--S.2796--
S.2796
One Hundred Sixth Congress
of the
United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,
the twenty-fourth day of January, two thousand
An Act
To provide for the conservation and development of water and related
resources, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to construct various projects
for improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and for other
purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) SHORT TITLE- This Act may be cited as the `Water Resources Development
Act of 2000'.
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definition of Secretary.
TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS
Sec. 101. Project authorizations.
Sec. 102. Small projects for flood damage reduction.
Sec. 103. Small projects for emergency streambank protection.
Sec. 104. Small projects for navigation.
Sec. 105. Small projects for improvement of the quality of the
environment.
Sec. 106. Small projects for aquatic ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 107. Small projects for shoreline protection.
Sec. 108. Small projects for snagging and sediment removal.
Sec. 109. Small project for mitigation of shore damage.
Sec. 110. Beneficial uses of dredged material.
Sec. 111. Disposal of dredged material on beaches.
Sec. 112. Petaluma River, Petaluma, California.
TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 201. Cooperation agreements with counties.
Sec. 202. Watershed and river basin assessments.
Sec. 203. Tribal partnership program.
Sec. 204. Ability to pay.
Sec. 205. Property protection program.
Sec. 206. National recreation reservation service.
Sec. 207. Interagency and international support authority.
Sec. 208. Reburial and conveyance authority.
Sec. 209. Floodplain management requirements.
Sec. 210. Nonprofit entities.
Sec. 211. Performance of specialized or technical services.
Sec. 212. Hydroelectric power project funding.
Sec. 213. Assistance programs.
Sec. 214. Funding to process permits.
Sec. 215. Dredged material marketing and recycling.
Sec. 216. National academy of sciences study.
Sec. 217. Rehabilitation of Federal flood control levees.
Sec. 218. Maximum program expenditures for small flood control
projects.
Sec. 219. Engineering consulting services.
Sec. 220. Beach recreation.
Sec. 221. Design-build contracting.
Sec. 222. Enhanced public participation.
Sec. 224. Fish and wildlife mitigation.
Sec. 225. Feasibility studies and planning, engineering, and
design.
Sec. 226. Administrative costs of land conveyances.
Sec. 227. Flood mitigation and riverine restoration.
TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway Wildlife Mitigation Project,
Alabama and Mississippi.
Sec. 302. Nogales Wash and tributaries, Nogales, Arizona.
Sec. 303. Boydsville, Arkansas.
Sec. 304. White River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.
Sec. 305. Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel, California.
Sec. 306. Delaware River Mainstem and Channel Deepening, Delaware, New
Jersey, and Pennsylvania.
Sec. 307. Rehoboth Beach and Dewey Beach, Delaware.
Sec. 308. Fernandina Harbor, Florida.
Sec. 309. Gasparilla and Estero Islands, Florida.
Sec. 310. East Saint Louis and vicinity, Illinois.
Sec. 311. Kaskaskia River, Kaskaskia, Illinois.
Sec. 312. Waukegan Harbor, Illinois.
Sec. 313. Upper Des Plaines River and tributaries, Illinois.
Sec. 314. Cumberland, Kentucky.
Sec. 315. Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana.
Sec. 316. Red River Waterway, Louisiana.
Sec. 317. Thomaston Harbor, Georges River, Maine.
Sec. 318. Poplar Island, Maryland.
Sec. 319. William Jennings Randolph Lake, Maryland.
Sec. 320. Breckenridge, Minnesota.
Sec. 321. Duluth Harbor, Minnesota.
Sec. 322. Little Falls, Minnesota.
Sec. 323. New Madrid County, Missouri.
Sec. 324. Pemiscot County Harbor, Missouri.
Sec. 325. Fort Peck fish hatchery, Montana.
Sec. 326. Sagamore Creek, New Hampshire.
Sec. 327. Passaic River basin flood management, New Jersey.
Sec. 328. Times Beach Nature Preserve, Buffalo, New York.
Sec. 329. Rockaway Inlet to Norton Point, New York.
Sec. 330. Garrison Dam, North Dakota.
Sec. 331. Duck Creek, Ohio.
Sec. 332. John Day Pool, Oregon and Washington.
Sec. 333. Fox Point hurricane barrier, Providence, Rhode Island.
Sec. 334. Nonconnah Creek, Tennessee and Mississippi.
Sec. 335. San Antonio Channel, San Antonio, Texas.
Sec. 336. Buchanan and Dickenson Counties, Virginia.
Sec. 337. Buchanan, Dickenson, and Russell Counties, Virginia.
Sec. 338. Sandbridge Beach, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Sec. 339. Mount St. Helens, Washington.
Sec. 340. Lower Mud River, Milton, West Virginia.
Sec. 341. Fox River System, Wisconsin.
Sec. 342. Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration.
Sec. 343. Great Lakes dredging levels adjustment.
Sec. 344. Great Lakes remedial action plans and sediment
remediation.
Sec. 345. Treatment of dredged material from Long Island Sound.
Sec. 346. Declaration of nonnavigability for Lake Erie, New York.
Sec. 347. Project deauthorizations.
Sec. 348. Land conveyances.
Sec. 349. Project reauthorizations.
Sec. 350. Continuation of project authorizations.
Sec. 351. Water quality projects.
TITLE IV--STUDIES
Sec. 401. Studies of completed projects.
Sec. 402. Lower Mississippi River resource assessment.
Sec. 403. Upper Mississippi River basin sediment and nutrient
study.
Sec. 404. Upper Mississippi River comprehensive plan.
Sec. 405. Ohio River system.
Sec. 406. Baldwin County, Alabama.
Sec. 407. Bridgeport, Alabama.
Sec. 408. Arkansas River navigation system.
Sec. 409. Cache Creek basin, California.
Sec. 410. Estudillo Canal, San Leandro, California.
Sec. 411. Laguna Creek, Fremont, California.
Sec. 412. Lake Merritt, Oakland, California.
Sec. 413. Lancaster, California.
Sec. 414. Oceanside, California.
Sec. 415. San Jacinto watershed, California.
Sec. 416. Suisun Marsh, California.
Sec. 417. Delaware River watershed.
Sec. 418. Brevard County, Florida.
Sec. 419. Choctawhatchee River, Florida.
Sec. 420. Egmont Key, Florida.
Sec. 421. Upper Ocklawaha River and Apopka/Palatlakaha River basins,
Florida.
Sec. 422. Lake Allatoona watershed, Georgia.
Sec. 423. Boise River, Idaho.
Sec. 424. Wood River, Idaho.
Sec. 425. Chicago, Illinois.
Sec. 426. Chicago sanitary and ship canal system, Chicago,
Illinois.
Sec. 427. Long Lake, Indiana.
Sec. 428. Brush and Rock Creeks, Mission Hills and Fairway,
Kansas.
Sec. 429. Atchafalaya River, Bayous Chene, Boeuf, and Black,
Louisiana.
Sec. 430. Boeuf and Black, Louisiana.
Sec. 431. Iberia Port, Louisiana.
Sec. 432. Lake Pontchartrain Seawall, Louisiana.
Sec. 433. Lower Atchafalaya basin, Louisiana.
Sec. 434. St. John the Baptist Parish, Louisiana.
Sec. 435. South Louisiana.
Sec. 436. Portsmouth Harbor and Piscataqua River, Maine and New
Hampshire.
Sec. 437. Merrimack River basin, Massachusetts and New Hampshire.
Sec. 438. Wild Rice River, Minnesota.
Sec. 439. Port of Gulfport, Mississippi.
Sec. 440. Las Vegas Valley, Nevada.
Sec. 441. Upland disposal sites in New Hampshire.
Sec. 442. Southwest Valley, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Sec. 443. Buffalo Harbor, Buffalo, New York.
Sec. 444. Jamesville Reservoir, Onondaga County, New York.
Sec. 445. Bogue Banks, Carteret County, North Carolina.
Sec. 446. Duck Creek watershed, Ohio.
Sec. 448. Steubenville, Ohio.
Sec. 449. Grand Lake, Oklahoma.
Sec. 450. Columbia Slough, Oregon.
Sec. 451. Cliff Walk in Newport, Rhode Island.
Sec. 452. Quonset Point channel, Rhode Island.
Sec. 453. Dredged material disposal site, Rhode Island.
Sec. 454. Reedy River, Greenville, South Carolina.
Sec. 455. Chickamauga Lock and Dam, Tennessee.
Sec. 456. Germantown, Tennessee.
Sec. 457. Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec. 502. Restoration projects.
Sec. 503. Support of Army civil works program.
Sec. 504. Export of water from Great Lakes.
Sec. 505. Great Lakes tributary model.
Sec. 506. Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 507. New England water resources and ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 508. Visitors centers.
Sec. 509. CALFED Bay-Delta program assistance, California.
Sec. 510. Seward, Alaska.
Sec. 511. Clear Lake basin, California.
Sec. 512. Contra Costa Canal, Oakley and Knightsen, California.
Sec. 513. Huntington Beach, California.
Sec. 514. Mallard Slough, Pittsburg, California.
Sec. 515. Port Everglades, Florida.
Sec. 516. Lake Sidney Lanier, Georgia, home preservation.
Sec. 517. Ballard's Island, La Salle County, Illinois.
Sec. 518. Lake Michigan diversion, Illinois.
Sec. 519. Illinois River basin restoration.
Sec. 520. Koontz Lake, Indiana.
Sec. 521. West View Shores, Cecil County, Maryland.
Sec. 522. Muddy River, Brookline and Boston, Massachusetts.
Sec. 523. Soo Locks, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan.
Sec. 524. Minnesota dam safety.
Sec. 525. Bruce F. Vento Unit of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area
Wilderness, Minnesota.
Sec. 526. Duluth, Minnesota, alternative technology project.
Sec. 527. Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Sec. 528. Coastal Mississippi wetlands restoration projects.
Sec. 529. Las Vegas, Nevada.
Sec. 530. Urbanized peak flood management research, New Jersey.
Sec. 531. Nepperhan River, Yonkers, New York.
Sec. 532. Upper Mohawk River basin, New York.
Sec. 533. Flood damage reduction.
Sec. 534. Cuyahoga River, Ohio.
Sec. 535. Crowder Point, Crowder, Oklahoma.
Sec. 536. Lower Columbia River and Tillamook Bay ecosystem restoration,
Oregon and Washington.
Sec. 537. Access improvements, Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 538. Upper Susquehanna River basin, Pennsylvania and New
York.
Sec. 539. Charleston Harbor, South Carolina.
