19–006 

108TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 108–265 

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2003 

SEPTEMBER 5, 2003.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, from the Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 2557] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 2557) 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, having considered the same, report favorably thereon 

with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do 

pass. 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Water Resources Development Act of 2003’’. 

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.— 

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. 

Sec. 2. Definition of secretary. 

TITLE I—WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS 

Sec. 1001. Project authorizations. 

Sec. 1002. Small projects for flood damage reduction. 

Sec. 1003. Small projects for emergency streambank protection. 

Sec. 1004. Small projects for navigation. 

Sec. 1005. Small projects for improvement of the quality of the environment. 

Sec. 1006. Small projects for aquatic ecosystem restoration. 

Sec. 1007. Small projects for shoreline protection. 

sec. 1008. Small projects for snagging and sediment removal. 

TITLE II—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Sec. 2001. Annual passes for recreation. 

Sec. 2002. Non-Federal contributions. 

Sec. 2003. Harbor cost sharing. 

Sec. 2004. Funding to process permits. 

Sec. 2005. National shoreline erosion control development and demonstration program. 

Sec. 2006. Written agreement for water resources projects. 

Sec. 2007. Assistance for remediation, restoration, and reuse. 

2 

Sec. 2008. Compilation of laws. 

Sec. 2009. Dredged material disposal. 

Sec. 2010. Wetlands mitigation. 

Sec. 2011. Remote and subsistence harbors. 

Sec. 2012. Beneficial uses of dredged material. 

Sec. 2013. Cost sharing provisions for certain areas. 

Sec. 2014. Revision of project partnership agreement. 

Sec. 2015. Cost sharing. 

Sec. 2016. Credit for work performed before partnership agreement. 

Sec. 2017. Recreation user fee revenues. 

Sec. 2018. Expedited actions for emergency flood damage reduction. 

Sec. 2019. Watershed and river basin assessments. 

Sec. 2020. Tribal partnership program. 

Sec. 2021. Treatment of certain separable elements. 

Sec. 2022. Prosecution of work. 

Sec. 2023. Wildfire firefighting. 

Sec. 2024. Credit for nonconstruction services. 

Sec. 2025. Technical assistance. 

Sec. 2026. Centers of specialized planning expertise. 

Sec. 2027. Coordination and scheduling of Federal, State, and local actions. 

Sec. 2028. Project streamlining. 

Sec. 2029. Lakes program. 

Sec. 2030. Mitigation for fish and wildlife losses. 

Sec. 2031. Cooperative agreements. 

Sec. 2032. Project planning. 

Sec. 2033. Independent peer review. 

TITLE III—PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS 

Sec. 3001. Cook Inlet, Alaska. 

Sec. 3002. King Cove Harbor, Alaska. 

Sec. 3003. Sitka, Alaska. 

Sec. 3004. Tatilek, Alaska. 

Sec. 3005. Nogales Wash and tributaries, Arizona. 

Sec. 3006. Grand Prairie Region and Bayou Meto Basin, Arkansas. 

Sec. 3007. Saint Francis Basin, Arkansas. 

Sec. 3008. American and Sacramento Rivers, California. 

Sec. 3009. Cache Creek Basin, California. 

Sec. 3010. Grayson Creek/Murderer’s Creek, California. 

Sec. 3011. John F. Baldwin Ship Channel and Stockton Ship Channel, California. 

Sec. 3012. Los Angeles Harbor, Los Angeles, California. 

Sec. 3013. Larkspur Ferry Channel, Larkspur, California. 

Sec. 3014. Napa River Salt Marsh Restoration, Napa River, California. 

Sec. 3015. Pacific Flyway Center, Sacramento, California. 

Sec. 3016. Pinole Creek, California. 

Sec. 3017. Prado Dam, California. 

Sec. 3018. Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel, California. 

Sec. 3019. Sacramento River, Glenn-Colusa, California. 

Sec. 3020. San Lorenzo River, California. 

Sec. 3021. Upper Guadalupe River, California. 

Sec. 3022. Walnut Creek Channel, California. 

Sec. 3023. Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase I, California. 

Sec. 3024. Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase II, California. 

Sec. 3025. Brevard County, Florida. 

Sec. 3026. Broward County and Hillsboro Inlet, Florida. 

Sec. 3027. Gasparilla and Estero Islands, Florida. 

Sec. 3028. Lido Key Beach, Sarasota, Florida. 

Sec. 3029. Manatee Harbor, Florida. 

Sec. 3030. Tampa Harbor, Florida. 

Sec. 3031. Tampa Harbor-Big Bend Channel, Florida. 

Sec. 3032. Miami Harbor, Florida. 

Sec. 3033. Little Wood River, Gooding, Idaho. 

Sec. 3034. Hennepin-Hopper Lakes, Illinois. 

Sec. 3035. Mississippi River and Big Muddy River, Illinois. 

Sec. 3036. Spunky Bottoms, Illinois. 

Sec. 3037. Emiquon, Illinois. 

Sec. 3038. Little Calumet River, Indiana. 

Sec. 3039. White River, Indiana. 

Sec. 3040. Wolf Lake, Indiana. 

Sec. 3041. Prestonsburg, Kentucky. 

Sec. 3042. Amite River and tributaries, Louisiana, East Baton Rouge Parish Watershed. 

Sec. 3043. Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana. 

Sec. 3044. Public access, Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Louisiana. 

Sec. 3045. J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport, Louisiana. 

Sec. 3046. Mississippi Delta Region, Louisiana. 

Sec. 3047. New Orleans to Venice, Louisiana. 

Sec. 3048. West Bank of the Mississippi River (East of Harvey Canal), Louisiana. 

Sec. 3049. Camp Ellis, Saco, Maine. 

Sec. 3050. Union River, Maine. 

Sec. 3051. Cass River, Spaulding Township, Michigan. 

Sec. 3052. Detroit River Shoreline, Detroit, Michigan. 

Sec. 3053. Water Resources Institute, Muskegon, Michigan. 

Sec. 3054. Saginaw River, Bay City, Michigan. 

Sec. 3055. Ada, Minnesota. 

Sec. 3056. Duluth Harbor, McQuade Road, Minnesota. 

Sec. 3057. Grand Portage Harbor, Minnesota. 

Sec. 3058. Granite Falls, Minnesota. 

Sec. 3059. Minneapolis, Minnesota. 

Sec. 3060. Red Lake River, Minnesota. 

Sec. 3061. Silver Bay, Minnesota. 

Sec. 3062. Taconite Harbor, Minnesota. 

Sec. 3063. Two Harbors, Minnesota. 

3 

Sec. 3064. Deer Island, Harrison County, Mississippi. 

Sec. 3065. Bois Brule Drainage and Levee District, Missouri. 

Sec. 3066. Sand Creek Watershed, Wahoo, Nebraska. 

Sec. 3067. Alamogordo, New Mexico. 

Sec. 3068. Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York. 

Sec. 3069. Times Beach, Buffalo, New York. 

Sec. 3070. Port of New York and New Jersey, New York and New Jersey. 

Sec. 3071. New York State Canal System. 

Sec. 3072. Arcadia Lake, Oklahoma. 

Sec. 3073. Willamette River Temperature Control, McKenzie Subbasin, Oregon. 

Sec. 3074. French Creek, Union City Dam, Pennsylvania. 

Sec. 3075. Lackawanna River at Olyphant, Pennsylvania. 

Sec. 3076. Lackawanna River at Scranton, Pennsylvania. 

Sec. 3077. Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania. 

Sec. 3078. Sheraden Park Stream and Chartiers Creek, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. 

Sec. 3079. Solomon’s Creek, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. 

Sec. 3080. South Central Pennsylvania. 

Sec. 3081. Wyoming Valley, Pennsylvania. 

Sec. 3082. Little Limestone Creek, Jonesborough, Tennessee. 

Sec. 3083. Cedar Bayou, Texas. 

Sec. 3084. Lake Kemp, Texas. 

Sec. 3085. Lower Rio Grande Basin, Texas. 

Sec. 3086. North Padre Island, Corpus Christi Bay, Texas. 

Sec. 3087. Proctor Lake, Texas. 

Sec. 3088. San Antonio Channel, San Antonio, Texas. 

Sec. 3089. Elizabeth River, Chesapeake, Virginia. 

Sec. 3090. Roanoke River Upper Basin, Virginia. 

Sec. 3091. Blair and Sitcum Waterways, Tacoma Harbor, Washington. 

Sec. 3092. Greenbrier River Basin, West Virginia. 

Sec. 3093. Manitowoc Harbor, Wisconsin. 

Sec. 3094. Mississippi River Headwaters Reservoirs. 

Sec. 3095. Continuation of project authorizations. 

Sec. 3096. Project reauthorizations. 

Sec. 3097. Project deauthorizations. 

Sec. 3098. Land conveyances. 

Sec. 3099. Extinguishment of reversionary interests and use restrictions. 

Sec. 3100. Land exchange, disposal and acquisition of lands, Allatoona Lake, Georgia. 

TITLE IV—STUDIES 

Sec. 4001. John Glenn Great Lakes basin program. 

Sec. 4002. St. George Harbor, Alaska. 

Sec. 4003. Susitna River, Alaska. 

Sec. 4004. Searcy County, Arkansas. 

Sec. 4005. Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin. 

Sec. 4006. Hamilton, California. 

Sec. 4007. Oceanside, California. 

Sec. 4008. Sacramento River, California. 

Sec. 4009. San Francisco Bay, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California. 

Sec. 4010. Tybee Island, Georgia. 

Sec. 4011. Calumet Harbor, Illinois. 

Sec. 4012. Paducah, Kentucky. 

Sec. 4013. Bastrop-Morehouse Parish, Louisiana. 

Sec. 4014. West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana. 

Sec. 4015. City of Mackinac Island, Michigan. 

Sec. 4016. Chicago, Illinois. 

Sec. 4017. South Branch, Chicago River, Chicago, Illinois. 

Sec. 4018. Northeast Mississippi. 

Sec. 4019. Pueblo of Zuni, New Mexico. 

Sec. 4020. Hudson-Raritan Estuary, New York and New Jersey. 

Sec. 4021. Sac and Fox Nation, Oklahoma. 

Sec. 4022. Sutherlin, Oregon. 

Sec. 4023. Tillamook Bay and Bar, Oregon. 

Sec. 4024. Ecosystem restoration and fish passage improvements, Oregon. 

Sec. 4025. Northeastern Pennsylvania aquatic ecosystem restoration and protection. 

Sec. 4026. Georgetown and Williamsburg Counties, South Carolina. 

Sec. 4027. Sabine Pass to Galveston Bay, Texas. 

Sec. 4028. Grand County and Moab, Utah. 

Sec. 4029. Chehalis River Basin, Washington. 

Sec. 4030. Sprague, Lincoln County, Washington. 

Sec. 4031. Monongahela River Basin, Northern West Virginia. 

Sec. 4032. Wauwatosa, Wisconsin. 

TITLE V—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 

Sec. 5001. Maintenance of navigation channels. 

Sec. 5002. Watershed management. 

Sec. 5003. Dam safety. 

Sec. 5004. Structural integrity evaluations. 

Sec. 5005. Flood mitigation priority areas. 

Sec. 5006. Additional assistance for authorized projects. 

Sec. 5007. Expedited completion of reports and construction for certain projects. 

Sec. 5008. Expedited completion of reports for certain projects. 

Sec. 5009. Southeastern water resources assessment. 

Sec. 5010. Upper Mississippi River environmental management program. 

Sec. 5011. Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers enhancement project. 

Sec. 5012. Membership of Missouri River Trust. 

Sec. 5013. Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem restoration. 

Sec. 5014. Susquehanna, Delaware, and Potomac River basins. 

Sec. 5015. Chesapeake Bay environmental restoration and protection program. 

Sec. 5016. Montgomery, Alabama. 

Sec. 5017. Pinhook Creek, Huntsville, Alabama. 

Sec. 5018. Alaska. 

4 

Sec. 5019. Akutan Small Boat Harbor, Alaska. 

Sec. 5020. Lowell Creek Tunnel, Seward, Alaska. 

Sec. 5021. St. Herman and St. Paul Harbors, Kodiak, Alaska. 

Sec. 5022. Augusta and Clarendon, Arkansas. 

Sec. 5023. Loomis Landing, Arkansas. 

Sec. 5024. McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River navigation project, Arkansas and Oklahoma. 

Sec. 5025. St. Francis River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri. 

Sec. 5026. Cambria, California. 

Sec. 5027. Contra Costa Canal, Oakley and Knightsen, California; Mallard Slough, Pittsburg, California. 

Sec. 5028. East San Joaquin County, California. 

Sec. 5029. Sacramento Area, California. 

Sec. 5030. Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel, California. 

Sec. 5031. San Francisco, California. 

Sec. 5032. San Francisco, California, waterfront area. 

Sec. 5033. Stockton, California. 

Sec. 5034. Charles Hervey Townshend Breakwater, Connecticut. 

Sec. 5035. Everglades restoration, Florida. 

Sec. 5036. Florida Keys water quality improvements. 

Sec. 5037. Lake Worth, Florida. 

Sec. 5038. Lake Lanier, Georgia. 

Sec. 5039. Riley Creek recreation area, Idaho. 

Sec. 5040. Reconstruction of Illinois flood protection projects. 

Sec. 5041. Kaskaskia River basin, Illinois, restoration. 

Sec. 5042. Natalie Creek, Midlothian and Oak Forest, Illinois. 

Sec. 5043. Peoria riverfront development, Peoria, Illinois. 

Sec. 5044. Illinois River basin restoration. 

Sec. 5045. Calumet region, Indiana. 

Sec. 5046. Rathbun Lake, Iowa. 

Sec. 5047. Cumberland River Basin, Kentucky. 

Sec. 5048. Mayfield Creek and tributaries, Kentucky. 

Sec. 5049. North Fork, Kentucky River, Breathitt County, Kentucky. 

Sec. 5050. Southern and Eastern Kentucky. 

Sec. 5051. Coastal Louisiana ecosystem protection and restoration. 

Sec. 5052. Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 

Sec. 5053. West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana. 

Sec. 5054. Chesapeake Bay shoreline, Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Delaware. 

Sec. 5055. Delmarva conservation corridor, Maryland. 

Sec. 5056. Detroit River, Michigan. 

Sec. 5057. Oakland County, Michigan. 

Sec. 5058. St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair, Michigan. 

Sec. 5059. Garrison and Kathio Township, Minnesota. 

Sec. 5060. Northeastern Minnesota. 

Sec. 5061. Desoto County, Mississippi. 

Sec. 5062. Harrison, Hancock, and Jackson Counties, Mississippi. 

Sec. 5063. Mississippi River, Missouri, and Illinois. 

Sec. 5064. St. Louis, Missouri. 

Sec. 5065. Hackensack Meadowlands area, New Jersey. 

Sec. 5066. Atlantic Coast of New York. 

Sec. 5067. College Point, New York City, New York. 

Sec. 5068. Flushing Bay and Creek, New York City, New York. 

Sec. 5069. Little Neck Bay, Village of Kings Point, New York. 

Sec. 5070. Onondaga Lake, New York. 

Sec. 5071. John H. Kerr Dam and Reservoir, North Carolina. 

Sec. 5072. Stanly County, North Carolina. 

Sec. 5073. Central Riverfront Park, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

Sec. 5074. Piedmont Lake Dam, Ohio. 

Sec. 5075. Ohio. 

Sec. 5076. Waurika Lake, Oklahoma. 

Sec. 5077. Columbia River, Oregon. 

Sec. 5078. Eugene, Oregon. 

Sec. 5079. John Day Lock and Dam, Lake Umatilla, Oregon and Washington. 

Sec. 5080. Lowell, Oregon. 

Sec. 5081. Hagerman’s Run, Williamsport, Pennsylvania. 

Sec. 5082. Northeast Pennsylvania. 

Sec. 5083. Susquehannock Campground access road, Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania. 

Sec. 5084. Upper Susquehanna River basin, Pennsylvania and New York. 

Sec. 5085. Washington, Greene, Westmoreland, and Fayette Counties, Pennsylvania. 

Sec. 5086. Cano Martin Pena, San Juan, Puerto Rico. 

Sec. 5087. Beaufort and Jasper Counties, South Carolina. 

Sec. 5088. Cooper River, South Carolina. 

Sec. 5089. Lakes Marion and Moultrie, South Carolina. 

Sec. 5090. Upper Big Sioux River, Watertown, South Dakota. 

Sec. 5091. Fritz Landing, Tennessee. 

Sec. 5092. Memphis, Tennessee. 

Sec. 5093. Town Creek, Lenoir City, Tennessee. 

Sec. 5094. Tennessee River partnership. 

Sec. 5095. Clear Creek and tributaries, Harris, Galveston, and Brazoria Counties, Texas. 

Sec. 5096. Harris County, Texas. 

Sec. 5097. Harris Gully, Harris County, Texas. 

Sec. 5098. Onion Creek, Texas. 

Sec. 5099. Pelican Island, Texas. 

Sec. 5100. Front Royal, Virginia. 

Sec. 5101. Richmond National Battlefield Park, Richmond, Virginia. 

Sec. 5102. Baker Bay and Ilwaco Harbor, Washington. 

Sec. 5103. Chehalis River, Centralia, Washington. 

Sec. 5104. Hamilton Island Campground, Washington. 

Sec. 5105. Puget Island, Washington. 

Sec. 5106. Bluestone, West Virginia. 

Sec. 5107. West Virginia and Pennsylvania flood control. 

Sec. 5108. Lower Kanawha River Basin, West Virginia. 

Sec. 5109. Central West Virginia. 

Sec. 5110. Southern West Virginia. 

5 

Sec. 5111. Construction of flood control projects by non-Federal interests. 

Sec. 5112. Bridge authorization. 

Sec. 5113. Additional assistance for critical projects. 

Sec. 5114. Use of Federal hopper dredge fleet. 

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SECRETARY. 

In this Act, the term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary of the Army. 

TITLE I—WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS 

SEC. 1001. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS. 

Except as otherwise provided in this section, the following projects for water re- sources development and conservation and other purposes are authorized to be carried out by the Secretary substantially in accordance with the plans, and subject 

to the conditions, described in the respective reports designated in this section: (1) AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED, CALIFORNIA.—The project for flood damage reduction and environmental restoration, American River Watershed, California: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated November 5, 2002, at a total cost 

of $257,300,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $201,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $56,100,000; except that the Secretary is authorized 

to accept funds from State and local governments and other Federal agencies 

for the purpose of constructing a permanent bridge instead of the temporary 

bridge described in the recommended plan and may construct such permanent 

bridge if all additional costs for such bridge, above the $36,000,000 provided for 

in the recommended plan for bridge construction, are provided by such governments or agencies. (2) PINE FLAT DAM AND RESERVOIR, CALIFORNIA.—The project for environ- mental restoration, Pine Flat Dam and Reservoir, Fresno County, California: 

Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated July 19, 2002, at a total cost of 

$38,480,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $24,930,000 and an estimated 

non-Federal cost of $13,550,000. 

(3) SOUTH PLATTE RIVER, DENVER, COLORADO.—The project for environmental restoration Denver County Reach, South Platte River, Denver, Colorado: Report 

of the Chief of Engineers, dated May 16, 2003, at a total cost of $17,997,000, 

with an estimated Federal cost of $11,698,000 and an estimated non-Federal 

cost of $6,299,000. 

(4) MORGANZA TO THE GULF OF MEXICO, LOUISIANA.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, 

Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated August 23, 2002, at a total cost of $719,00,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $467,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$252,000,000. 

(B) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of 

the cost of the project the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest for interim flood protection after March 31, 1989, if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project. 

(5) SMITH ISLAND, MARYLAND.—The project for environmental restoration and 

protection, Smith Island, Maryland: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated October 29, 2001, at a total cost of $8,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 

$5,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,800,000. 

(6) CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS.—The project for 

navigation and environmental restoration, Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Texas, 

Channel Improvement Project: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated June 2, 

2003, at a total cost of $153,808,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 

$73,554,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $80,254,000. 

(7) MATAGORDA BAY, TEXAS.—The project for navigation, Gulf Intracoastal 

Waterway, Brazos River to Port O’Connor, Matagorda Bay Re-Route, Texas: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated December 4, 2002, at a total cost of 

$14,515,000. The costs of construction of the project are to be paid 1⁄2 from 

amounts appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury and 1⁄2 from 

amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. 

(8) RIVERSIDE OXBOW, FORT WORTH, TEXAS.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for environmental restoration, Riverside 

Oxbow, Fort Worth, Texas: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated May 29, 

2003, at a total cost of $22,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 

$9,180,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $13,020,000. 

(B) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of 

the cost of the project the cost of design and construction work carried out 

on the Beach Street Dam and associated features by the non-Federal interVerDate mar 24 2004 14:17 May 03, 2004 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\PICKUP\HR265.XXX HR265
6 

est before the date of the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project. 

(9) DEEP CREEK, CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA.—The project for the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Bridge Replacement, Deep Creek, Chesapeake, Virginia: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated March 3, 2003, at a total cost of 

$22,178,000. 

SEC. 1002. SMALL PROJECTS FOR FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following 

projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is feasible, may carry out 

the project under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s): 

(1) CACHE RIVER BASIN, GRUBBS, ARKANSAS.—Project for flood damage reduction, Cache River basin, Grubbs, Arkansas. 

(2) SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN AND ORANGE COUNTY STREAMS, CALIFORNIA.— 

Project for flood damage reduction, Santa Ana River basin and Orange County 

streams, California. 

(3) STONY CREEK, OAK LAWN, ILLINOIS.—Project for flood damage reduction, 

Stony Creek, Oak Lawn, Illinois. 

(4) OLIVE HILL AND VICINITY, KENTUCKY.—Project for flood damage reduction, 

Olive Hill and vicinity, Kentucky. 

(5) NASHUA RIVER, FITCHBURG, MASSACHUSETTS.—Project for flood damage reduction, Nashua River, Fitchburg, Massachusetts. 

(6) SAGINAW RIVER, HAMILTON DAM, FLINT, MICHIGAN.—Project for flood damage reduction, Saginaw River, Hamilton Dam, Flint, Michigan. 

(7) MARSH CREEK, MINNESOTA.—Project for flood damage reduction, Marsh 

Creek, Minnesota. 

(8) ROSEAU RIVER, ROSEAU, MINNESOTA.—Project for flood damage reduction, 

Roseau River, Roseau, Minnesota. 

(9) SOUTH BRANCH OF THE WILD RICE RIVER, BORUP, MINNESOTA.—Project for 

flood damage reduction, South Branch of the Wild Rice River, Borup, Minnesota. 

(10) TWIN VALLEY LAKE, WILD RICE RIVER, MINNESOTA.—Project for flood damage reduction, Twin Valley Lake, Wild Rice River, Minnesota. 

(11) BLACKSNAKE CREEK, ST. JOSEPH, MISSOURI.—Project for flood damage reduction, Blacksnake Creek, St. Joseph, Missouri. 

(12) MCKEEL BROOK, NEW JERSEY.—Project for flood damage reduction, 

McKeel Brook, New Jersey. 

(13) EAST RIVER, SILVER BEACH, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK.—Project for flood 

damage reduction, East River, Silver Beach, New York City, New York. 

(14) RAMAPO RIVER, TOWN OF MONROE AND VILLAGES OF MONROE, KIRYAS JOEL, 

AND HARRIMAN, NEW YORK.—Project for flood damage reduction, Ramapo River, 

Town of Monroe and Villages of Monroe, Kiryas Joel, and Harriman, New York. 

(15) LITTLE MILL CREEK, SOUTHAMPTON, PENNSYLVANIA.—Project for flood 

damage reduction, Little Mill Creek, Southampton, Pennsylvania. 

(16) LITTLE NESHAMINY CREEK, WARRENTON, PENNSYLVANIA.—Project for flood 

damage reduction, Little Neshaminy Creek, Warrenton, Pennsylvania. 

(17) SURFSIDE BEACH, SOUTH CAROLINA.—Project for flood damage reduction, 

Surfside Beach and vicinity, South Carolina. 

(b) SPECIAL RULES.—In carrying out the project for flood damage reduction, South 

Branch of the Wild Rice River, Borup, Minnesota, referred to in subsection (a)(9) 

the Secretary may consider national ecosystem restoration benefits in determining 

the Federal interest in the project and shall allow the non-Federal interest to participate in the financing of the project in accordance with section 903(c) of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184) to the extent that the Secretary’s evaluation indicates that applying such section is necessary to implement 

the project. 

SEC. 1003. SMALL PROJECTS FOR EMERGENCY STREAMBANK PROTECTION. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following projects and, if the 

Secretary determines that a project is feasible, may carry out the project under section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r): 

(1) OUACHITA AND BLACK RIVERS, ARKANSAS.—Project for emergency 

streambank protection, Ouachita and Black Rivers, Arkansas. 

(2) MELVINA DITCH, CHICAGO RIDGE, ILLINOIS.—Project for emergency 

streambank protection for the east side of Melvina Ditch in the vicinity of 96th 

Street and Nashville Avenue, Chicago Ridge, Illinois. 

(3) MIDDLE FORK GRAND RIVER, GENTRY COUNTY, MISSOURI.—Project for emergency streambank protection, Middle Fork Grand River, Gentry County, Missouri. 

7 

(4) SHREWSBURY RIVER, RUMSON, NEW JERSEY.—Project for emergency 

streambank protection, Shrewsbury River, Rumson, New Jersey. 

(5) KOWAWESE UNIQUE AREA AND HUDSON RIVER, NEW WINDSOR, NEW YORK.— 

Project for emergency streambank protection, Kowawese Unique Area and Hudson River, New Windsor, New York. 

SEC. 1004. SMALL PROJECTS FOR NAVIGATION. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following projects and, if the 

Secretary determines that a project is feasible, may carry out the project under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577): 

(1) BLYTHEVILLE COUNTY HARBOR, ARKANSAS.—Project for navigation, Blytheville County Harbor, Arkansas. 

(2) EVANSTON, ILLINOIS.—Project for navigation, Evanston, Illinois. 

(3) NIAGARA FRONTIER TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY BOAT HARBOR, BUFFALO, 

NEW YORK.—Project for navigation, Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority 

Boat Harbor, Buffalo, New York. 

(4) WOODLAWN MARINA, LACKAWANNA, NEW YORK.—Project for navigation, 

Woodlawn Marina, Lackawanna, New York. 

(5) BAKER BAY AND ILWACO HARBOR, WASHINGTON.—Project for navigation, 

Baker Bay and Ilwaco Harbor, Washington. 

SEC. 1005. SMALL PROJECTS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE QUALITY OF THE ENVIRONMENT. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study for the following project and, if the Secretary 

determines that the project is appropriate, may carry out the project under section 

1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a): Project 

for improvement of the quality of the environment, Smithville Lake, Missouri. 

SEC. 1006. SMALL PROJECTS FOR AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following projects and, if the 

Secretary determines that a project is appropriate, may carry out the project under 

section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330): 

(1) COLORADO RIVER, YUMA, ARIZONA.—Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Colorado River, Yuma, Arizona. 

(2) CHINO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA.—Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, 

Chino Valley, California. 

(3) NEW AND ALAMO RIVERS, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—Project for 

aquatic ecosystem restoration, New and Alamo Rivers, Imperial County, California, including efforts to address invasive aquatic plant species. 

(4) SAN DIEGO RIVER, CALIFORNIA.—Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, 

San Diego River, California, including efforts to address invasive aquatic plant 

species. 

(5) STOCKTON DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL AND LOWER SAN JOAQUIN RIVER, 

CALIFORNIA.—Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Stockton Deep Water 

Ship Channel and lower San Joaquin River, California. 

(6) SWEETWATER RESERVOIR, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—Project for 

aquatic ecosystem restoration, Sweetwater Reservoir, San Diego County, California, including efforts to address invasive aquatic plant species. 

(7) BISCAYNE BAY, FLORIDA.—Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Biscayne Bay, Key Biscayne, Florida. 

(8) DESTIN HARBOR, FLORIDA.—Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, 

Destin Harbor, Florida. 

(9) CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER, COLUMBUS, GEORGIA, AND PHENIX CITY, ALABAMA.—Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, City Mills Dam and Eagle and 

Phenix Dam, Chattahoochee River, Columbus, Georgia, and Phenix City, Alabama. 

(10) CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER AND OCMULGEE RIVER BASINS, GEORGIA.—Project 

for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Chattahoochee River and Ocmulgee River basins, Gwinnett County, Georgia. 

(11) SNAKE RIVER, JEROME, IDAHO.—Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, 

Snake River, Jerome, Idaho. 

SEC. 1007. SMALL PROJECTS FOR SHORELINE PROTECTION. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study for the following project and, if the Secretary 

determines that the project is feasible, may carry out the project under section 3 

of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act authorizing Federal participation in the cost of protecting 

the shores of publicly owned property’’, approved August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426g): 

(1) NELSON LAGOON, ALASKA.—Project for shoreline protection, Nelson Lagoon, 

Alaska. 

8 

SEC. 1008. SMALL PROJECTS FOR SNAGGING AND SEDIMENT REMOVAL. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study for the following project and, if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible, the Secretary may carry out the project 

under section 2 of the Flood Control Act of August 28, 1937 (33 U.S.C. 701g): Project 

for removal of snags and clearing and straightening of channels for flood control, 

Kowawese Unique Area and Hudson River, New Windsor, New York. 

TITLE II—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

SEC. 2001. ANNUAL PASSES FOR RECREATION. 

Section 208(c)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 460d–3 note; 110 Stat. 3681; 113 Stat. 294) is amended by striking ‘‘the December 

31, 2003’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2004’’. 

SEC. 2002. NON-FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS. 

Section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213) is 

amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(n) NON-FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS.— 

‘‘(1) PROHIBITION ON SOLICITATION OF EXCESS CONTRIBUTIONS.—The Secretary 

may not solicit contributions from non-Federal interests for costs of constructing 

authorized water resources development projects or measures in excess of the 

non-Federal share assigned to the appropriate project purposes listed in subsections (a), (b), and (c) or condition Federal participation in such projects or 

measures on the receipt of such contributions. 

‘‘(2) LIMITATION ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subsection 

shall be construed to affect the Secretary’s authority under section 903(c) of this 

Act.’’. 

SEC. 2003. HARBOR COST SHARING. 

(a) PAYMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION.—Section 101(a)(1) of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211(a)(1); 100 Stat. 4082) is amended in each 

of subparagraphs (B) and (C) by striking ‘‘45 feet’’ and inserting ‘‘53 feet’’. 

(b) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—Section 101(b)(1) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 

2211(b)(1)) is amended by striking ‘‘45 feet’’ and inserting ‘‘53 feet’’. 

(c) DEFINITIONS.—Section 214 of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2241; 100 Stat. 4108) is 

amended in each of paragraphs (1) and (3) by striking ‘‘45 feet’’ and inserting ‘‘53 

feet’’. 

(d) APPLICABILITY.—The amendments made by subsections (a), (b), and (c) shall 

apply only to a project, or separable element of a project, on which a contract for 

physical construction has not been awarded before the date of enactment of this Act. 

SEC. 2004. FUNDING TO PROCESS PERMITS. 

Section 214(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2201 

note; 114 Stat. 2594) is amended by striking ‘‘2003’’ and inserting ‘‘2005’’. 

SEC. 2005. NATIONAL SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION 

PROGRAM. 

(a) EXTENSION OF PROGRAM.—Section 5(a) 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. 426h(a)), is amended by striking ‘‘6 

years’’ and inserting ‘‘10 years’’. 

(b) EXTENSION OF PLANNING, DESIGN, AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE.—Section 

5(b)(1)(A) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 426h(b)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ‘‘3 years’’ and 

inserting ‘‘6 years’’. 

(c) COST-SHARING; REMOVAL OF PROJECTS.—Section 5(b) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 

426h(b)) is amended— 

(1) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs (5) and (6), respectively; and 

(2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following: 

‘‘(3) COST SHARING.—The Secretary may enter into a cost-sharing agreement 

with a non-Federal interest to carry out a project, or a phase of a project, under 

the erosion control program in cooperation with the non-Federal interest. 

‘‘(4) REMOVAL OF PROJECTS.—The Secretary may pay all or a portion of the 

costs of removing a project, or an element of a project, constructed under the 

erosion control program if the Secretary determines during the term of the program that the project or element is detrimental to the environment, private 

property, or public safety.’’. 

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 5(e)(2) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 

426h(e)(2)) is amended by striking ‘‘$21,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$31,000,000’’. 

9 

SEC. 2006. WRITTEN AGREEMENT FOR WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS. 

(a) PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS.—Section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 

U.S.C. 1962d–5b) is amended— 

(1) in subsection (a)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘under the provisions’’ and all that follows through ‘‘under any other’’ and inserting ‘‘under any’’; (B) by inserting ‘‘partnership’’ after ‘‘written’’; 

(C) by striking ‘‘Secretary of the Army to furnish its required cooperation for’’ and inserting ‘‘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’’; and (D) by inserting after ‘‘$25,000.’’ the following: ‘‘Such agreement may in- clude a provision for liquidated damages in the event of a failure of one or 

more parties to perform.’’; (2) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and 

(3) by inserting after subsection (d) the following: ‘‘(e) LIMITATION.—Nothing in subsection (a) shall be construed as limiting the au- thority of the Secretary to ensure that a partnership agreement meets all requirements of law and policies of the Secretary in effect on the date of entry into the 

partnership agreement.’’. (b) LOCAL COOPERATION.—Section 912(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (101 Stat. 4190) is amended— 

(1) in paragraph (2)— (A) by striking ‘‘shall’’ the first place it appears and inserting ‘‘may’’; and 

(B) by striking the last sentence; and (2) in paragraph (4)— (A) by inserting after ‘‘injunction, for’’ the following: ‘‘payment of liq- uidated damages or, for’’; (B) by striking ‘‘to collect a civil penalty imposed under this section,’’; and 

(C) by striking ‘‘any civil penalty imposed under this section,’’ and insert- ing ‘‘any liquidated damages,’’. (c) APPLICABILITY.—The amendments made by subsections (a) and (b) only apply to partnership agreements entered into after the date of enactment of this Act; except that at the request of a non-Federal interest for a project the district engineer 

for the district in which the project is located may amend a project partnership 

agreement entered into on or before such date and under which construction on the 

project has not been initiated as of such date of enactment for the purpose of incorporating such amendments. (d) REFERENCES.— (1) TO COOPERATION AGREEMENTS.—Any reference in a law, regulation, docu- ment, or other paper of the United States to a cooperation agreement or project 

cooperation agreement shall be treated to be a reference to a partnership agreement or a project partnership agreement, respectively. 

(2) TO PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS.—Any reference to a partnership agreement 

or project partnership agreement in this Act (other than this section) shall be 

treated as a reference to a cooperation agreement or a project cooperation agreement, respectively. 

SEC. 2007. ASSISTANCE FOR REMEDIATION, RESTORATION, AND REUSE. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may provide to State and local governments assessment, planning, and design assistance for remediation, environmental restoration, or reuse of areas located within the boundaries of such State or local governments where such remediation, environmental restoration, or reuse will contribute 

to the improvement of water quality or the conservation of water and related resources of drainage basins and watersheds within the United States. 

(b) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—The non-Federal share of the cost of assistance provided under subsection (a) shall be 50 percent. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated 

to carry out this section $30,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008. 

SEC. 2008. COMPILATION OF LAWS. 

Within one year after the date of enactment of this Act, the laws of the United 

States relating to the improvement of rivers and harbors, flood control, beach erosion, and other water resources development enacted after November 8, 1966, and 

before January 1, 2004, shall be compiled under the direction of the Secretary and 

the Chief of Engineers and printed for the use of the Department of the Army, Congress, and the general public. The Secretary shall reprint the volumes containing 

such laws enacted before November 8, 1966. In addition, the Secretary shall include 

an index in each volume so compiled or reprinted. Not later than December 1, 2004, 

the Secretary shall transmit at least 25 copies of each such volume to the ComVerDate mar 24 2004 14:17 May 03, 2004 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\PICKUP\HR265.XXX HR265
10 

mittee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and 

the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate. 

SEC. 2009. DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL. 

Section 217 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2326a; 

110 Stat. 3694–3696) is amended— 

(1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); 

(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following: 

‘‘(c) GOVERNMENTAL PARTNERSHIPS.— 

‘‘(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. One or more of the parties of the 

agreement may perform the acquisition, design, construction, management, or 

operation of a dredged material processing, treatment, or disposal facility. If appropriate, the Secretary may combine portions of separate construction or maintenance appropriations from separate Federal projects with the appropriate 

combined cost-sharing between the various projects when the facility serves to 

manage dredged material from multiple Federal projects located in the geographic region of the facility. 

‘‘(2) PUBLIC FINANCING.— 

‘‘(A) AGREEMENTS.— 

‘‘(i) SPECIFIED FEDERAL FUNDING SOURCES AND COST SHARING.—The 

cost-sharing agreement used shall clearly specify the Federal funding 

sources and combined cost-sharing when applicable to multiple Federal 

navigation projects and the responsibilities and risks of each of the parties related to present and future dredged material managed by the facility. 

‘‘(ii) MANAGEMENT OF SEDIMENTS.—The cost-sharing agreement may 

include the management of sediments from the maintenance dredging 

of Federal navigation projects that do not have partnership agreements. The cost-sharing agreement may allow the non-Federal sponsor 

to receive reimbursable payments from the Federal Government for 

commitments made by the sponsor 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.—Nothing in this subsection supersedes or modifies existing 

agreements between the Federal Government and any non-Federal sponsors 

for the cost-sharing, construction, and operation and maintenance of Federal navigation projects. Subject to the approval of the Secretary and in accordance with existing laws, regulations, and policies, a non-Federal public 

sponsor of a Federal navigation project may seek credit for funds provided 

in 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. The non-Federal sponsor shall be responsible for providing all necessary lands, easements, rights-of-way, or relocations associated with the 

facility and shall receive credit for these items.’’; and 

(3) in each of subsections (d)(1) and (d)(2)(A), as so redesignated— 

(A) by inserting ‘‘and maintenance’’ after ‘‘operation’’; and 

(B) by inserting ‘‘processing, treatment, or’’ after ‘‘dredged material’’ the 

first place it appears. 

SEC. 2010. WETLANDS MITIGATION. 

In carrying out a water resources project that involves wetlands mitigation and 

that has impacts that occur within the service area of a mitigation bank, the Secretary, to the maximum extent practicable and where appropriate, shall give preference to the use of the mitigation bank if the bank contains sufficient available 

credits to offset the impact and the bank is approved in accordance with the Federal 

Guidance for the Establishment, Use and Operation of Mitigation Banks (60 Fed. 

Reg. 58605) or other applicable Federal law (including regulations). 

11 

SEC. 2011. REMOTE AND SUBSISTENCE HARBORS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—In conducting a study of harbor and navigation improvements, 

the Secretary may recommend a project without the need to demonstrate that the 

project is justified solely by national economic development benefits if the Secretary 

determines that— 

(1)(A) the community to be served by the project is at least 70 miles from the 

nearest surface accessible commercial port and has no direct rail or highway 

link to another community served by a surface accessible port or harbor; or 

(B) the project would be located in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, 

the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or American Samoa; 

(2) the harbor is economically critical such that over 80 percent of the goods 

transported through the harbor would be consumed within the community 

served by the harbor and navigation improvement; and 

(3) the long-term viability of the community would be threatened without the 

harbor and navigation improvement. 

(b) JUSTIFICATION.—In considering whether to recommend a project under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consider the benefits of the project to— 

(1) public health and safety of the local community, including access to facilities designed to protect public health and safety; 

(2) access to natural resources for subsistence purposes; 

(3) local and regional economic opportunities; 

(4) welfare of the local population; and 

(5) social and cultural value to the community. 

SEC. 2012. BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 

(33 U.S.C. 2326) is amended by striking subsections (c) through (g) and inserting 

the following: 

‘‘(c) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may carry out projects to transport and place 

suitable material dredged in connection with the construction, operation, or maintenance of an authorized navigation project at locations selected by a non-Federal entity for use in the construction, repair, or rehabilitation of projects determined by 

the Secretary to be in the public interest and 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. 

‘‘(d) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT.—Any project undertaken pursuant to this section 

shall be initiated only after non-Federal interests have entered into an agreement 

with the Secretary in which the non-Federal interests agree to pay the non-Federal 

share of the cost of construction of the project and 100 percent of the cost of operation, maintenance, replacement, and rehabilitation of the project in accordance 

with section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213). 

‘‘(e) SPECIAL RULE.—Construction of a project under subsection (a) for the protection and restoration of aquatic and ecologically related habitat the cost of which 

does not exceed $750,000 and which will be located in a disadvantaged community 

as determined by the Secretary may be carried out at Federal expense. 

‘‘(f) DETERMINATION OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS.—Costs associated with construction 

of a project under this section shall be limited solely to construction costs that are 

in excess of those costs necessary to carry out the dredging for construction, operation, or maintenance of the authorized navigation project in the most cost effective 

way, consistent with economic, engineering, and environmental criteria. 

‘‘(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 (d). 

‘‘(h) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—Notwithstanding section 221 of the Flood Control Act 

of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), for any project carried out under this section, a nonFederal interest may include a nonprofit entity, with the consent of the affected 

local government. 

‘‘(i) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated 

$30,000,000 annually for projects under this section of which not more than 

$3,000,000 annually may be used for construction of projects described in subsection 

(e). Such sums shall remain available until expended. 

‘‘(j) REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT PLANNING.—In consultation with appropriate State and Federal agencies, the Secretary may develop, at Federal expense, 

12 

plans for regional management of material dredged in conjunction with the construction, operation, or maintenance of navigation projects, including potential beneficial uses of dredged material for construction, repair, or rehabilitation of public 

projects for 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) REPEAL.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 145 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C. 426j) is repealed. (2) HOLD HARMLESS.—The repeal made by paragraph (1) shall not affect the authority of the Secretary to complete any project being carried out under such 

section 145 on the day before the date of enactment of this Act. (c) PRIORITY AREAS.—In carrying out section 204 of the Water Resources Develop- ment Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326), the Secretary shall give priority to a project for 

the beaches of Bogues Bank in the vicinity of Morehead City, North Carolina, and 

a project in the vicinity of the Smith Point Park Pavilion and the TWA Flight 800 

Memorial, Brookhaven, New York. 

SEC. 2013. COST SHARING PROVISIONS FOR CERTAIN AREAS. 

Section 1156 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2310; 100 Stat. 4256) is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘SEC. 1156. COST SHARING PROVISIONS FOR CERTAIN AREAS. 

‘‘The Secretary shall waive local cost-sharing requirements up to $500,000 for all studies and projects in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, 

the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the United States Virgin 

Islands, in Indian country (as defined in section 1151 of title 18, United States 

Code, and including lands that are within the jurisdictional area of an Oklahoma 

Indian tribe, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior, and are recognized by 

the Secretary of the Interior as eligible for trust land status under part 151 of title 

25, Code of Federal Regulations) or on land in the State of Alaska conveyed to an 

Alaska Native Village Corporation under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 

(43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.).’’. 

SEC. 2014. REVISION OF PROJECT PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT. 

Upon authorization by law of an increase in the maximum amount of Federal funds that may be allocated for a project or an increase in the total cost of a project 

authorized to be carried out by the Secretary, the Secretary shall revise the project 

partnership agreement for the project to take into account the change in Federal 

participation in the project. 

SEC. 2015. COST SHARING. 

An increase in the maximum amount of Federal funds that may be allocated for a project or an increase in the total cost of a project authorized to be carried out 

by the Secretary shall not affect any cost sharing requirement applicable to the 

project under title I of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 

2211 et seq.). 

SEC. 2016. CREDIT FOR WORK PERFORMED BEFORE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT. 

If the Secretary is authorized to credit toward the non-Federal share the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership 

agreement for the project and such work has not been carried out as of the date 

of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall enter into an agreement with the nonFederal interest for the project under which the non-Federal interest shall carry out 

such work, and the credit shall apply only to work carried out under the agreement. 

SEC. 2017. RECREATION USER FEE REVENUES. 

Section 225 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 297–298) 

is amended— 

(1) in subsection (a)(1) by striking ‘‘During fiscal years 1999 through 2002, 

the’’ and inserting ‘‘The’’; and 

(2) in subsection (a)(3) by striking ‘‘September 30, 2005’’ and inserting ‘‘expended’’. 

SEC. 2018. EXPEDITED ACTIONS FOR EMERGENCY FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION. 

The Secretary shall expedite any authorized planning, design, and construction of 

any project for flood damage reduction for an area that, within the preceding 5 

years, has been subject to flooding that resulted in the loss of life and caused damage of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a declaration of a major disaster 

by the President under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster and Emergency Relief Act 

(42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.). 

13 

SEC. 2019. WATERSHED AND RIVER BASIN ASSESSMENTS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 729 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 

(33 U.S.C. 2267a; 114 Stat. 2587–2588; 100 Stat. 4164) is amended— 

(1) in subsection (d)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (4); 

(B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (5) and inserting ‘‘; 

and’’; and 

(C) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(6) Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California.’’; 

(2) by striking paragraph (1) of subsection (f) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(1) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—The non-Federal share of the costs of an assessment carried out under this section on or after December 11, 2000, shall be 25 

percent.’’; and 

(3) by striking subsection (g). 

(b) REVISION OF PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT.—The Secretary shall revise the partnership agreement for any assessment being carried out under such section 729 to 

take into account the change in non-Federal participation in the assessment as a 

result of the amendments made by subsection (a). 

SEC. 2020. TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM. 

Section 203(b)(1)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 

2269(b)(1)(B); 114 Stat. 2589) is amended by inserting after ‘‘Code’’ the following ‘‘, 

and including lands that are within the jurisdictional area of an Oklahoma Indian 

tribe, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior, and are recognized by the Secretary of the Interior as eligible for trust land status under part 151 of title 25, 

Code of Federal Regulations’’. 

SEC. 2021. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN SEPARABLE ELEMENTS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—If, in carrying out a water resources project, the Secretary identifies a separable element that would advance a primary mission of the Corps of Engineers, with benefits that could be achieved more cost-effectively if carried out in 

conjunction with the project, the Secretary, in consultation with the non-Federal interest, may carry out such separable element at Federal expense if the cost of such 

separable element does not exceed 3 percent of the Federal project cost and does 

not exceed $1,000,000. 

(b) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—Operation and maintenance of a separable 

element of a project carried out under this section shall be a non-Federal responsibility. 

(c) LIMITATION ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall be 

construed to increase the amount authorized to be appropriated for a project beyond 

that amount authorized by law or to provide a separate authorization of appropriations. 

SEC. 2022. PROSECUTION OF WORK. 

Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of September 22, 1922 (33 U.S.C. 621; 

42 Stat. 1043), is amended by inserting after ‘‘harbors’’ the following: ‘‘, including 

any planning, engineering, design, construction, operation, and maintenance,’’. 

SEC. 2023. WILDFIRE FIREFIGHTING. 

Section 309 of Public Law 102–154 (42 U.S.C. 1856a-1; 105 Stat. 1034) is amended by inserting ‘‘the Secretary of the Army,’’ after ‘‘the Secretary of Energy,’’. 

SEC. 2024. CREDIT FOR NONCONSTRUCTION SERVICES. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to allow a non-Federal interest 

credit toward its share of project costs for any authorized water resources development project for the cost of materials and in-kind services, including design and 

management services but not including construction, provided by the non-Federal 

interest for implementation of the project. 

(b) LIMITATION.—Credit authorized under subsection (a)— 

(1) shall not exceed the non-Federal share of project costs; 

(2) shall not alter any other requirements that require a non-Federal interest 

to provide lands, easements, rights-of-way, and dredged material disposal areas 

for the project; 

(3) shall not exceed the actual and reasonable costs of the materials or inkind services provided by the non-Federal interest, as determined by the Secretary; and 

(4) shall not be allowed unless the Secretary has determined that such materials or services are compatible with and necessary for the project. 

14 

SEC. 2025. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE. 

Section 22 of Water Resources Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–16) is 

amended— 

(1) in subsection (a) by striking ‘‘The Secretary’’ and inserting the following: ‘‘(a) FEDERAL STATE COOPERATION.— ‘‘(1) COMPREHENSIVE PLANS.—The Secretary’’; (2) by inserting after the last sentence in subsection (a) the following: 

‘‘(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 such 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.’’ (3) in subsection (b)(1) by striking ‘‘this section’’ each place it appears and in- serting ‘‘subsection (a)(1)’’; (4) in subsection (c) by striking ‘‘(c) There is’’ and inserting the following: ‘‘(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— ‘‘(1) FEDERAL AND STATE COOPERATION.—There is’’; 

(5) in subsection (c) strike ‘‘the provisions of this section’’ and insert ‘‘sub- section (a)(1);’’; and 

(6) by inserting at the end of subsection (c) the following: 

‘‘(2) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.—There is authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 annually to carry out subsection (a)(2), of which not more than 

$2,000,000 annually may be used by the Secretary to enter into cooperative 

agreements with nonprofit organizations to provide assistance to rural and 

small communities.’’. 

SEC. 2026. CENTERS OF SPECIALIZED PLANNING EXPERTISE. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary is authorized to establish centers to provide specialized planning expertise for water resources projects to be carried out by the 

Secretary to enhance and supplement the capabilities of the districts of the Army 

Corps of Engineers. (b) DUTIES.—A center of expertise shall have the following duties: (1) Providing technical and managerial assistance to district engineers for project planning, development, and implementation. (2) Providing 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. (3) Providing support for external peer review panels convened by the Secretary. 

(4) Performing such other duties as prescribed by the Secretary. 

SEC. 2027. COORDINATION AND SCHEDULING OF FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL ACTIONS. 

(a) NOTICE OF INTENT.—Upon request of the non-Federal interest in the form of 

a written notice of intent to construct or modify a non-Federal water supply, wastewater infrastructure, flood damage reduction, environmental restoration, or navigation project that requires the approval of the Secretary, the Secretary shall initiate, 

subject to subsection (g)(1), procedures to establish a schedule for consolidating Federal, State, and local agency and Indian tribe environmental assessments, project 

reviews, and issuance of all permits for the construction or modification of the 

project. The non-Federal interest shall submit to the Secretary, with the notice of 

intent, studies and documentation, including environmental reviews, that may be 

required by Federal law for decisionmaking on the proposed project. All States and 

Indian tribes having jurisdiction over the proposed project shall be invited by the 

Secretary, but shall not be required, to participate in carrying out this section with 

respect to the project. 

(b) PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS.—Within 15 days after receipt of notice under 

subsection (a), the Secretary shall publish such notice in the Federal Register. The 

Secretary also shall provide written notification of the receipt of a notice under subsection (a) to all State and local agencies and Indian tribes that may be required 

to issue permits for the construction of the project or related activities. The Secretary shall solicit the cooperation of those agencies and request their entry into a 

memorandum of agreement described in subsection (c) with respect to the project. 

Within 30 days after publication of the notice in the Federal Register, State and 

local agencies and Indian tribes that intend to enter into the memorandum of agreement with respect to the project shall notify the Secretary of their intent in writing. 

(c) SCHEDULING AGREEMENT.—Within 90 days after the date of receipt of notice 

under subsection (a) with respect to a project, the Secretary of the Interior, the SecVerDate mar 24 2004 14:17 May 03, 2004 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\PICKUP\HR265.XXX HR265
15 

retary of Commerce, and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, 

as necessary, and any State or local agencies that have notified the Secretary under 

subsection (b) shall enter into an agreement with the Secretary establishing a 

schedule of decisionmaking for approval of the project and permits associated with 

the project and with related activities. 

(d) CONTENTS OF AGREEMENT.—An agreement entered into under subsection (c) 

with respect to a project, to the extent practicable, shall consolidate hearing and 

comment periods, procedures for data collection and report preparation, and the environmental review and permitting processes associated with the project and related 

activities. The agreement shall detail, to the extent possible, the non-Federal interest’s responsibilities for data development and information that may be necessary 

to process each permit required for the project, including a schedule when the information and data will be provided to the appropriate Federal, State, or local agency 

or Indian tribe. 

(e) REVISION OF AGREEMENT.—The Secretary may revise an agreement entered 

into under subsection (c) with respect to a project once to extend the schedule to 

allow the non-Federal interest the minimum amount of additional time necessary 

to revise its original application to meet the objections of a Federal, State, or local 

agency or Indian tribe that is a party to the agreement. 

(f) FINAL DECISION.—Not later than the final day of a schedule established by an 

agreement entered into under subsection (c) with respect to a project, the Secretary 

shall notify the non-Federal interest of the final decision on the project and whether 

the permit or permits have been issued. 

(g) REIMBURSEMENT.— 

(1) COSTS OF COORDINATION.—The costs incurred by the Secretary to establish 

and carry out a schedule to consolidate Federal, State, and local agency and Indian tribe environmental assessments, project reviews, and permit issuance for 

a project under this section shall be paid by the non-Federal interest. 

(2) COSTS INCURRED TO EXPEDITE PERMITS AND REVIEWS.— 

(A) ACCEPTANCE OF NON-FEDERAL FUNDS.—The Secretary may accept 

funds from the non-Federal interest to hire additional staff or obtain the 

services of consultants, or to provide financial, technical, and administrative support to agencies that have entered into an agreement with the Secretary under subsection (c) with respect to a project in order to facilitate 

the timely processing, review, and completion of applicable Federal, State, 

and local agency and Indian tribe environmental assessments, project reviews, and permits for the project. 

(B) USE OF FUNDS.—Funds accepted under this paragraph shall be used 

to supplement existing resources of the Secretary or a participating agency. 

(C) ASSURANCE OF LEVEL OF SERVICE AND IMPARTIALITY.—The Secretary 

shall ensure that the Department of the Army and any participating agency 

that accepts funds under this paragraph shall continue to provide the same 

level of service to other projects and other responsibilities not covered by 

this section as it would provide notwithstanding any activities carried out 

under this section and that acceptance of such funds will not impact impartial decisionmaking either substantively or procedurally. 

(h) REPORT ON TIMESAVINGS METHODS.—Not later than 3 years after the date of 

enactment of this section, the Secretary shall prepare and transmit to Congress a 

report estimating the time required for the issuance of all Federal, State, local, and 

tribal permits for the construction of non-Federal projects for water supply, wastewater infrastructure, flood damage reduction, environmental restoration, and navigation. The Secretary shall include in that report recommendations for further reducing the amount of time required for the issuance of those permits, including any 

proposed changes in existing law. 

SEC. 2028. PROJECT STREAMLINING. 

(a) POLICY.—The benefits of water resources projects are important to the Nation’s 

economy and environment, and recommendations to Congress regarding such 

projects should not be delayed due to uncoordinated and sequential environmental 

reviews or the failure to timely resolve disputes during the development of water 

resources projects. 

(b) SCOPE.—This section shall apply to each study initiated after the date of enactment of this Act to develop a feasibility report under section 905 of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282), or a reevaluation report, for 

a water resources project if the Secretary determines that such study requires an 

environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). 

(c) WATER RESOURCES PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS.—The Secretary shall develop 

and implement a coordinated review process for water resources projects. 

16 

(d) COORDINATED REVIEWS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The coordinated review process under this section shall provide that all environmental reviews, analyses, opinions, permits, licenses, and 

approvals that must be issued or made by a Federal, State, or local government 

agency or Indian tribe for a water resources project will be conducted concurrently, to the maximum extent practicable, and completed within a time period 

established by the Secretary, in cooperation with the agencies identified under 

subsection (e) with respect to the project. 

(2) AGENCY PARTICIPATION.—Each Federal agency identified under subsection 

(e) shall formulate and implement administrative, policy, and procedural mechanisms to enable the agency to ensure completion of environmental reviews, 

analyses, opinions, permits, licenses, and approvals described in paragraph (1) 

in a timely and environmentally responsible manner. 

(e) IDENTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL AGENCIES.—With respect to each water resources project, the Secretary shall identify, as soon as practicable, all Federal, 

State, and local government agencies and Indian tribes that may have jurisdiction 

over environmental-related matters that may be affected by the project or may be 

required by law to conduct an environmental-related review or analysis of the 

project or determine whether to issue an environmental-related permit, license, or 

approval for the project. 

(f) STATE AUTHORITY.—If a coordinated review process is being implemented 

under this section by the Secretary with respect to a water resources project within 

the boundaries of a State, the State, consistent with State law, may choose to participate in such process and provide that all State agencies that have jurisdiction 

over environmental-related matters that may be affected by the project or may be 

required by law to conduct an environmental-related review or analysis of the 

project or determine whether to issue an environmental-related permit, license, or 

approval for the project, be subject to the process. 

(g) MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING.—The coordinated review process developed 

under this section may be incorporated into a memorandum of understanding for 

a project between the Secretary and the heads of other Federal, State, and local government agencies and Indian tribes identified under subsection (e) with respect to 

the project and the non-Federal interest for the project. 

(h) EFFECT OF FAILURE TO MEET DEADLINE.— 

(1) NOTIFICATION OF CONGRESS AND CEQ.—If the Secretary determines that a 

Federal, State, or local government agency, Indian tribe, or non-Federal interest 

that is participating in a coordinated review process under this section with respect to a project has not met a deadline established under subsection (d) for 

the project, the Secretary shall notify, within 30 days of the date of such determination, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 

Representatives, the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, the Council on Environmental Quality, and the agency, Indian tribe, or 

non-Federal interest involved about the failure to meet the deadline. 

(2) AGENCY REPORT.—Not later than 30 days after the date of receipt of a notice under paragraph (1), the Federal, State, or local government agency, Indian 

tribe, or non-Federal interest involved shall submit a report to the Secretary, 

the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, and the 

Council on Environmental Quality explaining why the agency, Indian tribe, or 

non-Federal interest did not meet the deadline and what actions it intends to 

take to complete or issue the required review, analysis, opinion, permit, license, 

or approval. 

(i) PURPOSE AND NEED AND DETERMINATION OF REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—As an official of the lead Federal agency that is responsible 

for carrying out a study to which this section applies and its associated process 

for meeting the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and as the Federal agency with expertise in water resources development, the Secretary, in carrying out such study and process, 

shall— 

(A) define the purpose and need for the proposed water resources project; 

and 

(B) determine which alternatives are reasonable and may be reasonably 

anticipated to meet project purposes and needs. 

(2) STREAMLINING STUDY.—To streamline a study to which this section applies 

and its associated process for meeting the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Secretary may eliminate from consideration any alternatives the Secretary determines are not reasonable or are not reasonably anticipated to meet project purposes and needs. 

17 

(j) SOLICITATION AND CONSIDERATION OF COMMENTS.—In applying subsection (i), the Secretary shall solicit, consider, and respond to comments from interested persons and governmental entities. (k) CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS.—Not later than 120 days after the date of enact- ment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop and publish a list of categorical exclusions from the requirement that an environmental assessment or an environmental 

impact statement be prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) for water resources projects. (l) LIMITATIONS.—Nothing in this section shall preempt or interfere with— (1) any practice of seeking public comment; 

(2) any power, jurisdiction, or authority that a Federal, State, or local govern- ment agency, Indian tribe, or non-Federal interest has with respect to carrying 

out a water resources project; or (3) any obligation to comply with the provisions of the National Environ- mental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4371 et seq.) and the regulations issued 

by the Council on Environmental Quality to carry out such Act. (m) BENCHMARKS.—Within 12 months of the date of enactment of this Act, the 

Chief of Engineers shall establish benchmarks for determining the length of time 

it should take to conduct a feasibility study for a water resources development 

project and its associated review process under the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4371 et seq.). Benchmarks may be established for activities 

based on project type, size, cost, and complexity. The Chief of Engineers shall use 

such benchmarks as a management tool to make the feasibility study process more 

efficient in all districts of the Army Corps of Engineers. 

SEC. 2029. LAKES PROGRAM. 

Section 602(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4148; 110 Stat. 3758; 113 Stat. 295) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at end of paragraph (18); 

(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (19) and inserting a semi- colon; and 

(3) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(20) Kinkaid Lake, Jackson County, Illinois, removal of silt and aquatic growth and measures to address excessive sedimentation; ‘‘(21) Rogers Pond, Franklin Township, New Jersey, removal of silt and res- toration of structural integrity; ‘‘(22) Greenwood Lake, Greenwood Lake, New York, removal of silt and 

aquatic growth; and ‘‘(23) Lake Rodgers, Creedmoor, North Carolina, removal of silt and excessive nutrients and restoration of structural integrity.’’. 

SEC. 2030. MITIGATION FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE LOSSES. 

(a) COMPLETION OF MITIGATION.—Section 906(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(a)) is amended by adding at the following: 

‘‘(3) COMPLETION OF MITIGATION.—In those instances in which it is not technically practicable to complete mitigation concurrent with the last day of project 

construction because of the nature of the mitigation to be undertaken, the Secretary shall complete the required mitigation as expeditiously as practicable, 

but in no case later than the last day of the first fiscal year beginning after 

the last day of construction of the project or separable element of the project.’’. 

(b) MITIGATION PLAN CONTENTS.—Section 906(d) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2283(d)) 

is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(3) CONTENTS.—A mitigation plan shall include— 

‘‘(A) a description of the physical action to be undertaken to achieve the 

mitigation objectives within the watershed in which such losses occur and, 

in any case in which mitigation must take place outside the watershed, a 

justification detailing the rationale for undertaking the mitigation outside 

of the watershed; 

‘‘(B) a description of the lands or interests in lands to be acquired for 

mitigation and the basis for a determination that such lands are available 

for acquisition; 

‘‘(C) the type, amount, and characteristics of the habitat being restored; 

‘‘(D) success criteria for mitigation based on replacement of lost functions 

and values of the habitat, including hydrologic and vegetative characteristics; and 

‘‘(E) a plan for any necessary monitoring to determine the success of the 

mitigation, including the cost and duration of any monitoring, and to the 

extent practicable, the entities responsible for any monitoring. 

