California.
Sec. 309. Delaware River mainstem and channel deepening, Delaware, New 
Jersey, and Pennsylvania.
Sec. 310. Potomac River, Washington, District of Columbia.
Sec. 311. Brevard County, Florida.
Sec. 312. Broward County and Hillsboro Inlet, Florida.
Sec. 313. Fort Pierce, Florida.
Sec. 314. Nassau County, Florida.
Sec. 315. Miami Harbor Channel, Florida.
Sec. 316. Lake Michigan, Illinois.
Sec. 317. Springfield, Illinois.
Sec. 318. Little Calumet River, Indiana.
Sec. 319. Ogden Dunes, Indiana.
Sec. 320. Saint Joseph River, South Bend, Indiana.
Sec. 321. White River, Indiana.
Sec. 322. Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana.
Sec. 323. Larose to Golden Meadow, Louisiana.
Sec. 324. Louisiana State Penitentiary Levee, Louisiana.
Sec. 325. Twelve-mile Bayou, Caddo Parish, Louisiana.
Sec. 326. West Bank of the Mississippi River (East of Harvey Canal), 
Louisiana.
Sec. 327. Tolchester Channel, Baltimore Harbor and channels, Chesapeake 
Bay, Kent County, Maryland.
Sec. 328. Sault Sainte Marie, Chippewa County, Michigan.
Sec. 329. Jackson County, Mississippi.
Sec. 330. Tunica Lake, Mississippi.
Sec. 331. Bois Brule Drainage and Levee District, Missouri.
Sec. 332. Meramec River Basin, Valley Park Levee, Missouri.
Sec. 333. Missouri River mitigation project, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, 
and Nebraska.
Sec. 334. Wood River, Grand Island, Nebraska.
Sec. 335. Absecon Island, New Jersey.
Sec. 336. New York Harbor and Adjacent Channels, Port Jersey, New 
Jersey
Sec. 337. Passaic River, New Jersey.
Sec. 338. Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey.
Sec. 339. Arthur Kill, New York and New Jersey.
Sec. 340. New York City watershed.
Sec. 341. New York State Canal System.
Sec. 342. Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point, New york.
Sec. 343. Broken Bow Lake, Red River Basin, Oklahoma.
Sec. 344. Willamette River temperature control, Mckenzie Subbasin, 
Oregon.
Sec. 345. Aylesworth Creek Reservoir, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 346. Curwensville Lake, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 347. Delaware River, Pennsylvania and Delaware.
Sec. 348. Mussers Dam, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 349. Nine-Mile Run, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 350. Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 351. South Central Pennsylvania.
Sec. 352. Cooper River, Charleston Harbor, South Carolina.
Sec. 353. Bowie County Levee, Texas.
Sec. 354. Clear Creek, Texas.
Sec. 355. Cypress Creek, Texas.
Sec. 356. Dallas Floodway Extension, Dallas, Texas.
Sec. 357. Upper Jordan River, Utah.
Sec. 358. Elizabeth River, Chesapeake, Virginia.
Sec. 359. Bluestone Lake, Ohio River Basin, West Virginia.
Sec. 360. Greenbrier Basin, West Virginia.
Sec. 361. Moorefield, West Virginia.
Sec. 362. West Virginia and Pennsylvania Flood Control.
Sec. 363. Project reauthorizations.
Sec. 364. Project deauthorizations.
Sec. 365. American and Sacramento Rivers, California.
Sec. 366. Martin, Kentucky.

                           TITLE IV--STUDIES

Sec. 401. Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers levees and streambanks 
protection.
Sec. 402. Upper Mississippi River comprehensive plan.
Sec. 403. El Dorado, Union County, Arkansas.
Sec. 404. Sweetwater Reservoir, San Diego County, California.
Sec. 405. Whitewater River Basin, California.
Sec. 406. Little Econlackhatchee River Basin, Florida.
Sec. 407. Port Everglades Inlet, Florida.
Sec. 408. Upper Des Plaines River and tributaries, Illinois and 
Wisconsin.
Sec. 409. Cameron Parish west of Calcasieu River, Louisiana.
Sec. 410. Grand Isle and vicinity, Louisiana.
Sec. 411. Lake Pontchartrain seawall, Louisiana.
Sec. 412. Westport, Massachusetts.
Sec. 413. Southwest Valley, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Sec. 414. Cayuga Creek, New York.
Sec. 415. Arcola Creek Watershed, Madison, Ohio.
Sec. 416. Western Lake Erie Basin, Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan.
Sec. 417. Schuylkill River, Norristown, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 418. Lakes Marion and Moultrie, South Carolina.
Sec. 419. Day County, South Dakota.
Sec. 420. Corpus Christi, Texas.
Sec. 421. Mitchell's Cut Channel (Caney Fork Cut), Texas.
Sec. 422. Mouth of Colorado River, Texas.
Sec. 423. Kanawha River, Fayette County, West Virginia.
Sec. 424. West Virginia ports.
Sec. 425. Great Lakes region comprehensive study.
Sec. 426. Nutrient loading resulting from dredged material disposal.
Sec. 427. Santee Delta focus area, South Carolina.

                   TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 501. Corps assumption of NRCS projects.
Sec. 502. Construction assistance.
Sec. 503. Contaminated sediment dredging technology.
Sec. 504. Dam safety.
Sec. 505. Great Lakes remedial action plans.
Sec. 506. Sea Lamprey control measures in the Great Lakes.
Sec. 507. Maintenance of navigation channels.
Sec. 508. Measurement of Lake Michigan diversions.
Sec. 509. Upper Mississippi River environmental management program.
Sec. 510. Atlantic Coast of New York monitoring.
Sec. 511. Water control management.
Sec. 512. Beneficial use of dredged material.
Sec. 513. Design and construction assistance.
Sec. 514. Lower Missouri River aquatic restoration projects.
Sec. 515. Aquatic resources restoration in the Northwest.
Sec. 516. Innovative technologies for watershed restoration.
Sec. 517. Environmental restoration.
Sec. 518. Expedited consideration of certain projects.
Sec. 519. Dog River, Alabama.
Sec. 520. Elba, Alabama.
Sec. 521. Geneva, Alabama.
Sec. 522. Navajo Reservation, Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah.
Sec. 523. Augusta and Devalls Bluff, Arkansas.
Sec. 524. Beaver Lake, Arkansas.
Sec. 525. Beaver Lake trout production facility, Arkansas.
Sec. 526. Chino Dairy Preserve, California.
Sec. 527. Novato, California.
Sec. 528. Orange and San Diego Counties, California.
Sec. 529. Salton Sea, California.
Sec. 530. Santa Cruz Harbor, California.
Sec. 531. Point Beach, Milford, Connecticut.
Sec. 532. Lower St. Johns River Basin, Florida.
Sec. 533. Shoreline protection and environmental restoration, Lake 
Allatoona, Georgia.
Sec. 534. Mayo's Bar Lock and Dam, Coosa River, Rome, Georgia.
Sec. 535. Comprehensive flood impact response modeling system, 
Coralville Reservoir and Iowa River Watershed, Iowa.
Sec. 536. Additional construction assistance in Illinois.
Sec. 537. Kanopolis Lake, Kansas.
Sec. 538. Southern and Eastern Kentucky.
Sec. 539. Southeast Louisiana.
Sec. 540. Snug Harbor, Maryland.
Sec. 541. Welch Point, Elk River, Cecil County, and Chesapeake City, 
Maryland.
Sec. 542. West View Shores, Cecil County, Maryland.
Sec. 543. Restoration projects for Maryland, Pennsylvania, and West 
Virginia.
Sec. 544. Cape Cod Canal Railroad Bridge, Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts.
Sec. 545. St. Louis, Missouri.
Sec. 546. Beaver Branch of Big Timber Creek, New Jersey.
Sec. 547. Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River water levels, New York.
Sec. 548. New York-New Jersey Harbor, New York and New Jersey.
Sec. 549. Sea Gate Reach, Coney Island, New York, New York.
Sec. 550. Woodlawn, New York.
Sec. 551. Floodplain mapping, New York.
Sec. 552. White Oak River, North Carolina.
Sec. 553. Toussaint River, Carroll Township, Ottawa County, Ohio.
Sec. 554. Sardis Reservoir, Oklahoma.
Sec. 555. Waurika Lake, Oklahoma, water conveyance facilities.
Sec. 556. Skinner Butte Park, Eugene, Oregon.
Sec. 557. Willamette River basin, Oregon.
Sec. 558. Bradford and Sullivan Counties, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 559. Erie Harbor, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 560. Point Marion Lock And Dam, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 561. Seven Points' Harbor, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 562. Southeastern Pennsylvania.
Sec. 563. Upper Susquehanna-Lackawanna watershed restoration 
initiative.
Sec. 564. Aguadilla Harbor, Puerto Rico.
Sec. 565. Oahe Dam to Lake Sharpe, South Dakota, study.
Sec. 566. Integrated water management planning, Texas.
Sec. 567. Bolivar Peninsula, Jefferson, Chambers, and Galveston 
Counties, Texas.
Sec. 568. Galveston Beach, Galveston County, Texas.
Sec. 569. Packery Channel, Corpus Christi, Texas.
Sec. 570. Northern West Virginia.
Sec. 571. Urbanized peak flood management research.
Sec. 572. Mississippi River Commission.
Sec. 573. Coastal aquatic habitat management.
Sec. 574. Recreation user fees initiative.
Sec. 575. Abandoned and inactive noncoal mine restoration.
Sec. 576. Beneficial use of waste tire rubber.
Sec. 577. Site designation.
Sec. 578. Land conveyances.
Sec. 579. Namings.
Sec. 580. Folsom Dam and Reservoir additional storage and water supply 
studies.
Sec. 581. Water resources development.
Sec. 582. Allocation of appropriations.
Sec. 583. Wallops Island, Virginia.
Sec. 584. Detroit River, Detroit, Michigan.

SEC. 2. SECRETARY DEFINED.

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

                   TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

  (a) Projects With Chief's Reports.--The following projects for water 
resources development and conservation and other purposes are 
authorized to be carried out by the Secretary substantially in 
accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions, described in 
the respective reports designated in this subsection:
          (1) Sand point harbor, alaska.--The project for navigation, 
        Sand Point Harbor, Alaska: Report of the Chief of Engineers 
        dated October 13, 1998, at a total cost of $11,760,000, with an 
        estimated Federal cost of $6,964,000 and an estimated non-
        Federal cost of $4,796,000.
          (2) Rio salado, salt river, phoenix and tempe, arizona.--The 
        project for flood control and environmental restoration, Rio 
        Salado, Salt River, Phoenix and Tempe, Arizona: Report of the 
        Chief of Engineers dated August 20, 1998, at a total cost of 
        $88,048,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $56,355,000 and 
        an estimated non-Federal cost of $31,693,000.
          (3) Tucson drainage area, arizona.--The project for flood 
        control, Tucson drainage area, Arizona: Report of the Chief of 
        Engineers, dated May 20, 1998, at a total cost of $29,900,000, 
        with an estimated Federal cost of $16,768,000 and an estimated 
        non-Federal cost of $13,132,000.
          (4) American river watershed, california.--
                  (A) In general.--The Folsom Dam Modification portion 
                of the Folsom Modification Plan described in the United 
                States Army Corps of Engineers Supplemental Information 
                Report for the American River Watershed Project, 
                California, dated March 1996, as modified by the report 
                entitled ``Folsom Dam Modification Report, New Outlets 
                Plan,'' dated March 1998, prepared by the Sacramento 
                Area Flood Control Agency, at an estimated cost of 
                $150,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
                $97,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
                $52,500,000. The Secretary shall coordinate with the 
                Secretary of the Interior with respect to the design 
                and construction of modifications at Folsom Dam 
                authorized by this paragraph.
                  (B) Reoperation measures.--Upon completion of the 
                improvements to Folsom Dam authorized by subparagraph 
                (A), the variable space allocated to flood control 
                within the Reservoir shall be reduced from the current 
                operating range of 400,000-670,000 acre-feet to 
                400,000-600,000 acre-feet.
                  (C) Cost of folsom reservoir reoperation measures.--
                Section 101(a)(1)(D)(ii) of the Water Resources 
                Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3662-3663) is 
                amended by striking ``during'' and all that follows 
                through ``thereafter''.
                  (D) Makeup of water shortages caused by flood control 
                operation.--
                          (i) In general.--The Secretary of the 
                        Interior shall enter into, or modify, such 
                        agreements with the Sacramento Area Flood 
                        Control Agency regarding the operation of 
                        Folsom Dam and Reservoir as may be necessary in 
                        order that, notwithstanding any prior agreement 
                        or provision of law, 100 percent of the water 
                        needed to make up for any water shortage caused 
                        by variable flood control operation during any 
                        year at Folsom Dam and resulting in a 
                        significant impact on recreation at Folsom 
                        Reservoir shall be replaced, to the extent the 
                        water is available for purchase, by the 
                        Secretary of the Interior.
                          (ii) Cost sharing.--Seventy-five percent of 
                        the costs of the replacement water provided 
                        under clause (i) shall be paid for on a non-
                        reimbursable basis by the Secretary of the 
                        Interior at Federal expense. The remaining 25 
                        percent of such costs shall be provided by the 
                        Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency.
                          (iii) Limitation.--To the extent that any 
                        funds in excess of the non-Federal share are 
                        provided by the Sacramento Area Flood Control 
                        Agency, the Secretary shall reimburse such non-
                        Federal interests for such excess funds. Costs 
                        for replacement water may not exceed 125 
                        percent of the current average market price for 
                        raw water, as determined by the Secretary of 
                        the Interior.
                  (E) Significant impact on recreation.--For the 
                purposes of this paragraph, a significant impact on 
                recreation is defined as any impact that results in a 
                lake elevation at Folsom Reservoir below 435 feet above 
                sea level starting on May 15 and ending on September 15 
                of any given year.
                  (F) Evaluation.--For purposes of this paragraph, in 
                evaluating the impacts on recreation at Folsom 
                Reservoir caused by the variable flood control 
                operation of Folsom Dam, the Secretary shall take into 
                consideration the effect of measures authorized by 
                section 581(b) of this Act.
          (5) South sacramento county streams, california.--The project 
        for flood control, environmental restoration and recreation, 
        South Sacramento County streams, California: Report of the 
        Chief of Engineers dated October 6, 1998, at a total cost of 
        $65,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $41,200,000 and 
        an estimated non-Federal cost of $24,300,000.
          (6) Upper guadalupe river, california.--The project for flood 
        control and recreation, Upper Guadalupe River, California: 
        Locally Preferred Plan (known as the ``Bypass Channel Plan''), 
        Report of the Chief of Engineers dated August 19, 1998, at a 
        total cost of $140,285,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
        $44,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $96,285,000.
          (7) Yuba river basin, california.--The project for flood 
        control, Yuba River Basin, California: Report of the Chief of 
        Engineers dated November 25, 1998, at a total cost of 
        $26,600,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $17,350,000 and 
        an estimated non-Federal cost of $9,250,000.
          (8) Delaware bay coastline, delaware and new jersey-broadkill 
        beach, delaware.--The project for hurricane and storm damage 
        reduction, Delaware Bay coastline, Delaware and New Jersey-
        Broadkill Beach, Delaware: Report of the Chief of Engineers 
        dated August 17, 1998, at a total cost of $9,049,000, with an 
        estimated Federal cost of $5,674,000 and an estimated non-
        Federal cost of $3,375,000, and at an estimated average annual 
        cost of $538,200 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life 
        of the project, with an estimated annual Federal cost of 
        $349,800 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of $188,400.
          (9) Delaware bay coastline, delaware and new jersey-port 
        mahon, delaware.--The project for ecosystem restoration, 
        Delaware Bay coastline, Delaware and New Jersey-Port Mahon, 
        Delaware: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated September 28, 
        1998, at a total cost of $7,644,000, with an estimated Federal 
        cost of $4,969,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
        $2,675,000, and at an estimated average annual cost of $234,000 
        for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, 
        with an estimated annual Federal cost of $152,000 and an 
        estimated annual non-Federal cost of $82,000.
          (10) Delaware bay coastline, delaware and new jersey-
        roosevelt inlet-lewes beach, delaware.--The project for 
        navigation mitigation and hurricane and storm damage reduction, 
        Delaware Bay coastline, Delaware and New Jersey-Roosevelt 
        Inlet-Lewes Beach, Delaware: Report of the Chief of Engineers 
        dated February 3, 1999, at a total cost of $3,393,000, with an 
        estimated Federal cost of $2,620,000 and an estimated non-
        Federal cost of $773,000, and at an estimated average annual 
        cost of $196,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life 
        of the project, with an estimated annual Federal cost of 
        $152,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of $44,000.
          (11) Jacksonville harbor, florida.--
                  (A) In general.--The project for navigation, 
                Jacksonville Harbor, Florida: Report of the Chief of 
                Engineers April 21, 1999, at a total cost of 
                $26,116,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
                $9,129,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
                $16,987,000.
                  (B) Special rule.--Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), 
                the Secretary may construct the project to a depth of 
                40 feet if the non-Federal interest agrees to pay any 
                additional costs above those for the recommended plan.
          (12) Tampa harbor-big bend channel, florida.--The project for 
        navigation, Tampa Harbor-Big Bend Channel, Florida: Report of 
        the Chief of Engineers dated October 13, 1998, at a total cost 
        of $9,356,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $6,235,000 and 
        an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,121,000.
          (13) Brunswick harbor, georgia.--The project for navigation, 
        Brunswick Harbor, Georgia: Report of the Chief of Engineers 
        dated October 6, 1998, at a total cost of $50,717,000, with an 
        estimate Federal cost of $32,966,000 and an estimated non-
        Federal cost of $17,751,000.
          (14) Beargrass creek, kentucky.--The project for flood 
        control, Beargrass Creek, Kentucky: Report of the Chief of 
        Engineers, dated May 12, 1998, at a total cost of $11,171,300, 
        with an estimated Federal cost of $7,261,500 and an estimated 
        non-Federal cost of $3,909,800.
          (15) Amite river and tributaries, louisiana.--The project for 
        flood control, Amite River and tributaries, Louisiana: Report 
        of the Chief of Engineers dated December 23, 1996, at a total 
        cost of $112,900,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
        $84,675,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $28,225,000. 
        Cost sharing for the project shall be determined in accordance 
        with section 103(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
        1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213), as in effect on October 11, 1996.
          (16) Baltimore harbor anchorages and channels, maryland and 
        virginia.--The project for navigation, Baltimore harbor 
        anchorages and channels, Maryland and Virginia: Report of the 
        Chief of Engineers, dated June 8, 1998, at a total cost of 
        $28,430,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $19,000,000 and 
        an estimated non-Federal cost of $9,430,000.
          (17) Red river lake at crookston, minnesota.--The project for 
        flood control, Red River Lake at Crookston, Minnesota: Report 
        of the Chief of Engineers, dated April 20, 1998, at a total 
        cost of $8,950,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
        $5,720,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,230,000.
          (18) Lower cape may meadows, cape may point, new jersey.--The 
        project for navigation mitigation, ecosystem restoration, and 
        hurricane and storm damage reduction, Lower Cape May Meadows, 
        Cape May Point, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers 
        dated April 5, 1999, at a total cost of $15,952,000, with an 
        estimated Federal cost of $12,118,000 and an estimated non-
        Federal cost of $3,834,000, and at an estimated average annual 
        cost of $1,114,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year 
        life of the project, with an estimated annual Federal cost of 
        $897,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of $217,000.
          (19) New jersey shore protection: townsends inlet to cape may 
        inlet, new jersey.--The project for hurricane and storm damage 
        reduction and ecosystem restoration, New Jersey Shore 
        Protection: Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet, New Jersey: 
        Report of the Chief of Engineers dated September 28, 1998, at a 
        total cost of $56,503,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
        $36,727,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $19,776,000, 
        and at an estimated average annual cost of $2,000,000 for 
        periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with 
        an estimated annual Federal cost of $1,300,000 and an estimated 
        annual non-Federal cost of $700,000.
          (20) Guanajibo river, puerto rico.--The project for flood 
        control, Guanajibo River, Puerto Rico: Report of the Chief of 
        Engineers, dated February 27, 1996, at a total cost of 
        $27,031,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $20,273,250 and 
        an estimated non-Federal cost of $6,757,750. Cost sharing for the 
        project shall be determined in accordance with section 103(a) of the 
        Water Resources Development Act 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213) as in effect on 
        October 11, 1986.
          (21) Rio grande de manati, barceloneta, puerto rico.--The 
        project for flood control, Rio Grande De Manati, Barceloneta, 
        Puerto Rico: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated January 
        22, 1999, at a total cost of $13,491,000, with an estimated 
        Federal cost of $8,785,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
        $4,706,000.
          (22) Rio nigua at salinas, puerto rico.--The project for 
        flood control, Rio Nigua at Salinas, Puerto Rico: Report of the 
        Chief of Engineers, dated April 15, 1997, at a total cost of 
        $13,702,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $7,645,000 and 
        an estimated non-Federal cost of $6,057,000.
          (23) Salt creek, graham, texas.--The project for flood 
        control, environmental restoration and recreation, Salt Creek, 
        Graham, Texas: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated October 
        6, 1998, at a total cost of $10,080,000, with an estimated 
        Federal cost of $6,560,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
        $3,520,000.
  (b) Projects Subject to Report.--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 a final report of the Corps of Engineers, if the report is completed 
not later than September 30, 1999.
          (1) Nome, alaska.--The project for navigation, Nome, Alaska, 
        at a total cost of $24,608,000, with an estimated Federal cost 
        of $19,660,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $4,948,000.
          (2) Seward harbor, alaska.--The project for navigation, 
        Seward Harbor, Alaska, at a total cost of $12,240,000, with an 
        estimated Federal cost of $4,364,000 and an estimated non-
        Federal cost of $7,876,000.
          (3) Hamilton airfield, california.--The project for wetlands 
        restoration, Hamilton Airfield, California, at a total cost of 
        $55,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $41,400,000 and 
        an estimated non-Federal cost of $13,800,000.
          (4) Oakland harbor, california.--The project for navigation, 
        Oakland Harbor, California, at a total cost of $256,650,000, 
        with an estimated Federal cost of $143,450,000 and an estimated 
        non-Federal cost of $113,200,000.
          (5) Delaware bay coastline, delaware and new jersey: reeds 
        beach and pierces point, new jersey.--The project for shore 
        protection and ecosystem restoration, Delaware Bay Coastline, 
        Delaware and New Jersey: Reeds Beach and Pierces Point, New 
        Jersey, at a total cost of $4,057,000, with an estimated 
        Federal cost of $2,637,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
        $1,420,000.
          (6) Delaware bay coastline, delaware and new jersey: villas 
        and vicinity, new jersey.--The project for shore protection and 
        ecosystem restoration, Delaware Bay Coastline, Delaware and New 
        Jersey: Villas and Vicinity, New Jersey, at a total cost of 
        $7,520,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $4,888,000 and an 
        estimated non-Federal cost of $2,632,000.
          (7) Delaware coast from cape henelopen to fenwick island, 
        bethany beach/south bethany beach, delaware.--The project for 
        hurricane and storm damage reduction, Delaware Coast from Cape 
        Henelopen to Fenwick Island, Bethany Beach/South Bethany Beach, 
        Delaware, at a total cost of $22,205,000, with an estimated 
        Federal cost of $14,433,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
        of $7,772,000, and at an estimated average annual cost of 
        $1,584,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of 
        the project, with an estimated annual Federal cost of 
        $1,030,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of 
        $554,000.
          (8) Little talbot island, duval county, florida.--The project 
        for hurricane and storm damage prevention, Little Talbot 
        Island, Duval County, Florida, at a total cost of $5,915,000, 
        with an estimated Federal cost of $3,839,000 and an estimated 
        non-Federal cost of $2,076,000.
          (9) Ponce de leon inlet, florida.--The project for navigation 
        and related purposes, Ponce de Leon Inlet, Volusia County, 
        Florida, at a total cost of $5,454,000, with an estimated 
        Federal cost of $2,988,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
        $2,466,000.
          (10) Savannah harbor expansion, georgia.--
                  (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the 
                project for navigation, Savannah Harbor expansion, 
                Georgia, including implementation of the mitigation 
                plan, with such modifications as the Secretary deems 
                appropriate, at a total cost of $230,174,000 (of which 
                amount a portion is authorized for implementation of 
                the mitigation plan), with an estimated Federal cost of 
                $145,160,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
                $85,014,000.
                  (B) Conditions.--The project authorized by 
                subparagraph (A) may be carried out only after--
                          (i) the Secretary, in consultation with 
                        affected Federal, State of Georgia, State of 
                        South Carolina, regional, and local entities, 
                        has reviewed and approved an environmental 
                        impact statement for the project that 
                        includes--
                                  (I) an analysis of the impacts of 
                                project depth alternatives ranging from 
                                42 feet through 48 feet; and
                                  (II) a selected plan for navigation 
                                and an associated mitigation plan as 
                                required by section 906(a) of the Water 
                                Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 
                                U.S.C. 2283); and
                          (ii) the Secretary of the Interior, the 
                        Secretary of Commerce, the Administrator of the 
                        Environmental Protection Agency, and the 
                        Secretary have approved the selected plan and 
                        have determined that the mitigation plan 
                        adequately addresses the potential 
                        environmental impacts of the project.
                  (C) Mitigation requirements.--The mitigation plan 
                shall be implemented in advance of or concurrently with 
                construction of the project.
          (11) Des plaines river, illinois.--The project for flood 
        control, Des Plaines River, Illinois, at a total cost of 
        $44,300,000 with an estimated Federal cost of $28,800,000 and 
        an estimated non-Federal cost of $15,500,000.
          (12) New jersey shore protection, brigantine inlet to great 
        egg harbor, brigantine island, new jersey.--The project for 
        hurricane and storm damage reduction, New Jersey shore 
        protection, Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor, Brigantine 
        Island, New Jersey, at a total cost of $4,970,000, with an 
        estimated Federal cost of $3,230,000 and an estimated non-
        Federal cost of $1,740,000, and at an estimated average annual 
        cost of $465,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life 
        of the project, with an estimated annual Federal cost of 
        $302,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of $163,000.
          (13) Columbia river channel, oregon and washington.--The 
        project for navigation, Columbia River Channel, Oregon and 
        Washington, at a total cost of $183,623,000 with an estimated 
        Federal cost $106,132,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
        $77,491,000.
          (14) Johnson creek, arlington, texas.--The locally preferred 
        project for flood control, Johnson Creek, Arlington, Texas, at 
        a total cost of $20,300,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
        $12,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $8,300,000.
          (15) Howard hanson dam, washington.--The project for water 
        supply and ecosystem restoration, Howard Hanson Dam, 
        Washington, at a total cost of $75,600,000, with an estimated 
        Federal cost of $36,900,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
        of $38,700,000.

SEC. 102. SMALL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the 
following projects and, after completion of such study, shall carry out 
the project under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 
U.S.C. 701s):
          (1) Lancaster, california.--Project for flood control, 
        Lancaster, California, westside stormwater retention facility.
          (2) Gateway triangle area, florida.--Project for flood 
        control, Gateway Triangle area, Collier County, Florida.
          (3) Plant city, florida.--Project for flood control, Plant 
        City, Florida.
          (4) Stone island, lake monroe, florida.--Project for flood 
        control, Stone Island, Lake Monroe, Florida.
          (5) Ohio river, illinois.--Project for flood control, Ohio 
        River, Illinois.
          (6) Repaupo creek, new jersey.--Project for flood control, 
        Repaupo Creek, New Jersey.
          (7) Owasco lake seawall, new york.--Project for flood 
        control, Owasco Lake seawall, New York.
          (8) Port clinton, ohio.--Project for flood control, Port 
        Clinton, Ohio.
          (9) North canadian river, oklahoma.--Project for flood 
        control, North Canadian River, Oklahoma.
          (10) Abington township, pennsylvania.--Project for flood 
        control, Baeder and Wanamaker Roads, Abington Township, 
        Pennsylvania.
          (11) Port indian, west norriton township, montgomery county, 
        pennsylvania.--Project for flood control, Port Indian, West 
        Norriton Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.
          (12) Port providence, upper providence township, 
        pennsylvania.--Project for flood control, Port Providence, 
        Upper Providence Township, Pennsylvania.
          (13) Springfield township, montgomery county, pennsylvania.--
        Project for flood control, Springfield Township, Montgomery 
        County, Pennsylvania.
          (14) First creek, knoxville, tennessee.--Project for flood 
        control, First Creek, Knoxville, Tennessee.
          (15) Metro center levee, cumberland river, nashville, 
        tennessee.--Project for flood control, Metro Center Levee, 
        Cumberland River, Nashville, Tennessee.
  (b) Festus and Crystal City, Missouri.--
          (1) Maximum federal expenditure.--The maximum amount of 
        Federal funds that may be expended for the project for flood 
        control, Festus and Crystal City, Missouri, shall be 
        $10,000,000.
          (2) Revision of project cooperation agreement.--The Secretary 
        shall revise the project cooperation agreement for the project 
        referred to in paragraph (1) to take into account the change in 
        the Federal participation in such project pursuant to paragraph 
        (1).
          (3) Cost sharing.--Nothing in this section shall be construed 
        to affect any cost-sharing requirement applicable to the 
        project referred to in paragraph (1) under the Water Resources 
        Development Act of 1986.

 SEC. 103. SMALL BANK STABILIZATION PROJECTS.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following 
projects and, after completion of such study, shall carry out the 
project under section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 
701r):
          (1) Saint joseph river, indiana.--Project for streambank 
        erosion control, Saint Joseph River, Indiana.
          (2) Saginaw river, bay city, michigan.--Project for 
        streambank erosion control, Saginaw River, Bay City, Michigan.
          (3) Big timber creek, new jersey.--Project for streambank 
        erosion control, Big Timber Creek, New Jersey.
          (4) Lake shore road, athol springs, new york.--Project for 
        streambank erosion control, Lake Shore Road, Athol Springs, New 
        York.
          (5) Marist college, poughkeepsie, new york.--Project for 
        streambank erosion control, Marist College, Poughkeepsie, New 
        York.
          (6) Monroe county, ohio.--Project for streambank erosion 
        control, Monroe County, Ohio.
          (7) Green valley, west virginia.--Project for streambank 
        erosion control, Green Valley, West Virginia.

 SEC. 104. SMALL NAVIGATION PROJECTS.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following 
projects and, after completion of such study, shall carry out the 
project under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 
U.S.C. 577):
          (1) Grand marais, arkansas.--Project for navigation, Grand 
        Marais, Arkansas.
          (2) Fields landing channel, humboldt harbor, california.--
        Project for navigation, Fields Landing Channel, Humboldt 
        Harbor, California.
          (3) San mateo (pillar point harbor), california.--Project for 
        navigation San Mateo (Pillar Point Harbor), California.
          (4) Agana marina, guam.--Project for navigation, Agana 
        Marina, Guam.
          (5) Agat marina, guam.--Project for navigation, Agat Marina, 
        Guam.
          (6) Apra harbor fuel piers, guam.--Project for navigation, 
        Apra Harbor Fuel Piers, Guam.
          (7) Apra harbor pier f-6, guam.--Project for navigation, Apra 
        Harbor Pier F-6, Guam.
          (8) Apra harbor seawall, guam.--Project for navigation 
        including a seawall, Apra Harbor, Guam.
          (9) Guam harbor, guam.--Project for navigation, Guam Harbor, 
        Guam.
          (10) Illinois river near chautauqua park, illinois.--Project 
        for navigation, Illinois River near Chautauqua Park, Illinois.
          (11) Whiting shoreline waterfront, whiting, indiana.--Project 
        for navigation, Whiting Shoreline Waterfront, Whiting, Indiana.
          (12) Naraguagus river, machias, maine.--Project for 
        navigation, Naraguagus River, Machias, Maine.
          (13) Union river, ellsworth, maine.--Project for navigation, 
        Union River, Ellsworth, Maine.
          (14) Detroit waterfront, michigan.--Project for navigation, 
        Detroit River, Michigan, including dredging and removal of a 
        reef.
          (15) Fortescue inlet, delaware bay, new jersey.--Project for 
        navigation for Fortescue Inlet, Delaware Bay, New Jersey.
          (16) Buffalo and lasalle park, new york.--Project for 
        navigation, Buffalo and LaSalle Park, New York.
          (17) Sturgeon point, new york.--Project for navigation, 
        Sturgeon Point, New York.

SEC. 105. SMALL PROJECTS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the 
following projects and, after completion of such study, shall carry out 
the project under section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a):
          (1) Illinois river in the vicinity of havana, illinois.--
        Project for the improvement of the environment, Illinois River 
        in the vicinity of Havana, Illinois.
          (2) Knitting mill creek, virginia.--Project for the 
        improvement of the environment, Knitting Mill Creek, Virginia.
  (b) Pine Flat Dam, Kings River, California.--The Secretary shall 
carry out under section 1135(a) of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a(a)) a project to construct a turbine bypass at 
Pine Flat Dam, Kings River, California, in accordance with the Project 
Modification Report and Environmental Assessment dated September 1996.

SEC. 106. SMALL AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECTS.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following 
projects and, after completion of such study, shall carry out the 
project under section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330):
          (1) Contra costa county, bay delta, california.--Project for 
        aquatic ecosystem restoration, Contra Costa County, Bay Delta, 
        California.
          (2) Indian river, florida.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
        restoration and lagoon restoration, Indian River, Florida.
          (3) Little wekiva river, florida.--Project for aquatic 
        ecosystem restoration and erosion control, Little Wekiva River, 
        Florida.
          (4) Cook county, illinois.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
        restoration and lagoon restoration and protection, Cook County, 
        Illinois.
          (5) Grand batture island, mississippi.--Project for aquatic 
        ecosystem restoration, Grand Batture Island, Mississippi.
          (6) Hancock, harrison, and jackson counties, mississippi.--
        Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration and reef restoration 
        along the Gulf Coast, Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson Counties, 
        Mississippi.
          (7) Mississippi river and river des peres, st. louis, 
        missouri.--Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration and 
        recreation, Mississippi River and River Des Peres, St. Louis, 
        Missouri.
          (8) Hudson river, new york.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
        restoration, Hudson River, New York.
          (9) Oneida lake, new york.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
        restoration, Oneida Lake, Oneida County, New York.
          (10) Otsego lake, new york.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
        restoration, Otsego Lake, Otsego County, New York.
          (11) North fork of yellow creek, ohio.--Project for aquatic 
        ecosystem restoration, North Fork of Yellow Creek, Ohio.
          (12) Wheeling creek watershed, ohio.--Project for aquatic 
        ecosystem restoration, Wheeling Creek watershed, Ohio.
          (13) Springfield millrace, oregon.--Project for aquatic 
        ecosystem restoration, Springfield Millrace, Oregon.
          (14) Upper amazon creek, oregon.--Project for aquatic 
        ecosystem restoration, Upper Amazon Creek, Oregon.
          (15) Lake ontelaunee reservoir, berks county, pennsylvania.--
        Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration and distilling pond 
        facilities, Lake Ontelaunee Reservoir, Berks County, 
        Pennsylvania.
          (16) Blackstone river basin, rhode island and 
        massachusetts.--Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration and 
        fish passage facilities, Blackstone River Basin, Rhode Island 
        and Massachusetts.

                      TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

SEC. 201. SMALL FLOOD CONTROL AUTHORITY.

  Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s) is 
amended--
          (1) by striking ``construction of small projects'' and 
        inserting ``implementation of small structural and 
        nonstructural projects''; and
          (2) by striking ``$5,000,000'' and inserting ``$7,000,000''.

SEC. 202. USE OF NON-FEDERAL FUNDS FOR COMPILING AND DISSEMINATING 
                    INFORMATION ON FLOODS AND FLOOD DAMAGES.

  The last sentence of section 206(b) of the Flood Control Act of 1960 
(33 U.S.C. 709a(b)) is amended by inserting before the period the 
following: ``; except that this limitation on fees shall not apply to 
funds voluntarily contributed by such entities for the purpose of 
expanding the scope of the services requested by such entities''.

SEC. 203. CONTRIBUTIONS BY STATES AND POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS.

  Section 5 of the Flood Control Act of June 22, 1936 (33 U.S.C. 701h), 
is amended by inserting ``or environmental restoration'' after ``flood 
control''.

SEC. 204. SEDIMENT DECONTAMINATION TECHNOLOGY.

  Section 405 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 
2239 note; 106 Stat. 4863) is amended--
          (1) by adding at the end of subsection (a) the following:
          ``(4) Practical end-use products.--Technologies selected for 
        demonstration at the pilot scale shall be intended to 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.'';
          (2) in subsection (c) by striking the first sentence and 
        inserting the following: ``There is authorized to be 
        appropriated to carry out this section $22,000,000 to complete 
        technology testing, technology commercialization, and the 
        development of full scale processing facilities within the New 
        York/New Jersey Harbor.''; and
          (3) by adding at the end the following:
  ``(e) Support.--In carrying out the program under this section, the 
Secretary is encouraged to utilize contracts, cooperative agreements, 
and grants with colleges and universities and other non-Federal 
entities.''.

SEC. 205. CONTROL OF AQUATIC PLANTS.

  Section 104 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (33 U.S.C. 610) is 
amended--
          (1) in subsection (a) by inserting ``arundo,'' after 
        ``milfoil,'';
          (2) in subsection (b) by striking ``$12,000,000'' and 
        inserting ``$15,000,000.''; and
          (3) by adding at the end the following:
  ``(c) Support.--In carrying out this program, the Secretary is 
encouraged to utilize contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants 
with colleges and universities and other non-Federal entities.''.

SEC. 206. USE OF CONTINUING CONTRACTS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF 
                    CERTAIN PROJECTS.

  (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
Secretary shall not implement a fully allocated funding policy with 
respect to a water resources project if initiation of construction has 
occurred but sufficient funds are not available to complete the 
project. The Secretary shall enter into continuing contracts for such 
project.
  (b) Initiation of Construction Clarified.--For the purposes of this 
section, initiation of construction for a project occurs on the date of 
enactment of an Act that appropriates funds for the project from 1 of 
the following appropriation accounts:
          (1) Construction, General.
          (2) Operation and Maintenance, General.
          (3) Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries.

SEC. 207. SUPPORT OF ARMY CIVIL WORKS PROGRAM.

  The requirements of section 2361 of title 10, United States Code, 
shall not apply to any contract, cooperative research and development 
agreement, cooperative agreement, or grant entered into under section 
229 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3703) 
between the Secretary and Marshall University or entered into under 
section 350 of this Act between the Secretary and Juniata College.

SEC. 208. WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT STUDIES FOR THE PACIFIC REGION.

  Section 444 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 
3747) is amended by striking ``interest of navigation'' and inserting 
``interests of water resources development, including navigation, flood 
damage reduction, and environmental restoration''.

SEC. 209. EVERGLADES AND SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.

  (a) Program Extension.--Section 528(b)(3) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3769) is amended--
          (1) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``1999'' and inserting 
        ``2000''; and
          (2) in subparagraph (C)(i) by striking ``1999'' and inserting 
        ``2003''.
  (b) Credit.--Section 528(b)(3) of such Act is amended by adding at 
the end the following:
                  ``(D) Credit of past and future activities.--The 
                Secretary may provide a credit to the non-Federal 
                interests toward the non-Federal share of a project 
                implemented under subparagraph (A). The credit shall be 
                for reasonable costs of work performed by the non-
                Federal interests if the Secretary determines that the 
                work substantially expedited completion of the project 
                and is compatible with and an integral part of the 
                project, and the credit is provided pursuant to a 
                specific project cooperation agreement.''.
  (c) Caloosahatchee River Basin, Florida.--Section 528(e)(4) of such 
Act is amended by inserting before the period at the end of the first 
sentence the following: ``if the Secretary determines that such land 
acquisition is compatible with and an integral component of the 
Everglades and South Florida ecosystem restoration, including potential 
land acquisition in the Caloosahatchee River basin or other areas''.

SEC. 210. BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL.

  Section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 
4826-4827) is amended--
          (1) in subsection (c) by striking ``cooperative agreement in 
        accordance with the requirements of section 221 of the Flood 
        Control Act of 1970'' and inserting ``binding agreement with 
        the Secretary''; and
          (2) by adding at the end the following:
  ``(g) Non-Federal Interests.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the 
Flood Control Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), the Secretary, after 
coordination with the appropriate State and local government officials 
having jurisdiction over an area in which a project under this section 
will be carried out, may allow a nonprofit entity to serve as the non-
Federal interest for the project.''.

SEC. 211. HARBOR COST SHARING.

  (a) In General.--Sections 101 and 214 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211 and 2241; P.L. 99-662) are 
amended by striking ``45 feet'' each place it appears and inserting 
``53 feet''.
  (b) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall only 
apply to a project, or separable element thereof, on which a contract 
for physical construction has not been awarded before the date of 
enactment of this Act.

SEC. 212. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.

  Section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 
3679-3680) is amended--
          (1) by adding at the end of subsection (b) the following: 
        ``Before October 1, 2003, the Federal share may be provided in 
        the form of grants or reimbursements of project costs.''; and
          (2) by adding at the end of subsection (c) the following: 
        ``Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the Flood Control Act of 
        1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), the Secretary, after coordination 
        with the appropriate State and local government officials 
        having jurisdiction over an area in which a project under this 
        section will be carried out, may allow a nonprofit entity to 
        serve as the non-Federal interest for the project.''.

SEC. 213. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT, RESTORATION, AND DEVELOPMENT.

  (a) Nonprofit Entity as Non-Federal Interest.--Section 503(a) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3756) is amended by 
adding at the end the following: ``Notwithstanding section 221(b) of 
the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), the Secretary, 
after coordination with the appropriate State and local government 
officials having jurisdiction over an area in which a projectunder this 
section will be carried out, may allow a nonprofit entity to serve as 
the non-Federal interest for the project.''.
  (b) Project Locations.--Section 503(d) of such Act is amended--
          (1) in paragraph (7) by inserting before the period at the 
        end ``, including Clear Lake''; and
          (2) by adding at the end the following:
          ``(14) Fresno Slough watershed, California.
          ``(15) Hayward Marsh, Southern San Francisco Bay watershed, 
        California.
          ``(16) Kaweah River watershed, California.
          ``(17) Malibu Creek watershed, California.
          ``(18) Illinois River watershed, Illinois.
          ``(19) Catawba River watershed, North Carolina.
          ``(20) Cabin Creek basin, West Virginia.
          ``(21) Lower St. Johns River basin, Florida.''.

SEC. 214. FLOOD MITIGATION AND RIVERINE RESTORATION PILOT PROGRAM.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary may undertake a program for the 
purpose of conducting projects that reduce flood hazards and restore 
the natural functions and values of rivers throughout the United 
States.
  (b) Studies and Projects.--
          (1) Authority.--In carrying out the program, the Secretary 
        may conduct studies to identify appropriate flood damage 
        reduction, conservation, and restoration measures and may 
        design and implement projects described in subsection (a).
          (2) Consultation and coordination.--The studies and projects 
        carried out under this section shall be conducted, to the 
        maximum extent practicable, in consultation and coordination 
        with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and other 
        appropriate Federal agencies, and in consultation and 
        coordination with appropriate State, tribal, and local 
        agencies.
          (3) Nonstructural approaches.--The studies and projects shall 
        emphasize, to the maximum extent practicable and appropriate, 
        nonstructural approaches to preventing or reducing flood 
        damages.
          (4) Use of state, tribal, and local studies and projects.--
        The studies and projects shall include consideration of and 
        coordination with any State, tribal, and local flood damage 
        reduction or riverine and wetland restoration studies and 
        projects that conserve, restore, and manage hydrologic and 
        hydraulic regimes and restore the natural functions and values 
        of floodplains.
  (c) Cost-Sharing Requirements.--
          (1) Studies.--Studies conducted under this section shall be 
        subject to cost sharing in accordance with section 105 of the 
        Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2215).
          (2) Environmental restoration and nonstructural flood control 
        projects.--The non-Federal interests shall pay 35 percent of 
        the cost of any environmental restoration or nonstructural 
        flood control project carried out under this section. The non-
        Federal interests shall provide all land, easements, rights-of-
        way, dredged material disposal areas, and relocations necessary 
        for such projects. The value of such land, easements, rights-
        of-way, dredged material disposal areas, and relocations shall 
        be credited toward the payment required under this paragraph.
          (3) Structural flood control projects.--Any structural flood 
        control measures carried out under this section shall be 
        subject to cost sharing in accordance with section 103(a) of 
        the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
        2213(a)).
          (4) Operation and maintenance.--The non-Federal interests 
        shall be responsible for all costs associated with operating, 
        maintaining, replacing, repairing, and rehabilitating all 
        projects carried out under this section.
  (d) Project Justification.--
          (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law 
        or requirement for economic justification established pursuant 
        to section 209 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 
        1962-2), the Secretary may implement a project under this 
        section if the Secretary determines that the project--
                  (A) will significantly reduce potential flood 
                damages;
                  (B) will improve the quality of the environment; and
                  (C) is justified considering all costs and beneficial 
                outputs of the project.
          (2) Establishment of selection and rating criteria and 
        policies.--Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 
        of this section, the Secretary, in cooperation with State, 
        tribal, and local agencies, shall develop, and transmit to the 
        Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
        Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public 
        Works of the Senate, criteria for selecting and rating projects 
        to be carried out under this section and shall establish 
        policies and procedures for carrying out the studies and 
        projects undertaken under this section. Such criteria shall 
        include, as a priority, the extent to which the appropriate 
        State government supports the project.
  (e) Priority Areas.--In carrying out this section, the Secretary 
shall examine the potential for flood damage reductions at appropriate 
locations, including the following:
          (1) Upper Delaware River, New York.
          (2) Willamette River floodplain, Oregon.
          (3) Pima County, Arizona, at Paseo De Las Iglesias and 
        Rillito River.
          (4) Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers, California.
          (5) Murrieta Creek, California.
          (6) Napa County, California, at Yountville, St. Helena, 
        Calistoga, and American Canyon.
          (7) Santa Clara basin, California, at Upper Guadalupe River 
        and tributaries, San Francisquito Creek, and Upper Penitencia 
        Creek.
          (8) Pine Mount Creek, New Jersey.
          (9) Chagrin River, Ohio.
          (10) Blair County, Pennsylvania, at Altoona and Frankstown 
        Township.
          (11) Lincoln Creek, Wisconsin.
  (f) Program Review.--
          (1) In general.--The program established under this section 
        shall be subject to an independent review to evaluate the 
        efficacy of the program in achieving the dual goals of flood 
        hazard mitigation and riverine restoration.
          (2) Report.--Not later than April 15, 2003, the Secretary 
        shall transmit to the Committee on Transportation and 
        Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
        Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a 
        report on the findings of the review conducted under this 
        subsection with any recommendations concerning continuation of 
        the program.
  (g) Cost Limitations.--
          (1) Maximum federal cost per project.--No more than 
        $30,000,000 may be expended by the United States on any single 
        project under this section.
          (2) Committee resolution procedure.--
                  (A) Limitation on appropriations.--No appropriation 
                shall be made to construct any project under this 
                section the total Federal cost of construction of which 
                exceeds $15,000,000 if the project has not been 
                approved by resolutions adopted by the Committee on 
                Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
                Representatives and the Committee on Environment and 
                Public Works of the Senate.
                  (B) Report.--For the purpose of securing 
                consideration of approval under this paragraph, the 
                Secretary shall transmit a report on the proposed 
                project, including all relevant data and information on 
                all costs.
  (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this section--
          (1) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
          (2) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 if $12,500,000 or more 
        is appropriated to carry out subsection (e) for fiscal year 
        2000;
          (3) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 if $12,500,000 or more 
        is appropriated to carry out subsection (e) for fiscal year 
        2001; and
          (4) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2003 if $12,500,000 or more 
        is appropriated to carry out subsection (e) for fiscal year 
        2002.

SEC. 215. SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.

  (a) Review.--The Secretary shall review the implementation of the 
Corps of Engineers' shoreline management program, with particular 
attention to inconsistencies in implementation among the divisions and 
districts of the Corps of Engineers and complaints by or potential 
inequities regarding property owners in the Savannah District including 
an accounting of the number and disposition of complaints over the last 
5 years in the District.
  (b) Report.--As expeditiously as practicable after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and 
the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report 
describing the results of the review conducted under subsection (a).

SEC. 216. ASSISTANCE FOR REMEDIATION, RESTORATION, AND REUSE.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary may provide to State and local 
governments assessment, planning, and design assistance for 
remediation, environmental restoration, or reuse of areas located 
within the boundaries of such State or local governments where such 
remediation, environmental restoration, or reuse will contribute to the 
conservation of water and related resources of drainage basins and 
watersheds within the United States.
  (b) Beneficial Use of Dredged Material.--In providing assistance 
under subsection (a), the Secretary shall encourage the beneficial use 
of dredged material, consistent with the findings of the Secretary 
under section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 
U.S.C. 2326).
  (c) Non-Federal Share.--The non-Federal share of the cost of 
assistance provided under subsection (a) shall be 50 percent.
  (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this section $3,000,000 for each of fiscal 
years 2000 through 2004.

SEC. 217. SHORE DAMAGE MITIGATION.

  (a) In General.--Section 111 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (33 
U.S.C. 426i; 100 Stat. 4199) is amended by inserting after ``navigation 
works'' the following: ``and shore damages attributable to the Atlantic 
Intracoastal Waterway and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway''.
  (b) Palm Beach County, Florida.--The project for navigation, Palm 
Beach County, Florida, authorized by section 2 of the River and Harbor 
Act of March 2, 1945 (59 Stat. 11), is modified to authorize the 
Secretary to undertake beach nourishment as a dredged material disposal 
option under the project.
  (c) Galveston County, Texas.--The Secretary may place dredged 
material from the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway on the beaches along 
Rollover Pass, Galveston County, Texas, to stabilize beach erosion.

SEC. 218. SHORE PROTECTION.

  (a) Non-Federal Share of Periodic Nourishment.--Section 103(d) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4085-5086) is 
amended--
          (1) by inserting ``(1) Construction.--'' before ``Costs of 
        constructing'';
          (2) by inserting at the end the following:
          ``(2) Periodic nourishment.--
                  ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the 
                non-Federal share of costs of periodic nourishment 
                measures for shore protection or beach erosion control 
                that are carried out--
                          ``(i) after January 1, 2001, shall be 40 
                        percent;
                          ``(ii) after January 1, 2002, shall be 45 
                        percent; and
                          ``(iii) after January 1, 2003, shall be 50 
                        percent;
                  ``(B) Benefits to privately owned shores.--All costs 
                assigned to benefits of periodic nourishment measures 
                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 the non-
                Federal interest and all costs assigned to the 
                protection of federally owned shores for such measures 
                shall be borne by the United States.''; and
                  (C) by indenting paragraph (1) (as designated by 
                subparagraph (A) of this paragraph) and aligning such 
                paragraph with paragraph (2) (as added by subparagraph 
                (B) of this paragraph).
  (b) Utilization of Sand From Outer Continental Shelf.--Section 
8(k)(2)(B) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 
1337(k)(2)(B)) is amended by striking ``an agency of the Federal 
Government'' and inserting ``a Federal, State, or local government 
agency''.
  (c) Report on Nation's Shorelines.--
          (1) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
        enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall report to Congress 
        on the state of the Nation's shorelines.
          (2) Contents.--The report shall include--
                  (A) a description of the extent of, and economic and 
                environmental effects caused by, erosion and accretion 
                along the Nation's shores and the causes thereof;
                  (B) a description of resources committed by local, 
                State, and Federal governments to restore and renourish 
                shorelines;
                  (C) a description of the systematic movement of sand 
                along the Nation's shores; and
                  (D) recommendations regarding (i) appropriate levels 
                of Federal and non-Federal participation in shoreline 
                protection, and (ii) utilization of a systems approach 
                to sand management.
          (3) Utilization of specific location data.--In developing the 
        report, the Secretary shall utilize data from specific 
        locations on the Atlantic, Pacific, Great Lakes, and Gulf of 
        Mexico coasts.
  (d) National Coastal Data Bank.--
          (1) Establishment of data bank.--Not later than 2 years after 
        the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 
        establish a national coastal data bank containing data on the 
        geophysical and climatological characteristics of the Nation's 
        shorelines.
          (2) Content.--To the extent practical, the national coastal 
        data bank shall include data regarding current and predicted 
        shoreline positions, information on federally-authorized shore 
        protection projects, and data on the movement of sand along the 
        Nation's shores, including impediments to such movement caused 
        by natural and manmade features.
          (3) Access.--The national coastal data bank shall be made 
        readily accessible to the public.

SEC. 219. FLOOD PREVENTION COORDINATION.

  Section 206 of the Flood Control Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 709a) is 
amended--
          (1) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as subsections 
        (c) and (d), respectively; and
          (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
  ``(b) Flood Prevention Coordination.--The Secretary shall coordinate 
with the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the 
heads of other Federal agencies to ensure that flood control projects 
and plans are complementary and integrated to the extent practicable 
and appropriate.''.

SEC. 220. ANNUAL PASSES FOR RECREATION.

  Section 208(c)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (16 
U.S.C. 460d note; 110 Stat. 3680) is amended by striking ``1999, or the 
date of transmittal of the report under paragraph (3)'' and inserting 
``2003''.

SEC. 221. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND RECREATIONAL 
                    MEASURES.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to enter into 
cooperative agreements with non-Federal public bodies and non-profit 
entities for the purpose of facilitating collaborative efforts 
involving environmental protection and restoration, natural resources 
conservation, and recreation in connection with the development, 
operation, and management of water resources projects under the 
jurisdiction of the Department of the Army.
  (b) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of 
this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and 
the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report 
that includes--
          (1) a listing and general description of the cooperative 
        agreements entered into by the Secretary with non-Federal 
        public bodies and entities under subsection (a);
          (2) a determination of whether such agreements are 
        facilitating collaborative efforts; and
          (3) a recommendation on whether such agreements should be 
        further encouraged.

SEC. 222. NONSTRUCTURAL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS.

  (a) Analysis of Benefits.--Section 308 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2318; 104 Stat. 4638) is amended--
          (1) in the heading to subsection (a) by inserting ``Elements 
        Excluded from'' before ``Benefit-Cost'';
          (2) by redesignating subsections (b) through (e) as 
        subsections (c) through (f), respectively; and
          (3) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
  ``(b) Flood Damage Reduction Benefits.--In calculating the benefits 
of a proposed project for nonstructural flood damage reduction, the 
Secretary shall calculate benefits of nonstructural projects using 
methods similar to structural projects, including similar treatment in 
calculating the benefits from losses avoided from both structural and 
nonstructural alternatives. In carrying out this subsection, the 
Secretary should avoid double counting of benefits.''.
  (b) Reevaluation of Flood Control Projects.--At the request of a non-
Federal interest for a flood control project, the Secretary shall 
conduct a reevaluation of a previously authorized project to consider 
nonstructural alternatives in light of the amendments made by 
subsection (a).
  (c) Cost Sharing.--Section 103(b) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(b)) is amended by adding at the end the 
following: ``At any time during construction of the project, where the 
Secretary determines that the costs of lands, easements, rights-of-way, 
dredged material disposal areas, and relocations in combination with 
other costs contributed by the non-Federal interests will exceed 35 
percent, any additional costs for the project, but not to exceed 65 
percent of the total costs of the project, shall be a Federal 
responsibility and shall be contributed during construction as part of 
the Federal share.''.

SEC. 223. LAKES PROGRAM.

  Section 602(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (110 
Stat. 3758) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (15);
          (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (16) and 
        inserting a semicolon; and
          (3) by adding at the end the following:
          ``(17) Clear Lake, Lake County, California, removal of silt 
        and aquatic growth and measures to address excessive 
        sedimentation and high nutrient concentration; and
          ``(18) Osgood Pond, Milford, Hillsborough County, New 
        Hampshire, removal of silt and aquatic growth and measures to 
        address excessive sedimentation.
          ``(19) Flints Pond, Hollis, Hillsborough County, New 
        Hampshire, removal of silt and aquatic growth and measures to 
        address excessive sedimentation.''.

SEC. 224. CONSTRUCTION OF FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS BY NON-FEDERAL 
                    INTERESTS.

  (a) Construction by Non-Federal Interests.--Section 211(d)(1) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 701b-13(d)(1)) is 
amended--
          (1) by striking ``(b) or'';
          (2) by striking ``Any non-Federal'' and inserting the 
        following:
                  ``(A) Studies and design activities under subsection 
                (b).--A non-Federal interest may only carry out 
                construction for which studies and design documents are 
                prepared under subsection (b) if the Secretary approves 
                such construction. The Secretary shall approve such 
                construction unless the Secretary determines, in 
                writing, that the design documents do not meet standard 
                practices for design methodologies or that the project 
                is not economically justified or environmentally 
                acceptable or does not meet the requirements for 
                obtaining the appropriate permits required under the 
                Secretary's authority. The Secretary shall not 
                unreasonably withhold approval. Nothing in this 
                subparagraph may be construed to affect any regulatory 
                authority of the Secretary.
                  ``(B) Studies and design activities under subsection 
                (c).--Any non-Federal''; and
          (3) by aligning the remainder of subparagraph (B) (as 
        designated by paragraph (2) of this subsection) with 
        subparagraph (A) (as inserted by paragraph (2) of this 
        subsection).
  (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 211(d)(2) of such Act is amended 
by inserting ``(other than paragraph (1)(A))'' after ``this 
subsection''.
  (c) Reimbursement.--
          (1) In general.--Section 211(e)(1) of such Act is amended--
                  (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (1) by 
                inserting after ``constructed pursuant to this 
                section'' the following: ``and provide credit for the 
                non-Federal share of the project'';
                  (B) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph 
                (A);
                  (C) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph 
                (B) and inserting ``; and''; and
                  (D) by adding at the end the following:
                  ``(C) if the construction work is reasonably 
                equivalent to Federal construction work.''.
          (2) Special rules.--Section 211(e)(2)(A) of such Act is 
        amended--
                  (A) by striking ``subject to amounts being made 
                available in advance in appropriations Acts'' and 
                inserting ``subject to appropriations''; and
                  (B) by inserting after ``the cost of such work'' the 
                following: ``, or provide credit (depending on the 
                request of the non-Federal interest) for the non-
                Federal share of such work,''.
          (3) Schedule and manner of reimbursements.--Section 211(e) of 
        such Act (33 U.S.C. 701b-13(e)) is amended by adding at the end 
        the following:
          ``(6) Schedule and manner of reimbursement.--
                  ``(A) Budgeting.--The Secretary shall budget and 
                request appropriations for reimbursements under this 
                section on a schedule that is consistent with a Federal 
                construction schedule.
                  ``(B) Commencement of reimbursements.--Reimbursements 
                under this section may commence upon approval of a 
                project by the Secretary.
                  ``(C) Credit.--At the request of a non-Federal 
                interest, the Secretary may reimburse the non-Federal 
                interest by providing credit toward future non-Federal 
                costs of the project.
                  ``(D) Scheduling.--Nothing in this paragraph shall 
                affect the President's discretion to schedule new 
                construction starts.''.

SEC. 225. ENHANCEMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES.

  Section 906(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 
U.S.C. 2283(e)) is amended by inserting after the second sentence the 
following: ``Not more than 80 percent of the non-Federal share of such 
first costs may be satisfied through in-kind contributions, including 
facilities, supplies, and services that are necessary to carry out the 
enhancement project.''.

SEC. 226. SENSE OF CONGRESS; REQUIREMENT REGARDING NOTICE.

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

SEC. 227. PERIODIC BEACH NOURISHMENT.

  (a) In General.--Section 506(a) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3757) is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
          ``(5) Lee county, florida.--Project for shoreline protection, 
        Lee County, Captiva Island segment, Florida.''.
  (b) Projects.--Section 506(b)(3) of such Act (110 Stat. 3758) is 
amended by striking subparagraph (A) and redesignating subparagraphs 
(B) through (D) as subparagraphs (A) through (C), respectively.

SEC. 228. ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING.

  Section 312 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 
4639-4640) is amended--
          (1) in subsection (b)(1) by striking ``50'' and inserting 
        ``35''; and
          (2) in subsection (d) by striking ``non-Federal 
        responsibility'' and inserting ``shared as a cost of 
        construction''.

                 TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS

SEC. 301. MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM.

  The project for flood control, Missouri River Levee System, 
authorized by section 10 of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing the 
construction of certain public works on rivers and harbors for flood 
control, and other purposes'', approved December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 
897), is modified to provide that project costs totaling $2,616,000 
expended on Units L-15, L-246, and L-385 out of the Construction, 
General account of the Corps of Engineers before the date of enactment 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note) 
shall not be treated as part of total project costs.

SEC. 302. OUZINKIE HARBOR, ALASKA.

  (a) Maximum Federal Expenditure.--The maximum amount of Federal funds 
that may be expended for the project for navigation, Ouzinkie Harbor, 
Alaska, shall be $8,500,000.
  (b) Revision of Project Cooperation Agreement.--The Secretary shall 
revise the project cooperation agreement for the project referred to in 
subsection (a) to take into account the change in the Federal 
participation in such project pursuant to subsection (a).
  (c) Cost Sharing.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to 
affect any cost-sharing requirement applicable to the project referred 
to in subsection (a) under the Water Resources Development Act of 1986.

SEC. 303. GREERS FERRY LAKE, ARKANSAS.

  The project for flood control, Greers Ferry Lake, Arkansas, 
authorized by the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing the construction of 
certain public works on rivers and harbors for flood control, and other 
purposes'', approved June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1218), is modified to 
authorize the Secretary to construct water intake facilities for the 
benefit of Lonoke and White Counties, Arkansas.

SEC. 304. TEN- AND FIFTEEN-MILE BAYOUS, ARKANSAS.

  The project for flood control, St. Francis River Basin, Missouri and 
Arkansas, authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1950 
(64 Stat. 172), is modified to expand the project boundaries to include 
Ten- and Fifteen-Mile Bayous near West Memphis, Arkansas. 
Notwithstanding section 103(f) of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1986 (100 Stat. 4086), the flood control work at Ten- and Fifteen-
Mile Bayous shall not be considered separable elements of the St. 
Francis Basin project.

SEC. 305. LOGGY BAYOU, RED RIVER BELOW DENISON DAM, ARKANSAS, 
                    LOUISIANA, OKLAHOMA, AND TEXAS.

  The project for flood control on the Red River Below Denison Dam, 
Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas, authorized by section 10 of 
the Flood Control Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 647), is modified to direct the 
Secretary to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of expanding 
the project to include mile 0.0 to mile 7.8 of Loggy Bayou between the 
Red River and Flat River. If the Secretary determines as a result of 
the study that the project should be expanded, the Secretary may assume 
responsibility for operation and maintenance of the expanded project.

SEC. 306. SACRAMENTO RIVER, GLENN-COLUSA, CALIFORNIA.

  (a) In General.--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), section 
301(b)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 
3110), and title I of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations 
Act, 1999 (112 Stat. 1841), is further modified to authorize the 
Secretary--
          (1) to carry out the portion of the project at Glenn-Colusa, 
        California, at a total cost of $26,000,000, with an estimated 
        Federal cost of $20,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
        of $6,000,000; and
          (2) to carry out bank stabilization work in the vicinity of 
        the riverbed gradient facility, particularly in the vicinity of 
        River Mile 208.
  (b) Credit.--The Secretary shall provide the non-Federal interests 
for the project referred to in subsection (a) a credit of up to 
$4,000,000 toward the non-Federal share of the project costs for the 
direct and indirect costs incurred by the non-Federal sponsor in 
carrying out activities associated with environmental compliance for 
the project. Such credit may be in the form of reimbursements for costs 
which were incurred by the non-Federal interests prior to an agreement 
with the Corps of Engineers, to include the value of lands, easements, 
rights-of-way, relocations, or dredged material disposal areas.

SEC. 307. SAN LORENZO RIVER, CALIFORNIA.

  The project for flood control and habitat restoration, San Lorenzo 
River, California, authorized by section 101(a)(5) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3663), is modified to 
authorize the Secretary to expand the boundaries of the project to 
include bank stabilization for a 1,000-foot portion of the San Lorenzo 
River.

SEC. 308. TERMINUS DAM, KAWEAH RIVER, CALIFORNIA.

  (a) Transfer of Title to Additional Land.--If the non-Federal 
interests for the project for flood control and water supply, Terminus 
Dam, Kaweah River, California, authorized by section 101(b)(5) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3667), transfers to 
the Secretary without consideration title to perimeter lands acquired 
for the project by the non-Federal interests, the Secretary may accept 
the transfer of such title.
  (b) Lands, Easement, and Rights-of-Way.--Nothing in this section 
shall be construed to change, modify, or otherwise affect the 
responsibility of the non-Federal interests to provide lands, 
easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and dredged material disposal 
areas necessary for the Terminus Dam project and to perform operation 
and maintenance for the project.
  (c) Operation and Maintenance.--Upon request by the non-Federal 
interests, the Secretary shall carry out operation, maintenance, 
repair, replacement, and rehabilitation of the project if the non-
Federal interests enter into a binding agreement with the Secretary to 
reimburse the Secretary for 100 percent of the costs of such operation, 
maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation.
  (d) Hold Harmless.--The non-Federal interests shall hold the United 
States harmless for ownership, operation, and maintenance of lands and 
facilities of the Terminus Dam project title to which is transferred to 
the Secretary under this section.

SEC. 309. DELAWARE RIVER MAINSTEM AND CHANNEL DEEPENING, DELAWARE, NEW 
                    JERSEY, AND PENNSYLVANIA.

  The project for navigation, Delaware River Mainstem and Channel 
Deepening, Delaware, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, authorized by section 
101(6) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4802), 
is modified as follows:
          (1) The Secretary is authorized to provide non-Federal 
        interests credit toward cash contributions required for 
        construction and subsequent to construction for engineering and 
        design and construction management work that is performed by 
        non-Federal interests and that the Secretary determines is 
        necessary to implement the project. Any such credits extended 
        shall reduce the Philadelphia District's private sector 
        performance goals for engineering work by a like amount.
          (2) The Secretary is authorized to provide to non-Federal 
        interests credit toward cash contributions required during 
        construction and subsequent to construction for the costs of 
        construction carried out by the non-Federal interest on behalf 
        of the Secretary and that the Secretary determines is necessary 
        to implement the project.
          (3) The Secretary is authorized to enter into an agreement 
        with a non-Federal interest for the payment of disposal or 
        tipping fees for dredged material from a Federal project other 
        than for the construction or operation and maintenance of the 
        new deepening project as described in the Limited Reevaluation 
        Report of May 1997, where the non-Federal interest has supplied 
        the corresponding disposal capacity.
          (4) The Secretary is authorized to enter into an agreement 
        with a non-Federal interest that will provide that the non-
        Federal interest may carry out or cause to have carried out, on 
        behalf of the Secretary, a disposal area management program for 
        dredged material disposal areas necessary to construct, 
        operate, and maintain the project and to authorize the 
        Secretary to reimburse the non-Federal interest for the costs 
        of the disposal area management program activities carried out 
        by the non-Federal interest.

SEC. 310. POTOMAC RIVER, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

  The project for flood control authorized by section 5 of the Flood 
Control Act of June 22, 1936 (69 Stat. 1574), as modified by section 
301(a)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 
3707), is further modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the 
project at a Federal cost of $5,965,000.

SEC. 311. BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA.

  (a) Study.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the non-Federal 
interest, shall conduct a study of any damage to the project for 
shoreline protection, Brevard County, Florida, authorized by section 
101(b)(7) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 
3667), to determine whether the damage is the result of a Federal 
navigation project.
  (b) Conditions.--In conducting the study, the Secretary shall utilize 
the services of an independent coastal expert who shall consider all 
relevant studies completed by the Corps of Engineers and the project's 
local sponsor. The study shall be completed within 120 days of the date 
of enactment of this Act.
  (c) Mitigation of Damages.--After completion of the study, the 
Secretary shall mitigate any damage to the shoreline protection project 
that is the result of a Federal navigation project. The costs of the 
mitigation shall be allocated to the Federal navigation project as 
operation and maintenance.

SEC. 312. BROWARD COUNTY AND HILLSBORO INLET, FLORIDA.

  The project for shoreline protection, Broward County and Hillsboro 
Inlet, Florida, authorized by section 301 of the River and Harbor Act 
of 1965 (79 Stat. 1090), is modified to authorize the Secretary to 
reimburse the non-Federal interest for the Federal share of the cost of 
preconstruction planning and design for the project upon execution of a 
contract to construct the project if the Secretary determines such work 
is compatible with and integral to the project.

SEC. 313. FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA.

  (a) In General.--The project for shore protection and harbor 
mitigation, Fort Pierce, Florida, authorized by section 301 of the 
River and Harbor Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1092) and section 506(a)(2) of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3757), is 
modified to incorporate an additional 1 mile into the project in 
accordance with a final approved General Reevaluation Report, at a 
total cost for initial nourishment for the entire project of 
$9,128,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $7,073,500 and an 
estimated non-Federal cost of $2,054,500.
  (b) Period Nourishment.--Periodic nourishment is authorized for the 
project in accordance with section 506(a)(2) of Water Resources 
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3757).
  (c) Revision of the Project Cooperation Agreement.--The Secretary 
shall revise the project cooperation agreement for the project referred 
to in subsection (a) to take into account the change in Federal 
participation in the project pursuant to subsection (a).

SEC. 314. NASSAU COUNTY, FLORIDA.

  The project for beach erosion control, Nassau County (Amelia Island), 
Florida, authorized by section 3(a)(3) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4013), is modified to authorize the 
Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of $17,000,000, with 
an estimated Federal cost of $13,300,000 and an estimated non-Federal 
cost of $3,700,000.

SEC. 315. MIAMI HARBOR CHANNEL, FLORIDA.

  The project for navigation, Miami Harbor Channel, Florida, authorized 
by section 101(a)(9) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 
(104 Stat. 4606), is modified to include construction of artificial 
reefs and related environmental mitigation required by Federal, State, 
and local environmental permitting agencies for the project.

SEC. 316. LAKE MICHIGAN, ILLINOIS.

  The project for storm damage reduction and shoreline erosion 
protection, Lake Michigan, Illinois, from Wilmette, Illinois, to the 
Illinois-Indiana State line, authorized by section 101(a)(12) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3664), is modified 
to authorize the Secretary to provide a credit against the non-Federal 
share of the cost of the project for costs incurred by the non-Federal 
interest--
          (1) in constructing Reach 2D and Segment 8 of Reach 4 of the 
        project; and
          (2) in reconstructing Solidarity Drive in Chicago, Illinois, 
        prior to entry into a project cooperation agreement with the 
        Secretary.

SEC. 317. SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS.

  Section 417 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 
3743) is amended--
          (1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``The 
        Secretary''; and
          (2) by adding at the end the following:
  ``(b) Cost Sharing.--The non-Federal share of assistance provided 
under this section before, on, or after the date of enactment of this 
subsection shall be 50 percent.''.

SEC. 318. LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, INDIANA.

  The project for flood control, Little Calumet River, Indiana, 
authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1986 (100 Stat. 4115), is modified to authorize the Secretary to 
construct the project substantially in accordance with the report of 
the Corps of Engineers, at a total cost of $167,000,000, with an 
estimated Federal cost of $122,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal 
cost of $45,000,000.

SEC. 319. OGDEN DUNES, INDIANA.

  (a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of beach erosion in 
and around the town of Ogden Dunes, Indiana, to determine whether the 
damage is the result of a Federal navigation project.
  (b) Mitigation of Damages.--After completion of the study, the 
Secretary shall mitigate any damage to the beach and shoreline that is 
the result of a Federal navigation project. The cost of the mitigation 
shall be allocated to the Federal navigation project as operation and 
maintenance.

SEC. 320. SAINT JOSEPH RIVER, SOUTH BEND, INDIANA.

  (a) Maximum Total Expenditure.--The maximum total expenditure for the 
project for streambank erosion, recreation, and pedestrian access 
features, Saint Joseph River, South Bend, Indiana, shall be $7,800,000.
  (b) Revision of Project Cooperation Agreement.--The Secretary shall 
revise the project cooperation agreement for the project referred to in 
subsection (a) to take into account the change in the Federal 
participation in such project pursuant to subsection (a).
  (c) Cost Sharing.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to 
affect any cost-sharing requirement applicable to the project referred 
to in subsection (a) under title I of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211 et seq.).

SEC. 321. WHITE RIVER, INDIANA.

  The project for flood control, Indianapolis on West Fork of the White 
River, Indiana, authorized by section 5 of the Act entitled ``An Act 
authorizing the construction of certain public works on rivers and 
harbors for flood control, and other purposes'', approved June 22, 1936 
(49 Stat. 1586), and modified by section 323 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3716), is further modified to 
authorize the Secretary to undertake riverfront alterations as 
described in the Central Indianapolis Waterfront Concept Master Plan, 
dated February 1994, at a total cost of $110,975,000, with an estimated 
Federal cost of $52,475,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
$58,500,000.

SEC. 322. LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN, LOUISIANA.

  The project for hurricane-flood protection, Lake Pontchartrain, 
Louisiana, authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 
(79 Stat. 1077), is modified--
          (1) to direct the Secretary to conduct a study to determine 
        the feasibility of constructing a pump adjacent to each of the 
        4 proposed drainage structures for the Saint Charles Parish 
        feature of the project; and
          (2) to authorize the Secretary to construct such pumps upon 
        completion of the study.

SEC. 323. LAROSE TO GOLDEN MEADOW, LOUISIANA.

  The project for hurricane protection Larose to Golden Meadow, 
Louisiana, authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 
(79 Stat. 1077), is modified to direct the Secretary to convert the 
Golden Meadow floodgate into a navigation lock if the Secretary 
determines that the conversion is feasible.

SEC. 324. LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY LEVEE, LOUISIANA.

  The Louisiana State Penitentiary Levee project, Louisiana, authorized 
by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 
Stat. 4117), is modified to direct the Secretary to provide credit to 
the non-Federal interest toward the non-Federal share of the cost of 
the project. The credit shall be for cost of work performed by the non-
Federal interest prior to the execution of a project cooperation 
agreement as determined by the Secretary to be compatible with and an 
integral part of the project.

SEC. 325. TWELVE-MILE BAYOU, CADDO PARISH, LOUISIANA.

  The Secretary shall be responsible for maintenance of the levee along 
Twelve-Mile Bayou from its junction with the existing Red River Below 
Denison Dam Levee approximately 26 miles upstream to its terminus at 
high ground in the vicinity of Black Bayou, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, if 
the Secretary determines that such maintenance is economically 
justified and environmentally acceptable and that the levee was 
constructed in accordance with appropriate design and engineering 
standards.

SEC. 326. WEST BANK OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER (EAST OF HARVEY CANAL), 
                    LOUISIANA.

  (a) In General.--The project for flood control and storm damage 
reduction, West Bank of the Mississippi River (East of Harvey Canal), 
Louisiana, authorized by section 401(b) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4128) and section 101(a)(17) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3665), is modified--
          (1) to provide that any liability under the Comprehensive 
        Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 
        (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) from the construction of the project 
        is a Federal responsibility; and
          (2) to authorize the Secretary to carry out operation and 
        maintenance of that portion of the project included in the 
        report of the Chief of Engineers, dated May 1, 1995, referred 
        to as ``Algiers Channel'', if the non-Federal sponsor 
        reimburses the Secretary for the amount of such operation and 
        maintenance included in the report of the Chief of Engineers.
  (b) Combination of Projects.--The Secretary shall carry out work 
authorized as part of the Westwego to Harvey Canal project, the East of 
Harvey cannal project, and the Lake Cataouatche modifications as a 
single project, to be known as the West Bank and vicinity, New Orleans, 
Louisiana, hurricane protection project, with a combined total cost of 
$280,300,000.

SEC. 327. TOLCHESTER CHANNEL, BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS, CHESAPEAKE 
                    BAY, KENT COUNTY, MARYLAND.

  The project for navigation, Tolchester Channel, Baltimore Harbor and 
Channels, Chesapeake Bay, Kent County, Maryland, authorized by section 
101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 297), is modified to 
authorize the Secretary to straighten the navigation channel in 
accordance with the District Engineer's Navigation Assessment Report 
and Environmental Assessment, dated April 30, 1997. This modification 
shall be carried out in order to improve navigation safety.

SEC. 328. SAULT SAINTE MARIE, CHIPPEWA COUNTY, MICHIGAN.

