[Senate Report 106-362]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 729
106th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 106-362
_______________________________________________________________________
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
ACT OF 2000
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
to accompany
S. 2796
July 27, 2000.--Ordered to be printed.
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
79-010 WASHINGTON : 2000
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
BOB SMITH, New Hampshire, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia MAX BAUCUS, Montana
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri HARRY REID, Nevada
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio BOB GRAHAM, Florida
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah BARBARA BOXER, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RON WYDEN, Oregon
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island
Dave Conover, Staff Director
Tom Sliter, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
__________
Page
General statement................................................ 1
Statement of committee policy.................................... 2
2000 Water Resources Development Act............................. 3
Section-by-section analysis:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents....................... 4
Sec. 2. Definition of Secretary.............................. 4
TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS
Sec. 101. Project authorizations............................. 4
(a). Projects with Chief's Report........................ 4
New York-New Jersey Harbor........................... 4
(b.) Projects Subject to a Final Report.................. 4
False Pass Harbor, Alaska............................ 4
Unalaska Harbor, Alaska.............................. 5
Rio de Flag, Alaska.................................. 5
Tres Rios, Arizona................................... 5
Los Angeles Harbor, California....................... 6
Murrieta Creek, California........................... 6
Pine Flat Dam, California............................ 6
Rancho Palos Verdes, California...................... 7
Santa Barbara Streams, California.................... 7
Upper Newport Bay Harbor, California................. 7
Whitewater Bay, California........................... 8
Tampa Harbor, Florida................................ 8
Barbers Point Harbor, Oahu, Hawaii................... 8
John T. Myers Lock and Dam, Indiana and Kentucky..... 9
Greenup Lock and Dam, Kentucky....................... 9
Morganza, Louisiana to Gulf of Mexico................ 9
Chesterfield, Missouri............................... 10
Barnegat Inlet to Little Egg Inlet, New Jersey....... 10
Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, Cliffwood Beach, New
Jersey............................................. 10
Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, Port Monmouth, New
Jersey............................................. 11
Memphis, Tennessee................................... 11
Jackson Hole, Wyoming................................ 11
Ohio River........................................... 12
Sec. 102. Small shore protection projects.................... 12
Sec. 103. Small navigation projects.......................... 12
Sec. 104. Removal of snags and clearing and straightening of
channels in navigable waters............................... 13
Sec. 105. Small bank stabilization projects.................. 13
Sec. 106. Small flood control projects....................... 13
Sec. 107. Small projects for improvement of the quality of
the environment............................................ 13
Sec. 108. Beneficial uses of dredged material................ 13
Sec. 109. Small aquatic ecosystem restoration projects....... 14
Sec. 110. Flood mitigation and riverine restoration.......... 14
Sec. 111. Disposal of dredged material on beaches............ 14
TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 201. Cooperation agreements with counties............... 14
Sec. 202. Watershed and river basin assessments.............. 14
Sec. 203. Tribal partnership program......................... 15
Sec. 204. Ability to pay..................................... 15
Sec. 205. Property protection program........................ 16
Sec. 206. National Recreation Reservation Service............ 26
Sec. 207. Operation and maintenance of hydroelectric
facilities................................................. 17
Sec. 208. Interagency and international support.............. 17
Sec. 209. Reburial and conveyance authority.................. 17
Sec. 210. Approval of construction of dams and dikes......... 18
Sec. 211. Project deauthorization authority.................. 19
Sec. 212. Floodplain management requirements................. 19
Sec. 213. Environmental dredging............................. 20
Sec. 214. Regulatory analysis and management systems data.... 20
Sec. 215. Performance of specialized or technical services... 20
TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. Boydsville, Arkansas............................... 20
Sec. 302. White River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri........... 21
Sec. 303. Gasparilla and Estero Islands, Florida............. 21
Sec. 304. Fort Hall Indian Reservation, Idaho................ 21
Sec. 305. Upper Des Plaines River and tributaries, Illinois.. 21
Sec. 306. Red River Waterway, Louisiana...................... 21
Sec. 307. William Jennings Randolph Lake, Maryland........... 22
Sec. 308. Missouri River Valley, Missouri.................... 22
Sec. 309. New Madrid County, Missouri........................ 22
Sec. 310. Pemiscot County Harbor, Missouri................... 22
Sec. 311. Pike County, Missouri.............................. 22
Sec. 312. Fort Peck fish hatchery, Montana................... 23
Sec. 313. Sagamore Creek, New Hampshire...................... 23
Sec. 314. Passaic River Basin flood management, New Jersey... 23
Sec. 315. Rockaway Inlet to Norton Point, New York........... 23
Sec. 316. John Day Pool, Oregon and Washington............... 23
Sec. 317. Fox Point hurricane barrier, Providence, Rhode
Island..................................................... 23
Sec. 318. Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels, Texas....... 23
Sec. 319. Joe Pool Lake, Trinity River Basin, Texas.......... 24
Sec. 320. Lake Champlain watershed, Vermont and New York..... 24
Sec. 321. Mount St. Helens, Washington....................... 24
Sec. 322. Puget Sound and adjacent waters restoration,
Washington................................................. 24
Sec. 323. Fox River System, Wisconsin........................ 24
Sec. 324. Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration.................. 25
Sec. 325. Great Lakes dredging levels adjustment............. 25
Sec. 326. Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem restoration...... 25
Sec. 327. Great Lakes remedial action plans and sediment
remediation................................................ 25
Sec. 328. Great Lakes tributary model........................ 25
Sec. 329. Treatment of dredged material from Long Island
Sound...................................................... 25
Sec. 330. New England water resources and ecosystem
restoration................................................ 25
Sec. 331. Project deauthorizations........................... 26
TITLE IV--STUDIES
Sec. 401. Baldwin County, Alabama............................ 26
Sec. 402. Bono, Arkansas..................................... 26
Sec. 403. Cache Creek Basin, California...................... 26
Sec. 404. Estudillo Canal watershed, California.............. 27
Sec. 405. Laguna Creek watershed, California................. 27
Sec. 406. Oceanside, California.............................. 27
Sec. 407. San Jacinto watershed, California.................. 27
Sec. 408. Choctawhatchee River, Florida...................... 27
Sec. 409. Egmont Key, Florida................................ 27
Sec. 410. Upper Ocklawaha River and Apopka/Palatlakaha River
basins, Florida............................................ 27
Sec. 411. Boise River, Idaho................................. 28
Sec. 412. Wood River, Idaho.................................. 28
Sec. 413. Chicago, Illinois.................................. 28
Sec. 414. Boeuf and Black, Louisiana......................... 28
Sec. 415. Port of Iberia, Louisiana.......................... 28
Sec. 416. South Louisiana.................................... 28
Sec. 417. St. John the Baptist Parish, Louisiana............. 28
Sec. 418. Narraguagus River, Milbridge, Maine................ 28
Sec. 419. Portsmouth Harbor and Piscataqua River, Maine and
New Hampshire.............................................. 29
Sec. 420. Merrimack River Basin, Massachusetts and New
Hampshire.................................................. 29
Sec. 421. Port of Gulfport, Mississippi...................... 29
Sec. 422. Upland disposal sites in New Hampshire............. 29
Sec. 423. Missouri River basin, North Dakota, South Dakota,
and Nebraska............................................... 29
Sec. 424. Cuyahoga River, Ohio............................... 30
Sec. 425. Fremont, Ohio...................................... 30
Sec. 426. Grand Lake, Oklahoma............................... 30
Sec. 427. Dredged material disposal site, Rhode Island....... 30
Sec. 428. Chickamauga Lock and Dam, Tennessee................ 30
Sec. 429. Germantown, Tennessee.............................. 31
Sec. 430. Horn Lake Creek and Tributaries, Tennessee and
Mississippi................................................ 31
Sec. 431. Cedar Bayou, Texas................................. 31
Sec. 432. Houston Ship Channel, Texas........................ 31
Sec. 433. San Antonio Channel, Texas......................... 31
Sec. 434. White River watershed below Mud Mountain Dam,
Washington................................................. 32
Sec. 435. Willapa Bay, Washington............................ 32
Sec. 436. Upper Mississippi River basin sediment and nutrient
study...................................................... 32
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec. 501. Visitors centers................................... 33
Sec. 502. CALFED Bay-Delta Program assistance, California.... 33
Sec. 503. Conveyance of lighthouse, Ontonagon, Michigan...... 33
Sec. 504. Land conveyance, Candy Lake, Oklahoma.............. 34
Title VI--Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan
Background....................................................... 34
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan........................ 35
Restoring the Everglades, An American Legacy Act................. 36
Section-by-section summary:
Section 1. Short Title....................................... 37
Sec. 2. Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan............ 37
(a). Definitions......................................... 37
(b). Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan........... 38.
(c). Additional program authority........................ 46
(d). Authorization of future projects.................... 46
(e). Cost sharing........................................ 47
(f). Evaluation of projects.............................. 49
(g). Exclusions and limitations.......................... 50
(h). Assurance of project benefits....................... 51
(i). Dispute resolution.................................. 57
(j). Independent scientific review....................... 57
(k). Outreach and assistance............................. 58
(l). Report to Congress.................................. 59
Hearings......................................................... 60
Legislative history.............................................. 60
Rollcall votes................................................... 61
Mandates assessment.............................................. 61
Evaluation of regulatory impact.................................. 61
Cost of legislation.............................................. 61
Changes to existing law.......................................... 62
Calendar No. 729
106th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 106-362
======================================================================
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2000
_______
July 27, 2000.--Ordered to be printed.
Mr. Smith, of New Hampshire from the Committee on Environment and
Public Works, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 2796]
The Committee on Environment and Public Works, to which was
referred the bill (S. 2796) to provide for the conservation and
development of water and related resources, to authorize the
Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for
improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and
for other purposes, having considered the same, reports
favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that the
bill, as amended, do pass.
General Statement
In reporting the Water Resources Development Act of 2000,
the committee is adhering to the policies established in the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662), and
continued in subsequent Acts, regarding the authorization of
projects within the civil works program of the Army Corps of
Engineers. This bill includes authorization for 24 new
construction projects for flood control, navigation, hurricane
protection and beach erosion control, and environmental
restoration.
The Water Resources Development Act of 1986, signed into
law on November 17, 1986, marked the end of a 16-year deadlock
between the Congress and the Executive Branch regarding
authorization of the civil works program. In addition to
authorizing numerous projects, the 1986 Act resolved
longstanding disputes relating to cost sharing, user fees, and
environmental requirements.
Prior to 1986, disagreements over these and other matters
had prevented enactment of major civil works legislation since
1970. Between 1947 and 1970, civil works authorization bills
were enacted every 2 to 3 years. This regular schedule had many
advantages. It helped to avoid long delays between the planning
and the execution of projects; assured that engineering work
and economic analysis were applicable to current conditions;
minimized the backlog of projects that have been considered but
not authorized by Congress; and allowed the Public Works
Committees of the Congress to review proposed projects,
programs and agency policies on a regular schedule.
Nevertheless, this system broke down in the 1970's. There
was no legislation enacted between 1970 and 1986 to authorize
civil works projects for construction. The Water Resources
Development Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-587) made some changes to Army
Corps policies, but authorized no projects.
In 1986, a House-Senate Conference Committee produced a
Conference Report (H. Rept. 99-1013) which was passed by the
House and Senate and signed into law on November 17, 1986 (P.L.
99-662). The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 was the
largest and most comprehensive authorization of the Army Corps'
Civil Works Program since the Senate Public Works Committee was
created in 1947.
Some of the major reforms included in the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 are listed below:
Cost-sharing formulas were established for harbor
dredging (section 101), flood control (section 103), shoreline
protection (section 103), stream bank erosion control (section
603), and other projects. Project Cooperation Agreements were
required for all such projects. Projects for mitigation of fish
and wildlife resources were allowed to be carried out at up to
100 percent Federal expense under section 906 and modification
of Army Corps projects in the interest of environmental quality
were authorized to be carried out at 75 percent Federal expense
under section 1135. The Water Resources Development Act of 1996
extended harbor cost sharing formulas to dredged material
disposal facilities, increased the non-Federal cost share for
flood control, and established cost sharing for environmental
protection and restoration.
The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, capitalized by
a new Harbor Maintenance Fee, was established to pay 40 percent
of the Federal cost of maintaining authorized deep draft
navigation channels (sections 210, 1402 and 1403), and was
subsequently increased to provide for 100 percent of the cost
under the 1990 Water Resources Development Act.
These policy changes applied to all projects
contained in the Water Resources Development Acts of 1988 (P.L.
100-676); 1990 (P.L. 101-640); 1992 (P.L. 102-580); 1996 (P.L.
104-303); 1999 (P.L. 106-53); and will continue to apply to all
projects contained in the Water Resources Development Act of
2000.
Statement of Committee Policy
Since 1986, it has been the policy of the committee to
authorize only those construction projects that conform with
cost-sharing and other policies established in the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 and subsequent Water
Resources Development Acts. In addition, it has been the policy
of the committee to require projects to have undergone full and
final engineering, economic and environmental review by the
Chief of Engineers prior to project approvals by the committee.
The Army Corps of Engineers water resources project study
process can be initiated when either of the two Public Works
Committees of the Congress approves a committee resolution
requesting that the study of a potential project area be
undertaken. Once such a resolution is approved by either
committee, the Army Corps is authorized to proceed with a
reconnaissance study of the proposed project at 100 percent
Federal cost. The purpose of a reconnaissance study is to
determine whether or not there is a Federal interest in the
project. Authorization of a reconnaissance study may also be
provided by statute. Army Corps policy now requires all
reconnaissance studies to be completed within 12 months and at
a cost of no greater than $100,000.
If, after completion of the reconnaissance study, a project
is deemed to be in the Federal interest, the Federal government
and a non-Federal sponsor may enter into an equally cost-shared
feasibility study. The feasibility study includes a more
detailed set of engineering, economic and environmental
analyses to determine whether a project is justified to advance
to the construction phase. When the feasibility study is
completed, the Army Corps District Engineer reviews the results
and forwards a recommendation on the project to the Division
Engineer. The Division Engineer issues a Division Engineer's
notice and then submits the report to Army Corps Headquarters.
Army Corps Headquarters performs a final review and submits the
report for the mandatory (33 U.S.C. 701 1(a)) 30-day State and
Federal agency review period. After these reviews are complete
and the report is found favorable, a report is prepared for the
final recommendation of the Chief of Engineers. The report of
the Chief of Engineers is forwarded to the Assistant Secretary
of the Army (Civil Works) for Administration review and
submission to the Congress.
Many of the projects sent to the Assistant Secretary of the
Army by the Chief of Engineers are forwarded to the Congress
with a recommendation that construction be authorized. Such a
recommendation only occurs after the project has been reviewed
by the Office of Management and Budget. It is the prerogative
of the Administration to make recommendations regarding the
authorization of Army Corps projects. However, the committee is
not bound by these recommendations. The decision to authorize a
project rests with the two houses of Congress.
The policy of the committee limits contingent authorization
of water resources projects to those projects that will have
final reports of the Chief of Engineers in the same calendar
year as the Water Resources Development Act under
consideration.
The 2000 Water Resources Development Act
S. 2796, the Water Resources Development Act of 2000,
introduced on June 27, 2000, by Senators Voinovich, Smith, and
Baucus, contains several of the provisions requested by the
Administration. S. 2796, as reported by the committee,
incorporates some of these provisions as outlined below.
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1. Short Title; Table of Contents
This section designates the title of the bill as ``The
Water Resources Development Act of 2000'' and lists the table
of contents.
Sec. 2. Definition of Secretary
This section defines the term ``Secretary'' for the
purposes of the Act as the Secretary of the Army.
Title I--Water Resources Projects
Section 101. Project Authorizations
This section provides authority for the Secretary to carry
out 24 projects for water resources development, conservation,
and other purposes substantially in accordance with the plans
recommended in the reports referenced in the bill language.
Descriptions of the projects are as follows:
(a). Projects with Chief's Report
Subsection (a) of Section 101 authorizes one project to be
carried out by the Secretary substantially in accordance with
the plan and subject to the conditions recommended in a final
report of the Chief of Engineers.
New York-New Jersey Harbor
Location. New York and New Jersey.
Purpose. Navigation.
Problem. Existing channel depths are not sufficient for
larger, more efficient ships. Channel deepening would reduce
the number of required vessel trips and congestion-related
delays.
Recommended Plan. The plan consists of deepening the
Ambrose Channel to a depth of 53 feet mean low water (MLW) and
deepening Anchorage, Port Jersey, Kill Van Kull, Newark Bay,
Arthur Kill, and Bay Ridge Channels to a depth of 50 feet MLW.
Project Costs. Total cost $1,781,235,000. Federal cost
$738,631,000; non-Federal cost $1,042,604,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.6 to 1.
(b). Project Authorizations Subject to a Final Report
Subsection (b) of Section 101 authorizes the following 23
projects for water resources development, and conservation, and
other purposes to be carried out by the Secretary substantially
in accordance with the plan and subject to the conditions
recommended in a final report of the Chief of Engineers as
approved by the Secretary, if a favorable report of the Chief
is completed not later than December 31, 2000.
False Pass Harbor, Alaska
Location. False Pass, Alaska.
Purpose. Navigation.
Problem. Fishing vessels incur significant annual expenses
at False Pass due to the shortage of moorage facilities.
Recommended Plan. The plan consists of a 10-acre basin
constructed just north of the community of False Pass. The
basin would accommodate a fleet of 86 vessels ranging in size
from 18 feet to 100 feet. The basin would be dredged to depths
of -12 feet and -19 feet.
Project Costs. Total cost $15,000,000. Federal cost
$10,000,000; non-Federal cost $5,000,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1 to 1
Unalaska Harbor, Alaska
Location. Unalaska, Alaska.
Purpose. Navigation.
Problem. There is limited long term and transient moorage
space for large commercial and fishing vessels. Construction of
a harbor for vessels in the 80- to 180-foot size range will
allow savings in transportation costs for off season moorage to
the Pacific Northwest and reduce damages and delays caused by
rafting of vessels.
Recommended Plan. The plan consists of new moorage
facilities in Unalaska, with wave protection features
consisting of a short rubblemound breakwater on the south end
of the harbor and a floating breakwater protecting the length
of the harbor from waves in the channel between islands.
Project Costs. Total cost $20,000,000. Federal cost
$12,000,000; non-Federal cost $8,000,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio.
Rio de Flag, Arizona
Location. Rio de Flag, Arizona.
Purpose. Flood Damage Reduction.
Problem. The identified problem is flooding along the Rio
de Flag and Clay Avenue Wash, which results in inundation
damage to approximately 1,500 structures.
Recommended Plan. The plan consists of detention upstream
on the Rio de Flag, a detention basin on the Clay Avenue Wash,
and channel improvements downstream of each detention basin to
convey flows through the west Flagstaff area.
Project Costs. Total cost $26,400,000. Federal cost
$17,100,000; non-Federal cost $9,300,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.3 to 1.
Tres Rios, Arizona
Location. Tres Rios, Arizona.
Purpose. Environmental Restoration.
Problem. The natural riparian ecosystem has been degraded
within the study area. The causes of this degradation include
elimination of natural flow events due to upstream dams,
minimization of base flows, variations in surface waters due to
effluent, and exotic species. In addition, significant flood
and water quality problems exist.
Recommended Plan. The plan includes a levee system, which
will work in conjunction with the restoration features to
provide 100-year flood protection. The restoration features
include a pump station facility, constructed wetlands,
pipelines to distribute water for cottonwood-willow riparian
corridors, and large open water marsh areas.
Project Costs. Total cost $90,000,000. Federal cost
$58,000,000; non-Federal cost $32,000,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.9 to 1.
Los Angeles Harbor, California
Location. Los Angeles, California.
Purpose. Navigation.
Problem. The use of larger, deeper-draft container ships
has resulted in a need to provide deeper-draft channels and
berths.
Recommended Plan. The plan consists of deepening the
channels and turning basins to a depth of -53 feet mean low
water and disposal of 6.2 million cubic yards of material at
four designated locations.
Project Costs. Total cost $168,900,000. Federal cost
$44,000,000; non-Federal cost $124,900,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. 2 to 1.
Murrieta Creek, California
Location. Murrieta Creek, California.
Purpose. Flood Damage Prevention and Ecosystem Restoration.
Problem. Floodwater inundation is the most common water
resource-related problem in the Murrieta Creek watershed. The
potential for large flood events with high monetary damage
remains a significant threat to the area.
Recommended Plan. The plan consists of an on-line detention
basin along the eastern side of Murrieta Creek between Warm
Springs and Santa Gertrudis Creeks in conjunction with channel
modifications downstream of the detention basin. A flow control
structure would be placed just upstream of the Santa Gertrudis
confluence, thereby only capturing flows from Murrieta and Warm
Springs Creeks and allowing Santa Gertrudis Creek to remain
uncontrolled.
Project Costs. Total cost $43,100,000. Federal cost
$27,800,000; non-Federal cost $15,300,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan for
ecosystem restoration is justified by the restoration of
valuable habitat. The benefit-to-cost ratio for the flood
damage prevention component is 1.1 to 1.
Pine Flat Dam, California
Location. Pine Flat Dam, Kings River, California.
Purpose. Fish and Wildlife Restoration.
Problem. Due to the design and operation of Pine Flat Dam,
a portion of the reservoir can experience a significant
increase in water temperature at certain times of the year.
When there is adequate water, water temperatures are well
within the optimal range for the survival of both cold water
and warm water fish; however, in low water years, the
availability of coldwater habitat can decrease dramatically.
Recommended Plan. The plan includes construction of a
multilevel intake structure consisting of three separate steel
structures that extend from elevation 953.46 feet, mean sea
level (msl), downward to elevation 616.5 feet msl on the
upstream face of the dam to allow the release of colder water
throughout the year to sustain the trout fishery. The plan also
consists of reestablishing 143.5 acres of riparian vegetation
and wildlife habitat along the Kings River near the Friant-Kern
Canal siphon.
Project Costs. Total cost $34,000,000. Federal cost
$22,000,000; non-Federal cost $12,000,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.
Ranchos Palos Verdes, California
Location. Ranchos Palos Verdes, California.
Purpose. Environmental Restoration.
Problem. The Portuguese Bend landslide along the coast of
the city of Rancho Palos Verdes has deposited millions of cubic
yards of material into the Pacific Ocean, burying the highly
valuable rocky benthic habitat and kelp forest ecosystem. The
material has also caused high levels of turbidity, which is
degrading the downcoast kelp forest.
Recommended Plan. The plan consists of the construction of
an 1800-foot containment dike approximately 400 feet offshore
of the Portuguese Bend landslide to contain landslide material.
The project will restore about 500 acres of valuable rocky
habitat and kelp forest ecosystem that was buried or is
continuing to be degraded.
Project Costs. Total cost $18,100,000. Federal cost
$11,800,000; non-Federal cost $6,300,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.
Santa Barbara Streams, California
Location. Santa Barbara Streams, Lower Mission Creek, Santa
Barbara, California.
Purpose. Flood Damage Reduction.
Problem. The primary problem affecting the lower Mission
Creek area is the continuing threat of flooding to property,
which affects the health, safety, and well being of the
residents of Santa Barbara. Secondary problems are the
environmental impacts of flooding, urbanization, and the
uncoordinated individual bank stabilization measures.
