[House Report 109-154]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
109th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 109-154
======================================================================
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2005
_______
June 24, 2005.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Young of Alaska, from the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 2864]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 2864) To provide for the
conservation and development of water and related resources, to
authorize the Secretary of the Army to construct various
projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of the United
States, and for other purposes, having considered the same,
report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that
the bill as amended do pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water Resources
Development Act of 2005''.
(b) Table of Contents.--
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definition of Secretary.
TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS
Sec. 1001. Project authorizations.
Sec. 1002. Small projects for flood damage reduction.
Sec. 1003. Small projects for emergency streambank protection.
Sec. 1004. Small projects for navigation.
Sec. 1005. Small projects for improvement of the quality of the
environment.
Sec. 1006. Small projects for aquatic ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 1007. Small projects for shoreline protection.
Sec. 1008. Small projects for snagging and sediment removal.
TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 2001. Non-Federal contributions.
Sec. 2002. Harbor cost sharing.
Sec. 2003. Funding to process permits.
Sec. 2004. National shoreline erosion control development and
demonstration program.
Sec. 2005. Small shore and beach restoration and protection projects.
Sec. 2006. Written agreement for water resources projects.
Sec. 2007. Assistance for remediation, restoration, and reuse.
Sec. 2008. Compilation of laws.
Sec. 2009. Dredged material disposal.
Sec. 2010. Wetlands mitigation.
Sec. 2011. Remote and subsistence harbors.
Sec. 2012. Beneficial uses of dredged material.
Sec. 2013. Cost-sharing provisions for certain areas.
Sec. 2014. Revision of project partnership agreement.
Sec. 2015. Cost sharing.
Sec. 2016. Credit for work performed before partnership agreement.
Sec. 2017. Recreation user fee revenues.
Sec. 2018. Expedited actions for emergency flood damage reduction.
Sec. 2019. Watershed and river basin assessments.
Sec. 2020. Tribal partnership program.
Sec. 2021. Wildfire firefighting.
Sec. 2022. Credit for nonconstruction services.
Sec. 2023. Technical assistance.
Sec. 2024. Coordination and scheduling of Federal, State, and local
actions.
Sec. 2025. Project streamlining.
Sec. 2026. Lakes program.
Sec. 2027. Mitigation for fish and wildlife losses.
Sec. 2028. Cooperative agreements.
Sec. 2029. Project planning.
Sec. 2030. Independent peer review.
Sec. 2031. Training funds.
Sec. 2032. Access to water resource data.
Sec. 2033. Shore protection projects.
Sec. 2034. Ability to pay.
Sec. 2035. Aquatic ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 2036. Small flood damage reduction projects.
Sec. 2037. Leasing authority.
Sec. 2038. Cost estimates.
Sec. 2039. Studies and reports for water resources projects.
Sec. 2040. Fiscal transparency report.
TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS
Sec. 3001. King Cove Harbor, Alaska.
Sec. 3002. St. Paul Harbor, St. Paul Island, Alaska.
Sec. 3003. Sitka, Alaska.
Sec. 3004. Tatitlek, Alaska.
Sec. 3005. Grand Prairie Region and Bayou Meto basin, Arkansas.
Sec. 3006. Osceola Harbor, Arkansas.
Sec. 3007. Pine Mountain Dam, Arkansas.
Sec. 3008. Saint Francis Basin, Arkansas.
Sec. 3009. American River Watershed, California.
Sec. 3010. Compton Creek, California.
Sec. 3011. Grayson Creek/Murderer's Creek, California.
Sec. 3012. Hamilton Airfield, California.
Sec. 3013. John F. Baldwin Ship Channel and Stockton Ship Channel,
California.
Sec. 3014. Kaweah River, California.
Sec. 3015. Larkspur Ferry Channel, Larkspur, California.
Sec. 3016. Llagas Creek, California.
Sec. 3017. Los Angeles Harbor, California.
Sec. 3018. Magpie Creek, California.
Sec. 3019. Pacific Flyway Center, Sacramento, California.
Sec. 3020. Pinole Creek, California.
Sec. 3021. Prado Dam, California.
Sec. 3022. Sacramento and American Rivers Flood Control, California.
Sec. 3023. Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel, California.
Sec. 3024. Sacramento River, Glenn-Colusa, California.
Sec. 3025. Santa Cruz Harbor, California.
Sec. 3026. Seven Oaks Dam, California.
Sec. 3027. Upper Guadalupe River, California.
Sec. 3028. Walnut Creek Channel, California.
Sec. 3029. Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase I, California.
Sec. 3030. Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase II, California.
Sec. 3031. Yuba River Basin project, California.
Sec. 3032. Intracoastal Waterway, Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay,
Delaware and Maryland.
Sec. 3033. Brevard County, Florida.
Sec. 3034. Broward County and Hillsboro Inlet, Florida.
Sec. 3035. Canaveral Harbor, Florida.
Sec. 3036. Gasparilla and Estero Islands, Florida.
Sec. 3037. Jacksonville Harbor, Florida.
Sec. 3038. Lido Key Beach, Sarasota, Florida.
Sec. 3039. Miami Harbor, Florida.
Sec. 3040. Peanut Island, Florida.
Sec. 3041. Tampa Harbor-Big Bend Channel, Florida.
Sec. 3042. Tampa Harbor Cut B, Florida.
Sec. 3043. Allatoona Lake, Georgia.
Sec. 3044. Latham River, Glynn County, Georgia.
Sec. 3045. Dworshak Dam and Reservoir improvements, Idaho.
Sec. 3046. Beardstown Community Boat Harbor, Beardstown, Illinois.
Sec. 3047. Cache River Levee, Illinois.
Sec. 3048. Chicago River, Illinois.
Sec. 3049. Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Illinois.
Sec. 3050. Emiquon, Illinois.
Sec. 3051. LaSalle, Illinois.
Sec. 3052. Spunky Bottoms, Illinois.
Sec. 3053. Fort Wayne and vicinity, Indiana.
Sec. 3054. Koontz Lake, Indiana.
Sec. 3055. Little Calumet River, Indiana.
Sec. 3056. White River, Indiana.
Sec. 3057. Des Moines River and Greenbelt, Iowa.
Sec. 3058. Prestonsburg, Kentucky.
Sec. 3059. Amite River and Tributaries, Louisiana, East Baton Rouge
Parish Watershed.
Sec. 3060. Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana.
Sec. 3061. Bayou Plaquemine, Louisiana.
Sec. 3062. Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Louisiana.
Sec. 3063. J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to
Shreveport, Louisiana.
Sec. 3064. Mississippi Delta Region, Louisiana.
Sec. 3065. New Orleans to Venice, Louisiana.
Sec. 3066. West bank of the Mississippi River (East of Harvey Canal),
Louisiana.
Sec. 3067. Camp Ellis, Saco, Maine.
Sec. 3068. Union River, Maine.
Sec. 3069. Gwynns Falls Watershed, Baltimore, Maryland.
Sec. 3070. Boston Harbor, Massachusetts.
Sec. 3071. Detroit River Shoreline, Detroit, Michigan.
Sec. 3072. St. Joseph Harbor, Michigan.
Sec. 3073. Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan.
Sec. 3074. Ada, Minnesota.
Sec. 3075. Duluth Harbor, McQuade Road, Minnesota.
Sec. 3076. Grand Portage Harbor, Minnesota.
Sec. 3077. Granite Falls, Minnesota.
Sec. 3078. Knife River Harbor, Minnesota.
Sec. 3079. Red Lake River, Minnesota.
Sec. 3080. Silver Bay, Minnesota.
Sec. 3081. Taconite Harbor, Minnesota.
Sec. 3082. Two Harbors, Minnesota.
Sec. 3083. Deer Island, Harrison County, Mississippi.
Sec. 3084. Pearl River Basin, Mississippi.
Sec. 3085. Festus and Crystal City, Missouri.
Sec. 3086. Monarch-Chesterfield, Missouri.
Sec. 3087. River Des Peres, Missouri.
Sec. 3088. Antelope Creek, Lincoln, Nebraska.
Sec. 3089. Sand Creek watershed, Wahoo, Nebraska.
Sec. 3090. Lower Cape May Meadows, Cape May Point, New Jersey.
Sec. 3091. Passaic River Basin flood management, New Jersey.
Sec. 3092. Buffalo Harbor, New York.
Sec. 3093. Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York.
Sec. 3094. Port of New York and New Jersey, New York and New Jersey.
Sec. 3095. New York State Canal System.
Sec. 3096. Lower Girard Lake Dam, Ohio.
Sec. 3097. Mahoning River, Ohio.
Sec. 3098. Arcadia Lake, Oklahoma.
Sec. 3099. Waurika Lake, Oklahoma.
Sec. 3100. Willamette River temperature control, McKenzie Subbasin,
Oregon.
Sec. 3101. Delaware River, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware.
Sec. 3102. Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 3103. Sheraden Park Stream and Chartiers Creek, Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania.
Sec. 3104. Solomon's Creek, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 3105. South Central Pennsylvania.
Sec. 3106. Wyoming Valley, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 3107. Cedar Bayou, Texas.
Sec. 3108. Freeport Harbor, Texas.
Sec. 3109. Johnson Creek, Arlington, Texas.
Sec. 3110. Lake Kemp, Texas.
Sec. 3111. Lower Rio Grande Basin, Texas.
Sec. 3112. North Padre Island, Corpus Christi Bay, Texas.
Sec. 3113. Pat Mayse Lake, Texas.
Sec. 3114. Proctor Lake, Texas.
Sec. 3115. San Antonio Channel, San Antonio, Texas.
Sec. 3116. James River, Virginia.
Sec. 3117. Lee, Russell, Scott, Smyth, Tazewell, and Wise Counties,
Virginia.
Sec. 3118. Tangier Island Seawall, Virginia.
Sec. 3119. Duwamish/Green, Washington.
Sec. 3120. Yakima River, Port of Sunnyside, Washington.
Sec. 3121. Greenbrier River Basin, West Virginia.
Sec. 3122. Lesage/Greenbottom Swamp, West Virginia.
Sec. 3123. Northern West Virginia.
Sec. 3124. Manitowoc Harbor, Wisconsin.
Sec. 3125. Mississippi River headwaters reservoirs.
Sec. 3126. Continuation of project authorizations.
Sec. 3127. Project reauthorizations.
Sec. 3128. Project deauthorizations.
Sec. 3129. Land conveyances.
Sec. 3130. Extinguishment of reversionary interests and use
restrictions.
TITLE IV--STUDIES
Sec. 4001. John Glenn Great Lakes Basin program.
Sec. 4002. Lake Erie dredged material disposal sites.
Sec. 4003. Southwestern United States drought study.
Sec. 4004. Upper Mississippi River comprehensive plan.
Sec. 4005. Knik Arm, Cook Inlet, Alaska.
Sec. 4006. Kuskokwim River, Alaska.
Sec. 4007. St. George Harbor, Alaska.
Sec. 4008. Susitna River, Alaska.
Sec. 4009. Gila Bend, Maricopa, Arizona.
Sec. 4010. Searcy County, Arkansas.
Sec. 4011. Dry Creek Valley, California.
Sec. 4012. Elkhorn Slough estuary, California.
Sec. 4013. Fresno, Kings, and Kern Counties, California.
Sec. 4014. Los Angeles River, California.
Sec. 4015. Lytle Creek, Rialto, California.
Sec. 4016. Mokelumne River, San Joaquin County, California.
Sec. 4017. Napa River, St. Helena, California.
Sec. 4018. Orick, California.
Sec. 4019. Rialto, Fontana, and Colton, California.
Sec. 4020. Sacramento River, California.
Sec. 4021. San Diego County, California.
Sec. 4022. San Francisco Bay, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California.
Sec. 4023. South San Francisco Bay shoreline study, California.
Sec. 4024. Twentynine Palms, California.
Sec. 4025. Yucca Valley, California.
Sec. 4026. Boulder Creek, Boulder, Colorado.
Sec. 4027. Roaring Fork River, Basalt, Colorado.
Sec. 4028. Delaware and Christina Rivers and Shellpot Creek,
Wilmington, Delaware.
Sec. 4029. Collier County beaches, Florida.
Sec. 4030. Vanderbilt Beach Lagoon, Florida.
Sec. 4031. Meriwether County, Georgia.
Sec. 4032. Tybee Island, Georgia.
Sec. 4033. Kaukonahua-Helemano watershed, Oahu, Hawaii.
Sec. 4034. West Maui, Maui, Hawaii.
Sec. 4035. Boise River, Idaho.
Sec. 4036. Ballard's Island Side Channel, Illinois.
Sec. 4037. Chicago, Illinois.
Sec. 4038. South Branch, Chicago River, Chicago, Illinois.
Sec. 4039. Utica, Illinois.
Sec. 4040. Lake and Porter Counties, Indiana.
Sec. 4041. Salem, Indiana.
Sec. 4042. Buckhorn Lake, Kentucky.
Sec. 4043. Dewey Lake, Kentucky.
Sec. 4044. Louisville, Kentucky.
Sec. 4045. Bastrop-Morehouse Parish, Louisiana.
Sec. 4046. Offshore oil and gas fabrication ports, Louisiana.
Sec. 4047. Vermilion River, Louisiana.
Sec. 4048. West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana.
Sec. 4049. Patapsco River, Maryland.
Sec. 4050. Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
Sec. 4051. Hamburg and Green Oak Townships, Michigan.
Sec. 4052. St. Clair River, Michigan.
Sec. 4053. Duluth-Superior Harbor, Minnesota and Wisconsin.
Sec. 4054. Wild Rice River, Minnesota.
Sec. 4055. Mississippi coastal area, Mississippi.
Sec. 4056. Northeast Mississippi.
Sec. 4057. St. Louis, Missouri.
Sec. 4058. Dredged material disposal, New Jersey.
Sec. 4059. Bayonne, New Jersey.
Sec. 4060. Carteret, New Jersey.
Sec. 4061. Elizabeth River, Elizabeth, New Jersey.
Sec. 4062. Gloucester County, New Jersey.
Sec. 4063. Perth Amboy, New Jersey.
Sec. 4064. Wreck Pond, Monmouth County, New Jersey.
Sec. 4065. Batavia, New York.
Sec. 4066. Big Sister Creek, Evans, New York.
Sec. 4067. East Chester Bay, Turtle Cove, New York.
Sec. 4068. Finger Lakes, New York.
Sec. 4069. Hudson-Raritan Estuary, New York and New Jersey.
Sec. 4070. Lake Erie Shoreline, Buffalo, New York.
Sec. 4071. Newtown Creek, New York.
Sec. 4072. Niagara River, New York.
Sec. 4073. Upper Delaware River watershed, New York.
Sec. 4074. Lincoln County, North Carolina.
Sec. 4075. Wilkes County, North Carolina.
Sec. 4076. Yadkinville, North Carolina.
Sec. 4077. Cincinnati, Ohio.
Sec. 4078. Euclid, Ohio.
Sec. 4079. Lake Erie, Ohio.
Sec. 4080. Ohio River, Ohio.
Sec. 4081. Sutherlin, Oregon.
Sec. 4082. Tillamook Bay and Bar, Oregon.
Sec. 4083. Ecosystem restoration and fish passage improvements, Oregon.
Sec. 4084. Walla Walla River Basin, Oregon.
Sec. 4085. Chartiers Creek watershed, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 4086. Kinzua Dam and Allegheny Reservoir, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 4087. North Central Pennsylvania.
Sec. 4088. Northampton and Lehigh Counties streams, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 4089. Western Pennsylvania flood damage reduction.
Sec. 4090. Williamsport, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 4091. Yardley Borough, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 4092. Rio Valenciano, Juncos, Puerto Rico.
Sec. 4093. Crooked Creek, Bennettsville, South Carolina.
Sec. 4094. Broad River, York County, South Carolina.
Sec. 4095. Georgetown and Williamsburg Counties, South Carolina.
Sec. 4096. Chattanooga, Tennessee.
Sec. 4097. Cleveland, Tennessee.
Sec. 4098. Cumberland River, Nashville, Tennessee.
Sec. 4099. Lewis, Lawrence, and Wayne Counties, Tennessee.
Sec. 4100. Wolf River and Nonconnah Creek, Memphis Tennessee.
Sec. 4101. Abilene, Texas.
Sec. 4102. Coastal Texas ecosystem protection and restoration, Texas.
Sec. 4103. Fort Bend County, Texas.
Sec. 4104. Harris County, Texas.
Sec. 4105. Port of Galveston, Texas.
Sec. 4106. Roma Creek, Texas.
Sec. 4107. Walnut Creek, Texas.
Sec. 4108. Grand County and Moab, Utah.
Sec. 4109. Southwestern Utah.
Sec. 4110. Chowan River Basin, Virginia and North Carolina.
Sec. 4111. James River, Richmond, Virginia.
Sec. 4112. Elliott Bay Seawall, Seattle, Washington.
Sec. 4113. Monongahela River Basin, Northern West Virginia.
Sec. 4114. Kenosha Harbor, Wisconsin.
Sec. 4115. Wauwatosa, Wisconsin.
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec. 5001. Maintenance of navigation channels.
Sec. 5002. Watershed management.
Sec. 5003. Dam safety.
Sec. 5004. Structural integrity evaluations.
Sec. 5005. Flood mitigation priority areas.
Sec. 5006. Additional assistance for authorized projects.
Sec. 5007. Expedited completion of reports and construction for certain
projects.
Sec. 5008. Expedited completion of reports for certain projects.
Sec. 5009. Southeastern water resources assessment.
Sec. 5010. Upper Mississippi River environmental management program.
Sec. 5011. Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers enhancement project.
Sec. 5012. Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 5013. Great Lakes remedial action plans and sediment remediation.
Sec. 5014. Great Lakes tributary model.
Sec. 5015. Susquehanna, Delaware, and Potomac River Basins.
Sec. 5016. Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration and Protection
Program.
Sec. 5017. Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration.
Sec. 5018. Hypoxia assessment.
Sec. 5019. Potomac River Watershed Assessment and Tributary Strategy
Evaluation and Monitoring Program.
Sec. 5020. Lock and dam security.
Sec. 5021. Pinhook Creek, Huntsville, Alabama.
Sec. 5022. Tallapoosa, Alabama.
Sec. 5023. Alaska.
Sec. 5024. Barrow, Alaska.
Sec. 5025. Coffman Cove, Alaska.
Sec. 5026. Fort Yukon, Alaska.
Sec. 5027. Kotzebue Harbor, Alaska.
Sec. 5028. Lowell Creek Tunnel, Seward, Alaska.
Sec. 5029. St. Herman and St. Paul Harbors, Kodiak, Alaska.
Sec. 5030. Tanana River, Alaska.
Sec. 5031. Valdez, Alaska.
Sec. 5032. Whittier, Alaska.
Sec. 5033. Wrangell Harbor, Alaska.
Sec. 5034. Augusta and Clarendon, Arkansas.
Sec. 5035. Des Arc levee protection, Arkansas.
Sec. 5036. Helena and vicinity, Arkansas.
Sec. 5037. Loomis Landing, Arkansas.
Sec. 5038. St. Francis River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.
Sec. 5039. White River basin, Arkansas.
Sec. 5040. Cambria, California.
Sec. 5041. Contra Costa Canal, Oakley and Knightsen, California;
Mallard Slough, Pittsburg, California.
Sec. 5042. Dana Point Harbor, California.
Sec. 5043. East San Joaquin County, California.
Sec. 5044. Eastern Santa Clara Basin, California.
Sec. 5045. Pine Flat Dam and Reservoir, California.
Sec. 5046. Sacramento deep water ship channel, California.
Sec. 5047. San Francisco, California.
Sec. 5048. San Francisco, California, waterfront area.
Sec. 5049. Santa Venetia, California.
Sec. 5050. Stockton, California.
Sec. 5051. Victor V. Veysey Dam, California.
Sec. 5052. Whittier, California.
Sec. 5053. Charles Hervey Townshend Breakwater, New Haven Harbor,
Connecticut.
Sec. 5054. Christina River shipwreck, Delaware.
Sec. 5055. Anacostia River, District of Columbia, Maryland, and
Virginia.
Sec. 5056. Florida Keys water quality improvements.
Sec. 5057. Lake Worth, Florida.
Sec. 5058. Lake Lanier, Georgia.
Sec. 5059. Riley Creek Recreation Area, Idaho.
Sec. 5060. Reconstruction of Illinois flood protection projects.
Sec. 5061. Kaskaskia River Basin, Illinois, restoration.
Sec. 5062. Floodplain mapping, Little Calumet River, Chicago, Illinois.
Sec. 5063. Natalie Creek, Midlothian and Oak Forest, Illinois.
Sec. 5064. Illinois River basin restoration.
Sec. 5065. Promontory Point, Lake Michigan, Illinois.
Sec. 5066. Burns Waterway Harbor, Indiana.
Sec. 5067. Calumet region, Indiana.
Sec. 5068. Floodplain mapping, Missouri River, Iowa.
Sec. 5069. Rathbun Lake, Iowa.
Sec. 5070. Cumberland River basin, Kentucky.
Sec. 5071. Louisville, Kentucky.
Sec. 5072. Mayfield Creek and tributaries, Kentucky.
Sec. 5073. North Fork, Kentucky River, Breathitt County, Kentucky.
Sec. 5074. Paducah, Kentucky.
Sec. 5075. Southern and eastern Kentucky.
Sec. 5076. Winchester, Kentucky.
Sec. 5077. Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Sec. 5078. Calcasieu Ship Channel, Louisiana.
Sec. 5079. Cross Lake, Shreveport, Louisiana.
Sec. 5080. West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana.
Sec. 5081. Charlestown, Maryland.
Sec. 5082. Delmarva Conservation Corridor, Maryland and Delaware.
Sec. 5083. Massachusetts dredged material disposal sites.
Sec. 5084. Ontonagon Harbor, Michigan.
Sec. 5085. St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair, Michigan.
Sec. 5086. Crookston, Minnesota.
Sec. 5087. Garrison and Kathio Township, Minnesota.
Sec. 5088. Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Sec. 5089. Northeastern Minnesota.
Sec. 5090. Harrison, Hancock, and Jackson Counties, Mississippi.
Sec. 5091. Mississippi River, Missouri, and Illinois.
Sec. 5092. St. Louis, Missouri.
Sec. 5093. Acid Brook, Pompton Lakes, New Jersey.
Sec. 5094. Hackensack Meadowlands area, New Jersey.
Sec. 5095. Central New Mexico, New Mexico.
Sec. 5096. Atlantic Coast of New York.
Sec. 5097. College Point, New York City, New York.
Sec. 5098. Flushing Bay and Creek, New York City, New York.
Sec. 5099. Hudson River, New York.
Sec. 5100. Mount Morris Dam, New York.
Sec. 5101. Onondaga Lake, New York.
Sec. 5102. John H. Kerr Dam and Reservoir, North Carolina.
Sec. 5103. Stanly County, North Carolina.
Sec. 5104. W. Kerr Scott Dam and Reservoir, North Carolina.
Sec. 5105. Ohio.
Sec. 5106. Toussaint River, Ohio.
Sec. 5107. Eugene, Oregon.
Sec. 5108. John Day Lock and Dam, Lake Umatilla, Oregon and Washington.
Sec. 5109. Lowell, Oregon.
Sec. 5110. Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 5111. Lehigh River, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 5112. Northeast Pennsylvania.
Sec. 5113. Upper Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and New York.
Sec. 5114. Cano Martin Pena, San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Sec. 5115. Beaufort and Jasper Counties, South Carolina.
Sec. 5116. Fritz Landing, Tennessee.
Sec. 5117. J. Percy Priest Dam and Reservoir, Tennessee.
Sec. 5118. Town Creek, Lenoir City, Tennessee.
Sec. 5119. Tennessee River partnership.
Sec. 5120. Upper Mississippi Embayment, Tennessee, Arkansas, and
Mississippi.
Sec. 5121. Bosque River watershed, Texas.
Sec. 5122. Dallas Floodway, Dallas, Texas.
Sec. 5123. Harris County, Texas.
Sec. 5124. Onion Creek, Texas.
Sec. 5125. Dyke Marsh, Fairfax County, Virginia.
Sec. 5126. Eastern Shore and southwest Virginia.
Sec. 5127. James River, Virginia.
Sec. 5128. Baker Bay and Ilwaco Harbor, Washington.
Sec. 5129. Hamilton Island campground, Washington.
Sec. 5130. Puget Island, Washington.
Sec. 5131. Willapa Bay, Washington.
Sec. 5132. Bluestone, West Virginia.
Sec. 5133. West Virginia and Pennsylvania flood control.
Sec. 5134. Lower Kanawha River Basin, West Virginia.
Sec. 5135. Central West Virginia.
Sec. 5136. Southern West Virginia.
Sec. 5137. Johnsonville Dam, Johnsonville, Wisconsin.
Sec. 5138. Construction of flood control projects by non-Federal
interests.
Sec. 5139. Use of Federal hopper dredge fleet.
TITLE VI--FLORIDA EVERGLADES
Sec. 6001. Hillsboro and Okeechobee Aquifer, Florida.
Sec. 6002. Pilot projects.
Sec. 6003. Maximum cost of projects.
Sec. 6004. Project authorization.
Sec. 6005. Credit.
Sec. 6006. Outreach and assistance.
Sec. 6007. Critical restoration projects.
Sec. 6008. Deauthorizations.
Sec. 6009. Modified water delivery.
TITLE VII--LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA
Sec. 7001. Definitions.
Sec. 7002. Additional Reports.
Sec. 7003. Coastal Louisiana ecosystem protection and restoration task
force.
Sec. 7004. Investigations.
Sec. 7005. Construction.
Sec. 7006. Non-Federal cost share.
Sec. 7007. Project justification.
Sec. 7008. Statutory Construction.
TITLE VIII--UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND ILLINOIS WATERWAY SYSTEM
Sec. 8001. Definitions.
Sec. 8002. Navigation improvements and restoration.
Sec. 8003. Authorization of construction of navigation improvements.
Sec. 8004. Ecosystem restoration authorization.
Sec. 8005. Comparable progress.
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SECRETARY.
In this Act, the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the Army.
TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS
SEC. 1001. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.
Except as otherwise provided in this section, the following projects
for water resources development and conservation and other purposes are
authorized to be carried out by the Secretary substantially in
accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions, described in
the respective reports designated in this section:
(1) Akutan, alaska.--
(A) In general.--The project for navigation, Akutan,
Alaska: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December
20, 2004, at a total cost of $19,700,000.
(B) Treatment of certain dredging.--The headlands
dredging for the mooring basin shall be considered a
general navigation feature for purposes of estimating
the non-Federal share of the cost of the project.
(2) Haines small boat harbor, haines, alaska.--The project
for navigation, Haines Small Boat Harbor, Haines, Alaska:
Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 20, 2004, at a
total of $12,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$9,700,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,500,000.
(3) Tanque verde creek, arizona.--The project for
environmental restoration, Tanque Verde Creek, Arizona: Report
of the Chief of Engineers, dated July 22, 2003, at a total cost
of $4,978,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $3,236,000 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $1,742,000.
(4) Va shily' ay akimel, salt river restoration, arizona.--
The project for ecosystem restoration, Va Shily' Ay Akimel,
Salt River, Arizona: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated
January 3, 2005, at a total cost of $138,968,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $90,129,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $48,839,000.
(5) Hamilton city, california.--The project for flood damage
reduction and ecosystem restoration, Hamilton City, California:
Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 22, 2004, at a
total cost of $50,600,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$33,000,000 and estimated non-Federal cost of $17,600,000.
(6) Imperial beach, california.--The project for storm damage
reduction, Imperial Beach, California: Report of the Chief of
Engineers, dated December 30, 2003, at a total cost of
$11,862,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $7,592,000 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $4,270,000, and at an
estimated total cost of $38,004,000 for periodic beach
nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an
estimated Federal cost of $19,002,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $19,002,000.
(7) Matilija dam, ventura county, california.--The project
for ecosystem restoration, Matilija Dam and Ventura River
Watershed, Ventura County, California: Report of the Chief of
Engineers dated December 20, 2004, at a total cost of
$130,335,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $78,973,000 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $51,362,000.
(8) Middle creek, lake county, california.--The project for
ecosystem restoration and flood damage reduction, Middle Creek,
Lake County, California: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated
November 29, 2004, at a total cost of $41,793,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $27,256,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $14,537,000.
(9) Napa river salt marsh, california.--
(A) In general.--The project for ecosystem
restoration, Napa River Salt Marsh, Nap River,
California: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated
December 22, 2004, at a total cost of $100,500,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $64,000,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $36,500,000.
(B) Project features.--In carrying out the project,
the Secretary shall include construction of a recycled
water pipeline extending from the Sonoma Valley County
Sanitation District Waste Water Treatment Plant and the
Napa Sanitation District Waste Water Treatment Plant as
part of the project and restoration and enhancement of
Salt Ponds 1, 1A, 2, and 3.
(10) South platte river, denver, colorado.--The project for
environmental restoration Denver County Reach, South Platte
River, Denver, Colorado: Report of the Chief of Engineers,
dated May 16, 2003, at a total cost of $18,824,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $12,236,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $6,588,000.
(11) Miami harbor, miami-dade county, florida.--
(A) In general.--The project for navigation, Miami
Harbor, Miami-Dade County, Florida: Report of the Chief
of Engineers dated April 25, 2005, at a total cost of
$121,127,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$64,843,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$56,284,000.
(B) General reevaluation report.--The non-Federal
share of the cost of the general reevaluation report
that resulted in the report of the Chief of Engineers
referred to in subparagraph (A) shall be the same
percentage as the non-Federal share of cost of
construction of the project.
(C) Agreement.--The Secretary shall enter into a new
partnership with the non-Federal interest to reflect
the cost sharing required by subparagraph (B).
(12) East st. louis and vicinity, illinois.--The project for
ecosystem restoration, East St. Louis and vicinity, Illinois:
Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 22, 2004, at a
total cost of $191,158,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$123,807,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $67,351,000.
(13) Peoria riverfront, illinois.--The project for
environmental restoration, Peoria Riverfront, Illinois: Report
of the Chief of Engineers, dated July 28, 2003, at a total cost
of $16,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $10,400,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,600,000.
(14) Bayou sorrel lock, louisiana.--The project for
navigation, Bayou Sorrel Lock, Louisiana: Report of the Chief
of Engineers dated January 3, 2005, at a total cost of
$9,000,000. The costs of construction of the project shall be
paid \1/2\ from amounts appropriated from the general fund of
the Treasury and \1/2\ from amounts appropriated from the
Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
(15) Morganza to the gulf of mexico, louisiana.--
(A) In general.--The project for hurricane and storm
damage reduction, Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico,
Louisiana: Reports of the Chief of Engineers, dated
August 23, 2002, and July 22, 2003, at a total cost of
$788,000,000 with an estimated Federal cost of
$512,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$275,800,000.
(B) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the
non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost
of design and construction work carried out by the non-
Federal interest before the date of the partnership
agreement for the project if the Secretary determines
that the work is integral to the project.
(16) Swope park industrial area, missouri.--The project for
flood damage reduction, Swope Park Industrial Area, Missouri:
Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated December 30, 2003, at a
total cost of $15,683,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$10,194,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,489,000.
(17) Manasquan to barnegat inlet, new jersey.--The project
for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Manasquan to Barnegat
Inlet, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated
December 30, 2003, at a total cost of $65,800,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $42,800,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $23,000,000, and at an estimated total cost of
$108,000,000 for periodic beach nourishment over the 50-year
life of the project, with an estimated Federal cost of
$54,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $54,000,000.
(18) South river, new jersey.--The project for hurricane and
storm damage reduction and environmental restoration, South
River, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated July
22, 2003, at a total cost of $112,623,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $73,205,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $39,418,000.
(19) Southwest valley, albuquerque, new mexico.--The project
for flood damage reduction, Southwest Valley, Albuquerque, New
Mexico: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated November 29,
2004, at a total cost of $19,494,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $12,671,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$6,823,000.
(20) Corpus christi ship channel, corpus christi, texas.--The
project for navigation and environmental restoration, Corpus
Christi Ship Channel, Texas, Channel Improvement Project:
Report of the Chief of Engineers dated June 2, 2003, at a total
cost of $172,940,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$80,086,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $92,823,000.
(21) Gulf intracoastal waterway, high island to brazos river,
texas.--The project for navigation, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway,
Sabine River to Corpus Christi, Texas: Report of the Chief of
Engineers, dated April 16, 2004, at a total cost of
$13,104,000. The costs of construction of the project are to be
paid \1/2\ from amounts appropriated from the general fund of
the Treasury and \1/2\ from amounts appropriated from the
Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
(22) Matagorda bay, texas.--The project for navigation, Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway, Brazos River to Port O'Connor, Matagorda
Bay Re-Route, Texas: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated
December 24, 2002, at a total cost of $15,960,000. The costs of
construction of the project are to be paid \1/2\ from amounts
appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury and \1/2\
from amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
(23) Riverside oxbow, fort worth, texas.--
(A) In general.--The project for environmental
restoration, Riverside Oxbow, Fort Worth, Texas: Report
of the Chief of Engineers dated May 29, 2003, at a
total cost of $25,200,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $10,400,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $14,800,000.
(B) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the
non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost
of design and construction work carried out on the
Beach Street Dam and associated features by the non-
Federal interest before the date of the partnership
agreement for the project if the Secretary determines
that the work is integral to the project.
(24) Deep creek, chesapeake, virginia.--The project for the
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Bridge Replacement, Deep Creek,
Chesapeake, Virginia: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated
March 3, 2003, at a Federal cost of $35,573,000.
(25) Chehalis river, centralia, washington.--
(A) In general.--The project for flood damage
reduction, Chehalis River, Centralia, Washington:
Report of the Chief of Engineers dated September 27,
2004, at a total cost of $109,850,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $66,425,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $43,425,000.
(B) Credit.--The Secretary shall--
(i) credit up to $6,500,000 toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of the project for
the cost of planning and design work carried
out by the non-Federal interest in accordance
with the project study plan dated November 28,
1999; and
(ii) credit toward the non-Federal share of
the cost of the project the cost of design and
construction work carried out by the non-
Federal interest before the date of the
partnership agreement for the project if the
Secretary determines that the work is integral
to the project.
(C) Additional flood storage at skookumchuck dam.--
The Secretary shall integrate into the project the
locally preferred plan to provide an additional 9,000
acre-feet of storage capacity at Skookumchuck Dam,
Washington, upon a determination by the Secretary that
providing such additional storage capacity is feasible.
SEC. 1002. SMALL PROJECTS FOR FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the
following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is
feasible, may carry out the project under section 205 of the Flood
Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s):
(1) Haleyville, alabama.--Project for flood damage reduction,
Haleyville, Alabama.
(2) Weiss lake, alabama.--Project for flood damage reduction,
Weiss Lake, Alabama.
(3) Chino valley wash, arizona.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Chino Valley Wash, Arizona.
(4) Little colorado river levee, arizona.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Little Colorado River Levee, Arizona.
(5) Cache river basin, grubbs, arkansas.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Cache River Basin, Grubbs, Arkansas.
(6) Barrel springs wash, palmdale, california.--Project for
flood damage reduction, Barrel Springs Wash, Palmdale,
California.
(7) Borrego springs, california.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Borrego Springs, California.
(8) Colton, california.--Project for flood damage reduction,
Colton, California.
(9) Dunlap stream, san bernardino, california.--Project for
flood damage reduction, Dunlap Stream, San Bernardino,
California.
(10) Hunts canyon wash, palmdale, california.--Project for
flood damage reduction, Hunts Canyon Wash, Palmdale,
California.
(11) Wildwood creek, yucaipa, california.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Wildwood Creek, Yucaipa, California.
(12) Utica and vicinity, illinois.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Utica and vicinity, Illinois.
(13) Des moines and raccoon rivers, iowa.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers, Iowa.
(14) Peabody, massachusetts.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Peabody, Massachusetts.
(15) Salem, massachusetts.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Salem, Massachusetts.
(16) Cass river, michigan.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Cass River, Vassar and vicinity, Michigan.
(17) Crow river, rockford, minnesota.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Crow River, Rockford, Minnesota.
(18) Itasca county, minnesota.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Trout Lake and Canisteo Pit, Itasca County,
Minnesota.
(19) Marsh creek, minnesota.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Marsh Creek, Minnesota.
(20) Roseau river, roseau, minnesota.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Roseau River, Roseau, Minnesota.
(21) South branch of the wild rice river, borup, minnesota.--
Project for flood damage reduction, South Branch of the Wild
Rice River, Borup, Minnesota.
(22) Blacksnake creek, st. joseph, missouri.--Project for
flood damage reduction, Blacksnake Creek, St. Joseph, Missouri.
(23) Cannisteo river, addison, new york.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Cannisteo River, Addison, New York.
(24) Cohocton river, campbell, new york.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Cohocton River, Campbell, New York.
(25) East river, silver beach, new york city, new york.--
Project for flood damage reduction, East River, Silver Beach,
New York City, New York.
(26) East valley creek, andover, new york.--Project for flood
damage reduction, East Valley Creek, Andover, New York.
(27) Sunnyside brook, westchester county, new york.--Project
for flood damage reduction, Sunnyside Brook, Westchester
County, New York.
(28) Little yankee run, ohio.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Little Yankee Run, Ohio.
(29) Little neshaminy creek, warrenton, pennsylvania.--
Project for flood damage reduction, Little Neshaminy Creek,
Warrenton, Pennsylvania.
(30) Southampton creek watershed, southampton,
pennsylvania.--Project for flood damage reduction, Southampton
Creek watershed, Southampton, Pennsylvania.
(31) Spring creek, lower macungie township, pennsylvania.--
Project for flood damage reduction, Spring Creek, Lower
Macungie Township, Pennsylvania.
(32) Yardley aqueduct, silver and brock creeks, yardley,
pennsylvania.--Project for flood damage reduction, Yardley
Aqueduct, Silver and Brock Creeks, Yardley, Pennsylvania.
(33) Surfside beach, south carolina.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Surfside Beach and vicinity, South Carolina.
(34) Congelosi ditch, missouri city, texas.--Project for
flood damage reduction, Congelosi Ditch, Missouri City, Texas.
(35) Dilley, texas.--Project for flood damage reduction,
Dilley, Texas.
(b) Special Rules.--
(1) Cache river basin, grubbs, arkansas.--The Secretary may
proceed with the project for the Cache River Basin, Grubbs,
Arkansas, referred to in subsection (a)(5), notwithstanding
that the project is located within the boundaries of the flood
control project, Cache River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri,
authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1950, (64
Stat. 172) and modified by section 99 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 41).
(2) Wildwood creek, yucaipa, california.--The Secretary shall
review the locally prepared plan for the project for flood
damage, Wildwood Creek, California, referred to in subsection
(a)(11) and, if the Secretary determines that the plan meets
the evaluation and design standards of the Corps of Engineers
and that the plan is feasible, the Secretary may use the plan
to carry out the project and shall provide credit toward the
non-Federal share of the cost of the project for the cost of
work carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of
the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary
determines that the work is integral to the project.
(3) Borup, minnesota.--In carrying out the project for flood
damage reduction, South Branch of the Wild Rice River, Borup,
Minnesota, referred to in subsection (a)(21) the Secretary may
consider national ecosystem restoration benefits in determining
the Federal interest in the project and shall allow the non-
Federal interest to participate in the financing of the project
in accordance with section 903(c) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184) to the extent that the
Secretary's evaluation indicates that applying such section is
necessary to implement the project.
(4) Itasca county, minnesota.--In carrying out the project
for flood damage reduction, Itasca County, Minnesota, referred
to in subsection (a)(18) the Secretary may consider national
ecosystem restoration benefits in determining the Federal
interest in the project.
(5) Dilley, texas.--The Secretary shall carry out the project
for flood damage reduction, Dilley, Texas, referred to in
subsection (a)(35) if the Secretary determines that the project
is feasible.
SEC. 1003. SMALL PROJECTS FOR EMERGENCY STREAMBANK PROTECTION.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following
projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is feasible,
may carry out the project under section 14 of the Flood Control Act of
1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r):
(1) Ouachita and black rivers, arkansas and louisiana.--
Projects for emergency streambank protection, Ouachita and
Black Rivers, Arkansas and Louisiana.
(2) Franklin point park, anne arundel county, maryland.--
Project for emergency streambank protection, Franklin Point
Park, Anne Arundel County, Maryland.
(3) Mayo beach park, anne arundel county, maryland.--Project
for emergency streambank protection, Mayo Beach Park, Anne
Arundel County, Maryland.
(4) Piney point lighthouse, st. mary's county, maryland.--
Project for emergency streambank protection, Piney Point
Lighthouse, St. Mary's County, Maryland.
(5) St. joseph harbor, michigan.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, St. Joseph Harbor, Michigan.
(6) Pug hole lake, minnesota.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, Pug Hole Lake, Minnesota.
(7) Middle fork grand river, gentry county, missouri.--
Project for emergency streambank protection, Middle Fork Grand
River, Gentry County, Missouri.
(8) Platte river, platte city, missouri.--Project for
emergency streambank protection, Platte River, Platte City,
Missouri.
(9) Rush creek, parkville, missouri.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, Rush Creek, Parkville, Missouri,
including measures to address degradation of the creek bed.
(10) Keuka lake, hammondsport, new york.--Project for
emergency streambank protection, Keuka Lake, Hammondsport, New
York.
(11) Kowawese unique area and hudson river, new windsor, new
york.--Project for emergency streambank protection, Kowawese
Unique Area and Hudson River, New Windsor, New York.
(12) Howard road outfall, shelby county, tennessee.--Project
for emergency streambank protection, Howard Road outfall,
Shelby County, Tennessee.
(13) Mitch farm ditch and lateral d, shelby county,
tennessee.--Project for emergency streambank protection, Mitch
Farm Ditch and Lateral D, Shelby County, Tennessee.
(14) Wolf river tributaries, shelby county, tennessee.--
Project for emergency streambank protection, Wolf River
tributaries, Shelby County, Tennessee.
(15) Johnson creek, arlington, texas.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, Johnson Creek, Arlington, Texas.
(16) Wells river, newbury, vermont.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, Wells River, Newbury, Vermont.
SEC. 1004. SMALL PROJECTS FOR NAVIGATION.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the
following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is
feasible, may carry out the project under section 107 of the River and
Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577):
(1) Blytheville county harbor, arkansas.--Project for
navigation, Blytheville County Harbor, Arkansas.
(2) Mahukona beach park, hawaii.--Project for navigation,
Mahukona Beach Park, Hawaii.
(3) North kohala harbor, hawaii.--Project for navigation,
North Kohala Harbor in the vicinity of Kailua Kona, Hawaii.
(4) Wailoa small boat harbor, hawaii.--Project for
navigation, Wailoa Small Boat Harbor, Hawaii.
(5) Mississippi river ship channel, louisiana.--Project for
navigation, Mississippi River Ship Channel, Louisiana.
(6) Port tobacco river and goose creek, maryland.--Project
for navigation, Port Tobacco River and Goose Creek, Maryland.
(7) St. jerome creek, st. mary's county, maryland.--Project
for navigation, St. Jerome Creek, St. Mary's County, Maryland.
(8) East basin, cape cod canal, sandwich, massachusetts.--
Project for navigation, East Basin, Cape Cod Canal, Sandwich,
Massachusetts.
(9) Lynn harbor, lynn, massachusetts.--Project for
navigation, Lynn Harbor, Lynn, Massachusetts.
(10) Merrimack river, haverhill, massachusetts.--Project for
navigation, Merrimack River, Haverhill, Massachusetts.
(11) Oak bluffs harbor, oak bluffs, massachusetts.--Project
for navigation, Oak Bluffs Harbor, Oak Bluffs, Massachusetts.
(12) Woods hole great harbor, falmouth, massachusetts.--
Project for navigation, Woods Hole Great Harbor, Falmouth,
Massachusetts.
(13) Au sable river, michigan.--Project for navigation, Au
Sable River in the vicinity of Oscoda, Michigan.
(14) Traverse city harbor, traverse city, michigan.--Project
for navigation, Traverse City Harbor, Traverse City, Michigan.
(b) Special Rules.--
(1) Blytheville county harbor, arkansas.--The Secretary shall
carry out the project for navigation, Blytheville County
Harbor, Arkansas, referred to in subsection (a)(1) if the
Secretary determines that the project is feasible.
(2) Traverse city harbor, traverse city, michigan.--The
Secretary shall review the locally prepared plan for the
project for navigation, Traverse City Harbor, Michigan,
referred to in subsection (a)(14), and, if the Secretary
determines that the plan meets the evaluation and design
standards of the Corps of Engineers and that the plan is
feasible, the Secretary may use the plan to carry out the
project and shall provide credit toward the non-Federal share
of the cost of the project for the cost of work carried out by
the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership
agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the
work is integral to the project.
SEC. 1005. SMALL PROJECTS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE QUALITY OF THE
ENVIRONMENT.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following
projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is
appropriate, may carry out the project under section 1135 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a):
(1) Ballona creek, los angeles county, california.--Project
for improvement of the quality of the environment, Ballona
Creek, Los Angeles County, California.
(2) Ballona lagoon tide gates, marina del rey, california.--
Project for improvement of the quality of the environment,
Ballona Lagoon Tide Gates, Marina Del Rey, California.
(3) Rathbun lake, iowa.--Project for improvement of the
quality of the environment, Rathbun Lake, Iowa.
(4) Smithville lake, missouri.--Project for improvement of
the quality of the environment, Smithville Lake, Missouri.
(5) Delaware bay, new jersey and delaware.--Project for
improvement of the quality of the environment, Delaware Bay,
New Jersey and Delaware, for the purpose of oyster restoration.
(6) Tioga-hammond lakes, pennsylvania.--Project for
improvement of the quality of the environment, Tioga-Hammond
Lakes, Pennsylvania.
SEC. 1006. SMALL PROJECTS FOR AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following
projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is
appropriate, may carry out the project under section 206 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330):
(1) Cypress creek, montgomery, alabama.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Cypress Creek, Montgomery, Alabama.
(2) Ben lomond dam, santa cruz, california.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Ben Lomond Dam, Santa Cruz,
California.
(3) Dockweiler bluffs, los angeles county, california.--
Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Dockweiler Bluffs,
Los Angeles County, California.
(4) Salt river, california.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Salt River, California.
(5) Santa rosa creek, santa rosa, california.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Santa Rosa Creek in the vicinity
of the Prince Memorial Greenway, Santa Rosa, California.
(6) Stockton deep water ship channel and lower san joaquin
river, california.--Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration,
Stockton Deep Water Ship Channel and lower San Joaquin River,
California.
(7) Sweetwater reservoir, san diego county, california.--
Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Sweetwater
Reservoir, San Diego County, California, including efforts to
address invasive aquatic plant species.
(8) Bayou texar, pensacola, florida.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Bayou Texar, Pensacola, Florida.
(9) Biscayne bay, florida.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Biscayne Bay, Key Biscayne, Florida.
(10) Clam bayou and dinkins bayou, sanibel island, florida.--
Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Clam Bayou and
Dinkins Bayou, Sanibel Island, Florida.
(11) Destin harbor, florida.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Destin Harbor, Florida.
(12) Chattahoochee fall line, georgia and alabama.--Project
for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Chattahoochee Fall Line,
Georgia and Alabama.
(13) Longwood cove, gainesville, georgia.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Longwood Cove, Gainesville,
Georgia.
(14) City park, university lakes, louisiana.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, City Park, University Lakes,
Louisiana.
(15) Mill pond, littleton, massachusetts.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Mill Pond, Littleton,
Massachusetts.
(16) Pine tree brook, milton, massachusetts.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Pine Tree Brook, Milton,
Massachusetts.
(17) Kalamazoo river watershed, battle creek, michigan.--
Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Kalamazoo River
watershed, Battle Creek, Michigan.
(18) Rush lake, minnesota.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Rush Lake, Minnesota.
(19) South fork of the crow river, hutchinson, minnesota.--
Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, South Fork of the
Crow River, Hutchinson, Minnesota.
(20) St. louis county, missouri.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, St. Louis County, Missouri.
(21) Truckee river, reno, nevada.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Truckee River, Reno, Nevada, including
features for fish passage.
(22) Grover's mill pond, new jersey.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Grover's Mill Pond, New Jersey.
(23) Dugway creek, bratenahl, ohio.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Dugway Creek, Bratenahl, Ohio.
(24) Johnson creek, gresham, oregon.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Johnson Creek, Gresham, Oregon.
(25) Beaver creek, beaver and salem, pennsylvania.--Project
for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Beaver Creek, Beaver and
Salem, Pennsylvania.
(26) Cementon dam, lehigh river, pennsylvania.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Cementon Dam, Lehigh River,
Pennsylvania.
(27) Delaware river, philadelphia naval shipyard,
pennsylvania.--Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration,
Delaware River in the vicinity of the Philadelphia Naval
Shipyard, Pennsylvania.
(28) Saucon creek, northampton county, pennsylvania.--Project
for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Saucon Creek, Northampton
County, Pennsylvania.
(29) Blackstone river, rhode island.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Blackstone River, Rhode Island.
(30) Wilson branch, cheraw, south carolina.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Wilson Branch, Cheraw, South
Carolina.
(31) White river, bethel, vermont.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, White River, Bethel, Vermont.
SEC. 1007. SMALL PROJECTS FOR SHORELINE PROTECTION.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following
projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is feasible,
may carry out the project under 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):
(1) Nelson lagoon, alaska.--Project for shoreline protection,
Nelson Lagoon, Alaska.
(2) Sanibel island, florida.--Project for shoreline
protection, Sanibel Island, Florida.
(3) Apra harbor, guam.--Project for shoreline protection,
Apra Harbor, Guam.
(4) Piti, cabras island, guam.--Project for shoreline
protection, Piti, Cabras Island, Guam.
(5) Narrows and gravesend bay, upper new york bay, brooklyn,
new york.--Project for shoreline protection in the vicinity of
the confluence of the Narrows and Gravesend Bay, Upper New York
Bay, Brooklyn, New York.
(6) Delaware river, philadelphia naval shipyard,
pennsylvania.--Project for shoreline protection, Delaware River
in the vicinity of the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard,
Pennsylvania.
(7) Port aransas, texas.--Project for shoreline protection,
Port Aransas, Texas.
SEC. 1008. SMALL PROJECTS FOR SNAGGING AND SEDIMENT REMOVAL.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for the following project and, if
the Secretary determines that the project is feasible, the Secretary
may carry out the project under section 2 of the Flood Control Act of
August 28, 1937 (33 U.S.C. 701g): Project for removal of snags and
clearing and straightening of channels for flood control, Kowawese
Unique Area and Hudson River, New Windsor, New York.
TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 2001. NON-FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS.
Section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
2213) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(n) Non-Federal Contributions.--
``(1) Prohibition on solicitation of excess contributions.--
The Secretary may not solicit contributions from non-Federal
interests for costs of constructing authorized water resources
development projects or measures in excess of the non-Federal
share assigned to the appropriate project purposes listed in
subsections (a), (b), and (c) or condition Federal
participation in such projects or measures on the receipt of
such contributions.
``(2) Limitation on statutory construction.--Nothing in this
subsection shall be construed to affect the Secretary's
authority under section 903(c) of this Act.''.
SEC. 2002. HARBOR COST SHARING.
(a) Payments During Construction.--Section 101(a)(1) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211(a)(1); 100 Stat.
4082) is amended in each of subparagraphs (B) and (C) by striking ``45
feet'' and inserting ``53 feet''.
(b) Operation and Maintenance.--Section 101(b)(1) of such Act (33
U.S.C. 2211(b)(1)) is amended by striking ``45 feet'' and inserting
``53 feet''.
(c) Definitions.--Section 214 of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2241; 100 Stat.
4108) is amended in each of paragraphs (1) and (3) by striking ``45
feet'' and inserting ``53 feet''.
(d) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsections (a), (b), and
(c) shall apply only to a project, or separable element of a project,
on which a contract for physical construction has not been awarded
before October 1, 2003.
(e) Revision of Partnership Agreement.--The Secretary shall revise
any partnership agreement entered into after October 1, 2003, for any
project to which the amendments made by subsections (a), (b), and (c)
apply to take into account the change in non-Federal participation in
the project as a result of such amendments.
SEC. 2003. FUNDING TO PROCESS PERMITS.
Section 214 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C.
2201 note; 114 Stat. 2594; 117 Stat. 1836) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a) by striking ``In fiscal years 2001
through 2005, the'' and inserting ``The''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Duration of Authority.--The authority provided under this
section shall be in effect from October 1, 2000, through December 31,
2007.''.
SEC. 2004. NATIONAL SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.
(a) Extension of Program.--Section 5(a) 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.
426h(a)), is amended by striking ``6 years'' and inserting ``10
years''.
(b) Extension of Planning, Design, and Construction Phase.--Section
5(b)(1)(A) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 426h(b)(1)(A)) is amended by striking
``3 years'' and inserting ``6 years''.
(c) Cost Sharing; Removal of Projects.--Section 5(b) of such Act (33
U.S.C. 426h(b)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs (5)
and (6), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) Cost sharing.--The Secretary may enter into a cost
sharing agreement with a non-Federal interest to carry out a
project, or a phase of a project, under the erosion control
program in cooperation with the non-Federal interest.
``(4) Removal of projects.--The Secretary may pay all or a
portion of the costs of removing a project, or an element of a
project, constructed under the erosion control program if the
Secretary determines during the term of the program that the
project or element is detrimental to the environment, private
property, or public safety.''.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 5(e)(2) of such Act (33
U.S.C. 426h(e)(2)) is amended by striking ``$21,000,000'' and inserting
``$31,000,000''.
SEC. 2005. SMALL SHORE AND BEACH RESTORATION AND PROTECTION PROJECTS.
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), is amended by
striking ``$3,000,000'' and inserting ``$5,000,000''.
SEC. 2006. WRITTEN AGREEMENT FOR WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS.
(a) Partnership Agreements.--Section 221 of the Flood Control Act of
1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``under the provisions'' and all that
follows through ``under any other'' and inserting
``under any'';
(B) by striking ``to furnish its required cooperation
for'' and inserting ``under which each party agrees to
carry out its responsibilities and requirements for
implementation or construction of''; and
(C) by inserting after ``$25,000.'' the following:
``Such agreement may include a provision for damages in
the event of a failure of one or more parties to
perform.'';
(2) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and
(3) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
``(e) Limitation.--Nothing in subsection (a) shall be construed as
limiting the authority of the Secretary to ensure that an agreement
under this section meets all requirements of law and policies of the
Secretary in effect on the date of entry into the agreement.''.
(b) Local Cooperation.--Section 912(b) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (101 Stat. 4190) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking ``shall'' the first place it appears
and inserting ``may''; and
(B) by striking the last sentence; and
(2) in paragraph (4)--
(A) by inserting after ``injunction, for'' the
following: ``payment of damages or, for'';
(B) by striking ``to collect a civil penalty imposed
under this section,''; and
(C) by striking ``any civil penalty imposed under
this section,'' and inserting ``any damages,''.
(c) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsections (a) and (b)
only apply to partnership agreements entered into after the date of
enactment of this Act; except that at the request of a non-Federal
interest for a project, the district engineer for the district in which
the project is located may amend a project partnership agreement
entered into on or before such date and under which construction on the
project has not been initiated as of such date of enactment for the
purpose of incorporating such amendments.
(d) Partnership and Cooperative Arrangements.--
(1) In general.--A goal of agreements entered into under
section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-
5(b)) shall be to further partnership and cooperative
arrangements, and the agreements shall be referred to as
``partnership agreements''.
(2) References to cooperation agreements.--Any reference in a
law, regulation, document, or other paper of the United States
to a cooperation agreement or project cooperation agreement
shall be considered to be a reference to a partnership
agreement or a project partnership agreement, respectively.
(3) References to partnership agreements.--Any reference to a
partnership agreement or project partnership agreement in this
Act (other than this section) shall be considered as a
reference to a cooperation agreement or a project cooperation
agreement, respectively.
(e) Delegation of Authority.--Not later than September 30, 2006, the
Secretary shall issue policies and guidelines for partnership
agreements that delegate to the district engineers, at a minimum--
(1) the authority to approve any policy in a partnership
agreement that has appeared in an agreement previously approved
by the Secretary;
(2) the authority to approve any policy in a partnership
agreement the specific terms of which are dictated by law, or
by a final feasibility study, final environmental impact
statement, or other final decision document for a water
resources development project;
(3) the authority to approve any partnership agreement that
complies with the policies and guidelines issued by the
Secretary; and
(4) the authority to sign any partnership agreement for any
water resources development project unless, within 30 days of
the date of authorization of the project, the Secretary
notifies the district engineer in which the project will be
carried out that the Secretary wishes to retain the prerogative
to sign the partnership agreement for that project.
(f) Report to Congress.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, and every year thereafter, the Secretary shall
submit to Congress a report detailing the following:
(1) the number of partnership agreements signed by district
engineers and the number of partnership agreements signed by
the Secretary, and
(2) for any partnership agreement signed by the Secretary, an
explanation of why delegation to the district engineer was not
appropriate.
(g) Public Availability.--Not later than the 120th day following the
date of enactment of this Act, the Chief of Engineers shall ensure that
each district engineer has made available on the Internet all
partnership agreements entered into under section 221 of the Flood
Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5(b)) within the preceding 10
years and all partnership agreements for water resources development
projects currently being carried out in that district and shall make
any partnership agreements entered into after such date of enactment
available on the Internet within 7 days of the date on which such
agreement is entered into.
SEC. 2007. ASSISTANCE FOR REMEDIATION, RESTORATION, AND REUSE.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may provide to State and local
governments assessment, planning, and design assistance for
remediation, environmental restoration, or reuse of areas located
within the boundaries of such State or local governments where such
remediation, environmental restoration, or reuse will contribute to the
improvement of water quality or the conservation of water and related
resources of drainage basins and watersheds within the United States.
(b) Non-Federal Share.--The non-Federal share of the cost of
assistance provided under subsection (a) shall be 50 percent.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this section $30,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2006 through 2010.
SEC. 2008. COMPILATION OF LAWS.
Within one year after the date of enactment of this Act, the laws of
the United States relating to the improvement of rivers and harbors,
flood control, beach erosion, and other water resources development
enacted after November 8, 1966, and before January 1, 2006, shall be
compiled under the direction of the Secretary and the Chief of
Engineers and printed for the use of the Department of the Army,
Congress, and the general public. The Secretary shall reprint the
volumes containing such laws enacted before November 8, 1966. In
addition, the Secretary shall include an index in each volume so
compiled or reprinted. Not later than December 1, 2006, the Secretary
shall transmit at least 25 copies of each such volume to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate. The
Secretary shall also ensure that such compilations are available
through electronic means, including the Internet.
SEC. 2009. DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL.
Section 217 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C.
2326a; 110 Stat. 3694-3696) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d);
(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
``(c) Governmental Partnerships.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may enter into cost sharing
agreements with one 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.
One or more of the parties of the agreement may perform the
acquisition, design, construction, management, or operation of
a dredged material processing, treatment, or disposal facility.
If appropriate, the Secretary may combine portions of separate
construction or maintenance appropriations from separate
Federal projects with the appropriate combined cost sharing
between the various projects when the facility serves to manage
dredged material from multiple Federal projects located in the
geographic region of the facility.
``(2) Public financing.--
``(A) Agreements.--
``(i) Specified federal funding sources and
cost sharing.--The cost-sharing agreement used
shall clearly specify the Federal funding
sources and combined cost sharing when
applicable to multiple Federal navigation
projects and the responsibilities and risks of
each of the parties related to present and
future dredged material managed by the
facility.
``(ii) Management of sediments.--The cost-
sharing agreement may include the management of
sediments from the maintenance dredging of
Federal navigation projects that do not have
partnership agreements. The cost-sharing
agreement may allow the non-Federal sponsor to
receive reimbursable payments from the Federal
Government for commitments made by the sponsor
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.--Nothing in this subsection supersedes
or modifies existing agreements between the Federal
Government and any non-Federal sponsors for the cost
sharing, construction, and operation and maintenance of
Federal navigation projects. Subject to the approval of
the Secretary and in accordance with existing laws,
regulations, and policies, a non-Federal public sponsor
of a Federal navigation project may seek credit for
funds provided in 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. The non-
Federal sponsor shall be responsible for providing all
necessary lands, easements, rights-of-way, or
relocations associated with the facility and shall
receive credit for these items.''; and
(3) in each of subsections (d)(1) and (d)(2)(A), as so
redesignated--
(A) by inserting ``and maintenance'' after
``operation''; and
(B) by inserting ``processing, treatment, or'' after
``dredged material'' the first place it appears.
SEC. 2010. WETLANDS MITIGATION.
In carrying out a water resources project that involves wetlands
mitigation and that has impacts that occur within the service area of a
mitigation bank, the Secretary, to the maximum extent practicable and
where appropriate, shall give preference to the use of the mitigation
bank if the bank contains sufficient available credits to offset the
impact and the bank is approved in accordance with the Federal Guidance
for the Establishment, Use and Operation of Mitigation Banks (60 Fed.
Reg. 58605) or other applicable Federal law (including regulations).
SEC. 2011. REMOTE AND SUBSISTENCE HARBORS.
(a) In General.--In conducting a study of harbor and navigation
improvements, the Secretary may recommend a project without the need to
demonstrate that the project is justified solely by national economic
development benefits if the Secretary determines that--
(1)(A) the community to be served by the project is at least
70 miles from the nearest surface accessible commercial port
and has no direct rail or highway link to another community
served by a surface accessible port or harbor; or
(B) the project would be located in the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, or American Samoa;
(2) the harbor is economically critical such that over 80
percent of the goods transported through the harbor would be
consumed within the community served by the harbor and
navigation improvement; and
(3) the long-term viability of the community would be
threatened without the harbor and navigation improvement.
(b) Justification.--In considering whether to recommend a project
under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consider the benefits of the
project to--
(1) public health and safety of the local community,
including access to facilities designed to protect public
health and safety;
(2) access to natural resources for subsistence purposes;
(3) local and regional economic opportunities;
(4) welfare of the local population; and
(5) social and cultural value to the community.
SEC. 2012. BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL.
(a) In General.--Section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326) is amended by striking subsections (c) through
(g) and inserting the following:
``(c) In General.--The Secretary may carry out projects to transport
and place sediment obtained in connection with the construction,
operation, or maintenance of an authorized water resources project at
locations selected by a non-Federal entity for use in the construction,
repair, or rehabilitation of projects determined by the Secretary to be
in the public interest and 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.
``(d) Cooperative Agreement.--Any project undertaken pursuant to this
section shall be initiated only after non-Federal interests have
entered into an agreement with the Secretary in which the non-Federal
interests agree to pay the non-Federal share of the cost of
construction of the project and 100 percent of the cost of operation,
maintenance, replacement, and rehabilitation of the project in
accordance with section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213).
``(e) Special Rule.--Construction of a project under subsection (a)
for one or more of the purposes of protection, restoration, or creation
of aquatic and ecologically related habitat, the cost of which does not
exceed $750,000 and which will be located in a disadvantaged community
as determined by the Secretary, may be carried out at Federal expense.
``(f) Determination of Construction Costs.--Costs associated with
construction of a project under this section shall be limited solely to
construction costs that are in excess of those costs necessary to carry
out the dredging for construction, operation, or maintenance of the
authorized water resources project in the most cos- effective way,
consistent with economic, engineering, and environmental criteria.
``(g) Selection of Sediment Disposal Method.--In developing and
carrying out a water resources project involving the disposal of
sediment, 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 subsections
(d) and (f).
``(h) 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.
``(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
appropriated $30,000,000 annually for projects under this section of
which not more than $3,000,000 annually may be used for construction of
projects described in subsection (e). Such sums shall remain available
until expended.
``(j) Regional Sediment Management Planning.--In consultation with
appropriate State and Federal agencies, the Secretary may develop, at
Federal expense, plans for regional management of sediment obtained in
conjunction with the construction, operation, or maintenance of water
resources projects, including potential beneficial uses of sediment for
construction, repair, or rehabilitation of public projects for
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.
``(k) Use of Funds.--
``(1) Non-federal interest.--The non-Federal interest for a
project described in this section may use, and the Secretary
shall accept, funds provided under any other Federal program,
to satisfy, in whole or in part, the non-Federal share of the
cost of such project if such funds are authorized to be used to
carry out such project.
``(2) Other federal agencies.--The non-Federal share of the
cost of construction of a project under this section may be met
through contributions from a Federal agency made directly to
the Secretary, with the consent of the affected local
government, if such funds are authorized to be used to carry
out such project. Before initiating a project to which this
paragraph applies, the Secretary shall enter into an agreement
with a non-Federal interest in which the non-Federal interest
agrees to pay 100 percent of the cost of operation,
maintenance, replacement, and rehabilitation of the project.''.
(b) Repeal.--
(1) In general.--Section 145 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C. 426j) is repealed.
(2) Hold harmless.--The repeal made by paragraph (1) shall
not affect the authority of the Secretary to complete any
project being carried out under such section 145 on the day
before the date of enactment of this Act.
(c) Priority Areas.--In carrying out section 204 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326), the Secretary shall
give priority to the following:
(1) A project at Little Rock Slackwater Harbor, Arkansas.
(2) A project at Egmont Key, Florida.
(3) A project in the vicinity of Calcasieu Ship Channel,
Louisiana.
(4) A project in the vicinity of the Smith Point Park
Pavilion and the TWA Flight 800 Memorial, Brookhaven, New York.
(5) A project in the vicinity of Morehead City, North
Carolina.
(6) A project in the vicinity of Galveston Bay, Texas.
SEC. 2013. COST-SHARING PROVISIONS FOR CERTAIN AREAS.
Section 1156 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33
U.S.C. 2310; 100 Stat. 4256) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 1156. COST-SHARING PROVISIONS FOR CERTAIN AREAS.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall waive local cost-sharing
requirements up to $500,000 for all studies and projects in the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands, and the United States Virgin Islands, in
Indian country (as defined in section 1151 of title 18, United States
Code, and including lands that are within the jurisdictional area of an
Oklahoma Indian tribe, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior,
and are recognized by the Secretary of the Interior as eligible for
trust land status under part 151 of title 25, Code of Federal
Regulations) or on land in the State of Alaska owned by an Alaska
Native Regional Corporation or an Alaska Native Village Corporation (as
those terms are defined in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43
U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)) or the Metlakatla Indian community.
``(b) Use of Funds.--The non-Federal interest for a study or project
for an area described in subsection (a) may use, and the Secretary
shall accept, funds provided under any other Federal program, to
satisfy, in whole or in part, the non-Federal share of such study or
project if such funds are authorized to be used to carry out such study
or project.''.
SEC. 2014. REVISION OF PROJECT PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT.
Upon authorization by law of an increase in the maximum amount of
Federal funds that may be allocated for a project or an increase in the
total cost of a project authorized to be carried out by the Secretary,
the Secretary shall revise the project partnership agreement for the
project to take into account the change in Federal participation in the
project.
SEC. 2015. COST SHARING.
An increase in the maximum amount of Federal funds that may be
allocated for a project or an increase in the total cost of a project
authorized to be carried out by the Secretary shall not affect any
cost-sharing requirement applicable to the project under title I of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211 et seq.).
SEC. 2016. CREDIT FOR WORK PERFORMED BEFORE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT.
If the Secretary is authorized to credit toward the non-Federal share
the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest before the
date of the partnership agreement for the project and such work has not
been carried out as of the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary
shall enter into an agreement with the non-Federal interest for the
project under which the non-Federal interest shall carry out such work,
and the credit shall apply only to work carried out under the
agreement.
SEC. 2017. RECREATION USER FEE REVENUES.
Section 225 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat.
297-298) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)--
(A) by striking ``During fiscal years 1999 through
2002, the'' and inserting ``The''; and
(B) by striking ``$34,000,000'' and inserting
``$42,000,000''; and
(2) in subsection (a)(3) by striking ``September 30, 2005''
and inserting ``expended''.
SEC. 2018. EXPEDITED ACTIONS FOR EMERGENCY FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION.
The Secretary shall expedite any authorized planning, design, and
construction of any project for flood damage reduction for an area
that, within the preceding 5 years, has been subject to flooding that
resulted in the loss of life and caused damage of sufficient severity
and magnitude to warrant a declaration of a major disaster by the
President under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster and Emergency Relief
Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.).
SEC. 2019. WATERSHED AND RIVER BASIN ASSESSMENTS.
(a) In General.--Section 729 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2267a; 114 Stat. 2587-2588; 100 Stat. 4164) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (d)--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (4);
(B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph
(5) and inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(6) Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio;
``(7) Sauk River Basin, Snohomish and Skagit Counties,
Washington;
``(8) Niagara River Basin, New York; and
``(9) Genesee River Basin, New York.'';
(2) by striking paragraph (1) of subsection (f) and inserting
the following:
``(1) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the costs
of an assessment carried out under this section on or after
December 11, 2000, shall be 25 percent.''; and
(3) by striking subsection (g).
(b) Revision of Partnership Agreement.--The Secretary shall revise
the partnership agreement for any assessment being carried out under
such section 729 to take into account the change in non-Federal
participation in the assessment as a result of the amendments made by
subsection (a).
SEC. 2020. TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.
(a) Scope.--Section 203(b)(1)(B) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2269(b)(1)(B); 114 Stat. 2589) is amended by
inserting after ``Code'' the following: ``, and including lands that
are within the jurisdictional area of an Oklahoma Indian tribe, as
determined by the Secretary of the Interior, and are recognized by the
Secretary of the Interior as eligible for trust land status under part
151 of title 25, Code of Federal Regulations''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 203(e) of such Act is
amended by striking ``2006'' and inserting ``2010''.
SEC. 2021. WILDFIRE FIREFIGHTING.
Section 309 of Public Law 102-154 (42 U.S.C. 1856a-1; 105 Stat. 1034)
is amended by inserting ``the Secretary of the Army,'' after ``the
Secretary of Energy,''.
SEC. 2022. CREDIT FOR NONCONSTRUCTION SERVICES.
(a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to allow a non-Federal
interest credit toward its share of project costs for any authorized
water resources development project for the cost of materials and in-
kind services, including design and management services but not
including construction, provided by the non-Federal interest for
carrying out the project.
(b) Limitation.--Credit authorized under subsection (a)--
(1) shall not exceed the non-Federal share of project costs;
(2) shall not alter any other requirements that require a
non-Federal interest to provide lands, easements, rights-of-
way, and dredged material disposal areas for the project;
(3) shall not exceed the actual and reasonable costs of the
materials or in-kind services provided by the non-Federal
interest, as determined by the Secretary; and
(4) shall not be allowed unless the Secretary has determined
that such materials or services are integral to the project.
SEC. 2023. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.
Section 22 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C.
1962d-16) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a) by striking ``The Secretary'' and
inserting the following:
``(a) Federal State Cooperation.--
``(1) Comprehensive plans.--The Secretary'';
(2) by inserting after the last sentence in subsection (a)
the following:
``(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 such 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.'';
(3) in subsection (b)(1) by striking ``this section'' each
place it appears and inserting ``subsection (a)(1)'';
(4) in subsection (b)(2) by striking ``Up to 1/2 of the'' and
inserting ``The'';
(5) in subsection (c) by striking ``(c) There is'' and
inserting the following:
``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
``(1) Federal and state cooperation.--There is'';
(6) in subsection (c)(1) (as designated by paragraph (5))--
(A) by striking ``the provisions of this section''
and inserting ``subsection (a)(1);''; and
(B) by striking ``$500,000'' and inserting
``$1,000,000'';
(7) by inserting at the end of subsection (c) the following:
``(2) Technical assistance.--There is authorized to be
appropriated $5,000,000 annually to carry out subsection
(a)(2), of which not more than $2,000,000 annually may be used
by the Secretary to enter into cooperative agreements with
nonprofit organizations to provide assistance to rural and
small communities.'';
(8) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and
(9) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
``(d) Annual Submission of Proposed Activities.--Concurrent with the
President's submission to Congress of the President's request for
appropriations for the Civil Works Program for a fiscal year, the
Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report describing the
individual activities proposed for funding under subsection (a)(1) for
that fiscal year.''.
SEC. 2024. COORDINATION AND SCHEDULING OF FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL
ACTIONS.
(a) Notice of Intent.--Upon request of the non-Federal interest in
the form of a written notice of intent to construct or modify a non-
Federal water supply, wastewater infrastructure, flood damage
reduction, storm damage reduction, ecosystem restoration, or navigation
project that requires the approval of the Secretary, the Secretary
shall initiate, subject to subsection (g)(1), procedures to establish a
schedule for consolidating Federal, State, and local agency and Indian
tribe environmental assessments, project reviews, and issuance of all
permits for the construction or modification of the project. The non-
Federal interest shall submit to the Secretary, with the notice of
intent, studies and documentation, including environmental reviews,
that may be required by Federal law for decisionmaking on the proposed
project. All States and Indian tribes having jurisdiction over the
proposed project shall be invited by the Secretary, but shall not be
required, to participate in carrying out this section with respect to
the project.
(b) Procedural Requirements.--Within 15 days after receipt of notice
under subsection (a), the Secretary shall publish such notice in the
Federal Register. The Secretary also shall provide written notification
of the receipt of a notice under subsection (a) to all State and local
agencies and Indian tribes that may be required to issue permits for
the construction of the project or related activities. The Secretary
shall solicit the cooperation of those agencies and request their entry
into a memorandum of agreement described in subsection (c) with respect
to the project. Within 30 days after publication of the notice in the
Federal Register, State and local agencies and Indian tribes that
intend to enter into the memorandum of agreement with respect to the
project shall notify the Secretary of their intent in writing.
(c) Scheduling Agreement.--Within 90 days after the date of receipt
of notice under subsection (a) with respect to a project, the Secretary
of the Interior, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency, as necessary, and any State or
local agencies that have notified the Secretary under subsection (b)
shall enter into an agreement with the Secretary establishing a
schedule of decisionmaking for approval of the project and permits
associated with the project and with related activities.
(d) Contents of Agreement.--An agreement entered into under
subsection (c) with respect to a project, to the extent practicable,
shall consolidate hearing and comment periods, procedures for data
collection and report preparation, and the environmental review and
permitting processes associated with the project and related
activities. The agreement shall detail, to the extent possible, the
non-Federal interest's responsibilities for data development and
information that may be necessary to process each permit required for
the project, including a schedule when the information and data will be
provided to the appropriate Federal, State, or local agency or Indian
tribe.
(e) Revision of Agreement.--The Secretary may revise an agreement
entered into under subsection (c) with respect to a project once to
extend the schedule to allow the non-Federal interest the minimum
amount of additional time necessary to revise its original application
to meet the objections of a Federal, State, or local agency or Indian
tribe that is a party to the agreement.
(f) Final Decision.--Not later than the final day of a schedule
established by an agreement entered into under subsection (c) with
respect to a project, the Secretary shall notify the non-Federal
interest of the final decision on the project and whether the permit or
permits have been issued.
(g) Reimbursement.--
(1) Costs of coordination.--The costs incurred by the
Secretary to establish and carry out a schedule to consolidate
Federal, State, and local agency and Indian tribe environmental
assessments, project reviews, and permit issuance for a project
under this section shall be paid by the non-Federal interest.
(2) Costs incurred to expedite permits and reviews.--
(A) Acceptance of non-federal funds.--The Secretary
may accept funds from the non-Federal interest to hire
additional staff or obtain the services of consultants,
or to provide financial, technical, and administrative
support to agencies that have entered into an agreement
with the Secretary under subsection (c) with respect to
a project in order to facilitate the timely processing,
review, and completion of applicable Federal, State,
and local agency and Indian tribe environmental
assessments, project reviews, and permits for the
project.
(B) Use of funds.--Funds accepted under this
paragraph shall be used to supplement existing
resources of the Secretary or a participating agency.
(C) Assurance of level of service and impartiality.--
The Secretary shall ensure that the Department of the
Army and any participating agency that accepts funds
under this paragraph shall continue to provide the same
level of service to other projects and other
responsibilities not covered by this section as it
would provide, notwithstanding any activities carried
out under this section, and that acceptance of such
funds will not impact impartial decisionmaking either
substantively or procedurally.
(h) Report on Timesavings Methods.--Not later than 3 years after the
date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall prepare and
transmit to Congress a report estimating the time required for the
issuance of all Federal, State, local, and tribal permits for the
construction of non-Federal projects for water supply, wastewater
infrastructure, flood damage reduction, storm damage reduction,
ecosystem restoration, and navigation. The Secretary shall include in
that report recommendations for further reducing the amount of time
required for the issuance of those permits, including any proposed
changes in existing law.
SEC. 2025. PROJECT STREAMLINING.
(a) Policy.--The benefits of water resources projects are important
to the Nation's economy and environment, and recommendations to
Congress regarding such projects should not be delayed due to
uncoordinated and sequential environmental reviews or the failure to
timely resolve disputes during the development of water resources
projects.
(b) Scope.--This section shall apply to each study initiated after
the date of enactment of this Act to develop a feasibility report under
section 905 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
2282), or a reevaluation report, for a water resources project if the
Secretary determines that such study requires an environmental impact
statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
(c) Water Resources Project Review Process.--The Secretary shall
develop and implement a coordinated review process for water resources
projects.
(d) Coordinated Reviews.--
(1) In general.--The coordinated review process under this
section shall provide that all environmental reviews, analyses,
opinions, permits, licenses, and approvals that must be issued
or made by a Federal, State, or local government agency or
Indian tribe for a water resources project will be conducted
concurrently, to the maximum extent practicable, and completed
within a time period established by the Secretary, in
cooperation with the agencies identified under subsection (e)
with respect to the project.
(2) Agency participation.--Each Federal agency identified
under subsection (e) shall formulate and implement
administrative, policy, and procedural mechanisms to enable the
agency to ensure completion of environmental reviews, analyses,
opinions, permits, licenses, and approvals described in
paragraph (1) in a timely and environmentally responsible
manner.
(e) Identification of Jurisdictional Agencies.--With respect to each
water resources project, the Secretary shall identify, as soon as
practicable, all Federal, State, and local government agencies and
Indian tribes that may have jurisdiction over environmental-related
matters that may be affected by the project or may be required by law
to conduct an environmental-related review or analysis of the project
or determine whether to issue an environmental-related permit, license,
or approval for the project.
(f) State Authority.--If a coordinated review process is being
implemented under this section by the Secretary with respect to a water
resources project within the boundaries of a State, the State,
consistent with State law, may choose to participate in such process
and provide that all State agencies that have jurisdiction over
environmental-related matters that may be affected by the project or
may be required by law to conduct an environmental-related review or
analysis of the project or determine whether to issue an environmental-
related permit, license, or approval for the project, be subject to the
process.
(g) Memorandum of Understanding.--The coordinated review process
developed under this section may be incorporated into a memorandum of
understanding for a project between the Secretary and the heads of
other Federal, State, and local government agencies and Indian tribes
identified under subsection (e) with respect to the project and the
non-Federal interest for the project.
(h) Effect of Failure to Meet Deadline.--
(1) Notification of congress and ceq.--If the Secretary
determines that a Federal, State, or local government agency,
Indian tribe, or non-Federal interest that is participating in
a coordinated review process under this section with respect to
a project has not met a deadline established under subsection
(d) for the project, the Secretary shall notify, within 30 days
of the date of such determination, the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives, the Committee on Environment and Public Works
of the Senate, the Council on Environmental Quality, and the
agency, Indian tribe, or non-Federal interest involved about
the failure to meet the deadline.
(2) Agency report.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
receipt of a notice under paragraph (1), the Federal, State, or
local government agency, Indian tribe, or non-Federal interest
involved shall submit a report to the Secretary, the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives, the Committee on Environment and Public Works
of the Senate, and the Council on Environmental Quality
explaining why the agency, Indian tribe, or non-Federal
interest did not meet the deadline and what actions it intends
to take to complete or issue the required review, analysis,
opinion, permit, license, or approval.
(i) Purpose and Need and Determination of Reasonable Alternatives.--
(1) In general.--As an official of the lead Federal agency
that is responsible for carrying out a study to which this
section applies and its associated process for meeting the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and as the Federal agency with
expertise in water resources development, the Secretary, in
carrying out such study and process, shall--
(A) define the purpose and need for the proposed
water resources project; and
(B) determine which alternatives are reasonable and
may be reasonably anticipated to meet project purposes
and needs.
(2) Streamlining study.--To streamline a study to which this
section applies and its associated process for meeting the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Secretary may eliminate from
consideration any alternatives the Secretary determines are not
reasonable or are not reasonably anticipated to meet project
purposes and needs.
(j) Solicitation and Consideration of Comments.--In applying
subsection (i), the Secretary shall solicit, consider, and respond to
comments from interested persons and governmental entities.
(k) Categorical Exclusions.--Not later than 120 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop and publish a
list of categorical exclusions from the requirement that an
environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement be
prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.) for water resources projects.
(l) Limitations.--Nothing in this section shall preempt or interfere
with--
(1) any practice of seeking public comment;
(2) any power, jurisdiction, or authority that a Federal,
State, or local government agency, Indian tribe, or non-Federal
interest has with respect to carrying out a water resources
project; or
(3) any obligation to comply with the provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4371 et
seq.) and the regulations issued by the Council on
Environmental Quality to carry out such Act.
(m) Benchmarks.--Within 12 months of the date of enactment of this
Act, the Chief of Engineers shall establish benchmarks for determining
the length of time it should take to conduct a feasibility study for a
water resources development project and its associated review process
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4371 et
seq.). Benchmarks may be established for activities based on project
type, size, cost, and complexity. The Chief of Engineers shall use such
benchmarks as a management tool to make the feasibility study process
more efficient in all districts of the Army Corps of Engineers.
SEC. 2026. LAKES PROGRAM.
Section 602(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100
Stat. 4148; 110 Stat. 3758; 113 Stat. 295) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at end of paragraph (18);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (19) and
inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(20) Kinkaid Lake, Jackson County, Illinois, removal of
silt and aquatic growth and measures to address excessive
sedimentation;
``(21) McCarter Pond, Borough of Fairhaven, New Jersey,
removal of silt and measures to address water quality;
``(22) Rogers Pond, Franklin Township, New Jersey, removal of
silt and restoration of structural integrity;
``(23) Greenwood Lake, New York and New Jersey, removal of
silt and aquatic growth;
``(24) Lake Rodgers, Creedmoor, North Carolina, removal of
silt and excessive nutrients and restoration of structural
integrity; and
``(25) Lake Luxembourg, Pennsylvania.''.
SEC. 2027. MITIGATION FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE LOSSES.
(a) Mitigation Plan Contents.--Section 906(d) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(d)) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(3) Contents.--A mitigation plan shall include--
``(A) a description of the physical action to be
undertaken to achieve the mitigation objectives within
the watershed in which such losses occur and, in any
case in which mitigation must take place outside the
watershed, a justification detailing the rationale for
undertaking the mitigation outside of the watershed;
``(B) a description of the lands or interests in
lands to be acquired for mitigation and the basis for a
determination that such lands are available for
acquisition;
``(C) the type, amount, and characteristics of the
habitat being restored;
``(D) success criteria for mitigation based on
replacement of lost functions and values of the
habitat, including hydrologic and vegetative
characteristics; and
``(E) a plan for any necessary monitoring to
determine the success of the mitigation, including the
cost and duration of any monitoring and, to the extent
practicable, the entities responsible for any
monitoring.
``(4) Responsibility for monitoring.--In any case in which it
is not practicable to identify in a mitigation plan for a water
resources project, the entity responsible for monitoring at the
time of a final report of the Chief of Engineers or other final
decision document for the project, such entity shall be
identified in the partnership agreement entered into with the
non-Federal interest.''.
(b) Status Report.--
(1) In general.--Concurrent with the President's submission
to Congress of the President's request for appropriations for
the Civil Works Program for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall
submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of
the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment
and Public Works of the Senate a report on the status of
construction of projects that require mitigation under section
906 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
2283; 100 Stat. 4186) and the status of such mitigation.
(2) Projects included.--The status report shall include the
status of all projects that are under construction, all
projects for which the President requests funding for the next
fiscal year, and all projects that have completed construction,
but have not completed the mitigation required under section
906 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986.
SEC. 2028. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.
(a) In General.--For the purpose of expediting the cost-effective
design and construction of wetlands restoration that is part of an
authorized water resources project, the Secretary may enter into
cooperative agreements under section 6305 of title 31, United States
Code, with nonprofit organizations with expertise in wetlands
restoration to carry out such design and construction on behalf of the
Secretary.
(b) Limitations.--
(1) Per project limit.--A cooperative agreement under this
section shall not obligate the Secretary to pay the nonprofit
organization more than $1,000,000 for any single wetlands
restoration project.
(2) Annual limit.--The total value of work carried out under
cooperative agreements under this section may not exceed
$5,000,000 in any fiscal year.
SEC. 2029. PROJECT PLANNING.
(a) Objectives.--
(1) Flood damage reduction, navigation, and hurricane and
storm damage reduction projects.--The Federal objective of any
study of the feasibility of a water resources project carried
out by the Secretary for flood damage reduction, navigation, or
hurricane and storm damage reduction shall be to maximize the
net national economic development benefits associated with the
project, consistent with protecting the Nation's environment.
(2) Ecosystem restoration projects.--The Federal objective of
any study of the feasibility of a water resources project for
ecosystem restoration carried out by the Secretary shall be to
maximize the net national ecosystem restoration benefits
associated with the project, consistent with national economic
development.
(3) Projects with multiple purposes.--In the case of a study
that includes multiple project purposes, the primary and other
project purposes shall be evaluated, based on the relevant
Federal objective identified under paragraphs (1) and (2).
(4) Selection of project alternatives.--
(A) In general.--Notwithstanding the Federal
objectives identified in this subsection, the Secretary
may select a project alternative that does not maximize
net benefits if there is an overriding reason based
upon other Federal, State, local, or international
concerns.
(B) Flood damage reduction, navigation, and hurricane
storm damage reduction projects.--With respect to a
water resources project described in paragraph (1), an
overriding reason for selecting a plan other than the
plan that maximizes national economic development
benefits may be if the Secretary determines, and the
non-Federal interest concurs, that an alternative plan
is feasible and achieves the project purposes while
providing greater ecosystem restoration benefits.
(C) Ecosystem restoration projects.--With respect to
a water resources project described in paragraph (2),
an overriding reason for selecting a plan other than
the plan that maximizes national ecosystem restoration
benefits may be if the Secretary determines, and the
non-Federal interest concurs, that an alternative plan
is feasible and achieves the project purposes while
providing greater economic development benefits.
(b) Identifying Additional Benefits and Projects.--
(1) Primarily economic benefits.--In conducting a study of
the feasibility of a project where the primary benefits are
expected to be economic, the Secretary may identify ecosystem
restoration benefits that may be achieved in the study area
and, after obtaining the participation of a non-Federal
interest, may study and recommend construction of additional
measures, a separate project, or separable project element to
achieve those benefits.
(2) Primarily ecosystem restoration benefits.--In conducting
a study of the feasibility of a project where the primary
benefits are expected to be associated with ecosystem
restoration, the Secretary may identify economic benefits that
may be achieved in the study area and, after obtaining the
participation of a non-Federal interest, may study and
recommend construction of additional measures, a separate
project, or separable project element to achieve those
benefits.
(3) Rules applicable to certain measures, projects, and
elements.--Any additional measures, separate project, or
separable element identified under paragraph (1) or (2) and
recommended for construction shall not be considered integral
to the underlying project and, if authorized, shall be subject
to a separate partnership agreement, unless a non-Federal
interest agrees to share in the cost of the additional
measures, project, or separable element.
(c) Calculation of Benefits and Costs for Flood Damage Reduction
Projects.--A feasibility study for a project for flood damage reduction
shall include, as part of the calculation of benefits and costs--
(1) a calculation of the residual risk of flooding following
completion of the proposed project;
(2) a calculation of any upstream or downstream impacts of
the proposed project; and
(3) calculations to ensure that the benefits and costs
associated with structural and nonstructural alternatives are
evaluated in an equitable manner.
SEC. 2030. INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW.
(a) Project Studies Subject to Independent Peer Review.--
(1) In general.--Project studies shall be subject to a peer
review by an independent panel of experts as determined under
this section.
(2) Scope.--The peer review may include a review of the
economic and environmental assumptions and projections, project
evaluation data, economic analyses, environmental analyses,
engineering analyses, formulation of alternative plans, methods
for integrating risk and uncertainty, models used in evaluation
of economic or environmental impacts of proposed projects, and
any biological opinions of the project study.
(3) Project studies subject to peer review.--
(A) Mandatory.--A project study shall be subject to
peer review under paragraph (1) if the project has an
estimated total cost of more than $50,000,000,
including mitigation costs, and is not determined by
the Chief of Engineers to be exempt from peer review
under paragraph (6).
(B) Discretionary.--A project study may be subject to
peer review if--
(i) the Governor of an affected State
requests a peer review by an independent panel
of experts;
(ii) the head of a Federal or State agency
charged with reviewing the project study
determines that the project is likely to have a
significant adverse impact on environmental,
cultural, or other resources under the
jurisdiction of the agency after implementation
of proposed mitigation plans and requests a
peer review by an independent panel of experts;
or
(iii) the Chief of Engineers determines that
the project study is controversial.
(4) Controversial projects.--Upon receipt of a written
request under paragraph (3)(B) or on the initiative of the
Chief of Engineers, the Chief of Engineers shall determine
whether a project study is controversial.
(5) Factors to consider.--In determining whether a project
study is controversial, the Chief of Engineers shall consider
if--
(A) there is a significant public dispute as to the
size, nature, or effects of the project; or
(B) there is a significant public dispute as to the
economic or environmental costs or benefits of the
project.
(6) Project studies excluded from peer review.--Project
studies that may be excluded from peer review under paragraph
(1) are--
(A) a study for a project the Chief of Engineers
determines--
(i) is not controversial;
(ii) has no more than negligible adverse
impacts on scarce or unique cultural, historic,
or tribal resources;
(iii) has no substantial adverse impacts on
fish and wildlife species and their habitat
prior to the implementation of mitigation
measures; and
(iv) has, before implementation of mitigation
measures, no more than a negligible adverse
impact on a species listed as endangered or
threatened species under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1539 et seq.) or the
critical habitat of such species designated
under such Act; and
(B) a study for a project pursued under section 205
of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s),
section 2 of the Flood Control Act of August 28, 1937
(33 U.S.C. 701g), section 14 of the Flood Control Act
of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r), section 107(a) of the River
and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577(a)), 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), section 111 of the River and Harbor Act
of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 426i), section 3 of the Act entitled
``An Act authorizing the construction, repair, and
preservation of certain public works on rivers and
harbors, and for other purposes'', approved March 2,
1945 (33 U.S.C. 603a), section 1135 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a),
section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), or section 204 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326).
(7) Appeal.--The decision of the Chief of Engineers whether
to peer review a project study shall be published in the
Federal Register and shall be subject to appeal by a person
referred to in paragraph (3)(B)(i) or (3)(B)(ii) to the
Secretary of the Army if such appeal is made within the 30-day
period following the date of such publication.
(8) Determination of project cost.--For purposes of
determining the estimated total cost of a project under
paragraph (3)(A), the project cost shall be based upon the
reasonable estimates of the Chief of Engineers at the
completion of the reconnaissance study for the project. If the
reasonable estimate of project costs is subsequently determined
to be in excess of the amount in paragraph (3)(A), the Chief of
Engineers shall make a determination whether a project study
should be reviewed under this section.
(b) Timing of Peer Review.--The Chief of Engineers shall determine
the timing of a peer review of a project study under subsection (a). In
all cases, the peer review shall occur during the period beginning on
the date of the completion of the reconnaissance study for the project
and ending on the date the draft report of the Chief of Engineers for
the project is made available for public comment. Where the Chief of
Engineers has not initiated a peer review of a project study, the Chief
of Engineers shall consider, at a minimum, whether to initiate a peer
review at the time that--
(1) the without-project conditions are identified;
(2) the array of alternatives to be considered are
identified; and
(3) the preferred alternative is identified.
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require the Chief of
Engineers to conduct multiple peer reviews for a project study.