  The project for navigation Sault Sainte Marie, Chippewa County, 
Michigan, authorized by section 1149 of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4254-4255) and modified by section 330 of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3717-3718), is 
further modified to provide that the amount to be paid by non-Federal 
interests pursuant to section 101(a) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211(a)) and subsection (a) of such section 330 
shall not include any interest payments.

SEC. 329. JACKSON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI.

  The project for environmental infrastructure, Jackson County, 
Mississippi, authorized by section 219(c)(5) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835) and modified by section 504 of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3757), is 
further modified 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 costs are for work that the Secretary 
determines is compatible with and integral to the project.

 SEC. 330. TUNICA LAKE, MISSISSIPPI.

  The project for flood control, Mississippi River Channel Improvement 
Project, Tunica Lake, Mississippi, authorized by the Act entitled: ``An 
Act for the control of floods on the Mississippi River and its 
tributaries, and for other purposes'', approved May 15, 1928 (45 Stat. 
534-538), is modified to include construction of a weir at the Tunica 
Cutoff, Mississippi.

SEC. 331. BOIS BRULE DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICT, MISSOURI.

  (a) Maximum Federal Expenditure.--The maximum amount of Federal funds 
that may be allocated for the project for flood control, Bois Brule 
Drainage and Levee District, Missouri, authorized pursuant to section 
205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), shall be 
$15,000,000.
  (b) Revision of the Project Cooperation Agreement.--The Secretary 
shall revise the project cooperation agreement for the project referred 
to in subsection (a) to take into account the change in Federal 
participation in the project pursuant to subsection (a).
  (c) Cost Sharing.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to 
affect any cost-sharing requirement applicable to the project referred 
to in subsection (a) under title I of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211 et seq.).

SEC. 332. MERAMEC RIVER BASIN, VALLEY PARK LEVEE, MISSOURI.

  The project for flood control, Meramec River Basin, Valley Park 
Levee, Missouri, authorized by section 2(h) of an Act entitled ``An Act 
to deauthorize several projects within the jurisdiction of the Army 
Corps of Engineers'' (95 Stat. 1682-1683) and modified by section 1128 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, (100 Stat. 4246), is 
further modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at 
a maximum Federal expenditure of $35,000,000.

SEC. 333. MISSOURI RIVER MITIGATION PROJECT, MISSOURI, KANSAS, IOWA, 
                    AND NEBRASKA.

  (a) In General.--The project for mitigation of fish and wildlife 
losses, Missouri River Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project, 
Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, and Nebraska, authorized by section 601 of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4143), is modified 
to increase by 118,650 acres the lands and interests in lands to be 
acquired for the project.
  (b) Study.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary, in conjunction with the 
        States of Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri, shall conduct a 
        study to determine the cost of restoring, under the authority 
        of the Missouri River fish and wildlife mitigation project, a 
        total of 118,650 acres of lost Missouri River habitat.
          (2) Report.--The Secretary shall report to Congress on the 
        results of the study not later than 6 months after the date of 
        enactment of this Act.

SEC. 334. WOOD RIVER, GRAND ISLAND, NEBRASKA.

  The project for flood control, Wood River, Grand Island, Nebraska, 
authorized by section 101(a)(19) of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1996 (110 Stat. 3665), is modified to authorize the Secretary to 
construct the project substantially in accordance with the report of 
the Corps of Engineers 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.

SEC. 335. ABSECON ISLAND, NEW JERSEY.

  The project for storm damage reduction and shoreline protection, 
Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor Inlet, Absecon Island, New Jersey, 
authorized by section 101(b)(13) of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1996 (110 Stat. 3668), is modified to provide that, if, after 
October 12, 1996, the non-Federal interests carry out any work 
associated with the project that is later recommended by the Chief of 
Engineers and approved by the Secretary, the Secretary may credit the 
non-Federal interests toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
project an amount equal to the Federal share of the cost of such work, 
without interest.

SEC. 336. NEW YORK HARBOR AND ADJACENT CHANNELS, PORT JERSEY, NEW 
                    JERSEY

  The project for navigation, New York Harbor and Adjacent Channels, 
New York and New Jersey, authorized by section 202(b) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4098), is modified to 
authorize the Secretary to construct that portion of the project that 
is located between Military Ocean Terminal Bayonne and Global Terminal 
in Bayonne, New Jersey, substantially in accordance with the report of 
the Corps of Engineers, at a total cost of $103,267,000, with an 
estimated Federal cost of $76,909,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
of $26,358,000.

SEC. 337. PASSAIC RIVER, NEW JERSEY.

  Section 101(a)(18)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 
(104 Stat. 4608-4609) is amended by inserting ``, including an 
esplanade for safe pedestrian access with an overall width of 600 
feet'' after ``public access to Route 21''.

SEC. 338. SANDY HOOK TO BARNEGAT INLET, NEW JERSEY.

  The project for shoreline protection, Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet, 
New Jersey, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 
1958 (72 Stat. 299), is modified--
          (1) to include the demolition of Long Branch pier and 
        extension of Ocean Grove pier; and
          (2) to authorize the Secretary to reimburse the non-Federal 
        sponsor for the Federal share of costs associated with the 
        demolition of Long Branch pier and the construction of the 
        Ocean Grove pier.

SEC. 339. ARTHUR KILL, NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY.

  The project for navigation, Arthur Kill, New York and New Jersey, 
authorized by section 202(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1986 (100 Stat. 4098) and modified by section 301(b)(11) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3711), is further modified 
to authorize the Secretary to construct the portion of the project at 
Howland Hook Marine Terminal substantially in accordance with the 
report of the Corps of Engineers, dated September 30, 1998, at a total 
cost of $315,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $183,200,000 
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $132,500,000.

SEC. 340. NEW YORK CITY WATERSHED.

  Section 552(i) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 
Stat. 3781) is amended by striking ``$22,500,000'' and inserting 
``$42,500,000''.

SEC. 341. NEW YORK STATE CANAL SYSTEM.

  Section 553(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 
Stat. 3781) is amended by striking ``$8,000,000'' and inserting 
``$18,000,000''.

SEC. 342. FIRE ISLAND INLET TO MONTAUK POINT, NEW YORK.

  The project for combined beach erosion control and hurricane 
protection, Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point, Long Island, New York, 
authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 483) and 
modified by the River and Harbor Act of 1962,the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1974, and the Water Resources Development Act of 
1986, is further modified to direct the Secretary, in coordination with 
the heads of other Federal departments and agencies, to complete all 
procedures and reviews expeditiously and to adopt and transmit to 
Congress not later than June 30, 1999, a mutually acceptable shore 
erosion plan for the Fire Island Inlet to Moriches Inlet reach of the 
project.

SEC. 343. BROKEN BOW LAKE, RED RIVER BASIN, OKLAHOMA.

  The project for flood control and water supply, Broken Bow Lake, Red 
River Basin, Oklahoma, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control 
Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 309) and modified by section 203 of the Flood 
Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1187), section 102(v) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4808), and section 338 of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3720), is 
further modified to require the Secretary to make seasonal adjustments 
to the top of the conservation pool at the project as follows (if the 
Secretary determines that the adjustments will be undertaken at no cost 
to the United States and will adequately protect impacted water and 
related resources):
          (1) Maintain an elevation of 599.5 from November 1 through 
        March 31.
          (2) Increase elevation gradually from 599.5 to 602.5 during 
        April and May.
          (3) Maintain an elevation of 602.5 from June 1 to September 
        30.
          (4) Decrease elevation gradually from 602.5 to 599.5 during 
        October.

SEC. 344. WILLAMETTE RIVER TEMPERATURE CONTROL, MCKENZIE SUBBASIN, 
                    OREGON.

  (a) In General.--The project for environmental restoration, 
Willamette River Temperature Control, McKenzie Subbasin, Oregon, 
authorized by section 101(a)(25) of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1996 (110 Stat. 3665), is modified to authorize the Secretary to 
construct the project substantially in accordance with the Feature 
Memorandum dated July 31, 1998, at a total cost of $64,741,000.
  (b) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of 
this Act, the Secretary shall report to Congress on the reasons for the 
cost growth of the Willamette River project and outline the steps the 
Corps of Engineers is taking to control project costs, including the 
application of value engineering and other appropriate measures. In the 
report, the Secretary shall also include a cost estimate for, and 
recommendations on the advisability of, adding fish screens to the 
project.

SEC. 345. AYLESWORTH CREEK RESERVOIR, PENNSYLVANIA.

  The project for flood control, Aylesworth Creek Reservoir, 
Pennsylvania, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 
1962 (76 Stat. 1182), is modified to authorize the Secretary to 
transfer, in each of fiscal years 1999 and 2000, $50,000 to the 
Aylesworth Creek Reservoir Park Authority for recreational facilities.

SEC. 346. CURWENSVILLE LAKE, PENNSYLVANIA.

  Section 562 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 
3784) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``The Secretary 
shall provide design and construction assistance for recreational 
facilities at Curwensville Lake and, when appropriate, may require the 
non-Federal interest to provide not more than 25 percent of the cost of 
designing and constructing such facilities. The Secretary may transfer, 
in each of fiscal years 1999 through 2003, $100,000 to the Clearfield 
County Municipal Services and Recreation Authority for recreational 
facilities.''.

SEC. 347. DELAWARE RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA AND DELAWARE.

  The project for navigation, Delaware River, Philadelphia to 
Wilmington, Pennsylvania and Delaware, authorized by section 3(a)(12) 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4014), is 
modified to authorize the Secretary to extend the channel of the 
Delaware River at Camden, New Jersey, to within 150 feet of the 
existing bulkhead and to relocate the 40-foot deep Federal navigation 
channel, eastward within Philadelphia Harbor, from the Ben Franklin 
Bridge to the Walt Whitman Bridge, into deep water.

SEC. 348. MUSSERS DAM, PENNSYLVANIA.

  Section 209 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 
4830) is amended by striking subsection (e) and redesignating 
subsection (f) as subsection (e).

SEC. 349. NINE-MILE RUN, ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.

  The Nine-Mile Run project, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, carried 
out pursuant to section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330; 110 Stat. 3679-3680), is modified to authorize 
the Secretary to provide a credit toward the non-Federal share of the 
project for costs incurred by the non-Federal interest in preparing 
environmental and feasibility documentation for the project before 
entering into an agreement with the Corps of Engineers with respect to 
the project if the Secretary determines such costs are for work that is 
compatible with and integral to the project.

SEC. 350. RAYSTOWN LAKE, PENNSYLVANIA.

  (a) Recreation Partnership Initiative.--Section 519(b) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3765) is amended--
          (1) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
          (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
          ``(3) Engineering and design services.--The Secretary may 
        perform, at full Federal expense, engineering and design 
        services for project infrastructure expected to be associated 
        with the development of the site at Raystown Lake, Hesston, 
        Pennsylvania.''.
  (b) Construction Assistance.--
          (1) In general.--Consistent with the master plan described in 
        section 318 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 
        Stat. 4848), the Secretary may provide a grant to Juniata 
        College for the construction of facilities and structures at 
        Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania, to interpret and understand 
        environmental conditions and trends. As a condition of the 
        receipt of such financial assistance, officials at Juniata 
        College shall coordinate with the Baltimore District of the 
        Army Corps of Engineers.
          (2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized to 
        be appropriated $5,000,000 for fiscal years beginning after 
        September 30, 1998, to carry out this subsection.

SEC. 351. SOUTH CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA.

  Section 313(g)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 
Stat. 4846) is amended by striking ``$80,000,000'' and inserting 
``$180,000,000''.

SEC. 352. COOPER RIVER, CHARLESTON HARBOR, SOUTH CAROLINA.

  The project for rediversion, Cooper River, Charleston Harbor, South 
Carolina, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 
(82 Stat. 731) and modified by title I of the Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Act, 1992 (105 Stat. 516), is further 
modified to authorize the Secretary to pay to the State of South 
Carolina not more than $3,750,000 if the Secretary and the State enter 
into a binding agreement for the State to perform all future operation 
of, including associated studies to assess the efficacy of, the St. 
Stephen, South Carolina, fish lift. The agreement must specify the 
terms and conditions under which payment will be made and the rights 
of, and remedies available to, the Federal Government to recover all or 
a portion of such payment in the event the State suspends or terminates 
operation of the fish lift or fails to operate the fish lift in a 
manner satisfactory to the Secretary. Maintenance of the fish lift 
shall remain a Federal responsibility.

SEC. 353. BOWIE COUNTY LEVEE, TEXAS.

  The project for flood control, Red River Below Denison Dam, Texas and 
Oklahoma, authorized by section 10 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (60 
Stat. 647), is modified to direct the Secretary to implement the Bowie 
County Levee feature of the project in accordance with the plan defined 
as Alternative B in the draft document entitled ``Bowie County Local 
Flood Protection, Red River, Texas Project Design Memorandum No. 1, 
Bowie County Levee'', dated April 1997. In evaluating and implementing 
this modification, the Secretary shall allow the non-Federal interest 
to participate in the financing of the project in accordance with 
section 903(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 
Stat. 4184) to the extent that the Secretary's evaluation indicates 
that applying such section is necessary to implement the project.

SEC. 354. CLEAR CREEK, TEXAS.

  Section 575 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 
3789) is amended by adding at the end the following:
  ``(c) Clear Creek, Texas.--In any evaluation of economic benefits and 
costs for the project for flood control, Clear Creek, Texas, authorized 
by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 742) that 
occurs after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary 
shall include the costs and benefits of nonstructural measures 
undertaken, including any buyout or relocation actions, of non-Federal 
interests within the drainage area of such project before the date of 
the evaluation in the determination of conditions existing before the 
construction of the project.''.

SEC. 355. CYPRESS CREEK, TEXAS.

  (a) In General.--The project for flood control, Cypress Creek, Texas, 
authorized by section 3(a)(13) of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1988 (102 Stat.4014), is modified to authorize the Secretary to 
carry out a nonstructural flood control project at a total cost of 
$5,000,000.
  (b) Reimbursement for Work.--The Secretary may reimburse the non-
Federal interest for the Cypress Creek project for work done by the 
non-Federal interest on the nonstructural flood control project in an 
amount equal to the estimate of the Federal share, without interest, of 
the cost of such work--
          (1) if, after authorization and before initiation of 
        construction of such nonstructural project, the Secretary 
        approves the plans for construction of such nonstructural 
        project by the non-Federal interest; and
          (2) if the Secretary finds, after a review of studies and 
        design documents prepared to carry out such nonstructural 
        project, that construction of such nonstructural project is 
        economically justified and environmentally acceptable.

SEC. 356. DALLAS FLOODWAY EXTENSION, DALLAS, TEXAS.

  The project for flood control, Dallas Floodway Extension, Dallas, 
Texas, authorized by section 301 of the River and Harbor Act of 1965 
(79 Stat. 1091) and modified by section 351 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3724), is further modified--
          (1) to add environmental restoration and recreation as 
        project purposes; and
          (2) to authorize the Secretary to construct the project 
        substantially in accordance with the Chain of Wetlands Plan in 
        the report of the Corps of Engineers at a total cost of 
        $123,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $80,000,000 and 
        an estimated non-Federal cost of $43,200,000.

SEC. 357. UPPER JORDAN RIVER, UTAH.

  The project for flood control, Upper Jordan River, Utah, authorized 
by section 101(a)(23) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 
(104 Stat. 4610) and modified by section 301(a)(14) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3709), is further modified 
to direct the Secretary to carry out the locally preferred project, 
entitled ``Upper Jordan River Flood Control Project, Salt Lake County, 
Utah--Supplemental Information'' and identified in the document of Salt 
Lake County, Utah, dated July 30, 1998, at a total cost of $12,870,000, 
with an estimated Federal cost of $8,580,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $4,290,000.

SEC. 358. ELIZABETH RIVER, CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA.

  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the city of Chesapeake, Virginia, shall not be 
obligated to make the annual cash contribution required under paragraph 
1(9) of the Local Cooperation Agreement dated December 12, 1978, 
between the Government and the city for the project for navigation, 
southern branch of Elizabeth River, Chesapeake, Virginia.

SEC. 359. BLUESTONE LAKE, OHIO RIVER BASIN, WEST VIRGINIA.

  Section 102(ff) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 
Stat. 4810) is amended by striking ``take such measures as are 
technologically feasible'' and inserting ``implement Plan C/G, as 
defined in the Evaluation Report of the District Engineer, dated 
December 1996,''.

SEC. 360. GREENBRIER BASIN, WEST VIRGINIA.

  Section 579(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 
Stat. 3790) is amended by striking ``$12,000,000'' and inserting 
``$73,000,000.''

SEC. 361. MOOREFIELD, WEST VIRGINIA.

  The project for flood control, Moorefield, West Virginia, authorized 
by section 101(a)(25) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 
(104 Stat. 4610-4611), is modified to provide that the non-Federal 
interest shall not be required to pay the unpaid balance, including 
interest, of the non-Federal share of the cost of the project.

SEC. 362. WEST VIRGINIA AND PENNSYLVANIA FLOOD CONTROL.

  Section 581(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 
Stat. 3790) is amended to read as follows:
  ``(a) In General.--The Secretary may design and construct--
          ``(1) flood control measures in the Cheat and Tygart River 
        basins, West Virginia, at a level of protection that is 
        sufficient to prevent any future losses to these communities 
        from flooding such as occurred in January 1996 but no less than 
        a 100-year level of protection; and
          ``(2) structural and nonstructural flood control, streambank 
        protection, stormwater management, and channel clearing and 
        modification measures in the Lower Allegheny, Lower 
        Monongahela, West Branch Susquehanna, and Juniata River basins, 
        Pennsylvania, at a level of protection that is sufficient to 
        prevent any future losses to communities in these basins from 
        flooding such as occurred in January 1996, but no less than a 
        100-year level of flood protection with respect to those 
        measures that incorporate levees or floodwalls.''.

SEC. 363. PROJECT REAUTHORIZATIONS.

  (a) Lee Creek, Arkansas and Oklahoma.--The project for flood 
protection on Lee Creek, Arkansas and Oklahoma, authorized by section 
204 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1078) and deauthorized 
pursuant to section 1001(b)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(1)), is authorized to be carried out by the 
Secretary.
  (b) Indian River County, Florida.--The project for shore protection, 
Indian River County, Florida, authorized by section 501 of the Water 
Resources and Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4134) and deauthorized 
pursuant to section 1001(b)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(1)), is authorized to be carried out by the 
Secretary.
  (c) Lido Key, Florida.--The project for shore protection, Lido Key, 
Florida, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1970 
(84 Stat. 1819) and deauthorized pursuant to section 1001(b)(2) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C 579a(b)(2)), is 
authorized to be carried out by the Secretary.
  (d) St. Augustine, St. Johns County, Florida.--
          (1) In general.--The project for shore protection and storm 
        damage reduction, St. Augustine, St. Johns County, Florida, 
        authorized by section 501 of the Water Resources Development 
        Act of 1986 and deauthorized pursuant to section 1001(a) of 
        such Act (33 U.S.C. 579a(a)), is authorized to include 
        navigation mitigation as a project purpose and to be carried 
        out by the Secretary substantially in accordance with the 
        General Reevaluation Report dated November 18, 1998, 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.
          (2) Periodic nourishment.--The Secretary is authorized to 
        carry out periodic nourishment for the project for a 50-year 
        period at an estimated average annual cost of $1,251,000, with 
        an estimated annual Federal cost of $1,007,000 and an estimated 
        annual non-Federal cost of $244,000.
  (e) Cass River, Michigan (Vassar).--The project for flood protection, 
Cass River, Michigan (Vassar), authorized by section 203 of the Flood 
Control Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 311) and deauthorized pursuant to section 
1001(b)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
579a(b)(2)), is authorized to be carried out by the Secretary.
  (f) Saginaw River, Michigan (Shiawassee Flats).--The project for 
flood control, Saginaw River, Michigan (Shiawassee Flats), authorized 
by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 311) and 
deauthorized pursuant to section 1001(b)(2) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(2)), is authorized to be 
carried out by the Secretary.
  (g) Park River, Grafton, North Dakota.--The project for flood 
control, Park River, Grafton, North Dakota, authorized by section 
401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4121) 
and deauthorized pursuant to section 1001(a) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 
579a(a)), is authorized to be carried out by the Secretary.
  (h) Memphis Harbor, Memphis, Tennessee.--The project for navigation, 
Memphis Harbor, Memphis, Tennessee, authorized by section 601(a) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4145) and 
deauthorized pursuant to 1001(a) of such Act (33 U.S.C 579a(a)), is 
authorized to be carried out by the Secretary.

SEC. 364. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS.

  (a) In General.--The following projects or portions of projects are 
not authorized after the date of enactment of this Act:
          (1) Bridgeport harbor, connecticut.--That portion of the 
        project for navigation, Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut, 
        authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 
        (72 Stat. 297), consisting of a 2.4-acre anchorage area, 9 feet 
        deep, and an adjacent 0.6-acre anchorage, 6 feet deep, located 
        on the west side of Johnsons River.
          (2) Clinton harbor, connecticut.--That portion of the project 
        for navigation, Clinton Harbor, Connecticut, authorized by the 
        Rivers and Harbors Act of 1945, House Document 240, 76th 
        Congress, 1st Session, lying upstream of a line designated by 
        the 2 points N158,592.12, E660,193.92 and N158,444.58, 
        E660,220.95.
          (3) Bass harbor, maine.--The following portions of the 
        project for navigation, Bass Harbor, Maine, authorized on May 
        7, 1962, under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 
        (33 U.S.C. 577):
                  (A) Beginning at a bend in the project, N149040.00, 
                E538505.00, thence running easterly about 50.00 feet 
                along the northern limit of the project to a point 
                N149061.55, E538550.11, thence running southerly about 
                642.08 feet to a point, N14877.64, E538817.18, thence 
                running southwesterly about 156.27 feet to a point on 
                the westerly limit of the project, N148348.50, 
                E538737.02, thence running northerly about 149.00 feet 
                along the westerly limit of the project to a bend in 
                the project, N148489.22, E538768.09, thence running 
                northwesterly about 610.39 feet along the westerly 
                limit of the project to the point of origin.
                  (B) Beginning at a point on the westerly limit of the 
                project, N148118.55, E538689.05, thence running 
                southeasterly about 91.92 feet to a point, N148041.43, 
                E538739.07, thence running southerly about 65.00 feet 
                to a point, N147977.86, E538725.51, thence running 
                southwesterly about 91.92 feet to a point on the 
                westerly limit of the project, N147927.84, E538648.39, 
                thence running northerly about 195.00 feet along the 
                westerly limit of the project to the point of origin.
          (4) Boothbay harbor, maine.--The project for navigation, 
        Boothbay Harbor, Maine, authorized by the River and Harbor Act 
        of 1912 (37 Stat. 201).
          (5) Bucksport harbor, maine.--That portion of the project for 
        navigation, Bucksport Harbor, Maine, authorized by the River 
        and Harbor Act of 1902, consisting of a 16-foot deep channel 
        beginning at a point N268.748.16, E423.390.76, thence running 
        north 47 degrees 02 minutes 23 seconds east 51.76 feet to a 
        point N268.783.44, E423.428.64, thence running north 67 degrees 
        54 minutes 32 seconds west 1513.94 feet to a point N269.352.81, 
        E422.025.84, thence running south 47 degrees 02 minutes 23 
        seconds west 126.15 feet to a point N269.266.84, E421.933.52, 
        thence running south 70 degrees 24 minutes 28 seconds east 
        1546.79 feet to the point of origin.
          (6) 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. 631).
          (7) Wells harbor, maine.--The following portions of the 
        project for navigation, Wells Harbor, Maine, authorized by 
        section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 480):
                  (A) The portion of the 6-foot channel the boundaries 
                of which begin at a point with coordinates N177,992.00, 
                E394,831.00, thence running south 83 degrees 58 minutes 
                14.8 seconds west 10.38 feet to a point N177,990.91, 
                E394,820.68, thence running south 11 degrees 46 minutes 
                47.7 seconds west 991.76 feet to a point N177,020.04, 
                E394,618.21, thence running south 78 degrees 13 minutes 
                45.7 seconds east 10.00 feet to a point N177,018.00, 
                E394,628.00, thence running north 11 degrees 46 minutes 
                22.8 seconds east 994.93 feet to the point of origin.
                  (B) The portion of the 6-foot anchorage the 
                boundaries of which begin at a point with coordinates 
                N177,778.07, E394,336.96, thence running south 51 
                degrees 58 minutes 32.7 seconds west 15.49 feet to a 
                point N177,768.53, E394,324.76, thence running south 11 
                degrees 46 minutes 26.5 seconds west 672.87 feet to a 
                point N177,109.82, E394,187.46, thence running south 78 
                degrees 13 minutes 45.7 seconds east 10.00 feet to a 
                point N177,107.78, E394,197.25, thence running north 11 
                degrees 46 minutes 25.4 seconds east 684.70 feet to the 
                point of origin.
                  (C) The portion of the 10-foot settling basin the 
                boundaries of which begin at a point with coordinates 
                N177,107.78, E394,197.25, thence running north 78 
                degrees 13 minutes 45.7 seconds west 10.00 feet to a 
                point N177,109.82, E394,187.46, thence running south 11 
                degrees 46 minutes 15.7 seconds west 300.00 feet to a 
                point N176,816.13, E394,126.26, thence running south 78 
                degrees 12 minutes 21.4 seconds east 9.98 feet to a 
                point N176,814.09, E394,136.03, thence running north 11 
                degrees 46 minutes 29.1 seconds east 300.00 feet to the 
                point of origin.
                  (D) The portion of the 10-foot settling basin the 
                boundaries of which begin at a point with coordinates 
                N177,018.00, E394,628.00, thence running north 78 
                degrees 13 minutes 45.7 seconds west 10.00 feet to a 
                point N177,020.04, E394,618.21, thence running south 11 
                degrees 46 minutes 44.0 seconds west 300.00 feet to a 
                point N176,726.36, E394,556.97, thence running south 78 
                degrees 12 minutes 30.3 seconds east 10.03 feet to a 
                point N176,724.31, E394,566.79, thence running north 11 
                degrees 46 minutes 22.4 seconds east 300.00 feet to the 
                point of origin.
          (8) Falmouth harbor, massachusetts.--That portion of the 
        project for navigation, Falmouth Harbor, Massachusetts, 
        authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1948 
        lying southeasterly of a line commencing at a point 
        N199,286.41, E844,394.91, thence running north 66 degrees 52 
        minutes 3.31 seconds east 472.95 feet to a point N199,472.21, 
        E844,829.83, thence running north 43 degrees 9 minutes 28.3 
        seconds east 262.64 feet to a point N199,633.80, E845,009.48, 
        thence running north 21 degrees 40 minutes 11.26 seconds east 
        808.38 feet to a point N200,415.05, E845,307.98, thence running 
        north 32 degrees 25 minutes 29.01 seconds east 160.76 feet to a 
        point N200,550.75, E845,394.18, thence running north 24 degrees 
        56 minutes 42.29 seconds east 1,410.29 feet to a point 
        N201,829.48, E845,988.97.
          (9) Green harbor, massachusetts.--That portion of the project 
        for navigation, Green Harbor, Massachusetts, undertaken 
        pursuant to section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 
        U.S.C. 577), consisting of the 6-foot deep channel beginning at 
        a point along the west limit of the existing project, North 
        395990.43, East 831079.16, thence running northwesterly about 
        752.85 feet to a point, North 396722.80, East 830904.76, thence 
        running northwesterly about 222.79 feet to a point along the 
        west limit of the existing project, North 396844.34, East 
        830718.04, thence running southwesterly about 33.72 feet along 
        the west limit of the existing project to a point, North 
        396810.80, East 830714.57, thence running southeasterly about 
        195.42 feet along the west limit of the existing project to a 
        point, North 396704.19, East 830878.35, thence running about 
        544.66 feet along the west limit of the existing project to a 
        point, North 396174.35, East 831004.52, thence running 
        southeasterly about 198.49 feet along the west limit of the 
        existing project to the point of beginning.
          (10) New bedford and fairhaven harbor, massachusetts.--The 
        following portions of the project for navigation, New Bedford 
        and Fairhaven Harbor, Massachusetts:
                  (A) A portion of the 25-foot spur channel leading to 
                the west of Fish Island, authorized by the River and 
                Harbor Act of 3 March 1909, beginning at a point with 
                coordinates N232,173.77, E758,791.32, thence running 
                south 27 degrees 36 minutes 52.8 seconds west 38.2 feet 
                to a point N232,139.91, E758,773.61, thence running 
                south 87 degrees 35 minutes 31.6 seconds west 196.84 
                feet to a point N232,131.64, E758,576.94, thence 
                running north 47 degrees 47 minutes 48.4 seconds west 
                502.72 feet to a point N232,469.35, E758,204.54, thence 
                running north 10 degrees 10 minutes 20.3 seconds west 
                438.88 feet to a point N232,901.33, E758,127.03, thence 
                running north 79 degrees 49 minutes 43.1 seconds east 
                121.69 feet to a point N232,922.82, E758,246.81, thence 
                running south 04 degrees 29 minutes 17.6 seconds east 
                52.52 feet to a point N232,870.46, E758,250.92, thence 
                running south 23 degrees 56 minutes 11.2 seconds east 
                49.15 feet to a point N323,825.54, E758,270.86, thence 
                running south 79 degrees 49 minutes 27.0 seconds west 
                88.19 feet to a point N232,809.96, E758,184.06, thence 
                running south 10 degrees 10 minutes 25.7 seconds east 
                314.83 feet to a point N232,500.08, E758,239.67, thence 
                running south 56 degrees 33 minutes 56.1 seconds east 
                583.07 feet to a point N232,178.82, E758,726.25, thence 
                running south 85 degrees 33 minutes 16.0 seconds east 
                to the point of origin.
                  (B) A portion of the 30-foot west maneuvering basin, 
                authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 3 July 1930, 
                beginning at a point with coordinates N232,139.91, 
                E758,773.61, thence running north 81 degrees 49 minutes 
                30.1 seconds east 160.76 feet to a point N232,162.77, 
                E758.932.74, thence running north 85 degrees 33 minutes 
                16.0 seconds west 141.85 feet to a point N232,173.77, 
                E758,791.32, thence running south 27 degrees 36 minutes 
                52.8 seconds west to the point of origin.
  (b) Anchorage Area, Clinton Harbor, Connecticut.--That portion of the 
Clinton Harbor, Connecticut, navigation project referred to in 
subsection (a)(2) beginning at a point beginning: N158,444.58, 
E660,220.95, thence running north 79 degrees 37 minutes 14 seconds east 
833.31 feet to a point N158,594.72, E661,040.67, thence running south 
80 degrees 51 minutes 53 seconds east 181.21 feet to a point 
N158,565.95, E661,219.58, thence running north 57 degrees 38 minutes 04 
seconds west 126.02 feet to a point N158,633.41, E660,113.14, thence 
running south 79 degrees 37 minutes 14 seconds west 911.61 feet to a 
point N158,469.17, E660,216.44, thence running south 10 degrees 22 
minutes 46 seconds east 25 feet returning to a point N158,444.58, 
E660,220.95 is redesignated as an anchorage area.
  (c) Wells Harbor, Maine.--
          (1) Project modification.--The project for navigation, Wells 
        Harbor, Maine, navigation project referred to in subsection 
        (a)(7) is modified to authorize the Secretary to realign the 
        channel and anchorage areas based on a harbor design capacity 
        of 150 craft.
          (2) Redesignations.--
                  (A) 6-foot anchorage.--The following portions of the 
                project for navigation, Wells Harbor, Maine, navigation 
                project referred to in subsection (a)(7) shall be 
                redesignated as part of the 6-foot anchorage:
                          (i) The portion of the 6-foot channel the 
                        boundaries of which begin at a point with 
                        coordinates N177,990.91, E394,820.68, thence 
                        running south 83 degrees 58 minutes 40.8 
                        seconds west 94.65 feet to a point N177,980.98, 
                        E394,726.55, thence running south 11 degrees 46 
                        minutes 22.4 seconds west 962.83 feet to a 
                        point N177,038.40, E394,530.10, thence running 
                        south 78 degrees 13 minutes 45.7 seconds east 
                        90.00 feet to a point N177,020.04, E394,618.21, 
                        thence running north 11 degrees 46 minutes 47.7 
                        seconds east 991.76 feet to the point of 
                        origin.
                          (ii) The portion of the 10-foot inner harbor 
                        settling basin the boundaries of which begin at 
                        a point with coordinates N177,020.04, 
                        E394,618.21, thence running north 78 degrees 13 
                        minutes 30.5 seconds west 160.00 feet to a 
                        point N177,052.69, E394,461.58, thence running 
                        south 11 degrees 46 minutes 45.4 seconds west 
                        299.99 feet to a point N176,759.02, 
                        E394,400.34, thence running south 78 degrees 13 
                        minutes 17.9 seconds east 160 feet to a point 
                        N176,726.36, E394,556.97, thence running north 
                        11 degrees 46 minutes 44.0 seconds east 300.00 
                        feet to the point of origin.
                  (B) 6-foot channel.--The following portion of the 
                project for navigation, Wells Harbor, Maine, navigation 
                project referred to in subsection (a)(7) shall be 
                redesignated as part of the 6-foot channel: the portion 
                of the 6-foot anchorage the boundaries of which begin 
                at a point with coordinates N178,102.26, E394,751.83, 
                thence running south 51 degrees 59 minutes 42.1 seconds 
                west 526.51 feet to a point N177,778.07, E394,336.96, 
                thence running south 11 degrees 46 minutes 26.6 seconds 
                west 511.83 feet to a point N177,277.01, E394,232.52, 
                thence running south 78 degrees 13 minutes 17.9 seconds 
                east 80.00 feet to a point N177,260.68, E394,310.84, 
                thence running north 11 degrees 46 minutes 24.8 seconds 
                east 482.54 feet to a point N177,733.07, E394,409.30, 
                thence running north 51 degrees 59 minutes 41.0 seconds 
                east 402.63 feet to a point N177,980.98, E394,726.55, 
                thence running north 11 degrees 46 minutes 27.6 seconds 
                east 123.89 feet to the point of origin.
          (3) Realignment.--The 6-foot anchorage area described in 
        paragraph (2)(B) shall be realigned to include the area located 
        south of the inner harbor settling basin in existence on the 
        date of enactment of this Act beginning at a point with 
        coordinates N176,726.36, E394,556.97, thence running north 78 
        degrees 13 minutes 17.9 seconds west 160.00 feet to a point 
        N176,759.02, E394,400.34, thence running south 11 degrees 47 
        minutes 03.8 seconds west 45 feet to a point N176,714.97, 
        E394,391.15, thence running south 78 degrees 13 minutes 17.9 
        seconds 160.00 feet to a point N176,682.31, E394,547.78, thence 
        running north 11 degrees 47 minutes 03.8 seconds east 45 feet 
        to the point of origin.
          (4) Relocation.--The Secretary may relocate the settling 
        basin feature of the project for navigation, Wells Harbor, 
        Maine, navigation project referred to in subsection (a)(7) to 
        the outer harbor between the jetties.
  (d) Anchorage Area, Green Harbor, Massachusetts.--The portion of the 
Green Harbor, Massachusetts, navigation project referred to in 
subsection (a)(9) consisting of a 6-foot deep channel that lies 
northerly of a line whose coordinates are North 394825.00, East 
831660.00 and North 394779.28, East 831570.64 is redesignated as an 
anchorage area.

SEC. 365. AMERICAN AND SACRAMENTO RIVERS, CALIFORNIA.

  (a) In General.--The project for flood damage reduction, American and 
Sacramento Rivers, California, authorized by section 101(a)(1) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3662-3663), is 
modified to direct the Secretary to include the following improvements 
as part of the overall project:
          (1) Raising the left bank of the non-Federal levee upstream 
        of the Mayhew Drain for a distance of 4,500 feet by an average 
        of 2.5 feet.
          (2) Raising the right bank of the American River levee from 
        1,500 feet upstream to 4,000 feet downstream of the Howe Avenue 
        bridge by an average of 1 feet.
          (3) Modifying the south levee of the Natomas Cross Canal for 
        a distance of 5 miles to ensure that the south levee is 
        consistent with the level of protection provided by the 
        authorized levee along the east bank of the Sacramento River.
          (4) Modifying the north levee of the Natomas Cross Canal for 
        a distance of 5 miles to ensure that the height of the levee is 
        equivalent to the height of the south levee as authorized by 
        paragraph (3).
          (5) Installing gates to the existing Mayhew Drain culvert and 
        pumps to prevent backup of floodwater on the Folsom Boulevard 
        side of the gates.
          (6) Installation of a slurry wall in the north levee of the 
        American River from the east levee of the Natomas east Main 
        Drain upstream for a distance of approximately 1.2 miles.
          (7) Installation of a slurry wall in the north levee of the 
        American River from 300 feet west of Jacob Lane north for a 
        distance of approximately 1 mile to the end of the existing 
        levee.
  (b) Cost Limitations.--Section 101(a)(1)(A) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3662) is amended by striking ``at a 
total cost of'' and all that follows through ``$14,225,000,'' and 
inserting the following: ``at a total cost of $91,900,000, with an 
estimated Federal cost of $68,925,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
of $22,975,000,''.
  (c) Cost Sharing.--For purposes of section 103 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213), the modifications authorized 
by this section shall be subject to the same cost sharing in effect for 
the project for flood damage reduction, American and Sacramento Rivers, 
California, authorized by section 101(a)(1) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3662).

SEC. 366. MARTIN, KENTUCKY.

  The project for flood control, Martin, Kentucky, authorized by 
section 202(a) of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 
1981 (94 Stat. 1339) is modified to authorize the Secretary to take all 
necessary measures to prevent future losses that would occur from a 
flood equal in magnitude to a 100-year frequency event.

                           TITLE IV--STUDIES

SEC. 401. UPPER MISSISSIPPI AND ILLINOIS RIVERS LEVEES AND STREAMBANKS 
                    PROTECTION.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study of erosion damage to levees and 
infrastructure on the upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers and the 
impact of increased barge and pleasure craft traffic on deterioration 
of levees and other flood control structures on such rivers.

SEC. 402. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

  (a) Development.--The Secretary shall develop a plan to address water 
and related land resources problems and opportunities in the Upper 
Mississippi and Illinois River Basins, extending from Cairo, Illinois, 
to the headwaters of the Mississippi River, in the interest of systemic 
flood damage reduction by means of a mixture of structural and 
nonstructural flood control and floodplain management strategies, 
continued maintenance of the navigation project, management of bank 
caving and erosion, watershed nutrient and sediment management, habitat 
management, recreation needs, and other related purposes.
  (b) Contents.--The plan shall contain recommendations on future 
management plans and actions to be carried out by the responsible 
Federal and non-Federal entities and shall specifically address 
recommendations to authorize construction of a systemic flood control 
project in accordance with a plan for the Upper Mississippi River. The 
plan shall include recommendations for Federal action where appropriate 
and recommendations for follow-on studies for problem areas for which 
data or current technology does not allow immediate solutions.
  (c) Consultation and Use of Existing Data.--The Secretary shall 
consult with appropriate State and Federal agencies and shall make 
maximum use of existing data and ongoing programs and efforts of States 
and Federal agencies in developing the plan.
  (d) Cost Sharing.--Development of the plan under this section shall 
be at Federal expense. Feasibility studies resulting from development 
of such plan shall be subject to cost sharing under section 105 of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2215).
  (e) Report.--The Secretary shall submit a report that includes the 
comprehensive plan to the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure of the House ofRepresentatives and the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works of the Senate not later than 3 years after 
the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 403. EL DORADO, UNION COUNTY, ARKANSAS.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
improvements to regional water supplies for El Dorado, Union County, 
Arkansas.

SEC. 404. SWEETWATER RESERVOIR, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study of the potential water quality 
problems and pollution abatement measures in the watershed in and 
around Sweetwater Reservoir, San Diego County, California.

SEC. 405. WHITEWATER RIVER BASIN, CALIFORNIA.

  The Secretary shall undertake and complete a feasibility study for 
flood damage reduction in the Whitewater River basin, California, and, 
based upon the results of such study, give priority consideration to 
including the recommended project, including the Salton Sea wetlands 
restoration project, in the flood mitigation and riverine restoration 
pilot program authorized in section 214 of this Act.

SEC. 406. LITTLE ECONLACKHATCHEE RIVER BASIN, FLORIDA.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study of pollution abatement measures 
in the Little Econlackhatchee River basin, Florida.

SEC. 407. PORT EVERGLADES INLET, FLORIDA.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a sand bypass project at Port Everglades Inlet, Florida.

SEC. 408. UPPER DES PLAINES RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, ILLINOIS AND 
                    WISCONSIN.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary is directed to conduct a study of the 
upper Des Plaines River and tributaries, Illinois and Wisconsin, 
upstream of the confluence with Salt Creek at Riverside, Illinois, to 
determine the feasibility of improvements in the interests of flood 
damage reduction, environmental restoration and protection, water 
quality, recreation, and related purposes.
  (b) Special Rule.--In conducting the study, the Secretary may not 
exclude from consideration and evaluation flood damage reduction 
measures based on restrictive policies regarding the frequency of 
flooding, drainage area, and amount of runoff.

SEC. 409. CAMERON PARISH WEST OF CALCASIEU RIVER, LOUISIANA.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for storm damage reduction and environmental 
restoration, Cameron Parish west of Calcasieu River, Louisiana.

SEC. 410. GRAND ISLE AND VICINITY, LOUISIANA.

  In carrying out a study of the storm damage reduction benefits to 
Grand Isle and vicinity, Louisiana, the Secretary shall include 
benefits that a storm damage reduction project for Grand Isle and 
vicinity, Louisiana, may have on the mainland coast of Louisiana as 
project benefits attributable to the Grand Isle project.

SEC. 411. LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN SEAWALL, LOUISIANA.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary shall complete a post-authorization 
change report on the project for hurricane-flood protection, Lake 
Pontchartrain, Louisiana, and vicinity, authorized by section 204 of 
the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1077), to incorporate and 
accomplish structural modifications to the seawall fronting protection 
along the south shore of Lake Pontchartrain from the New Basin Canal on 
the west to the Inner harbor Navigation Canal on the east.
  (b) Report.--The Secretary shall ensure expeditious completion of the 
post-authorization change report required by subsection (a) not later 
than 180 days after the date of enactment of this section.

SEC. 412. WESTPORT, MASSACHUSETTS.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a navigation project for the town of Westport, 
Massachusetts, and the possible beneficial uses of dredged material for 
shoreline protection and storm damage reduction in the area. In 
determining the benefits of the project, the Secretary shall include 
the benefits derived from using dredged material for shoreline 
protection and storm damage reduction.

SEC. 413. SOUTHWEST VALLEY, ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO.

  The Secretary shall undertake and complete a feasibility study for 
flood damage reduction in the Southwest Valley, Albuquerque, New 
Mexico, and, based upon the results of such study, give priority 
consideration to including the recommended project in the flood 
mitigation and riverine restoration pilot program authorized in section 
214 of this Act.

SEC. 414. CAYUGA CREEK, NEW YORK.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for flood control for Cayuga Creek, New York.

SEC. 415. ARCOLA CREEK WATERSHED, MADISON, OHIO.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of a 
project to provide environmental restoration and protection for the 
Arcola Creek watershed, Madison, Ohio.

SEC. 416. WESTERN LAKE ERIE BASIN, OHIO, INDIANA, AND MICHIGAN.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to develop 
measures to improve flood control, navigation, water quality, 
recreation, and fish and wildlife habitat in a comprehensive manner in 
the western Lake Erie basin, Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan, including 
watersheds of the Maumee, Ottawa, and Portage Rivers.
  (b) Cooperation.--In carrying out the study, the Secretary shall 
cooperate with interested Federal, State, and local agencies and 
nongovernmental organizations and consider all relevant programs of 
such agencies.
  (c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 
this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the 
results of the study, including findings and recommendations.

SEC. 417. SCHUYLKILL RIVER, NORRISTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for flood control for Schuylkill River, 
Norristown, Pennsylvania, including improvement to existing stormwater 
drainage systems.

SEC. 418. LAKES MARION AND MOULTRIE, SOUTH CAROLINA.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for Lakes Marion and Moultrie to provide water 
supply, treatment, and distribution to Calhoun, Clarendon, Colleton, 
Dorchester, Orangeburg, and Sumter Counties, South Carolina.

SEC. 419. DAY COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA.

  The Secretary shall conduct an investigation of flooding and other 
water resources problems between the James River and Big Sioux 
watersheds in South Dakota and an assessment of flood damage reduction 
needs of the area.

SEC. 420. CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS.

  The Secretary shall include, as part of the study authorized in a 
resolution of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the 
House of Representatives, dated August 1, 1990, a review of two 175-
foot-wide barge shelves on either side of the navigation channel at the 
Port of Corpus Christi, Texas.

SEC. 421. MITCHELL'S CUT CHANNEL (CANEY FORK CUT), TEXAS.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for navigation, Mitchell's Cut Channel (Caney 
Fork Cut), Texas.

SEC. 422. MOUTH OF COLORADO RIVER, TEXAS.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for navigation at the mouth of the Colorado 
River, Texas, to provide a minimum draft navigation channel extending 
from the Colorado River through Parkers Cut (also known as ``Tiger 
Island Cut''), or an acceptable alternative, to Matagorda Bay.

SEC. 423. KANAWHA RIVER, FAYETTE COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
developing a public port along the Kanawha River in Fayette County, 
West Virginia, at a site known as ``Longacre''.

SEC. 424. WEST VIRGINIA PORTS.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
expanding public port development in West Virginia along the Ohio River 
and navigable portion of the Kanawha River from its mouth to river mile 
91.0

SEC. 425. GREAT LAKES REGION COMPREHENSIVE STUDY.

  (a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive study of the 
Great Lakes region to ensure the future use, management, and protection 
of water and related resources of the Great Lakes basin. Such study 
shall include a comprehensive management plan specifically for St. 
Clair River and Lake St. Clair.
  (b) Report.--Not later than 4 years after the date of enactment of 
this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report that includes the 
strategic plan for Corps of Engineers programs in the Great Lakes basin 
and details of proposed Corps of Engineers environmental, navigation, 
and flood damage reduction projects in the region.
  (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this section $1,400,000 for fiscal years 2000 
through 2003.

SEC. 426. NUTRIENT LOADING RESULTING FROM DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL.

  (a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of nutrient loading 
that occurs as a result of discharges of dredged material into open-
water sites in the Chesapeake Bay.
  (b) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of 
this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the 
results of the study.

SEC. 427. SANTEE DELTA FOCUS AREA, SOUTH CAROLINA.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study of the Santee Delta focus area, 
South Carolina, to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project 
for enhancing wetlands values and public recreational opportunities in 
the area.

                   TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

SEC. 501. CORPS ASSUMPTION OF NRCS PROJECTS.

  (a) Llagas Creek, California.--The Secretary is authorized to 
complete the remaining reaches of the Natural Resources Conservation 
Service's flood control project at Llagas Creek, California, undertaken 
pursuant to section 5 of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention 
Act (16 U.S.C. 1005), substantially in accordance with the Natural 
Resources Conservation Service watershed plan for Llagas Creek, 
Department of Agriculture, and in accordance with the requirements of 
local cooperation as specified in section 4 of such Act, at a total 
cost of $45,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $21,800,000 and 
an estimated non-Federal cost of $23,200,000.
  (b) Thornton Reservoir, Cook County, Illinois.--
          (1) In general.--The Thornton Reservoir project, an element 
        of the project for flood control, Chicagoland Underflow Plan, 
        Illinois, authorized by section 3(a)(5) of the Water Resources 
        Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4013), is modified to 
        authorize the Secretary to include additional permanent flood 
        control storage attributable to the Natural Resources 
        Conservation Service Thornton Reservoir (Structure 84), Little 
        Calumet River Watershed, Illinois, approved under the Watershed 
        Protection and Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
          (2) Cost sharing.--Costs for the Thornton Reservoir project 
        shall be shared in accordance with section 103 of the Water 
        Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213).
          (3) Transitional storage.--The Secretary of Agriculture may 
        cooperate with non-Federal interests to provide, on a 
        transitional basis, flood control storage for the Natural 
        Resources Conservation Service Thornton Reservoir (Structure 
        84) in the west lobe of the Thornton quarry in advance of 
        Corps' construction.
          (4) Crediting.--The Secretary may credit against the non-
        Federal share of the Thornton Reservoir project all design, 
        lands, easements, rights-of-way (as of the date of 
        authorization), and construction costs incurred by the non-
        Federal interests before the signing of the project cooperation 
        agreement.
          (5) Reevaluation report.--The Secretary shall determine the 
        credits authorized by paragraph (4) that are integral to the 
        Thornton Reservoir project and the current total project costs 
        based on a limited reevaluation report.

SEC. 502. CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE.

  Section 219(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 
Stat. 4836-4837) is amended by striking paragraphs (5) and (6) and 
inserting the following:
          ``(5) $25,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
        (c)(2);
          ``(6) $20,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
        (c)(9);
          ``(7) $30,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
        (c)(16); and
          ``(8) $30,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
        (c)(17).''.

SEC. 503. CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT DREDGING TECHNOLOGY.

  (a) Contaminated Sediment Dredging Project.--
          (1) Review.--The Secretary shall conduct a review of 
        innovative dredging technologies designed to minimize or 
        eliminate contamination of a water column upon removal of 
        contaminated sediments. The Secretary shall complete such 
        review by June 1, 2001.
          (2) Testing.--After completion of the review under paragraph 
        (1), the Secretary shall select the technology of those 
        reviewed that the Secretary determines will increase the 
        effectiveness of removing contaminated sediments and 
        significantly reduce contamination of the water column. Not 
        later than December 31, 2001, the Secretary shall enter into an 
        agreement with a public or private entity to test such 
        technology in the vicinity of Peoria Lakes, Illinois.
  (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this section $2,000,000.

SEC. 504. DAM SAFETY.

  (a) Assistance.--The Secretary is authorized to provide assistance to 
enhance dam safety at the following locations:
          (1) Healdsburg Veteran's Memorial Dam, California
          (2) Felix Dam, Pennsylvania
          (3) Kehly Run Dam, Pennsylvania
          (4) Owl Creek Reservoir, Pennsylvania
          (5) Sweet Arrow Lake Dam, Pennsylvania
  (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated $6,000,000 to carry out this section.

SEC. 505. GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS.

  Section 401(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (110 
Stat. 3763) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``Nonprofit 
public or private entities may contribute all or a portion of the non-
Federal share.''.

SEC. 506. SEA LAMPREY CONTROL MEASURES IN THE GREAT LAKES.

  (a) In General.--In conjunction with the Great Lakes Fishery 
Commission, the Secretary is authorized to undertake a program for the 
control of sea lampreys in and around waters of the Great Lakes. The 
program undertaken pursuant to this section may include projects which 
consist of either structural or nonstructural measures or a combination 
thereof.
  (b) Cost Sharing.--Projects carried out under this section on lands 
owned by the United States shall be carried out at full Federal 
expense. The non-Federal share of the cost of any such project 
undertaken on lands not in Federal ownership shall be 35 percent.
  (c) Non-Federal Interests.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the 
Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), the Secretary, after 
coordination with the appropriate State and local government officials 
having jurisdiction over an area in which a project under this section 
will be carried out, may allow a nonprofit entity to serve as the non-
Federal interest for the project.
  (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this section $2,000,000 for each of fiscal 
years 2000 through 2005.

SEC. 507. MAINTENANCE OF NAVIGATION CHANNELS.

  Section 509(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 
Stat. 3759) is amended by adding at the end the following:
          ``(12) Acadiana Navigation Channel, Louisiana.
          ``(13) Contraband Bayou, Louisiana, as part of the Calcasieu 
        River and Pass Ship Channel.
          ``(14) Lake Wallula Navigation Channel, Washington.
          ``(15) Wadley Pass (also known as McGriff Pass), Suwanee 
        River, Florida.''.

SEC. 508. MEASUREMENT OF LAKE MICHIGAN DIVERSIONS.

  Section 1142(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (42 
U.S.C. 1962d-20 note; 100 Stat. 4253) is amended by striking 
``$250,000'' and inserting ``$1,250,000''.

SEC. 509. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.

  (a) Authorized Activities.--Section 1103(e)(1) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 652(e)(1)) is amended--
          (1) by inserting ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
          (2) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``long-term resource 
        monitoring program; and'' and inserting ``long-term resource 
        monitoring, computerized data inventory and analysis, and 
        applied research program.''; and
          (3) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the following:
``In carrying out subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall establish an 
independent technical advisory committee to review projects, monitoring 
plans, and habitat and natural resource needs assessments.''.
  (b) Reports.--Section 1103(e)(2) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 652(e)(2)) is 
amended to read as follows:
          ``(2) Reports.--Not later than December 31, 2004, and not 
        later than December 31st of every sixth year thereafter, the 
        Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior 
        and the States of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and 
        Wisconsin, shall transmit to Congress a report that--
                  ``(A) contains an evaluation of the programs 
                described in paragraph (1);
                  ``(B) describes the accomplishments of each of such 
                programs;
                  ``(C) provides updates of a systemic habitat needs 
                assessment; and
                  ``(D) identifies any needed adjustments in the 
                authorization.''.
  (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 1103(e) of such Act (33 
U.S.C. 652(e)) is amended--
          (1) in paragraph (3) by striking ``not to exceed'' and all 
        that follows before the period at the end and inserting 
        ``$22,750,000 for fiscal year 1999 and each fiscal year 
        thereafter'';
          (2) in paragraph (4) by striking ``not to exceed'' and all 
        that follows before the period at the end and inserting 
        ``$10,420,000 for fiscal year 1999 and each fiscal year 
        thereafter''; and
          (3) by striking paragraph (5) and inserting the following:
          ``(5) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
        to be appropriated to carry out paragraph (1)(A) $350,000 for 
        each of fiscal years 1999 through 2009.''.
  (d) Transfer of Amounts.--Section 1103(e)(6) of such Act is amended 
to read as follows:
          ``(6) Transfer of amounts.--For fiscal year 1999, and each 
        fiscal year thereafter, the Secretary, in consultation with the 
        Secretary of the Interior and the States of Illinois, Iowa, 
        Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin, may transfer not to exceed 
        20 percent of the amounts appropriated to carry out 
        subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) to the amounts 
        appropriated to carry out the other of such subparagraphs.''.
  (e) Habitat Needs Assessment.--Section 1103(h)(2) of such Act (33 
U.S.C. 652(h)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``The 
Secretary shall complete the on-going habitat needs assessment 
conducted under this paragraph not later than September 30, 2000, and 
shall include in each report required by subsection (e)(2) the most 
recent habitat needs assessment conducted under this paragraph.''.
  (f) Conforming Amendments.--Section 1103 of such Act (33 U.S.C. 652) 
is amended--
          (1) in subsection (e)(7) by striking ``paragraphs (1)(B) and 
        (1)(C)'' and inserting ``paragraph (1)(B)''; and
          (2) in subsection (f)(2)--
                  (A) by striking ``(2)(A)'' and inserting ``(2)''; and
                  (B) by striking subparagraph (B).

SEC. 510. ATLANTIC COAST OF NEW YORK MONITORING.

  Section 404(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 
Stat. 4863) is amended by striking ``1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997'' 
and inserting ``1993 through 2003''.

SEC. 511. WATER CONTROL MANAGEMENT.

  (a) In General.--In evaluating potential improvements for water 
control management activities and consolidation of water control 
management centers, the Secretary may consider a regionalized water 
control management plan but may not implement such a plan until the 
date on which a report is transmitted under subsection (b).
  (b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of 
this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on Appropriations 
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate a report 
containing the following:
          (1) A description of the primary objectives of streamlining 
        water control management activities.
          (2) A description of the benefits provided by streamlining 
        water control management activities through consolidation of 
        centers for such activities.
          (3) A determination of whether or not benefits to users of 
        regional water control management centers will be retained in 
        each district office of the Corps of Engineers that does not 
        have a regional center.
          (4) A determination of whether or not users of such regional 
        centers will receive a higher level of benefits from 
        streamlining water management control management activities.
          (5) A list of the Members of Congress who represent a 
        district that currently includes a water control management 
        center that is to be eliminated under a proposed regionalized 
        plan.

SEC. 512. BENEFICIAL USE OF DREDGED MATERIAL.

  The Secretary is authorized to carry out the following projects under 
section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 
2326):
          (1) Bodega bay, california.--A project to make beneficial use 
        of dredged materials from a Federal navigation project in 
        Bodega Bay, California.
          (2) Sabine refuge, louisiana.--A project to make beneficial 
        use of dredged materials from Federal navigation projects in 
        the vicinity of Sabine Refuge, Louisiana.
          (3) Hancock, harrison, and jackson counties, mississippi.--A 
        project to make beneficial use of dredged material from a 
        Federal navigation project in Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson 
        Counties, Mississippi.
          (4) Rose city marsh, orange county, texas.--A project to make 
        beneficial use of dredged material from a Federal navigation 
        project in Rose City Marsh, Orange County, Texas.
          (5) Bessie heights marsh, orange county, texas.--A project to 
        make beneficial use of dredged material from a Federal 
        navigation project in Bessie Heights Marsh, Orange County, 
        Texas.

SEC. 513. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE.

  Section 507(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 
Stat. 3758) is amended to read as follows:
          ``(2) Expansion and improvement of Long Pine Run Dam and 
        associated water infrastructure in accordance with the 
        requirements of subsections (b) through (e) of section 313 of 
        the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4845) at 
        a total cost of $20,000,000.''.

SEC. 514. LOWER MISSOURI RIVER AQUATIC RESTORATION PROJECTS.

  (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after funds are made available 
for such purposes, the Secretary shall complete a comprehensive 
report--
          (1) identifying a general implementation strategy and overall 
        plan for environmental restoration and protection along the 
        Lower Missouri River between Gavins Point Dam and the 
        confluence of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers; and
          (2) recommending individual environmental restoration 
        projects that can be considered by the Secretary for 
        implementation under section 206 of the Water Resources 
        Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330; 110 Stat. 3679-3680).
  (b) Scope of Projects.--Any environmental restoration projects 
recommended under subsection (a) shall provide for such activities and 
measures as the Secretary determines to be necessary to protect and 
restore fish and wildlife habitat without adversely affecting private 
property rights or water related needs of the region surrounding the 
Missouri River, including flood control, navigation, and enhancement of 
water supply, and shall include some or all of the following 
components:
          (1) Modification and improvement of navigation training 
        structures to protect and restore fish and wildlife habitat.
          (2) Modification and creation of side channels to protect and 
        restore fish and wildlife habitat.
          (3) Restoration and creation of fish and wildlife habitat.
          (4) Physical and biological monitoring for evaluating the 
        success of the projects.
  (c) Coordination.--To the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary 
shall integrate projects carried out in accordance with this section 
with other Federal, tribal, and State restoration activities.
  (d) Cost Sharing.--The report under subsection (a) shall be 
undertaken at full Federal expense.

SEC. 515. AQUATIC RESOURCES RESTORATION IN THE NORTHWEST.

  (a) In General.--In cooperation with other Federal agencies, the 
Secretary is authorized to develop and implement projects for fish 
screens, fish passage devices, and other similar measures agreed to by 
non-Federal interests and relevant Federalagencies to mitigate adverse 
impacts associated with irrigation system water diversions by local 
governmental entities in the States of Oregon, Washington, Montana, and 
Idaho.
  (b) Procedure and Participation.--
          (1) Consultation requirement; use of existing data.--In 
        providing assistance under subsection (a), the Secretary shall 
        consult with other Federal, State, and local agencies and make 
        maximum use of data and studies in existence on the date of 
        enactment of this Act.
          (2) Participation by non-federal interests.--Participation by 
        non-Federal interests in projects under this section shall be 
        voluntary. The Secretary shall not take any action under this 
        section that will result in a non-Federal interest being held 
        financially responsible for an action under a project unless 
        the non-Federal interest has voluntarily agreed to participate 
        in the project.
  (c) Cost Sharing.--Projects carried out under this section on lands 
owned by the United States shall be carried out at full Federal 
expense. The non-Federal share of the cost of any such project 
undertaken on lands not in Federal ownership shall be 35 percent.
  (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 for fiscal years 
beginning after September 30, 1999.

SEC. 516. INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR WATERSHED RESTORATION.

  The Secretary shall use, and encourage the use of, innovative 
treatment technologies, including membrane technologies, for watershed 
and environmental restoration and protection projects involving water 
quality.

SEC. 517. ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION.

  (a) Atlanta, Georgia.--Section 219(c)(2) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835) is amended by inserting before 
the period ``and watershed restoration and development in the regional 
Atlanta watershed, including Big Creek and Rock Creek''.
  (b) Paterson and Passaic Valley, New Jersey.--Section 219(c)(9) of 
such Act (106 Stat. 4836) is amended to read as follows:
          ``(9) Paterson, passaic county, and passaic valley, new 
        jersey.--Drainage facilities to alleviate flooding problems on 
        Getty Avenue in the vicinity of St. Joseph's Hospital for the 
        City of Paterson, New Jersey, and Passaic County, New Jersey, 
        and innovative facilities to manage and treat additional flows 
        in the Passaic Valley, Passaic River basin, New Jersey.''.

SEC. 518. EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN PROJECTS.

  The Secretary shall expedite completion of the reports for the 
following projects and proceed directly to project planning, 
engineering, and design:
          (1) Arroyo Pasajero, San Joaquin River basin, California, 
        project for flood control.
          (2) Success Dam, Tule River, California, project for flood 
        control and water supply.
          (3) Alafia Channel, Tampa Harbor, Florida, project for 
        navigation.

SEC. 519. DOG RIVER, ALABAMA.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to establish, in 
cooperation with non-Federal interests, a pilot project to restore 
natural water depths in the Dog River, Alabama, between its mouth and 
the Interstate Route 10 crossing, and in the downstream portion of its 
principal tributaries.
  (b) Form of Assistance.--Assistance provided under subsection (a) 
shall be in the form of design and construction of water-related 
resource protection and development projects affecting the Dog River, 
including environmental restoration and recreational navigation.
  (c) Non-Federal Share.--The non-Federal share of the cost of the 
project carried out with assistance under this section shall be 90 
percent.
  (d) Lands, Easements, and Rights-of-Way.--The non-Federal sponsor 
provide all lands, easements, rights of way, relocations, and dredged 
material disposal areas including retaining dikes required for the 
project.
  (e) Operation Maintenance.--The non-Federal share of the cost of 
operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, or rehabilitation of the 
project carried out with assistance under this section shall be 100 
percent.
  (f) Credit Toward Non-Federal Share.--The value of the lands, 
easements, rights of way, relocations, and dredged material disposal 
areas, including retaining dikes, provided by the non-Federal sponsor 
shall be credited toward the non-Federal share.

SEC. 520. ELBA, ALABAMA.

  The Secretary is authorized to repair and rehabilitate a levee in the 
city of Elba, Alabama at a total cost of $12,900,000.

 SEC. 521. GENEVA, ALABAMA.

  The Secretary is authorized to repair and rehabilitate a levee in the 
city of Geneva, Alabama at a total cost of $16,600,000.

 SEC. 522. NAVAJO RESERVATION, ARIZONA, NEW MEXICO, AND UTAH.

  (a) In General.--In cooperation with other appropriate Federal and 
local agencies, the Secretary shall undertake a survey of, and provide 
technical, planning, and design assistance for, watershed management, 
restoration, and development on the Navajo Indian Reservation, Arizona, 
New Mexico, and Utah.
  (b) Cost Sharing.--The Federal share of the cost of activities 
carried out under this section shall be 75 percent. Funds made 
available under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance 
Act (25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.) may be used by the Navajo Nation in meeting 
the non-Federal share of the cost of such activities.
  (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this section $12,000,000 for fiscal years 
beginning after September 30, 1999.

SEC. 523. AUGUSTA AND DEVALLS BLUFF, ARKANSAS.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to perform operations, 
maintenance, and rehabilitation on 37 miles of levees in and around 
Augusta and Devalls Bluff, Arkansas.
  (b) Reimbursement.--After performing the operations, maintenance, and 
rehabilitation under subsection (a), the Secretary shall seek 
reimbursement from the Secretary of the Interior of an amount equal to 
the costs allocated to benefits to a Federal wildlife refuge of such 
operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation.

SEC. 524. BEAVER LAKE, ARKANSAS.

  (a) Water Supply Storage Reallocation.--The Secretary shall 
reallocate approximately 31,000 additional acre-feet at Beaver Lake, 
Arkansas, to water supply storage at no additional cost to the Beaver 
Water District or the Carroll-Boone Water District above the amount 
that has already been contracted for. At no time may the bottom of the 
conservation pool be at an elevation that is less than 1,076 feet NGVD.
  (b) Contract Pricing.--The contract price for additional storage for 
the Carroll-Boone Water District beyond that which is provided for in 
subsection (a) shall be based on the original construction cost of 
Beaver Lake and adjusted to the 1998 price level net of inflation 
between the date of initiation of construction and the date of 
enactment of this Act.

SEC. 525. BEAVER LAKE TROUT PRODUCTION FACILITY, ARKANSAS.

  (a) Expedited Construction.--The Secretary shall construct, under the 
authority of section 105 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 
(90 Stat. 2921) and section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1986 (100 Stat. 4251-4252), the Beaver Lake trout hatchery as 
expeditiously as possible, but in no event later than September 30, 
2002.
  (b) Mitigation Plan.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in conjunction with the State of 
Arkansas, shall prepare a plan for the mitigation of effects of the 
Beaver Dam project on Beaver Lake. Such plan shall provide for 
construction of the Beaver Lake trout production facility and related 
facilities.

SEC. 526. CHINO DAIRY PRESERVE, CALIFORNIA.

  (a) Technical Assistance.--The Secretary, in coordination with the 
heads of other Federal agencies, shall provide technical assistance to 
State and local agencies in the study, design, and implementation of 
measures for flood damage reduction and environmental restoration and 
protection in the Santa Ana River watershed, California, with 
particular emphasis on structural and nonstructural measures in the 
vicinity of the Chino Dairy Preserve.
  (b) Comprehensive Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a feasibility 
study to determine the most cost-effective plan for flood damage 
reduction and environmental restoration and protection in the vicinity 
of the Chino Dairy Preserve, Santa Ana River watershed, Orange County 
and San Bernardino County, California.

SEC. 527. NOVATO, CALIFORNIA.

  The Secretary shall carry out a project for flood control under 
section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s) at Rush 
Creek, Novato, California.

SEC. 528. ORANGE AND SAN DIEGO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.

  The Secretary, in cooperation with local governments, may prepare 
special area management plans in Orange and San Diego Counties, 
California, to demonstrate the effectiveness of using such plans to 
provide information regarding aquatic resources. The Secretary may use 
such plans in making regulatory decisions and issue permits consistent 
with such plans.

SEC. 529. SALTON SEA, CALIFORNIA.

  (a) Technical Assistance.--The Secretary, in coordination with other 
Federal agencies, shall provide technical assistance to Federal, State, 
and local agencies in the study, design, and implementation of measures 
for the environmental restoration and protection of the Salton Sea, 
California.
  (b) Study.--The Secretary, in coordination with other Federal, State, 
and local agencies, shall conduct a study to determine the most 
effective plan for the Corps of Engineers to assist in the 
environmental restoration and protection of the Salton Sea, California.

SEC. 530. SANTA CRUZ HARBOR, CALIFORNIA.

  The Secretary is authorized to modify the cooperative agreement with 
the Santa Cruz Port District, California, to reflect unanticipated 
additional dredging effort and to extend such agreement for 10 years.

SEC. 531. POINT BEACH, MILFORD, CONNECTICUT.

  (a) Maximum Federal Expenditure.--The maximum amount of Federal funds 
that may be expended for the project for hurricane and storm damage 
reduction, Point Beach, Milford, Connecticut, shall be $3,000,000.
  (b) Revision of Project Cooperation Agreement.--The Secretary shall 
revise the project cooperation agreement for the project referred to in 
subsection (a) to take into account the change in the Federal 
participation in such project.
  (c) Cost Sharing.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to 
affect any cost-sharing requirement applicable to the project referred 
to in subsection (a) under section 101 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 (31 U.S.C. 2211).

SEC. 532. LOWER ST. JOHNS RIVER BASIN, FLORIDA.

  (a) Computer Model.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary may apply the computer model 
        developed under the St. Johns River basin feasibility study to 
        assist non-Federal interests in developing strategies for 
        improving water quality in the Lower St. Johns River basin, 
        Florida.
          (2) Cost sharing.--The non-Federal share of the cost of 
        assistance provided under this subsection shall be 50 percent.
  (b) Topographic Survey.--The Secretary is authorized to provide 1-
foot contour topographic survey maps of the Lower St. Johns River 
basin, Florida, to non-Federal interests for analyzing environmental 
data and establishing benchmarks for subbasins.

SEC. 533. SHORELINE PROTECTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, LAKE 
                    ALLATOONA, GEORGIA.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the Administrator 
of the Environmental Protection Agency, is authorized to carry out the 
following water-related environmental restoration and resource 
protection activities to restore Lake Allatoona and the Etowah River in 
Georgia:
          (1) Lake allatoona/etowah river shoreline restoration 
        design.--Develop pre-construction design measures to alleviate 
        shoreline erosion and sedimentation problems.
          (2) Little river environmental restoration.--Conduct a 
        feasibility study to evaluate environmental problems and 
        recommend environmental infrastructure restoration measures for 
        the Little River within Lake Allatoona, Georgia.
  (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1999--
          (1) $850,000 to carry out subsection (a)(1); and
          (2) $250,000 to carry out subsection (a)(2).

SEC. 534. MAYO'S BAR LOCK AND DAM, COOSA RIVER, ROME, GEORGIA.

  The Secretary is authorized to provide technical assistance, 
including planning, engineering, and design assistance, for the 
reconstruction of the Mayo's Bar Lock and Dam, Coosa River, Rome, 
Georgia. The non-Federal share of assistance under this section shall 
be 50 percent.

SEC. 535. COMPREHENSIVE FLOOD IMPACT RESPONSE MODELING SYSTEM, 
                    CORALVILLE RESERVOIR AND IOWA RIVER WATERSHED, 
                    IOWA.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the University of 
Iowa, shall conduct a study and develop a Comprehensive Flood Impact 
Response Modeling System for Coralville Reservoir and the Iowa River 
watershed, Iowa.
  (b) Contents of Study.--The study shall include--
          (1) an evaluation of the combined hydrologic, geomorphic, 
        environmental, economic, social, and recreational impacts of 
        operating strategies within the Iowa River watershed;
          (2) development of an integrated, dynamic flood impact model; 
        and
          (3) development of a rapid response system to be used during 
        flood and other emergency situations.
  (c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 5 years after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a 
report containing the results of the study and modeling system together 
with such recommendations as the Secretary determines to be 
appropriate.
  (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this section $900,000 for each of fiscal 
years 2000 through 2004.

SEC. 536. ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE IN ILLINOIS.

  The Secretary may carry out the project for Georgetown, Illinois, and 
the project for Olney, Illinois, referred to in House Report Number 
104-741, accompanying Public Law 104-182.

SEC. 537. KANOPOLIS LAKE, KANSAS.

  (a) Water Storage.--The Secretary shall offer to the State of Kansas 
the right to purchase water storage in Kanopolis Lake, Kansas, at a 
price calculated in accordance with and in a manner consistent with the 
terms of the memorandum of understanding entitled ``Memorandum of 
Understanding Between the State of Kansas and the U.S. Department of 
the Army Concerning the Purchase of Municipal and Industrial Water 
Supply Storage'', dated December 11, 1985.
  (b) Effective Date.--For the purposes of this section, the effective 
date of that memorandum of understanding shall be deemed to be the date 
of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 538. SOUTHERN AND EASTERN KENTUCKY.

  Section 531(h) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 
Stat. 3774) is amended by striking ``$10,000,000'' and inserting 
``$25,000,000''.

SEC. 539. SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA.

  Section 533(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 
Stat. 3775) is amended by striking ``$100,000,000'' and inserting 
``$200,000,000''.

SEC. 540. SNUG HARBOR, MARYLAND.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary, in coordination with the Director of 
the Federal Emergency Management Agency, is authorized--
          (1) to provide technical assistance to the residents of Snug 
        Harbor, in the vicinity of Berlin, Maryland, for purposes of 
        flood damage reduction;
          (2) to conduct a study of a project for nonstructural 
        measures for flood damage reduction in the vicinity of Snug 
        Harbor, Maryland, taking into account the relationship of both 
        the Ocean City Inlet and Assateague Island to the flooding; and
          (3) after completion of the study, to carry out the project 
        under the authority of section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 
        1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s).
  (b) FEMA Assistance.--The Director, in coordination with the 
Secretary and under the authorities of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 note), may provide 
technical assistance and nonstructural measures for flood damage 
mitigation in the vicinity of Snug Harbor, Maryland.
  (c) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of assistance under 
this section shall not exceed $3,000,000. The non-Federal share of such 
cost shall be determined in accordance with the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 or the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
Emergency Assistance Act, as appropriate.

SEC. 541. WELCH POINT, ELK RIVER, CECIL COUNTY, AND CHESAPEAKE CITY, 
                    MARYLAND.

  (a) Spillage of Dredged Materials.--The Secretary shall carry out a 
study to determine if the spillage of dredged materials that were 
removed as part of the project for navigation, Inland Waterway from 
Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay, Delaware and Maryland, authorized by 
the first section of the Act of August 30, 1935 (49 Stat. 1030), is a 
significant impediment to vessels transiting the Elk Rivernear Welch 
Point, Maryland. If the Secretary determines that the spillage is an 
impediment to navigation, the Secretary may conduct such dredging as 
may be required to permit navigation on the river.
  (b) Damage to Water Supply.--The Secretary shall carry out a study to 
determine if additional compensation is required to fully compensate 
the city of Chesapeake, Maryland, for damage to the city's water supply 
resulting from dredging of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal project. 
If the Secretary determines that such additional compensation is 
required, the Secretary may provide the compensation to the city of 
Chesapeake.

SEC. 542. WEST VIEW SHORES, CECIL COUNTY, MARYLAND.

  Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
Secretary shall carry out an investigation of the contamination of the 
well system in West View Shores, Cecil County, Maryland. If the 
Secretary determines that the disposal site from any Federal navigation 
project has contributed to the contamination of the wells, the 
Secretary may provide alternative water supplies, including replacement 
of wells, at full Federal expense.

SEC. 543. RESTORATION PROJECTS FOR MARYLAND, PENNSYLVANIA, AND WEST 
                    VIRGINIA.

  Section 539 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 
3776-3777) is amended--
          (1) in subsection (a)(1) by striking ``technical'';
          (2) in subsection (a)(1) by inserting ``(or in the case of 
        projects located on lands owned by the United States, to 
        Federal interests)'' after ``interests'';
          (3) in subsection (a)(3) by inserting ``or in conjunction'' 
        after ``consultation''; and
          (4) by inserting at the end of subsection (d) the following: 
        ``Funds authorized to be appropriated to carry out section 340 
        of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4856) 
        are authorized for projects undertaken under subsection 
        (a)(1)(B).''.

SEC. 544. CAPE COD CANAL RAILROAD BRIDGE, BUZZARDS BAY, MASSACHUSETTS.

  (a) Alternative Transportation.--The Secretary is authorized to 
provide up to $300,000 for alternative transportation that may arise as 
a result of the operation, maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation of 
the Cape Cod Canal Railroad Bridge.
  (b) Operation and Maintenance Contract Renegotiation.--Not later than 
60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 
enter into negotiation with the owner of the railroad right-of-way for 
the Cape Cod Canal Railroad Bridge for the purpose of establishing the 
rights and responsibities for the operation and maintenance of the 
Bridge. The Secretary is authorized to include in any new contract the 
termination of the prior contract numbered ER-W175-ENG-1.

SEC. 545. ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI.

  (a) Demonstration Project.--The Secretary, in consultation with local 
officials, shall conduct a demonstration project to improve water 
quality in the vicinity of St. Louis, Missouri.
  (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated $1,700,000 to carry out this section.

 SEC. 546. BEAVER BRANCH OF BIG TIMBER CREEK, NEW JERSEY.

  Upon request of the State of New Jersey or a political subdivision 
thereof, the Secretary may compile and disseminate information on 
floods and flood damages, including identification of areas subject to 
inundation by floods, and provide technical assistance regarding 
floodplain management for Beaver Branch of Big Timber Creek, New 
Jersey.

