I
106TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 1480
To provide for the conservation and development of water and related re-
sources, to authorize the United States Army Corps of Engineers to
construct various projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of
the United States, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
APRIL 20, 1999
Mr. SHUSTER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Com-
mittee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Com-
mittee on Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
A BILL
To provide for the conservation and development of water
and related resources, to authorize the United States
Army Corps of Engineers to construct various projects
for improvements to rivers and harbors of the United
States, and for other purposes.
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.
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.
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 diposal.
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. Recreation user fees initiative.
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 water supply stud-
ies.
Sec. 581. Water resources development.
Sec. 582. Allocation of appropriations.
Sec. 583. Wallops Island, Virginia.
SEC. 2. SECRETARY DEFINED.
In this Act, the term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Sec-
retary of the Army.
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 re-
spective reports designated in this subsection:
(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 esti-
mated Federal cost of $6,964,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $4,796,000.
(2) RIO SALADO, SALT RIVER, PHOENIX AND
TEMPE, ARIZONA.—The project for flood control and
environmental restoration, Rio Salado, Salt River,
Phoenix and Tempe, Arizona: Report of the Chief of
Engineers 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 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) COST OF FOLSOM RESERVOIR REOPER-
ATION MEASURES.—Section 101(a)(1)(D)(ii) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
(110 Stat. 3662–3663) is amended by striking
‘‘during’’ and all that follows through ‘‘there-
after’’.
(D) MAKEUP
OF
WATER
SHORTAGES
CAUSED BY FLOOD CONTROL OPERATION.—
(i) IN
GENERAL.—The Secretary of
the Interior shall enter into, or modify,
such agreements with the Sacramento
Area Flood Control Agency regarding the
operation of Folsom Dam and reservoir as
may be necessary in order that, notwith-
standing any prior agreement or provision
of law, 100 percent 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.
(ii) COST SHARING.—Seventy-five per-
cent of the costs of the replacement water
provided under clause (i) shall be paid for
on a non-reimbursable basis by the Sec-
retary of the Interior at Federal expense.
The remaining 25 percent of such costs
shall be provided by the Sacramento Area
Flood Control Agency.
(iii) LIMITATION.—To the extent that
any funds in excess of the non-Federal
share are provided by the Sacramento Area
Flood Control Agency, the Secretary shall
reimburse such non-Federal interests for
such excess funds. Costs for replacement
water may not exceed 125 percent of the
current average market price for raw
water, as determined by the Secretary of
the Interior.
(E) 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.
(F) EVALUATION.—For purposes of this
paragraph, in evaluating the impacts on recre-
ation at Folsom Reservoir caused by the vari-
able flood control operation of Folsom Dam, the
Secretary shall take into consideration the ef-
fect of measures authorized by section 581(b)
of this Act.
(5) 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.
(6) 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 $140,285,000, with an estimated Fed-
eral cost of $44,000,000 and an estimated non-Fed-
eral cost of $96,285,000.
(7) 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.
(8) 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.
(9) 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.
(10) 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.
(11) 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.
(12) 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.
(13) 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.
(14) 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.
(15) 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.
(16) 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
of $8,950,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$5,720,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$3,230,000.
(17) LOWER CAPE MAY MEADOWS, CAPE MAY
POINT, NEW
JERSEY.—The project for navigation
mitigation, ecosystem restoration, and hurricane and
storm damage reduction, Lower Cape May Meadows,
Cape May Point, New Jersey: Report of the Chief
of Engineers dated April 5, 1999, 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, and at an estimated average annual
cost of $1,114,000 for periodic nourishment over the
50-year life of the project, with an estimated annual
Federal cost of $897,000 and an estimated annual
non-Federal cost of $217,000.
(18) 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.
(19) 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.
(20) 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.
(21) 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.
(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 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) 
OAKLAND
HARBOR, 
CALIFORNIA.—The
project for navigation, Oakland Harbor, California,
at a total cost of $256,650,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $143,450,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $113,200,000.
(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) 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, 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.
(7) DELAWARE COAST FROM CAPE HENELOPEN
TO
FENWICK
ISLAND, 
BETHANY
BEACH/SOUTH
BETHANY BEACH, DELAWARE.—The project for hur-
ricane and storm damage reduction, 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, and at an estimated average annual
cost of $1,584,000 for periodic 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.
(8) JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FLORIDA.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for naviga-
tion, Jacksonville Harbor, Florida, at a total
cost of $26,116,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $9,129,000 and an estimated non-Fed-
eral 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.
(9) 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.
(10) 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.
(11) 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, regional, and local
entities, has reviewed and approved an en-
vironmental 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.
(12) 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.
(13) 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.
(14) 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.
(15) 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.
(16) 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) BIG TIMBER CREEK, NEW JERSEY.—Project
for streambank erosion control, Big Timber Creek,
New Jersey.
(3) LAKE SHORE ROAD, ATHOL SPRINGS, NEW
YORK.—Project for streambank erosion control,
Lake Shore Road, Athol Springs, New York.
(4) MARIST
COLLEGE, POUGHKEEPSIE, NEW
YORK.—Project for streambank erosion control,
Marist College, Poughkeepsie, New York.
(5) MONROE
COUNTY, 
OHIO.—Project for
streambank erosion control, Monroe County, Ohio.
(6) 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.
(13) UNION
RIVER, ELLSWORTH, MAINE.—
Project for navigation, Union River, Ellsworth,
Maine.
(14) FORTESCUE INLET, DELAWARE BAY, NEW
JERSEY.—Project for navigation for Fortescue Inlet,
Delaware Bay, New Jersey.
(15) BUFFALO
AND
LASALLE
PARK, 
NEW
YORK.—Project for navigation, Buffalo and LaSalle
Park, New York.
(16) STURGEON
POINT, NEW
YORK.—Project
for navigation, Sturgeon Point, New York.
SEC. 105. SMALL PROJECTS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE
ENVIRONMENT.
(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 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a):
(1) ILLINOIS RIVER IN THE VICINITY OF HA-
VANA, ILLINOIS.—Project for the improvement of
the environment, Illinois River in the vicinity of Ha-
vana, Illinois.
(2) KNITTING MILL CREEK, VIRGINIA.—Project
for the improvement of the environment, Knitting
Mill Creek, Virginia.
(b) PINE FLAT DAM, KINGS RIVER, CALIFORNIA.—
The Secretary shall carry out under section 1135(a) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
2309a(a)) a project to construct a turbine bypass at Pine
Flat Dam, Kings River, California, in accordance with the
Project Modification Report and Environmental Assess-
ment dated September 1996.
SEC. 106. SMALL AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION
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 206 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330):
(1) CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, BAY DELTA, CALI-
FORNIA.—Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration,
Contra Costa County, Bay Delta, California.
(2) INDIAN
RIVER, 
FLORIDA.—Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration and lagoon restora-
tion, Indian River, Florida.
(3) LITTLE WEKIVA RIVER, FLORIDA.—Project
for aquatic ecosystem restoration and erosion con-
trol, Little Wekiva River, Florida.
(4) COOK
COUNTY, 
ILLINOIS.—Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration and lagoon restoration
and protection, Cook County, Illinois.
(5) GRAND
BATTURE
ISLAND, MISSISSIPPI.—
Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Grand
Batture Island, Mississippi.
(6) HANCOCK, HARRISON, AND JACKSON COUN-
TIES, MISSISSIPPI.—Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration and reef restoration along the Gulf
Coast, Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson Counties,
Mississippi.
(7) MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND RIVER DES PERES,
ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI.—Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration and recreation, Mississippi River and
River Des Peres, St. Louis, Missouri.
(8) HUDSON RIVER, NEW YORK.—Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Hudson River, New
York.
(9) ONEIDA
LAKE, NEW
YORK.—Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Oneida Lake, Oneida
County, New York.
(10) OTSEGO LAKE, NEW YORK.—Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Otsego Lake, Otsego
County, New York.
(11) NORTH FORK OF YELLOW CREEK, OHIO.—
Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, North
Fork of Yellow Creek, Ohio.
(12) WHEELING CREEK WATERSHED, OHIO.—
Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Wheeling
Creek watershed, Ohio.
(13) 
SPRINGFIELD
MILLRACE, 
OREGON.—
Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Spring-
field Millrace, Oregon.
(14) UPPER AMAZON CREEK, OREGON.—Project
for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Upper Amazon
Creek, Oregon.
(15) LAKE
ONTELAUNEE
RESERVOIR, BERKS
COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.—Project for aquatic eco-
system restoration and distilling pond facilities,
Lake Ontelaunee Reservoir, Berks County, Pennsyl-
vania.
(16) BLACKSTONE
RIVER
BASIN, RHODE
IS-
LAND
AND
MASSACHUSETTS.—Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration and fish passage facilities,
Blackstone River Basin, Rhode Island and Massa-
chusetts.
TITLE II—GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 201. SMALL FLOOD CONTROL AUTHORITY.
Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33
U.S.C. 701s) is amended—
(1) by striking ‘‘construction of small projects’’
and inserting ‘‘implementation of small structural
and nonstructural projects’’; and
(2) by striking ‘‘$5,000,000’’ and inserting
‘‘$7,000,000’’.
SEC. 202. USE OF NON-FEDERAL FUNDS FOR COMPILING
AND 
DISSEMINATING 
INFORMATION 
ON
FLOODS AND FLOOD DAMAGES.
The last sentence of section 206(b) of the Flood Con-
trol Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 709a(b)) is amended by in-
serting before the period the following: ‘‘; except that this
limitation on fees shall not apply to funds voluntarily con-
tributed by such entities for the purpose of expanding the
scope of the services requested by such entities’’.
SEC. 203. CONTRIBUTIONS BY STATES AND POLITICAL SUB-
DIVISIONS.
Section 5 of the Flood Control Act of June 22, 1936
(33 U.S.C. 701h), is amended by inserting ‘‘or environ-
mental restoration’’ after ‘‘flood control’’.
SEC. 204. SEDIMENT DECONTAMINATION TECHNOLOGY.
Section 405 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2239 note; 106 Stat. 4863) is
amended—
(1) by adding at the end of subsection (a) the
following:
‘‘(4) PRACTICAL
END-USE
PRODUCTS.—Tech-
nologies selected for demonstration at the pilot scale
shall be intended to result in practical end-use prod-
ucts.
‘‘(5) ASSISTANCE
BY
THE
SECRETARY.—The
Secretary shall assist the project to ensure expedi-
tious completion by providing sufficient quantities of
contaminated dredged material to conduct the full-
scale demonstrations to stated capacity.’’;
(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
$22,000,000 to complete technology testing, tech-
nology commercialization, and the development of
full scale processing facilities within the New York/
New Jersey Harbor.’’; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(e) SUPPORT.—In carrying out the program under
this section, the Secretary is encouraged to utilize con-
tracts, cooperative agreements, and grants with colleges
and universities and other non-Federal entities.’’.
SEC. 205. CONTROL OF AQUATIC PLANTS.
Section 104 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958
(33 U.S.C. 610) is amended—
(1) in subsection (a) by inserting ‘‘arundo,’’
after ‘‘milfoil,’’;
(2) in subsection (b) by striking ‘‘$12,000,000’’
and inserting ‘‘$15,000,000.’’; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(c) SUPPORT.—In carrying out this program, the
Secretary is encouraged to utilize contracts, cooperative
agreements, and grants with colleges and universities and
other non-Federal entities.’’.
SEC. 206. USE OF CONTINUING CONTRACTS REQUIRED FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN PROJECTS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi-
sion of law, the Secretary shall not implement a fully allo-
cated funding policy with respect to a water resources
project if initiation of construction has occurred but suffi-
cient funds are not available to complete the project. The
Secretary shall enter into continuing contracts for such
project.
(b) INITIATION OF CONSTRUCTION CLARIFIED.—For
the purposes of this section, initiation of construction for
a project occurs on the date of enactment of an Act that
appropriates funds for the project from 1 of the following
appropriation accounts:
(1) Construction, General.
(2) Operation and Maintenance, General.
(3) Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tribu-
taries.
SEC. 207. SUPPORT OF ARMY CIVIL WORKS PROGRAM.
The requirements of section 2361 of title 10, United
States Code, shall not apply to any contract, cooperative
research and development agreement, cooperative agree-
ment, or grant entered into under section 229 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat.
3703) between the Secretary and Marshall University or
entered into under section 350 of this Act between the
Secretary and Juniata College.
SEC. 208. 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 reduc-
tion, and environmental restoration’’.
SEC. 209. EVERGLADES AND SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM
RESTORATION.
(a) PROGRAM EXTENSION.—Section 528(b)(3) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat.
3769) is amended—
(1) in subparagraph (B) by striking ‘‘1999’’
and inserting ‘‘2000’’; and
(2) in subparagraph (C)(i) by striking ‘‘1999’’
and inserting ‘‘2003’’.
(b) CREDIT.—Section 528(b)(3) of such Act is
amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(D) CREDIT OF PAST AND FUTURE AC-
TIVITIES.—The Secretary may provide a credit
to the non-Federal interests toward the non-
Federal share of a project implemented under
subparagraph (A). The credit shall be for rea-
sonable costs of work performed by the non-
Federal interests if the Secretary determines
that the work substantially expedited comple-
tion of the project and is compatible with and
an integral part of the project, and the credit
is provided pursuant to a specific project co-
operation agreement.’’.