(c) Establishment of Panels.--
(1) In general.--For each project study subject to peer
review under subsection (a), as soon as practicable after the
Chief of Engineers determines that a project study will be
subject to peer review, the Chief of Engineers shall contract
with the National Academy of Sciences (or a similar independent
scientific and technical advisory organization), or an eligible
organization, to establish a panel of experts to peer review
the project study for technical and scientific sufficiency.
(2) Membership.--A panel of experts established for a project
study under this section shall be composed of independent
experts who represent a balance of areas of expertise suitable
for the review being conducted.
(3) Limitation on appointments.--An individual may not be
selected to serve on a panel of experts established for a
project study under this section if the individual has a
financial or close professional association with any
organization or group with a strong financial or organizational
interest in the project.
(4) Congressional notification.--Upon identification of a
project study for peer review under this section, but prior to
initiation of any review, the Chief of Engineers shall notify
the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives of such review.
(d) Duties of Panels.--A panel of experts established for a peer
review for a project study under this section shall, consistent with
the scope of the referral for review--
(1) conduct a peer review for the project study submitted to
the panel for review;
(2) assess the adequacy and acceptability of the economic and
environmental methods, models, and analyses used by the Chief
of Engineers;
(3) provide timely written and oral comments to the Chief of
Engineers throughout the development of the project study, as
requested; and
(4) submit to the Chief of Engineers a final report
containing the panel's economic, engineering, and environmental
analysis of the project study, including the panel's assessment
of the adequacy and acceptability of the economic and
environmental methods, models, and analyses used by the Chief
of Engineers, to accompany the publication of the project
study.
(e) Duration of Project Study Peer Reviews.--
(1) Deadline.--A panel of experts shall--
(A) complete its peer review under this section for a
project study and submit a report to the Chief of
Engineers under subsection (d)(4) within 180 days after
the date of establishment of the panel, or, if the
Chief of Engineers determines that a longer period of
time is necessary, such period of time established by
the Chief of Engineers, but in no event later than 90
days after the date a draft project study is made
available for public review; and
(B) terminate on the date of submission of the
report.
(2) Failure to meet deadline.--If a panel does not complete
its peer review of a project study under this section and
submit a report to the Chief of Engineers under subsection
(d)(4) on or before the deadline established by paragraph (1)
for the project study, the Chief of Engineers shall continue
the project study for the project that is subject to peer
review by the panel without delay.
(f) Recommendations of Panel.--
(1) Consideration by the chief of engineers.--After receiving
a report on a project study from a panel of experts under this
section and before entering a final record of decision for the
project, the Chief of Engineers shall consider any
recommendations contained in the report and prepare a written
response for any recommendations adopted or not adopted.
(2) Public availability and transmittal to congress.--After
receiving a report on a project study from a panel of experts
under this section, the Chief of Engineers shall--
(A) make a copy of the report and any written
response of the Chief of Engineers on recommendations
contained in the report available to the public; and
(B) transmit to Congress a copy of the report,
together with any such written response, on the date of
a final report of the Chief of Engineers or other final
decision document for a project study that is subject
to peer review by the panel.
(g) Costs.--
(1) In general.--The costs of a panel of experts established
for a peer review under this section--
(A) shall be a Federal expense; and
(B) shall not exceed $500,000.
(2) Waiver.--The Chief of Engineers may waive the $500,000
limitation contained in paragraph (1)(B) in cases that the
Chief of Engineers determines appropriate.
(h) Applicability.--This section shall apply to--
(1) project studies initiated during the 2-year period
preceding the date of enactment of this Act and for which the
array of alternatives to be considered has not been identified;
and
(2) project studies initiated during the period beginning on
such date of enactment and ending 4 years after such date of
enactment.
(i) Report.--Within 4 1/2 years of the date of enactment of this
section, the Chief of Engineers shall submit a report to Congress on
the implementation of this section.
(j) Nonapplicability of FACA.--The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to any peer review panel established under
this section.
(k) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to
affect any authority of the Chief of Engineers to cause or conduct a
peer review of a water resources project existing on the date of
enactment of this section.
(l) Definitions.--In this section, the following definitions apply:
(1) Project study.--The term ``project study'' means a
feasibility study or reevaluation study for a project. The term
also includes any other study associated with a modification or
update of a project that includes an environmental impact
statement, including the environmental impact statement.
(2) Affected state.--The term ``affected State'', as used
with respect to a project, means a State all or a portion of
which is within the drainage basin in which the project is or
would be located and would be economically or environmentally
affected as a consequence of the project.
(3) Eligible organization.--The term ``eligible
organization'' means an organization that--
(A) is described in section 501(c)(3), and exempt
from Federal tax under section 501(a), of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986;
(B) is independent;
(C) is free from conflicts of interest;
(D) does not carry out or advocate for or against
Federal water resources projects; and
(E) has experience in establishing and administering
peer review panels.
SEC. 2031. TRAINING FUNDS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may include individuals not employed
by the Department of the Army in training classes and courses offered
by the Corps of Engineers in any case in which the Secretary determines
that it is in the best interest of the Federal Government to include
those individuals as participants.
(b) Expenses.--
(1) In general.--An individual not employed by the Department
of the Army attending a training class or course described in
subsection (a) shall pay the full cost of the training provided
to the individual.
(2) Payments.--Payments made by an individual for training
received under paragraph (1), up to the actual cost of the
training--
(A) may be retained by the Secretary;
(B) shall be credited to an appropriation or account
used for paying training costs; and
(C) shall be available for use by the Secretary,
without further appropriation, for training purposes.
(3) Excess amounts.--Any payments received under paragraph
(2) that are in excess of the actual cost of training provided
shall be credited as miscellaneous receipts to the Treasury of
the United States.
SEC. 2032. ACCESS TO WATER RESOURCE DATA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out a program to provide
public access to water resource and related water quality data in the
custody of the Corps of Engineers.
(b) Data.--Public access under subsection (a) shall--
(1) include, at a minimum, access to data generated in water
resources project development and regulation under section 404
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344);
and
(2) appropriately employ geographic information system
technology and linkages to water resource models and analytical
techniques.
(c) Partnerships.--To the maximum extent practicable, in carrying out
activities under this section, the Secretary shall develop
partnerships, including cooperative agreements with State, tribal, and
local governments and other Federal agencies.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for each fiscal year.
SEC. 2033. SHORE PROTECTION PROJECTS.
(a) In General.--In accordance with the Act of July 3, 1930 (33
U.S.C. 426), and notwithstanding administrative actions, it is the
policy of the United States to promote beach nourishment for the
purposes of flood damage reduction and hurricane and storm damage
reduction and related research that encourage the protection,
restoration, and enhancement of sandy beaches, including beach
restoration and periodic beach renourishment for a period of 50 years,
on a comprehensive and coordinated basis by the Federal Government,
States, localities, and private enterprises.
(b) Preference.--In carrying out the policy, preference shall be
given to--
(1) areas in which there has been a Federal investment of
funds for the purposes described in subsection (a); and
(2) areas with respect to which the need for prevention or
mitigation of damage to shores and beaches is attributable to
Federal navigation projects or other Federal activities.
(c) Applicability.--The Secretary shall apply the policy to each
shore protection and beach renourishment project (including shore
protection and beach renourishment projects constructed before the date
of enactment of this Act).
SEC. 2034. ABILITY TO PAY.
(a) Criteria and Procedures.--Section 103(m)(2) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)(2)) is amended by
striking ``180 days after such date of enactment'' and inserting
``August 31, 2005''.
(b) Projects.--The Secretary shall apply the criteria and procedures
referred to in section 103(m) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)) to the following projects:
(1) St. johns bayou and new madrid floodway, missouri.--The
project for flood control, St. Johns Bayou and New Madrid
Floodway, Missouri, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4118).
(2) Lower rio grande basin, texas.--The project for flood
control, Lower Rio Grande Basin, Texas, authorized by section
401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100
Stat. 4125).
(3) West virginia and pennsylvania projects.--The projects
for flood control authorized by section 581 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3790-3791).
SEC. 2035. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.
Section 206(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33
U.S.C. 2330) is amended by striking ``$25,000,000'' and inserting
``$40,000,000''.
SEC. 2036. SMALL FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECTS.
Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s) is
amended by striking ``$50,000,000'' and inserting ``$60,000,000''.
SEC. 2037. LEASING AUTHORITY.
Section 4 of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing the construction
of certain public works on rivers and harbors for flood control, and
other purposes'', approved December 22, 1944 (16 U.S.C. 460d) is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``federally-recognized Indian tribes and''
before ``Federal'' the first place it appears;
(2) by inserting ``Indian tribes or'' after ``considerations,
to such''; and
(3) by inserting ``federally-recognized Indian tribe'' after
``That in any such lease or license to a''.
SEC. 2038. COST ESTIMATES.
The estimated Federal and non-Federal costs of projects authorized
to be carried out by the Secretary before, on, or after the date of
enactment of this Act are for informational purposes only and shall not
be interpreted as affecting the cost sharing responsibilities
established by law.
SEC. 2039. STUDIES AND REPORTS FOR WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS.
(a) Studies.--
(1) Cost-sharing requirements.--Section 105(a) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2215(a)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Detailed project reports.--The requirements of this
subsection that apply to a feasibility study also shall apply
to a study that results in a detailed project report, except
that--
``(A) the first $100,000 of the costs of a study that
results in a detailed project report shall be a Federal
expense; and
``(B) paragraph (1)(C)(ii) shall not apply to such a
study.''.
(2) Planning and engineering.--Section 105(b) of such Act (33
U.S.C. 2215(b)) is amended by striking ``authorized by this
Act''.
(3) Definitions.--Section 105 of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2215) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Definitions.--In this section, the following definitions apply:
``(1) Detailed project report.--The term `detailed project
report' means a report for a project not specifically
authorized by Congress in law or otherwise that determines the
feasibility of the project with a level of detail appropriate
to the scope and complexity of the recommended solution and
sufficient to proceed directly to the preparation of contract
plans and specifications. The term includes any associated
environmental impact statement and mitigation plan. For a
project for which the Federal cost does not exceed $1,000,000,
the term includes a planning and design analysis document.
``(2) Feasibility study.--The term `feasibility study' means
a study that results in a feasibility report under section 905,
and any associated environmental impact statement and
mitigation plan, prepared by the Corps of Engineers for a water
resources project. The term includes a study that results in a
project implementation report prepared under title VI of the
Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2680-2694),
a general reevaluation report, and a limited reevaluation
report.''.
(b) Reports.--
(1) Preparation.--Section 905(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282(a); 100 Stat. 4185) is
amended--
(A) by striking ``(a) In the case of any'' and
inserting the following:
``(a) Preparation of Reports.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of any'';
(B) by striking ``the Secretary, the Secretary
shall'' and inserting ``the Secretary that results in
recommendations concerning a project or the operation
of a project and that requires specific authorization
by Congress in law or otherwise, the Secretary shall
perform a reconnaissance study and'';
(C) by striking ``Such feasibility report'' and
inserting the following:
``(2) Contents of feasibility reports.--A feasibility
report'';
(D) by striking ``The feasibility report'' and
inserting ``A feasibility report''; and
(E) by striking the last sentence and inserting the
following:
``(3) Applicability.--This subsection shall not apply to--
``(A) any study with respect to which a report has
been submitted to Congress before the date of enactment
of this Act;
``(B) any study for a project, which project is
authorized for construction by this Act and is not
subject to section 903(b);
``(C) any study for a project which does not require
specific authorization by Congress in law or otherwise;
and
``(D) general studies not intended to lead to
recommendation of a specific water resources project.
``(4) Feasibility report defined.--In this subsection, the
term `feasibility report' means each feasibility report, and
any associated environmental impact statement and mitigation
plan, prepared by the Corps of Engineers for a water resources
project. The term includes a project implementation report
prepared under title VI of the Water Resources Development Act
of 2000 (114 Stat. 2680-2694), a general reevaluation report,
and a limited reevaluation report.''.
(2) Projects not specicially authorized by congress.--Section
905 of such Act is further amended--
(A) in subsection (b) by inserting ``Reconnaissance
Studies.--'' before ``Before initiating'';
(B) by redesignating subsections (c), (d), and (e) as
subsections (d), (e), and (f), respectively;
(C) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
``(c) Projects not Specifically Authorized by Congress.--In the case
of any water resources project-related study authorized to be
undertaken by the Secretary without specific authorization by Congress
in law or otherwise, the Secretary shall prepare a detailed project
report.'';
(D) in subsection (d) (as so redesignated) by
inserting ``Indian Tribes.--'' before ``For purposes
of''; and
(E) in subsection (e) (as so redesignated) by
inserting ``Standard and Uniform Procedures and
Practices.--'' before ``The Secretary shall'' .
SEC. 2040. FISCAL TRANSPARENCY REPORT.
(a) In General.--On the third Tuesday of January of each year
beginning January 2006, the Chief of Engineers 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 a report on the expenditures for the preceding fiscal
year and estimated expenditures for the current fiscal year and, for
projects and activities that are not scheduled for completion in the
current fiscal year, the estimated expenditures necessary in the
following fiscal year for each project or activity to maintain the same
level of effort being achieved in the current fiscal year.
(b) Contents.--In addition to the information described in subsection
(a), the report shall contain a detailed accounting of the following
information:
(1) With respect to general construction, information on--
(A) projects currently under construction,
including--
(i) allocations to date;
(ii) the number of years remaining to
complete construction;
(iii) the estimated annual Federal cost to
maintain that construction schedule; and
(iv) a list of projects the Corps of
Engineers expects to complete during the
current fiscal year; and
(B) projects for which there is a signed cost-sharing
agreement and completed planning, engineering, and
design, including--
(i) the number of years the project is
expected to require for completion; and
(ii) estimated annual Federal cost to
maintain that construction schedule.
(2) With respect to operation and maintenance of the inland
and intracoastal waterways under section 206 of Public Law 95-
502 (33 U.S.C. 1804)--
(A) the estimated annual cost to maintain each
waterway for the authorized reach and at the authorized
depth; and
(B) the estimated annual cost of operation and
maintenance of locks and dams to ensure navigation
without interruption.
(3) With respect to general investigations and reconnaissance
and feasibility studies--
(A) the number of active studies;
(B) the number of completed studies not yet
authorized for construction;
(C) the number of initiated studies; and
(D) the number of studies expected to be completed
during the fiscal year.
(4) Funding received and estimates of funds to be received
for interagency and international support activities under
section 318(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990
(33 U.S.C. 2323(a)).
(5) Recreation fees and lease payments.
(6) Hydropower and water storage fees.
(7) Deposits into the Inland Waterway Trust Fund and the
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
(8) Other revenues and fees collected.
TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS
SEC. 3001. KING COVE HARBOR, ALASKA.
The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the
project for navigation, King Cove Harbor, Alaska, being carried out
under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577),
shall be $8,000,000.
SEC. 3002. ST. PAUL HARBOR, ST. PAUL ISLAND, ALASKA.
(a) Small Boat Harbor.--No elements of the project for navigation,
St. Paul Harbor, St. Paul Island, Alaska, authorized by section
101(b)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat.
3667) and modified by section 303 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 298) and section 105 of the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act, 2003 (117 Stat. 139), shall be treated
by the Secretary as separable.
(b) Limitation on Non-Federal Share.--The non-Federal share for the
project shall not exceed $14,400,000.
SEC. 3003. SITKA, ALASKA.
The Thompson Harbor, Sitka, Alaska, 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), is modified to direct the Secretary to take such action as may
be necessary to correct design deficiencies in such element, at a
Federal expense of $6,300,000.
SEC. 3004. TATITLEK, ALASKA.
The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the
project for navigation, Tatitlek, Alaska, being carried out under
section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), shall
be $10,000,000.
SEC. 3005. GRAND PRAIRIE REGION AND BAYOU METO BASIN, ARKANSAS.
The Secretary shall review the general reevaluation report for the
Bayou Meto basin element of the project for Grand Prairie Region and
Bayou Meto Basin, Arkansas, reauthorized by section 363(a) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3730), and make a
determination of whether the element is feasible, regardless of mission
priorities.
SEC. 3006. OSCEOLA HARBOR, ARKANSAS.
(a) In General.--The project for navigation, Osceola Harbor,
Arkansas, constructed under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of
1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), is modified to allow non-Federal interests to
construct a mooring facility within the existing authorized harbor
channel, subject to all necessary permits, certifications, and other
requirements.
(b) Limitation on Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed as affecting the responsibility of the Secretary to
maintain the general navigation features of the project at a bottom
width of 250 feet.
SEC. 3007. PINE MOUNTAIN DAM, ARKANSAS.
The Pine Mountain Dam feature of the project for flood protection,
Lee Creek, Arkansas and Oklahoma, authorized by section 204 of the
Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1078), is modified--
(1) to add environmental restoration as a project purpose;
and
(2) to direct the Secretary to finance the non-Federal share
of the cost of the project over a 30-year period in accordance
with section 103(k) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(k)).
SEC. 3008. SAINT FRANCIS BASIN, ARKANSAS.
The project for flood control, Saint Francis Basin, Missouri and
Arkansas, authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1950
(64 Stat. 172), is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct
improvements along Ditch No. 1 that consist of a gated culvert through
the Saint Francis Levee and related channel improvements.
SEC. 3009. AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED, CALIFORNIA.
Section 128 of Public Law 108-137 (117 Stat. 1838) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(c) Dam Safety Modifications at L.L. Anderson Dam.--In determining
improvements for dam safety that are necessary at the L.L. Anderson
Dam, the Secretary shall consider the without-project condition to be
the dam as it existed on December 1, 2003.
``(d) Cost Allocation.--In allocating costs for the project
authorized in subsection (a), the Secretary shall use the project cost
allocations for flood damage reduction and dam safety that are
contained in the American River Watershed, California, long-term study
final supplemental plan formulation report dated February 2002.''.
SEC. 3010. COMPTON CREEK, CALIFORNIA.
The project for flood control, Los Angeles Drainage Area, California,
authorized by section 101(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1990 (104 Stat. 4611), is modified to add environmental restoration and
recreation as project purposes.
SEC. 3011. GRAYSON CREEK/MURDERER'S CREEK, CALIFORNIA.
The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Grayson Creek/
Murderer's Creek, California, being carried out under section 206 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), is
modified to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share
of the cost of the project the cost of work carried out by the non-
Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the
project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the
project and to authorize the Secretary to consider national ecosystem
restoration benefits in determining the Federal interest in the
project.
SEC. 3012. HAMILTON AIRFIELD, CALIFORNIA.
The project for environmental restoration, Hamilton Airfield,
California, authorized by section 101(b)(3) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 279), is modified to direct the
Secretary to construct the project substantially in accordance with the
report of the Chief of Engineers dated July 19, 2004, at a total cost
of $205,226,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $153,840,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $51,386,000.
SEC. 3013. JOHN F. BALDWIN SHIP CHANNEL AND STOCKTON SHIP CHANNEL,
CALIFORNIA.
The project for navigation, San Francisco to Stockton, California,
authorized by section 301 of the River and Harbor Act of 1965 (79 Stat.
1091) is modified--
(1) to provide that the non-Federal share of the cost of the
John F. Baldwin Ship Channel and Stockton Ship Channel element
of the project may be provided in the form of in-kind services
and materials; and
(2) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal
share of the cost of such element the cost of planning and
design work carried out by the non-Federal interest before the
date of an agreement for such planning and design if the
Secretary determines that such work is integral to such
element.
SEC. 3014. KAWEAH RIVER, CALIFORNIA.
The project for flood control, Terminus Dam, Kaweah River,
California, authorized by section 101(b)(5) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3658), is modified to direct the
Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the
project, or provide reimbursement not to exceed $800,000, for the costs
of any work carried out by the non-Federal interest before, on, or
after the date of the project partnership agreement if the Secretary
determines that the work is integral to the project.
SEC. 3015. LARKSPUR FERRY CHANNEL, LARKSPUR, CALIFORNIA.
The project for navigation, Larkspur Ferry Channel, Larkspur,
California, authorized by section 601(d) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4148), is modified to direct the
Secretary to determine whether maintenance of the project is feasible,
and if the Secretary determines that maintenance of the project is
feasible, to carry out such maintenance.
SEC. 3016. LLAGAS CREEK, CALIFORNIA.
The project for flood damage reduction, Llagas Creek, California,
authorized by section 501(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1999 (113 Stat. 333), is modified to authorize the Secretary to carry
out the project at a total cost of $105,000,000.
SEC. 3017. LOS ANGELES HARBOR, CALIFORNIA.
The project for navigation, Los Angeles Harbor, California,
authorized by section 101(b)(5) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 2000 (114 Stat. 2577), is modified to authorize the Secretary to
carry out the project at a total cost of $222,000,000.
SEC. 3018. MAGPIE CREEK, CALIFORNIA.
(a) In General.--The project for Magpie Creek, California, authorized
under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), is
modified to direct the Secretary to apply the cost-sharing requirements
of 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.
(b) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share
of the cost of the project the cost of planning and design work carried
out by the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership
agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is
integral to the project.
SEC. 3019. PACIFIC FLYWAY CENTER, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA.
The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Pacific Flyway Center,
Sacramento, California, being carried out under section 206 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), is modified
to authorize the Secretary to expend $2,000,000 to enhance public
access to the project.
SEC. 3020. PINOLE CREEK, CALIFORNIA.
The project for improvement of the quality of the environment, Pinole
Creek Phase I, California, being carried out under section 1135 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a), is modified
to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of the
cost of the project the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal
interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the project
if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project.
SEC. 3021. PRADO DAM, CALIFORNIA.
Upon completion of the modifications to the Prado Dam element of the
project for flood control, Santa Ana River Mainstem, California,
authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (100 Stat. 4113), the Memorandum of Agreement for the Operation
for Prado Dam for Seasonal Additional Water Conservation between the
Department of the Army and the Orange County Water District (including
all the conditions and stipulations in the memorandum) shall remain in
effect for volumes of water made available prior to such modifications.
SEC. 3022. SACRAMENTO AND AMERICAN RIVERS FLOOD CONTROL, CALIFORNIA.
(a) Determination of Federal Costs Paid by Non-Federal Interest.--
(1) Federal costs paid by non-federal interest.--The
Secretary shall determine the amount paid by the Sacramento
Area Flood Control Agency towards the Federal share of the cost
of the project for the Natomas levee features authorized by
section 9159(b) of the Department of Defense Appropriations
Act, 1993 (106 Stat. 1944) of the project for flood control and
recreation, Sacramento and American Rivers, California.
(2) Reimbursements to non-federal interest.--The Secretary
shall determine the amount of reimbursements paid to the
Sacramento Flood Control Agency for payment of the Federal
share of the cost of the project referred to in paragraph (1).
(3) Determination of federal share.--In carrying out
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall include in the total cost of
the project all costs of the following activities that the
Secretary determines to be integral to the project:
(A) Planning, engineering, and construction.
(B) Acquisition of project lands, easements, and
rights-of-way.
(C) Performance of relocations.
(D) Environmental mitigation for all project
elements.
(b) Credit.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of any flood damage reduction
project, authorized before the date of enactment of this Act,
for which the non-Federal interest is the Sacramento Area Flood
Control Agency an amount equal to the total amount determined
under subsection (a)(1) reduced by the amount determined under
subsection (a)(2).
(2) Allocation of credit.--The Secretary shall allocate the
amount to be credited under paragraph (1) toward the non-
Federal share of such projects as are requested by the
Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency.
SEC. 3023. SACRAMENTO DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CALIFORNIA.
The project for navigation, Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel,
California, authorized by section 202(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4092), is modified to direct the
Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the
project the cost of planning and design work carried out by the non-
Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the
project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the
project.
SEC. 3024. SACRAMENTO RIVER, GLENN-COLUSA, CALIFORNIA.
The project for flood control, Sacramento River, California,
authorized by section 2 of the Act entitled ``An Act to provide for the
control of the floods of the Mississippi River and of the Sacramento
River, California, and for other purposes'', approved March 1, 1917 (39
Stat. 949), and modified by section 102 of the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act, 1990 (103 Stat. 649), section 301(b)(3)
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3110), title
I of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 1999 (112
Stat. 1841), and section 305 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1999 (113 Stat. 299), is further modified to direct the Secretary to
credit the non-Federal interest up to $4,000,000 toward the non-Federal
share of the cost of the project for costs incurred by the non-Federal
interest in carrying out activities (including the provision of lands,
easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and dredged material disposal
areas) associated with environmental compliance for the project if the
Secretary determines that the activities are integral to the project.
SEC. 3025. SANTA CRUZ HARBOR, CALIFORNIA.
The project of navigation, Santa Cruz Harbor, California, authorized
by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 300) and
modified by section 809 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(100 Stat. 4168) and section 526 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1999 (113 Stat. 346), is modified to direct the Secretary--
(1) to renegotiate the memorandum of agreement with the non-
Federal interest to increase the annual payment to reflect the
updated cost of operation and maintenance that is the Federal
and non-Federal share as provided by law based on the project
purpose; and
(2) to revise the memorandum of agreement to include terms
that revise such payments for inflation.
SEC. 3026. SEVEN OAKS DAM, CALIFORNIA.
The project for flood control, Santa Ana Mainstem, authorized by
section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100
Stat. 4113) and modified by section 104 of the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act, 1988 (101 Stat. 1329-11), section
102(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4611),
and section 311 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110
Stat. 3713), is further modified to direct the Secretary to conduct a
study for the reallocation of water storage at the Seven Oaks Dam,
California, for water conservation.
SEC. 3027. UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER, CALIFORNIA.
The project for flood damage reduction and recreation, Upper
Guadalupe River, California, described as the Bypass Channel Plan of
the Chief of Engineers dated August 19, 1998, authorized by section
101(a)(9) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat.
275), is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project,
at a total cost of $212,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$106,050,000, and an estimated non-Federal cost of $106,050,000. The
non-Federal share of the cost of the project shall be subject to
section 103(a)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33
U.S.C. 2213(a)(3)).
SEC. 3028. WALNUT CREEK CHANNEL, CALIFORNIA.
The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Walnut Creek Channel,
California, being carried out under section 206 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), is modified to direct the
Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the
project the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest before
the date of the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary
determines that the work is integral to the project and to authorize
the Secretary to consider national ecosystem restoration benefits in
determining the Federal interest in the project.
SEC. 3029. WILDCAT/SAN PABLO CREEK PHASE I, CALIFORNIA.
The project for improvement of the quality of the environment,
Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase I, California, being carried out under
section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
2309a), is modified to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of work carried out
by the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership
agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is
integral to the project.
SEC. 3030. WILDCAT/SAN PABLO CREEK PHASE II, CALIFORNIA.
The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Wildcat/San Pablo
Creek Phase II, California, being carried out under section 206 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), is modified
to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of the
cost of the project the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal
interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the project
if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project
and to authorize the Secretary to consider national ecosystem
restoration benefits in determining the Federal interest in the
project.
SEC. 3031. YUBA RIVER BASIN PROJECT, CALIFORNIA.
The project for flood damage reduction, Yuba River Basin, California,
authorized by section 101(a)(10) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1999 (113 Stat. 275), is modified--
(1) to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a
total cost of $107,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$70,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $37,700,000;
and
(2) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal
share of the cost of the project the cost of work carried out
by the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership
agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the
work is integral to the project.
SEC. 3032. INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, DELAWARE RIVER TO CHESAPEAKE BAY,
DELAWARE AND MARYLAND.
The project for navigation, Intracoastal Waterway, Delaware River to
Chesapeake Bay, Delaware and Maryland, authorized by the first section
of the Rivers and Harbors Act of August 30, 1935 (49 Stat. 1030), and
section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 1249), is
modified to add recreation as a project purpose.
SEC. 3033. BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA.
(a) Shoreline.--The project for shoreline protection, Brevard County,
Florida, authorized by section 101(b)(7) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3667), is modified--
(1) to direct the Secretary to establish the reach of the
project as the reach between the Florida department of
environmental protection monuments 75.4 to 118.3, a distance of
7.6 miles; and
(2) to direct the Secretary to expedite the general
reevaluation report required by section 418 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2637).
(b) Credit.--Section 310 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1999 (113 Stat. 301) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Credit.--After completion of the study, the Secretary shall
credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost
of nourishment and renourishment associated with the shore protection
project incurred by the non-Federal interest to respond to damages to
Brevard County beaches that are the result of a Federal navigation
project, as determined in the final report for the study.''.
SEC. 3034. BROWARD COUNTY AND HILLSBORO INLET, FLORIDA.
The project for shore protection, Broward County and Hillsboro Inlet,
Florida, authorized by section 301 of the River and Harbor Act of 1965
(79 Stat. 1090), and modified by section 311 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 301), is further modified to direct
the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the
project the cost of mitigation construction and derelict erosion
control structure removal carried out by the non-Federal interest
before the date of the partnership agreement for the project if the
Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project.
SEC. 3035. CANAVERAL HARBOR, FLORIDA.
In carrying out the project for navigation, Canaveral Harbor,
Florida, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962
(76 Stat. 1174), the Secretary shall construct a sediment trap.
SEC. 3036. GASPARILLA AND ESTERO ISLANDS, FLORIDA.
The project for shore protection, Gasparilla and Estero Island
segments, Lee County, Florida, authorized under section 201 of the
Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1073) by Senate Resolution dated
December 17, 1970, and by House Resolution dated December 15, 1970, and
modified by section 309 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000
(114 Stat. 2602), is further modified to direct the Secretary to credit
toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of
work carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of the
partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that
the work is integral to the project.
SEC. 3037. JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FLORIDA.
(a) In General.--The project for navigation, Jacksonville Harbor,
Florida, authorized by section 101(a)(17) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 276), is modified to authorize the
Secretary to extend the navigation features in accordance with the
Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated July 22, 2003, at a total cost
of $14,658,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $9,636,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $5,022,000.
(b) General Reevaluation Reports.--The non-Federal share of the cost
of the general reevaluation report that resulted in the report of the
Chief of Engineers for the project and the non-Federal share of the
cost of the general reevaluation report for Jacksonville Harbor,
Florida, being conducted on June 1, 2005, shall each be the same
percentage as the non-Federal share of the cost of construction of the
project.
(c) Agreement.--The Secretary shall enter into new partnership
agreements with the non-Federal interest to reflect the cost sharing
required by subsection (b).
SEC. 3038. LIDO KEY BEACH, SARASOTA, FLORIDA.
(a) In General.--The project for shore protection, Lido Key Beach,
Sarasota, Florida, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor
Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1819), deauthorized under section 1001(b) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)), and
reauthorized by section 364(2)(A) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 313), is modified to direct the Secretary to
construct the project substantially in accordance with the report of
the Chief of Engineers dated December 22, 2004, at a total cost of
$14,809,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $9,088,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $5,721,000, and at an estimated total
cost of $58,635,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of
the project.
(b) Construction of Shoreline Protection Projects by Non-Federal
Interests.--The Secretary shall enter into a partnership agreement with
the non-Federal sponsor in accordance with section 206 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 426i-1) for the modified
project.
SEC. 3039. MIAMI HARBOR, FLORIDA.
The project for navigation, Miami Harbor Channel, Florida, authorized
by section 101(a)(9) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990
(104 Stat. 4606) and modified by section 315 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 302), is further modified--
(1) to include as a project purpose environmental mitigation
required before July 18, 2003, by a Federal, State, or local
environmental agency for unauthorized or unanticipated
environmental impacts within, or in the vicinity of, the
authorized project; and
(2) to direct the Secretary to reimburse the non-Federal
interest for costs it has incurred in construction of the
project in accordance with section 204 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2232).
SEC. 3040. PEANUT ISLAND, FLORIDA.
The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the
project for improvement of the quality of the environment, Peanut
Island, Palm Beach County, Florida, being carried out under section
1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a)
shall be $9,750,000.
SEC. 3041. TAMPA HARBOR-BIG BEND CHANNEL, FLORIDA.
The project for navigation, Tampa Harbor-Big Bend Channel, Florida,
authorized by section 101(a)(18) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1999 (113 Stat. 276) is modified to direct the Secretary to credit
toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of
planning, design, and construction work carried out by the non-Federal
interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the project
if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project.
SEC. 3042. TAMPA HARBOR CUT B, FLORIDA.
(a) In General.--The project for navigation, Tampa Harbor, Florida,
authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1970 (84 Stat.
1818), is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct passing
lanes in an area approximately 3.5 miles long and centered on Tampa
Harbor Cut B if the Secretary determines that such improvements are
necessary for navigation safety.
(b) General Reevaulation Report.--The non-Federal share of the cost
of the general reevaluation report for Tampa Harbor, Florida, being
conducted on June 1, 2005, shall be the same percentage as the non-
Federal share of the cost of construction of the project.
(c) Agreement.--The Secretary shall enter into a new partnership
agreement with the non-Federal interest to reflect the cost sharing
required by subsection (b).
SEC. 3043. ALLATOONA LAKE, GEORGIA.
(a) Land Exchange.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may exchange lands above 863
feet in elevation at Allatoona Lake, Georgia, identified in the
Real Estate Design Memorandum prepared by the Mobile district
engineer, April 5, 1996, and approved October 8, 1996, for
lands on the north side of Allatoona Lake that are needed for
wildlife management and for protection of the water quality and
overall environment of Allatoona Lake.
(2) Terms and conditions.--The basis for all land exchanges
under this subsection shall be a fair market appraisal so that
lands exchanged are of equal value.
(b) Disposal and Acquisition of Lands, Allatoona Lake, Georgia.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may also sell lands above 863
feet in elevation at Allatoona Lake, Georgia, identified in the
memorandum referred to in subsection (a)(1) and may use the
proceeds to pay costs associated with the purchase of lands
needed for wildlife management and for protection of the water
quality and overall environment of Allatoona Lake.
(2) Terms and conditions.--Land sales and purchases to be
conducted under this subsection shall be subject to the
following terms and conditions:
(A) Lands acquired under this subsection shall be by
negotiated purchase from willing sellers only.
(B) The basis for all transactions under the program
shall be a fair market appraisal acceptable to the
Secretary.
(C) The purchasers shall share in the associated
environmental and real estate costs, to include surveys
and associated fees in accordance with the memorandum
referred to in subsection (a)(1).
(D) Any other conditions that the Secretary may
impose.
(c) Repeal.--Section 325 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1992 (106 Stat. 4849) is repealed.
SEC. 3044. LATHAM RIVER, GLYNN COUNTY, GEORGIA.
The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the
project for improvement of the quality of the environment, Latham
River, Glynn County, Georgia, being carried out under section 1135 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a) shall be
$6,175,000.
SEC. 3045. DWORSHAK DAM AND RESERVOIR IMPROVEMENTS, IDAHO.
The Secretary may carry out improvements to recreational facilities
at the Dworshak Dam and Reservoir, North Fork, Clearwater River, Idaho,
authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat.
1193), to accommodate lower pool levels.
SEC. 3046. BEARDSTOWN COMMUNITY BOAT HARBOR, BEARDSTOWN, ILLINOIS.
(a) Partnership Agreement.--The project for navigation, Muscooten
Bay, Illinois River, Beardstown Community Boat Harbor, Beardstown,
Illinois, constructed under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of
1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), is modified to direct the Secretary to enter into
a partnership agreement with the city of Beardstown to replace the
August 18, 1983, local cooperation agreement with the Beardstown
Community Park District. The partnership agreement shall include the
same rights and responsibilities as the agreement, changing only the
identity of the non-Federal sponsor.
(b) Maintenance.--Following execution of the partnership agreement
referred to in subsection (a), the Secretary may carry out maintenance
of the project referred to in subsection (a) on an annual basis.
SEC. 3047. CACHE RIVER LEVEE, ILLINOIS.
The Cache River Levee portion of the project for flood control, Cache
River, Illinois, authorized by the Act of June 28, 1938 (52 Stat.
1215), is modified to add environmental restoration as a project
purpose.
SEC. 3048. CHICAGO RIVER, ILLINOIS.
The navigation channel for the North Branch Canal portion of the
Chicago River, authorized by the first section of the Rivers and
Harbors Appropriations Act of March 3, 1899 (30 Stat. 1129), extending
from 100 feet downstream of the Halsted Street Bridge to 100 feet
upstream of the Division Street Bridge is modified to be no wider than
66 feet.
SEC. 3049. CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL, ILLINOIS.
(a) Existing Barrier.--The Secretary shall upgrade and make
permanent, at Federal expense, the existing Chicago Sanitary and Ship
Canal Dispersal Barrier Chicago, Illinois, constructed as a
demonstration project under section 1202(i)(3) of the Nonindigenous
Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C.
4722(i)(3)).
(b) Operation and Maintenance.--The barrier referred to in subsection
(a) and the barrier in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal being
constructed under section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a) shall be operated and maintained, at Federal
expense, as a system in a manner to optimize effectiveness. Operation
and maintenance includes investigating and eliminating potential
pathways that may allow aquatic species in the Des Plaines River and
Illinois and Michigan Canal to bypass the barriers in the Chicago
Sanitary and Ship Canal.
(c) Feasibility Study.--The Secretary, in consultation with
appropriate Federal, State, local, and nongovernmental entities, shall
conduct a feasibility study, at Federal expense, of the range of
options and technologies available to prevent the spread of aquatic
species between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River Basins through
the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal and other pathways.
SEC. 3050. EMIQUON, ILLINOIS.
(a) Maximum Amount.--The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be
expended for the project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Emiquon,
Illinois, being carried out under section 206 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), shall be $7,500,000.
(b) Limitation.--Nothing in this section shall affect the eligibility
of the project for emergency repair assistance under section 5(a) of
the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing the construction of certain
public works on rivers and harbors for flood control, and for other
purposes'', approved August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n).
SEC. 3051. LASALLE, ILLINOIS.
In carrying out section 312 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1990 (104 Stat. 4639-4640), the Secretary shall give priority to work
in the vicinity of LaSalle, Illinois, on the Illinois and Michigan
Canal.
SEC. 3052. SPUNKY BOTTOMS, ILLINOIS.
(a) Project Purpose.--The project for flood control, Spunky Bottoms,
Illinois, authorized by section 5 of the Flood Control Act of June 26,
1936 (35 Stat. 1584), is modified to add environmental restoration as a
project purpose.
(b) Maximum Amount.--The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be
expended for the project for improvement of the quality of the
environment, Spunky Bottoms, Illinois, being carried out under section
1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a),
shall be $7,500,000.
(c) Limitation.--Nothing in this section shall affect the eligibility
of the project for emergency repair assistance under section 5(a) of
the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing the construction of certain
public works on rivers and harbors for flood control, and for other
purposes'', approved August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n).
SEC. 3053. FORT WAYNE AND VICINITY, INDIANA.
The project for flood control Fort Wayne, St. Mary's and Maumee
Rivers, Indiana, authorized by section 101(a)(11) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4604), is modified--
(1) to direct the Secretary to provide a 100-year level of
flood protection at the Berry-Thieme, Park-Thompson, Woodhurst,
and Tillman sites along the St. Mary's River, Fort Wayne and
vicinity, Indiana, at a total cost of $5,300,000; and
(2) to allow the non-Federal interest to participate in the
financing of the project in accordance with section 903(c) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184) to
the extent that the Secretary's evaluation indicates that
applying such section is necessary to implement the project.
SEC. 3054. KOONTZ LAKE, INDIANA.
The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Koontz Lake, Indiana,
being carried out under section 206 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330) and modified by section 520 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2655), is further modified
to direct the Secretary to seek to reduce the cost of the project by
using innovative technologies and cost reduction measures determined
from a review of non-Federal lake dredging projects in the vicinity of
Koontz Lake.
SEC. 3055. LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, INDIANA.
The project for flood control, Little Calumet River, Indiana,
authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (100 Stat. 4115), is modified to authorize the Secretary to carry
out the project in accordance with the postauthorization change report
dated August 2000, at a total cost of $198,000,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $148,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$49,500,000.
SEC. 3056. WHITE RIVER, INDIANA.
The project for flood control, Indianapolis on West Fork of White
River, Indiana, authorized by section 5 of the Act entitled ``An Act
authorizing the construction of certain public works on rivers and
harbors for flood control, and for other purposes'', approved June 22,
1936 (49 Stat. 1586), and modified by section 323 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3716) and section 322 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 303-304), is
further modified--
(1) to authorize the Secretary to undertake the riverfront
alterations described in the Central Indianapolis Waterfront
Concept Plan, dated February 1994, for the Fall Creek Reach
feature at a total cost of $28,545,000; and
(2) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal
share of the cost of the project the cost of planning, design,
and construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest
before the date of the partnership agreement for the project if
the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the
project.
SEC. 3057. DES MOINES RIVER AND GREENBELT, IOWA.
The project for the Des Moines Recreational River and Greenbelt,
Iowa, authorized by Public Law 99-88 and modified by section 604 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4153), is modified
to include enhanced public access and recreational enhancements, at a
Federal cost of $3,000,000.
SEC. 3058. PRESTONSBURG, KENTUCKY.
The Prestonsburg, Kentucky, element of the project for flood control,
Levisa and Tug Fork of the Big Sandy and Cumberland Rivers, West
Virginia, Virginia, and Kentucky, authorized by section 202(a) of the
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 1981 (94 Stat. 1339),
is modified to direct the Secretary to take measures to provide a 100-
year level of flood protection for the city of Prestonsburg.
SEC. 3059. AMITE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, LOUISIANA, EAST BATON ROUGE
PARISH WATERSHED.
The project for flood damage reduction and recreation, Amite River
and Tributaries, Louisiana, East Baton Rouge Parish Watershed,
authorized by section 101(a)(21) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1999 (113 Stat. 277) and modified by section 116 of division D of
Public Law 108-7 (117 Stat. 140), is further modified--
(1) to direct the Secretary to carry out the project with the
cost sharing for the project determined in accordance with
section 103(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(33 U.S.C. 2213(a)), as in effect on October 11, 1996;
(2) to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a
total cost of $178,000,000; and
(3) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal
share of the cost of the project the cost of work carried out
by the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership
agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the
work is integral to the project.
SEC. 3060. ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LOUISIANA.
(a) In General.--Section 315(a)(1) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2603-2604) is amended to read as follows:
``(1) is authorized to study, design, construct, operate, and
maintain, at Federal expense, a Type A Regional Visitor Center
in the vicinity of Morgan City, Louisiana, in consultation with
the State of Louisiana, to provide information to the public on
the Atchafalaya River system and other associated waterways
that have influenced surrounding communities, and national and
local water resources development of the Army Corps of
Engineers in South Central Louisiana; and''.
(b) Technical Correction.--Section 315(b) of such Act is amended by
striking ``(a)'' and inserting ``(a)(2)''.
(c) Donations.--Section 315 of such Act is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(c) Donations.--In carrying out subsection (a)(1), the Mississippi
River Commission is authorized to accept the donation of cash, funds,
lands, materials, and services from non-Federal governmental entities
and nonprofit corporations.''.
SEC. 3061. BAYOU PLAQUEMINE, LOUISIANA.
The project for the improvement of the quality of the environment,
Bayou Plaquemine, Louisiana, being carried out under section 1135 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309(a)), is
modified to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share
of the cost of the project the cost of work carried out by the non-
Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the
project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the
project.
SEC. 3062. ATCHAFALAYA BASIN FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LOUISIANA.
The public access feature of the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System
project, Louisiana, authorized by section 601(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act 1986 (100 Stat. 4142), is modified to authorize the
Secretary to acquire from willing sellers the fee interest, exclusive
of oil, gas, and minerals, of an additional 20,000 acres of land within
the Lower Atchafalaya Basin Floodway for the public access feature of
the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, to enhance fish and wildlife
resources, at a total cost of $4,000,000.
SEC. 3063. J. BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, MISSISSIPPI RIVER TO
SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA.
The project for mitigation of fish and wildlife losses, J. Bennett
Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport, Louisiana,
authorized by section 601(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (100 Stat. 4142) and modified by section 4(h) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4016), section 102(p) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4613), section
301(b)(7) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat.
3710), and section 316 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000
(114 Stat. 2572), is further modified--
(1) to authorize the purchase and reforesting lands that have
been cleared or converted to agricultural uses; and
(2) to incorporate current wildlife and forestry management
practices for the purpose of improving species diversity on
mitigation lands that meet Federal and State of Louisiana
habitat goals and objectives.
SEC. 3064. MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LOUISIANA.
The Mississippi Delta Region project, Louisiana, authorized as part
of the project for hurricane-flood protection on Lake Pontchartrain,
Louisiana, by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat.
1077) and modified by section 365 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3739), is further modified to direct the
Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the
project the costs of relocating oyster beds in the Davis Pond project
area if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the
Mississippi Delta Region project.
SEC. 3065. NEW ORLEANS TO VENICE, LOUISIANA.
The New Orleans to Venice, Louisiana, project for hurricane
protection, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1962
(76 Stat. 1184), is modified to authorize the Secretary to carry out
the work on the St. Jude to City Price, Upper Reach A back levee. The
Federal share of the cost of such work shall be 70 percent.
SEC. 3066. WEST BANK OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER (EAST OF HARVEY CANAL),
LOUISIANA.
Section 328 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat.
304-305) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``operation and maintenance'' and
inserting ``operation, maintenance, rehabilitation,
repair, and replacement''; and
(B) by striking ``Algiers Channel'' and inserting
``Algiers Canal Levees''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Cost Sharing.--The non-Federal share of the cost of the project
shall be 35 percent.''.
SEC. 3067. CAMP ELLIS, SACO, MAINE.
The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the
project being carried out under section 111 of the River and Harbor Act
of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 426i) for the mitigation of shore damages
attributable to the project for navigation, Camp Ellis, Saco, Maine,
shall be $25,000,000.
SEC. 3068. UNION RIVER, MAINE.
The project for navigation, Union River, Maine, 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 June 3, 1896 (29
Stat. 215), is modified by redesignating as an anchorage area that
portion of the project consisting of a 6-foot turning basin and lying
northerly of a line commencing at a point N315,975.13, E1,004,424.86,
thence running north 61 degrees 27 minutes 20.71 seconds west about
132.34 feet to a point N316,038.37, E1,004,308.61.
SEC. 3069. GWYNNS FALLS WATERSHED, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out the project for
ecosystem restoration, Gwynns Falls, Maryland, in accordance with the
Baltimore Metropolitan Water Resources Gwynns Falls Watershed Study-
Draft Feasibility Report and Integrated Environmental Assessment
prepared by the Corps of Engineers and the city of Baltimore, Maryland,
dated April 2004.
(b) Special Rule for Gwynns Falls, Maryland.--The report on the
project for environmental restoration at Gwynns Falls, Maryland, shall
be treated as being consistent and in compliance with the consent
decree entered into between the United States and the Mayor and City
Council of Baltimore, Maryland, filed with the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland on April 26, 2002.
(c) Repeal.--Section 123 of Public Law 108-137 (117 Stat. 1837) is
repealed.
SEC. 3070. BOSTON HARBOR, MASSACHUSETTS.
The project for navigation, Boston Harbor, Massachusetts, authorized
by section 101(a)(13) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990
(104 Stat. 4607), is modified to provide that no funds may be expended
for the dredging of Chelsea Creek until the city of Boston and the
United States Coast Guard complete the replacement of the Chelsea
Street Bridge, as identified in the limited reevaluation report for the
project dated June 1996.
SEC. 3071. DETROIT RIVER SHORELINE, DETROIT, MICHIGAN.
(a) In General.--The project for emergency streambank and shoreline
protection, Detroit River Shoreline, Detroit, Michigan, being carried
out under section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r),
is modified to include measures to enhance public access.
(b) Maximum Federal Expenditure.--The maximum amount of Federal funds
that may be expended for the project shall be $3,000,000.
SEC. 3072. ST. JOSEPH HARBOR, MICHIGAN.
The Secretary shall expedite development of the dredged material
management plan for the project for navigation St. Joseph Harbor,
Michigan, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958
(72 Stat. 299).
SEC. 3073. SAULT SAINTE MARIE, MICHIGAN.
(a) In General.--The text of section 1149 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4254) is amended to read as follows:
``The Secretary shall construct at Federal expense a second lock, of
the same dimensions as the existing Poe Lock, adjacent to the existing
lock at Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan, generally in accordance with the
report of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, dated May 19,
1986, and the limited reevaluation report dated February 2004 at a
total cost of $341,714,000.''.
(b) Conforming Repeals.--The following provisoins are repealed:
(1) Section 107(a)(8) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1990 (104 Stat. 4620).
(2) Section 330 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (110 Stat. 3717-3718).
(3) Section 330 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1999 (113 Stat. 305).
SEC. 3074. ADA, MINNESOTA.
(a) In General.--The project for flood damage reduction, Wild Rice
River, Ada, Minnesota, being carried out under section 205 of the Flood
Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), is modified to authorize the
Secretary to consider national ecosystem restoration benefits in
determining the Federal interest in the project.
(b) Evaluation of Benefits and Costs.--In evaluating the economic
benefits and costs for the project, the Secretary shall not consider
the emergency levee adjacent to Judicial Ditch No. 51 in the
determination of conditions existing prior to construction of the
project.
(c) Special Rule.--In evaluating and implementing the project, the
Secretary shall allow the non-Federal interest to participate in the
financing of the project in accordance with section 903(c) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184) to the extent that
the Secretary's evaluation indicates that applying such section is
necessary to implement the project.
SEC. 3075. DULUTH HARBOR, MCQUADE ROAD, MINNESOTA.
(a) In General.--The project for navigation, Duluth Harbor, McQuade
Road, Minnesota, being carried out under section 107 of the River and
Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577) and modified by section 321 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2605), is further
modified to authorize the Secretary to provide public access and
recreational facilities as generally described in the Detailed Project
Report and Environmental Assessment, McQuade Road Harbor of Refuge,
Duluth, Minnesota, dated August 1999.
(b) Credit.--The Secretary shall provide credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of the project for the costs of design work
carried out before the date of the partnership agreement for the
project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the
project.
(c) Maximum Federal Expenditure.--The maximum amount of Federal funds
that may be expended for the project shall be $5,000,000.
SEC. 3076. GRAND PORTAGE HARBOR, MINNESOTA.
The Secretary shall provide credit toward the non-Federal share of
the cost of the navigation project for Grand Portage Harbor, Minnesota,
carried out under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33
U.S.C. 577) and modified by section 312 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2605), for the costs of design work
carried out before the date of the partnership agreement for the
project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the
project.
SEC. 3077. GRANITE FALLS, MINNESOTA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary is directed to implement under section
205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s) the locally
preferred plan for flood damage reduction, Granite Falls, Minnesota,
substantially in accordance with the detailed project report dated
2002, at a total cost of $12,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$8,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $4,000,000.
(b) Project Financing.--In evaluating and implementing the project
under this section, the Secretary shall allow the non-Federal interests
to participate in the financing of the project in accordance with
section 903(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100
Stat. 4184), to the extent that the detailed project report evaluation
indicates that applying such section is necessary to implement the
project.
(c) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share
of the project the cost of design and construction work carried out by
the non-Federal interest before date of execution of a partnership
agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is
integral to the project.
(d) Maximum Funding.--The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be
expended for the flood damage reduction shall be $8,000,000.
SEC. 3078. KNIFE RIVER HARBOR, MINNESOTA.
The project for navigation, Harbor at Knife River, Minnesota,
authorized by section 2 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of March 2, 1945
(59 Stat. 19), is modified to direct the Secretary to develop a final
design and prepare plans and specifications to correct the harbor
entrance and mooring conditions at the project.
SEC. 3079. RED LAKE RIVER, MINNESOTA.
The project for flood control, Red Lake River, Crookston, Minnesota,
authorized by section 101(a)(23) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1999 (113 Stat. 278), is modified to include flood protection for
the adjacent and interconnected areas generally known as the Sampson
and Chase/Loring neighborhoods, in accordance with the Feasibility
Report Supplement, Local Flood Protection, Crookston, Minnesota, at a
total cost of $17,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$11,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $6,000,000.
SEC. 3080. SILVER BAY, MINNESOTA.
The project for navigation, Silver Bay, Minnesota, authorized by
section 2 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of March 2, 1945 (59 Stat. 19),
is modified to include operation and maintenance of the general
navigation facilities as a Federal responsibility.
SEC. 3081. TACONITE HARBOR, MINNESOTA.
The project for navigation, Taconite Harbor, Minnesota, carried out
under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577),
is modified to include operation and maintenance of the general
navigation facilities as a Federal responsibility.
SEC. 3082. TWO HARBORS, MINNESOTA.
(a) In General.--The project for navigation, Two Harbors, Minnesota,
being carried out under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960
(33 U.S.C. 577), is modified to include construction of a dredged
material disposal facility, including actions required to clear the
site.
(b) Lands, Easements, and Rights-of-Way.--Non-Federal interests shall
be responsible for providing all lands, easements, rights-of-way, and
relocations necessary for the construction of the dredged material
disposal facility.
(c) Maximum Federal Expenditure.--The maximum amount of Federal funds
that may be expended for the project shall be $5,000,000.
SEC. 3083. DEER ISLAND, HARRISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI.
The project for ecosystem restoration, Deer Island, Harrison County,
Mississippi, being carried out under section 204 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326), is modified to authorize the
non-Federal interest to provide any portion of the non-Federal share of
the cost of the project in the form of in-kind services and materials.
SEC. 3084. PEARL RIVER BASIN, MISSISSIPPI.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall complete a feasibility study for
the project for flood damage reduction, Pearl River Watershed,
Mississippi.
(b) Comparison of Alternatives.--The feasibility study shall identify
both the plan that maximizes national economic development benefits and
the locally preferred plan and shall compare the level of flood damage
reduction provided by each plan to that portion of Jackson,
Mississippi, located below the Ross Barnett Reservoir Dam.
(c) Recommended Plan.--If the Secretary determines that the locally
preferred plan provides a level of flood damage reduction that is equal
to or greater than the level of flood damage reduction provided by the
national economic development plan, and the locally preferred plan is
technically feasible and environmentally protective, the Secretary
shall recommend construction of the locally preferred plan.
(d) Evaluation of Project Cost.--For the purposes of determining
compliance with the first section of the Flood Control Act of June 22,
1936 (33 U.S.C. 701a), the Secretary shall consider only the costs of
the national economic development plan, and shall exclude incremental
costs associated with the locally preferred plan that are in excess of
such costs, if the non-Federal interest agrees to pay 100 percent of
such incremental costs.
(e) Non-Federal Cost Share.--If the locally preferred plan is
authorized for construction, the non-Federal share of the cost of the
project shall be the same percentage as the non-Federal share of the
cost of the national economic development plan plus all additional
costs of construction associated with the locally preferred plan.
SEC. 3085. FESTUS AND CRYSTAL CITY, MISSOURI.
Section 102(b)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113
Stat. 282) is amended by striking ``$10,000,000'' and inserting
``$12,000,000''.
SEC. 3086. MONARCH-CHESTERFIELD, MISSOURI.
The project for flood damage reduction, Monarch-Chesterfield,
Missouri, authorized by section 101(b)(18) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2578), is modified to direct the
Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the
project the cost of the planning, design, and construction work carried
out by the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership
agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is
integral to the project.
SEC. 3087. RIVER DES PERES, MISSOURI.
The projects for flood control, River Des Peres, Missouri, authorized
by section 101(a)(17) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990
(104 Stat. 4607) and section 102(13) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3668), are each modified to direct the Secretary
to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the
cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of
the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary determines
that the work is integral to the project.
SEC. 3088. ANTELOPE CREEK, LINCOLN, NEBRASKA.
The project for flood damage reduction, Antelope Creek, Lincoln,
Nebraska, authorized by section 101(b)(19) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2578), is modified--
(1) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal
share of the cost of the project the cost of design, and
construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest
before the date of the partnership agreement for the project if
the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the
project; and
(2) to allow the non-Federal sponsor for the project to use,
and to direct the Secretary to accept, funds provided under any
other Federal program, to satisfy, in whole or in part, the
non-Federal share of the project if such funds are authorized
to be used to carry out the project.
SEC. 3089. SAND CREEK WATERSHED, WAHOO, NEBRASKA.
The project for ecosystem restoration and flood damage reduction,
Sand Creek watershed, Wahoo, Nebraska, authorized by section 101(b)(20)
of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2578), is
modified--
(1) to direct the Secretary to provide credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of the project or reimbursement for
the costs of any work that has been or will be performed by the
non-Federal interest before, on, or after the approval of the
project partnership agreement, including work performed by the
non-Federal interest in connection with the design and
construction of 7 upstream detention storage structures, if the
Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project;
(2) to require that in-kind work to be credited under
paragraph (1) be subject to audit; and
(3) to direct the Secretary to accept advance funds from the
non-Federal interest as needed to maintain the project
schedule.
SEC. 3090. LOWER CAPE MAY MEADOWS, CAPE MAY POINT, NEW JERSEY.
The project for navigation mitigation, ecosystem restoration, shore
protection, and hurricane and storm damage reduction, Lower Cape May
Meadows, Cape May Point, New Jersey, authorized by section 101(a)(25)
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 278), is
modified to incorporate the project for shoreline erosion control, Cape
May Point, New Jersey, carried out under section 5 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. 426h), if the Secretary determines that such incorporation is
feasible.
SEC. 3091. PASSAIC RIVER BASIN FLOOD MANAGEMENT, NEW JERSEY.
The project for flood control, Passaic River, New Jersey and New
York, authorized by section 101(a)(18) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4607) and modified by section 327 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2607), is
further modified to direct the Secretary to include the benefits and
costs of preserving natural flood storage in any future economic
analysis of the project.
SEC. 3092. BUFFALO HARBOR, NEW YORK.
The project for navigation, Buffalo Harbor, New York, authorized by
section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1176), is
modified to include measures to enhance public access, at Federal cost
of $500,000.
SEC. 3093. ORCHARD BEACH, BRONX, NEW YORK.
The project for shoreline protection, Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York,
authorized by section 554 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (110 Stat. 3781), is modified to authorize the Secretary to
construct the project, at a total cost of $20,000,000.
SEC. 3094. PORT OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY.
The navigation project, Port of New York and New Jersey, New York and
New Jersey, authorized by section 101(a)(2) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2576), is modified--
(1) to authorize the Secretary to allow the non-Federal
interest to construct a temporary dredged material storage
facility to receive dredged material from the project if--
(A) the non-Federal interest submits, in writing, a
list of potential sites for the temporary storage
facility to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on Environment and Public Works of the
Senate, and the Secretary at least 180 days before the
selection of the final site; and
(B) at least 70 percent of the dredged material
generated in connection with the project suitable for
beneficial reuse will be used at sites in the State of
New Jersey to the extent that there are sufficient
sites available; and
(2) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal
share of the cost of the project the cost of construction of
the temporary storage facility if the Secretary determines that
the work is integral to the project.
SEC. 3095. NEW YORK STATE CANAL SYSTEM.
Section 553(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110
Stat. 3781) is amended to read as follows:
``(c) New York State Canal System Defined.--In this section, the term
`New York State Canal System' means the 524 miles of navigable canal
that comprise the New York State Canal System, including the Erie,
Cayuga-Seneca, Oswego, and Champlain Canals and the historic alignments
of these canals, including the cities of Albany and Buffalo.''.
SEC. 3096. LOWER GIRARD LAKE DAM, OHIO.
Section 507(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110
Stat. 3758) is amended by striking ``$2,500,000'' and inserting
``$6,000,000''.
SEC. 3097. MAHONING RIVER, OHIO.
In carrying out the project for environmental dredging, authorized by
section 312(f)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (33
U.S.C. 1272(f)(4)), the Secretary is directed to credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of work carried out
by the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership
agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is
integral to the project.
SEC. 3098. ARCADIA LAKE, OKLAHOMA.
Payments made by the city of Edmond, Oklahoma, to the Secretary in
October 1999 of costs associated with present and future water storage
at Arcadia Lake, Oklahoma, under Arcadia Lake Water Storage Contract
Number DACW56-79-C-0072 shall satisfy the obligations of the city under
that contract for such costs, including accrued interest.
SEC. 3099. WAURIKA LAKE, OKLAHOMA.
The remaining obligation of the Waurika Project Master Conservancy
District payable to the United States Government in the amounts, rates
of interest, and payment schedules is set at the amounts, rates of
interest, and payment schedules that existed, and that both parties
agreed to, on June 3, 1986, and may not be adjusted, altered, or
changed without a specific, separate, and written agreement between the
District and the United States Government.
SEC. 3100. WILLAMETTE RIVER TEMPERATURE CONTROL, MCKENZIE SUBBASIN,
OREGON.
(a) In General.--The project for environmental restoration,
Willamette River temperature control, McKenzie Subbasin, Oregon,
authorized by section 101(a)(25) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1996 (110 Stat. 3665) and modified by section 344 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 308), is further modified
to direct the Secretary to pay, subject to the availability of
appropriations, compensation for losses to small business attributable
to the implementation of the drawdown conducted as a part of project
implementation in 2002.
(b) Establishment of Program.--Not later than 120 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish, and provide
public notice of, a program--
(1) to receive claims for compensation for losses to small
business attributable to the implementation of the drawdown
conducted as a part of project implementation in 2002;
(2) to evaluate claims for such losses; and
(3) to pay claims for such losses.
(c) Implementation of Program.--In carrying out the program
established under subsection (b), the Secretary shall provide--
(1) public notice of the existence of the program sufficient
to reach those in the area that may have suffered losses to
small businesses;
(2) a period for the submission of claims of not fewer than
45 days and not greater than 75 days from the date of the first
public notice of the existence of the program;
(3) for the evaluation of each claim submitted to the
Secretary under the program and a determination of whether the
claim constitutes a loss to a small business on or before the
last day of the 30-day period beginning on the date of
submission of the claim; and
(4) for the payment of each claim that the Secretary
determines constitutes a loss to a small business on or before
the last day of the 30-day period beginning on the date of the
Secretary's determination.
(d) Loss to a Small Business Defined.--In this section, the term
``loss to a small business'' means documented financial losses
associated with commercial activity of a small business that can be
attributed to the turbidity levels in the McKenzie River being higher
than those anticipated in the original planning documents and public
announcements existing before the initiation of the drawdown in 2002.
Commercial losses include decline in sales, loss of revenue (including
loss of revenue from canceled or delayed reservations at lodging
establishments), and any other financial losses that can be shown to be
associated with the elevated turbidity levels in the McKenzie River in
2002.
(e) Payment of Claims.--The payment of claims for losses to small
businesses shall be a Federal responsibility.
SEC. 3101. DELAWARE RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA, NEW JERSEY, AND DELAWARE.
The Secretary may remove debris from the project for navigation,
Delaware River, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware, Philadelphia to
the Sea.
SEC. 3102. RAYSTOWN LAKE, PENNSYLVANIA.
The Secretary may take such action as may be necessary, including
construction of a breakwater, to prevent shoreline erosion between .07
and 2.7 miles south of Pennsylvania State route 994 on the east shore
of Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania.
SEC. 3103. SHERADEN PARK STREAM AND CHARTIERS CREEK, ALLEGHENY COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA.
The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Sheraden Park Stream
and Chartiers Creek, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, being carried out
under section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33
U.S.C. 2330), is modified to direct the Secretary to credit up to
$400,000 toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project for
planning and design work carried out by the non-Federal interest before
the date of the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary
determines that the work is integral to the project.
SEC. 3104. SOLOMON'S CREEK, WILKES-BARRE, PENNSYLVANIA.
The project for flood control, Wyoming Valley, Pennsylvania,
authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (100 Stat. 4124), is modified to include as a project element the
project for flood control for Solomon's Creek, Wilkes-Barre,
Pennsylvania.
SEC. 3105. SOUTH CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA.
Section 313 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat.
4845; 109 Stat. 407; 110 Stat. 3723; 113 Stat. 310; 117 Stat. 142) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (g)(1) by striking ``$180,000,000'' and
inserting ``$200,000,000''; and
(2) in subsection (h)(2) by striking ``Allegheny, Armstrong,
Beford, Blair, Cambria, Clearfield, Fayette, Franklin, Fulton,
Greene, Huntingdon, Indiana, Juniata, Mifflin, Somerset,
Snyder, Washington, and Westmoreland Counties'' and inserting
``Allegheny, Armstrong, Bedford, Blair, Cambria, Fayette,
Franklin, Fulton, Greene, Huntingdon, Indiana, Juniata,
Somerset, Washington, and Westmoreland Counties''.
SEC. 3106. WYOMING VALLEY, PENNSYLVANIA.
In carrying out the project for flood control, Wyoming Valley,
Pennsylvania, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4124), the Secretary shall
coordinate with non-Federal interests to review opportunities for
increased public access.
SEC. 3107. CEDAR BAYOU, TEXAS.
(a) In General.--The project for navigation, Cedar Bayou, Texas,
reauthorized by section 349(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2632), is modified to direct the Secretary to
credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost
of planning and design work carried out by the non-Federal interest for
the project if the Secretary determines that such work is integral to
the project.
(b) Cost Sharing.--Cost sharing for construction and operation and
maintenance of the project shall be determined in accordance with
section 101 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
2211).
SEC. 3108. FREEPORT HARBOR, TEXAS.
The project for navigation, Freeport Harbor, Texas, authorized by
section 101 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1818), is
modified.--
(1) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal
share of the cost of the project the cost of the planning,
design, and construction work carried out by the non-Federal
interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the
project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral
to the project; and
(2) to direct the Secretary to remove the sunken vessel
``COMSTOCK'' at Federal expense.
SEC. 3109. JOHNSON CREEK, ARLINGTON, TEXAS.
The project for flood damage reduction, environmental restoration,
and recreation, authorized by section 101(b)(14) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 280), is modified to authorize the
Secretary to carry out the project at a total cost of $29,717,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $20,670,000 and an estimated non-Federal
cost $9,047,000.
SEC. 3110. LAKE KEMP, TEXAS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may not take any legal or
administrative action seeking to remove a Lake Kemp improvement before
the earlier of January 1, 2020, or the date of any transfer of
ownership of the improvement occurring after the date of enactment of
this Act.
(b) Limitation on Liability.--The United States, or any of its
officers, agents, or assignees, shall not be liable for any injury,
loss, or damage accruing to the owners of a Lake Kemp improvement,
their lessees, or occupants as a result of any flooding or inundation
of such improvements by the waters of the Lake Kemp reservoir, or for
such injury, loss, or damage as may occur through the operation and
maintenance of the Lake Kemp dam and reservoir in any manner.
(c) Lake Kemp Improvement Defined.--In this section, the term ``Lake
Kemp improvement'' means an improvement (including dwellings) located
within the flowage easement of Lake Kemp, Texas, below elevation 1159
feet mean sea level.
SEC. 3111. LOWER RIO GRANDE BASIN, TEXAS.
The project for flood control, Lower Rio Grande Basin, Texas,
authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (100 Stat. 4125), is modified--
(1) to include as part of the project flood protection works
to reroute drainage to Raymondville Drain constructed by the
non-Federal interests in Hidalgo County in the vicinity of
Edinburg, Texas, if the Secretary determines that such work
meets feasibility requirements;
(2) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal
share of the cost of the project the cost of planning, design,
and construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest
before the date of the partnership agreement for the project if
the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the
project; and
(3) to direct the Secretary, in calculating the non-Federal
share of the cost of the project, to make a determination
within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act under
section 103(m) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(33 U.S.C. 2213(m)) on the non-Federal interest's ability to
pay.
SEC. 3112. NORTH PADRE ISLAND, CORPUS CHRISTI BAY, TEXAS.
The project for ecosystem restoration and storm damage reduction,
North Padre Island, Corpus Christi Bay, Texas, authorized by section
556 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 353), is
modified to include recreation as a project purpose.
SEC. 3113. PAT MAYSE LAKE, TEXAS.
The Secretary is directed to accept from the city of Paris, Texas,
$3,461,432 as payment in full of monies owed to the United States for
water supply storage space in Pat Mayse Lake, Texas, under contract
number DA-34-066-CIVENG-65-1272, including accrued interest.
SEC. 3114. PROCTOR LAKE, TEXAS.
The Secretary is authorized to purchase fee simple title to all
properties located within the boundaries, and necessary for the
operation, of the Proctor Lake project, Texas, authorized by section
203 of the Flood Control Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 1259).
SEC. 3115. SAN ANTONIO CHANNEL, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS.
The project for flood control, San Antonio Channel, Texas, authorized
by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 1259) as part
of the comprehensive plan for flood protection on the Guadalupe and San
Antonio Rivers in Texas and modified by section 103 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2921) and section 335 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2611), is
further modified to authorize the Secretary to credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of design and
construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the
project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the
project.
SEC. 3116. JAMES RIVER, VIRGINIA.
The project for navigation, James River, Virginia, authorized by the
first section of the River and Harbor Appropriations Act of July 5,
1884 (23 Stat. 138), is further modified to authorize the Secretary to
enlarge the turning basin adjacent to the Richmond Deepwater Terminal
at a total cost of $1,511,000 if the Secretary determines that the such
enlargement is necessary for navigation safety.
SEC. 3117. LEE, RUSSELL, SCOTT, SMYTH, TAZEWELL, AND WISE COUNTIES,
VIRGINIA.
The project for flood control, Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy
River and Upper Cumberland River, authorized by section 202 of the
Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act, 1981 (94 Stat. 1339)
and modified by section 352 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (110 Stat. 3724-3725) and section 336 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2611), is further modified to direct
the Secretary to determine the ability of Lee, Russell, Scott, Smyth,
Tazewell, and Wise Counties, Virginia, to pay the non-Federal share of
the cost of the project based solely on the criterion specified in
section 103(m)(3)(A)(i) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(33 U.S.C. 2213(m)(3)(A)(i)).
SEC. 3118. TANGIER ISLAND SEAWALL, VIRGINIA.
Section 577(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110
Stat. 3789) is amended by striking ``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.'' and inserting ``at a total cost of $3,000,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $2,250,000 and an estimated non-Federal
cost of $750,000.''.
SEC. 3119. DUWAMISH/GREEN, WASHINGTON.
The project for ecosystem restoration, Duwamish/Green, Washington,
authorized by section 101(b)(26) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 2000 (114 Stat. 2579), is modified--
(1) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal
share of the cost of the project the cost of work carried out
by the non-Federal interest before, on, or after the date of
the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary
determines that the work is integral to the project; and
(2) to authorize the non-Federal interest to provide any
portion of the non-Federal share of the cost of the project in
the form of in-kind services and materials.
SEC. 3120. YAKIMA RIVER, PORT OF SUNNYSIDE, WASHINGTON.
The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Yakima River, Port of
Sunnyside, Washington, being carried out under section 206 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), is modified to
direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost
of the project the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest
before the date of the partnership agreement for the project if the
Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project.
SEC. 3121. GREENBRIER RIVER BASIN, WEST VIRGINIA.
Section 579(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110
Stat. 3790; 113 Stat. 312) is amended by striking ``$47,000,000'' and
inserting ``$99,000,000''.
SEC. 3122. LESAGE/GREENBOTTOM SWAMP, WEST VIRGINIA.
Section 30(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (102
Stat. 4030; 114 Stat. 2678) is amended to read as follows:
``(d) Historic Structure.--The Secretary shall ensure the
preservation and restoration of the structure known as the `Jenkins
House', and the reconstruction of associated buildings and landscape
features of such structure located within the Lesage/Greenbottom Swamp
in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's standards for the
treatment of historic properties. Amounts made available for
expenditure for the project authorized by section 301(a) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4110) shall be available
for the purposes of this subsection.''.
SEC. 3123. NORTHERN WEST VIRGINIA.
Section 557 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat.
353) is amended in the first sentence by striking ``favorable''.
SEC. 3124. MANITOWOC HARBOR, WISCONSIN.
The project for navigation, Manitowoc Harbor, Wisconsin, authorized
by the River and Harbor Act of August 30, 1852, is modified to direct
the Secretary to deepen the upstream reach of the navigation channel
from 12 feet to 18 feet, at a total cost of $300,000.
SEC. 3125. MISSISSIPPI RIVER HEADWATERS RESERVOIRS.
Section 21 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat.
4027) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``1276.42'' and inserting
``1278.42'';
(B) by striking ``1218.31'' and inserting
``1221.31''; and
(C) by striking ``1234.82'' and inserting
``1235.30''; and
(2) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
``(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 water control regulation manuals (or
revisions thereto) developed by the Secretary, after consultation with
the Governor of Minnesota and affected tribal governments, landowners,
and commercial and recreational users. The water control regulation
manuals (and any revisions thereto) shall be effective when the
Secretary transmits them to Congress. The Secretary shall report to
Congress at least 14 days before operating any such headwaters
reservoir below the minimum or above the maximum water level limits
specified in subsection (a); except that notification is not required
for operations necessary to prevent the loss of life or to ensure the
safety of the dam or where the drawdown of lake levels is in
anticipation of flood control operations.''.
SEC. 3126. CONTINUATION OF PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 1001(b)(2) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(2)), the following
projects shall remain authorized to be carried out by the Secretary:
(1) The project for flood control, Agana River, Guam,
authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4127).
(2) The project for navigation, Fall River Harbor,
Massachusetts, authorized by section 101 of the River and
Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 731); except that the authorized
depth of that portion of the project extending riverward of the
Charles M. Braga, Jr. Memorial Bridge, Fall River and Somerset,
Massachusetts, shall not exceed 35 feet.
(b) Limitation.--A project described in subsection (a) shall not be
authorized for construction after the last day of the 5-year period
beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, unless, during such
period, funds have been obligated for the construction (including
planning and design) of the project.
SEC. 3127. PROJECT REAUTHORIZATIONS.
Each of the following projects may be carried out by the Secretary
and no construction on any such project may be initiated until the
Secretary determines that the project is feasible:
(1) Menominee harbor and river, michigan and wisconsin.--The
project for navigation, Menominee Harbor and River, Michigan
and Wisconsin, authorized by section 101 of the River and
Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 482) and deauthorized on April 15,
2002, in accordance with section 1001(b)(2) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(2)).
(2) Manitowoc harbor, wisconsin.--That portion of the project
for navigation, Manitowoc Harbor, Wisconsin, consisting of the
channel in the south part of the outer harbor, deauthorized by
section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962 (76 Stat.
1176).
SEC. 3128. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS.
(a) In General.--The following projects are not authorized after the
date of enactment of this Act:
(1) Bridgeport harbor, connecticut.--The portion of the
project for navigation, Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut,
authorized by the first section of the River and Harbor Act of
July 3, 1930 (46 Stat. 919), consisting of an 18-foot channel
in Yellow Mill River and described as follows: Beginning at a
point along the eastern limit of the existing project,
N123,649.75, E481,920.54, thence running northwesterly about
52.64 feet to a point N123,683.03, E481,879.75, thence running
northeasterly about 1,442.21 feet to a point N125,030.08,
E482,394.96, thence running northeasterly about 139.52 feet to
a point along the eastern limit of the existing channel,
N125,133.87, E482,488.19, thence running southwesterly about
1,588.98 feet to the point of origin.
(2) Mystic river, connecticut.--The portion of the project
for navigation, Mystic River, Connecticut, authorized by the
first section of the River and Harbor Approriations Act of
September 19, 1890 (26 Stat. 436) consisting of a 12-foot-deep
channel, approximately 7,554 square feet in area, starting at a
point N193,086.51, E815,092.78, thence running north 59 degrees
21 minutes 46.63 seconds west about 138.05 feet to a point
N193,156.86, E814,974.00, thence running north 51 degrees 04
minutes 39.00 seconds west about 166.57 feet to a point
N193,261.51, E814,844.41, thence running north 43 degrees 01
minutes 34.90 seconds west about 86.23 feet to a point
N193,324.55, E814,785.57, thence running north 06 degrees 42
minutes 03.86 seconds west about 156.57 feet to a point
N193,480.05, E814,767.30, thence running south 21 degrees 21
minutes 17.94 seconds east about 231.42 feet to a point
N193,264.52, E814,851.57, thence running south 53 degrees 34
minutes 23.28 seconds east about 299.78 feet to the point of
origin.
(3) Falmouth harbor, massachusetts.--The portion of the
project for navigation, Falmouth Harbor, Massachusetts,
authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1948
(62 Stat. 1172), beginning at a point along the eastern side of
the inner harbor N200,415.05, E845,307.98, thence running north
25 degrees 48 minutes 54.3 seconds east 160.24 feet to a point
N200,559.20, E845,377.76, thence running north 22 degrees 7
minutes 52.4 seconds east 596.82 feet to a point N201,112.15,
E845,602.60, thence running north 60 degrees 1 minute 0.3
seconds east 83.18 feet to a point N201,153.72, E845,674.65,
thence running south 24 degrees 56 minutes 43.4 seconds west
665.01 feet to a point N200,550.75, E845,394.18, thence running
south 32 degrees 25 minutes 29.0 seconds west 160.76 feet to
the point of origin.
(4) Island end river, massachusetts.--The portion of the
project for navigation, Island End River, Massachusetts,
carried out under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of
1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), described as follows: Beginning at a
point along the eastern limit of the existing project,
N507,348.98, E721,180.01, thence running northeast about 35
feet to a point N507,384.17, E721,183.36, thence running
northeast about 324 feet to a point N507,590.51, E721,433.17,
thence running northeast about 345 feet to a point along the
northern limit of the existing project, N507,927.29,
E721,510.29, thence running southeast about 25 feet to a point
N507,921.71, E721,534.66, thence running southwest about 354
feet to a point N507,576.65, E721,455.64, thence running
southwest about 357 feet to the point of origin.
(5) City waterway, tacoma, washington.--The portion of the
project for navigation, City Waterway, Tacoma, Washington,
authorized by the first section of the River and Harbor
Appropriations Act of June 13, 1902 (32 Stat. 347), 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.
(b) Anchorage Area, New London Harbor, Connecticut.--The portion of
the project for navigation, New London Harbor, Connecticut, authorized
by the River and Harbor Appropriations Act of June 13, 1902 (32 Stat.
333), that consists of a 23-foot waterfront channel and that is further
described as beginning at a point along the western limit of the
existing project, N188, 802.75, E779, 462.81, thence running
northeasterly about 1,373.88 feet to a point N189, 554.87, E780,
612.53, thence running southeasterly about 439.54 feet to a point N189,
319.88, E780, 983.98, thence running southwesterly about 831.58 feet to
a point N188, 864.63, E780, 288.08, thence running southeasterly about
567.39 feet to a point N188, 301.88, E780, 360.49, thence running
northwesterly about 1,027.96 feet to the point of origin, shall be
redesignated as an anchorage area.
(c) Southport Harbor, Fairfield, Connecticut.--The project for
navigation, Southport Harbor, Fairfield, Connecticut, authorized by
section 2 of the River and Harbor Act of March 2, 1829, and by the
first section of the River and Harbor Act of August 30, 1935 (49 Stat.
1029), and section 364 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
(110 Stat. 3733-3734), is further modified to redesignate a portion of
the 9-foot-deep channel to an anchorage area, approximately 900 feet in
length and 90,000 square feet in area, and lying generally north of a
line with points at coordinates N108,043.45, E452,252.04 and
N107938.74, E452265.74.
(d) Mystic River, Massachusetts.--The portion of the project for
navigation, Mystic River, Massachusetts, authorized by the first
section of the River and Harbor Appropriations Act of July 13, 1892 (27
Stat. 96), between a line starting at a point N515,683.77, E707,035.45
and ending at a point N515,721.28, E707,069.85 and a line starting at a
point N514,595.15, E707,746.15 and ending at a point N514,732.94,
E707,658.38 shall be relocated and reduced from 100 foot to a 50-foot
wide channel after the date of enactment of this Act described as
follows: Beginning at a point N515,721.28, E707,069.85, thence running
southeasterly about 840.50 feet to a point N515,070.16, E707,601.27,
thence running southeasterly about 177.54 feet to a point N514,904.84,
E707,665.98, thence running southeasterly about 319.90 feet to a point
with coordinates N514,595.15, E707,746.15, thence running northwesterly
about 163.37 feet to a point N514,732.94, E707,658.38, thence running
northwesterly about 161.58 feet to a point N514.889.47, E707,618.30,
thence running northwesterly about 166.61 feet to a point N515.044.62,
E707,557.58, thence running northwesterly about 825.31 feet to a point
N515,683.77, E707,035.45, thence running northeasterly about 50.90 feet
returning to a point N515,721.28, E707,069.85.
(e) Green Bay Harbor, Green Bay, Wisconsin.--The portion of the inner
harbor of the Federal navigation channel, Green Bay Harbor, Green Bay,
Wisconsin, authorized by the first section of the River and Harbor Act
of June 23, 1866, beginning at station 190+00 to station 378+00 is
authorized to a width of 75 feet and a depth of 6 feet.
(f) Additional Deauthorizations.--The following projects are not
authorized after the date of enactment of this Act, except with respect
to any portion of such a project which portion has been completed
before such date or is under construction on such date:
(1) The project for flood control, Cache Creek Basin, Clear
Lake Outlet Channel, California, authorized by section 401(a)
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat.
4112).
(2) The project for flood protection on Atascadero Creek and
its tributaries of Goleta, California, authorized by section
201 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1826).
(3) The project for flood control, central and southern
Florida, Shingle Creek basin, Florida, authorized by section
203 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1182).
(4) The project for flood control, Middle Wabash, Greenfield
Bayou, Indiana, authorized by section 10 of the Flood Control
Act of July 24, 1946 (60 Stat. 649).
(5) The project for flood damage reduction, Lake George,
Hobart, Indiana, authorized by section 602(a)(2) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4148).
(6) The project for flood control, 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) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106
Stat. 4821).
(7) The project for flood control, Hazard, Kentucky,
authorized by section 3(a)(7) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1988 (100 Stat. 4014) and section 108 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4621).
(8) The recreation portion of the project for flood control,
Taylorsville Lake, Kentucky, authorized by section 203 of the
Flood Control Act of 1966 (80 Stat. 1421).
(9) The project for flood control, western Kentucky
tributaries, Kentucky, authorized by section 204 of the Flood
Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1076) and modified by section 210
of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1829).
(10) The project for flood damage reduction, Tensas-Cocodrie
area, Louisiana, authorized by section 3 of the Flood Control
Act of August 18, 1941 (55 Stat. 643).
(11) 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).
(12) The bulkhead and jetty features at Lake Borgne and Chef
Menteur, Louisiana, of the project for navigation, Mississippi
River, Baton Rouge to the Gulf of Mexico, barge channel through
Devils Swamp, Louisiana, authorized by the first section of the
River and Harbor Act of July 24, 1946 (60 Stat. 635).
(13) The project for navigation Red River Waterway,
Shreveport, Louisiana to Daingerfield, Texas, authorized by the
River and Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 731).
(14) The project for flood damage reduction Brockton,
Massachusetts, authorized by section 401(c) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4129).
(15) The project for navigation, Grand Haven Harbor,
Michigan, authorized by section 202 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4093).
(16) The project for hydropower, Libby Dam, Montana, (Units
6-8), authorized by section 549 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3779).
(17) The project for flood damage reduction, Platte River
Flood and Related Streambank Erosion Control, Nebraska,
authorized by section 603(f)(6) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4150).
(18) The project for navigation, Outer Harbor, Buffalo, New
York, authorized by section 110 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4817).
(19) The project for flood control, Sugar Creek Basin, North
Carolina and South Carolina, authorized by section 401(a) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4121).
(20) The project for flood control, Miami River, Fairfield,
Ohio, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4122).
(21) The project for shoreline protection, Maumee Bay, Lake
Erie, Ohio, authorized by section 501(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4135).
(22) The project for flood control and water supply, Parker
Lake, Muddy Boggy Creek, Oklahoma, authorized by section 601 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4144).
(23) The project for the Columbia River, Seafarers Memorial,
Hammond, Oregon, authorized by title I of the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act, 1991 (104 Stat. 2078).
(24) The project for bulkhead repairs, Quonset Point-
Davisville, Rhode Island, authorized by section 571 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3788).
(25) The project for flood damage reduction, Harris Fork
Creek, Tennessee and Kentucky, authorized by section 102 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2921).
(26) The Arroyo Colorado, Texas, feature of the project for
flood control Lower Rio Grande, Texas, authorized by section
401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100
Stat. 4125).
(27) The structural portion of 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).
(28) The project for flood protection, East Fork Channel
Improvement, Increment 2, East Fork of the Trinity River,
Texas, authorized by section 202 of the Flood Control Act of
1962 (76 Stat. 1185).
(29) The project for flood control, Falfurrias, Texas,
authorized by section 3(a)(14) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4014).
(30) The project for streambank erosion, Kanawha River,
Charleston, West Virginia, authorized by section 603(f)(13) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4153).
(g) Conditions.--The first sentence of section 1001(b)(2) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(2)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``two years'' and inserting ``year''; and
(2) by striking ``7'' and inserting ``5''.
SEC. 3129. LAND CONVEYANCES.
(a) St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall convey to the State of
Arkansas, without monetary consideration and subject to
paragraph (2), all right, title, and interest to real property
within the State acquired by the Federal Government as
mitigation land for the project for flood control, St. Francis
Basin, Arkansas and Missouri Project, authorized by the Flood
Control Act of May 15, 1928 (33 U.S.C. 702a et seq.)
(2) Terms and conditions.--
(A) In general.--The conveyance by the United States
under this subsection shall be subject to--
(i) the condition that the State of Arkansas
agree to operate, maintain, and manage the real
property for fish and wildlife, recreation, and
environmental purposes at no cost or expense to
the United States; and
(ii) such other terms and conditions as the
Secretary determines to be in the interest of
the United States.
(B) Reversion.--If the Secretary determines that the
real property conveyed under paragraph (1) ceases to be
held in public ownership or the State ceases to
operate, maintain, and manage the real property in
accordance with this subsection, all right, title, and
interest in and to the property shall revert to the
United States, at the option of the Secretary.
(3) Mitigation.--Nothing in this subsection extinguishes the
responsibility of the Federal Government or the non-Federal
interest for the project referred to in paragraph (1) from the
obligation to implement mitigation for such project that
existed on the day prior to the transfer authorized by this
subsection.
(b) Milford, Kansas.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall convey by quitclaim deed
without consideration to the Geary County Fire Department,
Milford, Kansas, all right, title, and interest of the United
States in and to real property consisting of approximately 7.4
acres located in Geary County, Kansas, for construction,
operation, and maintenance of a fire station.
(2) Reversion.--If the Secretary determines that the real
property conveyed under paragraph (1) ceases to be held in
public ownership or to be used for any purpose other than a
fire station, all right, title, and interest in and to the
property shall revert to the United States, at the option of
the United States.
(c) Pike County, Missouri.--
(1) In general.--At such time as S.S.S., Inc., conveys all
right, title and interest in and to the real property described
in paragraph (2)(A) to the United States, the Secretary shall
convey all right, title, and interest of the United States in
and to the real property described in paragraph (2)(B) to
S.S.S., Inc.
(2) Land description.--The parcels of land referred to in
paragraph (1) are the following:
(A) Non-federal land.--Approximately 42 acres, the
exact legal description to be determined by mutual
agreement of S.S.S., Inc., and the Secretary, subject
to any existing flowage easements situated in Pike
County, Missouri, upstream and northwest, about a 200-
foot distance from Drake Island (also known as Grimes
Island).
(B) Federal land.--Approximately 42 acres, the exact
legal description to be determined by mutual agreement
of S.S.S. Inc., and the Secretary, situated in Pike
County, Missouri, known as Government Tract Numbers
MIs-7 and a portion of FM-46 (both tracts on Buffalo
Island), administered by the Corps of Engineers.
(3) Conditions.--The exchange of real property under
paragraph (1) shall be subject to the following conditions:
(A) Deeds.--
(i) Non-federal land.--The conveyance of the
real property described in paragraph (2)(A) to
the Secretary shall be by a warranty deed
acceptable to the Secretary.
(ii) Federal land.--The instrument of
conveyance used to convey the real property
described in paragraph (2)(B) to S.S.S., Inc.,
shall be by quitclaim deed and contain such
reservations, terms, and conditions as the
Secretary considers necessary to allow the
United States to operate and maintain the
Mississippi River 9-Foot Navigation Project.
(B) Removal of improvements.--S.S.S., Inc., may
remove, and the Secretary may require S.S.S., Inc., to
remove, any improvements on the land described in
paragraph (2)(A).
(C) Time limit for exchange.--The land exchange under
paragraph (1) shall be completed not later than 2 years
after the date of enactment of this Act.
(4) Value of properties.--If the appraised fair market value,
as determined by the Secretary, of the real property conveyed
to S.S.S., Inc., by the Secretary under paragraph (1) exceeds
the appraised fair market value, as determined by the
Secretary, of the real property conveyed to the United States
by S.S.S., Inc., under paragraph (1), S.S.S., Inc., shall make
a payment to the United States equal to the excess in cash or a
cash equivalent that is satisfactory to the Secretary.
(d) Boardman, Oregon.--Section 501(g)(1) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3751) is amended--
(1) by striking ``city of Boardman,'' and inserting ``the
Boardman Park and Recreation District, Boardman,''; and
(2) by striking ``such city'' and inserting ``the city of
Boardman''.
(e) Tioga Township, Pennsylvania.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall convey by quitclaim deed
to the Tioga Township, Pennsylvania, without consideration, all
right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the
parcel of real property located on the northeast end of Tract
No. 226, a portion of the Tioga-Hammond Lakes flood control
project, Tioga County, Pennsylvania, consisting of
approximately 8 acres, together with any improvements on that
property, for public ownership and use as the site of the
administrative offices and road maintenance complex for the
Township.
(2) Reservation of interests.--The Secretary shall reserve
such rights and interests in and to the property to be conveyed
as the Secretary considers necessary to preserve the
operational integrity and security of the Tioga-Hammond Lakes
flood control project.
(3) Reversion.--If the Secretary determines that the property
conveyed under paragraph (1) ceases to be held in public
ownership, or to be used as a site for the Tioga Township
administrative offices and road maintenance complex or for
related public purposes, all right, title, and interest in and
to the property shall revert to the United States, at the
option of the United States.
(f) Richard B. Russell Lake, South Carolina.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall convey to the State of
South Carolina, by quitclaim deed, at fair market value, all
right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the
real property described in paragraph (2) that is managed, as of
the date of enactment of this Act, by the South Carolina
department of commerce for public recreation purposes for the
Richard B. Russell Dam and Lake, South Carolina, project
authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1966 (80
Stat. 1420).
(2) Land description.--Subject to paragraph (3), the real
property referred to in paragraph (1) is the parcel contained
in the portion of real property described in Army Lease Number
DACW21-1-92-0500.
(3) Reservation of interests.--The United States shall
reserve--
(A) ownership of all real property included in the
lease referred to in paragraph (2) that would have been
acquired for operational purposes in accordance with
the 1971 implementation of the 1962 Army/Interior Joint
Acquisition Policy; and
(B) such other rights and interests in and to the
real property to be conveyed as the Secretary considers
necessary for authorized project purposes, including
easement rights-of-way to remaining Federal land.
(4) No effect on shore management policy.--The Shoreline
Management Policy (ER-1130-2-406) of the Corps of Engineer
shall not be changed or altered for any proposed development of
land conveyed under this subsection.
(5) Cost sharing.--In carrying out the conveyance under this
subsection, the Secretary and the State shall comply with all
obligations of any cost-sharing agreement between the Secretary
and the State with respect to the real property described in
paragraph (2) in effect as of the date of the conveyance.
(6) Land not conveyed.--The State shall continue to manage
the real property described in paragraph (3) not conveyed under
this subsection in accordance with the terms and conditions of
Army Lease Number DACW21-1-92-0500.
(g) Generally Applicable Provisions.--
(1) Survey to obtain legal description.--The exact acreage
and the legal description of any real property to be conveyed
under this section shall be determined by a survey that is
satisfactory to the Secretary.
(2) Applicability of property screening provisions.--Section
2696 of title 10, United States Code, shall not apply to any
conveyance under this section.
(3) Additional terms and conditions.--The Secretary may
require that any conveyance under this section be subject to
such additional terms and conditions as the Secretary considers
appropriate and necessary to protect the interests of the
United States.
(4) Costs of conveyance.--An entity to which a conveyance is
made under this section shall be responsible for all reasonable
and necessary costs, including real estate transaction and
environmental documentation costs, associated with the
conveyance.
(5) Liability.--An entity to which a conveyance is made under
this section shall hold the United States harmless from any
liability with respect to activities carried out, on or after
the date of the conveyance, on the real property conveyed. The
United States shall remain responsible for any liability with
respect to activities carried out, before such date, on the
real property conveyed.