Recommended Plan. This plan will increase the channel
capacity to 3,400 cfs and will provide approximately a 20-year
level of flood protection. The new wider creek doubles the
habitat for the Tidewater Gobi. The plan also restores the
creek bottom, enhancing it's potential as a migratory corridor
for the Southern California Steelhead.
Project Costs. Total cost $17,100,000. Federal cost
$8,600,000; non-Federal cost $8,500,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.2 to 1.
Upper Newport Bay Harbor, California
Location. Upper Newport Bay, Orange County, California.
Purpose. Environmental Restoration.
Problem. Rapid urbanization of the Newport Bay watershed
has resulted in a significant increase in the amount of fine
sediments depositing into the Bay. Sedimentation has filled in
open water areas within the Upper Newport Bay Ecological
Reserve, one of the last remaining southern California coastal
wetlands that continues to play a significant role in providing
critical habitat to a variety of species. Without continued
maintenance of the sediment basins, sedimentation will result
in significant changes to the balance of wetland habitats,
adversely affecting resident and migratory species.
Recommended Plan. The plan consists of expanding and
deepening two existing sediment basins and seven associated
habitat restoration measures.
Project Costs. Total cost $28,280,000. Federal cost
$18,390,000; non-Federal cost $9,890,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.
Whitewater River Basin, California
Location. Whitewater River Basin, Coachella Valley,
Riverside County, California.
Purpose. Flood Damage Reduction.
Problem. The main problem affecting the area is flooding
from the alluvial fan below Indio Hills. Streams carry water
and sediment into the Thousand Palms area forming numerous
intersecting alluvial fans below the mouth of the canyon and
during large storms, these areas are subject to flooding.
Recommended Plan. The plan consists of three levees and a
floodway of approximately 700 acres.
Project Costs. Total cost $26,000,000. Federal cost
$16,900,000; non-Federal cost $9,100,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.4 to 1.
Tampa Harbor, Florida
Location. Tampa Harbor, Port Sutton, Florida.
Purpose. Navigation.
Problem. The length of the authorized channel is not
sufficient.
Recommended Plan. The original authorization was to deepen
the channel from the existing 34 feet to 43 feet, over a length
of 3,700 feet. Since that authorization, the non-Federal
sponsor has requested that the deepening be considered for the
entire length of 6,000 feet. A General Reevaluation Report will
be completed in July 2000 on this additional authorization.
Project Costs. Total cost $7,245,000. Federal cost
$4,709,000; non-Federal cost $2,536,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. 6.3 to 1 on the original authorization.
2.1 to 1 on the additional request.
Barbers Point Harbor, Oahu, Hawaii
Location. Oahu, Hawaii.
Purpose. Navigation.
Problem. Significant changes have occurred in the shipping
industry since the initiation of the Barbers Point Harbor
project and service ships are larger than originally
anticipated. The existing harbor's depth limitations result in
increased transportation costs to the shippers as they must
either light-load their larger vessels or continue to use less
efficient smaller ones.
Recommended Plan. The plan consists of improvements to a
450-foot long jetty adjacent to the entrance channel and
deepening of the 92-acre inshore basin to a maximum depth of 45
feet and the entrance channel to 47 feet.
Project Costs. Total cost $51,000,000. Federal cost
$21,000,000; non-Federal cost $30,000,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.5 to 1.
John T. Meyers Lock and Dam, Indiana and Kentucky
Location. Ohio River, Indiana and Kentucky.
Purpose. Navigation.
Problem. The primary problem involves traffic delays during
main chamber closures.
Recommended Plan. The plan consists of an extension of the
auxiliary lock to provide an overall length of 1200 feet,
extension of the lock approach walls, supplemental filling and
emptying system improvements, Miter Gate Quick Changeout System
improvements, and environmental mitigation measures.
Project Costs. Total cost $182,000,000. One-half of costs
shall be paid from the general fund of the Treasury and one-
half from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.8 to 1.
Greenup Lock and Dam, Kentucky
Location. Ohio River, Greenup, Kentucky.
Purpose. Navigation.
Problem. The primary problems involve traffic delays during
main chamber closures. Greenup is one of the most heavily used
locks on the Ohio River and when the main chamber is closed due
to maintenance or accidents, traffic must lock through the
smaller auxiliary chamber, resulting in lengthy delays.
Recommended Plan. The plan consists of a 600-foot extension
of the 600-foot auxiliary lock to provide an overall length of
1200 feet, extension of the lock approach walls, supplemental
filling and emptying system improvements, Miter Gate Quick
Changeout System improvements, and environmental mitigation
measures.
Project Costs. $183,000,000 One-half of costs shall be paid
from the general fund of the Treasury and one-half from the
Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. 2.5 to 1.
Morganza, Louisiana, to Gulf of Mexico
Location. Morganza, Louisiana.
Purpose. Hurricane Protection.
Problem. The area is significantly affected by tides and
the impacts of storm surge inundation have increased, along
with deterioration of coastal marshes. In addition, saltwater
intrusion continues to plague the wetland habitat throughout
the area.
Recommended Plan. The plan consists of floodgates, which
will operate when water surface elevations reach a certain
level or an impending storm event requires system closure.
Otherwise, the floodgates will remain in an open position most
of the year and allow navigational passage. The Houma
Navigational Canal Lock and Bayou Gram Caillou floodgate will
be operated together approximately three months each year to
reduce salinity intrusion. Additional drainage structures are
built into the levee to maintain the ebb and flow of tides for
wetland habitat enclosed by the protection levee.
Project Costs. Total cost $550,000,000. Federal cost
$358,000,000; non-Federal cost $192,000,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.09 to 1.
Chesterfield, Missouri
Location. Chesterfield, Missouri.
Purpose. Flood Damage Reduction.
Problem. During the Great Flood of 1993, the levee system
protecting 4,200 acres of the Chesterfield Valley failed and
flooded its interior with up to eight feet of water. Subsequent
repairs were made, but the levee system is still considered
substandard.
Recommended Plan. The plan consists of levee improvements
to provide flood protection to the Chesterfield Valley area,
including landside seepage berms and relief wells to control
underseepage, a new railroad closure structure and a small
floodwall near Centaur Road, a closure structure and a
floodwall at Airport Road, two closure structures and a
floodwall at Long Road, four pump stations, and several gravity
drains.
Project Costs. Total cost $63,000,000. Federal cost
$40,950,000; non-Federal cost $22,050,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.76 to 1.
Inclusion of this project on the contingent authorization
list was an amendment by Smith and Bond.
Barnegat Inlet to Little Egg Inlet, New Jersey
Location. Barnegat Inlet to Little Egg Inlet, New Jersey.
Purpose. Shore Protection.
Problem. Communities along the entire length of Long Beach
Island are vulnerable to hurricanes, northeasters and other
storm induced damages.
Recommended Plan. This plan consists of a combination of
dune and berm restoration, with a berm width of 125 feet and a
30-foot side dune. Beachfill would be placed on various
stretches of Long Beach Island where the existing berm and dune
profiles are below the minimum measurements of the design
profile. This plan also authorizes periodic nourishment for a
50-year period at an annual cost of $1,751,000, with a Federal
cost of $1,138,000 and a non-Federal cost of $613,000.
Project Costs. Total cost $51,203,000. Federal cost
$33,282,000; non-Federal cost $17,921,000
Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.9 to 1.
Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, Cliffwood Beach, New Jersey.
Location. Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, Cliffwood Beach,
New Jersey.
Purpose. Shore Protection.
Problem. Tidal flooding and beach erosion progressively
threaten the protective beaches, a freshwater lake, and nearby
residential areas at Cliffwood Beach.
Recommended Plan. The plan consists of seawall repair with
a 60-foot wide berm. This plan also authorizes periodic
nourishment for a 50-year period at an annual cost of $110,000,
with a Federal cost of $55,000 and a non-Federal cost of
$55,000.
Project Costs. Total cost $5,219,000. Federal cost
$3,392,000; non-Federal cost $1,827,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.2 to 1.
Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, Port Monmouth, New Jersey
Location. Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, Port Monmouth,
New Jersey.
Purpose. Shore Protection.
Problem. Nearly 1000 residential, commercial, and public
structures and properties are affected by tidal inundation from
coastal storm events. Storm waters surround the area from the
overflow of tidal creeks which form at the eastern and western
boundaries of the Port Monmouth community. Wave driven waters
also overtop the thin, eroding beach and dune line along
Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay. Despite efforts by the State of
New Jersey, the shoreline continues to erode. Long term erosion
has resulted in a persistent reduction of hurricane and storm
damage protection by reducing the height and width of the
beachfront.
Recommended Plan. The plan consists of floodwalls, levees,
and beach nourishment. This plan also includes dune grass, dune
fencing, dune walk-overs and suitable beachfill, with periodic
nourishment for a 50-year period at an annual cost of
$2,468,000, with a Federal cost of $1,234,000 and a non-Federal
cost of $1,234,000.
Project Costs. Total cost $30,081,000. Federal cost
$19,553,000; non-Federal cost $10,528,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.2 to 1.
Memphis, Tennessee
Location. Wolf River, Memphis, Collierville, and
Germantown, Tennessee.
Purpose. Ecosystem Restoration.
Problem. The Wolf River and Tributaries Project
significantly reduced seasonal flooding, eliminated large
amounts of riparian and fisheries habitat and initiated
erosion, headcutting and long-term drying of wetlands. Erosion
and headcutting continues to progress up the main channel and
tributaries, clogging tributaries, reducing fish and wildlife
habitat, filling wetlands, killing trees, and changing the
hydraulic regime of the wetlands.
Recommended Plan. The plan consists of stabilization weirs,
channel restoration, a waterfowl management area, wildlife
corridors, trails, and three boat ramps for public access.
Project Costs. Total cost $10,933,000. Federal cost
$7,106,000; non-Federal cost $3,827,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.
Jackson Hole, Wyoming
Location. Jackson Hole, Wyoming.
Purpose. Environmental Restoration.
Problem. River channel instability was identified as a
major source of problems in the area, including reduced
diversity of species and diminished production of vegetation in
area habitats. The main river channel has a tendency to fill
and shift. As the river changes its course, it can impinge on
river island habitats, often resulting in complete destruction.
With the loss of these island habitats, aquatic species can no
longer survive.
Recommended Plan. The plan consists of restoration of the
entire 22-mile reach of the Snake River, starting approximately
2 miles downstream of Moose, Wyoming, to Flat Creek at South
Park Elk Feed grounds.
Project Costs. Total cost $66,500,000. Federal cost
$43,225,000; non-Federal cost $23,275,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.
Ohio River
Location. Ohio River Corridor, within the States of
Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, West Virginia, and
Pennsylvania.
Purpose. Fish and Wildlife Restoration.
Problem. Forest harvest, agriculture, industrialization,
urbanization, water pollution, river impoundment, and a variety
of other factors have affected the environmental quality of the
Ohio River and its floodplain. Many habitats are in need of
improvement for the benefit of a wide variety of species.
Recommended Plan. The plan consists of conducting an
inventory of existing ecosystem resources; developing a
comprehensive program implementation plan to establish the
objectives and priorities for the restoration and protection of
the ecosystem resources; conducting detailed planning and
design and implementing site-specific projects to restore and
protect aquatic, wetland, floodplain, and riparian areas;
conducting detailed planning and design and implementing
appropriate recreation features in conjunction with site-
specific restoration projects; and monitoring of individual
project performance as a basis for adaptive management of
individual projects and periodic update of the comprehensive
program implementation plan.
Project Costs. Total cost $200,000,000. Federal cost
$130,000,000; non-Federal $70,000,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.
Sec. 102. Small Shore Protection Projects
This provision amends section 105 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (P.L.104-303) by adding Lake Palourde,
Louisiana and St. Bernard, Louisiana to the list of projects
the Secretary is authorized to study, and, if feasible, carry
out under section 3 of the Act of August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C.
426g).
Sec. 103. Small Navigation Projects
This provision amends section 104 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 (P.L.106-53) by adding Houma Navigation
Channel, Louisiana and Vidalia Port, Louisiana to the list of
small navigation projects the Secretary is authorized to study,
and, if feasible, carry out under section 107 of the River and
Harbor Act of 1960.
Sec. 104. Removal of Snags and Clearing and Straightening of Channels
in Navigable Waters
This provision adds Bayou Manchac, Louisiana, and Black
Bayou and Hippolyte Coulee, Louisiana to the list of projects
the Secretary is authorized to study, and, if feasible, carry
out under section 3 of the Act of March 2, 1945 (33 U.S.C.
604).
Sec. 105. Small Bank Stabilization Projects
This provision amends section 103 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 (P.L.106-53) by adding Bayou Des
Glaises, Louisiana; Bayou Plaquemine, Louisiana; Hammond,
Louisiana; Iberville Parish, Louisiana; Lake Arthur. Louisiana;
Lake Charles, Louisiana; Loggy Bayou, Louisiana; and
Scotlandville Bluff, Louisiana to the list of small bank
stabilization projects the Secretary is authorized to study,
and, if feasible, carry out under section 14 of the Flood
Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r).
Sec. 106. Small Flood Control Projects
This provision amends section 102 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 (P.L.106-53) by adding Weiser River,
Idaho; Bayou Tete L'Ours; Louisiana, Bossier City, Louisiana;
Braithwaite Park, Louisiana; Cane Bend Subdivision, Louisiana;
Crown Point, Louisiana; Donaldsonville Canals, Louisiana; Goose
Bayou, Louisiana; Gumby Dam, Louisiana; Hope Canal, Louisiana;
Jean Lafitte, Louisiana; Lockport to Larose, Louisiana; Lower
Lafitte Basin, Louisiana; Oakville to Lareussite, Louisiana;
Pailet Basin, Louisiana; Pochitolawa Creek, Louisiana;
Rosethorn Basin, Louisiana; Shreveport, Louisiana;
Stephensville, Louisiana; St. John the Baptist Parish,
Louisiana; Magby Creek and Vernon Branch, Mississippi; and
Fritz Landing, Tennessee to the list of small flood control
projects the Secretary is authorized to study, and, if
feasible, carry out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act
of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s)
Sec. 107. Small Projects for the Improvement of the Quality of the
Environment
This provision amends section 105 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 (P.L.106-53) by adding Bayou Sauvage
National Wildlife Refuge, Louisiana; Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway; Bayou Plaquemine, Louisiana; Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway, Miles 220 to 222.5, Louisiana; Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway, Weeks Bay, Louisiana; Lake Fausse Point, Louisiana;
Lake Providence, Louisiana; New River, Louisiana; Erie County,
Ohio; and Mushingum County, Ohio to the list of small projects
of the improvement of the quality of the environment the
Secretary is authorized to study, and, if feasible, carry out
under section 1135(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a(a)).
Sec. 108. Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material
This provision adds Houma Navigation Canal, Louisiana;
Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, Mile -3 to Mile -9, Louisiana;
Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, Mile 11 to Mile 4, Louisiana;
Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana; and Ottawa County, Ohio to the
list of projects the Secretary is authorized to study, and, if
feasible, carry out under section 204 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326).
Sec. 109. Small Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Projects
This provision amends section 106 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 (P.L.106-53) by adding Braud Bayou,
Louisiana; Buras Marina, Louisiana; Comite River, Louisiana;
Department of Energy 21-Inch Pipeline Canal, Louisiana; Lake
Borgne, Louisiana; Lake Martin, Louisiana; Luling, Louisiana;
Mandeville, Louisiana; St. James, Louisiana; Mines Falls Park,
New Hampshire; North Hampton, New Hampshire; Highland County,
Ohio; Hocking County, Ohio; Tuscarawas County, Ohio; Central
Amazon Creek, Oregon; Delta Ponds, Oregon; Eugene Millrace,
Oregon; Medford, Oregon; and Roslyn Lake, Oregon to the list of
projects the Secretary is authorized to study, and, if
feasible, carry out under section 206 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330).
Sec. 110. Flood Mitigation and Riverine Restoration
This provision amends section 212 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 (P.L.106-53) by adding Perry Creek,
Iowa to the list of projects the Secretary is authorized to
study, and if feasible, carry out under the authority provided
by section 212 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
(33 U.S.C. 2322(e)).
Sec. 111. Disposal of Dredged Material on Beaches
This provision amends section 217 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 (P.L.106-53) by adding Fort Canby State
Park, Benson Beach, Washington to the list of projects the
Secretary is authorized to study, and if feasible, carry out
under Section 145 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1976 (33 U.S.C. 426(j)).
Title II--General Provisions
Section 201. Cooperation Agreements with Counties
Section 201 amends the Flood Control Act of 1970 to provide
local entities the same indemnification protections as State
governments.
Section 202. Watershed and River Basin Assessments
This provision amends Section 729 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4164) by enhancing the
ability of the Army Corps to address complex water resource
problems across large geographic areas with multiple
governmental jurisdictions. The watershed and river basin
assessments will be conducted in cooperation with the
Departments of the Interior and Agriculture, the Environmental
Protection Agency, and other agencies such as the Departments
of Commerce and Transportation, and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, as appropriate, and with Tribal, State,
interstate, and local governmental entities.
The assessments will be conducted for a broad variety of
water resources needs, including ecosystem protection and
restoration, flood damage reduction, navigation, watershed
protection, water supply, and drought preparedness. The
assessments will be tailored to the specific situation in a
river basin or watershed. To the extent practicable, the
assessments will consider assessments already conducted by
other Federal, State, and interstate agencies. This provision
does not authorize the implementation of feasibility studies on
specific projects or the projects themselves.
This provision will increase the total authorized
appropriations from $5,000,000 to $15,000,000, and add a non-
Federal cost sharing requirement. The non-Federal share of the
cost of the assessments will be 50 percent. The Secretary is
authorized to accept contributions of services, materials,
supplies and cash from Federal, Tribal, State, interstate, and
local governmental entities where such contributions will help
complete the assessments and meet all or part of the non-
Federal share.
Sec. 203. Tribal Partnership Program
This provision authorizes the Secretary to work with
Federally recognized Tribal governments, including Alaskan
Natives, and other Federal agencies, to plan and determine the
feasibility of water resources development projects, including
projects for flood damage reduction, environmental restoration
and protection, and preservation of cultural and natural
resources. The Secretary shall consider traditional cultural
knowledge and values when formulating project studies and
consider the applicability and value of in-kind contributions.
The Secretary may utilize unique Tribal capabilities.
Projects to be studied will be located primarily within the
boundaries of reservations, or within traditional communities,
or substantially benefit tribal lands or resources, or preserve
cultural values. Studies undertaken under this authority are
subject to normal study cost sharing requirements. The
Secretary shall give priority to studying the project along the
upper Snake River within and adjacent to the Fort Hall Indian
Reservation, Idaho, and the project for the Tribal Reservation
of the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe on Willapa Bay, Washington.
The Secretary shall develop ability-to-pay procedures to
assist the non-Federal interest in funding studies conducted
under this authority. The Secretary should use existing policy
and regulatory flexibility to consider non-economic factors and
unique tribal conditions when making recommendation under this
authority.
The provision authorizes $5,000,000 for fiscal years 2002
through 2006, with a $1,000,000 limit for any tribe.
Sec. 204. Ability to Pay
This provision amends existing ability to pay authority by
adding environmental protection and restoration navigation,
storm damage reduction, shoreline erosion, hurricane protection
and recreation projects to the types of Army Corps projects
which the ability to pay provision applies. Senator Warner
offered an amendment to expand the provision from the proposal
submitted by the Administration to include all these missions
of the Army Corps. The amendment was adopted by unanimous
consent.
Under existing law, the ability to pay procedures are only
authorized for reducing the non-Federal share of the cost of
constructing flood damage reduction and agricultural water
supply projects. The provision further provides assistance to
financially distressed communities by allowing ability to pay
procedures to apply to the non-Federal cost of feasibility
studies for the same types of projects.
Application of the ability to pay procedures to feasibility
studies is needed because many communities do not have the
financial ability to finance studies, let alone projects. The
provision also allows the Secretary to consider additional
criteria to account for the non-Federal sponsor's financial
ability to carry out its cost-sharing responsibilities, or to
account for additional financial assistance that may be
available from other Federal agencies or the State or States in
which the project is located.
The provision directs the Secretary to revise the ability
to pay criteria and procedures not later than 18 months after
the date of enactment.
Sec. 205. Property Protection Program
This provision authorizes the Secretary to carry out a
program to reduce vandalism and destruction of property at Army
Corps projects and allows rewards for information or evidence
leading to the arrest and prosecution of individuals causing
damages. An appropriation of $500,000 annually is authorized
for this program.
Recently, recreation areas, natural resource sites,
cultural/historical property, hydroelectric power plants and
navigation locks and dams have been vandalized routinely, and
the cost of this criminal activity to the taxpayer is great.
For example, during the period 1986 through 1997, recreation
areas sustained losses approximating $12.5 million due to
vandalism, arson, and burglary. This provision is intended to
reduce the potential for property damage from criminal activity
at water resources projects under the jurisdiction of the
Department of the Army.
Sec. 206. National Recreation Reservation Service.
This provision provides the statutory authority for the
Army Corps to jointly fund an Interagency Contract Management
Office for the National Recreation Reservation Service (NRRS)
with the U.S. Forest Service. Section 611 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations Act of 1999 (P.L. 105-277;
112 Stat. 2681-515) provides that no part of any appropriations
shall be available for interagency financing of boards,
commissions, councils, committees, or similar groups which do
not have a prior and specific statutory approval to receive
financial support from more than one agency or instrumentality.
In 1995, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S.
Forest Service began discussions regarding the development of a
reservation service for recreation sites and facilities
operated by each agency. The agencies planned an easy, one-
stop-shopping for the public for reservations to all
participating agencies' recreation opportunities. The Forest
Service advertised, awarded, and is currently administering the
NRRS, a state-of-the-art reservation service for Federal
recreation sites and facilities across the country.
The provision allows the Army Corps to participate on a
day-to-day basis in the management of the reservation service
for the Federal recreation sites and facilities held in the
Army Corps' inventory. It allows the NRRS to become a joint
agency venture receiving policy guidance and input from all
participating agencies. The provision allows the NRRS to
provide the public with a more efficient and user-friendly
system of reserving Federal recreation sites and facilities by
encouraging all agencies, such as the National Park Service and
the Bureau of Land Management, which hold such sites in their
inventory, to participate.
Sec. 207. Operation and Maintenance of Hydroelectric Facilities.
This provision authorizes the Secretary to determine which
maintenance activities at Corps hydroelectric plants can be
most cost effectively maintained by contract employees.
The Army Corps operates and maintains hydroelectric power
plants with a total of nearly 21,000 megawatts of capacity,
making it the largest hydropower owner in the United States.
These large hydroelectric generating facilities require
specially-trained craftsmen for their operation and
maintenance. The skills that are required for the main power
train of these hydroelectric facilities are not generally
available in the private sector. There are, however, auxiliary
support systems that can be maintained more cost efficiently by
the private sector. Such systems include heating, ventilating
and air conditioning, water systems, lighting, low to medium
voltage power distribution, and fish by-pass equipment and
facilities that are similar to those found in non-power
industrial facilities. This provision allows the Secretary to
contract for needed specialized skills for maintenance of
hydroelectric plants.
Sec. 208. Interagency and International Support.