(c) CALOOSAHATCHEE RIVER BASIN, FLORIDA.—
Section 528(e)(4) of such Act is amended by inserting be-
fore the period at the end of the first sentence the fol-
lowing: ‘‘if the Secretary determines that such land acqui-
sition is compatible with and an integral component of the
Everglades and South Florida ecosystem restoration, in-
cluding potential land acquisition in the Caloosahatchee
River basin or other areas’’.
SEC. 210. BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL.
Section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1992 (106 Stat. 4826–4827) is amended—
(1) in subsection (c) by striking ‘‘cooperative
agreement in accordance with the requirements of
section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970’’ and
inserting ‘‘binding agreement with the Secretary’’;
and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(g) NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS.—Notwithstanding
section 221(b) of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 1962d–5b(b)), the Secretary, after coordination
with the appropriate State and local government officials
having jurisdiction over an area in which a project under
this section will be carried out, may allow a nonprofit enti-
ty to serve as the non-Federal interest for the project.’’.
SEC. 211. HARBOR COST SHARING.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Sections 101 and 214 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
2211 and 2241; P.L. 99–662) are amended by striking
‘‘45 feet’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘53 feet’’.
(b) APPLICABILITY.—The amendments made by sub-
section (a) shall only apply to a project, or separable ele-
ment thereof, on which a contract for physical construc-
tion has not been awarded before the date of enactment
of this Act.
SEC. 212. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.
Section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1996 (110 Stat. 3679–3680) is amended—
(1) by adding at the end of subsection (b) the
following: ‘‘Before October 1, 2003, the Federal
share may be provided in the form of grants or re-
imbursements of project costs.’’; and
(2) by adding at the end of subsection (c) the
following: ‘‘Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the
Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–
5b(b)), the Secretary, after coordination with the ap-
propriate State and local government officials having
jurisdiction over an area in which a project under
this section will be carried out, may allow a non-
profit entity to serve as the non-Federal interest for
the project.’’.
SEC. 213. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT, RESTORATION, AND
DEVELOPMENT.
(a) NONPROFIT ENTITY AS NON-FEDERAL INTER-
EST.—Section 503(a) of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3756) is amended by adding
at the end the following: ‘‘Notwithstanding section 221(b)
of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–
5b(b)), the Secretary, after coordination with the appro-
priate State and local government officials having jurisdic-
tion over an area in which a project under this section
will be carried out, may allow a nonprofit entity to serve
as the non-Federal interest for the project.’’.
(b) PROJECT LOCATIONS.—Section 503(d) of such
Act is amended—
(1) in paragraph (7) by inserting before the pe-
riod at the end ‘‘, including Clear Lake’’; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(14) Fresno Slough watershed, California.
‘‘(15) Hayward Marsh, Southern San Francisco
Bay watershed, California.
‘‘(16) Kaweah River watershed, California.
‘‘(17) Malibu Creek watershed, California.
‘‘(18) Illinois River watershed, Illinois.
‘‘(19) Catawba River watershed, North Caro-
lina.
‘‘(20) Cabin Creek basin, West Virginia.
‘‘(21) Lower St. Johns River basin, Florida.’’.
SEC. 214. FLOOD MITIGATION AND RIVERINE RESTORA-
TION PILOT PROGRAM.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may undertake a
program for the purpose of conducting projects that re-
duce flood hazards and restore the natural functions and
values of rivers throughout the United States.
(b) STUDIES AND PROJECTS.—
(1) AUTHORITY.—In carrying out the program,
the Secretary may conduct studies to identify appro-
priate flood damage reduction, conservation, and
restoration measures and may design and implement
projects described in subsection (a).
(2) CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION.—The
studies and projects carried out under this section
non-Federal interests shall pay 35 percent of the
cost of any environmental restoration or non-
structural flood control project carried out under
this section. The non-Federal interests shall provide
all land, easements, rights-of-way, dredged material
disposal areas, and relocations necessary for such
projects. The value of such land, easements, rights-
of-way, dredged material disposal areas, and reloca-
tions shall be credited toward the payment required
under this paragraph.
(3) 
STRUCTURAL
FLOOD
CONTROL
PROJECTS.—Any structural flood control measures
carried out under this section shall be subject to cost
sharing in accordance with section 103(a) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33
U.S.C. 2213(a)).
(4) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The non-
Federal interests shall be responsible for all costs as-
sociated with operating, maintaining, replacing, re-
pairing, and rehabilitating all projects carried out
under this section.
(d) PROJECT JUSTIFICATION.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other
provision of law or requirement for economic jus-
tification established pursuant to section 209 of the
Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962–2), the
Secretary may implement a project under this sec-
tion if the Secretary determines 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) ESTABLISHMENT OF SELECTION AND RAT-
ING CRITERIA AND POLICIES.—Not later than 180
days after the date of enactment of this section, the
Secretary, in cooperation with State, tribal, and local
agencies, shall develop, and transmit to the Com-
mittee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on En-
vironment and Public Works of the Senate, criteria
for selecting and rating projects to be carried out
under this section and shall establish policies and
procedures for carrying out the studies and projects
undertaken under this section. Such criteria shall in-
clude, as a priority, the extent to which the appro-
priate State government supports the project.
(e) PRIORITY AREAS.—In carrying out this section,
the Secretary shall examine the potential for flood damage
reductions at appropriate locations, including the fol-
lowing:
(1) Upper Delaware River, New York.
(2) Willamette River floodplain, Oregon.
(3) Pima County, Arizona, at Paseo De Las
Iglesias and Rillito River.
(4) Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers, Cali-
fornia.
(5) Murrieta Creek, California.
(6) Napa County, California, at Yountville, St.
Helena, Calistoga, and American Canyon.
(7) Santa Clara basin, California, at Upper
Guadalupe River and tributaries, San Francisquito
Creek, and Upper Penitencia Creek.
(8) Pine Mount Creek, New Jersey.
(9) Chagrin River, Ohio.
(10) Blair County, Pennsylvania, at Altoona
and Frankstown Township.
(11) Lincoln Creek, Wisconsin.
(f) PROGRAM REVIEW.—
(1) IN
GENERAL.—The program established
under this section shall be subject to an independent
review to evaluate the efficacy of the program in
achieving the dual goals of flood hazard mitigation
and riverine restoration.
(2) REPORT.—Not later than April 15, 2003,
the Secretary shall transmit to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Environment
and Public Works of the Senate a report on the
findings of the review conducted under this sub-
section with any recommendations concerning con-
tinuation of the program.
(g) COST LIMITATIONS.—
(1) MAXIMUM FEDERAL COST PER PROJECT.—
No more than $30,000,000 may be expended by the
United States on any single project under this sec-
tion.
(2) COMMITTEE RESOLUTION PROCEDURE.—
(A) LIMITATION ON APPROPRIATIONS.—No
appropriation shall be made to construct any
project under this section the total Federal cost
of construction of which exceeds $15,000,000 if
the project has not been approved by resolu-
tions adopted by the Committee on Transpor-
tation and Infrastructure of the House of Rep-
resentatives and the Committee on Environ-
ment and Public Works of the Senate.
(B) REPORT.—For the purpose of securing
consideration of approval under this paragraph,
the Secretary shall transmit a report on the
proposed project, including all relevant data
and information on all costs.
(h) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section—
(1) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
(2) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 if
$12,500,000 or more is appropriated to carry out
subsection (e) for fiscal year 2000;
(3) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 if
$12,500,000 or more is appropriated to carry out
subsection (e) for fiscal year 2001; and
(4) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2003 if
$12,500,000 or more is appropriated to carry out
subsection (e) for fiscal year 2002.
SEC. 215. SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.
(a) REVIEW.—The Secretary shall review the imple-
mentation of the Corps of Engineers’ shoreline manage-
ment program, with particular attention to inconsistencies
in implementation among the divisions and districts of the
Corps of Engineers and complaints by or potential inequi-
ties regarding property owners in the Savannah District
including an accounting of the number and disposition of
complaints over the last 5 years in the District.
(b) REPORT.—As expeditiously as practicable after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall
transmit to the Committee on Transportation and Infra-
structure of the House of Representatives and the Com-
mittee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate
a report describing the results of the review conducted
under subsection (a).
SEC. 216. ASSISTANCE FOR REMEDIATION, RESTORATION,
AND REUSE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may provide to
State and local governments assessment, planning, and
design assistance for remediation, environmental restora-
tion, or reuse of areas located within the boundaries of
such State or local governments where such remediation,
environmental restoration, or reuse will contribute to the
conservation of water and related resources of drainage
basins and watersheds within the United States.
(b) BENEFICIAL USE OF DREDGED MATERIAL.—In
providing assistance under subsection (a), the Secretary
shall encourage the beneficial use of dredged material,
consistent with the findings of the Secretary under section
204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33
U.S.C. 2326).
(c) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—The non-Federal share
of the cost of assistance provided under subsection (a)
shall be 50 percent.
(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$3,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 through 2004.
SEC. 217. SHORE DAMAGE MITIGATION.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 111 of the River and Har-
bor Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 426i; 100 Stat. 4199) is
amended by inserting after ‘‘navigation works’’ the fol-
lowing: ‘‘and shore damages attributable to the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway and the Gulf Intracoastal Water-
way’’.
(b) PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA.—The project
for navigation, Palm Beach County, Florida, authorized
by section 2 of the River and Harbor Act of March 2,
1945 (59 Stat. 11), is modified to authorize the Secretary
to undertake beach nourishment as a dredged material
disposal option under the project.
(c) GALVESTON COUNTY, TEXAS.—The Secretary
may place dredged material from the Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway on the beaches along Rollover Pass, Galveston
County, Texas, to stabilize beach erosion.
SEC. 218. SHORE PROTECTION.
(a) NON-FEDERAL SHARE OF PERIODIC NOURISH-
MENT.—Section 103(d) of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4085–5086) is amended—
(1) by inserting ‘‘(1) CONSTRUCTION.—’’ before
‘‘Costs of constructing’’;
(2) by inserting at the end the following:
‘‘(2) PERIODIC NOURISHMENT.—
‘‘(A) IN
GENERAL.—Subject to subpara-
graph (B), the non-Federal share of costs of
periodic nourishment measures for shore protec-
tion or beach erosion control that are carried
out—
‘‘(i) after January 1, 2001, shall be
40 percent;
‘‘(ii) after January 1, 2002, shall be
45 percent; and
‘‘(iii) after January 1, 2003, shall be
50 percent;
‘‘(B) BENEFITS
TO
PRIVATELY
OWNED
SHORES.—All costs assigned to benefits of peri-
odic nourishment measures to privately owned
shores (where use of such shores is limited to
private interests) or to prevention of losses of
private lands shall be borne by the non-Federal
interest and all costs assigned to the protection
of federally owned shores for such measures
shall be borne by the United States.’’; and
(3) by indenting paragraph (1) (as designated
by subparagraph (A) of this paragraph) and aligning
such paragraph with paragraph (2) (as added by
subparagraph (B) of this paragraph).
(b) UTILIZATION OF SAND FROM OUTER CONTI-
NENTAL SHELF.—Section 8(k)(2)(B) of the Outer Conti-
nental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(k)(2)(B)) is
amended by striking ‘‘an agency of the Federal Govern-
ment’’ and inserting ‘‘a Federal, State, or local govern-
ment agency’’.
(c) REPORT ON NATION’S SHORELINES.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 3 years after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary
shall report to Congress on the state of the Nation’s
shorelines.
(2) CONTENTS.—The report shall include—
(A) a description of the extent of, and eco-
nomic and environmental effects caused by, ero-
sion and accretion along the Nation’s shores
and the causes thereof;
(B) a description of resources committed
by local, State, and Federal governments to re-
store and renourish shorelines;
(C) a description of the systematic move-
ment of sand along the Nation’s shores; and
(D) recommendations regarding (i) appro-
priate levels of Federal and non-Federal partici-
pation in shoreline protection, and (ii) utiliza-
tion of a systems approach to sand manage-
ment.
(3) 
UTILIZATION
OF
SPECIFIC
LOCATION
DATA.—In developing the report, the Secretary shall
utilize data from specific locations on the Atlantic,
Pacific, Great Lakes, and Gulf of Mexico coasts.
(d) NATIONAL COASTAL DATA BANK.—
(1) ESTABLISHMENT
OF
DATA
BANK.—Not
later than 2 years after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Secretary shall establish a national
coastal data bank containing data on the geophysical
and climatological characteristics of the Nation’s
shorelines.
(2) CONTENT.—To the extent practical, the na-
tional coastal data bank shall include data regarding
current and predicted shoreline positions, informa-
tion 
on 
federally-authorized 
shore 
protection
projects, and data on the movement of sand along
the Nation’s shores, including impediments to such
movement caused by natural and manmade features.
(3) ACCESS.—The national coastal data bank
shall be made readily accessible to the public.
SEC. 219. FLOOD PREVENTION COORDINATION.
