```

[Senate Report 108-314]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

108th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE                         
 2d Session                                                      108-314
_______________________________________________________________________

                                                       Calendar No. 672

                            WATER RESOURCES

                        DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2004

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                              COMMITTEE ON

                      ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                              to accompany

                                S. 2773

                                     

                                     

                August 25, 2004.--Ordered to be printed
   Filed under authority of the order of the Senate of July 22, 2004

                                     
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 eighth 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            HARRY REID, Nevada
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho              BOB GRAHAM, Florida
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island         JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
JOHN CORNYN, Texas                   BARBARA BOXER, California
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska               RON WYDEN, Oregon
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming                THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado               HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
                 Andrew Wheeler Majority Staff Director
                 Ken Connolly, Minority Staff Director

                                  (ii)

  

                            C O N T E N T S

                               __________
                                                                   Page
General statement................................................     1
    Continuing authorities programs..............................     3
    Incomplete projects..........................................     4
Water Resources Development Act of 2004..........................     4
Section-by-section analysis......................................     4
    Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.......................     4
    Sec. 2. Definition of Secretary..............................     4

                      TITLE I--GENERAL PROVISIONS

    Sec. 1001. Credit for in-kind contributions..................     4
    Sec. 1002. Interagency and international support authority...     6
    Sec. 1003. Training Funds....................................     6
    Sec. 1004. Recreation user fees..............................     6
    Sec. 1005. Corps of Engineers river stewardship commission...     8
    Sec. 1006. Improvement of water management at Corps of 
      Engineers reservoirs.......................................     8
    Sec. 1007. Fiscal transparency report........................     9
    Sec. 1008. Planning..........................................     9
    Sec. 1009. Water resources planning council..................    11
    Sec. 1010. Independent reviews...............................    11
    Sec. 1011. Fish and wildlife mitigation......................    13
    Sec. 1012. Agreements for water resources projects...........    14
    Sec. 1013. State technical assistance........................    15
    Sec. 1014. Access to water resources data....................    16

                          TITLE II--NAVIGATION

                      Subtitle A--Inland Waterways

                           Chapter 1--Studies

    Sec. 2001. McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System...    16

                          Chapter 2--Projects

                      Subchapter A--Authorizations

    Sec. 2101. Deep Creek, Chesapeake, Virginia..................    17

                  Subchapter B--Project Modifications

    Sec. 2111. Black-Warrior Tombigbee Rivers, Alabama...........    17
    Sec. 2112. Larkspur Ferry Channel, California................    17
    Sec. 2113. Redwood City navigation project, California.......    17
    Sec. 2114. St. George's Bridge, Delaware.....................    17
    Sec. 2115. Chicago River, Illinois...........................    18
    Sec. 2116. Red River (J. Bennett Johnston) Waterway, 
      Louisiana..................................................    18
    Sec. 2117. Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts and Rhode Island.    18
    Sec. 2118. Cooper River bridge demolition, Charleston, South 
      Carolina...................................................    18
    Sec. 2119. Plant Replacement and Improvement Program, Corps 
      of Engineers Charleston District Equipment and Storage 
      Yard, South Carolina.......................................    18
    Sec. 2120. Old Hickory Lock and Dam, Cumberland River, 
      Tennessee..................................................    19
    Sec. 2121. McNary Lock and Dam, McNary National Wildlife 
      Refuge, Washington.........................................    19
    Sec. 2122. Snake River Project, Washington and Idaho.........    19
    Sec. 2123. Marmet Lock, Kanawha River, West Virginia.........    19
    Sec. 2124. Enhanced navigation capacity improvements and 
      ecosystem restoration plan for the Upper Mississippi River 
      and Illinois Waterway System...............................    19
    Sec. 2125. Lower Mississippi River Museum and Riverfront 
      Interpretive Site..........................................    23
    Sec. 2126. Pilot Program, Middle Mississippi River...........    23

                     Subchapter C--Deauthorizations

    Sec. 2141. Inland waterway from Delaware River to Chesapeake 
      Bay, Part II, installation of fender protection for 
      bridges, Delaware and Maryland.............................    24
    Sec. 2142. Mayo's Bar Lock and Dam, Coosa River, Rome, 
      Georgia....................................................    24
    Sec. 2143. Gulf Intercoastal Waterway, Lake Borgne and Chef 
      Menteur, Louisiana.........................................    24
    Sec. 2144. Eisenhower and Snell Locks, New York..............    24
    Sec. 2145. Red River Waterway, Shreveport, Louisiana to 
      Daingerfield, Texas........................................    24
    Sec. 2146. Schuylkill River, Pennsylvania....................    24
    Sec. 2147. Lake of the Pines, Texas..........................    25
    Sec. 2148. Tennessee Colony Lake, Texas......................    25
    Sec. 2149. City Waterway, Tacoma, Washington.................    25

                     Subtitle B--Ports and Harbors

               Chapter 1--Continuing Authorities Programs

    Sec. 2201. Navigation enhancement for waterbourne 
      transportation.............................................    25

                           Chapter 2--Studies

    Sec. 2211. National port study...............................    25

                          Chapter 3--Projects

                      Subchapter A--Authorizations

    Sec. 2221. Akutan Harbor, Akutan, Alaska.....................    26
    Sec. 2222. Haines Small Boat Harbor, Haines, Alaska..........    26
    Sec. 2223. St. Herman and St. Paul Harbors, Kodiak, Alaska...    27
    Sec. 2224. Unalaska Small Boat Harbor, Unalaska, Alaska......    27
    Sec. 2225. Miami Harbor, Miami, Florida......................    27
    Sec. 2226. Port of Iberia, Louisiana.........................    28
    Sec. 2227. Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Corpus Christi, Texas    28

                      Subchapter B--Modifications

    Sec. 2241. Sitka, Alaska.....................................    29
    Sec. 2242. LA-3 dredged material ocean disposal site 
      designation, California....................................    29
    Sec. 2243. Conditional declaration of nonnavigability, Port 
      of San Francisco, California...............................    29
    Sec. 2244. Charles Hervey Townshend Breakwater, New Haven 
      Harbor, Connecticut........................................    30
    Sec. 2245. Anchorage area, New London Harbor, Connecticut....    30
    Sec. 2246. Norwalk Harbor, Connecticut.......................    30
    Sec. 2247. Jacksonville Harbor, Florida......................    30
    Sec. 2248. South Carolina Department of Commerce development 
      proposal at Richard B. Russell Lake, South Carolina........    30
    Sec. 2249. Port of Lewiston, Idaho...........................    31
    Sec. 2250. Chicago River and Harbor, Chicago, Illinois.......    31
    Sec. 2251. Camp Ellis, Saco, Maine...........................    31
    Sec. 2252. Union River, Maine................................    31
    Sec. 2253. Duluth Harbor, Minnesota..........................    31
    Sec. 2254. New York Harbor, New York, New York...............    31
    Sec. 2255. Toussaint River Navigation Project, Carroll 
      Township, Ohio.............................................    32
    Sec. 2256. Essayons and Yaquina dredges, Oregon..............    32
    Sec. 2257. Cedar Bayou, Texas................................    32
    Sec. 2258. Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Brazos River to Port 
      O'Connor, Texas............................................    32
    Sec. 2259. Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, High Island to Brazos 
      River, Texas...............................................    33
    Sec. 2260. Tangier Island Seawall, Virginia..................    33
    Sec. 2261. Lower Granite Pool, Washington....................    33

                     Subchapter C--Deauthorizations

    Sec. 2271. Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut....................    34
    Sec. 2272. Muscatine Harbor, Iowa............................    34
    Sec. 2273. Bayou LaFourche and LaFourche Jump, Louisiana.....    34
    Sec. 2274. Northeast Harbor, Maine...........................    34
    Sec. 2275. Tenants Harbor, Maine.............................    34
    Sec. 2276. Grand Haven Harbor, Michigan......................    34
    Sec. 2277. Greenville Harbor, Mississippi....................    35
    Sec. 2278. New York Harbor and adjacent channels, Claremont 
      Terminal, Jersey City, New Jersey..........................    35
    Sec. 2279. Olcott Harbor, Lake Ontario, New York.............    35
    Sec. 2280. Outer Harbor, Buffalo, New York...................    35
    Sec. 2281. Manteo Bay, North Carolina........................    35
    Sec. 2282. Cleveland Harbor 1958 Act, Ohio...................    35
    Sec. 2283. Cleveland Harbor 1960 Act, Ohio...................    35
    Sec. 2284. Cleveland Harbor, Uncompleted Portion of Cut #4, 
      Ohio.......................................................    35
    Sec. 2285. Columbia River, Seafarers Memorial, Hammond, 
      Oregon.....................................................    36
    Sec. 2286. Delaware River, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to 
      Trenton, New Jersey........................................    36
    Sec. 2287. Narragansett Town Beach, Narragansett, Rhode 
      Island.....................................................    36
    Sec. 2288. Quonset Point-Davisville, Rhode Island............    36

           TITLE III--FLOOD AND COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUTION

                   Subtitle A--Flood Damage Reduction

                     Chapter 1--General Provisions

    Sec. 3001. Construction of flood control projects by non-
      Federal interests..........................................    36

               Chapter 2--Continuing Authorities Programs

    Sec. 3101. Protection and restoration due to emergencies at 
      shores and streambanks (PRESS).............................    36

                           Chapter 3--Studies

    Sec. 3201. Nicholas Canyon, Los Angeles, California..........    37
    Sec. 3202. Comprehensive flood protection project, St. 
      Helena, California.........................................    37
    Sec. 3203. San Francisco Bay, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, 
      Sherman Island, California.................................    37
    Sec. 3204. South San Francisco Bay shoreline study, 
      California.................................................    37
    Sec. 3205. Lake Erie at Luna Pier, Michigan..................    38
    Sec. 3206. Middle Bass Island State Park, Middle Bass Island, 
      Ohio.......................................................    38

                          Chapter 4--Projects

                      Subchapter A--Authorizations

    Sec. 3301. Tanque Verde Creek Project, Pima County, Arizona..    38
    Sec. 3302. Hamilton City, California.........................    38
    Sec. 3303. Middle Creek, Lake County, California.............    39
    Sec. 3304. Indian River Lagoon, South Florida................    39
    Sec. 3305. Picayune Strand ecosystem restoration, Collier 
      County, Florida............................................    40
    Sec. 3306. Swope Park Industrial Area, Missouri..............    40
    Sec. 3307. Southwest Valley, Albuquerque, New Mexico.........    41

                      Subchapter B--Modifications

    Sec. 3311. St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri..........    41
    Sec. 3312. Augusta and Clarendon, Arkansas...................    41
    Sec. 3313. St. Francis Basin land transfer, Arkansas and 
      Missouri...................................................    41
    Sec. 3314. Red-Ouachita River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri...    42
    Sec. 3315. Cache Creek Basin, California.....................    42
    Sec. 3316. Llagas Creek, California..........................    42
    Sec. 3317. Magpie Creek, California..........................    42
    Sec. 3318. Sacramento and American Rivers flood control, 
      California.................................................    42
    Sec. 3319. Upper Guadalupe River, California.................    42
    Sec. 3320. Yuba River Basin project, California..............    43
    Sec. 3321. Dworshak Reservoir improvements, Idaho............    43
    Sec. 3322. Little Wood River, Gooding, Idaho.................    43
    Sec. 3323. Cache River Levee, Illinois.......................    43
    Sec. 3324. Missouri and Illinois flood protection projects 
      reconstruction pilot program...............................    43
    Sec. 3325. Spunky Bottom, Illinois...........................    44
    Sec. 3326. Cumberland, Maryland..............................    44
    Sec. 3327. Land exchange, Pike County, Missouri..............    44
    Sec. 3328. Lake Girard Lake Dam, Ohio........................    44
    Sec. 3329. University of Oregon Museum of Natural History, 
      Oregon.....................................................    44
    Sec. 3330. Tioga Township, Pennsylvania......................    45
    Sec. 3331. Harris Fork Creek, Tennessee and Kentucky.........    45
    Sec. 3332. Nonconnah Weir, Memphis, Tennessee................    45
    Sec. 3333. Harris County, Texas..............................    45
    Sec. 3334. Chehalis River, Centralia, Washington.............    45
    Sec. 3335. Erosion control, Puget Island, Wahkiakum County, 
      Washington.................................................    46
    Sec. 3336. Lower Mud River, Milton, West Virginia............    46

                     Subchapter C--Deauthorizations

    Sec. 3341. Little Cove Creek, Glencoe, Alabama...............    47
    Sec. 3342. Winslow, Arizona..................................    47
    Sec. 3343. Goleta and Vicinity, California...................    47
    Sec. 3344. Shingle Creek Basin, Florida......................    47
    Sec. 3345. Brevoort, Indiana.................................    47
    Sec. 3346. Middle Wabash, Greenfield Bayou, Indiana..........    47
    Sec. 3347. Lake George, Hobart, Indiana......................    47
    Sec. 3348. Green Bay Levee and Drainage District No. 2, Iowa.    47
    Sec. 3349. Eagle Creek Lake, Kentucky........................    48
    Sec. 3350. Hazard, Kentucky..................................    48
    Sec. 3351. Taylorsville Lake, Kentucky.......................    48
    Sec. 3352. West Kentucky Tributaries, Kentucky...............    48
    Sec. 3353. Bayou Cocodrie and Tributaries, Louisiana.........    48
    Sec. 3354. Eastern Rapides and South-Central Avoyelles 
      Parishes, Louisiana........................................    48
    Sec. 3355. Platte River Flood and Related Streambank Erosion 
      Control, Nebraska..........................................    49
    Sec. 3356. Sugar Creek Basin, North Carolina and South 
      Carolina...................................................    49
    Sec. 3357. Parker Lake, Muddy Boggy Creek, Oklahoma..........    49
    Sec. 3358. Chartiers Creek, Cannonsburg (Houston Reach Unit 
      2B), Pennsylvania..........................................    49
    Sec. 3359. Tioga-Hammond Lakes, Pennsylvania.................    49
    Sec. 3360. Tamaqua, Pennsulvania.............................    49
    Sec. 3361. Arroyo Colorado, Texas............................    49
    Sec. 3362. Cypress Creek-Structural, Texas...................    49
    Sec. 3363. East Fork Channel Improvement, Increment 2, East 
      Fork of the Trinity River, Texas...........................    50
    Sec. 3364. Falfurrias, Texas.................................    50
    Sec. 3365. Pecan Bayou Lake, Texas...........................    50
    Sec. 3366. Kanawha River, Charleston, West Virginia..........    50

               Subtitle B--Coastal Storm Damage Reduction

                     Chapter 1--General Provisions

    Sec. 3401. Shore protection and beach renourishment projects.    50
    Sec. 3402. Regional sediment management......................    51
    Sec. 3403. National shoreline erosion control development and 
