Union Calendar No. 362
104TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
H. R. 3592
[Report No. 104–695]
A BILL
To provide for conservation and development of
water and related resources, to authorize the Sec-
retary of the Army to construct various projects
for improvements to rivers and harbors of the
United States, and for other purposes.
JULY 22, 1996
Reported with an amendment, committed to the Commit-
tee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, and
ordered to be printed
IB
Union Calendar No. 362
104TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
H. R. 3592
[Report No. 104–695]
To provide for conservation and development of water and related resources,
to authorize the Secretary of the Army to construct various projects
for improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and for
other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
JUNE 6, 1996
Mr. SHUSTER (for himself, Mr. OBERSTAR, Mr. BOEHLERT, and Mr. BORSKI)
introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
JULY 22, 1996
Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed
[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic]
[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on June 6, 1996]
A BILL
To provide for conservation and development of water and
related resources, to authorize the Secretary of the Army
to construct various projects for improvements to rivers
and harbors of the United States, and for other pur-
poses.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the
‘‘Water Resources Development Act of 1996’’.
(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definition.
TITLE I—WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS
Sec. 101. Project authorizations.
Sec. 102. Small flood control projects.
Sec. 103. Small bank stabilization projects.
Sec. 104. Small navigation projects.
Sec. 105. Small shoreline protection projects.
Sec. 106. Small snagging and sediment removal project, Mississippi River, Little
Falls, Minnesota.
Sec. 107. Small projects for improvement of the environment.
TITLE II—GENERALLY APPLICABLE PROVISIONS
Sec. 201. Cost sharing for dredged material disposal areas.
Sec. 202. Flood control policy.
Sec. 203. Feasibility study cost-sharing.
Sec. 204. Restoration of environmental quality.
Sec. 205. Environmental dredging.
Sec. 206. Aquatic ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 207. Beneficial uses of dredged material.
Sec. 208. Recreation policy and user fees.
Sec. 209. Recovery of costs.
Sec. 210. Cost sharing of environmental projects.
Sec. 211. Construction of flood control projects by non-Federal interests.
Sec. 212. Engineering and environmental innovations of national significance.
Sec. 213. Lease authority.
Sec. 214. Collaborative research and development.
Sec. 215. Dam safety program.
Sec. 216. Maintenance, rehabilitation, and modernization of facilities.
Sec. 217. Long-term sediment management strategies.
Sec. 218. Dredged material disposal facility partnerships.
Sec. 219. Obstruction removal requirement.
Sec. 220. Small project authorizations.
Sec. 221. Uneconomical cost-sharing requirements.
Sec. 222. Planning assistance to States.
Sec. 223. Corps of Engineers expenses.
Sec. 224. State and Federal agency review period.
Sec. 225. Limitation on reimbursement of non-Federal costs per project.
Sec. 226. Aquatic plant control.
Sec. 227. Sediments decontamination technology.
Sec. 228. Shore protection.
Sec. 229. Project deauthorizations.
Sec. 230. Support of Army Civil Works Program.
Sec. 231. Benefits to navigation.
Sec. 232. Loss of life prevention.
Sec. 233. Scenic and aesthetic considerations.
Sec. 234. Removal of study prohibitions.
Sec. 235. Sense of Congress; requirement regarding notice.
Sec. 236. Reservoir Management Technical Advisory Committee.
Sec. 237. Technical corrections.
TITLE III—PROJECT MODIFICATIONS
Sec. 301. Mobile Harbor, Alabama.
Sec. 302. Alamo Dam, Arizona.
Sec. 303. Nogales Wash and Tributaries, Arizona.
Sec. 304. Phoenix, Arizona.
Sec. 305. San Francisco River at Clifton, Arizona.
Sec. 306. Glenn-Colusa, California.
Sec. 307. Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors, San Pedro Bay, California.
Sec. 308. Oakland Harbor, California.
Sec. 309. Queensway Bay, California.
Sec. 310. San Luis Rey, California.
Sec. 311. Thames River, Connecticut.
Sec. 312. Potomac River, Washington, District Of Columbia.
Sec. 313. Canaveral Harbor, Florida.