This provision increases the Interagency and International
Support Authorization from $1,000,000 to $2,000,0000. Under
current law, the Secretary is authorized to receive funds to
support Federal agencies or international organizations (after
consultation with the Secretary of State) to address problems
of national significance to the United States, including
problems related to water resources, infrastructure
development, and environmental protection.
Sec. 209. Reburial and Conveyance Authority.
This provision authorizes the Secretary to identify areas
at civil works projects that may be used to reinter Native
American remains that have been discovered on project lands,
and which have been rightfully claimed by a lineal descendant
or an Indian tribe in accordance with applicable Federal law.
The Secretary, in consultation and consent of the lineal
descendant or tribe, is authorized to recover and rebury the
remains at such sites at full Federal expense. This provision
is not intended to affect or limit rights under the Native
American Graves and Repatriation Act.
The Secretary may transfer to the Department of the
Interior the land identified by the Secretary used to reinter
Native American remains to be held in trust for the benefit of
respective Native American tribes. In this case, the Secretary
shall retain any necessary rights-of-way, easements, or other
property interests that is necessary to carry out the
authorized project purpose.
Sec. 210. Approval of Construction of Dams and Dikes.
This provision amends Section 9 of the Act of March 3, 1899
to exempt dams and dikes that do not completely span a waterway
used to transport interstate or foreign commerce from the
requirements of the Act.
Obtaining authorization for dams or dikes under the Act of
March 3, 1899 involves considerable time, effort, and
expenditure of resources by the proponent of the structure, the
Department of the Army, the Corps of Engineers, and either the
U.S. Congress or the appropriate State legislature. The effort
is justified for dams or dikes proposed to span waterways that
are navigable and currently used to transport interstate or
foreign commerce. However, for water bodies that have the legal
status of navigable waters of the United States only because
those water bodies are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide,
or because they were historically navigable, or because they
could be made navigable with reasonable improvements,
authorization of proposed dams or dikes under the Act of March
3, 1899 is neither needed nor practicable. For those categories
of water bodies, authorization of any and all proposed
structures by the Corps of Engineers under 33 USC 403 would be
fully adequate to ensure protection for all aspects of the
public interest, including environmental quality and the
interests of non-commercial (i.e., recreational) navigation.
For many years the Corps of Engineers regulations governing
the regulatory program under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
(including 33 USC Sections 401 and 403) has provided that
authorization under 33 USC 401 was required only for any dike
or dam that `` . . . completely spans a navigable water of the
United States and that may obstruct interstate waterbourne
commerce.'' (33 CFR 321.2(b)) The Corps of Engineers has
interpreted and applied that provision of Army Corps
regulations as requiring authorization under 33 USC 401 for a
proposed dam or dike only if it would completely span a
waterway that currently supports interstate waterborne
commerce. To some degree this provision in Army Corps
regulations was upheld as legally permissible in Hart and
Miller Islands Area Environmental Group v. Corps of Engineers,
621 F.2d. 1281 (4th Cir. 1980). Because of the wording of the
Corps' regulations, the Corps for many years has been requiring
that any dam or dike proposed to be built in any navigable
water of the United States that is not currently used to
transport interstate waterborne commerce would not need
authorization under 33 USC 401, but must receive a permit from
the Corps under 33 USC 403, and under 33 USC 1344 if a
discharge of dredged or fill material would be involved in the
construction of the dam or dike (as is usually the case).
Section 201 will require that every new dam or dike proposed to
be built in any navigable water of the United States that does
not require authorization under 33 USC 401 must receive a
permit from the Corps under 33 USC 403, so that all aspects of
the public interest can be protected in a permit review.
Sec. 211. Project Deauthorization Authority.
This provision amends Section 1001 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986, as amended, which established criteria
for the deauthorization of projects. WRDA 86 also requires a
biennial submission to the Congress of a list of projects, or
separable elements of projects, which have been authorized but
have not met the criteria for continued authorization. Under
current law, an authorized project must receive an obligation
of funds during the 7 full years immediately preceding the
transmittal of the list for it to remain authorized. If no
obligations are made within 30 months after the list is
submitted to Congress, the project is no longer authorized.
Currently, the Army Corps has a substantial backlog of
authorized projects which are not receiving sufficient funding
for construction. This provision establishes a more orderly
deauthorization process, and one that directly relates to
actual conditions that would effect the actual construction of
a project (significant adverse environmental impacts, lack of
local support, no longer economically justified, premature
authorization, lack of funds, etc.).
The provision has two parts. First, if construction of a
water resources development project or separable element is not
initiated within seven years from the date the project or
separable element was last authorized, it will automatically
become deauthorized.
Second, those water resources development projects and any
separable element of such a project, for which funds have once
been obligated for construction, shall be deauthorized if
Congressional identified appropriations have not been obligated
for construction of the project or separable element during any
five consecutive fiscal years. The provisions will not become
effective until three years after the date of enactment. In
each case, the Congress will be notified in advance of the
pending deauthorizations, and a list of all projects or
separable elements proposed for deauthorization would be
published in the Federal Register.
Sec. 212. Flood Plain Management Requirements.
This provision amends Section 402 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986, as it was amended by Section 202(c) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. The provision
strengthens the ability of Army Corps of Engineers to work with
non-Federal interests to reduce the impacts of future flood
damages. The potential for additional flood damages remain even
after the construction of a flood damage reduction project. The
provision makes it clear that the non-Federal interests should
adopt and enforce measures, practices and policies that they
identify in their ``Flood Plain Management Plans.''
This provision also addresses the need to preserve the
level of flood protection initially identified as being
provided by a flood damage reduction project. The Army Corps
should take into account the effects of future development in
the design of the project. Non-Federal interests should be
fully involved in this process and the design should reflect
the effects of non-Federal development and the level of flood
protection identified with the project should remain over its
life.
Since Army Corps projects become local projects once
completed, this provision makes it clear that the ``Flood Plain
Management Plans'' will identify those measures that would be
undertaken by the non-Federal interests to preserve the level
of flood protection. This provision will apply to a project or
separable element for which a project cooperation agreement is
signed after the date of enactment.
Sec. 213. Environmental Dredging.
This provision amends Section 312 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1990 by allowing non-profit entities to
participate in environmental dredging projects, with the
consent of the affected local government. Under current law,
non-profit entities are not eligible to be non-Federal sponsors
for environmental dredging projects.
Sec. 214. Regulatory Analysis and Management Systems Data.
This provision requires the Secretary to publish on the
Army Corps' Regulatory Program website, quarterly reports that
include all Regulatory Analysis and Management Systems (RAMS)
data, including the date on which an individual or nationwide
permit application under Section 404 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act is received, the date on which the
application is considered complete, the date on which the Corps
either grants or denies the permit. Also, if an application is
not complete when first received by the Corps, a description of
the reason the application is not complete should be included
in the RAMS. This provision was an amendment offered by Senator
Inhofe and adopted by unanimous consent.
Sec. 215. Performance of Specialized or Technical Services.
This provision requires that the Chief Executive Officer of
an entity requesting specialized or technical services from the
Army Corps submit to the Secretary a written request describing
the scope of the services to be performed and agreeing to
reimburse the Corps for all costs associated with the
performance of the services and a certification that the
services are not reasonably and quickly available through
ordinary business channels.
Before the Secretary can enter into an agreement to perform
the services, he shall ensure that the requirements of the
request are met and certify that the Army Corps is uniquely
qualified to perform the services. The Secretary shall report
annually to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public
Works and the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure requests submitted for specialized or technical
services section. This provision was an amendment offered by
Senator Thomas and agreed to10-8 in a roll call vote.
Title III--Project-Related Provisions
Sec. 301. Boydsville, Arkansas
This provision amends section 402 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 322) to allow the Secretary
to credit up to $250,000 for work performed by local interests
prior to initiation of a feasibility study if the Secretary
finds that the investigations are integral to the scope of the
study.
Sec. 302. White River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri
This provision modifies section 374 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 322) to extend the
authorization period until 2002 for the Secretary to conduct a
study and provide a report regarding the reallocation of five
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reservoirs to provide for minimum
flows necessary to sustain tailwater trout fisheries.
Sec. 303. Gasparilla and Estero Islands, Florida
This provision amends section 201 of the Flood Control Act
of 1965 (79 Stat.1073) to authorize the Secretary to enter into
an agreement with non-Federal interests to carry out the shore
protection project in accordance with Section 206 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4828) if the
Secretary determines that the project is technically sound,
environmentally acceptable and economically justified.
Sec. 304. Fort Hall Indian Reservation, Idaho
This provision directs the Secretary to carry out planning,
engineering, and design of an adaptive ecosystem restoration,
flood damage reduction, and erosion protection project along
the upper Snake River within and adjacent to Fort Hall Indian
Reservation, Idaho. The Secretary must determine that the
project is a cost-effective means of providing ecosystem
restoration, flood damage reduction, and erosion protection,
and is environmentally acceptable and technically feasible.
Furthermore, the Secretary must determine that the project will
improve the economic and social conditions of the Shoshone-
Bannok Indian Tribe. The Shoshone-Bannok Indian Tribe is
required to provide all land, easements, and rights-of-way
necessary for implementation of the project.
Sec. 305. Upper Des Plaines River and Tributaries, Illinois
This provision amends Section 419 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 324) to allow, subject to
entering into the feasibility cost sharing agreement, the non-
Federal interest to receive credit toward the Federal share of
the project costs for construction work performed by the non-
Federal interest before execution of the project cooperation
agreement if the Secretary finds the work integral to the
project.
Sec. 306. Red River Waterway, Louisiana
This provision amends section 601 (a) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4142) as modified
by section 4(h) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988
(102 Stat. 4016), section 102 (p) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat.4613), and section 301(b)(7)
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3710)
to authorize the Secretary to purchase mitigation land from
willing sellers in the following Louisiana parishes: Avoyelles,
Bossier, Caddo, Grant, Natchitoches, Rapides, and Red River.
Sec. 307. William Jennings Randolph Lake, Maryland
This provision authorizes the Secretary to share in the
cost of designing and constructing recreational facilities in
the State of Maryland at the William Jennings Randolph Lake
(Bloomington Dam), Maryland and West Virginia. The project will
be cost shared 50 percent Federal, 50 percent non-Federal.
Sec. 308. Missouri River Valley , Missouri
This provision provides for the protection, enhancement,
and restoration of fish and wildlife habitat on the Missouri
River. Section 601(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 authorized the Secretary to study the need for additional
measures for mitigation losses of aquatic and terrestrial
habitat. This provision contingently authorizes $20,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2001 through 2010, to carry out the study,
if the study is complete by December 31, 2000. Further, this
provision authorizes the Secretary to conduct a study to
analyze any adverse effects on aquatic and riparian-dependent
fish and wildlife resulting from the operation and maintenance
of the Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir Project in the States
of Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Montana; recommend
measures appropriate to mitigate the adverse effects; and
develop baseline geologic and hydrologic data relating the
aquatic and riparian habitat. This provision also amends
Section 514 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113
Stat. 342) to increase the level of appropriations to
$5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2004.
Sec. 309. New Madrid County, Missouri
The project for navigation is authorized as described in
the Feasibility Report under section 107 of the River and
Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577) to include both phase 1 and
phase 2 of the project if the Secretary finds that the
construction work is integral to phase 2 of the project. The
Secretary is further authorized and directed to provide credit
to local interests for their costs incurred in constructing
phase 1 of the project, if the Secretary finds that the
construction work is integral to phase 2 of the project. The
credit shall not exceed the required non-Federal cost sharing
for the Federal project.
Sec. 310. Pemiscot County Harbor, Missouri
This provision amends section 107 of the River and Harbor
Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577) to allow the Secretary to credit up
to $222,000 for work performed by local interests after
December 1997, if the Secretary finds that the construction
work is integral to the project.
Sec. 311. Pike County, Missouri
This provision authorizes an exchange of land between SSS
Lumber Company, Inc. and the Corps of Engineers. SSS Lumber
will acquire a 9-acre tract it currently leases from the Corps
of Engineers and will convey to the Corps of Engineers a tract
of land approximately the same acreage it plans to acquire from
a private landowner.
Sec. 312. Fort Peck Fish Hatchery, Montana.
This provision authorizes the Secretary to design and
construct a multi-species fish hatchery and associated
facilities at Fort Peck Lake, Montana. The authorized cost of
the fish hatchery is $20,000,000 and will be cost shared 75
percent Federal, 25 percent non-Federal. The costs to the State
of Montana of stocking Fort Peck Lake during the period
beginning January 1, 1947, and the costs to the State of
Montana and the counties surrounding Fort Peck Lake of
construction of local access roads to the lake shall be
credited toward the non-Federal share of the costs of the
project. Although the multi-purpose project at Fort Peck,
Montana, authorized by the first section of the Act of August
30, 1935 (49 Stat. 1034, chapter 831), was intended to include
other activities designed to promote economic benefits, many of
the projects were never completed, to the detriment of the
local communities flooded by the Fort Peck Dam. Building the
fish hatchery will provide one of the initially envisioned
purposes of this project.
Sec. 313. Sagamore Creek, New Hampshire
This provision authorizes the Secretary to carry out
maintenance dredging of the Sagamore Creek Channel in New
Hampshire.
Sec. 314. Passaic River Basin Flood Management, New Jersey
This provision authorizes the Secretary to reevaluate the
Passaic River Mainstem project and consider non-structural
solutions that provide flood protection and protect the
region's environmental resources.
Sec. 315. Rockaway Inlet to Norton Point, New York
This provision amends section 501(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4135) to allow the Secretary
to construct T-groins to improve sand retention downdrift of
the West 37th Street groin in the community of Sea Gate, New
York.
Sec. 316. John Day Pool, Oregon and Washington
This provision extinguishes use restrictions and
reversionary interests on specified properties located on the
John Day Pool.
Sec. 317. Fox Point Hurricane Barrier, Providence, Rhode Island
This provision amends section 352 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 310) to allow the non-
Federal interest credit toward the non-Federal share of project
costs, or reimbursement for the Federal share of the costs of
repairs that were incurred by the non-Federal interest before
the date of the execution of the project cooperation agreement.
Sec. 318. Houston-Galveston
This provision allows for the contingent authorization,
upon a favorable report by the Chief of Engineers by December
31, 2000, of the project for navigation and environmental
restoration, Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels, Texas,
authorized by section 101(a)(30) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3666). The Secretary is
contingently authorized to modify the project to design and
construct barge lanes adjacent to both sides of the Houston
Ship Channel from Redfish Reef to Morgan Point, a distance of
approximately 15 miles, to a depth of 12 feet, at a total cost
of $34,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $30,600,000.
Sec. 319. Joe Pool Lake, Trinity River Basin, Texas
This provision authorizes the Secretary to change by
agreement the non-Federal sponsorship of the recreation program
at Joe Pool Lake. The provision will relieve the current non-
Federal sponsor, Trinity River Authority, of its
responsibilities and obligation of $9,540,000 to the Federal
government, and allow the Secretary to enter into a new
agreement with the city of Grand Prairie, Texas. The city of
Grand Prairie would accept the non-Federal responsibilities of
the recreation program, except the current $14.9 million
obligation. Instead, the city would pay $4.29 million for the
estimated current value of the parklands. This payment would be
paid in two installments. The city would assume all operations
and maintenance responsibilities.
Sec. 320. Lake Champlain Watershed, Vermont and New York
This provision authorizes the Secretary to provide
ecosystem restoration planning, design and construction
assistance to non-Federal interests in the Lake Champlain
watershed. The non-Federal interests will receive credit for
design work completed prior to entering into an agreement with
the Secretary. The Federal share of critical projects may be in
the form of financial assistance for project implementation.
$20,000,000 is authorized to carry out this section.
Sec. 321. Mount St. Helens, Washington
This provision changes the existing project for sediment
control, included in the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1985,
Title I, Chapter IV (P.L.99-88, 99 Stat. 318), authorizing the
Secretary of the Army to maintain the flood protection levels
cited in the October 1985 Report titled, ``Mount St. Helens,
Washington, Decision Document'' for Longview, Kelso, Lexington,
and Castle Rock on the Cowlitz River, Washington.
Sec. 322. Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters Restoration, Washington
This provision authorizes ecosystem studies and restoration
in the Puget Sound and adjacent waters in the State of
Washington to expedite construction of critical restoration
projects by concurrently developing a comprehensive plan,
conducting project implementation studies, and initiating
construction of specific projects. $20,000,000 is authorized to
carry out this section.
Sec. 323. Fox River System, Wisconsin
This provision clarifies that the Federal Government may
make a payment to the State of Wisconsin as part of a transfer
agreement for the navigation portion of the Fox River System.
These funds would be used toward repair and rehabilitation of
the transferred locks and appurtenant features.
Sec. 324. Chesapeake Bay Oyster Restoration
This provision increases the funding for Section 704 (b) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4157),
as amended by Section 505 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3757), from $7,000,000 to $20,000,000.
Sec. 325. Great Lakes Dredging Levels Adjustment
This provision authorizes the Secretary to adjust
maintenance depths in the Great Lakes to adjust for low water
conditions. Dredging depths for operation and maintenance of
authorized projects are measured against a mean low water
level. Lake levels are dropping below these levels resulting in
inadequate depths.
Sec. 326. Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration
This provision authorizes the Secretary to plan, design,
implement and monitor an ecosystem, fishery and beneficial uses
restoration program in the Great Lakes Basin in cooperation
with the States, other Federal agencies and other interests.
The projects would include habitat restoration, removal of
impediments to upstream habitat, and constructing spawning
grounds. $40,000,000 is authorized to carry out this section.
Sec. 327. Great Lakes Remedial Action Plans and Sediment Remediation
This provision amends section 401 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 1268 note; 104 Stat. 4644;
110 Stat. 3763; 113 Stat. 338) to provide for $10 million
annually through 2010 for the development and implementation of
Remedial Action Plans to restore water quality in the Great
Lakes ``Areas of Concern.'' Support under this authority
includes demonstrations of sediment remediation technologies to
States, local governments, and non-profit groups.
Sec. 328. Great Lakes Tributary Model
This provision directs the Secretary to develop models that
will support States and local agencies responsible for soil
conservation and pollution prevention. Sediments and sediment
contaminants hinder navigation and increase maintenance costs
at Federal navigation channels and have impaired water quality
uses at Great Lakes ``Areas of Concern.''
Sec. 329. Treatment of Dredged Material from Long Island Sound
This provision authorizes a demonstration project for the
use of innovative sediment treatment technologies for the
treatment of dredged material from Long Island Sound.
Sec. 330. New England Water Resources and Ecosystem Restoration
This provision authorizes the Secretary to undertake
ecosystem restoration projects in New England, an area defined
as Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
and Connecticut. Initially, an assessment will be conducted to
determine the condition of water resources and related
ecosystems; identify and prioritize the most critical needs;
and develop a framework for regional or watershed management
plans. These management plans will identify projects the Corps
can undertake that will produce independent, immediate, and
substantial restoration, preservation, and protection benefits.
$40,000,000 is authorized to carry out this section.
Sec. 331. Project Deauthorizations
This provision authorizes the Secretary to deauthorize the
following projects:
1) Kennebunk River, Kennebunk and Kennebunkport, Maine. The
Town Manager of Kennebunkport has requested deauthorization to
resolve an encroachment issue. The proposal would deauthorize
an area of the northernmost 6-foot deep anchorage, consisting
of approximately 0.15 acres;
2) Wallabout Channel, Brooklyn, New York . Currently, there
is no commercial vessel trips or commerce reported in the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Waterborne Commerce Statistics. The
proposal would deauthorize a small portion of the existing
Federal channel at the head of the channel; and
3) New York and New Jersey Channels, New York and New
Jersey.
Title IV--Studies
Sec. 401. Baldwin County, Alabama.
This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out beach erosion
control, storm damage reduction, and other measures along the
shores of Baldwin County, Alabama.
Sec. 402. Bono, Arkansas
This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of and need for a reservoir and
associated improvements to provide for flood control,
recreation, water quality, and fish and wildlife habitat in the
vicinity of Bono, Arkansas.
Sec. 403. Cache Creek Basin, California
This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of modifying the Cache Creek Basin,
California flood control project, authorized by section 401(a)
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat.
4112). The original project authorization was to construct
features to mitigate impacts of the project on the storm
drainage system of the City of Woodland, California, that have
been caused by construction of a new south levee of the Cache
Creek Settling Basin. The study shall include consideration of
outlet works through the Yolo Bypass capable of receiving up to
1,600 cubic feet per second of storm drainage from the city of
Woodland and Yolo County; a low-flow cross-channel across the
Yolo Bypass, including all appurtenant features, that is
sufficient to route storm flows of 1,600 cubic feet per second
between the old and new south levees of the Cache Creek
Settling Basin, across the Yolo Bypass and into the Tule Canal;
and such other features as the Secretary determines to be
appropriate.
Sec. 404 Estudillo Canal Watershed, California
This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of constructing flood control
measures in the Estudillo Canal watershed, San Leandro,
California.
Sec. 405. Laguna Creek Watershed, California
This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of construction flood control
measures in the Laguna Creek watershed, Fremont, California, to
provide a 100-year level of flood protection.
Sec. 406. Oceanside, California
This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a special
study, not later than 32 months after the date of enactment of
this Act and at full Federal expense, of plans to mitigate for
the erosion and other impacts resulting from the construction
of Camp Pendleton Harbor, Oceanside, California, as a wartime
measure; and to restore beach conditions along the affected
public and private shores to the conditions that existed before
the construction of Camp Pendleton Harbor. Previous studies
have indicated that Federal navigation structures at Camp
Pendleton, California have obstructed transport of sand to the
beaches downcoast and is the major source of erosion to these
beaches.
Sec. 407. San Jacinto Watershed, California
This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a watershed
study for the San Jacinto watershed, California.
Sec. 408. Choctawhatchee River, Florida
This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the Federal interest in dredging the mouth of the
Choctawhatchee River, Florida, to remove the sand plug.
Sec. 409. Egmont Key, Florida
This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of stabilizing the historic
fortifications and beach areas of Egmont Key, Florida, that are
threatened by erosion.
Sec. 410. Upper Ocklawaha River And Apopka/Palatlakaha River Basins,
Florida
This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a re-study
of flooding and water quality issues in the upper Ocklawaha
River basin, south of the Silver River; and the Apopka River
and Palatlakaha River basins. In carrying out study, the
Secretary shall review the report of the Chief of Engineers on
the Four River Basins, Florida, project, published as House
Document No. 585, 87th Congress, and other pertinent reports to
determine the feasibility of measures relating to comprehensive
watershed planning for water conservation, flood control,
environmental restoration and protection, and other issues
relating to water resources in the river basins.
Sec. 411. Boise River, Idaho
This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out multi-objective flood
control activities along the Boise River, Idaho.
Sec. 412. Wood River, Idaho
This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out multi-objective flood
control and flood mitigation planning projects along the Wood
River in Blaine County, Idaho.
Sec. 413. Chicago, Illinois.
This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for water-
related urban improvements, including infrastructure
development and improvements, in Chicago, Illinois. The
Secretary shall study the USX/Southworks site; Calumet Lake and
River; the Canal Origins Heritage Corridor; and Ping Tom Park.
In carrying out this study, the Secretary shall use available
information from, and consult with, appropriate Federal, State,
and local agencies.
Sec. 414. Boeuf And Black, Louisiana
This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of deepening the navigation channel
of the Atchafalaya River and Bayous Chene, Boeuf and Black,
Louisiana, from 20 feet to 35 feet.
