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 1999’’.
(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Secretary defined.
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 projects for improvement of the environment.
Sec. 106. Small aquatic ecosystem restoration projects.
TITLE II—GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 201. Small flood control authority.
Sec. 202. Use of non-Federal funds for compiling and disseminating informa-
tion on floods and flood damages.
Sec. 203. Contributions by States and political subdivisions.
Sec. 204. Sediment decontamination technology.
Sec. 205. Control of aquatic plants.
Sec. 206. Use of continuing contracts required for construction of certain
projects.
Sec. 207. Support of Army civil works program.
Sec. 208. Water resources development studies for the Pacific region.
Sec. 209. Everglades and south Florida ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 210. Beneficial uses of dredged material.
Sec. 211. Harbor cost sharing.
Sec. 212. Aquatic ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 213. Watershed management, restoration, and development.
Sec. 214. Flood mitigation and riverine restoration pilot program.
Sec. 215. Shoreline management program.
Sec. 216. Assistance for remediation, restoration, and reuse.
Sec. 217. Shore damage mitigation.
Sec. 218. Shore protection.
Sec. 219. Flood prevention coordination.
Sec. 220. Annual passes for recreation.
Sec. 221. Cooperative agreements for environmental and recreational measures.
Sec. 222. Nonstructural flood control projects.
Sec. 223. Lakes program.
Sec. 224. Construction of flood control projects by non-Federal interests.
Sec. 225. Enhancement of fish and wildlife resources.
Sec. 226. Sense of Congress; requirement regarding notice.
Sec. 227. Periodic beach nourishment.
Sec. 228. Environmental dredging.
Sec. 229. Wetlands mitigation.
TITLE III—PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. Missouri River Levee System.
Sec. 302. Ouzinkie Harbor, Alaska.
Sec. 303. Greers Ferry Lake, Arkansas.
Sec. 304. Ten- and Fifteen-Mile Bayous, Arkansas.
Sec. 305. Loggy Bayou, Red River below Denison Dam, Arkansas, Louisiana,
Oklahoma, and Texas.
Sec. 306. Sacramento River, Glenn-Colusa, California.
Sec. 307. San Lorenzo River, California.
Sec. 308. Terminus Dam, Kaweah River, California.
Sec. 309. Delaware River mainstem and channel deepening, Delaware, New
Jersey, and Pennsylvania.
Sec. 310. Potomac River, Washington, District of Columbia.
Sec. 311. Brevard County, Florida.
Sec. 312. Broward County and Hillsboro Inlet, Florida.
Sec. 313. Fort Pierce, Florida.
Sec. 314. Nassau County, Florida.
Sec. 315. Miami Harbor Channel, Florida.
Sec. 316. Lake Michigan, Illinois.
Sec. 317. Springfield, Illinois.
Sec. 318. Little Calumet River, Indiana.
Sec. 319. Ogden Dunes, Indiana.
Sec. 320. Saint Joseph River, South Bend, Indiana.
Sec. 321. White River, Indiana.
Sec. 322. Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana.
Sec. 323. Larose to Golden Meadow, Louisiana.
Sec. 324. Louisiana State Penitentiary Levee, Louisiana.
Sec. 325. Twelve-mile Bayou, Caddo Parish, Louisiana.
Sec. 326. West Bank of the Mississippi River (East of Harvey Canal), Lou-
isiana.
Sec. 327. Tolchester Channel, Baltimore Harbor and channels, Chesapeake
Bay, Kent County, Maryland.
Sec. 328. Sault Sainte Marie, Chippewa County, Michigan.
Sec. 329. Jackson County, Mississippi.
Sec. 330. Tunica Lake, Mississippi.
Sec. 331. Bois Brule Drainage and Levee District, Missouri.
Sec. 332. Meramec River Basin, Valley Park Levee, Missouri.
Sec. 333. Missouri River mitigation project, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, and Ne-
braska.
Sec. 334. Wood River, Grand Island, Nebraska.
Sec. 335. Absecon Island, New Jersey.
Sec. 336. New York Harbor and Adjacent Channels, Port Jersey, New Jersey
Sec. 337. Passaic River, New Jersey.
