Union Calendar No. 59
106TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 1480
[Report No. 106–106, Part I]
A BILL
To provide for the conservation and development of
water and related resources, to authorize the
United States Army Corps of Engineers to con-
struct various projects for improvements to rivers
and harbors of the United States, and for other
purposes.
APRIL 26, 1999
Reported from the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure with an amendment
APRIL 26, 1999
Referral to the Committee on Resources extended for a
period ending not later than April 26, 1999
APRIL 26, 1999
The Committee on Resources discharged; committed to
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the
Union and ordered to be printed
IB
Union Calendar No. 59
106TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 1480
[Report No. 106–106, Part I]
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
APRIL 26, 1999
Reported from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure with an
amendment
APRIL 26, 1999
Referral to the Committee on Resources extended for a period ending not later
than April 26, 1999
APRIL 26, 1999
The Committee on Resources discharged; committed to the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic]
[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on April 20, 1999]
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 information
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 Jer-
sey, 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), Louisiana.
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 disposal.
Sec. 427. Santee Delta focus area, South Carolina.
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 Res-
ervoir 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, Maryland.
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. 584. Detroit River, Detroit, Michigan.
SEC. 2. SECRETARY DEFINED.
In this Act, the term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary
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 respec-
tive 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 estimated 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 esti-
mated Federal cost of $16,768,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $13,132,000.
(4) 
AMERICAN
RIVER
WATERSHED, 
CALI-
FORNIA.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The Folsom Dam Modi-
fication portion of the Folsom Modification Plan
described in the United States Army Corps of
Engineers Supplemental Information Report for
the American River Watershed Project, Cali-
fornia, dated March 1996, as modified by the re-
port entitled ‘‘Folsom Dam Modification 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 es-
timated Federal cost of $97,500,000 and an esti-
mated non-Federal cost of $52,500,000. The Sec-
retary shall coordinate with the Secretary of the
Interior with respect to the design and construc-
tion of modifications at Folsom Dam authorized
by this paragraph.
(B) REOPERATION MEASURES.—Upon com-
pletion of the improvements to Folsom Dam au-
thorized by subparagraph (A), the variable space
allocated to flood control within the Reservoir
shall be reduced from the current operating
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 nec-
essary in order that, notwithstanding 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 Fol-
som Dam and resulting in a significant im-
pact on recreation at Folsom Reservoir shall
be replaced, to the extent the water is avail-
able 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 reim-
burse such non-Federal interests for such ex-
cess funds. Costs for replacement water may
not exceed 125 percent of the current aver-
age market price for raw water, as deter-
mined 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 variable
flood control operation of Folsom Dam, the Sec-
retary shall take into consideration the effect 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 Sacramento
County streams, California: Report of the Chief of
Engineers dated October 6, 1998, at a total cost of
$65,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$41,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$24,300,000.
(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 Federal cost
of $44,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal 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 Novem-
ber 25, 1998, at a total cost of $26,600,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $17,350,000 and an esti-
mated non-Federal cost of $9,250,000.
(8) DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, DELAWARE AND
NEW
JERSEY-BROADKILL
BEACH, DELAWARE.—The
project for hurricane and storm damage reduction,
Delaware Bay coastline, Delaware and New Jersey-
Broadkill Beach, Delaware: Report of the Chief of En-
gineers 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 annual cost
of $538,200 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year
life of the project, with an estimated annual Federal
cost of $349,800 and an estimated annual non-Fed-
eral 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: Re-
port 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-Fed-
eral 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 an-
nual Federal cost of $152,000 and an estimated an-
nual non-Federal cost of $82,000.
(10) DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, DELAWARE AND
NEW JERSEY-ROOSEVELT INLET-LEWES BEACH, DELA-
WARE.—The project for navigation mitigation and
hurricane and storm damage reduction, Delaware
Bay coastline, Delaware and New Jersey-Roosevelt
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 annual cost
of $196,000 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-Fed-
eral cost of $44,000.
(11) JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FLORIDA.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for naviga-
tion, Jacksonville Harbor, Florida: Report of the
Chief of Engineers April 21, 1999, at a total cost
of $26,116,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
mated Federal cost of $7,645,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $6,057,000.
(23) SALT CREEK, GRAHAM, TEXAS.—The project
for flood control, environmental restoration and recre-
ation, Salt Creek, Graham, Texas: Report of the Chief
of Engineers dated October 6, 1998, at a total cost of
$10,080,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$6,560,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$3,520,000.
(b) PROJECTS SUBJECT TO 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 report of
the Corps of Engineers, if the report is completed not later
than September 30, 1999.
(1) NOME, ALASKA.—The project for navigation,
Nome, Alaska, at a total cost of $24,608,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $19,660,000 and an esti-
mated 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 es-
timated Federal cost of $41,400,000 and an estimated
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 protection and
ecosystem restoration, Delaware Bay Coastline, Dela-
ware 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 esti-
mated non-Federal cost of $1,420,000.
(6) DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, DELAWARE AND
NEW JERSEY: VILLAS AND VICINITY, NEW JERSEY.—
The project for shore protection and ecosystem res-
toration, Delaware Bay Coastline, Delaware and New
Jersey: Villas and Vicinity, New Jersey, at a total
cost of $7,520,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$4,888,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$2,632,000.
(7) DELAWARE COAST FROM CAPE HENELOPEN
TO FENWICK ISLAND, BETHANY BEACH/SOUTH BETH-
ANY BEACH, DELAWARE.—The project for hurricane
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) LITTLE
TALBOT
ISLAND, DUVAL
COUNTY,
FLORIDA.—The project for hurricane and storm dam-
age prevention, Little Talbot Island, Duval County,
Florida, at a total cost of $5,915,000, with an esti-
mated Federal cost of $3,839,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $2,076,000.
(9) 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.
(10) SAVANNAH
HARBOR
EXPANSION, 
GEOR-
GIA.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subparagraph
(B), the project for navigation, Savannah Har-
bor expansion, Georgia, including implementa-
tion of the mitigation plan, with such modifica-
tions as the Secretary deems appropriate, at a
total cost of $230,174,000 (of which amount a
portion is authorized for implementation of the
mitigation plan), with an estimated Federal cost
of $145,160,000 and an estimated non-Federal
cost of $85,014,000.
(B) CONDITIONS.—The project authorized
by subparagraph (A) may be carried out only
after—
(i) the Secretary, in consultation with
affected Federal, State of Georgia, State of
South Carolina, regional, and local entities,
has reviewed and approved an environ-
mental impact statement for the project that
includes—
(I) an analysis of the impacts of
project depth alternatives ranging from
42 feet through 48 feet; and
(II) a selected plan for navigation
and an associated mitigation plan as
required by section 906(a) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33
U.S.C. 2283); and
(ii) the Secretary of the Interior, the
Secretary of Commerce, the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency,
and the Secretary have approved the se-
lected plan and have determined that the
mitigation plan adequately addresses the
potential environmental impacts of the
project.
(C) 
MITIGATION
REQUIREMENTS.—The
mitigation plan shall be implemented in advance
of or concurrently with construction of the
project.
(11) 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.
(12) NEW JERSEY SHORE PROTECTION, BRIGAN-
TINE INLET TO GREAT EGG HARBOR, BRIGANTINE IS-
LAND, NEW JERSEY.—The project for hurricane and
storm damage reduction, New Jersey shore protection,
Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor, Brigantine Is-
land, New Jersey, at a total cost of $4,970,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $3,230,000 and an esti-
mated non-Federal cost of $1,740,000, and at an esti-
mated 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.
(13) COLUMBIA RIVER CHANNEL, OREGON AND
WASHINGTON.—The project for navigation, Columbia
River Channel, Oregon and Washington, at a total
cost of $183,623,000 with an estimated Federal cost
$106,132,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$77,491,000.
(14) JOHNSON CREEK, ARLINGTON, TEXAS.—The
locally preferred project for flood control, Johnson
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.
(15) HOWARD HANSON DAM, WASHINGTON.—The
project for water supply and ecosystem restoration,
Howard Hanson Dam, Washington, at a total cost of
$75,600,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$36,900,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$38,700,000.
SEC. 102. SMALL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—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 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, Col-
lier County, Florida.
(3) PLANT CITY, FLORIDA.—Project for flood con-
trol, Plant City, Florida.
(4) STONE ISLAND, LAKE MONROE, FLORIDA.—
Project for flood control, Stone Island, Lake Monroe,
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 con-
trol, Port Clinton, Ohio.
(9) NORTH
CANADIAN
RIVER, 
OKLAHOMA.—
Project for flood control, North Canadian River, Okla-
homa.
(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 control,
Port Providence, Upper Providence Township, Penn-
sylvania.
(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, Ten-
nessee.
(15) METRO
CENTER
LEVEE, 
CUMBERLAND
RIVER, NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE.—Project for flood
control, Metro Center Levee, Cumberland River, Nash-
ville, 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 AGREE-
MENT.—The Secretary shall revise the project coopera-
tion agreement for the project referred to in para-
graph (1) to take into account the change in the Fed-
eral participation in such project pursuant to para-
graph (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, Indi-
ana.
(2) SAGINAW
RIVER, BAY
CITY, MICHIGAN.—
Project for streambank erosion control, Saginaw
River, Bay City, Michigan.
(3) BIG TIMBER CREEK, NEW JERSEY.—Project
for streambank erosion control, Big Timber Creek,
New Jersey.
(4) LAKE SHORE ROAD, ATHOL SPRINGS, NEW
YORK.—Project for streambank erosion control, Lake
Shore Road, Athol Springs, New York.
(5) MARIST
COLLEGE, 
POUGHKEEPSIE, 
NEW
YORK.—Project for streambank erosion control, Marist
College, Poughkeepsie, New York.
(6) 
MONROE
COUNTY, 
OHIO.—Project 
for
streambank erosion control, Monroe County, Ohio.
(7) GREEN VALLEY, WEST VIRGINIA.—Project for
streambank erosion control, Green Valley, West Vir-
ginia.
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 HAR-
BOR, CALIFORNIA.—Project for navigation, Fields
Landing Channel, Humboldt Harbor, California.
(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, WHIT-
ING, 
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) DETROIT WATERFRONT, MICHIGAN.—Project
for navigation, Detroit River, Michigan, including
dredging and removal of a reef.
(15) FORTESCUE INLET, DELAWARE BAY, NEW
JERSEY.—Project for navigation for Fortescue Inlet,
Delaware Bay, New Jersey.
(16) BUFFALO AND LASALLE PARK, NEW YORK.—
Project for navigation, Buffalo and LaSalle Park,
New York.
(17) STURGEON POINT, NEW YORK.—Project for
navigation, Sturgeon Point, New York.
SEC. 105. SMALL PROJECTS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE EN-
VIRONMENT.
(a) IN GENERAL.—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 1135
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
2309a):
(1) ILLINOIS RIVER IN THE VICINITY OF HAVANA,
ILLINOIS.—Project for the improvement of the envi-
ronment, Illinois River in the vicinity of Havana, Il-
linois.
