[Senate Report 108-314]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
108th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 108-314
_______________________________________________________________________
Calendar No. 672
WATER RESOURCES
DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2004
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
to accompany
S. 2773
August 25, 2004.--Ordered to be printed
Filed under authority of the order of the Senate of July 22, 2004
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
one hundred eighth congress
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri MAX BAUCUS, Montana
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio HARRY REID, Nevada
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho BOB GRAHAM, Florida
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
JOHN CORNYN, Texas BARBARA BOXER, California
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska RON WYDEN, Oregon
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
Andrew Wheeler Majority Staff Director
Ken Connolly, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
__________
Page
General statement................................................ 1
Continuing authorities programs.............................. 3
Incomplete projects.......................................... 4
Water Resources Development Act of 2004.......................... 4
Section-by-section analysis...................................... 4
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents....................... 4
Sec. 2. Definition of Secretary.............................. 4
TITLE I--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 1001. Credit for in-kind contributions.................. 4
Sec. 1002. Interagency and international support authority... 6
Sec. 1003. Training Funds.................................... 6
Sec. 1004. Recreation user fees.............................. 6
Sec. 1005. Corps of Engineers river stewardship commission... 8
Sec. 1006. Improvement of water management at Corps of
Engineers reservoirs....................................... 8
Sec. 1007. Fiscal transparency report........................ 9
Sec. 1008. Planning.......................................... 9
Sec. 1009. Water resources planning council.................. 11
Sec. 1010. Independent reviews............................... 11
Sec. 1011. Fish and wildlife mitigation...................... 13
Sec. 1012. Agreements for water resources projects........... 14
Sec. 1013. State technical assistance........................ 15
Sec. 1014. Access to water resources data.................... 16
TITLE II--NAVIGATION
Subtitle A--Inland Waterways
Chapter 1--Studies
Sec. 2001. McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System... 16
Chapter 2--Projects
Subchapter A--Authorizations
Sec. 2101. Deep Creek, Chesapeake, Virginia.................. 17
Subchapter B--Project Modifications
Sec. 2111. Black-Warrior Tombigbee Rivers, Alabama........... 17
Sec. 2112. Larkspur Ferry Channel, California................ 17
Sec. 2113. Redwood City navigation project, California....... 17
Sec. 2114. St. George's Bridge, Delaware..................... 17
Sec. 2115. Chicago River, Illinois........................... 18
Sec. 2116. Red River (J. Bennett Johnston) Waterway,
Louisiana.................................................. 18
Sec. 2117. Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts and Rhode Island. 18
Sec. 2118. Cooper River bridge demolition, Charleston, South
Carolina................................................... 18
Sec. 2119. Plant Replacement and Improvement Program, Corps
of Engineers Charleston District Equipment and Storage
Yard, South Carolina....................................... 18
Sec. 2120. Old Hickory Lock and Dam, Cumberland River,
Tennessee.................................................. 19
Sec. 2121. McNary Lock and Dam, McNary National Wildlife
Refuge, Washington......................................... 19
Sec. 2122. Snake River Project, Washington and Idaho......... 19
Sec. 2123. Marmet Lock, Kanawha River, West Virginia......... 19
Sec. 2124. Enhanced navigation capacity improvements and
ecosystem restoration plan for the Upper Mississippi River
and Illinois Waterway System............................... 19
Sec. 2125. Lower Mississippi River Museum and Riverfront
Interpretive Site.......................................... 23
Sec. 2126. Pilot Program, Middle Mississippi River........... 23
Subchapter C--Deauthorizations
Sec. 2141. Inland waterway from Delaware River to Chesapeake
Bay, Part II, installation of fender protection for
bridges, Delaware and Maryland............................. 24
Sec. 2142. Mayo's Bar Lock and Dam, Coosa River, Rome,
Georgia.................................................... 24
Sec. 2143. Gulf Intercoastal Waterway, Lake Borgne and Chef
Menteur, Louisiana......................................... 24
Sec. 2144. Eisenhower and Snell Locks, New York.............. 24
Sec. 2145. Red River Waterway, Shreveport, Louisiana to
Daingerfield, Texas........................................ 24
Sec. 2146. Schuylkill River, Pennsylvania.................... 24
Sec. 2147. Lake of the Pines, Texas.......................... 25
Sec. 2148. Tennessee Colony Lake, Texas...................... 25
Sec. 2149. City Waterway, Tacoma, Washington................. 25
Subtitle B--Ports and Harbors
Chapter 1--Continuing Authorities Programs
Sec. 2201. Navigation enhancement for waterbourne
transportation............................................. 25
Chapter 2--Studies
Sec. 2211. National port study............................... 25
Chapter 3--Projects
Subchapter A--Authorizations
Sec. 2221. Akutan Harbor, Akutan, Alaska..................... 26
Sec. 2222. Haines Small Boat Harbor, Haines, Alaska.......... 26
Sec. 2223. St. Herman and St. Paul Harbors, Kodiak, Alaska... 27
Sec. 2224. Unalaska Small Boat Harbor, Unalaska, Alaska...... 27
Sec. 2225. Miami Harbor, Miami, Florida...................... 27
Sec. 2226. Port of Iberia, Louisiana......................... 28
Sec. 2227. Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Corpus Christi, Texas 28
Subchapter B--Modifications
Sec. 2241. Sitka, Alaska..................................... 29
Sec. 2242. LA-3 dredged material ocean disposal site
designation, California.................................... 29
Sec. 2243. Conditional declaration of nonnavigability, Port
of San Francisco, California............................... 29
Sec. 2244. Charles Hervey Townshend Breakwater, New Haven
Harbor, Connecticut........................................ 30
Sec. 2245. Anchorage area, New London Harbor, Connecticut.... 30
Sec. 2246. Norwalk Harbor, Connecticut....................... 30
Sec. 2247. Jacksonville Harbor, Florida...................... 30
Sec. 2248. South Carolina Department of Commerce development
proposal at Richard B. Russell Lake, South Carolina........ 30
Sec. 2249. Port of Lewiston, Idaho........................... 31
Sec. 2250. Chicago River and Harbor, Chicago, Illinois....... 31
Sec. 2251. Camp Ellis, Saco, Maine........................... 31
Sec. 2252. Union River, Maine................................ 31
Sec. 2253. Duluth Harbor, Minnesota.......................... 31
Sec. 2254. New York Harbor, New York, New York............... 31
Sec. 2255. Toussaint River Navigation Project, Carroll
Township, Ohio............................................. 32
Sec. 2256. Essayons and Yaquina dredges, Oregon.............. 32
Sec. 2257. Cedar Bayou, Texas................................ 32
Sec. 2258. Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Brazos River to Port
O'Connor, Texas............................................ 32
Sec. 2259. Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, High Island to Brazos
River, Texas............................................... 33
Sec. 2260. Tangier Island Seawall, Virginia.................. 33
Sec. 2261. Lower Granite Pool, Washington.................... 33
Subchapter C--Deauthorizations
Sec. 2271. Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut.................... 34
Sec. 2272. Muscatine Harbor, Iowa............................ 34
Sec. 2273. Bayou LaFourche and LaFourche Jump, Louisiana..... 34
Sec. 2274. Northeast Harbor, Maine........................... 34
Sec. 2275. Tenants Harbor, Maine............................. 34
Sec. 2276. Grand Haven Harbor, Michigan...................... 34
Sec. 2277. Greenville Harbor, Mississippi.................... 35
Sec. 2278. New York Harbor and adjacent channels, Claremont
Terminal, Jersey City, New Jersey.......................... 35
Sec. 2279. Olcott Harbor, Lake Ontario, New York............. 35
Sec. 2280. Outer Harbor, Buffalo, New York................... 35
Sec. 2281. Manteo Bay, North Carolina........................ 35
Sec. 2282. Cleveland Harbor 1958 Act, Ohio................... 35
Sec. 2283. Cleveland Harbor 1960 Act, Ohio................... 35
Sec. 2284. Cleveland Harbor, Uncompleted Portion of Cut #4,
Ohio....................................................... 35
Sec. 2285. Columbia River, Seafarers Memorial, Hammond,
Oregon..................................................... 36
Sec. 2286. Delaware River, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to
Trenton, New Jersey........................................ 36
Sec. 2287. Narragansett Town Beach, Narragansett, Rhode
Island..................................................... 36
Sec. 2288. Quonset Point-Davisville, Rhode Island............ 36
TITLE III--FLOOD AND COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUTION
Subtitle A--Flood Damage Reduction
Chapter 1--General Provisions
Sec. 3001. Construction of flood control projects by non-
Federal interests.......................................... 36
Chapter 2--Continuing Authorities Programs
Sec. 3101. Protection and restoration due to emergencies at
shores and streambanks (PRESS)............................. 36
Chapter 3--Studies
Sec. 3201. Nicholas Canyon, Los Angeles, California.......... 37
Sec. 3202. Comprehensive flood protection project, St.
Helena, California......................................... 37
Sec. 3203. San Francisco Bay, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta,
Sherman Island, California................................. 37
Sec. 3204. South San Francisco Bay shoreline study,
California................................................. 37
Sec. 3205. Lake Erie at Luna Pier, Michigan.................. 38
Sec. 3206. Middle Bass Island State Park, Middle Bass Island,
Ohio....................................................... 38
Chapter 4--Projects
Subchapter A--Authorizations
Sec. 3301. Tanque Verde Creek Project, Pima County, Arizona.. 38
Sec. 3302. Hamilton City, California......................... 38
Sec. 3303. Middle Creek, Lake County, California............. 39
Sec. 3304. Indian River Lagoon, South Florida................ 39
Sec. 3305. Picayune Strand ecosystem restoration, Collier
County, Florida............................................ 40
Sec. 3306. Swope Park Industrial Area, Missouri.............. 40
Sec. 3307. Southwest Valley, Albuquerque, New Mexico......... 41
Subchapter B--Modifications
Sec. 3311. St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.......... 41
Sec. 3312. Augusta and Clarendon, Arkansas................... 41
Sec. 3313. St. Francis Basin land transfer, Arkansas and
Missouri................................................... 41
Sec. 3314. Red-Ouachita River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri... 42
Sec. 3315. Cache Creek Basin, California..................... 42
Sec. 3316. Llagas Creek, California.......................... 42
Sec. 3317. Magpie Creek, California.......................... 42
Sec. 3318. Sacramento and American Rivers flood control,
California................................................. 42
Sec. 3319. Upper Guadalupe River, California................. 42
Sec. 3320. Yuba River Basin project, California.............. 43
Sec. 3321. Dworshak Reservoir improvements, Idaho............ 43
Sec. 3322. Little Wood River, Gooding, Idaho................. 43
Sec. 3323. Cache River Levee, Illinois....................... 43
Sec. 3324. Missouri and Illinois flood protection projects
reconstruction pilot program............................... 43
Sec. 3325. Spunky Bottom, Illinois........................... 44
Sec. 3326. Cumberland, Maryland.............................. 44
Sec. 3327. Land exchange, Pike County, Missouri.............. 44
Sec. 3328. Lake Girard Lake Dam, Ohio........................ 44
Sec. 3329. University of Oregon Museum of Natural History,
Oregon..................................................... 44
Sec. 3330. Tioga Township, Pennsylvania...................... 45
Sec. 3331. Harris Fork Creek, Tennessee and Kentucky......... 45
Sec. 3332. Nonconnah Weir, Memphis, Tennessee................ 45
Sec. 3333. Harris County, Texas.............................. 45
Sec. 3334. Chehalis River, Centralia, Washington............. 45
Sec. 3335. Erosion control, Puget Island, Wahkiakum County,
Washington................................................. 46
Sec. 3336. Lower Mud River, Milton, West Virginia............ 46
Subchapter C--Deauthorizations
Sec. 3341. Little Cove Creek, Glencoe, Alabama............... 47
Sec. 3342. Winslow, Arizona.................................. 47
Sec. 3343. Goleta and Vicinity, California................... 47
Sec. 3344. Shingle Creek Basin, Florida...................... 47
Sec. 3345. Brevoort, Indiana................................. 47
Sec. 3346. Middle Wabash, Greenfield Bayou, Indiana.......... 47
Sec. 3347. Lake George, Hobart, Indiana...................... 47
Sec. 3348. Green Bay Levee and Drainage District No. 2, Iowa. 47
Sec. 3349. Eagle Creek Lake, Kentucky........................ 48
Sec. 3350. Hazard, Kentucky.................................. 48
Sec. 3351. Taylorsville Lake, Kentucky....................... 48
Sec. 3352. West Kentucky Tributaries, Kentucky............... 48
Sec. 3353. Bayou Cocodrie and Tributaries, Louisiana......... 48
Sec. 3354. Eastern Rapides and South-Central Avoyelles
Parishes, Louisiana........................................ 48
Sec. 3355. Platte River Flood and Related Streambank Erosion
Control, Nebraska.......................................... 49
Sec. 3356. Sugar Creek Basin, North Carolina and South
Carolina................................................... 49
Sec. 3357. Parker Lake, Muddy Boggy Creek, Oklahoma.......... 49
Sec. 3358. Chartiers Creek, Cannonsburg (Houston Reach Unit
2B), Pennsylvania.......................................... 49
Sec. 3359. Tioga-Hammond Lakes, Pennsylvania................. 49
Sec. 3360. Tamaqua, Pennsulvania............................. 49
Sec. 3361. Arroyo Colorado, Texas............................ 49
Sec. 3362. Cypress Creek-Structural, Texas................... 49
Sec. 3363. East Fork Channel Improvement, Increment 2, East
Fork of the Trinity River, Texas........................... 50
Sec. 3364. Falfurrias, Texas................................. 50
Sec. 3365. Pecan Bayou Lake, Texas........................... 50
Sec. 3366. Kanawha River, Charleston, West Virginia.......... 50
Subtitle B--Coastal Storm Damage Reduction
Chapter 1--General Provisions
Sec. 3401. Shore protection and beach renourishment projects. 50
Sec. 3402. Regional sediment management...................... 51
Sec. 3403. National shoreline erosion control development and
demonstration program...................................... 51
Sec. 3404. Shore protection projects......................... 51
Chapter 2--Studies
Sec. 3411. Oceanside, California, shoreline special study.... 52
Chapter 3--Projects
Subchapter A--Authorizations
Sec. 3421. Coastal Louisiana ecosystem protection and
restoration................................................ 52
Sec. 3422. Morganza, Louisiana to the Gulf of Mexico......... 54
Sec. 3423. New Jersey Shore protection, Manasquan Inlet to
Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey................................. 54
Sec. 3424. South River, New Jersey........................... 55
Sec. 3425. Montauk Point, New York........................... 55
Sec. 3426. Coastal wetland conservation project funding...... 56
Subchapter B--Modifications
Sec. 3431. Imperial Beach, California........................ 56
Sec. 3432. Lido Key Beach, Sarasota, Florida................. 56
Sec. 3433. Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York.................... 57
Subchapter C--Deauthorizations
Sec. 3441. Fort Livingston, Grand Terre Island, Louisiana.... 57
TITLE IV--ECOYSTEM RESTORATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION
Subtitle A--Ecosystem Restoration
Chapter 1--General Provisions
Sec. 4001. Cost Sharing for monitoring....................... 57
Sec. 4002. Ecosystem restoration benefits.................... 57
Sec. 4003. Great Lakes Interagency Talk Force................ 57
Chapter 2--Continuing Authorities Programs
Sec. 4101. Restoration of the environment for protection of
aquatic and riparian ecosystems program.................... 58
Sec. 4102. Environmental modification of projects for
improvement and restoration of ecosystems program.......... 58
Sec. 4103. Projects to enhance estuaries and coastal habitats 58
Chapter 3--Studies
Subchapter A--Authorizations
Sec. 4201. Lake Champlain Canal study, Vermont and New York.. 58
Sec. 4202. Eurasian milfoil.................................. 58
Subchapter B--Modifications
Sec. 4211. San Pablo Bay watershed restoration, California... 59
Chapter 4--Projects
Subchapter A--Authorizations
Sec. 4301. Matilija Dam. Ventura County, California.......... 59
Sec. 4302. Napa River Salt Marsh, California................. 59
Sec. 4303. Pine Flat Dam fish and wildlife habitat,
California................................................. 60
Sec. 4304. Salton Sea restoration............................ 60
Sec. 4305. South Platte River, Denver, Colorado.............. 61
Sec. 4306. Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal dispersal barriers
project, Illinois.......................................... 61
Sec. 4307. Smith Island, Maryland............................ 62
Sec. 4308. Upper Connecticut River Basin ecosystem
restoration, New Hampshire and Connecticut................. 62
Sec. 4309. Upper Connecticut River Basin wetland restoration,
New Hampshire and Connecticut.............................. 62
Sec. 4310. Jamaica Bay, Marina Park and Plumb Beach, Queens
and Brooklyn, New York..................................... 63
Sec. 4311. Long Island Sound oyster restoration, New York and
Connecticut................................................ 63
Sec. 4312. Upper Willamette River watershed ecosystem
restoration, Oregon........................................ 64
Sec. 4313. Riverside Oxbow, Fort Worth, Texas................ 64
Sec. 4314. Connecticut River Dams, Vermont................... 64
Subchapter B--Modifications
Sec. 4321. Hamilton Airfield, California..................... 65
Sec. 4322. Allatoona Lake, Georgia........................... 65
Sec. 4323. Ohio River, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and West Virginia............................ 66
Sec. 4324. Public access, Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System,
Louisiana.................................................. 66
Sec. 4325. Onondaga Lake, New York........................... 66
Sec. 4326. Missouri River restoration, North Dakota.......... 66
Sec. 4327. Upper Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and
New York................................................... 66
Sec. 4328. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux
Tribe, and terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration, South
Dakota..................................................... 67
Sec. 4329. Missouri River restoration........................ 67
Sec. 4330. Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers enhancement
project.................................................... 67
Sec. 4331. Lake Champlain Eurasian milfoil and water chestnut
control, Vermont........................................... 67
Sec. 4332. Lake Champlain Watershed, Vermont and New York.... 67
Sec. 4333. Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration, Virginia and
Maryland................................................... 68
Sec. 4334. Lakes Program..................................... 68
Sec. 4335. Estuary restoration............................... 68
Subchapter C--Deauthorizations
Sec. 4351. Dog River Pilot Project, Alabama.................. 70
Sec. 4352. Central and Southern Florida, Everglades National
Park, Florida.............................................. 70
Subtitle B--Environmental Remediation
Chapter 1--Continuing Authorities Programs
Sec. 4401. Remediation of abandoned mine sites (RAMS)........ 70
Chapter 2--Modifications
Sec. 4411. Environmental remediation, Front Royal, Virginia.. 71
TITLE V--WATER STORAGE AND WATER QUALITY
Subtitle A--Water Storage Program
Chapter 1--Continuing Authorities Programs
Sec. 5101. Small projects for the rehabilitation or removal
of dams.................................................... 71
Chapter 2--Studies
Sec. 5201. Selenium study, Colorado.......................... 71
Chapter 3--Projects
Subchapter A--Modifications
Sec. 5301. Union Lake, Missouri.............................. 71
Sec. 5302. Fort Peck Fish Hatchery, Montana.................. 71
Sec. 5303. Arcadia Lake, Oklahoma............................ 71
Sec. 5304. Waurika Lake, Oklahoma............................ 71
Sec. 5305. Dam remediation, Vermont.......................... 72
Sec. 5306. Mississippi River headwaters reservoirs........... 72
Subchapter B--Deauthorizations
Sec. 5321. Big South Fork National River and Recreational
Area, Kentucky and Tennessee............................... 72
Subtitle B--Water Quality Program
Chapter 1--General Provisions
Sec. 5401. Funding to expedite the evaluation and processing
of permits................................................. 72
Sec. 5402. Electronic submission of permit applications...... 72
Chapter 2--Deauthorization of Projects
Sec. 5421. Bridgeport, Connecticut........................... 72
Sec. 5422. Hartford, Connecticut............................. 73
Sec. 5423. New Haven, Connecticut............................ 73
Sec. 5424. Casco Bay, Portland, Maine........................ 73
Sec. 5425. Penobscot River, Bangor, Maine.................... 73
Sec. 5426. Saint John River Basin, Maine..................... 73
Sec. 5427. Epping, New Hampshire............................. 73
Sec. 5428. Manchester, New Hampshire......................... 73
Subtitle C--Watershed Planning Program
Sec. 5451. Delmarva Conservation Corridor, Delaware and
Maryland................................................... 74
Sec. 5452. Susquehanna, Delaware, and Potomac River Basins,
Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia............. 74
Hearings......................................................... 74
Legislative History.............................................. 75
Rollcall Votes................................................... 75
Mandates Assessment.............................................. 75
Evaluation of Regulatory Impact.................................. 75
Cost of Legislation.............................................. 75
Changes in Existing Law.......................................... 76
Calendar No. 672
108th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 108-314
======================================================================
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2004
_______
August 25, 2004.--Ordered to be printed
Filed under authority of the order of the Senate of July 22, 2004
_______
Mr. Inhofe, from the Committee on Environment and Public Works,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[to accompany S. 2773]
The Committee on Environment and Public Works, to which was
referred the bill (S. 2554) 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, and having considered the same, reports
favorably thereon, and recommends that the bill, as amended, be
reported as original text and pass.
General Statement
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, was
the largest and most comprehensive authorization of the Army
Corps' Civil Works Program since the Senate Public Works
Committee was created in 1947.
The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 marked the end
of a 16-year deadlock between the Congress and 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.
Some of the major reforms included the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 and subsequent legislation 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 of Engineers 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
(Public Law 100-676); 1990 (Public Law 101-640); 1992 (Public
Law 102-580); 1996 (Public Law 104-303); 1999 (Public Law 106-
53); and 2000 (Public Law 106-541); and will continue to apply
to all projects contained in the Water Resources Development
Act of 2004.
In reporting the Water Resources Development Act of 2004,
the committee is adhering to the policies established in the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662), and
continued in the civil works program of the Army Corps of
Engineers. This bill includes authorization for 35 new projects
for navigation, flood and coastal storm damage reduction,
ecosystem restoration and environmental remediation, and water
storage and water quality. This bill 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. There were 43 Study Resolutions passed at the
June 23, 2004 committee meeting. These resolutions are as
follows:
Choctawatchee and Pea River Basins, Alabama and Florida
Kenai River Flood Erosion Control, Alaska
Lowell Creek Tunnel, Seward, Alaska
Nelson Lagoon, Alaska
St. George Island, Alaska
Russian River Basin, California
San Francisquito Creek, California
Santa Monica Bay, California
Connecticut River Basin, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, and Vermont
Mystic Harbor, Connecticut
Battle Bend Cutoff, Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint Rivers,
Florida and Georgia
Fort Hall Bottoms, Idaho
Chicago River System Restoration Management Plan, Illinois
Kaskaskia River Basin Restoration, Illinois
Chariton River Basin, Iowa and Missouri
Grand River Basin, Iowa and Missouri
Grand Isle, Louisiana
Third Delta Conveyance, Louisiana
Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts
Lower St. Anthony Falls Rapids, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Red Falls Lake, Minnesota
Tupelo, Mississippi
Cumulative Flooding Impacts Study, Metropolitan St. Louis,
Missouri
Little Blue River Basin, Missouri
Yellowstone River at Glendive, Montana
Elizabeth River Watershed, New Jersey
Lake Sakakawea and Oahe, North Dakota
Indian Creek, Massieville, Ohio
Lake Erie Waterfront, Euclid, Ohio
Sac and Fox Nation, Oklahoma
Condit Dam, White Salmon River, Oregon and Washington
Delaware River Watershed, Pennsylvania
Potomac River Watershed, Pennsylvania
Susquehanna River Watershed, Pennsylvania
Little Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island and Connecticut
Central City, Texas
North Padre Island, Texas
Clear Creek and Tributaries, Texas
Coastal Texas Protection and Restoration Study
Harris Gully, Texas
Nueces River and Tributaries, Texas
Land and Water Resources of Vermont
Ilwaco Channel Extension, Baker Bay Study, Washington
Continuing Authorities Programs
The Army Corps of Engineers also has authority to perform
small projects of various types under continuing authorities
programs. This bill modifies many of the continuing authorities
programs to modernize and update the programs, including the
development of usable names. Examples of projects that may be
performed under continuing authorities programs include, but
are not limited to:
Protection and restoration due to emergencies at shores and
streambanks (PRESS)--created under section 14 of the Flood
Control Act of 1946 (Public Law 79-526).
(1) Eel River Streambank Stabilization, Massachusetts
(2) Bates Street Outfall, Michigan
Navigation enhancements for waterbourne transportion
(NEWT)-created under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of
1960 (33 U.S.C. 577).
(1) Little Rock Port, Arkansas
(2) Au Sable River, Michigan
(3) Outer Channel and Inner Harbor, Menominee Harbor,
Michigan and Wisconsin
(4) Sutherlin Creek Enhancement Project, Oregon
Restoration of the environment for protection of aquatic
and riparian ecosystem program (REPARE)--created under section
206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (Public Law
104-303).
(1) San Diego Wetlands, California
(2) Suisun Marsh, San Pablo Bay, California
(3) Chattahoochee Fall Line Ecosystem Restoration
Project, Georgia
(4) City Park/University Lakes Master Plan, Louisiana
(5) Blackstone River Anadramous Fish Restoration, Rhode
Island
Flood Control--created under section 205 of the Flood
Control Act of 1948 (Public Law 80-858).
(1) Cache River Basin, Arkansas
(2) Cass River, Michigan
(3) Marsh Creek, Minnesota
Environmental modification of projects for improvement and
restoration of ecosystems program (EMPIRE)--created under
section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(Public Law 99-662).
(1) Seven Oaks Dam Borrow Pit Groundwater Conservation
and Habitat Restoration Project, California
Incomplete Projects
The committee also encourages the Army Corps of Engineers
to expedite completion of the following projects:
(1) Dillingham Small Boat Harbor, Dillingham, Alaska
(2) Kake Dam, Kake, Alaska
Water Resources Development Act of 2004
The Water Resources Development Act of 2004, reported by
the Committee on Environment and Public Works as original text,
resulting from consideration of S. 2554, introduced on June 23,
2004, by Senator Frist, for Senators Inhofe, Jeffords, Bond and
Reid, incorporates some of the provisions as outlined below.
Section-By-Section Analysis
Sec. 1. Short Title; Table Of Contents.
This section designates the title of the bill as ``The
Water Resources Development Act of 2004'' 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--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 1001. Credit for in-kind contributions.
This section provides general authority for the Secretary
to provide credit for in-kind services made by the non-Federal
sponsor toward the non-Federal share of the cost of a project.
This authority applies to all authorized projects, including
projects implemented under general continuing authority. In-
kind services include:
1) the costs of planning (including data collection),
design, management, mitigation, construction, and construction
services; and
2) the value of materials or services provided before the
execution of an agreement for the project, including efforts on
constructed elements incorporated into the project and
materials and services provided after an agreement is executed.
In all cases, credit is subject to a determination by the
Secretary that the property or service provided is integral to
the project. Credit may be provided as long as it does not
exceed the non-Federal share of the cost of the project, it
does not alter any other requirement that the non-Federal
interest provide land, easements or rights-of-way, or an area
for disposal of dredged material for the project, or it does
not exceed the actual and reasonable costs of the materials,
services, or other items provided by the non-Federal sponsor.
This section was incorporated in the Water Resources
Development Act of 2004 to ensure that a consistent crediting
policy is applied throughout the Army Corps of Engineers for
all projects undertaken. The committee recognizes that many
non-Federal sponsors have significant capability to carry out
elements of projects and studies, as described in the testimony
offered by Mr. Gregory A. Zlotnik, Director of the Santa Clara
Valley Water District in California, on March 31, 2004, at a
hearing before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and
Public Works, Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure
regarding the Water Resources Development Act of 2004, which
this credit policy is designed to encourage.
It is the intent of the committee to allow credit for in-
kind contributions for all on-going, but not completed,
projects in accordance with this section. Ongoing projects that
this crediting policy applies to include, but are not limited
to:
(1) White River Basin Comprehensive Study, Arkansas and
Missouri
(2) San Francisco Bay to Port of Stockton Channel
Deepening Project, California
(3) Pinole Creek, California
(4) Walnut Creek Channel Aquatic Restoration,
California
(5) Garyson's Creek/Murderer's Creek, California
(6) Wildcat Creek, Phase I, California
(7) Wildcat Creek, Phase II, California
(8) South Platte River Urban Watershed, Colorado
(9) Port of Miami, Florida
(10) Port of Tampa, Florida
(11) Ft. Pierce Shoreline Protection Study, Florida
(12) Gasparilla and Estero Islands Shore Protection
Project, Florida
(13) Broward County and Hillsboro Inlet Shore
Protection Project, Florida
(14) South Branch of the Wild Rice River, Minnesota
(15) Pemiscot County Harbor, Missouri
(16) Monarch Chesterfield, Missouri
(17) Sand Creek Watershed, Nebraska
(18) Watershed Management and Development, Nevada
(19) Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration
Program
(20) John Glenn Great Lakes Basin Program
(21) Alsop/Brownwood Wetlands Restoration Project,
Oregon
(22) San Antonio Channel, Texas
Sec. 1002. Interagency And International Support Authority.
This section modifies the existing authority to provide
support for other Federal agencies and international
organizations. Under current law, the Secretary is authorized
to receive funds to support Federal agencies or international
organizations (after consultation with the Department of State)
to address problems of national significance to the United
States. This section allows the Secretary to also provide
support to foreign governments and it adds contracting as one
of the activities the Army Corps of Engineers may undertake
under this authority. It authorizes $1,000,000 for this purpose
for fiscal year 2005. This section also lists examples of
projects that may receive assistance under this section which
include but are not limited to:
(1) Lake Wappanoca, Arkansas
(2) Arkansas Valley Conduit, Colorado
(3) Egmont Key, Florida
(4) Wind River Irrigation Project, Wyoming
By changing the consultation requirement to the Department
of State, the Secretary is able to streamline the consultation
process to more quickly and effectively work directly with the
offices within the State Department that oversee the particular
support requests
Sec. 1003. Training Funds.
This section authorizes the Secretary to allow private
sector individuals to enroll in training classes or courses
offered by the Army Corps of Engineers and to recoup expenses
incurred by the Corps in providing training for those
participants. It also authorizes the Secretary to retain the
funds paid by private sector individuals who enroll in these
courses. Funds retained by the Secretary must be credited to an
appropriation or account used to pay for training costs and
shall be available without further appropriations for use by
the Secretary for training purposes. Amounts received in excess
of costs of training are required to be credited to the U.S.
Treasury.
Under the current system, the more successful the Army
Corps of Engineers is in training the private sector, the
greater the financial burden on the agency. Currently, any
reimbursements collected by the Army Corps of Engineers for
training provided to private sector individuals are sent to the
U.S. Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.
Sec. 1004. Recreation User Fees.
This section amends section 225 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 (16 U.S.C. 460l-6a note) to make the
demonstration recreation fee program permanent for the Army
Corps of Engineers. First, this section modifies existing law
to allow the Army Corps of Engineers to retain 100 percent of
the recreation fees it collects, not just those above a
baseline of $34,000,000. It allows the fees collected to remain
available until expended rather than just through fiscal year
2005. It expands the list of tasks for which fees may be used
to include planning. Eighty percent of the fees collected are
to be made available for expenditure by the Corps District in
which they are collected.
Second, this section establishes the scope of the permanent
recreation user fee program. The Secretary is required to
charge and collect fees for admission to the recreation area or
site or for the use of outdoor recreationsites, facilities,
visitor centers, equipment, and services by individuals or
groups. Fees are to be based on the fair market value of the
admission or use to maximize recreation benefits of the
projects.
The Secretary is authorized to use contracts, including
reasonable commissions, with public or private entities to
provide visitor services for the recreation area or site,
including taking reservations and providing information. The
Secretary is also authorized to accept volunteer services to
collect fees. The Secretary is required to charge and collect
rents for any lease with a non-Federal entity relating to
project land. Leases must be a minimum of 25 years and may be
renewed for an additional 25-year period. If land is unused,
the Secretary shall terminate leases. This section applies
chapter 69, title 31, U.S.C. (payments in lieu of taxes) to
land leased to non-Federal entities. Finally, any recreation
fees collected under this section are deemed in lieu of fees
charged under any other provision of law.
The committee expects the Secretary to attempt to recover
from users the costs of operating and maintaining recreation
areas or sites on project land. This section ensures that the
majority of the fees stay at the site to reinvest in visitor
facilities and services. For this reason, 80 percent of the
fees are to be used to benefit the visitors at the site of
collection.
The committee recognizes that recreation fees are sometimes
spent in ways that may not be apparent, but would be noticed by
visitors if the investment did not occur. Recreation fees are
spent on such services as maintaining and upgrading toilet
facilities, trails, and parking lots. The committee encourages
the Secretary to communicate with the public on how recreation
fees are spent to enhance the visitor experience.
The committee recognizes that certain recreation activities
require additional attention by agency staff or involve
additional costs. These extra costs should be borne by those
visitors participating in these activities and not by the
general public or by the rest of the visiting public.
The committee recommends the Secretary not charge fees for
locations where there has not been a significant investment for
recreation. The committee recognizes that, under the
demonstration authority for dispersed recreation, such as for:
areas with little or no facilities or services; for persons who
are driving-through, walking-through, or hiking through Federal
lands without using the facilities or services; for
undesignated parking; and for overlooks or scenic pullouts. The
committee expects the Secretary to continue to follow the
criteria established in Army Corps of Engineers documents (EP
1130-2-550 and ER 1130-2-550) in determining where fees are
applicable under the Recreation Fee authority.
As demand for public recreation grows in scope and form,
the committee expects the permanent recreation fee program to
help meet these demands. The committee recognizes that sites
that attract thousands of visitors each day and tens of
thousands of visitors each year, must invest in sanitation
facilities, parking, campgrounds, shelters, boat ramps, and
other infrastructure that helps ensure access, safety, and
resource protection so the very feature that attracts the
visitor remains available for the future.
Sec. 1005. Corps of Engineers River Stewardship Commission.
This section establishes a ``Corps of Engineers River
Stewardship Commission'' and directs the Commission to complete
an investigation and submit to Congress, within 2-years of the
date of enactment of this Act, a report on the management of
rivers in the United States by the Army Corps of Engineers,
with special emphasis on a number of factors detailed in this
section. The Commission terminates on the date on which it
submits its report to Congress or within 60 days after the date
on which the report is due. This section also establishes
membership and operating procedures for the Commission.
$5,000,000 is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
section for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2007.