Sec. 540. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and South
Dakota terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration.
Sec. 541. Horn Lake Creek and tributaries, Tennessee and
Mississippi.
Sec. 542. Lake Champlain watershed, Vermont and New York.
Sec. 543. Vermont dams remediation.
Sec. 544. Puget Sound and adjacent waters restoration, Washington.
Sec. 545. Willapa Bay, Washington.
Sec. 546. Wynoochee Lake, Wynoochee River, Washington.
Sec. 547. Bluestone, West Virginia.
Sec. 548. Lesage/Greenbottom Swamp, West Virginia.
Sec. 549. Tug Fork River, West Virginia.
Sec. 550. Southern West Virginia.
Sec. 551. Surfside/Sunset and Newport Beach, California.
Sec. 552. Watershed management, restoration, and development.
Sec. 553. Maintenance of navigation channels.
Sec. 554. Hydrographic survey.
Sec. 555. Columbia River treaty fishing access.
Sec. 556. Release of use restriction.
TITLE VI--COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION
Sec. 601. Comprehensive Everglades restoration plan.
Sec. 602. Sense of Congress concerning Homestead Air Force Base.
TITLE VII--MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION, NORTH DAKOTA
Sec. 702. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 704. Missouri River Trust.
Sec. 705. Missouri River Task Force.
Sec. 706. Administration.
Sec. 707. Authorization of appropriations.
TITLE VIII--WILDLIFE REFUGE ENHANCEMENT
Sec. 804. Conveyance of cabin sites.
Sec. 805. Rights of nonparticipating lessees.
Sec. 806. Conveyance to third parties.
Sec. 807. Use of proceeds.
Sec. 808. Administrative costs.
Sec. 809. Revocation of withdrawals.
Sec. 810. Authorization of appropriations.
TITLE IX--MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION, SOUTH DAKOTA
Sec. 902. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 904. Missouri River Trust.
Sec. 905. Missouri River Task Force.
Sec. 906. Administration.
Sec. 907. Authorization of appropriations.
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SECRETARY.
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) BARNEGAT INLET TO LITTLE EGG INLET, NEW JERSEY- The project for
hurricane and storm damage reduction, Barnegat Inlet to Little Egg Inlet,
New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated July 26, 2000, at a total
cost of $51,203,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $33,282,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $17,921,000, and at an estimated average
annual cost of $1,751,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of
the project, with an estimated annual Federal cost of $1,138,000 and an
estimated annual non-Federal cost of $613,000.
(2) PORT OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY-
(A) IN GENERAL- The project for navigation, Port of New York and New
Jersey, New York and New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated
May 2, 2000, at a total cost of $1,781,234,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $743,954,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$1,037,280,000.
(i) IN GENERAL- The non-Federal share of the costs of the project
may be provided in cash or in the form of in-kind services or
materials.
(ii) CREDIT- The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share
of the cost of the project the cost of design and construction work
carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of execution of
a cooperation agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that
the work is integral to the project.
(b) PROJECTS SUBJECT TO FINAL 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 Chief of
Engineers if a favorable report of the Chief is completed not later than
December 31, 2000:
(1) FALSE PASS HARBOR, ALASKA- The project for navigation, False Pass
Harbor, Alaska, at a total cost of $15,552,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $9,374,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $6,178,000.
(2) UNALASKA HARBOR, ALASKA- The project for navigation, Unalaska
Harbor, Alaska, at a total cost of $20,000,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $12,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $8,000,000, except
that the date for completion of the favorable report of the Chief of
Engineers shall be December 31, 2001, instead of December 31, 2000.
(3) RIO DE FLAG, FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA- The project for flood damage
reduction, Rio de Flag, Flagstaff, Arizona, at a total cost of $24,072,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $15,576,000 and an estimated non-Federal
cost of $8,496,000.
(4) TRES RIOS, ARIZONA- The project for ecosystem restoration, Tres
Rios, Arizona, at a total cost of $99,320,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $62,755,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $36,565,000.
(5) LOS ANGELES HARBOR, CALIFORNIA- The project for navigation, Los
Angeles Harbor, California, at a total cost of $153,313,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $43,735,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$109,578,000.
(6) MURRIETA CREEK, CALIFORNIA- The project for flood damage reduction
and ecosystem restoration, Murrieta Creek, California, described as
alternative 6, based on the District Engineer's Murrieta Creek feasibility
report and environmental impact statement dated October 2000, at a total
cost of $89,846,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $25,556,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $64,290,000.
(7) PINE FLAT DAM, CALIFORNIA- The project for ecosystem restoration,
Pine Flat Dam, California, at a total cost of $34,000,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $22,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$12,000,000.
(8) SANTA BARBARA STREAMS, LOWER MISSION CREEK, CALIFORNIA- The project
for flood damage reduction, Santa Barbara streams, Lower Mission Creek,
California, at a total cost of $18,300,000, with an estimated Federal cost
of $9,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $9,100,000.
(9) UPPER NEWPORT BAY, CALIFORNIA- The project for ecosystem
restoration, Upper Newport Bay, California, at a total cost of $32,475,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $21,109,000 and an estimated non-Federal
cost of $11,366,000.
(10) WHITEWATER RIVER BASIN, CALIFORNIA- The project for flood damage
reduction, Whitewater River basin, California, at a total cost of
$28,900,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $18,800,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $10,100,000.
(11) DELAWARE COAST FROM CAPE HENLOPEN TO FENWICK ISLAND- The project
for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Delaware Coast from Cape Henlopen
to Fenwick Island, at a total cost of $5,633,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $3,661,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $1,972,000, and at
an estimated average annual cost of $920,000 for periodic nourishment over
the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated annual Federal cost of
$460,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of $460,000.
(12) PORT SUTTON, FLORIDA- The project for navigation, Port Sutton,
Florida, at a total cost of $7,600,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$4,900,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,700,000.
(13) BARBERS POINT HARBOR, HAWAII- The project for navigation, Barbers
Point Harbor, Hawaii, at a total cost of $30,003,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $18,524,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$11,479,000.
(14) JOHN MYERS LOCK AND DAM, INDIANA AND KENTUCKY- The project for
navigation, John Myers Lock and Dam, Indiana and Kentucky, at a total cost
of $181,700,000. The costs of construction of the project shall be paid 1/2
from amounts appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury and 1/2 from
amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
(15) GREENUP LOCK AND DAM, KENTUCKY AND OHIO- The project for
navigation, Greenup Lock and Dam, Kentucky and Ohio, at a total cost of
$175,500,000. The costs of construction of the project shall be paid 1/2
from amounts appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury and 1/2 from
amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
(16) OHIO RIVER, KENTUCKY, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA, AND
WEST VIRGINIA-
(A) IN GENERAL- Projects for ecosystem restoration, Ohio River
Mainstem, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West
Virginia, at a total cost of $307,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost
of $200,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$107,700,000.
(i) IN GENERAL- The non-Federal share of the costs of any project
under this paragraph may be provided in cash or in the form of in-kind
services or materials.
(ii) CREDIT- The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share
of the cost of a project under this paragraph the cost of design and
construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest before the
date of execution of a cooperation agreement for the project if the
Secretary determines that the work is integral to the
project.
(17) MORGANZA, LOUISIANA, TO GULF OF MEXICO-
(A) IN GENERAL- The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction,
Morganza, Louisiana, to the Gulf of Mexico, at a total cost of
$550,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $358,000,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $192,000,000.
(B) CREDIT- The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of
the cost of the project the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal
interest for interim flood protection after March 31, 1989, if the
Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project.
(18) MONARCH-CHESTERFIELD, MISSOURI- The project for flood damage
reduction, Monarch-Chesterfield, Missouri, at a total cost of $58,090,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $37,758,500 and an estimated non-Federal
cost of $20,331,500.
(19) ANTELOPE CREEK, LINCOLN, NEBRASKA- The project for flood damage
reduction, Antelope Creek, Lincoln, Nebraska, at a total cost of
$46,310,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $23,155,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $23,155,000.
(20) SAND CREEK WATERSHED, WAHOO, NEBRASKA- The project for ecosystem
restoration and flood damage reduction, Sand Creek watershed, Wahoo,
Nebraska, at a total cost of $29,840,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$16,870,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $12,970,000.
(21) WESTERN SARPY AND CLEAR CREEK, NEBRASKA- The project for flood
damage reduction, Western Sarpy and Clear Creek, Nebraska, at a total cost
of $15,643,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $9,518,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $6,125,000.
(22) RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, CLIFFWOOD BEACH, NEW JERSEY- The
project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook
Bay, Cliffwood Beach, New Jersey, at a total cost of $5,219,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $3,392,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$1,827,000, and at an estimated average annual cost of $110,000 for periodic
nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated annual
Federal cost of $55,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of
$55,000.
(23) RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, PORT MONMOUTH, NEW JERSEY- The
project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook
Bay, Port Monmouth, New Jersey, at a total cost of $32,064,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $20,842,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$11,222,000, and at an estimated average annual cost of $173,000 for
periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated
annual Federal cost of $86,500 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of
$86,500.
(24) DARE COUNTY BEACHES, NORTH CAROLINA- The project for hurricane and
storm damage reduction, Dare County beaches, North Carolina, at a total cost
of $71,674,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $46,588,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $25,086,000, and at an estimated average
annual cost of $34,990,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of
the project, with an estimated annual Federal cost of $17,495,000 and an
estimated annual non-Federal cost of $17,495,000.
(25) WOLF RIVER, MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE- The project for ecosystem
restoration, Wolf River, Memphis, Tennessee, at a total cost of $9,118,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $5,849,000 and an estimated non-Federal
cost of $3,269,000.
(26) DUWAMISH/GREEN, WASHINGTON- The project for ecosystem restoration,
Duwamish/Green, Washington, at a total cost of $112,860,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $73,360,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$39,500,000.
(27) STILLAGUMAISH RIVER BASIN, WASHINGTON- The project for ecosystem
restoration, Stillagumaish River basin, Washington, at a total cost of
$23,590,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $15,680,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $7,910,000.
(28) JACKSON HOLE, WYOMING-
(A) IN GENERAL- The project for ecosystem restoration, Jackson Hole,
Wyoming, at a total cost of $52,242,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$33,957,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $18,285,000.
(i) IN GENERAL- The non-Federal share of the costs of the project
may be provided in cash or in the form of in-kind services or
materials.