      demonstration program......................................    51
    Sec. 3404. Shore protection projects.........................    51

                           Chapter 2--Studies

    Sec. 3411. Oceanside, California, shoreline special study....    52

                          Chapter 3--Projects

                      Subchapter A--Authorizations

    Sec. 3421. Coastal Louisiana ecosystem protection and 
      restoration................................................    52
    Sec. 3422. Morganza, Louisiana to the Gulf of Mexico.........    54
    Sec. 3423. New Jersey Shore protection, Manasquan Inlet to 
      Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey.................................    54
    Sec. 3424. South River, New Jersey...........................    55
    Sec. 3425. Montauk Point, New York...........................    55
    Sec. 3426. Coastal wetland conservation project funding......    56

                      Subchapter B--Modifications

    Sec. 3431. Imperial Beach, California........................    56
    Sec. 3432. Lido Key Beach, Sarasota, Florida.................    56
    Sec. 3433. Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York....................    57

                     Subchapter C--Deauthorizations

    Sec. 3441. Fort Livingston, Grand Terre Island, Louisiana....    57

      TITLE IV--ECOYSTEM RESTORATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION

                   Subtitle A--Ecosystem Restoration

                     Chapter 1--General Provisions

    Sec. 4001. Cost Sharing for monitoring.......................    57
    Sec. 4002. Ecosystem restoration benefits....................    57
    Sec. 4003. Great Lakes Interagency Talk Force................    57

               Chapter 2--Continuing Authorities Programs

    Sec. 4101. Restoration of the environment for protection of 
      aquatic and riparian ecosystems program....................    58
    Sec. 4102. Environmental modification of projects for 
      improvement and restoration of ecosystems program..........    58
    Sec. 4103. Projects to enhance estuaries and coastal habitats    58

                           Chapter 3--Studies

                      Subchapter A--Authorizations

    Sec. 4201. Lake Champlain Canal study, Vermont and New York..    58
    Sec. 4202. Eurasian milfoil..................................    58

                      Subchapter B--Modifications

    Sec. 4211. San Pablo Bay watershed restoration, California...    59

                          Chapter 4--Projects

                      Subchapter A--Authorizations

    Sec. 4301. Matilija Dam. Ventura County, California..........    59
    Sec. 4302. Napa River Salt Marsh, California.................    59
    Sec. 4303. Pine Flat Dam fish and wildlife habitat, 
      California.................................................    60
    Sec. 4304. Salton Sea restoration............................    60
    Sec. 4305. South Platte River, Denver, Colorado..............    61
    Sec. 4306. Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal dispersal barriers 
      project, Illinois..........................................    61
    Sec. 4307. Smith Island, Maryland............................    62
    Sec. 4308. Upper Connecticut River Basin ecosystem 
      restoration, New Hampshire and Connecticut.................    62
    Sec. 4309. Upper Connecticut River Basin wetland restoration, 
      New Hampshire and Connecticut..............................    62
    Sec. 4310. Jamaica Bay, Marina Park and Plumb Beach, Queens 
      and Brooklyn, New York.....................................    63
    Sec. 4311. Long Island Sound oyster restoration, New York and 
      Connecticut................................................    63
    Sec. 4312. Upper Willamette River watershed ecosystem 
      restoration, Oregon........................................    64
    Sec. 4313. Riverside Oxbow, Fort Worth, Texas................    64
    Sec. 4314. Connecticut River Dams, Vermont...................    64

                      Subchapter B--Modifications

    Sec. 4321. Hamilton Airfield, California.....................    65
    Sec. 4322. Allatoona Lake, Georgia...........................    65
    Sec. 4323. Ohio River, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, 
      Pennsylvania, and West Virginia............................    66
    Sec. 4324. Public access, Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, 
      Louisiana..................................................    66
    Sec. 4325. Onondaga Lake, New York...........................    66
    Sec. 4326. Missouri River restoration, North Dakota..........    66
    Sec. 4327. Upper Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and 
      New York...................................................    66
    Sec. 4328. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux 
      Tribe, and terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration, South 
      Dakota.....................................................    67
    Sec. 4329. Missouri River restoration........................    67
    Sec. 4330. Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers enhancement 
      project....................................................    67
    Sec. 4331. Lake Champlain Eurasian milfoil and water chestnut 
      control, Vermont...........................................    67
    Sec. 4332. Lake Champlain Watershed, Vermont and New York....    67
    Sec. 4333. Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration, Virginia and 
      Maryland...................................................    68
    Sec. 4334. Lakes Program.....................................    68
    Sec. 4335. Estuary restoration...............................    68

                     Subchapter C--Deauthorizations

    Sec. 4351. Dog River Pilot Project, Alabama..................    70
    Sec. 4352. Central and Southern Florida, Everglades National 
      Park, Florida..............................................    70

                 Subtitle B--Environmental Remediation

               Chapter 1--Continuing Authorities Programs

    Sec. 4401. Remediation of abandoned mine sites (RAMS)........    70

                        Chapter 2--Modifications

    Sec. 4411. Environmental remediation, Front Royal, Virginia..    71

                TITLE V--WATER STORAGE AND WATER QUALITY

                   Subtitle A--Water Storage Program

               Chapter 1--Continuing Authorities Programs

    Sec. 5101. Small projects for the rehabilitation or removal 
      of dams....................................................    71

                           Chapter 2--Studies

    Sec. 5201. Selenium study, Colorado..........................    71

                          Chapter 3--Projects

                      Subchapter A--Modifications

    Sec. 5301. Union Lake, Missouri..............................    71
    Sec. 5302. Fort Peck Fish Hatchery, Montana..................    71
    Sec. 5303. Arcadia Lake, Oklahoma............................    71
    Sec. 5304. Waurika Lake, Oklahoma............................    71
    Sec. 5305. Dam remediation, Vermont..........................    72
    Sec. 5306. Mississippi River headwaters reservoirs...........    72

                     Subchapter B--Deauthorizations

    Sec. 5321. Big South Fork National River and Recreational 
      Area, Kentucky and Tennessee...............................    72

                   Subtitle B--Water Quality Program

                     Chapter 1--General Provisions

    Sec. 5401. Funding to expedite the evaluation and processing 
      of permits.................................................    72
    Sec. 5402. Electronic submission of permit applications......    72

                 Chapter 2--Deauthorization of Projects

    Sec. 5421. Bridgeport, Connecticut...........................    72
    Sec. 5422. Hartford, Connecticut.............................    73
    Sec. 5423. New Haven, Connecticut............................    73
    Sec. 5424. Casco Bay, Portland, Maine........................    73
    Sec. 5425. Penobscot River, Bangor, Maine....................    73
    Sec. 5426. Saint John River Basin, Maine.....................    73
    Sec. 5427. Epping, New Hampshire.............................    73
    Sec. 5428. Manchester, New Hampshire.........................    73

                 Subtitle C--Watershed Planning Program

    Sec. 5451. Delmarva Conservation Corridor, Delaware and 
      Maryland...................................................    74
    Sec. 5452. Susquehanna, Delaware, and Potomac River Basins, 
      Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.............    74
Hearings.........................................................    74
Legislative History..............................................    75
Rollcall Votes...................................................    75
Mandates Assessment..............................................    75
Evaluation of Regulatory Impact..................................    75
Cost of Legislation..............................................    75
Changes in Existing Law..........................................    76

                                                       Calendar No. 672
108th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session                                                     108-314

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

 
                WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2004

                                _______
                                

                August 25, 2004.--Ordered to be printed

   Filed under authority of the order of the Senate of July 22, 2004

                                _______
                                

    Mr. Inhofe, from the Committee on Environment and Public Works, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                         [to accompany S. 2773]

    The Committee on Environment and Public Works, to which was 
referred the bill (S. 2554) 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 as original text and pass.

                           General Statement

    In 1986, a House-Senate Conference Committee produced a 
Conference Report (H. Rept. 99-1013), which was passed by the 
House and Senate and signed into law on November 17, 1986, 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 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 2004.
    In reporting the Water Resources Development Act of 2004, 
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 35 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. There were 43 Study Resolutions passed at the 
June 23, 2004 committee meeting. These resolutions are as 
follows:
  Choctawatchee and Pea River Basins, Alabama and Florida
  Kenai River Flood Erosion Control, Alaska
  Lowell Creek Tunnel, Seward, Alaska
  Nelson Lagoon, Alaska
  St. George Island, Alaska
  Russian River Basin, California
  San Francisquito Creek, California
  Santa Monica Bay, California
  Connecticut River Basin, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New 
        Hampshire, and Vermont
  Mystic Harbor, Connecticut
  Battle Bend Cutoff, Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint Rivers, 
        Florida and Georgia
  Fort Hall Bottoms, Idaho
  Chicago River System Restoration Management Plan, Illinois
  Kaskaskia River Basin Restoration, Illinois
  Chariton River Basin, Iowa and Missouri
  Grand River Basin, Iowa and Missouri
  Grand Isle, Louisiana
  Third Delta Conveyance, Louisiana
  Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts
  Lower St. Anthony Falls Rapids, Minneapolis, Minnesota
  Red Falls Lake, Minnesota
  Tupelo, Mississippi
  Cumulative Flooding Impacts Study, Metropolitan St. Louis, 
        Missouri
  Little Blue River Basin, Missouri
  Yellowstone River at Glendive, Montana
  Elizabeth River Watershed, New Jersey
  Lake Sakakawea and Oahe, North Dakota
  Indian Creek, Massieville, Ohio
  Lake Erie Waterfront, Euclid, Ohio
  Sac and Fox Nation, Oklahoma
  Condit Dam, White Salmon River, Oregon and Washington
  Delaware River Watershed, Pennsylvania
  Potomac River Watershed, Pennsylvania
  Susquehanna River Watershed, Pennsylvania
  Little Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island and Connecticut
  Central City, Texas
  North Padre Island, Texas
  Clear Creek and Tributaries, Texas
  Coastal Texas Protection and Restoration Study
  Harris Gully, Texas
  Nueces River and Tributaries, Texas
  Land and Water Resources of Vermont
  Ilwaco Channel Extension, Baker Bay Study, Washington

Continuing Authorities Programs
    The Army Corps of Engineers also has authority to perform 
small projects of various types under continuing authorities 
programs. This bill modifies many of the continuing authorities 
programs to modernize and update the programs, including the 
development of usable names. Examples of projects that may be 
performed under continuing authorities programs include, but 
are not limited to:
    Protection and restoration due to emergencies at shores and 
streambanks (PRESS)--created under section 14 of the Flood 
Control Act of 1946 (Public Law 79-526).
        (1) Eel River Streambank Stabilization, Massachusetts
        (2) Bates Street Outfall, Michigan
    Navigation enhancements for waterbourne transportion 
(NEWT)-created under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 
1960 (33 U.S.C. 577).
        (1) Little Rock Port, Arkansas
        (2) Au Sable River, Michigan
        (3) Outer Channel and Inner Harbor, Menominee Harbor, 
        Michigan and Wisconsin
        (4) Sutherlin Creek Enhancement Project, Oregon
    Restoration of the environment for protection of aquatic 
and riparian ecosystem program (REPARE)--created under section 
206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (Public Law 
104-303).
        (1) San Diego Wetlands, California
        (2) Suisun Marsh, San Pablo Bay, California
        (3) Chattahoochee Fall Line Ecosystem Restoration 
        Project, Georgia
        (4) City Park/University Lakes Master Plan, Louisiana
        (5) Blackstone River Anadramous Fish Restoration, Rhode 
        Island
    Flood Control--created under section 205 of the Flood 
Control Act of 1948 (Public Law 80-858).
        (1) Cache River Basin, Arkansas
        (2) Cass River, Michigan
        (3) Marsh Creek, Minnesota
    Environmental modification of projects for improvement and 
restoration of ecosystems program (EMPIRE)--created under 
section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
(Public Law 99-662).
        (1) Seven Oaks Dam Borrow Pit Groundwater Conservation 
        and Habitat Restoration Project, California

Incomplete Projects
    The committee also encourages the Army Corps of Engineers 
to expedite completion of the following projects:
        (1) Dillingham Small Boat Harbor, Dillingham, Alaska
        (2) Kake Dam, Kake, Alaska

                Water Resources Development Act of 2004

    The Water Resources Development Act of 2004, reported by 
the Committee on Environment and Public Works as original text, 
resulting from consideration of S. 2554, introduced on June 23, 
2004, by Senator Frist, for Senators Inhofe, Jeffords, Bond and 
Reid, incorporates some of the provisions as outlined below.

                      Section-By-Section Analysis

Sec. 1. Short Title; Table Of Contents.
    This section designates the title of the bill as ``The 
Water Resources Development Act of 2004'' 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--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 1001. 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 2004 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. 1002. 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. This section also lists examples of 
projects that may receive assistance under this section which 
include but are not limited to:
        (1) Lake Wappanoca, Arkansas
        (2) Arkansas Valley Conduit, Colorado
        (3) Egmont Key, Florida
        (4) Wind River Irrigation Project, Wyoming
    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. 1003. Training Funds.
    This section authorizes the Secretary to allow private 
sector individuals 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. 1004. Recreation User Fees.
    This section amends section 225 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1999 (16 U.S.C. 460l-6a note) to make the 
demonstration recreation fee program permanent for the Army 
Corps of Engineers. First, this section modifies existing law 
to allow the Army Corps of Engineers to retain 100 percent of 
the recreation fees it collects, not just those above a 
baseline of $34,000,000. It allows the fees collected to remain 
available until expended rather than just through fiscal year 
2005. It expands the list of tasks 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 are collected.
    Second, this section establishes the scope of the permanent 
recreation user fee program. The Secretary is required to 
charge and collect fees for admission to the recreation area or 
site or for the use of outdoor recreationsites, facilities, 
visitor centers, equipment, and services by individuals or 
groups. Fees are to be based on the fair market value of the 
admission or use to maximize recreation benefits of the 
projects.
    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 any lease with a non-Federal entity relating to 
project land. Leases must be a minimum of 25 years and may be 
renewed for an additional 25-year period. If land is unused, 
the Secretary shall terminate leases. 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 sites on project land. This section ensures that the 
majority of the fees stay at the site to reinvest in 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.
    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 are 
spent on such services as maintaining and upgrading toilet 
facilities, trails, and parking lots. 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 
additional 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.
