In the Senate of the United States,
July 22, 1999.
Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representa-
tives (H.R. 1480) entitled ‘‘An Act to provide for the con-
servation and development of water and related resources, to
authorize the United States Army Corps of Engineers to con-
struct various projects for improvements to rivers and har-
bors of the United States, and for other purposes.’’, do pass
with the following
AMENDMENT:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the
‘‘Water Resources Development Act of 1999’’.
(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents of this
Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definition of Secretary.
TITLE I—WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS
Sec. 101. Project authorizations.
Sec. 102. Project modifications.
Sec. 103. Project deauthorizations.
HR 1480 EAS
Sec. 104. Studies.
TITLE II—GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 201. Flood hazard mitigation and riverine ecosystem restoration program.
Sec. 202. Shore protection.
Sec. 203. Small flood control authority.
Sec. 204. Use of non-Federal funds for compiling and disseminating information
on floods and flood damages.
Sec. 205. Aquatic ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 206. Beneficial uses of dredged material.
Sec. 207. Voluntary contributions by States and political subdivisions.
Sec. 208. Recreation user fees.
Sec. 209. Water resources development studies for the Pacific region.
Sec. 210. Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers enhancement project.
Sec. 211. Outer Continental Shelf.
Sec. 212. Environmental dredging.
Sec. 213. Benefit of primary flood damages avoided included in benefit-cost anal-
ysis.
Sec. 214. Control of aquatic plant growth.
Sec. 215. Environmental infrastructure.
Sec. 216. Watershed management, restoration, and development.
Sec. 217. Lakes program.
Sec. 218. Sediments decontamination policy.
Sec. 219. Disposal of dredged material on beaches.
Sec. 220. Fish and wildlife mitigation.
Sec. 221. Reimbursement of non-Federal interest.
Sec. 222. National Contaminated Sediment Task Force.
Sec. 223. John Glenn Great Lakes Basin program.
Sec. 224. Projects for improvement of the environment.
Sec. 225. Water quality, environmental quality, recreation, fish and wildlife,
flood control, and navigation.
Sec. 226. Irrigation diversion protection and fisheries enhancement assistance.
Sec. 227. Small storm damage reduction projects.
Sec. 228. Shore damage prevention or mitigation.
Sec. 229. Atlantic coast of New York.
Sec. 230. Accelerated adoption of innovative technologies for contaminated sedi-
ments.
Sec. 231. Mississippi River Commission.
Sec. 232. Use of private enterprises.
TITLE III—PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. Dredging of salt ponds in the State of Rhode Island.
Sec. 302. Upper Susquehanna River basin, Pennsylvania and New York.
Sec. 303. Small flood control projects.
Sec. 304. Small navigation projects.
Sec. 305. Streambank protection projects.
Sec. 306. Aquatic ecosystem restoration, Springfield, Oregon.
Sec. 307. Guilford and New Haven, Connecticut.
Sec. 308. Francis Bland Floodway Ditch.
Sec. 309. Caloosahatchee River basin, Florida.
Sec. 310. Cumberland, Maryland, flood project mitigation.
Sec. 311. City of Miami Beach, Florida.
Sec. 312. Sardis Reservoir, Oklahoma.
HR 1480 EAS
Sec. 313. Upper Mississippi River and Illinois waterway system navigation mod-
ernization.
Sec. 314. Upper Mississippi River management.
Sec. 315. Research and development program for Columbia and Snake Rivers
salmon survival.
Sec. 316. Nine Mile Run habitat restoration, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 317. Larkspur Ferry Channel, California.
Sec. 318. Comprehensive Flood Impact-Response Modeling System.
Sec. 319. Study regarding innovative financing for small and medium-sized
ports.
Sec. 320. Candy Lake project, Osage County, Oklahoma.
Sec. 321. Salcha River and Piledriver Slough, Fairbanks, Alaska.
Sec. 322. Eyak River, Cordova, Alaska.
Sec. 323. North Padre Island storm damage reduction and environmental restora-
tion project.
Sec. 324. Kanopolis Lake, Kansas.
Sec. 325. New York City watershed.
Sec. 326. City of Charlevoix reimbursement, Michigan.
Sec. 327. Hamilton Dam flood control project, Michigan.
Sec. 328. Holes Creek flood control project, Ohio.
Sec. 329. Overflow management facility, Rhode Island.
Sec. 330. Anacostia River aquatic ecosystem restoration, District of Columbia
and Maryland.
Sec. 331. Everglades and south Florida ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 332. Pine Flat Dam, Kings River, California.
Sec. 333. Levees in Elba and Geneva, Alabama.
Sec. 334. Toronto Lake and El Dorado Lake, Kansas.
Sec. 335. San Jacinto disposal area, Galveston, Texas.
Sec. 336. Environmental infrastructure.
Sec. 337. Water monitoring station.
Sec. 338. Upper Mississippi River comprehensive plan.
Sec. 339. McNary Lock and Dam, Washington.
Sec. 340. McNary National Wildlife Refuge.
TITLE IV—CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER BRULE SIOUX
TRIBE, AND STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE
HABITAT RESTORATION
Sec. 401. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and State of
South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration.
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SECRETARY.
In this Act, the term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary
of the Army.
HR 1480 EAS
TITLE I—WATER RESOURCES
PROJECTS
SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.
(a) PROJECTS WITH CHIEF’S REPORTS.—The fol-
lowing projects for water resources development and con-
servation 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 respec-
tive reports designated in this section:
(1) SAND POINT HARBOR, ALASKA.—The project
for navigation, Sand Point Harbor, Alaska: Report of
the Chief of Engineers dated October 13, 1998, at a
total cost of $11,760,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $6,964,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $4,796,000.
(2) RIO SALADO (SALT RIVER), ARIZONA.—The
project for environmental restoration, Rio Salado
(Salt River), Arizona: Report of the Chief of Engi-
neers dated August 20, 1998, at a total cost of
$88,048,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$56,355,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$31,693,000.
(3) TUCSON
DRAINAGE
AREA, ARIZONA.—The
project for flood damage reduction, environmental res-
toration, and recreation, Tucson drainage area, Ari-
HR 1480 EAS
zona: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated May 20,
1998, at a total cost of $29,900,000, with an esti-
mated Federal cost of $16,768,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $13,132,000.
(4) 
AMERICAN
RIVER
WATERSHED, 
CALI-
FORNIA.—
(A) IN
GENERAL.—The project for flood
damage reduction described as the Folsom
Stepped Release Plan in the Corps of Engineers
Supplemental Information Report for the Amer-
ican River Watershed Project, California, dated
March 1996, at a total cost of $505,400,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $329,300,000 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $176,100,000.
(B) IMPLEMENTATION.—
(i) IN
GENERAL.—Implementation of
the measures by the Secretary pursuant to
subparagraph (A) shall be undertaken after
completion of the levee stabilization and
strengthening and flood warning features
authorized by section 101(a)(1) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110
Stat. 3662).
(ii) FOLSOM DAM AND RESERVOIR.—
The Secretary may undertake measures at
HR 1480 EAS
the Folsom Dam and Reservoir authorized
under subparagraph (A) only after review-
ing the design of such measures to deter-
mine if modifications are necessary to ac-
count for changed hydrologic conditions and
any other changed conditions in the project
area, including operational and construc-
tion impacts that have occurred since com-
pletion of the report referred to in subpara-
graph (A). The Secretary shall conduct the
review and develop the modifications to the
Folsom Dam and Reservoir with the full
participation of the Secretary of the Inte-
rior.
(iii) REMAINING
DOWNSTREAM
ELE-
MENTS.—
(I) IN
GENERAL.—Implementa-
tion of the remaining downstream ele-
ments authorized pursuant to subpara-
graph (A) may be undertaken only
after the Secretary, in consultation
with affected Federal, State, regional,
and local entities, has reviewed the ele-
ments to determine if modifications are
necessary to address changes in the hy-
HR 1480 EAS
drologic conditions, any other changed
conditions in the project area that have
occurred since completion of the report
referred to in subparagraph (A) and
any design modifications for the Fol-
som Dam and Reservoir made by the
Secretary in implementing the meas-
ures referred to in clause (ii), and has
issued a report on the review.
(II) 
PRINCIPLES
AND
GUIDE-
LINES.—The review shall be prepared
in accordance with the economic and
environmental principles and guide-
lines for water and related land re-
sources implementation studies, and no
construction may be initiated unless
the Secretary determines that the re-
maining 
downstream 
elements 
are
technically sound, environmentally ac-
ceptable, and economically justified.
(5) LLAGAS
CREEK, CALIFORNIA.—The project
for completion of the remaining reaches of the Nat-
ural Resources Conservation Service flood control
project at Llagas Creek, California, undertaken pur-
suant to section 5 of the Watershed Protection and
HR 1480 EAS
Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 1005), substantially
in accordance with the requirements of local coopera-
tion as specified in section 4 of that Act (16 U.S.C.
1004) at a total cost of $45,000,000, with an esti-
mated Federal cost of $21,800,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $23,200,000.
(6) SOUTH
SACRAMENTO
COUNTY
STREAMS,
CALIFORNIA.—The project for flood control, environ-
mental restoration, and recreation, South Sacramento
County streams, California: Report of the Chief of
Engineers dated October 6, 1998, at a total cost of
$65,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$41,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$24,300,000.
(7) UPPER
GUADALUPE
RIVER, CALIFORNIA.—
Construction of the locally preferred plan 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,
at a total cost of $137,600,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $44,000,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $93,600,000.
(8) 
YUBA
RIVER
BASIN, 
CALIFORNIA.—The
project for flood damage reduction, Yuba River Basin,
California: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated No-
HR 1480 EAS
vember 25, 1998, at a total cost of $26,600,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $17,350,000 and an esti-
mated non-Federal cost of $9,250,000.
(9) DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE: DELAWARE AND
NEW JERSEY-BROADKILL BEACH, DELAWARE.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for hurricane
and storm damage reduction and shore protec-
tion, Delaware Bay coastline: Delaware and New
Jersey-Broadkill Beach, Delaware, Report of the
Chief of Engineers dated August 17, 1998, at a
total cost of $9,049,000, with an estimated Fed-
eral cost of $5,674,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $3,375,000.
(B) 
PERIODIC
NOURISHMENT.—Periodic
nourishment is authorized for a 50-year period
at an estimated average annual cost of $538,200,
with an estimated annual Federal cost of
$349,800 and an estimated annual non-Federal
cost of $188,400.
(10) DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE: DELAWARE AND
NEW JERSEY-PORT MAHON, DELAWARE.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for ecosystem
restoration and shore protection, Delaware Bay
coastline: Delaware and New Jersey-Port Mahon,
Delaware: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated
HR 1480 EAS
September 28, 1998, at a total cost of
$7,644,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$4,969,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$2,675,000.
(B) 
PERIODIC
NOURISHMENT.—Periodic
nourishment is authorized for a 50-year period
at an estimated average annual cost of $234,000,
with an estimated annual Federal cost of
$152,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal
cost of $82,000.
(11) HILLSBORO
AND
OKEECHOBEE
AQUIFER
STORAGE
AND
RECOVERY
PROJECT, FLORIDA.—The
project for aquifer storage and recovery described in
the Corps of Engineers Central and Southern Florida
Water Supply Study, Florida, dated April 1989, and
in House Document 369, dated July 30, 1968, at a
total cost of $27,000,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $13,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $13,500,000.
(12) INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.—Notwith-
standing section 1001(a) of the Water Resources De-
velopment Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(a)), the
project for shoreline protection, Indian River County,
Florida, authorized by section 501(a) of that Act (100
HR 1480 EAS
Stat. 4134), shall remain authorized for construction
through December 31, 2002.
(13) LIDO KEY BEACH, SARASOTA, FLORIDA.—
(A) IN
GENERAL.—The project for shore
protection at Lido Key Beach, Sarasota, Florida,
authorized by section 101 of the River and Har-
bor Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1819) and deauthorized
by operation of section 1001(b) of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
579a(b)), is authorized to be carried out by the
Secretary at a total cost of $5,200,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $3,380,000 and an esti-
mated non-Federal cost of $1,820,000.
(B) 
PERIODIC
NOURISHMENT.—Periodic
nourishment is authorized for a 50-year period
at an estimated average annual cost of $602,000,
with an estimated annual Federal cost of
$391,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal
cost of $211,000.
(14) TAMPA HARBOR-BIG BEND CHANNEL, FLOR-
IDA.—The project for navigation, Tampa Harbor-Big
Bend Channel, Florida: Report of the Chief of Engi-
neers dated October 13, 1998, at a total cost of
$12,356,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
HR 1480 EAS
$6,235,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$6,121,000.
(15) 
BRUNSWICK
HARBOR, 
GEORGIA.—The
project for navigation, Brunswick Harbor, Georgia:
Report of the Chief of Engineers dated October 6,
1998, at a total cost of $50,717,000, with an esti-
mated Federal cost of $32,966,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $17,751,000.
(16) 
BEARGRASS
CREEK, 
KENTUCKY.—The
project for flood damage reduction, Beargrass Creek,
Kentucky: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated May
12, 1998, at a total cost of $11,172,000, with an esti-
mated Federal cost of $7,262,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $3,910,000.
(17) AMITE
RIVER
AND
TRIBUTARIES, LOU-
ISIANA, EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH WATERSHED.—
The project for flood damage reduction and recre-
ation, Amite River and Tributaries, Louisiana, East
Baton Rouge Parish Watershed: Report of the Chief of
Engineers, dated December 23, 1996, at a total cost
of $112,900,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$73,400,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$39,500,000.
(18) BALTIMORE
HARBOR
ANCHORAGES
AND
CHANNELS, MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA.—
HR 1480 EAS
(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for naviga-
tion, Baltimore Harbor Anchorages and Chan-
nels, Maryland and Virginia, Report of the Chief
of Engineers dated June 8, 1998, at a total cost
of $28,426,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$18,994,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $9,432,000.
(B) CREDIT
OR
REIMBURSEMENT.—If a
project cooperation agreement is entered into, the
non-Federal interest shall receive credit or reim-
bursement of the Federal share of project costs for
construction work performed by the non-Federal
interest before execution of the project coopera-
tion agreement if the Secretary finds the work to
be integral to the project.
(C) STUDY OF MODIFICATIONS.—During the
preconstruction engineering and design phase of
the project, the Secretary shall conduct a study
to determine the feasibility of undertaking fur-
ther modifications to the Dundalk Marine Ter-
minal access channels, consisting of—
(i) deepening and widening the Dun-
dalk access channels to a depth of 50 feet
and a width of 500 feet;
HR 1480 EAS
(ii) widening the flares of the access
channels; and
(iii) providing a new flare on the west
side of the entrance to the east access chan-
nel.
(D) REPORT.—
(i) IN
GENERAL.—Not later than
March 1, 2000, the Secretary shall submit
to Congress a report on the study under
subparagraph (C).
(ii) CONTENTS.—The report shall in-
clude a determination of—
(I) the feasibility of performing
the project modifications described in
subparagraph (C); and
(II) the appropriateness of cred-
iting or reimbursing the Federal share
of the cost of the work performed by the
non-Federal interest on the project
modifications.
(19) RED
LAKE
RIVER
AT
CROOKSTON, MIN-
NESOTA.—The project for flood damage reduction,
Red Lake River at Crookston, Minnesota: Report of
the Chief of Engineers, dated April 20, 1998, at a
total cost of $8,950,000, with an estimated Federal
HR 1480 EAS
cost of $5,720,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $3,230,000.
(20) NEW JERSEY SHORE PROTECTION, TOWN-
SENDS INLET TO CAPE MAY INLET, NEW JERSEY.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for hurricane
and storm damage reduction, ecosystem restora-
tion, and shore protection, New Jersey coastline,
Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet, New Jersey:
Report of the Chief of Engineers dated September
28, 1998, at a total cost of $56,503,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $36,727,000 and an es-
timated non-Federal cost of $19,776,000.
(B) 
PERIODIC
NOURISHMENT.—Periodic
nourishment is authorized for a 50-year period
at 
an 
estimated 
average 
annual 
cost 
of
$2,000,000, with an estimated annual Federal
cost of $1,300,000 and an estimated annual non-
Federal cost of $700,000.
(21) PARK RIVER, NORTH DAKOTA.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to the condition
stated in subparagraph (B), the project for flood
control, Park River, Grafton, North Dakota, au-
thorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4121) and
deauthorized under section 1001(a) of the Water
HR 1480 EAS
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
579a), at a total cost of $28,100,000, with an es-
timated Federal cost of $18,265,000 and an esti-
mated non-Federal cost of $9,835,000.
(B) CONDITION.—No construction may be
initiated unless the Secretary determines through
a general reevaluation report using current data,
that the project is technically sound, environ-
mentally acceptable, and economically justified.
(22) SALT CREEK, GRAHAM, TEXAS.—The project
for flood control, environmental restoration, and
recreation, Salt Creek, Graham, Texas: Report of the
Chief of Engineers dated October 6, 1998, at a total
cost of $10,080,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$6,560,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$3,520,000.