(ii) CREDIT- The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share
of the cost of the project the cost of design and construction work
carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of execution of
a cooperation agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that
the work is integral to the project.
SEC. 102. SMALL PROJECTS FOR FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION.
(a) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the
following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is
feasible, may carry out the project under section 205 of the Flood Control Act
of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s):
(1) BUFFALO ISLAND, ARKANSAS- Project for flood damage reduction,
Buffalo Island, Arkansas.
(2) ANAVERDE CREEK, PALMDALE, CALIFORNIA- Project for flood damage
reduction, Anaverde Creek, Palmdale, California.
(3) CASTAIC CREEK, OLD ROAD BRIDGE, SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA- Project
for flood damage reduction, Castaic Creek, Old Road bridge, Santa Clarita,
California.
(4) SANTA CLARA RIVER, OLD ROAD BRIDGE, SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA-
Project for flood damage reduction, Santa Clara River, Old Road bridge,
Santa Clarita, California.
(5) WEISER RIVER, IDAHO- Project for flood damage reduction, Weiser
River, Idaho.
(6) COLUMBIA LEVEE, COLUMBIA, ILLINOIS- Project for flood damage
reduction, Columbia Levee, Columbia, Illinois.
(7) EAST-WEST CREEK, RIVERTON, ILLINOIS- Project for flood damage
reduction, East-West Creek, Riverton, Illinois.
(8) PRAIRIE DU PONT, ILLINOIS- Project for flood damage reduction,
Prairie Du Pont, Illinois.
(9) MONROE COUNTY, ILLINOIS- Project for flood damage reduction, Monroe
County, Illinois.
(10) WILLOW CREEK, MEREDOSIA, ILLINOIS- Project for flood damage
reduction, Willow Creek, Meredosia, Illinois.
(11) DYKES BRANCH CHANNEL, LEAWOOD, KANSAS- Project for flood damage
reduction, Dykes Branch channel improvements, Leawood, Kansas.
(12) DYKES BRANCH TRIBUTARIES, LEAWOOD, KANSAS- Project for flood damage
reduction, Dykes Branch tributary improvements, Leawood, Kansas.
(13) KENTUCKY RIVER, FRANKFORT, KENTUCKY- Project for flood damage
reduction, Kentucky River, Frankfort, Kentucky.
(14) BAYOU TETE L'OURS, LOUISIANA- Project for flood damage reduction,
Bayou Tete L'Ours, Louisiana.
(15) BOSSIER CITY, LOUISIANA- Project for flood damage reduction, Red
Chute Bayou levee, Bossier City, Louisiana.
(16) BOSSIER PARISH, LOUISIANA- Project for flood damage reduction, Cane
Bend Subdivision, Bossier Parish, Louisiana.
(17) BRAITHWAITE PARK, LOUISIANA- Project for flood damage reduction,
Braithwaite Park, Louisiana.
(18) CROWN POINT, LOUISIANA- Project for flood damage reduction, Crown
Point, Louisiana.
(19) DONALDSONVILLE CANALS, LOUISIANA- Project for flood damage
reduction, Donaldsonville Canals, Louisiana.
(20) GOOSE BAYOU, LOUISIANA- Project for flood damage reduction, Goose
Bayou, Louisiana.
(21) GUMBY DAM, LOUISIANA- Project for flood damage reduction, Gumby
Dam, Richland Parish, Louisiana.
(22) HOPE CANAL, LOUISIANA- Project for flood damage reduction, Hope
Canal, Louisiana.
(23) JEAN LAFITTE, LOUISIANA- Project for flood damage reduction, Jean
Lafitte, Louisiana.
(24) LAKES MAUREPAS AND PONTCHARTRAIN CANALS, ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST
PARISH, LOUISIANA- Project for flood damage reduction, Lakes Maurepas and
Pontchartrain Canals, St. John the Baptist Parish, Louisiana.
(25) LOCKPORT TO LAROSE, LOUISIANA- Project for flood damage reduction,
Lockport to Larose, Louisiana.
(26) LOWER LAFITTE BASIN, LOUISIANA- Project for flood damage reduction,
Lower Lafitte basin, Louisiana.
(27) OAKVILLE TO LAREUSSITE, LOUISIANA- Project for flood damage
reduction, Oakville to LaReussite, Louisiana.
(28) PAILET BASIN, LOUISIANA- Project for flood damage reduction, Pailet
basin, Louisiana.
(29) POCHITOLAWA CREEK, LOUISIANA- Project for flood damage reduction,
Pochitolawa Creek, Louisiana.
(30) ROSETHORN BASIN, LOUISIANA- Project for flood damage reduction,
Rosethorn basin, Louisiana.
(31) SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA- Project for flood damage reduction, Twelve
Mile Bayou, Shreveport, Louisiana.
(32) STEPHENSVILLE, LOUISIANA- Project for flood damage reduction,
Stephensville, Louisiana.
(33) ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST PARISH, LOUISIANA- Project for flood damage
reduction, St. John the Baptist Parish, Louisiana.
(34) MAGBY CREEK AND VERNON BRANCH, MISSISSIPPI- Project for flood
damage reduction, Magby Creek and Vernon Branch, Lowndes County,
Mississippi.
(35) PENNSVILLE TOWNSHIP, SALEM COUNTY, NEW JERSEY- Project for flood
damage reduction, Pennsville Township, Salem County, New Jersey.
(36) HEMPSTEAD, NEW YORK- Project for flood damage reduction, Hempstead,
New York.
(37) HIGHLAND BROOK, HIGHLAND FALLS, NEW YORK- Project for flood damage
reduction, Highland Brook, Highland Falls, New York.
(38) LAFAYETTE TOWNSHIP, OHIO- Project for flood damage reduction,
Lafayette Township, Ohio.
(39) WEST LAFAYETTE, OHIO- Project for flood damage reduction, West
Lafayette, Ohio.
(40) BEAR CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, MEDFORD, OREGON- Project for flood
damage reduction, Bear Creek and tributaries, Medford, Oregon.
(41) DELAWARE CANAL AND BROCK CREEK, YARDLEY BOROUGH, PENNSYLVANIA-
Project for flood damage reduction, Delaware Canal and Brock Creek, Yardley
Borough, Pennsylvania.
(42) FRITZ LANDING, TENNESSEE- Project for flood damage reduction, Fritz
Landing, Tennessee.
(43) FIRST CREEK, FOUNTAIN CITY, KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE- Project for flood
damage reduction, First Creek, Fountain City, Knoxville, Tennessee.
(44) MISSISSIPPI RIVER, RIDGELY, TENNESSEE- Project for flood damage
reduction, Mississippi River, Ridgely, Tennessee.
(b) MAGPIE CREEK, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA- In formulating the
project for Magpie Creek, California, authorized by section 102(a)(4) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 281) to be carried out
under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), the
Secretary may consider benefits from the full utilization of existing
improvements at McClellan Air Force Base that would result from the project
after conversion of the base to civilian use.
SEC. 103. SMALL PROJECTS FOR EMERGENCY STREAMBANK
PROTECTION.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following projects
and, if the Secretary determines that a project is feasible, may carry out the
project under section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r):
(1) MAUMEE RIVER, FORT WAYNE, INDIANA- Project for emergency streambank
protection, Maumee River, Fort Wayne, Indiana.
(2) BAYOU DES GLAISES, LOUISIANA- Project for emergency streambank
protection, Bayou des Glaises (Lee Chatelain Road), Avoyelles Parish,
Louisiana.
(3) BAYOU PLAQUEMINE, LOUISIANA- Project for emergency streambank
protection, Highway 77, Bayou Plaquemine, Iberville Parish, Louisiana.
(4) BAYOU SORRELL, IBERVILLE PARISH, LOUISIANA- Project for emergency
streambank protection, Bayou Sorrell, Iberville Parish, Louisiana.
(5) HAMMOND, LOUISIANA- Project for emergency streambank protection,
Fagan Drive Bridge, Hammond, Louisiana.
(6) IBERVILLE PARISH, LOUISIANA- Project for emergency streambank
protection, Iberville Parish, Louisiana.
(7) LAKE ARTHUR, LOUISIANA- Project for emergency streambank protection,
Parish Road 120 at Lake Arthur, Louisiana.
(8) LAKE CHARLES, LOUISIANA- Project for emergency streambank
protection, Pithon Coulee, Lake Charles, Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana.
(9) LOGGY BAYOU, LOUISIANA- Project for emergency streambank protection,
Loggy Bayou, Bienville Parish, Louisiana.
(10) SCOTLANDVILLE BLUFF, LOUISIANA- Project for emergency streambank
protection, Scotlandville Bluff, East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana.
SEC. 104. SMALL PROJECTS FOR NAVIGATION.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following projects
and, if the Secretary determines that a project is feasible, may carry out the
project under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C.
577):
(1) WHITTIER, ALASKA- Project for navigation, Whittier, Alaska.
(2) CAPE CORAL SOUTH SPREADER WATERWAY, FLORIDA- Project for navigation,
Cape Coral South Spreader Waterway, Lee County, Florida.
(3) HOUMA NAVIGATION CANAL, LOUISIANA- Project for navigation, Houma
Navigation Canal, Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana.
(4) VIDALIA PORT, LOUISIANA- Project for navigation, Vidalia Port,
Louisiana.
(5) EAST TWO RIVERS, TOWER, MINNESOTA- Project for navigation, East Two
Rivers, Tower, Minnesota.
(6) ERIE BASIN MARINA, BUFFALO, NEW YORK- Project for navigation, Erie
Basin marina, Buffalo, New York.
(7) LAKE MICHIGAN, LAKESHORE STATE PARK, MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN- Project
for navigation, Lake Michigan, Lakeshore State Park, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin.
(8) SAXON HARBOR, FRANCIS, WISCONSIN- Project for navigation, Saxon
Harbor, Francis, Wisconsin.
SEC. 105. SMALL PROJECTS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE QUALITY OF THE
ENVIRONMENT.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following projects
and, if the Secretary determines that a project is appropriate, may carry out
the project under section 1135(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a(a)):
(1) NAHANT MARSH, DAVENPORT, IOWA- Project for improvement of the
quality of the environment, Nahant Marsh, Davenport, Iowa.
(2) BAYOU SAUVAGE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, LOUISIANA- Project for
improvement of the quality of the environment, Bayou Sauvage National
Wildlife Refuge, Orleans Parish, Louisiana.
(3) GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, BAYOU PLAQUEMINE, LOUISIANA- Project for
improvement of the quality of the environment, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway,
Bayou Plaquemine, Iberville Parish, Louisiana.