    The committee recommends the Secretary not charge fees for 
locations where there has not been a significant investment for 
recreation. The committee recognizes that, under the 
demonstration authority for dispersed recreation, such as for: 
areas with little or no facilities or services; for persons who 
are driving-through, walking-through, or hiking through Federal 
lands without using the facilities or services; for 
undesignated parking; and for overlooks or scenic pullouts. The 
committee expects the Secretary to continue to follow the 
criteria established in Army Corps of Engineers documents (EP 
1130-2-550 and ER 1130-2-550) in determining where fees are 
applicable under the Recreation Fee authority.
    As demand for public recreation grows in scope and form, 
the committee expects the permanent recreation fee program to 
help meet these demands. 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. 1005. Corps of Engineers River Stewardship Commission.
    This section establishes a ``Corps of Engineers River 
Stewardship Commission'' and directs the Commission to complete 
an investigation and submit to Congress, within 2-years of the 
date of enactment of this Act, a report on the management of 
rivers in the United States by the Army Corps of Engineers, 
with special emphasis on a number of factors detailed in this 
section. The Commission terminates on the date on which it 
submits its report to Congress or within 60 days after the date 
on which the report is due. This section also establishes 
membership and operating procedures for the Commission. 
$5,000,000 is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
section for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2007.

Sec. 1006. 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 of areas affected by 
the reservoirs operated and maintained by the Army Corps of 
Engineers. It requires that all revenues collected in 
connection with reservoir operation for navigation, flood 
control, or multi-purpose projects, except those collected for 
recreation, 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 shall not exceed 
the net change in receipts or outlays to the Treasury due to a 
reallocation of storage.
    In addition, this section establishes a new program for 
hydroelectric maintenance fees. Power marketing administrators, 
other than the Bonneville Power Administration (which directly 
funds operations and maintenance costs), shall pay 0.22 cents 
per kilowatt-hour as reimbursement for operations and 
maintenance expenses associated with the project during fiscal 
years 2005 through 2010. The Secretary is required to report to 
the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and the 
House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure with the estimated cost of operation and 
maintenance associated with hydroelectric facilities and 
recommend an appropriate reimbursement rate calculated on a 
per-kilowatt basis.
    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. 1007. Fiscal Transparency Report.
    This section directs the Secretary to prepare and submit to 
Congress on the third Tuesday of January, beginning in 2005, 
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 and fees
        (9) Permit Application and notification processing 
        information
        (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. 1008. 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, in consultation with the Water 
Resource Planning Council, is required to revise the agency's 
planning guidelines, regulations, and circulars of the Army 
Corps of Engineers within 18 months of enactment of this Act 
and every 5 years thereafter 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 criteria on what must be included in 
a cost-benefit analysis. This section also limits the duration 
of feasibility reports to not more than 2 years, but in no 
cases to more than 3 years.
    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 
must be included in the cost benefit analysis;
    3) identify local, regional, and national economic costs 
and benefits. The committee heard testimony 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.
    6) identify cultural and historical costs and benefits;
    7) exclude from the estimate of benefits and costs any 
increase in direct Federal payments or subsidies. The committee 
believes that benefits or costs derived from increased Federal 
subsidies should not be used to justify Federal water resource 
projects.
    8) exclude as a benefit, any increase in direct Federal 
payments or subsidies and any project benefit attributable to 
any change in, or intensification of, land use arising from the 
draining, reduction, or elimination of wetlands. The committee 
believes that the Army Corps of Engineers' practice of counting 
benefits attributable to the draining, reduction, or 
elimination of wetlands should cease; and
    9) apply a discount rate consistent with that used by other 
Federal agencies for water resource projects. The committee 
believes that all Federal agencies should be using the same 
discount rate.
    The committee intends that planning guidelines, regulations 
and circulars shall 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. The guidelines, regulations, and 
circulars should also reflect the standard in this section that 
feasibility reports shall normally be not more than 2 years, 
but in no case may be longer than 3 years.
Sec. 1009. Water Resources Planning Council.
    This section establishes a Water Resources Planning Council 
within the Army Corps of Engineers to integrate planning 
policies that guide the use of economics, environmental, 
engineering, scientific, and technical information to support 
the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers for 
implementation of water resources projects, including peer 
review of such information. The Council plays an advisory role 
for the Chief of Engineers in addressing concerns that may 
arise regarding the integration of policy and science in 
decisionmaking. The duties of the Council include:
    1) providing technical and managerial assistance to 
district engineers for project planning, development, and 
implementation;
    2) providing independent peer reviews of new major 
scientific, engineering, or economic methods, models, or 
analyses that will be used to support decisions of the 
Secretary with respect to feasibility studies; and
    3) performing such other duties as prescribed by the 
Secretary.
    In addition to these general duties, this section 
identifies eight specific actions that the Council shall take 
regarding the water resources planning process.
    Within 2 years of the date of enactment of this Act, the 
Council shall submit a report to Congress including the set of 
approved methods, models, and procedures to be applied to the 
water resources planning process across the Army Corps of 
Engineers and the milestones developed to measure the 
timeliness and effectiveness of the water resources planning 
process. Every 5 years thereafter, the Council is required to 
submit a report to Congress describing the effectiveness of 
water resources planning process in comparison to the 
established milestones, any independently peer reviewed changes 
to the methods, models, and procedures used, and a discussion 
of any planned changes to the established milestones, including 
reasons why the changes are necessary.
    This section establishes membership of the Council to 
include representatives from non-Federal interests from various 
water resource project purposes, State resource agencies, the 
Departments of Interior and Agriculture, and the Council on 
Environmental Quality. It exempts the Council from the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and authorizes such sums as 
necessary to carry out this section. The committee believes 
that the Secretary, in establishing the Council, should 
consider regional distribution, size of council, and term of 
office to ensure maximum effectiveness.

Sec. 1010. Independent Reviews.
    Subsection (a) directs the Inspector General of the Army 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. The panel shall be 
sufficiently broad and diverse to fairly represent the relevant 
scientific perspectives and fields of knowledge. While there 
are benefits to conducting independent peer reviews, such 
reviews will place a resource burden on the agency. Therefore, 
peer review is only being required for those project studies 
and reports that must be submitted to Congress for 
authorization. Because the agency will also be complying with 
the Information Quality Act, the committee does not envision 
two duplicative peer review processes to comply with this 
section and the Information Quality Act.
    Subsection (b) describes the panel membership. A panel 
shall be composed of not less than 3 nor more than 7 
independent peer reviewers. They shall be selected on the basis 
of necessary technical or scientific expertise and have 
significant experience in the geographic area or in the type of 
ecologic conditions in the area being studied. A reviewer shall 
not be employed by the Army Corps of Engineers, have 
participated in the project development, or have a financial 
interest or professional association with any entity with a 
financial interest in the project. The Inspector General of the 
Army shall consult with the Institute for Water Resources, 
National Academy of Sciences, American Society of Civil 
Engineers, and other appropriate organizations in selecting 
reviewers.
    Given the technical aspect of projects and reports, the 
most important factor in selecting reviewers is expertise. The 
Inspector General of the Army should ensure that the selected 
reviewers have the knowledge, experience, and skills necessary 
to perform the review.
    Subsection (c) establishes the duties of the panels. Each 
panel shall review the project study or report required to be 
submitted to Congress for authorization, assess the adequacy of 
the economic, scientific and environmental models used to 
determine that appropriate and applicable economic and 
scientific methods of analysis have been used and the best 
available economic, scientific, and environmental data have 
been used. The panel shall also address specific technical 
questions posed by the Inspector General of the Army and submit 
a report to the Secretary with conclusions 180 days after the 
panel received the draft project study or report.
    Subsection (d) directs the Secretary to provide the panel 
with sufficient information to conduct the independent peer 
review and any other information the panel requests.
    Subsection (e) directs the Secretary to provide the panel 
with written or oral comments received from the public on the 
project study or report.
    Subsection (f) describes the contents for a panel report. 
The report shall describe the nature of the review, including 
findings and conclusions of the panel and disclose the names, 
organizational affiliations and a short paragraph on the 
credentials and relevant experiences of each independent peer 
reviewer.
    Subsection (g) establishes the requirements for the 
Secretary's response to a panel report. If the Secretary 
receives a report at least 14 days before submitting a project 
study or report to Congress, the Secretary shall take into 
consideration any recommendations in the report and prepare a 
written response to the report explaining the agreement or 
disagreement with the report, changes made to the project study 
or report in response to the panel's report, and the reasons 
those changes satisfy any key concerns or recommendations in 
that report. The Secretary shall disseminate the final 
independent peer review report and the Secretary's response on 
the Army Corps of Engineers' website and include all materials 
relating to the independent peer review report with the 
submission of the report of the Chief of Engineers to Congress.
    Subsection (h) requires 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, but 
the Inspector General of the Army may grant a 30-day extension. 
If the panel does not complete the independent peer review 
report on time, the Secretary may submit the project study or 
report to Congress as scheduled.
    Subsection (i) exempts an independent peer review panel 
from the applicability of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
    Subsection (j) clarifies that the Secretary is not required 
to conduct an independent peer review of an existing water 
resources project.
    The committee believes that the economics, science and 
engineering in project studies and reports can benefit from 
independent peer review. The committee recognizes that there is 
a fundamental distinction between the engineering, scientific 
or technical aspects of a study and those aspects that are 
purely a government function. Uncertainty is inherent in 
economics, science and engineering. Consequently, it is 
important that peer reviewers be asked to ensure that 
scientific uncertainties are clearly identified and 
characterized. Within this context, peer reviewers can make an 
important contribution by distinguishing scientific facts from 
professional judgments. In addition, a review should identify 
whether more research is likely to decrease key uncertainty and 
whether changes in those uncertainties would appreciably 
influence the conclusions of the study.
    For the purposes of this section, the committee believes 
that policy considerations are solely the purview of the 
Secretary. The Secretary should make the results of the Water 
Resources Planning Council reviews of major scientific and 
engineering methods, models, and procedures that will be 
applied in multiple planning studies available to independent 
peer review panels to avoid the duplicative peer review of the 
methods, models, and procedures themselves.
    Section 216 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 
directed the Secretary to contract with the National Academy of 
Sciences 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 numerous recommendations, several of which 
were considered during the development of this section.

Sec. 1011. Fish and Wildlife Mitigation.
    This section amends section 906 (a) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986.
    Subsection (a) amends 906(d) to establish a mitigation 
standard. The Secretary shall, at a minimum, acquire and 
restore the same number of acres of habitat that fully replace 
the hydrologic and ecological functions and characteristics of 
each acre of habitat adversely affected by the project. It also 
amends section 902(d) to require completion of all mitigation 
no later than one fiscal year after completion of the project 
where such mitigation is not undertaken in advance or 
concurrently. This subsection also amends section 906(d) to 
identify the elements to be included in the specific mitigation 
plan that already is required under that section 906. The plan 
shall include specific time-dependent success criteria, 
prepared in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, by which the mitigation will be evaluated and 
determined to be successful; a description of the land and 
interests 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; a schedule for monitoring mitigation, 
evaluating the degree to which the attempted mitigation does or 
does not meet the success criteria until attempted mitigation 
meets the success criteria; and taking corrective actions in 
case mitigation efforts are not meeting success criteria. This 
subsection also requires that monitoring for mitigation shall 
be cost-shared in accordance with the original construction 
project for a maximum of 10 years and be 100 percent non-
Federal responsibility after 10 years. Requirements for success 
for mitigation efforts are established in this subsection.
    The committee does not intend monitoring for all projects 
to last for the full 10 years. The Secretary shall consult 
annually with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on each 
project requiring mitigation to determine whether mitigation 
monitoring demonstrates that the projects are or are not 
achieving success and ensure that implementation of corrective 
actions after finding that the original mitigation efforts are 
not or are not likely to meet the success criteria. The plan 
should also include the type, amount, and characteristics of 
the habitat to be restored. In addition, the plan should 
identify success criteria based on the replacement of lost 
functions and values of the habitat, including hydrologic and 
ecologic characteristics.
    Subsection (b) requires mitigation to be undertaken before 
any construction of the project begins or concurrently with the 
acquisition of land and interest in land for the project. In 
order to ensure concurrent mitigation, the Secretary shall 
construct 100 percent of required offsite mitigation before 50 
percent of construction is completed and complete required 
onsite mitigation as expeditiously as practicable, but not 
later than the last day of construction of the project or 
separable element of the project. If it is physically 
impracticable to meet these requirements, the Secretary shall 
reserve or reprogram funds to complete the mitigation, but in 
no case later than the end of the next fiscal year immediately 
following the last day of construction of the project.
    Subsection (c) requires the Secretary to establish a record 
keeping system to track the habitat, mitigation, and monitoring 
status for each water resource project constructed, operated or 
maintained by the Secretary and for each permit issued under 
section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and 
make it available on the Internet.

Sec.1012. 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 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. 1013. 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. 1014. 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.

                          TITLE II--NAVIGATION

                      Subtitle A--Inland Waterway

                           Chapter 1--Studies

Sec. 2001. McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System.
     The deepening of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River 
Navigation System (MKARNS) from 9 feet to 12 feet, authorized 
by Section 136, Energy and Water Development Act, 2004, Public 
Law 108-137, may allow for more efficient movement of 
commodities, may be beneficial to the national economy; and may 
reduce the use of fossil fuels, thereby improving air quality, 
reducing transportation congestion and improving public safety. 
Before proceeding with actual deepening of the channel, the 
Secretary must satisfy the provisions of the National 
Environmental Policy Act to disclose the impacts associated 
with deeper dredging of the waterway. Accordingly, the 
Secretary is directed to document these positive and negative 
economic and environmental effects of deepening the MKARNS, to 
facilitate a thorough and complete analysis of the project. In 
addition, as part of the Endangered Species Act coordination, 
the committee has seen no evidence that deepening the channel 
will or will not demonstrably effect endangered sturgeon 
species. Accordingly, the Secretary is to convene a panel of 
experts in conjunction with the Oklahoma State University to 
address this issue.

                          Chapter 2--Projects

                      SUBCHAPTER A--AUTHORIZATIONS

Sec. 2101. 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 $32,048,000. Federal cost 
$32,048,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 8.3 to 1.

                  SUBCHAPTER B--PROJECT MODIFICATIONS

Sec. 2111. 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 (deletion not accepted). 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. 2112. 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. 2113. 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. 2114. 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. 2115. 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. 2116. 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.
Sec. 2117. 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. 2118. 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. 2119. Plant Replacement and Improvement Program, Corps of 
        Engineers Charleston District Equipment and Storage Yard, South 
        Carolina.
    This section authorizes the Secretary to convey or transfer 
the property of the Army Corps of Engineers known as the 
``Equipment and Storage Yard'' (EASY), to the State of South 
Carolina, in as-is condition for fair market value.

Sec. 2120. Old Hickory Lock and Dam, Cumberland River, Tennessee.