Sec. 1006. Improvement of water management at Corps of Engineers
reservoirs.
This section authorizes the Secretary to carry out measures
in cooperation and coordination with States, tribal
governments, and local governments to more effectively and
efficiently meet the water resource needs of areas affected by
the reservoirs operated and maintained by the Army Corps of
Engineers. It requires that all revenues collected in
connection with reservoir operation for navigation, flood
control, or multi-purpose projects, except those collected for
recreation, be credited to the revolving fund established under
section 101 of the Civil Functions Appropriations Act, 1954 (33
U.S.C. 701b-10). Eighty percent of those revenues shall be
available within the Corps District in which they were
generated for the purpose of defraying costs of planning,
operation, maintenance, replacements, and upgrades of, and
emergency expenditures for, all facilities of Army Corps of
Engineers projects within that District. Twenty percent of
those revenues shall be available on an agency-wide basis for
the same purposes. Water supply storage fees shall not exceed
the net change in receipts or outlays to the Treasury due to a
reallocation of storage.
In addition, this section establishes a new program for
hydroelectric maintenance fees. Power marketing administrators,
other than the Bonneville Power Administration (which directly
funds operations and maintenance costs), shall pay 0.22 cents
per kilowatt-hour as reimbursement for operations and
maintenance expenses associated with the project during fiscal
years 2005 through 2010. The Secretary is required to report to
the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and the
House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure with the estimated cost of operation and
maintenance associated with hydroelectric facilities and
recommend an appropriate reimbursement rate calculated on a
per-kilowatt basis.
Water supply and management issues are becoming
increasingly important as the demand on existing supplies
continues to grow. The Army Corps of Engineers currently
manages 383 major dams and reservoirs, providing significant
benefits to many regions of the Nation. However, some of these
reservoirs use operating plans that may no longer reflect the
best comparative net economic and environmental returns for the
Nation. The intent of this program is to ensure existing Army
Corps of Engineers reservoirs contribute to enhance economic
and ecosystem values in a cost efficient and environmentally
sustainable way as water demands continue to increase.
Sec. 1007. Fiscal Transparency Report.
This section directs the Secretary to prepare and submit to
Congress on the third Tuesday of January, beginning in 2005,
and each year thereafter, a report on the expenditures for the
preceding fiscal year and estimated expenditures for the
current fiscal year for:
(1) Construction
(2) Operation and Maintenance of inland and
intracoastal waterways
(3) General Investigations, reconnaissance, and
feasibility studies
(4) Interagency and International Support Activities
(5) Recreation Fees and Lease Payments
(6) Hydropower and Water Supply Fees
(7) Inland Waterway Trust Fund and Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund
(8) Other revenues and fees
(9) Permit Application and notification processing
information
(10) Project backlog
This section provides details on what is required to be
reported for each item. This information will allow Congress to
evaluate funding priorities to support the projects and
programs of the Army Corps of Engineers.
Sec. 1008. Planning.
First, this section requires the Secretary to assess each
water resource project's and project increment's cost-
effectiveness and compliance with local, State, and national
laws, regulations, and public policies. While the committee
expects that all Army Corps of Engineers projects will be fully
compliant with local, State and national laws, regulations, and
public policy, it is aware of instances where a project may
come into conflict with particular laws, regulations, or public
policies. This section ensures that such conflicts, including
the degree and severity, will be identified and assessed by the
Army Corps of Engineers and documented in the feasibility
report.
Second, the Secretary, in consultation with the Water
Resource Planning Council, is required to revise the agency's
planning guidelines, regulations, and circulars of the Army
Corps of Engineers within 18 months of enactment of this Act
and every 5 years thereafter to improve the analysis of water
resources projects, including the integration of new and
existing analytical techniques that properly reflect the
probability of project benefits and costs.
This section provides criteria on what must be included in
a cost-benefit analysis. This section also limits the duration
of feasibility reports to not more than 2 years, but in no
cases to more than 3 years.
This section provides specifics on what must be included in
a cost-benefit analysis. All feasibility studies must include
an analysis of the benefits and costs, both quantified and
unquantified. All cost benefit analyses must:
1) identify areas of risk and uncertainty in the analysis;
2) clearly describe the degree of reliability of the
estimated benefits and costs of the effectiveness of
alternative plans, including an assessment of the credibility
of the project construction schedule as it affects the
estimated benefits and costs. Construction delays can impact
the realization of expected benefits and costs, and therefore
must be included in the cost benefit analysis;
3) identify local, regional, and national economic costs
and benefits. The committee heard testimony that local and
regional benefits are routinely disregarded when the Army Corps
of Engineers chooses between alternative plans. Because local
communities are cost-sharing significant portions of project
study, design, construction, coupled with the fact that some
local and regional input may result in the formation of better
project alternatives, the committee believes that the exclusion
of local and regional benefits should cease;
4) identify environmental costs and benefits, including the
costs and benefits of protecting or degrading natural systems.
The committee believes that it is important to identify and
measure not just costs of degrading natural systems, but also
benefits of protecting natural systems;
5) identify social costs and benefits, including a risk
analysis regarding potential loss of life that may result from
flooding and storm damage. The committee believes that avoiding
loss of life, while not economically quantifiable, should be
included in the analysis.
6) identify cultural and historical costs and benefits;
7) exclude from the estimate of benefits and costs any
increase in direct Federal payments or subsidies. The committee
believes that benefits or costs derived from increased Federal
subsidies should not be used to justify Federal water resource
projects.
8) exclude as a benefit, any increase in direct Federal
payments or subsidies and any project benefit attributable to
any change in, or intensification of, land use arising from the
draining, reduction, or elimination of wetlands. The committee
believes that the Army Corps of Engineers' practice of counting
benefits attributable to the draining, reduction, or
elimination of wetlands should cease; and
9) apply a discount rate consistent with that used by other
Federal agencies for water resource projects. The committee
believes that all Federal agencies should be using the same
discount rate.
The committee intends that planning guidelines, regulations
and circulars shall improve the analysis of water resources
projects, including the integration of new and existing
analytical techniques that properly reflect the probability of
project benefits and costs. The guidelines, regulations, and
circulars should also reflect the standard in this section that
feasibility reports shall normally be not more than 2 years,
but in no case may be longer than 3 years.
Sec. 1009. Water Resources Planning Council.
This section establishes a Water Resources Planning Council
within the Army Corps of Engineers to integrate planning
policies that guide the use of economics, environmental,
engineering, scientific, and technical information to support
the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers for
implementation of water resources projects, including peer
review of such information. The Council plays an advisory role
for the Chief of Engineers in addressing concerns that may
arise regarding the integration of policy and science in
decisionmaking. The duties of the Council include:
1) providing technical and managerial assistance to
district engineers for project planning, development, and
implementation;
2) providing independent peer reviews of new major
scientific, engineering, or economic methods, models, or
analyses that will be used to support decisions of the
Secretary with respect to feasibility studies; and
3) performing such other duties as prescribed by the
Secretary.
In addition to these general duties, this section
identifies eight specific actions that the Council shall take
regarding the water resources planning process.
Within 2 years of the date of enactment of this Act, the
Council shall submit a report to Congress including the set of
approved methods, models, and procedures to be applied to the
water resources planning process across the Army Corps of
Engineers and the milestones developed to measure the
timeliness and effectiveness of the water resources planning
process. Every 5 years thereafter, the Council is required to
submit a report to Congress describing the effectiveness of
water resources planning process in comparison to the
established milestones, any independently peer reviewed changes
to the methods, models, and procedures used, and a discussion
of any planned changes to the established milestones, including
reasons why the changes are necessary.
This section establishes membership of the Council to
include representatives from non-Federal interests from various
water resource project purposes, State resource agencies, the
Departments of Interior and Agriculture, and the Council on
Environmental Quality. It exempts the Council from the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and authorizes such sums as
necessary to carry out this section. The committee believes
that the Secretary, in establishing the Council, should
consider regional distribution, size of council, and term of
office to ensure maximum effectiveness.
Sec. 1010. Independent Reviews.
Subsection (a) directs the Inspector General of the Army to
convene an independent peer review panel prior to the
submission of a project study or report required to be
submitted to Congress for authorization. The panel shall be
sufficiently broad and diverse to fairly represent the relevant
scientific perspectives and fields of knowledge. While there
are benefits to conducting independent peer reviews, such
reviews will place a resource burden on the agency. Therefore,
peer review is only being required for those project studies
and reports that must be submitted to Congress for
authorization. Because the agency will also be complying with
the Information Quality Act, the committee does not envision
two duplicative peer review processes to comply with this
section and the Information Quality Act.
Subsection (b) describes the panel membership. A panel
shall be composed of not less than 3 nor more than 7
independent peer reviewers. They shall be selected on the basis
of necessary technical or scientific expertise and have
significant experience in the geographic area or in the type of
ecologic conditions in the area being studied. A reviewer shall
not be employed by the Army Corps of Engineers, have
participated in the project development, or have a financial
interest or professional association with any entity with a
financial interest in the project. The Inspector General of the
Army shall consult with the Institute for Water Resources,
National Academy of Sciences, American Society of Civil
Engineers, and other appropriate organizations in selecting
reviewers.
Given the technical aspect of projects and reports, the
most important factor in selecting reviewers is expertise. The
Inspector General of the Army should ensure that the selected
reviewers have the knowledge, experience, and skills necessary
to perform the review.
Subsection (c) establishes the duties of the panels. Each
panel shall review the project study or report required to be
submitted to Congress for authorization, assess the adequacy of
the economic, scientific and environmental models used to
determine that appropriate and applicable economic and
scientific methods of analysis have been used and the best
available economic, scientific, and environmental data have
been used. The panel shall also address specific technical
questions posed by the Inspector General of the Army and submit
a report to the Secretary with conclusions 180 days after the
panel received the draft project study or report.
Subsection (d) directs the Secretary to provide the panel
with sufficient information to conduct the independent peer
review and any other information the panel requests.
Subsection (e) directs the Secretary to provide the panel
with written or oral comments received from the public on the
project study or report.
Subsection (f) describes the contents for a panel report.
The report shall describe the nature of the review, including
findings and conclusions of the panel and disclose the names,
organizational affiliations and a short paragraph on the
credentials and relevant experiences of each independent peer
reviewer.
Subsection (g) establishes the requirements for the
Secretary's response to a panel report. If the Secretary
receives a report at least 14 days before submitting a project
study or report to Congress, the Secretary shall take into
consideration any recommendations in the report and prepare a
written response to the report explaining the agreement or
disagreement with the report, changes made to the project study
or report in response to the panel's report, and the reasons
those changes satisfy any key concerns or recommendations in
that report. The Secretary shall disseminate the final
independent peer review report and the Secretary's response on
the Army Corps of Engineers' website and include all materials
relating to the independent peer review report with the
submission of the report of the Chief of Engineers to Congress.
Subsection (h) requires that independent peer review
reports be completed not later than 180 days after the date on
which the panel received the draft project study or report, but
the Inspector General of the Army may grant a 30-day extension.
If the panel does not complete the independent peer review
report on time, the Secretary may submit the project study or
report to Congress as scheduled.
Subsection (i) exempts an independent peer review panel
from the applicability of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
Subsection (j) clarifies that the Secretary is not required
to conduct an independent peer review of an existing water
resources project.
The committee believes that the economics, science and
engineering in project studies and reports can benefit from
independent peer review. The committee recognizes that there is
a fundamental distinction between the engineering, scientific
or technical aspects of a study and those aspects that are
purely a government function. Uncertainty is inherent in
economics, science and engineering. Consequently, it is
important that peer reviewers be asked to ensure that
scientific uncertainties are clearly identified and
characterized. Within this context, peer reviewers can make an
important contribution by distinguishing scientific facts from
professional judgments. In addition, a review should identify
whether more research is likely to decrease key uncertainty and
whether changes in those uncertainties would appreciably
influence the conclusions of the study.
For the purposes of this section, the committee believes
that policy considerations are solely the purview of the
Secretary. The Secretary should make the results of the Water
Resources Planning Council reviews of major scientific and
engineering methods, models, and procedures that will be
applied in multiple planning studies available to independent
peer review panels to avoid the duplicative peer review of the
methods, models, and procedures themselves.
Section 216 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000
directed the Secretary to contract with the National Academy of
Sciences to study and make recommendations relating to the
independent peer review of feasibility reports for water
resources projects. The July 25, 2002, report by the Panel on
Peer Review made numerous recommendations, several of which
were considered during the development of this section.
Sec. 1011. Fish and Wildlife Mitigation.
This section amends section 906 (a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986.
Subsection (a) amends 906(d) to establish a mitigation
standard. The Secretary shall, at a minimum, acquire and
restore the same number of acres of habitat that fully replace
the hydrologic and ecological functions and characteristics of
each acre of habitat adversely affected by the project. It also
amends section 902(d) to require completion of all mitigation
no later than one fiscal year after completion of the project
where such mitigation is not undertaken in advance or
concurrently. This subsection also amends section 906(d) to
identify the elements to be included in the specific mitigation
plan that already is required under that section 906. The plan
shall include specific time-dependent success criteria,
prepared in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, by which the mitigation will be evaluated and
determined to be successful; a description of the land and
interests in land to be used for mitigation and as the basis
for a determination that lands and interest will be available
at the time required; a schedule for monitoring mitigation,
evaluating the degree to which the attempted mitigation does or
does not meet the success criteria until attempted mitigation
meets the success criteria; and taking corrective actions in
case mitigation efforts are not meeting success criteria. This
subsection also requires that monitoring for mitigation shall
be cost-shared in accordance with the original construction
project for a maximum of 10 years and be 100 percent non-
Federal responsibility after 10 years. Requirements for success
for mitigation efforts are established in this subsection.
The committee does not intend monitoring for all projects
to last for the full 10 years. The Secretary shall consult
annually with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on each
project requiring mitigation to determine whether mitigation
monitoring demonstrates that the projects are or are not
achieving success and ensure that implementation of corrective
actions after finding that the original mitigation efforts are
not or are not likely to meet the success criteria. The plan
should also include the type, amount, and characteristics of
the habitat to be restored. In addition, the plan should
identify success criteria based on the replacement of lost
functions and values of the habitat, including hydrologic and
ecologic characteristics.
Subsection (b) requires mitigation to be undertaken before
any construction of the project begins or concurrently with the
acquisition of land and interest in land for the project. In
order to ensure concurrent mitigation, the Secretary shall
construct 100 percent of required offsite mitigation before 50
percent of construction is completed and complete required
onsite mitigation as expeditiously as practicable, but not
later than the last day of construction of the project or
separable element of the project. If it is physically
impracticable to meet these requirements, the Secretary shall
reserve or reprogram funds to complete the mitigation, but in
no case later than the end of the next fiscal year immediately
following the last day of construction of the project.
Subsection (c) requires the Secretary to establish a record
keeping system to track the habitat, mitigation, and monitoring
status for each water resource project constructed, operated or
maintained by the Secretary and for each permit issued under
section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and
make it available on the Internet.
Sec.1012. Agreements for water resource projects.
Subsection (a) amends section 221 of the Flood Control Act
of 1970, to rename project cooperation agreements as
partnership agreements, allow district engineers to enter into
partnership agreements, and allow partnership agreements to
provide for liquidated damages. This subsection also requires
that, if the Secretary determines that a project needs to be
continued for the purposes of public health and safety, the
non-Federal interest shall pay the increased project costs, up
to an amount equal to 20 percent of the original estimated
project costs and in accordance with the statutorily determined
cost share and the Secretary shall pay all increased costs
remaining.
Subsection (b) amends 912(b) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 to eliminate civil penalties in
partnership agreements and allow the use of liquidated damages.
Subsection (c) clarifies that these changes apply only to
partnership agreements entered into after the date of
enactment, unless the non-Federal interest requests
applicability from the district engineer and construction has
not been initiated.
Subsection (d) clarifies that cooperation agreements or
project cooperation agreements shall be partnerships agreements
or project partnership agreements, respectively and vice versa.
The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 significantly
increased the roles and responsibilities of project sponsors.
As a result of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986,
project cooperation agreements (PCAs) required under Section
221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 and Section 912 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 assumed significant
importance in defining non-Federal responsibilities for
providing items of local cooperation.
In testimony before the committee, non-Federal project
partners expressed frustration in the multiple layers of review
and approval imposed upon the execution of PCAs within the
Department of the Army, which produced needless delays and
inefficiencies. The committee expects these changes will
address the concerns of non-Federal interests, improve
efficiency by streamlining the process for approving
partnership agreements, and foster a culture of true
partnerships that will improve projects and their
implementation.
Sec. 1013. State Technical Assistance.
This section amends section 22 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1974. It authorizes the Secretary, upon
request of a governmental agency or non-Federal interests, to
provide technical assistance at Federal expense. This
assistance may include hydrologic, economic and environmental
data and analyses and may not exceed $10,000,000 a year. Of the
amount authorized, $2,000,000 may be used for cooperative
agreements with nonprofit entities to provide assistance to
rural and small communities. This authority will allow the Army
Corps of Engineers to participate with State and local
governments in watershed planning. The committee does not
intend the receipt of funds by non-profit organizations and
State agencies under other Federal programs to preclude
technical assistance under this section.
In addition, this section eliminates the $500,000 State
limitations under section 22 and directs the Secretary to
submit, as part of the President's annual budget request, a
list of the individual activities proposed for funding under
this program.
The committee believes this section will better support
State, tribal, and local government for integrated water
resources management.
Sec. 1014. Access to Water Resources Data.
Subsection (a) directs the Secretary to carry out a program
to provide public access to water resources and related water
quality data.
Subsection (b) requires that the program include access to
data generated in water resources project development and
regulation under section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act and employ geographic information system technology
and linkages to water resources models and analytical
techniques.
Subsection (c) requires the Secretary to develop
partnerships with States, tribal, and local governments and
other Federal agencies in carrying out this program. Subsection
(d) authorizes $5,000,000 to carry out the section.
The committee is aware that the Army Corps of Engineers
collects significant amounts of water resources and related
data in the development of water resources projects and the
regulation of wetlands. This data, including models and
analytical techniques developed and maintained by Army Corps of
Engineers laboratories, are valuable to States, tribal, and
local governments and the general public, yet, in this age of
modern information technology, are not accessible. The
committee believes the program established by this section will
improve water management and save money at all levels of
government.
TITLE II--NAVIGATION
Subtitle A--Inland Waterway
Chapter 1--Studies
Sec. 2001. McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System.
The deepening of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River
Navigation System (MKARNS) from 9 feet to 12 feet, authorized
by Section 136, Energy and Water Development Act, 2004, Public
Law 108-137, may allow for more efficient movement of
commodities, may be beneficial to the national economy; and may
reduce the use of fossil fuels, thereby improving air quality,
reducing transportation congestion and improving public safety.
Before proceeding with actual deepening of the channel, the
Secretary must satisfy the provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act to disclose the impacts associated
with deeper dredging of the waterway. Accordingly, the
Secretary is directed to document these positive and negative
economic and environmental effects of deepening the MKARNS, to
facilitate a thorough and complete analysis of the project. In
addition, as part of the Endangered Species Act coordination,
the committee has seen no evidence that deepening the channel
will or will not demonstrably effect endangered sturgeon
species. Accordingly, the Secretary is to convene a panel of
experts in conjunction with the Oklahoma State University to
address this issue.
Chapter 2--Projects
SUBCHAPTER A--AUTHORIZATIONS
Sec. 2101. Deep Creek, Chesapeake, Virginia.
Location. Chesapeake, Virginia.
Purpose. Navigation (Bridge Replacement).
Problem. The bridge, constructed in 1934, is a federally
owned and operated facility and assists in navigation. The
bridge passes over the Dismal Swamp Canal where U.S. Route 17
crosses it. The bridge is a two-lane low level swing bridge
with several intersecting side streets, none of which meet
today's highway/bridge standards. The bridge is considered
obsolete.
Recommended Plan. Low-level, 5-lane, split leaf, pit
bascule bridge, with separate 2-lane and 3-lane leafs. The new
bridge will relieve heavy traffic congestion, correct poor
alignments with connecting roads, and insure the required
safety features are brought up to standard. Further, the city
of Chesapeake will assume ownership of the bridge.
Project Costs. Total cost $32,048,000. Federal cost
$32,048,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. 8.3 to 1.
SUBCHAPTER B--PROJECT MODIFICATIONS
Sec. 2111. Black-Warrior Tombigbee Rivers, Alabama.
This section authorizes the Secretary to construct a new
project management office for the Black Warrior-Tombigbee
Rivers and Alabama River projects to be located in the vicinity
of Tuscaloosa, Alabama. To accomplish this section, the
Secretary shall acquire necessary real estate interests,
prepare required environmental documentation, design and
construct office, warehouse, shop and dock facilities, and
necessary ancillary buildings for the new project management
office (deletion not accepted). The Secretary shall sell,
convey, or otherwise transfer to the city of Tuscaloosa,
Alabama, at fair market value, the land and structures with the
existing project management office, if the city agrees to
assume full responsibility and costs associated with the
demolition of the existing project management office. There is
authorized to carry out this section $32,000,000.
Sec. 2112. Larkspur Ferry Channel, California.
This section authorizes the Secretary to prepare a limited
reevaluation report to determine whether maintenance of the
project is feasible. If the Secretary determines that
maintenance of the project is feasible, the Secretary shall
maintain the channel.
Sec. 2113. Redwood City navigation project, California.
This section authorizes the Secretary to dredge the Redwood
City Navigation Channel on an annual basis, to maintain the
authorized depth of -30 feet mean lower low water.
Sec. 2114. St. George's Bridge, Delaware.
This section amends Section 102(g) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4612) to direct the
Secretary to assume ownership of the State Route 1 replacement
bridge and continue to operate and maintain the existing St.
Georges Bridge unless otherwise directed by Congress.
Sec. 2115. Chicago River, Illinois.
This section reduces the width of the authorized navigation
channel from between 100 and 120 to no wider than 66 feet from
100 feet downstream of the Halsted Street Bridge to 100 feet
upstream of the Division Street Bridge, Chicago, Illinois to
ensure consistency in Army Corps of Engineers records to actual
bridge size.
Sec. 2116. Red River (J. Bennett Johnston) Waterway, Louisiana.
This section will allow the Secretary to purchase and
reforest lands, which have been cleared or converted to
agricultural uses for mitigation purposes. Current law
restricts land purchases to bottomland hardwood lands. There
are no additional willing sellers of bottomland hardwood lands
available. This change will increase the amount of land
available to meet the projects' mitigation requirements.
Sec. 2117. Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
First, this section extends the authorization for the
project for navigation, Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts and
Rhode Island authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor
Act of 1968(82 Stat. 731) and amends the authorization to
restrict the project depth of the existing navigation project
riverward of the Charles M. Braga, Jr. Memorial Bridge, Fall
River and Somerset, Massachusetts, to not more than 35 feet in
depth. Second, this section also directs the Secretary to
conduct a study to determine the feasibility of deepening the
portion of the navigation channel of the navigation project for
Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, seaward of
the Charles M. Braga, Jr. Memorial Bridge, Fall River and
Somerset, Massachusetts. If funds are not obligated for
construction (including planning and design) of the Fall River
Harbor project within 5 years of the enactment of this act, the
original project will no longer be authorized.
Sec. 2118. Cooper River bridge demolition, Charleston, South Carolina.
This section authorizes the Secretary to carry out
planning, design, and construction for the demolition and
removal of the Grace and Pearman Bridges over the Cooper River,
South Carolina and to use the remnants from that demolition and
removal to develop an aquatic reef off the shore of South
Carolina. There is authorized $39,000,000 to be appropriated to
carry out this section.
Sec. 2119. Plant Replacement and Improvement Program, Corps of
Engineers Charleston District Equipment and Storage Yard, South
Carolina.
This section authorizes the Secretary to convey or transfer
the property of the Army Corps of Engineers known as the
``Equipment and Storage Yard'' (EASY), to the State of South
Carolina, in as-is condition for fair market value.
Sec. 2120. Old Hickory Lock and Dam, Cumberland River, Tennessee.
This section extinguishes the reversionary interests and
use restrictions relating to recreation and camping purposes
with repect to land conveyed by the Secretary to the Tennessee
Society of Crippled Children and Adults, Incorporated (commonly
known as ``Easter Seals Tennessee'') at Old Hickory Lock and
Dam, Cumberland River, Tennessee, under section 211 of the
Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1087). The Army Corps of
Engineers retains remaining rights or interest of the Army
Corps of Engineers with respect to an authorized purpose of any
project.
Sec. 2121. McNary Lock and Dam, McNary National Wildlife Refuge,
Washington.
This section directs the transfer of administrative
jurisdiction over the land acquired for the McNary Lock and Dam
Project and managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service under
Cooperative Agreement Number DACW68-4-00-13 from the Army Corps
of Engineers to the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The land
shall continue to be managed as part of the McNary National
Wildlife Refuge. This section includes specific provisions
regarding retention of habitat unit credits at the Cummins
property. It requires the Fish and Wildlife Service to obtain
priority approval of the Washington State Department of Fish
and Wildlife for any change to the previously approved site
development plan for the Cummins property, and it requires that
the Fish and Wildlife Service continue operation of the Madame
Dorian Recreation Area for public use and boater access.
Sec. 2122. Snake River Project, Washington and Idaho.
This section is a project modification for the Snake River
Project, Oregon and Washington, authorized by section 101 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2921), to
amend the Fish and Wildlife Compensation Plan for the Lower
Snake River, Washington, and Idaho. This subsection authorizes
the Secretary to conduct studies and implement aquatic and
riparian ecosystem restoration and improvements specifically
for fisheries and wildlife.
Sec. 2123. Marmet Lock, Kanawha River, West Virginia.
This provision increases the authorized project costs from
$229,581,000 to $358,000,000 due to an increase in construction
costs for the project authorized by section 101(a) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3666).
Sec. 2124. Enhanced Navigation Capacity Improvements and Ecosystem
Restoration Plan For The Upper Mississippi River And Illinois
Waterway System
This section authorizes navigation improvements and
ecosystem restoration for the Upper Mississippi River and
Illinois Waterway System. These improvements and ecosystem
restoration for the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois
Waterway System is in general conformance with the preferred
integrated plan contained in the document entitled ``Integrated
Feasibility Report and Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement for the UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility
System'' and dated April 29, 2004. The Upper Mississippi River
and Illinois Waterway System consists of the projects for
navigation and ecosystem restoration authorized by Congress for
the segment of the Mississippi River from the confluence with
the Ohio River, River Mile 0.0, to Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock
in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, River Mile 854.0 and the
Illinois Waterway from its confluence with the Mississippi
River at Grafton, Illinois, River Mile 0.0, to T.J. O'Brien
Lock in Chicago, Illinois, River Mile 327.0.
In section 1103(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4225), Congress recognized the Upper
Mississippi River System as ``a nationally significant
ecosystem and a nationally significant commercial navigation
system'' and declared that the system ``shall be administered
and regulated in recognition of its several Purposes''.
The inland waterway transportation system moves 16 percent
of the freight in the United States for 2 percent of the cost,
including more than 100,000,000 tons on the Upper Mississippi
River System. The Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway
is a major thoroughfare for goods in the United States. The
river provides transportation for 60 percent of the corn
exports of the United States and 45 percent of the soybean
exports of the United States. It carries approximately
100,000,000 tons of products. The current 600-foot lock system
was designed for steamboats, at a time when only 4,000,000 tons
moved on the Mississippi River. The Waterway supports 400,000
full-and part-time jobs in the United States, generating over
$4,000,000,000 in income and $12,000,000,000 to $15,000,000,000
in economic activity. The Upper Mississippi River System also
provides important economic benefits from recreational and
tourist uses, resulting in the basin's receiving more visitors
annually than most National Parks, with the ecosystems and
wildlife being the main attractions.
The current capacity of the Upper Mississippi River System
is declining by 10 percent annually and the 600-foot locks at
Locks and Dam Nos. 20, 21, 22, 24, and 25 on the Upper
Mississippi River and LaGrange and Peoria on the Illinois
Waterway are operating at 80 percent utilization. The unplanned
closures of a 70-year old infrastructure reduce the potential
for sustained growth.
United States farm and trade policies work to open world
markets and promote United States exports. Keeping the cost of
transportation lower through competition between transportation
modes is the United States farmer's competitive advantage in
capturing future global growth in agricultural exports. Foreign
competitors have worked over the last 10 years to improve
foreign transportation infrastructure to compete more
effectively with United States production. The movement of
100,000,000 tons on the river system in 4,400 15-barge tows out
of harms way would require an equivalent of 4,000,000 trucks or
1,000,000 rail cars moving directly through our communities.
The Department of Transportation projects that freight
congestion on the roads and rails in the United States will
double in the next 25 years.
The Department of Agriculture projects that corn exports
will grow 44 percent over the next decade, with a \1/3\
increase in growth exported through the Gulf of Mexico.
Econometric models are useful analytic tools to provide
valuable information, but are unable to account for every
market trend, development, and public policy impact. The
transportation savings generated by the navigation improvements
to the Mississippi River Waterway are expected to provide
higher income to farmers and rural communities and to generate
Federal and State taxes to support community activities,
quality of life, and national benefits. The Army Corps of
Engineers has been studying the needs for national investments
on the Upper Mississippi River System for the last 15 years and
has completed its draft feasibility report dated April 29,
2004. The construction of new 1,200-foot locks and lock
extensions will provide more than 48,000,000 man-hours of
employment over 10 to 15 years. Based on the current
construction schedule of new locks and dams on the inland
system, lock modernization will need to take place over 30
years, starting immediately.
The Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers ecosystem
consists of hundreds of thousands of acres of bottomland
forests, islands, backwaters, side channels, and wetlands,
including 284,688 acres of National Wildlife Refuge land that
provides habitat and recreational opportunities. It is home to
270 species of birds, 57 species of mammals, 45 species of
amphibians and reptiles, 113 species of fish, and nearly 50
species of mussels. More than 40 percent of migratory waterfowl
and shorebirds in North America depend on the river for food,
shelter, and habitat during migration. Development since the
1930's has altered and reduced the biological diversity of the
large flood plain river systems of the Upper Mississippi and
Illinois Rivers. The annual operation of the Upper Mississippi
River Basin needs to take into consideration opportunities for
ecosystem restoration, and Congress recognizes the need for
significant Federal investment in the restoration of the Upper
Mississippi and Illinois River ecosystems.
The navigation improvements authorized for construction by
the Secretary of the Army includes small scale and
nonstructural measures and new locks.
The small scale and nonstructural measures consists of the
construction of mooring facilities at Locks 12, 14, 18, 20, 22,
24, and La Grange Lock, switch boats at Locks 20 through 25
over 5 years for project operations, and the development and
testing of an appointment scheduling system. The costs of these
measures is $24,000,000 in funds from the general fund of the
Treasury, to be matched in an equal amount from the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund that is paid by private users.
New 1,200-foot locks are authorized for construction at
Locks 20, 21, 22, 24, and 25 on the Upper Mississippi River and
at LaGrange Lock and Peoria Lock on the Illinois Waterway. The
cost of the new locks is $730,000,000 in funds from the general
fund of the Treasury, with an equal matching amount provided
from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund that is paid by private
users.
The authorized plan for navigation improvements includes
mitigation for the new locks and small scale and nonstructural
measures at a cost of $100,000,000 in funds from the general
fund of the Treasury, with an equal matching amount provided
from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund which is paid by private
users.
This section also authorizes ecosystem restoration on the
Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System. First, to
ensure the environmental sustainability of the existing Upper
Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System, the Secretary
shall, consistent with requirements to avoid any adverse
effects on navigation, modify the operation of the Upper
Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System to address the
cumulative environmental impacts of operation of the system and
improve the ecological integrity of the Upper Mississippi River
and Illinois River. Second, the Secretary shall, consistent
with requirements to avoid any adverse effects on navigation,
carry out ecosystem restoration projects to attain and maintain
the sustainability of the ecosystem of the Upper Mississippi
River and Illinois River in accordance with the general
framework outlined in the Integrated Feasibility Report and
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the UMR-IWW
System Navigation Feasibility System dated April 29, 2004. This
section lists specific types of ecosystem restoration projects
that may be conducted under this authority.
The Federal share of the cost of carrying out an ecosystem
restoration project under this section shall be 100 percent if
the project is located below the ordinary high water mark or in
a connected backwater; modifies the operation or structures for
navigation; or is located on federally owned land. The Federal
share of ecosystem restoration projects not meeting these
criteria shall be 65 percent. Nongovernmental organizations
shall be eligible to contribute the non-Federal cost-sharing
requirements applicable to ecosystem restoration projects. The
Secretary of the Army may acquire land or an interest in land
for an ecosystem restoration project from a willing owner
through conveyance of fee title to the land; or a flood plain
conservation easement.
Ecosystem restoration projects shall be carried out at a
total construction cost of $1,460,000,000. Of the amounts made
available under for construction not more than $35,000,000 for
each fiscal year shall be available for land acquisition
Before initiating the construction of any individual
ecosystem restoration project, the Secretary of the Army shall:
(i) establish ecosystem restoration goals and identify specific
performance measures designed to demonstrate ecosystem
restoration; (ii) establish the without-project condition or
baseline for each performance indicator; and (iii) for each
separable element of the ecosystem restoration identify
specific target goals for each performance indicator.
Performance measures should comprise specific measurable
environmental outcomes, such as changes in water quality,
hydrology, or the well-being of indicator species the
population and distribution of which are representative of the
abundance and diversity of ecosystem-dependent aquatic and
terrestrial species. Restoration design shall include a
monitoring plan for the performance measures including a
timeline to achieve the identified target goals and a timeline
for the demonstration of project completion.
Not later than June 30, 2005, and every 4 years thereafter,
the Secretary of the Army shall submit to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives an implementation report that includes
baselines, benchmarks, goals, and priorities for ecosystem
restoration projects and measures the progress in meeting the
goals.
The Secretary shall appoint and convene an advisory panel
to provide independent guidance in the development of each
implementation report. The panelists shall include 1
representative of each of the State resource agencies or a
designee of the Governor of the State from each of the States
of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin; 1
representative of the Department of Agriculture; 1
representative of the Department of Transportation; 1
representative of the United States Geological Survey; 1
representative of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service;
1 representative of the Environmental Protection Agency; 1
representative of affected landowners; 2 representatives of
conservation and environmental advocacy groups; and 2
representatives of agriculture and industry advocacy groups.
The Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of Interior shall
serve as co-chairpersons of the advisory panel.