‘‘(4) RESPONSIBILITY FOR MONITORING.—In any case in which it is not practicable to identify in a mitigation plan for a water resources project, the entity 

18 

responsible for monitoring at the time of a final report of the Chief of Engineers 

or other final decision document for the project, such entity shall be identified 

in the partnership agreement entered into with the non-Federal interest.’’. (c) STATUS REPORT.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Concurrent with the President’s submission to Congress of the President’s request for appropriations for the Civil Works Program for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report on the status of construction 

of projects that require mitigation under section 906 of Water Resources Development Act 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283; 100 Stat. 4186) and the status of such mitigation. 

(2) PROJECTS INCLUDED.—The status report shall include the status of all 

projects that are under construction, all projects for which the President requests funding for the next fiscal year, and all projects that have completed construction, but have not completed the mitigation required under section 906 of 

the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. 

SEC. 2031. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—For the purpose of expediting the cost-effective design and con- struction of wetlands restoration that is part of an authorized water resources 

project, the Secretary may enter into cooperative agreements under section 6305 of 

title 31, United States Code, with nonprofit organizations with expertise in wetlands 

restoration to carry out such design and construction on behalf of the Secretary. (b) LIMITATIONS.— (1) PER PROJECT LIMIT.—A cooperative agreement under this section shall not obligate the Secretary to pay the nonprofit organization more than $1,000,000 

for any single wetlands restoration project. (2) ANNUAL LIMIT.—The total value of work carried out under cooperative 

agreements under this section may not exceed $5,000,000 in any fiscal year. 

SEC. 2032. PROJECT PLANNING. 

(a) OBJECTIVES.— (1) FLOOD CONTROL, NAVIGATION, AND HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE REDUC- TION PROJECTS.—The Federal objective of any study of the feasibility of a water resources project carried out by the Secretary for flood damage reduction, navigation, or hurricane and storm damage reduction shall be to maximize the net 

national economic development benefits associated with the project, consistent 

with protecting the Nation’s environment. (2) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECTS.—The Federal objective of any study of the feasibility of a water resources project for ecosystem restoration carried 

out by the Secretary shall be to maximize the net national ecosystem restoration benefits associated with the project, consistent with national economic development. 

(3) PROJECTS WITH MULTIPLE PURPOSES.—In the case of a study that includes 

multiple project purposes, the primary and other project purposes shall be evaluated, based on the relevant Federal objective identified under paragraphs (1) 

and (2). 

(4) SELECTION OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the Federal objectives identified in 

this subsection, the Secretary may select a project alternative that does not 

maximize net benefits if there is an overriding reason based upon other 

Federal, State, local, or international concerns. 

(B) FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION, NAVIGATION, AND HURRICANE STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECTS.—With respect to a water resources project described in paragraph (1), an overriding reason for selecting a plan other 

than the plan that maximizes national economic development benefits may 

be if the Secretary determines, and the non-Federal interest concurs, that 

an alternative plan is feasible and achieves the project purposes while providing greater ecosystem restoration benefits. 

(C) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECTS.—With respect to a water resources project described in paragraph (2), an overriding reason for selecting a plan other than the plan that maximizes national ecosystem restoration benefits may be if the Secretary determines, and the non-Federal interest concurs, that an alternative is feasible and achieves the project purpose 

while providing greater economic development benefits. 

(b) IDENTIFYING ADDITIONAL BENEFITS AND PROJECTS.— 

(1) PRIMARILY ECONOMIC BENEFITS.—In conducting a study of the feasibility 

of a project where the primary benefits are expected to be economic, the Secretary may identify ecosystem restoration benefits that may be achieved in the 

19 

study area and, after obtaining the participation of a non-Federal interest, may 

study and recommend construction of a separate project or separable project element to achieve those benefits. 

(2) PRIMARILY ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION BENEFITS.—In conducting a study of 

the feasibility of a project where the primary benefits are expected to be associated with ecosystem restoration, the Secretary may identify economic benefits 

that may be achieved in the study area and, after obtaining the participation 

of a non-Federal interest, may study and recommend construction of a separate 

project or separable project element to achieve those benefits. 

(3) RULES APPLICABLE TO IDENTIFIED SEPARATE PROJECTS AND ELEMENTS.— 

Any separate project or separable element identified under paragraph (1) or (2) 

and recommended for construction shall not be considered integral to the underlying project under study and, if authorized, shall be subject to a separate partnership agreement, unless a non-Federal interest agrees to share in the cost of 

both projects or separable elements. 

(c) CALCULATION OF BENEFITS AND COSTS FOR FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION

PROJECTS.—A feasibility study for a project for flood damage reduction shall include, 

as part of the calculation of benefits and costs— 

(1) a calculation of the residual risk of flooding following completion of the 

proposed project; 

(2) a calculation of any upstream or downstream impacts of the proposed 

project; and 

(3) calculations to ensure that the benefits and costs associated with structural and nonstructural alternatives are evaluated in an equitable manner. 

SEC. 2033. INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW. 

(a) PROJECT STUDIES SUBJECT TO INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Project studies shall be subject to a peer review by an independent panel of experts as determined under this section. 

(2) SCOPE.—The peer review may include a review of the economic and environmental assumptions and projections, project evaluation data, economic analyses, environmental analyses, engineering analyses, formulation of alternative 

plans, methods for integrating risk and uncertainty, models used in evaluation 

of economic or environmental impacts of proposed projects, and any biological 

opinions of the project study. 

(3) PROJECT STUDIES SUBJECT TO PEER REVIEW.— 

(A) MANDATORY.—A project study shall be subject to peer review under 

paragraph (1) if the project has an estimated total cost of more than 

$50,000,000, including mitigation costs, and is not determined by the Chief 

of Engineers to be exempt from peer review under paragraph (6). 

(B) DISCRETIONARY.—A project study may be subject to peer review if— 

(i) the Governor of an affected State requests a peer review by an 

independent panel of experts; 

(ii) the head of a Federal or State agency charged with reviewing the 

project study determines that the project is likely to have a significant 

adverse impact on environmental, cultural, or other resources under 

the jurisdiction of the agency after implementation of proposed mitigation plans and requests a peer review by an independent panel of experts; or 

(iii) the Chief of Engineers determines that the project study is controversial. 

(4) CONTROVERSIAL PROJECTS.—Upon receipt of a written request under paragraph (3)(B) or on the initiative of the Chief of Engineers, the Chief of Engineers shall determine whether a project study is controversial. 

(5) FACTORS TO CONSIDER.—In determining whether a project study is controversial, the Chief of Engineers shall consider if— 

(A) there is a significant public dispute as to the size, nature, or effects 

of the project; or 

(B) there is a significant public dispute as to the economic or environmental costs or benefits of the project. 

(6) PROJECT STUDIES EXCLUDED FROM PEER REVIEW.—Project studies that may 

be excluded from peer review under paragraph (1) are— 

(A) a study for a project the Chief of Engineers determines— 

(i) is not controversial; 

(ii) has no more than negligible adverse impacts on scarce or unique 

cultural, historic, or tribal resources; 

(iii) has no substantial adverse impacts on fish and wildlife species 

and their habitat prior to the implementation of mitigation measures; 

and 

20 

(iv) has, before implementation of mitigation measures, no more than 

a negligible adverse impact on a species listed as endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1539 

et seq.) or the critical habitat of such species designated under such 

Act; and 

(B) a study for a project pursued under section 205 of the Flood Control 

Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), section 2 of the Flood Control Act of August 

28, 1937 (33 U.S.C. 701g), section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 

U.S.C. 701r), section 107(a) of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 

577(a)), 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), section 111 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 426i), section 3 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act authorizing the construction, repair, and preservation of certain public works 

on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes’’, approved March 2, 1945 (33 

U.S.C. 603a), section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 

(33 U.S.C. 2309a), section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), or section 204 of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326). 

(7) APPEAL.—The decision of the Chief of Engineers whether to peer review 

a project study shall be published in the Federal Register and shall be subject 

to appeal by a person referred to in paragraph (3)(B)(i) or (3)(B)(ii) to the Secretary of the Army if such appeal is made within the 30-day period following 

the date of such publication. 

(8) DETERMINATION OF PROJECT COST.—For purposes of determining the estimated total cost of a project under paragraph (3)(A), the project cost shall be 

based upon the reasonable estimates of the Chief of Engineers at the completion 

of the reconnaissance study for the project. If the reasonable estimate of project 

costs is subsequently determined to be in excess of the amount in paragraph 

(3)(A), the Chief of Engineers shall make a determination whether a project 

study should be reviewed under this section. 

(b) TIMING OF PEER REVIEW.—The Chief of Engineers shall determine the timing 

of a peer review of a project study under subsection (a). In all cases, the peer review 

shall occur during the period beginning on the date of the completion of the reconnaissance study for the project and ending on the date the draft report of the Chief 

of Engineers for the project is made available for public comment. Where the Chief 

of Engineers has not initiated a peer review of a project study, the Chief of Engineers shall consider, at a minimum, whether to initiate a peer review at the time 

that— 

(1) the without project conditions are identified; 

(2) the array of alternatives to be considered are identified; and 

(3) the preferred alternative is identified. 

Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require the Chief of Engineers to 

conduct multiple peer reviews for a project study. 

(c) ESTABLISHMENT OF PANELS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—For each project study subject to peer review under subsection (a), as soon as practicable after the Chief of Engineers determines that 

a project study will be subject to peer review, the Chief of Engineers shall contract with the National Academy of Sciences (or a similar independent scientific 

and technical advisory organization), or an eligible organization, to establish a 

panel of experts to peer review the project study for technical and scientific sufficiency. 

(2) MEMBERSHIP.—A panel of experts established for a project study under 

this section shall be composed of independent experts who represent a balance 

of areas of expertise suitable for the review being conducted. 

(3) LIMITATION ON APPOINTMENTS.—An individual may not be selected to 

serve on a panel of experts established for a project study under this section 

if the individual has a financial or close professional association with any organization or group with a strong financial or organizational interest in the 

project. 

(4) CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION.—Upon identification of a project study for 

peer review under this section, but prior to initiation of any review, the Chief 

of Engineers shall notify the Committee on Environment and Public Works of 

the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 

House of Representatives of such review. 

(d) DUTIES OF PANELS.—A panel of experts established for a peer review for a 

project study under this section shall, consistent with the scope of the referral for 

review— 

21 

(1) conduct a peer review for the project study submitted to the panel for review; 

(2) assess the adequacy and acceptability of the economic and environmental methods, models, and analyses used by the Chief of Engineers; (3) provide timely written and oral comments to the Chief of Engineers throughout the development of the project study, as requested; and (4) submit to the Chief of Engineers a final report containing the panel’s eco- nomic, engineering, and environmental analysis of the project study, including 

the panel’s assessment of the adequacy and acceptability of the economic and 

environmental methods, models, and analyses used by the Chief of Engineers, 

to accompany the publication of the project study. (e) DURATION OF PROJECT STUDY PEER REVIEWS.— (1) DEADLINE.—A panel of experts shall— (A) complete its peer review under this section for a project study and submit a report to the Chief of Engineers under subsection (d)(4) within 180 

days after the date of establishment of the panel, or, if the Chief of Engineers determines that a longer period of time is necessary, such period of 

time established by the Chief of Engineers, but in no event later than 90 

days after the date a draft project study is made available for public review; 

and 

(B) terminate on the date of submission of the report. 

(2) FAILURE TO MEET DEADLINE.—If a panel does not complete its peer review 

of a project study under this section and submit a report to the Chief of Engineers under subsection (d)(4) on or before the deadline established by paragraph 

(1) for the project study, the Chief of Engineers shall continue the project study 

for the project that is subject to peer review by the panel without delay. 

(f) RECOMMENDATIONS OF PANEL.— 

(1) CONSIDERATION BY THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS.—After receiving a report on 

a project study from a panel of experts under this section and before entering 

a final record of decision for the project, the Chief of Engineers shall consider 

any recommendations contained in the report and prepare a written response 

for any recommendations adopted or not adopted. 

(2) PUBLIC AVAILABILITY AND TRANSMITTAL TO CONGRESS.—After receiving a 

report on a project study from a panel of experts under this section, the Chief 

of Engineers shall— 

(A) make a copy of the report and any written response of the Chief of 

Engineers on recommendations contained in the report available to the public; and 

(B) transmit to Congress a copy of the report, together with any such 

written response, on the date of a final report of the Chief of Engineers or 

other final decision document for a project study that is subject to peer review by the panel. 

(g) COSTS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The costs of a panel of experts established for a peer review 

under this section— 

(A) shall be a Federal expense; and 

(B) shall not exceed $500,000. 

(2) WAIVER.—The Chief of Engineers may waive the $500,000 limitation contained in paragraph (1)(B) in cases that the Chief of Engineers determines appropriate. 

(h) APPLICABILITY.—This section shall apply to— 

(1) project studies initiated during the 2-year period preceding the date of enactment of this Act and for which the array of alternatives to be considered has 

not been identified; and 

(2) project studies initiated during the period beginning on such date of enactment and ending 4 years after such date of enactment. 

(i) REPORT.—Within 4 1/2 years of the date of enactment of this section, the Chief 

of Engineers shall submit a report to Congress on the implementation of this section. 

(j) NONAPPLICABILITY OF FACA.—The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. 

App.) shall not apply to any peer review panel established under this section. 

(k) SAVINGS CLAUSE.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect any authority of the Chief of Engineers to cause or conduct a peer review of a water resources project existing on the date of enactment of this section. 

(l) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the following definitions apply: 

(1) PROJECT STUDY.—The term ‘‘project study’’ means a feasibility study or reevaluation study for a project. The term also includes any other study associated with a modification or update of a project that includes an environmental 

impact statement, including the environmental impact statement. 

22 

(2) AFFECTED STATE.—The term ‘‘affected State’’, as used with respect to a 

project, means a State all or a portion of which is within the drainage basin 

in which the project is or would be located and would be economically or environmentally affected as a consequence of the project. 

(3) ELIGIBLE ORGANIZATION.—The term ‘‘eligible organization’’ means an organization that— 

(A) is described in section 501(c)(3), and exempt from Federal tax under 

section 501(a), of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; 

(B) is independent; 

(C) is free from conflicts of interest; 

(D) does not carry out or advocate for or against Federal water resources 

projects; and 

(E) has experience in establishing and administering peer review panels. 

TITLE III—PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS 

SEC. 3001. COOK INLET, ALASKA. 

(a) ANCHORAGE HARBOR.—The project for navigation improvements, Cook Inlet, 

Alaska (Anchorage Harbor, Alaska), authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 299) and modified by section 199 of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2944), is further modified to direct the Secretary 

to establish a harbor depth of minus 45 feet mean lower low water for a length of 

5,200 feet at the modified Port of Anchorage intermodal marine facility at each 

phase as such phases are completed and thereafter as the entire project is completed, at a total cost of $8,175,000. Federal maintenance shall continue for the existing facility until the modified facility is completed. Federal maintenance of the 

modified project shall be in accordance with such section 101; except that the project 

shall be maintained at a depth of minus 45 feet mean lower low water for such 

5,200 feet, at an estimated annual cost of $6,000,000. 

(b) NAVIGATION CHANNEL.—The Secretary shall modify the channel depth to run 

the entire length of Fire Island Range and Point Woronzof Range maintaining the 

same width and modifying the depth to minus 45 feet mean lower low water in the 

existing Cook Inlet Navigation Channel approach to Anchorage Harbor, Alaska, at 

a total cost of $21,525,000. The project shall be maintained at a depth of minus 45 

mean lower low water, at an estimated annual cost of $3,000,000. 

SEC. 3002. KING COVE HARBOR, ALASKA. 

The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the project for 

navigation, King Cove Harbor, Alaska, being carried out under section 107 of the 

River Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), shall be $8,000,000. 

SEC. 3003. SITKA, ALASKA. 

The Thompson Harbor, Sitka, Alaska, 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), is modified to direct the Secretary to take such action as may be necessary to correct design deficiencies in such 

element, at a Federal expense of $6,300,000. 

SEC. 3004. TATILEK, ALASKA. 

The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the project for 

navigation, Tatilek, Alaska, being carried out under section 107 of the River and 

Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), shall be $10,000,000. 

SEC. 3005. NOGALES WASH AND TRIBUTARIES, ARIZONA. 

The project for flood control, Nogales Wash and tributaries, Arizona, authorized 

by section 101(a)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 

4606) and modified by section 303 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 

(110 Stat. 3711) and section 302 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 

(114 Stat. 2600), is further modified to direct the Secretary to use the Mexico Plan1st Added Increment, as described in the limited reevaluation report dated September 13, 2002, to determine the cost allocation and cost apportionment for the 

project. 

SEC. 3006. GRAND PRAIRIE REGION AND BAYOU METO BASIN, ARKANSAS. 

The Secretary shall review the general reevaluation report for the Bayou Meto 

basin element of the project for Grand Prairie Region and Bayou Meto Basin, Arkansas, reauthorized by section 363(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1996 (110 Stat. 3730), and make a determination of whether the element is feasible, 

regardless of mission priorities. 

23 

SEC. 3007. SAINT FRANCIS BASIN, ARKANSAS. 

The project for flood control, Saint Francis Basin, Missouri and Arkansas, author- ized by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 172), is modified to 

authorize the Secretary to construct improvements along Ditch No. 1 that consist 

of a gated culvert through the Saint Francis Levee and related channel improvements. 

SEC. 3008. AMERICAN AND SACRAMENTO RIVERS, CALIFORNIA. 

The project for flood damage reduction, American and Sacramento Rivers, Cali- fornia, authorized by section 101(a)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1996 (110 Stat. 3662–3663) and modified by section 366 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 319–320), is further modified to direct the Secretary to carry out the project, at a total cost of $205,000,000. 

SEC. 3009. CACHE CREEK BASIN, CALIFORNIA. 

The project for flood control, Cache Creek Basin, California, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4112), is modified 

to direct the Secretary to mitigate the impacts of the new south levee of the Cache 

Creek settling basin on the city of Woodland’s storm drainage system, including all 

appurtenant features, erosion control measures, and environmental protection features. Such mitigation shall restore the city’s preproject capacity (1,360 cubic feet 

per second) to release water to the Yolo Bypass, including channel improvements, 

an outlet work through the west levee of the Yolo Bypass, and a new low-flow cross 

channel to handle city and county storm drainage and settling basin flows (1,760 

cubic feet per second) when the Yolo Bypass is in a low flow condition. 

SEC. 3010. GRAYSON CREEK/MURDERER’S CREEK, CALIFORNIA. 

The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Grayson Creek/Murderer’s Creek, California, being carried out under section 206 of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), is modified to direct the Secretary to credit toward 

the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of work carried out by the 

non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the project if 

the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project and to authorize 

the Secretary to consider national ecosystem restoration benefits in determining the 

Federal interest in the project. 

SEC. 3011. JOHN F. BALDWIN SHIP CHANNEL AND STOCKTON SHIP CHANNEL, CALIFORNIA. 

The project for navigation, San Francisco to Stockton, California, authorized by section 301 of the River and Harbor Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1091) is modified— 

(1) to provide that the non-Federal share of the cost of the John F. Baldwin 

Ship Channel and Stockton Ship Channel element of the project may be provided in the form of in-kind services and materials; and 

(2) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of such element the cost of planning and design work carried out by the nonFederal interest before the date of an agreement for such planning and design 

if the Secretary determines that such work is integral to such element. 

SEC. 3012. LOS ANGELES HARBOR, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA. 

The project for navigation, Los Angeles Harbor, Los Angeles, California, author- ized by section 101(b)(5) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 

2577), is modified to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of 

the cost of the project the cost of the planning, design, and construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement 

for the project if the Secretary determines the work is integral to the project. 

SEC. 3013. LARKSPUR FERRY CHANNEL, LARKSPUR, CALIFORNIA. 

The project for navigation, Larkspur Ferry Channel, Larkspur, California, authorized by section 601(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 

4148), is modified to direct 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 carry out the 

maintenance. 

SEC. 3014. NAPA RIVER SALT MARSH RESTORATION, NAPA RIVER, CALIFORNIA. 

In carrying out the feasibility study for the project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Napa River Salt Marsh Restoration, Napa and Sonoma Counties, California, 

the Secretary shall determine whether work carried out by the non-Federal interest 

is integral to the project. In any case in which the work is determined to be integral 

to the project before completion of the final report of the Chief of Engineers on the 

project, such work shall be included as part of the project, and the cost of such work 

shall be recommended in the final report for credit toward the non-Federal share 

of the cost of the project. Work carried out after submission of the final report and 

24 

before the date of the partnership agreement for the project that is determined to 

be integral to the project shall be considered as part of the project, and the cost of 

such work shall be credited toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project. 

SEC. 3015. PACIFIC FLYWAY CENTER, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA. 

The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Pacific Flyway Center, Sacramento, California, being carried out under section 206 of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), is modified to authorize the Secretary to expend 

$2,000,000 to enhance public access to the project. 

SEC. 3016. PINOLE CREEK, CALIFORNIA. 

The project for improvement of the quality of the environment, Pinole Creek Phase I, California, being carried out under section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a), is modified to direct the Secretary to credit 

toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of work carried out 

by the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the 

project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project. 

SEC. 3017. PRADO DAM, CALIFORNIA. 

Upon completion of the modifications to the Prado Dam element of the project for flood control, Santa Ana River Mainstem, California, authorized by section 401(a) 

of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4113), the Memorandum 

of Agreement for the Operation for Prado Dam for Seasonal Additional Water Conservation between the Department of the Army and the Orange County Water District (including all the conditions and stipulations in the memorandum) shall remain 

in effect for volumes of water made available prior to such modifications. 

SEC. 3018. SACRAMENTO DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CALIFORNIA. 

The project for navigation, Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel, California, authorized by section 202(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 

Stat. 4092), is modified to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal 

share of the cost of the project the cost of planning and design work carried out by 

the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the project 

if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project. 

SEC. 3019. SACRAMENTO RIVER, GLENN-COLUSA, CALIFORNIA. 

The project for flood control, Sacramento River, California, authorized by section 

2 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to provide for the control of the floods of the Mississippi River and of the Sacramento River, California, and for other purposes’’, approved March 1, 1917 (39 Stat. 949), and modified by section 102 of the Energy and 

Water Development Appropriations Act, 1990 (103 Stat. 649), section 301(b)(3) of 

the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3110), title I of the Energy 

and Water Development Appropriations Act, 1999 (112 Stat. 1841), and section 305 

of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 299), is further modified 

to direct the Secretary to credit the non-Federal interest up to $4,000,000 toward 

the non-Federal share of the cost of the project for costs incurred by the non-Federal 

interest in carrying out activities (including the provision of lands, easements, 

rights-of-way, relocations, and dredged material disposal areas) associated with environmental compliance for the project if the Secretary determines that the activities are integral to the project. 

SEC. 3020. SAN LORENZO RIVER, CALIFORNIA. 

The project for flood control, San Lorenzo River, California, authorized by section 

101(a)(5) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3663), is modified to direct the Secretary to credit not more than $2,000,000 toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project for the cost of the work carried out by the nonFederal interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the project if the 

Secretary determines the work is integral to the project. 

SEC. 3021. UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER, CALIFORNIA. 

The project for flood damage reduction and recreation, Upper Guadalupe River, 

California, described as the Bypass Channel Plan of the Chief of Engineers dated 

August 19, 1998, authorized by section 101(a)(9) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 275), is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct 

the project, at a total cost of $140,328,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 

$70,164,000, and an estimated non-Federal cost of $70,164,000. The non-Federal 

share of the cost of the project shall be subject to section 103(a)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(a)(3)). 

SEC. 3022. WALNUT CREEK CHANNEL, CALIFORNIA. 

The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Walnut Creek Channel, California, 

being carried out under section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 

25 

1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), is modified to direct the Secretary to credit toward the nonFederal share of the cost of the project the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project and to authorize the Secretary to consider national ecosystem restoration benefits in determining the Federal interest in the project. 

SEC. 3023. WILDCAT/SAN PABLO CREEK PHASE I, CALIFORNIA. 

The project for improvement of the quality of the environment, Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase I, California, being carried out under section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a), is modified to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of 

work carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership 

agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to 

the project. 

SEC. 3024. WILDCAT/SAN PABLO CREEK PHASE II, CALIFORNIA. 

The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase II, California, being carried out under section 206 of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), is modified to direct the Secretary to credit toward 

the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of work carried out by the 

non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the project if 

the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project and to authorize 

the Secretary to consider national ecosystem restoration benefits in determining the 

Federal interest in the project. 

SEC. 3025. BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. 

Section 310 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 301) is 

amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘(d) CREDIT.—After completion of the study, the Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of nourishment and renourishment associated with the shore protection project incurred by the non-Federal interest to respond to damages to Brevard County beaches that are the result of a Federal navigation project, as determined in the final report for the study.’’. 

SEC. 3026. BROWARD COUNTY AND HILLSBORO INLET, FLORIDA. 

The project for shore protection, Broward County and Hillsboro Inlet, Florida, au- thorized by section 301 of the River and Harbor Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1090), and 

modified by section 311 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 

301), is further modified to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal 

share of the cost of the project the cost of mitigation construction and derelict erosion control structure removal carried out by the non-Federal interest before the 

date of the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that 

the work is integral to the project. 

SEC. 3027. GASPARILLA AND ESTERO ISLANDS, FLORIDA. 

The project for shore protection, Gasparilla and Estero Island segments, Lee County, Florida, authorized under section 201 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 

Stat. 1073) by Senate Resolution dated December 17, 1970, and by House Resolution 

dated December 15, 1970, and modified by section 309 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2602), is further modified to direct the Secretary 

to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of work 

carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement 

for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project. 

SEC. 3028. LIDO KEY BEACH, SARASOTA, FLORIDA. 

The project for shore protection, Lido Key Beach, Sarasota, Florida, authorized by 

section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1819), deauthorized under 

section 1001(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)), 

and reauthorized by section 364(2)(A) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1999 (113 Stat. 313), is modified to direct the Secretary to construct the project, at 

a total cost of $12,926,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $6,547,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $6,379,000, and at an estimated average annual cost of 

$925,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated annual Federal cost of $468,500 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost 

of $456,500. 

SEC. 3029. MANATEE HARBOR, FLORIDA. 

The project for navigation, Manatee Harbor, Florida, authorized by section 202(a) 

of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4093) and modified by 

section 102(j) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4612), is 

further modified— 

26 

(1) to include the construction of an extension of the south channel a distance 

of approximately 1584 feet consistent with the general reevaluation report, 

dated April 2002, prepared by the Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers, at 

a total cost of $11,300,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $8,475,000 and 

an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,825,000; 

(2) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost 

of the project the cost of in-kind services and materials provided for the project 

by the non-Federal interest; 

(3) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost 

of the project the cost of planning, design, and construction work carried out 

by the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the 

project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project; and 

(4) to authorize the Secretary to carry out the project as modified at a total 

cost of $61,500,000. 

SEC. 3030. TAMPA HARBOR, FLORIDA. 

The project for navigation, Tampa Harbor, Florida, referred to in section 4 of the 

Rivers and Harbors Act of September 22, 1922 (42 Stat. 1042), is modified to direct 

the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the 

cost of planning, design, and construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project. 

SEC. 3031. TAMPA HARBOR-BIG BEND CHANNEL, FLORIDA. 

The project for navigation, Tampa Harbor-Big Bend Channel, Florida, authorized 

by section 101(a)(18) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 

276) is modified to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of 

the cost of the project the cost of planning, design, and construction work carried 

out by the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the 

project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project. 

SEC. 3032. MIAMI HARBOR, FLORIDA. 

The project for navigation, Miami Harbor Channel, Florida, authorized by section 

101(a)(9) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4606) and 

modified by section 315 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 

302), is further modified to include as a project purpose environmental mitigation 

required before July 18, 2003, by Federal, State, and local environmental agencies 

for unauthorized or unanticipated environmental impacts within, or in the vicinity 

of, the authorized project. 

SEC. 3033. LITTLE WOOD RIVER, GOODING, IDAHO. 

The project for flood damage reduction, Little Wood River, Gooding, Idaho, being 

carried out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), is 

modified— 

(1) to authorize the non-Federal interest to provide any portion of the nonFederal share of the cost of the project in the form of services, materials, supplies, or other in-kind contributions; 

(2) to authorize the non-Federal interest to use funds made available under 

any other Federal program toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 

project if such use of the funds is permitted under the other Federal program; 

and 

(3) to direct the Secretary, in calculating the non-Federal share of the cost 

of the project, to make a determination under section 103(m) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)) on the non-Federal interest’s ability to pay. 

SEC. 3034. HENNEPIN-HOPPER LAKES, ILLINOIS. 

(a) PROJECT PURPOSE.—The project for flood control, Hennepin levees, Illinois, authorized by the Flood Control Act of June 26, 1936 (35 Stat. 1583), is modified to 

add environmental restoration as a project purpose. 

(b) MAXIMUM AMOUNT.—The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the project for improvement of the quality of the environment, HennepinHopper Lakes, Illinois, being carried out under section 1135 of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a), shall be $7,500,000. 

(c) LIMITATION.—Nothing in this section shall affect the eligibility of the project 

for emergency repair assistance under section 5(a) of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act authorizing the construction of certain public works on rivers and harbors for flood 

control, and for other purposes’’, approved August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n). 

27 

SEC. 3035. MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND BIG MUDDY RIVER, ILLINOIS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood control, Mississippi River and Big Muddy 

River, Illinois, authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1938, is modified to authorize 

the Secretary to carry out repair and rehabilitation of the project at a total cost of 

$22,600,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $16,950,000 and an estimated nonFederal cost of $5,650,000, and to perform operation and maintenance of the project 

thereafter. 

(b) OTHER ASSISTANCE.—Federal assistance made available through the Department of Agriculture may be used toward payment of the non-Federal share of the 

costs of the repair and rehabilitation under this section. 

(c) UNITED STATES LANDS.—Costs under this section for the repair and rehabilitation allocable to the protection of lands owned by the United States shall be a Federal responsibility. The Secretary shall seek reimbursement from the Secretary of 

Agriculture for the costs allocated to protecting lands owned by the Department of 

Agriculture. 

(d) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF NON-FEDERAL LANDS.—The cost of operation 

and maintenance under this section allocated to protecting non-Federal lands shall 

be a non-Federal responsibility. 

SEC. 3036. SPUNKY BOTTOMS, ILLINOIS. 

(a) PROJECT PURPOSE.—The project for flood control at Spunky Bottoms, Illinois, 

authorized by section 5 of the Flood Control Act of June 26, 1936 (35 Stat. 1584), 

is modified to add environmental restoration as a project purpose. 

(b) MAXIMUM AMOUNT.—The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the project for improvement of the quality of the environment, Spunky 

Bottoms, Illinois, being carried out under section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a), shall be $7,500,000. 

(c) LIMITATION.—Nothing in this section shall affect the eligibility of the project 

for emergency repair assistance under section 5(a) of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act authorizing the construction of certain public works on rivers and harbors for flood 

control, and for other purposes’’, approved August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n). 

SEC. 3037. EMIQUON, ILLINOIS. 

(a) MAXIMUM AMOUNT.—The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Emiquon, Illinois, being 

carried out under section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 

U.S.C. 2330), shall be $7,500,000. 

(b) LIMITATION.—Nothing in this section shall affect the eligibility of the project 

for emergency repair assistance under section 5(a) of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act authorizing the construction of certain public works on rivers and harbors for flood 

control, and for other purposes’’, approved August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n). 

SEC. 3038. LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, INDIANA. 

The project for flood control, Little Calumet River, Indiana, authorized by section 

401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4115), is modified 

to authorize the Secretary to carry out the project in accordance with the 

postauthorization change report dated August 2000, at a total cost of $186,300,000, 

with an estimated Federal cost of $136,600,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 

of $49,700,000. 

SEC. 3039. WHITE RIVER, INDIANA. 

The project for flood control, Indianapolis on West Fork of White River, Indiana, 

authorized by section 5 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act authorizing the construction of 

certain public works on rivers and harbors for flood control, and other purposes’’, 

approved June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1586), and modified by section 323 of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3716) and section 322 of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 303–304), is further modified to authorize the Secretary to undertake the riverfront alterations described in the Central Indianapolis Waterfront Concept Plan, dated February 1994, for the Fall Creek 

Reach feature, at a total cost of $28,545,000 and to direct the Secretary to credit 

toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of planning, design, 

and construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of the 

partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is 

integral to the project. 

SEC. 3040. WOLF LAKE, INDIANA. 

The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Wolf Lake, Indiana, being carried 

out under section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 

2330), is modified to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of 

the cost of the project the cost of planning, design, and construction work carried 

28 

out by the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the 

project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project. 

SEC. 3041. PRESTONSBURG, KENTUCKY. 

The Prestonsburg, Kentucky, element of the project for flood control, Levisa and 

Tug Fork of the Big Sandy and Cumberland Rivers, West Virginia, Virginia, and 

Kentucky, authorized by section 202(a) of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 1981 (94 Stat. 1339), is modified to direct the Secretary to take 

measures to provide a 100-year level of flood protection for the city of Prestonsburg. 

SEC. 3042. AMITE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, LOUISIANA, EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH WATERSHED. 

The project for flood damage reduction and recreation, Amite River and Tributaries, Louisiana, East Baton Rouge Parish Watershed, authorized by section 

101(a)(21) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 277) and 

modified by section 116 of Division D of Public Law 108–7 (117 Stat. 140), is further 

modified to direct the Secretary to carry out the project with the cost sharing for 

the project determined in accordance with section 103(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(a)), as in effect on October 11, 1996. 

SEC. 3043. ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LOUISIANA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 315(a)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

2000 (114 Stat. 2603–2604) is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(1) is authorized to study, design, construct, operate, and maintain, at Federal expense, a Type A Regional Visitor Center in the vicinity of Morgan City, 

Louisiana, in consultation with the State of Louisiana, to provide information 

to the public on the Atchafalaya River system and other associated waterways 

that have influenced surrounding communities, and national and local water resources development of the Army Corps of Engineers in South Central Louisiana; and’’. 

(b) TECHNICAL CORRECTION.—Section 315(b) of such Act is amended by striking 

‘‘(a)’’ and inserting ‘‘(a)(2)’’. 

(c) DONATIONS.—Section 315 of such Act is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(c) DONATIONS.—In carrying out subsection (a)(1), the Mississippi River Commission is authorized to accept the donation of cash, funds, lands, materials, and services from non-Federal governmental entities and nonprofit corporations.’’. 

SEC. 3044. PUBLIC ACCESS, ATCHAFALAYA BASIN FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LOUISIANA. 

The public access feature of the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Louisiana, 

project, authorized by the Water Resources Development Act 1986 (100 Stat. 4142), 

is modified to authorize the Secretary to acquire from willing sellers the fee interest, 

exclusive of oil, gas, and minerals, of an additional 20,000 acres of land within the 

Lower Atchafalaya Basin Floodway for the public access feature of the Atchafalaya 

Basin Floodway System, to enhance fish and wildlife resources, at a total cost of 

$4,000,000. 

SEC. 3045. J. BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, MISSISSIPPI RIVER TO SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA. 

The project for mitigation of fish and wildlife losses, J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport, Louisiana, authorized by section 601(a) of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4142) and modified by section 

4(h) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4016), section 

102(p) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4613), section 

301(b)(7) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3710), and section 316 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2572), is further modified to authorize the purchase and reforesting of lands which have been 

cleared or converted to agricultural uses. 

SEC. 3046. MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LOUISIANA. 

The Mississippi Delta Region project, Louisiana, authorized as part of the project 

for hurricane-flood protection on Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, by section 204 of 

the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1077) and modified by section 365 of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3739), is further modified to 

direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project 

the costs of relocating oyster beds in the Davis Pond project area if the Secretary 

determines that the work is integral to the Mississippi Delta Region project. 

SEC. 3047. NEW ORLEANS TO VENICE, LOUISIANA. 

The New Orleans to Venice, Louisiana, project for hurricane protection, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1184), is modified to 

29 

authorize the Secretary to carry out the work on the St. Jude to City Price, Upper 

Reach A back levee. The Federal share of the cost of such work shall be 70 percent. 

SEC. 3048. WEST BANK OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER (EAST OF HARVEY CANAL), LOUISIANA. 

Section 328 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 304–305) 

is amended— 

(1) in subsection (a)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘operation and maintenance’’ and inserting ‘‘operation, 

maintenance, rehabilitation, repair, and replacement’’; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘Algiers Channel’’ and inserting ‘‘Algiers Canal Levees’’; 

and 

(2) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(c) COST SHARING.—The non-Federal share of the cost of the project shall be 35 

percent.’’. 

SEC. 3049. CAMP ELLIS, SACO, MAINE. 

The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the project 

being carried out under section 111 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 

426i) for the mitigation of shore damages attributable to the project for navigation, 

Camp Ellis, Saco, Maine, shall be $10,000,000. 

SEC. 3050. UNION RIVER, MAINE. 

The project for navigation, Union River, Maine, authorized by the first section of 

the Act entitled ‘‘An Act making appropriations for the construction, repair, and 

preservation of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes’’, 

approved June 3, 1896 (29 Stat. 215), is modified by redesignating as an anchorage 

area that portion of the project consisting of a 6-foot turning basin and lying northerly of a line commencing at a point N315,975.13, E1,004,424.86 thence running 

north 61 degrees 27 minutes 20.71 seconds west about 132.34 feet to a point 

N316,038.37, E1,004,308.61. 

SEC. 3051. CASS RIVER, SPAULDING TOWNSHIP, MICHIGAN. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood damage reduction, Cass River, Spaulding 

Township, Saginaw County, Michigan, being carried out under section 205 of the 

Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), is modified to incorporate flood control 

works constructed by the non-Federal interests between Sheridan Road and East 

Street (M–13) if the Secretary determines that the inclusion of such flood control 

works is feasible. 

(b) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost 

of the project the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest before the 

date of the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that 

the work is integral to the project. 

SEC. 3052. DETROIT RIVER SHORELINE, DETROIT, MICHIGAN. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for emergency streambank and shoreline protection, 

Detroit River Shoreline, Detroit, Michigan, being carried out under section 14 of the 

Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r), is modified to include measures to enhance public access. 

(b) MAXIMUM FEDERAL EXPENDITURE.—The maximum amount of Federal funds 

that may be expended for the project shall be $3,000,000. 

SEC. 3053. WATER RESOURCES INSTITUTE, MUSKEGON, MICHIGAN. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for emergency streambank and shoreline protection, 

Water Resources Institute, Muskegon, Michigan, being carried out under section 14 

of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r), is modified to provide for completion of shoreline protection measures in accordance with the approved plans and 

specifications for Grand Valley State University, Lake Michigan Center, dated August 6, 2001. 

(b) MAXIMUM FEDERAL EXPENDITURE.—The maximum amount of Federal funds 

that may be expended for the project shall be $2,000,000. 

(c) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost 

of the project the cost of design and implementation of shoreline protection measures carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership 

agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to 

the project. 

SEC. 3054. SAGINAW RIVER, BAY CITY, MICHIGAN. 

The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the project for 

emergency streambank protection, Saginaw River, Bay City, Michigan, being carried 

out under section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r), shall be 

$2,000,000. 

30 

SEC. 3055. ADA, MINNESOTA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood damage reduction, Wild Rice River, Ada, Minnesota, being carried out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 

U.S.C. 701s), is modified to authorize the Secretary to consider national ecosystem 

restoration benefits in determining the Federal interest in the project. (b) EVALUATION OF BENEFITS AND COSTS.—In evaluating the economic benefits and costs for the project, the Secretary shall not consider the emergency levee adjacent to Judicial Ditch No. 51 in the determination of conditions existing prior to construction of the project. (c) SPECIAL RULE.—In evaluating and implementing the project, the Secretary shall allow the non-Federal interest to participate in the financing of the project in 

accordance with section 903(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 

Stat. 4184) to the extent that the Secretary’s evaluation indicates that applying 

such section is necessary to implement the project. 

SEC. 3056. DULUTH HARBOR, MCQUADE ROAD, MINNESOTA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for navigation, Duluth Harbor, McQuade Road, Min- nesota, being carried out under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 

U.S.C. 577) and modified by section 321 of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 2000 (114 Stat. 2605), is further modified to authorize the Secretary to provide 

public access and recreational facilities as generally described in the Detailed 

Project Report and Environmental Assessment, McQuade Road Harbor of Refuge, 

Duluth, Minnesota, dated August 1999. (b) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall provide credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project for the costs of design work carried out before the date of 

the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the work 

is integral to the project. (c) MAXIMUM FEDERAL EXPENDITURE.—The maximum amount of Federal funds 

that may be expended for the project shall be $5,000,000. 

SEC. 3057. GRAND PORTAGE HARBOR, MINNESOTA. 

The Secretary shall provide credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the navigation project for Grand Portage Harbor, Minnesota, carried out under section 

107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577) and modified by section 

312 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2605), for the costs 

of design work carried out before the date of the partnership agreement for the 

project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project. 

SEC. 3058. GRANITE FALLS, MINNESOTA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is directed to implement under section 205 of the 

Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s) the locally preferred plan for flood damage reduction, Granite Falls, Minnesota, substantially in accordance with the detailed project report dated 2002, at a total cost of $12,000,000, with an estimated 

Federal cost of $8,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $4,000,000. 

(b) PROJECT FINANCING.—In evaluating and implementing the project under this 

section, the Secretary shall allow the non-Federal interests to participate in the financing of the project in accordance with section 903(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184), to the extent that the detailed project report 

evaluation indicates that applying such section is necessary to implement the 

project. 

(c) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the 

project the cost of design and construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest before date of execution of a partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project. 

(d) MAXIMUM FUNDING.—The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the flood damage reduction shall be $8,000,000. 

SEC. 3059. MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA. 

Section 527 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2657) is 

amended— 

(1) in subsection (a) by inserting after ‘‘June 30, 1999’’ the following ‘‘, and 

including Hennepin Island and adjacent areas on the east side of the Mississippi River’’; and 

(2) in subsection (c) by striking ‘‘$10,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$25,000,000’’. 

SEC. 3060. RED LAKE RIVER, MINNESOTA. 

The project for flood control, Red Lake River at Crookston, Minnesota, authorized 

by section 101(a)(23) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 

278), is modified to include flood protection for the adjacent and interconnected 

areas generally known as the Sampson and Chase/Loring neighborhoods, in accordance with the Feasibility Report Supplement, Local Flood Protection, Crookston, 

31 

Minnesota, at a total cost of $25,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 

$16,250,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $8,750,000. 

SEC. 3061. SILVER BAY, MINNESOTA. 

The project for navigation, Silver Bay, Minnesota, authorized by section 2 of the 

Rivers and Harbors Act of March 2, 1945 (59 Stat. 19), is modified to include operation and maintenance of the general navigation facilities as a Federal responsibility. 

SEC. 3062. TACONITE HARBOR, MINNESOTA. 

The project for navigation, Taconite Harbor, Minnesota, carried out under section 

107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), is modified to include operation and maintenance of the general navigation facilities as a Federal responsibility. 

SEC. 3063. TWO HARBORS, MINNESOTA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for navigation, Two Harbors, Minnesota, being carried out under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), is 

modified to include construction of a dredged material disposal facility, including actions required to clear the site. 

(b) LANDS, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY.—Non-Federal interests shall be responsible for providing all lands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations necessary for the construction of the dredged material disposal facility. 

(c) MAXIMUM FEDERAL EXPENDITURE.—The maximum amount of Federal funds 

that may be expended for the project shall be $5,000,000. 

SEC. 3064. DEER ISLAND, HARRISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. 

The project for ecosystem restoration, Deer Island, Harrison County, Mississippi, 

being carried out under section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326) is modified to authorize the non-Federal interest to provide 

any portion of the non-Federal share of the cost of the project in the form of services, materials, supplies, or other in-kind contributions. 

SEC. 3065. BOIS BRULE DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICT, MISSOURI. 

The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the project for 

flood damage reduction, Bois Brule Drainage and Levee District, Missouri, being 

carried out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), 

shall be $25,000,000. 

SEC. 3066. SAND CREEK WATERSHED, WAHOO, NEBRASKA. 

The project for ecosystem restoration and flood damage reduction, Sand Creek watershed, Wahoo, Nebraska, authorized by section 101(b)(20) of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2578), is modified— 

(1) to direct the Secretary to provide credit toward the non-Federal share of 

the cost of the project or reimbursement for the costs of any work that has been 

or will be performed by the non-Federal interest before, on, or after the approval of the project partnership agreement, including work performed by the 

non-Federal interest in connection with the design and construction of 7 upstream detention storage structures, if the Secretary determines that the work 

is integral to the project; 

(2) to require that in-kind work to be credited under paragraph (1) be subject 

to audit; and 

(3) to direct the Secretary to accept advance funds from the non-Federal interest as needed to maintain the project schedule. 

SEC. 3067. ALAMOGORDO, NEW MEXICO. 

The Secretary shall review the general reevaluation report, dated March 1999, for 

the project for flood protection, Alamogordo, New Mexico, authorized by section 203 

of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 85), and determine if the locally preferred 

flood detention basin would provide the same level of flood protection for the north 

side of the city of Alamogordo at a cost that is not greater than the cost of authorized channel improvements. If the Secretary determines that the flood detention 

basin is feasible, would provide the same level of flood protection, and can be constructed at the no additional cost, the Secretary may construct the flood detention 

basin instead of the channel improvements. The Federal share of the cost of the 

flood detention basin alternative shall be calculated in the same manner as if the 

channel improvements project was being constructed. 

SEC. 3068. ORCHARD BEACH, BRONX, NEW YORK. 

The project for shoreline protection, Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York, authorized 

by section 554 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3781), 

32 

is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project, at a total cost of 

$18,000,000. 

SEC. 3069. TIMES BEACH, BUFFALO, NEW YORK. 

The project for improvement of the quality of the environment, Times Beach, Buffalo, New York, being carried out under section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4251), is modified to direct the Secretary to credit 

not more than $750,000 toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project for 

the cost of planning, design, and construction work carried out by the non-Federal 

interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary 

determines the work is integral to the project. 

SEC. 3070. PORT OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY. 

The navigation project, Port of New York and New Jersey, New York and New 

Jersey, authorized by section 101(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

2000 (114 Stat. 2576), is modified— 

(1) to authorize the Secretary to allow the non-Federal interest to construct 

a temporary dredged material storage facility to receive dredged material from 

the project if— 

(A) the non-Federal interest submits, in writing, a list of potential sites 

for the temporary storage facility to the Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, and the Secretary at least 180 days 

before the selection of the final site; and 

(B) at least 70 percent of the dredged material generated in connection 

with the project suitable for beneficial reuse will be used at sites in the 

State of New Jersey to the extent that there are sufficient sites available; 

and 

(2) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost 

of the project the cost of construction of the temporary storage facility if the 

Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project. 

SEC. 3071. NEW YORK STATE CANAL SYSTEM. 

Section 553(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3781) 

is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(c) NEW YORK STATE CANAL SYSTEM DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘New 

York State Canal System’ means the 524 miles of navigable canal that comprise the 

New York State Canal System, including the Erie, Cayuga-Seneca, Oswego, and 

Champlain Canals and the historic alignments of these canals, including the cities 

of Albany and Buffalo.’’. 

SEC. 3072. ARCADIA LAKE, OKLAHOMA. 

Payments made by the city of Edmond, Oklahoma, to the Secretary in October 

1999 of all costs associated with present and future water storage costs at Arcadia 

Lake, Oklahoma, under Arcadia Lake Water Storage Contract Number DACW56– 

79–C–002 shall satisfy the obligations of the city under that contract. 

SEC. 3073. WILLAMETTE RIVER TEMPERATURE CONTROL, MCKENZIE SUBBASIN, OREGON. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for environmental restoration, Willamette River 

Temperature Control, McKenzie Subbasin, Oregon, authorized by section 101(a)(25) 

of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3665) and modified by 

section 344 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 308), is further modified to direct the Secretary to pay, subject to the availability of appropriations, compensation for losses to small business attributable to the implementation 

of the drawdown conducted as a part of project implementation in 2002. 

(b) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish, and provide public notice of, a program— 

(1) to receive claims for compensation for losses to small business attributable 

to the implementation of the drawdown conducted as a part of project implementation in 2002; 

(2) to evaluate claims for such losses; and 

(3) to pay claims for such losses. 

(c) IMPLEMENTATION OF PROGRAM.—In carrying out the program established 

under subsection (b), the Secretary shall provide— 

(1) public notice of the existence of the program sufficient to reach those in 

the area that may have suffered losses to small businesses; 

(2) a period for the submission of claims of not fewer than 45 days and not 

greater than 75 days from the date of the first public notice of the existence 

of the program; 

33 

(3) for the evaluation of each claim submitted to the Secretary under the program and a determination of whether the claim constitutes a loss to a small 

business on or before the last day of the 30-day period beginning on the date 

of submission of the claim; and 

(4) for the payment of each claim that the Secretary determines constitutes 

a loss to a small business on or before the last day of the 30-day period beginning on the date of the Secretary’s determination. 

(d) LOSS TO A SMALL BUSINESS DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘loss to a 

small business’’ means documented financial losses associated with commercial activity of a small business that can be attributed to the turbidity levels in the 

McKenzie River being higher than those anticipated in the original planning documents and public announcements existing before the initiation of the drawdown in 

2002. Commercial losses include decline in sales, loss of revenue (including loss of 

revenue from canceled or delayed reservations at lodging establishments), and any 

other financial losses that can be shown to be associated with the elevated turbidity 

levels in the McKenzie River in 2002. 

(e) PAYMENT OF CLAIMS.—The payment of claims for losses to small businesses 

shall be a Federal responsibility. 

SEC. 3074. FRENCH CREEK, UNION CITY DAM, PENNSYLVANIA. 

The project for flood control French Creek, Union City Dam, Pennsylvania, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1189), is modified 

to include recreation as a project purpose. 

SEC. 3075. LACKAWANNA RIVER AT OLYPHANT, PENNSYLVANIA. 

The project for flood control, Lackawanna River at Olyphant, Pennsylvania, authorized by section 101(16) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 

Stat. 4803), is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project, at a total 

cost of $20,000,000. 

SEC. 3076. LACKAWANNA RIVER AT SCRANTON, PENNSYLVANIA. 

The project for flood control, Lackawanna River at Scranton, Pennsylvania, authorized by section 101(17) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 

Stat. 4803), is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project, at a total 

cost of $23,000,000. 

SEC. 3077. RAYSTOWN LAKE, PENNSYLVANIA. 

The Secretary may take such action as may be necessary, including construction 

of a breakwater, to prevent shoreline erosion between .07 and 2.7 miles south of 

Pennsylvania State Route 994 on the east shore of Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania. 

SEC. 3078. SHERADEN PARK STREAM AND CHARTIERS CREEK, ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. 

The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Sheraden Park Stream and 

Chartiers Creek, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, being carried out under section 

206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), is modified 

to direct the Secretary to credit up to $400,000 toward the non-Federal share of the 

cost of the project for planning and design work carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary 

determines that the work is integral to the project. 

SEC. 3079. SOLOMON’S CREEK, WILKES-BARRE, PENNSYLVANIA. 

The project for flood control, Wyoming Valley, Pennsylvania, authorized by section 

401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4124), is modified 

to include as a project element the project for flood control for Solomon’s Creek, 

Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. 

SEC. 3080. SOUTH CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA. 

Section 313(h)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 

4847; 109 Stat. 407; 117 Stat. 142) is amended by striking ‘‘Allegheny, Armstrong, 

Beford, Blair, Cambria, Clearfield, Fayette, Franklin, Fulton, Greene, Huntingdon, 

Indiana, Juniata, Mifflin, Somerset, Snyder, Washington, and Westmoreland Counties’’ and inserting ‘‘Allegheny, Armstrong, Bedford, Blair, Cambria, Fayette, Franklin, Fulton, Greene, Huntingdon, Indiana, Juniata, Somerset, Washington, and 

Westmoreland Counties’’. 

SEC. 3081. WYOMING VALLEY, PENNSYLVANIA. 

In carrying out the project for flood control, Wyoming Valley, Pennsylvania, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 

Stat. 4124), the Secretary shall coordinate with non-Federal interests to review opportunities for increased public access. 

34 

SEC. 3082. LITTLE LIMESTONE CREEK, JONESBOROUGH, TENNESSEE. 

In evaluating and implementing the project for flood damage reduction, Little 

Limestone Creek, Jonesborough, Tennessee, under section 205 of the Flood Control 

Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), the Secretary shall allow the non-Federal interest to 

participate in the financing of the project in accordance with section 903(c) of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184), to the extent that the 

Secretary’s evaluation indicates that applying such section is necessary to implement the project. 

SEC. 3083. CEDAR BAYOU, TEXAS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for navigation, Cedar Bayou, Texas, reauthorized by 

section 349(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2632), 

is modified— 

(1) to authorize the Secretary to carry out the project to a depth of 10 feet 

by 100 feet wide from mile 2.5 to mile 11 on Cedar Bayou if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible; and 

(2) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost 

of the project the cost of planning and design work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project if the Secretary determines that such work is integral to the project. 

(b) COST SHARING.—Cost sharing for construction and operation and maintenance 

of the project shall be determined in accordance with section 101 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211). 

SEC. 3084. LAKE KEMP, TEXAS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may not take any legal or administrative action 

seeking to remove a Lake Kemp improvement before the earlier of January 1, 2020, 

or the date of any transfer of ownership of the improvement occurring after the date 

of enactment of this Act. 

(b) LIMITATION ON LIABILITY.—The United States, or any of its officers, agents, or 

assignees, shall not be liable for any injury, loss, or damage accruing to the owners 

of a Lake Kemp improvement, their lessees, or occupants as a result of any flooding 

or inundation of such improvements by the waters of the Lake Kemp reservoir, or 

for such injury, loss, or damage as may occur through the operation and maintenance of the Lake Kemp dam and reservoir in any manner. 

(c) LAKE KEMP IMPROVEMENT DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘Lake Kemp 

improvement’’ means an improvement (including dwellings) located within the flowage easement of Lake Kemp, Texas, below elevation 1159 feet mean sea level. 

SEC. 3085. LOWER RIO GRANDE BASIN, TEXAS. 

The project for flood control, Lower Rio Grande Basin, Texas, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4125), is 

modified— 

(1) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost 

of the project the cost of planning, design, and construction work carried out 

by the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the 

project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project; and 

(2) to direct the Secretary, in calculating the non-Federal share of the cost 

of the project, to make a determination under section 103(m) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)) on the non-Federal interest’s ability to pay. 

SEC. 3086. NORTH PADRE ISLAND, CORPUS CHRISTI BAY, TEXAS. 

The project for ecosystem restoration and storm damage reduction, North Padre 

Island, Corpus Christi Bay, Texas, authorized by section 556 of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 353), is modified to include recreation as a 

project purpose. 

SEC. 3087. PROCTOR LAKE, TEXAS. 

The Secretary is authorized to convert flowage easements to fee simple title in the 

subdivisions of Buffalo Springs and Frees Lakeview, and adjacent areas, located 

within the boundaries necessary for the operation of the Proctor Lake project, Texas, 

authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 1259), and to 

purchase all improved and unimproved properties within such boundaries and to 

pay relocation assistance benefits to qualified landowners as applicable under the 

provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act 

of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.). 

SEC. 3088. SAN ANTONIO CHANNEL, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS. 

The project for flood control, San Antonio Channel, Texas, authorized by section 

203 of the Flood Control Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 1259) as part of the comprehensive 

35 

plan for flood protection on the Guadalupe and San Antonio Rivers in Texas and 

modified by section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 

2921) and section 335 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 

2611), is further modified to authorize the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of construction work carried out by the 

non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the project if 

the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project. 

SEC. 3089. ELIZABETH RIVER, CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA. 

Section 358 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 312) is 

amended by striking ‘‘September 30, 1999’’ and inserting ‘‘May 4, 1997’’. 

SEC. 3090. ROANOKE RIVER UPPER BASIN, VIRGINIA. 

The project for flood control, Roanoke River Upper Basin, Virginia, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4126) and 

modified by section 110 of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 

1990 (103 Stat. 650), is further modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the 

project, at a total cost of $64,300,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $42,100,000 

and an estimated non-Federal cost of $22,200,000. In carrying out the project, the 

Secretary shall award contracts based on invitation-for-bids procedures. 

SEC. 3091. BLAIR AND SITCUM WATERWAYS, TACOMA HARBOR, WASHINGTON. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for navigation, Blair and Sitcum Waterways, Ta- coma Harbor, Washington, authorized by section 202(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4096) and deepened to 51 feet under section 107 

of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), is modified to direct the Secretary to review the locally prepared plan for the Blair and Sitcum Waterways, 

Washington, and, if the Secretary determines that the plan meets the evaluation 

and design standards of the Corps of Engineers and that the plan is feasible, to authorize the Secretary to carry out the plan, at a Federal cost of $4,240,000. (b) NON-FEDERAL WORK.—The Secretary shall provide credit toward the non-Fed- eral share of the cost of the project, or reimbursement for, the cost of work carried 

out by the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the 

project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project. 

SEC. 3092. GREENBRIER RIVER BASIN, WEST VIRGINIA. 

Section 579(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3790; 113 Stat. 312) is amended by striking ‘‘$47,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$89,000,000’’. 

SEC. 3093. MANITOWOC HARBOR, WISCONSIN. 

The project for navigation, Manitowoc Harbor, Wisconsin, authorized by the River and Harbor Act of August 30, 1852, is modified to direct the Secretary to deepen 

the upstream reach of the navigation channel from 12 feet to 18 feet, at a total cost 

of $300,000. 

SEC. 3094. MISSISSIPPI RIVER HEADWATERS RESERVOIRS. 

Section 21 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4027) is 

amended— 

(1) in subsection (a)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘1276.42’’ and inserting ‘‘1278.42’’; 

(B) by striking ‘‘1218.31’’ and inserting ‘‘1221.31’’; and 

(C) by striking ‘‘1234.82’’ and inserting ‘‘1235.30’’; and (2) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following: ‘‘(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 water control regulation manuals (or revisions thereto) developed by 

the Secretary, after consultation with the Governor of Minnesota and affected tribal 

governments, landowners, and commercial and recreational users. The water control 

regulation manuals (and any revisions thereto) shall be effective when the Secretary 

transmits them to Congress. The Secretary shall report to Congress at least 14 days 

before operating any such headwaters reservoir below the minimum or above the 

maximum water level limits specified in subsection (a); except that notification is 

not required for operations necessary to prevent the loss of life or to ensure the safety of the dam or where the drawdown of lake levels is in anticipation of flood control 

operations.’’. 

SEC. 3095. CONTINUATION OF PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 1001(b)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(2)), the following projects shall remain authorized to be carried out by the Secretary: 

(1) The project for navigation, Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts, authorized 

by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 731). 

36 

(2) The project for flood control, Agana River, Guam, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4127). (b) LIMITATION.—A project described in subsection (a) shall not be authorized for construction after the last day of the 5-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, unless, during such period, funds have been obligated for the construction (including planning and design) of the project. 

SEC. 3096. PROJECT REAUTHORIZATIONS. 

Each of the following projects may be carried out by the Secretary and no con- struction on any such project may be initiated until the Secretary determines that 

the project is feasible: (1) MENOMINEE HARBOR AND RIVER, MICHIGAN AND WISCONSIN.—The project for navigation, Menominee Harbor and River, Michigan and Wisconsin, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 482) and deauthorized on April 15, 2002, in accordance with section 1001(b)(2) of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(2)). (2) MANITOWOC HARBOR, WISCONSIN.—That portion of the project for naviga- tion, Manitowoc Harbor, Wisconsin, consisting of the channel in the south part 

of the outer harbor, deauthorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act 

of 1962 (76 Stat. 1176). 

SEC. 3097. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The following projects are not authorized after the date of en- actment of this Act: 

(1) BRIDGEPORT HARBOR, CONNECTICUT.—The portion of the project for naviga- tion, Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut, authorized by the River and Harbor Act 

of July 3, 1930 (46 Stat. 919), consisting of an 18-foot channel in Yellow Mill 

River and described as follows: Beginning at a point along the eastern limit of 

the existing project, N123,649.75, E481,920.54, thence running northwesterly 

about 52.64 feet to a point N123,683.03, E481,879.75, thence running northeasterly about 1,442.21 feet to a point N125,030.08, E482,394.96, thence running 

northeasterly about 139.52 feet to a point along the east limit of the existing 

channel, N125,133.87, E482,488.19, thence running southwesterly about 

1,588.98 feet to the point of origin. (2) NORWALK HARBOR, CONNECTICUT.—The following portions a 10-foot chan- nel of the project for navigation, Norwalk Harbor, Connecticut, authorized by 

the first section of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act of March 2, 1919 

(40 Stat. 1276): 

(A) An approximate rectangular shaped section along the northwesterly terminus of the channel. The section is 35-feet wide and about 460-feet long 

and is further described as follows: Commencing at a point N104,165.85, 

E417,662.71, thence running south 24 degrees 06 minutes 55 seconds east 

395.00 feet to a point N103,805.32, E417,824.10, thence running south 00 

degrees 38 minutes 06 seconds east 87.84 feet to a point N103,717.49, 

E417,825.07, thence running north 24 degrees 06 minutes 55 seconds west 

480.00 feet, to a point N104,155.59, E417.628.96, thence running north 73 

degrees 05 minutes 25 seconds east 35.28 feet to the point of origin. 