(b) PROJECTS SUBJECT TO A FINAL REPORT.—The
following projects for water resources development and con-
servation and other purposes are authorized to be carried
out by the Secretary substantially in accordance with the
plans, and subject to the conditions recommended in a final
report of the Chief of Engineers as approved by the Sec-
retary, if a favorable report of the Chief is completed not
later than December 31, 1999:
HR 1480 EAS
(1) NOME HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS, ALASKA.—
The project for navigation, Nome Harbor Improve-
ments, Alaska, at a total cost of $24,608,000, with an
estimated first Federal cost of $19,660,000 and an es-
timated first non-Federal cost of $4,948,000.
(2) SEWARD HARBOR, ALASKA.—The project for
navigation, Seward Harbor, Alaska, at a total cost of
$12,240,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of
$4,364,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of
$7,876,000.
(3) 
ARROYO
PASAJERO, 
CALIFORNIA..—The
project for flood damage reduction, Arroyo Pasajero,
California, at a total cost of $260,700,000, with an
estimated first Federal cost of $170,100,000 and an
estimated first non-Federal cost of $90,600,000.
(4) HAMILTON
AIRFIELD
WETLAND
RESTORA-
TION, CALIFORNIA.—The project for environmental
restoration at Hamilton Airfield, California, at a
total cost of $55,200,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $41,400,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $13,800,000.
(5) OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for naviga-
tion and environmental restoration, Oakland,
California, at a total cost of $214,340,000, with
HR 1480 EAS
an estimated Federal cost of $143,450,000 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $70,890,000.
(B) BERTHING AREAS AND OTHER LOCAL
SERVICE FACILITIES.—The non-Federal interests
shall provide berthing areas and other local serv-
ice facilities necessary for the project at an esti-
mated cost of $42,310,000.
(6) SUCCESS
DAM, TULE
RIVER
BASIN, CALI-
FORNIA.—The project for flood damage reduction and
water supply, Success Dam, Tule River basin, Cali-
fornia, at a total cost of $17,900,000, with an esti-
mated first Federal cost of $11,635,000 and an esti-
mated first non-Federal cost of $6,265,000.
(7) DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE: DELAWARE AND
NEW JERSEY-ROOSEVELT INLET-LEWES BEACH, DELA-
WARE.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for naviga-
tion mitigation, shore protection, and hurricane
and storm damage reduction, Delaware Bay
coastline: Delaware and New Jersey-Roosevelt
Inlet-Lewes Beach, Delaware, at a total cost of
$3,393,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$2,620,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$773,000.
HR 1480 EAS
(B) 
PERIODIC
NOURISHMENT.—Periodic
nourishment is authorized for a 50-year period
at an estimated average annual cost of $196,000,
with an estimated annual Federal cost of
$152,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal
cost of $44,000.
(8) DELAWARE COAST FROM CAPE HENELOPEN
TO FENWICK ISLAND, BETHANY BEACH/SOUTH BETH-
ANY BEACH, DELAWARE.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for hurricane
and storm damage reduction and shore protec-
tion, Delaware Coast from Cape Henelopen to
Fenwick Island, Bethany Beach/South Bethany
Beach, Delaware, at a total cost of $22,205,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $14,433,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $7,772,000.
(B) 
PERIODIC
NOURISHMENT.—Periodic
nourishment is authorized for a 50-year period
at 
an 
estimated 
average 
annual 
cost 
of
$1,584,000, with an estimated annual Federal
cost of $1,030,000 and an estimated annual non-
Federal cost of $554,000.
(9) 
JACKSONVILLE
HARBOR, 
FLORIDA.—The
project for navigation, Jacksonville Harbor, Florida,
at a total cost of $26,116,000, with an estimated Fed-
HR 1480 EAS
eral cost of $9,129,000 and an estimated non-Federal
cost of $16,987,000.
(10) LITTLE
TALBOT
ISLAND, DUVAL
COUNTY,
FLORIDA.—The project for hurricane and storm dam-
age prevention and shore protection, Little Talbot Is-
land, Duval County, Florida, at a total cost of
$5,915,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$3,839,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$2,076,000.
(11) PONCE DE LEON INLET, VOLUSIA COUNTY,
FLORIDA.—The project for navigation and recreation,
Ponce de Leon Inlet, Volusia County, Florida, at a
total cost of $5,454,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $2,988,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $2,466,000.
(12) SAVANNAH
HARBOR
EXPANSION, 
GEOR-
GIA.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subparagraph
(B), the Secretary may carry out the project for
navigation, Savannah Harbor expansion, Geor-
gia, substantially in accordance with the plans,
and subject to the conditions, recommended in a
final report of the Chief of Engineers, with such
modifications as the Secretary deems appro-
priate, at a total cost of $230,174,000 (of which
HR 1480 EAS
amount a portion is authorized for implementa-
tion of the mitigation plan), with an estimated
Federal cost of $145,160,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $85,014,000.
(B) CONDITIONS.—The project authorized
by subparagraph (A) may be carried out only
after—
(i) the Secretary, in consultation with
affected Federal, State, regional, and local
entities, has reviewed and approved an En-
vironmental 
Impact 
Statement 
that
includes—
(I) an analysis of the impacts of
project depth alternatives ranging from
42 feet through 48 feet; and
(II) a selected plan for navigation
and associated mitigation plan as re-
quired by section 906(a) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33
U.S.C. 2283); and
(ii) the Secretary of the Interior, the
Secretary of Commerce, and the Adminis-
trator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, with the Secretary, have approved
the selected plan and have determined that
HR 1480 EAS
the mitigation plan adequately addresses
the potential environmental impacts of the
project.
(C) 
MITIGATION
REQUIREMENTS.—The
mitigation plan shall be implemented in advance
of or concurrently with construction of the
project.
(13) TURKEY CREEK BASIN, KANSAS CITY, MIS-
SOURI AND KANSAS CITY, KANSAS.—The project for
flood damage reduction, Turkey Creek Basin, Kansas
City, Missouri, and Kansas City, Kansas, at a total
cost of $42,875,000 with an estimated Federal cost of
$25,596,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$17,279,000.
(14) DELAWARE
BAY
COASTLINE, 
OAKWOOD
BEACH, NEW JERSEY.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for hurricane
and storm damage reduction, Delaware Bay
coastline, Oakwood Beach, New Jersey, at a total
cost of $3,380,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $2,197,000 and an estimated non-Federal
cost of $1,183,000.
(B) 
PERIODIC
NOURISHMENT.—Periodic
nourishment is authorized for a 50-year period
at an estimated average annual cost of $90,000,
HR 1480 EAS
with an estimated annual Federal cost of
$58,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal
cost of $32,000.
(15) DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, REEDS BEACH
AND PIERCES POINT, NEW JERSEY.—The project for
environmental restoration, Delaware Bay coastline,
Reeds Beach and Pierces Point, New Jersey, at a
total cost of $4,057,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $2,637,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $1,420,000.
(16) DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, VILLAS AND VI-
CINITY, NEW JERSEY.—The project for environmental
restoration, Delaware Bay coastline, Villas and vicin-
ity, New Jersey, at a total cost of $7,520,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $4,888,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $2,632,000.
(17) LOWER
CAPE
MAY
MEADOWS, CAPE
MAY
POINT, NEW JERSEY.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for naviga-
tion mitigation, ecosystem restoration, shore pro-
tection, and hurricane and storm damage reduc-
tion, Lower Cape May Meadows, Cape May
Point, New Jersey, at a total cost of $15,952,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $12,118,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,834,000.
HR 1480 EAS
(B) 
PERIODIC
NOURISHMENT.—Periodic
nourishment is authorized for a 50-year period
at 
an 
estimated 
average 
annual 
cost 
of
$1,114,000, with an estimated annual Federal
cost of $897,000 and an estimated annual non-
Federal cost of $217,000.
(18) NEW JERSEY SHORE PROTECTION, BRIGAN-
TINE INLET TO GREAT EGG HARBOR, BRIGANTINE IS-
LAND, NEW JERSEY.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for hurricane
and storm damage reduction and shore protec-
tion, New Jersey Shore protection, Brigantine
Inlet to Great Egg Harbor, Brigantine Island,
New Jersey, at a total cost of $4,970,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $3,230,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $1,740,000.
(B) 
PERIODIC
NOURISHMENT.—Periodic
nourishment is authorized for a 50-year period
at an estimated average annual cost of $465,000,
with an estimated annual Federal cost of
$302,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal
cost of $163,000.
(19) COLUMBIA RIVER CHANNEL DEEPENING, OR-
EGON AND WASHINGTON.—
HR 1480 EAS
(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for naviga-
tion, Columbia River channel deepening, Oregon
and Washington, at a total cost of $176,700,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $116,900,000
and 
an 
estimated 
non-Federal 
cost 
of
$59,800,000.
(B) BERTHING AREAS AND OTHER LOCAL
SERVICE FACILITIES.—The non-Federal interests
shall provide berthing areas and other local serv-
ice facilities necessary for the project at an esti-
mated cost of $1,200,000.
(20) 
MEMPHIS
HARBOR, 
MEMPHIS, 
TEN-
NESSEE.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subparagraph
(B), the project for navigation, Memphis Harbor,
Memphis, 
Tennessee, 
authorized 
by 
section
601(a) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1986 (100 Stat. 4145) and deauthorized under
section 1001(a) of that Act (33 U.S.C. 579a(a))
is authorized to be carried out by the Secretary.
(B) CONDITION.—No construction may be
initiated unless the Secretary determines through
a general reevaluation report using current data,
that the project is technically sound, environ-
mentally acceptable, and economically justified.
HR 1480 EAS
(21) JOHNSON CREEK, ARLINGTON, TEXAS.—The
project for flood damage reduction, environmental res-
toration, and recreation, Johnson Creek, Arlington,
Texas, at a total cost of $20,300,000, with an esti-
mated Federal cost of $12,000,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $8,300,000.
(22) HOWARD HANSON DAM, WASHINGTON.—The
project for water supply and ecosystem restoration,
Howard Hanson Dam, Washington, at a total cost of
$75,600,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$36,900,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$38,700,000.
SEC. 102. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS.
(a) PROJECTS WITH REPORTS.—
(1) SAN
LORENZO
RIVER, CALIFORNIA.—The
project for flood control, San Lorenzo River, Cali-
fornia, authorized by section 101(a)(5) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3663),
is modified to authorize the Secretary to include as
a part of the project streambank erosion control meas-
ures to be undertaken substantially in accordance
with the report entitled ‘‘Bank Stabilization Concept,
Laurel Street Extension’’, dated April 23, 1998, at a
total cost of $4,000,000, with an estimated Federal
HR 1480 EAS
cost of $2,600,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $1,400,000.
(2) ST. JOHNS
COUNTY
SHORE
PROTECTION,
FLORIDA.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for hurricane
and storm damage reduction and shore protec-
tion, St. Johns County, Florida, authorized by
section 501(a) of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4133) is modified
to authorize the Secretary to include navigation
mitigation as a purpose of the project in accord-
ance with the report of the Corps of Engineers
dated November 18, 1998, at a total cost of
$16,086,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$12,949,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $3,137,000.
(B) 
PERIODIC
NOURISHMENT.—Periodic
nourishment is authorized for a 50-year period
at 
an 
estimated 
average 
annual 
cost 
of
$1,251,000, with an estimated annual Federal
cost of $1,007,000 and an estimated annual non-
Federal cost of $244,000.
(3) WOOD RIVER, GRAND ISLAND, NEBRASKA.—
The project for flood control, Wood River, Grand Is-
land, Nebraska, authorized by section 101(a)(19) of
HR 1480 EAS
the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110
Stat. 3665) is modified to authorize the Secretary to
construct the project in accordance with the Corps of
Engineers report dated June 29, 1998, at a total cost
of $17,039,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$9,730,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$7,309,000.
(4) ABSECON ISLAND, NEW JERSEY.—The project
for Absecon Island, New Jersey, authorized by section
101(b)(13) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (110 Stat. 3668) is amended to authorize the
Secretary to reimburse the non-Federal interests for
all work performed, consistent with the authorized
project.
(5) ARTHUR KILL, NEW YORK AND NEW JER-
SEY.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for naviga-
tion, Arthur Kill, New York and New Jersey, au-
thorized by section 202(b) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4098) and
modified by section 301(b)(11) of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat.
3711), is further modified to authorize the Sec-
retary to construct the project at a total cost of
$276,800,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
HR 1480 EAS
$183,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $93,600,000.
(B) BERTHING AREAS AND OTHER LOCAL
SERVICE FACILITIES.—The non-Federal interests
shall provide berthing areas and other local serv-
ice facilities necessary for the project at an esti-
mated cost of $38,900,000.
(6) WAURIKA LAKE, OKLAHOMA, WATER CONVEY-
ANCE FACILITIES.—The requirement for the Waurika
Project Master Conservancy District to repay the
$2,900,000 in costs (including interest) resulting from
the October 1991 settlement of the claim of the Trav-
elers Insurance Company before the United States
Claims Court related to construction of the water con-
veyance facilities authorized by the first section of
Public Law 88–253 (77 Stat. 841) is waived.
(b) PROJECTS SUBJECT TO REPORTS.—The following
projects are modified as follows, except that no funds may
be obligated to carry out work under such modifications
until completion of a final report by the Chief of Engineers,
as approved by the Secretary, finding that such work is
technically sound, environmentally acceptable, and eco-
nomically justified, as applicable:
(1) FORT
PIERCE
SHORE
PROTECTION, FLOR-
IDA.—
HR 1480 EAS
(A) IN GENERAL.—The Fort Pierce, Flor-
ida, shore protection and harbor mitigation
project authorized by section 301 of the River
and Harbor Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1092) and sec-
tion 506(a)(2) of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3757) is modified
to include an additional 1-mile extension of the
project and increased Federal participation in
accordance with section 101(c) of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
2211(c)), as described in the general reevaluation
report approved by the Chief of Engineers, at an
estimated total cost of $9,128,000, with an esti-
mated Federal cost of $7,074,000 and an esti-
mated non-Federal cost of $2,054,000.
(B) 
PERIODIC
NOURISHMENT.—Periodic
nourishment is authorized for a 50-year period
for the modified project, at an estimated annual
cost of $559,000, with an estimated annual Fed-
eral cost of $433,000 and an estimated annual
non-Federal cost of $126,000.
(2) THORNTON RESERVOIR, COOK COUNTY, ILLI-
NOIS.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The Thornton Reservoir
project, an element of the project for flood con-
HR 1480 EAS
trol, Chicagoland Underflow Plan, Illinois, au-
thorized by section 3(a)(5) of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat.
4013), is modified to authorize the Secretary to
include additional permanent flood control stor-
age attributable to the Natural Resources Con-
servation Service Thornton Reservoir (Structure
84), Little Calumet River Watershed, Illinois,
approved under the Watershed Protection and
Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
(B) COST SHARING.—Costs for the Thornton
Reservoir project shall be shared in accordance
with section 103 of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213).
(C) TRANSITIONAL
STORAGE.—The Sec-
retary of Agriculture may cooperate with non-
Federal interests to provide, on a transitional
basis, flood control storage for the Natural Re-
sources Conservation Service Thornton Reservoir
(Structure 84) project in the west lobe of the
Thornton quarry.
(D) CREDITING.—The Secretary may credit
against the non-Federal share of the Thornton
Reservoir project all design and construction
HR 1480 EAS
costs incurred by the non-Federal interests before
the date of enactment of this Act.
(E) REEVALUATION
REPORT.—The Sec-
retary shall determine the credits authorized by
subparagraph (D) that are integral to the Thorn-
ton Reservoir project and the current total
project costs based on a limited reevaluation re-
port.
(3) WELLS HARBOR, WELLS, MAINE.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for naviga-
tion, Wells Harbor, Maine, authorized by section
101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (74
Stat. 480), is modified to authorize the Secretary
to realign the channel and anchorage areas based
on a harbor design capacity of 150 craft.
(B) DEAUTHORIZATION
OF
CERTAIN
POR-
TIONS.—The following portions of the project are
not authorized after the date of enactment of this
Act:
(i) The portion of the 6-foot channel
the boundaries of which begin at a point
with coordinates N177,992.00, E394,831.00,
thence running south 83 degrees 58 minutes
14.8 seconds west 10.38 feet to a point
N177,990.91, E394,820.68, thence running
HR 1480 EAS
south 11 degrees 46 minutes 47.7 seconds
west 991.76 feet to a point N177,020.04,
E394,618.21, thence running south 78 de-
grees 13 minutes 45.7 seconds east 10.00 feet
to a point N177,018.00, E394,628.00, thence
running north 11 degrees 46 minutes 22.8
seconds east 994.93 feet to the point of ori-
gin.