The Secretary, in consultation with the National Academy of
Sciences, shall develop a system to rank proposed projects. The
ranking system shall give greater weight to projects that
restore natural river processes including floodplain
restoration and water level management including dam point
control. If the Secretary determines that projects for
navigation improvement and ecosystem restoration are not moving
toward completion at a comparable rate, annual funding for the
projects will be adjusted to ensure that projects move toward
completion at a comparable rate in the future.
There is authorized to be appropriated such sums as are
necessary to carry out the enhanced navigation capacity
improvement and ecosystem restoration plan for each of fiscal
years 2006 through 2020 and after fiscal year 2020 funds that
have been made available under this section, but have not been
expended, may be expended and funds that have been authorized
to be appropriated under this section, but have not been made
available, may be made available.
Sec. 2125. Lower Mississippi River Museum and Riverfront Interpretive
Site.
This section amends section 103(c)(2) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4811) to allow the
purchase of property that is not limited to being held by the
Resolution Trust Corporation.
Sec. 2126. Pilot Program, Middle Mississippi River.
This section authorizes the Secretary to carry out a pilot
program over at least a 10-year period within the current
project for navigation, Mississippi River between the Ohio and
Missouri Rivers (Regulating Works), Missouri River and Illinois
to restore and protect fish and wildlife habitat in the middle
Mississippi River. Activities under this program may include
those necessary to improve navigation through the project for
navigation, Mississippi River, while restoring and protecting
fish and wildlife habitat in the middle Mississippi River
system. This section authorizes specific activities under this
program. Cost sharing shall continue to be in accordance with
the River and Harbor Acts of 1910, 1927, and 1930.
Chapter 3--Project Deauthorizations
Sec. 2141. Inland waterway from Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay, Part
II, installation of fender protection for bridges, Delaware and
Maryland.
This section deauthorizes the project for construction of
bridge fenders for the Summit and St. Georges Bridges over the
Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, authorized by the River and
Harbor Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 1249). This work has been
accomplished as part of the major rhabilitation work on the
Summit and St. Georges Bridge.
Sec. 2142. Mayo's Bar Lock and Dam, Coosa River, Rome, Georgia.
This section deauthorizes the project for navigation,
Mayo's Bar Lock and Dam, Coosa River, Rome, Georgia, authorized
by section 528 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
(113 Stat. 347). The lock and dam is currently on the National
Register of Historic Places and is currently non-operational.
Sec. 2143. Gulf Intercoastal Waterway, Lake Borgne and Chef Menteur,
Louisiana.
This section deauthorizes the project for the construction
of bulkheads and jetties at Lake Borgne and Chef Menteur,
Louisiana, as part of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway,
authorized by the first section of the River and Harbor Act of
1946 (60 Stat. 635). No funds have been appropriated and no
activities have been completed on this feature of the project.
Sec. 2144. Eisenhower and Snell Locks, New York.
This section deauthorizes the project for navigation,
Eisenhower and Snell Locks, New York rehabilitation, authorized
by section 1163 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(100 Stat. 4258). The St. Lawrence Seaway Development
Corporation currently has the responsibility to operate and
maintain these facilities.
Sec. 2145. Red River Waterway, Shreveport, Louisiana to Daingerfield,
Texas
This section deauthorizes the Red River Waterway,
Shreveport, Louisiana to Dangerfield, Texas, authorized by
section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 731).
Reevaluation of preconstuction and design studies showed the
project was not justified and the project has been classified
as inactive on August 2, 1994.
Sec. 2146. Schuylkill River, Pennsylvania.
This section deauthorizes the 40-foot project for
navigation, Schuylkill River (Mouth to Penrose Avenue),
Pennsylvania, authorized by section 344 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3722). The project was
suspended in 1991 due to the closure of a grain export facility
that both eliminated project benefits and created a single
beneficiary situation.
Sec. 2147. Lake of the Pines, Texas.
This section deauthorizes the project for navigation, Lake
of the Pines, Texas for the portion of the Red River below
Fulton, Arkansas, authorized by the Act of July 13, 1892 (27
Stat. 88, chapter 158), as amended by the Act of July 24, 1946
(60 Stat. 635, chapter 595), the Act of May 17, 1950 (64 Stat.
163, chapter 188), and the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (82
Stat. 731). Recent reevaluation of the transportation economics
showed that the project was found to be economically
unfeasible.
Sec. 2148. Tennessee Colony Lake, Texas.
This section deauthorizes the project for navigation,
Tennessee Colony Lake, Trinity River, Texas, authorized by
section 204 of the River and Harbor Act of 1965 (79 Stat.
1091). The project is deemed to be economically unfeasible.
Sec. 2149. City Waterway, Tacoma, Washington.
This section deauthorizes the unused portion of The City
Waterway, Tacoma, Washington,consisting of the last 1,000
linear feet of the inner portion of the Waterway beginning at
Station 70+00 and ending at Station 80+00, authorized by the
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1902 (32 Stat. 347). This
deauthorization is supported by the city of Tacoma and U.S. EPA
and will allow the City and other partners to complete the
cleanup of hazardous wastes within the waterway.
Subtitle B--Ports and Harbors
Chapter 1--Continuing Authorities Programs
Sec. 2201. Navigation enhancements for waterbourne transportation.
This section increases the per project limit from
$4,000,000 to $7,000,000 for the Navigation Enhancements for
Waterbourne Transportation (NEWT) continuing authority program
created under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960
(33 U.S.C. 577), as amended.
Chapter 2--Studies
Sec. 2211. National port study.
This section authorizes the Secretary to conduct a study of
the ability of coastal and deepwater port infrastructure to
meet existing and future marine transportation demands. The
committee is concerned that the rapid growth in maritime trade
has placed great pressure upon our existing port
infrastructure. Vessel sizes are increasing, and rapidly
increasing volumes of containers and cargo are creating
significant congestion to all modes of transportation serving
the coastal and deepwater ports. The committee has determined
that there is a need to understand the ability of coastal and
deepwater port infrastructure to meet current and projected
demands. Therefore, the committee requests the Secretary to
perform this study in consultation with the Secretary of
Transportation. The study needs to consider the availability of
alternate transportation destinations and modes, the impact of
larger vessels on port capacity, and practicable, cost-
effective congestion management alternatives. Particular
consideration should be given to the benefits and proximity of
proposed and existing port, harbor, waterway and other
transportation infrastructure. This section requires the
Secretary to submit a report that describes the results of the
study to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the
House of Representatives not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of this Act. The timing is important for
consideration with other pertinent studies of vital
infrastructure needs.
Chapter 3--Projects
SUBCHAPTER A--AUTHORIZATIONS
Sec. 2221. Akutan Harbor, Akutan, Alaska.
This section authorizes the Akutan Small Boat Harbor
project for navigation, Akutan, Alaska, substantially in
accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions,
recommended in a final report of the Chief of Engineers, if a
favorable final report of the Chief for the project is
completed not later than December 31, 2004.
Location. Akutan, Aleutians East Borough, Alaska.
Purpose. Navigation.
Problem. There are currently no protected moorage
facilities for both large commercial fishing vessels and the
local resident fleet.
Recommended Plan. The plan consists of two rubblemound
breakwaters totaling 700 feet and dredging the entrance channel
and the inner harbor area to create a 12-acre mooring basin.
Project Costs. Total Cost $19,013,000. Federal cost
$9,185,000; non-Federal cost $9,828,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.4 to 1.
Sec. 2222. Haines Small Boat Harbor, Haines, Alaska.
This section authorizes the Haines Small Boat Harbors,
Haines, Alaska project for navigation, Haines, Alaska,
substantially in accordance with the plans, and subject to the
conditions, recommended in a final report of the Chief of
Engineers, if a favorable final report of the Chief for the
project is completed not later than December 31, 2004.
Location. Haines, Alaska.
Purpose. Navigation.
Problem. The existing harbor is inadequate in terms of size
and design to accommodate the needs of the existing demands of
resident and transient users.
Recommended Plan. The plan provides additional protection
to the existing 2.25-hectare mooring and maneuvering basin and
adds a new adjacent 6.60-hectare basin with an additional
entrance channel.
Project Costs. Total Cost $21,410,000. Federal cost
$9,590,000; non-Federal cost $11,820,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.2 to 1.
Sec. 2223. St. Herman and St. Paul Harbors, Kodiak, Alaska.
This section authorizes the Secretary to carry out, on an
emergency basis, the necessary removal of rubble, sediment, and
rock impeding the entrance to the St. Herman and St. Paul
Harbors, Kodiak, Alaska at a Federal cost of $2,000,000.
Location. Kodiak, Alaska.
Purpose. Navigation.
Problem. Larger vessels cannot safely navigate into the
harbors at all tide levels.
Recommended Plan. This section authorizes the Secretary to
carry out, on an emergency basis, the necessary removal of
rubble, sediment, and rock impeding the entrance to the St.
Herman and St. Paul Harbors, Kodiak, Alaska.
Project Costs. Total Cost $2,000,000. Federal cost
$2,000,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. Not Calculated.
Sec. 2224. Unalaska Small Boat Harbor, Unalaska, Alaska.
This section authorizes the Unalaska Small Boat project for
navigation, Unalaska, Alaska, substantially in accordance with
the plans, and subject to the conditions, recommended in a
final report of the Chief of Engineers, if a favorable final
report of the Chief for the project is completed not later than
December 31, 2004.
Location. Unalaska, Alaska.
Purpose. Navigation.
Problem. The project will provide much needed small boat
harbor facilities and help ease the overcrowded conditions that
now occur at Unalaska and other small boat harbors in the
vicinity.
Recommended Plan. The project would consist of a 181-meter
long rubblemound breakwater, a 145-meter long floating
breakwater, and a second 253-meter floating breakwater. The
project would also require the dredging of 31,800 cubic meters
of sand and gravel and 4,800 cubic meters of rock to complete
the local sponsor's moorage basin.
Project Costs. Total Cost $23,200,000. Federal cost
$11,500,000; non-Federal cost $11,700,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.4 to 1.
Sec. 2225. Miami Harbor, Miami, Florida.
This section authorizes the Miami Harbor, Miami, Florida,
project for navigation, Miami, Florida, substantially in
accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions,
recommended in a final report of the Chief of Engineers, if a
favorable final report of the Chief for the project is
completed not later than December 31, 2004.
Location. Miami Harbor, Miami-Dade County, Florida.
Purpose. Navigation.
Problem. Entrance channel and inner harbor widths and
depths are not adequate for safe, cost-efficient vessel
transit.
Recommended Plan. Component 1C: Widen seaward portion of
Cut-1 from 500 to 800 feet and deepen Cut-1 and Cut-2 from a
project depth of 44 to 52 feet. Component 2A: Add turn widener
at the southern intersection of Cut-3 with Fisherman's Channel
and deepen to a project depth of 50 feet. Component 3B:
Increase the Fisher Island Turning Basin from 1200 to 1500
feet, truncate the northeast section of the turning basin,
deepen from a project depth of 42 feet to 50 feet. Component 4:
Realign the western end of the existing 36-foot main channel
about 250 feet to the south--no dredging require for Component
4. Component 5A: Expand the Sponsor's berthing area by 60 feet
and widen the southern edge of Fisherman's Channel (Lummus
Island Cut) about 40 feet for a 100-foot increase in total
width, reduce the Lummus Island (Middle) Turning Basin to a
1500-foot diameter from the currently authorized 1600-foot
diameter, and deepen from a project depth of 42 feet to 50
feet. Mitigation including restoration of seagrass beds and
construction of artificial reefs.
Project Costs. Total cost $157,310,000. Federal cost
$63,728,000; non-Federal cost $93,582,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.5 to 1.
Sec. 2226. Port of Iberia, Louisiana.
This section authorizes the project for navigation, Port of
Iberia, Louisiana, substantially in accordance with the plans,
and subject to the conditions, recommended in a final report of
the Chief of Engineers, if a favorable final report of the
Chief for the project is completed not later than December 31,
2004.
Location. Iberia and Vermilion Parishes, Louisiana.
Purpose. Navigation.
Problem. The primary problem is the depth restriction of
-12 feet of the existing access channels, Freshwater Bayou,
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and Commercial Canal, to the Port of
Iberia. The predominant economic engines located in the study
area are large offshore rig fabricators and offshore petroleum
services firms. The primary purpose of this deepening project
is to allow for deeper draft vessels that are needed to meet
the burgeoning demands of the deepwater offshore petroleum
industry. At present the relative shallow depth does not allow
for the size vessels needed to transport the fabricated
structures used in the exploration and production in the deep
waters in the Gulf of Mexico.
Recommended Plan. The study area consists of the Port of
Iberia, Commercial Canal, GIWW (Commercial Canal to Freshwater
Bayou), and Freshwater Bayou out to the--20 foot contour in the
Gulf of Mexico.
The recommended and locally preferred plan consists of
deepening and widening this access channel by dredging the
Commercial Canal, the GIWW and Freshwater Bayou to a uniform
size channel of 150 feet wide by 20 feet deep, that will better
accommodate the industry of the area and the port. The
placement of dredged material will depend on the section of
channel.
Project Costs. Total Project Cost: $194,000,000. Federal
Cost (80 percent): $155,200,000; Non-Federal Cost (20 percent):
$38,800,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.03 to 1.
Sec. 2227. Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Corpus Christi, Texas.
Location. Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Corpus Christi,
Texas.
Purpose. Navigation and Ecosystem Restoration.
Problem. The depth and width of the existing Federal
navigation channel system has become restrictive due to the
increasing size of vessels in operation in the world fleet.
Beam width restrictions also cause delays for larger ships
wishing to enter Corpus Christi's port facilities.
Recommended Plan. The project consists of deepening the
navigation channel from Viola Turning Basin to the end of the
jetties in the Gulf of Mexico (approximately 34 miles) to--52
feet mean low tide (MLT); deepening of the remainder of the
channel into the Gulf of Mexico (approximately 2 miles) to--54
feet MLT; and widening of the Upper Bay and Lower Bay reaches
(approximately 20 miles) to 530 feet. Deepening would be
performed in all channel reaches, including the Entrance
Channel, Upper and Lower Bay reaches, and the Inner Harbor.
Construction of 200-foot wide, 12-foot-deep MLT barge shelves
on both sides of the CCSC (approximately 10 miles).
Construction of an extension to the La Quinta Channel to -39
feet MLT. The channel would be extended approximately 1.4 miles
beyond its current limit. The channel would measure 400 feet
wide, and a second turning basin with a 1,200-foot radius would
be constructed. The existing limits of the La Quinta Channel
would remain at their existing 45-foot depth. Construction of
two ecosystem restoration features, including construction of
rock breakwaters and geo-tubes to protect 1,200 acres of high
quality marsh and 40 acres of seagrass. Both components are
adjacent to the CCSC in the Lower Bay reach of the channel.
Project Costs. Total cost $153,808,000. Federal cost
$73,554,000; non-Federal cost $80,254,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. 2.6 to 1.
SUBCHAPTER B--MODIFICATIONS
Sec. 2241. Sitka, Alaska.
This section directs the Secretary to take such action as
is necessary to correct design deficiencies in the Thompson
Harbor element of the project for navigation, Southeast Alaska
Harbors of Refuge, Alaska, authorized by section 101 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106) Stat. 4801)
Thompson Harbor at Sitka, Alaska, at a Federal cost $6,300,000.
Sec. 2242. LA--3 dredged material ocean disposal site designation,
California.
This section amends Section 102(c)(4) of the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuary Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C.
1412(c)(4)) to extend the LA-3 Dredged Material Ocean Disposal
Site interim designation from January 1, 2003 to January 1,
2006. The extension is needed to allow for maintenance dredging
activities to proceed within Newport Harbor as the formal site
designation process continues to completion, which is currently
scheduled for May 2005.
Sec. 2243. Conditional declaration of nonnavigability, Port of San
Francisco, California.
This section authorizes the Secretary to declare portions
of the San Francisco, California, waterfront not to be
navigable water of the United States for the purpose of Section
9 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401) and the General
Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 525 et seq.). This determination
is based on proposed projects which are to be carried out by
non-Federal entities, consisting of bulkheads, fill, or
otherwise occupied by permanent structures, that will impact
the accessibility of the waterfront. If, after 20 years from
the date of the enactment of this Act, any of the portions of
the project declared to be non-navigable have not been impacted
or if work has not begun within 5 years after the date of
issuance of a permit, the declaration of nonnavigability shall
cease to be effective.
Sec. 2244. Charles Hervey Townshend Breakwater, New Haven Harbor,
Connecticut.
This section designates the western breakwater in New Haven
Harbor as the ``Charles Hervey Townshend Breakwater''.
Sec. 2245. Anchorage area, New London Harbor, Connecticut.
This section modifies the project for navigation, New
London Harbor, Connecticut, authorized by the Act of June 13,
1902 (32 Stat. 333), to redesignate a portion of the 23-foot
deep waterfront channel as an anchorage area.
Sec. 2246. Norwalk Harbor, Connecticut.
This section deauthorizes two small areas and authorizes
the Sectretary to realign a portion of the 10-foot channel at
the northern section of the project for navigation, Norwalk
Harbor, Connecticut, authorized by the River and Harbor Act of
1919 (40 Stat. 1276).
Sec. 2247. Jacksonville Harbor, Florida.
This section authorizes the Secretary to modify the project
for navigation, Jacksonville Harbor, Florida, authorized by
section 101(a)(17) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1999 (113 Stat. 276) to extend the navigation features in
accordance with the Report of the Chief of Engineers dated July
22, 2003, at an additional total coat of $14,658,000 with an
estimated Federal cost of $9,636,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $5,022,000.
Sec. 2248. South Carolina Department of Commerce development proposal
at Richard B. Russell Lake, South Carolina.
This section directs the Secretary to convey to the State
of South Carolina a portion of those lands described in Army
Lease No. DACW21-1-92-500 (Abbeville, Hester Marina and Manor
Recreation Areas) currently under lease to the South Carolina
Department of Commerce (SCDOC) for 99 years for cost-shared
recreation development pursuant to P.L. 89-72 (approximately
650 acres). This section includes provisions for the Army to
retain ownership of land that would have been acquired for
operational purposes in accordance with existing policy and
such other land as is determined to be required for project
purposes. The section eliminates the applicability of section
2696 of title 10, U.S.C. to this conveyance and allows the
Secretary to require additional terms and conditions as
appropriate to protect the interests of the United States. The
State is responsible for all costs associated with this
conveyance, requires the State to pay fair market value for
land conveyed, and the State is permitted to perform
environmental or real estate actions associated with the
conveyance in lieu of payment. This section retains the
applicability of the Shoreline Management Policy of the Army
Corps of Engineers and the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et. seq.), including public review under
that Act, and other Federal statutes.
Sec. 2249. Port of Lewiston, Idaho.
The section extinguishes reversionary interests and use
restrictions related to industrial use purposes, the
restriction that no activity shall be permitted that will
compete with services and facilities offered by public marinas,
and the restriction on human habitation or other building
structure in which the elevation is above the standard project
flood elevation. The use of fill material to raise low areas
above the standard project flood elevation is authorized,
except in any low area constituting wetland for which a permit
under section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344) is required. This section also specifies the
deeds involved and includes a savings clause regarding other
remaining rights and interests of the Army Corps of Engineers
for authorized project purposes.
Sec. 2250. Chicago River and Harbor, Chicago, Illinois.
This section deauthorizes the portion of the project for
navigation, Chicago River and Chicago Harbor, Chicago,
Illinois, authorized by the Act of March 3, 1899 (30 Stat.
1129).
Sec. 2251. Camp Ellis, Saco, Maine.
This section authorizes the Secretary to continue the
project initiated under Section 111 of the River and Harbor Act
of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 426i), up to a maximum of $20 million to to
mitigate erosion on Camp Ellis Beach.
Sec. 2252. Union River, Maine.
This section modifies the project for navigation, Union
River, Maine, authorized by the Act of 1896 (29 Stat. 215,
Chapter 314), by redesignating the upper 6-foot turning basin
as an anchorage area.
Sec. 2253. Duluth Harbor, Minnesota.
This section authorizes the Secretary to include public
access and recreational facilities as part of the federally
cost-shared facilities for the project, authorized by section
107(b) of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577(b)).
These facilities include, but are not limited to, parking
facilities, pedestrian walkways, and boating and fishing access
facilities. This section also increases the allowable Federal
share to $9,000,000 from $6,000,000 to accommodate the
increased project scope.
Sec. 2254. New York Harbor, New York, New York.
This section amends section 217 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (33U.S.C. 2326a) authorize the
Secretary to enter into cost-sharing agreements with one or
more non-Federal public interests for the acquisition, design,
construction, management, or operation of a dredged material
processing, treatment, decontamination, or disposal facility.
This includes any facility used to demonstrate potential
beneficial uses of dredged material. When appropriate, the
Secretary may combine portions of separate Federal projects is
the facility is used to manage dredged material from multiple
Federal projects in the same geographic area. The New York and
New Jersey Harbor Deepening Project, New York and New Jersey,
is the most likely candidate navigation project to use the
facility; however, the cost-sharing agreement may include the
management of sediments from the maintenance dredging of
Federal navigation projects that do not have partnership
agreements.
Sec. 2255. Toussaint River Navigation Project, Carroll Township, Ohio.
This section authorizes full Federal funding for increased
operation and maintenance activities that are carried out in
accordance with section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960
(33 U.S.C. 577) and relate directly to the presence of
unexploded ordnance.
Sec. 2256. Essayons and Yaquina Dredges, Oregon.
This section removes the existing operating restrictions on
the Army Corps of Engineers' hopper dredges Yaquina and
Essayons. It directs the Secretary to use the dredges without
restriction as to either days worked or volume of material
dredged, to the maximum extent practicable. It directs the
Secretary to use the dredges in a manner most beneficial to and
cost-effective for the taxpayers of the United States to
maintain and improve the ports harbors, and channels of the
Pacific coast. This section directs the Secretary to maintain
the Yaquina and Essayons to technologically modern and
efficient standards (including replacement, as necessary) to
keep them fully operations and to meet the dredging needs of
the ports, harbors, and channels of the Pacific coast.
The committee recognizes that dredging requirements on the
Pacific coast are unpredictable. Previous restrictions on the
Army Corps of Engineers hopper dredges Yaquina and Essayons
limited the use of these dredges. The committee recognizes that
operation of the Yaquina and Essayons under the current hopper
dredge restrictions did not meet the needs of the navigation
interests on the Pacific coast. The restrictions are lifted by
this section to improve the ability of the Army Corps of
Engineers to meet the dredging needs on the Pacific coast. In
addition, the committee remains concerned that the limited
additional dredging capacity created by lifting the
restrictions will not, in and of itself, meet all of the
dredging needs of the Pacific coast.
Sec. 2257. Cedar Bayou, Texas.
This section modifies the project, authorized by section
349(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114
Stat. 2632), to authorize construction of a navigation channel
that is 10 feet by 100 feet instead of 112 feet by 125 feet.
Sec. 2258. Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Brazos River to Port O'Connor,
Texas.
Location. Gulf Intracoastal Waterway through Matagorda Bay,
Texas.
Purpose. Inland Navigation.
Problem. The Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) through
Matagorda Bay is experiencing strong cross currents from the
interplay with the natural bay opening at Pass Cavallo and the
deep-draft Matagorda Ship Channel and its jettied entrance
channel resulting in significant vessel delays, property
damages, and high waterway maintenance costs for the existing
Matagorda Bay reach of the GIWW.
Recommended Plan. The project consists of rerouting the
existing GIWW from mile markers 460 to 472 approximately 6,000
feet north of and parallel to the existing channel. The channel
will have a depth of 12 feet and a bottom width of 125 feet,
which is the same as the existing channel. The project will
make beneficial use of dredged material to provide for the
construction of approximately 135 acres of marsh at Palacios
Point and 160 acres of marsh near Port O'Connor, and to nourish
beaches at Sundown Island, a National Audubon Society site, and
the beach at Port O'Connor.
Project Costs. Total cost $14,515,000. Federal cost
$14,515,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. 2.1 to 1.
Sec. 2259. Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, High Island to Brazos River,
Texas.
Location. The project is located along the Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) from mile 318 to 400, between High
Island and the Brazos River in Texas.
Purpose. Inland Navigation.
Problem. The Navigation Users have experienced problems
along the GIWW at Rollover Pass, Sievers Cove, the Texas City
Wye, and Greens Lake due to channel width and alignment
restrictions, lack of mooring facilities, high maintenance
costs due to frequent dredging requirements and limitation on
placement areas for dredged material, and strong tidal current
affects.
Recommended Plan. The plan consists of widening and
realigning reaches of the existing GIWW channel to allow
maneuvering room to alleviate the navigation restrictions
Project Costs. Total cost $12,326,000. Federal cost
$12,326,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. 2.4 to 1.
Sec. 2260. Tangier Island Seawall, Virginia.
This provision amends section 577(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1196 (110 Stat. 3789) to increase the total
project cost from $1,200,000 to $3,000,000 with a Federal cost
of $2,400,000 and a non-Federal cost of $600,000.
Sec. 2261. Lower Granite Pool, Washington.
The section extinguishes reversionary interests and use
restrictions related to industrial use purposes, the
restriction that no activity shall be permitted that will
compete with services and facilities offered by public marinas,
and the restriction on human habitation or other building
structure in which the elevation is above the standard project
flood elevation. The use of fill material to raise low areas
above the standard project flood elevation is authorized,
except in any low area constituting wetland for which a permit
under section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344) is required. This section also specifies the
deeds involved and includes a savings clause regarding other
remaining rights and interests of the Army Corps of Engineers
for authorized project purposes.
SUBCHAPTER C--DEAUTHORIZATIONS
Sec. 2271. Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut.
This section deauthorizes the Yellow Mill River portion of
the project for navigation, Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut,
authorized by the Act of July 3, 1930 (46 Stat. 919), that
consists of an 18-foot channel, 150 to 200 feet wide, extending
about a mile upstream from the 35-foot entrance channel. The
deauthorization will allow for expansion of commercial
facilities along the Yellow Mill River and provide both
economic benefits and job opportunities for the city of
Bridgeport.
Sec. 2272. Muscatine Harbor, Iowa.
This section deauthorizes the project for navigation at
Muscatine Harbor on the Mississippi River at Muscatine, Iowa,
authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1950
(64 Stat. 166). The city of Mucatine, Iowa has indicated that
dredging conflicts with their plans for riverfront development.
Sec. 2273. Bayou LaFourche and Lafourche Jump, Louisiana.
This section deauthorizes the project for navigation
improvement for Bayou LaFourche and LaFourche Jump, Louisiana,
authorized by the Act of August 30, 1935 (49 Stat. 1033,
chapter 831) and the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat.
481). The Auxiliary Channel has been in an inactive status
since its authorization due to lack of rights-of-way for the
channels and disposal areas.
Sec. 2274. Northeast Harbor, Maine.
This section deauthorizes the project for navigation,
Northeast Harbor, Maine authorized by section 2 of the Act of
March 2, 1945 (59 Stat. 12, Chapter 19). The deathorization
removes the Federal restraints on local control of the harbor.
Sec. 2275. Tenants Harbor, Maine.
This section deauthorizes the project for navigation,
Tenants Harbor, Maine authorized by the first section of the
Act of March 2, 1919 (40 Stat. 1275, Chapter 95). The
deathorization frees a large area of the harbor for mooring
thereby increasing public access.
Sec. 2276. Grand Haven Harbor, Michigan.
This section deauthorizes modifications to the project for
navigation, Grand Haven Harbor, Michigan, authorized by section
202(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100
Stat. 4093). A reevaluation report concluded that further
deepening of the harbor for commercial navigation was not
economically justified. The local sponsor was notified of study
termination in September 1992.
Sec. 2277. Greenville Harbor, Mississippi.
This section deauthorizes the project for navigation,
Greenville Harbor, Mississippi, authorized by section 601(a) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4142).
Study indicates that proposed improvements are appropriate for
implementation by local interests in response to market
conditions.
Sec. 2278. New York Harbor and adjacent channels, Claremont Terminal,
Jersey City, New Jersey.
This section deauthorizes the project for navigation, New
York Harbor and adjacent channels, Claremont Terminal, Jersey
City, New Jersey, authorized by section 202(b) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4098). The ongoing
New York Harbor deepening project includes this area and makes
this authorization unnecessary.
Sec. 2279. Olcott Harbor, Lake Ontario, New York.
This section deauthorizes the project for navigation,
Olcott Harbor, New York, authorized by section 601(a) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4143). The
non-Federal sponsor is interested in a smaller scale project,
which they are pursuing under Section 107 (NEWT).
Sec. 2280. Outer Harbor, Buffalo, New York.
This section deauthorizes the project for navigation,
Buffalo Outer Harbor, New York, authorized by section 110 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4817).
The project is outside the Army Corps of Engineers' authority
because the bulkheads to be constructed are on private
property.
Sec. 2281. Manteo Bay, North Carolina.
This section deauthorizes the project for navigation,
Manteo (Shallowbag) Bay, North Carolina, authorized by Section
101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1818).
Sec. 2282. Cleveland Harbor 1958 Act, Ohio.
This section deauthorizes the project for navigation,
Cleveland Harbor, Ohio, project modifications, authorized by
section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 482).
There is no local sponsor support for this project.
Sec. 2283. Cleveland Harbor 1960 Act, Ohio.
This section deauthorizes the project for navigation,
Cleveland Harbor, Ohio project modifications, authorized by
section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 482).
The uncompleted work is eligible for deauthorization and there
is not local sponsor support for this project.
Sec. 2284. Cleveland Harbor, Uncompleted Portion of Cut #4, Ohio.
This section deauthorizes the project for navigation,
Cleveland Harbor, Ohio project modifications, authorized by the
first section of the Act of July 24, 1946 (60 Stat. 636,
chapter 595). The uncompleted work is eligible for
deauthorization and there is not local sponsor support for this
project.
Sec. 2285. Columbia River, Seafarers Memorial, Hammond, Oregon.
The section deauthorizes the proposed Seafarers Memorial at
Hammond, Oregon, authorized by Title I of the Fiscal Year 1991
Energy and Water Development Act (104 Stat. 2078). The local
sponsor was unable to raise sufficient funds for the statue or
for costs above the authorized limit for the support structure.
Sec. 2286. Delaware River, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to Trenton, New
Jersey.
This section deauthorizes the project for navigation,
Delaware River, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to Trenton, New
Jersey(Tioga Marine Terminal), authorized by section 201 of the
River and Harbor Act of 1965 and the Flood Control Act of 1965
and the Flood Control Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-298). In 1991,
the Army Corps of Engineers, in conjunction with the local
sponsor, determined that the present project dimensions are
adequate.
Sec. 2287. Narragansett Town Beach, Narragansett, Rhode Island.
This section deauthorizes the project for navigation,
Narragansett Town Beach, Rhode Island, authorized by section
361 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat.
4861). Coordination efforts with State and local officials
failed to identify a sponsor willing to cost share the project.
Sec. 2288. Quonset Point-Davisville, Rhode Island.
This section deauthorizes the project for navigation,
Davisville, Quonset Point, Rhode Island, authorized by section
571 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat.
3788). There is no local sponsor support for the project.
TITLE III--FLOOD AND COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION
Subtitle A--Flood Damage Reduction
Chapter 1--General Provisions
Sec. 3001. Construction of flood control projects by non-Federal
interests.
This section amends section 211(e)(6) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 701b-13(e)(6)) for
projects that have completed construction under this section to
be assigned the budget priority of a project with a contractor
onsite.
Chapter 2--Continuing Authorities Programs
Sec. 3101. Protection and restoration due to emergencies at shores and
streambanks.
This section increases the annual program limit from
$15,000,000 to $20,000,000 and the per project limit from
$1,000,000 to $1,500,000 for the Protection and Restoration due
to Emergencies at Shores and Streambanks (PRESS) continuing
authority program created under section 14 of the Flood Control
Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r).
Chapter 3--Studies
Sec. 3201. Nicholas Canyon, Los Angeles, California.
This section authorizes the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of bank stabilization and shore
protection for Nicholas Canyon, Los Angeles, California, under
the small project authority of section 3 of the Act of August
13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426g).
Sec. 3202. Comprehensive flood protection project, St. Helena,
California.
This section authorizes the Secretary to review the project
for flood control and environmental restoration at St. Helena,
California, generally in accordance with the Enhanced Minimum
Plan A, as described in the Final Environmental Impact Report
prepared by the city of St. Helena, California and certified by
the city to be in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act. Cost sharing for the project shall in accordance
with section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(33 U.S.C. 2213). The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of the project, and costs of
engineering, design and construction that are incurred by the
non-Federal interest prior to and after the execution of a
Project Cooperation Agreement if the Secretary determines that
the work performed by the non-Federal interest is integral to
the project.
Sec. 3203. San Francisco Bay, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Sherman
Island, California.
This section authorizes the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of using a portion of Sherman Island,
California, as a dredged material rehandling facility. The
provision further authorizes the Secretary, if the
aforementioned study determines that the project is feasible,
to construct the project.
Sec. 3204. South San Francisco Bay shoreline study, California.
This section authorizes the Secretary in carrying out the
feasibility phase of the South San Francisco Bay shoreline
study to use planning and design documents prepared by the
California State Coastal Conservancy, the Santa Clara Valley
Water District, and other local interests, in cooperation with
the Army Corps of Engineers (who shall provide technical
assistance to the local interests), as the basis for
recommendations to Congress for authorization of a project to
provide for flood protection of the South San Francisco Bay
shoreline and restoration of the South San Francisco Bay salt
ponds. Costs incurred by the non-Federal interests in the
preparation of planning and design documents that would have
been the responsibility of the United States had the work been
performed by the Secretary shall be credited toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of construction of a project
providing for flood protection of the South San Francisco Bay
shoreline and restoration of the South San Francisco Bay salt
ponds if the Secretary determines that the work performed by
the non-Federal interest is integral to the project.
Sec. 3205. Lake Erie at Luna Pier, Michigan.
This section authorizes the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out storm damage
reduction, beach erosion protection and other related measures
along the shores of Lake Erie at Luna Pier, Michigan. The study
shall include consideration of replacement, repair or
modification of existing local and Federal storm damage
reduction and beach erosion protection measures.
Sec. 3206. Middle Bass Island State Park, Middle Bass Island, Ohio.
This section authorizes the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of providing a safe harbor and beach
at Middle Bass Island State Park for the navigation, storm
damage reduction, recreation and other related purposes.
Chapter 4--Projects
SUBCHAPTER A--AUTHORIZATIONS
Sec. 3301. Tanque Verde Creek Project, Pima County, Arizona.
Location. Pima County, Arizona.
Purpose. Flood Control and Habitat Preservation.