Sec. 338. Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey.
Sec. 339. Arthur Kill, New York and New Jersey.
Sec. 340. New York City watershed.
Sec. 341. New York State Canal System.
Sec. 342. Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point, New york.
Sec. 343. Broken Bow Lake, Red River Basin, Oklahoma.
Sec. 344. Willamette River temperature control, Mckenzie Subbasin, Oregon.
Sec. 345. Aylesworth Creek Reservoir, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 346. Curwensville Lake, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 347. Delaware River, Pennsylvania and Delaware.
Sec. 348. Mussers Dam, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 349. Nine-Mile Run, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 350. Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 351. South Central Pennsylvania.
Sec. 352. Cooper River, Charleston Harbor, South Carolina.
Sec. 353. Bowie County Levee, Texas.
Sec. 354. Clear Creek, Texas.
Sec. 355. Cypress Creek, Texas.
Sec. 356. Dallas Floodway Extension, Dallas, Texas.
Sec. 357. Upper Jordan River, Utah.
Sec. 358. Elizabeth River, Chesapeake, Virginia.
Sec. 359. Bluestone Lake, Ohio River Basin, West Virginia.
Sec. 360. Greenbrier Basin, West Virginia.
Sec. 361. Moorefield, West Virginia.
Sec. 362. West Virginia and Pennsylvania Flood Control.
Sec. 363. Project reauthorizations.
Sec. 364. Project deauthorizations.
Sec. 365. American and Sacramento Rivers, California.
Sec. 366. Martin, Kentucky.
Sec. 367. Southern West Virginia pilot program.
Sec. 368. Black Warrior and Tombigbee Rivers, Jackson, Alabama.
Sec. 369. Tropicana Wash and Flamingo Wash, Nevada.
Sec. 370. Comite River, Louisiana.
Sec. 371. St. Mary’s River, Michigan.
Sec. 372. City of Charlxvoix: reimbursement, Michigan.
TITLE IV—STUDIES
Sec. 401. Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers levees and streambanks protec-
tion.
Sec. 402. Upper Mississippi River comprehensive plan.
Sec. 403. El Dorado, Union County, Arkansas.
Sec. 404. Sweetwater Reservoir, San Diego County, California.
Sec. 405. Whitewater River Basin, California.
Sec. 406. Little Econlackhatchee River Basin, Florida.
Sec. 407. Port Everglades Inlet, Florida.
Sec. 408. Upper Des Plaines River and tributaries, Illinois and Wisconsin.
Sec. 409. Cameron Parish west of Calcasieu River, Louisiana.
Sec. 410. Grand Isle and vicinity, Louisiana.
Sec. 411. Lake Pontchartrain seawall, Louisiana.
Sec. 412. Westport, Massachusetts.
Sec. 413. Southwest Valley, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Sec. 414. Cayuga Creek, New York.
Sec. 415. Arcola Creek Watershed, Madison, Ohio.
Sec. 416. Western Lake Erie Basin, Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan.
Sec. 417. Schuylkill River, Norristown, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 418. Lakes Marion and Moultrie, South Carolina.
Sec. 419. Day County, South Dakota.
Sec. 420. Corpus Christi, Texas.
Sec. 421. Mitchell’s Cut Channel (Caney Fork Cut), Texas.
Sec. 422. Mouth of Colorado River, Texas.
Sec. 423. Kanawha River, Fayette County, West Virginia.
Sec. 424. West Virginia ports.
Sec. 425. Great Lakes region comprehensive study.
Sec. 426. Nutrient loading resulting from dredged material disposal.
Sec. 427. Santee Delta focus area, South Carolina.
Sec. 428. Del Norte County, California.
Sec. 429. St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair, Michigan.
Sec. 430. Cumberland County, Tennessee.
TITLE V—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec. 501. Corps assumption of NRCS projects.
Sec. 502. Construction assistance.
Sec. 503. Contaminated sediment dredging technology.
Sec. 504. Dam safety.
Sec. 505. Great Lakes remedial action plans.
Sec. 506. Sea Lamprey control measures in the Great Lakes.