(B) An area having the approximate shape of a parallelogram along the 

northeasterly portion of the channel, southeast of the area described in subparagraph (A). This area is 20-feet wide and about 260-feet long and is further described as follows: Commencing at a point N103,855.48, 

E417,849.99, thence running south 33 degrees 07 minutes 30 seconds east 

133.40 feet to a point N103,743.76, E417,922.89, thence running south 24 

degrees 07 minutes 04 seconds east 127.75 feet to a point N103,627.16, 

E417,975.09, thence running north 33 degrees 07 minutes 30 seconds west 

190.00 feet to a point N103,786.28, E417,871.26, thence running north 17 

degrees 05 minutes 15 seconds west 72.39 feet to the point of origin. 

(3) CHICAGO RIVER AND HARBOR, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.—Those portions of the 

projects for navigation, Chicago River and Chicago Harbor, Chicago, Illinois, authorized by the River and Harbor Act of March 3, 1899 (30 Stat. 1129), extending 50 feet riverward of the existing dock wall on the south side of the channel 

from Lake Street to Franklin Street and 25 feet riverward of the existing dock 

wall on the south side of the channel from Franklin Street to Wabash Avenue, 

and those areas within 20 feet of the bridge abutments on the south side of the 

channel for the length of the protection bridge piers from the Franklin Street 

Bridge to the Michigan Avenue Bridge. 

(4) ISLAND END RIVER, MASSACHUSETTS.—The portion of the project for navigation, Island End River, Massachusetts, carried out under section 107 of the 

River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), described as follows: Beginning 

at a point along the eastern limit of the existing project, N507,348.98, 

37 

E721,180.01, thence running northeast about 35 feet to a point N507,384.17, 

E721,183.36, thence running northeast about 324 feet to a point N507,590.51, 

E721,433.17, thence running northeast about 345 feet to a point along the 

northern limit of the existing project, N507,927.29, E721,510.29, thence running 

southeast about 25 feet to a point N507,921.71, E721,534.66, thence running 

southwest about 354 feet to a point N507,576.65, E721,455.64, thence running 

southwest about 357 feet to the point of origin. 

(5) CITY WATERWAY, TACOMA, WASHINGTON.—The portion of the project for 

navigation, City Waterway, Tacoma, Washington, authorized by the first section 

of the River and Harbor Appropriations Act of June 13, 1902 (32 Stat. 347), 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. 

(b) ANCHORAGE AREA, NEW LONDON HARBOR, CONNECTICUT.—The portion of the 

project for navigation, New London Harbor, Connecticut, authorized by the River 

and Harbor Appropriations Act of June 13, 1902 (32 Stat. 333), that consists of a 

23-foot waterfront channel and that is further described as beginning at a point 

along the western limit of the existing project, N188, 802.75, E779, 462.81, thence 

running northeasterly about 1,373.88 feet to a point N189, 554.87, E780, 612.53, 

thence running southeasterly about 439.54 feet to a point N189, 319.88, E780, 

983.98, thence running southwesterly about 831.58 feet to a point N188, 864.63, 

E780, 288.08, thence running southeasterly about 567.39 feet to a point N188, 

301.88, E780, 360.49, thence running northwesterly about 1,027.96 feet to the point 

of origin, shall be redesignated as an anchorage area. 

(c) NORWALK HARBOR, CONNECTICUT.—The 10-foot channel portion of the Norwalk 

Harbor, Connecticut, navigation project described in subsection (a)(2) is modified to 

authorize the Secretary to realign the channel to include a new section immediately 

north of the area described in subsection (a)(2)(B). The new triangular shaped section is described as follows: Commencing at a point N103,968.35, E417,815.29, 

thence running south 17 degrees 05 minutes 15 seconds east 118.09 feet to a point 

N103,855.48, E417,849.99, thence running north 33 degrees 07 minutes 30 seconds 

west 36.76 feet to a point N103,886.27, E417.829.90, thence running north 10 degrees 05 minutes 26 seconds west 83.37 feet to the point of origin. 

(d) CHICAGO RIVER AND HARBOR, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.—The projects for navigation, 

Chicago River and Chicago Harbor referred to in subsection (a)(3) are modified to 

direct the Secretary to redefine the Federal navigation channel for the North 

Branch Canal portion extending from 100 feet downstream of the Halsted Street 

Bridge to 100 feet upstream of the Division Street Bridge to be no wider than 66 

feet. 

(e) ADDITIONAL DEAUTHORIZATIONS.—The following projects are not authorized 

after the date of enactment of this Act, except with respect to any portion of such 

a project which portion has been completed before such date or is under construction 

on such date: 

(1) The project for flood damage reduction, Cache Creek Basin, Clear Lake 

Outlet Channel, California, authorized by the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1986 (Public Law 99–662). 

(2) The project for flood control, Goleta and Vicinity, California, authorized by 

the Flood Control Act of 1970. 

(3) The project to modify the Central and Southern Florida project to improve 

water supply to the Everglades National Park, Florida, authorized by the Flood 

Control Act of 1954 (Public Law 83–780) and the Flood Control Act of 1968 

(Public Law 90–483). 

(4) The project for flood control, Central and Southern Florida Project, Shingle 

Creek Basin, Florida, authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1962. 

(5) The project for flood control, Middle Wabash, Greenfield Bayou, Indiana, 

authorized by section 10 of the Flood Control Act of 1946. 

(6) The project for flood damage reduction, Lake George, Hobart, Indiana, authorized by section 602 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public 

Law 99–662). 

(7) The project for flood damage reduction, Green Bay Levee and Drainage 

District No. 2, Iowa, authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 

1986, deauthorized in fiscal year 1991, and reauthorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (Public Law 102–580). 

(8) The project for flood damage reduction, Hazard, Kentucky, authorized by 

section 3 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (Public Law 100–676) 

and section 108 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (Public Law 

101–640). 

(9) The recreation portion of the project for flood control, Taylorsville Lake, 

Kentucky, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1966. 

38 

(10) The project for flood control, West Kentucky Tributaries, Kentucky, authorized by the Flood Control Acts of 1965 and 1970 and the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1986. 

(11) The project for flood damage reduction, Bayou Cocodrie and Tributaries, 

Louisiana, authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1941 and the Water Resources Development Act of 1974. 

(12) The project for flood control, Eastern Rapides and South-Central 

Avoyelles Parishes, Louisiana, authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1970 

(Public Law–611). 

(13) The project for Red River Waterway, Shreveport, Louisiana to 

Daingerfield, Texas, authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (Public 

Law 90–483). 

(14) The project for flood damage reduction Brockton, Massachusetts, authorized by section 401(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public 

Law 99–662). 

(15) The project for navigation, Grand Haven Harbor, Michigan, authorized 

by section 202 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99– 

662). 

(16) The project for navigation, Greenville Harbor, Mississippi, authorized by 

section 601 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99– 

662). 

(17) The project for hydropower, Libby Dam, Montana, (Units 6–8), authorized by section 549 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (Public 

Law 104–303). 

(18) 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 (Public Law 99–662). 

(19) The project for navigation, Outer Harbor, Buffalo, New York, authorized 

by section 110 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992. 

(20) The project for flood damage reduction, Sugar Creek Basin, North Carolina and South Carolina, authorized by section 401 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99–662). 

(21) The project for flood control and recreation, Fairfield, Ohio, authorized 

by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 

99–662). 

(22) The project for shoreline protection, Maumee Bay, Lake Erie, Ohio, authorized by section 501(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. 

(23) The project for flood control and water supply, Parker Lake, Muddy 

Boggy Creek, Oklahoma, authorized by the Water Resources Development Act 

of 1986 (Public Law 99–662). 

(24) The project for the Columbia River, Seafarers Memorial, Hammond, Oregon, authorized by the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 

1991. 

(25) The project for bulkhead repairs, Quonset Point-Davisville, Rhode Island, 

authorized by section 571 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. 

(26) The project for flood damage reduction, Harris Fork Creek, Tennessee 

and Kentucky, authorized by section 102 of the Water Resources Development 

Acts of 1976 and 1986. 

(27) The project for flood damage reduction, Arroyo Colorado, Texas, authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99–662). 

(28) The project for flood damage reduction, Cypress Creek-Structural, Texas, 

authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 1988. 

(29) The project for flood damage reduction, East Fork Channel Improvement, 

Increment 2, East Fork of the Trinity River, Texas, authorized by the Flood 

Control Act of 1962. 

(30) The project for flood damage reduction, Falfurrias, Texas, authorized by 

the Water Resources Development Act of 1988. 

(31) The project for bank erosion, Kanawha River, Charleston, West Virginia, 

authorized by section 603(f)(13) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1986 (Public Law 99–662). 

(f) CONDITIONS.—The first sentence of section 1001(b)(2) of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(2)) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘two years’’ and inserting ‘‘year’’; and 

(2) by striking ‘‘7’’ and inserting ‘‘5’’. 

SEC. 3098. LAND CONVEYANCES. 

(a) MILFORD, KANSAS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to the provisions of this section, the Secretary shall 

convey by quitclaim deed without consideration to the Geary County Fire DeVerDate mar 24 2004 14:17 May 03, 2004 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\PICKUP\HR265.XXX HR265
39 

partment, Milford, Kansas, all right, title, and interest of the United States in 

and to a parcel of land consisting of approximately 7.4 acres located in Geary 

County, Kansas, for construction, operation, and maintenance of a fire station. (2) SURVEY TO OBTAIN LEGAL DESCRIPTION.—The exact acreage and the de- scription of the real property referred to in paragraph (1) shall be determined 

by a survey that is satisfactory to the Secretary. (3) REVERSION.—If the Secretary determines that the property conveyed under paragraph (1) ceases to be held in public ownership or to be used for any 

purpose other than a fire station, all right, title, and interest in and to the property shall revert to the United States, at the option of the United States. (b) BOARDMAN, OREGON.—Section 501(g)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3751) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘city of Boardman,’’ and inserting ‘‘the Boardman Park and Recreation District, Boardman,’’; and 

(2) by striking ‘‘such city’’ and inserting ‘‘the city of Boardman’’. (c) GENERALLY APPLICABLE PROVISIONS.— (1) APPLICABILITY OF PROPERTY SCREENING PROVISIONS.—Section 2696 of title 

10, United States Code, shall not apply to any conveyance under this section. (2) ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The Secretary may require that any conveyance under this section be subject to such additional terms and conditions as the Secretary considers appropriate and necessary to protect the interests of the United States. 

(3) COSTS OF CONVEYANCE.—An entity to which a conveyance is made under this section shall be responsible for all reasonable and necessary costs, including real estate transaction and environmental compliance costs, associated with 

the conveyance. (4) LIABILITY.—An entity to which a conveyance is made under this section shall hold the United States harmless from any liability with respect to activities carried out, on or after the date of the conveyance, on the real property conveyed. The United States shall remain responsible for any liability with respect 

to activities carried out, before such date, on the real property conveyed. 

SEC. 3099. EXTINGUISHMENT OF REVERSIONARY INTERESTS AND USE RESTRICTIONS. 

(a) IDAHO.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—With respect to each deed listed in paragraph (2), the reversionary interests and use restrictions relating to industrial use purposes are extinguished. 

(2) AFFECTED DEEDS.—The deeds with the following county auditor’s file numbers are referred to in paragraph (1): 

(A) Auditor’s Instrument No. 399218 of Nez Perce County, Idaho—2.07 

acres. 

(B) Auditor’s Instrument No. 487437 of Nez Perce County, Idaho—7.32 

acres. 

(b) OLD HICKORY LOCK AND DAM, CUMBERLAND RIVER, TENNESSEE.— 

(1) RELEASE OF RETAINED RIGHTS, INTERESTS, RESERVATIONS.—With respect to 

land conveyed by the Secretary to the Tennessee Society of Crippled Children 

and Adults, Incorporated (now 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 reversionary interests and the 

use restrictions relating to recreation and camping purposes are extinguished. 

(2) INSTRUMENT OF RELEASE.—As soon as possible after the date of enactment 

of this Act, the Secretary shall execute and file in the appropriate office a deed 

of release, amended deed, or other appropriate instrument effectuating the release of interests required by paragraph (1). 

(c) NO EFFECT OF OTHER RIGHTS.—Nothing in this section affects the remaining 

rights and interests of the Corps of Engineers for authorized project purposes. 

SEC. 3100. LAND EXCHANGE, DISPOSAL AND ACQUISITION OF LANDS, ALLATOONA LAKE, 

GEORGIA. 

(a) LAND EXCHANGE.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may exchange lands above 863 feet in elevation at Allatoona Lake, Georgia, identified in the Real Estate Design Memorandum prepared by the Mobile district engineer, April 5, 1996, and approved 

October 8, 1996, for lands on the north side of Allatoona Lake that are needed 

for wildlife management and for protection of the water quality and overall environment of Allatoona Lake. 

(2) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The basis for all land exchanges under this subsection shall be a fair market appraisal so that lands exchanged are of equal 

value. 

(b) DISPOSAL AND ACQUISITION OF LANDS, ALLATOONA LAKE, GEORGIA.— 

40 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may also sell lands above 863 feet in elevation at Allatoona Lake, Georgia, identified in the memorandum referred to in 

subsection (a)(1) and may use the proceeds to pay costs associated with the purchase of lands needed for wildlife management and for protection of the water 

quality and overall environment of Allatoona Lake. 

(2) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—Land sales and purchases to be conducted under 

this subsection shall be subject to the following terms and conditions: 

(A) Lands acquired under this subsection shall be by negotiated purchase 

from willing sellers only. 

(B) The basis for all transactions under the program shall be a fair market appraisal acceptable to the Secretary. 

(C) The purchasers shall share in the associated environmental and real 

estate costs, to include surveys and associated fees in accordance with the 

memorandum referred to in subsection (a)(1). 

(D) Any other conditions that the Secretary may impose. 

(c) REPEAL.—Section 325 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 

Stat. 4849) is repealed. 

TITLE IV—STUDIES 

SEC. 4001. JOHN GLENN GREAT LAKES BASIN PROGRAM. 

Section 455 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 330–332) 

is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(g) IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS FOR STUDY.—The non-Federal interest may provide 

up to 100 percent of the non-Federal share required under subsection (f) in the form 

of services, materials, supplies, or other in-kind contributions.’’. 

SEC. 4002. ST. GEORGE HARBOR, ALASKA. 

The Secretary shall conduct, at Federal expense, a study to determine the feasibility of providing navigation improvements at St. George, Alaska. 

SEC. 4003. SUSITNA RIVER, ALASKA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out 

a project for hydropower, recreation, and related purposes on the Susitna River, 

Alaska. 

SEC. 4004. SEARCY COUNTY, ARKANSAS. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of using Greers 

Ferry Lake as a water supply source for Searcy County, Arkansas. 

SEC. 4005. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND ILLINOIS WATERWAY, ILLINOIS, IOWA, MINNESOTA, 

MISSOURI, AND WISCONSIN. 

The Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the results of the Upper 

Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway Restructured System Navigation Feasibility 

Study, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin, no later than July 1, 

2004. 

SEC. 4006. HAMILTON, CALIFORNIA. 

The Secretary is directed to continue planning, preconstruction, engineering, and 

design efforts on the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basins Comprehensive StudyHamilton City Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration Initial Project 

and shall include in the study an area 2 miles north and 4 miles south of State 

Highway 32. 

SEC. 4007. OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA. 

Section 414 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2636) is 

amended by striking ‘‘32 months’’ and inserting ‘‘44 months’’. 

SEC. 4008. SACRAMENTO RIVER, CALIFORNIA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive study to determine the feasibility of, 

and alternatives for, measures to protect water diversion facilities and fish protective screen facilities in the vicinity of river mile 178 on the Sacramento River, California. 

SEC. 4009. SAN FRANCISCO BAY, SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA, CALIFORNIA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of the beneficial use of dredged material from the San Francisco Bay in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California, including the benefits and impacts of salinity in the Delta and the benefits to navigation, flood damage reduction, ecosystem 

restoration, water quality, salinity control, water supply reliability, and recreation. 

41 

(b) COOPERATION.—In conducting the study, the Secretary shall cooperate with 

the California Department of Water Resources and appropriate Federal and State 

entities in developing options for the beneficial use of dredged material from San 

Francisco Bay for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta area. 

(c) REVIEW.—The study shall include a review of the feasibility of using Sherman 

Island as a rehandling site for levee maintenance material, as well as for ecosystem 

restoration. The review may include monitoring a pilot project using up to 150,000 

cubic yards of dredged material and being carried out at the Sherman Island site, 

examining larger scale use of dredged materials from the San Francisco Bay and 

Suisun Bay Channel, and analyzing the feasibility of the potential use of saline materials from the San Francisco Bay for both rehandling and ecosystem restoration 

purposes. 

SEC. 4010. TYBEE ISLAND, GEORGIA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of including the 

northern end of Tybee Island extending from the north terminal groin to the mouth 

of Lazaretto Creek as a part of the project for beach erosion control, Tybee Island, 

Georgia, carried out under section 201 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 

1962d–5). 

SEC. 4011. CALUMET HARBOR, ILLINOIS. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out 

a project for navigation at Calumet Harbor, Illinois. 

SEC. 4012. PADUCAH, KENTUCKY. 

The Secretary is authorized to complete a rehabilitation evaluation report for the 

project for flood damage reduction, Paducah, Kentucky, and, if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible, proceed to preconstruction engineering and design 

for rehabilitation of the project. 

SEC. 4013. BASTROP-MOREHOUSE PARISH, LOUISIANA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out 

a project for water supply, Bastrop-Morehouse Parish, Louisiana. 

SEC. 4014. WEST FELICIANA PARISH, LOUISIANA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out 

a project for riverfront development, including enhanced public access, recreation, 

and environmental restoration, on the Mississippi River in West Feliciana Parish, 

Louisiana. 

SEC. 4015. CITY OF MACKINAC ISLAND, MICHIGAN. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out 

a project for navigation at the city of Mackinac Island, Michigan. 

SEC. 4016. CHICAGO, ILLINOIS. 

Section 425(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2638) 

is amended by inserting ‘‘Lake Michigan and’’ before ‘‘the Chicago River’’. 

SEC. 4017. SOUTH BRANCH, CHICAGO RIVER, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out 

a project for ecosystem restoration at the South Fork of the South Branch of the 

Chicago River, Chicago, Illinois. 

SEC. 4018. NORTHEAST MISSISSIPPI. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of modifying the 

project for navigation, Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, Alabama and Mississippi, to 

provide water supply for northeast Mississippi. 

SEC. 4019. PUEBLO OF ZUNI, NEW MEXICO. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out 

projects for water resources development, environmental restoration, and natural resources protection for the Pueblo of Zuni, New Mexico, under section 203 of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2269). 

SEC. 4020. HUDSON-RARITAN ESTUARY, NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY. 

In carrying out the study for environmental restoration, Hudson-Raritan Estuary, 

New York and New Jersey, the Secretary shall establish and utilize watershed restoration teams composed of estuary restoration experts from the Corps of Engineers, 

the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, and the Port Authority 

of New York and New Jersey and other experts designated by the Secretary for the 

purpose of developing habitat restoration and water quality enhancement. 

42 

SEC. 4021. SAC AND FOX NATION, OKLAHOMA. 

The Secretary shall complete a water and related land resource conservation and 

management plan for the Sac and Fox Nation, Oklahoma, under section 203 of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2269). 

SEC. 4022. SUTHERLIN, OREGON. 

(a) STUDY.—The Secretary shall conduct a study of water resources along 

Sutherlin Creek in the vicinity of Sutherlin, Oregon, to determine the feasibility of 

carrying out a project to restore and enhance aquatic resources using a combination 

of structural and bioengineering techniques and, if the Secretary determines that 

the project is feasible, may carry out the project. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated 

to carry out this section $2,500,000. 

SEC. 4023. TILLAMOOK BAY AND BAR, OREGON. 

The Secretary shall conduct under section 216 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 

(84 Stat. 1830) a study of the project for navigation, Tillamook Bay and Bar, Oregon, authorized by the first section of the River and Harbor Appropriations Act of 

July 25, 1912 (37 Stat. 220), to investigate measures to address dangerous and hazardous wave and ocean conditions. 

SEC. 4024. ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION AND FISH PASSAGE IMPROVEMENTS, OREGON. 

(a) STUDY.—The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of undertaking ecosystem restoration and fish passage improvements on rivers throughout the State of Oregon. 

(b) REQUIREMENTS.—In carrying out the study, the Secretary shall— 

(1) work in coordination with the State of Oregon, local governments, and 

other Federal agencies; and 

(2) place emphasis on— 

(A) fish passage and conservation and restoration strategies to benefit 

species that are listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered 

species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); 

and 

(B) other watershed restoration objectives. 

(c) PILOT PROGRAM.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—In conjunction with conducting the study under subsection 

(a), the Secretary may carry out pilot projects to demonstrate the effectiveness 

of ecosystem restoration and fish passages. 

(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 to carry out this subsection. 

SEC. 4025. NORTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION AND PROTECTION. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out 

aquatic ecosystem restoration and protection projects in the counties of Lackawanna, Lycoming, Susquehanna, Wyoming, Pike, Wayne, Sullivan, Bradford, Northumberland, Union, Snyder, and Montour, Pennsylvania, particularly as related to 

abandoned mine drainage abatement and reestablishment of stream and river channels. 

SEC. 4026. GEORGETOWN AND WILLIAMSBURG COUNTIES, SOUTH CAROLINA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out 

a project for water supply for Georgetown and Williamsburg Counties, South Carolina, including the viability and practicality of constructing a desalinization water 

treatment facility to meet such water supply needs. 

SEC. 4027. SABINE PASS TO GALVESTON BAY, TEXAS. 

In conducting a feasibility study for shore protection and related improvements 

between Sabine Pass and the entrance to Galveston Bay, Texas, the Secretary may 

include any benefits related to the use of State Highway 87 as an emergency evacuation route in the determination of national economic development benefits of the 

project. 

SEC. 4028. GRAND COUNTY AND MOAB, UTAH. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out 

a project for water supply for Grand County and the city of Moab, Utah, including 

a review of the impact of current and future demands on the Spanish Valley Aquifer. 

43 

SEC. 4029. CHEHALIS RIVER BASIN, WASHINGTON. 

The Secretary shall conduct a river basin study for the Chehalis River basin, Washington, including a study of the uses of the basin’s water resources to assist 

users in developing a fair and equitable distribution of such resources. 

SEC. 4030. SPRAGUE, LINCOLN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. 

The Secretary may accept from the non-Federal interest to pay all or a part of the non-Federal share of the cost of feasibility study for the project for flood control 

in the vicinity of Sprague, Lincoln County, Washington, funds made available under 

any other Federal program if such use of the funds is permitted under the Federal 

program. 

SEC. 4031. MONONGAHELA RIVER BASIN, NORTHERN WEST VIRGINIA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out aquatic ecosystem restoration and protection projects in the watersheds of the 

Monongahela River basin lying within the counties of Hancock, Ohio, Marshall, 

Wetzel, Tyler, Pleasants, Wood, Doddridge, Monongalia, Marion, Harrison, Taylor, 

Barbour, Preston, Tucker, Mineral, Grant, Gilmer, Brooke, and Rithchie, West Virginia, particularly as related to abandoned mine drainage abatement. 

SEC. 4032. WAUWATOSA, WISCONSIN. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and environmental restoration, Menomonee 

River and Underwood Creek, Wauwatosa, Wisconsin. 

TITLE V—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 

SEC. 5001. MAINTENANCE OF NAVIGATION CHANNELS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Upon request of a non-Federal interest, the Secretary shall be 

responsible for maintenance of the following navigation channels and breakwaters 

constructed or improved by the non-Federal interest if the Secretary determines 

that such maintenance is economically justified and environmentally acceptable and 

that the channel or breakwater was constructed in accordance with applicable permits and appropriate engineering and design standards: 

(1) Pix Bayou navigation channel, Chambers County, Texas. 

(2) Pidgeon Industrial Harbor, Pidgeon Industrial Park, Memphis Harbor, 

Tennessee. 

(3) Racine Harbor, Wisconsin. 

(b) COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT.—Not later than 6 months after the date of receipt of a request from a non-Federal interest for Federal assumption of maintenance of a channel listed in subsection (a), the Secretary shall make a determination as provided in subsection (a) and advise the non-Federal interest of the Secretary’s determination. 

(c) SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY, TEXAS.—The Secretary shall remove sunken vessels and debris between miles 35 and 43 of the Channel to Orange, Sabine-Neches 

Waterway, Texas, for the purpose of improving navigation safety and reducing the 

risk to the public. 

SEC. 5002. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may provide technical, planning, and design assistance to non-Federal interests for carrying out watershed management, restoration, and development projects at the locations described in subsection (d). 

(b) SPECIFIC MEASURES.—Assistance provided under subsection (a) may be in support of non-Federal projects for the following purposes: 

(1) Management and restoration of water quality. 

(2) Control and remediation of toxic sediments. 

(3) Restoration of degraded streams, rivers, wetlands, and other waterbodies 

to their natural condition as a means to control flooding, excessive erosion, and 

sedimentation. 

(4) Protection and restoration of watersheds, including urban watersheds. 

(5) Demonstration of technologies for nonstructural measures to reduce destructive impacts of flooding. 

(c) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—The non-Federal share of the cost of assistance provided under subsection (a) shall be 50 percent. 

(d) PROJECT LOCATIONS.—The locations referred to in subsection (a) are the following: 

(1) Spring Branch watershed, Huntsville, Alabama. 

(2) Tuolumne County, California. 

(3) Cucamonga basin, Upland, California. 

44 

(4) Kinkaid Lake, Jackson County, Illinois. 

(5) Those portions of the watersheds of the Concord, Charles, Blackstone, 

Neponset, Taunton, Nashua, Shawsheen, and Merrimack Rivers, Massachusetts, lying within the Interstate Route 495 corridor. (6) Jackson Brook watershed, New Jersey. 

(7) Those portions of the watersheds of the Beaver, Upper Ohio, 

Connoquenessing, Lower Allegheny, Kiskiminetas, Lower Monongahela, 

Youghiogheny, Shenango, and Mahoning Rivers lying within the counties of 

Beaver, Butler, Lawrence, and Mercer, Pennsylvania. (8) Southampton Creek watershed, Southampton, Pennsylvania. 

(9) Unami Creek watershed, Milford Township, Pennsylvania. 

(10) Amite River basin, Louisiana. 

(11) Iberville Parish, East Atchafalaya River basin, Louisiana. 

(12) Genesee River watershed, New York. 

(13) Tonawanda Creek watershed, New York. 

(14) Buffalo River watershed, New York. 

(15) Eighteenmile Creek watershed, Niagara County, New York. 

(16) Cattaragus Creek watershed, New York. 

(17) Oswego River basin, New York. 

(18) Red River watershed, Louisiana. 

(19) Fountain Creek and tributaries, Colorado. 

(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated 

to carry out this section $15,000,000. 

SEC. 5003. DAM SAFETY. 

(a) ASSISTANCE.—The Secretary may provide assistance to enhance dam safety at 

the following locations: 

(1) Mountain Park Dam, Mountain Park, Georgia. 

(2) Barber Dam, Ada County, Idaho. 

(3) Fish Creek Dam, Blaine County, Idaho. 

(4) Lost Valley Dam, Adams County, Idaho. 

(5) Salmon Falls Dam, Twin Falls County, Idaho. 

(6) Whaley Lake Dam, Pawling, New York. 

(7) Lake Carl Blackwell Dam, Stillwater, Oklahoma. 

(8) Dams in Mountain Lakes Park, Princeton Township, New Jersey. 

(9) State Dam, Auburn, New York. 

(10) Candor Dam, Candor, New York. 

(b) SPECIAL RULE.—The assistance provided under subsection (a) for State Dam, 

Auburn, New York, shall be for a project for rehabilitation in accordance with the 

report on State Dam Rehabilitation, Owasco Lake Outlet, New York, dated March 

1999, if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible. 

(c) FERN RIDGE DAM, OREGON.—It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary 

should work to immediately remedy the situation at Fern Ridge Dam, Oregon, due 

to the rapid deterioration of the dam. 

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated 

to carry out this section $6,000,000. 

SEC. 5004. STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY EVALUATIONS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Upon request of a non-Federal interest, the Secretary shall 

evaluate the structural integrity and effectiveness of a project for flood damage reduction and, if the Secretary determines that the project does not meet such minimum standards as the Secretary may establish and, absent action by the Secretary, 

the project will fail, the Secretary may take such action as may be necessary to restore the integrity and effectiveness of the project. 

(b) PRIORITY.—The Secretary shall evaluate under subsection (a) the following 

projects: 

(1) Project for flood damage reduction, Arkansas River Levees, river mile 205 

to river mile 308.4, Arkansas. 

(2) Project for flood damage reduction, Marianna Borough, Pennsylvania. 

(3) Project for flood damage reduction, Nonconnah Creek, Tennessee. 

SEC. 5005. FLOOD MITIGATION PRIORITY AREAS. 

Section 212(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (33 U.S.C. 

2332(e); 114 Stat. 2599) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (27); 

(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (28) and inserting a semicolon; and 

(3) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(29) La Crosse County, Wisconsin; 

‘‘(30) Crawford County, Wisconsin; 

45 

‘‘(31) Buffalo County, Wisconsin; 

‘‘(32) Calhoun County, Illinois; 

‘‘(33) Saint Charles County, Missouri; 

‘‘(34) Saint Louis County, Missouri; 

‘‘(35) Dubuque County, Iowa; 

‘‘(36) Scott County, Iowa; 

‘‘(37) Rock Island County, Illinois; 

‘‘(38) Ascension Parish, Louisiana; 

‘‘(39) East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana; 

‘‘(40) Iberville Parish, Louisiana; and 

‘‘(41) Livingston Parish, Louisiana.’’. 

SEC. 5006. ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR AUTHORIZED PROJECTS. 

Section 219(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 

110 Stat. 3757; 113 Stat. 334) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (7); 

(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (8) and inserting a semicolon; and 

(3) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(9) $20,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(20); 

‘‘(10) $20,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(25); 

‘‘(11) $15,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(26); 

‘‘(12) $7,800,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(27); 

‘‘(13) $18,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(31); and 

‘‘(14) $30,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(40).’’. 

SEC. 5007. EXPEDITED COMPLETION OF REPORTS AND CONSTRUCTION FOR CERTAIN 

PROJECTS. 

The Secretary shall expedite completion of the reports and, if the Secretary determines the project is feasible, shall expedite completion of construction for the following projects: 

(1) Welch Point, Elk River, Cecil County, Maryland, being carried out under 

section 535(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 348– 

349). 

(2) West View Shores, Cecil County, Maryland, being carried out under section 521 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114. Stat. 2655). 

(3) Sylvan Beach Breakwater, Verona, Oneida County, New York, being carried out under section 3 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act authorizing Federal participation in the cost of protecting the shores of publicly owned property’’, approved 

August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426g). 

(4) Fulmer Creek, Village of Mohawk, New York, being carried out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s). 

(5) Moyer Creek, Village of Frankfort, New York, being carried out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s). 

(6) Steele Creek, Village of Ilion, New York, being carried out under section 

205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s). 

(7) Oriskany Wildlife Management Area, Rome, New York, being carried out 

under section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 

2330). 

(8) Whitney Point Lake, Otselic River, Whitney Point, New York, being carried out under section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 

(33 U.S.C. 2309a). 

(9) Newton Creek, Bainbridge, New York, being carried out under section 14 

of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r). 

(10) Chenango Lake, Chenango County, New York, being carried out under 

section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330). 

(11) Lucas Berg Pit, Worth, Illinois, being carried out as part of the CalumetSag navigation project, authorized by section 2 of the River and Harbor Act of 

March 2, 1945 (59 Stat. 19), and modified by the first section of the River and 

Harbor Act of July 24, 1946 (60 Stat. 636), and section 109 of the River and 

Harbor Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 302). 

SEC. 5008. EXPEDITED COMPLETION OF REPORTS FOR CERTAIN PROJECTS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall expedite completion of the reports for the 

following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is justified in the 

completed report, proceed directly to project preconstruction, engineering, and design: 

(1) Project for flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, Sacramento 

and San Joaquin River basins, Hamilton, California. 

46 

(2) Project for ecosystem restoration, University Lake, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 

(3) Project for shoreline protection, Detroit River Greenway Corridor, Detroit, 

Michigan. 

(4) Project for shoreline stabilization at Egmont Key, Florida. 

(b) SPECIAL RULE.—In carrying out the project for shoreline stabilization at 

Egmont Key, Florida, referred to in subsection (a)(4), the Secretary shall waive any 

cost share to be provided by non-Federal interests for any portion of the project that 

benefits federally owned property. 

(c) CHESAPEAKE, MARYLAND.—The Secretary shall expedite completion of the 

study being carried out under section 535(b) of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 349) with respect to additional compensation to the city of 

Chesapeake, Maryland. 

SEC. 5009. SOUTHEASTERN WATER RESOURCES ASSESSMENT. 

The Secretary may provide assistance to a coordinated effort by Federal, State, 

and local agencies, non-Federal and nonprofit entities, regional researchers, and 

other interested parties to assess the water resources and water resources needs of 

river basins and watersheds of the southeastern United States. 

SEC. 5010. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. 

Section 1103(e)(7)(A) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 

652(e)(7)(A)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘The non-Federal interest may provide the non-Federal share of the cost of the project in the form of services, materials, supplies, or other in-kind contributions.’’. 

SEC. 5011. MISSOURI AND MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI RIVERS ENHANCEMENT PROJECT. 

Section 514(g) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 343; 

117 Stat. 142) is amended by striking ‘‘and 2004’’ and inserting ‘‘through 2015’’. 

SEC. 5012. MEMBERSHIP OF MISSOURI RIVER TRUST. 

Section 904(b)(1)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 

2708) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of clause (vii); 

(2) by redesignating clause (viii) as clause (ix); and 

(3) by inserting after clause (vii) the following: 

‘‘(viii) rural water systems; and’’. 

SEC. 5013. GREAT LAKES FISHERY AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION. 

Section 506(f)(3)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 

1962d–22; 114 Stat. 2646) is amended by striking ‘‘50 percent’’ and inserting ‘‘100 

percent’’. 

SEC. 5014. SUSQUEHANNA, DELAWARE, AND POTOMAC RIVER BASINS. 

(a) EX OFFICIO MEMBER.—Notwithstanding section 3001(a) of the 1997 Emergency 

Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery From Natural Disasters, and for 

Overseas Peacekeeping Efforts, Including Those in Bosnia (111 Stat. 176) and section 2.2 of both the Susquehanna River Basin Compact (Public Law 91–575) and 

the Delaware River Basin Compact (Public Law 87–328), beginning in fiscal year 

2002 and thereafter, the Division Engineer, North Atlantic Division, Corps of Engineers, shall be the ex officio United States member under the Susquehanna River 

Basin Compact and the Delaware River Basin Compact, who shall serve without additional compensation and who may designate an alternate member or members in 

accordance with the terms of those respective compacts. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION TO ALLOCATE.—The Secretary may allocate funds to the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, Delaware River Basin Commission, and the 

Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin (Potomac River Basin Compact 

(Public Law 91–407)) to fulfill the equitable funding requirements of their respective 

interstate compacts. 

(c) WATER SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION STORAGE.—The Secretary shall enter into 

an agreement with the Delaware River Basin Commission to provide temporary 

water supply and conservation storage at the Francis E. Walter Dam, Pennsylvania, 

during any period in which the Commission has determined that a drought warning 

or drought emergency exists. The agreement shall provide that the cost for any such 

water supply and conservation storage shall not exceed the incremental operating 

costs associated with providing the storage. 

SEC. 5015. CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND PROTECTION PROGRAM. 

Section 510(i) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3761) 

is amended by striking ‘‘$10,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$30,000,000’’. 

47 

SEC. 5016. MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA. 

The Secretary shall review the navigation and aquatic ecosystem restoration com- ponents of the Montgomery Riverfront and Downtown Master Plan, Montgomery, 

Alabama, dated May 2001, and prepared by the non-Federal interest and, if the Secretary determines that those components meet the evaluation and design standards 

of the Corps of Engineers and that the components are feasible, may carry out the 

components at a Federal cost not to exceed $5,000,000. 

SEC. 5017. PINHOOK CREEK, HUNTSVILLE, ALABAMA. 

The Secretary shall design and construct the locally preferred plan for flood pro- tection at Pinhook Creek, Huntsville, Alabama, under the authority of section 205 

of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s). The Secretary shall allow the nonFederal interest to participate in the financing of the project in accordance with section 903(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184) to the 

extent that the Secretary’s evaluation indicates that applying such section is necessary to implement the project. 

SEC. 5018. ALASKA. 

Section 570 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 369) is 

amended— 

(1) in subsection (e)(3)(B) by striking the last sentence; 

(2) in subsection (h) by striking ‘‘$25,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$40,000,000’’; 

and 

(3) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(i) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the Flood Control 

Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(b)), for any project undertaken under this section, 

a non-Federal interest may include a nonprofit entity, with the consent of the affected local government. 

‘‘(j) CORPS OF ENGINEERS EXPENSES.—Ten percent of the amounts appropriated to 

carry out this section may be used by the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer projects under this section at 100 percent Federal expense.’’. 

SEC. 5019. AKUTAN SMALL BOAT HARBOR, ALASKA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall expedite the study for the Akutan Small 

Boat Harbor, Alaska, and upon completion of the feasibility study, shall design and 

construct the project, if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible. 

(b) TREATMENT OF CERTAIN DREDGING.—The headlands dredging for the mooring 

basin shall be considered general navigation feature for purposes of estimating the 

non-Federal share of the cost of the project. 

SEC. 5020. LOWELL CREEK TUNNEL, SEWARD, ALASKA. 

(a) LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR.—The Secretary shall assume responsibility for the long-term maintenance and repair of the Lowell Creek Tunnel. 

(b) STUDY.—The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine whether alternative 

methods of flood diversion in Lowell Canyon are feasible. 

SEC. 5021. ST. HERMAN AND ST. PAUL HARBORS, KODIAK, ALASKA. 

The Secretary shall carry out, on an emergency basis, necessary removal of rubble, sediment, and rock that are impeding the entrance to the St. Herman and St. 

Paul Harbors, Kodiak, Alaska, at a Federal cost of $2,000,000. 

SEC. 5022. AUGUSTA AND CLARENDON, ARKANSAS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to perform operation, maintenance, 

and rehabilitation of authorized and completed levees on the White River between 

Augusta and Clarendon, Arkansas. 

(b) REIMBURSEMENT.—After performing the operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation under subsection (a), the Secretary shall seek reimbursement from the Secretary of the Interior of an amount equal to the costs allocated to benefits to a Federal wildlife refuge of such operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation. 

SEC. 5023. LOOMIS LANDING, ARKANSAS. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study of shore damage in the vicinity of Loomis 

Landing, Arkansas, to determine if the damage is the result of a Federal navigation 

project, and, if the Secretary determines that the damage is the result of a Federal 

navigation project, the Secretary shall carry out a project to mitigate the damage 

under section 111 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 426i). 

SEC. 5024. MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION PROJECT, ARKANSAS AND 

OKLAHOMA. 

The McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River navigation and comprehensive development 

project, Arkansas and Oklahoma, authorized by the Act entitled ‘‘An Act authorizing 

the construction of certain public works on rivers and harbors for flood control, and 

48 

for other purposes’’, approved June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1215), and the first section 

of the River and Harbor Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 364) and modified by section 108 of 

the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 1988 (101 Stat. 1329–112), 

is further modified to authorize a project depth of 12 feet in the States of Arkansas 

and Oklahoma. 

SEC. 5025. ST. FRANCIS RIVER BASIN, ARKANSAS AND MISSOURI. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study of increased siltation and streambank erosion 

in the St. Francis River basin, Arkansas and Missouri, to determine if the siltation 

or erosion, or both, are the result of a Federal flood control project and, if the Secretary determines that the siltation or erosion, or both, are the result of a Federal 

flood control project, the Secretary shall carry out a project to mitigate the siltation 

or erosion, or both. 

SEC. 5026. CAMBRIA, CALIFORNIA. 

Section 219(f)(48) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (114 Stat. 

2763A–220) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘$10,300,000’’ and inserting the following: 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—$10,300,000’’; 

(2) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(B) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of 

the cost of the project not to exceed $3,000,000 for the cost of planning and 

design work carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of the 

partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the 

work is integral to the project.’’; and 

(3) by aligning the remainder of the text of subparagraph (A) (as designated 

by paragraph (1) of this section) with subparagraph (B) (as added by paragraph 

(2) of this section). 

SEC. 5027. CONTRA COSTA CANAL, OAKLEY AND KNIGHTSEN, CALIFORNIA; MALLARD 

SLOUGH, PITTSBURG, CALIFORNIA. 

Sections 512 and 514 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 

2650) are each amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘All planning, study, 

design, and construction on the project shall be carried out by the office of the district engineer, San Francisco, California.’’. 

SEC. 5028. EAST SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. 

Section 219(f)(22) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 

4835–4836; 113 Stat. 336) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘$25,000,000’’ and inserting the following: 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—$25,000,000’’; 

(2) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(B) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of 

the cost of the project (i) the cost of design and construction work carried 

out by the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral 

to the project; and (ii) the cost of in-kind services and materials provided 

for the project by the non-Federal interest. 

‘‘(C) IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS.—The non-Federal interest may provide any 

portion of the non-Federal share of the cost of the project in the form of 

services, materials, supplies, or other in-kind contributions.’’; and 

(3) by aligning the remainder of the text of subparagraph (A) (as designated 

by paragraph (1) of this section) with subparagraph (B) (as added by paragraph 

(2) of this section). 

SEC. 5029. SACRAMENTO AREA, CALIFORNIA. 

Section 219(f)(23) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 

4835–4836; 113 Stat. 336) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘$25,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$35,000,000’’; 

(2) by inserting ‘‘water supply and’’ before ‘‘regional’’; and 

(3) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘$llllllll for wastewater and 

water supply infrastructure in the counties of Modoc, Lassen, Plumas, Butte, 

Sierra, Nevada, El Dorado, and Placer, California.’’. 

SEC. 5030. SACRAMENTO DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CALIFORNIA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to transfer title to the Bascule 

Bridge, deauthorized by section 347(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 2000 (114. Stat. 2618), to the city of West Sacramento, California, subject to the 

execution of an agreement by the Secretary and the city which specifies the terms 

and conditions for such transfer. The terms and conditions of the transfer shall inVerDate mar 24 2004 14:17 May 03, 2004 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\PICKUP\HR265.XXX HR265
49 

clude a provision authorizing the Secretary to participate in the construction of a 

replacement bridge following the removal of the Bascule Bridge. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATION.—There is authorized to be appropriated 

$5,000,000 for the Secretary to participate in the construction of a replacement 

bridge under this section. 

SEC. 5031. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. 

(a) PIER 70 WHARF 5 REMOVAL AND DREDGING PROJECT.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in cooperation with the Port of San Francisco, shall carry out the project for removal of Wharf 5 and associated pilings 

and dredgings at Pier 70 in San Francisco, California, substantially in accordance with the Port’s redevelopment plans. 

(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated $1,600,000 to carry out this subsection. 

(b) PIERS 94–96 REPAIRS PROJECT.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in cooperation with the Port of San Francisco, California, may carry out the project for repairs to Piers 94–96 in San 

Francisco, California, substantially in accordance with the Port’s redevelopment 

plan. 

(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATION.—There is authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 to carry out this subsection. 

(c) CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.— 

(1) ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICE.—The Secretary shall establish a centralized 

office at the office of the district engineer, San Francisco, California, for the use 

of all Federal and State agencies that are or will be involved in issuing permits 

and conducting environmental reviews for the capital improvement project to 

repair and upgrade the water supply and delivery system for the city of San 

Francisco. 

(2) CONTRIBUTIONS.—The Secretary may use the authority under section 214 

of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note) for the 

project described in paragraph (1). 

(3) PROTECTION OF IMPARTIAL DECISIONMAKING.—In carrying out this subsection, the Secretary and the heads of Federal agencies receiving funds under 

such section 214 for the project described in paragraph (1) shall ensure that the 

use of the funds accepted under such section for such project will not impact 

impartial decisionmaking with respect to the issuance of permits, either substantively or procedurally, or diminish, modify, or otherwise affect the statutory 

or regulatory authorities of such agencies. 

SEC. 5032. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, WATERFRONT AREA. 

(a) AREA TO BE DECLARED NONNAVIGABLE; PUBLIC INTEREST.—Unless the Secretary finds, after consultation with local and regional public officials (including 

local and regional public planning organizations), that the proposed projects to be 

undertaken within the boundaries of the portion of the San Francisco, California, 

waterfront area described in subsection (b) are not in the public interest, such portion is declared to be nonnavigable waters of the United States. 

(b) NORTHERN EMBARCADERO SOUTH OF BRYANT STREET.—The portion of the San 

Francisco, California, waterfront area referred to in subsection (a) is as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the northwesterly line of Bryant Street with the southwesterly line of Spear Street, which intersection lies on the line of jurisdiction of 

the San Francisco Port Authority; following thence westerly and southerly along 

said line of jurisdiction as described in the State of California Harbor and Navigable 

Code Section 1770, as amended in 1961, to its intersection with the easterly line 

of Townsend Street produced southerly; thence northerly along said easterly line of 

Townsend Street produced to its intersection with the United States Government 

pier-head line; thence following said pier-head line westerly and northerly to its 

intersection with the existing boundary line of Piers 30/32, then northerly and easterly along the existing boundary of Piers 30/32 until its intersection with the 

United States Government pier-head line, thence following said pier-head line westerly and northerly to the northwesterly line of Bryant Street produced northwesterly; thence southwesterly along said northwesterly line of Bryant Street produced 

to the point of beginning. 

(c) REQUIREMENT THAT AREA BE IMPROVED.—The declaration of nonnavigability 

under subsection (a) applies only to those parts of the area described in subsection 

(b) that are or will be bulkheaded, filled, or otherwise occupied by permanent structures and does not affect the applicability of any Federal statute or regulation applicable to such parts the day before the date of enactment of this Act, including sections 9 and 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 and 403; 30 Stat. 1151), 

commonly known as the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, section 404 

50 

of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). 

(d) EXPIRATION DATE.—If, 20 years from the date of enactment of this Act, any 

area or part thereof described in subsection (b) is not bulkheaded or filled or occupied by permanent structures, including marina facilities, in accordance with the requirements set out in subsection (c), or if work in connection with any activity permitted in subsection (c) is not commenced within 5 years after issuance of such permits, then the declaration of nonnavigability for such area or part thereof shall expire. 

SEC. 5033. STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA. 

(a) REEVALUATION.—The Secretary shall reevaluate the feasibility of the Lower 

Mosher Slough element and the levee extensions on the Upper Calaveras River element of the project for flood control, Stockton Metropolitan Area, California, carried 

out under section 211(f)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 

Stat. 3683), to determine the eligibility of such elements for reimbursement under 

section 211 of such Act (33 U.S.C. 701b–13). 

(b) SPECIAL RULES FOR REEVALUATION.—In conducting the reevaluation under 

subsection (a), the Secretary shall not reject a feasibility determination based on 

policies of the Corps of Engineers concerning the frequency of flooding, the drainage 

area, and the amount of runoff. 

(c) REIMBURSEMENT.—If the Secretary determines that the elements referred to 

subsection (a) are feasible, the Secretary shall reimburse, subject to appropriations, 

the non-Federal interest under section 211 of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 1996 for the Federal share of the cost of such elements. 

SEC. 5034. CHARLES HERVEY TOWNSHEND BREAKWATER, CONNECTICUT. 

The western breakwater for the project for navigation, New Haven Harbor, Connecticut, authorized by the 1st 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. 426), 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Charles Hervey Townshend Breakwater’’. 

SEC. 5035. EVERGLADES RESTORATION, FLORIDA. 

(a) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.— 

(1) HILLSBORO AND OKEECHOBEE AQUIFER.—Section 601(b)(2)(A) of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2681) is amended— 

(A) in clause (i) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘The project for aquifer storage and recovery, Hillsboro and Okeechobee Aquifer, Florida, authorized by section 101(a)(16) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1999 (113 Stat. 276), shall be treated for purposes of this section as being 

in the Plan.’’; and 

(B) in clause (iii) by inserting after ‘‘subparagraph (B)’’ the following: ‘‘and 

the project for aquifer storage and recovery, Hillsboro and Okeechobee Aquifer’’. 

(2) OUTREACH AND ASSISTANCE.—Section 601(k) of such Act (114 Stat. 2691– 

2692) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(3) MAXIMUM EXPENDITURES.—The Secretary may expend up to $3,000,000 

per fiscal year for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 2002, to carry out 

this subsection.’’. 

(b) CRITICAL RESTORATION PROJECTS.—Section 528(b)(3)(C) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3769; 113 Stat. 286) is amended— 

(1) in clause (i) by striking ‘‘$75,000,000’’ and all that follows through ‘‘2003’’ 

and inserting ‘‘$95,000,000’’; and 

(2) in clause (ii) by striking ‘‘$25,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$30,000,000’’. 

SEC. 5036. FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS. 

Section 109(e)(2) of Division B of the Miscellaneous Appropriations Act, 2001 (enacted into law by Public Law 106–554) (114 Stat. 2763A–222) is amended by adding 

at the end the following: 

‘‘(C) CREDIT FOR WORK PRIOR TO EXECUTION OF THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT.—The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost 

of the project (i) the cost of construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the project 

if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project; and (ii) 

the cost of land acquisition carried out by the non-Federal interest for 

projects to be carried out under this section.’’. 

51 

SEC. 5037. LAKE WORTH, FLORIDA. 

The Secretary may carry out necessary repairs for the Lake Worth bulkhead replacement project, West Palm Beach, Florida, at an estimated total cost of 

$9,000,000. 

SEC. 5038. LAKE LANIER, GEORGIA. 

The Secretary may assist local interests with planning, design, and construction 

of facilities at the Lake Lanier Olympic Center, Georgia, in support of the 2003 

World Kayaking Championships, at a total cost of $5,300,000. 

SEC. 5039. RILEY CREEK RECREATION AREA, IDAHO. 

The Secretary is authorized to carry out the Riley Creek Recreation Area Operation Plan of the Albeni Falls Management Plan, dated October 2001, for the Riley 

Creek Recreation Area, Albeni Falls Dam, Bonner County, Idaho. 

SEC. 5040. RECONSTRUCTION OF ILLINOIS FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECTS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may participate in the reconstruction of an eligible flood control project if the Secretary determines that such reconstruction is not 

required as a result of improper operation and maintenance of the project by the 

non-Federal interest. 

(b) COST SHARING.—The non-Federal share of the costs for the reconstruction of 

a flood control project authorized by this section shall be the same Federal share 

that was applicable to construction of the project. The non-Federal interest shall be 

responsible for operation and maintenance and repair of a project for which reconstruction is undertaken under this section. 

(c) RECONSTRUCTION DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘reconstruction’’, as used 

with respect to a project, means addressing major project deficiencies caused by 

long-term degradation of the foundation, construction materials, or engineering systems or components of the project, the results of which render the project at risk 

of not performing in compliance with its authorized project purposes. In addressing 

such deficiencies, the Secretary may incorporate current design standards and efficiency improvements, including the replacement of obsolete mechanical and electrical components at pumping stations, if such incorporation does not significantly 

change the scope, function, and purpose of the project as authorized. 

(d) ELIGIBLE PROJECTS.—The following flood control projects are eligible for reconstruction under this section: 

(1) Wood River Drainage and Levee District, Illinois, authorized as part of the 

navigation project of the Upper Mississippi River basin by section 2 of the Flood 

Control Act of June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1218). 

(2) Clear Creek Drainage and Levee District, Illinois, authorized by section 

5 of the Flood Control Act of June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1581). 

(3) Fort Chartres and Ivy Landing Drainage District, Illinois, authorized as 

part of the navigation project of the Upper Mississippi River basin by section 

2 of the Flood Control Act of June 22, 1938 (52 Stat. 1218). 

(e) JUSTIFICATION.—The reconstruction of a project authorized by this section 

shall not be considered a separable element of the project. 

(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATION.—There is authorized to be appropriated 

$15,000,000 to carry out this section. Such sums shall remain available until expended. 

SEC. 5041. KASKASKIA RIVER BASIN, ILLINOIS, RESTORATION. 

(a) KASKASKIA RIVER BASIN DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘Kaskaskia River 

basin’’ means the Kaskaskia River, Illinois, its backwaters, its side channels, and 

all tributaries, including their watersheds, draining into the Kaskaskia River. 

(b) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.— 

(1) DEVELOPMENT.—The Secretary shall develop, as expeditiously as practicable, a comprehensive plan for the purpose of restoring, preserving, and protecting the Kaskaskia River basin. 

(2) TECHNOLOGIES AND INNOVATIVE APPROACHES.—The comprehensive plan 

shall provide for the development of new technologies and innovative approaches— 

(A) to enhance the Kaskaskia River as a transportation corridor; 

(B) to improve water quality within the entire Kaskaskia River basin; 

(C) to restore, enhance, and preserve habitat for plants and wildlife; 

(D) to increase economic opportunity for agriculture and business communities; and 

(E) to reduce the impacts of flooding to communities and landowners. 

(3) SPECIFIC COMPONENTS.—The comprehensive plan shall include such features as are necessary to provide for— 

52 

(A) the development and implementation of a program for sediment removal technology, sediment characterization, sediment transport, and beneficial uses of sediment; 

(B) the development and implementation of a program for the planning, 

conservation, evaluation, and construction of measures for fish and wildlife 

habitat conservation and rehabilitation, and stabilization and enhancement 

of land and water resources in the basin; 

(C) the development and implementation of a long-term resource monitoring program; 

(D) the development and implementation of a computerized inventory and 

analysis system; and 

(E) the development and implementation of a systemic plan to reduce 

flood impacts by means of ecosystem restoration projects. 

(4) CONSULTATION.—The comprehensive plan shall be developed by the Secretary in consultation with appropriate Federal agencies, the State of Illinois, 

and the Kaskaskia River Coordinating Council. 

(5) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment 

of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report containing the 

comprehensive plan. 

(6) ADDITIONAL STUDIES AND ANALYSES.—After transmission of a report under 

paragraph (5), the Secretary shall conduct studies and analyses of projects related to the comprehensive plan that are appropriate and consistent with this 

subsection. 

(c) GENERAL PROVISIONS.— 

(1) WATER QUALITY.—In carrying out activities under this section, the Secretary’s recommendations shall be consistent with applicable State water quality standards. 

(2) PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.—In developing the comprehensive plan under subsection (b), the Secretary shall implement procedures to facilitate public participation, including providing advance notice of meetings, providing adequate opportunity for public input and comment, maintaining appropriate records, and 

making a record of the proceedings of meetings available for public inspection. 

(d) COORDINATION.—The Secretary shall integrate activities carried out under this 

section with ongoing Federal and State programs, projects, and activities, including 

the following: 

(1) Farm programs of the Department of Agriculture. 

(2) Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (State of Illinois) and Conservation 2000 Ecosystem Program of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources. 

(3) Conservation 2000 Conservation Practices Program and the Livestock 

Management Facilities Act administered by the Illinois Department of Agriculture. 

(4) National Buffer Initiative of the Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

(5) Nonpoint source grant program administered by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 

(e) COST SHARING.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The non-Federal share of the cost of activities carried out 

under this section shall be 35 percent. 

(2) IN-KIND SERVICES.—The Secretary may credit the cost of in-kind services 

provided by the non-Federal interest for an activity carried out under this section toward not more than 80 percent of the non-Federal share of the cost of 

the activity. In-kind services shall include all State funds expended on programs 

that accomplish the goals of this section, as determined by the Secretary. The 

programs may include the Kaskaskia River Conservation Reserve Program, the 

Illinois Conservation 2000 Program, the Open Lands Trust Fund, and other appropriate programs carried out in the Kaskaskia River basin. 

SEC. 5042. NATALIE CREEK, MIDLOTHIAN AND OAK FOREST, ILLINOIS. 

The Secretary shall carry out a project for flood damage reduction under section 

205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s) Natalie Creek, Midlothian and 

Oak Forest, Illinois, if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible. 

SEC. 5043. PEORIA RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT, PEORIA, ILLINOIS. 

The Secretary may carry out the project for Peoria riverfront development, Peoria, 

Illinois, under section 519 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 

Stat. 2653–2655), at a total cost of $16,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 

$10,400,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,600,000. 

53 

SEC. 5044. ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN RESTORATION. 

(a) EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION.—Section 519(c)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2654) is amended by striking ‘‘2004’’ and inserting 

‘‘2010’’. 

(b) IN-KIND SERVICES.—Section 519(g)(3) of such Act (114 Stat. 2655) is amended 

by inserting before the period at the end of the first sentence ‘‘if such services are 

provided not more than 5 years before the date of initiation of the project or activity’’. 

SEC. 5045. CALUMET REGION, INDIANA. 

Section 219(f)(12) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (113 Stat. 335) 

is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘$10,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$30,000,000’’; and 

(2) by striking ‘‘Lake and Porter’’ and inserting ‘‘Benton, Jasper, Lake, Newton, and Porter’’. 

SEC. 5046. RATHBUN LAKE, IOWA. 

(a) CONVEYANCE.—The Secretary shall convey the remaining water supply storage 

allocation in Rathbun Lake, Iowa, to the Rathbun Regional Water Association (in 

this section referred to as the ‘‘Water Association’’). 

(b) COST SHARING.—Notwithstanding the Water Supply Act of 1958 (43 U.S.C. 

390b), the Water Association shall pay 100 percent of the cost of the water supply 

storage allocation to be conveyed under subsection (a). The Secretary shall credit toward such non-Federal share the cost of any structures and facilities constructed by 

the Water Association at the project. 

(c) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—Before conveying the water supply storage allocation 

under subsection (a), the Secretary shall enter into an agreement with the Water 

Association, under which the Water Association shall agree to— 

(1) in accordance with designs approved by the Chief of Engineers, construct 

structures and facilities referred to in subsection (b) that have a value equal 

to or greater than the amount that otherwise would be paid to the Federal Government for the costs of the water supply storage under the Water Supply Act 

of 1958 (43 U.S.C. 390b); 

(2) be responsible for operating and maintaining the structures and facilities; 

(3) pay all operation and maintenance costs allocated to the water supply 

storage space; 

(4) use any revenues generated at the structures and facilities that are above 

those required to operate and maintain or improve the complex to undertake, 

subject to the approval of the Chief of Engineers, activities that will improve 

the quality of the environment in the Rathbun Lake watershed area; and 

(5) such other terms and conditions as the Secretary considers necessary to 

protect the interests of the United States. 

SEC. 5047. CUMBERLAND RIVER BASIN, KENTUCKY. 

At reservoirs managed by the Secretary within the Cumberland River basin, Kentucky, the Secretary shall continue to charge fees associated with storage and maintenance of water supply that were in effect on October 1, 2002. 

SEC. 5048. MAYFIELD CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, KENTUCKY. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study of flood damage along Mayfield Creek and 

tributaries between Wickliffe and Mayfield, Kentucky, to determine if the damage 

is the result of a Federal flood damage reduction project, and, if the Secretary determines that the damage is the result of a Federal flood damage reduction project, 

the Secretary shall carry out a project to mitigate the damage at Federal expense. 

SEC. 5049. NORTH FORK, KENTUCKY RIVER, BREATHITT COUNTY, KENTUCKY. 

The Secretary shall rebuild the structure that is impeding high water flows on 

the North Fork of the Kentucky River in Breathitt County, Kentucky, in a manner 

that will reduce flood damages, at an estimated total cost of $1,800,000. The nonFederal interest shall provide lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and disposal areas required for the project. Operation and maintenance of the rebuilt structure shall be a non-Federal expense. 

SEC. 5050. SOUTHERN AND EASTERN KENTUCKY. 

Section 531 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3774; 113 

Stat. 348; 117 Stat. 142) is amended by adding the following: 

‘‘(i) CORPS OF ENGINEERS EXPENSES.—Ten percent of the amounts appropriated to 

carry out this section for fiscal years 2004 and thereafter may be used by the Corps 

of Engineers district offices to administer projects under this section at 100 percent 

Federal expense.’’. 

54 

SEC. 5051. COASTAL LOUISIANA ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION AND RESTORATION. 

(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the following definitions apply: (1) COASTAL LOUISIANA ECOSYSTEM.—The term ‘‘Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem’’ means the coastal area of Louisiana from the Sabine River on the west to the 

Pearl River on the east and includes tidal waters, barrier islands, marshes, 

coastal wetlands, rivers and streams, and adjacent areas. (2) GOVERNOR.—The term ‘‘Governor’’ means the Governor of Louisiana. 