Problem. The project addresses erosion along an
approximately two-mile reach of Tanque Verde Creek immediately
upstream of Rillito River at its confluence with Pantano Wash,
east of Tucson, Arizona. This segment of Tanque Verde Creek (a
tributary of the Rillito River) has an average annual rate of
bank erosion of 13 feet. About 9,500 linear feet, located along
four separate channel segments have previously been stabilized
with soil cement to prevent streambank erosion. Annual erosion
damage caused by floodflows is estimated as $714,100.
Recommended Plan. The Report of the Chief of Engineers
dated July 22, 2003, includes:
(1) completing bank erosion control on the southern bank
with the construction of two segments of which one is
approximately 4,220 linear feet and the other 2,830 linear
feet, (2) north bank erosion control (1,550 linear feet)
protecting vulnerable public infrastructure and 5,000 feet of
modified bank protection along the mitigation preserve area,
and (3) the establishment of a 48-acre riparian habitat area
for mitigation.
Project Costs. Total cost $4,878,000. Federal cost
$3,170,700; non-Federal cost $1,707,300.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. 2.1 to 1.
Sec. 3302. Hamilton City, California.
Location. Hamilton City, Sacramento River, California.
Purpose. Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration.
Problem. Serious flood risk to community from Sacramento
River combined with lost significant native habitat and
floodplain processes.
Recommended Plan. The multipurpose plan consists of a
setback levee and restoration of about 1,500 acres of native
habitat.
Project Costs. Total cost $47,820,000. Federal Cost
$31,083,000; non-Federal cost $16,737,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.8 to 1. for the flood damage
reduction project purpose.
Sec. 3303. Middle Creek, Lake County, California.
Location. Middle Creek, Lake County, California.
Purpose. Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration.
Problem. Considerable ecosystem degradation has taken place
in the area. Historically, the area was part of Clear Lake and
consisted of tule marsh and open water. These wetlands were
converted to agricultural fields during the last century. This
has caused loss of natural habitat, loss of ecosystem function,
and degraded water quality. The area is subject to damages to
structures and agricultural lands from overflows from Rodman
Slough. Although surrounded by levees, the area remains at risk
from flooding from both Clear Lake and Rodman Slough because of
levee settlement.
Recommended Plan. The plan is to reconnect the flood plain
of Middle Creek to the historic Robinson Lake wetland area by
breaching the existing levee system to create inlets that
direct flows into the area and providing flood damage reduction
by relocating residents from the flood plain. Implementation of
this plan would result in 765 acres of wetlands, 230 acres of
riparian, 405 acres of open water, and 250 acres of upland
habitat. As part of the authorization of this project and upon
request of the governing body of the Robinson Rancheria of Pomo
Indians, the Secretary of the Interior shall, notwithstanding
any other provision of law, accept the transfer from the tribe
to the Secretary of the tribe's interest in three parcels of
land located adjacent to Clear Lake in Lake County, California,
and hold such lands in trust for the benefit of the tribe. Such
lands shall be deemed restored lands for the tribe.
Project Costs. Total cost $38,690,000. Federal Cost
$25,233,000; non-Federal Cost $13,457,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the plan is justified by
the restoration of valuable habitat.
Sec. 3304. Indian River Lagoon, South Florida.
Location. Martin, St Lucie and Okeechobee Counties,
Florida.
Purpose. Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration.
Problem. The southern Indian River Lagoon estuary system
has been degraded by large and frequently occurring discharges
of freshwater, and by an excessive accumulation of muck in
estuary and lagoon bottoms. Together these stressors have
reduced water clarity and exceeded the salinity tolerances of
submerged vegetation and benthic animals.
Recommended Plan. The recommended plan consists of 12,600
acres of new reservoirs for surface water storage, 8,700 acres
of storm-water treatment areas for water quality improvement,
7,900,000 cubic yards of muck removal, 92,000 acres of natural
water storage areas and 3,100 acres of floodplain wetlands.
This section also deauthorizes the C-44 storage reservoir
identified in the Comprehensive Review Study authorized for
construction in section 601 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 2000(114 Stat. 2680), the Martin County irrigation,
flood control and backflow projects authorized by section 203
of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 740) and the East
Coast Backpumping, St. Lucie--Martin County, Spillway Structure
S-311, authorized by Section 203 of the Flood Control Act of
1968 (82 Stat. 740).
Project Costs. Total Cost $1,207,288,000. Federal cost
$603,644,000; non-Federal cost $603,644,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.
Sec. 3305. Picayune Strand Ecosystem Restoration, Collier County,
Florida.
Location. Collier County, Florida.
Purpose. Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration.
Problem. Canals and roads cause excessive drainage and the
reduction of many wetland communities and associated plants and
wildlife of over 59,000 acres of Picayune Strand. The drainage
also creates large discharges of freshwater to some downstream
estuaries and greatly reduces discharges to other nearby
estuaries, stressing a total of nearly 50,000 acres of estuary
habitat.
Recommended Plan. The recommended plan consists of plugging
the main canals, degrading roads, filling ditches, and
constructing spreader channels and pump stations to restore the
flows of water across the landscape and reduce damaging high
and low discharges of freshwater to the estuaries.
Project Costs. Total cost $362,612,000. Federal cost
$181,306,000; non-Federal cost $181,306,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.
Sec. 3306. Swope Park Industrial Area, Missouri.
Location. Blue River at the Swope Park Industrial Area,
Kansas City, Missouri.
Purpose. Flood Damage Reduction.
Problem. The Blue River flooded in 1961, 1977, 1984, and
1990. The most severe floods occurred in 1961 and 1990. The May
1990 flood caused an estimated $1,000,000 in damages. If left
without protection in the current condition, the Swope Park
Industrial Area will be subjected to continuing damaging
floods. Eventually, the area will fall into decline as a viable
industrial park and source of employment.
Recommended Plan. The plan consists of construction of
reinforced concrete floodwall and compacted earthen levee;
construction of an interior drainage system consisting of
reinforced concrete pipe and an interior storm water retention
pond; construction of a rolling-gate closure at the existing
75th Street entrance to the industrial park; construction of a
small park and trailhead; planting of hardwood trees along the
Blue River Parkway; and excavation for a small wetland
riverward of the levee at a location just upstream of the Swope
Park Industrial Area.
Project Costs. Total cost $14,987,000. Federal cost
$9,742,000; non-Federal cost $5,245,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.5 to 1.
Sec. 3307. Southwest Valley, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Location. Rio Grande Southwest Valley, Bernalillo County,
New Mexico.
Purpose. Flood Damage Reduction.
Problem. Portions of the Southwest Valley are subject to
flooding from a variety of sources. The runoff from the West
Mesa is the largest contributor discharging directly or
indirectly into the project area. Flood damages occur when
large floods overwhelm the capacity of existing facilities, or
the capacity of the irrigation drains.
Recommended Plan. The plan consists of capturing West Mesa
flood flow utilizing existing surface drain facilities. The
recommended alternative is sized to safely convey the ten (10)
year frequency storm. The main features of the proposed work
would involve utilizing existing easements, widening existing
drains, constructing of a large storm water retention pond, and
constructing two new channels with a gravity outfall to the Rio
Grande.
Project Costs. Total cost $17,500,000. Federal cost
$11,400,000; non-Federal cost $6,100,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.4 to 1.
SUBCHAPTER B--MODIFICATIONS
Sec. 3311. St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.
This section modifies the St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and
Missouri, project, authorized by the Act of June 15, 1936 (49
Stat. 1508, chapter 548), as amended, to authorize the
Secretary to undertake channel stabilization and sediment
removal measures as integral part of original project and not
to be considered a separable element. These measures would be
provided at current project cost sharing, which is 100 percent
Federal.
Sec. 3312. Augusta and Clarendon, Arkansas.
This section modifies the project for flood control, the
Augusta to Clarendon Levee, Lower White River, Arkansas
project, authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1941(add cite)
and modified by the Flood Control Act of 1946(add cite), to
authorize the Secretary to carry out rehabilitation of
authorized and completed levees on the White River between
Augusta and Clarendon, Arkansas, at a total estimated cost of
$8,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $5,200,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $2,800,000.
Sec. 3313. St. Francis Basin land transfer, Arkansas and Missouri.
This section modifies the St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and
Missouri, project, authorized by the Act of June 15, 1936 (49
Stat. 1508, chapter 548), as amended, to authorize the
Secretary to transfer acquired project mitigation lands in
Arkansas directly to the State of Arkansas or its appropriate
designee, provided that certain local requirements are met.
Currently, transfer of the land is only authorized for the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
Sec. 3314. Red-Ouchita River Basin, Arkansas.
This section authorizes the Secretary to design, construct,
operate and maintain bank stabilization measures, at full
Federal expense, along the Ouachita and Black Rivers, Arkansas
and Louisiana, between mile 0 on the Black River, Louisiana, to
mile 460 on the Ouachita River, Arkansas at the outlet of
Remmel Dam.
Sec. 3315. Cache Creek Basin, California.
This section amends section 401(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4112), and directs the
Secretary to mitigate the hydraulic impacts of the new south
levee of the Cache Creek Settling Basin on the city of
Woodland's storm drainage system capacity, including all
appurtenant features, erosion control measures, and
environmental mitigation features. This project would be a
separable element of the original project.
Sec. 3316. Llagas Creek, California.
This section authorizes the Secretary to complete the
project for flood damage reduction, authorized by section
501(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113
Stat. 333), in accordance with the requirements of local
cooperation agreements as specified in section 5 of the
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (16 USC 1005) at
a total cost of $95,000,000 with a Federal cost of $40,000,000
and a non-Federal cost of $55,000,000.
Sec. 3317. Magpie Creek, California.
This section authorizes the Secretary to apply cost-sharing
requirements applicable to non-structural flood control under
section 103(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(100 Stat. 4085) for the portion of the project consisting of
land acquisition to preserve and enhance existing floodwater
storage. The crediting allowed under this provision shall not
exceed the non-Federal share of the cost of the project. The
Secretary is directed to utilize the in-kind contribution
authorization in section 1001 of this Act to provide a credit
to the local sponsors for the value of their in-kind
contributions made on authorized activities in the project's
scope of work if the Secretary determines the work is integral
to the project.
Sec. 3318. Sacramento and American Rivers flood control, California.
This section authorizes the Secretary to apply remaining
funds eligible for reimbursement on the Natomas Federal Plan as
a credit toward the non-Federal share of cost for future work
on another project within the American River watershed.
Sec. 3319. Upper Guadalupe River, California.
This section authorizes the Secretary to carry out the
project for flood damage reduction and recreation, Upper
Guadalupe River, California, authorized by section 101(a)(9) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 275), as
modified, generally in accordance with Upper Guadalupe River
Flood Damage Reduction Project, San Jose, California, Limited
Reevaluation Report, dated July, 2004, at a total cost of
$212,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $98,800,000 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $113,300,000.
Sec. 3320. Yuba River Basin Project, California.
This section modifies the project for flood damage
reduction authorized by section 101(a)(10) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 275) by increasing
the authorized project cost from $26,600,000 to $107,000,000
with a Federal cost of $70,000,000 and a non-Federal cost of
$37,700,000. The Secretary is directed to utilize the in-kind
contribution authorization in section 1001 of this Act to
provide a credit to the local sponsors for the value of their
in-kind contributions made on authorized activities related to
the levees in the project's scope of work if the Secretary
determines the work is integral to the project.
Sec. 3321. Dworshak Reservoir Improvements, Idaho.
This section authorizes the Secretary to construct
recreational facilities as well as improve existing Army Corps
of Engineers and outgranted improvements to recreation
facilities on the existing Dworshak Reservoir to allow for
operation at the lower pool elevations that are being
experienced to assist in salmon species recovery efforts. The
estimated total project cost is $5,300,000, with a Federal cost
of $3,900,000 and a non-Federal cost of $1,400,000.
Sec. 3322. Little Wood River, Gooding, Ohio.
This section modifies Public Law 75-5, the Energy
Conservation Work Program (16 U.S.C. 585 et seq.), to direct
the rehabilitation of the Gooding Idaho Channel Project for the
purpose of flood control and ecosystem restoration, if the
Secretary determines the rehabilitation and ecosystem
restoration to be feasible. The section authorizes and directs
the Secretary to plan, design and construct the project at a
total cost of $9,000,000, provides that the non-Federal share
of the cost of the project can be provided as in-kind
contributions, services, supplies and material, and provides
that non-Federal funds may come from other Federal programs if
permitted under that Federal program. This provision directs
the Secretary to consider the ability to pay provisions from
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m))
when computing the non-Federal cost share.
Sec. 3323. Cache River Levee, Illinois.
This section directs the Secretary to add ecosystem
restoration as a project purpose to the Cache River Levee,
Illinois, authorized under the Flood Control Act of June 28,
1938 (52 Stat. 1215, Chapter 795).
Sec. 3324. Missouri and Illinois flood protection projects
reconstruction pilot program.
This section directs the Secretary to reconstruct existing
flood control projects in Missouri and Illinois as needed for
proper functioning as originally authorized, so long as the
deficiencies identified are not due to lack of proper operation
and maintenance by the non-Federal interest. Costs shall be
shared in the same percentages as the original projects.
Operation, maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation of
reconstructed projects are a non-Federal responsibility. A
total of $50,000,000 is authorized for this effort. The
following critical projects are to receive priority:
(1) Clear Creek Drainage and Levee District, Illinois.
(2) Fort Chartres and Ivy Landing Drainage District,
Illinois.
(3) Wood River Drainage and Levee District, Illinois.
(4) city of St. Louis, Missouri.
(5) Missouri River Levee Drainage District, Missouri.
Sec. 3325. Spunky Bottom, Illinois.
This section directs the Secretary to add ecosystem
restoration as a project purpose to the flood control project
between Beardstown, Illinois and the mouth of the Illinois
River, authorized by section 5 of the Flood Control Act of June
22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1583, Chapter 688). In addition, it directs
that the flood control project shall remain eligible for
emergency repair assistance under the Flood Control Act of
August 18, 1941 (Public Law 77-228), as amended (33 U.S.C.
701n) without consideration of economic justification. It also
authorizes $7,500,000 in Federal funding ($500,000 of which
will be available for post-construction monitoring and adaptive
management for a period of 5 years following completion of
construction) for the project modifications carried out under
section 1135 of WRDA 1986 for the Spunky Bottoms, Illinois
project.
Sec. 3326. Cumberland, Maryland.
This section amends section 580(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 375) to increase the total
authorized cost of the project from $15,000,000 to $25,750,000
with a Federal cost of $9,750,000 and a non-Federal cost of
$16,738,000.
Sec. 3327. Land exchange, Pike County, Missouri.
This section directs a land exchange of 42 acres between
S.S.S., Inc. and the Army Corps of Engineers within 2 years.
The Federal land includes 2 parcels of Army Corps of Engineers
land located on Buffalo Island in Pike County, Missouri. The
S.S.S., Inc. land is situated in Pike County, Missouri,
upstream and northwest, about 200 feet from Drake Island (also
known as Grimes Island).
Sec. 3328. Lake Girard Lake Dam, Ohio.
This section amends section 507(1) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3758) by increasing the
authorized project cost from $2,500,000 to $5,500,000 and also
by authorizing the lowering of the crest of the dam by not more
than 12 = feet as part of repair and rehabilitation.
Sec. 3329. University of Oregon Museum of Natural History, Oregon.
The section authorizes the Secretary to pay not more than
$2,500,000 to the Oregon Museum of Natural History for the
research and care of artifacts collected during the
construction of John Day and The Dalles Dams. These artifacts
have been housed at the museum at no cost to the Federal
Government.
Sec. 3330. Tioga Township, Pennsylvania.
This section directs the Secretary to convey by quitclaim
deed approximately 8 acres of the Tioga-Hammond Lakes Flood
Control Project property to the Tioga Township for use as
administrative offices and a road maintenance complex.
Sec. 3331. Harris Fork Creek, Tennessee and Kentucky.
This section extends the authorization to be carried out by
the Secretary for a period of 7 years beginning on the date of
enactment of this Act for the project for flood control, Harris
Fork Creek, Tennessee and Kentucky, authorized by section 102
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C. 701c
note; 90 Stat. 2920).
Sec. 3332. Nonconnah Weir, Memphis, Tennessee.
This section modifies the project for flood control,
Nonconnah Creek, Tennessee and Mississippi, authorized by
section 401 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100
Stat. 4124) and modified by section 334 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2611), to authorize the
Secretary to reconstruct, at full Federal expense, the weir
originally constructed in the vicinity of the mouth of
Nonconnah Creek and to make repairs and maintain the weir in
the future so that the weir functions properly. The estimated
cost of reconstruction of the weir is $2.5 million.
Sec. 3333. Harris County, Texas.
This section modifies section 575(b) of WRDA 1996 to not
consider flood control works constructed by non-Federal
interests within the drainage area in the determination of
conditions existing prior to construction of the Upper White
Oak Bayou, Texas project authorized by Section 401(a) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4125).
Sec. 3334. Chehalis River, Centralia, Washington.
This section authorizes the project for flood damage
reduction, Chehalis River, Centralia Washington, substantially
in accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions,
recommended in a final report of the Chief of Engineers, if a
favorable final report of the Chief for the project is
completed not later than December 31, 2004.
Location. Chehalis River valley at the cities of Centralia
and Chehalis in Lewis County, Washington.
Purpose. Flood Damage Reduction.
Problem. The river valley has a broad meandering channel
and a mile-wide floodplain. The average annual rainfall is
about 42 inches. Major floods occur during the October to March
period from heavy rainfall augmented by snowmelt runoff. The
cities of Centralia and Chehalis have been subject to repeated
flooding for many years. This flooding has caused extensive
damage to private and public property and periodic closure of
critical transportation routes resulting in significant
economic losses.
Recommended Plan. The plan consists of construction of a
levee system along the Chehalis River from approximately river
mile (RM) 75 to RM 64 and along most of the lower 2 miles of
both Dillenbaugh Creek and Salzer Creek; construction of a
levee along the lower approximately 2 miles of Skookumchuck
River to the confluence with Coffee Creek; modification to the
existing Skookumchuck Dam to add a short gated outlet tunnel to
create flood control storage; and raising in elevation
approximately eight structures that would incur induced damages
from increased inundation as a result of the project.
Unavoidable environmental impacts will include wetland and
riparian habitat degradation and destruction resulting in the
loss of approximately 105 habitat units. Mitigation for these
losses will be accomplished through a combination of wetland
creation, revegetation of riparian habitat, and reconnection of
an isolated oxbow with the mainstem Chehalis River.
Project Costs. Total cost $94,357,000. Federal cost
$56,467,000; non-Federal cost $37,890,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.3 to 1.
Sec. 3335. Erosion control, Puget Island, Wahkiakum County, Washington.
This section modifies section 204 of the Flood Control Act
of 1950 (64 Stat. 178) for a one-time placement of dredge
material from the Columbia River channel onto the shoreline of
Puget Island, Washington, for temporary protection from erosion
of economic and environmental resources. This section
authorizes appropriations of $1,000,000 at full Federal expense
and instructs the Secretary to perform appropriate agency
coordination and ensure environmental compliance.
Sec. 3336. Lower Mud River, Milton, West Virginia.
This section authorizes the modification of the project for
flood damage reduction, Lower Mud River, Milton, West Virginia,
substantially in accordance with the plans, and subject to the
conditions, recommended in a final report of the Chief of
Engineers, if a favorable final report of the Chief for the
project is completed not later than December 31, 2004.
Location. Lower Mud River, Milton, West Virginia.
Purpose. Flood Damage Reduction.
Problem. The city of Milton, West Virginia has been
subjected to frequent and repeated flooding since the early
1900's from the Lower Mud River. Almost the entire city lies in
the floodplain and during the 1997 flood of record (30-year
flood frequency) was subjected to $23 million dollars in flood
damages. The 100-year flood would cause $47 million in damages
and inundate 650 structures in the community.
Recommended Plan. The plan recommended in the May 2004
draft report consists of an earthen levee (over 8,300 feet
long), two pump stations, and environmental mitigation
measures. The project would protect the primary residential and
commercial area of the city from a 250-year flood event.
Project Costs. Total project cost $45,500,000. Federal cost
$34,125,000; non-Federal cost $11,375,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.3 to 1.
SUBCHAPTER C--DEAUTHORIZATIONS
Sec. 3341. Little Cove Creek, Glencoe, Alabama.
This section deauthorizes the project for flood damage
reduction, Little Cove Creek, Glencoe, Alabama, authorized in
the Supplement Appropriations Act, 1985 (99 Stat. 312). The
project is not economically feasible and there is no local
sponsor support.
Sec. 3342. Winslow, Arizona.
This section deauthorizes the uncompleted portions of the
project for flood control, Winslow, Arizona, authorized by
section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1083).
The remaining project was suspended due to lack of financial
capacity on the part of the local sponsor.
Sec. 3343. Goleta and Vicinity, California.
This section deauthorizes the project for flood control,
Goleta and vicinity, California, authorized by section 201 of
the Flood Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1826). The local
sponsor did not pursue construction of the Carneros Creek
Debris Basin due to the high construction cost.
Sec. 3344. Shingle Creek Basin, Florida.
This section deauthorizes the project for flood control,
Shingle Creek Basin, Florida, authorized by section 203 of the
Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1182). A General
Reevaluation Report indicated no economic justification for a
Federal project.
Sec. 3345. Brevoort, Indiana.
The section deauthorizes the project for flood control,
Brevoort, Indiana, authorized by section 5 of the Flood Control
Act of June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1587). Projects to improve
interior drainage have been implemented under section 205 of
the continuing authorities program and this project is no
longer necessary.
Sec. 3346. Middle Wabash, Greenfield Bayou, Indiana.
The section deauthorizes the project for flood control,
Middle Wabash, Greenfield Bayou, Indiana, authorized by section
10 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 649). A 1997 re-
study indicated that there was no economically feasible plan
that the local sponsor would support.
Sec. 3347. Lake George, Hobart, Indiana.
The section deauthorizes the project for flood damage
reduction, Lake George, Hobart, Indiana, authorized by section
602 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat.
4148). There is no local sponsor support for the project.
Sec. 3348. Green Bay Levee and Drainage District No. 2 Iowa.
This section deauthorizes the project for flood damage
reduction, Green Bay Levee and Drainage District No. 2, Iowa,
authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4115), deauthorized in fiscal year 1991,
and reauthorized by section 115(a)(1) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4821). A General
Reevaluation Report indicates the project is not economically
feasible.
Sec. 3349. Eagle Creek Lake, Kentucky.
This section deauthorizes the project for flood control and
water supply, Eagle Creek Lake, Kentucky, authorized by section
203 the Flood Control Act 1962 (76 Stat. 1188). A study
determined that there was no Federal interest due to limited
flood damage reduction provided by the project.
Sec. 3350. Hazard, Kentucky.
This section deauthorizes the project for flood damage
reduction, Hazard, Kentucky, authorized by section 3 of the
Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1988 (102 Stat. 4014)
and section 108 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990
(104 Stat. 4621). All alternatives studied that would comply
with the 1990 authorization exceeded the authorized cost
limitation. There has been no local sponsor support for cost
sharing a plan providing a lesser degree of protection.
Sec. 3351. Taylorsville Lake, Kentucky.
This section deauthorizes the recreation component of the
project for flood control, Taylorsville Lake, Kentucky,
authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1966 (80
Stat. 1421). Construction was started in June 1974 and
impoundment began in January 1983. The project is complete
except for the construction of the majority of the recreation
facilities.
Sec. 3352. West Kentucky Tributaries, Kentucky.
This section deauthorizes the project for flood control,
West Kentucky Tributaries, Kentucky, authorized by section 204
of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1081), section 201
of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1825), and section
401(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100
Stat. 4129). The Water Resources Development Act of 1986
modified the project to include the purchase of more than 6,000
acres of mitigation land. The local sponsor does not support
acquisition of mitigation lands.
Sec. 3353. Bayou Cocodrie and Tributaries, Louisiana.
This section deauthorizes the project for flood damage
reduction, Bayou Cocodrie and Tributaries, Louisiana,
authorized by section 3 of the Flood Control Act of 1941 (55
Stat. 644) and Section 1(a) of the Water Resources Development
of 1974 (88 Stat. 12). The project is not economically
justified.
Sec. 3354. Eastern Rapides and South-Central Avoyelles Parishes,
Louisiana.
This section deauthorizes the project for flood control,
Eastern Rapides and South-Central Avoyelles Parishes,
Louisiana, authorized by section 201 of the Flood Control Act
of 1970 (84 Stat. 1825). The project is not economically
justified.
Sec. 3355. Platte River Flood and Related Streambank Erosion Control,
Nebraska.
This section deauthorizes the project for flood damage
reduction, Platte River Flood and Related Streambank Erosion
Control, Nebraska, authorized by section 603 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4149). The local
sponsor is unable to meet the cost-sharing requirement.
Sec. 3356. Sugar Creek Basin, North Carolina and South Carolina.
This section deauthorizes the project for flood damage
reduction, Sugar Creek Basin, North Carolina and South
Carolina, authorized by section 401(a) of Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4121). The local sponsor has
withdrawn support of the project.
Sec. 3357. Parker Lake, Muddy Boggy Creek, Oklahoma.
This section deauthorizes the project for flood control and
water supply, Parker Lake, Muddy Boggy Creek, project,
authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4123).
Sec. 3358. Chartiers Creek, Cannonsburg (Houston Reach Unit 2B),
Pennsylvania.
This section deauthorizes the project for flood control,
Chartiers Creek, Cannonsburg (Houston Reach Unit 2B),
Pennsylvania, authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control
Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1081). Local officials in 1998 declined
to cost share in the construction of remaining features of the
flood damage reduction project in the Houston reach of
Chartiers Creek in Washington County, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 3359. Tioga-Hammond Lakes, Pennsylvania.
This section deauthoirizes the project for flood control
and recreation, Tioga Hammond Lakes, Mill Creek Recreation,
Pennsylvnia, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act
of 1958 (72 Stat. 313). There is no local sponsor support for
recreational facilities.
Sec. 3360. Tamaqua, Pennsylvania.
This section deauthorizes the project for flood control,
Tamaqua, Pennsylvania, authorized by section 1(a) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 14). The non-
Federal sponsor has been unable to obtain funding assistance
from State of Pennsylvania.
Sec. 3361. Arroyo Colorado, Texas.
This section deauthorizes project for flood damage
reduction, Arroyo Colorado, Texas, authorized by section 401(a)
of the Water resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat.
4125). The local sponsor could not agree on a Project
Cooperation Agreement, nor accept operation and maintenance
responsibilities.
Sec. 3362. Cypress Creek-Structural, Texas.
This section deauthorizes the project for flood damage
reduction, Cypress Creek Structural, Texas, authorized by
section 3(a)(13) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988
(102 Stat. 4014). A non-structural project is being pursued and
there is no local sponsor support of the structural project.
Sec. 3363. East Fork Channel Improvement, East Fork Of The Trinity
River, Texas.
This section deauthorizes the Increment II of the project
for flood damage reduction, East Fork Channel Improvement, East
Fork of the Trinity River, Texas, authorized by section 203 of
the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1185). The project is
not economically feasible.
Sec. 3364. Falfurrias, Texas.
This section deauthorizes the project for flood damage
reduction, Falfurrias, Texas, authorized by the Section
3(a)(14) of the Water resources Development Act of 1988 (102
Stat. 4014). There is no local sponsor support for the project.
Sec. 3365. Pecan Bayou Lake, Texas.
This section deauthorizes the project for flood contol,
Pecan Bayou Lake, Texas, authorized by section 203 of the Flood
Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 742). The project is not
economically justified and there is no local sponsor support.
Sec. 3366. Kanawha River, Charleston, West Virginia.
This section deauthorizes the project for bank erosion,
Kanawha River, Charleston, West Virginia, authorized by section
603(f)(13) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100
Stat. 4153). The project is not economically justified.
Subtitle B--Coastal Storm Damage Reduction
Chapter 1--General Provisions
Sec. 3401. Shore Protection and beach renourishment projects.
Subsection (a) of this section directs the Secretary, in
collaboration with the advisory committee established in
subsection (c), to revise the planning guidelines, regulations
and circulars for beach renourishment projects involving large
dredge and fill activities.
Subsection (b) requires that these revisions include:
protection of reefs, essential fish habitat, and habitat areas
of particular concern; consideration of nonstructural
alternatives for large dredge and fill activities; and
establishment of minimum environmental standards for beach
replenishment projects that utilize dredge material. The
committee expects the regulations to include establishment of
standards for compatibility of grain size, shell content, and
other geologic characteristics; requirements for monitoring;
establishment of buffer distances; development of programmatic
environmental impact statements; revision of public notice and
comment procedures; and establishment of standardized,
interagency renourishment information.
Subsection (c) directs the Secretary to create an advisory
committee of biologists, engineers, geologists, and other
experts to support this effort.
Subsection (d) requires the Secretary to comply with notice
and comment provisions.
Subsection (e) directs the Secretary to apply the revised
regulations to projects with a draft feasibility study or draft
reevaluation report not yet completed.
Sec. 3402. Regional sediment management.
This section amends section 204 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326) to expand the
beneficial use of dredge material for ecosystem protection and
restoration. The committee recognizes the need for regional
sediment management plans to address the regional management of
sediment dredged in conjunction with construction and operation
and maintenance of navigation projects.
Subsection (a) authorizes the Secretary, in connection with
dredging for construction or operation and maintenance of a
navigation project, to carry out projects of the protection,
restoration, and creation of aquatic and ecologically related
habitats, and the transport and placement of dredged material.
This subsection also authorizes the Secretary to develop these
plans in consultation and cooperation with appropriate Federal,
State and regional agencies. Priority is established for the
development of plans in three locations. The authorization for
section 204 if increased to $30,000,000 annually.
Subsection (b) repeals section 145 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C. 426j), but does not effect
the authority to complete any on-going project under that
section.
Sec. 3403. National shoreline erosion control development and
demonstration program.
Subsection (a) amends section 5(a) of the Act of August 13,
1946 (33 U.S.C. 426h(a), by extending the program by an
additional 4 years.
Subsection (b) amends section 5(b)(1)(A) of the Act of
August 13, 1946 (U.S.C. 426(b)(1)(A)) by extending the
planning, design and construction phase of the program for an
additional 3 years.
Sec. 3404. Shore protection projects.
Subsection (a) states that it is the policy of the United
States to promote shore protection projects, including beach
restoration and periodic beach renourishment for a period of 50
years.
Subsection (b) states that preference shall be given to
areas where Federal funds have been invested and areas where
Federal navigation projects or activities have caused the need
for prevention or mitigation to shores and beaches.
This section emphasizes the committee's support for the
protection, restoration and enhancement of sand beaches through
financial support of periodic beach nourishment for a period of
50 years. The committee recognizes that periodic beach
nourishment is an effective measure to prevent or mitigate
damage to shore from storms and hurricanes. Preference shall be
given to areas in which there has been a Federal investment of
funds.
The committee emphasizes that through previous Water
Resources Development Acts, Congress has established the length
and Federal cost share for period beach nourishment and
renourishment. Moreover, the written agreement entered by the
Secretary and non-Federal sponsor with respect to such projects
is legally binding in compliance with the Water Resources
Planning Act (42 U.S.C. 1962(a)-1962(a)(4)(e)).
Chapter 2--Studies
Sec. 3411. Oceanside, California, shoreline special study.
This section amends Section 414 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2636) to increase by 12-
months an extension for completing the Oceanside, California
Shoreline Special Study by striking ``32 months'' and inserting
``44 months''.
Chapter 3--Projects
SUBCHAPTER A--AUTHORIZATIONS
Sec. 3421. Coastal Louisiana ecosystem protection and restoration.
Location. Louisiana Coastal Area, Louisiana.
Purpose. Ecosystem Restoration.
Problem. The Louisiana Coastal Area contains one of the
largest expanses of coastal wetlands in the contiguous United
States, and accounts for 90 percent of the total coastal marsh
loss in the Nation. Coastal Louisiana has lost over 1.2 million
acres (1,875 sq. mi.), since 1930, and is estimated to continue
to lose land at a rate of approximately 6,600 acres per year
(10.0 sq. mi.) over the next 50 years, resulting in an
additional 328,000-acre (513 sq. mi.) net loss by the year
2050. Louisiana's coastal wetlands and barrier island system
enhances protection of an internationally significant
commercial-industrial complex from the destructive forces of
storm driven waves and tides, and taken as a whole with
migratory bird routes, fish and other species, place the
coastal wetlands of Louisiana among the nation's most
productive and important natural assets. Louisiana's coastal
area is home to over 2 million people, representing 46 percent
of Louisiana's population, and when investments in facilities,
supporting service activities, and the urban infrastructure are
totaled, the capital investment in the Louisiana coastal area
adds up to approximately $100 billion.
Recommended Plan. Subsection (a) establishes a Coastal
Louisiana Ecosystem Protection and Restoration Task Force
(``Task Force''), composed of the: Secretary of the Army
(``Secretary''); Secretary of Commerce; Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency; Secretary of Agriculture;
Secretary of Transportation; Secretary of Energy; Secretary of
Homeland Security; and Governor of the State of Louisiana (or
their designee at the level of Assistant Secretary or
equivalent). The Task Force shall make recommendations to the
Secretary of the Army regarding policies, strategies, plans,
programs, projects, activities, and financial plans for
addressing conservation, protection, restoration, and
maintenance of the coastal Louisiana ecosystem.
Subsection (b) directs the Secretary to develop a
comprehensive plan for the conservation, protection,
restoration, and maintenance of the coastal Louisiana
ecosystem, which may include such studies, projects, and
programs as the Secretary determines to be necessary for the
conservation, restoration, and maintenance of the coastal
Louisiana ecosystem. The Secretary shall submit the plan to
Congress not later than July 1, 2008.
Subsection (c) directs the Secretary to initiate
feasibility studies in accordance with the Louisiana Coastal
Ecosystem Restoration Study and to develop a plan for the
modification for the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, Louisiana,
Project that addresses navigation interests, environmental
restoration, and threats to life and property. The Secretary
shall re-evaluate existing federally authorized water resource
projects in the coastal Louisiana ecosystem in order to
determine whether the projects have the potential to contribute
to ecosystem restoration through revised operations or modified
project features.
Subsection (d) establishes a Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem
Science and Technology (``S & T'') Program to address coastal
ecosystem restoration science and technology needs. The total
cost shall not exceed $50,000,000. The S & T Program shall:
assess the effects of coastal restoration measures; develop
improved modeling capabilities; develop new technologies for
ecosystem restoration activities; provide scientific peer
review; identify and address socio-economic consequences of
coastal land loss and restoration activities; and ensure
application of adaptive management principals and practices.