Section 206 of the Flood Control Act of 1960 (33
U.S.C. 709a) is amended—
(1) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as
subsections (c) and (d), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (a) the fol-
lowing:
‘‘(b) FLOOD
PREVENTION
COORDINATION.—The
Secretary shall coordinate with the Director of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency and the heads of other
Federal agencies to ensure that flood control projects and
plans are complementary and integrated to the extent
practicable and appropriate.’’.
SEC. 220. ANNUAL PASSES FOR RECREATION.
Section 208(c)(4) of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 460d note; 110 Stat. 3680)
is amended by striking ‘‘1999, or the date of transmittal
of the report under paragraph (3)’’ and inserting ‘‘2003’’.
SEC. 221. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS FOR ENVIRON-
MENTAL AND RECREATIONAL MEASURES.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to
enter into cooperative agreements with non-Federal public
bodies and non-profit entities for the purpose of facili-
tating collaborative efforts involving environmental protec-
tion and restoration, natural resources conservation, and
recreation in connection with the development, operation,
and management of water resources projects under the ju-
risdiction of the Department of the Army.
(b) REPORT.—Not later than 18 months after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit
to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report
that includes—
(1) a listing and general description of the co-
operative agreements entered into by the Secretary
with non-Federal public bodies and entities under
subsection (a);
(2) a determination of whether such agreements
are facilitating collaborative efforts; and
(3) a recommendation on whether such agree-
ments should be further encouraged.
SEC. 222. NONSTRUCTURAL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS.
(a) ANALYSIS OF BENEFITS.—Section 308 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C.
2318; 104 Stat. 4638) is amended—
(1) in the heading to subsection (a) by inserting
‘‘ELEMENTS EXCLUDED FROM’’ before ‘‘BENEFIT-
COST’’;
(2) by redesignating subsections (b) through (e)
as subsections (c) through (f), respectively; and
(3) by inserting after subsection (a) the fol-
lowing:
‘‘(b) FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION BENEFITS.—In
calculating the benefits of a proposed project for non-
structural flood damage reduction, the Secretary shall cal-
culate benefits of nonstructural projects using methods
similar to structural projects, including similar treatment
in calculating the benefits from losses avoided from both
structural and nonstructural alternatives. In carrying out
this subsection, the Secretary should avoid double count-
ing of benefits.’’.
(b) 
REEVALUATION
OF
FLOOD
CONTROL
PROJECTS.—At the request of a non-Federal interest for
a flood control project, the Secretary shall conduct a re-
evaluation of a previously authorized project to consider
nonstructural alternatives in light of the amendments
made by subsection (a).
(c) COST SHARING.—Section 103(b) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(b))
is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘At any
time during construction of the project, where the Sec-
retary determines that the costs of lands, easements,
rights-of-way, dredged material disposal areas, and reloca-
tions in combination with other costs contributed by the
non-Federal interests will exceed 35 percent, any addi-
tional costs for the project, but not to exceed 65 percent
of the total costs of the project, shall be a Federal respon-
sibility and shall be contributed during construction as
part of the Federal share.’’.
SEC. 223. LAKES PROGRAM.
Section 602(a) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986 (110 Stat. 3758) is amended—
(1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph
(15);
(2) by striking the period at the end of para-
graph (16) and inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(17) Clear Lake, Lake County, California, re-
moval of silt and aquatic growth and measures to
address excessive sedimentation and high nutrient
concentration; and
‘‘(18) Osgood Pond, Milford, Hillsborough
County, New Hampshire, removal of silt and aquatic
growth and measures to address excessive sedi-
mentation.
‘‘(19) Flints Pond, Hollis, Hillsborough County,
New Hampshire, removal of silt and aquatic growth
and measures to address excessive sedimentation.’’.
SEC. 224. CONSTRUCTION OF FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS
BY NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS.
(a) CONSTRUCTION BY NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS.—
Section 211(d)(1) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 701b-13(d)(1)) is amended—
(1) by striking ‘‘(b) or’’;
(2) by striking ‘‘Any non-Federal’’ and insert-
ing the following:
‘‘(A) STUDIES
AND
DESIGN
ACTIVITIES
UNDER SUBSECTION (B).—A non-Federal inter-
est may only carry out construction for which
studies and design documents are prepared
under subsection (b) if the Secretary approves
such construction. The Secretary shall approve
such construction unless the Secretary deter-
mines, in writing, that the design documents do
not meet standard practices for design meth-
odologies or that the project is not economically
justified or environmentally acceptable or does
not meet the requirements for obtaining the ap-
propriate permits required under the Sec-
retary’s authority. The Secretary shall not un-
reasonably withhold approval. Nothing in this
subparagraph may be construed to affect any
regulatory authority of the Secretary.
‘‘(B) STUDIES
AND
DESIGN
ACTIVITIES
UNDER
SUBSECTION
(C).—Any non-Federal’’;
and
(3) by aligning the remainder of subparagraph
(B) (as designated by paragraph (2) of this sub-
section) with subparagraph (A) (as inserted by para-
graph (2) of this subsection).
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 211(d)(2)
of such Act is amended by inserting ‘‘(other than para-
graph (1)(A))’’ after ‘‘this subsection’’.
(c) REIMBURSEMENT.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 211(e)(1) of such
Act is amended—
(A) in the matter preceding subparagraph
(1) by inserting after ‘‘constructed pursuant to
this section’’ the following: ‘‘and provide credit
for the non-Federal share of the project’’;
(B) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of sub-
paragraph (A);
(C) by striking the period at the end of
subparagraph (B) and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(C) if the construction work is reasonably
equivalent to Federal construction work.’’.
(2) SPECIAL RULES.—Section 211(e)(2)(A) of
such Act is amended—
(A) by striking ‘‘subject to amounts being
made available in advance in appropriations
Acts’’ and inserting ‘‘subject to appropria-
tions’’; and
(B) by inserting after ‘‘the cost of such
work’’ the following: ‘‘, or provide credit (de-
pending on the request of the non-Federal in-
terest) for the non-Federal share of such
work,’’.
(3) SCHEDULE AND MANNER OF REIMBURSE-
MENTS.—Section 211(e) of such Act (33 U.S.C.
701b-13(e)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
‘‘(6) SCHEDULE AND MANNER OF REIMBURSE-
MENT.—
‘‘(A) BUDGETING.—The Secretary shall
budget and request appropriations for reim-
bursements under this section on a schedule
that is consistent with a Federal construction
schedule.
‘‘(B) COMMENCEMENT
OF
REIMBURSE-
MENTS.—Reimbursements under this section
may commence upon approval of a project by
the Secretary.
‘‘(C) CREDIT.—At the request of a non-
Federal interest, the Secretary may reimburse
the non-Federal interest by providing credit to-
ward future non-Federal costs of the project.
‘‘(D) SCHEDULING.—Nothing in this para-
graph shall affect the President’s discretion to
schedule new construction starts.’’.
SEC. 225. ENHANCEMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE RE-
SOURCES.
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 satisfied through in-kind contributions, including
facilities, supplies, and services that are necessary to carry
out the enhancement project.’’.
SEC. 226. SENSE OF CONGRESS; REQUIREMENT REGARD-
ING NOTICE.
(a) PURCHASE
OF AMERICAN-MADE EQUIPMENT
AND PRODUCTS.—It is the sense of Congress that, to the
greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products
purchased with funds made available under this Act
should be American made.
(b) NOTICE
TO RECIPIENTS
OF ASSISTANCE.—In
providing financial assistance under this Act, the Sec-
retary, to the greatest extent practicable, shall provide to
each recipient of the assistance a notice describing the
statement made in subsection (a).
SEC. 227. PERIODIC BEACH NOURISHMENT.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 506(a) of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3757) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(5) LEE
COUNTY, 
FLORIDA.—Project for
shoreline protection, Lee County, Captiva Island
segment, Florida.’’.
(b) PROJECTS.—Section 506(b)(3) of such Act (110
Stat. 3758) is amended by striking subparagraph (A) and
redesignating subparagraphs (B) through (D) as subpara-
graphs (A) through (C), respectively.
SEC. 228. ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING.
Section 312 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1990 (104 Stat. 4639–4640) is amended—
(1) in subsection (b)(1) by striking ‘‘50’’ and
inserting ‘‘35’’; and
(2) in subsection (d) by striking ‘‘non-Federal
responsibility’’ and inserting ‘‘shared as a cost of
construction’’.
TITLE III—PROJECT-RELATED
PROVISIONS
SEC. 301. MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM.
The project for flood control, Missouri River Levee
System, authorized by section 10 of the Act entitled ‘‘An
Act authorizing the construction of certain public works
on rivers and harbors for flood control, and other pur-
poses’’, approved December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 897), is
modified to provide that project costs totaling $2,616,000
expended on Units L–15, L–246, and L–385 out of the
Construction, General account of the Corps of Engineers
before the date of enactment of the Water Resources De-
velopment Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note) shall not
be treated as part of total project costs.
SEC. 302. OUZINKIE HARBOR, ALASKA.
(a) MAXIMUM FEDERAL EXPENDITURE.—The max-
imum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for
the project for navigation, Ouzinkie Harbor, Alaska, shall
be $8,500,000.
(b) REVISION OF PROJECT COOPERATION AGREE-
MENT.—The Secretary shall revise the project cooperation
agreement for the project referred to in subsection (a) to
take into account the change in the Federal participation
in such project pursuant to subsection (a).
(c) COST SHARING.—Nothing in this section shall be
construed to affect any cost-sharing requirement applica-
ble to the project referred to in subsection (a) under the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986.
SEC. 303. GREERS FERRY LAKE, ARKANSAS.
The project for flood control, Greers Ferry Lake, Ar-
kansas, authorized by the Act entitled ‘‘An Act author-
izing the construction of certain public works on rivers and
harbors for flood control, and other purposes’’, approved
June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1218), is modified to authorize
the Secretary to construct water intake facilities for the
benefit of Lonoke and White Counties, Arkansas.
SEC. 304. TEN- AND FIFTEEN-MILE BAYOUS, ARKANSAS.
The project for flood control, St. Francis River
Basin, Missouri and Arkansas, authorized by section 204
of the Flood Control Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 172), is modi-
fied to expand the project boundaries to include Ten- and
Fifteen-Mile Bayous near West Memphis, Arkansas. Not-
withstanding section 103(f) of the Water Resources Devel-
opment Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4086), the flood control
work at Ten- and Fifteen-Mile Bayous shall not be consid-
ered separable elements of the St. Francis Basin project.
SEC. 305. LOGGY BAYOU, RED RIVER BELOW DENISON DAM,
ARKANSAS, 
LOUISIANA, 
OKLAHOMA, 
AND
TEXAS.
The project for flood control on the Red River Below
Denison Dam, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and
Texas, authorized by section 10 of the Flood Control Act
of 1946 (60 Stat. 647), is modified to direct the Secretary
to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of expand-
ing the project to include mile 0.0 to mile 7.8 of Loggy
Bayou between the Red River and Flat River. If the Sec-
retary determines as a result of the study that the project
should be expanded, the Secretary may assume responsi-
bility for operation and maintenance of the expanded
project.
SEC. 306. SACRAMENTO RIVER, GLENN-COLUSA, CALI-
FORNIA.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood control, Sac-
ramento River, California, authorized by section 2 of the
Act entitled ‘‘An Act to provide for the control of the
floods of the Mississippi River and of the Sacramento
River, California, and for other purposes’’, approved
March 1, 1917 (39 Stat. 949), and modified by section
102 of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Act, 1990 (103 Stat. 649), section 301(b)(3) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3110), and
title I of the Energy and Water Development Appropria-
tions Act, 1999 (112 Stat. 1841), is further modified to
authorize the Secretary—
(1) to carry out the portion of the project at
Glenn-Colusa, 
California, 
at 
a 
total 
cost 
of
$26,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$20,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$6,000,000; and
(2) to carry out bank stabilization work in the
vicinity of the riverbed gradient facility, particularly
in the vicinity of River Mile 208.
(b) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall provide the non-
Federal interests for the project referred to in subsection
(a) a credit of up to $4,000,000 toward the non-Federal
share of the project costs for the direct and indirect costs
incurred by the non-Federal sponsor in carrying out activi-
ties associated with environmental compliance for the
project. Such credit may be in the form of reimbursements
for costs which were incurred by the non-Federal interests
prior to an agreement with the Corps of Engineers, to in-
clude the value of lands, easements, rights-of-way, reloca-
tions, or dredged material disposal areas.
SEC. 307. SAN LORENZO RIVER, CALIFORNIA.
The project for flood control and habitat restoration,
San Lorenzo River, California, authorized by section
101(a)(5) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (110 Stat. 3663), is modified to authorize the Sec-
retary to expand the boundaries of the project to include
bank stabilization for a 1,000-foot portion of the San
Lorenzo River.
SEC. 308. TERMINUS DAM, KAWEAH RIVER, CALIFORNIA.
(a) TRANSFER OF TITLE TO ADDITIONAL LAND.—
If the non-Federal interests for the project for flood con-
trol and water supply, Terminus Dam, Kaweah River,
California, authorized by section 101(b)(5) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3667),
transfers to the Secretary without consideration title to
perimeter lands acquired for the project by the non-Fed-
eral interests, the Secretary may accept the transfer of
such title.