SEC. 547. LAKE ONTARIO AND ST. LAWRENCE RIVER WATER LEVELS, NEW YORK.

  Upon request, the Secretary shall provide technical assistance to the 
International Joint Commission and the St. Lawrence River Board of 
Control in undertaking studies on the effects of fluctuating water 
levels on the natural environment, recreational boating, property 
flooding, and erosion along the shorelines of Lake Ontario and the St. 
Lawrence River in New York. The Commission and Board are encouraged to 
conduct such studies in a comprehensive and thorough manner before 
implementing any change to water regulation Plan 1958-D.

SEC. 548. NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR, NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY.

  The Secretary may enter into cooperative agreements with non-Federal 
interests to investigate, develop, and support measures for sediment 
management and reduction of contaminant sources which affect navigation 
in the Port of New York-New Jersey and the environmental conditions of 
the New York-New Jersey Harbor estuary. Such investigation shall 
include an analysis of the economic and environmental benefits and 
costs of potential sediment management and contaminant reduction 
measures.

SEC. 549. SEA GATE REACH, CONEY ISLAND, NEW YORK, NEW YORK.

  The Secretary is authorized to construct a project for shoreline 
protection which includes a beachfill with revetment and T-groin for 
the Sea Gate Reach on Coney Island, New York, as identified in the 
March 1998 report prepared for the Corps of Engineers, New York 
District, entitled ``Field Data Gathering, Project Performance Analysis 
and Design Alternative Solutions to Improve Sandfill Retention'', at a 
total cost of $9,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $5,850,000 
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,150,000.

SEC. 550. WOODLAWN, NEW YORK.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary shall provide planning, design, and 
other technical assistance to non-Federal interests for identifying and 
mitigating sources of contamination at Woodlawn Beach in Woodlawn, New 
York.
  (b) Cost Sharing.--The non-Federal share of the cost of assistance 
provided under this section shall be 50 percent.

SEC. 551. FLOODPLAIN MAPPING, NEW YORK.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary shall provide assistance for a project 
to develop maps identifying 100- and 500-year flood inundation areas in 
the State of New York.
  (b) Requirements.--Maps developed under the project shall include 
hydrologic and hydraulic information and shall accurately show the 
flood inundation of each property by flood risk in the floodplain. The 
maps shall be produced in a high resolution format and shall be made 
available to all flood prone areas in the State of New York in an 
electronic format.
  (c) Participation of FEMA.--The Secretary and the non-Federal sponsor 
of the project shall work with the Director of the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency to ensure the validity of the maps developed under 
the project for flood insurance purposes.
  (d) Forms of Assistance.--In carrying out the project, the Secretary 
may enter into contracts or cooperative agreements with the non-Federal 
sponsor or provide reimbursements of project costs.
  (e) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of the project 
shall be 75 percent.
  (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this section $12,000,000 for fiscal years 
beginning after September 30, 1998.

SEC. 552. WHITE OAK RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine if water quality 
deterioration and sedimentation of the White Oak River, North Carolina, 
are the result of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway navigation 
project. If the Secretary determines that the water quality 
deterioration and sedimentation are the result of the project, the 
Secretary shall take appropriate measures to mitigate the deterioration 
and sedimentation.

SEC. 553. TOUSSAINT RIVER, CARROLL TOWNSHIP, OTTAWA COUNTY, OHIO.

  The Secretary is authorized to provide technical assistance for the 
removal of military ordnance from the Toussaint River, Carroll 
Township, Ottawa County, Ohio.

SEC. 554. SARDIS RESERVOIR, OKLAHOMA.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary shall accept from the State of 
Oklahoma or an agent of the State an amount, as determined under 
subsection (b), as prepayment of 100 percent of the water supply cost 
obligation of the State under Contract No. DACW56-74-JC-0314 for water 
supply storage at Sardis Reservoir, Oklahoma.
  (b) Determination of Amount.--The amount to be paid by the State of 
Oklahoma under subsection (a) shall be subject to adjustment in 
accordance with accepted discount purchase methods for Federal 
Government properties as determined by an independent accounting firm 
designated by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. The 
cost of such determination shall be paid for by the State of Oklahoma 
or an agent of the State.
  (c) Effect.--Nothing in this section affects any of the rights or 
obligations of the parties to the contract referred to in subsection 
(a).

SEC. 555. WAURIKA LAKE, OKLAHOMA, WATER CONVEYANCE FACILITIES.

  For the project for construction of the water conveyances authorized 
by the first section of Public Law 88-253 (77 Stat. 841), the 
requirement for the Waurika Project Master Conservancy District to 
repay the $2,900,000 in costs (including interest) resulting from the 
October 1991 settlement of the claim before the United States Claims 
Court, and the payment of $1,190,451 of the final cost representing the 
difference between the 1978 estimate of cost and the actual cost 
determined after completion of such project in 1991, are waived.

SEC. 556. SKINNER BUTTE PARK, EUGENE, OREGON.

  (a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of the south bank of 
the Willamette River, in the area of Skinner Butte Park from Ferry 
Street Bridge to the Valley River footbridge, to determine the 
feasibility of carrying out a project to stabilize the river bank, and 
to restore and enhance riverine habitat, using a combination of 
structural and bioengineering techniques.
  (b) Construction.--If, upon completion of the study, the Secretary 
determines that the project is feasible, the Secretary shall 
participate with non-Federal interests in the construction of the 
project.
  (c) Cost Share.--The non-Federal share of the cost of the project 
shall be 35 percent.
  (d) Lands, Easements, and Rights-of-Way.--The non-Federal interest 
shall provide lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and dredged 
material disposal areas necessary for construction of the project. The 
value of such items shall be credited toward the non-Federal share of 
the cost of the project.
  (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this section $1,000,000 for fiscal years 
beginning after September 30, 1999.

SEC. 557. WILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN, OREGON.

  The Secretary, Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and heads of 
other appropriate Federal agencies shall, using existing authorities, 
assist the State of Oregon in developing and implementing a 
comprehensive basin-wide strategy in the Willamette River basin of 
Oregon for coordinated and integrated management of land and water 
resources to improve water quality, reduce flood hazards, ensure 
sustainable economic activity, and restore habitat for native fish and 
wildlife. The heads of such Federal agencies may provide technical 
assistance, staff and financial support for development of the basin-
wide management strategy. The heads of Federal agencies shall seek to 
exercise flexibility in administrative actions and allocation of 
funding to reduce barriers to efficient and effective implementing of 
the strategy.

SEC. 558. BRADFORD AND SULLIVAN COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA.

  The Secretary is authorized to provide assistance for water-related 
environmental infrastructure and resource protection and development 
projects in Bradford and Sullivan Counties, Pennsylvania, using the 
funds and authorities provided in title I of the Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-245) under the 
heading ``Construction, General'' (112 Stat. 1840) for similar projects 
in Lackawanna, Lycoming, Susquehanna, Wyoming, Pike, and Monroe 
Counties, Pennsylvania.

SEC. 559. ERIE HARBOR, PENNSYLVANIA.

  The Secretary may reimburse the appropriate non-Federal interest not 
more than $78,366 for architect and engineering costs incurred in 
connection with the Erie Harbor basin navigation project, Pennsylvania.

SEC. 560. POINT MARION LOCK AND DAM, PENNSYLVANIA.

  The project for navigation, Point Marion Lock and Dam, Borough of 
Point Marion, Pennsylvania, as authorized by section 301(a) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4110), is modified 
to direct the Secretary, in the operation and maintenance of the 
project, to mitigate damages to the shoreline, at a total cost of 
$2,000,000. The cost of the mitigation shall be allocated as an 
operation and maintenance cost of a Federal navigation project.

SEC. 561. SEVEN POINTS' HARBOR, PENNSYLVANIA.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized, at full Federal 
expense, to construct a breakwater-dock combination at the entrance to 
Seven Points' Harbor, Pennsylvania.
  (b) Operation and Maintenance Costs.--All operation and maintenance 
costs associated with the facility constructed under this section shall 
be the responsibility of the lessee of the marina complex at Seven 
Points' Harbor.
  (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated $850,000 to carry out this section.

SEC. 562. SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA.

  Section 566(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 
Stat. 3786) is amended by inserting ``environmental restoration,'' 
after ``water supply and related facilities,''.

SEC. 563. UPPER SUSQUEHANNA-LACKAWANNA WATERSHED RESTORATION 
                    INITIATIVE.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary, in cooperation with appropriate 
Federal, State, and local agencies and nongovernmental institutions, is 
authorized to prepare a watershed plan for the Upper Susquehanna-
Lackawanna Watershed (USGS Cataloguing Unit 02050107). The plan shall 
utilize geographic information system and shall include a comprehensive 
environmental assessment of the watershed's ecosystem, a comprehensive 
flood plain management plan, a flood plain protection plan, water 
resource and environmental restoration projects, water quality 
improvement, and other appropriate infrastructure and measures.
  (b) Non-Federal Share.--The non-Federal share of the cost of 
preparation of the plan under this section shall be 50 percent. 
Services and materials instead of cash may be credited toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of the plan.
  (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, 1999.

 SEC. 564. AGUADILLA HARBOR, PUERTO RICO.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine if erosion and 
additional storm damage risks that exist in the vicinity of Aguadilla 
Harbor, Puerto Rico, are the result of a Federal navigation project. If 
the Secretary determines that such erosion and additional storm damage 
risks are the result of the project, the Secretary shall take 
appropriate measures to mitigate the erosion and storm damage.

SEC. 565. OAHE DAM TO LAKE SHARPE, SOUTH DAKOTA, STUDY.

  Section 441 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 
3747) is amended--
          (1) by inserting ``(a) Investigation.--'' before ``The 
        Secretary''; and
          (2) by adding at the end the following:
  ``(b) Report.--Not later than September 30, 1999, the Secretary shall 
transmit to Congress a report on the results of the investigation under 
this section. The report shall include the examination of financing 
options for regular maintenance and preservation of the lake. The 
report shall be prepared in coordination and cooperation with the 
Natural Resources Conservation Service, other Federal agencies, and 
State and local officials.''.

SEC. 566. INTEGRATED WATER MANAGEMENT PLANNING, TEXAS.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary, in cooperation with other Federal 
agencies and the State of Texas, shall provide technical, planning, and 
design assistance to non-Federal interests in developing integrated 
water management plans and projects that will serve the cities, 
counties, water agencies, and participating planning regions under the 
jurisdiction of the State of Texas.
  (b) Purposes of Assistance.--Assistance provided under subsection (a) 
shall be in support of non-Federal planning and projects for the 
following purposes:
          (1) Plan and develop integrated, near- and long-term water 
        management plans that address the planning region's water 
        supply, water conservation, and water quality needs.
          (2) Study and develop strategies and plans that restore, 
        preserve, and protect the State's and planning region's natural 
        ecosystems.
          (3) Facilitate public communication and participation.
          (4) Integrate such activities with other ongoing Federal and 
        State projects and activities associated with the State of 
        Texas water plan and the State of Texas legislation.
  (c) Cost Sharing.--The non-Federal share of the cost of assistance 
provided under subsection (a) shall be 50 percent, of which up to \1/2\ 
of the non-Federal share may be provided as in kind services.
  (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this section, $10,000,000 for the fiscal 
years beginning after September 30, 1999.

SEC. 567. BOLIVAR PENINSULA, JEFFERSON, CHAMBERS, AND GALVESTON 
                    COUNTIES, TEXAS.

  (a) Shore Protection Project.--The Secretary is authorized to design 
and construct a shore protection project between the south jetty of the 
Sabine PassChannel and the north jetty of the Galveston Harbor Entrance 
Channel in Jefferson, Chambers, and Galveston Counties, Texas, 
including beneficial use of dredged material from Federal navigation 
projects.
  (b) Applicability of Benefit-Cost Ratio Waiver Authority.--In 
evaluating and implementing the project, the Secretary shall allow the 
non-Federal interest to participate in the financing of the project in 
accordance with section 903(c) of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184), notwithstanding any limitation on the purpose 
of projects to which such section applies, to the extent that the 
Secretary's evaluation indicates that applying such section is 
necessary to implement the project.

SEC. 568. GALVESTON BEACH, GALVESTON COUNTY, TEXAS.

  The Secretary is authorized to design and construct a shore 
protection project between the Galveston South Jetty and San Luis Pass, 
Galveston County, Texas, using innovative nourishment techniques, 
including beneficial use of dredged material from Federal navigation 
projects.

SEC. 569. PACKERY CHANNEL, CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary shall construct a navigation and storm 
protection project at Packery Channel, Mustang Island, Texas, 
consisting of construction of a channel and a channel jetty and 
placement of sand along the length of the seawall.
  (b) Ecological and Recreational Benefits.--In evaluating the project, 
the Secretary shall include the ecological and recreational benefits of 
reopening the Packery Channel.
  (c) Applicability of Benefit-Cost Ratio Waiver Authority.--In 
evaluating and implementing the project, the Secretary shall allow the 
non-Federal interest to participate in the financing of the project in 
accordance with section 903(c) of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184), notwithstanding any limitation on the purpose 
of projects to which such section applies, to the extent that the 
Secretary's evaluation indicates that applying such section is 
necessary to implement the project.

SEC. 570. NORTHERN WEST VIRGINIA.

  The projects described in the following reports are authorized to be 
carried out by the Secretary substantially in accordance with the 
plans, and subject to the conditions, recommended in such reports:
          (1) Parkersburg, west virginia.--Report of the Corps of 
        Engineers entitled ``Parkersburg/Vienna Riverfront Park 
        Feasibility Study'', dated June 1998, at a total cost of 
        $8,400,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $4,200,000, and 
        an estimated non-Federal cost of $4,200,000.
          (2) Weirton, west virginia.--Report of the Corps of Engineers 
        entitled ``Feasibility Master Plan for Weirton Port and 
        Industrial Center, West Virginia Public Port Authority'', dated 
        December 1997, at a total cost of $18,000,000, with an 
        estimated Federal cost of $9,000,000, and an estimated non-
        Federal cost of $9,000,000.
          (3) Erickson/wood county, west virginia.--Report of the Corps 
        of Engineers entitled ``Feasibility Master Plan for Erickson/
        Wood County Port District, West Virginia Public Port 
        Authority'', dated July 7, 1997, at a total cost of 
        $28,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $14,000,000, and 
        an estimated non-Federal cost of $14,000,000.
          (4) Monongahela river, west virginia.--Monongahela River, 
        West Virginia, Comprehensive Study Reconnaissance Report, dated 
        September 1995, consisting of the following elements:
                  (A) Morgantown Riverfront Park, Morgantown, West 
                Virginia, at a total cost of $1,600,000, with an 
                estimated Federal cost of $800,000 and an estimated 
                non-Federal cost of $800,000.
                  (B) Caperton Rail to Trail, Monongahela County, West 
                Virginia, at a total cost of $4,425,000, with an 
                estimated Federal cost of $2,212,500 and an estimated 
                non-Federal cost of $2,212,500.
                  (C) Palatine Park, Fairmont, West Virginia, at a 
                total cost of $1,750,000, with an estimated Federal 
                cost of $875,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
                $875,000.

SEC. 571. URBANIZED PEAK FLOOD MANAGEMENT RESEARCH.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary shall develop and implement a research 
program to evaluate opportunities to manage peak flood flows in 
urbanized watersheds located in the State of New Jersey.
  (b) Scope of Research.--The research program authorized by subsection 
(a) shall be accomplished through the New York District. The research 
shall specifically include the following:
          (1) Identification of key factors in urbanized watersheds 
        that are under development and impact peak flows in the 
        watersheds and downsteam of the watersheds.
          (2) Development of peak flow management models for 4 to 6 
        watersheds in urbanized areas located with widely differing 
        geology, areas, shapes, and soil types that can be used to 
        determine optimal flow reduction factors for individual 
        watersheds.
          (3) Utilization of such management models to determine 
        relationships between flow and reduction factors and change in 
        imperviousness, soil types, shape of the drainage basin, and 
        other pertinent parameters from existing to ultimate conditions 
        in watersheds under consideration for development.
          (4) Development and validation of an inexpensive accurate 
        model to establish flood reduction factors based on runoff 
        curve numbers, change in imperviousness, the shape of the 
        basin, and other pertinent factors.
  (c) Report to Congress.--The Secretary shall evaluate policy changes 
in the planning process for flood control projects based on the results 
of the research authorized by this section and transmit to Congress a 
report not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
  (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carryout this section $3,000,000 for fiscal years 
beginning after September 30, 1999.
  (e) Flow Reduction Factors Defined.--In this section, the term ``flow 
reduction factors'' means the ratio of estimated allowable peak flows 
of stormwater after projected development when compared to pre-existing 
conditions.

SEC. 572. MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION.

  Section 8 of the Flood Control Act of May 15, 1928 (Public Law 391, 
70th Congress), is amended by striking ``$7,500'' and inserting 
``$21,500.''

SEC. 573. COASTAL AQUATIC HABITAT MANAGEMENT.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary may cooperate with the Secretaries of 
Agriculture and the Interior, the Administrators of the Environmental 
Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, other appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, 
and affected private entities, in the development of a management 
strategy to address problems associated with toxic microorganisms and 
the resulting degradation of ecosystems in the tidal and nontidal 
wetlands and waters of the United States for the States along the 
Atlantic Ocean. As part of such management strategy, the Secretary may 
provide planning, design, and other technical assistance to each 
participating State in the development and implementation of 
nonregulatory measures to mitigate environmental problems and restore 
aquatic resources.
  (b) Cost Sharing.--The Federal share of the cost of measures 
undertaken under this section shall not exceed 65 percent.
  (c) Operation and Maintenance.--The non-Federal share of operation 
and maintenance costs for projects constructed with assistance provided 
under this section shall be 100 percent.
  (d) Authorization of Appropriation.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this section $7,000,000 for fiscal years 
beginning after September 30, 1999.

SEC. 574. RECREATION USER FEES INITIATIVE.

  (a) In General.--During fiscal years 2000 through 2003, the Secretary 
may withhold from the special account established pursuant to section 
4(i)(1)(A) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 
U.S.C. 460l-6a(i)(1)(A)), 100 percent of the amount of receipts from 
fees collected at selected recreation sites under the administrative 
jurisdiction of the Department of the Army pursuant to section 4(b) of 
such Act (16 U.S.C. 460l-6a(b)). The amounts withheld shall be retained 
by the Secretary and shall be available for expenditure by the 
Secretary in accordance with the provisions of this section.
  (b) Use of Funds.--In order to increase the quality of the visitor 
experience at public recreational areas and to enhance the protection 
of resources, the amounts withheld pursuant to subsection (a) and 
available for expenditure may only be used for backlogged repair and 
maintenance projects (including projects relating to public health and 
safety) and for interpretation, signage, habitat or facility 
enhancement, resource preservation, annual operation and maintenance, 
and law enforcement related to public use.
  (c) Applicability.--The Secretary shall implement the authority under 
this section and evaluate the feasibility of retaining recreation fees 
at projects and facilities under the Secretary's jurisdiction at not 
more than 5 projects and facilities. In selecting projects and 
facilities under this section, the Secretary should seek to achieve 
geographic diversity. One of the projects and facilities selected shall 
be the Mississippi River Headwaters Recreation Areas, Minnesota.
  (d) Report.--Not later than December 31, 2003, the Secretary shall 
transmit to Congress a report on the results of implementing this 
section, together with recommendations concerning whether the authority 
under this section should be offered on a nationwide basis.

SEC. 575. ABANDONED AND INACTIVE NONCOAL MINE RESTORATION.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to provide technical, 
planning, and design assistance to Federal and non-Federal interests 
for carrying out projects to address water quality problems caused by 
drainage and related activities from abandoned and inactive noncoal 
mines.
  (b) Specific Measures.--Assistance provided under subsection (a) may 
be in support of projects for the following purposes:
          (1) Management of drainage from abandoned and inactive 
        noncoal mines.
          (2) Restoration and protection of streams, rivers, wetlands, 
        other waterbodies, and riparian areas degraded by drainage from 
        abandoned and inactive noncoal mines.
          (3) Demonstration of management practices and innovative and 
        alternative treatment technologies to minimize or eliminate 
        adverse environmental effects associated with drainage from 
        abandoned and inactive noncoal mines.
  (c) Non-Federal Share.--The non-Federal share of the cost of 
assistance under subsection (a) shall be 50 percent; except that the 
Federal share with respect to projects located on lands owned by the 
United States shall be 100 percent.
  (d) Effect on Authority of the Secretary of the Interior.--Nothing in 
this section shall be construed as affecting the authority of the 
Secretary of the Interior under title IV of the Surface Mining Control 
and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1231 et seq.).
  (e) Technology Database for Reclamation of Abandoned Mines.--The 
Secretary is authorized to provide assistance to non-Federal and non-
profit entities to develop, manage, and maintain a database of 
conventional and innovative, cost-effective technologies for 
reclamation of abandoned and inactive noncoal mine sites. Such 
assistance shall be provided through the rehabilitation of abandoned 
mine sites program, managed by the Sacramento District Office of the 
Corps of Engineers.
  (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000.

SEC. 576. BENEFICIAL USE OF WASTE TIRE RUBBER.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to conduct pilot 
projects to encourage the beneficial use of waste tire rubber, 
including crumb rubber, recycled from tires. Such beneficial use may 
include marine pilings, underwater framing, floating docks with built-
in flotation, utility poles, and other uses associated with 
transportation and infrastructure projects receiving Federal funds. The 
Secretary shall, when appropriate, encourage the use of waste tire 
rubber, including crumb rubber, in such federally funded projects.
  (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for fiscal years 
beginning after September 30, 1998.

SEC. 577. SITE DESIGNATION.

  Section 102(c)(4) of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries 
Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1412(c)(4)) is amended by striking ``January 1, 
2000'' and inserting ``January 1, 2005''.

SEC. 578. LAND CONVEYANCES.

  (a) Exchange of Land in Pike County, Missouri.--
          (1) Exchange of land.--Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), at 
        such time as Holnam Inc. conveys all right, title, and interest 
        in and to the land described in paragraph (2)(A) to the United 
        States, the Secretary shall convey all right, title, and 
        interest in the land described in paragraph (2)(B) to Holnam 
        Inc.
          (2) Description of lands.--The lands referred to in paragraph 
        (1) are the following:
                  (A) Non-federal land.--152.45 acres with existing 
                flowage easements situated in Pike County, Missouri, 
                described a portion of Government Tract Number FM-9 and 
                all of Government Tract Numbers FM-11, FM-10, FM-12, 
                FM-13, and FM-16, owned and administered by the Holnam 
                Inc.
                  (B) Federal land.--152.61 acres situated in Pike 
                County, Missouri, known as Government Tract Numbers FM-
                17 and a portion of FM-18, administered by the Corps of 
                Engineers.
          (3) Conditions of exchange.--The exchange of land authorized 
        by paragraph (1) shall be subject to the following conditions:
                  (A) Deeds.--
                          (i) Federal land.--The instrument of 
                        conveyance used to convey the land described in 
                        paragraph (2)(B) to Holnam Inc. shall contain 
                        such reservations, terms, and conditions as the 
                        Secretary considers necessary to allow the 
                        United States to operate and maintain the 
                        Mississippi River 9-Foot Navigation Project.
                          (ii) Non-federal land.--The conveyance of the 
                        land described in paragraph (2)(A) to the 
                        Secretary shall be by a warranty deed 
                        acceptable to the Secretary.
                  (B) Removal of improvements.--Holnam Inc. may remove 
                any improvements on the land described in paragraph 
                (2)(A). The Secretary may require Holnam Inc. to remove 
                any improvements on the land described in paragraph 
                (2)(A). In either case, Holnam Inc. shall hold the 
                United States harmless from liability, and the United 
                States shall not incur cost associated with the removal 
                or relocation of any such improvements.
                  (C) Time limit for exchange.--The land exchange 
                authorized by paragraph (1) shall be completed not 
                later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this 
                Act.
                  (D) Legal description.--The Secretary shall provide 
                the legal description of the land described in 
                paragraph (2). The legal description shall be used in 
                the instruments of conveyance of the land.
                  (E) Administrative costs.--The Secretary shall 
                require Holnam Inc. to pay reasonable administrative 
                costs associated with the exchange.
          (4) Value of properties.--If the appraised fair market value, 
        as determined by the Secretary, of the land conveyed to Holnam 
        Inc. by the Secretary under paragraph (1) exceeds the appraised 
        fair market value, as determined by the Secretary, of the land 
        conveyed to the United States by Holnam Inc. under paragraph 
        (1), Holnam Inc. shall make a payment equal to the excess in 
        cash or a cash equivalent to the United States.
  (b) Candy Lake Project, Osage County, Oklahoma.--
          (1) Definitions.--In this subsection, the following 
        definitions apply:
                  (A) Fair market value.--The term ``fair market 
                value'' means the amount for which a willing buyer 
                would purchase and a willing seller would sell a parcel 
                of land, as determined by a qualified, independent land 
                appraiser.
                  (B) Previous owner of land.--The term ``previous 
                owner of land'' means a person (including a 
                corporation) that conveyed, or a descendant of a 
                deceased individual who conveyed, land to the Corps of 
                Engineers for use in the Candy Lake project in Osage 
                County, Oklahoma.
          (2) Land conveyances.--
                  (A) In general.--The Secretary shall convey, in 
                accordance with this subsection, all right, title, and 
                interest of the United States in and to the land 
                acquired by the United States for the Candy Lake 
                project in Osage County, Oklahoma.
                  (B) Previous owners of land.--
                          (i) In general.--The Secretary shall give a 
                        previous owner of land the first option to 
                        purchase the land described in subparagraph 
                        (A).
                          (ii) Application.--
                                  (I) In general.--A previous owner of 
                                land that desires to purchase the land 
                                described in subparagraph (A) that was 
                                owned by the previous owner of land, or 
                                by the individual from whom the 
                                previous owner of land is descended, 
                                shall file an application to purchase 
                                the land with the Secretary not later 
                                than 180 days after the official date 
                                of notice to the previous owner of land 
                                under paragraph (3).
                                  (II) First to file has first 
                                option.--If more than 1 application is 
                                filed to purchase a parcel of land 
                                described in subparagraph (A), the 
                                first option to purchase the parcel of 
                                land shall be determined in the order 
                                in which applications for the parcel of 
                                land were filed.
                          (iii) Identification of previous owners of 
                        land.--As soon as practicable after the date of 
                        enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall, to 
                        the extent practicable, identify each previous 
                        owner of land.
                          (iv) Consideration.--Consideration for land 
                        conveyed under this paragraph shall be the fair 
                        market value of the land.
                  (C) Disposal.--Any land described in subparagraph (A) 
                for which an application to purchase the land has not 
                been filed under subparagraph (B)(ii) within the 
                applicable time period shall be disposed of in 
                accordance with law.
                  (D) Extinguishment of easements.--All flowage 
                easements acquired by the United States for use in the 
                Candy Lake project in Osage County, Oklahoma, are 
                extinguished.
          (3) Notice.--
                  (A) In general.--The Secretary shall notify--
                          (i) each person identified as a previous 
                        owner of land under paragraph (2)(B)(iii), not 
                        later than 90 days after identification, by 
                        United States mail; and
                          (ii) the general public, not later than 90 
                        days after the date of enactment of this Act, 
                        by publication in the Federal Register.
                  (B) Contents of notice.--Notice under this paragraph 
                shall include--
                          (i) a copy of this subsection;
                          (ii) information sufficient to separately 
                        identify each parcel of land subject to this 
                        subsection; and
                          (iii) specification of the fair market value 
                        of each parcel of land subject to this 
                        subsection.
                  (C) Official date of notice.--The official date of 
                notice under this paragraph shall be the later of--
                          (i) the date on which actual notice is 
                        mailed; or
                          (ii) the date of publication of the notice in 
                        the Federal Register.
  (c) Lake Hugo, Oklahoma, Area Land Conveyance.--
          (1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of 
        enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall convey at fair 
        market value to Choctaw County Industrial Authority, Oklahoma, 
        the property described in paragraph (2).
          (2) Description.--The property to be conveyed under paragraph 
        (1) is--
                  (A) that portion of land at Lake Hugo, Oklahoma, 
                above elevation 445.2 located in the N\1/2\ of the 
                NW\1/4\ of Section 24, R 18 E, T 6 S, and the S\1/2\ of 
                the SW\1/4\ of Section 13, R 18 E, T 6 S bounded to the 
                south by a line 50 north on the centerline of Road B of 
                Sawyer Bluff Public Use Area and to the north by the 
                \1/2\ quarter section line forming the south boundary 
                of Wilson Point Public Use Area; and
                  (B) a parcel of property at Lake Hugo, Oklahoma, 
                commencing at the NE corner of the SE\1/4\ SW\1/4\ of 
                Section 13, R 18 E, T 6 S, 100 feet north, then east 
                approximately \1/2\ mile to the county line road 
                between Section 13, R 18 E, T 6 S, and Section 18, R 19 
                E, T 6 S.
          (3) Terms and conditions.--The conveyances under this 
        subsection shall be subject to such terms and conditions, 
        including payment of reasonable administrative costs and 
        compliance with applicable Federal floodplain management and 
        flood insurance programs, as the Secretary considers necessary 
        and appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.
  (d) Conveyance of Property in Marshall County, Oklahoma.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary shall convey to the State of 
        Oklahoma all right, title, and interest of the United States to 
        real property located in Marshall County, Oklahoma, and 
        included in the Lake Texoma (Denison Dam), Oklahoma and Texas, 
        project consisting of approximately 1,580 acres and leased to 
        the State of Oklahoma for public park and recreation purposes.
          (2) Consideration.--Consideration for the conveyance under 
        paragraph (1) shall be the fair market value of the real 
        property, as determined by the Secretary. All costs associated 
        with the conveyance under paragraph (1) shall be paid by the 
        State of Oklahoma.
          (3) Description.--The exact acreage and legal description of 
        the real property to be conveyed under paragraph (1) shall be 
        determined by a survey satisfactory to the Secretary. The cost 
        of the survey shall be paid by the State of Oklahoma.
          (4) Environmental compliance.--Before making the conveyance 
        under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall--
                  (A) conduct an environmental baseline survey to 
                determine if there are levels of contamination for 
                which the United States would be responsible under the 
                Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
                Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.); and
                  (B) ensure that the conveyance complies with the 
                National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 
                4321 et seq.).
          (5) Other terms and conditions.--The conveyance under 
        paragraph (1) shall be subject to such other terms and 
        conditions as the Secretary considers necessary and appropriate 
        to protect the interests of the United States, including 
        reservation by the United States of a flowage easement over all 
        portions of the real property to be conveyed that are at or 
        below elevation 645.0 NGVD.
  (e) Summerfield Cemetery Association, Oklahoma, Land Conveyance.--
          (1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of 
        enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transfer to the 
        Summerfield Cemetery Association, Oklahoma, all right, title, 
        and interest of the United State in and to the land described 
        in paragraph (3) for use as a cemetery.
          (2) Reversion.--If the land to be transferred under this 
        subsection ever cease to be used as a not-for-profit cemetery 
        or for other public purposes the land shall revert to the 
        United States.
          (3) Description.--The land to be conveyed under this 
        subsection is the approximately 10 acres of land located in 
        Leflore County, Oklahoma, and described as follows:
                         indian basin meridian

              Section 23, Township 5 North, Range 23 East

  SW SE SW NW
  NW NE NW SW
  N\1/2\ SW SW NW.
          (4) Consideration.--The conveyance under this subsection 
        shall be without consideration. All costs associated with the 
        conveyance shall be paid by the Summerfield Cemetery 
        Association, Oklahoma.
          (5) Other terms and conditions.--The conveyance under this 
        subsection shall be subject to such other terms and conditions 
        as the Secretary considers necessary and appropriate to protect 
        the interests of the United States.
  (f) Dexter, Oregon.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary shall convey to the Dexter 
        Sanitary District all right, title, and interest of the United 
        States in and to a parcel of land consisting of approximately 5 
        acres located at Dexter Lake, Oregon, under lease to the Dexter 
        Sanitary District.
          (2) Consideration.--Land to be conveyed under this section 
        shall be conveyed without consideration. If the land is no 
        longer held in public ownership or no longer used for 
        wastewater treatment purposes, title to the land shall revert 
        to the Secretary.
          (3) Terms and conditions.--The conveyance by the United 
        States shall be subject to such terms and conditions as the 
        Secretary considers appropriate to protect the interests of the 
        United States.
          (4) Description.--The exact acreage and description of the 
        land to be conveyed under paragraph (1) shall be determined by 
        such surveys as the Secretary considers necessary. The cost of 
        the surveys shall be borne by the Dexter Sanitary District.
  (g) Richard B. Russell Dam and Lake, South Carolina.--
          (1) In general.--Upon execution of an agreement under 
        paragraph (4) and subject to the requirements of this 
        subsection, the Secretary shall convey, without consideration, 
        to the State of South Carolina all right, title, and interest 
        of the United States to the lands described in paragraph (2) 
        that are managed, as of the date of enactment of this Act, by 
        the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources for fish and 
        wildlife mitigation purposes in connection with the Richard B. 
        Russell Dam and Lake, South Carolina, project.
          (2) Description.--
                  (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the 
                lands to be conveyed under paragraph (1) are described 
                in Exhibits A, F, and H of Army Lease Number DACW21-1-
                93-0910 and associated Supplemental Agreements or are 
                designated in red in Exhibit A of Army License Number 
                DACW21-3-85-1904; except that all designated lands in 
                the license that are below elevation 346 feet mean sea 
                level or that are less than 300 feet measured 
                horizontally from the top of the power pool are 
                excluded from the conveyance. Management of the 
                excluded lands shall continue in accordance with the 
                terms of Army License Number DACW21-3-85-1904 until 
                the Secretary and the State enter into an agreement 
                under paragraph (4).
                  (B) Survey.--The exact acreage and legal description 
                of the lands to be conveyed under paragraph (1) shall 
                be determined by a survey satisfactory to the 
                Secretary, with the cost of the survey to be paid by 
                the State. The State shall be responsible for all other 
                costs, including real estate transaction and 
                environmental compliance costs, associated with the 
                conveyance.
          (3) Terms and conditions.--
                  (A) Management of lands.--All lands that are conveyed 
                under paragraph (1) shall be retained in public 
                ownership and shall be managed in perpetuity for fish 
                and wildlife mitigation purposes in accordance with a 
                plan approved by the Secretary. If the lands are not 
                managed for such purposes in accordance with the plan, 
                title to the lands shall revert to the United States. 
                If the lands revert to the United States under this 
                subparagraph, the Secretary shall manage the lands for 
                such purposes.
                  (B) Terms and conditions.--The Secretary may require 
                such additional terms and conditions in connection with 
                the conveyance as the Secretary considers appropriate 
                to protect the interests of the United States.
          (4) Payments.--
                  (A) Agreements.--The Secretary is authorized to pay 
                to the State of South Carolina not more than $4,850,000 
                if the Secretary and the State enter into a binding 
                agreement for the State to manage for fish and wildlife 
                mitigation purposes, in perpetuity, the lands conveyed 
                under this subsection and the lands not covered by the 
                conveyance that are designated in red in Exhibit A of 
                Army License Number DACW21-3-85-1904.
                  (B) Terms and conditions.--The agreement shall 
                specify the terms and conditions under which the 
                payment will be made and the rights of, and remedies 
                available to, the Federal Government to recover all or 
                a portion of the payment in the event the State fails 
                to manage the lands in a manner satisfactory to the 
                Secretary.
  (h) Charleston, South Carolina.--The Secretary is authorized to 
convey the property of the Corps of Engineers known as the ``Equipment 
and Storage Yard'', located on Meeting Street in Charleston, South 
Carolina, in as-is condition for fair-market value with all proceeds 
from the conveyance to be applied by the Corps of Engineers, Charleston 
District, to offset a portion of the costs of moving or leasing (or 
both) an office facility in the city of Charleston.
  (i) Clarkston, Washington.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary shall convey to the Port of 
        Clarkston, Washington, all right, title, and interest of the 
        United States in and to a portion of the land described in Army 
        Lease Number DACW68-1-97-22, consisting of approximately 31 
        acres, the exact boundaries of which shall be determined by the 
        Secretary and the Port of Clarkston.
          (2) Additional land.--The Secretary may convey to the Port of 
        Clarkston, Washington, at fair market value as determined by 
        the Secretary, such additional land located in the vicinity of 
        Clarkston, Washington, as the Secretary determines to be excess 
        to the needs of the Columbia River Project and appropriate for 
        conveyance.
          (3) Terms and conditions.--The conveyances made under 
        paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be subject to such terms and 
        conditions as the Secretary determines to be necessary to 
        protect the interests of the United States, including a 
        requirement that the Port of Clarkston pay all administrative 
        costs associated with the conveyances (including the cost of 
        land surveys and appraisals and costs associated with 
        compliance with applicable environmental laws, including 
        regulations).
          (4) Use of land.--The Port of Clarkston shall be required to 
        pay the fair market value, as determined by the Secretary, of 
        any land conveyed pursuant to paragraph (1) that is not 
        retained in public ownership or is used for other than public 
        park or recreation purposes, except that the Secretary shall 
        have a right of reverter to reclaim possession and title to any 
        such land.
  (j) Land Conveyance to Matewan, West Virginia.--
          (1) In general.--The United States shall convey by quit claim 
        deed to the Town of Matewan, West Virginia, all right, title, 
        and interest of the United States in and to four parcels of 
        land deemed excess by the Secretary of the Army, acting through 
        the Chief of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to the 
        structural project for flood control constructed by the Corps 
        of Engineers along the Tug Fork River pursuant to section 202 
        of Public Law 96-367.
          (2) Property description.--The parcels of land referred to in 
        paragraph (1) are as follows:
                  (A) A certain parcel of land in the State of West 
                Virginia, Mingo County, Town of Matewan, and being more 
                particularly bounded and described as follows:
                          Beginning at a point on the southerly right-
                        of-way line of a 40-foot-wide street right-of-
                        way (known as McCoy Alley), having an 
                        approximate coordinate value of N228,695, 
                        E1,662,397, in the line common to the land 
                        designated as U.S.A. Tract No. 834, and the 
                        land designated as U.S.A. Tract No. 837, said 
                        point being South 51+52, East 81.8 feet from an 
                        iron pin and cap marked M-12 on the boundary of 
                        the Matewan Area Structural Project, on the 
                        north right-of-way line of said street, at a 
                        corner common to designated U.S.A. Tracts Nos. 
                        834 and 836; thence, leaving the right-of-way 
                        of said street, with the line common to the 
                        land of said Tract No. 834, and the land of 
                        said Tract No. 837.
                          South 14+37, West 46 feet to the corner 
                        common to the land of said Tract No. 834, and 
                        the land of said Tract No. 837; thence, leaving 
                        the land of said Tract No. 837, severing the 
                        lands of said Project.
                          South 14+37, West 46 feet.
                          South 68+07, East 239 feet.
                          North 26+05, East 95 feet to a point on the 
                        southerly right-of-way line of said street; 
                        thence, with the right-of-way of said street, 
                        continuing to sever the lands of said Project.
                          South 63+55, East 206 feet; thence, leaving 
                        the right-of-way of said street, continuing to 
                        sever the lands of said Project.
                          South 26+16, West 63 feet; thence, with a 
                        curve to the left having a radius of 70 feet, a 
                        delta of 33+58,, an arc length of 41 feet, the 
                        chord bearing.
                          South 09+17, West 41 feet; thence, leaving 
                        said curve, continuing to sever the lands of 
                        said Project.
                          South 07+42, East 31 feet to a point on the 
                        right-of-way line of the floodwall; thence, 
                        with the right-of-way of said floodwall, 
                        continuing to sever the lands of said Project.
                          South 77+04, West 71 feet.
                          North 77+10, West 46 feet.
                          North 67+07, West 254 feet.
                          North 67+54, West 507 feet.
                          North 57+49, West 66 feet to the intersection 
                        of the right-of-way line of said floodwall with 
                        the southerly right-of-way line of said street; 
                        thence, leaving the right-of-way of said 
                        floodwall and with the southerly right-of-way 
                        of said street, continuing to sever the lands 
                        of said Project.
                          North 83+01, East 171 feet.
                          North 89+42, East 74 feet.
                          South 83+39, East 168 feet.
                          South 83+38, East 41 feet.
                          South 77+26, East 28 feet to the point of 
                        beginning, containing 2.59 acres, more or less. 
                        The bearings and coordinate used herein are 
                        referenced to the West Virginia State Plane 
                        Coordinate System, South Zone.
                  (B) A certain parcel of land in the State of West 
                Virginia, Mingo County, Town of Matewan, and being more 
                particularly bounded and described as follows:
                          Beginning at an iron pin and cap designated 
                        Corner No. M2-2 on the southerly right-of-way 
                        line of the Norfolk and Western Railroad, 
                        having an approximate coordinate value of 
                        N228,755 E1,661,242, and being at the 
                        intersection of the right-of-way line of the 
                        floodwall with the boundary of the Matewan Area 
                        Structural Project; thence, leaving the right-
                        of-way of said floodwall and with said Project 
                        boundary, and the southerly right-of-way of 
                        said Railroad.
                          North 59+45, East 34 feet.
                          North 69+50, East 44 feet.
                          North 58+11, East 79 feet.
                          North 66+13, East 102 feet.
                          North 69+43, East 98 feet.
                          North 77+39, East 18 feet.
                          North 72+39, East 13 feet to a point at the 
                        intersection of said Project boundary, and the 
                        southerly right-of-way of said Railroad, with 
                        the westerly right-of-way line of State Route 
                        49/10; thence, leaving said Project boundary, 
                        and the southerly right-of-way of said 
                        Railroad, and with the westerly right-of-way of 
                        said road.
                          South 03+21, East 100 feet to a point at the 
                        intersection of the westerly right-of-way of 
                        said road with the right-of-way of said 
                        floodwall; thence, leaving the right-of-way of 
                        said road, and with the right-of-way line of 
                        said floodwall.
                          South 79+30, West 69 feet.
                          South 78+28, West 222 feet.
                          South 80+11, West 65 feet.
                          North 38+40, West 14 feet to the point of 
                        beginning, containing 0.53 acre, more or less. 
                        The bearings and coordinate used herein are 
                        referenced to the West Virginia State Plane 
                        Coordinate System, South Zone.
                  (C) A certain parcel of land in the State of West 
                Virginia, Mingo County, Town of Matewan, and being more 
                particularly bounded and described as follows:
                          Beginning at a point on the southerly right-
                        of-way line of the Norfolk and Western 
                        Railroad, having an approximate coordinate 
                        value of N228,936 E1,661,672, and being at the 
                        intersection of the easterly right-of-way line 
                        of State Route 49/10 with the boundary of the 
                        Matewan Area Structural Project; thence, 
                        leaving the right-of-way of said road, and with 
                        said Project boundary, and the southerly right-
                        of-way of said Railroad.
                          North 77+49, East 89 feet to an iron pin and 
                        cap designated as U.S.A. Corner No. M-4.
                          North 79+30, East 74 feet to an iron pin and 
                        cap designated as U.S.A. Corner No. M-5-1; 
                        thence, leaving the southerly right-of-way of 
                        said Railroad, and continuing with the boundary 
                        of said Project.
                          South 06+33, East 102 to an iron pipe and cap 
                        designated U.S.A. Corner No. M-6-1 on the 
                        northerly right-of-way line of State Route 49/
                        28; thence, leaving the boundary of said 
                        Project, and with the right-of-way of said 
                        road, severing the lands of said Project.
                          North 80+59, West 171 feet to a point at the 
                        intersection of the Northerly right-of-way line 
                        of said State Route 49/28 with the easterly 
                        right-of-way line of said State Route 49/10; 
                        thence, leaving the right-of-way of said State 
                        Route 49/28 and with the right-of-way of said 
                        State Route 49/10.
                          North 03+21, West 42 feet to the point of 
                        beginning, containing 0.27 acre, more or less. 
                        The bearings and coordinate used herein are 
                        referenced to the West Virginia State Plane 
                        Coordinate System, South Zone.
                  (D) A certain parcel of land in the State of West 
                Virginia, Mingo County, Town of Matewan, and being more 
                particularly bounded and described as follows:
                          Beginning at a point at the intersection of 
                        the easterly right-of-way line of State Route 
                        49/10 with the right-of-way line of the 
                        floodwall, having an approximate coordinate 
                        value of N228,826 E1,661,679; thence, leaving 
                        the right-of-way of said floodwall, and with 
                        the right-of-way of said State Route 49/10.
                          North 03+21, West 23 feet to a point at the 
                        intersection of the easterly right-of-way line 
                        of said State Route 49/10 with the southerly 
                        right-of-way line of State Route 49/28; thence, 
                        leaving the right-of-way of said State Route 
                        49/10 and with the right-of-way of said State 
                        Route 49/28.
                          South 80+59, East 168 feet.
                          North 82+28, East 45 feet to an iron pin and 
                        cap designated as U.S.A. Corner No. M-8-1 on 
                        the boundary of the Western Area Structural 
                        Project; thence, leaving the right-of-way of 
                        said State Route 49/28, and with said Project 
                        boundary.
                          South 08+28, East 88 feet to an iron pin and 
                        cap designated as U.S.A. Corner No. M-9-1 point 
                        on the northerly right-of-way line of a street 
                        (known as McCoy Alley); thence, leaving said 
                        Project boundary and with the northerly right-
                        of-way of said street.
                          South 83+01, West 38 feet to a point on the 
                        right-of-way line of said floodwall; thence, 
                        leaving the right-of-way of said street, and 
                        with the right-of-way of said floodwall.
                          North 57+49, West 180 feet.
                          South 79+30, West 34 feet to a point of 
                        beginning, containing 0.24 acre, more or less. 
                        The bearings and coordinate used herein are 
                        referenced to the West Virginia State Plane 
                        Coordinate System, South Zone.

SEC. 579. NAMINGS.

  (a) Francis Bland Floodway Ditch, Arkansas.--
          (1) Designation.--8-Mile Creek in Paragould, Arkansas, shall 
        be known and designated as the ``Francis Bland Floodway 
        Ditch''.
          (2) Legal reference.--Any reference in a law, map, 
        regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 
        States to the creek referred to in paragraph (1) shall be 
        deemed to be a reference to the ``Francis Bland Floodway 
        Ditch''.
  (b) Lawrence Blackwell Memorial Bridge, Arkansas.--
          (1) Designation.--The bridge over lock and dam numbered 4 on 
        the Arkansas River, Arkansas, constructed as part of the 
        project for navigation on the Arkansas River and tributaries, 
        shall be known and designated as the ``Lawrence Blackwell 
        Memorial Bridge''.
          (2) Legal reference.--Any reference in a law, map, 
        regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 
        States to the bridge referred to in paragraph (1) shall be 
        deemed to be a reference to the ``Lawrence Blackwell Memorial 
        Bridge''.

SEC. 580. FOLSOM DAM AND RESERVOIR ADDITIONAL STORAGE AND WATER SUPPLY 
                    STUDIES.

  (a) Folsom Flood Control Studies.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
        State of California and local water resources agencies, shall 
        undertake a study of increasing surcharge flood control storage 
        at the Folsom Dam and Reservoir by replacing the 8 spillway 
        gates and raising the dam and embankment by 6.5 feet or the 
        amount needed to achieve a 140-year level of flood protection, 
        whichever provides the greater level of flood protection.
          (2) Determination of 140-year level of flood protection.--For 
        the purposes of paragraph (1), the 140-year level of flood 
        protection shall be determined in accordance with the hydrology 
        approved by the Sacramento District of the United States Army 
        Corps of Engineers in its February 3, 1998, report entitled 
        ``American River, California, Rain Flood Flow Frequency 
        Analysis''.
          (3) Limitations.--The modifications to the Folsom Dam and 
        Reservoir under this section may not increase the conservation 
        storage of the Folsom Reservoir.
          (4) Report.--Not later than April 15, 2001, the Secretary 
        shall transmit to Congress a report on the results of the study 
        under this subsection.
  (b) Folsom Water Supply Studies.--
          (1) In general.--Following the completion of the study under 
        subsection (a), the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation 
        with the Secretary of the Army, the State of California, local 
        water resources agencies, local elected officials and 
        interested organizations, shall undertake a study of the 
        opportunities to increase the available water supply storage at 
        Folsom Dam and Reservoir resulting from any flood control 
        modifications to Folsom Dam recommended under subsection (a).
          (2) Focus of study.--The study shall focus on opportunities 
        to increase water supply storage that can be accomplished while 
        at the same time protecting private property and recreational 
        values at Folsom Reservoir.
  (c) Implementation.--Upon completion of the study undertaken pursuant 
to subsection (a), the Secretary shall proceed with the implementation 
of the maximum amount of surcharge flood control storage which meets 
the criteria identified in subsection (a) if the Secretary determines 
that the project--
          (1) is technically feasible, environmentally acceptable, and 
        economically justified and in accordance with the economic and 
        environmental principles and guidelines for water and land 
        resources; and
          (2) includes measures which, to the maximum extent 
        practicable, mitigate any adverse impacts to private property 
        and recreation at Folsom Reservoir.
  (d) Road Relocations.--
          (1) Planning and design.--Upon enactment of this Act, the 
        Secretary shall undertake detailed planning and design of 
        alternative transportation improvements, including a bridge 
        downstream of Folsom Dam, that comply with current 
        transportation design criteria to replace the Folsom Dam 
        Road, which is currently on top of the embankment at Folsom Dam.
          (2) Construction.--Subsequent to the Secretary's 
        determination to proceed with implementation of additional 
        storage at Folsom Dam under subsection (a) and prior to 
        construction of improvements to Folsom Dam needed for such 
        implementation, the Secretary, in consultation with the city of 
        Folsom and the Bureau of Reclamation, shall construct the 
        transportation improvements designed under paragraph (1).
          (3) Cost sharing.--The cost of planning, design, and 
        construction of transportation improvements under this 
        subsection shall be treated as safety modifications and shall 
        be subject to cost sharing in accordance with section 1203 of 
        the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 467n). 
        All costs attributed to water and power users of the Central 
        Valley Project for such planning, design, and construction 
        shall be a Federal responsibility and shall be nonreimbursable.
          (4) Special rule for cost-benefit analysis.--For purposes of 
        evaluating the costs and benefits of the transportation 
        improvements authorized by this subsection, the benefits of 
        such improvements shall be allocated to ensuring adequate 
        safety at Folsom Dam and shall be deemed to equal the cost of 
        such improvements.
  (e) Levee Study.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary shall undertake a study of all 
        levees on the American River and on the Sacramento River 
        downstream and immediately upstream of the confluence of such 
        Rivers to access opportunities to increase potential flood 
        protection through levee modifications.
          (2) Deadline for completion.--The Secretary shall complete 
        the study not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of 
        this Act.
          (3) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized to 
        be appropriated to carry out this subsection $2,000,000.

SEC. 581. WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT.

  (a) Placer County Water Agency.--
          (1) Sacramento river diversion infrastructure.--
                  (A) Design and construction.--The Secretary shall 
                design and construct facilities, including fish 
                screens, for--
                          (i) the diversion and transportation of up to 
                        the amount of Central Valley Project, 
                        California, water set forth in Contract No. 14-
                        06-200-5082A from a location suitable to the 
                        Placer County Water Agency on the Sacramento 
                        River between the mouths of the Feather and the 
                        American Rivers to a point in western Placer 
                        County, California, not less than one mile east 
                        of the western boundary of Placer County, at a 
                        continuous rate of not less than 100 cubic feet 
                        per second;
                          (ii) the treatment of not less than 65 
                        million gallons of water per day for domestic 
                        use; and
                          (iii) the storage of not less than 20 million 
                        gallons of water.
                  (B) Conveyance.--Upon completion of construction of 
                facilities under this paragraph, ownership of the 
                facilities shall be conveyed to the Placer County Water 
                Agency, together with an easement over any related 
                Federal property that provides the Agency the right to 
                access all such facilities and appurtenances for the 
                purposes of operation, maintenance, repair, 
                reconstruction or replacement or enlargement, in 
                perpetuity.
          (2) American river pump station.--
                  (A) Design and construction.--The Secretary shall 
                design, construct, and expand existing facilities or 
                install new facilities to provide for a permanent 
                diversion intake, pumping station, electric facilities, 
                electric transmission lines, water conveyance 
                facilities access roads, and all ancillary facilities 
                necessary to allow the Placer County Water Agency to 
                divert and pump a total flow of not less than 200 cubic 
                feet per second from the American River into that 
                Agency's Auburn Ravine Tunnel on a year-round basis.
                  (B) Conveyance.--Upon completion of construction of 
                facilities under this paragraph, ownership of the 
                facilities shall be conveyed to the Placer County Water 
                Agency, together with an easement over any related 
                Federal property that provides the Agency, the right to 
                access all of its pump station and tunnel facilities 
                and appurtenances for the purposes of operation, 
                maintenance, repair, reconstruction or replacement 
                enlargement and relocation, in perpetuity.
          (3) Modifications to hell hole dam.--The Secretary shall 
        design and construct gates and other facilities at Hell Hole 
        Dam and Reservoir of the Placer County Water Agency in Placer 
        County, California, sufficient to enable the Agency to operate 
        this dam and reservoir to assist in the provision of flood 
        protection for the lands and inhabitants adjacent to the 
        American River downstream of Folsom Dam.
          (4) Costs.--The total costs of design and construction under 
        this subsection is $133,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost 
        of $86,450,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
        $46,550,000.
  (b) El Dorado Irrigation District.--
          (1) Improvements to folsom lake diversion infrastructure.--
        The Secretary shall design and construct facilities needed to 
        retrofit the El Dorado County Irrigation District's current 
        Folsom Lake diversion infrastructure in order to provide for 
        the diversion, treatment, pumping and conveyance of not to 
        exceed 50,000 acre-feet of water annually.
          (2) Costs.--The total costs of design and construction under 
        this subsection is $21,561,500, with an estimated Federal cost 
        of $14,014,975 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $7,546,525.
  (c) Georgetown Divide Public Utility District.--
          (1) American river diversion project.--The Secretary shall 
        design and construct facilities necessary to provide for the 
        diversion, transportation, treatment, and storage of not less 
        than 25 cubic feet per second and 7,500 acre-feet annually from 
        the American River for the Georgetown Divide Public Utility 
        District to obtain benefit of the Energy and Water Development 
        Appropriations Act, 1991. Such facilities shall be provided 
        through an expansion of the capacity of the Placer County Water 
        Agency American River Pump Station facilities identified in 
        subsection (a)(2) of this section.
          (2) Land transfer.--The Secretary shall grant to the 
        Georgetown Divide Pubic Utility District real property rights 
        sufficient to enable the Utility District to implement 
        paragraph (1).
          (3) Costs.--The total costs of design and construction under 
        this subsection is $10,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost 
        of $6,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,500,000.
  (d) San Juan Water District.--The Secretary shall provide, subject to 
advance appropriations, $1,950,000 to the San Juan Water District to 
fund 65 percent of the costs to study and identify alternatives that 
would optimize conjunctive use opportunities within Placer and 
Sacramento Counties, California, and to implement a pilot project 
necessary to analyze the technical and administrative processes 
identified through such a study.
  (e) Folsom Reservoir Diversions.--
          (1) Improvements to folsom lake diversion infrastructure.--
        The Secretary shall design and construct improvements to 
        facilities at Folsom Dam needed to divert, pump, and transport 
        additional water from Folsom Reservoir to the city of 
        Roseville, the San Juan Water District, the city of Folsom, and 
        the Placer County Water Agency, including expansion of the 
        Industrial Pump Station.
          (2) Costs.--The total costs of design and construction under 
        this subsection is $5,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost 
        of $3,250,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $1,750,000.
  (f) San Joaquin County.--
          (1) Authorization of improvements.--In consultation with 
        local officials, the Secretary shall design and construct 
        improvements required to complete the project known as the East 
        San Joaquin County Recharge Project, at a total cost of 
        $100,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $65,000,000 and 
        an estimated non-Federal cost of $35,000,000.
          (2) Limitation.--No money authorized to be appropriated to 
        carry out this subsection shall be made available until such 
        time as San Joaquin County, California, shall have perfected 
        water rights permits or licenses from the California State 
        Water Resources Control Board sufficient to carry out the 
        purposes of the East San Joaquin County Recharge Project.
  (g) Water Resource Grants.--
          (1) Mitigation for diversions.--The Secretary shall provide, 
        through grants or other cooperative agreements to one or more 
        of the Placer County Water Agency, El Dorado Irrigation 
        District, El Dorado County Water Agency, Georgetown Divide 
        Public Utility District, city of Roseville, city of Folsom, San 
        Juan Water District and its wholesale suppliers, the County of 
        Sacramento, and other agencies located north of the confluence 
        of the American and Sacramento Rivers that divert or use water 
        from the Sacramento River and its tributaries, funds for the 
        purpose of implementing projects on the American River and 
        tributaries (or, where appropriate, on other rivers that are or 
        can be operationally integrated with the American River) which 
        will provide water supply benefits to municipal jurisdictions 
        and operational and management flexibility within these areas 
        of origin.
          (2) Federal share.--The Federal share of the costs of any 
        activity carried out under a grant or agreement made under this 
        subsection shall be 65 percent.
          (3) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized to 
        be appropriated to carry out this subsection $10,000,000.
  (h) Grants and Reimbursements.--
          (1) Grants.--The Federal share of the costs of any activity 
        under this section may be provided in the form of grants to the 
        non-Federal interest or direct reimbursements to the non-
        Federal interest of such costs.
          (2) Advance construction reimbursement.--Subject to the 
        availability of appropriations, the Secretary may reimburse any 
        non-Federal interest an amount equal to the estimate of the 
        Federal share, without interest, of the cost of any work 
        (including work associated with studies, planning, design, and 
        construction) carried out by a non-Federal interest otherwise 
        made eligible for non-Federal assistance under this section. 
        Reimbursements for construction work by a non-Federal interest 
        on an eligible project in this section may be made only--
                  (A) if, before initiation of construction of the 
                project, the Secretary approves the plans for 
                construction of such project by the non-Federal 
                interest; and
                  (B) if the Secretary determines that the work for 
                which reimbursement is requested has been performed in 
                accordance with applicable permits and approved plans.
  (i) Other Water Supply Studies.--
          (1) Increased water supply through alteration of reservoir 
        operation.--
                  (A) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with 
                the Secretary of the Interior, shall contract with the 
                State of California to undertake a study to determine 
                opportunities to increase the available water supply by 
                altering the operation of the reservoirs and related 
                facilities located on rivers that drain into the 
                Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys owned by the Federal 
                Government, the State of California, local governments, 
                and private parties.
                  (B) Protection of property rights.--The study shall 
                be based on the protection of existing property rights, 
                recreational values, environmental values, and 
                operational and contractual constraints and 
                obligations.
                  (C) Assumption.--The study shall assume only 
                voluntary reoperation of the facilities.
                  (D) Limitation.--The completion of the study shall 
                not be a basis to delay or impact the operation, 
                relicensing, or transfer of ownership of any reservoir, 
                water project, or hydroelectric facility.
                  (E) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
                to carry out this paragraph $3,000,000.
          (2) Increased water supply storage at reservoirs draining 
        into california central valley.--
                  (A) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with 
                the Secretary of the Interior, shall undertake a study 
                of the opportunities to increase available water supply 
                storage at the Sites/Colusa Reservoir Project area, 
                Cottonwood Creek Reservoir Complex area, Yuba River Dam 
                area, and other potential reservoir sites that drain 
                into the California Central Valley.
                  (B) Protection of property rights.--The study shall 
                be based on the protection of existing property rights 
                and recreational values.
                  (C) Cooperation.--The study shall be completed in 
                cooperation with other related studies.
                  (D) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
                to carry out this paragraph $3,000,000.
  (j) Protection of Water Rights.--Nothing in this section shall be 
construed to affect any water rights in the State of California.

SEC. 582. ALLOCATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  (a) EIS and Planning Stage.--Except as provided in subsection (e), 
funds appropriated to carry out sections 580 and 581 of this Act for 
each of fiscal years 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003 shall be allocated 
according to the ratio of 60 percent for section 580 and 40 percent for 
section 581.
  (b) Intense Flood Control Construction Phase.--Except as provided in 
subsection (e), funds appropriated to carry out sections 580 and 581 of 
this Act for each of fiscal years 2004, 2005, and 2006 shall be 
allocated according to the ratio of 90 percent for section 580 and 10 
percent for section 581.
  (c) Flood Control/Water Supply Transitional Phase.--Except as 
provided in subsection (e), funds appropriated to carry out sections 
580 and 581 of this Act for each of fiscal years 2007, 2008, 2009, and 
2010 shall be allocated according to the ratio of 75 percent for 
section 580 and 25 percent for section 581.
  (d) Project Completion Phase.--For each fiscal year following fiscal 
year 2010, funds appropriated to carry out sections 580 and 581 of this 
Act shall be allocated according to a ratio of 25 percent for section 
580 and 75 percent for section 581. In the event that design and 
construction activities under section 580 or 581 have been completed, 
all funds appropriated to carry out such sections shall be allocated to 
the remaining design and construction activities authorized under such 
section.
  (e) Limitation.--The allocation of appropriations required under 
subsections (a) through (d) shall not take effect for any fiscal year 
during which funds appropriated to carry out section 580 or 581 may not 
be obligated due to the failure to successfully complete any required 
feasibility studies or environmental reviews or the refusal or 
inability of a non-Federal interest to enter into a binding local 
agreement to carry out the items of local cooperation required pursuant 
to such section.

SEC. 583. WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA.

  (a) Emergency Action.--The Secretary shall take emergency action to 
protect Wallops Island, Virginia, from damaging coastal storms, by 
improving and extending the existing seawall, replenishing and 
renourishing the beach, and constructing protective dunes.
  (b) Reimbursement.--The Secretary shall seek reimbursement from other 
Federal agencies whose resources are protected by the emergency action 
taken under subsection (a).
  (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this section $8,000,000.

SEC. 584. DETROIT RIVER, DETROIT, MICHIGAN.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to repair and 
rehabilitate the seawalls on the Detroit River in Detroit, Michigan.
  (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1999, 
$1,000,000 to carry out this section.

                          Purpose and Summary

    The Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (WRDA 99) 
includes project authorizations, modifications, 
deauthorizations, studies and policy initiatives for the Army 
Corps of Engineers' Civil Works Program--the nation's largest 
water resources program. Throughout its five titles, the bill 
authorizes and directs the Corps to carry out various studies, 
projects, and programs relating to navigation, flood control, 
shoreline protection, hydropower production, dam safety, water 
supply, recreation, environmental restoration and protection.

                  Background and Need for Legislation

    WRDA 99, which is largely ``unfinished business'' from the 
105th Congress, demonstrates the continuing commitment of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to the Nation's 
water infrastructure, the aquatic environment, and a regular 
authorization schedule for the Civil Works Program of the 
Department of the Army. Unfortunately, Congress did not enact a 
WRDA in 1998 and, as a result, departed from the previously-
established two-year cycle for authorizations re-instituted by 
WRDA 86. The Committee believes that passage of WRDA 99 is 
vitally important to fulfill commitments to non-Federal 
sponsors, to be responsive to new and emerging water resources 
needs, to fine-tune the Corps' missions and responsibilities, 
and to accommodate the Administration's policy initiatives.
    WRDA 99 is based on the Water Resources Development Act of 
1998 (WRDA 98), which received considerable attention by 
Subcommittee and Committee Members. The comprehensive 
legislation would have authorized, modified, reauthorized and 
deauthorized various Corps of Engineers' water resources 
projects and authorized studies involving, among other things, 
navigation, flood control, environmental restoration, shore 
protection, hydropower, water supply, and recreation. The 
legislation also would have included various policy 
initiatives, regional programs, and other revisions to the 
Corps' existing water resources program.
    The Subcommittee held hearings on March 31, April 22 and 
April 28, 1998, on proposals for a WRDA 98. Testimony was 
received from Members of Congress, the Administration, and 
national organizations addressing funding and legislative 
proposals, including, among other things, the Administration's 
budget request for fiscal year 1999 for the Corps of Engineers, 
the recently-invalidated harbor maintenance tax, the 
Administration's legislative proposal for WRDA, and H.R. 3243, 
the Alternative Water Source Development Act.
    On May 11, 1998, the Administration transmitted to Congress 
its proposed WRDA 98. On May 14, 1998, the bipartisan 
leadership of the House Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee introduced H.R. 3866, the Administration's bill, by 
request and on June 4, 1998, the bipartisan leadership of the 
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee introduced S. 
2131, the Administration's bill, by request. S. 2131 was passed 
by the Senate Committee on July 29, 1998 and the Senate on 
October 9, 1998, and referred to the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee on October 21, 1998.
    Throughout October 1998, the leadership of both Committees 
and their staff and other Members met to resolve differences 
among the Senate-passed S. 2131, H.R. 3866, and a draft House 
bill circulated by the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee. However, no final action was taken on the 
legislation before the end of the Second Session.
    The failure to enact a WRDA 98 makes enactment of a WRDA 99 
more important than ever before. Early enactment of H.R. 1480 
will help restore the biennial authorization process and 
provide a timely response to pressing project- and program-
related needs.

      Discussion of Committee Bill and Section-by-Section Analysis


Section 1: Short Title; Table of Contents

    (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited to as the ``Water 
Resources Development Act of 1999.''
    (b) Table of Contents.--[To be supplied.]

Section 2: Secretary Defined

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

                   TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

Sec: 101: Project authorizations

    (a) This subsection authorizes 23 projects for water 
resources development and conservation to be carried out 
substantially in accordance with the reports of the Chief of 
Engineers cited for each project.
    (1) Sand Point Harbor, Alaska.--
    Location of Study Area: This report focuses on Humboldt 
Harbor in Sand Point, Alaska. The city of Sand Point is located 
on the northwest portion of Popof Island, in the Shumagin 
Island group that lies south of the Alaska Peninsula.
    Problems, Needs, and Opportunities Identified: Sand Point, 
located on the Pacific coast of the southwestern Alaska 
peninsula, is one of the State'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.
    Alternative Plans Considered: The alternatives considered 
for harbor improvements included two sites north of the 
existing harbor, expanding the existing harbor itself, a site 
adjacent to the south of the existing harbor, and a site 
farther south along the shoreline. All but the sites adjacent 
to the south of the existing harbor were eventually eliminated 
for environmental and/or economic reasons. The selected site 
captures the most NED benefits and maximizes net NED benefits, 
providing moorage for 37 vessels 80 feet and larger.
    Description of Recommended Plan: In the NED 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. Harbor optimization led to moorage space for 37 vessels 
between 80 and 150 feet in length.
    Physical Data on Project Features: The proposed harbor 
improvements at Sand Point consist of construction of a 570-
foot breakwater from the existing south breakwater of Humboldt 
Harbor and a 730-foot breakwater from shore to form the basin 
and entrance channel of the new harbor. The crest height of the 
rubble mound breakwaters would be +16 ft MLLW. The breakwaters 
would be designed to withstand the forces of a 6.6-foot wave. 
The entrance channel would be dredged to -18 ft MLLW. It would 
be 120 feet wide to allow one-way traffic of vessels 150 feet 
in length with a 34-foot beam and 10.5-foot draft. The mooring 
basin would be dredged to a depth of -17 ft MLLW and would 
provide room for 37 vessels.
    New Policy Direction Recommended: None
    Views of State and Non-Federal Interests: The non-Federal 
sponsor for the Sand Point Project is the Aleutians East 
Borough. The locally preferred plan is also the NED plan 
selected. There are no known significant issues at this time.
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service recommended that mitigation measures be 
incorporated into the project, including post-construction 
followup studies. The District's position is that followup 
studies would not benefit the resources at the project site and 
are not warranted. Mitigation measures through avoidance and 
minimization are sufficient. Compensatory mitigation is not 
warranted or practicable for this project. There are no other 
issues.
    Status of Final Environmental Assessment: The environmental 
assessment, along with the required review period, has been 
completed. A Consistency Finding and Certificate of Reasonable 
Assurance have been received from the State of Alaska to verify 
that State requirements have been met. During the project 
review, the Alaska District received several comments, most 
notably from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, that requested 
additional mitigation measures. The Corps believes the proposed 
mitigation fully compensates for the project related impacts. 
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff does not concur with 
the Corps' conclusion and has stated that more mitigation is 
required. The finding of no significant impact was signed on 24 
April 1998.
    Estimated Implementation Costs: (Oct 98 Price Level):

Federal (Navigation):                                       Cost Sharing
    COE/Federal Channel.................................      $6,956,000
    Coast Guard/Federal Channel.........................           8,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total Federal.....................................      $6,964,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Non-Federal (Navigation):
    Aleutians East Borough/Federal Channel..............      $1,631,000
    Aleutians East Borough/Mooring Basin, Float System, 
      LERRD, Utility Relocations........................       3,165,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Total Non-Federal...................................      $4,796,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
    Total...............................................     $11,760,000

    Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: The non-
Federal share of the project cost is $4,796,000. This includes 
10 percent of the cost of the general navigationfeatures 
($851,500), which includes channel dredging and replacement or 
modification of any structures affected by the dredging operations; 
$3,165,000 for dredging of mooring basin and construction of inner 
harbor float system; and $779,500 for long-term repayments, which is 10 
percent of the general navigation features minus credits for LERR 
($72,000 for land acquisition).
    Estimated O&M; Costs: (October 98 price level)

                                                            Cost sharing
Federal (Navigation):
    Corps of Engineers/Federal Channel..................          $5,370
    Coast Guard/Federal Channel.........................             630
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total Federal.....................................           6,200
Non-Federal (Navigation):
    Aleutians East Borough/Floats, Stalls and Piles.....          22,600
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................          28,800

    Description of Non-Federal O&M; Costs: Approximately $22,000 
per year in non-federal sponsor O&M; costs for moorage basin 
dredging. Indications are that littoral transport of sediments 
along the beach outside the harbor will be minimal.
    Estimated Effects:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Average annual
                                        equivalent       Average annual
              Account                   beneficial      adverse effects
                                     effects ($1000)        ($1000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Purposes: NED, Commercial                      $1,739               $895
 Navigation.......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Benefit-to-Cost Ratio: 1.9 (Current Discount Rate: 6\7/8\%)
    (2) Rio Salado, Salt River, Phoenix and Tempe, Arizona.--
    Location: The study area consist of 5 miles of the Salt 
River in the city of Phoenix, and approximately 1 mile of the 
Salt River and 1.3 miles of Indian Bend Wash in the city of 
Tempe, Maricopa County, Arizona.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: The optimal 
historical conditions that once supported high quality riparian 
habitat in the study area have been severely impacted by man 
made changes resulting in a degraded river bed devoid of native 
vegetation and species diversity. Overall, riparian habitats 
have declined by about 90 percent in the southwestern United 
States. In addition, approximately 90 percent of all species in 
Arizona depend on riparian habitat for their survival. The 
opportunity exists to restore this linear corridor along the 
Salt River to reestablish scarce, valuable and rare native 
riparian plant communities, establish cover and habitat 
structure, and provide the opportunity for wildlife to migrate 
and utilize this area once again.
    Alternative Plans Considered: The final array of 
alternatives have considered variations in the mix of native 
plant and habitat types. The alternatives evaluated native 
plant communities including mesquite bosque, cottonwood and 
willow dominant habitat, wetland-marsh habitat, and aquatic 
strand/scrub habitat. Methods to simulate natural riverine 
riparian areas were studied including alternatives with 
differing water demand and associated cost requirements.
    Description of Recommended Plan: The recommended plan will 
restore 675 acres of riparian habitat. The plan includes water 
supply and infrastructure features to support the habitat, drop 
structures and low flow channels to contain moderate streamflow 
events; monitoring and adaptive management plans; and, a 
recreational plan consisting of trails, shelters, rest rooms, 
signage, parking, and associated features.
    Physical Data on Project Features:
    Phoenix Reach--The proposed project would restore 
approximately 525 acres of riparian habitat along a 5-mile 
reach of the Salt River within Phoenix, Arizona, from the I-10 
bridge downstream to 19th Avenue. The project includes 
construction of a 200 foot wide low flow channel with four drop 
structures to contain moderate streamflow events; plantings to 
restore 130 acres of mesquite habitat, 99 acres of cottonwood/
willow habitat and 58 acres of wetland marsh; and construction 
of 6 water wells and water distribution/irrigation system. 
Recreational features include trails, shelters, rest rooms, 
signage, parking, and associated features.
    Tempe Reach--The proposed project would restore 
approximately 150 acres of riparian habitat along approximately 
1.3 miles of the Indian Bend Wash from McKellips Road Bridge 
and the confluence of the Salt River, about 1800-feet of the 
Salt River upstream of Tempe Town lake, and about 2000-feet 
downstream of Tempe Town Lake. The project includes plantings 
to restore 30 acres of mesquite habitat, 20 acres of 
cottonwood/willow habitat and 16 acres of wetland marsh; and 
construction of a water well and water distribution/irrigation 
system. Recreational features include trails, shelters, rest 
rooms, signage, and parking.
    New Policy Directions Recommended: The proposed plan 
includes a recommendation to include a monitoring and adaptive 
management plan which will allow the Corps to perform minor 
modifications to the plan after the project has been turned 
over to the non-Federal sponsors.
    Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries: 
The cities of Tempe and Phoenix fully support the 
recommendations in the feasibility report. They haveindicated 
their support for the project and a willingness to assume cost-shared 
financial obligations for implementation of the project.
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The proposed 
project is heavily supported by resource agencies including the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife service and the Arizona Department of 
Game and Fish. In their Planning Aid letter, dated November 6, 
1997, the service recommends alternatives be implemented, such 
as the recommended plan, which would maximize the enhancement 
and development of wetland and riparian habitat.
    Status of NEPA Document: The final EIS was filed in 23 
April 1998.
    Estimated Implementation Costs: (October 1998 price 
levels):

                                                            Cost-Sharing
Federal (Agency/Purpose):
    Ecosystem Restoration...............................     $53,433,000
    Recreation..........................................       2,922,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Subtotal..........................................      56,355,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Non-Federal:
    Ecosystem Restoration (Phoenix).....................      26,632,000
    Ecosystem Restoration (Tempe).......................       2,139,000
    Recreation (Phoenix)................................       2,570,000
    Recreation (Tempe)..................................         352,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Subtotal..........................................      31,693,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................      88,048,000

    Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: The non-
Federal sponsor is responsible for providing all lands, 
easements and rights-of-way, relocations, and disposal areas 
(LERRDs). The estimated value of LERRDs is $3,714,000. The non-
Federal sponsor is to provide a cash contribution to bring the 
non-Federal share of the total project costs for ecosystem 
restoration to a minimum of 35 percent, with credit for LERRDs. 
In addition, the non-Federal sponsor is to provide 50 percent 
of the total recreation costs.
    Estimated Annual O&M; Costs: (October 1998 price levels):

                                                            Cost-Sharing
Federal (Agency/Purpose):
    Ecosystem Restoration...............................               0
    Recreation..........................................               0
Non-Federal:
    Ecosystem Restoration (Phoenix)
        Water Supply....................................     $ 1,017,000
        Habitat.........................................         775,000
        Recreation......................................       1,050,000
    Ecosystem Restoration (Tempe)
        Water Supply....................................         154,000
        Habitat.........................................          76,000
        Recreation......................................         148,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
          Total.........................................       3,220,000

    Description of Non-Federal O&M; Cost: The non-Federal O&M; 
costs consist primarily of three items. The first is the 
estimated annual costs necessary to supply the water budget 
requirements to support the restoration features and habitat. 
The second is associated with overall maintenance of the 
restoration project including replacement of vegetation and 
habitat damaged by infrequent flood flows exceeding the low 
flow channel capacity. The third is associated with maintenance 
of the recreation features for the project.
    Estimated Effects: The project features will restore native 
plant communities, restore Federally listed threatened and 
endangered species habitat, returns the river to a more natural 
condition, and increases recreation and environmental education 
opportunities. The project will result in a total increase of 
338 habitat units. These habitat units are considered 
especially valuable due to scarcity and the dependence of 
certain species on these unique and vanishing resources.
    This project will restore a unique natural resource that 
will benefit a variety of wildlife species and the human 
inhabitants of the metropolitan area. Both the Tempe and the 
Phoenix reaches would provide opportunities for the restoration 
and enhancement of habitat for numerous wildlife species 
including the endangered Yuma clapper rail and southwestern 
willow flycatcher. The restored upland, riparian and marsh 
vegetation would include creosote, catclaw, bursage, desert 
broom, saltbush, brittle bush, cottonwood, desert willow, 
cattails, bulrush, sedges, rushes, and other emergent and 
riparian vegetation. Wildlife species expected to utilize the 
restored habitat include coyote, rodents, reptiles, avian 
species such as the red-tailed hawk, cactus wren, Gambel's 
quail, curve-billed thrasher, bats, skunks, raccoons, 
amphibians, hooded orials, Abert's towhees, yellow and yellow-
rumped warblers, red-winged blackbirds, Cooper's hawks, varios 
flycatchers, hosts of avifauna such as rails, egrets, herons, 
shorebirds, and waterfowl. Many of the bird species are 
neotropical migrants and depend exclusively on riparian 
communities for feeding and nesting. Five federally listed 
species that have been known to occur in the study area include 
the Yuma clapper rail, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, brown 
pelican, and southwester willow flycatcher. State sensitive 
species which may utilize the restored habitat include the 
lowland leopard frog, belted kingfisher, great egret, snowy 
egret, osprey, american bittern, least bittern, ferruginous 
pygmy owl, black-necked stilt, black-crowned night heron, and 
white-faced ibis.
    Benefit-Cost Ratio: A benefit/cost ratio is not reported 
since environmental benefits are not quantified monetarily.
    (3) Tucson Drainage Area, Arizona.--
    Location: The study area encompasses the 12-square mile 
Tucson Arroyo/Arroyo Chico watershed that lies completely 
within the Tucson city limits in eastern Pima County, southern 
Arizona.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: The Tucson 
Arroyo/Arroyo Chico Wash system consists of 6 major washes that 
drain central and downtown Tucson into the Santa Cruz River. 
The watershed is fully urbanized and the existing channel 
capacities are extremely low (most are equivalent to a 10-year 
capacity or less; some will contain only a 2-year flood).
    The Tucson Arroyo/Arroyo Chico Wash constitutes the most 
critical flood problem in Tucson. The 12 square mile area of 
central and downtown Tucson that is drained by this system 
consists of low-capacity natural channels in the upper 
watershed (Arroyo Chico), and two covered channel sections 
through downtown Tucson (Tucson Arroyo) that were constructed 
in the 1920's. Flooding problems in this area of the city 
result from existing inadequate channel capacities.
    Flooding occurs somewhere along Tucson Arroyo and/or Arroyo 
Chico on the average every other year. In July 1990, an 
estimated 5- to 10-year event resulted in flooding of homes 
along Arroyo Chico in the historic Colonia Solana District in 
central Tucson, and businesses and residences along Tucson 
Arroyo near downtown Tucson. Future without-project structural 
flood damages alone are estimated at approximately $2.3 million 
on an average annual basis.
    Loss of environmental resources associated with Tucson 
Arroyo and Arroyo Chico are large issues with agencies and 
residents alike. The historic desert riparian ecosystem has 
been impacted by increasing urbanization, dumping, and general 
degradation of the resource. Fewer than 10 acres remain in a 
highly degraded condition along the channel system.
    Alternatives Plans Considered: Alternative flood control 
measures are severely constrained by expanding development 
throughout the watershed and along the channel right-of-way, 
and by the existing low-capacity of the covered channel 
sections through downtown Tucson, the main conduit for 
floodwaters through downtown. Alternatives shown to be 
infeasible included large-scale channelization, flood warning 
systems, elevation of structures, relocations, ring levees, 
dams, and a number of non-structural approaches. The array of 
feasible alternative plans evaluated for the watershed included 
multiple detention basins on the main channel and tributary 
channels. The detention basins will utilize the only available 
open space near the watercourses: Randolph Golf Course (where 
Naylor Wash joins Arroyo Chico Wash), and currently vacant or 
open properties along Arroyo Chico just upstream of the Park 
Avenue inlet to the covered channel segment which runs under 
portions of downtown Tucson. The covered channel segments are a 
severe constraint to plan formulation efforts due to extremely 
limited capacity. Increasing the capacity of the covered 
channel segments through ``daylighting'' or enlargement is not 
a viable solution from an economic standpoint.
    Environmental restoration alternatives focused on 
maximization of habitat value within the limits of the proposed 
flood control project, with the goal of a blend of desert 
riparian and upland environments. Analysis was also conducted 
on the value of including open water options for migratory and 
resident waterfowl. Use of all available land was not 
considered due to the necessity of providing replacement of 
lost recreational opportunities which currently exist on-site. 
Restoration acreage was limited to existing open space 
available within the highly urbanized watershed. Detention 
basins presented the option of developing habitat on enlarged 
basin contours provided by plan.
    Description of Recommended Plan: The recommended plan 
consists of two large detention basin complexes, one at 
Randolph Golf Course, and the other upstream of Park Avenue in 
the center of the basin, and also limited channel improvements 
upstream of the Park Avenue site, and downstream at the High 
School Wash confluence, to ensure inlet control and minimize 
breakout. The Randolph Golf Course complex (already constructed 
by non-Federal interests who requested credit under Section 104 
of WRDA '86) consists of a series of interconnected below-
ground basins which collect flows from Arroyo Chico and Naylor 
Wash, and reduce the outflow to a discharge that the channel 
can carry. Randolph Golf Course is completely integrated with 
the new flood control system. The Park Avenue complex controls 
runoff from areas downstream of Randolph Golf Course, and 
includes three on-line, and one off-line basin, and also 
incorporates a large environmental restoration component, and 
replacement of lost recreational opportunities. The entire 
project reduces flood inundation to over 1100 structures, 
provides protection from a flood with a 1 percent chance of 
being exceeded in any given year, and substantially increases 
the acreage and long-term survivability of an urban desert 
riparian environment. Mitigation for project construction 
includes 6.8 acres of riparian habitat and 0.4 acres of upland 
desert vegetation.
    Physical Data on Project Features:
    (a) Randolph Golf Course Detention Basin Complex. 
Modifications to the Randolph Golf Course provided detention of 
approximately 200 ac-ft of floodwaters resulting from a flood 
having a 1 percent chance of being exceeded in any given year. 
Modifications included excavation of material in areas between 
the greens and fairways to create floodwater storage in 
``compartmentalized'' detention basins, conduits to funnel flow 
from basin to basin, a small embankment on the downstream side 
of the golf course to provide detention for large events, and 
subsequent restoration of the pre-existing golf course. The 
non-Federal Sponsor finished construction of this complex in 
April 1996 prior to authorization of the Corps project, and has 
been granted consideration of Section 104 credit for this work. 
There was no mitigation required for this project feature.
    (b) Park Avenue Detention Basin Complex. Construction of 
detention basins upstream of the Park Avenue inlet to the 
downstream covered channel segments is alsorequired to provide 
significant reductions in flooding to downstream properties. The Park 
Avenue complex would consist of three in-line and one off-line basins 
to store approximately 250 ac-ft of floodwater during a flood having 1 
percent chance of exceedance in any given year. Limited channel 
improvements upstream of the Park Avenue complex were also necessary to 
maintain control of inflows to this complex. This would consist of 
deepening the channel between Campbell and Parkway Terrace immediately 
upstream of the inlet to the Park Avenue complex over a distance of 
approximately 1600 feet. Mitigation for project impacts includes 1 for 
1 replacement of 6.4 acres of desert riparian habitat at Park Avenue 
and 0.4 acres of the same for the channel area upstream of Kino Parkway 
at the Park Avenue complex inlet.
    (c) Channel Improvements. Channel improvements are included 
at the underground confluence of High School Wash and Tucson 
Arroyo would consist of constructing an enlarged conduit on 
High School Wash immediately upstream from its confluence with 
Tucson Arroyo to prevent exceedance of the structure and 
subsequent downstream flooding. The existing structure will not 
contain moderate to large flood events issuing from the High 
School Wash subwatershed. The new structure would contain 
floods up to a 1 percent chance of exceedance in any given 
year.
    (d) Environmental Restoration. In addition to the 6.8 acres 
of mitigation, ecosystem restoration of over 10 acres of desert 
riparian and upland environment would be included, consisting 
of transplanting and planting of both existing vegetation and 
container-bred plants sufficient to restore the ecosystem to 
the channel reach from Kino Parkway to Park Avenue within the 
constructed detention basins. There would be 2 acres of created 
waterfowl habitat within one basin to establish opportunities 
for resident and migratory birds. There would also be over 2 
acres of ``passive'' recreation at the Park Avenue site 
consisting of grassed areas for picnicking, family outings, and 
wildlife watching. The maintenance access roads would be used 
as biking and walking trails from which one can observe 
activities and wildlife within the basins.
    Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries: 
The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) has 
provided comments expressing the need for continued 
coordination of efforts in regards to a hazardous waste site 
downstream of the proposed Park Avenue complex, and concern in 
regards to the close proximity this site (known as Mission 
Linen) to the proposed Park Avenue basin #1. The concern is as 
to whether the recommended plan might have some hydrologic 
connection to the Mission Linen site. In general, there has 
been a high degree of support by non-Federal interests, 
particularly Arizona Department of Game and Fish, and residents 
of the floodplain. However, the Barrio San Antonio Neighborhood 
Association, which represents a neighborhood which is in close 
proximity to the proposed basin, but is not within a flood-
prone area, opposes the project. Their concerns primarily focus 
on the Mission Linen issue discussed above, but also the 
desirability of a flood control and/or environmental 
restoration in relation to their neighborhood, and certain 
individuals feeling that they had not been informed of study 
efforts and findings associated with the first public comment 
period. As a result of a request from these individuals and the 
neighborhood association, the public comment period was 
extended. A second organization, the Southwest Center for 
Biological Diversity, opposes the entire project by virtue of 
their organizational mandate. To resolve the Mission Linen 
matter, further investigation of the hazardous waste site will 
be accomplished during preconstruction engineering and design.
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: There are currently 
no unresolved issues associated with the Reporting Officer's 
recommendations.
    Status of NEPA Document: The final environmental impact 
statement has been filed with EPA on 5 November 1997.
    Estimated Implementation Costs: (October 1998 price 
levels):

Cost-Sharing
    Corps of Engineers--Flood Control (56%).............     $16,280,000
    Corps of Engineers--Environmental Restoration (65%).         339,000
    Corps of Engineers--Recreation (50%)................         149,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Subtotal................................................16,768,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Non-Federal
    PCDTFCD*--Flood Control (44%)............      12,800,000
    PCDTFCD*--Environmental Restoration (35%)         183,000
    PCDTFCD*--Recreation (50%)...............         149,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Subtotal..........................................      13,132,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................      29,900,000

* Pima County Department of Transportation and Flood Control 
District.

    Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: The non-
Federal sponsor is required to provide all LERRDs, contribute 5 
percent of all costs attributable to flood damage reduction/
ecosystem restoration and recreation in cash, plus additional 
cash as necessary to make the sponsor share at least 35 percent 
for flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration and 50 
percent for recreation. The non-Federal sponsor applied for 
credit under Section 104 of PL 99-662 for advance construction 
of locally funded improvements (Randolph Park detention Basin). 
Credit is available against the non-Federal cost of LERRDs and 
for any additional cash necessary for the required 35 percent 
minimum non-Federal contribution. However, for this project 
there is no requirement to provide additional cash for the 
flood damage reduction portion of the project. The estimated 
credit is about $6,486,000, which represents creditable 
construction cost associated with the Randolph Park detention 
basin complex.
    Estimated Annual O&M; Costs: (October 1998 price levels)
    Federal O&M; for 5-year monitoring period: $6,000 per year 
for 5 years (50%).
    Non-Federal* O&M; for 5-year monitoring period: 
$6,000 per year for 5 years (50%).
    Non-Federal* O&M; of Flood Control Project: 
$15,000 per year for project life (100%).

    * Pima County Department of Transportation and Flood 
Control District.
    Description of Non-Federal O&M; Cost: These costs consist of 
the non-Federal contribution to establishment of the 
environmental mitigation acreage ($6,000 per year for 5 years), 
which is monitoring of the vegetation and site conditions, 
maintenance, and other needed tasks, and operation, 
maintenance, repair, replacement and rehabilitation of the 
flood control features ($15,000 per year for project life), 
which consists of maintenance of outlet works, embankments, 
weirs, and other features of the flood control project, 
including sediment removal in the basins and channels.
    (4) American River Watershed, California.--
    Background. The City of Sacramento and the surrounding 
flood-prone areas are long overdue for increased protection 
from devastating floods. According to the Corps of Engineers, 
no other major city is as vulnerable to flooding. A major flood 
(recent hydrologic trends suggest the threat could be 
underestimated) would have disastrous consequences. More than 
600,000 people live within the floodplain. The area contains 
almost $40 billion in property, including California's State 
Capitol, six major hospitals, 26 nursing home facilities, over 
one hundred schools, 160,000 residences and major 
transportation facilities.
    While the threat is very real and the scope of the 
potential catastrophe is undisputed, the form that a flood 
control plan should take has been intensely debated, probably 
more than any other flood control project brought before the 
Committee. H.R. 1480 addresses both answers the question of how 
to best address the current water resources needs of the area 
and provides Sacramentans with overdue flood protection. This 
section, combined with provisions of sections 365, 580, 581 and 
582, reflect the results of months, even years, of debate, 
negotiation and compromise. These provisions are intended to 
provide compromise an integrated, comprehensive solution to 
both flood control and water supply needs in the region. The 
Committee expresses its appreciation to the elected officials 
who worked diligently in the effort to develop a mutually 
supportable plan and to the many local officials and water 
resources experts for their untiring efforts and contributions.
    Modifications of Folsom Dam. The principal feature of the 
flood damage reduction measures authorized for the American 
River Watershed is the modification of the Folsom Dam on the 
American River at Folsom, California. The plan is based on the 
Corps of Engineers' Supplemental Information Report (SIR) of 
March 1996. However, the plan is to be modified by the plan 
prepared by the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) 
entitled ``Folsom Dam Modification Report, New Outlets Plan'', 
dated March 1998. The project includes enlargement of the 
existing eight ``river'' outlets at the dam plus the 
construction of five new outlets through the dam's auxiliary 
spillway. This plan is expected to yield about the same degree 
of flood control benefits as the planidentified in the Corps' 
1996 SIR with less impact on reservoir operations and at reduced cost. 
The estimated cost of construction of the project is $150,000,000, with 
an estimated Federal cost of $97,500,000, and an estimated non-Federal 
cost of $52,500,000.
    Because the existing project is operated by the Bureau of 
Reclamation, the Committee has included language directing the 
Corps to coordinate with the Secretary of the Interior on the 
design and construction of the project. The Committee expects 
the Corps to work closely with the Bureau and that both 
agencies will work cooperatively to assure timely 
implementation of this project. The agencies may enter into 
agreements regarding design and construction including, if 
determined by the Corps to be the most efficient and cost-
effective approach, an agreement to have the Bureau manage 
construction activities.
    Modification to Folsom Variable Storage Regime. Because of 
the increased outflow capacity created by the enlargement and 
addition of outlets at the dam, the maximum amount of space 
required for the variable flood control storage operation (or 
``reoperation measures'') is reduced. The operating range of 
such storage will be changed from 400,000-670,000 acre-feet to 
400,000-600,000 acre-feet. The sharing of costs incurred for 
this variable storage will continue as set forth in the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1996, on a permanent basis.
    Minimizing Impact on Recreation. Because of the importance 
of recreational opportunities at Folsom Reservoir, the 
Committee has included language requiring that all water lost 
as a result of the variable flood control storage operation 
that has a significant impact on recreation in the reservoir 
shall be replaced, to the extent that water is available for 
purchase. The cost of acquiring replacement water is to be 75% 
Federal and 25% non-Federal. In determining the amount of cost 
to be paid by SAFCA, the reduction in water available for 
recreation caused by the diversion of water by the El Dorado 
County Irrigation District, for which infrastructure facilities 
are authorized in section 581(b) of this Act, shall be taken 
into account.
    (5) South Sacramento County Streams, California.--
    Location of Study Area: The South Sacramento County Streams 
drainage basin lies south and east of the city of Sacramento. A 
portion of the basin lies within the Sacramento city limits. 
There is a high risk of flooding from Morrison, Florin, Elder, 
and Unionhouse and Laguna Creeks. These streams flow into 
Beach-Stone Lakes basin that connects further south with the 
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in the Project Area: 
The study addresses flood problems and the need for additional 
water resources related recreation and environmental 
restoration. Flood problems are included in two distinct 
basins--the Morrison Creek stream group (upper) basin and 
Beach-Stone Lakes (lower) basin. The upper basin is drained by 
Morrison Creek and its major tributaries, Elder, Florin, 
Unionhouse, and Laguna Creeks. The lower reaches of channels 
are protected with levees, which extend down to Beach-Stone 
Lakes. Channels and levees in the urbanized area in the middle 
of the study area are undersized and cannot contain events 
greater than those having a two percent chance of being 
exceeded in any year. Beach-Stone Lakes is a low, flat area 
surrounded by levees and other embankments. Over-bank flows 
from the Mokelumne and Cosumnes Rivers, as well as Morrison 
Creek, contribute to flooding. The Beach Lake levee, which 
protects the Pocket Area and other urbanized areas in the city 
of Sacramento, has insufficient reliability. Similarly, the 
levee that surrounds the Sacramento Regional Wastewater 
Treatment Plant (SRWTP) provides inadequate protection under 
without-project conditions. Potentially, a flood could impact 
approximately 100,000 people and cause damages ranging between 
$1 billion for an event having 1 chance in 100 of occurring in 
any given year to more than $2 billion for an event having 1 
chance in 500 of occurring in any given year.
    There are limited numbers of parks and other public 
recreation facilities in the study area. There is a good 
opportunity to use Morrison Creek levees to expand public 
pedestrian and bicycle trails in accordance with the local 
recreation trails master plan. Besides recreation, there is a 
significant need to restore fish and wildlife habitat along 
channels and streams in the study area.
    Alternative Plans Considered: Three alternatives (besides 
the No-Action Plan) are formulated to solve the flood problems. 
They include the NED Plan, Consistent Protection Plan, and 
Consistent High Protection Plan. Each of the alternative plans 
includes levee and channel improvements for increased flood 
protection to four primary areas in the overall South 
Sacramento County study area. They include (1) the Pocket Area 
of the city of Sacramento, which is primarily protected by 
Beach Lake levee; (2) the Sacramento Regional Wastewater 
Treatment Plant; (3) lands at risk of flooding along the south 
and east side of Morrison Creek and along Elder and Florin 
Creeks upstream to Highway 99 and Unionhouse Creek upstream to 
Center Parkway; and (4) potential flooding areas along the 
south side of Morrison Creek and along Florin Creek upstream 
from Highway 99 to Stockton Boulevard. The NED Plan maximizes 
net benefits over costs and would provide increased levels of 
protection in each of the four major project areas ranging from 
a 1 in 200 to a 1 in 500 chance of flooding in any year. The 
Consistent Protection Plan would provide a level of protection 
in each area to at least the 1 in 200 chance of occurrence in 
any year. The Consistent High Protection Plan would provide 
protection up to the 1 in 500 chance of occurrence in any year 
in each area. Each plan presently consists of either new levees 
and/or floodwalls and levee and channel improvements to 
increase flow capacity. Each also includes a recreation 
component consisting of a bicycle path/walking trail on the top 
of some of the project levees. The plans also include restoring 
wetland and riparian habitat on buffer lands around the SRWTP.
    Description of Recommended Plan: The recommended plan 
consists primarily of levee and channel improvements. Major 
flood control features include building 12.6 miles of 
floodwalls, raising 4.6 miles of existing levees, building 1.3 
miles of new levees, improving 7.7 miles of existing levees 
with sheetpile cutoff walls, retrofitting 17 bridges, and 
removing 1 bridge. Ecosystem restoration would provide 215 
acres of wildlife habitat including open water wetlands, 
riparian, and grassland cover on four sites in theSacramento 
Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant buffer lands. Recreation features 
would consist of 4.2 miles of bicycle and pedestrian trails along the 
levees. In addition, the plan includes creation and administration of a 
$2,000,000 fund by the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) at 
full non-Federal cost to mitigate any adverse hydraulic impacts to 
residents of Beach-Stone Lakes potentially caused by upstream plan 
features and to residents of areas that will continue to have a high 
risk of flooding even after construction of the recommended plan. 
General vegetation and wildlife mitigation for flood control 
construction is about 0.7-acre seasonal wetland, 0.2-acre riparian 
scrub-shrub, and 0.22-acre emergent marsh. Mitigation for threatened 
and endangered species of 7.7 acres will be provided at a preservation 
bank approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and about 14 acres 
in the Beach-Stone Lakes area.
    Physical Data on Project Features:
    a. Structural:
    (1) Detention basins, diversion channels, channel 
modification, levee modification, channel obstruction removal.
    Area 1: Pocket Area.--Beach Lake levee would be raised 
along most of its alignment from the Sacramento River to 
Unionhouse Creek. Similarly, Morrison Creek west bank levee 
would be raised from Unionhouse Creek to the UPRR. The levees 
would be raised a maximum of about 4 feet, from elevation 18 
feet to elevation 22 feet. Sheetpile floodwalls would be placed 
on Morrison Creek west bank levee from UPRR to Franklin 
Boulevard and along the west side of the incised channel from 
Franklin Boulevard to highway 99.
    Area 2: Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant.--
The existing ring levee around the SRWTP would be raised about 
4 feet, from elevation 18 feet to elevation 22 feet. The total 
length of the project is 24,000 feet. Where right-of-way is 
restricted, floodwalls would be used instead of levee raising.

Area 3: Morrison Creek Stream Group Below Highway 99

    Morrison Creek. Floodwalls would be placed in levees on the 
east bank for 2.2 miles from Unionhouse Creek to Franklin 
Boulevard. Improvements to the east side of the incised portion 
of Morrison Creek would extend 0.7 mile from Franklin Boulevard 
to Highway 99.
    Elder Creek. Sheetpile floodwalls would be constructed to a 
typical elevation 19.1 feet, and the top of wall would be about 
1 foot above the top of the levee. The height in the incised 
reach would be about 2.5 to 3 feet above surrounding ground.
    Florin Creek. Sheetpile floodwalls would be constructed to 
between 1 and 2 feet above surrounding ground.
    Unionhouse Creek. Levee improvements would be along 
Unionhouse Creek from Morrison Creek to Center Parkway. 
Sheetpile floodwalls would be constructed on the levee on the 
north side only between Morrison Creek and Franklin Boulevard. 
These walls would be at elevation 18.2 feet, typically about 1 
foot above the existing top of the levee. In the incised reach 
between Franklin Boulevard and Center Parkway, the floodwall 
height would typically be 2 to 2.5 feet above grade.

Area 4: Morrison Creek Stream Group Between Highway 99 and Stockton 
        Boulevard

    Morrison Creek. Improvements would consist of sheetpile 
floodwalls on both sides of the incised channel between Highway 
99 and Stockton Boulevard. Portions of this reach would contain 
the design flow without improvements. Where the top of bank is 
low, a total of 7,000 linear feet of floodwall would be 
constructed. The maximum wall height would be 2.2 feet above 
grade. Sky footbridge, Steiner Drive, Riza footbridge, and 
Stockton Boulevard bridges would be retrofitted. The two 
footbridges would not require parapet walls.
    Florin Creek. Improvements would consist of sheetpile 
floodwalls on both sides of the incised channel between Highway 
99 and Stockton Boulevard for a total of 7,000 linear feet. 
Floodwalls would be set back from the channel banks and would 
extend into Sheldon Park on the north side of the channel above 
Highway 99. The floodwalls would be a maximum of 4.5 feet above 
grade. The improvements would extend the full distance within 
the reach.
    b. Mitigation: 10 acres west of the SRWTP would be acquired 
and improved for wetland and riparian habitat. The mitigation 
area also serves as mitigation to the endangered Giant Garter 
snake.
    c. Recreation Measures: Biking and hiking trails will be 
constructed on top of Beach Lake and Morrison Creek west bank 
levees.
    d. Environmental Restoration Measures: Restoration would 
include expansion of riparian and wetlands habitat and 
improvement of water quality in existing ponds. Restoration 
would be at five sites in the SRWTP buffer lands and would 
affect about 215 acres.
    Views of States, Non-federal Interests, and Other Counties: 
The Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) has indicated 
a willingness to support financing and construction of flood 
protection facilities which provide a high level of protection 
for the local community. On 15 January 1997, the SAFCA Board 
indicated the Consistent High Protection Plan as the locally 
preferred plan.
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: All Federal 
agencies providing views on the project thus far have indicated 
either support for or had no comments. SAFCA strongly supports 
the project.
    Status of the Environmental Impact Statement: The Final 
Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report was 
filed with EPA on 4 May 1998.
    Estimated Implementation Costs: (October 1998 price levels)

Federal:
    Corps of Engineers/Flood Control....................     $37,940,000
        Recreation......................................         580,000
        Environmental Restoration.......................       2,680,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
          Subtotal......................................      41,200,000
Non-Federal:
    Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency:
        Flood Control...................................      22,280,000
        Recreation......................................         580,000
        Environmental Restoration.......................       1,440,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
          Subtotal......................................      24,300,000
          Total.........................................      65,500,000

    Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: The non-
Federal sponsor is required to provide all lands, easements, 
rights-of-way and disposal areas (LERRDs), contribute five (5) 
percent of all costs attributable to flood damage reduction in 
cash, plus additional cash as necessary to make the sponsor 
share at least 35 percent of total costs. The non-Federal 
sponsor is responsible for 100 percent of all incremental costs 
over the NED plan. The total value of lands, easements, rights-
of-way, and relocations, is estimated to be $12 million. The 
non-Federal sponsor will provide 35 percent of the total cost 
attributable to ecosystem restoration, and 50 percent of the 
total costs of recreation.
    Estimated Annual O&M; Costs:

Federal: Corps of Engineers.............................               0
Non-Federal: Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency.......        $400,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................         400,000

    Description of Non-Federal O&M; Costs: These costs consists 
of the costs for operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, 
and rehabilitation of the flood control, recreation, and 
restoration project features. These costs also include cost of 
monitoring of vegetation and site conditions for the ecosystem 
restoration project.
    Estimated Effect Evaluation:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Average annual
                                        equivalent       Average annual
                                        beneficial      adverse effects
                                         effects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Purpose:
    Flood Damage Reduction........            $19,817             $4,668
    Recreation....................                121                116
    Environmental Restoration.....                N/A                159
                                   -------------------------------------
      Total.......................             19,938              4,943
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Benefit-Cost Ratio: 4.1 (Current Discount Rate 6.875%).
    (6) Upper Guadalupe River, California.--
    Location: The study is within the southern portion of the 
city of San Jose, in the southern portion of the San Francisco 
Bay Area, CA.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: The study 
area has experienced repeated flooding since it was first 
settled in 1777. Urbanization has escalated significantly since 
World War II and since the development of the Silicon Valley in 
the 1970s. Over 7,500 residential and commercial buildings lie 
within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 
regulatory flood plain. Recent floods have occurred in 1982, 
1983, and 1995. Although the magnitudes of these floods have 
been relatively small (none with an annual exceedence 
probability less than 5%) the estimated damages have ranged 
from $3,000,000 to nearly $15,000,000.
    Alternative Plans Considered: In addition to the No Action 
Plan, the final array of alternative plans includes three 
action plans. The three action plans are as follow: the Willow 
Glen Plan, the Valley View Plan and the Bypass Channel Plan. 
The plan providing the lowest measure of protection is the 
Willow Glen Plan, which widens the existing channel to 
accommodate 9,000 cfs. The Valley View Plan would provide a 
greater measure of protection than the Willow Glen Plan by 
widening the existing channel to accommodate 12,000 cfs.
    It was determined that widening the existing main channel 
was not a cost-effective means to increase the channel capacity 
for flows greater than 12,000 cfs. Therefore, a third 
alternative, which uses bypass channels, the Bypass Channel 
Plan, was formulated combining the least cost measures to 
provide approximately 14,600 cfs of channel capacity throughout 
the study area. The Bypass Channel Plan would remove over 6,600 
buildings from the regulatory flood plain by widening 10,300 
linear feet ofchannel, constructing 3,500 linear feet of 
floodwalls and levees, constructing 3 bypass channels (total of 8,700 
linear feet) and replacing 5 bridges. This plan would include a 
recreation trail, which would be built on the maintenance access roads, 
which are required for the flood control features.
    Each of the three alternative plans would include 
improvements to the downstream portions of two major 
tributaries. Ross Creek would be widened, and culvert capacity 
would be increased beneath existing roadways along Canoas 
Creek.
    Description of Recommended Plan: The Bypass Channel Plan is 
the plan recommended to alleviate the damages associated with 
flooding along upper Guadalupe River. The Bypass Channel Plan 
combines channel widening, bypass channels, floodwalls, and 
bridge replacements to increase channel capacity throughout the 
study 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 half a mile of 
floodwalls and levees, constructing 3 bypass channels (over 1.6 
miles of total bypasses) and replacing 5 bridges. This 
alternative plan would increase the capacities of the 
downstream portions of two major tributaries. Ross Creek would 
be widened, and culvert capacity would be increased beneath 
existing roadways along Canoas Creek. This plan would include a 
recreation trail, which would be built on the maintenance 
access roads, which are required for the flood control 
features.
    The capacity of the proposed project varies throughout its 
5-mile length and will have less than a 1% chance of being 
exceeded in any one year. The proposed project will reduce the 
areal extent of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
regulatory flood plain throughout the project area. Due to 
tributary related flooding, a small portion of the project area 
will remain in the regulatory flood plain. This remaining 
portion will ultimately be removed from the regulatory flood 
plain by a project, which is scheduled to be built along the 
tributary by the local sponsor. Prior to completion of the 
local project, remapping of the flood plain will clearly 
identify that portion of the flood plain which will be removed 
from the flood hazard potential, and any portion which remains 
will be subject to the National Flood Insurance Program.
    For those portions of the project which include floodwalls 
or levees, the project will meet the National Flood Insurance 
Program requirements as administered by the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency. The floodwalls and levees will have a 10% 
chance of being exceeded in any one year.
    Physical Data on Project Features: The Bypass Channel Plan 
features rock-lined bypass channels, channel widening, five 
bridge replacements, a levee and floodwalls designed to 
increase the capacity of the upper Guadalupe River and two 
major tributaries, Ross Creek and Canoas Creek. The plan is 
designed to remove 6,620 structures (of the total 7,500) from 
the FEMA regulatory flood plain. The remaining 880 structures 
will be removed from the FEMA regulatory flood plain upon 
completion of a local flood control project on Canoas Creek. 
Channel widening associated with the Bypass Channel Plan will 
be limited to one bank in most cases to preserve as much as 
possible of the existing riparian habitat.
    Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries: 
The Valley View Plan has been identified as the National 
Economic Development (NED) plan. However, the local sponsor 
supports the recommended plan, or Bypass Channel Plan, as it 
would remove the greatest number of structures from the FEMA 
regulatory flood plain, while enhancing the natural habitat 
values as much as possible. The sponsor is aware of local cost-
sharing requirements associated with flood control projects. In 
a letter dated May 13, 1998, the sponsor indicated their 
preference for the Bypass Channel Plan and is willing to cost 
share on the basis of the NED Plan.
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: One unresolved 
issue is formal consultation with the National Marine Fisheries 
Service (NMFS) regarding the steelhead trout. This population 
of steelhead trout is an anadromous fish listed as threatened 
by the Federal government. The conclusion of the final EIS is 
that the proposed plan would have short-term negative impacts 
on the steelhead trout, but that this impact would be mitigated 
in the long term, with habitat conditions eventually improving 
over current conditions. Although the Corps has provided a 
Biological Assessment to the NMFS and has requested formal 
consultation, the NMFS has delayed formal consultation pending 
completion of ongoing discussions with the sponsor regarding 
project impacts and mitigation measures. This discussion has 
been an integral part of the sponsor's application for a permit 
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for construction of 
their Upper Guadalupe River Flood Control Project. Resolution 
of this issue will be required before the Federal Government 
can commit any funds to construction of this project.
    Status of NEPA Document: The final Environmental Impact 
Statement was published in the Federal Register on 10 April 
1998. At the time that the final EIS was circulated for review, 
consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 
regarding the threatened red-legged frog was in progress. 
Subsequently, the FWS indicated in a letter dated July 14, 1998 
that this project is not likely to affect this species and that 
further consultation regarding this species would not be needed 
for this project.
    Estimated Implementation Costs: (Oct 98 price levels):

                                                            Cost-sharing
Federal (Corps of Engineers):
    Flood Control.......................................     $42,862,000
    Recreation..........................................       1,138,000
    Betterments.........................................               0
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................      44,000,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Non-Federal (Santa Clara Valley Water District):
    Flood Control ($41,300,000 LERRD)...................      92,462,000
    Recreation ($0 LERRD)...............................       1,138,000
    Betterments ($0 LERRD)..............................       2,728,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total ($41,300,000 LERRD).........................      96,328,000

    Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: The 
sponsor will contribute LERRDs for flood control features 
totaling $41,300,000 and $51,162,000 in cash. The sponsor will 
contribute $1,138,000 in cash toward recreation features. No 
LERRDs are associated with these costs as no additional lands 
are required for recreation features. The sponsor will also 
contribute $2,728,000 toward the construction of betterments, 
which include the replacement of an existing bridge with a 
bridge which will be larger than that required for flood 
control purposes.
    Description of Non-Federal O&M; Cost: The total annual 
OMRR&R; cost is estimated $495,000. The OMRR&R; of the flood 
control project is the non-Federal sponsor's responsibility, in 
accordance with provisions contained in the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 (PL 99-662. The OMRR&R; requirements for 
the selected plan include annual inspections and routine 
maintenance of bridges, maintenance roads, floodwalls, channel 
slopes, and rock weirs. Routine repairs for gabions, cribwalls, 
fencing, and recreation features (including daily maintenance 
of restrooms) are also included. Vegetation, sediment, trash, 
and debris removal are also included in the annual maintenance 
costs. OMRR&R; costs will also cover surveillance of project 
performance.
    Benefit-Cost Ratio: 2.1 (excluding recreation) (Current 
Discount Rate: 6\7/8\%).
    (7) Yuba River Basin, California.--
    Location of Study Area: The study area is located in Yuba 
County about 50 miles north of Sacramento in northern 
California. The area encompasses the lower Yuba River basin and 
part of the Feather River basin and includes parts of the 
eastern Sacramento Valley and Sierra Nevada foothills.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in the Project Area: 
The study area has experienced frequent floods in the past. The 
most destructive recorded floods on the Yuba and Feather Rivers 
occurred in 1950, 1955, 1986, and 1997. Subsequent levee breaks 
inundated or threatened urban and agricultural areas, forced 
thousands of residents to evacuate their homes, and resulted in 
major property damage and loss of life.
    Alternative Plans Considered: A full array of measures were 
evaluated to formulate flood damage reduction plans. 
Preliminary alternatives included modifying existing levees, 
implementing nonstructural measures, constructing a large or 
small bypass, reregulating Oroville and New Bullards Bar 
Reservoirs, regulating Englebright Reservoir, raising 
Englebright Dam and reregulating Englebright and New Bullards 
Bar Reservoirs, and constructing a single-purpose or multiple-
purpose reservoir at the Parks Bar or Narrows dam sites.
    Description of Recommended Plan: The recommended plan 
involves (1) constructing or deepening 6.7 miles of slurry 
walls, deepening 9 miles of interior toedrains, and 
constructing or modifying 9.5 miles of berms along sections of the Yuba 
and Feather Rivers and (2) constructing 5 miles of slurry walls and 
construction berms along the ring levee around the city of Marysville. 
The recommended plan would provide the communities of Linda and 
Olivehurst and RD 784 area with flood protection from a 1 in 200 annual 
event and the Marysville area with flood protection from a 1 in 300 
annual event.
    Physical Data on Project Features:
    a. Structural:
    (1) Levees--The recommended plan consists of improvements 
to the existing levee system. The recommended plan for Linda/
Olivehurst and RD 784 areas (reaches 1 and 2) includes 3.7 
miles of new slurry wall, 3 miles of extended slurry wall, and 
approximately 9 miles of new or modified berm and toe drains. 
The recommended plan for Marysville includes 5 miles of slurry 
wall with an average depth of 30 feet. Once the levee 
reconstruction work is completed, the levees would meet the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency's requirements for 
certification under the exception granted to the Sacramento 
River Flood Control Project, California, Phases I--V.
    (2) Lands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations--The 
Selected Plan consists of 45 acres needed for a levee easement, 
48 acres needed for temporary construction easement, 54 acres 
needed for a borrow site and 32 acres, five individual sites, 
needed for staging. The proposed construction of a landside 
berm in Reaches 1 and 2 will require the relocation of four 
single family residences.
    b. Water Use and Control: Design flows (minimum and maximum 
amounts and frequencies)--The design flow is 228,000 cfs on the 
Yuba River and 170,000 cfs on the Feather River.
    c. Environmental Features: Mitigation on project lands--Use 
available ``credits'' of 2.98 acres at the existing mitigation 
site for Phase II of the System Evaluation.
    Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Counties: 
The State Reclamation Board (non-Federal sponsor) and Yuba 
County Water Agency strongly support construction of this 
project. Their commitment is demonstrated through the 
construction of the advanced work under Section 104 of WRDA 
1986.
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: Federal and 
regional agencies have no objection to the proposed project.
    Status of Final Environmental Impact Statement: The Final 
EIS/EIR was filed with EPA on June 2, 1998.
    Estimated Implementation Costs (October 1998 price levels):

Federal: Corps of Engineers/flood control (65%).........     $17,350,000
Non-Federal State Reclamation Board (35%)...............       9,250,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................      26,600,000

    Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: The non-
Federal sponsor is responsible for providing all lands, 
easements, rights of way, relocations, and disposal areas 
(LERRDs) necessary for construction of the project. The value 
of LERRDs is $ 2.7 million. The non-Federal sponsor is to 
provide a cash contribution of 5 percent of the total project 
cost and an additional cash contribution, if necessary to bring 
the non-Federal share to a minimum of 35 percent of the total 
project cost, with credit given for LERRD's.
    Estimated Annual O&M; Costs (October 1998 price levels):

Federal: Corps of Engineers/flood control...............               0
Non-Federal: State Reclamation Board....................               0

    Description of Non-Federal O&M; Costs: Currently, the levees 
are operated and maintained as part of the Sacramento River 
Flood Control System. These O&M; practices are not expected to 
change after the implementation of the selected plan. Since the 
associated costs would not change, there would be no additional 
O&M; costs associated with the plan.
    Estimated Effects:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Average annual
                                        equivalent      Average  adverse
          Account annual                beneficial     effects  ($1,000)
                                    effects  ($1,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Economic Development.....             $5,379            $2,066
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefit-Cost Ratio--2.6 (current discount rate--67/8%)

    (8) Delaware Bay Coastline: Delaware and New Jersey--
Broadkill Beach, Delaware.--
    Location: Broadkill Beach is a bayfront community which is 
located in Sussex County approximately three miles northwest of 
Lewes, and extends along approximately 3 miles of bay frontage. 
To the east of Broadkill Beach lies the Delaware Bay, to the 
west lies the Primehook National Wildlife Refuge, and to the 
south lies the Beach Plum Island State Park.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in the Study: The 
community of Broadkill Beach is currently vulnerable to 
significant hurricane and storm induced damages. The storm 
damage mechanisms identified are long term erosion, storm 
recession, inundation and wave attack. An opportunity exists to 
reduce storm damages for Broadkill Beach with the construction 
of a shore protection project.
    Alternative Plans Considered: The solutions considered 
included both nonstructural and structural measures. 
Nonstructural measures considered were no Federal action and 
permanent evacuation; Structural measures considered were berm 
restoration, berm restoration with dune, groin field with berm 
restoration and dune, offshore detached breakwater with berm 
restoration and dune, perched beach with berm restoration and 
dune, and seawall.
    The plan formulation screening process eliminated most of 
the alternatives considered in this study. The solutions 
recommended for optimization to determine the NED plan 
included: berm restoration, berm restoration and dune, and 
groin field with berm restoration and dune.
    Description of Selected Plan: The plan developed in the 
feasibility report generally extends 14,600 feet along the 
bayfront of Broadkill Beach. The plan consists of a berm and a 
dune. The plan includes dune grass, dune fencing, and suitable 
beachfill with periodic nourishment to ensure the integrity of 
the design.
    Physical Data on Project Features: The selected storm 
damage reduction plan generally extends 14,600 feet along the 
bayfront of Broadkill Beach, and consists of:
 A 100 feet wide berm an elevation of +8 feet NGVD, 
extending from just north of Arizona Avenue southward along 
Broadkill Beach for approximately 13,100 feet. Tapers of 1,000 
feet and 500 feet will extend from the northern and southern 
beachfill limits, respectively, for a total project length of 
14,600 feet.
 A dune with a top elevation of +16 feet NGVD and a top 
width of 25 feet.
 Initial beachfill in the amount of 1,305,000 cubic 
yards, with 174,800 s.y. of planted dune grass for sand 
entrapment and 21,800 linear feet of sand fence to maintain 
dune stability.
 Periodic nourishment of approximately 360,000 cubic 
yards of fill from the offshore borrow area every 5 years for 
50 years.
 Monitoring of the placed beachfill, borrow area, 
shoreline, wave and littoral environment is included with the 
plan.
    Views of State and Non-Federal Interests: Sponsorship for 
the project will be provided by the State of Delaware 
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. 
(DNREC). DNREC has expressed its support for the selected plan 
in its letter dated 6 September 1996.
    Concurrence of Federal consistency with the Delaware 
Coastal Zone Management Program, in accordance with Section 
307(c) of the Coastal Zone Management Act, was obtained from 
DNREC on 28 June 1996. A Water Quality Certificate, in 
accordance with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, has been 
waived by DNREC--Division of Water Resources pending receipt of 
plans and specifications and favorable review of a subaqueous 
lands permit application in the next phase of study in a letter 
dated 13 September 1996.
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: All comment letters 
and responses are provided in the final report, including a 
Section 2(b) report prepared by the United States Fish and 
Wildlife Service dated 12 July 1996. Federal and regional 
agencies support the Federal project. There are no unresolved 
issues.
    Status of Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): 
Comments and concerns from Federal, State, and local agencies 
and the public were received regarding the Draft EIS. The Final 
EIS addressed the comments, and it was submitted with the final 
Broadkill Beach Interim Feasibility Report. The Final EIS was 
circulated on 22 November 1996.
    Estimated Implementation Costs: (October 1998 price level)

Initial Construction:
    Federal: Corps of Engineers--Shore Protection.......      $5,674,000
    Non-Federal: Delaware Department of Natural 
      Resources and Environmental Control...............       3,375,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................       9,049,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Periodic Nourishment (average annual cost of future 
    construction over the 50 year life of the project):
    Federal: Corps of Engineers--Shore Protection.......         349,800
    Non-Federal: Delaware Department of Natural 
      Resources and Environmental Control...............         188,400
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Total...............................................         538,200

    Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: In 
addition to providing cash and LERRDS for the initial 
construction of the project, the sponsor will be required to 
provide 35 percent of the cost of the periodic nourishment over 
the 50-year life of the project.

Initial Construction:
    LERRD...............................................         $76,000
    Cash................................................       3,299,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
     Total..............................................       3,375,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Periodic Nourishment
    Cash................................................         188,400
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
     Total..............................................         188,400

    Estimated Annual O&M; Costs: (October 1998 Price Level)

Federal: Corps of Engineers.............................              $0
Non-Federal: Delaware Department of Natural Resources 
    and Environmental Control...........................           5,400

    Desription of non-Federal O&M; Costs: Annual O&M; costs 
associated with this project include costs for maintenance of 
sand fence and replanting of dune grass as needed.
    Estimated Effects:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Average annual
                                        equivalent       Average Annual
              Account                   beneficial      Adverse effects
                                     effects  (000's)       (000's)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Purposes--Hurricane and Storm                  $1,930             $1,362
 Damage Reduction: Net National
 Economic Development.............
                                   --------------------
      Total.......................              1,930              1,362
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Benefit-Cost Ratio: 1.4 (Discount Rate--6.875%)
    (9) Delaware Bay Coastline, Delaware & New Jersey; Port 
Mahon Delaware.--
    Location: Port Mahon is located about 7.5 miles east of 
Dover, Delaware, 69 miles south of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 
and 32 miles north of Cape Henlopen. The nearest town to Port 
Mahon is Little Creek, approximately 3 miles to the southwest.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in the Study Area: 
The Port Mahon area has experienced considerable shoreline 
erosion over the years. Several related problems have been 
identified and include: loss of wetlands and beach habitat due 
to shoreline erosion; encroachment of the shoreline toward 
State Road 89 and the potential loss of road access to various 
state and privately-owned facilities in the study area; 
potential physical damage to structures in the study area 
(including the fuel dock and underground pipeline which 
delivers jet fuel to Dover Air Force Base; fishing piers; and 
boat docks); and lack of sufficient depth to allow for 
navigation of fishing vessels and fuel barges at low tide.
    Alternative Plans Considered: Alternatives recommended for 
detailed optimization analyses included variations of: 
beachfill using material from nearby navigation channels; 
interior marsh restoration; and shoreline fringe marsh 
restoration.
    Description of Selected Plan: The selected plan consists of 
3 elements designed to restore and protect the ecosystem at 
Port Mahon.
    The first element consists of restoration of horseshoe crab 
habitat through the placement of sand along the shoreline. The 
plan also includes construction of a revetment to tie into the 
existing revetment from the termination of the beachfill to the 
project limits to provide stability. Port Mahon is recognized 
by the Delaware Estuary Program as a significant breeding site 
for horseshoe crabs, important from an ecological and economic 
standpoint. The source of sand for the initial construction 
would be the Delaware River Main Channel. Periodic nourishment 
would be accomplished through use of dredged material from the 
existing Delaware River Main Channel, coincident with 
maintenance operations.
    The second element of the selected plan for the purpose of 
access during project construction calls for raising State Road 
89. The elevated roadway will also protect the wetlands to the 
west of State Road 89 from excessive and damaging overwash.
    The third element in the selected plan is the restoration 
of 21.4 acres of degraded interior marsh west of State Road 89. 
This calls for the reestablishment of daily tidal inundation 
into the wetlands and the creation of three open water ponds of 
1-acre size. Removal of material to an elevation 6 inches below 
the mean high water line would enable replacement of the 
existing common reed (Phragmites) with smooth cordgrass 
(Spartina alterniflora), a more productive plant community. The 
excavated material from the marsh, ponds, and ditches would be 
placed adjacent to the active disposal area owned by the 
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental 
Control (DNREC). This placement is estimated to result in 10 
acres of upland which would contribute to habitat diversity.
    Physical Data on Project Features: Structural, Non-
Structural and Environmental Features: The Selected Plan 
extends approximately 7,500 feet within the project area, and 
consists of the following:
 Placement of 306,000 cy of sandy material from the 
Delaware River navigation channel to restore 5,200 linear feet 
of horseshoe crab habitat along the shoreline.
 Placement of 2,800 cubic yards of revetment stone and 
1,200 cubic yards of bedding stone are required to achieve an 
elevation at +7.0 ft. NAVD for a distance of 1,200 feet.
 Placement of 15,800 cubic yards of road fill are 
required to raise State Road 89 to elevation +7.0 ft. NAVD for 
a distance of 7,500 feet.
 Excavation of 21.4 acres of degraded interior marsh, 
requiring disposal of 96,000 cubic yards of material.
 Creation of 10 acres of upland to promote habitat 
diversity and utilize the excavated material.
    Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries: 
The Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental 
Control (DNREC) is the non-Federal sponsor. DNREC has agreed to 
enter into a cost-sharing partnership with the Corps of 
Engineers to provide ecosystem preservation/restoration and 
shoreline erosion protection for Port Mahon, Kent County 
Delaware.
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: A Planning Aid 
Report was prepared by the USFWS and included in the final Port 
Mahon Interim Feasibility Report. Based on review of the draft 
Environmental Assessment the USFWS has prepared a Section 2(b) 
report. Comments and concerns from other Federal, State and 
local agencies in letters dated from August 21, 1997 through 
September 18, 1997 are addressed in the Pertinent 
Correspondence Appendix.
    Status of NEPA Document: Comments from the public, State, 
Non-Federal, Federal and Regional agencies on the Draft 
Environmental Assessment in letters dated from August 21, 1997 
through September 18, 1997, are addressed in the Final 
Environmental Assessment (FEA), and submitted with the 
Pertinent Correspondence Appendix of the Port Mahon Final 
Interim Feasibility Report. The FONSI is dated 19 September 
1997. Concerns expressed by the USFWS, Delaware Department of 
Natural Resources and Environmental Control, and The Nature 
Conservancy regarding tidal flow into the proposed interior 
marsh restoration and property ownership will be investigated 
during Plans & Specifications. Measures to reduce the volume of 
excavated material as well as alternate disposal locations/
methods for the interior marsh restoration will be evaluated. 
Dimensions and locations of the ditching for the marsh 
restoration plan will also be refined. Coordination is 
currently ongoing with The Nature Conservancy for final design 
of the interior marsh restoration plan.
    Estimated Implementation Costs: (October 1998 price level):

Initial Construction:
    Federal: Corps of Engineers--Ecosystem Restoration..      $4,969,000
    Non-Federal: Delaware Department of Natural 
      Resources and Environmental Control...............       2,675,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
     Total..............................................       7,644,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Periodic Nourishment (average annual cost of future 
    construction over the 50 year life of the project):
    Federal: Corps of Engineers--Ecosystem Restoration..         152,000
    Non-Federal: Delaware Department of Natural 
      Resources and Environmental Control...............          82,000
     Total..............................................         234,000

    Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: In 
addition to providing cash and LERRDS for the initial 
construction of the project, the sponsor will be required to 
provide 35 percent of the cost of the periodic nourishment over 
the 50-year life of the project.

Initial Construction:
    LERRD...............................................        $290,000
    Cash................................................       2,385,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................       2,675,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Periodic Nourishment:
    Cash................................................          82,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................          82,000

    Estimated Annual O&M; Costs: (October 1998 price level)

Federal: Corps of Engineers.............................              $0
Non-Federal: Delaware Department of Natural Resources 
    and Environmental Control...........................           8,400

    Description of Non-Federal O&M; Cost: Annual O&M; costs 
associated with this project include the costs for maintenance 
of the proposed revetment and wetlands.
    Estimated Effects: The selected plan will provide for the 
restoration of approximately 21.4 acres of tidal marsh habitat 
and protection of approximately 60.8 acres of tidal marsh 
habitat. The selected plan will also provide for the 
restoration of approximately 19.2 acres of Delaware Bay beach 
habitat critical to thousands of migrating shorebirds and 
horseshoe crabs. This plan maximized the Environmental Quality 
(EQ) attributes. Because the outcome of the construction 
actions identified by this study will be fish and wildlife 
habitat benefits which are not amenable to monetary benefit 
analyses, no National Economic Development (NED) plan was 
presented. The selected plan will restore 193 fish and wildlife 
habitat units annually over the estimated 50-year life of the 
project. The benefit/cost ratio has not been calculated since 
the environmental benefits are not monetarily quantified.
    (10) Delaware Bay Coastline, Delaware and New Jersey: 
Roosevelt Inlet-Lewes Beach, Delaware--
    Location of the Study Area: The study area extends from the 
northwestern end of Beach Plum Island southeastward to the Cape 
May-Lewes Ferry Terminal at Lewes Beach, Delaware, a distance 
of approximately 4 miles. The study area is located 
approximately 41 miles southeast of Dover, Delaware.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in the Study Area: 
Progressive and constant erosion is evident in certain areas of 
the shoreline. In an attempt to prevent further erosion of the 
shoreline, the State of Delaware has performed a number of 
beachfills on an as-needed basis. The Corps of Engineers has 
also conducted a number of maintenance dredgings at Roosevelt 
Inlet and has placed the dredged material along Lewes Beach. 
Despite the efforts undertaken by both the Corps and State of 
Delaware atLewes Beach, the shoreline continues to erode. Long-
term erosion has resulted in a persistent reduction in storm damage 
protection by reducing the height and width of the beachfront.
    Federal navigation projects in the vicinity of Lewes Beach 
are the primary cause of the erosion at the western end of 
Lewes Beach. The proposed project provides mitigation for the 
erosion caused by the Federal navigation projects and its cost 
shared in accordance with Section 111 of the River and Harbor 
Act of 1968, as amended by Section 940 of WRDA 1986.
    Alternative Plans Considered: Alternatives considered 
included both nonstructural and structural measures. 
Nonstructural measures given consideration included: No Federal 
Action; Floodplain Management; and Permanent Evacuation. 
Structural measures given consideration included: Berm 
Restoration; Berm Restoration with Dune; Groins; Bulkheads; 
Offshore Detached Breakwater; Seawall; and Perched Beach. The 
plan formulation screening process eliminated most of the 
alternative measures considered in this study. Alternatives 
recommended for detailed optimization to determine the NED plan 
included: Berm Restoration; Berm Restoration with Dune; and 
Reconstruction of the South Jetty with Berm Restoration and 
Dune.
    Description of Selected Plan: The selected plan extends 
1400 feet along the western end of Lewes Beach. The plan 
consists of a 25-foot wide berm at an elevation of +8.0 feet 
NAVD, and a dune with a top elevation of +14.0 feet NAVD and 
crest width of 25 feet. The plan includes dune grass, dune 
fencing, and suitable beachfill with periodic nourishment to 
ensure the integrity of the design. The plan also includes 
reconstruction of the south jetty to reduce periodic 
nourishment requirements at the western end of Lewes Beach.
    Physical Data on Project Features: The selected shore 
protection plan extends 1400 feet along the western end of 
Lewes Beach, and consists of:
 A 25 ft wide berm at an elevation of +8.0 ft NAVD.
 A dune with a top elevation of +14.0 ft NAVD and a top 
width of 25 ft.
 A total initial quantity of 174,000 cubic yards of 
sand dredged from Roosevelt Inlet will be placed along the 
area. This fill quantity includes initial design fill 
requirements and advanced nourishment.
 7,000 s.y. of planted dune grass for sand entrapment.
 1,900 l.f. of sand fence to maintain dune stability.
 Renourishment of approximately 132,000 cubic yards of 
sand fill from Roosevelt Inlet every 6 years for the 50-year 
project life.
 A reconstructed south jetty, with a top elevation of 
+8.0 ft NAVD, extending 550 feet long with an additional 160-
foot taper to tie-in with the existing revetment.
 Monitoring of the placed beachfill, borrow area, 
shoreline, wave and littoral environment is included in the 
plan.
    Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries: 
Sponsorship for the project will be provided by the State of 
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental 
Control (DNREC). DNREC has expressed its support for the 
proposed project. A letter dated April 8, 1997 was received 
from the Delaware Department of Environmental Resources which 
indicates that the Department intends to issue a water quality 
certificate upon review of the final environmental assessment. 
The Department has indicated that based on the input received 
to date, there is nothing that would indicate that these 
approvals will not be forthcoming. A letter dated April 18, 
1997 was received from the Delaware Department of Natural 
Resources and Environmental Control, which indicates that the 
selected plan is consistent with the Delaware Coastal 
Management Program.
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: All comment letters 
and responses are provided in the final report, including a 
Section 2(b) report prepared by the United States Fish and 
Wildlife Service. No major or significant views were expressed 
by the agencies.
    Status of NEPA Document: Comments from the Public and 
Agency review of the draft Environmental Assessment were 
received. The final Environmental Assessment addresses the 
comments, and was submitted with the final Feasibility Report. 
The FONSI is dated 29 May 1997.
    Estimated Implementation Costs: (October 1998 price level)

Initial Construction:
    Federal: Corps of Engineers--Shore Protection/
      Navigation Mitigation.............................      $2,620,000
    Non-Federal: Delaware Department of Natural 
      Resources and Environmental Control...............         773,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................       3,393,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Periodic Nourishment (average annual cost of future 
    construction over the 50 year life of the project):
    Federal: Corps of Engineers--Shore Protection/
      Navigation Mitigation.............................         152,000
    Non-Federal: Delaware Department of Natural 
      Resources and Environmental Control...............          44,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................         196,000

    Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: In 
addition to providing cash and LERRDS for the initial 
construction of the project, the sponsor will be required to 
provide 35 percent of the cost of the periodic nourishment over 
the 50-year life of the project.

Initial Construction:
    LERRD...............................................         $16,000
    Cash................................................         757,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
        Total...........................................         773,000
Periodic Nourishment
    Cash................................................          44,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
        Total...........................................          44,000

    Estimated Annual O&M; Costs: (October 1998 price level)

Federal: Corps of Engineers.............................               0
Non-Federal: Delaware Department of Natural Resources 
    and Environmental Control...........................          17,000

    Description of Non-Federal O&M; Costs: Annual O&M; costs 
associated with this project include costs for maintenance of 
sand fence and replanting of dune grass as needed, as well as 
inspecting and repairing the south jetty as needed. Annual 
surveys of the beachfill and south jetty for O&M; project 
monitoring purposes are also the responsibility of the non-
Federal sponsor.
    Estimated Effects:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Average annual
                                        equivalent       Average annual
              Account                   beneficial      adverse effects
                                    effects  ($1,000)       ($1,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Purposes: Storm Damage Reduction:                 602                461
 Net National Economic Development
                                   -------------------------------------
      Total.......................                602                461
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Benefit-Cost Ratio: 1.3 (FY 98 Discount Rate--6.875%).
    (11) Jacksonville Harbor, Florida.--
    Location: The project is located in Duval County, Florida, 
and extends about 25 miles along the St. Johns River from the 
Atlantic Ocean to the downtown area of the City of 
Jacksonville. Jacksonville, which includes all of Duval County, 
is the largest urban complex in northeast Florida and southeast 
Georgia.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: 
Jacksonville Harbor is a commercial deep draft navigation 
project with existing project depths to 38 feet below mean low 
water (MLW) over a distance of about 20 miles from the 
entrance. Many of the vessels that currently use Jacksonville 
Harbor must light-load or wait on high tides in order to enter 
or leave the harbor causing increased transportation costs. The 
current 38-foot MLW project depth also impacts the introduction 
of larger vessels into the fleet that would visit the harbor. 
The loss of those larger vessels results in a loss of 
transportation efficiencies to the port.
    Alternative Plans Under Consideration: Initial structural 
alternatives included three different channel configurations 
(plans A, B, and C) at six different project depths (40-45 feet 
below MLW) with 12 potential disposal sites. After ship 
simulation model testing, plans A (which narrowed the channel) 
and B (which widened the channel) were combined to form plan C. 
Due to the cost of rock excavation for plan C and related 
economic evaluations, three modifications to plan A resulted. 
Plan A3 at a 40-foot below MLW project depth consisting of a 
narrower channel with one channel realignment to avoid rock 
areas satisfied planning objectives.
    Description of Recommended Plan: The NED Plan consist of 
deepening the existing main Federal channel from a 38 to a 39-
feet project depth from the entrance channel to about 14.7 and 
Cuts F and G of the West Blount Island channel from 30 to 38 
feet. The recommended plan is a locally preferred plan (LPP) 
which consists of deepening the main channel to a project depth 
of 40 feet below MLW from the 40-foot depth contour in the 
Atlantic Ocean to about river mile 14.7; realignment of Cuts 
39-41 of the main channel; and deepening the West Blount Island 
Channel along Cuts F and G to a 38-foot depth over the existing 
project width of 300 feet from the main channel to the 
Jacksonville Electric Authority petroleum terminal; and raising 
the dikes of the existing upland disposal area on the east end 
of Bartram Island to accommodate the material from the West 
Blount Island Channel. Disposal of material from the main 
channel involves transporting the predominantly rock material 
by bottom-dump barges to the existing Offshore Dredged Material 
Disposal Site (ODMDS) or an artificial reef site.
    Physical Data on Project Features: The new modifications to 
the existing Federal channels will consist of the following 
project features:
    a. Main Channel Deepening--The main channel deepening to a 
project depth of 40 feet below MLW extends from the 40-foot 
depth contour in the Atlantic Ocean to about river mile 14.7 
over bottom widths varying from 375 to 950 feet. Quantities 
consist of approximately 1,588,000 cubic yards of material. 
Deepening to the 40-foot depth is the LPP.
    b. Main Channel Realignment (Cuts 39-41)--A realignment of 
the existing Federal channel between cuts 39-41 within the 
limits of the existing channel widener slightly straightens the 
turn and avoids rock areas.
    c. West Blount Island Channel Deepening--The West Blount 
Island Channel deepening to a project depth of 38 feet below 
MLW extends from the main channel along Cuts F and G to the 
Jacksonville Electric Authority terminal over a bottom width of 
300 feet. Approximately 1,431,000 cubic yards of material from 
Cuts F and G will be placed in an existing upland disposal area 
on the east end of Bartram Island after the dikes are raised.
    d. Bartram Island Upland Disposal Area Modifications--The 
modifications to the upland disposal area on the east end of 
Bartram Island involve raising the dikes to accommodate the new 
work material from the West Blount Island Channel.
    e. Construction of four advanced maintenance zones inside, 
and adjacent to, the Federal channel limits and one at the east 
end of Mill Cove.
    Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries: 
In a September 23, 1998 letter, the sponsor, representatives of 
the Jacksonville Port Authority, agreed to pay the incremental 
costs of deepening from the 39-foot NED project depth to the 
40-foot depth of the LPP. Since the recommended plan does not 
involve blasting, there are no known significant issues.
    Views of Federal, and Regional Agencies: Completion of the 
State and Agency review was completed on December 7, 1998. 
There are no areas of controversy with the project.
    Status of Final Environmental Impact Statement: The final 
Environmental Impact Statement was published in the Federal 
Register on 6 November 1998.
    Estimated Implementation Costs: (October 1998 price levels)

                                                            Cost-sharing
Federal:
    Corps of Engineers General Navigation Facilities 
      (GNF).............................................  \1\ $9,129,000
Non-Federal:
    Jacksonville Port Authority
        General Navigation Facilities (GNF).............      15,699,000
        Berthing Areas Dredging.........................      1, 267,000
        Diking..........................................          21,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
            Subtotal....................................      16,987,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
            Total.......................................      26,116,000

\1\ Federal share limited to 65% of the NED Plan GNF costs of 
$14,029,000

    Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: Non-
Federal interests are responsible for all lands, easements, 
rights-of-way, relocations, terminal facilities, and dredging 
of berthing areas. The Jacksonville Port Authority shall 
provide a cash contribution of 25 percent of the cost of the 
general navigation facilities during construction and 10 
percent repayment over 30 years. Credit against the 10 percent 
repayment is allowed for the value of lands, easements, rights-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
of-way, and relocations (except utility relocations).

Jacksonville Port Authority:
    Channel Dredging for 39 ft. Project.................      $3,507,000
    10% Repayment.......................................       1,403,000
    Berthing Areas Dredging (39 ft.)....................         247,000
    Diking for Berthing Areas (39 ft.)..................          21,000
    Channel Dredging for 40 ft. Project.................      10,789,000
    Berthing Area Dredging (40 ft)......................       1,020,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
        Total...........................................      16,987,000

    Estimated Annual O & M Costs: The estimated annual O&M; 
costs include a net increase of $215,000 for additional project 
maintenance. No additional costs are incurred for construction 
of the LPP versus the NED Plan.
    Description of non-Federal O & M Costs: Increased annual 
maintenance dredging costs for the main channel are $155,000 
plus $60,000 for the West Blount Island Channel or $215,000. No 
O&M; costs are apportioned to the non-Federal sponsor.
    Estimated Effects: (October 1998 price levels)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Average annual
                                        equivalent       Average annual
              Account                   beneficial      adverse effects
                                     effects ($1,000)       ($1,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Purposes:--Commercial Navigation:               2,790              1,346
 National Economic Development (39
 ft.).............................
                                   -------------------------------------
      Total.......................              2,790              1,346
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Benefit-Cost Ratio: 2.1 (Current Discount Rate: 6\7/8\%).
    (12) Tampa Harbor--Big Bend Channel, Florida.--
    Location: The proposed navigation project is located at 
Hillsborough and Tampa Bays in city of Tampa, Hillsborough 
County, on the Gulf Coast of Florida.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: Big Bend 
Channel is one of several waterways that branch from the 43-
foot deep main entrance channel at Tampa Harbor. The Big Bend 
channel is a privately constructed, privately maintained, 
waterway about 2.2 miles long, 200 feet wide (bottom width), 
and 34 feet deep reference to mean low water. The existing Big 
Bend project includes a 1,000-foot long turning basin,having a 
varying width of 700 to 1,500 feet. Currently, the existing channel 
serves two users. 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). Pilots report that navigation on the Big Bend channel is 
difficult in non-ideal weather conditions. The primary navigation 
problem relates to the 200-foot bottom width of the existing Big Bend 
channel. Frequent strong winds make navigation within channel 
boundaries extremely difficult. Additionally, the 34-foot channel depth 
restricts its use to vessels with operating drafts of about 34 feet or 
less. The use of shallow to moderate draft vessels occurs at a higher 
unit cost for transport. The study considered the feasibility of 
further modifying the existing Tampa Harbor Federal navigation project 
to include Big Bend channel with particular emphasis on deepening and 
widening the existing channels to accommodate the existing and 
prospective vessel fleet.
    Alternative Plans Considered: The Big Bend Channel 
modification study considered enlarging the channel bottom 
width as well as deepening the channel. Based on a ship model 
simulation study, only the entrance channel and turning basin 
needs widening. Plan A would add 25 feet both north and south 
of the existing entrance channel width. Plan B would add 50 
feet to the north. Deepening the entrance channel, turning 
basin, inner channel, east channel, and berthing areas from 36 
to 46 feet was considered.
    Description of Recommended Plan: The feasibility report 
recommends a plan to deepen the existing 34-foot deep and 2.2 
mile Big Bend channel to 41 feet and widen the channel from 200 
to 250 feet. The plan also calls for deepening the existing 
turning basin to 41 feet and expanding the existing turning 
basin to provide a minimum width of 1,200 feet. During initial 
construction, all features of the plan would be dredged an 
additional 2 feet of depth beyond the recommended channel to 
provide for maintenance efficiencies. The Tampa Port Authority 
is the non-Federal sponsor of the proposed navigation 
improvements. Associated non-Federal facilities include 
deepening the berthing areas and modifying bulkheads.
    Physical Data on Project Features: Approximately 3.5 
million cubic yards of dredged material from the initial 
construction would be disposed in the existing disposal Island 
3D in Tampa Harbor. The dikes on Island 3D would be raised 
approximately 7 feet to accommodate material from the initial 
construction of the Big Bend project.
    Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries: 
The recommended project is strongly supported by the State of 
Florida. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection 
expressed concern for the safety of manatees during 
construction. The non-Federal project sponsor, Tampa Port 
Authority, also strongly supports the recommended plan.
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service and the State of Florida Department of 
Environmental Protection both support the recommended project, 
however, they express concern for the safety of manatees during 
construction.
    Status of NEPA Documentation: An Environmental Assessment 
was completed September 1996. A Finding of No Significant 
Impact (FONSI) was signed on September 2, 1996.
    Estimated Implementation Costs: (October 1998 price 
levels):

                                                            Cost-sharing
Federal:
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers General Navigation 
      Facilities........................................      $5,797,000
    U.S. Coast Guard Navigation Aids....................         438,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Subtotal..........................................       6,235,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Non-Federal Cost--Tampa Port Authority:
    General Navigation Facilities.......................       3,121,000
    Berthing Areas/Bulkhead Modifications...............       3,000,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Subtotal..........................................       6,121,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................      12,356,000

    Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: The 
sponsor cost-sharing for General Navigation features includes 
channel, turning basin, and disposal area construction is 25 
percent cash contribution, plus 10 percent over 30 years for a 
total of 35 percent, or $3,121,000. The non-Federal sponsor 
will also perform bulkhead modifications, estimated at 
$2,133,000, and dredging of berthing areas at a cost of 
$867,000.
    Estimated Annual O&M; Costs: (October 1998 price levels):

                                                            Cost-sharing
Federal: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Maintenance 
    Dredging............................................        $248,000
Non-Federal: Tampa Port Authority.......................          49,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................         297,000

    Description of Non-Federal O&M; Costs: The Tampa Port 
Authority is responsible for the annual cost of dredging the 
berthing areas ($19,000) and disposal facility improvements 
($30,000).
    Estimated Effects:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Average annual
                                        equivalent       Average annual
              Account                   beneficial      adverse effects
                                    effects  ($1,000)       ($1,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Purposes: Commercial Navigation:               $3,804             $1,178
 National Economic Development
 (NED)............................
      Total.......................              3,804              1,178
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Benefit to Cost Ratio: 3.2 to 1. (Current Discount Rate: 6-
7/8%)
    (13) Brunswick Harbor Deepening, Georgia.--
    Location: Brunswick Harbor is located in an estuary along 
the Atlantic Coast approximately 80 miles south of Savannah, 
Georgia, and 70 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in the Study: The 
existing authorized channel depths at Brunswick continue to 
constrain traffic. Under present conditions, many ships calling 
at the port incur costly tidal delays and light loading. A 
problem which is most acute for bulk and breakbulk vessels. As 
traffic continues to increase, and as vessels in the world 
fleet continue to grow in size due to the 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. Opportunities exists 
to reduce transportation costs and increase safety for harbor 
transit.
    Alternative Plans Considered: Based on previous studies, 
feasibility evaluations, and existing planning constraints, the 
final array of alternatives available to address the problems 
were combinations of the following measures: (a) deepen the 
channel by 2 to 6 feet to reduce light loading and tidal 
delays; (b) widen problem areas to increase vessel safety and 
efficiency of transits; (c) create a new turning basin in upper 
East River to increase vessel safety and turning capabilities; 
and (d) expand the existing Lower Turtle River turning basin to 
increase vessel safety and turning capabilities.
    Description of Recommended Plan: The recommended plan 
consists of deepening the harbor by six feet. This would change 
the authorized project depth in the Bar Channel from -32 feet 
mlw to -38 feet mlw and in the Inner and Upper Harbor from -30 
feet mlw to -36 feet mlw. The channel will be widened to 400 
feet in reaches through the new bridge, which will replace the 
existing old and hazardous Sidney Lanier Bridge. Also, select 
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, replacing the existing one, and the existing 
turning basin in Lower Turtle River will be expanded. These 
measures will allow for safe and efficient navigation by the 
modern fleet projected to use Brunswick harbor.
    Physical Data of Project Features: The existing harbor 
consists of 28 miles of channel, including nine miles of 
entrance (bar) channel and two turning basins. Existing depths 
are 30 feet in the inner and upper harbor and 32 feet in the 
bar channel. The improved features of the Harbor will consist 
of the following:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Bottom width   Project depth (-
                       Project segment                          Distance (mi)         (ft)           ft mlw)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Channels:
    Bar Channel..............................................               9              500               38
    Inner Harbor.............................................               8              400               36
Upper Harbor:
    East River Lower Range...................................               1              400               36
    East River Upper Range...................................               1              400               36
    Turtle River Lower Range.................................               2              400               36
    South Brunswick River....................................               1              400               36
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


b. Turning Basins:
    East River..................      1,100 x 1,100                  36
    Lower Turtle River..........      2,500 x 1,150                  36


    Views of State, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries: 
The non-Federal sponsor, Georgia Ports Authority (GPA), 
strongly supports the proposed project and has been an active 
participant in the conduct of the feasibility study. The GPA 
desires and has requested the Feasibility Report be completed 
and processed in order to meet Administrative requirements for 
inclusion in a Water Resource Development Act of 1998. The Port 
Authority has provided full cooperation to meet this goal and 
is prepared to meet the necessary financial obligations 
associated with this project.
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: There are no 
significant issues associated with the recommended plan.
    Status of National Environmental Policy Act Compliance: A 
final EIS was filed with the Environmental Protection Agency on 
12 June 1998.
    Estimated Implementation Cost: (October 1998 price levels).

Federal:
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers General Navigation 
      Facilities........................................     $32,870,000
    U.S. Coast Guard Aids to Navigation.................          96,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
            Subtotal....................................      32,966,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Non-Federal:
    Georgia Ports Authority:
        General Navigation Facilities...................      17,509,000
        Berthing Areas Dredging.........................         215,000
        Real Estate.....................................          27,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
            Subtotal....................................      17,751,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
            Total.......................................      50,717,000

    Description of Non-Federal Implementation Cost: The non-
Federal sponsor is responsible for providing all lands, 
easements, rights-of-way, and relocations necessary for 
implementation of the project currently estimated at $27,000, 
provide project depths within the berthing areas at $215,000, 
and share in the cost of all general navigation features 
estimated at 25 percent during construction and an additional 
10 percent repayment over 30 years with interest ($17,509,000). 
The value of lands, easements, rights-of-way, and dredged 
material disposal areas are credited toward the 10 percent 
additional non-Federal cost share to be paid over a period not 
to exceed 30 years.
    Estimated Annual O&M; Cost: The total annual differential 
maintenance dredging costs are currently estimated at $159,000. 
The existing annual maintenance cost for Andrews Island is 
estimated at $20,400 and no increase is expected for the future 
maintenance cost for Andrews Island due to new work and 
increased dike heights.
    Description of Non-Federal O&M; Cost: None. No additional 
non-Federal annual maintenance cost, over and above their 
existing cost, is expected for the berthing areas.
    Estimated Effects: (October 1998 price level).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Average annual
                                        equivalent       Average annual
              Account                   beneficial      adverse effects
                                    effects  ($1,000)       ($1,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Economic Development                   6,837              3,617
 Navigation.......................
      Total.......................              6,837              3,617
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Benefit-Cost Ratio: 1.9 (Current Discount Rate: 6-7/8%)
    (14) Beargrass Creek, Kentucky.--
    Location: The Beargrass Creek Basin, a tributary of the 
Ohio River, lies entirely in Jefferson County, Kentucky, and 
has a 61 square-mile drainage area. Approximately 50% of the 
City of Louisville, the largest city in the State, lies within 
the boundaries of the drainage area. The focus of the study was 
on the South Fork and Buechel Branch.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: Historical 
and/or significant floods in the basin occurred in 1937, 1964, 
1970, 1973, 1990, 1993, and most recently in 1997 when 8.58 
inches of rain fell over a 30 hour period. The probability that 
a flood causing significant damages will occur in any given 
year varies by stream reach from 7% to 93%. Overall, the 
average chance that significant damages will occur is 35%. An 
occurrence of the 1% chance flood event would damage 929 
structures, valued at $234 million, and would result in 
approximately $48 million in damages. Expected annual damages 
are estimated at $3 million.
    Alternative Plans Considered: A full range of structural 
and nonstructural measures were considered. Structural measures 
included detention basins, dry bed reservoirs, levees, 
floodwalls, bridge improvements, and channel modifications. 
Nonstructural measures included flood proofing, permanent 
relocation of structures, flood warning/preparedness systems, 
and regulation of floodplain uses. Detention basins, levees, 
and channel modifications were found to be the most effective. 
Nonstructural measures were found to be too costly, and in the 
case of flood warning/preparedness, not effective due to the 
short amount of warning time available.
    Description of Recommended Plan: The recommended plan 
consists of four detention basins and a small section of 
channel improvement on the South Fork and three new detention 
basins, modification of an existing detention basin, and a 
combination floodwall/levee on Buechel Branch. The detention 
basins and channel improvements function as a system to reduce 
the probability that significant damages will occur as a result 
of overbank flooding. Depending on location, with these 
features in place, there is a 2% to 68% chance that significant 
damages will occur in any given year. Overall, the average 
chance that significant damages will occur is 20%. The area 
protected by the floodwall/levee feature has a 15% chance of 
being damaged by the 1% chance flood event in any one-year. The 
proposed project will reduce the areal extent of the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency regulatory floodplain throughout 
the project area, such that an estimated 314 structures will be 
removed from the regulatory floodplain. Remapping of the 
floodplain will clearly identify that portion of the flood 
plain whichwill be removed from the flood hazard potential, and 
any portion which remains subject to the National Flood Insurance 
Program.
    Physical Data on Project Features: The recommended plan 
includes the following features:
          a. Breckenridge Lane Detention Basin--30 acre feet.
          b. Downing Way Detention Basin--13 acre feet.
          c. Gerald Court Detention Basin--9 acre feet.
          d. Bashford Manor Detention Basin--160 acre feet.
          e. Richland Avenue Detention Basin--52 acre feet.
          f. Old Shepherdsville Road Detention Basin--43 acre 
        feet.
          g. Hikes Lane Detention Basin--42 acre feet.
          h. Fountain Square Apartments Detention Basin--
        modification of the inlet and outlet structures of the 
        existing basin so it can be utilized for more frequent 
        flood events.
          i. South Fork Channel Modification--a bottom width of 
        30 feet, 3 on 1 side slopes on one bank only for a 
        total length of about 2,000 feet.
          j. Willow Brook I-Wall/Earth Levee--concrete I-
        floodwall, 3 to 5 feet high, about 1,200 feet long and 
        earth levee, up to 5 feet high, about 650 feet long.
    A number of environmental design features are incorporated 
into the project. Most of the detention basins will be planted 
with native grasses and forbs adapted to inundation and 
suitable for wildlife. Mowing will be no more than once a year 
to maintain a meadow condition and enhance wildlife use. Basin 
side slopes will be planted in trees and shrubs. The Old 
Shepherdsville Road detention basin is designed to retain water 
longer than the other basins, essentially acting as a wetland 
and providing an area for habitat. The South Fork channel 
modification will include artificial pools and riffles to be 
constructed by placement of stone riprap.
    Although project features have been modified to avoid or 
minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources, the 
project will result in a net loss of six acres of trees. To 
mitigate for this loss, nine acres of native hard mast trees 
and shrubs will be planted on floodplain property owned by the 
Louisville Metro Parks Department.
    Views of States, Non-Federal Interests, and Others: The 
final feasibility report was circulated for public and agency 
review on January 7, 1998. No comments were received from non-
government entities. The non-Federal sponsor, the Louisville 
and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD), 
supports the project.
    The Commonwealth of Kentucky provided the coordinated views 
of 16 state agencies. The Kentucky Heritage Council will 
continue to consult regarding the need for additional cultural 
resource investigations. The Division of Water has issued a 
Water Quality Certification for the project.
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: Letters received 
from the U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife 
Service, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency did not 
raise any objections to the project.
    Status of National Environmental Policy Act Compliance: An 
Environmental Assessment was completed. The Finding of No 
Significant Impact was signed on September 11, 1997.
    Estimated Implementation Costs: (October 1998 Price 
Levels). (All costs are allocated to flood damage reduction).