(3) TASK FORCE.—The term ‘‘Task Force’’ means the Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Protection and Restoration Task Force established by subsection (e). (b) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall develop a comprehensive plan for the purpose of protecting, preserving, and restoring the Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem. The comprehensive plan shall provide for the protection, conservation 

and restoration of the wetlands, barrier islands, shorelines, and related lands 

and features that protect critical resources, habitat, and infrastructure from the 

impacts of coastal storms, hurricanes, erosion, and subsidence. (2) DEADLINE.—Not later than July 1, 2004, the Secretary shall transmit the plan to Congress. (3) CONTENTS.—The plan shall include a comprehensive report and a programmatic environmental impact statement covering the proposed Federal action set forth in the plan. 

(4) ADDITIONAL STUDIES AND ANALYSES.—After transmission of a report under 

this subsection, the Secretary may conduct studies and analyses of projects related to the comprehensive plan that are appropriate and consistent with this 

subsection. 

(c) INTEGRATION OF OTHER ACTIVITIES.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—In developing the plan under subsection (b), the Secretary 

shall integrate ongoing Federal and State projects and activities, including 

projects implemented under the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and 

Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 3951 et seq.), the Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation Plan, the Louisiana Coastal Zone Management Plan, and the plan of 

the State of Louisiana entitled ‘‘Coast 2050: Toward a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana’’. 

(2) STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.— 

(A) EXISTING AUTHORITY.—Except as otherwise expressly provided for in 

this section, nothing in the section affects any authority in effect on the 

date of enactment of this Act, or any requirement relating to the participation in protection or restoration activities in the Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem, including projects and activities specified in paragraph (1) of— 

(i) the Department of the Army; 

(ii) the Department of the Interior; 

(iii) the Department of Commerce; 

(iv) the Environmental Protection Agency; 

(v) the Department of Agriculture; 

(vi) the Department of Transportation; 

(vii) the Department of Energy; and 

(viii) the State of Louisiana. 

(B) NEW AUTHORITY.—Nothing in this section confers any new regulatory 

authority on any Federal or non-Federal entity that carries out any activity 

authorized by this section. 

(d) COST SHARING.—The non-Federal share of the cost of developing the plan 

under subsection (b) shall be 50 percent. 

(e) COASTAL LOUISIANA ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION AND RESTORATION TASK FORCE.— 

(1) ESTABLISHMENT AND MEMBERSHIP.—There is established the Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Protection and Restoration Task Force, which shall consist of 

the following members (or, in the case of the head of a Federal Agency, a designee at the level of Assistant Secretary or an equivalent level): 

(A) The Secretary. 

(B) The Secretary of the Interior. 

(C) The Secretary of Commerce. 

(D) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. 

(E) The Secretary of Agriculture. 

(F) The Secretary of Transportation. 

(G) The Secretary of Energy. 

(H) The Coastal Advisor to the Governor. 

(I) The Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources. 

(J) A representative of the Governor’s Advisory Commission on Coastal 

Restoration and Conservation, Louisiana. 

(2) DUTIES OF TASK FORCE.—The Task Force— 

55 

(A) shall consult with, and provide recommendations to, the Secretary during development of the comprehensive plan under subsection (b)(1); (B) shall coordinate the development of consistent policies, strategies, plans, programs, projects, activities, and priorities for addressing the protection, conservation, and restoration of the Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem; (C) shall exchange information regarding programs, projects, and activi- ties of the agencies and entities represented on the Task Force to promote 

ecosystem protection, restoration, and maintenance; (D) shall establish a regional working group which shall include rep- resentatives of the agencies and entities represented on the Task Force as 

well as other governmental entities as appropriate for the purpose of formulating, recommending, coordinating, and implementing policies, strategies, 

plans, programs, projects, activities, and priorities of the Task Force; (E) may allow the working group described in subparagraph (D) to— (i) establish such advisory bodies as are necessary to assist the Task Force in its duties; and 

(ii) select as an advisory body any entity that represents a broad va- riety of private and public interests; (F) shall facilitate the resolution of interagency and intergovernmental conflicts associated with the protection, conservation, and restoration of the 

Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem; (G) shall coordinate scientific research associated with the protection and 

restoration of the Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem; (H) shall provide assistance and support to agencies and entities rep- resented on the Task Force in their protection and restoration activities; (I) shall prepare an integrated financial plan and recommendations for coordinated budget requests for the funds proposed to be expended by agencies and entities represented on the Task Force for the protection, conservation, and restoration of the Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem; and (J) shall transmit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works of the Senate a report that summarizes the activities of the 

Task Force. 

(3) PROCEDURES AND ADVICE.— (A) PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.— (i) IN GENERAL.—The Task Force shall implement procedures to facilitate public participation in the advisory process, including providing 

advance notice of meetings, providing adequate opportunity for public 

input and comment, maintaining appropriate records, and making a 

record of proceedings of meetings available for public inspection. (ii) OVERSIGHT.—The Secretary shall ensure that the procedures described in clause (i) are adopted and implemented and that the records 

described in clause (i) are accurately maintained and available for public inspection. 

(B) ADVISORS TO THE TASK FORCE AND WORKING GROUPS.—The Task Force 

or the working group described in paragraph (2)(D) may seek such advice 

and input from any interested, knowledgeable, or affected party as the Task 

Force or working group determines to be necessary to perform the duties 

described in paragraph (2). 

(C) APPLICATION OF THE FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT.—The Task 

Force, advisors to the Task Force, and any associated workgroups shall not 

be considered advisory committees under the Federal Advisory Committee 

Act (5 U.S.C. App). 

(4) COMPENSATION.—A member of the Task Force shall receive no additional 

compensation for the services provided as a member of the Task Force. 

(5) TRAVEL EXPENSES.—Travel expenses incurred by a member of the Task 

Force in the performance of services for the Task Force shall be paid by the 

agency or entity that the member represents. 

SEC. 5052. BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA. 

Section 219(f)(21) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (113 Stat. 336; 

114 Stat. 2763A–220) is amended by striking ‘‘$20,000,000’’ and inserting 

‘‘$35,000,000’’. 

SEC. 5053. WEST BATON ROUGE PARISH, LOUISIANA. 

Section 517(5) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 345) 

is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(5) Mississippi River, West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, project for waterfront and riverine preservation, restoration, enhancement modifications, and interpretive center development.’’. 

56 

SEC. 5054. CHESAPEAKE BAY SHORELINE, MARYLAND, VIRGINIA, PENNSYLVANIA, AND DELAWARE. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out comprehensive study of the feasibility of a 

project to address shoreline erosion and related sediment management measures to 

protect water and land resources of the Chesapeake Bay, the Secretary may carry 

out pilot projects to demonstrate the feasibility of alternative measures to address 

sediment loads to the Chesapeake Bay from sediment behind dams on the lower 

Susquehanna River. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated 

$5,000,000 to carry out this section. 

SEC. 5055. DELMARVA CONSERVATION CORRIDOR, MARYLAND. 

(a) ASSISTANCE.—The Secretary may provide technical assistance to the Secretary 

of Agriculture in carrying out the Conservation Corridor Demonstration Program 

authorized under subtitle G of title II of Public Law 107–171 (116 Stat. 275–278). 

(b) COORDINATION AND INTEGRATION.—In carrying out water resources projects in 

the State of Maryland on land located on the east side of the Chesapeake Bay, the 

Secretary shall coordinate and integrate, to the extent practicable, such projects 

with any activities undertaken to implement a conservation corridor plan approved 

by the Secretary of Agriculture under section 2602 of Public Law 107–171 (116 Stat. 

275–276). 

SEC. 5056. DETROIT RIVER, MICHIGAN. 

Section 568(c)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 368) 

is amended by striking ‘‘$1,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$25,000,000’’. 

SEC. 5057. OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN. 

Section 219(f)(29) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (113 Stat. 336) 

is amended by inserting ‘‘sanitary sewer overflows and’’ before ‘‘combined sewer 

overflows’’. 

SEC. 5058. ST. CLAIR RIVER AND LAKE ST. CLAIR, MICHIGAN. 

The Secretary shall carry out feasible aquatic ecosystem restoration projects identified in the comprehensive management plan for St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair, 

Michigan, developed under section 426 of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1999 (113 Stat. 326), at a total Federal cost of not to exceed $5,000,000. 

SEC. 5059. GARRISON AND KATHIO TOWNSHIP, MINNESOTA. 

(a) PROJECT DESCRIPTION.—Section 219(f)(61) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (114 Stat. 2763A–221) is amended— 

(1) in the paragraph heading by striking ‘‘TOWNSHIP’’ and inserting ‘‘AND

CROW WING AND MILLE LACS COUNTIES’’; 

(2) by inserting ‘‘, Crow Wing County, Mille Lacs County,’’ after ‘‘Garrison’’; 

and 

(3) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘Such assistance shall be provided directly to the Garrison-Kathio-West Mille Lacs Lake Sanitary District, Minnesota.’’. 

(b) PROCEDURES.—In carrying out the project for Garrison and Kathio Township, 

Minnesota, authorized by such section 219(f)(61), the Secretary may use the cost 

sharing and contracting procedures available to the Secretary under section 569 of 

the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 368). 

SEC. 5060. NORTHEASTERN MINNESOTA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 569 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 

(113 Stat. 368) is amended— 

(1) in subsection (a) by striking ‘‘Benton, Sherburne,’’ and inserting ‘‘Beltrami, 

Hubbard, Wadena,’’; 

(2) by striking the last sentence of subsection (e)(3)(B); 

(3) by striking subsection (g) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(g) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the Flood Control 

Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(b)), for any project undertaken under this section, 

a non-Federal interest may include a nonprofit entity.’’; and 

(4) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(i) CORPS OF ENGINEERS EXPENSES.—Ten percent of the amounts appropriated to 

carry out this section may be used by the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer projects under this section at 100 percent Federal expense.’’. 

(b) BIWABIK, MINNESOTA.—The Secretary shall reimburse the non-Federal interest 

for the project for environmental infrastructure, Biwabik, Minnesota, carried out 

under section 569 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 368– 

369), for planning, design, and construction costs that were incurred by the non-Federal interest with respect to the project before the date of the partnership agreement 

57 

for the project and that were in excess of the non-Federal share of the cost of the 

project if the Secretary determines that the costs are appropriate. 

SEC. 5061. DESOTO COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. 

Section 219(f)(30) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (113 Stat. 336; 

114 Stat. 2763A–220) is amended by striking ‘‘$20,000,000’’ and inserting 

‘‘$30,000,000’’. 

SEC. 5062. HARRISON, HANCOCK, AND JACKSON COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. 

In carrying out projects for the protection, restoration, and creation of aquatic and 

ecologically related habitats located in Harrison, Hancock, and Jackson Counties, 

Mississippi, under section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 

U.S.C. 2326), the Secretary shall accept any portion of the non-Federal share of the 

cost of the project in the form of services, materials, supplies, and other in-kind contributions. 

SEC. 5063. MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MISSOURI, AND ILLINOIS. 

As a part of the operation and maintenance of the project for the Mississippi River 

(Regulating Works), between the Ohio and Missouri Rivers, Missouri and Illinois, 

authorized by the first section of an Act entitled ‘‘Making appropriations for the construction, repair, and preservation of certain public works on rivers and harbors, 

and for other purposes’’, approved June 25, 1910, the Secretary may carry out activities necessary to restore and protect fish and wildlife habitat in the middle Mississippi River system. Such activities may include modification of navigation training structures, modification and creation of side channels, modification and creation 

of islands, and studies and analysis necessary to apply adaptive management principles in design of future work. 

SEC. 5064. ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. 

Section 219(f)(32) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 

4835–4836; 113 Stat. 337) is amended by striking ‘‘$15,000,000’’ and inserting 

‘‘$35,000,000’’. 

SEC. 5065. HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS AREA, NEW JERSEY. 

Section 324 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4849; 110 

Stat. 3779) is amended— 

(1) in subsection (a)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘design’’ and inserting ‘‘planning, design,’’; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘Hackensack Meadowlands Development’’ and all that follows through ‘‘Plan for’’ and inserting ‘‘New Jersey Meadowlands Commission for the development of an environmental improvement program for’’; 

(2) in subsection (b)— 

(A) in the subsection heading by striking ‘‘REQUIRED’’; 

(B) by striking ‘‘shall’’ and inserting ‘‘may’’; 

(C) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(1) Restoration and acquisitions of significant wetlands and aquatic habitat 

that contribute to the Meadowlands ecosystem.’’; 

(D) in paragraph (2) by inserting ‘‘and aquatic habitat’’ before the period 

at the end; and 

(E) by striking paragraph (7) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(7) Research, development, and implementation for a water quality improvement program, including restoration of hydrology and tidal flows and remediation of hot spots and other sources of contaminants that degrade existing or 

planned sites.’’; 

(3) in subsection (c) by inserting before the last sentence the following: ‘‘The 

non-Federal sponsor may also provide in-kind services, not to exceed 25 percent 

of the total project cost, and may also receive credit for reasonable cost of design 

work completed prior to entering into the partnership agreement with the Secretary for a project to be carried out under the program developed under subsection (a).’’; and 

(4) in subsection (d) by striking ‘‘$5,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$35,000,000’’. 

SEC. 5066. ATLANTIC COAST OF NEW YORK. 

(a) DEVELOPMENT OF PROGRAM.—Section 404(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4863) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘processes’’ and inserting ‘‘and related environmental processes’’; 

(2) by inserting after ‘‘Atlantic Coast’’ the following: ‘‘(and associated back 

bays)’’; 

(3) by inserting after ‘‘actions’’ the following: ‘‘, environmental restoration or 

conservation measures for coastal and back bays,’’; and 

58 

(4) by inserting at the end the following: ‘‘The plan for collecting data and 

monitoring information included in such annual report shall be fully coordinated with and agreed to by appropriate agencies of the State of New York.’’. 

(b) ANNUAL REPORTS.—Section 404(b) of such Act is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘INITIAL PLAN.—Not later than 12 months after the date of the 

enactment of this Act, the’’ and inserting ‘‘ANNUAL REPORTS.—The’’; 

(2) by striking ‘‘initial plan for data collection and monitoring’’ and inserting 

‘‘annual report of data collection and monitoring activities’’; and 

(3) by striking the last sentence. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 404(c) of such Act (113 Stat. 341) 

is amended by striking ‘‘and an additional total of $2,500,000 for fiscal years thereafter’’ and inserting ‘‘$2,500,000 for fiscal years 2000 through 2002, and $17,000,000 

for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 2002,’’. 

SEC. 5067. COLLEGE POINT, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK. 

In carrying out section 312 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 

Stat. 4639–4640), the Secretary shall give priority to work in College Point, New 

York City, New York. 

SEC. 5068. FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK. 

The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project 

for ecosystem restoration, Flushing Bay and Creek, New York City, New York, the 

cost of design and construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest before 

the date of the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary determines 

that the work is integral to the project. 

SEC. 5069. LITTLE NECK BAY, VILLAGE OF KINGS POINT, NEW YORK. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may carry out a navigation project at Little Neck 

Bay (Hague Basin), Village of Kings Point, New York, sufficient to permit the safe 

operation of the vessel T/V Kings Pointer at all tide levels. 

(b) REIMBURSEMENT.—The Secretary shall seek reimbursement from the United 

States Merchant Marine Academy for the cost of the project carried out under this 

section. 

SEC. 5070. ONONDAGA LAKE, NEW YORK. 

Section 573 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 372–373) 

is amended— 

(1) in subsection (f) by striking ‘‘$10,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$30,000,000’’; 

(2) by redesignating subsections (f) and (g) as subsections (g) and (h), respectively; and 

(3) by inserting after subsection (e) the following: 

‘‘(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 sponsor may include a nonprofit entity, with the consent of the affected local government.’’. 

SEC. 5071. JOHN H. KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, NORTH CAROLINA. 

The Secretary shall expedite the completion of the calculations necessary to negotiate and execute a revised, permanent contract for water supply storage at John 

H. Kerr Dam and Reservoir, North Carolina, among the Secretary and the Kerr 

Lake Regional Water System and the city of Henderson, North Carolina. 

SEC. 5072. STANLY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. 

Section 219(f)(64) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (114 Stat. 

2763A–221) is amended by inserting ‘‘water and’’ before ‘‘wastewater’’. 

SEC. 5073. CENTRAL RIVERFRONT PARK, CINCINNATI, OHIO. 

If the Secretary is authorized to carry out a downtown waterfront development 

project for the Central Riverfront Park, Cincinnati, Ohio, the Secretary shall credit 

toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of— 

(1) design and construction work undertaken by the non-Federal interest before entering into a partnership agreement for the project with the Secretary 

if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project; and 

(2) land, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations provided by the non-Federal interest. 

SEC. 5074. PIEDMONT LAKE DAM, OHIO. 

In reconstructing the road on the Piedmont Lake Dam as part of the project for 

dam safety assurance, Piedmont Lake Dam, Ohio, being carried out under section 

4 of the Flood Control Act of August 11, 1939 (53 Stat. 1414–1415), the Secretary 

shall upgrade the condition of the road to meet standards applicable to public use 

59 

roads in the State of Ohio. The incremental cost of upgrading the road to meet such 

standards shall be a non-Federal expense. 

SEC. 5075. OHIO. 

Section 594(g) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 383) 

is amended by striking ‘‘$60,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$90,000,000’’. 

SEC. 5076. WAURIKA LAKE, OKLAHOMA. 

The remaining obligation of the Waurika Project Master Conservancy District 

payable to the United States Government in the amounts, rates of interest, and payment schedules is set at the amounts, rates of interest, and payment schedules that 

existed, and that both parties agreed to, on June 3, 1986, and may not be adjusted, 

altered, or changed without a specific, separate, and written agreement between the 

District and the United States Government. 

SEC. 5077. COLUMBIA RIVER, OREGON. 

Section 401(b)(3) of Public Law 100–581 (102 Stat. 2944), is amended by inserting 

‘‘and Celilo Village, Oregon’’ after ‘‘existing sites’’. 

SEC. 5078. EUGENE, OREGON. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of restoring the millrace in Eugene, Oregon, and, if the Secretary determines that 

the restoration is feasible, shall carry out the restoration. 

(b) CONSIDERATION OF NONECONOMIC BENEFITS.—In determining the feasibility of 

restoring the millrace, the Secretary shall include noneconomic benefits associated 

with the historical significance of the millrace and associated with preservation and 

enhancement of resources. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated 

to carry out this section $20,000,000. 

SEC. 5079. JOHN DAY LOCK AND DAM, LAKE UMATILLA, OREGON AND WASHINGTON. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall pay up to $2,500,000 to the provider of research and curation support previously provided to the Federal Government as a result of the multipurpose project, John Day Lock and Dam, Lake Umatilla, Oregon 

and Washington, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1950 (64 

Stat. 167), and the several navigation and flood damage reduction projects constructed on the Columbia River and Lower Willamette River, Oregon and Washington. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated 

to carry out this section $2,500,000. 

SEC. 5080. LOWELL, OREGON. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may convey without consideration to Lowell 

School District, by quitclaim deed, all right, title and interest of the United States 

in and to approximately 3.32 acres of land and buildings thereon, known as Tract 

A–82, located in Lowell, Oregon, and described in subsection (b). 

(b) DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY.—The parcel of land authorized to be conveyed 

under subsection (a) is as follows: Commencing at the point of intersection of the 

west line of Pioneer Street with the westerly extension of the north line of Summit 

Street, in Meadows Addition to Lowell, as platted and recorded at page 56 of Volume 4, Lane County Oregon Plat Records; thence north on the west line of Pioneer 

Street a distance of 176.0 feet to the true point of beginning of this description; 

thence north on the west line of Pioneer Street a distance of 170.0 feet; thence west 

at right angles to the west line of Pioneer Street a distance of 250.0 feet; thence 

south and parallel to the west line of Pioneer Street a distance of 170.0 feet; thence 

east 250.0 feet to the true point of beginning of this description in Section 14, Township 19 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, Lane County, Oregon. 

(c) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—Before conveying the parcel to the school district, 

the Secretary shall ensure that the conditions of buildings and facilities meet the 

requirements of applicable Federal law. 

(d) GENERALLY APPLICABLE PROVISIONS.— 

(1) APPLICABILITY OF PROPERTY SCREENING PROVISIONS.—Section 2696 of title 

10, United States Code, shall not apply to any conveyance under this section. 

(2) LIABILITY.—An entity to which a conveyance is made under this section 

shall hold the United States harmless from any liability with respect to activities carried out, on or after the date of the conveyance, on the real property conveyed. The United States shall remain responsible for any liability with respect 

to activities carried out, before such date, on the real property conveyed. 

60 

SEC. 5081. HAGERMAN’S RUN, WILLIAMSPORT, PENNSYLVANIA. 

The Secretary may rehabilitate the pumps at the project for flood damage reduc- tion, Hagerman’s Run, Williamsport, Pennsylvania, at a total Federal cost of 

$225,000. 

SEC. 5082. NORTHEAST PENNSYLVANIA. 

Section 219(f)(11) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (113 Stat. 335) 

is amended by striking ‘‘and Monroe’’ and inserting ‘‘Northumberland, Union, Snyder, and Montour’’. 

SEC. 5083. SUSQUEHANNOCK CAMPGROUND ACCESS ROAD, RAYSTOWN LAKE, PENNSYLVANIA. 

(a) IMPROVEMENT OF ACCESS ROAD.—The Secretary may make improvements to the Susquehannock Campground access road at Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania. (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated 

to carry out this section $500,000. 

SEC. 5084. UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN, PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW YORK. 

Section 567 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3787– 3788; 114 Stat. 2662–2663) is amended— 

(1) in subsection (a)(2) by striking ‘‘$10,000,000.’’ and inserting the following: ‘‘$20,000,000, of which the Secretary may utilize not more than $5,000,000 to 

design and construct feasible pilot projects during the development of the strategy to demonstrate alternative approaches for the strategy. The total cost for 

any single pilot project may not exceed $500,000. The Secretary shall evaluate 

the results of the pilot projects and consider the results in the development of 

the strategy.’’; (2) in subsection (c)— 

(A) in the subsection heading by striking ‘‘COOPERATION’’ and inserting 

‘‘COOPERATIVE’’; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘cooperation’’ and inserting ‘‘cooperative’’; and (3) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘(e) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project (i) the cost of design and construction work carried out by the nonFederal interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the project if the 

Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project; and (ii) the cost of inkind services and materials provided for the project by the non-Federal interest.’’. 

SEC. 5085. WASHINGTON, GREENE, WESTMORELAND, AND FAYETTE COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA. 

Section 219(f)(70) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (114 Stat. 2763A–221) is amended by striking ‘‘$8,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$13,300,000’’. 

SEC. 5086. CANO MARTIN PENA, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO. 

The Secretary shall review a report prepared by the non-Federal interest con- cerning flood protection and environmental restoration for Cano Martin Pena, San 

Juan, Puerto Rico, and, if the Secretary determines that the report meets the evaluation and design standards of the Corps of Engineers and that the project is feasible, may carry out the project, at a total cost of $130,000,000, with an estimated 

Federal cost of $85,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $45,000,000. 

SEC. 5087. BEAUFORT AND JASPER COUNTIES, SOUTH CAROLINA. 

The Secretary may accept from the Department of the Navy, and may use, not to exceed $23,000,000 to assist the Beaufort Jasper Water and Sewage Authority, 

South Carolina, with its plan to consolidate civilian and military wastewater treatment facilities. 

SEC. 5088. COOPER RIVER, SOUTH CAROLINA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to provide technical and financial assistance for the removal of the Grace and Pearman Bridges over the Cooper River, 

South Carolina. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATION.—There is authorized to be appropriated 

$5,000,000 to carry out this section. 

SEC. 5089. LAKES MARION AND MOULTRIE, SOUTH CAROLINA. 

Section 219(f)(25) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (113 Stat. 336; 114 Stat. 2763A–220) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘$15,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$35,000,000’’; and 

(2) by inserting ‘‘wastewater treatment and’’ before ‘‘water supply’’. 

SEC. 5090. UPPER BIG SIOUX RIVER, WATERTOWN, SOUTH DAKOTA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall review the project for flood damage reduction, Upper Big Sioux River basin, Watertown, South Dakota, as described in the 

report of the Chief of Engineers, dated August 31, 1994, and entitled ‘‘Watertown 

61 

and Vicinity, South Dakota’’ and, if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible, may carry out the project, at a total cost of $25,000,000. 

(b) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The non-Federal share of the cost of the review may be provided in the form of in-kind services and materials. 

(2) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the 

cost of the review the cost of planning and design work carried out by the nonFederal interest before the date of an agreement for the review if the Secretary 

determines that such work is integral to the review. 

SEC. 5091. FRITZ LANDING, TENNESSEE. 

The Secretary shall— 

(1) conduct a study of the Fritz Landing Agricultural Spur Levee, Tennessee, 

to determine the extent of levee modifications that would be required to make 

the levee and associated drainage structures consistent with Federal standards; 

(2) design and construct such modifications; and 

(3) after completion of such modifications, incorporate the levee into the 

project for flood control, Mississippi River and Tributaries, authorized by the 

Act entitled ‘‘An Act for the control of floods on the Mississippi River and its 

tributaries, and for other purposes’’, approved May 15, 1928 (45 Stat. 534–539), 

commonly known as the ‘‘Flood Control Act of 1928’’. 

SEC. 5092. MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE. 

The Secretary shall review the aquatic ecosystem restoration component of the 

Memphis Riverfront Development Master Plan, Memphis, Tennessee, prepared by 

the non-Federal interest and, if the Secretary determines that the component meets 

the evaluation and design standards of the Corps of Engineers and that the component is feasible, may carry out the component at a total Federal cost not to exceed 

$5,000,000. 

SEC. 5093. TOWN CREEK, LENOIR CITY, TENNESSEE. 

The Secretary shall design and construct the project for flood damage reduction 

designated as Alternative 4 in the Town Creek, Lenoir City, Loudon City, Tennessee, feasibility report of the Nashville district engineer, dated November 2000, 

under the authority of section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), 

notwithstanding section 1 of the Flood Control Act of June 22, 1936 (33 U.S.C. 701a; 

49 Stat. 1570). The non-Federal share of the cost of the project shall be subject to 

section 103(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(a)). 

SEC. 5094. TENNESSEE RIVER PARTNERSHIP. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—As part of the operation and maintenance of the project for 

navigation, Tennessee River, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, and Kentucky, authorized by the first section of the Rivers and Harbors Act of July 3, 1930 (46 Stat. 

927), the Secretary may enter into a partnership with a nonprofit entity to remove 

debris from the Tennessee River in the vicinity of Knoxville, Tennessee, by providing a vessel to such entity, at Federal expense, for such debris removal purposes. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated 

to carry out this section $500,000. 

SEC. 5095. CLEAR CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, HARRIS, GALVESTON, AND BRAZORIA COUNTIES, 

TEXAS. 

The Secretary shall expedite completion of the report for the project for flood damage reduction, ecosystem restoration, and recreation, Clear Creek and tributaries, 

Harris, Galveston, and Brazoria Counties, Texas. 

SEC. 5096. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. 

Section 575(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3789; 

113 Stat. 311) is amended by inserting before the period at the end the following: 

‘‘, whether or not such works or actions are partially funded under the hazard mitigation grant program of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’’. 

SEC. 5097. HARRIS GULLY, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. 

(a) STUDY.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction in the Harris Gully 

watershed, Harris County, Texas, to provide flood protection for the Texas Medical Center, Houston, Texas. 

(2) USE OF LOCAL STUDIES AND PLANS.—In conducting the study, the Secretary 

shall use, to the extent practicable, studies and plans developed by the non-Federal interest if the Secretary determines that such studies and plans meet the 

evaluation and design standards of the Corps of Engineers. 

62 

(3) COMPLETION DATE.—The Secretary shall complete the study by July 1, 

2004. 

(b) CRITICAL FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION MEASURES.—The Secretary may carry 

out critical flood damage reduction measures that the Secretary determines are feasible and that will provide immediate and substantial flood damage reduction benefits in the Harris Gully watershed, at a Federal cost of $7,000,000. 

(c) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost 

of the project the cost of planning, design, and construction work carried out by the 

non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the project if 

the Secretary determines that such work is integral to the project. 

(d) NONPROFIT ENTITY.—Notwithstanding section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 

1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), a nonprofit entity may, with the consent of the local government, serve as a non-Federal interest for the project undertaken under this section. 

SEC. 5098. ONION CREEK, TEXAS. 

In carrying out the study for the project for flood damage, reduction, recreation, 

and ecosystem restoration, Onion Creek, Texas, the Secretary shall include the costs 

and benefits associated with the relocation of flood-prone residences in the study 

area for the project during the 2-year period before the initiation of the feasibility 

study to the extent the Secretary determines such relocations are compatible with 

the project. The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of 

the project the cost of relocation of such flood-prone residences incurred by the nonFederal interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the project if the 

Secretary determines that the relocation of such residences is integral to the project. 

SEC. 5099. PELICAN ISLAND, TEXAS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 108(a) of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 1994 (33 U.S.C. 59hh(a)) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘The Secretary’’ and inserting the following: 

‘‘(1) AUTHORITY TO CONVEY.—The Secretary’’; 

(2) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(2) LETTER OF INTENT.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may provide a letter of intent to the city 

of Galveston for conveyance of less than 100 acres of the parcel described 

in subsection (a) for private development purposes if the Secretary receives 

and approves a proposal by the city designating the land which would be 

subject to such development. 

‘‘(B) DISPOSITION OF SPOIL.—If the Secretary issues a letter of intent 

under subparagraph (A), no additional spoil material may be placed on the 

land designated for private development for a period of at least 5 years 

from the date of issuance of the letter to provide the city of Galveston with 

an opportunity to secure private developers, perform appraisals, conduct environmental studies, and provide the compensation to the United States required for the conveyance.’’; and 

(3) by aligning the remainder of the text of paragraph (1) (as designated by 

paragraph (1) of this subsection) with paragraph (2) (as added by paragraph (2) 

of this subsection). 

(b) EXPIRATION DATE.—Section 108(e)(3) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 59hh(e)(3)) is 

amended by striking ‘‘date of the enactment of this Act’’ and inserting ‘‘date of enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 2003’’. 

SEC. 5100. FRONT ROYAL, VIRGINIA. 

Section 591(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 378) 

is amended by striking ‘‘$12,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$22,000,000’’. 

SEC. 5101. RICHMOND NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD PARK, RICHMOND, VIRGINIA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to carry out bluff stabilization 

measures on the James River in the vicinity of Drewry’s Bluff, Richmond National 

Battlefield Park, Richmond, Virginia. 

(b) REIMBURSEMENT.—The Secretary shall seek reimbursement from the Secretary 

of the Interior of any costs incurred by the Secretary in carrying out subsection (a). 

SEC. 5102. BAKER BAY AND ILWACO HARBOR, WASHINGTON. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study of increased siltation in Baker Bay and 

Ilwaco Harbor, Washington, to determine if the siltation is the result of a Federal 

navigation project (including diverted flows from the Columbia River) and, if the 

Secretary determines that the siltation is the result of a Federal navigation project, 

the Secretary shall carry out a project to mitigate the siltation as part of maintenance of the Federal navigation project. 

63 

SEC. 5103. CHEHALIS RIVER, CENTRALIA, WASHINGTON. 

The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project for flood damage reduction, Chehalis River, Centralia, Washington, the cost of planning, design, and construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest before 

the date of the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary determines 

that the work is integral to the project. 

SEC. 5104. HAMILTON ISLAND CAMPGROUND, WASHINGTON. 

The Secretary is authorized to plan, design, and construct a campground for Bon- neville Lock and Dam at Hamilton Island (also know as ‘‘Strawberry Island’’) in 

Skamania County, Washington. 

SEC. 5105. PUGET ISLAND, WASHINGTON. 

The Secretary is directed to place dredged and other suitable material along portions of the Columbia River shoreline of Puget Island, Washington, between river 

miles 38 to 47 in order to protect economic and environmental resources in the area 

from further erosion, at a Federal cost of $1,000,000. This action shall be coordinated with appropriate resource agencies and comply with applicable Federal laws. 

SEC. 5106. BLUESTONE, WEST VIRGINIA. 

Section 547 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2676– 

2678) is amended— 

(1) in subsection (b)(1)(A) by striking ‘‘4 years’’ and inserting ‘‘5 years’’; 

(2) in subsection (b)(1)(B)(iii) by striking ‘‘if all’’ and all that follows through 

‘‘facility’’ and inserting ‘‘assurance project’’; 

(3) in subsection (b)(1)(C) by striking ‘‘and construction’’ and inserting ‘‘, construction, and operation and maintenance’’; 

(4) by adding at the end of subsection (b) the following: 

‘‘(3) OPERATION AND OWNERSHIP.—The Tri-Cities Power Authority shall be the 

owner and operator of the hydropower facilities referred to in subsection (a).’’; 

(5) in subsection (c)(1)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘No’’ and inserting ‘‘Unless otherwise provided, no’’; 

(B) by inserting ‘‘planning,’’ before ‘‘design’’; and 

(C) by striking ‘‘prior to’’ and all that follows through ‘‘subsection (d)’’; 

(6) in subsection (c)(2) by striking ‘‘design’’ and inserting ‘‘planning, design,’’; 

(7) in subsection (d)— 

(A) by striking paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(1) APPROVAL.—The Secretary shall review the design and construction activities for all features of the hydroelectric project that pertain to and affect stability of the dam and control the release of water from Bluestone Dam to ensure 

that the quality of construction of those features meets all standards established for similar facilities constructed by the Secretary.’’; 

(B) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2); 

(C) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) (as so redesignated) 

and inserting ‘‘, except that hydroelectric power is no longer a project purpose of the facility. Water flow releases from the hydropower facilities shall 

be determined and directed by the Corps of Engineers.’’; and 

(D) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(3) COORDINATION.—Construction of the hydroelectric generating facilities 

shall be coordinated with the dam safety assurance project currently in the design and construction phases.’’; 

(8) in subsection (e) by striking ‘‘in accordance’’ and all that follows through 

‘‘58 Stat. 890)’’; 

(9) in subsection (f)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘facility of the interconnected systems of reservoirs operated by the Secretary’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘facilities under 

construction under such agreements’’; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘design’’ and inserting ‘‘planning, design’’; 

(10) in subsection (f)(2)— 

(A) by ‘‘Secretary’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘Tri-Cities Power 

Authority’’; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘facilities referred to in subsection (a)’’ and inserting ‘‘such 

facilities’’; 

(11) by striking paragraph (1) of subsection (g) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(1) to arrange for the transmission of power to the market or to construct 

such transmission facilities as necessary to market the power produced at the 

facilities referred to in subsection (a) with funds contributed by the Tri-Cities 

Power Authority; and’’; 

(12) in subsection (g)(2) by striking ‘‘such facilities’’ and all that follows 

through ‘‘the Secretary’’ and inserting ‘‘the generating facility’’; and 

64 

(13) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(i) TRI-CITIES POWER AUTHORITY DEFINED.—In this section, the ‘Tri-Cities Power 

Authority’ refers to the entity established by the City of Hinton, West Virginia, the 

City of White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia, and the City of Philippi, West Virginia, pursuant to a document entitled ‘Second Amended and Restated Intergovernmental Agreement’ approved by the Attorney General of West Virginia on February 

14, 2002.’’. 

SEC. 5107. WEST VIRGINIA AND PENNSYLVANIA FLOOD CONTROL. 

(a) CHEAT AND TYGART RIVER BASINS, WEST VIRGINIA.—Section 581(a)(1) of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3790; 113 Stat. 313) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘flood control measures’’ and inserting ‘‘structural and nonstructural flood control, streambank protection, stormwater management, and 

channel clearing and modification measures’’; and 

(2) by inserting ‘‘with respect to measures that incorporate levees or 

floodwalls’’ before the semicolon. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 581(c) of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3791) is amended by striking ‘‘$12,000,000’’ and 

inserting ‘‘$90,000,000’’. 

SEC. 5108. LOWER KANAWHA RIVER BASIN, WEST VIRGINIA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a watershed and river basin assessment under section 729 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2267a) for the 

Lower Kanawha River Basin, in the counties of Mason, Putnam, Kanawha, Jackson, 

and Roane, West Virginia. 

SEC. 5109. CENTRAL WEST VIRGINIA. 

Section 571 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 371) is 

amended— 

(1) in subsection (a)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘Nicholas,’’; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘Gilmer,’’; and 

(2) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(i) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the Flood Control 

Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(b)), for any project undertaken under this section, 

a non-Federal interest may include a nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected local government. 

‘‘(j) CORPS OF ENGINEERS EXPENSES.—Ten percent of the amounts appropriated to 

carry out this section may be used by the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer projects under this section at 100 percent Federal expense.’’. 

SEC. 5110. SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA. 

(a) CORPS OF ENGINEERS.—Section 340 of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 1992 (106 Stat. 4856; 113 Stat. 320) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(h) CORPS OF ENGINEERS.—Ten percent of the amounts appropriated to carry out 

this section for fiscal years 2003 and thereafter may be used by the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer projects under this section at 100 percent Federal 

expense.’’. 

(b) SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA DEFINED.—Section 340(f) of such Act is amended by 

inserting ‘‘Nicholas,’’ after ‘‘Greenbrier,’’. 

(c) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—Section 340 of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 1992 (106 Stat. 4856) is further amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(i) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the Flood Control 

Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(b)), for any project undertaken under this section, 

a non-Federal interest may include a nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected local government.’’. 

SEC. 5111. CONSTRUCTION OF FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS BY NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS. 

Section 211(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 701b– 

13) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(9) BUFFALO BAYOU, TEXAS.—The project for flood control, Buffalo Bayou, 

Texas. 

‘‘(10) HALLS BAYOU, TEXAS.—The project for flood control, Halls Bayou, Texas. 

‘‘(11) ST. PAUL DOWNTOWN AIRPORT (HOLMAN FIELD), ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA.— 

The project for flood damage reduction, St. Paul Downtown Holman Field), St. 

Paul, Minnesota.’’. 

65 

SEC. 5112. BRIDGE AUTHORIZATION. 

There is authorized to be appropriated $20,000,000 for the construction of the bridge referred to in section 1001(1). 

SEC. 5113. ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR CRITICAL PROJECTS. 

Section 219(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335–337; 114 Stat. 2763A–220–221) is amended by adding at the end the 

following: ‘‘(71) PLAQUEMINE, LOUISIANA.—$7,000,000 for sanitary sewer and wastewater infrastructure, Plaquemine, Louisiana. ‘‘(72) CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA.—$20,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including wastewater collection systems, Charleston, South Carolina. ‘‘(73) CROSS, SOUTH CAROLINA.—$2,000,000 for water-related environmental 

infrastructure, Cross, South Carolina. 

‘‘(74) SURFSIDE, SOUTH CAROLINA.—$8,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including stormwater system improvements and ocean outfalls, Surfside, 

South Carolina. 

‘‘(75) NORTH MYRTLE BEACH, SOUTH CAROLINA.—$3,000,000 for environmental 

infrastructure, including ocean outfalls, North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. ‘‘(76) TIA JUANA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA.—$1,400,000 for water-related environmental infrastructure, Tia Juana Valley, California. ‘‘(77) CABARRUS COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.—$4,500,000 for water-related infrastructure, Cabarrus County, North Carolina. ‘‘(78) RICHMOND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.—$8,000,000 for water-related infrastructure, Richmond County, North Carolina. ‘‘(79) UNION COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.—$9,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, Union County, North Carolina. ‘‘(80) WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.—$35,000,000 for implementation 

of a combined sewer overflow long term control plan, Washington, District of 

Columbia. 

‘‘(81) SOUTHERN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—$15,000,000 for environmental infrastructure for the groundwater basin optimization pipeline, Southern Los Angeles County, California. ‘‘(82) INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA.—$6,430,000 for environmental infrastructure for 

Indianapolis, Indiana. ‘‘(83) HENDERSON, NEVADA.—$5,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, Henderson, Nevada. 

‘‘(84) SENNETT, NEW YORK.—$1,500,000 for water infrastructure, Town of 

Sennett, New York. 

‘‘(85) LEDYARD AND MONTVILLE, CONNECTICUT.—$7,113,000 for water infrastructure, Ledyard and Montville, Connecticut. ‘‘(86) AWENDAW, SOUTH CAROLINA.—$2,000,000 for water-related infrastructure, Awendaw, South Carolina. 

‘‘(87) ST. CLAIR COUNTY, ALABAMA.—$5,000,000 for water-related infrastructure, St. Clair County, Alabama. 

‘‘(88) EAST BAY, SAN FRANCISCO, AND SANTA CLARA AREAS, CALIFORNIA.— 

$4,000,000 for a desalination project to serve the East Bay, San Francisco, and 

Santa Clara areas, California. 

‘‘(89) ATHENS, TENNESSEE.—$16,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, Athens, Tennessee. 

‘‘(90) WARWICK, NEW YORK.—$1,200,000 for water storage capacity restoration, Warwick, New York. 

‘‘(91) KIRYAS JOEL, NEW YORK.—$20,000,000 for water-related infrastructure, 

Kiryas Joel, New York. 

‘‘(92) WHITTIER, CALIFORNIA.—$8,000,000 for wastewater and water-related 

infrastructure, Whittier, California. 

‘‘(93) ANACOSTIA RIVER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND MARYLAND.—$20,000,000 

for environmental infrastructure and resource protection and development to 

enhance water quality and living resources in the Anacostia River watershed, 

District of Columbia and Maryland. 

‘‘(94) DUCHESNE, IRON, AND UINTAH COUNTIES, UTAH.—$10,000,000 for waterrelated infrastructure, Duchesne, Iron, and Uintah Counties, Utah. 

‘‘(95) HANCOCK, HARRISON, JACKSON, AND PEARL RIVER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI.—$5,824,300 for water and wastewater-related infrastructure, Hancock, 

Harrison, Jackson, and Pearl River Counties, Mississippi.’’. 

SEC. 5114. USE OF FEDERAL HOPPER DREDGE FLEET. 

(a) STUDY.—The Secretary shall conduct a study on the appropriate use of the 

Federal hopper dredge fleet. 

(b) CONTENTS.—In conducting the study, the Secretary shall— 

66 

(1) obtain and analyze baseline data to determine the appropriate use of the 

Federal hopper dredge fleet; 

(2) prepare a comprehensive analysis of the costs and benefits of existing and 

proposed restrictions on the use of the Federal hopper dredge fleet; and 

(3) assess the data and procedure used by the Secretary to prepare the Government cost estimate for worked performed by the Federal hopper dredge fleet. 

(c) CONSULTATION.—The Secretary shall conduct the study in consultation with 

ports, pilots, and representatives of the private dredge industry. 

(d) REPORT.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 

Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the results of the study. 

PURPOSE OF LEGISLATION

The Water Resources Development Act of 2003 includes project 

authorizations, modifications, deauthorizations, studies, and policy 

initiatives for the Army Corps of Engineers’ Civil Works Program— 

the nation’s largest water resources program. Throughout its five 

titles, the bill authorizes and directs the Corps to carry out various 

studies, projects, and programs relating to navigation, flood damage reduction, shoreline protection, dam safety, water supply, 

recreation, environmental restoration and protection. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

The Water Resources Development Act of 2003 demonstrates the 

continuing commitment of the Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure to the Nation’s water resources infrastructure, and 

a regular authorization schedule for the Civil Works Program of 

the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), which was instituted by the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1986. The Committee believes 

that passage of the Water Resources Development Act of 2003 is 

vitally important to fulfill commitments to non-Federal sponsors, to 

be responsive to new and emerging water resources needs, and to 

fine-tune the Corps’ missions and responsibilities. 

Value of the Civil Works Program 

The Committee recognizes the value of the Corps and the Corps’ 

Civil Works missions to the Nation and the critical importance of 

maintaining these vital contributions. Over the years, the Corps 

has maintained flexibility in its Civil Works missions to meet the 

changing needs of the Nation. The Corps has an impressive history 

of helping to meet the Nation’s water resources needs. For over 175 

years, the Corps has supported navigation needs by maintaining 

and improving the Nation’s waterways in 41 States. The Corps also 

maintains 300 commercial harbors, through which pass over 2 billion tons of cargo a year, and with more than 13 million American 

jobs dependent on our import and export trade, these ports are 

vital to our economic security. The ports and waterways maintained by the Corps also play a vital role in national defense. 

Corps flood damage reduction efforts range from small, local protection projects (levees or non-structural flood damage reduction 

measures) to major dams. Today, most Corps constructed flood protection projects are owned by sponsoring cities, towns, and agricultural districts, but the Corps continues to maintain and operate 

383 dams and reservoirs for flood damage reduction. During the 10 

years from 1991 through 2000 the United States suffered $45 billion in property damage from floods. During that same period, however, Corps flood damage reduction measures prevented more than 

67 

$208 billion in damage—82% of the damage that would have occurred if the protection was absent. 

Legislation passed in 1990 established environmental protection 

as one of the primary missions of the Corps—along with navigation 

and flood damage reduction. Since that time, ecosystem restoration 

projects have grown increasingly popular throughout the country, 

resulting in over $1.3 billion in Federal support for environmental 

activities. The Corps has provided leadership on large-scale ecosystem restoration projects, including restoring the hydrologic regime for the Everglades in Florida and addressing wetland losses 

of catastrophic proportion in Coastal Louisiana. In addition, the 

Corps carries out environmental and natural resource management 

programs at its projects, manages thousands of square miles of forest and wildlife habitat, monitors water quality at its dams, and in 

some cases restores the environment at projects built in earlier 

days. 

As the Corps program continues to evolve in service to the Nation, the Committee notes with interest the efforts of the Chief of 

Engineers to encourage a more holistic approach to water resources 

management. An increased emphasis on watershed and basin-wide 

planning, conducted in conjunction with State and local governments and non-public stakeholders, can lead to a more sustainable 

use of water resources that integrates water development, protection, and restoration. The Corps can play a particularly important 

role in facilitating planning when the issues affecting water resources concern multiple jurisdictions. The Corps is encouraged to 

pursue efforts to improve coordination and cooperation in the development of recommended approaches to address water resources 

problems and formulating plans to solve these problems. 

Corps of Engineers Planning Process 

In recent years, there has been some controversy regarding the 

planning process used by the Corps of Engineers to develop water 

resources projects. The Civil Works program of the Corps of Engineers is an approximately $4.5 billion annual program. Of that 

amount, between $135 and $145 million is spent annually to study 

water resources needs, determine if there is a Federal interest in 

meeting those needs, and develop recommendations for water resources projects that are technically sound, environmentally acceptable, and economically justified. 

For certain small projects, Congress has authorized the Corps to 

participate in the development and construction under continuing 

authorities. The Federal participation in these small projects is 

limited to between $500,000 and $7 million per project, depending 

on the project type. For all other projects, the Corps must first receive authorization from Congress to proceed with a study, either 

by statute or, if the Corps previously has conducted a study in the 

same geographic area, in the form of a Committee resolution. 

Once authorized, a water resources study begins with a reconnaissance study. The reconnaissance phase is a relatively quick examination of the problem (generally costing no more than 

$100,000) during which the Corps of Engineers determines if there 

is a Federal interest and a potentially feasible project. Currently, 

there are 40 ongoing reconnaissance studies. If, based on the reconnaissance study, the Corps determines there is a potentially feaVerDate mar 24 2004 14:17 May 03, 2004 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\HR265.XXX HR265
68 

sible water resources project, the Corps may seek the participation 

of a non-Federal interest willing to share in 50 percent of the study 

costs (for studies for projects other than inland navigation) and 

proceed to a full feasibility study. A feasibility study is generally 

expected to take about 2 years. However, due to the complexity of 

the issues, controversy over proposed solutions, and budget constraints, feasibility studies often take longer than 2 years and in 

rare cases may take in excess of 15 years. Currently, there are 210 

ongoing feasibility studies. 

To ensure that a project is technically sound, environmentally acceptable, and economically justified, the Corps must conduct a 

study in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and policy, 

including the 1983 Principles and Guidelines issued by the Water 

Resources Council, Engineering Regulations issued by the Corps of 

Engineers (and most recently comprehensively revised in 1999), 

and other guidance periodically issued by the Chief of Engineers. 

Studies that result in a report of the Chief of Engineers recommending a water resources project are submitted to Congress for 

authorization. Other than projects constructed under continuing 

authorities, the Corps may not proceed to construction of a project 

until it is specifically authorized. 

All Corps of Engineers projects manage water resources in some 

fashion. In many cases, there may be competing demands on those 

water resources, leading to controversy and even opposition to a 

proposed project by some constituencies. In some cases, project opponents have carried out or obtained a careful review of a study 

for a Corps project and have uncovered examples of projects that 

do not comply with applicable guidance. In particular, there have 

been three projects where close scrutiny revealed that the projected 

benefits of the project might not exceed the projected costs, notwithstanding the requirement that most water resources projects 

be economically justified. (The requirement for economic justification does not apply to environmental projects; under the Water Resources Development Act of 1990, the benefits of environmental 

projects are deemed to be equal to their costs). 

Two of these three projects, the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal 

and the Delaware River Deepening, were already authorized by 

Congress at the time questions were raised about the project economics. In the case of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, the 

project has been suspended. In the case of the Delaware River 

Deepening, notwithstanding mathematical errors made by the 

Corps in its original economic analysis, further analysis has demonstrated that the project remains economically justified and the 

project is continuing. In the case of the third project, the Upper 

Mississippi River Locks and Dams, questions were raised regarding 

the models to be used to analyze projected demand for barge traffic 

on the river before the study had been completed. The Corps of Engineers is continuing with this ongoing study and expects to make 

recommendations to Congress next year that will be economically 

justified. 

The problems with the economic analyses of these three projects 

has led to a call for the improvement of the Corps’ process for developing water resources projects. The Committee believes that the 

Corps of Engineers employs experts in their fields who provide a 

tremendous service to the Nation. The Committee also holds these 

69 

professionals to the highest standards and expects all work products generated by the Corps of Engineers to be able to withstand 

any level of scrutiny. Accordingly, this bill provides the Chief of 

Engineers with tools to ensure that project studies are carried out 

using high quality methods, models, and analyses. At the same 

time, the Committee also recognizes that many disputes over water 

resources projects are policy disputes. Accordingly, the bill also ensures that changes to the project planning process will not lead to 

delays in project delivery and provides the Chief of Engineers with 

tools to resolve policy disputes and minimize delays. 

DISCUSSION OF COMMITTEE BILL AND SECTION-BY-SECTION

ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title; table of contents 

(a) Short Title.—Establishes the short title of this Act as the 

‘‘Water Resources Development Act of 2003’’. (b) Table of Contents. 

Section 2: Definition of Secretary 

Defines the term ‘‘Secretary,’’ which is used throughout the bill, as the Secretary of the Army. 

TITLE I—WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

Section 1001. Project authorizations 

This section authorizes projects for water resources development and conservation to be carried out substantially in accordance with 

the reports of the Chief of Engineers cited for each project, except 

as otherwise provided. (1) American River Watershed, California.— 

The American River watershed lies northeast of Sacramento. It 

covers approximately 2,100 square miles and includes portions of 

Placer, El Dorado, and Sacramento Counties. Runoff from the 

American River drainage basin flows through Folsom Reservoir 

and passes through Sacramento in a channel controlled by a system of levees. The Folsom Dam and Reservoir are located about 29 

miles upstream of Sacramento and are part of the Federal Central 

Valley Project (CVP), one of California’s major water delivery systems. 

Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: Numerous 

floods, most notably in 1986 and 1997, underscore the continued 

high risk of catastrophic flooding in Sacramento. Currently, Sacramento has a 1-in-85 chance of flooding in any year. In 1996 and 

1999, Congress authorized improvements to the levees on the 

American River and modifications to the Folsom Dam to reduce 

this flood risk. Once these projects are completed, the risk of flooding will decrease to about a 1-in-164 chance in any one year. Even 

with improvements already authorized, flood protection will fall 

short of the community goal of reducing the risk of flooding to a 

1-in-200 chance of catastrophic flooding in a given year. 

The combination of mining, development, flood plain constric- tions (including bridges, levees, diversions, and the parkway system), dam construction, and flow modifications over the past 150 

years has altered the physical processes that sustain the Lower 

American River ecosystem and have thereby contributed to its degVerDate mar 24 2004 14:17 May 03, 2004 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\HR265.XXX HR265
70 

radation. These changes will likely continue, further reducing riparian, wildlife, and related habitat values along the lower river. 

In addition, the construction of Folsom Dam has cut off most of the 

spawning areas historically used by the river’s migratory steelhead 

trout and salmon. There are opportunities to restore lost resources 

through modification and replanting of remnant floodplain terraces. 

Lower American River in-stream habitat could be altered to improve fish spawning and rearing conditions, thus increasing the viability of salmon and steelhead populations. 

Alternative Plans Considered: Eight primary flood damage reduction alternatives were evaluated, not including the no-action alternative. Four different downstream levee modifications were evaluated to address increases in objective releases from Folsom Dam 

and three Folsom Dam enlargement alternatives were evaluated to 

address increases in flood storage capacity at Folsom Dam. One alternative that addressed increased flood damage reduction through 

a new upstream detention dam was included for informational purposes. 

The study also considered 26 measures in formulating ecosystem 

restoration alternatives for the lower American River. From these 

measures, five alternatives were evaluated. 

Description of Recommended Plan: The recommended plan consists of raising the height of Folsom Dam by 7 feet. The raise would 

include a combination of raising the concrete monolith and embankments and adding a 3.5-foot parapet wall, replacing the spillway radial gates, modifying the spillway bridge piers, and replacing the spillway bridge. With these modifications the top-of-floodpool elevation at Folsom Reservoir would be increased from an elevation of 474 to 482 feet above mean sea level and flood control 

storage capacity would be increased by 95,000 acre-feet. Significant 

work at Folsom Dam to address dam safety is avoided by also including modifications to the spillway at L. L. Anderson Dam. The 

L. L. Anderson Dam is owned by Placer County Water Agency and 

controls French Meadows Reservoir that is located on the Middle 

Fork of the American River. By including measures to widen the 

L. L. Anderson Dam spillway, the probable maximum flood inflows 

to Folsom Dam would be lowered, thereby avoiding more costly 

dam safety work at Folsom Dam. The recommended flood damage 

reduction improvements would remedy the existing safety deficiency at Folsom Dam and reduce the annual probability of flooding 

in Sacramento from an estimated 1-in-164 chance to a 1-in-213 

chance in any year. 

The recommended plan also includes ecosystem restoration components that would provide for approximately 620 acres of wildlife 

habitat including wetlands, riparian, and native vegetation at the 

Woodlake and Bushy Lake sites along the lower American River 

parkway. In addition, temperature control shutters for the inlets to 

the Folsom Dam penstocks would be mechanized to better regulate 

the American River water temperature to increase native salmon 

and steelhead populations downstream of the dam. 

Physical Data on Project Features: 

(a) Raise Folsom Dam. 

(1) Replace Existing Spillway Gates. All eight spillway radial 

gates at Folsom Dam would be replaced with larger gates. The new 

gates would be approximately 66 feet high, 16 feet taller than the 

71 

gates under the without-project condition. The top-of-gate elevation 

would be 484 feet. 

(2) Modify Spillway Bridge Piers. The piers would be raised and 

extended downstream to anchor the new larger radial gates. Additionally, the piers would be strengthened by installing post-tensioned tendons to anchor the piers to the mass concrete of the overflow section. 

(3) Replace Spillway Bridge. The existing eight-span spillway 

bridge would require replacement. (4) Raise Concrete Dam. The concrete portions of Folsom Dam including the spillway area would be raised to accommodate the 

higher flood control pool. The raise would be accomplished through 

a combination of raising the dam crest and spillway bridge deck, 

and constructing a short crest/parapet wall. The new top-of-dam 

elevation in the concrete section would be 487.5 feet (top of crest/ 

parapet wall), and the top of the roadway and bridge deck would 

be 487.0 feet elevation. 

(5) Extend Stilling Basin. Extension of the spillway stilling basin 

and side walls by approximately 60 feet is required to ensure proper stilling basin function and adequate energy dissipation of the 

larger flows and higher heads of the new design flood and probable 

maximum flood. 

(6) Construct Temporary Construction Bridge. A temporary construction bridge approximately 1⁄4 mile in length may be constructed downstream of the left wing dam to mitigate short-term 

traffic effects during construction of the dam modifications. The 

bridge would be aligned to provide an alternate route of transportation across the American River to ensure that no conflicts occur 

with existing Folsom Dam operations. The Secretary is authorized 

to construct a permanent bridge, in lieu of a temporary construction bridge, if the additional costs of such a bridge, in excess of the 

$36 million provided in the recommended plan for the temporary 

construction bridge, are provided by other entities, including State 

and local governments and other Federal agencies. 

(7) Widen L. L. Anderson Dam Spillway. L. L. Anderson Dam 

(French Meadows Reservoir) spillway would be widened so that 

Folsom Dam would safely pass the probable maximum flood. 

(8) Mitigation. Mitigation for project construction includes approximately 82.6 acres of oak woodland/blue oak-gray pine woodland, 10.3 acres of riparian woodland and 0.3 acre of seasonal wetland habitat. In addition, an adaptive management plan would be 

implemented by the non-Federal sponsor to mitigate unforeseen effects on vegetation and wildlife due to the enlarged flood pool from 

474 to 482 feet elevation. 

(b) Ecosystem Restoration. 

(1) Woodlake. The restoration plan at this 283-acre site includes 

the eradication of nonnative invasive plant species; modification of 

flood plain terraces to increase frequency of natural flooding; seeding to reestablish native grasslands; and grading to appropriate 

flood plain elevations and planting reconstructed areas with riparian forest oak woodland, and oak savanna plant species. 

(2) Bushy Lake Restoration Site. The 347-acre Bushy Lake site 

is upstream from Woodlake. The conceptual restoration plan includes the eradication of nonnative invasive plant species and the 

construction of a pump and delivery system and meandering chanVerDate mar 24 2004 14:17 May 03, 2004 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\HR265.XXX HR265
72 

nel to carry local drainage water to Bushy Lake. The new channels 

would be planted with emergent wetland plant species. Restoration 

also includes the creation of an ephemeral channel to convey flows 

from the lake to the river; terracing steep banks; and planting riparian forest, oak woodland, and oak savanna plant species on 

newly graded site areas. (3) Folsom Dam Temperature Shutter Mechanization. Folsom 

Dam restricts salmon and steelhead life cycles to the 23-mile Lower 

American River precluding the fish from migrating to their upstream natal spawning grounds. Cold water is necessary to sustain 

existing spawning and rearing salmon and steelhead populations 

below the dam. To manage Lower American River water temperature, cold water from varying depths in Folsom Lake is withdrawn 

via shutters located at different elevations on the penstock inlet. 

The restoration feature would modify and automate the temperature shutters to allow for the flexibility and timeliness needed to 

optimize management of the coldwater pool to sustain the downstream fishery. 

Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries: The 

State of California and the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency 

(SAFCA) both support a high level of flood protection for Sacramento and support improvement of the American River ecosystem. They are willing to cost share and perform other sponsor 

duties. 

Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: Agencies commenting on 

the draft report either support or are neutral to the proposed 

project. In its Coordination Act Report, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service has provided recommendations on avoidance of, and compensation for, environmental impacts directly related to raising 

Folsom Dam. The Service is neutral towards the Folsom Dam raise 

plan and supports the Woodlake, Bushy Lake, and Folsom Dam 

temperature shutter modification plans. 

Status of NEPA Document: The Final Environmental Impact 

Statement was filed with EPA on May 3, 2002. 

Estimated Implementation Costs: (October 2002 price levels) 

Cost Sharing 

Federal (Agency/Purpose): 

Corps of Engineers/Flood Damage Reduction .............................. $86,900,000 

Bureau of Reclamation/Dam Safety .............................................. 95,900,000 

Corps of Engineers/Ecosystem Restoration .................................. 18,400,000 

Subtotal ........................................................................................ 201,200,000 

Non-Federal (Agency/Purpose): 

The Reclamation Board/SAFCA Flood Damage Reduction ......... 46,200,000 

SAFCA/Ecosystem Restoration ...................................................... 9,900,000 

Subtotal ........................................................................................ 56,100,000 

Total ............................................................................................. 257,300,000 

Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: For the flood 

damage reduction features the non-Federal sponsors will provide 5 

percent of the initial construction cost in cash during construction, 

and all required lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and 

disposal areas. Additionally, the non-Federal sponsor will provide 

any additional cash amount required to produce a total non-Federal 

contribution of at least 35 percent of the total flood damage reducVerDate mar 24 2004 14:17 May 03, 2004 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\HR265.XXX HR265
73 

tion project cost. The Reclamation Board and SAFCA are the prospective non-Federal sponsors for the proposed flood damage reduction project features. For the flood damage reduction project features, the Federal share of project costs would be about 

$86,900,000 and the non-Federal share would be about 

$46,200,000. For the environmental restoration features the nonFederal sponsor will provide 35 percent of the initial construction 

cost allocated to these features. Included in this 35 percent are all 

required lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and disposal 

areas. Additionally, the non-Federal sponsor will provide any additional cash amount required to produce a total non-Federal contribution of at least 35 percent of the total environmental restoration project cost. SAFCA is the prospective non-Federal sponsor for 

the proposed environmental restoration project features. For the 

environmental restoration project features, the Federal share of 

project costs would be about $18,400,000 and the non-Federal 

share would be about $9,900,000. All dam safety costs have been 

allocated to the Bureau of Reclamation, although it is acknowledged that the non-Federal sponsor for the original Folsom Dam 

project may be required to share in 15 percent of the dam safety 

costs in accordance with the cost sharing in effect at the time of 

initial construction of the project. 