(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 Assessment 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 Re-
sources 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 restoration, Indian
River, Florida.
(3) LITTLE
WEKIVA
RIVER, FLORIDA.—Project
for aquatic ecosystem restoration and erosion control,
Little Wekiva River, Florida.
(4) COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS.—Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration and lagoon restoration and pro-
tection, 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 res-
toration and reef restoration along the Gulf Coast,
Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson Counties, Mis-
sissippi.
(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, Springfield Mill-
race, 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, Pennsylvania.
(16) BLACKSTONE RIVER BASIN, RHODE ISLAND
AND MASSACHUSETTS.—Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration and fish passage facilities, Blackstone
River Basin, Rhode Island and Massachusetts.
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 Control
Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 709a(b)) is amended by inserting
before the period the following: ‘‘; except that this limitation
on fees shall not apply to funds voluntarily contributed 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 fol-
lowing:
‘‘(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 Sec-
retary shall assist the project to ensure expeditious
completion by providing sufficient quantities of con-
taminated dredged material to conduct the full-scale
demonstrations to stated capacity.’’;
(2) in subsection (c) by striking the first sentence
and inserting the following: ‘‘There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this section $22,000,000 to
complete technology testing, technology commer-
cialization, and the development of full scale proc-
essing facilities within the New York/New Jersey Har-
bor.’’; 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 contracts,
cooperative agreements, and grants with colleges and uni-
versities 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) be-
tween 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 reduction,
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 amend-
ed by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(D) CREDIT OF PAST AND FUTURE ACTIVI-
TIES.—The Secretary may provide a credit to
the non-Federal interests toward the non-Federal
share of a project implemented under subpara-
graph (A). The credit shall be for reasonable
costs of work performed by the non-Federal inter-
ests if the Secretary determines that the work
substantially expedited completion of the project
and is compatible with and an integral part of
the project, and the credit is provided pursuant
to a specific project cooperation agreement.’’.
(c) CALOOSAHATCHEE RIVER BASIN, FLORIDA.—Sec-
tion 528(e)(4) of such Act is amended by inserting before
the period at the end of the first sentence the following: ‘‘if
the Secretary determines that such land acquisition is com-
patible with and an integral component of the Everglades
and South Florida ecosystem restoration, including poten-
tial 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 sec-
tion 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970’’ and insert-
ing ‘‘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 ap-
propriate State and local government officials having juris-
diction 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.’’.
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 construction
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 fol-
lowing: ‘‘Before October 1, 2003, the Federal share
may be provided in the form of grants or reimburse-
ments of project costs.’’; and
(2) by adding at the end of subsection (c) the fol-
lowing: ‘‘Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the Flood
Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(b)), the Sec-
retary, 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 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 Development
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 Sec-
retary, 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 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 Carolina.
‘‘(20) Cabin Creek basin, West Virginia.
‘‘(21) Lower St. Johns River basin, Florida.’’.
SEC. 214. FLOOD MITIGATION AND RIVERINE RESTORATION
PILOT PROGRAM.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may undertake a
program for the purpose of conducting projects that reduce
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 res-
toration measures and may design and implement
projects described in subsection (a).
(2) CONSULTATION
AND
COORDINATION.—The
studies and projects carried out under this section
shall be conducted, to the maximum extent prac-
ticable, in consultation and coordination with the
Federal Emergency Management Agency and other
appropriate Federal agencies, and in consultation
and coordination with appropriate State, tribal, and
local agencies.
(3) NONSTRUCTURAL APPROACHES.—The studies
and projects shall emphasize, to the maximum extent
practicable 
and 
appropriate, 
nonstructural 
ap-
proaches to preventing or reducing flood damages.
(4) USE OF STATE, TRIBAL, AND LOCAL STUDIES
AND PROJECTS.—The studies and projects shall in-
clude consideration of and coordination with any
State, tribal, and local flood damage reduction or
riverine and wetland restoration studies and projects
that conserve, restore, and manage hydrologic and hy-
draulic regimes and restore the natural functions and
values of floodplains.
(c) COST-SHARING REQUIREMENTS.—
(1) STUDIES.—Studies conducted under this sec-
tion shall be subject to cost sharing in accordance
with section 105 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2215).
(2) ENVIRONMENTAL
RESTORATION
AND
NON-
STRUCTURAL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS.—The non-
Federal interests shall pay 35 percent of the cost of
any environmental restoration or nonstructural flood
control project carried out under this section. The
non-Federal interests shall provide all land, ease-
ments, rights-of-way, dredged material disposal areas,
and relocations necessary for such projects. The value
of such land, easements, rights-of-way, dredged mate-
rial disposal areas, and relocations 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 asso-
ciated 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 section
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 RATING
CRITERIA AND POLICIES.—Not later than 180 days
after the date of enactment of this section, the Sec-
retary, 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 Envi-
ronment 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 include, as a
priority, the extent to which the appropriate 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 Trans-
portation and Infrastructure of the House of Rep-
resentatives and the Committee on Environment and
Public Works of the Senate a report on the findings
of the review conducted under this subsection with
any recommendations concerning continuation 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 resolutions
adopted by the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure of the House of Representa-
tives and the Committee on Environment 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 pro-
posed project, including all relevant data and in-
formation 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 sub-
section (e) for fiscal year 2000;
(3) 
$25,000,000 
for 
fiscal 
year 
2002 
if
$12,500,000 or more is appropriated to carry out sub-
section (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 sub-
section (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 management
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 Infrastructure of
the House of Representatives and the Committee on Envi-
ronment 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 as-
sistance for remediation, environmental restoration, or
reuse of areas located within the boundaries of such State
or local governments where such remediation, environ-
mental restoration, or reuse will contribute to the conserva-
tion 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, con-
sistent 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 amend-
ed by inserting after ‘‘navigation works’’ the following:
‘‘and shore damages attributable to the Atlantic Intra-
coastal Waterway and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway’’.
(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 un-
dertake 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 Water-
way 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 Development
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 peri-
odic nourishment measures for shore protection
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 pri-
vate interests) or to prevention of losses of pri-
vate lands shall be borne by the non-Federal in-
terest and all costs assigned to the protection of
federally owned shores for such measures shall be
borne by the United States.’’; and
(C) by indenting paragraph (1) (as des-
ignated by subparagraph (A) of this paragraph)
and aligning such paragraph with paragraph
(2) (as added by subparagraph (B) of this para-
graph).
(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 government
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 shore-
lines.
(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 restore
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 management.
(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 climato-
logical 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, information
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 Sec-
retary shall coordinate with the Director of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency and the heads of other Fed-
eral 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 Development
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 facilitating
collaborative efforts involving environmental protection and
restoration, natural resources conservation, and recreation
in connection with the development, operation, and man-
agement of water resources projects under the jurisdiction
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 Environ-
ment and Public Works of the Senate a report that
includes—
(1) a listing and general description of the coop-
erative agreements entered into by the Secretary with
non-Federal public bodies and entities under sub-
section (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 cal-
culating the benefits of a proposed project for nonstructural
flood damage reduction, the Secretary shall calculate bene-
fits of nonstructural projects using methods similar to
structural projects, including similar treatment in calcu-
lating the benefits from losses avoided from both structural
and nonstructural alternatives. In carrying out this sub-
section, the Secretary should avoid double counting of bene-
fits.’’.
(b) REEVALUATION OF FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS.—
At the request of a non-Federal interest for a flood control
project, the Secretary shall conduct a reevaluation of a pre-
viously authorized project to consider nonstructural alter-
natives in light of the amendments made by subsection (a).
(c) COST SHARING.—Section 103(b) of the Water Re-
sources 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 Secretary de-
termines that the costs of lands, easements, rights-of-way,
dredged material disposal areas, and relocations in com-
bination with other costs contributed by the non-Federal in-
terests will exceed 35 percent, any additional costs for the
project, but not to exceed 65 percent of the total costs of
the project, shall be a Federal responsibility 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 ad-
dress excessive sedimentation and high nutrient con-
centration; and
‘‘(18) Osgood Pond, Milford, Hillsborough Coun-
ty, New Hampshire, removal of silt and aquatic
growth and measures to address excessive sedimenta-
tion.
‘‘(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 inserting
the following:
‘‘(A) STUDIES
AND
DESIGN
ACTIVITIES
UNDER SUBSECTION (b).—A non-Federal interest
may only carry out construction for which stud-
ies and design documents are prepared under
subsection (b) if the Secretary approves such con-
struction. The Secretary shall approve such con-
struction unless the Secretary determines, in
writing, that the design documents do not meet
standard practices for design methodologies or
that the project is not economically justified or
environmentally acceptable or does not meet the
requirements for obtaining the appropriate per-
mits required under the Secretary’s authority.
The Secretary shall not unreasonably 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 paragraph
(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 sub-
paragraph (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 appropriations’’;
and
(B) by inserting after ‘‘the cost of such
work’’ the following: ‘‘, or provide credit (de-
pending on the request of the non-Federal inter-
est) 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 reimburse-
ments 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-Fed-
eral interest, the Secretary may reimburse the
non-Federal interest by providing credit toward
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 enhance-
ment project.’’.
SEC. 226. SENSE OF CONGRESS; REQUIREMENT REGARDING
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 Amer-
ican made.
(b) NOTICE TO RECIPIENTS OF ASSISTANCE.—In pro-
viding financial assistance under this Act, the Secretary,
to the greatest extent practicable, shall provide to each re-
cipient 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 amend-
ed by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(5) LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA.—Project for shore-
line 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 in-
serting ‘‘35’’; and
(2) in subsection (d) by striking ‘‘non-Federal
responsibility’’ and inserting ‘‘shared as a cost of con-
struction’’.
TITLE III—PROJECT-RELATED
PROVISIONS
SEC. 301. MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM.
The project for flood control, Missouri River Levee Sys-
tem, authorized by section 10 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act
authorizing the construction of certain public works on riv-
ers and harbors for flood control, and other purposes’’, ap-
proved 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 Development 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 applicable
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 authorizing
the construction of certain public works on rivers and har-
bors for flood control, and other purposes’’, approved June
28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1218), is modified to authorize the Sec-
retary 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 modified to
expand the project boundaries to include Ten- and Fifteen-
Mile Bayous near West Memphis, Arkansas. Notwith-
standing section 103(f) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4086), the flood control work at Ten-
and Fifteen-Mile Bayous shall not be considered 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 con-
duct a study to determine the feasibility of expanding the
project to include mile 0.0 to mile 7.8 of Loggy Bayou be-
tween the Red River and Flat River. If the Secretary deter-
mines as a result of the study that the project should be
expanded, the Secretary may assume responsibility for op-
eration 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, Cali-
fornia, 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 Devel-
opment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3110), and title I of the En-
ergy and Water Development Appropriations 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-Fed-
eral 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 activities asso-
ciated 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 include the value
of lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, 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 Secretary to
expand the boundaries of the project to include bank sta-
bilization 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 control and
water supply, Terminus Dam, Kaweah River, California,
authorized by section 101(b)(5) of the Water Resources De-
velopment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3667), transfers to the
Secretary without consideration title to perimeter lands ac-
quired for the project by the non-Federal interests, the Sec-
retary may accept the transfer of such title.