(4) GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, MILES 220 TO 222.5, LOUISIANA- Project
for improvement of the quality of the environment, Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway, miles 220 to 222.5, Vermilion Parish, Louisiana.
(5) GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, WEEKS BAY, LOUISIANA- Project for
improvement of the quality of the environment, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway,
Weeks Bay, Iberia Parish, Louisiana.
(6) LAKE FAUSSE POINT, LOUISIANA- Project for improvement of the quality
of the environment, Lake Fausse Point, Louisiana.
(7) LAKE PROVIDENCE, LOUISIANA- Project for improvement of the quality
of the environment, Old River, Lake Providence, Louisiana.
(8) NEW RIVER, LOUISIANA- Project for improvement of the quality of the
environment, New River, Ascension Parish, Louisiana.
(9) ERIE COUNTY, OHIO- Project for improvement of the quality of the
environment, Sheldon's Marsh State Nature Preserve, Erie County, Ohio.
(10) MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO- Project for improvement of the quality of
the environment, Dillon Reservoir watershed, Licking River, Muskingum
County, Ohio.
SEC. 106. SMALL PROJECTS FOR AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.
(a) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the
following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is
appropriate, may carry out the project under section 206 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330):
(1) ARKANSAS RIVER, PUEBLO, COLORADO- Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Arkansas River, Pueblo, Colorado.
(2) HAYDEN DIVERSION PROJECT, YAMPA RIVER, COLORADO- Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Hayden Diversion Project, Yampa River,
Colorado.
(3) LITTLE ECONLOCKHATCHEE RIVER BASIN, FLORIDA- Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Little Econlockhatchee River basin, Florida.
(4) LOXAHATCHEE SLOUGH, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA- Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Loxahatchee Slough, Palm Beach County, Florida.
(5) STEVENSON CREEK ESTUARY, FLORIDA- Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Stevenson Creek estuary, Florida.
(6) CHOUTEAU ISLAND, MADISON COUNTY, ILLINOIS- Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Chouteau Island, Madison County, Illinois.
(7) BRAUD BAYOU, LOUISIANA- Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration,
Braud Bayou, Spanish Lake, Ascension Parish, Louisiana.
(8) BURAS MARINA, LOUISIANA- Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration,
Buras Marina, Buras, Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana.
(9) COMITE RIVER, LOUISIANA- Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration,
Comite River at Hooper Road, Louisiana.
(10) DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 21-INCH PIPELINE CANAL, LOUISIANA- Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Department of Energy 21-inch Pipeline Canal,
St. Martin Parish, Louisiana.
(11) LAKE BORGNE, LOUISIANA- Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration,
southern shores of Lake Borgne, Louisiana.
(12) LAKE MARTIN, LOUISIANA- Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration,
Lake Martin, Louisiana.
(13) LULING, LOUISIANA- Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration,
Luling Oxidation Pond, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana.
(14) MANDEVILLE, LOUISIANA- Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration,
Mandeville, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana.
(15) ST. JAMES, LOUISIANA- Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration,
St. James, Louisiana.
(16) SAGINAW BAY, BAY CITY, MICHIGAN- Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Saginaw Bay, Bay City, Michigan.
(17) RAINWATER BASIN, NEBRASKA- Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Rainwater Basin, Nebraska.
(18) MINES FALLS PARK, NEW HAMPSHIRE- Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Mines Falls Park, New Hampshire.
(19) NORTH HAMPTON, NEW HAMPSHIRE- Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Little River Salt Marsh, North Hampton, New Hampshire.
(20) CAZENOVIA LAKE, MADISON COUNTY, NEW YORK- Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Cazenovia Lake, Madison County, New York, including
efforts to address aquatic invasive plant species.
(21) CHENANGO LAKE, CHENANGO COUNTY, NEW YORK- Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Chenango Lake, Chenango County, New York, including
efforts to address aquatic invasive plant species.
(22) EAGLE LAKE, NEW YORK- Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration,
Eagle Lake, Ticonderoga, New York.
(23) OSSINING, NEW YORK- Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration,
Ossining, New York.
(24) SARATOGA LAKE, NEW YORK- Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration,
Saratoga Lake, New York.
(25) SCHROON LAKE, NEW YORK- Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration,
Schroon Lake, New York.
(26) HIGHLAND COUNTY, OHIO- Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration,
Rocky Fork Lake, Clear Creek floodplain, Highland County, Ohio.
(27) HOCKING COUNTY, OHIO- Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration,
Long Hollow Mine, Hocking County, Ohio.
(28) MIDDLE CUYAHOGA RIVER, KENT, OHIO- Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Middle Cuyahoga River, Kent, Ohio.
(29) TUSCARAWAS COUNTY, OHIO- Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration,
Huff Run, Tuscarawas County, Ohio.
(30) DELTA PONDS, OREGON- Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration,
Delta Ponds, Oregon.
(31) CENTRAL AMAZON CREEK, EUGENE, OREGON- Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Central Amazon Creek, Eugene, Oregon.
(32) EUGENE MILLRACE, EUGENE, OREGON- Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Eugene Millrace, Eugene, Oregon.
(33) BEAR CREEK WATERSHED, MEDFORD, OREGON- Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Bear Creek watershed, Medford, Oregon.
(34) LONE PINE AND LAZY CREEKS, MEDFORD, OREGON- Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Lone Pine and Lazy Creeks, Medford, Oregon.
(35) ROSLYN LAKE, OREGON- Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration,
Roslyn Lake, Oregon.
(36) TULLYTOWN BOROUGH, PENNSYLVANIA- Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Tullytown Borough, Pennsylvania.
(b) SALMON RIVER, IDAHO- The Secretary may credit toward the non-Federal
share of the cost of the project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Salmon
River, Idaho, to be carried out under section 206 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330) the cost of work (consisting of
surveys, studies, and development of technical data) carried out by the
non-Federal interest if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to
the project.
SEC. 107. SMALL PROJECTS FOR SHORELINE PROTECTION.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following projects
and, if the Secretary determines that a project is feasible, may carry out the
project under section 3 of the Act entitled `An Act authorizing Federal
participation in the cost of protecting the shores of publicly owned
property', approved August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426g):
(1) LAKE PALOURDE, LOUISIANA- Project for beach restoration and
protection, Highway 70, Lake Palourde, St. Mary and St. Martin Parishes,
Louisiana.
(2) ST. BERNARD, LOUISIANA- Project for beach restoration and
protection, Bayou Road, St. Bernard, Louisiana.
(3) HUDSON RIVER, DUTCHESS COUNTY, NEW YORK- Project for beach
restoration and protection, Hudson River, Dutchess County, New York.
SEC. 108. SMALL PROJECTS FOR SNAGGING AND SEDIMENT REMOVAL.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following projects
and, if the Secretary determines that a project is feasible, the Secretary may
carry out the project under section 2 of the Flood Control Act of August 28,
1937 (33 U.S.C. 701g):
(1) SANGAMON RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, RIVERTON, ILLINOIS- Project for
removal of snags and clearing and straightening of channels for flood
control, Sangamon River and tributaries, Riverton, Illinois.
(2) BAYOU MANCHAC, LOUISIANA- Project for removal of snags and clearing
and straightening of channels for flood control, Bayou Manchac, Ascension
Parish, Louisiana.
(3) BLACK BAYOU AND HIPPOLYTE COULEE, LOUISIANA- Project for removal of
snags and clearing and straightening of channels for flood control, Black
Bayou and Hippolyte Coulee, Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana.
SEC. 109. SMALL PROJECT FOR MITIGATION OF SHORE DAMAGE.
The Secretary shall conduct a study of shore damage at Puget Island,
Columbia River, Washington, to determine if the damage is the result of the
project for navigation, Columbia River, Washington, authorized by the first
section of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act of June 13, 1902 (32
Stat. 369), and, if the Secretary determines that the damage is the result of
the project for navigation and that a project to mitigate the damage is
appropriate, the Secretary may carry out the project to mitigate the damage
under section 111 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 426i).
SEC. 110. BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL.
The Secretary may carry out the following projects under section 204 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326):
(1) HOUMA NAVIGATION CANAL, LOUISIANA- Project to make beneficial use of
dredged material from a Federal navigation project that includes barrier
island restoration at the Houma Navigation Canal, Terrebonne Parish,
Louisiana.
(2) MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET, MILE -3 TO MILE -9, LOUISIANA-
Project to make beneficial use of dredged material from a Federal navigation
project that includes dredging of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, mile -3
to mile -9, St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana.
(3) MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET, MILE 11 TO MILE 4, LOUISIANA- Project
to make beneficial use of dredged material from a Federal navigation project
that includes dredging of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, mile 11 to mile
4, St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana.
(4) PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA- Project to make beneficial use of
dredged material from a Federal navigation project that includes marsh
creation at the contained submarine maintenance dredge sediment trap,
Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana.
(5) ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MINNESOTA- Project to make beneficial use of
dredged material from a Federal navigation project in St. Louis County,
Minnesota.
(6) OTTAWA COUNTY, OHIO- Project to make beneficial use of dredged
material from a Federal navigation project to protect, restore, and create
aquatic and related habitat, East Harbor State Park, Ottawa County,
Ohio.
SEC. 111. DISPOSAL OF DREDGED MATERIAL ON BEACHES.
Section 217 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 294)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(f) FORT CANBY STATE PARK, BENSON BEACH, WASHINGTON- The Secretary may
design and construct a shore protection project at Fort Canby State Park,
Benson Beach, Washington, including beneficial use of dredged material from a
Federal navigation project under section 145 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C. 426j) or section 204 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326).'.
SEC. 112. PETALUMA RIVER, PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA.
(a) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall carry out the Petaluma River project,
at the city of Petaluma, Sonoma County, California, to provide a 100-year
level of flood protection to the city in accordance with the detailed project
report of the San Francisco District Engineer, dated March 1995, at a total
cost of $32,227,000.
(b) REIMBURSEMENT- The Secretary shall reimburse the non-Federal interest
for any project costs that the non-Federal interest has incurred in excess of
the non-Federal share of project costs, regardless of the date on which the
costs were incurred.
(c) COST SHARING- For purposes of reimbursement under subsection (b), cost
sharing for work performed on the project before the date of enactment of this
Act shall be determined in accordance with section 103(a) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(a)).
TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 201. COOPERATION AGREEMENTS WITH COUNTIES.
Section 221(a) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(a)) is
amended in the second sentence--
(1) by striking `State legislative';
(2) by striking `State constitutional' and inserting `constitutional';
and
(3) by inserting before the period at the end the following: `of the
State or a political subdivision of the State'.