Estimated Annual O&M Costs: (October 2002 price levels): 

Cost sharing 

Federal: Corps of Engineers ........................................................................... 0 

Non-Federal: The Reclamation Board/SAFCA: 

Flood Damage Reduction ......................................................................... $207,000 

Ecosystem Restoration ............................................................................. 580,000 

Total ....................................................................................................... 787,000 

Description of Non-Federal O&M Cost: Operation and maintenance costs are for the additional amount above the existing, without-project O&M cost. Operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation (OMRR&R) costs of improvement features 

would normally be the responsibility of the non-Federal sponsor. 

However, since Folsom Dam is owned and operated by the Federal 

government, the OMRR&R would continue to be performed by the 

Bureau of Reclamation, but a cost-sharing agreement would be negotiated between the non-Federal sponsors and Bureau of Reclamation to pay the portion of the OMRR&R costs related to the new 

flood control features. For the ecosystem restoration components of 

the selected plan, OMRR&R of the project will be the responsibility 

of the non-Federal sponsor, SAFCA. Estimated annual OMRR&R 

cost for ecosystem restoration include activities to operate and 

maintain the mechanized temperature control shutters on Folsom 

Dam in addition to landscape maintenance activities on the Bushy 

Lake and Woodlake sites that include the application of herbicides 

and excavation of seed banks to eradicate non-native invasive plant 

species, the replacement of wetland and riparian plant species during the period of plant community establishment, and other adaptive management activities that may be deemed necessary to ensure 

the successful restoration of riverine habitat on these two sites. 

Estimated Effects: 

74 

Account Average annual equivalent beneficial effects Average annual 

adverse effects 

NED ................................................................... $19,200,000 ....................................................................... $7,800,000 

NER ................................................................... 894 AAHU’s (Average Annual Habitat Units) ..................... $2,481,000 

Project economic life years: 50 years. 

Benefit-cost ratio: 2.5 (current discount rate: 6.125%). 

NED plan recommended—No. It was determined that the 

545,000 acre-foot upstream detention, flood control-only dam originally studied in the 1991 American River Watershed feasibility report would continue to provide greater net National Economic Development (NED) benefits than the recommended plan. The first 

cost of the NED plan would be about $777 million. The average annual cost would be $64.1 million and the average annual flood 

damage reduction benefits would be approximately $71 million. Because an upstream detention dam would reduce flood storage requirements at Folsom Dam, this alternative would also generate 

substantial water resource-related benefits. These additional benefits were estimated at $12 million in the 1996 American River Supplemental Information Report. Although this estimate has not been 

updated, it is likely that the net benefits of an upstream detention 

dam would exceed those of any other alternative presented and 

thus would remain the NED Plan. Consequently, the 545,000 acrefoot upstream detention flood-control-only dam was identified as 

the NED plan. However, the non-Federal sponsors have selected 

the recommended plan as their preferred alternative since the recommended plan is smaller and less comprehensive, is of lesser cost 

than the NED Plan, and provides the highest net flood damage reduction benefits compared to all Folsom Dam enlargement and 

downstream levee modification alternatives considered. 

Direct Beneficiaries: Immediate beneficiaries include the City and 

County of Sacramento and commercial, public, industrial, and residential development within the flood plain and surrounding urbanized areas that rely upon the public facilities in the study area. The 

larger Sacramento community is a beneficiary of more viable fish 

and wildlife habitat within the metropolitan area. 

Relationship to Other Plans: The recommended plan is compatible with other water resources development projects in the study 

area. These include the North Area Local Project, Common Features project, Folsom Dam Modifications project, and recently authorized Lower American River flood control improvements. 

(a) Rebuilding or replacing the Folsom Dam spillway bridge 

would negate the need for a planned reconstruction or major overhaul of the bridge by the Bureau. Also, construction of new, larger 

spillway gates would negate the need for the currently on-going 

Folsom modifications project to replace gates. This would result in 

a cost savings to the Federal project of about $38 million. (b) Section 101 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 

also directed that the Folsom Dam Flood Management Plan be updated to take advantage of improved weather forecasting. Three 

possible scenarios were developed to illustrate the possible impacts 

of the addition of prerelease to the without-project condition damages. The first scenario is that advance release would not occur, 

possibly because of currently unanticipated problems. The second 

or most likely scenario anticipates that advance release could creVerDate mar 24 2004 14:17 May 03, 2004 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\HR265.XXX HR265
75 

ate 100,000 acre-feet of additional flood space. The third scenario 

of advance release could create 140,000 acre-feet of additional flood 

space. 

Cumulative Funds Expended to Date on Previous/Related 

Project(s): 

Federal .................................................................................................... $85,000,000 

Non-Federal ............................................................................................ 31,400,000 

Total ............................................................................................. 116,400,000 

Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: Signed November 5, 

2002. 

(2) Pine Flat Dam and Reservoir, California.— 

Location of Study Area: The project area is located at Pine Flat 

Dam on the Kings River in central California, 25 miles east of 

Fresno. 

Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: The construction 

of Pine Flat Dam on the Kings River has altered the natural hydraulics and temperatures of the river, affected the vegetation, restricted native coldwater fish movements, which resulted in the decline of the fishery, affected fish and wildlife resources and aquatic 

wetland habitats, and further accelerated the decline of the 

riverine ecosystem habitat. 

Due to the design and operation of Pine Flat Dam, the reservoir 

can experience a significant increase in water temperature at certain times of the year. When there is adequate water, water temperatures are well within the optimal range for the survival of both 

coldwater and warmwater fish. In low-water years, however, the 

availability of coldwater habitat for native fisheries in the reservoir 

and lower Kings River can decrease dramatically. 

Water release from Pine Flat Lake influence the fishery downstream in the lower Kings River. During dry and below average 

precipitation years, with below average carryover storage, the 

coldwater reserves may be depleted from the reservoir by late summer and early fall, causing water temperatures in the reservoir and 

lower Kings River to exceed levels acceptable for coldwater fish 

growth and survival. In addition, low instream flows can adversely 

affect food supply, spatial habitat, and access to shaded riverine 

aquatic (SRA) habitat, and provide favorable habitat for nonnative 

warmwater fishery growth, which further declines the native 

coldwater fishery survival rate. Finally, various land use activities 

have resulted in some loss of riparian, SRA, and oak-woodland 

habitat, which has depleted the food source to the associated wildlife and special-status species along the river. 

Alternative Plans Considered: The eight alternative plans included: (1) No action; (2) constructing a multilevel intake structure 

on the upstream face of the dam to manage the temperature of 

downstream water releases to preserve the coldwater in the reservoir and promote downstream water temperatures suitable to 

sustain the native coldwater fishery throughout the year; (3) reestablishing historic floodplain riparian, SRA, and wildlife habitat at 

Byrd Slough along the Kings River immediately south of the 

Friant-Kern Canal siphon; and (4) a combination of alternatives 2 

and 3. 

Description of Recommended Plan: The recommended plan, alternative 4, will include a multilevel intake structure on the upstream 

76 

face of Pine Flat Dam. This structure would allow for temperaturecontrolled releases through the power plant at the base of the dam. 

The plan would also include the restoration of 143.5 acres of historic floodplain, shaded riverine aquatic habitat, and wildlife habitat at Byrd Slough along the Kings River. 

Physical Data on Project Features: (a) Multilevel Intake Structure: A multilevel intake structure would be constructed on the upstream face of Pine Flat Dam. This multilevel intake structure 

would consist of three separate steel (space frame) structures which 

extend from elevation 953.46 feet, mean sea level (msl), downward 

to elevation 616.5 feet, msl. The three separate steel structures 

would fit over the three existing power penstock intakes. Each of 

the three structures would have three port openings and gates. 

There would be a hoist and cable unit (including a motor) for each 

of the nine openings. The three port openings would be 25 feet high 

and 42 feet wide and would be staggered at seven different elevations that would permit selective withdrawal of water from a 

wide range of levels in the reservoir. 

Steel gates measuring 27 feet high by 44 feet wide would be constructed to close off each of the new port openings. One gate on all 

three of the structures would be at the same elevation, and two 

gates on each of the structures would be at different elevations. 

The gates would open in the downward direction and would sit in 

a structural channel when completely open. This design would take 

the gate loadings off the hoist cable. Cladding would be placed on 

the space frame to enclose each of the structures. Steel plates 

would be put on the bottom of each of the space frame structures 

to prevent water from leaking into each structure. A trash rack 

would be placed on the front face of each of the structures to prevent any large debris from entering the port openings and to protect the structure. 

(b) Byrd Slough Habitat Restoration: About 143.5 acres of Fresno 

County land downstream of the dam and immediately south of the 

Friant-Kern Canal siphon would be acquired by conservation easement to reestablish riparian and SRA habitat for fish and wildlife 

along the Kings River. The restoration work would involve repairing perimeter fences to exclude cattle from the restoration area, installing revegetation signs at the fishing access parking area, 

planting restoration species (250 plants per acre), designing an irrigation system to the planted areas, and installing wildlife habitat 

enhancement structures. In order of priority, these structures could 

include brush piles, bluebird boxes, bat boxes, raptor perches, wood 

duck boxes, and/or songbird perches. 

Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries: The 

sponsor, Kings River Conservation District, has continued to express support for the project, understands the cost sharing requirements during preconstruction engineering and design and is prepared to execute a cost sharing agreement upon completion of the 

feasibility study. 

Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The Kings River Conservation District strongly supports the recommended multi-level 

intake structure and the Byrd Slough Habitat Restoration plan. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service supports the recommended plan 

as indicated in its findings in the Coordination Act Report. EPA is 

77 

not adverse to the project as stated in their review of the draft report. 

Status of NEPA Document: The final Environmental Impact 

Statement and the Environmental Impact Report were completed 

December 2001. 

Estimated Implementation Costs: (October 2002 price levels) 

Cost-Sharing 

Federal: Corps of Engineers .................................................................. $24,930,000 

Non-Federal: Kings River Conservation District ................................ 13,550,000 

Total ............................................................................................. $38,480,000 

Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: Non-Federal 

implementation costs include $341,000 for land acquisition and the 

rest will be cash. 

Estimated Annual O&M Costs: (October 2002 price levels) 

Cost-Sharing 

Federal: Corps of Engineers .................................................................. $0 

Non-Federal: Kings River Conservation District ................................ 58,000 

Total ............................................................................................. $58,000 

Description of Non-Federal O&M Costs: The operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation costs for the multilevel intake structure consist of routine maintenance and replacement of parts over the life of the project. The OMRR&R costs for 

the Byrd Slough Habitat area include monitoring and periodic 

maintenance of fencing. Estimated Effects: Construction of the multi-level intake structure would adversely affect about 2.07 acres of agricultural land/ 

chenopod scrub vegetation at the staging area. These effects would 

be temporary (approximately 24 months). Wildlife may experience 

temporary disturbance and/or displacement due to construction 

noise and activity. The operation and maintenance of the multilevel structure would not adversely affect vegetation or wildlife. 

The Friant-Kern Canal riparian restoration site would improve 

conditions for vegetation and wildlife recovery. 

Project life: 50 years. 

The National Ecosystem Restoration plan was recommended. 

Direct Beneficiaries: The long-term benefit is an increase in the 

survival of coldwater species in the lower Kings River downstream 

from Pine Flat Dam. 

Relationship to Other Plans: The Pine Flat Dam Fish and Wildlife Habitat Restoration Project is related to the Pine Flat Turbine 

Bypass Project, for which physical construction was completed in 

April 2003. The turbine bypass improves the flexibility of the 

multi-level intake structure by allowing release of water when the 

power plant turbines are not operating, thus providing cooler water 

than would be available from the flood control sluiceways. The 

multi-level intake structure allows the release of water from higher 

reservoir elevations early in the year, thus conserving cold water 

that can be released in the fall when lower water temperatures are 

most beneficial for the downstream fishery. 

Cumulative Funds Expended to Date on Previous/Related 

Projects: Funds in the amount of $4,961,000 (Federal) have been 

expended on Pine Flat 1135 Turbine Bypass for the total project to 

date. Construction is complete except for project closeout. Project 

closeout should be completed by January 2004. 

78 

Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: Signed July 19, 

2003. 

(3) South Platte River, Denver, Colorado.— 

Location of the Study Area: The project is located on the Zuni/ 

Sun Valley Reach of the South Platte River, between 8th Avenue 

and Lakewood Gulch. 

Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: The City and 

County of Denver has accomplished much towards 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. A low head Fabridam that is used to store water 

for cooling purposes by the Zuni Power Plant dominates this area 

by backing up water for over one mile and blocking upstream 

movement of aquatic organisms to an additional 13 miles of river 

habitat. Ecosystem problems include restricted fish mobility (100 

percent blockage during low river flows); low dissolved oxygen levels upstream of the Fabridam; harmful sediment deposition in 

areas downstream of the Fabridam following periodic flushing of 

sediment trapped above the dam; no protective cover for aquatic 

species downstream of the dam; minimal riparian habitat; virtually 

no wetland habitat; extremely low stream flow depth to width ratios; elevated stream temperatures from power plant discharged 

water and from stagnant upstream pools heated by sunlight; bank 

stabilization problems caused by the Fabridam backwater; elimination of wildlife mobility due to the presence of the Fabridam, significant invasion by non-native plant species; minimal river access 

constraining recreational use of the river corridor; and safety problems due to steep banks and deep pools behind the dam. 

Opportunities exist to restore this last river reach in metropolitan Denver, resulting in unrestricted mobility through aquatic, riparian, and terrestrial habitat and substantial increases in wetlands and quality aquatic habitat. Once the Fabridam is removed 

and aquatic and riparian habitat is restored, an unobstructed 

South Platte greenway will exist through the entire 35–mile reach 

from Chatfield Dam through the Denver metropolitan area. 

Weir Gulch, a west bank tributary entering the South Platte 

River a few thousand feet upstream of the Fabridam, also presents 

significant opportunity for restoration and reconnection of aquatic 

and riparian habitat with the South Platte River. 

Alternative Plans Considered: Measures considered included revegetation, bank modifications, Weir Gulch restoration, removal of 

the Fabridam, development of a low flow channel, and no action. 

Also, the potential for abandonment of the dam was considered at 

some future point in time; however, the power plant, which relies 

on the dam for necessary cooling water, is expected to operate indefinitely into the future. Combinations of these measures were 

evaluated for cost-effectiveness and ‘‘best buy’’ (incremental analysis) using the Institute for Water Resources IWR-Plan model to 

define the National Ecosystem Restoration plan. 

Description of Recommended Plan: The recommended plan is the 

National Ecosystem Restoration (NER) plan. This plan consists of 

the removal of the Fabridam, construction of a 250 cfs low flow 

channel, site utility relocations, and full site restoration including 

bank modifications, revegetation with native plants, and Weir 

79 

Gulch restoration. With removal of the Fabridam, a new alternative cooling water supply (a within-channel infiltration gallery 

system) will be constructed to allow continued operation of the Zuni 

Power Plant. 

Physical Data on Project Features: The recommended NER plan 

will restore 15 acres of fish and wildlife habitats along one mile of 

the stream corridor of the South Platte River. Bank modifications 

will include removal of existing riprap, stripping of vegetation, excavation of soil material, and use of excavated west bank soil material to build out and stabilize the east bank. A 250 cfs low flow 

channel excavated into the channel will concentrate flows in a 

slight meandering pattern, creating aquatic and wetland habitat 

through the formation of riffles, pools and bars. The stream corridor throughout the project area will be fully vegetated with native species. Weir Gulch restoration will consist of clearing, grading 

and revegetation for approximately 600 feet upstream from its 

mouth. 

Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries: This 

project is strongly supported locally by the Greenway Foundation, 

Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, and the City and 

County of Denver, the study’s non-Federal sponsor. A letter from 

the State of Colorado Division of Wildlife dated March 9, 2001, and 

a letter from the Denver Board of Water Commissioners dated 20 

February 2001 provided extensive support for this project, including support for the removal of the Fabridam and for the established goals for restoration of the South Platte River downstream 

of 8th Avenue to Lakewood Gulch. There is broad community support for South Platte River restoration, as reflected in letters of 

concurrence from the Colorado Historical Society and support from 

nongovernmental organizations, including the Audubon Society and 

Sierra Club. Approximately 40 letters of support have been received from agencies, organizations, and other interested parties. A 

State of Colorado letter dated December 2, 2002, had a few minor 

concerns that have been formally addressed by the Omaha District 

in a letter dated February 25, 2003. Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service letter dated February 14, 2001, states directly that the 

proposed project would not negatively impact any threatened and 

endangered species. The Environmental Protection Agency provided two letters, dated March 15, 2001, and February 26, 2003, 

supporting the project. Status of NEPA Document: The Finding of No Significant Impact under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 was signed 

on August 7, 2002, following public review, which ended on February 8, 2002. No opposing or negative responses were encountered 

or submitted. 

Estimated Implementation Costs: (October 2002 price level) 

Federal: Corps of Engineers—Environmental Restoration ................ $11,698,000 

Non-Federal ............................................................................................ 6,299,000 

Total First Cost ........................................................................... $17,997,000 

Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: The City and 

County of Denver will be responsible for acquiring all real estate 

necessary for project construction, including relocation of all utilities, as well as construction of the infiltration gallery and acquisition of all consumptive water rights. In accordance with report recVerDate mar 24 2004 14:17 May 03, 2004 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\HR265.XXX HR265
80 

ommendations, the Federal government will execute and/or reimburse the non-Federal sponsor for all activities that exceed their 

35% total project cost obligation. 

Estimated Annual O&M Costs: (October 2002 price level) NonFederal Sponsor will be responsible for all operation, maintenance, 

replacement, repair, and rehabilitation (OMRR&R) costs, estimated 

at approximately $20,000. 

Description of Non-Federal O&M Costs: At the end of the monitoring period, and upon receipt of the OMRR&R manual, the local 

sponsor will assume normal operation and maintenance responsibility for the project. Future operation and maintenance requirements will be funded entirely by the local sponsor. 

Estimated Effects: The recommended NER plan will restore 15 

acres of fish and wildlife habitats along one mile of the stream corridor of the South Platte River. A more natural flow regime will be 

restored by removal of the Fabridam. Negative downstream impacts associated with sediment flushing at the Fabridam every 3– 

4 months will be eliminated. The project area will experience improved water temperatures and water quality, a significant increase in native plants and fish habitat, a decrease in non-native 

plants and noxious weeds, and a net gain of approximately 3 acres 

of wetland. A productive and biologically diverse fish and wildlife 

community, including migratory waterfowl and fish-eating birds, riparian songbirds and mammals, and native fish, will develop. Unrestricted movement by mobile aquatic and riparian species will be 

possible along a 35-mile reach of the South Platte River, since restoration of river reaches both upstream and downstream of the proposed project through Denver has previously been completed by 

local interests. 

Benefit-Cost Ratio: Not applicable. Single purpose ecosystem restoration plans are formulated and evaluated in terms of their net 

contributions to increases in ecosystem value, expressed in nonmonetary units. The Denver County Reach project contributes to 

national ecosystem restoration. 

NED plan recommended? No. The National Ecosystem Restoration plan is recommended. 

Direct Beneficiaries: Fish and wildlife using the South Platte 

River and the residents of the Denver metropolitan area and the 

rest of the nation will benefit from the improved fish and wildlife 

habitat quality and quantity. 

Relationship to Other Plans: The City and County of Denver has 

spent over $35 million of local funds on numerous projects upstream and downstream of Denver County Reach to create a more 

environmentally sound South Platte River through metropolitan 

Denver. As the last major river restoration project in metropolitan 

Denver, the proposed Denver County Reach project completes the 

transformation of the South Platte River from one long-abused as 

solely a means of providing storm drainage and a water delivery 

system for residential, agricultural and commercial interests to a 

river corridor recognized as having great environmental value. The 

project location is upstream and contiguous to the Colfax Reach 

Project, being carried out under section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. 

81 

Cumulative Funds Expended to Date on Previous/Related 

Projects: Over $35 million on South Platte River restoration efforts 

within metropolitan Denver. 

Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: Signed on May 16, 

2003. 

(4) Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana.— 

Location of Study Area: The study is located in south Louisiana 

between the Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers. Bayou Lafourche 

forms the western study boundary and Bayou du Large and Louisiana Highway 311 form the eastern boundary. The eastern and 

western boundaries form an apex at Thibodaux, Louisiana. The 

southern boundary is the Gulf of Mexico. 

Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: Hurricanes and 

tropical storms cause widespread flooding of residential and commercial property in the study area. Residential communities, commercial and agricultural developments, and industries in the study 

area are generally located along alluvial ridges at elevations ranging from 4 or 5 feet to less than 1 foot above sea level. The 

Terrebonne Levee and Conservation District maintains about 20 

miles of forced drainage levees in various communities, including 

flood control structures and drainage pumping stations. The existing levees have a maximum elevation of 7 feet above sea level and 

protect against weak tidal and rainfall events, but not hurricanes. 

Following Hurricane Andrew in 1992, Terrebonne Parish residents 

qualified for more than $23 million in FEMA claim settlements. 

Hurricane Andrew caused an estimated $55 million in losses to 

crops and other uninsured property in Terrebonne Parish alone, destroying over 360 homes and damaging about 2,900 more. Over 90 

percent of the damage occurred in Terrebonne Parish south of 

Houma, with up to 6 feet of water in residential and commercial 

structures. 

Alternative Plans Considered: Eight alternative plans were evaluated. A preliminary screening focused detailed efforts on the plans 

that provided the most benefit. Two structural alternatives and 

various non-structural alternatives were evaluated in detail. The 

structural alternatives, known as the Reconnaissance and the 

Highway 57 Alignments, involved raising existing levees and constructing new levees to provide reliable protection against 

50-, 85-, 100- and 500-year flood frequency events. The structural 

plans included earthen levees, sector-gated floodgate structures, 

and environmental water control structures to maintain tidal ebb 

and flow. The non-structural plans involved relocating, purchasing 

and elevating structures. 

Description of Recommended Plan: The recommended plan is the 

100–year Highway 57 Alignment. Features include approximately 

72 miles of earthen levees with 12 sector-gated floodgate structures, 12 environmental water-control structures, road closure 

structures, numerous pipeline relocations, several minor pump station discharge realignments and other minor features. 

Physical Data on Project Features: The recommended plan would 

protect Terrebonne Parish against storm events with a one percent 

and greater chance of exceedence. In general, many existing levees 

will be raised approximately three to seven feet and widened with 

an impervious earthen material excavated from nearby borrow 

sites. The floodgates and road closure structures will provide a reliVerDate mar 24 2004 14:17 May 03, 2004 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\HR265.XXX HR265
82 

able and efficient means to close vulnerable gaps in the levee system. A total of six pump station discharge pipes will be relocated 

to maintain interior drainage. Numerous oilfield pipelines will either be relocated over the levee or buried below the levee. 

Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries: The 

Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (lead 

sponsor), Terrebonne Parish, City of Houma, Terrebonne Levee and 

Conservation District, and Congressional representatives strongly 

support the project. The sponsor has indicated a strong desire to 

cost-share in the design and construction of this project. 

Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

raised concerns about induced floodplain development resulting 

from the Federal project that may have cumulative environmental 

effects on aquatic and terrestrial resources. However, these concerns are not significant enough to prevent this project from proceeding. Development is still regulated by the existing permit process. The project will mitigate for all direct adverse impacts resulting from construction. The Corps will continue to coordinate with 

NMFS, USFWS and EPA to ensure that adequate compensatory 

mitigation is provided. 

Status of NEPA Document: The Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Feasibility Report was filed with the 

EPA on April 26, 2002. 

Estimated Implementation Costs: (based on October 2002 price 

levels) 

Cost-sharing 

Federal (65%): Corps of Engineers ....................................................... $467,000,000 

Non-Federal Sponsors (35%): Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, and Terrebonne Levee and Conservation District ........................................................................................ 252,000,000 

Total ............................................................................................. $719,000,000 

Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: The sponsor 

would be responsible for acquiring all necessary lands, easements, 

rights-of-way, relocations and disposal sites for the project worth 

an estimated $49,241,000. The sponsor would also provide work-inkind and cash worth $202,759,000. 

Estimated Annual O&M Costs: (October 2002 price levels) 

Cost-sharing 

Federal: Corps of Engineers .................................................................. $976,500 

Non-Federal Sponsor: Terrebonne Levee & Conservation District ... 420,000 

Total ............................................................................................. $1,396,500 

Description of Non-Federal O&M Cost: This cost covers the general operation and maintenance of floodgate structures, environmental water control structures and levees including levee inspections, mowing and erosion control. Note that the Corps would assume operation of the floodgates along the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) and the lock to be located in the Houma Navigation 

Canal as part of the Federal operation and maintenance of the 

GIWW and Houma Navigation Canal. 

Estimated Effects (October 2002 price levels): 

83 

Account/purposes 

Average annual 

equivalent beneficial effects 

($1000) 

Average annual 

adverse effects 

($1000) 

National Economic Development: Hurricane Protection ...................................................... $80,772 N/A 

Total ....................................................................................................................... $80,772 N/A 

Project economic life: 50 years. 

Benefit-Cost Ratio: 1.72 (Discount Rate: 5.875%). 

NED plan recommended? Yes. 

Direct Beneficiaries: This project will directly benefit the resi- dents and businesses of Terrebonne Parish, and help preserve the 

Louisiana ecosystem. Relationship to Other Plans: This plan is consistent with the 

Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act program and other coastal restoration projects in the study area. Cumulative Funds Expended to Date on Previous/Related Project(s): Approximately $6.6 million has been expended since January 2000 for dual preliminary engineering and design efforts 

on the detailed design of the Houma Navigation Canal Lock and 

Reach G–1 levee contract of the Morganza project. Credit for in-kind services: The Secretary also is directed to credit toward the non-Federal share the cost of work carried out by the 

non-Federal interest for interim flood protection after March 31, 

1989, if integral to the project. This is consistent with the supplemental report of the Chief of Engineers issued July 22, 2003, under 

which the State of Louisiana Department of Transportation and 

Development may design, construct, and manage the construction 

of several project features at an estimated cost of $113,851,000 as 

in-kind services in lieu of part or all of the cash portion of the nonFederal cost share. The features that may be designed, constructed, 

or managed during construction by the sponsor with in-kind services include: • A 56-foot-wide floodgate on Bayou Pointe au Chien; • A 56-foot-wide floodgate on Bush Canal; • A 14-foot-high and 12-mile-long levee from the Bayou Pointe au Chien floodgate to Humble Canal floodgate, and the 

structures therein; • A 14-foot-high and 6.5-mile-long levee from Bayou Petite Caillou floodgate to the Bush Canal floodgate, and the structures therein; and • A 14-foot-high and 3-mile-long levee from the Bush Canal 

floodgate to the Bayou Terrebonne floodgate, and the structures therein. 

All features to be designed and implemented through in-kind 

services must be integral to the project. Any credit afforded to the 

sponsor for approved in-kind services will be auditable, allowable, 

and allocable to the project and will be limited to the lesser of the 

Corps’ estimate of the value of the work allocable to the project had 

the Corps performed the work, or the actual costs incurred by the 

sponsor. 

Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: Signed August 23, 

2002. A supplemental Chief of Engineers Report addressing the 

sponsor’s request for credit for in-kind services was signed on July 

22, 2003. 

(5) Smith Island, Maryland.— 

84 

Location of the Study Area: The project is located in Chesapeake 

Bay on Smith Island, Somerset County, Maryland, which is 12 

miles west of Crisfield, Maryland, 95 miles south of Baltimore. The 

island straddles the Maryland-Virginia state line, but all of the 

project features are in Maryland. The Non-Federal sponsors are 

Somerset County and the State of Maryland Departments of the 

Environment and Natural Resources. 

Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: Smith Island is 

part of a chain of islands that form the border between Chesapeake 

Bay and Tangier Sound, and is comprised of 97 percent emergent 

wetlands. The study area is within the largest contiguous submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) bed in the Bay. Although SAV 

coverages have been rebounding for more than a decade throughout 

the Bay, the Tangier Sound area has seen continual decreases in 

coverage. There are many factors that determine whether or not 

SAV flourishes, some factors are local and some are larger-scale. 

SAV experts have determined that the likely overriding factor in 

the study area is the effect of erosion. As the landmasses that 

make up Smith Island erode, it allows 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. 

Alternative Plans Considered: Investigations during this study involved understanding and quantifying the impact of the ongoing 

process of erosion on habitat degradation. It was determined that 

the tremendous loss of SAV around parts of Smith Island could be 

stopped and, to an extent, reversed by protecting and restoring lost 

wetlands in the Martin National Wildlife Refuge. A number of 

structural means were investigated including stone revetment, 

groins, non-traditional bulkheads and walls, proprietary erosion 

control measures, artificial beach nourishment, breakwaters/sills, 

and geotextile breakwaters. The study team concluded that the 

most cost-effective and reliable way to accomplish this was to construct offshore, segmented breakwaters to protect or recreate strategic areas along the coastline of the Refuge. In many areas, the 

breakwaters would be back-filled using borrow material from the 

Chesapeake Bay bottom west of the Island. This back-fill would 

create additional wetland habitat and greatly increase the effectiveness of the structures. Four main areas of analysis were identified in the reconnaissance effort and were carried through the feasibility process, the Western Shoreline, Fog Point Cove, Back Cove 

and Terrapin Sand Cove. Each of these areas has been seriously 

degraded over time due to erosion. Of the four, no plan at Terrapin 

Sand Cove was recommended for implementation due to the exorbitant cost. Plans at the other three areas that form the recommended project are estimated to protect 216 acres of wetlands 

and 504 acres of SAV over a 50-year life span, while at the same 

time creating 24 acres of wetlands and 1,440 acres of SAV habitat. 

85 

Minimal adverse impacts are anticipated as a result of construction 

including temporary and localized turbidity and impacts related to 

offshore borrow sites, if utilized. The project will require 68,000 

cubic yards of material for back-fill. 

Recommended Plan: The selected plan includes construction of 

segmented offshore breakwaters located from 30 to 100 feet offshore, depending upon water depth and shoreline configuration. 

The breakwaters would have a top elevation of +3.5 feet MLLW. 

Areas behind the breakwaters would be backfilled and wetlands enhanced through plantings. The following four components are included in the plan: 

Project area Location Structure Length (ft) Height Backfill Plants 

Western Shoreline.Offshore from Swan Island to 

Fog Point Cove.

Offshore breakwaters.9,420 +3.5 MLLW .. 15,000 CY/7.5 

acres.

Spartina 

alternaflora. 

Fog Point Cove Offshore, 600 ft. extension from 

western shore, 1,200 ft. from 

eastern shore.

Off shore Breakwaters and 

sill.

1,800 +3.5 MLLW .. 5,000 CY/3.8 

acres.

Spartina 

alternaflora. 

Back Cove NW 

Shoreline.

Offshore, along NW shoreline of 

Back Cove with extension into 

cove shore.

Off shore Breakwaters.5,950 +3.5 MLLW .. 28,000 CY/5.5 

acres.

Spartina 

alternaflora. 

Back Cove SE 

Shoreline.

Offshore, along SE shoreline of 

Back Cove with extension into 

cove shore.

Off shore Breakwaters.2,950 +3.5 MLLW .. 12,000 CY/6.7 

acres.

Spartina 

alternaflora. 

Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries: This 

project is supported at the State and local level by Somerset County, the State of Maryland, and the Chesapeake Bay community. 

Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has provided a letter of support for the project. 

Status of NEPA Document: The public review period for the draft 

feasibility study and environmental assessment was initiated on 

March 15, 2001, and concluded on April 18, 2001. No opposition or 

negative responses were encountered or submitted. 

Estimated Implementation Costs: Baseline costs for the recommended plan in October 2002 dollars are shown below: 

Federal Cost ........................................................................................... $5,200,000 

Non-Federal Cost ................................................................................... 2,800,000 

Total Project Estimated Cost ..................................................... $8,000,000 

Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: The State of 

Maryland and Somerset County will be responsible for acquiring all 

real estate necessary for project construction, which is estimated at 

$2,000. 

Estimated Annual O&M Costs: Pre-construction monitoring will 

cost $7,000, and there will be 5 years of monitoring at a total of 

$40,000 (estimated). 

Description of Non-Federal O&M Costs: State of Maryland Department of Natural Resources will assume responsibility for O&M 

at an estimated annual cost of $16,000. 

Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: The Chiefs Report 

was issued on October 29, 2001. 

(6) Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Corpus Christi, Texas.— 

Location of Study Area: The Corpus Christi Ship Channel 

(CCSC) provides deep-water access from the Gulf of Mexico to the 

Port of Corpus Christi, via Aransas Pass, through Redfish Bay and 

Corpus Christi Bay. Access points include the La Quinta Channel, 

the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), and the Rincon Canal. 

86 

Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: The CCSC was 

the first waterway in Texas to be completed to a depth of 45 feet. 

This channel ranks fifth in the Nation for tonnage shipped on deepdraft vessels, and in Texas only the Houston Ship Channel handles 

more tonnage. Since the completion of the 45-foot project, the size 

of ships using the waterway has steadily increased so that many 

vessels currently have to be light-loaded to traverse the waterway. 

The current channel depth also requires that large crude carriers 

remain offshore and transfer their cargo into smaller crude tankers 

for the remainder of the voyage. Widening the Upper Bay reach 

and installing barge lanes would increase the safety factor for this 

area and would reduce the shipping delays for the project, especially since shipping trends indicate a movement toward the use of 

larger vessels. Development of the La Quinta extension would 

allow benefits to be achieved while enhancing the economy of the 

region. 

Alternative Plans Considered: A general screening process was 

first used to determine which structural plan would result in the 

objective of providing safe and efficient navigation at the least cost 

while minimizing environmental impacts. A total of 23 alternatives 

were initially evaluated for more detailed consideration. These alternatives included widening portions of the CCSC, deepening the 

CCSC, construction of barge lanes, deepening of the La Quinta 

Channel, and extending the La Quinta Channel. The reporting officers recommend a plan to modify the existing projects for Corpus 

Christi and La Quinta channels and provide ecosystem restoration 

to areas near the navigation channel. 

Description of Selected Plan: Based on the economic, engineering, 

and environmental factors considered, the recommended plan consists of the following improvements: 

(a) Deepen the CCSC 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); deepen the remainder of the channel into the 

Gulf of Mexico (approximately 2 miles) to ·54 feet MLT; and 

widen the Upper Bay and Lower Bay reaches (approximately 20 

miles) to 530 feet. 

(b) Construct barge shelves (channels) 200-foot-wide and 12-footdeep MLT on both sides of the CCSC from it’s junction with the 

La Quinta Channel to the entrance of the Inner Harbor (approximately 10 miles). 

(c) Extend the La Quinta Channel approximately 1.4 miles beyond its current limit at a depth of ·39 feet MLT. The channel 

will measure 400 feet wide and include a second turning basin. The 

turning basin will be constructed at the end of the proposed channel extension with a diameter of 1200 feet, to a depth of ·39 feet, 

MLT. The existing La Quinta Channel will remain at the existing 

45-foot depth. The creation of 15 acres of sea grass adjacent to the 

La Quinta extension will mitigate for project impacts to approximately 5 acres of sea grass. 

(d) Construct two ecosystem restoration features, including rock 

breakwaters and geo-tubes to protect 1,200 acres of an existing 

high quality, complex wetland ecosystem that is comprised of a valuable mix of subtidal habitat, salt marsh, blue-green algae flats, 

sand flats and associated uplands. Additionally, protect 40 acres of 

87 

highly productive sea grass. Both components are adjacent to the 

CCSC in the Lower Bay reach of the channel. 

Physical Data on Project Features: Deepening of the CCSC to 

·52 feet will allow vessels with deeper draft to access port facilities without first lightering/lightening their loads. Widening of the 

CCSC will allow for two-way traffic in the channel, increasing safety and reducing delays. Barge lanes will allow the smaller, slower 

barges to transit the bay without the increased concern of collisions 

with larger ships. This will reduce delays and increase safety. Extension of the La Quinta Channel will allow benefits to be achieved 

while enhancing the economy of the region. Ecosystem restoration 

components will protect and enhance several important habitats including estuarine marsh, submerged aquatic vegetation, and endangered species habitat. 

Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries: The 

selected beneficial use plan is the least costly plan that is 

implementable and has the support of the State and Federal resource agencies. The non-Federal sponsor for the existing project, 

the Port of Corpus Christi Authority, has actively participated 

throughout the planning process. The Port of Corpus Christi Authority is supportive of the selected plan and has indicated an interest in beginning construction as soon as possible. There are no 

known significant issues. 

Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: Extensive coordination 

was performed with the State and Federal resource agencies 

through the development of a Regulatory Agency Coordination 

Team. No outstanding issues remain. 

States of NEPA Document: The Final Feasibility Report and 

Final Environmental Impact Statement were filed in the Federal 

Register on April 18, 2003. 

Estimated Implementation Costs: Based on October 2002 prices, 

the estimated total first cost of the project are about $153,808,000 

with the Federal cost of $73,554,000 and a non-Federal cost of 

$80,254,000. This total first cost includes about $128,658,000 for 

cost-shared general navigation features; $7,852,000 for lands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations; $13,016,000 for non-Federal 

share of deep draft utility relocations; and $4,282,000 for two costshared ecosystem restoration features. Total project implementation costs of approximately $203,480,000 include total project cost, 

plus $49,672,000 in non-Federal costs associated with dredging of 

berthing areas and development of other local service facilities. 

Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: The non-Federal share of the first cost for navigation features is $78,755,000, 

and for ecosystem restoration is $1,499,000. 

Estimated Annual O&M Costs: The incremental annual cost for 

operation and maintenance (O&M) of the recommended plan is estimated at $2,247,000. In accordance with Section 101(b) of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1986, the non-Federal interest will be responsible for 50 percent of the costs attributable to 

maintenance dredging to a depth in excess of ·45 feet below MLT. 

Annual O&M costs for the CCSC are estimated to be $1,670,000. 

Annual O&M costs for the barge shelves are expected to be 

$27,000. Annual O&M costs for the La Quinta extension are expected to be $550,000. 

88 

Description of Non-Federal O&M Cost: The non-Federal sponsor 

will cost-share O&M for the CCSC at the same ratio as construction for the increment below 45 feet in depth. O&M for the barge 

shelves, and La Quinta extension will be paid 100% by the Federal 

interest. The non-Federal sponsor will also be responsible for 100% 

of O&M costs associated with mitigation and ecosystem restoration. Estimated Effects: 

Account effects 

Average annual 

equivalent beneficial effects 

($1,000) 

Average annual 

adverse effects ($1,000) 

NED: 

CCSC ........................................................................................................................... $32,607 $12,305 

Barge Shelves ............................................................................................................. 134 85 

La Quinta .................................................................................................................... 9,264 5,000 

Ecosystem Restoration ................................................................................................ (1) 267 

Project economic life: 50 years. 

Benefit-cost ratio: 

CCSC—2.6 

Barge Lanes—1.6 

La Quinta—1.8 

Current discount rate: 5.875%. 

NED plan recommended? Yes. 

1 Average annual costs for ecosystem restoration at sites L and P are estimated at $160,600 and $106,400, respectively. It is estimated 

that the two sites will generate 144 and 16 average annual habitat units (AAHU), respectively, resulting in average annual costs of $1,120 

and $6,650 per AAHU, respectively. The combination of breakwater/geo-tubes construction, represents the most cost-effective measures in protecting these valuable resources. 

Direct Beneficiaries: Benefits were identified for ships carrying both import and export petroleum products and grain, as well as 

barge traffic and container ship traffic. Current State of Chief of Engineers Report: The Chief of Engi- neers Report was signed on June 2, 2003. (7) Matagorda Bay, Texas.— 

Location of Study Area: The Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) 

parallels the Gulf of Mexico’s coastline from Brownsville, at the 

southern tip of Texas, to St. Marks, Florida. The man-made channel is maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at a minimum bottom width of 125 feet and a minimum depth of 12 feet. 

This shallow draft channel is an integral part of the total inland 

transportation system of the United States. The GIWW is a necessary link in the transportation network that moves commodities 

throughout the United States, as well as foreign markets. The 

Matagorda Bay reach of the GIWW extends from Channel Mile 454 

to 473, a distance of about 19 miles. The GIWW leaves the landlocked portion on the eastern side of Matagorda Bay near Mile 454 

and turns in a southwesterly direction before turning west and 

running parallel to Matagorda Peninsula. At Mile 471, the GIWW 

intersects with the deep-draft Matagorda Ship Channel (MSC). The 

GIWW enters the landlocked portion again at Port O’Connor near 

Mile 473. 

Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: The proximity of 

the GIWW to the natural pass of Pass Cavallo and the construction 

of the jettied entrance channel and deep-draft MSC has created 

maintenance dredging problems and a navigation hazard. The influences of the natural and man-made channels have created a 

dangerous crosscurrent at the intersection with the GIWW. Oneway traffic has been self-imposed from mile marker 469 to the Port 

O’Connor jetties at mile 473. To the south of the GIWW is SunVerDate mar 24 2004 14:17 May 03, 2004 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\HR265.XXX HR265
89 

down Island, a National Audubon Society bird sanctuary. To the 

north is the dredged material placement site for the maintenance 

dredging operations. This has effectively limited the ability of barge 

traffic to maneuver to compensate for the crosscurrents and 

shoaling. The Feasibility Report offers an opportunity to relocate 

and widen the existing channel to avoid the strong crosscurrents 

and allow for safe two-way vessel passage. 

Alternative Plans Considered: The process for this study began 

with several alternative solutions that were considered reasonable 

and practical for the Matagorda Bay reach of the GIWW. Additional alternatives and changes to current alternatives were added 

as the study progressed. The non-structural and structural alternative plans were presented and developed to the level of detail 

needed to evaluate each plan alternative. The ultimate goal of the 

study was to identify the National Economic Development Plan and 

the selected plan. Non-structural alternatives, other than no-action, 

included the utilization of alternate modes of transportation such 

as the use of rail, truck, ocean-going barge, or combinations of 

these alternatives. The typical ratio of tonnage per movement between rail and inland barges is about 15 to 1, and with truck the 

ratio is about 60 to 1. Another non-structural alternative of additional tugs to assist barges across the high-current area was considered but eliminated because the alternative did not fully address 

the problems. Structural alternatives included dredging exchange 

outlets across the Matagorda barrier island to reduce the strong 

currents at the MSC, or realigning the existing route to avoid the 

existing current. 

Description of Selected Plan: The selected plan involves a Southern Realignment utilizing the existing GIWW route on the eastward end for approximately 3.9 miles before turning westward. The 

alignment is approximately 6,000 feet north of and parallel to the 

existing route. As the channel approaches the MSC, it is aligned 

towards the north, approximately 7,500 feet from the existing 

GIWW at its farthest point. The channel intersects the MSC approximately 6,000 feet north of the existing GIWW. The alignment 

then reconnects with the existing GIWW just before entering the 

jetties at Port O’Connor. A flare at the intersection allows the tows 

to realign in the GIWW before passing through the jetties. The 

total length of this alignment is 13 miles and divided into three 

reaches. Reach 1 is from station 0+00 to 160+00. Reach 2 is from 

160+00 to 452+00. Reach 3 is from 452+00 to 704+59. The proposed 

channel depth is 12 feet, plus 2 feet of overdepth and 2 feet of advanced maintenance. The bottom width remains at 125 feet from 

station 0+00 to 550+00. It continues westward to station 703+00 

with an average bottom width of 300 feet. The Southern Realignment results in 2.5 million cubic yards of dredged material and 

avoids impacts to oyster reefs. Future maintenance dredging is estimated at 77,000 cubic yards per year. 

Physical Data on Project Features: 

(a) Several ecosystem restoration features and beneficial use of 

dredged material features are included in the selected placement 

plan. 

(b) The area south of the shoreline east of Palacios Point is suitable for marsh creation using the material dredged from Reach 1. 

The water depth near the shoreline quickly drops to 2 feet and inVerDate mar 24 2004 14:17 May 03, 2004 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\HR265.XXX HR265
90 

creases to 5 feet approximately 700 feet from the water’s edge. The 

bottom sediment is sandy clay with large amounts of shell material, although no live oysters were present. Some 7,000 feet east of 

Palacios Point, soil conditions and water depths are considered 

more suitable for establishment of oyster beds, therefore this would 

represent the limit of the marsh. The sandy clay material has sufficient bearing strength to easily support a geotextile tube that 

would be used as the perimeter levee of the marsh site. A marsh 

between 58 and 78 acres would be sufficient to contain the dredged 

material from Reach 1. 

(c) For Reach 3, an acceptable marsh creation site was found in 

the bay, south of Broad Bayou and north of Port O’Connor. The 

area along the shore is prime habitat for oyster beds and sea grass 

is plentiful. However, some 900 feet from shore the depth of water 

is 4 feet and varies between 4 feet and 5 feet for approximately another 1,500 feet farther from shore. Maintaining this distance from 

shore ensures that the marsh avoids impacting this habitat. Approximately 108 acres of marsh can be created from the dredged 

material. The foundation material in this area is a silty sand with 

considerable shell fragments. The bearing capacity is easily sufficient for the geotextile tube that would be required to achieve the 

necessary levee height. (d) Sundown Island in Matagorda Bay is situated approximately 

one mile southeast of the intersection of the existing GIWW and 

the MSC. This island was created entirely from dredged material 

and consists of 60 acres, not including an existing bird island of 16 

acres enclosed by one 8-foot-high geotextile tube on the east end of 

the island. The site is a designated National Audubon Sanctuary 

(NAS) and serves as a nesting site for several endangered and 

threatened species. Due to the strong currents in the area, the island undergoes severe erosion. The NAS has requested that 

dredged material be placed on the perimeter of the island to offset 

the effects of erosion and help preserve the site. This existing bird 

island has a remaining capacity that can utilize the more sandy 

material from the western portion of Reach 3. An additional levee 

can be constructed off the north shore of Sundown Island, using 8- 

foot-high tubes. The northwestern leg of the existing bird island’s 

tube can serve as one of the boundaries in the new enclosure. With 

geotextile tubes placed out to distances of between 450 and 700 

feet, in water depths suitable for avoiding stacking of tubes, an additional 31 acres would provide a storage capacity of 414,752 cubic 

yards of material. It will be necessary to construct a 2-foot berm 

under the tube’s scour pad to raise the levee height in the deeper 

water. The western portion of Reach 3 consists of, on average, 

74.3% loose sand. There is sufficient suitable sandy material for 

both the placement at Sundown Island and at Port O’Connor 

beach. 

(e) The beach at Port O’Connor was originally constructed as a 

beneficial use site using material dredged from the GIWW. The 

area north of the existing geotextile tube jetty that extends from 

the beach has experienced some erosion. This area could benefit 

from placement of the sandy material from dredging the western 

portion of Reach 3. The area would extend from the shore to approximately 300 to 400 feet into the water. The sand quality of this 

material, mostly between 37% and 14% fines, is sufficient for this 

91 

purpose. The material could be pumped onto the beach from an average depth of between ·2 feet and +1 feet (MLLW). This restoration could yield a disposal capacity for approximately 200,000 cubic 

yards of dredged material. The use of this beach as a beneficial use 

site may be considered once or twice during the 50-year maintenance dredge plan. 

(f) The application of ecosystem restoration and beneficial uses of 

dredged material for both new work and maintenance material for 

the selected plan is summarized below. 

—In Reach 1, dredged material would be used to create a 10-acre 

marsh at Palacios Point. The remainder of the material would be 

deposited in the offshore surf zone. Material from each 10-year 

maintenance-dredging event would be used to create an additional 

25-acre marsh at Palacios Point. 

—For Reach 2, all of the new work and maintenance material 

would be placed in the offshore surf zone. 

—In Reach 3, new work material would be used to create a 20- 

acre marsh at Port O’Connor, nourish the Port O’Connor beach, 

provide material to Sundown Island, and offshore placement in the 

surf zone. Maintenance material from each 3-year dredging event 

would be used to create an additional 20-acre marsh at Port O’Connor for the first 21 years or 7 cycles. After 21 years, the maintenance material would be placed offshore in the surf zone. 

Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries: The 

non-Federal sponsor for the existing navigation project, the Port of 

Corpus Christi Authority, has actively participated throughout the 

planning process. The Port of Corpus Christi Authority is supportive of the selected plan and has indicated an interest in beginning construction as soon as possible. There are no known significant issues. 

Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The local sponsor for the 

existing navigation project, the Texas Department of Transportation, has actively participated throughout the planning process. 

Their primary concern has been about the potential interruption of 

navigational traffic on the waterway and the economic impacts to 

the region and to the State. The Texas Department of Transportation supports the Matagorda Bay Re-Route and the continuation 

of shallow draft navigation of the State’s coastal waters. Extensive 

coordination was performed with the State and Federal resource 

agencies through the development of the NED plan and no outstanding issues remain. 

Status of NEPA Document: The Final Feasibility Report and 

Final Environmental Assessment have been approved by all necessary Environmental Agencies. An Environmental Impact Statement was not required for this report. 

Estimated Implementation Costs: At October 2002 prices, the estimated total project cost is $14,515,000. Fifty percent of the project 

cost is from general revenues and fifty percent is derived from the 

Inland Waterway Trust Fund. 

Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: One-half of 

project costs will come from the Inland Waterway Trust Fund. 

Estimated Annual O&M Costs: Annual operation and maintenance costs for the GIWW across Matagorda Bay are estimated to 

be $630,000. 

92 

Description of Non-Federal O&M Cost: There are no non-Federal 

costs. 

Estimated Effects: 

Account effects 

Average annual 

equivalent beneficial effects 

($1,000) 

Average annual 

adverse effects ($1,000) 

NED: 

Re-Route ..................................................................................................................... $1,553 $2,185 

Ecosystem Restoration ................................................................................................ (1) (1) 

Project Economic Life: 50 years. 

Benefit-Cost Ratio: 1.4. 

Current Discount Rate: 5.875%. 

NED Plan Recommended? Yes. 

1 Environmental benefits are not quantified monetarily and therefore environment specific costs are not included in the project benefit/cost 

ratio. Restoration efforts include benefits to diverse and sensitive habitats including a marsh creations and beach nourishment. 

Direct Beneficiaries: Benefits were identified for ships carrying 

both import and export petroleum products and grain, as well as 

barge traffic and container ship traffic. 

Current State of Chief of Engineers Report: The Chief of Engineer’s Report was signed on December 24, 2002. 

(8) Riverside Oxbow, Fort Worth, Texas.— 

Location of Study Area: The study area is located within the corporate limits of Fort Worth, Tarrant County, Texas. 

Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: 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. According to the United 

States Fish and Wildlife Service (1985), the indirect downstream 

effects of large flood control projects and reservoir construction on 

natural bottomland ecosystems are often more destructive, albeit 

not as immediate, as the direct impacts. Adverse impacts observed 

downstream include: (1) An unnatural bottomland hydro-period 

causing major vegetational changes toward more xeric species as a 

result of the reduction in flooding; (2) the reduction of associated 

nutrient inputs to downstream bottomlands; (3) the loss of aquatic 

flora and fauna; (4) the loss of bank-stabilizing vegetation as a result of excessive bed and bank scour from irregular reservoir releases; (5) disruption of normal feeding and spawning cycles of fish 

which use floodplains; (6) elimination of high flows into 

bottomlands which prevents the input of bottomland nutrients into 

the aquatic system; and (7) potential negative effects to plant communities as a result of prolonged water releases during the growing 

season. 

Alternative Plans Considered: Alternatives investigated in detail 

included three plans; the no-action, the National Ecosystem Restoration (NER) Plan and the Locally Preferred Plan (LPP). 

Description of Recommended Plan: The Recommended Plan is the 

locally preferred plan (LPP). In total, the recommended plan would 

restore ecosystem values on 512.2 acres of floodplain lands, approximately 2 miles of Oxbow river channel, 56.5 acres of wetlands, 

and 112 acres of uplands. It would also provide 25,700 feet of 

mixed surface linear recreation trails. 

93 

Physical Data on Project Features: The Recommended Plan consists of reestablishing flows through the old West Fork of the Trinity River Oxbow including replacing the existing Beach Street 

Bridge; creation of 69.6 acres of emergent wetlands, open water, 

and vegetative fringe habitat; habitat improvement of 179.7 acres 

of existing forested areas, including establishment of a 150-footwide riparian buffer along the West Fork from Riverside Drive to 

East 1st Street; establishment of a buffer of native grasses and 

forbs on approximately 45.6 acres of land; reforestation of roughly 

66.9 acres using a variety of native hard and soft mast trees and 

shrubs; preservation and habitat improvements to approximately 

206.9 acres of native floodplain grassland; and eradication of 80 

acres of invasive species and reestablishment of native species and 

creek bed protection on 112 acres within the Tandy Hills Nature 

Preserve. The plan also includes compatible linear recreation along 

a 9,000-feet by 10-feet wide concrete trail including one vehicular 

bridge, 1,400 feet of crushed agregate trail, 7,600 feet of wood 

mulch equestrian trail, three observation areas, a new Gateway 

Park entrance road and bridge and other associated facilities (access points, parking lot, and restroom facilities), and 7,743 feet of 

crushed agregate trail and associated facilities (access points and 

parking lot) in the Tandy Hill Nature Preserve. Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries: The 

Tarrant Regional Water District (TRWD) is the local sponsor. The 

TRWD strongly supports the project and will fund the local share 

of the project. Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department support 

the recommended plan as it would have substantial positive benefits to fish and wildlife resources of the project area. There are no 

outstanding issues. Status of NEPA Document: The Final Environmental Assessment 

has been included as part of the Final Feasibility Report, dated 

May 2003. These documents were released for public review and 

comment on April 14, 2003, and minor comments were received by 

the close of the public comment period on May 14, 2003. Estimated Implementation Costs of Recommended LPP Plan: The 

estimated first cost for construction of the recommended project is 

$22,198,000 (October 2002 price level), with a Federal cost of 

$9,178,500 and a non-Federal cost of $13,019,500. 

Cost-sharing 

Federal: Corps of Engineers: Flood Damage Reduction ................... 0 (0%) 

Ecosystem Restoration (ER) .............. 8,680,000 (65% of ER portion of NER 

Plan) 

Recreation ........................................... 498,500 (50% of recreation portion of 

NER Plan) 

Subtotal ........................................... 9,178,500 

Non-Federal: Tarrant Regional Water 

District: 

Flood Damage Reduction ................... 0 (0%) 

Ecosystem Restoration (ER) .............. 4,675,500 (35% of ER portion of NER 

Plan) 

Recreation ........................................... 498,500 (50% of recreation portion of 

NER Plan) 

Additional Local Features (ALF) ...... 7,845,500 (100% of ALF components) 

Subtotal ........................................... 13,019,500 

Total ................................................ $22,198,000 

94 

Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: Non-Federal 

implementation costs for the Recommended Plan consist primarily 

of the cost related to the acquisition of lands, easements, rights-ofway, relocations and disposals (LERRDs), and additional local features (ALF). The estimated cost of the LERRDS is $11.8 million. 

Non-Federal cash for the NER is approximately $581,000, and for 

the LPP, approximately $1,222,500. 

Estimated Annual O&M Costs: There are no Federal annual operation and maintenance costs. The local sponsor, the Tarrant Regional Water District will be responsible for all operation and 

maintenance costs for the NER plan estimated at $72,500 annually, and for the LPP, approximately $87,500 annually. 

Description of Non-Federal O&M Costs: Operation and maintenance responsibilities include mowing, trash collection and, as 

needed, replacements or rehabilitation of any of its components. 

Estimated Effects of the NER Plan (Effects for the LPP were not 

calculated): 

Account purposes 

Average annual 

equivalent beneficial effects 

(1,000’s) 

Average annual 

adverse effects 

(1,000’s) 

National Ecosystem Restoration Plan (NER): 

NER ............................................................................................................................. N/A $969.1 

Recreation ................................................................................................................... 805.1 78.9 

Total ....................................................................................................................... $805.1 $1,048.0 

Project economic life: 50 years. 

Benefit-cost ratio: 10.0 (current discount rate: 5–7/8%). 

NED plan recommended? No. 

NER plan recommended? No. 

The NER plan would restore approximately 568.7 acres and 

would produce approximately 305 average annual habitat units 

(AAHU). The LPP would restore an additional 112 acres and 25.83 

AAHU’s. The restoration will benefit the trail system and the habitat for songbirds and migratory wading birds. Environmental benefits are not quantified monetarily and therefore environment specific costs are not included in the project benefit/cost ratio. 

Direct Beneficiaries: The residents in the surrounding area are 

the direct beneficiaries of the project. 

Relationship to Other Plans: N/A. 

Cumulative Funds Expended to Date on Previous/Related 

Project(s): N/A. 

Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: The Chief of Engineers Report was signed on May 29, 2003. 

(9) Deep Creek, Chesapeake, Virginia.— 

Location of the Study Area: The Norfolk District Corps of Engineers operates a Federally owned highway bridge over which U.S. 

Route 17 (George Washington Highway) crosses the Dismal Swamp 

Canal (DSC), a part of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW). 

The bridge was constructed in 1934 and is located in the community of Deep Creek in the city of Chesapeake, Virginia. Chesapeake 

is part of the large metropolitan area of Hampton Roads, at the 

mouth of the Chesapeake Bay. The city is located in southeastern 

Virginia, approximately 150 miles southeast of Washington, D.C. 

The non-Federal sponsor is the City of Chesapeake, VA. 

95 

Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: The existing 

Deep Creek Bridge is a two lane, single-leaf Bascule Bridge that 

was constructed in 1934 at a cost of $64,000. The bridge is now 

outdated and while structurally sound it is functionally obsolete in 

that it does not conform to existing standards for traffic load limits 

and roadway geometry. Traffic congestion and delays are commonplace. Potential adverse impacts to vessel traffic on the AIWW 

could result due to malfunction of the bridge, which has been used 

for almost twice its originally estimated useful life. The city of 

Chesapeake operates and maintains four moveable highway 

bridges over navigable waterways, has experience in operating to 

meet the needs of navigation, and is willing to take over operation 

and maintenance of the improved bridge. 

In a letter dated March 21, 1996, the city of Chesapeake requested that the Norfolk District consider the need for and feasibility of modifying or replacing this structure in conjunction with 

City and Commonwealth of Virginia plans to improve the road system in this area. The City has already begun improvements to the 

area’s roadways, and the Commonwealth is currently contracting 

the design for a 10-mile stretch of U.S. Route 17 improvements 

from the North Carolina line to the proposed Dominion Boulevard. 

These improvements are needed to accommodate the rapidly increasing development in this area of Chesapeake. The sponsor’s letter also stated that, the City would assume ownership and subsequent operation and maintenance of a replacement bridge. 

Alternative Plans Considered: The possible solutions examined in 

the feasibility study included: (1) Abandonment of the existing 

bridge in favor of relocating highways; (2) abandonment of the waterway; (3) rerouting the waterway to consolidate or minimize highway crossings; (4) bridge replacement with adequate structures 

that will accommodate existing and future traffic conditions and 

minimize delays for highway uses and navigation traffic; and (5) 

continued use of the existing low-level bridge. Bridge replacements 

included high-level fixed-span bridges, low-level bridges, and tunnels under the Dismal Swamp Canal. 

Description of the Recommended Plan: The recommended plan, 

which is the National Economic Development (NED) plan, consists 

of replacing the existing bridge with a 5-lane, low-level, split-leaf, 

pit bascule bridge aligned south of and parallel to the existing 

bridge’s centerline, and approach roadways. 

(a) Structural: 

(1) The selected plan consists of a separate 2-lane leaf (eastbound) and 3-lane leaf (westbound). The eastbound leaf would be 

75 feet long, 40 feet wide, and have two vehicle lanes and a pedestrian sidewalk. The westbound lane would have 3 vehicle lanes and 

be approximately 48 feet wide. The two spans would be separated 

by a space of approximately 1.5 feet. The new deck elevation would 

be at approximately 16.9 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum, 

which is approximately 5.5 to 7 feet above average ground elevation in the vicinity and over one foot higher than the existing 

bridge deck. The roadway centerline would be approximately 100 

feet south of the existing bridge centerline. 

96 

(2) Approach Roadways—The higher deck would require modifications to the approach roads on either side of the bridge to tie 

into existing road elevations on Cedar Road and Old Mill Road, as 

well as tying into the intersecting portions of George Washington 

Highway and Route 17. The recommended south parallel alignment 

was developed for a 5-lane roadway width. This south alternative 

alignment is less likely to disturb existing utilities. The provision 

of a fifth lane allows smooth traffic movement at the intersection 

without unreasonable stacking of traffic onto the bridge. In particular, the fifth lane will provide a dedicated through lane to Old 

Mill Road and a left turn lane for southbound traffic on Mill Creek 

Parkway. These movements are projected to increase substantially 

over the life of the project. The location of the proposed south alignment was set to allow continued operation of the existing bridge 

during new bridge construction. The approach roadway design 

speed for this alignment is 35 mph. 

(3) Lands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations—Property 

impacts resulting from the horizontal and vertical alignment 

changes require the acquisition of rights-of-way, the demolition of 

three commercial buildings, and the relocation of businesses in two 

of those buildings. This alignment will not require relocation of 

major utilities as the preponderance of these utilities is located 

north of the existing bridge. 

(b) Environmental Features: There would be no net loss of aquatic habitat resulting from the relocation of the fender system in the 

canal or from any activities associated with construction of the replacement bridge. Loss of wetland and aquatic habitat (estimated 

at less than one-tenth of an acre) will be mitigated on existing 

lands at a 2–1 ratio. Water quality would be disturbed temporarily 

during construction but would return to normal after completion of 

the project. 