Federal.................................................      $7,260,000
Non-Federal.............................................       3,910,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Total:..............................................      11,170,000

    Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: Non-
federal implementation costs are based on their 
responsibilities to provide lands, easements, and rights-of-
ways ($2,740,000); relocations ($128,000); and a cash 
contribution equal to 5% of the total project cost plus 
additional cash to make its total contribution equal to 35% of 
the total project cost ($1,040,000).
    Description of Non-Federal O&M; Cost: The non-Federal 
sponsor will be responsible for annual mowing and inspection of 
the project components as well as cleaning the spillway and 
outlet structures of the detention basins, sealing the wall 
joints of the floodwall, and cleaning the channel.
    Benefit-Cost Ratio: 2.7 (Current Discount Rate: 6\7/8\%).
    (15) Amite River and Tributaries, Louisiana.--
    Location: The study area encompasses a major portion of 
East Baton Rouge Parish in southeastern Louisiana. The study 
area included seven watersheds in East Baton Rouge Parish that 
drain to the Amite River. They are Beaver Bayou, Blackwater 
Bayou, Jones Creek, Ward Creek, Bayou Fountain, Claycut Bayou 
and Bayou Manchac. Major urban areas in the study area include 
the capital city of Baton Rouge, Zachary and Baker.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: Numerous 
minor floods and 9 major floods have occurred in the Amite 
River basin between 1973 and 1993. Flooding within the basin 
originates from excessive rainfall resulting in headwater and 
backwater overflow of the Amite River and tributary streams. 
The maximum flood of record occurred in 1983 and caused 
approximately $172 million in damages in the Amite River basin. 
In the East Baton Rouge watershed, flood damages were estimated 
at $65 million.
    Alternative Plans Considered: Numerous structural and non-
structural measures were considered for reducing flood damages 
in the East Baton Rouge Parish watershed. Structural plans 
included options such as: storm water retention basins, 
channelmodifications, diversion levees, and pumping stations. Non-
structural measures considered such actions as floodplain management, 
raising structures in place, building small earthen levees or 
floodwalls around structures, constructing ring levees around selected 
subdivisions, flood forecasting and warning, and removal of structures 
from the floodplain.
    Description of Recommended Plan: The Recommended Plan 
involves channel modifications to five watersheds within the 
parish of East Baton Rouge. These watersheds are Blackwater 
Bayou and its main tributary, Beaver Bayou, Jones Creek and 
Tributaries, Ward Creek and tributaries, and Bayou Fountain. 
The plan consists of modifying approximately 66 total miles of 
channel. This involves approximately 25 miles of minimal 
channel clearing and snagging, 24 miles of earthen channel 
enlargement, and 17 miles of channel concrete lining. Included 
in the proposed construction are 60 miles of stream bank 
aesthetic tree planting. Fish and Wildlife mitigation features 
consist of the reforestation of 397 acres of cleared land to 
compensate for an estimated 280 acres of bottomland hardwoods 
that would be lost to project construction. Recreation features 
include an 11-mile bicycle path. The proposed channel 
modifications for Beaver Bayou, Ward Creek and Bayou Fountain 
are designed to have a 10% chance of being out of bank in any 
one year. Beaver Bayou and Jones Creek channel modifications 
are designed to have 4% and 2% chances, respectively, of being 
out of bank in any one year. The proposed project will reduce 
the areal extent of the Federal Emergency regulatory floodplain 
throughout the project area. Remapping of the floodplain will 
clearly identify that portion of the floodplain which will be 
removed from the flood hazard potential, and any portion which 
remains subject to the National Flood Insurance Program.
    Physical Data on Project Features: Blackwater Bayou 
Feature: Earthen channel enlargement of 13 miles channel of 
main stem (mouth to Greenwell Springs Road) & its main 
tributary (Tributary #1--mouth to McCullough Road) seven roads 
and bridges and 4 pipeline relocations are required.
    Beaver Bayou Feature: Earthen channel enlargement 8 miles 
channel of main stem (Frenchtown Road to Hubbs Road) three 
roads and bridges and 8 pipeline relocations are required.
    Jones Creek Feature: Clearing, reshaping, & concrete line 
19 miles of the main stem of Jones Creek (Jones Creek Road to 
Lobdell Road) & its main tributaries: Lively Bayou (mouth to 
Illinois Central RR), Lively Bayou Tributary (Mouth to Tams 
Dr.), and Weiner Creek (mouth to Cedar Crest Ave.); and 
clearing and snagging lower Jones Creek (mouth to Jones Creek 
Road); and constructing 11 miles of recreational bike paths 
along Jones Creek to tie in with 3 miles of street bike paths.
    Ward Creek Feature: Clear and/or concrete lining 14 miles 
of channel in the following areas: Main stem of Ward Creek--
minimal clearing & snagging (mouth to Corporate Blvd.--not 
including new section between Pecue & Siegen Lane); 2 main 
tributaries: Dawson Creek (minimal clear & snag between mouth 
to Bayou Duplantier), and North Branch of Ward Creek (concrete 
line between mouth to I-12)
    Bayou Fountain Feature: Clear and/or widen 11 miles of 
channel in the following areas: Mouth to Siegen Lane--clear & 
snag between Siegen and Gardere Lane--widen channel, Gardere 
Lane to Ben Hur Road--clear & snag, one 4 inch petroleum 
products pipeline relocation required; and
    Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries: 
The feasibility study was cost-shared by the Louisiana 
Department of Transportation and Development. East Baton Rouge 
City-Parish Government has signed a Letter of Intent to sponsor 
and cost-share in the construction of the project. The letter 
of intent is dated November 13, 1995.
    The major public concerns that were raised regarding the 
project include the following: (1) increasing the flooding 
potential in the northwest portion of Ascension Parish just 
south of Bayou Manchac; (2) the effects of the proposed action 
on esthetics of the urban area; and (3) the effects of the 
proposed action on current floodplain management within the 
urban area. These concerns were thoroughly discussed with the 
individuals and agencies expressing these concerns. Responses 
to these concerns are as follows: (1) the effects of the 
proposal would only minimally increase stages in Bayou Manchac 
but would hasten the arrival of study area stormwaters reaching 
the Amite River in relation to arrival of stormwaters from the 
remainder of the upstream Amite River tributaries which would 
be unaffected by the proposed action; (2) esthetic treatment 
including tree and shrub planting is an integral part of the 
proposed action with more intense treatments being implemented 
in areas of greater potential occurrences of visual 
observations; and (3) implementation of the proposed action 
would not occur without the enactment by the city/parish 
government of additional ordinances and promulgation of 
regulations to limit encroachment in the floodplain that would 
limit the flood-carrying capacity of the project. Issues raised 
have been favorably resolved with individuals and agencies 
expressing those concerns.
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The recommended 
plan fully compensates through mitigation measures for all 
adverse impacts to significant wildlife habitats. It 
incorporates all practicable means to avoid or minimize harm to 
the environment. The plan is supported by Federal and state 
resource agencies.
    Status of NEPA Document: The final Environmental Impact 
Statement was filed with Environmental Protection Agency on 
July 25, 1996. The Record of Decision was signed by the Acting 
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) on March 13, 
1998.
    Estimated Implementation Costs: (October 1998 Price Levels)

                                                           Cost Sharing:
Federal (Agency/Purpose):
    Corps of Engineers/Flood Control....................     $84,034,000
    Corps of Engineers/Recreation.......................         641,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
        Federal Total:..................................      84,675,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Non-Federal (Specify state/local sponsors):
    Louisiana/City-Parish/Flood Control.................      27,584,000
    Louisiana/City-Parish/Recreation....................         642,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
        Non-Federal Total:..............................      28,225,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
        Total:..........................................     112,900,000

    Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: The non-
Federal implementation cost is estimated at $28,225,000. This 
includes an estimated $14,843,000 in LERRDs and about 
$13,382,000 in cash. In lieu of a portion of the cash 
contribution, the sponsor will perform work-in-kind, including 
design, construction and management of the proposed channel 
modifications for the Bayou Fountain Watershed, and perform all 
necessary clearing for channel modification on Beaver Bayou, 
Blackwater Bayou, Weiner Creek and Dawson Creek. The estimated 
value of this work-in-kind is $4,940,000. The non-Federal 
sponsor's share includes 50 percent of the cost of recreation 
features.
    Description of Non-Federal O&M; Cost: The non-Federal O&M; 
costs consist of continuous inspection and debris removal, 
annual herbicide application and pavement repairs when 
necessary. Clearing and snagging earthen channels will be 
performed every 5 to 10 years as needed.
    Benefit-cost Ratio: 2.6 (Current Discount Rate: 6\7/8\ 
percent)
    (16) Baltimore Harbor Anchorages and Channel, Maryland and 
Virginia.--
    Location: The study area encompasses the 32-square mile 
area of the Port of Baltimore. The port area of Baltimore 
includes the navigable part of the Patapsco River below Hanover 
Street, the Northwest and Middle Branches, and Curtis Bay and 
its tributary, Curtis Creek.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: The 
anchorage areas within Baltimore Harbor were initially 
authorized between 1909 and 1945 and were designed to 
accommodate the types of vessels calling on the port at that 
time. In recent years, however, the trend toward using larger, 
more efficient vessels has taken precedence over using smaller 
ones, such that the existing anchorages areas at Baltimore are 
not sufficient in depth or width. Large vessels requiring 
anchorage must anchor 25 miles south of Baltimore in naturally 
deep water, resulting in delays and related costs to the 
shipping industry. In addition, some of the branch channels 
within the port are also insufficient to accommodate the types 
of vessels currently calling on Baltimore. Due to the narrow 
widths of the branch channels serving the Seagirt and Dundalk 
Marine Terminals, additional time is required for the pilots to 
safely maneuver ships to and from the berths.
    Alternative Plans Under Consideration: During formulation 
of potential plans of improvement, various structural and 
nonstructural measures were examined, including construction of 
sea islands, various types of single-point and multi-point 
moorings, channel modifications, and implementation of a vessel 
traffic management system. Anchorage alternatives included 
free-swing anchorages, ranging from 1,500 feet wide and 30 feet 
deep to 2,400 feet wide and 44 feet deep. Specific channel 
improvements investigated were widening some of the channels 
from 300 feet to 400 feet, and from 350 feet to 500 feet; 
providing cutoff angles; construction of a turning basin at the 
head of the Fort McHenry Channel; and providing a new 400-foot 
wide channel at the South Locust Point Marine Terminal. Some of 
these alternatives were then grouped together into six plans to 
identify a plan of improvement that contributes the most net 
benefits.
    Description of Recommended Plan: Construction of the 
recommended plan will widen and deepen two existing Federal 
anchorages; widen several connecting channels; provide a new 
turning basin near Fort McHenry; and provide a new branch 
channel within the Port of Baltimore. The estimated 4.4 million 
cubic yards of initial dredged material will be placed in the 
existing Hart-Miller Island upland placement site. The proposed 
project has a total first cost of $27.7 million, and will 
produce an estimated $10 million in navigation benefits 
annually. Initial dredging is anticipated to be conducted over 
two dredging cycles in 2000 and 2001. Maintenance dredging of 
the recommended improvements is estimated at roughly 16,500 
cubic yards per year and will be incorporated into the overall 
Baltimore Harbor and Channels dredging.
    Physical Data on Project Features: The recommended plan 
includes the following components:
          deepening and widening a portion of Anchorage #3 to 
        2,200 feet by 2,200 feet, by 42 feet deep;
          deepening and widening a portion of Anchorage #4 to 
        1,800 feet by 1,800 feet, by 42 feet deep;
          widening the East Dundalk Channel to 400 feet, plus 
        the bends and entrances;
          widening the Seagirt-Dundalk Connecting Channel to 
        500 feet;
          widening the West Dundalk Channel to 500 feet, plus 
        the bends and entrances;
          providing cutoff angles at the intersection of the 
        West Dundalk Channel and the main shipping channel;
          providing cutoff angles at the intersection of the 
        Connecting Channel and the west side of Dundalk Marine 
        Terminal;
          constructing a new channel at South Locust Point in 
        the area of the remnant Produce Wharf Channel;
          constructing a 50-foot deep turning basin (1,200 feet 
        by 1,200 feet) near the head of the Fort McHenry 
        Channel;
          deauthorization of Anchorage #1;
          placement of the dredged material at the-Hart-Miller 
        Island placement site; and
          Federal assumption of the maintenance of the existing 
        State channels at Dundalk, Seagirt, and South Locust 
        Point, exclusive of berthing areas.
The total volume of dredged material associated with 
implementation of this project is currently estimated to be 4.4 
million cubic yards. The proposed project will not include any 
land acquisition.
    Views of State, Non-Federal Interests, and Other Countries: 
The recommended plan has received support from the pertinent 
state and local agencies. The Maryland Port Administration, the 
project's non-Federal sponsor, has indicated a strong desire to 
move forward with the project, as indicated in their 21 
November 1997 letter which outlines their proposed financial 
arrangements for the project cost-sharing. The Anchorages 
project is in keeping with the State of Maryland's overall plan 
for harbor development. There are no known significant issues 
related to this project.
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The recommended 
plan has received the support of Federal and regional agencies. 
No negative comments or concerns were expressed during the 
agency review process.
    Status of NEPA Document: The draft environmental impact 
statement was distributed for agency and public comment in 
January-March 1997. All comments were addressed in the final 
feasibility report; no negative comments or concerns were 
received. The final environmental impact statement was filed 
for agency and public review on 1 August 1997; no significant 
concerns were identified during the final EIS review.
    Estimated Implementation Costs: (October 1998 price 
levels).

Federal: Corps of Engineers--Navigation.................     $19,000,000
Non-Federal: Maryland Port Administration...............       9,430,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Total First Cost....................................      28,430,000

    Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: (October 
1998 price levels). The Maryland Port Administration of the 
Maryland Department of Transportation is required to provide 
the non-Federal share for the project. This share is roughly 25 
percent of the project dredging costs, with those elements of 
dredging below 45 feet MLLW (mean lower low water) cost-shared 
at 50-50, and the dredging shallower than 45 feet MLLW at 75-
25.

Lands, Easements, Rights-of-Way, Relocations and Total 
    Non-Federal Construction Share:
    Dredged Disposal....................................      $2,007,000
    Cash................................................       6,793,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      ..................................................       8,800,000
10-Percent Post-Construction Payback Over 30 Years......         630,000
Total Non-Federal Cash (Construction and Payback).......       7,423,000

    Description of Non-Federal O&M; Costs: There are no non-
Federal operation and maintenance responsibilities associated 
with this project.
    Estimated Effects: (October 1998 price levels).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Average annual
                                        equivalent       Average annual
              Account                   beneficial      adverse effects
                                     effects ($1,000)       ($1,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Purposes: National Economic                   $10,300             $2,400
 Development--Navigation..........
                                   -------------------------------------
      TOTAL.......................            $10,300             $2,400
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Benefit-cost ratio: 4.3 (current discount rate = 6.875 
percent).
    (17) Red River Lake at Crookston, Minnesota.--
    Location: Crookston is located in Polk County in 
northwestern Minnesota. It is approximately 25 miles east of 
Grand Forks, North Dakota and about 85 miles south of the 
Canadian border. The city is built upon both banks of the Red 
Lake River, which has several meander loops within the city 
boundaries.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in the Study: 
Recurring overland flooding from the Red Lake River causes 
damages to residential, commercial and public structures. 
Approximately 40% of the land area of the city of Crookston, 
including some 710 residential and commercial structures, are 
located in the regulated floodplain. Major floods have occurred 
in 1950, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1969, 1978, 1979, 1996, and 1997. 
The flood of 1950 caused extensive damage to the city and 
resulted in the loss of two lives and several million dollars 
(1998 value) in damage. The city of Crookston erected emergency 
levees in 1965 that together with emergency flood fights 
prevented major damages ($700,000 in 1997) to the flood prone 
residential areas. The emergency levees were not constructed to 
permanent levee standards and have deteriorated considerably 
since construction. The risk of failure of these levees during 
a major flood event is very high as was evidenced by large-
scale foundation slides during the 1997 flood. Failure of the 
levees would cause catastrophic damages. The city of Crookston 
is very concerned about the adequacy of the levee system.
    Alternative Plans Considered: The feasibility study 
considered a wide array of alternative ways to alleviate the 
flooding problems at Crookston. These included several 
different downstream cutoff channels designed to evacuate flood 
flows quicker and lower the flood stage in Crookston. These 
cutoffs were considered separately and then in various 
combinations. Also considered were permanent levees, 
floodwalls, and roadraises; main channel widening; upstream 
reservoirs; flood proofing of structures; flood proofing of the sewer 
system and the no action alternative.
    Description of the 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% chance of being exceeded in any one year.
    Physical Data on Project Features:
    Downstream Highflow Cutoff Channels are located downstream 
of the city. Both grass-lined channels would have 100-foot 
bottom widths and side slopes ranging from 1 on 3 to 1 on 5. 
They are designed to pass water only when a flood surpassing 
the 50% exceedance frequency occurs; the rest of the time the 
flow will continue in the natural river channel.
    The levee for the Thorndale neighborhood is 1,800 feet in 
length, 2 to 3 feet high with a 10-foot crest and 1 on 3 side 
slopes.
    The levee for the Woods Addition neighborhood is 6,000 feet 
in length, up to 10 feet high with a 10-foot crest and 1 on 3 
side slopes. There is also a road raise at Ash Street and 
Houston Avenue.
    The Downtown/Riverside road raise includes raising 660 feet 
of existing streets up to 6 feet in height and an earthen tie 
back levee to connect the road raise to high ground.
    Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries: 
The State of Minnesota, acting through its Department of 
Natural Resources, has expressed support for the proposed plan. 
The city of Crookston is ready, willing and able to fulfill the 
requirement as the non-Federal sponsor, including cost sharing 
as evidenced by a City Council resolution dated 25 March 1997. 
The city has signed a pre-construction engineering and design 
(PED) cost sharing agreement.
    Views of Federal, and Regional Agencies: The Feasibility 
report has been coordinated with appropriate Federal Agencies, 
including the Environmental Protection Agency, Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Natural Resource Conservation Service, and the Advisory Council 
on Historic Preservation. The report has also been coordinated 
with appropriate Regional agencies, including the Minnesota 
Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota Pollution Control 
Agency, State Historic Preservation Officer, Minnesota Water 
Resource Board, Polk County, and the city of Crookston. No 
significant objections to the proposed plan have been raised.
    The Status of National Environmental Policy Act Compliance: 
An environmental assessment of the proposed project indicates 
that it would not result in significant effects to the 
environment. A Finding of No Significant Impact statement was 
signed in June 1997.
    Estimated Implementation Costs: (October 1998 price 
levels):

                                                            Cost-Sharing
Federal:
Corps of Engineers/Flood Control........................      $5,720,000
Non-Federal:
City of Crookston.......................................       3,230,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Total...............................................       8,950,000

    Description of non-Federal Implementation Cost: The non-
Federal sponsor is required to obtain the necessary real estate 
interests and provide the required cost sharing funds. The 
required cost sharing funds include a minimum cash contribution 
of 5% plus any additional funds required to bring the total 
non-Federal cost share requirement to 35% of the total 
implementation cost. Estimated specific cost sharing 
requirements are as follows:

Lands and damages.......................................      $2,502,000
Relocations.............................................         282,000
Cash....................................................         446,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Total...............................................       3,230,000

    Description of Non-Federal O&M; Costs: The non-Federal 
sponsor is required to operate and maintain the completed 
project. This would include periodic inspections of and repairs 
to the levees, interior drainage facilities and channel 
cutoffs; operation of the project during periods of high water; 
and servicing of all project features, including landscaping. 
Operations and maintenance would also include the monitoring of 
river sedimentation and performing any remedial actions 
required.
    Benefit-Cost Ratio: 1.7 (Current Discount Rate: 6\7/8\%).
    (18) Lower Cape May Meadows, Cape May Point, New Jersey.--
    Location: The study area is located along the southern tip 
of the Atlantic coast of New Jersey, extending approximately 
2.5 miles to include Lower Cape May Meadows and the Borough of 
Cape May Point.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: Lower Cape 
May Meadows has been severely impacted by shoreline erosion and 
subsequent ecosystem degradation. These problems have been 
linked to the Federal navigation project at Cape May 
Inlet.Since 1955, more than 124 acres has been lost to erosion alone. 
It is estimated that more than 138 additional acres will be lost by the 
year 2050 under the no-action scenario. Lower Cape May Meadows also 
serves as a buffer during storms between the ocean and the surrounding 
developed areas.
    The Federal navigation project at Cape May Inlet is the 
primary cause of the erosion at Cape May Meadows. The proposed 
project, in part, mitigates for the erosion caused by the 
Federal navigation project. Other separable project elements 
are included to provide ecosystem restoration and hurricane and 
storm damage reduction.
    Alternative Plans Considered: Final plans considered 
included; protective dune and berm restoration, restoration of 
beach habitat, restoration of freshwater wetland habitat, 
reestablish drainage between ponds, eliminate/control of 
nuisance plant species Phragmites australis, creation of water 
reservoirs within ponds, reconnect hydrologic units in 
combination with water control structures, dike(s) along with 
possible drainage structures located along Cape May Point and 
West Cape May.
    Description of Selected Plan: The selected plan consists of 
the following components: (1) Restoration of a protective dune/
berm which includes planting of dune vegetation. An offshore 
borrow area will be used. Periodic nourishment over the project 
life will be required. (2) Seaward restoration of 35 acres of 
freshwater emergent freshwater wetlands, extending MHW a 
maximum distance of 280 feet seaward. (3) Restoration of the 
existing freshwater wetlands which includes; elimination of 95 
acres of Phragmites australis, planting of emergent wetland 
vegetation, restoration/creation of drainage ditches to restore 
flow and link hydrological segments of the project area, 
installation of water control structures, creation of deep 
water fish reservoirs within existing ponds, and construction 
of a shallow earthen water retaining structure and a self-
regulating tide gate to allow for a tidal marsh.
    Physical Data on Project Features:

Protective Dune/Berm Component:
    Volume of Initial Fill.....................  1,722,000 cu yds.
    Volume of Renourishment Fill...............  650,000 cu yds.
    Interval of Renourishment..................  4 years.
    Length of Fill.............................  10,050 ft.
    Width of Beach Berm........................  20 ft.
    Width of Dune Crest........................  25 ft.
    Dune Grass.................................  18 acres.
    Sand Fencing...............................  15,000 linear ft.
Internal Ecosystem Restoration
    Seaward restoration of previously eroded     35 acres.
     wetland.
    Elimination of Phragmites australis........  95 acres.
    Emergent wetland vegetation plantings......  105 acres.
    Tidal marsh................................  25 acres.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries: 
In a letter dated 5 November 1997, the New Jersey Department of 
Environmental Protection has expressed its support for the 
project.
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: Agency involvement, 
especially USFWS, has been on-going since study initiation. The 
selected plan contributes to the goals of many different agency 
programs including: North American Waterfowl Management Plan, 
Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network, The Convention On 
Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar, Iran, 1971), 
National Estuary Program--Delaware Estuary Program, Coastal 
Ecosystems Program, the Cape May Stopover Project. In addition, 
the feasibility study is officially endorsed by the Coastal 
America Program. Many agencies have already expressed support 
for the project based on information provided to them.
    Status of NEPA Document: EIS finalized August 1998.
    Estimated Implementation Costs: (October 1998 price level).

Initial Construction:
    Federal: Corps of Engineers--Navigation Mitigation/
      Shore Protection/Ecosystem Restoration............     $12,118,000
        Navigation Mitigation...........................       6,295,000
        Shore Protection................................       2,378,000
        Ecosystem Restoration...........................       3,445,000
    Non-Federal: New Jersey Department of Environmental 
      Protection........................................       3,834,000
        Navigation Mitigation...........................         699,000
        Shore Protection................................       1,280,000
        Ecosystem Restoration...........................       1,885,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
          Total.........................................      15,952,000

Project cost sharing is as follows: navigation mitigation--76 
percent (jetties effect) is cost shared 90 percent Federal and 
10 percent non-Federal, 24 percent (natural erosion) is cost 
shared 65 percent Federal and 35 percent non-Federal; shore 
protection and ecosystem restoration is cost shared 65 percent 
Federal and 35 percent non-Federal. Periodic nourishment for 
navigation mitigation and shoreline protection is cost shared 
on the same basis as is the initial construction.

Periodic Nourishment (average annual cost of future 
    construction over the 50 year life of the project):
    Federal: Corps of Engineers--Navigation Mitigation/
      Shore Protection..................................        $897,000
        Navigation Mitigation...........................         621,000
        Ecosystem Restoration...........................         142,000
        Shore Protection................................         134,000
          Non-Federal: New Jersey Department of 
          Environmental Protection......................         217,000
        Navigation Mitigation...........................          69,000
        Ecosystem Restoration...........................          76,000
        Shore Protection................................          72,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
          Total.........................................       1,114,000

    Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: In 
addition to providing cash and LERRDS for the initial 
construction of the project, the sponsor will be required to 
provide the non-Federal share of cost of the periodic 
nourishment over the 50-year life of the project.

Initial construction:
    LERRD...............................................        $148,000
    Cash................................................       3,686,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................       3,834,000
Periodic Nourishment:
    Cash................................................         217,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................         217,000

    Estimated Annual O&M; Costs: (October 1998 price level).

Federal: Corps of Engineers.............................               0
Non-Federal: New Jersey Department of Environmental 
    Protection..........................................         $56,000

    Description of Non-Federal O&M; Cost: The annual operation 
and maintenance of the project includes maintaining the dunes 
(including sand fence) and beach surveys. Beach surveys are to 
be conducted annually along 8 survey lines located within the 
project. Other operation and maintenance costs pertain to the 
water control structures, vegetation (both Phragmites and 
plantings), drainage channels, fish reservoirs and other 
project features.
    Estimated Effects: The selected plan will provide for the 
restoration of approximately 25 acres of tidal wetlands and 150 
acres of non-tidal wetlands. This plan maximized the 
Environmental Quality (EQ) attributes. Because the outcome of 
the construction actions identified by this study will be fish 
and wildlife habitat benefits which are not amenable to 
monetary benefit analyses, no National Economic Development 
(NED) plan was presented. The selected plan will restore 388 
fish and wildlife habitat units annually over the estimated 50-
year life of the project. The benefit/cost ratio has not been 
calculated since the environmental benefits are not monetarily 
quantified.
    The significance of the outputs from the selected plan is 
related to the significance of the study area. Lower Cape May 
Meadows (The Meadows) is an internationally significant coastal 
freshwater wetland situated along the Atlantic flyway. It 
provides a vital resting spot for shorebirds, birds of prey, 
and songbirds during their seasonalmigration as well as 
providing habitat for residential birds. It is considered by Federal, 
State and private organizations to be one of the foremost avian viewing 
areas in North America, attracting more than 100,000 birders each year. 
Since all of the components of the selected plan restore either eroded 
or degraded acres of this internationally significant wetland, their 
outputs are considered highly significant.
    The selected plan includes a project element that is not 
the least costly alternative to terminate the Section 111 
(Navigation Mitigation) project element near the Cape May 
Point. The plan includes sand placement along Cape May Point in 
lieu of a close off dike to terminate the project. The average 
annual incremental cost of sand placement termination option is 
$333,000 providing average annual benefits of $472,000, and has 
an incremental benefit to cost ratio of 1.4.
    (19) New Jersey Shore Protection: Townsends Inlet to Cape 
May Inlet, New Jersey.--
    Location: The study area is located along the southern tip 
of the Atlantic coast of New Jersey, extending approximately 15 
miles from Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet and includes the 
communities of Avalon, Stone Harbor and North Wildwood, 
Wildwood and Wildwood Crest.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: The problem 
categories are: (1) long term shoreline erosion, (2) storm 
damage vulnerability with a high potential for storm induced 
erosion, inundation and wave attack, exacerbated by long term 
erosion and (3) degradation of coastal water quality, fish and 
wildlife habitat due to natural and man induced perturbations 
including erosion. Specific problem identification by area 
includes:
    Townsends Inlet frontage at Avalon, where the natural 
variability of the inlet shoreline was disturbed with the 
building of three groins and the 8th Street terminal groin. The 
inlet shoreline has receded to the revetted bulkhead. 
Geographical alignment of the inlet now exposes Avalon directly 
to Northeasters.
    Seven Mile Island oceanfront has shown the greatest 
variability in historic shoreline change. Erosion of Avalon's 
northern shoulder is a chronic problem. Stone Harbor exhibits 
shoreline variability but suffers more from historically narrow 
beaches. The present condition of the beaches and dunes in the 
area are inadequate to protect against a major storm event.
    Stone Harbor Point has experienced significant erosion 
since the 1960's. Erosion is progressing behind the bulkhead/
revetment and terminal groin of Stone Harbor despite small 
scale shore protection projects by the State. The natural area 
being lost is coastal upland and wetlands which, even in its 
degraded state, serves as a valuable feeding and nesting site 
for numerous shorebirds.
    Hereford Inlet Frontage at North Wildwood. Since the 
construction of groins and seawalls in the 1970's, the 
shoreline has been fixed but with little or no beach in front 
of the structures. Undermining due to channel currents has 
created unsafe conditions. The southern end of Stone Harbor has 
greater exposure to the northeast.
    Alternative Plans Considered: For Townsends Inlet (Avalon): 
seawall, groin extensions, bulkheading with revetment; for 
Seven Mile Beach (Avalon and Stone Harbor): beach restoration, 
groin field, bulkheading; for Hereford Inlet Frontage of North 
Wildwood: realignment of the channel, seawall, groins, 
bulkheading with revetment; and for ecosystem restoration at 
Stone Harbor Point: sand spit restoration, hardened structure 
(weir type), extend bulkhead with revetment, dredge channel 
without jetties, nearshore berm (at Stone Harbor Point), 
perched beach, low cost bulkhead, low cost revetment, floating 
breakwater, marsh planting, modify back bay channels.
    Description of Selected Plan:
    Inlet Frontages: Avalon--The selected plan is to place a 
seawall or enhanced revetment against the existing bulkhead. 
The seawall will be approximately 2,970 feet long, extending 
from the beginning of the existing bulkhead to the 8th Street 
groin.
    North Wildwood--The selected plan for the inlet frontage of 
North Wildwood is a seawall or enhanced revetment, placed 
against the existing bulkhead and enlarging the existing 
seawalls to establish a uniform elevation and toe scour 
protection. The total length of the proposed seawall is 8,660 
feet.
    Stone Harbor Point Ecosystem Restoration: The selected plan 
has been identified as the restoration of 107 acres of coastal 
barrier habitat including wetland, beach, dune and bayberry 
(tertiary dune) habitats. Oceanfront restoration will be 
accomplished by creating a berm and dune system. The dune will 
extend 1,000 linear feet southwest of the terminal groin in 
Stone Harbor. Along the inlet frontage the beach will 
transition to the west 350 linear feet with a varying berm and 
dune size, and continue along the inlet towards the northwest 
an additional 250 feet. The dune includes a sand-filled, 
geotextile core extending 1,350 feet with scour protection.
    Seven Mile Island Oceanfront: The selected plan for the 
Seven Mile Island ocean frontage is beachfill restoration. In 
Avalon, from 8th to 33rd Streets, the beachfill will consist of 
a 150 feet wide berm and a 16 feet (NGVD) high dune with 25 
feet wide crest. In Stone Harbor, from 71st to 127th Streets, 
the beachfill will have similar construction.
    Physical Data on Project Features:
    a. Structural, Non-Structural and Environmental Features: 
The selected storm damage reduction plan generally covers a 
2,970 feet section of Avalon's Townsends Inlet frontage; an 
8,660 feet section of North Wildwood's Hereford Inlet frontage; 
and twosections of Seven Mile Island, encompassing the 
vulnerable, developed coastal areas from 8th Street to 33rd Street in 
Avalon and from 71st Street to 127th in Stone Harbor. The selected 
ecosystem restoration plan generally extends 1,000 feet southwest of 
the Stone Harbor terminal groin. Specific project features are:
    Townsends Inlet Frontage at Avalon, a 2,970 feet seawall 
extending from the beginning of the bulkhead to the 8th Street 
groin. The seawall has a top elevation of +14.0 feet NGVD, a 
toe elevation of -3.0 feet NGVD, a top width of 12 feet. The 
seawall will be constructed with approximately 81,000 tons of 3 
to 6 ton capstone over corestone, matstone and bedding 
(approximately 60,000 tons combined). About 17,000 tons of 
existing revetment stone will be reused in the new seawall.
    --Hereford Inlet Frontage at North Wildwood, the selected 
plan is a seawall constructed over the existing bulkhead with 
the enlarging of existing seawalls. The total length of the 
proposed seawall is 8,660 feet with a top elevation of +13.0 
feet NGVD, a toe elevation of -6.0 feet NGVD, a top width of 12 
feet. The seawall will be constructed with approximately 
212,000 tons of 3 to 6 ton capstone over corestone, matstone 
and bedding (approximately 53,000 tons combined). About 23,000 
tons of existing revetment stone will be reused in the new 
seawall.
    --Seven Mile Island at both Avalon and Stone Harbor, the 
selected plan includes a berm extending seaward 150 feet from 
the design baseline at elevation +8.5 feet NGVD. A dune will be 
constructed at elevation +16 feet NGVD and a crest width of 25 
feet. A total of 3,111,000 cubic yards of sand will be needed 
for the initial fill placement and subsequent periodic 
nourishment of 746,000 cubic yards will be required every 3 
years over the 50-year life of the project. The plan also 
includes 50 acres of dune grass, 42,500 linear feet of sand 
fence and dune access-ways to be placed at the street ends.
    --Stone Harbor Point, the selected plan restores and 
protects 107 acres of coastal barrier habitat including 
wetland, beach, dune and bayberry habitats. The plan includes 
the planting of 3 acres of dune grass and 64 acres of bayberry 
and eastern red cedar. A berm extending seaward 150 feet from 
the design baseline at an elevation +8.5 feet NGVD will extend 
1000 feet southwest of the terminal groin in Stone Harbor. A 
dune will be constructed at elevation +12 feet NGVD with a 
crest width of 25 feet. The selected plan requires 1,366,000 
cubic yards of sand to be obtained from the Hereford Inlet 
borrow area. No periodic nourishment is included in the design. 
The proposed project will preserve and restore critical habitat 
which has been lost, or would continue to be lost in the 
future, due to erosion.
    Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries: 
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) 
is the non-Federal sponsor. NJDEP has an interest in entering 
into a partnership with the Corps of Engineers to provide shore 
protection and environmental restoration for this project, as 
stated in a letter dated 15 July 1996, from Bernard J. Moore, 
Administrator, NJDEP. This project has considerable public 
support as well.
    Additionally, the NJDEP has entered into Preconstruction 
Engineering and Design (PED) agreement as stated in the PED 
Agreement dated 26 September 1997. A conditional CZM letter was 
issued by NJDEP Land Use Regulation Program (LURP), dated 21 
February 1997. Lands, Easements, Relocation's, Rights of Way 
and Disposal (LERRD) required for the construction of a Federal 
project are the responsibility of the local sponsor and will be 
addressed in the Project Cooperation Agreement prepared at the 
end of the PED.
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The US Fish and 
Wildlife Service (FWS) not only supports the proposed plan, but 
participated in the ecosystem restoration study. US 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Marine 
Fisheries, and NJDEP look favorably upon the project in 
general. Unresolved issues that are to be resolved during the 
PED phase of the study include borrow area shallow water 
habitat and piping plover impacts. The Corps will continue to 
consult with FWS and NJDEP's Division of Fish, Game and 
Wildlife to identify measures that would avoid or minimize 
adverse impacts.
    Status of NEPA Document: The Final Environmental Impact 
Statement (FEIS) was submitted with the final report for the 
Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet Feasibility Study. Full 
compliance with the respective resource agencies will be 
achieved during the PED process.
    Estimated Implementation Costs: (October 1998 price level).

Initial Construction:
    Federal: Corps of Engineers--Shoreline Protection/
      Ecosystem Restoration.............................     $36,730,000
    Non-Federal: New Jersey Department of Environmental 
      Protection........................................      19,770,000
      Total.............................................      56,500,000
Periodic Nourishment (average annual cost of future 
    construction over the 50 year life of the project):
    Federal: Corps of Engineers--Shoreline Protection/
      Ecosystem Restoration.............................       4,204,000
    Non-Federal: New Jersey Department of Environmental 
      Protection........................................       2,264,000
      Total.............................................       6,468,000

    Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: In 
addition to providing cash and LERRDS for the initial 
construction of the project, the sponsor will be required to 
provide 35 percent of the cost of the periodic nourishment over 
the 50-year life of the project.

Initial Construction:
    LERRD...............................................        $471,000
    Cash................................................      19,305,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................      19,776,000
Periodic Nourishment:
    Cash................................................      37,733,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................      37,733,000

    Estimated Annual O&M; Costs: (October 1998 price level).

Federal: Corps of Engineers.............................               0
Non-Federal: New Jersey Department of Environmental 
    Protection..........................................         224,000

    Description of Non-Federal O&M; Cost: Costs include project 
monitoring which is necessary to determine beach profile 
conditions. In some cases maintenance costs for dune crossovers 
and vehicle access will increase due to a Federal project. 
Costs, over and above current expenditures are included in 
OMRR&R.; Maintenance and repair costs for the seawall are also 
included.
    Estimated Effects:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Average annual     Average annual
              Account                   beneficial      adverse effects
                                    effects  ($1,000)       ($1,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Purposes--Storm Damage Reduction,             $11,081             $6,153
 Ecosystem Restoration; National
 Economic Development.............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Project economic life: 50 years
    Benefit-Cost Ratio: 1.8 (Current Discount Rate: 6.875%)
    NED plan recommended? Yes.
    The selected plan will provide for the restoration of about 
107 acres of coastal barrier habitat including wetland, beach, 
dune and bayberry habitats. This plan maximizes the 
Environmental Quality (EQ) attributes. Because the outcome of 
the construction actions identified by this study will be fish 
and wildlife habitat benefits which are not amenable to 
monetary benefit analyses, no National Economic Development 
(NED) plan was presented. The selected plan will initially 
restore 169 fish and wildlife habitat units, which will decline 
to some value between 105 and 85 by the end of the estimated 
50-year life of the project. The benefit/cost ratio has not 
been calculated since the environmental benefits are not 
monetarily quantified.
    (20) Guanajibo River, Puerto Rico.--
    Location: Vicinity of town of San German and the south part 
of the metropolitan area of the city of Mayaguez in the western 
portion of Puerto Rico.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in the Study: Some 
736 acres of high density urban area are flooded by the Rio 
Guabajibo. There are in the area over 2,700 families and 
several dozen structures of small businesses and public 
buildings and facilities. The 1975 flood associated with 
Hurricane Eloisa resulted in about two meters of depth of 
flooding and caused over $25 million in damages.
    Alternative Plans Considered: The final array of 
alternative plans considered to alleviate the area's flooding 
problem included combinations of levees and floodwalls to 
protect against different flood frequencies.
    Description of Recommended Plan: The plan consists of 6,260 
meters of floodwalls and levees in the vicinity of the 
Guanajibo Homes, San Jose, Valle Hermoso, and Buena Ventura 
residential developments located in the southern part of the 
Mayaguez metropolitan area. The floodwalls and levees will 
provide protection for a 1% annual chance of flood along Rio 
Guanajibo and 1,470 meters of channel improvements and 
replacement of a bridge in the town of San German to protect it 
against a 10% annual chance of flood along the same river. Once 
it is in place, the proposed project will meet the National 
Flood Insurance Program requirements as administered by the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency. It will have a 1% chance 
of being exceeded in any one year. The plan also includes the 
planting of 27.6 acres of mangroves east of the Guanajibo Homes 
development to mitigate for wetland loss by construction of 
project floodwalls and levees.
    Physical Data on Project Features:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Mayaguez-
             Feature                  Hormigueros         San German
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Levee...........................  4,810 meters......  ..................
Floodwalls......................  1,470 meters......  ..................
Channel Improvement.............  ..................  1,470 meters
Bridge Replacement..............  ..................  P.R. Highway 119
Wetland Mitigation..............  27.5 acres........  ..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Views of States, Non-Federal Interests, and Other 
Countries: Local sponsor provided on September 6, 1994, letter 
of intent supporting conclusions and recommendations of report. 
There are no significant issues.
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: A draft report and 
EIS was coordinated with all concerned agencies beginning in 
July 1994. There are no areas of controversy.
    Status of Final Environmental Impact Statement: The Record 
of Decision was signed on November 6, 1996.
    Estimated Implementation Costs: As the Chief of Engineers 
report recommending this project was signed on February 27, 
1996, the Committee is applying the cost sharing that was in 
place at that time to the implementation of this project. 
(October 1998 price levels):

Federal (Corps of Engineers)............................     $19,745,000
Non-Federal.............................................       7,486,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................      27,031,000

    Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: The 
sponsor will contribute LERRDs for the flood control project 
totaling $6,134,000 ($4,015,000 in lands and $2,119,000 in 
relocations) and $1,352,000 in cash.
    Estimated Annual O&M; Costs. (October 98 price levels):

Federal (Corps of Engineers)............................               0
Non-Federal.............................................         $80,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................          80,000

    Description of Non-Federal O&M; Cost: The total annual 
OMRR&R; cost is estimated to be $80,000. The OMRR&R; requirements 
for the selected plan include annual inspections and routine 
maintenance of bridges, maintenance roads, floodwalls, levees, 
and channel slopes.
    Estimated Effects (October 1998 price levels):


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Annual average
                                        equivalent       Average annual
                                        beneficial      adverse effects
                                         effects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inundation Reduction..............         $5,708,600  .................
Redevelopment.....................             90,600  .................
Others............................             52,800  .................
                                   -------------------------------------
      Total.......................          5,852,000          2,100,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Benefit-Cost ratio: 2.8 (Current Interest Rate: 6\7/8\%).
    (21) Rio Grande De Manati, Barceloneta, Puerto Rico.--
    Location of Study Area: The study area is located in the 
north central region of Puerto Rico. The total basin is 172 
square miles in land area and includes the municipalities of 
Corozal, Naranjito, Orocovis, Ciales, Morovis, Manati, 
Barceloneta,and Arecibo. The primary focus of the study is the 
town of Barceloneta where flooding is most significant.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: The 
overflow of Rio Grande de Manati results in severe frequent 
flooding to the entire town of Barceloneta. There have been at 
least fifteen damaging floods on the Rio Grande de Manati. 
Flood waters during the floods of May and October 1985 reached 
three to four feet throughout most of the town which resulted 
in damages of about $7.4 million for each flood. The town of 
Barceloneta was declared a disaster area twice by the President 
as a result of these floods.
    Alternative Plans Under Consideration: Alternative plans of 
improvement including various combinations of levees, channels, 
and interior drainage modifications.
    Description of Recommended Plan. The recommended plan 
consists of providing 5,300 meters of levees around the town of 
Barceloneta and 1,620 meters of pilot channels, and minimum 
interior drainage facilities. Project implementation requires 
acquisition of six residential structures, relocation of a boat 
ramp, three highway ramps, and agricultural road ramp, and 
relocation of existing utilities impacted by the levee at four 
locations. Once it is in place, the proposed project will meet 
the National Flood Insurance program requirements as 
administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. It 
will have a 1 percent chance of being exceeded in any one year.
    Physical Data on Project Features: The project will consist 
of the following project features:
    a. Levees--The project includes construction of 5,300 
meters of levees around the town. The eastern section of the 
levee extends for about 3,200 meters starting at the north 
interior drainage structure (Culvert 1) and continues east and 
southeast crossing Calle Plazuela and Highway 684, continuing 
southward near the municipal sports complex and around the 
Villa Catalana residential development. The western section of 
levee starts at Culvert 1, and extends 2,100 meters in a 
southwestern direction across Highway 681 to end at high ground 
just across Highway 682. The average height of the levee is 5.4 
meters.
    b. Pilot Channels--The two portions of the existing Rio 
Grande de Manati channel cut off by the eastern section of 
levee will be replaced by pilot (bypass) channels. The south 
pilot channel is located 50 meters south of the existing river 
channel near the southeastern end of the project. The existing 
river channel would be filled to build the levee and drainage 
channel. The north slope of the south pilot channel and levee 
slope adjacent to the pilot channel would be protected with 
gabions. The north pilot channel is located about 750 meters 
east of the existing channel. The existing river channel would 
be filled to an elevation 1.0 meters NGVD. The north pilot 
channel would have a 15 meter bottom width at elevation--2.2 
meters NGVD.
    c. Interior Drainage Facilities--The proposed minimum 
facilities consist of 5,230 meters of drainage channels along 
the protected side of the levee, drainage culverts under two 
highway ramps, and two drainage structures on the levees. The 
drainage channels would be constructed with a triangular cross 
section with an average depth of flow of 1.5 meters and an 
average top width of 9.0 meters. Corrugated metal pipe culverts 
for interior drainage are provided under Highway 681 and the 
agricultural access road. The drainage structures, Culvert 1 
and 2, consist of corrugated aluminum pipe culverts with flap 
gates and concrete headwalls. Two large agricultural areas, 
57.5 acres on the east and 179.0 acres on the north serve as 
ponding areas.
    d. Other Features--The recommended project also requires 
the construction of one small ramp over the levee at Highway 
682, two ramps over the levee at Highways 681 and 684, and one 
agricultural road ramp where the eastern part of the levee 
precludes access to agricultural lands. Acquisition of six 
residential structures, relocation of a boat ramp, and various 
utility relocations are also required.
    Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries: 
The non-Federal sponsor provided a letter of intent supporting 
the project. There are no significant issues affecting project 
implementation.
    Views of Federal, and Regional Agencies: A draft report and 
environmental assessment were coordinated with various Federal 
and regional agencies. There are no areas of controversy and 
the project is supported.
    Status of Final Environmental Impact Statement: An 
environmental assessment has been completed and a Finding of No 
Significant Impact was signed in March 1994.
    Estimated Implementation Costs: (October 1998 price 
levels).

                                                            Cost-Sharing
Federal: Corps of Engineers.............................      $8,785,000
Non-Federal: Puerto Rico Department of Natural And 
    Environmental Resources.............................       4,706,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................      13,491,000

    Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: The non-
Federal costs required from the project sponsor would be those 
associated with relocations ($1,374,000); lands, easements, and 
rights-of-way ($1,747,000); a minimum of 5 percent cash of the 
flood damage reduction first costs ($672,000); plus additional 
cash of $913,000 to reach the minimum of 35 percent 
contribution of the total first cost for flood damage 
reduction. Thus, the total non-Federal cost share would be 
$4,706,000.
    Estimated Annual O & M Costs: $20,000--Non-Federal.
    Description of non-Federal O & M Costs: Maintenance and 
repairs of flood control levees, pilot channels and interior 
drainage facilities.
    Estimated Effects: (October 1998 price levels).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Average annual
                                        equivalent       Average annual
              Account                   beneficial      adverse effects
                                    effects  ($1,000)       ($1,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Purposes: Flood Damage Reduction--             $4,243             $1,021
 National Economic Development
 Flood Damage Reduction...........
                                   -------------------------------------
      Total.......................              4,243              1,021
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Benefit-Cost Ratio: 4.0 (Current Discount Rate: 6\7/8\%).
    (22) Rio Nigua at Salinas, Puerto Rico.--
    Location: Vicinity of town of Salinas, including the 
communities of Playa de Salinas and El Coco, in the southern 
part of Puerto Rico.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in the Study: Over 
300 acres of dense urban areas are flooded by the Rio Nigua. 
There are in the area over 3,000 families and several hundreds 
small business and public buildings and facilities. The January 
1992 flood resulted in over one meter of flooding, caused two 
deaths, and approximately $10 million in damage.
    Alternative Plans Considered: The final array of 
alternative plans considered to alleviate the area's flooding 
problem included mostly levees with minor channel improvements 
to protect against different flood frequencies.
    Description of Recommended Plan. The recommended plan of 
improvements for the Rio Nigua south of PR Highway 52 consists 
of a 2,960 meter long levee along the east bank of the river 
extending from the highway down to end east of the mouth of the 
river in the coastal area. The plan includes protection 
measures against erosion for the east abutment of the highway 
bridge, a new bridge and ramp at PR Highway 1, and levee 
segment to protect the intersection between highways 52 and 1. 
The proposed levee project is expected to provide protection 
for a 1% annual chance of flood with a 99.7 percent 
probability. The recommended plan also includes a 3,980 meter 
long levee to provide flood protection to the Coco community, 
upstream from PR Highway 52. This levee project is also 
expected to provide protection for a 1% annual chance of flood. 
Once it is in place, the entire proposed project will meet the 
National Flood Insurance Program requirements as administered 
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. It will have a 1% 
chance of being exceeded in any one year.
    Physical Data on Project Features:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Feature              Town and Playa      El Coco community
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Levee........................  2,960 meters...  3,980 meters.
Bridge Replacement...........  PR Highway 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Views of States, Non-federal Interests, and Other 
Countries: The local sponsor provided a letter of intent on 
August 19, 1996. It supported the conclusions and 
recommendations of the report. There are no significant issues.
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: A draft report and 
EA was coordinated with all concerned Federal agencies 
beginning in May 1996. All required concurrences have been 
received. There are no areas of controversy.
    Status of Final Environmental Impact Statement: An 
Environmental Impact Statement was not required for the 
proposed action. EPA concurred with this finding on July 11, 
1996. A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was signed on 
September 10, 1996.
    Estimated Implementation Costs: (October 1998 price 
levels).

Federal (Corps of Engineers)............................      $7,645,000
Non-Federal.............................................       6,057,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................      13,702,000

    Description of non-Federal Implementation Costs. The 
sponsor will contribute LERRDs for flood control features 
totaling $5,378,000 ($2,686,000 in lands and $2,692,000 in 
relocations) and $679,000 in cash.
    Estimated Annual O&M; Costs: (October 1998 price levels).

Federal (Corps of Engineers)............................               0
Non-Federal.............................................         $69,900
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................          69,900

    Description of Non-Federal O&M; Cost. The total annual 
OMRR&R; cost is estimated to be $69,900. The OMRR&R; requirements 
for the selected plan includeannual inspections and routine 
maintenance of bridges, maintenance roads, floodwalls, levees, and 
channel slopes.
    Estimated Effects: (October 1998 price levels).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Average annual
                                        equivalent       Average annual
                                        beneficial      adverse effects
                                         effects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inundation Reduction..............         $2,976,000  .................
Redevelopment.....................             47,700  .................
Others............................             70,600  .................
                                   -------------------------------------
      Total.......................          3,094,300          1,086,600
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Benefit cost ratio: 2.8 (Current Discount Rate: 6\7/8\%).
    (23) Salt Creek, Graham, Texas.--
    Location: The study area is located within the corporate 
limits of Graham, Young County, Texas, which is approximately 
61 miles south of the city of Wichita Falls.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: Graham 
(population 9,000) has experienced loss of physical property 
and injuries to flood victims as a result of normal creek 
flooding along Salt Creek and backwater flooding from the 
Brazos River as it enters the headwaters of Possum Kingdom 
Reservoir (non-Federal). Since 1972, eight significant floods 
have occurred in Graham. The most damage was attributable to 
the storm event of 1-3 August 1978 when 32.5 inches of rain 
fell in the Brazos River Basin near the city. This flood caused 
extensive backwater into the city, inundating one-third of the 
city. This flood resulted in six deaths and property damages in 
excess of $62 million for Young County and the surrounding 
counties. The April 26, 1990 flood on Salt Creek was the 
largest since the USGS began keeping stage records on Lake 
Graham and the May 3, 1990 event was the second largest since 
1963. Estimated damages to structures and their contents 
exceeded $625,000. Structures valued at approximately $17 
million within the city of Graham are vulnerable to floods with 
a 1% probability of exceedence.
    Alternative Plans Considered: The screening of alternatives 
included three structural plans for levees to protect against 
floods with exceedence probabilities of 10%, 2% and 1%, and 
three non-structural plans consisting of permanent evacuation 
for areas with flood exceedence probabilities of 20%, 10% and 
4%.
    Description of Recommended Plan: The recommended plan 
includes a buy-out and removal of 127 structures in the 
floodplain subject to a flood exceedence probability of 10%; 
installation of a flood warning system to protect residents 
above the buy-out zone; creation of recreational areas 
consisting of a trail, picnic sites, and park road; and 
environmental restoration of the project lands. The proposed 
project reduces the number of structures included in the NFIP 
as administered by FEMA from 483 to 356 or 25% and provides for 
a reduction of $259,000 in annual insurance subsidy.
    Physical Data on Project Features: The NED/locally 
preferred plan consists of a permanent evacuation of the ten 
percent exceedence probability floodplain containing 127 
structures including 94 residential (40 mobile homes and 54 
permanent structures), 30 commercial, and three public 
structures. The flood warning system consists of a 
precipitation gage upstream of Lake Graham and a computer link 
to the Brazos River Authority central flood warning system in 
Waco, Texas. The recreation features consist of 9,705 feet 
long, eight feet wide, concrete trail; 2,600 feet long nature 
trail; 35 covered picnic facilities, two parking lots and a 
park drive. The environmental restoration features include the 
replanting of native trees, shrubs, and herbaceous vegetation 
on approximately 79 acres in order to partially restore some of 
the floodplain forest which has been adversely impacted by past 
development actions. An additional 19 acres will be set aside 
for preservation.
    Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries: 
The Brazos River Authority and the city of Graham are the local 
sponsors. The Brazos River Authority is the source of non-
Federal funds. The city will contribute lands to the project 
and no cash. The city strongly supports the project. The Brazos 
River Authority has decided to implement the project.
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The Final Fish and 
Wildlife Coordination Act Report dated November 6, 1997 was 
coordinated with Texas Parks and Wildlife. The conclusion was 
that the selected non-structural, buy-out plan would have 
minimal adverse impacts on fish and wildlife resources of the 
project area, and would significantly contribute to the long 
term recovery of habitats which have been disturbed by past 
development activities. There are no outstanding issues.
    Status of NEPA Document: The Environmental Assessment has 
been completed as part of the Feasibility Report and has been 
approved. The FONSI has been prepared and was signed October 
24, 1997.
    Estimated Implementation Costs: $10.08 million (October 
1998 price level).

                                                            Cost-Sharing
Federal (Agency/Purpose):
    Corps of Engineers/Flood Damage Reduction (65%).....      $5,806,000
    Corps of Engineers/Environmental Restoration (65%)..         428,000
    Corps of Engineers/Recreation (50%).................         326,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Subtotal..........................................       6,560,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Non-Federal (Specify state/local sponsors):
    Brazos River Authority/Flood Damage Reduction (35%).       2,964,000
    City of Graham/Environmental Restoration (35%)......         231,000
    Brazos River Authority/Recreation (50%).............         325,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Subtotal..........................................       3,520,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................      10,080,000

    Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: Non-
Federal implementation costs consist primarily of the cost 
related to the acquisition of lands, easements, rights-of-way, 
relocations and disposals. The estimated cost of LERRDs is $2.9 
million. The non-Federal cash requirement is $556,000.
    Estimated Annual O&M; Costs: There are no Federal annual O&M; 
costs. The City of Graham, Texas will be responsible for all 
O&M; costs estimated at $25,500,000 annually.
    Description of Non-Federal O&M; Cost: O&M; responsibilities 
include mowing, trash collection and, as needed, replacements 
for rehabilitation of any of its components.
    Estimated Effects:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Average annual
                                        equivalent       Average annual
              Account                   beneficial      adverse effects
                                    effects  ($1,000)       ($1,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Purposes--National Economic
 Development Plan:
    FDR...........................              328.3              474.1
    1ER...........................                N/A               48.8
    FWS1..........................               56.8                2.1
    Rec...........................              498.8               72.7
                                   -------------------------------------
      Total.......................              884.4              597.7
* FWS (Flood Warning System)......
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Benefit-Cost Ratio: 1.5 (Current Discount Rate: 6 7/8%)
            Section 101(b)
    (b) Projects Subject to Report.--The following 15 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 a final report of the Corps of 
Engineers, if the report is completed not later than September 
30, 1999.
    (1) Nome, Alaska.--
    Location: Nome is located on the Seward Peninsula in 
western Alaska and can be reached only by air or sea 
transportation. The town is on Norton Sound in the Bering Sea, 
approximately 510 air miles north of Anchorage. 1
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: 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. 
The following actions have been identified as most likely to 
result in an improved harbor and navigation system capable of 
meeting the needs of the existing fleet.
    a. Reduce vessel losses by improving the navigation 
structures.
    b. Minimize or eliminate lightering requirements for barges 
by improving channels.
    c. Eliminate entrance channel access problems through 
redesign of the navigation structures/system.
    d. Minimize maintenance of the navigation system through 
improved designs.
    e. Increase usability of the causeway loading/offloading 
cells by improving wave protection.
    Alternative Plans Considered: Alternatives ranged from 
complete reconstruction of the existing Federal project to 
construction of a new channel and jetty system closer to the 
causeway. Alternatives that involve moving the harbor as well 
as the navigation features were also considered. Fourteen 
alternatives were evaluated, the recommended plan is both the 
NED plan and the locally preferred plan. The recommended plan 
was shown to meet all recognizable future needs of Nome while 
still being feasible from engineering, environmental, and 
economic standpoints.
    Description of Recommended Plan: The major features of the 
NED 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.
    Physical Data on Project Features: Proposed navigation 
improvements at Nome will consist of a rubblemound breakwater 
structure approximately 910 meters in length, designed to 
reduce wave energy both at the causeway loading/off-loading 
cells and within the navigable channel. The crest elevation of 
the structure is +4.3 meters MLLW. A 60-meter-long rubblemound 
spur, also with a crest elevation of +4.3 meters, will be added 
to the end of the existing causeway to further improve wave 
conditions at the causeway cells and to minimize diffracted 
wave energy entering the channel area. A new entrance channel 
will be constructed, varying in width from 107 meters through 
the entrance section to 46 meters through the inner harbor 
access section. Depth of the channel varies from -6.7 to -3 
meters MLLW. To control along shore sediment transport, a 
108,000-cubic-meter sediment trap will be constructed on the 
east side of the causeway to capture sediments and allow for 
efficient removal.
    Views of States, Non-Federal Interests, and Other 
Countries: The non-Federal sponsor, the city of Nome, has 
cooperated with the Corps throughout the reconnaissance and 
feasibility study processes. The locally preferred plan is the 
NED plan. The State of Alaska fully supports the project as an 
important improvement to transportation and will assist the 
sponsor with the local share. A letter of support from the 
Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities is 
included in the report. The Community Development Quota (CDQ) 
group of the region and the Norton Sound Economic Development 
Corporation strongly support the project. Yukon Delta Fisheries 
Development Association, another CDQ group that currently uses 
the harbor, has also expressed support for harbor improvements 
in Nome.
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) was informed of sediment test results, 
and a plan has been developed with the EPA to properly dispose 
of contaminated material that is subject to being dredged. The 
proposed project alternative was presented to the Alaska 
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G;), Fairbanks Habitat Office, 
and it was indicated that the NED plan is not expected to 
affect the fisheries of the Snake River. The NED plan was also 
discussed with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and no problems were 
identified.
    Status of NEPA Document: The environmental assessment, 
along with the required review period, has been completed. A 
consistency Finding and Certificate of Reasonable Assurance has 
been received from the State of Alaska to verify that State 
requirements have been met. The finding of no significant 
impact was signed on 30 June 1998.
    Estimated Implementation Costs: (October 98 Price Level).
                                                            Cost Sharing
Federal (Navigation):
    COE/Federal Channel.................................     $19,650,000
    Coast Guard/Federal Channel.........................          10,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total Federal.....................................      19,660,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Non-Federal (Navigation):
    City of Nome/Federal Channel........................       4,644,000
    City of Nome/Additional Channel Features............         304,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total Non-Federal.................................       4,947,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................      24,608,000

    Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: The non-
Federal share of the project cost, is $4,947,000. Of the non-
Federal share, 10 percent of the cost of the general navigation 
features (jetties, channels and turning basins) and 25 percent 
of the cost of channel deepening beyond 20 ft. accounts for 
$2,339,000. Dredging along the causeway, which is 100 percent 
local accounts for $304,000. LERRDS accounts for $1,257,000 of 
the cost, while the balance of the non-Federal costs of 
$1,047,000, is 10percent of the general navigation features 
minus LEERDS, which will be financed over time.
    Estimated Annual O&M; Costs: (October 1998 price level).

                                                            Cost Sharing
Federal (Navigation):
    Corps of Engineers/Maintenance Dredging.............        $450,000
    Coast Guard/Navigation Aids.........................           1,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
     Total Federal......................................         451,000
Non-Federal (Navigation):
    City of Nome........................................           4,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
     Total..............................................         455,000

    Description of Non-Federal O&M; Cost: Maintenance of floats 
and piles, periodic dredging within the inner harbor, and 
dredging in front of the causeway cells.
    Estimated Effects:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Average annual
                                        equivalent       Average Annual
              Account                   beneficial      adverse effects
                                    Effects  ($1,000)       ($1,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NED, Commercial Navigation:.......           $3,608.0           $2,211.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cost-Benefit Ratio: 1.6 (Current Discount Rate: 6\7/8\%)
    (2) Seward Harbor, Alaska.--
    Location: Seward, located on the Kenai Peninsula, is about 
150 miles south of Anchorage, Alaska, by road. The town is 
located at the northern end of Resurrection Bay off the Gulf of 
Alaska and can be reached by air, sea, and rail, as well as by 
road.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: 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.
    Alternative Plans Considered: Four locations were assessed 
for creating additional harbor space for Seward. Only the 
eastward expansion of the existing harbor was carried forward 
for detailed analyses based upon environmental, economic, and 
local considerations. Four alternatives for this expansion were 
considered in detail, all of which relocated the existing 
eastern breakwater, which has provided adequate protection 
since 1965. The breakwater would be moved farther east toward 
the coal pier, and a new mooring area would be dredged.
    Description of Recommended Plan: The recommended plan is 
basically the same as the NED plan, except the deep-water 
disposal material would be disposed adjacent to the south 
breakwater and would eventually be graded and used for harbor 
access by the local sponsor. This plan would have minimal 
impacts on the adjacent fishing-related industries, maximize 
the basin size, and provide additional uplands for badly needed 
parking and harbor access. Disposing of dredged materials in 
the old entrance channel would create habitat for clam/mussel 
beds.
    Physical Data on Project Features: 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. 
Existing breakwater materials can be used in new breakwater 
construction when possible. 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.
    Views of State and Non-Federal Interests: The city of 
Seward (sponsor) and the State of Alaska Department of 
Transportation and Public Facilities, Coastal and Harbor 
Engineering Section, both favor the eastern expansion plan. In 
addition, local fishing-related business interests strongly 
favor expanding existing facilities instead of developing new 
facilities several miles away.
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: Sampling was 
performed on the material to be dredged, and no contamination 
was found. Some concern has been expressed over an outfall pipe 
from a seafood processing plant, which could be a source of 
fish waste in the future if the harbor construction adversely 
affects circulation in the bay. This is unlikely, but will be 
monitored by the sponsor. State and Federal resource agencies 
have not voiced any major or significant objections to the 
expansion of the harbor.
    Status of NEPA Document: The environmental assessment, 
along with the required review period, has been completed. A 
consistency Finding and Certificate of Reasonable Assurance 
have been received from the State of Alaska to verify that 
State requirements have been met. The finding of no significant 
impact was signed on September 23, 1998.
    Estimated Implementation Costs: (October 1998 price level).

                                                            Cost sharing
Federal (navigation):
    COE/General Navigation Features.....................      $4,343,000
    Coast Guard.........................................          21,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total Federal.....................................       4,364,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Non-Federal (navigation):
    City of Seward/GNF..................................         482,000
    City of Seward/Additional 100% Local Costs..........       7,359,000
    LERRD...............................................          35,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total Non-Federal.................................       7,876,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total Cost........................................      12,240,000

    Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: The non-
Federal share of the project is $7,876,900. Of the non-Federal 
share, 10 percent of the general navigation features (channel 
and breakwaters) account for $482,200. Dredging the mooring 
basin, inner harbor floats and piles, utilities, adjacent 
uplands, engineering & design and supervision & administration 
of local features, which are all 100-percent local, accounts 
for $7,359,500. LERRD accounts for $35,000, while the balance 
of the non-Federal cost, $447,300, is 10 percent of the GNF 
minus LERRD, which will be financed over time.
    Estimated Annual O&M; Costs: (October 1998 price level).

                                                            Cost sharing
Federal:
    Corps of Engineers/ Armor & Hydrographic Surveys....          $9,600
    Coast Guard/Maintain Navigation Aids................             600
Non-Federal:
    City of Seward/ Local Sponsor Yearly maintenance....           2,700
    Replacement.........................................          20,100
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
     Total..............................................          33,000

    Description of Non-Federal O&M; Cost: The city of Seward's 
O&M; cost would consist of one dredging event, one pile/float 
replacement event during the 50-year project life cycle, and 
routine annual maintenance.
    Estimated Effects:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Average annual
                                        equivalent       Average Annual
              Account                   beneficial      Adverse effects
                                    effects  ($1,000)       ($1,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NED, Commercial Navigation........           $1,553.0             $872.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Benefit-Cost Ratio: 1.7 (Current Discount Rate: 6\7/8\%).
    (3) Hamilton Airfield, California.--
    Location: Hamilton Army Airfield and the antenna field are 
located approximately 25 miles north of San Francisco on the 
southeast edge of the City of Novato, Marin County, California.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: The 
Hamilton Army Airfield has been in the Base closure process, 
since 1974. Approximately 20 acres of the airfield are 
considered ``contaminated'' with relatively low levels of 
petroleum hydrocarbons, volatile and semi-volatile compounds, 
herbicides and metals. The antenna field, which is owned by the 
State Lands Commission, was also part of the military complex 
in the past and has more recently been used by the Novato 
Police Department for target practice. The U.S. Army is 
implementing a remediation program under the Base Realignment 
and Closure Act of 1988 (BRAC) for the airfield to restore it 
to a condition protective of human health and the environment 
for reuse as a wetland area, and further is coordinating its 
remediation technical studies with the State's efforts to 
restore a valuable wetlands ecosystem. The State Lands property 
is being remediated under the formerly used defense site (FUDS) 
program. All contaminants on these properties will be 
remediated to support reuse prior to site transfer and reuse. 
The Army intends to have the site remediated and available for 
reuse by January 2000.
    These properties historically supported tidal salt marsh 
habitat, but levee construction separated the area from the 
tidal influence of San Pablo Bay. Subsequent natural and 
artificial processes have resulted in lowered surface 
elevations. This project is being proposed to restore important 
tidal salt marsh habitat in San Francisco Bay. Restoration of 
tidal wetlands on subsided diked lands using dredged material 
provides an opportunity to offset historic habitat losses and 
beneficially reuse suitable dredged material.
    Alternative Plans Considered: The Hamilton Restoration 
Group, which consists of representatives from a variety of 
regulatory and conservation organizations, identified the 
following four restoration measures, which are expected to have 
a positive effect on the environmental condition of Hamilton 
Army Airfield, and be supported by other involved public 
agencies and local interests.
    Alternative 1: No-action.
    Alternative 2: Wetlands would be restored to the Airfield 
and Navy ballfields without the use of dredged material. 
Approximately 670 acres of habitat would be restored.
    Alternative 3: Wetlands would be restored to the Airfield 
and Navy ball fields using dredged material to accelerate marsh 
establishment and raise elevations for seasonal wetlands. 
Approximately 670 acres of habitat would be restored.
    Alternative 4: Wetlands would be restored to the Airfield 
and adjacent properties including the former antenna field at 
the site without the use of dredged material. Approximately 990 
acres of habitat would be restored.
    Alternative 5: Wetlands would be restored to the Airfield 
and adjacent properties including the former antenna field at 
the site using dredged material to accelerate marsh 
establishment and raise elevations for seasonal wetlands. 
Approximately 990 acres of habitat would be restored.
    Description of Recommended Plan: Wetlands would be restored 
to the Airfield and adjacent properties including the former 
antenna field at the site using dredged material to accelerate 
marsh establishment and raise elevations for seasonal wetlands. 
Approximately 988 acres of habitat would be restored.
    If it would reduce costs to the Government, the Secretary 
should consider establishing a joint venture with the Montezuma 
project under section 217 of WRDA 1996 to allow for private 
operation of offloading and other activities at both the 
Hamilton and Montezuma sites.
    Physical Data on Project Features:
    Perimeter Levee: Approximately 11,000 feet of perimeter 
levee will be constructed to an elevation of +12 feet. This 
levee will have a crest width of 16 feet, 3H:1V sideslopes, and 
50-foot wide toe berms, resulting in a footprint of 196 feet. 
In addition, 9,400 ft of perimeter levee built as specified 
above will have an inter-tidal bench on the inside slope 
extending the footprint on the inside by 42 feet. This 
perimeter levee will tie in to the existing +10 foot levee 
owned by the New Hamilton Partners.
    Internal Peninsulas: A system of internal peninsulas will 
be constructed to +5 feet inside the site to reduce wave fetch 
to a maximum of 3,000 feet. The peninsulas will total about 
5,800 feet in length. These peninsulas will be separated from 
the perimeter levee by at least a 200-foot gap to prevent 
predator access to the future marsh. These peninsulas will have 
a crest width of 10 feet and a 3H:1V slope, resulting in a 60-
foot wide footprint.
    Novato Sanitary District Discharge Outfall Protection 
Levee: A 2,500 foot long levee will be constructed to +8 feet 
in elevation to carry the pipeline from the relocated 
dechlorination plant across the marsh. The levee will have a 
16-foot crest and 3H:1V sideslopes, resulting in a 56-foot wide 
footprint.
    Levee Breaches and Pilot Channels: A single inlet channel 
will be excavated in the existing outboard levee and salt marsh 
for each of the sites. The inlets consist of two parts: the 
levee breach cut through the existing outboard levee; and a 
narrower, but equally deep, pilot channel cut through the 
outboard marsh.
    Dredged Material: Dredged material will be placed on site 
to raise elevations suitable to a variety of habitats. A total 
of 10,600,000 cubic yards would be utilized. The 
dredgedmaterial to be used will be suitable for wetland habitat 
purposes based on marine sediment criteria in effect at the time of 
placement. The dredged material will come from nearby navigation 
projects, either new construction or maintenance.
    Environmental: The wetland complex as a result of this 
project, including establishment of vegetation and repopulation 
of wildlife is expected to develop naturally over time.
    Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other: The non-
Federal sponsor of this project is the California State Coastal 
Conservancy. The Coastal Conservancy has taken an active role 
in the restoration of wetlands in the San Francisco Bay Area 
and they are highly committed to restoring the Hamilton site. 
The Coastal Conservancy previously worked with the Corps of 
Engineers to successfully develop the Sonoma Baylands Wetland 
Demonstration Project. The Coastal Conservancy has indicated 
that they fully understand the 75/25 construction cost sharing 
and maintenance responsibilities.
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: This wetland 
restoration project has attracted the keen interest of numerous 
Federal, State, and local agencies. The Hamilton Restoration 
Group (HRG) has been established to provide a forum for a 
variety of interests to provide input on project feasibility, 
goals, design, and other relevant issues. The National Marine 
Fisheries Service first formed this group in the summer of 
1995, and the lead was handed to the Coastal Conservancy in 
1996. Participants in the HRG include the Coastal Conservancy, 
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, City 
of Novato, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, 
California Department of Fish and Game, National Marine 
Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 
Port of Oakland, University of California, and congressional 
representatives. This project is part of the Coastal America 
Program.
    Status of Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): The 
final EIS was filed on 15 January 1999.
    Estimated Implementation Cost: (1998 price levels).

                                                            Cost-sharing
Federal (Agency /Purpose): Corps of Engineers/ Ecosystem 
    Restoration.........................................     $41,400,000
Non-Federal: California State Coastal Conservancy.......      13,800,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................      55,200,000

    Estimated Annual O&M; Costs: (October 1998 price levels).

