U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

1

20–686

" ! SENATE 109TH CONGRESS

1st Session

REPORT

2005

109–61

Calendar No. 93

WATER RESOURCES

DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2005

REPORT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

UNITED STATES SENATE

TO ACCOMPANY

S. 728

TOGETHER WITH

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

APRIL 26, 2005.—Ordered to be printed
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

one hundred ninth congress

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio

LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana

JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont

MAX BAUCUS, Montana

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut

BARBARA BOXER, California

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey

BARACK OBAMA, Illinois

ANDREW WHEELER Majority Staff Director

KEN CONNOLLY, Minority Staff Director

(II)
iii

CONTENTS

Page

General statement ................................................................................................... 1

Water Resources Development Act of 2005 ........................................................... 2

Section-by-section analysis ...................................................................................... 2

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

Sec. 2. Definition of Secretary. ........................................................................ 3

TITLE I—WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

Sec. 1001. Project authorizations. ................................................................... 3

Sec. 1002. Enhanced navigation capacity improvements and ecosystem

restoration plan for the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway

System. .......................................................................................................... 19

Sec. 1003. Louisiana coastal area ecosystem restoration, Louisiana. .......... 23

Sec. 1004. Small projects for flood damage reduction. .................................. 26

Sec. 1005. Small projects for navigation. ........................................................ 26

Sec. 1006. Small projects for aquatic ecosystem restoration. ....................... 26

TITLE II—GENERAL PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—PROVISIONS

Sec. 2001. Credit for in-kind contributions. ................................................... 26

Sec. 2002. Interagency and international support authority. ....................... 27

Sec. 2003. Training funds. ............................................................................... 28

Sec. 2004. Recreational areas and project sites. ............................................ 28

Sec. 2005. Fiscal transparency report. ............................................................ 29

Sec. 2006. Planning. ......................................................................................... 30

Sec. 2007. Independent reviews. ..................................................................... 32

Sec. 2008. Mitigation for fish and wildlife losses. .......................................... 34

Sec. 2009. State technical assistance. ............................................................. 35

Sec. 2010. Access to water resource data. ...................................................... 35

Sec. 2011. Construction of flood control projects by non-Federal interests. 35

Sec. 2012. Regional sediment management. .................................................. 36

Sec. 2013. National shoreline erosion control development program. .......... 37

Sec. 2014. Shore protection projects. .............................................................. 38

Sec. 2015. Cost sharing for monitoring. .......................................................... 38

Sec. 2016. Ecosystem restoration benefits. ..................................................... 38

Sec. 2017. Funding to expedite the evaluation and processing of permits. . 39

Sec. 2018. Electronic submission of permit applications. .............................. 39

Sec. 2019. Improvement of water management at Corps of Engineers

reservoirs. ...................................................................................................... 39

Sec. 2020. Corps of Engineers hydropower operation and maintenance

funding. .......................................................................................................... 40

Sec. 2021. Federal hopper dredges. ................................................................. 40

Sec. 2022. Obstruction to navigation. ............................................................. 40

SUBTITLE B—CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROJECTS

Sec. 2031. Navigation enhancements for waterbourne transportation. ....... 40

Sec. 2032. Protection and restoration due to emergencies at shores and

streambanks. ................................................................................................. 41

Sec. 2033. Restoration of the environment for protection of aquatic and

riparian ecosystems program. ...................................................................... 41

Sec. 2034. Environmental modification of projects for improvement and

restoration of ecosystems program. ............................................................. 41

Sec. 2035. Projects to enhance estuaries and coastal habitats. .................... 41

Sec. 2036. Remediation of abandoned mine sites. ......................................... 41

Sec. 2037. Small projects for the rehabilitation or removal of dams. .......... 41
Page

iv

Sec. 2038. Remote, maritime-dependent communities. ................................. 41

Sec. 2039. Agreements for water resource projects. ...................................... 42

Sec. 2040. Program names. .............................................................................. 43

TITLE III—PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS

Sec. 3001. St. Herman and St. Paul Harbors, Kodiak, Alaska. .................... 43

Sec. 3002. Sitka, Alaska. .................................................................................. 43

Sec. 3003. Black Warrior-Tombigbee Rivers, Alabama. ................................ 43

Sec. 3004. Augusta and Clarendon, Arkansas. .............................................. 43

Sec. 3005. St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri. .................................. 44

Sec. 3006. St. Francis Basin land transfer, Arkansas and Missouri. ........... 44

Sec. 3007. Red-Ouachita River Basin levees, Arkansas and Louisiana. ...... 44

Sec. 3008. McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River navigation system, Arkansas

and Oklahoma. .............................................................................................. 44

Sec. 3009. Cache Creek Basin, California. ..................................................... 44

Sec. 3010. Hamilton Airfield, California. ........................................................ 45

Sec. 3011. LA–3 dredged material ocean disposal site designation, California. ............................................................................................................. 45

Sec. 3012. Larkspur Ferry Channel, California. ............................................ 45

Sec. 3013. Llagas Creek, California. ............................................................... 45

Sec. 3014. Los Angeles Harbor, California. .................................................... 45

Sec. 3015. Magpie Creek, California. .............................................................. 45

Sec. 3016. Pine Flat Dam fish and wildlife habitat, California. ................... 46

Sec. 3017. Redwood City navigation project, California. ............................... 46

Sec. 3018. Sacramento and American Rivers flood control, California. ....... 46

Sec. 3019. Conditional declaration of nonnavigability, Port of San Francisco, California. ............................................................................................ 46

Sec. 3020. Salton Sea restoration, California. ................................................ 46

Sec. 3021. Upper Guadalupe River, California. ............................................. 47

Sec. 3022. Yuba River Basin project, California. ........................................... 47

Sec. 3023. Charles Hervey Townshend Breakwater, New Haven Harbor,

Connecticut. ................................................................................................... 47

Sec. 3024. Anchorage area, New London Harbor, Connecticut. ................... 47

Sec. 3025. Norwalk Harbor, Connecticut. ....................................................... 47

Sec. 3026. St. George’s Bridge, Delaware. ...................................................... 47

Sec. 3027. Christina River, Wilmington, Delaware. ...................................... 47

Sec. 3028. Additional program authority, comprehensive Everglades restoration, Florida. ........................................................................................... 48

Sec. 3029. Critical restoration projects, Everglades and south Florida

ecosystem restoration, Florida. .................................................................... 48

Sec. 3030. Jacksonville Harbor, Florida. ........................................................ 48

Sec. 3031. Lake Okeechobee and Hillsboro Aquifer pilot projects, comprehensive Everglades restoration, Florida. ............................................... 48

Sec. 3032. Lido Key, Sarasota County, Florida. ............................................. 49

Sec. 3033. Tampa Harbor, Cut B, Tampa, Florida. ....................................... 49

Sec. 3034. Allatoona Lake, Georgia. ............................................................... 49

Sec. 3035. Dworshak Reservoir improvements, Idaho. .................................. 49

Sec. 3036. Little Wood River, Gooding, Idaho. ............................................... 49

Sec. 3037. Port of Lewiston, Idaho. ................................................................. 50

Sec. 3038. Cache River Levee, Illinois. ........................................................... 50

Sec. 3039. Chicago, Illinois. ............................................................................. 50

Sec. 3040. Chicago River, Illinois. ................................................................... 50

Sec. 3041. Missouri and Illinois flood protection projects reconstruction

pilot program. ................................................................................................ 50

Sec. 3042. Spunky Bottom, Illinois. ................................................................ 51

Sec. 3043. Strawn Cemetery, John Redmond Lake, Kansas. ....................... 51

Sec. 3044. Harry S. Truman Reservoir, Milford, Kansas. ............................. 51

Sec. 3045. Ohio River, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania,

and West Virginia. ........................................................................................ 51

Sec. 3046. Public access, Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Louisiana. 51

Sec. 3047. Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana. ........................................... 52

Sec. 3048. Larose to Golden Meadow, Louisiana. .......................................... 52

Sec. 3049. East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana. ........................................... 52

Sec. 3050. Red River (J. Bennett Johnston) Waterway, Louisiana. ............. 52

Sec. 3051. Camp Ellis, Saco, Maine. ............................................................... 52

Sec. 3052. Union River, Maine. ....................................................................... 52

Sec. 3053. Chesapeake Bay environmental restoration and protection program, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. ........................................... 53
Page

v

Sec. 3054. Cumberland, Maryland. ................................................................. 53

Sec. 3055. Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts and Rhode Island. ................. 53

Sec. 3056. St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair, Michigan. .............................. 53

Sec. 3057. Duluth Harbor, Minnesota. ........................................................... 54

Sec. 3058. Land exchange, Pike County, Missouri. ....................................... 54

Sec. 3059. Union Lake, Missouri. .................................................................... 54

Sec. 3060. Fort Peck Fish Hatchery, Montana. .............................................. 54

Sec. 3061. Yellowstone River and tributaries, Montana and North Dakota. ............................................................................................................... 54

Sec. 3062. Lower Truckee River, Mccarran Ranch, Nevada. ........................ 55

Sec. 3063. Middle Rio Grande restoration, New Mexico. .............................. 55

Sec. 3064. Long Island Sound oyster restoration, New York and Connecticut. ......................................................................................................... 55

Sec. 3065. Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York. ................................................ 55

Sec. 3066. New York Harbor, New York, New York. .................................... 55

Sec. 3067. Onondaga Lake, New York. ........................................................... 56

Sec. 3068. Missouri River restoration, North Dakota. .................................. 56

Sec. 3069. Lower Girard Lake Dam, Girard, Ohio. ....................................... 56

Sec. 3070. Toussaint River navigation project, Carroll Township, Ohio. ..... 56

Sec. 3071. Arcadia Lake, Oklahoma. .............................................................. 56

Sec. 3072. Oklahoma Lake demonstration, Oklahoma. ................................. 56

Sec. 3073. Waurika Lake, Oklahoma. ............................................................. 57

Sec. 3074. Lookout Point, Dexter Lake project, Lowell, Oregon. .................. 57

Sec. 3075. Upper Willamette River Watershed ecosystem restoration. ....... 57

Sec. 3076. Tioga Township, Pennsylvania. ..................................................... 57

Sec. 3077. Upper Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and New

York. ............................................................................................................... 57

Sec. 3078. Cooper River Bridge demolition, Charleston, South Carolina. ... 57

Sec. 3079. South Carolina Department of Commerce development proposal at Richard B. Russell Lake, South Carolina. .................................... 58

Sec. 3080. Missouri River restoration, South Dakota. ................................... 58

Sec. 3081. Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers enhancement project. .. 58

Sec. 3082. Anderson Creek, Jackson and Madison Counties, Tennessee. ... 58

Sec. 3083. Harris Fork Creek, Tennessee and Kentucky. ............................. 58

Sec. 3084. Nonconnah Weir, Memphis, Tennessee. ....................................... 59

Sec. 3085. Old Hickory Lock and Dam, Cumberland River, Tennessee. ..... 59

Sec. 3086. Sandy Creek, Jackson County, Tennessee. .................................. 59

Sec. 3087. Cedar Bayou, Texas. ....................................................................... 59

Sec. 3088. Freeport Harbor, Texas. ................................................................. 59

Sec. 3089. Harris County, Texas. .................................................................... 59

Sec. 3090. Dam remediation, Vermont. .......................................................... 60

Sec. 3091. Lake Champlain eurasian milfoil, water chestnut, and other

nonnative plant control, Vermont. ............................................................... 60

Sec. 3092. Upper Connecticut River Basin wetland restoration, Vermont

and New Hampshire. .................................................................................... 60

Sec. 3093. Upper Connecticut River Basin ecosystem restoration, Vermont

and New Hampshire. .................................................................................... 60

Sec. 3094. Lake Champlain Watershed, Vermont and New York. ............... 61

Sec. 3095. Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration, Virginia and Maryland. ..... 61

Sec. 3096. Tangier Island Seawall, Virginia. ................................................. 61

Sec. 3097. Erosion control, Puget Island, Wahkiakum County, Washington. ............................................................................................................ 61

Sec. 3098. Lower granite pool, Washington. .................................................. 61

Sec. 3099. Mcnary Lock and Dam, Mcnary National Wildlife Refuge,

Washington and Idaho. ................................................................................. 62

Sec. 3100. Snake River project, Washington and Idaho. ............................... 62

Sec. 3101. Marmet Lock, Kanawha River, West Virginia. ............................ 62

Sec. 3102. Lower Mud River, Milton, West Virginia. .................................... 62

Sec. 3103. Green Bay Harbor Project, Green Bay, Wisconsin. ..................... 62

Sec. 3104. Underwood Creek diversion facility project, Milwaukee County,

Wisconsin. ...................................................................................................... 63

Sec. 3105. Mississippi River headwaters reservoirs. ..................................... 63

Sec. 3106. Lower Mississippi River Museum and Riverfront Interpretive

Site. ................................................................................................................ 63

Sec. 3107. Pilot program, Middle Mississippi River. ..................................... 63

Sec. 3108. Upper Mississippi River system environmental management

program. ......................................................................................................... 63

Sec. 3109. Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem restoration program. .......... 63
Page

vi

Sec. 3110. Great Lakes remedial action plans and sediment remediation. . 64

Sec. 3111. Great Lakes tributary models. ...................................................... 64

TITLE IV—STUDIES

Sec. 4001. Eurasian milfoil. ............................................................................. 64

Sec. 4002. National port study. ....................................................................... 64

Sec. 4003. McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation Channel. ................ 65

Sec. 4004. Selenium study, Colorado. ............................................................. 65

Sec. 4005. Nicholas Canyon, Los Angeles, California. ................................... 65

Sec. 4006. Oceanside, California, shoreline special study. ............................ 65

Sec. 4007. Comprehensive flood protection project, St. Helena, California. 65

Sec. 4008. San Francisco Bay, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Sherman

Island, California. ......................................................................................... 65

Sec. 4009. South San Francisco Bay shoreline study, California. ................ 65

Sec. 4010. San Pablo Bay Watershed restoration, California. ...................... 66

Sec. 4011. Bubbly Creek, South Fork of South Branch, Chicago, Illinois. .. 66

Sec. 4012. Grand and Tiger Passes and Baptiste Collette Bayou, Louisiana. ............................................................................................................. 66

Sec. 4013. Lake Erie at Luna Pier, Michigan. ............................................... 66

Sec. 4014. Middle Bass Island State Park, Middle Bass Island, Ohio. ........ 66

Sec. 4015. Jasper County port facility study, South Carolina. ..................... 66

Sec. 4016. Lake Champlain Canal study, Vermont and New York. ............. 66

TITLE V—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 5001. Lakes program. ............................................................................... 67

Sec. 5002. Estuary restoration. ....................................................................... 67

Sec. 5003. Delmarva conservation corridor, Delaware and Maryland. ........ 69

Sec. 5004. Susquehanna, Delaware, and Potomac River Basins, Delaware,

Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. ...................................................... 69

Sec. 5005. Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal Barriers project,

Illinois. ........................................................................................................... 69

Sec. 5006. Rio Grande environmental management program, New Mexico. .................................................................................................................. 70

Sec. 5007. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and

Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration, South Dakota. .......................... 71

Sec. 5008. Connecticut River dams, Vermont. ............................................... 71

TITLE VI—PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS

Sec. 6001. Little Cove Creek, Glencoe, Alabama. .......................................... 71

Sec. 6002. Goleta and vicinity, California. ..................................................... 71

Sec. 6003. Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut. ................................................... 71

Sec. 6004. Bridgeport, Connecticut. ................................................................ 71

Sec. 6005. Hartford, Connecticut. .................................................................... 72

Sec. 6006. New Haven, Connecticut. ............................................................... 72

Sec. 6007. Inland waterway from Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay,

Part II, installation of fender protection for bridges, Delaware and

Maryland. ...................................................................................................... 72

Sec. 6008. Central and southern Florida, Everglades National Park, Florida. .................................................................................................................. 72

Sec. 6009. Shingle Creek Basin, Florida. ....................................................... 72

Sec. 6010. Brevoort, Indiana. ........................................................................... 72

Sec. 6011. Middle Wabash, Greenfield Bayou, Indiana. ............................... 72

Sec. 6012. Lake George, Hobart, Indiana. ...................................................... 72

Sec. 6013. Green Bay Levee and Drainage District No. 2, Iowa. ................. 72

Sec. 6014. Muscatine Harbor, Iowa. ............................................................... 73

Sec. 6015. Big South Fork National River and Recreational Area, Kentucky and Tennessee. .................................................................................... 73

Sec. 6016. Eagle Creek Lake, Kentucky. ........................................................ 73

Sec. 6017. Hazard, Kentucky. .......................................................................... 73

Sec. 6018. West Kentucky tributaries, Kentucky. ......................................... 73

Sec. 6019. Bayou Cocodrie and tributaries, Louisiana. ................................. 73

Sec. 6020. Bayou Lafourche and Lafourche Jump, Louisiana. ..................... 73

Sec. 6021. Eastern Rapides and South-Central Avoyelles Parishes, Louisiana. ............................................................................................................. 73

Sec. 6022. Fort Livingston, Grand Terre Island, Louisiana. ........................ 73

Sec. 6023. Gulf Intercoastal Waterway, Lake Borgne and Chef Menteur,

Louisiana. ...................................................................................................... 74
Page

vii

Sec. 6024. Red River Waterway, Shreveport, Louisiana to Daingerfield,

Texas. ............................................................................................................. 74

Sec. 6025. Casco Bay, Portland, Maine. ......................................................... 74

Sec. 6026. Northeast Harbor, Maine. .............................................................. 74

Sec. 6027. Penobscot River, Bangor, Maine. .................................................. 74

Sec. 6028. Saint John River Basin, Maine. .................................................... 74

Sec. 6029. Tenants Harbor, Maine. ................................................................. 74

Sec. 6030. Grand Haven Harbor, Michigan. ................................................... 74

Sec. 6031. Greenville Harbor, Mississippi. ..................................................... 74

Sec. 6032. Platte River flood and related streambank erosion control,

Nebraska. ....................................................................................................... 74

Sec. 6033. Epping, New Hampshire. ............................................................... 75

Sec. 6034. Manchester, New Hampshire. ....................................................... 75

Sec. 6035. New York Harbor and adjacent channels, Claremont Terminal,

Jersey City, New Jersey. .............................................................................. 75

Sec. 6036. Eisenhower and Snell Locks, New York. ...................................... 75

Sec. 6037. Olcott Harbor, Lake Ontario, New York. ..................................... 75

Sec. 6038. Outer Harbor, Buffalo, New York. ................................................ 75

Sec. 6039. Sugar Creek Basin, North Carolina and South Carolina. ........... 75

Sec. 6040. Cleveland Harbor 1958 Act, Ohio. ................................................ 75

Sec. 6041. Cleveland Harbor 1960 Act, Ohio. ................................................ 75

Sec. 6042. Cleveland Harbor, uncompleted portion of Cut #4, Ohio. ........... 76

Sec. 6043. Columbia River, Seafarers Memorial, Hammond, Oregon. ......... 76

Sec. 6044. Chartiers Creek, Cannonsburg (Houston Reach Unit 2b), Pennsylvania. ......................................................................................................... 76

Sec. 6045. Schuylkill River, Pennsylvania. .................................................... 76

Sec. 6046. Tioga-Hammond Lakes, Pennsylvania. ........................................ 76

Sec. 6047. Tamaqua, Pennsylvania. ................................................................ 76

Sec. 6048. Narragansett Town Beach, Narragansett, Rhode Island. ........... 76

Sec. 6049. Quonset Point-Davisville, Rhode Island. ...................................... 76

Sec. 6050. Arroyo Colorado, Texas. ................................................................. 76

Sec. 6051. Cypress Creek-Structural, Texas. ................................................. 76

Sec. 6052. East Fork Channel Improvement, Increment 2, east fork of

the Trinity River, Texas. .............................................................................. 77

Sec. 6053. Falfurrias, Texas. ........................................................................... 77

Sec. 6054. Pecan Bayou Lake, Texas. ............................................................. 77

Sec. 6055. Lake of the Pines, Texas. ............................................................... 77

Sec. 6056. Tennessee Colony Lake, Texas. ..................................................... 77

Sec. 6057. City Waterway, Tacoma, Washington. .......................................... 77

Sec. 6058. Kanawha River, Charleston, West Virginia. ................................ 77

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 77

Legislative history ................................................................................................... 78

Rollcall votes ............................................................................................................ 78

Mandates assessment .............................................................................................. 78

Evaluation of regulatory impact ............................................................................. 78

Cost of legislation .................................................................................................... 79

Additional views of Senators Jeffords, Baucus, Lieberman, Boxer, Clinton,

Carper, and Lautenberg ...................................................................................... 80

Additional views of Senators Jeffords, Lieberman, Boxer, Clinton, Carper,

Lautenberg, and Chafee ...................................................................................... 84

Changes in existing law .......................................................................................... 90

20–686

Calendar No. 93

109TH CONGRESS REPORT

1st Session " ! SENATE 109–61

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2005

APRIL 26, 2005.—Ordered to be printed

Mr. INHOFE, from the Committee on Environment and Public

Works, submitted the following

REPORT

[to accompany S. 728]

TOGETHER WITH

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

The Committee on Environment and Public Works, to which was

referred the bill (S. 728) 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, and

having considered the same, reports favorably thereon, and recommends that the bill, as amended, be reported and pass.

GENERAL STATEMENT

In 1986, a House-Senate Conference Committee produced a Conference Report (H. Rpt. 99–1013), which was passed by the House

and Senate and signed into law on November 17, 1986, that was

the largest and most comprehensive authorization of the Army

Corps’ Civil Works Program since the Senate Public Works Committee was created in 1947. The Water Resources Development Act

of 1986 marked the end of a 16-year deadlock between the Congress and executive branch regarding authorization of the civil

works program. In addition to authorizing numerous projects, the

1986 Act resolved longstanding disputes relating to cost sharing,

user fees, and environmental requirements.
2

Some of the major reforms included in the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 and subsequent legislation are listed below:

• Cost-sharing formulas were established for harbor dredging

(section 101), flood control (section 103), shoreline protection (section 103), stream bank erosion control (section 603), and other

projects. Project Cooperation Agreements were required for all such

projects. Projects for mitigation of fish and wildlife resources were

allowed to be carried out at up to 100 percent Federal expense

under section 906 and modification of Army Corps of Engineers

projects in the interest of environmental quality were authorized to

be carried out at 75 percent Federal expense under section 1135.

The Water Resources Development Act of 1996 extended harbor

cost sharing formulas to dredged material disposal facilities, increased the non-Federal cost share for flood control, and established cost sharing for environmental protection and restoration.

• The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, capitalized by a new

Harbor Maintenance Fee, was established to pay 40 percent of the

Federal cost of maintaining authorized deep draft navigation channels (sections 210, 1402, and 1403), and was subsequently increased to provide for 100 percent of the cost under the 1990 Water

Resources Development Act.

• These policy changes applied to all projects contained in the

Water Resources Development Acts of 1988 (Public Law 100–676);

1990 (Public Law 101–640); 1992 (Public Law 102–580); 1996 (Public Law 104–303); 1999 (Public Law 106–53); and 2000 (Public Law

106–541); and will continue to apply to all projects contained in the

Water Resources Development Act of 2005.

In reporting the Water Resources Development Act of 2005, the

committee is adhering to the policies established in the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99–662) and continued in

the civil works program of the Army Corps of Engineers. This bill

includes authorization for 37 new projects for navigation, flood and

coastal storm damage reduction, ecosystem restoration and environmental remediation, and water storage and water quality. This

bill limits contingent authorization of water resources projects to

those projects that will have final reports of the Chief of Engineers

in the same calendar year as the Water Resources Development

Act under consideration.

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2005

The Water Resources Development Act of 2005, reported by the

Committee on Environment and Public Works, resulting from consideration of S. 728, introduced on April 6, 2005, by Senator Bond,

for himself, Senators Inhofe, Vitter, Warner, Voinovich, Isakson,

Thune, Murkowski, Obama, Landrieu, Grassley, Harkin, Talent,

Cornyn, Cochran, Domenici, and Coleman, incorporates some of the

provisions as outlined below.

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title; table of contents.

This section designates the title of the bill as ‘‘The Water Resources Development Act of 2005’’ and lists the table of contents.
3

Sec. 2. Definition of Secretary.

This section defines the term ‘‘Secretary’’ for the purposes of the

Act as the Secretary of the Army.

TITLE I—WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

Sec. 1001. Project authorizations.

This section provides authority for the Secretary to carry out 35

projects for water resources development, conservation, and other

purposes substantially in accordance with the plans recommended

in the reports referenced in the bill language. Descriptions of the

projects are as follows:

(a) Projects with Chief’s Report.

Subsection (a) of section 1001 authorizes 27 projects to be carried

out by the Secretary substantially in accordance with the plan and

subject to the conditions recommended in a final report of the Chief

of Engineers.

(1) Akutan Harbor, Akutan, Alaska.

Location. Akutan, Aleutians East Borough, Alaska.

Purpose. Navigation.

Problem. There are currently no protected moorage facilities for

both large commercial fishing vessels and the local resident fleet.

Recommended Plan. The recommended plan consists of two

rubblemound breakwaters totaling 700 feet and dredging the entrance channel and the inner harbor area to create a 12-acre mooring basin.

Project Costs. Total Cost $12,200,000. Federal cost $9,800,000; non-Federal cost $2,400,000.

Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.8 to 1.

(2) Haines Small Boat Harbor, Haines, Alaska.

Location. Haines, Alaska.

Purpose. Navigation.

Problem. The existing harbor is inadequate in terms of size and

design to accommodate the needs of the existing demands of resident and transient users.

Recommended Plan. The recommended plan provides additional

protection to the existing 2.25-hectare mooring and maneuvering

basin and adds a new adjacent 6.60-hectare basin with an additional entrance channel.

Project Costs. Total Cost $12,200,000. Federal cost $9,700,000; non-Federal cost $2,500,000.

Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.2 to 1.

(3) Rillito River (El Rio Antiguo), Pima County, Arizona.

Location. Rillito River from Craycroft Rd. to Campbell Ave. on

the northern edge of the city of Tucson, Arizona.

Purpose. Ecosystem Restoration, recreation and incidental flood

damage reduction.

Problem. 90 percent of riparian areas have been lost due to impacts from urbanization. Riparian areas in the Southwest represent

only 1 percent of the landscape, yet the survival of 75 to 90 percent

of wildlife in the West is dependent on riparian areas. The riparian

areas of this reach of the Rillito have become severely degraded.
4

Recommended Plan. The plan consists of restoration of approximately 391 acres of riparian habitat, including 99 acres of Cottonwood/willow community, 116 acres of Mesquite Bosque, 62 acres of

riparian strand (desert wash), and 114 acres of seasonal cienega.

The project also will provide 8 water harvesting retention basins at

tributary confluences, terracing of approximately 4600 feet of soil

cement banks, irrigation, as well as a passive recreation plan consisting of 7.5 miles of multi-use trails, a pedestrian bridge, parking

lots, comfort stations and interpretive signs.

Project Costs. Total cost is $67,457,000. Federal cost $43,421,000;

non-Federal cost $24,036,000.

Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the plan is justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.

(4) Tanque Verde Creek Project, Pima County, Arizona.

Location. Pima County, Arizona.

Purpose. Flood Control and Habitat Preservation.

Problem. The project addresses erosion along an approximately

two-mile reach of Tanque Verde Creek immediately upstream of

Rillito River at its confluence with Pantano Wash, east of Tucson,

Arizona. This segment of Tanque Verde Creek (a tributary of the

Rillito River) has an average annual rate of bank erosion of 13 feet.

About 9,500 linear feet, located along four separate channel segments have previously been stabilized with soil cement to prevent

streambank erosion. Annual erosion damage caused by floodflows

is estimated as $714,100.

Recommended Plan. The recommended plan includes: (1) completing bank erosion control on the southern bank with the construction of two segments of which one is approximately 4,220 linear feet and the other 2,830 linear feet, (2) north bank erosion control (1,550 linear feet) protecting vulnerable public infrastructure

and 5,000 feet of modified bank protection along the mitigation preserve area, and (3) the establishment of a 48-acre riparian habitat

area for mitigation.

Project Costs. Total cost $4,978,000. Federal cost $3,236,000; nonFederal cost $1,742,000.

Benefit/Cost Ratio. 2.1 to 1.

(5) Salt River (Va Shlyay Akimel), Maricopa County, Arizona.

Location. Salt River between Granite Reef Dam and Price Freeway Bridge within the jurisdiction of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa

Indian Community and the city of Mesa.

Purpose. Ecosystem Restoration.

Problem. The primary problem is the severe degradation and loss

of riparian habitat along the Salt River since the early 20th century. The Salt River once flowed perennially and supported substantial growth of cottonwoods, willows, and mesquites. The river

channel carried abundant water that supported early irrigation

projects. Increasing appropriation of surface and groundwater to

support expansion of agriculture and growing urban populations resulted in the transformation of the Salt River to a dry river that

flows only ephemerally in response to storm runoff. As a result of

this change, stands of native riparian habitat are rare in the study

area, as they are throughout Maricopa County. The riparian areas

of this reach of the Salt River have become severely degraded.
5

Recommended Plan. The cost of the plan is justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.

Project Costs. Total cost is $138,968,000. Federal cost

$90,129,000; non-Federal cost $48,839,000.

Benefit/Cost Ratio. B/C ratio is not computed for restoration

projects; however, the cost of the recommended environmental restoration features would be justified by the restoration of about 1006

average annual functional capacity units and by achieving ecosystem function increases in the most cost effective manner.

(6) Hamilton City, California.

Location. Hamilton City, Glenn County, California.

Purpose. Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration.

Problem. The Hamilton City community has long been at risk of

flooding from the Sacramento River. Portions of Hamilton City and

the surrounding area were flooded in 1974, and extensive flood

fighting was necessary in 1983, 1986, 1995, 1997, and 1998 to

avoid failure of the existing private levee. Residents of the town

were evacuated six times in the past 20 years: 1983, 1986, twice

in 1995, 1997, and 1998. The existing levee does not meet U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers or any other levee construction standards

and could fail at river levels well below the top of the levee. In addition to the existing flood risk, native habitat and natural functions of the Sacramento River have been altered by construction of

the private levee and conversion of the floodplain to agricultural

and rural development.

Recommended Plan. The plan, as described in the Chief’s report

signed December 22, 2004, consists of construction of a levee, which

would be set back from the Sacramento River, and for the restoration of lands waterside of the setback levee. The recommended

multi-purpose plan focuses on reconnecting the Sacramento River

with a portion of its historic floodplain by removing the existing

levee. This would restore hydrologic functions of the floodplain

while providing flood damage reduction to the community and area

landside of the setback levee. The project area encompasses about

1,480 acres with a 6.8-mile setback levee that would begin about

2 miles north of the community. Implementation of this plan would

reduce potential flood damages and restore ecosystem functions

and values in the area by restoring fish and wildlife habitats. The

setback levee would provide 3 distinct levels of flood protection associated with three different average levee heights. The recommended plan includes removal of existing orchards in the project

area, and planting of native vegetation to restore native habitat

types that have become degraded along much of the Sacramento

River.

Project Costs. Total cost is $50,600,000. Federal cost $33,000,000;

non-Federal cost $17,600,000.

Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the plan is justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.

(7) Imperial Beach, California.

Location. Imperial Beach, San Diego County, California.

Purpose. Shore Protection.

Problem. There is a lack of adequate protection from winter

coastal storms for the Silver Shoreline, Imperial Beach, California.
6

The shoreline is eroding at a rate of 6 feet per year. Many private

and commercial properties along the shoreline are susceptible to

wave attack, inundation, and failure due to erosion during coastal

storm events.

Recommended Plan. This section modifies the project for beach

erosion, San Diego County California, authorized by section 101 of

the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 300) to authorize the

Secretary to carry out a shore protection project in accordance with

the Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 30, 2003. The

additional project consists of an initial beach fill of approximately

1.6 million cubic yards of sand. The placement will be 7,100 feet

long and 105 feet wide along the developed shorefront. Periodic

nourishment of approximately 1 million cubic yards of sand will

occur on average every 10 years over a 50-year period of Federal

participation for a total of four additional nourishments.

Project Costs. Total Cost $11,862,000. Federal cost $7,592,000;

non-Federal cost $4,270,000. Estimated total costs of $38,004,00 for

periodic nourishment over a period of 50 years, with an estimated

Federal cost of $19,002,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of

$19,002,000.

Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.7 to 1.

(8) Matilija Dam, Ventura County, California.

Location. Ventura River, Ventura County, California.

Purpose. Ecosystem Restoration.

Problem. Matilija Dam was constructed in 1948 as a water supply facility. The resulting reservoir has filled with sediment and

provides very little water storage; approximately 500 acre-feet, 7

percent of capacity, and decreasing. The Matilija Dam is an impediment for fish passage, no longer provides adequate water supply,

and negatively affects downstream and coastal sediment transport.

Arundo Donax, a non-native invasive plant, is prevalent throughout the river system reducing the quality of habitat for a number

of endangered, listed and other species.

Recommended Plan. The recommended plan includes dam removal to restore fish passage and sediment transport processes to

the river and beach. It also includes levees and floodwalls, bridge

modification, radial gates, a detention basin, land acquisition, sediment slurry lines and sediment placement, channel excavation upstream of current dam site, recreation features and removal of

invasive plant species.

Project Costs. Total cost $130,335,000. Federal cost $78,973,000;

non-Federal cost $51,362,000.

Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is justified

by the restoration of valuable habitat.

(9) Middle Creek, Lake County, California.

Location. Middle Creek, Lake County, California.

Purpose. Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration.

Problem. Considerable ecosystem degradation has taken place in

the area. Historically, the area was part of Clear Lake and consisted of tule marsh and open water. These wetlands were converted to agricultural fields during the last century. This has

caused loss of natural habitat, loss of ecosystem function, and degraded water quality. The area is subject to damages to structures
7

and agricultural lands from overflows from Rodman Slough. Although surrounded by levees, the area remains at risk from flooding from both Clear Lake and Rodman Slough because of levee settlement.

Recommended Plan. The plan is to reconnect the flood plain of

Middle Creek to the historic Robinson Lake wetland area by

breaching the existing levee system to create inlets that direct

flows into the area and providing flood damage reduction by relocating residents from the flood plain. Implementation of this plan

would result in 765 acres of wetlands, 230 acres of riparian, 405

acres of open water, and 250 acres of upland habitat. As part of

the authorization of this project and upon request of the governing

body of the Robinson Rancheria of Pomo Indians, the Secretary of

the Interior shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, accept the transfer from the tribe to the Secretary of the tribe’s interest in three parcels of land located adjacent to Clear Lake in Lake

County, California, and hold such lands in trust for the benefit of

the tribe. Such lands shall be deemed restored lands for the tribe.

Project Costs. Total cost $41,793,000. Federal Cost $27,256,000; non-Federal Cost $14,537,000.

Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the plan is justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.

(10) Napa River Salt Marsh, California.

Location. Napa, Sonoma, and Solano Counties, California.

Purpose. Ecosystem Restoration.

Problem. The San Francisco Bay Region is an extensive, complex

and diverse estuary that has lost approximately 90 percent of its

original tidal wetlands due to development over the past 150 years.

The degradation of fish and wildlife resources associated with the

loss of the Bay’s historic wetlands has resulted in several species

being listed as threatened or endangered. The project site, historically dominated by tidal salt marsh, was diked and converted to

hayfields approximately 150 years ago. In the early 1950’s, the

diked areas were converted to solar salt evaporation ponds. This

project will restore a portion of diked baylands to tidal action to

support endangered and special status species recovery, improve

water quality, and restore greater ecological balance to the San

Francisco Bay.

Recommended Plan. The recommended plan will use a system of

water control structures and levee breaches to reduce the salinity

of 11 former salt production ponds by using a combination of water

sources, including a recycled water pipeline, seasonal rainfall and

adjacent sloughs that will flow through the ponds and then be discharged to the Napa River and an adjacent slough. The recommended plan then relies on natural sediment processes and colonization by marsh vegetation to restore nearly 9,500 acres of tidal

ponds and managed ponds. Because the recycled water pipeline can

provide non-saline water at all times during the year, it will enable

pond desalinization to continue during the ‘‘dry season’’. Once the

ponds are desalinated, the pipeline will continue to provide water

to maintain the salinity levels in the managed ponds. Upon desalinization, the pipeline will be transferred from the Federal Government to the Sonoma County Water Agency at the fully depreciated pipeline value, less the non-Federal cost-share contribution
8

and less the estimated value of the water that will continue to be

provided for pond salinity maintenance purposes.

Project Costs. Total cost $100,500,000. Federal cost $64,000,000;

non-Federal cost $36,500,000.

Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is justified

by the restoration of valuable habitat.

(11) South Platte River, Denver, Colorado.

Location. Denver County Reach, South Platte River, Denver, Colorado.

Purpose. Environmental Restoration.

Problem. The City and County of Denver has accomplished much

toward restoring the environmental assets of Denver’s South Platte

River corridor. Only the Zuni to Sun Valley reach, which includes

the Zuni Power Plant and the Sun Valley housing development, remains in a severely degraded condition.

Recommended Plan. The recommended plan consists of removal

of a low head Fabridam; construction of a 250 cubic-feet-per-second,

low-flow channel; stripping vegetation; modification of overall channel banks; construction of a series of pool/riffle structures and diversion jetties; relocation of existing trails; relocation of utilities;

and complete revegetation of the project area with native species.

To allow continued operation of the existing Zuni Power Plant, construction of an infiltration gallery and purchase of water rights as

necessary are included as just compensation for removal of the

Fabridam.

Project Costs. Total cost $18,824,000. Federal cost $12,236,000;

non-Federal cost $6,588,000.

Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is justified

by the restoration of valuable habitat.

(12) Indian River Lagoon, South Florida.

Location. Martin, St Lucie and Okeechobee Counties, Florida.

Purpose. Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration.

Problem. The southern Indian River Lagoon estuary system has

been degraded by large and frequently occurring discharges of

freshwater, and by an excessive accumulation of muck in estuary

and lagoon bottoms. Together these stressors have reduced water

clarity and exceeded the salinity tolerances of submerged vegetation and benthic animals.

Recommended Plan. The recommended plan consists of 12,600

acres of new reservoirs for surface water storage, 8,700 acres of

storm-water treatment areas for water quality improvement,

7,900,000 cubic yards of muck removal, 92,000 acres of natural

water storage areas and 3,100 acres of floodplain wetlands. This

section also deauthorizes the C–44 storage reservoir identified in

the Comprehensive Review Study authorized for construction in

section 601 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000(114

Stat. 2680), the Martin County irrigation, flood control and backflow projects authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of

1968 (82 Stat. 740) and the East Coast Backpumping, St. LucieMartin County, Spillway Structure S–311, authorized by section

203 of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 740).

Project Costs. Total Cost $1,210,608,000. Federal cost

$605,304,000; non-Federal cost $605,304,000.
9

Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is justified

by the restoration of valuable habitat.

(13) East St. Louis and Vicinity, Illinois.

Location. East St. Louis and Vicinity, Illinois.

Purpose. Ecosystem Restoration.

Problem. The study area consisted of approximately 166 square

miles (about 105,000 acres). The area has historically experienced

the loss or serious degradation of the floodplain ecosystems and

widespread interior flooding. Many aquatic resources of national

and regional significance are found in the study area. Urban

growth in the study area has led to the increasing scarcity of

aquatic habitat.

Recommended Plan. The recommended plan is an extensive restoration of the ecosystem in the vicinity of East St. Louis, Illinois,

on the Mississippi River. The recommended plan will restore approximately 1,700 acres of bottomland forest habitat, 1,100 acres of

prairie wetland habitat, 840 acres of marsh and shrub swamp habitat, 460 acres of lake habitat, and 380 acres of riparian forest. In

addition, the recommended plan also includes restoration of 10.4

miles of floodplain stream, installation of 650 wood duck boxes and

870 prairie bird perches, improvement of 20 acres of lacustrine over

wintering and shoreline habitat, construction of 130 tributary sediment detention basins and riffle and pool complexes in 178 miles

of streams, 15.5 miles of earthen embankments, and associated

water control features (i.e., culverts, flap gates, and new channels).

All project features are located within the State of Illinois. Because

the recommended plan would not have any significant adverse effects, no mitigation measures (beyond management practices and

avoidance) or compensation measures are required.

Project Cost. Total cost $191,158,000. Federal cost $123,807,000;

non-Federal cost $67,351,000.

Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is justified

by the restoration of valuable habitat.

(14) Peoria Riverfront, Illinois.

Location. Illinois River, Tazewell and Peoria Counties, Illinois.

Purpose. Ecosystem Restoration.

Problem. Peoria Lake, the largest bottomland lake in the Illinois

River valley, reflects changes similar to other lakes. Since 1903, the

volume of Peoria Lake has decreased by approximately 61 percent.

This sedimentation has reduced many of the deeper, off-channel

parts of the lake from an estimated maximum of 8 feet to 1–2 feet

in recent years. These changes have transformed Peoria Lake into

a narrow navigation channel with bordering shallow water. The

loss of aquatic habitat due to sedimentation is viewed as the greatest threat to the Illinois River. The loss of lake depth and volume

has severely impacted off-channel overwintering, spawning, and

nursery habitats for fish. Shallow water areas are subject to wave

action that resuspends sediment, further limiting fish, aquatic

vegetation, macroinvertebrate, and mussel production.

Recommended Plan. The selected aquatic restoration plan in

Lower Peoria Lake includes off-channel dredging with island creation. It would result in the greatest restoration of depth diversity

of any of the plans proposed. Overall, lake habitat diversity would
10

increase through the addition of shoreline and terrestrial habitats

associated with the islands and aquatic structures. The dredged

area would provide critical backwater habitat and flowing side

channel habitat for fish and other aquatic species. The islands

would provide resting, nesting, and feeding areas for waterfowl and

shorebirds. In addition, the islands would reduce wind-and wakegenerated waves in the study area, helping to improve water quality by lowering turbidity levels.

Project Cost. Total cost $16,000,000. Federal cost $10,400,000; non-Federal cost $5,600,000.

Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is justified

by the restoration of valuable habitat.

(15) Bayou Sorrel Lock, Louisiana.