The selected plan described above is a design refinement of the 

bridge described in the Feasibility Report, which consisted of a 5– 

lane, low-level, fast acting (Scherzer rolling lift), single-leaf bascule 

bridge located south of and parallel to the existing bridge. The design change resulted from ongoing coordination by the Project Delivery Team including two design charrettes to refine the bridge design and roadway tie-ins. The results of these efforts are provided 

in an Addendum to the Feasibility Report dated April 23, 2002. 

The refined design has several advantages over the initial design 

presented in the feasibility report including improving the sequence of construction, provides a better alignment which reduces 

real estate needs and impacts to adjacent properties, and allows 

better maintenance of traffic during construction. The new design 

does not change the estimated OMRR&R costs. The new design involves both cost savings and increased costs for various project features. There is a net increase in cost; estimated first costs are 

$21.8 million for the split-leaf bridge design compared to $21.5 million for the single leaf design (after updating to October 2001 price 

levels and applying a discount rate of 6.125%). The increase is 

largely due to increased work resulting from additional information 

on site conditions and to increases in materials costs. These costs 

would be associated with any bridge plans; therefore, the new design remains the NED plan. 

97 

The plan initially preferred by the non-Federal sponsor was a 

four-lane bridge. However, the studies have shown that in addition 

to providing greater overall benefits the addition of the fifth lane 

provides for a through lane to Old Mill Road and a left turn lane 

for southbound traffic on Mill Creek Parkway. These improvements 

allow for smooth traffic flow without backing traffic onto the 

bridge. The sponsor concurred with the selection of the NED plan. 

Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries: The 

Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Environmental Quality, 

responded by letter dated August 20, 2001. This letter forwarded 

a copy of the Commonwealth’s January 29, 2001, comments on the 

draft report, which stated they had no objection to the project as 

long as it is constructed in accordance with all applicable State and 

Federal laws and regulations. There were no additional comments. 

Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The U.S. Department of 

the Interior (DOI), Office of the Secretary, responded by letter 

dated August 8, 2001. DOI had no comments to offer and did not 

object to the proposed project. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 3 and Department of Transportation, responded 

by phone conversation on February 26, 2002, and August 21, 2001, 

respectively, that each had no comments to offer. 

Status of NEPA Document: Because there were no significant 

issues affecting the natural and human environment, an Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI) were prepared for this project. The FONSI was signed by 

the Norfolk District Engineer on April 25, 2001. The final Feasibility Report and EA with the signed FONSI were circulated for 

State and agency review on July 10, 2001. The State and Agency 

review period ended on August 9, 2001. 

Estimated Implementation Costs: The NED plan estimated implementation costs are shown below in October 2001 price levels. 

NED (recommended plan) 

Federal: Corps of Engineers .................................................................. $22,178,000 

Non-Federal: City of Chesapeake ......................................................... 0 

Total ............................................................................................. $22,178,000 

Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: The city of 

Chesapeake has no costs associated with the recommended plan. 

Estimated Annual O&M Costs: The NED plan estimated operation and maintenance costs are shown below in October 2002 price 

levels. 

NED 

O&M (recommended plan) 

Federal .............................................................................................................. $0 

Non-Federal ..................................................................................................... 222,130 

Total ....................................................................................................... $222,130 

Description of Non-Federal O&M Costs: The city of Chesapeake 

will assume ownership of the bridge and be responsible for all operations and maintenance (O&M) activities associated with this movable bridge. O&M responsibilities for the project include operator’s 

labor, maintenance materials, equipment and labor, bridge inspection reports, utilities, and major replacements. 

Estimated Effects: 

(a) Economic Effects—See Table 1. 

98 

(b) NED Plan recommended? Yes. The NED plan for the existing 

bridge replacement is the recommended plan and LPP. It consists 

of a 5-lane, split-leaf, rolling-lift bascule bridge. Refer to the proposed bridge description in section 9a. 

The NED Plan is implementable and economically justified and 

the city of Chesapeake, as local cost-sharing sponsor, is willing to 

assume all costs associated with the operations and maintenance 

of this project. 

Table 1.—Economic Summary NED Plan1

Investment Costs: 

Project Cost2 ................................................................................... $20,823,000 

Lands and Damages ....................................................................... 1,355,000 

Interest During Construction ........................................................ 1,373,860 

Total Investment Cost ................................................................ $23,551,860 

Average Annual Costs: 

Annualized First Cost .................................................................... $1,468,220 

Annual O&M Costs O&M .............................................................. 222,130 

Subtotal Annualized Cost .............................................................. 1,690,350 

Subtotal Vehicle User Costs .......................................................... 5,301,000 

Total Average Annual Costs3 ..................................................... $6,991,350 

Average Annual Benefits ...................................................................... $15,652,000 

Benefit/Cost Ratio .................................................................................. 2.24 

Net Remaining Benefits ........................................................................ $8,660,650 

1October 2002 price levels; discount rate @ 5-7/8 percent, 50-year planning period. 

2M–CACES estimate dated April 2002. 

3 Including highway user costs. 

(c) Environmental Quality—There are no major or long-term adverse environmental effects that would result from the implementation of the selected plan. Water quality would be temporarily disturbed during the construction phase of the project but would return to normal once construction is completed. 

Petroleum contamination was discovered east of the existing 

bridge. The site will be remediated by the City and verified clean 

under all Federal and State standards prior to the government’s 

purchase of that real estate and before commencement of any construction activities associated with that area. 

(d) Regional Economic Development Effects—The regional economic development account indicates that there is a positive impact of the NED plan on employment and income in the regional 

economy from construction and operation, maintenance, replacement, repair, and rehabilitation activities. The construction and 

subsequent operation and maintenance of the new bridge would 

provide regional gains in output, earnings, and employment. 

In addition, there would be both positive and negative impacts 

associated with the new bridge on businesses located along the improved roadway. Such impacts are related to parking, visibility, access, traffic flow, and location. 

(e) Other Social Effects—The most significant negative social effect would be the displacement of businesses that would be necessary with all of the alternatives, except for a replacement of the 

existing structure with another two-lane bridge in the same location. The 5-lane bridge on the southern alignment would require 

99 

the demolition of three commercial buildings and the relocation of 

two businesses. 

Some short-term disruption of the internal traffic patterns within 

the community may occur during construction of the new bridge, 

the approach improvement, and removal of the old bridge. The 

long-term provision to the community of increased safety and improved traffic flow would help to offset this temporary effect. 

Direct Beneficiaries: Highway users. 

Relationship to Other Plans: The recommended plan is commensurate with the connecting roadways and will improve traffic flow 

and reduce delays in the heavily congested area at peak traffic 

hours. In addition, navigation along the AIWW will not be adversely impacted. 

Cumulative Funds Expended to Date on Previous/Related 

Projects: In excess of an estimated $15,000,000 has been expended 

on the Norfolk District project for the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway between Norfolk, VA, and the St. John’s River, FL. 

Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A final Chief of Engineers report was signed on March 3, 2003. 

Section 1002. Small projects for flood damage reduction 

Directs the Secretary to study and carry out projects for flood 

damage reduction under the authority of section 205 of the Flood 

Control Act of 1948 at the following locations: 

(1) Cache River Basin, Grubbs, Arkansas. 

(2) Santa Ana River Basin and Orange County Streams, California. 

(3) Stony Creek, Oak Lawn, Illinois. 

(4) Olive Hill and vicinity, Kentucky. 

(5) Nashua River, Fitchburg, Massachusetts. 

(6) Saginaw River, Hamilton Dam, Flint, Michigan. 

(7) Marsh Creek, Minnesota. 

(8) Roseau River, Minnesota. 

(9) South Branch of the Wild Rice River, Borup, Minnesota. 

(10) Twin Valley Lake, Wild Rice River, Minnesota. 

(11) Blacksnake Creek, St. Joseph, Missouri. 

(12) McKeel Brook, New Jersey. 

(13) East River, Silver Beach, New York City, New York. 

(14) Ramapo River, Town of Monroe and Villages of Monroe, 

Kiryas Joel, and Harriman, New York. 

(15) Little Mill Creek, Southampton, Pennsylvania. 

(16) Little Neshaminy Creek, Warrenton, Pennsylvania. 

(17) Surfside Beach, South Carolina. 

Section 1003. Small projects for emergency streambank protection 

Directs the Secretary to study and carry out projects for 

streambank erosion control under section 14 of the Flood Control 

Act of 1946 at the following locations: 

(1) Ouachita and Black Rivers, Arkansas. 

(2) Melvina Ditch, Chicago Ridge, Illinois. 

(3) Middle Fork Grand River, Gentry County, Missouri. 

(4) Shrewsbury River, Rumson, New Jersey. 

(5) Kowawese Unique Area and Hudson River, New Windsor, 

New York. 

100 

Section 1004. Small projects for navigation 

Directs the Secretary to study and carry out projects for navigation, under the authority of section 107 of the River and Harbor 

Act of 1960 at the following locations: 

(1) Blytheville County Harbor, Arkansas. 

(2) Evanston, Illinois. 

(3) Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority Boat Harbor, Buffalo, New York. 

(4) Woodlawn Marina, Lackawanna, New York. 

(5) Baker Bay and Ilwaco Harbor, Washington. 

Section 1005. Small projects for improvement of the quality of the 

environment 

Directs the Secretary to study and carry out a project for improvement of the environment under the authority of section 1135 

of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 for Smithville 

Lake, Missouri. 

Section 1006. Small projects for aquatic ecosystem restoration 

Directs the Secretary to study and carry out projects for aquatic 

ecosystem restoration under the authority of section 206 of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1996 at the following locations: 

(1) Colorado River, Yuma, Arizona. 

(2) Chino Valley, California. 

(3) New and Alamo Rivers, Imperial County, California. 

(4) San Diego River, California. 

(5) Stockton Deep Water Ship Channel and Lower San Joaquin 

River, California. 

(6) Sweetwater Reservoir, San Diego County, California. 

(7) Biscayne Bay, Florida. 

(8) Destin Harbor, Florida. 

(9) Chattahoochee River, Columbus, Georgia and Phenix City, 

Alabama. 

(10) Chattahoochee River and Ocmulgee River Basins, Georgia. 

(11) Snake River, Jerome, Idaho. 

Section 1007. Small projects for shoreline protection 

Directs the Secretary to study and carry out a project under section 3 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act authorizing the Federal participation in the cost of protecting the shores of publicly owned property,’’ 

approved August 13, 1946, at Nelson Lagoon, Alaska. 

Section 1008. Small projects for snagging and sediment removal 

Directs the Secretary to study and carry out a project under section 2 of the Flood Control Act of August 28, 1937 at Kowawese 

Unique Area and Hudson River, New Windsor, New York. 

TITLE II—GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section 2001. Annual passes for recreation 

Amends section 208(c)(4) of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1996 to extend the authority for alternative annual passes 

to December 31, 2004. 

101 

Section 2002. Non-Federal contributions 

Amends section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1986 by placing a prohibition on the solicitation of excess contributions from the non-Federal sponsor for water resources development projects. This provision does not affect the ability of non-Federal interest to make additional contributions in order to implement a project as provided in section 903(c) of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1986. 

Section 2003. Harbor cost sharing 

Amends sections 101 and 214 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 by striking ‘‘45 feet’’ each place it appears and 

inserting ‘‘53 feet’’ and provides that such amendments shall only 

apply to the project, or separable element thereof, on which a contract for physical construction has not been awarded before the 

date of enactment of this Act. 

Section 2004. Funding to process permits 

Amends section 214 of the Water Resources Development Act of 

2000 to extend the period of funding to process permits to 2005. 

Section 2005. National Shoreline Erosion Control Development and 

Demonstration Program 

Amends sections 5(a) and 5(b)(1)(A) of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act 

authorizing Federal participation in the cost of protecting the 

shores of publicly owned property’’, to extend the program to 10 

years and to continue the planning, design, and construction phase 

to 6 years, provide for cost-sharing, allow removal of some projects, 

and to increase the authorization level from $21,000,000 to 

$31,000,000. 

Section 2006. Written agreement for water resources projects 

This section amends section 221(a) of the Flood Control Act of 

1970, to rename project cooperation agreements as partnership 

agreements, allow District Engineers to enter into partnership 

agreements, and to include a provision for liquidated damages. 

This section also amends section 912(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 to eliminate civil penalties in partnership 

agreements and allow the use of liquidated damages instead. The 

purpose of this section is to encourage a new culture of partnership 

among the Corps of Engineers and its non-Federal project sponsors, 

and to substantially increase the efficiency of Corps project implementation. 

The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 significantly in- creased the roles and responsibilities of project sponsors. Non-Federal interests were required to act in cohort and partnership with 

the Federal Government in carrying out projects. Non-Federal interests found themselves responsible for providing a substantial 

portion of the cost of the project. 

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. Unfortunately, since 1986, the administration of PCAs 

102 

has evolved into a layered bureaucracy that frustrates non-Federal 

interests and unnecessarily slows progress toward ultimate project 

construction. 

Non-Federal interests frequently express concern that PCAs 

serve only the interests of the Federal government and often impose binding conditions on them that are inconsistent with their 

non-Federal constitutional powers, creating an adversarial atmosphere of mistrust that frustrates the essential partnership needed 

for effective project implementation. Non-Federal project partners 

also find frustration in the multiple layers of review and approval 

imposed upon the execution of PCAs within the Department of the 

Army. Projects are delayed for long periods, some for years, awaiting approval and execution of the project agreement. 

This section adopts a structure under which the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) develops broad policy to govern 

the content of partnership agreements to comply with law and policy; the Chief of Engineers provides specific policy guidelines governing the content of these agreements; and District Commanders 

review and execute partnership agreements. These changes reflect 

favorably on the capability of Divisions and Districts to accomplish 

as much review and approval as possible. The Committee does not 

expect all partnership agreements to undergo a Washington level 

review. However, agreements that address novel issues may continue to be reviewed and the Chief of Engineers or the Assistant 

Secretary may choose to audit a representative sample of partnership agreements to ensure compliance with law and policy. 

Through these changes, the Committee expects to address the 

concerns of non-Federal interests, improve efficiency by streamlining the process for approving partnership agreements, and to 

foster a culture of true partnerships that will improve projects and 

their implementation. 

Section 2007. Assistance for remediation, restoration, and reuse 

Authorizes the Secretary to provide assessment, planning, and 

design assistance to State and local governments for remediation, 

environmental restoration, and reuse of areas that will contribute 

to improvement in water quality or to conservation of water and related resources. The non-Federal share is 50%. Authorizes 

$30,000,000 a year for fiscal years 2004–2008. Under the authority 

provided by this section, the Secretary may help the city of Norwich, Connecticut, carry out an environmental assessment of the 

Seders property at Norwich Harbor, Connecticut. 

Section 2008. Compilation of laws 

Directs the Secretary to produce a compilation of water resources 

development laws enacted after November 8, 1966, and before January 1, 2004. The Committee included similar language in the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1986, which the Secretary has 

not implemented. The Committee strongly supports public availability and consolidation of laws related to water resources development, and expects the Secretary to promptly comply with this section using existing, internal resources. 

103 

Section 2009. Dredged material disposal 

Amends section 217 of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1996 to ensure that the Secretary has the authority to address 

dredged material disposal on a regional, as well as a project-byproject basis, and may combine funding from separate projects to 

do so. 

Section 2010. Wetlands mitigation 

Requires the Secretary, to the maximum extent practicable and where appropriate, to give preference for use of wetlands mitigation banks that meet certain criteria, when carrying out wetlands 

mitigation for a water resources project. Nothing in this section affects the responsibility of the Corps of Engineers to apply the 

guidelines developed under section 404(b)(1) of the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act. 

Section 2011. Remote and subsistence harbors 

Allows the Secretary to recommend a project for harbor and navi- gation improvements without the need to demonstrate that the 

project is justified solely by national economic development benefits 

if (1) the community served by the project is at least 70 miles from 

the nearest surface accessible commercial port with no direct rail 

or highway link to another serviceable community or located in the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Commonwealth of 

Northern Mariana Islands, or American Samoa; (2) the harbor is 

economically critical such that over 80 percent of the goods transported would be consumed within the community served by the 

harbor and navigation improvement; and (3) the long term viability 

of the community is dependent on the harbor, including access to 

resources and facilities designed to protect public health and safety. 

Section 2012. Beneficial uses of dredged material 

Amends section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1992 to allow cost-sharing of the use of dredged material at any 

water resources project (not just aquatic ecosystem restoration 

projects), to allow nonprofit entities to serve as the non-Federal interest for a project under specified conditions, to increase the authorization of appropriations to $30,000,000 annually, and to allow 

the Secretary to develop regional sediment management plans at 

full Federal expense. Also allows the Secretary to use this dredged 

material to carry out, at full Federal expense, aquatic ecosystem 

restoration projects located in a disadvantaged community if the 

project cost is not greater than $750,000, not to exceed a total of 

$3,000,000 in any fiscal year. Directs the Secretary to give priority 

to beneficial use projects in the vicinity of Smith Point Park Pavilion and TWA Flight 800 Memorial, Brookhaven, New York, and 

Morehead City, North Carolina. 

Section 2013. Cost sharing provisions for certain areas 

Amends section 1156 of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1986 to increase from $250,000 to $500,000 the exemption from 

cost-sharing for the initial costs of studies and projects in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, United States Virgin IsVerDate mar 24 2004 14:17 May 03, 2004 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\HR265.XXX HR265
104 

lands and on land in the State of Alaska conveyed to an Alaska 

Native Village Corporation under the Alaskan Native Claims Settlement Act. 

Section 2014. Revision of project partnership agreement 

Directs the Secretary to revise the partnership agreement for the 

project to take into account the change in Federal participation in 

the project, when Congress increases the authorization ceiling for 

a project. 

Section 2015. Cost sharing 

Provides that in any case in which Congress increases the maximum amount of Federal funds that may be allocated for a project 

or increases the total cost of a project, such increase shall not affect 

any cost-sharing requirement applicable to the project. 

Section 2016. Credit for work performed before cooperation agreement 

Requires the Secretary to enter into an agreement with a nonFederal sponsor for the performance of work eligible for credit 

against the non-Federal sponsor’s costs, thereby ensuring that Federal standards for the construction of public works will apply to 

these projects. 

Section 2017. Recreation user fee revenues 

Amends section 225 of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1999 to make permanent the provision of law that allows the Secretary to retain recreation user fee revenues for use at Corps recreation facilities. 

Section 2018. Expedited actions for emergency flood damage reduction 

Directs the Secretary to expedite planning, design, and construction of a project for flood damage reduction for an area that, within 

the preceding 5 years, has been subject to flooding that resulted in 

the loss of life and caused damage sufficient to warrant a declaration of a major disaster by the President under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. 

Section 2019. Watershed and river basin assessments 

Amends section 729(f)(1) of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1986 to provide a 75% Federal share for watershed and river 

basin assessments carried out under that section to encourage 

States and local governments to engage in regional planning. This 

section also adds Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California, to the 

list of priority basins in section 729(d). 

Section 2020. Tribal Partnership Program 

Amends section 203 of the Water Resources Development Act of 

2000 to make Oklahoma tribes eligible for assistance under the 

Tribal Partnership Program. 

Section 2021. Treatment of certain separable elements 

Authorizes the Secretary, during construction of a project, to 

identify opportunities to achieve benefits relating to a primary misVerDate mar 24 2004 14:17 May 03, 2004 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\HR265.XXX HR265
105 

sion of the Corps as a separable project element, and carry out that 

separable element at full Federal expense, up to the lesser of $1 

million or 3% of project costs, if that element would be carried out 

more cost-effectively in conjunction with the ongoing project and 

can be carried out within existing authorization levels. 

Section 2022. Prosecution of work 

Authorizes the use of continuing contracts by the Corps of Engineers. 

Section 2023. Wildfire firefighting 

Adds the Secretary to the existing list of Federal agencies authorized to enter into contracts with State and local governmental 

entities, including local fire districts, for procurement of services in 

the presuppression, detection, and suppression of fires on any units 

within their jurisdiction. 

Section 2024. Credit for non-construction services 

The Committee has included language in the bill that provides 

generic authority to the Secretary to allow, under certain conditions, credit toward the non-Federal share of project costs for design and management work performed by a non-Federal interest 

that is compatible with and necessary to implement the project. 

This authority does not apply to construction. The Committee has 

received numerous requests from proponents of specific projects to 

allow non-Federal interests to obtain credit for work they perform 

that advances the project. Where a non-Federal interest has an established capability, it can often accomplish work faster and at less 

cost than if undertaken by the Corps of Engineers, thus freeing the 

Corps to expedite other aspects of the project. While requests for 

credit have received favorable consideration in this legislation and 

prior water resources legislation, the Committee concluded that a 

general provision allowing credit under specified conditions would 

minimize the need for future project-specific provisions and, at the 

same time, assure consistency in considering future proposals for 

credit. The authority to approve such credit applies to any authorized water resources development project, regardless of the date of 

project authorization, provided the limitations of this section are 

applied. 

Several limitations are included in this provision to assure compatibility with the project, control costs, and safeguard the Federal 

interest. The credit amount cannot exceed the non-Federal share of 

project costs; and allowing credit does not obviate the normal requirement that the non-Federal interest provide necessary lands, 

easements, rights-of-way and dredged material disposal area. Furthermore, the value of the credited amount cannot exceed the Secretary’s determination of actual and reasonable costs of materials 

or in-kind services that are provided by the non-Federal interest. 

The non-Federal interest may, however, provide such materials and 

services with in-house capabilities or through consultants or other 

third-party entities. Finally, while prior approval from the Secretary is not required, the non-Federal interest shall not be allowed 

credit for materials and services that are not determined by the 

Secretary to be compatible with and necessary for the project. 

106 

Section 2025. Technical assistance 

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 $5,000,000 a 

year. This authority will allow the Corps of Engineers to participate with State and local governments in watershed planning, instead of maintaining a narrow focus on individual project areas. Of 

the amount authorized, $2 million may be used for cooperative 

agreements with nonprofit entities to provide assistance to rural 

and small communities. The Committee notes that State rural 

water associations have the capability to carry out these activities. 

Assistance under this section to State rural water associations may 

be combined with assistance provided under the Farm Security and 

Rural Investment Act of 2002 and other authorities to maximize 

the ability to provide watershed technical assistance to rural and 

small communities. 

Section 2026. Centers of specialized planning expertise 

This section authorizes the Secretary to establish regional offices to enhance capabilities of the districts of the Army Corps of Engineers and provide technical and managerial assistance to district 

engineers for project planning, development, and implementation. The Committee supports the Corps of Engineers’ continuing ef- forts to transform into an agency that can meet the Nation’s water 

resources needs in the 21st Century. The strengthening of the 

Corps planning capabilities is one of the cornerstones of this transformation. The Committee endorses the rigorous training curriculum the Corps has developed to ensure that Corps planners are 

highly qualified to formulate and evaluate project proposals. In cooperation with major universities, the Corps has sponsored staff 

pursuing graduate degrees in water resources planning, and has 

re-instituted the Planning Associates Program to ensure an effective planning workforce. The Committee also urges the Corps to 

train planners in multi-stakeholder planning emphasizing negotiation, consensus building, and dispute resolution. The Corps should continue the initiatives to improve the models 

used in project evaluations, to strengthen economic analysis and 

the assessment of environmental benefits, and to intensify organizational commitments to objective and thorough reviews, ensuring 

that the concept becomes integral to the culture of project planning. This section supports the effort of the Corps to establish regional centers of expertise that will provide state-of-the-art planning expertise for highly specialized missions. 

Section 2027. Coordination and scheduling of Federal, State, and 

local actions 

This section authorizes the Secretary to assist in consolidation 

and streamlining of all agency environmental assessments, project 

review, and issuance of permits for the construction of non-Federal 

water supply, wastewater, flood control, environmental restoration, 

and navigation projects that require the Secretary’s approval, if reimbursed by the non-Federal interest. Under this section, if the 

Secretary is responsible for reviewing and issuing an approval for 

a non-Federal project, the Secretary may provide a coordinating 

107 

role to facilitate other necessary reviews and approvals. This provision is based on the Corps’ existing authority under section 205 of 

the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 to coordinate Federal, State, and local reviews for non-Federal navigation projects. 

Section 2028. Project streamlining 

This section authorizes the Secretary to coordinate and expedite 

environmental reviews of proposed water resources projects with 

schedules and early dispute resolution to streamline project studies. To achieve this, this section directs the Secretary to develop 

and implement a coordinated review process under which all environmental reviews, analyses, opinions, permits, licenses, and approvals would be completed within a period of time established by 

the Secretary, in cooperation with the agencies participating in the 

coordinated environmental review process. Participation by nonFederal agencies is voluntary. If deadlines are not met, this section 

requires the Secretary to notify the Committee, as well as the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, the Council on Environmental Quality, and the agency, Indian tribe, or nonFederal interest involved in the failure to meet the deadline. This 

section also requires the participating agency, Indian tribe, or nonFederal interest that has failed to meet a deadline to prepare a report explaining the reasons for the failure and what remedial actions will be taken. This report is to be submitted to the Secretary, 

the Committee, the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

of the Senate, and the Council on Environmental Quality. Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 

the Corps of Engineers is the lead Federal agency for the water resources projects that it carries out. As such, the Corps of Engineers 

is responsible for defining the purpose and need for the proposed 

water resources project and for determining which alternatives for 

carrying out the project are reasonable and may be reasonably anticipated to meet project purposes and needs. As the lead Federal 

agency, the Corps of Engineers also has authority under the NEPA 

regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality to 

bring other Federal agencies with jurisdiction over the project into 

the project development process early, to resolve issues and disputes in a timely fashion. Unfortunately, the Corps of Engineers 

does not regularly use this authority and other Federal agencies 

often do not raise objections until a project study is nearly complete, leading to needless delay if the objections must be addressed 

through reformulation of the project. The Committee intends that 

the authority under this section to develop a coordinated review 

process for water resources projects be carried out in a fashion that 

is consistent with these NEPA authorities. Nothing in this section 

preempts or interferes with any obligation of the Corps of Engineers to comply with NEPA or the CEQ regulations implementing 

NEPA, or any other practice of seeking public comment, or any 

other power, jurisdiction, or authority with respect to carrying out 

a water resources project. 

Finally, this section directs the Chief of Engineers to establish 

benchmarks for determining the length of time it should take to 

complete various elements of a feasibility study. The Committee 

recognizes that not all projects are uniform and studies may take 

varying lengths of time, depending on the scope and complexity. At 

108 

the same time, much of what the Corps of Engineers does is not 

novel, and each project should not be developed as a completely 

new endeavor, as if no similar project had ever been developed before. Benchmarks established under this section are not binding, 

but should be used as a management tool to encourage efficiency 

at all Corps districts. 

Section 2029. Lakes program 

Adds the following lakes to the list of lakes at which the Secretary is authorized to carry out programs for the removal of silt 

and other material under Section 602 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. 

(1) Kinkaid Lake, Jackson County, Illinois. 

(2) Rogers Pond, Franklin Township, New Jersey. 

(3) Greenwood Lake, New York. 

(4) Lake Rogers, North Carolina. 

Section 2030. Mitigation for fish and wildlife losses 

This section amends section 906(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 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 section also amends section 906(d) to identify the elements to be included in the specific mitigation plan that already is required 

under that section. The specific mitigation plan must include a description of the physical action to be undertaken. The plan also 

must include a description of the lands or interests in lands to be 

acquired for mitigation, and the basis for a determination that such 

lands are available. This description is not intended to be a description of the specific property interests. The Committee expects 

the mitigation plan to identify the quantity and type of lands needed, and include a determination that lands of such quantity and 

type are available for acquisition. The plan also must include the 

type, amount, and characteristics of the habitat to be restored. The 

plan must include success criteria based on replacement of lost 

functions and values of the habitat, including hydrologic and vegetative characteristics. Finally, if monitoring is necessary to determine success of the mitigation, the plan must include a plan for 

monitoring and to the extent practicable, identification of the entities responsible for monitoring. As monitoring is part of operation 

and maintenance of a project, in most cases the entity responsible 

for any monitoring will be the non-Federal sponsor. If such person 

is not identifiable at the time the mitigation plan is prepared under 

this section, such person must be identified in the partnership 

agreement entered into with the non-Federal interest. 

The Committee supports more specificity in Corps reporting documents concerning expected mitigation efforts. Such increased 

specificity will better inform the Congress, the non-Federal sponsor, and the public as to planned mitigation efforts and the likely 

success of these efforts. This section also directs the Secretary to 

submit to Congress a report on the status of mitigation concurrent 

with the submission of reports on the status of project construction, 

as part of the President’s budget submission. 

109 

Section 2031. Cooperative agreements 

Authorizes the Secretary to enter into cooperative agreements with nonprofit organizations to carry out wetlands restoration at 

authorized projects, limited to $1 million per project and $5 million 

per year. 

Section 2032. Project planning 

Subsection (a) of this section establishes the Federal objective for economic, ecosystem restoration, and multi-purpose projects. For 

economic projects (flood control, navigation, and hurricane and 

storm damage reduction) the Federal objective is to maximize net 

national economic development benefits, consistent with protecting 

the Nation’s environment. This objective is consistent with the Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and 

Related Land Resources Implementation Studies, issued by the 

Water Resources Council in 1983. 

For ecosystem restoration projects the Federal objective is to maximize net national ecosystem restoration benefits associated 

with the project, consistent with net national economic development. This objective is consistent with existing Corps policy for 

identifying a National Ecosystem Restoration (NER) plan. The requirement that an NER plan be consistent with net national economic development does not change existing law under which the 

costs of ecosystem restoration are deemed to be equal to the benefits. Rather, this subsection codifies existing policy that requires 

the Corps of Engineers to develop NER plans that are cost-effective 

and justified incrementally such that additional increments added 

to the plan increase the nonmonetary values gained. For multi-purpose projects, each purpose shall be evaluated based on the relevant Federal objective, with the economic element 

meeting the objective for economic projects and the ecosystem restoration element meeting the objective for ecosystem restoration 

projects. Subsection (a) also authorizes the Secretary to select project al- ternatives that do not maximize net benefits associated with the 

primary project purpose if there is an overriding reason based on 

other Federal, State, local or international concerns. This flexibility 

also is found in the Principles and Guidelines, however, the Secretary rarely uses it. To encourage consideration of project alternatives that are feasible but may not maximize net benefits, this 

subsection specifically authorizes the Secretary to select an alternative for an economic project that the Secretary determines, and 

the non-Federal interest agrees, provides greater ecosystem restoration benefits. Similarly, this subsection specifically authorizes 

the Secretary to select an alternative for an ecosystem restoration 

project that the Secretary determines, and the non-Federal interest 

agrees, provides greater economic development benefits. 

Subsection (b) of this section authorizes the Secretary to study 

and identify additional benefits when formulating a water resources project beyond the primary project purpose. However, the 

scope of the study must still be consistent with the study authorization. In addition, the Secretary must obtain the willing participation of a cost-sharing non-Federal interest both for the expanded 

study, as well as any construction, if a separable project or project 

element is subsequently authorized. The Secretary may not require 

110 

a non-Federal interest to participate as a cost-sharing partner in 

the study or construction of a separable project or project element 

as a condition of participation in a water resources project. Subsection (c) directs the Secretary to calculate residual flood 

risks and upstream or downstream impacts when studying a 

project for flood damage reduction, and requires equitable treatment of structural and nonstructural alternatives. This subsection 

also directs the Secretary to ensure that there is no bias when evaluating structural and nonstructural alternatives. 

Section 2033. Independent peer review 

The Committee has considered carefully the views of interested 

parties on the application of peer review to Corps of Engineers 

studies and projects. There have been many calls for independent 

peer review as a means of ensuring that Federal agency decisionmaking is based on sound science and economics. These recommendations have been developed by agencies themselves, by scientific organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences, 

and by interest groups. In addition, the Office of Management and 

Budget recently has placed an increased emphasis on peer review. 

On March 5, 2003, the Subcommittee on Water Resources and 

the Environment held a hearing on ‘‘Independent Peer Review of 

Products that Support Agency Decision-Making.’’ The Subcommittee received testimony from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of the Interior, the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, a representative of the National Research Council, a 

representative of waterways users (MARC 2000), a representative 

of the American Enterprise Institute, a representative of American 

Rivers, and a representative of a consulting group that conducts 

peer reviews. This testimony disclosed that Federal agencies conduct peer reviews in different ways and view it as a useful tool appropriate for some, but not all circumstances. The testimony from 

other stakeholders disclosed divergent views over whether peer reviews of Corps of Engineers studies would be beneficial or harmful 

to water resources projects and how such reviews should be carried 

out. 

As a result, the Committee has proceeded cautiously on the issue 

of peer review of Corps of Engineers studies and has established 

in this section a peer review process that will apply to certain studies that are initiated within 4 years after the date of enactment of 

this section, as well as certain ongoing studies that are early in the 

study process. After four and a half years, the Chief of Engineers 

must submit a report to Congress on the experience with peer reviews under this section. This report will allow the Committee to 

evaluate the merits of peer review based on actual information and 

experience and determine if additional legislative action should be 

taken. 

Under the peer review process established under this section, the 

Chief of Engineers must subject a project study to independent 

peer review if the project has an estimated total cost of more than 

$50,000,000, at the time of the completion of the reconnaissance 

study. Some stakeholders have expressed concern that a monetary 

threshold is an arbitrary basis for determining what studies would 

benefit from peer review and could create additional delays and 

costs by subjecting to peer review studies that are routine or otherVerDate mar 24 2004 14:17 May 03, 2004 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\HR265.XXX HR265
111 

wise noncontroversial. Based on previous authorizations, the 

$50,000,000 cost threshold may include as many as 30% of project 

studies. However, a far smaller percentage of studies have been 

controversial, and even fewer studies have been found to have significant problems. 

To address these concerns, this section authorizes the Chief of 

Engineers to exempt certain studies from review. Specifically, the 

Chief of Engineers may exclude a study from review if the Chief 

determines that the study is for a project that is not controversial; 

has no more than negligible adverse impacts on scarce or unique 

cultural, historic, or tribal resources; has no substantial adverse 

impacts on fish and wildlife species and their habitat prior to implementation of mitigation measures; and has, before implementation of mitigation measures, no more than a negligible adverse impact on a species listed as endangered or threatened species under 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, or the critical habitat of such 

species. By using the adjective ‘‘substantial’’ for determining the 

scope of the adverse impact on fish and wildlife species, the Committee intends to establish a threshold that is higher than the existing threshold of ‘‘significant’’ impact used under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 for determining whether an environmental impact statement is necessary. By using the phrase 

‘‘more than a negligible adverse impact’’ for determining the scope 

of the impact on an endangered species, the Committee intends to 

establish a threshold that is higher than the existing threshold of 

‘‘likely affect’’ used under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act 

of 1973 to trigger consultation. In addition, all studies for projects 

pursued under one of the Corps of Engineers’ continuing authorities may be excluded from peer review. 

Other stakeholders have expressed concern that a monetary 

threshold may exclude a study from review that is below the cost 

threshold, but may benefit from a peer review. To address this 

issue, the Chief retains the discretion to subject any study to independent peer review that the Chief determines is controversial. In 

addition, the Governor of a State that would be affected by a 

project, and the head of a Federal or State agency that determines 

the project is likely to have a significant adverse impact on environmental, cultural, or other resources within the jurisdiction of 

the agency after the implementation of mitigation, may request 

that a project study be subject to peer review by an independent 

panel. A decision by the Chief of Engineers whether to agree to a 

request to peer review a study may be appealed to the Secretary 

of the Army. 

The Committee heard concerns from some stakeholders that peer 

reviews could have the unintended consequence of delaying a 

project study, because of the time needed to address any concerns 

raised by reviewers. To address this matter, this section gives the 

Chief of Engineers substantial discretion regarding when during 

the course of a study a peer review should take place. The Chief 

may initiate the peer review at any time following completion of 

the reconnaissance study for the project. As a result, a peer review 

under this section may be a review of the models and methods to 

be used to evaluate project alternatives, rather than a review of a 

completed analysis. If problems are discovered at this stage of the 

study, they may be corrected before significant time and resources 

112 

are expended on using flawed models or methods to analyze project 

alternatives. 

Generally, a review shall take no longer than 180 days and shall 

not exceed $500,000, but the Chief is given the discretion to allow 

a longer period of time for the review and to waive the cost limitation. If a study is subject to review, and no review has yet taken 

place when one of the following milestones is reached, the Chief 

must consider whether to initiate the peer review at that time: (1) 

when the Corps identifies the conditions that will occur if the 

project is not built (the without project conditions), (2) when the 

array of alternatives to be considered is identified, and (3) when 

the preferred alternative is identified. If a review has already been 

initiated when one of these milestones is reached, the Chief has no 

obligation to consider any additional peer review. No matter when 

it is initiated, in all cases a peer review under this section must 

be completed no later than 90 days after the date a draft study is 

made available for public review. 

Under this section a peer review panel must be established by 

the National Academy of Sciences, a similar independent scientific 

technical advisory organization, or a non-profit organization that is 

free from conflicts of interest and has experience in establishing 

and administering peer review panels, pursuant to a contract with 

the Chief of Engineers. The members of the panels must be independent, free from conflict of interest and must represent a balance 

of expertise suitable for the review being conducted. 

A panel shall review a study for technical and scientific sufficiency and, consistent with the scope of the referral for review and 

the stage of the study at which the review takes place, shall assess 

the adequacy and acceptability of the economic and environmental 

methods, models, and analyses used in the study. The panel must 

provide timely written and oral comments, as requested, and must 

submit a report to the Chief of Engineers at the conclusion of the 

peer review. The Chief of Engineers must respond to the peer review report and both the report and the Chief’s response must be 

made available to the public and transmitted to Congress. 

With this section, the Committee intends to provide the Chief of 

Engineers with a tool that will improve the Corps’ planning process 

and result in a greater number of successful water resources 

projects. The Committee does not intend peer review to be used as 

a tool to delay or halt projects. 

TITLE III—PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS

Section 3001. Cook Inlet, Anchorage Harbor, Alaska 

Modifies the project for navigation, Cook Inlet, Anchorage Harbor, Alaska, to authorize the Secretary to deepen the harbor and 

the navigation channel at a total cost of $8,175,000 (for the harbor) 

and $21,525,000 (for the channel), and to maintain both. 

Section 3002. King Cove Harbor, Alaska 

Provides that the maximum Federal expenditure for the King 

Cove Harbor navigation project shall be $8,000,000. 

113 

Section 3003. Sitka, Alaska 

Modifies the Thompson Harbor, Sitka, Alaska, element of the 

project for navigation, Southeast Alaska Harbors of Refuge, to direct the Secretary to correct design deficiencies at a total Federal 

cost of $6,300,000. 

Section 3004. Tatilek, Alaska 

Provides that the maximum Federal expenditure for the Tatilek 

navigation project shall be $10,000,000. 

Section 3005. Nogales Wash and Tributaries, Arizona 

Modifies the project for flood control, Nogales Wash and Tribu- taries, Arizona, to direct the Secretary to use the Mexico Plan, 1st 

Added Increment to allocate costs. 

Section 3006. Grand Prairie Region and Bayou Meto Basin, Arkansas 

Directs the Secretary to review the general reevaluation report for the Bayou Meto basin element of the project for Grand Prairie 

Region and Bayou Meto Basin, Arkansas, to determine if the 

project is feasible. 

Section 3007. Saint Francis Basin, Arkansas 

Modifies the project for flood control, Saint Francis Basin, Arkan- sas, to authorize the Secretary to construct improvements constituting of a culvert through the levee. 

Section 3008. American and Sacramento Rivers, California 

Modifies the project for flood damage reduction, American and Sacramento Rivers, California, to increase the authorization ceiling 

to $205,000,000. 

Section 3009. Cache Creek Basin, California 

Modifies the project for flood control, Cache Creek Basin, Cali- fornia, to direct the Secretary to mitigate the impacts of the new 

south levee of the settling basin on the city of Woodland’s storm 

drainage system and to restore the City’s pre-project capacity to release water to the Yolo Bypass, when the Bypass is in a low flow 

condition. 

Section 3010. Grayson Creek/Murderer’s Creek, California 

Modifies the project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Grayson Creek/Murderer’s Creek, California, to direct the Secretary to provide credit for the cost of work performed by the non-Federal interest before the project cooperation agreement is signed, if an integral part of the project. Also allows the Secretary to consider national ecosystem restoration benefits when determining whether 

the project is justified. 

Section 3011. John F. Baldwin Ship Channel and Stockton Ship 

Channel, California 

Modifies the project for navigation, John F. Baldwin Ship Channel and Stockton Ship Channel, California, to allow the non-Federal share of the cost of the project to be provided in the form of 

in-kind services and to direct the Secretary to provide credit for the 

114 

cost of planning and design work performed by the non-Federal interest, if an integral part of the project. 

Section 3012. Los Angeles Harbor, Los Angeles, California 

Modifies the project for navigation, Los Angeles Harbor, Los Angeles, California, to direct the Secretary to provide credit for the 

cost of planning and design work performed by the non-Federal interest, if an integral part of the project. 

Section 3013. Larkspur Ferry Channel, Larkspur, California 

Modifies the project for navigation, Larkspur Ferry Channel, 

California, to direct the Secretary to prepare a reevaluation report 

to determine whether or not maintenance of the project is justified, 

and carry out such maintenance, if justified. 

Section 3014. Napa River Salt Marsh Restoration, Napa River, 

California 

Modifies the project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Napa 

River Salt Marsh Restoration, Napa and Sonoma Counties, to direct the Secretary to provide credit for the cost of work performed 

by the non-Federal interest, if an integral part of the project. 

Section 3015. Pacific Flyway Center, Sacramento, California 

Modifies the project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Pacific 

Flyway Center, Sacramento, California, to authorize the Secretary 

to expend $2,000,000 to enhance public access to the project. 

Section 3016. Pinole Creek, California 

Modifies the project for improvement of the quality of the environment, Pinole Creek Phase I, California, to direct the Secretary 

to provide credit for work performed by the non-Federal interests, 

if an integral part of the project. 

Section 3017. Prado Dam, California 

Ensures that the agreement between the Corps of Engineers and 

the Orange County Water District, which requires the District to 

pay specific costs associated with operating and maintaining Prado 

Dam for seasonal water conservation, shall remain in effect after 

reconfiguration of the Dam for volumes of water up to the maximum amount provided for water conservation prior to the reconfiguration of the Dam. 

Section 3018. Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel, California 

Modifies the project for navigation, Sacramento Deep Water Ship 

Channel, California, to direct the Secretary to provide credit for 

work performed by the non-Federal interests before the project cooperation agreement, if an integral part of the project. 

Section 3019. Sacramento River, Glenn-Colusa, California 

Modifies the project for flood control, Sacramento River, GlennColusa, California, to direct the Secretary to provide the non-Federal interest a credit of up to $4,000,000 toward the non-Federal 

share of the cost of the project for costs incurred by the non-Federal interest, if integral to the project. 

115 

Section 3020. San Lorenzo River, California 

Modifies the project for flood control, San Lorenzo River, California, to direct the Secretary to provide the non-Federal interest 

a credit not more than $2,000,000 toward the non-Federal share of 

the cost of the project for costs incurred by the non-Federal interest, if an integral part of the project. 

Section 3021. Upper Guadalupe River, California 

Modifies the project for flood damage reduction and recreation, 

Upper Guadalupe River, California, to ensure that the project is 

carried out as authorized by Congress. 

Section 3022. Walnut Creek Channel, California 

Modifies the project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Walnut 

Creek Channel, California, to direct the Secretary to provide credit 

for the cost of work performed by the non-Federal interest, if an 

integral part of the project, and to authorize the Secretary to consider national ecosystem restoration benefits in determining the 

Federal interest. 

Section 3023. Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase I, California 

Modifies the project for improvement of the quality of the environment, Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase I, California, to direct the 

Secretary to provide credit for the cost of work performed by the 

non-Federal interest, if an integral part of the project. 

Section 3024. Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase II, California 

Modifies the project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Wildcat/ 

San Pablo Creek Phase II, California, to direct the Secretary to 

provide credit for the cost of work performed by the non-Federal interest, if an integral part of the project, and to authorize the Secretary to consider national ecosystem restoration benefits in determining the Federal interest. 

Section 3025. Brevard County, Florida 

Amends section 310 of the Water Resources Act of 1999, authorizing mitigation of damage to a project for shore protection, to authorize credit for costs incurred by the non-Federal interest to respond to damages to Brevard County beaches that are the result 

of a Federal navigation project, as determined in a final report of 

a study of such damages. 

Section 3026. Broward County and Hillsboro Inlet, Florida 

Modifies the project for shore protection, Broward County and 

Hillsboro Inlet, Florida, to direct the Secretary to provide credit for 

the removal of derelict structures carried out by the non-Federal 

interest, if integral to the project. 

Section 3027. Gasparilla and Estero Islands, Florida 

Amends the project for shore protection, Gasparilla and Estero 

Islands, Florida, to authorize credit for the cost of work performed 

by the non-Federal interest that is integral to the project. 

116 

Section 3028. Lido Key Beach, Sarasota, Florida 

Amends the project for shore protection, Lido Key Beach, Sarasota, Florida, to increase the authorization ceiling to $12,926,000. 

Section 3029. Manatee Harbor, Florida 

Amends the project for navigation, Manatee Harbor, Florida, to 

authorize extension of the south channel, to authorize in-kind and 

other credit for costs incurred by the non-Federal interest for work 

that is integral to the project, and to increase the authorization 

ceiling to $61,500,000. 

Section 3030. Tampa Harbor, Florida 

Modifies the project for navigation, Tampa Harbor, Florida, to direct the Secretary to provide credit for the cost of work performed 

by the non-Federal interest, if an integral part of the project. 

Section 3031. Tampa Harbor-Big Bend Channel, Florida 

Modifies the project for navigation, Tampa Harbor-Big Bend 

Channel, Florida, to direct the Secretary to provide credit for the 

cost of work performed by the non-Federal interest, if an integral 

part of the project. 

Section 3032. Miami Harbor, Florida 

Modifies the project for navigation, Miami Harbor Channel, Florida, to include as a project purpose mitigation for dredging outside 

the authorized channel. 

Section 3033. Little Wood River, Gooding, Idaho 

Modifies the project for flood damage reduction, Little Wood 

River, Idaho, to authorize in-kind contributions and the use of 

funds from other Federal programs to be used toward the non-Federal share if a permissible use of the funds under the other program, and to direct the Secretary to make a determination of the 

non-Federal interest’s ability to pay the non-Federal costs. 

Section 3034. Hennepin-Hopper Lakes, Illinois 

Modifies the project for flood control, Hennepin-Hopper Lakes, Illinois, to add environmental restoration as a project purpose; increase the authorized cost of the project for the improvement of the 

quality of the environment being carried out under section 1135 of 

the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 to $7,500,000; and 

ensure that eligibility of the project for emergency repair is not affected. 

Section 3035. Mississippi River and Big Muddy River, Illinois 

Modifies the project for flood control, Mississippi River and Big 

Muddy River, to authorize the Secretary to repair and rehabilitate 

the project at a total cost of $22,600,000. 

Section 3036. Spunky Bottoms, Illinois 

Modifies the project for flood control, Spunky Bottoms, Illinois, to 

add environmental restoration as a project purpose; increase the 

authorized cost of the project for the improvement of the environment being carried out under section 1135 of the Water Resources 

117 

Development Act of 1986 to $7,500,000; and provide that these 

changes do not affect eligibility of the project for emergency repair. 

Section 3037. Emiquon, Illinois 

Increases the authorization for the project for aquatic ecosystem 

restoration, being carried out under section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, to $7,500,000. Ensures that nothing affects eligibility of the project for emergency repairs. 

Section 3038. Little Calumet River, Indiana 

Modifies the project for flood control, Little Calumet River, Indiana, to authorize the Secretary to complete the project in accordance with the post authorization change report dated August 2000, 

at a total cost of $186,300,000. 

Section 3039. White River, Indiana 

Modifies the project for flood control, Indianapolis, Fall Creek 

Section, on West Fork of White River, Indiana, to authorize the 

Secretary to carry out the Fall Creek Reach feature, at a total cost 

of $28,545,000, and to provide credit for work carried out by the 

non-Federal interest, if integral to the project. 

Section 3040. Wolf Lake, Indiana 

Modifies the project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Wolf Lake, 

Indiana, to direct the Secretary to provide credit for the cost of 

work performed by the non-Federal interest, if an integral part of 

the project. 

Section 3041. Prestonsburg, Kentucky 

Directs the Secretary to provide 100-year level of flood protection 

for the city of Prestonsburg at the Prestonsburg, Kentucky, element 

of the project for flood control, Levisa and Tug Fork of the Big 

Sandy and Cumberland River, West Virginia, Virginia, and Kentucky. 

Section 3042. Amite River and Tributaries, Louisiana, East Baton 

Rouge Parish Watershed 

Modifies the project for flood damage reduction and recreation, 

Amite River and Tributaries, Louisiana, East Baton Rouge Parish 

Watershed, to direct the Secretary to carry out the project with 

cost-sharing in accordance with section 103(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, as in effect on October 11, 1996. 

Section 3043. Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana 

Modifies the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System project to authorize the Secretary to construct a Type A Regional Visitor Center. 

Section 3044. Public Access, Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, 

Louisiana 

Modifies the public access feature of the Atchafalaya Basin 

Floodway System project to authorize the Secretary to purchase an 

additional 20,000 acres of land from willing sellers at a total cost 

of $4,000,000. 

118 

Section 3045. J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to 

Shreveport, Louisiana 

Modifies the project for mitigation of fish and wildlife losses, J. 

Bennett Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport, Louisiana, to authorize the purchase and reforesting of lands, which 

have been cleared or converted to agricultural uses. 

Section 3046. Mississippi Delta Region, Louisiana 

Modifies the project for hurricane-flood protection on Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, to direct the Secretary to provide credit for 

costs incurred in relocating oyster beds in the Davis Pond project 

area, if integral to the project. 

Section 3047. New Orleans to Venice, Louisiana 

Authorizes the Secretary to carry out work on the St. Jude to 

City Price, Upper Reach A back levee, at a 70% Federal cost share, 

consistent with the rest of the project. 

Section 3048. West Bank of the Mississippi River (east of Harvey 

Canal), Louisiana 

Makes technical corrections to the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1999 modification of the project to prevent flood damage-hurricane damage reduction, West Bank of the Mississippi River (East 

of Harvey Canal), Louisiana. 

Section 3049. Camp Ellis, Saco, Maine 

Increases the authorization of Federal funds for the project being 

carried out under section 111 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 

to $10,000,000. 

Section 3050. Union River, Maine 

Modifies the project for navigation, Union River, Maine, to redesignate a portion of the navigation channel as an anchorage area. 

Section 3051. Cass River, Spaulding Township, Michigan 

Modifies the project for flood damage reduction, Cass River, 

Spaulding Township, Michigan, to incorporate flood control works 

constructed by the non-Federal interests and to direct the Secretary to provide credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost 

of the project for work the Secretary determines is integral to the 

project. 

Section 3052. Detroit River Shoreline, Detroit, Michigan 

Modifies the project for emergency streambank and shoreline 

protection, Detroit River Shoreline, Detroit, Michigan, to include 

measures to enhance public access at the maximum Federal 

amount of $3,000,000. 

Section 3053. Water Resources Institute, Muskegon, Michigan 

Modifies the project for emergency streambank and shoreline 

protection, Water Resources Institute, Muskegon, Michigan, to provide for completion in accordance with the approved plans and 

specifications for Grand Valley State University, Lake Michigan 

Center and directs the Secretary to provide credit toward the nonVerDate mar 24 2004 14:17 May 03, 2004 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\HR265.XXX HR265
119 

Federal share of the cost of the project for work the Secretary determines is integral to the project. 

Section 3054. Saginaw River, Bay City, Michigan 

Modifies the project for emergency streambank protection, Saginaw River, Bay City, Michigan, to increase the maximum Federal 

expenditure to $2,000,000. 

Section 3055. Ada, Minnesota 

Modifies the project for flood damage reduction, Wild Rice River, 

Minnesota, to authorize the Secretary to consider national ecosystem restoration benefits; to exclude consideration of an emergency levee as a pre-project condition and to allow the local sponsor 

to contribute a larger non-Federal share, if necessary to implement 

the project. 

Section 3056. Duluth Harbor, McQuade Road, Minnesota 

Modifies the project for navigation, Duluth Harbor, McQuade 

Road, Minnesota, to authorize the Secretary to provide access and 

recreational facilities as described in the Detailed Project Report 

and Environmental Assessment dated August 1999, at a maximum 

Federal cost of $5,000,000. 

Section 3057. Grand Portage Harbor, Minnesota 

Directs the Secretary to provide the Secretary credit toward the 

non-Federal share of the cost of the project for work the Secretary 

determines is integral to the project. 

Section 3058. Granite Falls, Minnesota 

Modifies the project for flood damage reduction, Granite Falls, 

Minnesota, to increase the maximum Federal expenditure to 

$8,000,000; authorize the non-Federal interest to contribute a larger share, if necessary to implement the project; and authorize credit toward the non-Federal share for work carried out by the nonFederal interest that the Secretary determines is integral to the 

project. 

Section 3059. Minneapolis, Minnesota 

Modifies the project for environmental restoration and recreation 

for the Mississippi Whitewater Park by increasing the authorization to $25,000,000 and including Hennepin Island within the scope 

of the project. 

Section 3060. Red Lake River, Minnesota 

Modifies the project for flood damage reduction, Red Lake River, 

Minnesota, to increase the project authorization to $25,000,000. 

Section 3061. Silver Bay, Minnesota 

Modifies the project for navigation, Silver Bay, Minnesota, to include operation and maintenance of the general navigation facilities as a Federal responsibility. 

120 

Section 3062. Taconite Harbor, Minnesota 

Modifies the project for navigation, Taconite Harbor, Minnesota, to include operation and maintenance of the general navigation facilities as a Federal responsibility. 

Section 3063. Two Harbors, Minnesota 

Modifies the project for navigation, Two Harbors, Minnesota, to include construction of a dredged material disposal facility at a 

Federal cost not to exceed $5,000,000. 

Section 3064. Deer Island, Harrison County, Mississippi 

Modifies the project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Deer Is- land, Mississippi, to authorize the non-Federal share to be provided 

in the form of in-kind contributions. 

Section 3065. Bois Brule Drainage and Levee District, Missouri 

Modifies the project for flood damage reduction, Bois Brule Drainage and Levee District, Missouri, to increase the maximum 

Federal expenditure to $25,000,000. 

Section 3066. Sand Creek Watershed, Wahoo, Nebraska 

Modifies the project for ecosystem restoration and flood damage reduction, Sand Creek Watershed, Wahoo, Nebraska, to direct the 

Secretary to provide credit or reimbursement toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project for work that is integral to the 

project, and to direct the Secretary to accept advance funds from 

the non-Federal interest as needed to maintain the project schedule. 

Section 3067. Alamogordo, New Mexico 

Directs the Secretary to carry out the flood control project by con- structing a flood detention basin in lieu of the authorized channel 

improvements if the cost is not greater and the benefits are not 

less. 

Section 3068. Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York 

Modifies the project for shoreline protection, Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York, to increase the project authorization to 

$18,000,000. 

Section 3069. Times Beach, Buffalo, New York 

Modifies the project for improvement of the quality of the envi- ronment, Times Beach, Buffalo, New York, to direct the Secretary 

to credit not more than $750,000 toward the non-Federal share of 

the cost of the project for the cost of work by the non-Federal interest, if integral to the project. 

Section 3070. Port of New York and New Jersey, New York and 

New Jersey 

Modifies the project for navigation, Port of New York and New 

Jersey, New York and New Jersey, to authorize the Secretary to 

allow the non-Federal interest to construct a temporary dredged 

material disposal facility; to require the potential sites be submitted to Congress; to require 70% of dredged material generated 

by the project to be beneficially reused; and to direct the Secretary 

121 

to provide credit for the cost of the temporary storage facility, if integral to the project. 

Section 3071. New York State Canal System 

Modifies section 553 of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1996 to change the definition of the New York State Canal System. 

Section 3072. Arcadia Lake, Oklahoma 

Clarifies that payments made for water storage by the City of 

Acadia, Oklahoma, satisfy its obligations under its contract with 

the Corps of Engineers. 

Section 3073. Willamette River Temperature Control, McKenzie 

Subbasin, Oregon 

Modifies the project for environmental restoration, Willamette 

River Temperature Control, McKenzie Subbasin, Oregon, to direct 

the Secretary to compensate small businesses for losses attributable to unanticipated sedimentation resulting from project implementation. 

Section 3074. French Creek, Union City Dam, Pennsylvania 

Modifies the project for flood control, French Creek, Pennsylvania, to include recreation as a project purpose. 

Section 3075. Lackawanna River at Olyphant, Pennsylvania 

Modifies the project for flood control, Lackawanna River at 

Olyphant, Pennsylvania, to increase the project authorization to 

$20,000,000. 

Section 3076. Lackawanna River at Scranton, Pennsylvania 

Modifies the project for flood control, Lackawanna River at 

Scranton, Pennsylvania, to increase the project authorization to 

$23,000,000. 

Section 3077. Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania 

Authorizes the Secretary to take such action as may be necessary 

to prevent shoreline erosion to protect recreational facilities located 

south of Pennsylvania Route 994 on the east shore of Raystown 

Lake. 

Section 3078. Sheraden Park Stream and Chartiers Creek, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania 

Modifies the project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Sheraden 

Park Stream and Chartiers Creek, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, to direct the Secretary to credit $400,000 for the cost of work 

performed by the non-Federal interest determined by the Secretary 

to be an integral part of the project. 

Section 3079. Solomon’s Creek, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania 

Modifies the project for flood control, Wyoming Valley, Pennsylvania, to include as a project element the project for flood control, 

Solomon’s Creek, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. 

122 

Section 3080. South Central Pennsylvania 

Modifies the geographic scope of section 313 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992. 

Section 3081. Wyoming Valley, Pennsylvania 

Modifies the project for flood control, Wyoming Valley, Pennsylvania, to direct the Secretary to coordinate with non-Federal interests to review options for increased public access. 

Section 3082. Little Limestone Creek, Jonesborough, Tennessee 

Modifies the project for flood damage reduction, Little Limestone 

Creek, Jonesborough, Tennessee, to direct the Secretary to allow 

the non-Federal interest to participate in the financing of evaluating and implementing the project for flood damage reduction in 

accordance with section 903(c) of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1986, if necessary to implement the project. 

Section 3083. Cedar Bayou, Texas 

Modifies the project for navigation, Cedar Bayou, Texas, to authorize the Secretary to dredge the channel to a depth of 10 feet 

by 100 feet along an 8-mile stretch if determined to be feasible. 

Also authorizes credit for planning and design work carried out by 

the non-Federal interest, if integral to the project. 

Section 3084. Lake Kemp, Texas 

Directs the Secretary to forgo removing improvements from Lake 

Kemp before January 1, 2020, or the date ownership of the improvement is transferred, whichever is earlier. 

Section 3085. Lower Rio Grande Basin, Texas 

Modifies the project for flood control, Lower Rio Grande Basin, 

Texas, to direct the Secretary to provide credit for the cost of work 

performed by the non-Federal interest determined by the Secretary 

to be an integral part of the project and, in calculating the nonFederal share, to make a determination on the non-Federal interest’s ability to pay. 

Section 3086. North Padre Island, Corpus Christi Bay, Texas 

Modifies the project for ecosystem restoration and storm damage 

reduction, North Padre Island, Corpus Christi Bay, Texas, to include recreation as a project purpose. 

Section 3087. Proctor Lake, Texas 

Authorizes the Secretary to convert flowage easements to fee 

simple title for the flood control project at Proctor Lake, Texas, and 

purchase properties and pay relocation assistance benefits to qualified landowners. 

Section 3088. San Antonio Channel, San Antonio, Texas 

Modifies the project for flood control, San Antonio Channel, San 

Antonio, Texas, to direct the Secretary to provide credit for the cost 

of work performed by the non-Federal interest determined by the 

Secretary to be an integral part of the project. 

123 

Section 3089. Elizabeth River, Chesapeake, Virginia 

Amends section 358 of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1999 to change the date of termination of a cooperation agreement 

for a navigation project. 

Section 3090. Roanoke River Upper Basin, Virginia 

Modifies the project for flood control, Roanoke River Upper 

Basin, Virginia, to increase the project authorization to 

$64,300,000. 

Section 3091. Blair and Sitcum Waterways, Tacoma Harbor, Washington 

Modifies the project for navigation, Blair and Sitcum Waterways, 

Tacoma Harbor, Washington, to direct the Secretary to review the 

locally prepared plan and determine whether the plan meets the 

evaluation and design standards of the Corps of Engineers, and to 

authorize the Secretary to carry out the plan, if properly designed 

and feasible, at a Federal cost not to exceed $4,240,000. Also directs the Secretary to provide credit or reimbursement for the cost 

of work performed by the non-Federal interest determined by the 

Secretary to be an integral part of the project. 

Section 3092. Greenbrier River Basin, West Virginia 

Amends section 579(c) of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 1996 to increase the authorization for a flood protection program 

for the Greenbrier River Basin, West Virginia, to $89,000,000. 

Section 3093. Manitowoc Harbor, Wisconsin 

Modifies the project for navigation, Manitowoc Harbor, Wisconsin, to direct the Secretary to deepen the upstream reach of the 

navigation channel from 12 feet to 18 feet, at a total cost of 

$300,000. 