                                                            Cost-sharing
Federal: Corps of Engineers.............................               0
Non-Federal: Coastal Conservancy........................         322,000

    Description of Non-Federal O&M; Costs: The non-Federal O&M; 
costs consist primarily of required levee maintenance, exotic 
vegetation control, and larval mosquito monitoring and control. 
Monitoring of the progress of the wetland restoration will also 
continue after project construction, when the completed project 
is conveyed to the non-Federal sponsor.
    Estimated Effects: Several local animal and plant species, 
including the salt marsh harvest mouse and the California 
clapper rail, have been listed as endangered due to the 
reduction of their wetland habitats. Approximately 82% of the 
original tidal wetlands of San Francisco Bay have been 
destroyed by diking or filling them for purposes such as 
agriculture, housing, and salt production. This loss of tidal 
wetlands has greatly reduced the amount of habitat available to 
many species of fish and wildlife. The disposal of dredged 
material from San Francisco Bay is currently constrained by 
physical, environmental, and regulatory limits on the use of 
existing disposal sites. To the extent that dredged material is 
used beneficially, the need for unconfined aquatic disposal and 
other disposal methods, and the impacts associated with those 
methods, will be reduced.
    Relationship to Other Plans: Oakland Harbor Deep-Draft 
Navigation Improvements (50 feet channel depth) is being 
pursued by the Port of Oakland and base realignment and closure 
of Hamilton Army Airfield.
    Cumulative Funds Expended to Date on Previous/Related 
Project(s): No Federal funds have been expended to date on the 
Oakland Harbor Navigation -50 ft Deepening Project, as the 
project sponsor (Port of Oakland) is seeking authorization 
under Section 203 of WRDA 86. Federal funds expended on the 
Base Realignment and Closure, Hamilton Army Airfield are as yet 
undetermined.
    (4) Oakland Harbor, California.--
    Location: Oakland Harbor is located on San Francisco Bay at 
the city of Oakland in northern California.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: The Port of 
Oakland desires construction of a project to deepen the inner 
and outer harbor to a depth of -50 feet. The Port desires to 
provide a safe navigation channel to accommodate modern classes 
of deep-draft containerships scheduled to use the Port's 
facilities. The Port also desires to combine the dredging with 
plans for dredged material reuse. The Port's Vision 2000 plan 
would convert the Oakland Fleet Industrial Supply (FISCO) into 
new marine terminals and create a new Joint Intermodal Rail 
Terminal (JIT). The Port indicates that they have lost several 
users in recent years because of inadequate channel depth, even 
with the ongoing -42 foot depth project. Some users state that 
depths of -50 feet are required for them to continue to utilize 
the Port of Oakland.
    Alternative Plans Considered: In addition to the no action 
alternative, the Port has developed plans for alternative 
project depths to satisfy Federal planning requirements for 
optimization and cost sharing. The locally preferred plan will 
be to dredge to -50 feet, plans for dredging to -46, -47, -48 
and -49 feet have also been developed. The Port has also 
considered a wide variety of alternative scenarios for the 
reuse of dredged material, including all those considered on 
previous dredging projects in the San Francisco Bay area. The 
final array of disposal options is limited to deep ocean 
disposal, beneficial use at Hamilton Airfield and Montezuma 
Wetlands project, reuse sites on Port of Oakland property and 
an upland site for contaminated material. The Port has 
considered a variety of channel and turning basin configuration 
and settled upon one that it considers the most feasible.
    Description of Recommended Plan: The recommended NED plan 
consists of widening and deepening the existing Oakland Harbor 
navigation project to an effective depth of -50 feet.
    Physical Data on Project Features: The recommended plan 
will include the following features:
    a. Structural: The following description assumes completion 
of the project now underway to deepen Oakland Harbor to -42 
feet.
     Entrance Channel would be deepened from -42 feet 
mean lower low water (MLLW) to -50 feet MLLW, with side slopes 
of 1--vertical to 3--horizontal. The entrance channel would be 
widened 100 feet.
     Outer Harbor Channel would be deepened from -42 
feet mean lower low water (MLLW) to -50 feet MLLW, with side 
slopes of 1--vertical to 3--horizontal. That portion of the 
Outer Harbor Channel containing the Outer Harbor Turning Basin 
would be widened 120 feet to provide a turning basin 1,600 feet 
in diameter.
     Inner Harbor Channel would be deepened from -42 
feet mean lower low water (MLLW) to -50 feet MLLW, with side 
slopes of 1--vertical to 3--horizontal. The Inner Harbor 
channel will be widened to 750 feet by excavation at the 
western edge (Oakland side) of proposed new berths to safely 
accommodate the larger sixth generation vessels while also 
allowing moored vessels to be present at existing berths (APL 
and Howard terminals) and in the area of the new berths.
     Inner Harbor Turning Basin would be widened to 
provide a basin 1,500 feet in diameter. The widening will occur 
on both sides of the channel, and will excavate part of the 
former Alameda Naval Air Station.
     Construction of the recommended plan--50 ft MLLW 
will require excavation of approximately 12.8 million cubic 
yards (mcy) of dredged material. Approximately 7.0 mcy would be 
deposited at the Middle Harbor Habitat Enhancement Area (MHEA) 
and 300,000 cy would be reused upland for construction of port 
facilities at the Port's Vision 2000 Plan. Up to 2.5 mcy could 
be used for wetland restoration at Hamilton airfield and up to 
2.9 mcy could be used for wetland restoration at Montezuma. 
Alternatively, the excess material would be disposed of at the 
San Francisco Deep Ocean Disposal Site. Additionally, up to 
100,000 cy may also be taken off-site to a landfill.
    b. Environmental Features: The plan seeks to take maximum 
advantage of opportunities to beneficially reuse dredged 
material. In addition to the upland reuse for construction of 
port facilities, the plan includes the following features.
     Middle Harbor Environmental Enhancement Area 
(MHEA): The MHEA is a key component of the proposed project, is 
a reuse/disposal option close to the dredging, it could 
accommodate 7 mcy. It is owned by the Port. Middle Harbor is an 
approximately 200-acre area. It is proposed to place material 
here to create approximately 120 acres of shallow water 
habitat. The Middle Harbor area is no longer required for 
active maritime operations due to the closure of the Fleet 
Industrial Supply Center Oakland (FISCO), and the Port's plan 
to create five new berths and a tug wharf along the Inner 
Harbor. Two aspects of this plan are unresolved, whether this 
proposed fill in the bay will be permitted by the Bay 
Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and the use of 
some of the material in an aquatic site.
     Hamilton Wetlands Restoration Site: This potential 
beneficial reuse option is a wetlands restoration project 
designed to accept dredged material suitable for unconfined 
aquatic disposal (including wetland cover) from a variety of 
dredging projects to assist with the restoration of former 
wetlands at a site being transferred to the state of California 
for reuse under BRAC 1988. The Hamilton site consists of three 
parcels in Novato, California, including the former Hamilton 
Army Airfield, adjacent ball fields and the former Antenna 
Field. The BCDC and the Coastal Conservancy will seek 
Congressional authorization for the proposed Hamilton Wetlands 
Restoration project. It is uncertain whether this authorization 
will be obtained in time for the site to be ready to accept 
Oakland Harbor sediment. Beneficial use of dredged material 
from the Oakland Harbor project would proportionally restore 
about 228 acres at the Hamilton wetlands restoration site.
     Montezuma Wetlands: This potential beneficial 
reuse option is a wetlands restoration project designed to 
accept dredged material suitable for unconfined aquatic 
disposal (including wetland cover) from a variety of dredging 
projects. The Montezuma site will be privately constructed and 
the project sponsor proposes to charge a tipping fee for 
accepting dredgedmaterial. The environmental documentation for 
this project has not been completed, and it is uncertain whether the 
required permits and facilities would be in place in time for the 
proposed project. Beneficial use of dredged material from the Oakland 
Harbor project would proportionally restore about 542 acres at the 
Montezuma wetlands project.
    Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries: 
The plan preferred by the Port of Oakland deepens the Oakland 
Harbor to 50 feet (entrance channel, outer harbor and inner 
harbor).
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: No significant 
issue raised.
    Status of NEPA Document: The EIS was filed 13 February 
1998.
    Estimated Implementation Costs: (October 1998 price 
levels).

                                                            Cost-sharing
Federal (Agency/Purpose): Corps of Engineers/Navigation.     $90,650,000
    Beneficial Use of Dredged Material/Ecosystem 
      Restoration.......................................      37,770,000
(Additional cash contribution over time after credit for 
    LERR)...............................................        -599,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Subtotal Corps....................................     127,821,000
    Aids to Navigation..................................         260,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Subtotal Federal..................................     128,081,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Non-Federal (Specify state/local sponsors): Port of 
    Oakland/Navigation..................................      53,840,000
    LERR................................................      13,850,000
    Beneficial Use of Dredged Material/Ecosystem 
      Restoration.......................................      12,600,000
(Additional cash contribution over time after credit for 
    LERR)...............................................         599,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Subtotal Non-Federal..............................      80,889,000
Berthing, local service facilities, and owner 
    relocations.........................................      43,320,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total non-Federal.................................     124,209,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
      Estimated Total First Cost........................     252,290,000

    Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: Non-
Federal costs identified above include lands, easements, 
rights-of-way, relocations, and dredge material disposal areas 
and costs of deepening berthing areas/local service facilities 
required for the project. The non-Federal sponsor is required 
to provide during the period of construction, a cash 
contribution equal to 25 percent of the total cost of 
construction attributable to the general navigation features 
(GNF) between -42 feet and -45 feet; a cash contribution equal 
to 50 percent of the total cost of construction attributable to 
GNF between -45 feet and -50 feet (NED plan), plus repay with 
interest, over a period not to exceed 30 years following 
completion of the period of construction of the project, an 
additional 10 percent of the total cost of construction of 
general navigation features. The non-Federal costs also include 
a cash contribution equal to 25 percent of the total costs 
attributable to ecosystem restoration. The non-Federal costs 
identified above included lands, easements and rights-of-way, 
relocations and disposal areas; costs associated with deepening 
the berthing areas/local service facilities required for the 
project. The value of lands easements and rights of way are 
estimated at $13,850,000.
    Estimated Annual O&M; Costs: (October 1998 price levels).

                                                            Cost-sharing
Federal (Agency/Purpose): Corps of Engineers/Navigation.        $295,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Subtotal............................................         295,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Non-Federal (Specify state/local sponsors): Port of 
    Oakland/Navigation..................................         135,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Subtotal..........................................         135,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................         430,000

    Description of Non-Federal O&M; Cost: The non-Federal 
sponsor is responsible for 50 percent of maintenance dredging 
associated with the increase in depth between -45 ft and -50 
feet.
    Estimated Effects:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Average annual
                                        equivalent       Average annual
              Account                   beneficial      adverse effects
                                     effects ($1000)        ($1000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Navigation........................           $187,870            $23,290
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Benefit-Cost Ratio: 8.1 to 1 (Current Discount Rate: 
6.875%)
    (5) Delaware Bay Coastline--Delaware & New Jersey: Reeds 
Beach to Pierces Point, New Jersey.--
    Location of Study Area: The Reeds Beach to Pierces Point 
study area is located on the southern tip of New Jersey in 
Middle Township, Cape May County, and extends from Bidwell 
Creek at the north end of Reeds Beach southward approximately 3 
miles to Pierces Point.
    Authority for Report: Authorization to undertake this study 
was established by a resolution adopted by the Committee on 
Public Works and Transportation, United States House of 
Representatives, on 1 October, 1986.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in the Study Area: 
The Reeds Beach and Pierces Point areas have experienced 
environmental degradation due to shoreline erosion and storm 
damage over the years. Several related problems have been 
identified. These problems include:
    --Loss of beach and dune habitat due to past and continuing 
shoreline erosion, including loss of essential habitat for: 
migrating shorebirds, horseshoe crab spawning, threatened and 
endangered species (such as least tern and piping plover).
    --Loss of wetlands and related habitat due to past and 
continuing shoreline erosion, including loss of diamond back 
terrapin habitat in dunes and adjacent marshes.
    --Encroachment of the shoreline toward public roads and the 
potential loss of road access.
    --Potential physical damage to structures in the study area 
(approximately 130 residential and 2 commercial structures).
    Alternative Plans Considered: Alternative measures 
evaluated for comparative purposes included variations of berm 
restoration, dune construction, bulkhead groin field 
construction, and offshore detached breakwater construction.
    Description of Recommended Plan: The selected plan for 
Reeds Beach and Pierces Point bay frontage provides 
environmental restoration by means of construction of a beach. 
A berm will be constructed to provide habitat for the horseshoe 
crab and the least tern. The horseshoe crab is a critical food 
source to many species of migratory shorebirds and migratory 
birds. The numbers of horseshoe crabs have declined in the area 
due to lack of suitable beach habitat. The material is to be 
taken from Borrow Area A offshore from Town Bank.
    Due to the relatively low long-term erosion rate (less than 
1 foot per year) and the fact that approximately 80% of the 
project's environmental benefits are estimated to remain at the 
end of the 50-year project life, no periodic nourishment will 
be performed for this project. Environmental monitoring will 
also be performed for this project at a total cost of $125,000 
over a 5-year period.
    Physical Data on Project Features: The entire project 
length of the selected plan is 6,800 feet, including tapers. 
The beachfill will extend the entire length of Pierces Point 
with a 300 foot taper at the northern end (terminating before 
an existing creek) and a 500 foot taper at the southern end. 
The total length of the project at Pierces Point, including 
tapers, is 2,600 feet. The beachfill at Reeds Beach will extend 
from the southern end and run north to approximately 1,250 feet 
south of the stone jetty at the entrance to Bidwell Creek. 
There will be a 500-foot taper at both the northern and 
southern ends. The total length of the project at Reeds Beach, 
including tapers, is 4,200 feet.
    The beachfill will consist of an 80-foot wide berm. The 
landward elevation of the berm is +5.5 feet North American 
Vertical Datum (NAVD) and the seaward elevation is +3.5 feet 
NAVD. The initial beachfill for Pierces Point will require a 
total volume of 78,000 cubic yards of sand. The initial 
beachfill for Reeds Beach will require a total volume of 
171,000 cubic yards of sand. The material is to be taken from 
Borrow Area A offshore from Town Bank.
    Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries: 
Sponsorship for the project will be provided by the New Jersey 
Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). NJDEP has 
expressed its support for the recommended restoration plan.
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: A Planning Aid 
Report has been prepared by the USFWS, and is included in the 
Final Reeds Beach to Pierces Point, NJ Interim Feasibility 
Report. Comments and concerns from other Federal, State and 
local agencies have been addressed in the final report. There 
are no significant outstanding issues.
    Status of NEPA Documentation: Comments and concerns from 
Federal, State, and local agencies and the public regarding the 
Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) have been addressed and are 
included in the Final Integrated Feasibility Report and 
Environmental Assessment.
    Estimated Implementation Costs: (October 1998 Price Level).

                                                            Cost-sharing
Initial Construction:
    Federal: Corps of Engineers.........................      $2,637,000
    Non-Federal: New Jersey Department of Environmental 
      Protection........................................       1,420,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................       4,057,000

    Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: (October 
1998 Price Level).

Initial Construction
    LERRD...............................................        $333,000
    Cash................................................       1,087,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................       1,420,000

    Estimated Annual O&M; Costs: (October 1998 Price Level).

Federal: Corps of Engineers.............................               0
Non-Federal: New Jersey Department of Environmental 
    Protection..........................................         $11,400

    Description of Non-Federal O&M; Costs: Annual O&M; cost 
associated with this project includes costs for hydraulic and 
environmental monitoring of the project.
    Estimated Effects: The recommended plan will provide for 
the restoration of approximately 13.5 Habitat Units for 
horseshoe crab habitat and 17.0 Habitat Units for least tern 
habitat. The recommended plan also provides incidental national 
economic development benefits associated with the prevention of 
storm damages. Average annual economic benefits associated with 
storm damage reduction are estimated to be $612,200 at October 
1998 price levels. Regional development is further enhanced by 
increasing the quality of the recreation experience offered in 
and adjacent to the project site.
    (6) Delaware Bay Coastline: Delaware and New Jersey--Villas 
& Vicinity, New Jersey.--
    Location of the Study Area: The Villas and Vicinity study 
area is located in Cape May County, New Jersey, and extends 
approximately 6 miles from the Delaware Bay entrance to the 
Cape May Canal northward to Norbury's Landing. The study area 
includes the communities of North Cape May, Town Bank, Villas, 
and Sunray Beach.
    Authority for Report: Authorization to undertake this study 
was established by a resolution adopted by the Committee on 
Public Works and Transportation, United States House of 
Representatives, on 1 October, 1986.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in the Study: The 
Villas and Vicinity study area has experienced shoreline 
erosion over the years. Several related problems have been 
identified including:
    a. Loss of beach and dune habitat due to past and 
continuing shoreline erosion.
    b. Encroachment of the shoreline toward wetlands, and the 
potential for habitat loss as the erosion continues.
    c. Potential physical damage to structures in the study 
area (601 residential and 8 commercial).
    The opportunity exists to address some or all of the 
problems identified in the study area with development and 
construction of an ecosystem restoration project. Based on the 
results of problem identification, formulation studies focused 
on the northern portion of the study area where narrow beaches 
and diminished dunes provide the greatest opportunity for 
ecosystem restoration.
    Alternative Plans Considered: The solutions considered 
included both nonstructural and structural measures. The 
project alternative measures considered are as follows: (1) 
Non-structural measures considered consisted of the no Federal 
action and permanent evacuation; and (2) structural measures 
considered consisted of berm restoration, berm restoration with 
dune, bulkhead, groin field with berm restoration and dune, 
offshore detached breakwater with berm restoration and dune, 
perched beach with berm restoration and dune, seawall, and 
seawall with berm restoration.
    The plan formulation screening process eliminated most of 
the alternatives considered in this study, and concluded that 
formulation should proceed primarily for environmental 
purposes, given the limited potential for economic benefits to 
justify hurricane and storm damage reduction. The solutions 
recommended for detailed study included: berm restoration and 
berm restoration and dune.
    Description of Recommended Plan: The plan developed by the 
district engineer for ecosystem restoration consists of an 80 
foot wide berm approximately 29,000 feet in length.
    Physical Data on Project Features: The recommended plan for 
environmental protection and restoration at the Villas and 
Vicinity consists of the following:
     A berm with a total width of 80 feet measured 
bayward from the design line, with a crest elevation of +4.7 
feet NAVD and sloping bayward from +4.7 feet to +2.7 feet NAVD. 
The beachfill extends from Rosewood Avenue in the Villas 
northward to the southern boundary of the adjacent Reeds Beach 
to Pierces Point study area for a total length of 28,500 linear 
feet. A taper of 500 feet extends from the southern limit of 
the project, bringing the total project length to approximately 
29,000 feet.
     From the offshore borrow area, a total sand fill 
quantity of 950,000 cubic yards. There is no periodic 
nourishment included in the recommended plan.
     Beachfill for the proposed project is available 
from an offshore borrow area located between 500 to 3000 feet 
offshore of Town Bank.
     To properly assess the functioning of the proposed 
plan, monitoring of the placed beachfill, borrow area, 
shoreline, wave and littoral environment is included with the 
plan. Environmental monitoring is being addressed through 
coordination with other interested agencies, and will be 
finalized in the Final Environmental Assessment.
    Views of States, Non-Federal Interests, and Other 
Countries: Sponsorship for the project will be provided by the 
State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 
(NJDEP). NJDEP has expressed its support for an ecosystem 
restoration plan. However during coordination of the draft 
report, issues were raised by some local interests. This led to 
the State's request of 30 October 1997 for a delay of the final 
report submission to reconsider its position on the project. 
Upon coordination with other state and local agencies with an 
interest in the study area, the sponsor requested that the 
final report be prepared and reaffirmed its support in a letter 
dated 14 January 1998. A revised Draft Feasibility Report and 
Environmental Assessment was distributed in June 1998 for 
agency and public coordination. In a letter dated 15 December 
1998, the non-Federal sponsor expressed support for the 
project.
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: All comments 
letters and responses are provided in the final report, 
including a Supplemental Section 2(b) report prepared by the 
United States Fish and Wildlife Service dated 24 July 1998. 
There are no significant issues at this time.
    Status of Final Environmental Statement: Comments from the 
public and agency review of the Draft and Revised Draft 
Environmental Assessments were received. The Final 
Environmental Assessment addresses the comments, and is 
included with the Final Feasibility Report.
    Estimated Implementation Costs: (October 1998 price level).
Initial Construction:
    Federal: Corps of Engineers--Ecosystem Restoration..      $4,888,000
    Non-Federal: New Jersey Department of Environmental 
      Protection........................................       2,632,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................       7,520,000

    Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: The 
sponsor will be required to provide cash and LERRDS for 
construction of the project. Note: the project does not contain 
periodic nourishment.

Initial Construction:
    LERRD...............................................        $292,000
    Cash................................................       2,340,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................       2,632,000

Estimated Annual O&M; Costs: (October 1998 price level).

Federal: Corps of Engineers.............................               0
Non-Federal: New Jersey Department of Environmental 
    Protection..........................................         $11,300

    Description of non-Federal O&M; Costs: Annual O&M; costs 
associated with this project include beach shaping, beach 
surveys and project monitoring.
    Estimated Effects: The recommended plan will provide for 
the restoration of approximately 82 acres of beach habitat. 
This plan maximizes the Environmental Quality (EQ) attributes. 
Because the outcome of the construction actions recommended by 
this study will be fish and wildlife habitat benefits which are 
not amenable to monetary benefit analysis, no National Economic 
Development (NED) plan was presented. Over the 50-year life of 
the project, the recommended plan will restore 155 fish and 
wildlife habitat units (73 HU's for horseshoe crab and 82 HU's 
for least tern). The benefit/cost ratio has not been calculated 
since the environmental benefits are not monetarily quantified.
    (7) Delaware Coast From Cape Henlopen to Fenwick Island, 
Bethany Beach/South Bethany Beach, Delaware.--
    Location: The study area extends from 1260 feet north and 
south of the town boundaries of Bethany Beach and 1540 feet 
north and south of the town boundaries of South Bethany, for a 
total length of 14,950 feet.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in the Study Area: 
Progressive and constant erosion is evident in certain areas of 
the shoreline. In an attempt to prevent further erosion of the 
shoreline, the State of Delaware has performed a number of 
beachfills on an as-needed basis. Despite the efforts 
undertaken by the State of Delaware, the shoreline continues to 
erode. Long-term erosion has resulted in a persistent reduction 
in storm damage protection by reducing the height and width of 
the beachfront.
    Alternative Plans Considered: Alternatives considered 
included both nonstructural and structural measures. 
Nonstructural measures given consideration included: No Federal 
Action; Floodplain Management; and Permanent Evacuation. 
Structural measures given consideration included: Berm 
Restoration; Berm Restoration with Dune; Groins; Bulkheads; 
Offshore Detached Breakwater; Seawall; and Perched Beach. The 
plan formulation screening process eliminated most of the 
alternative measures considered in this study. Alternatives 
recommended for detailed optimization to determine the NED plan 
included: Berm Restoration; and Berm Restoration with Dune.
    Description of Selected Plan: The selected plan extends 
14,950 feet along the shorefront of Bethany Beach and South 
Bethany. The plan consists of a 150-foot wide berm at an 
elevation of +7.0 feet NAVD, and a dune with a top elevation of 
+16.0 feet NAVD and crest width of 25 feet. The plan includes 
dune grass, dune fencing, and suitable beachfill with periodic 
nourishment to ensure the integrity of the design.
    Physical Data on Project Features:
    The selected shore protection plan extends 14,950 feet 
along the shorefront of Bethany Beach and South Bethany, and 
consists of:
    A 150 ft wide berm at an elevation of +7.0 ft NAVD.
    A dune with a top elevation of +16.0 ft NAVD and a top 
width of 25 ft.
    A total initial quantity of 2,748,000 cubic yards dredged 
from the designated borrow area will be placed along the area. 
This fill quantity includes initial design fill requirements 
and advanced nourishment.
    116,160 s.y. of planted dune grass for sand entrapment
    27,425 l.f. of sand fence to maintain dune stability.
    Renourishment of approximately 480,000 cubic yards of sand 
fill from the designated borrow area every 3 years for the 50-
year project life.
    Monitoring of the placed beachfill and borrow area is 
included in the plan.
    Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries: 
Sponsorship for the project will be provided by the State of 
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental 
Control (DNREC). DNREC has expressed its support for the 
project in a letter dated 19 October 1998.
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: All comment letters 
and responses will be provided in the final report, including a 
Section 2(b) report prepared by the United States Fish and 
Wildlife Service. No major or significant views were expressed 
by the agencies.
    Status of NEPA Document: Comments from the Public and 
Agency review of the draft Environmental Impact Statement were 
received. The final Environmental Impact Statement addresses 
the comments, and is included in the final Feasibility Report.
    Estimated Implementation Costs: (October 1998 price level).

Initial Construction:
    Federal: Corps of Engineers--Shore Protection.......     $14,433,000
    Non-Federal: Delaware Department of Natural 
      Resources and Environmental Control...............       7,772,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................      22,205,000
Periodic Nourishment (average annual cost of future 
    construction over the 50 year life of the project):
    Federal: Corps of Engineers--Shore Protection.......       1,030,000
    Non-Federal: Delaware Department of Natural 
      Resources and Environmental Control...............         554,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................       1,584,000

    Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: In 
addition to providing cash and LERRDS for the initial 
construction of the project, the sponsor will be required to 
provide 35 percent of the cost of the periodic nourishment over 
the 50-year life of the project.

Initial Construction:
    LERRD...............................................        $326,000
    Cash................................................       7,446,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................       7,772,000

Periodic Nourishment (annualized):
    Cash................................................         554,000
      Total.............................................         554,000

    Estimated Annual O&M; Costs: (October 1998 price level).

Federal: Corps of Engineers.............................               0
Non-Federal: Delaware Department of Natural Resources 
    and Environmental Control...........................         $45,000

    Description of Non-Federal O&M; Costs: Annual O&M; costs 
associated with this project include costs for maintenance of 
sand fence and replanting of dune grass as needed. Annual 
surveys of the beachfill and O&M; project monitoring purposes 
are also the responsibility of the non-Federal sponsor.
    Estimated Effects: 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Average annual
                                        equivalent       Average annual
              Account                   beneficial      adverse effects
                                    effects  ($1,000)       ($1,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Purposes--Storm Damage Reduction:               5,604              3,295
 Net National Economic Development
                                   -------------------------------------
      Total.......................              5,604              3,295
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Benefit-Cost Ratio: 1.6 (Current Discount Rate--6.875%).
    (8) Little Talbot Island, Duval County, Florida.--
    Location: Little Talbot Island is located on the upper east 
coast of Florida in Duval County. Little Talbot Island is 
within twenty miles of the Florida-Georgia border.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in the Study: The 
problems in the study area concern coastal flooding, shoreline 
erosion and storm wave damage. Several times yearly, coastal 
flooding 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. The existing shoreline has some 
dumped stone placed against the bank to provide some 
stabilization. This stone has not been effective in providing 
shore protection and the bank continues to erode. The study 
area along the southern tip of Little Talbot Island extends 
approximately 3,300 feet east of the State Road A1A/SR-105 
bridge crossing over Fort George River and 2,400 feet west of 
the bridge. The average elevation of the southern tip of Little 
Talbot Island in the study area is +10.0 feet mean low water 
(MLW).
    Alternative Plans Under Consideration: Alternatives 
considered during the study included beach nourishment, 
nearshore placement of sand, construction of seawalls, groins, 
and stone revetment and breakwaters, raising the roadway 
elevation of State Road A1A/SR-105, and a no-action plan. Both 
structural and nonstructural measures were evaluated. Those 
alternatives that were believed to be detrimental to the 
natural resources of the area or not cost effective were 
eliminated from further analysis at the beginning of the study.
    Description of Recommended Plan: The selected plan consists 
of the 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 (FDOT) 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. Therefore, protection of this reach is not 
necessary.
    Physical Data on Project Features:
    a. Stone Riprap:
    Project Length--3,300 feet.
    Structure Crest--+10 MLW.
    Stone Weight (lb)--550-2,100 lb.
    Side Slopes--1 vertical on 2 horizontal.
    Views of States, Non-Federal Interests, and Other 
Countries: FDOT stated their intent to be the non-Federal 
sponsor for the project in a letter dated October 26, 1998.
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The recommended 
plan has been reviewed by interested agencies and groups during 
coordination of the report. They concur with the findings 
expressed in the report and support the recommended plan.
    Status of NEPA Document: The final EA is included in the 
Final report and the FONSI was signed on 10 June 1997.
    Estimated Implementation Costs: (October 1998 price 
levels).
                                                            Cost sharing
Federal:
    Corps of Engineers:
        Shore Protection................................      $3,839,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
          Subtotal......................................       3,839,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Non-Federal:
    Florida Department of Transportation:
        Shore Protection................................       2,065,000
        Lands, easements, rights-of-way.................          11,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
          Subtotal......................................       2,076,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
          Total.........................................       5,915,000

    Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: Lands, 
easements and rights-of-way is $14,000 and relocation of 
structures and utilities is $30,000. The cost of the shore 
protection project is shared at 65% Federal and 35% non-
Federal. The non-Federal associated cost for the highway 
raising is $590,000.
    Estimated Annual O&M; Costs: Non-Federal--$53,000.
    Description of Non-Federal O&M; Cost: The Non-Federal 
sponsor is responsible for O&M; costs of the stone revetment.
    Estimated Effects: (October 1998 price levels).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Average annual
                                        equivalent       Average annual
              Account                   beneficial      adverse effects
                                         effects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Economic Development:
    Shore Protection..............         $1,345,000           $475,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Benefit-Cost Ratio: 2.8 (Current Discount Rate: 6-\7/8\%).
    (9) Ponce De Leon Inlet, Volusia County, Florida.--
    Location: The project is located in Volusia County on the 
east coast of Florida, about 65 miles south of St. Augustine 
Harbor and 57 miles north of Canaveral Harbor. The existing 
navigation project was authorized in the River and Harbor Act 
of 1965. That project consists of an entrance channel from the 
Atlantic Ocean which provides access to a northwesterly channel 
along the Halifax River and a southeasterly channel along the 
Indian River. Both inner harbor channels connect with the 
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: The 
existing channels in Ponce DeLeon Inlet are experiencing 
extensive shoaling and costly maintenance. The feasibility 
report evaluated the inlet stability, maintenance and related 
navigation problems in the Ponce DeLeon Inlet area. Of specific 
concern are the impacts and needs of the Port Authority, 
charter boat operators, commercial fishermen, general 
recreational boaters and concerns of 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.
    Alternative Plans Under Consideration: Extending the south 
jetty 500, 800, or 1,000 feet along two different orientations 
was considered in combination with other measures to stabilize 
the inlet. Reopening the north jetty weir to various lengths; 
realignment of the entrance channel by construction of a 
channel through the north spit overlying the past historical 
breakthrough location; construction of a groin field along the 
sand spit inside the inlet and adjacent to the north jetty 
spit; and a landward extension of the north jetty in 
conjunction with revetment along the north sand spit 
represented other measures considered.
    Description of Recommended Plan. Extending the south jetty 
by 1,000 feet parallel to the existing north jetty provided the 
best hydrodynamic improvements to the inlet.
    Physical Data on Project Features: The new modifications to 
the existing Federal channels will consist of the following 
features:
    a. 1000-foot South Jetty Extension--The cross-section of 
the 1000-foot south jetty extension is similar to the cross-
section used during the original jetty construction. The only 
modifications made were steepening of the side slopes from 1:2 
to 1:1.5, and the addition of a 30-foot scour apron on the 
inside (north side) of the jetty, to prevent damage to the 
jetty from the scouring which is expected upon completion of 
the extension, The crest elevation of the extension will match 
the elevation of the original jetty, but the crest width will 
increase from the jetty's 10 feet to 15 feet along the 
extension, in accordance with current design procedures which 
require a minimum of 3 stones across the width of the 
structure. A taper will be constructed to provide a smooth 
transition from the original jetty's 10-foot width to the 
extension's 15-foot width.
    Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries: 
Public views and comments have been solicited at various points 
during the study process. In general, public agencies concurred 
with the study approach and list of measures presented for 
stabilization of the inlet.
    Views of Federal, and Regional Agencies: USFWS and the 
Florida State Department of Environmental Protection both 
support the recommended project, however express concern for 
the safety of manatees and sea turtles during construction. If 
trucks are used to haul rock along the beach during 
construction of the south jetty extension, arrangements will be 
made to locate and move sea turtle eggs during the nesting 
season.
    Status of NEPA Document: A Finding of No Significant Impact 
has been signed.
    Estimated Implementation Costs: (October 1998 price level).
                                                            Cost sharing
Federal:
    Corps of Engineers:
        General Navigation Facilities...................      $2,976,000
    U.S. Coast Guard:
        Navigation Aids.................................          12,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
          Subtotal......................................      $2,988,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Non-Federal:
    Ponce DeLeon Inlet Port Authority:
        General Navigation Facilities...................      $2,466,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
          Total.........................................      $5,454,000

    Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: Non-
Federal interests are responsible for all costs for lands, 
easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and dredging of berthing 
areas. The non-Federal share of the general navigation 
facilities producing commercial and recreational benefits is 
allocated to the purposes served. For commercial navigation, 
the non-Federal share is 20 percent, or 10 percent cash 
contribution during construction and 10 percent repayment over 
30 years. The non-Federal share of construction for recreation 
navigation is 50 percent.
    Estimated Annual O&M; Costs: The total estimated annual O&M; 
costs is $225,000. O&M; will be cost shared based on the 
project's commercial and recreational navigation purposes as 
follows:
    Description of non-Federal O&M; Costs: The Non-Federal 
sponsor is responsible for the O&M; costs assigned to 
recreational navigation.
    Estimated Effects:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Average annual
                                        equivalent       Average annual
              Account                   beneficial      adverse effects
                                     effects ($1,000)       ($1,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Economic Development:
    Navigation....................               $567               $419
                                   -------------------------------------
      Total.......................               $567               $419
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Benefit-Cost Ratio: 1.4 (Current Discount Rate: 6\7/8\%)
    (10) Savannah Harbor Expansion, Georgia.--
    Location: Savannah Harbor is located on the Lower Savannah 
River, on the state border between Georgia and South Carolina. 
The project is located adjacent to the City of Savannah.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified: Since the last 
Savannah Harbor deepening, the Georgia Ports Authority has 
experienced a growth in container ship size which has far 
exceeded projections. The purpose of this study is to readdress 
the economic projections and to ascertain the NED and 
recommended plan for further deepening of the Harbor.
    Alternative Plans Considered: The non-Federal sponsor 
investigated deepening the harbor in two-foot increments from 
the present depth of -42 feet mean low water (MLW) to -50 feet 
MLW. The NED and Recommended plan is deepening to 48 feet mean 
low water.
    Physical Data of Project Features: The non-Federal sponsor 
recommends a plan that consists of the following modifications 
to the existing Federal Navigation Project:
    (a) deepening the entrance channel up to -50 feet Mean Low 
Water (MLW);
    (b) deepening the inner harbor up to -48 feet;
    (c) widening bends in the entrance channel and inner harbor 
at 12 locations;
    (d) enlarging the Kings Island Turning Basin to a width of 
1,676 feet and mitigation that includes a cultural resources 
mitigation plan, a natural resources mitigation plan, and an 
impact avoidance plan.
    Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries: 
Responses to draft documents indicate that additional 
environmental analyses are needed to further identify and 
evaluate all the impacts of alternative depths and develop an 
acceptable mitigation plan.
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: Responses to draft 
documents indicate that additional environmental analyses are 
needed to further identify and evaluate all the impacts of 
alternative depths and develop an acceptable mitigation plan.
    Status of NEPA Document: A Final Tier I EIS was filed with 
EPA on 18 September, 1998.
    Estimated Implementation Costs: (October 1998 price level).

Federal:
    Corps of Engineers:
        General Navigation Facilities...................    $144,328,000
    U.S. Coast Guard:
        Aids to Navigation..............................         832,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
          Subtotal......................................     145,160,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Non-Federal:
    Georgia Ports Authority
        General Navigation Facilities...................      84,548,000
        Berthing Areas..................................         466,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
          Subtotal......................................      85,014,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
        Total...........................................    $230,174,000

    Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: The Local 
Sponsor will be required to acquire the proper real estate 
interests for the land adjoining the project that either will 
be directly impacted from the deepening of the harbor, and the 
land used in temporary easements for construction and river 
access. The cost will be credited against the sponsor's 10 
percent cash cost share.
    Estimated Annual O&M; Costs: (October 1998 price levels).

Federal:
    Corps of Engineers:
        Increased cost of maintenance dredging..........         153,000
Non-Federal.............................................            None

    Estimated Effects:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Average annual
                                        equivalent       Average annual
              Account                   beneficial      adverse effects
                                     effects ($1,000)       ($1,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Economic Development.....            $54,220            $16,415
                                   -------------------------------------
      Total.......................             54,220             16,415
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Benefit-Cost Ratio: 3.0 (Current Discount Rate: 6\7/8\%)
    The Committee notes that both the Chief of Engineer's Tier 
I Environmental Impact Statement and Feasibility Report provide 
for the establishment of a Stakeholders Evaluation Group 
(``SEG''). The Committee understands that the SEG's early and 
consistent involvement in the project is an integral and 
essential component of the project. The SEG process as outlined 
in the EIS requires the development of a consensus concerning a 
mitigation plan to fully and adequately address predicted and 
potential adverse impacts on, among other things: the Savannah 
National Wildlife Refuge; striped bass population; shortnose 
sturgeon; wetlands; chloride levels; dissolved oxygen levels; 
erosion and historical resources. The Committee further notes 
that, consistent with the philosophy expressed by Congress in 
Section 906(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, 
which requires mitigation related to fish and wildlife 
resources, the Chief of Engineers and Secretary must ensure 
that the SEG-developed mitigation plan addressing adverse 
project impacts is implemented in advance of or concurrent with 
project construction, and must also ensure that project cost 
estimates are sufficient to address the mitigation 
alternatives. The Committee understands that neither the 
Secretary nor the Georgia Port Authority will proceed with 
final design or construction of the project until the 
respective department heads concur in an appropriate 
implementation plan and mitigation plan. Finally, the Committee 
intends that the Chief of Engineers and Secretary ensure that 
any requests for funds to be appropriated by Congress for 
project construction are allocated in a manner that ensures 
project impacts are fully and adequately mitigated and are 
otherwise consistent with the SEG-developed mitigation plan.
    (11) Des Plaines River, Illinois.--
    Location: Chicagoland Area, Illinois. The study area 
includes the Cook and Lake Counties portion of the watershed 
for which the drainage area is 67 square miles.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: The Des 
Plaines River is subject to severe overbank flooding due to 
inadequate channel capacity to carry peak flowsduring major 
storm events. Damaging floods in this primarily urban watershed have 
occurred in 1938, 1948, 1950, 1954, 1957, 1960, 1962, 1965, 1972, 1974, 
1976, 1979, 1986, 1987, and 1996. The 1986 and 1987 floods together 
caused damages exceeding $100 million. Flooding affects transportation, 
homes, commercial/industrial sites, public/municipal sites, streets, 
golf courses, cemeteries, and recreation/open space areas. Average 
annual damages for baseline conditions (2004) are estimated at $24.5 
million and will increase to $26.9 million in 2010 due to continued 
urbanization.
    Alternative Plans Considered: A full range of structural 
and nonstructural measures were considered. Structural measures 
included flood water storage facilities, channel and bridge 
modifications, diversions, and levees. Non-structural measures 
included floodproofing and acquisition of structures and flood 
warning and emergency preparedness. Storage facilities and 
levees were the most cost-effective solutions.
    Description of Recommended Plan: The recommended plan 
consists of expansion of three existing reservoirs, one new 
lateral storage area, and two levees. The project features 
function as a system to reduce baseline conditions average 
annual damages by 25 percent. The levees will exempt the 
protected areas from the Federal Emergency Management Agency's 
National Flood Insurance Program. They will have a 95 percent 
chance of containing the 1 percent chance flood event in any 
one year. The proposed levee projects will reduce the areal 
extent of the Federal Emergency Management Agency regulatory 
floodplain. Remapping of the floodplain will clearly identify 
that portion of the flood plain which will be removed from the 
flood hazard potential, and any portion which remains subject 
to the National Flood Insurance Program.
    Physical Data on Project Features: 
    North Fork Mill Creek Reservoir--The existing dam will be 
raised 3 feet and will be approximately 900 feet in length. The 
primary outlet will be a 10' x 2' box outlet structure. An 
emergency spillway will be constructed with a length of 830 
feet. The resulting storage volume will be 1040 acre-feet.
    Buffalo Creek Reservoir Expansion--An additional 500 acre-
feet of storage will be created by excavation in conjunction 
with lowering the design water elevation of the two existing 
permanent pools to create one permanent pool.
    Big Bend Lake Expansion--An additional 590 acre-ft of 
storage will be created by excavation in conjunction with 
lowering the design water elevation of the existing permanent 
pool.
    Van Patton Woods Lateral Storage Area--This storage area 
has two sections providing a total of 412 acre-feet of storage. 
The eastern section is 3,700 feet long with an average height 
of 7 feet and the western section is 3,400 long with an average 
height of 7 feet.
    Mount Prospect/Prospect Heights Levee--An earth levee about 
8,000 feet long, with a height varying from 2 to 9 feet.
    Rand Park Levee--An earth levee about 2,600 feet long, with 
a height varying from 3 to 7 feet.
    Mitigation--The project will impact 4 acres of forested 
wetlands, 10 acres of upland prairie, and 72 acres of emergent 
wetlands. Mitigation for these impacts is proposed to be 
accomplished by establishing 15 acres of forested wetlands and 
50 acres of emergent wetlands on property owned by the Lake 
County Forest Preserve District.
    Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Others: The 
recommended plan is a locally preferred plan that reflects the 
sponsors' constraints concerning the use of forest preserve 
lands, encroachment on private property, and local regulations 
on mitigation of induced flooding impacts. The local sponsors 
(i.e., the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater 
Chicago, the State of Illinois, and the Lake County Stormwater 
Management Commission) and numerous municipalities in the study 
area have expressed support for the recommended project.
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: Federal, State, and 
regional agencies have been consulted during the development of 
the draft feasibility report and their views and 
recommendations have been considered. The proposed measures for 
mitigation of environmental impacts are based on the 
recommendations contained in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service's Coordination Act Report.
    Status of National Environmental Policy Act Document: The 
draft Environmental Impact Statement was filed with EPA on 9 
April 1999. The public review period expires on 4 June 1999.
    Estimated Implementation Costs: (October 1998 Price Levels) 
(All costs are allocated to flood damage reduction).

Federal.................................................     $31,700,000
Non-Federal.............................................      17,100,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................      48,800,000

    Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: Non-
federal implementation costs are based on their 
responsibilities to provide lands, easements, and rights-of-
ways ($9,100,000); relocations ($1,800,000); and a cash 
contribution equal to 5% of the total project cost plus 
additional cash to make its total contribution equal to 35% of 
the total project cost ($6,200,000). The local sponsor will 
apply for credit under Section 104 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 for construction of the Rand Park Levee 
at a total estimated first cost of $8.5 million.
    Description of Non-Federal O&M; Cost: For the levees and 
lateral storage areas, the local sponsor will have to 
periodically mow and remove excessive vegetation,maintain 
structures in working order, remove debris and sediment, and maintain 
the levee section and landscaping. The sponsor is also responsible for 
the repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of culverts, gates, and 
other structural features of the levees. Requirements for the 
reservoirs are similar and include additional features such as access 
roads and pump stations.
    Benefit-Cost Ratio: 1.7 (Current Discount Rate: 6\7/8\%).
    (12) New Jersey Shore Protection, Brigantine Inlet to Great 
Egg Harbor Brigantine Island, New Jersey.--
    Location: The study area is located along the open 
coastline of southern New Jersey, entirely within Atlantic 
County. Brigantine Island is approximately 6.5 miles in length, 
extending from Brigantine Inlet to Absecon Inlet.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in the Study Area: 
Significant beach and dune erosion has left Brigantine Island 
vulnerable to storm damages. Severe storms in recent years have 
caused a reduction in the overall beach height and width along 
the study area, which, along with the absence of significant 
dunes, exposes the community of Brigantine to catastrophic 
damage from ocean flooding and wave attack. In an attempt to 
prevent further erosion of a portion of the shoreline, the 
State of New Jersey and the City of Brigantine have 
rehabilitated an oceanfront bulkhead and constructed an 
emergency beachfill.
    Alternative Plans Considered: Alternatives considered 
included both nonstructural and structural measures. 
Nonstructural measures given consideration included: No Federal 
Action; Regulation of Future Development; and Permanent 
Evacuation. Structural measures given consideration included: 
Beach Restoration; Bulkhead; Seawall; Beach and Dune 
Restoration; Beach and Dune Restoration with Groin Field; Beach 
and Dune Restoration with Submerged Offshore Reef; Beach and 
Dune Restoration with Groin Field and Submerged Offshore Reef; 
Beach and Dune Restoration with Offshore Detached Breakwater; 
Beach and Dune Restoration with Perched Beach; Offshore 
Submerged Feeder Berm; and Beach Dewatering. The plan 
formulation screening process eliminated most of the 
alternative measures considered in this study. Alternatives 
recommended for detailed optimization to determine the NED plan 
included: Beach Restoration; and Beach and Dune Restoration.
    Description of Selected Plan: The selected plan extends 
9300 feet along the oceanfront of Brigantine Island. The plan 
consists of a 100-foot wide berm at an elevation of +6.0 feet-
NAVD, and a dune with a top elevation of +10.0 feet-NAVD and 
top width of 25 feet. The dunes will be planted with 10 acres 
of dune grass will be protected by 12,000 linear feet of sand 
fence.
    Physical Data on Project Features:
     The storm damage reduction plan for Brigantine 
Island identified in this report generally extends from 800 
feet north of 15th Street North to approximately 19th Street 
South, for a total length of 9,300 feet, and consists of:
     The beachfill project will extend from 15th Street 
North to 15th Street South, an approximate length of 7,300 
feet, and will include a berm extending seaward 100 feet from 
the design line at an elevation of +6.0 feet-NAVD.
     A dune with a top elevation of +10 feet-NAVD and a 
top width of 25 feet, between 9th Street North and 15th Street 
South.
     A northern beachfill taper of 800 feet and a 
southern beachfill taper of 1200 feet.
     A total sand fill quantity of 648,000 cubic yards 
is needed for the initial fill placement.
     10 acres of planted dune grass and 11,860 linear 
feet of sand fence for the entrapment of sand on the dune and 
delineating walkovers.
     Renourishment of approximately 312,000 cubic yards 
of sand fill from the borrow area identified adjacent to 
Brigantine Inlet every six years for the 50 year project life.
     To properly assess the functioning of the proposed 
plan, monitoring of the placed beachfill, borrow area, 
shoreline, and wave and littoral environment is included with 
the plan. Environmental monitoring is being addressed through 
coordination with other interested agencies and will be 
finalized in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the 
project.
    Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries: 
Sponsorship for the project will be provided by the State of 
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 
NJDEP has expressed its support for the proposed project in a 
letter dated November 10, 1997.
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: All comment letters 
and responses will be provided in the final report. No major or 
significant views have been expressed by the agencies.
    Status of NEPA Document: The Environmental Impact Statement 
was finalized in August 1998.
    Estimated Implementation Costs: (October 1998 price level).

Initial Construction:
    Federal: Corps of Engineers.........................     $ 3,230,000
    Non-Federal: NJ Department of Environmental 
      Protection........................................       1,740,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................       4,970,000
Periodic Nourishment (average annual cost of future 
    construction over the 50 year life of the project):
    Federal: Corps of Engineers.........................       $ 302,000
    Non-Federal: NJ Department of Environmental 
      Protection........................................         163,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
     Total..............................................       $ 465,000

    Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: In 
addition to providing cash and LERRDS for the initial 
construction of the project, the sponsor will be required to 
provide 35 percent of the cost of the periodic nourishment over 
the 50-year life of the project.

Initial Construction:
    LERRD...............................................        $ 35,000
    Cash................................................       1,705,000
      Total.............................................       1,740,000
Periodic Nourishment:
    Cash................................................         163,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................         163,000

    Estimated Annual O&M; Costs: (October 1998 price level).

Federal: Corps of Engineers.............................               0
Non-Federal: NJ Department of Environmental Protection..         $19,000

    Description of Non-Federal O&M; Costs: The annual operation 
and maintenance of the project includes maintaining the dunes, 
pedestrian accesses, beach shaping and beach surveys. In 
addition, sand fence and replanting of dune grass that becomes 
damaged or suffers deterioration over time will be replaced or 
maintained as needed. The non-Federal sponsor bears full 
financial responsibility for these activities.
    Estimated Effects:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Average annual
                                        equivalent       Average annual
              Account                   beneficial      adverse effects
                                         effects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Purposes--Storm Damage Reduction:
    Net National: Economic                 $1,024,000           $853,000
     Development..................
                                   -------------------------------------
      Total.......................          1,024,000            853,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Benefit-Cost Ratio: 1.2 (FY 98 Discount Rate--6.875%).
    (13) Columbia River Channel, Oregon and Washington.--
    Location of the Study Area: The study area includes the 
Lower Columbia and Willamette Rivers, with Federal navigation 
channel currently authorized to 40 feet, Columbia River Datum 
(CRD). For the Columbia River this extends from the mouth of 
the Columbia River Mile (CRM) 3.0 to CRM 106.5, which coincides 
with the Interstate 5 Highway Bridge. For the Willamette River, 
this extends from the mouth of the Willamette River Mile (WRM) 
0 to WRM 11.6, which coincides with the Broadway Bridge.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: The level 
of waterborne commerce on the Columbia River has continued to 
show steady growth, along with an increase in the size of 
commercial vessels using the navigation channel. Average vessel 
size has increased due to the efficiencies gained by shippers 
using larger vessels to transport both bulk and containerized 
commodities. With the increased use of larger vessels for 
transport of bulk commodities such as wheat and corn, 
limitations posed by the existing channel dimensions now occur 
with greater frequency. Container vessels are showing a rapid 
increase in size, and competition exerts pressure to fully load 
these vessels. Ships with design drafts approaching or greater 
than the 40-foot depth constraint cannot fully utilize their 
design drafts. This often results in reduced efficiency in the 
shipping process.
    Alternative Plans Considered: Planning constraints 
recognized that channel improvement alternatives were limited 
to a maximum of 3 feet of deepening by the study's authorizing 
legislation. Also, it was directed that the Dredged Material 
Management Plan (1998) would serve as the no action alternative 
for the study. This plan evaluated the most efficient way to 
maintain the authorized 40-foot navigation channel in the 
future.
    Alternatives for improving deep-draft navigation, as well 
as any dredging and disposal actions needed for construction 
and maintenance, were formulated and evaluated on the basis of 
technical, economic, social, and environmental criteria. A 
range of alternatives was considered. Besides the no action 
alternative, a non-structural alternative to upgrade the 
existing river stage forecasting system to improve navigation 
was evaluated. Also, as a result of public comments for 
reducing the environmental impacts associated with dredging, 
regional port concepts were formulated to locate deep-draft 
facilities closer to the mouth of the Columbia River. These 
concepts, however, were dropped from further consideration 
because of the high costs associated with construction, 
transportation, port facility, and environmental needs.
    Three structural channel deepening alternatives were 
considered that alter the channel's configuration and/or depth 
by 41, 42, or 43 feet to improve deep-draft vessel transport. 
These alternatives would be similar and require dredging and 
disposal alternatives for construction and maintenance. The 
construction of the 41-, 42-, and 43-foot channels requires 
dredging 5.6, 11.5, and 19.1 million cubic yards (mcy) of sandy 
material from the channel, respectively. The depth and width of 
the dredge cut would vary with location.
    Description of Recommended Plan: The proposed plan is the 
structural alternative that deepens the Columbia River 
navigation channel to 43 feet. The proposed disposal action for 
the 43-foot structural alternative is the least cost disposal 
plan. Disposal actions will occur in-water, at two beach 
nourishment locations, at new and existing upland locations, 
and offshore in the ocean. In-water disposal will occur 
throughout the project area in and adjacent to the channel and 
in certain deepwater locations near Skamokawa. Disposal in-
water will also include capping actions in the Willamette River 
wherein clean, sandy dredged material will be placed over 
contaminated sediments. The least cost disposal plan focuses on 
upland disposal and will use 31 upland disposal locations. 
Eight of these upland sites have never been previously used for 
disposal purposes. The eight new upland disposal sites 
encompass 452 acres of lands primarily used for agricultural 
practices. Wildlife mitigation actions will be implemented that 
will address impacts to wildlife resources and their habitats. 
This mitigation is principally associated with the eight new 
disposal sites.
    The proposed action would include disposal of construction 
and subsequent channel maintenance dredged material at 2 new 
ocean disposal sites, a deepwater site, and existing Expanded 
Site E. Designation and use of these sites would be 
accomplished through formal EPA rule making process specified 
in Section 102 of the MPRSA.
    Physical Data on Project Features:
    Channel Depth---43 feet Columbia River Datum (CRD).
    Channel Width--600 feet.
    Channel Length--Columbia River mile 3-106.5; Willamette 
River mile 0-11.6.
    Turning Basins:
    CRM 15--800  4,250.
    CRM 73.5--700  4,100.
    CRM 105.5--1,000  3,000.
    WRM 4--5,000  1,000.
    WRM 10--1,500  1,000.
    WRM 11.7--1,500  1,000.
    There are two Corps designated anchorages (one for shallow 
draft traffic, one for deep draft traffic) along the navigation 
channel, both of which are located at approximately CRM 103. 
The deep draft anchorage will be designated as being deepened 
in all deepening alternatives, although due to natural depths 
and mining, construction dredging will be minimal. The other 
anchorage has an authorized depth of 25 feet, which will not be 
altered in any of the study alternatives.
    Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries: 
The seven Lower Columbia River ports support implementation of 
the 43-foot channel improvement alternative and anticipate an 
expedited processing towards authorization and construction. 
The sponsoring ports will provide a letter of intent and a 
preliminary financing plan for their project share, which will 
be included in the final report. The ports have been actively 
involved in the feasibility study from its inception. The ports 
indicate they are clearly financially capable and fully 
prepared to perform the responsibilities as the non-federal 
sponsor as prescribed in the feasibility report and the draft 
PCA.
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) is a cooperating agency for the study 
and will study results in procedures forpermanent ocean 
disposal site designation. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has 
provided a Coordination Act Report and agency comments on the draft 
report, as well as preparing a biological opinion for the project. The 
National Marine Fisheries Service is preparing a biological opinion for 
the project and has comment on the draft report. The draft report has 
received comment letters from numerous state resource agencies. The 
district is in the process of responding to all comment letters.
    Status of NEPA Document: The public review period for the 
draft report closed on 5 February 1999. The Division Engineer's 
Public Notice of the availability of the final report for 
public review is scheduled for June 1999.
    Estimated Implementation Costs: (Based on Sponsors' 
Preferred Plan; Navigation and Ecosystem Restoration).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Project purpose                              Federal       Non-Federal        Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Navigation......................................................    $101,683,000      74,831,000    $176,023,000
Ecosystem Restoration...........................................       4,940,000       2,660,000       7,600,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................     106,623,000      77,491,000     183,623,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: The work 
requires include deepening of berths and dock improvements.
    Estimated Total Annual O&M; Costs: $17,800,000.
    Federal (Agency/Purpose) and Cost Sharing:
    Navigation: 75% Federal--25% Non-Federal.
    Ecosystem Restoration: 65% Federal--35% Non-Federal.
    Non-Federal (Specify state/local sponsor):
    Port of Portland on behalf of the seven lower Columbia 
River Ports:
        Portland, St. Helens, Astoria, Oregon;
    Vancouver, Woodland, Longview, Kalama, Washington.
    Description of Non-Federal O&M; Costs: Sponsor may be 
required to pay incremental differences to execute a sponsor's 
preferred plan.
    Estimated Effects: Lower Columbia River ports have been the 
primary shipping point for West Coast grain and feed grain 
exports for many years. More than 38 million tons of commerce 
valued at more than $9 billion were shipped to or from Lower 
Columbia River ports in 1995. Increasing trade between the 
Pacific Northwest states and the Pacific Rim nations has 
accentuated the need for a deepened navigation channel in the 
Lower Columbia River, to accommodate larger, deeper-draft 
vessels.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Average annual
                                        equivalent       Average annual
              Account                   beneficial      adverse effects
                                         effects            ($1,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NED:
    Transportation & Delay........        $39,412,000        $16,768,000
    Ecosystem Restoration.........                (1)           757,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No monetary benefits.

    Project economic life 50 years.
    Benefit-Cost Ratio: 2.3:1 (Current Discount Rate: 6\7/8\%).
    NED plan recommended? No. The sponsor prefers to deviate 
from the NED plan with some of the upland disposal sites 
identified in the plan.
    (14) Johnson Creek, Arlington, Texas.--
    Location: The study area is located within the corporate 
limits of Arlington, Tarrant County, Texas, which is 
approximately 15 miles east of the city of Fort Worth.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: The Johnson 
Creek watershed, which has a drainage area of 21 square miles, 
lies principally in Tarrant County with a small portion lying 
in Dallas County. Much of the watershed is extensively 
developed being used for industrial, residential, commercial, 
and recreational activities. The Six Flags Over Texas Amusement 
Park, the Ballpark at Arlington (Texas Rangers baseball 
stadium), and the Arlington Convention Center are all located 
along the banks of Johnson Creek. A total of 556 structures, 
with an estimated total value of $66.6 million, were identified 
within the Standard Project Flood (SPF) limits of Johnson 
Creek. Approximately 37 percent of these structures are 
susceptible to the 10-year flood with flood damages beginning 
with about a 2-year flood event. Is estimated that a SPF event 
in the Johnson Creek watershed could cause flood losses 
totaling nearly $29.4 million. Comparatively, 100-year and 10-
year flood events could produce losses totaling almost $17.0 
million and $8.3 million, respectively. Historically, numerous 
flood events have occurred along Johnson Creek. The flood of 
record occurred on 16-17 May 1989, which damaged 175 structures 
and overtopped the eight major bridges by as much as two to 
five feet. The flood of 26-27 March 1977 inundated about 70 
homes, sixty-five families were evacuated, and one person was 
drowned.
    Alternative Plans Considered: Alternatives investigated in 
detail included three structural plans (channelization) for a 
recurrence interval of 1% and four non-structural plans 
consisting of permanent evacuation for the 50%, 20%, 10% and 4% 
chance floodplains.
    Description of Plan: The Plan includes a buy-out and 
removal from the flood plain of 140 structures within the 4% 
recurrence interval in the city of Arlington, Texas; 
construction of linear recreational trails, and selected picnic 
sites; and creation of environmental restoration lands. The 
Committee intends that the project be constructed substantially 
in accordance with the locally-preferred plan.
    Physical Data on Project Features: The Plan would consist 
of the acquisition and removal of a total of 140 low lying 
floodplain residential structures. The Plan would include 
acquisition of approximately 155 acres of currently undeveloped 
areas within the corridor, of which 61 acres would be existing 
grass/shrub lands and 94 acres would be existing forested 
areas. The recreation features which would be added to the 
evacuation lands would include 7,244 linear feet of concrete 
trail, configured to allow access from four different areas. 
Three footbridges, each measuring 10-feet wide and 120-feet 
long, would span the creek within reach 5, and would support 
pedestrian, bicycle, and maintenance vehicle traffic. A total 
of 35 uncovered picnic sites and a 30-foot by 60-foot pavilion 
would be located in the evacuation area. The recreational 
facilities on environmental restoration lands would include 
4,660 linear feet of trail, linking the main acquisition area 
to a smaller acquisition area containing the proposed pavilion.
    Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries: 
The city of Arlington is the local sponsor. The city strongly 
supports and will fund the project.
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The Final Fish and 
Wildlife Coordination Act Report dated September 8, 1998, 
concluded that the selected non-structural, buy-out plan would 
have minimal adverse impacts on fish and wildlife resources of 
the project area, and would significantly contribute to the 
long term recovery of habitats which have been disturbed by 
past development activities. Further, the acquisition of 
additional floodplain property would significantly speed up the 
recovery process. There are no outstanding issues.
    Status of NEPA Document: The Final Environmental Assessment 
has been included as part of the Final Feasibility Report, 
dated March 1999. These documents were released for public 
review and comment on 31 July 1998 and minor comments were 
received by the close of the public comment period on 30 August 
1998.
    Estimated Implementation Costs: $20,300,000 (Oct 98 price 
level):

                                                            Cost-sharing

Federal (Agency/Purpose):
    Corps of Engineers/Food Damage Reduction (65%)......     $10,024,100
    Corps of Engineers/Environmental Restoration (65%)..       1,288,300
    Corps of Engineers/Recreation (65%).................         633,200
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
         Subtotal (rounded).............................      12,000,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Non-Federal (Specify state/local sponsors);
    City of Arlington/Flood Damage Reduction (65%)......       5,397,600
    City of Arlington/Environmental Restoration (65%)...         693,700
    City of Arlingto--------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
         Subtotal (rounded).............................       8,300,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
             Total......................................      20,300,000

    Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: Non-
Federal implementation costs for the Plan consist primarily of 
the cost related to the acquisition of lands, easements, 
rights-of-way, relocations and disposals. Estimated costs of 
LERRDS are $16.0 million. The five percent non-Federal cash 
contribution during construction is not required on non-
structural flood damage reduction projects.
    Estimated Annual O&M; Costs: There are no Federal annual O&M; 
costs. The local sponsor, the City of Arlington, Texas will be 
responsible for all O&M; costs estimated at $90,000.00 annually
    Description of Non-Federal O&M; Cost: O&M; responsibilities 
include mowing, trash collection and, as needed, replacements 
or rehabilitation of any of its components.
    Estimated Effects:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Average annual
                                        equivalent       Average annual
              Account                   beneficial      Adverse Effects
                                         effects           (1,000's)
                                        (1,000's)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Purposes--National Economic
 Development Plan:
    FDR...........................             $808.3           $1,542.1
    ER............................                N/A              198.2
    Rec...........................            1,788.0              288.8
                                   -------------------------------------
        Total.....................            2,596.3            2,029.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: FDR = Flood Damage Reduction; ER = Environmental Restoration; 4Rec
  = Recreation.

    Benefit-Cost Ratio: 1.8 (Current Discount Rate: 6\7/8\%)
    (15) Howard Hanson Dam, Washington.--
    Location: The project is located on the Green River in King 
County, Washington, about 35 miles southeast of Seattle and 
about 35 miles east of Tacoma.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: This study 
is conducted under the sponsorship of City of Tacoma Public 
Utility, Water Division (TPU), 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. HHD AWS 
Project study was initiated by the Seattle District, US Army 
Corps of Engineers (USACE;the Corps) in August 1989 to address 
how the existing federal HHD Project could meet water supply needs of 
Puget Sound residents. In response to a change in federal policy in 
1994 (EC 11-2-163 Draft dated Mar 1994) making environmental 
restoration a higher federal priority, the study objective was expanded 
to include environmental (ecosystem) restoration. The study formulated 
a recommended change to Howard Hanson Dam (HHD) to provide water supply 
storage sufficient to meet the identified needs for 50 years, restore 
ecosystems by re-establishing runs of chinook and coho salmon and 
steelhead trout in the upper Green River watershed above the dam, and 
restore selected ecosystem functions, processes and structures 
throughout the Green River Basin.
    Alternative Plans Considered: Alternative plans looked at 
storing additional water behind the existing Howard Hanson Dam 
during the spring, after danger of floods has passed, for use 
during the summer and early fall when flows on the river are 
low. A final array of four reservoir storage alternatives were 
considered to provide Municipal and Industrial (M&I;) water 
supply for the Tacoma area and ecosystem restoration 
improvements on the Green River. The alternatives are: 1) no 
action; 2) a single-purpose water supply project with increased 
conservation storage of 22,400 ac-ft for M&I; water supply and 
fish passage as mitigation; 3) a dual-purpose water supply and 
ecosystem restoration project with immediate full 
implementation of the AWS project, with increased storage of 
22,400 ac-ft of M&I; water supply and 9,600 ac-ft of low flow 
augmentation (LFA) water; and 4) the preferred alternative, a 
dual-purpose water supply and ecosystem restoration project 
with phased implementation: Phase I, storage of 20,000 ac-ft 
for M&I; water supply; and Phase II, additional storage of 2,400 
ac-ft for M&I; water supply and 9,600 ac-ft for LFA.
    Description of Recommended Plan: The preferred project 
alternative is designed to be implemented in two phases as a 
result of coordination with TPU, the state and federal resource 
agencies and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (MIT). Phase I 
includes construction of all mitigation features having to do 
with raising the pool to elevation 1,167 feet and all ecosystem 
restoration features. This includes a full height fish passage 
facility, right abutment drainage remedies, and habitat 
mitigation and restoration features, such as reconnection of 
side channels, gravel nourishment, planting of sedge meadows, 
and placement of large woody debris. Water will be stored in 
the spring for M&I; use in the summer and fall. Timing and rate 
of storage will be adaptively managed by TPU, the Corps of 
Engineers, the resource agencies, and the MIT, while delivery 
will be at a rate established by TPU. Phase II includes 
construction of all remaining AWS project mitigation features 
required for a pool raise to elevation 1,177 feet. Under Phase 
II, an additional 2,400 ac-ft of M&I; water plus 9,600 ac-ft of 
LFA water will be stored, for a combined total of 32,000 ac-ft 
of water storage under the HHD AWS project. Delivery rate of 
the stored M&I; water will be established by TPU and delivery 
rate of the LFA water will be adaptively managed by the Corps, 
the resource agencies, the MIT, and TPU.
    Physical Data on Project Features: The goal, to satisfy 
regional water supply needs for the 50-year project life, is 
nearly achievable under Phase I and can be fully achieved under 
Phase II. The storage of an additional 22,400 ac-ft of water 
for M&I; water, as proposed in the ultimate development, will 
provide a stable, cost effective, water supply for the region 
well into the next century. Restoration of fish passage through 
HHD is the keystone of the AWS project ecosystem restoration. 
The new fish passage facility, increased instream flows, and 
fish and wildlife habitat restoration measures all provide 
significant opportunities to restore and maintain self-
sustaining and harvestable runs of salmon and steelhead in the 
Green River. The phased implementation and adaptive management 
measures proposed for the project allow flexibility for 
adjustments to ensure protection of fish and wildlife.
    Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries: 
The Chief's Report is being completed for a cost shared 
feasibility study/environmental impact statement. Seattle 
District signed a cost share agreement with TPU, for the PED 
phase of the project in March 1999.
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: As a result of the 
phased implementation and adaptive management proposal, NMFS, 
USFWS, and WDFW endorsed the Phase I project proposal and 
indicated a willingness to implement Phase II if it can be 
demonstrated that Phase II impacts could be sufficiently 
minimized and mitigated.
    Status of NEPA Document: NEPA documentation is at a level 
sufficient for a final Feasibility Report/EIS.
    Estimated Implementation Costs: (October 1998 price level).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Project purpose                              Federal       Non-Federal        Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water Supply....................................................              $0     $19,330,000     $19,330,000
Ecosystem Restoration...........................................      36,098,000      19,437,000      55,535,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total Cost................................................      36,098,000      38,767,000      74,865,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: The non-
Federal sponsor is responsible for 100% of the cost for water 
supply and 35% of the total cost for the ecosystem restoration. 
The total non-Federal share included $2,346,000 for all lands, 
easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and disposal areas 
necessary for implementation of the project.
    Estimated Annual O&M; Costs: (October 1998 price level).
                                                            Cost sharing

Federal: COE............................................               0
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Subtotal..........................................               0
Non-Federal: Tacoma Public Utilities....................        $721,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Subtotal..........................................         721,000

    Description of Non-Federal O&M; Cost: Most of the O&M; costs 
consist of additional manpower required to operate the new fish 
passage facility and maintain the habitat mitigation and 
restoration features of the project, materials, supplies, and a 
percentage of O&M; of the existing project.
    Estimated Effects:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Average annual
                                    equivalent         Average annual
            Account                 beneficial        Adverse effects
                                 effects  ($1000)         ($1000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Purposes:
    NED M&I; Water Supply......             $1,477  None.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ecosystem Rest. No $ Benefits
    Benefit-Cost Ratio: 1.1 (Current Discount Rate: 6\7/8\%)

Section 102. Small Flood Control Projects

    Subsection (a) directs the Secretary to study and carry out 
projects for flood control under the authority of section 205 
of the Flood Control Act of 1948. This section authorizes the 
Secretary to participate in small projects for flood control 
and related purposes where the Federal contribution is not more 
than $5 million (increased to $7 million in this bill). The 
normal provisions concerning non-Federal participation in the 
project apply to projects constructed under this authority.
    (1) Lancaster, California.--Project for flood control, 
Lancaster, California, westside stormwater retention facility.
    (2) Gateway Triangle Area, Florida.--Project for flood 
control, Gateway Triangle Area, Florida.
    (3) Plant City, Florida.--Project for flood control, Plant 
City, Florida.
    (4) Stone Island, Lake Monroe, Florida.--Project for flood 
control, Stone Island, Florida.
    (5) Ohio River, Illinois.--Project for flood control, Ohio 
River, Illinois.
    (6) Repaupo Creek, New Jersey.--Project for flood control, 
Repaupo Creek, New Jersey.
    (7) Owasco Lake Seawall, New York.--Project for flood 
control, Owasco Lake Seawall, New York.
    (8) Port Clinton, Ohio.--Project for flood control, Port 
Clinton, Ohio.
    (9) North Canadian River, Oklahoma.--Project for flood 
control, North Canadian River, Oklahoma.
    (10) Abington Township, Pennsylvania.--Project for flood 
control, Baeder and Wanamaker Roads, Abington Township, 
Pennsylvania.
    (11) Port Indian, West Norriton Township, Montgomery 
County, Pennsylvania.--Project for flood control, Port Indian, 
West Norriton Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.
    (12) Port Providence, Upper Providence Township, 
Pennsylvania.--Project for flood control, Port Providence, 
Upper Providence Township, Pennsylvania.
    (13) Springfield Township, Montgomery County, 
Pennsylvania.--Project for flood control, Springfield Township, 
Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.
    (14) First Creek, Knoxville, Tennessee.--Project for flood 
control, First Creek, Knoxville, Tennessee.
    (15) Metro Center Levee, Cumberland River, Nashville, 
Tennessee.--Project for flood control and recreation, Metro 
Center Levee, Nashville, Tennessee.
    Subsection (b) provides that the maximum Federal 
expenditure for the Festus and Crystal City, Missouri flood 
control project shall be $10,000,000 and directs the Secretary 
to make corresponding changes to the project cooperation 
agreement. Nothing in this subsection affects any applicable 
cost sharing requirements under the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1986.

Section 103. Small Bank Stabilization Projects

    Directs the Secretary to study and carry out projects for 
streambank erosion control, under section 14 of the Flood 
Control Act of 1946 as amended (which provides authority for 
the Secretary to undertake emergency measures to prevent 
erosion damage to endangered highways, public works, and non-
profit public facilities). Subjects projects to the normal 
cost-sharing requirements. Authorizes projects at (1) Saint 
Joseph River, Indiana, (2) Saginaw River, Bay City, Michigan; 
(3) Big Timber Creek, New Jersey; (4) Lake Shore Road, Athol 
Springs, New York; (5) Marist College, Poughkeepsie, New York; 
(6) Monroe County, Ohio; and (7) Green Valley, West Virginia.

Section 104. Small Navigation Projects

    Directs the Secretary to study and carry out projects for 
navigation, under the authority of section 107 of the River and 
Harbor Act of 1960 (which authorizes federal participation in 
small navigation projects up to $4 million). Projects 
constructed under this authority are subject to the normal 
cost-sharing. Authorizes projects at (1) Grand Marais, 
Arkansas; (2) Fields Landing Channel, Humboldt Harbor, 
California; (3) San Mateo (Pillar Point Harbor), California; 
(4) Agana Marina, Guam; (5) Agat Marina, Guam; (6) Apra Harbor 
Fuel Piers, Guam; (7) Apra Harbor Pier F-6, Guam; (8) Apra 
Harbor Seawall, Guam; (9) Guam Harbor, Guam; (10) Illinois 
River Near Chautauqua Park, Illinois; (11) Whiting Shoreline 
Waterfront, Whiting, Indiana; (12) Naraguagus River, Machias, 
Maine; (13) Union River, Ellsworth, Maine; (14) Detroit River, 
Michigan; (15) Fortescue Inlet, Delaware Bay, New Jersey; (16) 
Buffalo and LaSalle Park, New York; and (17) Sturgeon Point, 
New York.

Section 105. Small Projects for Improvement of the Environment

    (a) Directs the Secretary to study and carry out projects 
for improvement of the environment under the authority of 
section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 for 
(1) Illinois River in the vicinity of Havana, Illinois; and, 
(2) Knitting Mill Creek, Virginia.
    (b) Directs the Secretary to carry out under section 1135 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, a project to 
construct a turbine bypass at Pine Flat Dam, Kings River, 
California.

Section 106. Small Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Projects

    Directs the Secretary to study and carry out projects for 
aquatic ecosystem restoration under the authority of section 
206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. That 
section authorizes the Secretary to carry out ecosystem 
restoration and protection projects where the Secretary 
determines that such projects will improve the quality of the 
environment. The federal contribution is not more than $5 
million and the non-federal share is 35% for construction and 
100% of operation and maintenance. Authorizes projects at (1) 
Contra Costa County, Bay Delta, California; (2) Indian River, 
Florida; (3) Little Wekiva River, Florida; (4) Cook County, 
Illinois; (5) Grand Batture Island, Mississippi; (6) Hancock, 
Harrison, and Jackson Counties, Mississippi; (7) Mississippi 
River and River Des Peres, St. Louis, Missouri; (8) Hudson 
River, New York; (9) Oneida Lake, New York; (10) Otsego Lake, 
New York; (11) North Fork of Yellow Creek, Ohio; (12) Wheeling 
Creek Watershed, Ohio; (13) Springfield Millrace, Oregon; (14) 
Upper Amazon Creek, Oregon; (15) Lake Ontelaunee Reservoir, 
Berks County, Pennsylvania; and (16) Blackstone River Basin, 
Rhode Island and Massachusetts.
    As provided under section 212 of this Act, assistance 
provided before October 1, 2003 under section 206 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1996 can be in the form of grants 
or reimbursements of project costs. The Committee is aware that 
an educational institution in Contra Costa County, California 
is interested in availing itself of such assistance. The 
Secretary is encouraged to provide grants or reimbursements to 
implement the program at such location.

                      TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section 201. Small Flood Control Authority

    Amends section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 to 
clarify its application to nonstructural, as well as 
structural, flood control projects. Increases the Federal 
contribution to not more than $7 million.

Section 202. Use of Non-Federal Funds for Compiling and Disseminating 
        Information on Floods and Flood Damages

    Amends section 206(b) of the Flood Control Act of 1960 to 
allow the use of non-Federal contributions for compiling and 
disseminating information on floods and flood damages.

Section 203. Contributions by States and Political Subdivisions

    Amends section 5 of the Flood Control Act of June 22, 1936 
to allow the Secretary to receive funds from State and local 
governments in connection with environmental restoration 
projects.

Section 204. Sediment Decontamination Technology

    Amends section 405 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1992 to increase the authorization to $22,000,000 to 
complete technology testing, technology commercialization, and 
development of full scale processing facilities within the New 
York/New Jersey Harbor. Also encourages the Secretary to 
utilize contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants with 
colleges and universities and other non-Federal entities in 
carrying out this program. The section adds a new subsection 
(e) which encourages the Secretary to utilize contracts, 
cooperative agreements, and grants with colleges and 
universities and other non-Federal entities. The Committee 
intends that the Secretary consider the Sediment and Dredged 
Materials Technology Institute, a New Jersey university 
consortium.

Section 205. Control of Aquatic Plants

    Amends section 104 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 to 
add arundo to the list of aquatic plants to be addressed under 
this section, and increases the authorization from $12,000,000 
to $15,000,000. Also encourages the Secretary to utilize 
contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants with colleges and 
universities and other non-Federal entities in carrying out 
this program including a grant for aquatic plant research to be 
conducted by the Oregon Lake Management Program at Portland 
State University. The Committee has also added ``arundo donax'' 
to the aquatic plant control program with the intent that the 
increased annual authorization would be able to address 
problems related to arundo, with priority given to problems 
along the Santa Ana River, California.

Section 206. Use of Continuing Contracts Required for Construction of 
        Certain Projects

    Prohibits the Secretary from implementing a policy of 
requiring full allocation of funding with respect to a water 
resources project if initiation of construction has occurred 
but sufficient funds to complete such construction have not 
been appropriated. Requires the Secretary to enter into 
continuing contracts for such projects.

Section 207. Support of Army Civil Works Program

    Provides that section 2361 of title 10 of the United States 
Code shall not apply to a contract, cooperative agreement, or 
grant entered into under section 229 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1996 between the Secretary and Marshall 
University or under section 350 of this bill with Juniata 
College.

Section 208. Water Resources Development Studies for the Pacific Region

    Amends Section 444 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1996 by authorizing the Secretary to conduct studies for 
water resources development, flood damage reduction, and 
environmental restoration, as well as for navigation, in the 
Pacific Region.

Section 209. Everglades and South Florida Ecosystem Restoration

    Amends section 528 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1996 to extend the time period for initiation of critical 
restoration projects in South Florida to September 30, 2000, to 
extend the authorization of appropriations for such projects 
through September 30, 2003, and to allow the Secretary to 
provide a credit to non-Federal sponsors for work performed. 
Also amends provisions in section 528 relating to the provision 
of credit to non-Federal interests for certain land 
acquisitions in the Caloosahatchee River basin and other areas.

Section 210. Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material

    Amends section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1992 by requiring binding agreements with the non-Federal 
interest (in lieu of cooperative agreements in accordance with 
section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970) and by allowing 
nonprofit entities to serve as the non-Federal interest for a 
project under specified conditions. The Committee intends that 
this authority be used only where the non-profit organization 
has the capability to meet all necessary terms and conditions 
of a project cooperation agreement, including necessary 
operation and maintenance requirements.

Section 211. Harbor Cost Sharing

    Amends sections 101 and 214 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 by striking ``45 feet'' each place it 
appears and inserting ``53 feet'' and provides that such 
amendments shall only apply to the project, or separable 
element thereof, on which a contract for physical construction 
has not been awarded before the date of enactment of this Act.