Sec. 507. Maintenance of navigation channels.
Sec. 508. Measurement of Lake Michigan diversions.
Sec. 509. Upper Mississippi River environmental management program.
Sec. 510. Atlantic Coast of New York monitoring.
Sec. 511. Water control management.
Sec. 512. Beneficial use of dredged material.
Sec. 513. Design and construction assistance.
Sec. 514. Lower Missouri River aquatic restoration projects.
Sec. 515. Aquatic resources restoration in the Northwest.
Sec. 516. Innovative technologies for watershed restoration.
Sec. 517. Environmental restoration.
Sec. 518. Expedited consideration of certain projects.
Sec. 519. Dog River, Alabama.
Sec. 520. Elba, Alabama.
Sec. 521. Geneva, Alabama.
Sec. 522. Navajo Reservation, Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah.
Sec. 523. Augusta and Devalls Bluff, Arkansas.
Sec. 524. Beaver Lake, Arkansas.
Sec. 525. Beaver Lake trout production facility, Arkansas.
Sec. 526. Chino Dairy Preserve, California.
Sec. 527. Novato, California.
Sec. 528. Orange and San Diego Counties, California.
Sec. 529. Salton Sea, California.
Sec. 530. Santa Cruz Harbor, California.
Sec. 531. Point Beach, Milford, Connecticut.
Sec. 532. Lower St. Johns River Basin, Florida.
Sec. 533. Shoreline protection and environmental restoration, Lake Allatoona,
Georgia.
Sec. 534. Mayo’s Bar Lock and Dam, Coosa River, Rome, Georgia.
Sec. 535. Comprehensive flood impact response modeling system, Coralville
Reservoir and Iowa River Watershed, Iowa.
Sec. 536. Additional construction assistance in Illinois.
Sec. 537. Kanopolis Lake, Kansas.
Sec. 538. Southern and Eastern Kentucky.
Sec. 539. Southeast Louisiana.
Sec. 540. Snug Harbor, Maryland.
Sec. 541. Welch Point, Elk River, Cecil County, and Chesapeake City, Mary-
land.
Sec. 542. West View Shores, Cecil County, Maryland.
Sec. 543. Restoration projects for Maryland, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.
Sec. 544. Cape Cod Canal Railroad Bridge, Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts.
Sec. 545. St. Louis, Missouri.
Sec. 546. Beaver Branch of Big Timber Creek, New Jersey.
Sec. 547. Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River water levels, New York.
Sec. 548. New York-New Jersey Harbor, New York and New Jersey.
Sec. 549. Sea Gate Reach, Coney Island, New York, New York.
Sec. 550. Woodlawn, New York.
Sec. 551. Floodplain mapping, New York.
Sec. 552. White Oak River, North Carolina.
Sec. 553. Toussaint River, Carroll Township, Ottawa County, Ohio.
Sec. 554. Sardis Reservoir, Oklahoma.
Sec. 555. Waurika Lake, Oklahoma, water conveyance facilities.
Sec. 556. Skinner Butte Park, Eugene, Oregon.
Sec. 557. Willamette River basin, Oregon.
Sec. 558. Bradford and Sullivan Counties, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 559. Erie Harbor, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 560. Point Marion Lock And Dam, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 561. Seven Points’ Harbor, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 562. Southeastern Pennsylvania.
Sec. 563. Upper Susquehanna-Lackawanna watershed restoration initiative.
Sec. 564. Aguadilla Harbor, Puerto Rico.
Sec. 565. Oahe Dam to Lake Sharpe, South Dakota, study.
Sec. 566. Integrated water management planning, Texas.
Sec. 567. Bolivar Peninsula, Jefferson, Chambers, and Galveston Counties,
Texas.
Sec. 568. Galveston Beach, Galveston County, Texas.
Sec. 569. Packery Channel, Corpus Christi, Texas.
Sec. 570. Northern West Virginia.
Sec. 571. Urbanized peak flood management research.
Sec. 572. Mississippi River Commission.
Sec. 573. Coastal aquatic habitat management.
Sec. 574. West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana.