(b) LANDS, EASEMENT, AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY.—Noth-
ing in this section shall be construed to change, modify, or
otherwise affect the responsibility of the non-Federal inter-
ests to provide lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations,
and dredged material disposal areas necessary for the Ter-
minus Dam project and to perform operation and mainte-
nance for the project.
(c) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—Upon request by
the non-Federal interests, the Secretary shall carry out op-
eration, maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilita-
tion 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 modi-
fied as follows:
(1) The Secretary is authorized to provide non-
Federal interests credit toward cash contributions re-
quired for construction and subsequent to construction
for engineering and design and construction manage-
ment work that is performed by non-Federal interests
and that the Secretary determines is necessary to im-
plement the project. Any such credits extended shall
reduce the Philadelphia District’s private sector per-
formance goals for engineering work by a like
amount.
(2) The Secretary is authorized to provide to
non-Federal interests credit toward cash contributions
required during construction and subsequent to con-
struction for the costs of construction carried out by
the non-Federal interest on behalf of the Secretary
and that the Secretary determines is necessary to im-
plement 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 construction
or operation and maintenance of the new deepening
project as described in the Limited Reevaluation Re-
port of May 1997, where the non-Federal interest has
supplied the corresponding disposal capacity.
(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 Resources De-
velopment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3707), is further modified
to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a Fed-
eral 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 deter-
mine whether the damage is the result of a Federal naviga-
tion 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 en-
actment of this Act.
(c) MITIGATION OF DAMAGES.—After completion of the
study, the Secretary shall mitigate any damage to the shore-
line protection project that is the result of a Federal naviga-
tion project. The costs of the mitigation shall be allocated
to the Federal navigation project as operation and mainte-
nance.
SEC. 312. BROWARD COUNTY AND HILLSBORO INLET, FLOR-
IDA.
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 modi-
fied 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 con-
tract to construct the project if the Secretary determines
such work is compatible with and integral to the project.
SEC. 313. FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for shore protection and
harbor mitigation, Fort Pierce, Florida, authorized by sec-
tion 301 of the River and Harbor Act of 1965 (79 Stat.
1092) and section 506(a)(2) of the Water Resources Devel-
opment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3757), is modified to incor-
porate an additional 1 mile into the project in accordance
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 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 Federal participation 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 estimated
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 modi-
fied to include construction of artificial reefs and related
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 shoreline
erosion protection, Lake Michigan, Illinois, from Wilmette,
Illinois, to the Illinois-Indiana State line, authorized by
section 101(a)(12) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1996 (110 Stat. 3664), is modified to authorize the Sec-
retary to provide a credit against the non-Federal share of
the cost of the project for costs incurred 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 assist-
ance provided under this section before, on, or after the date
of enactment of this subsection shall be 50 percent.’’.
SEC. 318. LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, INDIANA.
The project for flood control, Little Calumet River, In-
diana, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4115), is modified to
authorize the Secretary to construct the project substan-
tially in accordance with the report of the Corps of Engi-
neers, at a total cost of $167,000,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $122,000,000 and an estimated 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, In-
diana, 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 navigation
project. The cost of the mitigation shall be allocated to the
Federal navigation project as operation and maintenance.
SEC. 320. SAINT JOSEPH RIVER, SOUTH BEND, INDIANA.
(a) MAXIMUM TOTAL EXPENDITURE.—The maximum
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 applicable
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 control,
and other purposes’’, approved June 22, 1936 (49 Stat.
1586), and modified by section 323 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3716), is further modi-
fied to authorize the Secretary to undertake riverfront alter-
ations as described in the Central Indianapolis 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-Federal cost of
$58,500,000.
SEC. 322. LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN, LOUISIANA.
The project for hurricane-flood protection, Lake Pont-
chartrain, 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 adja-
cent to each of the 4 proposed drainage structures 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 Golden
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 determines that the con-
version 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 Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4117), is modified to
direct the Secretary to provide credit to the non-Federal in-
terest 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 execution of a project coopera-
tion agreement as determined by the Secretary to be com-
patible with and an integral part of the project.
SEC. 325. TWELVE-MILE BAYOU, CADDO PARISH, LOUISIANA.
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 approxi-
mately 26 miles upstream to its terminus at high ground
in the vicinity of Black Bayou, Caddo Parish, Louisiana,
if the Secretary determines that such maintenance is eco-
nomically justified and environmentally acceptable and
that the levee was constructed in accordance with appro-
priate 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 oper-
ation and maintenance of that portion of the project
included in the report of the Chief of Engineers, 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 Har-
vey Canal project, the East of Harvey cannal project, and
the Lake Cataouatche modifications as a single 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, Balti-
more Harbor and Channels, Chesapeake Bay, Kent County,
Maryland, authorized by section 101 of the River and Har-
bor Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 297), is modified to authorize
the Secretary to straighten the navigation channel in ac-
cordance with the District Engineer’s Navigation Assess-
ment 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, MICHI-
GAN.
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 Resources
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, Jackson
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 Resources Devel-
opment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3757), is further 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 determines that such costs are for
work that the Secretary determines 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, author-
ized 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
$15,000,000.
(b) REVISION OF THE 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 Federal participation in
the project pursuant to subsection (a).
(c) COST SHARING.—Nothing in this section shall be
construed to affect any cost-sharing requirement applicable
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 with-
in 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 Nebraska,
authorized by section 601 of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4143), is modified to increase
by 118,650 acres the lands and interests in lands to be ac-
quired for the project.
(b) STUDY.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in conjunction
with the States of Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, and Mis-
souri, 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 Con-
gress 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 shoreline
protection, Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor Inlet, Ab-
secon 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 associ-
ated with the project that is later recommended by the Chief
of Engineers and approved by the Secretary, the Secretary
may credit the non-Federal interests toward the non-Fed-
eral 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 Ad-
jacent 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 Sec-
retary to construct that portion of the project that is located
between Military Ocean Terminal Bayonne and Global Ter-
minal 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 Develop-
ment Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4608–4609) is amended by in-
serting ‘‘, including an esplanade for safe pedestrian access
with an overall width of 600 feet’’ after ‘‘public access 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 as-
sociated 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 Re-
sources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4098) and
modified by section 301(b)(11) of the Water Resources De-
velopment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3711), is further modified
to authorize the Secretary to construct the portion of the
project at Howland Hook Marine Terminal 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 esti-
mated 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 Development
Act of 1974, and the Water Resources Development Act of
1986, is further modified to direct the Secretary, in coordi-
nation with the heads of other Federal departments and
agencies, to complete all procedures and reviews expedi-
tiously 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, Broken
Bow Lake, Red River Basin, Oklahoma, authorized by sec-
tion 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 impacted water and re-
lated resources):
(1) Maintain an elevation of 599.5 from Novem-
ber 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 res-
toration, 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 Secretary to construct the
project substantially in accordance with the Feature Memo-
randum 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 Con-
gress on the reasons for the cost growth of the Willamette
River project and outline the steps the Corps of Engineers
is taking to control project costs, including the application
of value engineering and other appropriate measures. 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 author-
ize 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 con-
struction 
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 Municipal Services
and Recreation Authority for recreational facilities.’’.
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 Development
Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4014), is modified to authorize the
Secretary to extend the channel of the Delaware River at
Camden, New Jersey, to within 150 feet of the existing bulk-
head 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 subsection
(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 Engi-
neers with respect to the project if the Secretary determines
such costs are for work that is compatible with and integral
to the project.
SEC. 350. RAYSTOWN LAKE, PENNSYLVANIA.
(a) RECREATION PARTNERSHIP INITIATIVE.—Section
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, engi-
neering and design services for project infrastructure
expected to be associated with the development of the
site at Raystown Lake, Hesston, Pennsylvania.’’.
(b) CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE.—
(1) IN
GENERAL.—Consistent with the master
plan described in section 318 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4848), the Sec-
retary may provide a grant to Juniata College for the
construction of facilities and structures at Raystown
Lake, Pennsylvania, to interpret and understand en-
vironmental conditions and trends. As a condition of
the receipt of such financial assistance, 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 Development
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 modified
by title I of the Energy and Water Development Appropria-
tions Act, 1992 (105 Stat. 516), is further modified to au-
thorize 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 Government to recover all or a por-
tion 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 satisfactory to the Secretary. Mainte-
nance 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 implementing this modifica-
tion, the Secretary shall allow the non-Federal interest to
participate in the financing of the project in accordance
with section 903(c) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184) to the extent that the Secretary’s
evaluation indicates that applying such section is necessary
to implement the project.
SEC. 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 eco-
nomic benefits and costs for the project for flood control,
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 in-
clude the costs and benefits of nonstructural measures un-
dertaken, including any buyout or relocation actions, of
non-Federal interests within the drainage area of such
project before the date of the evaluation in the determina-
tion of conditions existing before the construction 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 non-
structural 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 interest, of the
cost of such work—
(1) if, after authorization and before initiation
of construction of such nonstructural project, the Sec-
retary approves the plans for construction of such
nonstructural project by the non-Federal interest; and
(2) if the Secretary finds, after a review of stud-
ies and design documents prepared to carry out such
nonstructural project, that construction of such non-
structural project is economically justified and envi-
ronmentally 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 Engineers
at a total cost of $123,200,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $80,000,000 and an estimated 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 De-
velopment 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 Informa-
tion’’ 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 esti-
mated 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 Evaluation 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 Virginia,
authorized by section 101(a)(25) of the Water Resources De-
velopment Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4610-4611), is modified
to provide that the non-Federal interest shall not be re-
quired to pay the unpaid balance, including interest, 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 follows:
‘‘(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, Pennsyl-
vania, at a level of protection that is sufficient to pre-
vent any future losses to communities in these basins
from flooding such as occurred in January 1996, but
no less than a 100-year level of flood protection with
respect to those measures that incorporate 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 Development 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, authorized
by section 501 of the Water Resources and Development Act
of 1986 (100 Stat. 4134) and deauthorized pursuant to sec-
tion 1001(b)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(1)), is authorized to be carried out
by the Secretary.
(c) LIDO KEY, FLORIDA.—The project for shore protec-
tion, Lido Key, Florida, authorized by section 101 of the
River and Harbor Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1819) and de-
authorized pursuant to section 1001(b)(2) of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C 579a(b)(2)), is
authorized to be carried out by the Secretary.
(d) ST. AUGUSTINE, ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FLORIDA.—
(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 de-
authorized pursuant to section 1001(a) of such Act
(33 U.S.C. 579a(a)), is authorized to include naviga-
tion mitigation as a project purpose and to be carried
out by the Secretary substantially in accordance with
the General Reevaluation Report dated November 18,
1998, at a total cost of $16,086,000, with an esti-
mated 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 average
annual cost of $1,251,000, with an estimated annual
Federal cost of $1,007,000 and an estimated annual
non-Federal cost of $244,000.