Location. Located in the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, about half

way up the Morgan City to Port Allen Alternate Route near Bayou

Sorrel, Iberville Parish, Louisiana.

Purpose. Navigation Project necessary to accommodate the Flood

Damage Reduction functionality of the FC, MR&T project.

Problem. Bayou Sorrel Lock is structurally sound; however, the

lock must be replaced for flood control purposes and is congested

due to increasing traffic and its restrictive dimensions. The improvements allocated to navigation need to be authorized subject to

applicable requirements of section 102 of WRDA 1986, as amended.

The modification of Bayou Sorrel Lock to safely pass the project

flood in the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway is a feature of the authorized MR&T project, and as such, no additional implementing authority is required.

Recommended Plan. The selected plan is a new 75-ft wide by

1,200-ft long replacement lock.

Project Costs. Total cost $9,000,000. Federal cost $4,500,000; nonFederal cost (from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund) $4,500,000.

Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1 to 1.

(16) Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico.

Location. Houma City, Terrebonne and Lafourche Parishes, Louisiana.

Purpose. Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction.

Problem. The area is significantly affected by tides emanating

from the Gulf of Mexico. Deterioration of coastal marshes, as a result of saltwater intrusion, land subsidence, and the lack of interchanges from the Mississippi River and Tributaries (MR&T) systems has increased storm surge inundation.

Recommended Plan. The recommended hurricane protection plan

consists of approximately 72-miles of earthen levee with 12 water

control structures to allow ebb and flow through the levee, 12 floodgate structures (proposed for the navigable waterways), and a lock

complex in the Houma Navigation Canal. The structural features

are integrated into the levee alignment to provide flood protection,

drainage, environmental benefit, and navigational passage.

Project Costs. Total cost $788,000,000. Federal cost $512,200,000;

non-Federal cost $275,800,000.

Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.7 to 1.

(17) Smith Island, Maryland.

Location. Smith Island, Chesapeake Bay, Maryland.
11

Purpose. Environmental Restoration.

Problem. Valuable wetland and submerged aquatic vegetation

(SAV) habitat is being destroyed and degraded by erosion. As the

landmasses that make up Smith Island erode, there is increased

wave and current action into shallow-water areas that were previously protected, quiescent, and suitable for SAV growth. The

eroded material also adds turbidity and nutrients to the water column that further inhibit SAV colonization and growth. Additionally, the landmasses themselves are extremely high quality emergent wetlands. These wetlands are even more valuable than most

since they are part of a remote island with little human disruption.

In its entirety, Smith Island has lost over 3,300 acres of wetlands

in the last 150 years, and, in the identified project areas alone, it

lost almost 2,400 acres of SAV between 1992 and 1998.

Recommended Plan. The recommended plan consists of constructing over 2 miles of off-shore segmented breakwaters to provide protection to over 2100 acres of wetlands and SAV habitats,

and reduction of sediment to the Chesapeake Bay.

Project Costs. Total cost $14,500,000. Federal cost $9,425,000;

non-Federal cost $5,075,000.

Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is justified

by the restoration of valuable habitat.

(18) Swope Park Industrial Area, Missouri.

Location. Blue River at the Swope Park Industrial Area, Kansas

City, Missouri.

Purpose. Flood Damage Reduction.

Problem. The Blue River flooded in 1961, 1977, 1984, and 1990.

The most severe floods occurred in 1961 and 1990. The May 1990

flood caused an estimated $1,000,000 in damages. If left without

protection in the current condition, the Swope Park Industrial Area

will be subjected to continuing damaging floods. Eventually, the

area will fall into decline as a viable industrial park and source of

employment.

Recommended Plan. The plan consists of construction of reinforced concrete floodwall and compacted earthen levee; construction

of an interior drainage system consisting of reinforced concrete pipe

and an interior storm water retention pond; construction of a rolling-gate closure at the existing 75th Street entrance to the industrial park; construction of a small park and trailhead; planting of

hardwood trees along the Blue River Parkway; and excavation for

a small wetland riverward of the levee at a location just upstream

of the Swope Park Industrial Area.

Project Costs. Total cost $15,683,000. Federal cost $10,194,000;

non-Federal cost $5,489,000.

Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.5 to 1.

(19) New Jersey Shore protection, Manasquan Inlet to Barnegat

Inlet, New Jersey.

Location. Atlantic Coast of New Jersey, Island Beach, Ocean

County, New Jersey.

Purpose. Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction.

Problem. Severe storms in recent years have caused a reduction

in the overall beach height and width along the study area. The

narrowing and lowering of the beaches and dunes along the study
12

area have reduced the storm protection that would have otherwise

been available. As a result, public and private property is subject

to damage from erosion, wave attack and tidal inundation. Some

storms have caused extensive damage and even loss of life, and

when evacuation was considered necessary, families have suffered

hardships and inconvenience.

Recommended Plan. The recommended plan consists of berm and

dune restoration using sand obtained from offshore borrow sources.

Periodic nourishment is expected to occur at 4-year intervals subsequent to completion of initial construction.

Project Costs. Total cost $64,872,000. Federal cost $42,168,000;

non-Federal cost $22,704,000. Estimated total costs of $107,990,000

for periodic nourishment over a period of 50 years, with an estimated Federal cost of $53,995,000 and an estimated non-Federal

cost of $53,995,000.

Benefit/Cost Ratio. 2.1 to 1.

(20) South River, New Jersey.

Location. South River, Boroughs of South River and Sayreville,

New Jersey.

Purpose. Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction and Ecosystem

Restoration.

Problem. The main problem affecting the area is flooding caused

by periodic hurricanes and other storms. Damages are primarily

due to storm surges and associated basin runoff, which subject

these areas to significant flooding. Significant degradation of wetlands and the surrounding ecosystem has occurred due to urbanization resulting in tidal flow restrictions and increased storm surge

inputs of excess water and sediments.

Recommended Plan. The recommended plan consists of a storm

surge barrier, two combined levees/floodwalls, and interior drainage facilities including pump stations and outlets. In addition, the

project will provide for the restoration of the structure and function

of 380 acres of degraded ecosystems, including wetlands and forest

habitats.

Project Costs. Total cost $112,623,000. Federal cost $73,205,000;

non-Federal cost $39,418,000.

Benefit/Cost Ratio. 2.2 to 1.

(21) Southwest Valley, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Location. Southwest Valley, Albuquerque, Bernalillo County,

New Mexico.

Purpose. Flood Damage Reduction.

Problem. Portions of the Southwest Valley are subject to flooding

from a variety of sources. The runoff from the West Mesa is largely

controlled by a series of dams, detention basins, and diversion

channels constructed by AMAFCA, Bernalillo County, and the city

of Albuquerque. Most of these facilities release controlled discharges directly or indirectly into Middle Rio Grande Conservancy

District (MRGCD) agricultural drainage facilities. Flood damages

occur when large floods overwhelm the capacity of these facilities,

or the capacity of the MRGCD drains or canals is exceeded.

Recommended Plan. The plan, as described in the Chief’s report

signed November 29, 2004, involves reduction of flood damages by

modifying existing features of the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy
13

District’s surface drain facilities. The recommended plan includes

utilizing existing easements, widening existing drains, and providing a gravity outfall to the Rio Grande with the opportunity for

wetland enhancement. Approximately 7.5 miles of existing 30-to

40-foot-wide drains would be enlarged to a width of 68 feet to store

and convey flood flows on the Isleta, Armijo, and Los Padillas

drains. New access roads and trails would be installed on each side

of these drains. Existing road crossings would be rehabilitated and/

or enlarged to facilitate the proposed improvements and additions

to the drainage system. A 25-acre detention pond would be constructed in an existing agricultural field situated east of the Isleta

Drain to detain a portion of flood flow during large storm events.

Two flood flow channels totaling approximately 1.5 miles would be

constructed to connect the Isleta drain to the Los Padillas drain

and then to the Rio Grande levee. New access roads 15 feet wide

would be placed on each side of these drains. Floodgates would be

built at the Rio Grande levee. An engineered outfall would continue

from the levee for approximately 700 feet through the floodplain to

the Rio Grande.

Project Costs. Total cost is $19,494,000. Federal cost $12,671,000; non-Federal cost $6,823,000.

Benefit/Cost Ratio. The flood damage reduction project provides

a benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.4.

(22) Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Corpus Christi, Texas.

Location. Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Corpus Christi, Texas.

Purpose. Navigation and Ecosystem Restoration.

Problem. The depth and width of the existing Federal navigation

channel system has become restrictive due to the increasing size of

vessels in operation in the world fleet. Beam width restrictions also

cause delays for larger ships wishing to enter Corpus Christi’s port

facilities.

Recommended Plan. The project consists of deepening the navigation channel from Viola Turning Basin to the end of the jetties in

the Gulf of Mexico (approximately 34 miles) to—52 feet mean low

tide (MLT); deepening of the remainder of the channel into the

Gulf of Mexico (approximately 2 miles) to—54 feet MLT; and widening of the Upper Bay and Lower Bay reaches (approximately 20

miles) to 530 feet. Deepening would be performed in all channel

reaches, including the Entrance Channel, Upper and Lower Bay

reaches, and the Inner Harbor. Construction of 200-foot wide, 12-

foot deep MLT barge shelves on both sides of the CCSC (approximately 10 miles). Construction of an extension to the La Quinta

Channel to—39 feet MLT. The channel would be extended approximately 1.4 miles beyond its current limit. The channel would measure 400 feet wide, and a second turning basin with a 1,200-foot radius would be constructed. The existing limits of the La Quinta

Channel would remain at their existing 45-foot depth. Construction

of two ecosystem restoration features, including construction of

rock breakwaters and geo-tubes to protect 1,200 acres of high quality marsh and 40 acres of seagrass. Both components are adjacent

to the CCSC in the Lower Bay reach of the channel.

Project Costs. Total cost $172,940,000. Federal cost $80,086,000;

non-Federal cost $92,854,000.

Benefit/Cost Ratio. 2.6 to 1.
14

(23) Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Brazos River to Port O’Connor,

Texas.

Location. Gulf Intracoastal Waterway through Matagorda Bay,

Texas.

Purpose. Inland Navigation.

Problem. The Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) through

Matagorda Bay is experiencing strong cross currents from the

interplay with the natural bay opening at Pass Cavallo and the

deep-draft Matagorda Ship Channel and its jettied entrance channel resulting in significant vessel delays, property damages, and

high waterway maintenance costs for the existing Matagorda Bay

reach of the GIWW.

Recommended Plan. The project consists of rerouting the existing

GIWW from mile markers 460 to 472 approximately 6,000 feet

north of and parallel to the existing channel. The channel will have

a depth of 12 feet and a bottom width of 125 feet, which is the

same as the existing channel. The project will make beneficial use

of dredged material to provide for the construction of approximately 135 acres of marsh at Palacios Point and 160 acres of

marsh near Port O’Connor, and to nourish beaches at Sundown Island, a National Audubon Society site, and the beach at Port

O’Connor.

Project Costs. Total cost $15,960,000. Federal cost $7,980,000;

non-Federal cost (from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund)

$7,890,000.

Benefit/Cost Ratio. 2.1 to 1.

(24) Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, High Island to Brazos River,

Texas.

Location. The project is located along the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) from mile 318 to 400, between High Island and the

Brazos River in Texas.

Purpose. Inland Navigation.

Problem. The Navigation Users have experienced problems along

the GIWW at Rollover Pass, Sievers Cove, the Texas City Wye, and

Greens Lake due to channel width and alignment restrictions, lack

of mooring facilities, high maintenance costs due to frequent dredging requirements and limitation on placement areas for dredged

material, and strong tidal current affects.

Recommended Plan. The plan consists of widening and realigning

reaches of the existing GIWW channel to allow maneuvering room

to alleviate the navigation restrictions.

Project Costs. Total cost $13,104,000. Federal cost $6,552,000;

non-Federal cost (from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund)

$6,552,000.

Benefit/Cost Ratio. 2.4 to 1.

(25) Riverside Oxbow, Fort Worth, Texas.

Location. Riverside Oxbow Trinity River, Fort Worth, Texas.

Purpose. Ecosystem Restoration.

Problem. The Riverside Oxbow and surrounding area has experienced both direct and indirect environmental degradation as a result of the construction and implementation of Benbrook Lake,

Eagle Mountain Lake, Lake Worth, the Fort Worth Floodway
15

project, and subsequent flood control projects and development activities.

Recommended Plan. The recommended plan consists of restoration of 512.2 acres of floodplain lands, approximately 2 miles of

Oxbow river channel, 56.5 acres of wetlands, and 112 acres of uplands. It also provides 25,700 feet of mixed surface linear recreation trails.

Project Costs. Total cost $25,200,000. Federal cost $10,400,000;

non-Federal cost $14,800,000.

Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is justified

by the restoration of valuable habitat.

(26) Deep Creek, Chesapeake, Virginia.

Location. Chesapeake, Virginia.

Purpose. Navigation (Bridge Replacement).

Problem. The bridge, constructed in 1934, is a federally owned

and operated facility and assists in navigation. The bridge passes

over the Dismal Swamp Canal where U.S. Route 17 crosses it. The

bridge is a two-lane low level swing bridge with several intersecting side streets, none of which meet today’s highway/bridge

standards. The bridge is considered obsolete.

Recommended Plan. Low-level, 5-lane, split leaf, pit bascule

bridge, with separate 2-lane and 3-lane leafs. The new bridge will

relieve heavy traffic congestion, correct poor alignments with connecting roads, and insure the required safety features are brought

up to standard. Further, the city of Chesapeake will assume ownership of the bridge.

Project Costs. Total cost $35,573,000. Federal cost $35,573,000;

non-Federal cost $0.

Benefit/Cost Ratio. 8.3 to 1.

(27) Chehalis River, Centralia, Washington.

Location. Chehalis River valley at the cities of Centralia and

Chehalis in Lewis County, Washington.

Purpose. Flood Damage Reduction.

Problem. The river valley has a broad meandering channel and

a mile-wide floodplain. The average annual rainfall is about 42

inches. Major floods occur during the October to March period from

heavy rainfall augmented by snowmelt runoff. The cities of

Centralia and Chehalis have been subject to repeated flooding for

many years. This flooding has caused extensive damage to private

and public property and periodic closure of critical transportation

routes resulting in significant economic losses.

Recommended Plan. The plan consists of construction of a levee

system along the Chehalis River from approximately river mile

(RM) 75 to RM 64 and along most of the lower 2 miles of both 46

Dillenbaugh Creek and Salzer Creek; construction of a levee along

the lower approximately 2 miles of Skookumchuck River to the confluence with Coffee Creek; modification to the existing

Skookumchuck Dam to add a short gated outlet tunnel to create

flood control storage; and raising in elevation approximately eight

structures that would incur induced damages from increased inundation as a result of the project. Unavoidable environmental impacts will include wetland and riparian habitat degradation and

destruction resulting in the loss of approximately 105 habitat units.
16

Mitigation for these losses will be accomplished through a combination of wetland creation, revegetation of riparian habitat, and

reconnection of an isolated oxbow with the mainstem Chehalis

River.

Project Costs. Total cost $109,850,000. Federal cost $66,425,000;

non-Federal cost $43,425,000.

Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.3 to 1.

(b) Projects Subject to Final Report.

Subsection (b) of section 1001 authorizes 8 projects to be carried

out by the Secretary substantially in accordance with the plan 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, 2005.

(1)Miami Harbor, Miami, Florida.

Location. Miami Harbor, Miami-Dade County, Florida.

Purpose. Navigation.

Problem. Entrance channel and inner harbor widths and depths

are not adequate for safe, cost-efficient vessel transit.

Recommended Plan. Component 1C: Widen seaward portion of

Cut–1 from 500 to 800 feet and deepen Cut–1 and Cut–2 from a

project depth of 44 to 52 feet. Component 2A: Add turn widener at

the southern intersection of Cut–3 with Fisherman’s Channel and

deepen to a project depth of 50 feet. Component 3B: Increase the

Fisher Island Turning Basin from 1200 to 1500 feet, truncate the

28 northeast section of the turning basin, deepen from a project

depth of 42 feet to 50 feet. Component 4: Realign the western end

of the existing 36-foot main channel about 250 feet to the south -

no dredging require for Component 4. Component 5A: Expand the

Sponsor’s berthing area by 60 feet and widen the southern edge of

Fisherman’s Channel (Lummus Island Cut) about 40 feet for a 100-

foot increase in total width, reduce the Lummus Island (Middle)

Turning Basin to a 1500-foot diameter from the currently authorized 1600-foot diameter, and deepen from a project depth of 42 feet

to 50 feet. Mitigation including restoration of seagrass beds and

construction of artificial reefs.

Project Costs. Total cost $121,126,000. Federal cost $64,843,000;

non-Federal cost $56,283,000.

Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.5 to 1.

(2) Picayune Strand Ecosystem Restoration, Collier County, Florida.

Location. Collier County, Florida.

Purpose. Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration.

Problem. Canals and roads cause excessive drainage and the reduction of many wetland communities and associated plants and

wildlife of over 59,000 acres of Picayune Strand. The drainage also

creates large discharges of freshwater to some downstream estuaries and greatly reduces discharges to other nearby estuaries,

stressing a total of nearly 50,000 acres of estuary habitat.

Recommended Plan. The recommended plan consists of plugging

the main canals, degrading roads, filling ditches, and constructing

spreader channels and pump stations to restore the flows of water
17

across the landscape and reduce damaging high and low discharges

of freshwater to the estuaries.

Project Costs. Total cost $349,422,000. Federal cost $174,711,000; non-Federal cost $174,711,000.

Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is justified

by the restoration of valuable habitat.

(3) Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers, Des Moines Iowa.

Location. Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers, Des Moines, Polk

County, Iowa.

Purpose. Flood Damage Reduction.

Problem. During the Great Flood of 1993, Polk County suffered more than $152 million in flood damages, mostly in the Des Moines

metropolitan area. Major portions of the city of Des Moines’ downtown and several large neighborhoods were flooded and the city

was without water service for over a week. More than 3,000 properties were inundated.

Recommended Plan. The recommended plan includes reconstructing 13,300 feet of levees, improving 19 closure structures, and

constructing a recreation trail on a segment of the Birdland Park

levee.

Project Costs. Total cost $10,000,000. Federal cost $6,500,000;

non-Federal cost $3,500,000.

Benefit/Cost Ratio. 2.5 to 1.

(4) Port of Iberia, Louisiana.

Location. Iberia and Vermilion Parishes, Louisiana.

Purpose. Navigation.

Problem. The primary problem is the depth restriction of—12 feet

of the existing access channels, Freshwater Bayou, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and Commercial Canal, to the Port of Iberia. The

predominant economic engines located in the study area are large

offshore rig fabricators and offshore petroleum services firms. The

primary purpose of this deepening project is to allow for deeper

draft vessels that are needed to meet the burgeoning demands of

the deepwater offshore petroleum industry. At present the relative

shallow depth does not allow for the size vessels needed to transport the fabricated structures used in the exploration and production in the deep waters in the Gulf of Mexico.

Recommended Plan. The study area consists of the Port of Iberia,

Commercial Canal, GIWW (Commercial Canal to Freshwater

Bayou), and Freshwater Bayou out to the—20 foot contour in the

Gulf of Mexico. The recommended and locally preferred plan consists of deepening and widening this access channel by dredging

the Commercial Canal, the GIWW and Freshwater Bayou to a uniform size channel of 150 feet wide by 20 feet deep, that will better

accommodate the industry of the area and the port. The placement

of dredged material will depend on the section of channel.

Project Costs. Total cost: $194,000,000. Federal Cost

$123,000,000; non-Federal Cost $71,000,000.

Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.03 to 1.

(5) Jamaica Bay, Marine Park and Plumb Beach, Queens and

Brooklyn, New York.

Location. Jamaica Bay, New York.

Purpose. Ecosystem Restoration.
18

Problem. Over the past century, the Bay’s fragile ecosystem has

been degraded through human encroachment and increased urbanization.

Recommended Plan. The recommended plan includes restoration

measures at nine sites, including measures to regrade shorelines,

revegetate grasslands, create and/or restore additional estuarine,

wetland, and upland habitats, and improve circulation and flushing

in the bay.

Project Costs. Total cost $180,000,000. Federal cost $117,000,000; non-Federal cost $63,000,000.

Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is justified

by the restoration of valuable habitat.

(6) Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, Union Beach, New Jersey.

Location. Union Beach, New Jersey.

Purpose. Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction.

Problem. The identified problem is coastal storm inundation

along the Raritan and Sandy Hook Bays, Chingarora Creek, Flat

Creek, and East Creek, which results in inundation of approximately 1,000 structures from a 100-yr storm event. The problem is

caused by a combination of rainfall and coastal storm surges, erosion, and wave attack, combined with restrictions to channel flow

in the tidal creeks.

Recommended Plan. The plan consists of a combination of levees,

floodwalls, 2 storm gates, 3 pump stations, 2 terminal groins, beach

and dune, periodic renourishment, interior drainage structures and

mitigation.

Project Costs. Total cost $105,544,000. Federal cost $68,603,600;

non-Federal cost $36,940,400. Estimated total cost of $2,315,000 for

periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an

estimated Federal cost of $1,157,500 and an estimated non-Federal

cost of $1,157,500.

Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.8 to 1.

(7) Montauk Point, New York.

Location. Montauk Point, New York.

Purpose. Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction.

Problem. The Montauk Point study area, including the historic

lighthouse, is located on a bluff at the eastern end of the southern

fork of Long Island, approximately 125 miles east of New York

City. The area surrounding the lighthouse is operated as a State

park. The Montauk Point Lighthouse was commissioned by President Washington and completed in 1796. It is included in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Continued shoreline erosion threatens the loss of the lighthouse complex and surrounding

State park property.

Recommended Plan. The recommended plan consists of an 840-

foot long revetment with a crest width of 40 feet at an elevation

of +25 feet NGVD and 2 vertical and 1 horizontal side slopes.

Project Costs. Total cost $12,000,000. Federal cost $7,800,000;

non-Federal cost $4,200,000.

Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.3 to 1.

(8) Hocking River Basin, Monday Creek, Ohio.

Location. Hocking River, Monday Creek, OH.

Purpose. Ecosystem Restoration.
19

Problem. The Monday Creek Basin ecosystem and environment

is, and continues to be, significantly impacted by abandoned mines

resulting in acid mine drainage contaminating water system. The

resultant is a near sterile aquatic ecosystem.

Recommended Plan. The sponsor of the project is the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR). However, part of the

project is located on the Federal lands of the Wayne National Forest, Ohio and managed by the US Forest Service. In designing and

constructing the project described, ODNR and the Secretary will

work, in cooperation with the Secretary of Agriculture, to construct

the project features on land located in the Wayne National Forest.

The Federal (COE) share of the project will be 65 percent. However, it is anticipated that the Federal share of the costs of the features of the project located in the Wayne National Forest, would be

100 percent. The Corps will be responsible for implementation

costs, while the Forest Service would provide the lands, easements

and rights of way necessary for the project at no cost to the Department of the Army. The operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of the project under subsection would be a

non-Federal (ODNR) responsibility. The operation, maintenance,

repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of the project features, located in the Wayne National Forest, will be a U.S. Forest Service

responsibility.

Project Costs. Total cost $20,000,000. Federal cost $13,000,000;

non-Federal cost $7,000,000.

Benefit/Cost Ratio. Not applicable. Justification based on National Ecosystem Restoration Benefits (NER).

Sec. 1002. Enhanced navigation capacity improvements and ecosystem restoration plan for the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System.

This section authorizes navigation improvements and ecosystem

restoration for the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway

System. These improvements and ecosystem restoration for the

Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System is in general conformance with the preferred integrated plan contained in

the document entitled ‘‘Integrated Feasibility Report and Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the UMR-IWW

System Navigation Feasibility System’’ and dated September 24,

2004. The Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System

consists of the projects for navigation and ecosystem restoration authorized by Congress for the segment of the Mississippi River from

the confluence with the Ohio River, River Mile 0.0, to Upper St.

Anthony Falls Lock in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, River Mile

854.0 and the Illinois Waterway from its confluence with the Mississippi River at Grafton, Illinois, River Mile 0.0, to T.J. O’Brien

Lock in Chicago, Illinois, River Mile 327.0.

In section 1103(a) (2) of the Water Resources Development Act

of 1986 (100 Stat. 4225), Congress recognized the Upper Mississippi River System as ‘‘a nationally significant ecosystem and a

nationally significant commercial navigation system’’ and declared

that the system ‘‘shall be administered and regulated in recognition

of its several Purposes’’.
20

The inland waterway transportation system moves 16 percent of

the freight in the United States for 2 percent of the cost, including

more than 100,000,000 tons on the Upper Mississippi River System. The Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway is a major

thoroughfare for goods in the United States. The river provides

transportation for 60 percent of the corn exports of the United

States and 45 percent of the soybean exports of the United States.

It carries approximately 100,000,000 tons of products. The current

600-foot lock system was designed for steamboats, at a time when

only 4,000,000 tons moved on the Mississippi River. The Waterway

supports 400,000 full-and part-time jobs in the United States, generating over $4,000,000,000 in income and $12,000,000,000 to

$15,000,000,000 in economic activity. The Upper Mississippi River

System also provides important economic benefits from recreational

and tourist uses, resulting in the basin’s receiving more visitors annually than most National Parks, with the ecosystems and wildlife

being the main attractions.

The current capacity of the Upper Mississippi River System is

declining by 10 percent annually and the 600-foot locks at Locks

and Dam Nos. 20, 21, 22, 24, and 25 on the Upper Mississippi

River and LaGrange and Peoria on the Illinois Waterway are operating at 80 percent utilization. The unplanned closures of a 70-year

old infrastructure reduce the potential for sustained growth.

United States farm and trade policies work to open world markets and promote United States exports. Keeping the cost of transportation lower through competition between transportation modes

is the United States farmer’s competitive advantage in capturing

future global growth in agricultural exports. Foreign competitors

have worked over the last 10 years to improve foreign transportation infrastructure to compete more effectively with United

States production. The movement of 100,000,000 tons on the river

system in 4,400 15-barge tows out of harms way would require an

equivalent of 4,000,000 trucks or 1,000,000 rail cars moving directly through our communities. The Department of Transportation

projects that freight congestion on the roads and rails in the United

States will double in the next 25 years.

The Department of Agriculture projects that corn exports will

grow 44 percent over the next decade, with a 1.3 increase in growth

exported through the Gulf of Mexico. Econometric models are useful analytic tools to provide valuable information, but are unable

to account for every market trend, development, and public policy

impact. The transportation savings generated by the navigation improvements to the Mississippi River Waterway are expected to provide higher income to farmers and rural communities and to generate Federal and State taxes to support community activities,

quality of life, and national benefits. The Army Corps of Engineers

has been studying the needs for national investments on the Upper

Mississippi River System for the last 15 years and has completed

its feasibility report dated September 24, 2004. The construction of

new 1,200-foot locks and lock extensions will provide more than

48,000,000 man-hours of employment over 10 to 15 years. Based on

the current construction schedule of new locks and dams on the inland system, lock modernization will need to take place over 30

years, starting immediately.
21

The Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers ecosystem consists of

hundreds of thousands of acres of bottomland forests, islands, backwaters, side channels, and wetlands, including 284,688 acres of National Wildlife Refuge land that provides habitat and recreational

opportunities. It is home to 270 species of birds, 57 species of mammals, 45 species of amphibians and reptiles, 113 species of fish, and

nearly 50 species of mussels. More than 40 percent of migratory

waterfowl and shorebirds in North America depend on the river for

food, shelter, and habitat during migration. Development since the

1930’s has altered and reduced the biological diversity of the large

flood plain river systems of the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. The annual operation of the Upper Mississippi River Basin

needs to take into consideration opportunities for ecosystem restoration, and Congress recognizes the need for significant Federal

investment in the restoration of the Upper Mississippi and Illinois

River ecosystems.

The navigation improvements authorized for construction by the

Secretary of the Army includes small scale and nonstructural

measures and new locks.

The small scale and nonstructural measures consists of the construction of mooring facilities at Locks 12, 14, 18, 20, 22, 24, and

La Grange Lock, switch boats at Locks 20 through 25 and the development and testing of an appointment scheduling system. The

costs of these measures are $117,500,000 in funds from the general

fund of the Treasury, to be matched in an equal amount from the

Inland Waterways Trust Fund that is paid by private users.

New 1,200-foot locks are authorized for construction at Locks 20,

21, 22, 24, and 25 on the Upper Mississippi River and at LaGrange

Lock and Peoria Lock on the Illinois Waterway. The cost of the new

locks is $789,500,000 in funds from the general fund of the Treasury, with an equal matching amount provided from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund that is paid by private users.

The authorized plan for navigation improvements includes mitigation for the new locks and small scale and nonstructural measures at a cost of $108,000,000 in funds from the general fund of the

Treasury, with an equal matching amount provided from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund which is paid by private users.

This section also authorizes ecosystem restoration on the Upper

Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System. First, to ensure

the environmental sustainability of the existing Upper Mississippi

River and Illinois Waterway System, the Secretary shall, consistent

with requirements to avoid any adverse effects on navigation, modify the operation of the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System to address the cumulative environmental impacts of

operation of the system and improve the ecological integrity of the

Upper Mississippi River and Illinois River. Second, the Secretary

shall, consistent with requirements to avoid any adverse effects on

navigation, carry out ecosystem restoration projects to attain and

maintain the sustainability of the ecosystem of the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois River in accordance with the general

framework outlined in the Integrated Feasibility Report and Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the UMR-IWW

System Navigation Feasibility System dated September 24, 2004.
22

This section lists specific types of ecosystem restoration projects

that may be conducted under this authority.

The Federal share of the cost of carrying out an ecosystem restoration project under this section shall be 100 percent if the

project is located below the ordinary high water mark or in a connected backwater; modifies the operation or structures for navigation; or is located on federally owned land. The Federal share of

ecosystem restoration projects not meeting these criteria shall be

65 percent. Nongovernmental organizations shall be eligible to contribute the non-Federal cost-sharing requirements applicable to

ecosystem restoration projects. The Secretary of the Army may acquire land or an interest in land for an ecosystem restoration

project from a willing owner through conveyance of fee title to the

land; or a flood plain conservation easement.

Ecosystem restoration projects shall be carried out at a total con- struction cost of $1,580,000,000 of which not more than

$226,000,000 shall be available for construction of fish passages

and not more than $43,000,000 shall be available for dam point

control. Of the amounts made available under for construction not

more than $35,000,000 for each fiscal year shall be available for

land acquisition.

Before initiating the construction of any individual ecosystem

restoration project, the Secretary of the Army shall: (i) establish

ecosystem restoration goals and identify specific performance measures designed to demonstrate ecosystem restoration; (ii) establish

the without-project condition or baseline for each performance indicator; and (iii) for each separable element of the ecosystem restoration identify specific target goals for each performance indicator.

Performance measures should comprise specific measurable environmental outcomes, such as changes in water quality, hydrology,

or the well-being of indicator species the population and distribution of which are representative of the abundance and diversity of

ecosystem-dependent aquatic and terrestrial species. Restoration

design shall include a monitoring plan for the performance measures including a timeline to achieve the identified target goals and

a timeline for the demonstration of project completion.

Not later than June 30, 2008 and every 5 years thereafter, the

Secretary of the Army shall submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives an

implementation report that includes baselines, benchmarks, goals,

and priorities for ecosystem restoration projects and measures the

progress in meeting the goals.

The Secretary shall appoint and convene an advisory panel to

provide independent guidance in the development of each implementation report. The panelists shall include 1 representative of

each of the State resource agencies or a designee of the Governor

of the State from each of the States of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota,

Missouri, and Wisconsin; 1 representative of the Department of Agriculture; 1 representative of the Department of Transportation; 1

representative of the United States Geological Survey; 1 representative of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service; 1 representative of the Environmental Protection Agency; 1 representative of affected landowners; 2 representatives of conservation and environ-
23

mental advocacy groups; and 2 representatives of agriculture and

industry advocacy groups. The Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of Interior shall serve as co-chairpersons of the advisory

panel. The Advisory Panel shall not be considered an advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.)

The Secretary, in consultation with the Advisory Panel, shall develop a system to rank proposed projects. The ranking system shall

give greater weight to projects that restore natural river processes

including floodplain restoration and water level management including dam point control. If the Secretary determines that projects

for navigation improvement and ecosystem restoration are not moving toward completion at a comparable rate, annual funding for the

projects will be adjusted to ensure that projects move toward completion at a comparable rate in the future.

Sec. 1003. Louisiana coastal area ecosystem restoration, Louisiana.

This section authorizes a program for ecosystem restoration in

the Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA). The LCA contains one of the

largest expanses of coastal wetlands in the contiguous United

States and accounts for 90 percent of the total coastal marsh loss

in the Nation. Coastal Louisiana has lost more than 1.2 million

acres (1,875 sq. mi.) since 1930, and it is estimated to continue to

lose land at a rate of approximately 14 square miles per year over

the next 50 years.

Louisiana’s coastal wetlands and barrier island system enhances

protection of an internationally significant commercial-industrial

complex from the destructive forces of storm driven waves and

tides. The system, taken as a whole with migratory birds, fish and

other species, places the coastal wetlands of Louisiana among the

nation’s most productive and important natural assets. Louisiana’s

coastal area is home to more than two million people, representing

46 percent of Louisiana’s population. The State provides more than

20 percent of the seafood consumed in the United States. An estimated 20 percent of our nation’s energy is dependent upon the

coastal area of Louisiana. In 2001, offshore oil and gas production

off the coast of Louisiana provided approximately $5.1 billion to the

Federal Government, making it one of the largest revenue sources

to the U.S. Treasury. Without implementation of a comprehensive

restoration program, these resources, including the extensive energy infrastructure network, are at risk.

In response to the degradation of the coastal area, the State of

Louisiana, in cooperation with the Corps and other Federal agencies, developed a comprehensive plan for the restoration of coastal

Louisiana. The plan, which served as the Corps reconnaissance report for the LCA, is known as the Coast 2050 plan. As a result of

this plan, the Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration program report (report of the Chief of Engineers dated January 31,

2005) has identified an initial phase of near-term work. The framework established in this bill advances the initial component.

Subsection (a) authorizes the Louisiana Coastal Area program

substantially in accordance with the report of the Chief of Engineers dated January 31, 2005. The report identifies five major categories as follows.
24

1) Five Near-Term Critical Ecosystem Restoration Features—subsection (f) includes additional language on one of

these five projects (the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet).

2) Ten Additional Near-Term Restoration Features—subsection (j) directs the Secretary to submit a feasibility report on these features by July 1, 2006. The traditional

committee process would allow for authorization of implementation of these features upon submission to Congress

of the report of the Chief of Engineers.

3) Science and Technology Program—subsection (g) provides additional direction on implementation of this component of the program, including authority to use the expertise of estuary assessment groups and consortia with

significant experience directly related to the Louisiana

Coastal Area ecosystem. Various agencies and experts

have conducted investigations into the coastal Louisiana

ecosystem over the past four decades. Utilization of the

materials and researchers may prove to be an efficient use

of funds.

4) Beneficial Use of Dredged Material—the Corps spends

millions of dollars annually to dredge navigation channels

in the program area. This program component is designed

to ensure the efficient use of tax dollars by coordinating

dredging for navigation purposes with the restoration

goals of the program.

5) Demonstration Program—Standard practice for demonstration projects involves local entities at or near the

site of the project to be the non-Federal partner. Therefore,

each demonstration project under this program should

occur within the State of Louisiana.

Subsection (b) establishes the priorities of the program.

Subsection (c) provides for the financial participation of non-governmental entities for credit toward the non-Federal share.

Subsection (d) requires the submission of a comprehensive plan

with updates every 5 years. This plan shall include a description

of the following: 1) the framework of a long-term program to protect, conserve and restore the wetlands, estuaries (including the

Barataria-Terrebonne estuary), barrier islands, shorelines and related lands and features; 2) the means by which new technology or

improved techniques can be integrated into the LCA program; and

3) the role of other Federal agencies and programs in implementing

the LCA program.

Subsection (e) establishes a Task Force comprised of eight members of the President’s cabinet and three representatives of the

State. Federal participation in the Task Force shall be at the level

of assistant secretary or equivalent. In the case of agencies where

the participation of more than one assistant secretary (or equivalent) may be appropriate, two or more assistant secretaries (or

equivalent) may participate in the Task Force meeting, but the

agency will have only one vote for matters considered before the

Task Force.

The Task Force is directed to make recommendations to the Secretary regarding the policies, strategies, plans, programs, projects,

activities and financial participation (including identifying funds
25

from current agency missions and budgets and coordination of individual agency budget requests) for addressing conservation, protection, restoration and maintenance of the coastal Louisiana ecosystem.

The Task Force is also authorized to establish working groups.

This program could cause potential conflicts pertaining to maritime

and surface transportation, oil and gas activities, recreational and

commercial fishing impacts. The working groups in each of these

areas established by the Task Force will provide an opportunity to

identify and address potential conflicts between the implementation of this program and activities in the coastal area and the OCS.

The Governor’s Advisory Commission on Coastal Restoration and

Conservation may be one such appropriate working group. The

Task Force and any working groups are exempt from the Federal

Advisory Committee Act.

Subsection (f) requires the Secretary to submit to Congress a

plan for the modification of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet to address wetland losses attributable to the Outlet, channel bank erosion, hurricane storm surges, saltwater intrusion, navigation interests and environmental restoration. The Secretary may be able to

implement modifications upon completion of this plan under existing operation and maintenance authorities.

Subsection (g) establishes a Science and Technology program

with three purposes—1) to identify any uncertainty relating to the

physical, chemical, geological, biological and cultural baseline conditions in coastal Louisiana; 2) to improve the knowledge of these

baseline conditions; and 3) to identify and develop technologies,

models and methods to carry out the LCA program.

Subsection (h) authorizes the Secretary to determine that the environmental benefits provided by the program outweigh the disadvantage of an activity, and no further economic justification is

required if the Secretary determines that the activity is cost-effective. However, this is not applicable to separable elements intended

to produce benefits that are predominantly unrelated to the conservation, restoration, or maintenance of the natural system.

Subsection (i) requires the Secretary, in consultation with the

non-Federal sponsor, to enter into a contract with the National

Academy of Sciences for a study to evaluate the impact on ecosystem degradation in south Louisiana of activities authorized by

the Secretary. Examples of such activities include the Mississippi

River and Tributaries project and the construction of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet. Upon completion of this study, the Secretary is directed to review the findings as well as the potential reduction in emergency expenditures as a result of ecosystem restoration in the LCA in order to identify financing alternatives for the

LCA program.

In an effort to expedite implementation of the features identified

in Table 3 of the Chief’s report, subsection (j) requires the Secretary to prepare and submit a report by July 01, 2006.

Subsection (k) authorizes the Secretary to review existing water

resources projects in the program area to determine if the projects

are consistent with the goals of the LCA program and if modifications to the projects could result in additional contributions to

achieving the goals of the LCA program. The Secretary is author-
26

ized to implement such modifications after providing opportunity

for public notice and comment and submitting a report to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and the House

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The bill authorizes

$10 million to implement this subsection.

Sec. 1004. Small projects for flood damage reduction.

This section directs the Secretary to perform the following project

under the Small Projects for Flood Damage Reduction continuing

authority program:

(1) Cache River Basin, Grubbs, Arkansas

Sec. 1005. Small projects for navigation.

This section directs the Secretary to perform the following

projects under the Small Projects for Navigation continuing authority program:

(1) Little Rock Port, Arkansas

(2) Au Sable River, Michigan

(3) Outer Channel and Inner Harbor, Menominee Harbor,

Michigan and Wisconsin

(4) Middle Bass Island State Park, Middle Bass Island,

Ohio

(5) Outer Channel and Inner Harbor, Menominee, Wisconsin

Sec. 1006. Small projects for aquatic ecosystem restoration.

This section directs the Secretary to perform the following

projects under the Small Projects for Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration continuing authority program:

(1) San Diego River, California

(2)Suison Marsh, San Pablo Bay, California

(3) Blackstone River, Rhode Island

TITLE II—GENERAL PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—PROVISIONS

Sec. 2001. Credit for in-kind contributions.

This section provides general authority for the Secretary to provide credit for in-kind services made by the non-Federal sponsor toward the non-Federal share of the cost of a project. This authority

applies to all authorized projects, including projects implemented

under general continuing authority. In-kind services include: 1) the

costs of planning (including data collection), design, management,

mitigation, construction, and construction services; and 2) the value

of materials or services provided before the execution of an agreement for the project, including efforts on constructed elements incorporated into the project and materials and services provided

after an agreement is executed.

In all cases, credit is subject to a determination by the Secretary

that the property or service provided is integral to the project.

Credit may be provided as long as it does not exceed the non-Federal share of the cost of the project, it does not alter any other re-
27

quirement that the non-Federal interest provide land, easements or

rights-of-way, or an area for disposal of dredged material for the

project, or it does not exceed the actual and reasonable costs of the

materials, services, or other items provided by the non-Federal

sponsor.

This section was incorporated in the Water Resources Development Act of 2005 to ensure that a consistent crediting policy is applied throughout the Army Corps of Engineers for all projects undertaken. The committee recognizes that many non-Federal sponsors have significant capability to carry out elements of projects

and studies, as described in the testimony offered by Mr. Gregory

A. Zlotnik, Director of the Santa Clara Valley Water District in

California, on March 31, 2004, at a hearing before the U.S. Senate

Committee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on

Transportation and Infrastructure regarding the Water Resources

Development Act of 2004, which this credit policy is designed to encourage.

It is the intent of the committee to allow credit for in-kind contributions for all on-going, but not completed, projects in accordance with this section. Ongoing projects that this crediting policy

applies to include, but are not limited to:

(1) White River Basin Comprehensive Study, Arkansas

and Missouri

(2) San Francisco Bay to Port of Stockton Channel Deepening Project, California

(3) Pinole Creek, California

(4) Walnut Creek Channel Aquatic Restoration, California

(5) Garyson’s Creek/Murderer’s Creek, California

(6) Wildcat Creek, Phase I, California

(7) Wildcat Creek, Phase II, California

(8) South Platte River Urban Watershed, Colorado

(9) Port of Miami, Florida

(10) Port of Tampa, Florida

(11) Ft. Pierce Shoreline Protection Study, Florida

(12) Gasparilla and Estero Islands Shore Protection

Project, Florida

(13) Broward County and Hillsboro Inlet Shore Protection

Project, Florida

(14) South Branch of the Wild Rice River, Minnesota

(15) Pemiscot County Harbor, Missouri

(16) Monarch Chesterfield, Missouri

(17) Sand Creek Watershed, Nebraska

(18) Watershed Management and Development, Nevada

(19) Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration Program

(20) John Glenn Great Lakes Basin Program

(21) Alsop/Brownwood Wetlands Restoration Project, Oregon

(22) San Antonio Channel, Texas

Sec. 2002. Interagency and international support authority.