SEC. 202. WATERSHED AND RIVER BASIN ASSESSMENTS.
Section 729 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat.
4164) is amended to read as follows:
`SEC. 729. WATERSHED AND RIVER BASIN ASSESSMENTS.
`(a) IN GENERAL- The Secretary may assess the water resources needs of
river basins and watersheds of the United States, including needs relating
to--
`(1) ecosystem protection and restoration;
`(2) flood damage reduction;
`(3) navigation and ports;
`(4) watershed protection;
`(6) drought preparedness.
`(b) COOPERATION- An assessment under subsection (a) shall be carried out
in cooperation and coordination with--
`(1) the Secretary of the Interior;
`(2) the Secretary of Agriculture;
`(3) the Secretary of Commerce;
`(4) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; and
`(5) the heads of other appropriate agencies.
`(c) CONSULTATION- In carrying out an assessment under subsection (a), the
Secretary shall consult with Federal, tribal, State, interstate, and local
governmental entities.
`(d) PRIORITY RIVER BASINS AND WATERSHEDS- In selecting river basins and
watersheds for assessment under this section, the Secretary shall give
priority to--
`(1) the Delaware River basin;
`(2) the Kentucky River basin;
`(3) the Potomac River basin;
`(4) the Susquehanna River basin; and
`(5) the Willamette River basin.
`(e) ACCEPTANCE OF CONTRIBUTIONS- In carrying out an assessment under
subsection (a), the Secretary may accept contributions, in cash or in kind,
from Federal, tribal, State, interstate, and local governmental entities to
the extent that the Secretary determines that the contributions will
facilitate completion of the assessment.
`(f) COST-SHARING REQUIREMENTS-
`(1) NON-FEDERAL SHARE- The non-Federal share of the costs of an
assessment carried out under this section shall be 50 percent.
`(A) IN GENERAL- Subject to subparagraph (B), the Secretary may credit
toward the non-Federal share of an assessment under this section the cost
of services, materials, supplies, or other in-kind contributions provided
by the non-Federal interests for the assessment.
`(B) MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF CREDIT- The credit under subparagraph (A) may
not exceed an amount equal to 25 percent of the costs of the
assessment.
`(g) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000.'.
SEC. 203. TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.
(a) DEFINITION OF INDIAN TRIBE- In this section, the term `Indian tribe'
has the meaning given the term in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination
and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b).
(1) IN GENERAL- In cooperation with Indian tribes and the heads of other
Federal agencies, the Secretary may study and determine the feasibility of
carrying out water resources development projects that--
(A) will substantially benefit Indian tribes; and
(B) are located primarily within Indian country (as defined in section
1151 of title 18, United States Code) or in proximity to Alaska Native
villages.
(2) MATTERS TO BE STUDIED- A study conducted under paragraph (1) may
address--
(A) projects for flood damage reduction, environmental restoration and
protection, and preservation of cultural and natural resources;
and
(B) such other projects as the Secretary, in cooperation with Indian
tribes and the heads of other Federal agencies, determines to be
appropriate.
(c) CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR-
(1) IN GENERAL- In recognition of the unique role of the Secretary of
the Interior concerning trust responsibilities with Indian tribes and in
recognition of mutual trust responsibilities, the Secretary shall consult
with the Secretary of the Interior concerning studies conducted under
subsection (b).
(2) INTEGRATION OF ACTIVITIES- The Secretary shall--
(A) integrate civil works activities of the Department of the Army
with activities of the Department of the Interior to avoid conflicts,
duplications of effort, or unanticipated adverse effects on Indian tribes;
and
(B) consider the authorities and programs of the Department of the
Interior and other Federal agencies in any recommendations concerning
carrying out projects studied under subsection (b).
(A) IN GENERAL- Any cost-sharing agreement for a study under
subsection (b) shall be subject to the ability of the non-Federal interest
to pay.
(B) USE OF PROCEDURES- The ability of a non-Federal interest to pay
shall be determined by the Secretary in accordance with procedures
established by the Secretary.
(2) CREDIT- The Secretary may credit toward the non-Federal share of the
costs of a study under subsection (b) the cost of services, studies,
supplies, or other in-kind contributions provided by the non-Federal
interest if the Secretary determines that the services, studies, supplies,
and other in-kind contributions will facilitate completion of the
study.
(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out subsection (b) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2002 through 2006, of which not more than $1,000,000 may be used with respect
to any 1 Indian tribe.
SEC. 204. ABILITY TO PAY.
Section 103(m) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
2213(m)) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting the
following:
`(1) IN GENERAL- Any cost-sharing agreement under this section for a
feasibility study, or for construction of an environmental protection and
restoration project, a flood control project, a project for navigation,
storm damage protection, shoreline erosion, hurricane protection, or
recreation, or an agricultural water supply project, shall be subject to the
ability of the non-Federal interest to pay.
`(2) CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES- The ability of a non-Federal interest to
pay shall be determined by the Secretary in accordance with criteria and
procedures in effect under paragraph (3) on the day before the date of
enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000; except that such
criteria and procedures shall be revised, and new criteria and procedures
shall be developed, not later than 180 days after such date of enactment to
reflect the requirements of such paragraph (3).'; and
(A) by inserting `and' after the semicolon at the end of subparagraph
(A)(ii);
(B) by striking subparagraph (B); and
(C) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (B).
SEC. 205. PROPERTY PROTECTION PROGRAM.
(a) IN GENERAL- The Secretary may carry out a program to reduce vandalism
and destruction of property at water resources development projects under the
jurisdiction of the Department of the Army.
(b) PROVISION OF REWARDS- In carrying out the program, the Secretary may
provide rewards (including cash rewards) to individuals who provide
information or evidence leading to the arrest and prosecution of individuals
causing damage to Federal property.
(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this section $500,000 for fiscal year 2001 and each
fiscal year thereafter.
SEC. 206. NATIONAL RECREATION RESERVATION SERVICE.
Notwithstanding section 611 of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999 (112 Stat. 2681-515), the Secretary may--
(1) participate in the National Recreation Reservation Service on an
interagency basis; and
(2) pay the Department of the Army's share of the activities required to
implement, operate, and maintain the Service.
SEC. 207. INTERAGENCY AND INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT AUTHORITY.
Section 234(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C.
2323a(d)) is amended--
(1) by striking the first sentence and inserting the following: `There
is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $250,000 for
fiscal year 2001 and each fiscal year thereafter.'; and
(2) in the second sentence by inserting `out' after `carry'.
SEC. 208. REBURIAL AND CONVEYANCE AUTHORITY.
(a) DEFINITION OF INDIAN TRIBE- In this section, the term `Indian tribe'
has the meaning given the term in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination
and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b).
(1) REBURIAL AREAS- In consultation with affected Indian tribes, the
Secretary may identify and set aside areas at civil works projects of the
Department of the Army that may be used to rebury Native American remains
that--
(A) have been discovered on project land; and
(B) have been rightfully claimed by a lineal descendant or Indian
tribe in accordance with applicable Federal law.
(2) REBURIAL- In consultation with and with the consent of the lineal
descendant or the affected Indian tribe, the Secretary may recover and
rebury, at Federal expense, the remains at the areas identified and set
aside under subsection (b)(1).
(c) CONVEYANCE AUTHORITY-
(1) IN GENERAL- Subject to paragraph (2), notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Secretary may convey to an Indian tribe for use as a
cemetery an area at a civil works project that is identified and set aside
by the Secretary under subsection (b)(1).
(2) RETENTION OF NECESSARY PROPERTY INTERESTS- In carrying out paragraph
(1), the Secretary shall retain any necessary right-of-way, easement, or
other property interest that the Secretary determines to be necessary to
carry out the authorized purposes of the project.
SEC. 209. FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS.
(a) IN GENERAL- Section 402(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (33 U.S.C. 701b-12(c)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence of paragraph (1) by striking `Within 6 months
after the date of the enactment of this subsection, the' and inserting
`The';
(2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3);
(3) by striking `Such guidelines shall address' and inserting the
following:
`(2) REQUIRED ELEMENTS- The guidelines developed under paragraph (1)
shall--
(4) in paragraph (2) (as designated by paragraph (3) of this
subsection)--
(A) by inserting `to be undertaken by non-Federal interests to' after
`policies';
(B) by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and';
and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
`(B) address those measures to be undertaken by non-Federal interests
to preserve the level of flood protection provided by a project to which
subsection (a) applies.'.
(b) APPLICABILITY- The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply to
any project or separable element of a project with respect to which the
Secretary and the non-Federal interest have not entered a project cooperation
agreement on or before the date of enactment of this Act.
(c) TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS- Section 402(b) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 701b-12(b)) is amended--
(1) in the subsection heading by striking `FLOOD PLAIN' and inserting
`FLOODPLAIN'; and
(2) in the first sentence by striking `flood plain' and inserting
`floodplain'.
SEC. 210. NONPROFIT ENTITIES.
(a) ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING- Section 312 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 1272) is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(g) NONPROFIT ENTITIES- Notwithstanding section 221 of the Flood Control
Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), for any project carried out under this
section, a non-Federal sponsor may include a nonprofit entity, with the
consent of the affected local government.'.
(b) LAKES PROGRAM- Section 602 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (100 Stat. 4148-4149) is amended by redesignating subsection (d) as
subsection (e) and by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
`(d) NONPROFIT ENTITIES- Notwithstanding section 221 of the Flood Control
Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), for any project carried out under this
section, a non-Federal interest may include a nonprofit entity with the
consent of the affected local government.'.
(c) PROJECT MODIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF ENVIRONMENT- Section 1135 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a) is amended by
redesignating subsections (g) and (h) as subsections (h) and (i),
respectively, and by inserting after subsection (f) the following:
`(g) NONPROFIT ENTITIES- Notwithstanding section 221 of the Flood Control
Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), a non-Federal sponsor for any project
carried out under this section may include a nonprofit entity, with the
consent of the affected local government.'.
SEC. 211. PERFORMANCE OF SPECIALIZED OR TECHNICAL SERVICES.
(a) DEFINITION OF STATE- In this section, the term `State' has the meaning
given the term in section 6501 of title 31, United States Code.