(e) CASS RIVER, MICHIGAN (VASSAR).—The project for
flood protection, Cass 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 Sec-
retary.
(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 deauthor-
ized pursuant to section 1001(b)(2) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(2)), is author-
ized to be carried out by the Secretary.
(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 deauthorized
pursuant to section 1001(a) of such Act (33 U.S.C.
579a(a)), is authorized to be carried out by the Secretary.
(h) MEMPHIS HARBOR, MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE.—The
project for navigation, Memphis Harbor, Memphis, Ten-
nessee, authorized by section 601(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4145) and deauthorized
pursuant to 1001(a) of such Act (33 U.S.C 579a(a)), is au-
thorized to be carried out by the Secretary.
SEC. 364. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The following projects or portions
of projects are not authorized after the date of enactment
of this Act:
(1) BRIDGEPORT HARBOR, CONNECTICUT.—That
portion of the project for navigation, Bridgeport Har-
bor, Connecticut, authorized by section 101 of the
River and Harbor Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 297), con-
sisting of a 2.4-acre anchorage area, 9 feet deep, and
an adjacent 0.6-acre anchorage, 6 feet deep, located on
the west side of Johnsons River.
(2) CLINTON HARBOR, CONNECTICUT.—That por-
tion of the project for navigation, Clinton Harbor,
Connecticut, authorized by the Rivers and Harbors
Act of 1945, House Document 240, 76th Congress, 1st
Session, lying upstream of a line designated 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 to
a point, N148041.43, E538739.07, thence run-
ning southerly about 65.00 feet to a point,
N147977.86, E538725.51, thence running south-
westerly about 91.92 feet to a point on the west-
erly 
limit 
of 
the 
project, 
N147927.84,
E538648.39, thence running northerly about
195.00 feet along the westerly limit of the project
to the point of origin.
(4) BOOTHBAY HARBOR, MAINE.—The project for
navigation, Boothbay Harbor, Maine, authorized by
the River and Harbor Act of 1912 (37 Stat. 201).
(5) BUCKSPORT HARBOR, MAINE.—That portion
of the project for navigation, Bucksport Harbor,
Maine, authorized by the River and Harbor Act of
1902, consisting of a 16-foot deep channel beginning
at a point N268.748.16, E423.390.76, thence running
north 47 degrees 02 minutes 23 seconds east 51.76 feet
to a point N268.783.44, E423.428.64, thence running
north 67 degrees 54 minutes 32 seconds west 1513.94
feet to a point N269.352.81, E422.025.84, thence run-
ning south 47 degrees 02 minutes 23 seconds west
126.15 feet to a point N269.266.84, E421.933.52,
100
thence running south 70 degrees 24 minutes 28 sec-
onds 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 entitled, ‘‘An
Act making appropriations for the construction, re-
pair, and preservation of certain public works on riv-
ers and harbors, and for other purposes’’, approved
June 25, 1910 (36 Stat. 631).
(7) WELLS HARBOR, MAINE.—The following por-
tions of the project for navigation, Wells Harbor,
Maine, authorized by section 101 of the River and
Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 480):
(A) The portion of the 6-foot channel the
boundaries of which begin at a point with co-
ordinates N177,992.00, E394,831.00, thence run-
ning south 83 degrees 58 minutes 14.8 seconds
west 10.38 feet to a point N177,990.91,
E394,820.68, thence running south 11 degrees 46
minutes 47.7 seconds west 991.76 feet to a point
N177,020.04, E394,618.21, thence running south
78 degrees 13 minutes 45.7 seconds east 10.00
feet to a point N177,018.00, E394,628.00, thence
running north 11 degrees 46 minutes 22.8 sec-
onds east 994.93 feet to the point of origin.
101
(B) The portion of the 6-foot anchorage the
boundaries of which begin at a point with co-
ordinates N177,778.07, E394,336.96, thence run-
ning south 51 degrees 58 minutes 32.7 seconds
west 15.49 feet to a point N177,768.53,
E394,324.76, thence running south 11 degrees 46
minutes 26.5 seconds west 672.87 feet to a point
N177,109.82, E394,187.46, thence running south
78 degrees 13 minutes 45.7 seconds east 10.00
feet to a point N177,107.78, E394,197.25, thence
running north 11 degrees 46 minutes 25.4 sec-
onds east 684.70 feet to the point of origin.
(C) The portion of the 10-foot settling basin
the boundaries of which begin at a point with co-
ordinates N177,107.78, E394,197.25, thence run-
ning north 78 degrees 13 minutes 45.7 seconds
west 10.00 feet to a point N177,109.82,
E394,187.46, thence running south 11 degrees 46
minutes 15.7 seconds west 300.00 feet to a point
N176,816.13, E394,126.26, thence running south
78 degrees 12 minutes 21.4 seconds east 9.98 feet
to a point N176,814.09, E394,136.03, thence
running north 11 degrees 46 minutes 29.1 sec-
onds east 300.00 feet to the point of origin.
102
(D) The portion of the 10-foot settling basin
the boundaries of which begin at a point with co-
ordinates N177,018.00, E394,628.00, thence run-
ning north 78 degrees 13 minutes 45.7 seconds
west 10.00 feet to a point N177,020.04,
E394,618.21, thence running south 11 degrees 46
minutes 44.0 seconds west 300.00 feet to a point
N176,726.36, E394,556.97, thence running south
78 degrees 12 minutes 30.3 seconds east 10.03
feet to a point N176,724.31, E394,566.79, thence
running north 11 degrees 46 minutes 22.4 sec-
onds east 300.00 feet to the point of origin.
(8) FALMOUTH
HARBOR, 
MASSACHUSETTS.—
That portion of the project for navigation, Falmouth
Harbor, Massachusetts, authorized by section 101 of
the River and Harbor Act of 1948 lying southeasterly
of a line commencing at a point N199,286.41,
E844,394.91, thence running north 66 degrees 52
minutes 3.31 seconds east 472.95 feet to a point
N199,472.21, E844,829.83, thence running north 43
degrees 9 minutes 28.3 seconds east 262.64 feet to a
point N199,633.80, E845,009.48, thence running
north 21 degrees 40 minutes 11.26 seconds east 808.38
feet to a point N200,415.05, E845,307.98, thence run-
ning north 32 degrees 25 minutes 29.01 seconds east
103
160.76 feet to a point N200,550.75, E845,394.18,
thence running north 24 degrees 56 minutes 42.29
seconds east 1,410.29 feet to a point N201,829.48,
E845,988.97.
(9) 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 north-
westerly 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 run-
ning southeasterly about 195.42 feet along the west
limit of the existing 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.
104
(10) 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, be-
ginning 
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 sec-
onds 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
running north 79 degrees 49 minutes 43.1 sec-
onds 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 running south
23 degrees 56 minutes 11.2 seconds east 49.15
feet to a point N323,825.54, E758,270.86, thence
105
running south 79 degrees 49 minutes 27.0 sec-
onds west 88.19 feet to a point N232,809.96,
E758,184.06, thence running 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
running south 85 degrees 33 minutes 16.0 sec-
onds 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 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 minutes 14 seconds east
106
833.31 feet to a point N158,594.72, E661,040.67, thence
running south 80 degrees 51 minutes 53 seconds east 181.21
feet to a point N158,565.95, E661,219.58, thence running
north 57 degrees 38 minutes 04 seconds west 126.02 feet
to a point N158,633.41, E660,113.14, thence running south
79 degrees 37 minutes 14 seconds west 911.61 feet to a point
N158,469.17, E660,216.44, thence running south 10 degrees
22 minutes 46 seconds east 25 feet returning to a point
N158,444.58, E660,220.95 is redesignated as an anchorage
area.
(c) WELLS HARBOR, MAINE.—
(1) PROJECT
MODIFICATION.—The project for
navigation, Wells Harbor, Maine, navigation project
referred to in subsection (a)(7) is modified to author-
ize the Secretary to realign the channel and anchor-
age areas based on a harbor design capacity of 150
craft.
(2) REDESIGNATIONS.—
(A) 6-FOOT
ANCHORAGE.—The following
portions of the project for navigation, Wells Har-
bor, Maine, navigation project referred to in sub-
section (a)(7) shall be redesignated as part of the
6-foot anchorage:
(i) The portion of the 6-foot channel
the boundaries of which begin at a point
107
with coordinates N177,990.91, E394,820.68,
thence running south 83 degrees 58 minutes
40.8 seconds west 94.65 feet to a point
N177,980.98, E394,726.55, thence running
south 11 degrees 46 minutes 22.4 seconds
west 962.83 feet to a point N177,038.40,
E394,530.10, thence running south 78 de-
grees 13 minutes 45.7 seconds east 90.00 feet
to a point N177,020.04, E394,618.21, thence
running north 11 degrees 46 minutes 47.7
seconds east 991.76 feet to the point of ori-
gin.
(ii) The portion of the 10-foot inner
harbor settling basin the boundaries of
which begin at a point with coordinates
N177,020.04, E394,618.21, thence running
north 78 degrees 13 minutes 30.5 seconds
west 160.00 feet to a point N177,052.69,
E394,461.58, thence running south 11 de-
grees 46 minutes 45.4 seconds west 299.99
feet to a point N176,759.02, E394,400.34,
thence running south 78 degrees 13 minutes
17.9 seconds east 160 feet to a point
N176,726.36, E394,556.97, thence running
108
north 11 degrees 46 minutes 44.0 seconds
east 300.00 feet to the point of origin.
(B) 6-FOOT CHANNEL.—The following por-
tion of the project for navigation, Wells Harbor,
Maine, navigation project referred to in sub-
section (a)(7) shall be redesignated as part of the
6-foot channel: the portion of the 6-foot anchor-
age the boundaries of which begin at a point
with 
coordinates 
N178,102.26, 
E394,751.83,
thence running south 51 degrees 59 minutes 42.1
seconds west 526.51 feet to a point N177,778.07,
E394,336.96, thence running south 11 degrees 46
minutes 26.6 seconds west 511.83 feet to a point
N177,277.01, E394,232.52, thence running south
78 degrees 13 minutes 17.9 seconds east 80.00
feet to a point N177,260.68, E394,310.84, thence
running north 11 degrees 46 minutes 24.8 sec-
onds east 482.54 feet to a point N177,733.07,
E394,409.30, thence running north 51 degrees 59
minutes 41.0 seconds east 402.63 feet to a point
N177,980.98, E394,726.55, thence running north
11 degrees 46 minutes 27.6 seconds east 123.89
feet to the point of origin.