(ii) The portion of the 6-foot anchorage
the boundaries of which begin at a point
with coordinates N177,778.07, E394,336.96,
thence running south 51 degrees 58 minutes
32.7 seconds west 15.49 feet to a point
N177,768.53, E394,324.76, thence running
south 11 degrees 46 minutes 26.5 seconds
west 672.87 feet to a point N177,109.82,
E394,187.46, thence running south 78 de-
grees 13 minutes 45.7 seconds east 10.00 feet
to a point N177,107.78, E394,197.25, thence
running north 11 degrees 46 minutes 25.4
seconds east 684.70 feet to the point of ori-
gin.
(iii) The portion of the 10-foot settling
basin the boundaries of which begin at a
point 
with 
coordinates 
N177,107.78,
HR 1480 EAS
E394,197.25, thence running north 78 de-
grees 13 minutes 45.7 seconds west 10.00
feet to a point N177,109.82, E394,187.46,
thence running south 11 degrees 46 minutes
15.7 seconds west 300.00 feet to a point
N176,816.13, E394,126.26, thence running
south 78 degrees 12 minutes 21.4 seconds
east 9.98 feet to a point N176,814.09,
E394,136.03, thence running north 11 de-
grees 46 minutes 29.1 seconds east 300.00
feet to the point of origin.
(iv) The portion of the 10-foot settling
basin the boundaries of which begin at a
point 
with 
coordinates 
N177,018.00,
E394,628.00, thence running north 78 de-
grees 13 minutes 45.7 seconds west 10.00
feet to a point N177,020.04, E394,618.21,
thence running south 11 degrees 46 minutes
44.0 seconds west 300.00 feet to a point
N176,726.36, E394,556.97, thence running
south 78 degrees 12 minutes 30.3 seconds
east 10.03 feet to a point N176,724.31,
E394,566.79, thence running north 11 de-
grees 46 minutes 22.4 seconds east 300.00
feet to the point of origin.
HR 1480 EAS
(C) REDESIGNATIONS AS PART OF THE 6-
FOOT
ANCHORAGE.—The following portions of
the project shall be redesignated as part of the 6-
foot anchorage:
(i) The portion of the 6-foot channel
the boundaries of which begin at a point
with coordinates N177,990.91, E394,820.68,
thence running south 83 degrees 58 minutes
40.8 seconds west 94.65 feet to a point
N177,980.98, E394,726.55, thence running
south 11 degrees 46 minutes 22.4 seconds
west 962.83 feet to a point N177,038.40,
E394,530.10, thence running south 78 de-
grees 13 minutes 45.7 seconds east 90.00 feet
to a point N177,020.04, E394,618.21, thence
running north 11 degrees 46 minutes 47.7
seconds east 991.76 feet to the point of ori-
gin.
(ii) The portion of the 10-foot inner
harbor settling basin the boundaries of
which begin at a point with coordinates
N177,020.04, E394,618.21, thence running
north 78 degrees 13 minutes 30.5 seconds
west 160.00 feet to a point N177,052.69,
E394,461.58, thence running south 11 de-
HR 1480 EAS
grees 46 minutes 45.4 seconds west 299.99
feet to a point N176,759.02, E394,400.34,
thence running south 78 degrees 13 minutes
17.9 seconds east 160 feet to a point
N176,726.36, E394,556.97, thence running
north 11 degrees 46 minutes 44.0 seconds
east 300.00 feet to the point of origin.
(D) REDESIGNATION AS PART OF THE 6-
FOOT CHANNEL.—The following portion of the
project shall be redesignated as part of the 6-foot
channel: the portion the boundaries of which
begin at a point with coordinates N178,102.26,
E394,751.83, thence running south 51 degrees 59
minutes 42.1 seconds west 526.51 feet to a point
N177,778.07, E394,336.96, thence running south
11 degrees 46 minutes 26.6 seconds west 511.83
feet to a point N177,277.01, E394,232.52, thence
running south 78 degrees 13 minutes 17.9 sec-
onds east 80.00 feet to a point N177,260.68,
E394,310.84, thence running north 11 degrees 46
minutes 24.8 seconds east 482.54 feet to a point
N177,733.07, E394,409.30, thence running north
51 degrees 59 minutes 41.0 seconds east 402.63
feet to a point N177,980.98, E394,726.55, thence
HR 1480 EAS
running north 11 degrees 46 minutes 27.6 sec-
onds east 123.89 feet to the point of origin.
(E) REALIGNMENT.—The portion of the
project described in subparagraph (D) shall be
realigned to include the area located south of the
inner harbor settling basin in existence on the
date of enactment of this Act beginning at a
point 
with 
coordinates 
N176,726.36,
E394,556.97, thence running north 78 degrees 13
minutes 17.9 seconds west 160.00 feet to a point
N176,759.02, E394,400.34, thence running south
11 degrees 47 minutes 03.8 seconds west 45 feet
to a point N176,714.97, E394,391.15, thence
running south 78 degrees 13 minutes 17.9 sec-
onds 160.00 feet to a point N176,682.31,
E394,547.78, thence running north 11 degrees 47
minutes 03.8 seconds east 45 feet to the point of
origin.
(F) RELOCATION.—The Secretary may relo-
cate the settling basin feature of the project to the
outer harbor between the jetties.
(G) CONSERVATION
EASEMENT.—The Sec-
retary of the Interior, acting through the Direc-
tor of the United States Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice, may accept a conveyance of the right, but
HR 1480 EAS
not the obligation, to enforce a conservation ease-
ment to be held by the State of Maine over cer-
tain land owned by the town of Wells, Maine,
that is adjacent to the Rachel Carson National
Wildlife Refuge.
(4) NEW YORK HARBOR AND ADJACENT CHAN-
NELS, PORT JERSEY, NEW JERSEY.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for naviga-
tion, New York Harbor and adjacent channels,
Port Jersey, New Jersey, authorized by section
201(b) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1986 (100 Stat. 4091), is modified to author-
ize the Secretary to construct the project at a
total cost of $102,545,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $76,909,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $25,636,000.
(B) BERTHING AREAS AND OTHER LOCAL
FACILITIES.—The non-Federal interests shall
provide berthing areas and other local service fa-
cilities necessary for the project at an estimated
cost of $722,000.
(5) WILLAMETTE
RIVER
TEMPERATURE
CON-
TROL, MCKENZIE
SUBBASIN, OREGON.—The project
for environmental restoration, Willamette River Tem-
perature Control, McKenzie Subbasin, Oregon, au-
HR 1480 EAS
thorized by section 101(a)(25) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3665), is modi-
fied to authorize the Secretary to construct the project
at a total Federal cost of $64,741,000.
(6) WHITE RIVER BASIN, ARKANSAS AND MIS-
SOURI.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood con-
trol, power generation and other purposes at the
White River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri, au-
thorized by section 4 of the Act of June 28, 1938
(52 Stat. 1218, chapter 795), and modified by
House Document 917, Seventy-sixth Congress,
Third Session, and House Document 290, Sev-
enty-seventh Congress, First Session, approved
August 18, 1941, and House Document 499,
Eighty-third Congress, Second Session, approved
September 3, 1954, and by section 304 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110
Stat. 3711) is modified to authorize the Sec-
retary to provide minimum flows necessary to
sustain tail water trout fisheries by reallocating
the following amounts of project storage: Beaver
Lake, 3.5 feet; Table Rock, 2 feet; Bull Shoals
Lake, 5 feet; Norfork Lake, 3.5 feet; and Greers
Ferry Lake, 3 feet. The Secretary shall complete
HR 1480 EAS
such report and submit it to the Congress by
July 30, 2000.
(B) REPORT.—The report of the Chief of
Engineers, required by this subsection, shall also
include a determination that the modification of
the project in subparagraph (A) does not ad-
versely affect other authorized project purposes,
and that no Federal costs are incurred.
(c) BEAVER LAKE, ARKANSAS, WATER SUPPLY STOR-
AGE REALLOCATION.—The Secretary shall reallocate ap-
proximately 31,000 additional acre-feet at Beaver Lake, Ar-
kansas, to water supply storage at no cost to the Beaver
Water District or the Carroll-Boone Water District, except
that at no time shall the bottom of the conservation pool
be at an elevation that is less than 1,076 feet, NGVD.
(d) TOLCHESTER CHANNEL S-TURN, BALTIMORE,
MARYLAND.—The project for navigation, Baltimore Harbor
and Channels, Maryland, authorized by section 101 of the
River and Harbor Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 297), is modified
to direct the Secretary to straighten the Tolchester Channel
S-turn as part of project maintenance.
(e) TROPICANA WASH
AND FLAMINGO WASH, NE-
VADA.—Any Federal costs associated with the Tropicana
and Flamingo Washes, Nevada, authorized by section
101(13) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992
HR 1480 EAS
(106 Stat. 4803), incurred by the non-Federal interest to
accelerate or modify construction of the project, in coopera-
tion with the Corps of Engineers, shall be considered to be
eligible for reimbursement by the Secretary.
(f) REDIVERSION PROJECT, COOPER RIVER, CHARLES-
TON HARBOR, SOUTH CAROLINA.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The rediversion project, Coo-
per River, Charleston Harbor, South Carolina, au-
thorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act
of 1968 (82 Stat. 731) and modified by title I of the
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act,
1992 (105 Stat. 517), is modified to authorize the
Secretary to pay the State of South Carolina not
more than $3,750,000, if the State enters into an
agreement with the Secretary providing that the State
shall perform all future operation of the St. Stephen,
South Carolina, fish lift (including associated studies
to assess the efficacy of the fish lift).
(2) CONTENTS.—The agreement shall specify the
terms and conditions under which payment will be
made and the rights of, and remedies available to, the
Secretary to recover all or a portion of the payment
if the State suspends or terminates operation of the
fish lift or fails to perform the operation in a manner
satisfactory to the Secretary.
HR 1480 EAS
(3) MAINTENANCE.—Maintenance of the fish lift
shall remain a Federal responsibility.
(g) TRINITY RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, TEXAS.—The
project for flood control and navigation, Trinity River and
tributaries, Texas, authorized by section 301 of the River
and Harbor Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1091), is modified to
add environmental restoration as a project purpose.
(h) BEACH EROSION CONTROL AND HURRICANE PRO-
TECTION, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA.—
(1) ACCEPTANCE OF FUNDS.—In any fiscal year
that the Corps of Engineers does not receive appro-
priations sufficient to meet expected project expendi-
tures for that year, the Secretary shall accept from the
city of Virginia Beach, Virginia, for purposes of the
project for beach erosion control and hurricane protec-
tion, Virginia Beach, Virginia, authorized by section
501(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (100 Stat. 4136), such funds as the city may
advance for the project.
(2) REPAYMENT.—Subject to the availability of
appropriations, the Secretary shall repay, without in-
terest, the amount of any advance made under para-
graph (1), from appropriations that may be provided
by Congress for river and harbor, flood control, shore
protection, and related projects.
HR 1480 EAS
(i) ELIZABETH RIVER, CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA.—Not-
withstanding any other provision of law, after the date of
enactment of this Act, the city of Chesapeake, Virginia, shall
not be obligated to make the annual cash contribution re-
quired under paragraph 1(9) of the Local Cooperation
Agreement dated December 12, 1978, between the Govern-
ment and the city for the project for navigation, southern
branch of Elizabeth River, Chesapeake, Virginia.
(j) PAYMENT
OPTION, MOOREFIELD, WEST
VIR-
GINIA.—The Secretary may permit the non-Federal inter-
ests for the project for flood control, Moorefield, West Vir-
ginia, to pay without interest the remaining non-Federal
cost over a period not to exceed 30 years, to be determined
by the Secretary.
(k) MIAMI DADE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL LAND
RETENTION PLAN AND SOUTH BISCAYNE, FLORIDA.—Sec-
tion 528(b)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (110 Stat. 3768) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
‘‘(D) CREDIT
AND
REIMBURSEMENT
OF
PAST AND FUTURE ACTIVITIES.—The Secretary
may afford credit to or reimburse the non-Fed-
eral sponsors (using funds authorized by sub-
paragraph (C)) for the reasonable costs of any
work that has been performed or will be per-
HR 1480 EAS
formed in connection with a study or activity
meeting the requirements of subparagraph (A)
if—
‘‘(i) the Secretary determines that—
‘‘(I) the work performed by the
non-Federal sponsors will substantially
expedite completion of a critical res-
toration project; and
‘‘(II) the work is necessary for a
critical restoration project; and
‘‘(ii) the credit or reimbursement is
granted pursuant to a project-specific agree-
ment that prescribes the terms and condi-
tions of the credit or reimbursement.’’.
(l) LAKE MICHIGAN, ILLINOIS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The project for storm damage
reduction and shoreline protection, Lake Michigan, Il-
linois, from Wilmette, Illinois, to the Illinois-Indiana
State line, authorized by section 101(a)(12) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat.
3664), is modified to provide for reimbursement for
additional project work undertaken by the non-Fed-
eral interest.
(2) CREDIT
OR
REIMBURSEMENT.—The Sec-
retary shall credit or reimburse the non-Federal inter-
HR 1480 EAS
est for the Federal share of project costs incurred by
the non-Federal interest in designing, constructing, or
reconstructing reach 2F (700 feet south of Fullerton
Avenue and 500 feet north of Fullerton Avenue), reach
3M (Meigs Field), and segments 7 and 8 of reach 4
(43rd Street to 57th Street), if the non-Federal inter-
est carries out the work in accordance with plans ap-
proved by the Secretary, at an estimated total cost of
$83,300,000.
(3) REIMBURSEMENT.—The Secretary shall re-
imburse the non-Federal interest for the Federal share
of project costs incurred by the non-Federal interest
in reconstructing the revetment structures protecting
Solidarity Drive in Chicago, Illinois, before the sign-
ing of the project cooperation agreement, at an esti-
mated total cost of $7,600,000.
(m) MEASUREMENTS
OF LAKE MICHIGAN DIVER-
SIONS, ILLINOIS.—Section 1142(b) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4253) is amended by
striking ‘‘$250,000 per fiscal year for each fiscal year begin-
ning after September 30, 1986’’ and inserting ‘‘a total of
$1,250,000 for each of fiscal years 1999 through 2003’’.
(n) PROJECT FOR NAVIGATION, DUBUQUE, IOWA.—
The project for navigation at Dubuque, Iowa, authorized
by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (74
HR 1480 EAS
Stat. 482), is modified to authorize the development of a
wetland demonstration area of approximately 1.5 acres to
be developed and operated by the Dubuque County Histor-
ical Society or a successor nonprofit organization.
(o) LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY LEVEE.—The
Secretary may credit against the non-Federal share work
performed in the project area of the Louisiana State Peni-
tentiary Levee, Mississippi River, Louisiana, authorized by
section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (100 Stat. 4117).
(p) JACKSON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI.—The project for
environmental infrastructure, Jackson County, Mississippi,
authorized by section 219(c)(5) of the Water Resources De-
velopment Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835) and modified by
section 504 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
(110 Stat. 3757), is modified to direct the Secretary to pro-
vide a credit, not to exceed $5,000,000, against the non-
Federal share of the cost of the project for the costs incurred
by the Jackson County Board of Supervisors since February
8, 1994, in constructing the project, if the Secretary deter-
mines that such costs are for work that the Secretary deter-
mines was compatible with and integral to the project.
(q) RICHARD B. RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, SOUTH
CAROLINA.—
HR 1480 EAS
(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise provided
in this paragraph, the Secretary shall convey to the
State of South Carolina all right, title, and interest
of the United States in the parcels of land described
in paragraph (2)(A) that are currently being man-
aged by the South Carolina Department of Natural
Resources for fish and wildlife mitigation purposes
for the Richard B. Russell Dam and Lake, South
Carolina, project authorized by the Flood Control Act
of 1966 and modified by the Water Resources Devel-
opment Act of 1986.
(2) LAND DESCRIPTION.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The parcels of land to be
conveyed are described in Exhibits A, F, and H
of Army Lease No. DACW21–1–93–0910 and as-
sociated supplemental agreements or are des-
ignated in red in Exhibit A of Army License No.
DACW21–3–85–1904, excluding all designated
parcels in the license that are below elevation
346 feet mean sea level or that are less than 300
feet measured horizontally from the top of the
power pool.
(B) MANAGEMENT
OF
EXCLUDED
PAR-
CELS.—Management of the excluded parcels shall
continue in accordance with the terms of Army
HR 1480 EAS
License No. DACW21–3–85–1904 until the Sec-
retary and the State enter into an agreement
under paragraph (6).
(C) SURVEY.—The exact acreage and legal
description of the land shall be determined by a
survey satisfactory to the Secretary, with the cost
of the survey borne by the State.
(3) COSTS OF CONVEYANCE.—The State shall be
responsible for all costs, including real estate trans-
action and environmental compliance costs, associated
with the conveyance.
(4) PERPETUAL STATUS.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—All land conveyed under
this paragraph shall be retained in public own-
ership and shall be managed in perpetuity for
fish and wildlife mitigation purposes in accord-
ance with a plan approved by the Secretary.