This section modifies the existing authority to provide support

for other Federal agencies and international organizations. Under

current law, the Secretary is authorized to receive funds to support
28

Federal agencies or international organizations (after consultation

with the Department of State) to address problems of national significance to the United States. This section allows the Secretary to

also provide support to foreign governments and it adds contracting

as one of the activities the Army Corps of Engineers may undertake under this authority. It authorizes $1,000,000 for this purpose

for fiscal year 2005.

By changing the consultation requirement to the Department of

State, the Secretary is able to streamline the consultation process

to more quickly and effectively work directly with the offices within

the State Department that oversee the particular support requests.

Sec. 2003. Training funds.

This section authorizes the Secretary to allow non-Federal interests, including the private sector, to enroll in training classes or

courses offered by the Army Corps of Engineers and to recoup expenses incurred by the Corps in providing training for those participants. It also authorizes the Secretary to retain the funds paid

by private sector individuals who enroll in these courses. Funds retained by the Secretary must be credited to an appropriation or account used to pay for training costs and shall be available without

further appropriations for use by the Secretary for training purposes. Amounts received in excess of costs of training are required

to be credited to the U.S. Treasury. Under the current system, the

more successful the Army Corps of Engineers is in training the private sector, the greater the financial burden on the agency. Currently, any reimbursements collected by the Army Corps of Engineers for training provided to private sector individuals are sent to

the U.S. Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.

Sec. 2004. Recreational areas and project sites.

This section amends section 4 of the Flood Control Act of 1944

(16 U.S.C. 460d) to establish a user funded recreation fee program

to cover the operation and maintenance associated with recreational infrastructure at Corps facilities.

This section allows the Corps to retain 100 percent of the recreation fees it collects. In addition, it allows the fees collected to remain available until expended and expands the activities for which

fees may be used to include planning. Eighty percent of the fees

collected are to be made available for expenditure by the Corps District in which they were collected.

Fees are to be based on fees charged at comparable

recreationsites for admission or use and established at such a level

so as to maximize the long term recreational benefits of each

project.

The Secretary is authorized to use contracts, including reasonable commissions, with public or private entities to provide visitor

services for the recreation area or site, including taking reservations and providing information. The Secretary is also authorized

to accept volunteer services to collect fees. The Secretary is required to charge and collect rents for leases of project land. This

section applies chapter 69, title 31, U.S.C. (payments in lieu of

taxes) to land leased to non-Federal entities. Finally, any recre-
29

ation fees collected under this section are deemed in lieu of fees

charged under any other provision of law.

The committee expects the Secretary to attempt to recover from

users the costs of operating and maintaining recreation areas or

recreation infrastructure on project land. This section ensures that

the majority of the fees stay at the site to reinvest into visitor facilities and services. For this reason, 80 percent of the fees are to

be used to benefit the visitors at the site of collection. While 20 percent of the fees are available to the Secretary to utilize agency

wide, the committee strongly recommends that the Secretary utilize those funds to establish and expand recreational opportunities

at additional Corps facilities which may be underutilized in terms

of recreational opportunities.

The committee recognizes that recreation fees are sometimes

spent in ways that may not be apparent, but would be noticed by

visitors if the investment did not occur. Recreation fees may be

spent on such services as maintaining and upgrading toilet facilities, trails, and parking lots, for example. The committee encourages the Secretary to communicate with the public on how recreation fees are spent to enhance the visitor experience.

The committee recognizes that certain recreation activities require additional attention by agency staff or involve costs. These

extra costs should be borne by those visitors participating in these

activities and not by the general public or by the rest of the visiting

public.

While this section removes the prohibition on collecting admission fees, it does not require that the Secretary establish admission

fees. Fees should be established in order to cover the costs for operations and maintenance of recreational facilities or to maximize the

recreational experience of visitors. The committee recommends the

Secretary not charge fees for locations that do not offer any services.

As demand for public recreation grows in scope and form, the

committee expects the permanent recreation fee program to help

meet these needs. The committee recognizes that sites that attract

thousands of visitors each day and tens of thousands of visitors

each year, must invest in sanitation facilities, parking, campgrounds, shelters, boat ramps, and other infrastructure that helps

ensure access, safety, and resource protection so the very feature

that attracts the visitor remains available for the future.

Sec. 2005. Fiscal transparency report.

This section directs the Secretary to prepare and submit to Congress on the third Tuesday of January, beginning in 2006, and each

year thereafter, a report on the expenditures for the preceding fiscal year and estimated expenditures for the current fiscal year for:

(1) Construction;

(2) Operation and Maintenance of inland and intracoastal

waterways;

(3) General Investigations, reconnaissance, and feasibility

studies;

(4) Interagency and International Support Activities;

(5) Recreation Fees and Lease Payments;

(6) Hydropower and Water Supply Fees;
30

(7) Inland Waterway Trust Fund and Harbor Maintenance

Trust Fund;

(8) Other revenues, fees and payments;

(9) Permit Application and notification processing information; and

(10) Project backlog.

This section provides details on what is required to be reported

for each item. This information will allow Congress to evaluate

funding priorities to support the projects and programs of the Army

Corps of Engineers.

Sec. 2006. Planning.

First, this section requires the Secretary to assess each water resource project’s and project increment’s cost-effectiveness and compliance with local, State, and national laws, regulations, and public

policies. While the committee expects that all Army Corps of Engineers projects will be fully compliant with local, State and national

laws, regulations, and public policy, it is aware of instances where

a project may come into conflict with particular laws, regulations,

or public policies. This section ensures that such conflicts, including

the degree and severity, will be identified and assessed by the

Army Corps of Engineers and documented in the feasibility report.

Second, the Secretary is required to establish a plan and schedule to periodically update and revise the agency’s planning guidelines, regulations, and circulars of the Army Corps of Engineers to

improve the analysis of water resources projects, including the integration of new and existing analytical techniques that properly reflect the probability of project benefits and costs. This section provides specifics on what must be included in a cost-benefit analysis.

All feasibility studies must include an analysis of the benefits and

costs, both quantified and unquantified.

All cost benefit analyses must:

1) identify areas of risk and uncertainty in the analysis;

2) clearly describe the degree of reliability of the estimated

benefits and costs of the effectiveness of alternative plans,

including an assessment of the credibility of the project

construction schedule as it affects the estimated benefits

and costs. Construction delays can impact the realization

of expected benefits and costs, and therefore should be included in the cost benefit analysis;

3) identify local, regional, and national economic costs and

benefits. The committee heard testimony (such as that offered by Mr. Gregory A. Zlotnik, Director of the Santa

Clara Valley Water District in California, on March 31,

2004) that local and regional benefits are routinely disregarded when the Army Corps of Engineers chooses between alternative plans. Because local communities are

cost-sharing significant portions of project study, design,

construction, coupled with the fact that some local and regional input may result in the formation of better project

alternatives, the committee believes that the exclusion of

local and regional benefits should cease;
31

4) identify environmental costs and benefits, including the

costs and benefits of protecting or degrading natural systems. The committee believes that it is important to identify and measure not just costs of degrading natural systems, but also benefits of protecting natural systems;

5) identify social costs and benefits, including a risk analysis regarding potential loss of life that may result from

flooding and storm damage. The committee believes that

avoiding loss of life, while not economically quantifiable,

should be included in the analysis; and

6) identify cultural and historical costs and benefits.

This section provides for the following planning process improvements:

1) completion of feasibility reports within 2 years with an

extension of up to 4 years for a controversial project, if the

Secretary approves;

2) adoption of risk analysis procedures for project cost estimation;

3) recommendations to Congress for potential amendments

to section 902 of WRDA 1986;

4) a requirement to provide a systematic framework to

manage, certify and modernize methods, models and procedures used in water resources planning;

5) developing systems for planning technology transfer

within the Corps and sustaining the state-of-art skills and

knowledge of Corps planners; and

6) establishment of benchmarks for the discrete elements

of planning studies to improve timeliness and effectiveness.

This section also provides guidance for the formulation of flood

damage and hurricane and storm damage reduction projects, ecosystem restoration projects and projects that have both of these

purposes.

The committee supports the efforts of the Chief of Engineers to

strengthen the planning competency within the Corps and therefore provides authority to establish centers of expertise to provide

specialized planning expertise for studies and to provide internal

peer review support for external peer review panels.

The committee supports the concept that planning studies of the

Corps should follow principles of integrated water management. If

non-Federal study sponsors request and provide the cost-share,

studies should incorporate and evaluate project alternatives without regard for whether such alternatives are within budgetary priorities for implementation. As these reports are primarily to provide Congress with the information and assurances necessary to

justify congressional authorization, the Corps should not predetermine the outcome or eliminate viable alternatives for any reasons

beyond the statutory requirements for feasibility studies.

This section also gives full responsibility to the Chief of Engineers for the technical aspects of project development by directing

that the Chief of Engineers shall not be subject to direction as to

the contents, findings or recommendation of reports and shall be

solely responsible for the reports and any related recommendations,
32

including any evaluation and recommendation for changes in law

or policy that may be appropriate and representative of the best

technical solutions to water resource needs and problems.

Finally this section provides for timely review and submission of

reports to Congress. The completion of the Chief of Engineers reports shall not be delayed while consideration is being given to potential changes in policy or priority for project consideration and,

after completion, shall be submitted to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and to the Committee on

Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives.

The Secretary shall, within 90 days after the date of completion of

a report of the Chief of Engineers that recommends to Congress a

water resource project, review the report and provide any recommendation regarding the project to Congress. Within 90 days of

enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall complete review of, and

provide recommendation to Congress for any report recommending

to Congress a water resource project that the Chief of Engineers

completed before the date of enactment of this Act.

Sec. 2007. Independent reviews.

The committee has considered proposals for improvements to the

Corps planning process and to assure confidence in the recommendations that are founded on this process. In considering

these proposals, we examined testimony of witnesses before this

committee and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, reviewed the application of scientific review within the programs of other Federal and non-Federal agencies and talked with

non-Federal project sponsors and organizations that represent

them.

The committee believes the application of independent peer review to the project studies of the Corps of Engineers can add value

when appropriately structured and implemented. Among the considerations we found important are the following:

Congress has provided policy guidance to ensure the quality of

information disseminated by the Federal Government in the ‘‘Information Quality Act’’ (Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106–

554; HR. 5658)). To establish the role of peer review in pursuing

the objectives of the Information Quality Act, the Office of Management and Budget has published guidance to Federal agencies in Office of Management and Budget, Revised Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review, dated December 15, 2004. The committee believes the Corps of Engineers is required to implement peer review

and has direction from the Executive Office of the President to do

so. The committee also believes that one standard for peer review

at the agency is appropriate.

The committee notes that Corps of Engineers project studies are

unique within the Federal Government. The Corps conducts project

studies on the ground and in partnership with non-Federal interests who typically have a need for immediate solutions. Corps studies are not pure research and development projects but are conducted under guidance designed to implement the principles of engineering, ecology and economics. As the practice of economics,

ecology and engineering improves, the guidance for conducting
33

Corps studies should be adjusted and improved. But study guidance always remains a set of conventions that apply science in a

cost effective, predictable and replicable way to determine solutions

to real problems and eligibility for Corps participation. The Corps

should always ask peer reviewers if the guidance providing for application of science has been adhered to as well as commenting on

the overall science used in a project study. By making such a distinction, the Corps can get even greater value from peer review by

discovering where the systematic improvement in guidance or

methods is needed. We expect a Corps feasibility study will emphasize the timely and cost-effective solution of a community’s specific

water resources problems using established methods, models and

procedures. Improvements or advances in methods, models and

procedures should be achieved through research and development

and other initiatives outside the scope of the individual project

studies.

The committee believes that the Corps of Engineers must work

to reduce, not increase, sponsor burdens in terms of time and cost

of project development and if possible, find ways to reduce the time

and cost of studies.

The committee has also sought to recognize the distinction between the engineering, scientific or technical aspects of a study and

those that are purely a government function. The committee believes that the economics, science and engineering in Corps project

studies can benefit from independent peer review. However the

committee also recognizes that a large component of a Corps

project study is the time and talent expended on government functions such as weighing competing values and policies in making decisions related to formulating a recommended water resources

project, formulating alternatives, involving the stakeholders, developing community consensus for a project and assessing risk and deciding how much study, data collection or analysis are needed to

make a recommendation. The committee recognizes that the distinction between the technical aspects of project studies and the

government functions have close relationships that will often blur

sharp distinctions. However, the two aspects of project studies, scientific/technical vs. policy/balancing values, require different kinds

of review and evaluation. The committee believes independent peer

review applies only to the engineering, scientific and technical

work products that form the basis for the recommendations.

The committee does not excessively legislate the procedures and

processes of peer review. Within the Department of the Army, the

Chief of Engineers is the official responsible for the quality and

adequacy of the engineering, scientific and technical work products

that form the basis for his recommendations on implementation of

water resources projects. Therefore, the Chief of Engineers is accountable for developing procedures for the application of peer review. This legislation charges the Chief of Engineers with developing guidance for the use of peer review, including external peer

review, within the Corps and directs him to complete and publish

such guidance within 1 year. This section also includes principles

to govern the Chief of Engineers in the formulation of this guidance. A major objective in this guidance is to ensure that the Chief

of Engineers concentrates peer review activities on those elements
34

of information where such review will return the greatest benefit,

that peer review activities be built into the district engineer’s study

and completed before the district engineer completes his report. In

all cases, peer review must be completed before the Chief of Engineers signs his report. We also strongly encourage the Chief of Engineers to undertake peer review of all major scientific and engineering methods, models, procedures and data that will be applied

in multiple planning studies. Application of peer review to basic

planning methods and models will avoid duplicative review in

project studies. An important principle of the legislation is that the

costs for undertaking all peer reviews shall be at full Federal expense to ensure that this Federal function not be shifted onto nonFederal sponsors.

Sec. 2008. Mitigation for fish and wildlife losses.

This section amends section 906 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. Subsection (a) amends 906(a) to require completion of mitigation no later than the last day of the first fiscal year

beginning after completion of the project or separable element

where such mitigation is not technically practicable to complete by

the last day of construction. It also amends section 906(b) by authorizing the use of consolidated mitigation where other forms of

mitigation are not practicable or are less environmentally desirable, including mitigation banks and conservation banks. This subsection also relieves the Secretary and non-Federal interest from

responsibility for monitoring or demonstrating mitigation success.

This section also amends 906(d) to identify elements to be included in a specific mitigation plan required under section 906. The

plan shall include a description of the physical action to be undertaken; justification for mitigation that is undertaken outside the

watershed; a description of the quality and types of lands and interest in land to be used for mitigation and as the basis for a determination that lands and interest will be available at the time required; the type, quantity, and characteristics of the habitat being

restored; and a plan for monitoring mitigation success, including

cost and duration of monitoring and to the extent practicable, the

entities responsible for the monitoring. In the case where it is not

practicable to identify the entity responsible for monitoring at the

time of the final report of the Chief of Engineers or other final decision document, then the entity shall be identified in the partnership agreement entered into with the non-Federal interest.

This subsection also requires submission of a status report describing the construction of projects that require mitigation under

section 906. This report shall be submitted to the Committee on

Environment and Public Works in the Senate and the Committee

on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives concurrently with the President’s submission of the Civil

Works appropriations request to Congress. Projects to be included

in the status report are: all projects under construction as of the

date of the report; all projects for which the President requests

funding for the next fiscal year; and all projects that have completed construction but have not completed mitigation.
35

Sec. 2009. State technical assistance.

This section amends section 22 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974. It authorizes the Secretary, upon request of a

governmental agency or non-Federal interests, to provide technical

assistance at Federal expense. This assistance may include hydrologic, economic and environmental data and analyses and may not

exceed $10,000,000 a year. Of the amount authorized, $2,000,000

may be used for cooperative agreements with nonprofit entities to

provide assistance to rural and small communities. This authority

will allow the Army Corps of Engineers to participate with State

and local governments in watershed planning. The committee does

not intend the receipt of funds by non-profit organizations and

State agencies under other Federal programs to preclude technical

assistance under this section.

In addition, this section eliminates the $500,000 State limitations under section 22 and directs the Secretary to submit, as part

of the President’s annual budget request, a list of the individual activities proposed for funding under this program.

The committee believes this section will better support State,

tribal, and local government for integrated water resources management.

Sec. 2010. Access to water resources data.

Subsection (a) directs the Secretary to carry out a program to

provide public access to water resources and related water quality

data.

Subsection (b) requires that the program include access to data

generated in water resources project development and regulation

under section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and

employ geographic information system technology and linkages to

water resources models and analytical techniques.

Subsection (c) requires the Secretary to develop partnerships

with States, tribal, and local governments and other Federal agencies in carrying out this program. Subsection (d) authorizes $5,000,000 to carry out the section.

The committee is aware that the Army Corps of Engineers collects significant amounts of water resources and related data in the

development of water resources projects and the regulation of wetlands. This data, including models and analytical techniques developed and maintained by Army Corps of Engineers laboratories, are

valuable to States, tribal, and local governments and the general

public, yet, in this age of modern information technology, are not

accessible. The committee believes the program established by this

section will improve water management and save money at all levels of government.

Sec. 2011. Construction of flood control projects by non-Federal interests.

Subsection (a) establishes that for projects being formed under

the authority granted by section 211 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 701b), the budget priority of those

projects shall be proportionate to the percentage of project completion or if the project is complete, shall have the same priority as

a project with a contractor onsite.
36

Subsection (b) adds the following projects to the list of demonstration projects established in section 211(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 701b–13):

• Thornton Reservoir, Cook County, Illinois—This section

amends section 221(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of

1996 to include an element of the project for flood control,

Chicagoland Underflow Plan, Illinois. • St. Paul Downtown Airport (Holman Field) St. Paul, Minnesota—This section amends section 211(f) of the Water Resources

Development Act of 1996 to include the project for flood damage reduction, St. Paul Airport, St. Paul, Minnesota. • Buffalo Bayou, Texas—This section amends section 211(f) of

the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 to include the Buffalo Bayou, Texas project. The Buffalo Bayou Texas project was authorized by the River and Harbors Act of 20 June 1938, and modified by the 1939 and 1954 Flood Control Acts. • Halls Bayou, Texas—This section amends section 211(f) of the

Water Resources Development Act of 1996 to include the Halls

Bayou project, and subject to approval by the Secretary as provided

by this section, the non-Federal interests may design and construct

an alternative to the authorized project. The Halls Bayou project

was authorized by section 101(a)(21) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990, Buffalo Bayou and Tributaries, Texas, Report

of the Chief of Engineers dated February 12, 1990.

Sec. 2012. Regional sediment management.

This section amends section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326) to authorize the Corps of Engineers to engage in the regional planning and implementation of

water resources and environmental restoration projects. The committee recognizes the need for Regional Sediment Management

Plans to address in a programmatic fashion those water resource

and environmental restoration needs in which there is, under current law, a Federal interest. The ongoing regional planning and

management of these projects will improve the Corps’ civil works

program, conserve sediment, and decrease the long-term costs of

projects.

Subsection (a) authorizes the Secretary, in connection with the

construction, operation, or maintenance of a Federal water resource

project, to carry out projects for the protection, restoration, and creation of aquatic and ecologically related habitats, and the transport

and placement of dredged material.

Subsection (b) requires that projects carried out under subsection

(a) are justified in terms of their environmental, economic, and social costs.

Subsection (c) outlines the determination of planning and construction costs for projects carried out under subsection (a). Studies

conducted under this section are to be at full Federal cost to assure

that no governmental entity within a region can, by its refusal to

pay its share of the cost, impede the other non-Federal interests

from partnering with the Federal Government to prepare a plan.

The non-Federal share of the construction cost of any project with

a willing and fiscally committed non-Federal partner will be based

on the type of Federal water resource project (i.e., navigation, shore
37

protection, environmental restoration, etc.) to which the regional

sediment management plan is related. Total Federal costs associated with the construction of a project may not exceed $5,000,000

without congressional approval.

Subsection (d) authorizes the Secretary, with the consent of the

non-Federal interest, to select a placement of sediment that is not

the least-cost option if the Secretary determines that the incremental costs of the placement are reasonable in relation to the derived environmental benefits. The Federal share of the incremental

costs would be determined in accordance with subsection (c).

Subsection (e) authorizes the Secretary, acting through the Chief

of Engineers, to work with State, regional and local governments

to develop plans for the regional management of sand that may or

may not result in Federal water resource projects. In some cases,

for example, the Federal Government may be able to assist other

levels of government in the development of regional sediment management plans that the non-Federal entity chooses to implement

without Federal construction assistance.

Subsection (f) establishes priority areas for the development of

plans identified in subsection (e). Subsection (g) authorizes $30,000,000 annually for section 204 and reserves up to $5,000,000 of this amount for the development

of plans as provided in subsection (e).

Subsection (b) repeals section 145 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C. 426j), but does not affect the authority to complete any on-going project under that section.

Sec. 2013. National shoreline erosion control development program.

This section amends section 3 of the Act of August 13, 1946 (33

U.S.C. 426g) by permanently reauthorizing the National Shoreline

Erosion Control Development and Demonstration program. This innovative program to test new technology to combat shoreline erosion is due to expire on September 30, 2005. This section expands

this program in the hope that it can continue to develop and test

technologies that will reduce the periodic renourishment costs of

beach nourishment projects.

This section places the shoreline demonstration program under

the authority for small shoreline projects. Both are intended to provide expedited means to deal with erosion problems along limited

areas of shoreline. Although the bill places authority for both programs within the same section of law, it does not change current

management of either program.

This section makes several amendments to the current erosion

control demonstration program. In order to assure effective congressional oversight of this program, an annual reporting procedure is established. This section emphasizes that the technology or

methods to be tested under this program shall be chosen with the

goal of improving the performance of beach nourishment projects

(i.e., lessen the frequency of required periodic renourishments),

therefore lowering project costs. It also emphasizes the use of natural designs, including the use of native and naturalized vegetation, to minimize permanent structural alterations of shorelines.

In addition, this section authorizes the Secretary, acting through

the Chief of Engineers and at the request of a non-Federal sponsor,
38

to incorporate a demonstration project as a feature of an existing,

authorized Federal shore protection project. The section authorizes

the Federal Government to enter into cost share agreements for the

construction of the demonstration project. Current law makes the

construction cost solely a Federal responsibility. The committee believes that this will save significant time and cost involved with

studying and modifying the original authorization to incorporate

the new technology or methods.

The section also improves existing authority for this program by

permitting the Federal Government to cost share the removal of a

project that has failed to the extent that it endangers property, infrastructure or lives. Current law places this fiscal responsibility

solely on the non-Federal sponsor of the project.

Sec. 2014. Shore protection projects.

Subsection (a) states that it is the policy of the United States to

promote shore protection projects, including beach restoration and

periodic beach renourishment for a period of 50 years. Subsection

(b) states that preference shall be given to areas where Federal

funds have been invested and areas where Federal navigation

projects or activities have caused the need for prevention or mitigation to shores and beaches.

This section emphasizes the committee’s support for the protection, restoration and enhancement of sand beaches through financial support of periodic beach nourishment for a period of 50 years.

The committee recognizes that periodic beach nourishment is an effective measure to prevent or mitigate damage to shore from

storms and hurricanes. Preference shall be given to areas in which

there has been a Federal investment of funds. The committee emphasizes that through previous Water Resources Development Acts,

Congress has established the length and Federal cost share for period beach nourishment and renourishment.

Moreover, the written agreement entered by the Secretary and

non-Federal sponsor with respect to such projects is legally binding

in compliance with the Water Resources Planning Act (42 U.S.C.

1962(a)–1962(a)(4)(e)).

Sec. 2015. Cost sharing for monitoring.

This section authorizes the Secretary to cost share in the monitoring of ecosystem restoration projects identical to the cost sharing

for construction, including projects designed and constructed under

a continuing authority program for a maximum of 10 years and not

to exceed 5 percent of the construction cost of the original project.

After 10 years, the costs of monitoring shall be 100 percent nonFederal.

Sec. 2016. Ecosystem restoration benefits.

This section directs the Secretary to use ecosystem restoration

benefits as part of developing a recommended plan for the following

projects:

(1) Grayson’s Creek, California

(2) Seven Oaks, California

(3) Oxford, California

(4) Walnut Creek, California
39

(5) Wildcat Phase II, California

Sec. 2017. Funding to expedite the evaluation and processing of permits.

This section amends section 214(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note; 114 Stat. 2594) to eliminate the expiration of the program.

Sec. 2018. Electronic submission of permit applications.

This section directs the Secretary to establish procedures to allow

the electronic submission of permit applications for permits under

the jurisdiction of the Department of the Army.

Sec. 2019. Improvement of water management at Corps of Engineers

reservoirs.

This section authorizes the Secretary to carry out measures in

cooperation and coordination with States, tribal governments, and

local governments to more effectively and efficiently meet the water

resource needs in watersheds containing reservoirs operated and

maintained by the Army Corps of Engineers. It requires that water

supply revenue collected in connection with reservoir operation for

navigation, flood control, or multi-purpose projects, be credited to

the revolving fund established under section 101 of the Civil Functions Appropriations Act, 1954 (33 U.S.C. 701b–10). Eighty percent

of those revenues shall be available within the Corps District in

which they were generated for the purpose of defraying costs of

planning, operation, maintenance, replacements, and upgrades of,

and emergency expenditures for, all facilities of Army Corps of Engineers projects within that District. Twenty percent of those revenues shall be available on an agency-wide basis for the same purposes.

Water supply storage fees at reservoirs should reflect the opportunity cost to the project for providing that water. For the permanent first costs of water storage, such fees shall be the lesser of the

estimated cost of purposes foregone (benefits foregone), replacement costs, or the updated cost of storage. The committee recognizes that this is a departure from the current agency developed

policy. In all cases the Corps should calculate the joint use costs

for the annual operation and maintenance of each reservoir based

on the allocated benefits of water storage. In the case of a water

supply that is reallocated from another project purpose to municipal or industrial water supply, the joint use costs for the reservoir

shall be adjusted to reflect the reallocation of project purposes. In

addition, in the case of a reallocation that adversely affects hydropower generation, the Secretary shall defer to the Administrator of

the respective Power Marketing Administration to calculate the impact of such a reallocation on the rates for hydroelectric power.

Water supply and management issues are becoming increasingly

important as the demand on existing supplies continues to grow.

The Army Corps of Engineers currently manages 383 major dams

and reservoirs, providing significant benefits to many regions of the

Nation. However, some of these reservoirs use operating plans that

may no longer reflect the best comparative net economic and environmental returns for the Nation. The intent of this program is to
40

ensure existing Army Corps of Engineers reservoirs contribute to

enhance economic and ecosystem values in a cost efficient and environmentally sustainable way as water demands continue to increase.

Sec. 2020. Corps of Engineers hydropower operation and maintenance funding.

This section provides for the direct funding by the Southeastern,

Southwestern and Western Power Administrations of Corps of Engineers operations and maintenance activities attributable to hydropower generation. In the case of the Southwestern Power Administration and under a specified condition for the Southeastern

Power Administration, amounts credited to the Corps of Engineers

may be used for capital and non-recurring costs. In addition, the

section provides for consultation and resolution of costs appropriate

for direct funding between the Secretary and the respective power

marketing administrators.

Sec. 2021. Federal hopper dredges.

This section lifts the annual operational restrictions on these

Federal dredges to maximize the available dredging capacity to

maintain channel dimensions of West Coast Federal navigation

projects. The committee is aware that the current restrictions on

the Federal hopper dredges, YAQUINA and ESSAYONS, do not

maximize the use of these important Federal resources.

In addition the committee is aware of the fixed and operating

costs of the Federal hopper dredge McFarland, as well as the current capability of the private industry hopper dredge fleet. The

committee has determined that the current daily operating costs of

the McFarland compared to similar-sized industry hopper dredges

is excessive. This section directs the Secretary to retire the hopper

dredge McFarland within 1 year of enactment of this Act.

Sec. 2022. Obstruction to navigation.

This section amends section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of

1899 by providing that nothing in the section shall be construed as

to provide for the regulation of activities or structures on private

property unless the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of

the department in which the Coast Guard is operating, determines

that such activity would pose a threat to the safe transit of maritime traffic. Nothing in this section affects the definition of navigable waters under section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

SUBTITLE B—CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAMS

Sec. 2031. Navigation enhancements for waterbourne transportation.

This section increases the per project limit from $4,000,000 to

$7,000,000 for the Navigation Enhancements for Waterbourne

Transportation (NEWT) continuing authority program created

under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C.

577), as amended.
41

Sec. 2032. Protection and restoration due to emergencies at shore

and streambanks.

This section increases the annual program limit from $15,000,000 to $20,000,000 and the per project limit from

$1,000,000 to $1,500,000 for the Protection and Restoration due to

Emergencies at Shores and Streambanks (PRESS) continuing authority program created under section 14 of the Flood Control Act

of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r).

Sec. 2033. Restoration of the environment for protection of aquatic

and riparian ecosystems program.

This section increases the annual program limit from $25,000,000 to $75,000,000 for the Restoration of the Environment

for Protection of Aquatic and Riparian Ecosystem (REPARE) continuing authority program created under section 206 of the Water

Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330).

Sec. 2034. Environmental modification of projects for improvement

and restoration of ecosystems program.

This section increases the annual program limit from $25,000,000 to $50,000,000 for the Environmental Modification of

Projects for Improvement and Restoration of Ecosystems (EMPIRE)

continuing authority program created under section 1135 of the

Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a).

Sec. 2035. Projects to enhance estuaries and coastal habitats.

This section creates a new continuing authority program,

Projects to Enhance Estuaries and Coastal Habitats, for improvement of the quality of the environment by performing estuary habitat restoration, with an annual program limit of $25,000,000 and

a per project cost limit of $5,000,000.

Sec. 2036. Remediation of abandoned mine sites.

This section expands the existing Remediation of Abandoned

Mine Sites (RAMS) program into a continuing authority program,

with an annual program limit of $45,000,000, by amending section

560 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (33 U.S.C.

2336; 113 Stat. 354–355) to authorize the Secretary to perform construction activities associated with remediation of abandoned

mines, to cost share program features with non-profit organizations

with the consent of the affected local government, to adjust the cost

share requirement, and defines the operation and maintenance

costs as 100 percent non-Federal.

Sec. 2037. Small projects for the rehabilitation or removal of dams.

This section creates a new continuing authority program, Small

Projects for the Rehabilitation or Removal of Dams, for improvement of the quality of the environment, with an annual program

limit of $25,000,000 and a per project cost limit of $5,000,000.

Sec. 2038. Remote, maritime-dependent communities.

This provision gives the Secretary of the Army authority to develop criteria for the justification of Federal participation in remote

harbors without the need to demonstrate that the project is justi-
42

fied solely by National Economic Development benefits. The remote

or subsistence harbor projects would be cost shared in accordance

with section 101 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986,

as amended, in the same way other harbor projects are cost shared,

but would not be required to be economically justified solely on the

basis of National Economic Development benefits. The provision

recognizes that there are communities within the United States

and its Territories that are totally dependent on water transportation for their subsistence. In addition to their geographic isolation, in many cases these communities are in economically disadvantaged areas. Conventional procedures currently used to estimate National Economic Development benefits do not capture

water transportation economic dependency and subsistence issues.

This provision is responsive to the particular needs of isolated economically disadvantaged regions that depend on water transportation for their subsistence and is responsive to the need to expand

the economy and promote growth in areas of poverty and economic

need.

Sec. 2039. Agreements for water resource projects.

Subsection (a) amends section 221 of the Flood Control Act of

1970, to rename project cooperation agreements as partnership

agreements, allow district engineers to enter into partnership

agreements, and allow partnership agreements to provide for liquidated damages. This subsection also requires that, if the Secretary determines that a project needs to be continued for the purposes of public health and safety, the non-Federal interest shall

pay the increased project costs, up to an amount equal to 20 percent of the original estimated project costs and in accordance with

the statutorily determined cost share and the Secretary shall pay

all increased costs remaining.

Subsection (b) amends 912(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 to eliminate civil penalties in partnership agreements and allow the use of liquidated damages.

Subsection (c) clarifies that these changes apply only to partnership agreements entered into after the date of enactment, unless

the non-Federal interest requests applicability from the district engineer and construction has not been initiated.

Subsection (d) clarifies that cooperation agreements or project cooperation agreements shall be partnerships agreements or project

partnership agreements, respectively and vice versa.

The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 significantly increased the roles and responsibilities of project sponsors. As a result of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, project cooperation agreements (PCAs) required under section 221 of the

Flood Control Act of 1970 and section 912 of the Water Resources

Development Act of 1986 assumed significant importance in defining non-Federal responsibilities for providing items of local cooperation.

In testimony before the committee, non-Federal project partners,

including Mr. Gregory A. Zlotnik, Director of the Santa Clara Valley Water District in California, expressed frustration in the multiple layers of review and approval imposed upon the execution of

PCAs within the Department of the Army, which produced needless
43

delays and inefficiencies. The committee expects these changes will

address the concerns of non-Federal interests, improve efficiency by

streamlining the process for approving partnership agreements,

and foster a culture of true partnerships that will improve projects

and their implementation.

Sec. 2040. Program names.

Subsection (a) changes the program name for the continuing authority program created under section 3 of the Act of 1946 (33

U.S.C. 426g).

Subsection (b) changes the name for the continuing authority

program created under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948

(33 U.S.C. 701s).

TITLE III—PROJECT RELATED PROVISIONS

Sec. 3001. St. Herman and St. Paul Harbors, Kodiak, Alaska.

This section authorizes the Secretary to carry out, on an emergency basis, the necessary removal of rubble, sediment, and rock

impeding the entrance to the St. Herman and St. Paul Harbors,

Kodiak, Alaska, at a Federal cost of $2,000,000.

Sec. 3002. Sitka, Alaska.

This section directs the Secretary to take such action as is necessary to correct design deficiencies in the Thompson Harbor element of the project for navigation, Southeast Alaska Harbors of

Refuge, Alaska, authorized by section 101 of the Water Resources

Development Act of 1992 (106) Stat. 4801) Thompson Harbor at

Sitka, Alaska, at a Federal cost $6,300,000.

Sec. 3003. Black Warrior-Tombigbee Rivers, Alabama.

This section authorizes the Secretary to construct a new project

management office for the Black Warrior-Tombigbee Rivers and

Alabama River projects to be located in the vicinity of Tuscaloosa,

Alabama. To accomplish this section, the Secretary shall acquire

necessary real estate interests, prepare required environmental

documentation, design and construct office, warehouse, shop and

dock facilities, and necessary ancillary buildings for the new project

management office. The Secretary shall sell, convey, or otherwise

transfer to the city of Tuscaloosa, Alabama, at fair market value,

the land and structures with the existing project management office, if the city agrees to assume full responsibility and costs associated with the demolition of the existing project management office.

There is authorized to carry out this section $32,000,000.

Sec. 3004. Augusta and Clarendon, Arkansas.

This section modifies the project for flood control, the Augusta to

Clarendon Levee, Lower White River, Arkansas project, authorized

by the Flood Control Act of 1941 (P.L. 77–228) and modified by the

Flood Control Act of 1946 (P.L. 79–525), to authorize the Secretary

to carry out rehabilitation of authorized and completed levees on

the White River between Augusta and Clarendon, Arkansas, at a

total estimated cost of $8,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost

of $5,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,800,000.
44

Sec. 3005. St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.

This section modifies the St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri project, authorized by the Act of June 15, 1936 (49 Stat. 1508,

chapter 548), as amended, to authorize the Secretary to undertake

channel stabilization and sediment removal measures as an integral part of original project and not to be considered a separable

element. These measures would be provided at current project cost

sharing, which is 100 percent Federal.

Sec. 3006. St. Francis Basin land transfer, Arkansas and Missouri.

This section modifies the St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri project, authorized by the Act of June 15, 1936 (49 Stat. 1508,

chapter 548), as amended, to authorize the Secretary to transfer acquired project mitigation lands in Arkansas directly to the State of

Arkansas or its appropriate designee, provided that certain local

requirements are met. Currently, transfer of the land is only authorized for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Sec. 3007. Red-Ouachita River Basin levees, Arkansas and Louisiana.

This section authorizes the Secretary to design, construct, operate and maintain bank stabilization measures, at full Federal expense, along the Ouachita and Black Rivers, Arkansas and Louisiana, between mile 0 on the Black River, Louisiana, to mile 460

on the Ouachita River, Arkansas at the outlet of Remmel Dam.

Sec. 3008. McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River navigation system, Arkansas and Oklahoma.

Subsection (a) directs the Secretary to continue construction of

the 12-foot channel project as authorized by section 136 of P.L.

108–137.

Subsection (b) authorizes the Secretary to determine the need for

and construct modifications in the structures and operations of the

Arkansas River in the area of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, specifically

including the construction of low water dams and islands to provide

nesting and foraging habitat for the interior least tern, in accordance with the study entitled, ‘‘Arkansas River Corridor Master

Plan Planning Assistance to States.’’ Such habitat will provide for

mitigation for any incidental taking relating to the McClellan-Kerr

Navigation System. The non-Federal share of the cost of a project

under this subsection shall be 35 percent. There is authorized to

be appropriated to carry out this subsection $12,000,000.

Sec. 3009. Cache Creek Basin, California.

This section amends section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4112), and directs the Secretary to

mitigate the hydraulic impacts of the new south levee of the Cache

Creek Settling Basin on the city of Woodland’s storm drainage system capacity, including all appurtenant features, erosion control

measures, and environmental mitigation features. This project

would be a separable element of the original project.
45

Sec. 3010. Hamilton Airfield, California.

This section authorizes the project for ecosystem restoration,

Hamilton Army Airfield, California, substantially in accordance

with the plan, and subject to the conditions, recommended in the

final report of the Chief of Engineers. The project is modified to included the diked bayland parcel ‘‘Bel Marin Keys Unit V.’’ The total

Cost is $205,226,000, with a Federal cost of $153,840,000 and a

non-Federal cost of $51,386,000.

Sec. 3011. LA–3 dredged material ocean disposal site designation,

California.

This section amends section 102(c)(4) of the Marine Protection,

Research, and Sanctuary Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1412(c)(4)) to extend the LA–3 Dredged Material Ocean Disposal Site interim designation from January 1, 2003 to January 1, 2007. The extension

is needed to allow for maintenance dredging activities to proceed

within Newport Harbor as the formal site designation process continues to completion.

Sec. 3012. Larkspur Ferry Channel, California.

This section authorizes the Secretary to prepare a limited reevaluation report to determine whether maintenance of the project

is feasible. If the Secretary determines that maintenance of the

project is feasible, the Secretary shall maintain the channel.

Sec. 3013. Llagas Creek, California.

This section authorizes the Secretary to complete the project for

flood damage reduction, authorized by section 501(a) of the Water

Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 333), in accordance

with the requirements of local cooperation agreements as specified

in section 5 of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act

(16 USC 1005) at a total cost of $95,000,000 with a Federal cost

of $55,000,000 and a non-Federal cost of $40,000,000.

Sec. 3014. Los Angeles Harbor, California.

This section authorizes the Secretary to construct the main channel deepening project for Los Angeles Harbor, California. The provision amends the project authorization provided by section

101(b)(5) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114

Stat. 2577), to increase the total project cost for the project to

$222,000,000 with an estimated Federal cost of $72,000,000 and an

estimated non-Federal cost of $150,000,000.

Sec. 3015. Magpie Creek, California.

This section authorizes the Secretary to apply cost-sharing requirements applicable to non-structural flood control under section

103(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat.

4085) for the portion of the project consisting of land acquisition to

preserve and enhance existing floodwater storage. The crediting allowed under this provision shall not exceed the non-Federal share

of the cost of the project. The Secretary is directed to utilize the

in-kind contribution authorization in section 1001 of this Act to

provide a credit to the local sponsors for the value of their in-kind
46

contributions made on authorized activities in the project’s scope of

work if the Secretary determines the work is integral to the project.

Sec. 3016. Pine Flat Dam fish and wildlife habitat, California.

This section authorizes the Secretary to participate with appropriate State and local agencies in the implementation of a cooperative program to improve and manage fisheries and aquatic habitat

conditions in the Pine Flat Reservoir and in the 14-mile reach of

Kings River immediately below the dam in accordance with Kings

River Fisheries Management Program Framework. There is a total

cost of $20,000,000, a Federal cost $13,000,000 and a non-Federal

cost of $7,000,000.

Sec. 3017. Redwood City navigation project, California.

This section authorizes the Secretary to dredge the Redwood City

Navigation Channel on an annual basis, to maintain the authorized depth of—30 feet mean lower low water.

Sec. 3018. Sacramento and American Rivers flood control, California.

This section authorizes the Secretary to apply remaining funds

eligible for reimbursement on the Natomas Federal Plan as a credit

toward the non-Federal share of cost for future work on any flood

damage reduction project authorized before the date of enactment

of this Act that is to be paid for by the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency.

Sec. 3019. Conditional declaration of nonnavigability, Port of San

Francisco, California.

This section authorizes the Secretary to declare portions of the

San Francisco, California, waterfront not to be navigable water of

the United States for the purpose of section 9 of the Act of March

3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401) and the General Bridge Act of 1946 (33

U.S.C. 525 et seq.). This determination is based on proposed

projects which are to be carried out by non-Federal entities, consisting of bulkheads, fill, or otherwise occupied by permanent structures, that will impact the accessibility of the waterfront. If, after

20 years from the date of the enactment of this Act, any of the portions of the project declared to be non-navigable have not been impacted or if work has not begun within 5 years after the date of

issuance of a permit, the declaration of nonnavigability shall cease

to be effective.

Sec. 3020. Salton Sea restoration, California.