Sec. 575. Abandoned and inactive noncoal mine restoration.
Sec. 576. Beneficial use of waste tire rubber.
Sec. 577. Site designation.
Sec. 578. Land conveyances.
Sec. 579. Namings.
Sec. 580. Folsom Dam and Reservoir additional storage and additional flood
control studies.
Sec. 581. Wallops Island, Virginia.
Sec. 582. Detroit River, Detroit, Michigan.
Sec. 583. Northeastern Minnesota.
Sec. 584. Alaska.
Sec. 585. Central West Virginia.
Sec. 586. Sacramento Metropolitan area watershed restoration, California.
Sec. 587. Onondaga Lake.
Sec. 588. East Lynn Lake, West Virginia.
Sec. 589. Eel River, California.
Sec. 590. North Little Rock, Arkansas.
Sec. 591. Upper Mississippi River, Mississippi Place, St. Paul, Minnesota.
(3) TUCSON DRAINAGE AREA, ARIZONA.—The
project for flood control, Tucson drainage area, Ari-
zona: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated May
20, 1998, at a total cost of $29,900,000, with an es-
timated Federal cost of $16,768,000 and an esti-
mated non-Federal cost of $13,132,000.
(4) 
AMERICAN
RIVER
WATERSHED, 
CALI-
FORNIA.—
(A) IN
GENERAL.—The Folsom Dam
Modification portion of the Folsom Modification
Plan described in the United States Army
Corps of Engineers Supplemental Information
Report for the American River Watershed
Project, California, dated March 1996, as modi-
fied by the report entitled ‘‘Folsom Dam Modi-
fication Report, New Outlets Plan,’’ dated
March 1998, prepared by the Sacramento Area
Flood Control Agency, at an estimated cost of
$150,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost
of $97,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal
cost of $52,500,000. The Secretary shall coordi-
nate with the Secretary of the Interior with re-
spect to the design and construction of modi-
fications at Folsom Dam authorized by this
paragraph.
(B) 
REOPERATION
MEASURES.—Upon
completion of the improvements to Folsom Dam
authorized by subparagraph (A), the variable
space allocated to flood control within the Res-
ervoir shall be reduced from the current oper-
ating range of 400,000-670,000 acre-feet to
400,000-600,000 acre-feet.
(C) 
MAKEUP
OF
WATER
SHORTAGES
CAUSED BY FLOOD CONTROL OPERATION.—The
Secretary of the Interior shall enter into, or
modify, such agreements with the Sacramento
Area Flood Control Agency regarding the oper-
ation of Folsom Dam and reservoir as may be
necessary in order that, notwithstanding any
prior agreement or provision of law, 100 per-
cent of the water needed to make up for any
water shortage caused by variable flood control
operation during any year at Folsom Dam and
resulting in a significant impact on recreation
at Folsom Reservoir shall be replaced, to the
extent the water is available for purchase, by
the Secretary of the Interior.
(D) SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT
ON
RECRE-
ATION.—For the purposes of this paragraph, a
significant impact on recreation is defined as
any impact that results in a lake elevation at
Folsom Reservoir below 435 feet above sea level
starting on May 15 and ending on September
15 of any given year.
(5) 
OAKLAND
HARBOR, 
CALIFORNIA.—The
project for navigation, Oakland Harbor, California:
Report of the Chief of Engineers dated April 21,
1999, at a total cost of $252,290,000, with an esti-
mated Federal cost of $128,081,000 and an esti-
mated non-Federal cost of $124,209,000.
(6) SOUTH
SACRAMENTO
COUNTY
STREAMS,
CALIFORNIA.—The project for flood control, environ-
mental restoration and recreation, South Sac-
ramento 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.—
The project for flood control and recreation, Upper
Guadalupe River, California: Locally Preferred Plan
(known as the ‘‘Bypass Channel Plan’’), Report of
the Chief of Engineers dated August 19, 1998, at a
total cost of $140,328,000, with an estimated Fed-
eral cost of $70,164,000 and an estimated non-Fed-
eral cost of $70,164,000.