Sec. 415. Port of Iberia, Louisiana
This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of constructing navigation
improvements for ingress and egress between the Port of Iberia,
Louisiana, and the Gulf of Mexico, including channel widening
and deepening.
Sec. 416. South Louisiana.
This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of constructing projects for
hurricane protection in the coastal area of the State of
Louisiana between Morgan City and the Pearl River.
Sec. 417. St. John The Baptist Parish, Louisiana.
This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of constructing urban flood control
measures on the east bank of the Mississippi River in St. John
the Baptist Parish, Louisiana.
Sec. 418. Narraguagus River, Milbridge, Maine.
This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of redesignating as anchorage a
portion of the foot channel of the project for navigation,
Narraguagus River, Milbridge, Maine, authorized by section 101
of the River and Harbor Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1173). The
Secretary also shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of reauthorizing for the purpose of maintenance as
anchorage a portion of the project for navigation, Narraguagus
River, Milbridge, Maine, authorized by section 2 of the Act of
June 14, 1880 (21 Stat. 195, chapter 211), lying adjacent to
and outside the limits of the 11-foot channel and the 9-foot
channel. 5
Sec. 419. Portsmouth Harbor and Piscataqua River, Maine and New
Hampshire
This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of modifying the project for
navigation, Portsmouth Harbor and Piscataqua River, Maine and
New Hampshire, authorized by section 101 of the River and
Harbor Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1173) and modified by section
202(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100
Stat. 4095), to increase the authorized width of turning basins
in the Piscataqua River to 1000 feet.
Sec. 420. Merrimack River Basin, Massachusetts and New Hampshire
This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a
comprehensive study of the water resources needs of the
Merrimack River basin, Massachusetts and New Hampshire, in the
manner described in section 729 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4164). In carrying out this
section, the Secretary may take into consideration any studies
conducted by the University of New Hampshire on environmental
restoration of the Merrimack River System.
Sec. 421. Port of Gulfport, Mississippi.
This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of modifying the project for
navigation, Gulfport Harbor, Mississippi, authorized by section
202(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100
Stat. 4094) and modified by section 4(n) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4017) to: widen the channel
from 300 feet to 450 feet and to deepen the South Harbor
channel from 36 feet to 42 feet and the North Harbor channel
from 32 feet to 36 feet.
Sec. 422. Upland Disposal Sites in New Hampshire
This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a study, in
conjunction with the State of New Hampshire, to identify and
evaluate potential upland disposal sites for dredged material
originating from harbor areas located within the State.
Sec. 423. Missouri River Basin, North Dakota, South Dakota, And
Nebraska
This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of the conveyance to the Secretary of
the Interior of the land, described as follows, to be held in
trust for the benefit of the Three Affiliated Tribes of the
Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota; the Standing Rock
Sioux Tribe of North Dakota and South Dakota; the Crow Creek
Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota; the
Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; and the Santee Sioux Tribe
of Nebraska. The land authorized to be studied for conveyance
is the land that was acquired by the Secretary to carry out the
Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin Program, authorized by section
9 of the Act of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 891, chapter 665);
and is located within the external boundaries of the
reservations of the above named tribes. The study shall be
conducted in cooperation with the Secretary of the Interior,
the State of South Dakota, the State of North Dakota, the State
of Nebraska, county officials, ranchers, sportsmen, other
affected parties, and the above named tribes.
Sec. 424. Cuyahoga River, Ohio
This provision amends Section 438 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3746) to direct the
Secretary to conduct a study to evaluate the structural
integrity of the bulkhead system located on the Federal
navigation channel along the Cuyahoga River near Cleveland,
Ohio and provide to the non-Federal interest design analysis,
plans and specifications, and cost estimates for repair or
replacement of the bulkhead system. The non-Federal share of
the cost of the study shall be 35 percent. There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $500,000.
Sec. 425. Fremont, Ohio.
This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a study, in
consultation with appropriate Federal, State, and local
agencies, to determine the feasibility of carrying out projects
for water supply and environmental restoration at the Ballville
Dam, on the Sandusky River at Fremont, Ohio.
Sec. 426. Grand Lake, Oklahoma
This provision directs the Secretary to evaluate the
backwater effects specifically due to flood control operations
on land around Grand Lake, Oklahoma. Not later than 180 days
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall
submit to Congress a report on whether Federal actions have
been a significant cause of the backwater effects. The
Secretary shall also conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of addressing the backwater effects of the
operation of the Pensacola Dam, Grand/Neosho River basin; and
purchasing easements for any land that has been adversely
affected by backwater flooding in the Grand/Neosho River basin.
If the Secretary determines, in accordance with the evaluation
of the backwater effects, that Federal actions have been a
significant cause of the backwater effects, the Federal share
of the cost of the feasibility study shall be 100 percent.
Sec. 427. Dredged Material Disposal Site, Rhode Island
This provision directs the Secretary to, in consultation
with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
conduct a study to determine the feasibility of designating a
permanent site in the State of Rhode Island for the disposal of
dredged material.
Sec. 428. Chickamauga Lock And Dam, Tennessee
This provision directs the Secretary to use $200,000, from
funds transferred from the Tennessee Valley Authority, to
prepare a report of the Chief of Engineers for a replacement
lock at Chickamauga Lock and Dam, Tennessee. As soon as
practicable after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Tennessee Valley Authority shall transfer the funds for the
report of the Chief of Engineers to the Secretary.
Sec. 429. Germantown, Tennessee
This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
control and related purposes along Miller Farms Ditch, Howard
Road Drainage, and Wolf River Lateral D, Germantown, Tennessee.
The Secretary shall include environmental and water quality
benefits in the justification analysis for the project. The
Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the
costs of the feasibility study the value of the in-kind
services provided by the non-Federal interests relating to the
planning, engineering, and design of the project, whether
carried out before or after execution of the feasibility study
cost-sharing agreement; and the Secretary shall consider the
feasibility study to be conducted as part of the Memphis Metro
Tennessee and Mississippi study authorized by resolution of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, dated March 7,
1996.
Sec. 430. Horn Lake Creek and Tributaries, Tennessee And Mississippi
This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of modifying the project for flood
control, Horn Lake Creek and Tributaries, Tennessee and
Mississippi, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4124), to provide
a high level of urban flood protection to development along
Horn Lake Creek. The study shall include a limited reevaluation
of the project to determine the appropriate design, as desired
by the non-Federal interests.
Sec. 431. Cedar Bayou, Texas
This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of constructing a 12-foot-deep and
125-foot-wide channel from the Houston Ship Channel to Cedar
Bayou, mile marker 11, Texas.
Sec. 432. Houston Ship Channel, Texas
This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of constructing barge lanes adjacent
to both sides of the Houston Ship Channel from Bolivar Roads to
Morgan Point, Texas, to a depth of 12 feet.
Sec. 433. San Antonio Channel, Texas
This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of modifying the project for San
Antonio Channel improvement, Texas, authorized by section 203
of the Flood Control Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 1259), and modified
by section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976
(90 Stat. 2921), to add environmental restoration and
recreation as project purposes.
Sec. 434. White River Watershed Below Mud Mountain Dam, Washington
This provision directs the Secretary to review the report
of the Chief of Engineers on the Upper Puyallup River,
Washington, dated 1936, authorized by section 5 of the Act of
June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1591, chapter 688), the Puget Sound and
adjacent waters report authorized by section 209 of the Flood
Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1197), and other pertinent
reports, to determine whether modifications to the
recommendations contained in the reports are advisable to
provide improvements to the water resources and watershed of
the White River watershed downstream of Mud Mountain Dam,
Washington. In conducting the review, the Secretary shall
review, with respect to the Lake Tapps community and other
parts of the watershed constructed and natural environs;
capital improvements; water resource infrastructure; ecosystem
restoration; flood control; fish passage; collaboration by, and
the interests of, regional stakeholders; recreational and
socioeconomic interests; and other issues determined by the
Secretary.
Sec. 435. Willapa Bay, Washington
This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of providing coastal erosion
protection for the Tribal Reservation of the Shoalwater Bay
Indian Tribe on Willapa Bay, Washington. Notwithstanding any
other provision of law (including any requirement for economic
justification), the Secretary may construct and maintain a
project to provide coastal erosion protection for the Tribal
Reservation of the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe on Willapa Bay,
Washington, at full Federal expense, if the Secretary
determines that the project is a cost-effective means of
providing erosion protection; is environmentally acceptable and
technically feasible; and will improve the economic and social
conditions of the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe. As a condition
of the project, the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe shall provide
land, easements, rights-of-way, and dredged material disposal
areas necessary for the implementation of the project.
Sec. 436. Upper Mississippi River Basin Sediment and Nutrient Study
This provision directs the Secretary to, in conjunction
with the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the
Interior, shall carry out a study to identify and evaluate
significant sources of sediment and nutrients in the upper
Mississippi River basin; quantify the processes affecting
mobilization, transport, and fate of those sediments and
nutrients on land and in water; and quantify the transport of
those sediments and nutrients to the upper Mississippi River
and the tributaries of the upper Mississippi River. In carrying
out the study under this section, the Secretary shall develop
computer models of the upper Mississippi River basin, at the
subwatershed and basin scales, to identify and quantify sources
of sediment and nutrients; and examine the effectiveness of
alternative management measures. The Secretary shall conduct
research to improve the understanding of fate processes and
processes affecting sediment and nutrient transport, with
emphasis on nitrogen and phosphorus cycling and dynamics; the
influences on sediment and nutrient losses of soil type, slope,
climate, vegetation cover, and modifications to the stream
drainage network; and river hydrodynamics, in relation to
sediment and nutrient transformations, retention, and
transport. On request of a relevant Federal agency, the
Secretary may provide information for use in applying sediment
and nutrient reduction programs associated with land-use
improvements and land management practices. Not later than 2
years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary
shall submit to Congress a preliminary report that outlines
work being conducted on the study components. Not later than 5
years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary
shall submit to Congress a report describing the results of the
study under this section, including any findings and
recommendations of the study. There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 2001 through 2005. The Federal share of the cost
of carrying out this section shall be 50 percent.
Title V--Miscellaneous Provisions
Sec. 501. Visitors Centers
This provision authorizes modifications to two visitors
centers authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of
1992 (P.L. 102-580). The first, the John Paul Hammerschmidt
Visitors Center, Arkansas, provides for the authorized center
to be constructed on the property of the City of Fort Smith,
Arkansas. The second, the Lower Mississippi River Museum and
River Front Interpretive Site, Mississippi, provides for the
interpretive site to be constructed at a location between the
Mississippi River Bridge and the waterfront in downtown
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Sec. 502. CALFED Bay-Delta Program Assistance, California
This provision enhances Army Corps participation,
consistent with Title XI of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands
Management Act (P.L.104-333), in planning and management
activities associated with the CALFED Bay-Delta Program
referred to in the California Bay-Delta Environmental
Enhancement and Water Securities Act (division E, P.L.104-208;
100 Stat. 3009-748). The Army Corps typically relies on
project-specific authorizations that may not provide the
flexibility necessary to participate fully in interagency, bay-
wide planning and management activities such as CALFED. This
provision will provide the authority for the Secretary to
request funds for the Army Corps to participate fully in the
CALFED Bay-Delta Program, and to use funds provided by other to
carry out ecosystem restoration projects and activities
associated with the Program. The provision directs the
Secretary to integrate Army Corps activities in the San Joaquin
and Sacramento River basins with the CALFED Policy Group or its
successor.
Sec. 503. Conveyance of Lighthouse, Ontonagon, Michigan
This provision conveys the Ontonagon Lighthouse and
property from Army Corps ownership to the ownership of the
Ontonagon Historical Society. The lighthouse, which is on the
National Registry of Historic Places, is located at the
Ontonagon Harbor Federal Navigation project in Ontonagon,
Michigan and is under the administrative jurisdiction of the
Department of the Army. The Army Corps is no longer interested
in retaining the lighthouse property and has initiated an
excessing action.
Sec. 504. Land Conveyance, Candy Lake, Oklahoma
This provision modifies the conveyance of Army Corps land,
authorized under Section 563(c) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 (P.L.106-53), associated with the Candy
Lake project, Osage County, Oklahoma. The provision alters the
definition of ``previous owner of land'' to include a decedent
of a living or deceased person who conveyed land for use in the
project. The provision also directs the Federal Government to
assume the costs of any Federal activities, under the
authorized Candy Lake land conveyance, carried out for the
purpose of Section 102 of the Nation Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Finally, the provision authorizes the
appropriations of such sums as necessary to carry out the
authorized Candy Lake land conveyance.
Title VI--Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan
introduction
Background
In its natural state, the South Florida ecosystem was once
connected by the flow of water south from Lake Okeechobee
through vast freshwater marshes--known as the Everglades--to
Florida Bay and on to the coral reefs of the Florida Keys. The
Everglades covered approximately 18,000 square miles and were
the heart of a unique and biologically productive region,
supporting vast colonies of wading birds, a mixture of
temperate and tropical plant and animal species, and teeming
coastal fisheries. These superlative natural resources were
nationally recognized with the establishment of Everglades
National Park in 1947. Since that time, the Federal investment
in preserving the Everglades has increased. Other significant
federally designated conservation areas established since 1947
include Big Cypress National Preserve, Biscayne National Park,
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, and 16 National
Wildlife Refuges, including A.R.M. Loxahatchee National
Wildlife Refuge. The State of Florida has actively participated
in this effort and set aside additional lands for conservation
purposes.
In 1948, in response to a series of devastating floods that
occurred in the region, Congress authorized the Central and
Southern Florida (C&SF) Project. The C&SF Project authorized
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) to provide: flood
control; regional water supply for agricultural and urban
areas; prevention of salt water intrusion; water supply to
Everglades National Park; preservation of fish and wildlife;
recreation; and navigation.
Unfortunately, the project has had unintended consequences
on the unique natural environment which constitutes the
Everglades and Florida Bay ecosystems. Water that flowed
unimpeded through the southern half of the State, nearly 1.7
billion gallons of water a day, has been redirected to the
Atlantic Ocean or the Gulf of Mexico, disrupting the natural
sheet flow through the South Florida ecosystem. As a result of
the high volume of discharges of water, coastal estuaries are
in peril, while water needed for the ecosystem and regional
water supplies is wasted. In addition, runoff from cities and
farms has resulted in high levels of phosphorus and other
contaminants polluting the water. The C&SF Project also has
resulted in a 90-95 percent drop in the wading bird population,
and more than 1.5 million acres of land are infested with
invasive exotic plants. The South Florida ecosystem also is
home to 68 threatened or endangered plant and animal species.
The size of the historic Everglades has been reduced by half.
For several decades, this committee and the Congress have
taken steps to address many of the C&SF Project's unintended
harms to the natural system. The Water Resources Development
Act (WRDA) of 1992 authorized a Comprehensive Review Study
(Restudy) of the C&SF Project. The purpose of the Restudy was
to recommend modifications to the C&SF Project to restore the
Everglades and Florida Bay ecosystems while providing for the
other water-related needs of the region.
WRDA `96 provided further direction to the Restudy. It
established the 50/50 cost share between the Federal Government
and the State of Florida for construction of critical
restoration projects; gave credit for lands acquired by the
South Florida Water Management District (the local sponsor);
and established the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task
Force under the chairmanship of the Secretary of the Interior.
The Task Force also includes the Secretaries of Commerce, the
Army, Agriculture, and Transportation; the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Attorney General, a
representative of the Miccosukee and the Seminole tribes, two
representatives of the State of Florida, and a representative
of the South Florida Water Management District. The Task Force
is charged with coordinating the development of policies,
strategies, plans, and activities that address the restoration,
preservation, and protection of the South Florida ecosystem.
Also, WRDA `96 spelled out the restoration activities that
should be included in the Restudy, mainly: the restoration,
preservation and protection of the South Florida ecosystem; the
protection of water quality; and the reduction of the loss of
fresh water from the Everglades, while providing the flood
control and enhancement of water supply objectives served by
the C&SF Project. Furthermore, WRDA `96 mandated that the Army
Corps present this Plan to Congress on July 1, 1999.
A major provision of WRDA `96 provided for ``Critical
Restoration Projects,'' ecosystem projects designated by the
Secretary of the Army, the Task Force, and the local sponsor as
having immediate and substantial restoration, preservation, and
protection benefits. Federal expenditures for the projects were
capped at $25 million per project, with a total of $75 million
authorized for the period between fiscal years 1997 through
1999. WRDA 1999 extended this authorization period through
2003.
The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan
As required by WRDA `96, the Restudy or ``Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan'' (CERP or Plan) was submitted to
Congress on July 1, 1999. The Plan defines the major project
for ecosystem restoration, water supply, and other water-
related purposes, as well as defining a process for
implementation. The keys to restoration include increasing the
amount of water available by providing increased storage
ability and capacity; improving the timing and distribution of
water flows and levels; ensuring the quality of the water that
is directed to the natural system; and restoring the
connectivity of the system that was so severely
compartmentalized by the original project.
The Plan has 68 project components to be implemented over a
35-year period. These components are expected to deliver the
following benefits: improve the functioning of over 2.4 million
acres of the South Florida ecosystem; stabilize Lake Okeechobee
water levels for littoral zone health; improve urban and
agricultural water supply; improve deliveries to Florida Bay,
Biscayne Bay, and other coastal estuaries; and improve regional
water quality conditions, while maintaining the existing levels
of flood protection. In addition, the Plan will eliminate the
damaging freshwater releases to the Caloosahatchee and St.
Lucie estuaries.
A key element of the Plan is adaptive assessment, an
approach to monitoring the progress of the Plan, providing
built-in flexibility, and giving the implementors of the Plan
the opportunity to respond to unforeseen circumstances by
making modifications, as necessary.
Although the Plan contains a number of key components
designed to benefit federally designated areas by improving the
quantity, quality, timing and distribution of water, the Plan
is interconnected, with each project component related to the
other. Further, the Plan is to be implemented using the
principles of adaptive assessment, recognizing that
modifications will be made in the future based upon new
information. Overall, the 68 individual project components of
the Plan, to be implemented over a 35 year period, will improve
the ecologic health and economic sustainability of over 2.4
million acres of the South Florida ecosystem
The Restoring the Everglades, an American Legacy Act
The ``Restoring the Everglades, an American Legacy Act''
(REAL Act) was introduced on June 27, 2000, by Senators Smith,
Voinovich, Baucus, Graham, and Mack. This bill approves the
CERP as a framework and authorizes the first set of projects
and implementation procedures. As such, the REAL Act represents
the first stage of the restoration process.
A project of this size is not without uncertainties. The
REAL Act authorizes four pilot projects to address the
effectiveness of some of the technologies being proposed. In
addition, this bill authorizes an initial ten construction
projects. These projects were carefully selected by the Army
Corps and the South Florida Water Management District and
included in the Plan as the projects that would, once
constructed, have immediate benefits to the natural system.
Almost right away, the Plan begins to restore the natural sheet
flow that years of human interference has interrupted.
S. 2797 authorizes so-called ``programmatic authority'' so
that the Army Corps and the non-Federal sponsor can move
forward with critical projects that will have immediate,
independent, and substantial benefits to the natural system.
Together, these components represent the first phase. The
remaining projects will be submitted to Congress for
authorization biennially, as part of future WRDAs.
One of the key components of the CERP is the inherent
flexibility provided by adaptive assessment. Under the adaptive
assessment approach, the Plan can be modified, based on any new
and improved information or modeling. With a project of this
size and duration, it is inevitable that new technologies will
emerge, modeling systems will be perfected, and monitoring of
the ecosystem will continue to provide up-to-the-minute data on
the effectiveness of project components. It is important that
these factors be incorporated into the Plan, when the new and
improved information will enhance the restoration effort.
The REAL Act also contains a carefully balanced assurances
provision that provides the mechanism to ensure that project
benefits for the natural system are attained. The United States
and the State of Florida will enter into an up-front, binding
agreement that will ensure that water generated by the Plan
will be available for the natural system. Furthermore, the
Secretary of the Army, in concurrence with the Governor of the
State of Florida and the Secretary of the Interior will
promulgate programmatic regulations which will establish a
process to ensure that the goals and purposes of the Plan are
achieved.
The total estimated cost of construction, including real
estate costs, for the Plan is $7.8 billion dollars over the 35-
year implementation period, shared 50/50 between the Federal
government and the State of Florida. The State of Florida
recently passed legislation that will enable them to pay for
and carry out their share of the responsibilities over the next
10 years. The average Federal cost is $200 million a year over
the next 20 years. Annual operation and maintenance costs,
which are also split 50/50, are estimated to be $172 million
once all project components are complete.
Restoration benefits not only Floridians, but the millions
of people who visit Florida each year to behold this unique
ecosystem. The committee views this effort to restore the
Everglades ecosystem as our legacy to future generations.
Section-by-Section Summary
Section. 1. Short Title
This section designates the title of the bill as the
``Restoring the Everglades, an American Legacy Act.''
Sec. 2. Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan
(a). Definitions
Summary
Subsections (a)(1) through (7) provide definitions for
terms specific to the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
Plan.
Subsection (a)(1) defines the ``Central and Southern
Florida Project'' as the Central and Southern Florida project
authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 and
any subsequent amendments made to that section.
Subsection (a)(2) defines the term ``Governor'' as the
Governor of the State of Florida.
Subsection (a)(3) defines the term ``natural system'' as
including all the lands and water managed by the Federal
Government or the State within the boundary of the South
Florida Water Management District including, but not limited
to, the water conservation areas, sovereign submerged lands,
Everglades National Parks, Biscayne National Park, Big Cypress
National Preserve, coral reefs, State and Federal lands that
are designated for conservation purposes, and any tribal lands
that the tribes designate for conservation purposes.
Subsection (a)(4), defines the term ``Plan'' as the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan contained in the
``Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement,'' dated April 1, 1999, as
modified by this bill. This definition does not include the
final report of the Chief of Engineers on the C&SF Project
Comprehensive Review Study dated June 22, 1999.
Subsection (a)(5) defines the Secretary as the Secretary of
the Army.
Subsection (a)(6) defines the term ``South Florida
ecosystem'' as the land and water within the boundary of the
South Florida Water Management District in effect on July 1,
1999. Included within the boundary is the Everglades, the
Florida Keys and the contiguous near-shore coastal water of
South Florida. The committee does not intend for the contents
of section (a)(6)(B) to exclude other areas that meet the
criteria of subsection (a)(6)(A) from the definition of the
South Florida ecosystem.
Subsection (a)(7) defines the term ``State'' as the State
of Florida.
(b). Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan
Summary
Subsection (b)(1)(A) approves the Plan, except as modified
by this bill, as a framework for modifications and operational
changes to the C&SF Project that are needed to restore,
preserve, and protect the South Florida ecosystem; provide for
the protection of water quality in, and the reduction of the
loss of fresh water from, the Everglades; provide for the
water-related needs of the region, including flood control, the
enhancement of water supplies, and other objectives served by
the C&SF Project.
Subsection (b)(1)(B) directs the Secretary to integrate the
activities described in subparagraph (A) with ongoing Federal
and State projects and activities in accordance with section
528(c) of WRDA `96 (110 Stat. 3769).