The Secretary shall establish a Science Board for the S & T
Program, which shall include nationally, recognized experts.
The Science Board shall make recommendations to the Secretary
to improve program and project performance by providing
periodic review and comment on program and project activities.
The Secretary is further directed to establish an Office of
the Director for the S & T Program, which shall provide
recommendations to the Secretary regarding the development,
direction, and oversight of an annual program to identify and
address science and technology needs. The Director is
authorized to establish working groups as are necessary to
assist in the duties of the S & T Program.
The Secretary shall review and approve the construction of
demonstration projects for resolving scientific and
technological uncertainties at a total cost, for all
demonstration projects, not to exceed $85,000,000, and with a
total cost per project not to exceed $15,000,000.
The Secretary is further authorized to construct the Bayou
LaFourche River Reintroduction project at a total cost of
$140,000,000 (with an estimated Federal cost of $91,000,000 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $49,000,000).
Further, the Secretary shall implement a program for
increased beneficial use of material dredged from federally
maintained waterways in the Louisiana Coastal Area, with an
authorized cost not to exceed a total of $100,000,000.
Subsection (e) establishes the non-Federal share of costs:
for implementing projects at 35 percent; for operation,
maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation of the
projects at 100 percent; and for program elements at 35
percent. In addition, after the non-Federal sponsor provides
all lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and disposal
areas necessary for implementation of this section, the non-
Federal sponsor may provide the balance of its share through
the provision of services, materials, and other in-kind
services that the Secretary determines to be integral to the
program. It further provides that credits afforded the non-
Federal sponsor may be carried over between authorized program
elements.
Subsection (f) authorizes the Secretary to determine that
an activity is justified by the derived environmental benefits,
and no further economic justification is required if the
Secretary determines that the activity is cost-effective.
However, this is not applicable to separable elements intended
to produce benefits that are predominantly unrelated to the
conservation, restoration, or maintenance of the natural
system.
Subsection (g) directs the Secretary to ensure that the
implementation, maintaining, modifying, or rehabilitation of
federally authorized water resources projects in the coastal
Louisiana ecosystem are consistent with the purposes of plans,
projects, and programs developed and implemented pursuant to
this section.
Subsection (h) exempts the Task Force, Science and
Technology Program, and any groups associated with them from
the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
Project Costs. Total Costs provided in the legislation
amount to $375,000,000, and are broken down as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S & T Program........................................ $50,000,000
Demonstration Projects............................... $85,000,000
Bayou LaFourche River Reintroduction Project......... $140,000,000
Beneficial Use of Dredged Material................... $100,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 3422. Morganza, Louisiana to the Gulf of Mexico.
Location. Houma City, Terrebonne and Lafourche Parishes,
Louisiana.
Purpose. Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction.
Problem. The area is significantly affected by tides
emanating from the Gulf of Mexico. Deterioration of coastal
marshes, as a result of saltwater intrusion, land subsidence,
and the lack of interchanges from the Mississippi River and
Tributaries (MR&T) systems has increased storm surge
inundation.
Recommended Plan. The recommended hurricane protection plan
consists of approximately 72-miles of earthen levee with 12
water control structures to allow ebb and flow through the
levee, 12 floodgate structures (proposed for the navigable
waterways), and a lock complex in the Houma Navigation Canal.
The structural features are integrated into the levee alignment
to provide flood protection, drainage, environmental benefit,
and navigational passage.
Project Costs. Total cost $740,000,000. Federal cost
$481,000,000; non-Federal cost $259,000,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.7 to 1.
Sec. 3423. New Jersey Shore protection, Manasquan Inlet to Barnegat
Inlet, New Jersey.
Location. Atlantic Coast of New Jersey, Island Beach, Ocean
County, New Jersey.
Purpose. Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction.
Problem. Severe storms in recent years have caused a
reduction in the overall beach height and width along the study
area. The narrowing and lowering of the beaches and dunes along
the study area have reduced the storm protection that would
have otherwise been available. As a result, public and private
property is subject to damage from erosion, wave attack and
tidal inundation. Some storms have caused extensive damage and
even loss of life, and when evacuation was considered
necessary, families have suffered hardships and inconvenience.
Recommended Plan. The recommended plan consists of berm and
dune restoration using sand obtained from offshore borrow
sources. Periodic nourishment is expected to occur at 4-year
intervals subsequent to completion of initial construction.
Project Costs. Total cost $62,377,000. Federal cost
$40,546,000; non-Federal cost $21,831,000. Estimated average
annual costs $1,911,000 for periodic nourishment over a period
of 50 years.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. 2.1 to 1.
Sec. 3424. South River, New Jersey.
Location. South River, Boroughs of South River and
Sayreville, New Jersey.
Purpose. Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction and Ecosystem
Restoration.
Problem. The main problem affecting the area is flooding
caused by periodic hurricanes and other storms. Damages are
primarily due to storm surges and associated basin runoff,
which subject these areas to significant flooding. Significant
degradation of wetlands and the surrounding ecosystem has
occurred due to urbanization resulting in tidal flow
restrictions and increased storm surge inputs of excess water
and sediments.
Recommended Plan. The recommended plan consists of a storm
surge barrier, two combined levees/floodwalls, and interior
drainage facilities including pump stations and outlets. In
addition, the project will provide for the restoration of the
structure and function of 380 acres of degraded ecosystems,
including wetlands and forest habitats.
Project Costs. Total cost $105,437,000. Federal cost
$68,534,000; non-Federal cost $36,903,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. 2.2 to 1.
Sec. 3425. Montauk Point, New York.
Location. Montauk Point, New York.
Purpose. Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction.
Problem. The Montauk Point study area, including the
historic lighthouse, is located on a bluff at the eastern end
of the southern fork of Long Island, approximately 125 miles
east of New York City. The area surrounding the lighthouse is
operated as a State park. The Montauk Point Lighthouse was
commissioned by President Washington and completed in 1796. It
is included in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
Continued shoreline erosion threatens the loss of the
lighthouse complex and surrounding State park property.
Recommended Plan. The recommended plan consists of an 840-
foot long revetment with a crest width of 40 feet at an
elevation of +25 feet NGVD and 2 vertical and 1 horizontal side
slopes.
Project Costs. Total cost $12,000,000. Federal cost
$7,800.000; non-Federal cost $4,200,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.3 to 1.
Sec. 3426. Coastal wetland conservation project funding
This section amends section 306 of the Coastal Wetlands
Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 3955), the
Breaux Act, by removing the annual limits on expenditures of
revenues generated from sport fishing fees and extending the
program by an additional 10 years.
SUBCHAPTER B--MODIFICATIONS
Sec. 3431. Imperial Beach, California.
Location. Imperial Beach, San Diego County, California.
Purpose. Shore Protection.
Problem. There is a lack of adequate protection from winter
coastal storms for the Silver Shoreline, Imperial Beach,
California. The shoreline is eroding at a rate of 6 feet per
year. Many private and commercial properties along the
shoreline are susceptible to wave attack, inundation, and
failure due to erosion during coastal storm events.
Recommended Plan. This section modifies the project for
beach erosion, San Diego County California, authorized by
section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 300)
to authorize the Secretary to carry out a shore protection
project in accordance with the Report of the Chief of Engineers
dated December 30, 2003. The additional project consists of an
initial beach fill of approximately 1.6 million cubic yards of
sand. The placement will be 7,100 feet long and 105 feet wide
along the developed shorefront. Periodic nourishment of
approximately 1 million cubic yards of sand will occur on
average every 10 years over a 50-year period of Federal
participation for a total of four additional nourishments.
Project Costs. Total Cost $48,264,000. Federal cost
$25,759,000; non-Federal cost $22,505,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.7 to 1.
Sec. 3432. Lido Key Beach, Sarasota, Florida.
Location. Lido Key, Sarasota County, Florida.
Purpose. Shore Protection.
Problem. Additional options need to be considered to
determine optimal hurricane and storm damage reduction features
for Lido Key under current conditions, and to seek new
authority to design and construct the project due to Section
902 limit being exceeded.
Recommended Plan. A 5-foot elevation, 80-foot-wide storm
berm that extends 8,300 feet with tapers at each end. Initial
construction would require placement of approximately 1,075,000
cubic yards of sand fill, consisting of 460,000 cubic yards of
design volume fill and 615,000 cubic yards of sacrificial
advance fill. Three borrow areas are located between 7.2 and
9.5 nautical miles offshore. Future nourishment would be
provided at about 5-year intervals. Three groins would be
constructed along the southern portion of the fill to reduce
post-construction erosion losses.
Project Costs. Total cost $12,632,200. Federal cost
$7,882,493; non-Federal cost of $4,749,702.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.5 to 1.
Sec. 3433. Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York.
This provision amends Section 554 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3781) to increase the
maximum total Federal cost of the project from $5,200,000 to
$18,200,000.
SUBCHAPTER C--DEAUTHORIZATIONS
Sec. 3441. Fort Livingston, Grand Terre Island, Louisiana.
This section deauthorizes the project for erosion
protection and recreation, Fort Livingston, Grande Terre
Island, Louisiana, authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1946
(33 U.S.C. 426e et seq.). There is no justified Federal
interest.
TITLE IV--ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION
Subtitle A--Ecosystem Restoration
Chapter 1--General Provisions
Sec. 4001. Cost sharing for monitoring.
This section authorizes the Secretary to cost share in the
monitoring of ecosystem restoration projects identical to the
cost sharing for construction, including projects designed and
constructed under a continuing authority program for a maximum
of 10 years and not to exceed 5 percent of the construction
cost of the original project. After 10 years, the costs of
monitoring shall be 100 percent non-Federal.
Sec. 4002. Ecosystem restoration benefits.
This section directs the Secretary to use ecosystem
restoration benefits as part of developing a recommended plan
for the following projects:
(1) Grayson's Creek, California
(2) Seven Oaks, California
(3) Oxford, California
(4) Walnut Creek, California
(5) Wildcat Phase II, California
Sec. 4003. Great Lakes Interagency Task Force.
This section enacts into law Executive Order 13340 entitled
``Establishment of Great Lakes Interagency Task Force and
Promotion of a Regional Collaboration of National Significance
for the Great Lakes.'' The Task Force shall be chaired by the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. A Great
Lakes Regional Working Group shall be formed, which shall
include the appropriate regional administrator or director with
programmatic responsibility over the Great Lakes system for
each agency represented on the Task Force. The Task Force is
directed to establish a process to improve collaboration
between the various Federal, tribal, regional, State and local
programs concerned with environmental restoration and
management activities throughout the Great Lakes System. The
Task Force and Working Group shall collaborate with Canada and
its provinces and bi-national bodies involved in the Great
Lakes region regarding policies, strategies, projects and
priorities for the Great Lakes System.
Chapter 2--Continuing Authorities Programs
Sec. 4101. Restoration of the environment for protection of aquatic and
riparian ecosystem program.
This section increases the annual program limit from
$25,000,000 to $75,000,000 for the Restoration of the
Environment for Protection of Aquatic and Riparian Ecosystem
(REPARE) continuing authority program created under section 206
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C.
2330).
Sec. 4102. Environmental modification of projects for improvement and
restoration of ecosystems program.
This section increases the annual program limit from
$25,000,000 to $50,000,000 for the Environmental Modification
of Projects for Improvement and Restoration of Ecosystems
(EMPIRE) continuing authority program created under section
1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
2309a).
Sec. 4103. Projects to enhance estuaries and coastal habitats.
This section creates a new continuing authority program,
Projects to Enhance Estuaries and Coastal Habitats (PEECH), for
estuary habitat restoration with an annual program limit of
$25,000,000 and a per project cost limit of $5,000,000.
Chapter 3--Studies
SUBCHAPTER A--STUDY AUTHORIZATIONS
Sec. 4201. Lake Champlain Canal study, Vermont and New York.
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study, at
full Federal expense, to determine the feasibility of a
dispersal barrier for control of invasive species at the Lake
Champlain Canal, Vermont and New York, and, if such project is
found to be feasible, directs the Secretary to construct,
maintain, and operate such dispersal barrier as necessary.
Sec. 4202. Eurasian milfoil.
This section directs the Secretary to carry out a study, at
full Federal expense, to develop national protocols for the use
of the Euhrychiopsis lecontei weevil for biological control of
Eurasian milfoil in the lakes of Vermont and other northern
tier States.
SUBCHAPTER B--MODIFICATIONS
Sec. 4211. San Pablo Bay watershed restoration, California.
This section directs the Secretary to submit to Congress a
report describing the results of the San Pablo Bay watershed
study not later than March 31, 2008.
Chapter 4--Projects
SUBCHAPTER A--AUTHORIZATIONS
Sec. 4301. Matilija Dam, Ventura County, California.
Location. Ventura River, Ventura County, California.
Purpose. Ecosystem Restoration.
Problem. Matilija Dam was constructed in 1948 as a water
supply facility. The resulting reservoir has filled with
sediment and provides very little water storage; approximately
500 acre-feet, 7 percent of capacity, and decreasing. The
Matilija Dam is an impediment for fish passage, no longer
provides adequate water supply, and negatively affects
downstream and coastal sediment transport. Arundo Donax, a non-
native invasive plant, is prevalent throughout the river system
reducing the quality of habitat for a number of endangered,
listed and other species.
Recommended Plan. This section authorizes the Secretary to
carry out a project for ecosystem restoration at Matilija Dam
and the Ventura River Watershed, provided that a favorable
report on the project is completed by the Chief of Engineers by
December 31, 2004. The recommended plan includes dam removal to
restore fish passage and sediment transport processes to the
river and beach. It also includes levees and floodwalls, bridge
modification, radial gates, a detention basin, land
acquisition, sediment slurry lines and sediment placement,
channel excavation upstream of current dam site, recreation
features and removal of invasive plant species.
Project Costs. Total cost $130,335,000. Federal cost
$78,972,750; non-Federal cost $51,362,250.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.
Sec. 4302. Napa River Salt Marsh, California.
Location. Napa, Sonoma, and Solano Counties, California.
Purpose. Ecosystem Restoration.
Problem. The San Francisco Bay Region is an extensive,
complex and diverse estuary where that has lost approximately
90 percent of its original tidal wetlands due to development
over the past 150 years. The degradation of fish and wildlife
resources associated with the loss of the Bay's historic
wetlands has resulted in several species being listed as
threatened or endangered. The project site, historically
dominated by tidal salt marsh, was diked and converted to
hayfields approximately 150 years ago. In the early 1950's, the
diked areas were converted to solar salt evaporation ponds.
This project will restore a portion of diked baylands to tidal
action to support endangered and special status species
recovery, improve water quality, and restore greater ecological
balance to the San Francisco Bay.
Recommended Plan. The recommended plan will use a system of
water control structures and levee breaches to reduce the
salinity of former salt production ponds by using a combination
of water sources, including seasonal rainfall and adjacent
sloughs, that will flow through the ponds and then be
discharged to the Napa River and an adjacent slough. The
recommended plan then relies on natural sediment processes and
colonization by marsh vegetation to restore over 4,500 acres of
tidal ponds and managed ponds.
Project Costs. Total cost $105,500,000. Federal cost
$64,000,000; non-Federal cost $36,500,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.
Sec. 4303. Pine Flat Dam fish and wildlife habitat, California.
Location. Pine Flat Reservoir and Kings River, Fresno,
California.
Purpose. Ecosystem Restoration.
Problem. Improvements are needed to manage fisheries and
aquatic habitat conditions in Pine Flat Reservoir and the Lower
Kings River immediately below the Pine Flat Reservoir.
Recommended Plan. This section authorizes the Secretary to
participate with appropriate State and local agencies in the
implementation of a cooperative program to improve and manage
fisheries and aquatic habitat conditions in the Pine Flat
Reservoir and in the 14-mile reach of Kings River immediately
below the dam in accordance with Kings River Fisheries
Management Program Framework Agreement, dated May.
Project Costs. Total cost $20,000,000. Federal cost
$13,000,000; non-Federal cost $7,000,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.
Sec. 4304. Salton Sea Restoration, California.
Location. La Quinta, California.
Purpose. Environmental Restoration.
Problem. The Salton Sea serves as a reservoir for
irrigation drainage. To restore it as healthy habitiat for fish
and wildlife and to enhance its potential for recreational uses
and economic development requires that its overall salinity be
reduced and stabilized and that its surface elevation be
stabilized. Previous studies by the Bureau of Reclamation and
the Salton Sea Authority have identified long-term solutions
for its reclamation.
Recommended Plan. This recommended plan consists of a
special study of pilot projects identified in the preferred
restoration concept plan approved by the Salton Sea Authority
to determine if the pilot projects are economically
justifiable, technically sound, environmentally acceptable and
meeting the objectives of the Salton Sea Reclamation Act
(Public Law 105-372). If the Secretary makes a positive
determination, the Secretary may enter into an agreement with
the Salton Sea Authority, and in consultation with the Salton
Sea Science Office, to carry out pilot projects for improvement
of the environment in the Salton Sea,
Project Costs. Total cost $26,000,000. Federal cost
$16,900,000, of which not more than $5,000,000 may be used for
any one pilot project; non-Federal cost $9,100,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.
Sec. 4305. South Platte River, Denver, Colorado.
Location. Denver County Reach, South Platte River, Denver,
Colorado.
Purpose. Environmental Restoration.
Problem. The City and County of Denver has accomplished
much toward restoring the environmental assets of Denver's
South Platte River corridor. Only the Zuni to Sun Valley reach,
which includes the Zuni Power Plant and the Sun Valley housing
development, remains in a severely degraded condition.
Recommended Plan. The recommended plan consists of removal
of a low head Fabridam; construction of a 250 cubic-feet-per-
second, low-flow channel; stripping vegetation; modification of
overall channel banks; construction of a series of pool/riffle
structures and diversion jetties; relocation of existing
trails; relocation of utilities; and complete revegetation of
the project area with native species. To allow continued
operation of the existing Zuni Power Plant, construction of an
infiltration gallery and purchase of water rights as necessary
are included as just compensation for removal of the Fabridam.
Project Costs. Total cost $17,997,000. Federal cost
$11,698,000; non-Federal cost $6,299,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.
Sec. 4306. Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal dispersal barriers project,
Illinois.
Location. Chicago, Illinois.
Purpose. Environmental Restoration.
Problem. The Chicago Ship and Sanitary Canal forms a
unique, man-made link between the Great Lakes and the
Mississippi River. The Canal also provides non-indigenous
aquatic nuisance species access between the two water basins.
As the non-indigenous aquatic nuisance species move toward the
Great Lakes from the Mississippi River and vice versa, they
prey on native species and compete for food, living space and
spawning areas. There is a current demonstration barrier
authorized by the Non-Indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention
and Control Act of 1990 (amended through 1996) which is nearing
the end of its useful life.
Recommended Plan. The plan consists of construction of a
permanent barrier to replace the demonstration barrier at full
Federal expense, operate and maintain both barriers at full
Federal expense, and provide credit to each State in proportion
to the amount of funds contributed.
Project Costs. Unknown.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.
Sec. 4307. Smith Island, Maryland.
Location. Smith Island, Chesapeake Bay, Maryland.
Purpose. Environmental Restoration.
Problem. Valuable wetland and submerged aquatic vegetation
(SAV) habitat is being destroyed and degraded by erosion. As
the landmasses that make up Smith Island erode, there is
increased wave and current action into shallow-water areas that
were previously protected, quiescent, and suitable for SAV
growth. The eroded material also adds turbidity and nutrients
to the water column that further inhibit SAV colonization and
growth. Additionally, the landmasses themselves are extremely
high quality emergent wetlands. These wetlands are even more
valuable than most since they are part of a remote island with
little human disruption. In its entirety, Smith Island has lost
over 3,300 acres of wetlands in the last 150 years, and, in the
identified project areas alone, it lost almost 2,400 acres of
SAV between 1992 and 1998.
Recommended Plan. The recommended plan consists of
constructing over 2 miles of off-shore segmented breakwaters to
provide protection to over 2100 acres of wetlands and SAV
habitats, and reduction of sediment to the Chesapeake Bay.
Project Costs. Total cost $14,500,000. Federal cost
$9,425,000; non-Federal cost $5,075,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.
Sec. 4308. Upper Connecticut River Basin Ecosystem Restoration, New
Hampshire and Vermont.
Location. Upper Connecticut River Basin, New Hampshire and
Vermont.
Purpose. Ecosystem Restoration.
Problem. The river basin provides important habitat for
Atlantic salmon, dwarf mussels, beaver, otter, mink, bear, and
moose. It is a flyway for migratory bird species. Portions of
the Connecticut River, such as the Conte Refuge Special Focus
Area, are known for its biological diversity and an unusual
concentration of species that are disappearing from other
places. It is the best dwarf wedge mussel population in the
basin and it provides summer forage for migratory bald eagles.
In addition, the Connecticut River Rapids Macrosite includes
some of the river's last floodplain forests.
Recommended Plan. This section directs the Secretary, in
consultation with Federal, State, local or non-profit agencies,
to develop a strategy for ecosystem restoration of the Upper
Connecticut River ecosystem. It further directs the Secretary
to participate in the implementation of critical restoration
projects in the Upper Connecticut River Basin consistent with
the developed strategy.
Project Costs. Total cost $20,000,000. Federal cost
$13,000,000; non-Federal cost $7,000,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.
Sec. 4309. Upper Connecticut River Basin wetland restoration, New
Hampshire and Vermont.
Location. Upper Connecticut River Basin, New Hampshire and
Vermont.
Purpose. Ecosystem Restoration.
Problem. The river basin provides important habitat for
Atlantic salmon, dwarf mussels, beaver, otter, mink, bear, and
moose. It is a flyway for migratory bird species. Portions of
the Connecticut River, such as the Conte Refuge Special Focus
Area, are known for its biological diversity and an unusual
concentration of species that are disappearing from other
places. It is the best dwarf wedge mussel population in the
basin and it provides summer forage for migratory bald eagles.
In addition, the Connecticut River Rapids Macrosite includes
some of the river's last floodplain forests.
Recommended Plan. This section directs the Secretary, in
consultation with Federal, State, local or non-profit agencies,
to develop a strategy for the use of wetland restoration, soil
and water conservation practices, and non-structural measures
in the Upper Connecticut River basin to reduce flood damage,
improve water quality, and create wildlife habitat. It further
directs the Secretary to participate in the implementation of
the strategy in cooperation with local landowners and local
government officials.
Project Costs. Total cost $5,000,000. Federal cost
$3,250,000; non-Federal cost $1,750,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.
Sec. 4310. Jamaica Bay, Marine Park and Plumb Beach, Queens and
Brooklyn, New York.
Location. Jamaica Bay, New York.
Purpose. Ecosystem Restoration.
Problem. Over the past century, the Bay's fragile ecosystem
has been degraded through human encroachment and increased
urbanization.
Recommended Plan. The recommended plan includes restoration
measures at nine sites, including measures to regrade
shorelines, revegetate grasslands, create and/or restore
additional estuarine, wetland, and upland habitats, and improve
circulation and flushing in the bay.
Project Costs. Total cost $180,000,000. Federal cost
$117,000,000; non-Federal cost $63,000,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.
Sec. 4311. Long Island Sound oyster restoration, New York and
Connecticut.
Location. Long Island Sound, Connecticut and New York.
Purpose. Ecosystem Restoration.
Problem. There is a need to restore existing non-productive
oyster grounds and create new oyster beds in historically
productive but deteriorated sites to increase aquatic habitats
within Long Island Sound and adjacent waters.
Recommended Plan. This section directs the Secretary to
plan, design, and construct projects to increase aquatic
habitats within Long Island Sound, New York and Connecticut,
and adjacent waters, including the construction and restoration
of oyster beds and related shellfish habitat.
Project Costs. Total cost $25,000,000. Federal cost
$18,750,000; non-Federal cost $6,250,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.
Sec. 4312. Upper Willamette River watershed ecosystem restoration,
Oregon.
Location. Upper Willamette River watershed, Oregon.
Purpose. Ecosystem Restoration.
Problem. Habitat has been altered or destroyed for a wide
variety of plants and animals, including fish species, such as
bull trout and Willamette spring Chinook salmon and winter
stellhead, listed as threatened under the Endangered Species
Act.
Recommended Plan. The recommended plan includes the
planning, design, and construction of ecosystem restoration
projects in the Upper Willamette River watershed.
Project Costs. Total cost $15,000,000. Federal cost
$9,750,000; non-Federal cost $5,250,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.
Sec. 4313. Riverside Oxbow, Fort Worth, Texas.
Location. Riverside Oxbow Trinity River, Fort Worth, Texas.
Purpose. Ecosystem Restoration.
Problem. The Riverside Oxbow and surrounding area has
experienced both direct and indirect environmental degradation
as a result of the construction and implementation of Benbrook
Lake, Eagle Mountain Lake, Lake Worth, the Fort Worth Floodway
project, and subsequent flood control projects and development
activities.
Recommended Plan. The recommended plan consists of
restoration of 512.2 acres of floodplain lands, approximately 2
miles of Oxbow river channel, 56.5 acres of wetlands, and 112
acres of uplands. It also provides 25,700 feet of mixed surface
linear recreation trails.
Project Costs. Total cost $22,200,000. Federal cost
$9,180,000; non-Federal cost $13,020,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.
Sec. 4314. Connecticut River Dams, Vermont.
Location. Connecticut River, Vermont.
Purpose. Ecosystem Restoration.
Problem. These dams were constructed without consideration
of the ecological impacts. Since their construction, this area
has become one of the critical components of the Atlantic
salmon restoration program.
Recommended Plan. This section authorizes the Secretary to
evaluate, design and complete structural modifications, for the
purposes of improving the environment, to the following Army
Corps of Engineers operated dams in Vermont: Townshend Lake,
Ball Mountain Lake, North Springfield Lake, North Hartland
Lake, and Union Village Lake.
Project Costs. Total cost $30,000,000. Federal cost
$30,000,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.
SUBCHAPTER B--MODIFICATIONS
Sec. 4321 Hamilton Army Airfield, California.
This section authorizes the project for ecosystem
restoration, Hamilton Army Airfield, California, substantially
in accordance with the plan, and subject to the conditions,
recommended in a final report of the Chief of Engineers, if a
favorable final report of the Chief for the project is
completed not later than December 31, 2004.
Location. Novato, California.
Purpose. Ecosystem Restoration.
Problem. The San Francisco Bay Region is an extensive,
complex and diverse estuary that has lost approximately 90
percent of its original tidal wetlands due to development over
the past 150 years. The degradation of fish and wildlife
resources associated with the loss of the Bay's historic
wetlands has resulted in several species being listed as
threatened or endangered. The project site, historically
dominated by tidal salt marsh, was diked and converted to
hayfields approximately 150 years ago. This project proposes to
beneficially reuse dredged material to restore tidal wetlands
to support endangered and special status species recovery, and
restore greater ecological balance to the San Francisco Bay.
Recommended Plan. The Hamilton Wetland Restoration Project
(HWP) project was authorized in WRDA 1999 as the ecosystem
restoration of approximately 990 acres of the former Hamilton
Army Airfield parcel including the adjacent State Lands
Commission parcel. As authorized, the project would
beneficially re-use approximately 10.6 million cubic yards
(MCY) of dredge material to restore habitat. Since the project
was authorized, the non-Federal sponsor has requested that an
additional 1500 acres of adjacent State owned property, known
as Bel Marin Keys Unit V (BMK), be included in the HWP project
for the purpose of habitat restoration. A General Reevaluation
Report (GRR), completed in April 2003, recommended that the
additional 1500 acres of adjacent BMK property be included as
part of the HWP project and that it be constructed similarly by
beneficially re-using approximately 15 MCY of dredge material
to restore habitat on the BMK parcel. By expanding the HWP to
include the BMK parcel, the expanded project would beneficially
reuse nearly 25 MCY of dredged material to restore
approximately 2,600 acres of critical wetland habitat.
Project Costs. Total Cost $192,900,000. Federal cost
$144,000,000; non-Federal cost $48,300,000. WRDA 99 authorized
the HWP at a total cost of $55,200,000; thus, the increment in
the total project cost of the expanded project is $137.5
million.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.
Sec. 4322. Allatoona Lake, Georgia.
This section revises the authority provided in Section 325
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat.
4849), to authorize the Secretary to exchange land at Allatoona
Lake, Georgia, by adding an alternative method whereby the
Government could sell land above 863 feet in elevation and with
the proceeds from the sales, without further appropriations,
acquire additional lands, from willing sellers, to protect the
water quality and overall environment of Allatoona Lake. The
lands available to be sold are in accordance with the Real
Estate Design Memorandum prepared by the Mobile district
engineer dated April 5, 1996, and approved October 8, 1996.
Sec. 4323. Ohio River, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
and West Virginia.
This section amends the project for ecosystem restoration,
Ohio River, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
and West Virginia, authorized by section 101(16) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2578), to
authorize the Secretary to cost share projects with non-profit
organizations with the consent of the affected local
government, prepare an implementation plan and initiate a pilot
restoration program in the Lower Scioto Basin, Ohio.
Sec. 4324. Public Access, Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Louisiana.
This section directs the Secretary to modify the public
access features of the project for ecosystem restoration,
Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Louisiana, authorized by
section 601(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(100 Stat. 4142), to acquire from willing sellers the fee
interest, exclusive of oil, gas and minerals, of an additional
20,000 acres of land in the Lower Atchafalaya Basin Floodway
for the public access feature of the project to enhance fish
and wildlife resources at a total cost of $4,000,000.
Sec. 4325. Onondaga Lake, New York.
This section amends the project for ecosystem restoration,
Onondaga Lake, New York, authorized by section 573 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 372), to increase
the authorized project cost from $10,000,000 to $30,000,000 and
to authorize the Secretary to cost share projects with non-
profit organizations with the consent of the affected local
government.
Sec. 4326. Missouri River restoration, North Dakota.
This section amends section 707(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2699) to extend the
authorization for appropriations through 2010.
Sec. 4327. Upper Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and New York.
This section amends the project for ecosystem restoration,
Upper Susquehannd River Basin, Pennsylvania and New York,
authorized by section 567 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3787), to expand the definition of
potential non-Federal sponsors; to authorize the Secretary to
provide assistance for implementing wetland restoration
projects and soil conservation measures; and defines an
implementation strategy for carrying out the goals of the
program.
Sec. 4328. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and
terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration, South Dakota.
This section amends Section 602(a)(4) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 386) to direct the
Secretary of the Treasury to make funds available to the State
of South Dakota from the State of South Dakota Terrestrial
Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Fund. The prior
authorization directed the Secretary of the Army to make such
funds available to the State and the Secretary of the Treasury
to make funds available to the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and
the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe. This provision also amends the
investment strategy directed in Sections 603 and 604 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1999 for the State of South
Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Fund and
the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and Lower Brule Sioux
Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Fund. This
provision directs the investment of funds in Treasury
obligations with differing maturities to ensure high returns
while allowing for the logical availability of funds.
Sec. 4329. Missouri River restoration.
This section amends section 904(b)(1)(B) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2708) to require
that members of the Missouri River Trust recommended by the
Governor of South Dakota include representative(s) from rural
water systems and amends Section 907 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2712) to extend the
authorization of appropriations for an additional 5 years,
through fiscal year 2010.
Sec. 4330. Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers enhancement project.
This section amends section 514 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 343; 117 Stat. 142) to
extend the authorization of appropriations through fiscal year
2015. For any project undertaken under this section, a non-
Federal interest may include a nonprofit entity with the
consent of the affected local government.
Sec. 4331. Lake Champlain Eurasian Milfoil and Water Chestnut Control,
Vermont
This section directs the Secretary to revise the existing
General Design Memorandum prepared under the project authorized
by section 104 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (33 U.S.C.
610) to permit the use of chemical means of control, when
appropriate, of Eurasian milfoil and water chestnuts in the
Lake Champlain basin, Vermont.
Sec. 4332. Lake Champlain Watershed, Vermont and New York.
This section amends section 542 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 (42 Stat. 2671) to identify additional
activities that may be considered critical restoration
projects, including geographic mapping using existing technical
capacity to produce a high-resolution, multi-spectral
satellite, imagery-based land use and cover data sets; and
river corridor assessments, protection, management, and
restoration for purposes of ecosystem restoration. This section
increases the authorized project costs from $20,000,000 to
$32,000,000.
Sec. 4333. Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration, Virginia and Maryland.
This section amends section 704(b) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 22263(b)) to increase the
authorized appropriation limit for the program from $20,000,000
to $50,000,000. The provision also modifies the allowable
activities to be conducted in the Chesapeake Bay and expands
the purposes for which restoration activities may be undertaken
and defines successful restoration activities.
Sec. 4334. Lakes Program.
This section amends section 602(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4148; 110 Stat. 3758; 113
Stat. 295) to include additional sites in Illinois, North
Dakota, and Vermont to the Lakes Program.
Sec. 4335. Estuary Restoration.
Subsection (a) amends section 102 of the Estuary
Restoration Act (ERA) of 2000 (the Act) (33 U.S.C. 2901) to
expand the purposes of the restoration program by including the
implementation of a coordinated Federal approach to estuary
habitat restoration activities, including the use of common
monitoring standards and a common system for tracking
restoration acreage; adding implementation to the strategy; and
adding cooperative agreements to the Federal assistance
purpose.
Subsection (b) amends section 103(6)(A) of the Act (33
U.S.C. 2902(6)(A)) by adding regional to the estuary habitat
restoration plan.
Subsection (c) amends section 104 of the Act (33 U.S.C.
2903) to allow monitoring costs to be included in the total
cost of the estuary restoration project and allows the
Secretary to delegate the implementation of projects costing
less than $1,000,000, on a reimbursable basis to the Secretary
of the Interior or the Under Secretary for Oceans and
Atmosphere of the Department of Commerce.
Subsection (d) amends section 105(b) of the Act (33 U.S.C.
2903(b)) to direct the Council to cooperate in the
implementation of the strategy, recommend standards for
monitoring restoration projects and contribution of project
information to the data base, and use agency authorities to
carry out the Act.
Subsection (e) amends section 107(d) of the Act (33 U.S.C.
2906(d) to give the Secretary general data compilation,
coordination, and analysis responsibilities to support the
strategy.
Subsection (f) amends section 108 of the Act (33 U.S.C.
2908(a)) by requiring the report every sixth, eighth, and tenth
fiscal year after November 7, 2000.
Subsection (g) amends section 109(a) of the Act (33 U.S.C.
2908(a)) to establish project funding for fiscal years 2006
through 2010 as follows: $25,000,000 for the Secretary;
$5,000,000 for the Secretary of the Interior; and $5,000,000
for the Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere of the
Department of Commerce. In addition, this subsection extends
the monitoring authorization to 2010.