(B) REVERSION.—If any parcel of land is
not managed for fish and wildlife mitigation
purposes in accordance with the plan, title to the
parcel shall revert to the United States.
(5) ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The
Secretary may require such additional terms and
conditions in connection with the conveyance as the
HR 1480 EAS
Secretary considers appropriate to protect the inter-
ests of the United States.
(6) FISH
AND
WILDLIFE
MITIGATION
AGREE-
MENT.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may pay
the State of South Carolina not more than
$4,850,000 subject to the Secretary and the State
entering into a binding agreement for the State
to manage for fish and wildlife mitigation pur-
poses in perpetuity the lands conveyed under this
paragraph and excluded parcels designated in
Exhibit A of Army License No. DACW21–3–85–
1904.
(B) 
FAILURE
OF
PERFORMANCE.—The
agreement shall specify the terms and conditions
under which payment will be made and the
rights of, and remedies available to, the Federal
Government to recover all or a portion of the
payment if the State fails to manage any parcel
in a manner satisfactory to the Secretary.
(r) LAND CONVEYANCE, CLARKSTON, WASHINGTON.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall convey to
the Port of Clarkston, Washington, all right, title, and
interest of the United States in and to a portion of
the land described in the Department of the Army
HR 1480 EAS
lease No. DACW68–1–97–22, consisting of approxi-
mately 31 acres, the exact boundaries of which shall
be determined by the Secretary and the Port of
Clarkston.
(2) ADDITIONAL LAND.—The Secretary may con-
vey to the Port of Clarkston, Washington, such addi-
tional land located in the vicinity of Clarkston, Wash-
ington, as the Secretary determines to be excess to the
needs of the Columbia River Project and appropriate
for conveyance.
(3) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The conveyances
made under paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be subject
to such terms and conditions as the Secretary deter-
mines to be necessary to protect the interests of the
United States, including a requirement that the Port
of Clarkston pay all administrative costs associated
with the conveyances, including the cost of land sur-
veys and appraisals and costs associated with compli-
ance with applicable environmental laws (including
regulations).
(4) USE OF LAND.—The Port of Clarkston shall
be required to pay the fair market value, as deter-
mined by the Secretary, of any land conveyed pursu-
ant to paragraphs (1) and (2) that is not retained in
public ownership and used for public park or recre-
HR 1480 EAS
ation purposes, except that the Secretary shall have a
right of reverter to reclaim possession and title to any
such land.
(s) WHITE RIVER, INDIANA.—The project for flood con-
trol, Indianapolis on West Fork of the White River, Indi-
ana, authorized by section 5 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act
authorizing the construction of certain public works on riv-
ers and harbors for flood control, and other purposes’’, ap-
proved June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1586, chapter 688), as
modified by section 323 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3716), is modified to authorize the
Secretary to undertake the riverfront alterations described
in the Central Indianapolis Waterfront Concept Plan, dated
February 1994, for the Canal Development (Upper Canal
feature) and the Beveridge Paper feature, at a total cost
not to exceed $25,000,000, of which $12,500,000 is the esti-
mated Federal cost and $12,500,000 is the estimated non-
Federal cost, except that no such alterations may be under-
taken unless the Secretary determines that the alterations
authorized by this subsection, in combination with the al-
terations undertaken under section 323 of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3716), are eco-
nomically justified.
(t) FOX POINT HURRICANE BARRIER, PROVIDENCE,
RHODE ISLAND.—The project for hurricane-flood protec-
HR 1480 EAS
tion, Fox Point, Providence, Rhode Island, authorized by
section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 306)
is modified to direct the Secretary to undertake the nec-
essary repairs to the barrier, as identified in the Condition
Survey and Technical Assessment dated April 1998 with
Supplement dated August 1998, at a total cost of
$3,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $1,950,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $1,050,000.
(u) LEE COUNTY, CAPTIVA ISLAND SEGMENT, FLOR-
IDA.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The project for shoreline pro-
tection, Lee County, Captiva Island segment, Florida,
authorized by section 506(b)(3)(A) of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3758), is
modified to direct the Secretary to enter into an
agreement with the non-Federal interest to carry out
the project in accordance with section 206 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C.
426i–1).
(2) DECISION
DOCUMENT.—The design memo-
randum approved in 1996 shall be the decision docu-
ment supporting continued Federal participation in
cost sharing of the project.
(v) COLUMBIA RIVER CHANNEL, WASHINGTON AND
OREGON.—
HR 1480 EAS
(1) IN GENERAL.—The project for navigation,
Columbia River between Vancouver, Washington, and
The Dalles, Oregon, authorized by the first section of
the Act of July 24, 1946 (60 Stat. 637, chapter 595),
is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct an
alternate barge channel to traverse the high span of
the Interstate Route 5 bridge between Portland, Or-
egon, and Vancouver, Washington, to a depth of 17
feet, with a width of approximately 200 feet through
the high span of the bridge and a width of approxi-
mately 300 feet upstream of the bridge.
(2) DISTANCE
UPSTREAM.—The channel shall
continue upstream of the bridge approximately 2,500
feet to about river mile 107, then to a point of conver-
gence with the main barge channel at about river
mile 108.
(3) DISTANCE DOWNSTREAM.—
(A) SOUTHERN EDGE.—The southern edge
of the channel shall continue downstream of the
bridge approximately 1,500 feet to river mile
106+10, then turn northwest to tie into the edge
of the Upper Vancouver Turning Basin.
(B) NORTHERN EDGE.—The northern edge
of the channel shall continue downstream of the
bridge to the Upper Vancouver Turning Basin.
HR 1480 EAS
SEC. 103. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS.
(a) BRIDGEPORT HARBOR, CONNECTICUT.—The por-
tion of the project for navigation, Bridgeport Harbor, Con-
necticut, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor
Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 297), consisting of a 2.4-acre anchor-
age area 9 feet deep and an adjacent 0.60-acre anchorage
area 6 feet deep, located on the west side of Johnsons River,
Connecticut, is not authorized after the date of enactment
of this Act.
(b) BASS HARBOR, MAINE.—
(1) DEAUTHORIZATION.—The portions of the
project for navigation, Bass Harbor, Maine, author-
ized on May 7, 1962, under section 107 of the River
and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577) described in
paragraph (2) are not authorized after the date of en-
actment of this Act.
(2) DESCRIPTION.—The portions of the project
referred to in paragraph (1) are described as follows:
(A) Beginning at a bend in the project,
N149040.00, E538505.00, thence running eas-
terly about 50.00 feet along the northern limit of
the project to a point, N149061.55, E538550.11,
thence running southerly about 642.08 feet to a
point, N148477.64, E538817.18, thence running
southwesterly about 156.27 feet to a point on the
westerly limit of the project, N148348.50,
HR 1480 EAS
E538737.02, thence running northerly about
149.00 feet along the westerly limit of the project
to 
a 
bend 
in 
the 
project, 
N148489.22,
E538768.09, thence running northwesterly about
610.39 feet along the westerly limit of the project
to the point of origin.
(B) Beginning at a point on the westerly
limit of the project, N148118.55, E538689.05,
thence running southeasterly about 91.92 feet to
a point, N148041.43, E538739.07, thence run-
ning southerly about 65.00 feet to a point,
N147977.86, E538725.51, thence running south-
westerly about 91.92 feet to a point on the west-
erly 
limit 
of 
the 
project, 
N147927.84,
E538648.39, thence running northerly about
195.00 feet along the westerly limit of the project
to the point of origin.
(c) BOOTHBAY HARBOR, MAINE.—The project for
navigation, Boothbay Harbor, Maine, authorized by the Act
of July 25, 1912 (37 Stat. 201, chapter 253), is not author-
ized after the date of enactment of this Act.
(d) CARVERS HARBOR, VINALHAVEN, MAINE.—
(1) DEAUTHORIZATION.—The portion of the
project for navigation, Carvers Harbor, Vinalhaven,
Maine, authorized by the Act of June 3, 1896 (com-
HR 1480 EAS
monly known as the ‘‘River and Harbor Appropria-
tions Act of 1896’’) (29 Stat. 202, chapter 314), de-
scribed in paragraph (2) is not authorized after the
date of enactment of this Act.
(2) DESCRIPTION.—The portion of the project re-
ferred to in paragraph (1) is the portion of the 16-
foot anchorage beginning at a point with coordinates
N137,502.04, E895,156.83, thence running south 6 de-
grees 34 minutes 57.6 seconds west 277.660 feet to a
point N137,226.21, E895,125.00, thence running
north 53 degrees, 5 minutes 42.4 seconds west 127.746
feet to a point N137,302.92, E895022.85, thence run-
ning north 33 degrees 56 minutes 9.8 seconds east
239.999 feet to the point of origin.
(e) EAST BOOTHBAY HARBOR, MAINE.—Section 364
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat.
3731) is amended by striking paragraph (9) and inserting
the following:
‘‘(9) EAST
BOOTHBAY
HARBOR, MAINE.—The
project for navigation, East Boothbay Harbor, Maine,
authorized by the first section of the Act entitled ‘An
Act making appropriations for the construction, re-
pair, and preservation of certain public works on riv-
ers and harbors, and for other purposes’, approved
June 25, 1910 (36 Stat. 657).’’.
HR 1480 EAS
(f) SEARSPORT HARBOR, SEARSPORT, MAINE.—
(1) DEAUTHORIZATION.—The portion of the
project for navigation, Searsport Harbor, Searsport,
Maine, authorized by section 101 of the River and
Harbor Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1173), described in
paragraph (2) is not authorized after the date of en-
actment of this Act.
(2) DESCRIPTION.—The portion of the project re-
ferred to in paragraph (1) is the portion of the 35-
foot turning basin beginning at a point with coordi-
nates N225,008.38, E395,464.26, thence running
north 43 degrees 49 minutes 53.4 seconds east 362.001
feet to a point N225,269.52, E395,714.96, thence run-
ning south 71 degrees 27 minutes 33.0 seconds east
1,309.201 feet to a point N224,853.22, E396,956.21,
thence running north 84 degrees 3 minutes 45.7 sec-
onds west 1,499.997 feet to the point of origin.
SEC. 104. STUDIES.
(a) CADDO LEVEE, RED RIVER BELOW DENISON DAM,
ARIZONA, LOUISIANA, OKLAHOMA, AND TEXAS.—The Sec-
retary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
undertaking a project for flood control, Caddo Levee, Red
River Below Denison Dam, Arizona, Louisiana, Oklahoma,
and Texas, including incorporating the existing levee, along
Twelve Mile Bayou from its juncture with the existing Red
HR 1480 EAS
River Below Denison Dam Levee approximately 26 miles
upstream to its terminus at high ground in the vicinity
of Black Bayou, Louisiana.
(b) BOYDSVILLE, ARKANSAS.—The Secretary shall
conduct a study to determine the feasibility of reservoir and
associated improvements to provide for flood control, recre-
ation, water quality, water supply, and fish and wildlife
purposes in the vicinity of Boydsville, Arkansas.
(c) UNION COUNTY, ARKANSAS.—The Secretary shall
conduct a study to determine the feasibility of municipal
and industrial water supply for Union County, Arkansas.
(d) WHITE
RIVER
BASIN, ARKANSAS
AND
MIS-
SOURI.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a
study of the project for flood control, power genera-
tion, and other purposes at the White River Basin,
Arkansas and Missouri, authorized by section 4 of the
Act of June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1218, chapter 795),
and modified by H. Doc. 917, 76th Cong., 3d Sess.,
and H. Doc. 290, 77th Cong., 1st Sess., approved Au-
gust 18, 1941, and H. Doc. 499, 83d Cong., 2d Sess.,
approved September 3, 1954, and by section 304 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110
Stat. 3711) to determine the feasibility of modifying
HR 1480 EAS
the project to provide minimum flows necessary to
sustain the tail water trout fisheries.
(2) REPORT.—Not later than July 30, 2000, the
Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the
study and any recommendations on reallocation of
storage at Beaver Lake, Table Rock, Bull Shoals
Lake, Norfolk Lake, and Greers Ferry Lake.
(e) FIELDS LANDING CHANNEL, HUMBOLDT HARBOR,
CALIFORNIA.—The Secretary—
(1) shall conduct a study for the project for navi-
gation, Fields Landing Channel, Humboldt Harbor
and Bay, California, to a depth of minus 35 feet
(MLLW), and for that purpose may use any feasi-
bility report prepared by the non-Federal sponsor
under section 203 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2231) for which reimburse-
ment of the Federal share of the study is authorized
subject to the availability of appropriations; and
(2) may carry out the project under section 107
of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577),
if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible.
(f) FRAZIER CREEK, TULARE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine—
(1) the feasibility of restoring Frazier Creek,
Tulare County, California; and
HR 1480 EAS
(2) the Federal interest in flood control, environ-
mental restoration, conservation of fish and wildlife
resources, recreation, and water quality of the creek.
(g) STRAWBERRY CREEK, BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA.—
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasi-
bility of restoring Strawberry Creek, Berkeley, California,
and the Federal interest in environmental restoration, con-
servation of fish and wildlife resources, recreation, and
water quality.
(h) WEST SIDE STORM WATER RETENTION FACILITY,
CITY OF LANCASTER, CALIFORNIA.—The Secretary shall
conduct a study to determine the feasibility of undertaking
measures to construct the West Side Storm Water Retention
Facility in the city of Lancaster, California.
(i) APALACHICOLA RIVER, FLORIDA.—The Secretary
shall conduct a study for the purpose of identifying—
(1) alternatives for the management of material
dredged in connection with operation and mainte-
nance of the Apalachicola River Navigation Project;
and
(2) alternatives that reduce the requirements for
such dredging.
(j) BROWARD COUNTY, SAND BYPASSING AT PORT EV-
ERGLADES, FLORIDA.—The Secretary shall conduct a study
HR 1480 EAS
to determine the feasibility of constructing a sand bypass-
ing project at the Port Everglades Inlet, Florida.
(k) CITY OF DESTIN-NORIEGA POINT BREAKWATER,
FLORIDA.—The Secretary shall conduct a study to deter-
mine the feasibility of—
(1) restoring Noriega Point, Florida, to serve as
a breakwater for Destin Harbor; and
(2) including Noriega Point as part of the East
Pass, Florida, navigation project.
(l) GATEWAY
TRIANGLE
REDEVELOPMENT
AREA,
FLORIDA.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a
study to determine the feasibility of undertaking
measures to reduce the flooding problems in the vicin-
ity of Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area, Flor-
ida.
(2) STUDIES AND REPORTS.—The study shall in-
clude a review and consideration of studies and re-
ports completed by the non-Federal interests.
(m) CITY OF PLANT CITY, FLORIDA.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a
study to determine the feasibility of a flood control
project in the city of Plant City, Florida.
HR 1480 EAS
(2) STUDIES AND REPORTS.—In conducting the
study, the Secretary shall review and consider studies
and reports completed by the non-Federal interests.
(n) BOISE, IDAHO.—The Secretary shall conduct a
study to determine the feasibility of undertaking flood con-
trol on the Boise River in Boise, Idaho.
(o) GOOSE CREEK WATERSHED, OAKLEY, IDAHO.—
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasi-
bility of undertaking flood damage reduction, water con-
servation, ground water recharge, ecosystem restoration,
and related purposes along the Goose Creek watershed near
Oakley, Idaho.
(p) LITTLE WOOD RIVER, GOODING, IDAHO.—The
Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility
of restoring and repairing the Lava Rock Little Wood River
Containment System to prevent flooding in the city of
Gooding, Idaho.
(q) BANK STABILIZATION, SNAKE RIVER, LEWISTON,
IDAHO.—The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine
the feasibility of undertaking bank stabilization and flood
control on the Snake River at Lewiston, Idaho.
(r) SNAKE RIVER AND PAYETTE RIVER, IDAHO.—The
Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility
of a flood control project along the Snake River and Payette
River, in the vicinity of Payette, Idaho.
HR 1480 EAS
(s) ACADIANA NAVIGATION CHANNEL, LOUISIANA.—
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasi-
bility of assuming operations and maintenance for the
Acadiana Navigation Channel located in Iberia and
Vermillion Parishes, Louisiana.
(t) CAMERON PARISH WEST OF CALCASIEU RIVER,
LOUISIANA.—The Secretary shall conduct a study to deter-
mine the feasibility of a storm damage reduction and eco-
system restoration project for Cameron Parish west of
Calcasieu River, Louisiana.
(u) BENEFICIAL USE OF DREDGED MATERIAL, COAST-
AL LOUISIANA.—The Secretary shall conduct a study to de-
termine the feasibility of using dredged material from
maintenance activities at Federal navigation projects in
coastal Louisiana to benefit coastal areas in the State.
(v) CONTRABAND BAYOU NAVIGATION CHANNEL, LOU-
ISIANA.—The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine
the feasibility of assuming the maintenance at Contraband
Bayou, Calcasieu River Ship Canal, Louisiana.