SEC. 3130. EXTINGUISHMENT OF REVERSIONARY INTERESTS AND USE
RESTRICTIONS.
(a) Idaho.--
(1) In general.--With respect to the property covered by each
deed in paragraph (2)--
(A) the reversionary interests and use restrictions
relating to port and industrial use purposes are
extinguished;
(B) the restriction that no activity shall be
permitted that will compete with services and
facilities offered by public marinas is extinguished;
(C) the human habitation or other building structure
use restriction is extinguished if the elevation of the
property is above the standard project flood elevation;
and
(D) the use of fill material to raise areas of the
property above the standard project flood elevation is
authorized, except in any area for which a permit under
section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344) is required.
(2) Affected deeds.--The deeds with the following county
auditor's file numbers are referred to in paragraph (1):
(A) Auditor's Instruments No. 399218 and No. 399341
of Nez Perce County, Idaho--2.07 acres.
(B) Auditor's Instruments No. 487437 and No. 339341
of Nez Perce County, Idaho--7.32 acres.
(b) Old Hickory Lock and Dam, Cumberland River, Tennessee.--
(1) Release of retained rights, interests, reservations.--
With respect to land conveyed by the Secretary to the Tennessee
Society of Crippled Children and Adults, Incorporated (now
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 reversionary
interests and the use restrictions relating to recreation and
camping purposes are extinguished.
(2) Instrument of release.--As soon as possible after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall execute and
file in the appropriate office a deed of release, amended deed,
or other appropriate instrument effectuating the release of
interests required by paragraph (1).
(c) Port of Pasco, Washington.--
(1) Extinguishment of use restrictions and flowage
easement.--With respect to the property covered by the deed in
paragraph (3)(A)--
(A) the flowage easement and human habitation or
other building structure use restriction is
extinguished if the elevation of the property is above
the standard project flood elevation; and
(B) the use of fill material to raise areas of the
property above the standard project flood elevation is
authorized, except in any area for which a permit under
section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344) is required.
(2) Extinguishment of flowage easement.--With respect to the
property covered by each deed in paragraph (3)(B), the flowage
easement is extinguished if the elevation of the property is
above the standard project flood elevation.
(3) Affected deeds.--The deeds referred to in paragraphs (1)
and (2) are as follows:
(A) Auditor's File Number 262980 of Franklin County,
Washington.
(B) Auditor's File Numbers 263334 and 404398 of
Franklin County, Washington.
(d) No Effect on Other Rights.--Nothing in this section affects the
remaining rights and interests of the Corps of Engineers for authorized
project purposes.
TITLE IV--STUDIES
SEC. 4001. JOHN GLENN GREAT LAKES BASIN PROGRAM.
Section 455 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (42 U.S.C.
1962d-21) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(g) In-Kind Contributions for Study.--The non-Federal interest may
provide up to 100 percent of the non-Federal share required under
subsection (f) in the form of in-kind services and materials.''.
SEC. 4002. LAKE ERIE DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITES.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the nature and
frequency of avian botulism problems in the vicinity of Lake Erie
associated with dredged material disposal sites and shall make
recommendations to eliminate the conditions that result in such
problems.
SEC. 4003. SOUTHWESTERN UNITED STATES DROUGHT STUDY.
(a) In General.--The Secretary, in coordination with the Secretary of
the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Commerce,
and other appropriate agencies, shall conduct, at Federal expense, a
comprehensive study of drought conditions in the southwestern United
States, with a particular emphasis on the Colorado River basin, the Rio
Grande River basin, and the Great Basin.
(b) Inventory of Actions.--In conducting the study, the Secretary
shall assemble an inventory of actions taken or planned to be taken to
address drought-related situations in the southwestern United States.
(c) Purpose.--The purpose of the study shall be to develop
recommendations to more effectively address current and future drought
conditions in the southwestern United States.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section $7,000,000.
Such funds shall remain available until expended.
SEC. 4004. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
Section 459(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113
Stat. 333; 114 Stat. 2635) is amended by striking ``3 years after the
first date on which funds are appropriated to carry out this section''
and inserting ``December 30, 2006''.
SEC. 4005. KNIK ARM, COOK INLET, ALASKA.
The Secretary shall conduct, at Federal expense, a study to
determine the potential impacts on navigation of construction of a
bridge across Knik Arm, Cook Inlet, Alaska.
SEC. 4006. KUSKOKWIM RIVER, ALASKA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for navigation, Kuskokwim River, Alaska, in the
vicinity of the village of Crooked Creek.
SEC. 4007. ST. GEORGE HARBOR, ALASKA.
The Secretary shall conduct, at Federal expense, a study to determine
the feasibility of providing navigation improvements at St. George
Harbor, Alaska.
SEC. 4008. SUSITNA RIVER, ALASKA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for hydropower, recreation, and related purposes
on the Susitna River, Alaska.
SEC. 4009. GILA BEND, MARICOPA, ARIZONA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, Gila Bend, Maricopa,
Arizona. In conducting the study, the Secretary shall review plans and
designs developed by non-Federal interests and shall incorporate such
plans and designs into the Federal study if the Secretary determines
that such plans and designs are consistent with Federal standards.
SEC. 4010. SEARCY COUNTY, ARKANSAS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
using Greers Ferry Lake as a water supply source for Searcy County,
Arkansas.
SEC. 4011. DRY CREEK VALLEY, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project to provide recycled water for agricultural water
supply, Dry Creek Valley, California, including a review of the
feasibility of expanding the Geysers recharge project north of
Healdsburg, California.
SEC. 4012. ELKHORN SLOUGH ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study of the Elkhorn Slough estuary,
California, to determine the feasibility of conserving, enhancing, and
restoring estuarine habitats by developing strategies to address
hydrological management issues.
SEC. 4013. FRESNO, KINGS, AND KERN COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for water supply for Fresno, Kings, and Kern
Counties, California.
SEC. 4014. LOS ANGELES RIVER, CALIFORNIA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and
ecosystem restoration, Los Angeles River, California.
(b) Revitalization Plan.--In conducting the study, the Secretary
shall review the Los Angeles River revitalization plan developed by
non-Federal interests and shall incorporate such plan into the Federal
study if the Secretary determines that such plan is consistent with
Federal standards.
SEC. 4015. LYTLE CREEK, RIALTO, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and groundwater
recharge, Lytle Creek, Rialto, California.
SEC. 4016. MOKELUMNE RIVER, SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply along the
Mokelumne River, San Joaquin County, California.
(b) Limitation on Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed to invalidate, preempt, or create any exception to
State water law, State water rights, or Federal or State permitted
activities or agreements.
SEC. 4017. NAPA RIVER, ST. HELENA, CALIFORNIA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive study of
the Napa River in the vicinity of St. Helena, California, for the
purposes of improving flood management through reconnecting the river
to its floodplain; restoring habitat, including riparian and aquatic
habitat; improving fish passage and water quality; and restoring native
plant communities.
(b) Plans and Designs.--In conducting the study, the Secretary shall
review plans and designs developed by non-Federal interests and shall
incorporate such plans and designs into the Federal study if the
Secretary determines that such plans and designs are consistent with
Federal standards.
SEC. 4018. ORICK, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and ecosystem
restoration, Orick, California. In conducting the study, the Secretary
shall determine the feasibility of restoring or rehabilitating the
Redwood Creek Levees, Humboldt County, California.
SEC. 4019. RIALTO, FONTANA, AND COLTON, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for water supply for Rialto, Fontana, and
Colton, California.
SEC. 4020. SACRAMENTO RIVER, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive study to determine the
feasibility of, and alternatives for, measures to protect water
diversion facilities and fish protective screen facilities in the
vicinity of river mile 178 on the Sacramento River, California.
SEC. 4021. SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for water supply, San Diego County, California,
including a review of the feasibility of connecting 4 existing
reservoirs to increase usable storage capacity.
SEC. 4022. SAN FRANCISCO BAY, SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA, CALIFORNIA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of the beneficial use of dredged material from the San
Francisco Bay in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California,
including the benefits and impacts of salinity in the Delta and the
benefits to navigation, flood damage reduction, ecosystem restoration,
water quality, salinity control, water supply reliability, and
recreation.
(b) Cooperation.--In conducting the study, the Secretary shall
cooperate with the California Department of Water Resources and
appropriate Federal and State entities in developing options for the
beneficial use of dredged material from San Francisco Bay for the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta area.
(c) Review.--The study shall include a review of the feasibility of
using Sherman Island as a rehandling site for levee maintenance
material, as well as for ecosystem restoration. The review may include
monitoring a pilot project using up to 150,000 cubic yards of dredged
material and being carried out at the Sherman Island site, examining
larger scale use of dredged materials from the San Francisco Bay and
Suisun Bay Channel, and analyzing the feasibility of the potential use
of saline materials from the San Francisco Bay for both rehandling and
ecosystem restoration purposes.
SEC. 4023. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY SHORELINE STUDY, CALIFORNIA.
(a) In General.--In conducting the South San Francisco Bay shoreline
study, the Secretary shall--
(1) review the planning, design, and land acquisition
documents prepared by the California State Coastal Conservancy,
the Santa Clara Valley Water District, and other local
interests in developing recommendations for measures to provide
flood protection of the South San Francisco Bay shoreline,
restoration of the South San Francisco Bay salt ponds
(including lands owned by the Department of the Interior), and
other related purposes; and
(2) incorporate such planning, design, and land acquisition
documents into the Federal study if the Secretary determines
that such documents are consistent with Federal standards.
(b) Report.--Not later than December 31, 2008, the Secretary shall
transmit a feasibility report for the South San Francisco Bay shoreline
study to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public
Works of the Senate.
(c) Credit.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of any project authorized by law as a
result of the South San Francisco Bay shoreline study the cost
of work carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date
of the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary
determines that the work is integral to the project.
(2) Limitation.--In no case may work that was carried out
more than 5 years before the date of enactment of this Act be
eligible for credit under this subsection.
SEC. 4024. TWENTYNINE PALMS, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, Pinto Cove Wash, in
the vicinity of Twentynine Palms, California.
SEC. 4025. YUCCA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, West Burnt Mountain
basin, in the vicinity of Yucca Valley, California.
SEC. 4026. BOULDER CREEK, BOULDER, COLORADO.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction in the Boulder Creek
floodplain, Colorado.
SEC. 4027. ROARING FORK RIVER, BASALT, COLORADO.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and other purposes
for the Roaring Fork River, Basalt, Colorado.
SEC. 4028. DELAWARE AND CHRISTINA RIVERS AND SHELLPOT CREEK,
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and related purposes
along the Delaware and Christina Rivers and Shellpot Creek, Wilmington,
Delaware.
SEC. 4029. COLLIER COUNTY BEACHES, FLORIDA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for hurricane and storm damage reduction and
flood damage reduction in the vicinity of Vanderbilt, Park Shore, and
Naples beaches, Collier County, Florida.
SEC. 4030. VANDERBILT BEACH LAGOON, FLORIDA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for environmental restoration, water supply, and
improvement of water quality at Vanderbilt Beach Lagoon, Florida.
SEC. 4031. MERIWETHER COUNTY, GEORGIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for water supply, Meriwether County, Georgia.
SEC. 4032. TYBEE ISLAND, GEORGIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
including the northern end of Tybee Island extending from the north
terminal groin to the mouth of Lazaretto Creek as a part of the project
for beach erosion control, Tybee Island, Georgia, carried out under
section 201 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5).
SEC. 4033. KAUKONAHUA-HELEMANO WATERSHED, OAHU, HAWAII.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, Kaukonahua-Helemano
watershed, Oahu, Hawaii.
SEC. 4034. WEST MAUI, MAUI, HAWAII.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out projects for water resources development, environmental
restoration, and natural resources protection, West Maui, Maui, Hawaii.
SEC. 4035. BOISE RIVER, IDAHO.
The study for flood control, Boise River, Idaho, authorized by
section 414 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat.
324), is modified--
(1) to add ecosystem restoration and water supply as project
purposes to be studied; and
(2) to require the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal
share of the cost of the study the cost, not to exceed
$500,000, of work carried out by the non-Federal interest
before the date of the partnership agreement for the project if
the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the
project.
SEC. 4036. BALLARD'S ISLAND SIDE CHANNEL, ILLINOIS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for ecosystem restoration, Ballard's Island,
Illinois.
SEC. 4037. CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.
Section 425(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114
Stat. 2638) is amended by inserting ``Lake Michigan and'' before ``the
Chicago River''.
SEC. 4038. SOUTH BRANCH, CHICAGO RIVER, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for ecosystem restoration at the South Fork of
the South Branch of the Chicago River, Chicago, Illinois.
SEC. 4039. UTICA, ILLINOIS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction in the vicinity of
Utica, Illinois.
SEC. 4040. LAKE AND PORTER COUNTIES, INDIANA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for riverfront development, including enhanced
public access, recreation, and environmental restoration along Lake
Michigan, Hammond, Whiting, East Chicago, Gary, and Portage, Indiana.
SEC. 4041. SALEM, INDIANA.
The Secreatry shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project to provide an additional water supply source for
Salem, Indiana.
SEC. 4042. BUCKHORN LAKE, KENTUCKY.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of modifying the project for flood damage reduction,
Buckhorn Lake, Kentucky, authorized by section 2 of the Flood Control
Act of June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1217), to add ecosystem restoration,
recreation, and improved access as project purposes, including
permanently raising the winter pool elevation of the project.
(b) In-Kind Contributions.--The non-Federal interest may provide the
non-Federal share of the cost of the study in the form of services,
materials, supplies, or other in-kind contributions.
SEC. 4043. DEWEY LAKE, KENTUCKY.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
modifying the project for Dewey Lake, Kentucky, to add water supply as
a project purpose.
SEC. 4044. LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY.
The Secretary shall conduct a study of the project for flood control,
Louisville, Kentucky, authorized by section 4 of the Flood Control Act
of June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1217), to investigate measures to address
the rehabilitation of the project.
SEC. 4045. BASTROP-MOREHOUSE PARISH, LOUISIANA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for water supply, Bastrop-Morehouse Parish,
Louisiana.
SEC. 4046. OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS FABRICATION PORTS, LOUISIANA.
(a) Benefits.--In conducting a feasibility study for each of the
following projects for navigation, the Secretary shall include in the
calculation of national economic development benefits all economic
benefits associated with contracts for new energy exploration and
contracts for the fabrication of energy infrastructure that would
result from carrying out the project:
(1) Atchafalaya River, Bayous Chene, Boeuf, and Black,
Louisiana, being conducted under section 430 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2639).
(2) Iberia Port, Louisiana, being conducted under section 431
of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat.
2639).
(b) Repeal.--Section 6009 of the Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami
Relief, 2005 (Public Law 109-13; 119 Stat. 282) is repealed.
SEC. 4047. VERMILION RIVER, LOUISIANA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for navigation on the Vermilion River,
Louisiana, from the intersection of the Vermilion River and the Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway to the industrial area north of the Vermilion
River.
SEC. 4048. WEST FELICIANA PARISH, LOUISIANA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for riverfront development, including enhanced
public access, recreation, and environmental restoration, on the
Mississippi River in West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana.
SEC. 4049. PATAPSCO RIVER, MARYLAND.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine and assess the
impact of debris in the Patapsco River basin, Maryland, on wetlands,
water quality, and public health and to identify management measures to
reduce the inflow of debris into the Patapsco River.
SEC. 4050. FALL RIVER HARBOR, MASSACHUSETTS AND RHODE ISLAND.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
deepening that portion of the navigation channel of the navigation
project for Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts and Rhode Island,
authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat.
731), seaward of the Charles M. Braga, Jr. Memorial Bridge, Fall River
and Somerset, Massachusetts.
SEC. 4051. HAMBURG AND GREEN OAK TOWNSHIPS, MICHIGAN.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction on Ore Lake and the
Huron River for Hamburg and Green Oak Townships, Michigan.
SEC. 4052. ST. CLAIR RIVER, MICHIGAN.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out a study of the
relationships among dredging of the St. Clair River for navigation,
erosion in the river, and declining water levels in the river and in
Lake Michigan and Lake Huron.
(b) Recommendations.--The report on the results of the study may
include recommendations to address water level declines in Lake
Michigan and Lake Huron.
SEC. 4053. DULUTH-SUPERIOR HARBOR, MINNESOTA AND WISCONSIN.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study and prepare a
report to evaluate the integrity of the bulkhead system located on and
in the vicinity of Duluth-Superior Harbor, Duluth, Minnesota, and
Superior, Wisconsin.
(b) Contents.--The report shall include--
(1) a determination of causes of corrosion of the bulkhead
system;
(2) recommendations to reduce corrosion of the bulkhead
system;
(3) a description of the necessary repairs to the bulkhead
system; and
(4) an estimate of the cost of addressing the causes of the
corrosion and carrying out necessary repairs.
SEC. 4054. WILD RICE RIVER, MINNESOTA.
The Secretary shall review the project for flood protection and other
purposes on Wild Rice River, Minnesota, authorized by section 201 of
the Flood Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1825), to develop alternatives
to the Twin Valley Lake feature.
SEC. 4055. MISSISSIPPI COASTAL AREA, MISSISSIPPI.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
making improvements or modifications to existing improvements in the
coastal area of Mississippi in the interest of hurricane and storm
damage reduction, prevention of saltwater intrusion, preservation of
fish and wildlife, prevention of erosion, and other related water
resource purposes.
SEC. 4056. NORTHEAST MISSISSIPPI.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
modifying the project for navigation, Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway,
Alabama and Mississippi, to provide water supply for northeast
Mississippi.
SEC. 4057. ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, St. Louis, Missouri,
to restore or rehabilitate the levee system feature of the project for
flood protection, St. Louis, Missouri, authorized by the first section
of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing construction of certain public
works on the Mississippi River for the protection of Saint Louis,
Missouri'', approved August 9, 1955 (69 Stat. 540).
SEC. 4058. DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL, NEW JERSEY.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project in the vicinity of the Atlantic Intracoastal
Waterway, New Jersey, for the construction of a dredged material
disposal transfer facility to make dredged material available for
beneficial reuse.
SEC. 4059. BAYONNE, NEW JERSEY.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for environmental restoration, including
improved water quality, enhanced public access, and recreation, on the
Kill Van Kull, Bayonne, New Jersey.
SEC. 4060. CARTERET, NEW JERSEY.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for environmental restoration, including
improved water quality, enhanced public access, and recreation, on the
Raritan River, Carteret, New Jersey.
SEC. 4061. ELIZABETH RIVER, ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out ecosystem restoration improvements in the Elizabeth River
watershed, Elizabeth, New Jersey.
SEC. 4062. GLOUCESTER COUNTY, NEW JERSEY.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, Gloucester, New
Jersey, including the feasibility of restoring the flood protection
dikes in Gibbstown, New Jersey, and the associated tidegates in
Gloucester, New Jersey.
SEC. 4063. PERTH AMBOY, NEW JERSEY.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for riverfront development, including enhanced
public access, recreation, and environmental restoration, on the Arthur
Kill, Perth Amboy, New Jersey.
SEC. 4064. WRECK POND, MONMOUTH COUNTY, NEW JERSEY.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for environmental restoration at Wreck Pond, New
Jersey, including Black Creek and associated waters.
SEC. 4065. BATAVIA, NEW YORK.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for hydropower and related purposes in the
vicinity of Batavia, New York.
SEC. 4066. BIG SISTER CREEK, EVANS, NEW YORK.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, Big
Sister Creek, Evans, New York.
(b) Evaluation of Potential Solutions.--In conducting the study, the
Secretary shall evaluate potential solutions to flooding from all
sources, including flooding that results from ice jams.
SEC. 4067. EAST CHESTER BAY, TURTLE COVE, NEW YORK.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for navigation, East Chester Creek, Chester Bay,
Turtle Cove, New York.
SEC. 4068. FINGER LAKES, NEW YORK.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for aquatic ecosystem restoration and
protection, Finger Lakes, New York, to address water quality and
invasive species.
SEC. 4069. HUDSON-RARITAN ESTUARY, NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY.
In conducting the study for environmental restoration, Hudson-Raritan
Estuary, New York and New Jersey, the Secretary shall establish and
utilize watershed restoration teams composed of estuary restoration
experts from the Corps of Engineers, the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection, and the Port Authority of New York and New
Jersey and other experts designated by the Secretary for the purpose of
developing habitat restoration and water quality enhancement.
SEC. 4070. LAKE ERIE SHORELINE, BUFFALO, NEW YORK.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for storm damage reduction and shoreline
protection in the vicinity of Gallagher Beach, Lake Erie Shoreline,
Buffalo, New York.
SEC. 4071. NEWTOWN CREEK, NEW YORK.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out ecosystem restoration improvements on Newtown Creek,
Brooklyn and Queens, New York.
SEC. 4072. NIAGARA RIVER, NEW YORK.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for a low-head hydroelectric generating facility
in the Niagara River, New York.
SEC. 4073. UPPER DELAWARE RIVER WATERSHED, NEW YORK.
Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42
U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)) and with the consent of the affected local
government, a nonprofit organization may serve as the non-Federal
interest for a study for the Upper Delaware River watershed, New York,
being carried out under Committee Resolution 2495 of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives,
adopted May 9, 1996.
SEC. 4074. LINCOLN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study of existing water and water
quality-related infrastructure in Lincoln County, North Carolina, to
assist local interests in determining the most efficient and effective
way to connect county infrastructure.
SEC. 4075. WILKES COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for water supply, Wilkes County, North Carolina.
SEC. 4076. YADKINVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for water supply, Yadkinville, North Carolina.
SEC. 4077. CINCINNATI, OHIO.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for ecosystem restoration and
recreation on the Ohio River, Cincinnati, Ohio.
(b) Design.--While conducting the study, the Secretary may continue
to carry out design work for the project as authorized by section 118
of division H of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (118 Stat.
439).
(c) Existing Plans.--In conducting the study, the Secretary shall
review the Central Riverfront Park Master Plan, dated December 1999,
and incorporate any components of the plan that the Secretary
determines are consistent with Federal standards.
(d) Credit.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of any project authorized by law as a
result of the study the cost of work carried out by the non-
Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement
for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is
integral to the project.
(2) Limitation.--In no case may work that was carried out
more than 5 years before the date of enactment of this Act be
eligible for credit under this subsection.
SEC. 4078. EUCLID, OHIO.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for navigation, ecosystem restoration, and
recreation on Lake Erie, in the vicinity of the Euclid Lakefront,
Euclid, Ohio.
SEC. 4079. LAKE ERIE, OHIO.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out projects for power generation at confined disposal
facilities along Lake Erie, Ohio.
SEC. 4080. OHIO RIVER, OHIO.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out projects for flood damage reduction on the Ohio River in
Mahoning, Columbiana, Jefferson, Belmont, Noble, Monroe, Washington,
Athens, Meigs, Gallia, Lawrence, and Scioto Counties, Ohio.
SEC. 4081. SUTHERLIN, OREGON.
(a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of water resources
along Sutherlin Creek in the vicinity of Sutherlin, Oregon, to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project to restore and
enhance aquatic resources using a combination of structural and
bioengineering techniques and, if the Secretary determines that the
project is feasible, the Secretary may carry out the project.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this section $2,500,000.
SEC. 4082. TILLAMOOK BAY AND BAR, OREGON.
The Secretary shall conduct a study of the project for navigation,
Tillamook Bay and Bar, Oregon, authorized by the first section of the
River and Harbor Appropriations Act of July 25, 1912 (37 Stat. 220), to
investigate measures to address dangerous and hazardous wave and ocean
conditions.
SEC. 4083. ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION AND FISH PASSAGE IMPROVEMENTS, OREGON.
(a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of undertaking ecosystem restoration and fish passage
improvements on rivers throughout the State of Oregon.
(b) Requirements.--In carrying out the study, the Secretary shall--
(1) work in coordination with the State of Oregon, local
governments, and other Federal agencies; and
(2) place emphasis on--
(A) fish passage and conservation and restoration
strategies to benefit species that are listed or
proposed for listing as threatened or endangered
species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); and
(B) other watershed restoration objectives.
(c) Pilot Program.--
(1) In general.--In conjunction with conducting the study
under subsection (a), the Secretary may carry out pilot
projects to demonstrate the effectiveness of ecosystem
restoration and fish passages.
(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized to
be appropriated $5,000,000 to carry out this subsection.
SEC. 4084. WALLA WALLA RIVER BASIN, OREGON.
In conducting the study of determine the feasibility of carrying out
a project for ecosystem restoration, Walla Walla River Basin, Oregon,
the Secretary shall--
(1) credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the
study the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest
before the date of the partnership agreement for the project if
the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the
project; and
(2) allow the non-Federal interest to provide the non-Federal
share of the cost of the study in the form of in-kind services
and materials.
SEC. 4085. CHARTIERS CREEK WATERSHED, PENNSYLVANIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, Chartiers Creek
watershed, Pennsylvania.
SEC. 4086. KINZUA DAM AND ALLEGHENY RESERVOIR, PENNSYLVANIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study of the project for flood control,
Kinzua Dam and Allegheny Reservoir, Warren, Pennsylvania, authorized by
section 5 of the Flood Control Act of June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1570),
and modified by section 2 of the Flood Control Act of June 28, 1938 (52
Stat. 1215), section 2 of the Flood Control Act of August 18, 1941 (55
Stat. 646), and section 4 of the Flood Control Act of December 22, 1944
(58 Stat. 887), to review operations of and identify modifications to
the project to expand recreational opportunities.
SEC. 4087. NORTH CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out project for aquatic ecosystem restoration and protection
in Warren, McKean, Potter, Tioga, Lycoming, Centre, Cameron, Elk,
Clearfield, Jefferson, Clarion, Venango, Forest, Clinton, Crawford, and
Mifflin Counties, Pennsylvania, particularly as related to abandoned
mine drainage abatement and reestablishment of stream and river
channels.
SEC. 4088. NORTHAMPTON AND LEHIGH COUNTIES STREAMS, PENNSYLVANIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for ecosystem restoration, floodplain
management, flood damage reduction, water quality control, and
watershed management, for the streams of Northampton and Lehigh
Counties, Pennsylvania.
SEC. 4089. WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of structural
and nonstructural flood damage reduction, stream bank protection, storm
water management, channel clearing and modification, and watershed
coordination measures in the Mahoning River basin, Pennsylvania, the
Allegheny River basin, Pennsylvania, and the Upper Ohio River basin,
Pennsylvania, to provide a level of flood protection sufficient to
prevent future losses to communities located in such basins from
flooding such as occurred in September 2004, but not less than a 100-
year level of flood protection.
(b) Priority Communities.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary shall give priority to the following Pennsylvania
communities: Marshall Township, Ross Township, Shaler Township, Jackson
Township, Harmony, Zelienople, Darlington Township, Houston Borough,
Chartiers Township, Washington, Canton Township, Tarentum Borough, and
East Deer Township.
SEC. 4090. WILLIAMSPORT, PENNSYLVANIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study of the project for flood control,
Williamsport, Pennsylvania, authorized by section 5 of the Flood
Control Act of June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1570), to investigate measures
to rehabilitate the project.
SEC. 4091. YARDLEY BOROUGH, PENNSYLVANIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, at Yardley Borough,
Pennsylvania, including the alternative of raising River Road.
SEC. 4092. RIO VALENCIANO, JUNCOS, PUERTO RICO.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to reevaluate
the project for flood damage reduction and water supply, Rio
Valenciano, Juncos, Puerto Rico, authorized by section 209 of the Flood
Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1197) and section 204 of the Flood
Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1828), to determine the feasibility of
carrying out the project.
(b) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share
of the cost of the study the cost of work carried out by the non-
Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the
project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the
project.
SEC. 4093. CROOKED CREEK, BENNETTSVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for water supply, Crooked Creek, Bennettsville,
South Carolina.
SEC. 4094. BROAD RIVER, YORK COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for water supply, Broad River, York County,
South Carolina.
SEC. 4095. GEORGETOWN AND WILLIAMSBURG COUNTIES, SOUTH CAROLINA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for water supply for Georgetown and Williamsburg
Counties, South Carolina, including the viability and practicality of
constructing a desalinization water treatment facility to meet such
water supply needs.
SEC. 4096. CHATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, Chattanooga Creek,
Dobbs Branch, Chattanooga, Tennessee.
SEC. 4097. CLEVELAND, TENNESSEE.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, Cleveland,
Tennessee.
SEC. 4098. CUMBERLAND RIVER, NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for recreation on, riverbank protection for, and
environmental protection of, the Cumberland River and riparian habitats
in the city of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee.
SEC. 4099. LEWIS, LAWRENCE, AND WAYNE COUNTIES, TENNESSEE.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for water supply for Lewis, Lawrence, and Wayne
Counties, Tennessee.
SEC. 4100. WOLF RIVER AND NONCONNAH CREEK, MEMPHIS TENNESSEE.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction along Wolf River and
Nonconnah Creek, in the vicinity of Memphis, Tennessee, to include the
repair, replacement, rehabilitation, and restoration of the following
pumping stations: Cypress Creek, Nonconnah Creek, Ensley, Marble Bayou,
and Bayou Gayoso.
SEC. 4101. ABILENE, TEXAS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for water supply, Abilene, Texas.
SEC. 4102. COASTAL TEXAS ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION AND RESTORATION, TEXAS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall develop a comprehensive plan to
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood damage
reduction, hurricane and storm damage reduction, and ecosystem
restoration in the coastal areas of the State of Texas.
(b) Scope.--The comprehensive plan shall provide for the protection,
conservation, and restoration of wetlands, barrier islands, shorelines,
and related lands and features that protect critical resources,
habitat, and infrastructure from the impacts of coastal storms,
hurricanes, erosion, and subsidence.
(c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term ``coastal
areas in the State of Texas'' means the coastal areas of the State of
Texas from the Sabine River on the east to the Rio Grande River on the
west and includes tidal waters, barrier islands, marches, coastal
wetlands, rivers and streams, and adjacent areas.
SEC. 4103. FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, Fort Bend County,
Texas.
SEC. 4104. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, Harris County,
Texas.
SEC. 4105. PORT OF GALVESTON, TEXAS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study of the feasibility of carrying
out a project for dredged material disposal in the vicinity of the
project for navigation and environmental restoration, Houston-Galveston
Navigation Channels, Texas, authorized by section 101(a)(30) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3666).
SEC. 4106. ROMA CREEK, TEXAS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, Roma Creek, Texas.
SEC. 4107. WALNUT CREEK, TEXAS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, environmental
restoration, and erosion control, Walnut Creek, Texas.
SEC. 4108. GRAND COUNTY AND MOAB, UTAH.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for water supply for Grand County and the city
of Moab, Utah, including a review of the impact of current and future
demands on the Spanish Valley Aquifer.
SEC. 4109. SOUTHWESTERN UTAH.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, Santa Clara River,
Washington, Iron, and Kane Counties, Utah.
SEC. 4110. CHOWAN RIVER BASIN, VIRGINIA AND NORTH CAROLINA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, environmental
restoration, navigation, and erosion control, Chowan River basin,
Virginia and North Carolina.
SEC. 4111. JAMES RIVER, RICHMOND, VIRGINIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for the James River
in the vicinity of Richmond, Virginia, including the Shockoe Bottom
area.
SEC. 4112. ELLIOTT BAY SEAWALL, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON.
(a) In General.--The study for rehabilitation of the Elliott Bay
Seawall, Seattle, Washington, being carried out under Committee
Resolution 2704 of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
of the House of Representatives adopted September 25, 2002, is modified
to include a determination of the feasibility of reducing future damage
to the seawall from seismic activity.
(b) Acceptance of Contributions.--In carrying out the study, the
Secretary may accept contributions in excess of the non-Federal share
of the cost of the study from the non-Federal interest to the extent
that the Secretary determines that the contributions will facilitate
completion of the study.
(c) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share
of the cost of any project authorized by law as a result of the study
the value of contributions accepted by the Secretary under subsection
(b).
SEC. 4113. MONONGAHELA RIVER BASIN, NORTHERN WEST VIRGINIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out aquatic ecosystem restoration and protection projects in
the watersheds of the Monongahela River Basin lying within the counties
of Hancock, Ohio, Marshall, Wetzel, Tyler, Pleasants, Wood, Doddridge,
Monongalia, Marion, Harrison, Taylor, Barbour, Preston, Tucker,
Mineral, Grant, Gilmer, Brooke, and Rithchie, West Virginia,
particularly as related to abandoned mine drainage abatement.
SEC. 4114. KENOSHA HARBOR, WISCONSIN.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for navigation, Kenosha Harbor, Wisconsin,
including the extension of existing piers.
SEC. 4115. WAUWATOSA, WISCONSIN.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and environmental
restoration, Menomonee River and Underwood Creek, Wauwatosa, Wisconsin,
and greater Milwaukee watersheds, Wisconsin.
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. 5001. MAINTENANCE OF NAVIGATION CHANNELS.
(a) In General.--Upon request of a non-Federal interest, the
Secretary shall be responsible for maintenance of the following
navigation channels and breakwaters constructed or improved by the non-
Federal interest if the Secretary determines that such maintenance is
economically justified and environmentally acceptable and that the
channel or breakwater was constructed in accordance with applicable
permits and appropriate engineering and design standards:
(1) Manatee Harbor basin, Florida.
(2) Bayou LaFourche Channel, Port Fourchon, Louisiana.
(3) Calcasieu River at Devil's Elbow, Louisiana.
(4) Pidgeon Industrial Harbor, Pidgeon Industrial Park,
Memphis Harbor, Tennessee.
(5) Pix Bayou Navigation Channel, Chambers County, Texas.
(6) Racine Harbor, Wisconsin.
(b) Completion of Assessment.--Not later than 6 months after the date
of receipt of a request from a non-Federal interest for Federal
assumption of maintenance of a channel listed in subsection (a), the
Secretary shall make a determination as provided in subsection (a) and
advise the non-Federal interest of the Secretary's determination.
SEC. 5002. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may provide technical, planning, and
design assistance to non-Federal interests for carrying out watershed
management, restoration, and development projects at the locations
described in subsection (d).
(b) Specific Measures.--Assistance provided under subsection (a) may
be in support of non-Federal projects for the following purposes:
(1) Management and restoration of water quality.
(2) Control and remediation of toxic sediments.
(3) Restoration of degraded streams, rivers, wetlands, and
other waterbodies to their natural condition as a means to
control flooding, excessive erosion, and sedimentation.
(4) Protection and restoration of watersheds, including urban
watersheds.
(5) Demonstration of technologies for nonstructural measures
to reduce destructive impacts of flooding.
(c) Non-Federal Share.--The non-Federal share of the cost of
assistance provided under subsection (a) shall be 50 percent.
(d) Project Locations.--The locations referred to in subsection (a)
are the following:
(1) Cucamonga basin, Upland, California.
(2) Charlotte Harbor watershed, Florida.
(3) Big Creek watershed, Roswell, Georgia.
(4) Those portions of the watersheds of the Chattahoochee,
Etowah, Flint, Ocmulgee, and Oconee Rivers lying within the
counties of Bartow, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb,
Douglas, Fayette, Fulton, Forsyth, Gwinnett, Hall, Henry,
Paulding, Rockdale, and Walton, Georgia.
(5) Kinkaid Lake, Jackson County, Illinois.
(6) Amite River basin, Louisiana.
(7) East Atchafalaya River basin, Iberville Parish and Pointe
Coupee Parish, Louisiana.
(8) Red River watershed, Louisiana.
(9) Taunton River basin, Massachusetts.
(10) Lower Platte River watershed, Nebraska.
(11) Rio Grande watershed, New Mexico.
(12) Marlboro Township, New Jersey.
(13) Buffalo River watershed, New York.
(14) Cattaragus Creek watershed, New York.
(15) Eighteenmile Creek watershed, Niagara County, New York.
(16) Esopus, Plattekill, and Rondout Creeks, Greene,
Sullivan, and Ulster Counties, New York.
(17) Genesee River watershed, New York.
(18) Greenwood Lake watershed, New York and New Jersey.
(19) Long Island Sound watershed, New York.
(20) Oswego River basin, New York.
(21) Ramapo River watershed, New York.
(22) Tonawanda Creek watershed, New York.
(23) Tuscarawas River basin, Ohio.
(24) Western Lake Erie basin, Ohio.
(25) Those portions of the watersheds of the Beaver, Upper
Ohio, Connoquenessing, Lower Allegheny, Kiskiminetas, Lower
Monongahela, Youghiogheny, Shenango, and Mahoning Rivers lying
within the counties of Beaver, Butler, Lawrence, and Mercer,
Pennsylvania.
(26) Otter Creek watershed, Pennsylvania.
(27) Unami Creek watershed, Milford Township, Pennsylvania.
(28) Sauk River basin, Washington.
(29) Greater Milwaukee watersheds, Wisconsin.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000.
SEC. 5003. DAM SAFETY.
(a) Assistance.--The Secretary may provide assistance to enhance dam
safety at the following locations:
(1) Fish Creek Dam, Blaine County, Idaho.
(A) Hamilton Dam, Saginaw River, Flint, Michigan.
(B) Candor Dam, Candor, New York.
(C) State Dam, Auburn, New York.
(D) Whaley Lake Dam, Pawling, New York.
(E) Ingham Spring Dam, Solebury Township, Pennsylvania.
(F) Leaser Lake Dam, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania.
(G) Stillwater Dam, Monroe County, Pennsylvania.
(H) Wissahickon Creek Dam, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.
(b) Special Rule.--The assistance provided under subsection (a) for
State Dam, Auburn, New York, shall be for a project for rehabilitation
in accordance with the report on State Dam Rehabilitation, Owasco Lake
Outlet, New York, dated March 1999, if the Secretary determines that
the project is feasible.
(c) Fern Ridge Dam, Oregon.--It is the sense of Congress that the
Secretary should immediately carry out a project to remedy the
situation at Fern Ridge Dam, Oregon, due to the rapid deterioration of
the dam. Cost sharing for the project shall be as provided by section
1203 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 467n).
(d) Kehly Run Dams, Pennsylvania.--Section 504(a)(2) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 338; 117 Stat. 1842) is
amended by striking ``Dams'' and inserting ``Dams No. 1-5''.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out subsection (a) $6,000,000.
SEC. 5004. STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY EVALUATIONS.
(a) In General.--Upon request of a non-Federal interest, the
Secretary shall evaluate the structural integrity and effectiveness of
a project for flood damage reduction and, if the Secretary determines
that the project does not meet such minimum standards as the Secretary
may establish and, absent action by the Secretary, the project will
fail, the Secretary may take such action as may be necessary to restore
the integrity and effectiveness of the project.
(b) Priority.--The Secretary shall evaluate under subsection (a) the
following projects:
(1) Project for flood damage reduction, Arkansas River
Levees, river mile 205 to river mile 308.4, Arkansas.
(2) Project for flood damage reduction, Nonconnah Creek,
Tennessee.
SEC. 5005. FLOOD MITIGATION PRIORITY AREAS.
(a) In General.--Section 212(e) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1999 (33 U.S.C. 2332(e); 114 Stat. 2599) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraphs (23) and
(27);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (28) and
inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(29) Ascension Parish, Louisiana;
``(30) East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana;
``(31) Iberville Parish, Louisiana;
``(32) Livingston Parish, Louisiana; and
``(33) Pointe Coupee Parish, Louisiana.''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 212(i)(1) of such Act
(33 U.S.C. 2332(i)(1)) is amended by striking ``section--'' and all
that follows before the period at the end and inserting ``section
$20,000,000''.
SEC. 5006. ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR AUTHORIZED PROJECTS.
(a) In General.--Section 219(e) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 110 Stat. 3757; 113 Stat. 334) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (7);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (8) and
inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(9) $35,000,000 for the project described in subsection
(c)(18);
``(10) $20,000,000 for the project described in subsection
(c)(20);
``(11) $35,000,000 for the project described in subsection
(c)(23);
``(12) $20,000,000 for the project described in subsection
(c)(25);
``(13) $20,000,000 for the project described in subsection
(c)(26);
``(14) $35,000,000 for the project described in subsection
(c)(27);
``(15) $20,000,000 for the project described in subsection
(c)(28); and
``(16) $30,000,000 for the project described in subsection
(c)(40).''.
(b) East Arkansas Enterprise Community, Arkansas.--Federal assistance
made available under the rural enterprise zone program of the
Department of Agriculture may be used toward payment of the non-Federal
share of the costs of the project described in section 219(c)(20) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (114 Stat. 2763A-219) if
such assistance is authorized to be used for such purposes.
SEC. 5007. EXPEDITED COMPLETION OF REPORTS AND CONSTRUCTION FOR CERTAIN
PROJECTS.
The Secretary shall expedite completion of the reports and, if the
Secretary determines the project is feasible, shall expedite completion
of construction for the following projects:
(1) Fulmer Creek, Village of Mohawk, New York, being carried
out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33
U.S.C. 701s).
(2) Moyer Creek, Village of Frankfort, New York, being
carried out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948
(33 U.S.C. 701s).
(3) Steele Creek, Village of Ilion, New York, being carried
out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33
U.S.C. 701s).
(4) Oriskany Wildlife Management Area, Rome, New York, being
carried out under section 206 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330).
(5) Whitney Point Lake, Otselic River, Whitney Point, New
York, being carried out under section 1135 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a).
(6) Newton Creek, Bainbridge, New York, being carried out
under section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C.
701r).
(7) Chenango Lake, Chenango County, New York, being carried
out under section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330).
SEC. 5008. EXPEDITED COMPLETION OF REPORTS FOR CERTAIN PROJECTS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall expedite completion of the
reports for the following projects and, if the Secretary determines
that a project is justified in the completed report, proceed directly
to project preconstruction, engineering, and design:
(1) Project for water supply, Little Red River, Arkansas.
(2) Project for shoreline stabilization at Egmont Key,
Florida.
(3) Project for ecosystem restoration, University Lake, Baton
Rouge, Louisiana.
(4) Project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Montauk
Point, New York.
(b) Special Rule for Egmont Key, Florida.--In carrying out the
project for shoreline stabilization at Egmont Key, Florida, referred to
in subsection (a)(2), the Secretary shall waive any cost share to be
provided by non-Federal interests for any portion of the project that
benefits federally owned property.
(c) Special Rule for Montauk Point, New York.--The Secretary shall
complete the report for the project referred to in subsection (a)(4)
not later than September 30, 2005, notwithstanding the ownership of the
property to be protected.
SEC. 5009. SOUTHEASTERN WATER RESOURCES ASSESSMENT.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct, at Federal expense, an
assessment of the water resources needs of the river basins and
watersheds of the southeastern United States.
(b) Cooperative Agreements.--In carrying out the assessment, the
Secretary may enter into cooperative agreements with State and local
agencies, non-Federal and nonprofit entities, and regional researchers.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
appropriated $7,000,000 to carry out this section.
SEC. 5010. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.
Section 1103(e)(7) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33
U.S.C. 652(e)(7)) is amended--
(1) by adding at the end of subparagraph (A) the following:
``The non-Federal interest may provide the non-Federal share of
the cost of the project in the form of in-kind services and
materials.''; and
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
``(C) Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the Flood Control Act of 1970
(42 U.S.C. 1962d-5(b)), 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. 5011. MISSOURI AND MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI RIVERS ENHANCEMENT PROJECT.
Section 514(g) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113
Stat. 343; 117 Stat. 142) is amended by striking ``and 2004'' and
inserting ``through 2015''.
SEC. 5012. GREAT LAKES FISHERY AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.
Section 506(f)(3)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000
(42 U.S.C. 1962d-22; 114 Stat. 2646) is amended by striking ``50
percent'' and inserting ``100 percent''.
SEC. 5013. GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS AND SEDIMENT REMEDIATION.
Section 401(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (33
U.S.C. 1268 note; 114 Stat. 2613) is amended by striking ``2006'' and
inserting ``2011''.
SEC. 5014. GREAT LAKES TRIBUTARY MODEL.
Section 516(g)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33
U.S.C. 2326b(g)(2)) is amended by striking ``2006'' and inserting
``2011''.
SEC. 5015. SUSQUEHANNA, DELAWARE, AND POTOMAC RIVER BASINS.
(a) Ex Officio Member.--Notwithstanding section 3001(a) of the 1997
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery From Natural
Disasters, and for Overseas Peacekeeping Efforts, Including Those in
Bosnia (111 Stat. 176) and section 2.2 of both the Susquehanna River
Basin Compact (Public Law 91-575) and the Delaware River Basin Compact
(Public Law 87-328), beginning in fiscal year 2005 and thereafter, the
Division Engineer, North Atlantic Division, Corps of Engineers, shall
be the ex officio United States member under the Susquehanna River
Basin Compact and the Delaware River Basin Compact, who shall serve
without additional compensation and who may designate an alternate
member or members in accordance with the terms of those respective
compacts.
(b) Authorization to Allocate.--The Secretary may allocate funds to
the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, Delaware River Basin
Commission, and the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin
(Potomac River Basin Compact (Public Law 91-407)) to fulfill the
equitable funding requirements of their respective interstate compacts.
(c) Water Supply and Conservation Storage.--The Secretary shall enter
into an agreement with the Delaware River Basin Commission to provide
temporary water supply and conservation storage at the Francis E.
Walter Dam, Pennsylvania, during any period in which the Commission has
determined that a drought warning or drought emergency exists. The
agreement shall provide that the cost for any such water supply and
conservation storage shall not exceed the incremental operating costs
associated with providing the storage.
SEC. 5016. CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND PROTECTION
PROGRAM.
(a) Form of Assistance.--Section 510(a)(2) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3759) is amended by striking ``, and
beneficial uses of dredged material'' and inserting ``, beneficial uses
of dredged material, and restoration of submerged aquatic vegetation''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 510(i) of such Act (110
Stat. 3761) is amended by striking ``$10,000,000'' and inserting
``$50,000,000''.
SEC. 5017. CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RESTORATION.
The second sentence of section 704(b) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2263(b)) is amended by striking
``$20,000,000'' and inserting ``$30,000,000''.
SEC. 5018. HYPOXIA ASSESSMENT.
The Secretary may participate with Federal, State, and local
agencies, non-Federal and nonprofit entities, regional researchers, and
other interested parties to assess hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico.
SEC. 5019. POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED ASSESSMENT AND TRIBUTARY STRATEGY
EVALUATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM.
The Secretary may participate in the Potomac River Watershed
Assessment and Tributary Strategy Evaluation and Monitoring Program to
identify a series of resource management indicators to accurately
monitor the effectiveness of the implementation of the agreed upon
tributary strategies and other public policies that pertain to natural
resource protection of the Potomac River watershed.
SEC. 5020. LOCK AND DAM SECURITY.
(a) Standards.--The Secretary, in consultation with the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the
Coast Guard, shall develop standards for the security of locks and
dams, including the testing and certification of vessel exclusion
barriers.
(b) Site Surveys.--At the request of a lock or dam owner, the
Secretary shall provide technical assistance, on a reimbursible basis,
to improve lock or dam security.
(c) Cooperative Agreement.--The Secretary may enter into a
cooperative agreement with a nonprofit alliance of public and private
organizations that has the mission of promoting safe waterways and
seaports to carry out testing and certification activities, and to
perform site surveys, under this section.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
appropriated $3,000,000 to carry out this section.
SEC. 5021. PINHOOK CREEK, HUNTSVILLE, ALABAMA.
The Secretary shall design and construct the locally preferred plan
for flood protection at Pinhook Creek, Huntsville, Alabama, under the
authority of section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C.
701s). The Secretary shall allow the non-Federal interest to
participate in the financing of the project in accordance with section
903(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184)
to the extent that the Secretary's evaluation indicates that applying
such section is necessary to implement the project.
SEC. 5022. TALLAPOOSA, ALABAMA.
The Secretary may provide technical assistance relating to water
supply to the Middle Tallapoosa Water Supply District, Alabama. There
is authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 to carry out this section.
SEC. 5023. ALASKA.
Section 570 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat.
369) is amended--
(1) in subsection (c) by inserting ``environmental
restoration,'' after ``water supply and related facilities,'';
(2) in subsection (e)(3)(B) by striking the last sentence;
(3) in subsection (h) by striking ``$25,000,000'' and
inserting ``$45,000,000''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(i) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the
Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), for any project
undertaken under this section, a non-Federal interest may include a
nonprofit entity, with the consent of the affected local government.
``(j) Corps of Engineers Expenses.--Ten percent of the amounts
appropriated to carry out this section may be used by the Corps of
Engineers district offices to administer projects under this section at
100 percent Federal expense.''.
SEC. 5024. BARROW, ALASKA.
The Secretary shall carry out, under section 117 of the Energy and
Water Development Appropriations Act, 2005 (118 Stat. 2944), a
nonstructural project for coastal erosion and storm damage prevention
and reduction at Barrow, Alaska, including relocation of
infrastructure.
SEC. 5025. COFFMAN COVE, ALASKA.
The Secretary is authorized to carry out a project for navigation,
Coffman Cove, Alaska, at a total cost of $3,000,000.
SEC. 5026. FORT YUKON, ALASKA.
The Secretary shall make repairs to the dike at Fort Yukon, Alaska,
so that the dike meets Corps of Engineers standards.
SEC. 5027. KOTZEBUE HARBOR, ALASKA.
The Secretary is authorized to carry out a project for navigation,
Kotzebue Harbor, Kotzebue, Alaska, at at total cost of $2,200,000.
SEC. 5028. LOWELL CREEK TUNNEL, SEWARD, ALASKA.
(a) Long-Term Maintenance and Repair.--The Secretary shall assume
responsibility for the long-term maintenance and repair of the Lowell
Creek Tunnel.
(b) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine whether
alternative methods of flood diversion in Lowell Canyon are feasible.
SEC. 5029. ST. HERMAN AND ST. PAUL HARBORS, KODIAK, ALASKA.
The Secretary shall carry out, on an emergency basis, 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.
SEC. 5030. TANANA RIVER, ALASKA.
The Secretary shall carry out, on an emergency basis, the removal of
the hazard to navigation on the Tanana River, Alaska, near the mouth of
the Chena River, as described in the January 3, 2005, memorandum from
the Commander, Seventeenth Coast Guard District, to the Corps of
Engineers, Alaska District, Anchorage, Alaska.
SEC. 5031. VALDEZ, ALASKA.
The Secretary is authorized to construct a small boat harbor in
Valdez, Alaska, at a total cost of $20,000,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $10,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$9,500,000.
SEC. 5032. WHITTIER, ALASKA.
(a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct, at Federal expense, a study
to determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for navigation at
Whittier, Alaska, to construct a new boat harbor at the head of
Whittier Bay and to expand the existing harbor and, if the Secretary
determines that a project is feasible, the Secretary may carry out the
project.
(b) Non-Federal Cost Share.--The non-Federal interest may use, and
the Secretary shall accept, funds provided under any other Federal
program to satisfy, in whole or in part, the non-Federal share of the
construction of any project carried out under this section if such
funds are authorized to be used to carry out such project.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this section $35,200,000.
SEC. 5033. WRANGELL HARBOR, ALASKA.
(a) General Navigation Features.--In carrying out the project for
navigation, Wrangell Harbor, Alaska, authorized by section 101(b)(1) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 279), the
Secretary shall consider the dredging of the mooring basin and
construction of the inner harbor facilities to be general navigation
features for purposes of estimating the non-Federal share of project
costs.
(b) Revision of Partnership Agreement.--The Secretary shall revise
the partnership agreement for the project to reflect the change
required by subsection (a).
SEC. 5034. AUGUSTA AND CLARENDON, ARKANSAS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to perform operation,
maintenance, and rehabilitation of authorized and completed levees on
the White River between Augusta and Clarendon, Arkansas.
(b) Reimbursement.--After performing the operation, maintenance, and
rehabilitation under subsection (a), the Secretary shall seek
reimbursement from the Secretary of the Interior of an amount equal to
the costs allocated to benefits to a Federal wildlife refuge of such
operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation.
SEC. 5035. DES ARC LEVEE PROTECTION, ARKANSAS.
The Secretary shall review the project for flood control, Des Arc,
Arkansas, to determine whether bank and channel scour along the White
River threaten the existing project and whether the scour is as a
result of a design deficiency. If the Secretary determines that such
conditions exist as a result of a deficiency, the Secretary shall carry
out measures to eliminate the deficiency.
SEC. 5036. HELENA AND VICINITY, ARKANSAS.
The Secretary shall accept as fulfilling the non-Federal cost-sharing
responsibilities for the project for flood control, Helena and
Vicinity, Arkansas, authorized by section 401 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4112), the non-Federal cash
contribution of $568,000 and the lands, easements, rights-of-way,
relocations, and dredged material disposal areas provided by the non-
Federal sponsor as of September 1, 2003, and the Secretary shall not
seek to recover any reimbursement from the non-Federal sponsor related
to advanced payments to, or work performed for, the non-Federal sponsor
under the authority of sections 103 and 104 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213, 2214).
SEC. 5037. LOOMIS LANDING, ARKANSAS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study of shore damage in the vicinity
of Loomis Landing, Arkansas, to determine if the damage is the result
of a Federal navigation project, and, if the Secretary determines that
the damage is the result of a Federal navigation project, the Secretary
shall carry out a project to mitigate the damage under section 111 of
the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 426i).
SEC. 5038. ST. FRANCIS RIVER BASIN, ARKANSAS AND MISSOURI.
The Secretary shall conduct a study of increased siltation and
streambank erosion in the St. Francis River Basin, Arkansas and
Missouri, to determine if the siltation or erosion, or both, are the
result of a Federal flood control project and, if the Secretary
determines that the siltation or erosion, or both, are the result of a
Federal flood control project, the Secretary shall carry out a project
to mitigate the siltation or erosion, or both.
SEC. 5039. WHITE RIVER BASIN, ARKANSAS.
(a) Minimum Flows.--
(1) In general.--In carrying out section 304 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2601), the
Secretary shall implement alternatives BS-3 and NF-7, as
described in the White River Minimum Flows Reallocation Study
Report, Arkansas and Missouri, dated July 2004.
(2) Cost sharing.--Reallocation of storage and installation
of facilities under this subsection shall be considered fish
and wildlife enhancement that provides national benefits and
shall be a Federal expense in accordance with section 906(e)(1)
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
2283(e)(1)).
(3) Offset.--In carrying out this subsection, losses to
hydropower shall be offset by a reduction, not to exceed
$17,000,000, in the costs allocated to hydropower, as
determined by the present value of the estimated replacement
cost of the electrical energy and capacity at the time of the
implementation.
(b) Fish Hatchery.--In operating the fish hatchery at Beaver Lake,
Arkansas, authorized by section 105 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2921), losses to hydropower shall be offset by a
reduction, not to exceed $2,200,000, in the costs allocated to
hydropower, as determined by the present value of the estimated
replacement cost of the electrical energy and capacity at the time of
the implementation.
(c) Repeal.--Section 374 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1999 (113 Stat. 321) is repealed.
SEC. 5040. CAMBRIA, CALIFORNIA.
Section 219(f)(48) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992
(114 Stat. 2763A-220) is amended--
(1) by striking ``$10,300,000'' and inserting the following:
``(A) In general.--$10,300,000'';
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the
non-Federal share of the cost of the project not to
exceed $3,000,000 for the cost of planning and design
work carried out by the non-Federal interest before the
date of the partnership agreement for the project if
the Secretary determines that the work is integral to
the project.''; and
(3) by aligning the remainder of the text of subparagraph (A)
(as designated by paragraph (1) of this section) with
subparagraph (B) (as added by paragraph (2) of this section).
SEC. 5041. CONTRA COSTA CANAL, OAKLEY AND KNIGHTSEN, CALIFORNIA;
MALLARD SLOUGH, PITTSBURG, CALIFORNIA.
Sections 512 and 514 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000
(114 Stat. 2650) are each amended by adding at the end the following:
``All planning, study, design, and construction on the project shall be
carried out by the office of the district engineer, San Francisco,
California.''.
SEC. 5042. DANA POINT HARBOR, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study of the causes of water quality
degradation within Dana Point Harbor, California, to determine if the
degradation is the result of a Federal navigation project, and, if the
Secretary determines that the degradation is the result of a Federal
navigation project, the Secretary shall carry out a project to mitigate
the degradation at Federal expense.
SEC. 5043. EAST SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
Section 219(f)(22) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992
(113 Stat. 336) is amended--
(1) by striking ``$25,000,000'' and inserting the following:
``(A) In general.--$25,000,000'';
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the
non-Federal share of the cost of the project (i) the
cost of design and construction work carried out by the
non-Federal interest before, on, or after the date of
the partnership agreement for the project if the
Secretary determines that the work is integral to the
project; and (ii) the cost of provided for the project
by the non-Federal interest.
``(C) In-kind contributions.--The non-Federal
interest may provide any portion of the non-Federal
share of the cost of the project in the form of in-kind
services and materials.''; and
(3) by aligning the remainder of the text of subparagraph (A)
(as designated by paragraph (1) of this section) with
subparagraph (B) (as added by paragraph (2) of this section).
SEC. 5044. EASTERN SANTA CLARA BASIN, CALIFORNIA.
Section 111(c) of the Miscellaneous Appropriations Act, 2001 (as
enacted into law by Public Law 106-554; 114 Stat. 2763A-224) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``$25,000,000'' and inserting
``$28,000,000''; and
(2) by striking ``$7,000,000'' and inserting ``$10,000,000''.
SEC. 5045. PINE FLAT DAM AND RESERVOIR, CALIFORNIA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall review the Kings River Fisheries
Management Program Framework Agreement, dated May 29, 1999, among the
California Department of Fish and Game, the Kings River Water
Association, and the Kings River Conservation District and, if the
Secretary determines that the management program is feasible, the
Secretary may participate in the management program.
(b) Prohibition.--Nothing in this section authorizes any project for
the raising of, or the construction of, a multilevel intake structure
at Pine Flat Dam, California.
(c) Use of Existing Studies.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary shall use, to the maximum extent practicable, studies in
existence on the date of enactment of this Act, including data and
environmental documentation in the Report of the Chief of Engineers,
Pine Flat Dam and Reservoir, Fresno County, California, dated July 19,
2002.
(d) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share
of the cost of the project the cost of planning, design, and
construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest before the
date of the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary
determines that the work is integral to the project.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to $20,000,000 to carry out this section.
SEC. 5046. SACRAMENTO DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CALIFORNIA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to transfer title to the
Bascule Bridge, deauthorized by section 347(a)(2) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2000 (114. Stat. 2618), to the city of
West Sacramento, California, subject to the execution of an agreement
by the Secretary and the city which specifies the terms and conditions
for such transfer. The terms and conditions of the transfer shall
include a provision authorizing the Secretary to participate in the
construction of a replacement bridge following the removal of the
Bascule Bridge.
(b) Authorization of Appropriation.--There is authorized to be
appropriated $5,000,000 for the Secretary to participate in the
construction of a replacement bridge under this section.
SEC. 5047. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the Port of San
Francisco, California, may carry out the project for repair and
removal, as appropriate, of Piers 35, 36, and 80 in San Francisco,
California, substantially in accordance with the Port's redevelopment
plan.
(1) Authorization of Appropriation.--There is authorized to be
appropriated $20,000,000 to carry out this subsection.
SEC. 5048. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, WATERFRONT AREA.
(a) Area to Be Declared Nonnavigable; Public Interest.--Unless the
Secretary finds, after consultation with local and regional public
officials (including local and regional public planning organizations),
that the proposed projects to be undertaken within the boundaries of
the portion of the San Francisco, California, waterfront area described
in subsection (b) are not in the public interest, such portion is
declared to be nonnavigable waters of the United States.
(b) Northern Embarcadero South of Bryant Street.--The portion of the
San Francisco, California, waterfront area referred to in subsection
(a) is as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the northeasterly
prolongation of that portion of the northwesterly line of Bryant Street
lying between Beale Street and Main Street with the southwesterly line
of Spear Street, which intersection lies on the line of jurisdiction of
the San Francisco Port Commission; following thence southerly along
said line of jurisdiction as described in the State of California
Harbor and Navigation Code Section 1770, as amended in 1961, to its
intersection with the easterly line of Townsend Street along a line
that is parallel and distant 10 feet distant from the existing southern
boundary of Pier 40 produced to its point of intersection with the
United States Government pier-head line; thence northerly along said
pier-head line to its intersection with a line parallel with, and
distant 10 feet easterly from, the existing easterly boundary line of
Pier 30-32; thence northerly along said parallel line and its northerly
prolongation, to a point of intersection with a line parallel with, and
distant 10 feet northerly from, the existing northerly boundary of Pier
30-32, thence westerly along last said parallel line to its
intersection with the United States Government pier-head line; to the
northwesterly line of Bryant Street produced northwesterly; thence
southwesterly along said northwesterly line of Bryant Street produced
to the point of beginning.
(c) Requirement That Area Be Improved.--The declaration of
nonnavigability under subsection (a) applies only to those parts of the
area described in subsection (b) that are or will be bulkheaded,
filled, or otherwise occupied by permanent structures and does not
affect the applicability of any Federal statute or regulation
applicable to such parts the day before the date of enactment of this
Act, including sections 9 and 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C.
401 and 403; 30 Stat. 1151), commonly known as the Rivers and Harbors
Appropriation Act of 1899, section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), and the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
(d) Expiration Date.--If, 20 years from the date of enactment of this
Act, any area or part thereof described in subsection (b) is not
bulkheaded or filled or occupied by permanent structures, including
marina facilities, in accordance with the requirements set out in
subsection (c), or if work in connection with any activity permitted in
subsection (c) is not commenced within 5 years after issuance of such
permits, then the declaration of nonnavigability for such area or part
thereof shall expire.
SEC. 5049. SANTA VENETIA, CALIFORNIA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out a project for flood
damage reduction under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1958 (33
U.S.C. 701s), Santa Venetia, California, if the Secretary determines
that the project is feasible.
(b) Project Financing.--In carrying out the project under this
section, the Secretary shall allow the non-Federal interests to
participate in the financing of the project in accordance with section
903(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184),
to the extent that the Secretary's evaluation indicates that applying
such section is necessary to implement the project.
SEC. 5050. STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA.
(a) Reevaluation.--The Secretary shall reevaluate the feasibility of
the Lower Mosher Slough element and the levee extensions on the Upper
Calaveras River element of the project for flood control, Stockton
Metropolitan Area, California, carried out under section 211(f)(3) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3683), to
determine the eligibility of such elements for reimbursement under
section 211 of such Act (33 U.S.C. 701b-13).
(b) Special Rules for Reevaluation.--In conducting the reevaluation
under subsection (a), the Secretary shall not reject a feasibility
determination based on one or more of the policies of the Corps of
Engineers concerning the frequency of flooding, the drainage area, and
the amount of runoff.
(c) Reimbursement.--If the Secretary determines that the elements
referred to subsection (a) are feasible, the Secretary shall reimburse,
subject to appropriations, the non-Federal interest under section 211
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 for the Federal share of
the cost of such elements.
SEC. 5051. VICTOR V. VEYSEY DAM, CALIFORNIA.
(a) Designation.--The Prado Dam, authorized by the Flood Control Act
of 1936 (49 Stat. 1570), shall be known and designated as the ``Victor
V. Veysey Dam''.
(b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,
paper, or other record of the United States to the dam referred to in
subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Victor V.
Veysey Dam''.
SEC. 5052. WHITTIER, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall carry out a project for flood damage reduction
under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s) in
the vicinity of Whittier, California, if the Secretary determines that
the project is feasible.
SEC. 5053. CHARLES HERVEY TOWNSHEND BREAKWATER, NEW HAVEN HARBOR,
CONNECTICUT.
(a) Designation.--The western breakwater for the project for
navigation, New Haven Harbor, Connecticut, authorized by the first
section of the Act of September 19, 1890 (26 Stat. 426), shall be known
and designated as the ``Charles Hervey Townshend Breakwater''.
(b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,
paper, or other record of the United States to the breakwater referred
to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Charles
Hervey Townshend Breakwater''.
SEC. 5054. CHRISTINA RIVER SHIPWRECK, DELAWARE.
The Secretary may carry out the removal of the debris associated with
the steamship ``STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA'' and other derelict vessels from
the Christina River, Delaware, under section 202 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2945).
SEC. 5055. ANACOSTIA RIVER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, MARYLAND, AND
VIRGINIA.
(a) Comprehensive Action Plan.--Not later than 1 year after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in coordination with the Mayor
of the District of Columbia, the Governor of Maryland, the Governor of
Virginia, the County Executives of Montgomery County and Prince
George's County, Maryland, and other interested persons, shall develop
a 10-year comprehensive action plan for the restoration and protection
of the ecological integrity of the Anacostia River and its tributaries.
(b) Public Availability.--Upon completion of the plan, the Secretary
shall make the plan available to the public.
SEC. 5056. FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS.
Section 109(e)(2) of the Miscellaneous Appropriations Act, 2001
(enacted into law by Public Law 106-554) (114 Stat. 2763A-222) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(C) Credit for work prior to execution of the
partnership agreement.--The Secretary shall credit
toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project
(i) the cost of construction work carried out by the
non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership
agreement for the project if the Secretary determines
that the work is integral to the project; and (ii) the
cost of land acquisition carried out by the non-Federal
interest for projects to be carried out under this
section.''.
SEC. 5057. LAKE WORTH, FLORIDA.
The Secretary may carry out necessary repairs for the Lake Worth
bulkhead replacement project, West Palm Beach, Florida, at an estimated
total cost of $9,000,000.
SEC. 5058. LAKE LANIER, GEORGIA.
The Secretary may assist local interests with planning, design, and
construction of facilities at the Lake Lanier Olympic Center, Georgia,
at a total cost of $5,300,000.
SEC. 5059. RILEY CREEK RECREATION AREA, IDAHO.
The Secretary is authorized to carry out the Riley Creek Recreation
Area Operation Plan of the Albeni Falls Management Plan, dated October
2001, for the Riley Creek Recreation Area, Albeni Falls Dam, Bonner
County, Idaho.
SEC. 5060. RECONSTRUCTION OF ILLINOIS FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECTS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may participate in the reconstruction
of an eligible flood control project if the Secretary determines that
such reconstruction is not required as a result of improper operation
and maintenance of the project by the non-Federal interest.
(b) Cost Sharing.--The non-Federal share of the costs for the
reconstruction of a flood control project authorized by this section
shall be the same non-Federal share that was applicable to construction
of the project. The non-Federal interest shall be responsible for
operation and maintenance and repair of a project for which
reconstruction is undertaken under this section.
(c) Reconstruction Defined.--In this section, the term
``reconstruction'', as used with respect to a project, means addressing
major project deficiencies caused by long-term degradation of the
foundation, construction materials, or engineering systems or
components of the project, the results of which render the project at
risk of not performing in compliance with its authorized project
purposes. In addressing such deficiencies, the Secretary may
incorporate current design standards and efficiency improvements,
including the replacement of obsolete mechanical and electrical
components at pumping stations, if such incorporation does not
significantly change the scope, function, and purpose of the project as
authorized.
(d) Eligible Projects.--The following flood control projects are
eligible for reconstruction under this section:
(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) Cairo, Illinois Mainline Levee, Cairo, Illinois.
(5) Goose Pond Pump Station, Cairo, Illinois.
(6) Cottonwood Slough Pump Station, Alexander County,
Illinois.
(7) 10th and 28th Street Pump Stations, Cairo, Illinois.
(8) Flood control levee projects in Brookport, Shawneetown,
Old Shawneetown, Golconda, Rosiclare, Harrisburg, and
Reevesville, Illinois.
(e) Justification.--The reconstruction of a project authorized by
this section shall not be considered a separable element of the
project.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
appropriated--
(1) $15,000,000 to carry out the projects described in
paragraphs (1) through (7) of subsection (d); and
(2) $15,000,000 to carry out the projects described in
subsection (d)(8).
Such sums shall remain available until expended.
SEC. 5061. KASKASKIA RIVER BASIN, ILLINOIS, RESTORATION.
(a) Kaskaskia River Basin Defined.--In this section, the term
``Kaskaskia River Basin'' means the Kaskaskia River, Illinois, its
backwaters, its side channels, and all tributaries, including their
watersheds, draining into the Kaskaskia River.
(b) Comprehensive Plan.--
(1) Development.--The Secretary shall develop, as
expeditiously as practicable, a comprehensive plan for the
purpose of restoring, preserving, and protecting the Kaskaskia
River Basin.
(2) Technologies and innovative approaches.--The
comprehensive plan shall provide for the development of new
technologies and innovative approaches--
(A) to enhance the Kaskaskia River as a
transportation corridor;
(B) to improve water quality within the entire
Kaskaskia River Basin;
(C) to restore, enhance, and preserve habitat for
plants and wildlife;
(D) to increase economic opportunity for agriculture
and business communities; and
(E) to reduce the impacts of flooding to communities
and landowners.
(3) Specific components.--The comprehensive plan shall
include such features as are necessary to provide for--
(A) the development and implementation of a program
for sediment removal technology, sediment
characterization, sediment transport, and beneficial
uses of sediment;
(B) the development and implementation of a program
for the planning, conservation, evaluation, and
construction of measures for fish and wildlife habitat
conservation and rehabilitation, and stabilization and
enhancement of land and water resources in the basin;
(C) the development and implementation of a long-term
resource monitoring program;
(D) the development and implementation of a
computerized inventory and analysis system; and
(E) the development and implementation of a systemic
plan to reduce flood impacts by means of ecosystem
restoration projects.
(4) Consultation.--The comprehensive plan shall be developed
by the Secretary in consultation with appropriate Federal
agencies, the State of Illinois, and the Kaskaskia River
Coordinating Council.
(5) Report to congress.--Not later than 2 years after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to
Congress a report containing the comprehensive plan.
(6) Additional studies and analyses.--After transmission of a
report under paragraph (5), the Secretary shall conduct studies
and analyses of projects related to the comprehensive plan that
are appropriate and consistent with this subsection.
(c) General Provisions.--
(1) Water quality.--In carrying out activities under this
section, the Secretary's recommendations shall be consistent
with applicable State water quality standards.
(2) Public participation.--In developing the comprehensive
plan under subsection (b), the Secretary shall implement
procedures to facilitate public participation, including
providing advance notice of meetings, providing adequate
opportunity for public input and comment, maintaining
appropriate records, and making a record of the proceedings of
meetings available for public inspection.
(d) Coordination.--The Secretary shall integrate activities carried
out under this section with ongoing Federal and State programs,
projects, and activities, including the following:
(1) Farm programs of the Department of Agriculture.
(2) Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (State of
Illinois) and Conservation 2000 Ecosystem Program of the
Illinois Department of Natural Resources.
(3) Conservation 2000 Conservation Practices Program and the
Livestock Management Facilities Act administered by the
Illinois Department of Agriculture.
(4) National Buffer Initiative of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service.
(5) Nonpoint source grant program administered by the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.
(e) Cost Sharing.--
(1) In general.--The non-Federal share of the cost of
activities carried out under this section shall be 35 percent.
(2) In-kind services.--The Secretary may credit the cost of
in-kind services provided by the non-Federal interest for an
activity carried out under this section toward not more than 80
percent of the non-Federal share of the cost of the activity.
In-kind services shall include all State funds expended on
programs that accomplish the goals of this section, as
determined by the Secretary. The programs may include the
Kaskaskia River Conservation Reserve Program, the Illinois
Conservation 2000 Program, the Open Lands Trust Fund, and other
appropriate programs carried out in the Kaskaskia River Basin.
SEC. 5062. FLOODPLAIN MAPPING, LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall provide assistance for a project
to develop maps identifying 100- and 500-year flood inundation areas
along the Little Calumet River, Chicago, Illinois.
(b) Requirements.--Maps developed under the project shall include
hydrologic and hydraulic information and shall accurately show the
flood inundation of each property by flood risk in the floodplain. The
maps shall be produced in a high resolution format and shall be made
available to all flood prone areas along the Little Calumet River,
Chicago, Illinois, in an electronic format.
(c) Participation of FEMA.--The Secretary and the non-Federal
interests for the project shall work with the Director of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency to ensure the validity of the maps
developed under the project for flood insurance purposes.
(d) Forms of Assistance.--In carrying out the project, the Secretary
may enter into contracts or cooperative agreements with the non-Federal
interests or provide reimbursements of project costs.
(e) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of the project
shall be 50 percent.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this section $2,000,000.
SEC. 5063. NATALIE CREEK, MIDLOTHIAN AND OAK FOREST, ILLINOIS.
The Secretary shall carry out a project for flood damage reduction
under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s),
Natalie Creek, Midlothian and Oak Forest, Illinois, if the Secretary
determines that the project is feasible.
SEC. 5064. ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN RESTORATION.
(a) Extension of Authorization.--Section 519(c)(2) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2654) is amended by
striking ``2004'' and inserting ``2010''.
(b) In-Kind Services.--Section 519(g)(3) of such Act (114 Stat. 2655)
is amended by inserting before the period at the end of the first
sentence ``if such services are provided not more than 5 years before
the date of initiation of the project or activity''.
(c) Nonprofit Entities and Monitoring.--Section 519 of such Act (114
Stat. 2654) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(h) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the
Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), a non-Federal
interest may include a nonprofit entity with the consent of the
affected local government.
``(i) Monitoring.--The Secretary shall develop an Illinois river
basin monitoring program to support the plan referred to in subsection
(b). Data collected under the monitoring program shall incorporate data
provided by the State of Illinois and shall be publicly accessible
through electronic means.''.
SEC. 5065. PROMONTORY POINT, LAKE MICHIGAN, ILLINOIS.
In carrying out the project for storm damage reduction and shoreline
erosion protection, Lake Michigan, authorized by section 101(a)(12) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3664), the
Secretary shall reevaluate the feasibility of reconstructing the
Promontory Point section consistent with the original limestone step
design.
SEC. 5066. BURNS WATERWAY HARBOR, INDIANA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study of shoaling in the vicinity of
Burns Waterway Harbor, Indiana, to determine if the shoaling is the
result of a Federal navigation project, and, if the Secretary
determines that the shoaling is the result of a Federal navigation
project, the Secretary shall carry out a project to mitigate the
shoaling under section 111 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (33
U.S.C. 426).
SEC. 5067. CALUMET REGION, INDIANA.
Section 219(f)(12) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992
(113 Stat. 335; 117 Stat. 1843) is amended--
(1) by striking ``$30,000,000'' and inserting the following:
``(A) In general.--$30,000,000'';
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the
non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost
of planning and design work carried out by the non-
Federal interest before, on, or after the date of the
partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary
determines that the work is integral to the project.'';
and
(3) by aligning the remainder of the text of subparagraph (A)
(as designated by paragraph (1) of this section) with
subparagraph (B) (as added by paragraph (2) of this section).
SEC. 5068. FLOODPLAIN MAPPING, MISSOURI RIVER, IOWA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall provide assistance for a project
to develop maps identifying 100- and 500-year flood inundation areas in
the State of Iowa, along the Missouri River.
(b) Requirements.--Maps developed under the project shall include
hydrologic and hydraulic information and shall accurately portray the
flood hazard areas in the floodplain. The maps shall be produced in a
high resolution format and shall be made available to the State of Iowa
in an electronic format.
(c) Participation of FEMA.--The Secretary and the non-Federal
interests for the project shall work with the Director of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency to ensure the validity of the maps
developed under the project for flood insurance purposes.
(d) Forms of Assistance.--In carrying out the project, the Secretary
may enter into contracts or cooperative agreements with the non-Federal
interests or provide reimbursements of project costs.
(e) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of the project
shall be 50 percent.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this section $3,000,000.
SEC. 5069. RATHBUN LAKE, IOWA.
(a) Conveyance.--The Secretary shall convey the remaining water
supply storage allocation in Rathbun Lake, Iowa, to the Rathbun
Regional Water Association (in this section referred to as the ``Water
Association'').
(b) Cost Sharing.--Notwithstanding the Water Supply Act of 1958 (43
U.S.C. 390b), the Water Association shall pay 100 percent of the cost
of the water supply storage allocation to be conveyed under subsection
(a). The Secretary shall credit toward such non-Federal share the cost
of any structures and facilities constructed by the Water Association
at the project.
(c) Terms and Conditions.--Before conveying the water supply storage
allocation under subsection (a), the Secretary shall enter into an
agreement with the Water Association, under which the Water Association
shall agree to--
(1) in accordance with designs approved by the Chief of
Engineers, construct structures and facilities referred to in
subsection (b) that have a value equal to or greater than the
amount that otherwise would be paid to the Federal Government
for the costs of the water supply storage under the Water
Supply Act of 1958 (43 U.S.C. 390b);
(2) be responsible for operating and maintaining the
structures and facilities;
(3) pay all operation and maintenance costs allocated to the
water supply storage space;
(4) use any revenues generated at the structures and
facilities that are above those required to operate and
maintain or improve the complex to undertake, subject to the
approval of the Chief of Engineers, activities that will
improve the quality of the environment in the Rathbun Lake
watershed area; and
(5) such other terms and conditions as the Secretary
considers necessary to protect the interests of the United
States.
SEC. 5070. CUMBERLAND RIVER BASIN, KENTUCKY.
At reservoirs managed by the Secretary above Cumberland River mile
385.5 within the Cumberland River basin, Kentucky, the Secretary shall
charge fees associated with storage and maintenance of water supply
that do not exceed the fees in effect on October 1, 2002.
SEC. 5071. LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY.
(a) In General.--Section 557 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1999 (113 Stat. 353) is amended--
(1) in the section heading by inserting ``kentucky
and'' before ``northern west
virginia''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Louisville, kentucky.--Report of the Corps of Engineers
entitled `Louisville Waterfront Park, Phase II, Kentucky,
Master Plan', dated July 22, 2002, at a total cost of
$32,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $16,000,000 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $16,000,000.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--In the table of contents contained in
section 1(b) of such Act strike the item relating to section 557 and
insert the following:
``Sec. 557. Kentucky and Northern West Virginia.''.
SEC. 5072. MAYFIELD CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, KENTUCKY.
The Secretary shall conduct a study of flood damage along Mayfield
Creek and tributaries between Wickliffe and Mayfield, Kentucky, to
determine if the damage is the result of a Federal flood damage
reduction project, and, if the Secretary determines that the damage is
the result of a Federal flood damage reduction project, the Secretary
shall carry out a project to mitigate the damage at Federal expense.
SEC. 5073. NORTH FORK, KENTUCKY RIVER, BREATHITT COUNTY, KENTUCKY.
The Secretary shall rebuild the structure that is impeding high water
flows on the North Fork of the Kentucky River in Breathitt County,
Kentucky, in a manner that will reduce flood damages at an estimated
total cost of $1,800,000. The non-Federal interest shall provide lands,
easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and disposal areas required for
the project. Operation and maintenance of the rebuilt structure shall
be a non-Federal expense.
SEC. 5074. PADUCAH, KENTUCKY.
The Secretary shall complete a feasibility report for rehabilitation
of the project for flood damage reduction, Paducah, Kentucky, and, if
the Secretary determines that the project is feasible, the Secretary
shall carry out the project at a total cost of $3,000,000.
SEC. 5075. SOUTHERN AND EASTERN KENTUCKY.
Section 531 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat.
3773; 113 Stat. 348; 117 Stat. 142) is amended by adding the following:
``(i) Corps of Engineers Expenses.--Ten percent of the amounts
appropriated to carry out this section may be used by the Corps of
Engineers district offices to administer projects under this section at
100 percent Federal expense.''.
SEC. 5076. WINCHESTER, KENTUCKY.
Section 219(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106
Stat. 4835; 114 Stat. 2763A-219) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(41) Winchester, kentucky.--Wastewater infrastructure,
Winchester, Kentucky.''.
SEC. 5077. BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA.
Section 219(f)(21) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992
(113 Stat. 336; 114 Stat. 2763A-220) is amended by striking
``$20,000,000'' and inserting ``$35,000,000''.
SEC. 5078. CALCASIEU SHIP CHANNEL, LOUISIANA.
The Secretary shall expedite completion of a dredged material
management plan for the Calcasieu Ship Channel, Louisiana, and may take
interim measures to increase the capacity of existing disposal areas,
or to construct new confined or beneficial use disposal areas, for the
channel.
SEC. 5079. CROSS LAKE, SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA.
The Secretary may accept from the Department of the Air Force, and
may use, not to exceed $4,500,000 to assist the city of Shreveport,
Louisiana, with its plan to construct a water intake facility.
SEC. 5080. WEST BATON ROUGE PARISH, LOUISIANA.
Section 517(5) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113
Stat. 345) is amended to read as follows:
``(5) Mississippi River, West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana,
project for waterfront and riverine preservation, restoration,
enhancement modifications, and interpretive center
development.''.
SEC. 5081. CHARLESTOWN, MARYLAND.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may carry out a project for
nonstructural flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration at
Charlestown, Maryland.
(b) Land Acquisition.--The flood damage reduction component of the
project may include the acquisition of private property from willing
sellers.
(c) Justification.--Any nonstructural flood damage reduction project
to be carried out under this section that will result in the conversion
of property to use for ecosystem restoration and wildlife habitat shall
be justified based on national ecosystem restoration benefits.
(d) Use of Acquired Property.--Property acquired under this section
shall be maintained in public ownership for ecosystem restoration and
wildlife habitat.
(e) Ability to Pay.--In determining the appropriate non-Federal cost
share for the project, the Secretary shall determine the ability of
Cecil County, Maryland, to participate as a cost-sharing non-Federal
interest in accordance with section 103(m) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)).
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
appropriated $2,000,000 to carry out this section.
SEC. 5082. DELMARVA CONSERVATION CORRIDOR, MARYLAND AND DELAWARE.
(a) Assistance.--The Secretary may 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
note; 116 Stat. 275).
(b) Coordination and Integration.--In carrying out water resources
projects in Maryland and Delaware on the Delmarva Peninsula, the
Secretary shall coordinate and integrate those projects, to the maximum
extent practicable, with any activities carried out to implement a
conservation corridor plan approved by the Secretary of Agriculture
under section 2602 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of
2002 (16 U.S.C. 3801 note; 116 Stat. 275).
SEC. 5083. MASSACHUSETTS DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITES.
The Secretary may cooperate with Massachusetts in the management and
long-term monitoring of aquatic dredged material disposal sites within
the State, and is authorized to accept funds from the State to carry
out such activities.
SEC. 5084. ONTONAGON HARBOR, MICHIGAN.
The Secretary shall conduct a study of shore damage in the vicinity
of the project for navigation, Ontonagon Harbor, Ontonagon County,
Michigan, authorized by section 101 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of
1962 (76 Stat. 1176, 100 Stat. 4213, 110 Stat. 3730), to determine if
the damage is the result of a Federal navigation project, and, if the
Secretary determines that the damage is the result of a Federal
navigation project, the Secretary shall carry out a project to mitigate
the damage under section 111 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (33
U.S.C. 426i).
SEC. 5085. ST. CLAIR RIVER AND LAKE ST. CLAIR, MICHIGAN.
(a) Ecosystem Restoration.--The Secretary shall carry out feasible
aquatic ecosystem restoration projects identified in the comprehensive
management plan for St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair, Michigan,
developed under section 426 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1999 (113 Stat. 326), at a total Federal cost of not to exceed
$5,000,000.
(b) Plan.--Section 426(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1999 (113 Stat. 326) is amended by striking ``$400,000'' and inserting
``$475,000''.
SEC. 5086. CROOKSTON, MINNESOTA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for a project for emergency
streambank protection along the Red Lake River in Crookston, Minnesota,
and, if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible, the
Secretary may carry out the project under section 14 of the Flood
Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r); except that the maximum amount of
Federal funds that may be expended for the project shall be $6,500,000.
SEC. 5087. GARRISON AND KATHIO TOWNSHIP, MINNESOTA.
(a) Project Description.--Section 219(f)(61) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 (114 Stat. 2763A-221) is amended--
(1) in the paragraph heading by striking ``township'' and
inserting ``township and crow wing and mille lacs counties'';
(2) by striking ``$11,000,000'' and inserting
``$17,000,000'';
(3) by inserting ``, Crow Wing County, Mille Lacs County,''
after ``Garrison''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following: ``Such assistance
shall be provided directly to the Garrison-Kathio-West Mille
Lacs Lake Sanitary District, Minnesota.''.
(b) Procedures.--In carrying out the project authorized by such
section 219(f)(61), the Secretary may use the cost sharing and
contracting procedures available to the Secretary under section 569 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 368).
SEC. 5088. MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA.
(a) Conveyance.--The Secretary shall convey to the city of
Minneapolis by quitclaim deed and without consideration all right,
title, and interest of the United States to the property known as the
War Department (Fort Snelling Interceptor) Tunnel in Minneapolis,
Minnesota.
(b) Applicability of Property Screening Provisions.--Section 2696 of
title 10, United States Code, shall not apply to the conveyance under
this section.
SEC. 5089. NORTHEASTERN MINNESOTA.
(a) In General.--Section 569 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1999 (113 Stat. 368) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a) by striking ``Benton, Sherburne,'' and
inserting ``Beltrami, Hubbard, Wadena,'';
(2) by striking the last sentence of subsection (e)(3)(B);
(3) by striking subsection (g) and inserting the following:
``(g) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the
Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), for any project
undertaken under this section, a non-Federal interest may include a
nonprofit entity.''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(i) Corps of Engineers Expenses.--Ten percent of the amounts
appropriated to carry out this section may be used by the Corps of
Engineers district offices to administer projects under this section at
100 percent Federal expense.''.
(b) Biwabik, Minnesota.--The Secretary shall reimburse the non-
Federal interest for the project for environmental infrastructure,
Biwabik, Minnesota, carried out under section 569 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 368), for planning,
design, and construction costs that were incurred by the non-Federal
interest with respect to the project before the date of the partnership
agreement for the project and that were in excess of the non-Federal
share of the cost of the project if the Secretary determines that the
costs are appropriate.
SEC. 5090. HARRISON, HANCOCK, AND JACKSON COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI.
In carrying out projects for the protection, restoration, and
creation of aquatic and ecologically related habitats located in
Harrison, Hancock, and Jackson Counties, Mississippi, under section 204
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326), the
Secretary shall accept any portion of the non-Federal share of the cost
of the project in the form of in-kind services and materials.
SEC. 5091. MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MISSOURI, AND ILLINOIS.
As a part of the operation and maintenance of the project for the
Mississippi River (Regulating Works), between the Ohio and Missouri
Rivers, Missouri and Illinois, authorized by the first section of an
Act entitled ``Making appropriations for the construction, repair, and
preservation of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for
other purposes'', approved June 25, 1910, the Secretary may carry out
activities necessary to restore and protect fish and wildlife habitat
in the middle Mississippi River system. Such activities may include
modification of navigation training structures, modification and
creation of side channels, modification and creation of islands, and
studies and analysis necessary to apply adaptive management principles
in design of future work.
SEC. 5092. ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI.
Section 219(f)(32) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992
(113 Stat. 337) is amended by striking ``$15,000,000'' and inserting
``$35,000,000''.
SEC. 5093. ACID BROOK, POMPTON LAKES, NEW JERSEY.
The Secretary shall carry out a project for flood damage reduction
under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s),
Acid Brook, Pompton Lakes, New Jersey, if the Secretary determines that
the project is feasible.
SEC. 5094. HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS AREA, NEW JERSEY.
Section 324 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat.
4849; 110 Stat. 3779) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``design'' and inserting ``planning,
design,''; and
(B) by striking ``Hackensack Meadowlands
Development'' and all that follows through ``Plan for''
and inserting ``New Jersey Meadowlands Commission for
the development of an environmental improvement program
for'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in the subsection heading by striking
``Required'';
(B) by striking ``shall'' and inserting ``may'';
(C) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the
following:
``(1) Restoration and acquisitions of significant wetlands
and aquatic habitat that contribute to the Meadowlands
ecosystem.'';
(D) in paragraph (2) by inserting ``and aquatic
habitat'' before the period at the end; and
(E) by striking paragraph (7) and inserting the
following:
``(7) Research, development, and implementation for a water
quality improvement program, including restoration of hydrology
and tidal flows and remediation of hot spots and other sources
of contaminants that degrade existing or planned sites.'';
(3) in subsection (c) by inserting before the last sentence
the following: ``The non-Federal sponsor may also provide in-
kind services, not to exceed the non-Federal share of the total
project cost, and may also receive credit for reasonable cost
of design work completed prior to entering into the partnership
agreement with the Secretary for a project to be carried out
under the program developed under subsection (a).''; and
(4) in subsection (d) by striking ``$5,000,000'' and
inserting ``$35,000,000''.
SEC. 5095. CENTRAL NEW MEXICO, NEW MEXICO.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 593(h) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 381) is amended by
striking ``$25,000,000'' and inserting ``$40,000,000''.
(b) Corps of Engineers Expenses.--Section 593 of such Act (113 Stat.
381) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(i) Corps of Engineers Expenses.--Ten percent of the amounts
appropriated to carry out this section may be used by the Corps of
Engineers district offices to administer projects under this section at
100 percent Federal expense.''.
SEC. 5096. ATLANTIC COAST OF NEW YORK.
(a) Development of Program.--Section 404(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4863) is amended--
(1) by striking ``processes'' and inserting ``and related
environmental processes'';
(2) by inserting after ``Atlantic Coast'' the following:
``(and associated back bays)'';
(3) by inserting after ``actions'' the following: ``,
environmental restoration or conservation measures for coastal
and back bays,''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following: ``The plan for
collecting data and monitoring information included in such
annual report shall be fully coordinated with and agreed to by
appropriate agencies of the State of New York.''.
(b) Annual Reports.--Section 404(b) of such Act is amended--
(1) by striking ``Initial Plan.--Not later than 12 months
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the'' and
inserting ``Annual Reports.--The'';
(2) by striking ``initial plan for data collection and
monitoring'' and inserting ``annual report of data collection
and monitoring activities''; and
(3) by striking the last sentence.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 404(c) of such Act (113
Stat. 341) is amended by striking ``and an additional total of
$2,500,000 for fiscal years thereafter'' and inserting ``$2,500,000 for
fiscal years 2000 through 2004, and $7,500,000 for fiscal years
beginning after September 30, 2004,''.
(d) Tsunami Warning System.--Section 404 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4863) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(d) Tsunami Warning System.--There is authorized to be appropriated
$800,000 for the Secretary to carry out a project for a tsunami warning
system, Atlantic Coast of New York.''.
SEC. 5097. COLLEGE POINT, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK.
In carrying out section 312 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1990 (104 Stat. 4639), the Secretary shall give priority to work in
College Point, New York City, New York.
SEC. 5098. FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK.
The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost
of the project for ecosystem restoration, Flushing Bay and Creek, New
York City, New York, the cost of design and construction work carried
out by the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership
agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is
integral to the project.
SEC. 5099. HUDSON RIVER, NEW YORK.
The Secretary may participate with the State of New York, New York
City, and the Hudson River Park Trust in carrying out activities to
restore critical marine habitat, improve safety, and protect and
rehabilitate critical infrastructure. There is authorized to be
appropriated $5,000,000 to carry out this section.
SEC. 5100. MOUNT MORRIS DAM, NEW YORK.
As part of the operation and maintenance of the Mount Morris Dam, New
York, the Secretary may make improvements to the access road for the
dam to provide safe access to a Federal visitor's center.
SEC. 5101. ONONDAGA LAKE, NEW YORK.
Section 573 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat.
372) is amended--
(1) in subsection (f) by striking ``$10,000,000'' and
inserting ``$30,000,000'';
(2) by redesignating subsections (f) and (g) as subsections
(g) and (h), respectively; and
(3) by inserting after subsection (e) the following:
``(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.''.
SEC. 5102. JOHN H. KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, NORTH CAROLINA.
The Secretary shall expedite the completion of the calculations
necessary to negotiate and execute a revised, permanent contract for
water supply storage at John H. Kerr Dam and Reservoir, North Carolina,
among the Secretary and the Kerr Lake Regional Water System and the
city of Henderson, North Carolina.
SEC. 5103. STANLY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.
Section 219(f)(64) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992
(114 Stat. 2763A-221) is amended by inserting ``water and'' before
``wastewater''.
SEC. 5104. W. KERR SCOTT DAM AND RESERVOIR, NORTH CAROLINA.