Sec. 314. Central and southern Florida, Canal 51.
Sec. 315. Central and southern Florida, Canal 111 (C–111).
Sec. 316. Jacksonville Harbor (Mill Cove), Florida.
Sec. 317. Tybee Island, Georgia.
Sec. 318. White River, Indiana.
Sec. 319. Chicago, Illinois.
Sec. 320. Chicago Lock and Thomas J. O’Brien Lock, Illinois.
Sec. 321. Kaskaskia River, Illinois.
Sec. 322. Locks and Dam 26, Alton, Illinois and Missouri.
Sec. 323. North Branch of Chicago River, Illinois.
Sec. 324. Illinois and Michigan Canal.
Sec. 325. Halstead, Kansas.
Sec. 326. Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Cumberland River,
Kentucky, West Virginia, and Virginia.
Sec. 327. Comite River, Louisiana.
Sec. 328. Grand Isle and Vicinity, Louisiana.
Sec. 329. Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana.
Sec. 330. Mississippi Delta Region, Louisiana.
Sec. 331. Mississippi River Outlets, Venice, Louisiana.
Sec. 332. Red River Waterway, Louisiana.
Sec. 333. Tolchester Channel, Maryland.
Sec. 334. Saginaw River, Michigan.
Sec. 335. Sault Sainte Marie, Chippewa County, Michigan.
Sec. 336. Stillwater, Minnesota.
Sec. 337. Cape Girardeau, Missouri.
Sec. 338. New Madrid Harbor, Missouri.
Sec. 339. St. John’s Bayou—New Madrid Floodway, Missouri.
Sec. 340. Joseph G. Minish Passaic River Park, New Jersey.
Sec. 341. Molly Ann’s Brook, New Jersey.
Sec. 342. Passaic River, New Jersey.
Sec. 343. Ramapo River at Oakland, New Jersey and New York.
Sec. 344. Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, New Jersey.
Sec. 345. Arthur Kill, New York and New Jersey.
Sec. 346. Jones Inlet, New York.
Sec. 347. Kill Van Kull, New York and New Jersey.
Sec. 348. Wilmington Harbor-Northeast Cape Fear River, North Carolina.
Sec. 349. Garrison Dam, North Dakota.
Sec. 350. Reno Beach-Howards Farm, Ohio.
Sec. 351. Wister Lake, Oklahoma.
Sec. 352. Bonneville Lock and Dam, Columbia River, Oregon and Washington.
Sec. 353. Columbia River dredging, Oregon and Washington.
Sec. 354. Grays Landing Lock and Dam, Monongahela River, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 355. Lackawanna River at Scranton, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 356. Mussers Dam, Middle Creek, Snyder County, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 357. Saw Mill Run, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 358. Schuylkill River, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 359. South Central Pennsylvania.
Sec. 360. Wyoming Valley, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 361. San Juan Harbor, Puerto Rico.
Sec. 362. Narragansett, Rhode Island.
Sec. 363. Charleston Harbor, South Carolina.
Sec. 364. Dallas Floodway Extension, Dallas, Texas.
Sec. 365. Upper Jordan River, Utah.
Sec. 366. Haysi Lake, Virginia.
Sec. 367. Rudee Inlet, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Sec. 368. Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Sec. 369. East Waterway, Washington.
Sec. 370. Bluestone Lake, West Virginia.
Sec. 371. Moorefield, West Virginia.
Sec. 372. Southern West Virginia.
Sec. 373. Kickapoo River, Wisconsin.
Sec. 374. Teton County, Wyoming.
TITLE IV—STUDIES
Sec. 401. Corps capability study, Alaska.
Sec. 402. McDowell Mountain, Arizona.
Sec. 403. Nogales Wash and Tributaries, Arizona.
Sec. 404. Garden Grove, California.
Sec. 405. Mugu Lagoon, California.
Sec. 406. Santa Ynez, California.
Sec. 407. Southern California infrastructure.
Sec. 408. Yolo Bypass, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California.
Sec. 409. Chain of Rocks Canal, Illinois.
Sec. 410. Quincy, Illinois.
Sec. 411. Springfield, Illinois.