This section authorizes a special study of pilot projects identified

in the preferred restoration concept plan approved by the Salton

Sea Authority to determine if the pilot projects are economically

justifiable, technically sound, environmentally acceptable and meeting the objectives of the Salton Sea Reclamation Act (Public Law

105–372). If the Secretary makes a positive determination, the Secretary may enter into an agreement with the Salton Sea Authority,

and in consultation with the Salton Sea Science Office, to carry out

pilot projects for improvement of the environment in the Salton

Sea. There is a total cost $26,000,000, a Federal cost of $16,900,000
47

of which not more than $5,000,000 may be used for any one pilot

project and a non-Federal cost $9,100,000.

Sec. 3021. Upper Guadalupe River, California.

This section authorizes the Secretary to carry out the project for

flood damage reduction and recreation, Upper Guadalupe River,

California, authorized by section 101(a)(9) of the Water Resources

Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 275), as modified, generally in

accordance with Upper Guadalupe River Flood Damage Reduction

Project, San Jose, California, Limited Reevaluation Report, dated

July, 2004, at a total cost of $212,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $113,300,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of

$98,800,000.

Sec. 3022. Yuba River Basin project, California.

This section modifies the project for flood damage reduction authorized by section 101(a)(10) of the Water Resources Development

Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 275) by increasing the authorized project cost

from $26,600,000 to $107,000,000 with a Federal cost of

$70,000,000 and a non-Federal cost of $37,700,000. The Secretary

is directed to utilize the in-kind contribution authorization in section 1001 of this Act to provide a credit to the local sponsors for

the value of their in-kind contributions made on authorized activities related to the levees in the project’s scope of work, if the Secretary determines the work is integral to the project.

Sec. 3023. Charles Hervey Townshend Breakwater, New Haven

Harbor, Connecticut.

This section designates the western breakwater in New Haven

Harbor as the ‘‘Charles Hervey Townshend Breakwater’’.

Sec. 3024. Anchorage area, New London Harbor, Connecticut.

This section modifies the project for navigation, New London

Harbor, Connecticut, authorized by the Act of June 13, 1902 (32

Stat. 333), to redesignate a portion of the 23-foot deep waterfront

channel as an anchorage area.

Sec. 3025. Norwalk Harbor, Connecticut.

This section deauthorizes two small areas and authorizes the

Secretary to realign a portion of the 10-foot channel at the northern section of the project for navigation, Norwalk Harbor, Connecticut, authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1919 (40 Stat.

1276).

Sec. 3026. St. George’s Bridge, Delaware.

This section amends section 102(g) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4612) to direct the Secretary to assume ownership of the State Route 1 replacement bridge and continue to operate and maintain the existing St. Georges Bridge unless otherwise directed by Congress.

Sec. 3027. Christina River, Wilmington, Delaware.

This section directs the Secretary to remove the shipwrecked vessel known as the ‘‘State of Pennsylvania,’’ and any debris associ-
48

ated with that vessel from the Christina River at Wilmington,

Delaware, which is substantially outside of current Federal navigation channels maintained by either the Corps of Engineers or the

Coast Guard. The ship wreck poses a danger to recreational traffic

during high tide, when it is not visible to boaters in the area.

Further, the section specifically exempts the Secretary from any

provisions of law that would require recovering funds from the

owner of the vessel or any other vessel. Finally the section authorizes the appropriation of $425,000 to carry out the removal of the

shipwreck, to remain available until expended.

Sec. 3028. Additional program authority, comprehensive Everglades

restoration, Florida.

This section applies section 902 of WRDA 1986 to the cost limits

on the Federal share, total cost, and aggregate cost of projects pursued under CERP’s programmatic authority of WRDA 2000 section

601(c).

Sec. 3029. Critical restoration projects, Everglades and south Florida ecosystem restoration, Florida.

This section increases the Federal appropriation limit for this

program from $75,000,000 to $95,000,000 and remove language

ending the period of appropriation, which was set at fiscal year

1999 in WRDA 1996 and at fiscal year 2003 in WRDA 1999. It

would also increase the limit on Federal expenditures for a single

project from $25,000,000 to $30,000,000 only in the case of the

Seminole Water Conservation Plan, which is one of the projects for

which a Project Cooperation Agreement has been executed. Cost estimates for the projects have increased over time due to inflation,

unexpected site conditions, design modifications necessary to meet

the project goals, and construction bids higher than those originally

estimated.

Sec. 3030. Jacksonville Harbor, Florida.

This section authorizes the Secretary to modify the project for

navigation, Jacksonville Harbor, Florida, authorized by section

101(a)(17) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113

Stat. 276) to extend the navigation features in accordance with the

Report of the Chief of Engineers dated July 22, 2003, at an additional total cost of $14,658,000, with an estimated Federal cost of

$9,636,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,022,000.

Sec. 3031. Lake Okeechobee and Hillsboro Aquifer pilot projects,

comprehensive Everglades restoration, Florida.

This section amends section 601(b)(2)(B) of WRDA 2000, to include the pilot projects for aquifer storage and recovery, Lake

Okeechobee and Hillsboro Aquifer, Florida, under the cost sharing

and other provisions of the WRDA 2000. These pilot projects shall

be treated as being integral components of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, and carried out in accordance with the

Plan, except that costs of operation and maintenance of these

projects shall remain 100 percent non-Federal.
49

Sec. 3032. Lido Key, Sarasota County, Florida.

This section authorizes the Secretary to modify the project for

hurricane and storm damage reduction in Lido Key, Sarasota

County, Florida, authorized by section 354(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 276). The modified

project provides for initial construction and periodic nourishment of

an 80-foot-wide beach berm at elevation +5 feet National Geodetic

Vertical Datum over 1.56 miles of shoreline, in accordance with the

Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 22, 2004. The authorized total cost is $14,809,000 with a Federal cost of $9,088,000

and a non-Federal cost of $5,721,000. Estimated total costs of

$63,606,000 for periodic nourishment over a period of 50 years with

an estimated Federal cost of $31,803,000 and an estimated nonFederal cost of $31,803,000.

Sec. 3033. Tampa Harbor, Cut B, Tampa, Florida.

This section authorizes the Secretary to modify the project for

navigation, Tampa Harbor, Florida, authorized by section 101 of

the River and Harbor Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1818) to construct passing lanes in an area approximately 3.5 miles long and centered on

Tampa Bay Cut B, if the Secretary determines that the improvements are necessary for navigation safety.

Sec. 3034. Allatoona Lake, Georgia.

This section repeals the authority provided in section 325 of the

Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4849), and

authorizes the Secretary to exchange land at Allatoona Lake, Georgia, by adding an alternative method whereby the Government

could sell land above 863 feet in elevation and with the proceeds

from the sales, without further appropriations, acquire additional

lands, from willing sellers, to protect the water quality and overall

environment of Allatoona Lake. The lands available to be sold are

in accordance with the Real Estate Design Memorandum prepared

by the Mobile district engineer dated April 5, 1996, and approved

October 8, 1996.

Sec. 3035. Dworshak Reservoir improvements, Idaho.

This section authorizes the Secretary to construct recreational facilities as well as improve existing Army Corps of Engineers and

outgranted improvements to recreation facilities on the existing

Dworshak Reservoir to allow for operation at the lower pool elevations that are being experienced to assist in salmon species recovery efforts. The estimated total project cost is $5,300,000, with

a Federal cost of $3,900,000 and a non-Federal cost of $1,400,000.

Sec. 3036. Little Wood River, Gooding, Idaho.

This section modifies Public Law 75–5, the Energy Conservation

Work Program (16 U.S.C. 585 et seq.), to direct the rehabilitation

of the Gooding Idaho Channel Project for the purpose of flood control and ecosystem restoration, if the Secretary determines the rehabilitation and ecosystem restoration to be feasible. The section

authorizes and directs the Secretary to plan, design and construct

the project at a total cost of $9,000,000, provides that the non-Federal share of the cost of the project can be provided as in-kind con-
50

tributions, services, supplies and material, and provides that nonFederal funds may come from other Federal programs if permitted

under that Federal program. This provision directs the Secretary

to consider the ability to pay provisions from the Water Resources

Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)) when computing the

non-Federal cost share.

Sec. 3037. Port of Lewiston, Idaho.

The section extinguishes reversionary interests and use restrictions related to industrial use purposes, the restriction that no activity shall be permitted that will compete with services and facilities offered by public marinas, and the restriction on human habitation or other building structure in which the elevation is above

the standard project flood elevation. The use of fill material to raise

low areas above the standard project flood elevation is authorized,

except in any low area constituting wetland for which a permit

under section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33

U.S.C. 1344) is required. This section also specifies the deeds involved and includes a savings clause regarding other remaining

rights and interests of the Army Corps of Engineers for authorized

project purposes.

Sec. 3038. Cache River Levee, Illinois.

This section directs the Secretary to add ecosystem restoration as

a project purpose to the Cache River Levee, Illinois, authorized

under the Flood Control Act of June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1215, Chapter 795).

Sec. 3039. Chicago, Illinois.

This section modifies the existing authorization by clarifying that

the study includes Lake Michigan as well as the Chicago River.

Sec. 3040. Chicago River, Illinois.

This section reduces the width of the authorized navigation channel from between 100 and 120 to no wider than 66 feet from 100

feet downstream of the Halsted Street Bridge to 100 feet upstream

of the Division Street Bridge, Chicago, Illinois to ensure consistency in Army Corps of Engineers records to actual bridge size.

Sec. 3041. Missouri and Illinois flood protection projects reconstruction pilot program.

This section directs the Secretary to reconstruct existing flood

control projects in Missouri and Illinois as needed for proper functioning as originally authorized, so long as the deficiencies identified are not due to lack of proper operation and maintenance by the

non-Federal interest. Costs shall be shared in the same percentages as the original projects. Operation, maintenance, repair, and

rehabilitation of reconstructed projects are a non-Federal responsibility. A total of $50,000,000 is authorized for this effort. The following critical projects are to receive priority:

(1) Clear Creek Drainage and Levee District, Illinois.

(2) Fort Chartres and Ivy Landing Drainage District, Illinois.

(3) Wood River Drainage and Levee District, Illinois.
51

(4) city of St. Louis, Missouri.

(5) Missouri River Levee Drainage District, Missouri.

Sec. 3042. Spunky Bottom, Illinois.

This section directs the Secretary to add ecosystem restoration as

a project purpose to the flood control project between Beardstown,

Illinois and the mouth of the Illinois River, authorized by section

5 of the Flood Control Act of June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1583, Chapter

688). In addition, it directs that the flood control project shall remain eligible for emergency repair assistance under the Flood Control Act of August 18, 1941 (Public Law 77–228), as amended (33

U.S.C. 701n) without consideration of economic justification. It also

authorizes $7,500,000 in Federal funding ($500,000 of which will be

available for post-construction monitoring and adaptive management for a period of 5 years following completion of construction)

for the project modifications carried out under section 1135 of

WRDA 1986 for the Spunky Bottoms, Illinois project.

Sec. 3043. Strawn Cemetery, John Redmond Lake, Kansas.

This section authorizes the transfer of approximately 3 acres of

Federal lands at John Redmond Lake directly to Pleasant Township. The conveyance would be at fair market value of undeveloped

land. All costs associated with the conveyance shall be non-Federal.

Sec. 3044. Harry S. Truman Reservoir, Milford, Kansas.

This section directs the Secretary to sell 7.4 acres of land at

Harry S. Truman Reservoir for a fire station.

Sec. 3045. Ohio River, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.

This section modifies the project for ecosystem restoration, Ohio

River, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West

Virginia, authorized by section 101(16) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2578), to authorize the Secretary

to cost share projects with non-profit organizations with the consent of the affected local government, prepare an implementation

plan and initiate a pilot restoration program in the Lower Scioto

Basin, Ohio.

Sec. 3046. Public access, Atchafalaya, Basin Floodway System, Louisiana.

This section allows the Secretary to acquire an additional 20,000

acres of land from willing sellers as is consistent with the Public

Access feature. This section also addresses an inconsistency in previous Acts pertaining to a fiscal cap placed on Federal first cost expenditures. In section 906(f) of the Water Resources Development

Act of 1986, Congress increased the scope of the public access feature of the project to a cost of $66,000,000 without raising the

$32,000,000 cap on expenditures associated with this expanded

scope. This section removes the $32,000,000 cap for the acquisition

of additional lands retroactive to the Water Resources Development

Act of 1986 when the project scope was expanded.
52

Sec. 3047. Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana.

This section modifies the project for the Calcasieu River and

Pass, Louisiana, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor

Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 481) to authorize the Secretary to provide

$3,000,000 for each fiscal year, in a total amount of $15,000,000,

for such rock bank protection of the Calcasieu River from mile 5

to mile 16, as the Chief of Engineers determines to be advisable to

reduce maintenance dredging needs and facilitate protection of valuable disposal areas for the Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana.

Sec. 3048. Larose to Golden Meadow, Louisiana.

This section requires the Secretary to make a determination as

to the advisability of converting the floodgate in Golden Meadow

into a navigation lock when considering feasibility, environmental

and economic conditions. If the Secretary either makes a favorable

determination or fails to make a determination within 180 days of

the date of enactment of this act, the conversion is authorized.

Sec. 3049. East Baton Rouge Parish. Louisiana.

This section modifies the project for flood damage reduction and

recreation, East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, authorized by section 101(a)(21) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999

(113 Stat. 277), as amended by section 116 of the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (117 Stat. 140), to authorize the Secretary to carry out the project substantially in accordance with the

Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 23, 1996, and the

subsequent Post Authorization Change Report dated December

2004. The estimated cost is $178,000,000.

Sec. 3050. Red River (J. Bennett Johnston) Waterway, Louisiana.

This section will allow the Secretary to purchase and reforest

lands, which have been cleared or converted to agricultural uses for

mitigation purposes. Current law restricts land purchases to bottomland hardwood lands. There are no additional willing sellers of

bottomland hardwood lands available. This change will increase

the amount of land available to meet the projects’ mitigation requirements. There is authorized to carry out this section

$33,000,000.

Sec. 3051. Camp Ellis, Saco, Maine.

This section authorizes the Secretary to continue the project initiated under section 111 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (33

U.S.C. 426i), up to a maximum of $20,000,000 to mitigate erosion

on Camp Ellis Beach.

Sec. 3052. Union River, Maine.

This section modifies the project for navigation, Union River,

Maine, authorized by the Act of 1896 (29 Stat. 215, Chapter 314),

by redesignating the upper 6-foot turning basin as an anchorage

area.
53

Sec. 3053. Chesapeake Bay environmental restoration and protection program, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

This section amends section 510(i) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3761) to increase the total program

funding limit from $10,000,000 to $30,000,000.

Sec. 3054. Cumberland, Maryland.

This section amends section 580(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 375) to increase the total authorized

cost of the project from $15,000,000 to $25,750,000 with a Federal

cost of $16,738,000 and a non-Federal cost of $9,012,000.

Sec. 3055. Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

First, this section extends the authorization for the project for

navigation, Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts and Rhode Island authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968(82

Stat. 731) and amends the authorization to restrict the project

depth of the existing navigation project riverward of the Charles M.

Braga, Jr. Memorial Bridge, Fall River and Somerset, Massachusetts, to not more than 35 feet in depth. Second, this section also

directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the feasibility

of deepening the portion of the navigation channel of the navigation project for Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, seaward of the Charles M. Braga, Jr. Memorial Bridge, Fall

River and Somerset, Massachusetts. If funds are not obligated for

construction (including planning and design) of the Fall River Harbor project within 5 years of the enactment of this act, the original

project will no longer be authorized.

Sec. 3056. St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair, Michigan.

This section provides the statutory authority for the Secretary to

establish and lead a partnership of Federal agencies, including the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the State of Michigan

and political subdivisions of the State and other involved parties in

the management of the St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair Watersheds, in accordance with the St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair

Comprehensive Management Plan. The focus of this partnership

would be to develop and implement projects consistent with the

management plan.

In 2001, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers initiated development

of the management plan, emphasizing broad coordination with

other public agencies and local stakeholders. The management plan

recommends that successful, locally driven programs continue, and

that larger efforts be coordinated by an intergovernmental steering

group. This provision supports both efforts, allowing grants and

other financial assistance as well as providing for direct participation in project development and implementation.

The section directs the Secretary, working in consultation with

the partnership, to develop a St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair

strategic implementation plan in accordance with the St. Clair

River and Lake St. Clair Management Plan; and to supplement the

management plan and the strategic implementation plan, as needed.
54

Appropriations to support this provision are capped at $10,000,000 per fiscal year. The non-Federal share for the cost of

technical assistance, planning, design, construction, and evaluation

of a project, and the development of supplementary information, is

25 percent of the total cost of the project or development. All operation and maintenance costs associated with projects implemented

under this provision are to be 100 percent non-Federal responsibilities.

Sec. 3057. Duluth Harbor, Minnesota.

This section authorizes the Secretary to include public access and

recreational facilities as part of the federally cost-shared facilities

for the project, authorized by section 107(b) of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577(b)). These facilities include, but are

not limited to, parking facilities, pedestrian walkways, and boating

and fishing access facilities. This section also increases the allowable Federal share to $9,000,000 from $6,000,000 to accommodate

the increased project scope.

Sec. 3058. Land exchange, Pike County, Missouri.

This section directs a land exchange of 42 acres between S.S.S.,

Inc. and the Army Corps of Engineers within 2 years. The Federal

land includes 2 parcels of Army Corps of Engineers land located on

Buffalo Island in Pike County, Missouri. The S.S.S., Inc. land is situated in Pike County, Missouri, upstream and northwest, about

200 feet from Drake Island (also known as Grimes Island).

Sec. 3059. Union Lake, Missouri.

This section directs the Secretary to offer to convey to the State

of Missouri two tracts of land totaling approximately 205.5 acres

that were originally purchased for the Union Lake Project, which

was deauthorized in the Water Resources Development Act of 1986

(33 U.S.C. 579a(a)).

Sec. 3060. Fort Peck Fish Hatchery, Montana.

This section amends section 325 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (144 Stat. 2607) to increase the amount authorized for appropriation to carry out the design and construction of

a fish hatchery and associated facilities at Fort Peck Lake from

$20,000,000 to $25,000,000.

Sec. 3061. Yellowstone River and tributaries, Montana and North

Dakota.

This section authorizes the Secretary to carry out restoration

projects in the watershed of the Yellowstone River and tributaries

in Montana, Wyoming, and North Dakota. The restoration projects

would be implemented in partnership with non-Federal sponsors,

including non-profit entities with the support of the local government. Projects would provide for a wide range of measures in the

main channel and flood plain to accomplish restoration, creation,

and preservation of fish and wildlife habitat. Incorporation of

multi-purpose features into these projects is authorized. This section authorizes Federal expenditure up to $30,000,000 and establishes a per project Federal limit of $5,000,000.
55

Sec. 3062. Lower Truckee River, McCarran Ranch, Nevada.

This section authorizes the Secretary to construct a project modification for environmental restoration on the Truckee River at

McCarran Ranch, Nevada, with the Federal share of the cost in excess of the statutory $5,000,000 limit established under section

1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.

2309a). The total project cost is $7,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $5,775,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of

$1,725,000.

Sec. 3063. Middle Rio Grande restoration, New Mexico.

This section authorizes the Secretary to implement a program of

conducting an inventory of existing ecosystem resources; developing

a comprehensive implementation plan for the restoration and protection of the ecosystem resources; conducting detailed planning

and design and implementing site specific projects to restore and

protect aquatic, wetland, floodplain, and riparian areas; and appropriate recreation features in conjunction with site specific restoration projects; and monitoring of individual project performance for

the Middle Rio Grande and the adjacent Bosque, a riparian forest

unique to the area. The Secretary shall consult with and consider

the activities being carried out by the Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Act Collaborative Program and the Bosque Improvement Group of the Middle Rio Grande Bosque Initiative. The cost

of projects carried out under this authority will be cost-shared at

a non-Federal share of 35 percent and shall include provision of

necessary land, easements, relocations, and disposal sites. The nonFederal sponsor may, with the consent of the affected government,

be a nonprofit entity. The program is authorized for an annual appropriation of $25,000,000.

Sec. 3064. Long Island Sound oyster restoration, New York and

Connecticut.

This section authorizes the Secretary to plan, design, and construct projects to increase aquatic habitats within Long Island

Sound, New York and Connecticut, and adjacent waters, including

the construction and restoration of oyster beds and related shellfish

habitat. There is a total cost of $25,000,000 a Federal cost

$18,750,000, and a non-Federal cost $6,250,000.

Sec. 3065. Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York.

This section amends section 554 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3781) to increase the maximum total

Federal cost of the project from $5,200,000 to $18,200,000.

Sec. 3066. New York Harbor, New York, New York.

This section amends section 217 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2326a) which authorized the Secretary

to enter into cost-sharing agreements with one or more non-Federal

public interests for the acquisition, design, construction, management, or operation of a dredged material processing, treatment, decontamination, or disposal facility. This includes any facility used

to demonstrate potential beneficial uses of dredged material. When

appropriate, the Secretary may combine portions of separate Fed-
56

eral projects if the facility is used to manage dredged material from

multiple Federal projects in the same geographic area. The New

York and New Jersey Harbor Deepening Project, New York and

New Jersey, is the most likely candidate navigation project to use

the facility; however, the cost-sharing agreement may include the

management of sediments from the maintenance dredging of Federal navigation projects that do not have partnership agreements.

Sec. 3067. Onondaga Lake, New York.

This section amends the project for ecosystem restoration, Onondaga Lake, New York, authorized by section 573 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 372), to increase the

authorized project cost from $10,000,000 to $30,000,000 and to authorize the Secretary to cost share projects with non-profit organizations with the consent of the affected local government.

Sec. 3068. Missouri River restoration, North Dakota.

This section amends section 707(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2699) to extend the authorization for

appropriations through 2010.

Sec. 3069. Lower Girard Lake Dam, Girard, Ohio.

The section amends section 507(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3758) by increasing the authorization from $2,500,000 to $5,500,000 for repair and rehabilitation of

the Lower Girard Lake Dam, which may include lowering the crest

of the Dam by not more than 12.5 feet).

Sec. 3070. Toussaint River navigation project, Carroll Township,

Ohio.

This section authorizes full Federal funding for increased operation and maintenance activities that are carried out in accordance

with section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C.

577) and relate directly to the presence of unexploded ordnance.

Sec. 3071. Arcadia Lake, Oklahoma.

This section directs the Secretary to eliminate the requirement

to pay accrued interest costs for the storage following the end of

the 10-year interest free period beginning on November 30, 1996 to

September 1999; the date the storage was placed into the active

status.

Sec. 3072. Oklahoma Lake demonstration, Oklahoma.

This section extinguishes each reversionary interest and use restriction related to recreation and public parks on the land conveyed by the Secretary to the State of Oklahoma pursuant to the

Act entitled ‘‘An Act to authorize the sale of certain lands to the

State of Oklahoma’’ (67 Stat. 62, chapter 118). Any deed of release,

amended deed, or other appropriate instrument of release needed

to extinguish each reversionary interest and use restriction, shall

be filed and executed as soon as practicable after the date of enactment of this act.
57

Sec. 3073. Waurika Lake, Oklahoma.

This section directs the Secretary to use the costs for construction of the water conveyance facilities for the projects as defined in

June 1986. Any costs identified by the Army Corps of Engineers

after June 1986 are considered a Federal cost.

Sec. 3074. Lookout Point, Dexter Lake project, Lowell, Oregon.

This section directs the Secretary to offer to convey to the community of Lowell, Oregon one tract of land totaling approximately

0.98 acres located in Lane County, Oregon for use as a fire station.

The conveyance shall not take place until the Unites State Forest

Service, that currently operates structures on the property, completes and certifies that the necessary environmental remediation

has be performed and transferred the structures to the Corps of

Engineers.

Sec. 3075. Upper Willamette River Watershed ecosystem restoration.

This section authorizes the Secretary to conduct studies and ecosystem restoration projects for the Upper Willamette Watershed,

which includes the planning, design, and construction of ecosystem

restoration projects. Habitat has been altered or destroyed for a

wide variety of plants and animals, including fish species, such as

bull trout and Willamette spring Chinook salmon and winter

steelhead, listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

There is a total cost $15,000,000, a Federal cost $9,750,000, and a

non-Federal cost $5,250,000.

Sec. 3076. Tioga Township, Pennsylvania.

This section directs the Secretary to convey by quitclaim deed approximately 8 acres of the Tioga-Hammond Lakes Flood Control

Project property to the Tioga Township for use as administrative

offices and a road maintenance complex.

Sec. 3077. Upper Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and New

York.

This section amends the project for ecosystem restoration, Upper

Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and New York, authorized

by section 567 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996

(110 Stat. 3787), to expand the definition of potential non-Federal

sponsors; to authorize the Secretary to provide assistance for implementing wetland restoration projects and soil conservation measures; and defines an implementation strategy for carrying out the

goals of the program.

Sec. 3078. Cooper River Bridge demolition, Charleston, South Carolina.

This section authorizes the Secretary to carry out planning, design, and construction for the demolition and removal of the Grace

and Pearman Bridges over the Cooper River, South Carolina and

to use the remnants from that demolition and removal to develop

an aquatic reef off the shore of South Carolina. There is authorized

$39,000,000 to be appropriated to carry out this section.
58

Sec. 3079. South Carolina Department of Commerce development

proposal at Richard B. Russell Lake, South Carolina.

This section directs the Secretary to convey to the State of South

Carolina a portion of those lands described in Army Lease No.

DACW21–1–92–500 (Abbeville, Hester Marina and Manor Recreation Areas) currently under lease to the South Carolina Department of Commerce (SCDOC) for 99 years for cost-shared recreation

development pursuant to P.L. 89–72 (approximately 650 acres).

This section includes provisions for the Army to retain ownership

of land that would have been acquired for operational purposes in

accordance with existing policy and such other land as is determined to be required for project purposes. The section eliminates

the applicability of section 2696 of title 10, U.S.C. to this conveyance and allows the Secretary to require additional terms and conditions as appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.

The State is responsible for all costs associated with this conveyance, is required to pay fair market value for land conveyed, and

is permitted to perform environmental or real estate actions associated with the conveyance in lieu of payment. This section retains

the applicability of the Shoreline Management Policy of the Army

Corps of Engineers and the National Environmental Policy Act of

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et. seq.), including public review under that

Act, and other Federal statutes.

Sec. 3080. Missouri River restoration, South Dakota.

This section amends section 707(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2699) to extend the authorization for

appropriations through 2010.

Sec. 3081. Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers enhancement

project.

This section amends section 514 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 343; 117 Stat. 142) to extend the authorization of appropriations through fiscal year 2015. For any

project undertaken under this section, a non-Federal interest may

include a nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected local government.

Sec. 3082. Anderson Creek, Jackson and Madison Counties, Tennessee.

This section authorizes the Secretary to carry out a project for

flood damage reduction at Anderson Creek, Tennessee, under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s) if the

Secretary determines that the project is technically sound, environmentally acceptable, and economically justified. Anderson Creek is

not to be considered an authorized channel of the West Tennessee

Tributaries Project, nor is the flood damage reduction project to be

considered a part of the West Tennessee Tributaries Project.

Sec. 3083. Harris Fork Creek, Tennessee and Kentucky.

This section extends the authorization to be carried out by the

Secretary for a period of 7 years beginning on the date of enactment of this Act for the project for flood control, Harris Fork Creek,

Tennessee and Kentucky, authorized by section 102 of the Water
59

Resources Development Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C. 701c note; 90 Stat.

2920).

Sec. 3084. Nonconnah Weir, Memphis, Tennessee.

This section modifies the project for flood control, Nonconnah

Creek, Tennessee and Mississippi, authorized by section 401 of the

Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4124) and

modified by section 334 of the Water Resources Development Act

of 2000 (114 Stat. 2611), to authorize the Secretary to reconstruct,

at full Federal expense, the weir originally constructed in the vicinity of the mouth of Nonconnah Creek and to make repairs and

maintain the weir in the future so that the weir functions properly.

The estimated cost of reconstruction of the weir is $2,500,000.

Sec. 3085. Old Hickory Lock and Dam, Cumberland River, Tennessee.

This section extinguishes the reversionary interests and use restrictions relating to recreation and camping purposes with respect

to land conveyed by the Secretary to the Tennessee Society of Crippled Children and Adults, Incorporated (commonly known as

‘‘Easter Seals Tennessee’’) at Old Hickory Lock and Dam, Cumberland River, Tennessee, under section 211 of the Flood Control

Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1087). The Army Corps of Engineers retains

remaining rights or interest of the Army Corps of Engineers with

respect to an authorized purpose of any project.

Sec. 3086. Sandy Creek, Jackson County, Tennessee.

This section authorizes the Secretary to carry out a project for

flood damage reduction at Sandy Creek, Tennessee, under section

205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s) if the Secretary determines that the project is technically sound, environmentally acceptable, and economically justified. Sandy Creek is not

to be considered an authorized channel of the West Tennessee Tributaries Project, nor is the flood damage reduction project to be considered a part of the West Tennessee Tributaries Project.

Sec. 3087. Cedar Bayou, Texas.

This section modifies the project, authorized by section 349(a)(2)

of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2632),

to authorize construction of a navigation channel that is 10 feet by

100 feet instead of 112 feet by 125 feet.

Sec. 3088. Freeport Harbor, Texas.

This section clarifies that all costs associated as a result of the

discovery of the sunken vessel Comstock of the Corps of Engineers

are a Federal responsibility and directs the Corps not to seek these

costs or any costs associated with a delay from the local sponsor.

Sec. 3089. Harris County, Texas.

This section modifies section 575(b) of WRDA 1996 to not consider flood control works constructed by non-Federal interests within the drainage area in the determination of conditions existing

prior to construction of the Upper White Oak Bayou, Texas project
60

authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development

Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4125).

Sec. 3090. Dam remediation, Vermont.

This section amends section 543 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (42 Stat. 2671) to add ecosystem restoration, protection, and preservation as a purpose of the dam remediation authority and identifies nine additional dams to be evaluated under

the program.

Sec. 3091. Lake Champlain eurasian milfoil, water chestnut, and

other nonnative plant control, Vermont.

This section directs the Secretary to revise the existing General

Design Memorandum prepared under the project authorized by section 104 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (33 U.S.C. 610) to

permit the use of chemical means of control, when appropriate, of

Eurasian milfoil, water chestnuts, and other nonnative plants in

the Lake Champlain basin, Vermont.

Sec. 3092. Upper Connecticut River Basin wetland restoration,

Vermont and New Hampshire.

This section authorizes the Secretary, in consultation with Federal, State, local or non-profit agencies, to conduct a study and develop a strategy for the use of wetland restoration, soil and water

conservation practices, and non-structural measures in the Upper

Connecticut River basin to reduce flood damage, improve water

quality, and create wildlife habitat. It further directs the Secretary

to participate in the implementation of the strategy in cooperation

with local landowners and local government officials. The river

basin provides important habitat for Atlantic salmon, dwarf mussels, beaver, otter, mink, bear, and moose. It is a flyway for migratory bird species. Portions of the Connecticut River, such as the

Conte Refuge Special Focus Area, are known for its biological diversity and an unusual concentration of species that are disappearing from other places. It is the best dwarf wedge mussel

population in the basin and it provides summer forage for migratory bald eagles. In addition, the Connecticut River Rapids

Macrosite includes some of the river’s last floodplain forests. There

is authorized a total cost of $5,000,000, a Federal cost of $3,250,000

and a non-Federal cost of $1,750,000.

Sec. 3093. Upper Connecticut River Basin ecosystem restoration,

Vermont and New Hampshire.

This section directs the Secretary, in consultation with Federal,

State, local or non-profit agencies, to conduct a study and develop

a strategy for ecosystem restoration of the Upper Connecticut River

ecosystem. It further directs the Secretary to participate in the implementation of critical restoration projects in the Upper Connecticut River Basin consistent with the developed strategy. The

river basin provides important habitat for Atlantic salmon, dwarf

mussels, beaver, otter, mink, bear, and moose. It is a flyway for migratory bird species. Portions of the Connecticut River, such as the

Conte Refuge Special Focus Area, are known for its biological diversity and an unusual concentration of species that are dis-
61

appearing from other places. It is the best dwarf wedge mussel

population in the basin and it provides summer forage for migratory bald eagles. In addition, the Connecticut River Rapids

Macrosite includes some of the river’s last floodplain forests. There

is authorized a total cost of $20,000,000, a Federal cost of

$13,000,000, and a non-Federal cost $7,000,000.

Sec. 3094. Lake Champlain Watershed, Vermont and New York.

This section amends section 542 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (42 Stat. 2671) to identify additional activities

that may be considered critical restoration projects, including geographic mapping using existing technical capacity to produce a

high-resolution, multi-spectral satellite, imagery-based land use

and cover data sets; and river corridor assessments, protection,

management, and restoration for purposes of ecosystem restoration.

This section increases the authorized project costs from

$20,000,000 to $32,000,000.

Sec. 3095. Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration, Virginia and Maryland.

This section amends section 704(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 22263(b)) to increase the authorized

appropriation limit for the program from $20,000,000 to

$50,000,000. The provision also modifies the allowable activities to

be conducted in the Chesapeake Bay and expands the purposes for

which restoration activities may be undertaken and defines successful restoration activities.

Sec. 3096. Tangier Island Seawall, Virginia.

This section amends section 577(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1196 (110 Stat. 3789) to increase the total project

cost from $1,200,000 to $3,000,000 with a Federal cost of

$2,400,000 and a non-Federal cost of $600,000.

Sec. 3097. Erosion control, Puget Island, Wahkiakum County,

Washington.

This section modifies section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1950

(64 Stat. 178) for a one-time placement of dredge material from the

Columbia River channel onto the shoreline of Puget Island, Washington, for temporary protection from erosion of economic and environmental resources. This section authorizes appropriations of

$1,000,000 at full Federal expense and instructs the Secretary to

perform appropriate agency coordination and ensure environmental

compliance.

Sec. 3098. Lower granite pool, Washington.

This section extinguishes reversionary interests and use restrictions related to industrial use purposes, the restriction that no activity shall be permitted that will compete with services and facilities offered by public marinas, and the restriction on human habitation or other building structure in which the elevation is above

the standard project flood elevation. The use of fill material to raise

low areas above the standard project flood elevation is authorized,

except in any low area constituting wetland for which a permit
62

under section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33

U.S.C. 1344) is required. This section also specifies the deeds involved and includes a savings clause regarding other remaining

rights and interests of the Army Corps of Engineers for authorized

project purposes.

Sec. 3099. McNary Lock and Dam, McNary National Wildlife Refuge, Washington and Idaho.

This section directs the transfer of administrative jurisdiction

over the land acquired for the McNary Lock and Dam Project and

managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service under Cooperative

Agreement Number DACW68–4–00–13 from the Army Corps of Engineers to the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The land shall continue to be managed as part of the McNary National Wildlife Refuge. This section includes specific provisions regarding retention of

habitat unit credits at the Cummins property. It requires the Fish

and Wildlife Service to obtain priority approval of the Washington

State Department of Fish and Wildlife for any change to the previously approved site development plan for the Cummins property,

and it requires that the Fish and Wildlife Service continue operation of the Madame Dorian Recreation Area for public use and

boater access.

Sec. 3100. Snake River project, Washington and Idaho.

This section is a project modification for the Snake River Project,

Oregon and Washington, authorized by section 101 of the Water

Resources Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2921), to amend the

Fish and Wildlife Compensation Plan for the Lower Snake River,

Washington, and Idaho. This subsection authorizes the Secretary to

conduct studies and implement aquatic and riparian ecosystem restoration and improvements specifically for fisheries and wildlife.

Sec. 3101. Marmet Lock, Kanawha River, West Virginia.

This section increases the authorized project costs from

$229,581,000 to $358,000,000 due to an increase in construction

costs for the project authorized by section 101(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3666).

Sec. 3102. Lower Mud River, Milton, West Virginia.

This section authorizes the modification of the project for flood

damage reduction, Lower Mud River, Milton, West Virginia, substantially in accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions, recommended in a final report of the Chief of Engineers at

an estimated total cost of $45,500,000, with an estimated Federal

cost of $34,125,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of

$11,375,000.

Sec. 3103. Green Bay Harbor Project, Green Bay, Wisconsin.

This section modifies the existing limits of the authorized navigation channel of the Green Bay Harbor Project, beginning at Station

190+00 to Station 378+00 to a width of 75 feet and a depth of 6

feet. This modification will allow the local entities to complete the

cleanup of hazardous wastes currently within the waterway.
63

Sec. 3104. Underwood Creek diversion facility project, Milwaukee

County, Wisconsin.

This section directs the Secretary to carry out planning, engineering, and design of an adaptive ecosystem restoration, flood

damage reduction, and erosion protection project at the Milwaukee

County Grounds, Wauwatosa, Wisconsin. The Secretary must determine that the project is a cost-effective means of providing ecosystem restoration, flood damage reduction, and erosion protection,

and is environmentally acceptable and technically feasible and will

improve the economic conditions of the affected area.

Sec. 3105. Mississippi River headwaters reservoirs.

This section allows the Secretary to operate headwaters reservoirs below the minimum or above the maximum water levels established by this section in accordance with manual developed by

the Secretary after consultation with the Governor of Minnesota

and affected tribal governments. In addition, this section requires

the Secretary to submit a notice of intent to Congress 14 days prior

to operating the headwaters reservoir below the minimum or above

the maximum water level limits. This notice does not have to be

provided in cases where the operation is necessary to prevent the

loss of life, to ensure the safety of a dam, or in anticipation of a

flood control operation.

Sec. 3106. Lower Mississippi River Museum and Riverfront Interpretive Site.

This section amends section 103(c)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4811) to allow the purchase of

property that is not limited to being held by the Resolution Trust

Corporation.

Sec. 3107. Pilot program, Middle Mississippi River.

This section authorizes the Secretary to carry out a pilot program

over at least a 10-year period within the current project for navigation, Mississippi River between the Ohio and Missouri Rivers (Regulating Works), Missouri River and Illinois to restore and protect

fish and wildlife habitat in the middle Mississippi River. Activities

under this program may include those necessary to improve navigation through the project for navigation, Mississippi River, while

restoring and protecting fish and wildlife habitat in the middle

Mississippi River system. This section authorizes specific activities

under this program. Cost sharing shall continue to be in accordance with the River and Harbor Acts of 1910, 1927, and 1930.

Sec. 3108. Upper Mississippi River system environmental management program.

This section modifies the existing authorization to allow that for

any project undertaken under this section, a non-Federal interest

may include a nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected local

government.

Sec. 3109. Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem restoration program.

This section amends the Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem

Restoration Program in section 506(c) of the Water Resources De-
64

velopment Act of 2000 by directing the Corps to carry out a reconnaissance study before planning, design, or construction, to identify

methods of restoring fisheries, ecosystems and beneficial uses of

the Great Lakes. The Secretary shall then make a determination

as to whether the planning should proceed. Any reconnaissance

study carried out under this section shall be at full Federal expense.

Sec. 3110. Great Lakes remedial action plans and sediment remediation.

This section amends section 401(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1900 by extending the authorization of the program

from 2006 to 2011.

Sec. 3111. Great Lakes tributary models.

This section amends section 506(g)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 by extending the authorization of the program from 2006 to 2011.

TITLE IV—STUDIES

Sec. 4001. Eurasian milfoil.

This section directs the Secretary to carry out a study, at full

Federal expense, to develop national protocols for the use of the

Euhrychiopsis lecontei weevil for biological control of Eurasian

milfoil in the lakes of Vermont and other northern tier States.

Sec. 4002. National port study.

This section authorizes the Secretary to conduct a study of the

ability of coastal and deepwater port infrastructure to meet existing and future marine transportation demands. The committee is

concerned that the rapid growth in maritime trade has placed great

pressure upon our existing port infrastructure. Vessel sizes are increasing, and rapidly increasing volumes of containers and cargo

are creating significant congestion to all modes of transportation

serving the coastal and deepwater ports. The committee has determined that there is a need to understand the ability of coastal and

deepwater port infrastructure to meet current and projected demands. Therefore, the committee requests the Secretary to perform

this study in consultation with the Secretary of Transportation.

The study needs to consider the availability of alternate transportation destinations and modes, the impact of larger vessels on port

capacity, and practicable, cost-effective congestion management alternatives. Particular consideration should be given to the benefits

and proximity of proposed and existing port, harbor, waterway and

other transportation infrastructure. This section requires the Secretary to submit a report that describes the results of the study to

the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of

Representatives not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act. The timing is important for consideration with

other pertinent studies of vital infrastructure needs.
65

Sec. 4003. McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation Channel.

The committee is aware of scientific and technical concerns with

the identification and differentiation of sturgeon species and the effects that this may have on navigation projects operated by the

Corps of Engineers. The Secretary, in conjunction with the Oklahoma State University, is directed to convene a panel of experts

with acknowledged expertise in wildlife biology and genetics to review the available scientific information regarding the genetic variation of various sturgeon species and possible hybrids.

Sec. 4004. Selenium study, Colorado.

This section authorizes the Secretary, in consultation with State

resource agencies, to conduct regional and watershed wide studies

to address selenium concentrations within the State of Colorado.

The authorized limit for this section is $5,000,000.

Sec. 4005. Nicholas Canyon, Los Angeles, California.

This section authorizes the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of bank stabilization and shore protection for

Nicholas Canyon, Los Angeles, California, under the small project

authority of section 3 of the Act of August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C.

426g).

Sec. 4006. Oceanside, California, shoreline special study.

This section amends section 414 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2636) to increase by 12-months an extension for completing the Oceanside, California Shoreline Special

Study by striking ‘‘32 months’’ and inserting ‘‘44 months’’.

Sec. 4007. Comprehensive flood protection project, St. Helena, California.

This section authorizes the Secretary to review the project for

flood control and environmental restoration at St. Helena, California, generally in accordance with the Enhanced Minimum Plan

A, as described in the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared

by the city of St. Helena, California and certified by the city to be

in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Cost

sharing for the project shall in accordance with section 103 of the

Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213).

Sec. 4008. San Francisco Bay, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta,

Sherman Island, California.

This section authorizes the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of using a portion of Sherman Island, California, as a dredged material rehandling facility.

Sec. 4009. South San Francisco Bay shoreline study, California.