    This section extinguishes the reversionary interests and 
use restrictions relating to recreation and camping purposes 
with repect 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. 2121. McNary Lock and Dam, McNary National Wildlife Refuge, 
        Washington.
    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. 2122. 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. 2123. Marmet Lock, Kanawha River, West Virginia.
    This provision 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. 2124. 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 April 29, 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 draft feasibility report dated April 29, 
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 
over 5 years for project operations, and the development and 
testing of an appointment scheduling system. The costs of these 
measures is $24,000,000 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 $730,000,000 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 $100,000,000 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 April 29, 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 $1,460,000,000. 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, 2005, and every 4 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 Secretary, in consultation with the National Academy of 
Sciences, 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.
    There is authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
necessary to carry out the enhanced navigation capacity 
improvement and ecosystem restoration plan for each of fiscal 
years 2006 through 2020 and after fiscal year 2020 funds that 
have been made available under this section, but have not been 
expended, may be expended and funds that have been authorized 
to be appropriated under this section, but have not been made 
available, may be made available.

Sec. 2125. 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. 2126. 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.

                  Chapter 3--Project Deauthorizations

Sec. 2141. 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, authorized by the River and 
Harbor Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 1249). This work has been 
accomplished as part of the major rhabilitation work on the 
Summit and St. Georges Bridge.

Sec. 2142. Mayo's Bar Lock and Dam, Coosa River, Rome, Georgia.
    This section deauthorizes the project for navigation, 
Mayo's Bar Lock and Dam, Coosa River, Rome, Georgia, authorized 
by section 528 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
(113 Stat. 347). The lock and dam is currently on the National 
Register of Historic Places and is currently non-operational.

Sec. 2143. Gulf Intercoastal 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). No funds have been appropriated and no 
activities have been completed on this feature of the project.

Sec. 2144. Eisenhower and Snell Locks, New York.
    This section deauthorizes the project for navigation, 
Eisenhower and Snell Locks, New York rehabilitation, authorized 
by section 1163 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
(100 Stat. 4258). The St. Lawrence Seaway Development 
Corporation currently has the responsibility to operate and 
maintain these facilities.

Sec. 2145. 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). 
Reevaluation of preconstuction and design studies showed the 
project was not justified and the project has been classified 
as inactive on August 2, 1994.

Sec. 2146. 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). The project was 
suspended in 1991 due to the closure of a grain export facility 
that both eliminated project benefits and created a single 
beneficiary situation.

Sec. 2147. 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). Recent reevaluation of the transportation economics 
showed that the project was found to be economically 
unfeasible.

Sec. 2148. 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). The project is deemed to be economically unfeasible.

Sec. 2149. 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). This 
deauthorization is supported by the city of Tacoma and U.S. EPA 
and will allow the City and other partners to complete the 
cleanup of hazardous wastes within the waterway.

                     Subtitle B--Ports and Harbors

               Chapter 1--Continuing Authorities Programs

Sec. 2201. 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.

                           Chapter 2--Studies

Sec. 2211. 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.

                          Chapter 3--Projects

                      SUBCHAPTER A--AUTHORIZATIONS

Sec. 2221. Akutan Harbor, Akutan, Alaska.
    This section authorizes the Akutan Small Boat Harbor 
project for navigation, Akutan, Alaska, substantially in 
accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions, 
recommended in a final report of the Chief of Engineers, if a 
favorable final report of the Chief for the project is 
completed not later than December 31, 2004.
    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 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 $19,013,000. Federal cost 
$9,185,000; non-Federal cost $9,828,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.4 to 1.

Sec. 2222. Haines Small Boat Harbor, Haines, Alaska.
    This section authorizes the Haines Small Boat Harbors, 
Haines, Alaska project for navigation, Haines, Alaska, 
substantially in accordance with the plans, and subject to the 
conditions, recommended in a final report of the Chief of 
Engineers, if a favorable final report of the Chief for the 
project is completed not later than December 31, 2004.
    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 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 $21,410,000. Federal cost 
$9,590,000; non-Federal cost $11,820,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.2 to 1.

Sec. 2223. 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.
    Location. Kodiak, Alaska.
    Purpose. Navigation.
    Problem. Larger vessels cannot safely navigate into the 
harbors at all tide levels.
    Recommended Plan. 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.
    Project Costs. Total Cost $2,000,000. Federal cost 
$2,000,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. Not Calculated.

Sec. 2224. Unalaska Small Boat Harbor, Unalaska, Alaska.
    This section authorizes the Unalaska Small Boat project for 
navigation, Unalaska, Alaska, substantially in accordance with 
the plans, and subject to the conditions, recommended in a 
final report of the Chief of Engineers, if a favorable final 
report of the Chief for the project is completed not later than 
December 31, 2004.
    Location. Unalaska, Alaska.
    Purpose. Navigation.
    Problem. The project will provide much needed small boat 
harbor facilities and help ease the overcrowded conditions that 
now occur at Unalaska and other small boat harbors in the 
vicinity.
    Recommended Plan. The project would consist of a 181-meter 
long rubblemound breakwater, a 145-meter long floating 
breakwater, and a second 253-meter floating breakwater. The 
project would also require the dredging of 31,800 cubic meters 
of sand and gravel and 4,800 cubic meters of rock to complete 
the local sponsor's moorage basin.
    Project Costs. Total Cost $23,200,000. Federal cost 
$11,500,000; non-Federal cost $11,700,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.4 to 1.

Sec. 2225. Miami Harbor, Miami, Florida.
    This section authorizes the Miami Harbor, Miami, Florida, 
project for navigation, Miami, Florida, substantially in 
accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions, 
recommended in a final report of the Chief of Engineers, if a 
favorable final report of the Chief for the project is 
completed not later than December 31, 2004.
    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 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 $157,310,000. Federal cost 
$63,728,000; non-Federal cost $93,582,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.5 to 1.

Sec. 2226. Port of Iberia, Louisiana.
    This section authorizes the project for navigation, Port of 
Iberia, Louisiana, substantially in accordance with the plans, 
and subject to the conditions, recommended in a final report of 
the Chief of Engineers, if a favorable final report of the 
Chief for the project is completed not later than December 31, 
2004.
    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 Project Cost: $194,000,000. Federal 
Cost (80 percent): $155,200,000; Non-Federal Cost (20 percent): 
$38,800,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.03 to 1.

Sec. 2227. 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 $153,808,000. Federal cost 
$73,554,000; non-Federal cost $80,254,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 2.6 to 1.

                      SUBCHAPTER B--MODIFICATIONS

Sec. 2241. 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. 2242. 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, 
2006. The extension is needed to allow for maintenance dredging 
activities to proceed within Newport Harbor as the formal site 
designation process continues to completion, which is currently 
scheduled for May 2005.

Sec. 2243. 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. 2244. 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. 2245. 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. 2246. Norwalk Harbor, Connecticut.
    This section deauthorizes two small areas and authorizes 
the Sectretary 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. 2247. 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 coat of $14,658,000 with an 
estimated Federal cost of $9,636,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $5,022,000.

Sec. 2248. 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, requires the State to pay fair market value for 
land conveyed, and the State 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. 2249. 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. 2250. Chicago River and Harbor, Chicago, Illinois.
    This section deauthorizes the portion of the project for 
navigation, Chicago River and Chicago Harbor, Chicago, 
Illinois, authorized by the Act of March 3, 1899 (30 Stat. 
1129).

Sec. 2251. 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 million to to 
mitigate erosion on Camp Ellis Beach.

Sec. 2252. 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. 2253. 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. 2254. New York Harbor, New York, New York.
    This section amends section 217 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1996 (33U.S.C. 2326a) authorize 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 is 
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. 2255. 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. 2256. Essayons and Yaquina Dredges, Oregon.
    This section removes the existing operating restrictions on 
the Army Corps of Engineers' hopper dredges Yaquina and 
Essayons. It directs the Secretary to use the dredges without 
restriction as to either days worked or volume of material 
dredged, to the maximum extent practicable. It directs the 
Secretary to use the dredges in a manner most beneficial to and 
cost-effective for the taxpayers of the United States to 
maintain and improve the ports harbors, and channels of the 
Pacific coast. This section directs the Secretary to maintain 
the Yaquina and Essayons to technologically modern and 
efficient standards (including replacement, as necessary) to 
keep them fully operations and to meet the dredging needs of 
the ports, harbors, and channels of the Pacific coast.
    The committee recognizes that dredging requirements on the 
Pacific coast are unpredictable. Previous restrictions on the 
Army Corps of Engineers hopper dredges Yaquina and Essayons 
limited the use of these dredges. The committee recognizes that 
operation of the Yaquina and Essayons under the current hopper 
dredge restrictions did not meet the needs of the navigation 
interests on the Pacific coast. The restrictions are lifted by 
this section to improve the ability of the Army Corps of 
Engineers to meet the dredging needs on the Pacific coast. In 
addition, the committee remains concerned that the limited 
additional dredging capacity created by lifting the 
restrictions will not, in and of itself, meet all of the 
dredging needs of the Pacific coast.

Sec. 2257. 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. 2258. 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 $14,515,000. Federal cost 
$14,515,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 2.1 to 1.

Sec. 2259. 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 $12,326,000. Federal cost 
$12,326,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 2.4 to 1.

Sec. 2260. Tangier Island Seawall, Virginia.
    This provision 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. 2261. Lower Granite Pool, Washington.
    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.

                     SUBCHAPTER C--DEAUTHORIZATIONS

Sec. 2271. 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. The 
deauthorization will allow for expansion of commercial 
facilities along the Yellow Mill River and provide both 
economic benefits and job opportunities for the city of 
Bridgeport.
Sec. 2272. 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). The city of Mucatine, Iowa has indicated that 
dredging conflicts with their plans for riverfront development.

Sec. 2273. 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). The Auxiliary Channel has been in an inactive status 
since its authorization due to lack of rights-of-way for the 
channels and disposal areas.

Sec. 2274. 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). The deathorization 
removes the Federal restraints on local control of the harbor.

Sec. 2275. 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). The 
deathorization frees a large area of the harbor for mooring 
thereby increasing public access.

Sec. 2276. 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). A reevaluation report concluded that further 
deepening of the harbor for commercial navigation was not 
economically justified. The local sponsor was notified of study 
termination in September 1992.

Sec. 2277. 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). 
Study indicates that proposed improvements are appropriate for 
implementation by local interests in response to market 
conditions.

Sec. 2278. 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). The ongoing 
New York Harbor deepening project includes this area and makes 
this authorization unnecessary.

Sec. 2279. 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). The 
non-Federal sponsor is interested in a smaller scale project, 
which they are pursuing under Section 107 (NEWT).

Sec. 2280. Outer Harbor, Buffalo, New York.
    This section deauthorizes the project for navigation, 
Buffalo Outer Harbor, New York, authorized by section 110 of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4817). 
The project is outside the Army Corps of Engineers' authority 
because the bulkheads to be constructed are on private 
property.

Sec. 2281. Manteo Bay, North Carolina.
    This section deauthorizes the project for navigation, 
Manteo (Shallowbag) Bay, North Carolina, authorized by Section 
101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1818).

Sec. 2282. 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). 
There is no local sponsor support for this project.

Sec. 2283. Cleveland Harbor 1960 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). 
The uncompleted work is eligible for deauthorization and there 
is not local sponsor support for this project.

Sec. 2284. Cleveland Harbor, Uncompleted Portion of Cut #4, Ohio.
    This section deauthorizes the project for navigation, 
Cleveland Harbor, Ohio project modifications, authorized by the 
first section of the Act of July 24, 1946 (60 Stat. 636, 
chapter 595). The uncompleted work is eligible for 
deauthorization and there is not local sponsor support for this 
project.

Sec. 2285. Columbia River, Seafarers Memorial, Hammond, Oregon.
    The 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). The local 
sponsor was unable to raise sufficient funds for the statue or 
for costs above the authorized limit for the support structure.

Sec. 2286. Delaware River, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to Trenton, New 
        Jersey.
    This section deauthorizes the project for navigation, 
Delaware River, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to Trenton, New 
Jersey(Tioga Marine Terminal), authorized by section 201 of the 
River and Harbor Act of 1965 and the Flood Control Act of 1965 
and the Flood Control Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-298). In 1991, 
the Army Corps of Engineers, in conjunction with the local 
sponsor, determined that the present project dimensions are 
adequate.

Sec. 2287. 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). Coordination efforts with State and local officials 
failed to identify a sponsor willing to cost share the project.

Sec. 2288. 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). There is no local sponsor support for the project.

          TITLE III--FLOOD AND COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION

                   Subtitle A--Flood Damage Reduction

                     Chapter 1--General Provisions

Sec. 3001. Construction of flood control projects by non-Federal 
        interests.
    This section amends section 211(e)(6) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 701b-13(e)(6)) for 
projects that have completed construction under this section to 
be assigned the budget priority of a project with a contractor 
onsite.

               Chapter 2--Continuing Authorities Programs

Sec. 3101. Protection and restoration due to emergencies at shores 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).

                           Chapter 3--Studies

Sec. 3201. 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. 3202. 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). The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of the project, and costs of 
engineering, design and construction that are incurred by the 
non-Federal interest prior to and after the execution of a 
Project Cooperation Agreement if the Secretary determines that 
the work performed by the non-Federal interest is integral to 
the project.

Sec. 3203. 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. The 
provision further authorizes the Secretary, if the 
aforementioned study determines that the project is feasible, 
to construct the project.

Sec. 3204. 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. Costs incurred by the non-Federal interests in the 
preparation of planning and design documents that would have 
been the responsibility of the United States had the work been 
performed by the Secretary shall be credited toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of construction of a project 
providing for flood protection of the South San Francisco Bay 
shoreline and restoration of the South San Francisco Bay salt 
ponds if the Secretary determines that the work performed by 
the non-Federal interest is integral to the project.

Sec. 3205. 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. 3206. 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.

                          Chapter 4--Projects

                      SUBCHAPTER A--AUTHORIZATIONS

Sec. 3301. 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 Report of the Chief of Engineers 
dated July 22, 2003, 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 $4,878,000. Federal cost 
$3,170,700; non-Federal cost $1,707,300.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 2.1 to 1.

Sec. 3302. Hamilton City, California.
    Location. Hamilton City, Sacramento River, California.
    Purpose. Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration.
    Problem. Serious flood risk to community from Sacramento 
River combined with lost significant native habitat and 
floodplain processes.
    Recommended Plan. The multipurpose plan consists of a 
setback levee and restoration of about 1,500 acres of native 
habitat.
    Project Costs. Total cost $47,820,000. Federal Cost 
$31,083,000; non-Federal cost $16,737,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.8 to 1. for the flood damage 
reduction project purpose.