(3) REALIGNMENT.—The 6-foot anchorage area
described in paragraph (2)(B) shall be realigned to
109
include the area located south of the inner harbor set-
tling basin in existence on the date of enactment of
this Act beginning at a point with coordinates
N176,726.36, E394,556.97, thence running north 78
degrees 13 minutes 17.9 seconds west 160.00 feet to
a point N176,759.02, E394,400.34, thence running
south 11 degrees 47 minutes 03.8 seconds west 45 feet
to a point N176,714.97, E394,391.15, thence running
south 78 degrees 13 minutes 17.9 seconds 160.00 feet
to a point N176,682.31, E394,547.78, thence running
north 11 degrees 47 minutes 03.8 seconds east 45 feet
to the point of origin.
(4) RELOCATION.—The Secretary may relocate
the settling basin feature of the project for navigation,
Wells Harbor, Maine, navigation project referred to
in subsection (a)(7) to the outer harbor between the
jetties.
(d) ANCHORAGE AREA, GREEN HARBOR, MASSACHU-
SETTS.—The portion of the Green Harbor, Massachusetts,
navigation project referred to in subsection (a)(9) consisting
of a 6-foot deep channel that lies northerly of a line whose
coordinates are North 394825.00, East 831660.00 and
North 394779.28, East 831570.64 is redesignated as an an-
chorage area.
110
SEC. 365. AMERICAN AND SACRAMENTO RIVERS, CALI-
FORNIA.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood damage reduc-
tion, American and Sacramento Rivers, California, author-
ized by section 101(a)(1) of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3662–3663), is modified to di-
rect the Secretary to include the following improvements 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 down-
stream of the Howe Avenue bridge by an average 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
the height of the levee is equivalent to the height of
the south levee as authorized by paragraph (3).
111
(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 distance 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 following:
‘‘at a total cost of $91,900,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $68,925,000 and an estimated non-Federal 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 Rivers, Cali-
fornia, authorized by section 101(a)(1) of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3662).
112
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 damage
to levees and infrastructure on the upper Mississippi and
Illinois Rivers and the impact of increased barge and pleas-
ure 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
flood damage reduction by means of a mixture of structural
and nonstructural flood control and floodplain management
strategies, continued maintenance of the navigation project,
management of bank caving and erosion, watershed nutri-
113
ent and sediment management, habitat management, recre-
ation needs, and other related purposes.
(b) CONTENTS.—The plan shall contain recommenda-
tions on future management plans and actions to be carried
out by the responsible Federal and non-Federal entities and
shall specifically address recommendations to authorize con-
struction of a systemic flood control project in accordance
with a plan for the Upper Mississippi River. The plan shall
include recommendations for Federal action where appro-
priate and recommendations for follow-on studies for prob-
lem 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 Federal 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 to
cost sharing under section 105 of the Water Resources De-
velopment 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-
114
resentatives and the Committee on Environment and Public
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 rec-
ommended project, including the Salton Sea wetlands res-
toration project, in the flood mitigation and riverine res-
toration pilot program authorized in section 214 of this Act.
115
SEC. 406. LITTLE ECONLACKHATCHEE RIVER BASIN, FLOR-
IDA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study of pollution abate-
ment 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, IL-
LINOIS AND WISCONSIN.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is directed to con-
duct a study of the upper Des Plaines River and tributaries,
Illinois and Wisconsin, upstream of the confluence with
Salt Creek at Riverside, Illinois, to determine the feasibility
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 Sec-
retary may not exclude from consideration and evaluation
flood damage reduction measures based on restrictive poli-
cies regarding the frequency of flooding, drainage area, and
amount of runoff.
116
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 reduc-
tion 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 reduction
benefits to Grand Isle and vicinity, Louisiana, the Sec-
retary shall include benefits that a storm damage reduction
project for Grand Isle and vicinity, Louisiana, may have
on the mainland coast of Louisiana as project benefits at-
tributable 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 accomplish
structural modifications to the seawall fronting protection
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 required
117
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 dam-
age reduction in the area. In determining the benefits of
the project, the Secretary shall include the benefits 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 Ca-
yuga Creek, New York.
118
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, naviga-
tion, water quality, recreation, and fish and wildlife habi-
tat in a comprehensive manner in the western Lake Erie
basin, Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan, including watersheds
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 Con-
gress 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
119
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 Cor-
pus Christi, Texas.
120
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 minimum
draft navigation channel extending from the Colorado 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
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
121
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 Environ-
ment and Public Works of the Senate a report that includes
the strategic plan for Corps of Engineers programs in the
Great Lakes basin and details of proposed Corps of Engi-
neers environmental, navigation, and flood damage reduc-
tion projects in the region.
(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$1,400,000 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.
(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.
122
SEC. 427. SANTEE DELTA FOCUS AREA, SOUTH CAROLINA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study of the Santee
Delta focus area, South Carolina, to determine the feasi-
bility of carrying out a project for enhancing wetlands val-
ues and public recreational opportunities in the area.
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 Natural
Resources Conservation Service’s flood control project at
Llagas Creek, California, undertaken pursuant to section
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 accordance with
the requirements of local cooperation as specified in section
4 of such Act, at a total cost of $45,000,000, with an esti-
mated Federal cost of $21,800,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $23,200,000.
(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
123
Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4013), is modified to authorize
the Secretary to include additional permanent flood
control storage attributable to the Natural Resources
Conservation Service Thornton Reservoir (Structure
84), Little Calumet River Watershed, Illinois, ap-
proved under the Watershed Protection and Flood
Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
(2) COST SHARING.—Costs for the Thornton Res-
ervoir project shall be shared in accordance with sec-
tion 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 interests
to provide, on a transitional basis, flood control stor-
age for the Natural Resources Conservation Service
Thornton Reservoir (Structure 84) in the west lobe of
the Thornton quarry in advance of Corps’ construc-
tion.
(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 before
the signing of the project cooperation agreement.
124
(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 striking
paragraphs (5) and (6) and inserting the following:
‘‘(5) $25,000,000 for the project described in sub-
section (c)(2);
‘‘(6) $20,000,000 for the project described in sub-
section (c)(9);
‘‘(7) $30,000,000 for the project described in sub-
section (c)(16); and
‘‘(8) $30,000,000 for the project described in sub-
section (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
Secretary shall complete such review by June 1, 2001.
125
(2) TESTING.—After completion of the review
under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall select the
technology of those reviewed that the Secretary deter-
mines will increase the effectiveness of removing con-
taminated sediments and significantly reduce con-
tamination of the water column. Not later than De-
cember 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, Illinois.
(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 pro-
vide assistance to enhance dam safety at the following loca-
tions:
(1) Healdsburg Veteran’s Memorial Dam, Cali-
fornia
(2) Felix Dam, Pennsylvania
(3) Kehly Run Dam, Pennsylvania
(4) Owl Creek Reservoir, Pennsylvania
(5) Sweet Arrow Lake Dam, Pennsylvania
(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is
authorized to be appropriated $6,000,000 to carry out this
section.
126
SEC. 505. GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS.
Section 401(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1990 (110 Stat. 3763) is amended by adding at the
end the following: ‘‘Nonprofit public or private entities 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 undertaken
pursuant to this section may include projects which consist
of either structural or nonstructural measures or a com-
bination thereof.
(b) COST SHARING.—Projects carried out under this
section on lands owned by the United States shall be carried
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.
(c) NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS.—Notwithstanding sec-
tion 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 juris-
diction 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.
127
(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) 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—
128
(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 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;
129
‘‘(C) provides updates of a systemic habitat
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 exceed’’
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 exceed’’
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
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
130
the States of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and
Wisconsin, may transfer not to exceed 20 percent of
the amounts appropriated to carry out subparagraph
(A) or (B) of paragraph (1) to the amounts appro-
priated to carry out the other of such subpara-
graphs.’’.
(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—
(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).
131
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 consoli-
dation of water control management centers, the Secretary
may consider a regionalized water control management
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 Public
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 centers
132
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 ben-
efits from streamlining water management control
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 Develop-
ment Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326):
(1) BODEGA
BAY, CALIFORNIA.—A project to
make beneficial use of dredged materials from a Fed-
eral navigation project in Bodega Bay, California.
(2) SABINE REFUGE, LOUISIANA.—A project to
make beneficial use of dredged materials from Federal
navigation projects in the vicinity of Sabine Refuge,
Louisiana.
(3) HANCOCK, HARRISON, AND JACKSON COUN-
TIES, MISSISSIPPI.—A project to make beneficial use
of dredged material from a Federal navigation project
133
in Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson Counties, Mis-
sissippi.
(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 follows:
‘‘(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 De-
velopment 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—
134
(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
wildlife habitat without adversely affecting private property
rights or water related needs of the region surrounding the
Missouri River, including flood control, navigation, and en-
hancement of water supply, and shall include 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.
135
(3) Restoration and creation of fish and wildlife
habitat.
(4) Physical and biological monitoring for evalu-
ating 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 other
similar measures agreed to by non-Federal interests and
relevant Federal agencies to mitigate adverse impacts asso-
ciated with irrigation system water diversions by local gov-
ernmental entities in the States of Oregon, Washington,
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 Fed-
eral, State, and local agencies and make maximum
136
use of data and studies in existence on the date of en-
actment 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 section
that will result in a non-Federal interest being held
financially responsible for an action under a project
unless the non-Federal interest has voluntarily agreed
to participate in the project.
(c) COST SHARING.—Projects carried out under this
section on lands owned by the United States shall be carried
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.
(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$10,000,000 for fiscal years beginning after September 30,
1999.
SEC. 516. INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR WATERSHED
RESTORATION.
The Secretary shall use, and encourage the use of, in-
novative treatment technologies, including membrane tech-
nologies, for watershed and environmental restoration and
protection projects involving water quality.
137
SEC. 517. ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION.
(a) ATLANTA, GEORGIA.—Section 219(c)(2) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835)
is amended by inserting before the period ‘‘and watershed
restoration and development in the regional Atlanta water-
shed, including Big Creek and Rock Creek’’.
(b) PATERSON AND PASSAIC VALLEY, NEW JERSEY.—
Section 219(c)(9) of such Act (106 Stat. 4836) is amended
to read as follows:
‘‘(9) PATERSON, PASSAIC COUNTY, AND PASSAIC
VALLEY, NEW JERSEY.—Drainage facilities to allevi-
ate flooding problems on Getty Avenue in the vicinity
of St. Joseph’s Hospital for the City of Paterson, New
Jersey, and Passaic County, New Jersey, and innova-
tive facilities to manage and treat additional flows in
the Passaic Valley, Passaic River basin, New Jer-
sey.’’.
SEC. 
518. 
EXPEDITED 
CONSIDERATION 
OF 
CERTAIN
PROJECTS.
The Secretary shall expedite completion of the reports
for the following projects and proceed directly to project
planning, engineering, and design:
(1) Arroyo Pasajero, San Joaquin River basin,
California, project for flood control.
(2) Success Dam, Tule River, California, project
for flood control and water supply.
138
(3) Alafia Channel, Tampa Harbor, Florida,
project for navigation.
SEC. 519. DOG RIVER, ALABAMA.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to es-
tablish, in cooperation with non-Federal interests, a pilot
project to restore natural water depths in the Dog River,
Alabama, between its mouth and the Interstate Route 10
crossing, and in the downstream portion of its principal
tributaries.