The Secretary shall remove debris from the joint intake at the W.
Kerr Scott Dam and Reservoir, North Carolina.
SEC. 5105. OHIO.
Section 594 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat.
381) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b) by striking ``design and construction''
and inserting ``planning, design, and construction'';
(2) in subsection (g) by striking ``$60,000,000'' and
inserting ``$100,000,000''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(h) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the
Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5(b)), 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. 5106. TOUSSAINT RIVER, OHIO.
(a) In General.--The project for navigation, Toussaint River, Carroll
Township, Ohio, authorized by section 107 of the River and Harbor Act
of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), is modified to authorize the Secretary to
enter into an agreement with the non-Federal interest under which the
Secretary may--
(1) acquire, and transfer to the non-Federal interest, a
dredge and associated equipment with the capacity to perform
operation and maintenance of the project; and
(2) provide the non-Federal interest with a lump-sum payment
to cover all future costs of operation and maintenance of the
project.
(b) Agreement.--The Secretary may carry out subsection (a)(1) by
entering into an agreement with the non-Federal interest under which
the non-Federal interest may acquire the dredge and associated
equipment directly and be reimbursed by the Secretary.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
appropriated $1,800,000 to carry out this section. Of such funds,
$500,000 may be used to carry out subsection (a)(1).
(d) Release.--Upon the acquisition and transfer of a dredge and
associated equipment under subsection (a)(1), and the payment of funds
under subsection (a)(2), all future Federal responsibility for
operation and maintenance of the project is extinguished.
SEC. 5107. EUGENE, OREGON.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of restoring the millrace in Eugene, Oregon, and, if the
Secretary determines that the restoration is feasible, the Secretary
shall carry out the restoration.
(b) Consideration of Noneconomic Benefits.--In determining the
feasibility of restoring the millrace, the Secretary shall include
noneconomic benefits associated with the historical significance of the
millrace and associated with preservation and enhancement of resources.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000.
SEC. 5108. JOHN DAY LOCK AND DAM, LAKE UMATILLA, OREGON AND WASHINGTON.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall pay not more than $2,500,000 to
the provider of research and curation support previously provided to
the Federal Government as a result of--
(1) the multipurpose project at John Day Lock and Dam, Lake
Umatilla, Oregon and Washington, authorized by section 101 of
the River and Harbor Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 167); and
(2) the several navigation and flood damage reduction
projects constructed on the Columbia River and Lower Willamette
River, Oregon and Washington.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this section $2,500,000.
SEC. 5109. LOWELL, OREGON.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may convey without consideration to
Lowell School District, by quitclaim deed, all right, title, and
interest of the United States in and to land and buildings thereon,
known as Tract A-82, located in Lowell, Oregon, and described in
subsection (b).
(b) Description of Property.--The parcel of land authorized to be
conveyed under subsection (a) is as follows: Commencing at the point of
intersection of the west line of Pioneer Street with the westerly
extension of the north line of Summit Street, in Meadows Addition to
Lowell, as platted and recorded at page 56 of Volume 4, Lane County
Oregon Plat Records; thence north on the west line of Pioneer Street a
distance of 176.0 feet to the true point of beginning of this
description; thence north on the west line of Pioneer Street a distance
of 170.0 feet; thence west at right angles to the west line of Pioneer
Street a distance of 250.0 feet; thence south and parallel to the west
line of Pioneer Street a distance of 170.0 feet; thence east 250.0 feet
to the true point of beginning of this description in Section 14,
Township 19 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, Lane
County, Oregon.
(c) Terms and Conditions.--Before conveying the parcel to the school
district, the Secretary shall ensure that the conditions of buildings
and facilities meet the requirements of applicable Federal law.
(d) Reversion.--If the Secretary determines that the property
conveyed under subsection (a) ceases to be held in public ownership,
all right, title, and interest in and to the property shall revert to
the United States, at the option of the United States.
(e) Generally Applicable Provisions.--
(1) Applicability of property screening provisions.--Section
2696 of title 10, United States Code, shall not apply to any
conveyance under this section.
(2) Liability.--An entity to which a conveyance is made under
this section shall hold the United States harmless from any
liability with respect to activities carried out, on or after
the date of the conveyance, on the real property conveyed. The
United States shall remain responsible for any liability with
respect to activities carried out, before such date, on the
real property conveyed.
SEC. 5110. ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.
Section 219(f)(66) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992
(114 Stat. 2763A-221) is amended--
(1) by striking ``$20,000,000'' and inserting the following:
``(A) In general.--$20,000,000'';
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the
non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost
of work carried out by the non-Federal interest before
the date of the partnership agreement for the project
if the Secretary determines that the work is integral
to the project.''; and
(3) by aligning the remainder of the text of subparagraph (A)
(as designated by paragraph (1) of this section) with
subparagraph (B) (as added by paragraph (2) of this section).
SEC. 5111. LEHIGH RIVER, LEHIGH COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.
The Secretary shall use existing water quality data to model the
effects of the Francis E. Walter Dam, at different water levels, to
determine its impact on water and related resources in and along the
Lehigh River in Lehigh County, Pennsylvania. There is authorized to be
appropriated $500,000 to carry out this section.
SEC. 5112. NORTHEAST PENNSYLVANIA.
Section 219(f)(11) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992
(113 Stat. 335) is amended by striking ``and Monroe'' and inserting
``Northumberland, Union, Snyder, and Montour''.
SEC. 5113. UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN, PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW YORK.
(a) Study and Strategy Development.--Section 567(a) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3787; 114 Stat. 2662) is
amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by inserting ``and
carry out'' after ``develop''; and
(2) in paragraph (2) by striking ``$10,000,000.'' and
inserting ``$20,000,000, of which the Secretary may utilize not
more than $5,000,000 to design and construct feasible pilot
projects during the development of the strategy to demonstrate
alternative approaches for the strategy. The total cost for any
single pilot project may not exceed $500,000. The Secretary
shall evaluate the results of the pilot projects and consider
the results in the development of the strategy.''.
(b) Cooperative Agreements.--Section 567(c) of such Act (114 Stat.
2662) is amended--
(1) in the subsection heading by striking ``Cooperation'' and
inserting ``Cooperative''; and
(2) in the first sentence--
(A) by inserting ``and carrying out'' after
``developing''; and
(B) by striking ``cooperation'' and inserting ``cost-
sharing and cooperative''.
(c) Implementation of Strategy.--Section 567(d) of such Act (114
Stat. 2663) is amended--
(1) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--The Secretary'';
(2) in the second sentence of paragraph (1) (as so
designated)--
(A) by striking ``implement'' and inserting ``carry
out''; and
(B) by striking ``implementing'' and inserting
``carrying out'';
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Priority project.--In carrying out projects to
implement the strategy, the Secretary shall give priority to
the project for ecosystem restoration, Cooperstown, New York,
described in the Upper Susquehanna River Basin--Cooperstown
Area Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study, dated December
2004, prepared by the Corps of Engineers and the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation.''; and
(4) by aligning the remainder of the text of paragraph (1)
(as designated by paragraph (1) of this subsection) with
paragraph (2) (as added by paragraph (3) of this subsection).
(d) Credit.--Section 567 of such Act (110 Stat. 3787; 114 Stat. 2662)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal
share of the cost of a project under this section--
``(1) the cost of design and construction work carried out by
the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership
agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the
work is integral to the project; and
``(2) the cost of in-kind services and materials provided for
the project by the non-Federal interest.''.
SEC. 5114. CANO MARTIN PENA, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO.
The Secretary shall review a report prepared by the non-Federal
interest concerning flood protection and environmental restoration for
Cano Martin Pena, San Juan, Puerto Rico, and, if the Secretary
determines that the report meets the evaluation and design standards of
the Corps of Engineers and that the project is feasible, the Secretary
may carry out the project at a total cost of $130,000,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $85,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $45,000,000.
SEC. 5115. BEAUFORT AND JASPER COUNTIES, SOUTH CAROLINA.
The Secretary may accept from the Department of the Navy, and may
use, not to exceed $23,000,000 to assist the Beaufort Jasper Water and
Sewage Authority, South Carolina, with its plan to consolidate civilian
and military wastewater treatment facilities.
SEC. 5116. FRITZ LANDING, TENNESSEE.
The Secretary shall--
(1) conduct a study of the Fritz Landing Agricultural Spur
Levee, Tennessee, to determine the extent of levee
modifications that would be required to make the levee and
associated drainage structures consistent with Federal
standards;
(2) design and construct such modifications; and
(3) after completion of such modifications, incorporate the
levee into the project for flood control, Mississippi River and
Tributaries, authorized by the Act entitled ``An Act for the
control of floods on the Mississippi River and its tributaries,
and for other purposes'', approved May 15, 1928 (45 Stat. 534-
539), commonly known as the ``Flood Control Act of 1928''.
SEC. 5117. J. PERCY PRIEST DAM AND RESERVOIR, TENNESSEE.
The Secretary shall plan, design, and construct a trail system at the
J. Percy Priest Dam and Reservoir, Tennessee, authorized by section 4
of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing the construction of certain
public works on rivers and harbors for flood control, and for other
purposes'', approved June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1217), including design
and construction of support facilities for public health and safety
associated with trail development. In carrying out such improvements,
the Secretary is authorized to use funds made available by the State of
Tennessee from any Federal or State source, or both.
SEC. 5118. TOWN CREEK, LENOIR CITY, TENNESSEE.
The Secretary shall design and construct the project for flood damage
reduction designated as Alternative 4 in the Town Creek, Lenoir City,
Loudon County, Tennessee, feasibility report of the Nashville district
engineer, dated November 2000, under the authority of section 205 of
the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), notwithstanding section
1 of the Flood Control Act of June 22, 1936 (33 U.S.C. 701a; 49 Stat.
1570). The non-Federal share of the cost of the project shall be
subject to section 103(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(a)).
SEC. 5119. TENNESSEE RIVER PARTNERSHIP.
(a) In General.--As part of the operation and maintenance of the
project for navigation, Tennessee River, Tennessee, Alabama,
Mississippi, and Kentucky, authorized by the first section of the River
and Harbor Act of July 3, 1930 (46 Stat. 927), the Secretary may enter
into a partnership with a nonprofit entity to remove debris from the
Tennessee River in the vicinity of Knoxville, Tennessee, by providing a
vessel to such entity, at Federal expense, for such debris removal
purposes.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this section $500,000.
SEC. 5120. UPPER MISSISSIPPI EMBAYMENT, TENNESSEE, ARKANSAS, AND
MISSISSIPPI.
The Secretary may participate with non-Federal and nonprofit entities
to address issues concerning managing groundwater as a sustainable
resource through the Upper Mississippi Embayment, Tennessee, Arkansas,
and Mississippi, and coordinating the protection of groundwater supply
and groundwater quality with local surface water protection programs.
There is authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 to carry out this
section.
SEC. 5121. BOSQUE RIVER WATERSHED, TEXAS.
(a) Comprehensive Plan.--The Secretary, in consultation with
appropriate Federal, State, and local entities, shall develop, as
expeditiously as practicable, a comprehensive plan for development of
new technologies and innovative approaches for restoring, preserving,
and protecting the Bosque River watershed within Bosque, Hamilton,
McLennan, and Erath Counties, Texas. The Secretary, in cooperation with
the Secretary of Agriculture, may carry out activities identified in
the comprehensive plan to demonstrate practicable alternatives for
stabilization and enhancement of land and water resources in the basin.
(b) Services of Public Non-Profit Institutions and Other Entities.--
In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary may utilize, through
contracts or other means, the services of public non-profit
institutions and such other entities as the Secretary considers
appropriate.
(c) Non-Federal Share.--
(1) In general.--The non-Federal share of the cost of
activities carried out under this section shall be 35 percent.
(2) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of activities carried out under this
section the cost of planning, design, and construction work
completed by or on behalf of the non-Federal interests for
implementation of measures constructed with assistance provided
under this section. The amount of such credit shall not exceed
the non-Federal share of the cost of such activities.
(3) Operation and maintenance.--The non-Federal share of the
cost of operation and maintenance for measures constructed with
assistance provided under this section shall be 100 percent.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000.
SEC. 5122. DALLAS FLOODWAY, DALLAS, TEXAS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall review the Balanced Vision Plan
for the Trinity River Corridor, Dallas, Texas, dated December 2003 and
amended in March 2004, prepared by the non-Federal interest for the
project for flood damage reduction and other purposes, Dallas Floodway,
Dallas, Texas, and, if the Secretary determines that the project is
technically sound and environmentally acceptable, shall carry out the
project at a total cost of $194,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost
of $126,100,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $67,900,000.
(b) Credit.--
(1) In-kind contributions.--The Secretary shall credit toward
the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of
planning, design, and construction work carried out by the non-
Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement
for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is
integral to the project.
(2) Cash contributions.--The Secretary shall accept funds
provided by the non-Federal interests for use in carrying out
planning, engineering, and design for the project. The Federal
share of such planning, engineering, and design carried out
with non-Federal contributions shall be credited against the
non-Federal share of project costs.
SEC. 5123. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS.
(a) In General.--Section 575(a) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3789; 113 Stat. 311) is amended by inserting
before the period at the end the following: ``, whether or not such
works or actions are partially funded under the hazard mitigation grant
program of the Federal Emergency Management Agency''.
(b) Specific Projects.--Section 575(b) of such Act (110 Stat. 3789;
113 Stat. 311) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3) by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (4) by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding the following:
``(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. 5124. ONION CREEK, TEXAS.
In carrying out the study for the project for flood damage reduction,
recreation, and ecosystem restoration, Onion Creek, Texas, the
Secretary shall include the costs and benefits associated with the
relocation of flood-prone residences in the study area for the project
in the period beginning 2 years before the date of initiation of the
study and ending on the date of execution of the partnership agreement
for construction of the project to the extent the Secretary determines
such relocations are compatible with the project. The Secretary shall
credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost
of relocation of such flood-prone residences incurred by the non-
Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the
project if the Secretary determines that the relocation of such
residences is integral to the project.
SEC. 5125. DYKE MARSH, FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA.
The Secretary shall accept funds from the National Park Service to
restore Dyke Marsh, Fairfax County, Virginia.
SEC. 5126. EASTERN SHORE AND SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA.
Section 219(f)(10) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992
(106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335) is amended--
(1) by striking ``$20,000,000 for water supply and wastewater
infrastructure'' and inserting the following:
``(A) In general.--$20,000,000 for water supply,
wastewater infrastructure, and environmental
restoration'';
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the
non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost
of work carried out by the non-Federal interest before
the date of the partnership agreement for the project
if the Secretary determines that the work is integral
to the project.''; and
(3) by aligning the remainder of the text of subparagraph (A)
(as designated by paragraph (1) of this section) with
subparagraph (B) (as added by paragraph (2) of this section).
SEC. 5127. JAMES RIVER, VIRGINIA.
The Secretary shall accept funds from the National Park Service to
provide technical and project management assistance for the James
River, Virginia, with a particular emphasis on locations along the
shoreline adversely impacted by Hurricane Isabel.
SEC. 5128. BAKER BAY AND ILWACO HARBOR, WASHINGTON.
The Secretary shall conduct a study of increased siltation in Baker
Bay and Ilwaco Harbor, Washington, to determine if the siltation is the
result of a Federal navigation project (including diverted flows from
the Columbia River) and, if the Secretary determines that the siltation
is the result of a Federal navigation project, the Secretary shall
carry out a project to mitigate the siltation as part of maintenance of
the Federal navigation project.
SEC. 5129. HAMILTON ISLAND CAMPGROUND, WASHINGTON.
The Secretary is authorized to plan, design, and construct a
campground for Bonneville Lock and Dam at Hamilton Island (also know as
``Strawberry Island'') in Skamania County, Washington.
SEC. 5130. PUGET ISLAND, WASHINGTON.
The Secretary is directed to place dredged and other suitable
material along portions of the Columbia River shoreline of Puget
Island, Washington, between river miles 38 to 47 in order to protect
economic and environmental resources in the area from further erosion,
at a Federal cost of $1,000,000. This action shall be coordinated with
appropriate resource agencies and comply with applicable Federal laws.
SEC. 5131. WILLAPA BAY, WASHINGTON.
Section 545 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat.
2675) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(1) by striking ``may construct'' and
inserting ``shall construct''; and
(2) by inserting ``and ecosystem restoration'' after
``erosion protection'' each place it appears.
SEC. 5132. BLUESTONE, WEST VIRGINIA.
Section 547 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat.
2676-2678) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(1)(A) by striking ``4 years'' and
inserting ``5 years'';
(2) in subsection (b)(1)(B)(iii) by striking ``if all'' and
all that follows through ``facility'' and inserting ``assurance
project'';
(3) in subsection (b)(1)(C) by striking ``and construction''
and inserting ``, construction, and operation and
maintenance'';
(4) by adding at the end of subsection (b) the following:
``(3) Operation and ownership.--The Tri-Cities Power
Authority shall be the owner and operator of the hydropower
facilities referred to in subsection (a).'';
(5) in subsection (c)(1)--
(A) by striking ``No'' and inserting ``Unless
otherwise provided, no'';
(B) by inserting ``planning,'' before ``design''; and
(C) by striking ``prior to'' and all that follows
through ``subsection (d)'';
(6) in subsection (c)(2) by striking ``design'' and inserting
``planning, design,'';
(7) in subsection (d)--
(A) by striking paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting
the following:
``(1) Approval.--The Secretary shall review the design and
construction activities for all features of the hydroelectric
project that pertain to and affect stability of the dam and
control the release of water from Bluestone Dam to ensure that
the quality of construction of those features meets all
standards established for similar facilities constructed by the
Secretary.'';
(B) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2);
(C) by striking the period at the end of paragraph
(2) (as so redesignated) and inserting ``, except that
hydroelectric power is no longer a project purpose of
the facility. Water flow releases from the hydropower
facilities shall be determined and directed by the
Corps of Engineers.''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Coordination.--Construction of the hydroelectric
generating facilities shall be coordinated with the dam safety
assurance project currently in the design and construction
phases.'';
(8) in subsection (e) by striking ``in accordance'' and all
that follows through ``58 Stat. 890)'';
(9) in subsection (f)--
(A) by striking ``facility of the interconnected
systems of reservoirs operated by the Secretary'' each
place it appears and inserting ``facilities under
construction under such agreements''; and
(B) by striking ``design'' and inserting ``planning,
design'';
(10) in subsection (f)(2)--
(A) by ``Secretary'' each place it appears and
inserting ``Tri-Cities Power Authority''; and
(B) by striking ``facilities referred to in
subsection (a)'' and inserting ``such facilities'';
(11) by striking paragraph (1) of subsection (g) and
inserting the following:
``(1) to arrange for the transmission of power to the market
or to construct such transmission facilities as necessary to
market the power produced at the facilities referred to in
subsection (a) with funds contributed by the Tri-Cities Power
Authority; and'';
(12) in subsection (g)(2) by striking ``such facilities'' and
all that follows through ``the Secretary'' and inserting ``the
generating facility''; and
(13) by adding at the end the following:
``(i) Tri-Cities Power Authority Defined.--In this section, the `Tri-
Cities Power Authority' refers to the entity established by the City of
Hinton, West Virginia, the City of White Sulphur Springs, West
Virginia, and the City of Philippi, West Virginia, pursuant to a
document entitled `Second Amended and Restated Intergovernmental
Agreement' approved by the Attorney General of West Virginia on
February 14, 2002.''.
SEC. 5133. WEST VIRGINIA AND PENNSYLVANIA FLOOD CONTROL.
(a) Cheat and Tygart River Basins, West Virginia.--Section 581(a)(1)
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3790; 113
Stat. 313) is amended--
(1) by striking ``flood control measures'' and inserting
``structural and nonstructural flood control, streambank
protection, stormwater management, and channel clearing and
modification measures''; and
(2) by inserting ``with respect to measures that incorporate
levees or floodwalls'' before the semicolon.
(b) Priority Communities.--Section 581(b) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3791) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (5);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (6) and
inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(7) Etna, Pennsylvania, in the Pine Creek watershed; and
``(8) Millvale, Pennsylvania, in the Girty's Run River
basin.''.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 581(c) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3791) is amended by
striking ``$12,000,000'' and inserting ``$90,000,000''.
SEC. 5134. LOWER KANAWHA RIVER BASIN, WEST VIRGINIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a watershed and river basin assessment
under section 729 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33
U.S.C. 2267a) for the Lower Kanawha River Basin, in the counties of
Mason, Putnam, Kanawha, Jackson, and Roane, West Virginia.
SEC. 5135. CENTRAL WEST VIRGINIA.
Section 571 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat.
371) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``Nicholas,''; and
(B) by striking ``Gilmer,''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(i) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the
Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), for any project
undertaken under this section, a non-Federal interest may include a
nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected local government.
``(j) Corps of Engineers Expenses.--Ten percent of the amounts
appropriated to carry out this section may be used by the Corps of
Engineers district offices to administer projects under this section at
100 percent Federal expense.''.
SEC. 5136. SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA.
(a) Corps of Engineers.--Section 340 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4856; 113 Stat. 320) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(h) Corps of Engineers.--Ten percent of the amounts appropriated to
carry out this section may be used by the Corps of Engineers district
offices to administer projects under this section at 100 percent
Federal expense.''.
(b) Southern West Virginia Defined.--Section 340(f) of such Act is
amended by inserting ``Nicholas,'' after ``Greenbrier,''.
(c) Nonprofit Entities.--Section 340 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4856) is further amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(i) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the
Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), 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. 5137. JOHNSONVILLE DAM, JOHNSONVILLE, WISCONSIN.
The Secretary shall conduct a study of the Johnsonville Dam,
Johnsonville, Wisconsin, to determine if the structure prevents ice
jams on the Sheboygan River.
SEC. 5138. CONSTRUCTION OF FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS BY NON-FEDERAL
INTERESTS.
Section 211(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33
U.S.C. 701b-13) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(9) Buffalo bayou, texas.--The project for flood control,
Buffalo Bayou, Texas.
``(10) Halls bayou, texas.--The project for flood control,
Halls Bayou, Texas.
``(11) St. paul downtown airport (holman field), st. paul,
minnesota.--The project for flood damage reduction, St. Paul
Downtown Airport (Holman Field), St. Paul, Minnesota.
``(12) Thornton reservoir, cook county, illinois.--The
project for flood control, Chicago Underflow Plan, Thornton
Reservoir, Cook County, Illinois.
``(13) Larose to golden meadow, louisiana.--The project for
flood control, Larose to Golden Meadow, Louisiana.
``(14) Perris, california.--The project for flood control,
Perris, California.''.
SEC. 5139. USE OF FEDERAL HOPPER DREDGE FLEET.
(a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study on the appropriate
use of the Federal hopper dredge fleet.
(b) Contents.--In conducting the study, the Secretary shall--
(1) obtain and analyze baseline data to determine the
appropriate use of the Federal hopper dredge fleet;
(2) prepare a comprehensive analysis of the costs and
benefits of existing and proposed restrictions on the use of
the Federal hopper dredge fleet; and
(3) assess the data and procedure used by the Secretary to
prepare the Government cost estimate for worked performed by
the Federal hopper dredge fleet.
(c) Consultation.--The Secretary shall conduct the study in
consultation with ports, pilots, and representatives of the private
dredge industry.
(d) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the
results of the study.
TITLE VI--FLORIDA EVERGLADES
SEC. 6001. HILLSBORO AND OKEECHOBEE AQUIFER, FLORIDA.
(a) Modification.--The project for Hillsboro and Okeechobee Aquifer,
Florida, authorized by section 101(a)(16) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 276), is modified to authorize the
Secretary to carry out the project at a total cost of $39,200,000.
(b) Treatment.--Section 601(b)(2)(A) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2681) is amended--
(1) in clause (i) by adding at the end the following: ``The
project for aquifer storage and recovery, Hillsboro and
Okeechobee Aquifer, Florida, authorized by section 101(a)(16)
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 276),
shall be treated for purposes of this section as being in the
Plan, except that operation and maintenance costs of the
project shall remain a non-Federal responsibility.''; and
(2) in clause (iii) by inserting after ``subparagraph (B)''
the following: ``and the project for aquifer storage and
recovery, Hillsboro and Okeechobee Aquifer''.
SEC. 6002. PILOT PROJECTS.
Section 601(b)(2)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000
(114 Stat. 2681) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding clause (i)--
(A) by striking ``$69,000,000'' and inserting
``$71,200,000''; and
(B) by striking ``$34,500,000'' each place it appears
and inserting ``$35,600,000''; and
(2) in clause (i)--
(A) by striking ``$6,000,000'' and inserting
``$8,200,000''; and
(B) by striking ``$3,000,000'' each place it appears
and inserting ``$4,100,000''.
SEC. 6003. MAXIMUM COST OF PROJECTS.
Section 601(b)(2)(E) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000
(114 Stat. 2683) is amended by inserting ``and section (d)'' before the
period at the end.
SEC. 6004. PROJECT AUTHORIZATION.
Section 601(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114
Stat. 2684) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Project authorization.--The following project for water
resources development and conservation and other purposes is
authorized to be carried out by the Secretary substantially in
accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions,
described in the report designated in this paragraph:
``(A) Indian river lagoon south, florida.--The
project for ecosystem restoration, water supply, flood
damage reduction, and protection of water quality,
Indian River Lagoon South, Florida: Report of the Chief
of Engineers dated August 6, 2004, at a total cost of
$1,210,608,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$605,304,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$605,304,000.''.
SEC. 6005. CREDIT.
Section 601(e)(5)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000
(114 Stat. 2685) is amended--
(1) in clause (i)--
(A) by striking ``or'' at the end of subclause (I);
(B) by adding ``or'' at the end of subclause (II);
and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(III) the credit is provided for work
carried out before the date of the partnership
agreement between the Secretary and the non-
Federal sponsor, as defined in an agreement
between the Secretary and the non-Federal
sponsor providing for such credit;''; and
(2) in clause (ii)--
(A) by striking ``design agreement or the project
cooperation''; and
(B) by inserting before the semicolon the following:
``, including in the case of credit provided under
clause (i)(III) conditions relating to design and
construction''.
SEC. 6006. OUTREACH AND ASSISTANCE.
Section 601(k) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114
Stat. 2691) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Maximum expenditures.--The Secretary may expend up to
$3,000,000 per fiscal year for fiscal years beginning after
September 30, 2004, to carry out this subsection.''.
SEC. 6007. CRITICAL RESTORATION PROJECTS.
Section 528(b)(3)(C) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
(110 Stat. 3769; 113 Stat. 286) is amended--
(1) in clause (i) by striking ``$75,000,000'' and all that
follows through ``2003'' and inserting ``$95,000,000''; and
(2) in clause (ii) by striking ``$25,000,000'' and inserting
``$30,000,000''.
SEC. 6008. DEAUTHORIZATIONS.
As of the date of enactment of this Act, the following projects are
not authorized:
(1) The uncompleted portions of the project authorized by
section 601(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 2000 (114 Stat. 2682), C-44 Basin Storage Reservoir of the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.
(2) The uncompleted portions of the project authorized by
section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 740),
Martin County, Florida modifications to the Central and South
Florida Project, as contained in Senate Document 101, 90th
Congress, 2d Session.
(3) The uncompleted portions of the project authorized by
section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 740),
East Coast Backpumping, St. Lucie--Martin County, Spillway
Structure S-311 of the Central and South Florida Project, as
contained in House Document 369, 90th Congress, 2d Session.
SEC. 6009. MODIFIED WATER DELIVERY.
(a) Tamiami Trail.--The Secretary shall not carry out a project for
raising Tamiami Trail, Florida, until such date as the project is
specifically authorized by law.
(b) Reports.--The Secretary shall submit to Congress reports
recommending specific authorizations in law for--
(1) changes to the project to improve water deliveries to
Everglades National Park, authorized by section 104 of the
Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989
(16 U.S.C. 410r-8), if necessary;
(2) a project to raise Tamiami Trail, Florida, if necessary;
and
(3) a combined structural and operational plan for the C-111
Canal Project, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control
Act of 1948 (62 Stat. 1176), and modified by section 203 of the
Flood Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 740), and further modified
by section 316 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
(110 Stat. 3715), and the project to improve water deliveries
to Everglades National Park.
TITLE VII--LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA
SEC. 7001. DEFINITIONS.
In this title, the following definitions apply:
(1) Coastal louisiana ecosystem.--The term ``coastal
Louisiana ecosystem'' means the coastal area of Louisiana from
the Sabine River on the west and the Pearl River on the east,
including those parts of the Deltaic Plain and the Chenier
Plain included within the study area of the Plan.
(2) Governor.--The term ``Governor'' means the Governor of
the State of Louisiana.
(3) Plan.--The term ``Plan'' means the report of the Chief of
Engineers for ecosystem restoration for the Louisiana Coastal
Area dated January 31, 2005.
(4) Task force.--The term ``Task Force'' means the Coastal
Louisiana Ecosystem Protection and Restoration Task Force
established by section 7003.
SEC. 7002. ADDITIONAL REPORTS.
(a) Mississippi River Gulf Outlet.--Not later than 2 years after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a
report recommending modifications to the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet
to address navigation, salt water intrusion, channel bank erosion,
mitigation, and threats to life and property.
(b) Chenier Plain.--Not later than July 1, 2006, the Secretary shall
submit to Congress a report recommending near-term ecosystem
restoration measures for the Chenier Plain, Louisiana.
(c) Long-Term Plan.--
(1) Comprehensive framework.--Not later than one year after
the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall
submit to Congress a recommended framework for developing a
long-term program that provides for the comprehensive
protection, conservation, and restoration of the wetlands,
estuaries (including Barataria-Terrebonne Estuary), barrier
islands, and related land and features that protect critical
resources, habitat, and infrastructure in the coastal Louisiana
ecosystem from the impacts of coastal storms, hurricanes,
erosion, and subsidence.
(2) Consideration.--In developing the recommended framework,
the Secretary shall consider integrating other Federal or State
projects or activities within the coastal Louisiana ecosystem
into the long-term restoration program.
(3) Comprehensive plan.--
(A) Deadline.--Not later than five years after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall
submit to Congress a feasibility study recommending a
comprehensive, long-term, plan for the protection,
conservation, and restoration of the coastal Louisiana
ecosystem.
(B) Integration.--The comprehensive, long-term, plan
shall include recommendations for the integration of
ongoing Federal and State projects, programs, and
activities.
SEC. 7003. COASTAL LOUISIANA ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION AND RESTORATION TASK
FORCE.
(a) Establishment and Membership.--There is established the Coastal
Louisiana Ecosystem Protection and Restoration Task Force, which shall
consist of the following members (or, in the case of the head of a
Federal agency, a designee at the level of Assistant Secretary or an
equivalent level):
(1) The Secretary.
(2) The Secretary of the Interior.
(3) The Secretary of Commerce.
(4) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
(5) The Secretary of Agriculture.
(6) The Secretary of Transportation.
(7) The Secretary of Energy.
(8) The Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
(9) The Commandant of the Coast Guard.
(10) The Coastal Advisor to the Governor.
(11) The Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Natural
Resources.
(12) A representative of the Louisiana Governor's Advisory
Commission on Coastal Restoration and Conservation.
(b) Duties of Task Force.--The Task Force shall--
(1) make recommendations to the Secretary regarding policies,
strategies, plans, programs, projects, and activities for
addressing protection, conservation, and restoration of the
coastal Louisiana ecosystem;
(2) prepare financial plans for each of the agencies
represented on the Task Force for funds proposed for the
protection, conservation, and restoration of the coastal
Louisiana ecosystem under authorities of each agency,
including--
(A) recommendations that identify funds from current
agency missions and budgets; and
(B) recommendations for coordinating individual
agency budget requests; and
(3) submit to Congress a biennial report that summarizes the
activities of the Task Force and progress towards the purposes
set forth in section 7002(c)(1).
(c) Procedures and Advice.--The Task Force shall--
(1) implement procedures to facilitate public participation
with regard to Task Force activities, including--
(A) providing advance notice of meetings;
(B) providing adequate opportunity for public input
and comment;
(C) maintaining appropriate records; and
(D) making a record of proceedings available for
public inspection; and
(2) establish such working groups as are necessary to assist
the Task Force in carrying out its duties.
(d) Compensation.--Members of the Task Force or any associated
working group may not receive compensation for their services as
members of the Task Force or working group.
(e) Travel Expenses.--Travel expenses incurred by members of the Task
Force, or members of an associated working group, in the performance of
their service on the Task Force or working group shall be paid by the
agency or entity that the member represents.
(f) Application of Federal Advisory Committee Act.--The Task Force
and any working group established by the Task Force shall not be
considered an advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committee
Act (5 U.S.C. App.).
SEC. 7004. INVESTIGATIONS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct feasibility studies for
future authorization and large-scale studies substantially in
accordance with the Plan at a total cost $130,000,000.
(b) Existing Federally Authorized Water Resources Projects.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall review existing
federally authorized water resources projects in the coastal
Louisiana ecosystem in order to determine their consistency
with the purposes of this section and whether the projects have
the potential to contribute to ecosystem restoration through
revised operations or modified project features.
(2) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated
$10,000,000 to carry out this subsection.
SEC. 7005. CONSTRUCTION.
(a) Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Program.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out a coastal
Louisiana ecosystem program substantially in accordance with
the Plan, at a total cost of $50,000,000.
(2) Objectives.--The objectives of the program shall be to--
(A) identify uncertainties about the physical,
chemical, geological, biological, and cultural baseline
conditions in the coastal Louisiana ecosystem;
(B) improve the State of knowledge of the physical,
chemical, geological, biological, and cultural baseline
conditions in the coastal Louisiana ecosystem; and
(C) identify and develop technologies, models, and
methods that could be useful in carrying out the
purposes of this title.
(3) Working groups.--The Secretary may establish such working
groups as are necessary to assist in carrying out this
subsection.
(4) Procedures and advice.--In carrying out this subsection,
the Secretary is authorized to enter into contracts and
cooperative agreements with scientific and engineering experts
in the restoration of aquatic and marine ecosystems, including
a consortium of academic institutions in Louisiana and
Mississippi for coastal restoration and enhancement through
science and technology.
(b) Demonstration Projects.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the
Secretary may carry out projects substantially in accordance
with the Plan for the purpose of resolving critical areas of
scientific or technological uncertainty related to the
implementation of the comprehensive plan to be developed under
section 7002(c)(3).
(2) Maximum cost.--
(A) Total cost.--The total cost for planning, design,
and construction of all demonstration projects under
this subsection shall not exceed $100,000,000.
(B) Individual project.--The total cost of an
individual demonstration project under this subsection
shall not exceed $25,000,000.
(c) Initial Projects.--The Secretary is authorized to carry out the
following projects substantially in accordance with the Plan:
(1) Mississippi River Gulf Outlet Environmental Restoration
at a total cost of $105,300,000.
(2) Small Diversion at Hope Canal at a total cost of
$68,600,000.
(3) Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline Restoration at a total
cost of $242,600,000.
(4) Small Bayou Lafourche Reintroduction at a total cost of
$133,500,000.
(5) Medium Diversion at Myrtle Grove with Dedicated Dredging
at a total cost of $278,300,000.
(d) Beneficial Use of Dredged Material.--The Secretary, substantially
in accordance with the Plan, shall implement in the coastal Louisiana
ecosystem a program for the beneficial use of material dredged from
federally maintained waterways at a total cost of $100,000,000.
SEC. 7006. NON-FEDERAL COST SHARE.
(a) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share
of the cost of a study authorized by section 7004 or a project
authorized by section 7005 the cost of work carried out in the coastal
Louisiana ecosystem by the non-Federal interest before the date of the
partnership agreement for the study or project, as the case may be, if
the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the study or
project, as the case may be.
(b) Treatment of Credit Between Projects.--Any credit provided under
this section toward the non-Federal share of the cost of a study
authorized by section 7004 or a project authorized by section 7005 may
be applied toward the non-Federal share of the cost of any other study
authorized by section 7004 or any other project authorized by section
7005, as the case may be.
(c) Periodic Monitoring.--
(1) In general.--To ensure that the contributions of the non-
Federal interest equal the non-Federal share of the cost of a
study authorized by section 7004 or a project authorized by
section 7005, during each 5-year period beginning after the
date of commencement of the first study under section 7004 or
construction of the first project under section 7005, as the
case may be, the Secretary shall--
(A) monitor the non-Federal provision for each study
authorized by section 7004 or each project authorized
by section 7005, as the case may be, of cash, in-kind
services and materials, and land, easements, rights-of-
way, relocations, and disposal areas; and
(B) manage, to the extent practicable, the
requirement of the non-Federal interest to provide for
each such project cash, in-kind services and materials,
and land, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and
disposal areas.
(2) Other monitoring.--The Secretary shall conduct monitoring
separately for the study phase, construction phase, the
preconstruction engineering and design phase, and the planning
phase for each project authorized on or after date of enactment
of this Act for all or any portion of the coastal Louisiana
ecosystem.
(d) Audits.--Credit for land, easements, rights-of-way, relocations,
and disposal areas (including land value and incidental costs) provided
under this section, and the cost of work provided under this section,
shall be subject to audit by the Secretary.
SEC. 7007. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 209 of the Flood Control Act
of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962-2) or any other provision of law, in carrying
out any project or activity authorized by or under this title or any
other provision of law to protect, conserve, and restore the coastal
Louisiana ecosystem, the Secretary may determine that--
(1) the project or activity is justified by the environmental
benefits derived by the coastal Louisiana ecosystem; and
(2) no further economic justification for the project or
activity is required if the Secretary determines that the
project or activity is cost effective.
(b) Limitation on Applicability.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to
any separable element intended to produce benefits that are
predominantly unrelated to the protection, conservation, and
restoration of the coastal Louisiana ecosystem.
SEC. 7008. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.
(a) Existing Authority.--Except as otherwise provided in this title,
nothing in this title affects any authority in effect on the date of
enactment of this Act, or any requirement relating to the participation
in protection, conservation, and restoration projects and activities in
the coastal Louisiana ecosystem, including projects and activities
referred to in subsection (a) of--
(1) the Department of the Army;
(2) the Department of the Interior;
(3) the Department of Commerce;
(4) the Environmental Protection Agency;
(5) the Department of Agriculture;
(6) the Department of Transportation;
(7) the Department of Energy;
(8) the Federal Emergency Management Agency;
(9) the Coast Guard; and
(10) the State of Louisiana.
(b) New Authority.--Nothing in this title confers any new regulatory
authority on any Federal or non-Federal entity that carries out any
project or activity authorized by or under this title.
TITLE VIII--UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND ILLINOIS WATERWAY SYSTEM
SEC. 8001. DEFINITIONS.
In this title, the following definitions apply:
(1) Plan.--The term ``Plan'' means the project for navigation
and ecosystem improvements for the Upper Mississippi River and
Illinois Waterway System: Report of the Chief of Engineers,
dated December 15, 2004.
(2) Upper mississippi river and illinois waterway system.--
The term ``Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway
System'' means the projects for navigation and ecosystem
restoration authorized by Congress for--
(A) 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
(B) 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.
SEC. 8002. NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS AND RESTORATION.
Except as modified by this title, the Secretary shall undertake
navigation improvements and restoration of the ecosystem for the Upper
Mississippi River and Illinois Water System substantially in accordance
with the Plan and subject to the conditions described therein.
SEC. 8003. AUTHORIZATION OF CONSTRUCTION OF NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS.
(a) Small Scale and Nonstructural Measures.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall--
(A) construct mooring facilities at Locks 12, 14, 18,
20, 22, 24, and LaGrange Lock;
(B) provide switchboats at Locks 20 through 25; and
(C) conduct development and testing of an appointment
scheduling system.
(2) Authorization of appropriations.--The total cost of
projects authorized under this subsection shall be
$235,000,000. Such costs shall be paid \1/2\ from amounts
appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury and \1/2\
from amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
(b) New Locks.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall construct new 1,200-foot
locks at Locks 20, 21, 22, 24, and 25 on the Upper Mississippi
River and at LaGrange Lock and Peoria Lock on the Illinois
Waterway.
(2) Authorization of appropriations.--The total cost of
projects authorized under this subsection shall be
$1,795,000,000. Such costs shall be paid \1/2\ from amounts
appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury and \1/2\
from amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
(c) Concurrence.--The mitigation required for the projects authorized
under subsections (a) and (b), including any acquisition of lands or
interests in lands, shall be undertaken or acquired concurrently with
lands and interests in lands for the projects authorized under
subsections (a) and (b), and physical construction required for the
purposes of mitigation shall be undertaken concurrently with the
physical construction of such projects.
SEC. 8004. ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION AUTHORIZATION.
(a) Operation.--To ensure the environmental sustainability of the
existing Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System, the
Secretary shall modify, consistent with requirements to avoid adverse
effects on navigation, 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.
(b) Ecosystem Restoration Projects.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out, consistent
with requirements to avoid adverse effects on navigation,
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 Plan.
(2) Projects included.--Ecosystem restoration projects may
include--
(A) island building;
(B) construction of fish passages;
(C) floodplain restoration;
(D) water level management (including water
drawdown);
(E) backwater restoration;
(F) side channel restoration;
(G) wing dam and dike restoration and modification;
(H) island and shoreline protection;
(I) topographical diversity;
(J) dam point control;
(K) use of dredged material for environmental
purposes;
(L) tributary confluence restoration;
(M) spillway, dam, and levee modification; and
(N) land and easement acquisition.
(3) Cost sharing.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraphs
(B) and (C), the Federal share of the cost of carrying
out an ecosystem restoration project under this
subsection shall be 65 percent.
(B) Exception for certain restoration projects.--In
the case of a project under this section for ecosystem
restoration, the Federal share of the cost of carrying
out the project shall be 100 percent if the project--
(i) is located below the ordinary high water
mark or in a connected backwater;
(ii) modifies the operation of structures for
navigation; or
(iii) is located on federally owned land.
(C) Savings clause.--Nothing in this subsection
affects the applicability of section 906(e) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
2283(e)).
(D) Nongovernmental organizations.--Notwithstanding
section 221(b) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42
U.S.C. 1962d-5(b)), for any project carried out under
this title, a non-Federal sponsor may include a
nonprofit entity, with the consent of the affected
local government.
(4) Land acquisition.--The Secretary may acquire land or an
interest in land for an ecosystem restoration project from a
willing seller through conveyance of--
(A) fee title to the land; or
(B) a flood plain conservation easement.
(c) Ecosystem Restoration Preconstruction Engineering and Design.--
(1) Restoration design.--Before initiating the construction
of any individual ecosystem restoration project, the Secretary
shall--
(A) establish ecosystem restoration goals and
identify specific performance measures designed to
demonstrate ecosystem restoration;
(B) establish the without-project condition or
baseline for each performance indicator; and
(C) for each separable element of the ecosystem
restoration, identify specific target goals for each
performance indicator.
(2) Outcomes.--Performance measures identified under
paragraph (1)(A) shall include 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.
(3) Restoration design.--Restoration design carried out as
part of ecosystem restoration shall include a monitoring plan
for the performance measures identified under paragraph (1)(A),
including--
(A) a timeline to achieve the identified target
goals; and
(B) a timeline for the demonstration of project
completion.
(d) Specific Projects Authorization.--
(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this subsection $1,580,000,000, of which not more
than $226,000,000 shall be available for projects described in
subsection (b)(2)(B) and not more than $43,000,000 shall be
available for projects described in subsection (b)(2)(J).
(2) Limitation on available funds.--Of the amounts made
available under paragraph (1), not more than $35,000,000 in any
fiscal year may be used for land acquisition under subsection
(b)(4).
(3) Individual project limit.--Other than for projects
described in subparagraphs (B) and (J) of subsection (b)(2),
the total cost of any single project carried out under this
subsection shall not exceed $25,000,000.
(e) Implementation Reports.--
(1) In general.--Not later than June 30, 2007, and every 4
years thereafter, the Secretary 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--
(A) includes baselines, milestones, goals, and
priorities for ecosystem restoration projects; and
(B) measures the progress in meeting the goals.
(2) Advisory panel.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall appoint and
convene an advisory panel to provide independent
guidance in the development of each implementation
report under paragraph (1).
(B) Panel members.--Panel members shall include--
(i) 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;
(ii) 1 representative of the Department of
Agriculture;
(iii) 1 representative of the Department of
Transportation;
(iv) 1 representative of the United States
Geological Survey;
(v) 1 representative of the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service;
(vi) 1 representative of the Environmental
Protection Agency;
(vii) 1 representative of affected
landowners;
(viii) 2 representatives of conservation and
environmental advocacy groups; and
(ix) 2 representatives of agriculture and
industry advocacy groups.
(C) Chairperson.--The Secretary shall serve as
chairperson of the advisory panel.
(D) Application of federal advisory committee act.--
The Advisory Panel and any working group established by
the Advisory Panel shall not be considered an advisory
committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. App.).
(f) Ranking System.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Advisory Panel, shall develop a system to rank proposed
projects.
(2) Priority.--The ranking system shall give greater weight
to projects that restore natural river processes, including
those projects listed in subsection (b)(2).
SEC. 8005. COMPARABLE PROGRESS.
(a) In General.--As the Secretary conducts pre-engineering, design,
and construction for projects authorized under this title, the
Secretary shall--
(1) select appropriate milestones; and
(2) determine, at the time of such selection, whether the
projects are being carried out at comparable rates.
(b) No Comparable Rate.--If the Secretary determines under subsection
(a)(2) that projects authorized under this subsection are not moving
toward completion at a comparable rate, annual funding requests for the
projects shall be adjusted to ensure that the projects move toward
completion at a comparable rate in the future.
Purpose of Legislation
The Water Resources Development Act of 2005 includes
project authorizations, modifications, deauthorizations,
studies, and policy initiatives for the Army Corps of
Engineers' Civil Works Program--the Nation's largest water
resources program. Throughout its eight titles, the bill
authorizes and directs the Corps to carry out various studies,
projects, and programs relating to navigation, flood damage
reduction, shoreline protection, dam safety, water supply,
recreation, environmental restoration and protection.
Background and Need for Legislation
The Water Resources Development Act of 2005 demonstrates
the continuing commitment of the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure to the Nation's water resources
infrastructure, and a regular authorization schedule for the
Civil Works Program of the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps),
which was instituted by the Water Resources Development Act of
1986. The Committee believes that passage of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2005 is vitally important to
fulfill commitments to non-Federal sponsors, to be responsive
to new and emerging water resources needs, and to fine-tune the
Corps' missions and responsibilities.
Value of the Civil Works Program
The Committee recognizes the value of the Corps and the
Corps' Civil Works missions to the Nation and the critical
importance of maintaining these vital contributions. Over the
years, the Corps has maintained flexibility in its Civil Works
missions to meet the changing needs of the Nation. The Corps
has an impressive history of helping to meet the Nation's water
resources needs. For over 175 years, the Corps has supported
navigation needs by maintaining and improving the Nation's
waterways in 41 States. The Corps also maintains 300 commercial
harbors, through which pass over 2 billion tons of cargo a
year, and with more than 13 million American jobs dependent on
our import and export trade, these ports are vital to our
economic security. The ports and waterways maintained by the
Corps also play a vital role in National defense.
Corps flood damage reduction efforts range from small,
local protection projects (levees or non-structural flood
damage reduction measures) to major dams. Today, most Corps
constructed flood damage reduction projects are owned by
sponsoring cities, towns, and agricultural districts, but the
Corps continues to maintain and operate 383 dams and reservoirs
for flood damage reduction. These projects have prevented an
estimated $706 billion in flood damage, most of that within the
last 25 years. The cumulative cost for building and maintaining
these projects to date is $119 billion. That means for every
dollar spent, more than six dollars in potential damages have
been saved.
Legislation passed in 1990 established environmental
protection as one of the primary missions of the Corps--along
with navigation and flood damage reduction. Since that time,
ecosystem restoration projects have grown increasingly popular
throughout the country, resulting in over $1.3 billion in
Federal support for environmental activities. The Corps has
provided leadership on large-scale ecosystem restoration
projects, including restoring the hydrologic regime for the
Everglades in Florida and addressing wetland losses of
catastrophic proportion in Coastal Louisiana. In addition, the
Corps carries out environmental and natural resource management
programs at its projects, manages thousands of square miles of
forest and wildlife habitat, monitors water quality at its dams
and in some cases restores the environment at projects built in
earlier days.
As the Corps program continues to evolve in service to the
Nation, the Committee notes with interest the efforts of the
Chief of Engineers to encourage a more holistic approach to
water resources management. An increased emphasis on watershed
and basin-wide planning, conducted in conjunction with State
and local governments and non-public stakeholders, can lead to
a more sustainable use of water resources that integrates water
development, protection, and restoration. The Corps can play a
particularly important role in facilitating planning when the
issues affecting water resources concern multiple
jurisdictions. The Corps is encouraged to pursue efforts to
improve coordination and cooperation in the development of
recommended approaches to address water resources problems and
formulating plans to solve these problems.
Corps of Engineers planning process
In recent years, there has been some controversy regarding
the planning process used by the Corps of Engineers to develop
water resources projects. The Civil Works program of the Corps
of Engineers is a $4.5 to $5.5 billion annual program. Of that
amount, between $135 and $145 million is spent annually to
study water resources needs, determine if there is a Federal
interest in meeting those needs, and develop recommendations
for water resources projects that are technically sound,
environmentally acceptable, and economically justified.
For certain small projects, Congress has authorized the
Corps to participate in the development and construction under
continuing authorities. The Federal participation in these
small projects is limited to between $500,000 and $7 million
per project, depending on the project type. For all other
projects, the Corps must first receive authorization from
Congress to proceed with a study, either by statute or, if the
Corps previously has conducted a study in the same geographic
area, in the form of a Committee resolution.
Once authorized, a water resources study begins with a
reconnaissance study. The reconnaissance phase is a relatively
quick examination of the problem (generally costing no more
than $100,000 and lasting 12 months) during which the Corps of
Engineers determines if there is a Federal interest and a
potentially feasible project. Currently, there are 148 ongoing
reconnaissance studies. If, based on the reconnaissance study,
the Corps determines there is a potentially feasible water
resources project, the Corps may seek the participation of a
non-Federal interest willing to share in 50 percent of the
study costs (for studies for projects other than inland
navigation) and proceed to a full feasibility study. A
feasibility study is generally expected to take about 2 years.
However, due to the complexity of the issues, controversy over
proposed solutions, and budget constraints, feasibility studies
often take longer than 2 years and in rare cases may take in
excess of 15 years. Currently, there are 227 ongoing
feasibility studies.
To ensure that a project is technically sound,
environmentally acceptable, and economically justified, the
Corps must conduct a study in accordance with applicable laws,
regulations, and policy, including the 1983 Principles and
Guidelines issued by the Water Resources Council, Engineering
Regulations issued by the Corps of Engineers (and most recently
comprehensively revised in 1999), and other guidance
periodically issued by the Chief of Engineers. Studies that
result in a report of the Chief of Engineers recommending a
water resources project are submitted to Congress for
authorization. Other than projects constructed under continuing
authorities, the Corps may not proceed to construction of a
project until it is specifically authorized.
All Corps of Engineers projects affect water resources in
some fashion. In many cases, there may be competing demands on
those water resources, leading to controversy and even
opposition to a proposed project by some constituencies. In
some cases, project opponents have found problems with analyses
conducted by the Corps of Engineers, leading to calls for
improvement of the Corps' process for developing water
resources projects. The Committee believes that the Corps of
Engineers employs experts in their fields who provide a
tremendous service. The Committee also holds these
professionals to the highest standards and expects all work
products generated by the Corps of Engineers to be able to
withstand any level of outside scrutiny. Accordingly, this bill
provides the Chief of Engineers with tools to ensure that
project studies are carried out using high quality methods,
models, and analyses. At the same time, the Committee also
recognizes that many disputes over water resources projects are
policy disputes. Accordingly, the bill also ensures that
changes to the project planning process will not lead to delays
in project delivery and provides the Chief of Engineers with
tools to resolve policy disputes and minimize delays. Once
fully implemented, the Committee expects that the improvements
to the Corps planning process contained in this bill will
result in fewer delays, less litigation, and increased public
acceptance of proposed projects.
Discussion of Committee Bill and Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1: Short title; table of contents
(a) Short Title.--Establishes the short title of this Act
as the ``Water Resources Development Act of 2005''.
(b) Table of Contents.
Section 2: Definition of secretary
Defines the term ``Secretary,'' which is used throughout
the bill, as the Secretary of the Army.
TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS
Section 1001: Project authorizations
This section authorizes projects for water resources
development and conservation to be carried out substantially in
accordance with the reports of the Chief of Engineers cited for
each project, except as otherwise provided.
(1) Akutan, Alaska.--
Location of Study Area: The City of Akutan is a relatively
small, remote community in the eastern Aleutians of Alaska,
approximately 766 air miles southwest of Anchorage. Although
Akutan is one of the most important fishing ports in the United
States in terms of volume and value of seafood production, it
has very little infrastructure.
Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: There are
no facilities in Akutan for long-term moorage. There are two
primary marine facilities in the Akutan city area, the city/
ferry dock and the Trident Seafoods' dock which are working
docks and do not have protection from storm waves. There is
also a fair weather skiff and small boat mooring facility
adjacent to the city/ferry dock for a limited number of boats
and does not have protection from storm waves. All skiffs and
small boats must be taken from the water during inclement
weather.
The navigation problems for vessels at Akutan include: (1)
the necessity to travel to other ports in-season in order to
secure safe moorage; (2) the necessity of travel to the Pacific
Northwest each year; and (3) problems associated with the
practice of rafting. In addition, residents of Akutan are
hampered in their ability to develop a small boat commercial
fishery and their subsistence harvests are also being
constrained by the lack of available protected moorage.
Alternative Plans Considered: The array of alternatives
evaluated included five sites near Akutan. Various protected
moorage configurations with differing fleet sizes were
developed at 2 sites with final site selection at the head of
the Bay. The final harbor size and layout provides a balance
between harbor needs and competing environmental concerns.
Description of Recommended Plan: The recommended plan is
not the plan that maximizes net national economic development
benefits. The recommended plan provides protected permanent
moorage for 38 vessels of the Bering Sea fishing fleet and 20
smaller vessels of the local Akutan fleet. The plan reduces
impacts to adjacent wetlands and avoids the threatened
Steller's eider intertidal and subtidal habitat.
Physical Data on Project Features: Major construction items
of the recommended plan include an entrance channel with a
depth of -18 feet MLLW and rubblemound breakwaters totaling 700
feet in length. The plan provides an inland harbor with mooring
basin and turning basin, both with stepped depths from -18 feet
to -14 feet MLLW and provides protected moorage for vessels
ranging in length from 24 to 180 feet.
Mitigation for the project includes restoration of habitat,
establishing 41.7 acres of mitigation lands (wetlands
conservation easement), eye-bolts on the breakwaters for
attaching spill containment booms and fish benches, and
shielding harbor lighting.
Views of States, and Non-Federal Interests: The Non Federal
Sponsor has provided a financing plan, dated May 2, 2002,
indicating their commitment to the project and financial
responsibility.
Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: There are no
unresolved issues related to this project.
Status of NEPA Document: The ROD is pending completion of
final reviews.
Estimated Implementation Costs: $19,700,000.
The Secretary is directed to consider headlands dredging
for the mooring basin as a general navigation feature, to be
cost-shared as such.
Estimated Annual O&M Costs:
Corps of Engineers............................................ $14,000
Aleutians East Borough........................................ 35,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 49,000
Description of Non-Federal O&M Cost: Non-Federal O&M costs
account for yearly float maintenance and replacement after 30
years.
Estimated Effects:
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average annual
equivalent Average annual
Account beneficial adverse
effects effects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NED, Commercial Navigation.............. $2,267 $1,242
-------------------------------
Total............................. 2,267 1,242
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project economic life: 50 years.
Benefit-Cost Ratio: 1.8.
Current Discount Rate: 5\5/8\%.
NED plan recommended? No.
The NED plan is a 20 acres or larger basin providing
protected moorage for 80 or more boats. The recommended plan is
the 12 acre locally and environmentally preferred plan
reconfigured to further reduce impacts to adjacent wetlands.
Direct Beneficiaries: The project would provide permanent
protected moorage for some of the vessels of the Bering Sea
fishing fleet and the Akutan local fleet.
Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A final
Chief's report was signed on 20 December 2004.
(2) Haines Small Boat Harbor, Haines, Alaska.--
Location of Study Area: The Haines Borough is located in
the northern portion of Southeast Alaska, the region of the
state commonly referred to as ``the panhandle'', approximately
129 air kilometers northwest of Juneau. City boundaries
straddle a peninsula that separates the Chilkat River Valley
from Chilkoot Inlet, an embayment near the northern end of Lynn
Canal.
Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: The
existing harbor is inadequate in terms of size and design to
accommodate the needs of the existing demands of resident and
transient users. During the summer season, extending from June
through September, the harbor is overcrowded and numerous
vessels are either turned away or simply avoid the harbor
because vessel captains know that the harbor is full beyond its
design capacity. The current harbor configuration is exposed to
southeast winds, causing reduced maneuverability and damage to
vessels and harbor facilities. Overcrowded conditions in the
harbor result in (1) delays in entering and maneuvering in the
harbor; (2) hot-berthing where transient vessels are moored in
stalls of resident vessels left vacant; (3) rafting of
transient vessels; and (4) damages to vessels and harbor
facilities. Additional moorage is also needed to improve or
provide services such as oil spill response, water taxi
service, and to reduce costs associated with subsistence
harvesting.
Alternative Plans Considered: The final array of
alternatives evaluated focused on various plans to expand the
existing harbor. Various protected moorage layouts with
differing fleet scenarios were developed for the Portage Cove
site. To accomplish the improvements basin dredging and
rubblemound breakwaters were designed to provide improved
protection to the existing harbor and accommodate the moorage
demand experienced at Haines.
Description of Recommended Plan: The recommended plan is
not the plan that maximizes net national economic development
benefits. The recommended 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. It would provide protected moorage for a
total of 279 permanent stalls and 961 linear meters of
transient floats for vessels ranging in length from 5.5 meters
to 42.7 meters. The plan would replace the existing floats and
provide properly sized slips for the smaller vessels in the
existing fleet, and the larger existing and additional vessels
needing moorage would use the new basin.
Physical Data on Project Features: Major construction items
of the recommended plan include breakwaters consisting of a
103-meter long north spur breakwater, a 154-meter long first
portion of the main breakwater, a turnaround portion of the
main breakwater with a radius of 18.5 meters, a 316-meter long
second portion of the main breakwater, a 46.7-meter long stub
breakwater attached to the existing breakwater, a 51.2-meter
long extension of the existing breakwater to the south, and a
33.3-meter long south spur breakwater. These breakwaters will
provide the additional moorage area and improve protection to
the existing moorage area. Dredging and relocation of the
existing entrance channel will be necessary because of the
breakwater extension providing additional protection for the
existing basin. Dredging of the new mooring area and
construction of the float system will provide required and
properly sized moorage for the fleet utilizing the harbor. The
existing south basin entrance channel depth would remain the
same at -4.6 m MLLW. The depth required for the entrance
channel for the north basin is -5.5m MLLW, which occurs
naturally. Basin depths would range from -4.3 m MLLW near the
entrance channel to -4.9 m MLLW at the far end of the north
basin. The south basin would remain unchanged with depths
ranging from -3.3 m MLLW to -4.3 m MLLW.
Mitigation for the general navigation features includes the
restoration work proposed on Sawmill Creek to improve fish
passage and habitat.
Views of States, and Non-Federal Interests: The Non Federal
Sponsor has provided a Letter of Intent, dated 3 March 2004,
indicating their commitment to the project and financial
responsibility. The State Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities provided a letter dated 1 March 2004,
indicating their support for the project.
Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: There are no
unresolved issues related to this project.
Status of NEPA Document: The FONSI was signed for this
project on 29 November 2002.
Estimated Implementation Costs:
Corps of Engineers............................................$9,700,000
Haines Borough................................................ 2,500,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 12,200,000
There also will be approximately $9,400,000 in costs for
local service facilities that are not part of the authorized
project.
Description of Non-Federal O&M Cost: Non-Federal O&M costs
account for yearly float maintenance and replacement after 30
years.
Estimated Effects:
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average annual
equivalent Average annual
Account benefical adverse
effects effects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NED, Commercial Navigation.............. $1,202 $1,122
NED, Recreation (Incidental)............ 294 96
-------------------------------
Total............................. 1,496 1,218
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project economic life: 50 years.
Benefit-Cost Ratio: 1.2.
Current Discount Rate: 5\5/8\%.
Direct Beneficiaries: The project would provide properly
sized stalls for mooring and increase wave protection from the
southeast resulting in reduced damages to existing floats and
to vessels incurred from the overcrowded conditions in the
existing harbor. The newly created harbor would provide
additional protected moorage to reduce travel costs incurred
from the overcrowded conditions in the existing harbor.
Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A final
Chief's report was signed on 20 December 2004.
The Committee understands that the Haines Borough would
like to convert the breakwater structures planned for the
project into a causeway which could be used to service vessels
which are too large to enter the proposed new boat harbor. The
Committee supports this initiative because it will provide
long-term al economic benefits to the project above those
projected in the Chief's Report. The construction of this
breakwater involves the use of a bridge to move materials over
a channel. The Committee therefore instructs the Corps to leave
this infrastructure in place and work with the Haines Borough
to develop a plan which would allow for a finished causeway,
road and bridge on the causeway should funds be identified for
this additional feature.
(3) Tanque Verde Creek, Pima County, Arizona.--
Location of Study Area: Tanque Verde Creek is located in
the City of Tucson, approximately 100 miles southeast of
Phoenix, Arizona.
Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: Tanque
Verde Creek is an ephemeral stream, draining a 219 square mile
watershed that extends into the Catalina and Tanque Verde
Mountains, north and east of Tucson, Arizona, respectively. It
combines with another major regional watercourse, Pantano Wash,
to become the Rillito River, which continues west along the
northern edge of Tucson. The reach of Tanque Verde Creek
between Craycroft Road and Sabino Canyon Road is approximately
two miles long and is partially bank protected. The study reach
extends a short distance downstream of Craycroft Road and a
short distance upstream of Sabino Canyon Road. The study reach
is better defined as the unprotected portion of Tanque Verde
Creek from the area of Craycroft Road to Sabino Canyon Road.
The localized approach to bank protection in the study area
has left large areas with little or no protection. These areas
continue to experience rapid erosion during significant flow
events. Two large gaps in the bank protection measuring 4,220
and 2,830 feet are currently found on the south bank of Tanque
Verde Creek. These gaps are found along the outer edge of a
broad bend in the creek, are subjected to continued erosion by
low flows, and flood flows on Tanque Verde Creek. On the north
bank, immediately upstream of the Craycroft Road Bridge, the
existing bank continues to migrate north, and has begun to
expose areas of soil cement that are keyed into the sideslope,
thereby potentially compromising its integrity. Additionally,
upstream of the Craycroft Road Bridge, an old meander bend
extends south of the existing channel. Flood flows and
subsurface flows tend to follow this meander and have resulted
in the undermining of the roadway embankment in the past.
Periodic repairs to the road surface and to an interceptor
sewer line are required due to these flows. In the event of a
catastrophic flood, flows could undermine and break through the
roadway embankment, washing out the roadway and the sewer
interceptor. Such an event could also cause inundation and
erosion damages to houses and other development west of
Craycroft Road, including within the Fort Lowell Historic
District.
The opportunity exists to provide bank protection between
Craycroft Road and Sabino Canyon Road to halt the channel
migration and protect existing structures, property, and
riparian areas. The study area contains many areas of high
quality desert riparian habitat. These areas are becoming
increasingly scarce, due primarily to development encroachment.
The opportunity exists to acquire the rights-of-way to a 500-
foot-wide buffer along the north bank. Public ownership would
prevent future development of this area, and would preserve the
existing riparian values.
Alternative Plans Considered: The Los Angeles District in
its preparation of the ``Survey Report & Environmental
Assessment, Rillito River & Associated Streams,'' conducted
extensive analyses of the economic and engineering viability of
various structural techniques on the Rillito River to which
Tanque Verde Creek is a tributary. The Corps examined gabions,
stone revetment, grouted stone, and soil cement revetment. The
Corps determined that gabions and stone revetment were cost
inefficient in comparison to grouted stone and soil cement
revetment, and were dropped from further consideration. Current
cost data suggest that the cost efficiencies of grouted stone
and soil cement revetment still exist; gabions and stone
revetment, therefore, are not considered viable candidates for
evaluation. Grouted stone is economically viable; however,
current costs and its requirement for additional land maintain
its cost ineffectiveness in comparison to soil cement
revetment, as was determined in the Survey Report. Web cellular
confinement systems were investigated as potential
alternatives. These systems would require the addition of
concrete into the cells as flow velocities exceed 15 feet per
second (fps), thus defeating their intended environmental
advantage. Soil cement revetment remains an engineering and
economically viable solution.
An array of soil cement revetment alternatives identified
as satisfying all the criteria were evaluated, in addition to
the no-action plan.
Description of Recommended Plan: The recommended plan,
Alternative 4, best satisfies the project objectives. It
provides the desired flood damage protection, produces the
highest environmental outputs, is designated as the National
Economic Development (NED) Plan and is locally preferred.
The recommended plan, fully addresses the identified
problems along the Tanque Verde Creek between Sabino Canyon
Road and Craycroft Road while including both structural and
non-structural measures. The structural measures include
installing soil cement bank protection in the existing gaps in
bank protection on the south bank, and installing approximately
1,550 feet of bank protection upstream of the Craycroft Road
Bridge on the north bank. The horizontal alignment of the
proposed bank protection would be along smooth curves that
generally follow the existing bank. Where applicable, the ends
would match the existing soil cement. On the south bank, at the
downstream end, the proposed soil cement would key into the
bank just upstream of the confluence with Pantano Wash.
On the north bank, at the upstream end, the soil cement
would key into the existing bank and be tied back to high
ground. The soil cement would match the top of the existing
bank, and the toedown would extend 10 feet below the existing
thalweg. In addition, limited bank protection will be
constructed for the preserve area. This limited bank protection
will be a low soil cement berm (approximately 5,000 feet in
length) with ``weep holes'' to maintain the hydrologic
connection between the creek and the preserve. The berm will
stabilize the slope and allow for the continued overtopping of
flood waters with events greater than approximately 10-years in
size by its low 2-foot height. The soil cement mixture provides
a hard and durable surface that is expected to last well over
the project life of 50 years.
The recommended plan would affect desert riparian habitat,
including mesquite bosque habitat, along Tanque Verde Creek. A
total of approximately 9.9 acres of habitat would be lost,
including approximately 1.9 acres of moderate to high quality
mesquite bosque habitat and 8.0 acres of disturbed desert wash
habitat. Impacts to wildlife in the disturbed desert wash area
will be minor because relatively few species inhabit these
areas; and most are relatively common. Impacts to wildlife
found in the mesquite bosque habitats would include temporary
and permanent displacement and mortality of some wildlife that
is unable to escape.
Mitigation of the recommended plan, in addition to the
berm, involves acquiring the rights-of-way to establish a
permanent 500-foot buffer along the north bank. Public
ownership of this land (approximately 48 acres) would prevent
additional development and the associated flood damages, while
preserving the riparian values of this heavily vegetated area.
Physical Data on Project Features: The project reach is
approximately 2 miles of the Tanque Verde Creek immediately
upstream of Rillito River at its confluence with Pantano Wash
from Craycroft Road to just downstream of Sabino Canyon Road.
The selected plan includes:
Complete 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;
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
Establishment of a 48-acre riparian habitat
area.
Views of States, and Non-Federal Interests: Pima County
Department of Transportation and Flood Control has indicated
its support for the selected plan and has provided a Letter of
Intent acknowledging sponsorship requirements for the Selected
Plan.
Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: Both the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and the Arizona Game and Fish have
indicated their support for the project. The opinion received
through the Draft Coordination Act Report and through ongoing
coordination favors the project, which addresses the flood
damage problem and yield environmental benefits that are
necessary to preserve the environmental community in this area.
It is the recommendation of the Arizona Game and Fish that
softer protection for the riparian preserve be investigated
during the design phase of this project.
Status of NEPA Document: The Environmental Assessment was
included with the LRR, which was drafted in May of 2002 and
approved on 30 Sept 02.
Estimated Implementation Costs:
Corps of Engineers...................................... $3,236,000
Pima County Flood Control District...................... 1,742,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 4,978,000
The non-Federal sponsor, Pima County Department of
Transportation and Flood Control, has developed a plan to
protect a portion of the study area in advance and in
connection with the Federal project for an approximate 4,220
linear foot section along the creek. With this plan, the non-
Federal sponsor has petitioned and received preliminary
approval from the Secretary for credit for the advanced
construction of this portion of the Federal plan.
Description of Non-Federal O&M Cost: Expected maintenance
activities will include sediment removal, minor structural
repair might be needed after infrequent larger events. It is
estimated that future maintenance activities will cost $17,900
annually.
Estimated Effects:
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average annual
equivalent Average annual adverse
Account beneficial effects
effects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Flood Damage 714,100 Not Applicable.
Reduction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project economic life: 50 years.
Benefit-Cost Ratio: 2.1. (Current Discount Rate: 6.625).
Direct Beneficiaries: Expected flood damage reduction for
the City of Tucson along the lower portion of Tanque Verde
Creek between Sabino Canyon Road and Craycroft Road.
Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A final
Chief's report was signed on 22 July 2003.
(4) Va Shily' Ay Akimel, Salt River Restoration, Arizona.--
Location of Study Area: The Va Shily' Ay Akimel study area
is approximately 14 miles on the Salt River in Arizona, located
within the jurisdiction of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community and the City of Mesa, between Granite Reef Dam and
Price Freeway Bridge.
The study area consists of that portion of the river
extending from the Granite Reef Dam at the upstream end down to
the Pima Freeway (SR 101). The study area is located in
Maricopa County, Arizona within the Salt River Pima-Maricopa
Indian Community (SRPMIC) and the City of Mesa. The study
boundary encompasses an area approximately 14 miles long,
averaging two miles in width, and encompassing approximately
17,435 acres. The Salt River originates in eastern Arizona and
flows from east to west along the southern boundary of the
SRPMIC, westward to its confluence with the Gila River, west of
downtown Phoenix.
Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: Although
flood damages occur in some portions of the study area, Corps
of Engineers flood control studies have demonstrated the lack
of justification for further single purpose flood damage
reduction measures. The primary problem is the severe
degradation and loss of riparian habitat along the Salt River
since the early 20th century. The Salt River once flowed
perennially and supported substantial growth of cottonwoods,
willows, and mesquites. The river channel carried abundant
water that supported early irrigation projects. Increasing
appropriation of surface and ground water to support expansion
of agriculture and growing urban populations resulted in the
transformation of the Salt River to a dry river that flows only
ephemerally in response to storm runoff.
As a result of this change, stands of native riparian
habitat are rare in the study area, as they are throughout
Maricopa County. Loss of riparian habitat is extremely
significant in the arid southwest. Originally comprising a mere
3% of the landscape historically, over 95% of riparian habitat
has already been lost in Arizona. This type of river-connected
riparian and fringe habitat is of an extremely high value due
to its rarity. Arid Southwest riparian ecosystems are
designated as a critically endangered habitat type. It has been
estimated that 75 to 90 percent of all wildlife in the arid
southwest is riparian dependent during some part of its life
cycle. As a direct consequence of the extent of the lost or
degraded riparian habitat, the area has experienced a major
reduction in species diversity and in the population of
remaining species.
In addition, destruction of native riparian habitat
facilitates an increase in invasive plant species that are more
tolerant of disturbed conditions. Such plants consume more
water than native vegetation, placing additional strains on
limited water resources.
Ecosystem function was evaluated using a functional
assessment model. The average annual functional capacity is
forecast to deteriorate from its current capacity of 812 AAFCU
to 705 units in 50 years. Multiplying the Functional Capacity
Index scores by the number of acres of riparian area and taking
the average provides this score.
Presently, there are still adjacent parcels of undeveloped
land in the Salt River area, and potential sources of water for
restoration still exist. As long as these conditions remain
unchanged, there is an opportunity to accomplish significant
restoration in the study area. Restoration alternatives have
the potential to increase riparian habitat acreage and quality
and thereby expand wildlife diversity and quantity, control
invasive plant species and provide an ecological resource that
is significant and valuable to the SRPMIC and to the region.
The Federal objective for ecosystem restoration studies is
to contribute to National Ecosystem Restoration (NER) through
increasing the net quality and/or quantity of desired ecosystem
resources. The specific objectives for environmental
restoration within the study area are as follows:
Restore the riparian ecosystem to the degree
that it supports native vegetation and wildlife through
the Salt River from immediately downstream of the
Granite Reef Dam to the Pima Freeway (SR 101).
Establish a functional floodplain in
unconstrained river reaches of the study area that is
ongoing and mimics the natural processes found in other
naturalized riparian corridors in Arizona.
Provide passive recreation opportunities for
visitors of all ages, abilities, and backgrounds that
are in harmony with the SRPMIC's management of its
culture and native ecology.
Create awareness through ongoing educational
opportunities of the significance of the cultural
resources relating to the Salt River.
Create awareness through ongoing educational
opportunities of the significance of the Salt River
ecosystem.
Create awareness through ongoing educational
opportunities of the ecological connection between
other ongoing riparian restoration projects along the
Salt River.
Alternative Plans Considered: A number of restoration
measures were developed based upon the study objectives and
constraints, public input and suggestions, and Corps and other
federal and state agencies input, and were formulated to
address problems and opportunities identified in the early
phases of the study process.
Through an iterative process, the final array of 6
alternatives was identified, including the no action
alternative. Additional refinement of those alternatives and
subsequent analysis of costs and ecosystem restoration benefits
relative to their effectiveness, acceptability, completeness,
and efficiency led to the selection of the recommended plan.
Description of Recommended Ecosystem Restoration Plan: The
recommended plan is Alternative O2. It provides the desired
ecosystem restoration, produces high environmental outputs, is
designated as the National Ecosystem Restoration (NER) Plan and
is locally preferred. The recommended plan fully addresses the
identified problems along this reach of the Salt River while
including both structural and non-structural measures.
Physical Data on Project Features: The recommended plan
includes:
Restoration of 883 acres cottonwood/willow,
380 acres of mesquite, 200 acres of wetland, and 24
acres of Sonoran desert scrub shrub planted in the
channel, on channel banks and at stormwater outlets;
A surface braided irrigation network will
allow surface water to be directed to areas of
vegetation. Additional water will be collected from a
new groundwater well and also diverted using the
surface braided network;
A grade control structure at the mid-point
of the abandoned SRS&R Beeline One pit (Gilbert Quarry)
to provide stream stabilization and protection to the
newly established vegetation;
A recreation plan including approximately 5
miles of maintained trails and a cultural center to
highlight the SRPMIC culture.
Selected Recreation Plan Description: The proposed
recreation plan was selected based on the evaluation of
combined measures and the desires of the SRPMIC and City of
Mesa. Alternatives varied from a plan with 5.1 miles of trail
leading from the proposed Cultural Center south to Thomas Road,
to a plan with 13.6 miles of trail connecting to the City of
Mesa's existing trail system and to the arterial street grid.
Economic analysis resulted in a final alternative for
recreation with a benefit cost ratio of 1.5 with annual
recreation benefits of $170,800. The first cost of the plan is
$1,337,600. This is less than 1.5% of the costs of the Federal
share of the restoration plan. Cost sharing for recreation is
50% Federal and 50% non-Federal. Annual operation and
maintenance costs are $256,500.
Views of States, and Non-Federal Interests: The Salt River
Pima-Maricopa Indian Community and the City of Mesa have
indicated their support for the recommended plan and have
provided a Letter of Intent acknowledging sponsorship
requirements for the recommended plan. The Arizona Department
of Environmental Quality and the Arizona Game and Fish have
provided statements of support for the restoration efforts.
Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service indicated support for the project. The opinion
received through the Final Coordination Act Report and on going
coordination favors the project, which addresses ecosystem
restoration that is important to restore the environmental
community in this area. The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has said it supports the restoration effort. During the
draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) public comment
period the EPA provided a letter stating its support, but
outlined additional areas of impacts it would like addressed.
Those areas have been addressed in the final EIS.
Status of NEPA Document: The draft Environmental Impact
Statement was released for public and agency review May 7,
2004, and the review period closed June 21, 2004. The Final
Environmental Impact Statement was completed and filed with EPA
in the Federal Register on November 12, 2004.
Estimated Implementation Costs:
Corps of Engineers...................................... $90,129,000
The Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community and the
City of Mesa........................................ 48,839,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 138,968,000
Estimated Effects: This project is part of the growing
effort to restore portions of the former riparian communities
in the Arid Southwest thereby providing increased areas of
threatened vital wildlife habitat.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average annual
equivalent Average annual adverse
Account beneficial effects
effects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Functional 1006 AAFCU....... Not Applicable.
Capacity Units Net Increase.
Annualized Recreational $170,800......... Not Applicable.
Benefits.
Annualized Incidental Flood 32,300........... Not Applicable.
Damage Reduction (Base Year
Only).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project economic life: 50 years.
Benefit-Cost Ratio (Recreation): 1.50. (Current Discount
Rate: 5.625).
Direct Beneficiaries: Expected ecosystem restoration and
recreation benefits for Maricopa County, the Salt River Pima-
Maricopa Indian Community, and the City of Mesa along the Salt
River between the Granite Reef Dam and Pima Freeway (SR 101).
Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A final
Chief's report was signed on 3 January 2005.
(5) Hamilton City, California.--
Location of Study Area: Hamilton City is in Glenn County,
California, along the west bank of the Sacramento River, about
85 miles north of the City of Sacramento. The study area
includes Hamilton City and the surrounding rural area. It is
bounded by the Sacramento River to the east and the Glenn
Colusa Canal to the west and extends about two miles north and
six miles south of Hamilton City. Hamilton City has a
population of about 2,000. An existing private levee,
constructed by landowners in about 1904 and known as the ``J''
levee, provides some flood protection to the city and
surrounding area. Surrounding land use is agricultural with
fruit and nut orchards as the primary crops.
Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: Flooding
threatens public safety in and around the community of Hamilton
City. The primary risk of flooding to Hamilton City is from the
upstream, unregulated tributary streams along the Sacramento
River between Shasta Dam and Hamilton City. The community
relies on the ``J'' levee to contain flows in the Sacramento
River. The ``J'' levee does not meet Corps of Engineers or any
other levee construction standards and could fail at river
levels well below the top of the levee. The Sacramento River is
prevented from meandering. A primary problem of the riverine
ecosystem in the study area is the loss of the river's natural
function to erode its banks and migrate through its floodplain.
Confinement of the river by levees, bank protection, and
channel stabilization have limited erosion and deposition of
sediment and the formation of essential riverine and riparian
habitats. In addition, in the Hamilton City area, private
levees protecting the community and surrounding agricultural
lands have severed the Sacramento River from its historic
floodplain. The levees greatly reduce the area subject to
relatively frequent, ecologically significant flooding, which
reduces the establishment of riparian vegetation and associated
components. The lack of the disturbance pattern from flooding
in riparian areas has resulted in a reduction in the natural
mosaic of vegetative patterns. As a result, the quantity and
quality of riparian and related floodplain habitat and
dependent species has been diminished.
Alternative Plans Considered: Alternative plans were
formulated for the primary project purpose, ecosystem
restoration, to ensure a al Ecosystem Restoration (NER) plan
could be identified. Combined alternative plans were also
formulated for both flood damage reduction and ecosystem
restoration. In general, the most cost efficient plans aligned
a new levee as far from the river as possible. This allowed the
greatest extent of floodplain flooding and habitat restoration,
maximizing ecosystem restoration and flood damage reduction
benefits. To identify the NER plan, an incremental cost
analysis was performed. Two alternatives were identified as
``best buys'' in that they provide the greatest increase in
output for the least increase in cost and have the lowest
incremental costs per unit of output relative to the other
cost-effective plans. The comparison of the incremental outputs
for the two ``best buy'' plans resulted in the identification
of ecosystem alternative #6 as the NER plan. With the
identification of alternative #6 as the NER plan, flood damage
reduction measures were reevaluated and combined alternative
plans were formulated to address other problems and
opportunities. The preliminary combined alternative plans were
screened against the four planning criteria of completeness,
effectiveness, efficiency and acceptability. An incremental
cost analysis was performed for the cost effective combined
alternatives. Combined alternative 6 is determined to be the
alternative plan that reasonably maximizes both ecosystem
restoration and flood damage reduction benefits when compared
to costs, and is identified as the Combined Plan. The non-
Federal sponsor has indicated its willingness to sponsor this
plan.
Description of Recommended Plan: The recommended plan
consists of actively restoring about 1,500 acres of native
vegetation, constructing a setback levee about 6.8 miles long,
starting at about 7.5 feet high and transitioning in two
increments down to 6 feet high and then to three feet high, and
breaching the existing ``J'' levee in several locations. The
levee would provide the community with a 90% level of
confidence of passing the 75-year, 35-year, and 11-year events,
respectively, by increment.
Views of States and Non-Federal Interests: The State of
California Reclamation Board has agreed to be the non-Federal
sponsor for the project.
Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: Federal and
regional agencies offered no comments.
Status of NEPA Document: A Final Environmental Impact
Statement/Report (FSEIS/R) was completed for the project.
Estimated Implementation Costs:
Corps of Engineers...................................... $33,000,000
The State of California Reclamation Board............... 17,600,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 50,600,000
Estimated Effects: Full implementation of the recommended
plan would result in the restoration of 1,500 acres of habitat,
providing 888 average annual habitat units (AAHUs). It reduces
expected annual flood damages by about $604,000 (including
avoided flood-fighting costs). The FDR benefit-to-cost ratio is
about 1.9 to 1.
Annual Benefits:
Ecosystem restoration--888 Average Annual Habitat Units.
FDR--$604,000 (BCR = 1.9 to 1).
Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A final
Chief's report was signed on 22 December 2004.
(6) Imperial Beach, CA.--
Location of Study Area: The Silver Strand shoreline is
located at the City of Imperial Beach approximately 12 miles
south of San Diego, California.
Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: The
shoreline at the City of Imperial Beach is severely impacted by
this erosion. Estimates of the sediment budget indicate that
approximately 76,000 cubic meters (100,000 cubic yards) per
year is eroding from the Imperial Beach reach, corresponding to
a shoreline retreat rate of two meters per year (6.6 feet per
year). Many private property owners have constructed stone
revetments or vertical seawalls to protect their property, but
these non-continuous protection structures do not solve the
erosion issue, and may fail as the beach recedes. Intermittent
beach fills have been constructed, but not at a sufficient
quantity to halt the shoreline retreat. At the current retreat
rate, the shoreline in the north reach is expected to reach the
first line of development by 2007.
Alternative Plans Considered: The Los Angeles District in
its preparation of the General Reevaluation Report considered a
broad range of potential structural and non-structural measures
to prevent further erosion. The Corps examined (1) beach
nourishment alone, (2) breakwaters with beach nourishment, (3)
additional and extended groins with beach nourishment, (4) a
new continuous revetment in the north reach of the study area,
(5) a new continuous revetment in the north reach and a raised
revetment in the south reach, and (6) a new seawall in the
north reach. The Corps determined that the only project
alternative that met the planning objectives of economic
efficiency and public and regulatory acceptability was the
beach nourishment alternative. Breakwaters have met with
considerable public resistance at this location in the past. An
array of 4 beach alternatives and 5 sacrificial nourishment
intervals corresponds to a total of 20 project alternatives
that were evaluated. The no-action plan was also evaluated.
Recommended Plan: The recommended plan is the plan that
maximizes net national economic development benefits. The
recommended plan, Alternative 1, fully addresses the problems
of loss of structures and land due to erosion, and of structure
damage due to direct wave attack, although some residual
damages due to inundation and damage to existing revetments
remain. The plan also retains a wide sandy beach for
recreational use. The recommended plan involves construction of
a base beach fill consisting of 450,000 cubic meters (589,000
cubic yards) of suitable beach sand, plus a sacrificial advance
beach fill of 764,000 cubic meters (1,000,000 cubic yards), for
a total initial beach fill of 1,214,000 cubic meters (1,589,000
cubic yards). The placement would be 2,165 meters (7,100 feet)
long extending from the northerly groin to the southern end of
the development, providing a base nourishment beach width of 12
meters (39 feet) at an elevation of +4 meters (+13 feet) MLLW.
The foreshore slope would be set to 15H:1V. The additional
sacrificial beach width would be 20 meters (66 feet), so that
initially the nourished beach would be 32 meters (105 feet)
wider than the existing beach. The nourished beach is expected
to erode to the 12-meter (39-foot) width after 10 years. It
would be renourished with a sacrificial advance beach fill of
764,000 cubic meters (1,000,000 cubic yards) every 10 years
within the 50-year project lifetime.
The sand used for beach nourishment would be dredged from
offshore, from one of two borrow areas. Borrow Area A is
located approximately 2 kilometers (1.2 miles) north of the
Imperial Beach pier. Borrow Area B is located approximately 4.5
kilometers (2.8 miles) south of the Imperial Beach pier. Both
borrow areas contain beach compatible sand, and enough sand is
believed to be present in either borrow area alone for the
recommended plan.
The initial and periodic beach nourishment will provide a
wide beach that is expected to remain in place over the project
life of 50 years and will both provide protection against
storm-related damage to structures, and maintain existing
recreational facilities. Residual storm-related damages are
anticipated from storm-related structure inundation, clean-up
costs, and costs to maintain the existing revetment in the
north reach.
Physical Data on Project Features: The project reach is
2,165 meters (7,100 feet) of the Silver Strand shoreline
running from the south end of development at Seacoast Drive to
the north limits of the City of Imperial Beach. The selected
plan includes:
Complete erosion control throughout the
project reach with the construction of the initial and
periodic sacrificial beach fills.
A high degree of protection against storm-
related damage to structures.
Maintenance of recreational facilities
through the provision of a sandy beach that is 12
meters (39 feet) wider than the year 2002 condition.
Views of States, and Non-Federal Interests: The City of
Imperial Beach has indicated its support for the selected plan
and has provided a Letter of Intent acknowledging sponsorship
requirements for the recommended plan.
Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: Both the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and
Game have indicated their support for the project.
Status of NEPA Document: The Final Environmental Impact
Statement/Environmental Impact Report were finalized in October
2002.
Estimated Implementation Costs:
Corps of Engineers...................................... $7,592,000
Imperial Beach.......................................... 4,270,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 11,862,000
In addition, the cost of periodic renourishment over the
50-year life of the project is estimated to be $38,004,000, or
$650,000 a year. These costs are cost shared at 50% Federal,
50% non-Federal.
Description of Non-Federal O&M Costs: At least twice
annually and after storm events, perform surveillance of the
beach to determine losses of nourishment material from the
project design section and provide the results of such
surveillance to the Federal Government, at an estimated annual
cost of $60,000.
Estimated Effects (October 2004 price levels at 5\3/8\%
discount rate):
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average annual
Account beneficial Average annual adverse
effects effects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Storm Damage Reduction......... $2,395,000 Not Applicable.
Recreation..................... 744,000 Not Applicable.
Total.................... 3,139,000 Not Applicable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Economic Life: 50 years.
Benefit-Cost Ratio: 2.16.
Direct Beneficiaries: Expected storm damage reduction for
the City of Imperial Beach along the developed area between the
south end of development at Seacoast Drive to the north limits
of the City of Imperial Beach.
Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A final Chiefs
Report was signed on 30 December 2003.
(7) Matilija Dam, Ventura County, California.--
Location of Study Area: The study area includes most of the
Ventura River and one of its tributaries, Matilija Creek, in
Ventura County approximately 70 miles from Los Angeles. A major
feature within this area is the Matilija Dam, which is located
on Matilija Creek near the City of Ojai. The dam was
constructed in the late 1940s and the reservoir has since
filled with sediments. It is an impediment to fish passage and
has degraded the natural processes in the river system.
Physical Description of the Study Area: The study area
consists of the Ventura River watershed, particularly the
Matilija Creek sub-watershed and Ventura River and surrounding
areas, from the confluence of the north fork of Matilija Creek
to the Ventura River. The study area is located in Ventura
County, California near the Cities of Ojai (upstream) and
Ventura (downstream). The study boundary encompasses an area of
approximately 223 square miles and over 33 miles of riverine
habitat. The total acres included in the modified Habitat
Evaluation Procedure (HEP) are about 2,814 acres. The Matilija
Creek watershed begins in the Los Padres al Forest at
elevations exceeding 5,000 feet and a drainage area of about 55
square miles. The elevation quickly drops to about 1,000 feet
at Matilija Dam, located about 16 miles from the Pacific Ocean.
The confluence of the two forks of Matilija Creek is located
about \1/2\ mile downstream of the dam. The confluence
establishes the beginning of the Ventura River, which flows
from north to south and empties into the Pacific Ocean.
Problems and Opportunities Identified in the Study:
Construction of the 190-foot high Matilija Dam was completed in
1947 by the Ventura County Watershed Protection District
(VCWPD, formerly the Flood Control District) to provide water
storage for agricultural needs and limited flood control.
Problems associated with the dam became evident within a couple
of decades after construction and include: large volumes of
sediment deposited behind the dam and the loss of the majority
of the water supply function and designed flood control
capability; the deteriorating condition of the dam; the non-
functional fish ladder and overall obstruction to migratory
fishes; the loss of riparian and wildlife corridors between the
Ventura River and Matilija Creek; and the loss of sediment
transport contributions from upstream of the dam, with
resulting erosion to downstream reaches of the Ventura River,
the estuary and the sand-starved beaches along the Ventura
County shoreline.
Sedimentation behind the dam has rapidly reduced the
ability to store a significant amount of water for future use.
It is estimated that approximately 6 million cubic yards of
sediments (silts, sands, gravels, cobbles and boulders) have
accumulated behind the dam. The remaining shallow reservoir is
about 500 acre-feet or seven percent (7%) of the original
capacity and is expected to disappear by 2020. Storm flows
carry mostly suspended fine sediments downstream; the coarser
sediments remain trapped behind the dam. By approximately year
2040, the reservoir basin is expected to have reached an
equilibrium condition and be completely filled with sediment
totaling over 9 million cubic yards.
Matilija Dam has had many adverse effects on stream ecology
and wildlife since its construction. Sediment trapped by the
dam has deprived downstream reaches of sand and gravel sized
materials necessary to sustain a suitable substrate for
spawning, including the creation of riffle and pool formations,
sandbars, and secondary channels. These conditions help promote
habitat diversity capable of supporting many sensitive wildlife
species such as the southern steelhead, southwestern pond
turtle, the arroyo toad and the California red-legged frog. The
dam has blocked upper watershed natural river flows and
therefore has altered natural stream and habitat dynamics.
Water that has been impounded and subsequently released
downstream is typically of poorer quality, affected by higher
temperature, lower dissolved oxygen, and potentially higher
nutrient loads. The cumulative adverse effects of Matilija Dam
on downstream ecology will continue for at least 100 years,
long after the reservoir is completely filled with sediment.
Historically southern steelhead, a species of migratory
trout, was common inhabitants of California coastal streams as
far south as San Diego. In the last 50 years there has been a
dramatic decline from historic estimates of returning adults.
This decline has been attributed in large measure to the
numerous dams and diversions that have blocked steelhead access
into historic habitat in the tributaries of major river
systems, and the degradation to quality of habitat in rivers
due to agricultural influence and urbanization. In 1997, the
southern steelhead was listed as federally endangered. The
Ventura River system once supported approximately 4,000 to
5,000 spawning southern steelhead. Current population estimates
are less than 100 adult individuals for the Ventura River
system. The steelhead habitat upstream from Matilija Dam was
historically the most productive spawning and rearing habitat
in the Ventura River system. It is estimated that about fifty
percent (50%) of this remaining prime habitat was lost due to
the construction of the dam.
Steelhead and other aquatic species (fish, including the
Arroyo chub--a California State species of special concern, and
amphibians) would regain access to approximately 17.3 river
miles of high quality spawning and rearing habitat by removing
Matilija Dam. Without removal of the dam, fish passage cannot
be restored, as even a fish ladder facility could not provide a
viable solution for a dam of this size.