Sec. 3303. 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 $38,690,000. Federal Cost 
$25,233,000; non-Federal Cost $13,457,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the plan is justified by 
the restoration of valuable habitat.

Sec. 3304. 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 $1,207,288,000. Federal cost 
$603,644,000; non-Federal cost $603,644,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is 
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.

Sec. 3305. 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 $362,612,000. Federal cost 
$181,306,000; non-Federal cost $181,306,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is 
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.

Sec. 3306. 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 $14,987,000. Federal cost 
$9,742,000; non-Federal cost $5,245,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.5 to 1.
Sec. 3307. Southwest Valley, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
    Location. Rio Grande Southwest Valley, 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 the largest contributor discharging directly or 
indirectly into the project area. Flood damages occur when 
large floods overwhelm the capacity of existing facilities, or 
the capacity of the irrigation drains.
    Recommended Plan. The plan consists of capturing West Mesa 
flood flow utilizing existing surface drain facilities. The 
recommended alternative is sized to safely convey the ten (10) 
year frequency storm. The main features of the proposed work 
would involve utilizing existing easements, widening existing 
drains, constructing of a large storm water retention pond, and 
constructing two new channels with a gravity outfall to the Rio 
Grande.
    Project Costs. Total cost $17,500,000. Federal cost 
$11,400,000; non-Federal cost $6,100,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.4 to 1.

                      SUBCHAPTER B--MODIFICATIONS

Sec. 3311. 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 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. 3312. 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(add cite) 
and modified by the Flood Control Act of 1946(add cite), 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. 3313. 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. 3314. Red-Ouchita River Basin, Arkansas.
    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. 3315. 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. 3316. 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 $40,000,000 
and a non-Federal cost of $55,000,000.

Sec. 3317. 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. 3318. 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 another project within the American River watershed.

Sec. 3319. 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 $98,800,000 and 
an estimated non-Federal cost of $113,300,000.

Sec. 3320. 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. 3321. 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. 3322. Little Wood River, Gooding, Ohio.
    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. 3323. 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. 3324. 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. 3325. 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. 3326. 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 $9,750,000 and a non-Federal cost of 
$16,738,000.

Sec. 3327. 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. 3328. Lake Girard Lake Dam, Ohio.
    This section amends section 507(1) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3758) by increasing the 
authorized project cost from $2,500,000 to $5,500,000 and also 
by authorizing the lowering of the crest of the dam by not more 
than 12 = feet as part of repair and rehabilitation.

Sec. 3329. University of Oregon Museum of Natural History, Oregon.
    The section authorizes the Secretary to pay not more than 
$2,500,000 to the Oregon Museum of Natural History for the 
research and care of artifacts collected during the 
construction of John Day and The Dalles Dams. These artifacts 
have been housed at the museum at no cost to the Federal 
Government.

Sec. 3330. 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. 3331. 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. 3332. 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 $2.5 million.

Sec. 3333. 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. 3334. Chehalis River, Centralia, Washington.
    This section authorizes the project for flood damage 
reduction, Chehalis River, Centralia Washington, substantially 
in accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions, 
recommended in a final report of the Chief of Engineers, if a 
favorable final report of the Chief for the project is 
completed not later than December 31, 2004.
    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 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 $94,357,000. Federal cost 
$56,467,000; non-Federal cost $37,890,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.3 to 1.

Sec. 3335. 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. 3336. 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, if a favorable final report of the Chief for the 
project is completed not later than December 31, 2004.
    Location. Lower Mud River, Milton, West Virginia.
    Purpose. Flood Damage Reduction.
    Problem. The city of Milton, West Virginia has been 
subjected to frequent and repeated flooding since the early 
1900's from the Lower Mud River. Almost the entire city lies in 
the floodplain and during the 1997 flood of record (30-year 
flood frequency) was subjected to $23 million dollars in flood 
damages. The 100-year flood would cause $47 million in damages 
and inundate 650 structures in the community.
    Recommended Plan. The plan recommended in the May 2004 
draft report consists of an earthen levee (over 8,300 feet 
long), two pump stations, and environmental mitigation 
measures. The project would protect the primary residential and 
commercial area of the city from a 250-year flood event.
    Project Costs. Total project cost $45,500,000. Federal cost 
$34,125,000; non-Federal cost $11,375,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.3 to 1.

                     SUBCHAPTER C--DEAUTHORIZATIONS

Sec. 3341. Little Cove Creek, Glencoe, Alabama.
    This section deauthorizes the project for flood damage 
reduction, Little Cove Creek, Glencoe, Alabama, authorized in 
the Supplement Appropriations Act, 1985 (99 Stat. 312). The 
project is not economically feasible and there is no local 
sponsor support.

Sec. 3342. Winslow, Arizona.
    This section deauthorizes the uncompleted portions of the 
project for flood control, Winslow, Arizona, authorized by 
section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1083). 
The remaining project was suspended due to lack of financial 
capacity on the part of the local sponsor.

Sec. 3343. 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). The local 
sponsor did not pursue construction of the Carneros Creek 
Debris Basin due to the high construction cost.

Sec. 3344. 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). A General 
Reevaluation Report indicated no economic justification for a 
Federal project.

Sec. 3345. Brevoort, Indiana.
    The 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). Projects to improve 
interior drainage have been implemented under section 205 of 
the continuing authorities program and this project is no 
longer necessary.

Sec. 3346. Middle Wabash, Greenfield Bayou, Indiana.
    The 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). A 1997 re-
study indicated that there was no economically feasible plan 
that the local sponsor would support.

Sec. 3347. Lake George, Hobart, Indiana.
    The 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). There is no local sponsor support for the project.

Sec. 3348. 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). A General 
Reevaluation Report indicates the project is not economically 
feasible.

Sec. 3349. 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). A study 
determined that there was no Federal interest due to limited 
flood damage reduction provided by the project.

Sec. 3350. 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). All alternatives studied that would comply 
with the 1990 authorization exceeded the authorized cost 
limitation. There has been no local sponsor support for cost 
sharing a plan providing a lesser degree of protection.

Sec. 3351. Taylorsville Lake, Kentucky.
    This section deauthorizes the recreation component of the 
project for flood control, Taylorsville Lake, Kentucky, 
authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1966 (80 
Stat. 1421). Construction was started in June 1974 and 
impoundment began in January 1983. The project is complete 
except for the construction of the majority of the recreation 
facilities.

Sec. 3352. 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). The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
modified the project to include the purchase of more than 6,000 
acres of mitigation land. The local sponsor does not support 
acquisition of mitigation lands.

Sec. 3353. 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). The project is not economically 
justified.

Sec. 3354. 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). The project is not economically 
justified.

Sec. 3355. 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). The local 
sponsor is unable to meet the cost-sharing requirement.

Sec. 3356. 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). The local sponsor has 
withdrawn support of the project.

Sec. 3357. Parker Lake, Muddy Boggy Creek, Oklahoma.
    This section deauthorizes the project for flood control and 
water supply, Parker Lake, Muddy Boggy Creek, project, 
authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4123).

Sec. 3358. 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). Local officials in 1998 declined 
to cost share in the construction of remaining features of the 
flood damage reduction project in the Houston reach of 
Chartiers Creek in Washington County, Pennsylvania.

Sec. 3359. Tioga-Hammond Lakes, Pennsylvania.
    This section deauthoirizes the project for flood control 
and recreation, Tioga Hammond Lakes, Mill Creek Recreation, 
Pennsylvnia, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act 
of 1958 (72 Stat. 313). There is no local sponsor support for 
recreational facilities.

Sec. 3360. 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). The non-
Federal sponsor has been unable to obtain funding assistance 
from State of Pennsylvania.

Sec. 3361. 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). The local sponsor could not agree on a Project 
Cooperation Agreement, nor accept operation and maintenance 
responsibilities.

Sec. 3362. 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). A non-structural project is being pursued and 
there is no local sponsor support of the structural project.

Sec. 3363. East Fork Channel Improvement, 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). The project is 
not economically feasible.

Sec. 3364. 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). There is no local sponsor support for the project.

Sec. 3365. Pecan Bayou Lake, Texas.
    This section deauthorizes the project for flood contol, 
Pecan Bayou Lake, Texas, authorized by section 203 of the Flood 
Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 742). The project is not 
economically justified and there is no local sponsor support.

Sec. 3366. 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). The project is not economically justified.

               Subtitle B--Coastal Storm Damage Reduction

                     Chapter 1--General Provisions

Sec. 3401. Shore Protection and beach renourishment projects.
    Subsection (a) of this section directs the Secretary, in 
collaboration with the advisory committee established in 
subsection (c), to revise the planning guidelines, regulations 
and circulars for beach renourishment projects involving large 
dredge and fill activities.
    Subsection (b) requires that these revisions include: 
protection of reefs, essential fish habitat, and habitat areas 
of particular concern; consideration of nonstructural 
alternatives for large dredge and fill activities; and 
establishment of minimum environmental standards for beach 
replenishment projects that utilize dredge material. The 
committee expects the regulations to include establishment of 
standards for compatibility of grain size, shell content, and 
other geologic characteristics; requirements for monitoring; 
establishment of buffer distances; development of programmatic 
environmental impact statements; revision of public notice and 
comment procedures; and establishment of standardized, 
interagency renourishment information.
    Subsection (c) directs the Secretary to create an advisory 
committee of biologists, engineers, geologists, and other 
experts to support this effort.
    Subsection (d) requires the Secretary to comply with notice 
and comment provisions.
    Subsection (e) directs the Secretary to apply the revised 
regulations to projects with a draft feasibility study or draft 
reevaluation report not yet completed.

Sec. 3402. Regional sediment management.
    This section amends section 204 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326) to expand the 
beneficial use of dredge material for ecosystem protection and 
restoration. The committee recognizes the need for regional 
sediment management plans to address the regional management of 
sediment dredged in conjunction with construction and operation 
and maintenance of navigation projects.
    Subsection (a) authorizes the Secretary, in connection with 
dredging for construction or operation and maintenance of a 
navigation project, to carry out projects of the protection, 
restoration, and creation of aquatic and ecologically related 
habitats, and the transport and placement of dredged material. 
This subsection also authorizes the Secretary to develop these 
plans in consultation and cooperation with appropriate Federal, 
State and regional agencies. Priority is established for the 
development of plans in three locations. The authorization for 
section 204 if increased to $30,000,000 annually.
    Subsection (b) repeals section 145 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C. 426j), but does not effect 
the authority to complete any on-going project under that 
section.

Sec. 3403. National shoreline erosion control development and 
        demonstration program.
    Subsection (a) amends section 5(a) of the Act of August 13, 
1946 (33 U.S.C. 426h(a), by extending the program by an 
additional 4 years.
    Subsection (b) amends section 5(b)(1)(A) of the Act of 
August 13, 1946 (U.S.C. 426(b)(1)(A)) by extending the 
planning, design and construction phase of the program for an 
additional 3 years.

Sec. 3404. 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)).

                           Chapter 2--Studies

Sec. 3411. 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''.

                          Chapter 3--Projects

                      SUBCHAPTER A--AUTHORIZATIONS

Sec. 3421. Coastal Louisiana ecosystem protection and restoration.
    Location. Louisiana Coastal Area, Louisiana.
    Purpose. Ecosystem Restoration.
    Problem. The Louisiana Coastal Area 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 over 1.2 million 
acres (1,875 sq. mi.), since 1930, and is estimated to continue 
to lose land at a rate of approximately 6,600 acres per year 
(10.0 sq. mi.) over the next 50 years, resulting in an 
additional 328,000-acre (513 sq. mi.) net loss by the year 
2050. 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, and taken as a whole with 
migratory bird routes, fish and other species, place the 
coastal wetlands of Louisiana among the nation's most 
productive and important natural assets. Louisiana's coastal 
area is home to over 2 million people, representing 46 percent 
of Louisiana's population, and when investments in facilities, 
supporting service activities, and the urban infrastructure are 
totaled, the capital investment in the Louisiana coastal area 
adds up to approximately $100 billion.
    Recommended Plan. Subsection (a) establishes a Coastal 
Louisiana Ecosystem Protection and Restoration Task Force 
(``Task Force''), composed of the: Secretary of the Army 
(``Secretary''); Secretary of Commerce; Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency; Secretary of Agriculture; 
Secretary of Transportation; Secretary of Energy; Secretary of 
Homeland Security; and Governor of the State of Louisiana (or 
their designee at the level of Assistant Secretary or 
equivalent). The Task Force shall make recommendations to the 
Secretary of the Army regarding policies, strategies, plans, 
programs, projects, activities, and financial plans for 
addressing conservation, protection, restoration, and 
maintenance of the coastal Louisiana ecosystem.
    Subsection (b) directs the Secretary to develop a 
comprehensive plan for the conservation, protection, 
restoration, and maintenance of the coastal Louisiana 
ecosystem, which may include such studies, projects, and 
programs as the Secretary determines to be necessary for the 
conservation, restoration, and maintenance of the coastal 
Louisiana ecosystem. The Secretary shall submit the plan to 
Congress not later than July 1, 2008.
    Subsection (c) directs the Secretary to initiate 
feasibility studies in accordance with the Louisiana Coastal 
Ecosystem Restoration Study and to develop a plan for the 
modification for the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, Louisiana, 
Project that addresses navigation interests, environmental 
restoration, and threats to life and property. The Secretary 
shall re-evaluate existing federally authorized water resource 
projects in the coastal Louisiana ecosystem in order to 
determine whether the projects have the potential to contribute 
to ecosystem restoration through revised operations or modified 
project features.
    Subsection (d) establishes a Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem 
Science and Technology (``S & T'') Program to address coastal 
ecosystem restoration science and technology needs. The total 
cost shall not exceed $50,000,000. The S & T Program shall: 
assess the effects of coastal restoration measures; develop 
improved modeling capabilities; develop new technologies for 
ecosystem restoration activities; provide scientific peer 
review; identify and address socio-economic consequences of 
coastal land loss and restoration activities; and ensure 
application of adaptive management principals and practices.
    The Secretary shall establish a Science Board for the S & T 
Program, which shall include nationally, recognized experts. 
The Science Board shall make recommendations to the Secretary 
to improve program and project performance by providing 
periodic review and comment on program and project activities.
    The Secretary is further directed to establish an Office of 
the Director for the S & T Program, which shall provide 
recommendations to the Secretary regarding the development, 
direction, and oversight of an annual program to identify and 
address science and technology needs. The Director is 
authorized to establish working groups as are necessary to 
assist in the duties of the S & T Program.
    The Secretary shall review and approve the construction of 
demonstration projects for resolving scientific and 
technological uncertainties at a total cost, for all 
demonstration projects, not to exceed $85,000,000, and with a 
total cost per project not to exceed $15,000,000.