(8) YUBA
RIVER
BASIN, CALIFORNIA.—The
project for flood control, Yuba River Basin, Cali-
fornia: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated No-
vember 25, 1998, at a total cost of $26,600,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $17,350,000 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $9,250,000.
(9) DELAWARE
BAY
COASTLINE, DELAWARE
AND NEW JERSEY-BROADKILL BEACH, DELAWARE.—
The project for hurricane and storm damage reduc-
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 Federal
cost of $5,674,000 and an estimated non-Federal
cost of $3,375,000, and at an estimated average an-
nual cost of $538,200 for periodic nourishment over
the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated an-
nual Federal cost of $349,800 and an estimated an-
nual non-Federal cost of $188,400.
(10) DELAWARE
BAY
COASTLINE, DELAWARE
AND NEW JERSEY-PORT MAHON, DELAWARE.—The
project for ecosystem restoration, Delaware Bay
coastline, Delaware and New Jersey-Port Mahon,
Delaware: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated
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, and at
an estimated average annual cost of $234,000 for
periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the
project, with an estimated annual Federal cost of
$152,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost
of $82,000.
(11) DELAWARE
BAY
COASTLINE, DELAWARE
AND NEW JERSEY-ROOSEVELT INLET-LEWES BEACH,
DELAWARE.—The project for navigation mitigation
and hurricane and storm damage reduction, Dela-
ware Bay coastline, Delaware and New Jersey-Roo-
sevelt Inlet-Lewes Beach, Delaware: Report of the
Chief of Engineers dated February 3, 1999, 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, and at an estimated average an-
nual cost of $196,000 for periodic nourishment over
the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated an-
nual Federal cost of $152,000 and an estimated an-
nual non-Federal cost of $44,000.
(12) DELAWARE
BAY
COASTLINE, DELAWARE
AND NEW JERSEY-VILLAS AND VICINITY, NEW JER-
SEY.—The project for shore protection and eco-
system restoration, Delaware Bay coastline, Dela-
ware and New Jersey-Villas and vicinity, New Jer-
sey: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated April
21, 1999, at a total cost of $7,520,000, with an esti-
mated Federal cost of $4,888,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $2,632,000.
(13) 
DELAWARE
COAST
FROM
CAPE
HENELOPEN TO FENWICK ISLAND, BETHANY BEACH/
SOUTH BETHANY BEACH, DELAWARE.—The project
for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Dela-
ware Coast from Cape Henelopen to Fenwick Island,
Bethany Beach/South Bethany Beach, Delaware:
Report of the Chief of Engineers dated April 21,
1999, at a total cost of $22,205,000, with an esti-
mated Federal cost of $14,433,000 and an esti-
mated non-Federal cost of $7,772,000, and at an es-
timated average annual cost of $1,584,000 for peri-
odic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project,
with 
an 
estimated 
annual 
Federal 
cost 
of
$1,030,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal
cost of $554,000.
(14) JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FLORIDA.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for naviga-
tion, Jacksonville Harbor, Florida: Report of
the Chief of Engineers April 21, 1999, at a
total cost of $26,116,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $9,129,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $16,987,000.
(B) SPECIAL RULE.—Notwithstanding sub-
paragraph (A), the Secretary may construct the
project to a depth of 40 feet if the non-Federal
interest agrees to pay any additional costs
above those for the recommended plan.
(15) TAMPA
HARBOR-BIG
BEND
CHANNEL,
FLORIDA.—The project for navigation, Tampa Har-
bor-Big Bend Channel, Florida: Report of the Chief
of Engineers dated October 13, 1998, at a total cost
of $9,356,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$6,235,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$3,121,000.
(16) 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-
mate Federal cost of $32,966,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $17,751,000.
(17) BEARGRASS
CREEK, 
KENTUCKY.—The
project for flood control, Beargrass Creek, Ken-
tucky: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated May
12, 1998, at a total cost of $11,171,300, with an es-
timated Federal cost of $7,261,500 and an esti-
mated non-Federal cost of $3,909,800.