Subsection (b)(2)(A) requires the Secretary of the Army to
take into consideration State water quality standards, and
include whatever features the Secretary believes are necessary
to ensure that the ten projects and the four pilot projects
authorized in this bill meet all relevant water quality
standards.
Subsection (b)(2)(B) authorizes the Secretary of the Army
to construct four pilot projects at a total cost of
$69,000,000, with a Federal cost of $34,500,000. In addition,
the Secretary of the Army is required to provide an opportunity
for the public to review and comment on each project in
accordance with Federal law.
Subsection (b)(2)(B)(i) authorizes the Caloosahatchee River
(C-43) Basin Aquifer Storage and Recovery pilot project, at a
total cost of $6,000,000, with a Federal cost of $3,000,000.
Subsection (b)(2)(B)(ii) authorizes the Lake Belt In-Ground
Reservoir Technology pilot project, at a total cost of
$23,000,000, with a Federal cost of $11,500,000.
Subsection (b)(2)(B)(iii) authorizes the L-31 Seepage
Management pilot project, at a total cost of $10,000,000, with
a Federal cost of $5,000,000.
Subsection (b)(2)(B)(iv) authorizes the Wastewater Reuse
Technology pilot project, at a total cost of $30,000,000, with
a Federal cost of $15,000,000.
Subsection (b)(2)(C) authorizes the Secretary of the Army
to construct ten initial projects, subject to a favorable Chief
of Engineers report and approval by resolution of the Committee
on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives, at a total cost of $1,100,918,000, with a
Federal cost of $550,459,000.
Subsection (b)(2)(C)(i) authorizes construction of the C-44
Basin Storage Reservoir, at a total cost of $112,562,000, with
a Federal cost $56,281,000.
Subsection (b)(2)(C)(ii) authorizes construction of the
Everglades Agricultural Area Storage Reservoirs, at a total
cost of $233,408,000, with a Federal cost of $116,704,000.
Subsection (b)(2)(C)(iii) authorizes the construction of
the Site 1 Impoundment, at a total cost of $38,535,000, with a
Federal cost $19,267,500.
Subsection (b)(2)(C)(iv) authorizes the construction of
Water Conservation Areas 3A/3B Levee Seepage Management, at a
total cost of $100,335,000, with a Federal cost of $50,167,500.
Subsection (b)(2)(C)(v) authorizes the construction of the
C-11 Impoundment and Stormwater Treatment Area, at a total cost
of $124,837,000, with a Federal cost of $62,418,500.
Subsection (b)(2)(C)(vi) authorizes the construction of the
C-9 Impoundment and Stormwater Treatment Area, at a total cost
of $89,146,000, with a Federal cost of $44,573,000.
Subsection (b)(2)(C)(vii) authorizes the construction of
the Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough Storage and Treatment Area, at a
total cost of $104,027,000, with a Federal cost $52,013,500.
Subsection (b)(2)(C)(viii) authorizes construction to raise
and bridge the east portion of the Tamiami Trail and fill the
Miami Canal within Water Conservation Area 3, at a total cost
of $26,946,000, with a Federal cost of $13,473,000.
Subsection (b)(2)(C)(ix) authorizes the construction of the
North New River Improvements, at a total cost of $77,087,000,
with a Federal cost of $38,543,500.
Subsection (b)(2)(C)(x) authorizes the construction of the
C-111 Spreader Canal, at a total cost of $94,035,000, with a
Federal cost of $47,017,500.
Subsection (b)(2)(C)(xi) authorizes a ten-year Adaptive
Assessment and Monitoring program, at a total cost of
$100,000,000, with a Federal cost $50,000,000.
Subsection (b)(2)(D)(i) requires that before implementation
of a project described in clauses (i) through (x) of
subparagraph (C), the Secretary shall review and approve for
the project a project implementation report prepared in
accordance with subsections (f) and (h).
Subsection (b)(2)(D)(ii) requires the Secretary to submit
to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and
Public Works of the Senate the project implementation report
required by subsections (f) and (h) for each project under this
paragraph (including all relevant data and information on all
costs).
Subsection (b)(2)(D)(iii) directs that no appropriation
shall be made to construct any project under this paragraph if
the project implementation report for the project has not been
approved by resolutions adopted by the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public
Works of the Senate.
Subsection (b)(2)(D)(iv) directs that no appropriation
shall be made to construct the Water Conservation Area 3
Decompartmentalization and Sheetflow Enhancement Project or the
Central Lakebelt Storage Project until the completion of the
project to improve water deliveries to Everglades National Park
authorized by section 104 of the Everglades National Park
Protection and Expansion Act of 1989 (16 U.S.C. 410r-8).
Subsection (b)(2)(E) restates that Section 902 of WRDA `86
(33 U.S.C. 2280) shall apply to each project feature authorized
under this subsection.
Discussion
This subsection approves the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan, as modified by this bill, as a framework to
make changes to the C&SF Project. Changes to the project are
intended to restore the South Florida ecosystem, and in
particular the Everglades, by improving water quality and
reducing the amount of fresh water lost from within the system.
In addition, the project modifications are intended to provide
for the water related needs of the region. The water related
needs of the region are defined to include providing flood
control and enhancing water supplies. In undertaking these
activities, the Secretary must integrate them with ongoing
Federal and State projects and activities in accordance with
section 528(c) of WRDA `96 (110 Stat. 3769).
The Plan contains a general outline of the quantities of
water to be produced by each project. According to the Army
Corps, 80 percent of the water generated by the Plan is needed
for the natural system in order to attain restoration goals,
and 20 percent of the water generated for use in the human
environment. The committee recognizes the levels of uncertainty
involved in the Plan and fully intends for the adaptive
assessment and monitoring process to account for such as the
Plan is executed. Subject to future authorizations by Congress,
the committee fully expects that the water necessary for
restoration, currently estimated at 80 percent of the water
generated by the Plan, will be reserved or allocated for the
benefit of the natural system.
Endorsement of the Plan as a restoration framework is not
intended as an artificial constraint on innovation in its
implementation. The committee does not expect rigid adherence
to the Plan as it was submitted to Congress. This result would
be inconsistent with the adaptive assessment principles in the
Plan. Restoration of the Everglades is the goal, not adherence
to the modeling on which the April, 1999 Plan was based.
Instead, the committee expects that the agencies responsible
for project implementation report formulation and Plan
implementation will seek continuous improvement of the Plan
based upon new information, improved modeling, new technology
and changed circumstances. Further, the committee expects that
the implementing agencies will make every effort to accelerate
the delivery of Plan benefits to the natural system to the
extent practicable. It is estimated that 3 to 5 acres of land
in the South Florida ecosystem are lost per day under current
conditions. Time is of the essence in this restoration effort.
In implementing the Plan, the Secretary of the Army is
required to take into consideration State water quality
standards, and include such features the Secretary determines
are necessary to ensure that all ground water and surface water
discharges from any project feature authorized in this bill
meet all applicable water quality standards and applicable
permitting requirements.
The pilot projects. There are six pilot projects described
in the Plan, two of which were authorized in WRDA `99 and four
which are authorized in this bill. The pilot projects are
necessary to address uncertainties associated with some of the
physical features that are proposed in the Plan. These pilot
projects include aquifer storage and recovery in the
Caloosahatchee River Basin; in-ground reservoir technology in
the Lake Belt region of Miami-Dade County; levee seepage
management technology adjacent to Everglades National Park; and
advanced wastewater reuse technology to determine the
feasibility of reusing wastewater for ecological restoration.
The authorized funding level for the design, construction, and
monitoring of the pilot projects is $69,000,000, to be equally
cost shared between the Federal Government and the State of
Florida. The Plan's concept of adaptive assessment allows for
future changes to be made in the Plan. This includes
consideration of the results of the pilot projects. The
committee directs the Army Corps to ensure that the overall
benefits described in the Plan are maintained and any necessary
changes incorporated in the event any pilot project
demonstrates technical infeasibility.
Three aquifer storage and recovery pilot projects were
proposed in the Plan, and one of those aquifer storage and
recovery pilots, the Caloosahatchee River (C-43) Basin Aquifer
Storage and Recovery, is included in this bill. This pilot
project and the two aquifer storage and recovery projects
authorized in WRDA `99 are necessary to identify the most
suitable sites for the aquifer storage and recovery wells, and
determine the water quality necessary for injections into the
well and the water quality of the receiving aquifer. In
addition, the pilot projects will provide information on the
hydrogeological and geotechnical characteristics of the upper
Floridian Aquifer System within the regions, and the ability of
the upper Floridian Aquifer System to store injected water for
future recovery. The Army Corps expects to design the
Caloosahatchee project between November 2000 and October 2001,
construct the project between October 2001 through October
2002, and monitor the results between October 2002 through
October 2005.
The second pilot project authorized by this bill is the
Lake Belt In-Ground Reservoir Technology project. This project
utilizes areas to store water where lime rock mining has
occurred. The pilot project is necessary in order to assure
that the mine retains water and also includes subterranean
seepage barriers around the perimeter in order to enable
drawdown during dry periods, prevent seepage losses, and
protect water quality. The Army Corps expects to complete
design in June 2001, will construct the project between June
2001 through December 2005, and will monitor the results
between December 2005 through December 2011.
The third pilot project authorized by this bill is the L-31
Seepage Management project. The purpose of this project is to
investigate seepage management technologies to control seepage
from Everglades National Park. Hydrologic modeling performed by
the Army Corps have shown that controlling seepage from the
Everglades results in desirable hydrologic conditions. However,
the proposed technologies could have unintended results
elsewhere. The pilot project will provide the necessary
information to determine the appropriate amount of wet season
groundwater flow to return to Everglades National Park while
minimizing potential impacts to Miami-Dade County's West
Wellfield and freshwater flows to Biscayne Bay. The Army Corps
of Engineers expects to design the project between November
2000 and October 2001, construct the project between October
2001 through October 2002, and monitor the results between
October 2000 through October 2003.
The fourth pilot project authorized by this bill is the
Wastewater Reuse Technology project. This pilot project will
address water quality issues associated with discharging
reclaimed water into natural areas such as West Palm Beach's
Catchment Area, Biscayne National Park, and the Bird Drive
Basin, as well as determining the level of superior treatment
and the appropriate methodologies for that treatment. After
treatment to remove nitrogen and phosphorus, the water will be
used to restore 1,500 acres of wetlands and to recharge
wetlands surrounding the City of West Palm Beach's wellfield. A
portion of the treated water will be used to recharge a
residential lake system surrounding the City's wellfield and a
Palm Beach County wellfield. In addition, this project will
reduce the City's dependence on surface water from Lake
Okeechobee during dry or drought events, and create or restore
approximately 2,000 acres of wetlands. The Army Corps expects
to complete design in September 2003, will construct the
project between September 2003 through September 2005, and will
monitor the result between September 2003 through December
2007.
The ten initial construction projects. This subsection also
authorizes the Secretary of the Army to construct ten initial
projects. These projects were carefully chosen by the Army
Corps and the South Florida Water Management District because
they were viewed as the projects that would provide the most
immediate system-wide improvements in water quantity, quality
and flow distribution. Prior to beginning construction on the
ten initial projects, the Secretary of the Army must approve
the project implementation report in accordance with the
requirements of this bill, and submit the reports to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works in the Senate and the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in the House of
Representatives. Funding cannot be appropriated for
construction of the ten initial projects until the Committee on
Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives approve the project implementation report for a
project by resolution. In order to ensure against cost
overruns, if the cost of constructing the projects exceeds 20
percent of the authorized amount, after allowance for inflation
as measured by appropriate cost indexes, the Army Corps must
seek from Congress an authorization for the additional amount
required.
The C-44 Basin Storage Reservoir project is a 40,000 acre-
feet water storage reservoir. This component will provide
significant regional water quality benefits though the
reduction of nutrients entering the St. Lucie River and the
Indian River Lagoon by reducing damaging water releases from
Lake Okeechobee. In addition, this project will moderate
damaging releases to the St. Lucie estuary from Lake Okeechobee
and the surrounding basin.
The Everglades Agricultural Area Storage Reservoir project
will result in approximately 300,000 acre-feet of water storage
and will improve the timing of the environmental water releases
to the Water Conservation Areas, reduce damaging freshwater
releases to the estuaries, and meet supplemental water supply
for agricultural demands in the Everglades Agricultural Area
(EAA). Phase I of the project included in the initial
authorization will further enhance the performance of
Stormwater Treatment Areas 3 and 4, thereby improving the
overall water quality of EAA water releases into the
Everglades. Lands for the construction of this component have
been acquired by the South Florida Water Management District
through the purchase and exchange of the Talisman Sugar
Corporation properties through funds provided by the Department
of the Interior.
The Army Corps should maximize use of the lands acquired
through the Talisman purchase and exchange, as well as other
EAA lands held by the non-Federal sponsor, in the design and
construction of Phase 1 of this project feature. Further, the
Corps should seek to take full advantage of the Talisman lands
by maximizing the depth of water stored in the Talisman Water
Storage Reservoir. The lands are presently leased for
agricultural production, which is a sound land management
practice that should last only until the lands are needed for
restoration. As such, the Army Corps and the non-Federal
sponsor are expected to provide the necessary notification to
the lessors so the acquired lands can be used for Everglades
restoration purposes as promptly as possible, consistent with
the anticipated expiration dates in 2005 and 2007 of the
current leases. It is expected that the lands will be needed in
2005 as required by the Plan. As a result, the Corps of
Engineers will be required to notify the lessees by October 1,
2002, if the lands are to be used for restoration beginning in
2005.
The Site 1 Impoundment project consists of a 15,000 acre-
feet water storage reservoir. This reservoir will be located
adjacent to Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge and will
capture water, currently sent to tide, to supplement water
deliveries to the Hillsboro Canal during dry periods, thereby
reducing water demands on Lake Okeechobee and Loxahatchee
National Wildlife Refuge. Much of the land that is required for
this feature has already been acquired by the South Florida
Water Management District.
The Water Conservation Areas 3A/3B levee Seepage Management
project will control seepage from Water Conservation Areas 3A
and 3B by improving groundwater elevations, and will provide
flood protection for the C-11 Basin.
The C-11 Impoundment and Stormwater Treatment Area project
consists of a 6,400 acre-feet impoundment and stormwater
treatment area, located in western Broward County. This project
will divert and treat runoff from the western C-11 Basin that
is currently discharged into Water Conservation Areas 3A and
3B. After treatment, the water will then supply either Water
Conservation Area 3A, the C-9 Stormwater Treatment Area, or the
North Lake Belt Storage Area. This project is necessary because
the original C&SF Project design provides that the Western C-11
Basin drainage be pumped into Water Conservation Area 3. Once
completed, this project will provide the necessary facilities
to maintain flood protection within the Basin, while reducing
flows through the S-9 pump station to Water Conservation Area
3.
The C-9 Impoundment and Stormwater Treatment Area project
consists of a 10,000 acre-feet impoundment and stormwater
treatment area to enhance groundwater recharge in the western
C-9 Basin in Broward County, provide seepage control for Water
Conservation Area 3 and buffer areas to the west, provide flood
protection, and provide treatment of runoff in the North Lake
Belt Storage Area.
The Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough Storage and Treatment Area
project consists of a 50,000 acre-feet water storage reservoir
and 20,000 acre-feet stormwater treatment area that will allow
flows to Lake Okeechobee to be attenuated when lake levels are
high or rising, and improve water quality treatment flows from
Taylor Creek and Nubbin Slough basin, which currently
contribute to the highest phosphorus inflow concentrations to
Lake Okeechobee.
The project to raise and bridge the east portion of the of
the Tamiami Trail and fill the Miami Canal within Water
Conservation Area 3 consists of modifying or removing water
control structures in Water Conservation Areas 3A and 3B to
enhance sheetflow within the remaining natural system areas
within the Everglades, thereby reestablishing the ecological
and hydrological connections between Water Conservation Areas
3A and 3B, Everglades National Park and Big Cypress National
Preserve. The first phase of enhancing sheetflow necessitates
elevating eastern portions of Tamiami Trail and backfilling
portions of the Miami Canal within Water Conservation Area 3.
The project to construct the North New River Improvements
will improve the North New River Canal and southern conveyance
system in order to handle increased water flows resulting from
the backfilling of the Miami Canal within Water Conservation
Area 3 to allow for continued water supply deliveries to Miami-
Dade County.
The C-111 Spreader Canal project will improve water
deliveries and enhance the connectivity and sheetflow in the
Model Lands and Southern Glades areas, reduce wet season flows
in C-111 and decrease potential flood risk in the lower south
Miami-Dade County area. Existing C-111 Project design features
are enhanced through the construction of a stormwater treatment
area, enlarging the S-332E pump station, and extending the
canal under U.S. Highway 1 and Card Sound Road into the Model
Lands. This feature also results in filling the Southern
portion of the C-111 Canal and removal of S-18C and S-197
structures.
Adaptive Assessment and Monitoring. The Adaptive Assessment
and Monitoring program provides an organized process for
adapting the Plan as new information becomes available,
ensuring that long-term implementation of the Plan delivers the
benefits intended. In addition to the inevitable uncertainties,
natural and human systems will at times respond in ways that
are not anticipated or predicted by any existing hypothesis.
Adaptive assessment should moderate these responses by
providing an in-place process for early detection and
interpretation of the unexpected.
Conditions. Prior to implementation of any of the ten
initial construction projects authorized in this bill, the
Secretary shall review and approve for the project a project
implementation report, prepared in accordance with subsections
(f) and (h). This project implementation report is to be
submitted to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Environment and Public Works of the Senate for approval by
committee resolution. No appropriation shall be made to
construct any of the ten initial projects authorized in this
bill until the project implementation report for the project is
approved.
Modified Water Deliveries Project. The Modified Water
Deliveries to Everglades National Park Project, authorized by
section 104 of the Everglades National Park Protection and
Expansion Act of 1989, is an important element in Everglades
restoration since it provides for increased and more natural
water deliveries to Everglades National Park through the Shark
River Slough. Completion of the project will enhance the
recovery of the endangered Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow and
environmental restoration north of Everglades National Park.
The completion of the Modified Water Deliveries project has
been delayed because of controversy over flood mitigation to
the adjacent 8.5 square mile area. The committee is encouraged
by recent progress in reaching a resolution of the issues on
the project, and urges the Secretary of the Interior, Secretary
of Army, South Florida Water Management District and the
Governor of Florida to continue to cooperate in implementing
this critical project as soon as possible. To emphasize the
committee's concern, the bill includes a provision to preclude
construction appropriations for projects in the Plan that are
dependent on the completion of the Modified Water Deliveries
Project, specifically the Water Conservation Area 3
Decompartmentalization and Sheetflow Enhancement Project and
the Central Lakebelt Storage Project, until completion of the
Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park Project.
(c) Additional Program Authority
Summary
Subsection (c)(1) authorizes the Secretary to expedite the
implementation of modifications to the C&SF Project that are
described in and consistent with the Plan and that will produce
independent and substantial benefits to the restoration,
preservation and protection of the South Florida ecosystem.
Subsection (c)(2) requires that before implementation of
any project feature authorized by this subsection, the
Secretary shall review and approve for the project feature a
project implementation report, prepared in accordance with
subsections (f) and (h).
Subsection (c)(3) caps the total Federal cost of each
project carried out under this subsection at $12,500,000, with
the overall project cost not to exceed $25,000,000. The total
Federal cost of all projects carried out under this subsection
shall not exceed $206,000,000.
Discussion
WRDA `96 authorized Everglades Ecosystem Restoration
Projects, or ``critical projects,'' as they are more commonly
known. These projects are defined as those which would produce
independent and substantial benefits to the restoration,
preservation and protection of the South Florida ecosystem. A
programmatic authority is included in subsection (c), which
provides an authority similar to the ``critical projects''
authorized in section 528(b)(3) of WRDA `96. Prior to
implementation, the Secretary must review and approve a project
implementation report for each project, which must be
consistent with subsections (f) and (h). The total Federal cost
for each project shall not exceed $12,500,000 and the aggregate
Federal costs of all projects authorized under this authority
shall not exceed $206,000,000. There are 21 such projects in
the Plan that meet the criteria set forth in this bill.
(d). Authorization of Future Projects
Summary
Subsection (d)(1) directs that each project except those
projects authorized by subsections (b) and (c) require a
specific authorization of Congress.
Subsection (d)(2) requires that before seeking
Congressional authorization for a project under paragraph (1),
the Secretary shall submit to Congress a description of the
project and a project implementation report prepared in
accordance with subsections (f) and (h).
Discussion
This subsection provides the mechanism by which future
projects are authorized. The recommended components of the Plan
that are not authorized by this bill or eligible under the
program authority subsection require a specific authorization
by Congress. These future projects are expected to be
authorized for construction in subsequent WRDAs.
Prior to the authorization of any project not authorized in
subsections (b) or (c) of this bill, the Secretary must
transmit a project implementation report to Congress. This
allows the Secretary to complete the additional studies
necessary to propose future authorizations to the Congress for
the elements of the Plan not authorized in subsections (b) and
(c), as well as studies related to the improvement of the
performance of the features of the Plan. Such future
authorizations shall be consistent with subsections (f) and (h)
of this bill.
(e). Cost Sharing
Summary
Subsection (e)(1) directs the Federal share of the cost of
implementing the projects authorized in subsections (b), (c),
and (d) to be 50 percent.
Subsection (e)(2) directs the non-Federal sponsor to be
responsible for the acquisition of all lands, easements and
rights-of-way, and relocations, and provides credit for such
acquisitions toward the non-Federal share regardless of the
date of acquisition.
Subsection (e)(3)(A) provides that the non-Federal sponsor
may accept Federal funding for the purchase of any necessary
land, easement, right-of-way, or relocation, provided that the
funds are credited toward the Federal share of the cost of the
project.
Subsection (e)(3)(B) provides that funds appropriated to
the non-Federal sponsor under U.S. Department of Agriculture
programs may be credited toward the non-Federal share of the
cost of the Plan, if the Secretary of Agriculture certifies
that the funds provided may be used for that purpose.
Subsection (e)(4) directs that, notwithstanding section
528(e)(3) of WRDA `96 (110 Stat. 3770), the cost share for
operations and maintenance will be split 50/50 between the
Federal and non-Federal sponsor.
Subsection (e)(5)(A) authorizes the Army Corps to provide
credit to the non-Federal sponsor, regardless of the date of
acquisition, for the value of lands or interests in lands and
incidental costs for land acquired by the non-Federal sponsor
in accordance with a project implementation report.
Subsection (e)(5)(B) authorizes the Army Corps to provide
credit to the non-Federal sponsor for work performed on
implementation of the Plan, if the credit is provided for work
completed during the applicable period of the project, as
defined in the respective agreement between the Secretary and
the non-Federal sponsor for that stage of the project. The
Secretary must also make a determination that the work is
integral to the project.
Subsection (e)(5)(C) authorizes credit to be carried over
between authorized projects.
Subsection (e)(5)(D) directs periodic monitoring at both
the preconstruction engineering and design phase and the
construction phase to ensure that the non-Federal sponsor's
contributions comprise the appropriate percentage share for the
cost of projects in the Plan.