This section authorizes the Secretary in carrying out the feasibility phase of the South San Francisco Bay shoreline study to use

planning and design documents prepared by the California State

Coastal Conservancy, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, and

other local interests, in cooperation with the Army Corps of Engineers (who shall provide technical assistance to the local interests),

as the basis for recommendations to Congress for authorization of
66

a project to provide for flood protection of the South San Francisco

Bay shoreline and restoration of the South San Francisco Bay salt

ponds.

Sec. 4010. San Pablo Bay Watershed restoration, California.

This section directs the Secretary to submit to Congress a report

describing the results of the San Pablo Bay watershed study not

later than March 31, 2008.

Sec. 4011. Bubbly Creek, South Fork of South Branch, Chicago, Illinois.

This section authorizes the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of a project for ecosystem restoration and other

related activities.

Sec. 4012. Grand and Tiger Passes and Baptiste Collette Bayou,

Louisiana.

This section authorizes the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of modifying the existing project for enlargement of the navigation channel.

Sec. 4013. Lake Erie At Luna Pier, Michigan.

This section authorizes the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out storm damage reduction, beach

erosion protection and other related measures along the shores of

Lake Erie at Luna Pier, Michigan. The study shall include consideration of replacement, repair or modification of existing local and

Federal storm damage reduction and beach erosion protection

measures.

Sec. 4014. Middle Bass Island State Park, Middle Bass Island,

Ohio.

This section authorizes the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of providing a safe harbor and beach at Middle

Bass Island State Park for the navigation, storm damage reduction,

recreation and other related purposes.

Sec. 4015. Jasper County port facility study, South Carolina.

This section authorizes the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of providing improvements to the Savannah

River, Jasper County, South Carolina, for navigation and other

purposes related necessary to support locating a container cargo

and other port facilities near the entrance to the Savannah Harbor

Entrance Channel. The Secretary shall take into consideration

landside infrastructure, dredged material disposal sites, and the results of consultation with the Governors of the States of Georgia

and South Carolina.

Sec. 4016. Lake Champlain Canal study, Vermont and New York.

This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study, at full Federal expense, to determine the feasibility of a dispersal barrier for

control of invasive species at the Lake Champlain Canal, Vermont

and New York, and, if such project is found to be feasible, directs
67

the Secretary to construct, maintain, and operate such dispersal

barrier as necessary.

TITLE V—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 5001. Lakes program.

This section amends section 602(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4148; 110 Stat. 3758; 113 Stat. 295)

to include additional sites in Illinois, North Carolina, North Dakota, and Vermont to the Lakes Program.

Sec. 5002. Estuary restoration.

Subsection (a) amends section 102 of the Estuary Restoration Act

(ERA) of 2000 (the Act) (33 U.S.C. 2901) to expand the purposes

of the restoration program by including the implementation of a coordinated Federal approach to estuary habitat restoration activities, including the use of common monitoring standards and a common system for tracking restoration acreage; adding implementation to the strategy; and adding cooperative agreements to the Federal assistance purpose.

Subsection (b) amends section 103(6)(A) of the Act (33 U.S.C.

2902(6)(A)) by adding regional to the estuary habitat restoration

plan.

Subsection (c) amends section 104 of the Act (33 U.S.C. 2903) to

allow monitoring costs to be included in the total cost of the estuary restoration project and allows the Secretary, on recommendation of the Estuary Council, to delegate the implementation of

projects costing less than $1,000,000 to the Secretary of the Interior; the Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere of the Department of Commerce; the Administrator of the Environmental

Protection Agency; or the Secretary of Agriculture. Funding for

these small projects may be funded from the responsible department or appropriations of the agency authorized by section

109(a)(1).

Subsection (d) amends section 105(b) of the Act (33 U.S.C.

2903(b)) to direct the Council to cooperate in the implementation

of the strategy, recommend standards for monitoring restoration

projects and contribution of project information to the data base,

and use agency authorities to carry out the Act.

Subsection (e) amends section 107(d) of the Act (33 U.S.C.

2906(d) to give the Secretary general data compilation, coordination, and analysis responsibilities to support the strategy.

Subsection (f) amends section 108(a) of the Act (33 U.S.C.

2908(a)) by requiring the report every sixth, eighth, and tenth fiscal year after November 7, 2000.

Subsection (g) amends section 109(a) of the Act (33 U.S.C.

2908(a)) to establish project funding for fiscal years 2006 through

2010 as follows: $25,000,000 for the Secretary; $2,500,000 for the

Secretary of the Interior; $2,500,000 for the Under Secretary for

Oceans and Atmosphere of the Department of Commerce;

$2,500,000 for the Administrator of the Environmental Protection

Agency; and $2,500,000 for the Secretary of Agriculture. In addition, this subsection extends the monitoring authorization to 2010.
68

Subsection (h) amends section 110 of the Act (33 U.S.C. 2909) to

allow nongovernmental organizations to enter into cooperative

agreements or contracts.

The Estuary Restoration Act of 2000 (P.L. 106–457; 33 U.S.C.

2901–2909) was enacted to promote the restoration of estuary habitat through the development of a national estuary habitat restoration strategy, creating and maintaining effective estuary restoration partnerships among public agencies and private sectors. In

passing the Estuary Restoration Act, Congress recognized the importance of this national, strategic plan and multi-level partnerships for effectively addressing the problems plaguing our nation’s

estuaries. By setting a goal to restore one million acres of estuary

habitat by 2010, the Act encourages coordination among all levels

of government, along with engaging the unique strengths of the

public, non-profit, and private sectors. In 2002, the Estuary Council, consisting of members from several Federal agencies including

the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Commerce,

completed the national estuary strategy to ensure a comprehensive

and integrated approach for implementing the Estuary Restoration

Program.

Section 5002 amends sections 102, 103(6)(A), 104, 105(b), 107(d),

108(a), 109(a), and 110 of the Estuary Restoration Act (ERA) to

clarify the coordinated Federal approach and cooperative nature of

the law; to include monitoring costs as part of the total costs of an

estuary restoration project; to provide new authorities to the Secretary for the delegation of small estuary projects; to extend funding authority for the Secretary; and to provide new authority for

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Commerce, Environmental Protection Agency, and Department of Agriculture to develop and implement estuary projects.

The ERA itself is not clear regarding the mechanism by which

funding is granted under the law and the Conference Report for

P.L. 106–457 increases the uncertainty by stating that the Secretary should not give grants, but rather should use an expedited

version of the funding process used under past Water Resources

Development Acts. Section 110(b) of the ERA clearly stipulates that

cooperative agreements are appropriate vehicles, but the presence

of multiple options has led to confusion. This section amends section 104 to clarify that the Secretary may carry out estuary habitat

restoration projects and provide technical assistance through the

award of contracts and cooperative agreements. Ongoing uncertainty also exists regarding the inclusion of monitoring costs within

the non-Federal cost share. Some are interpreting the law to read

that the required monitoring is part of the ‘‘operations and maintenance’’, which may not be included in the sponsor’s portion of the

cost share agreement. The Council has released monitoring guidelines that stipulate restoration projects should be monitored for at

least 5 years, an amount of time that may significantly increase

the burden on the project sponsor, particularly if these costs are

not included as part of the total cost of a project. Section 104(d) is

amended to clarify that monitoring costs may be included in the

total costs of an estuary project.

To date, the ERA has received $3,500,000 in annual appropriations for estuary projects. Authorized at $275,000,000 through fis-
69

cal year 2005, the ERA has faced a number of hurdles since its enactment in November 2000, including the Army Corps of Engineers’

no new starts policy and the tight fiscal situation. The law has no

sunset provision, but appropriations are defined only through fiscal

year 2005. Section 109(a) of the ERA is amended to authorize

$25,000,000 annually through fiscal year 2010 for the Secretary;

$1,500,000 annually for the Department of Commerce estuary monitoring activities; and to grant new funding authority of $2,500,000

annually to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Commerce, Environmental Protection Agency, and Department of Agriculture, respectively, for estuary projects. This new funding authority, combined with language encouraging the Secretary to delegate

implementation of small projects with a Federal share of less than

$1,000,000, is essential to maximize the partnership model of the

Act and encourage other Federal partners to become engaged in

project implementation.

Sec. 5003. Delmarva conservation corridor, Delaware and Maryland.

This section authorizes the Secretary to provide technical assistance to the Secretary of Agriculture for use in carrying out the

Conservation Corridor Demonstration Program established under

subtitle G of title II of the Farm Security and Rural Investment

Act of 2002 (16 U.S.C. 3801; 116 Stat. 275). The Delmarva Conservation Corridor (DCC) is an attempt to integrate and connect

restoration efforts throughout the Delmarva Peninsula. The DCC is

a multi-faceted effort, designed to preserve farmland and rural

character, as well as restore natural ecosystem through the creation of a hub and corridor system.

Sec. 5004. Susquehanna, Delaware, and Potomac River Basins,

Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

This section designates that the Division Engineer, North Atlantic Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, shall serve as the exofficio United States member under the Susquehanna River Basin

Compact, the Delaware River Basin Compact, and the Potomac

River Basin Compact without additional compensation, and with

the authority to designate an alternate member(s) in accordance

with the terms of the applicable compact. The section directs the

Secretary to allocate funds to the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, the Delaware River Basin Commission, and the Interstate

Commission on the Potomac River Basin, to fulfill the equitable

funding requirements of the applicable compacts. The section directs the Secretary to enter into an agreement with the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, the Delaware River Basin Commission and the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River

Basin, to provide temporary water supply and conservation storage,

during drought emergencies.

Sec. 5005. Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal Barriers

project, Illinois.

The Chicago Ship and Sanitary Canal forms a unique, man-made

link between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River. The Canal

also provides non-indigenous aquatic nuisance species access be-
70

tween the two water basins. As the non-indigenous aquatic nuisance species move toward the Great Lakes from the Mississippi

River and vice versa, they prey on native species and compete for

food, living space and spawning areas. There is a current demonstration barrier authorized by the Non-Indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (amended through 1996)

which is nearing the end of its useful life.

Subsection (a) directs the Secretary to upgrade and make permanent the existing dispersal barrier at full Federal expense.

Subsection (b) directs the Secretary to construct the dispersal

barrier currently being implemented using section 1135 of the

Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a) at full

Federal expense.

Subsection (c) directs the Secretary to operate and maintain the

dispersal barriers described in subsections (a) and (b) at full Federal expense.

Subsection (d) directs the Secretary to credit to each State the

proportion funds that the State contributed to the dispersal barriers and allows the States to apply that credit toward the State’s

interest in other existing or future Corps projects.

Sec. 5006. Rio Grande environmental management program, New

Mexico.

This section authorizes the Secretary to implement a program for

planning, design, construction and evaluation of planning and implementation of measures for ecosystem restoration for the Rio

Chama and the Rio Grande, including all tributaries of the Rivers,

from the border between the States of Colorado and New Mexico

downstream to the border between the States of New Mexico and

Texas. The section also provides for long-term monitoring, computerized data inventory and analyses, and applied research and

adaptive management programs for the resources associated with

the Rio Grande River basin and its tributaries. The Secretary must

ensure coordinated planning and implementation of the program by

consulting with the State of New Mexico and other entities and by

entering into an interagency agreement with the Secretary of Interior that provides for the transfer of funds to Interior Department

agencies for their participation in program planning, design, implementation and monitoring. The Secretary, in consultation with the

Secretary of Interior and the State of New Mexico, will be required

to submit a report every 6 years that evaluates and describes the

accomplishments of the program, and identifies and needed adjustments to program authorization. This program will not preempt

any State water law. This program will comply with the Rio

Grande Compact and any applicable court decrees or State and

Federal laws affecting water or water rights in the Rio Grande system. The cost of projects carried out under this authority will be

cost-shared at a non-Federal share of 35 percent, which may be

provided through cash contribution or in-kind services, and shall

include provision of necessary land, easements, relocations, and

disposal sites. The non-Federal sponsor, may, with the consent of

the affected government, be a nonprofit entity. The program is authorized for an annual appropriation of $25,000,000.
71

Sec. 5007. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe,

and Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration, South Dakota.

This section amends section 602(a)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 386) to direct the Secretary of the

Treasury to make funds available to the State of South Dakota

from the State of South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Fund. The prior authorization directed the Secretary

of the Army to make such funds available to the State and the Secretary of the Treasury to make funds available to the Cheyenne

River Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe. This section

also amends the investment strategy directed in sections 603 and

604 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 for the State

of South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust

Fund and the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and Lower Brule Sioux

Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Fund. This section

directs the investment of funds in Treasury obligations with differing maturities to ensure high returns while allowing for the logical availability of funds.

Sec. 5008. Connecticut River dams, Vermont.

This section authorizes the Secretary to evaluate, design and

construct structural modifications, at full Federal expense, for the

purposes of improving the environment, to the following Army

Corps of Engineers operated dams in Vermont: Townshend Lake,

Ball Mountain Lake, North Springfield Lake, North Hartland

Lake, and Union Village Lake. There is authorized to carry out this

section $30,000,000.

TITLE VI—PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS

Sec. 6001. Little Cove Creek, Glencoe, Alabama.

This section deauthorizes the project for flood damage reduction,

Little Cove Creek, Glencoe, Alabama, authorized in the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1985 (99 Stat. 312).

Sec. 6002. Goleta and vicinity, California.

This section deauthorizes the project for flood control, Goleta and

vicinity, California, authorized by section 201 of the Flood Control

Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1826).

Sec. 6003. Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut.

This section deauthorizes the Yellow Mill River portion of the

project for navigation, Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut, authorized

by the Act of July 3, 1930 (46 Stat. 919), that consists of an 18-

foot channel, 150 to 200 feet wide, extending about a mile upstream from the 35-foot entrance channel.

Sec. 6004. Bridgeport, Connecticut.

This section deauthorizes the project for environmental infrastructure, Bridgeport, Connecticut, authorized by section 219(f)(26)

of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835;

73, 113 Stat. 336).
72

Sec. 6005. Hartford, Connecticut.

This section deauthorizes the project for environmental infrastructure, Hartford, Connecticut, authorized by section 219(f)(27) of

the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113

Stat. 336).

Sec. 6006. New Haven, Connecticut.

This section deauthorizes the project for environmental infrastructure, New Haven, Connecticut, authorized by section

219(f)(28) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106

Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336).

Sec. 6007. Inland waterway from Delaware River to Chesapeake

Bay, Part II, installation of fender protection for bridges, Delaware and Maryland.

This section deauthorizes the project for construction of bridge

fenders for the Summit and St. Georges Bridges over the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, Delaware and Maryland, authorized by

the River and Harbor Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 1249).

Sec. 6008. Central and southern Florida, Everglades National Park,

Florida.

This section deauthorizes the project to improve water supply,

Everglades National Park, Florida, authorized by section 203 of the

Flood Control Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 1257) and the Flood Control Act

of 1968 (82 Stat. 740).

Sec. 6009. Shingle Creek Basin, Florida.

This section deauthorizes the project for flood control, Shingle

Creek Basin, Florida, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1182).

Sec. 6010. Brevoort, Indiana.

This section deauthorizes the project for flood control, Brevoort,

Indiana, authorized by section 5 of the Flood Control Act of June

22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1587).

Sec. 6011. Middle Wabash, Greenfield Bayou, Indiana.

This section deauthorizes the project for flood control, Middle

Wabash, Greenfield Bayou, Indiana, authorized by section 10 of the

Flood Control Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 649).

Sec. 6012. Lake George, Hobart, Indiana.

This section deauthorizes the project for flood damage reduction,

Lake George, Hobart, Indiana, authorized by section 602 of the

Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4148).

Sec. 6013. Green Bay Levee and Drainage District No. 2, Iowa.

This section deauthorizes the project for flood damage reduction,

Green Bay Levee and Drainage District No. 2, Iowa, authorized by

section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986

(100 Stat. 4115), deauthorized in fiscal year 1991, and reauthorized

by section 115(a)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of

1992 (106 Stat. 4821).
73

Sec. 6014. Muscatine Harbor, Iowa.

This section deauthorizes the project for navigation at Muscatine

Harbor on the Mississippi River at Muscatine, Iowa, authorized by

section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 166).

Sec. 6015. Big South Fork National River and Recreational Area,

Kentucky and Tennessee.

This section deauthorizes the uninitiated portions of the project

for recreation facilities, Big South Fork National River and Recreational Area, Kentucky and Tennessee, authorized by section 108

of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 43).

Sec. 6016. Eagle Creek Lake, Kentucky.

This section deauthorizes the project for flood control and water

supply, Eagle Creek Lake, Kentucky, authorized by section 203 the

Flood Control Act 1962 (76 Stat. 1188).

Sec. 6017. Hazard, Kentucky.

This section deauthorizes the project for flood damage reduction,

Hazard, Kentucky, authorized by section 3 of the Water Resources

Development Act (WRDA) of 1988 (102 Stat. 4014) and section 108

of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4621).

Sec. 6018. West Kentucky tributaries, Kentucky.

This section deauthorizes the project for flood control, West Kentucky Tributaries, Kentucky, authorized by section 204 of the Flood

Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1081), section 201 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1825), and section 401(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4129).

Sec. 6019. Bayou Cocodrie and tributaries, Louisiana.

This section deauthorizes the project for flood damage reduction,

Bayou Cocodrie and Tributaries, Louisiana, authorized by section

3 of the Flood Control Act of 1941 (55 Stat. 644) and section 1(a)

of the Water Resources Development of 1974 (88 Stat. 12).

Sec. 6020. Bayou LaFourche and LaFourche Jump, Louisiana.

This section deauthorizes the project for navigation improvement

for Bayou LaFourche and LaFourche Jump, Louisiana, authorized

by the Act of August 30, 1935 (49 Stat. 1033, chapter 831) and the

River and Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 481).

Sec. 6021. Eastern Rapides and South-Central Avoyelles Parishes,

Louisiana.

This section deauthorizes the project for flood control, Eastern

Rapides and South-Central Avoyelles Parishes, Louisiana, authorized by section 201 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1825).

Sec. 6022. Fort Livingston, Grand Terre Island, Louisiana.

This section deauthorizes the project for erosion protection and

recreation, Fort Livingston, Grande Terre Island, Louisiana, authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426e et seq.).
74

Sec. 6023. Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Lake Borgne and Chef

Menteur, Louisiana.

This section deauthorizes the project for the construction of bulkheads and jetties at Lake Borgne and Chef Menteur, Louisiana, as

part of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, authorized by the first section of the River and Harbor Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 635).

Sec. 6024. Red River Waterway, Shreveport, Louisiana To

Daingerfield, Texas.

This section deauthorizes the Red River Waterway, Shreveport,

Louisiana to Dangerfield, Texas, authorized by section 101 of the

River and Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 731).

Sec. 6025. Casco Bay, Portland, Maine.

This section deauthorizes the project for environmental infrastructure, Casco Bay, Portland, Maine, authorized by section 307

of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4841).

Sec. 6026. Northeast Harbor, Maine.

This section deauthorizes the project for navigation, Northeast

Harbor, Maine, authorized by section 2 of the Act of March 2, 1945

(59 Stat. 12, Chapter 19).

Sec. 6027. Penobscot River, Bangor, Maine.

This section deauthorizes the project for environmental infrastructure, Penobscot River, Bangor, Maine, authorized by section

307 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat.

4841).

Sec. 6028. Saint John River Basin, Maine.

This section deauthorizes the program for research and demonstration of cropland irrigation and soil conservation techniques,

Saint John River Basin, Maine, authorized section 1108 of the

Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (106 Stat. 4230).

Sec. 6029. Tenants Harbor, Maine.

This section deauthorizes the project for navigation, Tenants

Harbor, Maine, authorized by the first section of the Act of March

2, 1919 (40 Stat. 1275, Chapter 95).

Sec. 6030. Grand Haven Harbor, Michigan.

This section deauthorizes modifications to the project for navigation, Grand Haven Harbor, Michigan, authorized by section 202(a)

of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4093).

Sec. 6031. Greenville Harbor, Mississippi.

This section deauthorizes the project for navigation, Greenville

Harbor, Mississippi, authorized by section 601(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4142).

Sec. 6032. Platte River flood and related streambank erosion control, Nebraska.

This section deauthorizes the project for flood damage reduction,

Platte River Flood and Related Streambank Erosion Control, Ne-
75

braska, authorized by section 603 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4149).

Sec. 6033. Epping, New Hampshire.

This section deauthorizes the project for environmental infrastructure, Epping, New Hampshire, authorized by section 219(c)(6)

of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835).

No funds have been allocated to date and the project is eligible for

deauthorization.

Sec. 6034. Manchester, New Hampshire.

This section deauthorizes the project for environmental infrastructure, Manchester, New Hampshire, authorized by section

219(c)(7) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106

Stat. 4836).

Sec. 6035. New York Harbor and adjacent channels, Claremont Terminal, Jersey City, New Jersey.

This section deauthorizes the project for navigation, New York

Harbor and adjacent channels, Claremont Terminal, Jersey City,

New Jersey, authorized by section 202(b) of the Water Resources

Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4098).

Sec. 6036. Eisenhower and Snell Locks, New York.

This section deauthorizes the project for navigation rehabilitation, Eisenhower and Snell Locks, New York, authorized by section

1163 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat.

4258).

Sec. 6037. Olcott Harbor, Lake Ontario, New York.

This section deauthorizes the project for navigation, Olcott Harbor, New York, authorized by section 601(a) of the Water Resources

Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4143).

Sec. 6038. Outer Harbor, Buffalo, New York.

This section deauthorizes the project for navigation, Outer Harbor, Buffalo, New York, authorized by section 110 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4817).

Sec. 6039. Sugar Creek Basin, North Carolina and South Carolina.

This section deauthorizes the project for flood damage reduction,

Sugar Creek Basin, North Carolina and South Carolina, authorized

by section 401(a) of Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100

Stat. 4121).

Sec. 6040. Cleveland Harbor 1958 Act, Ohio.

This section deauthorizes the project for navigation, Cleveland

Harbor, Ohio, project modifications, authorized by section 101 of

the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 482).

Sec. 6041. Cleveland Harbor 1960 Act, Ohio.

This section deauthorizes the project for navigation, Cleveland

Harbor, Ohio, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor

Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 482).
76

Sec. 6042. Cleveland Harbor, uncompleted portion of Cut #4, Ohio.

This section deauthorizes the project for navigation, Cleveland

Harbor, Ohio, authorized by the first section of the Act of July 24,

1946 (60 Stat. 636, chapter 595).

Sec. 6043. Columbia River, Seafarers Memorial, Hammond, Oregon.

This section deauthorizes the proposed Seafarers Memorial at

Hammond, Oregon, authorized by Title I of the Fiscal Year 1991

Energy and Water Development Act (104 Stat. 2078).

Sec. 6044. Chartiers Creek, Cannonsburg (Houston Reach Unit 2b),

Pennsylvania.

This section deauthorizes the project for flood control, Chartiers

Creek, Cannonsburg (Houston Reach Unit 2B), Pennsylvania, authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat.

1081).

Sec. 6045. Schuylkill River, Pennsylvania.

This section deauthorizes the 40-foot project for navigation,

Schuylkill River (Mouth to Penrose Avenue), Pennsylvania, authorized by section 344 of the Water Resources Development Act of

1996 (110 Stat. 3722).

Sec. 6046. Tioga-Hammond Lakes, Pennsylvania.

This section deauthorizes the project for flood control and recreation, Tioga Hammond Lakes, Mill Creek Recreation, Pennsylvania, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1958

(72 Stat. 313).

Sec. 6047. Tamaqua, Pennsylvania.

This section deauthorizes the project for flood control, Tamaqua,

Pennsylvania, authorized by section 1(a) of the Water Resources

Development Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 14).

Sec. 6048. Narragansett Town Beach, Narragansett, Rhode Island.

This section deauthorizes the project for navigation, Narragansett Town Beach, Rhode Island, authorized by section 361 of the

Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4861).

Sec. 6049. Quonset Point-Davisville, Rhode Island.

This section deauthorizes the project for navigation, Davisville,

Quonset Point, Rhode Island, authorized by section 571 of the

Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3788).

Sec. 6050. Arroyo Colorado, Texas.

This section deauthorizes project for flood damage reduction, Arroyo Colorado, Texas, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4125).

Sec. 6051. Cypress Creek-Structural, Texas.

This section deauthorizes the project for flood damage reduction,

Cypress Creek Structural, Texas, authorized by section 3(a)(13) of

the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4014).
77

Sec. 6052. East Fork Channel Improvement, Increment 2, east fork

of the Trinity River, Texas.

This section deauthorizes the Increment II of the project for flood

damage reduction, East Fork Channel Improvement, East Fork of

the Trinity River, Texas, authorized by section 203 of the Flood

Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1185).

Sec. 6053. Falfurrias, Texas.

This section deauthorizes the project for flood damage reduction,

Falfurrias, Texas, authorized by the section 3(a)(14) of the Water

Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4014).

Sec. 6054. Pecan Bayou Lake, Texas.

This section deauthorizes the project for flood control, Pecan

Bayou Lake, Texas, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control

Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 742).

Sec. 6055. Lake of the Pines, Texas.

This section deauthorizes the project for navigation, Lake of the

Pines, Texas for the portion of the Red River below Fulton, Arkansas, authorized by the Act of July 13, 1892 (27 Stat. 88, chapter

158), as amended by the Act of July 24, 1946 (60 Stat. 635, chapter

595), the Act of May 17, 1950 (64 Stat. 163, chapter 188), and the

River and Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 731).

Sec. 6056. Tennessee Colony Lake, Texas.

This section deauthorizes the project for navigation, Tennessee

Colony Lake, Trinity River, Texas, authorized by section 204 of the

River and Harbor Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1091).

Sec. 6057. City Waterway, Tacoma, Washington.

This section deauthorizes the unused portion of The City Waterway, Tacoma, Washington, consisting of the last 1,000 linear feet

of the inner portion of the Waterway beginning at Station 70+00

and ending at Station 80+00, authorized by the Rivers and Harbors

Act of 1902 (32 Stat. 347).

Sec. 6058. Kanawha River, Charleston, West Virginia.

This section deauthorizes the project for bank erosion, Kanawha

River, Charleston, West Virginia, authorized by section 603(f)(13)

of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4153).

HEARINGS

On March 31, 2004, the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure held a hearing to receive testimony on the role of the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in meeting the nation’s water resource needs in the 21st century. The committee received testimony

from the Honorable John Paul Woodley, Assistant Secretary of the

Army (Civil Works); Lieutenant General Robert B. Flowers, Chief

of Engineers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; The Honorable John

T. Myers, on behalf of the National Waterways Conference; Mr.

Derrick Crandall, President, American Recreation Coalition; Mr.

Steve Levy, County Executive, Suffolk County, New York; Mr. Mi-
78

chael Leone, Chairman, American Association of Port Authorities;

Dr. William G. Howland, Basin Program Manager, Lake Champlain Basin Program, Vermont; Mr. Michael Cameron, Desert Rivers Program Director, The Nature Conservancy of Nevada; Mr.

Dominic Izzo, American Society of Civil Engineers; Mr. Gregory A.

Zlotnick, Director, Santa Clara Valley Water District, California;

Mr. Ray Poupore, Executive Director, National Heavy & Highway

Alliance; Mr. Scott Faber, Environmental Defense; and testimony

was submitted for the record by Mr. George C. Grugett, Executive

Vice President, Mississippi Valley Flood Association, Tennessee.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

On April 6, 2005, Senator Bond, for himself, Senators Inhofe,

Vitter, Warner, Voinovich, Isakson, Thune, Murkowski, Obama,

Landrieu, Grassley, Harkin, Talent, Cornyn, Cochran, Domenici,

and Coleman, introduced the Water Resources Development Act of

2005 (S. 728). The Committee on Environment and Public Works

met to consider S. 728 on April 13, 2005, and reported the amended

bill by voice vote.

ROLLCALL VOTES

On April 13, 2005, the Committee on Environment and Public

Works met to consider S. 728, the Water Resources Development

Act of 2005. A Managers amendment, offered by Senators Inhofe

and Bond, as modified by a second degree amendment offered by

Senator Jeffords and a second degree amendment offered by Senator Inhofe, was agreed to by voice vote. An amendment offered by

Senator Vitter, related to obstructions to navigable water covered

under section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, was agreed

to by a vote of 12 ayes to 6 nays. Voting in favor were Senators

Baucus, Bond, Carper, DeMint, Isakson, Jeffords, Murkowski,

Thune, Vitter, Voinovich, Warner and Inhofe. Voting against were

Senators Boxer, Chafee, Clinton, Lautenberg, Lieberman and

Obama. An amendment offered by Senator Jeffords, related to the

planning and independent peer review requirements, was disagreed

to by voice vote. A modified amendment offered by Senator

Voinovich, related to the Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration Program, was agreed to by voice vote. Final passage of S.

728 was agreed to by voice vote.

MANDATES ASSESSMENT

In compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(Public Law 104–4), the committee finds that this bill would impose

no Federal intergovernmental unfunded mandates on State, local,

or tribal governments. All of its governmental directives are imposed on Federal agencies. The bill does not directly impose any

private sector mandates.

EVALUATION OF REGULATORY IMPACT

Section 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate

require publication in the report the committee’s estimate of the

regulatory impact made by the bill as reported. No regulatory im-
79

pact is expected by the passage of the bill. The bill will not affect

the personal privacy of individuals.

COST OF LEGISLATION

Section 403 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act

requires each report to contain a statement of the cost of a reported

bill prepared by the Congressional Budget Office. Senate Rule

XXVI paragraph 11(a)(3) allows the report to include a statement

of the reasons why compliance is impracticable. The committee has

requested this statement from the Congressional Budget Office and

will publish it in the Congressional Record when it becomes available.
80

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATORS JEFFORDS, BAUCUS, LIEBERMAN,

BOXER, CLINTON, CARPER, AND LAUTENBERG

GENERAL STATEMENT

During the last 5 years, concern has been raised about the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers’ internal evaluation and review procedures of their projects. Project economics, as well as mitigation

practices have been questioned. In light of these concerns, there

have been calls for changes that would force the Corps of Engineers

to be more accountable for its actions. Such changes include independent peer review of recommended projects, review of the construction backlog, as well as an improved deauthorization process,

and revision of project evaluation procedures (Principles and

Guidelines) to ensure that economic and environmental features

are evaluated appropriately.

BACKGROUND

In 1999, the National Academy of Sciences issued a report entitled New Directions in Water Resources Planning. The report called

for greater emphasis on ecological and social goals in project planning at the Corps of Engineers and for the elimination of bias

against non-structural solutions.

In 2000, the Washington Post published a five-part series that revealed efforts by the Corps of Engineers to exaggerate project benefits and underestimate environmental costs. Also in 2000, the Inspector General of the Army’s Upper Mississippi Illinois-Water

Navigation Study found evidence that results of that study were

manipulated to support longer locks and there was an institutional

bias in favor of large, structural projects.

Section 216 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 directed the Secretary of the Army to contract with the National

Academy of Sciences (NAS) to study and make recommendations

relating to the independent peer review of feasibility reports for

water resources projects. The July 25, 2002, report by the Panel on

Peer Review made several recommendations. Among them are:

• complex planning studies should be subjected to independent

review by objective, expert panels;

• reviewers should not be selected by or employed by the Corps

of Engineers; • reviews should be overseen by an organization independent of

the Corps of Engineers; • review results should be presented to the Chief of Engineers

before a final decision on a planning study is made;

• the Chief of Engineers should either agree with a point and

explain how it will be incorporated into the planning study or

project, or the point should be rebutted with an explanation of why

the Corps is choosing to reject it;

• reviews should be conducted to identify, explain, and comment

upon assumptions that underly economic, engineering, and environmental analyses, as well as evaluate the soundness of models

and planning methods; and • reviewers should be given the flexibility to bring important

issues to the attention of decisionmakers and evaluate whether the
81

interpretations of analysis and the conclusions based on analysis

are reasonable.

In 2001, the NAS Inland Waterway System Planning report

called for the Corps of Engineers to use a model that recognizes the

importance of alternative grain destinations and modes, to use real

data, and to give greater consideration to non-structural alternatives, such as scheduling.

In 2002, the General Accounting Office(GAO) looked into the Oregon Inlet Jetty Project and found that the Corps of Engineers

overestimated the number of vessels that would use an expanded

inlet that was being proposed. In another GAO report that same

year, it was found that the Corps of Engineers overstated the benefits of the $311 million Delaware River Deepening Project by more

than 300 percent. Also in 2002, following review by outside engineers, the Corps of Engineers conceded that the $90 million Chesapeake and Delaware Canal deepening project was not economically

justified. The 2002 GAO, Assessment of Fish and Wildlife Mitigation report concluded that the Corps of Engineers fails to mitigate

for nearly 70 percent of the projects for which mitigation is required, and found that the Corps of Engineers frequently fails to

mitigate in a timely fashion.

In 2004, the NAS did a series of four reports on U. S. Army

Corps of Engineers Water Resources Planning: A New Opportunity

for Service. The reports call for reforms in the Corps of Engineers’

planning process, including expanded focus on ecological restoration and updated planning tools. Also in 2004, the NAS conducted

a Review of the Restructured Upper Mississippi-Illinois Water

Navigation Study and found that the Corps of Engineers still employs models that exaggerate likely barge traffic and ignore nonstructural alternatives that could immediately reduce waterway

congestion. Finally, a Congressional Research Service report on Agriculture as Source of Barge Demand states that the Corps of Engineers exaggerates likely barge traffic and ignores rising demand for

corn at ethanol plants and increased rail shipments to Canada,

Mexico and West Coast ports.

In response to some of the reports cited above, legislation has

been introduced in the Senate in the 106th, 107th, 108th and 109th

Congresses to reform the Corps of Engineers. ( S. 2309, ‘Corps of

Engineers Civil Works Independent Investigation and Review Act’,

by Senator Daschle, on March 28, 2000; S. 3036, ‘Corps of Engineers River Stewardship Independent Investigations and Review

Act’, by Senators Daschle and Johnson, on October 3, 2002; S.

1997, ‘Corps of Engineers Modernization and Improvement Act of

2002’, by Senators Smith, Feingold and McCain, on March 3, 2002;

S. 2188, ‘Corps of Engineers Modernization and Improvement Act

of 2004’, by Senators Feingold, McCain and Daschle, on March 10,

2004; and S. 753, ‘Corps of Engineers Modernization and Improvement Act of 2005’, by Senators Feingold and McCain on April 11,

2005.

June 18, 2002, the Committee on Environment and Public Works

held a hearing on water resources development issues and heard

from several witnesses on the need for reform of the Corps of Engineers.
82

During development of S. 2773, the Water Resources Development Act of 2004, the committee considered many of the recommendations from the aforementioned reports and reviewed the

testimony presented to the committee on reforming the Corps of

Engineers. After extensive negotiations and compromise, the committee agreed to provisions that would improve the Corps of Engineers planning, review and mitigation programs and included them

in sections 1008, 1009, 1010, and 1111 of S. 2773, and favorably

reported the bill. S. 2773 was never considered by the full Senate

before the 108th Congress adjourned.

At the start of the 109th Congress, the committee began to develop a Water Resources Development Act for 2005. However, the

language proposed by the majority on planning, independent peer

review and mitigation was significantly different from what had

been agreed to and passed the committee in the previous Congress.

The minority were told that these provisions were non-negotiable.

DISCUSSION

On April 13, 2005, the committee met to consider S. 728, the

Water Resources Development Act of 2005. Senator Jeffords offered

an amendment on planning and independent peer review which

was identical to sections 1008,1009 and 1010 of S. 2773 from the

previous committee passed bill. The amendment would have required the Secretary to assess a project’s compliance with Federal,

State and local regulations; required the Secretary, in consultation

with the Water Resource Planning Council, to revise the agency’s

planning guidelines; provided specifics on what must be included in

a cost-benefit analysis; required the Secretary to generally complete feasibility studies within 2 years, but not longer than 3 years;

required the Secretary to establish a Water Resources Planning

Council to identify and review the methods, models and processes

of the Corps, as well as identifying new or additional methods or

processes which would streamline and enhance the agency’s planning process; and established an independent peer review process

within the office of the Inspector General of the Army; directing the

Inspector General to convene an independent peer review panel

prior to the submission of a project study or report required to be

submitted to Congress for authorization and describing the panel

membership and duties. In addition, the amendment directed the

Secretary to provide the panel with sufficient information to conduct the independent peer review and written or oral comments received from the public on the project study or report, described the

contents for a panel report, established the requirements for the

Secretary’s response to a panel report, required that independent

peer review reports be completed not later than 180 days after the

date on which the panel received the draft project study or report,

and clarified that the Secretary is not required to conduct an independent peer review of an existing water resources project.

The amendment failed on a voice vote.

We believe that the provisions in sections 2006, 2007, and 2008

of S. 728 do not provide the necessary direction and authority to

provide for meaningful reform of the Corps of Engineers. The planning provision rejects the recommendations of the NAS studies to

change the Principles and Guidelines which promote large-scale
83

structural solutions over non-structural approaches, which in many

cases are less harmful to the environment. The provision also

states the Chief of Engineers shall not be subject to direction in the

completion of reports. This grants the Chief of Engineers extreme,

subjective discretion in reviewing and approving reports.

The independent review provisions do not require that independent reviews be performed by reviewers independent of the

Corps of Engineers, gives the Chief of Engineers complete discretion as to what projects are reviewed, and limits what aspects of

a project can be reviewed. This is not independent peer review.

The mitigation provision will not improve the Corps of Engineers

project mitigation. No minimum standard is established, success

criteria are not proposed and there is no publicly accessible tracking system authorized.

We believe that meaningful reform of the Corps of Engineers in

necessary in order to protect the nation’s water resources and the

environment and to prevent wasteful spending on uneconomic

water resources projects. We believe these reforms must be contained in any Water Resources Development Act considered by the

Senate.
84

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATORS JEFFORDS, LIEBERMAN, BOXER,

CLINTON, CARPER, LAUTENBERG, AND CHAFEE

GENERAL STATEMENT

Section 2022 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2005

(WRDA) amends the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 to limit the

authority of the Army Corps of Engineers to regulate any activities

or structures on private property under section 10 of the Rivers

and Harbors Act of 1899 other than ‘‘those that the Secretary, in

consultation with the Secretary of the department in which the

Coast Guard is operating, determines that such activity would pose

a threat to the safe transit of maritime traffic.’’ This section was

presented to the committee as an amendment that sought to prevent the Corps of Engineers from claiming jurisdiction and requiring permits for activities and structures (house, cars, etc.) on private property behind levees in Louisiana that are impacted by flood

waters. The amendment summary presented to the committee emphasizes that the amendment limits section 10 applicability to obstructions to ‘‘maritime navigation—not on private lands where

mariners are unable to transit.’’

During the Business Meeting of the Committee on Environment

and Public Works, held on April 13, 2005, we expressed concern

that the actual text of the amendment could have unintended consequences as it is extremely broad language modifying a centuryold statute and asked that Senator Vitter (R-LA) withdraw his

amendment and work with concerned members to resolve concerns

before floor consideration of the WRDA bill. Senator Vitter chose

to proceed with a vote on his amendment which was adopted, but

agreed to work with interested members to resolve concerns with

the amendment language. We look forward to that discussion.

Since committee action on the WRDA bill on April 13, we have

completed a more thorough analysis of the nationwide impacts of

section 2022. In summary, this section seeks to exempt a timber

company from a permit requirement in Louisiana and purports to

prevent the Corps from expanding the scope of the definition of

navigable waters to include private property impacted by floods.

However, as drafted, the amendment takes drastic action to strip

the Corps of regulatory authority it has held since 1968 and reduces the Corps’ ability to protect navigation and the environment.

BACKGROUND

Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. §

403, prohibits the unauthorized obstruction or alteration of any

navigable water of the United States unless a permit has been

issued by the Army Corps of Engineers. This authority covers construction, excavation, or deposition of materials in, over, or under

any navigable water of the United States, or any work, which

would affect the course, location, condition, or capacity of those waters. Activities requiring section 10 permits include structures (e.g.,

piers, wharfs, breakwaters, bulkheads, jetties, weirs, transmission

lines) and work such as dredging or disposal of dredged material,

or excavation, filling, or other modifications to the navigable waters

of the United States.
85

Geographic Jurisdiction of Section 10

The geographic jurisdiction of the Rivers and Harbors Act includes all navigable waters of the United States which are defined

(33 CFR Part 329) as, ‘‘those waters that are subject to the ebb and

flow of the tide and/or are presently used, or have been used in the

past, or may be susceptible to use to transport interstate or foreign

commerce.’’ This jurisdiction extends seaward to include all ocean

waters within a zone three nautical miles from the coastline.

• In tidal waters, the shoreward limit of navigable waters extends to the line of the shore reached by the plane mean (average)

high water. • In bays and estuaries, jurisdiction extends to the entire surface and bed of all water bodies subject to tidal action. • In rivers and lakes, jurisdiction extends laterally over the entire water surface and bed of a navigable water body, including all

land and waters below the ordinary high mark even though such

waters may be extremely shallow or obstructed by shoals or vegetation.

The definition of navigable waters for the purposes of section 10

is different than the definition of navigable waters for the Clean

Water Act. However, both are similar in that they are not limited

to locations where boats travel. A more thorough discussion of the

fact that this section does not affect the definition of navigable waters for the Clean Water Act follows in the discussion section

below.

Privately owned lands underlying a water body, or the lands

through which it runs, can be deemed navigable waters within the

jurisdiction of section 10. Privately constructed and operated canals

not used to transport interstate commerce, nor used by the public,

are not considered to be navigable waters of the United States.

However, a private water body, even though not itself navigable,

may affect the navigable capacity of nearby waters as to nevertheless be subject to certain regulatory authorities. (33 CFR §

329.8(a)(3))

Application of Section 10: Public Interest Review

Until 1968, the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 was administered

to protect only navigation and the navigable capacity of this nation’s waters. In 1968, the policy for review of permit applications

with respect to sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act

was revised to include additional factors besides navigation:‘‘. . .

All factors which may be relevant to the proposal must be considered including the cumulative effects thereof: among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns,

wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, flood plain values, land use, navigation, shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality,

energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership and, in general, the needs and

welfare of the people . . .’’ (33 CFR § 320.4.) This new type of review was identified as a ‘‘public interest review’’ that requires the

Corps to consider the practicability of alternatives to the project

and deny a permit application where a practicable alternative ex-
86

ists that would have a less adverse impact on the aquatic environment.

DISCUSSION

SECTION 2022 INTENT.