Subsection (h) amends section 110 of the Act (33 U.S.C.
2909) to have the lead agency consult and coordinate, instead
of the Secretary, and allow nongovernmental agencies to enter
into cooperative agreements or contracts
The Estuary Restoration Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-457; 33
U.S.C. 2901-2909) was enacted to promote the restoration of
estuary habitat through the development of a national estuary
habitat restoration strategy, creating and maintaining
effective estuary restoration partnerships among public
agencies and private sectors. In passing the Estuary
Restoration Act, Congress recognized the importance of this
national, strategic plan and multi-level partnerships for
effectively addressing the problems plaguing our nation's
estuaries. By setting a goal to restore one million acres of
estuary habitat by 2010, the Act encourages coordination among
all levels of government, along with engaging the unique
strengths of the public, non-profit, and private sectors. In
2002, the Estuary Council, consisting of members from several
Federal agencies including the Army Corps of Engineers and the
Department of Commerce, completed the national estuary strategy
to ensure a comprehensive and integrated approach for
implementing the Estuary Restoration Program.
Section 4335 amends sections 102, 103(6)(A), 104, 105(b),
107(d), 108(a), 109(a), and 110 of the Estuary Restoration Act
(ERA) to clarify the coordinated Federal approach and
cooperative nature of the law; to include monitoring costs as
part of the total costs of an estuary restoration project; to
provide new authorities to the Secretary for the delegation of
small estuary projects; to extend funding authority for the
Secretary; and provide new authority for the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and Department of Commerce, to develop and
implement estuary projects.
The ERA itself is not clear regarding the mechanism by
which funding is granted under the law and the Conference
Report for P.L. 106-457 increases the uncertainty by stating
that the Secretary should not give grants, but rather should
use an expedited version of the funding process used under past
Water Resources Development Acts. Section 110(b) of the ERA
clearly stipulates that cooperative agreements are appropriate
vehicles, but the presence of multiple options has led to
confusion. This section amends section 104 to clarify that the
Secretary may carry out estuary habitat restoration projects
and provide technical assistance through the award of contracts
and cooperative agreements.
Ongoing uncertainty also exists regarding the inclusion of
monitoring costs within the non-Federal cost share. Some are
interpreting the law to read that the required monitoring is
part of the ``operations and maintenance'', which may not be
included in the sponsor's portion of the cost share agreement.
The Council has released monitoring guidelines that stipulate
restoration projects should be monitored for at least 5 years,
an amount of time that may significantly increase the burden on
the project sponsor, particularly if these costs are not
included as part of the total cost of a project. Section 104(d)
is amended to clarify that monitoring costs may be included in
the total costs of an estuary project.
To date, the ERA has received $2.5 million in annual
appropriations for estuary projects. Authorized at $275 million
through fiscal year 2005, the ERA has faced a number of hurdles
since its enactment in November 2000, including the Army Corps
of Engineers' no new starts policy and the tight fiscal
situation. The law has no sunset provision, but appropriations
are defined only through fiscal year 2005. Section 109(a) of
the ERA is amended to authorize $25 million annually through
fiscal year 2010 for the Secretary; $1.5 million annually for
Department of Commerce estuary monitoring activities; and to
grant new funding authority of $5 million annually to the
Department of Commerce and the Secretary of the Interior
(acting through the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service), respectively, for estuary projects. This new funding
authority, combined with language encouraging the Secretary to
delegate implementation of small projects with a Federal share
of less than $1,000,000 to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
or Department of Commerce, is essential to maximize the
partnership model of the Act and encourage other Federal
partners to become engaged in project implementation.
SUBCHAPTER C--DEAUTHORIZATIONS
Sec. 4351. Dog River Pilot Project, Alabama.
This section deauthorizes the project for ecosystem
restoration, Dog River Pilot Project, Alabama, authorized by
section 518 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113
Stat. 345). The project is complete and no further activities
are required.
Sec. 4352. Central and Southern Florida, Everglades National Park,
Florida.
This section deauthorizes the project to improve water
supply, Everglades National Park, Florida, authorized by
section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 1257)
and the Flood Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 740).
Subtitle B--Environmental Remediation Chapter 1--Continuing Authorities
Programs
Sec. 4401. Remediation of abandoned mine sites.
This section expands the existing Remediation of Abandoned
Mine Sites (RAMS) program into a continuing authority program,
with an annual program limit of $45,000,000, by amending
section 560 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (33
U.S.C. 2336; 113 Stat. 354-355) to authorize the Secretary to
perform construction activities associated with remediation of
abandoned mines, to cost share program features with non-profit
organizations with the consent of the affected local
government, adjusting the cost share requirement, and defining
the operation and maintenance costs to be 100 percent non-
Federal.
Chapter 2--Modifications
Sec. 4411. Environmental remediation, Front Royal, Virginia.
This section amends Section 591(a)(2) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 378) increase the
total project cost from $12,000,000 to $22,000,000.
TITLE V--WATER STORAGE AND WATER QUALITY
Subtitle A--Water Storage Program
Chapter 1--Continuing Authorities Programs
Sec. 5101. Small projects for the rehabilitation or removal of dams.
This section creates a new continuing authority program,
Small Projects for the Rehabilitation or Removal of Dams, for
improvement of the quality of the environment, with an annual
program limit of $25,000,000 and a per project cost limit of
$5,000,000.
Chapter 2--Studies
Sec. 5201. Selenium study, Colorado.
This section authorizes the Secretary, in consultation with
State resource agencies, to conduct regional and watershed wide
studies to address selenium concentrations within the State of
Colorado. The authorized limit for this section is $5,000,000.
Chapter 3--Projects
SUBCHAPTER A--MODIFICATIONS
Sec. 5301. Union Lake, Missouri.
This section directs the Secretary to offer to convey to
the State of Missouri two tracts of land totaling approximately
205.5 acres that were originally purchased for the Union Lake
Project, which was deauthorized in the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(a)).
Sec. 5302. Fort Peck Fish Hatchery, Montana.
This section amends Section 325 to of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2607) to increase the amount
authorized for appropriation to carry out the design and
construction of a fish hatchery and associated facilities at
Fort Peck Lake from $20,000,000 to $25,000,000.
Sec. 5303. Arcadia Lake, Oklahoma.
This section directs the Secretary to eliminate the
requirement to pay accrued interest costs for the storage
following the end of the 10-year interest free period beginning
on November 30, 1996 to September 1999; the date the storage
was placed into the active status.
Sec. 5304. Waurika Lake, Oklahoma.
This section directs the Secretary to use the costs for
construction of the water conveyance facilities for the
projects as defined in June 1986. Any costs identified by the
Army Corps of Engineers after June 1986 are considered a
Federal cost.
Sec. 5305. Dam remediation, Vermont.
This section amends Section 543 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 (42 Stat. 2671) to add ecosystem
restoration, protection, and preservation as a purpose of the
dam remediation authority and identifies nine additional dams
to be evaluated under the program.
Sec. 5306. Mississippi River headwaters reservoirs.
This section allows the Secretary to operate headwaters
reservoirs below the minimum or above the maximum water levels
established by this section in accordance with manual developed
by the Secretary after consultation with the Governor of
Minnesota and affected tribal governments. In addition, this
section requires the Secretary to submit a notice of intent to
Congress 14 days prior to operating the headwaters reservoir
below the minimum or above the maximum water level limits. This
notice does not have to be provided in cases where the
operation is necessary to prevent the loss of life, to ensure
the safety of a dam, or in anticipation of a flood control
operation.
SUBCHAPTER B--DEAUTHORIZATIONS
Sec. 5321. Big South Fork National River and Recreational Area,
Kentucky and Tennessee.
This section deauthorizes the uninitiated portions of the
project for recreation facilities, Big South Fork National
River and Recreational Area, Kentucky and Tennessee, authorized
by section 108 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974
(88 Stat. 43). The project is complete and jurisdiction of the
area has been transferred to the Department of the Interior.
Subtitle B--Water Quality
Chapter 1--General Provisions
Sec. 5401. Funding to expedite the evaluation and processing of
permits.
This section amends section 214(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note; 114 Stat. 2594)
to eliminate the expiration of the program.
Sec. 5402. Electronic submission of permit applications.
This section directs the Secretary to establish procedures
to allow the electronic submission of permit applications for
permits under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Army.
Chapter 2--Deauthorization of Projects
Sec. 5421. Bridgeport, Connecticut.
This section deauthorizes the project for environmental
infrastructure, Bridgeport, Connecticut, authorized by section
219(f)(26) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106
Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336). No funds have been allocated to
date and the project is eligible for deauthorization.
Sec. 5422. Hartford, Connecticut.
This section deauthorizes the project for environmental
infrastructure project, Hartford, Connecticut, authorized by
section 219(f)(27) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336). No funds have been
allocated to date and the project is eligible for
deauthorization.
Sec. 5423. New Haven, Connecticut.
This section deauthorizes the project for environmental
infrastructure project, New Haven, Connecticut, authorized by
section 219(f)(28) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336). No funds have been
allocated to date and the project is eligible for
deauthorization.
Sec. 5424. Casco Bay, Portland, Maine.
This section deauthorizes the project for environmental
infrastructure project, Casco Bay, Portland, Maine, authorized
by section 307 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992
(106 Stat. 4841). No funds have been allocated to date and the
project is eligible for deauthorization.
Sec. 5425. Penobscot River, Bangor, Maine.
This section deauthorizes the project for environmental
infrastructure project, Penobscot River, Bangor, Maine,
authorized by section 307 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4841). No funds have been allocated to
date and the project is eligible for deauthorization.
Sec. 5426. Saint John River Basin, Maine.
This section deauthorizes the project for research and
demonstration program of cropland irrigation and soil
conservation techniques, Saint John River Basin, Maine,
authorized section 1108 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1986 (106 Stat. 4230). There is no local sponsor support for
any additional research and demonstration work.
Sec. 5427. Epping, New Hampshire.
This section deauthorizes the project for environmental
infrastructure, Epping, New Hampshire, authorized by section
219(c)(6) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106
Stat. 4835). No funds have been allocated to date and the
project is eligible for deauthorization.
Sec. 5428. Manchester, New Hampshire.
This section deauthorizes the project for environmental
infrastructure, Manchester, New Hamsphire, authorized by
section 219(c)(7) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1992 (106 Stat. 4836). No funds have been allocated to date and
the project is eligible for deauthorization.
Subtitle C--Watershed Planning Programs
Sec. 5451. Delmarva Conservation Corridor, Delaware and Maryland.
This section authorizes the Secretary to provide technical
assistance to the Secretary of Agriculture for use in carrying
out the Conservation Corridor Demonstration Program established
under subtitle G of title II of the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 (16 U.S.C. 3801; 116 Stat. 275). The
Delmarva Conservation Corridor (DCC) is an attempt to integrate
and connect restoration efforts throughout the Delmarva
Peninsula. The DCC is a multi-faceted effort, designed to
preserve farmland and rural character, as well as restore
natural ecosystem through the creation of a hub and corridor
system.
Sec. 5452. Susquehanna, Delaware, and Potomac River Basins, Delaware,
Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.
This section designates that the Division Engineer, North
Atlantic Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, shall serve as
the ex officio United States member under the Susquehanna River
Basin Compact and the Delaware River Basin Compact, without
additional compensation, and with the authority to designate an
alternate member(s) in accordance with the terms of the
applicable compact. It directs the Secretary to allocate funds
to the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, the Delaware River
Basin Commission, and the Interstate Commission on the Potomac
River Basin, to fulfill the equitable funding requirements of
the applicable compacts. It directs the Secretary to enter into
an agreement with the Delaware River Basin Commission to
provide temporary water storage at the Francis E. Walter Dam,
Pennsylvania, during drought emergencies.
Hearings
On March 31, 2004, the Subcommittee on Transportation and
Infrastructure held a hearing to receive testimony on the Water
Resources Development Act of 2004. The committee received
testimony from the Honorable John Paul Woodley, Assistant
Secretary of the Army (Civil Works); Lieutenant General Robert
B. Flowers, Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
The Honorable John T. Myers, on behalf of the National
Waterways Conference; Mr. Derrick Crandall, President, American
Recreation Coalition; Mr. Steve Levy, County Executive, Suffolk
County, New York; Mr. Michael Leone, Chairman, American
Association of Port Authorities; Dr. William G. Howland, Basin
Program Manager, Lake Champlain Basin Program, Vermont; Mr.
Michael Cameron, Desert Rivers Program Director, The Nature
Conservancy of Nevada; Mr. Dominic Izzo, American Society of
Civil Engineers; Mr. Gregory A. Zlotnick, Director, Santa Clara
Valley Water District, California; Mr. Ray Poupore, Executive
Director, National Heavy & Highway Alliance; Mr. Scott Faber,
Environmental Defense; and testimony was submitted for the
record by Mr. George C. Grugett, Executive Vice President,
Mississippi Valley Flood Association, Tennessee.
Legislative History
On June 21, 2004, Senator Frist, for Senators Inhofe,
Jeffords, Bond and Reid, introduced the Water Resources
Development Act of 2004 (S. 2554). The Committee on Environment
and Public Works met to consider S. 2554 on June 23, 2004, and
reported the amended bill as original text by unanimous
consent.
On September 26, 2003, H.R. 2557 was received in the Senate
and read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works.
Rollcall Votes
On June 23, 2004, the Committee on Environment and Public
Works met to consider S. 2554, the Water Resources Development
Act of 2004. A substitute amendment was agreed to by voice
vote. Mr. Inhofe offered a second degree amendment to the
substitute amendment that was agreed to by voice vote. An
amendment offered by Senator Boxer, relative to fish and
wildlife mitigation, was agreed to by a vote of 10 ayes to 9
nays. Voting in favor were Senators Baucus, Boxer, Carper,
Chafee, Clinton, Graham, Jeffords, Lieberman, Reid, and Wyden.
Voting against were Senators Allard, Bond, Cornyn, Crapo,
Inhofe, Murkowski, Thomas, Voinovich, and Warner. An amendment
offered by Senator Voinovich, relative to the Great Lakes
Interagency Task Force, was agreed to by voice vote. An
amendment offered by Senator Wyden, relative to dredges, was
agreed to by voice vote. Final passage of S. 2554 was agreed to
by voice vote.
Mandates Assessment
In compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Public Law 104-4), the committee finds that this bill would
impose no Federal intergovernmental unfounded 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 require publication in the report the committee's
estimate of the regulatory impact made by the bill reported. No
regulatory impact is expected by the passage of the bill. 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 by compliance is
impracticable. The committee has requested this statement from
the Congressional Budget Office and will publish it in the
Congressional Record when it becomes available.
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:
* * * * * * *
----------
[16 U.S.C. 777C--NOV. 29, 1990]
DINGELL-JOHNSON SPORT FISH RESTORATION ACT
* * * * * * *
SEC. 777C. DIVISION OF ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS
(a) Initial distribution
The Secretary of the Interior shall distribute 18
per centum of each annual appropriation made in
accordance with the provisions of section 777b of this
title as provided in the Coastal Wetlands Planning,
Protection, and Restoration Act (title III, Public Law
101-646) (16 U.S.C. 3951 et seq.). Notwithstanding the
provisions of section 777b of this title, such sums
shall remain available to carry out such Act through
fiscal year [2009] 2019.
* * * * * * *
----------
[16 U.S.C. 3955--NOV. 29, 1990]
COASTAL WETLANDS PLANNING, PROTECTION, AND RESTORATION ACT
* * * * * * *
SEC. 3955. DISTRIBUTION OF APPROPRIATIONS
(a) Priority project and conservation planning expenditures
Of the total amound appropriated during a given
fiscal year to carry out this chapter, 70 percent[, not
to exceed $70,000,000,] shall be available, and shall
remain available until expended, for the purposes of
making expenditures--
* * * * * * *
(b) Coastal wetlands conservation grants
Of the total amount appropriated during a given
fiscal year to carry out this chapter, 15 percent[, not
to exceed $15,000,000] shall be available, and shall
remain available to the Director, for purposes of
making grants--
* * * * * * *
(c) North American wetlands conservation
Of the total amount appropriated during a given
fiscal year to carry out this chapter, 15 percent[, not
to exceed $15,000,000,] shall be available to, and
shall remain available until expended by, the Secretary
of the Interior for allocation to carry out wetlands
conservation projects in coastal wetlands ecosystems in
any coastal State under section 4407 of this title.
* * * * * * *
----------
[33 U.S.C. 426H--AUG. 13, 1946]
ACT OF AUGUST 13, 1946
* * * * * * *
SEC. 426H. NATIONAL SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
(a) Establishment of erosion control program
The Secretary shall establish and conduct a national
shoreline erosion control development and demonstration
program for a period of [6 years] 10 years beginning on
the date that funds are made available to carry out
this section.
(b) Requirements
(1) In general
The erosion control program shall include
provisions for--
(A) projects consisting of planning,
designing, and constructing prototype
engineered and vegetative shoreline erosion
control devices and methods during the first [3
years] 6 years of the erosion control program;
* * * * * * *
----------
[33 U.S.C. 701R--JUL. 24, 1946]
FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1946
* * * * * * *
SEC. 14.-- The Secretary of the Army is authorized to allot
from any appropriations heretofore or hereafter made for flood
control, not to exceed [$15,000,000] $20,000,000 per year, for
the construction, repair, restoration, and modification of
emergency streambank and shoreline protection works to prevent
damage to highways, bridge approaches, and public works,
churches, hospitals, schools, and other nonprofit public
services, when in the opinion of the Chief of Engineers such
work is advisable: Provided, That not more than [$1,000,000]
$1,500,000 shall be allotted for this purpose at any single
locality from the appropriations for any one fiscal year.
* * * * * * *
----------
[33 U.S.C. 2901--NOV 7, 2000]
ESTUARY RESTORATION ACT OF 2000
SEC. 101. * * *
* * * * * * *
SEC. 102. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this title are--
(1) to promote the restoration of estuary
habitat by implementing a coordinated Federal
approach to estuary habitat restoration
activities, including the use of common
monitoring standards and a common system for
tracking restoration acreage;
(2) to develop and implement a national
estuary habitat restoration strategy for
creating and maintaining effective estuary
habitat restoration partnerships among public
agencies at all levels of government and to
establish new partnerships between the public
and private sectors;
(3) to provide Federal assistance for
estuary habitat restoration projects through
cooperative agreements and to promote efficient
financing of such projects; and
* * * * * * *
SEC. 103. DEFINITIONS.
In this title, the following definitions apply:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(6) Estuary habitat restoration plan.--
(A) In general.--The term ``estuary
habitat restoration plan'' means any
[Federal or State] Federal, State, or
regional plan for restoration of
degraded estuary habitat that was
developed with the substantial
participation of appropriate public and
private stakeholders.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 104. ESTUARY HABITAT RESTORATION PROGRAM.
(a) Establishment.--There is established an estuary habitat
restoration program under which the Secretary may carry out
estuary habitat restoration projects and provide technical
assistance through the award of contracts and cooperative
agreements in accordance with the requirements of this title.
(b) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Selection of projects.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) Factors for selection of projects.--In
selecting an estuary habitat restoration project, the
Secretary shall consider the following factors:
(A) Whether the project is part of an
approved Federal or State estuary management or
habitat restoration plan.
* * * * * * *
(4) Priority.--In selecting estuary habitat
restoration projects to be carried out under this
title, the Secretary shall give priority consideration
to a project if, in addition to meriting selection
based on the factors under paragraph (3)--
(A) * * *
(B) the project includes pilot testing of
or a demonstration of an innovative technology
or approach having the potential for improved
cost-effectiveness in estuary habitat
restoration.
(d) Cost Sharing.--
(1) Federal share.--[Except]
(i) In general.--Except as provided
in paragraph (2) and subsection (e)(2),
the Federal share of the cost of an
estuary habitat restoration project
(other than the cost of operation and
maintenance of the project) carried out
under this title shall not exceed 65
percent of such cost.
(ii) Monitoring.--
(I) Costs.--The costs of
performing monitoring of an
estuary habitat restoration
project funded under this title
may be included in the total
cost of the estuary habitat
restoration project.
(II) Goals.--The goals of
the monitoring are--
(aa) to measure the
effectiveness of the
restoration project;
and
(bb) to allow
adaptive management to
ensure project success.
(2) Innovative technology costs.--The Federal share
of the incremental additional cost of including in a
project pilot testing of or a demonstration of an
innovative technology or approach described in
subsection (c)(4)(B) shall be 85 percent.
(3) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of
the cost of an estuary habitat restoration project
carried out under this title shall include lands,
easements, rights-of-way, and relocations and may
include services (including monitoring), or any other
form of in-kind contribution determined by the
Secretary to be an appropriate contribution equivalent
to the monetary amount required for the non-Federal
share of the activity.
* * * * * * *
(f) Cooperation of Non-Federal Interests.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may not carry out an
estuary habitat restoration project until a non-Federal
interest has entered into a written agreement with the
Secretary in which the non-Federal interest agrees to--
(A) * * *
(B) provide for long-term maintenance and
monitoring of the project.
* * * * * * *
(g) Delegation of Project Implementation.--[In carrying]
(1) In general.--In carrying out this title, the
Secretary may delegate project implementation to
another Federal department or agency on a reimbursable
basis if the Secretary, upon the recommendation of the
Council, determines such delegation is appropriate.
(2) Small projects.--In the case of a project
carried out under this Act with a Federal share of less
than $1,000,000, the Secretary, on the recommendation
of the Council, shall consider delegating
implementation of the project, on a reimbursable basis,
to--
(A) the Secretary of the Interior (acting
through the Director of the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service); or
(B) the Under Secretary for Oceans and
Atmosphere of the Department of Commerce.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 105. ESTABLISHMENT OF ESTUARY HABITAT RESTORATION COUNCIL.
(a) * * *
(b) Duties.--The Council shall be responsible for--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) periodically reviewing the effectiveness of the
national strategy in meeting the purposes of this title
and, as necessary, updating the national strategy;
[and]
(5) providing advice on the development of the
database, monitoring standards, and report required
under sections 107 and 108[.] ;
(6) cooperating in the implementation of the strategy
developed under section 106;
(7) recommending standards for monitoring for
restoration projects and contribution of project
information to the database developed under section
107; and
(8) otherwise using the respective agency
authorities of the Council members to carry out this
title.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 107. MONITORING OF ESTUARY HABITAT RESTORATION PROJECTS.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Coordination of Data.--The Under Secretary shall
[compile] have general data compilation, coordination, and
analysis responsibilities to carry out this title and in
support of the strategy developed under section 107, including
compilation of information that pertains to estuary habitat
restoration projects from other Federal, State, and local
sources and that meets the quality control requirements and
data standards established under this section.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 108. REPORTING.
(a) In General.--At the end of the [third and fifth] sixth,
eighth, and tenth fiscal years following the date of enactment
of this Act, the Secretary, after considering the advice and
recommendations of the Council, shall transmit to Congress a
report on the results of activities carried out under this
title.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 109. FUNDING.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) Estuary habitat restoration projects.--There is
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for
carrying out and providing technical assistance for
estuary habitat restoration projects--
[(A) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;
[(B) $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2002 and 2003;
[(C) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; and
[(D) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2005.]
(A) to the Secretary, $25,000,000 for each
of fiscal years 2006 through 2010;
(B) to the Secretary of the Interior
(acting through the Director of the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service), $5,000,000
for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010; and
(C) to the Under Secretary for Oceans and
Atmosphere of the Department of Commerce,
$5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006
through 2010.
Such sums shall remain available until expended.
(2) Monitoring.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to the Under Secretary for Oceans and
Atmosphere of the Department of Commerce for the
acquisition, maintenance, and management of monitoring
data on restoration projects carried out under this
title and other information compiled under section 107,
$1,500,000, for each of fiscal years 2001 through
[2005] 2010. Such sums shall remain available until
expended.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 110. GENERAL PROVISIONS.
(a) Agency Consultation and Coordination.--In carrying out
this title, the [Secretary] lead agency shall, as necessary,
consult with, cooperate with, and coordinate its activities
with the activities of other Federal departments and agencies.
(b) Cooperative Agreements; Memoranda of Understanding.--In
carrying out this title, the [Secretary] lead agency may--
(1) enter into cooperative agreements or contracts
with Federal, State, and local government agencies,
nongovernmental organizations, and other entities; and
(2) execute such memoranda of understanding as are
necessary to reflect the agreements.
(c) Federal Agency Facilities and Personnel.--Federal
agencies may cooperate in carrying out scientific and other
programs necessary to carry out this title, and may provide
facilities and personnel, for the purpose of assisting the
Council in carrying out its duties under this title.
[(d) Identification and Mapping of Dredged Material
Disposal Sites.--In consultation with appropriate Federal and
non-Federal public entities, the Secretary shall undertake, and
update as warranted by changed conditions, surveys to identify
and map sites appropriate for beneficial uses of dredged
material for the protection, restoration, and creation of
aquatic and ecologically related habitats, including wetlands,
in order to further the purposes of this title.
[(e) Study of Bioremediation Technology.--
[(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, with the participation
of the estuarine scientific community, shall begin a 2-
year study on the efficacy of bioremediation products.
[(2) Requirements.--The study shall--
[(A) evaluate and assess bioremediation
technology--
[(i) on low-level petroleum
hydrocarbon contamination from
recreational boat bilges;
[(ii) on low-level petroleum
hydrocarbon contamination from
stormwater discharges;
[(iii) on nonpoint petroleum
hydrocarbon discharges; and
[(iv) as a first response tool for
petroleum hydrocarbon spills; and
[(B) recommend management actions to
optimize the return of a healthy and balanced
ecosystem and make improvements in the quality
and character of estuarine waters.]
* * * * * * *
----------
[64 STAT. 170--MAY 17, 1950]
FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1950
* * * * * * *
SEC. 204. * * *
* * * * * * *
RED-OUACHITA RIVER BASIN
The project for flood protection at Calion,
Arkansas, authorized by the Act of August 18, 1941, in
accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of
Engineers in House Document Numbered 427, Seventy-sixth
Congress, first session, is hereby modified to include
additional improvements at Calion, Arkansas (including
authorization for the comprehensive flood-control
project for Ouachita River and tributaries,
incorporating in the project all flood control,
drainage, and power improvements in the basin above the
lower end of the left bank Ouachita River levee), in
accordance with plans on file in the office of the
Chief of Engineers, at an estimated cost of $430,000.
* * * * * * *
----------
[PUBLIC LAW 86-645--JUL. 14, 1960]
RIVER AND HARBOR ACT OF 1960
SEC. 101. * * *
* * * * * * *
[SEC. 107. (a) That the Secretary of the Army is hereby
authorized to]
SEC. 107. NAVIGATION ENHANCEMENTS FOR WATERBOURNE TRANSPORTATION.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Army may allot from
any appropriations hereafter made for rivers and harbors not to
exceed $2,000,000 for any one fiscal year for the construction
of small river and harbor improvement projects not specifically
authorized by Congress which will result in substantial
benefits to navigation and which can be operated consistently
with appropriate and economic use of the waters of the Nation
for other purposes, when in the opinion of the Chief of
Engineers such work is advisable, if benefits are in excess of
the cost.
[(b) Not more]
(b) Allotment.--Not more than [$4,000,000] $7,000,000 shall
be allotted for the construction of a project under this
section at any single locality and the amount allotted shall be
sufficient to complete the Federal participation in the project
under this section.
[(c) Local]
(c) Local Contributions.--Local interests shall provide
without cost to the United States all necessary lands,
easements and rights-of-way for all projects to be constructed
under the authority of this section. In addition, local
interests may be required to hold and save the United States
free from damages that may result from the construction and
maintenance of the project and may be required to provide such
additional local cooperation as the Chief of Engineers deems
appropriate. A State, county, municipality or other responsible
local entity shall give assurance satisfactory to the Chief of
Engineers that such conditions of cooperation as are required
will be accomplished.
[(d) Non-Federal]
(d) Non-Federal Share.--Non-Federal interests may be
required to share in the cost of the project to the extent that
the Chief of Engineers deems that such cost should not be borne
by the Federal government in view of the recreational or
otherwise special or local nature of the project benefits.
[(e) Each]
(e) Completion.--Each project for which money is alloted
under this section shall be complete in itself and not commit
the United States to any additional improvement to insure its
successful operation, other than routine maintenance, and
except as may result from the normal procedure applying to
projects authorized after submission of survey reports, and
projects constructed under the authority of this section shall
be considered as authorized projects.
[(f) This]
(f) Applicability.--This section shall apply to, but not be
limited to, the provision of low water access navigation
channels from the existing channel of the Mississippi River to
harbor areas heretofore or now established and located along
the Mississippi River.
* * * * * * *
----------
[PUBLIC LAW 91-611--DEC. 31, 1970]
[CF. 42 U.S.C. 1962D-5B]
FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1970
* * * * * * *
Sec. 221. (a) [After the date of enactment]
(1) In general.--After the date of enactment of
this Act, 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 215 of the Flood
Control Act of 1968 or under any other] under any
provision of law, shall not be commenced until each
non-Federal interest has entered into a written
partnership agreement with the [Secretary of the Army
to furnish its required cooperation for] district
engineer for the district in which the project will be
carried out under which each party agrees to carry out
its responsibilities and requirements for
implementation or construction 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.
(2) Liquidated damages.--An agreement described in
paragraph (1) may include a provision for liquidated
damages in the event of a failure of 1 or more parties
to perform. [In any such agreement]
(3) Obligation of future appropriations.--In any
agreement described in paragraph (1) 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
appropriations for such performance and payment when
obligating future appropriations would be inconsistent
with constitutional or statutory limitations of the
State or a political subdivision of the State.
(b) A non-Federal interest shall be a legally constituted
public body with full authority and capability to perform the
terms of its agreement and to pay damages, if necessary, in the
event of failure to perform.
(c) Every agreement entered into pursuant to this section
shall be enforcible in the appropriate district court of the
United States.
(d) After commencement of construction of a project, the
Chief of Engineers may undertake performance of those items of
cooperation necessary to the functioning of the project for its
purposes, if he has first notified the non-Federal interest of
its failure to perform the terms of its agreement and has given
such interest a reasonable time after such notification to so
perform.
(e) Public Health and Safety.--If the Secretary determines
that a project needs to be continued for the purpose of public
health and safety--
(1) the non-Federal interest shall pay the
increased projects costs, up to an amount equal to 20
percent of the original estimated project costs and in
accordance with the statutorily-determined cost share;
and
(2) notwithstanding the statutorily-determined
Federal share, the Secretary shall pay all increased
costs remaining after payment of 20 percent of the
increased costs by the non-Federal interest under
paragraph (1).
(f) Limitation.--Nothing in subsection (a) limits the
authority of the Secretary to ensure that a partnership
agreement meets the requirements of law and policies of the
Secretary in effect on the date of execution of the partnership
agreement.
[(e)] (g) The Secretary of the Army, acting through the
Chief of Engineers, shall maintain a continuing inventory of
agreements and the status of their performance, and shall
report thereon annually to the Congress.
* * * * * * *
----------
[PUBLIC LAW 92-532--OCT. 23, 1972]
[CF. 33 U.S.C. 1412(C)(4)]
MARINE PROTECTION, RESEARCH, AND SANCTUARIES ACT OF 1972
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1412. DUMPING PERMIT PROGRAM
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Designation of sites
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) General site management plan requirement;
prohibitions
After January 1, 1995, no site shall receive a
final designation unless a management plan has been
developed pursuant to this section. Beginning on
January 1, 1997, no permit for dumping pursuant to this
Act or authorization for dumping under section 1413(e)
of this title shall be issued for a site (other than
the site located off the coast of Newport Beach,
California, which is known as ``LA-3'') unless such
site has received a final designation pursuant to this
subsection or an alternative site has been selected
pursuant to section 1413(b) of this title. Beginning
[January 1, 2003] January 1, 2006, no permit for
dumping pursuant to this Act or authorization for
dumping under section 1413(e) of this title shall be
issued for the site located off the coast of Newport
Beach, California, which is known as ``LA-3'', unless
such site has received a final designation pursuant to
this subsection or an alternative site has been
selected pursuant to section 1413(b) of this title.
* * * * * * *
----------
[PUBLIC LAW 93-251--MAR. 7, 1974]
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1974
Sec. 1. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 22. (a) The Secretary]
SEC. 22. PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES.
(a) Federal State Cooperation.--
(1) Comprehensive plans.--The Secretary of the
Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, is
authorized to cooperate with any State in the
preparation of comprehensive plans for the development,
utilization, and conservation of the water and related
resources of drainage basins, watersheds, or ecosystems
located within the boundaries of such State and to
submit to Congress reports and recommendations with
respect to appropriate Federal participation in
carrying out such plans.
(2) Technical assistance.--
(A) In general.--At the request of a
governmental agency or non-Federal interest,
the Secretary may provide, at Federal expense,
technical assistance to the agency or non-
Federal interest in managing water resources.
(B) Types of assistance.--Technical
assistance under this paragraph may include
provision and integration of hydrologic,
economic, and environmental data and analyses.
(b) Fees
(1) For the purpose of recovering 50 percent of the
total cost of providing assistance pursuant to [this
section] subsection (a)(1), the Secretary of the Army
is authorized to establish appropriate fees, as
determined by the Secretary, and to collect such fees
from States and other non-Federal public bodies to whom
assistance is provided under [this section] subsection
(a)(1).
(2) Up to 1/2 of the non-Federal contribution for
preparation of a plan subject to the cost sharing
program under this subsection may be made by the
provision of services, materials, supplies, or other
in-kind services necessary to prepare the plan.
(3) Fees collected under this subsection shall be
deposited into the account in the Treasury of the
United States entitled, ``Contributions and Advances,
Rivers and Harbors, Corps of Engineers (8862)'' and
shall be available until expended to carry out this
section.
[(c) There is]
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) Federal and state cooperation.--There is
authorized to be appropriated not to exceed $10,000,000
annually to carry out [the provisions of this section
except that not more than $500,000 shall be expended in
any one year in any one State.] subsection (a)(1);
(2) Technical assistance.--There is authorized to
be appropriated to carry out subsection (a)(2)
$10,000,000 for each fiscal year, of which not more
than $2,000,000 for each fiscal year may be used by the
Secretary to enter into cooperative agreements with
nonprofit organizations and State agencies to provide
assistance to rural and small communities.
(d) For the purposes of this section, the term ``State''
means the several States of the United States, Indian Tribes,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the
Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, and
the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
(e) Annual Submission.--For each fiscal year, based on
performance criteria developed by the Secretary, the Secretary
shall list in the annual civil works budget submitted to
Congress the individual activities proposed for funding under
subsection (a)(1) for the fiscal year.