Discussion
Responsibilities for implementing the Plan will be shared
50/50 by the Army Corps and the South Florida Water Management
District. As is standard with Army Corps projects, the non-
Federal sponsor is responsible for all land, easements, rights-
of-way, and relocations necessary to implement the Plan. The
non-Federal sponsor will be afforded credit for providing these
lands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations. The non-
Federal sponsor may use Federal funds for the purchase of such
lands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations necessary to
carry out the project, so long as those funds are credited
toward the Federal share of the cost of the project. The
exception is that funds provided to the non-Federal sponsor by
the U.S. Department of Agriculture shall be credited toward the
non-Federal share of the cost of the Plan, if the Secretary of
Agriculture certifies that the funds provided may be used for
that purpose.
The majority of the Plan's projects accomplish restoration
of the South Florida ecosystem and directly benefit Everglades
National Park, Biscayne National Park, Big Cypress National
Preserve, and Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge. Therefore,
notwithstanding Section 528 (e)(3) of WRDA `96, the cost of
operating and maintaining the projects in the Plan will also be
shared equally between the Federal and non-Federal sponsors.
While the committee supports the traditional non-Federal
operation and maintenance responsibility, the unique nature of
this project and the Federal benefits from the restoration Plan
warrants the sharing of operation and maintenance costs.
Approximately half the lands that comprise the natural system
in the South Florida ecosystem are Federally-managed lands, and
these Federal lands will realize substantial benefits through
the implementation of the CERP.
Notwithstanding section 528(e)(4) of WRDA `96 (110 Stat.
3770) and regardless of the date of acquisition, the value of
lands or interest in lands and incidental costs for land
acquired by the non-Federal sponsor in accordance with a
project implementation report for any project included in the
Plan and authorized by Congress shall be included in the total
cost of the project and credited toward the non-Federal share
of the cost of the project.
The Secretary may also provide credit, including in-kind
credit, toward the non-Federal share for the reasonable cost of
any work performed in connection with a study, preconstruction
engineering and design, or construction that is necessary for
the implementation of the Plan. The credit is conditioned upon:
the work being completed during the period of design, as
defined in a design agreement between the Secretary and the
non-Federal sponsor; the credit being provided for work
completed during the period of construction, as defined in a
project cooperation agreement between the Secretary and the
non-Federal sponsor; the design agreement or project
cooperation agreement prescribing the terms and condition of
the credit; and the Secretary determining that the work
performed by the non-Federal sponsor is integral to the
project.
Any credit provided may be carried over to another
authorized project, in accordance with the periodic monitoring
performed by the Secretary. The periodic monitoring, which
shall be assessed for each project on a 5-year basis, will
ensure that the contributions of the non-Federal sponsor equal
a 50 percent proportionate share for projects in the Plan. The
Secretary will monitor the preconstruction engineering and
design phase and the construction phase separately. Credit or
work provided shall be subject to audit by the Secretary.
(f). Evaluation of Projects
Summary
Subsection (f)(1) requires that prior to implementing any
project authorized in subsections (c) and (d) or any of the
clauses (i) through (x) of subsection (b)(2)(C), the Secretary,
in cooperation with the non-Federal sponsor and after notice
and opportunity for public comment, shall complete a project
implementation report for each project to address its cost-
effectiveness, engineering feasibility, and potential
environmental impacts. This section requires that the project
implementation report for each project be consistent with
subsection (h).
Subsection (f)(2)(A) states that in carrying out any
activity authorized under this section or any other provision
of law to restore, preserve or protect the South Florida
ecosystem, the Secretary may determine that the activity is
justified by the environmental benefits derived by the South
Florida ecosystem and no further economic justification for the
activity is required, if the Secretary determines the activity
is cost effective.
Subsection (f)(2)(B) provides that (f)(2)(A) shall not
apply to any separable element intended to produce benefits
that are predominantly unrelated to the restoration,
preservation, and protection of the natural system.
Discussion
Subsection (f) describes the mechanism for the evaluation
of projects. Prior to implementation of any projects authorized
by this bill, the Secretary, in cooperation with the non-
Federal sponsor, and after notice and opportunity for public
comment, shall complete a project implementation report for the
project.
The project implementation report is a new type of
reporting document, similar to a General Reevaluation Report in
that it will contain additional project formulation and
evaluation. The project implementation report also will contain
General Design Memorandum level of detail, or higher, for
engineering and design. Some of the tasks associated with the
preparation of the project implementation report will include:
surveys and mapping; geotechnical analyses; flood damage
assessment; real estate analyses; and preparation of
supplemental National Environmental Policy Act documents. The
project implementation reports will bridge the gap between the
programmatic-level design contained in the Plan and the
detailed design necessary to proceed to construction.
Furthermore, each project implementation report will be
accompanied by a project Management Plan, which will detail
schedules, funding requirements, and resource needs for final
design and construction of the project.
(g). Exclusions and Limitations
Summary
Subsection (g) directs that some components of the Plan are
not approved for implementation subject to certain exclusions
and limitations.
Subsection(g)(1) directs that any project designed to
implement the capture and use of the approximately 245,000
acre-feet of water described in section 7.7.2 of the Plan shall
not be implemented until the project-specific feasibility study
on the need for and physical delivery of the approximately
245,000 acre-feet of water, conducted by the Secretary, in
cooperation with the non-Federal sponsor, is completed; the
project is favorably recommended in a final report of the Chief
of Engineers; and the project is authorized by an Act of
Congress. The project-specific feasibility study shall include
a comprehensive analysis of the structural facilities proposed
to deliver the approximately 245,000 acre-feet of water to the
natural system; an assessment of the requirements to divert and
treat the water; an assessment of delivery alternatives; an
assessment of the feasibility of delivering the water
downstream while not substantially reducing authorized levels
of service for flood protection to affected properties; and any
other assessments that are determined by the Secretary to be
necessary to complete the study.
Subsection (g)(2) directs that upon completion and
evaluation of the wastewater reuse pilot project, the Secretary
in an appropriately timed 5-year report, shall describe the
results of the evaluation of advanced wastewater reuse in
meeting, in a cost effective manner, the requirements of the
natural system. This report shall be submitted to the Congress
before Congressional authorization is sought for advanced
wastewater reuse projects.
Subsection (g)(3) directs that the Federal share for land
acquisition to enhance existing wetland systems along the
Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, including the Stazzulla
tract, should be funded through the budget of the Department of
the Interior, and that the Southern Corkscrew regional
ecosystem watershed addition should be accomplished outside the
scope of the Plan.
Discussion
Certain components of the Plan are excluded from the
overall approval of the Plan or are included with conditions or
limitations as follows:
245,000 acre-feet of water. Section 7.7.2 of the
Plan describes the potential capture and use of approximately
245,000 acre-feet of additional water. The Plan concluded that
this additional water would substantially improve the
performance of the Plan in meeting restoration goals for
Everglades and Biscayne National Parks but had the potential to
have adverse impacts elsewhere in the system and, therefore,
required additional study before being incorporated into the
Plan. The bill provides that any project that is designed to
implement the capture and use of the approximately 245,000
acre-feet of water shall not proceed until a project-specific
feasibility study on the need for and physical delivery of the
additional water is completed, favorably recommended to the
Congress in a final report of the Chief of Engineers, and
authorized by an Act of Congress.
Wastewater Reuse. The Plan includes a wastewater
treatment plant expansion at the existing South District
Wastewater Treatment plant in Miami-Dade County and at a future
West Miami Dade Wastewater Treatment Plant to produce superior,
advanced treatment of wastewater for reuse in Everglades
National Park and Biscayne Bay restoration. The plant upgrades
will potentially produce a combined 230 million gallons of
water per day. The combined cost of the upgrades is about $800
million in construction costs and $85 million in operation and
maintenance costs. There is concern about the high cost of
treating this water, and whether the treatment system will be
capable of treating the wastewater to appropriate levels for
reuse in the natural system. The results of the wastewater
reuse pilot project will be carefully reviewed in considering
the ability of the treatment system to meet water quality
requirements.
Additional water is needed to meet the requirements of
restoration of the natural system including Biscayne Bay.
Therefore, subsection (g) directs that the Secretary, in
consultation with the Department of the Interior, the
Environmental Protection Agency, the State of Florida and local
governments to investigate in conjunction with the
implementation of the Wastewater Reuse Technology Pilot
project, potential sources of water other than reuse for
providing freshwater flows to Biscayne Bay focusing on lower
cost alternatives; defining target freshwater flows for
Biscayne Bay based on the quality, timing, and distribution of
flows needed to provide and maintain the estuarine functions of
Biscayne Bay, Biscayne National Park and associated coastal
wetlands; and performing further evaluations to determine
whether restoration targets can be better achieved. These
evaluations are to be included in an appropriate 5-year report
to the Congress before any authorization is sought for advanced
treatment and reuse of wastewater.
Land Acquisition projects. Two of the projects
included in the Plan are primarily land acquisition. While
these projects have merit, they are not appropriate for
implementation under the program of the Army Corps.
Accordingly, the bill provides that the Federal share for land
acquisition in the project to enhance existing wetlands systems
along the Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, including the
Stazzulla tract, should be funded through the budget of the
Department of Interior and that the Southern Corkscrew regional
eco-system watershed addition should be accomplished outside
the scope of the Plan.
(h). Assurance of Project Benefits
Summary
Subsection (h)(1) is a general statement of Congressional
purpose and intent to guide the implementation of authorized
Plan activities, including the agreement between the President
and Governor required by subsection (h)(2), programmatic
regulations required by subsection (h)(3), and the project-
specific assurances required by subsection (h)(4).
With the exception of the pilot projects, subsection
(h)(2)(A) provides that no appropriation shall be made for
construction of a project contained in the Plan until the
President and the Governor enter into a binding agreement under
which the State will ensure, by regulation or other appropriate
means, that water made available under the Plan for the
restoration of the natural system is available as specified in
the Plan. The committee expects this agreement to be executed
early in the Plan implementation process. Subsection
(h)(2)(B)(i) establishes a Federal cause of action to enforce a
failure by Federal or State officials to comply with any
provision of the agreement. This section provides for
injunctive relief directing an official, found to be in
noncompliance with the agreement, to comply. Subsection
(h)(2)(B)(ii) requires sixty-day notification to the Secretary
prior to commencement of an action under clause (i), and bars a
civil action under clause (i) if the United States has
commenced and is diligently prosecuting an action for the
failure to comply in either Federal or State court.
Subsection (h)(3)(A) requires the Secretary of the Army to
issue programmatic regulations within 2 years of the date of
enactment. The purpose of the programmatic regulations is to
ensure, over the life of the Central and South Florida Project,
that the goals and purposes of the Plan are achieved. The
Governor and the Secretary of Interior must concur on the
regulations prior to issuance; additionally, consultation with
the Seminole Tribe of Florida, the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians
of Florida, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department
of Commerce, and other Federal, State and local agencies is
required.
The content of the programmatic regulations is specified in
subsection (h)(3)(B). Programmatic regulations will be the
basis for determining the content and sufficiency of project-
specific assurance documents required by subsection (h)(4). The
regulations shall establish a process to: provide guidance for
the development of project implementation reports, project
cooperation agreements, and operating manuals to ensure that
the goals and objectives of the Plan are achieved; ensure that
new information resulting from changed or unforeseen
circumstances, new scientific or technical information or
information that is developed through the principles of
adaptive assessment contained in the Plan, or future authorized
changes to the Plan are integrated into the implementation of
the Plan; and ensure the protection of the natural system
consistent with the goals and purposes of the Plan.
It is possible that projects authorized for construction in
this bill may be ready to proceed to construction prior to
issuance of the programmatic regulations. Subsection
(h)(3)(C)(i) provides a transition rule, and requires that all
project implementation reports approved before the date of
promulgation of the programmatic regulations shall be
consistent with the Plan. Subsection (h)(3)(C)(ii) further
provides that, once issued, the preamble of the programmatic
regulations shall include a statement concerning the
consistency with the programmatic regulations of any project
implementation reports that were approved before the date of
promulgation of the regulations.
Subsection (h)(3)(D) establishes an ongoing duty for the
Secretary to ensure that the programmatic regulations will
result in attainment of Plan goals and purposes. Review of the
regulations not less often than every 5 years is the minimum
requirement, however this duty may require review and revision
more frequently than the minimum five-year interval. Under
subsection (h)(3)(B)(ii), the initial programmatic regulations
themselves must include a process to account for new
information, changed or unforeseen circumstances, or
Congressionally-authorized changes to Plan elements (such as a
decision not to proceed with certain projects or unproven
technologies).
Subsection (h)(4) establishes requirements for the three
project-specific documents that ultimately deliver Plan
benefits--project implementation reports (``PIRs''); project
cooperation agreements (``PCAs''); and operating manuals.
Subsection (h)(4)(A) states the procedures and requirements
governing PIRs. Development of a PIR is a joint responsibility
of the Secretary and non-Federal project sponsor. The PIR is
developed in accordance with section 10.3.1 of the Plan, as
modified by the additional requirements in this bill
((h)(4)(A)(i)). The Secretary and non-Federal sponsor must
coordinate with appropriate Federal, State, tribal and local
officials when developing a PIR ((h)(4)(A)(ii)).
Subsection (h)(4)(B) references and incorporates the
existing process under which PCAs are executed on Army Corps
construction projects. PCAs are a final check on assuring
project benefits. PCAs are essentially a contract for each
specific project. This subsection requires execution of a PCA
for each authorized project. Further, the Secretary may not
sign a PCA until water for the natural system identified in the
project implementation report is actually reserved or allocated
under State law.
Subsection (h)(4)(C) governs development of project
operating manuals. The Secretary and the non-Federal sponsor
shall develop and issue, for each project or group of projects,
an operating manual that is consistent with the water
reservation or allocation for the natural system described in
the PIR and the PCA for the project or group of projects
((h)(4)(C)(i)). Any significant modification by the Secretary
and the non-Federal sponsor to an operating manual after the
operating manual is issued shall only be carried out subject to
notice and opportunity for public comment ((h)(4)(C)(ii)).
Subsection (h)(5) is a savings clause that is designed to
preserve the existing legal rights of persons and entities
served by the Central and South Florida project and potentially
affected by implementation of the Plan. Subsection (h)(5)(A)
addresses the rights of existing legal water users. The
subsection states that the Secretary shall ensure that the
implementation of the Plan, including physical or operational
modifications to the C&SF Project, does not cause significant
adverse impact on existing legal water users.
Subsection (h)(5)(B) establishes a condition upon project
implementation that prohibits elimination of existing legal
sources of water due to Plan implementation until a new source
of water supply of comparable quantity and quality is available
to replace the water to be lost.
Subsection (h)(5)(C) states the rule for maintenance of
flood projection. The provision is intended to ensure that
persons legally entitled to flood protection are not harmed by
implementation of the Plan. The provision provides that in
implementing the Plan, the Secretary shall maintain authorized
levels of flood protection in existence on the date of
enactment of this bill, in accordance with applicable law.
Subsection (h)(5)(D) states that nothing in this bill
prevents the State from allocating or reserving water, as
provided under State law, to the extent consistent with this
bill.
Subsection (h)(5)(E) is a savings clause designed to
specifically protect a compact between the State, the South
Florida Water Management District and the Seminole Tribe of
Florida defining the scope and use of water rights of the
Seminole Tribe of Florida, as codified by section 7 of the
Seminole Indian Land Claims Settlement Act of 1987 (25 U.S.C.
1772e).
Discussion
Assurances Generally. The predominant Federal interest in
this bill is the restoration of the South Florida ecosystem.
Subsection (h) provides the assurance that the considerable
Federal investment made in this bill, and additional
investments expected in subsequent Acts of Congress
implementing the Plan, will result in the restoration of the
Everglades.
Subsection (h) does more than provide the necessary
assurances. It also defines the relation among the various
Federal, State and local governmental entities charged with
Plan implementation responsibilities. The subsection places
procedural and substantive requirements on both the Federal
Government and the State of Florida. Most importantly,
subsection (h) strikes a careful balance between the Federal
interest in ensuring that predicted Plan benefits, including
benefits to Federal lands, are attained, and the State's
interest in: ensuring that State-owned or managed lands also
receive predicted Plan benefits; and preserving its traditional
sovereignty over the reservation and allocation of water within
the State's boundaries.
Subsection (h)(1) of the bill restates and codifies the
purpose of the Plan, as stated on page ii of the Plan summary.
In conjunction with section 2(b), which approves the Plan as a
framework for modifications to the existing C&SF Project, this
subsection provides overall guidance in reconciling the changes
made to the C&SF Project by WRDA `96 with implementation of the
Plan. Sections 2(b) and 2(h) clearly specify that the purpose
of Federal involvement in this project is to restore, preserve,
and protect the Southern Florida ecosystem, which was damaged
by past authorized Federal actions carried out to implement the
original, more limited purposes of the C&SF Project. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ While section 2(b)(1) of the bill expressly approves the Plan
as the framework for restoration, many parties have testified that
additional assurances were needed, especially assurances that the
natural system would receive the intended benefits when the Plan is
implemented. The bill also contains additional requirements that are
not included in the Plan. The bill therefore does modify the Plan, and
any inconsistency between the bill and the Plan must be resolved in
favor of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are three key elements in how the bill provides the
needed assurances while creating a partnership between the
Federal and State governments. The first element is a
requirement that the President and Governor execute a binding,
enforceable agreement that the water generated by the Plan will
in fact be available for restoration when needed. This
agreement is intended to answer concerns that the water needed
for the restoration of the natural system will be available for
that purpose as individual projects are completed. The second
element is the programmatic regulations. These regulations,
issued by the Secretary of the Army, require the concurrence of
both the Governor and the Secretary of Interior. This
relationship between the principal State and Federal trustees
for the resources that will benefit from implementation of the
Plan is unique in Federal environmental law, and is intended to
create a true Federal-State partnership. The third elements are
the project-specific documents which provide enforceable
project-specific quantification of the appropriate amount,
timing and distribution of water for the natural system and for
other Plan purposes.
Assurances Agreement. In testimony before the committee and
during the negotiations on subsection (h), concerns were
expressed that the State's permitting process could result in
the over allocation of new water to be derived from the
implementation of the Plan. The State of Florida raised
concerns that this bill not federalize State water law, and
that Plan implementation instead rely upon State law and
processes in reserving or allocating water. Subsection (h)(2)
balances both of these important concerns.
Subsection (h)(2) does not specify in detail the contents
of the agreement. The committee intends that the agreement
between the Governor and the President result in a binding
requirement for the State to manage its consumptive use
permitting process in such a manner that does not infringe upon
the ability of the State to deliver the water made available
under the Plan for the restoration of the natural system as
projects come on-line in later years. The agreement is not
intended to create a mechanism for the Federal Government to
become involved, on a permit-by-permit basis, in the State's
consumptive use permitting decisions. Rather, the agreement
will attest that the State will not pre-allocate any water
generated by the Plan. Actual allocation and reservation of
water generated by implementation of Plan projects is governed
by subsection (h)(4). Under subsection (h)(4), any allocation
and reservation of Plan water is identified under a cooperative
Federal-State partnership and executed under State water law.
The President and Governor should execute the agreement
required by subsection (h)(2) as soon as is practicable.
Subsection (h)(2)(B) makes the agreement enforceable by
establishing a cause of action in Federal courts for injunctive
relief in case the Federal or State officials fail to comply
with the agreement. This provision, which allows any person or
entity aggrieved by a failure to comply to bring a cause of
action, is narrowly tailored to remain consistent with United
States Supreme Court jurisprudence on State sovereign immunity
under the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution. \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Although the Eleventh Amendment prohibits Congress from making
the State of Florida capable of being sued in Federal court, an
exception is provided by the doctrine of Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123
(1908). Ex Parte Young provides that Congress may authorize suits
against State officers to enforce Federal law. The cause of action here
fully comports with Ex Parte Young.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Programmatic Regulations. Subsection (h)(3) requires the
issuance of programmatic regulations. The purpose of the
programmatic regulations are to ensure, over the life of the
C&SF Project, that the goals and purposes of the Plan are
achieved. Further, the programmatic regulations guide the
implementation of the project implementation reports, and they
must be periodically reviewed not less often than every 5 years
to ensure that new information is integrated into
implementation of the Plan. The programmatic regulations are
therefore a central component in the adaptive assessment and
management process on which success of the Plan, and this bill,
depends.
The process for developing the programmatic regulations
recognizes the stewardship responsibilities of governmental
entities with trustee relationships for the resources that will
benefit from Plan implementation. As the Secretary of the
Interior and the State of Florida share, in approximately equal
proportions, responsibility for most of the remaining natural
system areas to benefit from the Plan, and further recognizing
that the State will share equally in the cost of Plan
implementation with the Federal Government, subsection (h)(3)
requires that the Secretary issue the programmatic regulations
only with the concurrence of the Secretary of the Interior and
the Governor of Florida. This unique Federal-State partnership
will allow for improved up-front planning during the
implementation of the Plan and should improve coordination
among the affected agencies, each with varying missions and
responsibilities. In developing the programmatic regulations,
the Federal and State partners should establish interim goals--
expressed in terms of restoration standards--to provide a means
by which the restoration success of the Plan may be evaluated
throughout the implementation process. The restoration
standards should be quantitative and measurable at specific
points in the Plan implementation. The Secretary and the
Secretary of the Interior are required to report on the
progress toward these goals as part of the required reporting
process.
Project-Specific Assurances. Project-specific assurances
are included requiring the project-specific implementation
reports to be consistent with the Plan and the programmatic
regulations. The PIRs are the documents that will identify and
quantify the water that is necessary to attain the restoration
of the natural system. The State, using its own State water
law, will execute the reservations or allocations for the
natural system that are specified in the PIR before the
Secretary can execute the PCA, which is the contract between
the Secretary and non-Federal sponsor that is the prerequisite
for construction of Plan projects. Finally, subsection
(h)(4)(C) requires consistency between the operating manuals
and the water reservations or allocations for the natural
system.
Savings Clause. Subsection (h)(5) requires the Secretary to
ensure that implementation of the Plan does not cause
substantial adverse impacts on existing legal uses of water,
including water allocated to the Seminole Tribe of Florida as
codified under Federal and State law, the Miccosukee Tribe of
Indians of Florida, water for Everglades National Park, water
for the preservation of fish and wildlife in the natural
system, agricultural water supply and other legal uses as of
the date of enactment of this bill. Elimination of existing
sources of water supply is barred until new sources of
comparable quantity and quality of water are available;
existing authorized levels of flood protection are maintained;
and the water compact among the Seminole Tribe of Florida, the
State, and the South Florida Water Management District is
specifically preserved.
With respect to flood control, the committee intends that
implementation of the Plan will not result in significant
adverse impact to any person with an existing, legally
recognized right to a level of protection against flooding. The
committee does not intend that, consistent with benefits
included in the Plan, this bill create any new rights to a
level of protection against flooding that is not currently
recognized under applicable Federal or State law.
(i). Dispute Resolution
Summary
Subsection (i)(1) directs the Governor and the Secretary,
within 180 days of enactment of this bill, to develop an
agreement for resolving disputes between the Army Corps and the
South Florida Water Management District. Subsections (i)(1)(A),
(i)(1)(B), and (i)(1)(C) describe what must be included in the
mechanism for the timely and efficient resolution of disputes.
Subsection (i)(2) directs that the Secretary shall not
approve a project implementation report under this bill until
the agreement established under this subsection has been
executed.
Subsection (i)(3) states that nothing in the agreement
established under this subsection shall alter or amend any
existing Federal or State law.