    The Secretary is further authorized to construct the Bayou 
LaFourche River Reintroduction project at a total cost of 
$140,000,000 (with an estimated Federal cost of $91,000,000 and 
an estimated non-Federal cost of $49,000,000).
    Further, the Secretary shall implement a program for 
increased beneficial use of material dredged from federally 
maintained waterways in the Louisiana Coastal Area, with an 
authorized cost not to exceed a total of $100,000,000.
    Subsection (e) establishes the non-Federal share of costs: 
for implementing projects at 35 percent; for operation, 
maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation of the 
projects at 100 percent; and for program elements at 35 
percent. In addition, after the non-Federal sponsor provides 
all lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and disposal 
areas necessary for implementation of this section, the non-
Federal sponsor may provide the balance of its share through 
the provision of services, materials, and other in-kind 
services that the Secretary determines to be integral to the 
program. It further provides that credits afforded the non-
Federal sponsor may be carried over between authorized program 
elements.
    Subsection (f) authorizes the Secretary to determine that 
an activity is justified by the derived environmental benefits, 
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 (g) directs the Secretary to ensure that the 
implementation, maintaining, modifying, or rehabilitation of 
federally authorized water resources projects in the coastal 
Louisiana ecosystem are consistent with the purposes of plans, 
projects, and programs developed and implemented pursuant to 
this section.
    Subsection (h) exempts the Task Force, Science and 
Technology Program, and any groups associated with them from 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
    Project Costs. Total Costs provided in the legislation 
amount to $375,000,000, and are broken down as follows:

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S & T Program........................................  $50,000,000
Demonstration Projects...............................  $85,000,000
Bayou LaFourche River Reintroduction Project.........  $140,000,000
Beneficial Use of Dredged Material...................  $100,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3422. Morganza, Louisiana 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 $740,000,000. Federal cost 
$481,000,000; non-Federal cost $259,000,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.7 to 1.
Sec. 3423. 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 $62,377,000. Federal cost 
$40,546,000; non-Federal cost $21,831,000. Estimated average 
annual costs $1,911,000 for periodic nourishment over a period 
of 50 years.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 2.1 to 1.

Sec. 3424. 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 $105,437,000. Federal cost 
$68,534,000; non-Federal cost $36,903,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 2.2 to 1.

Sec. 3425. 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.

Sec. 3426. Coastal wetland conservation project funding
    This section amends section 306 of the Coastal Wetlands 
Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 3955), the 
Breaux Act, by removing the annual limits on expenditures of 
revenues generated from sport fishing fees and extending the 
program by an additional 10 years.

                      SUBCHAPTER B--MODIFICATIONS

Sec. 3431. 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 $48,264,000. Federal cost 
$25,759,000; non-Federal cost $22,505,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.7 to 1.

Sec. 3432. Lido Key Beach, Sarasota, Florida.
    Location. Lido Key, Sarasota County, Florida.
    Purpose. Shore Protection.
    Problem. Additional options need to be considered to 
determine optimal hurricane and storm damage reduction features 
for Lido Key under current conditions, and to seek new 
authority to design and construct the project due to Section 
902 limit being exceeded.
    Recommended Plan. A 5-foot elevation, 80-foot-wide storm 
berm that extends 8,300 feet with tapers at each end. Initial 
construction would require placement of approximately 1,075,000 
cubic yards of sand fill, consisting of 460,000 cubic yards of 
design volume fill and 615,000 cubic yards of sacrificial 
advance fill. Three borrow areas are located between 7.2 and 
9.5 nautical miles offshore. Future nourishment would be 
provided at about 5-year intervals. Three groins would be 
constructed along the southern portion of the fill to reduce 
post-construction erosion losses.
    Project Costs. Total cost $12,632,200. Federal cost 
$7,882,493; non-Federal cost of $4,749,702.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.5 to 1.

Sec. 3433. Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York.
    This provision 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.

                     SUBCHAPTER C--DEAUTHORIZATIONS

Sec. 3441. 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.). There is no justified Federal 
interest.

     TITLE IV--ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION

                   Subtitle A--Ecosystem Restoration

                     Chapter 1--General Provisions

Sec. 4001. 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. 4002. 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. 4003. Great Lakes Interagency Task Force.
    This section enacts into law Executive Order 13340 entitled 
``Establishment of Great Lakes Interagency Task Force and 
Promotion of a Regional Collaboration of National Significance 
for the Great Lakes.'' The Task Force shall be chaired by the 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. A Great 
Lakes Regional Working Group shall be formed, which shall 
include the appropriate regional administrator or director with 
programmatic responsibility over the Great Lakes system for 
each agency represented on the Task Force. The Task Force is 
directed to establish a process to improve collaboration 
between the various Federal, tribal, regional, State and local 
programs concerned with environmental restoration and 
management activities throughout the Great Lakes System. The 
Task Force and Working Group shall collaborate with Canada and 
its provinces and bi-national bodies involved in the Great 
Lakes region regarding policies, strategies, projects and 
priorities for the Great Lakes System.

               Chapter 2--Continuing Authorities Programs

Sec. 4101. Restoration of the environment for protection of aquatic and 
        riparian ecosystem 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. 4102. 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. 4103. Projects to enhance estuaries and coastal habitats.
    This section creates a new continuing authority program, 
Projects to Enhance Estuaries and Coastal Habitats (PEECH), for 
estuary habitat restoration with an annual program limit of 
$25,000,000 and a per project cost limit of $5,000,000.

                           Chapter 3--Studies

                   SUBCHAPTER A--STUDY AUTHORIZATIONS

Sec. 4201. 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.

Sec. 4202. 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.

                      SUBCHAPTER B--MODIFICATIONS

Sec. 4211. 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.

                          Chapter 4--Projects

                      SUBCHAPTER A--AUTHORIZATIONS

Sec. 4301. 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. This section authorizes the Secretary to 
carry out a project for ecosystem restoration at Matilija Dam 
and the Ventura River Watershed, provided that a favorable 
report on the project is completed by the Chief of Engineers by 
December 31, 2004. 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 
$78,972,750; non-Federal cost $51,362,250.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is 
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.

Sec. 4302. 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 where 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 former salt production ponds by using a combination 
of water sources, including 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 over 4,500 acres of 
tidal ponds and managed ponds.
    Project Costs. Total cost $105,500,000. 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.

Sec. 4303. Pine Flat Dam fish and wildlife habitat, California.
    Location. Pine Flat Reservoir and Kings River, Fresno, 
California.
    Purpose. Ecosystem Restoration.
    Problem. Improvements are needed to manage fisheries and 
aquatic habitat conditions in Pine Flat Reservoir and the Lower 
Kings River immediately below the Pine Flat Reservoir.
    Recommended Plan. 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 Agreement, dated May.
    Project Costs. Total cost $20,000,000. Federal cost 
$13,000,000; non-Federal cost $7,000,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is 
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.

Sec. 4304. Salton Sea Restoration, California.
    Location. La Quinta, California.
    Purpose. Environmental Restoration.
    Problem. The Salton Sea serves as a reservoir for 
irrigation drainage. To restore it as healthy habitiat for fish 
and wildlife and to enhance its potential for recreational uses 
and economic development requires that its overall salinity be 
reduced and stabilized and that its surface elevation be 
stabilized. Previous studies by the Bureau of Reclamation and 
the Salton Sea Authority have identified long-term solutions 
for its reclamation.
    Recommended Plan. This recommended plan consists of 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,
    Project Costs. Total cost $26,000,000. Federal cost 
$16,900,000, of which not more than $5,000,000 may be used for 
any one pilot project; non-Federal cost $9,100,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is 
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.

Sec. 4305. 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 $17,997,000. Federal cost 
$11,698,000; non-Federal cost $6,299,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is 
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.

Sec. 4306. Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal dispersal barriers project, 
        Illinois.
    Location. Chicago, Illinois.
    Purpose. Environmental Restoration.
    Problem. 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.
    Recommended Plan. The plan consists of construction of a 
permanent barrier to replace the demonstration barrier at full 
Federal expense, operate and maintain both barriers at full 
Federal expense, and provide credit to each State in proportion 
to the amount of funds contributed.
    Project Costs. Unknown.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is 
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.

Sec. 4307. 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.

Sec. 4308. Upper Connecticut River Basin Ecosystem Restoration, New 
        Hampshire and Vermont.
    Location. Upper Connecticut River Basin, New Hampshire and 
Vermont.
    Purpose. Ecosystem Restoration.
    Problem. 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.
    Recommended Plan. This section directs the Secretary, in 
consultation with Federal, State, local or non-profit agencies, 
to 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.
    Project Costs. Total cost $20,000,000. Federal cost 
$13,000,000; non-Federal cost $7,000,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is 
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.

Sec. 4309. Upper Connecticut River Basin wetland restoration, New 
        Hampshire and Vermont.
    Location. Upper Connecticut River Basin, New Hampshire and 
Vermont.
    Purpose. Ecosystem Restoration.
    Problem. 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.
    Recommended Plan. This section directs the Secretary, in 
consultation with Federal, State, local or non-profit agencies, 
to 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.
    Project Costs. Total cost $5,000,000. Federal cost 
$3,250,000; non-Federal cost $1,750,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is 
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.
Sec. 4310. 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.

Sec. 4311. Long Island Sound oyster restoration, New York and 
        Connecticut.
    Location. Long Island Sound, Connecticut and New York.
    Purpose. Ecosystem Restoration.
    Problem. There is a need to restore existing non-productive 
oyster grounds and create new oyster beds in historically 
productive but deteriorated sites to increase aquatic habitats 
within Long Island Sound and adjacent waters.
    Recommended Plan. This section directs 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.
    Project Costs. Total cost $25,000,000. Federal cost 
$18,750,000; non-Federal cost $6,250,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is 
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.

Sec. 4312. Upper Willamette River watershed ecosystem restoration, 
        Oregon.
    Location. Upper Willamette River watershed, Oregon.
    Purpose. Ecosystem Restoration.
    Problem. 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 
stellhead, listed as threatened under the Endangered Species 
Act.
    Recommended Plan. The recommended plan includes the 
planning, design, and construction of ecosystem restoration 
projects in the Upper Willamette River watershed.
    Project Costs. Total cost $15,000,000. Federal cost 
$9,750,000; non-Federal cost $5,250,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is 
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.

Sec. 4313. 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 $22,200,000. Federal cost 
$9,180,000; non-Federal cost $13,020,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is 
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.

Sec. 4314. Connecticut River Dams, Vermont.
    Location. Connecticut River, Vermont.
    Purpose. Ecosystem Restoration.
    Problem. These dams were constructed without consideration 
of the ecological impacts. Since their construction, this area 
has become one of the critical components of the Atlantic 
salmon restoration program.
    Recommended Plan. This section authorizes the Secretary to 
evaluate, design and complete structural modifications, 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.
    Project Costs. Total cost $30,000,000. Federal cost 
$30,000,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is 
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.

                      SUBCHAPTER B--MODIFICATIONS

Sec. 4321 Hamilton Army 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 a final report of the Chief of Engineers, if a 
favorable final report of the Chief for the project is 
completed not later than December 31, 2004.
    Location. Novato, 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. This project proposes to 
beneficially reuse dredged material to restore tidal wetlands 
to support endangered and special status species recovery, and 
restore greater ecological balance to the San Francisco Bay.
    Recommended Plan. The Hamilton Wetland Restoration Project 
(HWP) project was authorized in WRDA 1999 as the ecosystem 
restoration of approximately 990 acres of the former Hamilton 
Army Airfield parcel including the adjacent State Lands 
Commission parcel. As authorized, the project would 
beneficially re-use approximately 10.6 million cubic yards 
(MCY) of dredge material to restore habitat. Since the project 
was authorized, the non-Federal sponsor has requested that an 
additional 1500 acres of adjacent State owned property, known 
as Bel Marin Keys Unit V (BMK), be included in the HWP project 
for the purpose of habitat restoration. A General Reevaluation 
Report (GRR), completed in April 2003, recommended that the 
additional 1500 acres of adjacent BMK property be included as 
part of the HWP project and that it be constructed similarly by 
beneficially re-using approximately 15 MCY of dredge material 
to restore habitat on the BMK parcel. By expanding the HWP to 
include the BMK parcel, the expanded project would beneficially 
reuse nearly 25 MCY of dredged material to restore 
approximately 2,600 acres of critical wetland habitat.
    Project Costs. Total Cost $192,900,000. Federal cost 
$144,000,000; non-Federal cost $48,300,000. WRDA 99 authorized 
the HWP at a total cost of $55,200,000; thus, the increment in 
the total project cost of the expanded project is $137.5 
million.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is 
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.

Sec. 4322. Allatoona Lake, Georgia.
    This section revises the authority provided in Section 325 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 
4849), to authorize 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. 4323. Ohio River, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, 
        and West Virginia.
    This section amends 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. 4324. Public Access, Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Louisiana.
    This section directs the Secretary to modify the public 
access features of the project for ecosystem restoration, 
Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Louisiana, authorized by 
section 601(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
(100 Stat. 4142), to acquire from willing sellers the fee 
interest, exclusive of oil, gas and minerals, of an additional 
20,000 acres of land in the Lower Atchafalaya Basin Floodway 
for the public access feature of the project to enhance fish 
and wildlife resources at a total cost of $4,000,000.

Sec. 4325. 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. 4326. 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. 4327. Upper Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and New York.
    This section amends the project for ecosystem restoration, 
Upper Susquehannd 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. 4328. 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 provision 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 
provision directs the investment of funds in Treasury 
obligations with differing maturities to ensure high returns 
while allowing for the logical availability of funds.

Sec. 4329. Missouri River restoration.
    This section amends section 904(b)(1)(B) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2708) to require 
that members of the Missouri River Trust recommended by the 
Governor of South Dakota include representative(s) from rural 
water systems and amends Section 907 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2712) to extend the 
authorization of appropriations for an additional 5 years, 
through fiscal year 2010.

Sec. 4330. 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. 4331. Lake Champlain Eurasian Milfoil and Water Chestnut 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 and water chestnuts in the 
Lake Champlain basin, Vermont.

Sec. 4332. 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. 4333. 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. 4334. 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 
Dakota, and Vermont to the Lakes Program.

Sec. 4335. 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 to delegate the implementation of projects costing 
less than $1,000,000, on a reimbursable basis to the Secretary 
of the Interior or the Under Secretary for Oceans and 
Atmosphere of the Department of Commerce.
    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 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; 
$5,000,000 for the Secretary of the Interior; and $5,000,000 
for the Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere of the 
Department of Commerce. In addition, this subsection extends 
the monitoring authorization to 2010.