(b) LANDS, EASEMENT, AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY.—
Nothing in this section shall be construed to change, mod-
ify, or otherwise affect the responsibility of the non-Fed-
eral interests to provide lands, easements, rights-of-way,
relocations, and dredged material disposal areas necessary
for the Terminus Dam project and to perform operation
and maintenance for the project.
(c) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—Upon request
by the non-Federal interests, the Secretary shall carry out
operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabili-
tation of the project if the non-Federal interests enter into
a binding agreement with the Secretary to reimburse the
Secretary for 100 percent of the costs of such operation,
maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation.
(d) HOLD HARMLESS.—The non-Federal interests
shall hold the United States harmless for ownership, oper-
ation, and maintenance of lands and facilities of the Ter-
minus Dam project title to which is transferred to the Sec-
retary under this section.
SEC. 309. DELAWARE RIVER MAINSTEM AND CHANNEL
DEEPENING, DELAWARE, NEW JERSEY, AND
PENNSYLVANIA.
The project for navigation, Delaware River Mainstem
and Channel Deepening, Delaware, New Jersey and Penn-
sylvania, authorized by section 101(6) of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4802), is
modified as follows:
(1) The Secretary is authorized to provide non-
Federal interests credit toward cash contributions
required for construction and subsequent to con-
struction for engineering and design and construc-
tion management work that is performed by non-
Federal interests and that the Secretary determines
is necessary to implement the project. Any such
credits extended shall reduce the Philadelphia Dis-
trict’s private sector performance goals for engineer-
ing work by a like amount.
(2) The Secretary is authorized to provide to
non-Federal interests credit toward cash contribu-
tions required during construction and subsequent to
construction for the costs of construction carried out
by the non-Federal interest on behalf of the Sec-
retary and that the Secretary determines is nec-
essary to implement the project.
(3) The Secretary is authorized to enter into an
agreement with a non-Federal interest for the pay-
ment of disposal or tipping fees for dredged material
from a Federal project other than for the construc-
tion or operation and maintenance of the new deep-
ening project as described in the Limited Reevalua-
tion Report of May 1997, where the non-Federal in-
terest has supplied the corresponding disposal capac-
ity.
(4) The Secretary is authorized to enter into an
agreement with a non-Federal interest that will pro-
vide that the non-Federal interest may carry out or
cause to have carried out, on behalf of the Secretary,
a disposal area management program for dredged
material disposal areas necessary to construct, oper-
ate, and maintain the project and to authorize the
Secretary to reimburse the non-Federal interest for
the costs of the disposal area management program
activities carried out by the non-Federal interest.
SEC. 310. POTOMAC RIVER, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF CO-
LUMBIA.
The project for flood control authorized by section 5
of the Flood Control Act of June 22, 1936 (69 Stat.
1574), as modified by section 301(a)(4) of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3707), is fur-
ther modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the
project at a Federal cost of $5,965,000.
SEC. 311. BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA.
(a) STUDY.—The Secretary, in cooperation with the
non-Federal interest, shall conduct a study of any damage
to the project for shoreline protection, Brevard County,
Florida, authorized by section 101(b)(7) of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3667), to de-
termine whether the damage is the result of a Federal
navigation project.
(b) CONDITIONS.—In conducting the study, the Sec-
retary shall utilize the services of an independent coastal
expert who shall consider all relevant studies completed
by the Corps of Engineers and the project’s local sponsor.
The study shall be completed within 120 days of the date
of enactment of this Act.
(c) MITIGATION OF DAMAGES.—After completion of
the study, the Secretary shall mitigate any damage to the
shoreline protection project that is the result of a Federal
navigation project. The costs of the mitigation shall be al-
located to the Federal navigation project as operation and
maintenance.
SEC. 312. BROWARD COUNTY AND HILLSBORO INLET,
FLORIDA.
The project for shoreline protection, Broward County
and Hillsboro Inlet, Florida, authorized by section 301 of
the River and Harbor Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1090), is
modified to authorize the Secretary to reimburse the non-
Federal interest for the Federal share of the cost of
preconstruction planning and design for the project upon
execution of a contract to construct the project if the Sec-
retary determines such work is compatible with and inte-
gral to the project.
SEC. 313. FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for shore protection
and harbor mitigation, Fort Pierce, Florida, authorized by
section 301 of the River and Harbor Act of 1965 (79 Stat.
1092) and section 506(a)(2) of the Water Resources De-
velopment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3757), is modified to
incorporate an additional 1 mile into the project in accord-
ance with a final approved General Reevaluation Report,
at a total cost for initial nourishment for the entire project
of $9,128,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$7,073,500 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$2,054,500.
(b) PERIOD NOURISHMENT.—Periodic nourishment
is authorized for the project in accordance with section
506(a)(2) of Water Resources Development Act of 1996
(110 Stat. 3757).
(c) REVISION
OF
THE
PROJECT
COOPERATION
AGREEMENT.—The Secretary shall revise the project co-
operation agreement for the project referred to in sub-
section (a) to take into account the change in Federal par-
ticipation in the project pursuant to subsection (a).
SEC. 314. NASSAU COUNTY, FLORIDA.
The project for beach erosion control, Nassau County
(Amelia fIsland), Florida, authorized by section 3(a)(3) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat.
4013), is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct
the project at a total cost of $17,000,000, with an esti-
mated Federal cost of $13,300,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $3,700,000.
SEC. 315. MIAMI HARBOR CHANNEL, FLORIDA.
The project for navigation, Miami Harbor Channel,
Florida, authorized by section 101(a)(9) of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4606), is
modified to include construction of artificial reefs and re-
lated environmental mitigation required by Federal, State,
and local environmental permitting agencies for the
project.
SEC. 316. LAKE MICHIGAN, ILLINOIS.
The project for storm damage reduction and shore-
line erosion protection, Lake Michigan, Illinois, from
Wilmette, Illinois, to the Illinois-Indiana State line, au-
thorized by section 101(a)(12) of the Water Resources De-
velopment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3664), is modified to
authorize the Secretary to provide a credit against the
non-Federal share of the cost of the project for costs in-
curred by the non-Federal interest—
(1) in constructing Reach 2D and Segment 8 of
Reach 4 of the project; and
(2) in reconstructing Solidarity Drive in Chi-
cago, Illinois, prior to entry into a project coopera-
tion agreement with the Secretary.
SEC. 317. SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS.
Section 417 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1996 (110 Stat. 3743) is amended—
(1) by inserting ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—’’ before
‘‘The Secretary’’; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(b) COST SHARING.—The non-Federal share of as-
sistance provided under this section before, on, or after
the date of enactment of this subsection shall be 50 per-
cent.’’.
SEC. 318. LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, INDIANA.
The project for flood control, Little Calumet River,
Indiana, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4115), is
modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the
project substantially in accordance with the report of the
Corps of Engineers, at a total cost of $167,000,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $122,000,000 and an esti-
mated non-Federal cost of $45,000,000.
SEC. 319. OGDEN DUNES, INDIANA.
(a) STUDY.—The Secretary shall conduct a study of
beach erosion in and around the town of Ogden Dunes,
Indiana, to determine whether the damage is the result
of a Federal navigation project.
(b) MITIGATION OF DAMAGES.—After completion of
the study, the Secretary shall mitigate any damage to the
beach and shoreline that is the result of a Federal naviga-
tion project. The cost of the mitigation shall be allocated
to the Federal navigation project as operation and mainte-
nance.
SEC. 320. SAINT JOSEPH RIVER, SOUTH BEND, INDIANA.
(a) MAXIMUM TOTAL EXPENDITURE.—The max-
imum total expenditure for the project for streambank
erosion, recreation, and pedestrian access features, Saint
Joseph River, South Bend, Indiana, shall be $7,800,000.
(b) REVISION OF PROJECT COOPERATION AGREE-
MENT.—The Secretary shall revise the project cooperation
agreement for the project referred to in subsection (a) to
take into account the change in the Federal participation
in such project pursuant to subsection (a).
(c) COST SHARING.—Nothing in this section shall be
construed to affect any cost-sharing requirement applica-
ble to the project referred to in subsection (a) under title
I of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33
U.S.C. 2211 et seq.).
SEC. 321. WHITE RIVER, INDIANA.
The project for flood control, Indianapolis on West
Fork of the White River, Indiana, authorized by section
5 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act authorizing the construction
of certain public works on rivers and harbors for flood con-
trol, and other purposes’’, approved June 22, 1936 (49
Stat. 1586), and modified by section 323 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3716), is
further modified to authorize the Secretary to undertake
riverfront alterations as described in the Central Indianap-
olis Waterfront Concept Master Plan, dated February
1994, at a total cost of $110,975,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $52,475,000 and an estimated non-Fed-
eral cost of $58,500,000.
SEC. 322. LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN, LOUISIANA.
The project for hurricane-flood protection, Lake
Pontchartrain, Louisiana, authorized by section 204 of the
Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1077), is modified—
(1) to direct the Secretary to conduct a study
to determine the feasibility of constructing a pump
adjacent to each of the 4 proposed drainage struc-
tures for the Saint Charles Parish feature of the
project; and
(2) to authorize the Secretary to construct such
pumps upon completion of the study.
SEC. 323. LAROSE TO GOLDEN MEADOW, LOUISIANA.
The project for hurricane protection Larose to Gold-
en Meadow, Louisiana, authorized by section 204 of the
Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1077), is modified
to direct the Secretary to convert the Golden Meadow
floodgate into a navigation lock if the Secretary deter-
mines that the conversion is feasible.
SEC. 324. LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY LEVEE, LOU-
ISIANA.
The Louisiana State Penitentiary Levee project, Lou-
isiana, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4117), is
modified to direct the Secretary to provide credit to the
non-Federal interest toward the non-Federal share of the
cost of the project. The credit shall be for cost of work
performed by the non-Federal interest prior to the execu-
tion of a project cooperation agreement as determined by
the Secretary to be compatible with and an integral part
of the project.
SEC. 325. TWELVE-MILE BAYOU, CADDO PARISH, LOU-
ISIANA.
The Secretary shall be responsible for maintenance
of the levee along Twelve-Mile Bayou from its junction
with the existing Red River Below Denison Dam Levee
approximately 26 miles upstream to its terminus at high
ground in the vicinity of Black Bayou, Caddo Parish, Lou-
isiana, if the Secretary determines that such maintenance
is economically justified and environmentally acceptable
and that the levee was constructed in accordance with ap-
propriate design and engineering standards.
SEC. 326. WEST BANK OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER (EAST OF
HARVEY CANAL), LOUISIANA.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood control and
storm damage reduction, West Bank of the Mississippi
River (East of Harvey Canal), Louisiana, authorized by
section 401(b) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1986 (100 Stat. 4128) and section 101(a)(17) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat.
3665), is modified—
(1) to provide that any liability under the Com-
prehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.)
from the construction of the project is a Federal re-
sponsibility; and
(2) to authorize the Secretary to carry out op-
eration and maintenance of that portion of the
project included in the report of the Chief of Engi-
neers, dated May 1, 1995, referred to as ‘‘Algiers
Channel’’, if the non-Federal sponsor reimburses the
Secretary for the amount of such operation and
maintenance included in the report of the Chief of
Engineers.
(b) COMBINATION
OF PROJECTS.—The Secretary
shall carry out work authorized as part of the Westwego
to Harvey Canal project, the East of Harvey cannal
project, and the Lake Cataouatche modifications as a sin-
gle project, to be known as the West Bank and vicinity,
New Orleans, Louisiana, hurricane protection project,
with a combined total cost of $280,300,000.
SEC. 327. TOLCHESTER CHANNEL, BALTIMORE HARBOR
AND CHANNELS, CHESAPEAKE BAY, KENT
COUNTY, MARYLAND.
The project for navigation, Tolchester Channel,
Baltimore Harbor and Channels, Chesapeake Bay, Kent
County, Maryland, authorized by section 101 of the River
and Harbor Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 297), is modified to
authorize the Secretary to straighten the navigation chan-
nel in accordance with the District Engineer’s Navigation
Assessment Report and Environmental Assessment, dated
April 30, 1997. This modification shall be carried out in
order to improve navigation safety.
SEC. 328. SAULT SAINTE MARIE, CHIPPEWA COUNTY,
MICHIGAN.
The project for navigation Sault Sainte Marie, Chip-
pewa County, Michigan, authorized by section 1149 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat.
4254–4255) and modified by section 330 of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3717–3718),
is further modified to provide that the amount to be paid
by non-Federal interests pursuant to section 101(a) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
2211(a)) and subsection (a) of such section 330 shall not
include any interest payments.
SEC. 329. JACKSON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI.
The project for environmental infrastructure, Jack-
son County, Mississippi, authorized by section 219(c)(5)
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106
Stat. 4835) and modified by section 504 of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3757), is fur-
ther modified to direct the Secretary to provide 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 de-
termines is compatible with and integral to the project.
SEC. 330. TUNICA LAKE, MISSISSIPPI.