Sec. 412. Beauty Creek Watershed, Valparaiso City, Porter County, Indiana.
Sec. 413. Grand Calumet River, Hammond, Indiana.
Sec. 414. Indiana Harbor Canal, East Chicago, Lake County, Indiana.
Sec. 415. Koontz Lake, Indiana.
Sec. 416. Little Calumet River, Indiana.
Sec. 417. Tippecanoe River Watershed, Indiana.
Sec. 418. Calcasieu Ship Channel, Hackberry, Louisiana.
Sec. 419. Huron River, Michigan.
Sec. 420. Saco River, New Hampshire.
Sec. 421. Buffalo River Greenway, New York.
Sec. 422. Port of Newburgh, New York.
Sec. 423. Port of New York-New Jersey sediment study.
Sec. 424. Port of New York-New Jersey navigation study.
Sec. 425. Chagrin River, Ohio.
Sec. 426. Cuyahoga River, Ohio.
Sec. 427. Charleston, South Carolina, estuary.
Sec. 428. Mustang Island, Corpus Christi, Texas.
Sec. 429. Prince William County, Virginia.
Sec. 430. Pacific region.
Sec. 431. Financing of infrastructure needs of small and medium ports.
TITLE V—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec. 501. Project deauthorizations.
Sec. 502. Project reauthorizations.
Sec. 503. Continuation of authorization of certain projects.
Sec. 504. Land conveyances.
Sec. 505. Namings.
Sec. 506. Watershed management, restoration, and development.
Sec. 507. Lakes program.
Sec. 508. Maintenance of navigation channels.
Sec. 509. Great Lakes remedial action plans and sediment remediation.
Sec. 510. Great Lakes dredged material testing and evaluation manual.
Sec. 511. Great Lakes sediment reduction.
Sec. 512. Great Lakes confined disposal facilities.
Sec. 513. Chesapeake Bay restoration and protection program.
Sec. 514. Extension of jurisdiction of Mississippi River Commission.
Sec. 515. Alternative to annual passes.
Sec. 516. Recreation partnership initiative.
Sec. 517. Environmental infrastructure.
Sec. 518. Corps capability to conserve fish and wildlife.
Sec. 519. Periodic beach nourishment.
Sec. 520. Control of aquatic plants.
Sec. 521. Hopper dredges.
Sec. 522. Design and construction assistance.
Sec. 523. Field office headquarters facilities.
Sec. 524. Lake Superior Center.
Sec. 525. Jackson County, Alabama.
Sec. 526. Earthquake Preparedness Center of Expertise Extension.
Sec. 527. Quarantine facility.
Sec. 528. Benton and Washington Counties, Arkansas.
Sec. 529. Calaveras County, California.
Sec. 530. Prado Dam safety improvements, California.
Sec. 531. Manatee County, Florida.
Sec. 532. Tampa, Florida.
Sec. 533. Watershed management plan for Deep River Basin, Indiana.
Sec. 534. Southern and eastern Kentucky.
Sec. 535. Louisiana coastal wetlands restoration projects.
Sec. 536. Southeast Louisiana.
Sec. 537. Restoration projects for Maryland, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.
Sec. 538. Beneficial use of dredged material, Poplar Island, Maryland.
Sec. 539. Erosion control measures, Smith Island, Maryland.
Sec. 540. Beneficial use of dredged material, Worton Point, Kent County, Mary-
land.
Sec. 541. Duluth, Minnesota, alternative technology project.
Sec. 542. Redwood River Basin, Minnesota.
Sec. 543. Natchez Bluffs, Mississippi.
Sec. 544. Sardis Lake, Mississippi.
Sec. 545. Missouri River management.
Sec. 546. St. Charles County, Missouri, flood protection.
Sec. 547. Cocheco River, New Hampshire.
Sec. 548. Durham, New Hampshire.
Sec. 549. Hackensack Meadowlands area, New Jersey.
Sec. 550. Authorization of dredge material containment facility for Port of New
York/New Jersey.
Sec. 551. Hudson River habitat restoration, New York.
Sec. 552. New York Bight and Harbor study.
Sec. 553. New York State Canal System.
