```

[Senate Report 109-61]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

109th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session                                                     109-61
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     

                                     

                                     

                                                        Calendar No. 93

                            WATER RESOURCES

                        DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2005

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 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

                                     
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800  
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001

               COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                       one hundred ninth congress

                  JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia             JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri        MAX BAUCUS, Montana
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio            JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island         BARBARA BOXER, California
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska               THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota             HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
JIM DEMINT, South Carolina           FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia              BARACK OBAMA, Illinois
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
                 Andrew Wheeler Majority Staff Director
                 Ken Connolly, Minority Staff Director

                                  (ii)

  

                            C O N T E N T S

                               __________
                                                                   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
    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
    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
    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
    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

                                                        Calendar No. 93
109th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session                                                     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

                              R E P O R T

                         [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.
    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.
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.
    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; non-Federal 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.
    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. 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 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 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. Lucie-Martin 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.
    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 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 wake-generated 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; non-Federal 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.
    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 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 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.

    (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 
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.
    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 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.
    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.
    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''.
    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.
    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. 
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 construction 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 environmental 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.

        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 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 authorized 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 requirement 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 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 recreation 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;
        (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;
        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, 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 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 
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 non-Federal 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.
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.
    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 
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, 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 non-Federal.
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
        (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 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.
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 justified 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 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.
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.
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 
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 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 associated 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.
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 non-Federal 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 
contributions, services, supplies and material, and provides 
that non-Federal 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.
        (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.
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.
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.
    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.
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 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.
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 Federal 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.
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.
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 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 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 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 
$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 
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.
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 
Development 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.
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 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 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.
    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 fiscal 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 ex-officio 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 between 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.
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).
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).
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.).
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, Nebraska, 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).
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).
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. Michael 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 impact 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.

   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 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 non-structural 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.
    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 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.

   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 
century-old 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. 
Sec.  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.
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 exists 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 ordinary 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 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 work with its sponsor prior to floor 
consideration of this bill to resolve these issues.

                        Changes in Existing Law

    In compliance with section 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 
Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill 
as reported are shown as follows: Existing law proposed to be 
omitted is enclosed in [black brackets], new matter is printed 
in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown 
in roman:

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

                     [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, 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; Application of 
Section 3401 of Title 18, United States Code; Citations and 
Arrests With and Without Process; Limitations; Disposition of 
Receipts.--The Chief of Engineers, under the supervision 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: [Provided, 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: [Provided 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. 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. [All 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 [$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 [$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

[SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF SMALL PROJECTS NOT SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED; 
                    EXPENDITURES; LOCAL COOPERATION; WORK TO BE 
                    COMPLETE; EXCEPTIONS

    [The 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, 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
                            (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;
                                    (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--
                    (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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

[SEC. 5. FEDERAL AID IN PROTECTION OF SHORES

    [(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.
    [(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
            [(1) the costs allocated to the restoration and 
        protection of Federal property shall be borne fully by 
        the Federal Government,
            [(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 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
            [(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.
    [(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.
    [(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.
    [(e) Authorization of projects.--
            [(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.
            [(2) Studies.--
                    [(A) In general.--The Secretary shall--
                            [(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;
                            [(ii) conduct such studies as 
                        Congress requires under applicable 
                        laws; and
                            [(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.
                    [(B) Recommendations for shore protection 
                projects.--
                            [(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).
                            [(ii) Considerations.--In making 
                        recommendations, the Secretary shall 
                        consider the economic and ecological 
                        benefits of the shore protection 
                        project.
                    [(C) Coordination of projects.--In 
                conducting studies and making recommendations 
                for a shore protection project under this 
                paragraph, the Secretary shall--
                            [(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
                            [(ii) if there is such a 
                        complementary project, describe the 
                        efforts that will be made to coordinate 
                        the projects.
            [(3) Shore protection projects.--
                    [(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.
                    [(B) Agreements.--
                            [(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.
                            [(ii) Terms.--The agreement shall--
                                    [(I) specify the life of 
                                the project; and
                                    [(II) ensure that the 
                                Federal Government and the non-
                                Federal interest will cooperate 
                                in carrying out the project or 
                                separable element.
                    [(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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    [Sec. 205. That the] * * *

SEC. 205. PROJECTS TO ENHANCE REDUCTION OF FLOODING AND OBTAIN RISK 
                    MINIMIZATION.

    The * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

                      [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. * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    [Sec. 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.