Matilija Dam has contributed to streambed erosion in the
riverine system. Where erosion of the streambed has been most
severe and the active channel has become entrenched, the
adjacent alluvial deposits in the floodplain are now abandoned.
Flood flows up to the 100-year event can remain in the main
channel and do not inundate the floodplain. Native habitats
dependent on an active floodplain as a result are significantly
impacted and drastically altered. The greatest influence of
Matilija Dam to riverine sediment supply and transport are
within the 8.5 river miles between the structure and San
Antonio Creek. In this stretch of the river, the majority of
sediment supply is from the North Fork Matilija Creek. Without
the dam in place however, Matilija Creek would be the largest
sediment contributor in these reaches. Immediately downstream
of Matilija Dam, about 4 feet of erosion has occurred since
1971. Bedrock control limits the amount of erosion. In the
reach downstream of Robles Diversion Dam, there has been up to
10 feet of erosion, as there is detention of sediment at that
facility. However, if Matilija Dam were removed, degradation
would not be a significant problem in this reach. Downstream of
San Antonio Creek, a reach between river mile 2 and 5.5
(measured from the river mouth) has experienced up to 10 feet
of erosion. This is attributed to a combination of sediment
supply deficits resulting from the presence of Casitas Dam and
Matilija Dam, as well as debris basins in San Antonio Creek
watershed, and channel constriction by bridges.
Beach erosion, attributed to the influence of human
activities including the construction of dams, has also been a
problem along most of the local coastline. Over the last 50
years, Emma Wood State Beach, west of the mouth of the Ventura
River, has eroded approximately 150 feet, indicating an erosion
rate of 2 to 3 ft/yr. Surfer's Point just down coast of the
river mouth, once a sandy beach, is now mostly cobble. Loss of
upper sand beach zones has caused a loss of spawning habitat
for the California grunion, and to foraging and breeding
habitat for the federally listed threatened western snowy
plover. The extent of coastal dunes on both sides of the river
mouth has been diminishing over the years as a result of the
loss of protective beachfront and erosion by wave action.
Coastal dunes and their habitats, which once supported the
silvery legless lizard, a California-State species of special
concern, are diminishing and will eventually be lost entirely.
The removal of Matilija Dam would release approximately 4
million cubic yards of sands, gravels and more coarse-grained
sediment to Ventura River reaches downstream of the dam, and to
the nearby coastline. The downstream channel degradation trends
would reverse, and equilibrium (roughly pre-dam) channel bed
elevations would be restored in about 10 years versus the
approximate 100 years it would take if the dam were to remain
in-place.
Recreation trails exist upstream and downstream of the
Matilija Dam area, but not in the vicinity of the dam. The
upper trails are located in the Los Padres al Forest.
Downstream trails are primarily located along Highway 33,
roughly parallel to the Ventura River. Opportunities exist to
link the trail systems, particularly in combination with dam
removal.
The natural streamflow in the Ventura River and associated
subsurface alluvial groundwater is impacted by several major
water extraction operations in the watershed: Matilija Dam,
Casitas Dam, Robles Diversion Dam, Foster Park diversion
facility and other smaller water extractors. The average annual
extraction operations in the Ventura River are about 18,000
acre feet. Matilija Dam provides an average of 590 acre feet/
year to Robles Diversion Dam located two miles downstream of
Matilija Dam (owned by the Bureau of Reclamation and leased to
Casitas Municipal Water District, CMWD) and diverts water
during large storm events from the Ventura River to Lake
Casitas, the primary surface water supply for the County of
Ventura. The effects of these extractions limit the duration
and magnitude of river flow necessary for successful steelhead
migration, and in addition, adversely affect in-stream habitat
characteristics. During the summer/fall period when natural
flows are low, fish and aquatic organisms that become isolated
as a result of receding stream flows are subjected to
predation, impaired water quality, and desiccation once flows
cease. This diversion dam has impacted steelhead migration,
spawning and rearing throughout the lower Ventura River. CMWD
has constructed a fish passage that is intended to restore the
capability for fish to pass the Robles Dam. The only remaining
upstream obstruction to fish passage along Matilija Creek will
be Matilija Dam.
Discharges into the Ventura River, including point source
contributions from a wastewater treatment facility, and non-
point source contributions from agricultural and urban
development have affected the water quality of the river. The
California Regional Water Quality Control Board has classified
the Ventura River as a Category I (impaired) watershed and has
approved the river's status on the 303(d) list and TMDL
priority schedule for pollutants including DDT, copper, silver,
zinc, algae (eutrophication) and trash.
Planning Objectives: The Federal objective for ecosystem
restoration studies is to contribute to al Ecosystem
Restoration (NER) through increasing the net quality and/or
quantity of desired ecosystem resources. The Corps, the
sponsor, resource agencies and stakeholders based on public
input, meetings, and identification of the problems and needs,
developed the primary objectives for this study. The primary
ecosystem restoration study objectives are:
Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat
along Matilija Creek and the Ventura River to benefit
native fish and wildlife species, including the
endangered Southern California steelhead trout.
Restore the hydrologic and sediment
transport processes to support the riverine and coastal
regime of the Ventura River Watershed.
Create recreational opportunities along
Matilija Creek and the downstream Ventura River system.
Alternative Plans Considered: Multiple iterations of
formulation and screening of measures and alternatives were
conducted during the plan formulation process. These activities
involved the multi-agency members represented in the various
groups formed to address specific issues related to dam fate,
sediment management, the ecosystem, fish migration barriers,
water supply, flood control, recreation, air quality, noise,
and traffic. Measures that address the study objectives were
considered, discussed, combined in different manners and
screened during this process.
Description of Recommended Ecosystem Restoration Plan:
Alternative 4b best satisfies the project objectives. It
provides the desired ecosystem restoration, produces high
environmental outputs, and is designated as the National
Ecosystem Restoration (NER) Plan and, with the addition of an
associated feature that will be paid for by the sponsor, it is
the Locally Preferred Plan and the Recommended Plan. The
selected plan fully addresses the identified problems along the
Matilija Creek and the Ventura River.
Physical Data on Project Features: Project features
include:
Slurry of approximately 2 million cubic
yards (\1/3\ of total deposits) of fine sediments
(silts and clays) from behind Matilija Dam
approximately 5 miles downstream to slurry disposal
sites;
Construction of levees/floodwalls at Casitas
Springs, Live Oak and Meiners Oaks;
Addition of two wells at Foster Park;
Construction of high-flow sediment bypass
structure at Robles Diversion Dam;
Contouring of remaining 4 million cubic
yards of deposited sediments into sediment storage
areas as source for future natural erosion/transport
downstream during storm events;
Construction of 100-foot wide meandering
fish passage channel through former sediment deposition
area;
Addition of soil cement to two downstream
sediment storage areas;
Dam removal by controlled blasting in 15-
foot increments;
Construction of recreation trail along
slurry pipeline alignment;
Construction of desilting basin adjacent to
Robles Canal (to be paid for by the Sponsor)
Selected Recreation Plan Description:
A new trail system includes a hiking trail linking the
existing Los Padres al Forest Matilija Wilderness Area trails
to the Matilija Reservoir Area. The dirt trail would then be
designed for multiple uses (hiking, equestrian and mountain
biking) along the existing unimproved access road that
parallels the eastern edge of the Matilija Reservoir Area to
the road entrance below the dam site. The multi-use trail would
continue downstream along the Ventura River using the slurry
pipeline and service road alignment after completion of that
phase of the project. The trail would extend from Matilija Road
to the Highway 150 Bridge (Baldwin Road) crossing. The Sponsor
would pursue a link between the lower end of this proposed
trail at Highway 150 Bridge crossing to the County of Ventura
Ojai Valley Trail located along Highway 33, about a \1/4\ mile
away. The total length for this trail system is about 7 miles.
Vegetative barriers, such as chaparral, would be used along
portions of the trail to protect adjacent private properties
and environmentally sensitive habitat areas from unwanted
access by trail users. Fencing would be installed where
vegetative barriers could not be used.
Two trailheads would be constructed for the multi-use
recreation trail. The lower site would be located at the
Highway 150 Bridge as part of the restoration plan for the
disposal site, and the upper site would be at a rest area at
the current location of Matilija Dam. Consideration would be
given to including turnarounds, parking, footbridges and other
measures for access and circulation as well as safety measures
along the trails.
Three rest areas are proposed for the project area based on
existing facilities and landscape features. Specific facilities
at these areas could include comfort stations, shelters, picnic
areas, drinking fountains and faucets, interpretive signs and
markers, and similar features consistent with Corps of
Engineers guidance.
Views of States, and Non-Federal Interests: The Ventura
County Watershed Protection District has indicated its strong
support for the Recommended Plan.
Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The NOAA, al Marine
Fisheries Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
Bureau of Reclamation, the California Regional Water Quality
Control Board, the California Coastal Conservancy, and multiple
other wide, regional and local environmental groups have
expressed strong support for the Recommended Plan.
Status of NEPA Document: The Final Environmental Impact
Statement/ Environmental Impact Report has been completed.
Estimated Implementation Costs:
Corps of Engineers...................................... $78,973,000
Ventura County Watershed Protection District............ 51,362,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 130,335,000
Estimated Effects: This project will restore a vital link
to a fragmented ecosystem in Ventura County and will provide
access to pristine habitat areas within the Los Padres al
Forest. This dam removal project is the first of its kind with
Corps of Engineers participation based on the scope and scale
of the effort. The economic analysis is presented in the
following summary table.
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF RECOMMENDED PLAN
Average Annual Cost per Habitat Unit.... $10,127
Avg. Annual Equivalent Cost per Acre.... 2,723
First Cost per Acre..................... $43,984
------------------------------------------------------------------------
These values are based on Fiscal Year 2004 price levels,
and an interest rate of 5.625 percent and a 50-year period of
economic analysis. The costs for associated features and the
recreation Plan are not included in the average annual cost
calculations for the NER analysis. The average annual benefits
reflect the increase in habitat units based on HEP values,
reflecting non-monetary benefits.
HEP COMPARISON OF NO ACTION TO RECOMMENDED PLAN (HABITAT UNITS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steelhead Riparian habitat Natural Totals
habitat component processes -----------------
component ------------------ component
Target year ------------------ ------------------ No With
No With No With No With action project
action project action project action project
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................... 177 177 1032 1032 228 228 1437 1437
5....................................... 234 501 1029 1125 228 240 1491 1866
20...................................... 234 543 944 1145 228 520 1406 2208
50...................................... 234 544 782 1183 286 570 1302 2297
AAHUS................................... 231 514 917 1147 245 464 1393 2128
Change in AAHUs......................... ....... 283 ....... 229 ....... 219 ....... 731
% Change................................ ....... 122 ....... 25 ....... 89 ....... 53
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project economic life: 50 years.
Benefit-Cost Ratio (Recreation): 4:1 (Discount Rate used:
5.625).
Direct Beneficiaries: Ecosystem restoration and recreation
features of the Recommended Plan directly benefit the Ventura
County Watershed Protection District and the local communities
and residents of the Ventura River Watershed.
Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A Chief's
report was signed on 20 December 2004.
(8) Middle Creek, Lake County, California.--
Location of Study Area: Middle Creek is located in Lake
County, approximately 80 miles north of San Francisco and is
the main tributary into Clear Lake, the largest natural lake
entirely within the borders of California.
Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: Flood-
related problems in the study area include potential damages
from inundation to structures and extensive areas of
agriculture from overflow from Rodman Slough. Prior to
agricultural reclamation efforts, the study area was also part
of Clear Lake. Although surrounded by levees, the study area
remains at risk from flooding from both Clear Lake and Rodman
Slough because of levee settlement. The majority of the study
area is now included in the FEMA 100-year flood plain even
though the Corps' Middle Creek Project was constructed in the
1960's to provide 100-year protection to the area.
Considerable ecosystem degradation has taken place in the
study area. Historically, the area was a portion of Clear Lake
and consisted of tule marsh and open water. Shoreline wetlands
served an important function to Clear Lake, providing fish and
wildlife habitat, and trapping sediments. These wetlands were
converted to agricultural fields during the last century.
Problems associated with this degradation have increased over
time. These problems include loss of natural habitat, loss of
ecosystem function, and degraded water quality. Opportunities
presented to reduce flood damage reduction and restore the
ecosystem.
Alternative Plans Considered: Five alternative plans were
included: (1) no action; (2) restoring the 100-year flood plan
boundary, approximately 1,650 acres of potential open water,
wetland, riparian and upland habitat, breaching existing levees
acquiring property, relocation of 22 structures and a ring
levee around tribal trust lands; (3) similar to alternative 2
but smaller, only approximately 1,127 acres, construction of a
cross levee and ring levee; (4) similar to 2 and 3 but smaller
area of 890 acres to include a cross levee and ring levee; and
(5) a non-structural flood damage reduction alternative with no
ecosystem restoration, area of approximately 1,650 acres,
similar to alternative 2 without the habitat restoration.
Description of Recommended Plan: The recommended plan is
not the plan that maximizes net national economic development
benefits. Alternative 2 encompasses about 1,650 acres,
extending from the current shoreline of Clear Lake to the 100-
year flood plain boundary. This alternative would restore the
entire flood plain in the study area, with the exception of the
Tribal lands adjacent to the study area. Alternative 2 was
formulated to address both planning objectives. This
alternative plan focuses on reconnecting 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 study area and providing flood damage
reduction by relocating residents from the flood plain.
Physical Data on Project Features: A portion of the Middle
Creek Project levee from the confluence of Scotts and Middle
Creeks to Clear Lake [would need to be] [is] deauthorized to
allow it to be breached. Channels and sloughs will be
constructed to direct creek flows from the breaches through the
study area to Clear Lake. A ring levee will be constructed to
provide an existing level of protection for the Tribal lands.
Implementation of this alternative will result in 765 acres of
wetlands, 230 acres of riparian, 405 acres of open water, and
250 acres of upland habitat.
This alternative also will require that all structures and
personal property be removed from the study area. A total of 22
structures and associated infrastructure (septic tanks,
plumbing, and electrical) would be demolished and removed from
the project area. Wells will be abandoned and capped as
required by County and State standards. Property owners will be
compensated and relocated outside the flood plain. All current
agricultural practices within the flood plain will be
discontinued.
Alternative 2 provides $285,000 in average annual National
Economic Development (NED) benefits. The average annual costs
for allocated flood damage reduction is $252,000, resulting in
net NED benefits of $30,000 and a benefit-to-cost (B/C) ratio
of 1.12. Alternative 2 produces 869 Average Annual Habitat
Units with an incremental cost per unit of $547.
Views of States, and Non-Federal Interests: The sponsor,
Lake County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, has
continued to express support for the project, understands the
cost sharing requirements during preconstruction engineering
and design and is prepared to execute a cost sharing agreement
upon completion of the feasibility study.
Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: At this time, 4 of
the 6 native American tribes within the Clear Lake Basin have
expressed support of the project, the local Bureau of Indian
Affairs also has expressed support of the project provided
continued coordination with all tribes and BIA, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife and EPA supports the project based on their review of
the draft report.
Status of NEPA Document: The Integrated Feasibility Report
and Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report
are complete.
Estimated Implementation Costs:
Corps of Engineers...................................... $27,256,000
Lake County............................................. 14,537,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 41,793,000
Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: Non-
Federal implementation costs include $18,229,000 in land
acquisition, $2,497,000 in relocations and $645,000 in design
and construction management costs, total Non-federal
$21,371,000 costs, Federal reimbursement of $6,834,000, for
total Non-Federal cost of $14,537,000.
Description of Non-Federal O&M Costs: The OMRR&R cost for
the ecosystem restoration consists of $104,000 for systematic
thinning of terrestrial vegetation to maintain unimpeded
hydraulic flows in the study area and to provide maintenance to
the ring levee. Costs would also be associated with the
adaptive management plan.
Estimated Effects: Construction of the restoration area
will cause temporary effects to the environment. Once
construction is complete, approximately 765 acres of wetlands,
230 acres of riparian, 405 acres of open water and 250 acres of
upland habitat will be restored. Approximately 22 structures
will be removed.
Project economic life: 50 years.
Benefit-Cost Ratio: 1.12 (Oct 2002 price levels, 6\1/8\%).
Habitat Benefits: 869 AAHUs.
Alternative 4 was the NED plan with the NED benefits of
$35,000 but the NER plan was Alternative 2 with 869 AAHUs
versus Alternative 4 with only 127 AAHU's habitat benefits. The
combined NED/NER plan was selected with benefits of $30,000 and
869 AAHUs.
Direct Beneficiaries: The project would provide flood
damage reduction, improve ecosystem values in the Middle Creek
area; improve fish and wildlife habitat, increase wetland,
riparian, and upland/foraging habitats; reestablish native
historic plant and wildlife communities within the historic
Robinson Lake area; reconnect Middle Creek to the historical
flood plain and increase ecosystem habitat values to the
watershed.
Relationship to Other Plans: Construction of the Middle
Creek Flood Control Project was completed by the Corps in 1966.
The project, which included 14.4 miles of levees, diversion
structures, and a pumping station, separated the historic
Robinson Lake wetlands area (about 1,500 to 2,000 acres) and a
shallow bay of the Upper arm of Clear Lake from Rodman Slough
located upstream of Clear Lake. The project included levees and
incidental channel improvements along 7 miles of Middle Creek
(including Rodman Slough), a channel to divert Clover Creek
overflow around the town of Upper Lake, levees along lower
Scotts Creek creating the Middle Creek Reclamation area, and
pumps to discharge drainage. This ecosystem restoration project
will modify 7 miles of levees along Middle Creek, which were
part of the Middle Creek Flood Control Project.
Current Status of the Chief of Engineers Report: A Chief's
report was signed on 29 November 2004.
(9) Napa River Salt Marsh, California.--
Location of the Study Area: The study area is located
approximately 30 miles northeast of the City of San Francisco,
in unincorporated portions of Napa, Sonoma, and Solano
Counties, California. The study area is located on the
northeast side of San Pablo Bay, immediately west of the Napa
River, and immediately east of Sonoma Creek. The study area
consists of the Napa River Unit of the Napa-Sonoma Marshes
State Wildlife Area (NSMWA), which is comprised of 12 ponds
formerly used for solar salt production.
Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: Diking or
filling has destroyed nearly 90 percent of the original tidal
wetlands of San Francisco and San Pablo Bays. The project site,
historically dominated by tidal salt marsh, was diked and
converted to hayfields approximately 150 years ago.
Subsequently, in the early 1950s, the diked areas were
converted to solar evaporation salt ponds. The project is a
part of a larger effort to restore a portion of diked Baylands
to tidal action to support endangered and special species (such
as the salt marsh harvest mouse and California clapper rail)
recovery, improve water quality, and restore greater ecological
balance to the San Francisco Bay area.
Alternative Plans Considered: Initially, twenty-four
salinity reduction, seven habitat restoration, and three
supplemental water delivery alternatives were considered in the
alternative screening process. The screening process narrowed
consideration to seventeen alternatives, including the No
Action Plan, that were carried forward. All possible
combinations of salinity reduction options and habitat
restoration options were considered.
Description of Recommended Plan: The Recommended Plan is
the plan that maximizes net national ecosystem restoration
benefits and would involve salinity reduction of Ponds 4, 5, 6
and 6A through water discharges to the Napa River, and bittern
removal/salinity reduction of Ponds 7, 7A and 8 through water
discharges to Napa Slough. The Recommended Plan would use a
combination of natural water sources to achieve the salinity
and bittern reductions, including seasonal rainfall and flows
from neighboring waters (Napa Slough and Mud Slough.) This plan
was recommended because it provides a balanced mix of pond and
tidal habitat, manages restoration related risk through
effective use of adaptive management, and is determined to be
the most cost effective based on cost effectiveness/incremental
cost analysis evaluation. The Secretary is authorized to carry
out the recommended plan. However, the Secretary is directed to
include as part of the project, construction of a recycled
water pipeline and restoration of Salt Ponds 1, 1A, 2, and 3.
Physical Data on Project Features: The plan would be
constructed with two broad categories of outputs in mind: (1)
desalination; and (2) habitat restoration. Features aimed at
the desalination portion would include a combination of water
conveyance and control structures--including intakes, fish
screens, outfalls, diffusers, siphons, mixing chambers, and
levee breaches. The recycled water pipeline that is included in
the project extends from the Sonoma Valley County Sanitation
District Wastewater Treatment Plant and the Napa Sanitation
District Wastewater Treatment Plant. Habitat restoration
features would include construction of starter channels and
berms, levee lowering, blocking ditches, breaching of ponds to
reestablish tidal actions, and maintenance of ponds that
currently provide good habitat. The Recommended Plan would
result in the restoration of approximately 4,534 acres of high-
quality pond and tidal marsh habitat.
Views of States, and Non-Federal Interests: The State of
California responded verbally with no comment during the 30-day
State and Federal agency review period, which began on 20
August 2004 and expired on 20 September 2004.
Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The U.S. Department
of Interior responded via letter dated 22 September 2004 with
no comment. FEMA, Health and Human Services, and the U.S. Coast
Guard responded verbally with no comment. The Environmental
Protection Agency responded via Federal Register notice dated
10 September 2004 with no comment.
Status of NEPA Document: A Final Environmental Impact
Statement/Report (SEIS/EIR) was completed for the project. The
Notice of Availability for the Final SEIS/EIR was published in
the Federal Register on 20 August 2004; the final date for
comments was 20 September 2004. No significant comments have
been received.
Estimated Implementation Costs:
Corps of Engineers...................................... $64,000,000
Non-Federal Interest.................................... 36,500,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 100,500,000
Description of Non-Federal O&M Costs: The CDFG will assume
ownership of the constructed project and be responsible for all
operations and maintenance (O&M) activities associated with the
ponds. O&M responsibilities for the project include levee
inspection and maintenance, repair and replacement of water
conveyance and control structures, operator's labor,
maintenance materials, equipment and labor, inspection reports,
utilities, removal of invasive exotic vegetation such as
Spartina and other major replacements.
Estimated Effects:
NER Effects: Average Annual Habitat Units: 2,000.
Recreation annual benefit: $1,170,000.
Direct Beneficiaries: Native species of flora and fauna
(including special-status species), the general public, and
users of the recycled water pipeline after the project is
completed.
Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A final
Chief's report was signed on 22 December 2004.
(10) South Platte River, Denver, Colorado.--
Location of the Study Area: The project is located on the
Zuni/Sun Valley Reach of the South Platte River, between 8th
Avenue and Lakewood Gulch.
Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: The City
and County of Denver has accomplished much towards 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. A low head Fabridam
that is used to store water for cooling purposes by the Zuni
Power Plant dominates this area by backing up water for over
one mile and blocking upstream movement of aquatic organisms to
an additional 13 miles of river habitat. Ecosystem problems
include restricted fish mobility (100 percent blockage during
low river flows); low dissolved oxygen levels upstream of the
Fabridam; harmful sediment deposition in areas downstream of
the Fabridam following periodic flushing of sediment trapped
above the dam; no protective cover for aquatic species
downstream of the dam; minimal riparian habitat; virtually no
wetland habitat; extremely low stream flow depth to width
ratios; elevated stream temperatures from power plant
discharged water and from stagnant upstream pools heated by
sunlight; bank stabilization problems caused by the Fabridam
backwater; elimination of wildlife mobility due to the presence
of the Fabridam, significant invasion by non-native plant
species; minimal river access constraining recreational use of
the river corridor; and safety problems due to steep banks and
deep pools behind the dam.
Opportunities exist to restore this last river reach in
metropolitan Denver, resulting in unrestricted mobility through
aquatic, riparian, and terrestrial habitat and substantial
increases in wetlands and quality aquatic habitat. Once the
Fabridam is removed and aquatic and riparian habitat is
restored, an unobstructed South Platte greenway will exist
through the entire 35-mile reach from Chatfield Dam through the
Denver metropolitan area.
Weir Gulch, a west bank tributary entering the South Platte
River a few thousand feet upstream of the Fabridam, also
presents significant opportunity for restoration and
reconnection of aquatic and riparian habitat with the South
Platte River.
Alternative Plans Considered: Measures considered included
revegetation, bank modifications, Weir Gulch restoration,
removal of the Fabridam, development of a low flow channel, and
no action. Also, the potential for abandonment of the dam was
considered at some future point in time; however, the power
plant, which relies on the dam for necessary cooling water, is
expected to operate indefinitely into the future. Combinations
of these measures were evaluated for cost-effectiveness and
``best buy'' (incremental analysis).
Description of Recommended Plan: The recommended plan is
the plan that maximizes net national ecosystem restoration
benfits. This plan consists of the removal of the Fabridam,
construction of a 250 cfs low flow channel, site utility
relocations, and full site restoration including bank
modifications, revegetation with native plants, and Weir Gulch
restoration. With removal of the Fabridam, a new alternative
cooling water supply (a within-channel infiltration gallery
system) will be constructed to allow continued operation of the
Zuni Power Plant.
Physical Data on Project Features: The recommended NER plan
will restore 15 acres of fish and wildlife habitats along one
mile of the stream corridor of the South Platte River. Bank
modifications will include removal of existing riprap,
stripping of vegetation, excavation of soil material, and use
of excavated west bank soil material to build out and stabilize
the east bank. A 250 cfs low flow channel excavated into the
channel will concentrate flows in a slight meandering pattern,
creating aquatic and wetland habitat through the formation of
riffles, pools and bars. The stream corridor throughout the
project area will be fully vegetated with native species. Weir
Gulch restoration will consist of clearing, grading and
revegetation for approximately 600 feet upstream from its
mouth.
Views of States, and Non-Federal Interests: This project is
strongly supported locally by the Greenway Foundation, Urban
Drainage and Flood Control District, and the City and County of
Denver, the study's non-Federal sponsor. A letter from the
State of Colorado Division of Wildlife dated 9 March 2001 and a
letter from the Denver Board of Water Commissioners dated 20
February 2001 provided extensive support for this project,
including support for the removal of the Fabridam and for the
established goals for restoration of the South Platte River
downstream of 8th Avenue to Lakewood Gulch. There is broad
community support for South Platte River restoration, as
reflected in letters of concurrence from the Colorado
Historical Society and support from nongovernmental
organizations, including the Audubon Society and Sierra Club.
Approximately 40 letters of support have been received from
agencies, organizations, and other interested parties. A State
of Colorado letter dated 2 December 2002 had a few minor
concerns that have been formally addressed by the Omaha
District in a letter dated 25 February 2003.
Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service letter dated 14 February 2001 States directly
that the proposed project would not negatively impact any
threatened and endangered species. The Environmental Protection
Agency provided two letters, dated 15 March 2001 and 26
February 2003, supporting the project.
Status of NEPA Document: The finding of no significant
impact was signed on 7 August 2002, following public review. No
opposing or negative responses were encountered or submitted.
Estimated Implementation Costs:
Corps of Engineers...................................... $12,236,000
Non-Federal............................................. 6,588,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 18,824,000
Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: The City
and County of Denver will be responsible for acquiring all real
estate necessary for project construction, including relocation
of all utilities, as well as construction of the infiltration
gallery and acquisition of all consumptive water rights. In
accordance with report recommendations, the Federal Government
will execute and/or reimburse the non-Federal sponsor for all
activities that exceed their 35% total project cost obligation.
Description of Non-Federal O&M Costs: At the end of the
monitoring period, and upon receipt of the OMRR&R manual, the
local sponsor will assume normal operation and maintenance
responsibility for the project. Future operation and
maintenance requirements will be funded entirely by the local
sponsor.
Estimated Effects: The recommended NER plan will restore 15
acres of fish and wildlife habitats along one mile of the
stream corridor of the South Platte River. A more natural flow
regime will be restored by removal of the Fabridam. Negative
downstream impacts associated with sediment flushing at the
Fabridam every 3-4 months will be eliminated. The project area
will experience improved water temperatures and water quality,
a significant increase in native plants and fish habitat, a
decrease in non-native plants and noxious weeds, and a net gain
of approximately 3 acres of wetland. A productive and
biologically diverse fish and wildlife community, including
migratory waterfowl and fish-eating birds, riparian songbirds
and mammals, and native fish, will develop. Unrestricted
movement by mobile aquatic and riparian species will be
possible along a 35-mile reach of the South Platte River, since
restoration of river reaches both upstream and downstream of
the proposed project through Denver has previously been
completed by local interests.
Direct Beneficiaries: Fish and wildlife using the South
Platte River and the residents of the Denver metropolitan area
and the rest of the Nation will benefit from the improved fish
and wildlife habitat quality and quantity.
Relationship to Other Plans: The City and County of Denver
has spent over $35 million of local funds on numerous projects
upstream and downstream of Denver County Reach to create a more
environmentally sound South Platte River through metropolitan
Denver. As the last major river restoration project in
metropolitan Denver, the proposed Denver County Reach project
completes the transformation of the South Platte River from one
long-abused as solely a means of providing storm drainage and a
water delivery system for residential, agricultural and
commercial interests to a river corridor recognized as having
great environmental value. The project location is upstream and
contiguous to the Section 1135, Colfax Reach Project.
Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A final
Chief's report was signed on 16 May 2003.
(11) Miami Harbor, Florida.--
Location of Study Area: Miami Harbor is located on the east
coast of Florida in Biscayne Bay near the southern end of the
Florida peninsula.
Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: Currently
vessels using the harbor must light-load to enter or leave the
harbor causing increased transportation costs. Entrance channel
and inner harbor widths and depths are not adequate for safe,
cost-efficient transiting of many existing and future container
ships. Difficult crosscurrents at the beginning of the entrance
channel and the transition from Cut-3 to Lummus Island Cut have
resulted in groundings. Ships transiting the Lummus Island Cut
pass extremely close to vessels docked at the gantry crane
berths, which results in a surge effect on those ships at dock.
The surge effect produces a force that tends to pull ships away
from their moorings and makes unloading difficult.
Proposed wideners at the beginning of the entrance channel,
along the southern intersection of Cut-3 with Lummus Island
Cut, and along the southern edge of Lummus Island Cut will
improve navigation safety, and reduce tug assists. The proposed
channel deepening will provide a reduction or elimination of
light loading costs. Expanding the Fisher Island Turning Basin
will decrease transit times for ships due to an additional
turning basin. Those transportation efficiencies will allow the
existing and future container ships to carry more cargo and
reduce transportation costs.
Alternative Plans Considered: To achieve the cost reduction
benefits mentioned above six initial measures or components
received consideration. As a result of information received
during the coordination process, modifications to those
components resulted in reduced environmental impacts to reef
and seagrass areas while increasing navigation safety.
Iterative reviews involving resource agencies, ship simulation
results, and the harbor pilots resulted in modifications to the
original six components to provide fourteen total components
that received consideration. Continued dialogue with interested
parties completely avoided one reef area at the entrance
channel and produced similar reductions in seagrass impacts and
construction costs for the other proposed components. For
evaluation of benefits different combinations of components
resulted in nine alternative plans. The nine alternative plans
include a no action plan, a channel widening alternative
(Components 1C, 2A, and 5A), an expansion of Fisher Island
Turning Basin (Component 3B), deepening the previously
authorized channel configuration to depths of 43-50 feet, four
combinations of deepening and widening alternatives, and a 36-
foot deepening and widening alternative (Components 6 and 6A
involving extension and widening of the Dodge Island Channel
and construction of the Dodge Island Turning Basin). Component
4 involved a non-structural alternative, which shifts the
cruise ship channel or Cut-4 to an area of existing deep water.
The NED plan consists of widening components 1C, 2A, and 5A
optimized at a depth of 49 feet. The NED plan would provide
AAEQ benefits of $14,710,000 and AAEQ costs of $10,010,000,
which resulted in net AAEQ benefits of $4,700,000 and a
benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.5 to 1.
The sponsor is willing to pay for an additional foot of
depth, which provides for a locally preferred plan of 50 feet.
The LP plan has AAEQ benefits of $14,740,000 and AAEQ costs of
$10,650,000, which provides net AAEQ benefits of $4,090,000 and
a benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.4 to 1.
Description of Recommended Plan: The recommended plan is
not the plan that maximizes net national economic development
benefits. The recommended plan is the locally-preferred plan
and consists of:
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 for the LP plan;
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 for the LP
plan;
Component 3B--Increase the Fisher Island
Turning Basin from 1200 to 1500 feet. Truncate the
northeast section of the turning basin to minimize
seagrass impacts. Deepen from a project depth of 42
feet to 50 feet for the LP plan;
Component 4--Realign the western end of the
existing 36-foot main channel about 250 feet to the
south, no dredging required; and
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 for the LP plan.
Mitigation for channel widening includes construction of
artificial reef areas and filling existing borrow sites for
seagrass restoration. Based upon the extent of impacts and the
ratios discussed, restoration of approximately 24 acres of
seagrass beds would occur as compensation for unavoidable
impacts. Seagrass impacts include the permanent loss (removal)
of 0.2 acres of mixed seagrass beds and the indirect loss of
7.7 acres of seagrass due to the natural equilibration of side
slopes for a total of 7.9 acres. In order to replace local
seagrass functions and values, restoration would be implemented
within Biscayne Bay, preferably in areas where seagrass once
occurred and is now absent due to past borrow site excavation
for causeway construction. New impacts to low relief
hardbottom/reef and high relief hardbottom/reef total 1.4 and
3.1 acres, respectively. Based on the Habitat Equivalency
Analyses calculations, direct impacts to hardbottom/reef
habitats would require the construction of artificial reef
habitat at an effective mitigation ratio of 2:1 for high relief
hardbottom/reef habitat and an effective mitigation ratio of
1.3:1 for low relief hardbottom/reef habitat. Construction of
mitigation reefs would occur in two different designs to
reflect the differences in the habitat structure of the two
types of hardbottom/reefs impacted. For the high relief reef/
reef habitat development of a total of 6.2 acres would occur.
For the low relief hardbottom/reef habitat development of a
total of 1.82 acres would take place. Reef construction would
occur at proposed artificial sites located south of the
entrance channel. The sponsor will have responsibility for five
years of post-construction monitoring of both the seagrass and
reef mitigation sites.
Physical Data on Project Features: The recommended plan
would consist of dredging approximately 6.0 million cubic yards
of limestone and sands. Mitigation for impacts to entrance
channel reef areas and seagrass beds is described in the
paragraph above.
Views of States, and Non-Federal Interests: Public and
agency views including correspondence and informal comments
received to date from coordination of the Draft GRR/EIS and
public meeting on May 6, 2003, have been addressed and are
included in Appendix N of the final EIS. Florida Department of
Environmental Protection/State Clearinghouse letter dated May
14, 2003, described the project at this stage as consistent
with the Florida Coastal Management Program (FCMP) based on
information contained in the Draft GRR and EIS. All subsequent
environmental documents prepared for this project must be
reviewed to determine the project's continued consistency with
the FCMP. The state's continued concurrence with the project
will be based, in part, on the adequate resolution of issues
identified during this and subsequent reviews. The Department's
Bureau of Beaches and Wetland Resources issued a state water
quality certification in the form of a Consolidated Notice of
Intent to Issue an Environmental Resource Permit and
Authorization to Use Sovereign Submerged Lands on December 23,
2002, for the channel maintenance dredging and deepening
project to complete construction of the 42-foot depth along the
Lummus Island Cut (phase II dredging--not proposed new work).
The potential environmental impacts of the project have been
addressed in the permit, water quality certification and
authorization to use sovereign submerged lands (Permit No.
0173770-001-EI), pursuant to Chapters 161, 253, and 373,
Florida Statutes. Final agency action on the permit application
will constitute the State of Florida's final consistency
determination. Local agencies included Miami-Dade County
Department of Environmental Resources management, South Florida
Regional Planning Council, and the City of Miami. Non-
Government Organizations/Institutions included the Biscayne Bay
Pilots, and the Biscayne Bay Regional Coordination Team
(formerly the Biscayne Bay Partnership Initiative).
Additionally, numerous National and local environmental
organizations were coordinated with through the draft EIS
review and public meeting processes. Reviewers and commenter
included: The Sierra Club; Save the Manatee; Tropical Audubon
Society; Surfrider Foundation; Caribbean Conservation Corps and
Reefkeeper Interal. Reviewers and Commenter expressed concerns
about impacts of the project to seagrass and coral reef
habitats, sufficiency of the mitigation plan presented in the
DEIS as well as impacts to endangered, threatened and protected
marine species that inhabit the project area. These comments
are addressed in Appendix N of the FEIS.
The sponsor, the Miami-Dade County Florida Seaport
Department (Port of Miami), in a letter dated April 26, 2004,
strongly supports the findings and recommendations of the
General Reevaluation Report and Environmental Impact Statement
with one reservation. Regarding the calculation of the cost
sharing from depths of 0 to 42 feet in Component 5A of the GRR,
the sponsor believes the recommended widening in this area is
required for navigational safety due to surge affects and
conditions due to currents and winds and therefore should be
cost shared as a general navigation feature.
Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: Public and agency
views including correspondence and informal comments received
to date from coordination of the Draft GRR/EIS and public
meeting on May 6, 2003, have been addressed and are included in
Appendix N of the final EIS. As a result of that coordination
seagrass mitigation has increased from 6.3 acres in the draft
to 24 acres in the final EIS. Monitoring of those proposed
seagrass rehabilitation sites has increased from three years to
five years from the date the mitigation site construction is
completed. Mitigation monitoring for artificial reef areas has
increased from three years to five years. The monitoring will
be conducted by the sponsor and will include coordination with
resource agencies. Federal agencies included the U.S. Coast
Guard, the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife, the National Marine Fisheries Service, National Park
Service--Biscayne Bay National Park.
Status of NEPA Document: Coordination of the draft EIS for
public review occurred from March 14, 2003 through May 20, 2003
and comments provided during that review period were
incorporated in the final report. Coordination of the final EIS
occurred along with the proposed report of the Chief of
Engineers and the report of the district engineer from 31 Aug
04 through 30 Nov 04 with receipt of the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection Clearinghouse Consistency
Determination.
Estimated Implementation Costs:
Corps of Engineers...................................... $64,843,000
Miami-Dade County Seaport Department.................... 56,284,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 121,127,000
In addition, the Secretary is directed to determine the
non-Federal share of the cost of preparing the general
reevaluation report for this project based on construction
cost-sharing. As a general rule, made express in section 2039
of this bill, cost-sharing for all studies should be 50%.
However, in this case, the Jacksonville District made erroneous
commitments to the non-Federal interest and subparagraphs (B)
and (C) of section 1001(a)(11) ensure that those commitments
are met. In the future, the Committee expects the Jacksonville
District to apply correct cost-sharing to project studies.
Estimated Effects:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average annual
Account equivalent Average annual
benefits costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economic................................ $14,740,000 $10,650,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project economic life: 50 years.
Benefit-Cost Ratio: 1.4 (Current Discount Rate: 5.375%).
Direct Beneficiaries: The benefits of the recommended plan
are based on transportation cost reductions and reflect the
economy of scale savings resulting from vessels being able to
load deeper and reduce harbor transit times.
Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A final
Chief's report was signed on 25 Apr 2004.
(12) East St. Louis and Vicinity, Illinois.--
Location of the Study Area: The study area is located in
Madison and St. Clair counties, Illinois, along the east bank
of the Mississippi River between river miles 175 and 195 above
the mouth of the Ohio River.
Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: The study
area consisted of approximately 166 square miles (about 105,000
acres). The area has historically experienced widespread
interior flooding and the loss or serious degradation of the
floodplain ecosystems. Some examples of the ecosystem
degradation include: 60 to 70 percent loss of forest, over 99.9
percent loss of prairie, 65 to 85 percent loss of wetlands, 35
to 50 percent loss of lakes and ponds, and about 66 percent
loss of floodplain streams (by length). This has resulted in a
loss of biodiversity, fragmentation of natural systems, loss of
the historic ecosystem disturbances (such as flooding and
wildfire), and degradation or loss of habitat quality.
Alternative Plans Considered: A wide array of alternatives
was considered for each of the 8 action areas. Cost-
effectiveness and incremental cost analyses were performed to
identify the NER plan.
Description of the Recommended Plan: The recommended plan
is the plan that maximizes net national ecosystem restoration
benefits and is an extensive restoration of the ecosystem in
the vicinity of East St. Louis, Illinois, on the Mississippi
River. The project provides for the restoration of
approximately 4,500 acres of ecosystem habitat that will also
provide temporary storage and detention areas for stormwater
events that now exceed the existing capacity of the interior
drainage system. The recommended plan will restore
approximately 1,700 acres of bottomland forest habitat, 1,100
acres of prairie wetland habitat, 840 acres of marsh and shrub
swamp habitat, 460 acres of lake habitat, and 380 acres of
riparian forest. In addition, the recommended plan also
includes restoration of 10.4 miles of floodplain stream,
installation of 650 wood duck boxes and 870 prairie bird
perches, improvement of 20 acres of lacustrine over wintering
and shoreline habitat, construction of 130 tributary sediment
detention basins and riffle and pool complexes in 178 miles of
streams, 15.5 miles of earthen embankments, and associated
water control features (i.e., culverts, flap gates, and new
channels). A very small amount of recreational features have
also been added to the project. All project features are
located within the State of Illinois. Because the recommended
plan would not have any significant adverse effects, no
mitigation measures (beyond management practices and avoidance)
or compensation measures are required. The recommended plan is
the national ecosystem restoration plan.
Views of States, and Non-Federal Interests: A strong
partnership exists between state, Federal and local interests.
Two counties, the Levee District and Illinois Department of
Natural Resources joined in sponsorship of the general
reevaluation study. Letters of Intent have been received from
the two counties and the Illinois Department of Natural
Resources for project sponsorship.
Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The Natural
Resource Conservation Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5 were active
participants in the study process and strongly support the
report's recommendations.
Status of NEPA Document: An Environmental Impact Statement
was integrated into the General Reevaluation Report. A Draft
Record of Decision was prepared in January 2005.
Estimated Implementation Costs:
Corps of Engineers...................................... $123,807,000
Illinois Department of Natural Resources and Madison and
St. Clair counties.................................. 67,351,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 191,158,000
Description of Non-Federal O&M Costs: Operation and
Maintenance by the non-Federal sponsor will include the removal
of debris at all control structures and upland dry detention
basins; installment of sediment panels in upland dry detention
basins; periodic erosion repair; periodic inspection to
maintain smooth operation of all flap gates; and the mowing and
burning, as necessary, of berms and prairie areas. None of the
features of the recommended plan have any manual or automated
operational components.
Estimated Effects:
Environmental Effects. The recommended plan provides both
feeding and resting resources for the federally-threatened bald
eagle and will protect and propagate the decurrent false aster.
The project contributes to the life cycle requirements of more
than 50 migratory bird species covered by internal treaties and
the state-threatened Illinois chorus frog. The palustrine
wetland resources to be restored are considered scarce with
over 85 percent of the wetlands in Illinois and other
midwestern states lost since the 1780s, and the decline is
continuing. The plan connects 5 habitat areas and enlarges 3
isolated habitats to improve overall resource sustainability.
The project produces approximately 8,332 average annual habitat
units (AAHU) at a cost of approximately $1,350 per AAHU. The
recommended plan also provides incidental flood damage
reduction benefits estimated at $1,445,000 annually. Total
average annual costs, including initial construction and
OMRR&R, are $11,193,000 based on an interest rate of 5.375
percent and a 50-year period of analysis. Average annual
recreation benefits are estimated at $25,000 and average annual
costs are estimated at $18,000, for a recreation benefit-to-
cost ratio of 1.3 to 1.
Direct Beneficiaries: The recommended plan is anticipated
to directly benefit the federally-threatened bald eagle and
will protect and propagate the decurrent false aster. The
project contributes to the life cycle requirements of more than
50 migratory bird species covered by interal treaties and the
state-threatened Illinois chorus frog.
Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A final
Chief's report was signed on 22 December 2004.
(13) Peoria Riverfront, Illinois.--
Location of Study Area: The study area includes the Lower
Peoria Lake area watershed on the Illinois River and
tributaries between river miles 162 and 167, and in the
vicinity of Peoria and East Peoria, Illinois.
Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: Peoria
Lake, the largest lake on the Illinois River, has lost 61
percent of its volume and related aquatic habitat since 1903
due to sedimentation. A statewide planning process determined
that this loss of aquatic habitat is the greatest threat to the
Illinois River ecosystem. Areas outside of the navigation
channel have experienced more extreme losses of depth and
volume, which have severely impacted off-channel overwintering,
spawning, and nursery habitats for fish. Shallow water areas
are subject to wave action that resuspends sediment, further
limiting fish, aquatic vegetation, macroinvertebrate, and
mussel production. Sedimentation has reduced depths in off-
channel areas from 8 feet to only 1 or 2 feet in recent years.
This has transformed Peoria Lake into a narrow navigation
channel bordered by shallow, wind-swept areas and has adversely
impacted fish and wildlife habitat and also reduced the
aesthetic values and recreation opportunities. Opportunities
explored included the restoration of aquatic habitat with
incidental recreation benefits.
Alternative Plans Considered: Alternative plans included
dredging various locations in Peoria Lake at various depths in
order to restore aquatic habitat diversity. Connecting channels
and closure structures were included to control future sediment
movements. The plans included using the dredged material to
construct islands to restore terrestrial habitat and aquatic
habitat structure.
Description of Recommended Plan: The recommended plan is
the plan that maximizes net national ecosystem restoration
benefits and includes dredging approximately 200 acres,
including connecting channels and deeper holes to create depth
diversity in the aquatic habitat. The dredged material would be
placed to create three islands, which in turn would add
shoreline and terrestrial habitats. Rock jetties placed around
the islands would further improve the aquatic habitat by
providing structure and more edge areas. The islands would
provide resting, nesting, and feeding areas for waterfowl and
shorebirds. In addition, the islands would reduce waves in the
study area, which would further improve aquatic habitat
usefulness by lowering turbidity levels.
Physical Data on Project Features: A 55-acre shallow, open
water area upstream of the McClugage Bridge (U.S. Highways 24
and 150) would be dredged to construct an adjacent 21-acre
island. A 144-acre shallow, open water area downstream of the
McClugage Bridge would be dredged to construct two adjacent
islands, 17 and 37 acres respectively. Each island would have
an outer embankment with a top elevation of 450 feet MSL (10
feet above the normal lake elevation) and a top width of 20-275
feet. Each island center would have an approximate elevation of
448 feet MSL. The island side slopes would include a flat area
20- to 40-feet-wide at elevation 444 feet MSL.
The dredging would create a 3,650-foot-long flowing side
channel between the two downstream islands and a similar
channel along the upstream island. Dredging depths at both
sites would vary from 6 feet to 16 feet, including holes and
connecting channels. Rock riprap would be placed on the island
sides facing the navigation channel side to control erosion.
Rock jetties about 20-feet-long and 2-feet-high would be placed
about every 250 feet around the islands to provide additional
aquatic structure and edge habitat. Rock closure structures
would be constructed at the upstream end of the channels to
minimize sediment movements.
The plan would restore 675 average annual habitat units
(AAHU's) of aquatic habitat in the dredged areas and 125 AAHU's
of terrestrial and shoreline habitat on the islands.
Views of States, and Non-Federal Interests: All
participating stakeholders fully support the recommended plan.
The Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) is the non-
Federal sponsor has indicated their support for the project and
interest to assume cost-shared financial obligations for
implementing the project. Further, the Fon du Lac Park
District, East Peoria, Illinois, has agreed to allow use of its
property for project implementation. The Audubon Society, The
Nature Conservancy, Heartland Water Resources Council, Peoria
Lakes Basin Alliance, and the Peoria Area Chamber of Commerce
have provided letters of support.
Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: No outstanding
coordination issues exist with other Federal or Regional
Agencies. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provided a letter
of support.
Status of NEPA Document: A Finding of No Significant Impact
for the Environmental Assessment was signed 20 December 2002.
Estimated Implementation Costs:
Corps of Engineers...................................... $10,400,000
Non-Federal (IDNR)...................................... 5,600,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 16,000,000
Description of Non-Federal O&M Cost: The non-Federal O&M
costs consist primarily of future monitoring of sediment
deposition and maintenance dredging if necessary at
approximately year 26.
Estimated Effects: Beneficial effects consist of
approximately 800 average annual habitat units, with no average
annual adverse effects.
Project economic life: 50 years.
Benefit-Cost Ratio: N/A (Current Discount Rate: 5.875%).
Direct Beneficiaries: Residents of Peoria, East Peoria,
Tazewell and Peoria Counties, the Illinois River valley, and
the Nation will benefit from the restored habitat. Wide,
aquatic and riparian ecosystems are very important vanishing
resources. The functions they provide are more significant in
the Illinois River valley because of their scarcity resulting
from the impacts of sedimentation. The restored aquatic habitat
would be especially valuable for helping to reestablish the
health of the Illinois River, once a ally renowned fishery. The
Illinois River valley is part of the interally significant
Mississippi Flyway, a major migration route for waterfowl,
shorebirds, and neotropical migrant birds. The restored
shoreline and terrestrial habitats would be especially valuable
as resting, nesting, and feeding areas for these migratory
birds. These functions include wildlife habitat and travel
corridors for terrestrial and aquatic species including
endangered species, neo-tropical migratory birds, shorebirds,
herons and egrets, and waterfowl.
Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A final
Chief's report was signed on 28 July 2003.
(14) Bayou Sorrel Lock, Louisiana.--
Location of the Study Area: This study focuses on the
replacement of Bayou Sorrel Lock located on the Morgan City-to-
Port Allen Alternate Route of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.
Bayou Sorrel Lock is located in Iberville Parish in south
central Louisiana, approximately 20 miles south of Baton Rouge,
Louisiana.
Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: Bayou
Sorrel Lock is an integral feature of the Atchafalaya Basin,
Louisiana Project feature of the Mississippi River and
Tributaries project. The project flood flow line was revised
because of changes and projected changes in the Atchafalaya
Basin and Atchafalaya Bay. The top of wall of Bayou Sorrel Lock
is 5 feet lower than the current approved project flood flow
line and 8 feet below the project flood design grade. The lock
is stable for its original design loading conditions and is in
good operating condition; however, the structure cannot be
raised to accommodate the higher flow line. The lock must be
replaced or other structural measures must be implemented to
pass the project flood. These measures have been authorized for
construction under the authority of the Flood Control,
Mississippi River and Tributaries project. There is a need to
develop and implement a plan to safely pass the project flood
at Bayou Sorrel Lock. There also is a need to increase the
capacity of Bayou Sorrel Lock to reduce the cost to navigation
caused by delays at the lock, which averaged 4.7 hours per tow
in 1999 and are projected to climb to 12.7 hours by the year
2010. Although delays cannot be eliminated, they can be
significantly reduced with a larger chamber.
Lockage congestion at Bayou Sorrel results from both the
growth in traffic volumes and the increase in the size and
configuration of the tows. The traffic congestion in Bayou
Sorrel causes excessive delays and has increased lock transit
time to a point where it is the highest west of the Mississippi
River. Lockage delays represent a significant economic loss to
the shipping industry and, ultimately, to the consumer.
The need to develop and implement a plan to safely pass the
project flood at Bayou Sorrel Lock provides an opportunity to
address current and projected delays to barge tows at the lock.
The portion of the cost of the construction of a new navigation
lock at Bayou Sorrel that would be allocated to navigation
could be decreased if the new lock also provided for the flood
control objective.
Alternative Plans Considered:
Flood Control Plans: Three plans were considered for
passing the Atchafalaya Basin project flood in the vicinity of
Bayou Sorrel Lock; (1) an independent float-in floodgate
located on the flood side of the lock, (2) a replacement-in-
kind lock, that is, a lock with the same chamber dimensions as
the existing Bayou Sorrel Lock, 56 feet wide by 796 feet long,
and (3) flood fighting.
Flood Control/Navigation Plans: Alternative navigation
plans include (1) the construction of a larger replacement lock
at Bayou Sorrel Lock; 75 feet and 110 feet wide, (2) the
replacement of bridges crossing the Atchafalaya River; and (3)
small scale improvements to increase the navigation efficiency
at the other locks in the GIWW system.
Description of the Recommended Plan: The recommended plan,
which is the National Economic Development (NED) plan, provides
for: construction of a new, larger lock located adjacent to the
existing lock at Bayou Sorrel, construction of approach
channels to the new lock, closure of the existing lock,
measures to mitigate the impacts of the project on fish and
wildlife resources, erosion protection, and mooring buoy
facilities.
Physical Data on Project Features:
New Lock. The new lock would have a U-shaped concrete
chamber, with dimensions of 75 feet by 1,200 feet. The sill
depth of the lock would be at an elevation of -15 feet NGVD.
Each set of lock gates would consist of two, 70-degree steel
sector gate leaves, which would be electrically operated.
Emptying and filling of the lock would be accomplished by the
controlled opening of the gates. The guide walls, 1,200 feet
long on the west side of the lock and 400 feet long on the east
side, would be constructed of a high density synthetic material
attached to timber piles. The gates and gate bays on the
floodway side of the lock, which tie into the East Atchafalaya
Basin Protection Levee, would have an elevation of 31.7 feet
NGVD, and the chamber walls and landside gates and gate bays
would have an elevation of 26.8 feet NGVD.
Closure of Existing Lock. When the new lock structure is
completed and becomes operational, the existing lock would be
closed by an earthen levee extending from the East Atchafalaya
Basin Protection Levee south of the existing lock across the
floodway side approach channel to the floodway end of the new
lock. The existing lock would be abandoned in place and its
approach channels and chamber would be filled with dredged
material during periodic maintenance of the Morgan City-to-Port
Allen Alternate Route.
Approach Channels. The construction of the new lock would
require the construction of new approach channels on the
northern, or protected, side of the lock and on the southern,
or floodway side, of the lock. The Atchafalaya Basin Floodway
East Access Channel, which currently joins the south approach
channel of the existing lock immediately south of the lock,
would be relocated west of its existing alignment and extended
southward to tie into the Morgan City-to-Port Allen Alternate
Route about 5,000 feet south of the new lock. During high
water, cross currents from the East Access Channel cause
significant problems to tows approaching the south guide wall.
Relocating the channel west and extending its junction with the
new lock's south approach channel will allow barge traffic
ample time to negotiate the cross currents before reaching the
lock guide walls.
The northern approach channel to the new lock, on the
protected side of the floodway levee, would parallel the
existing northern approach channel for about 3,500 feet and
then merge with the existing navigation channel.
Erosion Protection. Bank stabilization extending 1\1/2\
miles to the north and south of Bayou Sorrel Lock will be
placed to minimize the effect on residences of marine
transportation activities in the vicinity of Bayou Sorrel Lock.
Hydraulic analysis required a minimum 2-foot blanket of stone
from the waters edge to natural ground elevation to protect
against the most severe wave damage resulting from prop-wash.
Geotextile separator fabric will be placed between the existing
bankline and the stone paving.
Mooring Buoy Facility. In connection with the erosion
protection feature of the recommended plan a floating mooring
buoy facility will be incorporated to provide a safe location
for barges to utilize if needed when using the Lock. The
locations will include 14 mooring buoys in the vicinity of the
new lock and 13 mooring buoys north of the Bayou Sorrel Bridge.
In order to place the 13 mooring buoys north of the Bayou
Sorrel Bridge dredging will be required to provide at least 9-
feet in the vicinity of the mooring buoy.
Disposal Areas. Material to be dredged from the new tailbay
channel would be placed into two existing borrow pits. There
would be impacts from the conversion of bottomland hardwood
forest to open water resulting from the channel cut, but no net
adverse impacts associated with the dredged material disposal.
The new forebay channel would be cut through existing disposal
areas and bottomland hardwood forest. Dredged material from
this new channel would be placed in existing disposal areas to
the west of the lock. After the new lock is operational, the
East Access Channel would be relocated. Relocating this channel
would also impact existing disposal areas and bottomland
hardwood forest. Dredged material from this channel would be
placed into the old lock's forebay and tailbay channels and the
old lock chamber. Mitigation credit would come from the
planting and management of disposal areas. The area between the
new forebay channel and the relocated East Access Channel would
become an uneconomic remnant of real estate to be acquired in
fee by the Government. This area would be planted and managed
as a hardwood forest. Mitigation credit would also come from
eliminating the need for dredged material disposal in the
Atchafalaya Basin. In the absence of a new Federal project,
cypress swamp and bottomland hardwood would continue to be
converted to disposal areas. With the project, existing
channels would be used for disposal of material dredged during
routine maintenance, for up to 35 years after project
completion. These disposal areas would be planted and managed
as hardwood forest when they are filled to capacity.
Mitigation Features. The recommended plan was developed
with the objective of avoiding and minimizing adverse impacts
to fish and wildlife habitats and compensating for remaining
adverse impacts. Most of the impacts of the project could
result from dredging of the connecting channels, relocating the
East Access Channel, and dredged material disposal. A primary
focus of mitigation planning was to minimize adverse impacts to
cypress swamp and bottomland hardwood forest within the
Atchafalaya Basin. The habitat assessment models do not
adequately capture the environmental effects of the conversion
of wet, bottomland hardwood forest to more upland-type habitat
that does not get periodically flooded. Also, the habitat
assessment models cannot adequately capture the effect that
dredged material disposal areas have on nearby cypress swamps
by blocking-off headwater flows. In order to mitigate for these
two effects, additional mitigation is planned. A new ditch
would be constructed through existing dredged material disposal
sites to connect the East Access Channel with the swamp to the
west of the disposal sites. A sediment trap would also be built
on an existing ditch located along the northern boundary of
existing disposal sites. These features would be built during
project construction and would serve two purposes--mitigation
and environmental restoration. The costs associated with
planting and reforestation are those costs necessary for
preparing the mitigation areas for planting, reducing competing
vegetation, replanting as necessary to replace dead seedlings,
and monitoring the mitigation sites.
Views of the Federal and Regional Agencies: The U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service do not oppose the recommended plan. The
Environmental Protection Agency gave the EIS its highest rating
of ``LO'', or Lack of Objection. The Louisiana Department of
Transportation has responded by letter in support of the
feasibility report.
Status of NEPA Document: An EIS has been prepared for the
project. The draft EIS was filed with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) on 15 November 2002, and the final EIS
was filed with the EPA on 23 July 2004.
Estimated Implementation Costs: The total estimated cost of
implementing the recommended plan is $97,500,000. The only new
costs authorized by this bill to carry out this project are the
$9,000,000 allocated to navigation improvements needed to
reduce delays. The costs of construction of the inland
navigation improvements of the project are to be paid half from
amounts appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury and
half from amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust
Fund. The remainder of the proposed modification of the Bayou
Sorrel Lock project allocated to safely pass the project flood
in the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway is a feature of the
authorized Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries
project, and as such, no additional authority is required.
Description of O&M costs: The Corps would assume operation
of the lock as part of the Federal operation and maintenance of
the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.
Estimated effects of navigation feature:
Total Average Annual Benefits........................... $16,586,115
Total Average Annual Cost............................... 863,784
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Average Annual Net Benefits............................. 15,722,331
Benefit-Cost Ratio: 19.2: 1.
Direct Beneficiaries: Residents of the Bayou Sorrel
community and the Inland Waterway users.
Relationship to Other Plans: Bayou Sorrel Lock is an
integral feature of the Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana Project
feature of the Mississippi River and Tributaries project. The
lock must be replaced or other structural measures must be
implemented to pass the project flood. These measures have been
authorized for construction under the Flood Control,
Mississippi River and Tributaries project. The need to develop
and implement a plan to safely pass the project flood provides
an opportunity to address current and projected delays to barge
tows at the lock.
Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A final
Chief's report was signed on 3 January 2005.
(15) Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana.--
Location of the Study Area: The study area is located in
south Louisiana between the Mississippi and Atchafalaya rivers.
Bayou Lafourche forms the eastern study boundary and Bayou du
Large and Louisiana Highway 311 form the western boundary. The
eastern and western boundaries form the apex of a triangle at
Thibodaux, Louisiana. The southern boundary is the Gulf of
Mexico.
Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: Hurricanes
and tropical storms cause widespread flooding of residential
and commercial property in the study area. Residential
communities, commercial and agricultural developments, and
industries in the study area are generally located along
alluvial ridges at elevations ranging from 4 or 5 feet to less
than 1 foot above sea level. The Terrebonne Levee and
Conservation District maintains about 20 miles of forced
drainage levees in various communities, including flood control
structures and drainage pumping stations. The existing levees
have a maximum elevation of 7 feet above sea level and protect
against weak tidal and rainfall events, but not hurricanes. The
three most recent flooding events (Isidore and Lili in 2002,
and Bill in 2003) have been from the southeast, confirming the
study findings that prevailing flood events are from that
direction causing extensive damage (in excess of $170,000,000)
in Terrebonne and Lafourche parishes.
The Morganza to the Gulf project will protect a population
of over 120,000 and safeguard an area of 1700 square miles
containing residential, commercial and industrial property, and
unique Louisiana coastal area. Opportunities to be realized
from a completed project also include enhancement of the
environmental habitat, navigation industry, commercial and
recreational fishing, salinity intrusion, and fresh water and
sediment diversion, as well as coastal preservation and
restoration.
Alternative Plans Considered: Eight alternative plans were
evaluated. A preliminary screening focused detailed efforts on
the plans that provided the most benefit. Two structural
alternatives and various non-structural alternatives were
evaluated in detail. The structural alternatives, known as the
Reconnaissance and the Highway 57 Alignments, involved raising
existing levees and constructing new levees to provide reliable
protection agains 50-, 85-, 100- and 500-year flood frequency
events. The structural plans included earthen levees, sector-
gated floodgate structures, and environmental water control
structures to maintain tidal ebb and flow. The non-structural
plans involved relocating, purchasing and elevating structures.
Description of the Selected Plan: The recommended plan,
known as the Highway 57 Alignment, is the National Economic
Development (NED) plan. It consists of the construction of
approximately 72 miles of levee south of Houma, Louisiana,
varying in elevation from +15.0 ft NGVD to +9.0 ft. NGVD. Also
required for flood protection is the construction of nine 56-
foot wide sector gate structures in various waterways and three
125-foot floodgates in the GIWW. Another significant feature of
the plan is the 110-ft wide x 800-ft multipurpose lock
structure and an abutting floodgate for the Houma Navigation
Canal. Two existing 56-foot wide floodgates would require
removal and replacement: one at Bayou Terrebonne and one at the
Humble Canal. At twelve locations along the levee alignment, a
series of 6-foot by 6-foot concrete box culverts will be
constructed through the earthen levees to maintain tidal ebb
and flow. Six existing pump stations would be modified during
construction. Construction would require 1,265 acres of
perpetual levee right-of-way, 1,415 acres of borrow area, 433
acres of temporary construction easement and 289 acres of fee-
owned land for all flood control structures, including the
lock. At twelve locations along the levee alignment, a series
of 6-foot by 6-foot concrete box culverts will be constructed
through the earthen levees to maintain tidal ebb and flow.
Several plans were generated as possible mitigation
alternatives by the Habitat Evaluation Team, a team composed of
Federal, state and local environmental commenting agencies.
Alternatives were generated for fresh marsh and brackish marsh.
The focus of the plans was to restore marsh to offset direct
impacts rather than rely on possible future marsh improvement
by manipulating hydrology.
Views of States, and Non-Federal Interests: The Louisiana
Department of Transportation and Development (lead sponsor),
Terrebonne Parish, City of Houma, Terrebonne Levee and
Conservation District, and Congressional representatives
strongly support the project. The sponsor has indicated a
strong desire to cost-share in the design and construction of
this project.
Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: No outstanding
coordination issues exist with other Federal or Regional
Agencies. None of the agencies objected to the project. The
project will mitigate for all direct adverse impacts resulting
from construction.
Status of NEPA Document: The Final Programmatic EIS (PEIS)
and Feasibility Report was filed with the EPA on 26 April 2002.
Estimated Implementation Costs:
Corps of Engineers...................................... $512,200,000
Non-Federal............................................. 275,800,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total....................................... 788,000,000
Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: The
sponsor would be responsible for acquiring all necessary lands,
easements, rights-of-way, relocations and disposal sites for
the project (LERRD's) worth an estimated $49,241,000. The
sponsor would also provide work-in-kind and cash worth
$209,759,000. The Terrebonne Levee and Conservation District is
seeking credit for in-kind services for design and construction
of various features of the proposed project. This request was
addressed in the supplemental report of the Chief of Engineers
dated July 22, 2003, and is authorized by this section. The
credit request does not affect the project costs.
Description of Non-Federal O&M Costs: This cost covers the
general operation and maintenance of floodgate structures, the
lock to be located in the Houma Navigation Canal, environmental
water control structures and levees including levee
inspections, mowing and erosion control.
Estimated Effects:
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average annual
equivalent Average annual
Account beneficial adverse
effects effects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Purposes:
NED Hurricane Protection............ $80,772 N/A
-------------------------------
Total............................. 80,772 N/A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project economic life: 50 years.
Benefit-Cost Ratio: 1.72 (Discount Rate: 5.875%).
Direct Beneficiaries: This project will directly benefit
the residents and businesses of Terrebonne and Lafourche
Parishes, and help preserve the Louisiana coastal ecosystem.
Relationship to Other Plans: This plan is consistent with
the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act
program, the Lower Atchafalaya Basin project, Donaldsonville to
the Gulf project, and the Louisiana Coastal Area Study to
include all contained projects within the study.
Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: Signed 23
August 2002; and a supplemental Chief of Engineers Report
addressing the sponsor's request for credit for in-kind
services was signed July 22, 2003.
(16) Swope Park Industrial Area, Missouri.--
Location of Study Area: The Swope Park Industrial area is
near the intersection of 75th Terrace and Manchester Trafficway
in southeastern Kansas City, Jackson County, Missouri. The
upstream study boundary is at river mile 18.84 from the mouth
of the Blue River and the downstream boundary is at river mile
18.25.
Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: The 50-acre
industrial park was built in the early 1960s and is within an
area with a 1 percent chance of flooding each year. Of the 10
structures in the park, 6 are within the regulated floodway
boundary. Study objectives included investigating the
feasibility of developing an environmentally, socially, and
technically acceptable project to reduce recurring flood
damages in the Swope Park area. The project area also presents
an opportunity to contribute to Jackson County's Blue River
Parkway by allowing the establishment of additional riparian
habitat in conjunction with the flood control project.
Alternative Plans Considered: The initial screening of
potential solutions included evaluation of flood insurance/
floodplain regulation, flood warning systems and temporary
evacuation, floodproofing of the structures, permanent
evacuation/buy-out of the area, upstream detention dams,
levees, floodwalls, channel modification and no Federal action.
Description of Recommended Plan: The report recommends a
levee and a floodwall system estimated to be 90 percent
reliable in protecting the area from a flood which has a 1-
percent chance of occurring in any year. The proposed project
is also estimated to be 64-percent reliable in protecting
against a flood with 0.2-percent chance of occurrence in any
year. The recommended plan, which is the National Economic
Development (NED) plan, accommodates the sponsor's newly
developed access plan which changes the primary Industrial Area
access to the south end. The recommended plan incorporates a
floodwall and levee on an alignment that protects the
industrial park and revised access corridor and then ties to
high ground. The alignment also encloses and borders the
interior drainage pond at the east end of the site. The project
area also presents an opportunity to contribute to Jackson
County's Blue River Parkway by allowing restoration of
currently degraded riparian habitat and establishment of
additional riparian habitat in conjunction with the flood
control project. The plan would reduce flood damage costs,
reduce the threat to loss of life, reduce health and safety
services disruptions, and preserve the environmental resources
of the area.
Physical Data on Project Features: The reporting officers
recommend construction of a combined floodwall and levee on an
alignment that protects the Swope Industrial Park and access
corridor, then ties in to high ground. The recommended plan
consists of 1,215 meters of reinforced concrete floodwall and
869 meters of compacted earthen levee for a combined project
length of 2,084 meters. The alignment encloses and borders an
interior drainage pond at the east end of the site and protects
the sponsor's newly developed access plan which changes the
primary access from the northwest to the southwest side.
Interior drainage to the ponding area would pass through a
total of 1,100 meters of reinforced concrete pipe ranging in
diameter from 30 to 135 centimeters. A rolling-gate closure
would be constructed at the existing 75th Street entrance.
Environmental design features include selected riparian and
woodland tree plantings on 5.3 hectares and creation of a small
wetland.
Views of State, and Non-Federal Interests: The Draft
Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment (EA) was
distributed for a 30-day public review from August 6, 2002,
until 9 September 2002. During a public meeting in Kansas City,
Missouri, on 22 August 2002, all public and local entities
expressed strong support. Extensive coordination was conducted
with all known local, regional, and State stakeholders.
Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: Coordination with
Federal agencies included U.S. EPA Region VII and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. No negative comments or concerns were
expressed during the agency review process.
Status of NEPA Document: The Kansas City District Engineer
signed a Finding of No Significant Impact on 10 January 2003.
Estimated Implementation Costs:
Corps of Engineers...................................... $10,194,000
Non-Federal............................................. 5,489,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 15,683,000
Description of Non-Federal O&M Costs: The non-Federal
sponsor will be responsible for periodic maintenance of
structures and debris removal after flood events, mowing and
occasional landscaping, repair of the floodwall and earthen
levee, and testing and servicing of gated structures and the
rolling gate.
Estimated Effects: (October 2002 price level)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average annual
equivalent Average annual
Account beneficial adverse
effects effects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NED Flood Damage Reduction.............. $1,402,000 $922,000
-------------------------------
Total............................. 1,402,000 922,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project economic life: 50 years.
Benefit-cost ratio: 1.5 (current discount rate = 5.375
percent).
Direct Beneficiaries: The direct beneficiaries of the plan
are the approximately 9 business enterprises and their
employees in approximately 400 jobs who would receive improved
economic viability and increased safety and stability of
employment with a reduced threat of flooding.
Current Status of Chief Engineers Report: A final Chief's
report was signed on 30 December 2003.
(17) Manasquan to Barnegat Inlets, New Jersey.--
Location of Study Area: The study area is located in Ocean
County, New Jersey, and extends approximately 24 miles from
Manasquan Inlet south to Barnegat Inlet.
Problems and Opportunities Identified in the Study: The
principal cause of economic damages along the Atlantic Coast of
New Jersey is storms. Storm damage includes wave attack,
inundation and storm-induced erosion. Major storms have
occurred in September 1944, March 1962, March 1984, September
1985, October 1991, December 1992, and March 1993. The 1962
Northeaster caused damage estimated at $43,400,000 (1996
dollars) in the study area.
Storm activity during the 1970's and 1980's was relatively
low and coastal development during this period accelerated.
This has increased the potential for storm damages exceeding
the 1962 storm despite progress made in some areas to minimize
losses associated with storm damage. Such advances include
structural and building code improvements. However, many
portions of the developed coast remain vulnerable due to the
proximity of structures to the beach. The December 1992 storm
caused extensive beach and dune erosion within the study area,
and damages estimated at approximately $10,000,000 according to
records provided by the Federal Insurance Administration.
Alternative Plans Considered: Both non-structural and
structural alternatives were considered, including permanent
evacuation from areas subject to storm damage, regulation of
future development, berm restoration, dune restoration, berm
and dune restoration with groin field, berm and dune
restoration with offshore detached breakwater, berm and dune
restoration with submerged reef, berm and dune restoration with
perched beach, bern and dune restoration with geotextile tube
core, seawall/bulkhead, offshore submerged feeder berm, and
beach dewatering.
Description of Recommended Plan: The recommended plan is
the National Economic Development plan and consists of a berm
and dune utilizing sand obtained from offshore borrow sources.
In all areas except northern Point Pleasant Beach and Seaside
Heights, the dune crest will have an elevation of +22 ft NAVD,
and the berm will extend 75 ft from the seaward toe of the dune
at an elevation of +8.5 ft NAVD. In northern Point Pleasant
Beach and Seaside Heights the dune will have an elevation of
+18 ft NAVD and the berm will extend 100 ft from the seaward
toe of the dune at an elevation of +8.5 ft NAVD at Seaside
Heights and +11.5 ft NAVD at northern Point Pleasant Beach. In
all areas, the berm will slope at 1 V: 10 H from the berm crest
down to approximately Mean High Water (MHW) at elevation +1.5
ft NAVD. Below MHW, the design template parallels the existing
profile slope to the depth of closure.
The plan extends from the Manasquan Inlet south jetty in
Point Pleasant Beach southward to the northern boundary of
Island Beach State Park in Berkeley Township for a total length
of approximately 14 miles. Initial sand quantity is estimated
at 10,689,000 cu yards. Periodic nourishment estimated at
961,000 cubic yards is scheduled to occur every 4 years.
Physical Data on Protect Features: see following table.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED PLAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design component Dimension/quantity Remarks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Berm Elevation.................. +8.5 ft NAVD...... Same as average
+11.5 ft NAVD at existing
northern Point condition.
Pleasant Beach
Berm Width...................... 75 ft............. Berm width
100 ft at Seaside measured from
Heights and seaward base of
northern Point dune to berm
Pleasant Beach crest.
Seaward Berm Slope.............. 1:10.............. Same as average
existing
condition.
Dune Elevation.................. +22 ft NAVD.......
+18 ft NAVD at
Seaside Heights
and northern
Point Pleasant
Beach.
Dune Width at Crest............. 25 ft............. Standard Caldwell
section.
Dune Side Slopes................ 1:5............... Standard Caldwell
section.
Dune Offset for Maintenance of 20 ft (as Required dune
Existing Structures. required). offsets are
reflected in
selected plan
layout.
Length of Fill.................. 13.7 miles........
Initial Sand Quantity........... 10,689,000 cu yds. Includes advanced
nourishment with
overfill.
Periodic Nourishment Quantity... 961,000 cu yds/4 Includes overfill.
year cycle.
Major Replacement Quantity...... 1,788,000 cu yds.. Includes periodic
nourishment with
overfill; same
dune grass and
sand fence
quantities as
initial fill.
Taper Section................... Tapers to existing Manasquan Inlet
within project south jetty
reach at southern functions as
end; no taper at terminal
northern end. structure at
northern end.
Borrow Source Location.......... Area A-- Overfill factor of
approximately 2 1.5 for borrow
miles offshore of material.
Island Beach
State Park;.
Area B--
approximately 2
miles offshore of
Mantoloking
Dune Grass...................... 175 acres......... 18'' spacing.
Sand Fence...................... 206,000 feet...... Along base of dune
and at
crossovers.
Outfall Extensions.............. None..............
Pedestrian Dune Crossovers...... 247............... Includes handicap
access ramps.
Vehicle Dune Crossovers......... 11................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Views of States, and Non-Federal Interests: The New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) is the non-
Federal sponsor. NJDEP has indicated interest in entering into
a partnership with the Corps of Engineers to provide storm
damage reduction to the study area.
Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: No objections to
project.
Status of NEPA Document: EIS finalized September 2001.
Estimated Implementation Costs:
Corps of Engineers...................................... $42,800,000
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection....... 23,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 65,800,000
In addition, 50 years of periodic nourishment will cost
$108,000,000, approximately $2,160,000 a year, cost-shared 50%
by the Corps of Engineers and 50% by the non-Federal sponsor.
Description of Non-Federal O&M Costs: The annual operation
and maintenance of the project includes maintaining of the
dunes (including sand fence and dune grass), pedestrian
accesses, and beach shaping. The beach will be maintained by
shaping the sand with heavy equipment to help ensure the
presence of the design template. Dune walkovers for beach
access will be the responsibility of the Non-Federal sponsor.
Estimated Effects:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discount Rate........................................ 7.0%
Period of Economic Analysis.......................... 50 years
Price Level.......................................... September 2000
Base Year............................................ 2006
Average Annual Benefits
Storm Damage Reduction............................... $8,294,000
Local Costs Foregone................................. 865,000
Recreation........................................... 2,011,000
------------------
Total Average Annual Benefits.................. 11,170,000
Average Annual Costs
Initial Construction (includes $76,000 in monitoring 4,260,000
costs)..............................................
Periodic Nourishment (includes $264,000 in monitoring 1,795,000
costs)..............................................
Subtotal Average Annual Cost (includes $340,000 in 6,055,000
monitoring costs)...................................
Interest During Construction (IDC)................... 195,000
Operations and Maintenance (OMRR&R).................. 100,000
------------------
Total Average Annual Cost...................... 6,350,000
Net Benefits......................................... 4,820,000
Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR).......................... 1.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Beneficiaries: The direct beneficiaries of the
proposed hurricane and storm damage reduction project are the
municipalities of Point Pleasant Beach, Bay Head, Mantoloking,
Brick Township, Dover Township, Lavallette, Seaside Heights,
Seaside Park, and Berkeley Township.
Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A final
Chief's report was signed on 30 December 2003.
(18) South River, New Jersey.--
Location of Study Area: The South River watershed is
located within the lower Raritan River Basin in Middlesex
County, New Jersey. The South River is the first major
tributary of the Raritan River, located approximately 8.3 miles
upstream of the Raritan River's mouth at Raritan Bay. The South
River is formed by the confluence of the Matchaponix and
Manalapan Brooks, just above Duhernal Lake, and flows northward
from Duhernal Lake a distance of approximately 7 miles, at
which point it splits into two branches, the Old South River
and the Washington Canal. Both branches flow northward into the
Raritan River. The study investigates flooding and ecosystem
degradation problems facing the communities of South River,
Sayreville, and East Brunswick, New Jersey.
Problems and Opportunities Identified in the Study:
Periodic hurricanes and storms have caused severe flooding
along the South River. Flood damages downstream of Duhernal
Lake are primarily due to storm surges with additional damages
associated with basin runoff. The communities repeatedly
affected by storm surges are the Boroughs of South River and
Sayreville, the Township of Old Bridge, and the Historic
Village of Old Bridge in East Brunswick Township. There are
approximately 1,247 structures (1,082 residential; 165
commercial) in the 100-year floodplains of these communities
and 1,597 structures in the 500-year floodplains (1,399
residential; 198 commercial). Storm surges create the greatest
damages in the study area occurring during hurricanes and
northeasters that generate sustained onshore winds through
multiple tidal cycles. For example, the northeaster of March
1993 (a 25-year event) resulted in approximately $17 million
damage (2001 dollars) and closed the highway bridge connecting
the Boroughs of South River and Sayreville.
The area under consideration for ecosystem restoration
encompasses 1,278 acres along the Old South River and the
Washington Canal and includes the 380-acre Clancy Island
bounded by these waterways and by the Raritan River. Wetland
plant communities account for 786 acres (61 percent) of the
study area land cover. Uplands account for the remaining 492
acres, of which 234 acres are occupied by residential,
commercial, and industrial development. These wetlands and
uplands are ecologically degraded. Approximately 527 acres (41
percent of the study area) are dominated by monotypic stands of
common reed (Phragmites australis). Other wetland communities
are scattered around the site in a patchwork of fragmented
parcels. The uplands are dominated by low quality scrub-shrub
land cover. The current degraded ecological conditions appear
to be the result of (1) construction and maintenance dredging
associated with the Federal navigation channels in the South
River, Washington Canal, and Raritan River, and (2) clay
excavation and industrial activity associated with the defunct
Sayreville brick industry.
Alternative Plans Considered: In addition to the No Action
Plan, numerous structural and non-structural alternatives were
considered to reduce damages associated with hurricanes and
storm surges. These include: a storm surge barrier/gate at the
confluences of the South River and Washington Canal with the
Raritan River; multiple levee and floodwall configurations;
stream modification; detention basin; acquisition of flood-
prone properties; floodplain zoning; flood proofing; and a
flood warning system.
Ecosystem restoration alternatives included the following:
control of Phragmites, an invasive weed; restoration of salt
marsh habitat; restoration of tidal creeks and permanently
flooded ponds; restoration of intertidal mudflats; and
restoration of wetland forest/scrub-shrub habitat.
Description of Recommended Plan: Economic analysis of the
hurricane and storm damage reduction plans indicated that the
levee/floodwall system with upstream storm surge barrier would
result in the greatest net benefits. Subsequent optimization of
this plan determined that a 500-year level of protection would
provide the greatest net benefits. Consequently, the levee/
floodwall system with upstream storm surge barrier providing a
500-year level of protection was designated the National
Economic Development (NED) plan and selected as the recommended
plan. Using a combination of levees, floodwalls, and a storm
surge barrier, structural protection will extend to an
elevation of +21.5 feet NGVD. The levees will extend 10,712
feet in length, and the floodwalls will extend 1,655 feet in
length. The storm surge barrier will span the South River for a
length of 320 feet and will have a clear opening of 80 feet.
Interior drainage features will also be provided.
Implementation of the recommended hurricane and storm
damage reduction plan will result in some unavoidable impacts
to the natural resources in the South River study area. To
offset these impacts, mitigation will be provided. Based on an
analysis of the acreages, costs, benefits, and incremental
cost/output for each of the mitigation alternative plans
developed, the selected mitigation plan will entail the
conversion of 11.1 acres of degraded wetland Phragmites and
disturbed habitat to a combination of wetland scrub-shrub (7.8
acres) and salt marsh (3.3 acres).
The National Ecosystem Restoration (NER) plan will restore
100 percent of the 379 acres of degraded wetlands in the
potential restoration areas. The NER plan will restore the
following habitats: low emergent marsh (151 acres: 40 percent),
wetland forest/scrub-shrub (170 acres: 45 percent; plus an
additional 19 acres, or 5 percent, as upland forest/scrub-
shrub), mudflat (19 acres: 5 percent), and open water (19
acres: 5 percent).
Physical Data on Project Features:
Level of Protection (storm with 0.002 (500-year event)
probability of exceedence).
Levee/Floodwall:
Levee Length....................... 10,712 feet.
Floodwall Length................... 1,655 feet.
Top Elevation...................... 21.5 feet NGVD.
Levee Crest Width.................. 10 feet.
Levee Slopes....................... 2.3:1.
Fill Volume........................ 304,400 cubic yards.
River Segment:
Storm Surge Barrier Length......... 320 feet.
Clear Opening...................... 80 feet.
Top Elevation...................... 21.5 feet NGVD.
Interior Drainage...................... Gravity outlets and pump
stations.
Views of States, and Non-Federal Interests: The New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) is the non-
Federal sponsor. It responded by letter dated 7 March 2003 in
which it confirmed a common goal to maximize reduction of flood
damages while protecting and restoring the environment in a
cost effective manner and provided a list of activities to be
accomplished during the Pre-construction Engineering and Design
phase.
Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 3, responded by letter dated 28
January 2003 which expressed concerns about the project's air
quality and wetland impacts and recommended that the Record of
Decision for the project commit to preparing a subsequent NEPA
document which would include the projects General Conformity
Determination and increased details about the wetlands
mitigation and restoration plans. The U.S. Department of the
Interior (DOI), Office of the Secretary, responded by letter
dated 4 March 2003 stating DOI had no comments to offer and did
not object to the proposed project. The Department of Commerce
and Federal Emergency Management Agency, responded by e-mail on
25 March 2003 and 26 March 2003, respectively, that each had no
comments to offer.
Status of NEPA Document: The Integrated Feasibility Report/
Environmental Impact Statement (IFR/EIS) was finalized
September 2002.
Estimated Implementation Costs:
Corps of Engineers...................................... $73,205,000
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection....... 39,418,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 112,623,000
Description of Non-Federal O&M Costs: Maintenance and
operation of the project is the responsibility of the non-
Federal sponsor and will be conducted as follows:
Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction:
Levees and floodwalls require maintenance to
assure continued required performance levels such as vegetation
maintenance, control of earthen settlements and sloughs,
piping, animal borrows, repair of damaged wall joints and wall
caps and maintenance of drainage ditching adjacent to levees
and walls by removing debris.
Maintenance of all drainage structure chambers and
flap and sluice gates, including cleanout, concrete repair,
pipe repair, gate performance with required repair maintenance
and operation and replacement (every 25 years).
Pump stations require trash removal, cleanout,
testing of pumping systems 4 times/year, repair and replacement
(every 20 years) of pumps and controls, gate repair and
replacement (every 25 years).
Closure gate (interior drainage)--operation and
maintenance includes pertinent lubrication, testing, periodic
painting and replacement of gates and seals and concrete
repair.
Sector gate requires testing 4 times per year plus
use during storm occurrences, repair of electrical/mechanical
systems including gate members and gate and equipment
replacement (approximately 25 years).
Ecosystem Restoration:
Maintain tidal flushing of creeks and ponds.
Preventing encroachment of invasive species
(Phragmites).
Estimated Effects:
BENEFIT-COST SUMMARY FOR SELECTED PLAN
Discount rate.................... 5.375%.
Period of economic analysis...... 50 years.
Price level...................... October 2004.
Base year........................ 2010.
AVERAGE ANNUAL BENEFITS
Storm Damage Reduction........... $10,260,800.
Ecosystem Restoration............ *334.9 AAHU's.
*AAHU's = Average Annual Habitat Units.
AVERAGE ANNUAL COSTS
Storm Damage Reduction:
Initial Construction............................. $3,478,600
Interest During Construction..................... 440,200
Operation and Maintenance (OMRR&R)............... 244,200
------------------
Total Average Annual Costs..................... 4,163,000
==================
Net Benefits......................................... 6,097,800
Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR).......................... 2.5
Ecosystem Restoration:
Initial Construction............................. 3,051,300
Interest During Construction..................... 377,500
Operation and Maintenance (OMRR&R)............... 88,900
------------------
Total Average Annual Costs..................... 3,517,700
==================
Benefits............................................. \1\ 334.9
Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction and Ecosystem
Restoration:
Initial Construction............................. 6,529,900
Interest During Construction..................... 817,700
Operation and Maintenance (OMRR&R)............... 333,100
------------------
Total Average Annual Costs..................... 7,680,700
\1\ AAHU's.
Direct Beneficiaries: The direct beneficiaries of the
proposed hurricane and storm damage reduction and ecosystem
restoration project at the study area would be the communities
of the Boroughs of South River and Sayreville, the Township of
Old Bridge, and the Historic Village of Old Bridge in East
Brunswick Township.
Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A final
Chief's report was signed on 22 July 2003.
(19) Southwest Valley, Albuquerque, New Mexico.--
Location of the Study Area: The study area covers
approximately 180-square miles encompassing the Southwest
Valley and its contributing mesa areas of Bernalillo County and
portions of Albuquerque, New Mexico. The study area is located
west of the Rio Grande and comprises three physiographic
regions: the relatively flat West Mesa, the steeply sloping
``ceja'' or mesa edge, and the very flat valley proper. The
West Mesa drains into Westgate Dam or Cedar Wash. The ceja
drains into the five other dams owned by the Albuquerque
Metropolitan Arroyo Flood Control Authority (AMAFCA) or
directly onto the valley. Elevations range from 6,000 feet on
the West Mesa to 4,870 feet at the Rio Grande. The study area
encompasses 177.7 square miles, including 23.5 square miles of
valley area and 154.2 square miles of West Mesa and ceja area.
Six detention dams constructed by AMAFCA control 41.4 square
miles of the West Mesa drainage area. Another 17.4 square miles
of mesa area that contributes to valley flooding is
uncontrolled. The 95.4 square mile Cedar Wash drainage area
discharges at the extreme southern end of the Southwest Valley.
Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: Portions of
the Southwest Valley are subject to flooding from a variety of
sources. The runoff from the West Mesa is largely controlled by
a series of dams, detention basins, and diversion channels
constructed by AMAFCA, Bernalillo County, and the City of
Albuquerque. Most of these facilities release controlled
discharges directly or indirectly into Middle Rio Grande
Conservancy District (MRGCD) agricultural drainage facilities.
Flood damages occur when large floods overwhelm the capacity of
these facilities, or the capacity of the MRGCD drains or canals
is exceeded. Some portions of the West Mesa are directly
tributary to the valley. The runoff consists of high peak and
low volume discharges that, due to the steep slopes, typically
transport large quantities of sediment. Runoff from the valley
floor also causes flooding. A series of irrigation canals,
laterals, acequias, and drains traverse the valley; most of
which have embankments from one to three feet high. These
embankments and raised roadways divide the valley into many
small subareas. Some subareas discharge into the MRGCD
agricultural drains where confining embankments are low or do
not exist. Others discharge into adjacent subareas or pond on-
site, inundating residential, commercial, or agricultural land.
The depth of the 1-percent chance event flood in irrigated
fields is often less than the depth of water that accumulates
during routine flood irrigation. The flows from subareas that
discharge into irrigation drains combine with the runoff from
the mesa, groundwater, and agricultural return water to exceed
the capacity of the drains, inundating adjacent lands. The
valley is also subject to flooding from the Rio Grande. The
Albuquerque west levee, a major flood control structure,
constructed by the Corps of Engineers in 1958, protects the
northern half of the Southwest Valley and has a design
discharge of 42,000 cfs.
Alternative Plans Considered: Various flood damage
reduction alternatives were developed in cooperation with the
non-Federal sponsor and evaluated relative to their
effectiveness, acceptability, completeness, and incremental
economic efficiency. Alternatives were formulated to capture
West Mesa flood flow utilizing existing Middle Rio Grande
Project Features surface drainage facilities. Alternatives were
formulated and sized to safely convey the 1%, 4%, 10%, and 20%
chance flood events.
Description of the Recommended Plan: Alternative 3 (10%
plan) is the National Economic Development plan and is
recommended. This plan would use existing Middle Rio Grande
Conservancy District (MRGCD) surface drain facilities to
capture flood flow from the West Mesa. The main features of the
proposed work involve using existing easements, widening
existing drains, constructing a large storm water detention
ponding area, and constructing two new channels.
Physical Data on Project Features: The recommended plan has
the following features:
Enlarging the following MRGCD drains:
22,700-feet of the Isleta Drain beginning
near Bridge Boulevard and continuing 4,200 feet south
of Rio Bravo Boulevard;
8,100 feet of the Armijo Drain from
Robertson Road to its intersection with the Isleta
Drain just north of Rio Bravo Boulevard; and
4,600 feet of the Los Padillas Drain from
the southern boundary of Anderson Farms to its
intersection with a newly constructed flood-flow
channel.
Rehabilitating and/or enlarging existing road-crossings to
facilitate the proposed improvements and additions to the
drainage system. This alternative includes overflow spill
collection from the Arenal Canal with conveyance to the Isleta
Drain.
Constructing a 25-acre detention pond (Pond 187) in an
existing agricultural field situated east of the Isleta Drain
to detain a portion of flood-flow during large storms. Proposed
capacity of this pond for alternative 3 is 325 Acre Feet.
Constructing a 4,300-foot-long by 120-foot-wide earthen
channel along the southern property boundary of Anderson Farms
below Rio Bravo Boulevard to connect the existing Isleta Drain
to the existing Los Padillas Drain. New 15-foot-wide access
roads would be placed on each side of the new channel.
Constructing a new 3,800-foot-long by 45-foot-wide (top
width) concrete-lined channel (near Metzgar Road) from the Los
Padillas Drain to the Rio Grande levee. Flood Gates would be
built at the Rio Grande Levee. An engineered outfall would
continue from the levee for approximately 700 feet through the
floodplain to the Rio Grande. This work would occur entirely
within an existing power line easement. New 15-foot wide access
roads would run along each side of this channel.
Views of States, and Non-Federal Interests: The State of
New Mexico responded verbally with no comment. There were no
additional comments.
Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: Correspondence was
received in response to the 30-day comment period for State and
agencies. The U.S. Department of Interior's response stated
that the sponsors will be required to apply for Bureau of
Reclamation's Discharge Urban Storm Water Drainage Permit into
existing Reclamation Delivery and Drainage Facilities, but they
did not object to the project. The Fish and Wildlife Service
provided recommendations to ensure that impacts are minimized
during the implementation phase of the project. The
Environmental Protection Agency and Federal Emergency
Management Agency responded verbally with no comment.
Status of NEPA Document: An Environmental Assessment (EA)
was completed for the project. The Finding of No Significant
Impact was signed on 20 April 2004.
Corps of Engineers...................................... $12,671,000
Albuquerque Metropolitan Arroyo Flood Control Authority
and Bernalillo County............................... 6,823,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 19,494,000
Description of Non-Federal O&M Costs: The Albuquerque
Metropolitan Arroyo Flood Control Authority and Bernalillo
County will assume responsibility for the operation and
maintenance of facilities constructed by this project. An
operation and maintenance agreement between the two
organizations will designate the responsibilities.
Estimated Effects:
Average annual benefits: $1,697,200.
Benefit to cost ratio: 1.4.
Discount Rate: 5\5/8\ percent, 50-year planning period.
Direct Beneficiaries: Residents and businesses located with
the southwest valley of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County.
Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A final
Chief's report was signed on 29 November 2004.
(20) Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Corpus Christi, Texas.--
Location of Study Area: The Corpus Christi Ship Channel
(CCSC) provides deep-water access from the Gulf of Mexico to
the Port of Corpus Christi, via Aransas Pass, through Redfish
Bay and Corpus Christi Bay. Access points include the La Quinta
Channel, the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), and the Rincon
Canal.
Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: The CCSC
was the first waterway in Texas to be completed to a depth of
45 feet. This channel ranks fifth in the for tonnage shipped on
deep-draft vessels, and in Texas only the Houston Ship Channel
handles more tonnage. Since the completion of the 45-foot
project, the size of ships using the waterway has steadily
increased so that many vessels currently have to be light-
loaded to traverse the waterway. The current channel depth also
requires that large crude carriers remain offshore and transfer
their cargo into smaller crude tankers for the remainder of the
voyage. Widening the Upper Bay reach and installation of barge
lanes would increase the safety factor for this area and would
reduce the shipping delays for the project, especially since
shipping trends indicate a movement toward the use of larger
vessels. Development of the La Quinta extension would allow
benefits to be achieved while enhancing the economy of the
region.
Alternative Plans Considered: A general screening process
was first used to determine which structural plan would result
in the objective of providing safe and efficient navigation at
the least cost while minimizing environmental impacts. A total
of 23 alternatives were initially evaluated for more detailed
consideration. These alternatives included widening portions of
the CCSC, deepening the CCSC, construction of barge lanes,
deepening of the La Quinta Channel, and extending the La Quinta
Channel.
Description of Recommended Plan: The recommended plan
consists of the following improvements:
Deepen the CCSC 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); deepen the remainder of the channel
into the Gulf of Mexico (approximately 2 miles) to -54 feet
MLT; and widen the Upper Bay and Lower Bay reaches
(approximately 20 miles) to 530 feet.
Construct barge shelves (channels) 200-foot-wide and 12-
foot-deep MLT on both sides of the CCSC from it's junction with
the La Quinta Channel to the entrance of the Inner Harbor
(approximately 10 miles).
Extend the La Quinta Channel approximately 1.4 miles beyond
its current limit at a depth of -39 feet MLT. The channel will
measure 400 feet wide and include a second turning basin. The
turning basin will be constructed at the end of the proposed
channel extension with a diameter of 1200 feet, to a depth of
-39 feet, MLT. The existing La Quinta Channel will remain at
the existing 45-foot depth. The creation of 15 acres of
seagrass adjacent to the La Quinta extension will mitigate for
project impacts to approximately 5 acres of seagrass.
Construct two ecosystem restoration features, including
rock breakwaters and geo-tubes to protect 1,200 acres of an
existing high quality, complex wetland ecosystem that is
comprised of a valuable mix of subtidal habitat, saltmarsh,
blue-green algae flats, sandflats and associated uplands.
Additionally, protect 40 acres of highly productive seagrass.
Both components are adjacent to the CCSC in the Lower Bay reach
of the channel.
Physical Data on Project Features: Deepening of the CCSC to
-52 feet will allow vessels with deeper draft to access port
facilities without first lightering/lightening their loads.
Widening of the CCSC will allow for two-way traffic in the
channel, increasing safety and reducing delays. Barge lanes
will allow the smaller, slower barges to transit the bay
without the increased concern of collisions with larger ships.
This will reduce delays and increase safety. Extension of the
La Quinta Channel will allow benefits to be achieved while
enhancing the economy of the region. Ecosystem restoration
components will protect and enhance several important habitats
including estuarine marsh, submerged aquatic vegetation, and
endangered species habitat.
Views of States, and Non-Federal Interests: The selected
beneficial use plan is the least cost, implementable plan and
has the support of the state and Federal resource agencies. The
non-Federal sponsor for the existing project, the Port of
Corpus Christi Authority, has actively participated throughout
the planning process. The Port of Corpus Christi Authority is
supportive of the selected plan. There are no known significant
issues.
Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: Extensive
coordination was performed with the state and Federal resource
agencies through the development of a Regulatory Agency
Coordination Team. No outstanding issues remain.
States of NEPA Document: The Final Feasibility Report and
Final Environmental Impact Statement were filed in the Federal
Register on 18 April 2003.
Estimated Implementation Costs:
Corps of Engineers...................................... $80,086,000
Non-Federal interest.................................... 92,854,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 172,940,000
Description of Non-Federal O&M Cost: The non-Federal
sponsor will cost share O&M for the CCSC at the same ratio as
construction for the implement below 45 feet in depth. O&M for
the barge shelves, and La Quinta extension will be paid 100% by
the Federal interest. The non-Federal sponsor will also be
responsible for 100% of O&M costs associated with mitigation
and ecosystem restoration.
Estimated Effects:
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average annual
equivalent Average annual
Account beneficial adverse
effects effects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NED:
CCSC................................ $32,501 $15,562
Barge Shelves....................... 135 81
La Quinta........................... 9,234 5,330
Ecosystem Restoration............... \1\ 267
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Average annual costs for ecosystem restoration at sites L and P are
estimated at $160,600 and $106,400, respectively. It is estimated that
the two sites will generate 144 and 16 average annual habitat units
(AAHU), respectively, resulting in average annual costs of $1,120 and
$6,650 per AAHU, respectively.
Project Economic Life: 50 years.
Benefit-Cost Ratio: CCSC 2.1; Barge Lanes 1.7; La Quinta
1.7.
Current Discount Rate: 5.375%.
NED Plan Recommended? Yes.
Direct Beneficiaries: Benefits were identified for ships
carrying both import and export petroleum products and grain,
as well as barge traffic and container ship traffic.
Current State of Chief of Engineers Report: A final Chief's
report was signed on 2 June 2003.
(21) Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, High Island to Brazos
River, Texas.--
Location of Study Area: Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW)
from mile 318 to 400, between High Island and the Brazos River.
Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: Rollover
Pass is a man-made cut through a barrier island that causes
several problems near this section of the GIWW. The study
identified problems with high frequency of dredging and
placement of material. Other concerns for this section are
traffic collisions and groundings caused by the high shoaling
rate.
Sievers Cove is a residential canal subdivision located
along the GIWW where there is no barrier between the channel
and East Bay. The gap poses a navigation problem for pilots
during prevailing north winds. Also, area waterway users
reported that a private mooring basin has barges moored too
close to the GIWW. This condition causes recurring accidents
and collisions.
Texas City Wye is a turning channel between the GIWW and
the Galveston Ship Channel. The existing eastbound turning
channel for barge traffic is too narrow and is often shoaled
and difficult to locate. In addition to high winds and strong
currents, the south end of the Texas City Wye channel
intersects the north end of the Pelican Island Mooring Basin,
complicating navigation when barges are moored there. Many
towboat pilots have abandoned the Texas City Wye in favor of
using the main intersection of the Texas City Channel and GIWW.
This causes time delays and creates unsafe conditions as tows
try to maneuver a 120-degree turn into a congested area used by
deep-draft vessels.
The Pelican Island Bridge is a hazard to navigation due to
the difficulty that tow operators have in lining barges up to
pass through the bridge. A strong tidal current in the channel
causes barges to drift into the bridge fender system.
Consistently, there are at least four barge accidents at the
fenders systems each year.
The Galveston Island Causeway Bridge, and railroad bridge,
are major navigation hazards due to width limitations. The
primary factor in barge collisions is the restriction in
navigation span 104 to 109 feet in width. The United States
Coast Guard's data showed ninety-nine collisions between
commercial vessels near the causeway between 1991 and 1999.
Greens Lake contains no mooring facilities. Waterway users
have stressed a need for a mooring facility west of Galveston
Bay so tows can be moored when the high winds and currents do
not allow for safe passage. Currently tow operators must push
onto the bank in a sheltered area near Greens Lake.
Constructing a mooring facility at this location would allow
tows to break down and trip barges through the Galveston
Causeway to the Pelican Island moorings on the other side.
A contiguous artificial land barrier flanking the GIWW on
the West Bay side has been washed out due to severe erosion by
the rough environment of the bay system. Although maintenance
material has prolonged the protective service life of the
barrier, it has not been able to keep pace with the erosion
reclaiming the barrier. In these areas navigation is difficult
due to strong southeasterly winds since there is no structure
to attenuate the high current velocities and wave amplitude.
Further erosion could breach the land, increasing shoaling in
the GIWW and allowing saltwater into Halls Lake, damaging
existing habitat.
Alternative Plans Considered: For Rollover Pass, four
alternatives were developed and analyzed. Preliminary
alternatives include taking no action, narrowing the pass to
limit the tidal currents, completely closing Rollover Pass, and
the construction of a sediment trap.
For Sievers Cove, three alternatives were developed and
analyzed. Alternatives included no-action, bank stabilization,
and channel widening.
For Texas City Wye, three alternatives were developed and
analyzed. Alternatives include the future without project
condition (no-action plan), widening the existing turning
channel, and widening the intersection between the GIWW and
Texas City Channel (main channel).
For Pelican Island Moorings, three alternatives were
developed and analyzed. Alternatives include the future without
project condition (no-action plan), realignment of the GIWW
adjacent to the mooring, and moving existing mooring further
landward from GIWW.
For Pelican Island Bridge, four alternatives were developed
and analyzed. Alternative plans include the future without
project condition (no-action plan), bridge replacement,
construction of moorings on each side of the bridge, and the
construction of dolphins on each side of the bridge.
For Galveston Island Causeway Bridge, four alternatives
were developed and analyzed. Alternatives include the future
without project condition (no-action plan), flare alternatives,
channel realignment and bridge replacement.
For Greens Lake, three alternatives were developed and
analyzed. Alternative plans included the future without project
condition (no-action plan), construction of the mooring
facility on the bay side of the GIWW, and construction of the
mooring facility within the mouth of Greens Lake.
Description of Recommended Plan: The recommended plan is
the National Economic Development Plan. The recommended plan
for Rollover Pass is to construct a sediment trap to intercept
the sediment before it reaches the GIWW. Trapping the sediment
and storing it in a basin would reduce the rate of its
accumulation within the channel, thus reducing the number of
times the channel has to be dredged. A numerical model reveals
that a properly configured basin constructed in Rollover Bay
will likely be effective in trapping enough sediment volume to
significantly reduce the rate of shoaling occurring within the
channel. Material trapped in the basin would be dredged and
placed on the beach, at Federal cost, approximately every 2-3
years depending on the sedimentation rate.
The recommended plan for Sievers Cove is to widen the GIWW
along the west approach to the opening to give pilots
sufficient maneuvering room to position their tows northward
when crossing the opening during prevailing northerly winds.
Based on the existing conditions, engineering, and user input,
it was determined that the north side of the channel should be
widened 75 feet. The length of the widened area will extend
westward 1400 feet, including transitions. The widened area
will be excavated to a depth of elevation--17.0 feet Mean Low
Tide (MLT) and have 1V to 3H side slopes. Upland placement
would use the existing GIWW placement site located adjacent to
the channel in Placement Area #41.
The recommended plan for the Texas City Wye simply
acknowledges and improves upon what is already taking place
under current navigation practices. The plan was modified to
include the parabolic curve based on reviews of the tract
plots. With the improved intersection in place, the existing
channel will be abandoned, and navigational aides removed.
Marsh creation to extend the Pelican Island Spit was determined
to have the least cost with the most environmentally acceptable
disposal plan.
The recommended plan for the Pelican Island Moorings is to
widen the facility 80 feet to the north, more than doubling its
present width of 75 feet, yielding a total width of 155 feet.
The depth of the basin will be--16.0 feet MLT with an
additional 1-foot allowable overdepth. Along with the widening,
13 existing mooring buoys will be cut away from their anchors
and set back 80 feet.
The recommended plan for the Pelican Island Bridge is the
no-action alternative as none of the other alternatives
provided enough benefits to overcome the cost. No further
action will be taken at this site under this study.
The recommended plan for the Galveston Causeway is to wait
until the Texas Department of Transportation replaces the
highway and railroad bridges, and then dredge the channel to
the authorized width of 125 feet. Bridge replacement, as part
of this project, was not economically justified due to the high
costs.
The recommended plan for mooring facilities in the area of
Greens Lake is to construct Greens Lake Moorings at the mouth
of the lake. This area was selected because open water is
available, the area is somewhat sheltered, and the channel's
north shoreline would be minimally impacted. Pilots surveyed
stated that currents and waves from the lake do not cause
appreciable navigational concerns or problems, and they were
supportive of the site chosen. The mooring facility's design
was developed jointly with the waterway users to assure their
needs were completely satisfied, while minimizing impacts to
the existing environment. The depth of the mooring basin will
be--16.0 feet MLT with an additional 1-foot allowable
overdepth. Placing material on the adjacent barrier island
provides the mooring facility additional protection from wind
and current. However, additional erosion protection is
required. It was determined that a hydraulic filled levee with
concrete matting be constructed on two sides of the PA.
The recommended plan for the West Bay Washout calls for a
single 24-foot circumference, 10,000 foot geotube to be
constructed between the GIWW and the West Bay. The geotube will
be tied into the existing marsh creation site on the southwest
end and to the existing barrier island on the northeast end. A
cellular concrete mattress will be installed along the
channel's north shoreline that separates the channel from Halls
Lake. The mattress will be used to supplement the riprap placed
by the State of Texas to provide the required 50-year project
life.
Views of States and Non-Federal Interests: The local
sponsor, Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT), has
actively participated throughout the planning process. TXDOT
supports the recommended plans as outlined in this report and
the continuation of shallow draft navigation of the state's
coastal waters.
Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The Final U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service Coordination Act Report, dated September
2002, was coordinated with Texas Parks and Wildlife. The final
coordination report was received 9 October 2003. There were no
outstanding issues on the draft.
Status of NEPA Document: An Environmental Assessment was
completed as part of the Feasibility Report. The Finding of No
Significant Impact was signed on 9 October 2003.
Estimated Implementation Costs:
Corps of Engineers...................................... $13,104,000
One half of the costs will be paid out of General Revenues
and one half of the costs will be paid out of the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund.
Estimated Effects:
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average annual
equivalent Average annual
Account beneficial adverse
effects effects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Economic Development (NED)
Plan:..................................
Navigation.......................... $3,272 $1,430
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project economic life: 50 years.
Benefit-Cost Ratio: 2.3 (Current Discount Rate: 5\3/8\
percent).
Direct Beneficiaries: The waterway users are the direct
beneficiaries of the project.
Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A final
Chief's report was signed on 16 April 2004.
(22) Matagorda Bay, Texas.--
Location of Study Area: The GIWW parallels the Gulf of
Mexico's coastline from Brownsville, at the southern tip of
Texas, to St. Marks, Florida. The man-made channel is
maintained by the Corps of Engineers at a minimum bottom width
of 125 feet and a minimum depth of 12 feet. This shallow draft
channel is an integral part of the total inland transportation
system of the United States. The GIWW is a necessary link in
the transportation network that moves commodities throughout
the United States, as well as foreign markets. The Matagorda
Bay reach of the GIWW extends from Channel Mile 454 to 473, a
distance of about 19 miles. The GIWW leaves the landlocked
portion on the eastern side of Matagorda Bay near Mile 454 and
turns in a southwesterly direction before turning west and
running parallel to Matagorda Peninsula. At Mile 471, the GIWW
intersects with the deep-draft Matagorda Ship Channel (MSC).
The GIWW enters the landlocked portion again at Port O'Connor
near Mile 473.
Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: The
proximity of the GIWW to the natural pass of Pass Cavallo and
the construction of the jettied entrance channel and deep-draft
MSC has created a maintenance dredging nightmare and navigation
hazard. The influences of the natural and man-made channels
have created a dangerous crosscurrent at the intersection with
the GIWW. One-way traffic has been self-imposed from mile
marker 469 to the Port O'Connor jetties at mile 473. To the
south of the GIWW is Sundown Island, a National Audubon Society
bird sanctuary. To the north is the dredged material placement
site for the maintenance dredging operations. This has
effectively limited the ability of barge traffic to maneuver to
compensate for the crosscurrents and shoaling. The Feasibility
Report offers an opportunity to relocate and widen the existing
channel to avoid the strong cross-currents and allow for safe
two-way vessel passage.
Alternative Plans Considered: The process for this study
began with several alternative solutions that were considered
reasonable and practical for the Matagorda Bay reach of the
GIWW. Additional alternatives and changes to current
alternatives were added as the study progressed. The non-
structural and structural alternative plans were presented and
developed to the level of detail needed to evaluate each plan
alternative. Non-structural alternatives, other than No-Action,
included the utilization of alternate modes of transportation
such as the use of rail, truck, ocean-going barge, or
combinations of these alternatives. The typical ratio of
tonnage per movement between rail and inland barges is about 15
to 1, and with trucks the ratio is about 60 to 1. Another non-
structural alternative of additional tugs to assist barges
across the high-current area was considered but eliminated as
not fully addressing the problems. Structural alternatives
included dredging exchange outlets across the Matagorda barrier
island to reduce the strong currents at the MSC, or realigning
the existing route to avoid the existing current.
Description of Recommended Plan: The recommended plan is
the National Economic Development plan and involves a southern
realignment utilizing the existing GIWW route on the eastward
end for approximately 3.9 miles before turning westward. The
alignment is approximately 6,000 feet north of and parallel to
the existing route. As the channel approaches the MSC, it is
aligned towards the north, approximately 7,500 feet from the
existing GIWW at its farthest point. The channel intersects the
MSC approximately 6,000 feet north of the existing GIWW. The
alignment then reconnects with the existing GIWW just before
entering the jetties at Port O'Connor. A flare at the
intersection allows the tows to realign in the GIWW before
passing through the jetties. The total length of this alignment
is 13 miles and divided into three reaches. Reach 1 is from
station 0+00 to 160+00. Reach 2 is from 160+00 to 452+00. Reach
3 is from 452+00 to 704+59. The proposed channel depth is 12
feet, plus 2 feet of overdepth and 2 feet of advanced
maintenance. The bottom width remains at 125 feet from station
0+00 to 550+00. It continues westward to station 703+00 with an
average bottom width of 300 feet. The southern realignment
results in 2.5 million cubic yards of dredged material and
avoids impacts to oyster reefs. Future maintenance dredging is
estimated at 77,000 cubic yards per year.
Physical Data on Project Features: Several ecosystem
restoration features and beneficial use of dredged material
features are included in the recommended placement plan. The
area south of the shoreline east of Palacios Point is suitable
for marsh creation using the new work material dredged from
Reach 1. The water depth near the shoreline quickly drops to 2
feet and increases to 5 feet approximately 700 feet from the
water's edge. The bottom sediment is sandy clay with large
amounts of shell material, although no live oysters were
present. Some 7,000 feet east of Palacios Point, soil
conditions and water depths are considered more suitable for
establishment of oyster beds; therefore this would represent
the limit of the marsh. The sandy clay material has sufficient
bearing strength to easily support a geotextile tube that would
be used as the perimeter levee of the marsh site. A marsh
between 58 and 78 acres would be sufficient to contain the new
work material from Reach 1.
For Reach 3, an acceptable marsh creation site was found in
the bay, south of Broad Bayou and north of Port O'Connor. The
area along the shore is prime habitat for oyster beds and
seagrass is plentiful. However, some 900 feet from shore the
depth of water is 4 feet and varies between 4 feet and 5 feet
for approximately another 1,500 feet farther from shore.
Maintaining this distance from shore ensures that the marsh
avoids impacting this habitat. Approximately 108 acres of marsh
can be created from the new work dredged material. The
foundation material in this area is a silty sand with
considerable shell fragments. The bearing capacity is easily
sufficient for the geotextile tube that would be required to
achieve the necessary levee height.
Sundown Island in Matagorda Bay is situated approximately
one mile southeast of the intersection of the existing GIWW and
the MSC. This island was created entirely from dredged material
and consists of 60 acres, not including an existing bird island
of 16 acres enclosed by one 8-foot high geotextile tube on the
east end of the island. The site is a designated National
Audubon Sanctuary (NAS) and serves as a nesting site for
several endangered and threatened species. Because of the
strong currents in the area, the island undergoes severe
erosion. The NAS has requested that dredged material be placed
on the perimeter of the island to offset the effects of erosion
and help preserve the site. This existing bird island has a
remaining capacity that can utilize the more sandy material
from the western portion of Reach 3. An additional levee can be
constructed off the north shore of Sundown Island, using 8-foot
high tubes. The northwestern leg of the existing bird island's
tube can serve as one of the boundaries in the new enclosure.
With geotextile tubes placed out to distances of between 450
and 700 feet, in water depths suitable for avoiding stacking of
tubes, an additional 31 acres would provide a storage capacity
of 414,752 cubic yards of material. It will be necessary to
construct a 2-foot berm under the tube's scour pad to raise the
levee height in the deeper water. The western portion of Reach
3 consists of, on average, 74.3% loose sand. There is
sufficient suitable sandy material for both the placement at
Sundown Island and at Port O'Connor beach.
The beach at Port O'Connor was originally constructed as a
beneficial use site using material dredged from the GIWW. The
area north of the existing geotextile tube jetty that extends
from the beach has experienced some erosion. This area could
benefit from placement of the sandy material from dredging the
western portion of Reach 3. The area would extend from the
shore to approximately 300 to 400 feet into the water. The sand
quality of this material, mostly between 37% and 14% fines, is
sufficient for this purpose. The material could be pumped onto
the beach from an average depth of between -2 feet and +1 feet
(MLLW). This restoration could yield a disposal capacity for
new work material of approximately 200,000 cubic yards. The use
of this beach as a beneficial use site may be considered once
or twice during the 50-year maintenance dredge plan.
The application of ecosystem restoration and beneficial
uses of dredged material for both new work and maintenance
material for the selected plan is summarized below.
--In Reach 1, material is used to create a 10-acre marsh at
Palacios Point. The remainder of the material is deposited in
the offshore surf zone. Maintenance material from each 10-year
dredging event is used to create an additional 25-acre marsh at
Palacios Point.
--For Reach 2, all of the material is placed in the
offshore surf zone.
--In Reach 3, material is used to create a 20-acre marsh at
Port O'Connor, nourish the Port O'Connor beach, provide
material to Sundown Island, and offshore placement in the surf
zone. Maintenance material from each 3-year dredging event is
used to create an additional 20-acre marsh at Port O'Connor for
the first 21 years or 7 cycles. After 21 years, the maintenance
material is placed offshore in the surf zone.
Views of States, and Non-Federal Interests: The non-Federal
sponsor for the existing project, the Port of Corpus Christi
Authority, has actively participated throughout the planning
process. The Port of Corpus Christi Authority is supportive of
the selected plan. There are no known significant issues.
Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The local sponsor
for the existing project, the Texas Department of
Transportation, has actively participated throughout the
planning process. The Texas Department of Transportation
supports the Matagorda Bay Re-Route and the continuation of
shallow draft navigation of the state's coastal waters.
Extensive coordination was performed with the state and Federal
resource agencies through the development of the recommended
plan and no outstanding issues remain.
States of NEPA Document: The Final Feasibility Report and
Final EA have been approved by all necessary Environmental
Agencies. An EIS was not required for this report.
Estimated Implementation Costs:
Corps of Engineers...................................... $15,960,000
One half of the costs will be paid from General Revenues
and one half will be paid from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
Estimated Effects:
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average annual
equivalent Average annual
Account beneficial adverse
effects effects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NED:
Re-Route............................ $1,600 $2,356
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Economic Life: 50 years.
Benefit-Cost Ratio: 1.5.
Current Discount Rate: 5.375%.
Direct Beneficiaries: Benefits were identified for ships
carrying both import and export petroleum products and grain,
as well as barge traffic and container ship traffic.
Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A final
Chief's report was signed on 24 December 2002.
(23) Riverside Oxbow, Fort Worth, Texas.--
Location of Study Area: The study area is located within
the corporate limits of Fort Worth, Tarrant County, Texas.
Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: 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.
According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1985), the
indirect downstream effects of large flood control projects and
reservoir construction on natural bottomland ecosystems are
often more destructive, albeit not as immediate, as the direct
impacts. Adverse impacts observed downstream include: (1) an
unnatural bottomland hydroperiod causing major vegetational
changes toward more xeric species as a result of the reduction
in flooding; (2) the reduction of associated nutrient inputs to
downstream bottomlands; (3) the loss of aquatic flora and
fauna; (4) the loss of bank-stabilizing vegetation as a result
of excessive bed and bank scour from irregular reservoir
releases; (5) disruption of normal feeding and spawning cycles
of fish which use floodplains; (6) elimination of high flows
into bottomlands which prevents the input of bottomland
nutrients into the aquatic system; and (7) potential negative
effects to plant communities as a result of prolonged water
releases during the growing season.
Alternative Plans Considered: Alternatives investigated in
detail included three plans; the no-action, the National
Ecosystem Restoration (NER) Plan and the Locally Preferred Plan
(LPP).
Description of Recommended Plan: The recommended plan is
the Locally Preferred Plan, not the National Ecosystem
Restoration Plan. In total, the recommended plan would restore
ecosystem values on 512.2 acres of floodplain lands,
approximately 2 miles of Oxbow river channel, 56.5 acres of
wetlands, and 112 acres of uplands. It would also provide
25,700 feet of mixed surface linear recreation trails.
Physical Data on Project Features: The recommended plan
consists of reestablishing flows through the old West Fork of
the Trinity River oxbow including replacing the existing Beach
Street Bridge; creation of 69.6 acres of emergent wetlands,
open water, and vegetative fringe habitat; habitat improvement
of 179.7 acres of existing forested areas, including
establishment of a 150 foot wide riparian buffer along the West
Fork from Riverside Drive to East 1st Street; establishment of
a buffer of native grasses and forbs on approximately 45.6
acres of land; reforestation of roughly 66.9 acres using a
variety of native hard and soft mast trees and shrubs;
preservation and habitat improvements to approximately 206.9
acres of native floodplain grassland; and eradication of 80
acres of invasive species and reestablishment of native species
and creek bed protection on 112 acres within the Tandy Hills
Nature Preserve, which is located on the south side of IH-30.
The plan also includes compatible linear recreation along a
9,000-feet by 10-feet wide concrete trail including one
vehicular bridge, 1,400 feet of crushed agregate trail, 7,600
feet of wood mulch equestrian trail, three observation areas, a
new Gateway Park entrance road and bridge and other associated
facilities (access points, parking lot, and restroom
facilities), and 7,743 feet of crushed agregate trail and
associated facilities (access points and parking lot) in the
Tandy Hill Nature Preserve.
Views of States, and Non-Federal Interests: The Tarrant
Regional Water District (TRWD) is the local sponsor. The TRWD
strongly supports the project and will fund the local share of
the project.
Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
support the recommended plan as it would have substantial
positive benefits to fish and wildlife resources of the project
area. There are no outstanding issues.
Status of NEPA Document: The Final Environmental Assessment
has been included as part of the Final Feasibility Report,
dated May 2003.
Implementation Costs of Recommended LPP Plan:
Corps of Engineers...................................... $10,400,000
Tarrant Regional Water District......................... 14,800,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 25,200,000
The Secretary is directed to credit toward the non-Federal
share of the cost of the project the cost of design and
construction work on the Beach Street Dam and associated
features if the Secretary determines that this work is integral
to the project.
Description of Non-Federal O&M Cost: O&M responsibilities
include mowing, trash collection and, as needed, replacements
or rehabilitation of any of its components.
Estimated Effects: The LPP would restore an additional 112
acres and 25.83 AAHU's. The restoration will benefit the trail
system and the habitat for song birds and migratory wading
birds.
Project economic life: 50 years.
Direct Beneficiaries: The residents in the surrounding area
are the direct beneficiaries of the project.
Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A final
Chief's report was signed on 29 May 2003.
(24) Deep Creek, Chesapeake, Virginia.--
Location of the Study Area: The Corps of Engineers operates
a federally owned highway bridge over which U.S. Route 17
(George Washington Highway) crosses the Dismal Swamp Canal
(DSC), a part of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW). The
bridge was constructed in 1934 and is located in the community
of Deep Creek in the city of Chesapeake, Virginia. Chesapeake
is part of the large metropolitan area of Hampton Roads which
surrounds the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay.
Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: The
existing Deep Creek Bridge is a two lane, single-leaf Bascule
Bridge that was constructed in 1934 at a cost of $64,000. The
bridge is now outdated and while structurally sound it is
functionally obsolete in that it does not conform to existing
standards for traffic load limits and roadway geometry. Traffic
congestion and delays are commonplace. Potential adverse
impacts to vessel traffic on the AIWW could result due to
malfunction of the bridge, which has been used for almost twice
its originally estimated useful life. The city of Chesapeake
operates and maintains four moveable highway bridges over
navigable waterways, has experience in operating to meet the
needs of navigation, and is willing to take over operation and
maintenance of the improved bridge.
In a letter dated 21 March 1996, the city of Chesapeake
requested that the Corps of Engineers consider the need for and
feasibility of modifying or replacing this structure in
conjunction with City and Commonwealth of Virginia plans to
improve the road system in this area. The City has already
begun improvements to the area's roadways, and the Commonwealth
is currently contracting the design for a 10-mile stretch of
U.S. Route 17 improvements from the North Carolina line to the
proposed Dominion Boulevard. These improvements are needed to
accommodate the rapidly increasing development in this area of
Chesapeake.
Alternative Plans Considered: The possible solutions
examined in the feasibility study included: (1) abandonment of
the existing bridge in favor of relocating highways; (2)
abandonment of the waterway; (3) rerouting the waterway to
consolidate or minimize highway crossings; (4) bridge
replacement with adequate structures that will accommodate
existing and future traffic conditions and minimize delays for
highway uses and navigation traffic; and (5) continued use of
the existing low-level bridge. Bridge replacements included
high-level fixed-span bridges, low-level bridges, and tunnels
under the Dismal Swamp Canal.
Description of the Recommended Plan: The recommended plan,
which is the National Economic Development (NED) plan, consists
of replacing the existing bridge with a 5-lane, low-level,
split-leaf, pit bascule bridge aligned south of and parallel to
the existing bridge's centerline, and approach roadways.
The selected plan consists of a separate 2-lane leaf
(eastbound) and 3-lane leaf (westbound). The eastbound leaf
would be 75 feet long, 40 feet wide, and have two vehicle lanes
and a pedestrian sidewalk. The westbound lane would have 3
vehicle lanes and be approximately 48 feet wide. The two spans
would be separated by a space of approximately 1.5 feet. The
new deck elevation would be at approximately 16.9 feet al
Geodetic Vertical Datum, which is approximately 5.5 to 7 feet
above average ground elevation in the vicinity and over one
foot higher than the existing bridge deck. The roadway
centerline would be approximately 100 feet south of the
existing bridge centerline.
The selected plan described above is a design refinement of
the bridge described in the feasibility report, which consisted
of a 5-lane, low-level, fast acting (Scherzer rolling lift),
single-leaf bascule bridge located south of and parallel to the
existing bridge. The design change resulted from ongoing
coordination by the Project Delivery Team including two design
charrettes to refine the bridge design and roadway tie-ins. The
refined design has several advantages over the initial design
presented in the feasibility report including improving the
sequence of construction, provides a better alignment which
reduces real estate needs and impacts to adjacent properties,
and allows better maintenance of traffic during construction.
The new design does not change the estimated OMRR&R costs. The
new design involves both cost savings and increased costs for
various project features. There is a net increase in cost;
estimated first costs are $21.8 million for the split-leaf
bridge design compared to $21.5 million for the single leaf.
The increase is largely due to increased work resulting from
additional information on site conditions and to increases in
materials costs. These costs would be associated with any
bridge plans, therefore, the new design remains the NED plan.
The plan initially preferred by the non-Federal sponsor was
a four lane bridge. However, the studies have shown that in
addition to providing greater overall benefits the addition of
the fifth lane provides for a through lane to Old Mill Road and
a left turn lane for southbound traffic on Mill Creek Parkway.
These improvements allow for smooth traffic flow without
backing traffic onto the bridge. The sponsor concurred with the
selection of the NED plan.
Approach Roadways--The higher deck would require
modifications to the approach roads on either side of the
bridge to tie into existing road elevations on Cedar Road and
Old Mill Road, as well as tying into the intersecting portions
of George Washington Highway and Route 17. The recommended
south parallel alignment was developed for a 5-lane roadway
width. This south alternative alignment is less likely to
disturb existing utilities. The provision of a fifth lane
allows smooth traffic movement at the intersection without
unreasonable stacking of traffic onto the bridge. In
particular, the fifth lane will provide a dedicated through
lane to Old Mill Road and a left turn lane for southbound
traffic on Mill Creek Parkway. These movements are projected to
increase substantially over the life of the project. The
location of the proposed south alignment was set to allow
continued operation of the existing bridge during new bridge
construction. The approach roadway design speed for this
alignment is 35 mph.
New Policy Directions Recommended: The Federal Government
would pay 100 percent of the bridge replacement and approach
road cost of the recommended plan, including LERRD. In
addition, non-Federal interests would be responsible for
operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, including assuming full
ownership for the recommended plan.
Views of States, and Non-Federal Interests: The
Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Environmental Quality,
responded by letter dated 20 August 2001. This letter forwarded
a copy of the Commonwealth's 29 January 2001 comments on the
draft report, which stated they had no objection to the project
as long as it is constructed in accordance with all applicable
state and Federal laws and regulations. There were no
additional comments.
Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The U.S. Department
of the Interior (DOI), Office of the Secretary, responded by
letter dated 8 August 2001. DOI had no comments to offer and
did not object to the proposed project. The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 3 and Department of
Transportation, responded by phone conversation on 26 February
2002 and 21 August 2001, respectively, that each had no
comments to offer.
Status of NEPA Document: Because there were no significant
issues affecting the natural and human environment, an
Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI) were prepared for this project. The FONSI was
signed by the Norfolk District Engineer on 25 April 2001. The
final Feasibility report and EA, with the signed FONSI, were
circulated for State and Agency review on 10 July 2001. The
State and Agency review period ended on 9 August 2001.
Estimated Implementation Costs:
Corps of Engineers...................................... $35,573,000
Description of Non-Federal O&M Costs: The city of
Chesapeake will assume ownership of the bridge and be
responsible for all operations and maintenance (O&M) activities
associated with this movable bridge. O&M responsibilities for
the project include operator's labor, maintenance materials,
equipment and labor, bridge inspection reports, utilities, and
major replacements.
Estimated Effects: The estimated average annual costs are
$2,458,000 and the estimated average annual benefits are
$18,750,000. The benefit to cost ratio is 7.6, applying a
discount rate of 5-3/8 percent over a 50-year planning period.
Direct Beneficiaries: Highway users. Increased safety to
boating traffic.
Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A final
Chief's report was signed on 3 March 2003.
(25) Chehalis River, Centralia, Washington.
Location of the Study Area: The study area is about 50
miles east of the Pacific Ocean and about 25 miles south on
Interstate Highway 5 (I-5) of the state capital, Olympia. The
study area includes the mainstem Chehalis River, its floodplain
and tributaries from the South Fork Chehalis River confluence
to Grand Mound, and includes the Cities of Centralia and
Chehalis, in Lewis County, Washington.
Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: 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. The most recent flood events were in 1990 and
1996. The 1996 event alone resulted in tens of millions of
dollars worth of damages.
Lewis County and other project stakeholders have recognized
the critical need for a comprehensive solution to flooding
issues in the urban areas of Centralia and Chehalis. This
includes the Washington State Department of Transportation,
which will save millions of dollars that would have been used
to raise the interstate highway I-5 to protect it from
flooding. Flood damages to be prevented include substantial
urban flooding and the periodic closure of Interstate 5, a
major north-south highway that was closed due to flooding most
recently in December 2001.
Alternative Plans Considered: The possible solutions
examined in the feasibility study included: (1) Skookumchuck
Dam modifications, (2) overbank excavation and flowway bypass,
(3) a levee system, (4) upstream flow restriction structures
and upstream storage, (5) a non-structural alternative, and (6)
an Interagency Committee alternative that included restricted
development measures and small structural measures. The non-
Federal sponsor and the Corps worked closely with the local,
Federal and state agencies, local tribes and the public to
develop a comprehensive list of alternatives for reducing flood
damages.
Description of the Recommended Plan: The recommended plan
is the Locally Preferred Plan, not the National Economic
Development Plan. To reduce flood damages to the community the
recommended plan includes modifying Skookumchuck Dam,
constructing a system of levee/floodwalls, and raising in
elevation 8 structures that would incur induced damages from
increased inundation as a result of the project.
Dam Modification.--The recommended plan would modify
Skookumchuck Dam to add flood control capabilities to the
existing reservoir. Skookumchuck Dam would be modified for
storage by raising the pool and create a new outlet scheme.
Because the recommended dam feature needs additional
evaluation, as the proposed conversion of the existing
uncontrolled fixed crest spillway to a gated spillway conflicts
with Corps of Engineers guidance on spillway design.
Accordingly the recommended plan for up to 20,000 acre-feet of
flood control storage is subject to a determination by the
Chief of Engineers that the additional storage above 11,000
acre-feet is technically feasible and environmentally
acceptable.
Levee/Floodwalls.--About 15.5 miles of levee/floodwalls
will provide flood protection to the City of Centralia, the
City of Chehalis, and I-5. The levee/floodwall feature has two
segments--Chehalis River and Skookumchuck River. The levee
system extends along the Chehalis River from river mile (RM) 75
to RM 64 and along most of the lower 2 miles of Skookumchuck
River to the confluence with Coffee Creek. The floodwall is
approximately 13,200 feet long and the levees are approximately
68,640 feet long. The plans include minimal interior flood
control (IFC) features, with refinements to the IFC deferred to
future studies. The alignments follow existing levees and
incorporate the I-5 and rail line embankments in the line of
protection. The recommended plan for the levees and floodwalls
exceeds the NED plan. The difference between the NED and LPP
levee/floodwall plans is the level of protection on the lower
Skookumchuck River segment. For the NED Plan, one of the levee
reaches (16 total) has a 97.7% chance of containing the 100-
year event on the Chehalis River segment and only a 20.6%
chance of containing the 100-year event on the Skookumchuck
River segment. For the LPP the respective 100-year event
numbers are 97.8% on the Chehalis and 99.8% on the
Skookumchuck.
Environmental Features--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.
Views of States, and Non-Federal Interests: The following
State and Tribal agencies responded to the request for review:
(1) Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife, responded
by letter dated 26 March 2004; (2) The Washington State
Department of Ecology responded by letter dated 27 February
2004 and 23 March 2004; (3) The Confederated Tribes of the
Chehalis Reservation, responded by letter dated March 17, 2004.
Concerns expressed by the respondents included the lack of
project features to address ecosystem restoration, mitigation,
floodplain management practices, and water quality concerns. In
letters of response, the Corps provided satisfactory
clarification to those concerns.
Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The following
Federal agencies responded to the request for review: (1) The
U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), Office of the Secretary,
responded by letter dated 20 April 2004; (2) The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, responded by letter 26 March
2004. Concerns expressed by the respondents included the lack
of project features for ecosystem restoration, mitigation,
uncertainties about impacts on the Skookumchuck River, the need
to prepare a supplemental EIS to address various outstanding
issues, and water quality concerns. In letters of response, the
Corps provided satisfactory clarification to these concerns.
Status of NEPA Document: A Final Environmental Impact
Statement was completed in June 2003.
Estimated Implementation Costs:
Corps of Engineers...................................... $66,425,000
Lewis County............................................ 43,425,000
Total............................................. 109,850,000
The existing flood damage reduction project authorization
for the Chehalis River, in Section 401(a) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986, was modified by Section 118
of Public Law 106-554 to authorize the Secretary of the Army to
provide the non-Federal interest credit toward the non-Federal
share of the cost of that project, for the cost of planning,
design, and construction work carried out by the non-Federal
interest before the date of execution of a cooperation
agreement if the Secretary determines that the work is integral
to the project. The authority to provide credit is restated in
this section. In light of this authority, the Chief's Report
recommends that the non-Federal interest shall receive credit
in an amount of up to $6,500,000 towards its share of project
costs for planning and design work carried out by the non-
Federal interest in accordance with the Project Study Plan
dated 28 November 1999 and credit towards its share of project
costs for any other planning and design work carried out by the
non-Federal interest that the Secretary determines to be
integral to the project, including work done prior to execution
of a project cooperation agreement for the project.
Description of Non-Federal O&M Costs: Lewis County will be
responsible for the operation and maintenance of the levee
system. This will entail a minimum of one inspection annually,
and preferably an inspection after each flood event documenting
levee conditions and any repairs or maintenance required or
completed. The annual operation and maintenance for the flood
control portion of Skookumchuck Dam include the annual
maintenance, flood control operation, and fish migration due to
flood control operations.
Estimated Effects: The average annual benefits are
$9,126,000 and the average annual costs are $7,017,000 assuming
a project life of 50 years and a discount rate of 5.625%. The
net annual benefits are $2,109,000 and the benefit-to-cost
ratio is 1.3 to 1.
Direct Beneficiaries: The incidence of flood control
benefits is widespread. The project will benefit agricultural
landowners (2,200 acres), residential homeowners (3,926
structures), commercial and industrial structure owners (294
structures), and interstate commerce using I-5.
Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A final
Chief's report was signed on 27 September 2004.
Section 1002. Small projects for flood damage reduction
Subsection (a) directs the Secretary to study and carry out
projects for flood damage reduction under the authority of
section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (which authorizes
$50,000,000 a year for Federal participation in small flood
damage reduction projects up to $7,000,000 per project, with a
minimum 35% non-Federal cost-share) at the following locations:
(1) Haleyville, Alabama.
(2) Weiss Lake, Alabama.
(3) Chino Valley Wash, Arizona.
(4) Little Colorado River Levee, Arizona.
(5) Cache River Basin, Grubbs, Arkansas.
(6) Barrel Springs Wash, Palmdale, California.
(7) Borrego Springs, California.
(8) Colton, California.
(9) Dunlap Stream, San Bernardino, California.
(10) Hunts Canyon Wash, Palmdale, California.
(11) Wildwood Creek, Yucaipa, California.
(12) Utica and Vicinity, Illinois.
(13) Des Moines and Racoon Rivers, Iowa.
(14) Peabody, Massachusetts.
(15) Salem, Massachusetts.
(16) Cass River, Michigan.
(17) Crow River, Rockford, Minnesota.
(18) Itasca County, Minnesota.
(19) Marsh Creek, Minnesota.
(20) Roseau River, Roseau, Minnesota.
(21) South Branch of the Wild Rice River, Borup,
Minnesota.
(22) Blacksnake Creek, St. Joseph, Missouri.
(23) Cannisteo River, Addison, New York.
(24) Cohocton River, Campbell, New York.
(25) East River, Silver Beach, New York City, New
York.
(26) East Valley Creek, Andover, New York.
(27) Sunnyside Brook, Westchester County, New York.
(28) Little Yankee Run, Ohio.
(29) Little Neshaminy Creek, Warrenton, Pennsylvania.
(30) Southampton Creek Watershed, Southampton,
Pennsylvania.
(31) Spring Creek, Lower Macungie Township,
Pennsylvania.
(32) Yardley Aqueduct, Silver and Brock Creeks,
Yardley, Pennsylvania.
(33) Surfside Beach, South Carolina.
(34) Congelosi Ditch, Missouri City, Texas.
(35) Dilley, Texas.
Subsection (b) establishes special rules for the following
projects--
(1) Cache River Basin, Grubbs, Arkansas.--The
Secretary may carry out the project for flood damage
reduction, Cache River Basin, Grubbs, Arkansas under
this section notwithstanding any policy limiting use of
this authority in areas within the boundaries of a
larger flood control project.
(2) Wildwood Creek, Yucaipa, California.--The
Secretary is directed to review the locally preferred
plan for the project for flood damage reduction,
Wildwood Creek, California, and to use that plan, if it
meets the standards of the Corps of Engineers, and to
provide credit for work carried out by the non-Federal
interest if integral to the project.
(3) Borup, Minnesota.--The Secretary is authorized to
consider ecosystem restoration benefits when
determining the Federal interest in the project for
flood damage reduction, South Branch of the Wild Rice
River, Borup, Minnesota, and is directed to allow the
non-Federal interest to increase its participation in
the project, if necessary to implement the project.
(4) Itasca County, Minnesota.--The Secretary is
authorized to consider ecosystem restoration benefits
when determining the Federal interest in the project
for flood damage reduction, Itasca County, Minnesota.
(5) Dilley, Texas.--The Secretary is directed to
carry out the project for flood damage reduction,
Dilley Texas, if feasible, notwithstanding any policy
regarding volume of flows.
Section 1003. Small projects for emergency streambank protection
Directs the Secretary to study and carry out projects for
streambank erosion control under section 14 of the Flood
Control Act of 1946 (which authorizes $15,000,000 a year for
Federal participation in projects up to $1,000,000 per project,
with a 35% non-Federal cost-share) at the following locations:
(1) Ouachita and Black Rivers, Arkansas and
Louisiana.
(2) Franklin Point Park, Anne Arundel County,
Maryland.
(3) Mayo Beach Park, Anne Arundel County, Maryland.
(4) Piney Point Lighthouse, St. Mary's County,
Maryland.
(5) St. Joseph Harbor, Michigan.
(6) Pug Hole Lake, Minnesota.
(7) Middle Fork Grand River, Gentry County, Missouri.
(8) Platte River, Platte City, Missouri.
(9) Rush Creek, Parkville, Missouri.
(10) Keuka Lake, Hammondsport, New York.
(11) Kowawese Unique Area and Hudson River, New
Windsor, New York.
(12) Howard Road Outfall, Shelby County, Tennessee.
(13) Mitch Farm Ditch and Lateral D, Shelby County,
Tennessee.
(14) Wolf River Tributaries, Shelby County,
Tennessee.
(15) Johnson Creek, Arlington, Texas.
(16) Wells River, Newbury, Vermont.
Section 1004: Small projects for navigation
Subsection (a) directs the Secretary to study and carry out
projects for navigation, under the authority of section 107 of
the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (which authorizes $35,000,000
a year for Federal participation in small navigation projects
up to $4,000,000 per project with non-Federal cost-sharing as
determined under the Water Resources Development Act of 1986)
at the following locations:
(1) Blytheville County Harbor, Arkansas.
(2) Mahukona Beach Park, Hawaii.
(3) North Kohala Harbor, Hawaii.
(4) Wailoa Small Boat Harbor, Hawaii.
(5) Mississippi River Ship Channel, Louisiana.
(6) Port Tobacco River and Goose Creek, Maryland.
(7) St. Jerome Creek, St. Mary's County, Maryland.
(8) East Basin, Cape Cod Canal, Sandwich,
Massachusetts.
(9) Lynn Harbor, Lynn, Massachusetts.
(10) Merrimack River, Haverhill, Massachusetts.
(11) Oak Bluffs Harbor, Oak Bluffs, Massachusetts.
(12) Woods Hole Great Harbor, Falmouth,
Massachusetts.
(13) Au Sable River, Michigan.
(14) Traverse City Harbor, Traverse City, Michigan.
Subsection (b) establishes special rules for the following
projects--
(1) Blytheville County Harbor, Arkansas.--Directs the
Secretary to carry out the project for navigation, Blytheville
County Harbor, Arkansas if the Secretary determines that the
project is feasible, notwithstanding any policy related to fast
lands.
(2) Traverse City Harbor, Traverse City, Michigan.--Directs
the Secretary to use a plan developed by the local sponsor to
carry out the project if the Secretary determines that the plan
meets standards of the Corps of Engineers and to credit the
local sponsor for the costs of preparing that plan and for
other work, if the Secretary determines that work is integral
to the project.
Section 1005: Small projects for improvement of the quality of the
environment
Directs the Secretary to study and carry out a project for
improvement of the environment, under the authority of section
1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (which
authorizes $25,000,000 a year for Federal participation in
projects up to $5,000,000 per project, with a 25% non-Federal
cost-share) at the following locations:
(1) Ballona Creek, Los Angeles County, California.
(2) Ballona Lagoon Tide Gates, Marina Del Rey,
California.
(3) Rathbun Lake, Iowa.
(4) Smithville Lake, Missouri.
(5) Delaware Bay, New Jersey and Delaware.
(6) Tioga-Hammond Lakes, Pennsylvania.
Section 1006: Small projects for aquatic ecosystem restoration
Directs the Secretary to study and carry out projects for
aquatic ecosystem restoration under the authority of section
206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (which
authorizes $25,000,000 a year for Federal participation in
small ecosystem restoration and protection projects up to
$5,000,000 per project, with a 35% non-Federal cost-share) at
the following locations:
(1) Cypress Creek, Montgomery, Alabama.
(2) Ben Lomond Dam, Santa Cruz, California.
(3) Dockweiler Bluffs, Los Angeles County,
California.
(4) Salt River, California.
(5) Santa Rosa Creek, Santa Rosa, California.
(6) Stockton Deep Water Ship Channel and Lower San
Joaquin River, California.
(7) Sweetwater Reservoir, San Diego County,
California.
(8) Bayou Texar, Pensacola, Florida.
(9) Biscayne Bay, Florida.
(10) Clam Bayou and Dinkins Bayou, Sanibel Island,
Florida.
(11) Destin Harbor, Florida.
(12) Chattahoochee Fall Line, Georgia and Alabama.
(13) Longwood Cove, Gainesville, Georgia.
(14) City Park, University Lakes, Louisiana.
(15) Mill Pond, Littleton, Massachusetts.
(16) Pine Tree Brook, Milton, Massachusetts.
(17) Kalamazoo River Watershed, Battle Creek,
Michigan.
(18) Rush Lake, Minnesota.
(19) South Fork of the Crow River, Hutchinson,
Minnesota.
(20) St. Louis County, Missouri.
(21) Truckee River, Reno, Nevada.
(22) Grover's Mill Pond, New Jersey.
(23) Dugway Creek, Bratenahl, Ohio.
(24) Johnson Creek, Gresham, Oregon.
(25) Beaver Creek, Beaver and Salem, Pennsylvania.
(26) Cementon Dam, Lehigh River, Pennsylvania.
(27) Delaware River, Philadelphia Naval Shipyard,
Pennsylvania.
(28) Saucon Creek, Northampton County, Pennsylvania.
(29) Blackstone River, Rhode Island.
(30) Wilson Branch, Cheraw, South Carolina.
(31) White River, Bethel, Vermont.
Section 1007: Small projects for shoreline protection
Directs the Secretary to study and carry out projects under
section 3 of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing the Federal
participation in the cost of protecting the shores of publicly
owned property,'' approved August 13, 1946 (which authorizes
$30,000,000 a year for Federal participation in small shoreline
protection projects, up to $3,000,000 per project, with a 35%
non-Federal cost-share) at the following locations:
(1) Nelson Lagoon, Alaska.
(2) Sanibel Island, Florida.
(3) Apra Harbor, Guam.
(4) Piti, Cabras Island, Guam.
(5) Narrows and Gravesend Bay, Upper New York Bay,
Brooklyn, New York.
(6) Delaware River, Philadelphia Naval Shipyard,
Pennsylvania.
(7) Port Aransas, Texas.
Section 1008: Small projects for snagging and sediment removal
Directs the Secretary to study and carry out a project
under section 2 of the Flood Control Act of August 28, 1937 at
Kowawese Unique Area and Hudson River, New Windsor, New York.
TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 2001. Non-Federal contributions
Amends section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1986 by placing a prohibition on the solicitation of excess
contributions from the non-Federal sponsor for water resources
development projects. This provision does not affect the
ability of non-Federal interest to make additional
contributions in order to implement a project as provided in
section 903(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986.
Section 2002. Harbor cost sharing
Amends sections 101 and 214 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 by striking ``45 feet'' each place it
appears and inserting ``53 feet'' and provides that such
amendments shall only apply to the project, or separable
element thereof, on which a contract for physical construction
has not been awarded before October 1, 2003.
Section 2003. Funding to process permits
Amends section 214 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 2000 to extend the period of funding to process permits up
to 2008.
Section 2004. National Shoreline Erosion Control Development Act and
demonstration program
Amends section 5 of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing
Federal participation in the cost of protecting the shores of
publicly owned property'' of August 13, 1946, to extend the
program to 10 years and to continue the planning, design, and
construction phase to 6 years, provide for cost-sharing, allow
removal of some projects, and to increase the authorization
level from $21,000,000 to $31,000,000.
Section 2005. Small shore and beach restoration and protection projects
Amends section 3 of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing
Federal participation in the cost of protecting the shores of
publicly owned property'' of August 13, 1946, to increase the
maximum Federal participation in each project from $3,000,000
to $5,000,000.
Section 2006. Written agreement for water resources projects
Amends section 221(a) of the Flood Control Act of 1970, to
rename project cooperation agreements as partnership
agreements, require the Secretary to delegate authority to
District Engineers to enter into certain partnership
agreements, and include a provision for liquidated damages.
Amends section 912(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 to eliminate civil penalties in partnership agreements and
allow the use of damages instead. The purpose of this section
is to encourage a new culture of partnership among the Corps of
Engineers and its non-Federal project sponsors, and to
substantially increase the efficiency of Corps project
implementation.
The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 significantly
increased the roles and responsibilities of project sponsors.
Non-Federal interests were required to act in cohort and
partnership with the Federal Government in carrying out
projects. Non-Federal interests found themselves responsible
for providing a substantial portion of the cost of the project.
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. Unfortunately, since
1986, the administration of PCAs has evolved into a layered
bureaucracy that frustrates non-Federal interests and
unnecessarily slows progress toward ultimate project
construction.
Non-Federal interests frequently express concern that PCAs
serve only the interests of the Federal government and often
impose binding conditions on them that are inconsistent with
their non-Federal constitutional powers, creating an
adversarial atmosphere of mistrust that frustrates the
essential partnership needed for effective project
implementation. Non-Federal project partners also find
frustration in the multiple layers of review and approval
imposed upon the execution of PCAs within the Department of the
Army. Projects are delayed for long periods, some for years,
awaiting approval and execution of the project agreement.
This section adopts a structure under which the Assistant
Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) is directed to develop
broad policy to govern the content of partnership agreements to
comply with law and policy; the Chief of Engineers provides
specific policy guidelines governing the content of these
agreements; and, under authority delegated by the Secretary,
District Engineers review and execute partnership agreements.
These changes reflect favorably on the capability of Divisions
and Districts to accomplish as much review and approval as
possible. The Committee does not expect all partnership
agreements to undergo a Washington level review. However,
agreements that address novel or particularly complicated
issues would continue to be reviewed. Under this new structure,
the Secretary may retain the authority to approve a partnership
agreement upon notification to the District Engineer within 30
days of the date of authorization of the project and must
report to Congress annually on the number of agreements signed
by District Engineers and by the Secretary. For agreements
signed by the Secretary, the Secretary must provide an
explanation of why delegation to the District Engineer was not
appropriate. This section also requires the Chief of Engineers
to ensure that partnership agreements are made publicly
available on the Internet.
Through these changes, the Committee expects to address the
concerns of non-Federal interests, improve efficiency by
streamlining the process for approving partnership agreements,
and to foster a culture of true partnership that will improve
projects and their implementation.
Section 2007. Assistance for remediation, restoration, and reuse
Authorizes the Secretary to provide assessment, planning,
and design assistance to State and local governments for
remediation, environmental restoration, and reuse of areas that
will contribute to improvement in water quality or to
conservation of water and related resources. The non-Federal
share is 50%. Authorizes $30,000,000 a year for fiscal years
2006-2010. Under the authority provided by this section, the
Secretary may provide assistance to the city of St. Louis,
Missouri, to help remove abandoned buildings and prepare
property for future use, may provide assistance to the Port of
Bellingham, Washington, to provide assistance to the Bellingham
``Portsfield'' project, and may provide assistance of
Worcester, Massachusetts, to revitalize the Blackstone Canal.
Section 2008. Compilation of laws
Directs the Secretary to produce a compilation of water
resources development laws enacted after November 8, 1966, and
before January 1, 2006. The Committee included similar language
in the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, which the
Secretary has not implemented. The Committee strongly supports
public availability and consolidation of laws related to water
resources development, and expects the Secretary to promptly
comply with this section using existing, internal resources.
Section 2009. Dredged material disposal
Amends section 217 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1996 to ensure that the Secretary has the authority to
address dredged material disposal on a regional, as well as a
project-by-project basis, and may combine funding from separate
projects to do so.
Section 2010. Wetlands mitigation
Requires the Secretary, to the maximum extent practicable
and where appropriate, to give preference for use of wetlands
mitigation banks that meet certain criteria, when carrying out
wetlands mitigation for a water resources project. Nothing in
this section affects the responsibility of the Corps of
Engineers to apply the guidelines developed under section
404(b)(1) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
Section 2011. Remote and subsistence harbors
Allows the Secretary to recommend a project for harbor and
navigation improvements without the need to demonstrate that
the project is justified solely by national economic
development benefits if (1) the community served by the project
is at least 70 miles from the nearest surface accessible
commercial port with no direct rail or highway link to another
serviceable community or located in the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, Guam, the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, or
American Samoa; (2) the harbor is economically critical such
that over 80 percent of the goods transported would be consumed
within the community served by the harbor and navigation
improvement; and (3) the long term viability of the community
is dependent on the harbor, including access to resources and
facilities designed to protect public health and safety.
Section 2012. Beneficial uses of dredged material
Amends section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1992 to allow cost-sharing of the use of dredged material at
any water resources project (not just aquatic ecosystem
restoration projects), to allow non-profit entities to serve as
the non-Federal interest for a project under specified
conditions, to increase the authorization of appropriations to
$30,000,000 annually, and to allow the Secretary to develop
regional sediment management plans at Federal expense. Also
allows the Secretary to use this dredged material to carry out,
at Federal expense, aquatic ecosystem restoration projects
located in a disadvantaged community if the project cost is not
greater than $750,000, not to exceed a total of $3,000,000 in
any fiscal year. Directs the Secretary to give priority to
beneficial use projects in the vicinity of Little Rock
Slackwater Harbor, Arkansas; Egmont Key, Florida; Calcasieu
Ship Channel, Louisiana; Smith Point Park Pavilion TWA Flight
800 Memorial, Brookhaven, New York; Morehead City, North
Carolina; and, Galveston Bay, Texas.
Section 2013. Cost sharing provisions for certain areas
Amends section 1156 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1986 to increase from $250,000 to $500,000 the exemption
from cost-sharing for the initial costs of studies and projects
in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, United States
Virgin Islands and on land in the State of Alaska conveyed to
an Alaska Native Village Corporation under the Alaskan Native
Claims Settlement Act.
Section 2014. Revision of project partnership agreement
Directs the Secretary to revise the partnership agreement
for the project to take into account the change in Federal
participation in the project, when Congress increases the
authorization ceiling for a project.
Section 2015. Cost sharing
Provides that in any case in which Congress increases the
maximum amount of Federal funds that may be allocated for a
project or increases the total cost of a project, such increase
shall not affect any cost-sharing requirement applicable to the
project.
Section 2016. Credit for work performed before partnership agreement
Requires the Secretary to enter into an agreement with a
non-Federal sponsor for the performance of work eligible for
credit against the non-Federal sponsor's costs, and limits such
credit to work carried out under the agreement thereby ensuring
that Federal standards for the construction of public works
will apply to these projects.
Section 2017. Recreation user fee revenues
Amends section 225 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1999 to make permanent the provision of law that allows the
Secretary to retain recreation user fee revenues for use at
Corps recreation facilities and to increase the baseline to
$42,000,000.
Section 2018. Expedited actions for emergency flood damage reduction
Directs the Secretary to expedite planning, design, and
construction of a project for flood damage reduction for an
area that, within the preceding 5 years, has been subject to
flooding that resulted in the loss of life and caused damage
sufficient to warrant a declaration of a major disaster by the
President under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act.
Section 2019. Watershed and river basin assessments
Amends section 729(f)(1) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986 to provide a 75% Federal share for watershed and
river basin assessments carried out under that section to
encourage States and local governments to engage in regional
planning. This section also adds Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio;
Sauk River Basin, Snohomish and Skagit Counties, Washington;
Niagara River Basin, New York; and Genesee River Basin, New
York, to the list of priority basins in section 729(d).
Section 2020. Tribal partnership program
Amends section 203 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 2000 to make Oklahoma tribes eligible for assistance under
the Tribal Partnership Program and to extend the program
through 2010.
Section 2021. Wildfire firefighting
Adds the Secretary to the existing list of Federal agencies
authorized to enter into contracts with State and local
governmental entities, including local fire districts, for
procurement of services in the presuppression, detection, and
suppression of fires on any units within their jurisdiction.
Section 2022. Credit for non-construction services
The Committee has included language in the bill that
provides generic authority to the Secretary to allow, under
certain conditions, credit toward the non-Federal share of
project costs for design and management work performed by a
non-Federal interest that is compatible with and necessary to
implement the project. This authority does not apply to
construction. The Committee has received numerous requests from
proponents of specific projects to allow non-Federal interests
to obtain credit for work they perform that advances the
project. Where a non-Federal interest has an established
capability, it can often accomplish work faster and at less
cost than if undertaken by the Corps of Engineers, thus freeing
the Corps to expedite other aspects of the project. While
requests for credit have received favorable consideration in
this legislation and prior water resources legislation, the
Committee concluded that a general provision allowing credit
under specified conditions would minimize the need for future
project-specific provisions and, at the same time, assure
consistency in considering future proposals for credit. The
authority to approve such credit applies to any authorized
water resources development project, regardless of the date of
project authorization, provided the limitations of this section
are applied.
Several limitations are included in this provision to
assure compatibility with the project, control costs, and
safeguard the Federal interest. The credit amount cannot exceed
the non-Federal share of project costs; and allowing credit
does not obviate the normal requirement that the non-Federal
interest provides necessary lands, easements, rights-of-way and
dredged material disposal area. Furthermore, the value of the
credited amount cannot exceed the Secretary's determination of
actual and reasonable costs of materials or in-kind services
that are provided by the non-Federal interest. The non-Federal
interest may, however, provide such materials and services with
in-house capabilities or through consultants or other third-
party entities. Finally, while prior approval from the
Secretary is not required, the non-Federal interest shall not
be allowed credit for materials and services that are not
determined by the Secretary to be compatible with and necessary
for the project.
Section 2023. Technical assistance
Amends section 22 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1974, which authorizes planning assistance to States, to
authorize the Secretary, upon request of a governmental agency
or non-Federal interest, to provide a small amount of technical
assistance at Federal expense. This assistance may include
hydrologic, economic and environmental data and analyses and
may not exceed $5,000,000 a year. This authority will allow the
Corps of Engineers to participate with State and local
governments in watershed planning, instead of maintaining a
narrow focus on individual project areas. Of the amount
authorized, $2 million may be used for cooperative agreements
with nonprofit entities to provide assistance to rural and
small communities. The Committee notes that State rural water
associations have the capability to carry out these activities.
Assistance under this section to State rural water associations
may be combined with assistance provided under the Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 and other authorities
to maximize the ability to provide watershed technical
assistance to rural and small communities. In addition, this
section amends section 22 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1974 to increase the amount of assistance that may be
proved each year to a single State from $500,000 to $1,000,000,
and requires the Secretary to provide the Committee each year
with a report that describes the activities proposed to be
funded in each State under this section.
Under the authority of section 22 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1974, the Secretary may conduct a light
detection and ranging survey to provide topographic information
and geographical information system maps to local and regional
planning agencies and soil conservation services in the 29th
Congressional District of New York. Under this authority, the
Secretary also may develop a computer model of Hilo Bay,
Hawaii, to help the County of Hawaii identify alternatives for
improving water quality and circulation. Under this authority,
the Secretary also may provide assistance to the Assabet River
Consortium, which is composed of the communities of Shrewsbury,
Westborough, Northborough, Marlborough, Hudson, and Maynard,
Massachusetts, to determine the feasibility of remediating
sedimentary phosphorus in the Assabet River.
Section 2024. Coordination and scheduling of Federal, State, and local
actions
This section authorizes the Secretary to assist in
consolidation and streamlining of all agency environmental
assessments, project review, and issuance of permits for the
construction of non-Federal water supply, wastewater, flood
control, environmental restoration, and navigation projects
that require the Secretary's approval, if reimbursed by the
non-Federal interest. Under this section, if the Secretary is
responsible for reviewing and issuing an approval for a non-
Federal project, the Secretary may provide a coordinating role
to facilitate other necessary reviews and approvals. This
provision is based on the Corps' existing authority under
section 205 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 to
coordinate Federal, State, and local reviews for non-Federal
navigation projects.
Section 2025. Project streamlining
This section authorizes the Secretary to coordinate and
expedite environmental reviews of proposed water resources
projects with schedules and early dispute resolution to
streamline project studies. To achieve this, this section
directs the Secretary to develop and implement a coordinated
review process under which all environmental reviews, analyses,
opinions, permits, licenses, and approvals would be completed
within a period of time established by the Secretary, in
cooperation with the agencies participating in the coordinated
environmental review process. Participation by non-Federal
agencies is voluntary. If deadlines are not met, this section
requires the Secretary to notify the Committee, as well as the
Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, the
Council on Environmental Quality, and the agency, Indian tribe,
or non-Federal interest involved in the failure to meet the
deadline. This section also requires the participating agency,
Indian tribe, or non-Federal interest that has failed to meet a
deadline to prepare a report explaining the reasons for the
failure and what remedial actions will be taken. This report is
to be submitted to the Secretary, the Committee, the Committee
on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, and the Council
on Environmental Quality.
Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA),
the Corps of Engineers is the lead Federal agency for the water
resources projects that it carries out. As such, the Corps of
Engineers is responsible for defining the purpose and need for
the proposed water resources project and for determining which
alternatives for carrying out the project are reasonable and
may be reasonably anticipated to meet project purposes and
needs. As the lead Federal agency, the Corps of Engineers also
has authority under the NEPA regulations issued by the Council
on Environmental Quality to bring other Federal agencies with
jurisdiction over the project into the project development
process early, to resolve issues and disputes in a timely
fashion. Unfortunately, the Corps of Engineers does not
regularly use this authority and other Federal agencies often
do not raise objections until a project study is nearly
complete, leading to delay if the objections must be addressed
through reformulation of the project. The Committee intends
that the authority under this section to develop a coordinated
review process for water resources projects be carried out in a
fashion that is consistent with these NEPA authorities. Nothing
in this section preempts or interferes with any obligation of
the Corps of Engineers to comply with NEPA or the CEQ
regulations implementing NEPA, or any other practice of seeking
public comment, or any other power, jurisdiction, or authority
with respect to carrying out a water resources project.
Finally, this section directs the Chief of Engineers to
establish benchmarks for determining the length of time it
should take to complete various elements of a feasibility
study. The Committee recognizes that not all projects are
uniform and studies may take varying lengths of time, depending
on the scope and complexity. At the same time, much of what the
Corps of Engineers does is not novel, and each project should
not be developed as a completely new endeavor, as if no similar
project had ever been developed before. Benchmarks established
under this section are not binding, but should be used as a
management tool to encourage efficiency at all Corps districts.
Section 2026. Lakes program
Adds the following lakes to the list of lakes at which the
Secretary is authorized to carry out programs for the removal
of silt and other material under Section 602 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986.
(1) Kinkaid Lake, Jackson County, Illinois.
(2) McCarter Pond, Borough of Fairhaven, New Jersey.
(3) Rogers Pond, Franklin Township, New Jersey.
(4) Greenwood Lake, New York and New Jersey.
(5) Lake Rogers, Creedmoor, North Carolina.
(6) Lake Luxembourg, Pennsylvania.
Section 2027. Mitigation for fish and wildlife losses
This section amends section 906(d) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 to identify the elements to be included
in the specific mitigation plan that already is required under
that section. The specific mitigation plan must include a
description of the physical action to be undertaken. The plan
also must include a description of the lands or interests in
lands to be acquired for mitigation, and the basis for a
determination that such lands are available. This description
is not intended to be a description of the specific property
interests. The Committee expects the mitigation plan to
identify the quantity and type of lands needed, and include a
determination that lands of such quantity and type are
available for acquisition. The plan also must include the type,
amount, and characteristics of the habitat to be restored. The
plan must include success criteria based on replacement of lost
functions and values of the habitat, including hydrologic and
vegetative characteristics. Finally, if monitoring is necessary
to determination success of the mitigation, the plan must
include a plan for monitoring and to the extent practicable,
identification of the entities responsible for monitoring. As
monitoring is part of operation and maintenance of a project,
in most cases the entity responsible for any monitoring will be
the non-Federal sponsor. If such person is not identifiable at
the time the mitigation plan is prepared under this section,
such person must be identified in the partnership agreement
entered into with the non-Federal interest.
The Committee supports more specificity in Corps reporting
documents concerning expected mitigation efforts. Such
increased specificity will better inform the Congress, the non-
Federal sponsor, and the public as to planned mitigation
efforts and the likely success of these efforts. This section
also directs the Secretary to submit to Congress a report on
the status of mitigation concurrent with the submission of
reports on the status of project construction, as part of the
President's budget submission.
Section 2028. Cooperative agreements
Authorizes the Secretary to enter into cooperative
agreements with nonprofit organizations to carry out wetlands
restoration at authorized projects, limited to $1 million per
project and $5 million per year.
Section 2029. Project planning
Subsection (a) of this section establishes the Federal
objective for economic, ecosystem restoration, and multi-
purpose projects. For economic projects (flood control,
navigation, and hurricane and storm damage reduction) the
Federal objective is to maximize net national economic
development benefits, consistent with protecting the Nation's
environment. This objective is consistent with the Economic and
Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related
Land Resources Implementation Studies, issued by the Water
Resources Council in 1983.
For ecosystem restoration projects the Federal objective is
to maximize net national ecosystem restoration benefits
associated with the project, consistent with net national
economic development. This objective is consistent with
existing Corps policy for identifying a National Ecosystem
Restoration (NER) plan. The requirement that an NER plan be
consistent with net National economic development does not
change existing law under which the costs of ecosystem
restoration are deemed to be equal to the benefits. Rather,
this subsection codifies existing policy that requires the
Corps of Engineers to develop NER plans that are cost-effective
and justified incrementally such that additional increments
added to the plan increase the non-monetary values gained.
For multi-purpose projects, each purpose shall be evaluated
based on the relevant Federal objective, with the economic
element meeting the objective for economic projects and the
ecosystem restoration element meeting the objective for
ecosystem restoration projects.
Subsection (a) also authorizes the Secretary to select
project alternatives that do not maximize net benefits
associated with the primary project purpose if there is an
overriding reason based on other Federal, State, local or
international concerns. This flexibility also is found in the
Principles and Guidelines; however, the Secretary rarely uses
it. To encourage consideration of project alternatives that are
feasible but may not maximize net benefits, this subsection
specifically authorizes the Secretary to select an alternative
for an economic project that the Secretary determinations, and
the non-Federal interest agrees, provides greater ecosystem
restoration benefits. Similarly, this subsection specifically
authorizes the Secretary to select an alternative for an
ecosystem restoration project that the Secretary
determinations, and the non-Federal interest agrees, provides
greater economic development benefits.
Subsection (b) of this section authorizes the Secretary to
study and identify additional benefits when formulating a water
resources project beyond the primary project purpose. However,
the scope of the study must still be consistent with the study
authorization. In addition, the Secretary must obtain the
willing participation of a cost-sharing non-Federal interest
both for the expanded study, as well as any construction, if a
separable project or project element is subsequently
authorized. The Secretary may not require a non-Federal
interest to participate as a cost-sharing partner in the study
or construction of a separable project or project element as a
condition of participation in a water resources project.
Subsection (c) directs the Secretary to calculate residual
flood risks and upstream or downstream impacts when studying a
project for flood damage reduction, and requires equitable
treatment of structural and nonstructural alternatives. This
subsection also directs the Secretary to ensure that there is
no bias when evaluating structural and nonstructural
alternatives.
Section 2030. Independent peer review
The Committee has considered carefully the views of
interested parties on the application of peer review to Corps
of Engineers studies and projects. There have been many calls
for independent peer review as a means of ensuring that Federal
agency decision-making is based on sound science and economics.
These recommendations have been developed by agencies
themselves, by scientific organizations such as the National
Academy of Sciences, and by interest groups. In addition, the
Office of Management and Budget recently has placed an
increased emphasis on peer review.
On March 5, 2003, the Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment held a hearing on ``Independent Peer Review of
Products that Support Agency Decision-Making.'' The
Subcommittee received testimony from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, the Department of the Interior, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, a representative of the National
Research Council, a representative of waterways users (MARC
2000), a representative of the American Enterprise Institute, a
representative of American Rivers, and a representative of a
consulting group that conducts peer reviews. This testimony
disclosed that Federal agencies conduct peer reviews in
different ways and view it as a useful tool appropriate for
some, but not all circumstances. The testimony from other
stakeholders disclosed divergent views over whether peer
reviews of Corps of Engineers studies would be beneficial or
harmful to the process of developing water resources projects
and how such reviews should be carried out.
As a result, the Committee has proceeded cautiously on the
issue of peer review of Corps of Engineers studies and has
established in this section a peer review process that will
apply to certain studies that are initiated within 4 years
after the date of enactment of this section, as well as certain
ongoing studies that are early in the study process. After four
and a half years, the Chief of Engineers must submit a report
to Congress on the experience with peer reviews under this
section. This report will allow the Committee to evaluate the
merits of peer review based on actual information and
experience and determination if additional legislative action
should be taken.
Under the peer review process established under this
section, the Chief of Engineers must subject a project study to
independent peer review if the project has an estimated total
cost of more than $50,000,000, at the time of the completion of
the reconnaissance study. Some stakeholders have expressed
concern that a monetary threshold is an arbitrary basis for
determining what studies would benefit from peer review and
could create additional delays and costs by subjecting to peer
review studies that are routine or otherwise non-controversial.
Based on previous authorizations, the $50,000,000 cost
threshold may include as many as 30% of project studies.
However, a far smaller percentage of studies have been
controversial, and even fewer studies have been found to have
significant problems.
To address these concerns, this section authorizes the
Chief of Engineers to exempt certain studies from review.
Specifically, the Chief of Engineers may exclude a study from
review if the Chief determines that the study is for a project
that is not controversial; has no more than negligible adverse
impacts on scarce or unique cultural, historic, or tribal
resources; has no substantial adverse impacts on fish and
wildlife species and their habitat prior to implementation of
mitigation measures; and has, before implementation of
mitigation measures, no more than a negligible adverse impact
on a species listed as endangered or threatened species under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, or the critical habitat of
such species. By using the adjective ``substantial'' for
determining the scope of the adverse impact on fish and
wildlife species, the Committee intends to establish a
threshold that is higher than the existing threshold of
``significant'' impact used under the al Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 for determining whether an environmental impact
statement is necessary. By using the phrase ``more than a
negligible adverse impact'' for determining the scope of the
impact on an endangered species, the Committee intends to
establish a threshold that is higher than the existing
threshold of ``likely affect'' used under section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 to trigger consultation. In
addition, all studies for projects pursued under one of the
Corps of Engineers' continuing authorities may be excluded from
peer review.
Other stakeholders have expressed concern that a monetary
threshold may exclude a study from review that is below the
cost threshold, but may benefit from a peer review. To address
this issue, the Chief retains the discretion to subject any
study to independent peer review that the Chief determines is
controversial. In addition, the Governor of a State that would
be affected by a project, and the head of a Federal or State
agency that determines the project is likely to have a
significant adverse impact on environmental, cultural, or other
resources within the jurisdiction of the agency after the
implementation of mitigation, may request that a project study
be subject to peer review by an independent panel. A decision
by the Chief of Engineers whether to agree to a request to peer
review a study may be appealed to the Secretary of the Army.
The Committee heard concerns from some stakeholders that
peer reviews could have the unintended consequence of delaying
a project study, because of the time needed to address any
concerns raised by reviewers. To address this matter, this
section gives the Chief of Engineers substantial discretion
regarding when during the course of a study a peer review
should take place. The Chief may initiate the peer review at
any time following completion of the reconnaissance study for
the project. As a result, a peer review under this section may
be a review of the models and methods to be used to evaluate
project alternatives, rather than a review of a completed
analysis. If problems are discovered at this stage of the
study, they may be corrected before significant time and
resources are expended using flawed models or methods to
analyze project alternatives.
Generally, a review shall take no longer than 180 days and
shall not exceed $500,000, but the Chief is given the
discretion to allow a longer period of time for the review and
to waive the cost limitation. If a study is subject to review,
and no review has yet taken place when one of the following
milestones is reached, the Chief must consider whether to
initiate the peer review at that time: (1) when the Corps
identifies the conditions that will occur if the project is not
built (the without project conditions), (2) when the array of
alternatives to be considered is identified, and (3) when the
preferred alternative is identified. If a review has already
been initiated when one of these milestones is reached, the
Chief has no obligation to consider any additional peer review
although the Chief may choose to do so. No matter when it is
initiated, in all cases a peer review under this section must
be completed no later than 90 days after the date a draft study
is made available for public review.
Under this section a peer review panel must be established
by the National Academy of Sciences, a similar independent
scientific technical advisory organization, or a non-profit
organization that is free from conflicts of interest and has
experience in establishing and administering peer review
panels, pursuant to a contract with the Chief of Engineers. The
members of the panels must be independent, free from conflict
of interest, and must represent a balance of expertise suitable
for the review being conducted.
A panel shall review a study for technical and scientific
sufficiency and, consistent with the scope of the referral for
review and the stage of the study at which the review takes
place, shall assess the adequacy and acceptability of the
economic and environmental methods, models, and analyses used
in the study. The panel must provide timely written and oral
comments, as requested, and must submit a report to the Chief
of Engineers at the conclusion of the peer review. The Chief of
Engineers must respond to the peer review report and both the
report and the Chief's response must be made available to the
public and transmitted to Congress.
With this section, the Committee intends to provide the
Chief of Engineers with a tool that will improve the Corps'
planning process and result in a greater number of successful
water resources projects. The Committee does not intend peer
review to be used as a tool to delay or halt projects.
Section 2031. Training funds
Authorizes the Secretary to allow persons not employed by
the Corps of Engineers to participate in training courses
offered by the Corps of Engineers on a cost reimbursable basis.
Section 2032. Access to water resource data
Directs the Secretary to provide better public access to
water resource and water quality data and authorizes $5 million
a year to carry out the program.
Section 2033. Shore protection projects
Establishes a policy to promote beach nourishment to
prevent storm damage reduction and directs the Secretary to
give preference for shore protection projects where there has
already been Federal investment in storm damage reduction or a
need for mitigation of impacts from other Federal activities.
Section 2034. Ability to pay
This section amends section 103(m)(2) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 to direct the Secretary to
issue, by August 31, 2005, updated criteria for reducing the
non-Federal share of a project cost based on the inability of
the non-Federal interest to pay. The Committee notes that
section 202 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
changed the non-Federal share of the cost of flood damage
reduction projects from 25% to 35%. But, to address adverse
effects on disadvantaged communities, that section also
directed the Secretary to change its criteria for reducing a
non-Federal cost share based on an inability to pay within one
year. The statement of managers accompanying the Conference
Report for the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 stated,
``It is essential that prudent, yet meaningful ability-to-pay
procedures be implemented. This is especially important in
light of the increase in the non-Federal share of project costs
for future project authorizations that is provided for in
section 202.'' Over eight years have passed, and the Secretary
still has not met this obligation. The Committee is now
providing until August 31, 2005, to issue new criteria.
This section directs the Secretary to apply updated
ability-to-pay criteria to the following projects:
(1) St. Johns Bayou and New Madrid Floodway,
Missouri.
(2) Lower Rio Grande Basin, Texas.
(3) West Virginia and Pennsylvania flood control
projects under section 581 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996.
Section 2035. Aquatic ecosystem restoration
Amends section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1996 to increase the annual authorization for Federal
participation in aquatic ecosystem restoration projects from
$25,000,000 to $40,000,000. The Committee notes that the
Appropriations Committee has not appropriated the full $25
million that is currently authorized to be appropriated each
year. In years that the Corps has spent more than $25 million,
it has done so through the reprogramming of funds. Nonetheless,
the Committee is aware of a large demand for small ecosystem
restoration projects and, is providing increased authority.
Section 2036. Small flood damage reduction projects
Amends section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 to
increase the annual authorization for Federal participation in
small flood damage reduction projects from $50,000,000 to
$60,000,000. As with section 206 projects, the Committee notes
that the Appropriations Committee has not appropriated the full
$50 million that is currently authorized to be appropriated
each year. However, the Committee is aware of a large demand
for small flood control projects and, is providing increased
authority.
The Committee did not increase the annual authorization of
appropriations for other continuing authority programs. The
annual appropriations for continuing authorities other than the
section 206 and section 205 programs have not even come close
to their existing authorization ceilings. In addition, the
demand for new projects under other continuing authority
programs is less. The Corps of Engineers does have a backlog of
ongoing projects under section 1135 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 that it must manage, but the Committee
has not seen a large demand for new section 1135 projects.
Section 2037. Leasing authority
Amends section 4 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 to add
Indian tribes to the list of entities afforded priority by the
Corps of Engineers when leasing Corps property.
Section 2038. Cost estimates
Clarifies that estimates of Federal and non-Federal costs
are informational only and do not affect cost sharing
responsibilities established by law.
The Committee is concerned that the offices of the
Secretary and the Chief of Engineers have been misinterpreting
the effect of legislation stating the estimated Federal and
non-Federal costs of authorized projects. For certain projects,
the Committee is informed that the Administration interprets
that information as affecting the cost sharing requirements
associated with the specific project. That interpretation is
not correct.
The Federal and non-Federal responsibilities for cost
sharing for Corps of Engineers projects are as stated in
sections 101, 102, and 103 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986, including amendments to that Act, unless expressly
superseded by law for a specific project. In authorizing a
Corps of Engineers project, the Congress includes a total cost
that both serves as an authorization of appropriations and
provides a maximum project cost to which section 902 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 applies. The listing of
the estimated Federal and non-Federal costs are for
informational purposes only, have no substantive effect, and
should never be interpreted as affecting the cost-sharing
requirements applicable to the project based on project
purposes.
In the Statement of Managers accompanying the conference
report for the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, the
managers stated that the ``cost figures have been updated to
reflect the most current information available.'' The managers
also acknowledged that because the stated estimate of Federal
costs includes cost to be repaid over time, ``[i]n many cases,
the actual Federal share of costs may be somewhat lower than
the share reflected in the costs shown in the bill.'' The only
cost number that has substantive effect is the total cost, and
that number has substantive effect because of the application
of section 902, Maximum Cost of Projects.
Interpreting the stated estimates of the Federal and non-
Federal share as having a substantive effect on the cost-
sharing requirements of law would be inconsistent with the
fixed requirements established in the 1986 Act and its
subsequent amendments.
Section 2039. Studies and reports for water resources projects
Amends section 905 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1986 to clarify the type of reports required for projects
that must be submitted to Congress for authorization and
projects that are not submitted to Congress for authorization,
and the cost sharing associated with such reports.
Section 2040. Fiscal transparency report
Requires the Chief of Engineers to submit to the Committee
on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives annually a report on the expenditures for the
preceding fiscal year and current fiscal year, and the
expenditures necessary to maintain the same level of effort in
the following fiscal year. This report will include information
on all ongoing projects, not just those requested by the
President. The Committee believes that management of the civil
works program by both the Corps of Engineers and Congress will
improve if ongoing financial commitments of the Corps of
Engineers are made completely transparent.
TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS
Section 3001. King Cove Harbor, Alaska
Provides that the maximum Federal expenditure for the King
Cove Harbor navigation project shall be $8,000,000.
Section 3002. St. Paul Harbor, St. Paul Island, Alaska
Clarifies that all elements of the project for St. Paul
Harbor, St. Paul Island, Alaska are inseparable elements of a
single project and restates the non-Federal cost share
established for this project, based on existing authorizations.
Section 3003. Sitka, Alaska
Modifies the Thompson Harbor, Sitka, Alaska, element of the
project for navigation, Southeast Alaska Harbors of Refuge, to
direct the Secretary to correct design deficiencies at a total
Federal cost of $6,300,000.
Section 3004. Tatilek, Alaska
Provides that the maximum Federal expenditure for the
Tatilek navigation project shall be $10,000,000.
Section 3005. Grand Prairie Region and Bayou Meto Basin, Arkansas
Directs the Secretary to review the general reevaluation
report for the Bayou Meto basin element of the project for
Grand Prairie Region and Bayou Meto Basin, Arkansas, to
determine if the project is feasible.
Section 3006. Osceola Harbor, Arkansas
Modifies the project for navigation, Osceola Harbor,
Arkansas, to allow non-federal participants to construct a
mooring facility within the confines of the navigation project.
The Secretary is to maintain the general navigation features of
the project at a bottom width of 250 feet.
Section 3007. Pine Mountain Dam, Arkansas
Modifies the project for flood control, Lee Creek, Arkansas
and Oklahoma, to add environmental restoration as a project
purpose and to direct the Secretary to finance the non-Federal
share of the cost over a 30-year period in accordance with
section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986.
Section 3008. Saint Francis Basin, Arkansas
Modifies the project for flood control, Saint Francis
Basin, Missouri and Arkansas, to authorize the Secretary to
construct improvements constituting a culvert through the
levee.
Section 3009. American River Watershed, California
Modifies the project for flood damage reduction, American
River Watershed, California, to clarify that the without
project conditions are those in place at the time the project
was developed and recommended for authorization and to prevent
the Corps of Engineers from changing the allocation of costs
between dam safety and flood damage reduction.
Section 3010. Compton Creek, California
Modifies the project for flood control, Los Angeles
Drainage Areas, California, to add environmental restoration
and recreation as a project purpose.
Section 3011. Grayson Creek/Murderer's Creek, California
Modifies the project for aquatic ecosystem restoration,
Grayson Creek/Murderer's Creek, California, to direct the
Secretary to provide credit for the cost of work performed by
the non-Federal interest before the project cooperation
agreement is signed, if an integral part of the project. Also
allows the Secretary to consider National ecosystem restoration
benefits when determining whether the project is justified.
Section 3012. Hamilton Airfield, California
Modifies the project for environmental restoration,
Hamilton Airfield, California, to include Bel Marin Keys, Unit
V in accordance with the Report of the Chief of Engineers dated
July 19, 2004. As modified, the total cost of the project is
now $205,226,000. Implementation of Bel Marin Keys, Unit V,
will produce 526 average annual habitat units, bringing the
total for both project components to 866 average annual habitat
units. The modified project also will provide annual economic
benefits of $568,000 for recreation use and will provide
disposal capacity for 24.4 million cubic yards of dredged
material. The estimated total average annual cost of the new,
expanded, project is $15,335,000, applying a discount rate of
5.375, over a 50-year project life.
Section 3013. John F. Baldwin Ship Channel and Stockton Ship Channel,
California
Modifies the project for navigation, John F. Baldwin Ship
Channel and Stockton Ship Channel, California, to allow the
non-Federal share of the cost of the project to be provided in
the form of in-kind services and to direct the Secretary to
provide credit for the cost of planning and design work
performed by the non-Federal interest, if an integral part of
the project.
Section 3014. Kaweah River, California
Modifies the project for flood control, Terminus Dam,
Kaweah River, California, to direct the Secretary to provide
credit for or reimbursement of the non-Federal share of the
cost of the project, not to exceed $800,000, for costs of work
performed by the non-Federal interests on or after the date of
the project partnership agreement if the Secretary determines
the work to be integral to the project.
Section 3015. Larkspur Ferry Channel, Larkspur, California
Modifies the project for navigation, Larkspur Ferry
Channel, California, to direct the Secretary to prepare a
reevaluation report to determine whether or not maintenance of
the project is justified, and carry out such maintenance, if
justified.
Section 3016. Llagas Creek, California
Modifies the project for flood damage reduction, Llagas
Creek, California, to authorize the Secretary to carry out a
project at a total cost of $105,000.000.
Section 3017. Los Angeles Harbor, California
Modifies the project for navigation, Los Angeles Harbor,
Los Angeles, California, to authorize the Secretary to carry
out the project at a total cost of $222,000,000.
Section 3018. Magpie Creek, California
Modifies the project for flood control, Magpie Creek,
California, to direct the Secretary to apply the cost-sharing
applicable to non-structural projects, in accordance with
section 103(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986,
to the non-structural portion of the project. This section also
directs the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of
the cost of the project the cost of the planning and design
work carried out by the non-Federal interest before the project
partnership agreement if the Secretary determines the work to
be integral to the project.
Section 3019. Pacific Flyway Center, Sacramento, California
Modifies the project for aquatic ecosystem restoration,
Pacific Flyway Center, Sacramento, California, to authorize the
Secretary to expend $2,000,000 to enhance public access to the
project.
Section 3020. Pinole Creek, California
Modifies the project for improvement of the quality of the
environment, Pinole Creek Phase I, California, to direct the
Secretary to provide credit for work performed by the non-
Federal interests, if an integral part of the project.
Section 3021. Prado Dam, California
Ensures that the agreement between the Corps of Engineers
and the Orange County Water District, which requires the
District to pay specific costs associated with operating and
maintaining Prado Dam for seasonal water conservation, shall
remain in effect after reconfiguration of the Dam for volumes
of water up to the maximum amount provided for water
conservation prior to the reconfiguration of the Dam.
Section 3022. Sacramento and American Rivers Flood Control, California
Directs the Secretary to determine the amount paid by the
Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) towards the
Federal share of the Natomas levee flood damage reduction
project, and to credit those excess payments against the non-
Federal share of authorized flood damage reduction projects for
which SAFCA is the non-Federal interest.
Section 3023. Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel, California
Modifies the project for navigation, Sacramento Deep Water
Ship Channel, California, to direct the Secretary to provide
credit for work performed by the non-Federal interests before
the date of the partnership agreement, if an integral part of
the project.
Section 3024. Sacramento River, Glenn-Colusa, California
Modifies the project for flood control, Sacramento River,
Glenn-Colusa, California, to direct the Secretary to provide
the non-Federal interest a credit of up to $4,000,000 toward
the non-Federal share of the cost of the project for costs
incurred by the non-Federal interest, if integral to the
project.
Section 3025. Santa Cruz Harbor, California
Modifies the project for navigation, Santa Cruz Harbor,
California, to direct the Secretary to renegotiate the
memorandum of agreement with the non-federal interest to
increase the annual payment to reflect the updated cost of
operation and maintenance that is the Federal and non-Federal
share as provided by law.
Section 3026. Seven Oaks Dam, California
Modifies the project for flood control, Santa Ana Mainstem
to direct the Secretary to conduct a study for the reallocation
of water storage at the Seven Oaks Dam, California, for water
conservation.
Section 3027. Upper Guadalupe River, California
Modifies the project for flood damage reduction and
recreation, Upper Guadalupe River, California, to ensure that
the project is carried out as authorized by Congress.
Section 3028. Walnut Creek Channel, California
Modifies the project for aquatic ecosystem restoration,
Walnut Creek Channel, California, to direct the Secretary to
provide credit for the cost of work performed by the non-
Federal interest, if an integral part of the project, and to
authorize the Secretary to consider National ecosystem
restoration benefits in determining the Federal interest.
Section 3029. Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase I, California
Modifies the project for improvement of the quality of the
environment, Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase I, California, to
direct the Secretary to provide credit for the cost of work
performed by the non-Federal interest, if an integral part of
the project.
Section 3030. Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase II, California
Modifies the project for aquatic ecosystem restoration,
Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase II, California, to direct the
Secretary to provide credit for the cost of work performed by
the non-Federal interest, if an integral part of the project,
and to authorize the Secretary to consider National ecosystem
restoration benefits in determining the Federal interest.
Section 3031. Yuba River Basin Project, California
Modifies the project for flood damage reduction, Yuba River
Basin, California, to increase the authorization for
construction to $107,700,000, and to credit towards the non-
Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of work
carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of the
partnership agreement, if integral to the project.
Section 3032. Intracoastal Waterway, Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay,
Delaware and Maryland
Modifies the project for navigation, Intracoastal Waterway,
Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay, Delaware and Maryland, to
direct the Secretary to add recreation as a project purpose.
Section 3033. Brevard County, Florida
Modifies the project for shoreline protection, Brevard
County, Florida, to establish the reach of the project,
correcting an error in the report of the Chief of Engineers for
this project. This section also directs the Secretary to
expedite a report identifying the level of damage to the
project caused by a Federal navigation project, and to
authorize credit for costs incurred by the non-Federal interest
to respond to such damages.