(18) AMITE
RIVER
AND
TRIBUTARIES, LOU-
ISIANA.—The project for flood control, Amite River
and tributaries, Louisiana: Report of the Chief of
Engineers dated December 23, 1996, at a total cost
of $112,900,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$84,675,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$28,225,000. Cost sharing for the project shall be
determined in accordance with section 103(a) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33
U.S.C. 2213), as in effect on October 11, 1996.
(19) BALTIMORE
HARBOR
ANCHORAGES
AND
CHANNELS, MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA.—The project
for navigation, Baltimore harbor anchorages and
channels, Maryland and Virginia: Report of the
Chief of Engineers, dated June 8, 1998, at a total
cost of $28,430,000, with an estimated Federal cost
of $19,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $9,430,000.
(20) RED RIVER LAKE AT CROOKSTON, MIN-
NESOTA.—The project for flood control, Red River
Lake at Crookston, Minnesota: Report of the Chief
of Engineers, dated April 20, 1998, at a total cost
(23) NEW JERSEY SHORE PROTECTION: TOWN-
SENDS INLET TO CAPE MAY INLET, NEW JERSEY.—
The project for hurricane and storm damage reduc-
tion and ecosystem restoration, New Jersey Shore
Protection: Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet, New
Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated Sep-
tember 28, 1998, at a total cost of $56,503,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $36,727,000 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $19,776,000, and
at an estimated average annual cost of $2,000,000
for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the
project, with an estimated annual Federal cost of
$1,300,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal
cost of $700,000.
(24) GUANAJIBO
RIVER, PUERTO
RICO.—The
project for flood control, Guanajibo River, Puerto
Rico: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated Feb-
ruary 27, 1996, at a total cost of $27,031,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $20,273,250 and an es-
timated non-Federal cost of $6,757,750. Cost shar-
ing for the project shall be determined in accordance
with section 103(a) of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213) as in effect on Oc-
tober 11, 1986.
(25) RIO GRANDE DE MANATI, BARCELONETA,
PUERTO RICO.—The project for flood control, Rio
Grande De Manati, Barceloneta, Puerto Rico: Re-
port of the Chief of Engineers, dated January 22,
1999, at a total cost of $13,491,000, with an esti-
mated Federal cost of $8,785,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $4,706,000.
(26) RIO NIGUA AT SALINAS, PUERTO RICO.—
The project for flood control, Rio Nigua at Salinas,
Puerto Rico: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated
April 15, 1997, at a total cost of $13,702,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $7,645,000 and an es-
timated non-Federal cost of $6,057,000.
(27) 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 Fed-
eral cost of $6,560,000 and an estimated non-Fed-
eral cost of $3,520,000.
(b) PROJECTS SUBJECT TO REPORT.—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, recommended in a final re-
port of the Corps of Engineers, if the report is completed
not later than September 30, 1999.
(1) NOME, ALASKA.—The project for naviga-
tion, Nome, Alaska, at a total cost of $24,608,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $19,660,000 and
an estimated 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 Federal cost
of $4,364,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$7,876,000.
(3) HAMILTON
AIRFIELD, CALIFORNIA.—The
project for wetlands restoration, Hamilton Airfield,
California, at a total cost of $55,200,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $41,400,000 and an esti-
mated non-Federal cost of $13,800,000.
(4) DELAWARE
BAY
COASTLINE, DELAWARE
AND
NEW
JERSEY: OAKWOOD
BEACH, NEW
JER-
SEY.—The project for shore protection, Delaware
Bay Coastline, Delaware and New Jersey: Oakwood
Beach, New Jersey, at a total cost of $3,360,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $2,184,000 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $1,176,000.
(5) DELAWARE
BAY
COASTLINE, DELAWARE
AND
NEW
JERSEY: REEDS
BEACH
AND
PIERCES
POINT, NEW JERSEY.—The project for shore protec-
tion and ecosystem restoration, Delaware Bay Coast-
line, Delaware and New Jersey: 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.
(6) LITTLE TALBOT ISLAND, DUVAL COUNTY,
FLORIDA.—The project for hurricane and storm
damage prevention, Little Talbot Island, Duval
County, Florida, at a total cost of $5,915,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $3,839,000 and an es-
timated non-Federal cost of $2,076,000.