    [(b) Not more]
    (b) Allotment.--Not more than [$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.
    [(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 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.
    [(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.
    [(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.
    [(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) [For]
                    (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. [To 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 purpose 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

    [(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 recreation 
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 [but 
        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 any comparable recreation fee 
        for admission to, or use of, the recreation area or 
        project site.
            [(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, [picnic tables], toilet facilities, [surface 
        water areas], undeveloped or lightly developed 
        shoreland, [or 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.
            [(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.
            [(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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      [Sec. 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--
                            (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 non-Federal 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.
    [(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 
        [January 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) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    [Sec. 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 cooperate 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 [this 
        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 [this section] subsection 
        (a)(1).
            (2) [Up 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.
    [(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 [the 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 individual activities proposed for funding under 
subsection (a)(1) for the fiscal year.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

                          [CF. 33 U.S.C. 426J]

                WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1976

[SEC. 426J. PLACEMENT ON STATE BEACHES OF SAND DREDGED IN CONSTRUCTING 
                    AND MAINTAINING NAVIGATION INLETS AND CHANNELS 
                    ADJACENT TO SUCH BEACHES

    [The 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;
            (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; [and]
            (19) Osgood Pond, Milford, Hillsborough County, New 
        Hampshire, removal of silt and aquatic growth and 
        measures to address excessive sedimentation[.] ;
            (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 
        [$20,000,000] $50,000,000 to carry out such projects. 
        [Such 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
                    [(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;
                            (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.
            [(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.

    [Enhancing]
    (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
            (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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    [(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;
            (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
            (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;
                    (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 non-Federal 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 [shall] may issue an order requiring such 
non-Federal interest to provide such cooperation. [After 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 [injunction, for] injunction and payment of 
liquidated damages, for any violation of an order issued under 
this section, [to 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 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 
[any 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 non-Federal 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).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

[SEC. 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 
        [$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--
[1276.42] 1278.42 feet; Sandy 1214.31 feet--[1218.31] 1221.31 
feet; Pine 1227.32 feet--[1234.82] 1235.30 feet; and Gull 
1192.75 feet--1194.75 feet. Such water levels shall be measured 
using the National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
    [(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 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. 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 [through 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 
Interpretive Site.--
            (1) * * *
            (2) Location of museum.--The museum shall be 
        located on [property 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.

    [(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.
    [(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--
            [(1) the environmental, economic, and social 
        benefits of the project, both monetary and nonmonetary, 
        justify the cost thereof; and
            [(2) the project would not result in environmental 
        degradation.
    [(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--
            [(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
            [(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.
    [(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.
    [(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).
    [(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.
    [(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;
            (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 
                non-Federal 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).
    (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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

[SEC. 325. LAND EXCHANGE, ALLATOONA LAKE, GEORGIA.

    [(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.
    [(b) Terms and Conditions.--Land exchanges under the 
program to be conducted under subsection (a) shall be subject 
to the following terms and conditions:
            [(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.
            [(2) Lands acquired under the program shall be from 
        willing sellers only.
            [(3) The basis for all land exchanges under the 
        program shall be a fair market appraisal so that lands 
        exchanged are of equal value.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

                  [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 [$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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

[SEC. 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 [an 
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 [$25,000,000] $75,000,000 for each 
fiscal year.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 211. CONSTRUCTION OF FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS BY NON-FEDERAL 
                    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.
                    (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--
                    (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 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.
    [(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 subsection, 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.

    [(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 [Secretary 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 [$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 [or 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 
        [$2,500,000] $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 [$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 [through 
        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) 
                        [$75,000,000 for the period consisting 
                        of fiscal years 1997 through 1999.] 
                        $95,000,000.
                            [(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.
                                    (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 
[$5,200,000] $18,200,000.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

[SEC. 563. HOPPER DREDGE MCFARLAND.

    [(a) Project Authorization.--
            [(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--
                    [(A) assess the need for returning the 
                dredge to active service;
                    [(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
                    [(C) establish minimum standards of 
                dredging service to be met in areas served by 
                the McFarland while the dredge is undergoing 
                improvements.
            [(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.
    [(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) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    [(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.]
    (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.
    [(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); [and]
            (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); 
        [and]
            (4) the project for flood control, Clear Creek, 
        Texas, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control 
        Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 742)[.] ; 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, 
[at 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; [and]
            (23) Lincoln Creek, Wisconsin[.] ; and
            (24) Underwood Creek Diversion Facility Project 
        (County Grounds), Milwaukee County, Wisconsin.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

[SEC. 225. RECREATION USER FEES.