Section 3034. Broward County and Hillsboro Inlet, Florida
Modifies the project for shore protection, Broward County
and Hillsboro Inlet, Florida, to direct the Secretary to
provide credit for the removal of derelict structures carried
out by the non-Federal interest, if integral to the project.
Section 3035. Canaveral Harbor, Florida
Authorizes the Secretary to construct a sediment trap in
carrying out a project for navigation, Canaveral Harbor,
Florida.
Section 3036. Gasparilla and Estero Islands, Florida
Amends the project for shore protection, Gasparilla and
Estero Islands, Florida, to authorize credit for the cost of
work performed by the non-Federal interest that is integral to
the project.
Section 3037. Jacksonville Harbor, Florida
Amends the project for navigation, Jacksonville Harbor,
Florida to authorize the Secretary to expand the size of the
project, and increase the authorization ceiling to $14,658,000
in accordance with the Report of the Chief of Engineers dated
July 22, 2003. In addition, the Secretary is directed to
determine the non-Federal share of the cost of preparing the
general reevaluation report for this project based on
construction cost-sharing. As a general rule, made express in
section 2039 of this bill, cost-sharing for all studies should
be 50%. However, in this case, the Jacksonville District made
erroneous commitments to the non-Federal interest that the non-
Federal interest relied upon to its detriment, and subsections
(b) and (c) of this section ensure that those commitments are
met. In the future, the Committee expects the Jacksonville
District to apply correct cost-sharing to project studies.
Section 3038. Lido Key Beach, Sarasota, Florida
Amends the project for shore protection, Lido Key Beach,
Sarasota, Florida, to increase the authorization ceiling to
$14,809,000. This section also directs the Secretary to allow
the non-Federal interest to construct the project in accordance
with section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1992.
Section 3039. Miami Harbor, Florida
Authorizes the project for navigation, Miami Harbor
Channel, Florida and modifies section 315 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1999, to include as project
purpose mitigation for dredging outside the authorized channel.
The Secretary is directed to provide credit for the cost of
work performed by the non-Federal interest, if integral to the
project.
Section 3040. Peanut Island, Florida
Authorizes the Secretary to construct the project for
improvement of the quality of environment, Peanut Island,
Florida, at a total Federal cost of $9,750,000.
Section 3041. Tampa Harbor-Big Bend Channel, Florida
Modifies the project for navigation, Tampa Harbor-Big Bend
Channel, Florida, to direct the Secretary to provide credit for
the cost of work performed by the non-Federal interest, if an
integral part of the project.
Section 3042. Tampa Harbor Cut B, Florida
Modifies the project for navigation, Tampa Harbor-Cut B,
Florida, to authorize the Secretary to construct passing lanes
if such improvements are necessary for navigation safety. In
addition, the Secretary is directed to determine the non-
Federal share of the cost of preparing the general reevaluation
report for this project based on construction cost-sharing. As
a general rule, made express in section 2039 of this bill,
cost-sharing for all studies should be 50%. However, in this
case, the Jacksonville District made erroneous commitments to
the non-Federal interest that the non-Federal interest relied
upon to its detriment, and subsections (b) and (c) ensure that
those commitments are met. In the future, the Committee expects
the Jacksonville District to apply correct cost-sharing to
project studies.
Section 3043. Allatoona Lake, Georgia
Authorizes the Secretary to participate in a land exchange
at Allatoona Lake, Georgia, with willing sellers at fair market
value for lands needed for wildlife management and protection
of water quality.
Section 3044. Latham River, Glynn County, Georgia
Authorizes the Secretary to construct the project for
improvement of the quality of environment, Latham River, Glynn
County, Georgia, under section 1135 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 at a total Federal cost of $6,175,000.
Section 3045. Dworshak Dam and Reservoir Improvements, Idaho
Authorizes the Secretary to carry out improvements for
recreation facilities at Dworshak Dam and Reservoir, North
Fork, Clearwater River, Idaho, to accommodate lower pool
levels.
Section 3046. Beardstown Community Boat Harbor, Beardstown, Illinois
Modifies the project for navigation, Muscooten Bay,
Illinois River, Beardstown, Illinois, to direct the Secretary
to enter into a partnership agreement with the City of
Beardstown Community Park District to change the identity of
the non-Federal sponsor and, upon execution of the new
partnership agreement, to authorize the Secretary to dredge the
navigation channel annually.
Section 3047. Cache River Levee, Illinois
Modifies the Cache River Levee portion of the project for
flood control, Cache River, Illinois, to add environmental
restoration as a project purpose.
Section 3048. Chicago River, Illinois
Modifies the width of the project for navigation, North
Branch Canal portion of the Chicago River, Illinois, from 100
feet downstream of Halsted Street to 100 feet upstream of
Division Street Bridge, to be no wider than 66 feet.
Section 3049. Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Illinois
Directs the Secretary to upgrade and make permanent an
existing dispersal barrier to prevent the migration of Asian
Carp from the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal to Lake Michigan,
at Federal expense. Provides that operation and maintenance of
both the existing dispersal barrier and the new dispersal
barrier currently under construction be a Federal
responsibility. Directs the Secretary to conduct a study of the
feasibility of options and technologies to prevent the spread
of aquatic species between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi
River Basin through the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal and
other pathways.
Section 3050. Emiquon, Illinois
Increases the authorization for Federal participation in
the project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, being carried
out under section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996, to $7,500,000. Ensures that nothing affects the
eligibility of the project for emergency repairs.
Section 3051. LaSalle, Illinois
Directs the Secretary to give priority to environmental
dredging in the vicinity of LaSalle, Illinois, on the Illinois
and Michigan Canal.
Section 3052. Spunky Bottoms, Illinois
Modifies the project for flood control, Spunky Bottoms,
Illinois, to add environmental restoration as a project
purpose; increase the authorized Federal participation in the
cost of the project for the improvement of the environment
being carried out under section 1135 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 to $7,500,000; and provide that these
changes do not affect eligibility of the project for emergency
repairs.
Section 3053. Fort Wayne and Vicinity, Indiana
Modifies the project for flood control, Fort Wayne, St.
Mary's and Maumee Rivers, Indiana, to direct the Secretary to
provide a 100-year flood protection at the Berry-Thieme, Park-
Thompson, Woodhurst, and Tillman sites along the St. Mary's
River, Fort Wayne and vicinity, at a total cost of $5,300,000.
Also allows the non-Federal interest to increase it
participation in the project, in accordance with section 903(c)
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, if necessary to
implement the project.
Section 3054. Koontz Lake, Indiana
Modifies the project for aquatic ecosystem restoration,
Koontz Lake, Indiana, to direct the Secretary to seek to reduce
the cost of the project by using innovative technologies and
other cost reduction measures.
Section 3055. Little Calumet River, Indiana
Modifies the project for flood control, Little Calumet
River, Indiana, to authorize the Secretary to complete the
project in accordance with the post authorization change report
dated August 2000, at a total cost of $198,000,000.
Section 3056. White River, Indiana
Modifies the project for flood control, Indianapolis on the
West Fork of White River, Indiana, to authorize the Secretary
to carry out the Fall Creek Reach feature, at a total cost of
$28,545,000, and to provide credit for work carried out by the
non-Federal interest, if integral to the project.
Section 3057. Des Moines River and Greenbelt, Iowa
Modifies the Des Moines Recreational River and Greenbelt,
Iowa, project to include public access and enhanced recreation,
at a Federal cost of $3,000,000.
Section 3058. Prestonsburg, Kentucky
Directs the Secretary to provide 100-year level of flood
protection for the city of Prestonsburg at the Prestonsburg,
Kentucky, element of the project for flood control, Levisa and
Tug Fork of the Big Sandy and Cumberland River, West Virginia,
Virginia, and Kentucky.
Section 3059. Amite River and Tributaries, Louisiana, East Baton Rouge
Parish Watershed
Modifies the project for flood damage reduction and
recreation, Amite River and Tributaries, Louisiana, East Baton
Rouge Parish Watershed, to direct the Secretary to carry out
the project with cost-sharing in accordance with section 103(a)
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, as in effect on
October 11, 1996. This section also increases the authorization
for the project to $178,000,000, and directs the Secretary to
provide credit for work carried out by the non-Federal
interest, if integral to the project.
Section 3060. Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana
Modifies the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System project to
authorize the Secretary to construct a Type A Regional Visitor
Center.
Section 3061. Bayou Plaquemine, Louisiana
Modifies the project for the quality of the environment,
Bayou Plaquemine, Louisiana, to direct the Secretary to provide
credit for work performed by the non-Federal interests before
the project cooperation agreement, if an integral part of the
project.
Section 3062. Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Louisiana
Modifies the public access feature of the Atchafalaya Basin
Floodway System project to authorize the Secretary to purchase
an additional 20,000 acres of land from willing sellers at a
total cost of $4,000,000.
Section 3063. J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to
Shreveport, Louisiana
Modifies the project for mitigation of fish and wildlife
losses, J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to
Shreveport, Louisiana, to authorize the purchase and
reforesting of lands, which have been cleared or converted to
agricultural uses and to incorporate current wildlife and
forestry management measures.
Section 3064. Mississippi Delta Region, Louisiana
Modifies the project for hurricane-flood protection on Lake
Pontchartrain, Louisiana, to direct the Secretary to provide
credit for costs incurred in relocating oyster beds in the
Davis Pond project area, if integral to the project.
Section 3065. New Orleans to Venice, Louisiana
Authorizes the Secretary to carry out work on the St. Jude
to City Price, Upper Reach A back levee, at a 70% Federal cost
share, consistent with the rest of the project.
Section 3066. West Bank of the Mississippi River (East of Harvey
Canal), Louisiana
Makes technical corrections to the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 modification of the project to prevent
flood damage-hurricane damage reduction, West Bank of the
Mississippi River (East of Harvey Canal), Louisiana.
Section 3067. Camp Ellis, Saco, Maine
Increases the authorization of Federal funds for the
project being carried out under section 111 of the River and
Harbor Act of 1968 to $25,000,000.
Section 3068. Union River, Maine
Modifies the project for navigation, Union River, Maine, to
redesignate a portion of the navigation channel as an anchorage
area.
Section 3069. Gwynns Falls Watershed, Baltimore, Maryland
Directs the Secretary to carry out the project for
ecosystem restoration, Gwynns Falls Watershed, Maryland in
accordance with the April 2004 Baltimore Metropolitan Water
Resources Gwynns Falls Watershed Study-Draft Feasibility Report
and Integrated Environmental Assessment prepared by the Corps
of Engineers and the City of Baltimore, Maryland. This report
shall be considered consistent with and in compliance with the
consent decree entered into between the United States and the
city of Baltimore on April 26, 2002.
Section 3070. Boston Harbor, Massachusetts
Prohibits the expenditure of funds for the dredging of
Chelsea Creek until the City of Boston and the U.S. Coast Guard
complete the replacement of the Chelsea Street Bridge.
Section 3071. Detroit River Shoreline, Detroit, Michigan
Modifies the project for emergency streambank and shoreline
protection, Detroit River Shoreline, Detroit, Michigan, to
include measures to enhance public access at a maximum Federal
expenditure of $3,000,000.
Section 3072. St. Joseph Harbor, Michigan
Directs the Secretary to expedite development of a dredged
material management plan for the project for navigation, St.
Joseph Harbor, Michigan.
Section 3073. Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan
Directs the Secretary to construct, at Federal expense, a
second lock at Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan, of the same
dimensions as the existing lock, in accordance with a limited
reevaluation report dated February 2004, at a total cost of
$341,714,000.
Section 3074. Ada, Minnesota
Modifies the project for flood damage reduction, Wild Rice
River, Minnesota, to authorize the Secretary to consider
National ecosystem restoration benefits; to exclude
consideration of an emergency levee as a pre-project condition
and to allow the local sponsor to contribute a larger non-
Federal share under section 903(c) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986, if necessary to implement the project.
Section 3075. Duluth Harbor, McQuade Road, Minnesota
Modifies the project for navigation, Duluth Harbor, McQuade
Road, Minnesota, to authorize the Secretary to provide access
and recreational facilities as described in the Detailed
Project Report and Environmental Assessment dated August 1999,
at a maximum Federal cost of $5,000,000. Also directs the
Secretary to provide credit for work performed by the non-
Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement
for the project, if integral to the project.
Section 3076. Grand Portage Harbor, Minnesota
Directs the Secretary to provide the non-Federal interest
credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project
for work the Secretary determines is integral to the project.
Section 3077. Granite Falls, Minnesota
Modifies the project for flood damage reduction, Granite
Falls, Minnesota, to increase the maximum Federal expenditure
to $8,000,000; authorize the non-Federal interest to contribute
a larger share, to the extent necessary to implement the
project; and authorize credit toward the non-Federal share for
work carried out by the non-Federal interest that the Secretary
determines is integral to the project.
Section 3078. Knife River Harbor, Minnesota
Directs the Secretary to develop a final design and prepare
a plan to correct conditions at the Knife River Harbor,
Minnesota.
Section 3079. Red Lake River, Minnesota
Modifies the project for flood damage reduction, Red Lake
River, Minnesota, to increase the project authorization to
$17,000,000.
Section 3080. Silver Bay, Minnesota
Modifies the project for navigation, Silver Bay, Minnesota,
to include operation and maintenance of the general navigation
facilities as a Federal responsibility.
Section 3081. Taconite Harbor, Minnesota
Modifies the project for navigation, Taconite Harbor,
Minnesota, to include operation and maintenance of the general
navigation facilities as a Federal responsibility.
Section 3082. Two Harbors, Minnesota
Modifies the project for navigation, Two Harbors,
Minnesota, to include construction of a dredged material
disposal facility at a Federal cost not to exceed $5,000,000.
Section 3083. Deer Island, Harrison County, Mississippi
Modifies the project for aquatic ecosystem restoration,
Deer Island, Mississippi, to authorize the non-Federal share to
be provided in the form of in-kind contributions.
Section 3084. Pearl River Basin, Mississippi
Directs the Secretary to recommend the locally preferred
plan for a project for flood damage reduction, Pearl River
Basin, if the locally preferred plan provides equal or greater
flood damage reduction benefits, but to establish the Federal
share of the project based on the Federal share of the plan
that maximizes National economic development benefits.
Section 3085. Festus and Crystal City, Missouri
Amends section 102(b) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1999 to increase the authorization to $12,000,000.
Section 3086. Monarch-Chesterfield, Missouri
Modifies the project for flood damage reduction, Monarch-
Chesterfield, Missouri, to direct the Secretary to provide
credit for work performed by the non-Federal interests before
the project cooperation agreement, if an integral part of the
project.
Section 3087. River Des Peres, Missouri
Modifies the project for flood control, River Des Peres,
Missouri, to direct the Secretary to provide credit for work
performed by the non-Federal interests before the project
cooperation agreement, if an integral part of the project.
Section 3088. Antelope Creek, Lincoln, Nebraska
Modifies the project for flood damage reduction, Antelope
Creek, Lincoln, Nebraska, to direct the Secretary to provide
credit for the cost of work performed by the non-Federal
interest, if an integral part of the project. Directs the
Secretary to accept advance funds from the non-Federal interest
as needed to carry out the project.
Section 3089. Sand Creek Watershed, Wahoo, Nebraska
Modifies the project for ecosystem restoration and flood
damage reduction, Sand Creek Watershed, Wahoo, Nebraska, to
direct the Secretary to provide credit or reimbursement toward
the non-Federal share of the cost of the project for work that
is integral to the project, and to direct the Secretary to
accept advance funds from the non-Federal interest as needed to
maintain the project schedule.
Section 3090. Lower Cape May Meadows, Cape May Point, New Jersey
Modifies the project for navigation mitigation, ecosystem
restoration, shore protection, and hurricane and storm damage
reduction, Lower Cape May Meadows, Cape May Point, New Jersey,
to incorporate the project for shore line erosion control, Cape
May Point, New Jersey, if feasible.
Section 3091. Passaic River Basin Flood Management, New Jersey
Modifies the project for flood control, Passaic River, New
Jersey and New York, to direct the Secretary to include the
benefits and costs of preserving natural flood storage in any
future economic analysis of the project.
Section 3092. Buffalo Harbor, New York
Modifies the project for navigation, Buffalo Harbor, New
York to include measures to enhance public access at a Federal
cost of $500,000.
Section 3093. Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York
Modifies the project for shoreline protection, Orchard
Beach, Bronx, New York, to increase the project authorization
to $20,000,000.
Section 3094. Port of New York and New Jersey, New York and New Jersey
Modifies the project for navigation, Port of New York and
New Jersey, New York and New Jersey, to authorize the Secretary
to allow the non-Federal interest to construct a temporary
dredged material disposal facility; to require the potential
locations of sites be submitted to Congress; to require 70% of
dredged material generated by the project to be beneficially
reused; and to direct the Secretary to provide credit for the
cost of the temporary storage facility, if integral to the
project.
Section 3095. New York State Canal System
Modifies section 553 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1996 to change the definition of the New York State Canal
System.
Section 3096. Lower Girard Lake Dam, Ohio
Amends section 507(1) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1999, to increase the authorization to $6,000,000.
Section 3097. Mahoning River, Ohio
Directs the Secretary to carry out a project for
environmental dredging, Mahoning River, Ohio, and to provide
credit for work performed by the non-Federal interests before
the project cooperation agreement, if an integral part of the
project.
Section 3098. Arcadia Lake, Oklahoma
Clarifies that payments made for water storage by the City
of Arcadia, Oklahoma, satisfy its obligations under its
contract with the Corps of Engineers.
Section 3099. Waurika Lake, Oklahoma
Prohibits unilateral changes to the June 3, 1986, agreement
between the Waurika Project Master Conservancy District and the
United States, regarding payments for water storage.
Section 3100. Willamette River Temperature Control, McKenzie Subbasin,
Oregon
Modifies the project for environmental restoration,
Willamette River Temperature Control, McKenzie Subbasin,
Oregon, to direct the Secretary to compensate small businesses
for losses attributable to unanticipated sedimentation
resulting from project implementation.
Section 3101. Delaware River, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware
Authorizes the Secretary to remove marine debris from the
project for navigation, Delaware River, Pennsylvania, New
Jersey, and Delaware, Philadelphia to the Sea.
Section 3102. Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania
Authorizes the Secretary to take such action as may be
necessary to prevent shoreline erosion to protect recreational
facilities located south of Pennsylvania Route 994 on the east
shore of Raystown Lake.
Section 3103. Sheraden Park Stream and Chartiers Creek, Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania
Modifies the project for aquatic ecosystem restoration,
Sheraden Park Stream and Chartiers Creek, Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania, to direct the Secretary to credit $400,000 for
the cost of work performed by the non-Federal interest
determined by the Secretary to be an integral part of the
project.
Section 3104. Solomon's Creek, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania
Modifies the project for flood control, Wyoming Valley,
Pennsylvania, to include as a project element the project for
flood control, Solomon's Creek, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.
Section 3105. South Central Pennsylvania
Modifies the geographic scope of section 313 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1992, and increases the
authorization of appropriations to $200,000,000.
Section 3106. Wyoming Valley, Pennsylvania
Modifies the project for flood control, Wyoming Valley,
Pennsylvania, to direct the Secretary to coordinate with non-
Federal interests to review options for increased public
access.
Section 3107. Cedar Bayou, Texas
Modifies the project for navigation, Cedar Bayou, Texas, to
authorize credit for planning and design work carried out by
the non-Federal interest, if integral to the project.
Section 3108. Freeport Harbor, Texas
Modifies the project for navigation, Freeport Harbor,
Texas, to direct the Secretary to credit the cost of work by
the non-Federal interest, performed before the project
cooperation agreement, if the Secretary determines it to be an
integral part of the project, and to remove the sunken Corps of
Engineers vessel ``COMSTOCK'' at Federal expense.
Section 3109. Johnson Creek, Arlington, Texas
Modifies the project for flood damage reduction, Johnson
Creek, Arlington, Texas, to direct the Secretary to construct
the project at a total cost of $29,717,000.
Section 3110. Lake Kemp, Texas
Directs the Secretary to forgo removing improvements from
Lake Kemp before January 1, 2020, or the date ownership of the
improvement is transferred, whichever is earlier.
Section 3111. Lower Rio Grande Basin, Texas
Modifies the project for flood control, Lower Rio Grande
Basin, Texas, to direct the Secretary to provide credit for the
cost of work performed by the non-Federal interest determined
by the Secretary to be an integral part of the project and, in
calculating the non-Federal share, to make a determination on
the non-Federal interest's ability to pay.
Section 3112. North Padre Island, Corpus Christi Bay, Texas
Modifies the project for ecosystem restoration and storm
damage reduction, North Padre Island, Corpus Christi Bay,
Texas, to include recreation as a project purpose.
Section 3113. Pat Mayse Lake, Texas
Directs the Secretary to accept payment in full of the
monies owed for water supply storage at Pat Mayse Lake, Texas.
Section 3114. Proctor Lake, Texas
Authorizes the Secretary to convert flowage easements to
fee simple title for the flood control project at Proctor Lake,
Texas, and purchase properties and pay relocation assistance
benefits to qualified landowners.
Section 3115. San Antonio Channel, San Antonio, Texas
Modifies the project for flood control, San Antonio
Channel, San Antonio, Texas, to direct the Secretary to provide
credit for the cost of work performed by the non-Federal
interest determined by the Secretary to be an integral part of
the project.
Section 3116. James River, Virginia
Modifies the project for navigation, James River, Virginia,
to authorize a turning basin adjacent to the Richmond Deepwater
Terminal, if necessary for navigation safety.
Section 3117. Lee, Russell, Scott, Smyth, Tazewell, and Wise Counties,
Virginia
Modifies the project for flood control, Levisa and Tug
Forks of the Big Sandy River and Upper Cumberland River, to
direct the Secretary to determine the ability of the non-
Federal interest to pay the non-Federal share of the cost of
the project for certain counties in southwest Virginia.
Section 3118. Tangier Island Seawall, Virginia
Directs the Secretary to design and construct a seawall at
Tangier Island, Virginia, at a total cost of $3,000,000.
Section 3119. Duwamish/Green, Washington
Modifies the project for ecosystem restoration, Duwamish/
Green, Washington, to provide credit for work carried out by
the non-Federal interest, if integral to the project, and to
authorize the payment of the non-Federal share through in-kind
services and materials.
Section 3120. Yakima River, Port of Sunnyside, Washington
Modifies the project for aquatic ecosystem restoration,
Yakima River, Port of Sunnyside, Washington, to direct the
Secretary to provide credit for the cost of work performed by
the non-Federal interest determined by the Secretary to be an
integral part of the project.
Section 3121. Greenbrier River Basin, West Virginia
Amends section 579(c) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996 to increase the authorization for a flood
protection program for the Greenbrier River Basin, West
Virginia, to $99,000,000.
Section 3122. Lesage/Greenbottom Swamp, West Virginia
Directs the Secretary to ensure the preservation and
restoration of ``Jenkins House'' and associated structures
located within the Lesage/Greenbottom Swamp, West Virginia.
Section 3123. Northern West Virginia
Authorizes the Secretary to carry out the projects at
Parkersburg, Weirton, and Erickson/Wood County, West Virginia,
following the issuance of a report from the Chief of Engineers.
Section 3124. Manitowoc Harbor, Wisconsin
Modifies the project for navigation, Manitowoc Harbor,
Wisconsin, to direct the Secretary to deepen the upstream reach
of the navigation channel from 12 feet to 18 feet, at a total
cost of $300,000.
Section 3125. Mississippi River Headwaters Reservoirs
Changes the levels for the operation of the Mississippi
River Headwaters reservoirs and authorizes the Secretary to
operate the reservoirs below the minimum or above the maximum
water levels established by the Water Resources Development Act
of 1988, in accordance with water regulation control manuals
that are transmitted to Congress.
Section 3126. Continuation of Project Authorizations
Continues the authorization for an additional 5 years the
following projects: (1) the project for flood control, Agana
River, Guam and (2) the project for navigation, Fall River
Harbor, Massachusetts.
Section 3127. Project Reauthorizations
Renews the authorizations for the projects for navigation
in Menominee Harbor and River, Michigan and Wisconsin, and the
south part of the outer harbor, Manitowoc Harbor, Wisconsin,
that were deauthorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor
Act of 1962.
Section 3128. Project Deauthorizations
Deauthorizes a portion of the following projects for
navigation, Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut; Mystic River,
Connecticut; Falmouth Harbor, Massachusetts; Island End River,
Massachusetts; City Waterway, Tacoma, Washington; Anchorage
Area, New London Harbor, Connecticut; Southport Harbor,
Fairfield, Connecticut; Mystic River, Massachusetts; and Green
Bay Harbor, Green Bay, Wisconsin.
Additional deauthorizations include the features of the
following projects that have never been constructed:
(1) Project for flood control, Cache Creek Basin,
Clear Lake Outlet Channel, California.
(2) Project for flood control, Atascadero Creek and
tributaries of Goleta, California.
(3) Project for flood control, Central and Southern
Florida Project, Shingle Creek Basin, Florida.
(4) Project for flood control, Middle Wabash,
Greenfield Bayou, Indiana.
(5) Project for flood damage reduction, Lake George,
Hobart, Indiana.
(6) Project for flood control, Green Bay Levee and
Drainage District No.2, Iowa.
(7) Project for flood control, Hazard, Kentucky.
(8) Project for flood control, recreation portion,
Taylorsville Lake, Kentucky.
(9) Project for flood control, Western Kentucky
Tributaries, Kentucky.
(10) Project for flood damage reduction, Tensas-
Cocodrie area, Louisiana.
(11) Project for flood control, Eastern Rapides and
South-Central Avoyelles Parishes, Louisiana.
(12) The bulkheads and jetties at Lake Borgne and
Chef Menteur, feature of the project for navigation,
Mississippi River, Baton Rouge to the Gulf of Mexico,
Louisiana.
(13) Project for the Red River Waterway, Shreveport,
Louisiana to Daingerfield Texas.
(14) Project for flood damage reduction, Brockton,
Massachusetts.
(15) Project for navigation, Grand Haven Harbor,
Michigan.
(16) Project for hydropower, (Units 6-8), Libby Dam,
Montana.
(17) Project for flood damage reduction, Platte River
Flood and Related Streambank Erosion Control, Nebraska.
(18) Project for navigation, Outer Harbor, Buffalo,
New York.
(19) Project for flood damage reduction, Sugar Creek
Basin, North Carolina and South Carolina.
(20) Project for flood control, Miami River,
Fairfield, Ohio.
(21) Project for shoreline protection, Maumee Bay,
Lake Erie, Ohio.
(22) Project for flood control and water supply,
Parker Lake, Muddy Boggy Creek, Oklahoma.
(23) Project for Columbia River, Seafarers Memorial,
Hammond, Oregon.
(24) Project for bulkhead repairs, Quonset Point-
Davisville, Rhode Island.
(25) Project for flood damage reduction, Harris Fork
Creek, Tennessee and Kentucky.
(26) Project for flood control, Arroyo Colorado,
Lower Rio Grande, Texas.
(27) Project for flood control, Cypress Creek-
Structural, Texas.
(28) Project for flood protection, East Fork Channel
Improvement, Increment 2, East Fork of the Trinity
River, Texas.
(29) Project for flood control, Falfurrias, Texas.
(30) Project for streambank erosion, Kanawha River,
Charleston, West Virginia.
Also amends section 1001(b)(2) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 to require the Secretary to submit a
list of projects for deauthorization yearly, instead of
biennially and to make projects eligible for the list if they
received no funding during the previous five years, instead of
seven years.
Section 3129. Land conveyances
Conveys Federal properties at the following locations:
(a) St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.
(b) Milford, Kansas.
(c) Pike County, Missouri.
(d) Boardman, Oregon.
(e) Tioga Township, Pennsylvania.
(f) Richard B. Russell Lake, South Carolina.
Section 3130. Extinguishment of Reversionary Interests and Use
Restrictions
Extinguishes reversionary interests and use restrictions in
deeds conveying properties in Nez Perce County, Idaho, Old
Hickory Lock and Dam, Cumberland River, Tennessee, and at Port
of Pasco, Washington.
TITLE IV--STUDIES
Section 4001. John Glenn Great Lakes Basin Program
Amends section 455 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1999 to authorize payment of the non-Federal share in the
form of in-kind services and materials.
Section 4002. Lake Erie dredged material disposal sites
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study and make
recommendations to eliminate avian botulism problems at dredged
material disposal sites in the vicinity of Lake Erie.
Section 4003. Southwestern United States drought study
Directs the Secretary, in coordination with the Secretaries
of the Interior, Agriculture, Commerce and other appropriate
agencies, to conduct a study of drought conditions in the
southwestern United States, with particular emphasis on the
Colorado River Basin, the Rio Grande River Basin, and the Great
Basin.
Section 4004. Upper Mississippi River comprehensive plan
Directs the Secretary to complete the comprehensive plan to
address water resource and related land resource problems and
opportunities in the upper Mississippi and Illinois River
basins, authorized by section 459 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999, by no later than December 30, 2006.
Section 4005. Knik Arm, Cook Inlet, Alaska
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
impacts on navigation from the construction of a bridge across
Knik Arm, Cook Inlet, Alaska.
Section 4006. Kuskokwim River, Alaska
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for navigation, Kuskokwim
River, Alaska, in the vicinity of the village of Crooked Creek.
Section 4007. St. George Harbor, Alaska
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of providing navigation improvements at St. George
Harbor, Alaska.
Section 4008. Susitna River, Alaska
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of constructing a hydropower project on the Susitna
River, Alaska.
Section 4009. Gila Bend, Maricopa, Arizona
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction, Gila Bend, Maricopa, Arizona, and to use plans and
designs developed by the non-Federal interest, if consistent
with Federal standards.
Section 4010. Searcy County, Arkansas
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of using Greers Ferry Lake as a source of water
supply for Searcy County, Arkansas.
Section 4011. Dry Creek Valley, California
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project to provide recycled water
for agricultural water supply, Dry Creek Valley, California,
including the feasibility of expanding the Geysers recharge
project north of Healdsburg, California.
Section 4012. Elkhorn Slough Estuary, California
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study of the Elkhorn
Slough Estuary to determine the feasibility of conserving,
enhancing, and restoring estuarine habitats by addressing
hydrological management issues.
Section 4013. Fresno, Kings, and Kern Counties, California
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply, Fresno,
Kings, and Kern counties, California.
Section 4014. Los Angeles River, California
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction and ecosystem restoration for the Los Angeles River,
and to use the Los Angeles River revitalization plan developed
by the non-Federal interests if such plan is consistent with
Federal standards.
Section 4015. Lytle Creek, Rialto, California
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction and groundwater recharge at Lytle Creek, Rialto,
California.
Section 4016. Mokelumne River, San Joaquin County, California
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of using Mokelumne River as a source of water
supply for San Joaquin County, California. The Committee is
aware of concerns expressed about this study and whether it
would negatively affect water rights, water law, and permitted
activities and agreements governing East Bay Municipal Utility
District and its use of this watershed. To address these
concerns, the Committee included language stating that this
section does not invalidate, preempt, or create any exception
to State water law, State water rights, of Federal or State
permitted activities or agreements.
Section 4017. Napa River, St. Helena, California
Directs the Secretary to conduct a comprehensive study of
the Napa River in the area of St. Helena, California, to
improve flood management, restore habitat, improve fish passage
and water quality, and restore plants native to the area.
Directs the Secretary to use plans and designs developed by the
non-Federal interest, if consistent with Federal standards.
Section 4018. Orick, California
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction and ecosystem restoration. In conducting the study,
the Secretary shall determine the feasibility of restoring or
rehabilitating the Redwood Creek Levees, Humboldt County,
California.
Section 4019. Rialto, Fontana, and Colton, California
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply for
Rialto, Fontana, and Colton, California.
Section 4020. Sacramento River, California
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of and alternatives for measures to protect water
diversion facilities and fish protective screen facilities on
the Sacramento River, California.
Section 4021. San Diego County, California
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply for San
Diego County, including a review of the feasibility of
connecting 4 existing reservoirs to increase usable storage
capacity.
Section 4022. San Francisco Bay, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta,
California
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of the beneficial use of dredged material from the
San Francisco Bay in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta,
California, including a review of using Sherman Island as a re-
handling site.
Section 4023. South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study, California
Directs the Secretary to complete the feasibility report
for the South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study, California, by
December 31, 2008, using documents prepared by the non-Federal
interest if they are consistent with Federal standards, and
provide credit for work performed by the non-Federal interest
towards the non-Federal share of the cost of any project
authorized as a result of the study, if integral to the
project.
Section 4024. Twentynine Palms, California
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction at the Pinto Cove Wash, in the vicinity of Twentynine
Palms, California.
Section 4025. Yucca Valley, California
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction, West Burnt Mountain Basin, in the vicinity of Yucca
Valley, California.
Section 4026. Boulder Creek, Boulder, Colorado
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction in the Boulder Creek floodplain, Colorado.
Section 4027. Roaring Fork River, Basalt, Colorado
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction for the Roaring Fork River, Basalt, Colorado.
Section 4028. Delaware and Christina Rivers and Shellpot Creek,
Wilmington, Delaware
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction and related purposes along the Delaware and Christina
Rivers and Shellpot Creek, Wilmington, Delaware.
Section 4029. Collier County Beaches, Florida
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for hurricane and storm
damage reduction and flood damage reduction in the vicinity of
Vanderbilt, Park Shore, and Naples beaches, Collier County,
Florida.
Section 4030. Vanderbilt Beach Lagoon, Florida
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for environmental
restoration, water supply, and improvement of water quality at
Vanderbilt Beach Lagoon, Florida.
Section 4031. Meriwether County, Georgia
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply,
Meriwether County, Georgia.
Section 4032. Tybee Island, Georgia
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of including the northern end of Tybee Island,
extending from the north terminal groin to the mouth of
Lazaretto Creek, as part of the project for beach erosion
control, Tybee Island, Georgia.
Section 4033. Kaukonahua-Helemano Watershed, Oahu, Hawaii
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction, Kaukonahua-Helemano Watershed, Oahu, Hawaii.
Section 4034. West Maui, Maui, Hawaii
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for water resources
development, environmental restoration, and natural resources
protection, West Maui, Maui, Hawaii.
Section 4035. Boise River, Idaho
Modifies the study for flood control, Boise River, Idaho,
to add ecosystem restoration and water supply as project
purposes to be studied and to direct the Secretary to provide
up to $500,000 in credit for the cost of work performed by the
non-Federal interest, if an integral part of the project.
Section 4036. Ballard's Island Side Channel, Illinois
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for ecosystem restoration
in the side channel of Ballard's Island, Illinois.
Section 4037. Chicago, Illinois
Amends section 425(a) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 2000 to clarify that sites along Lake Michigan are
included in the scope of the shoreline protection study,
Chicago Illinois.
Section 4038. South Branch, Chicago River, Chicago River, Illinois
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for ecosystem
restoration, at the South Fork of the South Branch of the
Chicago River, Chicago, Illinois.
Section 4039. Utica, Illinois
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction in the vicinity of Utica, Illinois.
Section 4040. Lake and Porter Counties, Indiana
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for riverfront
development, including enhanced public access, recreation, and
environmental restoration along Lake Michigan, in the cities of
Hammond, Whiting, East Chicago, Gary and Portage, Indiana. In
conducting this study, the Secretary shall, to the maximum
extent practicable, review a report prepared by the non-Federal
interest and make use of that report to the extent the report
meets the evaluation and design standards of the Secretary.
Section 4041. Salem, Indiana
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for an additional water
supply source for Salem, Indiana.
Section 4042. Buckhorn Lake, Kentucky
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of modifying the project for flood damage
reduction, Buckhorn Lake, Kentucky, to add ecosystem
restoration, recreation, and improved access as project
purposes, including a permanent raise in winter pool elevation,
and to allow the non-Federal interest to satisfy its share with
in-kind contributions.
Section 4043. Dewey Lake, Kentucky
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of modifying the project for Dewey Lake, Kentucky,
to add water supply as a project purpose.
Section 4044. Louisville, Kentucky
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to of the project
for flood control, Louisville, Kentucky, to investigate
measures to rehabilitate the project.
Section 4045. Bastrop-Morehouse Parish, Louisiana
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply at
Bastrop-Morehouse Parish, Louisiana.
Section 4046. Offshore Oil and Gas Fabrication Ports, Louisiana
Directs the Secretary, when determining the feasibility of
projects for navigation at Atchafalaya River, Bayous Chene,
Boeuf, and Black, Louisiana, and Iberia Port, Louisiana, to
consider all economic benefits associated with contracts for
new energy exploration and energy infrastructure fabrication
that would result from the project to be national economic
development benefits. This section also repeals section 6009 of
Public Law 109-13, which attempts to address this project-
specific issue through a broad change in national policy for
the development of navigation projects. The Committee is aware
that the economic justification for the Port of Iberia is
complete, applying the standard set forth in section 6009 of
Public Law 109-13. The Committee does not intend this section
to apply a different standard or require any new economic
justification for the Port of Iberia. This amendment is
intended to repeal the general change to the policy for
calculating navigation benefits and to instead specify the test
for economic justification for two ports. The Committee notes
that under section 6009 of Public Law 109-13, the same energy
contracts that the Port of Iberia expects to receive could be
used to justify a Federal interest in competing oil and gas
fabrication ports, because under that section, merely shifting
economic benefits from one port to another is defined as
national economic development benefits.
Section 4047. Vermilion River, Louisiana
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for navigation on the
Vermilion River, Louisiana.
Section 4048. West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for riverfront
development, including enhanced public access, recreation, and
environmental restoration, on the Mississippi River in West
Feliciana Parish, Louisiana.
Section 4049. Patapsco River, Maryland
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine and
assess the impact of debris in the Patapsco River basin,
Maryland, on wetlands, water quality, and public health and to
identify management measures to reduce the inflow of debris
into the Patapsco River.
Section 4050. Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts and Rhode Island
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of deepening a portion of the navigation channel
for Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, seaward
of the Charles M. Braga, Jr. Memorial Bridge, Fall River and
Somerset, Massachusetts.
Section 4051. Hamburg and Green Oak Townships, Michigan
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction on Ore Lake and the Huron River for Hamburg and Green
Oak townships, Michigan.
Section 4052. St. Clair River, Michigan
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to examine the
relationships among water levels, dredging, and erosion in the
St. Clair River, Lake Michigan, and Lake Huron. The report on
the results of the study may include recommendations on how to
address the water level declines in Lake Michigan and Lake
Huron.
Section 4053. Duluth-Superior Harbor, Minnesota and Wisconsin
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study and prepare a
report to evaluate the integrity of the bulkhead system located
on and in the vicinity of Duluth-Superior Harbor, Duluth,
Minnesota, and Superior, Wisconsin.
Section 4054. Wild Rice River, Minnesota
Directs the Secretary to review the project for flood
protection, Wild Rice River, Minnesota, to develop alternatives
for the Twin Valley Lake feature.
Section 4055. Mississippi Coastal Area, Mississippi
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of making improvements or modifications to existing
projects in the coastal area of Mississippi in the interest of
hurricane and storm damage reduction, prevention of saltwater
intrusion, preservation of fish and wildlife, prevention of
erosion, and other related purposes.
Section 4056. Northeast Mississippi
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of modifying the project for navigation on the
Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, Alabama and Mississippi, to
provide water supply to northeast Mississippi.
Section 4057. St. Louis, Missouri
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction, St. Louis, Missouri, to restore or rehabilitate the
existing levee system for the City of St. Louis, Missouri.
Section 4058. Dredged Material Disposal, New Jersey
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for the construction of a
dredged material disposal transfer facility in the vicinity of
the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway to make dredged material
available for beneficial use.
Section 4059. Bayonne, New Jersey
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for environmental
restoration, including improved water quality, enhanced public
access, and recreation, on the Kill Van Kull, Bayonne, New
Jersey.
Section 4060. Carteret, New Jersey
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for environmental
restoration, including improved water quality, enhanced public
access, and recreation, on the Raritan River, Carteret, New
Jersey.
Section 4061. Elizabeth River, Elizabeth, New Jersey
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out ecosystem restoration improvements
in the Elizabeth River watershed, Elizabeth, New Jersey.
Section 4062. Gloucester County, New Jersey
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction, Gloucester, New Jersey, including the feasibility of
restoring flood protection dikes in Gibbstown, New Jersey, and
associated tidegates in Gloucester, New Jersey. In conducting
the study, the Secretary shall use any relevant information
developed by the Corps or the non-Federal interest related to
temporary, emergency, or permanent improvements.
Section 4063. Perth Amboy, New Jersey
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for riverfront
development, including enhanced public access, recreation, and
environmental restoration, on the Arthur Kill, Perth Amboy, New
Jersey.
Section 4064. Wreck Pond, Monmouth County, New Jersey
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for environmental
restoration at Wreck Pond, New Jersey, including Black Creek
and associated waters.
Section 4065. Batavia, New York
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for micro-hydropower and
related purposes in the vicinity of Batavia, New York.
Section 4066. Big Sister Creek, Evans, New York
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction, Big Sister Creek, Evans, New York, including
potential solutions to flooding that result from ice jams.
Section 4067. East Chester Bay, Turtle Cove, New York
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for navigation, East
Chester Bay, Turtle Cove, New York.
Section 4068. Finger Lakes, New York
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration and protection, Finger Lakes, New York, to address
water quality and invasive species.
Section 4069. Hudson-Raritan Estuary, New York and New Jersey
Directs the Secretary, in carrying out a study for
environmental restoration, Hudson-Raritan Estuary, New York and
New Jersey, to establish and utilize the watershed restoration
teams composed of certain estuary restoration experts.
Section 4070. Lake Erie Shoreline, Buffalo, New York
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for storm damage
reduction and shoreline protection in the vicinity of Gallagher
Beach, Lake Erie Shoreline, Buffalo, New York.
Section 4071. Newtown Creek, New York
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out ecosystem restoration improvements
at Newtown Creek, Brooklyn and Queens, New York.
Section 4072. Niagara River, New York
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for a low-head
hydroelectric generating facility in the Niagara River, New
York.
Section 4073. Upper Delaware River Watershed, New York
Authorizes a non-profit organization to participate as the
non-Federal sponsor for a study being conducted for the Upper
Delaware River Watershed, New York.
Section 4074. Lincoln County, North Carolina
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study of existing water
and water quality-related infrastructure in Lincoln County and
to assist local interests in determining the most efficient and
effective way to connect county infrastructure.
Section 4075. Wilkes County, North Carolina
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply, Wilkes
County, North Carolina.
Section 4076. Yadkinville, North Carolina
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply,
Yadkinville, North Carolina.
Section 4077. Cincinnati, Ohio
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for ecosystem restoration
of and recreation on the Ohio River, Cincinnati, Ohio, and
directs the Secretary to use the Central Riverfront Park Master
Plan, dated December 1999, if it is consistent with Federal
standards and to provide the non-Federal sponsor with credit
for work performed within the previous five years, if integral
to any project authorized as a result of this study. The
Committee is aware that the Secretary has authority to carry
out design work for this project and expects the Secretary to
continue to conduct that work. However, there has been no
evaluation of the feasibility of this project and this section
authorizes the Secretary to conduct that evaluation.
Section 4078. Euclid, Ohio
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for navigation, ecosystem
restoration and recreation on Lake Erie, in the vicinity of the
Euclid Lakefront, Euclid, Ohio.
Section 4079. Lake Erie, Ohio
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for wind power generation
at confined disposal facilities along Lake Erie, Ohio.
Section 4080. Ohio River, Ohio
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction on the Ohio River within the counties of Mahoning,
Columbiana, Jefferson, Belmont, Noble, Monroe, Washington,
Athens, Meigs, Gallia, Lawrence and Scioto, Ohio.
Section 4081. Sutherlin, Oregon
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study of water resources
along Sutherlin Creek in the vicinity of Sutherlin, Oregon, to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project to restore
and enhance aquatic resources using structural and
bioengineering techniques, and to carry out a project, if
feasible. Authorizes up to $2,500,000 for projects under this
section.
Section 4082. Tillamook Bay and Bar, Oregon
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to investigate
measures to address hazardous conditions at the project for
navigation, Tillamook Bay and Bar, Oregon.
Section 4083. Ecosystem Restoration and Fish Passage Improvements,
Oregon
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of undertaking ecosystem restoration and fish
passage improvements on rivers in Oregon, and authorizes up to
$5,000,000 for pilot projects.
Section 4084. Walla Walla River Basin, Oregon
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for ecosystem
restoration, Walla Walla River Basin, Oregon. Authorizes
payment of the non-Federal share in the form of in-kind
services and materials and directs the Secretary to provide
credit for the cost of planning and design work performed by
the non-Federal interest, if an integral part of the project.
Section 4085. Chartiers Creek Watershed, Pennsylvania
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction, Chartiers Creek watershed, Pennsylvania.
Section 4086. Kinzua Dam and Allegheny Reservoir, Pennsylvania
Directs the Secretary to study the project for flood
control, Kinzua Dam and Allegheny Reservoir, Warren,
Pennsylvania, to review operations of and identify
modifications to the project to expand recreational
opportunities.
Section 4087. North Central Pennsylvania
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration and protection within the counties of Warren,
McKean, Potter, Tioga, Lycoming, Centre, Cameron, Elk,
Clearfield, Jefferson, Clarion, Venango, Forest, Clinton,
Crawford, and Mifflin, Pennsylvania, relating to abandoned mine
drainage abatement and reestablishment of stream and river
channels.
Section 4088. Northampton and Lehigh Counties Streams, Pennsylvania
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for ecosystem
restoration, floodplain management, flood damage reduction,
water quality control and watershed management, for the streams
of Northampton and Lehigh counties, Pennsylvania.
Section 4089. Western Pennsylvania Flood Damage Reduction
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study of structural and
non-structural flood damage reduction, stream bank protection,
storm water management, channel clearing and modification, and
watershed coordination measures in the Mahoning River basin,
the Allegheny River basin, and the Upper Ohio River basin in
Pennsylvania, to provide flood protection for the communities
in western Pennsylvania.
Section 4090. Williamsport, Pennsylvania
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to investigate
measures to rehabilitate the project for flood control,
Williamsport, Pennsylvania.
Section 4091. Yardley Borough, Pennsylvania
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction at Yardley Borough, Pennsylvania, including the
alternative of raising River Road.
Section 4092. Rio Valenciano, Juncos, Puerto Rico
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to reevaluate the
project for flood damage reduction and water supply, Rio
Valenciano, Juncos, Puerto Rico, to determine the feasibility
of carrying out the project. Authorizes credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of integral
work carried out by the non-Federal interest, if integral to
the project.
Section 4093. Crooked Creek, Bennettsville, South Carolina
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply, Crooked
Creek, Bennettsville, South Carolina.
Section 4094. Broad River, York County, South Carolina
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply, Broad
River, York County, South Carolina.
Section 4095. Georgetown and Williamsburg Counties, South Carolina
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply for
Georgetown and Williamsburg counties, South Carolina, including
the alternative of constructing a desalination facility.
Section 4096. Chattanooga, Tennessee
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction, Chattanooga Creek, Dobbs Branch, Chattanooga,
Tennessee.
Section 4097. Cleveland, Tennessee
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction, Cleveland, Tennessee.
Section 4098. Cumberland River, Nashville, Tennessee
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for recreation, riverbank
protection, and environmental protection of the Cumberland
River and riparian habitats in the city of Nashville and
Davidson County, Tennessee.
Section 4099. Lewis, Lawrence, and Wayne Counties, Tennessee
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply for
Lewis, Lawrence and Wayne counties, Tennessee.
Section 4100. Wolf River and Nonconnah Creek, Memphis, Tennessee
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction along Wolf River and Nonconnah Creek, in the vicinity
of Memphis, Tennessee, to include repair, replacement,
rehabilitation, and restoration of the pumping stations:
Cypress Creek, Nonconnah Creek, Ensley, Marble Bayou, and Bayou
Gayoso.
Section 4101. Abilene, Texas
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply,
Abilene, Texas.
Section 4102. Coastal Texas Ecosystem Protection and Restoration, Texas
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction, hurricane and storm damage reduction, and ecosystem
restoration in the coastal areas of Texas.
Section 4103. Fort Bend County, Texas
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction, Fort Bend County, Texas.
Section 4104. Harris County, Texas
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction, Harris County, Texas.
Section 4105. Port of Galveston, Texas
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for dredged material
disposal for the Port of Galveston, Texas.
Section 4106. Roma Creek, Texas
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction, Roma Creek, Texas.
Section 4107. Walnut Creek, Texas
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction, environmental restoration and erosion control,
Walnut Creek, Texas.
Section 4108. Grand County and Moab, Utah
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply for
Grand County and the city of Moab, Utah, including a review of
the impact on the Spanish Valley Aquifer of current and future
water supply demands.
Section 4109. Southwestern Utah
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction, Santa Clara River, within the counties of
Washington, Iron, and Kane, Utah.
Section 4110. Chowan River Basin, Virginia and North Carolina
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction, environmental restoration, navigation, and erosion
control, Chowan River basin, Virginia and North Carolina.
Section 4111. James River, Richmond, Virginia
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction, James River, Richmond, Virginia, in the vicinity of
the Shockoe Bottom area.
Section 4112. Elliott Bay Seawall, Seattle, Washington
Modifies the study for the rehabilitation of the Elliott
Bay Seawall to include a determination of the feasibility of
reducing future damage from seismic activity. Authorizes the
Secretary to accept excess contributions from the non-Federal
interest to facilitate completion of the study and to authorize
credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of any project
authorized as a result of the study an amount equal to the
value of any such contributions.
Section 4113. Monongahela River Basin, Northern West Virginia
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out aquatic ecosystem restoration and
protection projects in the watersheds of the Monongahela River
Basin within the counties of Hancock, Ohio, Marshall, Wetzel,
Tyler, Pleasants, Wood, Doddridge, Monongalia, Marion,
Harrison, Taylor, Barbour, Preston, Tucker, Mineral, Grant,
Gilmer, Brooke, and Rithchie, West Virginia, particularly as
related to abandoned mine drainage abatement.
Section 4114. Kenosha Harbor, Wisconsin
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for navigation, Kenosha
Harbor, Wisconsin, including the extension of existing piers.
Section 4115. Wauwatosa, Wisconsin
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction and environmental restoration, Menomonee River and
Underwood Creek, Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, and greater Milwaukee
watersheds, Wisconsin.
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Section 5001. Maintenance of Navigation Channels
Authorizes the Secretary to maintain the following
navigation channels, if feasible: (1) Manatee Harbor basin,
Florida; (2) Bayou LaFourche Channel, Port Fourchon, Louisiana;
(3) Calcasieu River at Devil's Elbow, Louisiana; (4) Pidgeon
Industrial Harbor, Pidgeon Industrial Park, Memphis Harbor,
Tennessee; (5) Pix Bayou Navigation Channel, Chambers County,
Texas; and (6) Racine Harbor, Wisconsin.
Section 5002. Watershed Management
Authorizes $15,000,000 for the Secretary to provide
technical, planning, and design, assistance to a non-Federal
interest for carrying out watershed management, restoration,
and development projects in the following watersheds:
(1) Cucamonga basin, Upland, California.
(2) Charlotte Harbor watershed, Florida.
(3) Big Creek watershed, Roswell, Georgia.
(4) Portions of the watersheds of the Chattahoochee,
Etowah, Flint, Ocmulgee, and Oconee Rivers within the
counties of Bartow, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta,
DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Fulton, Forsyth, Gwinnett,
Hall, Henry, Paulding, Rockdale, and Walton, Georgia.
(5) Kinkaid Lake, Jackson County, Illinois.
(6) Amite River basin, Louisiana.
(7) East Atchafalaya River basin, Iberville Parish
and Pointe Coupee Parish, Louisiana.
(8) Red River watershed, Louisiana.
(9) Taunton River basin, Massachusetts.
(10) Lower Platte River watershed, Nebraska.
(11) Rio Grande watershed, New Mexico.
(12) Marlboro Township, New Jersey.
(13) Buffalo River watershed, New York.
(14) Cattaragus Creek watershed, New York.
(15) Eighteenmile Creek watershed, Niagara County,
New York.
(16) Esopus, Plattekill, and Rondout Creeks, Greene,
Sullivan, and Ulster counties, New York.
(17) Genesee River watershed, New York.
(18) Greenwood Lake watershed, New York and New
Jersey.
(19) Long Island Sound watershed, New York.
(20) Oswego River basin, New York.
(21) Ramapo River watershed, New York.
(22) Tonawanda Creek watershed, New York.
(23) Tuscarawas River basin, Ohio.
(24) Western Lake Erie basin, Ohio.
(25) Portions of the watersheds of the Beaver, Upper
Ohio, Connoquenessing, Lower Allegheny, Kiskiminetas,
Lower Monongahela, Youghiogheny, Shenango, and Mahoning
Rivers in Beaver, Butler, Lawrence, and Mercer
counties, Pennsylvania.
(26) Otter Creek watershed, Pennsylvania.
(27) Unami Creek, Milford Township, Pennsylvania.
(28) Sauk River basin, Washington.
(29) Greater Milwaukee watersheds, Wisconsin.
Section 5003. Dam safety
Authorizes $6,000,000 for the Secretary to provide
assistance to enhance dam safety at the following locations:
(1) Fish Creek Dam, Blaine County, Idaho.
(2) Hamilton Dam, Saginaw River, Flint, Michigan.
(3) Candor Dam, Candor, New York.
(4) State Dam, Auburn, New York.
(5) Whaley Lake Dam, Pawling, New York.
(6) Ingham Spring Dam, Solebury Township,
Pennsylvania.
(7) Leaser Lake Dam, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania.
(8) Stillwater Dam, Monroe County, Pennsylvania.
(9) Wissahickon Creek Dam, Montgomery County,
Pennsylvania.
The assistance for State Dam, Auburn, New York shall be for
rehabilitation in accordance with the report on State Dam
Rehabilitation, Owasco Lake Outlet, New York, dated March 1999,
if feasible. This section also states the sense of Congress
that the Secretary should immediately remedy the deterioration
of the Fern Ridge Dam, Oregon, and amends section 504 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1999 to clarify that there
are multiple dams on Kehly Run, Pennsylvania.
Section 5004. Structural Integrity Evaluations
Authorizes the Secretary to evaluate the structural
integrity and effectiveness of projects for flood damage
reduction and to prevent project failure at the following
locations: Arkansas River Levees, Arkansas, and Nonconnah
Creek, Tennessee.
Section 5005. Flood Mitigation Priority Areas
Amends the flood mitigation and riverine restoration
program in section 212 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1999 to add the following to the list of priority areas for
review by the Secretary: Ascension Parish, Louisiana; East
Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana; Iberville Parish, Louisiana;
Livingston Parish, Louisiana; and Pointe Coupee Parish,
Louisiana.
Section 5006. Additional Assistance for Authorized Projects
Amends section 219(e) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1992 to increase the authorization ceiling for specific
projects to allow ongoing work to continue. Authorizes
assistance made available under the rural enterprise zone
program of the Department of Agriculture to be used toward
payment of the non-Federal share of the cost of the project for
East Arkansas Enterprise Community, Arkansas, if such
assistance is authorized to be used for such purposes. In
carrying out the project for the Colonias along the United
States-Mexico Border, the Secretary may provide assistance to
projects in Hidalgo County, Texas.
Section 5007. Expedited Completion of Reports and Construction for
Certain Projects
Directs the Secretary to expedite completion of reports
and, if feasible, construction for the following projects being
carried out under existing authorities:
(1) Fulmer Creek, Village of Mohawk, New York.
(2) Moyer Creek, Village of Frankfort, New York.
(3) Steele Creek, Village of Ilion, New York.
(4) Oriskany Wildlife Management Area, Rome, New
York.
(5) Whitney Point Lake, Otselic River, Whitney Point,
New York.
(6) Newton Creek, Bainbridge, New York.
(7) Chenango Lake, Chenango County, New York.
Section 5008. Expedited Completion of Reports for Certain Projects
Directs the Secretary to expedite completion of the reports
and, if it is determined that a project is justified, proceed
to project pre-construction, engineering, and design for the
following:
(1) Project for water supply, Little Red River,
Arkansas.
(2) Project for shoreline stabilization at Egmont
Key, Florida.
(3) Project for ecosystem restoration, University
Lake, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
(4) Project for hurricane and storm damage reduction,
Montauk Point, New York.
This section directs the Secretary to waive the non-Federal
cost-share allocated to that portion of the project for
shoreline stabilization at Egmont Key, Florida, which protects
federally owned property. This section also directs the
Secretary to complete the report for the project for hurricane
and storm damage reduction, Montauk Point, New York.
Section 5009. Southeastern Water Resources Assessment
Directs the Secretary to conduct an assessment of water
resources needs of the Southeastern United States and
authorizes cooperative agreements with State and local
agencies, non-Federal and nonprofit entities, regional
researchers, and other interested parties to carry out the
assessment. The Tennessee Natural Resources Policy Center of
the University of Tennessee has significant expertise in the
water resources of the Southeastern United States. The
Secretary may enter into a cooperative agreement with the
University of Tennessee to carry out this section.
Section 5010. Upper Mississippi River Environmental Management Program
Amends the Upper Mississippi River Environmental Management
Program to allow the non-Federal interest to provide the non-
Federal share of the project in the form of in-kind services
and materials, and to allow non-profit entities to serve as
non-Federal sponsors, with the consent of the affected local
government.
Section 5011. Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers Enhancement
Project
Amends the Missouri and Middle Mississippi River
Enhancement Project to extend the authorization period through
2015.
Section 5012. Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration
Amends Section 506 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 2000 to allow 100% of the non-Federal share to be provided
in the form of in-kind contributions for the Great Lakes
Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration program.
Section 5013. Great Lakes remedial action plans and sediment
remediation
Amends Section 401 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1990 to extend the authority of the Secretary to provide
assistance for Great Lakes Remedial Action Plans and sediment
remediation projects through 2011.
Section 5014. Great Lakes tributary model
Amends Section 516 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1996 to extend the authorization of appropriations for the
development of a Great Lakes tributary sediment transport model
through 2011.
Section 5015. Susquehanna, Delaware, and Potomac River basins
Makes the Division Engineer, North Atlantic Division, an ex
officio member of the Susquehanna River Basin Compact and the
Delaware River Basin Compact and authorizes the Secretary to
provide funding to interstate compacts. This section also
authorizes the Secretary to enter into an agreement with the
Delaware River Basin Commission to provide water from a Corps
dam during a drought warning or drought emergency, at a cost to
the Commission not to exceed the incremental operating costs
associated with providing the storage.
Section 5016. Chesapeake Bay environmental restoration and protection
program
Amends the Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration and
Protection Program to include restoration of submerged aquatic
vegetation and to increase the authorization to $50,000,000.
Section 5017. Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration
Amends section 704(b) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986 to increase authorization to $30,000,000.
Section 5018. Hypoxia assessment
Authorizes the Secretary to participate with Federal,
State, and local agencies Non-Federal and nonprofit entities,
regional researchers, and other interested parties to assess
hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. The Committee is aware of the
consortium between Ohio State University and Louisiana State
University to address these issues, and of the expertise of the
Olentangy River Wetland Research Park located on the Ohio State
University campus in Columbus, Ohio. The assistance provided
under this section may be used to collaborate with researchers
at the Olentangy River Wetland Research Park, including
participation in a river monitoring network, and the
development of wetland and river research tools.
Section 5019. Potomac River watershed assessment and tributary strategy
evaluation and monitoring program
Authorizes the Secretary to participate in the Potomac
River Watershed Assessment and Tributary Strategy Evaluation
and Monitoring Program to identify a series of resource
management indicators to monitor the effectiveness of
strategies and public policies that pertain to natural resource
protection of the Potomac River watershed.
Section 5020. lock and dam security
Directs the Secretary to develop standards for the security
of locks and dams, provide technical assistance on a
reimbursable basis, and enter into cooperative agreements to
carry out testing and certification activities. The Committee
is aware that the National Safe Waterways and Seaports Alliance
has the capability to conduct comprehensive operational
testing, vulnerability and risk assessments, security planning
exercises, computer simulation modeling, and training. The
Alliance also has expertise regarding barriers to prevent
vessels from approaching too near a dam or other critical
waterway infrastructure. The Secretary may enter into a
cooperative agreement with the Alliance to carry out this
section.
Section 5021. Pinhook Creek, Huntsville, Alabama
Directs the Secretary to design and construct the locally
preferred plan for flood protection at Pinhook Creek,
Huntsville, Alabama, and to allow the non-Federal interest to
increase its participation in the project to the extent
necessary to implement the project.
Section 5022. Tallapoosa, Alabama
Authorizes $5,000,000 for the Secretary to provide
technical assistance relating to water supply for the Middle
Tallapoosa Water Supply District, Alabama.
Section 5023. Alaska
Amends section 570 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1999 to add environmental restoration as an authorized
purpose, increase the authorization level, allow non-profits to
serve as non-Federal interests with the consent of the local
government, and allow 10% of appropriated funds to be used for
administrative expenses. This authority may be used to provide
assistance for any publicly owned project, as well as any
project owned by a Native Corporation. In addition, this
authority may be used to address environmental restoration,
including abatement of abandoned mines.
Section 5024. Barrow, Alaska
Directs the Secretary to carry out a nonstructural project
for coastal erosion and storm damage prevention and reduction
at Barrow, Alaska, including the relocation of a stretch of
road that is eroding away.
Section 5025. Coffman Cove, Alaska
Authorizes the Secretary to carry out the project for
navigation, Coffman Cove, Alaska, at a total cost of
$3,000,000.
Section 5026. Fort Yukon, Alaska
Authorizes the Secretary to make repairs to the dike at
Fort Yukon, Alaska, in accordance with the Corps of Engineers
standards.
Section 5027. Kotzebue Harbor, Alaska
Authorizes the Secretary to carry out a project for
navigation, Kotzebue Harbor, Kotzebue, Alaska, at a total cost
of $2,200,000.
Section 5028. Lowell Creek Tunnel, Seward, Alaska
Directs the Secretary to assume responsibility for the
long-term maintenance and repair of the Lowell Creek Tunnel and
authorizes a study to determine whether alternative methods of
flood diversion in Lowell Canyon are feasible.
Section 5029. St. Herman and St. Paul Harbors, Kodiak, Alaska
Authorizes $2,000,000 to fund the removal of rubble,
sediment, and debris from harbors at Kodiak, Alaska.
Section 5030. Tanana River, Alaska
Directs the Secretary to carry out, on an emergency basis,
the removal of the hazard to navigation on the Tanana River,
Alaska, near the confluence of the Tanana and Chena rivers, as
described in the January 3, 2005, Memorandum from the
Commander, Seventeenth Coast Guard District, to the Army Corps
of Engineers, Alaska District, Anchorage, Alaska. The Committee
believes that the Secretary has the authority to remove this
hazard to navigation under the authority of section 20 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, and its implementing
regulations at 33 C.F.R. Part 245, which define an obstruction
to navigation as anything that restricts, endangers, or
interferes with navigation. However, to remove any doubt of the
Secretary's authority and the Committee's intent that this
hazard to navigation be removed, the Committee has included
this section in the bill.
Section 5031. Valdez, Alaska
Authorizes the Secretary to construct a small boat harbor
in Valdez, Alaska at a total cost of $20,000,000.
Section 5032. Whittier, Alaska
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of two navigation projects at Whittier, Alaska, a
new boat harbor at the head of Whittier Bay, and expansion of
the existing harbor at Whittier. If the Secretary determines a
project is feasible, the Secretary is authorized to carry out
the feasible project or projects, as the case may be. This
section also directs the Secretary to allow the non-Federal
interest to use funds provided under any other Federal program
to pay the non-Federal share of the cost of a project, if the
funds are authorized for such purposes.
Section 5033. Wrangell Harbor, Alaska
Defines the general navigation features of the project for
navigation, Wrangell Harbor, Alaska.
Section 5034. Augusta and Clarendon, Arkansas
Authorizes the Secretary to perform operation, maintenance
and rehabilitation of authorized and completed levees on the
White River between Augusta and Clarendon, Arkansas. Requires
the Secretary to seek reimbursement from the Secretary of the
Interior for the share of the cost of performing such
maintenance, and repair allocated to benefits to a Federal
wildlife refuge.
Section 5035. Des Arc Levee Protection, Arkansas
Directs the Secretary to review the project for flood
control, Des Arc, Arkansas, to determine whether bank and
channel scour along the White River threatens the existing
project and whether the scour is a result of design deficiency.
Authorizes the Secretary to carry out measures to eliminate the
deficiency.
Section 5036. Helena and Vicinity, Arkansas
Directs the Secretary to accept non-Federal contributions
of cash, easements, lands, rights-of-way, relocations, and
dredged material disposal areas as of September 2003 as
fulfillment of cost sharing responsibilities for the flood
control project at Helena and Vicinity, Arkansas.
Section 5037. Loomis Landing, Arkansas
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine if
shore damage in the vicinity of Loomis Landing, Arkansas, is
the result of a Federal navigation project, and to mitigate
damage that has occurred as a result of the Federal navigation
project.
Section 5038. St. Francis River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine if
increased siltation and streambank erosion are the results of a
Federal flood control project, and to mitigate such siltation
and erosion in the St. Francis River basin, Arkansas and
Missouri.
Section 5039. White River Basin, Arkansas
Directs the Secretary to implement certain authorized
alternatives identified in the White River Minimum Flows
Reallocation Study, Arkansas and Missouri, July 2004, and to
cost-share such alternatives as fish and wildlife enhancement
under section 906(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986. This section also requires losses to hydropower as a
result of the reallocation of water for minimum flows and as a
result of the operation of an authorized fish hatchery to be
offset by a reduction in costs allocated to hydropower. The
total amount of the offset may not exceed $17,000,000 for
losses resulting from the reallocation for minimum flows and
$2,200,000 for operation of the fish hatchery. The duplicative
authorization in section 374 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1999 is repealed.
In section 304 of the Water Resources Development Act of
2000, the Secretary of the Army was authorized to carry out
minimum flow projects to sustain tail water trout fisheries by
reallocating recommended amounts of project storage at five
White River basin reservoirs in Arkansas and Missouri. That
authorization provided that no funds could be obligated to
carry out such work until the Chief of Engineers, through a
final report, determined that the work is technically sound,
environmentally acceptable, and economically justified. The
Chief of Engineers made this finding in the White River Minimum
Flows Reallocation Study, Arkansas and Missouri, dated July 30,
2004. In this bill, the Committee is directing the Secretary to
implement alternatives BS-3 and NF-7, reallocating water at
only two of the five White River reservoirs, Bull Shoals and
Norfolk, for the purpose of enhancing the tail water trout
fishery below these dams. Section 906(e)(1) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 provides that projects that
enhance fish and wildlife resources with national benefits
shall be carried out at Federal expense. The Committee finds
that the benefits of these projects are national. The non-
Federal interest shall be responsible for all lands, easements,
rights-of-way and relocations.
The Committee acknowledges the efforts of Mr. Forrest L.
Wood in bringing all interested parties together to reach
consensus on the White River Minimum Flows Reallocation Study
and this legislative provision, as well as Mr. Wood's
contribution as the chairman of the Arkansas State Game & Fish
Commission and as a nationally renowned bass fisherman.
Section 5040. Cambria, California
Amends section 219(f)(48) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 to direct the Secretary to provide
credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the work
performed by the non-Federal interest, not to exceed
$3,000,000, if an integral part of the project.
Section 5041. Contra Costa Canal, Oakley and Knightsen, California;
Mallard Slough, Pittsburg, California
Amends sections 512 and 514 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 to ensure that all planning, study,
design, and construction of the flood damage reduction projects
at Contra Costa Canal, Oakley and Knightsen, California, and
Mallard Slough, Pittsburg, California are carried out by the
district engineer in San Francisco, California.
Section 5042. Dana Point Harbor, California
Directs the Secretary to determine the causes of water
quality degradation within Dana Point Harbor, California, and
if the Secretary determines the degradation to be a result of a
Federal navigation project, to mitigate the degradation at
Federal expense.
Section 5043. East San Joaquin County, California
Amends section 219(f)(22) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 to direct the Secretary to provide
credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the work
performed by the non-Federal interest, if determined by the
Secretary to be an integral part of the project, and to allow
the non-Federal share to be provided in the form of in-kind
contributions.
Section 5044. Eastern Santa Clara Basin, California
Amends section 111 of Division B Public Law 106-554 to
increase the authorization for the Secretary to participate in
investigations relating to sites that are sources of
perchlorate in groundwater in Santa Clarita, California, from
$7,000,000 to $10,000,000.
Section 5045. Pine Flat Dam and Reservoir, California
Directs the Secretary to review the Kings River Fisheries
Management Program Framework Agreement and authorizes
$20,000,000 for the Secretary to participate in the management
program, if feasible, using data and environmental
documentation from the Report of the Chief of Engineers, Pine
Flat Dam and Reservoir, Fresno County, California, dated July
19, 2002. Authorizes credit towards the non-Federal share of
the cost of the project for work carried out by the non-Federal
interest, if integral to the project.
Section 5046. Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel, California
Authorizes the Secretary to transfer the title of the
Bascule Bridge near the Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel,
California project to the city of West Sacramento, California,
and authorizes $5,000,000 for the Secretary to participate in
the construction of a replacement bridge.
Section 5047. San Francisco, California
Authorizes $20,000,000 for the Secretary to participate in
efforts related to navigation- related facilities.
Section 5048. San Francisco, California, waterfront area
Declares a portion of the San Francisco, California,
waterfront to be nonnavigable.
Section 5049. Santa Venetia, California
Directs the Secretary to carry out a small flood damage
reduction project under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of
1958, if feasible, notwithstanding any policy relating to the
volume of water flows. This section also authorizes the non-
Federal interest to increase its participation in the project,
to the extent necessary to implement the project.
Section 5050. Stockton, California
Directs the Secretary to reevaluate the feasibility of the
Lower Mosher Slough element and the levee extensions on the
Upper Calaveras River element of the project for flood control,
Stockton Metropolitan Area, California, to determine the
eligibility of such elements for reimbursement under section
211 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. Directs the
Secretary to provide reimbursement if such elements of the
project are feasible, notwithstanding any policies concerning
frequency of flooding, size of the drainage area, or the amount
of runoff.
Section 5051. Victor V. Veysey Dam, California
Redesignates the Prado Dam as the ``Victor V. Veysey Dam''.
Section 5052. Whittier, California
Directs the Secretary to carry out a project for flood
damage reduction in the vicinity of Whittier, California, under
section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948, notwithstanding
any policy relating to the size of flows to be addressed by the
project.
Section 5053. Charles Hervey Townshend Breakwater, New Haven Harbor,
Connecticut
Redesignates a breakwater in New Haven Harbor, Connecticut,
as the ``Charles Hervey Townshend Breakwater.''
Section 5054. Christina River shipwreck, Delaware
Authorizes the Secretary to remove debris associated with
the steamship ``State of Pennsylvania'' and other derelict
vessels from the Christina River, Delaware.
Section 5055. Anacostia River, District of Columbia, Maryland, and
Virginia
Directs the Secretary to develop a comprehensive plan for
the restoration of the Anacostia River and its tributaries.
Section 5056. Florida Keys water quality improvements
Authorizes the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal
share, the cost of project work carried out prior to the
execution of the partnership agreement if the Secretary
determines that the work is integral to the project.
Section 5057. Lake Worth, Florida
Authorizes the Secretary to carry out necessary repairs for
the Lake Worth bulkhead replacement project, West Palm Beach,
Florida.
Section 5058. Lake Lanier, Georgia
Authorizes the Secretary to assist with the planning,
design, and construction of the Lake Lanier Olympic Center,
Georgia, at a total cost of $5,300,000.
Section 5059. Riley Creek Recreation Area, Idaho
Authorizes the Secretary to carry out the Riley Creek
Recreation Area Master Plan for the Corps of Engineers project
at Albeni Falls Dam, Bonner County, Idaho.
Section 5060. Reconstruction of Illinois flood protection projects
Authorizes $30,000,000 for the Secretary to participate in
the reconstruction of certain levees on the Mississippi River
if the Secretary determines that reconstruction is not required
due to improper operation and maintenance.
Section 5061. Kaskaskia River Basin, Illinois, restoration
Authorizes the Secretary to develop a comprehensive plan
for the purpose of restoring the Kaskaskia River Basin.
Section 5062. Floodplain mapping, Little Calumet River, Chicago,
Illinois
Directs the Secretary to provide assistance for a project
to develop maps identifying flood inundation areas along the
Little Calumet River, Chicago, Illinois.
Section 5063. Natalie Creek, Midlothian and Oak Forest, Illinois
Directs the Secretary to carry out a small project for
flood damage reduction under section 205 of the Flood Control
Act of 1948 at Natalie Creek, Midlothian and Oak Forest,
Illinois, if feasible, notwithstanding any policy relating to
minimum water flows.
Section 5064. Illinois River Basin Restoration
Extends the authorization for restoration of the Illinois
River Basin until 2010. This section modifies the existing
authority that allows the non-Federal share to be met through
in-kind services by specifying that such services must have
taken place within five years of the project or activity begin
carried out. This section also authorizes non-profit entities
to serve as non-Federal interests, with the consent of the
affected local government, and directs the Secretary to develop
an Illinois River basin monitoring program. In developing and
implementing the computerized inventory and analysis system for
the project, the Secretary is directed to incorporate data
provided by the State of Illinois from the Illinois River
Decision Support System.
Section 5065. Promontory Point, Lake Michigan, Illinois
Directs the Secretary to reevaluate the feasibility of
constructing the Promontory Point section of the project
authorized by Section 101(a)(12) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996, matching the original limestone step
design.
Section 5066. Burns Waterway Harbor, Indiana
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study of shoaling in the
vicinity of Burns Waterway Harbor, Indiana, and if the shoaling
is a result of the Federal navigation project, directs the
Secretary to carry out a project to mitigate the shoaling.
Section 5067. Calumet Region, Indiana
Amends section 219(f)(12) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 to authorize credit for work carried
out by the non-Federal interest, if integral to the project.
Section 5068. Floodplain Mapping, Missouri River, Iowa
Directs the Secretary to provide assistance to develop maps
identifying flood inundation areas in the State of Iowa along
the Missouri River.
Section 5069. Rathbun Lake, Iowa
Directs the Secretary to provide water supply to the
Rathbun Regional Water Association with costs allocated
pursuant to existing law, and to provide credit towards these
costs for certain in-kind contributions.
Section 5070. Cumberland River Basin, Kentucky
Directs the Secretary to continue to charge water storage
fees that were in effect on October 1, 2002, at the reservoirs
in the Cumberland River basin, Kentucky.
Section 5071. Louisville, Kentucky
Amends Section 557 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1999 to include Louisville, Kentucky.
Section 5072. Mayfield Creek and Tributaries, Kentucky
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study of flood damage
along Mayfield Creek and tributaries between Wickliffe and
Mayfield, Kentucky, to determine if the damage is the result of
a Federal navigation project, and to mitigate any damage
resulting from the navigation project.
Section 5073. North Fork, Kentucky River, Breathitt County, Kentucky
Directs the Secretary to rebuild a structure impeding high
water flows on the North Fork of the Kentucky River in
Breathitt County, Kentucky, to reduce flood damages, at a cost
of $1,800,000.
Section 5074. Paducah, Kentucky
Directs the Secretary to complete the feasibility report
for the rehabilitation of the project for flood damage
reduction, Paducah, Kentucky, and if feasible, to carry out the
project at a total cost of $3,000,000.
Section 5075. Southern and Eastern Kentucky
Authorizes the Secretary to use 10% of appropriated amounts
for administrative expenses.
Section 5076. Winchester, Kentucky
Authorizes technical, planning, and design assistance for a
wastewater infrastructure project, Winchester, Kentucky.
Section 5077. Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Amends section 219(f)(21) of the Water Resources and
Development Act of 1992 to increase the authorization level to
$35,000,000.
Section 5078. Calcasieu Ship Channel, Louisiana
Directs the Secretary to expedite completion of the dredged
material management plan for the Calcasieu Ship Channel,
Louisiana.
Section 5079. Cross Lake, Shreveport, Louisiana
Authorizes the Secretary to accept funds from the
Department of the Air Force, to construct a water intake
facility in Shreveport, Louisiana, to benefit the community and
the Air Force Base.
Section 5080. West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana
Amends section 517 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1999 to make a technical correction to the description of a
project.
Section 5081. Charlestown, Maryland
Authorizes the Secretary to carry out a project for non-
structural flood control, Charlestown, Maryland, to include
land acquisition from willing sellers, and authorizes
$2,000,000 to carry out this section.
Section 5082. Delmarva Conservation Corridor, Maryland and Delaware
Authorizes the Secretary to provide technical assistance to
the Secretary of Agriculture in carrying out projects under the
Conservation Corridor Demonstration Program, and to coordinate
and integrate activities of the Secretary of the Army with
activities of the Secretary of Agriculture in such conservation
corridor.
Section 5083. Massachusetts Dredged Material Disposal Sites
Authorizes the Secretary to cooperate with Massachusetts in
management and long-term monitoring of aquatic dredged material
disposal sites within the Commonwealth and to accept funds from
the Commonwealth to carry out such activities.
Section 5084. Ontonagon Harbor, Michigan
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study of shore damage in
the vicinity of the project for navigation, Ontonagon Harbor,
Michigan, and if the Secretary determines the damage is the
result of the navigation project, directs the Secretary to
carry out a project to mitigate the damage.
Section 5085. St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair, Michigan
Authorizes the Secretary to carry out feasible aquatic
ecosystem restoration projects identified in the comprehensive
management plan for St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair,
Michigan, at a Federal cost not to exceed $5,000,000.
Section 5086. Crookston, Minnesota
Directs the Secretary to carry out an emergency streambank
protection project in the vicinity of Highway 2, Crookston,
Minnesota, at a total cost of $6,500,000, if feasible.
Section 5087. Garrison and Kathio Township, Minnesota
Amends section 219(f)(61) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 to specify the entity to receive
assistance, to increase the authorization of appropriations,
and to authorize the Secretary to use the contracting
procedures developed under section 569 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 in carrying out this authority.
Section 5088. Minneapolis, Minnesota
Directs the Secretary to convey by quitclaim deed on behalf
of the United States to the City of Minneapolis, Minnesota, the
War Department (Fort Snelling Interceptor) Tunnel.
Section 5089. Northeastern Minnesota
Amends section 569 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1999 to change the geographic scope of the authorization, to
authorize non-profit entities to serve as non-Federal sponsors,
and to allow 10% of amounts appropriated to be used for
administrative expenses. This section also directs the
Secretary to reimburse the non-Federal interest for the project
in Biwabik, Minnesota, that portion of the project costs that
exceed the non-Federal share of project costs.
Section 5090. Harrison, Hancock, and Jackson Counties, Mississippi
Authorizes the Secretary to accept any portion of the non-
Federal share of the cost of ecosystem restoration projects
within Harrison, Hancock, and Jackson counties, Mississippi, in
the form of in-kind contributions.
Section 5091. Mississippi River, Missouri, and Illinois
Authorizes the Secretary to carry out environmental
restoration activities at the project for the Mississippi River
(Regulating Works), between the Ohio and Missouri Rivers,
Missouri and Illinois, as part of operation and maintenance of
the project.
Section 5092. St. Louis, Missouri
Amends section 219(f)(32) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 to increase the authorization of
appropriations to $35,000,000.
Section 5093. Acid Brook, Pompton Lakes, New Jersey
Directs the Secretary to carry out a project for flood
damage reduction under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of
1948 for Acid Brook, Pompton Lakes, if the Secretary determines
that the project is feasible, notwithstanding any policy
regarding minimum water flows.
Section 5094. Hackensack Meadowlands area, New Jersey
Amends ecosystem management project program authorized
under section 324 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1992 to change the non-Federal interest, expand the scope of
the authorization, allow credit for in-kind services, and
increase the authorization of appropriations.
Section 5095. Central New Mexico, New Mexico
Amends Section 593 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1999 to increase the authorization of appropriations to
$40,000,000, and to allow 10% of amounts appropriated to be
used for administrative expenses.
Section 5096. Atlantic coast of New York
Amends monitoring program authorized under section 404(a)
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 to clarify the
scope of the program, require annual reports, extend the
authorization, and authorize a tsunami warning system
Section 5097. College Point, New York City, New York
Authorizes the Secretary to give priority to environmental
dredging in College Point, New York City, New York.
Section 5098. Flushing Bay and Creek, New York City, New York
Directs the Secretary to provide credit for the cost of
work performed by the non-Federal interest for ecosystem
restoration for Flushing Bay and Creek, New York City, New
York, if an integral part of the project.
Section 5099. Hudson River, New York
Authorizes $5,000,000 for the Secretary to participate with
the State of New York, New York City, and the Hudson River Park
Trust, in carrying out activities to restore critical marine
habitat, improve safety, and protect and rehabilitate critical
infrastructure.
Section 5100. Mount Morris Dam, New York
Authorizes the Secretary to make improvements to the access
road for Mount Morris Dam, New York, to provide safe access to
the Federal visitor's center.
Section 5101. Onondaga Lake, New York
Increases the authorization for the environmental
restoration program at Onondaga Lake, New York, to $30,000,000
and allows non-profit entities to be non-Federal sponsors.
Section 5102. John H. Kerr Dam and Reservoir, North Carolina
Directs the Secretary to expedite a revised permanent
contract for water supply storage at John H. Kerr Dam and
Reservoir, North Carolina.
Section 5103. Stanly County, North Carolina
Amends section 219(f)(64) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 to expand the scope of the authority.
Section 5104. W. Kerr Scott Dam and Reservoir, North Carolina
Authorizes the Secretary to remove debris from the joint
intake at the W. Kerr Scott Dam and Reservoir, North Carolina.
Section 5105. Ohio
Amends section 594 of the Water Resources Development Act
to increase the authorization of appropriations to
$100,000,000.
Section 5106. Toussaint River, Ohio
Authorizes the Secretary to transfer a dredge to the non-
Federal interest at the project for navigation, Toussaint
River, Ohio, and, upon transfer of the dredge and payment of
the net present value of future dredging costs, releases the
Secretary from responsibility for dredging such river.
Section 5107. Eugene, Oregon
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study of the feasibility
of restoring the millrace in Eugene, Oregon, and, if feasible,
carry out the restoration. Directs the Secretary to include
non-economic benefits when determining feasibility.
Section 5108. John Day Lock and Dam, Lake Umatilla, Oregon and
Washington
Directs the Secretary to pay $2,500,000 for research and
curation support provided to the Federal Government as a result
of the multi-purpose project and the several navigation and
flood damage reduction projects constructed on the Columbia
River and Lower Willamette River, Oregon and Washington.
Section 5109. Lowell, Oregon
Authorizes the Secretary to convey land in Lowell, Oregon.
Section 5110. Allegheny County, Pennsylvania
Amends Section 219(f)(66) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 by directing the Secretary to direct
the Secretary to provide credit for the cost of work performed
by the non-Federal interest, if an integral part of the
project.
Section 5111. Lehigh River, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania
Authorizes $500,000 for the Secretary to use existing water
quality data to model the effects of the Francis E. Walter Dam,
to determine is impact on water and related resources in and
along the Lehigh River in Lehigh County, Pennsylvania.
Section 5112. Northeast Pennsylvania
Amends section 219(f)(11) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 to modify the geographic scope of the
authorization.
Section 5113. Upper Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and New York
Amends the authorization for flood damage reduction and
environmental restoration under section 567 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 to clarify the Secretary's
authority to implement the program, to increase the
authorization of appropriations, and to authorize pilot
projects not to exceed $500,000. The amendment also substitutes
the word ``cooperative'' for the word ``cooperation'' in
describing the agreements under which the Corps can obtain the
assistance of non-Federal interests in carrying out the
project. This will clarify that the Corps may work directly
with public and non-profit organizations with expertise in
wetland and stream restoration, including non-profit
organizations, such as Ducks Unlimited, and local soil and
water conservation districts. In implementing the strategy,
priority is given to a project for ecosystem restoration,
Cooperstown, New York, described in the Upper Susquehanna River
Basin--Cooperstown Area Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility
Study, dated December 2004. Finally, the amendment provides for
credit against the non-Federal share of work done by local
sponsors where such work is integral to the project and
acceptance of in-kind services and materials provided by non-
Federal interests.
Section 5114. Cano Martin Pena, San Juan, Puerto Rico
Directs the Secretary to review a report prepared by the
non-Federal interest concerning flood protection and
environmental restoration for Cano Martin Pena, San Juan,
Puerto Rico, and, if feasible, authorizes the Secretary to
carry out the project at a total cost of $130,000,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $85,000,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $45,000,000. Because the non-Federal report was
in fact prepared by the Corps of Engineers under its authority
to perform work for others, the Committee expects the review to
be prompt and less expensive than a review of a study proposed
by an outside entity.
Section 5115. Beaufort and Jasper Counties, South Carolina
Authorizes the Secretary to accept and use $23,000,000 from
the United States Navy to assist Beaufort and Jasper Counties,
South Carolina, with its plan to consolidate civilian and
military wastewater facilities.
Section 5116. Fritz Landing, Tennessee
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study of the Fritz
Landing Agricultural Spur Levee, Tennessee, to determine the
extent of levee modifications that would be required to bring
the levee and associated drainage structures up to Federal
standards, to design and construct such modifications, and to
incorporate the levees into the project for flood control,
Mississippi River and Tributaries.
Section 5117. J. Percy Priest Dam and Reservoir, Tennessee
Directs the Secretary to construct a trail system at the J.
Percy Priest Dam and Reservoir, Ohio River Basin, Tennessee.
Section 5118. Town Creek, Lenoir City, Tennessee
Directs the Secretary to construct the project for flood
damage reduction designated as Alternative 4 in the Town Creek,
Lenoir City, Loudon County, Tennessee, in accordance with the
feasibility report of the Nashville district engineer dated
November 2000.
Section 5119. Tennessee River partnership
Authorizes the Secretary to enter into a partnership with a
non-profit entity to remove debris from the Tennessee River in
the vicinity of Knoxville, Tennessee, by providing the non-
profit entity with a vessel for debris removal, at Federal
expense, not to exceed $500,000.
Section 5120. Upper Mississippi Embayment, Tennessee, Arkansas, and
Mississippi
Authorizes $5,000,000 for the Secretary to participate with
non-Federal, non-profit entities to address issues related to
groundwater as a sustainable resource through the Upper
Mississippi Embayment, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Mississippi.
The University of Memphis Groundwater Institute, has
significant expertise in the Upper Mississippi River Embayment.
Under this section, the Secretary may work with the University
of Memphis to conduct a study of the feasibility of managing
ground water as a sustainable resource throughout the
Mississippi Embayment and to coordinate ground water and
surface water protection programs.
Section 5121. Bosque River Watershed, Texas
Directs the Secretary to develop a comprehensive plan for
restoring, preserving, and protecting the Bosque River
Watershed, Texas, and authorizes $5,000,000 to develop the plan
and implement projects to demonstrate practicable alternatives.
Authorizes the Secretary to work with public, non-profit
entities in carrying out this section. The Committee is aware
that Texas A&M University possesses the capability to assist
the Secretary under this authority.
Section 5122. Dallas Floodway, Dallas, Texas
Directs the Secretary to carry out the local plan for the
project for flood damage reduction, Dallas Floodway, Dallas,
Texas, if technically sound and environmentally acceptable, at
a total cost of $194,000,000. Authorizes credit for work
performed by the non-Federal interest, if integral to the
project authorized by this section.
Section 5123. Harris County, Texas
Amends section 575(a) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996 to ensure that measures funded, in part, by the
hazard mitigation grant program of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency are considered measures taken by the non-
Federal interest, for the purpose of evaluating the pre-project
conditions. This section also adds the project for flood
control, Upper White Oak Bayou, Texas, to the list of projects
covered by this section.
Section 5124. Onion Creek, Texas
Directs the Secretary to include costs and benefits
associated with relocations occurring during the 2-year period
of time before the feasibility study as project costs and
benefits, and to provide credit toward the non-Federal share
for the cost of relocations carried out before the date of the
cooperation agreement, if integral to the project.
Section 5125. Dyke Marsh, Fairfax County, Virginia
Authorizes the Secretary to accept funds from the National
Park Service to restore Dyke Marsh, Fairfax County, Virginia.
Section 5126. Eastern Shore and Southwest Virginia
Amends Section 219(f)(10) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 to include environmental restoration as
a project purpose and to direct the Secretary to provide credit
toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project for
work that is integral to the project.
Section 5127. James River, Virginia
Authorizes the Secretary to accept funds from the National
Park Service to provide technical and project management
assistance for the James River, Virginia, with emphasis on
locations along the shoreline impacted by Hurricane Isabel.
Section 5128. Baker Bay and Ilwaco Harbor, Washington
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine if
increased siltation is the result of a Federal navigation
project and, if so, to mitigate the siltation in the Baker Bay
and Ilwaco Harbor, Washington.
Section 5129. Hamilton Island campground, Washington
Authorizes the Secretary to plan, design, and construct a
campground for Bonneville Lock and Dam at Hamilton Island in
Skamania County, Washington.
Section 5130. Puget Island, Washington
Directs the Secretary to place dredged and other suitable
material along portions of the Columbia River shoreline of
Puget Island, Washington, at a Federal cost not to exceed
$1,000,000.
Section 5131. Willapa Bay, Washington
Amends Section 545 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 2000 to direct the Secretary to construct the project for
coastal erosion protection, Willapa Bay, Washington, and to
expand the authority to include ecosystem restoration.
Section 5132. Bluestone, West Virginia
Amends section 547 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 2000 to allow the hydroelectric power feature of the
Bluestone, West Virginia, project to be privately constructed
and owned.
Section 5133. West Virginia and Pennsylvania flood control
Amends section 581 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1996 to expand the scope of the authority and to increase
the authorization ceiling to $90,000,000.
Section 5134. Lower Kanawha River Basin, West Virginia
Directs the Secretary to conduct a watershed and river
basin assessment for the Lower Kanawha River Basin, in certain
counties in West Virginia.
Section 5135. Central West Virginia
Amends section 571 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1999 to modify the geographic scope of the authorization, to
allow non-profit entities to serve as non-Federal interests,
and to allow 10% of appropriated amounts to be used for
administrative expenses.
Section 5136. Southern West Virginia
Amends section 340 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1992 to modify the geographic scope of the authorization, to
allow non-profit entities to serve as non-Federal interests,
and to allow 10% of appropriated amounts to be used for
administrative expenses.
Section 5137. Johnsonville Dam, Johnsonville, Wisconsin
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study of the
Johnsonville Dam, to determine if the structure prevents ice
jams on the Sheboygan River.
Section 5138. Construction of flood control projects by non-Federal
interests
Adds the following projects to the list of projects that
may be constructed by non-Federal interests under section
211(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996: (1)
Buffalo Bayou, Texas; (2) Halls Bayou, Texas; (3) St. Paul
Downtown Airport (Holman Field), St. Paul, Minnesota; (4)
Thornton Reservoir, Cook County, Illinois; (5) Larose to Golden
Meadow, Louisiana; and, (6) Perris, California.
Section 5139. Use of Federal hopper dredge fleet
Directs the Secretary to conduct a study and issue a report
to Congress on the appropriate use of the Federal hopper dredge
fleet. The study shall determine the appropriate use of the
fleet, analyze costs and benefits of existing and proposed
restrictions, and assess the data and procedure used by the
Secretary to prepare cost estimates for work performed by the
Federal hopper dredge fleet.
TITLE VI--FLORIDA EVERGLADES
Section 6001. Hillsboro and Okeechobee Aquifer, Florida
Subsection (a) amends section 101(a)(16) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1999 to increase the authorization
for the Hillsboro and Okeechobee aquifer storage and recovery
project.
Subsection (b) amends section 601 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 to direct that the Hillsboro and
Okeechobee aquifer storage and recovery project be treated as
part of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, except
that operation and maintenance shall remain a non-Federal
responsibility.