This section was presented as a solution to two perceived local

issues. First, a timber harvesting company in Louisiana is interested in having the ability to harvest cypress trees growing below

the ordinary high water mark in Louisiana without obtaining a section 10 permit. Second, based on the amendment summary provided, the experience of the timber company raised concern among

some that the Corps would seek to extend its jurisdiction under

section 10 to private property inundated by a flooding event.

Timber Permit

The timber company is interested in harvesting cypress trees

growing below the ordinary high water mark. In order to reach

these trees, they will need to construct a road. Section 10 prohibits

the construction of such structures in navigable waters without a

permit. Therefore, under normal circumstances the timber company would apply to the Corps for a permit. Should the permit be

granted, cypress trees that currently protect the coast of Louisiana

from erosion would be harvested. The Corps indicates that it would

likely grant a permit with some conditions designed to mitigate the

environmental impact of the construction of the road. The timber

company in question has not applied for a permit and is instead

seeking an exemption from the requirements of section 10.

Regulation of private lands inundated by floods

It appears that based on this series of events, some became concerned that what they characterize as a recent interpretation of

section 10 authority, could lead the Corps to seek to apply section

10 permit requirements to private property inundated by a flooding

event. The Corps refutes this suggestion by stating that:

• First, the timber company situation described above does not

represent a recent interpretation of section 10; and

• Second, as described above, section 10 jurisdiction is based on

the definition of navigable waters, which extends in general to

those locations below the ordinary high water mark or mean high

water.

First, since the late 1960’s, following a rulemaking, the Corps of

Engineers has regulated activities occurring within the entire lateral extent of navigable waters—up to the mean high water mark

and the ordinary high water mark. These regulations were affirmed in Federal court (See e.g. United States v. Alaska, 503 U.S.

569 at 582 (1992.) Thus, the decision to require a section 10 permit

for activities located below the ordinary high water mark does not

represent a recent interpretation of section 10.

Second, ordinary high water mark and mean high water do not

include unusually high waters or unusually high river flood stages.

• There is extensive Federal case law supporting the fact that

flood stages or peak flows are not used when determining the ordi-
87

nary high water mark. (See Oklahoma v. Texas 260 U.S. 606, 43

S.Ct. 3221, 67 L. Ed. 428 (1923); United States v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Company, et al., 312 U.S. 592,

596, 61 S.Ct. 722, 85 L.Ed. 1064 (1941) (the ordinary high water

mark (OHWM) is determined‘‘. . . without reference to the extraordinary freshets of the winter or spring, or the extreme droughts of

the summer and autumn’’); United States v. Claridge 279 F. Supp.

87, 91 (D.C. Ariz. 1967) aff’d 416 F. 2d 933 (9th Cir. 1969) cert. denied 397 US. 961, 90 S. Ct. 944, 25 L.Ed.2d 251 (1970); Goose

Creek Hunting Club, Inc. v. United States, 518 F. 2d 579 (Ct. Cl.

1975). • Mean high water shoreline is a line on the shore reached by

the plane of the mean daily high tides. Corps regulations (33 CFR

329.12(a)(2)) establish one method for establishing the precise

mean high water shoreline by taking an average of the tides over

a period of 18.6 years. Practically speaking, the mean high water

shoreline is located by observing physical markings such as lines

of vegetation and debris or changes in vegetation.

Therefore, it is clear that based both on Federal case law and existing regulation, a flooding event would not generate a change in

the ordinary high water mark or the mean high water shoreline.

The situation anticipated by this section—Corps regulation of private lands under section 10 following inundation after a flooding

event—would not occur.

SECTION 2022 EFFECT.

In summary, this section eliminates the ability of the Army

Corps of Engineers to regulate any activities or structures on private property under section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of

1899 other than ‘‘those that the Secretary, in consultation with the

Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating,

determines that such activity would pose a threat to the safe transit of maritime traffic.’’

In doing so, this section strips the Corps of regulatory authority

it has held since 1968 to protect the public interest (including national security, environment, homeland security, etc.) when granting permits for the construction, excavation, or deposition or materials in, over, or under any navigable water of the United States,

or any work, which would affect the course, location, condition, or

capacity of those waters.

Eliminates Protection of Public Interest

Under the conditions of this section, the Corps would only be allowed to consider the safe transit of maritime traffic rather than

the entire public interest when issuing permits for activities such

as construction of piers, wharfs, breakwaters, bulkheads, jetties,

weirs, transmission lines, and work such as dredging or disposal of

dredged material, or excavation, filling, or other modifications to

navigable waters. This eliminates huge numbers of activities from

regulation that would normally be covered by section 10 because of

impacts to the environment, national security, homeland security,

the speed rather than the safe transit of maritime traffic, or any

other element of the public interest. For example, in coastal Louisiana, the Corps would be unable to issue a section 10 permit for
88

construction or activities that would increase the speed of the erosion of Louisiana’s coastline.

Negatively Affects Navigation

In addition, this section could negatively impact navigation itself.

First, it limits the Corps’ authority to regulate those activities that

affect safe transit with no consideration for speed. Second, it imposes a new burden on the Corps to consult with the Coast Guard

before requiring a section 10 permit. Third, it limits Corps authority to maritime, or sea-going, navigation, eliminating the Corps’

ability to require section 10 permits for structures or activities on

inland waterways. Therefore, the Corps would not be able to prevent the construction on privately owned beds of structures that

would impact safe transit on an inland waterway. Finally, this section interferes with the Federal Government’s long-standing right

of navigational servitude by excluding privately owned elements of

navigable waters from its scope, potentially interfering with navigation and generating extensive litigation as ownership of the beds

of water bodies is determined.

Limits Federal Regulation on Navigable Waters Under Section 10

This section does not explicitly modify the definitions of navigable waters for section 10 or for the Clean Water Act. In addition,

legislative history shows that there is no congressional intent for

this section to modify the definition of navigable waters for the

purposes of the Clean Water Act. During committee consideration

of this section, there was extensive dialog between Senators Bond,

Jeffords, Boxer, Carper, Chafee, and Vitter regarding any potential

impact of this section on the definition of navigable waters for the

purposes of the Clean Water Act. Senators Bond and Vitter stated

that there is no impact of this language on section 404 of the Clean

Water Act. These statements were supported by majority staff.

Limits Environmental Protections

By so severely restricting the scope of the activities that would

require a section 10 permit, this section limits the number of activities that would be subject to the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Clean Water Act

(CWA), and other statutes whose applicability is triggered by the

section 10 permit process. In addition, in cases where the CWA section 404 does not apply for whatever reason, this section eliminates

the potential application of section 10 to provide wetlands protection. This contradicts the intent of the amendment as described by

Senator Vitter at the Business Meeting where he indicated that

should the amendment have any negative effects on wetlands, he

would withdraw it from consideration.

CONCLUSION

Therefore, as currently drafted, this section has extensive unintended consequences. Although it is clear that there is no effect of

the amendment on the definition of navigable waters under the

Clean Water Act, there are impacts on the Corps’ regulatory authority as described above. We look forward to the opportunity to
89

work with its sponsor prior to floor consideration of this bill to resolve these issues.
90

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with section 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules

of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill as reported

are shown as follows: Existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in øblack brackets¿, new matter is printed in italic, existing

law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman:

* * * * * * *

[33 U.S.C. 622; 25 STAT. 423]

ACT OF AUGUST 11, 1888

* * * * * * *

SEC. 3. CONTRACTS, ETC., WITH PRIVATE INDUSTRY FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF PROJECTS FOR IMPROVEMENTS AND DREDGING; REDUCTION OF FEDERALLY OWNED FLEET.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) PROGRAM TO INCREASE USE OF PRIVATE HOPPER DREDGES.— (1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(7) LIMITATIONS.— (A) * * *

(B) INCREASE IN ASSIGMENTS OF DREDGING WORK.—For

each fiscal year beginning after October 12, 1996, the Secretary shall not assign any greater quantity of dredging

work to any Federal hopper dredge in active status than

was assigned to that vessel in the average of the 3 prior

fiscal years. This subparagraph shall not apply to the Federal hopper dredges Essayons and Yaquina of the Corps of

Engineers.

* * * * * * *

[33 U.S.C. 403]

ACT OF MARCH 3, 1899

* * * * * * *

SEC. 10. OBSTRUCTION OF NAVIGABLE WATERS GENERALLY;

WHARVES; PIERS, ETC.; EXCAVATIONS AND FILLING IN

The creation of any obstruction not affirmatively authorized by

Congress, to the navigable capacity of any of the waters of the

United States is prohibited; and it shall not be lawful to build or

commence the building of any wharf, pier, dolphin, boom, weir,

breakwater, bulkhead, jetty, or other structures in any port,

roadstead, haven, harbor, canal, navigable river, or other water of

the United States, outside established harbor lines, or where no

harbor lines have been established, except on plans recommended

by the Chief of Engineers and authorized by the Secretary of the

Army; and it shall not be lawful to excavate or fill, or in any manner to alter or modify the course, location, condition, or capacity of,
91

any port, roadstead, haven, harbor, canal, lake, harbor or refuge,

or inclosure within the limits of any breakwater, or of the channel

of any navigable water of the United States, unless the work has

been recommended by the Chief of Engineers and authorized by

the Secretary of the Army prior to beginning the same. Nothing in

this section shall be construed as to provide for the regulation of activities or structures on private property, unless the Secretary, in

consultation with the Secretary of the department in which the

Coast Guard is operating, determines that such activity would pose

a threat to the safe transit of maritime traffic.

* * * * * * *

[55 STAT. 642, CHAPTER 377]

ACT OF AUGUST 18, 1941

* * * * * * *

LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER

* * * * * * *

(a) The existing engineering plan for flood control in the alluvial valley of the Mississippi River is hereby modified so as to provide for the construction of plan 4 as set forth in the report of the

Mississippi River Commission, dated March 7, 1941, to the Chief

of Engineers, except that the levees in the Yazoo Basin on the east

bank of the Mississippi River south of the Coahoma-Bolivar County

line in said plan shall have a three-foot freeboard over the project

flood, and all levees shall be constructed with adequate section and

foundation to conform to increased levee heights. The Boeuf

Floodway in the project adopted by the Act of May 15, 1928, and

the Eudora Floodway as well as the Northward Extension and the

back protection levee extending from the head of the said Eudora

Floodway north to the Arkansas River in the project adopted by the

Act of June 15, 1936, as amended, are hereby abandoned, and the

provisions of said Acts relating to the prosecution of work on said

floodways and extension are hereby repealed Provided, That the

Ouachita River Levees, Louisiana, authorized under the first section

of the Act of May 15, 1928 (45 Stat. 534, chapter 569) shall remain

as a component of the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project and

afforded operation and maintenance responsibilities as directed in

section 3 of that Act (45 Stat. 535).

* * * * * * *

[CF. 16 U.S.C. 460D]

FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1944

Sec. 460d. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF PUBLIC PARKS

AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES IN WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

PROJECTS; LEASE OF LANDS; PREFERENCE FOR USE; PENALTY; AP- PLICATION OF SECTION 3401 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE; CI- TATIONS AND ARRESTS WITH AND WITHOUT PROCESS; LIMITATIONS;

DISPOSITION OF RECEIPTS.—The Chief of Engineers, under the su-
92

pervision of the Secretary of the Army, is authorized to construct,

maintain, and operate public park and recreational facilities at

water resource development projects under the control of the Department of the Army, to permit the construction of such facilities

by local interests (particularly those to be operated and maintained

by such interests), and to permit the maintenance and operation of

such facilities by local interests. The Secretary of the Army is also

authorized to grant leases of lands, including structures or facilities

thereon, at water resource development projects for such periods,

and upon such terms and for such purposes as he may deem reasonable in the public interest: øProvided, That leases to nonprofit

organizations for park or recreational purposes may be granted at

reduced or nominal considerations in recognition of the public service to be rendered in utilizing the leased premises¿ Provided, That

any new lease granted under this section to a nonprofit organization

for park and recreational purposes, and any new lease or license

granted to a Federal, State, or local governmental agency for any

public purpose, shall include a provision requiring that consideration for the grant of the lease or license shall be at least sufficient

to pay the costs of administering the grant, as determined by the

Secretary of the Army: øProvided further, That preference shall be

given to Federal, State, or local governmental agencies, and licenses or leases where appropriate, may be granted without monetary considerations, to such agencies for the use of all or any portion of a project area for any public purpose, when the Secretary

of the Army determines such action to be in the public interest,

and for such periods of time and upon such conditions as he may

find advisable: And provided¿ Provided further, That in any such

lease or license to a Federal, State, or local governmental agency

which involves lands to be utilized for the development and conservation of fish and wildlife, forests, and other natural resources,

the licensee or lessee may be authorized to cut timber and harvest

crops as may be necessary to further such beneficial uses and to

collect and utilize the proceeds of any sales of timber and crops in

the development, conservation, maintenance, and utilization of

such lands. Any balance of proceeds not so utilized shall be paid

to the United States at such time or times as the Secretary of the

Army may determine appropriate. The water areas of all such

projects shall be open to public use generally for boating, swimming, bathing, fishing, and other recreational purposes, and ready

access to and exit from such areas along the shores of such projects

shall be maintained for general public use, when such use is determined by the Secretary of the Army not to be contrary to the public

interest, all under such rules and regulations as the Secretary of

the Army may deem necessary, including but not limited to prohibitions of dumping and unauthorized disposal in any manner of

refuse, garbage, rubbish, trash, debris, or litter of any kind at such

water resource development projects, either into the waters of such

projects or onto any land federally owned and administered by the

Chief of Engineers. Any violation of such rules and regulations

shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500 or imprisonment

for not more than six months, or both. Any persons charged with

the violation of such rules and regulations may be tried and sentenced in accordance with the provisions of section 3401 of title 18.
93

All persons designated by the Chief of Engineers for that purpose

shall have the authority to issue a citation for violation of the regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Army, requiring the appearance of any person charged with violation to appear before the

United States magistrate judge, within whose jurisdiction the

water resource development project is located, for trial; and upon

sworn information of any competent person any United States magistrate judge in the proper jurisdiction shall issue process for the

arrest of any person charged with the violation of said regulations;

but nothing herein contained shall be construed as preventing the

arrest by any officer of the United States, without process, of any

person taken in the act of violating said regulations. No use of any

area to which this section applies shall be permitted which is inconsistent with the laws for the protection of fish and game of the

State in which such area is situated. øAll moneys received by the

United States for leases or privileges shall be deposited in the

Treasury of the United States as miscellaneous receipts.¿ Any

funds received by the United States for a lease or privilege granted

under this section shall be deposited and made available in accordance with section 210 of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C.

460d–3).

* * * * * * *

[33 U.S.C. 701R—JUL. 24, 1946]

FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1946

* * * * * * *

SEC. 14.— The Secretary of the Army is authorized to allot from

any appropriations heretofore or hereafter made for flood control,

not to exceed ø$15,000,000¿ $20,000,000 per year, for the construction, repair, restoration, and modification of emergency streambank

and shoreline protection works to prevent damage to highways,

bridge approaches, and public works, churches, hospitals, schools,

and other nonprofit public services, when in the opinion of the

Chief of Engineers such work is advisable: Provided, That not more

than ø$1,000,000¿ $1,500,000 shall be allotted for this purpose at

any single locality from the appropriations for any one fiscal year.

* * * * * * *

[CF. 33 U.S.C. 426G, AUGUST 13, 1946]

AN ACT AUTHORIZING FEDERAL PARTICIPATION IN

THE COST OF PROTECTING THE SHORES OF PUBLICLY OWNED PROPERTY

øSEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF SMALL PROJECTS NOT SPECIFICALLY

AUTHORIZED; EXPENDITURES; LOCAL COOPERATION;

WORK TO BE COMPLETE; EXCEPTIONS

øThe Secretary is authorized to undertake construction of

small shore and beach restoration and protection projects not specifically authorized by Congress, which otherwise comply with section 426e of this title, when he finds that such work is advisable,
94

and he is further authorized to allot from any appropriations hereafter made for civil works, not to exceed $30,000,000 for any one

fiscal year for the Federal share of the costs of construction of such

projects: Provided, That not more than $3,000,000 shall be allotted

for this purpose for any single project and the total amount allotted

shall be sufficient to complete the Federal participation in the

project under this section including periodic nourishment as provided for under section 426e(c) of this title: Provided further, That

the provisions of local cooperation specified in section 426e of this

title shall apply: And provided further, That the work shall be complete in itself and shall not commit the United States to any additional improvement to insure its successful operation, except for

participation in periodic beach nourishment in accordance with section 426e(c) of this title, and as may result from the normal procedure applying to projects authorized after submission of survey reports.¿

SEC. 3. STORM AND HURRICANE RESTORATION AND IMPACT MINIMIZATION PROGRAM.

(a) CONSTRUCTION OF SMALL SHORE AND BEACH RESTORATION

AND PROTECTION PROJECTS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may carry out construction

of small shore and beach restoration and protection projects not

specifically authorized by Congress that otherwise comply with

the first section of this Act if the Secretary determines that such

construction is advisable.

(2) LOCAL COOPERATION.—The local cooperation requirement under the first section of this Act shall apply to a project

under this section.

(3) COMPLETENESS.—A project under this section—

(A) shall be complete; and

(B) shall not commit the United States to any additional improvement to ensure the successful operation of the

project, except for participation in periodic beach nourishment in accordance with—

(i) the first section of this Act; and

(ii) the procedure for projects authorized after submission of a survey report.

(b) NATIONAL SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL DEVELOPMENT

AND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, acting through the Chief

of Engineers, shall conduct a national shoreline erosion control

development and demonstration program (referred to in this

section as the ‘program’).

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The program shall include provisions for—

(i) projects consisting of planning, design, construction, and adequate monitoring of prototype engineered and native and naturalized vegetative shoreline

erosion control devices and methods;

(ii) detailed engineering and environmental reports

on the results of each project carried out under the program; and
95

(iii) technology transfers, as appropriate, to private

property owners, State and local entities, nonprofit

educational institutions, and nongovernmental organizations.

(B) DETERMINATION OF FEASIBILITY.—A project under

this section shall not be carried out until the Secretary, acting through the Chief of Engineers, determines that the

project is feasible.

(C) EMPHASIS.—A project carried out under the program shall emphasize, to the maximum extent

practicable—

(i) the development and demonstration of innovative technologies;

(ii) efficient designs to prevent erosion at a shoreline site, taking into account the lifecycle cost of the design, including cleanup, maintenance, and amortization;

(iii) new and enhanced shore protection project design and project formulation tools the purposes of

which are to improve the physical performance, and

lower the lifecycle costs, of the projects;

(iv) natural designs, including the use of native

and naturalized vegetation or temporary structures

that minimize permanent structural alterations to the

shoreline;

(v) the avoidance of negative impacts to adjacent

shorefront communities;

(vi) the potential for long-term protection afforded

by the technology; and

(vii) recommendations developed from evaluations

of the program established under the Shoreline Erosion

Control Demonstration Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 1962–5

note; 88 Stat. 26), including—

(I) adequate consideration of the subgrade;

(II) proper filtration;

(III) durable components;

(IV) adequate connection between units; and

(V) consideration of additional relevant information.

(D) SITES.—

(i) IN GENERAL.—Each project under the program

shall be carried out at—

(I) a privately owned site with substantial

public access; or

(II) a publicly owned site on open coast or in

tidal waters.

(ii) SELECTION.—The Secretary, acting through the

Chief of Engineers, shall develop criteria for the selection of sites for projects under the program, including

criteria based on—

(I) a variety of geographic and climatic conditions;
96

(II) the size of the population that is dependent

on the beaches for recreation or the protection of

private property or public infrastructure;

(III) the rate of erosion;

(IV) significant natural resources or habitats

and environmentally sensitive areas; and

(V) significant threatened historic structures

or landmarks.

(3) CONSULTATION.—The Secretary, acting through the

Chief of Engineers, shall carry out the program in consultation

with—

(A) the Secretary of Agriculture, particularly with respect to native and naturalized vegetative means of preventing and controlling shoreline erosion;

(B) Federal, State, and local agencies;

(C) private organizations;

(D) the Coastal Engineering Research Center established by the first section of Public Law 88–172 (33 U.S.C.

426–1); and

(E) applicable university research facilities.

(4) COMPLETION OF DEMONSTRATION.—After carrying out

the initial construction and evaluation of the performance and

lifecycle cost of a demonstration project under this section, the

Secretary, acting through the Chief of Engineers, may—

(A) at the request of a non-Federal interest of the

project, amend the agreement for a federally-authorized

shore protection project in existence on the date on which

initial construction of the demonstration project is complete

to incorporate the demonstration project as a feature of the

shore protection project, with the future cost of the demonstration project to be determined by the cost-sharing ratio

of the shore protection project; or

(B) transfer all interest in and responsibility for the

completed demonstration project to the non-Federal or other

Federal agency interest of the project.

(5) AGREEMENTS.—The Secretary, acting through the Chief

of Engineers, may enter into an agreement with the non-Federal

or other Federal agency interest of a project under this section—

(A) to share the costs of construction, operation, maintenance, and monitoring of a project under the program;

(B) to share the costs of removing a project or project

element constructed under the program, if the Secretary determines that the project or project element is detrimental

to private property, public infrastructure, or public safety;

or

(C) to specify ownership of a completed project that the

Chief of Engineers determines will not be part of a Corps

of Engineers project.

(6) REPORT.—Not later than December 31 of each year beginning after the date of enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall prepare and submit to the Committee on Environment and Public works of the Senate and the Committee on

Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report describing—
97

(A) the activities carried out and accomplishments

made under the program during the preceding year; and

(B) any recommendations of the Secretary relating to

the program.

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary

may expend, from any appropriations made available to the

Secretary for the purpose of carrying out civil works, not more

than $30,000,000 during any fiscal year to pay the Federal

share of the costs of construction of small shore and beach restoration and protection projects or small projects under the program.

(2) LIMITATION.—The total amount expended for a project

under this section shall—

(A) be sufficient to pay the cost of Federal participation

in the project (including periodic nourishment as provided

for under the first section of this Act), as determined by the

Secretary; and (B) be not more than $3,000,000.

* * * * * * *

øSEC. 5. FEDERAL AID IN PROTECTION OF SHORES

ø(a) DECLARATION OF POLICY.—With the purpose of preventing

damage to the shores and beaches of the United States, its Territories and possessions and promoting and encouraging the healthful recreation of the people, it is declared to be the policy of the

United States, subject to sections 426e to 426h-1 of this title, to

promote shore protection projects and related research that encourage the protection, restoration, and enhancement of sandy beaches,

including beach restoration and periodic beach nourishment, on a

comprehensive and coordinated basis by the Federal Government,

States, localities, and private enterprises. In carrying out this policy, preference shall be given to areas in which there has been a

Federal investment of funds and areas with respect to which the

need for prevention or mitigation of damage to shores and beaches

is attributable to Federal navigation projects or other Federal activities.

ø(b) FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION; MAXIMUM AMOUNT; EXCEPTIONS.— The Federal contribution in the case of any project referred to in

subsection (a) of this section shall not exceed one-half of the cost

of the project, and the remainder shall be paid by the State, municipality, or other political subdivision in which the project is located, except that

ø(1) the costs allocated to the restoration and protection of

Federal property shall be borne fully by the Federal Government,

ø(2) Federal participation in the cost of a project for restoration and protection of State, county, and other publicly

owned shore parks and conservation areas may be, in the discretion of the Chief of Engineers, not more than 70 per centum

of the total cost exclusive of land costs, when such areas: Include a zone which excludes permanent human habitation; include but are not limited to recreational beaches; satisfy adequate criteria for conservation and development of the natural
98

resources of the environment; extend landward a sufficient distance to include, where appropriate, protective dunes, bluffs, or

other natural features which serve to protect the uplands from

damage; and provide essentially full park facilities for appropriate public use, all of which shall meet with the approval of

the Chief of Engineers, and

ø(3) Federal participation in the cost of a project providing

hurricane protection may be, in the discretion of the Secretary

not more than 70 per centum of the total cost exclusive of land

costs.

ø(c) PERIODIC BEACH NOURISHMENT; ‘‘CONSTRUCTION’’ DEFINED.—When in the opinion of the Chief of Engineers the most

suitable and economical remedial measures would be provided by

periodic beach nourishment, the term ‘‘construction’’ may be construed for the purposes of sections 426e to 426h-1 of this title to

include the deposit of sand fill at suitable intervals of time to furnish sand supply to project shores for a length of time specified by

the Chief of Engineers.

ø(d) SHORES OTHER THAN PUBLIC.—Shores other than public

will be eligible for Federal assistance if there is benefit such as

that arising from public use or from the protection of nearby public

property or if the benefits to those shores are incidental to the

project, and the Federal contribution to the project shall be adjusted in accordance with the degree of such benefits.

ø(e) AUTHORIZATION OF PROJECTS.—

ø(1) IN GENERAL.—No Federal contributions shall be made

with respect to a project under sections 426e to 426h-1 of this

title unless the plan therefor shall have been specifically adopted and authorized by Congress after investigation and study by

the Coastal Engineering Research Center under the provisions

of section 426 of this title as amended and supplemented, or,

in the case of a small project under section 426g or 426h of this

title, unless the plan therefor has been approved by the Chief

of Engineers.

ø(2) STUDIES.—

ø(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall—

ø(i) recommend to Congress studies concerning

shore protection projects that meet the criteria established under sections 426e to 426h-1 of this title (including subparagraph (B)(iii)) and other applicable

law;

ø(ii) conduct such studies as Congress requires

under applicable laws; and

ø(iii) report the results of the studies to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives.

ø(B) RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SHORE PROTECTION

PROJECTS.—

ø(i) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall recommend

to Congress the authorization or reauthorization of

shore protection projects based on the studies conducted under subparagraph (A).
99

ø(ii) CONSIDERATIONS.—In making recommendations, the Secretary shall consider the economic and

ecological benefits of the shore protection project.

ø(C) COORDINATION OF PROJECTS.—In conducting studies and making recommendations for a shore protection

project under this paragraph, the Secretary shall—

ø(i) determine whether there is any other project

being carried out by the Secretary or the head of another Federal agency that may be complementary to

the shore protection project; and

ø(ii) if there is such a complementary project, describe the efforts that will be made to coordinate the

projects.

ø(3) SHORE PROTECTION PROJECTS.—

ø(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall construct, or

cause to be constructed, any shore protection project authorized by Congress, or separable element of such a

project, for which funds have been appropriated by Congress.

ø(B) AGREEMENTS.—

ø(i) REQUIREMENT.—After authorization by Congress, and before commencement of construction, of a

shore protection project or separable element, the Secretary shall enter into a written agreement with a

non-Federal interest with respect to the project or separable element.

ø(ii) TERMS.—The agreement shall—

ø(I) specify the life of the project; and

ø(II) ensure that the Federal Government and

the non-Federal interest will cooperate in carrying

out the project or separable element.

ø(C) COORDINATION OF PROJECTS.—In constructing a

shore protection project or separable element under this

paragraph, the Secretary shall, to the extent practicable,

coordinate the project or element with any complementary

project identified under paragraph (2)(C).¿

* * * * * * *

[33 U.S.C. 701S]

FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1948

* * * * * * *

øSEC. 205. That the¿ * * *

SEC. 205. PROJECTS TO ENHANCE REDUCTION OF FLOODING AND OBTAIN

RISK MINIMIZATION.

The * * *

* * * * * * *
100

[64 STAT. 170—MAY 17, 1950]

FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1950

* * * * * * *

SEC. 204. * * *

* * * * * * *

RED-OUACHITA RIVER BASIN

The project for flood protection at Calion, Arkansas, authorized by the Act of August 18, 1941, in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Document

Numbered 427, Seventy-sixth Congress, first session, is hereby

modified to include additional improvements at Calion, Arkansas (including authorization for the comprehensive flood-control

project for Ouachita River and tributaries, incorporating in the

project all flood control, drainage, and power improvements in

the basin above the lower end of the left bank Ouachita River

levee), in accordance with plans on file in the office of the Chief of Engineers, at an estimated cost of $430,000.

* * * * * * *

[33 U.S.C. 577; PUBLIC LAW 86–645—JUL. 14, 1960]

RIVER AND HARBOR ACT OF 1960

SEC. 101. * * *

* * * * * * *

øSec. 107. (a) That the Secretary of the Army is hereby authorized to¿

SEC. 107. NAVIGATION ENHANCEMENTS FOR WATERBOURNE TRANSPORTATION.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Army may allot from

any appropriations hereafter made for rivers and harbors not to exceed $2,000,000 for any one fiscal year for the construction of small

river and harbor improvement projects not specifically authorized

by Congress which will result in substantial benefits to navigation

and which can be operated consistently with appropriate and economic use of the waters of the Nation for other purposes, when in

the opinion of the Chief of Engineers such work is advisable, if benefits are in excess of the cost.

ø(b) Not more¿

(b) ALLOTMENT.—Not more than ø$4,000,000¿ $7,000,000 shall

be allotted for the construction of a project under this section at

any single locality and the amount allotted shall be sufficient to

complete the Federal participation in the project under this section.

ø(c) Local¿

(c) LOCAL CONTRIBUTIONS.—Local interests shall provide without cost to the United States all necessary lands, easements and

rights-of-way for all projects to be constructed under the authority

of this section. In addition, local interests may be required to hold

and save the United States free from damages that may result
101

from the construction and maintenance of the project and may be

required to provide such additional local cooperation as the Chief

of Engineers deems appropriate. A State, county, municipality or

other responsible local entity shall give assurance satisfactory to

the Chief of Engineers that such conditions of cooperation as are

required will be accomplished.

ø(d) Non-Federal¿

(d) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—Non-Federal interests may be required to share in the cost of the project to the extent that the

Chief of Engineers deems that such cost should not be borne by the

Federal government in view of the recreational or otherwise special

or local nature of the project benefits.

ø(e) Each¿

(e) COMPLETION.—Each project for which money is alloted

under this section shall be complete in itself and not commit the

United States to any additional improvement to insure its successful operation, other than routine maintenance, and except as may

result from the normal procedure applying to projects authorized

after submission of survey reports, and projects constructed under

the authority of this section shall be considered as authorized

projects.

ø(f) This¿

(f) APPLICABILITY.—This section shall apply to, but not be limited to, the provision of low water access navigation channels from

the existing channel of the Mississippi River to harbor areas heretofore or now established and located along the Mississippi River.

* * * * * * *

[CF. 16 U.S.C. 460L-6A(I)(3)]

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND ACT OF 1965

SEC. 460l-6a. ADMISSION AND SPECIAL RECREATION USE FEES

(a) * * *

(i) COVERING OF FEES COLLECTED INTO SPECIAL ACCOUNT FOR

AGENCY ESTABLISHED IN TREASURY; COVERED AGENCIES; AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS; ALLOCATION OF NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

FUNDS.—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) øFor¿

(A) IN GENERAL.—For agencies other than the National Park Service, such funds shall be made available for

resource protection, research, interpretation, and maintenance activities related to resource protection in areas

managed by that agency at which outdoor recreation is

available. øTo the extent feasible, such funds should be

used for purposes (as provided for in this paragraph)

which are directly related to the activities which generated

the funds, including but not limited to water-based recreational activities and camping.¿

(B) USE OF FUNDS.—To the maximum extent practicable, funds under this subsection shall be used for a pur-
102

pose described in subparagraph (A) that is directly related

to the activity through which the funds were generated, including water-based recreational activities and camping.

(C) DEPARTMENT OF ARMY SITES.—Any funds under

this subsection may be used at a project site of the Department of the Army to pay the costs of—

(i) a repair or maintenance project (including a

project relating to public health and safety);

(ii) an interpretation project;

(iii) signage;

(iv) habitat or facility enhancement;

(v) resource preservation;

(vi) annual operation (including collection of fees

and costs of administering grants under section 4 of

the Act of December 22, 1944 (commonly known as the

‘Flood Control Act of 1944’) (16 U.S.C. 460d);

(vii) law enforcement relating to public use; and

(viii) planning.

* * * * * * *

[CF. 16 U.S.C. 460D-3]

FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1968

SEC. 460d-3. RECREATIONAL USER FEES

ø(a) PROHIBITION ON ADMISSIONS FEES.—No entrance or admission fees shall be collected after March 31, 1970, by any officer or

employee of the United States at public recreation areas located at

lakes and reservoirs under the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers, United States Army.¿

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Army shall carry out a

recreation user fee program to recover from users of recreation areas

and project sites under the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers the

portion of costs associated with operating and maintaining those

recreation areas and project sites.

(b) ADMISSION AND USER FEES FOR USE OF DEVELOPED RECRE- ATION SITES AND FACILITIES.— (1) ESTABLISHMENT AND COLLECTION.—Notwithstanding

section 460l–6a(b) of this title, the Secretary of the Army is authorized, subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), to establish and collect fees for the use of developed recreation sites and facilities,

including campsites, swimming beaches, and boat launching

ramps øbut excluding a site or facility which includes only a

boat launch ramp and a courtesy dock.¿ , including fees—

(A) for admission to the recreation area or project site

of an individual or group; and

(B) for the use by an individual or group of an outdoor

recreation area, a facility, a visitors’ center, a piece of

equipment, or a service at the recreation area or project

site.

(2) AMOUNT.—The Secretary of the Army shall determine

the amount of a fee established and collected under paragraph

(1) based on the fair market value, taking into consideration
103

any comparable recreation fee for admission to, or use of, the

recreation area or project site.

ø(2)¿ (3) EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN FACILITIES.—The Secretary shall not establish or collect fees under this subsection

for the use or provision of drinking water, wayside exhibits,

roads, scenic drives, overlook sites, øpicnic tables¿, toilet facilities, øsurface water areas¿, undeveloped or lightly developed

shoreland, øor general visitor information¿ general visitor information, or a project site or facility that includes only a boat

launch ramp and a courtesy dock. (4) CONTRACTS AND SERVICES.—The Secretary of the Army

may—

(A) enter into a contract (including a contract that provides for a reasonable commission, as determined by the

Secretary) with any public or private entity to provide a

visitor service for a recreation area or project site under

this section, including the taking of reservations and the

provision of information regarding the recreation area or

project site; and

(B) accept the services of a volunteer to collect a fee established and collected under paragraph (1).

(5) DEPOSIT INTO TREASURY ACCOUNT.— (A) IN GENERAL.—Any fee collected under this subsection shall—

(i) be deposited into the Treasury account for the

Corps of Engineers established by section 4(i)(1)(A) of

the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965

(16 U.S.C. 460l–6a(i)(1)(A)); and

(ii) be made available until expended to the Secretary of the Army, without further appropriation, for

use for the purposes described in section 4(i)(3) of that

Act (16 U.S.C. 460l–6a(i)(3)).

(B) LIMITATION.—Not more than 80 percent of a fee established and collected at a recreational area or project site

under this subsection shall be made available to pay the

costs of a water resources development project under the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers located at the recreational area or project site.

(c) OTHER FEES.—Any fee established and collected at a recreational area or project site under subsection (b) shall be considered to be established and collected in lieu of a similar fee established and collected at the recreational area or project site under

any other provision of law.

ø(3) PER VEHICLE LIMIT.—The fee under this subsection for

use of a site or facility (other than an overnight camping site

or facility or any other site or facility at which a fee is charged

for use of the site or facility as of August 10, 1993) for persons

entering the site or facility by private, noncommercial vehicle

transporting not more than 8 persons (including the driver)

shall not exceed $3 per day per vehicle. Such maximum

amount may be adjusted annually by the Secretary for changes

in the Consumer Price Index of All Urban Consumers published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of

Labor.
104

ø(4) DEPOSIT INTO TREASURY ACCOUNT.—All fees collected

under this subsection shall be deposited into the Treasury account for the Corps of Engineers established by section 460l–

6a(i) of this title and, subject to the availability of appropriations, shall be used for the purposes specified in section 460l–

6a(i)(3) of this title at the water resources development project

at which the fees were collected.¿

* * * * * * *

[PUBLIC LAW 91–611—DEC. 31, 1970]

[CF. 42 U.S.C. 1962D-5B]

FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1970

* * * * * * *

øSEC. 221.¿

SEC. 221. WRITTEN AGREEMENT REQUIREMENT FOR WATER RESOURCES

PROJECTS.

(a) COOPERATION OF NON-FEDERAL INTEREST.— (1) IN GENERAL.—After December 31, 1970, the construction

of any water resources project, or an acceptable separable element thereof, by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the

Chief of Engineers, or by a non-Federal interest where such interest will be reimbursed for such construction under any provision of law, shall not be commenced until each non-Federal interest has entered into a written partnership agreement with the

district engineer for the district in which the project will be carried out under which each party agrees to carry out its responsibilities and requirements for implementation or construction

of the project or the appropriate element of the project, as the

case may be; except that no such agreement shall be required

if the Secretary determines that the administrative costs associated with negotiating, executing, or administering the agreement would exceed the amount of the contribution required

from the non-Federal interest and are less than $25,000.

(2) LIQUIDATED DAMAGES.—An agreement described in

paragraph (1) may include a provision for liquidated damages

in the event of a failure of 1 or more parties to perform.

(3) OBLIGATION OF FUTURE APPROPRIATIONS.—In any such

agreement entered into by a State, or a body politic of the State

which derives its powers from the State constitution, or a governmental entity created by the State legislature, the agreement

may reflect that it does not obligate future appropriations for

such performance and payment when obligating future appropriations would be inconsistent with constitutional or statutory

limitations of the State or a political subdivision of the State.

(4) CREDIT FOR IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—An agreement under paragraph (1)

shall provide that the Secretary shall credit toward the

non-Federal share of the cost of the project, including a

project implemented under general continuing authority,

the value of in-kind contributions made by the non-Federal

interest, including—
105

(i) the costs of planning (including data collection),

design, management, mitigation, construction, and

construction services that are provided by the non-Federal interest for implementation of the project; and

(ii) the value of materials or services provided before execution of an agreement for the project,

including—

(I) efforts on constructed elements incorporated

into the project; and

(II) materials and services provided after an

agreement is executed.

(B) CONDITION.—The Secretary shall credit an in-kind

contribution under subparagraph (A) if the Secretary determines that the property or service provided as an in-kind

contribution is integral to the project.

(C) LIMITATIONS.—Credit authorized for a project—

(i) shall not exceed the non-Federal share of the

cost of the project;

(ii) shall not alter any other requirement that a

non-Federal interest provide land, an easement or

right-of-way, or an area for disposal of dredged material for the project; and

(iii) shall not exceed the actual and reasonable

costs of the materials, services, or other things provided

by the non-Federal interest, as determined by the Secretary.

(b) A non-Federal interest shall be a legally constituted public

body with full authority and capability to perform the terms of its

agreement and to pay damages, if necessary, in the event of failure

to perform.

(c) Every agreement entered into pursuant to this section shall

be enforcible in the appropriate district court of the United States.

(d) After commencement of construction of a project, the Chief

of Engineers may undertake performance of those items of cooperation necessary to the functioning of the project for its purposes, if

he has first notified the non-Federal interest of its failure to perform the terms of its agreement and has given such interest a reasonable time after such notification to so perform.

(e) PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY.—If the Secretary determines

that a project needs to be continued for the purpose of public health

and safety—

(1) the non-Federal interest shall pay the increased projects

costs, up to an amount equal to 20 percent of the original estimated project costs and in accordance with the statutorily-determined cost share; and

(2) notwithstanding the statutorily-determined Federal

share, the Secretary shall pay all increased costs remaining

after payment of 20 percent of the increased costs by the nonFederal interest under paragraph (1).

(f) LIMITATION.—Nothing in subsection (a) limits the authority

of the Secretary to ensure that a partnership agreement meets the

requirements of law and policies of the Secretary in effect on the

date of execution of the partnership agreement.
106

ø(e)¿ (g) The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief

of Engineers, shall maintain a continuing inventory of agreements

and the status of their performance, and shall report thereon annually to the Congress.

* * * * * * *

[PUBLIC LAW 92–532—OCT. 23, 1972]

[CF. 33 U.S.C. 1412(C)(4)]

MARINE PROTECTION, RESEARCH, AND SANCTUARIES

ACT OF 1972

* * * * * * *

SEC. 1412. Dumping permit program

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) Designation of sites

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(4) General site management plan requirement; prohibitions

After January 1, 1995, no site shall receive a final designation unless a management plan has been developed pursuant to this section. Beginning on January 1, 1997, no permit

for dumping pursuant to this Act or authorization for dumping

under section 1413(e) of this title shall be issued for a site

(other than the site located off the coast of Newport Beach,

California, which is known as ‘‘LA-3’’) unless such site has received a final designation pursuant to this subsection or an alternative site has been selected pursuant to section 1413(b) of

this title. Beginning øJanuary 1, 2003¿ January 1, 2007, no

permit for dumping pursuant to this Act or authorization for

dumping under section 1413(e) of this title shall be issued for

the site located off the coast of Newport Beach, California,

which is known as ‘‘LA-3’’, unless such site has received a final

designation pursuant to this subsection or an alternative site

has been selected pursuant to section 1413(b) of this title.

* * * * * * *

[PUBLIC LAW 93–251—MAR. 7, 1974]

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1974

Sec. 1. (a) * * *

* * * * * * *

øSec. 22. (a) The Secretary¿

SEC. 22. PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES.

(a) FEDERAL STATE COOPERATION.—

(1) COMPREHENSIVE PLANS.—The Secretary of the Army,

acting through the Chief of Engineers, is authorized to cooper-
107

ate with any State in the preparation of comprehensive plans

for the development, utilization, and conservation of the water

and related resources of drainage basins, watersheds, or ecosystems located within the boundaries of such State and to

submit to Congress reports and recommendations with respect

to appropriate Federal participation in carrying out such plans.

(2) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—At the request of a governmental

agency or non-Federal interest, the Secretary may provide,

at Federal expense, technical assistance to the agency or

non-Federal interest in managing water resources.

(B) TYPES OF ASSISTANCE.—Technical assistance under

this paragraph may include provision and integration of

hydrologic, economic, and environmental data and analyses.

(b) Fees

(1) For the purpose of recovering 50 percent of the total

cost of providing assistance pursuant to øthis section¿ subsection (a)(1), the Secretary of the Army is authorized to establish appropriate fees, as determined by the Secretary, and to

collect such fees from States and other non-Federal public bodies to whom assistance is provided under øthis section¿ subsection (a)(1).