(w) GOLDEN MEADOW LOCK, LOUISIANA.—The Sec-
retary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
converting the Golden Meadow floodgate into a navigation
lock to be included in the Larose to Golden Meadow Hurri-
cane Protection Project, Louisiana.
HR 1480 EAS
(x) GULF
INTRACOASTAL
WATERWAY
ECOSYSTEM
PROTECTION, CHEF MENTEUR TO SABINE RIVER, LOU-
ISIANA.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a
study to determine the feasibility of undertaking eco-
system restoration and protection measures along the
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway from Chef Menteur to
Sabine River, Louisiana.
(2) MATTERS
TO
BE
ADDRESSED.—The study
shall address saltwater intrusion, tidal scour, erosion,
compaction, subsidence, wind and wave action, bank
failure, and other problems relating to water resources
in the area.
(y) LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN, LOUISIANA, AND VICINITY,
ST. CHARLES PARISH PUMPS.—The Secretary shall con-
duct a study to determine the feasibility of modifying the
Lake Pontchartrain Hurricane Protection Project to in-
clude the St. Charles Parish Pumps and the modification
of the seawall fronting protection along Lake Pontchartrain
in Orleans Parish, from New Basin Canal on the west to
the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal on the east.
(z) LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN AND VICINITY SEAWALL
RESTORATION, LOUISIANA.—The Secretary shall conduct a
study to determine the feasibility of undertaking structural
modifications of that portion of the seawall fronting protec-
HR 1480 EAS
tion along the south shore of Lake Pontchartrain in Orleans
Parish, Louisiana, extending approximately 5 miles from
the new basin Canal on the west to the Inner Harbor Navi-
gation Canal on the east as a part of the Lake Pont-
chartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Protection Project, au-
thorized by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1965
(79 Stat. 1077).
(aa) MUDDY RIVER, BROOKLINE AND BOSTON, MASSA-
CHUSETTS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall evaluate
the January 1999 study commissioned by the Boston
Parks and Recreation Department, Boston, Massachu-
setts, and entitled ‘‘The Emerald Necklace Environ-
mental Improvement Master Plan, Phase I Muddy
River Flood Control, Water Quality and Habitat En-
hancement’’, to determine whether the plans outlined
in the study for flood control, water quality, habitat
enhancements, and other improvements to the Muddy
River in Brookline and Boston, Massachusetts, are
cost-effective, technically sound, environmentally ac-
ceptable, and in the Federal interest.
(2) REPORT.—Not later than December 31, 1999,
the Secretary shall report to Congress the results of
the evaluation.
HR 1480 EAS
(bb) DETROIT RIVER, MICHIGAN, GREENWAY COR-
RIDOR STUDY.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a
study to determine the feasibility of a project for
shoreline protection, frontal erosion, and associated
purposes in the Detroit River shoreline area from the
Belle Isle Bridge to the Ambassador Bridge in De-
troit, Michigan.
(2) POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS.—As a part of
the study, the Secretary shall review potential project
modifications to any existing Corps projects within
the same area.
(cc) ST. CLAIR SHORES FLOOD CONTROL, MICHI-
GAN.—The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of constructing a flood control project at St. Clair
Shores, Michigan.
(dd) WOODTICK PENINSULA, MICHIGAN, AND TOLEDO
HARBOR, OHIO.—The Secretary shall conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of utilizing dredged material from
Toledo Harbor, Ohio, to provide erosion reduction, naviga-
tion, and ecosystem restoration at Woodtick Peninsula,
Michigan.
(ee) DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT, PASCAGOULA
HARBOR, MISSISSIPPI.—
HR 1480 EAS
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a
study to determine an alternative plan for dredged
material management for the Pascagoula River por-
tion of the project for navigation, Pascagoula Harbor,
Mississippi, authorized by section 202(a) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4094).
(2) CONTENTS.—The study under paragraph (1)
shall—
(A) include an analysis of the feasibility of
expanding the Singing River Island Disposal
Area or constructing a new dredged material dis-
posal facility; and
(2) identify methods of managing and re-
ducing sediment transport into the Federal navi-
gation channel.
(ff) TUNICA LAKE WEIR, MISSISSIPPI.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a
study to determine the feasibility of constructing an
outlet weir at Tunica Lake, Tunica County, Mis-
sissippi, and Lee County, Arkansas, for the purpose
of stabilizing water levels in the Lake.
(2) ECONOMIC ANALYSIS.—In carrying out the
study, the Secretary shall include as a part of the eco-
nomic analysis the benefits derived from recreation
HR 1480 EAS
uses at the Lake and economic benefits associated
with restoration of fish and wildlife habitat.
(gg) PROTECTIVE FACILITIES FOR THE ST. LOUIS,
MISSOURI, RIVERFRONT AREA.—
(1) STUDY.—The Secretary shall conduct a study
to determine the optimal plan to protect facilities that
are located on the Mississippi River riverfront within
the boundaries of St. Louis, Missouri.
(2) REQUIREMENTS.—In conducting the study,
the Secretary shall—
(A) evaluate alternatives to offer safety and
security to facilities; and
(B) use state-of-the-art techniques to best
evaluate the current situation, probable solu-
tions, and estimated costs.
(3) REPORT.—Not later than April 15, 2000, the
Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the re-
sults of the study.
(hh) YELLOWSTONE RIVER, MONTANA.—
(1) STUDY.—The Secretary shall conduct a com-
prehensive study of the Yellowstone River from Gar-
diner, Montana to the confluence of the Missouri
River to determine the hydrologic, biological, and so-
cioeconomic cumulative impacts on the river.
HR 1480 EAS
(2) CONSULTATION
AND
COORDINATION.—The
Secretary shall conduct the study in consultation with
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the
United States Geological Survey, and the Natural Re-
sources Conservation Service and with the full par-
ticipation of the State of Montana and tribal and
local entities, and provide for public participation.
(3) REPORT.—Not later than 5 years after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall sub-
mit a report to Congress on the results of the study.
(ii) LAS VEGAS VALLEY, NEVADA.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a
comprehensive study of water resources located in the
Las Vegas Valley, Nevada.
(2) OBJECTIVES.—The study shall identify prob-
lems and opportunities related to ecosystem restora-
tion, water quality, particularly the quality of surface
runoff, water supply, and flood control.
(jj) OSWEGO RIVER BASIN, NEW YORK.—The Sec-
retary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
establishing a flood forecasting system within the Oswego
River basin, New York.
(kk) PORT OF NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY NAVIGATION
STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION STUDY.—
HR 1480 EAS
(1) NAVIGATION
STUDY.—The Secretary shall
conduct a comprehensive study of navigation needs at
the Port of New York-New Jersey (including the
South Brooklyn Marine and Red Hook Container
Terminals, Staten Island, and adjacent areas) to ad-
dress improvements, including deepening of existing
channels to depths of 50 feet or greater, that are re-
quired to provide economically efficient and environ-
mentally sound navigation to meet current and future
requirements.
(2) ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION STUDY.—The
Secretary, acting through the Chief of Engineers, shall
review the report of the Chief of Engineers on the New
York Harbor, printed in the House Management Plan
of the Harbor Estuary Program, and other pertinent
reports concerning the New York Harbor Region and
the Port of New York-New Jersey, to determine the
Federal interest in advancing harbor environmental
restoration.
(3) REPORT.—The Secretary may use funds
from the ongoing navigation study for New York and
New Jersey Harbor to complete a reconnaissance re-
port for environmental restoration by December 31,
1999. The navigation study to deepen New York and
HR 1480 EAS
(pp) WACCAMAW RIVER, SOUTH CAROLINA.—The Sec-
retary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
a flood control project for the Waccamaw River in Horry
County, South Carolina.
(qq) UPPER SUSQUEHANNA-LACKAWANNA, PENNSYL-
VANIA, WATERSHED
MANAGEMENT
AND
RESTORATION
STUDY.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a
study to determine the feasibility of a comprehensive
flood plain management and watershed restoration
project for the Upper Susquehanna-Lackawanna Wa-
tershed, Pennsylvania.
(2) GEOGRAPHIC
INFORMATION
SYSTEM.—In
conducting the study, the Secretary shall use a geo-
graphic information system.
(3) PLANS.—The study shall formulate plans for
comprehensive flood plain management and environ-
mental restoration.
(4) CREDITING.—Non-Federal interests may re-
ceive credit for in-kind services and materials that
contribute to the study. The Secretary may credit
non-Corps Federal assistance provided to the non-
Federal interest toward the non-Federal share of
study costs to the maximum extent authorized by law.
HR 1480 EAS
(rr) CONTAMINATED DREDGED MATERIAL AND SEDI-
MENT MANAGEMENT, SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL AREAS.—
(1) IN
GENERAL.—The Secretary shall review
pertinent reports and conduct other studies and field
investigations to determine the best available science
and methods for management of contaminated
dredged material and sediments in the coastal areas
of South Carolina.
(2) FOCUS.—In carrying out subsection (a), the
Secretary shall place particular focus on areas where
the Corps of Engineers maintains deep draft naviga-
tion projects, such as Charleston Harbor, Georgetown
Harbor, and Port Royal, South Carolina.
(3) COOPERATION.—The studies shall be con-
ducted in cooperation with the appropriate Federal
and State environmental agencies.
(ss) NIOBRARA RIVER AND MISSOURI RIVER SEDI-
MENTATION STUDY, SOUTH DAKOTA.—The Secretary shall
conduct a study of the Niobrara River watershed and the
operations of Fort Randall Dam and Gavins Point Dam
on the Missouri River to determine the feasibility of alle-
viating the bank erosion, sedimentation, and related prob-
lems in the lower Niobrara River and the Missouri River
below Fort Randall Dam.
(tt) SANTA CLARA RIVER, UTAH.—
HR 1480 EAS
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a
study to determine the feasibility of undertaking
measures to alleviate damage caused by flooding, bank
erosion, and sedimentation along the watershed of the
Santa Clara River, Utah, above the Gunlock Res-
ervoir.
(2) CONTENTS.—The study shall include an
analysis of watershed conditions and water quality,
as related to flooding and bank erosion, along the
Santa Clara River in the vicinity of the town of Gun-
lock, Utah.
(uu) MOUNT ST. HELENS ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORA-
TION, WASHINGTON.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a
study to determine the feasibility of ecosystem restora-
tion improvements throughout the Cowlitz and Toutle
River basins, Washington, including the 6,000 acres
of wetland, riverine, riparian, and upland habitats
lost or altered due to the eruption of Mount St. Hel-
ens in 1980 and subsequent emergency actions.
(2) REQUIREMENTS.—In carrying out the study,
the Secretary shall—
(A) work in close coordination with local
governments, watershed entities, the State of
Washington, and other Federal agencies; and
HR 1480 EAS
(B) place special emphasis on—
(i) conservation and restoration strate-
gies to benefit species that are listed or pro-
posed for listing as threatened or endan-
gered species under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); and
(ii) other watershed restoration objec-
tives.
(vv) AGAT SMALL BOAT HARBOR, GUAM.—The Sec-
retary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
undertaking the repair and reconstruction of Agat Small
Boat Harbor, Guam, including the repair of existing shore
protection measures and construction or a revetment of the
breakwater seawall.
(ww) APRA HARBOR SEAWALL, GUAM.—The Secretary
shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of under-
taking measures to repair, upgrade, and extend the seawall
protecting Apra Harbor, Guam, and to ensure continued
access to the harbor via Route 11B.
(xx) APRA HARBOR FUEL PIERS, GUAM.—The Sec-
retary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
undertaking measures to upgrade the piers and fuel trans-
mission lines at the fuel piers in the Apra Harbor, Guam,
and measures to provide for erosion control and protection
against storm damage.
HR 1480 EAS
(yy) MAINTENANCE DREDGING OF HARBOR PIERS,
GUAM.—The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine
the feasibility of Federal maintenance of areas adjacent to
piers at harbors in Guam, including Apra Harbor, Agat
Harbor, and Agana Marina.
(zz) ALTERNATIVE WATER SOURCES STUDY.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator of the En-
vironmental Protection Agency shall conduct a study
of the water supply needs of States that are not cur-
rently eligible for assistance under title XVI of the
Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment
Act of 1992 (43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.).
(2) REQUIREMENTS.—The study shall—
(A) identify the water supply needs (includ-
ing potable, commercial, industrial, recreational
and agricultural needs) of each State described
in paragraph (1) through 2020, making use of
such State, regional, and local plans, studies,
and reports as are available;
(B) evaluate the feasibility of various alter-
native water source technologies such as reuse
and reclamation of wastewater and stormwater
(including indirect potable reuse), aquifer stor-
age and recovery, and desalination to meet the
HR 1480 EAS
anticipated water supply needs of the States;
and
(C) assess how alternative water sources
technologies can be utilized to meet the identified
needs.
(3) REPORT.—The Administrator shall report to
Congress on the results of the study not more than
180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
(aaa) GREAT LAKES NAVIGATIONAL SYSTEM.—In con-
sultation with the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Cor-
poration, the Secretary shall review the Great Lakes Con-
necting Channel and Harbors Report dated March 1985 to
determine the feasibility of any modification of the rec-
ommendations made in the report to improve commercial
navigation on the Great Lakes navigation system, including
locks, dams, harbors, ports, channels, and other related fea-
tures.
TITLE II—GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 201. FLOOD HAZARD MITIGATION AND RIVERINE ECO-
SYSTEM RESTORATION PROGRAM.
(a) IN GENERAL.—
(1) AUTHORIZATION.—The Secretary may carry
out a program to reduce flood hazards and restore the
natural functions and values of riverine ecosystems
throughout the United States.
HR 1480 EAS
(2) STUDIES.—In carrying out the program, the
Secretary shall conduct studies to identify appro-
priate flood damage reduction, conservation, and res-
toration measures and may design and implement
watershed management and restoration projects.
(3) PARTICIPATION.—The studies and projects
carried out under the program shall be conducted, to
the extent practicable, with the full participation of
the appropriate Federal agencies, including the De-
partment of Agriculture, the Federal Emergency Man-
agement Agency, the Department of the Interior, the
Environmental Protection Agency, and the Depart-
ment of Commerce.
(4) NONSTRUCTURAL APPROACHES.—The studies
and projects shall, to the extent practicable, emphasize
nonstructural approaches to preventing or reducing
flood damages.
(b) COST-SHARING REQUIREMENTS.—
(1) STUDIES.—The cost of studies conducted
under subsection (a) shall be shared in accordance
with section 105 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986 (33 Stat. 2215).
(2) PROJECTS.—The non-Federal interests shall
pay 35 percent of the cost of any project carried out
under this section.
HR 1480 EAS
(3) IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS.—The non-Federal
interests shall provide all land, easements, rights-of-
way, dredged material disposal areas, and relocations
necessary for the projects. The value of the land, ease-
ments, rights-of-way, dredged material disposal areas,
and relocations shall be credited toward the payment
required under this subsection.
(4) RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE NON-FEDERAL IN-
TERESTS.—The non-Federal interests shall be respon-
sible for all costs associated with operating, maintain-
ing, replacing, repairing, and rehabilitating all
projects carried out under this section.
(c) PROJECT JUSTIFICATION.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may implement
a project under this section if the Secretary deter-
mines that the project—
(A) will significantly reduce potential flood
damages;
(B) will improve the quality of the environ-
ment; and
(C) is justified considering all costs and
beneficial outputs of the project.
(2) SELECTION CRITERIA; POLICIES AND PROCE-
DURES.—Not later than 180 days after the date of en-
actment of this Act, the Secretary shall—
HR 1480 EAS
(A) develop criteria for selecting and rating
the projects to be carried out as part of the pro-
gram authorized by this section; and
(B) establish policies and procedures for
carrying out the studies and projects undertaken
under this section.
(d) REPORTING REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary may
not implement a project under this section until—
(1) the Secretary provides to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of
the House of Representatives a written notification
describing the project and the determinations made
under subsection (c); and
(2) a period of 21 calendar days has expired fol-
lowing the date on which the notification was received
by the Committees.
(e) PRIORITY AREAS.—In carrying out this section,
the Secretary shall examine the potential for flood damage
reductions at appropriate locations, including—
(1) Los Angeles County drainage area, Cali-
fornia;
(2) Napa River Valley watershed, California;
(3) Le May, Missouri;
(4) the upper Delaware River basin, New York;
HR 1480 EAS
(5) Mill Creek, Cincinnati, Ohio;
(6) Tillamook County, Oregon;
(7) Willamette River basin, Oregon;
(8) Delaware River, Pennsylvania;
(9) Schuylkill River, Pennsylvania; and
(10) Providence County, Rhode Island.
(f) PER-PROJECT
LIMITATION.—Not more than
$25,000,000 in Army Civil Works appropriations may be
expended on any single project undertaken under this sec-
tion.
(g) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be ap-
propriated to carry out this section $75,000,000 for
the period of fiscal years 2000 and 2001.