    Subsection (h) amends section 110 of the Act (33 U.S.C. 
2909) to have the lead agency consult and coordinate, instead 
of the Secretary, and allow nongovernmental agencies 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 4335 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 provide new authority for the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service and Department of Commerce, 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 $2.5 million in annual 
appropriations for estuary projects. Authorized at $275 million 
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 million annually through 
fiscal year 2010 for the Secretary; $1.5 million annually for 
Department of Commerce estuary monitoring activities; and to 
grant new funding authority of $5 million annually to the 
Department of Commerce and the Secretary of the Interior 
(acting through the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service), 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 to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
or Department of Commerce, is essential to maximize the 
partnership model of the Act and encourage other Federal 
partners to become engaged in project implementation.

                     SUBCHAPTER C--DEAUTHORIZATIONS

Sec. 4351. Dog River Pilot Project, Alabama.
    This section deauthorizes the project for ecosystem 
restoration, Dog River Pilot Project, Alabama, authorized by 
section 518 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 
Stat. 345). The project is complete and no further activities 
are required.

Sec. 4352. 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).

Subtitle B--Environmental Remediation Chapter 1--Continuing Authorities 
                                Programs

Sec. 4401. 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, adjusting the cost share requirement, and defining 
the operation and maintenance costs to be 100 percent non-
Federal.

                        Chapter 2--Modifications

Sec. 4411. Environmental remediation, Front Royal, Virginia.
    This section amends Section 591(a)(2) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 378) increase the 
total project cost from $12,000,000 to $22,000,000.

                TITLE V--WATER STORAGE AND WATER QUALITY

                   Subtitle A--Water Storage Program

               Chapter 1--Continuing Authorities Programs

Sec. 5101. 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.

                           Chapter 2--Studies

Sec. 5201. 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.

                          Chapter 3--Projects

                      SUBCHAPTER A--MODIFICATIONS

Sec. 5301. 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. 5302. Fort Peck Fish Hatchery, Montana.
    This section amends Section 325 to of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2000 (114 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. 5303. 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. 5304. 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. 5305. 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. 5306. 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.

                     SUBCHAPTER B--DEAUTHORIZATIONS

Sec. 5321. 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). The project is complete and jurisdiction of the 
area has been transferred to the Department of the Interior.

                       Subtitle B--Water Quality

                     Chapter 1--General Provisions

Sec. 5401. 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. 5402. 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.

                 Chapter 2--Deauthorization of Projects

Sec. 5421. 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; 113 Stat. 336). No funds have been allocated to 
date and the project is eligible for deauthorization.

Sec. 5422. Hartford, Connecticut.
    This section deauthorizes the project for environmental 
infrastructure project, Hartford, Connecticut, authorized by 
section 219(f)(27) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336). No funds have been 
allocated to date and the project is eligible for 
deauthorization.

Sec. 5423. New Haven, Connecticut.
    This section deauthorizes the project for environmental 
infrastructure project, New Haven, Connecticut, authorized by 
section 219(f)(28) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336). No funds have been 
allocated to date and the project is eligible for 
deauthorization.

Sec. 5424. Casco Bay, Portland, Maine.
    This section deauthorizes the project for environmental 
infrastructure project, Casco Bay, Portland, Maine, authorized 
by section 307 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
(106 Stat. 4841). No funds have been allocated to date and the 
project is eligible for deauthorization.

Sec. 5425. Penobscot River, Bangor, Maine.
    This section deauthorizes the project for environmental 
infrastructure project, Penobscot River, Bangor, Maine, 
authorized by section 307 of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4841). No funds have been allocated to 
date and the project is eligible for deauthorization.

Sec. 5426. Saint John River Basin, Maine.
    This section deauthorizes the project for research and 
demonstration program 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). There is no local sponsor support for 
any additional research and demonstration work.

Sec. 5427. 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. 5428. Manchester, New Hampshire.
    This section deauthorizes the project for environmental 
infrastructure, Manchester, New Hamsphire, authorized by 
section 219(c)(7) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1992 (106 Stat. 4836). No funds have been allocated to date and 
the project is eligible for deauthorization.

                Subtitle C--Watershed Planning Programs

Sec. 5451. 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. 5452. 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 and the Delaware 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. It 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. It directs the Secretary to enter into 
an agreement with the Delaware River Basin Commission to 
provide temporary water storage at the Francis E. Walter Dam, 
Pennsylvania, during drought emergencies.

                                Hearings

    On March 31, 2004, the Subcommittee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure held a hearing to receive testimony on the Water 
Resources Development Act of 2004. 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 June 21, 2004, Senator Frist, for Senators Inhofe, 
Jeffords, Bond and Reid, introduced the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2004 (S. 2554). The Committee on Environment 
and Public Works met to consider S. 2554 on June 23, 2004, and 
reported the amended bill as original text by unanimous 
consent.
    On September 26, 2003, H.R. 2557 was received in the Senate 
and read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works.

                             Rollcall Votes

    On June 23, 2004, the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works met to consider S. 2554, the Water Resources Development 
Act of 2004. A substitute amendment was agreed to by voice 
vote. Mr. Inhofe offered a second degree amendment to the 
substitute amendment that was agreed to by voice vote. An 
amendment offered by Senator Boxer, relative to fish and 
wildlife mitigation, was agreed to by a vote of 10 ayes to 9 
nays. Voting in favor were Senators Baucus, Boxer, Carper, 
Chafee, Clinton, Graham, Jeffords, Lieberman, Reid, and Wyden. 
Voting against were Senators Allard, Bond, Cornyn, Crapo, 
Inhofe, Murkowski, Thomas, Voinovich, and Warner. An amendment 
offered by Senator Voinovich, relative to the Great Lakes 
Interagency Task Force, was agreed to by voice vote. An 
amendment offered by Senator Wyden, relative to dredges, was 
agreed to by voice vote. Final passage of S. 2554 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 unfounded 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 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 by 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.

                        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:

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

                    [16 U.S.C. 777C--NOV. 29, 1990]

DINGELL-JOHNSON SPORT FISH RESTORATION ACT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 777C. DIVISION OF ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS

    (a) Initial distribution
           The Secretary of the Interior shall distribute 18 
        per centum of each annual appropriation made in 
        accordance with the provisions of section 777b of this 
        title as provided in the Coastal Wetlands Planning, 
        Protection, and Restoration Act (title III, Public Law 
        101-646) (16 U.S.C. 3951 et seq.). Notwithstanding the 
        provisions of section 777b of this title, such sums 
        shall remain available to carry out such Act through 
        fiscal year [2009] 2019.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

                    [16 U.S.C. 3955--NOV. 29, 1990]

COASTAL WETLANDS PLANNING, PROTECTION, AND RESTORATION ACT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 3955. DISTRIBUTION OF APPROPRIATIONS

    (a) Priority project and conservation planning expenditures
           Of the total amound appropriated during a given 
        fiscal year to carry out this chapter, 70 percent[, not 
        to exceed $70,000,000,] shall be available, and shall 
        remain available until expended, for the purposes of 
        making expenditures--

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (b) Coastal wetlands conservation grants
           Of the total amount appropriated during a given 
        fiscal year to carry out this chapter, 15 percent[, not 
        to exceed $15,000,000] shall be available, and shall 
        remain available to the Director, for purposes of 
        making grants--

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (c) North American wetlands conservation
           Of the total amount appropriated during a given 
        fiscal year to carry out this chapter, 15 percent[, not 
        to exceed $15,000,000,] shall be available to, and 
        shall remain available until expended by, the Secretary 
        of the Interior for allocation to carry out wetlands 
        conservation projects in coastal wetlands ecosystems in 
        any coastal State under section 4407 of this title.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

                    [33 U.S.C. 426H--AUG. 13, 1946]

ACT OF AUGUST 13, 1946

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 426H. NATIONAL SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL DEVELOPMENT AND 
                    DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM

    (a) Establishment of erosion control program
           The Secretary shall establish and conduct a national 
        shoreline erosion control development and demonstration 
        program for a period of [6 years] 10 years beginning on 
        the date that funds are made available to carry out 
        this section.
    (b) Requirements
            (1) In general
               The erosion control program shall include 
        provisions for--
                    (A) projects consisting of planning, 
                designing, and constructing prototype 
                engineered and vegetative shoreline erosion 
                control devices and methods during the first [3 
                years] 6 years of the erosion control program;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

                    [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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

                     [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 
                                performing monitoring of 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) 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 title 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) * * *
                    (B) provide for long-term maintenance and 
                monitoring of the project.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (g) Delegation of Project Implementation.--[In carrying]
            (1) In general.--In carrying out this title, 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.--In the case of a project 
        carried out under this Act with a Federal share of less 
        than $1,000,000, the Secretary, on the recommendation 
        of the Council, shall consider delegating 
        implementation of the project, on a reimbursable basis, 
        to--
                    (A) the Secretary of the Interior (acting 
                through the Director of the United States Fish 
                and Wildlife Service); or
                    (B) the Under Secretary for Oceans and 
                Atmosphere of the Department of Commerce.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 105. ESTABLISHMENT OF ESTUARY HABITAT RESTORATION COUNCIL.

    (a) * * *
    (b) Duties.--The Council shall be responsible for--
            (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (4) periodically reviewing the effectiveness of the 
        national strategy in meeting the purposes of this title 
        and, as necessary, updating the national strategy; 
        [and]
            (5) providing advice on the development of the 
        database, monitoring standards, and report required 
        under sections 107 and 108[.] ;
          (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 the date of enactment 
of this Act, 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 
title.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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), $5,000,000 
                for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010; and
                    (C) to the Under Secretary for Oceans and 
                Atmosphere of the Department of Commerce, 
                $5,000,000 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 title, the [Secretary] lead agency 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 title, the [Secretary] lead agency may--
            (1) enter into cooperative agreements or contracts 
        with 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 title, and may provide 
facilities and personnel, for the purpose of assisting the 
Council in carrying out its duties under this title.
    [(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 title.
    [(e) Study of Bioremediation Technology.--
            [(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the 
        date of enactment of this Act, 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.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

                      [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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

                   [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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

                   [PUBLIC LAW 91-611--DEC. 31, 1970]

                        [CF. 42 U.S.C. 1962D-5B]

FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1970

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      Sec. 221. (a) [After the date of enactment]
            (1) In general.--After the date of enactment of 
        this Act, 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 the provisions of section 215 of the Flood 
        Control Act of 1968 or under any other] under any 
        provision of law, shall not be commenced until each 
        non-Federal interest has entered into a written 
        partnership agreement with the [Secretary of the Army 
        to furnish its required cooperation for] 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, 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. [In any such agreement]
            (3) Obligation of future appropriations.--In any 
        agreement described in paragraph (1) 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.
    (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, 2006, 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 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.
    (d) For the purposes of this section, the term ``State'' 
means the several States of the United States, Indian Tribes, 
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the 
Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, and 
the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
    (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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                   [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. 103. FLOOD CONTROL AND OTHER PURPOSES.

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (j) Agreement.--
            (1) Requirement for agreement.--Any project to 
        which this section applies (other than a project for 
        hydroelectric power) shall be initiated only after non-
        Federal interests have entered into binding agreements 
        with the Secretary to pay 100 percent of the 
        operations, maintenance, and replacement and 
        rehabilitation costs of the project, to pay the non-
        Federal share of the costs of construction required by 
        this section, and to hold and save the United States 
        free from damages due to the construction or operation 
        and maintenance of the project, except for damages due 
        to the fault or negligence of the United States or its 
        contractors.
            (2) Elements of agreement.--The agreement required 
        pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be in accordance with 
        the requirements of section 221 of the Flood Control 
        Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1818) and shall provide for the 
        rights and duties of the United States and the non-
        Federal interest with respect to the construction, 
        operation, and maintenance of the project, including, 
        but not limited to, provisions specifying that, in the 
        event the non-Federal interest fails to provide the 
        required non-Federal share of costs for such work, the 
        Secretary--
                    (A) shall terminate or suspend work on the 
                project unless the Secretary determines that 
                continuation of the work is in the interest of 
                the United States or is necessary in order to 
                satisfy agreements with other non-Federal 
                interests in connection with the project; and
                    (B) may terminate or adjust the rights and 
                privileges of the non-Federal interest to 
                project outputs under the terms of the 
                agreement.
            (3) 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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; and
            (23) Lake Fairlee, Vermont, removal of silt and 
        aquatic growth and measures to address excessive 
        sedimentation.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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 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. The 
Secretary shall also assess whether the water resources project 
and each project increment is cost-effective and whether the 
water resource project complies with local, State, and national 
laws, 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, in collaboration with 
the Water Resources Planning Council, revise the planning 
guidelines, regulation, and circulars of the Corps of Engineers 
not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 2004 and once every 5 years 
thereafter 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 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.
    (b) Before initiating any feasibility study under 
subsection (a) of this section after the date of enactment of 
this Act, the Secretary shall first perform, at Federal 
expense, a reconnaissance study of the water resources problem 
in order to identify potential solutions to such problem in 
sufficient detail to enable the Secretary to determine whether 
or not planning to develop a project should proceed to the 
preparation of a feasibility report. Such reconnaissance study 
shall include a preliminary analysis of the Federal interest, 
costs, benefits, and environmental impacts of such project, and 
an estimate of the costs of preparing the feasibility report. 
The duration of a reconnaissance study shall normally be no 
more than twelve months, but in all cases is to be limited to 
eighteen months.
    [(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.--A feasibility study shall 
include an analysis of the benefits and costs, both quantified 
and unquantified, which analysis shall--
            (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 the 
        schedule affects the estimated benefits and costs;
            (3) identify local, regional, and national economic 
        costs and benefits;
            (4) identify environmental costs and benefits, 
        including the costs and benefits of protecting or 
        degrading 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;
            (6) identify cultural and historical costs and 
        benefits;
            (7) exclude from the estimate of benefits and costs 
        any increase in direct Federal payments or subsidies;
            (8) exclude as a benefit--
                    (A) any increase in direct Federal payments 
                or subsidies; and
                    (B) any project benefit attributable to any 
                change in, or intensification of, land use 
                arising from the draining, reduction, or 
                elimination of wetlands; and
            (9) apply a discount rate consistent with that used 
        by other Federal agencies for water resource 
        projects.''.
    (d) The Secretary shall undertake such measures as are 
necessary to ensure that standard and uniform procedures and 
practices are followed by each district office (and each 
division office for any area in which there is no district 
office) of the United States Army Corps of Engineers in the 
preparation of feasibility reports on water resources projects.
    (e) Enhanced Public Participation.--
            (1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish 
        procedures to enhance public participation in the 
        development of each feasibility study under subsection 
        (a), including, if appropriate, establishment of a 
        stakeholder advisory group to assist the Secretary with 
        the development of the study.