Section 3094. Mississippi Headwaters reservoirs 

Changes the levels of the Mississippi River Headwaters reservoirs and authorizes the Secretary to operate the reservoirs 

below the minimum or above the maximum water levels established by the Water Resources Development Act of 1988, in accordance with water regulation control manuals that are transmitted to 

Congress. 

Section 3095. Continuation of project authorizations 

Continues the authorization for an additional 7 years the following projects: (1) the project for navigation, Fall River Harbor, 

Massachusetts and (2) the project for flood control, Agana River, 

Guam. 

Section 3096. Project reauthorizations 

Renews the authorizations for the projects for navigation in Menominee Harbor and River, Michigan and Wisconsin and the south 

part of the outer harbor, Manitowoc Harbor, Wisconsin, that was 

deauthorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962. 

124 

Section 3097. Project deauthorizations 

Deauthorizes a portion of the following projects for navigation, 

Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut, Norwalk Harbor, Connecticut, 

Chicago River and Harbor, Chicago, Illinois, Island End River, 

Massachusetts, City Waterway, Tacoma, Washington, and Anchorage Area, New London Harbor, Connecticut. 

Additional deauthorizations include: 

(1) Project for flood control, Cache Creek Basin, Clear Lake Outlet Channel, California. 

(2) Project for flood control, Goleta and vicinity, California. 

(3) Project to modify the Central and South Florida Project, to 

improve water supply to the Everglades National Park, Florida. 

(4) Project for flood control, Central and Southern Florida 

Project, Shingle Creek Basin, Florida. 

(5) Project for flood control, Middle Wabash, Greenfield Bayou, 

Indiana. 

(6) Project for flood damage reduction, Lake George, Hobart, Indiana. 

(7) Project for flood damage reduction, Green Bay Levee and 

Drainage District No. 2, Iowa. 

(8) Project for flood damage reduction, Hazard, Kentucky. 

(9) Project for uncompleted recreation, Taylorsville Lake, Kentucky. 

(10) Project for flood control, West Kentucky Tributaries, Kentucky. 

(11) Project for flood damage reduction, Bayou Cocodrie and Tributaries, Louisiana. 

(12) Project for flood control, Eastern Rapides and South-Central 

Avoyelles Parishes, Louisiana. 

(13) Project for the Red River Waterway, Shreveport, Louisiana 

to Daingerfield Texas. 

(14) Project for flood damage reduction, Brockton, Massachusetts. 

(15) Project for navigation, Grand Haven Harbor, Michigan. 

(16) Project for navigation, Greenville Harbor, Mississippi. 

(17) Project for hydropower, Libby Dam, Montana. 

(18) Project for flood damage reduction, Platte River Flood and 

Related Streambank Erosion Control, Nebraska. 

(19) Project for navigation, Outer Harbor, Buffalo, New York. 

(20) Project for flood damage reduction, Sugar Creek Basin, 

North Carolina and South Carolina. 

(21) Project for flood control and recreation, Fairfield, Ohio. 

(22) Project for shoreline protection, Maumee Bay, Lake Erie, 

Ohio. 

(23) Project for flood control and water supply, Parker Lake, 

Muddy Boggy Creek, Oklahoma. 

(24) Project for Columbia River, Seafarers Memorial, Hammond, 

Oregon. 

(25) Project for bulkhead repairs, Quonset Point-Davisville, 

Rhode Island. 

(26) Project for flood damage reduction, Harris Fork Creek, Tennessee and Kentucky. 

(27) Project for flood damage reduction, Arroyo Colorado, Texas. 

(28) Project for flood damage reduction, Cypress Creek-Structural, Texas. 

125 

(29) Project for flood damage reduction, East Fork Channel Improvement, Increment 2, East Fork of the Trinity River, Texas. 

(30) Project for flood damage reduction, Falfurrias, Texas. 

(31) Project for bank erosion, Kanawha River, Charleston, West 

Virginia. 

Also amends section 1001(b)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 to require the Secretary to submit a list of 

projects for deauthorization yearly, instead of biennially and to 

make projects eligible for the list if they received no funding during 

the previous five years, instead of seven years. 

Section 3098. Land conveyances 

Conveys Federal property at, Milford, Kansas and Boardman, 

Oregon. 

Section 3099. Extinguishment of reversionary interests and use restrictions 

Extinguishes reversionary interests and use restrictions in deeds 

conveying two properties in Nez Perce County, Idaho and at Old 

Hickory Lock and Dam, Cumberland River, Tennessee. 

Section 3100. Land exchange, disposal and acquisition of lands, 

Allatoona Lake, Georgia 

Authorizes the Secretary to exchange lands for wildlife management and protection of water quality and the overall environment 

of Allatoona Lake, Georgia. 

TITLE IV—STUDIES

Section 4001. John Glenn Great Lakes Basin Program 

Amends section 455 of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1999 to authorize payment of the non-Federal share in the form of 

services, materials, supplies, or other in-kind contributions. 

Section 4002. St. George Harbor, Alaska 

Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of providing navigation improvements at St. George, Alaska. 

Section 4003. Susitna River, Alaska 

Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of constructing a hydropower project on the Susitna River, 

Alaska. 

Section 4004. Searcy County, Arkansas 

Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of using Greers Ferry Lake as a source of water supply. 

Section 4005. Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin 

Directs the Secretary to transmit to Congress no later than July 

1, 2004, a report on the results of the Upper Mississippi River and 

Illinois Waterways Restructured System Navigation Feasibility 

Study. The Committee believes that this project is vitally important to the economies of farming communities in the Midwest. Accordingly, the Committee encourages the Secretary to expedite 

126 

completion of this study. In keeping with existing authorizations, 

the Committee urges the Secretary to proceed with modernized 

lock and other navigation improvements while simultaneously evaluating an enhanced environmental restoration program for the 

basin. The Committee appreciates the collaborative effort made to 

complete the Interim Report and endorses this approach among 

Federal agencies, State agencies and private stakeholder groups as 

a means of forging a basin-wide approach to managing this resource for multiple uses. 

Section 4006. Hamilton, California 

Directs the Secretary to continue planning, preconstruction, engineering, and design efforts on the Sacramento-San Joaquin River 

Basins Comprehensive Study-Hamilton City Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration Initial Project and modifies the 

study to include an area 2 miles north and 4 miles south of State 

Highway 32. 

Section 4007. Oceanside, California 

Amends section 414 of the Water Resources Development Act of 

2000 to provide the Secretary with an additional 12 months to complete a study of plans to mitigate damages to beaches resulting 

from military measures. 

Section 4008. Sacramento River, California 

Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of and alternatives for measures to protect water diversion 

facilities and fish protective screen facilities on the Sacramento 

River, California. 

Section 4009. San Francisco Bay, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, 

California 

Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of the beneficial use of dredged material from the San Francisco Bay in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California, including a review of using Sherman Island as a re-handling site. 

Section 4010. Tybee Island, Georgia 

Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of including the northern end of Tybee Island extending from 

the north terminal groin to the mouth of Lazaretto Creek as part 

of the project for beach erosion control, Tybee Island, Georgia. 

Section 4011. Calumet Harbor, Illinois 

Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for navigation at Calumet Harbor, 

Illinois. 

Section 4012. Paducah, Kentucky 

Authorizes the Secretary to complete the rehabilitation evaluation report for the project for flood damage reduction, Paducah, 

Kentucky, and to proceed to preconstruction engineering and design, if feasible. 

127 

Section 4013. Bastrop-Morehouse Parish, Louisiana 

Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the feasi- bility of carrying out a project for water supply at Bastrop-Morehouse Parish, Louisiana. 

Section 4014. West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana 

Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the feasi- bility of carrying out a project for riverfront development, including 

enhanced public access, recreation, and environmental restoration, 

on the Mississippi River in West Feliciana Parish. 

Section 4015. City of Mackinac Island, Michigan 

Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the feasi- bility of carrying out a project for navigation at the city of Mackinac Island, Michigan. 

Section 4016. Chicago, Illinois 

Amends section 425(a) of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 2000 to clarify that some of the specified shoreline protection 

study sites are on Lake Michigan. 

Section 4017. South Branch, Chicago River, Chicago, Illinois 

Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the feasi- bility of carrying out a project for ecosystem restoration, at the 

South Fork of the South Branch of the Chicago River, Chicago, Illinois. 

Section 4018. Northeast Mississippi 

Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the feasi- bility of modifying the project for navigation on the TennesseeTombigbee Waterway, Alabama and Mississippi, to provide water 

supply to northeast Mississippi. 

Section 4019. Pueblo of Zuni, New Mexico 

Directs the Corps to conduct a feasibility study of water re- sources projects for the Pueblo of Zuni, New Mexico, authorized 

under section 203 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. 

Section 4020. Hudson-Raritan Estuary, New York and New Jersey 

Directs the Secretary, in carrying out a study for environmental restoration, Hudson-Raritan Estuary, New York and New Jersey, 

to establish and utilize the watershed restoration teams composed 

of certain estuary restoration experts. 

Section 4021. Sac and Fox Nation, Oklahoma 

Directs the Secretary to develop a water and related land re- source conservation and management plan for the Sac and Fox Nation, authorized under section 203 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. 

Section 4022. Sutherlin, Oregon 

Directs the Secretary to conduct a study of water resources along 

Sutherlin Creek in the vicinity of Sutherlin, Oregon, to determine 

the feasibility of carrying out a project to restore and enhance 

aquatic resources using structural and bioengineering techniques. 

128 

Section 4023. Tillamook Bay and Bar, Oregon 

Directs the Secretary to conduct a study under section 216 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 to investigate hazardous conditions at a 

project for navigation, Tillamook Bay and Bar, Oregon. 

Section 4024. Ecosystem restoration and fish passage improvements, 

Oregon 

Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the feasi- bility of undertaking ecosystem restoration and fish passage improvements on rivers in Oregon, and authorizes up to $5,000,000 

for pilot projects. 

Section 4025. Northeastern Pennsylvania aquatic ecosystem restora- tion and protection 

Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the feasi- bility of carrying out aquatic ecosystem restoration and protection 

in the counties of Lackawanna, Lycoming, Susquehanna, Wyoming, 

Pike, Wayne, Sullivan, Bradford, Northumberland, Union, Snyder, 

and Montour, Pennsylvania, relating to abandoned mine drainage 

abatement and reestablishment of stream and river channels. 

Section 4026. Georgetown and Williamsburg Counties, South Caro- lina 

Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the feasi- bility of carrying out a project for water supply for Georgetown and 

Williamsburg Counties, South Carolina. 

Section 4027. Sabine Pass to Galveston Bay, Texas 

Authorizes the Secretary, in conducting the study for shore pro- tection and related improvements between Sabine Pass and the entrance to Galveston Bay, to include any benefits related to the use 

of State Highway 87 as an emergency evacuation route. 

Section 4028. Grand County and Moab, Utah 

Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the feasi- bility of carrying out a project for water supply for Grand County 

and the city of Moab, Utah. 

Section 4029. Chehalis River Basin, Washington 

Directs the Secretary to conduct a study for the Chehalis River basin, including a study of the use of the basin’s water resources, 

to assist users in developing a fair and equitable distribution of 

such resources. 

Section 4030. Sprague, Lincoln County, Washington 

Authorizes the Secretary to accept from the non-Federal interest funds provided under another Federal program to pay all or part 

of the non-Federal share of the cost of a feasibility study for flood 

control in the vicinity of Sprague, Lincoln County, Washington, if 

it is a permissible use of funds under the other Federal program. 

Section 4031. Monongahela River Basin, Northern West Virginia 

Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out aquatic ecosystem restoration and protection 

projects in the watersheds of the Monongahela River basin within 

129 

the counties of Hancock, Ohio, Marshall, Wetzel, Tyler, Pleasants, 

Wood, Doddridge, Monongalia, Marion, Harrison, Taylor, Barbour, 

Preston, Tucker, Mineral, Grant, Gilmer, Brooke, and Ritchie, West 

Virginia, relating to abandoned mine drainage abatement. 

Section 4032. Wauwatosa, Wisconsin 

Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and environmental restoration, Menomonee River and Underwood Creek, 

Wisconsin. 

TITLE V—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Section 5001. Maintenance of navigation channels 

Authorizes the Secretary to maintain the following navigation 

channels, if feasible: (1) Pix Bayou Navigation Channel, Chambers 

County, Texas; (2) Pidgeon Industrial Harbor, Pidgeon Industrial 

Park, Memphis Harbor, Tennessee; and (3) Racine Harbor, Wisconsin. Also directs the Secretary to remove sunken vessels and debris between miles 35 and 43 of the Channel to Orange, SabineNeches Waterway, Texas, for the purpose of improving navigation 

safety and reducing the risk to the public. 

Section 5002. Watershed management 

Authorizes the Secretary to provide technical planning and design assistance to a non-Federal interest for carrying out watershed 

management, restoration and development projects in the following 

watersheds: 

(1) Spring Branch, Huntsville, Alabama. 

(2) Tuolumne County, California. 

(3) Cucamonga Basin, Upland, California. 

(4) Kinkaid Lake, Jackson County, Illinois. 

(5) Portions of the watersheds of Concord, Charles, Blackstone, 

Neponset, Taunton, Nashua, Shawsheen, and Merrimack Rivers, 

Massachusetts. 

(6) Jackson Brook, New Jersey. 

(7) Portions of the watersheds of Beaver, Upper Ohio, 

Connoquenessing, Lower Allegheny, Kiskiminetas, Lower 

Monongahela, Youghiogheny, Shenango, and Mahoning Rivers in 

Beaver, Butler, Lawrence and Mercer Counties, Pennsylvania. 

(8) Southampton Creek, Southampton, Pennsylvania. 

(9) Unami Creek, Milford Township, Pennsylvania. 

(10) Amite River Basin, Louisiana. 

(11) Iberville Parish, East Atchafalaya River basin, Louisiana. 

(12) Genesee River watershed, New York. 

(13) Tonawanda Creek watershed, New York. 

(14) Buffalo River watershed, New York. 

(15) Eighteenmile Creek watershed, Niagara County, New York. 

(16) Cattaragus Creek watershed, New York. 

(17) Oswego River basin, New York. 

(18) Red River watershed, Louisiana. 

(19) Fountain Creek and Tributaries, Colorado. 

130 

Section 5003. Dam safety 

Authorizes the Secretary to provide assistance to enhance dam safety at the following locations: (1) Mountain Park Dam, Mountain Park, Georgia. 

(2) Barber Dam, Ada County, Idaho. 

(3) Fish Creek Dam, Blaine County, Idaho. 

(4) Lost Valley Dam, Adams County, Idaho. 

(5) Salmon Falls Dam, Twins Falls County, Idaho. 

(6) Whaley Lake Dam, Pawling, New York. 

(7) Lake Carl Blackwell Dam, Stillwater, Oklahoma. 

(8) Dams in Mountain Lakes Park, Princeton Township, New 

Jersey. (9) State Dam, Auburn, New York. 

(10) Candor Dam, Candor, New York. 

This section also states the sense of Congress that the Corps should remedy the deterioration of the Fern Ridge Dam, Oregon. 

Section 5004. Structural integrity evaluations 

Authorizes the Secretary to evaluate the structural integrity and effectiveness of a project for flood damage reduction and to prevent 

project failure at the following locations: (1) Arkansas River Levees, Arkansas. 

(2) Marianna Borough, Pennsylvania. 

(3) Nonconnah Creek, Tennessee. 

Section 5005. Flood mitigation priority areas 

Amends the flood mitigation and riverine restoration program in section 212 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 to add 

the following to the list of priority areas for review by the Secretary: La Crosse County, Wisconsin; Crawford County, Wisconsin; 

Buffalo County, Wisconsin; Calhoun County, Illinois; Saint Charles 

County, Missouri; Saint Louis County, Missouri; Dubuque County, 

Iowa; Scott County, Iowa; Rock Island County, Illinois; Ascension 

Parish, Louisiana; East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana; Iberville 

Parish, Louisiana; and Livingston Parish, Louisiana. 

Section 5006. Additional assistance for authorized projects 

Amends section 219(e) of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 1992 to increase the authorization ceiling for specific projects to 

allow ongoing work to continue. 

Section 5007. Expedited completion of reports and construction for 

certain projects 

Directs the Secretary to expedite completion of reports and con- struction for the following projects being carried out under existing 

authorities: 

(1) Welch Point, Elk River, Cecil County, Maryland. 

(2) West View Shores, Cecil County, Maryland. 

(3) Sylvan Beach, Breakwater, Verona, Oneida County, New 

York. 

(4) Fulmer Creek, Village of Mohawk, New York. 

(5) Moyer Creek, Village of Frankfort, New York. 

(6) Steele Creek, Village of Ilion, New York. 

(7) Oriskany Wildlife Management Area, Rome, New York. 

(8) Whitney Point Lake, Otselic River, Whitney Point, New York. 

131 

(9) Newton Creek, Bainbridge, New York. 

(10) Chenango Lake, Chenago County, New York. 

(11) Lucas Berg Pit, Worth, Illinois. 

Section 5008. Expedited completion of reports for certain projects 

Directs the Secretary to expedite completion of the reports and, 

if it is determined that a project is justified, proceed to project preconstruction, engineering, and design for the following: (1) Project for flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, 

Sacramento and San Joaquin River basins, Hamilton, California. 

(2) Project for ecosystem restoration, University Lake, Baton 

Rouge, Louisiana. (3) Project for shoreline protection, Detroit River Greenway Corridor, Detroit, Michigan. (4) Project for shoreline stabilization at Egmont Key, Florida. 

Also directs the Secretary to expedite completion of the study regarding the need for additional compensation for the city of Chesapeake, Maryland. 

Section 5009. Southeastern water resources assessment 

Authorizes the Secretary to provide assistance to a coordinated 

effort by Federal, State, and local agencies, non-Federal and nonprofit entities, regional researchers, and other interested parties to 

assess the water resources and water resources needs of river basins and watersheds of the southeastern United States. 

Section 5010. Upper Mississippi River Environmental Management 

Program 

Amends the Upper Mississippi River Environmental Management Program to allow the non-Federal interest to provide the nonFederal share of the project in the form of services, materials, supplies, or other in-kind contributions. 

Section 5011. Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers Enhancement 

Project 

Amends the Missouri and Middle Mississippi River Enhancement 

Project to extend the authorization period. 

Section 5012. Membership of Missouri River Trust 

Amends the membership of the Missouri River Trust to include 

rural water systems. 

Section 5013. Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration 

Amends the Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration program to allow the non-Federal share to be provided in the form of 

in-kind contributions. 

Section 5014. Susquehanna, Delaware, and Potomac River Basins 

Makes the Division Engineer, North Atlantic Division, an ex officio member of the Susquehanna River Basin Compact and the 

Delaware River Basin Compact and authorizes the Secretary to 

provide funding to interstate compacts, and authorizes the Secretary to enter into an agreement with the Delaware River Basin 

Commission to provide water from a Corps dam during a drought 

warning or drought emergency, at a cost to the Commission not to 

132 

exceed the incremental operating costs associated with providing 

the storage. 

Section 5015. Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration and Protection Program 

Amends section 510 of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1996 to increase authorization to $30,000,000. 

Section 5016. Montgomery, Alabama 

Directs the Secretary to review the navigation and ecosystem restoration components of the Montgomery Riverfront and Downtown 

Master Plan, and authorizes the Secretary to expend up to 

$5,000,000 to carry out these components, if feasible. 

Section 5017. Pinhook Creek, Huntsville, Alabama 

Directs the Secretary to design and construct the flood protection 

project at Pinhook Creek, Huntsville, Alabama, and allow the nonFederal interest to increase its cost-share, if necessary to implement the project. 

Section 5018. Alaska 

Amends section 570 of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1999 to increase the authorization level, allow non-profits to serve 

as non-Federal interests with the consent of the local government, 

and allow 10% of appropriated funds to be used for administrative 

expenses. 

Section 5019. Akutan Small Boat Harbor, Alaska 

Directs the Secretary to expedite the study for the Akutan Small 

Boat Harbor, Alaska, and upon completion, design and construct 

the project if feasible. 

Section 5020. Lowell Creek Tunnel, Seward, Alaska 

Directs the Secretary to assume responsibility for the long-term 

maintenance and repair of the Lowell Creek Tunnel and also authorizes a study to determine whether alternative methods of flood 

diversion in Lowell Canyon are feasible. 

Section 5021. St. Herman and St. Paul Harbors, Kodiak, Alaska 

The Committee has provided an authorization of $2 million to 

fund the removal of rubble, sediment, and debris from harbors at 

Kodiak, Alaska. The provision provides the Corps of Engineers 

with the authorization to spend the $1,500,000 already appropriated in Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003 to dredge the St. Paul Harbor entrance channel and clear the St. Herman’s Harbor entrance 

channel of rubble from the breakwater. The Committee is aware 

that the Corps is considering reprogramming the funds appropriated for this project due to the lack of authorization. The Committee directs the Corps to refrain from reprogramming funds appropriated for this action. 

Section 5022. Augusta and Clarendon, Arkansas 

Authorizes the Secretary to perform operation, maintenance and 

rehabilitation of authorized and completed levees on the White 

River between Augusta and Clarendon, Arkansas. Requires the 

133 

Secretary to seek reimbursement from the Secretary of the Interior 

for the share of the cost of performing such maintenance and repair 

allocated to benefits to a Federal wildlife refuge. 

Section 5023. Loomis Landing, Arkansas 

Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine if shore 

damage in the vicinity of Loomis Landing, Arkansas is the result 

of a Federal navigation project, and to mitigate any such damage 

that has occurred. 

Section 5024. McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River navigation project, 

Arkansas and Oklahoma 

Modifies the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River navigation project 

to authorize a channel depth of 12 feet in the States of Arkansas 

and Oklahoma. 

Section 5025. St. Francis River basin, Arkansas and Missouri 

Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine if increased siltation and streambank erosion are the results of a Federal flood control project, and to mitigate such siltation and erosion 

in the St. Francis River basin. 

Section 5026. Cambria, California 

Amends section 219(f)(48) of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1992 to direct the Secretary to provide credit toward the 

non-Federal share of the cost of the work performed by the nonFederal interest, not to exceed $3,000,000, if an integral part of the 

project. 

Section 5027. Contra Costa Canal, Oakley and Knightsen, California; Mallard Slough, Pittsburg, California 

Amends sections 512 and 514 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 to ensure that all planning, study, design and 

construction of the flood damage reduction projects at Contra Costa 

Canal, Oakley and Knightsen, California, and Mallard Slough, 

Pittsburg, California are carried out by the district engineer in San 

Francisco, California. 

Section 5028. East San Joaquin County, California 

Amends section 219(f)(22) of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1992 to direct the Secretary to provide credit toward the 

non-Federal share of the cost of the work performed by the nonFederal interest, if determined by the Secretary to be an integral 

part of the project and to allow the non-Federal share to be provided in the form of in-kind contributions. 

Section 5029. Sacramento Area, California 

Amends section 219(f)(23) of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1992 to increase the authorization. 

Section 5030. Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel, California 

Authorizes the Secretary to transfer the title of the Bascule 

Bridge near the Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel, California, 

project to the city of West Sacramento, California, and authorizes 

$5,000,000 for replacement of the bridge. 

134 

Section 5031. San Francisco, California 

Authorizes the Secretary to remove a wharf and associated pilings and dredged material at Pier 70 in San Francisco, at a cost 

not to exceed $1,600,000, and to carry out repairs at Piers 94–96 

in San Francisco, at a cost not to exceed $5,000,000. Also authorizes the Secretary to establish an office at the office of the district 

engineer, San Francisco, to coordinate permits and environmental 

reviews for the city’s Capital Improvement Project, if the costs are 

reimbursed by the non-Federal interest. 

Section 5032. San Francisco, California, waterfront area 

Declares a portion of the San Francisco, California, waterfront to 

be nonnavigable. 

Section 5033. Stockton, California 

Directs the Secretary to evaluate the feasibility of the Lower 

Mosher Slough element and the levee extensions on the Upper 

Calaveras River element of the project for flood control, Stockton 

Metropolitan Area, California, to determine the eligibility of such 

elements for reimbursement. Directs the Secretary to provide reimbursement if such elements of the project are technically sound, environmentally acceptable, and economically justified. 

Section 5034. Charles Hervey Townshend Breakwater, Connecticut 

Redesignates a breakwater in New Haven Harbor, Connecticut 

as the ‘‘Charles Hervey Townshend Breakwater.’’ 

Section 5035. Everglades Restoration, Florida 

Amends the authorization of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan to incorporate certain pre-existing projects into the 

Plan, to provide an authorization ceiling for outreach and assistance, and to increase the authorization ceiling for certain critical 

restoration projects. 

Section 5036. Florida Keys water quality improvements 

Authorizes the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share, 

the cost of project work carried out prior to the execution of the 

partnership agreement. 

Section 5037. Lake Worth, Florida 

Authorizes the Secretary to carry out necessary repairs for the 

Lake Worth bulkhead replacement project, West Palm Beach, Florida. 

Section 5038. Lake Lanier, Georgia 

Authorizes the Secretary to assist with the planning, design and 

construction of the Lake Lanier Olympic Center, Georgia, at a total 

cost of $5,300,000. 

Section 5039. Riley Creek Recreation Area, Idaho 

Authorizes the Secretary to carry out the Riley Creek Recreation 

Area Master Plan for the Corps of Engineers project at Albeni Falls 

Dam, Bonner County, Idaho. 

135 

Section 5040. Reconstruction of Illinois flood protection projects 

Authorizes $15,000,000 for the Secretary to participate in the reconstruction of certain levees on the Mississippi River if the Secretary determines that reconstruction is not required due to improper operation and maintenance. 

Section 5041. Kaskaskia River Basin, Illinois, restoration 

Authorizes the Secretary to develop a comprehensive plan for the 

purpose of restoring the Kaskaskia River basin. 

Section 5042. Natalie Creek, Midlothian and Oak Forest, Illinois 

Directs the Secretary to carry out a small project for flood damage reduction under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 

at Natalie Creek, Midlothian and Oak Forest, Illinois, if feasible, 

notwithstanding any policies relating to minimum flows. 

Section 5043. Peoria riverfront development, Peoria, Illinois 

Authorizes the Secretary to carry out a project of riverfront development in Peoria, Illinois at a cost of $16,000,000. 

Section 5044. Illinois River Basin restoration 

Extends the authorization for restoration of the Illinois River 

Basin until 2010. This section also modifies the existing authority 

that allows the non-Federal share to be met through in-kind services by specifying that such services must have taken place within 

five years of the project or activity begin carried out. In developing 

and implementing the computerized inventory and analysis system 

for the project, the Secretary is directed to consider the Illinois 

River Decision Support System. 

Section 5045. Calumet Region, Indiana 

Amends section 219(f)(12) of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1992 to increase the authorization ceiling and change the geographic scope of the authorization. 

Section 5046. Rathbun Lake, Iowa 

Directs the Secretary to provide water supply at to a regional 

water association with costs allocated pursuant to existing law, and 

to provide credit towards these costs for certain in-kind contributions. 

Section 5047. Cumberland River Basin, Kentucky 

Directs the Secretary to continue to charge water storage fees 

that were in effect on October 1, 2002, at the reservoirs in the 

Cumberland River Basin, Kentucky. 

Section 5048. Mayfield Creek and tributaries, Kentucky 

Directs the Secretary to conduct a study of flood damage along 

Mayfield Creek and tributaries between Wickliffe and Mayfield, 

Kentucky, to determine if the damage is the result of a Federal 

navigation project and to mitigate any such damage. 

136 

Section 5049. North Fork, Kentucky River, Breathitt County, Ken- tucky 

Directs the Secretary to rebuild a structure impeding high water flows on the North Fork of the Kentucky River in Breathitt County, 

Kentucky, to reduce flood damages at a cost of $1,800,000. 

Section 5050. Southern and Eastern Kentucky 

Authorizes the Secretary to use 10% of amounts appropriated to administer projects under this section at 100% Federal expense. 

Section 5051. Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem protection and restoration 

Directs the Corps to develop a comprehensive plan for protecting, preserving and restoring the Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem. 

Section 5052. Baton Rouge, Louisiana 

Amends section 219(f)(21) of the Water Resources and Development Act of 1992 to increase the authorization level. 

Section 5053. West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana 

Amends section 517 of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1999 to make a technical correction to the description of a project. 

Section 5054. Chesapeake Bay Shoreline, Maryland, Virginia, Penn- sylvania, and Delaware 

Authorizes the Secretary to undertake pilot projects during the feasibility study on shoreline erosion and related sediment management issues to protect land and water resources of the Chesapeake 

Bay. 

Section 5055. Delmarva Conservation Corridor, Maryland 

Authorizes the Secretary to provide technical assistance to the Secretary of Agriculture in carrying out projects under the Conservation Corridor Demonstration Program, and to coordinate and 

integrate activities of the Secretary of the Army with activities of 

the Secretary of Agriculture in such conservation corridor. 

Section 5056. Detroit River, Michigan 

Amends shoreline protection project authorization in section 568(c)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 to increase the authorization level. 

Section 5057. Oakland County, Michigan 

Amends section 219(f)(29) of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1992 to expand the scope of authority. 

Section 5058. St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair, Michigan 

Authorizes the Secretary to carry out feasible aquatic ecosystem restoration projects identified in the comprehensive management 

plan for St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair, Michigan, at a Federal 

cost not to exceed $5,000,000. 

Section 5059. Garrison and Kathio Township, Minnesota 

Amends section 219(f)(61) of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1992 to specify the entity to receive assistance, and to auVerDate mar 24 2004 14:17 May 03, 2004 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00136 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\HR265.XXX HR265
137 

thorize the Secretary to use the contracting procedures developed 

under section 569 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. 

Section 5060. Northeastern Minnesota 

Amends section 569 of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1999 to change the geographic scope of the authorization, to authorize non-profit entities to serve as non-Federal sponsors, and to 

allow 10% of amounts appropriated to be used for administrative 

expenses. Directs the Secretary to reimburse the non-Federal sponsor of the environmental infrastructure project in Biwabik, Minnesota, for project costs that exceed the non-Federal share of 

project costs. 

Section 5061. Desoto County, Mississippi 

Amends section 219(f)(30) of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1992 to increase the authorization. 

Section 5062. Harrison, Hancock, and Jackson Counties, Mississippi 

Authorizes the Secretary to accept any portion of the non-Federal 

share of the cost of ecosystem restoration projects within Harrison, 

Hancock, and Jackson Counties, Mississippi, in the form of in-kind 

contributions. 

Section 5063. Mississippi River, Missouri, and Illinois 

Authorizes the Secretary to conduct environmental restoration at the project for the Mississippi River (Regulating Works), between 

the Ohio and Missouri Rivers, Missouri and Illinois. 

Section 5064. St. Louis, Missouri 

Amends section 219(f)(32) of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1992 to increase the authorization. 

Section 5065. Hackensack Meadowlands area, New Jersey 

Amends ecosystem management project program authorized 

under section 324 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 

to change the non-Federal sponsor, expand the scope of the authorization, allow credit for in-kind services, and increase the authorization of appropriations. 

Section 5066. Atlantic Coast of New York 

Amends monitoring program authorized under section 404(a) of 

the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 to clarify the scope 

of the program, require annual reports, and extend the authorization. 

Section 5067. College Point, New York City, New York 

Authorizes the Secretary to give priority to environmental dredging in College Point, Queens, New York. 

Section 5068. Flushing Bay and Creek, New York City, New York 

Directs the Secretary to provide credit for the cost of work performed by the non-Federal interest for ecosystem restoration for 

Flushing Bay and Creek, New York City, New York, if an integral 

part of the project. 

138 

Section 5069. Little Neck Bay, Village of Kings Point, New York 

Authorizes the Secretary to carry out a navigation project at Little Neck Bay, Village of Kings Point, New York, to allow safe operation of the vessel T/V Kings Pointer and directs the Secretary to 

seek reimbursement from the United States Merchant Marine 

Academy. 

Section 5070. Onondaga Lake, New York 

Increases the authorization for the environmental restoration 

program at Onondaga Lake, New York, to $30,000,000 and allows 

nonprofit entities to be non-Federal sponsors. 

Section 5071. John H. Kerr Dam and Reservoir, North Carolina 

Authorizes the Secretary to expedite, negotiate and execute a 

permanent contract for water supply storage at John H. Kerr Dam 

and Reservoir, North Carolina. 

Section 5072. Stanly County, North Carolina 

Amends section 219(f)(64) of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1992 to expand the scope of the authority. 

Section 5073. Central Riverfront Park, Cincinnati, Ohio 

Authorizes the Secretary to provide credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of a project at Central Riverfront, Cincinnati, 

Ohio, for design and construction work and lands provided by the 

non-Federal interest, if the project is subsequently authorized and 

if the work is integral to the project. 

Section 5074. Piedmont Lake Dam, Ohio 

Directs the Secretary to upgrade the road on Piedmont Lake 

Dam, Ohio, to public use standards when reconstructing the road 

as part of a project for dam safety. Provides that any increase in 

cost, between the cost of a road the Secretary would otherwise 

build as part of the project, and the cost of a road that meets public 

use standards, shall be a local cost. 

Section 5075. Ohio 

Amends section 594 of the Water Resources Development Act to 

increase the authorization. 

Section 5076. Waurika Lake, Oklahoma 

Provides that the remaining obligation of the Waurika Project 

Master Conservancy District agreed to on June 3, 1986, payable to 

the U.S. Government, may not be adjusted, altered, or changed 

without a specific, separate, and written agreement between the 

District and the United States Government. 

Section 5077. Columbia River, Oregon 

Amends section 401(b)(3) of Public Law 100–581 to include Celilo 

Village, Oregon. 

Section 5078. Eugene, Oregon 

Directs the Secretary to conduct a study of the feasibility of restoring the millrace in Eugene, Oregon and, if feasible, carry out 

139 

the restoration. Also directs the Secretary to include non-economic 

benefits when determining feasibility. 

Section 5079. John Day Lock and Dam, Lake Umatilla, Oregon and 

Washington 

Directs the Secretary to pay $2,500,000 for research and curation 

support provided to the Federal Government as a result of the 

multi-purpose project and the several navigation and flood damage 

reduction projects constructed on the Columbia River and Lower 

Willamette River, Oregon and Washington. 

Section 5080. Lowell, Oregon 

Authorizes the Secretary to convey land in Lowell, Oregon. 

Section 5081. Hagerman’s Run, Williamsport, Pennsylvania 

Authorizes the Secretary to rehabilitate pumps at a project for 

flood damage reduction, Hagerman’s Run, Williamsport, Pennsylvania, at a total cost of $225,000. 

Section 5082. Northeast Pennsylvania 

Amends section 219(f)(11) of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1992 to modify the geographic scope of the authorization. 

Section 5083. Susquehannock Campground access road, Raystown 

Lake, Pennsylvania 

Authorizes the Secretary to provide up to $500,000 for improvements to the Susquehannock Campground access road at the Corps 

of Engineers project at Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania. 

Section 5084. Upper Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and 

New York 

Amends the authorization for flood damage reduction and environmental restoration under section 567 of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1992 to increase the authorization and to authorize pilot projects not to exceed $500,000. The amendment also 

substitutes the word ‘‘cooperative’’ for the word ‘‘cooperation’’ in describing the agreements under which the Corps is able to obtain 

the assistance of non-Federal interests in carrying out the project. 

This will clarify that the Corps may work directly with public and 

non-profit organizations with expertise in wetland and stream restoration, including organizations such as Ducks Unlimited and 

local soil and water conservation districts. Finally, the amendment 

provides for credit against the non-Federal share of work done by 

local sponsors where such work is integral to the project and acceptance of in-kind services and materials provided by non-Federal 

interests. 

Section 5085. Washington, Greene, Westmoreland, and Fayette 

Counties, Pennsylvania 

Amends section 219(f)(70) of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1992 to increase the authorization ceiling. 

Section 5086. Cano Martin Pena, San Juan, Puerto Rico 

Directs the Secretary to review a report prepared by the nonFederal interest concerning flood protection and environmental resVerDate mar 24 2004 14:17 May 03, 2004 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00139 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\HR265.XXX HR265
140 

toration for Cano Martin Pena, San Juan, Puerto Rico, and, if feasible, authorizes the Secretary to carry out the project at a total 

cost of $130,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $85,000,000 

and an estimated non-Federal cost of $45,000,000. 

Section 5087. Beaufort and Jasper Counties, South Carolina 

Authorizes the Secretary to accept and use $23,000,000 from the 

United States Navy to assist Beaufort and Jasper Counties, South 

Carolina, with its plan to consolidate civilian and military wastewater facilities. 

Section 5088. Cooper River, South Carolina 

Authorizes $5,000,000 for technical and financial assistance for 

the removal of the Grace and Pearman Bridges over the Cooper 

River, South Carolina. 

Section 5089. Lakes Marion and Moultrie, South Carolina 

Amends section 219(f)(25) of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1992 to increase the authorization ceiling. 

Section 5090. Upper Big Sioux River, Watertown, South Dakota 

Directs the Secretary to review the project for flood damage reduction, Upper Big Sioux River Basin, Watertown, South Dakota, 

and construct the project, if feasible. Also authorizes credit toward 

planning and design work performed by the non-Federal sponsor. 

Section 5091. Fritz Landing, Tennessee 

Directs the Secretary to conduct a study of the Fritz Landing Agricultural Spur Levee, Tennessee, to determine the extent of levee 

modifications that would be required to bring the levee and associated drainage structures up to Federal standards, to design and 

construct such modifications, and to incorporate the levees into the 

project for flood control, Mississippi River and Tributaries. 

Section 5092. Memphis, Tennessee 

Authorizes the Secretary to review the aquatic ecosystem restoration component of the Memphis Riverfront Development Master Plan prepared by the non-Federal interest and, if the Secretary 

determines that the component meets the evaluation and design 

standards of the Corps of Engineers, authorizes the Secretary to 

carry out that component at a total Federal cost not to exceed 

$5,000,000. 

Section 5093. Town Creek, Lenoir City, Tennessee 

Directs the Secretary to construct the project for flood damage reduction designated as Alternative 4 in the Town Creek, Lenoir 

City, Loudon City, Tennessee, in accordance with the feasibility report of the Nashville district engineer dated November 2000, at a 

total cost not to exceed $1,250,000, notwithstanding any policies relating to minimum flows. 

Section 5094. Tennessee River Partnership 

Authorizes the Secretary to enter into a partnership with a nonprofit entity to remove debris from the Tennessee River in the vicinity of Knoxville, Tennessee. 

141 

Section 5095. Clear Creek and Tributaries, Harris and Galveston 

Counties, Texas 

Directs the Secretary to expedite the report on the feasibility of 

the project for flood damage reduction, ecosystem restoration, and 

recreation, Clear Creek and tributaries, Harris and Galveston 

Counties, Texas. 

Section 5096. Harris County, Texas 

Section 575(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 

to ensure that measures funded in part by the hazard mitigation 

grant program of the Federal Emergency Management Agency are 

considered measures taken by the non-Federal interest, for the purpose of evaluating the pre-project conditions. 

Section 5097. Harris Gully, Harris County, Texas 

Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction to protect 

the Texas Medical Center, Houston, Texas, using studies and plans 

developed by the non-Federal sponsor, to the maximum extent 

practicable. Also authorizes the Secretary to carry out critical flood 

damage reduction projects, at a Federal cost not to exceed 

$7,000,000, authorizes credit for work performed by the non-Federal interest if integral to the project, and authorizes a non-profit 

entity to serve as the non-Federal interest. 

Section 5098. Onion Creek, Texas 

Directs the Secretary to include costs and benefits associated 

with relocations occurring during the 2-year period of time before 

the feasibility study as project costs and benefits, and to provide 

credit toward the non-Federal share for the cost of relocations carried out before the date of the cooperation agreement if integral to 

the project. 

Section 5099. Pelican Island, Texas 

Amends section 108(a) of the Energy and Water Appropriations 

Act, 1994, to authorize the Secretary to provide a letter of intent 

to the city of Galveston, Texas, to convey property currently being 

used for management of dredged material, under certain terms and 

conditions. 

Section 5100. Front Royal, Virginia 

Amends section 591 of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1999 to increase the authorization for Front Royal, Virginia. 

Section 5101. Richmond National Battlefield Park, Richmond, Virginia 

Authorizes the Secretary to carry out bluff stabilization measures 

on the James River to protect a Civil War battlefield known as 

Drewry’s Bluff. Directs the Secretary to seek reimbursement from 

the Secretary of the Interior. 

Section 5102. Baker Bay and Ilwaco Harbor, Washington 

Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine if increased siltation is the result of a Federal navigation project and, 

142 

if so, to mitigate the siltation in the Baker Bay and Ilwaco Harbor, 

Washington. 

Section 5103. Chehalis River, Centralia, Washington 

Directs the Secretary to provide credit for the cost of work performed by the non-Federal interest for flood damage reduction if 

determined by the Secretary to be an integral part of the project. 

Section 5104. Hamilton Island Campground, Washington 

Authorizes the Secretary to plan, design and construct a campground for Bonneville Lock and Dam at Hamilton Island in 

Skamania County, Washington. 

Section 5105. Puget Island, Washington 

Directs the Secretary to place dredged and other suitable material along portions of the Columbia River shoreline of Puget Island, 

at a Federal cost not to exceed $1,000,000. 

Section 5106. Bluestone, West Virginia 

Amends section 547 of the Water Resources Development Act of 

2000 to allow the hydroelectric power feature of the Bluestone, 

West Virginia, project to be privately constructed and owned. 

Section 5107. West Virginia and Pennsylvania flood control 

Amends section 581 of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1996 to expand the scope of the authority and to increase the authorization ceiling. 

Section 5108. Lower Kanawha River Basin, West Virginia 

Directs the Secretary to conduct a watershed and river basin assessment for the Lower Kanawha River Basin, in certain counties 

in West Virginia. 

Section 5109. Central West Virginia 

Amends section 571 of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1999 to modify the geographic scope of the authorization, to allow 

nonprofit entities to serve as non-Federal interests, and to allow 

10% of appropriated amounts to be used for administrative expenses. 

Section 5110. Southern West Virginia 

Amends section 340 of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1992 to modify the geographic scope of the authorization, to allow 

nonprofit entities to serve as non-Federal interests, and to allow 

10% of appropriated amounts to be used for administrative expenses. 

Section 5111. Construction of flood control projects by non-Federal 

interests 

Adds the following projects to the list of projects that may be constructed by non-Federal interests under Section 211(f) of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1996: (1) Buffalo Bayou, Texas; 

Halls Bayou, Texas; and (2) St. Paul Downtown Airport (Holman 

Field), St. Paul, Minnesota. 

143 

Section 5112. Bridge authorization 

Authorizes $20,000,000 for construction of the permanent bridge 

referred to in Section 1001(1). 

Section 5113. Additional assistance for critical projects 

Authorizes the Secretary to design and construct environmental 

infrastructure projects in the following locations: 

(1) Plaquemine, Louisiana. 

(2) Charleston, South Carolina. 

(3) Cross, South Carolina. 

(4) Surfside, South Carolina. 

(5) North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. 

(6) Tia Juana Valley, California. 

(7) Cabarrus County, North Carolina. 

(8) Richmond County, North Carolina. 

(9) Union County, North Carolina. 

(10) Washington, District of Columbia. 

(11) South Los Angeles County. 

(12) Indianapolis, Indiana. 

(13) Henderson, Nevada. 

(14) Sennet, New York. 

(15) Ledyard and Montville, Connecticut. 

(16) Awendaw, South Carolina. 

(17) St. Clair County, Alabama. 

(18) East Bay, San Francisco and Santa Clara Areas, California. 

(19) Athens, Tennessee. 

(20) Warwick, New York. 

(21) Kiryas Joel, New York. 

(22) Whittier, California. 

(23) Anacostia River, District of Columbia and Maryland. 

(24) Duchesne, Iron, and Uintah Counties, Utah. 

(25) Hancock, Harrison, Jackson, and Pearl River Counties, Mississippi. 

Section 5114. Use of Federal hopper dredge fleet 

Authorizes the Secretary to conduct a study and issue a report 

to Congress on the appropriate use of the Federal hopper dredge 

fleet. The study shall determine the appropriate use of the fleet, 

analyze costs and benefits of existing and proposed restrictions, 

and assess the data and procedure used by the Secretary to prepare cost estimates for work performed by the Federal hopper 

dredge fleet. 

ADDITIONAL MATTERS

The water levels of the Great Lakes are cyclical, rising and falling as temperature and precipitation patterns naturally change 

over the years. Currently, the level of Lake Huron is in a low period, exposing muck and vegetation that can be both unhealthy and 

unsightly. This exposed lake bottom also can serve as a breeding 

ground for mosquitoes. The Committee is aware that some owners 

of property on Lake Huron, in Saginaw Bay, have tried to clean up 

this muck and vegetation. As a result of these beach maintenance 

activities, the Corps of Engineers has issued cease and desist orders and threatened some landowners with penalties under section 

144 

404 of the Clean Water Act and section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. In fact, the Detroit District informed this Committee, 

‘‘[I]n an effort to keep such unauthorized work from spreading 

across the entire Saginaw Bay, we secured assistance from the US 

Attorneys Office to take action against three, randomly chosen parties,’’ threatening criminal penalties. 

The Committee is concerned about how the Detroit District chose 

to address this situation. The Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to continue to examine its enforcement measures, and emphasize education and compliance assistance to carry out its regulatory responsibilities. 

The Committee is aware that in May 2003, the Secretary issued 

a regional permit concerning the leveling of sand. The Secretary 

has determined that certain other maintenance activities of these 

landowners are not regulated activities (such as mowing, debris removal, or other de minimis activities). Notwithstanding this 

progress, the Committee remains concerned about this issue. 

Where there are other beach maintenance activities that may be 

subject to regulation, the Committee directs the Corps of Engineers 

to work with the property owners to minimize the effects of such 

activities and bring them within the scope of a general or regional 

permit. 

In section 2027, discussed above, this legislation provides the 

Secretary with authority to coordinate Federal, State, and local approvals for certain water-related non-Federal projects. In section 

2028, also discussed above, this legislation provides for a coordinated process for the review and approval of Corps of Engineers 

water resources projects. Under these sections, the Corps of Engineers is expected to demonstrate leadership and facilitate the coordination of the activities of many agencies. However, there are 

other projects that are not water projects and for which the Corps 

of Engineers must provide an approval, but is not the lead agency. 

For these projects, the Committee expects the Corps of Engineers 

to cooperate with other agencies and to help the lead agency 

streamline any necessary reviews and approvals. Unfortunately, 

the Committee is aware of circumstances where the Corps of Engineers has not done so. 

For example, where a permit application is subject to a rigorous 

and comprehensive State environmental review process that includes adjudicatory hearings, a parallel Federal process may be duplicative, time consuming and unnecessary. This is especially true 

in cases where a State environmental review process substantially 

meets or exceeds the scope of issues that would be reviewed under 

Federal law. In such cases, the Corps of Engineers should consider 

using existing, credible documentation and expeditiously conclude 

the environmental review of publicly noticed applications. For example, in the case of a permit application for a cement supply-loading terminal in Hudson, New York, the State of New York has conducted a 3-year comprehensive environmental review of the proposed project. The Corps’ decision on the permit application could 

be based on the information provided in the State’s review thus 

avoiding duplicative studies and expediting the decision. 

The Committee also is aware of a permit application that is 

pending for the Islander East Interstate Natural Pipeline from 

Connecticut to Long Island. After an extensive review, this project 

145 

has received approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The New England District of the Corps of Engineers, however, has said that it will use a different definition of the 

project purpose in its analysis of the project, even though FERC is 

the lead Federal agency for this project and extensively reviewed 

this issue during their approval process. The Corps’ actions are 

contrary to the Committee’s objective to streamline approvals of 

needed infrastructure. The Corps should defer to the project purpose as determined by the lead Federal agency, in this case FERC. 

Finally, the Committee also is aware of problems with an 

invasive aquatic species known as tamarisk, or salt cedar, that is 

using 2 to 4.5 million acre-feet of water in reservoirs on the West 

Coast. The Corps of Engineers has a great deal of expertise in 

aquatic plant control through its Aquatic Plant Control Research 

Program. The Committee encourages the Corps to look for opportunities to use this program to assist with the control of tamarisk. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment held 

three days of hearings on projects, programs and policies during 

the development of the Water Resources Development Act of 2002 

on March 7, 2002; April 10, 2002; and April 17, 2002. During these 

hearings, testimony was received from 30 witnesses, including 

Members of Congress, the Administration, project sponsors, national water resources development and environmental organizations, and State and local officials. Chairman Young, Ranking 

Democratic Member Oberstar, Subcommittee Chairman Duncan 

and then Ranking Democratic Member DeFazio introduced H.R. 

5428, the ‘‘Water Resources Development Act of 2002 on September 

23, 2002. The Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment 

marked up H.R. 5428 on September 24, 2002. On September 25, 

2002, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure marked 

up H.R. 5428, and on October 2, 2002, reported it favorably to the 

House. No further action was taken on that legislation. 

On February 27, 2003, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the 

Corps of Engineers’ Budget and Priorities for FY 2004, receiving 

testimony from the Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil 

Works. Additionally, the Subcommittee held a hearing on independent peer review of products that support agency decision-making on March 5, 2003. 

H.R. 2557, the ‘‘Water Resources Development Act of 2003,’’ was 

introduced on June 23, 2003, by Chairman Don Young and Subcommittee Chairman John J. Duncan, Jr. H.R. 2557 is largely 

based on H.R. 5428 from the 107th Congress. 

On July 17, 2003, the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment marked up H.R. 2557, approved by voice vote a manager’s amendment offered by Mr. Duncan, and reported the bill, as 

amended, favorably to the Full Committee by voice vote. The 

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee met in open session 

on July 23, 2003, and adopted by voice vote a manager’s amendment, offered by Mr. Duncan. The Committee ordered the bill, H.R. 

2557, as amended, favorably reported to the House by voice vote. 

146 

ROLLCALL VOTES

Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House of Representatives requires 

each committee report to include the total number of votes cast for 

and against on each roll call vote on a motion to report and on any 

amendment offered to the measure or matter, and the names of 

those members voting for and against. There were no recorded 

votes taken in connection with ordering H.R. 2557 reported. A motion to order H.R. 2557 reported favorably to the House, with an 

amendment, was agreed to by voice vote. 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of 

the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee’s oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in this report. 

COST OF LEGISLATION

Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives does not apply where a cost estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 has been timely 

submitted prior to the filing of the report and is included in the report. Such a cost estimate is included in this report. 

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII 

1. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and 308(a) of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee references the 

report of the Congressional Budget Office included below. 

2. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the performance goals 

and objectives of this legislation are the improvement of navigation, flood damage reduction, shoreline protection, dam safety, 

water supply, recreation, and environmental restoration and protection. 

3. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 402 of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received the 

following cost estimate for H.R. 2557 from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office. 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, September 3, 2003. 

Hon. DON YOUNG, 

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2557, the Water Resources Development Act of 2003. 

147 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Rachel Milberg. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN, Director. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 2557—Water Resources Development Act of 2003 

Summary: H.R. 2557 would authorize the Secretary of the Army, 

acting through the Army Corps of Engineers, to conduct water resource studies and undertake specified projects and programs for 

flood control, inland navigation, shoreline protection, and environmental restoration. The bill would authorize the Secretary to conduct studies on water resource needs and feasibility studies for 

specified projects and to convey ownership of certain federal properties. Finally, the bill would extend, terminate, or modify existing 

authorizations for various water projects and would authorize new 

programs to develop water resources and protect the environment. 

Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, including adjustments for increases in anticipated inflation, CBO estimates 

that implementing H.R. 2557 would cost about $2.6 billion over the 

2004–2008 period and an additional $2.1 billion over the 10 years 

after 2008. (Some construction costs and operations and maintenance would continue or occur after those first 15 years.) In addition, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 2557 would increase direct 

spending by $17 million over the 2004–2008 period and by $32 million over the 2004–2013 period. 

H.R. 2557 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). 

Federal participation in water resources projects and programs authorized by this bill would benefit state, local, and tribal governments, and any costs incurred by those governments to comply 

with the conditions of this federal assistance would be voluntary. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 2557 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall within budget function 300 (natural resources 

and the environment). 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Estimated authorization level ....................................................................... 808 612 478 445 375 

Estimated outlays ......................................................................................... 566 671 518 455 396 

CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING 

Estimated budget authority .......................................................................... 5 3 3 3 3 

Estimated outlays ......................................................................................... 5 3 3 3 3 

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 

2557 will be enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2004 and 

that the necessary amounts will be appropriated for each fiscal 

year. 

Spending subject to appropriation 

For new water projects specified in the bill, the Corps provided 

CBO with estimates of annual budget authority needed to meet deVerDate mar 24 2004 14:17 May 03, 2004 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00147 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\HR265.XXX HR265
148 

sign and construction schedules. CBO adjusted those estimates to 

reflect the impact of anticipated inflation during the time between 

project authorization and appropriation of construction costs. Estimated outlays are based on historical spending rates for Corps 

projects. For ongoing construction costs of previously authorized 

projects, the Corps received a 2003 appropriation of $1.8 billion. 

H.R. 2557 would authorize new projects related to environmental 

restoration, shoreline protection, and navigation. Two of the larger 

projects that would be authorized by the bill include a project for 

hurricane and storm damage reduction in Louisiana with an estimated federal cost of $467 million and a project to reduce flood 

damage and restore the environment in California with an estimated federal cost of $201 million. In addition, this bill would modify many existing Corps projects and programs by increasing the 

amounts authorized to be appropriated to construct or maintain 

them or by increasing the federal share of project costs. For example, section 2003 would authorize an increase in the federal share 

of the construction, operations, and maintenance of some deepwater navigation projects. CBO estimates that this provision would 

increase federal costs by about $70 million over the 2004–2008 period. In the 10-year period after 2008, however, the cost of this provision could increase by over $30 million a year, subject to the 

availability of appropriated funds for deepwater navigation 

projects. 

H.R. 2557 also would withdraw the authority for the Corps to 

build over 30 projects authorized in previous legislation. Based on 

information from the Corps, however, CBO does not expect that the 

Corps would begin most of these projects over the next five years. 

Some do not have a local sponsor to pay nonfederal costs, others 

do not pass certain tests for economic viability, and still others do 

not pass certain tests for environmental protection. Consequently, 

CBO estimates that taking away the authority to build these 

projects would provide no significant savings over the next several 

years. 

Direct spending 

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 2557 would increase direct 

spending by $17 million over the 2004–2008 period and by about 

$3 million each year after 2008. Components of this cost are described below. 

Spending of Recreation Fees. Section 2017 would permanently 

authorize the Corps to retain and spend annual recreation fees collected in excess of $34 million a year. The Corps’ authority to retain and spend those fees expired at the end of fiscal year 2002. 

CBO estimates that this extension would cost about $3 million a 

year. 

Rathbun Lake Project. Section 5046 would authorize the Secretary to convey a certain portion of the water supply storage capacity of Rathbun Lake to the Rathbun Regional Water Association. In exchange, the water association would fund, construct, operate, and maintain a regional visitor center complex on federal 

land at Rathbun Lake in Iowa. CBO estimates that enacting this 

section would cost about $2 million in 2004 because the Corps 

would forgo receipts that the Rathbun Regional Water Association 

149 

would otherwise have to pay for the unallocated water supply storage. 

Waurika Lake Project. Section 5076 would eliminate the obligation of the Waurika Project Master Conservancy District in Oklahoma to pay its outstanding debt related to the construction of a 

water conveyance project. Due to an accounting error, the Corps inadvertently undercharged the district for costs association with a 

land purchase related to the water project in the early 1980s. 

Under the terms of the construction contract, the district is required to pay all costs associated with building the project, including the full cost of the land purchases. CBO estimates that enacting this section would cost less than $200,000 a year over the 

2004–2013 period. 

Annual Passes for Recreation—Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania. 

Section 2001 would extend for one year a pilot project that allows 

the Corps to charge lower fees at its Raystown Lake recreation facility in Pennsylvania by one year. CBO estimates that extending 

the program until December 31, 2004, would cost less than 

$100,000 over the next two years. 

Funding to Process Permits. Section 2004 would extend the 

Corps’ current authority for two more years to accept and spend 

funds contributed by private firms to expedite the evaluation of 

permit applications submitted to the Corps. CBO estimates that 

the Corps would accept and spend less than $500,000 during each 

year of this extension and that the net budgetary impact of this 

provision would be negligible. 

Elizabeth River Project. Section 3089 would eliminate the obligation of the city of Chesapeake, Virginia, to pay its outstanding debt 

to the federal government related to the construction of a navigation channel. Section 358 of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 1999 waived the city’s obligation to repay its share of the cost 

of construction of the channel that remained unpaid as of September 30, 1999. That act, however, did not eliminate the city’s responsibility to pay those amounts in arrears prior to September 30, 

1999. CBO estimates that the cost of this additional debt forgiveness would be less than $500,000 in 2004. 

Cumberland River Basin Reservoirs. Section 5047 would authorize the Corps to continue to charge certain reservoir projects in 

Kentucky and Tennessee reduced rates on municipal and industrial 

water supply storage. CBO estimates that enacting this provision 

would result in a loss of about $25,000 in receipts each year to the 

Corps. 

Various Land Conveyances. H.R. 2557 would authorize the Corps 

to convey certain lands in Kansas and Oregon. Section 3098 would 

authorize the Corps to convey 7.4 acres to Geary County, Kansas, 

for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a fire station. 

In addition, section 5080 would authorize the Corps and the U.S. 

Forest Service to convey approximately three acres of land and 

buildings in Lowell, Oregon, to the Lowell School District. CBO estimates that those conveyances would have no significant impact 

on the federal budget. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 2557 contains 

no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA. Federal participation in water resources projects and programs authorized by this bill would benefit state, local, and tribal 

150 

governments. Governments that choose to participate in those 

projects would incur costs to comply with the conditions of the federal assistance, including cost-sharing requirements, but such costs 

would be voluntary. In addition, some state and local governments 

participating in ongoing water resources projects would benefit 

from provisions in the bill that would alter existing cost-sharing obligations. Many of those provisions would make it easier for nonfederal participants to meet their obligations by giving them credit 

for expenses they have already incurred or by expanding the types 

of expenditures counted as part of the nonfederal share. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Julie Middleton and Rachel Milberg. Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Marjorie 

Miller. Impact on the Private Sector: Cecil McPherson. 

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Di- rector for Budget Analysis. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Pursuant to clause (3)(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, committee reports on a bill or joint resolution 

of a public character shall include a statement citing the specific 

powers granted to the Congress in the Constitution to enact the 

measure. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

finds that Congress has the authority to enact this measure pursuant to its powers granted under article I, section 8 of the Constitution. 

FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT

The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 

pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

(Public Law 104–4). 

PREEMPTION CLARIFICATION

Section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1994 requires the report of any Committee on a bill or joint resolution to include a 

statement on the extent to which the bill or joint resolution is intended to preempt State, local or Tribal law. The Committee states 

that H.R. 2557 does not preempt any State, local, or Tribal law. 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

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

APPLICABILITY TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to the terms and conditions of employment or access to public services or 

accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act. (Public Law 104–1). 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitVerDate mar 24 2004 14:17 May 03, 2004 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00150 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\PICKUP\HR265.XXX HR265
151 

ted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1996 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE II—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 208. RECREATION POLICY AND USER FEES. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c) ALTERNATIVE TO ANNUAL PASSES.— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(4) EXPIRATION OF AUTHORITY.—The authority to establish an annual pass under paragraph (2) shall expire on ¿the December 31, 2003 December 31, 2004. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 211. CONSTRUCTION OF FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS BY NONFEDERAL INTERESTS. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(f) SPECIFIC PROJECTS.—For the purpose of demonstrating the potential advantages and effectiveness of non-Federal implementation 

of flood control projects, the Secretary shall enter into agreements 

pursuant to this section with non-Federal interests for 

development of the following flood control projects by such interests: 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(9) BUFFALO BAYOU, TEXAS.—The project for flood control, 

Buffalo Bayou, Texas. (10) HALLS BAYOU, TEXAS.—The project for flood control, 

Halls Bayou, Texas. (11) ST. PAUL DOWNTOWN AIRPORT (HOLMAN FIELD), ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA.—The project for flood damage reduction, St. Paul Downtown Airport (Holman Field), St. Paul, Minnesota. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 217. DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITY PARTNERSHIPS. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c) GOVERNMENTAL PARTNERSHIPS.— 

(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 (includVerDate mar 24 2004 14:17 May 03, 2004 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00151 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\PICKUP\HR265.XXX HR265
152 

ing 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. One or more of the parties of the agreement may perform the acquisition, design, construction, management, or operation of a dredged material 

processing, treatment, or disposal facility. If appropriate, the 

Secretary may combine portions of separate construction or 

maintenance appropriations from separate Federal projects 

with the appropriate combined cost-sharing between the various 

projects when the facility serves to manage dredged material 

from multiple Federal projects located in the geographic region 

of the facility. (2) PUBLIC FINANCING.— (A) AGREEMENTS.— (i) SPECIFIED FEDERAL FUNDING SOURCES AND COST

SHARING.—The cost-sharing agreement used shall 

clearly specify the Federal funding sources and combined cost-sharing when applicable to multiple Federal 

navigation projects and the responsibilities and risks of 

each of the parties related to present and future 

dredged material managed by the facility. (ii) MANAGEMENT OF SEDIMENTS.—The cost-sharing 

agreement may include the management of sediments 

from the maintenance dredging of Federal navigation 

projects that do not have partnership agreements. The 

cost-sharing agreement may allow the non-Federal 

sponsor to receive reimbursable payments from the 

Federal Government for commitments made by the 

sponsor 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.—Nothing in this subsection supersedes or 

modifies existing agreements between the Federal Government and any non-Federal sponsors for the cost-sharing, 

construction, and operation and maintenance of Federal 

navigation projects. Subject to the approval of the Secretary 

and in accordance with existing laws, regulations, and 

policies, a non-Federal public sponsor of a Federal navigation project may seek credit for funds provided in 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. The non-Federal 

sponsor shall be responsible for providing all necessary 

lands, easements, rights-of-way, or relocations associated 

with the facility and shall receive credit for these items. 