(2) PROGRAM
FUNDING
LEVELS.—All studies
and projects undertaken under this authority from
Army Civil Works appropriations shall be fully fund-
ed within the program funding levels provided in this
subsection.
SEC. 202. SHORE PROTECTION.
Section 103(d) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(d)) is amended—
(1) by striking ‘‘Costs of constructing’’ and in-
serting the following:
HR 1480 EAS
‘‘(1) CONSTRUCTION.—Costs of constructing’’;
and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(2) PERIODIC NOURISHMENT.—In the case of a
project authorized for construction after December 31,
1999, or for which a feasibility study is completed
after that date, the non-Federal cost of the periodic
nourishment of projects or measures for shore protec-
tion or beach erosion control shall be 50 percent, ex-
cept that—
‘‘(A) all costs assigned to benefits to pri-
vately owned shores (where use of such shores is
limited to private interests) or to prevention of
losses of private land shall be borne by non-Fed-
eral interests; and
‘‘(B) all costs assigned to the protection of
federally owned shores shall be borne by the
United States.’’.
SEC. 203. SMALL FLOOD CONTROL AUTHORITY.
Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33
U.S.C. 701s) is amended—
(1) in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘construc-
tion of small projects’’ and inserting ‘‘implementation
of small structural and nonstructural projects’’; and
HR 1480 EAS
(2) 
in 
the 
third 
sentence, 
by 
striking
‘‘$5,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$7,000,000’’.
SEC. 204. USE OF NON-FEDERAL FUNDS FOR COMPILING
AND 
DISSEMINATING 
INFORMATION 
ON
FLOODS AND FLOOD DAMAGES.
Section 206(b) of the Flood Control Act of 1960 (33
U.S.C. 709a(b)) is amended in the third sentence by insert-
ing before the period at the end the following: ‘‘, but the
Secretary of the Army may accept funds voluntarily con-
tributed by such entities for the purpose of expanding the
scope of the services requested by the entities’’.
SEC. 205. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.
Section 206(c) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330(c)) is amended—
(1) by striking ‘‘Construction’’ and inserting the
following:
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Construction’’; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(2) NONPROFIT
ENTITIES.—Notwithstanding
section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42
U.S.C. 1962d–5b), for any project carried out under
this section, a non-Federal interest may include a
nonprofit entity, with the consent of the affected local
government.’’.
HR 1480 EAS
SEC. 206. BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL.
Section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
‘‘(g) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—Notwithstanding section
221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–
5b), for any project carried out under this section, a non-
Federal interest may include a nonprofit entity, with the
consent of the affected local government.’’.
SEC. 207. VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS BY STATES AND PO-
LITICAL SUBDIVISIONS.
Section 5 of the Act of June 22, 1936 (33 U.S.C. 701h),
is amended by inserting ‘‘or environmental restoration’’
after ‘‘flood control’’.
SEC. 208. RECREATION USER FEES.
(a) WITHHOLDING OF AMOUNTS.—
(1) IN
GENERAL.—During fiscal years 1999
through 2002, the Secretary may withhold from the
special account established under section 4(i)(1)(A) of
the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965
(16 U.S.C. 460l–6a(i)(1)(A)) 100 percent of the
amount of receipts above a baseline of $34,000,000
per each fiscal year received from fees imposed at
recreation sites under the administrative jurisdiction
of the Department of the Army under section 4(b) of
that Act (16 U.S.C. 460l–6a(b)).
HR 1480 EAS
(2) USE.—The amounts withheld shall be re-
tained by the Secretary and shall be available, with-
out further Act of appropriation, for expenditure by
the Secretary in accordance with subsection (b).
(3) AVAILABILITY.—The amounts withheld shall
remain available until September 30, 2005.
(b) USE OF AMOUNTS WITHHELD.—In order to in-
crease the quality of the visitor experience at public rec-
reational areas and to enhance the protection of resources,
the amounts withheld under subsection (a) may be used
only for—
(1) repair and maintenance projects (including
projects relating to health and safety);
(2) interpretation;
(3) signage;
(4) habitat or facility enhancement;
(5) resource preservation;
(6) annual operation (including fee collection);
(7) maintenance; and
(8) law enforcement related to public use.
(c) AVAILABILITY.—Each amount withheld by the Sec-
retary shall be available for expenditure, without further
Act of appropriation, at the specific project from which the
amount, above baseline, is collected.
HR 1480 EAS
SEC. 209. WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT STUDIES FOR
THE PACIFIC REGION.
Section 444 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1996 (110 Stat. 3747) is amended by striking ‘‘interest
of navigation’’ and inserting ‘‘interests of water resources
development (including navigation, flood damage reduction,
and environmental restoration)’’.
SEC. 210. MISSOURI AND MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI RIVERS EN-
HANCEMENT PROJECT.
(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
(1) MIDDLE
MISSISSIPPI
RIVER.—The term
‘‘middle Mississippi River’’ means the reach of the
Mississippi River from the mouth of the Ohio River
(river mile 0, upper Mississippi River) to the mouth
of the Missouri River (river mile 195).
(2) MISSOURI
RIVER.—The term ‘‘Missouri
River’’ means the main stem and floodplain of the
Missouri River (including reservoirs) from its con-
fluence with the Mississippi River at St. Louis, Mis-
souri, to its headwaters near Three Forks, Montana.
(3) PROJECT.—The term ‘‘project’’ means the
project authorized by this section.
(b) PROTECTION AND ENHANCEMENT ACTIVITIES.—
(1) PLAN.—
(A) DEVELOPMENT.—Not later than 180
days after the date of enactment of this Act, the
HR 1480 EAS
Secretary shall develop a plan for a project to
protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat of
the Missouri River and the middle Mississippi
River.
(B) ACTIVITIES.—
(i) IN GENERAL.—The plan shall pro-
vide for such activities as are necessary to
protect and enhance fish and wildlife habi-
tat without adversely affecting—
(I) the water-related needs of the
region surrounding the Missouri River
and the middle Mississippi River, in-
cluding flood control, navigation, recre-
ation, and enhancement of water sup-
ply; and
(II) private property rights.
(ii) REQUIRED ACTIVITIES.—The plan
shall include—
(I) modification and improvement
of navigation training structures to
protect and enhance fish and wildlife
habitat;
(II) modification and creation of
side channels to protect and enhance
fish and wildlife habitat;
HR 1480 EAS
(III) restoration and creation of
island fish and wildlife habitat;
(IV) creation of riverine fish and
wildlife habitat;
(V) establishment of criteria for
prioritizing the type and sequencing of
activities based on cost-effectiveness
and likelihood of success; and
(VI) physical and biological moni-
toring for evaluating the success of the
project, to be performed by the River
Studies Center of the United States Ge-
ological Survey in Columbia, Missouri.
(2) IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIVITIES.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—Using funds made avail-
able to carry out this section, the Secretary shall
carry out the activities described in the plan.
(B) USE
OF
EXISTING
AUTHORITY
FOR
UNCONSTRUCTED FEATURES OF THE PROJECT.—
Using funds made available to the Secretary
under other law, the Secretary shall design and
construct any feature of the project that may be
carried out using the authority of the Secretary
to modify an authorized project, if the Secretary
HR 1480 EAS
determines that the design and construction
will—
(i) accelerate the completion of activi-
ties to protect and enhance fish and wildlife
habitat of the Missouri River or the middle
Mississippi River; and
(ii) be compatible with the project pur-
poses described in this section.
(c) INTEGRATION OF OTHER ACTIVITIES.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out the activities
described in subsection (b), the Secretary shall inte-
grate the activities with other Federal, State, and
tribal activities.
(2) 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) PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.—In developing and car-
rying out the plan and the activities described in subsection
(b), the Secretary shall provide for public review and com-
ment in accordance with applicable Federal law,
including—
(1) providing advance notice of meetings;
(2) providing adequate opportunity for public
input and comment;
HR 1480 EAS
(3) maintaining appropriate records; and
(4) compiling a record of the proceedings of
meetings.
(e) COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAW.—In car-
rying out the activities described in subsections (b) and (c),
the Secretary shall comply with any applicable Federal
law, including the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
(f) COST SHARING.—
(1) NON-FEDERAL
SHARE.—The non-Federal
share of the cost of the project shall be 35 percent.
(2) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of the
cost of any 1 activity described in subsection (b) shall
not exceed $5,000,000.
(3) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The oper-
ation and maintenance of the project shall be a non-
Federal responsibility.
(g) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is
authorized to be appropriated to pay the Federal share of
the cost of carrying out activities under this section
$30,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2000 and 2001.
SEC. 211. OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF.
(a) SAND, GRAVEL, AND SHELL.—Section 8(k)(2)(B)
of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C.
1337(k)(2)(B)) is amended in the second sentence by insert-
HR 1480 EAS
ing before the period at the end the following: ‘‘or any other
non-Federal interest subject to an agreement entered into
under section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42
U.S.C. 1962d–5b)’’.
(b) REIMBURSEMENT FOR LOCAL INTERESTS.—Any
amounts paid by non-Federal interests for beach erosion
control, hurricane protection, shore protection, or storm
damage reduction projects as a result of an assessment
under section 8(k) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act
(43 U.S.C. 1337(k)) shall be fully reimbursed.
SEC. 212. ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING.
Section 312(f) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 1272(f)) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
‘‘(6) Snake Creek, Bixby, Oklahoma.
‘‘(7) Willamette River, Oregon.’’.
SEC. 213. BENEFIT OF PRIMARY FLOOD DAMAGES AVOIDED
INCLUDED IN BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS.
Section 308 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2318) is amended—
(1) in the heading of subsection (a), by striking
‘‘BENEFIT-COST
ANALYSIS’’ and inserting ‘‘ELE-
MENTS EXCLUDED FROM COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS’’;
(2) by redesignating subsections (b) through (e)
as subsections (c) through (f), respectively;
HR 1480 EAS
(3) by inserting after subsection (a) the fol-
lowing:
‘‘(b) ELEMENTS INCLUDED IN COST-BENEFIT ANAL-
YSIS.—The Secretary shall include primary flood damages
avoided in the benefit base for justifying Federal non-
structural flood damage reduction projects.’’; and
(4) in the first sentence of subsection (e) (as re-
designated by paragraph (2)), by striking ‘‘(b)’’ and
inserting ‘‘(d)’’.
SEC. 214. CONTROL OF AQUATIC PLANT GROWTH.
Section 104(a) of the River and Harbor Act of 1958
(33 U.S.C. 610(a)) is amended in the first sentence by strik-
ing ‘‘water-hyacinth, alligatorweed, Eurasian water milfoil,
melaleuca,’’ and inserting ‘‘Alligatorweed, Aquaticum,
Arundo Dona, Brazilian Elodea, Cabomba, Melaleuca,
Myrophyllum, Spicatum, Tarmarix, Water Hyacinth,’’.
SEC. 215. ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE.
Section 219(c) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
‘‘(19) LAKE TAHOE, CALIFORNIA AND NEVADA.—
Regional water system for Lake Tahoe, California
and Nevada.
HR 1480 EAS
‘‘(20) LANCASTER, CALIFORNIA.—Fox Field In-
dustrial Corridor water facilities, Lancaster, Cali-
fornia.
‘‘(21) SAN
RAMON, CALIFORNIA.—San Ramon
Valley recycled water project, San Ramon, Cali-
fornia.’’.
SEC. 216. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT, RESTORATION, AND
DEVELOPMENT.
Section 503 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1996 (110 Stat. 3756) is amended—
(1) in subsection (d)—
(A) by striking paragraph (10) and insert-
ing the following:
‘‘(10) Regional Atlanta Watershed, Atlanta,
Georgia, and Lake Lanier of Forsyth and Hall Coun-
ties, Georgia.’’; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(14) Clear Lake watershed, California.
‘‘(15) Fresno Slough watershed, California.
‘‘(16) Hayward Marsh, Southern San Francisco
Bay watershed, California.
‘‘(17) Kaweah River watershed, California.
‘‘(18) Lake Tahoe watershed, California and Ne-
vada.
‘‘(19) Malibu Creek watershed, California.
HR 1480 EAS
‘‘(20) Truckee River basin, Nevada.
‘‘(21) Walker River basin, Nevada.
‘‘(22) Bronx River watershed, New York.
‘‘(23) Catawba River watershed, North Carolina.
‘‘(24) Columbia Slough watershed, Oregon.’’;
(2) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection
(f); and
(3) by inserting after subsection (d) the fol-
lowing:
‘‘(e) 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, with
the consent of the affected local government, a non-Federal
interest may include a nonprofit entity.’’.
SEC. 217. LAKES PROGRAM.
Section 602(a) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4148) is amended—
(1) in paragraph (15), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the
end;
(2) in paragraph (16), by striking the period at
the end; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(17) Clear Lake, Lake County, California, re-
moval of silt and aquatic growth and development of
a sustainable weed and algae management program;
HR 1480 EAS
‘‘(18) Flints Pond, Hollis, New Hampshire, re-
moval of excessive aquatic vegetation; and
‘‘(19) Osgood Pond, Milford, New Hampshire, re-
moval of excessive aquatic vegetation.’’.
SEC. 218. SEDIMENTS DECONTAMINATION POLICY.
Section 405 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2239 note; Public Law 102–580) is
amended—
(1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the
following:
‘‘(4) PRACTICAL
END-USE
PRODUCTS.—Tech-
nologies selected for demonstration at the pilot scale
shall result in practical end-use products.
‘‘(5) ASSISTANCE BY THE SECRETARY.—The Sec-
retary shall assist the project to ensure expeditious
completion by providing sufficient quantities of con-
taminated dredged material to conduct the full-scale
demonstrations to stated capacity.’’; and
(2) in subsection (c), by striking the first sen-
tence and inserting the following: ‘‘There is author-
ized to be appropriated to carry out this section a
total of $22,000,000 to complete technology testing,
technology commercialization, and the development of
full scale processing facilities within the New York/
New Jersey Harbor.’’.
HR 1480 EAS
SEC. 219. DISPOSAL OF DREDGED MATERIAL ON BEACHES.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 145 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C. 426j) is amended in
the first sentence by striking ‘‘50’’ and inserting ‘‘35’’.
(b) GREAT LAKES BASIN.—The Secretary shall work
with the State of Ohio, other Great Lakes States, and polit-
ical subdivisions of the States to fully implement and maxi-
mize beneficial reuse of dredged material as provided under
section 145 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976
(33 U.S.C. 426j).
SEC. 220. FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION.
Section 906(e) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(e)) is amended by inserting after
the second sentence the following: ‘‘Not more than 80 percent
of the non-Federal share of such first costs may be in kind,
including a facility, supply, or service that is necessary to
carry out the enhancement project.’’.
SEC. 221. REIMBURSEMENT OF NON-FEDERAL INTEREST.
Section 211(e)(2)(A) of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 701b–13(e)(2)(A)) is amended
by striking ‘‘subject to amounts being made available in
advance in appropriations Acts’’ and inserting ‘‘subject to
the availability of appropriations’’.
HR 1480 EAS
SEC. 222. NATIONAL CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT TASK
FORCE.
(a) DEFINITION OF TASK FORCE.—In this section, the
term ‘‘Task Force’’ means the National Contaminated Sedi-
ment Task Force established by section 502 of the National
Contaminated Sediment Assessment and Management Act
(33 U.S.C. 1271 note; Public Law 102–580).
(b) CONVENING.—The Secretary and the Adminis-
trator shall convene the Task Force not later than 90 days
after the date of enactment of this Act.
(c) REPORTING ON REMEDIAL ACTION.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Task Force shall
submit to Congress a report on the status of remedial
actions at aquatic sites in the areas described in
paragraph (2).
(2) AREAS.—The report under paragraph (1)
shall address remedial actions in—
(A) areas of probable concern identified in
the survey of data regarding aquatic sediment
quality required by section 503(a) of the Na-
tional Contaminated Sediment Assessment and
Management Act (33 U.S.C. 1271);
(B) areas of concern within the Great
Lakes, as identified under section 118(f) of the
HR 1480 EAS
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1268(f));
(C) estuaries of national significance identi-
fied under section 320 of the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1330);
(D) areas for which remedial action has
been authorized under any of the Water Re-
sources Development Acts; and
(E) as appropriate, any other areas where
sediment contamination is identified by the Task
Force.
(3) ACTIVITIES.—Remedial actions subject to re-
porting under this subsection include remedial actions
under—
(A) the Comprehensive Environmental Re-
sponse, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) or other Federal or
State law containing environmental remediation
authority;
(B) any of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Acts;
(C) section 404 of the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344); or
(D) section 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899
(30 Stat. 1151, chapter 425).