The project for flood control, Mississippi River Chan-
nel Improvement Project, Tunica Lake, Mississippi, au-
thorized by the Act entitled: ‘‘An Act for the control of
floods on the Mississippi River and its tributaries, and for
other purposes’’, approved May 15, 1928 (45 Stat. 534–
538), is modified to include construction of a weir at the
Tunica Cutoff, Mississippi.
SEC. 331. BOIS BRULE DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICT,
MISSOURI.
(a) MAXIMUM FEDERAL EXPENDITURE.—The max-
imum amount of Federal funds that may be allocated for
the project for flood control, Bois Brule Drainage and
Levee District, Missouri, authorized pursuant to section
205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s),
shall be $8,000,000.
(b) REVISION
OF
THE
PROJECT
COOPERATION
AGREEMENT.—The Secretary shall revise the project co-
operation agreement for the project referred to in sub-
section (a) to take into account the change in Federal par-
ticipation in the project pursuant to subsection (a).
(c) COST SHARING.—Nothing in this section shall be
construed to affect any cost-sharing requirement applica-
ble to the project referred to in subsection (a) under title
I of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33
U.S.C. 2211 et seq.).
SEC. 332. MERAMEC RIVER BASIN, VALLEY PARK LEVEE,
MISSOURI.
The project for flood control, Meramec River Basin,
Valley Park Levee, Missouri, authorized by section 2(h)
of an Act entitled ‘‘An Act to deauthorize several projects
within the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers’’
(95 Stat. 1682–1683) and modified by section 1128 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, (100 Stat.
4246), is further modified to authorize the Secretary to
construct the project at a maximum Federal expenditure
of $35,000,000.
SEC. 333. MISSOURI RIVER MITIGATION PROJECT, MIS-
SOURI, KANSAS, IOWA, AND NEBRASKA.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for mitigation of fish
and wildlife losses, Missouri River Bank Stabilization and
Navigation Project, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, and Ne-
braska, authorized by section 601 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4143), is modified
to increase by 118,650 acres the lands and interests in
lands to be acquired for the project.
(b) STUDY.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in conjunc-
tion with the States of Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, and
Missouri, shall conduct a study to determine the cost
of restoring, under the authority of the Missouri
River fish and wildlife mitigation project, a total of
118,650 acres of lost Missouri River habitat.
(2) REPORT.—The Secretary shall report to
Congress on the results of the study not later than
6 months after the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 334. WOOD RIVER, GRAND ISLAND, NEBRASKA.
The project for flood control, Wood River, Grand Is-
land, Nebraska, authorized by section 101(a)(19) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat.
3665), is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct
the project substantially in accordance with the report of
the Corps of Engineers 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.
SEC. 335. ABSECON ISLAND, NEW JERSEY.
The project for storm damage reduction and shore-
line protection, Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor
Inlet, Absecon Island, New Jersey, authorized by section
101(b)(13) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (110 Stat. 3668), is modified to provide that, if,
after October 12, 1996, the non-Federal interests carry
out any work associated with the project that is later rec-
ommended by the Chief of Engineers and approved by the
Secretary, the Secretary may credit the non-Federal inter-
ests toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the
project an amount equal to the Federal share of the cost
of such work, without interest.
SEC. 336. NEW YORK HARBOR AND ADJACENT CHANNELS,
PORT JERSEY, NEW JERSEY
The project for navigation, New York Harbor and
Adjacent Channels, New York and New Jersey, authorized
by section 202(b) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4098), is modified to authorize
the Secretary to construct that portion of the project that
is located between Military Ocean Terminal Bayonne and
Global Terminal in Bayonne, New Jersey, substantially in
accordance with the report of the Corps of Engineers, at
a total cost of $103,267,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $76,909,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $26,358,000.
SEC. 337. PASSAIC RIVER, NEW JERSEY.
Section 101(a)(18)(B) of the Water Resources Devel-
opment Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4608–4609) is amended
by inserting ‘‘, including an esplanade for safe pedestrian
access with an overall width of 600 feet’’ after ‘‘public ac-
cess to Route 21’’.
SEC. 338. SANDY HOOK TO BARNEGAT INLET, NEW JERSEY.
The project for shoreline protection, Sandy Hook to
Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey, authorized by section 101 of
the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 299), is
modified—
(1) to include the demolition of Long Branch
pier and extension of Ocean Grove pier; and
(2) to authorize the Secretary to reimburse the
non-Federal sponsor for the Federal share of costs
associated with the demolition of Long Branch pier
and the construction of the Ocean Grove pier.
SEC. 339. ARTHUR KILL, NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY.
The project for navigation, Arthur Kill, New York
and New Jersey, authorized 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
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3711), is
further modified to authorize the Secretary to construct
the portion of the project at Howland Hook Marine Ter-
minal substantially in accordance with the report of the
Corps of Engineers, dated September 30, 1998, at a total
cost of $315,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$183,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$132,500,000.
SEC. 340. NEW YORK CITY WATERSHED.
Section 552(i) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3781) is amended by striking
‘‘$22,500,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$42,500,000’’.
SEC. 341. NEW YORK STATE CANAL SYSTEM.
Section 553(e) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3781) is amended by striking
‘‘$8,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$18,000,000’’.
SEC. 342. FIRE ISLAND INLET TO MONTAUK POINT, NEW
YORK.
The project for combined beach erosion control and
hurricane protection, Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point,
Long Island, New York, authorized by the River and Har-
bor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 483) and modified by the River
and Harbor Act of 1962, the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1974, and the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986, is further modified to direct the Secretary,
in coordination with the heads of other Federal depart-
ments and agencies, to complete all procedures and re-
views expeditiously and to adopt and transmit to Congress
not later than June 30, 1999, a mutually acceptable shore
erosion plan for the Fire Island Inlet to Moriches Inlet
reach of the project.
SEC. 343. BROKEN BOW LAKE, RED RIVER BASIN, OKLA-
HOMA.
The project for flood control and water supply, Bro-
ken Bow Lake, Red River Basin, Oklahoma, authorized
by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1958 (72 Stat.
309) and modified by section 203 of the Flood Control
Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1187), section 102(v) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4808), and
section 338 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (110 Stat. 3720), is further modified to require the
Secretary to make seasonal adjustments to the top of the
conservation pool at the project as follows (if the Secretary
determines that the adjustments will be undertaken at no
cost to the United States and will adequately protect im-
pacted water and related resources):
(1) Maintain an elevation of 599.5 from No-
vember 1 through March 31.
(2) Increase elevation gradually from 599.5 to
602.5 during April and May.
(3) Maintain an elevation of 602.5 from June
1 to September 30.
(4) Decrease elevation gradually from 602.5 to
599.5 during October.
SEC. 344. WILLAMETTE RIVER TEMPERATURE CONTROL,
MCKENZIE SUBBASIN, OREGON.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for environmental
restoration, Willamette River Temperature Control,
McKenzie Subbasin, Oregon, authorized by section
101(a)(25) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (110 Stat. 3665), is modified to authorize the Sec-
retary to construct the project substantially in accordance
with the Feature Memorandum dated July 31, 1998, at
a total cost of $64,741,000.
(b) REPORT.—Not later than 90 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall report to
Congress on the reasons for the cost growth of the Willam-
ette River project and outline the steps the Corps of Engi-
neers is taking to control project costs, including the appli-
cation of value engineering and other appropriate meas-
ures. In the report, the Secretary shall also include a cost
estimate for, and recommendations on the advisability of,
adding fish screens to the project.
SEC. 345. AYLESWORTH CREEK RESERVOIR, PENNSYL-
VANIA.
The project for flood control, Aylesworth Creek Res-
ervoir, Pennsylvania, authorized by section 203 of the
Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1182), is modified
to authorize the Secretary to transfer, in each of fiscal
years 1999 and 2000, $50,000 to the Aylesworth Creek
Reservoir Park Authority for recreational facilities.
SEC. 346. CURWENSVILLE LAKE, PENNSYLVANIA.
Section 562 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1996 (110 Stat. 3784) is amended by adding at the
end the following: ‘‘The Secretary shall provide design and
construction assistance for recreational facilities at
Curwensville Lake and, when appropriate, may require the
non-Federal interest to provide not more than 25 percent
of the cost of designing and constructing such facilities.
The Secretary may transfer, in each of fiscal years 1999
through 2003, $100,000 to the Clearfield County Munic-
ipal Services and Recreation Authority for recreational fa-
cilities.’’.
SEC. 347. DELAWARE RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA AND DELA-
WARE.
The project for navigation, Delaware River, Philadel-
phia to Wilmington, Pennsylvania and Delaware, author-
ized by section 3(a)(12) of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4014), is modified to author-
ize the Secretary to extend the channel of the Delaware
River at Camden, New Jersey, to within 150 feet of the
existing bulkhead and to relocate the 40-foot deep Federal
navigation channel, eastward within Philadelphia Harbor,
from the Ben Franklin Bridge to the Walt Whitman
Bridge, into deep water.
SEC. 348. MUSSERS DAM, PENNSYLVANIA.
Section 209 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1992 (106 Stat. 4830) is amended by striking sub-
section (e) and redesignating subsection (f) as subsection
(e).
SEC. 349. NINE-MILE RUN, ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYL-
VANIA.
The Nine-Mile Run project, Allegheny County, Penn-
sylvania, carried out pursuant to section 206 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330; 110
Stat. 3679–3680), is modified to authorize the Secretary
to provide a credit toward the non-Federal share of the
project for costs incurred by the non-Federal interest in
preparing environmental and feasibility documentation for
the project before entering into an agreement with the
Corps of Engineers with respect to the project if the Sec-
retary determines such costs are for work that is compat-
ible with and integral to the project.
SEC. 350. RAYSTOWN LAKE, PENNSYLVANIA.
(a) RECREATION PARTNERSHIP INITIATIVE.—Sec-
tion 519(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (110 Stat. 3765) is amended—
(1) by redesignating paragraph (3) as para-
graph (4); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the fol-
lowing:
‘‘(3) ENGINEERING AND DESIGN SERVICES.—
The Secretary may perform, at full Federal expense,
engineering and design services for project infra-
structure expected to be associated with the develop-
ment of the site at Raystown Lake, Hesston, Penn-
sylvania.’’.
(b) CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Consistent with the master
plan described in section 318 of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4848),
the Secretary may provide a grant to Juniata Col-
lege for the construction of facilities and structures
at Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania, to interpret and
understand environmental conditions and trends. As
a condition of the receipt of such financial assist-
ance, officials at Juniata College shall coordinate
with the Baltimore District of the Army Corps of
Engineers.
(2) AUTHORIZATION
OF
APPROPRIATIONS.—
There is authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000
for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1998,
to carry out this subsection.
SEC. 351. SOUTH CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA.
Section 313(g)(1) of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4846) is amended by striking
‘‘$80,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$180,000,000’’.
SEC. 352. COOPER RIVER, CHARLESTON HARBOR, SOUTH
CAROLINA.
The project for rediversion, Cooper River, Charleston
Harbor, South Carolina, authorized by section 101 of the
River and Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 731) and modi-
fied by title I of the Energy and Water Development Ap-
propriations Act, 1992 (105 Stat. 516), is further modi-
fied to authorize the Secretary to pay to the State of
South Carolina not more than $3,750,000 if the Secretary
and the State enter into a binding agreement for the State
to perform all future operation of, including associated
studies to assess the efficacy of, the St. Stephen, South
Carolina, fish lift. The agreement must specify the terms
and conditions under which payment will be made and the
rights of, and remedies available to, the Federal Govern-
ment to recover all or a portion of such payment in the
event the State suspends or terminates operation of the
fish lift or fails to operate the fish lift in a manner satis-
factory to the Secretary. Maintenance of the fish lift shall
remain a Federal responsibility.
SEC. 353. BOWIE COUNTY LEVEE, TEXAS.
The project for flood control, Red River Below
Denison Dam, Texas and Oklahoma, authorized by section
10 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 647), is
modified to direct the Secretary to implement the Bowie
County Levee feature of the project in accordance with
the plan defined as Alternative B in the draft document
entitled ‘‘Bowie County Local Flood Protection, Red
River, Texas Project Design Memorandum No. 1, Bowie
County Levee’’, dated April 1997. In evaluating and im-
plementing this modification, the Secretary shall allow the
non-Federal interest to participate in the financing of the
project in accordance with section 903(c) of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184) to the
extent that the Secretary’s evaluation indicates that apply-
ing such section is necessary to implement the project.
SEC. 354. CLEAR CREEK, TEXAS.
Section 575 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1996 (110 Stat. 3789) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
‘‘(c) CLEAR CREEK, TEXAS.—In any evaluation of
economic benefits and costs for the project for flood con-
trol, Clear Creek, Texas, authorized by section 203 of the
Flood Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 742) that occurs after
the date of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary
shall include the costs and benefits of nonstructural meas-
ures undertaken, including any buyout or relocation ac-
tions, of non-Federal interests within the drainage area
of such project before the date of the evaluation in the
determination of conditions existing before the construc-
tion of the project.’’.
SEC. 355. CYPRESS CREEK, TEXAS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood control, Cy-
press Creek, Texas, authorized by section 3(a)(13) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat.