(7) PONCE
DE
LEON
INLET, FLORIDA.—The
project for navigation and related purposes, 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.
(8) SAVANNAH
HARBOR
EXPANSION, GEOR-
GIA.—
(A) IN
GENERAL.—Subject to subpara-
graph (B), the project for navigation, Savannah
Harbor expansion, Georgia, including imple-
mentation of the mitigation plan, with such
modifications as the Secretary deems appro-
priate, at a total cost of $230,174,000 (of
which amount a portion is authorized for imple-
mentation of the mitigation plan), with an esti-
mated Federal cost of $145,160,000 and an es-
timated 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 of Georgia, State of
South Carolina, regional, and local entities,
has reviewed and approved an environ-
mental impact statement for the project
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 an associated mitigation plan as
required 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, the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency,
and the Secretary have approved the se-
lected plan and have determined that 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.
(9) 
DES
PLAINES
RIVER, 
ILLINOIS.—The
project for flood control, Des Plaines River, Illinois,
at a total cost of $44,300,000 with an estimated
Federal cost of $28,800,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $15,500,000.
(10) NEW JERSEY SHORE PROTECTION, BRIG-
ANTINE INLET TO GREAT EGG HARBOR, BRIGANTINE
ISLAND, NEW JERSEY.—The project for hurricane
and storm damage reduction, New Jersey shore pro-
tection, Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor, Brig-
antine 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, and at an estimated average annual
cost of $465,000 for periodic nourishment over the
50-year life of the project, with an estimated annual
Federal cost of $302,000 and an estimated annual
non-Federal cost of $163,000.
(11) COLUMBIA RIVER CHANNEL, OREGON AND
WASHINGTON.—The project for navigation, Colum-
bia River Channel, Oregon and Washington, at a
total cost of $183,623,000 with an estimated Fed-
eral cost $106,132,000 and an estimated non-Fed-
eral cost of $77,491,000.
(12) JOHNSON CREEK, ARLINGTON, TEXAS.—
The locally preferred project for flood control, John-
son Creek, Arlington, Texas, at a total cost of
$20,300,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$12,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$8,300,000.
(13) HOWARD HANSON DAM, WASHINGTON.—
The project for water supply and ecosystem restora-
tion, 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. SMALL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a
study for each of the following projects and, after comple-
tion of such study, shall carry out the project under sec-
tion 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C.
701s):
(1) 
LANCASTER, 
CALIFORNIA.—Project 
for
flood 
control, 
Lancaster, 
California, 
westside
stormwater retention facility.
(2) GATEWAY
TRIANGLE
AREA, FLORIDA.—
Project for flood control, Gateway Triangle area,
Collier County, Florida.
(3) PLANT CITY, FLORIDA.—Project for flood
control, Plant City, Florida.
(4) STONE ISLAND, LAKE MONROE, FLORIDA.—
Project for flood control, Stone Island, Lake Mon-
roe, Florida.
(5) OHIO RIVER, ILLINOIS.—Project for flood
control, Ohio River, Illinois.
(6) REPAUPO
CREEK, NEW
JERSEY.—Project
for flood control, Repaupo Creek, New Jersey.
(7) OWASCO
LAKE
SEAWALL, NEW
YORK.—
Project for flood control, Owasco Lake seawall, New
York.
(8) PORT
CLINTON, OHIO.—Project for flood
control, Port Clinton, Ohio.
(9) NORTH
CANADIAN
RIVER, OKLAHOMA.—
Project for flood control, North Canadian River,
Oklahoma.
(10) ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA.—
Project for flood control, Baeder and Wanamaker
Roads, Abington Township, Pennsylvania.
(11) PORT INDIAN, WEST NORRITON TOWNSHIP,
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.—Project for
flood control, Port Indian, West Norriton Township,
Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.
(12) PORT PROVIDENCE, UPPER PROVIDENCE
TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA.—Project for flood con-
trol, Port Providence, Upper Providence Township,
Pennsylvania.
(13) SPRINGFIELD
TOWNSHIP, MONTGOMERY
COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.—Project for flood control,
Springfield Township, Montgomery County, Pennsyl-
vania.