(2) øUp to 1/2 of the¿ the non-Federal contribution for

preparation of a plan subject to the cost sharing program

under this subsection may be made by the provision of services, materials, supplies, or other in-kind services necessary to

prepare the plan.

(3) Fees collected under this subsection shall be deposited

into the account in the Treasury of the United States entitled,

‘‘Contributions and Advances, Rivers and Harbors, Corps of

Engineers (8862)’’ and shall be available until expended to

carry out this section.

ø(c) There is¿

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—

(1) FEDERAL AND STATE COOPERATION.—There is authorized to be appropriated not to exceed $10,000,000 annually to

carry out øthe provisions of this section except that not more

than $500,000 shall be expended in any one year in any one

State.¿ subsection (a)(1).

(2) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out subsection (a)(2) $10,000,000 for each

fiscal year, of which not more than $2,000,000 for each fiscal

year may be used by the Secretary to enter into cooperative

agreements with nonprofit organizations and State agencies to

provide assistance to rural and small communities.k

* * * * * * *

(e) ANNUAL SUBMISSION.—For each fiscal year, based on performance criteria developed by the Secretary, the Secretary shall list

in the annual civil works budget submitted to Congress the indi-
108

vidual activities proposed for funding under subsection (a)(1) for the

fiscal year.

* * * * * * *

[CF. 33 U.S.C. 426J]

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1976

øSEC. 426j. PLACEMENT ON STATE BEACHES OF SAND DREDGED IN

CONSTRUCTING AND MAINTAINING NAVIGATION INLETS

AND CHANNELS ADJACENT TO SUCH BEACHES

øThe Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, is authorized upon request of the State, to place on the

beaches of such State beach-quality sand which has been dredged

in constructing and maintaining navigation inlets and channels adjacent to such beaches, if the Secretary deems such action to be in

the public interest and upon payment by such State of 35 percent

of the increased cost thereof above the cost required for alternative

methods of disposing of such sand. At the request of the State, the

Secretary may enter into an agreement with a political subdivision

of the State to place sand on the beaches of the political subdivision

of the State under the same terms and conditions required in the

first sentence of this section; except that the political subdivision

shall be responsible for providing any payments required under

such sentence in lieu of the State. In carrying out this section, the

Secretary shall give consideration to the schedule of the State, or

the schedule of the responsible political subdivision of the requesting State, for providing its share of funds for placing such sand on

the beaches of the State or the political subdivision and shall, to

the maximum extent practicable, accommodate such schedule.¿

* * * * * * *

[PUBLIC LAW 99–662—NOV. 17, 1986]

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1986

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act many be cited as the ‘‘Water Resources Development Act of 1986’’.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 602. LAKES PROGRAM.

(a) Subject to section 903(a) of this Act, the Secretary shall

carry out programs for the removal of silt, aquatic growth, and

other material in the following lakes:

(1) Albert Lea Lake, Freeborn County, Minnesota, removal

of silt and aquatic growth;

(2) Lake George, Hobart, Indiana, and in that part of Deep

River upstream of such lake through Lake Station, Indiana, removal of silt, aquatic growth, and other material and construction of silt traps or other devices to prevent and abate the deposit of sediment in Lake George and such part of Deep River;
109

(3) Greenwood Lake and Belcher Creek, New Jersey, removal of silt and stumps;

(4) Sauk Lake and its tributary streams in the vicinity of

Sauk Centre, Stearns County, Minnesota, removal of silt and

aquatic growth;

(5) Deal Lake, Monmouth County, New Jersey, removal of

silt and stumps and the control of pollution from nonpoint

sources;

(6) Lake Worth, Tarrant County, Texas, removal of silt

and aquatic growth, including construction of silt traps and

providing other devices or equipment to prevent and abate the

further deposit of sediment in Lake Worth; such project shall

also provide for the use of dredged material from Lake Worth

for the reclamation of despoiled land;

(7) Hamlet City Lake, Hamlet, North Carolina, removal of

accumulated silt and debris including construction of silt traps

and providing other devices or equipment to prevent and abate

the further deposit of sediment in Hamlet City Lake;

(8) Lake Herman, Lake County, South Dakota, removal of

excess silt;

(9) Gorton’s Pond, Warwick, Rhode Island, mitigation activities recommended in the 1982 Environmental Protection

Agency diagnostic feasibility study, including the installation

of retention basins, the dredging of inlets and outlets in recommended areas and the disposal of dredge material, and

weed harvesting and nutrient inactivation;

(10) Wappingers Lake, New York, for removal of silt and

aquatic growth;

(11) Lake George, New York, for removal of silt and aquatic growth, stump removal, and the control of pollution;

(12) Goodyear Lake, Otsego County, New York, removal of

silt and aquatic growth;

(13) Otsego Lake, Otsego County, New York, removal of

silt and aquatic growth and measures to address high nutrient

concentration;

(14) Oneida Lake, Oneida County, New York, removal of

silt and aquatic growth and nutrient monitoring;

(15) Skaneateles and Owasco Lakes, New York, removal of

silt and aquatic growth and prevention of sediment deposit;

(16) Twin Lakes, Paris, Illinois, removal of silt and excess

aquatic vegetation, including measures to address excessive

sedimentation, high nutrient concentration, and shoreline erosion;

(17) Clear Lake, Lake County, California, removal of silt

and aquatic growth and measures to address excessive sedimentation and high nutrient concentration;

(18) Flints Pond, Hollis, Hillsborough County, New Hampshire, removal of silt and aquatic growth and measures to address excessive sedimentation; øand¿

(19) Osgood Pond, Milford, Hillsborough County, New

Hampshire, removal of silt and aquatic growth and measures

to address excessive sedimentationø.¿ ;
110

(20) Kinkaid Lake, Jackson County, Illinois, removal of silt

and aquatic growth and measures to address excessive sedimentation;

(21) Lake Sakakawea, North Dakota, removal of silt and

aquatic growth and measures to address excessive sedimentation;

(22) Lake Morley, Vermont, removal of silt and aquatic

growth and measures to address excessive sedimentation;

(23) Lake Fairlee, Vermont, removal of silt and aquatic

growth and measures to address excessive sedimentation; and

(24) Lake Rodgers, Creedmoor, North Carolina, removal of

silt and excessive nutrients and restoration of structural integrity.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 704. STUDY OF CORPS CAPABILITY TO CONSERVE FISH AND

WILDLIFE.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(b) PROJECTS

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is further authorized to

conduct projects of alternative or beneficially modified habitats

for fish and wildlife, including but not limited to man-made

reefs for fish. There is authorized to be appropriated not to exceed ø$20,000,000¿ $50,000,000 to carry out such projects.

øSuch projects¿

(2) INCLUSIONS.—Such projects shall be developed, and

their effectiveness evaluated, in consultation with the Director

of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration. Such projects shall include—

(A) the construction of a reef for fish habitat in Lake

Erie in the vicinity of Buffalo, New York;

(B) the construction of a reef for fish habitat in the Atlantic Ocean in the vicinity of Fort Lauderdale, Florida;

(C) the construction of a reef for fish habitat in Lake

Ontario in the vicinity of the town of Newfane, New York;

and

ø(D) the construction of reefs and related clean shell

substrate for fish habitat, including manmade 3-dimensional oyster reefs, in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries in Maryland and Virginia if the reefs are preserved

as permanent sanctuaries by the non-Federal interests,

consistent with the recommendations of the scientific consensus document on Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration

dated June 1999.¿

(D) the restoration and rehabilitation of habitat for

fish, including native oysters, in the Chesapeake Bay and

its tributaries in Virginia and Maryland, including—

(i) the construction of oyster bars and reefs;

(ii) the rehabilitation of existing marginal habitat;

(iii) the use of appropriate alternative substrate

material in oyster bar and reef construction;
111

(iv) the construction and upgrading of oyster

hatcheries; and

(v) activities relating to increasing the output of

native oyster broodstock for seeding and monitoring of

restored sites to ensure ecological success.

(3) RESTORATION AND REHABILITATION ACTIVITIES.—The

restoration and rehabilitation activities described in paragraph

(2)(D) shall be—

(A) for the purpose of establishing permanent sanctuaries and harvest management areas; and

(B) consistent with plans and strategies for guiding the

restoration of the Chesapeake Bay oyster resource and fishery.

ø(2)¿ (4) COST CHARING

(A) In general.—The non-Federal share of the cost of

any project under this subsection shall be 25 percent.

(B) Form.—The non-Federal share may be provided

through in-kind services, including the provision by the

non-Federal interest of shell stock material that is determined by the Chief of Engineers to be suitable for use in

carrying out the project.

(C) Applicability.—The non-Federal interest shall be

credited with the value of in-kind services provided on or

after October 1, 2000, for a project described in paragraph

(1) completed on or after that date, if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project.

(5) DEFINITION OF ECOLOGICAL SUCCESS.—In this subsection, the term ‘ecological success’ means—

(A) achieving a tenfold increase in native oyster biomass by the year 2010, from a 1994 baseline; and

(B) the establishment of a sustainable fishery as determined by a broad scientific and economic consensus.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 904. MATTERS TO BE ADDRESSED IN PLANNING.

øEnhancing¿

(a) IN GENERAL.—Enhancing national economic development

(including benefits to particular regions of the Nation not involving

the transfer of economic activity to such regions from other regions), the quality of the total environment (including preservation

and enhancement of the environment), the well-being of the people

of the United States, the prevention of loss of life, and the preservation of cultural and historical values shall be addressed in the

formulation and evaluation of water resources projects to be carried

out by the Secretary, and the associated benefits and costs, both

quantifiable and unquantifiable, and information regarding potential loss of human life that may be associated with flooding and

coastal storm events, shall be displayed in the benefits and costs

of such projects.

(b) ASSESSMENTS.—For all feasibility reports completed after

December 31, 2005, the Secretary shall assess whether—

(1) the water resource project and each separable element is

cost-effective; and
112

(2) the water resource project complies with Federal, State,

and local laws (including regulations) and public policies.

SEC. 905. FEASIBILITY REPORTS.

(a) In the case of any water resources project-related study authorized to be undertaken by the Secretary, the Secretary shall

prepare a feasibility report, subject to section 105 of this Act. Such

feasibility report shall describe, with reasonable certainty, the economic, environmental, and social benefits and detriments of the

recommended plan and alternative plans considered by the Secretary and the engineering features (including hydrologic and geologic information), the public acceptability, and the purposes, scope,

and scale of the recommended plan. The feasibility report shall also

include the views of other Federal agencies and non-Federal agencies with regard to the recommended plan, a description of a nonstructural alternative to the recommended plan when such plan

does not have significant nonstructural features, and a description

of the Federal and non-Federal participation in such plan, and

shall demonstrate that States, other non-Federal interests, and

Federal agencies have been consulted in the development of the

recommended plan. The Secretary shall establish a plan and schedule to periodically update and revise the planning guidelines, regulations, and circulars of the Corps of Engineers to improve the analysis of water resource projects, including the integration of new and

existing analytical techniques that properly reflect the probability of

project benefits and costs, as the Secretary determines appropriate.

This subsection shall not apply to (1) any study with respect to

which a report has been submitted to Congress before the date of

enactment of this Act, (2) any study for a project, which project is

authorized for construction by this Act and is not subject to section

903(b), (3) any study for a project which is authorized under any

of the following sections: section 205 of the Flood Control Act of

1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), section 2 of the Flood Control Act of August

28, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r), section 107 of the River and Harbor Act

of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), 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), and section 111 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (33

U.S.C. 426i), and (4) general studies not intended to lead to recommendation of a specific water resources project.

* * * * * * *

ø(c) For purposes of studies undertaken pursuant to this section, the Secretary is authorized to consider benefits which may accrue to Indian tribes as a result of a project resulting from such

a study.¿

(c) COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS.—Recommendation of a feasibility

study shall be based on an analysis of the benefits and costs, both

quantified and unquantified, that—

(1) identifies areas of risk and uncertainty in the analysis;

(2) clearly describes the degree of reliability of the estimated benefits and costs of the effectiveness of alternative plans,

including an assessment of the credibility of the physical project

construction schedule as the schedule affects the estimated benefits and costs;
113

(3) identifies national, regional, and local economic costs

and benefits;

(4) identifies environmental costs and benefits, including

the costs and benefits of protecting or degrading natural systems;

(5) identifies social costs and benefits, including a risk

analysis regarding potential loss of life that may result from

flooding and storm damage; and

(6) identifies cultural and historical costs and benefits.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 906. FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION.

(a)(1) In the case of any water resources project which is authorized to be constructed by the Secretary before, on, or after the

date of enactment of this Act, construction of which has not commenced as of the date of enactment of this Act, and which necessitates the mitigation of fish and wildlife losses, including the acquisition of lands or interests in lands to mitigate losses to fish and

wildlife, as a result of such project, such mitigation, including acquisition of the lands or interests—

(A) shall be undertaken or acquired before any construction of the project (other than such acquisition) commences, or

(B) shall be undertaken or acquired concurrently with

lands and interests in lands for project purposes (other than

mitigation of fish and wildlife losses),

whichever the Secretary determines is appropriate, except that any

physical construction required for the purposes of mitigation may

be undertaken concurrently with the physical construction of such

project.

(2) For the purposes of this subsection, any project authorized

before the date of enactment of this Act on which more than 50

percent of the land needed for the project, exclusive of mitigation

lands, has been acquired shall be deemed to have commenced construction under this subsection.

(3) COMPLETION OF MITIGATION.—In any case in which it is not

technically practicable to complete mitigation by the last day of construction of the project or separable element of the project because

of the nature of the mitigation to be undertaken, the Secretary shall

complete the required mitigation as expeditiously as practicable, but

in no case later than the last day of the first fiscal year beginning

after the last day of construction of the project or separable element

of the project.

(b)(1) After consultation with appropriate Federal and non-Federal agencies, the Secretary is authorized to mitigate damages to

fish and wildlife resulting from any water resources project under

his jurisdiction, whether completed, under construction, or to be

constructed. Such mitigation may include the acquisition of lands,

or interests therein, except that—

(A) acquisition under this paragraph shall not be by condemnation in the case of projects completed as of the date of

enactment of this Act or on which at least 10 percent of the

physical construction on the project has been completed as of

the date of enactment of this Act; and
114

(B) acquisition of water, or interests therein, under this

paragraph, shall not be by condemnation.

The Secretary, shall, under the terms of this paragraph, obligate

no more than $30,000,000 in any fiscal year. With respect to any

water resources project, the authority under this subsection shall

not apply to measures that cost more than $7,500,000 or 10 percent

of the cost of the project, whichever is greater.

(2) Whenever, after his review, the Secretary determines that

such mitigation features under this subsection are likely to require

condemnation under subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) of

this subsection, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report

on such proposed modification, together with his recommendations.

(3) USE OF CONSOLIDATED MITIGATION.— (A) IN GENERAL.—If the Secretary determines that

other forms of compensatory mitigation are not practicable

or are less environmentally desirable, the Secretary may

purchase available credits from a mitigation bank or conservation bank that is approved in accordance with the

Federal Guidance for the Establishment, Use and Operation of Mitigations Banks (60 Fed. Reg. 58605) or other

applicable Federal laws (including regulations).

(B) SERVICE AREA.—To the maximum extent practicable, the service area of the mitigation bank or conservation bank shall be in the same watershed as the affected

habitat.

(C) RESPONSIBILITY RELIEVED.—Purchase of credits

from a mitigation bank or conservation bank for a water

resources project relieves the Secretary and the non-Federal

interest from responsibility for monitoring or demonstrating mitigation success.

* * * * * * *

(d) MITIGATION PLANS AS PART OF PROJECT PROPOSALS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—After November 17, 1986, the Secretary

shall not submit any proposal for the authorization of any

water resources project to the Congress unless such report contains (A) a recommendation with a specific plan to mitigate

fish and wildlife losses created by such project, or (B) a determination by the Secretary that such project will have negligible adverse impact on fish and wildlife. Specific mitigation

plans shall ensure that impacts to bottomland hardwood forests are mitigated in-kind, to the extent possible. In carrying

out this subsection, the Secretary shall consult with appropriate Federal and non-Federal agencies.

(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.

(3) CONTENTS.—A mitigation plan shall include—

(A)(i) a description of the physical action to be undertaken to achieve the mitigation objectives in the watershed

in which the losses occur; and

(ii) in any case in which mitigation must take place

outside the watershed, a justification detailing the rationale

for undertaking the mitigation outside of the watershed;
115

(B) a description of the quantity of types of land or interests in land that should be acquired for mitigation and

the basis for a determination that the land are available

for acquisition;

(C) the type, quantity, and characteristics of the habitat being restored; and

(D) a plan for any necessary monitoring to determine

the success of the mitigation, including the cost and duration of any monitoring and, to the extent practicable, the

entities responsible for the monitoring.

(4) RESPONSIBILITY FOR MONITORING.—In any case in

which it is not practicable to identify in a mitigation plan for

a water resources project the entity responsible for monitoring

at the time of a final report of the Chief of Engineers or other

final decision document for the project, the entity shall be identified in the partnership agreement entered into with the nonFederal interest.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 912. SECTION 221 AGREEMENTS.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(b)(1) The Secretary may require compliance with any requirements pertaining to cooperation by non-Federal interests in carrying out any water resources project authorized before, on, or after

the date of enactment of this Act.

(2) Whenever on the basis of any information available to the

Secretary, the Secretary finds that any non-Federal interest is not

providing cooperation required under subsection (a), the Secretary

øshall¿ may issue an order requiring such non-Federal interest to

provide such cooperation. øAfter notice and opportunity for a hearing, if the Secretary finds that any person is violating an order

issued under this section, such person shall be subject to a civil

penalty not to exceed $10,000 per day of such violation, except that

the total amount of civil penalties for any violation shall not exceed

$50,000.¿

(3) Non-Federal interests shall be liable for interest on any

payments required pursuant to section 221 of the Flood Control Act

of 1970 that may fall delinquent. The interest rate to be charged

on any such delinquent payment shall be at a rate, to be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, equal to 150 percent of the

average bond equivalent rate of the thirteen-week Treasury bills

auctioned immediately prior to the date on which such payment became delinquent, or auctioned immediately prior to the beginning

of each additional three-month period if the period of delinquency

exceeds three months.

(4) The Secretary may request the Attorney General to bring

a civil action for appropriate relief, including permanent or temporary øinjunction, for¿ injunction and payment of liquidated damages, for any violation of an order issued under this section, øto collect a civil penalty imposed under this section,¿ to recover any cost

incurred by the Secretary in undertaking performance of any item

of cooperation under section 221(d) of the Flood Control Act of

1970, or to collect interest for which a non-Federal interest is liable
116

under paragraph (3). Any action under this subsection may be

brought in the district court of the United States for the district in

which the defendant is located or resides, or is doing businesss, and

such court shall have jurisdiction to restrain such violation, to require compliance, to require payment of øany civil penalty imposed

under this section,¿ any liquidated damages, and to require payment of any costs incurred by the Secretary in undertaking performance of any such item.

(5) The Secretary is authorized to determine that no funds appropriated for operation and maintenance, including operation and

maintenance of the project for flood control, Mississippi River and

Tributaries, are to be used for the particular benefit of projects

within the jurisdiction of any non-Federal interest when such nonFederal interest is in arrears for more than twenty-four months in

the payment of charges due under an agreement entered into with

the United States pursuant to section 221 of the Flood Control Act

of 1970 (Public Law 91–611).

* * * * * * *

øSEC. 1135. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF ENVIRONMENT.¿

SEC. 1135. ENVIRONMENTAL MODIFICATION OF PROJECTS FOR IMPROVEMENT AND RESTORATION OF ECOSYSTEMS PROGRAM.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(h) Authorization of appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated not to exceed

ø$25,000,000¿ $50,000,000 annually to carry out this section.

* * * * * * *

[PUBLIC LAW 100–676—NOV. 17, 1988]

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1988

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Water Resources Development Act of 1988’’.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 21. MISSISSIPPI RIVER HEADWATERS RESERVOIRS.

(a) GENERAL RULE.—Notwithstanding any other provision of

law, the Secretary is directed to maintain water levels in the Mississippi River headwaters reservoirs within the following operating

limits: Winnibigoshish 1296.94 feet—1303.14 feet; Leech 1293.20

feet—1297.94 feet; Pokegama 1270.42 feet—ø1276.42¿ 1278.42 feet;

Sandy 1214.31 feet—ø1218.31¿ 1221.31 feet; Pine 1227.32 feet—

ø1234.82¿ 1235.30 feet; and Gull 1192.75 feet—1194.75 feet. Such

water levels shall be measured using the National Geodetic

Vertical Datum.

ø(b) EXCEPTION.—The Secretary may operate the headwaters

reservoirs below the minimum or above the maximum water levels

established in subsection (a) in accordance with a contingency plan

which the Secretary develops after consulting with the Governor of
117

Minnesota and affected landowners and commercial and recreational users. The Secretary shall transmit such plan to Congress

within 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act. The

Secretary shall report to Congress at least 14 days prior to operating any such headwaters reservoir below the minimum or above

the maximum water level limits specified in subsection (a).¿

(b) EXCEPTION.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may operate the headwaters reservoirs below the minimum or above the maximum

water levels established under subsection (a) in accordance with

water control regulation manuals (or revisions to those manuals) developed by the Secretary, after consultation with the Governor of Minnesota and affected tribal governments, landowners, and commercial and recreational users.

(2) EFFECTIVE DATE OF MANUALS.—The water control regulation manuals referred to in paragraph (1) (and any revisions

to those manuals) shall be effective as of the date on which the

Secretary submits the manuals (or revisions) to Congress.

(3) NOTIFICATION.— (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subparagraph

(B), not less than 14 days before operating any headwaters

reservoir below the minimum or above the maximum water

level limits specified in subsection (a), the Secretary shall

submit to Congress a notice of intent to operate the headwaters reservoir.

(B) EXCEPTION.—Notice under subparagraph (A) shall

not be required in any case in which—

(i) the operation of a headwaters reservoir is necessary to prevent the loss of life or to ensure the safety

of a dam; or

(ii) the drawdown of the water level of the reservoir

is in anticipation of a flood control operation.

* * * * * * *

[PUBLIC LAW 101–640—NOV. 28, 1990]

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1990

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Water Resources Development Act of 1990’’.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 102. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS.

(g) DELAWARE RIVER TO CHESAPEAKE BAY, DELAWARE AND

MARYLAND.—The project for navigation, inland waterway from the

Delaware River to the Chesapeake Bay, Delaware and Maryland,

authorizaed by the frist section of the Act of August 30, 1935 (49

Stat. 1030), and modified by the Act entitled ‘‘An Act authorizing

construction of a highway bridge across the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal at Saint Georges, Delaware’’, approved August 7, 1939

(53 Stat. 1240-1241), is modified to direct the Secretary to replace

the highway bridge on United States Route 13 in the vicinity of St.
118

Georges, Delaware, to meet current and projected traffic needs, at

a Federal cost of $115,000,000. The State may carry out the bridge

replacement, the Secretary may reimburse the State for costs incurred. The Secretary shall assume ownership responsibility for the

replacement bridge not later than the date on which the construction of the bridge is completed and the contractors are released of

their responsibility by the State. In addition, the Secretary may not

carry out any action to close or remove the St. George’s Bridge,

Delaware, without specific congressional authorization.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 401. GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS AND SEDIMENT REMEDIATION.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized

to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section

$10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 øthrough 2006¿ through

2011.

* * * * * * *

[PUBLIC LAW 102–580—OCT. 31, 1992]

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1992

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Water Resources Development Act of 1992’’.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 103. VISITOR CENTERS

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER MUSEUM AND RIVERFRONT INTER- PRETIVE SITE.— (1) * * *

(2) LOCATION OF MUSEUM.—The museum shall be located

on øproperty currently held by the Resolution Trust Corporation in the vicinity of the Mississippi River Bridge¿ riverfront

property in Vicksburg, Mississippi. Title to the property shall

be transferred to the Secretary at no cost.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 204. BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL.

ø(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to carry out

projects for the protection, restoration, and creation of aquatic and

ecologically related habitats, including wetlands, in connection with

dredging for construction, operation, or maintenance by the Secretary of an authorized navigation project.

ø(b) SECRETARIAL FINDINGS.—Subject to subsection (c) of this

section, projects for the protection, restoration, or creation of aquatic and ecologically related habitats may be undertaken in any case

where the Secretary finds that—
119

ø(1) the environmental, economic, and social benefits of the

project, both monetary and nonmonetary, justify the cost thereof; and

ø(2) the project would not result in environmental degradation.

ø(c) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT.—Any project undertaken pursuant to this section shall be initiated only after non-Federal interests have entered into a binding agreement with the Secretary in

which the non-Federal interests agree to—

ø(1) provide 25 percent of the cost associated with construction of the project for the protection, restoration, and creation of aquatic and ecologically related habitats, including

provision of all lands, easements, rights-of-way, and necessary

relocations; and

ø(2) pay 100 percent of the operation, maintenance, replacement, and rehabilitation costs associated with the project

for the protection, restoration, and creation of aquatic and ecologically related habitats.

ø(d) DETERMINATION OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS.—Costs associated with construction of a project for the protection, restoration,

and creation of aquatic and ecologically related habitats shall be

limited solely to construction costs which are in excess of those

costs necessary to carry out the dredging for construction, operation, or maintenance of the authorized navigation project in the

most cost effective way, consistent with economic, engineering, and

environmental criteria.

ø(e) SELECTION OF DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL METHOD.—In

developing and carrying out a project for navigation involving the

disposal of dredged material, the Secretary may select, with the

consent of the non-Federal interest, a disposal method that is not

the least-cost option if the Secretary determines that the incremental costs of such disposal method are reasonable in relation to

the environmental benefits, including the benefits to the aquatic

environment to be derived from the creation of wetlands and control of shoreline erosion. The Federal share of such incremental

costs shall be determined in accordance with subsection (c).

ø(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized

to be appropriated not to exceed $15,000,000 annually to carry out

this section. Such sums shall remain available until expended.

ø(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 interest may include a

nonprofit entity, with the consent of the affected local government.¿

(a) IN GENERAL.—In connection with sediment obtained

through the construction, operation, or maintenance of an authorized Federal water resources project, the Secretary, acting through

the Chief of Engineers, shall develop Regional Sediment Management plans and carry out projects at locations identified in the plan

prepared under subsection (e), or identified jointly by the non-Federal interest and the Secretary, for use in the construction, repair,

modification, or rehabilitation of projects associated with Federal

water resources projects, for—

(1) the protection of property;
120

(2) the protection, restoration, and creation of aquatic and

ecologically related habitats, including wetlands; and

(3) the transport and placement of suitable sediment

(b) SECRETARIAL FINDINGS.—Subject to subsection (c), projects

carried out under subsection (a) may be carried out in any case in

which the Secretary finds that—

(1) the environmental, economic, and social benefits of the

project, both monetary and nonmonetary, justify the cost of the

project; and

(2) the project would not result in environmental degradation.

(c) DETERMINATION OF PLANNING AND PROJECT COSTS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—In consultation and cooperation with the

appropriate Federal, State, regional, and local agencies, the

Secretary, acting through the Chief of Engineers, shall develop

at Federal expense plans and projects for regional management

of sediment obtained in conjunction with construction, operation, and maintenance of Federal water resources projects.

(2) COSTS OF CONSTRUCTION.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—Costs associated with construction of

a project under this section or identified in a Regional

Sediment Management plan shall be limited solely to construction costs that are in excess of those costs necessary to

carry out the dredging for construction, operation, or maintenance of an authorized Federal water resources project in

the most cost-effective way, consistent with economic, engineering, and environmental criteria.

(B) COST SHARING.—The determination of any nonFederal share of the construction cost shall be based on the

cost sharing as specified in subsections (a) through (d) of

section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986

(33 U.S.C. 2213), for the type of Federal water resource

project using the dredged resource.

(C) TOTAL COST.—Total Federal costs associated with

construction of a project under this section shall not exceed

$5,000,000 without Congressional approval.

(3) OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, REPLACEMENT, AND REHABILITATION COSTS.—Operation, maintenance, replacement, and

rehabilitation costs associated with a project are a non-Federal

sponsor responsibility.

(d) SELECTION OF SEDIMENT DISPOSAL METHOD FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PURPOSES.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—In developing and carrying out a Federal

water resources project involving the disposal of material, the

Secretary may select, with the consent of the non-Federal interest, a disposal method that is not the least-cost option if the

Secretary determines that the incremental costs of the disposal

method are reasonable in relation to the environmental benefits,

including the benefits to the aquatic environment to be derived

from the creation of wetlands and control of shoreline erosion.

(2) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of such incremental costs shall be determined in accordance with subsection

(c).
121

(e) STATE AND REGIONAL PLANS.—The Secretary, acting

through the Chief of Engineers, may—

(1) cooperate with any State in the preparation of a comprehensive State or regional coastal sediment management plan

within the boundaries of the State;

(2) encourage State participation in the implementation of

the plan; and

(3) submit to Congress reports and recommendations with

respect to appropriate Federal participation in carrying out the

plan.

(f) PRIORITY AREAS.—In carrying out this section, the Secretary

shall give priority to regional sediment management projects in the

vicinity of—

(1) Fire Island Inlet, Suffolk County, New York;

(2) Fletcher Cove, California;

(3) Delaware River Estuary, New Jersey and Pennsylvania;

and

(4) Toledo Harbor, Lucas County, Ohio.

(g) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized

to be appropriated to carry out this section $30,000,000 during each

fiscal year, to remain available until expended, for the Federal costs

identified under subsection (c), of which up to $5,000,000 shall be

used for the development of regional sediment management plans as

provided in subsection (e).

(h) 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.

* * * * * * *

øSEC. 325. LAND EXCHANGE, ALLATOONA LAKE, GEORGIA.

ø(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may initiate a program to exchange lands above 863 feet in elevation which are excess to the

operational needs of Allatoona Lake, Georgia, for lands on the

north side of Allatoona Lake which are needed for wildlife management and for protection of the water quality and overall environment of Allatoona Lake.

ø(b) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—Land exchanges under the program to be conducted under subsection (a) shall be subject to the

following terms and conditions:

ø(1) Lands acquired under the program must be contiguous to the land in Federal Government ownership on the date

of the enactment of this Act.

ø(2) Lands acquired under the program shall be from willing sellers only.

ø(3) The basis for all land exchanges under the program

shall be a fair market appraisal so that lands exchanged are

of equal value.¿

* * * * * * *
122

[PUBLIC LAW 104–303—OCT. 12, 1996]

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1996

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Water Resources Development Act of 1996’’.

* * * * * * *

SECTION 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(31) MARMET LOCK, KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA.— The project for navigation, Marmet Lock, Kanawha River,

West Virginia: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated June 24,

1994, at a total cost of ø$229,581,000¿ $358,000,000. The costs

of construction of the project are to be paid 1/2 from amounts

appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.

* * * * * * *

øSEC. 206. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.¿

SEC. 206. RESTORATION OF THE ENVIRONMENT FOR PROTECTION OF

AQUATIC AND RIPARIAN ECOSYSTEMS PROGRAM.

(a) GENERAL AUTHORITY.—The Secretary may carry out øan

aquatic¿ a freshwater aquatic ecosystem restoration and protection

project if the Secretary zdetermines that the project—

(1) will improve the quality of the environment and is in

the public interest; and

(2) is cost-effective.

* * * * * * *

(e) FUNDING.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carry

out this section ø$25,000,000¿ $75,000,000 for each fiscal year.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 211. CONSTRUCTION OF FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS BY NONFEDERAL INTERESTS.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(e) REIMBURSEMENT.—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(6) SCHEDULE AND MANNER OF REIMBURSEMENT.—

(A) BUDGETING.—The Secretary shall budget and request appropriations for reimbursements under this section on a schedule that is consistent with a Federal construction schedule.

(B) COMMENCEMENT OF REIMBURSEMENTS.—Reimbursements under this section may commence on approval

of a project by the Secretary.

(C) CREDIT.—At the request of a non-Federal interest,

the Secretary may reimburse the non-Federal interest by

providing credit toward future non-Federal costs of the

project.
123

(D) SCHEDULING.—Nothing in this paragraph affects

the discretion of the President to schedule new construction starts.

(E) BUDGET PRIORITY.— (i) IN GENERAL.—Budget priority for projects under

this section shall be proportionate to the percentage of

project completion.

(ii) COMPLETED PROJECT.—A completed project

shall have the same priority as a project with a contractor on site.

(f) SPECIFIC PROJECTS.— (1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(9) THORNTON RESERVOIR, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS.—An element of the project for flood control, Chicagoland Underflow

Plan, Illinois.

(10) ST. PAUL DOWNTOWN AIRPORT (HOLMAN FIELD), ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA.—The project for flood damage reduction, St.

Paul Downtown Holman Field), St. Paul, Minnesota.

(11) BUFFALO BAYOU, TEXAS.—The project for flood control,

Buffalo Bayou, Texas, authorized by the first section of the Act

of June 20, 1938 (52 Stat. 804, chapter 535) (commonly known

as the ‘River and Harbor Act of 1938’) and modified by section

3a of the Act of August 11, 1939 (53 Stat. 1414, chapter 699)

(commonly known as the ‘Flood Control Act of 1939’), except

that, subject to the approval of the Secretary as provided by this

section, the non-Federal interest may design and construct an

alternative to such project.

(12) HALLS BAYOU, TEXAS.—The Halls Bayou element of the

project for flood control, Buffalo Bayou and tributaries, Texas,

authorized by section 101(a)(21) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note), except that, subject

to the approval of the Secretary as provided by this section, the

non-Federal interest may design and construct an alternative to

such project.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 217. DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITY PARTNERSHIPS.

(a) ADDITIONAL CAPACITY.— (1) PROVIDED BY SECRETARY.—At the request of a non-Federal interest with respect to a project, the Secretary may provide additional capacity at a dredged material disposal facility

constructed by the Secretary beyond the capacity that would be

required for project purposes if the non-Federal interest agrees

to pay, during the period of construction, all costs associated

with the construction of the additional capacity.

(2) COST RECOVERY AUTHORITY.—The non-Federal interest

may recover the costs assigned to the additional capacity

through fees assessed on third parties whose dredged material

is deposited at the facility and who enter into agreements with

the non-Federal interest for the use of the facility. The amount

of such fees may be determined by the non-Federal interest.

(b) NON-FEDERAL USE OF DISPOSAL FACILITIES.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary—
124

(A) may permit the use of any dredged material disposal facility under the jurisdiction of, or managed by, the

Secretary by a non-Federal interest if the Secretary determines that such use will not reduce the availability of the

facility for project purposes; and

(B) may impose fees to recover capital, operation, and

maintenance costs associated with such use.

(2) USE OF FEES.—Notwithstanding section 401(c) of the

Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1341(c)) but

subject to advance appropriations, any monies received

through collection of fees under this subsection shall be available to the Secretary, and shall be used by the Secretary, for

the operation and maintenance of the disposal facility from

which the fees were collected.

(c) DREDGED MATERIAL FACILITY.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may enter into cost-sharing

agreements with 1 or more non-Federal public interests with respect to a project, or group of projects within a geographic region, if appropriate, for the acquisition, design, construction,

management, or operation of a dredged material processing,

treatment, contaminant reduction, or disposal facility (including any facility used to demonstrate potential beneficial uses of

dredged material, which may include effective sediment contaminant reduction technologies) using funds provided in whole

or in part by the Federal Government.

(2) PERFORMANCE.—One or more of the parties to the agreement may perform the acquisition, design, construction, management, or operation of a dredged material processing, treatment, contaminant reduction, or disposal facility.

(3) MULTIPLE FEDERAL PROJECTS.—If appropriate, the Secretary may combine portions of separate Federal projects with

appropriate combined cost-sharing between the various projects,

if the facility serves to manage dredged material from multiple

Federal projects located in the geographic region of the facility.

(4) PUBLIC FINANCING.— (A) AGREEMENTS.— (i) SPECIFIED FEDERAL FUNDING SOURCES AND

COST SHARING.—The cost-sharing agreement used shall

clearly specify—

(I) the Federal funding sources and combined

cost-sharing when applicable to multiple Federal

navigation projects; and

(II) the responsibilities and risks of each of the

parties related to present and future dredged material managed by the facility.

(ii) MANAGEMENT OF SEDIMENTS.—

(I) IN GENERAL.—The cost-sharing agreement

may include the management of sediments from

the maintenance dredging of Federal navigation

projects that do not have partnerships agreements.

(II) PAYMENTS.—The cost-sharing agreement

may allow the non-Federal interest to receive reimbursable payments from the Federal Government

for commitments made by the non-Federal interest
125

for disposal or placement capacity at dredged material treatment, processing, contaminant reduction, or disposal facilities.

(iii) CREDIT.—The cost-sharing agreement may

allow costs incurred prior to execution of a partnership

agreement for construction or the purchase of equipment or capacity for the project to be credited according

to existing cost-sharing rules.

(B) CREDIT.— (i) EFFECT ON EXISTING AGREEMENTS.—Nothing in

this subsection supersedes or modifies an agreement in

effect on the date of enactment of this paragraph between the Federal Government and any other non-Federal interest for the cost-sharing, construction, and operation and maintenance of a Federal navigation

project.

(ii) CREDIT FOR FUNDS.—Subject to the approval of

the Secretary and in accordance with law (including

regulations and policies) in effect on the date of enactment of this paragraph, a non-Federal public interest

of a Federal navigation project may seek credit for

funds provided for the acquisition, design, construction, management, or operation of a dredged material

processing, treatment, or disposal facility to the extent

the facility is used to manage dredged material from

the Federal navigation project.

(iii) NON-FEDERAL INTEREST RESPONSIBILITIES.— The non-Federal interest shall—

(I) be responsible for providing all necessary

land, easement rights-of-way, or relocations associated with the facility; and

(II) receive credit for those items.

ø(c)¿ (d) PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may carry out a program

to evaluate and implement opportunities for public-private

partnerships in the design, construction, management, or operation and maintenance of dredged material processing, treatment, or disposal facilities in connection with construction or

maintenance of Federal navigation projects. If a non-Federal

interest is a sponsor of the project, the Secretary shall consult

with the non-Federal interest in carrying out the program with

respect to the project.

(2) PRIVATE FINANCING.—

(A) AGREEMENTS.—In carrying out this subsection, the

Secretary may enter into an agreement with a non-Federal

interest with respect to a project, a private entity, or both

for the acquisition, design, construction, management, or

operation and maintenance of a dredged material processing, treatment, or disposal facility (including any facility

used to demonstrate potential beneficial uses of dredged

material) using funds provided in whole or in part by the

private entity.

(B) REIMBURSEMENT.—If any funds provided by a private entity are used to carry out a project under this sub-
126

section, the Secretary may reimburse the private entity

over a period of time agreed to by the parties to the agreement through the payment of subsequent user fees. Such

fees may include the payment of a disposal or tipping fee

for placement of suitable dredged material at the facility.

(C) AMOUNT OF FEES.—User fees paid pursuant to subparagraph (B) shall be sufficient to repay funds contributed by the private entity plus a reasonable return on investment approved by the Secretary in cooperation with

the non-Federal interest with respect to the project and

the private entity.

(D) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of such fees

shall be equal to the percentage of the total cost that

would otherwise be borne by the Federal Government as

required pursuant to existing cost-sharing requirements,

including section 103 of the Water Resources Development

Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213) and section 204 of the Water

Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2325).

(E) BUDGET ACT COMPLIANCE.—Any spending authority (as defined in section 401(c)(2) of the Congressional

Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 651(c)(2))) authorized by this

section shall be effective only to such extent and in such

amounts as are provided in appropriation Acts.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 234. INTERAGENCY AND INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT AUTHORITY.

ø(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may engage in activities in

support of other Federal agencies or international organizations to

address problems of national significance to the United States.¿

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may engage in activities (including contracting) in support of other Federal agencies, international organizations, or foreign governments to address problems

of national significance to the United States.

(b) CONSULTATION.—The Secretary may engage in activities in

support of international organizations only after consulting with

the øSecretary of State¿ Department of State.

(c) USE OF CORPS’ EXPERTISE.—The Secretary may use the

technical and managerial expertise of the Corps of Engineers to address domestic and international problems related to water resources, infrastructure development, and environmental protection.

(d) FUNDING.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carry

out this section ø$250,000 for fiscal year 2001¿ $1,000,000 for fiscal

year 2006 and each fiscal year thereafter. The Secretary may accept and expend additional funds from other Federal agencies øor

international organizations¿ , international organizations, or foreign governments to carry out this section.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 507. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE.

The Secretary shall provide design and construction assistance

to non-Federal interests for each of the following projects if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible:

(1) Repair and rehabilitation of the Lower Girard Lake

Dam, Girard, Ohio, at an estimated total cost of ø$2,500,000¿
127

$5,500,000 (which repair and rehabilitation shall include lowering the crest of the Dam by not more than 12.5 feet).

* * * * * * *

SEC. 510. CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND

PROTECTION PROGRAM.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(i) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to

be appropriated to carry out this section ø$10,000,000¿

$30,000,000.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 516. SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(g) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be appropriated to

the Secretary to carry out this section $5,000,000 for each of

fiscal years 1998 through 2001.

(2) GREAT LAKES TRIBUTARY MODEL.—In addition to

amounts made available under paragraph (1), there is authorized to be appropriated to carry out subsection (e) $5,000,000

for each of fiscal years 2002 øthrough 2006¿ through 2011.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 528. EVERGLADES AND SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(b) RESTORATION ACTIVITIES.—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) CRITICAL RESTORATION PROJECTS.—

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(C) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—

(i) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be appropriated to the Department of the Army to pay the Federal share of the cost of carrying out projects under

subparagraph (A) ø$75,000,000 for the period consisting of fiscal years 1997 through 1999.¿

$95,000,000.

ø(ii) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of the

cost of carrying out any 1 project under subparagraph

(A) shall be not more than $25,000,000.¿

(ii) FEDERAL SHARE.—

(I) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subclause (II), the Federal share of the cost of carrying

out a project under subparagraph (A) shall not exceed $25,000,000.
128

(II) SEMINOLE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN.— The Federal share of the cost of carrying out the

Seminole Water Conservation Plan shall not exceed $30,000,000.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 554. ORCHARD BEACH, BRONX, NEW YORK.