(b) AUTHORITY- The Corps of Engineers may provide specialized or technical
services to a Federal agency (other than an agency of the Department of
Defense) or a State or local government under section 6505 of title 31, United
States Code, only if the chief executive of the requesting entity submits to
the Secretary--
(1) a written request describing the scope of the services to be
performed and agreeing to reimburse the Corps for all costs associated with
the performance of the services; and
(2) a certification that includes adequate facts to establish that the
services requested are not reasonably and quickly available through ordinary
business channels.
(c) CORPS AGREEMENT TO PERFORM SERVICES- The Secretary, after receiving a
request described in subsection (b) to provide specialized or technical
services, shall, before entering into an agreement to perform the
services--
(1) ensure that the requirements of subsection (b) are met with regard
to the request for services; and
(2) execute a certification that includes adequate facts to establish
that the Corps is uniquely equipped to perform such services.
(d) ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS-
(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than the last day of each calendar year, the
Secretary shall provide 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 identifying any request
submitted by a Federal agency (other than an agency of the Department of
Defense) or a State or local government to the Corps to provide specialized
or technical services.
(2) CONTENTS OF REPORT- The report shall include, with respect to each
request described in paragraph (1)--
(A) a description of the scope of services requested;
(B) the certifications required under subsection (b) and (c);
(C) the status of the request;
(D) the estimated and final cost of the services;
(E) the status of reimbursement;
(F) a description of the scope of services performed; and
(G) copies of all certifications in support of the request.
SEC. 212. HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECT FUNDING.
Section 216 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C.
2321a) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a) by striking `In carrying out' and all that follows
through `(1) is' and inserting the following: `In carrying out the
operation, maintenance, rehabilitation, and modernization of a hydroelectric
power generating facility at a water resources project under the
jurisdiction of the Department of the Army, the Secretary may, to the extent
funds are made available in appropriations Acts or in accordance with
subsection (c), take such actions as are necessary to optimize the
efficiency of energy production or increase the capacity of the facility, or
both, if, after consulting with the heads of other appropriate Federal and
State agencies, the Secretary determines that such actions--
(2) in the first sentence of subsection (b) by striking `the proposed
uprating' and inserting `any proposed uprating';
(3) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (e); and
(4) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
`(c) USE OF FUNDS PROVIDED BY PREFERENCE CUSTOMERS- In carrying out this
section, the Secretary may accept and expend funds provided by preference
customers under Federal law relating to the marketing of power.
`(d) APPLICATION- This section does not apply to any facility of the
Department of the Army that is authorized to be funded under section 2406 of
the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (16 U.S.C. 839d-1).'.
SEC. 213. ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.
(a) CONSERVATION AND RECREATION MANAGEMENT- To further training and
educational opportunities at water resources development projects under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary, the Secretary may enter into cooperative
agreements with non-Federal public and nonprofit entities for services
relating to natural resources conservation or recreation management.
(b) RURAL COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE- In carrying out studies and projects under
the jurisdiction of the Secretary, the Secretary may enter into cooperative
agreements with multistate regional private nonprofit rural community
assistance entities for services, including water resource assessment,
community participation, planning, development, and management activities.
(c) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS- A cooperative agreement entered into under
this section shall not be considered to be, or treated as being, a cooperative
agreement to which chapter 63 of title 31, United States Code, applies.
SEC. 214. FUNDING TO PROCESS PERMITS.
(a) IN GENERAL- In fiscal years 2001 through 2003, the Secretary, after
public notice, may accept and expend funds contributed by non-Federal public
entities to expedite the evaluation of permits under the jurisdiction of the
Department of the Army.
(b) EFFECT ON PERMITTING- In carrying out this section, the Secretary
shall ensure that the use of funds accepted under subsection (a) will not
impact impartial decisionmaking with respect to permits, either substantively
or procedurally.
SEC. 215. DREDGED MATERIAL MARKETING AND RECYCLING.
(a) DREDGED MATERIAL MARKETING-
(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Secretary shall establish a program to allow the direct
marketing of dredged material to public agencies and private entities.
(2) LIMITATIONS- The Secretary shall not establish the program under
paragraph (1) unless the Secretary determines that the program is in the
interest of the United States and is economically justified, equitable, and
environmentally acceptable.
(3) REGIONAL RESPONSIBILITY- The program described in paragraph (1) may
authorize each of the 8 division offices of the Corps of Engineers to market
to public agencies and private entities any dredged material from projects
under the jurisdiction of the regional office. Any revenues generated from
any sale of dredged material to such entities shall be deposited in the
United States Treasury.
(4) REPORTS- Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, and annually thereafter for a period of 4 years, the Secretary shall
transmit to Congress a report on the program established under paragraph
(1).
(5) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this subsection $2,000,000 for each fiscal
year.
(b) DREDGED MATERIAL RECYCLING-
(1) PILOT PROGRAM- The Secretary shall conduct a pilot program to
provide incentives for the removal of dredged material from confined
disposal facilities associated with Corps of Engineer navigation projects
for the purpose of recycling the dredged material and extending the life of
the confined disposal facilities.
(2) REPORT- Not later than 90 days after the date of completion of the
pilot program, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the
results of the program.
(3) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this subsection $2,000,000, except that not to
exceed $1,000,000 may be expended with respect to any project.
SEC. 216. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES STUDY.
(a) DEFINITIONS- In this section, the following definitions apply:
(1) ACADEMY- The term `Academy' means the National Academy of
Sciences.
(2) METHOD- The term `method' means a method, model, assumption, or
other pertinent planning tool used in conducting an economic or
environmental analysis of a water resources project, including the
formulation of a feasibility report.
(3) FEASIBILITY REPORT- The term `feasibility report' means each
feasibility report, and each associated environmental impact statement and
mitigation plan, prepared by the Corps of Engineers for a water resources
project.
(4) WATER RESOURCES PROJECT- The term `water resources project' means a
project for navigation, a project for flood control, a project for hurricane
and storm damage reduction, a project for emergency streambank and shore
protection, a project for ecosystem restoration and protection, and a water
resources project of any other type carried out by the Corps of
Engineers.
(b) INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW OF PROJECTS-
(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Secretary shall contract with the Academy to study, and make
recommendations relating to, the independent peer review of feasibility
reports.
(2) STUDY ELEMENTS- In carrying out a contract under paragraph (1), the
Academy shall study the practicality and efficacy of the independent peer
review of the feasibility reports, including--
(A) the cost, time requirements, and other considerations relating to
the implementation of independent peer review; and
(B) objective criteria that may be used to determine the most
effective application of independent peer review to feasibility reports
for each type of water resources project.
(3) ACADEMY REPORT- Not later than 1 year after the date of a contract
under paragraph (1), the Academy shall submit to the Secretary, 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--
(A) the results of the study conducted under paragraphs (1) and (2);
and
(B) in light of the results of the study, specific recommendations, if
any, on a program for implementing independent peer review of feasibility
reports.
(4) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this subsection $1,000,000, to remain available
until expended.
(c) INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW OF METHODS FOR PROJECT ANALYSIS-
(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Secretary shall contract with the Academy to conduct a study
that includes--
(A) a review of state-of-the-art methods;
(B) a review of the methods currently used by the Secretary;
(C) a review of a sample of instances in which the Secretary has
applied the methods identified under subparagraph (B) in the analysis of
each type of water resources project; and
(D) a comparative evaluation of the basis and validity of
state-of-the-art methods identified under subparagraph (A) and the methods
identified under subparagraphs (B) and (C).
(2) ACADEMY REPORT- Not later than 1 year after the date of a contract
under paragraph (1), the Academy shall transmit to the Secretary, 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--
(A) the results of the study conducted under paragraph (1);
and
(B) in light of the results of the study, specific recommendations for
modifying any of the methods currently used by the Secretary for
conducting economic and environmental analyses of water resources
projects.
(3) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this subsection $2,000,000. Such sums shall remain
available until expended.
SEC. 217. REHABILITATION OF FEDERAL FLOOD CONTROL LEVEES.
Section 110(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat.
4622) is amended by striking `1992,' and all that follows through `1996' and
inserting `2001 through 2005'.
SEC. 218. MAXIMUM PROGRAM EXPENDITURES FOR SMALL FLOOD CONTROL
PROJECTS.
Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s) is amended
in the first sentence by striking `$40,000,000' and inserting
`$50,000,000'.
SEC. 219. ENGINEERING CONSULTING SERVICES.
In conducting a feasibility study for a water resources project, the
Secretary, to the maximum extent practicable, should not employ a person for
engineering and consulting services if the same person is also employed by the
non-Federal interest for such services unless there is only 1 qualified and
responsive bidder for such services.
SEC. 220. BEACH RECREATION.
Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Secretary shall develop and implement procedures to ensure that all of the
benefits of a beach restoration project, including those benefits attributable
to recreation, hurricane and storm damage reduction, and environmental
protection and restoration, are displayed in reports for such projects.
SEC. 221. DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACTING.
(a) PILOT PROGRAM- The Secretary may conduct a pilot program consisting of
not more than 5 authorized projects to test the design-build method of project
delivery on various authorized civil works projects of the Corps of Engineers,
including levees, pumping plants, revetments, dikes, dredging, weirs, dams,
retaining walls, generation facilities, mattress laying, recreation
facilities, and other water resources facilities.
(b) DESIGN-BUILD DEFINED- In this section, the term `design-build' means
an agreement between the Federal Government and a contractor that provides for
both the design and construction of a project by a single contract.
(c) REPORT- Not later than 4 years after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the results of the
pilot program.
SEC. 222. ENHANCED PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.
(a) IN GENERAL- Section 905 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(33 U.S.C. 2282) is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(e) ENHANCED PUBLIC PARTICIPATION-
`(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall establish procedures to enhance
public participation in the development of each feasibility study under
subsection (a), including, if appropriate, establishment of a stakeholder
advisory group to assist the Secretary with the development of the
study.
`(2) MEMBERSHIP- If the Secretary provides for the establishment of a
stakeholder advisory group under this subsection, the membership of the
advisory group shall include balanced representation of social, economic,
and environmental interest groups, and such members shall serve on a
voluntary, uncompensated basis.
`(3) LIMITATION- Procedures established under this subsection shall not
delay development of any feasibility study under subsection (a).'.
SEC. 223. MONITORING.
(a) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall conduct a monitoring program of the
economic and environmental results of up to 5 eligible projects selected by
the Secretary.
(b) DURATION- The monitoring of a project selected by the Secretary under
this section shall be for a period of not less than 12 years beginning on the
date of its selection.
(c) REPORTS- The Secretary shall transmit to Congress every 3 years a
report on the performance of each project selected under this section.