Sec. 554. New York City Watershed.
Sec. 555. Ohio River Greenway.
Sec. 556. Northeastern Ohio.
Sec. 557. Grand Lake, Oklahoma.
Sec. 558. Broad Top region of Pennsylvania.
Sec. 559. Hopper Dredge McFarland.
Sec. 560. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 561. Upper Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and New York.
Sec. 562. Seven Points Visitors Center, Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 563. Southeastern Pennsylvania.
Sec. 564. Blackstone River Valley, Rhode Island and Massachusetts.
Sec. 565. East Ridge, Tennessee.
Sec. 566. Murfreesboro, Tennessee.
Sec. 567. Buffalo Bayou, Texas.
Sec. 568. Harris County, Texas.
Sec. 569. Pierce County, Washington.
Sec. 570. Washington Aqueduct.
Sec. 571. Huntington, West Virginia.
Sec. 572. Lower Mud River, Milton, West Virginia.
Sec. 573. Evaluation of beach material.
Sec. 574. Sense of Congress regarding St. Lawrence Seaway tolls.
SEC. 2. DEFINITION.
For purposes of this Act, the term ‘‘Secretary’’ means
the Secretary of the Army.
TITLE I—WATER RESOURCES
PROJECTS
SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.
Except as provided in this section, the following
projects for water resources development and conservation
and other purposes are authorized to be carried out by the
Secretary substantially in accordance with the plans, and
subject to the conditions, described in the respective reports
designated in this section:
(1) AMERICAN
RIVER
WATERSHED, CALIFOR-
NIA.—
(A) IN
GENERAL.—The project for flood
damage reduction, American and Sacramento
Rivers, California: Supplemental Information
Report for the American River Watershed
Project, California, dated March 1996, at a total
cost of $57,300,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $42,975,000 and an estimated non-Fed-
eral cost of $14,325,000, consisting of the follow-
ing:
(i) Approximately 24 miles of slurry
wall in the existing levees along the lower
American River.
(ii) Approximately 12 miles of levee
modifications along the east bank of the
Sacramento River downstream from the
Natomas Cross Canal.
(iii) 3 telemeter streamflow gages up-
stream from the Folsom Reservoir.
(iv) Modifications to the existing flood
warning system along the lower American
River.
(B) 
CREDIT
TOWARD
NON-FEDERAL
SHARE.—The non-Federal sponsor shall receive
credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of
the project for expenses that the sponsor has in-
curred for design and construction of any of the
features authorized pursuant to this paragraph
prior to the date on which Federal funds are ap-
propriated for construction of the project. The
amount of the credit shall be determined by the
Secretary.
(C) OPERATION OF FOLSOM DAM.—The Sec-
retary of the Interior shall continue to operate
the Folsom Dam and Reservoir to the variable
400,000/670,000 acre-feet of flood control storage
capacity as an interim measure and extend the
agreement between the Bureau of Reclamation
and the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency
until such date as a comprehensive flood control
plan for the American River Watershed has been
implemented.
(D) 
RESPONSIBILITY
OF
NON-FEDERAL
SPONSOR.—The non-Federal sponsor shall be re-
sponsible for all operation, maintenance, repair,
replacement, and rehabilitation costs associated
with the improvements undertaken pursuant to
this paragraph, as well as, costs for the variable
flood control operation of the Folsom Dam and
Reservoir.
(2) SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CALIFORNIA.—The
project for navigation, Santa Barbara Harbor, Cali-
fornia: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated April
26, 1994, at a total cost of $5,840,000, with an esti-
mated Federal cost of $4,670,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $1,170,000.
(3) SAN LORENZO RIVER, SANTA CRUZ, CALIFOR-
NIA.—The project for flood control, San Lorenzo
River, Santa Cruz, California: Report of the Chief of
Engineers, dated June 30, 1994, at a total cost of
$21,800,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$10,900,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$10,900,000.
(4) MARIN
COUNTY
SHORELINE, SAN
RAFAEL,
CALIFORNIA.—The project for storm damage reduc-
tion, Marin County shoreline, San Rafael, California:
Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated January 28,
1994, at a total cost of $28,300,000, with an esti-
mated Federal cost of $18,400,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $9,900,000.