(b) FORM OF ASSISTANCE.—Assistance provided under
subsection (a) shall be in the form of design and construc-
tion of water-related resource protection and development
projects affecting the Dog River, including environmental
restoration and recreational navigation.
(c) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—The non-Federal share of
the cost of the project carried out with assistance under this
section shall be 90 percent.
(d) LANDS, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY.—The
non-Federal sponsor provide all lands, easements, rights of
way, relocations, and dredged material disposal areas in-
cluding retaining dikes required for the project.
(e) OPERATION
MAINTENANCE.—The non-Federal
share of the cost of operation, maintenance, repair, replace-
ment, or rehabilitation of the project carried out with assist-
ance under this section shall be 100 percent.
139
(f) CREDIT TOWARD NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—The
value of the lands, easements, rights of way, relocations, and
dredged material disposal areas, including retaining dikes,
provided by the non-Federal sponsor shall be credited to-
ward the non-Federal share.
SEC. 520. ELBA, ALABAMA.
The Secretary is authorized to repair and rehabilitate
a levee in the city of Elba, Alabama at a total cost of
$12,900,000.
SEC. 521. GENEVA, ALABAMA.
The Secretary is authorized to repair and rehabilitate
a levee in the city of Geneva, Alabama at a total cost of
$16,600,000.
SEC. 522. NAVAJO RESERVATION, ARIZONA, NEW MEXICO,
AND UTAH.
(a) IN GENERAL.—In cooperation with other appro-
priate Federal and local agencies, the Secretary shall under-
take a survey of, and provide technical, planning, and de-
sign assistance for, watershed management, restoration, and
development on the Navajo Indian Reservation, Arizona,
New Mexico, and Utah.
(b) COST SHARING.—The Federal share of the cost of
activities carried out under this section shall be 75 percent.
Funds made available under the Indian Self-Determination
and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.) may
140
be used by the Navajo Nation in meeting the non-Federal
share of the cost of such activities.
(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$12,000,000 for fiscal years beginning after September 30,
1999.
SEC. 523. AUGUSTA AND DEVALLS BLUFF, ARKANSAS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to per-
form operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation on 37
miles of levees in and around Augusta and Devalls Bluff,
Arkansas.
(b) REIMBURSEMENT.—After performing the oper-
ations, maintenance, and rehabilitation under subsection
(a), the Secretary shall seek reimbursement from the Sec-
retary of the Interior of an amount equal to the costs allo-
cated to benefits to a Federal wildlife refuge of such oper-
ations, maintenance, and rehabilitation.
SEC. 524. BEAVER LAKE, ARKANSAS.
(a) WATER SUPPLY STORAGE REALLOCATION.—The
Secretary shall reallocate approximately 31,000 additional
acre-feet at Beaver Lake, Arkansas, to water supply storage
at no additional cost to the Beaver Water District or the
Carroll-Boone Water District above the amount that has al-
ready been contracted for. At no time may the bottom of
141
the conservation pool be at an elevation that is less than
1,076 feet NGVD.
(b) CONTRACT PRICING.—The contract price for addi-
tional storage for the Carroll-Boone Water District beyond
that which is provided for in subsection (a) shall be based
on the original construction cost of Beaver Lake and ad-
justed to the 1998 price level net of inflation between the
date of initiation of construction and the date of enactment
of this Act.
SEC. 525. BEAVER LAKE TROUT PRODUCTION FACILITY, AR-
KANSAS.
(a) EXPEDITED CONSTRUCTION.—The Secretary shall
construct, under the authority of section 105 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2921) and sec-
tion 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(100 Stat. 4251–4252), the Beaver Lake trout hatchery as
expeditiously as possible, but in no event later than Sep-
tember 30, 2002.
(b) MITIGATION PLAN.—Not later than 2 years after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in conjunc-
tion with the State of Arkansas, shall prepare a plan for
the mitigation of effects of the Beaver Dam project on Bea-
ver Lake. Such plan shall provide for construction of the
Beaver Lake trout production facility and related facilities.
142
SEC. 526. CHINO DAIRY PRESERVE, CALIFORNIA.
(a) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.—The Secretary, in co-
ordination with the heads of other Federal agencies, shall
provide technical assistance to State and local agencies in
the study, design, and implementation of measures for flood
damage reduction and environmental restoration and pro-
tection in the Santa Ana River watershed, California, with
particular emphasis on structural and nonstructural meas-
ures in the vicinity of the Chino Dairy Preserve.
(b) COMPREHENSIVE STUDY.—The Secretary shall
conduct a feasibility study to determine the most cost-effec-
tive plan for flood damage reduction and environmental
restoration and protection in the vicinity of the Chino
Dairy Preserve, Santa Ana River watershed, Orange Coun-
ty and San Bernardino County, California.
SEC. 527. NOVATO, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall carry out a project for flood control
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 ef-
fectiveness of using such plans to provide information re-
garding aquatic resources. The Secretary may use such
143
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 envi-
ronmental 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 Engi-
neers to assist in the environmental restoration and protec-
tion of the Salton Sea, California.
SEC. 530. SANTA CRUZ HARBOR, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary is authorized to modify the cooperative
agreement with the Santa Cruz Port District, California,
to reflect unanticipated additional dredging effort and to
extend such agreement for 10 years.
SEC. 531. POINT BEACH, MILFORD, CONNECTICUT.
(a) MAXIMUM FEDERAL EXPENDITURE.—The max-
imum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for
the project for hurricane and storm damage reduction,
Point Beach, Milford, Connecticut, shall be $3,000,000.
144
(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.
(c) COST SHARING.—Nothing in this section shall be
construed to affect any cost-sharing requirement applicable
to the project referred to in subsection (a) under section 101
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (31 U.S.C.
2211).
SEC. 532. LOWER ST. JOHNS RIVER BASIN, FLORIDA.
(a) COMPUTER MODEL.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may apply the
computer model developed under the St. Johns River
basin feasibility study to assist non-Federal interests
in developing strategies for improving water quality
in the Lower St. Johns River basin, Florida.
(2) COST SHARING.—The non-Federal share of
the cost of assistance provided under this subsection
shall be 50 percent.
(b) TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY.—The Secretary is author-
ized to provide 1-foot contour topographic survey maps of
the Lower St. Johns River basin, Florida, to non-Federal
interests for analyzing environmental data and establishing
benchmarks for subbasins.
145
SEC. 533. SHORELINE PROTECTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL
RESTORATION, LAKE ALLATOONA, GEORGIA.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in cooperation with
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
is authorized to carry out the following water-related envi-
ronmental restoration and resource protection activities to
restore Lake Allatoona and the Etowah River in Georgia:
(1) LAKE
ALLATOONA/ETOWAH
RIVER
SHORE-
LINE
RESTORATION
DESIGN.—Develop pre-construc-
tion design measures to alleviate shoreline erosion
and sedimentation problems.
(2) LITTLE
RIVER
ENVIRONMENTAL
RESTORA-
TION.—Conduct a feasibility study to evaluate envi-
ronmental problems and recommend environmental
infrastructure restoration measures for the Little
River within Lake Allatoona, Georgia.
(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is
authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years beginning
after September 30, 1999—
(1) $850,000 to carry out subsection (a)(1); and
(2) $250,000 to carry out subsection (a)(2).
SEC. 534. MAYO’S BAR LOCK AND DAM, COOSA RIVER, ROME,
GEORGIA.
The Secretary is authorized to provide technical assist-
ance, including planning, engineering, and design assist-
ance, for the reconstruction of the Mayo’s Bar Lock and
146
Dam, Coosa River, Rome, Georgia. The non-Federal share
of assistance under this section shall be 50 percent.
SEC. 535. COMPREHENSIVE FLOOD IMPACT RESPONSE
MODELING SYSTEM, CORALVILLE RESERVOIR
AND IOWA RIVER WATERSHED, IOWA.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in cooperation with
the University of Iowa, shall conduct a study and develop
a Comprehensive Flood Impact Response Modeling System
for Coralville Reservoir and the Iowa River watershed,
Iowa.
(b) CONTENTS OF STUDY.—The study shall include—
(1) an evaluation of the combined hydrologic,
geomorphic, environmental, economic, social, and rec-
reational impacts of operating strategies within the
Iowa River watershed;
(2) development of an integrated, dynamic flood
impact model; and
(3) development of a rapid response system to be
used during flood and other emergency situations.
(c) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 5 years
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall
transmit to Congress a report containing the results of the
study and modeling system together with such recommenda-
tions as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.
147
(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$900,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 through 2004.
SEC. 536. ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE IN IL-
LINOIS.
The Secretary may carry out the project for George-
town, Illinois, and the project for Olney, Illinois, referred
to in House Report Number 104–741, accompanying Public
Law 104–182.
SEC. 537. KANOPOLIS LAKE, KANSAS.
(a) WATER STORAGE.—The Secretary shall offer to the
State of Kansas the right to purchase water storage in
Kanopolis Lake, Kansas, at a price calculated in accord-
ance with and in a manner consistent with the terms of
the memorandum of understanding entitled ‘‘Memorandum
of Understanding Between the State of Kansas and the U.S.
Department of the Army Concerning the Purchase of Mu-
nicipal and Industrial Water Supply Storage’’, dated De-
cember 11, 1985.
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—For the purposes of this sec-
tion, the effective date of that memorandum of under-
standing shall be deemed to be the date of enactment of this
Act.
148
SEC. 538. SOUTHERN AND EASTERN KENTUCKY.
Section 531(h) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3774) is amended by striking
‘‘$10,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$25,000,000’’.
SEC. 539. SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA.
Section 533(c) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1996 (110 Stat. 3775) is amended by striking
‘‘$100,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$200,000,000’’.
SEC. 540. SNUG HARBOR, MARYLAND.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in coordination
with the Director of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, is authorized—
(1) to provide technical assistance to the resi-
dents of Snug Harbor, in the vicinity of Berlin,
Maryland, for purposes of flood damage reduction;
(2) to conduct a study of a project for non-
structural measures for flood damage reduction in the
vicinity of Snug Harbor, Maryland, taking into ac-
count the relationship of both the Ocean City Inlet
and Assateague Island to the flooding; and
(3) after completion of the study, to carry out the
project under the authority of section 205 of the Flood
Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s).
(b) FEMA ASSISTANCE.—The Director, in coordina-
tion with the Secretary and under the authorities of the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assist-
149
ance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 note), may provide technical as-
sistance and nonstructural measures for flood damage miti-
gation in the vicinity of Snug Harbor, Maryland.
(c) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of the cost
of assistance under this section shall not exceed $3,000,000.
The non-Federal share of such cost shall be determined in
accordance with the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 or the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emer-
gency Assistance Act, as appropriate.
SEC. 541. WELCH POINT, ELK RIVER, CECIL COUNTY, AND
CHESAPEAKE CITY, MARYLAND.