4014), is modified to authorize the Secretary to carry out
a nonstructural flood control project at a total cost of
$5,000,000.
(b) REIMBURSEMENT
FOR WORK.—The Secretary
may reimburse the non-Federal interest for the Cypress
Creek project for work done by the non-Federal interest
on the nonstructural flood control project in an amount
equal to the estimate of the Federal share, without inter-
est, of the cost of such work—
(1) if, after authorization and before initiation
of construction of such nonstructural project, the
Secretary approves the plans for construction of
such nonstructural project by the non-Federal inter-
est; and
(2) if the Secretary finds, after a review of
studies and design documents prepared to carry out
such nonstructural project, that construction of such
nonstructural project is economically justified and
environmentally acceptable.
SEC. 356. DALLAS FLOODWAY EXTENSION, DALLAS, TEXAS.
The project for flood control, Dallas Floodway Exten-
sion, Dallas, Texas, authorized by section 301 of the River
and Harbor Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1091) and modified
by section 351 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1996 (110 Stat. 3724), is further modified—
(1) to add environmental restoration and recre-
ation as project purposes; and
(2) to authorize the Secretary to construct the
project substantially in accordance with the Chain of
Wetlands Plan in the report of the Corps of Engi-
neers at a total cost of $123,200,000, with an esti-
mated Federal cost of $80,000,000 and an esti-
mated non-Federal cost of $43,200,000.
SEC. 357. UPPER JORDAN RIVER, UTAH.
The project for flood control, Upper Jordan River,
Utah, authorized by section 101(a)(23) of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4610) and
modified by section 301(a)(14) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3709), is further
modified to direct the Secretary to carry out the locally
preferred project, entitled ‘‘Upper Jordan River Flood
Control Project, Salt Lake County, Utah—Supplemental
Information’’ and identified in the document of Salt Lake
County, Utah, dated July 30, 1998, at a total cost of
$12,870,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$8,580,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$4,290,000.
SEC. 358. ELIZABETH RIVER, CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the
date of enactment of this Act, the city of Chesapeake, Vir-
ginia, shall not be obligated to make the annual cash con-
tribution required under paragraph 1(9) of the Local Co-
operation Agreement dated December 12, 1978, between
the Government and the city for the project for navigation,
southern branch of Elizabeth River, Chesapeake, Virginia.
SEC. 359. BLUESTONE LAKE, OHIO RIVER BASIN, WEST VIR-
GINIA.
Section 102(ff) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4810) is amended by striking
‘‘take such measures as are technologically feasible’’ and
inserting ‘‘implement Plan C/G, as defined in the Evalua-
tion Report of the District Engineer, dated December
1996,’’.
SEC. 360. GREENBRIER BASIN, WEST VIRGINIA.
Section 579(c) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3790) is amended by striking
‘‘$12,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$73,000,000.’’
SEC. 361. MOOREFIELD, WEST VIRGINIA.
The project for flood control, Moorefield, West Vir-
ginia, authorized by section 101(a)(25) of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4610-4611),
is modified to provide that the non-Federal interest shall
not be required to pay the unpaid balance, including inter-
est, of the non-Federal share of the cost of the project.
SEC. 362. WEST VIRGINIA AND PENNSYLVANIA FLOOD CON-
TROL.
Section 581(a) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3790) is amended to read as fol-
lows:
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may design and
construct—
‘‘(1) flood control measures in the Cheat and
Tygart River basins, West Virginia, at a level of pro-
tection that is sufficient to prevent any future losses
to these communities from flooding such as occurred
in January 1996 but no less than a 100-year level
of protection; and
‘‘(2) structural and nonstructural flood control,
streambank protection, stormwater management,
and channel clearing and modification measures in
the Lower Allegheny, Lower Monongahela, West
Branch Susquehanna, and Juniata River basins,
Pennsylvania, at a level of protection that is suffi-
cient to prevent any future losses to communities in
these basins from flooding such as occurred in Janu-
ary 1996, but no less than a 100-year level of flood
protection with respect to those measures that incor-
porate levees or floodwalls.’’.
SEC. 363. PROJECT REAUTHORIZATIONS.
(a) LEE CREEK, ARKANSAS AND OKLAHOMA.—The
project for flood protection on Lee Creek, Arkansas and
Oklahoma, authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control
Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1078) and deauthorized pursuant
to section 1001(b)(1) of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(1)), is authorized
to be carried out by the Secretary.
(b) INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.—The project
for shore protection, Indian River County, Florida, au-
thorized by section 501 of the Water Resources and Devel-
opment Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4134) and deauthorized
pursuant to section 1001(b)(1) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(1)), is au-
thorized to be carried out by the Secretary.
(c) LIDO KEY, FLORIDA.—The project for shore pro-
tection, Lido Key, Florida, authorized by section 101 of
the River and Harbor Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1819) and
deauthorized pursuant to section 1001(b)(2) of the Water
Resources 
Development 
Act 
of 
1986 
(33 
U.S.C
579a(b)(2)), is authorized to be carried out by the Sec-
retary.
(d) ST. AUGUSTINE, ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FLOR-
IDA.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The project for shore protec-
tion and storm damage reduction, St. Augustine, St.
Johns County, Florida, authorized by section 501 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 and
deauthorized pursuant to section 1001(a) of such
Act (33 U.S.C. 579a(a)), is authorized to include
navigation mitigation as a project purpose and to be
carried out by the Secretary substantially in accord-
ance with the General Reevaluation Report 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.
(2) PERIODIC
NOURISHMENT.—The Secretary
is authorized to carry out periodic nourishment for
the project for a 50-year period at an estimated av-
erage 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.
(e) SAGINAW RIVER, MICHIGAN (VASSAR).—The
project for flood protection, Saginaw River, Michigan
(Vassar), authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control
Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 311) and deauthorized pursuant to
section 1001(b)(2) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(2)), is authorized to be
carried out by the Secretary.
(f) 
SAGINAW
RIVER, 
MICHIGAN
(SHIAWASSEE
FLATS).—The project for flood control, Saginaw River,
Michigan (Shiawassee Flats), authorized by section 203
of the Flood Control Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 311) and de-
authorized pursuant to section 1001(b)(2) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
579a(b)(2)), is authorized to be carried out by the Sec-
retary.
(g) PARK RIVER, GRAFTON, NORTH DAKOTA.—The
project for flood control, Park River, Grafton, North Da-
kota, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4121) and deauthor-
ignated by the 2 points N158,592.12, E660,193.92
and N158,444.58, E660,220.95.
(3) BASS HARBOR, MAINE.—The following por-
tions of the project for navigation, Bass Harbor,
Maine, authorized on May 7, 1962, under section
107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33
U.S.C. 577):
(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, 
N14877.64,
E538817.18, 
thence 
running 
southwesterly
about 156.27 feet to a point on the westerly
limit of the project, N148348.50, 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
101
70 degrees 24 minutes 28 seconds east 1546.79 feet
to the point of origin.
(6) EAST
BOOTHBAY
HARBOR, MAINE.—The
project for navigation, East Boothbay Harbor,
Maine, authorized by the first section of the Act en-
titled, ‘‘An Act making appropriations for the con-
struction, repair, and preservation of certain public
works on rivers and harbors, and for other pur-
poses’’, approved June 25, 1910 (36 Stat. 631).
(7) GREEN
HARBOR, MASSACHUSETTS.—That
portion of the project for navigation, Green Harbor,
Massachusetts, undertaken pursuant to section 107
of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C.
577), consisting of the 6-foot deep channel beginning
at a point along the west limit of the existing
project, North 395990.43, East 831079.16, thence
running northwesterly about 752.85 feet to a point,
North 396722.80, East 830904.76, thence running
northwesterly about 222.79 feet to a point along the
west limit of the existing project, North 396844.34,
East 830718.04, thence running southwesterly about
33.72 feet along the west limit of the existing
project 
to 
a 
point, 
North 
396810.80, 
East
830714.57, thence running southeasterly about
195.42 feet along the west limit of the existing
102
project 
to 
a 
point, 
North 
396704.19, 
East
830878.35, thence running about 544.66 feet along
the west limit of the existing project to a point,
North 396174.35, East 831004.52, thence running
southeasterly about 198.49 feet along the west limit
of the existing project to the point of beginning.
(8) NEW BEDFORD AND FAIRHAVEN HARBOR,
MASSACHUSETTS.—The following portions of the
project for navigation, New Bedford and Fairhaven
Harbor, Massachusetts:
(A) A portion of the 25-foot spur channel
leading to the west of Fish Island, authorized
by the River and Harbor Act of 3 March 1909,
beginning 
at 
a 
point 
with 
coordinates
N232,173.77, E758,791.32, thence running
south 27 degrees 36 minutes 52.8 seconds west
38.2 feet to a point N232,139.91, E758,773.61,
thence running south 87 degrees 35 minutes
31.6 seconds west 196.84 feet to a point
N232,131.64, E758,576.94, thence running
north 47 degrees 47 minutes 48.4 seconds west
502.72 
feet 
to 
a 
point 
N232,469.35,
E758,204.54, thence running north 10 degrees
10 minutes 20.3 seconds west 438.88 feet to a
point N232,901.33, E758,127.03, thence run-
103
ning north 79 degrees 49 minutes 43.1 seconds
east 121.69 feet to a point N232,922.82,
E758,246.81, thence running south 04 degrees
29 minutes 17.6 seconds east 52.52 feet to a
point N232,870.46, E758,250.92, thence run-
ning south 23 degrees 56 minutes 11.2 seconds
east 49.15 feet to a point N323,825.54,
E758,270.86, thence running south 79 degrees
49 minutes 27.0 seconds west 88.19 feet to a
point N232,809.96, E758,184.06, thence run-
ning south 10 degrees 10 minutes 25.7 seconds
east 314.83 feet to a point N232,500.08,
E758,239.67, thence running south 56 degrees
33 minutes 56.1 seconds east 583.07 feet to a
point N232,178.82, E758,726.25, thence run-
ning south 85 degrees 33 minutes 16.0 seconds
east to the point of origin.
(B) A portion of the 30-foot west maneu-
vering basin, authorized by the River and Har-
bor Act of 3 July 1930, beginning at a point
with coordinates N232,139.91, E758,773.61,
thence running north 81 degrees 49 minutes
30.1 seconds east 160.76 feet to a point
N232,162.77, E758.932.74, thence running
north 85 degrees 33 minutes 16.0 seconds west
104
141.85 
feet 
to 
a 
point 
N232,173.77,
E758,791.32, thence running south 27 degrees
36 minutes 52.8 seconds west to the point of
origin.
(b) ANCHORAGE AREA, CLINTON HARBOR, CON-
NECTICUT.—That portion of the Clinton Harbor, Con-
necticut, navigation project referred to in subsection
(a)(2) beginning at a point beginning: N158,444.58,
E660,220.95, thence running north 79 degrees 37 min-
utes 14 seconds east 833.31 feet to a point N158,594.72,
E661,040.67, thence running south 80 degrees 51 min-
utes 53 seconds east 181.21 feet to a point N158,565.95,
E661,219.58, thence running north 57 degrees 38 min-
utes 04 seconds west 126.02 feet to a point N158,633.41,
E660,113.14, thence running south 79 degrees 37 min-
utes 14 seconds west 911.61 feet to a point N158,469.17,
E660,216.44, thence running south 10 degrees 22 min-
utes 46 seconds east 25 feet returning to a point
N158,444.58, E660,220.95 is redesignated as an anchor-
age area.
(c) ANCHORAGE AREA, GREEN HARBOR, MASSACHU-
SETTS.—The portion of the Green Harbor, Massachusetts,
navigation project referred to in subsection (a)(7) con-
sisting of a 6-foot deep channel that lies northerly of a
line whose coordinates are North 394825.00, East
105
831660.00 and North 394779.28, East 831570.64 is re-
designated as an anchorage area.
SEC. 365. AMERICAN AND SACRAMENTO RIVERS, CALI-
FORNIA.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood damage re-
duction, American and Sacramento Rivers, California, au-
thorized by section 101(a)(1) of the Water Resources De-
velopment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3662–3663), is modified
to direct the Secretary to include the following improve-
ments as part of the overall project:
(1) Raising the left bank of the non-Federal
levee upstream of the Mayhew Drain for a distance
of 4,500 feet by an average of 2.5 feet.
(2) Raising the right bank of the American
River levee from 1,500 feet upstream to 4,000 feet
downstream of the Howe Avenue bridge by an aver-
age of 1 feet.
(3) Modifying the south levee of the Natomas
Cross Canal for a distance of 5 miles to ensure that
the south levee is consistent with the level of protec-
tion provided by the authorized levee along the east
bank of the Sacramento River.
(4) Modifying the north levee of the Natomas
Cross Canal for a distance of 5 miles to ensure that
106
the height of the levee is equivalent to the height of
the south levee as authorized by paragraph (3).
(5) Installing gates to the existing Mayhew
Drain culvert and pumps to prevent backup of flood-
water on the Folsom Boulevard side of the gates.