(5) HUMBOLDT
HARBOR
AND
BAY, CALIFOR-
NIA.—The project for navigation, Humboldt Harbor
and Bay, California: Report of the Chief of Engi-
neers, dated October 30, 1995, at a total cost of
$15,180,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$10,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$5,180,000.
(6) ANACOSTIA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, DIS-
TRICT OF COLUMBIA AND MARYLAND.—The project for
environmental restoration, Anacostia River and Trib-
utaries, District of Columbia and Maryland: Report
of the Chief of Engineers, dated November 15, 1994,
at a total cost of $17,144,000, with an estimated Fed-
eral cost of $12,858,000 and an estimated non-Fed-
eral cost of $4,286,000.
(7) ATLANTIC
INTRACOASTAL
WATERWAY, ST.
JOHNS COUNTY, FLORIDA.—The project for naviga-
tion, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, St. Johns
County, Florida: Report of the Chief of Engineers,
dated June 24, 1994, at a total Federal cost of
$15,881,000. Operation, maintenance, repair, replace-
ment, and rehabilitation shall be a non-Federal re-
sponsibility and the non-Federal interest must assume
ownership of the bridge.
(8) LAKE MICHIGAN, ILLINOIS.—The project for
storm damage reduction and shoreline erosion protec-
tion, Lake Michigan, Illinois, from Wilmette, Illinois,
to the Illinois-Indiana State line: Report of the Chief
of Engineers, dated April 14, 1994, at a total cost of
$204,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$110,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$94,000,000. The project shall include the breakwater
near the South Water Filtration Plant described in
the report as a separate element of the project, at a
total cost of $11,470,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $7,460,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $4,010,000. The Secretary shall reimburse the non-
Federal interest for the Federal share of any costs in-
curred by the non-Federal interest—
(A) in reconstructing the revetment struc-
tures protecting Solidarity Drive in Chicago, Il-
linois, if such work is determined by the Sec-
retary to be a component of the project; and
(B) in constructing the breakwater near the
South Water Filtration Plant in Chicago, Illi-
nois.
(9) KENTUCKY
LOCK
AND
DAM, TENNESSEE
RIVER, KENTUCKY.—The project for navigation, Ken-
tucky Lock and Dam, Tennessee River, Kentucky: Re-
port of the Chief of Engineers, dated June 1, 1992, at
a total cost of $393,200,000. The costs of construction
of the project are to be paid 1⁄2 from amounts appro-
priated from the general fund of the Treasury and 1⁄2
from amounts appropriated from the Inland Water-
ways Trust Fund.
(10) POND
CREEK, JEFFERSON
COUNTY, KEN-
TUCKY.—The project for flood control, Pond Creek,
Jefferson County, Kentucky: Report of the Chief of
Engineers, dated June 28, 1994, at a total cost of
$16,080,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$10,993,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$5,087,000.
(11) WOLF CREEK DAM AND LAKE CUMBERLAND,
KENTUCKY.—The project for hydropower, Wolf Creek
Dam and Lake Cumberland, Kentucky: Report of the
Chief of Engineers, dated June 28, 1994, at a total
cost of $53,763,000, with an estimated non-Federal
cost of $53,763,000. Funds derived by the Tennessee
Valley Authority from its power program and funds
derived from any private or public entity designated
by the Southeastern Power Administration may be
used to pay all or part of the costs of the project.
(12) PORT
FOURCHON, 
LAFOURCHE
PARISH,
LOUISIANA.—A project for navigation, Belle Pass and
Bayou Lafourche, Louisiana: Report of the Chief of
Engineers, dated April 7, 1995, at a total cost of
$4,440,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$2,300,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$2,140,000.
(13) WEST BANK OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER,
NEW
ORLEANS
(EAST
OF
HARVEY
CANAL), LOUISI-
ANA.—The project for hurricane damage reduction,
West Bank of the Mississippi River in the vicinity of
New Orleans (East of Harvey Canal), Louisiana: Re-
port of the Chief of Engineers, dated May 1, 1995, at
a total cost of $126,000,000, with an estimated Fed-
eral cost of $82,200,000 and an estimated non-Fed-
eral cost of $43,800,000.