¿(c) (d) PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may carry out a program to 

evaluate and implement opportunities for public-private partVerDate mar 24 2004 14:17 May 03, 2004 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00152 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\PICKUP\HR265.XXX HR265
153 

nerships 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. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE V—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 501. LAND CONVEYANCES. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(g) BOARDMAN, OREGON.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall convey to the ¿city of 

Boardman, the Boardman Park and Recreation District, 

Boardman, Oregon, all right, title, and interest of the United 

States in and to a parcel of land consisting of approximately 

141 acres acquired as part of the John Day Lock and Dam 

project in the vicinity of ¿such city the city of Boardman currently under lease to the Boardman Park and Recreation District. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 510. CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND 

PROTECTION PROGRAM. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(i) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to 

be appropriated to carry out this section ¿$10,000,000

$30,000,000. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 528. EVERGLADES AND SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION. 

(a) * * * 

(b) RESTORATION ACTIVITIES.— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3) CRITICAL RESTORATION PROJECTS.— 

154 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(C) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— (i) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be appropriated to the Department of the Army to pay the Federal share of the cost of carrying out projects under 

subparagraph (A) ¿$75,000,000 for the period consisting of fiscal years 1997 through 2003 $95,000,000. (ii) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of the cost 

of carrying out any 1 project under subparagraph (A) 

shall be not more than ¿$25,000,000 $30,000,000. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 531. SOUTHERN AND EASTERN KENTUCKY. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(i) CORPS OF ENGINEERS EXPENSES.—Ten percent of the amounts 

appropriated to carry out this section for fiscal years 2004 and 

thereafter may be used by the Corps of Engineers district offices to 

administer projects under this section at 100 percent Federal expense. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 553. NEW YORK STATE CANAL SYSTEM. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

¿(c) NEW YORK STATE CANAL SYSTEM DEFINED.—In this section, 

the term ‘‘New York State Canal System’’ means the Erie, Oswego, 

Champlain, and Cayuga-Seneca Canals. (c) NEW YORK STATE CANAL SYSTEM DEFINED.—In this section, 

the term ‘‘New York State Canal System’’ means the 524 miles of 

navigable canal that comprise the New York State Canal System, 

including the Erie, Cayuga-Seneca, Oswego, and Champlain Canals 

and the historic alignments of these canals, including the cities of 

Albany and Buffalo. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 567. UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN, PENNSYLVANIA AND 

NEW YORK. 

(a) STUDY AND STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT.—The Secretary, in cooperation with the Secretary of Agriculture, the State of Pennsylvania, and the State of New York, shall conduct a study, and develop a strategy, for using wetland restoration, soil and water conservation practices, and nonstructural measures to reduce flood 

damage, improve water quality, and create wildlife habitat in the 

following portions of the Upper Susquehanna River basin: 

(1) * * * 

(2) The Susquehanna River watershed upstream of the 

Chemung River, New York, at an estimated Federal cost of 

¿$10,000,000. $20,000,000, of which the Secretary may utilize 

not more than $5,000,000 to design and construct feasible pilot 

projects during the development of the strategy to demonstrate 

alternative approaches for the strategy. The total cost for any 

single pilot project may not exceed $500,000. The Secretary 

155 

shall evaluate the results of the pilot projects and consider the 

results in the development of the strategy. 

* * * * * * * 

(c) ¿COOPERATION COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.—In conducting 

the study and developing the strategy under this section, the Secretary shall enter into ¿cooperation cooperative agreements to provide financial assistance to appropriate Federal, State, and local 

government agencies and appropriate nonprofit, nongovernmental 

organizations with expertise in wetland restoration, with the consent of the affected local government. Financial assistance provided 

may include activities for the implementation of wetlands restoration projects and soil and water conservation measures. 

* * * * * * * 

(e) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project (i) the cost of design and construction 

work carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of the 

partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary determines 

that the work is integral to the project; and (ii) the cost of in-kind 

services and materials provided for the project by the non-Federal 

interest. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 575. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—During any evaluation of economic benefits 

and costs for projects set forth in subsection (b) that occurs after 

the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall not consider flood control works constructed or nonstructural actions by 

non-Federal interests within the drainage area of such projects 

prior to the date of such evaluation in the determination of conditions existing prior to construction of the project or nonstructural 

actions, whether or not such works or actions are partially funded 

under the hazard mitigation grant program of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 579. GREENBRIER RIVER BASIN, WEST VIRGINIA, FLOOD PROTECTION. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to 

be appropriated to carry out this section ¿$47,000,000

$89,000,000. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 581. WEST VIRGINIA AND PENNSYLVANIA FLOOD CONTROL. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may design and construct— (1) ¿flood control measures structural and nonstructural 

flood control, streambank protection, stormwater management, 

and channel clearing and modification measures in the Cheat 

and Tygart River basins, West Virginia, at a level of protection 

that is sufficient to prevent any future losses to communities 

in the basins from flooding such as occurred in January 1996, 

156 

but not less than a 100-year level of protection with respect to 

measures that incorporate levees or floodwalls; and 

* * * * * * * 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to 

be appropriated to carry out this section ¿$12,000,000

$90,000,000. 

* * * * * * * 

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1986 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE I—COST SHARING 

SEC. 101. HARBORS. 

(a) CONSTRUCTON.— 

(1) PAYMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION.—The non-Federal interests for a navigation project for a harbor or inland harbor, 

or any separable element thereof, on which a contract for physical construction has not been awarded before the date of enactment of this Act shall pay, during the period of construction 

of the project, the following costs associated with general navigation features: 

(A) * * * 

(B) 25 percent of the cost of construction of the portion 

of the project which has a depth is excess of 20 feet but 

not in excess of ¿45 53 feet; plus 

(C) 50 percent of the cost of construction of the portion 

of the project which has a depth in excess of ¿45 53 feet. 

* * * * * * * 

(b) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Federal share of the cost of operation 

and maintenance of each navigation project for a harbor or inland harbor constructed by the Secretary pursuant to this Act 

or any other law approved after the date of the enactment of 

this Act shall be 100 percent, except that in the case of a deepdraft harbor, the non-Federal interests shall be responsible for 

an amount equal to 50 percent of the excess of the cost of the 

operation and maintenance of such project over the cost which 

the Secertary determines would be incurred for operation and 

maintenance of such project if such project had a depth of ¿45

53 feet. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 103. FLOOD CONTROL AND OTHER PURPOSES. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(n) NON-FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS.— 

(1) PROHIBITION ON SOLICITATION OF EXCESS CONTRIBUTIONS.—The Secretary may not solicit contributions from nonFederal interests for costs of constructing authorized water resources development projects or measures in excess of the nonFederal share assigned to the appropriate project purposes listVerDate mar 24 2004 14:17 May 03, 2004 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00156 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\PICKUP\HR265.XXX HR265
157 

ed in subsections (a), (b), and (c) or condition Federal participation in such projects or measures on the receipt of such contributions. 

(2) LIMITATION ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in 

this subsection shall be construed to affect the Secretary’s authority under section 903(c) of this Act. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE II—HARBOR DEVELOPMENT 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 214. DEFINITIONS. 

For purposes of this title— 

(1) DEEP-DRAFT HARBOR.—The term ‘‘deep-draft harbor’’ 

means a harbor which is authorized to be constructed to a 

depth of more than ¿45 53 feet (other than a project which 

is authorized by section 202 of this title). 

* * * * * * * 

(3) GENERAL CARGO HARBOR.—The term ‘‘general cargo harbor’’ means a harbor for which a project is authorized by section 202 of this title and any other harbor which is authorized 

to be constructed to a depth of more than 20 feet but not more 

than ¿45 53 feet; 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE VI—WATER RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND 

DEVELOPMENT 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 602. LAKES PROGRAM. 

(a) Subject to section 903(a) of this Act, the Secretary shall carry 

out programs for the removal of silt, aquatic growth, and other material in the following lakes: 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(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) Rogers Pond, Franklin Township, New Jersey, removal 

of silt and restoration of structural integrity; 

(22) Greenwood Lake, Greenwood Lake, New York, removal of 

silt and aquatic growth; and 

(23) Lake Rodgers, Creedmoor, North Carolina, removal of 

silt and excessive nutrients and restoration of structural integrity. 

* * * * * * * 

158 

TITLE VII—WATER RESOURCES STUDIES 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 729. WATERSHED AND RIVER BASIN ASSESSMENTS. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(d) PRIORITY RIVER BASINS AND WATERSHEDS.—In selecting river 

basins and watersheds for assessment under this section, the Secretary shall give priority to— (1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(4) the Susquehanna River basin; ¿and

(5) the Willamette River basin¿. ; and 

(6) Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California. 

* * * * * * * 

(f) COST-SHARING REQUIREMENTS.— 

¿(1) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—The non-Federal share of the 

costs of an assessment carried out under this section shall be 

50 percent.

(1) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—The non-Federal share of the costs 

of an assessment carried out under this section on or after December 11, 2000, shall be 25 percent. 

* * * * * * * 

¿(g) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to 

be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000.

* * * * * * * 

TITLE IX—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 906. FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION. 

(a)(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3) COMPLETION OF MITIGATION.—In those instances in which 

it is not technically practicable to complete mitigation concurrent with the last day of project construction because of the nature of the mitigation to be undertaken, the Secretary shall complete the required mitigation as expeditiously as practicable, but 

in no case later than the last day of the first fiscal year beginning after the last day of construction of the project or separable 

element of the project. 

* * * * * * * 

(d) MITIGATION PLANS AS PART OF PROJECT PROPOSALS.— (1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3) CONTENTS.—A mitigation plan shall include— 

(A) a description of the physical action to be undertaken 

to achieve the mitigation objectives within the watershed in 

which such losses occur and, in any case in which mitigation must take place outside the watershed, a justification 

159 

detailing the rationale for undertaking the mitigation outside of the watershed; 

(B) a description of the lands or interests in lands to be 

acquired for mitigation and the basis for a determination 

that such lands are available for acquisition; 

(C) the type, amount, and characteristics of the habitat 

being restored; (D) success criteria for mitigation based on replacement 

of lost functions and values of the habitat, including hydrologic and vegetative characteristics; and (E) a plan for any necessary monitoring to determine the 

success of the mitigation, including the cost and duration 

of any monitoring, and to the extent practicable, the entities 

responsible for any monitoring. (4) RESPONSIBILITY FOR MONITORING.—In any case in which 

it is not practicable to identify in a mitigation plan for a water 

resources project, the entity responsible for monitoring at the 

time of a final report of the Chief of Engineers or other final 

decision document for the project, such entity shall be identified 

in the partnership agreement entered into with the non-Federal 

interest. 

* * * * * * * 

SECTION 912. SECTION 221 AGREEMENTS. 

(a) * * * 

(b)(1) * * * 

(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.

* * * * * * * 

(4) The Secretary may request the Attorney General to bring a 

civil action for appropriate relief, including permanent or temporary injunction, for payment of liquidated damages or, 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. 

* * * * * * * 

160 

TITLE X—PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATION 

SEC. 1001. (a) * * * 

(b)(1) * * * 

(2) Notwithstanding section 3003 of Public Law 104–66 (31 U.S.C. 1113 note; 109 Stat. 734), every ¿two years year after the 

transmittal of the list under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall 

transmit to Congress a list of projects or separable elements of 

projects which have been authorized, but have received no obligations during the ¿7 5 full fiscal years preceding the transmittal of such list. Upon submission of such list to Congress, the Secretary shall notify each Senator in whose State, and each Member 

of the House of Representatives in whose district, a project (including any part thereof) on such list would be located. A project or 

separable element included in such list is not authorized after the 

date which is 30 months after the date the list is so transmitted 

if funds have not been obligated for the planning, design, or construction of such project or element during such 30-month period. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE XI—MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 1103. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER PLAN. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(e) PROGRAM AUTHORITY.— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(7)(A) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(2) of 

this section, the costs of each project carried out pursuant to 

paragraph (1)(A)(i) of this subsection shall be allocated between the Secretary and the appropriate non-Federal sponsor 

in accordance with the provisions of section 906(e) of this Act; 

except that the costs of operation and maintenance of projects 

located on Federal lands or lands owned or operated by a State 

or local government shall be borne by the Federal, State, or 

local agency that is responsible for management activities for 

fish and wildlife on such lands and, in the case of any project 

requiring non-Federal cost sharing, the non-Federal share of 

the cost of the project shall be 35 percent. The non-Federal interest may provide the non-Federal share of the cost of the 

project in the form of services, materials, supplies, or other inkind contributions. 

* * * * * * * 

¿SEC. 1156. COST SHARING PROVISIONS FOR THE TERRITORIES. 

¿The Secretary shall waive local cost-sharing requirements up to 

$200,000 for all studies and projects in American Samoa, Guam, 

the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, and the Trust 

Territory of the Pacific Islands.

SEC. 1156. COST SHARING PROVISIONS FOR CERTAIN AREAS. 

The Secretary shall waive local cost-sharing requirements up to 

$500,000 for all studies and projects in the Commonwealth of PuerVerDate mar 24 2004 14:17 May 03, 2004 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00160 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\PICKUP\HR265.XXX HR265
161 

to Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the United States Virgin Islands, in Indian country (as defined in section 1151 of title 18, United States 

Code, and including lands that are within the jurisdictional area 

of an Oklahoma Indian tribe, as determined by the Secretary of the 

Interior, and are recognized by the Secretary of the Interior as eligible for trust land status under part 151 of title 25, Code of Federal 

Regulations) or on land in the State of Alaska conveyed to an Alaska Native Village Corporation under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.). 

* * * * * * * 

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2000 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE II—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 203. TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM. 

(a) * * * 

(b) PROGRAM.— (1) IN GENERAL.—In cooperation with Indian tribes and the 

heads of other Federal agencies, the Secretary may study and 

determine the feasibility of carrying out water resources development projects that— (A) * * * 

(B) are located primarily within Indian country (as defined in section 1151 of title 18, United States Code, and 

including lands that are within the jurisdictional area of 

an Oklahoma Indian tribe, as determined by the Secretary 

of the Interior, and are recognized by the Secretary of the 

Interior as eligible for trust land status under part 151 of 

title 25, Code of Federal Regulations) or in proximity to 

Alaska Native villages. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 214. FUNDING TO PROCESS PERMITS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—In fiscal years 2001 through ¿2003 2005, 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. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE III—PROJECT-RELATED 

PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 315. ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LOUISIANA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the report of the Chief of Engineers, dated February 28, 1983, for the project for flood control, 

162 

Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Louisiana, authorized by section 601(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 

Stat. 4142), which report refers to recreational development in the 

Lower Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, the Secretary— 

¿(1) shall initiate, in collaboration with the State of Louisiana, construction of the visitors center, authorized as part of 

the project, at or near Lake End Park in Morgan City, Louisiana; and

(1) is authorized to study, design, construct, operate, and 

maintain, at Federal expense, a Type A Regional Visitor Center 

in the vicinity of Morgan City, Louisiana, in consultation with 

the State of Louisiana, to provide information to the public on 

the Atchafalaya River system and other associated waterways 

that have influenced surrounding communities, and national 

and local water resources development of the Army Corps of Engineers in South Central Louisiana; and 

* * * * * * * 

(b) AUTHORITIES.—The Secretary shall carry out subsection ¿(a)

(a)(2) in accordance with— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c) DONATIONS.—In carrying out subsection (a)(1), the Mississippi 

River Commission is authorized to accept the donation of cash, 

funds, lands, materials, and services from non-Federal governmental entities and nonprofit corporations. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE IV—STUDIES 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 414. OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA. 

Not later than ¿32 44 months after the date of enactment of 

this Act, the Secretary shall conduct a study, at Federal expense, 

of plans— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 425. CHICAGO, ILLINOIS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for shoreline protection along Lake Michigan and the Chicago River, Chicago, Illinois. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE V—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 506. GREAT LAKES FISHERY AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(f) COST SHARING.— 

163 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.— 

(A) * * * 

(B) FORM.—The non-Federal interest may provide up to 

¿50 100 percent of the non-Federal share required under 

paragraphs (1) and (2) in the form of services, materials, 

supplies, or other in-kind contributions. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 512. CONTRA COSTA CANAL, OAKLEY AND KNIGHTSEN, CALIFORNIA. 

The Secretary shall carry out a project for flood damage reduction under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 

701s) at the Contra Costa Canal, Oakley and Knightsen, California, if the Secretary determines that the project is technically 

sound, environmentally acceptable, and economically justified. All 

planning, study, design, and construction on the project shall be 

carried out by the office of the district engineer, San Francisco, 

California. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 514. MALLARD SLOUGH, PITTSBURG, CALIFORNIA. 

The Secretary shall carry out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s) a project for flood damage reduction in Mallard Slough, Pittsburg, California, if the Secretary determines that the project is technically sound, environmentally acceptable, and economically justified. All planning, study, design, 

and construction on the project shall be carried out by the office of 

the district engineer, San Francisco, California. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 519. ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN RESTORATION. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c) CRITICAL RESTORATION PROJECTS.— 

(1) * * * 

(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out projects under this subsection 

$100,000,000 for fiscal years 2001 through ¿2004 2010. 

* * * * * * * 

(g) COST SHARING.— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3) IN-KIND SERVICES.—The Secretary may credit the value of 

in-kind services provided by the non-Federal interest for a 

project or activity carried out under this section toward not 

more than 80 percent of the non-Federal share of the cost of 

the project or activity if such services are provided not more 

than 5 years before the date of initiation of the project or activity. In-kind services shall include all State funds expended on 

programs and projects that accomplish the goals of this section, 

as determined by the Secretary. The programs and projects 

164 

may include the Illinois River Conservation Reserve Program, 

the Illinois Conservation 2000 Program, the Open Lands Trust 

Fund, and other appropriate programs carried out in the Illinois River basin. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 527. MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in cooperation with the State of Minnesota, shall design and construct the project for environmental 

restoration and recreation, Minneapolis, Minnesota, substantially 

in accordance with the plans described in the report entitled ‘‘Feasibility Study for Mississippi Whitewater Park, Minneapolis, Minnesota’’, prepared for the State of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, dated June 30, 1999, and including Hennepin Is- land and adjacent areas on the east side of the Mississippi River. 

* * * * * * * 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to 

be appropriated ¿$10,000,000 $25,000,000 to carry out this section. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 547. BLUESTONE, WEST VIRGINIA. 

(a) * * * 

(b) AGREEMENT.— (1) AGREEMENT TERMS.—The Secretary and the Secretary of Energy, acting through the Southeastern Power Administration, shall enter into a binding agreement with the Tri-Cities 

Power Authority that contains mutually acceptable terms and 

conditions and under which the Tri-Cities Power Authority 

agrees to each of the following: (A) To design and construct the generating facilities re- ferred to in subsection (a) within ¿4 5 years after the date of such agreement. (B) To reimburse the Secretary for— (i) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(iii) the redistributed costs associated with the origi- nal construction of the dam and dam safety ¿if all parties agree with the method of the development of the 

chargeable amounts associated with hydropower at the 

facility assurance project. (C) To release and indemnify the United States from any claims, causes of action, or liabilities that may arise from 

such design ¿and construction , construction, and operation and maintenance of the facilities referred to in subsection (a), including any liability that may arise out of the 

removal of the facility if directed by the Secretary. 

* * * * * * * 

(3) OPERATION AND OWNERSHIP.—The Tri-Cities Power Authority shall be the owner and operator of the hydropower facilities referred to in subsection (a). 

(c) OTHER REQUIREMENTS.— 

(1) PROHIBITION.—¿No Unless otherwise provided, no Federal funds may be expended for the planning, design, construcVerDate mar 24 2004 14:17 May 03, 2004 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00164 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\PICKUP\HR265.XXX HR265
165 

tion, and operation and maintenance of the facilities referred 

to in subsection (a) ¿prior to the date on which such facilities 

are accepted by the Secretary under subsection (d) . (2) REIMBURSEMENT.—Notwithstanding any other provision 

of law, if requested by the Tri-Cities Power Authority, the Secretary may provide, on a reimbursable basis, assistance in connection with the ¿design planning, design, and construction of 

the generating facilities referred to in subsection (a). (d) COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION.— ¿(1) TRANSFER OF FACILITIES.—Notwithstanding any other 

provision of law, upon completion of the construction of the facilities referred to in subsection (a) and final approval of such 

facilities by the Secretary, the Tri-Cities Power Authority shall 

transfer without consideration title to such facilities to the 

United States, and the Secretary shall— 

¿(A) accept the transfer of title to such facilities on behalf of the United States; and 

¿(B) operate and maintain the facilities. 

¿(2) CERTIFICATION.—The Secretary may accept title to the facilities pursuant to paragraph (1) only after certifying that 

the quality of the construction meets all standards established 

for similar facilities constructed by the Secretary. (1) APPROVAL.—The Secretary shall review the design and 

construction activities for all features of the hydroelectric project 

that pertain to and affect stability of the dam and control the 

release of water from Bluestone Dam to ensure that the quality 

of construction of those features meets all standards established 

for similar facilities constructed by the Secretary. 

¿(3) (2) AUTHORIZED PROJECT PURPOSES.—The operation 

and maintenance of the facilities shall be conducted in a manner that is consistent with other authorized project purposes of 

the Bluestone Lake facility¿. , except that hydroelectric power 

is no longer a project purpose of the facility. Water flow releases 

from the hydropower facilities shall be determined and directed 

by the Corps of Engineers. 

(3) COORDINATION.—Construction of the hydroelectric generating facilities shall be coordinated with the dam safety assurance project currently in the design and construction phases. (e) EXCESS POWER.—Pursuant to any agreement under sub- section (b), the Southeastern Power Administration shall market 

the excess power produced by the facilities referred to in subsection 

(a) ¿in accordance with section 5 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 

December 22, 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s; 58 Stat. 890) . 

(f) PAYMENTS.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 

Secretary of Energy, acting through the Southeastern Power Administration, may pay, in accordance with the terms of the agreement entered into under subsection (b), out of the revenues from 

the sale of power produced by the generating ¿facility of the interconnected systems of reservoirs operated by the Secretary facilities under construction under such agreements and marketed by the 

Southeastern Power Administration— 

(1) to the Tri-Cities Power Authority all reasonable costs incurred by the Tri-Cities Power Authority in the ¿design planning, design and construction of the facilities referred to in 

subsection (a), including the capital investment in such faciliVerDate mar 24 2004 14:17 May 03, 2004 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00165 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\PICKUP\HR265.XXX HR265
166 

ties and a reasonable rate of return on such capital investment; and 

(2) to the ¿Secretary Tri-Cities Power Authority, in accordance with the terms of the agreement entered into under subsection (b) out of the revenues from the sale of power produced 

by the generating ¿facility of the interconnected systems of res- ervoirs operated by the Secretary facilities under construction 

under such agreements and marketed by the Southeastern Power Administration, all reasonable costs incurred by the 

¿Secretary Tri-Cities Power Authority in the operation and 

maintenance of ¿facilities referred to in subsection (a) such 

facilities. (g) AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY OF ENERGY.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Energy, acting through the 

Southeastern Power Administration, is authorized— 

¿(1) to construct such transmission facilities as necessary to 

market the power produced at the facilities referred to in subsection (a) with funds contributed by the Tri-Cities Power Authority; and

(1) to arrange for the transmission of power to the market or 

to construct such transmission facilities as necessary to market 

the power produced at the facilities referred to in subsection (a) 

with funds contributed by the Tri-Cities Power Authority; and 

(2) to repay those funds, including interest and any administrative expenses, directly from the revenues from the sale of 

power produced by ¿such facilities of the interconnected systems of reservoirs operated by the Secretary the generating 

facility and marketed by the Southeastern Power Administration. 

* * * * * * * 

(i) TRI-CITIES POWER AUTHORITY DEFINED.—In this section, the 

‘‘Tri-Cities Power Authority’’ refers to the entity established by the 

City of Hinton, West Virginia, the City of White Sulphur Springs, 

West Virginia, and the City of Philippi, West Virginia, pursuant to 

a document entitled ‘‘Second Amended and Restated Intergovernmental Agreement’’ approved by the Attorney General of West Virginia on February 14, 2002. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE VI—COMPREHENSIVE 

EVERGLADES RESTORATION 

SEC. 601. COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN. 

(a) * * * 

(b) COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN.— 

(1) * * * 

(2) SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATIONS.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.— 

(i) PROJECTS.—The Secretary shall carry out the 

projects included in the Plan in accordance with subparagraphs (B), (C), (D), and (E). The project for aquifer storage and recovery, Hillsboro and Okeechobee Aquifer, Florida, authorized by section 101(a)(16) of the 

167 

Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 

276), shall be treated for purposes of this section as 

being in the Plan. 

* * * * * * * 

(iii) REVIEW AND COMMENT.—In developing the 

projects authorized under subparagraph (B) and the 

project for aquifer storage and recovery, Hillsboro and 

Okeechobee Aquifer, the Secretary shall provide for 

public review and comment in accordance with applicable Federal law. 

* * * * * * * 

(k) OUTREACH AND ASSISTANCE.— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3) MAXIMUM EXPENDITURES.—The Secretary may expend up 

to $3,000,000 per fiscal year for fiscal years beginning after 

September 30, 2002, to carry out this subsection. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE IX—MISSOURI RIVER 

RESTORATION, SOUTH DAKOTA 

* * * * * * * 

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) * * * 

(B) include representatives of— 

(i) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(vii) agricultural groups; ¿and

(viii) rural water systems; and 

¿(viii) (ix) other appropriate interests; 

* * * * * * * 

SECTION 5 OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 13, 1946 

AN ACT authorizing Federal participation in the cost of protecting the shores of 

publicly owned property. 

SEC. 5. 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 10 

years beginning on the date that funds are made available to carry 

out this section. 

(b) REQUIREMENTS.— 

168 

(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 6 

years of the erosion control program; 

* * * * * * * 

(3) COST SHARING.—The Secretary may enter into a cost-sharing agreement with a non-Federal interest to carry out a 

project, or a phase of a project, under the erosion control program in cooperation with the non-Federal interest. 

(4) REMOVAL OF PROJECTS.—The Secretary may pay all or a 

portion of the costs of removing a project, or an element of a 

project, constructed under the erosion control program if the 

Secretary determines during the term of the program that the 

project or element is detrimental to the environment, private 

property, or public safety. 

¿(3) (5) SITES.— (A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

¿(4) (6) DETERMINATION OF FEASIBILITY.—Implementation of 

a project under this section is contingent upon a determination 

by the Secretary that such project is feasible. 

* * * * * * * 

(e) FUNDING.— 

(1) * * * 

(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated ¿$21,000,000 $31,000,000 to carry out this 

section. 

SECTION 221 OF THE FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1970 

SEC. 221. (a) 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 nonFederal 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; 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. Such agreement may include a 

provision for liquidated damages in the event of a failure of one or 

more parties to perform. In any such agreement entered into by a 

State, or a body politic of the State which derives its powers from 

the State constitution, or a governmental entity created by the 

169 

State legislature, the agreement may reflect that it does not obligate future State legislative appropriations for such performance 

and payment when obligating future appropriations would be inconsistent with State constitutional or statutory limitations. 

* * * * * * * 

(e) LIMITATION.—Nothing in subsection (a) shall be construed as limiting the authority of the Secretary to ensure that a partnership 

agreement meets all requirements of law and policies of the Secretary in effect on the date of entry into the partnership agreement. 

¿(e) (f) This section shall not apply to any project the construc- tion of which was commenced before January 1, 1972, or to the assurances for future demands required by the Water Supply Act of 

1958, as amended. 

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1992 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE II—GENERALLY APPLICABLE 

PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 204. BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

¿(c) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT.—Any project undertaken pursu- ant to this section shall be initiated only after non-Federal interests have entered into a binding agreement with the Secretary in 

which the non-Federal interests agree to— 

¿(1) provide 25 percent of the cost associated with construction of the project for the protection, restoration, and creation 

of aquatic and ecologically related habitats, including provision 

of all lands, easements, rights-of-way, and necessary relocations; and 

¿(2) pay 100 percent of the operation, maintenance, replace- ment, and rehabilitation costs associated with the project for 

the protection, restoration, and creation of aquatic and ecologically related habitats. 

¿(d) DETERMINATION OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS.—Costs associated 

with construction of a project for the protection, restoration, and 

creation of aquatic and ecologically related habitats shall be limited 

solely to construction costs which are in excess of those costs necessary to carry out the dredging for construction, operation, or 

maintenance of the authorized navigation project in the most cost 

effective way, consistent with economic, engineering, and environmental criteria. 

¿(e) SELECTION OF DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL METHOD.—In 

developing and carrying out a project for navigation involving the 

disposal of dredged material, the Secretary may select, with the 

consent of the non-Federal interest, a disposal method that is not 

the least-cost option if the Secretary determines that the incremental costs of such disposal method are reasonable in relation to 

the environmental benefits, including the benefits to the aquatic 

170 

environment to be derived from the creation of wetlands and control of shoreline erosion. The Federal share of such incremental 

costs shall be determined in accordance with subsection (c). 

¿(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to 

be appropriated not to exceed $15,000,000 annually to carry out 

this section. Such sums shall remain available until expended. 

¿(g) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—Notwithstanding section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), for any project carried out under this section, a non-Federal interest may include a 

nonprofit entity, with the consent of the affected local government.

(c) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may carry out projects to transport and place suitable material dredged in connection with the construction, operation, or maintenance of an authorized navigation 

project at locations selected by a non-Federal entity for use in the 

construction, repair, or rehabilitation of projects determined by the 

Secretary to be in the public interest and 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. 

(d) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT.—Any project undertaken pursuant 

to this section shall be initiated only after non-Federal interests 

have entered into an agreement with the Secretary in which the 

non-Federal interests agree to pay the non-Federal share of the cost 

of construction of the project and 100 percent of the cost of operation, maintenance, replacement, and rehabilitation of the project in 

accordance with section 103 of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213). 

(e) SPECIAL RULE.—Construction of a project under subsection (a) 

for the protection and restoration of aquatic and ecologically related 

habitat the cost of which does not exceed $750,000 and which will 

be located in a disadvantaged community as determined by the Secretary may be carried out at Federal expense. 

(f) DETERMINATION OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS.—Costs associated 

with construction of a project under this section shall be limited 

solely to construction costs that are in excess of those costs necessary 

to carry out the dredging for construction, operation, or maintenance of the authorized navigation project in the most cost effective 

way, consistent with economic, engineering, and environmental criteria. 

(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 (d). 

(h) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—Notwithstanding section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), for any project carried out under this section, a non-Federal interest may include a 

nonprofit entity, with the consent of the affected local government. 

171 

(i) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to 

be appropriated $30,000,000 annually for projects under this section 

of which not more than $3,000,000 annually may be used for construction of projects described in subsection (e). Such sums shall remain available until expended. 

(j) REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT PLANNING.—In consultation with appropriate State and Federal agencies, the Secretary may 

develop, at Federal expense, plans for regional management of material dredged in conjunction with the construction, operation, or 

maintenance of navigation projects, including potential beneficial 

uses of dredged material for construction, repair, or rehabilitation 

of public projects for 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. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 219. ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE.—There are authorized to be appropriated for providing 

construction assistance under this section— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(7) $30,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(16); 

¿and

(8) $30,000,000 for the project described in subsection 

(c)(17)¿. ; 

(9) $20,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(20); 

(10) $20,000,000 for the project described in subsection 

(c)(25); 

(11) $15,000,000 for the project described in subsection 

(c)(26); 

(12) $7,800,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(27); 

(13) $18,000,000 for the project described in subsection 

(c)(31); and 

(14) $30,000,000 for the project described in subsection 

(c)(40). 

(f) ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE.—The Secretary may provide assistance under subsection (a) and assistance for construction for the 

following: 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(11) NORTHEAST PENNSYLVANIA.—$20,000,000 for water related infrastructure in the counties of Lackawanna, Lycoming, 

Susquehanna, Wyoming, Pike, Wayne, Sullivan, Bradford, 

¿and Monroe Northumberland, Union, Snyder, and Montour, 

Pennsylvania, including assistance for the Mountoursville Regional Sewer Authority, Lycoming County, Pennsylvania. 

(12) CALUMET REGION, INDIANA.—¿$10,000,000 $30,000,000 

for water related infrastructure projects in the counties of 

172 

¿Lake and Porter Benton, Jasper, Lake, Newton, and Porter, Indiana. 

* * * * * * * 

(21) BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA.—¿$20,000,000 $35,000,000 

for water related infrastructure for the parishes of East Baton 

Rouge, Ascension, and Livingston, Louisiana. 

(22) EAST SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—¿$25,000,000

(A) IN GENERAL.—$25,000,000 for ground water recharge 

and conjunctive use projects in Stockton East Water District, California. 

(B) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit toward the nonFederal share of the cost of the project (i) the cost of design 

and construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the 

project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral 

to the project; and (ii) the cost of in-kind services and materials provided for the project by the non-Federal interest. 

(C) IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS.—The non-Federal interest 

may provide any portion of the non-Federal share of the 

cost of the project in the form of services, materials, supplies, or other in-kind contributions. 

(23) SACRAMENTO AREA, CALIFORNIA.—¿$25,000,000

$35,000,000 for water supply and regional water conservation 

and recycling projects in Placer and El Dorado Counties and 

the San Juan Suburban Water District, California. 

$llllllll for wastewater and water supply infrastructure in the counties of Modoc, Lassen, Plumas, Butte, Sierra, 

Nevada, El Dorado, and Placer, California. 

* * * * * * * 

(25) LAKES MARION AND MOULTRIE, SOUTH CAROLINA.— 

¿$15,000,000 $35,000,000 for wastewater treatment and water 

supply treatment and distribution projects in the counties of 

Calhoun, Clarendon, Colleton, Dorchester, Orangeberg, and 

Sumter, South Carolina. 

* * * * * * * 

(29) OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN.—$20,000,000 for a project 

to eliminate or control sanitary sewer overflows and combined 

sewer overflows in the cities of Berkley, Ferndale, Madison 

Heights, Royal Oak, Birmingham, Hazel Park, Oak Park, 

Southfield, Clawson, Huntington Woods, Pleasant Ridge, and 

Troy, and the village of Beverly Hills, and the Charter Township of Royal Oak, Michigan. 

(30) DESOTO COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI.—¿$20,000,000

$30,000,000 for a wastewater treatment project in the county 

of DeSoto, Mississippi. 

* * * * * * * 

(32) ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI.—¿$15,000,000 $35,000,000 for a 

project to eliminate or control combined sewer overflows in the 

city of St. Louis, Missouri. 

* * * * * * * 

(48) CAMBRIA, CALIFORNIA.—¿$10,300,000

173 

(A) IN GENERAL.—$10,300,000 for desalination infrastructure, Cambria, California. 

(B) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit toward the nonFederal share of the cost of the project not to exceed 

$3,000,000 for the cost of planning and design work carried 

out by the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project. 

* * * * * * * 

(61) GARRISON AND KATHIO ¿TOWNSHIP AND CROW WING AND

MILLE LACS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA.—$11,000,000 for a wastewater infrastructure project for the city of Garrison, Crow 

Wing County, Mille Lacs County, and Kathio Township, Minnesota. Such assistance shall be provided directly to the Garrison-Kathio-West Mille Lacs Lake Sanitary District, Minnesota. 

* * * * * * * 

(64) STANLY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.—$8,900,000 for water 

and wastewater infrastructure, Stanly County, North Carolina. 

* * * * * * * 

(70) WASHINGTON, GREENE, WESTMORELAND, AND FAYETTE

COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA.—¿$8,000,000 $13,300,000 for water 

and wastewater infrastructure, Washington, Greene, Westmoreland, and Fayette Counties, Pennsylvania. (71) PLAQUEMINE, LOUISIANA.—$7,000,000 for sanitary sewer 

and wastewater infrastructure, Plaquemine, Louisiana. 

(72) CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA.—$20,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including wastewater collection systems, 

Charleston, South Carolina. 

(73) CROSS, SOUTH CAROLINA.—$2,000,000 for water-related 

environmental infrastructure, Cross, South Carolina. 

(74) SURFSIDE, SOUTH CAROLINA.—$8,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including stormwater system improvements and ocean outfalls, Surfside, South Carolina. 

(75) NORTH MYRTLE BEACH, SOUTH CAROLINA.—$3,000,000 

for environmental infrastructure, including ocean outfalls, 

North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. 

(76) TIA JUANA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA.—$1,400,000 for waterrelated environmental infrastructure, Tia Juana Valley, California. 

(77) CABARRUS COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.—$4,500,000 for 

water-related infrastructure, Cabarrus County, North Carolina. 

(78) RICHMOND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.—$8,000,000 for 

water-related infrastructure, Richmond County, North Carolina. 

(79) UNION COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.—$9,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, Union County, North Carolina. 

(80) WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.—$35,000,000 for 

implementation of a combined sewer overflow long term control 

plan, Washington, District of Columbia. 

(81) SOUTHERN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.— 

$15,000,000 for environmental infrastructure for the groundwater basin optimization pipeline, Southern Los Angeles County, California. 

174 

(82) INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA.—$6,430,000 for environmental 

infrastructure for Indianapolis, Indiana. 

(83) HENDERSON, NEVADA.—-$5,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, Henderson, Nevada. 

(84) SENNETT, NEW YORK.—$1,500,000 for water infrastructure, Town of Sennett, New York. 

(85) LEDYARD AND MONTVILLE, CONNECTICUT.—$7,113,000 for 

water infrastructure, Ledyard and Montville, Connecticut. (86) AWENDAW, SOUTH CAROLINA.—$2,000,000 for water-related infrastructure, Awendaw, South Carolina. 

(87) ST. CLAIR COUNTY, ALABAMA.—$5,000,000 for water-related infrastructure, St. Clair County, Alabama. (88) EAST BAY, SAN FRANCISCO AND SANTA CLARA AREAS, CALI- FORNIA.—$4,000,000 for a desalination project to serve the East 

Bay, San Francisco, and Santa Clara areas, California. (89) ATHENS, TENNESSEE.—$16,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, Athens, Tennessee. 

(90) WARWICK, NEW YORK.—$1,200,000 for water storage capacity restoration, Warwick, New York. (91) KIRYAS JOEL, NEW YORK.—$20,000,000 for water-related 

infrastructure, Kiryas Joel, New York. (92) WHITTIER, CALIFORNIA.—$8,000,000 for wastewater and 

water-related infrastructure, Whittier, California.’’. 

(93) ANACOSTIA RIVER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND MARY- LAND.—$20,000,000 for environmental infrastructure and resource protection and development to enhance water quality 

and living resources in the Anacostia River watershed, District 

of Columbia and Maryland. (94) DUCHESNE, IRON, AND UINTAH COUNTIES, UTAH.— $10,000,000 for water-related infrastructure, Duchesne, Iron, 

and Uintah Counties, Utah. 

(95) HANCOCK, HARRISON, JACKSON, AND PEARL RIVER COUN- TIES, MISSISSIPPI.—$5,824,300 for water and wastewater-related infrastructure, Hancock, Harrison, Jackson, and Pearl 

River Counties, Mississippi. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE III—MISCELLANEOUS 

PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 313. SOUTH CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION INFRASTRUCTURE AND RESOURCE PROTECTION DEVELOPMENT PILOT PROGRAM. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(h) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply: (1) * * * 

(2) SOUTH CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA.—The term ‘‘south central 

Pennsylvania’’ means ¿Allegheny, Armstrong, Beford, Blair, 

Cambria, Clearfield, Fayette, Franklin, Fulton, Greene, Huntingdon, Indiana, Juniata, Mifflin, Somerset, Snyder, WashVerDate mar 24 2004 14:17 May 03, 2004 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00174 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\PICKUP\HR265.XXX HR265
175 

ington, and Westmoreland Counties Allegheny, Armstrong, 

Bedford, Blair, Cambria, Fayette, Franklin, Fulton, Greene, 

Huntingdon, Indiana, Juniata, Somerset, Washington, and 

Westmoreland Counties, Pennsylvania. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 324. HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS AREA, NEW JERSEY. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to provide ¿design planning, design, and construction assistance to the ¿Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission of the State of New 

Jersey for the development of the Phase I Environmental Improvement Program of the Special Area Management Plan for New Jersey Meadowlands Commission for the development of an environmental improvement program for the Hackensack Meadowlands 

area, New Jersey. 

(b) ¿REQUIRED ELEMENTS.—The program to be developed under 

subsection (a) ¿shall may include at a minimum the following 

areas: 

¿(1) Mitigation, enhancement, and acquisition of significant 

wetlands that contribute to the Meadowlands ecosystem.

(1) Restoration and acquisitions of significant wetlands and 

aquatic habitat that contribute to the Meadowlands ecosystem. 

(2) Development and implementation of a regional system to 

protect, preserve, and monitor wetlands and aquatic habitat. 

* * * * * * * 

¿(7) Research and development for a water quality improvement program.

(7) Research, development, and implementation for a water 

quality improvement program, including restoration of hydrology and tidal flows and remediation of hot spots and other 

sources of contaminants that degrade existing or planned sites. 

(c) COST SHARING.—Total project costs under subsection (a) shall 

be shared at 75 percent Federal and 25 percent non-Federal. The 

non-Federal sponsor shall receive credit for lands, easements, 

rights-of-way, and relocations toward its share of project costs, but 

not to exceed 25 percent of total project costs. The non-Federal 

sponsor may also provide in-kind services, not to exceed 25 percent 

of the total project cost, and may also receive credit for reasonable 

cost of design work completed prior to entering into the partnership 

agreement with the Secretary for a project to be carried out under 

the program developed under subsection (a). Operation and maintenance cost shall be 100 percent non-Federal. 

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATION.—There is authorized to 

be appropriated to carry out this section ¿$5,000,000 $35,000,000 

for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1992. Such sums 

shall remain available until expended. 

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

¿(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may initiate a program to exchange lands above 863 feet in elevation which are excess to the 

operational needs of Allatoona Lake, Georgia, for lands on the 

north side of Allatoona Lake which are needed for wildlife management and for protection of the water quality and overall environment of Allatoona Lake. 

176 

¿(b) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—Land exchanges under the pro- gram to be conducted under subsection (a) shall be subject to the 

following terms and conditions: 

¿(1) Lands acquired under the program must be contiguous 

to the lands in Federal Government ownership on the date of 

the enactment of this Act. 

¿(2) Lands acquired under the program shall be from willing 

sellers only. 

¿(3) The basis for all land exchanges under the program 

shall be a fair market appraisal so that lands exchanged are 

of equal value.

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 340. SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION INFRASTRUCTURE AND RESOURCE PROTECTION 

DEVELOPMENT PILOT PROGRAM. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(f) SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA DEFINED.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘Southern West Virginia’’ means Raleigh, Wayne, 

Cabell, Fayette, Lincoln, Summers, Wyoming, Webster, Mingo, 

McDowell, Logan, Boone, Mercer, Pocahontas, Greenbrier, Nicholas, and Monroe Counties, West Virginia. 

* * * * * * * 

(h) CORPS OF ENGINEERS.—Ten percent of the amounts appropriated to carry out this section for fiscal years 2003 and thereafter 

may be used by the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer 

projects under this section at 100 percent Federal expense. (i) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(b)), for any project 

undertaken under this section, a non-Federal interest may include 

a nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected local government. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE IV—INFRASTRUCTURE TECHNOLOGY, RESEARCH 

AND DEVELOPMENT 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 404. ATLANTIC COAST OF NEW YORK. 

(a) DEVELOPMENT OF PROGRAM.—The Secretary is authorized 

and directed to develop a data collection and monitoring program 

of coastal ¿processes and related environmental processes for the 

Atlantic Coast (and associated back bays) of New York, from Coney 

Island to Montauk Point, with a view toward providing information 

necessary to develop a program for addressing post storm actions, 

environmental restoration or conservation measures for coastal and 

back bays, and long-term shoreline erosion control. The plan for 

collecting data and monitoring information included in such annual report shall be fully coordinated with and agreed to by appropriate agencies of the State of New York. 

(b) ¿INITIAL PLAN.—Not later than 12 months after the date of 

the enactment of this Act, the ANNUAL REPORTS.—The Secretary 

shall provide an ¿initial plan for data collection and monitoring

annual report of data collection and monitoring activities to the 

177 

Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and 

the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the House 

of Representatives. ¿Such initial plan shall be fully coordinated 

with and agreed to by appropriate agencies of the State of New 

York.

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to 

be appropriated $1,400,000 for each of fiscal years 1993, 1994, 

1995, 1996, and 1997, ¿and an additional total of $2,500,000 for fiscal years thereafter $2,500,000 for fiscal years 2000 through 2002, 

and $17,000,000 for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 

2002, to carry out this section. Such sums shall remain available 

until expended. 

* * * * * * * 

SECTION 145 OF THE WATER RESOURCES 

DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1976 

¿SEC. 145. The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief 

of Engineers, is authorized upon request of the State, to place on 

the beaches of such State beach-quality sand which has been 

dredged in constructing and maintaining navigation inlets and 

channels adjacent to such beaches, if the Secretary deems such action to be in the public interest and upon payment by such State 

of 35 percent of the increased cost thereof above the cost required 

for alternative methods of disposing of such sand. At the request 

of the State, the Secretary may enter into an agreement with a political subdivision of the State to place sand on the beaches of the 

political subdivision of the State under the same terms and conditions required in the first sentence of this section; except that the 

political subdivision shall be responsible for providing any payments required under such sentence in lieu of the State. In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall give consideration to the 

schedule of the State, or the schedule of the responsible political 

subdivision of the requesting State, for providing its share of funds 

for placing such sand on the beaches of the State or the political 

subdivision and shall, to the maximum extent practicable, accommodate such schedule.

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1999 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE II—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 212. FLOOD MITIGATION AND RIVERINE RESTORATION PROGRAM. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(e) PRIORITY AREAS.—In carrying out this section, the Secretary 

shall examine appropriate locations, including— 

178 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(27) Susquehanna River watershed, Bradford County, Pennsylvania; ¿and

(28) Clear Creek, Harris, Galveston, and Brazoria Counties, 

Texas¿. ; 

(29) La Crosse County, Wisconsin; 

(30) Crawford County, Wisconsin; 

(31) Buffalo County, Wisconsin; 

(32) Calhoun County, Illinois; 

(33) Saint Charles County, Missouri; 

(34) Saint Louis County, Missouri; 

(35) Dubuque County, Iowa; 

(36) Scott County, Iowa; 

(37) Rock Island County, Illinois; 

(38) Ascension Parish, Louisiana; 

(39) East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana; 

(40) Iberville Parish, Louisiana; and 

(41) Livingston Parish, Louisiana. 

* * * * * * * 

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 es- tablished under section 4(i)(1)(A) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l–6a(i)(1)(A)) 100 

percent of the amount of receipts above a baseline of 

$34,000,000 per each fiscal year received from fees imposed at 

recreation sites under the administrative jurisdiction of the Department of the Army under section 4(b) of that Act (16 U.S.C. 

460l–6a(b)). 

* * * * * * * 

(3) AVAILABILITY.—The amounts withheld shall remain available until ¿September 30, 2005 expended. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE III—PROJECT-RELATED 

PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 310. BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(d) CREDIT.—After completion of the study, the Secretary shall 

credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost 

of nourishment and renourishment associated with the shore protection project incurred by the non-Federal interest to respond to damages to Brevard County beaches that are the result of a Federal 

navigation project, as determined in the final report for the study. 

* * * * * * * 

179 

SEC. 328. WEST BANK OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER (EAST OF HARVEY 

CANAL), LOUISIANA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The project to prevent flood damage and for 

hurricane damage reduction, west bank of the Mississippi River 

(east of Harvey Canal), Louisiana, authorized by section 401(b) of 

the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4128) and 

section 101(a)(17) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 

(110 Stat. 3665), is modified to direct the Secretary to continue 

Federal ¿operation and maintenance operation, maintenance, rehabilitation, repair, and replacement of the portion of the project 

included in the report of the Chief of Engineers dated May 1, 1995, 

referred to as ‘‘¿Algiers Channel Algiers Canal Levees’’. 

* * * * * * * 

(c) COST SHARING.—The non-Federal share of the cost of the 

project shall be 35 percent. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 358. ELIZABETH RIVER, CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA. 

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after ¿September 30, 

1999 May 4, 1997, the city of Chesapeake, Virginia, shall not be 

obligated to make the annual cash contribution required under 

paragraph 1(9) of the Local Cooperation Agreement dated December 12, 1978, between the Government and the city for the project 

for navigation, southern branch of the Elizabeth River, Chesapeake, Virginia. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE IV—STUDIES 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 455. JOHN GLENN GREAT LAKES BASIN PROGRAM. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(g) IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS FOR STUDY.—The non-Federal interest may provide up to 100 percent of the non-Federal share required 

under subsection (f) in the form of services, materials, supplies, or 

other in-kind contributions. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE V—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * * 

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 

180 

this section $30,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2003 ¿and 

2004 through 2015. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 517. EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN PROJECTS. 

The Secretary shall expedite completion of the reports for the fol- lowing projects and, if justified, proceed directly to project 

preconstruction, engineering, and design: (1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

¿(5) Mississippi River, West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, project for waterfront and riverine preservation, restoration, 

and enhancement modifications.

(5) Mississippi River, West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, project for waterfront and riverine preservation, restoration, enhancement modifications, and interpretive center development. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 568. DETROIT RIVER, MICHIGAN. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c) REPAIR AND REHABILITATION.— (1) * * * 

(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out paragraph (1) ¿$1,000,000

$25,000,000 for the period beginning with fiscal year 2000. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 569. NORTHEASTERN MINNESOTA. 

(a) DEFINITION OF NORTHEASTERN MINNESOTA.—In this section, 

the term ‘‘northeastern Minnesota’’ means the counties of Cook, 

Lake, St. Louis, Koochiching, Itasca, Cass, Crow Wing, Aitkin, 

Carlton, Pine, Kanabec, Mille Lacs, Morrison, ¿Benton, 

Sherburne, Beltrami, Hubbard, Wadena, Isanti, and Chisago, 

Minnesota. 

* * * * * * * 

(e) LOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT.— (1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3) COST SHARING.— (A) * * * 

(B) CREDIT FOR DESIGN WORK.—The non-Federal interest 

shall receive credit for the reasonable costs of design work 

completed by the non-Federal interest before entering into 

a local cooperation agreement with the Secretary for a 

project. ¿The credit for the design work shall not exceed 6 percent of the total construction costs of the project.

* * * * * * * 

¿(g) REPORT.—Not later than December 31, 2001, the Secretary 

shall submit to Congress a report on the results of the pilot program carried out under this section, including recommendations 

concerning whether the program should be implemented on a national basis.

181 

(g) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the 

Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(b)), for any project 

undertaken under this section, a non-Federal interest may include 

a nonprofit entity. 

* * * * * * * 

(i) CORPS OF ENGINEERS EXPENSES.—Ten percent of the amounts 

appropriated to carry out this section may be used by the Corps of 

Engineers district offices to administer projects under this section at 

100 percent Federal expense. 

SEC. 570. ALASKA. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(e) LOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENTS.— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3) COST SHARING.— 

(A) * * * 

(B) CREDIT FOR DESIGN WORK.—The non-Federal interest 

shall receive credit for the reasonable costs of design work 

completed by the non-Federal interest before entering into 

a local cooperation agreement with the Secretary for a 

project. ¿The credit for the design work shall not exceed 6 

percent of the total construction costs of the project.

* * * * * * * 

(h) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to 

be appropriated to carry out this section ¿$25,000,000 $40,000,000 

for the period beginning with fiscal year 2000, to remain available 

until expended. 

(i) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the 

Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(b)), for any project 

undertaken under this section, a non-Federal interest may include 

a nonprofit entity, with the consent of the affected local government. 

(j) CORPS OF ENGINEERS EXPENSES.—Ten percent of the amounts 

appropriated to carry out this section may be used by the Corps of 

Engineers district offices to administer projects under this section at 

100 percent Federal expense. 

SEC. 571. CENTRAL WEST VIRGINIA. 

(a) DEFINITION OF CENTRAL WEST VIRGINIA.—In this section, the 

term ‘‘central West Virginia’’ means the counties of Mason, Jackson, Putnam, Kanawha, Roane, Wirt, Calhoun, Clay, ¿Nicholas,

Braxton, ¿Gilmer, Lewis, Upshur, Randolph, Pendleton, Hardy, 

Hampshire, Morgan, Berkeley, and Jefferson, West Virginia. 

* * * * * * * 

(i) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the 

Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(b)), for any project 

undertaken under this section, a non-Federal interest may include 

a nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected local government. 

(j) CORPS OF ENGINEERS EXPENSES.—Ten percent of the amounts 

appropriated to carry out this section may be used by the Corps of 

182 

Engineers district offices to administer projects under this section at 

100 percent Federal expense. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 573. ONONDAGA LAKE, NEW YORK. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(f) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the 

Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(b)), for any project 

carried out under this section, a non-Federal sponsor may include 

a nonprofit entity, with the consent of the affected local government. 

¿(f) (g) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section ¿$10,000,000

$30,000,000. 

¿(g) (h) REPEAL.—Title IV of the Great Lakes Critical Programs 

Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 3010) and section 411 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4648) are repealed effective on the date that is 1 year after the date of enactment of this 

Act. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 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. 594. OHIO. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(g) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to 

be appropriated to carry out this section ¿$60,000,000

$90,000,000. 

* * * * * * * 

SECTION 10 OF THE ACT OF SEPTEMBER 22, 1922 

(Commonly known as the ‘‘Rivers and Harbors Act) 

CHAP. 427.—AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION, REPAIR, AND PRESERVATION

OF CERTAIN PUBLIC WORKS ON RIVERS AND HARBORS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. 

SEC. 10. That any work of improvement herein adopted, and any 

public work on canals, rivers, and harbors, including any planning, 

engineering, design, construction, operation, and maintenance, 

adopted by Congress may be prosecuted by direct appropriations, 

by continuing contracts, or by both direct appropriations and continuing contracts. 

183 

SECTION 309 OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1992 

(Public Law 102–154) 

SEC. 309. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in fiscal 

year 1992 and thereafter, the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of the 

Army, and the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution are authorized to enter into contracts with State and local governmental entities, including local fire districts, for procurement of services in the 

presuppression, detection, and suppression of fires on any units 

within their jurisdiction. 

SECTION 22 OF THE WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT 

ACT OF 1974 

SEC. 22. ¿(a) The Secretary

(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 such 

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) ESTABLISHMENT AND COLLECTION.—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). 

* * * * * * * 

¿(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 subsection (a)(1); except 

that not more than $500,000 shall be expended in any one year 

in any one State. 

(2) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.—There is authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 annually to carry out subsection (a)(2), of 

184 

which not more than $2,000,000 annually may be used by the 

Secretary to enter into cooperative agreements with nonprofit 

organizations to provide assistance to rural and small communities. 

* * * * * * * 

SECTION 21 OF 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.—The Secretary may operate the headwaters reservoirs below the minimum or above the maximum water levels established in subsection (a) in accordance with water control regulation manuals (or revisions thereto) developed by the Secretary, after 

consultation with the Governor of Minnesota and affected tribal 

governments, landowners, and commercial and recreational users. 

The water control regulation manuals (and any revisions thereto) 

shall be effective when the Secretary transmits them to Congress. 

The Secretary shall report to Congress at least 14 days before operating any such headwaters reservoir below the minimum or above 

the maximum water level limits specified in subsection (a); except 

that notification is not required for operations necessary to prevent 

the loss of life or to ensure the safety of the dam or where the drawdown of lake levels is in anticipation of flood control operations. 

MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001 

(Division B of H.R. 5666 as introduced on December 15, 2000 and enacted into law 

by section 1(a)(4) of Public Law 106–554) 

* * * * * * * 

185 

DIVISION B 

TITLE I 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 109. FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS. (a) 

(e) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.— 

(1) * * * 

(2) CREDIT.— 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(C) CREDIT FOR WORK PRIOR TO EXECUTION OF THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT.—The Secretary shall credit toward 

the non-Federal share of the cost of the project (i) the cost 

of construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest 

before the date of the partnership agreement for the project 

if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 

project; and (ii) the cost of land acquisition carried out by 

the non-Federal interest for projects to be carried out under 

this section. 

SECTION 401 OF THE ACT OF NOVEMBER 1, 1988 

(Public Law 100–581) 

AN ACT To establish procedures for review of tribal constitutions and bylaws or 

amendments thereto pursuant to the Act of June 18, 1934 (48 Stat. 987). 

SEC. 401. (a) * * * 

(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of 

the Army shall— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3) make improvements at existing sites and Celilo Village, 

Oregon, including but not limited to dredging at the site at 

Wind River, Washington, and constructing a boat ramp on or 

near the site at Cascade Locks, Oregon. 

SECTION 108 OF THE ENERGY AND WATER 

DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1994 

SEC. 108. (a) IN GENERAL.—¿The Secretary

(1) AUTHORITY TO CONVEY.—The Secretary of the Army is authorized to convey to the City of Galveston, Texas, fee simple 

absolute title to all or any part of a parcel of land containing 

approximately 605 acres known as the San Jacinto Disposal 

Area located on the east end of Galveston Island, Texas, in the 

W.A.A. Wallace Survey, A–647 and A–648, City of Galveston, 

Galveston County, Texas, being part of the old Fort San 

Jacinto site, at the fair market value of such parcel to be determined in accordance with the provisions of subsection (d). Such 

conveyance shall only be made by the Secretary of the Army 

upon the agreement of the Secretary and the City as to all 

compensation due herein. 

(2) LETTER OF INTENT.— 

186 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may provide a letter of 

intent to the city of Galveston for conveyance of less than 

100 acres of the parcel described in subsection (a) for private development purposes if the Secretary receives and approves a proposal by the city designating the land which 

would be subject to such development. (B) DISPOSITION OF SPOIL.—If the Secretary issues a let- ter of intent under subparagraph (A), no additional spoil 

material may be placed on the land designated for private 

development for a period of at least 5 years from the date 

of issuance of the letter to provide the city of Galveston with 

an opportunity to secure private developers, perform appraisals, conduct environmental studies, and provide the 

compensation to the United States required for the conveyance. 

* * * * * * * 

(e) NAVIGATIONAL SERVITUDE.— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3) EXPIRATION DATE.—If, 20 years after the ¿date of the enactment of this Act date of enactment of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 2003, any area or part thereof described in 

subsection (a) is not bulkheaded or filled or occupied by permanent structures, including marina facilities, in accordance with 

the requirements set out in paragraph (2), or if work in connection with any activity permitted in paragraph (2) is not commenced within 5 years after issuance of such permits, then the 

declaration of nonnavigability for such area or part thereof 

shall expire. 

* * * * * * * 

(187) 

COMMITTEE CORRESPONDENCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC, September 4, 2003. 

Hon. DON YOUNG, Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 

Rayburn HOB, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I have reviewed H.R. 2557, the Water Resources Development Act of 2003, as ordered reported by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. I believe that the 

Committee on Resources has a substantial jurisdictional interest in 

many provisions of this important legislation affecting fish and 

wildlife, environmental review and coordination, ecosystem restoration and Native Americans. 

Recognizing that the House of Representatives has a dwindling 

number of legislative days left before the first session of 108th Congress ends, I will forego seeking a sequential referral of H.R. 2557. 

Waiving the Committee on Resources’ right to a referral in this 

case does not waive the Committee’s jurisdiction over any provision 

in H.R. 2557 or similar provisions in other bills. In addition, I ask 

that you support my request to have the Committee on Resources 

represented on the conference on this bill, if a conference is necessary. Finally, I ask that you include this letter in the report accompanying H.R. 2557. 

I appreciate your leadership on this bill and I look forward to 

working with you on H.R. 2557. 

Sincerely, 

RICHARD W. POMBO, 

Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC, September 5, 2003. 

Hon. RICHARD W. POMBO, 

Chairman, Committee on Resources, 

Longworth Building, Washington, DC. 

Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of September 4, 

2003, regarding H.R. 2557, the Water Resources Development Act 

of 2003, and for your willingness to waive consideration of the provisions in the bill that fall within your Committee’s jurisdiction 

under House Rules. 

I agree that your waiving consideration of this provision of H.R. 

2557 does not waive your Committee’s jurisdiction over the bill. I 

also acknowledge your right to seek conferees on any provisions 

that are under your Committee’s jurisdiction during any HouseVerDate mar 24 2004 14:17 May 03, 2004 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00187 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\HR265.XXX HR265
188 

Senate conference on H.R. 2557 or similar legislation, and will support your request for conferees on such provisions. 

As you request, your letter and this response will be included in 

the Committee report on the legislation. 

Thank you for your cooperation in moving this important legislation to the House Floor. 

Sincerely, 

DON YOUNG, Chairman. 

fi