(a) SPILLAGE OF DREDGED MATERIALS.—The Sec-
retary shall carry out a study to determine if the spillage
of dredged materials that were removed as part of the
project for navigation, Inland Waterway from Delaware
River to Chesapeake Bay, Delaware and Maryland, author-
ized by the first section of the Act of August 30, 1935 (49
Stat. 1030), is a significant impediment to vessels
transiting the Elk River near Welch Point, Maryland. If
the Secretary determines that the spillage is an impediment
to navigation, the Secretary may conduct such dredging as
may be required to permit navigation on the river.
(b) DAMAGE TO WATER SUPPLY.—The Secretary shall
carry out a study to determine if additional compensation
is required to fully compensate the city of Chesapeake,
150
Maryland, for damage to the city’s water supply resulting
from dredging of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal
project. If the Secretary determines that such additional
compensation is required, the Secretary may provide the
compensation to the city of Chesapeake.
SEC. 542. WEST VIEW SHORES, CECIL COUNTY, MARYLAND.
Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Secretary shall carry out an investigation of
the contamination of the well system in West View Shores,
Cecil County, Maryland. If the Secretary determines that
the disposal site from any Federal navigation project has
contributed to the contamination of the wells, the Secretary
may provide alternative water supplies, including replace-
ment of wells, at full Federal expense.
SEC. 543. RESTORATION PROJECTS FOR MARYLAND, PENN-
SYLVANIA, AND WEST VIRGINIA.
Section 539 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1996 (110 Stat. 3776–3777) is amended—
(1) in subsection (a)(1) by striking ‘‘technical’’;
(2) in subsection (a)(1) by inserting ‘‘(or in the
case of projects located on lands owned by the United
States, to Federal interests)’’ after ‘‘interests’’;
(3) in subsection (a)(3) by inserting ‘‘or in con-
junction’’ after ‘‘consultation’’; and
151
(4) by inserting at the end of subsection (d) the
following: ‘‘Funds authorized to be appropriated to
carry out section 340 of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4856) are authorized for
projects undertaken under subsection (a)(1)(B).’’.
SEC. 544. CAPE COD CANAL RAILROAD BRIDGE, BUZZARDS
BAY, MASSACHUSETTS.
(a) ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION.—The Secretary
is authorized to provide up to $300,000 for alternative
transportation that may arise as a result of the operation,
maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation of the Cape Cod
Canal Railroad Bridge.
(b) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE CONTRACT RE-
NEGOTIATION.—Not later than 60 days after the date of en-
actment of this Act, the Secretary shall enter into negotia-
tion with the owner of the railroad right-of-way for the
Cape Cod Canal Railroad Bridge for the purpose of estab-
lishing the rights and responsibities for the operation and
maintenance of the Bridge. The Secretary is authorized to
include in any new contract the termination of the prior
contract numbered ER–W175–ENG–1.
SEC. 545. ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI.
(a) DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.—The Secretary, in
consultation with local officials, shall conduct a demonstra-
152
tion project to improve water quality in the vicinity of St.
Louis, Missouri.
(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is
authorized to be appropriated $1,700,000 to carry out this
section.
SEC. 546. BEAVER BRANCH OF BIG TIMBER CREEK, NEW
JERSEY.
Upon request of the State of New Jersey or a political
subdivision thereof, the Secretary may compile and dissemi-
nate information on floods and flood damages, including
identification of areas subject to inundation by floods, and
provide technical assistance regarding floodplain manage-
ment for Beaver Branch of Big Timber Creek, New Jersey.
SEC. 547. LAKE ONTARIO AND ST. LAWRENCE RIVER WATER
LEVELS, NEW YORK.
Upon request, the Secretary shall provide technical as-
sistance to the International Joint Commission and the St.
Lawrence River Board of Control in undertaking studies
on the effects of fluctuating water levels on the natural envi-
ronment, recreational boating, property flooding, and ero-
sion along the shorelines of Lake Ontario and the St. Law-
rence River in New York. The Commission and Board are
encouraged to conduct such studies in a comprehensive and
thorough manner before implementing any change to water
regulation Plan 1958–D.
153
SEC. 548. NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR, NEW YORK AND
NEW JERSEY.
The Secretary may enter into cooperative agreements
with non-Federal interests to investigate, develop, and sup-
port measures for sediment management and reduction of
contaminant sources which affect navigation in the Port of
New York-New Jersey and the environmental conditions of
the New York-New Jersey Harbor estuary. Such investiga-
tion shall include an analysis of the economic and environ-
mental benefits and costs of potential sediment management
and contaminant reduction measures.
SEC. 549. SEA GATE REACH, CONEY ISLAND, NEW YORK,
NEW YORK.
The Secretary is authorized to construct a project for
shoreline protection which includes a beachfill with revet-
ment and T-groin for the Sea Gate Reach on Coney Island,
New York, as identified in the March 1998 report prepared
for the Corps of Engineers, New York District, entitled
‘‘Field Data Gathering, Project Performance Analysis and
Design Alternative Solutions to Improve Sandfill Reten-
tion’’, at a total cost of $9,000,000, with an estimated Fed-
eral cost of $5,850,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $3,150,000.
SEC. 550. WOODLAWN, NEW YORK.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall provide plan-
ning, design, and other technical assistance to non-Federal
154
interests for identifying and mitigating sources of contami-
nation at Woodlawn Beach in Woodlawn, New York.
(b) COST SHARING.—The non-Federal share of the cost
of assistance provided under this section shall be 50 percent.
SEC. 551. FLOODPLAIN MAPPING, NEW YORK.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall provide assist-
ance for a project to develop maps identifying 100- and
500-year flood inundation areas in the State of New York.
(b) REQUIREMENTS.—Maps developed under the
project shall include hydrologic and hydraulic information
and shall accurately show the flood inundation of each
property by flood risk in the floodplain. The maps shall
be produced in a high resolution format and shall be made
available to all flood prone areas in the State of New York
in an electronic format.
(c) PARTICIPATION OF FEMA.—The Secretary and the
non-Federal sponsor of the project shall work with the Di-
rector of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to en-
sure the validity of the maps developed under the project
for flood insurance purposes.
(d) FORMS
OF ASSISTANCE.—In carrying out the
project, the Secretary may enter into contracts or coopera-
tive agreements with the non-Federal sponsor or provide re-
imbursements of project costs.
155
(e) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of the cost
of the project shall be 75 percent.
(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$12,000,000 for fiscal years beginning after September 30,
1998.
SEC. 552. WHITE OAK RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine if
water quality deterioration and sedimentation of the White
Oak River, North Carolina, are the result of the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway navigation project. If the Secretary
determines that the water quality deterioration and sedi-
mentation are the result of the project, the Secretary shall
take appropriate measures to mitigate the deterioration and
sedimentation.
SEC. 553. TOUSSAINT RIVER, CARROLL TOWNSHIP, OTTAWA
COUNTY, OHIO.
The Secretary is authorized to provide technical assist-
ance for the removal of military ordnance from the Tous-
saint River, Carroll Township, Ottawa County, Ohio.
SEC. 554. SARDIS RESERVOIR, OKLAHOMA.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall accept from the
State of Oklahoma or an agent of the State an amount,
as determined under subsection (b), as prepayment of 100
percent of the water supply cost obligation of the State
156
under Contract No. DACW56–74–JC–0314 for water sup-
ply storage at Sardis Reservoir, Oklahoma.
(b) DETERMINATION OF AMOUNT.—The amount to be
paid by the State of Oklahoma under subsection (a) shall
be subject to adjustment in accordance with accepted dis-
count purchase methods for Federal Government properties
as determined by an independent accounting firm des-
ignated by the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget. The cost of such determination shall be paid for
by the State of Oklahoma or an agent of the State.
(c) EFFECT.—Nothing in this section affects any of the
rights or obligations of the parties to the contract referred
to in subsection (a).
SEC. 555. WAURIKA LAKE, OKLAHOMA, WATER CONVEYANCE
FACILITIES.
For the project for construction of the water convey-
ances authorized by the first section of Public Law 88–253
(77 Stat. 841), the requirement for the Waurika Project
Master Conservancy District to repay the $2,900,000 in
costs (including interest) resulting from the October 1991
settlement of the claim before the United States Claims
Court, and the payment of $1,190,451 of the final cost rep-
resenting the difference between the 1978 estimate of cost
and the actual cost determined after completion of such
project in 1991, are waived.
157
SEC. 556. SKINNER BUTTE PARK, EUGENE, OREGON.
(a) STUDY.—The Secretary shall conduct a study of
the south bank of the Willamette River, in the area of Skin-
ner Butte Park from Ferry Street Bridge to the Valley
River footbridge, to determine the feasibility of carrying out
a project to stabilize the river bank, and to restore and en-
hance riverine habitat, using a combination of structural
and bioengineering techniques.
(b) CONSTRUCTION.—If, upon completion of the study,
the Secretary determines that the project is feasible, the Sec-
retary shall participate with non-Federal interests in the
construction of the project.
(c) COST SHARE.—The non-Federal share of the cost
of the project shall be 35 percent.
(d) LANDS, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY.—The
non-Federal interest shall provide lands, easements, rights-
of-way, relocations, and dredged material disposal areas
necessary for construction of the project. The value of such
items shall be credited toward the non-Federal share of the
cost of the project.
(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$1,000,000 for fiscal years beginning after September 30,
1999.
158
SEC. 557. WILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN, OREGON.
The Secretary, Director of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, and heads of other appropriate Federal
agencies shall, using existing authorities, assist the State
of Oregon in developing and implementing a comprehensive
basin-wide strategy in the Willamette River basin of Oregon
for coordinated and integrated management of land and
water resources to improve water quality, reduce flood haz-
ards, ensure sustainable economic activity, and restore
habitat for native fish and wildlife. The heads of such Fed-
eral agencies may provide technical assistance, staff and fi-
nancial support for development of the basin-wide manage-
ment strategy. The heads of Federal agencies shall seek to
exercise flexibility in administrative actions and allocation
of funding to reduce barriers to efficient and effective imple-
menting of the strategy.
SEC. 558. BRADFORD AND SULLIVAN COUNTIES, PENNSYL-
VANIA.
The Secretary is authorized to provide assistance for
water-related environmental infrastructure and resource
protection and development projects in Bradford and Sul-
livan Counties, Pennsylvania, using the funds and authori-
ties provided in title I of the Energy and Water Develop-
ment Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105–245)
under the heading ‘‘CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL’’ (112 Stat.
159
1840) for similar projects in Lackawanna, Lycoming, Sus-
quehanna, Wyoming, Pike, and Monroe Counties, Pennsyl-
vania.
SEC. 559. ERIE HARBOR, PENNSYLVANIA.
The Secretary may reimburse the appropriate non-
Federal interest not more than $78,366 for architect and
engineering costs incurred in connection with the Erie Har-
bor basin navigation project, Pennsylvania.
SEC. 560. POINT MARION LOCK AND DAM, PENNSYLVANIA.