(d) ELIGIBLE PROJECT DEFINED- In this section, the term `eligible project'
means a water resources project, or separable element thereof--
(1) for which a contract for physical construction has not been awarded
before the date of enactment of this Act;
(2) that has a total cost of more than $25,000,000; and
(3)(A) that has as a benefit-to-cost ratio of less than 1.5 to 1;
or
(B) that has significant environmental benefits or significant
environmental mitigation components.
(e) COSTS- The cost of conducting monitoring under this section shall be a
Federal expense.
SEC. 224. FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION.
(a) DESIGN OF MITIGATION PROJECTS- Section 906(d) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(d)) is amended--
(1) by striking `(1)' and inserting `(A)';
(2) by striking `(2)' and inserting `(B)';
(3) by striking `(d) After the date of enactment of this Act,' and
inserting the following:
`(d) MITIGATION PLANS AS PART OF PROJECT PROPOSALS-
`(1) IN GENERAL- After November 17, 1986,';
(4) by adding at the end the following:
`(2) DESIGN OF MITIGATION PROJECTS- The Secretary shall design
mitigation projects to reflect contemporary understanding of the science of
mitigating the adverse environmental impacts of water resources projects.';
and
(5) by aligning the remainder of the text of paragraph (1) (as
designated by paragraph (3) of this subsection) with paragraph (2) (as added
by paragraph (4) of this subsection).
(b) CONCURRENT MITIGATION-
(A) IN GENERAL- The Comptroller General shall conduct an investigation
of the effectiveness of the concurrent mitigation requirements of section
906 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283). In
carrying out the investigation, the Comptroller General shall
determine--
(i) whether or not there are instances in which less than 50 percent
of required mitigation is completed before initiation of project
construction and the number of such instances; and
(ii) the extent to which mitigation projects restore natural
hydrologic conditions, restore native vegetation, and otherwise support
native fish and wildlife species.
(B) SPECIAL RULE- In carrying out subparagraph (A)(ii), the
Comptroller General shall--
(i) establish a panel of independent scientists, comprised of
individuals with expertise and experience in applicable scientific
disciplines, to assist the Comptroller General; and
(ii) assess methods used by the Corps of Engineers to monitor and
evaluate mitigation projects, and compare Corps of Engineers mitigation
project design, construction, monitoring, and evaluation practices with
those used in other publicly and privately financed mitigation
projects.
(2) REPORT- Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Comptroller General shall transmit to Congress a report on the
results of the investigation.
SEC. 225. FEASIBILITY STUDIES AND PLANNING, ENGINEERING, AND
DESIGN.
Section 105(a)(1)(E) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33
U.S.C. 2215(a)(1)(E)) is amended by striking `Not more than 1/2 of the' and
inserting `The'.
SEC. 226. ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS OF LAND CONVEYANCES.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the administrative costs
associated with the conveyance of property by the Secretary to a non-Federal
governmental or nonprofit entity shall be limited to the extent that the
Secretary determines that such limitation is necessary to complete the
conveyance based on the entity's ability to pay.
SEC. 227. FLOOD MITIGATION AND RIVERINE RESTORATION.
Section 212(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (33 U.S.C.
2332(e)) is amended--
(1) by striking `and' at the end of paragraph (22);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (23) and inserting `;
and'; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
`(25) Lester, St. Louis, East Savanna, and Floodwood Rivers, Duluth,
Minnesota;
`(26) Lower Hudson River and tributaries, New York;
`(27) Susquehanna River watershed, Bradford County, Pennsylvania;
and
`(28) Clear Creek, Harris, Galveston, and Brazoria Counties,
Texas.'.
TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS
SEC. 301. TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY WILDLIFE MITIGATION PROJECT,
ALABAMA AND MISSISSIPPI.
(a) IN GENERAL- The Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway Wildlife Mitigation
Project, Alabama and Mississippi, authorized by section 601(a) of Public Law
99-662 (100 Stat. 4138) is modified to authorize the Secretary to--
(1) remove the wildlife mitigation purpose designation from up to 3,000
acres of land as necessary over the life of the project from lands
originally acquired for water resource development projects included in the
Mitigation Project in accordance with the Report of the Chief of Engineers
dated August 31, 1985;
(2) sell or exchange such lands in accordance with subsection (c)(1) and
under such conditions as the Secretary determines to be necessary to protect
the interests of the United States, utilize such lands as the Secretary
determines to be appropriate in connection with development, operation,
maintenance, or modification of the water resource development projects, or
grant such other interests as the Secretary may determine to be reasonable
in the public interest; and
(3) acquire, in accordance with subsections (c) and (d), lands from
willing sellers to offset the removal of any lands from the Mitigation
Project for the purposes listed in subsection (a)(2) of this section.
(b) REMOVAL PROCESS- Beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the
locations of these lands to be removed will be determined at appropriate time
intervals at the discretion of the Secretary, in consultation with appropriate
Federal and State fish and wildlife agencies, to facilitate the operation of
the water resource development projects and to respond to regional needs
related to the project. Removals under this subsection shall be restricted to
Project Lands designated for mitigation and shall not include lands purchased
exclusively for mitigation purposes (known as Separable Mitigation Lands).
Parcel identification, removal, and sale may occur assuming acreage
acquisitions pursuant to subsection (d) are at least equal to the total
acreage of the lands removed.
(c) LANDS TO BE SOLD- (1) Lands to be sold or exchanged pursuant to
subsection (a)(2) shall be made available for related uses consistent with
other uses of the water resource development project lands (including port,
industry, transportation, recreation, and other regional needs for the
project).
(2) Any valuation of land sold or exchanged pursuant to this section shall
be at fair market value as determined by the Secretary.
(3) The Secretary is authorized to accept monetary consideration and to
use such funds without further appropriation to carry out subsection (a)(3).
All monetary considerations made available to the Secretary under subsection
(a)(2) from the sale of lands shall be used for and in support of acquisitions
pursuant to subsection (d). The Secretary is further authorized for purposes
of this section to purchase up to 1,000 acres from funds otherwise
available.
(d) CRITERIA FOR LAND TO BE ACQUIRED- The Secretary shall consult with the
appropriate Federal and State fish and wildlife agencies in selecting the
lands to be acquired pursuant to subsection (a)(3). In selecting the lands to
be acquired, bottomland hardwood and associated habitats will receive primary
consideration. The lands shall be adjacent to lands already in the Mitigation
Project unless otherwise agreed to by the Secretary and the fish and wildlife
agencies.
(e) DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITES- The Secretary shall utilize dredged
material disposal areas in such a manner as to maximize their reuse by
disposal and removal of dredged materials, in order to conserve undisturbed
disposal areas for wildlife habitat to the maximum extent practicable. Where
the habitat value loss due to reuse of disposal areas cannot be offset by the
reduced need for other unused disposal sites, the Secretary shall determine,
in consultation with Federal and State fish and wildlife agencies, and ensure
full mitigation for any habitat value lost as a result of such reuse.
(f) OTHER MITIGATION LANDS- The Secretary is also authorized to transfer
by lease, easement, license, or permit lands acquired for the Wildlife
Mitigation Project pursuant to section 601(a) of Public Law 99-662, in
consultation with Federal and State fish and wildlife agencies, when such
transfers are necessary to address transportation, utility, and related
activities. The Secretary shall ensure full mitigation for any wildlife
habitat value lost as a result of such sale or transfer. Habitat value
replacement requirements shall be determined by the Secretary in consultation
with the appropriate fish and wildlife agencies.
(g) REPEAL- Section 102 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992
(106 Stat. 4804) is amended by striking subsection (a).
SEC. 302. NOGALES WASH AND TRIBUTARIES, NOGALES, ARIZONA.
The project for flood control, Nogales Wash and tributaries, Nogales,
Arizona, authorized by section 101(a)(4) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4606), and modified by section 303 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3711), is further modified to
provide that the Federal share of the costs associated with addressing flood
control problems in Nogales, Arizona, arising from floodwater flows
originating in Mexico shall be 100 percent.
SEC. 303. BOYDSVILLE, ARKANSAS.
The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the
study to determine the feasibility of the reservoir and associated
improvements in the vicinity of Boydsville, Arkansas, authorized by section
402 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 322), not more
than $250,000 of the costs of the planning and engineering investigations
carried out by State and local agencies if the Secretary determines that the
investigations are integral to the study.
SEC. 304. WHITE RIVER BASIN, ARKANSAS AND MISSOURI.
(a) IN GENERAL- Subject to subsection (b), the project for flood control,
power generation, and other purposes at the White River Basin, Arkansas and
Missouri, authorized by section 4 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of June 28,
1938 (52 Stat. 1218), and modified by House Document 917, 76th Congress, 3d
Session, and House Document 290, 77th Congress, 1st Session, approved August
18, 1941, and House Document 499, 83d Congress, 2d Session, approved September
3, 1954, and by section 304 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
(110 Stat. 3711), is further modified to authorize the Secretary to provide
minimum flows necessary to sustain tail water trout fisheries by reallocating
the following recommended amounts of project storage:
(1) Beaver Lake, 1.5 feet.
(3) Bull Shoals Lake, 5 feet.
(4) Norfolk Lake, 3.5 feet.
(5) Greers Ferry Lake, 3 feet.
(1) IN GENERAL- No funds may be obligated to carry out work on the
modification under subsection (a) until the Chief of Engineers, through
completion of a final report, determines that the work is technically sound,
environmentally acceptable, and economically justified.
(2) TIMING- Not later than January 1, 2002, the Secretary shall transmit
to Congress the final report.
(3) CONTENTS- The final report shall include determinations concerning
whether--
(A) the modification under subsection (a) adversely affects other
authorized project purposes; and
(B) Federal costs will be incurred in connection with the
modification.
SEC. 305. SACRAMENTO DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CALIFORNIA.
The project for navigation, Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel,
California, authorized by section 202(a) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4092), is modified to authorize the Secretary to credit
toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the value of dredged
material from the project that is purchased by public agencies or nonprofit
entities for environmental restoration or other beneficial uses if the
Secretary determines that the use of such dredged material is technically
sound, environmentally acceptable, and economically justified.
SEC. 306. 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) and modified by
section 308 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 300), is
further modified to authorize the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal
share of the cost of the project under section 101(a)(2) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211(a)(2)) the costs incurred by
the non-Federal interests in providing additional capacity at dredged material
disposal areas, providing community access to the project (including such
disposal areas), and meeting applicable beautification requirements.
SEC. 307. REHOBOTH BEACH AND DEWEY BEACH, DELAWARE.