HR 1480 EAS
(4) CONTENTS.—The report under paragraph (1)
shall provide, with respect to each remedial action de-
scribed in the report, a description of—
(A) the authorities and sources of funding
for conducting the remedial action;
(B) the nature and sources of the sediment
contamination, including volume and concentra-
tion, where appropriate;
(C) the testing conducted to determine the
nature and extent of sediment contamination
and to determine whether the remedial action is
necessary;
(D) the action levels or other factors used to
determine that the remedial action is necessary;
(E) the nature of the remedial action
planned or undertaken, including the levels of
protection of public health and the environment
to be achieved by the remedial action;
(F) the ultimate disposition of any material
dredged as part of the remedial action;
(G) the status of projects and the obstacles
or barriers to prompt conduct of the remedial ac-
tion; and
(H) contacts and sources of further informa-
tion concerning the remedial action.
100
HR 1480 EAS
SEC. 223. JOHN GLENN GREAT LAKES BASIN PROGRAM.
(a) STRATEGIC PLANS.—
(1) IN
GENERAL.—Not later than 18 months
after the date of enactment of this Act, and every 2
years thereafter, the Secretary shall report to Congress
on a plan for programs of the Corps of Engineers in
the Great Lakes basin.
(2) CONTENTS.—The plan shall include details of
the projected environmental and navigational projects
in the Great Lakes basin, including—
(A) navigational maintenance and oper-
ations for commercial and recreational vessels;
(B) environmental restoration activities;
(C) water level maintenance activities;
(D) technical and planning assistance to
States and remedial action planning committees;
(E) sediment transport analysis, sediment
management planning, and activities to support
prevention of excess sediment loadings;
(F) flood damage reduction and shoreline
erosion prevention;
(G) all other activities of the Corps of Engi-
neers; and
(H) an analysis of factors limiting use of
programs and authorities of the Corps of Engi-
neers in existence on the date of enactment of
101
HR 1480 EAS
this Act in the Great Lakes basin, including the
need for new or modified authorities.
(b) GREAT
LAKES
BIOHYDROLOGICAL
INFORMA-
TION.—
(1) INVENTORY.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Sec-
retary shall request each Federal agency that
may possess information relevant to the Great
Lakes biohydrological system to provide an in-
ventory of all such information in the possession
of the agency.
(B) RELEVANT INFORMATION.—For the pur-
pose of subparagraph (A), relevant information
includes information on—
(i) ground and surface water hydrol-
ogy;
(ii) natural and altered tributary dy-
namics;
(iii) biological aspects of the system in-
fluenced by and influencing water quantity
and water movement;
(iv) meteorological projections and
weather impacts on Great Lakes water lev-
els; and
102
HR 1480 EAS
(v) other Great Lakes biohydrological
system data relevant to sustainable water
use management.
(2) REPORT.—
(A) IN
GENERAL.—Not later than 18
months after the date of enactment of this Act,
the Secretary, in consultation with the States,
Indian tribes, and Federal agencies, and after
requesting information from the provinces and
the federal government of Canada, shall—
(i) compile the inventories of informa-
tion;
(ii) analyze the information for con-
sistency and gaps; and
(iii) submit to Congress, the Inter-
national Joint Commission, and the Great
Lakes States a report that includes rec-
ommendations on ways to improve the in-
formation base on the biohydrological dy-
namics of the Great Lakes ecosystem as a
whole, so as to support environmentally
sound decisions regarding diversions and
consumptive uses of Great Lakes water.
(B) 
RECOMMENDATIONS.—The 
rec-
ommendations in the report under subparagraph
103
HR 1480 EAS
(A) shall include recommendations relating to
the resources and funds necessary for imple-
menting improvement of the information base.
(C) CONSIDERATIONS.—In developing the
report under subparagraph (A), the Secretary, in
cooperation with the Secretary of State, the Sec-
retary of Transportation, and other relevant
agencies as appropriate, shall consider and re-
port on the status of the issues described and rec-
ommendations made in—
(i) the Report of the International
Joint Commission to the Governments of the
United States and Canada under the 1977
reference issued in 1985; and
(ii) the 1993 Report of the Inter-
national Joint Commission to the Govern-
ments of Canada and the United States on
Methods of Alleviating Adverse Consequences
of Fluctuating Water Levels in the Great
Lakes St. Lawrence Basin.
(c) GREAT LAKES RECREATIONAL BOATING.—Not
later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary shall, using information and studies in
existence on the date of enactment of this Act to the max-
imum extent practicable, and in cooperation with the Great
104
HR 1480 EAS
Lakes States, submit to Congress a report detailing the eco-
nomic benefits of recreational boating in the Great Lakes
basin, particularly at harbors benefiting from operation
and maintenance projects of the Corps of Engineers.
(d) COOPERATION.—In undertaking activities under
this section, the Secretary shall—
(1) encourage public participation; and
(2) cooperate, and, as appropriate, collaborate,
with Great Lakes States, tribal governments, and Ca-
nadian federal, provincial, tribal governments.
(e) WATER USE ACTIVITIES AND POLICIES.—The Sec-
retary may provide technical assistance to the Great Lakes
States to develop interstate guidelines to improve the con-
sistency and efficiency of State-level water use activities
and policies in the Great Lakes basin.
(f) COST SHARING.—The Secretary may seek and ac-
cept funds from non-Federal entities to be used to pay up
to 25 percent of the cost of carrying out subsections (b),
(c), (d), and (e).
SEC. 224. PROJECTS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE ENVIRON-
MENT.
Section 1135(c) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a(c)) is amended—
(1) by striking ‘‘The Secretary’’ and inserting
the following:
105
HR 1480 EAS
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary’’; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(2) CONTROL OF SEA LAMPREY.—Congress finds
that—
‘‘(A) the Great Lakes navigation system has
been instrumental in the spread of sea lamprey
and the associated impacts to its fishery; and
‘‘(B) the use of the authority under this sub-
section for control of sea lamprey at any Great
Lakes basin location is appropriate.’’.
SEC. 225. WATER QUALITY, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY,
RECREATION, FISH AND WILDLIFE, FLOOD
CONTROL, AND NAVIGATION.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may investigate,
study, evaluate, and report on—
(1) water quality, environmental quality, recre-
ation, fish and wildlife, flood control, and navigation
in the western Lake Erie watershed, including the
watersheds of the Maumee River, Ottawa River, and
Portage River in the States of Indiana, Ohio, and
Michigan; and
(2) measures to improve water quality, environ-
mental quality, recreation, fish and wildlife, flood
control, and navigation in the western Lake Erie
basin.
106
HR 1480 EAS
(b) COOPERATION.—In carrying out studies and inves-
tigations under subsection (a), the Secretary shall cooperate
with Federal, State, and local agencies and nongovern-
mental organizations to ensure full consideration of all
views and requirements of all interrelated programs that
those agencies may develop independently or in coordina-
tion with the Corps of Engineers.
SEC. 226. IRRIGATION DIVERSION PROTECTION AND FISH-
ERIES ENHANCEMENT ASSISTANCE.
The Secretary may provide technical planning and de-
sign assistance to non-Federal interests and may conduct
other site-specific studies to formulate and evaluate fish
screens, fish passages devices, and other measures to de-
crease the incidence of juvenile and adult fish inadvertently
entering into irrigation systems. Measures shall be devel-
oped in cooperation with Federal and State resource agen-
cies and not impair the continued withdrawal of water for
irrigation purposes. In providing such assistance priority
shall be given based on the objectives of the Endangered Spe-
cies Act, cost-effectiveness, and the potential for reducing
fish mortality. Non-Federal interests shall agree by contract
to contribute 50 percent of the cost of such assistance. Not
more than one-half of such non-Federal contribution may
be made by the provision of services, materials, supplies,
or other in-kind services. No construction activities are au-
107
HR 1480 EAS
thorized by this section. Not later than 2 years after the
date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall report
to Congress on fish mortality caused by irrigation water
intake devices, appropriate measures to reduce mortality,
the extent to which such measures are currently being em-
ployed in the arid States, the construction costs associated
with such measures, and the appropriate Federal role, if
any, to encourage the use of such measures.
SEC. 227. SMALL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECTS.
Section 3 of the Act of August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C.
426g), is amended by striking ‘‘$2,000,000’’ and inserting
‘‘$3,000,000’’.
SEC. 228. SHORE DAMAGE PREVENTION OR MITIGATION.
Section 111 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (33
U.S.C. 426(i)) is amended—
(1) in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘The Sec-
retary’’ and inserting ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Sec-
retary’’;
(2) in the second sentence, by striking ‘‘The
costs’’ and inserting the following:
‘‘(b) COST SHARING.—The costs’’;
(3) in the third sentence—
(A) by striking ‘‘No such’’ and inserting the
following:
108
HR 1480 EAS
‘‘(c) REQUIREMENT FOR SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATION.—
No such’’; and
(B) by striking ‘‘$2,000,000’’ and inserting
‘‘$5,000,000’’; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(d) COORDINATION.—The Secretary shall—
‘‘(1) coordinate the implementation of the meas-
ures under this section with other Federal and non-
Federal shore protection projects in the same geo-
graphic area; and
‘‘(2) to the extent practicable, combine mitiga-
tion projects with other shore protection projects in
the same area into a comprehensive regional project.’’.
SEC. 229. ATLANTIC COAST OF NEW YORK.
Section 404(c) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1992 (106 Stat. 4863) is amended by inserting after
‘‘1997’’ the following: ‘‘and an additional total of
$2,500,000 for fiscal years thereafter’’.
SEC. 230. ACCELERATED ADOPTION OF INNOVATIVE TECH-
NOLOGIES FOR CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS.
Section 8 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1988 (33 U.S.C. 2314) is amended—
(1) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as
subsections (c) and (d), respectively; and
109
HR 1480 EAS
(2) by inserting after subsection (a) the fol-
lowing:
‘‘(b) ACCELERATED ADOPTION OF INNOVATIVE TECH-
NOLOGIES
FOR MANAGEMENT
OF CONTAMINATED SEDI-
MENTS.—
‘‘(1) TEST PROJECTS.—The Secretary shall ap-
prove an appropriate number of projects to test,
under actual field conditions, innovative technologies
for environmentally sound management of contami-
nated sediments.
‘‘(2) 
DEMONSTRATION
PROJECTS.—The 
Sec-
retary may approve an appropriate number of
projects to demonstrate innovative technologies that
have been pilot tested under paragraph (1).
‘‘(3) CONDUCT OF PROJECTS.—Each pilot project
under paragraph (1) and demonstration project
under paragraph (2) shall be conducted by a univer-
sity with proven expertise in the research and devel-
opment of contaminated sediment treatment tech-
nologies and innovative applications using waste ma-
terials.’’.
SEC. 231. MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a member
of the Mississippi River Commission (other than the presi-
110
HR 1480 EAS
dent of the Commission) shall receive annual pay of
$21,500.
SEC. 232. USE OF PRIVATE ENTERPRISES.
(a) INVENTORY AND REVIEW.—The Secretary shall in-
ventory and review all activities of the Corps of Engineers
that are not inherently governmental in nature in accord-
ance with the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act of
1998 (31 U.S.C. 501 note; Public Law 105–270).
(b) CONSIDERATIONS.—In determining whether to
commit to private enterprise the performance of architec-
tural or engineering services (including surveying and
mapping services), the Secretary shall take into consider-
ation professional qualifications as well as cost.
TITLE III—PROJECT-RELATED
PROVISIONS
SEC. 301. DREDGING OF SALT PONDS IN THE STATE OF
RHODE ISLAND.
The Secretary may acquire for the State of Rhode Is-
land a dredge and associated equipment with the capacity
to dredge approximately 100 cubic yards per hour for use
by the State in dredging salt ponds in the State.
111
HR 1480 EAS
SEC. 302. UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN, PENNSYL-
VANIA AND NEW YORK.
Section 567(a) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3787) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
‘‘(3) The Chemung River watershed, New York,
at an estimated Federal cost of $5,000,000.’’.
SEC. 303. SMALL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS.
Section 102 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1996 (110 Stat. 3668) is amended—
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (15) through
(22) as paragraphs (16) through (23), respectively;
(2) by inserting after paragraph (14) the fol-
lowing:
‘‘(15) REPAUPO CREEK AND DELAWARE RIVER,
GLOUCESTER
COUNTY, 
NEW
JERSEY.—Project for
tidegate and levee improvements for Repaupo Creek
and the Delaware River, Gloucester County, New Jer-
sey.’’; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(24) IRONDEQUOIT CREEK, NEW YORK.—Project
for flood control, Irondequoit Creek watershed, New
York.
‘‘(25) TIOGA
COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.—Project
for flood control, Tioga River and Cowanesque River
and their tributaries, Tioga County, Pennsylvania.’’.
112
HR 1480 EAS
SEC. 304. SMALL NAVIGATION PROJECTS.
Section 104 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1996 (110 Stat. 3669) is amended—
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (9) through (12)
as paragraphs (11) through (14), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (8) the fol-
lowing:
‘‘(9) FORTESCUE INLET, DELAWARE BAY, NEW
JERSEY.—Project for navigation for Fortescue Inlet,
Delaware Bay, New Jersey.
‘‘(10) BRADDOCK BAY, GREECE, NEW YORK.—
Project for navigation, Braddock Bay, Greece, New
York.’’.
SEC. 305. STREAMBANK PROTECTION PROJECTS.
(a) ARCTIC OCEAN, BARROW, ALASKA.—The Secretary
shall evaluate and, if justified under section 14 of the Flood
Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r), carry out storm dam-
age reduction and coastal erosion measures at the town of
Barrow, Alaska.
(b) SAGINAW RIVER, BAY CITY, MICHIGAN.—The Sec-
retary may construct appropriate control structures in
areas along the Saginaw River in the city of Bay City,
Michigan, under authority of section 14 of the Flood Con-
trol Act of 1946 (33 Stat. 701r).
(c) YELLOWSTONE RIVER, BILLINGS, MONTANA.—The
streambank protection project at Coulson Park, along the
113
HR 1480 EAS
Yellowstone River, Billings, Montana, shall be eligible for
assistance under section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946
(33 U.S.C. 701r).
(d) MONONGAHELA RIVER, POINT MARION, PENNSYL-
VANIA.—The Secretary shall evaluate and, if justified under
section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C.
701r), carry out streambank erosion control measures along
the Monongahela River at the borough of Point Marion,
Pennsylvania.
SEC. 306. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, SPRING-
FIELD, OREGON.
Under section 206 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), the Secretary shall conduct
measures to address water quality, water flows, and fish
habitat restoration in the historic Springfield, Oregon, mill-
race through the reconfiguration of the existing millpond,
if the Secretary determines that harmful impacts have oc-
curred as the result of a previously constructed flood control
project by the Corps of Engineers.
SEC. 307. GUILFORD AND NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT.
The Secretary shall expeditiously complete the activi-
ties authorized under section 346 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4858), including activi-
ties associated with Sluice Creek in Guilford, Connecticut,
and Lighthouse Point Park in New Haven, Connecticut.
114
HR 1480 EAS
SEC. 308. FRANCIS BLAND FLOODWAY DITCH.
(a) REDESIGNATION.—The project for flood control,
Eight Mile Creek, Paragould, Arkansas, authorized by sec-
tion 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(100 Stat. 4112) and known as ‘‘Eight Mile Creek,
Paragould, Arkansas’’, shall be known and designated as
the ‘‘Francis Bland Floodway Ditch’’.
(b) LEGAL REFERENCES.—Any reference in any law,
map, regulation, document, paper, or other record of the
United States to the project and creek referred to in sub-
section (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Francis
Bland Floodway Ditch.
SEC. 309. CALOOSAHATCHEE RIVER BASIN, FLORIDA.
Section 528(e)(4) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3770) is amended in the first sen-
tence by inserting before the period at the end the following:
‘‘, 
including 
potential 
land 
acquisition 
in 
the
Caloosahatchee River basin or other areas’’.
SEC. 310. CUMBERLAND, MARYLAND, FLOOD PROJECT MITI-
GATION.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood control and
other purposes, Cumberland, Maryland, authorized by sec-
tion 5 of the Act of June 22, 1936 (commonly known as
the ‘‘Flood Control Act of 1936’’) (49 Stat. 1574, chapter
688), is modified to authorize the Secretary to undertake,
as a separate part of the project, restoration of the historic
115
HR 1480 EAS
Chesapeake and Ohio Canal substantially in accordance
with the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historic
Park, Cumberland, Maryland, Rewatering Design Analysis,
dated February 1998, at a total cost of $15,000,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $9,750,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $5,250,000.
(b) IN-KIND SERVICES.—The non-Federal interest for
the restoration project under subsection (a)—
(1) may provide all or a portion of the non-Fed-
eral share of project costs in the form of in-kind serv-
ices; and
(2) shall receive credit toward the non-Federal
share of project costs for design and construction work
performed by the non-Federal interest before execution
of a project cooperation agreement and for land, ease-
ments, and rights-of-way required for the restoration
and acquired by the non-Federal interest before execu-
tion of such an agreement.
(c) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The operation
and maintenance of the restoration project under subsection
(a) shall be the full responsibility of the National Park
Service.
SEC. 311. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA.