The project for navigation, Point Marion Lock and
Dam, Borough of Point Marion, Pennsylvania, as author-
ized by section 301(a) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4110), is modified to direct the Sec-
retary, in the operation and maintenance of the project, to
mitigate damages to the shoreline, at a total cost of
$2,000,000. The cost of the mitigation shall be allocated as
an operation and maintenance cost of a Federal navigation
project.
SEC. 561. SEVEN POINTS’ HARBOR, PENNSYLVANIA.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized, at full
Federal expense, to construct a breakwater-dock combina-
tion at the entrance to Seven Points’ Harbor, Pennsylvania.
(b) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS.—All oper-
ation and maintenance costs associated with the facility
160
constructed under this section shall be the responsibility of
the lessee of the marina complex at Seven Points’ Harbor.
(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is
authorized to be appropriated $850,000 to carry out this
section.
SEC. 562. SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA.
Section 566(b) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1996 (110 Stat. 3786) is amended by inserting ‘‘environ-
mental restoration,’’ after ‘‘water supply and related facili-
ties,’’.
SEC. 563. UPPER SUSQUEHANNA-LACKAWANNA WATERSHED
RESTORATION INITIATIVE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in cooperation with
appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies and non-
governmental institutions, is authorized to prepare a water-
shed plan for the Upper Susquehanna-Lackawanna Water-
shed (USGS Cataloguing Unit 02050107). The plan shall
utilize geographic information system and shall include a
comprehensive environmental assessment of the watershed’s
ecosystem, a comprehensive flood plain management plan,
a flood plain protection plan, water resource and environ-
mental restoration projects, water quality improvement,
and other appropriate infrastructure and measures.
(b) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—The non-Federal share of
the cost of preparation of the plan under this section shall
161
be 50 percent. Services and materials instead of cash may
be credited toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the
plan.
(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$5,000,000 for fiscal years beginning after September 30,
1999.
SEC. 564. AGUADILLA HARBOR, PUERTO RICO.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine if
erosion and additional storm damage risks that exist in the
vicinity of Aguadilla Harbor, Puerto Rico, are the result
of a Federal navigation project. If the Secretary determines
that such erosion and additional storm damage risks are
the result of the project, the Secretary shall take appropriate
measures to mitigate the erosion and storm damage.
SEC. 565. OAHE DAM TO LAKE SHARPE, SOUTH DAKOTA,
STUDY.
Section 441 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1996 (110 Stat. 3747) is amended—
(1) by inserting ‘‘(a) INVESTIGATION.—’’ before
‘‘The Secretary’’; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(b) REPORT.—Not later than September 30, 1999, the
Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the results
of the investigation under this section. The report shall in-
162
clude the examination of financing options for regular
maintenance and preservation of the lake. The report shall
be prepared in coordination and cooperation with the Nat-
ural Resources Conservation Service, other Federal agen-
cies, and State and local officials.’’.
SEC. 566. INTEGRATED WATER MANAGEMENT PLANNING,
TEXAS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in cooperation with
other Federal agencies and the State of Texas, shall provide
technical, planning, and design assistance to non-Federal
interests in developing integrated water management plans
and projects that will serve the cities, counties, water agen-
cies, and participating planning regions under the jurisdic-
tion of the State of Texas.
(b) PURPOSES OF ASSISTANCE.—Assistance provided
under subsection (a) shall be in support of non-Federal
planning and projects for the following purposes:
(1) Plan and develop integrated, near- and long-
term water management plans that address the plan-
ning region’s water supply, water conservation, and
water quality needs.
(2) Study and develop strategies and plans that
restore, preserve, and protect the State’s and planning
region’s natural ecosystems.
163
(3) Facilitate public communication and par-
ticipation.
(4) Integrate such activities with other ongoing
Federal and State projects and activities associated
with the State of Texas water plan and the State of
Texas legislation.
(c) COST SHARING.—The non-Federal share of the cost
of assistance provided under subsection (a) shall be 50 per-
cent, of which up to 1⁄2 of the non-Federal share may be
provided as in kind services.
(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section,
$10,000,000 for the fiscal years beginning after September
30, 1999.
SEC. 567. BOLIVAR PENINSULA, JEFFERSON, CHAMBERS,
AND GALVESTON COUNTIES, TEXAS.
(a) SHORE PROTECTION PROJECT.—The Secretary is
authorized to design and construct a shore protection
project between the south jetty of the Sabine Pass Channel
and the north jetty of the Galveston Harbor Entrance Chan-
nel in Jefferson, Chambers, and Galveston Counties, Texas,
including beneficial use of dredged material from Federal
navigation projects.
(b) APPLICABILITY OF BENEFIT-COST RATIO WAIVER
AUTHORITY.—In evaluating and implementing the project,
164
the Secretary shall allow the non-Federal interest to partici-
pate in the financing of the project in accordance with sec-
tion 903(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(100 Stat. 4184), notwithstanding any limitation on the
purpose of projects to which such section applies, to the ex-
tent that the Secretary’s evaluation indicates that applying
such section is necessary to implement the project.
SEC. 568. GALVESTON BEACH, GALVESTON COUNTY, TEXAS.
The Secretary is authorized to design and construct
a shore protection project between the Galveston South Jetty
and San Luis Pass, Galveston County, Texas, using inno-
vative nourishment techniques, including beneficial use of
dredged material from Federal navigation projects.
SEC. 569. PACKERY CHANNEL, CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall construct a
navigation and storm protection project at Packery Chan-
nel, Mustang Island, Texas, consisting of construction of a
channel and a channel jetty and placement of sand along
the length of the seawall.
(b) ECOLOGICAL AND RECREATIONAL BENEFITS.—In
evaluating the project, the Secretary shall include the eco-
logical and recreational benefits of reopening the Packery
Channel.
(c) APPLICABILITY OF BENEFIT-COST RATIO WAIVER
AUTHORITY.—In evaluating and implementing the project,
165
the Secretary shall allow the non-Federal interest to partici-
pate in the financing of the project in accordance with sec-
tion 903(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(100 Stat. 4184), notwithstanding any limitation on the
purpose of projects to which such section applies, to the ex-
tent that the Secretary’s evaluation indicates that applying
such section is necessary to implement the project.
SEC. 570. NORTHERN WEST VIRGINIA.
The projects described in the following reports are au-
thorized to be carried out by the Secretary substantially in
accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions,
recommended in such reports:
(1) PARKERSBURG, WEST VIRGINIA.—Report of
the Corps of Engineers entitled ‘‘Parkersburg/Vienna
Riverfront Park Feasibility Study’’, dated June 1998,
at a total cost of $8,400,000, with an estimated Fed-
eral cost of $4,200,000, and an estimated non-Federal
cost of $4,200,000.
(2) WEIRTON, WEST
VIRGINIA.—Report of the
Corps of Engineers entitled ‘‘Feasibility Master Plan
for Weirton Port and Industrial Center, West Vir-
ginia Public Port Authority’’, dated December 1997,
at a total cost of $18,000,000, with an estimated Fed-
eral cost of $9,000,000, and an estimated non-Federal
cost of $9,000,000.
166
(3) ERICKSON/WOOD COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA.—
Report of the Corps of Engineers entitled ‘‘Feasibility
Master Plan for Erickson/Wood County Port District,
West Virginia Public Port Authority’’, dated July 7,
1997, at a total cost of $28,000,000, with an esti-
mated Federal cost of $14,000,000, and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $14,000,000.
(4) MONONGAHELA
RIVER, WEST
VIRGINIA.—
Monongahela River, West Virginia, Comprehensive
Study Reconnaissance Report, dated September 1995,
consisting of the following elements:
(A) Morgantown Riverfront Park, Morgan-
town, West Virginia, at a total cost of
$1,600,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$800,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$800,000.
(B) Caperton Rail to Trail, Monongahela
County, West Virginia, at a total cost of
$4,425,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$2,212,500 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$2,212,500.
(C) Palatine Park, Fairmont, West Vir-
ginia, at a total cost of $1,750,000, with an esti-
mated Federal cost of $875,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $875,000.
184
for-profit cemetery or for other public purposes the
land shall revert to the United States.
(3) DESCRIPTION.—The land to be conveyed
under this subsection is the approximately 10 acres of
land located in Leflore County, Oklahoma, and de-
scribed as follows:
INDIAN BASIN MERIDIAN
Section 23, Township 5 North, Range 23 East
SW SE SW NW
NW NE NW SW
N1⁄2 SW SW NW.
(4) CONSIDERATION.—The conveyance under this
subsection shall be without consideration. All costs as-
sociated with the conveyance shall be paid by the
Summerfield Cemetery Association, Oklahoma.
(5) OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The con-
veyance under this subsection shall be subject to such
other terms and conditions as the Secretary considers
necessary and appropriate to protect the interests of
the United States.
(f) DEXTER, OREGON.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall convey to
the Dexter Sanitary District all right, title, and in-
terest of the United States in and to a parcel of land
consisting of approximately 5 acres located at Dexter
185
Lake, Oregon, under lease to the Dexter Sanitary Dis-
trict.
(2) CONSIDERATION.—Land to be conveyed
under this section shall be conveyed without consider-
ation. If the land is no longer held in public owner-
ship or no longer used for wastewater treatment pur-
poses, title to the land shall revert to the Secretary.
(3) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The conveyance
by the United States shall be subject to such terms
and conditions as the Secretary considers appropriate
to protect the interests of the United States.
(4) DESCRIPTION.—The exact acreage and de-
scription of the land to be conveyed under paragraph
(1) shall be determined by such surveys as the Sec-
retary considers necessary. The cost of the surveys
shall be borne by the Dexter Sanitary District.
(g) RICHARD B. RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, SOUTH
CAROLINA.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Upon execution of an agree-
ment under paragraph (4) and subject to the require-
ments of this subsection, the Secretary shall convey,
without consideration, to the State of South Carolina
all right, title, and interest of the United States to the
lands described in paragraph (2) that are managed,
as of the date of enactment of this Act, by the South
197
in are referenced to the West Virginia State
Plane Coordinate System, South Zone.
(D) A certain parcel of land in the State of
West 
Virginia, 
Mingo 
County, 
Town 
of
Matewan, and being more particularly bounded
and described as follows:
Beginning at a point at the intersec-
tion of the easterly right-of-way line of
State Route 49/10 with the right-of-way line
of the floodwall, having an approximate co-
ordinate value of N228,826 E1,661,679;
thence, leaving the right-of-way of said
floodwall, and with the right-of-way of said
State Route 49/10.
North 03°21′ West 23 feet to a point at
the intersection of the easterly right-of-way
line of said State Route 49/10 with the
southerly right-of-way line of State Route
49/28; thence, leaving the right-of-way of
said State Route 49/10 and with the right-
of-way of said State Route 49/28.
South 80°59′ East 168 feet.
North 82°28′ East 45 feet to an iron
pin and cap designated as U.S.A. Corner
No. M–8–1 on the boundary of the Western