    [(a) Withholding of Amounts.--
            [(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)).
            [(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).
            [(3) Availability.--The amounts withheld shall 
        remain available until September 30, 2005.
    [(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--
            [(1) repair and maintenance projects (including 
        projects relating to health and safety);
            [(2) interpretation;
            [(3) signage;
            [(4) habitat or facility enhancement;
            [(5) resource preservation;
            [(6) annual operation (including fee collection);
            [(7) maintenance; and
            [(8) law enforcement related to public use.
    [(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.
    [(f)] (h) Cost Sharing.--
            [(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-of-way, 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.
    [(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 [for the period 
of fiscal years 2000 and 2001.] per year, and that authority 
shall extend until Federal fiscal year 2015.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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).
    [(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.
    [(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 [drainage from] 
        abandoned and inactive noncoal mines.
    [(c)] (d) Non-Federal Share.--The non-Federal share of the 
cost of assistance under subsection (a) shall be [50] 25 
percent, except that the Federal share with respect to projects 
located on land owned by the United States shall be 100 
percent.
    [(d)] (e) Effect on Authority of Secretary of the 
Interior.--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.).
    [(e)] (f) Technology Database for Reclamation of Abandoned 
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.
    [(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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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.
    [(f)] (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is 
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
[$10,000,000] $30,000,000.
    [(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 [$15,000,000] 
$25,750,000, with an estimated Federal cost of [$9,750,000] 
$16,738,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of [$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.
                            [(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 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.
                            [(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) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    [(c) Investments.--
            [(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 United States or in obligations 
        guaranteed by the United States as to both principal 
        and interest.
            [(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 
                interest.--
                            (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 
                        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 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    [(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 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) * * *
    [(c) Investments.--
            [(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.
            [(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 
                interest.--
                            (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 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 activities and 
        financial status of the Funds during the preceding 12-
        month period.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    [(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 
                        [Federal or State] Federal, State, or 
                        regional plan for restoration of 
                        degraded estuary habitat that was 
                        developed with the substantial 
                        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.--[Except]
                            (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 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.--[In 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 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; [and]
            (5) providing advice on the development of the 
        database, monitoring standards, and report required 
        under sections 2906 and 2907 of this title[.] ;
            (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 
[compile] 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 [third and fifth] sixth, 
eighth, and tenth fiscal years following November 7, 2000, the 
Secretary, after considering the advice and recommendations of 
the 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--
                    [(A) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;
                    [(B) $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
                2002 and 2003;
                    [(C) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; and
                    [(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 Protection 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 [2005] 
        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 
facilities and personnel, for the purpose of assisting the 
Council in carrying out its duties under this chapter.
    [(d) Identification and mapping of dredged material 
disposal sites.--In consultation with appropriate Federal and 
non-Federal 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.
    [(e) Study of bioremediation technology.--
            [(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.
            [(2) Requirements.--The study shall--
                    [(A) evaluate and assess bioremediation 
                technology--
                            [(i) on low-level petroleum 
                        hydrocarbon contamination from 
                        recreational boat bilges;
                            [(ii) on low-level petroleum 
                        hydrocarbon contamination from 
                        stormwater discharges;
                            [(iii) on nonpoint petroleum 
                        hydrocarbon discharges; and
                            [(iv) as a first response tool for 
                        petroleum hydrocarbon spills; and
                    [(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.--
                    [(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 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 [$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.--[In 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) [$20,000,000] $25,000,000 to carry out 
                this section (other than subsection (e)(2)(B)); 
                and

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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), [except 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 [32 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.
            [(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.
            [(3)] (4) Evaluation program.--
                    (A) In general.--The Secretary shall 
                develop a program to evaluate the success of 
                the projects carried out under [paragraph (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.
            [(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 [(2) or (3)] (3) or (4) of 
        subsection (c) shall be 65 percent.
            [(3)] (4) Non-federal share.--
                    (A) Credit for land, easements, and rights-
                of-way.--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 [subsection 
                (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.
            [(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.
            [(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 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; [or]
                    (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
                    [(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); [and]
            (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 safety[.] ; 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.
            (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 
                non-Federal cost of $34,500,000:
                            (i) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                            (v) Hillsboro and okeechobee 
                        aquifer, florida.--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 2001 through [2005] 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; [and]
                            (viii) rural water systems; and
                            [(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 [2005] 2010. Such sums shall remain 
available until expended.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                                 

```