Section 5(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act of August 13, 1946 (33
U.S.C. 426h), is amended by inserting before the semicolon
116
HR 1480 EAS
the following: ‘‘, including the city of Miami Beach, Flor-
ida’’.
SEC. 312. SARDIS RESERVOIR, OKLAHOMA.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall accept from the
State of Oklahoma or an agent of the State an amount,
as determined under subsection (b), as prepayment of 100
percent of the water supply cost obligation of the State
under Contract No. DACW56–74–JC–0314 for water sup-
ply storage at Sardis Reservoir, Oklahoma.
(b) DETERMINATION OF AMOUNT.—The amount to be
paid by the State of Oklahoma under subsection (a) shall
be subject to adjustment in accordance with accepted dis-
count purchase methods for Government properties as deter-
mined by an independent accounting firm designated by
the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
(c) EFFECT.—Nothing in this section shall otherwise
affect any of the rights or obligations of the parties to the
contract referred to in subsection (a).
SEC. 313. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND ILLINOIS WATER-
WAY SYSTEM NAVIGATION MODERNIZATION.
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that—
(1) exports are necessary to ensure job creation
and an improved standard of living for the people of
the United States;
117
HR 1480 EAS
(2) the ability of producers of goods in the
United States to compete in the international market-
place depends on a modern and efficient transpor-
tation network;
(3) a modern and efficient waterway system is
a transportation option necessary to provide United
States shippers a safe, reliable, and competitive
means to win foreign markets in an increasingly
competitive international marketplace;
(4) the need to modernize is heightened because
the United States is at risk of losing its competitive
edge as a result of the priority that foreign competi-
tors are placing on modernizing their own waterway
systems;
(5) growing export demand projected over the
coming decades will force greater demands on the wa-
terway system of the United States and increase the
cost to the economy if the system proves inadequate
to satisfy growing export opportunities;
(6) the locks and dams on the upper Mississippi
River and Illinois River waterway system were built
in the 1930s and have some of the highest average
delays to commercial tows in the country;
(7) inland barges carry freight at the lowest unit
cost while offering an alternative to truck and rail
118
HR 1480 EAS
transportation that is environmentally sound, is en-
ergy efficient, is safe, causes little congestion, produces
little air or noise pollution, and has minimal social
impact; and
(8) it should be the policy of the Corps of Engi-
neers to pursue aggressively modernization of the wa-
terway system authorized by Congress to promote the
relative competitive position of the United States in
the international marketplace.
(b) PRECONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND DESIGN.—
In accordance with the Upper Mississippi River-Illinois
Waterway System Navigation Study, the Secretary shall
proceed immediately to prepare engineering design, plans,
and specifications for extension of locks 20, 21, 22, 24, 25
on the Mississippi River and the LaGrange and Peoria
Locks on the Illinois River, to provide lock chambers 110
feet in width and 1,200 feet in length, so that construction
can proceed immediately upon completion of studies and
authorization of projects by Congress.
SEC. 314. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER MANAGEMENT.
Section 1103 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 652) is amended—
(1) in subsection (e)—
119
HR 1480 EAS
(A) by striking ‘‘(e)’’ and all that follows
through the end of paragraph (2) and inserting
the following:
‘‘(e) UNDERTAKINGS.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—
‘‘(A) AUTHORITY.—The Secretary, in con-
sultation with the Secretary of the Interior and
the States of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri,
and Wisconsin, is authorized to undertake—
‘‘(i) a program for the planning, con-
struction, and evaluation of measures for
fish and wildlife habitat rehabilitation and
enhancement; and
‘‘(ii) implementation of a program of
long-term resource monitoring, computer-
ized data inventory and analysis, and ap-
plied research.
‘‘(B) REQUIREMENTS
FOR
PROJECTS.—
Each project carried out under subparagraph
(A)(i) shall—
‘‘(i) to the maximum extent prac-
ticable, simulate natural river processes;
‘‘(ii) include an outreach and edu-
cation component; and
120
HR 1480 EAS
‘‘(iii) on completion of the assessment
under subparagraph (D), address identified
habitat and natural resource needs.
‘‘(C) ADVISORY
COMMITTEE.—In carrying
out subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall create
an independent technical advisory committee to
review projects, monitoring plans, and habitat
and natural resource needs assessments.
‘‘(D) HABITAT
AND
NATURAL
RESOURCE
NEEDS ASSESSMENT.—
‘‘(i) AUTHORITY.—The Secretary is
authorized to undertake a systemic, river
reach, and pool scale assessment of habitat
and natural resource needs to serve as a
blueprint to guide habitat rehabilitation
and long-term resource monitoring.
‘‘(ii) DATA.—The habitat and natural
resource needs assessment shall, to the max-
imum extent practicable, use data in exist-
ence at the time of the assessment.
‘‘(iii) TIMING.—The Secretary shall
complete a habitat and natural resource
needs assessment not later than 3 years
after the date of enactment of this subpara-
graph.
121
HR 1480 EAS
‘‘(2) REPORTS.—On December 31, 2005, in con-
sultation with the Secretary of the Interior and the
States of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and
Wisconsin, the Secretary shall prepare and submit to
Congress a report that—
‘‘(A) contains an evaluation of the pro-
grams described in paragraph (1);
‘‘(B) describes the accomplishments of each
program;
‘‘(C) includes results of a habitat and nat-
ural resource needs assessment; and
‘‘(D) identifies any needed adjustments in
the authorization under paragraph (1) or the au-
thorized appropriations under paragraphs (3),
(4), and (5).’’;
(B) in paragraph (3)—
(i) by striking ‘‘paragraph (1)(A)’’ and
inserting ‘‘paragraph (1)(A)(i)’’; and
(ii) by striking ‘‘Secretary not to ex-
ceed’’ and all that follows and inserting
‘‘Secretary not to exceed $22,750,000 for
each of fiscal years 1999 through 2009.’’;
(C) in paragraph (4)—
(i) by striking ‘‘paragraph (1)(B)’’
and inserting ‘‘paragraph (1)(A)(ii)’’; and
122
HR 1480 EAS
(ii) by striking ‘‘$7,680,000’’ and all
that follows and inserting ‘‘$10,420,000 for
each of fiscal years 1999 through 2009.’’;
(D) by striking paragraphs (5) and (6) and
inserting the following:
‘‘(5) AUTHORIZATION
OF
APPROPRIATIONS.—
There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out
paragraph (1)(C) not to exceed $350,000 for each of
fiscal years 1999 through 2009.
‘‘(6) TRANSFER OF AMOUNTS.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—For each fiscal year be-
ginning after September 30, 1992, the Secretary,
in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior
and the States of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Mis-
souri, and Wisconsin, may transfer appropriated
amounts between the programs under clauses (i)
and (ii) of paragraph (1)(A) and paragraph
(1)(C).
‘‘(B) APPORTIONMENT OF COSTS.—In car-
rying out paragraph (1)(D), the Secretary may
apportion the costs between the programs author-
ized by paragraph (1)(A) in amounts that are
proportionate to the amounts authorized to be
appropriated to carry out those programs, re-
spectively.’’; and
123
HR 1480 EAS
(E) in paragraph (7)—
(i) in subparagraph (A)—
(I) by inserting ‘‘(i)’’ after ‘‘para-
graph (1)(A)’’; and
(II) by inserting before the period
at the end the following: ‘‘and, in the
case of any project requiring non-Fed-
eral cost sharing, the non-Federal share
of the cost of the project shall be 35
percent’’; and
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking
‘‘paragraphs (1)(B) and (1)(C) of this sub-
section’’ 
and 
inserting 
‘‘paragraph
(1)(A)(ii)’’;
(2) in subsection (f)(2)—
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘(A)’’;
and
(B) by striking subparagraph (B); and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(k) ST. LOUIS AREA URBAN WILDLIFE HABITAT.—
The Secretary shall investigate and, if appropriate, carry
out restoration of urban wildlife habitat, with a special em-
phasis on the establishment of greenways in the St. Louis,
Missouri, area and surrounding communities.’’.
124
HR 1480 EAS
SEC. 315. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR
COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVERS SALMON SUR-
VIVAL.
Section 511 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 3301 note; Public Law 104–303) is
amended by striking subsection (a) and all that follows and
inserting the following:
‘‘(a) SALMON SURVIVAL ACTIVITIES.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In conjunction with the Sec-
retary of Commerce and Secretary of the Interior, the
Secretary shall accelerate ongoing research and devel-
opment activities, and may carry out or participate
in additional research and development activities, for
the purpose of developing innovative methods and
technologies for improving the survival of salmon, es-
pecially salmon in the Columbia/Snake River Basin.
‘‘(2) ACCELERATED ACTIVITIES.—Accelerated re-
search and development activities referred to in para-
graph (1) may include research and development re-
lated to—
‘‘(A) impacts from water resources projects
and other impacts on salmon life cycles;
‘‘(B) juvenile and adult salmon passage;
‘‘(C) light and sound guidance systems;
‘‘(D) surface-oriented collector systems;
‘‘(E) transportation mechanisms; and
125
HR 1480 EAS
‘‘(F) dissolved gas monitoring and abate-
ment.
‘‘(3) ADDITIONAL
ACTIVITIES.—Additional re-
search and development activities referred to in para-
graph (1) may include research and development re-
lated to—
‘‘(A) studies of juvenile salmon survival in
spawning and rearing areas;
‘‘(B) estuary and near-ocean juvenile and
adult salmon survival;
‘‘(C) impacts on salmon life cycles from
sources other than water resources projects;
‘‘(D) cryopreservation of fish gametes and
formation of a germ plasm repository for threat-
ened and endangered populations of native fish;
and
‘‘(E) other innovative technologies and ac-
tions intended to improve fish survival, includ-
ing the survival of resident fish.
‘‘(4) COORDINATION.—The Secretary shall co-
ordinate any activities carried out under this sub-
section with appropriate Federal, State, and local
agencies, affected Indian tribes, and the Northwest
Power Planning Council.
126
HR 1480 EAS
‘‘(5) REPORT.—Not later than 3 years after the
date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall
submit to Congress a report on the research and devel-
opment activities carried out under this subsection,
including any recommendations of the Secretary con-
cerning the research and development activities.
‘‘(6) AUTHORIZATION
OF
APPROPRIATIONS.—
There is authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 to
carry out research and development activities under
paragraph (3).
‘‘(b) ADVANCED TURBINE DEVELOPMENT.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In conjunction with the Sec-
retary of Energy, the Secretary shall accelerate efforts
toward developing and installing in Corps of Engi-
neers-operated dams innovative, efficient, and envi-
ronmentally safe hydropower turbines, including de-
sign of fish-friendly turbines, for use on the Columbia/
Snake River hydrosystem.
‘‘(2) AUTHORIZATION
OF
APPROPRIATIONS.—
There is authorized to be appropriated $35,000,000 to
carry out this subsection.
‘‘(c) MANAGEMENT
OF PREDATION
ON COLUMBIA/
SNAKE RIVER SYSTEM NATIVE FISHES.—
‘‘(1) NESTING AVIAN PREDATORS.—In conjunc-
tion with the Secretary of Commerce and the Sec-
127
HR 1480 EAS
retary of the Interior, and consistent with a manage-
ment plan to be developed by the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service, the Secretary shall carry out
methods to reduce nesting populations of avian preda-
tors on dredge spoil islands in the Columbia River
under the jurisdiction of the Secretary.
‘‘(2) AUTHORIZATION
OF
APPROPRIATIONS.—
There is authorized to be appropriated $1,000,000 to
carry out research and development activities under
this subsection.
‘‘(d) IMPLEMENTATION.—Nothing in this section af-
fects the authority of the Secretary to implement the results
of the research and development carried out under this sec-
tion or any other law.’’.
SEC. 316. NINE MILE RUN HABITAT RESTORATION, PENN-
SYLVANIA.
If the Secretary determines that the documentation is
integral to the project, the Secretary shall credit against
the non-Federal share such costs, not to exceed $1,000,000,
as are incurred by the non-Federal interests in preparing
the environmental restoration report, planning and design-
phase scientific and engineering technical services docu-
mentation, and other preconstruction documentation for the
habitat restoration project, Nine Mile Run, Pennsylvania.
128
HR 1480 EAS
SEC. 317. LARKSPUR FERRY CHANNEL, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall work with the Secretary of Trans-
portation on a proposed solution to carry out the project
to maintain the Larkspur Ferry Channel, Larkspur, Cali-
fornia, authorized by section 601(d) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4148).
SEC. 
318. 
COMPREHENSIVE 
FLOOD 
IMPACT-RESPONSE
MODELING SYSTEM.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may study and im-
plement a Comprehensive Flood Impact-Response Modeling
System for the Coralville Reservoir and the Iowa River wa-
tershed, Iowa.
(b) STUDY.—The study shall include—
(1) an evaluation of the combined hydrologic,
geomorphic, environmental, economic, social, and rec-
reational impacts of operating strategies within the
watershed;
(2) creation of an integrated, dynamic flood im-
pact model; and
(3) the development of a rapid response system
to be used during flood and emergency situations.
(c) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 5 years
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall
transmit a report to Congress on the results of the study
and modeling system and such recommendations as the Sec-
retary determines to be appropriate.
129
HR 1480 EAS
(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is
authorized to be appropriated a total of $2,250,000 to carry
out this section.
SEC. 319. STUDY REGARDING INNOVATIVE FINANCING FOR
SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED PORTS.
(a) STUDY.—The Comptroller General of the United
States shall conduct a study and analysis of various alter-
natives for innovative financing of future construction, op-
eration, and maintenance of projects in small and medium-
sized ports.
(b) REPORT.—Not later than 270 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall sub-
mit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works
of the Senate and Committee on Transportation and Infra-
structure of the House of Representatives and the results
of the study and any related legislative recommendations
for consideration by Congress.
SEC. 320. CANDY LAKE PROJECT, OSAGE COUNTY, OKLA-
HOMA.
(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
(1) FAIR MARKET VALUE.—The term ‘‘fair mar-
ket value’’ means the amount for which a willing
buyer would purchase and a willing seller would sell
a parcel of land, as determined by a qualified, inde-
pendent land appraiser.
130
HR 1480 EAS
(2) PREVIOUS OWNER OF LAND.—The term ‘‘pre-
vious owner of land’’ means a person (including a
corporation) that conveyed, or a descendant of a de-
ceased individual who conveyed, land to the Corps of
Engineers for use in the Candy Lake project in Osage
County, Oklahoma.
(3) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means
the Secretary of the Army.
(b) LAND CONVEYANCES.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall convey, in
accordance with this section, all right, title, and in-
terest of the United States in and to the land ac-
quired by the United States for the Candy Lake
project in Osage County, Oklahoma.
(2) PREVIOUS OWNERS OF LAND.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall give
a previous owner of land first option to purchase
the land described in paragraph (1).
(B) APPLICATION.—
(i) IN GENERAL.—A previous owner of
land that desires to purchase the land de-
scribed in paragraph (1) that was owned by
the previous owner of land, or by the indi-
vidual from whom the previous owner of
land is descended, shall file an application
131
HR 1480 EAS
to purchase the land with the Secretary not
later than 180 days after the official date of
notice to the previous owner of land under
subsection (c).
(ii) FIRST
TO
FILE
HAS
FIRST
OP-
TION.—If more than 1 application is filed
for a parcel of land described in paragraph
(1), first options to purchase the parcel of
land shall be allotted in the order in which
applications for the parcel of land were
filed.
(C) IDENTIFICATION OF PREVIOUS OWNERS
OF LAND.—As soon as practicable after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall, to
the extent practicable, identify each previous
owner of land.
(D) 
CONSIDERATION.—Consideration 
for
land conveyed under this subsection shall be the
fair market value of the land.
(3) DISPOSAL.—Any land described in para-
graph (1) for which an application has not been filed
under paragraph (2)(B) within the applicable time
period shall be disposed of in accordance with law.
(4) EXTINGUISHMENT OF EASEMENTS.—All flow-
age easements acquired by the United States for use
139
HR 1480 EAS
(b) LAND DESCRIPTION.—The parcels of land referred
to in subsection (a) are—
(1) the parcel located in Butler County, Kansas,
adjacent to the El Dorado Lake Project, consisting of
approximately 32.98 acres; and
(2) the parcel located in Woodson County, Kan-
sas, adjacent to the Toronto Lake Project, consisting
of approximately 51.98 acres.
(c) CONDITIONS.—
(1) USE OF LAND.—A conveyance of a parcel
under subsection (a) shall be subject to the condition
that all right, title, and interest in and to the parcel
conveyed under subsection (a) shall revert to the
United States if the parcel is used for a purpose other
than that of a correctional facility.
(2) COSTS.—The Secretary may require such ad-
ditional terms, conditions, reservations, and restric-
tions in connection with the conveyance as the Sec-
retary determines are necessary to protect the inter-
ests of the United States, including a requirement
that the State pay all reasonable administrative costs
associated with the conveyance.