(6) Installation of a slurry wall in the north
levee of the American River from the east levee of
the Natomas east Main Drain upstream for a dis-
tance of approximately 1.2 miles.
(7) Installation of a slurry wall in the north
levee of the American River from 300 feet west of
Jacob Lane north for a distance of approximately 1
mile to the end of the existing levee.
(b) COST LIMITATIONS.—Section 101(a)(1)(A) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat.
3662) is amended by striking ‘‘at a total cost of’’ and all
that follows through ‘‘$14,225,000,’’ and inserting the fol-
lowing: ‘‘at a total cost of $91,900,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $68,925,000 and an estimated non-Fed-
eral cost of $22,975,000,’’.
(c) COST SHARING.—For purposes of section 103 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
2213), the modifications authorized by this section shall
be subject to the same cost sharing in effect for the project
for flood damage reduction, American and Sacramento
107
Rivers, California, authorized by section 101(a)(1) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat.
3662).
SEC. 366. MARTIN, KENTUCKY.
The project for flood control, Martin, Kentucky, au-
thorized by section 202(a) of the Energy and Water Devel-
opment Appropriations Act, 1981 (94 Stat. 1339) is modi-
fied to authorize the Secretary to take all necessary meas-
ures to prevent future losses that would occur from a flood
equal in magnitude to a 100-year frequency event.
TITLE IV—STUDIES
SEC. 401. UPPER MISSISSIPPI AND ILLINOIS RIVERS LEV-
EES AND STREAMBANKS PROTECTION.
The Secretary shall conduct a study of erosion dam-
age to levees and infrastructure on the upper Mississippi
and Illinois Rivers and the impact of increased barge and
pleasure craft traffic on deterioration of levees and other
flood control structures on such rivers.
SEC. 402. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN.
(a) DEVELOPMENT.—The Secretary shall develop a
plan to address water and related land resources problems
and opportunities in the Upper Mississippi and Illinois
River Basins, extending from Cairo, Illinois, to the head-
waters of the Mississippi River, in the interest of systemic
108
flood damage reduction by means of a mixture of struc-
tural and nonstructural flood control and floodplain man-
agement strategies, continued maintenance of the naviga-
tion project, management of bank caving and erosion, wa-
tershed nutrient and sediment management, habitat man-
agement, recreation needs, and other related purposes.
(b) CONTENTS.—The plan shall contain rec-
ommendations on future management plans and actions
to be carried out by the responsible Federal and non-Fed-
eral entities and shall specifically address recommenda-
tions to authorize construction of a systemic flood control
project in accordance with a plan for the Upper Mis-
sissippi River. The plan shall include recommendations for
Federal action where appropriate and recommendations
for follow-on studies for problem areas for which data or
current technology does not allow immediate solutions.
(c) CONSULTATION AND USE OF EXISTING DATA.—
The Secretary shall consult with appropriate State and
Federal agencies and shall make maximum use of existing
data and ongoing programs and efforts of States and Fed-
eral agencies in developing the plan.
(d) COST SHARING.—Development of the plan under
this section shall be at Federal expense. Feasibility studies
resulting from development of such plan shall be subject
109
to cost sharing under section 105 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2215).
(e) REPORT.—The Secretary shall submit a report
that includes the comprehensive plan to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Rep-
resentatives and the Committee on Environment and Pub-
lic Works of the Senate not later than 3 years after the
date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 403. EL DORADO, UNION COUNTY, ARKANSAS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of improvements to regional water supplies for
El Dorado, Union County, Arkansas.
SEC. 404. SWEETWATER RESERVOIR, SAN DIEGO COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study of the potential
water quality problems and pollution abatement measures
in the watershed in and around Sweetwater Reservoir, San
Diego County, California.
SEC. 405. WHITEWATER RIVER BASIN, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall undertake and complete a feasi-
bility study for flood damage reduction in the Whitewater
River basin, California, and, based upon the results of
such study, give priority consideration to including the
recommended project, including the Salton Sea wetlands
restoration project, in the flood mitigation and riverine
110
restoration pilot program authorized in section 214 of this
Act.
SEC. 406. LITTLE ECONLACKHATCHEE RIVER BASIN, FLOR-
IDA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study of pollution
abatement measures in the Little Econlackhatchee River
basin, Florida.
SEC. 407. PORT EVERGLADES INLET, FLORIDA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a sand bypass project at Port
Everglades Inlet, Florida.
SEC. 408. UPPER DES PLAINES RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES,
ILLINOIS AND WISCONSIN.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is directed to con-
duct a study of the upper Des Plaines River and tribu-
taries, Illinois and Wisconsin, upstream of the confluence
with Salt Creek at Riverside, Illinois, to determine the fea-
sibility of improvements in the interests of flood damage
reduction, environmental restoration and protection, water
quality, recreation, and related purposes.
(b) SPECIAL RULE.—In conducting the study, the
Secretary may not exclude from consideration and evalua-
tion flood damage reduction measures based on restrictive
policies regarding the frequency of flooding, drainage area,
and amount of runoff.
111
SEC. 409. CAMERON PARISH WEST OF CALCASIEU RIVER,
LOUISIANA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for storm damage re-
duction and environmental restoration, Cameron Parish
west of Calcasieu River, Louisiana.
SEC. 410. GRAND ISLE AND VICINITY, LOUISIANA.
In carrying out a study of the storm damage reduc-
tion benefits to Grand Isle and vicinity, Louisiana, the
Secretary shall include benefits that a storm damage re-
duction project for Grand Isle and vicinity, Louisiana, may
have on the mainland coast of Louisiana as project bene-
fits attributable to the Grand Isle project.
SEC. 411. LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN SEAWALL, LOUISIANA.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall complete a
post-authorization change report on the project for hurri-
cane-flood protection, Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, and
vicinity, authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control
Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1077), to incorporate and accom-
plish structural modifications to the seawall fronting pro-
tection along the south shore of Lake Pontchartrain from
the New Basin Canal on the west to the Inner harbor
Navigation Canal on the east.
(b) REPORT.—The Secretary shall ensure expeditious
completion of the post-authorization change report re-
112
quired by subsection (a) not later than 180 days after the
date of enactment of this section.
SEC. 412. WESTPORT, MASSACHUSETTS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a navigation project for the town
of Westport, Massachusetts, and the possible beneficial
uses of dredged material for shoreline protection and
storm damage reduction in the area. In determining the
benefits of the project, the Secretary shall include the ben-
efits derived from using dredged material for shoreline
protection and storm damage reduction.
SEC. 413. SOUTHWEST VALLEY, ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEX-
ICO.
The Secretary shall undertake and complete a feasi-
bility study for flood damage reduction in the Southwest
Valley, Albuquerque, New Mexico, and, based upon the re-
sults of such study, give priority consideration to including
the recommended project in the flood mitigation and
riverine restoration pilot program authorized in section
214 of this Act.
SEC. 414. CAYUGA CREEK, NEW YORK.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood control for
Cayuga Creek, New York.
113
SEC. 415. ARCOLA CREEK WATERSHED, MADISON, OHIO.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of a project to provide environmental restoration
and protection for the Arcola Creek watershed, Madison,
Ohio.
SEC. 416. WESTERN LAKE ERIE BASIN, OHIO, INDIANA, AND
MICHIGAN.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a
study to develop measures to improve flood control, navi-
gation, water quality, recreation, and fish and wildlife
habitat in a comprehensive manner in the western Lake
Erie basin, Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan, including water-
sheds of the Maumee, Ottawa, and Portage Rivers.
(b) COOPERATION.—In carrying out the study, the
Secretary shall cooperate with interested Federal, State,
and local agencies and nongovernmental organizations and
consider all relevant programs of such agencies.
(c) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to
Congress a report on the results of the study, including
findings and recommendations.
SEC. 417. SCHUYLKILL RIVER, NORRISTOWN, PENNSYL-
VANIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood control for
114
Schuylkill River, Norristown, Pennsylvania, including im-
provement to existing stormwater drainage systems.
SEC. 418. LAKES MARION AND MOULTRIE, SOUTH CARO-
LINA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for Lakes Marion and
Moultrie to provide water supply, treatment, and distribu-
tion to Calhoun, Clarendon, Colleton, Dorchester, Orange-
burg, and Sumter Counties, South Carolina.
SEC. 419. DAY COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA.
The Secretary shall conduct an investigation of flood-
ing and other water resources problems between the
James River and Big Sioux watersheds in South Dakota
and an assessment of flood damage reduction needs of the
area.
SEC. 420. CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS.
The Secretary shall include, as part of the study au-
thorized in a resolution of the Committee on Public Works
and Transportation of the House of Representatives,
dated August 1, 1990, a review of two 175-foot-wide barge
shelves on either side of the navigation channel at the Port
of Corpus Christi, Texas.
115
SEC. 421. MITCHELL’S CUT CHANNEL (CANEY FORK CUT),
TEXAS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for navigation, Mitch-
ell’s Cut Channel (Caney Fork Cut), Texas.
SEC. 422. MOUTH OF COLORADO RIVER, TEXAS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for navigation at the
mouth of the Colorado River, Texas, to provide a min-
imum draft navigation channel extending from the Colo-
rado River through Parkers Cut (also known as ‘‘Tiger
Island Cut’’), or an acceptable alternative, to Matagorda
Bay.
SEC. 423. KANAWHA RIVER, FAYETTE COUNTY, WEST VIR-
GINIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of developing a public port along the Kanawha
River in Fayette County, West Virginia, at a site known
as ‘‘Longacre’’.
SEC. 424. WEST VIRGINIA PORTS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of expanding public port development in West
Virginia along the Ohio River and navigable portion of the
Kanawha River from its mouth to river mile 91.0.
116
SEC. 425. GREAT LAKES REGION COMPREHENSIVE STUDY.
(a) STUDY.—The Secretary shall conduct a com-
prehensive study of the Great Lakes region to ensure the
future use, management, and protection of water and re-
lated resources of the Great Lakes basin. Such study shall
include a comprehensive management plan specifically for
St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair.
(b) REPORT.—Not later than 4 years after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of
the House of Representatives and the Committee on Envi-
ronment and Public Works of the Senate a report that
includes the strategic plan for Corps of Engineers pro-
grams in the Great Lakes basin and details of proposed
Corps of Engineers environmental, navigation, and flood
damage reduction projects in the region.
(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$1,200,000 for fiscal years 2000 through 2003.
SEC. 426. NUTRIENT LOADING RESULTING FROM DREDGED
MATERIAL DISPOSAL.
(a) STUDY.—The Secretary shall conduct a study of
nutrient loading that occurs as a result of discharges of
dredged material into open-water sites in the Chesapeake
Bay.
117
(b) REPORT.—Not later than 18 months after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit
to Congress a report on the results of the study.
TITLE V—MISCELLANEOUS
PROVISIONS
SEC. 501. CORPS ASSUMPTION OF NRCS PROJECTS.
(a) LLAGAS CREEK, CALIFORNIA.—The Secretary is
authorized to complete the remaining reaches of the Nat-
ural Resources Conservation Service’s flood control project
at Llagas Creek, California, undertaken pursuant to sec-
tion 5 of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention
Act (16 U.S.C. 1005), substantially in accordance with the
Natural Resources Conservation Service watershed plan
for Llagas Creek, Department of Agriculture, and in ac-
cordance with the requirements of local cooperation as
specified in section 4 of such Act, at a total cost of
$45,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$21,800,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$23,200,000.
(b) THORNTON RESERVOIR, COOK COUNTY, ILLI-
NOIS.—
(1) IN
GENERAL.—The Thornton Reservoir
project, an element of the project for flood control,
Chicagoland Underflow Plan, Illinois, authorized by
section 3(a)(5) of the Water Resources Development
118
Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4013), is modified to author-
ize the Secretary to include additional permanent
flood control storage attributable to the Natural Re-
sources Conservation Service Thornton Reservoir
(Structure 84), Little Calumet River Watershed, Illi-
nois, approved under the Watershed Protection and
Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
(2) COST
SHARING.—Costs for the Thornton
Reservoir project shall be shared in accordance with
section 103 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213).
(3) TRANSITIONAL STORAGE.—The Secretary of
Agriculture may cooperate with non-Federal inter-
ests to provide, on a transitional basis, flood control
storage for the Natural Resources Conservation
Service Thornton Reservoir (Structure 84) in the
west lobe of the Thornton quarry in advance of
Corps’ construction.
(4) CREDITING.—The Secretary may credit
against the non-Federal share of the Thornton Res-
ervoir project all design, lands, easements, rights-of-
way (as of the date of authorization), and construc-
tion costs incurred by the non-Federal interests be-
fore the signing of the project cooperation agree-
ment.
119
(5) REEVALUATION
REPORT.—The Secretary
shall determine the credits authorized by paragraph
(4) that are integral to the Thornton Reservoir
project and the current total project costs based on
a limited reevaluation report.
SEC. 502. CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE.
Section 219(e) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4836–4837) is amended by strik-
ing paragraphs (5) and (6) and inserting the following:
‘‘(5) $25,000,000 for the project described in
subsection (c)(2);
‘‘(6) $20,000,000 for the project described in
subsection (c)(9);
‘‘(7) $30,000,000 for the project described in
subsection (c)(16); and
‘‘(8) $30,000,000 for the project described in
subsection (c)(17).’’.