(14) FIRST CREEK, KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE.—
Project for flood control, First Creek, Knoxville,
Tennessee.
(15) METRO
CENTER
LEVEE, CUMBERLAND
RIVER, NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE.—Project for flood
control, Metro Center Levee, Cumberland River,
Nashville, Tennessee.
(b) FESTUS AND CRYSTAL CITY, MISSOURI.—
(1) MAXIMUM
FEDERAL
EXPENDITURE.—The
maximum amount of Federal funds that may be ex-
pended for the project for flood control, Festus and
Crystal City, Missouri, shall be $10,000,000.
(2) 
REVISION
OF
PROJECT
COOPERATION
AGREEMENT.—The Secretary shall revise the project
cooperation agreement for the project referred to in
paragraph (1) to take into account the change in the
Federal participation in such project pursuant to
paragraph (1).
(3) COST
SHARING.—Nothing in this section
shall be construed to affect any cost-sharing require-
ment applicable to the project referred to in para-
graph (1) under the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986.
SEC. 103. SMALL BANK STABILIZATION PROJECTS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the
following projects and, after completion of such study,
shall carry out the project under section 14 of the Flood
Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r):
(1) SAINT
JOSEPH
RIVER, INDIANA.—Project
for streambank erosion control, Saint Joseph River,
Indiana.
(2) SAGINAW
RIVER, BAY
CITY, MICHIGAN.—
Project for streambank erosion control, Saginaw
River, Bay City, Michigan.
(3) BIG TIMBER CREEK, NEW JERSEY.—Project
for streambank erosion control, Big Timber Creek,
New Jersey.
(4) LAKE SHORE ROAD, ATHOL SPRINGS, NEW
YORK.—Project for streambank erosion control,
Lake Shore Road, Athol Springs, New York.
(5) MARIST
COLLEGE, POUGHKEEPSIE, NEW
YORK.—Project for streambank erosion control,
Marist College, Poughkeepsie, New York.
(6) MONROE
COUNTY, 
OHIO.—Project for
streambank erosion control, Monroe County, Ohio.
(7) GREEN VALLEY, WEST VIRGINIA.—Project
for streambank erosion control, Green Valley, West
Virginia.
SEC. 104. SMALL NAVIGATION PROJECTS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the
following projects and, after completion of such study,
shall carry out the project under section 107 of the River
and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577):
(1) GRAND
MARAIS, ARKANSAS.—Project for
navigation, Grand Marais, Arkansas.
(2) FIELDS
LANDING
CHANNEL, HUMBOLDT
HARBOR, 
CALIFORNIA.—Project 
for 
navigation,
Fields Landing Channel, Humboldt Harbor, Cali-
fornia.
(3) SAN MATEO (PILLAR POINT HARBOR), CALI-
FORNIA.—Project for navigation San Mateo (Pillar
Point Harbor), California.
(4) AGANA MARINA, GUAM.—Project for naviga-
tion, Agana Marina, Guam.
(5) AGAT MARINA, GUAM.—Project for naviga-
tion, Agat Marina, Guam.
(6) APRA HARBOR FUEL PIERS, GUAM.—Project
for navigation, Apra Harbor Fuel Piers, Guam.
(7) APRA HARBOR PIER F–6, GUAM.—Project
for navigation, Apra Harbor Pier F–6, Guam.
(8) APRA
HARBOR
SEAWALL, GUAM.—Project
for navigation including a seawall, Apra Harbor,
Guam.
(9) GUAM HARBOR, GUAM.—Project for naviga-
tion, Guam Harbor, Guam.
(10) ILLINOIS RIVER NEAR CHAUTAUQUA PARK,
ILLINOIS.—Project for navigation, Illinois River near
Chautauqua Park, Illinois.
(11) 
WHITING
SHORELINE
WATERFRONT,
WHITING, INDIANA.—Project for navigation, Whiting
Shoreline Waterfront, Whiting, Indiana.
(12) NARAGUAGUS RIVER, MACHIAS, MAINE.—
Project for navigation, Naraguagus River, Machias,
Maine.