* * * * * * *
[PUBLIC LAW 99-662--NOV. 17, 1986]
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1986
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act many be cited as the ``Water
Resources Development Act of 1986''.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 103. FLOOD CONTROL AND OTHER PURPOSES.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(j) Agreement.--
(1) Requirement for agreement.--Any project to
which this section applies (other than a project for
hydroelectric power) shall be initiated only after non-
Federal interests have entered into binding agreements
with the Secretary to pay 100 percent of the
operations, maintenance, and replacement and
rehabilitation costs of the project, to pay the non-
Federal share of the costs of construction required by
this section, and to hold and save the United States
free from damages due to the construction or operation
and maintenance of the project, except for damages due
to the fault or negligence of the United States or its
contractors.
(2) Elements of agreement.--The agreement required
pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be in accordance with
the requirements of section 221 of the Flood Control
Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1818) and shall provide for the
rights and duties of the United States and the non-
Federal interest with respect to the construction,
operation, and maintenance of the project, including,
but not limited to, provisions specifying that, in the
event the non-Federal interest fails to provide the
required non-Federal share of costs for such work, the
Secretary--
(A) shall terminate or suspend work on the
project unless the Secretary determines that
continuation of the work is in the interest of
the United States or is necessary in order to
satisfy agreements with other non-Federal
interests in connection with the project; and
(B) may terminate or adjust the rights and
privileges of the non-Federal interest to
project outputs under the terms of the
agreement.
(3) Credit for in-kind contributions.--
(A) In general.--An agreement under
paragraph (1) shall provide that the Secretary
shall credit toward the non-Federal share of
the cost of the project, including a project
implemented under general continuing authority,
the value of in-kind contributions made by the
non-Federal interest, including--
(i) the costs of planning
(including data collection), design,
management, mitigation, construction,
and construction services that are
provided by the non-Federal interest
for implementation of the project; and
(ii) the value of materials or
services provided before execution of
an agreement for the project,
including--
(I) efforts on constructed
elements incorporated into the
project; and
(II) materials and services
provided after an agreement is
executed.
(B) Condition.--The Secretary shall credit
an in-kind contribution under subparagraph (A)
if the Secretary determines that the property
or service provided as an in-kind contribution
is integral to the project.
(C) Limitations.--Credit authorized for a
project--
(i) shall not exceed the non-
Federal share of the cost of the
project;
(ii) shall not alter any other
requirement that a non-Federal interest
provide land, an easement or right-of-
way, or an area for disposal of dredged
material for the project; and
(iii) shall not exceed the actual
and reasonable costs of the materials,
services, or other things provided by
the non-Federal interest, as determined
by the Secretary.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 602. LAKES PROGRAM.
(a) Subject to section 903(a) of this Act, the Secretary
shall carry out programs for the removal of silt, aquatic
growth, and other material in the following lakes:
(1) Albert Lea Lake, Freeborn County, Minnesota,
removal of silt and aquatic growth;
(2) Lake George, Hobart, Indiana, and in that part
of Deep River upstream of such lake through Lake
Station, Indiana, removal of silt, aquatic growth, and
other material and construction of silt traps or other
devices to prevent and abate the deposit of sediment in
Lake George and such part of Deep River;
(3) Greenwood Lake and Belcher Creek, New Jersey,
removal of silt and stumps;
(4) Sauk Lake and its tributary streams in the
vicinity of Sauk Centre, Stearns County, Minnesota,
removal of silt and aquatic growth;
(5) Deal Lake, Monmouth County, New Jersey, removal
of silt and stumps and the control of pollution from
nonpoint sources;
(6) Lake Worth, Tarrant County, Texas, removal of
silt and aquatic growth, including construction of silt
traps and providing other devices or equipment to
prevent and abate the further deposit of sediment in
Lake Worth; such project shall also provide for the use
of dredged material from Lake Worth for the reclamation
of despoiled land;
(7) Hamlet City Lake, Hamlet, North Carolina,
removal of accumulated silt and debris including
construction of silt traps and providing other devices
or equipment to prevent and abate the further deposit
of sediment in Hamlet City Lake;
(8) Lake Herman, Lake County, South Dakota, removal
of excess silt;
(9) Gorton's Pond, Warwick, Rhode Island,
mitigation activities recommended in the 1982
Environmental Protection Agency diagnostic feasibility
study, including the installation of retention basins,
the dredging of inlets and outlets in recommended areas
and the disposal of dredge material, and weed
harvesting and nutrient inactivation;
(10) Wappingers Lake, New York, for removal of silt
and aquatic growth;
(11) Lake George, New York, for removal of silt and
aquatic growth, stump removal, and the control of
pollution;
(12) Goodyear Lake, Otsego County, New York,
removal of silt and aquatic growth;
(13) Otsego Lake, Otsego County, New York, removal
of silt and aquatic growth and measures to address high
nutrient concentration;
(14) Oneida Lake, Oneida County, New York, removal
of silt and aquatic growth and nutrient monitoring;
(15) Skaneateles and Owasco Lakes, New York,
removal of silt and aquatic growth and prevention of
sediment deposit;
(16) Twin Lakes, Paris, Illinois, removal of silt
and excess aquatic vegetation, including measures to
address excessive sedimentation, high nutrient
concentration, and shoreline erosion;
(17) Clear Lake, Lake County, California, removal
of silt and aquatic growth and measures to address
excessive sedimentation and high nutrient
concentration;
(18) Flints Pond, Hollis, Hillsborough County, New
Hampshire, removal of silt and aquatic growth and
measures to address excessive sedimentation; [and]
(19) Osgood Pond, Milford, Hillsborough County, New
Hampshire, removal of silt and aquatic growth and
measures to address excessive sedimentation[.] ;
(20) Kinkaid Lake, Jackson County, Illinois,
removal of silt and aquatic growth and measures to
address excessive sedimentation;
(21) Lake Sakakawea, North Dakota, removal of silt
and aquatic growth and measures to address excessive
sedimentation;
(22) Lake Morley, Vermont, removal of silt and
aquatic growth and measures to address excessive
sedimentation; and
(23) Lake Fairlee, Vermont, removal of silt and
aquatic growth and measures to address excessive
sedimentation.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 704. STUDY OF CORPS CAPABILITY TO CONSERVE FISH AND WILDLIFE.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(b) Projects
(1) In general.--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
[$20,000,000] $50,000,000 to carry out such projects.
[Such projects]
(2) Inclusions.--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--
(A) the construction of a reef for fish
habitat in Lake Erie in the vicinity of
Buffalo, New York;
(B) the construction of a reef for fish
habitat in the Atlantic Ocean in the vicinity
of Fort Lauderdale, Florida;
(C) the construction of a reef for fish
habitat in Lake Ontario in the vicinity of the
town of Newfane, New York; and
[(D) 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 if the reefs are
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.]
(D) the restoration and rehabilitation of
habitat for fish, including native oysters, in
the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries in
Virginia and Maryland, including--
(i) the construction of oyster bars
and reefs;
(ii) the rehabilitation of existing
marginal habitat;
(iii) the use of appropriate
alternative substrate material in
oyster bar and reef construction;
(iv) the construction and upgrading
of oyster hatcheries; and
(v) activities relating to
increasing the output of native oyster
broodstock for seeding and monitoring
of restored sites to ensure ecological
success.
(3) Restoration and rehabilitation activities.--The
restoration and rehabilitation activities described in
paragraph (2)(D) shall be--
(A) for the purpose of establishing
permanent sanctuaries and harvest management
areas; and
(B) consistent with plans and strategies
for guiding the restoration of the Chesapeake
Bay oyster resource and fishery.
[(2)] (4) Cost charing
(A) In general.--The non-Federal share of
the cost of any project under this subsection
shall be 25 percent.
(B) Form.--The non-Federal share may be
provided through in-kind services, including
the provision by the non-Federal interest of
shell stock material that is determined by the
Chief of Engineers to be suitable for use in
carrying out the project.
(C) Applicability.--The non-Federal
interest shall be credited with the value of
in-kind services provided on or after October
1, 2000, for a project described in paragraph
(1) completed on or after that date, if the
Secretary determines that the work is integral
to the project.
(5) Definition of ecological success.--In this
subsection, the term `ecological success' means--
(A) achieving a tenfold increase in native
oyster biomass by the year 2010, from a 1994
baseline; and
(B) the establishment of a sustainable
fishery as determined by a broad scientific and
economic consensus.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 904. MATTERS TO BE ADDRESSED IN PLANNING.
Enhancing national economic development (including benefits
to particular regions of the Nation not involving the transfer
of economic activity to such regions from other regions), the
quality of the total environment (including preservation and
enhancement of the environment), the well-being of the people
of the United States, the prevention of loss of life, and the
preservation of cultural and historical values shall be
addressed in the formulation and evaluation of water resources
projects to be carried out by the Secretary, and the associated
benefits and costs, both quantifiable and unquantifiable, and
information regarding potential loss of human life that may be
associated with flooding and coastal storm events, shall be
displayed in the benefits and costs of such projects. The
Secretary shall also assess whether the water resources project
and each project increment is cost-effective and whether the
water resource project complies with local, State, and national
laws, regulations, and public policies.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 905. FEASIBILITY REPORTS.
(a) In the case of any water resources project-related
study authorized to be undertaken by the Secretary, the
Secretary shall prepare a feasibility report, subject to
section 105 of this Act. Such feasibility report shall
describe, with reasonable certainty, the economic,
environmental, and social benefits and detriments of the
recommended plan and alternative plans considered by the
Secretary and the engineering features (including hydrologic
and geologic information), the public acceptability, and the
purposes, scope, and scale of the recommended plan. The
feasibility report shall also include the views of other
Federal agencies and non-Federal agencies with regard to the
recommended plan, a description of a nonstructural alternative
to the recommended plan when such plan does not have
significant nonstructural features, and a description of the
Federal and non-Federal participation in such plan, and shall
demonstrate that States, other non-Federal interests, and
Federal agencies have been consulted in the development of the
recommended plan. The Secretary shall, in collaboration with
the Water Resources Planning Council, revise the planning
guidelines, regulation, and circulars of the Corps of Engineers
not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of the
Water Resources Development Act of 2004 and once every 5 years
thereafter to improve the analysis of water resources projects,
including the integration of new and existing analytical
techniques that properly reflect the probability of project
benefits and costs. This subsection shall not apply to (1) any
study with respect to which a report has been submitted to
Congress before the date of enactment of this Act, (2) any
study for a project, which project is authorized for
construction by this Act and is not subject to section 903(b),
(3) any study for a project which is authorized under any of
the following sections: section 205 of the Flood Control Act of
1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), section 2 of the Flood Control Act of
August 28, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r), section 107 of the River and
Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), section 3 of the Act
entitled ``An Act authorizing Federal participation in the cost
of protecting the shores of publicly owned property'', approved
August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426g), and section 111 of the River
and Harbor Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 426i), and (4) general
studies not intended to lead to recommendation of a specific
water resources project.
(b) Before initiating any feasibility study under
subsection (a) of this section after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Secretary shall first perform, at Federal
expense, a reconnaissance study of the water resources problem
in order to identify potential solutions to such problem in
sufficient detail to enable the Secretary to determine whether
or not planning to develop a project should proceed to the
preparation of a feasibility report. Such reconnaissance study
shall include a preliminary analysis of the Federal interest,
costs, benefits, and environmental impacts of such project, and
an estimate of the costs of preparing the feasibility report.
The duration of a reconnaissance study shall normally be no
more than twelve months, but in all cases is to be limited to
eighteen months.
[(c) For purposes of studies undertaken pursuant to this
section, the Secretary is authorized to consider benefits which
may accrue to Indian tribes as a result of a project resulting
from such a study.]
(c) Cost-benefit Analysis.--A feasibility study shall
include an analysis of the benefits and costs, both quantified
and unquantified, which analysis shall--
(1) identify areas of risk and uncertainty in the
analysis;
(2) clearly describe the degree of reliability of
the estimated benefits and costs of the effectiveness
of alternative plans, including an assessment of the
credibility of the project construction schedule as the
schedule affects the estimated benefits and costs;
(3) identify local, regional, and national economic
costs and benefits;
(4) identify environmental costs and benefits,
including the costs and benefits of protecting or
degrading natural systems;
(5) identify social costs and benefits, including a
risk analysis regarding potential loss of life that may
result from flooding and storm damage;
(6) identify cultural and historical costs and
benefits;
(7) exclude from the estimate of benefits and costs
any increase in direct Federal payments or subsidies;
(8) exclude as a benefit--
(A) any increase in direct Federal payments
or subsidies; and
(B) any project benefit attributable to any
change in, or intensification of, land use
arising from the draining, reduction, or
elimination of wetlands; and
(9) apply a discount rate consistent with that used
by other Federal agencies for water resource
projects.''.
(d) The Secretary shall undertake such measures as are
necessary to ensure that standard and uniform procedures and
practices are followed by each district office (and each
division office for any area in which there is no district
office) of the United States Army Corps of Engineers in the
preparation of feasibility reports on water resources projects.
(e) Enhanced Public Participation.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish
procedures to enhance public participation in the
development of each feasibility study under subsection
(a), including, if appropriate, establishment of a
stakeholder advisory group to assist the Secretary with
the development of the study.
(2) Membership.--If the Secretary provides for the
establishment of a stakeholder advisory group under
this subsection, the membership of the advisory group
shall include balanced representation of social,
economic, and environmental interest groups, and such
members shall serve on a voluntary, uncompensated
basis.
(3) Limitation.--Procedures established under this
subsection shall not delay development of any
feasibility study under subsection (a).
(f) Duration.--The duration of a feasibility study shall
normally be not more than 2 years, but in no case may be longer
than 3 years.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 906. FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION.
[(a)(1) In the case]
(a) Mitigation.--
(1) In general.--In the case of any water resources
project which is authorized to be constructed by the
Secretary before, on, or after the date of enactment of
this Act, construction of which has not commenced as of
the date of enactment of this Act, and which
necessitates the mitigation of fish and wildlife
losses, including the acquisition of lands or interests
in lands to mitigate losses to fish and wildlife, as a
result of such project, such mitigation, including
acquisition of the lands or [interests--
[(A) shall be undertaken or acquired before any
construction of the project (other than such
acquisition) commences, or
[(B) shall be undertaken or acquired concurrently
with lands and interests in lands for project purposes
(other than mitigation of fish and wildlife losses),
whichever the Secretary determines is appropriate,]
interests, whichever the Secretary determines is
appropriate, shall be undertaken or acquired--
(A) before any construction of the project
(other than such acquisition) commences; or
(B) concurrently with the acquisition of
land and interests in land for project purposes
(other than mitigation of fish and wildlife
losses); except that any physical construction
required for the purposes of mitigation may be
undertaken concurrently with the physical
construction of such project.
[(2) For the purposes]
(2) Commencement of construction.--For the purpose
of this subsection, any project authorized before the
date of enactment of this Act on which more than 50
percent of the land needed for the project, exclusive
of mitigation lands, has been acquired shall be deemed
to have commenced construction under this subsection.
(3) Implementation.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in
subparagraph (B), to ensure concurrent
mitigation, the Secretary shall--
(i) construct 100 percent of
required off-site mitigation before 50
percent of construction of a project is
completed; and
(ii) complete required on-site
mitigation as expeditiously as
practicable, but not later than the
last day of construction of the project
or separable element of the project.
(B) Exception for physical
impracticability.--In a case in which the
Secretary determines that it is physically
impracticable to meet the requirements of
subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall reserve
or reprogram sufficient funds to ensure that
mitigation implementation is completed as
expeditiously as practicable, but in no case
later than the end of the next fiscal year
immediately following the last day of
construction of the project or separable
element of the project.
(4) Use of funds.--Funds made available for
preconstruction engineering and design, construction,
or operations and maintenance shall be available for
use in carrying out this section.
* * * * * * *
(d) Mitigation Plans as Part of Project Proposals.--
(1) In general.--After November 17, 1986, the
Secretary shall not select in any final environmental
impact statement, record of decision, or any general
reauthorization report or submit any proposal for the
authorization of any water resources project to the
Congress unless such report, environmental impact
statement, record of decision, or general
reauthorization report contains (A) a recommendation
with a specific plan to mitigate fish and wildlife
losses created by such project, or (B) a determination
by the Secretary that such project will have negligible
adverse impact on fish and wildlife. Specific
mitigation plans shall ensure that impacts to
bottomland hardwood forests are mitigated in-kind, to
the extent possible. In carrying out this subsection,
the Secretary shall consult with appropriate Federal
and non-Federal agencies.
(2) Design of mitigation projects.--The Secretary
shall design mitigation projects to reflect
contemporary understanding of the science of mitigating
the adverse environmental impacts of water resources
projects.
(3) Standards for mitigation.--
(A) In general.--To mitigate losses to fish
and wildlife resulting from a water resource
project, the Secretary shall, at a minimum,
acquire and restore the same number of acres of
habitat that fully replace the hydrologic and
ecological functions and characteristics of
each acre of habitat adversely affected by the
project.
(B) Mitigation plan.--
(i) In general.--The specific
mitigation plan for a water resources
project described in paragraph (1)
shall include, at a minimum--
(I) the recommended plan to
mitigate the impacts of the
project as identified in
paragraph (1), including
sufficient detail to permit a
thorough evaluation of the
plan's likelihood of meeting
the success criteria
established in subclause (II);
(II) specific time-
dependent success criteria,
prepared in consultation with
the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service, by which the
mitigation will be evaluated
and determined to be
successful;
(III) a description, in the
Real Estate Plan, of the land
and interests in land to be
used for mitigation and as the
basis for a determination that
land and interests will be
available at the time required;
(IV) a schedule for--
(aa) monitoring
attempted mitigation
implementation; and
(bb) evaluating the
degree to which the
attempted mitigation
does or does not meet
the success criteria
established for the
mitigation plan under
subclause (II) until
attempted mitigation
meets the success
criteria; and
(V) taking corrective
actions in a case in which
mitigation efforts are not
achieving the success criteria.
(ii) Cost sharing.--Monitoring
under clause (i)(IV)--
(I) shall be cost-shared in
accordance with the original
construction project for a
maximum of 10 years; and
(II) shall be 100 percent
non-Federal after 10 years.
(B) Applicable law.--A time period for
mitigation monitoring or for the implementation
and monitoring of contingency plan actions
shall not be subject to the deadlines described
in subsection (b).
(4) Determination of mitigation success.--
(A) In general.--Mitigation shall be
considered to be successful at the time at
which monitoring demonstrates that the
mitigation has met the success criteria
established in the mitigation plan under
paragraph (3)(B).
(B) Requirements for success.--To ensure
the success of any attempted mitigation, the
Secretary shall--
(i) consult annually with the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
on each water resource project
requiring mitigation to determine
whether mitigation monitoring for that
project demonstrates that the project
is achieving, or has achieved, the
success criteria established in the
mitigation plan under paragraph (3);
and
(ii) ensure that implementation of
correction actions is initiated under
paragraph (3)(B)(i)(V) beginning not
later than 30 days after a finding by
the Secretary, either alone or in
consultation with the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service, that the
original mitigation efforts likely will
not result in, or have not resulted in,
meeting the success criteria
established in the mitigation plan
under paragraph (3)(B).
* * * * * * *
SECTION 912. SECTION 221 AGREEMENTS.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(b)(42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b note)(1) The Secretary may require
compliance with any requirements pertaining to cooperation by
non-Federal interests in carrying out any water resources
project authorized before, on, or after the date of enactment
of this Act.
(2) Whenever on the basis of any information available to
the Secretary, the Secretary finds that any non-Federal
interest is not providing cooperation required under subsection
(a), the Secretary [shall] may issue an order requiring such
non-Federal interest to provide such cooperation. [After notice
and opportunity for a hearing, if the Secretary finds that any
person is violating an order issued under this section, such
person shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed
$10,000 per day of such violation, except that the total amount
of civil penalties for any violation shall not exceed $50,000.]
(3) Non-Federal interests shall be liable for interest on
any payments required pursuant to section 221 of the Flood
Control Act of 1970 that may fall delinquent. The interest rate
to be charged on any such delinquent payment shall be at a
rate, to be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, equal
to 150 percent of the average bond equivalent rate of the
thirteen-week Treasury bills auctioned immediately prior to the
date on which such payment became delinquent, or auctioned
immediately prior to the beginning of each additional three-
month period if the period of delinquency exceeds three months.
(4) The Secretary may request the Attorney General to bring
a civil action for appropriate relief, including permanent or
temporary [injunction, for] injunction and payment of
liquidated damages, for any violation of an order issued under
this section, [to collect a civil penalty imposed under this
section,] to recover any cost incurred by the Secretary in
undertaking performance of any item of cooperation under
section 221(d) of the Flood Control Act of 1970, or to collect
interest for which a non-Federal interest is liable under
paragraph (3). Any action under this subsection may be brought
in the district court of the United States for the district in
which the defendant is located or resides, or is doing
businesss, and such court shall have jurisdiction to restrain
such violation, to require compliance, to require payment of
[any civil penalty imposed under this section,] any liquidated
damages, and to require payment of any costs incurred by the
Secretary in undertaking performance of any such item.
(5) The Secretary is authorized to determine that no funds
appropriated for operation and maintenance, including operation
and maintenance of the project for flood control, Mississippi
River and Tributaries, are to be used for the particular
benefit of projects within the jurisdiction of any non-Federal
interest when such non-Federal interest is in arrears for more
than twenty-four months in the payment of charges due under an
agreement entered into with the United States pursuant to
section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-
611).
* * * * * * *
[SEC. 1135. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF ENVIRONMENT.]
SEC. 1135. ENVIRONMENTAL MODIFICATION OF PROJECTS FOR IMPROVEMENT AND
RESTORATION OF ECOSYSTEMS PROGRAM.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(h) Authorization of appropriations
There is authorized to be appropriated not to exceed
[$25,000,000] $50,000,000 annually to carry out this
section.
* * * * * * *
----------
[PUBLIC LAW 100-676--NOV. 17, 1988]
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1988
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water
Resources Development Act of 1988''.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 21. MISSISSIPPI RIVER HEADWATERS RESERVOIRS.
(a) General Rule.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Secretary is directed to maintain water levels in the
Mississippi River headwaters reservoirs within the following
operating limits: Winnibigoshish 1296.94 feet--1303.14 feet;
Leech 1293.20 feet--1297.94 feet; Pokegama 1270.42 feet--
[1276.42] 1278.42 feet; Sandy 1214.31 feet--[1218.31] 1221.31
feet; Pine 1227.32 feet--[1234.82] 1235.30 feet; and Gull
1192.75 feet--1194.75 feet. Such water levels shall be measured
using the National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
[(b) Exception.--The Secretary may operate the headwaters
reservoirs below the minimum or above the maximum water levels
established in subsection (a) in accordance with a contingency
plan which the Secretary develops after consulting with the
Governor of Minnesota and affected landowners and commercial
and recreational users. The Secretary shall transmit such plan
to Congress within 6 months after the date of the enactment of
this Act. The Secretary shall report to Congress at least 14
days prior to operating any such headwaters reservoir below the
minimum or above the maximum water level limits specified in
subsection (a).]
(b) Exception.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may operate the
headwaters reservoirs below the minimum or above the
maximum water levels established under subsection (a)
in accordance with water control regulation manuals (or
revisions to those manuals) developed by the Secretary,
after consultation with the Governor of Minnesota and
affected tribal governments, landowners, and commercial
and recreational users.
(2) Effective date of manuals.--The water control
regulation manuals referred to in paragraph (1) (and
any revisions to those manuals) shall be effective as
of the date on which the Secretary submits the manuals
(or revisions) to Congress.
(3) Notification.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in
subparagraph (B), not less than 14 days before
operating any headwaters reservoir below the
minimum or above the maximum water level limits
specified in subsection (a), the Secretary
shall submit to Congress a notice of intent to
operate the headwaters reservoir.
(B) Exception.--Notice under subparagraph
(A) shall not be required in any case in
which--
(i) the operation of a headwaters
reservoir is necessary to prevent the
loss of life or to ensure the safety of
a dam; or
(ii) the drawdown of the water
level of the reservoir is in
anticipation of a flood control
operation.
* * * * * * *
----------
[PUBLIC LAW 101-640--NOV. 28, 1990]
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1990
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water
Resources Development Act of 1999''.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 102. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS.
(g) Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay, Delaware and
Maryland.--The project for navigation, inland waterway from the
Delaware River to the Chesapeake Bay, Delaware and Maryland,
authorizaed by the frist section of the Act of August 30, 1935
(49 Stat. 1030), and modified by the Act entitled ``An Act
authorizing construction of a highway bridge across the
Chesapeake and Delaware Canal at Saint Georges, Delaware'',
approved August 7, 1939 (53 Stat. 1240-1241), is modified to
direct the Secretary to replace the highway bridge on United
States Route 13 in the vicinity of St. Georges, Delaware, to
meet current and projected traffic needs, at a Federal cost of
$115,000,000. The State may carry out the bridge replacement,
the Secretary may reimburse the State for costs incurred. The
Secretary shall assume ownership responsibility for the
replacement bridge not later than the date on which the
construction of the bridge is completed and the contractors are
released of their responsibility by the State. In addition, the
Secretary may not carry out any action to close or remove the
St. George's Bridge, Delaware, without specific congressional
authorization.
* * * * * * *
----------
[PUBLIC LAW 102-580--OCT. 31, 1992]
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1992
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
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Lower Mississippi River Museum and Riverfront
Interpretive Site.--
(1) * * *
(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] riverfront property in Vicksburg,
Mississippi. Title to the property shall be transferred
to the Secretary at no cost.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 204. BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL.
[(a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to carry out
projects for the protection, restoration, and creation of
aquatic and ecologically related habitats, including wetlands,
in connection with dredging for construction, operation, or
maintenance by the Secretary of an authorized navigation
project.]
(a) In General.--In connection with dredging for
construction, operation, or maintenance by the Secretary of an
authorized navigation project, the Secretary may carry out
projects for--
(1) the protection, restoration, and creation of
aquatic and ecologically related habitats, including
wetland; and
(2) the transport and placement of suitable dredged
material at locations identified in the plan prepared
under subsection (e), or identified jointly by the non-
Federal interest and the Secretary, for use in the
construction, repair, or rehabilitation of projects
associated with navigation, flood damage reduction,
hydroelectric power, municipal and industrial water
supply, agricultural water supply, recreation,
hurricane and storm damage reduction, aquatic plant
control, and environmental protection and restoration.
(b) Secretarial Findings.--Subject to subsection (c) of
this section, projects [for the protection, restoration, or
creation of aquatic and ecologically related habitats]
undertaken under subsection (a) may be undertaken in any case
where the Secretary finds that--
(1) the environmental, economic, and social
benefits of the project, both monetary and nonmonetary,
justify the cost thereof; [and]
(2) the project would not result in environmental
degradation[.] ; and
(3) the project complies with all applicable
Federal, State, and local laws.
(c) Cooperative Agreement.--Any project undertaken pursuant
to this section shall be initiated only after non-Federal
interests have entered into a binding agreement with the
Secretary in which the non-Federal interests agree [to--
[(1) provide 25 percent of the cost associated with
construction of the project for the protection,
restoration, and creation of aquatic and ecologically
related habitats, including provision of all lands,
easements, rights-of-way, and necessary relocations;
and
(2) pay] to pay 100 percent of the operation,
maintenance, replacement, and rehabilitation costs
associated with the project for the protection,
restoration, and creation of aquatic and ecologically
related habitats.
(d) Determination of Construction Costs.--Costs associated
with construction of a project [for the protection,
restoration, and creation of aquatic and ecologically related
habitats] shall be limited solely to construction costs which
are in excess of those costs necessary to carry out the
dredging for construction, operation, or maintenance of the
authorized navigation project in the most cost effective way,
consistent with economic, engineering, and environmental
criteria.
(e) Regional Sediment Management Plans.--
(1) In general.--In consultation and cooperation
with the appropriate Federal, State, and regional
agencies, the Secretary shall develop plans for
regional management of sediment dredged in conjunction
with construction, operation, and maintenance of
navigation projects, including potential beneficial
uses for projects described in subsection (a).
(2) Costs.--The costs of developing a plan under
paragraph (1) shall be paid by the Secretary.
(f) Priority Areas.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary shall give priority to regional sediment management
projects in the vicinity of--
(1) Fire Island Inlet, Suffolk County, New York;
(2) Fletcher Cove, California; and
(3) Toledo Harbor, Lucas County, Ohio.
[(e)] (g) Selection of Dredged Material Disposal Method.--
In developing and carrying out a project for navigation
involving the disposal of dredged material, the Secretary may
select, with the consent of the non-Federal interest, a
disposal method that is not the least-cost option if the
Secretary determines that the incremental costs of such
disposal method are reasonable in relation to the environmental
benefits, including the benefits to the aquatic environment to
be derived from the creation of wetlands and control of
shoreline erosion. The Federal share of such incremental costs
shall be determined in accordance with subsection (c).
[(f)] (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is
authorized to be appropriated not to exceed [$15,000,000]
$30,000,000 annually to carry out this section. Such sums shall
remain available until expended.
[(g)] (i) 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 interest
may include a nonprofit entity, with the consent of the
affected local government.
* * * * * * *
----------
[PUBLIC LAW 104-303--OCT. 12, 1996]
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1996
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water
Resources Development Act of 1996''.
* * * * * * *
SECTION 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(31) Marmet Lock, Kanawha River, West Virginia.--
The project for navigation, Marmet Lock, Kanawha River,
West Virginia: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated
June 24, 1994, at a total cost of [$229,581,000]
$358,000,000. The costs of construction of the project
are to be paid 1/2 from amounts appropriated from the
Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
* * * * * * *
[SEC. 206. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.]
SEC. 206. RESTORATION OF THE ENVIRONMENT FOR PROTECTION OF AQUATIC AND
RIPARIAN ECOSYSTEMS PROGRAM.
(a) General Authority.--The Secretary may carry out [an
aquatic] a freshwater aquatic ecosystem restoration and
protection project if the Secretary zdetermines that the
project--
(1) will improve the quality of the environment and
is in the public interest; and
(2) is cost-effective.
(b) Cost Sharing.--
(1) In general.--Non-Federal interests shall
provide 35 percent of the cost of construction of any
project carried out under this section, including
provision of all lands, easements, rights-of-way, and
necessary relocations.
(2) Form.--Before October 1, 2003, the Federal
share of the cost of a project under this section may
be provided in the form of reimbursements of project
costs.
(c) Agreements.--
(1) In general.--Construction of a project under
this section shall be initiated only after a non-
Federal interest has entered into a binding agreement
with the Secretary to pay the non-Federal share of the
costs of construction required by this section and to
pay 100 percent of any operation, maintenance, and
replacement and rehabilitation costs with respect to
the project in accordance with regulations prescribed
by the Secretary.
(2) 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 interest may include a nonprofit entity,
with the consent of the affected local government.
(d) Cost Limitation.--Not more than $5,000,000 in Federal
funds may be allotted under this section for a project at any
single locality.
(e) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this section [$25,000,000] $75,000,000 for each
fiscal year.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 211. CONSTRUCTION OF FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS BY NON-FEDERAL
INTERESTS.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) Reimbursement.--
(1) General rule.--Subject to appropriations Acts,
the Secretary may reimburse any non-Federal interest an
amount equal to the estimate of the Federal share,
without interest, of the cost of any authorized flood
control project, or separable element of a flood
control project, constructed pursuant to this section
and provide credit for the non-Federal share of the
project--
(A) if, after authorization and before
initiation of construction of the project or
separable element, the Secretary approves the
plans for construction of such project by the
non-Federal interest;
(B) if the Secretary finds, after a review
of studies and design documents prepared
pursuant to this section, that construction of
the project or separable element is
economically justified and environmentally
acceptable; and
(C) if the construction work is
substantially in accordance with plans prepared
under subsection (b).
(2) Special rules.--
(A) Reimbursement or credit.--For work
(including work associated with studies,
planning, design, and construction) carried out
by a non-Federal interest with respect to a
project described in subsection (f), the
Secretary shall, subject to the availability of
appropriations, reimburse, without interest,
the non-Federal interest an amount equal to the
estimated Federal share of the cost of such
work, or provide credit (depending on the
request of the non-Federal interest) for the
non-Federal share of such work, if such work is
later recommended by the Chief of Engineers and
approved by the Secretary.
(B) Credit.--If the non-Federal interest
for a project described in subsection (f)
carries out work before completion of a
reconnaissance study by the Secretary and if
such work is determined by the Secretary to be
compatible with the project later recommended
by the Secretary, the Secretary shall credit
the non-Federal interest for its share of the
cost of the project for such work.
(3) Matters to be considered in reviewing plans.--
In reviewing plans under this subsection, the Secretary
shall consider budgetary and programmatic priorities
and other factors that the Secretary considers
appropriate.
(4) Monitoring.--The Secretary shall regularly
monitor and audit any project for flood control
approved for construction under this section by a non-
Federal interest to ensure that such construction is in
compliance with the plans approved by the Secretary and
that the costs are reasonable.
(5) Limitation on reimbursements.--The Secretary
may not make any reimbursement under this section until
the Secretary determines that the work for which
reimbursement is requested has been performed in
accordance with applicable permits and approved plans.
(6) Schedule and manner of reimbursement.--
(A) Budgeting.--The Secretary shall budget
and request appropriations for reimbursements
under this section on a schedule that is
consistent with a Federal construction
schedule.
(B) Commencement of reimbursements.--
Reimbursements under this section may commence
on approval of a project by the Secretary.
(C) Credit.--At the request of a non-
Federal interest, the Secretary may reimburse
the non-Federal interest by providing credit
toward future non-Federal costs of the project.
(D) Scheduling.--Nothing in this paragraph
affects the discretion of the President to
schedule new construction starts.
(E) Budget priority.--
(i) In general.--Budget priority
for projects under this section shall
be proportionate to the percentage of
project completion.
(ii) Completed project.--A
completed project shall have the same
priority as a project with a contractor
on site.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 217. DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITY PARTNERSHIPS.
(a) Additional Capacity.--
(1) Provided by secretary.--At the request of a
non-Federal interest with respect to a project, the
Secretary may provide additional capacity at a dredged
material disposal facility constructed by the Secretary
beyond the capacity that would be required for project
purposes if the non-Federal interest agrees to pay,
during the period of construction, all costs associated
with the construction of the additional capacity.
(2) Cost recovery authority.--The non-Federal
interest may recover the costs assigned to the
additional capacity through fees assessed on third
parties whose dredged material is deposited at the
facility and who enter into agreements with the non-
Federal interest for the use of the facility. The
amount of such fees may be determined by the non-
Federal interest.