SEC. 503. CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT DREDGING TECH-
NOLOGY.
(a) 
CONTAMINATED
SEDIMENT
DREDGING
PROJECT.—
(1) REVIEW.—The Secretary shall conduct a re-
view of innovative dredging technologies designed to
minimize or eliminate contamination of a water col-
umn upon removal of contaminated sediments. The
120
Secretary shall complete such review by June 1,
2001.
(2) TESTING.—After completion of the review
under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall select the
technology of those reviewed that the Secretary de-
termines will increase the effectiveness of removing
contaminated sediments and significantly reduce
contamination of the water column. Not later than
December 31, 2001, the Secretary shall enter into
an agreement with a public or private entity to test
such technology in the vicinity of Peoria Lakes, Illi-
nois.
(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$2,000,000.
SEC. 504. DAM SAFETY.
(a) ASSISTANCE.—The Secretary is authorized to
provide assistance to enhance dam safety at the following
locations:
(1) Healdsburg Veteran’s Memorial Dam, Cali-
fornia
(2) Deep River Dam, Lake Station, Indiana
(3) Felix Dam, Pennsylvania
(4) Kehly Run Dam, Pennsylvania
(5) Owl Creek Reservoir, Pennsylvania
121
(6) Sweet Arrow Lake Dam, Pennsylvania
(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is
authorized to be appropriated $6,000,000 to carry out this
section.
SEC. 505. GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS.
Section 401(a)(2) of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1990 (110 Stat. 3763) is amended by adding
at the end the following: ‘‘Nonprofit public or private enti-
ties may contribute all or a portion of the non-Federal
share.’’.
SEC. 506. SEA LAMPREY CONTROL MEASURES IN THE
GREAT LAKES.
(a) IN GENERAL.—In conjunction with the Great
Lakes Fishery Commission, the Secretary is authorized to
undertake a program for the control of sea lampreys in
and around waters of the Great Lakes. The program un-
dertaken pursuant to this section may include projects
which consist of either structural or nonstructural meas-
ures or a combination thereof.
(b) COST SHARING.—Projects carried out under this
section on lands owned by the United States shall be car-
ried out at full Federal expense. The non-Federal share
of the cost of any such project undertaken on lands not
in Federal ownership shall be 35 percent.
122
(c) NON-FEDERAL
INTERESTS.—Notwithstanding
section 221(b) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42
U.S.C. 1962d–5b(b)), the Secretary, after coordination
with the appropriate State and local government officials
having jurisdiction over an area in which a project under
this section will be carried out, may allow a nonprofit enti-
ty to serve as the non-Federal interest for the project.
(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 through 2005.
SEC. 507. MAINTENANCE OF NAVIGATION CHANNELS.
Section 509(a) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3759) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
‘‘(12) Acadiana Navigation Channel, Louisiana.
‘‘(13) Contraband Bayou, Louisiana, as part of
the Calcasieu River and Pass Ship Channel.
‘‘(14) Lake Wallula Navigation Channel, Wash-
ington.
‘‘(15) Wadley Pass (also known as McGriff
Pass), Suwanee River, Florida.’’.
SEC. 508. MEASUREMENT OF LAKE MICHIGAN DIVERSIONS.
Section 1142(b) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–20 note; 100 Stat. 4253)
123
is amended by striking ‘‘$250,000’’ and inserting
‘‘$1,250,000’’.
SEC. 509. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.
(a) AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES.—Section 1103(e)(1) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
652(e)(1)) is amended—
(1) by inserting ‘‘and’’ at the end of subpara-
graph (A);
(2) in subparagraph (B) by striking ‘‘long-term
resource monitoring program; and’’ and inserting
‘‘long-term resource monitoring, computerized data
inventory and analysis, and applied research pro-
gram.’’; and
(3) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting
the following:
‘‘In carrying out subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall es-
tablish an independent technical advisory committee to re-
view projects, monitoring plans, and habitat and natural
resource needs assessments.’’.
(b) REPORTS.—Section 1103(e)(2) of such Act (33
U.S.C. 652(e)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
‘‘(2) REPORTS.—Not later than December 31,
2004, and not later than December 31st of every
sixth year thereafter, the Secretary, in consultation
124
with the Secretary of the Interior and the States of
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin,
shall transmit to Congress a report that—
‘‘(A) contains an evaluation of the pro-
grams described in paragraph (1);
‘‘(B) describes the accomplishments of
each of such programs;
‘‘(C) provides updates of a systemic habi-
tat needs assessment; and
‘‘(D) identifies any needed adjustments in
the authorization.’’.
(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section
1103(e) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 652(e)) is amended—
(1) in paragraph (3) by striking ‘‘not to ex-
ceed’’ and all that follows before the period at the
end and inserting ‘‘$22,750,000 for fiscal year 1999
and each fiscal year thereafter’’;
(2) in paragraph (4) by striking ‘‘not to ex-
ceed’’ and all that follows before the period at the
end and inserting ‘‘$10,420,000’’ for fiscal year
1999 and each fiscal year thereafter’’; and
(3) by striking paragraph (5) and inserting the
following:
‘‘(5) AUTHORIZATION
OF APPROPRIATIONS.—
There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out
125
paragraph (1)(A) $350,000 for each of fiscal years
1999 through 2009.’’.
(d) TRANSFER OF AMOUNTS.—Section 1103(e)(6) of
such Act is amended to read as follows:
‘‘(6) TRANSFER OF AMOUNTS.—For fiscal year
1999, and each fiscal year thereafter, the Secretary,
in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior
and the States of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri,
and Wisconsin, may transfer not to exceed 20 per-
cent of the amounts appropriated to carry out sub-
paragraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) to the
amounts appropriated to carry out the other of such
subparagraphs.’’.
(e) 
HABITAT
NEEDS
ASSESSMENT.—Section
1103(h)(2) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 652(h)(2)) is amended
by adding at the end the following: ‘‘The Secretary shall
complete the on-going habitat needs assessment conducted
under this paragraph not later than September 30, 2000,
and shall include in each report required by subsection
(e)(2) the most recent habitat needs assessment conducted
under this paragraph.’’.
(f) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 1103 of
such Act (33 U.S.C. 652) is amended—
126
(1) in subsection (e)(7) by striking ‘‘paragraphs
(1)(B) and (1)(C)’’ and inserting ‘‘paragraph
(1)(B)’’; and
(2) in subsection (f)(2)—
(A) by striking ‘‘(2)(A)’’ and inserting
‘‘(2)’’; and
(B) by striking subparagraph (B).
SEC. 510. ATLANTIC COAST OF NEW YORK MONITORING.
Section 404(c) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4863) is amended by striking
‘‘1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997’’ and inserting ‘‘1993
through 2003’’.
SEC. 511. WATER CONTROL MANAGEMENT.
(a) IN GENERAL.—In evaluating potential improve-
ments for water control management activities and con-
solidation of water control management centers, the Sec-
retary may consider a regionalized water control manage-
ment plan but may not implement such a plan until the
date on which a report is transmitted under subsection
(b).
(b) REPORT.—Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and
the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Rep-
resentatives and the Committee on Environment and Pub-
127
lic Works and the Committee on Appropriations of the
Senate a report containing the following:
(1) A description of the primary objectives of
streamlining water control management activities.
(2) A description of the benefits provided by
streamlining water control management activities
through consolidation of centers for such activities.
(3) A determination of whether or not benefits
to users of regional water control management cen-
ters will be retained in each district office of the
Corps of Engineers that does not have a regional
center.
(4) A determination of whether or not users of
such regional centers will receive a higher level of
benefits from streamlining water management con-
trol management activities.
(5) A list of the Members of Congress who rep-
resent a district that currently includes a water con-
trol management center that is to be eliminated
under a proposed regionalized plan.
SEC. 512. BENEFICIAL USE OF DREDGED MATERIAL.
The Secretary is authorized to carry out the following
projects under section 204 of the Water Resources Devel-
opment Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326):
128
(1) BODEGA BAY, CALIFORNIA.—A project to
make beneficial use of dredged materials from a
Federal navigation project in Bodega Bay, Cali-
fornia.
(2) SABINE REFUGE, LOUISIANA.—A project to
make beneficial use of dredged materials from Fed-
eral navigation projects in the vicinity of Sabine Ref-
uge, Louisiana.
(3) HANCOCK, HARRISON, AND JACKSON COUN-
TIES, MISSISSIPPI.—A project to make beneficial use
of dredged material from a Federal navigation
project in Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson Coun-
ties, Mississippi.
(4) ROSE
CITY
MARSH, 
ORANGE
COUNTY,
TEXAS.—A project to make beneficial use of dredged
material from a Federal navigation project in Rose
City Marsh, Orange County, Texas.
(5) BESSIE HEIGHTS MARSH, ORANGE COUNTY,
TEXAS.—A project to make beneficial use of dredged
material from a Federal navigation project in Bessie
Heights Marsh, Orange County, Texas.
SEC. 513. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE.
Section 507(2) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3758) is amended to read as fol-
lows:
129
‘‘(2) Expansion and improvement of Long Pine
Run Dam and associated water infrastructure in ac-
cordance with the requirements of subsections (b)
through (e) of section 313 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4845) at a
total cost of $20,000,000.’’.
SEC. 514. LOWER MISSOURI RIVER AQUATIC RESTORATION
PROJECTS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after funds
are made available for such purposes, the Secretary shall
complete a comprehensive report—
(1) identifying a general implementation strat-
egy and overall plan for environmental restoration
and protection along the Lower Missouri River be-
tween Gavins Point Dam and the confluence of the
Missouri and Mississippi Rivers; and
(2) recommending individual environmental res-
toration projects that can be considered by the Sec-
retary for implementation under section 206 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33
U.S.C. 2330; 110 Stat. 3679–3680).
(b) SCOPE OF PROJECTS.—Any environmental res-
toration projects recommended under subsection (a) shall
provide for such activities and measures as the Secretary
determines to be necessary to protect and restore fish and
130
wildlife habitat without adversely affecting private prop-
erty rights or water related needs of the region sur-
rounding the Missouri River, including flood control, navi-
gation, and enhancement of water supply, and shall in-
clude some or all of the following components:
(1) Modification and improvement of navigation
training structures to protect and restore fish and
wildlife habitat.
(2) Modification and creation of side channels
to protect and restore fish and wildlife habitat.
(3) Restoration and creation of fish and wildlife
habitat.
(4) Physical and biological monitoring for eval-
uating the success of the projects.
(c) COORDINATION.—To the maximum extent prac-
ticable, the Secretary shall integrate projects carried out
in accordance with this section with other Federal, tribal,
and State restoration activities.
(d) COST SHARING.—The report under subsection (a)
shall be undertaken at full Federal expense.
SEC. 515. AQUATIC RESOURCES RESTORATION IN THE
NORTHWEST.
(a) IN GENERAL.—In cooperation with other Federal
agencies, the Secretary is authorized to develop and imple-
ment projects for fish screens, fish passage devices, and
131
other similar measures agreed to by non-Federal interests
and relevant Federal agencies to mitigate adverse impacts
associated with irrigation system water diversions by local
governmental entities in the States of Oregon, Wash-
ington, Montana, and Idaho.
(b) PROCEDURE AND PARTICIPATION.—
(1) CONSULTATION REQUIREMENT; USE OF EX-
ISTING DATA.—In providing assistance under sub-
section (a), the Secretary shall consult with other
Federal, State, and local agencies and make max-
imum use of data and studies in existence on the
date of enactment of this Act.
(2) PARTICIPATION
BY
NON-FEDERAL
INTER-
ESTS.—Participation by non-Federal interests in
projects under this section shall be voluntary. The
Secretary shall not take any action under this sec-
tion that will result in a non-Federal interest being
held financially responsible for an action under a
project unless the non-Federal interest has volun-
tarily agreed to participate in the project.
(c) COST SHARING.—Projects carried out under this
section on lands owned by the United States shall be car-
ried out at full Federal expense. The non-Federal share
of the cost of any such project undertaken on lands not
in Federal ownership shall be 35 percent.
138
SEC. 527. NOVATO, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall carry out a project for flood con-
trol under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948
(33 U.S.C. 701s) at Rush Creek, Novato, California.
SEC. 528. ORANGE AND SAN DIEGO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary, in cooperation with local governments,
may prepare special area management plans in Orange
and San Diego Counties, California, to demonstrate the
effectiveness of using such plans to provide information
regarding aquatic resources. The Secretary may use such
plans in making regulatory decisions and issue permits
consistent with such plans.
SEC. 529. SALTON SEA, CALIFORNIA.
(a) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.—The Secretary, in co-
ordination with other Federal agencies, shall provide tech-
nical assistance to Federal, State, and local agencies in
the study, design, and implementation of measures for the
environmental restoration and protection of the Salton
Sea, California.
(b) STUDY.—The Secretary, in coordination with
other Federal, State, and local agencies, shall conduct a
study to determine the most effective plan for the Corps
of Engineers to assist in the environmental restoration
and protection of the Salton Sea, California.