The Secretary shall conduct a study for a project for shoreline

protection, Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York, and, if the Secretary

determines that the project is feasible, may carry out the project,

at a maximum Federal cost of ø$5,200,000¿ $18,200,000.

* * * * * * *

øSEC. 563. HOPPER DREDGE MCFARLAND.

ø(a) PROJECT AUTHORIZATION.—

ø(1) DETERMINATION.—The Secretary shall determine the

advisability and necessity of making modernization and efficiency improvements to the hopper dredge McFarland. In making such determination, the Secretary shall—

ø(A) assess the need for returning the dredge to active

service;

ø(B) determine whether the McFarland should be returned to active service or the reserve fleet after the potential improvements are completed and paid for; and

ø(C) establish minimum standards of dredging service

to be met in areas served by the McFarland while the

dredge is undergoing improvements.

ø(2) AUTHORIZATION.—If the Secretary determines under

paragraph (1) that such modernization and efficiency improvements are advisable and necessary, the Secretary may carry

out the modernization and efficiency improvements. The Secretary may carry out such improvements only at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, Pennsylvania.

ø(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized

to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000.¿

SEC. 563. HOPPER DREDGE MCFARLAND.

Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the Water

Resources Development Act of 2005, the Secretary shall promulgate

such regulations and take such actions as the Secretary determines

to be necessary to decommission the Federal hopper dredge Mcfarland.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 567. UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN, PENNSYLVANIA AND

NEW YORK.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(c) COOPERATION AGREEMENTS.—In conducting the study and

developing the strategy under this section, the Secretary may enter

into cooperation agreements to provide financial assistance to appropriate Federal, State, and local government agencies, including

assistance for the implementation of wetland restoration projects

and soil and water conservation measures.¿
129

(c) COOPERATION AGREEMENTS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—In conducting the study and implementing the strategy under this section, the Secretary shall

enter into cost-sharing and project cooperation agreements with

the Federal Government, State and local governments (with the

consent of the State and local governments), land trusts, or nonprofit, nongovernmental organizations with expertise in wetland

restoration.

(2) FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.—Under the cooperation agreement, the Secretary may provide assistance for implementation

of wetland restoration projects and soil and water conservation

measures.

ø(d) IMPLEMENTATION.—The Secretary shall undertake development and implementation of the strategy authorized by this section in cooperation with local landowners and local government officials.¿

(d) IMPLEMENTATION OF STRATEGY.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall carry out the development, demonstration, and implementation of the strategy under

this section in cooperation with local landowners, local government officials, and land trusts.

(2) GOALS OF PROJECTS.—Projects to implement the strategy under this subsection shall be designed to take advantage

of ongoing or planned actions by other agencies, local municipalities, or nonprofit, nongovernmental organizations with expertise in wetland restoration that would increase the effectiveness or decrease the overall cost of implementing recommended

projects.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 575. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS.

(a) * * *

(b) SPECIFIC PROJECTS.—The projects to which subsection (a)

apply are—

(1) the project for flood control, Buffalo Bayou Basin,

Texas, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of

1954 (68 Stat. 1258);

(2) the project for flood control, Buffalo Bayou and tributaries, Texas, authorized by section 101(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4610); øand¿

(3) the project for flood control, Cypress Creek, Texas, authorized by section 3(a)(13) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4014); øand¿

(4) the project for flood control, Clear Creek, Texas, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (82

Stat. 742)ø.¿ ; and

(5) the project for flood control, Upper White Oak Bayou,

Texas, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4125).

* * * * * * *

SEC. 577. TANGIER ISLAND, VIRGINIA.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall design and construct a

breakwater at the North Channel on Tangier Island, Virginia, øat
130

a total cost of $1,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost of

$900,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $300,000.¿ at a total

cost of $3,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $2,400,000 and

an estimated non-Federal cost of $600,000.

* * * * * * *

[PUBLIC LAW 106–53—AUG. 17, 1999]

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1999

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act many be cited as the ‘‘Water Resources Development Act of 1999’’.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 212. FLOOD MITIGATION AND RIVERINE RESTORATION PROGRAM.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(e) PRIORITY AREAS.—In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall examine appropriate locations, including—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(22) Shenandoah River, Virginia; øand¿

(23) Lincoln Creek, Wisconsinø.¿ ; and

(24) Underwood Creek Diversion Facility Project (County

Grounds), Milwaukee County, Wisconsin.

* * * * * * *

øSEC. 225. RECREATION USER FEES.

ø(a) WITHHOLDING OF AMOUNTS.— ø(1) IN GENERAL.—During fiscal years 1999 through 2002,

the Secretary may withhold from the special account established under section 4(i)(1)(A)) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l–6a(i)(1)(A)) 100

percent of the amount of receipts above a baseline of

$34,000,000 per each fiscal year received from fees imposed at

recreation sites under the administrative jurisdiction of the Department of the Army under section 4(b) of that Act (16 U.S.C.

4601-6a(b)).

ø(2) USE.—The amounts withheld shall be retained by the

Secretary and shall be available , without further Act of appropriation, for expenditure by the Secretary in accordance with

subsection (b).

ø(3) AVAILABILITY.—The amounts withheld shall remain

available until September 30, 2005.

ø(b) USE OF AMOUNTS WITHHELD.—In order to increase the

quality of the visitor experience at public recreational areas and to

enhance the protection of resources, the amounts withheld under

subsection (a) may be used only for—

ø(1) repair and maintenance projects (including projects relating to health and safety);

ø(2) interpretation;
131

ø(3) signage;

ø(4) habitat or facility enhancement;

ø(5) resource preservation;

ø(6) annual operation (including fee collection);

ø(7) maintenance; and

ø(8) law enforcement related to public use.

ø(c) AVAILABILITY.—Each amount withheld by the Secretary

shall be available for expenditure, without further Act of appropriation, at the specific project from which the amount, above baseline,

is collected.¿

* * * * * * *

SEC. 514. MISSOURI AND MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI RIVERS ENHANCEMENT

PROJECT.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(f) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—Notwithstanding section 221(b) of

the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(b)), for any

project undertaken under this section, a non-Federal interest may

include a nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected local government.

(g) COST LIMITATION.—Not more than $5,000,000 in Federal

funds may be allotted under this section for a project at any single

locality.

ø(f)¿ (h) COST SHARING.—

ø(1) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—The non-Federal share of the

cost of the project shall be 35 percent.¿

(1) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The non-Federal share of the cost of

projects may be provided—

(i) in cash;

(ii) by the provision of land, easements, rights-ofway, relocations, or disposal areas;

(iii) by in-kind services to implement the project; or

(iv) by any combination of the foregoing.

(B) PRIVATE OWNERSHIP.—Land needed for a project

under this authority may remain in private ownership subject to easements that are—

(i) satisfactory to the Secretary; and

(ii) necessary to assure achievement of the project

purposes.

(2) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of the cost of any

1 activity described in subsection (b) shall not exceed

$5,000,000.

(3) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The operation and

maintenance of the project shall be a non-Federal responsibility.

ø(g)¿ (i) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to pay the Federal share of the cost of carrying out this section $30,000,000 øfor the period of fiscal years

2000 and 2001.¿ per year, and that authority shall extend until

Federal fiscal year 2015.

* * * * * * *
132

SEC. 560. ABANDONED AND INACTIVE NONCOAL MINE RESTORATION.

(a) DEFINITION OF NON-FEDERAL INTEREST.—In this section,

the term ‘non-Federal interest’ includes, with the consent of the affected local government, nonprofit entities, notwithstanding section

221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b).

ø(a)¿ (b) IN GENERAL.— The Secretary may provide technical,

planning, and design, and construction assistance to Federal and

non-Federal interests, including, with the consent of the affected

local government, nonprofit entities, for carrying out projects to address water quality problems caused by drainage and related activities from abandoned and inactive noncoal mines.

ø(b)¿ (c) SPECIFIC MEASURES.—Assistance provided under subsection (a) may be in support of projects for the purpose of—

(1) managing drainage from abandoned and inactive

noncoal mines;

(2) restoring and protecting streams, rivers, wetlands,

other waterbodies, and riparian areas degraded by drainage

from abandoned and inactive noncoal mines; and

(3) demonstrating management practices and innovative

and alternative treatment technologies to minimize or eliminate adverse physical hazards and environmental effects associated with ødrainage from¿ abandoned and inactive noncoal

mines.

ø(c)¿ (d) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—The non-Federal share of the

cost of assistance under subsection (a) shall be ø50¿ 25 percent, except that the Federal share with respect to projects located on land

owned by the United States shall be 100 percent.

ø(d)¿ (e) EFFECT ON AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY OF THE INTE- RIOR.—Nothing in this section affects the authority of the Secretary

of the Interior under title IV of the Surface Mining Control and

Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1231 et seq.).

ø(e)¿ (f) TECHNOLOGY DATABASE FOR RECLAMATION OF ABAN- DONED MINES.—The Secretary may provide assistance to non-Federal and nonprofit entities to develop, manage, and maintain a

database of conventional and innovative, cost-effective technologies

for reclamation of abandoned and inactive noncoal mine sites. Such

assistance shall be provided through the Rehabilitation of Abandoned Mine Sites Program managed by the Sacramento District Office of the Corps of Engineers.

ø(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized

to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000.¿

(g) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The non-Federal share of

the costs of operation and maintenance for a project carried out

under this section shall be 100 percent.

(h) NO EFFECT ON LIABILITY.—The provision of assistance

under this section shall not relieve from liability any person that

would otherwise be liable under Federal or State law for damages,

response costs, natural resource damages, restitution, equitable relief, or any other relief.

(i) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to

be appropriated to carry out this section for each fiscal year

$45,000,000, to remain available until expended.

* * * * * * *
133

SEC. 573. ONONDAGA LAKE, NEW YORK.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(f) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—Notwithstanding section 221(b) of

the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(b)), for any

project carried out under this section, a non-Federal interest may include a nonprofit entity, with the consent of the affected local government.

ø(f)¿ (g) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section ø$10,000,000¿

$30,000,000.

ø(g)¿ (h) REPEAL.—Title IV of the Great Lakes Critical Programs Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 3010) and section 411 of the Water

Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4648) are repealed

effective on the date that is 1 year after the date of enactment of

this Act.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 580. CUMBERLAND, MARYLAND, FLOOD PROJECT MITIGATION.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood control and other purposes, Cumberland, Maryland, authorized by section 5 of the Act

of June 22, 1936 (commonly known as the ‘‘Flood Control Act of

1936’’) (49 Stat. 1574, chapter 688), is modified to authorize the

Secretary to undertake, as a separate part of the project, restoration of the historic Chesapeake and Ohio Canal substantially in accordance with the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historic

Park, Cumberland, Maryland, Rewatering Design Analysis, dated

February 1998, at a total cost of ø$15,000,000¿ $25,750,000, with

an estimated Federal cost of ø$9,750,000¿ $16,738,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of ø$5,250,000¿ $9,012,000.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 602. TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE HABITAT RESTORATION.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(4) FUNDING FOR CARRYING OUT PLANS.—

(A) STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA.—

(i) NOTIFICATION.—On receipt of the plan for terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration submitted by the

State of South Dakota, each of the committees referred

to in paragraph (3) shall notify the Secretary and the

Secretary of the Treasury of the receipt of the plan.

ø(ii) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.—On notification in

accordance with clause (i), the Secretary shall make

available to the State of South Dakota funds from the

South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration

Trust Fund established under section 603, to be used

to carry out the plan for terrestrial wildlife habitat

restoration submitted by the State and only after the

Trust Fund is fully capitalized.¿

(ii) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.—On notification in

accordance with clause (i), the Secretary of the Treasury shall make available to the State of South Dakota
134

funds from the State of South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Fund established under

section 603, to be used to carry out the plan for terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration submitted by the State

of South Dakota after the State certifies to the Secretary of the Treasury that the funds to be disbursed

will be used in accordance with section 603(d)(3) and

only after the Trust Fund is fully capitalized.

(B) CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE AND LOWER BRULE

SIOUX TRIBE.— (i) NOTIFICATION.—On receipt of the plan for terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration submitted by the

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule

Sioux Tribe, each of the committees referred to in

paragraph (3) shall notify the Secretary of the Treasury of the receipt of each of the plans.

ø(ii) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.—On notification in

accordance with clause (i), the Secretary of the Treasury shall make available to the Cheyenne River Sioux

Tribe and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe funds from the

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Fund and the Lower Brule Sioux

Tribe Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust

Fund, respectively, established under section 604, to

be used to carry out the plan for terrestrial wildlife

habitat restoration submitted by the Cheyenne River

Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, respectively, and only after the Trust Fund is fully capitalized.¿

(ii) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.—On notification in

accordance with clause (i), the Secretary of the Treasury shall make available to the Cheyenne River Sioux

Tribe and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe funds from the

Cheyenne River Sioux Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Fund and the Lower Brule Sioux Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Fund, respectively, established under section 604, to be used to

carry out the plans for terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration submitted by the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe

and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, respectively, after the

respective tribe certifies to the Secretary of the Treasury

that the funds to be disbursed will be used in accordance with section 604(d)(3) and only after the Trust

Fund is fully capitalized.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 603. SOUTH DAKOTA TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE HABITAT RESTORATION TRUST FUND.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(c) INVESTMENTS.— ø(1) IN GENERAL.—At the request of the Secretary, the Secretary of the Treasury shall invest the amounts deposited

under subsection (b) only in interest-bearing obligations of the
135

United States or in obligations guaranteed by the United

States as to both principal and interest.

ø(2) INTEREST RATE.—The Secretary of the Treasury shall

invest amounts in the fund in obligations that carry the highest rate of interest among available obligations of the required

maturity.¿

(c) INVESTMENTS.— (1) ELIGIBLE OBLIGATIONS.—Notwithstanding any other

provision of law, the Secretary of the Treasury shall invest the

amounts deposited under subsection (b) and the interest earned

on those amounts only in interest-bearing obligations of the

United States issued directly to the Fund.

(2) INVESTMENT REQUIREMENTS.— (A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Treasury shall

invest the Fund in accordance with all of the requirements

of this paragraph.

(B) SEPARATE INVESTMENTS OF PRINCIPAL AND INTER- EST.— (i) PRINCIPAL ACCOUNT.—The amounts deposited

in the Fund under subsection (b) shall be credited to

an account within the Fund (referred to in this paragraph as the ‘principal account’) and invested as provided in subparagraph (C).

(ii) INTEREST ACCOUNT.—The interest earned from

investing amounts in the principal account of the Fund

shall be transferred to a separate account within the

Fund (referred to in this paragraph as the ‘interest account’) and invested as provided in subparagraph (D).

(iii) CREDITING.—The interest earned from investing amounts in the interest account of the Fund shall

be credited to the interest account.

(C) INVESTMENT OF PRINCIPAL ACCOUNT.— (i) INITIAL INVESTMENT.—Each amount deposited

in the principal account of the Fund shall be invested

initially in eligible obligations having the shortest maturity then available until the date on which the

amount is divided into 3 substantially equal portions

and those portions are invested in eligible obligations

that are identical (except for transferability) to the

next-issued publicly issued Treasury obligations having

a 2-year maturity, a 5-year maturity, and a 10-year

maturity, respectively.

(ii) SUBSEQUENT INVESTMENT.—As each 2-year, 5-

year, and 10-year eligible obligation matures, the principal of the maturing eligible obligation shall also be

invested initially in the shortest-maturity eligible obligation then available until the principal is reinvested

substantially equally in the eligible obligations that are

identical (except for transferability) to the next-issued

publicly issued Treasury obligations having 2-year, 5-

year, and 10-year maturities.

(iii) DISCONTINUANCE OF ISSUANCE OF OBLIGA- TIONS.—If the Department of the Treasury discontinues

issuing to the public obligations having 2-year, 5-year,
136

or 10-year maturities, the principal of any maturing eligible obligation shall be reinvested substantially

equally in eligible obligations that are identical (except

for transferability) to the next-issued publicly issued

Treasury obligations of the maturities longer than 1

year then available.

(D) INVESTMENT OF INTEREST ACCOUNT.— (i) BEFORE FULL CAPITALIZATION.—Until the date

on which the Fund is fully capitalized, amounts in the

interest account of the Fund shall be invested in eligible obligations that are identical (except for transferability) to publicly issued Treasury obligations that

have maturities that coincide, to the maximum extent

practicable, with the date on which the Fund is expected to be fully capitalized.

(ii) AFTER FULL CAPITALIZATION.—On and after the

date on which the Fund is fully capitalized, amounts

in the interest account of the Fund shall be invested

and reinvested in eligible obligations having the shortest maturity then available until the amounts are withdrawn and transferred to fund the activities authorized

under subsection (d)(3).

(E) PAR PURCHASE PRICE.—The price to be paid for eligible obligations purchased as investments of the principal

account shall not exceed the par value of the obligations so

that the amount of the principal account shall be preserved

in perpetuity.

(F) HIGHEST YIELD.—Among eligible obligations having

the same maturity and purchase price, the obligation to be

purchased shall be the obligation having the highest yield.

(G) HOLDING TO MATURITY.—Eligible obligations purchased shall generally be held to their maturities.

(3) ANNUAL REVIEW OF INVESTMENT ACTIVITIES.—Not less

frequently than once each calendar year, the Secretary of the

Treasury shall review with the State of South Dakota the results of the investment activities and financial status of the

Fund during the preceding 12-month period.

* * * * * * *

(d) PAYMENTS.—

(1) * * *

(2) WITHDRAWAL AND TRANSFER OF FUNDS.—Subject to section 602(a)(4)(A), the Secretary of the Treasury shall withdraw

amounts credited as interest under paragraph (1) and transfer

the amounts to the State of South Dakota for use as State

funds in accordance with paragraph (3) after the Fund has

been fully capitalized.

* * * * * * *

ø(f) ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.—There are authorized to be

appropriated to the Secretary of the Treasury such sums as are

necessary to pay the administrative expenses of the Fund.¿

(f) ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.—There are authorized to be appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the Secretary of the Treasury, to pay expenses associated
137

with investing the Fund and auditing the uses of amounts withdrawn from the Fund— (1) up to $500,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007;

and

(2) such sums as are necessary for each subsequent fiscal

year.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 604. CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE AND LOWER BRULE SIOUX

TRIBE TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE HABITAT RESTORATION

TRUST FUNDS.

(a) * * *

ø(c) INVESTMENTS.— ø(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Treasury shall invest the amounts deposited under subsection (b) only in interest-bearing obligations of the United States or in obligations

guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the United

States.

ø(2) INTEREST RATE.—The Secretary of the Treasury shall

invest amounts in the Funds in obligations that carry the highest rate of interest among available obligations of the required

maturity.¿

(c) INVESTMENTS.— (1) ELIGIBLE OBLIGATIONS.—Notwithstanding any other

provision of law, the Secretary of the Treasury shall invest the

amounts deposited under subsection (b) and the interest earned

on those amounts only in interest-bearing obligations of the

United States issued directly to the Funds.

(2) INVESTMENT REQUIREMENTS.— (A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Treasury shall

invest each of the Funds in accordance with all of the requirements of this paragraph.

(B) SEPARATE INVESTMENTS OF PRINCIPAL AND INTER- EST.— (i) PRINCIPAL ACCOUNT.—The amounts deposited

in each Fund under subsection (b) shall be credited to

an account within the Fund (referred to in this paragraph as the ‘principal account’) and invested as provided in subparagraph (C).

(ii) INTEREST ACCOUNT.—The interest earned from

investing amounts in the principal account of each

Fund shall be transferred to a separate account within

the Fund (referred to in this paragraph as the ‘interest

account’) and invested as provided in subparagraph

(D).

(iii) CREDITING.—The interest earned from investing amounts in the interest account of each Fund shall

be credited to the interest account.

(C) INVESTMENT OF PRINCIPAL ACCOUNT.— (i) INITIAL INVESTMENT.—Each amount deposited

in the principal account of each Fund shall be invested

initially in eligible obligations having the shortest maturity then available until the date on which the

amount is divided into 3 substantially equal portions

and those portions are invested in eligible obligations
138

that are identical (except for transferability) to the

next-issued publicly issued Treasury obligations having

a 2-year maturity, a 5-year maturity, and a 10-year

maturity, respectively.

(ii) SUBSEQUENT INVESTMENT.—As each 2-year, 5-

year, and 10-year eligible obligation matures, the principal of the maturing eligible obligation shall also be

invested initially in the shortest-maturity eligible obligation then available until the principal is reinvested

substantially equally in the eligible obligations that are

identical (except for transferability) to the next-issued

publicly issued Treasury obligations having 2-year, 5-

year, and 10-year maturities.

(iii) DISCONTINUATION OF ISSUANCE OF OBLIGATIONS.—If the Department of the Treasury discontinues

issuing to the public obligations having 2-year, 5-year,

or 10-year maturities, the principal of any maturing eligible obligation shall be reinvested substantially

equally in eligible obligations that are identical (except

for transferability) to the next-issued publicly issued

Treasury obligations of the maturities longer than 1

year then available.

(D) INVESTMENT OF THE INTEREST ACCOUNT.—

(i) BEFORE FULL CAPITALIZATION.—Until the date

on which each Fund is fully capitalized, amounts in

the interest account of the Fund shall be invested in eligible obligations that are identical (except for transferability) to publicly issued Treasury obligations that

have maturities that coincide, to the maximum extent

practicable, with the date on which the Fund is expected to be fully capitalized.

(ii) AFTER FULL CAPITALIZATION.—On and after the

date on which each Fund is fully capitalized, amounts

in the interest account of the Fund shall be invested

and reinvested in eligible obligations having the shortest maturity then available until the amounts are withdrawn and transferred to fund the activities authorized

under subsection (d)(3).

(E) PAR PURCHASE PRICE.—The price to be paid for eligible obligations purchased as investments of the principal

account shall not exceed the par value of the obligations so

that the amount of the principal account shall be preserved

in perpetuity.

(F) HIGHEST YIELD.—Among eligible obligations having

the same maturity and purchase price, the obligation to be

purchased shall be the obligation having the highest yield.

(G) HOLDING TO MATURITY.—Eligible obligations purchased shall generally be held to their maturities.

(3) ANNUAL REVIEW OF INVESTMENT ACTIVITIES.—Not less

frequently than once each calendar year, the Secretary of the

Treasury shall review with the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and

the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe the results of the investment activi-
139

ties and financial status of the Funds during the preceding 12-

month period.

* * * * * * *

ø(f) ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.—There are authorized to be

appropriated to the Secretary of the Treasury such sums as are

necessary to pay the administrative expenses of the Fund.¿

(f) ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.—There are authorized to be appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the Secretary of the Treasury to pay expenses associated

with investing the Funds and auditing the uses of amounts withdrawn from the Funds—

(1) up to $500,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007;

and

(2) such sums as are necessary for each subsequent fiscal

year.

* * * * * * *

[33 U.S.C. 2901—NOV 7, 2000]

ESTUARY RESTORATION ACT OF 2000

SEC. 101. * * *

* * * * * * *

SEC. 102. Purposes.

The purposes of this title are—

(1) to promote the restoration of estuary habitat by implementing a coordinated Federal approach to estuary

habitat restoration activities, including the use of common

monitoring standards and a common system for tracking

restoration acreage;

(2) to develop and implement a national estuary habitat restoration strategy for creating and maintaining effective estuary habitat restoration partnerships among public

agencies at all levels of government and to establish new

partnerships between the public and private sectors;

(3) to provide Federal assistance for estuary habitat

restoration projects through cooperative agreements and to

promote efficient financing of such projects; and

* * * * * * *

SEC. 103. DEFINITIONS.

In this title, the following definitions apply:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(6) ESTUARY HABITAT RESTORATION PLAN.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘estuary habitat restoration plan’’ means any øFederal or State¿ Federal,

State, or regional plan for restoration of degraded estuary habitat that was developed with the substantial
140

participation of appropriate public and private stakeholders.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 104. ESTUARY HABITAT RESTORATION PROGRAM.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established an estuary habitat

restoration program under which the Secretary may carry out estuary habitat restoration projects and provide technical assistance

through the award of contracts and cooperative agreements in accordance with the requirements of this title.

(b) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) SELECTION OF PROJECTS.—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) FACTORS FOR SELECTION OF PROJECTS.—In selecting an

estuary habitat restoration project, the Secretary shall consider

the following factors:

(A) Whether the project is part of an approved Federal

or State estuary management or habitat restoration plan.

* * * * * * *

(4) PRIORITY.—In selecting estuary habitat restoration

projects to be carried out under this title, the Secretary shall

give priority consideration to a project if, in addition to meriting selection based on the factors under paragraph (3)—

(A) * * *

(B) the project includes pilot testing of or a demonstration of an innovative technology or approach having the

potential for improved cost-effectiveness in estuary habitat

restoration.

(d) COST SHARING.—

(1) FEDERAL SHARE.—øExcept¿

(i) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph

(2) and subsection (e)(2), the Federal share of the cost

of an estuary habitat restoration project (other than

the cost of operation and maintenance of the project)

carried out under this title shall not exceed 65 percent

of such cost.

(ii) MONITORING.—

(I) COSTS.—The costs of monitoring an estuary

habitat restoration project funded under this title

may be included in the total cost of the estuary

habitat restoration project.

(II) GOALS.—The goals of the monitoring are—

(aa) to measure the effectiveness of the restoration project; and

(bb) to allow adaptive management to ensure project success.

(2) INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY COSTS.—The Federal share of

the incremental additional cost of including in a project pilot

testing of or a demonstration of an innovative technology or
141

approach described in subsection (c)(4)(B) of this section shall

be 85 percent.

(3) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—The non-Federal share of the

cost of an estuary habitat restoration project carried out under

this chapter shall include lands, easements, rights-of-way, and

relocations and may include services (including monitoring), or

any other form of in-kind contribution determined by the Secretary to be an appropriate contribution equivalent to the monetary amount required for the non-Federal share of the activity.

* * * * * * *

(f) COOPERATION OF NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may not carry out an estuary habitat restoration project until a non-Federal interest has

entered into a written agreement with the Secretary in which

the non-Federal interest agrees to—

(A) provide all lands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations and any other elements the Secretary determines

appropriate under subsection (d)(3) of this section; and

(B) provide for long-term maintenance and monitoring

of the project.

(2) NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS.—Notwithstanding

section 1962d-5b(b) of title 42, for any project to be undertaken

under this chapter, the Secretary, in consultation and coordination with appropriate State and local governmental agencies

and Indian tribes, may allow a nongovernmental organization

to serve as the non-Federal interest for the project.

(g) DELEGATION OF PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION.—øIn carrying¿

(1) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out this chapter, the Secretary may delegate project implementation to another Federal

department or agency on a reimbursable basis if the Secretary,

upon the recommendation of the Council, determines such delegation is appropriate.

(2) SMALL PROJECTS.— (A) DEFINITION.—Small projects carried out under this Act shall have a Federal share of less than $1,000,000.

(B) DELEGATION OF PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION.—In

carrying out this section, the Secretary, on recommendation

of the Council, shall consider delegating implementation of

the small project to—

(i) the Secretary of the Interior (acting through the

Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service);

(ii) the Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere of the Department of Commerce;

(iii) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; or

(iv) the Secretary of Agriculture.

(C) FUNDING.—Small projects delegated to another

Federal department or agency may be funded from the responsible department or appropriations of the agency authorized by section 109(a)(1).

(D) AGREEMENTS.—The Federal department or agency

to which a small project is delegated shall enter into an
142

agreement with the non-Federal interest generally in conformance with the criteria in sections 104(d) and 104(e).

Cooperative agreements may be used for any delegated

project.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 105. ESTABLISHMENT OF ESTUARY HABITAT RESTORATION

COUNCIL.

(a) COUNCIL.—There is established a council to be known as

the ‘‘Estuary Habitat Restoration Council’’.

(b) DUTIES.—The Council shall be responsible for—

(1) soliciting, reviewing, and evaluating project proposals

and developing recommendations concerning such proposals

based on the factors specified in section 2903(c)(3) of this title;

(2) submitting to the Secretary a list of recommended

projects, including a recommended priority order and any recommendation as to whether a project should be carried out by

the Secretary or by another Federal department or agency

under section 2903(g) of this title;

(3) developing and transmitting to Congress a national

strategy for restoration of estuary habitat;

(4) periodically reviewing the effectiveness of the national

strategy in meeting the purposes of this chapter and, as necessary, updating the national strategy; øand¿

(5) providing advice on the development of the database,

monitoring standards, and report required under sections 2906

and 2907 of this titleø.¿ ;

(6) cooperating in the implementation of the strategy developed under section 106;

(7) recommending standards for monitoring for restoration

projects and contribution of project information to the database

developed under section 107; and

(8) otherwise using the respective agency authorities of the

Council members to carry out this title.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 107. MONITORING OF ESTUARY HABITAT RESTORATION

PROJECTS.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) COORDINATION OF DATA.—The Under Secretary shall øcompile¿ have general data compilation, coordination, and analysis responsibilities to carry out this title and in support of the strategy

developed under section 107, including compilation of information

that pertains to estuary habitat restoration projects from other

Federal, State, and local sources and that meets the quality control

requirements and data standards established under this section.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 108. REPORTING.

(a) IN GENERAL.—At the end of the øthird and fifth¿ sixth,

eighth, and tenth fiscal years following November 7, 2000, the Secretary, after considering the advice and recommendations of the
143

Council, shall transmit to Congress a report on the results of activities carried out under this chapter.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 109. FUNDING.

(a) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— (1) ESTUARY HABITAT RESTORATION PROJECTS.—There is

authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for carrying out

and providing technical assistance for estuary habitat restoration projects—

ø(A) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;

ø(B) $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2002 and

2003;

ø(C) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; and

ø(D) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2005.¿

(A) to the Secretary, $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years

2006 through 2010;

(B) to the Secretary of the Interior (acting through the

Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service),

$2,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010;

(C) to the Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere of the Department of Commerce, $2,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010;

(D) to the Administrator of the Environmental Protec- tion Agency, $2,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2006

through 2010; and (E) to the Secretary of Agriculture, $2,500,000 for each

of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.

Such sums shall remain available until expended.

(2) MONITORING.—There is authorized to be appropriated

to the Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere of the Department of Commerce for the acquisition, maintenance, and

management of monitoring data on restoration projects carried

out under this title and other information compiled under section 107, $1,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through

ø2005¿ 2010. Such sums shall remain available until expended.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 110. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

(a) AGENCY CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION.—In carrying

out this chapter, the Secretary shall, as necessary, consult with, cooperate with, and coordinate its activities with the activities of

other Federal departments and agencies.

(b) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS; MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING.—In carrying out this chapter, the Secretary may—

(1) enter into cooperative agreements or contractswith Federal, State, and local government agencies, nongovernmental

organizations, and other entities; and

(2) execute such memoranda of understanding as are necessary to reflect the agreements.

(c) FEDERAL AGENCY FACILITIES AND PERSONNEL.—Federal

agencies may cooperate in carrying out scientific and other programs necessary to carry out this chapter, and may provide facili-
144

ties and personnel, for the purpose of assisting the Council in carrying out its duties under this chapter.

ø(d) IDENTIFICATION AND MAPPING OF DREDGED MATERIAL DIS- POSAL SITES.—In consultation with appropriate Federal and nonFederal public entities, the Secretary shall undertake, and update

as warranted by changed conditions, surveys to identify and map

sites appropriate for beneficial uses of dredged material for the protection, restoration, and creation of aquatic and ecologically related

habitats, including wetlands, in order to further the purposes of

this chapter.

ø(e) STUDY OF BIOREMEDIATION TECHNOLOGY.— ø(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after November

7, 2000, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection

Agency, with the participation of the estuarine scientific community, shall begin a 2-year study on the efficacy of bioremediation products.

ø(2) REQUIREMENTS.—The study shall—

ø(A) evaluate and assess bioremediation technology—

ø(i) on low-level petroleum hydrocarbon contamination from recreational boat bilges;

ø(ii) on low-level petroleum hydrocarbon contamination from stormwater discharges;

ø(iii) on nonpoint petroleum hydrocarbon discharges; and

ø(iv) as a first response tool for petroleum hydrocarbon spills; and

ø(B) recommend management actions to optimize the

return of a healthy and balanced ecosystem and make improvements in the quality and character of estuarine waters.¿

* * * * * * *

[PUBLIC LAW 106–541—DEC. 11, 2000]

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2000

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act many be cited as the ‘‘Water Resources Development Act of 2000’’.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(16) OHIO RIVER, KENTUCKY, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, OHIO,

PENNSYLVANIA, AND WEST VIRGINIA.—

ø(A) IN GENERAL.—Projects for ecosystem restoration,

Ohio River Mainstem¿

(A) AUTHORIZATION.—

(i) IN GENERAL.—Projects for ecosystem restoration,

Ohio River Basin (excluding the Tennessee and Cumberland River Basins), Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana,

Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, at a total cost
145

of $307,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost of

$200,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of

$107,700,000.

(ii) NONPROFIT ENTITY.—For any ecosystem restoration project carried out under this paragraph, with

the consent of the affected local government, a nonprofit entity may be considered to be a non-Federal interest.

(iii) PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.—There is

authorized to be developed a program implementation

plan of the Ohio River Basin (excluding the Tennessee

and Cumberland River Basins) at full Federal expense.

(iv) PILOT PROGRAM.—There is authorized to be

initiated a completed pilot program in Lower Scioto

Basin, Ohio.

* * * * * * *

(b) PROJECTS SUBJECT TO FINAL REPORT.— * * *

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(5) LOS ANGELES HARBOR, CALIFORNIA.—The project for

navigation, Los Angeles Harbor, California, at a total cost of

ø$153,313,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $43,735,000

and an estimated non-Federal cost of $109,578,000¿

$222,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $72,000,000

and an estimated non-Federal cost of $150,000,000.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 214. FUNDING TO PROCESS PERMITS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—øIn fiscal years 2001 through 2003, the¿ 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.

* * * * * * *

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, and to provide public access and recreational facilities.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 325. FORT PECK FISH HATCHERY, MONTANA.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—There are authorized to be

appropriated—

(A) ø$20,000,000¿ $25,000,000 to carry out this section

(other than subsection (e)(2)(B)); and

* * * * * * *
146

SEC. 349. Project Reauthorizations.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(2) CEDAR BAYOU, TEXAS.—The project for navigation,

Cedar Bayou, Texas, 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 September 19, 1890

(26 Stat. 444), and modified by the first section of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act authorizing the contruction, repair, and preservation of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for

other purposes’’, approved July 3, 1930 (46 Stat. 926), and deauthorized by section 1002 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat, 4219), øexcept that the project is

authorized only for construction of a navaigation channel 12

feet deep by 125 feet wide¿ except that the project is authorized

for construction of a navigation channel that is 10 feet deep by

100 feet wide from mile -2.5 (at the junction with the Houston

Ship Channel) to mile 11.0 on Cedar Bayou.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 414. OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA.

Not later than ø32 months¿ 44 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall conduct a study, at

Federal expense, of plans—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

SEC. 425. CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for shoreline protection along Lake Michigan and the Chicago River, Chicago, Illinois.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 506. GREAT LAKES FISHERY AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) GREAT LAKES FISHERY AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.—

(1) * * *

(2) RECONNAISSANCE STUDIES.—Before planning, designing, or constructing a project under paragraph (3), the Secretary shall carry out a reconnaissance study—

(A) to identify methods of restoring the fishery, ecosystem, and beneficial uses of the Great Lakes; and

(B) to determine whether planning of a project under

paragraph (3) should proceed.

ø(2)¿ (3) PROJECTS.—The Secretary shall plan, design, and

construct projects to support the restoration of the fishery, ecosystem, and beneficial uses of the Great Lakes.

ø(3)¿ (4) EVALUATION PROGRAM.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall develop a program to evaluate the success of the projects carried out
147

under øparagraph (2)¿ paragraph (3) in meeting fishery

and ecosystem restoration goals.

(B) STUDIES.—Evaluations under subparagraph (A)

shall be conducted in consultation with the Great Lakes

Fishery Commission and appropriate Federal, State, and

local agencies.

* * * * * * *

(f) COST SHARING.—

(1) DEVELOPMENT OF PLAN.—The Federal share of the cost

of development of the plan under subsection (c)(1) shall be 65

percent.

(2) RECONNAISSANCE STUDIES.—Any reconnaissance study

under subsection (c)(2) shall be carried out at full Federal expense.

ø(2)¿ (3) PROJECT PLANNING, DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND

EVALUATION.—The Federal share of the cost of planning, design, construction, and evaluation of a project under paragraph

ø(2) or (3)¿ (3) or (4) of subsection (c) shall be 65 percent.

ø(3)¿ (4) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—

(A) CREDIT FOR LAND, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OFWAY.—The Secretary shall credit the non-Federal interest

for the value of any land, easement, right-of-way, dredged

material disposal area, or relocation provided for carrying

out a project under øsubsection (c)(2)¿ subsection (c)(3).

(B) FORM.—The non-Federal interest may provide up

to 50 percent of the non-Federal share required under

paragraphs (1) and (2) in the form of services, materials,

supplies, or other in-kind contributions.

ø(4)¿ (5) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The operation,

maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of

projects carried out under this section shall be a non-Federal

responsibility.

ø(5)¿ (6) NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS.—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 private interest and a nonprofit entity.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 542. LAKE CHAMPLAIN WATERSHED, VERMONT AND NEW YORK.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(b) CRITICAL RESTORATION PROJECTS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may participate in critical

restoration projects in the Lake Champlain watershed.

(2) TYPES OF PROJECTS.—A critical restoration project shall

be eligible for assistance under this section if the critical restoration project consists of —

(A) implementation of an intergovernmental agreement for coordinating regulatory and management responsibilities with respect to the Lake Champlain watershed;

(B) acceleration of whole farm planning to implement

best management practices to maintain or enhance water
148

quality and to promote agricultural land use in the Lake

Champlain watershed;

(C) acceleration of whole community planning to promote intergovernmental cooperation in the regulation and

management of activities consistent with the goal of maintaining or enhancing water quality in the Lake Champlain

watershed;

(D) natural resource stewardship activities on public

or private land to promote land uses that—

(i) preserve and enhance the economic and social

character of the communities in the Lake Champlain

watershed; and

(ii) protect and enhance water quality; øor¿

(E) river corridor assessment, protection, management,

and restoration for the purposes of ecosystem restoration;

(F) geographic mapping conducted by the Secretary

using existing technical capacity to produce a high-resolution, multispectral satellite imagery-based land use and

cover data set; or

ø(E)¿ (G) any other activity determined by the Secretary to be appropriate.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 543. VERMONT DAMS REMEDIATION.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary—

(1) shall conduct a study to evaluate the structural integrity and need for modification or removal of each dam located

in the State of Vermont and described in subsection (b);

(2) shall provide to the non-Federal interest design analysis, plans and specifications, and cost estimates for repair,

restoration, modification, and removal of each dam described in

subsection (b); øand¿

(3) may carry out measures to prevent or mitigate against

such risk if the Secretary determines that a dam described in

subsection (b) presents an imminent and substantial risk to

public safetyø.¿ ; and

(4) may carry out measures to restore, protect, and preserve

an ecosystem affected by a dam described in subsection (b).

(b) DAMS TO BE EVALUATED.—The dams referred to in subsection (a) are the following:

(1) East Barre Dam, Barre Town.

(2) Wrightsville Dam, Middlesex-Montpelier.

(3) Lake Sadawga Dam, Whitingham.

(4) Dufresne Pond Dam, Manchester.

(5) Knapp Brook Site 1 Dam, Cavendish.

(6) Lake Bomoseen Dam, Castleton.

(7) Little Hosmer Dam, Craftsbury.

(8) Colby Pond Dam, Plymouth.

(9) Silver Lake Dam, Barnard.

(10) Gale Meadows Dam, Londonderry.

(11) Camp Wapanacki, Hardwick.

(12) Star Lake Dam, Mt. Holly.

(13) Curtis Pond, Calais.

(14) Weathersfield Reservoir, Springfield.
149

(15) Burr Pond, Sudbury.

(16) Maidstone Lake, Guildhall.

(17) Upper and Lower Hurricane Dam.

(18) Lake Fairlee.

(19) West Charleston Dam.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 601. COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(b) COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN.— (1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(2) SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATIONS.—

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(B) PILOT PROJECTS.—The following pilot projects are

authorized for implementation, after review and approval

by the Secretary, at a total cost of $69,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $34,500,000 and an estimated nonFederal cost of $34,500,000:

(i) * * *

* * * * * * *

(v) HILLSBORO AND OKEECHOBEE AQUIFER, FLOR- IDA.—The pilot projects for aquifer storage and recovery, Hillsboro and Okeechobee Aquifer, Florida, authorized by section 101(a)(16) of the Water Resources

Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 276), shall be treated for the purposes of this section as being in the Plan

and carried out in accordance with this section, except

that costs of operation and maintenance of those

projects shall remain 100 percent non-Federal.

* * * * * * *

(c) ADDITIONAL PROGRAM AUTHORITY.— (1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) FUNDING.—

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(C) MAXIMUM COST OF PROGRAM AUTHORITY.—Section

902 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33

U.S.C. 2280) shall apply to the individual project funding

limits in subparagraph (A) and the aggregate cost limits in

subparagraph (B).

* * * * * * *

SEC. 707. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be appropriated to the

Secretary to carry out this title $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years
150

2001 through ø2005¿ 2010. Such sums shall remain available until

expended.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 904. MISSOURI RIVER TRUST.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(b) MEMBERSHIP.—The Trust shall be composed of 25 members

to be appointed by the Secretary, including—

(1) 15 members recommended by the Governor of South

Dakota that—

(A) represent equally the various interests of the public; and

(B) include representatives of—

(i)the South Dakota Department of Environment

and Natural Resources;

(ii)the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish,

and Parks;

(iii)environmental groups;

(iv)the hydroelectric power industry;

(v)local governments;

(vi)recreation user groups;

(vii)agricultural groups; øand¿

(viii) rural water systems; and

ø(viii)¿ (ix)other appropriate interests;

* * * * * * *

SEC. 907. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be appropriated to the

Secretary to carry out this title $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years

2001 through ø2005¿ 2010. Such sums shall remain available until

expended.

* * * * * * *

Æ