The project for storm damage reduction and shoreline protection, Rehoboth
Beach and Dewey Beach, Delaware, authorized by section 101(b)(6) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3667), is modified to authorize
the project to be carried out at a total cost of $13,997,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $9,098,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$4,899,000, and an estimated average annual cost of $1,320,000 for periodic
nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated annual
Federal cost of $858,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of
$462,000.
SEC. 308. FERNANDINA HARBOR, FLORIDA.
The project for navigation, Fernandina Harbor, Florida, authorized by the
first section of the Act entitled `An Act making appropriations for the
construction, repair, completion, and preservation of certain works on rivers
and harbors, and for other purposes', approved June 14, 1880 (21 Stat. 186),
is modified to authorize the Secretary to realign the access channel in the
vicinity of the Fernandina Beach Municipal Marina 100 feet to the west. The
cost of the realignment, including acquisition of lands, easements,
rights-of-way, and dredged material disposal areas and relocations, shall be a
non-Federal expense.
SEC. 309. GASPARILLA AND ESTERO ISLANDS, FLORIDA.
The project for shore protection, Gasparilla and Estero Island segments,
Lee County, Florida, authorized under section 201 of the Flood Control Act of
1965 (79 Stat. 1073) by Senate Resolution dated December 17, 1970, and by
House Resolution dated December 15, 1970, is modified to authorize the
Secretary to enter into an agreement with the non-Federal interest to carry
out the project in accordance with section 206 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 426i-1) if the Secretary determines that
the project is technically sound, environmentally acceptable, and economically
justified.
SEC. 310. EAST SAINT LOUIS AND VICINITY, ILLINOIS.
The project for flood protection, East Saint Louis and vicinity, Illinois
(East Side levee and sanitary district), authorized by section 204 of the
Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1082), is modified to include ecosystem
restoration as a project purpose.
SEC. 311. KASKASKIA RIVER, KASKASKIA, ILLINOIS.
The project for navigation, Kaskaskia River, Kaskaskia, Illinois,
authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1175),
is modified to include recreation as a project purpose.
SEC. 312. WAUKEGAN HARBOR, ILLINOIS.
The project for navigation, Waukegan Harbor, Illinois, authorized by the
first section of the Act entitled `An Act making appropriations for the
construction, repair, completion, and preservation of certain works on rivers
and harbors, and for other purposes', approved June 14, 1880 (21 Stat. 192),
is modified to authorize the Secretary to extend the upstream limit of the
project 275 feet to the north at a width of 375 feet if the Secretary
determines that the extension is feasible.
SEC. 313. UPPER DES PLAINES RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, ILLINOIS.
The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the
study to determine the feasibility of improvements to the upper Des Plaines
River and tributaries, phase 2, Illinois and Wisconsin, authorized by section
419 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 324), the cost
of work carried out by the non-Federal interests before the date of execution
of the study cost-sharing agreement if--
(1) the Secretary and the non-Federal interests enter into a
cost-sharing agreement for the study; and
(2) the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the
study.
SEC. 314. CUMBERLAND, KENTUCKY.
The Secretary shall initiate construction, using continuing contracts, of
the city of Cumberland, Kentucky, flood control project, authorized by section
202(a) of the Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act, 1981 (94 Stat.
1339), in accordance with option 4 in the detailed project report, dated
September 1998, as modified, to prevent losses from a flood equal in magnitude
to the April 1977 level by providing protection from the 100-year frequency
event and to share all costs in accordance with section 103 of Public Law
99-662, as amended.
SEC. 315. ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LOUISIANA.
(a) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding the report of the Chief of Engineers,
dated February 28, 1983, for the project for flood control, Atchafalaya Basin
Floodway System, Louisiana, authorized by section 601(a) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4142), which report refers to
recreational development in the Lower Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, the
Secretary--
(1) shall initiate, in collaboration with the State of Louisiana,
construction of the visitors center, authorized as part of the project, at
or near Lake End Park in Morgan City, Louisiana; and
(2) shall construct other recreational features, authorized as part of
the project, within, and in the vicinity of, the Lower Atchafalaya Basin
protection levees.
(b) AUTHORITIES- The Secretary shall carry out subsection (a) in
accordance with--
(1) the feasibility study for the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System,
Louisiana, dated January 1982; and
(2) the recreation cost-sharing requirements of section 103(c) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(c)).
SEC. 316. RED RIVER WATERWAY, LOUISIANA.
The project for mitigation of fish and wildlife losses, Red River
Waterway, Louisiana, authorized by section 601(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4142) and modified by section 4(h) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4016), section 102(p) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4613), and section
301(b)(7) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3710), is
further modified to authorize the purchase of mitigation land from willing
sellers in any of the parishes that comprise the Red River Waterway District,
consisting of Avoyelles, Bossier, Caddo, Grant, Natchitoches, Rapides, and Red
River Parishes.
SEC. 317. THOMASTON HARBOR, GEORGES RIVER, MAINE.
The project for navigation, Georges River, Maine (Thomaston Harbor),
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 3,
1896 (29 Stat. 215), is modified to redesignate the following portion of the
project as an anchorage area: The portion lying northwesterly of a line
commencing at point N86,946.770, E321,303.830 thence running northeasterly
about 203.67 feet to a point N86,994.750, E321,501.770.
SEC. 318. POPLAR ISLAND, MARYLAND.
(a) IN GENERAL- The project for the beneficial use of dredged material at
Poplar Island, Maryland, authorized by section 537 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3776), is modified--
(1) to provide that the non-Federal share of the cost of the project may
be provided in cash or in the form of in-kind services or materials;
and
(2) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of
the cost of a project the cost of design and construction work carried out
by the non-Federal interest before the date of execution of a cooperation
agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is
integral to the project.
(b) REDUCTION- The private sector performance goals for engineering work
of the Baltimore District of the Corps of Engineers shall be reduced by the
amount of the credit under subsection (a)(2).
SEC. 319. WILLIAM JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE, MARYLAND.
(a) IN GENERAL- The Secretary may provide design and construction
assistance for recreational facilities in the State of Maryland at the William
Jennings Randolph Lake (Bloomington Dam), Maryland and West Virginia, project
authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1182).
(b) NON-FEDERAL SHARE- The Secretary shall require the non-Federal
interest to provide 50 percent of the costs of designing and constructing the
recreational facilities under subsection (a).
SEC. 320. BRECKENRIDGE, MINNESOTA.
(a) IN GENERAL- The Secretary may complete the project for flood damage
reduction, Breckenridge, Minnesota, substantially in accordance with the
detailed project report dated September 2000, at a total cost of $21,000,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $13,650,000 and an estimated non-Federal
cost of $7,350,000.
(b) IN-KIND SERVICES- The non-Federal interest may provide its share of
project costs in cash or in the form of in-kind services or materials.
(c) CREDIT- The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the
cost of the project the cost of design and construction work carried out on
the project by the non-Federal interest before the date of the cooperation
agreement for the modified project or execution of a new cooperation agreement
for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the
project.
SEC. 321. DULUTH HARBOR, MINNESOTA.
The project for navigation, Duluth Harbor, Minnesota, carried out under
section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), is modified
to include the relocation of Scenic Highway 61, including any required bridge
construction.
SEC. 322. LITTLE FALLS, MINNESOTA.
The project for clearing, snagging, and sediment removal, East Bank of the
Mississippi River, Little Falls, Minnesota, authorized under section 3 of the
Act entitled `An Act authorizing the construction, repair, and preservation of
certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes', approved
March 2, 1945 (33 U.S.C. 603a), is modified to direct the Secretary to
construct the project substantially in accordance with the plans contained in
the feasibility report of the District Engineer, dated June 2000.
SEC. 323. NEW MADRID COUNTY, MISSOURI.
(a) IN GENERAL- The project for navigation, New Madrid County Harbor, New
Madrid County, Missouri, carried out under section 107 of the River and Harbor
Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), is authorized as described in the feasibility
report for the project, including both phase 1 and phase 2 of the project.
(b) CREDIT- The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the
cost of the project the costs of construction work for phase 1 of the project
carried out by the non-Federal interest if the Secretary determines that the
construction work is integral to the project.
SEC. 324. PEMISCOT COUNTY HARBOR, MISSOURI.
The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the
project for navigation, Pemiscot County Harbor, Missouri, carried out under
section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), the cost of
construction work carried out for the project after December 31, 1997, by the
non-Federal interest if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to
the project.
SEC. 325. FORT PECK FISH HATCHERY, MONTANA.
(a) FINDINGS- Congress finds that--
(1) Fort Peck Lake, Montana, is in need of a multispecies fish
hatchery;
(2) the burden of carrying out efforts to raise and stock fish species
in Fort Peck Lake has been disproportionately borne by the State of Montana
despite the existence of a Federal project at Fort Peck Lake;
(3)(A) as of the date of enactment of this Act, eastern Montana has only
1 warm water fish hatchery, which is inadequate to meet the demands of the
region; and
(B) a disease or infrastructure failure at that hatchery could imperil
fish populations throughout the region;
(4) although the multipurpose project at Fort Peck, Montana, authorized
by the first section of the Act of August 30, 1935 (49 Stat. 1034, chapter
831), was intended to include irrigation projects and other activities
designed to promote economic growth, many of those projects were never
completed, to the detriment of the local communities flooded by the Fort
Peck Dam;
(5) the process of developing an environmental impact statement for the
update of the Corps of Engineers Master Manual for the operation of the
Missouri River recognized the need for greater support of recreation
activities and other authorized purposes of the Fort Peck project;
(6)(A) although fish stocking is included among the authorized purposes
of the Fort Peck project, the State of Montana has funded the stocking of
Fort Peck Lake since 1947; and
(B) the obligation to fund the stocking constitutes an undue burden on
the State; and
(7) a viable multispecies fishery would spur economic development in the
region.
(b) PURPOSES- The purposes of this section are--
(1) to authorize and provide funding for the design and construction of
a multispecies fish hatchery at Fort Peck Lake, Montana; and
(2) to ensure stable operation and maintenance of the fish
hatchery.
(c) DEFINITIONS- In this section, the following definitions apply:
(1) FORT PECK LAKE- The term `Fort Peck Lake' means the reservoir
created by the damming of the upper Missouri River in northeastern
Montana.
(2) HATCHERY PROJECT- The term `hatchery project' means the project
authorized by subsection (d).
(d) AUTHORIZATION- The Secretary shall carry out a project at Fort Peck
Lake, Montana, for the design and