Section 212. Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration

    Amends section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1996 to allow, before October 1, 2003, the Federal share to 
be provided in the form of grants or reimbursements of project 
costs, including Delta Science Center, Contra Costa County, 
California, and to allow a nonprofit entity to serve as the 
non-Federal interest for a project. The Committee intends that 
this authority be used only where the non-profit organization 
has the capability to meet all necessary terms and conditions 
of a project cooperation agreement, including any necessary 
operation and maintenance requirements.

Section 213. Watershed Management, Restoration, and Development

    Amends section 503 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1996 to allow a nonprofit entity to serve as the non-Federal 
interest for a project; adding Clear Lake, California to the 
description of the Sacramento River watershed project. Amends 
section 503(d) to add at the end the following: (1) Fresno 
Slough watershed, California; (2) Hayward Marsh, Southern San 
Francisco Bay watershed, California; (3) Kaweah River 
watershed, California; (4) Malibu Creek watershed, California; 
(5) Illinois River watershed, Illinois; (6) Catawba River 
watershed, North Carolina; (7) Cabin Creek basin, West 
Virginia; and (8) Lower St. Johns River basin, Florida.

Section 214. Flood Mitigation and Riverine Restoration Pilot Program

    (a) In General.--Authorizes the Secretary to undertake a 
pilot program to conduct projects to reduce flood hazards and 
restore the natural functions and values of rivers throughout 
the United States.
    (b) Studies and Projects.--Authorizes the Secretary to 
conduct studies to identify appropriate flood damage reduction, 
conservation, and restoration measures, and to design and 
implement watershed management and restoration projects. 
Requires consultation and coordination with the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency and other appropriate Federal, 
State, tribal, and local governmental agencies. Requires 
emphasis on nonstructural approaches to preventing or reducing 
flood damages. Requires consideration of and coordination with 
any State, tribal, and local flood damage reduction or riverine 
and wetland restoration studies and projects.
    (c) Cost-Sharing Requirements.--Requires non-Federal 
interests to pay 50% of the cost of studies conducted under 
this section in accordance with the provisions of section 105 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. Requires non-
Federal interests to pay 35% of the costs of non-structural or 
environmental restoration projects carried out under this 
section. Requires non-Federal interests to pay no less than 35% 
and no more than 50% of the costs of structural projects 
carried out under this section, in accordance with section 
103(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. Requires 
non-Federal interests to pay 100% of all costs of operation and 
maintenance.
    (d) Project Justification.--The Secretary may implement a 
project if he or she determines the project will significantly 
reduce potential flood damages, will improve the quality of the 
environment, and is justified considering all costs and 
beneficial outputs of the project. Requires the Secretary, in 
cooperation with States, localities and tribes to develop 
criteria for selecting and rating projects and other policies 
for carrying out this section.
    (e) Priority Areas.--Authorizes the Secretary to examine 
the potential for flood damage reduction at appropriate 
locations, including: (1) Upper Delaware River, New York; (2) 
Willamette River floodplain, Oregon; (3) Pima County, Arizona, 
at Paseo De Las Iglesias and Rillito River; (4) Los Angeles and 
San Gabriel Rivers, California; (5) Murrieta Creek, California; 
(6) Napa County, California, at Yountville, St. Helena, 
Calistoga, and American Canyon; (7) Santa Clara basin, 
California, at Upper Guadalupe River andtributaries, San 
Francisquito Creek and Upper Penitencia Creek; (8) Pine Mount Creek, 
New Jersey; (9) Chagrin River, Ohio; (10) Blair County, Pennsylvania, 
at Altoona and Frankstown Township, Pennsylvania; and (11) Lincoln 
Creek, Wisconsin.
    (f) Program Review.--Requires an independent review of the 
efficacy of the pilot program in achieving the goals of flood 
control and riverine restoration and a report to the 
authorizing committees on the findings of such review.
    (g) Cost Limitations.--Limits the federal share for any 
single project to $30,000,000. For projects over $15,000,000 a 
resolution of approval is required by the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives 
and the Committee on Environment and Public Works in the U.S. 
Senate.
    (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--Authorizes 
$25,000,000 for fiscal year 2000; $25,000,000 for fiscal year 
2001; $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; and $25,000,000 for 
fiscal year 2003 to carry out this section. For fiscal years 
2001-2003, appropriations are contingent on receiving 
appropriation for subsection (e) for each prior year.
    The Secretary is expected to ensure that to the maximum 
extent possible, each project is undertaken with the 
concurrence of the respective State.

Section 215. Shoreline Management Program

    Requires the Secretary to review and report to the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works of the Senate regarding the shoreline management program 
administered by the Corps, with particular attention to 
inconsistencies of implementation in its divisions and 
districts of the Corps and complaints from property owners in 
the Savannah District.

Section 216. Assistance for Remediation, Restoration, and Reuse

    Authorizes the Secretary to provide assessment, planning, 
and design assistance to State and local governments for 
remediation, environmental restoration, and reuse of areas that 
will contribute to conservation of water and related resources. 
Encourages beneficial reuse of dredged material in providing 
such assistance. The non-Federal cost share is 50%. Authorizes 
$3,000,000 a year for fiscal years 2000-2004.

Section 217. Shore Damage Mitigation

    (a) In General.--Amends section 111 of the River and Harbor 
Act of 1968 to include Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway and Gulf 
Intracoastal Waterway in the authorization.
    (b) Palm Beach County, Florida.--Modifies the project for 
navigation in Palm Beach County, Florida authorized by section 
2 of the River and Harbor Act of March 2, 1945, to include 
beach nourishment as a dredged material disposal option.
    (c) Galveston County, Texas.--Authorizes the Secretary to 
use dredged material from the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway to 
prevent beach erosion at Rollover Pass, Galveston County, 
Texas.

Section 218. Shore Protection

    (a) Non-Federal Share of Periodic Nourishment.--Amends 
section 103(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
to establish a 40% non-Federal cost share for periodic beach 
nourishment projects for shore protection or beach erosion 
control after January 1, 2001, a 45% non-Federal cost share for 
such projects after January 1, 2002, and a 50% non-Federal cost 
share for such projects after January 1, 2003. However, all 
costs assigned to benefits of periodic nourishment measures to 
private property shall be borne by the non-Federal interest and 
all costs of such measures assigned to the protection of 
federally-owned property shall be borne by the United States.
    (b) Utilization of Sand from Outer Continental Shelf.--
Prohibits assessment of fees for use of sand from the Outer 
Continental Shelf for a federally-authorized shore protection 
project.
    (c) Report on Nation's Shorelines.--Requires the Secretary 
to submit a report to Congress on the state of the Nation's 
shorelines within 3 years of enactment of this Act using data 
from specific coastal locations, including using Southeast 
Virginia coastline, to develop a systems approach to sand 
management.
    (c) National Coastal Data Bank.--Requires the Secretary 
within 2 years to establish a national coastal data bank on the 
characteristics of the Nation's shorelines.
    The Committee emphasizes the importance of viewing the 
nation's shores as an interdependent system. It is important to 
understand how sand moves through this system and the extent to 
which it erodes and accretes in local areas. In addition, the 
Committee believes a national shore data bank will be a 
valuable single source of information that can assist decision-
makers, researchers and others in viewing the shorelines as a 
single interdependent system.

Section 219. Flood Prevention Coordination

    Amends section 206 of the Flood Control Act of 1960 to 
require the Secretary to coordinate with FEMA and other Federal 
agencies to make flood control projects and plans complementary 
and integrated.

Section 220. Annual Passes for Recreation

    Amends Section 208(c)(4) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1996 to extend the authority for alternative annual 
passes to December 31, 2003.

Section 221. Cooperative Agreements for Environmental and Recreational 
        Measures

    Authorizes the Secretary to enter into cooperative 
agreements with non-Federal public bodies and non-profit 
entities for collaborative efforts for environmental protection 
and restoration, natural resources conservation, and recreation 
in connection with water resources projects. Requires the 
Secretary to submit a report within 18 months to the House and 
Senate authorizing committees on such cooperative agreements. 
The Committee is aware of ongoing efforts between the Corps and 
nonprofit natural resources organizations and conservancies and 
intends that such cooperative arrangements will be facilitated 
by this section.

Section 222. Nonstructural Flood Control Projects

    (a) Analysis of Benefits.--Amends section 308 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1990 to require the Secretary to 
calculate benefits of nonstructural projects in a manner 
similar to structural projects so that each type of project is 
evaluated equally.
    (b) Reevaluation of Flood Control Projects.--At the request 
of a non-Federal interest for a flood control project, the 
Secretary shall conduct a reevaluation of a previously 
authorized project to consider nonstructural alternatives in 
light of the amendments made by subsection (a).
    (c) Cost Sharing.--Amends section 103(b) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1986 to make costs of lands, 
easements, rights-of-way, dredged material disposal areas, and 
relocations a Federal responsibility, if such activities will 
exceed 35 percent of the cost of the project and to provide 
that such Federal contribution be made during construction.

Section 223. Lakes Program

    Amends section 602(a) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1986 to add the following projects: (1) Clear Lake, Lake 
County, California; (2) Osgood Pond, Milford, Hillsborough; 
and, (3) Flints Pond, Hollis, Hillsborough County, New 
Hampshire.

Section 224. Construction of Flood Control Projects by non-Federal 
        Interests

    (a) Construction by Non-Federal Interests.--Amends section 
211 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 to clarify 
that the Secretary shall approve a project for construction by 
a non-Federal interest unless the Secretary determines in 
writing that the design and feasibility documents do not meet 
standards and practices of the Corps, the project is not 
economically justified or environmentally acceptable, or the 
study does not meet requirements for obtaining appropriate 
permits.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Amends section 211 to preserve 
the applicability of certain laws.
    (c) Reimbursement.--The Secretary may credit future work as 
a way of reducing the amount of reimbursement required for the 
local sponsor. Amends section 211 to clarify that ``subject to 
appropriations'' does not require specific language in an 
appropriations act. The intent of the clarification is to 
expressly overturn an earlier interpretation by the Corps' of 
the phrase ``subject to amounts being made available in advance 
in appropriations Acts.''

Section 225. Enhancement of Fish and Wildlife Resources

    Amends section 906(e) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1986 to allow up to 80% of the non-Federal share of 
first costs be satisfied through in-kind contributions, 
including facilities, supplies, and services that are necessary 
to carry out the enhancement project.

Section 226. Sense of Congress; Requirement Regarding Notice

    Provides that it is the sense of Congress that equipment 
and products purchased with funds made available under this Act 
should be American made. Requires the Secretary to provide 
notice of this policy to persons provided financial assistance 
under this Act.

Section 227. Periodic Beach Nourishment

    Amends section 506(a) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1996 by adding at the end the following: ``(5) Lee 
County, Captiva Island segment, Florida''.

Section 228. Environmental Dredging

    Amends section 312 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1990 to change the non-Federal cost-share to 35% and to 
provide that disposal costs shall be shared as a cost of 
construction.
    The Committee re-affirms its intent that section 312, 
including priority work described in subsection (f), be carried 
out by the Corps', notwithstanding Policy Guidance Letter No. 
49 or any other guidance that mistakenly interprets the 
relationship of the Environmental Protection Agency and CERCLA 
to section 312. Section 312, as amended by section 205 of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1996, created a partnership 
with the expectation that the Corps' authority would supplement 
EPA CERCLA actions. The Corps' should proceed with such work 
where all regulatory agencies concur that such work does not 
provide relief to a private party or governmental entity which 
would otherwise be legally responsible for the remediation.

                 TITLE III--PROJECT RELATED PROVISIONS

Section 301. Missouri River Levee System

    Modifies the project for flood control, Missouri River 
Levee System, Missouri, to clarify that $2,616,000 expended 
before the date of enactment of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1986 shall not be treated as part of total project 
costs.

Section 302. Ouzinkie Harbor, Alaska

    Provides that the maximum Federal expenditure for the 
Ouzinkie Harbor navigation project shall be $8,500,000 and 
directs the Secretary to make corresponding changes to the 
project cooperation agreement.

Section 303. Greers Ferry Lake, Arkansas

    Modifies the project for flood control, Greers Ferry Lake, 
Arkansas, to authorize the construction of water intake 
facilities for the benefit of Lonoke and White Counties, 
Arkansas.

Section 304. Ten- and Fifteen-Mile Bayous, Arkansas

    Modifies the project for flood control, St. Francis River 
Basin, Missouri and Arkansas, to expand the project boundaries 
to include Ten- and Fifteen-Mile Bayous near West Memphis, 
Arkansas.

Section 305. Loggy Bayou, Red River Below Denison Dam, Arkansas, 
        Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas

    Modifies the project for flood control on the Red River 
below Denison Dam, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas and 
directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of expanding the project to include mile 0.0 to 
mile 7.8 of Loggy Bayou between the Red River and Flat River. 
If the Secretary determines that the project should be 
expanded, the Secretary may assume responsibility for operation 
and maintenance of the expanded project.

Section 306. Sacramento River, Glenn-Colusa, California

    Modifies the project for flood control, Sacramento River, 
to authorize the Secretary to (1) raise the authorization level 
for the Glenn-Colusa portion to $26,000,000, with a Federal 
cost of $20,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
$6,000,000, and (2) stabilize the bank of the riverbed gradient 
facility in the vicinity of River Mile 208. This section also 
authorizes a non-Federal interest to receive credit for 
expenses incurred in the preparation of an environmental impact 
report.

Section 307. San Lorenzo River, California

    Modifies the project for flood control and habitat 
restoration, San Lorenzo River, California, to authorize the 
Secretary to expand the project to include a 1,000 foot portion 
of the San Lorenzo River.

Section 308. Terminus Dam, Kaweah River, California

    Transfers to the Secretary additional lands at the Terminus 
Dam, Kaweah River, California, acquired by the non-Federal 
sponsor for the project. This section has no impact on the 
requirement that the non-Federal interest provide all lands, 
easements and rights-of-way relocations and dredged material 
disposal areas for the project. The Secretary may carry out 
operation and maintenance if fully reimbursed by non-Federal 
interests. The United States is held harmless for the 
ownership, operation, and maintenance of lands and facilities 
transferred under this section.

Section 309. Delaware River, Mainstem and Channel Deepening, Delaware, 
        New Jersey, and Pennsylvania

    (1) Modifies the project for navigation, Delaware River 
Mainstem and Channel Deepening, to allow the non-Federal 
interests to receive credit for preconstruction, engineering, 
design and construction management work performed by the non-
Federal interests.
    (2) Authorizes the Secretary to provide credit for work 
performed by the non-Federal interests that the Secretary 
determines is necessary to construction of the project.
    (3) Authorizes the Secretary to enter into an agreement 
with a non-Federal interest for payment of disposal or tipping 
fees for dredged material from a Federal project other than for 
the construction or operation and maintenance of the new 
deepening project.
    (4) Authorizes the Secretary to work with the non-Federal 
interests to develop a Disposal Area Management Program for 
dredged material disposal necessary for construction and 
operations and maintenance of the project.

Section 310. Potomac River, Washington, District of Columbia

    Modifies the Potomac River project, authorized in 1936 and 
modified in 1996, to authorize the Secretary to construct the 
project at a Federal cost of $5,965,000.

Section 311. Brevard County, Florida

    Requires the Secretary to conduct a study of any damage to 
the project for shoreline protection, Brevard County, Florida, 
and to mitigate any damage that is the result of a Federal 
navigation project. In conducting the study the Secretary shall 
utilize the services of an independent coastal expert. The 
Committee expects that the selection of the independent coastal 
expert will be done in a manner acceptable to all parties. The 
Committee is hopeful that reliance on the expertise of a 
neutral third party will resolve matters in dispute.

Section 312. Broward County and Hillsboro Inlet, Florida

    Modifies project for shoreline protection, Broward County 
and Hillsboro Inlet, Florida, to authorize the Secretary to 
reimburse the non-Federal interest for the Federal share of the 
cost of preconstruction planning and design.

Section 313. Fort Pierce, Florida

    Modifies a shore protection and harbor mitigation project 
to incorporate an additional mile into the project and 
authorizes periodic nourishment for the project in accordance 
with section 506(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1996. Total cost is $9,128,000, with an estimated Federal 
cost of $7,073,500 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
$2,054,500.

Section 314. Nassau County, Florida

    Modifies the project for beach erosion control, Nassau 
County, Florida, to increase the cost ceiling for the project 
to $17,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $13,300,000 
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,700,000.

Section 315. Miami Harbor Channel, Florida

    Modifies the project for navigation, Miami Harbor Channel, 
Florida, to include construction of artificial reefs and 
related environmental mitigation required by Federal, State, 
and local environmental permitting agencies.

Section 316. Lake Michigan, Illinois

    Modifies the project for storm damage reduction and 
shoreline protection, Lake Michigan, Illinois, to authorize the 
Secretary to provide credit against the non-Federal share of 
the cost of the project for cost incurred by the non-Federal 
sponsor:
          (1) in constructing Reach 2D and Segment 8 of Reach 4 
        of the project; and
          (2) in reconstructing Solidarity Drive in Chicago, 
        Illinois, prior to entry into a project cooperation 
        agreement with the Secretary.

Section 317. Springfield, Illinois

    Amends section 417 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1996 to provide a 50% cost share to assistance provided 
under this section.

Section 318. Little Calumet River, Indiana

    Modifies the project for flood control, Little Calumet 
River, Indiana, to increase the cost ceiling to $167,000,000, 
with an estimated Federal cost of $122,000,000 and an estimated 
non-Federal cost of $45,000,000.

Section 319. Ogden Dunes, Indiana

    Requires the Secretary to conduct a study of beach erosion 
in and around the town of Ogden Dunes, Indiana, and to mitigate 
any such damage that is the result of a Federal navigation 
project.

Section 320. Saint Joseph River, South Bend, Indiana

    (a) Modifies the project for streambank erosion, 
recreation, and pedestrian access, Saint Joseph River, South 
Bend, Indiana, to establish a cost ceiling of $7,800,000.
    (b) Requires the Secretary to revise the project 
cooperative agreement to take into account the change in the 
Federal share.
    (c) Nothing in this section affects cost sharing 
requirements under the Water Resources Development Act of 1986.

Section 321. White River, Indiana

    Modifies the project for flood control, Indianapolis on 
West Fork of the White River, Indiana, to authorize the 
Secretary to undertake riverfront alterations at a total cost 
of $110,975,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $52,475,000 
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $58,500,000.

Section 322. Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana

    Requires the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of modifying existing flood control projects in the 
vicinity of Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, to determine if such 
projects should include pumps adjacent to each of the 4 
proposed drainage structures for the Saint Charles Parish and 
to construct the pumps after completion of the study.

Section 323. Larose to Golden Meadow, Louisiana

    Modifies the project for hurricane protection, Larose to 
Golden Meadow, Louisiana, to authorize the Secretary to convert 
the Golden Meadow floodgate into a navigation lock if the 
Secretary determines that the conversion is feasible.

Section 324. Louisiana State Penitentiary Levee, Louisiana

    Modifies section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1986 to direct the Secretary to provide credit for the 
cost of work performed by the non-Federal interest prior to the 
execution of a project cooperation agreement, as determined by 
the Secretary to be compatible with and an integral part of the 
project.

Section 325. Twelve-Mile Bayou, Caddo Parish, Louisiana

    Transfers responsibility for maintenance of the levee along 
Twelve Mile Bayou to the Secretary if economically justifiable 
and environmentally acceptable and the levee meets appropriate 
design and engineering standards.

Section 326. West Bank of the Mississippi River (East of Harvey Canal), 
        Louisiana

    (a)(1) Modifies the project for flood control and storm 
damage reduction, West Bank of the Mississippi River (East of 
Harvey Canal), Louisiana to provide that any liability under 
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
Liability Act of 1980 from the construction of the project is a 
Federal responsibility.
    (a)(2) Allows the non-Federal sponsor to prepay the 
operation and maintenance costs for the portion of the project 
known as ``Algiers Channel.''
    (b) Combines 3 separate previously authorized projects into 
a single project.

Section 327. Tolchester Channel, Baltimore Harbor and Channels, 
        Chesapeake Bay, Kent County, Maryland

    Modifies the project for navigation, Tolchester Channel, 
Baltimore Harbor and Channels, Chesapeake Bay, Kent County, 
Maryland, to authorize the Secretary to straighten the 
navigation channel to improve navigation safety.

Section 328. Sault Sainte Marie, Chippewa County, Michigan

    Modifies the project for navigation, Sault Sainte Marie, 
Chippewa County, Michigan, to exclude interest from the amount 
to be paid by the non-Federal interests.

Section 329. Jackson County, Mississippi

    Modifies the project for environmental infrastructure, 
Jackson County, Mississippi, to direct the Secretary to provide 
a credit of up to $5,000,000 against non-Federal costs for 
costs incurred by the non-Federal sponsor since February 8, 
1994.

Section 330. Tunica Lake, Mississippi

    Authorizes the construction of an outlet weir at Tunica 
Lake Cutoff, Tunica County, Mississippi, for the purpose of 
stabilizing water levels in the lake.

Section 331. Bois Brule Drainage and Levee District, Missouri

    Modifies the project for flood control, Bois Brule Drainage 
and Levee District, Missouri to increase the maximum federal 
cost share to $15,000,000. Requires the Secretary to revise the 
project cooperation agreement accordingly. Nothing in this 
provision affects cost sharing requirements.

Section 332. Meramec River Basin, Valley Park Levee, Missouri

    Modifies the Meramec River Basin project for flood control 
so as to be carried out at a maximum Federal expenditures of 
$35,000,000.

Section 333. Missouri River Mitigation Project, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, 
        and Nebraska

    Modifies the project for mitigation of fish and wildlife 
losses, Missouri River Bank Stabilization and Navigation 
Project, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, and Nebraska, to increase the 
land to be used as mitigation by 118,650 acres and to authorize 
a study and report to Congress on the full cost of restoring 
lost Missouri River habitat. Nothing in this modification is 
intended to affect the allocation of resources provided among 
the states.

Section 334. Wood River, Grand Island, Nebraska

    Modifies the project for flood control, Wood River, Grand 
Island, Nebraska, to increase the cost ceiling to $17,039,000, 
with an estimated Federal cost of $9,730,000 and an estimated 
non-Federal cost of $7,309,000.

Section 335. Absecon Island, New Jersey

    Modifies the project for storm damage reduction and 
shoreline protection, Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor 
Inlet, Absecon Island, New Jersey to authorize the Secretary to 
provide a credit towards the non-Federal share in an amount 
equal to the Federal share of the costs incurred by the non-
Federal sponsor for work associated with the project after 
October 12, 1996, if such work is recommended by the Chief of 
Engineers and approved by the Secretary.

Section 336. New York Harbor and Adjacent Channels, Port Jersey, New 
        Jersey

    Modifies the project for navigation, New York Harbor and 
Adjacent Channels, New York and New Jersey, to increase the 
total cost ceiling for the portion of the project located 
between Military Ocean Terminal Bayonne and Global Terminal, 
Bayonne, New Jersey, to $103,267,000, with an estimated Federal 
cost of $76,909,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
$26,358,000.

Section 337. Passaic River, New Jersey

    Modifies the Passaic River, New Jersey project to include 
an esplanade for safe pedestrian access.

Section 338. Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey

    Modifies the project for shoreline protection, Sandy Hook 
to Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey, to include demolition of Long 
Branch pier and extension of Ocean Grove pier and toauthorize 
the Secretary to reimburse the non-Federal sponsor for the costs of 
such activities.

Section 339. Arthur Kill, New York and New Jersey

    Modifies the project for navigation, Arthur Kill, New York 
and New Jersey, to increase the total cost ceiling for the 
portion of the project at Howland Hook Marine Terminal to 
$315,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $183,200,000 
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $132,500,000.

Section 340. New York City Watershed

    Increases the authorization for assistance to non-Federal 
interests conducting environmental projects in the New York 
City watershed to $42,500,000.

Section 341. New York State Canal System

    Increases the authorization for capital improvements to the 
New York State Canal System to $18,000,000.

Section 342. Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point, New York

    Modifies the project for combined beach erosion control and 
hurricane protection, Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point, Long 
Island, New York to direct the Secretary, in coordination with 
the Secretary of the Interior, to transmit a mutually 
acceptable shore erosion plan for the Fire Island Inlet to the 
Moriches Inlet to Congress by June 30, 1999.

Section 343. Broken Bow Lake, Red River Basin, Oklahoma

    Modifies the project for flood control and water supply, 
Broken Bow Lake, Red River Basin, Oklahoma, to require the 
Secretary to make seasonal adjustments to the top of the 
conservation pool.

Section 344. Willamette River Temperature Control, McKenzie Subbasin, 
        Oregon

    (a) Modifies the project for environmental restoration, 
Willamette River Temperature Control, McKenzie Subbasin, 
Oregon, to increase the cost ceiling to $64,741,000.
    (b) Requires a report to Congress not later than 90 days 
after enactment on the cost growth of this project and a cost 
estimate for adding fish screens to the project.

Section 345. Aylesworth Creek Reservoir, Pennsylvania

    Modifies the project for flood control, Aylesworth Creek 
Reservoir, Pennsylvania, to transfer $50,000 in 1999 and 2000 
to the Aylesworth Creek Reservoir Park Authority for 
recreational facilities.

Section 346. Curwensville Lake, Pennsylvania

    Modifies the project for water reallocation at Curwensville 
Lake, Pennsylvania to require the Secretary to provide design 
and construction assistance for recreational facilities at 
Curwensville Lake.

Section 347. Delaware River, Pennsylvania and Delaware

    Modifies the project for navigation, Delaware River, 
Philadelphia to Wilmington, Pennsylvania and Delaware, to 
authorize the Secretary to extend the channel of the Delaware 
River at Camden, New Jersey, to within 150 feet of the existing 
bulkhead and to relocate the 40 foot deep Federal navigation 
channel, eastward within Philadelphia Harbor, from the Ben 
Franklin Bridge to the Walt Whitman Bridge, into deep water.

Section 348. Mussers Dam, Pennsylvania

    Amends Section 209 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1992 to deauthorize construction.

Section 349. Nine-Mile Run, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania

    Modifies the Nine-Mile Run Project, Allegheny County, 
Pennsylvania, to provide a credit toward the non-Federal share 
for costs incurred by the non-Federal interests for costs of 
preparing environmental and feasibility documentation before 
entering into an agreement with the Secretary.

Section 350. Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania

    Amends section 519(b) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1996 for engineering and design services for 
recreational facilities at Raystown Lake. The Secretary may 
provide a grant to Juniata College for the construction of 
facilities and structures at Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania 
consistent with the master plan described in section 318 of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1992.

Section 351. South Central, Pennsylvania

    Amends section 313(a) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1992 to increase the authorization of appropriations to 
$180,000,000. The Committee intends that the Corps, where 
appropriate utilize or adopt as its own other agency documents 
as a means of streamlining NEPA compliance for the section 313 
program. Therefore, section 313(e) should be interpreted to 
mean that compliance with provisions of NEPA are satisfied by 
the adoption, where appropriate and without further NEPA 
actions, of NEPA compliance performed for the same work in 
obtaining other Federal assistance or funding or in obtaining 
State or Federal permits, including permits required by the 
Clean Water Act.

Section 352. Cooper River, Charleston Harbor, South Carolina

    Modifies the project for rediversion, Cooper River, 
Charlestown Harbor, South Carolina, to authorize the Secretary 
to pay the State of South Carolina $3,750,000 for the State to 
perform all future operation of the St. Stephen fish lift.

Section 353. Bowie County Levee, Texas

    Modifies the project for flood control, Red River Below 
Denison Dam, Texas and Oklahoma, to direct the Secretary to 
implement the Bowie County Levee feature of the project and, if 
necessary, to allow the non-Federal interest to participate in 
the financing of the project in accordance with section 903(c) 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986.

Section 354. Clear Creek, Texas

    Allows the Secretary to consider after the date of 
enactment of this bill the costs and benefits associated with 
nonstructural measures undertaken before the construction of 
the project.

Section 355. Cypress Creek, Texas

    Modifies the project for flood control, Cypress Creek, 
Texas, to add a nonstructural flood control element at a total 
cost of $5,000,000. Authorizes the Secretary to reimburse the 
non-Federal interest for work done on such nonstructural flood 
control element in an amount equal to the Federal share. The 
Committee understands this modification to the existing project 
will result in significant savings.

Section 356. Dallas Floodway Extension, Dallas, Texas

    Modifies the project for flood control, Dallas Floodway 
Extension, Dallas, Texas, to add environmental restoration and 
recreation as project purposes, authorizes the Secretary to 
construct the project in accordance with the Chain of Wetlands 
Plan, and raises the total cost ceiling to $123,200,000, with 
an estimated Federal cost of $80,000,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $43,200,000.

Section 357. Upper Jordan River, Utah

    Modifies the project for flood control, Upper Jordan River, 
Utah, to direct the Secretary to carry out the locally 
preferred project, at a total cost of $12,870,000, with an 
estimated Federal cost of $8,580,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $4,290,000.

Section 358. Elizabeth River, Chesapeake, Virginia

    Requires the Secretary to comply with the provisions of a 
project cooperation agreement signed prior to enactment of the 
cost-share requirements of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1986 notwithstanding limitations provided in that Act.

Section 359. Bluestone Lake, Ohio River Basin, West Virginia

    Amends the Bluestone Lake project authorization to direct 
the Secretary to implement Plan C/G, as defined in the 
Evaluation Report of the District Engineer, dated December 
1996.

Section 360. Greenbrier Basin, West Virginia

    Amends section 579(c) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1996 to provide a new authorization ceiling of 
$73,000,000.

Section 361. Moorefield, West Virginia

    Modifies the project for flood control, Moorefield, West 
Virginia, to complete payment of the remaining non-Federal 
share of the cost of the project.

Section 362. West Virginia and Pennsylvania Flood Control

    Modifies the authorization in section 581(a) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1996 for flood control measures in 
West Virginia and Pennsylvania to reflect concerns about the 
level of protection to be provided by such measures.

Section 363. Project Reauthorizations

    Reauthorizes the following Corps of Engineers projects: (1) 
Lee Creek, Arkansas and Oklahoma; (2) Indian River County, 
Florida; (3) Lido Key, Florida; (4) St. Augustine, St. Johns 
County, Florida; (5) Cass River, Michigan (Vassar); (6) Saginaw 
River, Michigan (Shiawassee Flats); (7) Park River, Grafton, 
North Dakota; and (8) Memphis Harbor, Memphis, Tennessee.

Section 364. Project Deauthorizations

    Deauthorizes the following Corps of Engineers projects or 
portions of projects (1) Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut; (2) 
Clinton Harbor, Connecticut; (3) Bass Harbor, Maine; (4) 
Boothbay Harbor, Maine; (5) Bucksport Harbor, Maine; (6) East 
Boothbay Harbor, Maine; (7) Wells Harbor, Maine; (8) Falmouth 
Harbor, Massachusetts; (9) Green Harbor, Massachusetts; and 
(10) New Bedford and Fairhaven Harbor, Massachusetts. Also 
provides that portions of the Clinton Harbor, Connecticut, 
Wells Harbor, Maine and Green Harbor, Massachusetts, navigation 
projects are re-designated as channels or anchorage areas.

Section 365. American and Sacramento Rivers, California

    This section authorizes construction of modifications to 
levees and related structures along the American River and the 
Natomas Cross Canal. The work, referred to as ``levee parity'' 
improvements, is intended to correct inadequate flow-carrying 
capacity at several levee reaches along the American River when 
the emergency flood release is necessary at Folsom Dam and to 
assure that levees along the Natomas Cross Canal provide a 
level of flood protection consistent with modifications to the 
Sacramento River levee work in the vicinity that were 
authorized in 1996. The section also authorizes an increase in 
project costs for the ``common elements'' project authorized in 
1996. The estimated total cost for the levee parity provisions 
and the common elements, with the cost increase, is 
$91,900,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $68,925,000, and 
an estimated non-Federal cost of $22,975,000. The new total 
cost is an increase of $35,000,000 over the amount authorized 
in 1996. Due to: the extraordinary circumstances involved in 
the debate over providing flood control for the Sacramento 
area; the excessive delay this debate has caused in authorizing 
needed relief; the fact that work authorized in this section 
could have been authorized in 1996 if it were not for such 
debate; and the unique condition of a major metropolitan area 
not having a significant degree of flood protection, the 
Committee has chosen to apply the cost-sharing requirements in 
effect for the project authorized in 1996 rather than the cost-
sharing adopted in 1996, which were to be applied to subsequent 
authorizations. This will lessen the financial burden on the 
non-Federal sponsor and expedite implementation of this long-
overdue work.

Section 366. Martin, Kentucky

    Modifies the project authorized by section 202(a) of the 
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 1981 to 
authorize the Secretary to take all necessary measures to 
prevent future losses that would occur from a flood equal in 
magnitude to a 100-year frequency event.

                           title iv--studies

Section 401. Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers Levees and 
        Streambanks Protection

    Requires the Secretary to conduct a study of erosion damage 
to levees and infrastructure on the Upper Mississippi and 
Illinois Rivers and the impact of increased barge and pleasure 
craft traffic on deterioration of levees and other flood 
control structures on such rivers.

Section 402. Upper Mississippi River comprehensive plan

    Requires the Secretary to develop a plan to address water 
and related land resources problems and opportunities in the 
Upper Mississippi and Illinois River basins in the interest of 
systemic flood damage reduction, continued maintenance of the 
navigation project, management of bank caving and erosion, 
watershed nutrient and sediment management and related 
purposes. The Secretary shall transmit a report on the plan to 
Congress within 3 years after enactment of this Act.

Section 403. El Dorado, Union County, Arkansas

    Requires the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of improvements to regional water supplies for El 
Dorado, Union County, Arkansas.

Section 404. Sweetwater Reservoir, San Diego County, California

    Requires the Secretary to conduct a study of potential 
water quality problems and pollution abatement measures in the 
watershed and in and around Sweetwater Reservoir, San Diego 
County, California.

Section 405. Whitewater River Basin, California

    Requires the Secretary to determine the feasibility of 
flood damage reduction in the Whitewater River Basin, 
California and based upon the results of such study give 
priority consideration to the recommended project, including 
the Salton Sea Wetlands Restoration project, in the flood 
mitigation and riverine restoration pilot program authorized 
under section 214 of this Act.

Section 406. Little Econlackhatchee River Basin, Florida

    Requires the Secretary to conduct a study of pollution 
abatement measures in the Little Econlackhatchee River Basin, 
Florida.

Section 407. Port Everglades Inlet, Florida

    Requires the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of carrying out a sand bypass project at Port 
Everglades Inlet, Florida.

Section 408. Upper Des Plaines River and Tributaries, Illinois and 
        Wisconsin

    Directs the Secretary to conduct a study of the Upper Des 
Plaines River and Tributaries, upstream of the confluence with 
Salt Creek at Riverside, Illinois to determine the feasibility 
of various water-related improvements.

Section 409. Cameron Parish West of Calcasieu River, Louisiana

    Requires the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of carrying out a project for storm damage 
reduction and environmental restoration, Cameron Parish West of 
Calcasieu River, Louisiana.

Section 410. Grand Isle and Vicinity, Louisiana

    Requires the Secretary, in carrying out a study of storm 
damage reduction benefits of a project for storm damage 
reduction, Grand Isle and vicinity, Louisiana, to include 
benefits to the mainland coast of Louisiana as project benefits 
attributable to such project.

Section 411. Lake Pontchartrain Seawall, Louisiana

    Requires the Secretary to complete a post-authorization 
change report on the project for hurricane-flood protection in 
the Lake Pontchartrain area to modify the existing seawall 
fronting protection along a designated section of the Lake's 
shore.

Section 412. Westport, Massachusetts

    Requires the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of carrying out a navigation project for the town 
of Westport, Massachusetts, and the possible beneficial uses of 
dredged material for shoreline protection and storm damage 
protection in the area.

Section 413. Southwest Valley, Albuquerque, New Mexico

    Requires the Secretary to undertake and complete a 
feasibility study for flood damage, and, based upon the results 
of such study, give priority consideration to including the 
recommended project in the flood mitigation and riverine 
restoration pilot program authorized in section 214 of this 
Act.

Section 414. Cayuga Creek, New York

    Requires the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of carrying out a flood control project for Cayuga 
Creek, New York.

Section 415. Arcola Creek Watershed, Madison, Ohio

    Requires the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of a project to provide environmental restoration 
and protection for the Arcola Creek watershed, Madison, Ohio.

Section 416. Western Lake Erie Basin, Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan

    Requires the Secretary to conduct a study to develop 
measures to improve flood control, navigation, water quality, 
recreation, and fish and wildlife habitat in a comprehensive 
manner in the western Lake Erie basin, including watersheds of 
the Maumee, Ottawa, and Portage Rivers.

Section 417. Schuylkill River, Norristown, Pennsylvania

    Requires the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood control for the 
Schuylkill River, Norristown, Pennsylvania.

Section 418. Lakes Marion and Moultrie, South Carolina

    Requires the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply, 
treatment, and distribution to Calhoun, Clarendon, Colleton, 
Dorchester, Orangeburg, and Sumter Counties, South Carolina.

Section 419. Day County, South Dakota

    Requires the Secretary to conduct an investigation of 
flooding and other water resources problems between the James 
River and Big Sioux watersheds in South Dakota.

Section 420. Corpus Christi, Texas

    Requires the Secretary to review the two 175-foot-wide 
barge shelves on either side of the navigation channel as part 
of the study authorized in a committee resolution on August 1, 
1990.

Section 421. Mitchell's Cut Channel (Caney Fork Cut), Texas

    Requires the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of carrying out a project for navigation, 
Mitchell's Cut Channel (Caney Fork Cut), Texas.

Section 422. Mouth of the Colorado River, Texas

    Requires the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of carrying out a project for navigation at the 
mouth of the Colorado River, Texas.

Section 423. Kanawha River, Fayette County, West Virginia

    Requires the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of developing a public port along the Kanawha River 
in Fayette County, West Virginia, at a site known as Longacre.

Section 424. West Virginia Ports

    Requires the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of expanding public port development in West 
Virginia along the Ohio River and the navigable portion of the 
Kanawha River from its mouth to river mile 91.0.

Section 425. Great Lakes Region Comprehensive Study

    Requires the Secretary to conduct a comprehensive study of 
the Great Lakes region to ensure that future use, management, 
and protection of water and related resources. Provides that 
such study shall include a comprehensive management plan 
specifically for St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair. Requires a 
report to Congress within 4 years thatincludes the strategic 
plan for Corps programs in the Great Lakes Basin and details Corps 
projects in the region. Authorizes $1,400,000 for fiscal years 2000-
2003.

Section 426. Nutrient Loading Resulting from Dredged Material Disposal

    Requires the Secretary to conduct a study of nutrient 
loading that occurs as a result of discharges of dredged 
material into open-water sites in the Chesapeake Bay and report 
to Congress not later than 18 months after enactment of this 
Act. The Committee is aware of a proposal to dispose of dredged 
material at site 104 and expects this study will provide 
helpful information on the possible environmental impacts of 
open water disposal.

Section 427. Santee Delta Focus Area, South Carolina

    Requires the Secretary to conduct a study of the Santee 
Delta focus Area, South Carolina, to determine the feasibility 
of carrying out a project for enhancing wetlands values and 
public recreation.

                   TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Section 501. Corps Assumption of NRCS Projects

    (a) Llagas Creek, California. Authorizes the Secretary to 
complete the flood control project at Llagas Creek, California, 
originally constructed by the Natural Resources Conservation 
Service of the Department of Agriculture. The total cost of the 
project is $45,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
$21,800,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $23,200,000.
    (b) Thornton Reservoir, Cook County, Illinois.--Directs the 
Secretary to complete the flood control project at Thornton 
Reservoir, Illinois, originally constructed by the Natural 
Resources Conservation Service of the Department of 
Agriculture.

Section 502. Construction Assistance

    Increases the authorization levels for construction 
assistance under section 219 of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1992 as follows: Atlanta, Georgia $25,000,000; Paterson 
and Passaic County, New Jersey $20,000,000; Lynchburg, Virginia 
$30,000,000; and Richmond, Virginia $30,000,000.

Section 503. Contaminated Sediment Dredging Technology

    Authorizes $2,000,000 for the Secretary to review and test 
innovative dredging technologies that are designed to remove 
contaminated sediments without reducing water quality. Requires 
the Secretary to test such a technology before December 31, 
2000 in the vicinity of Peoria Lakes, Illinois.

Section 504. Dam Safety

    Authorizes the Secretary to provide assistance to enhance 
dam safety at the following locations: (1) Healdsburg Veteran's 
Memorial Dam, California; (2) Felix Dam, Pennsylvania; (3) 
Kehly Run Dam, Pennsylvania; (4) Owl Creek Reservoir, 
Pennsylvania; and (5) Sweet Arrow Lake Dam, Pennsylvania.

Section 505. Great Lakes Remedial Action Plans

    Amends section 401(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1990 to allow non-profit public or private entities to 
be the non-Federal sponsor for projects under the Great Lakes 
Remedial Action Program.

Section 506. Sea Lamprey Control Measures in the Great Lakes

    (a) Authorizes the Secretary, in conjunction with the Great 
Lakes Fishery Commission, to undertake a program for the 
control of sea lampreys in and around the waters of the Great 
Lakes. These projects may be either structural or non-
structural.
    (b) Provides for a 35% non-Federal cost share for projects 
under this section on non-Federal lands.
    (c) Allows a nonprofit entity to serve as the non-Federal 
interest for the project.
    (d) Authorizes $2,000,000 a year for fiscal years 2000-2005 
for this program.

Section 507. Maintenance of Navigation Channels

    Amends section 509(a) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1996 to add the following projects as Federal operations 
and maintenance responsibilities: (1) Acadiana Navigation 
Channel, Louisiana; (2) Contraband Bayou, Louisiana; (3) Lake 
Wallula Navigation Channel, Washington; and (4) Wadley Pass, 
Suwanee River, Florida.

Section 508. Measurement of Lake Michigan Diversions

    Amends section 1142(b) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1986 to increase the authorization for measurement of 
freshwater diversions from Lake Michigan to $1,250,000.

Section 509. Upper Mississippi River Environmental Management Program

    (a) Amends section 1103(e)(1) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 to authorize the Secretary to undertake 
data analysis and applied research as part of the Upper 
Mississippi River management program, and to establish an 
independent advisory committee.
    (b) Amends the reporting requirement under section 
1103(e)(2) to require a report to Congress every 6 years 
(rather than 10 years) and to specify reporting requirements.
    (c) Increases the authorization of appropriations for fish 
and wildlife habitat rehabilitation to $22,750,000 a year. 
Increases the authorization of appropriations for resource 
monitoring, data inventory and analysis, and applied research 
to $10,420,000.
    (d) Authorizes the transfer of 20% of amounts appropriated 
for fish and wildlife habitat rehabilitation to carry out 
resource planning, data inventory and analysis and applied 
research, and vice versa.
    (e) Requires completion of a habitat needs assessment by 
September 30, 2000.
    (f) Makes conforming amendments.

Section 510. Atlantic Coast of New York Monitoring

    Amends section 404(c) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1992 to extend the authorization for the Atlantic Coast 
of New York Monitoring Program through fiscal year 2003.

Section 511. Water Control Management

    Conditions the Secretary's authority to consider a 
regionalized water control management plan. Requires the 
Secretary to submit a report on water control management 
activities to House and Senate committees within 180 days of 
enactment of the bill and before implementing any such 
regionalized water control management plan.

Section 512. Beneficial Use of Dredged Material

    Adds the following projects to those eligible for the 
beneficial use of dredged material under section 204 of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1992: (1) Bodega Bay, 
California; (2) Sabine Refuge, Louisiana; (3) Hancock, 
Harrison, and Jackson Counties, Mississippi; (4) Rose City 
Marsh, Orange County, Texas; and (5) Bessie Heights Marsh, 
Orange County, Texas.

Section 513. Design and Construction Assistance

    Amends section 507(2) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1996 to authorize expansion and improvement of Long Pine 
Run Dam at a total cost of $20,000,000.

Section 514. Lower Missouri River Aquatic Restoration Projects

    Authorizes the Secretary to develop an overall strategy and 
plan for environmental restoration along the Lower Missouri 
River between Gavins Point Dam and the confluence of the 
Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. Directs the Secretary to 
recommend specific projects that may be carried out under 
section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. Any 
recommended projects shall provide for such activities and 
measures as the Secretary determines to be necessary to protect 
and restore fish and wildlife habitat without adversely 
affecting private property rights or water related needs of the 
region.

Section 515. Aquatic Resources Restoration in the Northwest

    (a) Authorizes the Secretary in cooperation with other 
Federal agencies to develop and implement projects for fish 
screens, fish passage devices and other measures agreed to by 
non-Federal and relevant Federal interests and to mitigate for 
the impacts associated with the irrigation system water 
diversions by local governments in Oregon, Washington, Montana, 
and Idaho.
    (b) Requires the Secretary to consult with other Federal, 
State and local agencies and to make use of existing data and 
studies. It also requires that participation by non-Federal 
interests be voluntary and the Secretary shall not hold any 
non-Federal interest financially responsible for any decisions 
or actions taken under this section.
    (c) Provides that the non-Federal cost-share for non-
Federal lands be 35 percent.
    (d) Authorizes $10,000,000 for this program.

Section 516. Innovative Technologies for Watershed Restoration

    Provides the Secretary shall use, and encourage the use of, 
innovative treatment technologies, including membrane 
technologies, for watershed and environmental restoration and 
protection projects involving water quality.

Section 517. Environmental Restoration

    (a) Atlanta, Georgia.--section 219(c)(2) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1992 is amended by inserting 
before the period ``and watershed restoration and development 
in the regional Atlanta watershed, including Big Creek and Rock 
Creek''.
    (b) Paterson and Passaic Valley, New Jersey.--section 
219(c)(9) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 is 
amended to read as follows: Drainage facilities to alleviate 
flooding problems on Getty Avenue in the vicinity of St. 
Joseph's Hospital for the City of Paterson, New Jersey, and 
Passaic County, New Jersey, and innovative facilities to manage 
and treat additional flows in the Passaic Valley, Passaic River 
basin.

Section 518. Expedited Consideration of Certain Projects

    Authorizes the Secretary to expedite completion of reports 
and proceed directly to project planning, engineering, and 
design for the following: (1) Arroyo Pasajero, San Joaquin 
River basin, California, project for flood control; (2) Success 
Dam, Tule River, California, project for flood control and 
water supply; and, (3) Alafia Channel, Tampa Harbor, Florida, 
project for navigation.

Section 519. Dog River, Alabama

    Authorizes the Secretary to provide technical assistance to 
non-Federal interests in planning and implementing projects to 
improve water quality, the restoration of aquatic ecosystems, 
and the restoration of natural water depths at Dog River, 
Alabama. The non-Federal share of assistance under this section 
is 90 percent.

Section 520. Elba, Alabama

    Authorizes the Secretary to repair and rehabilitate a levee 
in the city of Elba, Alabama at a total cost of $12,900,000.

Section 521. Geneva, Alabama

    Authorizes the Secretary to repair and rehabilitate a levee 
in the city of Geneva, Alabama at a total cost of $16,600,000.

Section 522. Navajo Reservation, Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah

    (a) In General.--Authorizes the Secretary, in conjunction 
with other Federal and local agencies, to undertake a survey of 
and provide technical, planning, and design assistance for 
watershed management, restoration, and development on the 
Navajo Indian Reservation, Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah.
    (b) Cost Sharing.--Authorizes the Federal share of 
activities carried out under this section to be 75 percent and 
provides that funds made available under the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act may be used by the 
Navajo Nation in meeting the non-Federal cost-share.
    (c) Authorization.--Authorizes $12,000,000 to carry out 
this section.

Section 523. Augusta and Devalls Bluff, Arkansas

    Authorizes the Secretary to perform operations and 
maintenance and rehabilitation on 37 miles of levees in and 
around Augusta and Devalls Bluff, Arkansas. Requires the 
Secretary to seek reimbursement from the Secretary of the 
Interior for the share of the cost of performing such 
maintenance and repair allocated to benefits to a Federal 
wildlife refuge.

Section 524. Beaver Lake, Arkansas

    Authorizes the Secretary to reallocate approximately 31,000 
additional acre-feet at Beaver Lake to water supply storage at 
no cost to the Beaver Water District or the Carroll-Boone Water 
District.

Section 525. Beaver Lake Trout Production Facility, Arkansas

    Requires the Secretary to construct the Beaver Lake trout 
hatchery by September 30, 2002. Requires the Secretary to 
prepare a plan for mitigation of effects of the Beaver Dam 
project on Beaver Lake.

Section 526. Chino Dairy Preserve, California

    Directs the Secretary to provide technical assistance to 
State and local agencies in the study, design, and 
implementation of measures for flood damage reduction and 
environmental restoration and protection in the Santa Ana River 
Watershed, California, with particular emphasis on structural 
and nonstructural measures in the vicinity of the Chino Dairy 
Preserve. Directs the Secretary to conduct a feasibility study 
to determine the most cost-effective plan for flood damage 
reduction and environmental restoration and protection in the 
vicinity of the Chino Dairy Preserve, Santa Ana River 
Watershed, Orange County and San Bernardino County, California.

Section 527. Novato, California

    Directs the Secretary to carry out a project for flood 
control under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 at 
Rush Creek, Novato, California, notwithstanding Corps' policy 
requiring a minimum flow of 800 cfs.

Section 528. Orange and San Diego Counties, California

    Authorizes the Secretary to prepare special area management 
plans in Orange and San Diego Counties, California to 
demonstrate the effectiveness of using such plans to provide 
information regarding aquatic resources and for use in making 
regulatory decisions and issuing permits.

Section 529. Salton Sea, California

    Requires the Secretary to provide technical assistance to 
Federal, State, and local agencies in the study, design, and 
implementation of measures for environmental restoration and 
protection of the Salton Sea, California. Requires a 
feasibility study to determine the most effective plan for the 
Corps to assist in the environmental restoration and protection 
of the Salton Sea.

Section 530. Santa Cruz Harbor, California

    Authorizes the Secretary to modify the cooperative 
agreement with the Santa Cruz Port District, California, to 
reflect unanticipated additional dredging effort and to extend 
such agreement for 10 years.

Section 531. Point Beach, Milford, Connecticut

    Modifies the project for hurricane protection and storm 
damage reduction at Point Beach, Milford, Connecticut to raise 
the authorized level of Federal expenditures to $3,000,000.

Section 532. Lower St. Johns River Basin, Florida

    Authorizes the Secretary to apply the computer model 
developed under the St. Johns River Basin feasibility study to 
assist non-Federal interests in developing strategies for 
improving water quality in the Lower St. Johns River Basin, 
Florida, with a 50% non-Federal cost share. Authorizes the 
Secretary to provide 1-foot contour topographic survey maps of 
the Lower St. Johns River Basin, Florida, to non-Federal 
interests for analyzing environmental data and establishing 
bench marks for subbasins.

Section 533. Shoreline Protection and Environmental Restoration, Lake 
        Allatoona, Georgia

    Authorizes the Secretary in cooperation with EPA to carry 
out water related environmental restoration and resource 
protection activities at Lake Allatoona and Etowah River in 
Georgia. Authorizes $850,000 to develop preconstruction design 
measures to alleviate shoreline erosion and sedimentation 
problems at Lake Allatoona/Etowah River, Georgia. Authorizes 
$250,000 to conduct a feasibility study to evaluate 
environmental problems and recommend environmental 
infrastructure restoration measures for the Little River within 
Lake Allatoona, Georgia.

Section 534. Mayo's Bar Lock and Dam, Coosa River, Rome, Georgia

    Authorizes the Secretary to provide technical assistance, 
including planning, engineering, and design assistance, for the 
reconstruction of the Mayo's Bar Lock and Dam. The non-Federal 
share of assistance under this section shall be 50 percent.

Section 535. Comprehensive Flood Impact Response Modeling System, 
        Coralville Reservoir and Iowa River Watershed, Iowa

    The Secretary, in cooperation with the University of Iowa, 
shall conduct a study and develop a comprehensive flood impact 
response modeling system for Coralville Reservoir and the Iowa 
River Watershed, Iowa. $900,000 is appropriated for each of 
fiscal years 2000 through 2004.

Section 536. Additional Construction Assistance in Illinois

    The Secretary may carry out the project for Georgetown, 
Illinois, and the project for Olney, Illinois, referred to in 
House Report Number 104-741, accompanying Public Law 104-182.

Section 537. Kanopolis Lake, Kansas

    Requires the Secretary to offer Kansas the opportunity to 
purchase water storage in Kanopolis Lake, Kansas, at a price 
calculated in accordance with and in a manner consistent with 
the terms of a memorandum of understanding between the Corps 
and the State of Kansas.

Section 538. Southern and Eastern Kentucky

    Amends section 531(h) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1996 to increase the authorization to $25,000,000.

Section 539. Southeast Louisiana

    Amends section 533(c) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1996 to increase the authorization for projects for 
flood control in Jefferson, Orleans, and St. Tammany Parishes, 
Louisiana, to $200,000,000.

Section 540. Snug Harbor, Maryland

    Authorizes the Secretary, in coordination with the Director 
of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), to provide 
technical assistance, conduct a study, and carry out a project 
for flood damage reduction in the vicinity of Snug Harbor, 
Maryland. Authorizes the Director of FEMA, in coordination with 
the Secretary and under authorities of the Robert T. Stafford 
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, to provide 
technical assistance and nonstructural measures for flood 
damage mitigation in the vicinity of Snug Harbor, Maryland. 
Provides that the Federal share under this section shall not 
exceed $3,000,000 and the non-Federal share shall be determined 
by the normal cost-share requirements of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1996 and the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.

Section 541. Welch Point, Elk River, Cecil County, and Chesapeake City, 
        Maryland

    Directs the Secretary to carry out a study to determine if 
the spillage of dredged materials that were removed as part of 
the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal project is a significant 
impediment to vessels transiting the Elk River near Welch 
Point, Maryland and, if so, to conduct such dredging as may be 
required to permit navigation on the river. Directs the 
Secretary to carry out a study to determine if additional 
compensation is required to fully compensate the city of 
Chesapeake, Maryland, for damage to the city's water supply 
resulting from dredging of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal 
project and, if so, to provide such compensation to the city of 
Chesapeake.

Section 542. West View Shores, Cecil County, Maryland

    Directs the Secretary, within one year, to conduct an 
investigation of the contamination of the well system of West 
View Shores, Cecil County, Maryland, and, if such contamination 
is from any Federal navigation project, authorizes the 
Secretary to provide alternative water supplies, including 
replacement of wells.

Section 543. Restoration Projects for Maryland, Pennsylvania, and West 
        Virginia

    Amends section 539 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1996 to make various changes and to allow for the use of 
funds appropriated under section 340 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1992 to carry out projects under this 
section.

Section 544. Cape Cod Canal Railroad Bridge, Buzzards Bay, 
        Massachusetts

    Authorizes the Secretary to provide up to $300,000 for 
alternative transportation that may arise as a result of the 
operation, maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation of the Cape 
Cod Canal Railroad Bridge.

Section 545. St. Louis, Missouri

    Authorizes $1,700,000 for the Secretary to conduct a water 
resources demonstration project in the vicinity of St. Louis, 
Missouri.

Section 546. Beaver Branch of Big Timber Creek, New Jersey

    Authorizes the Secretary to compile and disseminate 
information on floods and flood damages and provide technical 
assistance regarding floodplain management for Beaver Branch of 
Big Timber Creek, New Jersey.

Section 547. Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River Water Levels, New York

    Authorizes the Secretary to provide technical assistance to 
the International Joint Commission and the St. Lawrence River 
Board of Control in undertaking studies on the effects of 
fluctuating water levels on the natural environment, 
recreational boating, property flooding, and erosion along the 
shorelines of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River in New 
York.

Section 548. New York-New Jersey Harbor, New York and New Jersey

    Directs the Secretary to enter into cooperative agreements 
with non-Federal interests to investigate, develop, and support 
measures for sediment management and reduction of contaminant 
sources which affect navigation in the Port of New York-New 
Jersey and the environmental conditions of New York-New Jersey 
Harbor estuary. The investigation shall include an analysis of 
economic and environmental benefits and the cost of potential 
sediment management and contamination reduction measures. 
Nothing in this section provides any regulatory authority with 
respect to sediment management and contaminant source 
reduction.

Section 549. Sea Gate Reach, Coney Island, New York, New York

    Authorizes 9,000,000 for the Secretary to construct a 
project for shoreline protection which includes a beachfill 
with revetment and T-groin for the Sea Gate Reach on Coney 
Island, New York, as identified in the March 1998 report 
prepared for the Corps of Engineers, New York District, 
entitled ``Field Data Gathering, Project Performance Analysis 
and Design Alternative Solutions to Improve Sandfill 
Retention''.

Section 550. Woodlawn, New York

    Directs the Secretary to provide planning, design and other 
technical assistance to non-Federal interests for identifying 
and mitigating sources of contamination at Woodlawn Beach in 
Woodlawn, New York. Provides for a 50 percent non-Federal cost-
share under this section.

Section 551. Floodplain Mapping, New York

    Requires the Secretary to provide assistance to a non-
Federal sponsor and to coordinate with the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency on a project to develop maps identifying 
floodplains in New York, including hydrologic and hydraulic 
information. The Federal share of the project is 75% and 
$12,000,000 is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
assistance.

Section 552. White Oak River, North Carolina

    Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine if 
water quality deterioration and sedimentation of the White Oak 
River, North Carolina, is the result of the Atlantic 
Intracoastal Waterway navigation project, and to mitigate if 
any deterioration has occurred.

Section 553. Toussaint River, Carroll Township, Ottawa County, Ohio

    Authorizes the Secretary to provide technical assistance 
for the removal of military ordnance from the Toussaint River, 
Carroll Township, Ottawa County, Ohio.

Section 554. Sardis Reservoir, Oklahoma

    Directs the Secretary to accept payment by the State of 
Oklahoma as the full cost obligation for water supply storage 
at Sardis Reservoir, Oklahoma. The Committee is aware that 
intended savings from the buy-out could be used to build a 
water distribution system for the surrounding area residents. 
The Committee encourages the Sardis LakeAuthority and the 
Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma to form an entity to benefit equally from 
the sale of surplus water from the appropriate, agreed-upon lake level 
of Sardis Lake.

Section 555. Waurika Lake, Oklahoma, Water Conveyance Facilities

    Makes the costs incurred as the result of a settlement 
between the Secretary and a third party arising from the 
construction of the Federal water resources project at Waurika 
Lake, Oklahoma, a Federal responsibility. Also modifies the 
payment of costs to account for previous construction delays 
caused by contractor default and related litigation.

Section 556. Skinner Butte Park, Eugene, Oregon

    Directs the Secretary to conduct a study of the south bank 
of the Willamette River to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project to stabilize the river bank, and to 
restore and enhance riverine habitat, using a combination of 
structural and bioengineering techniques and to carry out such 
project, with a 35% non-Federal cost share, if feasible. 
Authorizes $1,000,000 for this section.

Section 557. Willamette River Basin, Oregon

    Directs the Secretary to work with the Administrators of 
EPA and FEMA and other appropriate Federal agencies to develop 
and implement a comprehensive basin-wide strategy in the 
Willamette River Basin, Oregon for the integrated management of 
land and water resources to improve water quality, reduce flood 
hazards, ensure sustainable economic activity, and restore 
habitat for native fish and wildlife.

Section 558. Bradford and Sullivan Counties, Pennsylvania

    Authorizes the Secretary to provide assistance for water-
related environmental infrastructure and resource protection 
and development projects in Bradford and Sullivan Counties, 
using funds and authorities under title I of the Energy and 
Water Development Appropriations Act of 1999.

Section 559. Erie Harbor, Pennsylvania

    Authorizes the Secretary to reimburse the appropriate non-
Federal interest not more than $78,366 for architect and 
engineering costs incurred in connection with the Erie Harbor 
basin navigation project, Pennsylvania.

Section 560. Point Marion Lock and Dam, Pennsylvania

    Modifies the project for navigation, Point Marion Lock and 
Dam, Borough of Point Marion, Pennsylvania, to direct the 
Secretary to mitigate damages to the shoreline, which are the 
result of a Federal navigation project.

Section 561. Seven Points' Harbor, Pennsylvania

    Authorizes $850,000 for the Secretary to construct a 
breakwater-dock combination at the entrance to Seven Points' 
Harbor, Pennsylvania. All operations and maintenance costs 
associated with any facility constructed under this section 
shall be the responsibility of the lessee of the marina complex 
at Seven Points' Harbor.

Section 562. Southeastern Pennsylvania

    Amends section 566(b) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1996 to add environmental restoration as an authorized 
form of environmental assistance to non-Federal interests in 
Southeastern, Pennsylvania.

Section 563. Susquehanna-Lackawanna River Watershed, Pennsylvania

    Authorizes the Secretary to provide technical assistance to 
non-Federal interests for preparing a watershed master plan for 
the Susquehanna River Basin. Provides for a 50 percent non-
Federal cost share under this section.

Section 564. Aguadilla Harbor, Puerto Rico

    Authorizes the Secretary to conduct a study to determine if 
erosion and additional storm damage risks that exist in the 
vicinity of Aguadilla Harbor, Puerto Rico, are the result of a 
Federal navigation project. If the Secretary determines that 
such erosion and additional storm damage risks are the result 
of the project, the Secretary shall take appropriate measures 
to mitigate the erosion and storm damage.

Section 565. Oahe Dam to Lake Sharpe, South Dakota, Study

    Amends section 441 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1996 to direct the Secretary to transmit a report, in 
coordination with Federal, State and local officials, to 
Congress by September 30, 1999 on the results of the 
investigation under this section.

Section 566. Integrated Water Management Planning, Texas

    Authorizes $10,000,000 for the Secretary, in cooperation 
with other Federal agencies and the State of Texas, to provide 
technical, planning, and design assistance to non-Federal 
interests in developing integrated water management plans and 
projects that will serve the cities, counties, water agencies, 
and participating planning regions in Texas. The non-Federal 
share of the cost of assistance provided under this section 
shall be 50 percent, of which up to \1/2\ may be provided as 
in-kind services.

Section 567. Bolivar Peninsula, Jefferson, Chambers, and Galveston 
        Counties, Texas.

    Authorizes the Secretary to design and construct a shore 
protection project between the south jetty of the Sabine Pass 
Channel and the north jetty of the Galveston HarborEntrance 
Channel in Jefferson, Chambers, and Galveston Counties, Texas, 
including beneficial use of dredged material from Federal navigation 
projects. In determining the cost share, the Secretary shall allow the 
non-Federal interest to pay the additional cost required for the 
project costs to equal the project benefits.

Section 568. Galveston Beach, Galveston County, Texas

    Authorizes the Secretary to design and construct a shore 
protection project between the Galveston South Jetty and San 
Luis Pass, Galveston County, Texas, using innovative 
nourishment techniques, including beneficial use of dredged 
material from Federal navigation projects.

Section 569. Packery Channel, Corpus Christi, Texas

    Authorizes the Secretary to construct a navigation and 
storm protection project consisting of construction of a 
channel and a channel jetty and placement of sand along the 
length of the seawall. In determining the cost share, the 
Secretary shall allow the non-Federal interest to pay the 
additional costs that may be necessary so the estimated costs 
of the project equal the estimated benefits.

Section 570. Northern West Virginia

    Authorizes the following projects 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) Parkersburg, West 
Virginia; (2) Weirton, West Virginia; (3) Erickson/Wood County, 
West Virginia; and, (4) Monongahela River, West Virginia.

Section 571. Urbanized Peak Flood Management Research

    Authorizes $3,000,000 for the Secretary to develop and 
implement a research program to evaluate opportunities to 
manage peak flood flows in urbanized watersheds located in the 
State of New Jersey. The Secretary is to report policy 
recommendations to Congress not later than 3 years after 
enactment of this Act.

Section 572. Mississippi River Commission

    Amends section 8 of the Flood Control Act of 1928 (P.L. 
391, 70th Congress) to increase the salary of civilian 
commissioners to $21,500 per year.

Section 573. Coastal Aquatic Habitat Management

    Authorizes $7 million for the Secretary to work with other 
Federal, state, local and private entities, in the development 
of a management strategy to address problems associated with 
toxic microorganisms (including pfiesteria) and the resulting 
degradation of ecosystems in the tidal and nontidal wetlands 
and waters of the United States for the States along the 
Atlantic Ocean. As part of the management strategy the 
Secretary may provide planning, design, and other technical 
assistance to each participating State in the development and 
implementation of non-regulatory measures to mitigate 
environmental problems and restore aquatic resources. The cost 
share for these programs shall be 65 percent Federal and all 
operations and maintenance shall be provided by the non-Federal 
interests.

Section 574. Recreation User Fees Initiative

    Authorizes the Secretary to retain 100 percent of the 
amounts of user fees collected at 5 projects and facilities to 
be returned directly to those facilities in order to increase 
the quality of the visitor experience at public recreational 
areas and to enhance the protection of resources. The amounts 
withheld may only be used for backlogged repair and maintenance 
projects for the interpretation, signage, habitat or facility 
enhancement, resource preservation, annual operation and 
maintenance, and law enforcement related to public use. A 
report to Congress on the results of this initiative is 
required. The term ``at selected recreation sites'' in 
subsection (a) is limited to the 5 or fewer projects and 
facilities as described in subsection (e).

Section 575. Abandoned and Inactive Noncoal Mine Restoration

    (a) The Secretary is authorized to provide technical, 
planning, and design assistance to Federal and non-Federal 
interests for carrying out projects to address water quality 
problems caused by drainage and related activities.
    (b) Assistance provided under subsection (a) may be in 
support of projects for the following purposes: (1) management 
of drainage from abandoned and inactive noncoal mines; (2) 
restoration and protection of streams, rivers, wetlands, other 
waterbodies, and riparian areas degraded by drainage; and (3) 
demonstration of management practices and innovative and 
alternative treatment technologies to minimize or eliminate 
adverse environmental effects associated with drainage.
    (c) The non-Federal share of the cost of assistance under 
subsection (a) shall be 50 percent; except that the Federal 
share with respect to projects located on lands owned by the 
United States shall be 100 percent.
    (d) Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting 
the authority of the Secretary of the Interior. The Committee 
also notes that if the Secretary provides assistance under this 
section in any situation involving a removal or remedial action 
under CERCLA, the Secretary should obtain concurrence from the 
Administrator of EPA.
    (e) The Secretary is authorized to provide assistance to 
non-Federal and non-profit entities to develop, manage, and 
maintain a database of conventional and innovative, cost-
effective technologies for reclamation of abandoned and 
inactive noncoal mines. Such assistance shall be provided 
through the rehabilitation of abandoned mine sites program, 
managed by the Sacramento District Office of the Corps of 
Engineers.
    (f) There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out 
this section $5,000,000.

Section 576. Beneficial Use of Waste Tire Rubber

    Authorizes $5,000,000 for the Secretary to conduct pilot 
projects to encourage the beneficial use of waste tire rubber, 
including crumb rubber, recycled from tires. Such beneficial 
use may include marine pilings, underwater framing, floating 
docks with built-in flotation, utility poles, and other uses 
associated with transportation and infrastructure projects 
receiving Federal funds. The Secretary shall, when appropriate, 
encourage the use of waste tire rubber, including crumb rubber, 
in such federally funded projects.

Section 577. Site Designation

    Amends section 102(c)(4) of the Marine Protection, 
Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 to extend site 
designation by 5 years.

Section 578. Land Conveyances

    This section conveys Federal property at: (a) Pike County, 
Missouri; (b) Candy Lake, Osage County, Oklahoma; (c) Lake 
Hugo, Oklahoma; (d) Marshall County, Oklahoma; (e) Summerfield 
Cemetery Association, Oklahoma; (f) Dexter, Oregon; (g) Richard 
B. Russell Dam and Lake, South Carolina; (h) Charleston, South 
Carolina; (i) Clarkston, Washington; and (j) Matewan, West 
Virginia.

Section 579. Namings

    (a) Designates 8 Mile Creek in Paragould, Arkansas as the 
``Francis Bland Floodway Ditch.''
    (b) Designates the bridge over the Lock and Dam #4 on the 
Arkansas River, Arkansas as the ``Lawrence Blackwell Memorial 
Bridge.''

Section 580. Folsom Dam and Reservoir Additional Storage and Water 
        Supply Studies

    This section conditionally authorizes further flood control 
improvements for the Sacramento, California area, referred to 
as the ``dry raise'' of Folsom Dam. Further, it directs the 
Corps to study potential additional storage at Folsom Dam and 
Reservoir to address water supply needs (known as a ``wet 
raise''). It also assures that vehicular traffic across Folsom 
Dam is not significantly disrupted by construction of the dry 
raise by requiring a bridge to be built in the event the Corps 
proceeds with implementation of that work. Lastly, it directs 
the Corps to conduct a feasibility study of additional levee 
improvements that might be advisable on the American and 
Sacramento Rivers.
    Subsection (a) requires an expedited study of replacing 
existing spillway gates and raising the dam and embankment at 
the Folsom Dam and Reservoir to provide additional flood 
protection. By limiting the scope of alternatives to an 
increase of the greater of 6.5 feet or sufficient to achieve a 
total of 140-year level of flood protection, the Committee 
expects the Corps to expedite its study and to forward its 
report to Congress no later than April 15, 2001. If 
implemented, this work would allow for temporary increases in 
storage (a ``dry'' raise) when needed for flood control. This 
section does not authorize permanent increase in the storage 
space for any purpose and specifically prohibits any increase 
in conservation storage.
    Subsection (b) directs the Corps to study the potential 
increase in storage for water supply that might be feasible if 
improvements studied under subsection (a) are implemented. This 
study of a so-called ``wet'' raise is to assess opportunities 
for additional water supply storage without adversely affecting 
private property and recreational values at the reservoir.
    Subsection (c) conditionally authorizes implementation of 
the potential dry raise studied under subsection (a), after 
completion of the study and its transmittal to Congress, 
provided that: height, level-of-protection and conservation 
storage restrictions of subsection (a) are met; technical, 
economic, environmental and procedural requirements are 
satisfied; and measures to mitigate adverse impacts on property 
and recreation are included. The Committee is concerned that 
any increase in flood control surcharge storage resulting from 
this section not have significant adverse effects on private 
properties along the lakeshore or on recreational uses on the 
reservoir. The Committee expects the Corps to focus on a design 
that minimizes, or avoids entirely, such adverse effects and, 
where such effects are unavoidable to achieve the flood control 
goals of this subsection, to interpret the ``to the maximum 
extent practicable'' provision fairly with respect to private 
property owners and those using the reservoir for recreational 
purposes and to consult with property owners, state and local 
recreation officials and organizations and elected officials 
representing the area. Furthermore, in determining technical 
feasibility, the Corps is to fully evaluate potential impacts 
to areas downstream of the dam, including potential flood 
impacts downstream of Sacramento.
    Subsection (d) directs the Corps to immediately begin 
planning and design of an alternative to the roadway currently 
on top of Folsom Dam. If the dry raise is found to satisfy the 
requirements of this section, the Corps is to build this 
alternative (likely, but not required, to be a bridge 
downstream of the dam) before construction of the dry raise. 
The timing of construction of the dry raise and the alternative 
to the road shall not cause significant disruption of traffic 
currently using the Folsom Dam Road. Because the alternative 
transportation improvement is needed to preserve the safety, 
physical security and structural integrity of Folsom Dam and 
Reservoir and is necessary to implement state-of-the-art design 
and construction criteria for that purpose, the Committee has 
concluded that the cost-sharing criteria adopted in 1986 for 
dam safety improvements are warranted.
    Subsection (e) directs the Corps to study the feasibility 
of additional levee improvements that might be advisable on the 
American and Sacramento Rivers near and downstream of the 
confluence and those rivers. As the effects of improvements 
authorized in this Act become more accurately quantified during 
detailed design of such improvements and to assess 
opportunities to increase potential flood protection through 
levee modifications, the Committee concluded that specific 
Congressional authorization of additional studywas warranted. 
An amount of $2,000,000 is authorized for this feasibility study; it is 
to be completed and transmitted to Congress within two years of 
enactment.

Section. 581. Water Resources Development

    Section 581 is intended to address the water supply needs 
of the Sacramento, California region. It also reflects an 
agreement among Sacramento area members of the House in 
developing a comprehensive approach to water resources 
generally. The Federal share of design and construction 
activities and grants under this section is 65% Federal and 35% 
non-Federal.
    Subsection (a) directs the Corps to design and construct 
water supply infrastructure sufficient to provide water to 
Placer County, California. The principal feature of this 
subsection is water withdrawal, conveyance, treatment and 
storage facilities capable of diversion and transportation of 
up to 117,000 acre-feet of water annually as set forth in an 
existing contract between the Bureau of Reclamation and the 
Placer County Water Agency (PCWA). The subsection also directs 
the Corps to modify existing facilities or build new facilities 
on the American River to provide permanent facilities for 
withdrawal and distribution of water from the American River 
where temporary pumping operations currently occur. In 
addition, modifications to an existing PCWA reservoir are 
directed.
    Subsection (b) directs the Corps to modify the El Dorado 
County Irrigation District's Folsom Lake diversion facility.
    Subsection (c) directs the Corps to build water supply 
facilities for the Georgetown Divide Public Utility District by 
expanding the PCWA pumping facilities addressed in subsection 
(a).
    Subsection (d) directs the Corps to provide funds to the 
San Juan Water District to study conjunctive use opportunities 
and to carry out a pilot project to analyze processes 
identified in the study.
    Subsection (e) directs the Corps to implement the East San 
Joaquin County Recharge Project. The project is expected to 
include, but not necessarily be limited to, about 2,000 acres 
of groundwater recharge ponds/wetlands and a 28-mile unlined 
canal connecting the existing Folsom South Canal to the current 
facilities of the Stockton East Water District South Farmington 
Canal. Prior to implementation, San Joaquin County must perfect 
its California water rights permits or licenses.
    Subsection (g) directs the Corps to provide, through grants 
or other agreements, funds for projects on the American River 
and its tributaries to provide water supply benefits.
    Subsection (h) allows the Federal share of projects and 
activities under this section to be provided in the form of 
grants or reimbursements. The Corps may reimburse non-Federal 
interests for the non-Federal share of costs of projects they 
carry out themselves provided the Corps approves plans prior to 
construction and verifies that work is done in accordance with 
approved plans.
    Subsection (i) directs the Corps to contract with 
California to study adding water supply by changing operations 
at Federal, State, local and private reservoirs on rivers that 
drain into the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Valleys. 
Changes in operation shall be assumed to be voluntary. The 
subsection also directs the Corps to study possible increased 
water supply at the Sites/Colusa, Cottonwood Creek and Yuba 
River project areas and other potential reservoir sites 
draining into the California Central Valley.
    Subsection (j) states that nothing in this section is to be 
construed as affecting any water rights in California. This 
provision and this section were the subject of much debate 
during the committee markup process. It is the Committee's 
intent that authorizations in this section not prejudice state 
and local water supply decisions.

Section 582. Allocation of Appropriations

    Section 582 establishes the funding relationships between 
activities authorized in section 580 and water supply 
improvements contained in section 581. The relative amounts 
that are authorized to be appropriated each fiscal year, 
beginning in FY 2000, are established so as to facilitate final 
design and construction of flood control improvements in the 
early years and shift the emphasis to finalizing design and 
construction of water supply infrastructure in later years. 
Unused appropriated funds for flood control and water supply 
projects are authorized to remain available for other flood 
control (section 580) and water supply (section 581) projects, 
respectively. The specified relationship of funding for flood 
control and water supply projects shall not be in effect in any 
year in which funds cannot be obligated for such projects due 
to specified procedural or financial delays.

Section 583. Wallops Island, Virginia

    The Secretary shall take emergency action to protect 
Wallops Island, Virginia from damaging coastal storms. The 
Secretary shall seek reimbursement from other Federal agencies 
whose resources are protected by the emergency action taken. 
There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
section $8,000,000.

Section 584. Detroit River, Detroit, Michigan

    The Secretary is authorized to repair and rehabilitate the 
seawalls on the Detroit River in Detroit, Michigan.