            (2) Membership.--If the Secretary provides for the 
        establishment of a stakeholder advisory group under 
        this subsection, the membership of the advisory group 
        shall include balanced representation of social, 
        economic, and environmental interest groups, and such 
        members shall serve on a voluntary, uncompensated 
        basis.
            (3) Limitation.--Procedures established under this 
        subsection shall not delay development of any 
        feasibility study under subsection (a).
    (f) Duration.--The duration of a feasibility study shall 
normally be not more than 2 years, but in no case may be longer 
than 3 years.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 906. FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION.

    [(a)(1) In the case]
    (a) Mitigation.--
            (1) In general.--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,] 
        interests, whichever the Secretary determines is 
        appropriate, shall be undertaken or acquired--
                    (A) before any construction of the project 
                (other than such acquisition) commences; or
                    (B) concurrently with the acquisition of 
                land and interests in land for project purposes 
                (other than mitigation of fish and wildlife 
                losses); 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]
            (2) Commencement of construction.--For the purpose 
        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) Implementation.--
                    (A) In general.--Except as provided in 
                subparagraph (B), to ensure concurrent 
                mitigation, the Secretary shall--
                            (i) construct 100 percent of 
                        required off-site mitigation before 50 
                        percent of construction of a project is 
                        completed; and
                            (ii) complete required on-site 
                        mitigation as expeditiously as 
                        practicable, but not later than the 
                        last day of construction of the project 
                        or separable element of the project.
                    (B) Exception for physical 
                impracticability.--In a case in which the 
                Secretary determines that it is physically 
                impracticable to meet the requirements of 
                subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall reserve 
                or reprogram sufficient funds to ensure that 
                mitigation implementation is completed as 
                expeditiously as practicable, but in no case 
                later than the end of the next fiscal year 
                immediately following the last day of 
                construction of the project or separable 
                element of the project.
            (4) Use of funds.--Funds made available for 
        preconstruction engineering and design, construction, 
        or operations and maintenance shall be available for 
        use in carrying out this section.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (d) Mitigation Plans as Part of Project Proposals.--
            (1) In general.--After November 17, 1986, the 
        Secretary shall not select in any final environmental 
        impact statement, record of decision, or any general 
        reauthorization report or submit any proposal for the 
        authorization of any water resources project to the 
        Congress unless such report, environmental impact 
        statement, record of decision, or general 
        reauthorization 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) Standards for mitigation.--
                    (A) In general.--To mitigate losses to fish 
                and wildlife resulting from a water resource 
                project, the Secretary shall, at a minimum, 
                acquire and restore the same number of acres of 
                habitat that fully replace the hydrologic and 
                ecological functions and characteristics of 
                each acre of habitat adversely affected by the 
                project.
                    (B) Mitigation plan.--
                            (i) In general.--The specific 
                        mitigation plan for a water resources 
                        project described in paragraph (1) 
                        shall include, at a minimum--
                                    (I) the recommended plan to 
                                mitigate the impacts of the 
                                project as identified in 
                                paragraph (1), including 
                                sufficient detail to permit a 
                                thorough evaluation of the 
                                plan's likelihood of meeting 
                                the success criteria 
                                established in subclause (II);
                                    (II) specific time-
                                dependent success criteria, 
                                prepared in consultation with 
                                the United States Fish and 
                                Wildlife Service, by which the 
                                mitigation will be evaluated 
                                and determined to be 
                                successful;
                                    (III) a description, in the 
                                Real Estate Plan, of the land 
                                and interests in land to be 
                                used for mitigation and as the 
                                basis for a determination that 
                                land and interests will be 
                                available at the time required;
                                    (IV) a schedule for--
                                            (aa) monitoring 
                                        attempted mitigation 
                                        implementation; and
                                            (bb) evaluating the 
                                        degree to which the 
                                        attempted mitigation 
                                        does or does not meet 
                                        the success criteria 
                                        established for the 
                                        mitigation plan under 
                                        subclause (II) until 
                                        attempted mitigation 
                                        meets the success 
                                        criteria; and
                                    (V) taking corrective 
                                actions in a case in which 
                                mitigation efforts are not 
                                achieving the success criteria.
                            (ii) Cost sharing.--Monitoring 
                        under clause (i)(IV)--
                                    (I) shall be cost-shared in 
                                accordance with the original 
                                construction project for a 
                                maximum of 10 years; and
                                    (II) shall be 100 percent 
                                non-Federal after 10 years.
                    (B) Applicable law.--A time period for 
                mitigation monitoring or for the implementation 
                and monitoring of contingency plan actions 
                shall not be subject to the deadlines described 
                in subsection (b).
            (4) Determination of mitigation success.--
                    (A) In general.--Mitigation shall be 
                considered to be successful at the time at 
                which monitoring demonstrates that the 
                mitigation has met the success criteria 
                established in the mitigation plan under 
                paragraph (3)(B).
                    (B) Requirements for success.--To ensure 
                the success of any attempted mitigation, the 
                Secretary shall--
                            (i) consult annually with the 
                        United States Fish and Wildlife Service 
                        on each water resource project 
                        requiring mitigation to determine 
                        whether mitigation monitoring for that 
                        project demonstrates that the project 
                        is achieving, or has achieved, the 
                        success criteria established in the 
                        mitigation plan under paragraph (3); 
                        and
                            (ii) ensure that implementation of 
                        correction actions is initiated under 
                        paragraph (3)(B)(i)(V) beginning not 
                        later than 30 days after a finding by 
                        the Secretary, either alone or in 
                        consultation with the United States 
                        Fish and Wildlife Service, that the 
                        original mitigation efforts likely will 
                        not result in, or have not resulted in, 
                        meeting the success criteria 
                        established in the mitigation plan 
                        under paragraph (3)(B).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SECTION 912. SECTION 221 AGREEMENTS.

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (b)(42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b note)(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 1999''.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

                  [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.]
    (a) In General.--In connection with dredging for 
construction, operation, or maintenance by the Secretary of an 
authorized navigation project, the Secretary may carry out 
projects for--
            (1) the protection, restoration, and creation of 
        aquatic and ecologically related habitats, including 
        wetland; and
            (2) the transport and placement of suitable dredged 
        material 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, or rehabilitation of projects 
        associated with navigation, flood damage reduction, 
        hydroelectric power, municipal and industrial water 
        supply, agricultural water supply, recreation, 
        hurricane and storm damage reduction, aquatic plant 
        control, and environmental protection and restoration.
    (b) Secretarial Findings.--Subject to subsection (c) of 
this section, projects [for the protection, restoration, or 
creation of aquatic and ecologically related habitats] 
undertaken under subsection (a) 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[.] ; and
            (3) the project complies with all applicable 
        Federal, State, and local laws.
    (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] to 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) Regional Sediment Management Plans.--
            (1) In general.--In consultation and cooperation 
        with the appropriate Federal, State, and regional 
        agencies, the Secretary shall develop plans for 
        regional management of sediment dredged in conjunction 
        with construction, operation, and maintenance of 
        navigation projects, including potential beneficial 
        uses for projects described in subsection (a).
            (2) Costs.--The costs of developing a plan under 
        paragraph (1) shall be paid by the Secretary.
    (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; and
            (3) Toledo Harbor, Lucas County, Ohio.
    [(e)] (g) 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)] (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is 
authorized to be appropriated not to exceed [$15,000,000] 
$30,000,000 annually to carry out this section. Such sums shall 
remain available until expended.
    [(g)] (i) 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

                  [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.
    (b) Cost Sharing.--
            (1) In general.--Non-Federal interests shall 
        provide 35 percent of the cost of construction of any 
        project carried out under this section, including 
        provision of all lands, easements, rights-of-way, and 
        necessary relocations.
            (2) Form.--Before October 1, 2003, the Federal 
        share of the cost of a project under this section may 
        be provided in the form of reimbursements of project 
        costs.
    (c) Agreements.--
            (1) In general.--Construction of a project under 
        this section shall be initiated only after a non-
        Federal interest has entered into a binding agreement 
        with the Secretary to pay the non-Federal share of the 
        costs of construction required by this section and to 
        pay 100 percent of any operation, maintenance, and 
        replacement and rehabilitation costs with respect to 
        the project in accordance with regulations prescribed 
        by the Secretary.
            (2) Nonprofit entities.--Notwithstanding section 
        221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-
        5b), 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.
    (d) Cost Limitation.--Not more than $5,000,000 in Federal 
funds may be allotted under this section for a project at any 
single locality.
    (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) General rule.--Subject to appropriations Acts, 
        the Secretary may reimburse any non-Federal interest an 
        amount equal to the estimate of the Federal share, 
        without interest, of the cost of any authorized flood 
        control project, or separable element of a flood 
        control project, constructed pursuant to this section 
        and provide credit for the non-Federal share of the 
        project--
                    (A) if, after authorization and before 
                initiation of construction of the project or 
                separable element, the Secretary approves the 
                plans for construction of such project by the 
                non-Federal interest;
                    (B) if the Secretary finds, after a review 
                of studies and design documents prepared 
                pursuant to this section, that construction of 
                the project or separable element is 
                economically justified and environmentally 
                acceptable; and
                    (C) if the construction work is 
                substantially in accordance with plans prepared 
                under subsection (b).
            (2) Special rules.--
                    (A) Reimbursement or credit.--For work 
                (including work associated with studies, 
                planning, design, and construction) carried out 
                by a non-Federal interest with respect to a 
                project described in subsection (f), the 
                Secretary shall, subject to the availability of 
                appropriations, reimburse, without interest, 
                the non-Federal interest an amount equal to the 
                estimated Federal share of the cost of such 
                work, or provide credit (depending on the 
                request of the non-Federal interest) for the 
                non-Federal share of such work, if such work is 
                later recommended by the Chief of Engineers and 
                approved by the Secretary.
                    (B) Credit.--If the non-Federal interest 
                for a project described in subsection (f) 
                carries out work before completion of a 
                reconnaissance study by the Secretary and if 
                such work is determined by the Secretary to be 
                compatible with the project later recommended 
                by the Secretary, the Secretary shall credit 
                the non-Federal interest for its share of the 
                cost of the project for such work.
            (3) Matters to be considered in reviewing plans.--
        In reviewing plans under this subsection, the Secretary 
        shall consider budgetary and programmatic priorities 
        and other factors that the Secretary considers 
        appropriate.
            (4) Monitoring.--The Secretary shall regularly 
        monitor and audit any project for flood control 
        approved for construction under this section by a non-
        Federal interest to ensure that such construction is in 
        compliance with the plans approved by the Secretary and 
        that the costs are reasonable.
            (5) Limitation on reimbursements.--The Secretary 
        may not make any reimbursement under this section until 
        the Secretary determines that the work for which 
        reimbursement is requested has been performed in 
        accordance with applicable permits and approved plans.
            (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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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 2005 and each fiscal year 
thereafter. The Secretary may accept and expend additional 
funds from other Federal agencies or international 
organizations 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 may include lowering the crest of the 
        Dam by not more than 12.5 feet).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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. 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 teh 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. 225. RECREATION USER FEES.

    (a) Withholding of Amounts.--
            (1) In general.--[During fiscal years 1999 through 
        2002, the] The Secretary may withhold from the special 
        account established under section 4(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)).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (3) Availability.--The amounts withheld shall 
        remain available until [September 30, 2005] expended.
    (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[.]; and
            (9) planning.
    (c) Availability.--[Each] Eighty percent of 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,] by the District of the 
Corps of Engineers from which the amount is collected.
    (d) Recreation User Fee Program.--
            (1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out a 
        recreation user fee program to attempt to recover from 
        users the costs of operating and maintaining recreation 
        areas or sites on project land.
            (2) Admission and user fees.--
                    (A) In general.--In carrying out the 
                program, the Secretary shall charge and collect 
                fees, in an amount determined under 
                subparagraph (B), for--
                            (i) admission to the recreation 
                        area or site by individuals or groups; 
                        or
                            (ii) the use of outdoor recreation 
                        sites, facilities, visitor centers, 
                        equipment, and services by individuals 
                        and groups.
                    (B) Amount.--The Secretary shall determine 
                the amount of fees charged and collected under 
                subparagraph (A), which, to maximize the 
                recreation benefits of the projects, shall be 
                based on the fair market value of the admission 
                or use.
                    (C) Contract.--The Secretary may--
                            (i) enter into a contract 
                        (including a contract that provides for 
                        reasonable commissions) with any public 
                        or private entity to provide visitor 
                        services for the recreation area or 
                        site, including taking reservations and 
                        providing information on the recreation 
                        area or site; and
                            (ii) accept the services of 
                        volunteers to collect the fees charged 
                        under subparagraph (A).
            (3) Leases.--
                    (A) In general.--The Secretary shall charge 
                and collect rents for any lease entered into 
                between the Secretary and a non-Federal entity 
                relating to project land.
                    (B) Term.--A lease entered into under 
                subparagraph (A)--
                            (i) shall be for an initial period 
                        of not more than 25 years; and
                            (ii) may be renewed for an 
                        additional 25-year term.
                    (C) Termination.--A lease entered into 
                under subparagraph (A) shall provide that the 
                lease shall be terminated if the Secretary 
                determines that the project land subject to the 
                lease has not been used by the non-Federal 
                entity for recreation or any other purpose 
                specified in the lease.
                    (D) Payments in lieu of taxes.--Land leased 
                to non-Federal entities for recreational 
                purposes shall be subject to chapter 69 of 
                title 31, United States Code.
            (4) Other fees.--Fees charged and collected under 
        this section shall be in lieu of fees charged under any 
        other provision of law.''.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 514. MISSOURI AND MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI RIVERS ENHANCEMENT PROJECT.

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (g) 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 2003 [and 2004] through 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) Credit.--A non-Federal interest shall receive credit 
toward the non-Federal share of cost of a project under this 
section for design and construction services and other in-kind 
consideration provided by the non-Federal interest if the 
Secretary determines that the design and construction services 
and other in-kind contributions are integral to the project.
    (i) 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.
    (j) 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) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (e) No Effect on Liability.--The provision of financial 
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.
    (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].
    [(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. 591. ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION, FRONT ROYAL, VIRGINIA.

    (a) Participation of Secretary.--
            (1) * * *
            (2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is 
        authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
        [$12,000,000] $22,000,000.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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 2004 
        and 2005; 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 2004 
        and 2005; and
            (2) such sums as are necessary for each subsequent 
        fiscal year.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

                  [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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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
                    (B) such sums as are necessary to carry out 
                subsection (e)(2)(B).
            (2) Availability of funds.--Sums made available to 
        carry out this section shall remain available until 
        expended

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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. 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
to be appropriated to carry out this section [$20,000,000] 
$32,000,000, to remain available until expended.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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. 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                                 

```