(14) WOOD RIVER, GRAND ISLAND, NEBRASKA.—
The project for flood control, Wood River, Grand Is-
land, Nebraska: Report of the Chief of Engineers,
dated May 3, 1994, at a total cost of $11,800,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $6,040,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $5,760,000.
(15) LONG
BEACH
ISLAND, NEW
YORK.—The
project for storm damage reduction, Long Beach Is-
land, New York: Report of the Chief of Engineers,
dated April 5, 1996, at a total cost of $72,090,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $46,858,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $25,232,000.
(16) WILMINGTON HARBOR, CAPE FEAR RIVER,
NORTH CAROLINA.—The project for navigation, Wil-
mington Harbor, Cape Fear and Northeast Cape Fear
Rivers, North Carolina: Report of the Chief of Engi-
neers, dated June 24, 1994, at a total cost of
$23,953,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$15,032,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$8,921,000.
(17) DUCK
CREEK, 
CINCINNATI, 
OHIO.—The
project for flood control, Duck Creek, Cincinnati,
Ohio: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated June
28, 1994, at a total cost of $15,947,000, with an esti-
mated Federal cost of $11,960,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $3,987,000.
(18) WILLAMETTE
RIVER
TEMPERATURE
CON-
TROL, MCKENZIE
SUBBASIN, OREGON.—The project
for environmental restoration, Willamette River Tem-
perature Control, McKenzie Subbasin, Oregon: Report
of the Chief of Engineers, dated February 1, 1996, at
a total cost of $38,000,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $38,000,000.
(19) RIO GRANDE DE ARECIBO, PUERTO RICO.—
The project for flood control, Rio Grande de Arecibo,
Puerto Rico: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated
April 5, 1994, at a total cost of $19,951,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $10,557,000 and an esti-
mated non-Federal cost of $9,394,000.
(20) BIG SIOUX RIVER AND SKUNK CREEK, SIOUX
FALLS, SOUTH DAKOTA.—The project for flood control,
Big Sioux River and Skunk Creek, Sioux Falls, South
Dakota: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated June
30, 1994, at a total cost of $34,600,000, with an esti-
mated Federal cost of $25,900,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $8,700,000.
(21) WATERTOWN, SOUTH DAKOTA.—The project
for flood control, Watertown and Vicinity, South Da-
kota: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated August
31, 1994, at a total cost of $18,000,000, with an esti-
mated Federal cost of $13,200,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $4,800,000.
(22) GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, ARANSAS
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, TEXAS.—The project for
navigation and environmental preservation, Gulf In-
tracoastal Waterway, Aransas National Wildlife Ref-
uge, Texas: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated
May 28, 1996, at a total cost of $18,283,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $18,283,000.
(23) HOUSTON-GALVESTON
NAVIGATION
CHAN-
NELS, TEXAS.—The project for navigation and envi-
ronmental restoration, Houston-Galveston Navigation
Channels, Texas: Report of the Chief of Engineers,
dated May 9, 1996, at a total initial construction cost
of $292,797,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$210,891,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$81,906,000. The project shall include deferred con-
struction of additional environmental restoration fea-
tures over the life of the project, at a total average an-
nual cost of $786,000, with an estimated Federal cost
of $590,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$196,000. The construction of berthing areas and the
removal of pipelines and other obstructions that are
necessary for the project shall be accomplished at non-
Federal expense. Non-Federal interests shall receive
credit toward cash contributions required during con-
struction and subsequent to construction for design
and construction management work that is performed
by non-Federal interests and that the Secretary deter-
mines is necessary to implement the project.
(24) MARMET LOCK, KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIR-
GINIA.—The project for navigation, Marmet Lock,
Kanawha River, West Virginia: Report of the Chief of
Engineers, dated June 24, 1994, at a total cost of
$229,581,000. The costs of construction of the project
are to be paid 1⁄2 from amounts appropriated from
the general fund of the Treasury and 
1⁄2 from
amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways
Trust Fund. In conducting any real estate acquisition