                            Additional Items

    The Committee encourages the Secretary to conduct research 
to fill existing knowledge gaps on roller-compacted concrete 
for the construction and rehabilitation of dams, andother water 
resources-related projects. The research should focus on assessing 
roller-compacted concrete's long-term durability, mix designs, joint 
preparation, and use for alternative facing systems.
    Currently, feasibility studies conducted for water 
resources projects examine the economic, environmental, and 
social impacts of the projects. There is concern that such 
analyses do not accurately identify and portray the impacts 
because they are examined in isolation. The Secretary, 
therefore, is encouraged to use a system approach to evaluate 
the economic, environmental, and social beneficial and adverse 
impacts.
    The Committee is aware that the Moss Landing Harbor in 
Monterey Bay, California, has not been maintained as scheduled, 
and the federal channel has a much reduced depth. The Secretary 
is encouraged to develop an arrangement with the Moss Landing 
Harbor District so that the Harbor District can use its 
equipment to dredge the Federal channel and receive 
reimbursement for the Federal share of the cost of work done.
    The Secretary is requested to review the report entitled 
``The Emerald Necklace Environmental Improvements Master Plan, 
Phase I Muddy River Flood Control, Water Quality, and Habitat 
Enhancement,'' prepared by the Boston Parks and Recreation 
Department, to determine if the plans outlined in the report 
are cost effective, technically sound, environmentally 
acceptable, and in the Federal interest, and report the results 
of the review to Congress by December 31, 1999.

                                Hearings

    The Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment held 
three days of hearings on projects, programs and policies 
considered during the development of WRDA: on March 31, 1998; 
April 22, 1998; and April 28, 1998. During these hearings, 
testimony was received from 30 witnesses, including Members of 
Congress, the Administration, [project sponsors, national water 
resources development and environmental organizations, and 
state and local officials]. On February 10, 1999, the 
Subcommittee held a hearing on agency budgets and priorities, 
receiving testimony from Dr. Joseph Westphal, Assistant 
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. Secretary Westphal 
described the importance of enacting a WRDA 99 as soon as 
possible.

                        Committee Consideration

    On April 21, 1999, the Subcommittee on Water Resources and 
Environment approved by recorded vote, H.R. 1480 with an 
amendment by Mr. Boehlert. On April 22, 1999, the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure adopted by voice vote, an en 
bloc amendment, offered by Mr. Shuster, which also included an 
amendment by Mr. DeMint and Mr. Isakson. The amendment made 
technical and clarifying changes, revised several project 
authorizations, and added various provisions related to studies 
and projects.
    On April 21, 1999, the Committee reported the bill, as 
amended, by a recorded vote of 49-24.

                             Rollcall Votes

    Clause 3(b) of rule XIII requires each committee report to 
include the total number of votes cast for and against on each 
rollcall vote on a motion to report and on any amendment 
offered to the measure or matter, and the names of those 
members voting for and against.

OBERSTAR EN BLOC AMENDMENT ON AMERICAN AND SACRAMENTO RIVERS AND FOLSOM 
                                  DAM

    This amendment would authorize the ``Folsom Stepped 
Release'' plan, modify the project for levees on the American 
River and Natomas Canal and authorize a study and 
implementation of increased storage at Folsom Dam and 
Reservoir. Ayes--31; Nays--40.
        AYES                          NAYS
Mr. Baird                           Mr. Bachus
Mr. Baldacci                        Mr. Baker
Mr. Barcia                          Mr. Bass
Ms. Berkley                         Mr. Bateman
Mr. Berry                           Mr. Bereuter
Mr. Blumenauer                      Mr. Boehlert
Mr. Borski                          Mr. Coble
Mr. Boswell                         Mr. Cook
Mr. Clement                         Mr. Cooksey
Mr. Costello                        Mr. DeMint
Mr. Cummings                        Mr. Doolittle
Ms. Danner                          Mr. Duncan
Mr. DeFazio                         Mr. Ehlers
Mr. Filner                          Mr. Ewing
Mr. Holden                          Mrs. Fowler
Ms. Johnson                         Mr. Franks
Mr. Lampson                         Mr. Gilchrest
Mr. Lipinski                        Mr. Horn
Mr. McGovern                        Mr. Hutchinson
Mr. Mascara                         Mr. Isakson
Mr. Menendez                        Mrs. Kelly
Ms. Millender-McDonald              Mr. Kuykendall
Mr. Nadler                          Mr. LaTourette
Ms. Norton                          Mr. LoBiondo
Mr. Oberstar                        Mr. Metcalf
Mr. Pascrell                        Mr. Mica
Mr. Sandlin                         Mr. Miller
Mr. Shows                           Mr. Moran
Mrs. Tauscher                       Mr. Ney
Mr. Traficant                       Mr. Pease
Mr. Wise                            Mr. Petri
                                    Mr. Quinn
                                    Mr. Sherwood
                                    Mr. Simpson
                                    Mr. Sweeney
                                    Mr. Terry
                                    Mr. Thune
                                    Mr. Watts
                                    Mr. Young
                                    Mr. Shuster

             FINAL PASSAGE OF H.R. 1480, AS AMENDED (49-24)

        AYES                          NAYS
Mr. Bachus                          Mr. Baldacci
Mr. Baird                           Ms. Berkley
Mr. Baker                           Mr. Blumenauer
Mr. Barcia                          Mr. Borski
Mr. Bass                            Mr. Boswell
Mr. Bateman                         Mr. Clement
Mr. Bereuter                        Mr. Costello
Mr. Berry                           Mr. Cummings
Mr. Boehlert                        Mr. DeFazio
Mr. Coble                           Mr. Filner
Mr. Cook                            Mr. Holden
Mr. Cooksey                         Ms. Johnson
Ms. Danner                          Mr. Lampson
Mr. DeMint                          Mr. Lipinski
Mr. Doolittle                       Mr. McGovern
Mr. Duncan                          Mr. Mascara
Mr. Ehlers                          Ms. Millender-McDonald
Mr. Ewing                           Mr. Nadler
Mrs. Fowler                         Ms. Norton
Mr. Franks                          Mr. Oberstar
Mr. Gilchrest                       Mr. Pascrell
Mr. Horn                            Mr. Sandlin
Mr. Hutchinson                      Mrs. Tauscher
Mr. Isakson                         Mr. Traficant
Mrs. Kelly
Mr. Kuykendall
Mr. LaHood
Mr. LaTourette
Mr. LoBiondo
Mr. Menendez
Mr. Metcalf
Mr. Mica
Mr. Miller
Mr. Moran
Mr. Ney
Mr. Pease
Mr. Petri
Mr. Quinn
Mr. Sherwood
Mr. Shows
Mr. Simpson
Mr. Sweeney
Mr. Taylor
Mr. Terry
Mr. Thune
Mr. Watts
Mr. Wise
Mr. Young
Mr. Shuster

                        Cost of the Legislation

    Clause 7 of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives does not apply where a cost estimate and 
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974 has been timely submitted prior to the filing of the 
report and is included in the report. Such a cost estimate is 
included in this report.

                     Compliance With House Rule XI

    1. Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, oversight findings and 
recommendations have been made by the Committee as reflected in 
this report.
    2. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(2) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and 
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee 
references the report of the Congressional Budget Office 
included below.
    3. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee has received no report of oversight findings and 
recommendations from the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight on the subject of H.R. 1480.
    4. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the 
Committee has received the following cost estimate for H.R. 
1480 from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office.

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                    Washington, DC, April 26, 1999.
Hon. Bud Shuster,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of 
        Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1480, the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1999.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Victoria 
Heid Hall (for the effects on outer continental shelf 
receipts); Deborah Reis (for the effects on recreation fees); 
Gary Brown (for all other federal costs); Marjorie Miller (for 
the state and local impact); and Keith Mattrick (for the 
private-sector impact).
            Sincerely,
                                        Steven M. Lieberman
                                    (for Dan L. Crippen, Director).
    Enclosure.

H.R. 1480--Water Resources Development Act of 1999

    Summary: H.R. 1480 would authorize the appropriation of 
about $3.6 billion (in 1999 dollars) over the 2000-2009 period 
for the Secretary of Army, acting through the Army Corps of 
Engineers, to conduct studies and undertake specified projects 
and programs for flood control, port development, inland 
navigation, storm damage reduction, and environmental 
restoration. Adjusting for anticipated inflation, CBO estimates 
that implementing the bill would require appropriations of 
about $4 billion over that period. The bill also would 
authorize:
          Prepayment or waiver of amounts owed to the federal 
        government;
          Spending a portion of the fees collected at Corps 
        recreation sites and extending a statutorily reduced 
        price for visiting Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania;
          Free use of sand, gravel, and shell resources from 
        the outer continental shelf (OCS) at eligible projects 
        by state and local governments; and
          Sale of specified federal lands in Washington, South 
        Carolina, and Oklahoma.
    CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1480 would result in 
additional outlays of about $2.9 billion over the 2000-2004 
period, assuming the appropriation of the necessary amounts. 
The remaining amounts authorized by the bill would be spent 
after 2004. Enacting the bill would affect direct spending; 
therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply. CBO estimates 
that enacting H.R. 1480 would reduce direct spending by $17 
million in 2000 and would result in a net increase in direct 
spending of $11 million over the 2000-2004 period.
    H.R. 1480 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined 
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (URMA). State and local 
governments would likely incur some costs as a result of the 
bill's enactment, but most of these costs would be voluntary.
    H.R. 1480 would impose a new private-sector mandate on the 
Summerfield Cemetery Association, Oklahoma. CBO estimates that 
the cost of this mandate would be less than $50,000, falling 
well below the threshold ($100 million in 1996, adjusted for 
inflation) established in UMRA.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of H.R. 1480 is shown in the following table. 
For constructing, operating, and maintaining projects that are 
already authorized, CBO estimates that the Corps will need 
about $4 billion annually over the 2000-2004 period (roughly 
the level appropriated in 1999). The table shows the estimates 
of additional spending necessary to implement the bill. The 
costs of this legislation fall primarily within budget function 
300 (natural resources and environment).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      By fiscal years, in millions of dollars--
                                                                    --------------------------------------------
                                                                       2000     2001     2002     2003     2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Estimated Authorization Level......................................      837      846      655      413      354
Estimated Outlays..................................................      419      716      749      563      420

                                           CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING

Estimated Budget Authority.........................................      -17        8        8        8        4
Estimated Outlays..................................................      -17        8        8        8        4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Basis of estimate: For the purpose of this estimate. CBO 
assumes that H.R. 1480 will be enacted by the end of fiscal 
year 1999 and that all amounts estimated to be authorized by 
the bill will be appropriated for each fiscal year.

Spending subject to appropriation

    Estimates of annual budget authority needed to meet design 
and construction schedules were provided by the Corps. CBO 
adjusted the estimates to reflect the impact of anticipated 
inflation during the time between authorization and 
appropriation. Estimated outlays are based on historical 
spending rates for activities of the Corps.

Direct spending

    Prepayments and Waivers of Payments. H.R. 1480 would 
authorize the state of Oklahoma to pay the present value of its 
outstanding obligation to the United States for water supply. 
CBO estimates that, if the bill is enacted, a prepayment of 
about $20 million would be made in 2000 and that payments 
forgone would be about $2 million a year over the 2000-2033 
period. The bill would authorize the Corps to waive payments 
from the Waurika Project Master Conservancy District and the 
cities of Chesapeake, Virginia, and Moorefield, West Virginia, 
for other projects. CBO estimates that, under current law, 
payments from these entities would total less than $500,000 
annually over the 2000-2031 period.
    Spending Recreation Fees. H.R. 1480 would authorize the 
Corps to retain and spend over the 2000-2003 period all 
recreation fees collected by the Corps at up to five of the 
agency's recreation projects, one of which must be the 
Mississippi River Headwaters Recreation Areas in Minnesota. At 
present, all recreation fees collected by the Corps (about $36 
million annually) are deposited as offsetting receipts in the 
Treasury and are unavailable for spending unless appropriated. 
By allowing the Corps to spend some of these receipts, this 
provision would result in new direct spending. CBO estimates 
that authorizing the Corps of spend without further 
appropriation any receipts earned from five projects would 
increase outlays by about $4 million annually through 2003. For 
purposes of this estimate, CBO anticipates that the Corps would 
use the new authority at its four highest revenue-generating 
projects plus the specified areas in Minnesota.
    Raystown Lake. Enacting H.R. 1480 would extend through 2003 
the current price for an annual pass to recreation facilities 
at Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania. The Water Resources Development 
Act of 1996 directed the Corps to set the price of an annual 
pass at $10 through 1999. At the time, the cost of an annual 
pass was $25. CBO anticipates that, under current law, the 
Corps will raise the price for visiting Raystown Lake up to the 
previous level beginning in 2000. Based on historical purchases 
of annual passes, CBO estimates that preventing the fee 
increase will result in a loss of offsetting receipts to the 
Treasury of about $30,000 a year over the 2000-2003 period.
    Increasing Receipts for Water Supply at Kannapolis Lake. 
Enacting H.R. 1480 would result in payments to the United 
States for water supply that would not occur under current law. 
The bill would direct the Corps to supply storage to the state 
of Kansas at a lower cost than is required under current law. 
The state has indicated that it would not contract with the 
Corps without such a discount. CBO estimates that, if H.R. 1480 
is enacted, annual payments by the state would total about 
$160,000 a year over the 2000 through 2029 period. Payments 
would be recorded as offsetting receipts. This payment level is 
about one-sixth of the amount that the state would be required 
to pay at current prices.
    Using Outer Continental Shelf Sand and Gravel. H.R. 1480 
would amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to allow 
state and local governments to use--without charge--sand, 
gravel, and shell resources from the outer continental shelf 
for shore restoration and protection programs. Under current 
law, the Department of the Interior (DOI) cannot charge other 
federal agencies for the use of these OCS resources. Section 
218 would extend free use of the resources to state and local 
government agencies. Based on information from DOI, CBO 
estimates that exempting these projects from fees for OCS sand, 
gravel, and shell resources would result in forgone receipts of 
about $2 million each year. Proceeds from the sale of this 
material are recorded as offsetting receipts to the Treasury; 
thus a loss of these receipts would increase direct spending.
    Sales of Land. H.R. 1480 would direct the Corps to sell at 
fair market value land that was acquired for the Candy Lake 
Project in Osage County, Oklahoma, and land that was acquired 
for storing equipment in Charleston, South Carolina. The lands 
were acquired in the mid-1970s at a total cost of about $2.4 
million. Accounting for inflation, CBO estimates the current 
value of these lands at about $5 million. CBO anticipates that 
the lands could be sold in fiscal year 2000. Annual lease 
payments and other revenues accruing to the federal government 
from these lands are not significant.
    CBO anticipates that sale proceeds would be counted for 
pay-as-you-go purposes. Under the Balanced Budget Act, proceeds 
from nonroutine asset sales (sales that are not authorized 
under current law) may be counted for pay-as-you-go 
scorekeeping only if the sale would entail no financial cost to 
the government.
    H.R. 1480 also would direct the Corps to transfer lands 
located in Clarkston, Washington, to the Port of Clarkston. The 
Port would not be required to pay for the lands as long as they 
are used for recreation purposes. The fair market value of the 
lands are estimated at slightly less than $2 million. Based on 
information provided by the Corps, CBO anticipates that the 
lands would continue to be used for recreation purposes after 
conveyance and that no consideration would be required. The 
Port currently leases the lands from the United States without 
cost.
    The bill also would direct the Corps to sell at fair market 
value lands in Choctaw and Marshall Counties, Oklahoma, to the 
Choctaw County Industrial Authority and the state of Oklahoma, 
respectively. Based on information from the Corps, CBO 
estimates that any receipts accruing to the United States from 
these lands under current law are insignificant; however, CBO 
and the Corps have not had sufficient time to evaluate all of 
the potential budgetary effects of selling these lands, 
including the amounts that would be paid to the United States 
for them.
    Pay-as-you-go considerations: The Balanced Budget and 
Emergency Deficit Control Act sets up pay-as-you-go procedures 
for legislation affecting direct spending or receipts. The net 
changes in outlays that are subject to pay-as-you-go procedures 
are shown in the following table. (The bill would not affect 
governmental receipts.) For the purposes of enforcing pay-as-
you-go procedures, only the effects in the current year, the 
budget year, and the succeeding four years are counted.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       By fiscal year, in millions of dollars
                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    1999    2000    2001   2002   2003   2004   2005   2006   2007   2008   2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes in outlays...............      0      -17      8      8      8      4      4      4      4      4      4
Changes in receipts..............                                  Not applicable
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The above estimates do not include any receipts for the 
sales of land in Choctaw and Marshall Counties, Oklahoma. CBO 
cannot estimate proceeds for these asset sales at this time.
    Estimated impact on State, local, and tribal governments: 
H.R. 1480 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in 
UMRA. State and local governments that choose to participate in 
water resources development projects and programs carried out 
by the Corps would incur costs as described below. In addition, 
some state and local governments would benefit from provisions 
in this bill that would alter their obligations to make 
payments to the federal government and order transfers of land.
    CBO estimates that nonfederal entities (primarily state and 
local governments) that choose to participate in the projects 
authorized by this bill would spend about $1.6 billion during 
fiscal years 2000 through 2011 to help construct these 
projects. These estimates are based on information provided by 
the Corps. In addition to these costs, nonfederal entities 
would pay for the operation and maintenance of many of the 
projects after they are constructed. The bill also would 
authorize several new programs that would assist state and 
local governments. Those governments choosing to participate in 
these programs generally would be required to provide funds 
equaling from 35 percent to 50 percent of the total costs.
    H.R. 1480 would make a number of changes to federal laws 
governing cost sharing between the federal government and state 
and local governments. Some of these changes would affect all 
state and local governments participating in particular 
programs, while others would affect only specific projects. The 
bill also includes several provisions that would alter the 
repayment obligations of specific state and local governments, 
either by allowing the prepayment of amounts owed or by waiving 
amounts owed under current law.
    State and local governments would benefit from a provision 
in the bill that would allow them to use sand, gravel, and 
shell resources from the outer continental shelf for eligible 
projects at no charge. In addition, H.R. 1480 would authorize 
the transfer of certain land and facilities now owned by the 
federal government to state and local governments. In some 
cases, these governments would be required to pay the costs 
necessary to complete these conveyances, should they choose to 
take the property.
    H.R. 1480 would authorize a number of water supply projects 
to benefit certain northern California counties that could 
reduce water supplies available to some other water users in 
the state, including public agencies. The bill would, however, 
authorize appropriations of $10 million for grants or other 
cooperative agreements with local water agencies for the 
purpose of reducing the adverse impacts of these projects. 
Further, the bill includes language intended to avoid any 
preemption of existing water rights in California.
    Estimated impact on the private sector: H.R. 1480 would 
impose a new private-sector mandate on the Summerfield Cemetery 
Association, Oklahoma. The Association would be responsible for 
the costs to the Federal Government of conveying land to the 
Association. Based on information provided by government 
sources, CBO estimates that the total cost of this new mandate 
would be less than $50,000 and therefore would not exceed the 
annual inflation-adjusted $100 million threshold, as defined in 
UMRA.
    Previous CBO estimate: On April 14, 1999, CBO transmitted a 
cost estimate for S. 507, the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1999, as reported by the Senate Committee on Environment and 
Public Works on March 23, 1999. The differences in the 
estimates reflect differences between the two bills.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: OCS receipts--Victoria 
Heid Hall; recreation fees--Deborah Reis; all other costs--Gary 
Brown. Impact on State, local, and tribal governments: Marjorie 
Miller. Impact on the private sector: Keith Mattrick.
    Estimate approved by: Paul N. Van de Water, Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, committee reports on a bill or joint 
resolution of a public character shall include a statement 
citing the specific powers granted to the Congress in the 
Constitution to enact the measure. The Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure finds that Congress has the 
authority to enact this measure pursuant to its powers granted 
under article I, section 8 of the Constitution.

                       Federal Mandates Statement

    The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of federal 
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act.

                      Advisory Committee Statement

    No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this 
legislation.

                Applicability to the Legislative Branch

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

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

               WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1996

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                   TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

  (a) Projects With Chief's Reports.--Except as provided in 
this subsection, the following projects for water resources 
development and conservation and other purposes are authorized 
to be carried out by the Secretary substantially in accordance 
with the plans, and subject to the conditions, described in the 
respective reports designated in this subsection:
          (1) American river watershed, california.--
                  (A) * * *
                  (A) In general.--The project for flood damage 
                reduction, American and Sacramento Rivers, 
                California: Report of the Chief of Engineers, 
                dated June 27, 1996, [at a total cost of 
                $56,900,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
                $42,675,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
                of $14,225,000,] at a total cost of 
                $91,900,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
                $68,925,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
                of $22,975,000, consisting of--
                          (i) approximately 24 miles of slurry 
                        wall in the levees along the lower 
                        American River;
                          (ii) approximately 12 miles of levee 
                        modifications along the east bank of 
                        the Sacramento River downstream from 
                        the Natomas Cross Canal;
                          (iii) 3 telemeter streamflow gauges 
                        upstream from the Folsom Reservoir; and
                          (iv) modifications to the flood 
                        warning system along the lower American 
                        River.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                  (D) Other costs.--The non-Federal interest 
                shall be responsible for--
                          (i) * * *
                          (ii) 25 percent of the costs incurred 
                        for the variable flood control 
                        operation of the Folsom Dam and 
                        Reservoir [during the 4-year period 
                        beginning on the date of the enactment 
                        of this Act and 100 percent of such 
                        costs thereafter].

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                      TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 206. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.

  (a) * * *
  (b) Cost Sharing.--Non-Federal interests shall provide 35 
percent of the cost of construction of any project carried out 
under this section, including provision of all lands, 
easements, rights-of-way, and necessary relocations. Before 
October 1, 2003, the Federal share may be provided in the form 
of grants or reimbursements of project costs.
  (c) Agreements.--Construction of a project under this section 
shall be initiated only after a non-Federal interest has 
entered into a binding agreement with the Secretary to pay the 
non-Federal share of the costs of construction required by this 
section and to pay 100 percent of any operation, maintenance, 
and replacement and rehabilitation costs with respect to the 
project in accordance with regulations prescribed by the 
Secretary. Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the Flood Control 
Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), the Secretary, after 
coordination with the appropriate State and local government 
officials having jurisdiction over an area in which a project 
under this section will be carried out, may allow a nonprofit 
entity to serve as the non-Federal interest for the project.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 208. RECREATION POLICY AND USER FEES.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Alternative to Annual Passes.--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (4) Expiration of authority.--The authority to 
        establish an annual pass under paragraph (2) shall 
        expire on the later of December 31, [1999, or the date 
        of transmittal of the report under paragraph (3)] 2003.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


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

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Authority To Carry Out Improvement.--
          (1) In general.--[Any non-Federal]
                  (A) Studies and design activities under 
                subsection (b).--A non-Federal interest may 
                only carry out construction for which studies 
                and design documents are prepared under 
                subsection (b) if the Secretary approves such 
                construction. The Secretary shall approve such 
                construction unless the Secretary determines, in 
                writing, that the design documents do not meet 
                standard practices for design methodologies or that 
                the  project is not economically justified or 
                environmentally acceptable or does not meet the 
                requirements for obtaining the appropriate permits 
                required under the Secretary's authority. The Secretary 
                shall not unreasonably withhold approval. Nothing in 
                this subparagraph may be construed to affect any 
                regulatory authority of the Secretary.
                  (B) Studies and design activities under 
                subsection (c).--Any non-Federal interest that 
                has received from the Secretary pursuant to 
                subsection [(b) or] (c) a favorable 
                recommendation to carry out a flood control 
                project, or separable element of a flood 
                control project, based on the results of 
                completed studies and design documents for the 
                project or element may carry out the project or 
                element if a final environmental impact 
                statement under the National Environmental 
                Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) has 
                been filed for the project or element.
          (2) Permits.--Any plan of improvement proposed to be 
        implemented in accordance with this subsection (other 
        than paragraph (1)(A)) shall be deemed to satisfy the 
        requirements for obtaining the appropriate permits 
        required under the Secretary's authority. Such permits 
        shall be granted subject to the non-Federal interest's 
        acceptance of the terms and conditions of such permits 
        if the Secretary determines that the applicable 
        regulatory criteria and procedures have been satisfied.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) Reimbursement.--
          (1) General rule.--Subject to appropriations Acts, 
        the Secretary may reimburse any non-Federal interest an 
        amount equal to the estimate of the Federal share, 
        without interest, of the cost of any authorized flood 
        control project, or separable element of a flood 
        control project, constructed pursuant to this section 
        and provide credit for the non-Federal share of the 
        project--
                  (A) if, after authorization and before 
                initiation of construction of the project or 
                separable element, the Secretary approves the 
                plans for construction of such project by the 
                non-Federal interest; [and]
                  (B) if the Secretary finds, after a review of 
                studies and design documents prepared pursuant 
                to this section, that construction of the 
                project or separable element is economically 
                justified and environmentally acceptable[.]; 
                and
                  (C) if the construction work is reasonably 
                equivalent to Federal construction work.
          (2) Special rules.--
                  (A) Reimbursement.--For work (including work 
                associated with studies, planning, design, and 
                construction) carried out by a non-Federal 
                interest with respect to a project described in 
                subsection (f), the Secretary shall, [subject 
                to amounts being made available in advance in 
                appropriations Acts] subject to appropriations, 
                reimburse, without interest, the non-Federal 
                interest an amount equal to the estimated 
                Federal share of the cost of such work, or 
                provide credit (depending on the request of the 
                non-Federal interest) for the non-Federal share 
                of such work, if such work is later recommended 
                by the Chief of Engineers and approved by the 
                Secretary.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (6) Schedule and manner of reimbursement.--
                  (A) Budgeting.--The Secretary shall budget 
                and request appropriations for reimbursements 
                under this section on a schedule that is 
                consistent with a Federal construction 
                schedule.
                  (B) Commencement of reimbursements.--
                Reimbursements under this section may commence 
                upon approval of a project by the Secretary.
                  (C) Credit.--At the request of a non-Federal 
                interest, the Secretary may reimburse the non-
                Federal interest by providing credit toward 
                future non-Federal costs of the project.
                  (D) Scheduling.--Nothing in this paragraph 
                shall affect the President's discretion to 
                schedule new construction starts.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                          TITLE IV--STUDIES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 417. SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary shall provide assistance to 
the city of Springfield, Illinois, in developing--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (b) Cost Sharing.--The non-Federal share of assistance 
provided under this section before, on, or after the date of 
enactment of this subsection shall be 50 percent.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 441. OAHE DAM TO LAKE SHARPE, SOUTH DAKOTA.

  (a) Investigation.--The Secretary shall investigate potential 
solutions to the recurring flooding and related problems in the 
vicinity of Pierre and Ft. Pierre, South Dakota, caused by 
sedimentation in Lake Sharpe. The potential solutions to be 
investigated shall include lowering of the lake level and 
sediment agitation to allow for resuspension and movement of 
the sediment. The investigation shall include development of a 
comprehensive solution which includes consideration of 
structural and nonstructural measures upstream from the lake 
consisting of land treatment, sediment retention structures, 
and such other measures as the Secretary determines to be 
appropriate.
  (b) Report.--Not later than September 30, 1999, the Secretary 
shall transmit to Congress a report on the results of the 
investigation under this section. The report shall include the 
examination of financing options for regular maintenance and 
preservation of the lake. The report shall be prepared in 
coordination and cooperation with the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service, other Federal agencies, and State and 
local officials.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                  TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 503. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT, RESTORATION, AND DEVELOPMENT.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary may provide technical, 
planning, and design assistance to non-Federal interests for 
carrying out watershed management, restoration, and development 
projects at the locations described in subsection (d). 
Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 
(42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), the Secretary, after coordination with 
the appropriate State and local government officials having 
jurisdiction over an area in which a project under this section 
will be carried out, may allow a nonprofit entity to serve as 
the non-Federal interest for the project.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Project Locations.--The Secretary may provide assistance 
under subsection (a) for projects at the following locations:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (7) Sacramento River watershed, California, including 
        Clear Lake.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (14) Fresno Slough watershed, California.
          (15) Hayward Marsh, Southern San Francisco Bay 
        watershed, California.
          (16) Kaweah River watershed, California.
          (17) Malibu Creek watershed, California.
          (18) Illinois River watershed, Illinois.
          (19) Catawba River watershed, North Carolina.
          (20) Cabin Creek basin, West Virginia.
          (21) Lower St. Johns River basin, Florida.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 506. PERIODIC BEACH NOURISHMENT.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out periodic beach 
nourishment for each of the following projects for a period of 
50years beginning on the date of initiation of construction of 
the project:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (5) Lee county, florida.--Project for shoreline 
        protection, Lee County, Captiva Island segment, 
        Florida.
  (b) Periodic Beach Nourishment Subject to Review.--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) Projects.--The projects referred to in paragraph 
        (1) are as follows:
                  [(A) Lee county, florida.--Project for 
                shoreline protection, Lee County, Captiva 
                Island segment, Florida.]
                  [(B)] (A) Palm beach county, florida.--
                Project for shoreline protection, Jupiter/
                Carlin, Ocean Ridge, and Boca Raton North Beach 
                segments, Palm Beach County, Florida.
                  [(C)] (B) Raritan bay and sandy hook bay, new 
                jersey.--Project for hurricane-flood 
                protection, Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, New 
                Jersey.
                  [(D)] (C) Fire island inlet, new york.--
                Project for shoreline protection, Fire Island 
                Inlet, New York, between Gilgo State Park and 
                Tobay Beach to protect Ocean Parkway along the 
                Atlantic Ocean shoreline in Suffolk County, New 
                York.

SEC. 507. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE.

  The Secretary shall provide design and construction 
assistance to non-Federal interests for each of the following 
projects if the Secretary determines that the project is 
feasible:
          (1) * * *
          [(2) Construction of a multipurpose dam and 
        reservoir, Bear Valley Dam, Franklin County, 
        Pennsylvania, at an estimated total cost of 
        $15,000,000.]
          (2) Expansion and improvement of Long Pine Run Dam 
        and associated water infrastructure in accordance with 
        the requirements of subsections (b) through (e) of 
        section 313 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
        1992 (106 Stat. 4845) at a total cost of $20,000,000.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 509. MAINTENANCE OF NAVIGATION CHANNELS.

  (a) In General.--Upon request of the non-Federal interest, 
the Secretary shall be responsible for maintenance of the 
following navigation channels constructed or improved by non-
Federal interests if the Secretary determines that such 
maintenance is economically justified and environmentally 
acceptable and that the channel was constructed in accordance 
with applicable permits and appropriate engineering and design 
standards:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (12) Acadiana Navigation Channel, Louisiana.
          (13) Contraband Bayou, Louisiana, as part of the 
        Calcasieu River and Pass Ship Channel.
          (14) Lake Wallula Navigation Channel, Washington.
          (15) Wadley Pass (also known as McGriff Pass), 
        Suwanee River, Florida.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 519. RECREATION PARTNERSHIP INITIATIVE.

  (a) * * *
  (b) Infrastructure Improvements.--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) Engineering and design services.--The Secretary 
        may perform, at full Federal expense, engineering and 
        design services for project infrastructure expected to 
        be associated with the development of the site at 
        Raystown Lake, Hesston, Pennsylvania.
          [(3)] (4) Authorization of appropriations.--There is 
        authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
        subsection $3,000,000.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 528. EVERGLADES AND SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.

  (a) * * *
  (b) Restoration Activities.--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) Critical restoration projects.--
                  (A) * * *
                  (B) Initiation of projects.--After September 
                30, [1999] 2000, 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                  (D) Credit of past and future activities.--
                The Secretary may provide a credit to the non-
                Federal interests toward the non-Federal share 
                of a project implemented under subparagraph 
                (A). The credit shall be for reasonable costs 
                of work performed by the non-Federal interests 
                if the Secretary determines that the work 
                substantially expedited completion of the 
                project and is compatible with and an integral 
                part of the project, and the credit is provided 
                pursuant to a specific project cooperation 
                agreement.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) Cost Sharing.--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (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 if the Secretary determines 
        that such land acquisition is compatible with and an 
        integral component of the Everglades and South Florida 
        ecosystem restoration, including potential land 
        acquisition in the Caloosahatchee River basin or other 
        areas. Such value shall be determined by the Secretary.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 531. SOUTHERN AND EASTERN KENTUCKY.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to 
be appropriated to carry out this section [$10,000,000] 
$25,000,000.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 533. SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
[$100,000,000] $200,000,000 for the initiation and partial 
accomplishment of projects described in the reports referred to 
in subsection (a).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 539. RESTORATION PROJECTS FOR MARYLAND, PENNSYLVANIA, AND WEST 
                    VIRGINIA.

  (a) In General.--
          (1) Technical assistance.--The Secretary may provide 
        [technical] assistance to non-Federal interests (or in 
        the case of projects located on lands owned by the 
        United States, to Federal interests), in cooperation 
        with Federal and State agencies, for reclamation and 
        water quality protection projects for the purpose of 
        abating and mitigating surface water quality 
        degradation caused by abandoned mines along--
                  (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) Consultation with federal entities.--Any project 
        under paragraph (1) that is located on lands owned by 
        the United States shall be undertaken in consultation 
        or in conjunction with the Federal entity with 
        administrative jurisdiction over such lands.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to 
be appropriated to carry out this section $1,500,000 for 
projects undertaken under subsection (a)(1)(A) and $1,500,000 
for projects undertaken under subsection (a)(1)(B). Funds 
authorized to be appropriated to carry out section 340 of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4856) are 
authorized for projects undertaken under subsection (a)(1)(B).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 552. NEW YORK CITY WATERSHED.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to 
be appropriated to carry out this section [$22,500,000] 
$42,500,000.

SEC. 553. NEW YORK STATE CANAL SYSTEM.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to 
be appropriated to carry out this section [$8,000,000] 
$18,000,000.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 562. CURWENSVILLE LAKE, PENNSYLVANIA.

  The Secretary shall modify the allocation of costs for the 
water reallocation project at Curwensville Lake, Pennsylvania, 
to the extent that the Secretary determines that such 
modification will provide environmental restoration benefits in 
meeting instream flow needs in the Susquehanna River basin. The 
Secretary shall provide design and construction assistance for 
recreational facilities at Curwensville Lake and, when 
appropriate, may require the non-Federal interest to provide 
not more than 25 percent of the cost of designing and 
constructing such facilities. The Secretary may transfer, in 
each of fiscal years 1999 through 2003, $100,000 to the 
Clearfield County Municipal Services and Recreation Authority 
for recreational facilities.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 566. SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA.

  (a) * * *
  (b) Form of Assistance.--Assistance under this section may be 
in the form of design and construction assistance for water-
related environmental infrastructure and resource protection 
and development projects in southeastern Pennsylvania, 
including projects for waste water treatment and related 
facilities, water supply and related facilities, environmental 
restoration, and surface water resource protection and 
development.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 575. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Clear Creek, Texas.--In any evaluation of economic 
benefits and costs for the project for flood control, Clear 
Creek, Texas, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control 
Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 742) that occurs after the date of 
enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall include the 
costs and benefits of nonstructural measures undertaken, 
including any buyout or relocation actions, of non-Federal 
interests within the drainage area of such project before the 
date of the evaluation in the determination of conditions 
existing before the construction of the project.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 579. GREENBRIER RIVER BASIN, WEST VIRGINIA, FLOOD PROTECTION.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to 
be appropriated to carry out this section [$12,000,000] 
$73,000,000.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 581. WEST VIRGINIA AND PENNSYLVANIA FLOOD CONTROL.

  [(a) In General.--The Secretary may design and construct 
flood control measures in the Cheat and Tygart River Basins, 
West Virginia, and the Lower Allegheny, Lower Monongahela, West 
Branch Susquehanna, and Juniata River Basins, Pennsylvania, at 
a level of protection sufficient to prevent any future losses 
to these communities from flooding such as occurred in January 
1996, but no less than a 100-year level of flood protection.]
  (a) In General.--The Secretary may design and construct--
          (1) flood control measures in the Cheat and Tygart 
        River basins, West Virginia, at a level of protection 
        that is sufficient to prevent any future losses to 
        these communities from flooding such as occurred in 
        January 1996 but no less than a 100-year level of 
        protection; and
          (2) structural and nonstructural flood control, 
        streambank protection, stormwater management, and 
        channel clearing and modification measures in the Lower 
        Allegheny, Lower Monongahela, West Branch Susquehanna, 
        and Juniata River basins, Pennsylvania, at a level of 
        protection that is sufficient to prevent any future 
        losses to communities in these basins from flooding 
        such as occurred in January 1996, but no less than a 
        100-year level of flood protection with respect to 
        those measures that incorporate levees or floodwalls.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


              SECTION 205 OF THE FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1948

  Sec. 205. That the Secretary of the Army is hereby 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 1 of the 
Flood Control Act of June 22, 1936, when in the opinion of the 
Chief of Engineers such work isadvisable. 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 3 of the Flood Control Act of 
June 22, 1936, 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.
                              ----------                              


              SECTION 206 OF THE FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1960

  Sec. 206. (a) * * *
  (b) Flood Prevention Coordination.--The Secretary shall 
coordinate with the Director of the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency and the heads of other Federal agencies to 
ensure that flood control projects and plans are complementary 
and integrated to the extent practicable and appropriate.
  [(b)] (c) 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; except that this limitation 
on fees shall not apply to funds voluntarily contributed by 
such entities for the purpose of expanding the scope of the 
services requested by such entities.
  [(c)] (d) The Secretary of the Army is authorized to expend 
not to exceed $15,000,000 per fiscal year for the compilation 
and dissemination of information under this section.
                              ----------                              


          SECTION 5 OF THE FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF JUNE 22, 1936


                       flood control act of 1936

  Sec. 5. That pursuant to the policy outlined in sections 1 
and 3, the following works of improvement, for the benefit of 
navigation and the control of destructive flood waters and 
other purposes, are hereby adopted and authorized to be 
prosecuted, in order of their emergency as may be designated by 
the President, under the direction of the Secretary of War and 
supervision of the Chief of Engineers in accordance with the 
plans in the respective reports and records hereinafter 
designated: Provided, That penstocks or other similar 
facilities, adapted to possible future use in the development 
of adequate electric power may be installed in any dam herein 
authorized when approved by the Secretary of War upon the 
recommendation of the Chief of Engineers: Provided further, 
That the Secretary of War 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 restortation work whenever such work 
and expenditure may be considered by the Secretary of War, 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 War, 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: And provided further, 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 War, be returned to the proper representatives of 
the contributing interests.
                              ----------                              


                WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1992

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                  TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 102. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (ff) Bluestone Lake, Ohio River Basin, West Virginia.--The 
project for flood control, Bluestone Lake, Ohio River Basin, 
West Virginia, authorized by section 4 of the Flood Control Act 
of June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1217), is modified to direct the 
Secretary to [take such measures as are technologically 
feasible] implement Plan C/G, as defined in the Evaluation 
Report of the District Engineer, dated December 1996, to 
prohibit the release of drift and debris into waters downstream 
of the project, including measures to prevent the accumulation 
of drift and debris at the project, the collection and removal 
of drift and debris on the segment of the New River upstream of 
the project, and the removal (through the use of temporary or 
permanent systems) and disposal of accumulated drift and debris 
at Bluestone Dam.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                TITLE II--GENERALLY APPLICABLE PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 204. BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Cooperative Agreement.--Any project undertaken pursuant 
to this section shall be initiated only after non-Federal 
interests have entered into a [cooperative agreement in 
accordance with the requirements of section 221 of the Flood 
Control Act of 1970] binding agreement with the Secretary in 
which the non-Federal interests agree to--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (g) Non-Federal Interests.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) of 
the Flood Control Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), the 
Secretary, after coordination with the appropriate State and 
local government officials having jurisdiction over an area in 
which a project under this section will be carried out, may 
allow a nonprofit entity to serve as the non-Federal interest 
for the project.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 209. DAM SAFETY PROGRAM EXTENSION.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(e) Mussers Dam, Middle Creek, Snyder County, 
Pennsylvania.--
          [(1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to 
        provide planning, engineering and design, construction, 
        technical, and other assistance to non-Federal 
        interests for repair, reconstruction, replacement, or 
        other modification to Mussers Dam, Middle Creek, Snyder 
        County, Pennsylvania, in order to bring such dam into 
        compliance with the safety requirements which the 
        Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has determined to 
        be necessary.
          [(2) Coordination.--The Secretary shall provide any 
        assistance under paragraph (1) in coordination with the 
        Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and State and 
        local interests.
          [(3) Limitation on Statutory Construction.--Nothing 
        in this subsection shall be construed as affecting or 
        modifying--
                  [(A) the obligations of non-Federal interests 
                under the Federal Power Act or any license, 
                permit, or exemption issued under such Act; or
                  [(B) the duties and responsibilities of the 
                Federal Energy Regulatory Commission under the 
                Federal Power Act to require and enforce on a 
                timely basis safety compliance with such Act 
                and any license, permit, or exemption issued 
                under such Act.
          [(4) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of 
        repair, reconstruction, replacement, and other 
        modification to Mussers Dam for the purpose described 
        in paragraph (1) shall be 75 percent.
          [(5) Authorization of appropriations.--There is 
        authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
        subsection $3,000,000 for fiscal years beginning after 
        September 30, 1992. Such sums shall remain available 
        until expended.]
  [(f)] (e) Beaver Lake, Arkansas.--All costs incurred in 
carrying out the project to correct seepage problems at Beaver 
Lake, Arkansas, shall be treated as costs incurred for a dam 
safety project and shall be subject to cost sharing in 
accordance with section 1203 of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1986.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 219. ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Project Descriptions.--The projects for which the 
Secretary is authorized to provide assistance under subsection 
(a) are as follows:
          (1) * * *
          (2) Atlanta, georgia.--A combined sewer overflow 
        treatment facility for the city of Atlanta, Georgia and 
        watershed restoration and development in the regional 
        Atlanta watershed, including Big Creek and Rock Creek.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          [(9) Paterson and passaic county, new jersey.--
        Drainage facilities to alleviate flooding problems on 
        Getty Avenue in the vicinity of St. Joseph's Hospital 
        for the city of Paterson, New Jersey, and Passaic 
        County, New Jersey.]
          (9) Paterson, passaic county, and passaic valley, new 
        jersey.--Drainage facilities to alleviate flooding 
        problems on Getty Avenue in the vicinity of St. 
        Joseph's Hospital for the City of Paterson, New Jersey, 
        and Passaic County, New Jersey, and innovative 
        facilities to manage and treat additional flows in the 
        Passaic Valley, Passaic River basin, New Jersey.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) Authorization of Appropriations for Construction 
Assistance.--There are authorized to be appropriated for 
providing construction assistance under this section--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          [(5) $20,000,000 for the project described in 
        subsection (c)(16); and
          [(6) $20,000,000 for the project described in 
        subsection (c)(17).]
          (5) $25,000,000 for the project described in 
        subsection (c)(2);
          (6) $20,000,000 for the project described in 
        subsection (c)(9);
          (7) $30,000,000 for the project described in 
        subsection (c)(16); and
          (8) $30,000,000 for the project described in 
        subsection (c)(17).

                 TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 313. SOUTH CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA ENVIRONMENT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (g) Authorization and Allocation of Appropriations.--
          (1) Authorization of appropriations.--There is 
        authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
        [$80,000,000] $180,000,000 for fiscal years beginning 
        after September 30, 1992. Such sums shall remain 
        available until expended.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


      TITLE IV--INFRASTRUCTURE TECHNOLOGY, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



SEC. 404. ATLANTIC COAST OF NEW YORK.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to 
be appropriated $1,400,000 for each of fiscal years [1993, 
1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997] 1993 through 2003 to carry out this 
section. Such sums shall remain available until expended.

SEC. 405. SEDIMENTS DECONTAMINATION TECHNOLOGY.

  (a) Decontamination Project.--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (4) Practical end-use products.--Technologies 
        selected for demonstration at the pilot scale shall be 
        intended to 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--[There is authorized to 
be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000.] There 
is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
$22,000,000 to complete technology testing, technology 
commercialization, and the development of full scale processing 
facilities within the New York/New Jersey Harbor. Such sums 
shall remain available until expended.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) Support.--In carrying out the program under this section, 
the Secretary is encouraged to utilize contracts, cooperative 
agreements, and grants with colleges and universities and other 
non-Federal entities.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


            SECTION 104 OF THE RIVER AND HARBOR ACT OF 1958

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


                WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1986

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                         TITLE I--COST SHARING


SEC. 101. HARBORS.

      (a) Constructon.--
          (1) Payments during construction.--The non-Federal 
        interests for a navigation project for a harbor or 
        inland harbor, or any separable element thereof, on 
        which a contract for physical construction has not been 
        awarded before the date of enactment of this Act shall 
        pay, during the period of construction of the project, 
        the following costs associated with general navigation 
        features:
                  (A) * * *
                  (B) 25 percent of the cost of construction of 
                the portion of the project which has a depth is 
                excess of 20 feet but not in excess of [45] 53 
                feet; plus
                  (C) 50 percent of the cost of construction of 
                the portion of the project which has a depth in 
                excess of [45] 53 feet.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      (b) Operation and Maintenance.--
          (1) In general.--The Federal share of the cost of 
        operation and maintenance of each navigation project 
        for a harbor or inland harbor constructed by the 
        Secretary pursuant to this Act or any other law 
        approved after the date of the enactment of this Act 
        shall be 100 percent, except that in the case of a 
        deep-draft harbor, the non-Federal interests shall be 
        responsible for an amount equal to 50 percent of the 
        excess of the cost of the operation and maintenance of 
        such project over the cost which the Secertary 
        determines would be incurred for operation and 
        maintenance of such project if such project had a depth 
        of [45] 53 feet.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 103. FLOOD CONTROL AND OTHER PURPOSES.

    (a) * * *
    (b) Nonstructural Flood Control Projects.--The non-Federal 
share of the cost of nonstructural flood control measures shall 
be 35 percent of the cost of such measures. The non-Federal 
interests for any such measures shall be required to provide 
all lands, easements, rights-of-way, dredged material disposal 
areas, and relocations necessary for the project, but shall not 
be required to contribute any amount in cash during 
construction of the project. At any time during construction of 
the project, where the Secretary determines that the costs of 
lands, easements, rights-of-way, dredged material disposal 
areas, and relocations in combination with other costs 
contributed by the non-Federal interests will exceed 35 
percent, any additional costs for the project, but not to 
exceed 65 percent of the total costs of the project, shall be a 
Federal responsibility and shall be contributed during 
construction as part of the Federal share.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (d) Certain Other Costs Assigned to Project Purposes.--
          (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.--
                  (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), 
                the non-Federal share of costs of periodic 
                nourishment measures for shore protection or 
                beach erosion control that are carried out--
                        (i) after January 1, 2001, shall be 40 
                        percent;
                        (ii) after January 1, 2002, shall be 45 
                        percent; and
                        (iii) after January 1, 2003, shall be 
                        50 percent;
                  (B) Benefits to privately owned shores.--All 
                costs assigned to benefits of periodic 
                nourishment measures 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 the non-Federal 
                interest and all costs assigned to the 
                protection of federally owned shores for such 
                measures shall be borne by the United States.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                      TITLE II--HARBOR DEVELOPMENT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



SEC. 214. DEFINITIONS.

  For purposes of this title--
          (1) Deep-draft harbor.--The term ``deep-draft 
        harbor'' means a harbor which is authorized to be 
        constructed to a depth of more than [45] 53 feet (other 
        than a project which is authorized by section 202 of 
        this title).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) General cargo harbor.--The term ``general cargo 
        harbor'' means a harbor for which a project is 
        authorized by section 202 of this title and any other 
        harbor which is authorized to be constructed to a depth 
        of more than 20 feet but not more than [45] 53 feet;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


         TITLE VI--WATER RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



SEC. 602. LAKES PROGRAM.

  (a) Subject to section 903(a) of this Act, the Secretary 
shall carry out programs for the removal of silt, aquatic 
growth, and other material in the following lakes:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (15) Skaneateles and Owasco Lakes, New York, removal 
        of silt and aquatic growth and prevention of sediment 
        deposit; [and]
          (16) Twin Lakes, Paris, Illinois, removal of silt and 
        excess aquatic vegetation, including measures to 
        address excessive sedimentation, high nutrient 
        concentration, and shoreline erosion[.];
          (17) Clear Lake, Lake County, California, removal of 
        silt and aquatic growth and measures to address 
        excessive sedimentation and high nutrient 
        concentration; and
          (18) Osgood Pond, Milford, Hillsborough County, New 
        Hampshire, removal of silt and aquatic growth and 
        measures to address excessive sedimentation.
          (19) Flints Pond, Hollis, Hillsborough County, New 
        Hampshire, removal of silt and aquatic growth and 
        measures to address excessive sedimentation.

                      TITLE IX--GENERAL PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



SEC. 906. FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION.

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (e) In those cases when the Secretary, as part of any 
report to Congress, recommends activities to enhance fish and 
wildlife resources, the fish costs of such enhancement shall be 
a Federal cost when--
          (1) * * *
          (3) such activities are located on lands managed as a 
        national wildlife refuge.
When benefits of enhancement do not qualify under the preceding 
sentence, 25 percent of such first costs of enhancement shall 
be provided by non-Federal interests under a schedule of 
reimbursement determined by the Secretary. Not more than 80 
percent of the non-Federal share of such first costs may be 
satisfied through in-kind contributions, including facilities, 
supplies, and services that are necessary to carry out the 
enhancement project. The non-Federal share of operation, 
maintenance, and rehabilitation of activities to enhance fish 
and wildlife resources shall be 25 percent.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


             TITLE XI--MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



SEC. 1103. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER MANAGEMENT.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e)(1) The Secretary, in consultation with 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; and
          (B) implementation of a [long-term resource 
        monitoring program; and] long-term resource monitoring, 
        computerized data inventory and analysis, and applied 
        research program.
          [(C) Implementation of a computerized inventory and 
        analysis system.]
In carrying out subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall establish 
an independent technical advisory committee to review projects, 
monitoring plans, and habitat and natural resource needs 
assessments.
  [(2) Each program referred to in paragraph (1) shall be 
carried out for 15 years. Before the last day of such 15-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.]
          (2) Reports.--Not later than December 31, 2004, and 
        not later than December 31st of every sixth year 
        thereafter, the Secretary, in consultation with the 
        Secretary of the Interior and the States of Illinois, 
        Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin, shall 
        transmit to Congress a report that--
                  (A) contains an evaluation of the programs 
                described in paragraph (1);
                  (B) describes the accomplishments of each of 
                such programs;
                  (C) provides updates of a systemic habitat 
                needs assessment; and
                  (D) identifies any needed adjustments in the 
                authorization.
  (3) For purposes of carrying out paragraph (1)(A) 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 November 17, 1986, not to exceed $12,400,000 
for the second fiscal year beginning after November 17, 1986, 
and not to exceed $13,000,000 per fiscal year for each of the 
succeeding 13 fiscal years] $22,750,000 for fiscal year 1999 
and each fiscal year thereafter.
  (4) For purposes of carrying out paragraph (1)(B) 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 November 17, 1986, and not to exceed $5,080,000 
per fiscal year for each of the succeeding 14 fiscal years] 
$10,420,000 for fiscal year 1999 and each fiscal year 
thereafter.
  [(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 November 17, 1986, not to exceed $280,000 for 
the second fiscal year beginning after November 17, 1986, not 
to exceed $1,220,000 for the third fiscal year beginning after 
November 17, 1986, and not to exceed $875,000 per fiscal year 
for each of the succeeding 12 fiscal years.
          [(6) Transfer of amounts.--
                  [(A) General rule.--Subject to subparagraph 
                (B), 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 not to exceed 20 percent of the amount 
                appropriated to carry out each of subparagraphs 
                (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (1) to carry out 
                any other of such subparagraphs.
                  [(B) Limitation.--The aggregate amounts 
                obligated in fiscal years 1988 through 2002--
                          [(i) to carry out paragraph (1)(A) 
                        may not exceed $189,600,000;
                          [(ii) to carry out paragraph (1)(B) 
                        may not exceed $78,800,000; and
                          [(iii) to carry out paragraph (1)(C) 
                        may not exceed $12,040,000.]
          (5) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is 
        authorized to be appropriated to carry out paragraph 
        (1)(A) $350,000 for each of fiscal years 1999 through 
        2009.
          (6) Transfer of amounts.--For fiscal year 1999, and 
        each fiscal year thereafter, the Secretary, in 
        consultation with the Secretary of the Interior and the 
        States of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and 
        Wisconsin, may transfer not to exceed 20 percent of the 
        amounts appropriated to carry out subparagraph (A) or 
        (B) of paragraph (1) to the amounts appropriated to 
        carry out the other of such subparagraphs.
  (7)(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(e) of this Act; 
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.
  (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)] paragraph (1)(B) 
of this subsection shall be allocated in accordance with the 
provisions of section 906 of this , as if such activity was 
required to mitigate losses to fish and wildlife.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (f)(1) The Secretary, in consultation with any agency 
established under subsection (d)(1) of this section, is 
authorized to implement a program of recreational projects for 
the system substantially in accordance with the recommendations 
of the GREAT I, GREAT II, and GRRM studies and the master plan 
reports. In addition, the Secretary, in consultation with any 
such agency, shall, at Federal expense, conduct an assessment 
of the economic benefits generated by recreational activities 
in the system. The cost of each such project shall be allocated 
between the Secretary and the appropriate non- Federal sponsor 
in accordance with title I of this Act.
  (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 fiscal year for each of 
the first 15 fiscal years beginning 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.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (h)(1) The Secretary, in consultation with any agency 
established under subsection (d)(1) of this section, shall 
monitor traffic movements on the system for the purpose of 
verifying lock capacity, updating traffic projections, and 
refining the economic evaluation so as to verify the need for 
future capacity expansion of the system.
  (2) The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the 
Interior and the States of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, 
and Wisconsin, shall determine the need for river 
rehabilitation and environmental enhancement and protection 
based on the condition of the environment, project 
developments, and projected environmental impacts from 
implementing any proposals resulting from recommendations made 
under subsection (g) and paragraph (1) of this subsection. The 
Secretary shall complete the on-going habitat needs assessment 
conducted under this paragraph not later than September 30, 
2000, and shall include in each report required by subsection 
(e)(2) the most recent habitat needs assessment conducted under 
this paragraph.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 1142. MEASUREMENT OF LAKE MICHIGAN DIVERSIONS.

  (a) * * *
  (b) There are authorized to be appropriated [$250,000] 
$1,250,000 per fiscal year for each fiscal year beginning after 
September 30, 1986, 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 necessary and appropriate by the Secretary.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


            SECTION 111 OF THE RIVER AND HARBOR ACT OF 1968

  Sec. 111. 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 and 
shore damages attributable to the Atlantic Intracoastal 
Waterway and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, 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 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 
project shall be initiated withoutspecific authorization by 
Congress if the Federal first cost exceeds $2,000,000.
                              ----------                              


           SECTION 8 OF THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LANDS ACT

  Sec. 8. Leasing of Outer Continental Shelf.--(a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (k)(1) * * *
  (2)(A) * * *
  (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] a Federal, State, or local government 
agency.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


                WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1990

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                  TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

  (a) Projects With Report of the Chief of Engineers.--Except 
as provided in this subsection, the following projects for 
water resources development and conservation and other purposes 
are authorized to be carried out by the Secretary substantially 
in accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions, 
recommended in the respective reports designated in this 
subsection:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (18) Passaic river main stem, new jersey and new 
        york.--
                  (A) * * *
                  (B) Streambank restoration measures.--The 
                project shall include the construction of 
                environmental and other streambank restoration 
                measures (including bulkheads, recreation, 
                greenbelt, scenic overlook facilities, and 
                public access to Route 21, including an 
                esplanade for safe pedestrian access with an 
                overall width of 600 feet) on the west bank of 
                the Passaic River between Bridge and Brill 
                Streets in the city of Newark, New Jersey, at a 
                total cost of $25,000,000. The project element 
                authorized by this subparagraph shall be 
                carried out, in cooperation with the city of 
                Newark, so that it is compatible with the 
                proposed reconstruction plans for Route 21 and 
                the proposed arts center. The non-Federal share 
                of the project element authorized by this 
                subparagraph shall be 25 percent. The value of 
                the lands, easements, and rights-of-way 
                provided by non-Federal interests shall be 
                credited to the non-Federal share. Construction 
                of the project element authorized by this 
                subparagraph shall be undertaken in advance of 
                the other project features and shall not await 
                implementation of the overall project.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


               TITLE III--GENERALLY APPLICABLE PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 308. FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT.

  (a) Elements Excluded From Benefit-Cost Analysis.--The 
Secretary shall not include in the benefit base for justifying 
Federal flood damage reduction projects--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (b) Flood Damage Reduction Benefits.--In calculating the 
benefits of a proposed project for nonstructural flood damage 
reduction, the Secretary shall calculate benefits of 
nonstructural projects using methods similar to structural 
projects, including similar treatment in calculating the 
benefits from losses avoided from both structural and 
nonstructural alternatives. In carrying out this subsection, 
the Secretary should avoid double counting of benefits.
  [(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 (b), 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, suchas 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) * * *
  (b) Nonproject Specific.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary may remove and 
        remediate contaminated sediments from the navigable 
        waters of the United States for the purpose of 
        environmental enhancement and water quality improvement 
        if such removal and remediation is requested by a non-
        Federal sponsor and the sponsor agrees to pay [50] 35 
        percent of the cost of such removal and remediation.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Disposal Costs.--Costs of disposal of contaminated 
sediments removed under this section shall be a [non-Federal 
responsibility] shared as a cost of construction.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                   TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

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

  (a) Great Lakes Remedial Action Plans.--
          (1) * * *
          (2) Non-federal share.--Non-Federal interests shall 
        contribute, in cash or by providing in-kind 
        contributions, 50 percent of costs of activities for 
        which assistance is provided under paragraph (1). 
        Nonprofit public or private entities may contribute all 
        or a portion of the non-Federal share.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


           SECTION 8 OF THE FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF MAY 15, 1928

  Sec. 8.  * * *
  The salary of the president of the Mississippi River 
Commission shall hereafter be $10,000 per annum, and the salary 
of the other members of the commission shall hereafter be 
[$7,500] $21,500 per annum. The official salary of any officer 
of the United States Army or other branch of the Government 
appointed or employed under this Act shall be deducted from the 
amount of salary or compensation provided by, or which shall be 
fixed under, the terms of this Act.
                              ----------                              


SECTION 102 OF THE MARINE PROTECTION, RESEARCH, AND SANCTUARIES ACT OF 
                                  1972


                environmental protection agency permits

      Sec. 102. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Designation of Sites.--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (4) General site management plan requirement; 
        prohibitions.--After January 1, 1995, no site shall 
        receive a final designation unless a management plan 
        has been developed pursuant to this section. Beginning 
        on January 1, 1997, no permit for dumping pursuant to 
        this Act or authorization for dumping under section 
        103(e) of this Act shall be issued for a site (other 
        than the site located off the coast of Newport Beach, 
        California, which is known as ``LA-3'') unless such 
        site has received a final designation pursuant to this 
        subsection or an alternative site has been selected 
        pursuant to section 103(b). Beginning January 1, [2000] 
        2005, no permit for dumping pursuant to this Act or 
        authorization for dumping under section 103(e) shall be 
        issued for the site located off the coast of Newport 
        Beach, California, which is known as ``LA-3'', unless 
        such site has received a final designation pursuant to 
        this subsection or an alternative site has been 
        selected pursuant to section 103(b).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                             MINORITY VIEWS

    There are two major flaws in the reported bill. First, the 
bill fails to give Sacramento, the capital city of the world's 
sixth largest economy, the flood control it needs and deserves. 
Second, the reported bill authorizes nearly $300 million in 
water supply infrastructure projects upriver from Sacramento. 
These projects are strongly opposed by the Administration on 
the grounds that they ``would overturn the existing balance 
among environmental, irrigation, and other Central Valley 
Project water usage established in the Central Valley Project 
Improvement Act, would undermine plans to restore California 
Bay--Delta, and would not be fair to taxpayers.'' If these 
projects are included in the bill, the Secretary of the 
Interior will recommend a veto. In addition, the Governor of 
California has asked that these projects be stricken from the 
bill.
1. Adequate Flood Protection for Sacramento
    The reported bill guarantees Sacramento only 140 years old 
flood protection. This is considerably less than the 200-500 
years or more of protection we have given cities of comparable 
size, such as Santa Ana, Tacoma, New Orleans, St. Louis, 
Dallas, Kansas City and Omaha. There is no reason that 
Sacramento should not receive the same level of flood 
protection as these cities.
    Today, in Sacramento, 400,000 residents face an 
unacceptable risk from flooding. Located in that floodplain are 
the state capitol, 160,000 residential structures, 5,000 
businesses, and 1,200 governmental facilities, with an 
estimated value of $37 billion. The 55,000-acre floodplain 
includes seven of the region's nine major hospitals and 130 
schools.
    Potential economic losses from a flood in Sacramento range 
from $7 billion to $16 billion depending upon the size of the 
flood. Even at the lower end of the scale, the potential flood 
losses in Sacramento are comparable to those suffered from the 
Northridge earthqake--which to date is the largest single 
disaster in U.S. history.
    Sacrameto deserves the maximum amount of flood protection 
which can be provided without construction of Auburn Dam. There 
are affordable ways to give Sacramento that level of 
protection.
    The United States Army Corps of Engineers has proposed such 
a plan, which includes modifications to Folsom Dam to improve 
the ability to release water from the dam sooner, strengthening 
of levees, and modifications to the levees downstream from 
Folsom to handle the increased flows.
    In Committee, Congressman Oberstar offered an amendment to 
adopt this plan plus other measures to give Sacramento 200 
years of flood protection. The amendment was rejected on a 
party-line vote.
    The rationale advanced by opponents of the amendment was 
that the levee strengthening proposed by the amendment created 
unacceptable risks to areas downstream. This objection cannot 
withstand scrutiny. The Army Corps of Engineers has analyzed 
this contention and rejected it. In fact, the Army Corps of 
Engineers has specifically stated that this additional 
protection can be provided, ``without adversely affecting the 
reaches below the mouth of the American River without project 
conditions.'' The Corps' plan includes several different 
structural and operational modifications that will ensure that 
no additional flood threat is transferred downstream. In 
addition, the City of Sacramento has committed to spend $100 
million to mitigate any adverse effects downstream. Finally, 
the Oberstar amendment specifically required that measures to 
increase the capacity of the levees be undertaken only after 
downstream mitigation features have been constructed.
    We believe that the real reason for the objection to 
adequate flood protection for Sacramento is to desire to link 
flood protection to the reallocation of water, for the benefit 
of development upriver from Sacramento. This linkage has 
delayed adequate flood protection for Sacramento for more than 
a decade. In evaluating this issue it is essential to bear in 
mind that in California, water is scarce, and water allocation 
is a zero-sum game. Allocating water for new development 
upstream means less water downstream.
    The linkage of flood protection for Sacramento and 
reallocation of water was embodies in a proposal for a new dam 
at Auburn which would have provided both flood protection and 
increased water supply upriver. Members strongly opposed the 
Auburn Dam because of its excessive cost (more than $1 billion) 
and unacceptable damage to to the environment. The Auburn Dam 
was rejected by the House of Representatives in 1992 by a vote 
of 273-140, and by this Committee in 1996 by a vote of 35-28. 
There is no reason to believe that the result would be any 
different today.
    Unfortunately, the proponents of development upstream have 
refused to accept the Congressional verdict, and have refused 
to allow proposals for adequate flood control at Sacramento to 
go forward, unless these proposals were linked to reallocation 
of water, and kept alive hopes for Auburn Dam. The most recent 
proposal, basically embodied in the reported bill, provided for 
reallocation of water for upstream development, coupled with 
140 years of flood protection for Sacramento. Why are the 
supporters of this proposal unwilling to give Sacramento flood 
protection of 200 years? The only credible explanation is that 
they want to hold down flood protection for Sacramento in the 
hopes that Auburn Dam can be revived to provide the final level 
of protection.
    We strongly dissent from the Committee's decision to deny 
Sacramento adequate flood protection to keep alive futile hopes 
for the fiscally unsound, environmentally irresponsible Auburn 
Dam project.
2. American River Water Supply Provisions
    We oppose sections 581 and 582 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1999, which authorize water supply projects 
on the American River of California for several reasons. We 
believe these projects disrupt California water policy, 
contradict California and Federal water law, are fiscally 
irresponsible, and will damage the aquatic environment of 
California. We also wish to ensure swift enactment of H.R. 
1480, which will not occur if sections 581 and 582 remain in 
the bill.
    Sections 581 and 582 would authorize the construction of 
water supply projects for local communities along the American 
River, thereby providing senior water rights to users who are 
currently junior to the Central Valley Project and other State 
and federal water contract holders. The Central Valley Project 
and the State and federal water project are key sources of 
municipal and industrial water supply. In addition, these 
projects provide the critical water supply for the State 
artricultural economy. We are concerned with how these 
provisions will damage the CAL/FED process, and how they will 
affect the Central Valley Project and those who depend on the 
Federal and State water projects. As a result of sections 581 
and 582, H.R. 1480 would disrupt the consensus-building 
objectives of the CAL/FED process and the Sacramento River 
Forum discussions, as well as the delicate balance which is 
California water policy today.
    We are greatly concerned that sections 581 and 582 would 
redistribute American River water rights to junior water 
holders in California to the detriment of the rest of the 
State. Under the ``area of origin'' doctrine in California, 
which is based on several key California laws, including: the 
County of Origin Statute (CA Water Code section 10505), the 
Watershed of Origin Statute (CA Water Code section 11460), and 
the Delta Protection Act (CA Water Code section 12201), 
language included in the bill purporting to protect current 
water rights will not achieve its desired goal. In fact, 
Placer, El Dorado and San Joaquin Counties would be able to 
make claims to a large portion of the water of the American and 
Sacramento Rivers once the water supply diversion facilities 
authorized by the bill are built.
    Because these new provisions were only included in the bill 
at the last minute, they have not been thoroughly vetted to 
account for the potential damage they could cause. During 
Subcommittee consideration of the bill, Members asked specific 
questions regarding the impact of these water supply projects 
on California water law. Majority Staff Counsel responded ``. . 
. to the extent that the committee staff has any expertise, it 
is certainly not in the area of California water law . . . we 
are not competent in the area of California water law.'' 
Although Committee staff may not know California water law, 
those who do know the law have serious concerns regarding the 
impact of these provisions. We have heard from authorities 
around the state that they have numerous questions and concerns 
about what these provisions will mean for the quality and 
quantity of water for families throughout California. Water 
agencies from Los Angeles to the Central Valley, to the Delta 
are expressing reservations over the the American River water 
supply provisions.
    In the zero-sum game that is California water, due time and 
expertise must be considered before the actions authorized in 
this bill become law. Representative Tauscher, a Member of the 
Committee from California, sent letters to many of the 
stakeholders in the CAL/FED process asking for their input on 
the implications of the American River projects. Some of those 
stakeholders include the California State Water Resources 
Control Board, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the 
California Environmental Protection Agency, the California 
Department of Water Resources, the U.S. Department of the 
Interior, and the California Urban Water Users Association. We 
believe we must consider the findings of the experts and 
interest groups in California before we authorize these 
provisions.
    The American River water supply provisions can and very 
well may disrupt CAL/FED, as well as the Central Valley Project 
Improvement Act (CVPIA). These projects represent a major 
depletion of the Delta pool, which is the major focus of CAL/
FED's restoration efforts and the central hub of California's 
water distribution system. CAL/FED is attempting to develop a 
consensus-based statewide program to address statewide water 
issues, while the Sacramento River Forum is working to address 
regional issues. Yet we understand that neither of these group 
were contacted during the drafting of this legislation. And 
this is happening just when the future of California's water 
development seemed to have hope for success, and the water wars 
which have dominated California for nearly a century could 
finally be a thing of the past.
    These municipal water supply projects are also fiscally 
irresponsible. Although there is usually no federal cost-share 
for municipal water supply projects, these American River 
projects will receive a 65 percent federal cost-share. 
Typically, the cost of municipal water supply projects is fully 
reimbursed with interest for capital costs by local and state 
water users pursuant to the 1958 Water Supply Act. Of even 
greater concern is the fact that these municipal water supply 
projects would be transferred to local water districts free-of-
charge upon completion. In addition, the Department of Interior 
has already determined that there is no interest in further 
federal involvement in local water supply projects in the 
American River watershed. Also included in this proposal is a 
$100 million water supply project for San Joaquin County in 
California to extract additional water from the American River 
to the detriment of other water rights holders, despite the 
fact that San Joaquin County does not currently hold a contract 
for any such water. We should not be spending $65 million of 
theFederal taxpayers' dollars for a county which does not hold 
a right to water from the American River.
    Furthermore, these diversions will cause further damage to 
the fragile American River ecosystem--one of the few remaining 
free-flowing stretches of river in California and the western 
United States. Thousands of river rafters, hikers, and other 
recreationists enjoy the scenic beauty of this River, and 
efforts must be made to protect and preserve this vital section 
of America's wild heritage. This water supply grab will also 
make it more difficult to achieve the anadramous fish recovery 
goals of the CVPIA, and is also inconsistent with the State and 
Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Acts.
    We are adamantly opposed to any water supply provisions 
that obviate the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). H.R. 
1480 authorizes and directs the construction of these projects 
regardless of what the NEPA process concludes--making the 
environmental review process ineffective. No project-level 
federal feasibility study and review of the environmental and 
water supply impacts to other water users has been undertaken, 
and no environmental review of these projects has been 
initiated, let alone concluded, before Congressional 
deliberation on the authorization decision. Authorization 
before feasibility reports and environmental review violates 
authorization procedure policies established in the Reagan-era 
Water Resources Development Act of 1986.
    Finally, the carefully negotiated Sacramento Area Water 
Forum Action Plan regional water development plan draft 
environmental impact report (EIR) identified significant 
adverse impacts to regional river and biological resources. The 
proposals in H.R. 1480 would authorize and direct dramatically 
larger and more environmentally destructive projects than 
envisioned in the regional water development plan which is 
still being produced.
    In California and nationwide, opponents to sections 581 and 
582 are lining up to express their concerns, including water 
agencies, taxpayer groups, environmentalists, agricultural 
interests, newspaper editorial boards, other stakeholders in 
the CAL/FED process, as well as California Governor Gray Davis, 
Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, many Members from 
the California Congressional Delegation, and the Clinton 
Administration. For all of these reasons, we strongly dissent 
from the Committee's decision to authorize the controversial 
and ill-conceived water supply projects on the American River.
    In conclusion, we believe that these two major flaws in the 
reported bill, both the inadequate flood protection for 
Sacramento and the American River water supply provisions, 
threaten swift passage of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1999. This legislation has been stalled for too long already 
over these controversial and ill-conceived provisions. It is 
time for the national interest to rise above party politics to 
enable us to pass a Water Resources Development Act that will 
better protect all of our communities, including the endangered 
inhabitants of the Sacramento floodplain.

                                   Jim Oberstar.
                                   James A. Traficant, Jr.
                                   Earl Blumenauer.
                                   Bob Filner.
                                   Bob Borski.
                                   Bob Wise.
                                   Bob Clement.
                                   Eleanor H. Norton.
                                   Pat Danner.
                                   Corrine Brown.
                                   Eddie Bernice Johnson.
                                   Ellen Tauscher.
                                   Elijah E. Cummings.
                                   Bill Pascrell, Jr.
                                   Nick Rahall.
                                   William O. Lipinski.
                                   Peter A. DeFazio.
                                   Jerry F. Costello.
                                   Jerrold Nadler.
                                   Robert Menendez.
                                   Jim Barcia.
                                   Frank Mascara.
                                   Juanita Millender-McDonald.
                                   Leonard Boswell.
                                   Tim Holden.
                                   John Baldacci.
                                   Ronnie Shows.
                                   Shelley Berkley.
                                   Max Sardin.
                                   Jim P. McGovern.
                                   Nick Lampson.
                                   Marion Berry.
                                   Brian Baird.

                        Committee Correspondence

                          House of Representatives,
                                  Committee on Agriculture,
                                    Washington, DC, April 26, 1999.
Hon. Bud Shuster,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Rayburn House 
        Office Building, Washington, DC
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your April 26, 1999 letter 
regarding H.R. 1480, the Water Resources Development Act of 
1999, which was ordered reported by the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee on April 22, 1999.
    As you point out, section 501 of the bill does affect the 
Agriculture Committee's jurisdiction over the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service (NRCS) small watershed projects and 
activities of the Secretary of Agriculture relating to such 
projects.
    Recognizing the need to move this legislation to the House 
floor this week, I do not intend to seek a referral on H.R. 
1480. This agreement does not waive the Agriculture Committee's 
jurisdiction over any provision of H.R. 1480 or similar 
provisions in other bills. In addition, I ask that you support 
my request to have the Committee on Agriculture represented on 
the conference on this bill if a conference is necessary. 
Finally, I ask that you include this letter in the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure's bill report.
    Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
            Sincerely,
                                           Larry Combest, Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
                                    Washington, DC, April 26, 1999.
Hon. Larry Combest,
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Longworth House Office Building, 
        Washington, DC
    Dear Larry: Thank you for your expeditious review of H.R. 
1480, the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, and your 
Committee's willingness to be discharged from further 
consideration so as to help advance the bill to the House Floor 
as quickly as possible.
    Section 501 of H.R. 1480 includes two provisions that 
involve your Committee's jurisdiction over the Natural 
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and our shared 
jurisdiction over the NRCS's P.L. 566 small watershed program. 
Subsection (a) authorizes the Secretary of the Army to complete 
the NRCS's flood control project at Llagas Creek, California. 
Subsection (b) modifies the Thorton Reservoir project to 
include provisions affecting the NRCS small watershed project 
and activities of the Secretary of Agriculture.
    If a conference becomes necessary, I will support your 
request to be represented on the conference bill for those 
provisions falling within your jurisdiction. In addition, our 
letter will be included in the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure's report on the bill.
    I appreciate your cooperation and look forward to your 
continued support of H.R. 1480.
            Sincerely,
                                             Bud Shuster, Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                                    Committee on Resources,
                                     Washington, DC, 26 April 1999.
Hon. Bud Shuster,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: I have reviewed H.R. 1480, the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1999. This bill was originally 
referred to the Committee on Resources, based on provisions 
affecting fish and wildlife (including restoration, refuges and 
conservation), Bureau of Reclamation and other irrigation 
projects and facilities, water rights, marine affairs, use of 
Outer Continental Shelf sand and gravel resources, the National 
Environmental Policy Act, Everglades ecosystem restoration, 
Salton Sea restoration, sea lamprey control, wetlands, Indians, 
public land conveyances, and mine reclamation.
    Recognizing the importance of moving the bill along and 
that an opportunity for Floor deliberations exists this week, I 
will not object to releasing the Committee on Resources from 
further consideration of this measure. By waiving the time 
remaining on the Resources Committee's additional referral in 
this case does not waive our jurisdiction over any provision in 
H.R. 1480 or similar provisions in other bills. In addition, I 
ask that you support my request to have the Committee on 
Resources represented on the conference on this bill, if a 
conference is necessary. Finally, I ask that you include this 
letter in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure's 
bill report.
    I appreciate your leadership on this bill and I look 
forward to working with you again.
            Sincerely,
                                               Don Young, Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
            Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                    Washington, DC, April 26, 1999.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Resources, 1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC.
    Dear Don: Thank you for your expeditious review of H.R. 
1480, the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, and your 
Committee's willingness to be discharged from further 
consideration so as to help advance the bill to the House Floor 
as quickly as possible.
    Upon introduction, H.R. 1480 was referred to the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and, in addition, 
the Resources Committee. This referral of an Army Corps of 
Engineers water resources development bill should in no way 
establish a precedent for future referrals of water resources 
development bills to the Resources Committee. As you know, the 
reason for H.R. 1480's initial referral to your Committee was 
the inclusion of directives to the Secretary of the Interior 
and related provisions regarding water contracts and 
allocations relating to the American and Sacramento Rivers and 
Folsom Dam and Reservoir.
    As with previous water resources development bills, H.R. 
1480 also contains various other provisions of a jurisdictional 
interest to your Committee. Such areas include, but are not 
limited to, fisheries and wildlife, marine affairs and 
wetlands, mining, native American and Pacific territories 
responsibilities, the Endangered Species Act and the National 
Environment Policy Act.
    If a conference becomes necessary, I will support your 
request to be represented on the conference bill for those 
provisions falling within your jurisdiction. In addition, our 
letter will be included in the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure's report on the bill.
    I appreciate your cooperation and look forward to your 
continued support for H.R. 1480.
            Sincerely,
                                             Bud Shuster, Chairman.