(b) Non-Federal Use of Disposal Facilities.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary--
(A) may permit the use of any dredged
material disposal facility under the
jurisdiction of, or managed by, the Secretary
by a non-Federal interest if the Secretary
determines that such use will not reduce the
availability of the facility for project
purposes; and
(B) may impose fees to recover capital,
operation, and maintenance costs associated
with such use.
(2) Use of fees.--Notwithstanding section 401(c) of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1341(c)) but subject to advance appropriations, any
monies received through collection of fees under this
subsection shall be available to the Secretary, and
shall be used by the Secretary, for the operation and
maintenance of the disposal facility from which the
fees were collected.
(c) Dredged Material Facility.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may enter into cost-
sharing agreements with 1 or more non-Federal public
interests with respect to a project, or group of
projects within a geographic region, if appropriate,
for the acquisition, design, construction, management,
or operation of a dredged material processing,
treatment, contaminant reduction, or disposal facility
(including any facility used to demonstrate potential
beneficial uses of dredged material, which may include
effective sediment contaminant reduction technologies)
using funds provided in whole or in part by the Federal
Government.
(2) Performance.--One or more of the parties to the
agreement may perform the acquisition, design,
construction, management, or operation of a dredged
material processing, treatment, contaminant reduction,
or disposal facility.
(3) Multiple federal projects.--If appropriate, the
Secretary may combine portions of separate Federal
projects with appropriate combined cost-sharing between
the various projects, if the facility serves to manage
dredged material from multiple Federal projects located
in the geographic region of the facility.
(4) Public financing.--
(A) Agreements.--
(i) Specified federal funding
sources and cost sharing.--The cost-
sharing agreement used shall clearly
specify--
(I) the Federal funding
sources and combined cost-
sharing when applicable to
multiple Federal navigation
projects; and
(II) the responsibilities
and risks of each of the
parties related to present and
future dredged material managed
by the facility.
(ii) Management of sediments.--
(I) In general.--The cost-
sharing agreement may include
the management of sediments
from the maintenance dredging
of Federal navigation projects
that do not have partnerships
agreements.
(II) Payments.--The cost-
sharing agreement may allow the
non-Federal interest to receive
reimbursable payments from the
Federal Government for
commitments made by the non-
Federal interest for disposal
or placement capacity at
dredged material treatment,
processing, contaminant
reduction, or disposal
facilities.
(iii) Credit.--The cost-sharing
agreement may allow costs incurred
prior to execution of a partnership
agreement for construction or the
purchase of equipment or capacity for
the project to be credited according to
existing cost-sharing rules.
(B) Credit.--
(i) Effect on existing
agreements.--Nothing in this subsection
supersedes or modifies an agreement in
effect on the date of enactment of this
paragraph between the Federal
Government and any other non-Federal
interest for the cost-sharing,
construction, and operation and
maintenance of a Federal navigation
project.
(ii) Credit for funds.--Subject to
the approval of the Secretary and in
accordance with law (including
regulations and policies) in effect on
the date of enactment of this
paragraph, a non-Federal public
interest of a Federal navigation
project may seek credit for funds
provided for the acquisition, design,
construction, management, or operation
of a dredged material processing,
treatment, or disposal facility to the
extent the facility is used to manage
dredged material from the Federal
navigation project.
(iii) Non-federal interest
responsibilities.--The non-Federal
interest shall--
(I) be responsible for
providing all necessary land,
easement rights-of-way, or
relocations associated with the
facility; and
(II) receive credit for
those items.
[(c)] (d) Public-Private Partnerships.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may carry out a
program to evaluate and implement opportunities for
public-private partnerships in the design,
construction, management, or operation and maintenance
of dredged material processing, treatment, or disposal
facilities in connection with construction or
maintenance of Federal navigation projects. If a non-
Federal interest is a sponsor of the project, the
Secretary shall consult with the non-Federal interest
in carrying out the program with respect to the
project.
(2) Private financing.--
(A) Agreements.--In carrying out this
subsection, the Secretary may enter into an
agreement with a non-Federal interest with
respect to a project, a private entity, or both
for the acquisition, design, construction,
management, or operation and maintenance of a
dredged material processing, treatment, or
disposal facility (including any facility used
to demonstrate potential beneficial uses of
dredged material) using funds provided in whole
or in part by the private entity.
(B) Reimbursement.--If any funds provided
by a private entity are used to carry out a
project under this subsection, the Secretary
may reimburse the private entity over a period
of time agreed to by the parties to the
agreement through the payment of subsequent
user fees. Such fees may include the payment of
a disposal or tipping fee for placement of
suitable dredged material at the facility.
(C) Amount of fees.--User fees paid
pursuant to subparagraph (B) shall be
sufficient to repay funds contributed by the
private entity plus a reasonable return on
investment approved by the Secretary in
cooperation with the non-Federal interest with
respect to the project and the private entity.
(D) Federal share.--The Federal share of
such fees shall be equal to the percentage of
the total cost that would otherwise be borne by
the Federal Government as required pursuant to
existing cost-sharing requirements, including
section 103 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213) and section 204 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33
U.S.C. 2325).
(E) Budget act compliance.--Any spending
authority (as defined in section 401(c)(2) of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C.
651(c)(2))) authorized by this section shall be
effective only to such extent and in such
amounts as are provided in appropriation Acts.
* * * * * * *
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.]
(a) In General.--The Secretary may engage in activities
(including contracting) in support of other Federal agencies,
international organizations, or foreign governments 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] Department 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 to
carry out this section [$250,000 for fiscal year 2001]
$1,000,000 for fiscal year 2005 and each fiscal year
thereafter. The Secretary may accept and expend additional
funds from other Federal agencies or international
organizations to carry out this section.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 507. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE.
The Secretary shall provide design and construction
assistance to non-Federal interests for each of the
following projects if the Secretary determines that the
project is feasible:
(1) Repair and rehabilitation of the Lower Girard
Lake Dam, Girard, Ohio, at an estimated total cost of
[$2,500,000] $5,500,000 (which repair and
rehabilitation may include lowering the crest of the
Dam by not more than 12.5 feet).
* * * * * * *
SEC. 554. ORCHARD BEACH, BRONX, NEW YORK.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for a project
for shoreline protection, Orchard Beach, Bronx, New
York, and, if the Secretary determines that the project
is feasible, may carry out the project, at a maximum
Federal cost of [$5,200,000] $18,200,000.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 567. UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN, PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW YORK.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(c) Cooperation Agreements.--In conducting the study and
developing the strategy under this section, the Secretary may
enter into cooperation agreements to provide financial
assistance to appropriate Federal, State, and local government
agencies, including assistance for the implementation of
wetland restoration projects and soil and water conservation
measures.]
(c) Cooperation Agreements.--
(1) In general.--In conducting the study and
implementing the strategy under this section, the
Secretary shall enter into cost-sharing and project
cooperation agreements with the Federal Government,
State and local governments (with the consent of the
State and local governments), land trusts, or
nonprofit, nongovernmental organizations with expertise
in wetland restoration.
(2) Financial assistance.--Under the cooperation
agreement, the Secretary may provide assistance for
implementation of wetland restoration projects and soil
and water conservation measures.
[(d) Implementation.--The Secretary shall undertake
development and implementation of the strategy authorized by
this section in cooperation with local landowners and local
government officials.]
(d) Implementation of Strategy.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out the
development, demonstration, and implementation of the
strategy under this section in cooperation with local
landowners, local government officials, and land
trusts.
(2) Goals of projects.--Projects to implement the
strategy under this subsection shall be designed to
take advantage of ongoing or planned actions by other
agencies, local municipalities, or nonprofit,
nongovernmental organizations with expertise in wetland
restoration that would increase the effectiveness or
decrease the overall cost of implementing recommended
projects.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 575. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS.
(a) * * *
(b) Specific Projects.--The projects to which subsection
(a) apply are--
(1) the project for flood control, Buffalo Bayou
Basin, Texas, authorized by section 203 of the Flood
Control Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 1258);
(2) the project for flood control, Buffalo Bayou
and tributaries, Texas, authorized by section 101(a) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat.
4610); [and]
(3) the project for flood control, Cypress Creek,
Texas, authorized by section 3(a)(13) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4014);
[and]
(4) the project for flood control, Clear Creek,
Texas, authorized by section 203 of teh Flood Control
Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 742)[.] ; and
(5) the project for flood control, Upper White Oak
Bayou, Texas, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4125).
* * * * * * *
SEC. 577. TANGIER ISLAND, VIRGINIA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall design and construct a
breakwater at the North Channel on Tangier Island, Virginia,
[at a total cost of $1,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost
of $900,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $300,000.] at
a total cost of $3,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$2,400,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $600,000.
* * * * * * *
----------
[PUBLIC LAW 106-53--AUG. 17, 1999]
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1999
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act many be cited as the ``Water
Resources Development Act of 1999''.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 225. RECREATION USER FEES.
(a) Withholding of Amounts.--
(1) In general.--[During fiscal years 1999 through
2002, the] The Secretary may withhold from the special
account established under section 4(i)(1)(A)) 100
percent of the amount of receipts [above a baseline of
$34,000,000 per each fiscal year] received from fees
imposed at recreation sites under the administrative
jurisdiction of the Department of the Army under
section 4(b) of that Act (16 U.S.C. 4601-6a(b)).
* * * * * * *
(3) Availability.--The amounts withheld shall
remain available until [September 30, 2005] expended.
(b) Use of Amounts Withheld.--In order to increase the
quality of the visitor experience at public recreational areas
and to enhance the protection of resources, the amounts
withheld under subsection (a) may be used only for--
(1) repair and maintenance projects (including
projects relating to health and safety);
(2) interpretation;
(3) signage;
(4) habitat or facility enhancement;
(5) resource preservation;
(6) annual operation (including fee collection);
(7) maintenance [and];
(8) law enforcement related to public use[.]; and
(9) planning.
(c) Availability.--[Each] Eighty percent of each amount
withheld by the Secretary shall be available for expenditure,
without further Act of appropriation, [at the specific project
from which the amount, above baseline,] by the District of the
Corps of Engineers from which the amount is collected.
(d) Recreation User Fee Program.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out a
recreation user fee program to attempt to recover from
users the costs of operating and maintaining recreation
areas or sites on project land.
(2) Admission and user fees.--
(A) In general.--In carrying out the
program, the Secretary shall charge and collect
fees, in an amount determined under
subparagraph (B), for--
(i) admission to the recreation
area or site by individuals or groups;
or
(ii) the use of outdoor recreation
sites, facilities, visitor centers,
equipment, and services by individuals
and groups.
(B) Amount.--The Secretary shall determine
the amount of fees charged and collected under
subparagraph (A), which, to maximize the
recreation benefits of the projects, shall be
based on the fair market value of the admission
or use.
(C) Contract.--The Secretary may--
(i) enter into a contract
(including a contract that provides for
reasonable commissions) with any public
or private entity to provide visitor
services for the recreation area or
site, including taking reservations and
providing information on the recreation
area or site; and
(ii) accept the services of
volunteers to collect the fees charged
under subparagraph (A).
(3) Leases.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall charge
and collect rents for any lease entered into
between the Secretary and a non-Federal entity
relating to project land.
(B) Term.--A lease entered into under
subparagraph (A)--
(i) shall be for an initial period
of not more than 25 years; and
(ii) may be renewed for an
additional 25-year term.
(C) Termination.--A lease entered into
under subparagraph (A) shall provide that the
lease shall be terminated if the Secretary
determines that the project land subject to the
lease has not been used by the non-Federal
entity for recreation or any other purpose
specified in the lease.
(D) Payments in lieu of taxes.--Land leased
to non-Federal entities for recreational
purposes shall be subject to chapter 69 of
title 31, United States Code.
(4) Other fees.--Fees charged and collected under
this section shall be in lieu of fees charged under any
other provision of law.''.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 514. MISSOURI AND MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI RIVERS ENHANCEMENT PROJECT.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to pay the Federal share of the cost of
carrying out this section $30,000,000 for the period of fiscal
years 2003 [and 2004] through 2015.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 560. ABANDONED AND INACTIVE NONCOAL MINE RESTORATION.
(a) Definition of Non-Federal Interest.--In this section,
the term `non-Federal interest' includes, with the consent of
the affected local government, nonprofit entities,
notwithstanding section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970
(42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b).
[(a)] (b) In General.-- The Secretary may provide
technical, planning, and design, and construction assistance to
Federal and non-Federal interests, including, with the consent
of the affected local government, nonprofit entities, for
carrying out projects to address water quality problems caused
by drainage and related activities from abandoned and inactive
noncoal mines.
[(b)] (c) Specific Measures.--Assistance provided under
subsection (a) may be in support of projects for the purpose
of--
(1) managing drainage from abandoned and inactive
noncoal mines;
(2) restoring and protecting streams, rivers,
wetlands, other waterbodies, and riparian areas
degraded by drainage from abandoned and inactive
noncoal mines; and
(3) demonstrating management practices and
innovative and alternative treatment technologies to
minimize or eliminate adverse physical hazards and
environmental effects associated with [drainage from]
abandoned and inactive noncoal mines.
[(c)] (d) Non-Federal Share.--The non-Federal share of the
cost of assistance under subsection (a) shall be [50] 25
percent, except that the Federal share with respect to projects
located on land owned by the United States shall be 100
percent.
[(d)] (e) Effect on Authority of Secretary of the
Interior.--Nothing in this section affects the authority of the
Secretary of the Interior under title IV of the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1231 et seq.).
[(e)] (f) Technology Database for Reclamation of
Abandoned Mines.--The Secretary may provide assistance to non-
Federal and nonprofit entities to develop, manage, and maintain
a database of conventional and innovative, cost-effective
technologies for reclamation of abandoned and inactive noncoal
mine sites. Such assistance shall be provided through the
Rehabilitation of Abandoned Mine Sites Program managed by the
Sacramento District Office of the Corps of Engineers.
[(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$5,000,000.]
(g) Operation and Maintenance.--The non-Federal share of
the costs of operation and maintenance for a project carried
out under this section shall be 100 percent.
(h) Credit.--A non-Federal interest shall receive credit
toward the non-Federal share of cost of a project under this
section for design and construction services and other in-kind
consideration provided by the non-Federal interest if the
Secretary determines that the design and construction services
and other in-kind contributions are integral to the project.
(i) No Effect on Liability.--The provision of assistance
under this section shall not relieve from liability any person
that would otherwise be liable under Federal or State law for
damages, response costs, natural resource damages, restitution,
equitable relief, or any other relief.
(j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section for each fiscal
year $45,000,000, to remain available until expended.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 573. ONONDAGA LAKE, NEW YORK.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) No Effect on Liability.--The provision of financial
assistance under this section shall not relieve from liability
any person that would otherwise be liable under Federal or
State law for damages, response costs, natural resource
damages, restitution, equitable relief, or any other relief.
(f) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) of
the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), for any
project carried out under this section, a non-Federal interest
may include a nonprofit entity, with the consent of the
affected local government.
[(f)] (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
[$10,000,000].
[(g)] (h) Repeal.--Title IV of the Great Lakes Critical
Programs Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 3010) and section 411 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4648) are
repealed effective on the date that is 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 580. CUMBERLAND, MARYLAND, FLOOD PROJECT MITIGATION.
(a) In General.-- The project for flood control and other
purposes, Cumberland, Maryland, authorized by section 5 of the
Act of June 22, 1936, (commonly known as the ``Flood Control
Act of 1936'') (49 Stat. 1574, chapter 688), is modified to
authorize the Secretary to undertake, as a separate part of the
project, restoration of the historic Chesapeake and Ohio Canal
substantially in accordance with the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal
National Historic Park, Cumberland, Maryland, Rewatering Design
Analysis, dated February 1998, at a total cost of [$15,000,000]
$25,750,000, with an estimated Federal cost of [$9,750,000]
$16,738,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of [$5,250,000]
$9,012,000.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 591. ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION, FRONT ROYAL, VIRGINIA.
(a) Participation of Secretary.--
(1) * * *
(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
[$12,000,000] $22,000,000.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 602. TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE HABITAT RESTORATION.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) Funding for carrying out plans.--
(A) State of south dakota.--
(i) Notification.--On receipt of
the plan for terrestrial wildlife
habitat restoration submitted by the
State of South Dakota, each of the
committees referred to in paragraph (3)
shall notify the Secretary and the
Secretary of the Treasury of the
receipt of the plan.
[(ii) Availability of funds.--On
notification in accordance with clause
(i), the Secretary shall make available
to the State of South Dakota funds from
the South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife
Habitat Restoration Trust Fund
established under section 603, to be
used to carry out the plan for
terrestrial wildlife habitat
restoration submitted by the State and
only after the Trust Fund is fully
capitalized.]
(ii) Availability of funds.--On
notification in accordance with clause
(i), the Secretary of the Treasury
shall make available to the State of
South Dakota funds from the State of
South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife
Habitat Restoration Trust Fund
established under section 603, to be
used to carry out the plan for
terrestrial wildlife habitat
restoration submitted by the State of
South Dakota after the State certifies
to the Secretary of the Treasury that
the funds to be disbursed will be used
in accordance with section 603(d)(3)
and only after the Trust Fund is fully
capitalized.
(B) Cheyenne river sioux tribe and lower
brule sioux tribe.--
(i) Notification.--On receipt of
the plan for terrestrial wildlife
habitat restoration submitted by the
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the
Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, each of the
committees referred to in paragraph (3)
shall notify the Secretary of the
Treasury of the receipt of each of the
plans.
[(ii) Availability of funds.--On
notification in accordance with clause
(i), the Secretary of the Treasury
shall make available to the Cheyenne
River Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule
Sioux Tribe funds from the Cheyenne
River Sioux Tribe Terrestrial Wildlife
Habitat Restoration Trust Fund and the
Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Terrestrial
Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust
Fund, respectively, established under
section 604, to be used to carry out
the plan for terrestrial wildlife
habitat restoration submitted by the
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the
Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, respectively,
and only after the Trust Fund is fully
capitalized.]
(ii) Availability of funds.--On
notification in accordance with clause
(i), the Secretary of the Treasury
shall make available to the Cheyenne
River Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule
Sioux Tribe funds from the Cheyenne
River Sioux Terrestrial Wildlife
Habitat Restoration Trust Fund and the
Lower Brule Sioux Terrestrial Wildlife
Habitat Restoration Trust Fund,
respectively, established under section
604, to be used to carry out the plans
for terrestrial wildlife habitat
restoration submitted by the Cheyenne
River Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule
Sioux Tribe, respectively, after the
respective tribe certifies to the
Secretary of the Treasury that the
funds to be disbursed will be used in
accordance with section 604(d)(3) and
only after the Trust Fund is fully
capitalized.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 603. SOUTH DAKOTA TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE HABITAT RESTORATION TRUST
FUND.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(c) Investments.--
[(1) In general.--At the request of the Secretary,
the Secretary of the Treasury shall invest the amounts
deposited under subsection (b) only in interest-bearing
obligations of the United States or in obligations
guaranteed by the United States as to both principal
and interest.
[(2) Interest rate.--The Secretary of the Treasury
shall invest amounts in the fund in obligations that
carry the highest rate of interest among available
obligations of the required maturity.]
(c) Investments.--
(1) Eligible obligations.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, the Secretary of the Treasury
shall invest the amounts deposited under subsection (b)
and the interest earned on those amounts only in
interest-bearing obligations of the United States
issued directly to the Fund.
(2) Investment requirements.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary of the
Treasury shall invest the Fund in accordance
with all of the requirements of this paragraph.
(B) Separate investments of principal and
interest.--
(i) Principal account.--The amounts
deposited in the Fund under subsection
(b) shall be credited to an account
within the Fund (referred to in this
paragraph as the `principal account')
and invested as provided in
subparagraph (C).
(ii) Interest account.--The
interest earned from investing amounts
in the principal account of the Fund
shall be transferred to a separate
account within the Fund (referred to in
this paragraph as the `interest
account') and invested as provided in
subparagraph (D).
(iii) Crediting.--The interest
earned from investing amounts in the
interest account of the Fund shall be
credited to the interest account.
(C) Investment of principal account.--
(i) Initial investment.--Each
amount deposited in the principal
account of the Fund shall be invested
initially in eligible obligations
having the shortest maturity then
available until the date on which the
amount is divided into 3 substantially
equal portions and those portions are
invested in eligible obligations that
are identical (except for
transferability) to the next-issued
publicly issued Treasury obligations
having a 2-year maturity, a 5-year
maturity, and a 10-year maturity,
respectively.
(ii) Subsequent investment.--As
each 2-year, 5-year, and 10-year
eligible obligation matures, the
principal of the maturing eligible
obligation shall also be invested
initially in the shortest-maturity
eligible obligation then available
until the principal is reinvested
substantially equally in the eligible
obligations that are identical (except
for transferability) to the next-issued
publicly issued Treasury obligations
having 2-year, 5-year, and 10-year
maturities.
(iii) Discontinuance of issuance of
obligations.--If the Department of the
Treasury discontinues issuing to the
public obligations having 2-year, 5-
year, or 10-year maturities, the
principal of any maturing eligible
obligation shall be reinvested
substantially equally in eligible
obligations that are identical (except
for transferability) to the next-issued
publicly issued Treasury obligations of
the maturities longer than 1 year then
available.
(D) Investment of interest account.--
(i) Before full capitalization.--
Until the date on which the Fund is
fully capitalized, amounts in the
interest account of the Fund shall be
invested in eligible obligations that
are identical (except for
transferability) to publicly issued
Treasury obligations that have
maturities that coincide, to the
maximum extent practicable, with the
date on which the Fund is expected to
be fully capitalized.
(ii) After full capitalization.--On
and after the date on which the Fund is
fully capitalized, amounts in the
interest account of the Fund shall be
invested and reinvested in eligible
obligations having the shortest
maturity then available until the
amounts are withdrawn and transferred
to fund the activities authorized under
subsection (d)(3).
(E) Par purchase price.--The price to be
paid for eligible obligations purchased as
investments of the principal account shall not
exceed the par value of the obligations so that
the amount of the principal account shall be
preserved in perpetuity.
(F) Highest yield.--Among eligible
obligations having the same maturity and
purchase price, the obligation to be purchased
shall be the obligation having the highest
yield.
(G) Holding to maturity.--Eligible
obligations purchased shall generally be held
to their maturities.
(3) Annual review of investment activities.--Not
less frequently than once each calendar year, the
Secretary of the Treasury shall review with the State
of South Dakota the results of the investment
activities and financial status of the Fund during the
preceding 12-month period.
(d) Payments.--
(1) * * *
(2) Withdrawal and transfer of funds.--Subject to
section 602(a)(4)(A), the Secretary of the Treasury
shall withdraw amounts credited as interest under
paragraph (1) and transfer the amounts to the State of
South Dakota for use as State funds in accordance with
paragraph (3) after the Fund has been fully
capitalized.
* * * * * * *
[(f) Administrative Expenses.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary of the Treasury such sums as are
necessary to pay the administrative expenses of the Fund.]
(f) Administrative Expenses.--There are authorized to be
appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, to the Secretary of the Treasury, to pay expenses
associated with investing the Fund and auditing the uses of
amounts withdrawn from the Fund--
(1) up to $500,000 for each of fiscal years 2004
and 2005; and
(2) such sums as are necessary for each subsequent
fiscal year.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 604. CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE AND LOWER BRULE SIOUX TRIBE
TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE HABITAT RESTORATION TRUST
FUNDS.
(a) * * *
[(c) Investments.--
[(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury
shall invest the amounts deposited under subsection (b)
only in interest-bearing obligations of the United
States or in obligations guaranteed as to both
principal and interest by the United States.
[(2) Interest rate.--The Secretary of the Treasury
shall invest amounts in the Funds in obligations that
carry the highest rate of interest among available
obligations of the required maturity.]
(c) Investments.--
(1) Eligible obligations.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, the Secretary of the Treasury
shall invest the amounts deposited under subsection (b)
and the interest earned on those amounts only in
interest-bearing obligations of the United States
issued directly to the Funds.
(2) Investment requirements.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary of the
Treasury shall invest each of the Funds in
accordance with all of the requirements of this
paragraph.
(B) Separate investments of principal and
interest.--
(i) Principal account.--The amounts
deposited in each Fund under subsection
(b) shall be credited to an account
within the Fund (referred to in this
paragraph as the `principal account')
and invested as provided in
subparagraph (C).
(ii) Interest account.--The
interest earned from investing amounts
in the principal account of each Fund
shall be transferred to a separate
account within the Fund (referred to in
this paragraph as the `interest
account') and invested as provided in
subparagraph (D).
(iii) Crediting.--The interest
earned from investing amounts in the
interest account of each Fund shall be
credited to the interest account.
(C) Investment of principal account.--
(i) Initial investment.--Each
amount deposited in the principal
account of each Fund shall be invested
initially in eligible obligations
having the shortest maturity then
available until the date on which the
amount is divided into 3 substantially
equal portions and those portions are
invested in eligible obligations that
are identical (except for
transferability) to the next-issued
publicly issued Treasury obligations
having a 2-year maturity, a 5-year
maturity, and a 10-year maturity,
respectively.
(ii) Subsequent investment.--As
each 2-year, 5-year, and 10-year
eligible obligation matures, the
principal of the maturing eligible
obligation shall also be invested
initially in the shortest-maturity
eligible obligation then available
until the principal is reinvested
substantially equally in the eligible,
obligations that are identical (except
for transferability) to the next-issued
publicly issued Treasury obligations
having 2-year, 5-year, and 10-year
maturities.
(iii) Discontinuation of issuance
of obligations.--If the Department of
the Treasury discontinues issuing to
the public obligations having 2-year,
5-year, or 10-year maturities, the
principal of any maturing eligible
obligation shall be reinvested
substantially equally in eligible
obligations that are identical (except
for transferability) to the next-issued
publicly issued Treasury obligations of
the maturities longer than 1 year then
available.
(D) Investment of the interest account.--
(i) Before full capitalization.--
Until the date on which each Fund is
fully capitalized, amounts in the
interest account of the Fund shall be
invested in eligible obligations that
are identical (except for
transferability) to publicly issued
Treasury obligations that have
maturities that coincide, to the
maximum extent practicable, with the
date on which the Fund is expected to
be fully capitalized.
(ii) After full capitalization.--On
and after the date on which each Fund
is fully capitalized, amounts in the
interest account of the Fund shall be
invested and reinvested in eligible
obligations having the shortest
maturity then available until the
amounts are withdrawn and transferred
to fund the activities authorized under
subsection (d)(3).
(E) Par purchase price.--The price to be
paid for eligible obligations purchased as
investments of the principal account shall not
exceed the par value of the obligations so that
the amount of the principal account shall be
preserved in perpetuity.
(F) Highest yield.--Among eligible
obligations having the same maturity and
purchase price, the obligation to be purchased
shall be the obligation having the highest
yield.
(G) Holding to maturity.--Eligible
obligations purchased shall generally be held
to their maturities.
(3) Annual review of investment activities.--Not
less frequently than once each calendar year, the
Secretary of the Treasury shall review with the
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule Sioux
Tribe the results of the investment activities and
financial status of the Funds during the preceding 12-
month period.
* * * * * * *
[(f) Administrative Expenses.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary of the Treasury such sums as are
necessary to pay the administrative expenses of the Fund.]
(f) Administrative Expenses.--There are authorized to be
appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, to the Secretary of the Treasury to pay expenses
associated with investing the Funds and auditing the uses of
amounts withdrawn from the Funds--
(1) up to $500,000 for each of fiscal years 2004
and 2005; and
(2) such sums as are necessary for each subsequent
fiscal year.
* * * * * * *
----------
[PUBLIC LAW 106-541--DEC. 11, 2000]
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2000
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act many be cited as the ``Water
Resources Development Act of 2000''.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(16) Ohio river, kentucky, illinois, indiana, ohio,
pennsylvania, and west virginia.--
[(A) In general.--Projects for ecosystem
restoration, Ohio River Mainstem]
(A) Authorization.--
(i) In general.--Projects for
ecosystem restoration, Ohio River Basin
(excluding the Tennessee and Cumberland
River Basins), Kentucky, Illinois,
Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West
Virginia, at a total cost of
$307,700,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $200,000,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $107,700,000.
(ii) Nonprofit entity.--For any
ecosystem restoration project carried
out under this paragraph, with the
consent of the affected local
government, a nonprofit entity may be
considered to be a non-Federal
interest.
(iii) Program implementation
plan.--There is authorized to be
developed a program implementation plan
of the Ohio River Basin (excluding the
Tennessee and Cumberland River Basins)
at full Federal expense.
(iv) Pilot program.--There is
authorized to be initiated a completed
pilot program in Lower Scioto Basin,
Ohio.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 214. FUNDING TO PROCESS PERMITS.
(a) In General.--[In fiscal years 2001 through 2003, the]
The Secretary, after public notice, may accept and expend funds
contributed by non-Federal public entities to expedite the
evaluation of permits under the jurisdiction of the Department
of the Army.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 321. DULUTH HARBOR, MINNESOTA
The project for navigation, Duluth Harbor,
Minnesota, carried out under section 107 of the River
and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), is modified to
include the relocation of Scenic Highway 61, including
any required bridge construction, and to provide public
access and recreational facilities.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 325. FORT PECK FISH HATCHERY, MONTANA.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There are authorized to be
appropriated--
(A) [$20,000,000] $25,000,000 to carry out
this section (other than subsection (e)(2)(B));
and
(B) such sums as are necessary to carry out
subsection (e)(2)(B).
(2) Availability of funds.--Sums made available to
carry out this section shall remain available until
expended
* * * * * * *
SEC. 349. PROJECT REAUTHORIZATIONS.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(2) Cedar Bayou, Texas.--The project for
navigation, Cedar Bayou, Texas, authorized by the first
section of the Act entitled ``An Act making
appropriations for the construction, repair, and
preservation of certain public works on rivers and
harbors, and for other purposes'', approved September
19, 1890 (26 Stat. 444), and modified by the first
section of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing the
contruction, repair, and preservation of certain public
works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes'',
approved July 3, 1930 (46 Stat. 926), and deauthorized
by section 1002 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1986 (100 Stat, 4219), [except that the project is
authorized only for construction of a navaigation
channel 12 feet deep by 125 feet wide] except that the
project is authorized for construction of a navigation
channel that is 10 feet deep by 100 feet wide from mile
-2.5 (at the junction with the Houston Ship Channel) to
mile 11.0 on Cedar Bayou.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 414. OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA.
Not later than [32 months] 44 months after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall conduct a
study, at Federal expense, of plans--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
SEC. 542. LAKE CHAMPLAIN WATERSHED, VERMONT AND NEW YORK.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(b) Critical Restoration Projects.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may participate in
critical restoration projects in the Lake Champlain
watershed.
(2) Types of projects.--A critical restoration
project shall be eligible for assistance under this
section if the critical restoration project consists of
--
(A) implementation of an intergovernmental
agreement for coordinating regulatory and
management responsibilities with respect to the
Lake Champlain watershed;
(B) acceleration of whole farm planning to
implement best management practices to maintain
or enhance water quality and to promote
agricultural land use in the Lake Champlain
watershed;
(C) acceleration of whole community
planning to promote intergovernmental
cooperation in the regulation and management of
activities consistent with the goal of
maintaining or enhancing water quality in the
Lake Champlain watershed;
(D) natural resource stewardship activities
on public or private land to promote land uses
that--
(i) preserve and enhance the
economic and social character of the
communities in the Lake Champlain
watershed; and
(ii) protect and enhance water
quality; [or]
(E) river corridor assessment, protection,
management, and restoration for the purposes of
ecosystem restoration;
(F) geographic mapping conducted by the
Secretary using existing technical capacity to
produce a high-resolution, multispectral
satellite imagery-based land use and cover data
set; or
[(E)] (G) any other activity determined by
the Secretary to be appropriate.
* * * * * * *
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section [$20,000,000]
$32,000,000, to remain available until expended.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 543. VERMONT DAMS REMEDIATION.
(a) In General.--The Secretary--
(1) shall conduct a study to evaluate the
structural integrity and need for modification or
removal of each dam located in the State of Vermont and
described in subsection (b);
(2) shall provide to the non-Federal interest
design analysis, plans and specifications, and cost
estimates for repair, restoration, modification, and
removal of each dam described in subsection (b); [and]
(3) may carry out measures to prevent or mitigate
against such risk if the Secretary determines that a
dam described in subsection (b) presents an imminent
and substantial risk to public safety[.] ; and
(4) may carry out measures to restore, protect, and
preserve an ecosystem affected by a dam described in
subsection (b).
(b) Dams To Be Evaluated.--The dams referred to in
subsection (a) are the following:
(1) East Barre Dam, Barre Town.
(2) Wrightsville Dam, Middlesex-Montpelier.
(3) Lake Sadawga Dam, Whitingham.
(4) Dufresne Pond Dam, Manchester.
(5) Knapp Brook Site 1 Dam, Cavendish.
(6) Lake Bomoseen Dam, Castleton.
(7) Little Hosmer Dam, Craftsbury.
(8) Colby Pond Dam, Plymouth.
(9) Silver Lake Dam, Barnard.
(10) Gale Meadows Dam, Londonderry.
(11) Camp Wapanacki, Hardwick.
(12) Star Lake Dam, Mt. Holly.
(13) Curtis Pond, Calais.
(14) Weathersfield Reservoir, Springfield.
(15) Burr Pond, Sudbury.
(16) Maidstone Lake, Guildhall.
(17) Upper and Lower Hurricane Dam.
(18) Lake Fairlee.
(19) West Charleston Dam.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 707. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
the Secretary to carry out this title $5,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 2001 through [2005] 2010. Such sums shall remain
available until expended.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 904. MISSOURI RIVER TRUST.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(b) Membership.--The Trust shall be composed of 25 members
to be appointed by the Secretary, including--
(1) 15 members recommended by the Governor of South
Dakota that--
(A) represent equally the various interests
of the public; and
(B) include representatives of--
(i)the South Dakota Department of
Environment and Natural Resources;
(ii)the South Dakota Department of
Game, Fish, and Parks;
(iii)environmental groups;
(iv)the hydroelectric power
industry;
(v)local governments;
(vi)recreation user groups;
(vii)agricultural groups; [and]
(viii) rural water systems; and
[(viii)] (ix)other appropriate
interests;
* * * * * * *
SEC. 907. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
the Secretary to carry out this title $10,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 2001 through [2005] 2010. Such sums shall remain
available until expended.
* * * * * * *