Discussion
This bill provides a mechanism by which disputes between
the Secretary and the Governor are resolved. Within 180 days
from the date of enactment, the Secretary and the Governor
shall develop an agreement on how to resolve disputes between
the Army Corps and the State, related to the implementation of
the Plan. This agreement will establish a mechanism for the
resolution of disputes, including: a preference for the
resolution of disputes between the Jacksonville District of the
Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water Management
District; a mechanism for the Jacksonville District of the
Corps of Engineers or the South Florida Water Management
District to initiate the dispute resolution process for
unresolved issues; the establishment of appropriate time-frames
and intermediate steps for the elevation of disputes to the
Governor and the Secretary; and a mechanism for the final
resolution of disputes, within 180 days from the date that the
dispute resolution process is initiated.
(j) Independent Scientific Review
Summary
Subsection (j)(1) directs the Secretary of the Army, the
Secretary of the Interior, and the State of Florida, in
consultation with the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task
Force, to establish an independent scientific review panel,
convened by a body such as the National Academy of Sciences, to
review the Plan's progress toward achieving the natural
system's restoration goals of the Plan.
Subsection (j)(2) directs the panel described in paragraph
(1) to produce a biennial report to Congress, the Secretary of
the Army, the Secretary of Interior, and the State of Florida
that includes an assessment of ecological indicators and other
measures of progress in restoring the ecology of the natural
system, based on the Plan.
Discussion
Subsection (j) directs the Secretary, the Secretary of the
Interior, and the State, in consultation with the South Florida
Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, to establish an independent
scientific panel to conduct on-going review of the progress
achieved by the Plan's execution in attaining the restoration
goals of the Plan. The panel is to be convened by a body, such
as the National Academy of Sciences, with expertise in
assembling panels for the purpose of conducting independent
scientific reviews.
The committee expects the body convening the review panel
to use established practices for assuring the independence of
members employed in this instance. This includes assuring that
neither panel members, nor the institutions they represent,
have a vested interest in the outcome of the scientific review
or the execution of the Plan. The committee also expects the
review panel to contain individuals reflecting a balance of the
knowledge, training, and experience suitable to comprehensively
review and assess the Plan's progress toward achieving
restoration goals. The committee believes that members of the
review panel should have expertise in applicable scientific
disciplines and include individuals possessing specific
scientific experience with, and knowledge of, the South Florida
ecosystem. This subsection is not intended to necessarily
preclude the National Research Council's Committee on
Restoration of the Greater Everglades Ecosystem, either in part
or in full, from assuming the specified duties of the
independent scientific review panel.
The panel is directed to produce a biennial report and
submit its findings to Congress, the Secretary, the Secretary
of the Interior, and the State of Florida. The committee
intends for these reports to address the Plan's progress toward
achieving the restoration goals of the Plan on a biennial
basis. The panel is directed to include in each report an
assessment of ecological indicators and other measures of
progress in restoring the ecology of the natural system, based
on the Plan.
(k). Outreach and Assistance
Summary
Subsection (k)(1) directs the Secretary, in executing the
Plan, to ensure that small business concerns owned and
controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged
individuals are provided opportunities to participate under
section 15(g) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644(g)).
Subsection (k)(2) requires the Secretary to ensure that
impacts on socially and economically disadvantaged individuals,
including individuals with limited English proficiency, and
communities are considered during implementation of the Plan,
and that such individuals have opportunity to review and
comment on the Plan's implementation. The Secretary shall also
ensure that public outreach and educational opportunities are
provided to the individuals of South Florida, including
individuals with limited English proficiency, and in particular
for socially and economically disadvantaged communities.
Discussion
This subsection directs the Secretary to ensure that small
businesses owned and controlled by socially and economically
disadvantaged individuals have an opportunity to participate in
the Plan. Under section 15(g) of the Small Business Act,
Federal agencies are required to establish goals for awarding
contracts to small businesses, including socially and
economically disadvantaged businesses. This provision
reiterates that requirement for purposes of carrying out the
Plan.
The Secretary is also directed to consider the impacts of
implementing the Plan on socially and economically
disadvantaged individuals, including those with limited English
proficiency. Recognizing that a large percentage of the
population of the South Florida ecosystem is made up of
minority groups (e.g., 20.5 percent Hispanic), this provision
ensures that the individuals have opportunities to review and
comment on the implementation of the Plan. In addition, the
Secretary shall ensure that public outreach and educational
opportunities are provided to these same individuals.
The Plan must be adequately explained to the people of
South Florida, in particular to those in socially and
economically disadvantaged communities. The Secretary should
work closely with the non-Federal sponsor to identify local
partners for these efforts, such as existing non-profit
institutions with experience in researching and exhibiting
South Florida ecosystems for the general public and conducting
outreach programs for socially and economically disadvantaged
communities and individuals with limited English proficiency.
Because of the large number of individuals in the area with
limited English proficiency, the Secretary should ensure that
the outreach and education programs are communicated so that
these individuals can understand the Plan and implementation
process.
(l). Report to Congress.
Subsection (l) requires the Secretary and the Secretary of
the Interior, in consultation with the Environmental Protection
Agency, the Department of Commerce and the State of Florida to
submit a report to Congress on the implementation of the Plan.
The report shall be submitted on October 1, 2005, and not less
than every 5 years thereafter. The report shall include: a
description of planning, design, and construction work
completed; the amount of funds expended during the period
covered by the report, including an analysis of funds expended
for adaptive assessment; the work anticipated over the next 5-
year period; a determination by each Secretary and the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency concerning
the benefits to the natural system and the human environment
achieved by the date of the report and whether the completed
projects are being operated consistent with the assurances
provisions in subsection (h); and a review of the activities
required under the outreach and assistance provisions of
subsection (k). The role of the Environmental Protection Agency
in this determination helps to ensure that water quality
benefits, an essential component of the restoration effort,
will be achieved, and that an ecosystem-wide perspective will
be maintained.
Hearings
On January 7, 2000, the Committee on Environment and Public
Works held a field hearing in Naples, Florida, to receive
testimony on the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.
Witnesses who testified were: the Honorable Carol Browner,
Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; the
Honorable Joseph Westphal, Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Civil Works); Mary Doyle, Counselor to the Secretary and the
Chair of the South Florida Ecosystem Task Force, U.S.
Department of the Interior; the Honorable David Struhs,
Secretary of the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection; Captain Mike Collins, Chairman of the South Florida
Water Management District; Jim Shore, Counsel to the Seminole
Tribe of Florida; Dexter Lehtinen, representing the Miccosukee
Tribe of Indians; the Honorable Nora Williams, Commissioner of
Monroe County, Florida; Malcolm S. ``Bubba'' Wade, Senior Vice
President of U.S. Sugar Corporation; and the Honorable
Nathaniel Reed, former Assistant Secretary of the Interior.
On May 11, 2000, the Committee on Environment and Public
Works met to consider the Administration's legislative proposal
for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, included in
S. 2437. The committee received testimony from the Honorable
Jeb Bush, Governor of the State of Florida; Patricia Power,
representing the Seminole Tribe of Florida; Dexter Lehtinen,
representing the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians; Captain Mike
Collins, Chairman of the South Florida Water Management
District; the Honorable Joseph Westphal, Assistant Secretary of
the Army (Civil Works); Gary Guzy, General Counsel, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; Mary Doyle, Acting Assistant
Secretary for Water and Science, and the Chair of the South
Florida Ecosystem Task Force, U.S. Department of the Interior;
Mr. Ken Keck, Director of Legislative and Regulatory Affairs,
Florida Citrus Mutual; and Dr. David Guggenheim, President, The
Conservancy of Southwest Florida, Co-Chair, the Everglades
Coalition.
On May 23, 2000, the Subcommittee on Transportation and
Infrastructure met to consider the Administration's legislative
proposal for the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (S.
2437). The committee received testimony from the Honorable
Joseph Westphal, Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works);
Major General Hans A. Van Winkle, Deputy Commanding General for
Civil Works, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Doug Sutherland,
County Executive, Pierce County, Washington; Lillian Borrone,
Director of Port Commerce, Port Authority of New York and New
Jersey; Barry Pamer, Executive Director, Dinamo; the Honorable
Dannel P. Malloy, City of Stamford, Connecticut; and Howard
Marlowe, President of American Coastal Coalition.
Legislative History
On April 13, 2000, Senators Smith and Baucus introduced by
request the Administration's proposal for the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 (S. 2437). On June 27, 2000, Senator
Voinovich, Smith and Baucus introduced the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 (S. 2796). On that same day, Senators
mith, Voinovich, Baucus, Graham, and Mack introduced the
Restoring the Everglades, an American Legacy Act (S. 2797).
S. 2796, as amended, was reported by the Committee on
Environment and Public Works on June 28, 2000. In addition, S.
2796 was amended to include S. 2797, as reported by the
committee, as Title VI of the bill.
Rollcall Votes
On June 28, 2000 the Committee on Environment and Public
Works met to consider S. 2796, the Water Resources Development
Act of 2000. An substitute amendment was agreed to by unanimous
consent. An amendment offered by Senator Thomas, relative to
performance by the Army Corps of specialized or technical
services, was agreed to by a vote of 9 ayes to 8 nays. Voting
in favor were Senators Bennett, Bond, Chafee, Crapo, Hutchison,
Inhofe, Thomas, Smith of New Hampshire, and Voinovich. Voting
against were Senators Baucus, Boxer, Graham, Lautenberg,
Lieberman, Moynihan, Reid, and Wyden. Senator Warner was not
recorded on the Thomas amendment. A motion to include the text
of S. 2797, ``Restoring the Everglades, An American Legacy
Act,'' into S. 2796 was agreed to by voice vote. The motion to
report S. 2796, as amended, was agreed to by voice vote.
Mandates Assessment
In compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(P.L. 104-4), the committee finds that this bill would impose
no Federal intergovernmental unfunded mandates on State, local,
or tribal governments. All of its governmental directives are
imposed on Federal agencies. The bill does not directly impose
any private sector mandates.
Evaluation of Regulatory Impact
Section 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the
Senate requires publication in the report the committee's
estimate of the regulatory impact made by the bill as reported.
No regulatory impact is expected by the passage of S. 2796. The
bill will not affect the personal privacy of individuals.
Cost of Legislation
Section 403 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act
requires each report to contain a statement of the cost of a
reported bill prepared by the Congressional Budget Office.
Senate Rule XXVI paragraph 11(a)(3) allows the report to
include a statement of the reasons why compliance by the
committee is impracticable. The committee is unable to include
a statement of the cost at this time because the Congressional
Budget Office has not finished an analysis of the bill.
Changes in Existing Law
In compliance with section 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing
Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill
as reported are shown as follows: Existing law proposed to be
omitted is enclosed in [black brackets], new matter is printed
in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown
in roman:
----------
UNITED STATES CODE--TITLE 33-- NAVIGATION AND NAVIGABLE WATERS
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 9--PROTECTION OF NAVIGABLE WATERS AND OF HARBOR AND RIVER
IMPROVEMENTS GENERALLY
* * * * * * *
Subchapter I--In General
* * * * * * *
Sec. 401. Construction of bridges, causeways, dams or dikes generally;
exemptions
(a) In General.--It shall not be lawful to construct or
commence the construction of any bridge, causeway, dam, or dike
over or in any port, roadstead, haven, harbor, canal, navigable
river, or other navigable water of the United States until the
consent of Congress to the building of such structures shall
have been obtained and until the plans for (1) the bridge or
causeway shall have been submitted to and approved by the
Secretary of Transportation, or
(2) the dam or dike shall have been submitted to and
approved by the Chief of Engineers and Secretary of the Army.
[However, such structures]
(b) Waterways Within a Single State.--Notwithstanding
subsection (a), structures described in subsection (a) may be
built under authority of the legislature of a State across
rivers and other waterways the navigable portions of which lie
wholly within the limits of a single State, provided the
location and plans thereof are submitted to and approved by the
Secretary of Transportation or by the Chief of Engineers and
Secretary of the Army before construction is commenced. [When
plans]
(c) Modification of Plans.--When plans for any bridge or
other structure have been approved by the Secretary of
Transportation or by the Chief of Engineers and Secretary of
the Army, it shall not be lawful to deviate from such plans
either before or after completion of the structure unless
modification of said plans has previously been submitted to and
received the approval of the Secretary of Transportation or the
Chief of Engineers and the Secretary of the Army. [The
approval]
(d) Applicability.--
(1) Bridges and causeways.--The approval required
by this section of the location and plans or any
modification of plans of any bridge or causeway does
not apply to any bridge or causeway over waters that
are not subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and
that are not used and are not susceptible to use in
their natural condition or by reasonable improvement as
a means to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
(2) Dams and dikes.--
(A) In general.--The approval required by
this section of the location and plans, or any
modification of plans, of any dam or dike,
applies only to a dam or dike that, if
constructed, would completely span a waterway
used to transport interstate or foreign
commerce, in such a manner that actual,
existing interstate or foreign commerce could
be adversely affected.
(B) Other dams and dikes.--Any dam or dike
(other than a dam or dike described in
subparagraph (A)) that is proposed to be built
in any other navigable water of the United
States--
(i) shall be subject to section 10;
and
(ii) shall not be subject to the
approval requirements of this section.
----------
UNITED STATES CODE--TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 19B--WATER RESOURCES PLANNING
Subchapter IV--Miscellaneous Provisions
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1962d-5b. Water resources projects; written agreement requirement
(a) Cooperation of non-Federal interest After December 31,
1970, the construction of any water resources project, or an
acceptable separable element thereof, by the Secretary of the
Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, or by a non-
Federal interest where such interest will be reimbursed for
such construction under the provisions of section 1962d-5a of
this title or under any other provision of law, shall not be
commenced until each non-Federal interest has entered into a
written agreement with the Secretary of the Army to furnish its
required cooperation for the project or the appropriate element
of the project, as the case may be; except that no such
agreement shall be required if the Secretary determines that
the administrative costs associated with negotiating,
executing, or administering the agreement would exceed the
amount of the contribution required from the non-Federal
interest and are less than $25,000. In any such agreement
entered into by a State, or a body politic of the State which
derives its powers from the State constitution, or a
governmental entity created by the State legislature, the
agreement may reflect that it does not obligate future [State
legislative] appropriations for such performance and payment
when obligating future appropriations would be inconsistent
with State constitutional or statutory limitations of the State
or a body politic of the State.
----------
Public Law 99-662
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1986
[As Amended Through P.L. 106-170, Dec. 17, 1999]
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act many be cited as the ``Water
Resources Development Act of 1986''.
* * * * * * *
TITLE I--COST SHARING
* * * * * * *
SEC. 103. FLOOD CONTROL AND OTHER PURPOSES.
* * * * * * *
(m) Ability to pay.--
[(1) In general.--Any cost-sharing agreement under
this section for flood control or agricultural water
supply shall be subject to the ability of a non-Federal
interest to pay.
[(2) Criteria and procedures.--The ability of a
non-Federal interest to pay shall be determined by the
Secretary in accordance with criteria and procedures in
effect on the day before the date of the enactment of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1996; except
that such criteria and procedures shall be revised
within 1 year after such date of enactment to reflect
the requirements of paragraph (3).]
(1) In general.--Any cost-sharing agreement under
this section for a feasibility study, or for
construction of an environmental protection and
restoration project, a flood control project, a project
for navigation, storm damage protection, shoreline
erosion, hurricane protection, or recreation, or an
agricultural water supply project, shall be subject to
the ability of the non-Federal interest to pay.
(2) Criteria and procedures.--
(A) In general.--The ability of a non-
Federal interest to pay shall be determined by
the Secretary in accordance with--
(i) during the period ending on the
date on which revised criteria and
procedures are promulgated under
subparagraph (B), criteria and
procedures in effect on the day before
the date of enactment of this
subparagraph; and
(ii) after the date on which
revised criteria and procedures are
promulgated under subparagraph (B), the
revised criteria and procedures
promulgated under subparagraph (B).
(B) Revised criteria and procedures.--Not
later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this subparagraph, in accordance
with paragraph (3), the Secretary shall
promulgate revised criteria and procedures
governing the ability of a non-Federal interest
to pay.
(3) Revision of criteria and procedures.--In
revising criteria and procedures pursuant to paragraph
(2), the Secretary--
(A) shall consider--
(i) per capita income data for the
county or counties in which the project
is to be located; and
(ii) the per capita non-Federal
cost of construction of the project for
the county or counties in which the
project is to be located; and
[(B) shall not consider criteria (other
than criteria described in subparagraph (A)) in
effect on the day before the date of the
enactment of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996; and
[(C) may consider additional criteria
relating to the non-Federal interest's
financial ability to carry out its cost-sharing
responsibilities, to the extent that the
application of such criteria does not eliminate
areas from eligibility for a reduction in the
non-Federal share as determined under
subparagraph (A).]
(B) may consider additional criteria
relating to--
(i) the financial ability of the
non-Federal interest to carry out its
cost-sharing responsibilities; or
(ii) additional assistance that may
be available from other Federal or
State sources.
(4) Non-federal share.--Notwithstanding subsection
(a), the Secretary may reduce the requirement that a
non-Federal interest make a cash contribution for any
project that is determined to be eligible for a
reduction in the non-Federal share under criteria and
procedures in effect under paragraphs (1), (2), and
(3).
* * * * * * *
SEC. 402. COMPLIANCE WITH FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT AND INSURANCE PROGRAMS.
(a) Compliance with floodplain management and insurance
programs.--Before construction of any project for local flood
protection, or any project for hurricane or storm damage
reduction, that involves Federal assistance from the Secretary,
the non-Federal interest shall agree to participate in and
comply with applicable Federal floodplain management and flood
insurance programs.
(b) [Flood plain] Floodplain management plans.--Within 1
year after the date of signing a project cooperation agreement
for construction of a project to which subsection (a) of this
section applies, the non-Federal interest shall prepare a
[flood plain] floodplain management plan designed to reduce the
impacts of future flood events in the project area. Such plan
shall be implemented by the non-Federal interest not later than
1 year after completion of construction of the project.
(c) Guidelines.--
(1) In general.--[Within 6 months after the
enactment of this subsection, the] The Secretary shall
develop guidelines for preparation of floodplain
management plans by non-Federal interests under
subsection (b) of this section. [Such guidelines shall
address]
(2) Required elements.--The guidelines developed
under paragraph (1) shall--
(A) address potential measures, practices,
and policies that non-Federal interests shall
adopt and enforce to reduce loss of life,
injuries, damages to property and facilities,
public expenditures, and other adverse impacts
associated with flooding and to preserve and
enhance natural floodplain values[.]; and
(B) require non-Federal interests to take
measures to preserve the level of flood
protection provided by a project to which
subsection (a) applies.
[(2)] (3) Limitation on statutory construction.--
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to confer
any regulatory authority upon the Secretary or the
Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
(d) Technical support.--The Secretary may provide technical
support to a non-Federal interest for a project to which
subsection (a) of this section applies for the development and
implementation of plans prepared under subsection (b) of this
section.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 704. STUDY OF CORPS CAPABILITY TO CONSERVE FISH AND WILDLIFE
(a) The Secretary shall investigate and study the
feasibility of utilizing the capabilities of the United States
Army Corps of Engineers to conserve fish and wildlife
(including their habitats) where such fish and wildlife are
indigenous to the United States, its possessions, or its
territories. The scope of such study shall include the use of
engineering or construction capabilities to create alternative
habitats, or to improve, enlarge, develop, or otherwise
beneficially modify existing habitats of such fish and
wildlife. The study shall be conducted in consultation with the
Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of
the Interior, the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and shall
be transmitted within the 30-month period beginning on November
17, 1986, by the Secretary to Congress, together with the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Chief of
Engineers. The Secretary, in consultation with the Federal
officers referred to in the preceding sentence, shall undertake
a continuing review of the matters covered in the study and
shall transmit to Congress, on a biennial basis, any revisions
to the study that may be required as a result of the review,
together with the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Chief of Engineers.
(b) The Secretary is further authorized to conduct projects
of alternative or beneficially modified habitats for fish and
wildlife, including but not limited to man-made reefs for fish.
There is authorized to be appropriated not to exceed
[$7,000,000] $20,000,000 to carry out such projects. Such
projects shall be developed, and their effectiveness evaluated,
in consultation with the Director of the Fish and Wildlife
Service and the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Such projects
shall include--
(1) the construction of a reef for fish habitat in
Lake Erie in the vicinity of Buffalo, New York;
(2) the construction of a reef for fish habitat in
the Atlantic Ocean in the vicinity of Fort Lauderdale,
Florida;
(3) the construction of a reef for fish habitat in
Lake Ontario in the vicinity of the town of Newfane,
New York; and
[(4) the construction of a reef for fish habitat in
the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland and Virginia.]
(4) the construction of reefs and related clean
shell substrate for fish habitat, including manmade 3-
dimensional oyster reefs, in the Chesapeake Bay and its
tributaries in Maryland and Virginia--
(A) which reefs shall be preserved as
permanent sanctuaries by the non-Federal
interests, consistent with the recommendations
of the scientific consensus document on
Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration dated June
1999; and
(B) for assistance in the construction of
which reefs the Chief of Engineers shall
solicit participation by and the services of
commercial watermen.
The non-Federal share of the cost of any project under
this section shall be 25 percent.
* * * * * * *
[SEC. 729. STUDY OF WATER RESOURCES NEEDS OF RIVER BASINS AND REGIONS.
[(a) The Secretary, in coordination with the Secretary of
the Interior and in consultation with appropriate Federal,
State, and local agencies, is authorized to study the water
resources needs of river basins and regions of the United
States. The Secretaries shall report the results of such study
to Congress not later than October 1, 1988.
[(b) In carrying out the studies authorized under
subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries shall consult
with State, interstate, and local governmental entities.
[(c) There is authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 for
fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1986, to carry out
this section.]
SEC. 729. WATERSHED AND RIVER BASIN ASSESSMENTS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may assess the water
resources needs of river basins and watersheds of the United
States, including needs relating to--
(1) ecosystem protection and restoration;
(2) flood damage reduction;
(3) navigation and ports;
(4) watershed protection;
(5) water supply; and
(6) drought preparedness.
(b) Cooperation.--An assessment under subsection (a) shall
be carried out in cooperation and coordination with--
(1) the Secretary of the Interior;
(2) the Secretary of Agriculture;
(3) the Secretary of Commerce;
(4) the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency; and
(5) the heads of other appropriate agencies.
(c) Consultation.--In carrying out an assessment under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with Federal,
tribal, State, interstate, and local governmental entities.
(d) Priority River Basins and Watersheds.--In selecting
river basins and watersheds for assessment under this section,
the Secretary shall give priority to--
(1) the Delaware River basin; and
(2) the Willamette River basin, Oregon.
(e) Acceptance of Contributions.--In carrying out an
assessment under subsection (a), the Secretary may accept
contributions, in cash or in kind, from Federal, tribal, State,
interstate, and local governmental entities to the extent that
the Secretary determines that the contributions will facilitate
completion of the assessment.
(f) Cost-Sharing Requirements.--
(1) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of
the costs of an assessment carried out under this
section shall be 50 percent.
(2) Credit.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph
(B), the non-Federal interests may receive
credit toward the non-Federal share required
under paragraph (1) for the provision of
services, materials, supplies, or other in-kind
contributions.
(B) Maximum amount of credit.--Credit under
subparagraph (A) shall not exceed an amount
equal to 25 percent of the costs of the
assessment.
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000.
* * * * * * *
[SEC. 1001. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS.
[(a) Any project authorized for construction by this Act
shall not be authorized after the last day of the 5-year period
beginning on the date of enactment of this Act unless during
such period funds have been obligated for construction,
including planning and designing, of such project.
[(b)(1) Not later than one year after the date of enactment
of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a list of
unconstructed projects, or unconstructed separable elements of
projects, which have been authorized, but have received no
obligations during the 10 full fiscal years preceding the
transmittal of such list. A project or separable element
included in such list is not authorized after December 31,
1989, if funds have not been obligated for construction of such
project or element after the date of enactment of this Act and
before December 31, 1989.
[(2) Every two years after the transmittal of the list
under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a
list of projects or separable elements of projects which have
been authorized, but have received no obligations during the 10
full fiscal years preceding the transmittal of such list. A
project or separable element included in such list is not
authorized after the date which is 30 months after the date the
list is so transmitted if funds have not been obligated for
construction of such project or element during such 30-month
period.
[(c) The Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register a
list of any projects or separable elements that are
deauthorized under this section.]
SEC. 1001. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Construction.--The term ``construction'', with
respect to a project or separable element, means--
(A) in the case of--
(i) a nonstructural flood control
project, the acquisition of land, an
easement, or a right-of-way primarily
to relocate a structure; and
(ii) in the case of any other
nonstructural measure, the performance
of physical work under a construction
contract;
(B) in the case of an environmental
protection and restoration project--
(i) the acquisition of land, an
easement, or a right-of-way primarily
to facilitate the restoration of
wetland or a similar habitat; or
(ii) the performance of physical
work under a construction contract to
modify an existing project facility or
to construct a new environmental
protection and restoration measure; and
(C) in the case of any other water
resources project, the performance of physical
work under a construction contract.
(2) Physical work under a construction contract.--
The term ``physical work under a construction
contract'' does not include any activity related to
project planning, engineering and design, relocation,
or the acquisition of land, an easement, or a right-of-
way.
(b) Projects Never Under Construction.--
(1) List of projects.--The Secretary shall annually
submit to Congress a list of projects and separable
elements of projects that--
(A) are authorized for construction; and
(B) for which no Federal funds were
obligated for construction during the 4 full
fiscal years preceding the date of submission
of the list.
(2) Deauthorization.--Any water resources project,
or separable element of a water resources project,
authorized for construction shall be deauthorized
effective at the end of the 7-year period beginning on
the date of the most recent authorization or
reauthorization of the project or separable element
unless Federal funds have been obligated for
construction of the project or separable element by the
end of that period.
(c) Projects for Which Construction Has Been Suspended.--
(1) List of projects.--The Secretary shall annually
submit to Congress a list of projects and separable
elements of projects--
(A) that are authorized for construction;
(B) for which Federal funds have been
obligated for construction of the project or
separable element; and
(C) for which no Federal funds have been
obligated for construction of the project or
separable element during the 2 full fiscal
years preceding the date of submission of the
list.
(2) Deauthorization.--Any water resources project,
or separable element of a water resources project, for
which Federal funds have been obligated for
construction shall be deauthorized effective at the end
of any 5-fiscal year period during which Federal funds
specifically identified for construction of the project
or separable element (in an Act of Congress or in the
accompanying legislative report language) have not been
obligated for construction.
(d) Congressional Notifications.--Upon submission of the
lists under subsections (b)(1) and (c)(1), the Secretary shall
notify each Senator in whose State, and each Member of the
House of Representatives in whose district, the affected
project or separable element is or would be located.
(e) Final Deauthorization List.--The Secretary shall
publish annually in the Federal Register a list of all projects
and separable elements deauthorized under subsection (b)(2) or
(c)(2).
(f) Effective Date.--Subsections (b)(2) and (c)(2) take
effect 3 years after the date of enactment of this subsection.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1148. PASSAIC RIVER BASIN.
(a) Acquisition of lands.--The Secretary may acquire from
willing sellers lands on which residential structures are
located and that are subject to frequent and recurring flood
damage, as identified in the supplemental floodway report of
the Corps of Engineers, Passaic River Buyout Study, September
1995, at an estimated total cost of $194,000,000.
(b) Retention of lands for flood protection.--Lands
acquired by the Secretary under this section shall be retained
by the Secretary for future use in conjunction with flood
protection and flood management in the Passaic River Basin.
(c) Cost sharing.--The non-Federal share of the cost of
carrying out this section shall be 25 percent plus any amount
that might result from application of subsection (d).
(d) Applicability of benefit-cost ratio waiver authority.--
In evaluating and implementing the project under this section,
the Secretary shall allow the non-Federal interest to
participate in the financing of the project in accordance with
section 903(c), to the extent that the Secretary's evaluation
indicates that applying such section is necessary to implement
the project.
(e) Consistency With New Jersey Blue Acres Program.--The
Secretary shall carry out this section in a manner that is
consistent with the Blue Acres Program of the State of New
Jersey.
* * * * * * *
----------
Public Law 101-640
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1990
[As Amended Through P.L. 106-53, August 17, 1999]
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water
Resources Development Act of 1990''.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.
* * * * * * *
(18) Passaic river [main stem] flood management
project, new jersey and new york.--
* * * * * * *
SEC. 312. ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING.
(a) Operation and Maintenance of Navigation Projects.-- *
* *
* * * * * * *
(g) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221 of the
Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), for any project
carried out under this section, a non-Federal sponsor may
include a nonprofit entity, with the consent of the affected
local government.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 314. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF HYDROELECTRIC FACILITIES.
Activities currently performed by personnel under the
direction of the Secretary in connection with the operation and
maintenance of hydroelectric power generating facilities at
Corps of Engineers water resources projects are to be
considered as inherently governmental functions and not
commercial activities in cases in which the activities require
specialized training relating to hydroelectric power
generation. This section does not prohibit contracting out
major maintenance or other functions which are currently
contracted out or studying services not directly connected with
project maintenance and operations.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 401. GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS AND SEDIMENT REMEDIATION.
(a) Great lakes remedial action plans--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may provide technical,
planning, and engineering assistance to State and local
governments and nongovernmental entities designated by a State
or local government in the development and implementation of
remedial action plans for Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes
identified under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of
1978.
(2) Non-federal interests.--
(A) In general.--Non-Federal interests shall
contribute, in cash or by providing in-kind
contributions, [50 percent] 35 percent of costs of
activities for which assistance is provided under
paragraph (1).
(B) Contributions by entities.--Nonprofit public or
private entities may contribute all or a portion of the
non-Federal share.
(b) Sediment remediation projects--
(1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (acting
through the Great Lakes National Program Office), may conduct
pilot- and full-scale projects of promising technologies to
remediate contaminated sediments in freshwater coastal regions
in the Great Lakes basin. The Secretary shall conduct not fewer
than 3 full-scale projects under this subsection.
(2) Site selection for projects.--In selecting the sites
for the technology projects, the Secretary shall give priority
consideration to Saginaw Bay, Michigan, Sheboygan Harbor,
Wisconsin, Grand Calumet River, Indiana, Ashtabula River, Ohio,
Buffalo River, New York, and Duluth-Superior Harbor, Minnesota
and Wisconsin.
[(3) Deadline for identifications.--The Secretary shall---
[(A) not later than 18 months after the date of the
enactment of this paragraph, identify the sites and
technologies for projects under this subsection; and
[(B) not later than 3 years after that date, complete each
such full-scale project.]
[(4)] (3) Non-federal share.--Non-Federal interests shall
contribute 50 percent of costs of projects under this
subsection. Such costs may be paid in cash or by providing in-
kind contributions.
(c) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section
[$5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1998 through 2000]
$10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2010.
* * * * * * *
----------
Public Law 102-580
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1992
[As Amended Through P.L. 106-53, August 17, 1999]
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water
Resources Development Act of 1992''.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 103. VISITOR CENTERS.
* * * * * * *
(c) Lower mississippi river museum and riverfront
interpretive site.--
(1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish
and operate in accordance with this subsection an
interpretive facility (including a museum and
interpretive site) in Vicksburg, Mississippi, which
shall be known as the ``Lower Mississippi River Museum
and Riverfront Interpretive Site''.
(2) Location of museum.--The museum shall be
located on property currently held by the Resolution
Trust Corporation [in the vicinity of the Mississippi
River Bridge in Vicksburg, Mississippi] between the
Mississippi River Bridge and the waterfront in downtown
Vicksburg, Mississippi. Title to the property shall be
transferred to the Secretary at no cost.
(3) Interpretive site.--The interpretive site shall
be located on riverfront property between the
Mississippi River Bridge and the Mississippi Riverpark
in Vicksburg, Mississippi. The Secretary is authorized
to acquire surface use easements for such site on a
willing seller basis.
(4) Limitation on acquisition authority.--The
Secretary may not use condemnation of property in
carrying out this subsection.
(5) Purposes of the museum and interpretive site.--
The purposes of the Lower Mississippi River Museum and
Riverfront Interpretive Site are to---
(A) promote an understanding of the Lower
Mississippi River and the United States Army
Corps of Engineers' role in developing and
managing this nationally significant resource;
(B) interpret the United States Army Corps
of Engineers historic presence in the Lower
Mississippi River Valley and its administration
of the Mississippi River and Tributaries
project;
(C) provide an understanding of the many
Corps of Engineers branches and facilities in
the Vicksburg area and their relationship to
flood control, navigation, and environmental
conservation in the Mississippi River;
(D) highlight the Mississippi River's
influence on the Vicksburg area and the river
valley's natural, historic, and cultural
resource contributions;
(E) highlight local Corps of Engineers
projects and management strategies;
(F) provide an understanding of the
surrounding natural riparian environment
adjacent to the Mississippi River through
public access and interpretive displays; and
(G) promote the worldwide application of
water resource technologies learned from using
the Mississippi River as a working model.
(6) Related agencies and programs--
(A) Smithsonian institution.--The Secretary
shall consult with the Secretary of the
Smithsonian Institution in the planning and
design of the museum and riverfront
interpretive site under this subsection.
(B) Department of the interior.--The
Secretary shall consult with the Secretary of
the Interior and the Director of the National
Park Service in the planning, design, and
implementation of interpretive programs for the
museum and riverfront interpretive site to be
established under this subsection.
(C) Visitor services.--The Secretary is
directed to provide increased and enhanced
visitor services at the United States Army
Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment
Station in Vicksburg, Mississippi.
(7) Authorization of appropriations.--There
is authorized to be appropriated $2,000,000 to
carry out this subsection, including acquiring
and restoring under paragraph (2) the property
held by the Resolution Trust Corporation and
planning, designing, and constructing the
museum and riverfront interpretive site under
this subsection.
* * * * * * *
(e) John paul hammerschmidt lake, arkansas.--
(1) Construction.--The Secretary shall construct a
visitors center for the Army Corps of Engineers at the
John Paul Hammerschmidt Lake, [Arkansas River,
Arkansas] at Fort Smith, Arkansas, on land provided by
the city of Fort Smith.
(2) Designation.--The visitor center to be
constructed under this subsection shall be known and
designated as the ``John Paul Hammerschmidt Visitor
Center''.
(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There is
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
subsection $2,000,000 for fiscal years beginning after
September 30, 1992. Such sums shall remain available
until expended.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 332. TRANSFER OF LOCKS AND APPURTENANT FEATURES, FOX RIVER SYSTEM,
WISCONSIN.
(a) Transfer.--[The Secretary]
(1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to
transfer to the State of Wisconsin the locks and
appurtenant features of the navigation portion of the
Fox River System, Wisconsin, extending from Green Bay,
Wisconsin, to Lake Winnebago, Wisconsin, subject to the
execution of an agreement by the Secretary and the
State of Wisconsin which specifies the terms and
conditions for such transfer.
(2) Payments to state.--The terms and conditions
may include 1 or more payments to the State of
Wisconsin to assist the State in paying the costs of
repair and rehabilitation of the transferred locks and
appurtenant features.
(b) Treatment of locks and appurtenant features.--The locks
and appurtenant features to be transferred under subsection (a)
shall not be treated as part of any Federal project after the
effective date of the transfer.
(c) Operation and maintenance.--Operation and maintenance
of all features of the Fox River System, Wisconsin, other than
the locks and appurtenant features to be transferred under
subsection (a), shall continue to be a Federal responsibility
after the effective date of the transfer under subsection (a).
* * * * * * *
----------
Public Law 104-303
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1996
[As Amended Through P.L. 105-153, December 17, 1997]
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water
Resources Development Act of 1996''.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 234. INTERAGENCY AND INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT AUTHORITY.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may engage in activities in
support of other Federal agencies or international
organizations to address problems of national significance to
the United States.
(b) Consultation.--The Secretary may engage in activities
in support of international organizations only after consulting
with the Secretary of State.
(c) Use of Corps' Expertise.--The Secretary may use the
technical and managerial expertise of the Corps of Engineers to
address domestic and international problems related to water
resources, infrastructure development, and environmental
protection.
(d) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated
[$1,000,000] $2,000,000 to carry out this section. The
Secretary may accept and expend additional funds from other
Federal agencies or international organizations to carry out
this section.
* * * * * * *
[SEC. 438. CUYAHOGA RIVER, OHIO.
[The Secretary shall conduct a study to evaluate the
integrity of the bulkhead system located on the Federal channel
along the Cuyahoga River in the vicinity of Cleveland, Ohio,
and shall provide to the non-Federal interest an analysis of
costs and repairs of the bulkhead system.]
SEC. 438. CUYAHOGA RIVER, OHIO.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall--
(1) conduct a study to evaluate the structural
integrity of the bulkhead system located on the Federal
navigation channel along the Cuyahoga River near
Cleveland, Ohio; and
(2) provide to the non-Federal interest design
analysis, plans and specifications, and cost estimates
for repair or replacement of the bulkhead system.
(b) Cost Sharing.--The non-Federal share of the cost of the
study shall be 35 percent.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $500,000.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 516. SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may enter into cooperation
agreements with non-Federal interests with respect to
navigation projects, or other appropriate non-Federal entities,
for the development of long-term management strategies for
controlling sediments at such projects.
(b) Contents of Strategies.--Each strategy developed under
subsection (a) shall--
(1) include assessments of sediment rates and
composition, sediment reduction options, dredging
practices, long-term management of any dredged material
disposal facilities, remediation of such facilities,
and alternative disposal and reuse options;
(2) include a timetable for implementation of the
strategy; and
(3) incorporate relevant ongoing planning efforts,
including remedial action planning, dredged material
management planning, harbor and waterfront development
planning, and watershed management planning.
(c) Consultation.--In developing strategies under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with interested
Federal agencies, States, and Indian tribes and provide an
opportunity for public comment.
(d) Dredged Material Disposal.--
(1) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of constructing and operating
an underwater confined dredged material disposal site
in the Port of New York-New Jersey that could
accommodate as much as 250,000 cubic yards of dredged
material for the purpose of demonstrating the
feasibility of an underwater confined disposal pit as
an environmentally suitable method of containing
certain sediments.
(2) Report.--The Secretary shall transmit to
Congress a report on the results of the study conducted
under paragraph (1), together with any recommendations
of the Secretary that may be developed in a strategy
under subsection (a).
(e) Great Lakes Tributary Model.--
(1) In general.--In consultation and coordination
with the Great Lakes States, the Secretary shall
develop a tributary sediment transport model for each
major river system or set of major river systems
depositing sediment into a Great Lakes federally
authorized commercial harbor, channel maintenance
project site, or Area of Concern identified under the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978. Such model
may be developed as a part of a strategy developed
under subsection (a).
(2) Requirements for models.--In developing a
tributary sediment transport model under this
subsection, the Secretary shall build on data and
monitoring information generated in earlier studies and
programs of the Great Lakes and their tributaries.
(3) Cost sharing.--The non-Federal share of the
costs of developing a tributary sediment transport
model under this subsection shall be 50 percent.
(f) Great Lakes States Defined.--In this section, the term
``Great Lakes States'' means the States of Illinois, Indiana,
Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
Wisconsin.
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--[There is authorized]
(1) In general.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section
$5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1998 through 2001.
(2) Great lakes tributary model.--In addition to
amounts made available under paragraph (1), there is
authorized to be appropriated to carry out subsection
(e) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through
2008.
* * * * * * *
----------
Public Law 106-53
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1999
[As Amended Through P.L. 106-109, November 24, 1999]
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water
Resources Development Act of 1999''.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 212. FLOOD MITIGATION AND RIVERINE RESTORATION PROGRAM.
(a) In General. * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) Priority Areas.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary shall examine appropriate locations, including--
(1) Pima County, Arizona, at Paseo De Las Iglesias
and Rillito River;
(2) Coachella Valley, Riverside County, California;
(3) Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers, California;
(4) Murrieta Creek, California;
(5) Napa River Valley watershed, California, at
Yountville, St Helena, Calistoga, and American Canyon;
(6) Santa Clara basin, California, at Upper
Guadalupe River and Tributaries, San Francisquito
Creek, and Upper Penitencia Creek;
(7) Pond Creek, Kentucky;
(8) Red River of the North, Minnesota, North
Dakota, and South Dakota;
(9) Connecticut River, New Hampshire;
(10) Pine Mount Creek, New Jersey;
(11) Southwest Valley, Albuquerque, New Mexico;
(12) Upper Delaware River, New York;
(13) Briar Creek, North Carolina;
(14) Chagrin River, Ohio;
(15) Mill Creek, Cincinnati, Ohio;
(16) Tillamook County, Oregon,
(17) Willamette River basin, Oregon;
(18) Blair County, Pennsylvania, at Altoona and
Frankstown Township;
(19) Delaware River, Pennsylvania;
(20) Schuylkill River, Pennsylvania;
(21) Providence County, Rhode Island;
(22) Shenandoah River, Virginia; [and]
(23) Lincoln Creek, Wisconsin[.] ; and
(24) Perry Creek, Iowa.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 217. DISPOSAL OF DREDGED MATERIAL ON BEACHES.
(a) In General.-- * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) Fort Canby State Park, Benson Beach, Washington.--The
Secretary may design and construct a shore protection project
at Fort Canby State Park, Benson Beach, Washington, including
beneficial use of dredged material from Federal navigation
projects as provided under section 145 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C. 426j).
* * * * * * *
SEC. 352. FOX POINT HURRICANE BARRIER, PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND.
(a) In General.--The project for hurricane-flood
protection, Fox Point, Providence, Rhode Island, authorized by
section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 306), is
modified to direct the Secretary to undertake the necessary
repairs to the barrier, as identified in the Condition Survey
and Technical Assessment dated April 1998, with Supplement
dated August 1998, at a total cost of $3,000,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $1,950,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $1,050,000.
(b) Credit Toward Non-Federal Share.--The non-Federal
interest shall receive credit toward the non-Federal share of
project costs, or reimbursement, for the Federal share of the
costs of repairs authorized under subsection (a) that are
incurred by the non-Federal interest before the date of
execution of the project cooperation agreement.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 374. WHITE RIVER BASIN, ARKANSAS AND MISSOURI.
(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the project for
flood control, power generation, and other purposes at the
White River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri, authorized by section
4 of the Act of June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1218, chapter 795), and
modified by House Document 917, 76th Congress, 3d Session, and
House Document 290, 77th Congress, 1st Session, approved August
18, 1941, and House Document 499, 83d Congress, 2d Session,
approved September 3, 1954, and by section 304 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3711) is further
modified to authorize the Secretary to provide minimum flows
necessary to sustain tail water trout fisheries by reallocating
[the following amounts of project storage: Beaver Lake, 1.5
feet; Table Rock, 2 feet; Bull Shoals Lake, 5 feet; Norfork
Lake, 3.5 feet; and Greers Ferry Lake, 3 feet.] the amounts of
project storage that are recommended by the report required
under subsection (b).
(b) Report.--
(1) In general.--No funds may be obligated to carry
out work on the modification under subsection (a) until
completion of a final report by the Chief of Engineers
finding that the work is technically sound,
environmentally acceptable, and economically justified
and does not significantly impact other authorized
project purposes.
(2) Timing.--The Secretary shall submit the report
to Congress not later than July 30, [2000] 2002.
(3) Contents.--The report shall include
determinations concerning whether and to what extent--
(A) the modification under subsection (a)
adversely affects other authorized project
purposes; [and]
(B) Federal costs will be incurred in
connection with the modification[.]; and
(C) project storage should be reallocated
to sustain the tail water trout fisheries.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 563. LAND CONVEYANCES.
* * * * * * *
(c) Candy Lake Project, Osage County, Oklahoma.--
(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
(A) Fair market value.--The term ``fair
market value'' means the amount for which a
willing buyer would purchase and a willing
seller would sell a parcel of land, as
determined by a qualified, independent land
appraiser.
(B) Previous owner of land.--The term
``previous owner of land'' means a person
(including a corporation) that conveyed, or a
descendant of [a deceased] an individual who
conveyed, land to the Corps of Engineers for
use in the Candy Lake project in Osage County,
Oklahoma.
(2) Conveyances.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall convey
all right, title, and interest of the United
States in and to the land acquired by the
United States for the Candy Lake project in
Osage County, Oklahoma.
(B) Previous owners of land.--
(i) In general.--The Secretary
shall give a previous owner of land the
first option to purchase the land
described in subparagraph (A).
(ii) Application.--
(I) In general.--A previous
owner of land that desires to
purchase the land described in
paragraph (1) that was owned by
the previous owner of land, or
by the individual from whom the
previous owner of land is
descended, shall file an
application to purchase the
land with the Secretary not
later than 180 days after the
official date of notice to the
previous owner of land under
paragraph (3).
(II) First to file has
first option.--If more than 1
application is filed to
purchase a parcel of land
described in subparagraph (A),
the first option to purchase
the parcel of land shall be
determined in the order in
which applications for the
parcel of land were filed.
(iii) Identification of previous
owners of land.--As soon as practicable
after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary shall, to the extent
practicable, identify each previous
owner of land.
(iv) Consideration.--Consideration
for land conveyed under this subsection
shall be the fair market value of the
land.
(C) Disposal.--Any land described in
subparagraph (A) for which an application to
purchase the land has not been filed under
subparagraph (B)(ii) within the applicable time
period shall be disposed of in accordance with
law.
(D) Extinguishment of easements.--All
flowage easements acquired by the United States
for use in the Candy Lake project in Osage
County, Oklahoma, are extinguished.
(3) Notice.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall
notify--
(i) each person identified as a
previous owner of land under paragraph
(2)(B)(iii), not later than 90 days
after identification, by United States
mail; and
(ii) the general public, not later
than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, by publication
in the Federal Register.
(B) Contents of notice.--Notice under this
paragraph shall include--
(i) a copy of this subsection;
(ii) information sufficient to
separately identify each parcel of land
subject to this subsection; and
(iii) specification of the fair
market value of each parcel of land
subject to this subsection.
(C) Official date of notice.--The official
date of notice under this subsection shall be
the later of--
(i) the date on which actual notice
is mailed; or
(ii) the date of publication of the
notice in the Federal Register.
(4) Costs of nepa compliance.--The Federal
Government shall assume the costs of any Federal action
under this subsection that is carried out for the
purpose of section 102 of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332).
(5) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as are
necessary to carry out this subsection.
* * * * * * *