Section 6002. Pilot Projects
Increases the authorization for the Everglades pilot
projects authorized under section 601(b) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000.
Section 6003. Maximum Cost of Projects
Amends section 601(b) to ensure that section 902 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 applies to new
Everglades projects authorized under section 601(d) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 2000.
Section 6004. Project authorization
Amends section 601(d) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 2000 to authorize the project for ecosystem restoration,
Indian River Lagoon South, Florida, substantially in accordance
with the Indian River Lagoon South, Florida report of the Chief
of Engineers, dated August 6, 2004. The Committee is aware that
components of the Indian River Lagoon South, Florida, project
for ecosystem restoration depend on the completion of other
components of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.
For example, dredging for muck removal should not take place
until the quantity and quality of flows into the Lagoon from
Lake Okeechobee are resolved. The Committee expects the
Secretary to sequence the construction of this project in a
cost-effective manner that avoids duplication of effort.
Section 6005. Credit
Amends section 601(e) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 2000 to authorize credit for work on Everglades
restoration projects carried out before the date of a
partnership agreement between the Secretary and the non-Federal
sponsor, and to authorize to Secretary to enter into an
agreement with the non-Federal sponsor to specify conditions
relating to design and construction of such work. The Committee
is concerned about the practice of the non-Federal sponsor
performing work on the project without a written agreement with
the Corps, and then relying upon legislation to receive credit
against the non-Federal share. Consistent with section 2016 of
this bill, for future work to be considered eligible for
credit, it must be performed under a written agreement with the
Secretary.
Section 6006. Outreach and assistance
Specifies that up to $3,000,000 a year may be expended on
outreach and assistance authorized under section 601(k) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 2000.
Section 6007. Critical restoration projects
Increases the authorization for critical Everglades
restoration projects authorized under section 528 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996.
Section 6008. Deauthorizations
Deauthorizes the uncompleted portions of projects that have
been superseded by the Indian River Lagoon South, project for
ecosystem restoration.
Section 6009. Modified water delivery
Prohibits the Secretary from carrying out a project to
raise Tamiami Trail, unless the project is specifically
authorized by law. Directs the Secretary to submit to Congress
recommendations for (1) any necessary changes to the project
for modifying water deliveries to Everglades National Park, (2)
a project, if necessary, to raise Tamiami Trail, and (3) a
combined structural and an operational plan for the C-111
project and the project to modify water deliveries to
Everglades National Park.
The Committee is aware of suggestions that it may be cost-
effective to carry out a Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
Plan (CERP) project for raising Tamiami Trail concurrently with
the project for modifying water deliveries to Everglades
National Park. CERP projects have specific project development
and cost-sharing requirements set forth in section 601 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 2000. Moreover, a project to
raise Tamiami Trail is not currently authorized. If the
Secretary wishes to carry out a project to raise Tamiami Trail,
the Secretary must first submit to Congress a report
recommending such a project, with the participation of a non-
Federal interest willing to undertake the cost-sharing
responsibilities required by section 601 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000. If the Secretary wishes to carry out a
project to raise Tamiami Trail concurrently with the modified
water delivery project, the Secretary also must submit a report
to Congress recommending changes to the modified water delivery
project that explain how that project would be combined with a
CERP project. This report must explain what project elements
are authorized under section 104 of the Everglades National
Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989, to be fully funded
by the Department of the Interior, and what project elements
are part of CERP, to be cost-shared on a 50-50 basis between
the State of Florida and the Corps of Engineers. Finally,
because the operation of the modified water delivery project
and the C-111 project are integrally related to one another and
to a determination of whether or not Tamiami Trail needs to be
raised, the Secretary must submit to Congress a report
explaining how these projects will operate. Many of these
issues have been discussed for years, but little progress has
been made towards resolution. The Committee is willing to work
with all interested parties to seek resolution of these issues
as it moves forward with this Water Resources Development Act.
Before this bill becomes law, it is the Committee's goal to
replace the language of this section with language that would
establish a new authorization and a clear way forward that will
address the issues, once and for all, related to increasing
flows to the Everglades across the Tamiami Trail. The August
31, 2005, deadline for the submission of reports to Congress in
the introduced bill was intended to facilitate achievement of
that goal. Although the deadline has been removed from the bill
as reported by the Committee, no one should interpret that to
mean that years more debate on these matters is acceptable.
This section does not presume any specific outcome, but the
Committee wants to achieve a final resolution of these matters
with appropriate cost-sharing, so that the project to improve
water deliveries the Everglades National Park may finally
proceed. Pending completion of these projects, the Committee
directs the Secretary to make every effort to increase water
flows to the Everglades National Park by clearing existing
culverts and taking other measures to improve the efficiency of
existing structures. A continued lack of action following the
original modified water delivery project authorization of 1989
is unacceptable. Substantial portions of CERP depend upon an
operating modified water deliver project to be effective.
TITLE VII--LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA
Section 7001. Definitions
Provides definitions for ``Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem,''
``Governor,'' ``Plan,'' and ``Task Force.''
Section 7002. Additional reports
Directs the Secretary to submit to Congress reports
recommending modifications to the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet
and the Chenier Plain. Also directs the Secretary to develop,
within one year, a framework for the development of a long-
term, comprehensive restoration plan for the Louisiana Coastal
Area, and to submit to Congress, within five years, a report
recommending such a plan.
Section 7003. Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Protection and Restoration
Task Force
Establishes an interagency task force to make
recommendations to the Secretary regarding protection,
conservation, and restoration of the coastal Louisiana
ecosystem, as well as recommendations regarding how each agency
can contribute to the restoration efforts under the agency's
own authorities.
Section 7004. Investigations
Authorizes the Secretary to conduct feasibility studies for
additional projects for the protection, conservation, and
restoration of the coastal Louisiana ecosystem. Directs the
Secretary to review existing water resources projects for
consistency with restoration efforts.
Section 7005. Construction
Authorizes a program for reducing uncertainties regarding
restoration of the coastal Louisiana ecosystem, including
demonstration projects, and projects for the beneficial reuse
of dredged material. The Committee believes that the
demonstration projects may be developed and carried out to test
the technologies, models, and methods that are identified in
the ecosystem program to reduce uncertainties in the scientific
and cultural baseline conditions. Also authorizes the following
initial projects:
(1) Mississippi River Gulf Outlet Environmental
Restoration.
(2) Small Diversion at Hope Canal.
(3) Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline Restoration.
(4) Small Bayou Lafourche Reintroduction.
(5) Medium Diversion at Myrtle Grove.
Section 7006. Non-federal cost share
Authorizes credit toward the non-Federal cost share for
work carried out by the non-Federal sponsor, if integral to the
project. Authorizes monitoring of cost-sharing contributions.
Section 7007. Project justification
Authorizes the Secretary to determine that projects to
protect, conserve, and restore the coastal Louisiana Ecosystem
are justified based on environmental benefits, unless the
project is primarily intended to produce economic benefits.
Section 7008. Statutory construction
Clarifies that nothing in this title affects the
authorities of other agencies or creates any new regulatory
authorities.
TITLE VIII--UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND ILLINOIS WATERWAY SYSTEM
Section 8001. Definitions
Establishes definitions for the term ``Plan'' and ``Upper
Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System.''
Section 8002. Navigation Improvements and Restoration
Authorizes the Secretary to undertake navigation
improvements and ecosystem restoration substantially in
accordance with the Plan.
Section 8003. Authorization of construction of navigation improvements
Authorizes navigation improvements consisting of small
scale and nonstructural measures and seven new 1,200 foot
locks. This subsection also specifies that mitigation for these
projects shall be concurrent with construction.
Section 8004. Ecosystem Restoration Authorization
Authorizes environmental improvements including
modifications to the operation of the Upper Mississippi River
and Illinois Waterway System to improve the ecological
integrity of the rivers, and ecosystem restoration projects in
accordance with the Plan, establishes cost-sharing rules, and
requires restoration goals, performance measures, measurable
outcomes, and monitoring. Also requires reports to Congress
regarding implementation of ecosystem restoration projects and
the development of a ranking system for ecosystem restoration
projects.
Section 8005. Comparable progress
Requires a determination of whether projects are being
carried out at a comparable rate and, if not, adjustment of
annual funding requests.
Additional Matters
In this legislation, the Committee authorizes or extends
the authorization of various activities for the Corps of
Engineers to participate in the management of water resources
in the Great Lakes. In addition to these specific authorities,
the Corps of Engineers is authorized to provide assistance to
other Federal agencies on a reimbursable basis. In carrying out
all of these authorities, the Committee expects the Corps of
Engineers to be a full participant in the Great Lakes Task
Force, created by Executive Order No. 13340 in May 2004.
The Committee is aware of the plan, in accordance with
Public Law 99-662, to acquire 1750 acres of bottomland
hardwoods in Little Rock, Arkansas, as part of the Fourche
Bayou project. The Committee views this as an inseparable part
of the overall project.
The Committee is concerned about the failure, in recent
years, to adequately maintain many shallow draft ports and
inlets and certain inland waterways. The Nation's navigation
system is an integrated transportation system. While individual
components may receive different levels of use, much of the
cargo that ends up at high use ports and waterways first passes
through low use ports and waterways. The use of an individual
port or waterway cannot be viewed in isolation. It must be
viewed as part of the overall system. Moreover, uncertain
funding makes reduction in the use of a port or a waterway
become a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is directly contrary to
the policy objective, articulated by this Committee and by the
Secretary of Transportation in testimony before this Committee,
of increasing the use of waterways as an alternative to reduce
congestion in other transportation modes. The Committee agrees
with the assessment of the Senate Committee on Appropriations,
expressed in Senate Report 109-84, that the de facto
deauthorization of ports and waterways through lack of
maintenance demonstrates a profound lack of respect for
Congressional authorizing and oversight Committees.
The Committee also is concerned about the repeated delay in
maintenance dredging of the Snake River, a major transportation
route in the Pacific Northwest. The Snake River is an
authorized Federal navigation channel. The Committee urges the
Corps of Engineers to expedite completion of the Environmental
Impact Statement for this work, sign a Record of Decision, and
proceed with the maintenance work recommended in the Record of
Decision.
The Committee requests the Department of the Army to
consider longer tours of duty for District Commanders in Corps
of Engineers district offices. Frequent turnover of the
commanding officer leads to a lack of continuity. Frequently,
just as a District Commander learns the complex water resources
issues and challenges of his or her district, the District
Commander is assigned to another post. Frequent turnover also
results in a lack of accountability for decisions.
The Committee has increasingly heard concerns from members
of Congress regarding the backlog in the processing of permits
under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. In particular, the
Jacksonville District of the Corps of Engineers processes \1/8\
of all the permits wide. The Committee directs the Chief of
Engineers to examine permitting workload and consider changing
the boundaries for permitting responsibilities to better
distribute that workload. Also, the Committee directs the Chief
of Engineers to work with States to find additional ways within
current authority to expedite permit processing. The Chief of
Engineers shall make each State aware of the authority in the
Clean Water Act to authorize States to implement a wetlands
permitting program in lieu of the Federal program.
This year, several members have brought to the attention of
the Committee concerns regarding the Corps' assertion of
jurisdiction under section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of
1899 over activities in Louisiana and Washington State that may
be exempt from regulation under section 404(f) of the Clean
Water Act. The Committee understands that, prior to the
development of flood control projects, floodplains extending
over many thousands of acres were periodically inundated.
However, through the construction of levees and dikes, much
land has been cut off from the flood plain and has been
developed or cultivated. The Committee requests two opinions
from the Chief Counsel of the Corps of Engineers. The first
opinion should determine whether activities that are exempt
from permits under section 404(f) of the Clean Water Act and
take place on land that is not navigable in fact, can, as a
matter of law, be subject to section 10 jurisdiction. The
second opinion should determine whether land that is not
navigable in fact, and is completely cut off from a navigation
channel by a man-made structure such as a levee or dike can, as
a matter of law, be subject to section 10 jurisdiction.
The Committee has received several proposals to provide
authorizations to address impacts to endangered species. The
Committee believes that the Corps of Engineers does not need
specific authorization to comply with the Endangered Species
Act. In addition, mitigation of damages to fish and wildlife
resulting from any water resources project is authorized under
section 906(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986.
Legislative History and Committee Consideration
The Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment held
two days of hearings on projects, programs and policies during
the development of the Water Resources Development Act of 2005
on March 10, 2005 and March 16, 2005. On March 10, 2005 the
Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee held a hearing on
FY 2006 Budget and Priorities of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. Testimony was received from John Paul Woodley, Jr.,
the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil
Works and, LTG Carl A. Strock, Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. On March 16, 2005, the Subcommittee on
Water Resources and Environment met to receive testimony from
Members of Congress regarding their requests for water
resources projects in the Water Resources Development Act of
2005.
H.R. 2864, the Water Resources Development Act of 2005, was
introduced on June 13, 2005, by Chairman Young, Ranking Member
Oberstar, Subcommittee Chairman Duncan, and Subcommittee
Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson.
On June 16, 2005, the Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment marked up H.R. 2864, approved by voice vote a
manager's amendment offered by Mr. Duncan, and reported the
bill, as amended, favorably to the Full Committee by voice
vote. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee met in
open session June 22, 2005 and adopted by voice vote a
manager's amendment, offered by Mr. Duncan. The Committee
ordered the bill H.R. 2864, as amended, favorably reported to
the House by voice vote.
Roll Call Votes
Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House of Representatives
requires each committee report to include the total number of
votes cast for and against on each roll call vote on a motion
to report and on any amendment offered to the measure or
matter, and the names of those members voting for and against.
No roll call votes were taken during consideration of H.R. 2864
by the Committee.
Committee Oversight Findings
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(1) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee's oversight findings and recommendations are
reflected in this report.
Cost of Legislation
Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives does not apply where a cost estimate and
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 has been timely submitted prior to the filing of the
report and is included in the report. Such a cost estimate is
included in this report.
Compliance With House Rule XIII
With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(2) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and 308(a)
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee
references the report of the Congressional Budget Office
included below.
With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
performance goals and objectives of this legislation are the
improvement of navigation, flood damage reduction, shoreline
protection, dam safety, water supply, recreation, and
environmental restoration and protection.
With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has
received the following cost estimate for H.R. 2864 from the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office.
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, June 24, 2005.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2864, the Water
Resources Development Act of 2005.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Julie
Middleton.
Sincerely,
Douglas Holtz-Eakin,
Director.
Enclosure.
H.R. 2864--Water Resources Development Act of 2005
Summary: H.R. 2864 would authorize the Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) to conduct water resource studies and
undertake special projects and programs for flood control,
inland navigation, shoreline protection, and environmental
restoration. The bill would authorize the agency to conduct
studies on water resource needs, to complete feasibility
studies for specified projects, and to convey ownership of
certain federal properties. Finally, the bill would extend,
terminate, or modify existing authorizations for various water
projects and would authorize new programs to develop water
resources and protect the environment.
Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, including
adjustments for increases in anticipated inflation, CBO
estimates that implementing H.R. 2864 would cost about $4.1
billion over the 2006-2010 period and an additional $5.9
billion over the 10 years after 2010. (Some construction costs
and operations and maintenance would continue or occur after
this period.)
H.R. 2864 would allow the Corps to spend any proceeds that
it collects from recreational fees in excess of $42 million a
year. H.R. 2864 also would convey parcels of land to various
nonfederal entities and would forgive the obligation of some
local government agencies to pay certain project costs.
Finally, the bill would allow the Corps to collect and spend
fees collected for training courses and permit processing. CBO
estimates that enacting those provisions would increase direct
spending by $13 million in 2006, $22 million over the 2006-2010
period, and $37 million over the 2006-2015 period. Enacting the
bill would not affect revenues.
H.R. 2864 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
Federal participation in water resources projects and programs
authorized by this bill would benefit state, local, and tribal
governments, and any costs incurred by those governments to
comply with the conditions of this federal assistance would be
incurred voluntarily.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of H.R. 2864 is shown in the following table.
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 300
(natural resources and the environment).
TABLE 1.--ESTIMATED BUDGETARY IMPACT OF H.R. 2864 OVER THE 2006-2010 PERIOD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
--------------------------------------------
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Estimated authorization level...................................... 946 901 871 851 800
Estimated outlays.................................................. 662 905 871 849 807
CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING
Estimated budget authority......................................... 13 3 3 * 3
Estimated outlays.................................................. 13 3 3 * 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.-- *= less than $500,000.
Basis of Estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R.
2864 will be enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2006 and
that the necessary amounts will be appropriated for each fiscal
year.
Spending subject to appropriation
H.R. 2864 would authorize new projects related to
environmental restoration, shoreline protection, and
navigation. This bill also would modify many existing Corps
projects and programs by increasing the amounts authorized to
be appropriated to construct or maintain them or by increasing
the federal share of project costs. Assuming appropriation of
the necessary funds, CBO estimates that implementing this bill
would cost $4.1 billion over the 2006-2010 period and an
additional $5.9 billion over the 10 years after 2010. For
ongoing construction costs of previously authorized projects,
the Corps received a 2005 appropriation of about $1.8 billion,
including funds from the Inland Waterway Trust Fund.
For new water projects specified in the bill, the Corps
provided CBO with estimates of annual budget authority needed
to meet design and construction schedules. CBO adjusted those
estimates to reflect the impact of anticipated inflation during
the time between project authorization and appropriation of
construction costs. Estimated outlays are based on historical
spending rates for Corps projects.
Significant New Authorizations. H.R. 2864 would authorize
the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct water resource studies
and undertake specified projects and programs for flood
control, inland navigation, shoreline protection, and
environmental restoration. For example, the bill includes
authorizations for enhanced navigation improvements on the
Upper Mississippi River at an estimated federal cost of $1.8
billion and an ecosystem restoration project, also on the Upper
Mississippi River, at an estimated federal cost of $1.6
billion. Another large project authorized by this bill is the
Indian River Lagoon project in the Florida Everglades at an
estimated federal cost of $605 million. Construction of those
projects would likely take more than 15 years.
Section 2002 would authorize an increase in the federal
share of the construction, operations, and maintenance of some
deepwater navigation projects. Based on information from the
Corps, CBO estimates that this provision would increase federal
costs by about $275 million over the 2006-2010 period. In the
10-year period after 2010, this provision would increase the
cost of authorized deepwater navigation projects by about $500
million. This provision would add significant federal costs to
deepwater navigation projects authorized in future years. The
extent of those costs would be attributed to future
authorization bills.
Deauthorizations. H.R. 2864 would withdraw the authority
for the Corps to build about 40 projects authorized in previous
legislation. Based on information from the Corps, however, CBO
does not expect that the agency would begin any work (under
current law) for most of those projects over the next five
years or even much later. Some of those projects do not have a
local sponsor to pay nonfederal costs, others do not pass
certain tests for economic viability, and still others do not
pass certain tests for environmental protection. Consequently,
CBO estimates that cancelling the authority to build those
projects would provide no significant savings over the next
several years.
Direct spending
CBO estimates that enacting this bill would increase direct
spending by $13 million in 2006, $22 million over the 2006-2010
period, and $37 million over the 2006-2015 period. Components
of this cost estimate are described below and summarized in
table 2.
TABLE 2.--CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING UNDER H.R. 2864 OVER THE 2006-2015 PERIOD
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outlays in millions of dollars, by fiscal year--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN OUTLAYS FROM DIRECT SPENDING
Recreation User Fees.......................................... 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Land Conveyances.............................................. 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
Arcadia Lake, OK.............................................. 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rathbun Lake, LA.............................................. 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
White River Basin, AK......................................... 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Other Direct Spending......................................... * * * * * * * * * *
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Changes............................................. 13 3 3 * 3 3 3 3 3 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*= Less than $500,000.
Notes.--Changes in budget authority would equal the estimated changes in outlays.
Recreation User Fees. Section 2017 would allow the Corps to
spend without further appropriation any recreation fees that it
earns in excess of $42 million a year. Under existing law, all
receipts collected by the Corps from such fees are deposited
into a special fund from which they must be appropriated in
order to be spent. The CBO baseline projection of such receipts
is $42 million a year over the next 10 years. Allowing for the
possibility that these receipts could be either more or less
than the projected level, we estimate that the expected value
of additional direct spending under H.R. 2864 is $2 million a
year. This amount would be used for repair, maintenance, and
interpretation of Corps recreation sites.
Various Land Conveyances. H.R. 2864 would authorize the
conveyance at fair market value 650 acres of federal land at
the Richard B. Russell Lake in South Carolina to the state.
Based on information from the Corps, CBO estimates that the
federal government would receive about $3 million in 2009 from
this sale.
The bill also would convey certain federal land in Alabama,
Pennsylvania, Georgia, Oregon, Kansas, Minnesota and Missouri.
CBO estimates that those conveyances would have no significant
impact on the federal budget.
Arcadia Lake, Oklahoma. Section 3098 would eliminate the
obligation of the city of Edmond, Oklahoma, to pay outstanding
interest due on its water storage contract with the Corps. CBO
estimates that this provision would result in a loss of
receipts of about $8 million in 2006. The city has no further
obligations to pay under this storage contract.
Rathbun Lake Project. Section 5046 would authorize the
Secretary to convey a certain portion of the water supply
storage capacity of Rathbun Lake to the Rathbun Regional Water
Association. In exchange, the water association would fund,
construct, operate, and maintain a regional visitor center
complex on federal land at Rathbun Lake in Iowa. CBO estimates
that enacting this section would cost about $2 million in 2006
because the Corps would forgo receipts that the Rathbun
Regional Water Association would otherwise have to pay for the
unallocated water supply storage.
White River Basin, Arkansas. Section 5033 would require
that the Corps of Engineers permanently change its water flow
plans for the White River in Arkansas. Such a change would
diminish the amount of electricity that could be generated by
the federal hydroelectric project on the river, and sold by the
Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA), a federal power
marketing administration. Based on information from SEPA, we
expect that this would reduce offsetting receipts from the sale
of hydropower by about $1 million per year, or $10 million over
the 2006-2015 period. We would expect that the losses would
continue through the life of the hydroelectric project, or at
least 50 years.
Waurika Lake Project. Section 3099 would eliminate the
obligation of the Waurika Project Master Conservancy District
in Oklahoma to pay its outstanding debt related to the
construction of a water conveyance project. Because of an
accounting error, the Corps inadvertently undercharged the
district for costs associated with a land purchase related to
the water project in the early 1980s. Under terms of the
construction contract, the district is required to pay all
costs associated with building the project, including the full
cost of the land purchases. The section would eliminate the
need for the district to pay the difference between the full
cost and the initial undercharged amounts. CBO estimates that
enacting this section would cost less than $200,000 a year over
the 2006-2015 period.
Funding to Process Permits. Section 2003 would make
permanent the Corps' current authority to accept and spend
funds contributed by private firms to expedite the evaluation
of permit applications submitted to the Corps. CBO estimates
that the Corps would accept and spend less than $500,000 during
each year of this extension and that the net budgetary impact
of this provision would be negligible.
Training Funds. Section 2031 would allow the Corps to
collect and spend fees collected from the private sector for
training courses. CBO estimates that the Corps would accept and
spend less than $500,000 annually and that the net budgetary
impact would be negligible.
Cumberland River Basin Reservoirs. Section 5061 would
authorize the Corps to continue to charge certain reservoir
projects in Kentucky and Tennessee reduced rates on municipal
and industrial water supply storage. CBO estimates that
enacting this provision would result in a loss of about $25,000
in receipts each year to the Corps.
Intergovernmental and Private-Sector Impact: H.R. 2864
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA. Federal participation in water resources
projects and programs authorized by this bill would benefit
state, local, and tribal governments. Governments that choose
to participate in those projects would incur costs to comply
with the conditions of the federal assistance, including cost-
sharing requirements, but such costs would be incurred
voluntarily. In addition, some state and local governments
participating in ongoing water resources projects would benefit
from provisions in the bill that would alter existing cost-
sharing obligations. Many of those provisions would make it
easier for nonfederal participants to meet their obligations by
giving them credit for expenses they have already incurred or
by expanding the types of expenditures counted towards the
nonfederal share.
Previous CBO Estimate: on May 17, 2005, CBO transmitted a
cost estimate for S. 728, the Water Resources Development Act
of 2005, as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works on April 26, 2005. CBO estimated
that enacting S. 728 would increase direct spending by $212
million in 2006, $1.1 billion over the 2006-2010 period, and
$2.3 billion over the 2006-2015 period. In addition, assuming
appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO estimated that
implementing S. 728 would cost about $4.1 billion over the
2006-2010 period and an additional $7.6 billion over the 10
years after 2010. The differences in the cost estimates stem
from different levels of authorized funding.
Estimate Prepared By: Federal Costs: Julie Middleton and
Deborah Reis; Impact on State, local, and Tribal Governments:
Marjorie Milrer and Ian Rudge; Impact on the Private Sector:
Selena Calder.
Estimate Approved By: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
Constitutional Authority Statement
Pursuant to clause (3)(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, committee reports on a bill or
joint resolution of a public character shall include a
statement citing the specific powers granted to the Congress in
the Constitution to enact the measure. The Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure finds that Congress has the
authority to enact this measure pursuant to its powers granted
under article I, section 8 of the Constitution.
Federal Mandates Statement
The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of federal
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act. (Public Law 104-4).
Preemption Clarification
Section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1994
requires the report of any Committee on a bill or joint
resolution to include a statement on the extent to which the
bill or joint resolution is intended to preempt state, local or
tribal law. The Committee states that H.R. 2864 does not
preempt any state, local, or tribal law.
Advisory Committee Statement
No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b)
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act are created by this
legislation.
Applicability to the Legislative Branch
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act. (Public Law
104-1).
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, 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 italics, existing law in which no change
is proposed is shown in roman):
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1986
* * * * * * *
TITLE I--COST SHARING
SEC. 101. HARBORS.
(a) Constructon.--
(1) Payments during construction.--The non-Federal
interests for a navigation project for a harbor or
inland harbor, or any separable element thereof, on
which a contract for physical construction has not been
awarded before the date of enactment of this Act shall
pay, during the period of construction of the project,
the following costs associated with general navigation
features:
(A) * * *
(B) 25 percent of the cost of construction of
the portion of the project which has a depth is
excess of 20 feet but not in excess of [45
feet] 53 feet; plus
(C) 50 percent of the cost of construction of
the portion of the project which has a depth in
excess of [45 feet] 53 feet.
* * * * * * *
(b) Operation and Maintenance.--
(1) In general.--The Federal share of the cost of
operation and maintenance of each navigation project
for a harbor or inland harbor constructed by the
Secretary pursuant to this Act or any other law
approved after the date of the enactment of this Act
shall be 100 percent, except that in the case of a
deep-draft harbor, the non-Federal interests shall be
responsible for an amount equal to 50 percent of the
excess of the cost of the operation and maintenance of
such project over the cost which the Secertary
determines would be incurred for operation and
maintenance of such project if such project had a depth
of [45 feet] 53 feet.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 103. FLOOD CONTROL AND OTHER PURPOSES.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(m) Ability To Pay.--
(1) * * *
(2) Criteria and procedures.--The ability of a non-
Federal interest to pay shall be determined by the
Secretary in accordance with criteria and procedures in
effect under paragraph (3) on the day before the date
of enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of
2000; except that such criteria and procedures shall be
revised, and new criteria and procedures shall be
developed, not later than [180 days after such date of
enactment] August 31, 2005 to reflect the requirements
of such paragraph (3).
* * * * * * *
(n) Non-Federal Contributions.--
(1) Prohibition on solicitation of excess
contributions.--The Secretary may not solicit
contributions from non-Federal interests for costs of
constructing authorized water resources development
projects or measures in excess of the non-Federal share
assigned to the appropriate project purposes listed in
subsections (a), (b), and (c) or condition Federal
participation in such projects or measures on the
receipt of such contributions.
(2) Limitation on statutory construction.--Nothing in
this subsection shall be construed to affect the
Secretary's authority under section 903(c) of this Act.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 105. FEASIBILITY STUDIES; PLANNING, ENGINEERING, AND DESIGN.
(a) Feasibility Studies.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) Detailed project reports.--The requirements of
this subsection that apply to a feasibility study also
shall apply to a study that results in a detailed
project report, except that--
(A) the first $100,000 of the costs of a
study that results in a detailed project report
shall be a Federal expense; and
(B) paragraph (1)(C)(ii) shall not apply to
such a study.
(b) Planning and Engineering.--The Secretary shall not
initiate any planning or engineering [authorized by this Act]
for a water resources project until appropriate non-Federal
interests agree, by contract, to contribute 50 percent of the
cost of the planning and engineering during the period of the
planning and engineering. Costs of planning and engineering of
projects for which non-Federal interests contributed 50 percent
of the cost of the feasibility study shall be treated as costs
of construction.
* * * * * * *
(d) Definitions.--In this section, the following definitions
apply:
(1) Detailed project report.--The term ``detailed
project report'' means a report for a project not
specifically authorized by Congress in law or otherwise
that determines the feasibility of the project with a
level of detail appropriate to the scope and complexity
of the recommended solution and sufficient to proceed
directly to the preparation of contract plans and
specifications. The term includes any associated
environmental impact statement and mitigation plan. For
a project for which the Federal cost does not exceed
$1,000,000, the term includes a planning and design
analysis document.
(2) Feasibility study.--The term ``feasibility
study'' means a study that results in a feasibility
report under section 905, and any associated
environmental impact statement and mitigation plan,
prepared by the Corps of Engineers for a water
resources project. The term includes a study that
results in a project implementation report prepared
under title VI of the Water Resources Development Act
of 2000 (114 Stat. 2680-2694), a general reevaluation
report, and a limited reevaluation report.
* * * * * * *
TITLE II--HARBOR DEVELOPMENT
* * * * * * *
SEC. 214. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this title--
(1) Deep-draft harbor.--The term ``deep-draft
harbor'' means a harbor which is authorized to be
constructed to a depth of more than [45 feet] 53 feet
(other than a project which is authorized by section
202 of this title).
* * * * * * *
(3) General cargo harbor.--The term ``general cargo
harbor'' means a harbor for which a project is
authorized by section 202 of this title and any other
harbor which is authorized to be constructed to a depth
of more than 20 feet but not more than [45 feet] 53
feet;
* * * * * * *
TITLE VI--WATER RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT
* * * * * * *
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) * * *
* * * * * * *
(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) McCarter Pond, Borough of Fairhaven, New Jersey,
removal of silt and measures to address water quality;
(22) Rogers Pond, Franklin Township, New Jersey,
removal of silt and restoration of structural
integrity;
(23) Greenwood Lake, New York and New Jersey, removal
of silt and aquatic growth;
(24) Lake Rodgers, Creedmoor, North Carolina, removal
of silt and excessive nutrients and restoration of
structural integrity; and
(25) Lake Luxembourg, Pennsylvania.
* * * * * * *
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] $30,000,000 to carry out such projects.
Such projects shall be developed, and their
effectiveness evaluated, in consultation with the
Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Such projects
shall include--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
SEC. 729. WATERSHED AND RIVER BASIN ASSESSMENTS.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Priority River Basins and Watersheds.--In selecting river
basins and watersheds for assessment under this section, the
Secretary shall give priority to--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) the Susquehanna River basin; [and]
(5) the Willamette River basin[.]; and
(6) Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio.
(7) Sauk River Basin, Snohomish and Skagit Counties,
Washington.
(8) Niagara River Basin, New York.
(9) Genesee River Basin, New York.
* * * * * * *
(f) Cost-Sharing Requirements.--
[(1) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the
costs of an assessment carried out under this section
shall be 50 percent.]
(1) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the
costs of an assessment carried out under this section
on or after December 11, 2000, shall be 25 percent.
* * * * * * *
[(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to
be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000.]
* * * * * * *
TITLE IX--GENERAL PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
SEC. 905. FEASIBILITY REPORTS.
[(a) In the case of any]
(a) Preparation of Reports.--
(1) In general.--In the case of any water resources
project-related study authorized to be undertaken by
[the Secretary, the Secretary shall] the Secretary that
results in recommendations concerning a project or the
operation of a project and that requires specific
authorization by Congress in law or otherwise, the
Secretary shall perform a reconnaissance study and
prepare a feasibility report, subject to section 105 of
this Act. [Such feasibility report]
(2) Contents of feasibility reports.--A 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] A 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.
[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.]
(3) Applicability.--This subsection shall not apply
to--
(A) any study with respect to which a report
has been submitted to Congress before the date
of enactment of this Act;
(B) any study for a project, which project is
authorized for construction by this Act and is
not subject to section 903(b);
(C) any study for a project which does not
require specific authorization by Congress in
law or otherwise; and
(D) general studies not intended to lead to
recommendation of a specific water resources
project.
(4) Feasibility report defined.--In this subsection,
the term ``feasibility report'' means each feasibility
report, and any associated environmental impact
statement and mitigation plan, prepared by the Corps of
Engineers for a water resources project. The term
includes a project implementation report prepared under
title VI of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000
(114 Stat. 2680-2694), a general reevaluation report,
and a limited reevaluation report.
(b) Reconnaissance Studies.--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) Projects not Specifically Authorized by Congress.--In the
case of any water resources project-related study authorized to
be undertaken by the Secretary without specific authorization
by Congress in law or otherwise, the Secretary shall prepare a
detailed project report.
[(c)] (d) Indian Tribes.--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.
[(d)] (e) Standard and Uniform Procedures and Practices.--
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)] (f) Enhanced Public Participation.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
SEC. 906. FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Mitigation Plans as Part of Project Proposals.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) Contents.--A mitigation plan shall include--
(A) a description of the physical action to
be undertaken to achieve the mitigation
objectives within the watershed in which such
losses occur and, in any case in which
mitigation must take place outside the
watershed, a justification detailing the
rationale for undertaking the mitigation
outside of the watershed;
(B) a description of the lands or interests
in lands to be acquired for mitigation and the
basis for a determination that such lands are
available for acquisition;
(C) the type, amount, and characteristics of
the habitat being restored;
(D) success criteria for mitigation based on
replacement of lost functions and values of the
habitat, including hydrologic and vegetative
characteristics; and
(E) a plan for any necessary monitoring to
determine the success of the mitigation,
including the cost and duration of any
monitoring and, to the extent practicable, the
entities responsible for any monitoring.
(4) Responsibility for monitoring.--In any case in
which it is not practicable to identify in a mitigation
plan for a water resources project, the entity
responsible for monitoring at the time of a final
report of the Chief of Engineers or other final
decision document for the project, such entity shall be
identified in the partnership agreement entered into
with the non-Federal interest.
* * * * * * *
SECTION 912. SECTION 221 AGREEMENTS.
(a) * * *
(b)(1) * * *
(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.]
* * * * * * *
(4) The Secretary may request the Attorney General to bring
a civil action for appropriate relief, including permanent or
temporary injunction, for payment of damages or, 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 damages, and to require payment of any costs
incurred by the Secretary in undertaking performance of any
such item.
* * * * * * *
TITLE X--PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATION
Sec. 1001. (a) * * *
(b)(1) * * *
(2) Notwithstanding section 3003 of Public Law 104-66 (31
U.S.C. 1113 note; 109 Stat. 734), every [two years] year after
the transmittal of the list under paragraph (1), the Secretary
shall transmit to Congress a list of projects or separable
elements of projects which have been authorized, but have
received no obligations during the [7] 5 full fiscal years
preceding the transmittal of such list. Upon submission of such
list to Congress, the Secretary shall notify each Senator in
whose State, and each Member of the House of Representatives in
whose district, a project (including any part thereof) on such
list would be located. A project or separable element included
in such list is not authorized after the date which is 30
months after the date the list is so transmitted if funds have
not been obligated for the planning, design, or construction of
such project or element during such 30-month period.
* * * * * * *
TITLE XI--MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1103. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER PLAN.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) Program Authority.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(7)(A) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection
(a)(2) of this section, the costs of each project
carried out pursuant to paragraph (1)(A)(i) of this
subsection shall be allocated between the Secretary and
the appropriate non-Federal sponsor in accordance with
the provisions of section 906(e) of this Act; except
that the costs of operation and maintenance of projects
located on Federal lands or lands owned or operated by
a State or local government shall be borne by the
Federal, State, or local agency that is responsible for
management activities for fish and wildlife on such
lands and, in the case of any project requiring non-
Federal cost sharing, the non-Federal share of the cost
of the project shall be 35 percent. The non-Federal
interest may provide the non-Federal share of the cost
of the project in the form of in-kind services and
materials.
* * * * * * *
(C) Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the Flood Control Act
of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5(b)), 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. 1149. SAULT SAINTE MARIE, MICHIGAN.
[Subject to section 903(b) of this Act, the Secretary is
authorized and directed to construct a second lock 1,294 feet
in length, 115 feet in width, and 32 feet in depth, adjacent to
the existing lock at Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan, in
accordance with the report of the Board of Engineers for Rivers
and Harbors, dated May 19, 1986, at a total cost of
$227,428,000. The Federal and non-Federal shares of such
project shall be determined in accordance with section 101,
with the method of payment to be determined in accordance with
the report of the Chief of Engineers.]
The Secretary shall construct at Federal expense a second
lock, of the same dimensions as the existing Poe Lock, adjacent
to the existing lock at Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan, generally
in accordance with the report of the Board of Engineers for
Rivers and Harbors, dated May 19, 1986, and the limited
reevaluation report dated February 2004 at a total cost of
$341,714,000.
* * * * * * *
[SEC. 1156. COST SHARING PROVISIONS FOR THE TERRITORIES.
[The Secretary shall waive local cost-sharing requirements up
to $200,000 for all studies and projects in American Samoa,
Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, and the
Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.]
SEC. 1156. COST-SHARING PROVISIONS FOR CERTAIN AREAS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall waive local cost-sharing
requirements up to $500,000 for all studies and projects in the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the United
States Virgin Islands, in Indian country (as defined in section
1151 of title 18, United States Code, and including lands that
are within the jurisdictional area of an Oklahoma Indian tribe,
as determined by the Secretary of the Interior, and are
recognized by the Secretary of the Interior as eligible for
trust land status under part 151 of title 25, Code of Federal
Regulations) or on land in the State of Alaska owned by an
Alaska Native Regional Corporation or an Alaska Native Village
Corporation (as those terms are defined in the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)) or the
Metlakatla Indian community.
(b) Use of Funds.--The non-Federal interest for a study or
project for an area described in subsection (a) may use, and
the Secretary shall accept, funds provided under any other
Federal program, to satisfy, in whole or in part, the non-
Federal share of such study or project if such funds are
authorized to be used to carry out such study or project.
* * * * * * *
----------
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2000
* * * * * * *
TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
SEC. 203. TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.
(a) * * *
(b) Program.--
(1) In general.--In cooperation with Indian tribes
and the heads of other Federal agencies, the Secretary
may study and determine the feasibility of carrying out
water resources development projects that--
(A) * * *
(B) are located primarily within Indian
country (as defined in section 1151 of title
18, United States Code, and including lands
that are within the jurisdictional area of an
Oklahoma Indian tribe, as determined by the
Secretary of the Interior, and are recognized
by the Secretary of the Interior as eligible
for trust land status under part 151 of title
25, Code of Federal Regulations) or in
proximity to Alaska Native villages.
* * * * * * *
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to
be appropriated to carry out subsection (b) $5,000,000 for each
of fiscal years 2002 through [2006] 2010, of which not more
than $1,000,000 may be used with respect to any 1 Indian tribe.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 214. FUNDING TO PROCESS PERMITS.
(a) In General.--[In fiscal years 2001 through 2005, 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.
* * * * * * *
(c) Duration of Authority.--The authority provided under this
section shall be in effect from October 1, 2000, through
December 31, 2007.
* * * * * * *
TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
SEC. 315. ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LOUISIANA.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding the report of the Chief of
Engineers, dated February 28, 1983, for the project for flood
control, Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Louisiana,
authorized by section 601(a) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4142), which report refers to
recreational development in the Lower Atchafalaya Basin
Floodway, the Secretary--
[(1) shall initiate, in collaboration with the State
of Louisiana, construction of the visitors center,
authorized as part of the project, at or near Lake End
Park in Morgan City, Louisiana; and]
(1) is authorized to study, design, construct,
operate, and maintain, at Federal expense, a Type A
Regional Visitor Center in the vicinity of Morgan City,
Louisiana, in consultation with the State of Louisiana,
to provide information to the public on the Atchafalaya
River system and other associated waterways that have
influenced surrounding communities, and national and
local water resources development of the Army Corps of
Engineers in South Central Louisiana; and
* * * * * * *
(b) Authorities.--The Secretary shall carry out subsection
[(a)] (a)(2) in accordance with--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Donations.--In carrying out subsection (a)(1), the
Mississippi River Commission is authorized to accept the
donation of cash, funds, lands, materials, and services from
non-Federal governmental entities and nonprofit corporations.
* * * * * * *
TITLE IV--STUDIES
* * * * * * *
SEC. 425. CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for
shoreline protection along Lake Michigan and the Chicago River,
Chicago, Illinois.
* * * * * * *
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
SEC. 506. GREAT LAKES FISHERY AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) Cost Sharing.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) Non-federal share.--
(A) * * *
(B) Form.--The non-Federal interest may
provide up to [50 percent] 100 percent of the
non-Federal share required under paragraphs (1)
and (2) in the form of services, materials,
supplies, or other in-kind contributions.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 512. CONTRA COSTA CANAL, OAKLEY AND KNIGHTSEN, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall carry out a project for flood damage
reduction under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948
(33 U.S.C. 701s) at the Contra Costa Canal, Oakley and
Knightsen, California, if the Secretary determines that the
project is technically sound, environmentally acceptable, and
economically justified. All planning, study, design, and
construction on the project shall be carried out by the office
of the district engineer, San Francisco, California.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 514. MALLARD SLOUGH, PITTSBURG, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall carry out under section 205 of the Flood
Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s) a project for flood damage
reduction in Mallard Slough, Pittsburg, California, if the
Secretary determines that the project is technically sound,
environmentally acceptable, and economically justified. All
planning, study, design, and construction on the project shall
be carried out by the office of the district engineer, San
Francisco, California.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 519. ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN RESTORATION.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Critical Restoration Projects.--
(1) * * *
(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is
authorized to be appropriated to carry out projects
under this subsection $100,000,000 for fiscal years
2001 through [2004] 2010.
* * * * * * *
(g) Cost Sharing.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) In-kind services.--The Secretary may credit the
value of in-kind services provided by the non-Federal
interest for a project or activity carried out under
this section toward not more than 80 percent of the
non-Federal share of the cost of the project or
activity if such services are provided not more than 5
years before the date of initiation of the project or
activity. In-kind services shall include all State
funds expended on programs and projects that accomplish
the goals of this section, as determined by the
Secretary. The programs and projects may include the
Illinois River Conservation Reserve Program, the
Illinois Conservation 2000 Program, the Open Lands
Trust Fund, and other appropriate programs carried out
in the Illinois River basin.
* * * * * * *
(h) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) of
the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), a non-
Federal interest may include a nonprofit entity with the
consent of the affected local government.
(i) Monitoring.--The Secretary shall develop an Illinois
river basin monitoring program to support the plan referred to
in subsection (b). Data collected under the monitoring program
shall incorporate data provided by the State of Illinois and
shall be publicly accessible through electronic means.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 545. WILLAPA BAY, WASHINGTON.
(a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine
the feasibility of providing coastal erosion protection and
ecosystem restoration for the tribal reservation of the
Shoalwater Bay Tribe on Willapa Bay, Washington.
(b) Project.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of law (including any requirement for economic
justification), the Secretary [may construct] shall
construct and maintain a project to provide coastal
erosion protection and ecosystem restoration for the
tribal reservation of the Shoalwater Bay Tribe on
Willapa Bay, Washington, at Federal expense, if the
Secretary determines that the project--
(A) is a cost-effective means of providing
erosion protection and ecosystem restoration;
* * * * * * *
SEC. 547. BLUESTONE, WEST VIRGINIA.
(a) * * *
(b) Agreement.--
(1) Agreement terms.--The Secretary and the Secretary
of Energy, acting through the Southeastern Power
Administration, shall enter into a binding agreement
with the Tri-Cities Power Authority that contains
mutually acceptable terms and conditions and under
which the Tri-Cities Power Authority agrees to each of
the following:
(A) To design and construct the generating
facilities referred to in subsection (a) within
[4 years] 5 years after the date of such
agreement.
(B) To reimburse the Secretary for--
(i) * * *
* * * * * * *
(iii) the redistributed costs
associated with the original
construction of the dam and dam safety
[if all parties agree with the method
of the development of the chargeable
amounts associated with hydropower at
the facility] assurance project.
(C) To release and indemnify the United
States from any claims, causes of action, or
liabilities that may arise from such design
[and construction], construction, and operation
and maintenance of the facilities referred to
in subsection (a), including any liability that
may arise out of the removal of the facility if
directed by the Secretary.
* * * * * * *
(3) Operation and ownership.--The Tri-Cities Power
Authority shall be the owner and operator of the
hydropower facilities referred to in subsection (a).
(c) Other Requirements.--
(1) Prohibition.--[No] Unless otherwise provided, no
Federal funds may be expended for the planning, design,
construction, and operation and maintenance of the
facilities referred to in subsection (a) [prior to the
date on which such facilities are accepted by the
Secretary under subsection (d)].
(2) Reimbursement.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, if requested by the Tri-Cities Power
Authority, the Secretary may provide, on a reimbursable
basis, assistance in connection with the [design]
planning, design, and construction of the generating
facilities referred to in subsection (a).
(d) Completion of Construction.--
[(1) Transfer of facilities.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, upon completion of the
construction of the facilities referred to in
subsection (a) and final approval of such facilities by
the Secretary, the Tri-Cities Power Authority shall
transfer without consideration title to such facilities
to the United States, and the Secretary shall--
[(A) accept the transfer of title to such
facilities on behalf of the United States; and
[(B) operate and maintain the facilities.
[(2) Certification.--The Secretary may accept title
to the facilities pursuant to paragraph (1) only after
certifying that the quality of the construction meets
all standards established for similar facilities
constructed by the Secretary.]
(1) Approval.--The Secretary shall review the design
and construction activities for all features of the
hydroelectric project that pertain to and affect
stability of the dam and control the release of water
from Bluestone Dam to ensure that the quality of
construction of those features meets all standards
established for similar facilities constructed by the
Secretary.
[(3)] (2) Authorized project purposes.--The operation
and maintenance of the facilities shall be conducted in
a manner that is consistent with other authorized
project purposes of the Bluestone Lake facility, except
that hydroelectric power is no longer a project purpose
of the facility. Water flow releases from the
hydropower facilities shall be determined and directed
by the Corps of Engineers.
(3) Coordination.--Construction of the hydroelectric
generating facilities shall be coordinated with the dam
safety assurance project currently in the design and
construction phases.
(e) Excess Power.--Pursuant to any agreement under subsection
(b), the Southeastern Power Administration shall market the
excess power produced by the facilities referred to in
subsection (a) [in accordance with section 5 of the Rivers and
Harbors Act of December 22, 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s; 58 Stat.
890)].
(f) Payments.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
the Secretary of Energy, acting through the Southeastern Power
Administration, may pay, in accordance with the terms of the
agreement entered into under subsection (b), out of the
revenues from the sale of power produced by the generating
[facility of the interconnected systems of reservoirs operated
by the Secretary] facilities under construction under such
agreements and marketed by the Southeastern Power
Administration--
(1) to the Tri-Cities Power Authority all reasonable
costs incurred by the Tri-Cities Power Authority in the
[design] planning, design and construction of the
facilities referred to in subsection (a), including the
capital investment in such facilities and a reasonable
rate of return on such capital investment; and
(2) to the [Secretary] Tri-Cities Power Authority, in
accordance with the terms of the agreement entered into
under subsection (b) out of the revenues from the sale
of power produced by the generating [facility of the
interconnected systems of reservoirs operated by the
Secretary] facilities under construction under such
agreements and marketed by the Southeastern Power
Administration, all reasonable costs incurred by the
[Secretary] Tri-Cities Power Authority in the operation
and maintenance of [facilities referred to in
subsection (a)] such facilities.
(g) Authority of Secretary of Energy.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, the Secretary of Energy, acting through
the Southeastern Power Administration, is authorized--
[(1) to construct such transmission facilities as
necessary to market the power produced at the
facilities referred to in subsection (a) with funds
contributed by the Tri-Cities Power Authority; and]
(1) to arrange for the transmission of power to the
market or to construct such transmission facilities as
necessary to market the power produced at the
facilities referred to in subsection (a) with funds
contributed by the Tri-Cities Power Authority; and
(2) to repay those funds, including interest and any
administrative expenses, directly from the revenues
from the sale of power produced by [such facilities of
the interconnected systems of reservoirs operated by
the Secretary] the generating facility and marketed by
the Southeastern Power Administration.
* * * * * * *
(i) Tri-Cities Power Authority Defined.--In this section, the
``Tri-Cities Power Authority'' refers to the entity established
by the City of Hinton, West Virginia, the City of White Sulphur
Springs, West Virginia, and the City of Philippi, West
Virginia, pursuant to a document entitled ``Second Amended and
Restated Intergovernmental Agreement'' approved by the Attorney
General of West Virginia on February 14, 2002.
* * * * * * *
TITLE VI--COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION
SEC. 601. COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN.
(a) * * *
(b) Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.--
(1) * * *
(2) Specific authorizations.--
(A) In general.--
(i) Projects.--The Secretary shall
carry out the projects included in the
Plan in accordance with subparagraphs
(B), (C), (D), and (E). The project for
aquifer storage and recovery, Hillsboro
and Okeechobee Aquifer, Florida,
authorized by section 101(a)(16) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1999
(113 Stat. 276), shall be treated for
purposes of this section as being in
the Plan, except that operation and
maintenance costs of the project shall
remain a non-Federal responsibility.
* * * * * * *
(iii) Review and comment.--In
developing the projects authorized
under subparagraph (B) and the project
for aquifer storage and recovery,
Hillsboro and Okeechobee Aquifer, the
Secretary shall provide for public
review and comment in accordance with
applicable Federal law.
(B) Pilot projects.--The following pilot
projects are authorized for implementation,
after review and approval by the Secretary, at
a total cost of [$69,000,000] $71,200,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of [$34,500,000]
$35,600,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of [$34,500,000] $35,600,000:
(i) Caloosahatchee River (C-43) Basin
ASR, at a total cost of [$6,000,000]
$8,200,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of [$3,000,000] $4,100,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of
[$3,000,000] $4,100,000.
* * * * * * *
(E) Maximum cost of projects.--Section 902 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33
U.S.C. 2280) shall apply to each project
feature authorized under this subsection and
section (d).
* * * * * * *
(d) Authorization of Future Projects.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) Project authorization.--The following project for
water resources development and conservation and other
purposes is authorized to be carried out by the
Secretary substantially in accordance with the plans,
and subject to the conditions, described in the report
designated in this paragraph:
(A) Indian river lagoon south, florida.--The
project for ecosystem restoration, water
supply, flood damage reduction, and protection
of water quality, Indian River Lagoon South,
Florida: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated
August 6, 2004, at a total cost of
$1,210,608,000, with an estimated Federal cost
of $605,304,000 and an estimated non-Federal
cost of $605,304,000.
(e) Cost Sharing.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(5) Credit.--
(A) * * *
(B) Work.--The Secretary may provide credit,
including in-kind credit, toward the non-
Federal share for the reasonable cost of any
work performed in connection with a study,
preconstruction engineering and design, or
construction that is necessary for the
implementation of the Plan if--
(i)(I) the credit is provided for
work completed during the period of
design, as defined in a design
agreement between the Secretary and the
non-Federal sponsor; [or]
(II) the credit is provided for work
completed during the period of
construction, as defined in a project
cooperation agreement for an authorized
project between the Secretary and the
non-Federal sponsor; or
(III) the credit is provided for work
carried out before the date of the
partnership agreement between the
Secretary and the non-Federal sponsor,
as defined in an agreement between the
Secretary and the non-Federal sponsor
providing for such credit;
(ii) the [design agreement or the
project cooperation] agreement
prescribes the terms and conditions of
the credit, including in the case of
credit provided under clause (i)(III)
conditions relating to design and
construction; and
* * * * * * *
(k) Outreach and Assistance.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) Maximum expenditures.--The Secretary may expend
up to $3,000,000 per fiscal year for fiscal years
beginning after September 30, 2004, to carry out this
subsection.
* * * * * * *
----------
ACT OF AUGUST 13, 1946
AN ACT Authorizing Federal participation in the cost of protecting the
shores of publicly owned property.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 3. The Secretary is hereby authorized to undertake
construction of small shore and beach restoration and
protection projects not specifically authorized by Congress,
which otherwise comply with section 1 of this Act, when he
finds that such work is advisable, and he is further authorized
to allot from any appropriations hereafter made for civil
works, not to exceed $30,000,000 for any one fiscal year for
the Federal share of the costs of construction of such
projects: Provided, That not more than [$3,000,000] $5,000,000
shall be allotted for this purpose for any single project and
the total amount allotted shall be sufficient to complete the
Federal participation in the project under this section
including periodic nourishment as provided for under section
1(c) of this Act: Provided further, That the provisions of
local cooperation specified in section 1 of this Act shall
apply: And provided further, That the work shall be complete in
itself and shall not commit the United States to any additional
improvement to insure its successful operation, except for
participation in periodic beach nourishment in accordance with
section 1(c) of this Act, and as may result from the normal
procedure applying to projects authorized after submission of
survey reports.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 5. 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;
* * * * * * *
(3) Cost sharing.--The Secretary may enter into a
cost sharing agreement with a non-Federal interest to
carry out a project, or a phase of a project, under the
erosion control program in cooperation with the non-
Federal interest.
(4) Removal of projects.--The Secretary may pay all
or a portion of the costs of removing a project, or an
element of a project, constructed under the erosion
control program if the Secretary determines during the
term of the program that the project or element is
detrimental to the environment, private property, or
public safety.
[(3)] (5) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(4)] (6) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) Funding.--
(1) * * *
(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is
authorized to be appropriated [$21,000,000] $31,000,000
to carry out this section.
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 221 OF THE FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1970
Sec. 221. (a) 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 agreement with the Secretary of the Army [to
furnish its required cooperation for] under which each party
agrees to carry out its responsibilities and requirements for
implementation or construction of the project or the
appropriate element of the project, as the case may be; except
that no such agreement shall be required if the Secretary
determines that the administrative costs associated with
negotiating, executing, or administering the agreement would
exceed the amount of the contribution required from the non-
Federal interest and are less than $25,000. Such agreement may
include a provision for damages in the event of a failure of
one or more parties to perform. In any such agreement entered
into by a State, or a body politic of the State which derives
its powers from the State constitution, or a governmental
entity created by the State legislature, the agreement may
reflect that it does not obligate future 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.
* * * * * * *
(e) Limitation.--Nothing in subsection (a) shall be construed
as limiting the authority of the Secretary to ensure that an
agreement under this section meets all requirements of law and
policies of the Secretary in effect on the date of entry into
the agreement.
[(e)] (f) * * *
* * * * * * *
----------
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1996
* * * * * * *
TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
SEC. 206. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated to carry
out this section [$25,000,000] $40,000,000 for each fiscal
year.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 211. CONSTRUCTION OF FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS BY NON-FEDERAL
INTERESTS.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) Specific Projects.--For the purpose of demonstrating the
potential advantages and effectiveness of non-Federal
implementation of flood control projects, the Secretary shall
enter into agreements pursuant to this section with non-Federal
interests for
development of the following flood control projects by such
interests:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(9) Buffalo bayou, texas.--The project for flood
control, Buffalo Bayou, Texas.
(10) Halls bayou, texas.--The project for flood
control, Halls Bayou, Texas.
(11) St. paul downtown airport (holman field), st.
paul, minnesota.--The project for flood damage
reduction, St. Paul Downtown Airport (Holman Field),
St. Paul, Minnesota.
(12) Thornton reservoir, cook county, illinois.--The
project for flood control, Chicago Underflow Plan,
Thornton Reservoir, Cook County, Illinois.
(13) Larose to golden meadow, louisiana.--The project
for flood control, Larose to Golden Meadow, Louisiana.
(14) Perris, california.--The project for flood
control, Perris, California.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 217. DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITY PARTNERSHIPS.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Governmental Partnerships.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may enter into cost
sharing agreements with one 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. One or more of the parties of the agreement
may perform the acquisition, design, construction,
management, or operation of a dredged material
processing, treatment, or disposal facility. If
appropriate, the Secretary may combine portions of
separate construction or maintenance appropriations
from separate Federal projects with the appropriate
combined cost sharing between the various projects when
the facility serves to manage dredged material from
multiple Federal projects located in the geographic
region of the facility.
(2) Public financing.--
(A) Agreements.--
(i) Specified federal funding sources
and cost sharing.--The cost-sharing
agreement used shall clearly specify
the Federal funding sources and
combined cost sharing when applicable
to multiple Federal navigation projects
and the responsibilities and risks of
each of the parties related to present
and future dredged material managed by
the facility.
(ii) Management of sediments.--The
cost-sharing agreement may include the
management of sediments from the
maintenance dredging of Federal
navigation projects that do not have
partnership agreements. The cost-
sharing agreement may allow the non-
Federal sponsor to receive reimbursable
payments from the Federal Government
for commitments made by the sponsor 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.--Nothing in this subsection
supersedes or modifies existing agreements
between the Federal Government and any non-
Federal sponsors for the cost sharing,
construction, and operation and maintenance of
Federal navigation projects. Subject to the
approval of the Secretary and in accordance
with existing laws, regulations, and policies,
a non-Federal public sponsor of a Federal
navigation project may seek credit for funds
provided in 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. The non-Federal
sponsor shall be responsible for providing all
necessary lands, easements, rights-of-way, or
relocations associated with the facility and
shall receive credit for these 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.
* * * * * * *
TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
[SEC. 330. SAULT SAINTE MARIE, CHIPPEWA COUNTY, MICHIGAN.
[(a) In General.--The project for navigation, Sault Sainte
Marie, Chippewa County, Michigan, authorized by section 1149 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4254-
4255), is modified as follows:
[(1) Payment of non-federal share.--The non-Federal
share of the cost of the project shall be paid as
follows:
[(A) That portion of the non-Federal share
that the Secretary determines is attributable
to use of the lock by vessels calling at
Canadian ports shall be paid by the United
States.
[(B) The remaining portion of the non-Federal
share shall be paid by the Great Lakes States
pursuant to an agreement entered into by such
States.
[(2) Payment term of additional percentage.--The
amount to be paid by non-Federal interests pursuant to
section 101(a) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211(a)) and this subsection with
respect to the project may be paid over a period of 50
years or the expected life of the project, whichever is
shorter.
[(b) Great Lakes States Defined.--In this section, the term
``Great Lakes States'' means the States of Illinois, Indiana,
Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
Wisconsin.]
* * * * * * *
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
SEC. 501. LAND CONVEYANCES.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g) Boardman, Oregon.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall convey to the
[city of Boardman,] the Boardman Park and Recreation
District, Boardman, Oregon, all right, title, and
interest of the United States in and to a parcel of
land consisting of approximately 141 acres acquired as
part of the John Day Lock and Dam project in the
vicinity of [such city] the city of Boardman currently
under lease to the Boardman Park and Recreation
District.
* * * * * * *
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] $6,000,000.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 510. CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND PROTECTION
PROGRAM.
(a) Establishment.--
(1) * * *
(2) Form.--The assistance shall be in the form of
design and construction assistance for water-related
environmental infrastructure and resource protection
and development projects affecting the Chesapeake Bay
estuary, including projects for sediment and erosion
control, protection of eroding shorelines, protection
of essential public works, wastewater treatment and
related facilities, water supply and related
facilities[, and beneficial uses of dredged material],
beneficial uses of dredged material, and restoration of
submerged aquatic vegetation, and other related
projects that may enhance the living resources of the
estuary.
* * * * * * *
(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to
be appropriated to carry out this section [$10,000,000]
$50,000,000.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 516. SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) * * *
(2) Great lakes tributary model.--In addition to
amounts made available under paragraph (1), there is
authorized to be appropriated to carry out subsection
(e) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2002 through
[2006] 2011.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 528. EVERGLADES AND SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(b) Restoration Activities.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) Critical restoration projects.--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(C) Authorization of appropriations.--
(i) In general.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Department of
the Army to pay the Federal share of
the cost of carrying out projects under
subparagraph (A) [$75,000,000 for the
period consisting of fiscal years 1997
through 2003] $95,000,000.
(ii) Federal share.--The Federal
share of the cost of carrying out any 1
project under subparagraph (A) shall be
not more than [$25,000,000]
$30,000,000.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 531. SOUTHERN AND EASTERN KENTUCKY.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(i) Corps of Engineers Expenses.--Ten percent of the amounts
appropriated to carry out this section may be used by the Corps
of Engineers district offices to administer projects under this
section at 100 percent Federal expense.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 553. NEW YORK STATE CANAL SYSTEM.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(c) New York State Canal System Defined.--In this section,
the term ``New York State Canal System'' means the Erie,
Oswego, Champlain, and Cayuga-Seneca Canals.]
(c) New York State Canal System Defined.--In this section,
the term ``New York State Canal System'' means the 524 miles of
navigable canal that comprise the New York State Canal System,
including the Erie, Cayuga-Seneca, Oswego, and Champlain Canals
and the historic alignments of these canals, including the
cities of Albany and Buffalo.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 567. UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN, PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW YORK.
(a) Study and Strategy Development.--The Secretary, in
cooperation with the Secretary of Agriculture, the State of
Pennsylvania, and the State of New York, shall conduct a study,
and develop and carry out a strategy, for using wetland
restoration, soil and water conservation practices, and
nonstructural measures to reduce flood damage, improve water
quality, and create wildlife habitat in the following portions
of the Upper Susquehanna River basin:
(1) * * *
(2) The Susquehanna River watershed upstream of the
Chemung River, New York, at an estimated Federal cost
of [$10,000,000.] $20,000,000, of which the Secretary
may utilize not more than $5,000,000 to design and
construct feasible pilot projects during the
development of the strategy to demonstrate alternative
approaches for the strategy. The total cost for any
single pilot project may not exceed $500,000. The
Secretary shall evaluate the results of the pilot
projects and consider the results in the development of
the strategy.
* * * * * * *
(c) [Cooperation] Cooperative Agreements.--In conducting the
study and developing and carrying out the strategy under this
section, the Secretary shall enter into [cooperation] cost-
sharing and cooperative agreements to provide financial
assistance to appropriate Federal, State, and local government
agencies and appropriate nonprofit, nongovernmental
organizations with expertise in wetland restoration, with the
consent of the affected local government. Financial assistance
provided may include activities for the implementation of
wetlands restoration projects and soil and water conservation
measures.
(d) Implementation of Strategy.--[The Secretary]
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall undertake
development and implementation of the strategy under
this section in cooperation with local landowners and
local government officials. Projects to [implement]
carry out the strategy shall be designed to take
advantage of ongoing or planned actions by other
agencies, local municipalities, or nonprofit,
nongovernmental organizations with expertise in
wetlands restoration that would increase the
effectiveness or decrease the overall cost of
[implementing] carrying out recommended projects and
may include the acquisition of wetlands, from willing
sellers, that contribute to the Upper Susquehanna River
basin ecosystem.
(2) Priority project.--In carrying out projects to
implement the strategy, the Secretary shall give
priority to the project for ecosystem restoration,
Cooperstown, New York, described in the Upper
Susquehanna River Basin--Cooperstown Area Ecosystem
Restoration Feasibility Study, dated December 2004,
prepared by the Corps of Engineers and the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation.
(e) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of a project under this section--
(1) the cost of design and construction work carried
out by the non-Federal interest before the date of the
partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary
determines that the work is integral to the project;
and
(2) the cost of in-kind services and materials
provided for the project by the non-Federal interest.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 575. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS.
(a) In General.--During any evaluation of economic benefits
and costs for projects set forth in subsection (b) that occurs
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary
shall not consider flood control works constructed or
nonstructural actions by non-Federal interests within the
drainage area of such projects prior to the date of such
evaluation in the determination of conditions existing prior to
construction of the project or nonstructural actions, whether
or not such works or actions are partially funded under the
hazard mitigation grant program of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
(b) Specific Projects.--The projects to which subsection (a)
apply are--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(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 the 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
$2,250,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $750,000.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 579. GREENBRIER RIVER BASIN, WEST VIRGINIA, FLOOD PROTECTION.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to
be appropriated to carry out this section [$47,000,000]
$99,000,000.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 581. WEST VIRGINIA AND PENNSYLVANIA FLOOD CONTROL.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may design and construct--
(1) [flood control measures] structural and
nonstructural flood control, streambank protection,
stormwater management, and channel clearing and
modification measures in the Cheat and Tygart River
basins, West Virginia, at a level of protection that is
sufficient to prevent any future losses to communities
in the basins from flooding such as occurred in January
1996, but not less than a 100-year level of protection
with respect to measures that incorporate levees or
floodwalls; and
* * * * * * *
(b) Priority Communities.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary shall give priority to the communities of--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(5) Patton, Barnesboro, Coalport, and Spangler,
Pennsylvania, in the West Branch Susquehanna River
Basin; [and]
(6) Bedford, Linds Crossings, and Logan Township in
the Juniata River Basin[.];
(7) Etna, Pennsylvania, in the Pine Creek watershed;
and
(8) Millvale, Pennsylvania, in the Girty's Run River
basin.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to
be appropriated to carry out this section [$12,000,000]
$90,000,000.
* * * * * * *
----------
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1992
* * * * * * *
TITLE II--GENERALLY APPLICABLE PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
SEC. 204. BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(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 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) 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) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to
be appropriated not to exceed $15,000,000 annually to carry out
this section. Such sums shall remain available until expended.
[(g) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221 of the
Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), for any project
carried out under this section, a non-Federal interest may
include a nonprofit entity, with the consent of the affected
local government.]
(c) In General.--The Secretary may carry out projects to
transport and place sediment obtained in connection with the
construction, operation, or maintenance of an authorized water
resources project at locations selected by a non-Federal entity
for use in the construction, repair, or rehabilitation of
projects determined by the Secretary to be in the public
interest and 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.
(d) Cooperative Agreement.--Any project undertaken pursuant
to this section shall be initiated only after non-Federal
interests have entered into an agreement with the Secretary in
which the non-Federal interests agree to pay the non-Federal
share of the cost of construction of the project and 100
percent of the cost of operation, maintenance, replacement, and
rehabilitation of the project in accordance with section 103 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213).
(e) Special Rule.--Construction of a project under subsection
(a) for one or more of the purposes of protection, restoration,
or creation of aquatic and ecologically related habitat, the
cost of which does not exceed $750,000 and which will be
located in a disadvantaged community as determined by the
Secretary, may be carried out at Federal expense.
(f) Determination of Construction Costs.--Costs associated
with construction of a project under this section shall be
limited solely to construction costs that are in excess of
those costs necessary to carry out the dredging for
construction, operation, or maintenance of the authorized water
resources project in the most cost-effective way, consistent
with economic, engineering, and environmental criteria.
(g) Selection of Sediment Disposal Method.--In developing and
carrying out a water resources project involving the disposal
of sediment, 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
subsections (d) and (f).
(h) 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.
(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to
be appropriated $30,000,000 annually for projects under this
section of which not more than $3,000,000 annually may be used
for construction of projects described in subsection (e). Such
sums shall remain available until expended.
(j) Regional Sediment Management Planning.--In consultation
with appropriate State and Federal agencies, the Secretary may
develop, at Federal expense, plans for regional management of
sediment obtained in conjunction with the construction,
operation, or maintenance of water resources projects,
including potential beneficial uses of sediment for
construction, repair, or rehabilitation of public projects for
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.
(k) Use of Funds.--
(1) Non-federal interest.--The non-Federal interest
for a project described in this section may use, and
the Secretary shall accept, funds provided under any
other Federal program, to satisfy, in whole or in part,
the non-Federal share of the cost of such project if
such funds are authorized to be used to carry out such
project.
(2) Other federal agencies.--The non-Federal share of
the cost of construction of a project under this
section may be met through contributions from a Federal
agency made directly to the Secretary, with the consent
of the affected local government, if such funds are
authorized to be used to carry out such project. Before
initiating a project to which this paragraph applies,
the Secretary shall enter into an agreement with a non-
Federal interest in which the non-Federal interest
agrees to pay 100 percent of the cost of operation,
maintenance, replacement, and rehabilitation of the
project.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 219. ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Project Descriptions.--The projects for which the
Secretary is authorized to provide assistance under subsection
(a) are as follows:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(41) Winchester, kentucky.--Wastewater
infrastructure, Winchester, Kentucky.
* * * * * * *
(e) Authorization of Appropriations for Construction
Assistance.--There are authorized to be appropriated for
providing construction assistance under this section--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(7) $30,000,000 for the project described in
subsection (c)(16); [and]
(8) $30,000,000 for the project described in
subsection (c)(17)[.];
(9) $35,000,000 for the project described in
subsection (c)(18);
(10) $20,000,000 for the project described in
subsection (c)(20);
(11) $35,000,000 for the project described in
subsection (c)(23);
(12) $20,000,000 for the project described in
subsection (c)(25);
(13) $20,000,000 for the project described in
subsection (c)(26);
(14) $35,000,000 for the project described in
subsection (c)(27);
(15) $20,000,000 for the project described in
subsection (c)(28); and
(16) $30,000,000 for the project described in
subsection (c)(40).
(f) Additional Assistance.--The Secretary may provide
assistance under subsection (a) and assistance for construction
for the following:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(10) Eastern shore and southwest virginia.--
[$20,000,000 for water supply and wastewater
infrastructure]
(A) In general.--$20,000,000 for water
supply, wastewater infrastructure, and
environmental restoration projects in the
counties of Accomac, Northampton, Lee, Norton,
Wise, Scott, Russell, Dickenson, Buchanan, and
Tazewell, Virginia.
(B) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit
toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the
project the cost of work carried out by the
non-Federal interest before the date of the
partnership agreement for the project if the
Secretary determines that the work is integral
to the project.
(11) Northeast pennsylvania.--$20,000,000 for water
related infrastructure in the counties of Lackawanna,
Lycoming, Susquehanna, Wyoming, Pike, Wayne, Sullivan,
Bradford, [and Monroe] Northumberland, Union, Snyder,
and Montour, Pennsylvania, including assistance for the
Mountoursville Regional Sewer Authority, Lycoming
County, Pennsylvania.
(12) Calumet region, indiana.--[$30,000,000]
(A) In general.--$30,000,000 for water
related infrastructure projects in the counties
of Benton, Jasper, Lake, Newton, and Porter,
Indiana.
(B) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit
toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the
project the cost of planning and design work
carried out by the non-Federal interest before,
on, or after the date of the partnership
agreement for the project if the Secretary
determines that the work is integral to the
project.
* * * * * * *
(21) Baton rouge, louisiana.--[$20,000,000]
$35,000,000 for water related infrastructure for the
parishes of East Baton Rouge, Ascension, and
Livingston, Louisiana.
(22) East san joaquin county, california.--
[$25,000,000]
(A) In general.--$25,000,000 for ground water
recharge and conjunctive use projects in
Stockton East Water District, California.
(B) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit
toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the
project (i) the cost of design and construction
work carried out by the non-Federal interest
before, on, or after the date of the
partnership agreement for the project if the
Secretary determines that the work is integral
to the project; and (ii) the cost of provided
for the project by the non-Federal interest.
(C) In-kind contributions.--The non-Federal
interest may provide any portion of the non-
Federal share of the cost of the project in the
form of in-kind services and materials.
* * * * * * *
(32) St. louis, missouri.--[$15,000,000] $35,000,000
for a project to eliminate or control combined sewer
overflows in the city of St. Louis, Missouri.
* * * * * * *
(48) Cambria, california.--[$10,300,000]
(A) In general.--$10,300,000 for desalination
infrastructure, Cambria, California.
(B) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit
toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the
project not to exceed $3,000,000 for the cost
of planning and design work carried out by the
non-Federal interest before the date of the
partnership agreement for the project if the
Secretary determines that the work is integral
to the project.
* * * * * * *
(61) Garrison and kathio [township] township and crow
wing and mille lacs counties, minnesota.--[$11,000,000]
$17,000,000 for a wastewater infrastructure project for
the city of Garrison, Crow Wing County, Mille Lacs
County, and Kathio Township, Minnesota. Such assistance
shall be provided directly to the Garrison-Kathio-West
Mille Lacs Lake Sanitary District, Minnesota.
* * * * * * *
(64) Stanly county, north carolina.--$8,900,000 for
water and wastewater infrastructure, Stanly County,
North Carolina.
* * * * * * *
(66) Allegheny county, pennsylvania.--[$20,000,000]
(A) In general.--$20,000,000 for water-
related environmental infrastructure, Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania.
(B) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit
toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the
project the cost of work carried out by the
non-Federal interest before the date of the
partnership agreement for the project if the
Secretary determines that the work is integral
to the project.
* * * * * * *
TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
SEC. 313. SOUTH CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION
INFRASTRUCTURE AND RESOURCE PROTECTION DEVELOPMENT
PILOT PROGRAM.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g) Authorization and Allocation of Appropriations.--
(1) Authorization of appropriations.--There is
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
[$180,000,000] $200,000,000 for fiscal years beginning
after September 30, 1992. Such sums shall remain
available until expended.
* * * * * * *
(h) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the following
definitions apply:
(1) * * *
(2) South central pennsylvania.--The term ``south
central Pennsylvania'' means [Allegheny, Armstrong,
Beford, Blair, Cambria, Clearfield, Fayette, Franklin,
Fulton, Greene, Huntingdon, Indiana, Juniata, Mifflin,
Somerset, Snyder, Washington, and Westmoreland
Counties] Allegheny, Armstrong, Bedford, Blair,
Cambria, Fayette, Franklin, Fulton, Greene, Huntingdon,
Indiana, Juniata, Somerset, Washington, and
Westmoreland Counties, Pennsylvania.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 324. HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS AREA, NEW JERSEY.
(a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to provide
[design] planning, design, and construction assistance to the
[Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission of the State of
New Jersey for the development of the Phase I Environmental
Improvement Program of the Special Area Management Plan for]
New Jersey Meadowlands Commission for the development of an
environmental improvement program for the Hackensack
Meadowlands area, New Jersey.
(b) [Required] Elements.--The program to be developed under
subsection (a) [shall] may include at a minimum the following
areas:
[(1) Mitigation, enhancement, and acquisition of
significant wetlands that contribute to the Meadowlands
ecosystem.]
(1) Restoration and acquisitions of significant
wetlands and aquatic habitat that contribute to the
Meadowlands ecosystem.
(2) Development and implementation of a regional
system to protect, preserve, and monitor wetlands and
aquatic habitat.
* * * * * * *
[(7) Research and development for a water quality
improvement program.]
(7) Research, development, and implementation for a
water quality improvement program, including
restoration of hydrology and tidal flows and
remediation of hot spots and other sources of
contaminants that degrade existing or planned sites.
(c) Cost Sharing.--Total project costs under subsection (a)
shall be shared at 75 percent Federal and 25 percent non-
Federal. The non-Federal sponsor shall receive credit for
lands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations toward its
share of project costs, but not to exceed 25 percent of total
project costs. The non-Federal sponsor may also provide in-kind
services, not to exceed the non-Federal share of the total
project cost, and may also receive credit for reasonable cost
of design work completed prior to entering into the partnership
agreement with the Secretary for a project to be carried out
under the program developed under subsection (a). Operation and
maintenance cost shall be 100 percent non-Federal.
(d) Authorization of Appropriation.--There is authorized to
be appropriated to carry out this section [$5,000,000]
$35,000,000 for fiscal years beginning after September 30,
1992. Such sums shall remain available until expended.
[SEC. 325. LAND EXCHANGE, ALLATOONA LAKE, GEORGIA.
[(a) In General.--The Secretary may initiate a program to
exchange lands above 863 feet in elevation which are excess to
the operational needs of Allatoona Lake, Georgia, for lands on
the north side of Allatoona Lake which are needed for wildlife
management and for protection of the water quality and overall
environment of Allatoona Lake.
[(b) Terms and Conditions.--Land exchanges under the program
to be conducted under subsection (a) shall be subject to the
following terms and conditions:
[(1) Lands acquired under the program must be
contiguous to the lands in Federal Government ownership
on the date of the enactment of this Act.
[(2) Lands acquired under the program shall be from
willing sellers only.
[(3) The basis for all land exchanges under the
program shall be a fair market appraisal so that lands
exchanged are of equal value.]
* * * * * * *
SEC. 340. SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION
INFRASTRUCTURE AND RESOURCE PROTECTION DEVELOPMENT
PILOT PROGRAM.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) Southern West Virginia Defined.--For purposes of this
section, the term ``Southern West Virginia'' means Raleigh,
Wayne, Cabell, Fayette, Lincoln, Summers, Wyoming, Webster,
Mingo, McDowell, Logan, Boone, Mercer, Pocahontas, Greenbrier,
Nicholas, and Monroe Counties, West Virginia.
* * * * * * *
(h) Corps of Engineers.--Ten percent of the amounts
appropriated to carry out this section may be used by the Corps
of Engineers district offices to administer projects under this
section at 100 percent Federal expense.
(i) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) of
the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), for any
project undertaken under this section, a non-Federal interest
may include a nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected
local government.
* * * * * * *
TITLE IV--INFRASTRUCTURE TECHNOLOGY, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
* * * * * * *
SEC. 404. ATLANTIC COAST OF NEW YORK.
(a) Development of Program.--The Secretary is authorized and
directed to develop a data collection and monitoring program of
coastal [processes] and related environmental processes for the
Atlantic Coast (and associated back bays) of New York, from
Coney Island to Montauk Point, with a view toward providing
information necessary to develop a program for addressing post
storm actions, environmental restoration or conservation
measures for coastal and back bays, and long-term shoreline
erosion control. The plan for collecting data and monitoring
information included in such annual report shall be fully
coordinated with and agreed to by appropriate agencies of the
State of New York.
(b) [Initial Plan.--Not later than 12 months after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the] Annual Reports.--The
Secretary shall provide an [initial plan for data collection
and monitoring] annual report of data collection and monitoring
activities to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of
the Senate and the Committee on Public Works and Transportation
of the House of Representatives. [Such initial plan shall be
fully coordinated with and agreed to by appropriate agencies of
the State of New York.]
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to
be appropriated $1,400,000 for each of fiscal years 1993, 1994,
1995, 1996, and 1997, [and an additional total of $2,500,000
for fiscal years thereafter] $2,500,000 for fiscal years 2000
through 2004, and $7,500,000 for fiscal years beginning after
September 30, 2004, to carry out this section. Such sums shall
remain available until expended.
(d) Tsunami Warning System.--There is authorized to be
appropriated $800,000 for the Secretary to carry out a project
for a tsunami warning system, Atlantic Coast of New York.
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 145 OF THE WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1976
[Sec. 145. The Secretary of the Army, acting through the
Chief of Engineers, is authorized upon request of the State, to
place on the beaches of such State beach-quality sand which has
been dredged in construction and maintaining navigation inlets
and channels adjacent to such beaches, if the Secretary deems
such action to be in the public interest and upon payment by
such State of 35 percent of the increased cost thereof above
the cost required for alternative methods of disposing of such
sand. At the request of the State, the Secretary may enter into
an agreement with a political subdivision of the State to place
sand on the beaches of the political subdivision of the State
under the same terms and conditions required in the first
sentence of this section; except that the political subdivision
shall be responsible for providing any payments required under
such sentence in lieu of the State. In carrying out this
section, the Secretary shall give consideration to the schedule
of the State, or the schedule of the responsible political
subdivision of the requesting State, for providing its share of
funds for placing such sand on the beaches of the State or the
political subdivision and shall, to the maximum extent
practicable, accommodate such schedule.]
----------
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1999
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) * * *
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act is
as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
* * * * * * *
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 557. Northern West Virginia.]
Sec. 557. Kentucky and Northern West Virginia.
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS
* * * * * * *
SEC. 102. SMALL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS.
(a) * * *
(b) Festus and Crystal City, Missouri.--
(1) Maximum federal expenditure.--The maximum amount
of Federal funds that may be expended for the project
for flood control, Festus and Crystal City, Missouri,
is [$10,000,000] $12,000,000.
* * * * * * *
TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
SEC. 212. FLOOD MITIGATION AND RIVERINE RESTORATION PROGRAM.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) Priority Areas.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary shall examine appropriate locations, including--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(23) Lincoln Creek, Wisconsin; [and]
* * * * * * *
(27) Susquehanna River watershed, Bradford County,
Pennsylvania; [and]
(28) Clear Creek, Harris, Galveston, and Brazoria
Counties, Texas[.];
(29) Ascension Parish, Louisiana;
(30) East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana;
(31) Iberville Parish, Louisiana;
(32) Livingston Parish, Louisiana; and
(33) Pointe Coupee Parish, Louisiana.
* * * * * * *
(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this [section--
[(A) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;
[(B) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; and
[(C) $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2003 through 2005] section $20,000,000.
* * * * * * *
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) of the
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C.
460l-6a(i)(1)(A)) 100 percent of the amount of receipts
above a baseline of [$34,000,000] $42,000,000 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. 460l-6a(b)).
* * * * * * *
(3) Availability.--The amounts withheld shall remain
available until [September 30, 2005] expended.
* * * * * * *
TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
SEC. 310. BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Credit.--After completion of the study, the Secretary
shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the
project the cost of nourishment and renourishment associated
with the shore protection project incurred by the non-Federal
interest to respond to damages to Brevard County beaches that
are the result of a Federal navigation project, as determined
in the final report for the study.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 328. WEST BANK OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER (EAST OF HARVEY CANAL),
LOUISIANA.
(a) In General.--The project to prevent flood damage and for
hurricane damage reduction, west bank of the Mississippi River
(east of Harvey Canal), Louisiana, authorized by section 401(b)
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4128)
and section 101(a)(17) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1996 (110 Stat. 3665), is modified to direct the Secretary
to continue Federal [operation and maintenance] operation,
maintenance, rehabilitation, repair, and replacement of the
portion of the project included in the report of the Chief of
Engineers dated May 1, 1995, referred to as ``[Algiers Channel]
Algiers Canal Levees''.
* * * * * * *
(c) Cost Sharing.--The non-Federal share of the cost of the
project shall be 35 percent.
* * * * * * *
[SEC. 330. SAULT SAINTE MARIE, CHIPPEWA COUNTY, MICHIGAN.
[The project for navigation Sault Sainte Marie, Chippewa
County, Michigan, authorized by section 1149 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4254) and modified
by section 330 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
(110 Stat. 3717), is further modified to provide that the
amount to be paid by non-Federal interests under section 101(a)
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
2211(a)) and section 330(a) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996 shall not include any interest payments.]
* * * * * * *
[SEC. 374. WHITE RIVER BASIN, ARKANSAS AND MISSOURI.
[(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the project for
flood control, power generation, and other purposes at the
White River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri, authorized by section
4 of the Act of June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1218, chapter 795), and
modified by House Document 917, 76th Congress, 3d Session, and
House Document 290, 77th Congress, 1st Session, approved August
18, 1941, and House Document 499, 83d Congress, 2d Session,
approved September 3, 1954, and by section 304 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3711) is further
modified to authorize the Secretary to provide minimum flows
necessary to sustain tail water trout fisheries by reallocating
the following amounts of project storage: Beaver Lake, 1.5
feet; Table Rock, 2 feet; Bull Shoals Lake, 5 feet; Norfork
Lake, 3.5 feet; and Greers Ferry Lake, 3 feet.
[(b) Report.--
[(1) In general.--No funds may be obligated to carry
out work on the modification under subsection (a) until
completion of a final report by the Chief of Engineers
finding that the work is technically sound,
environmentally acceptable, and economically justified.
[(2) Timing.--The Secretary shall submit the report
to Congress not later than July 30, 2000.
[(3) Contents.--The report shall include
determinations concerning whether--
[(A) the modification under subsection (a)
adversely affects other authorized project
purposes; and
[(B) Federal costs will be incurred in
connection with the modification.]
* * * * * * *
TITLE IV--STUDIES
* * * * * * *
SEC. 426. ST. CLAIR RIVER AND LAKE ST. CLAIR, MICHIGAN.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to
be appropriated to carry out this section [$400,000] $475,000.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 455. JOHN GLENN GREAT LAKES BASIN PROGRAM.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g) In-Kind Contributions for Study.--The non-Federal
interest may provide up to 100 percent of the non-Federal share
required under subsection (f) in the form of in-kind services
and materials.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 459. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) Report.--Not later than [3 years after the first date on
which funds are appropriated to carry out this section]
December 30, 2006, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public
Works of the Senate a report that includes the plan under
subsection (a).
* * * * * * *
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
SEC. 504. DAM SAFETY.
(a) Assistance.--The Secretary may provide assistance to
enhance dam safety at the following locations:
(1) * * *
(2) Kehly Run [Dams] Dams No. 1-5, Pennsylvania.
* * * * * * *
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. 517. EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN PROJECTS.
The Secretary shall expedite completion of the reports for
the following projects and, if justified, proceed directly to
project preconstruction, engineering, and design:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(5) Mississippi River, West Baton Rouge Parish,
Louisiana, project for waterfront and riverine
preservation, restoration, and enhancement
modifications.]
(5) Mississippi River, West Baton Rouge Parish,
Louisiana, project for waterfront and riverine
preservation, restoration, enhancement modifications,
and interpretive center development.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 557. KENTUCKY AND NORTHERN WEST VIRGINIA.
The projects described in the following reports are
authorized to be carried out by the Secretary substantially in
accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions,
recommended in the reports, and subject to a [favorable] report
of the Chief of Engineers:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) Louisville, kentucky.--Report of the Corps of
Engineers entitled ``Louisville Waterfront Park, Phase
II, Kentucky, Master Plan'', dated July 22, 2002, at a
total cost of $32,000,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $16,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $16,000,000.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 569. NORTHEASTERN MINNESOTA.
(a) Definition of Northeastern Minnesota.--In this section,
the term ``northeastern Minnesota'' means the counties of Cook,
Lake, St. Louis, Koochiching, Itasca, Cass, Crow Wing, Aitkin,
Carlton, Pine, Kanabec, Mille Lacs, Morrison, [Benton,
Sherburne,] Beltrami, Hubbard, Wadena, Isanti, and Chisago,
Minnesota.
* * * * * * *
(e) Local Cooperation Agreement.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) Cost sharing.--
(A) * * *
(B) Credit for design work.--The non-Federal
interest shall receive credit for the
reasonable costs of design work completed by
the non-Federal interest before entering into a
local cooperation agreement with the Secretary
for a project. [The credit for the design work
shall not exceed 6 percent of the total
construction costs of the project.]
* * * * * * *
[(g) Report.--Not later than December 31, 2001, the Secretary
shall submit to Congress a report on the results of the pilot
program carried out under this section, including
recommendations concerning whether the program should be
implemented on a national basis.]
(g) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) of
the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), for any
project undertaken under this section, a non-Federal interest
may include a nonprofit entity.
* * * * * * *
(i) Corps of Engineers Expenses.--Ten percent of the amounts
appropriated to carry out this section may be used by the Corps
of Engineers district offices to administer projects under this
section at 100 percent Federal expense.
SEC. 570. ALASKA.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Form of Assistance.--Assistance under this section may be
in the form of design and construction assistance for water-
related environmental infrastructure and resource protection
and development projects in Alaska, including projects for
wastewater treatment and related facilities, water supply and
related facilities, environmental restoration, and surface
water resource protection and development.
* * * * * * *
(e) Local Cooperation Agreements.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) Cost sharing.--
(A) * * *
(B) Credit for design work.--The non-Federal
interest shall receive credit for the
reasonable costs of design work completed by
the non-Federal interest before entering into a
local cooperation agreement with the Secretary
for a project. [The credit for the design work
shall not exceed 6 percent of the total
construction costs of the project.]
* * * * * * *
(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to
be appropriated to carry out this section [$25,000,000]
$45,000,000 for the period beginning with fiscal year 2000, to
remain available until expended.
(i) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) of
the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), for any
project undertaken under this section, a non-Federal interest
may include a nonprofit entity, with the consent of the
affected local government.
(j) Corps of Engineers Expenses.--Ten percent of the amounts
appropriated to carry out this section may be used by the Corps
of Engineers district offices to administer projects under this
section at 100 percent Federal expense.
SEC. 571. CENTRAL WEST VIRGINIA.
(a) Definition of Central West Virginia.--In this section,
the term ``central West Virginia'' means the counties of Mason,
Jackson, Putnam, Kanawha, Roane, Wirt, Calhoun, Clay,
[Nicholas,] Braxton, [Gilmer,] Lewis, Upshur, Randolph,
Pendleton, Hardy, Hampshire, Morgan, Berkeley, and Jefferson,
West Virginia.
* * * * * * *
(i) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) of
the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), for any
project undertaken under this section, a non-Federal interest
may include a nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected
local government.
(j) Corps of Engineers Expenses.--Ten percent of the amounts
appropriated to carry out this section may be used by the Corps
of Engineers district offices to administer projects under this
section at 100 percent Federal expense.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 573. ONONDAGA LAKE, NEW YORK.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(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] $30,000,000.
[(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. 593. CENTRAL NEW MEXICO.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to
be appropriated to carry out this section [$25,000,000]
$40,000,000 for the period beginning with fiscal year 2000, to
remain available until expended.
(i) Corps of Engineers Expenses.--Ten percent of the amounts
appropriated to carry out this section may be used by the Corps
of Engineers district offices to administer projects under this
section at 100 percent Federal expense.
SEC. 594. OHIO.
(a) * * *
(b) Form of Assistance.--Assistance under this section may be
in the form of [design and construction] planning, design, and
construction assistance for water-related environmental
infrastructure and resource protection and development projects
in Ohio, including projects for--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to
be appropriated to carry out this section [$60,000,000]
$100,000,000.
(h) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) of
the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5(b)), for any
project undertaken under this section, a non-Federal interest
may include a nonprofit entity, with the consent of the
affected local government.
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 309 OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1992
(Public Law 102-154)
Sec. 309. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in
fiscal year 1992 and thereafter, the Secretary of the Interior,
the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Energy, the
Secretary of the Army, and the Secretary of the Smithsonian
Institution are authorized to enter into contracts with State
and local governmental entities, including local fire
districts, for procurement of services in the presuppression,
detection, and suppression of fires on any units within their
jurisdiction.
----------
SECTION 22 OF THE WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1974
Sec. 22. [(a) The Secretary] (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 such 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) Establishment and collection.--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) In-kind services. [Up to \1/2\ of the] 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) Deposit and use.--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] 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]
subsection (a)(1), except that not more than [$500,000]
$1,000,000 shall be expended in any one year in any one
State.
(2) Technical assistance.--There is authorized to be
appropriated $5,000,000 annually to carry out
subsection (a)(2), of which not more than $2,000,000
annually may be used by the Secretary to enter into
cooperative agreements with nonprofit organizations to
provide assistance to rural and small communities.
(d) Annual Submission of Proposed Activities.--Concurrent
with the President's submission to Congress of the President's
request for appropriations for the Civil Works Program for a
fiscal year, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public
Works of the Senate a report describing the individual
activities proposed for funding under subsection (a)(1) for
that fiscal year.
[(d)] (e) 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.
SECTION 205 OF THE FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1948
Sec. 205. That the Secretary of the Army is hereby authorized
to allot from any appropriations heretofore or hereafter made
for flood control, not to exceed [$50,000,000] $60,000,000 for
any one fiscal year, for the implementation of small structural
and nonstructural projects for flood control and related
purposes not specifically authorized by Congress, which come
within the provisions of section 1 of the Flood Control Act of
June 22, 1936, when in the opinion of the Chief of Engineers
such work is advisable. The amount allotted for a project shall
be sufficient to complete Federal participation in the project.
Not more than $7,000,000 shall be allotted under this section
for a project at any single locality. The Provisions of local
cooperation specified in section 3 of the Flood Control Act of
June 22, 1936, as amended, shall apply. The work shall be
complete in itself and not commit the United States to any
additional improvement to insure its successful operation,
except as may result from the normal procedure applying to
projects authorized after submission of preliminary examination
and survey reports.
----------
SECTION 4 OF THE ACT OF DECEMBER 22, 1944
AN ACT Authorizing the construction, repair, and preservation of
certain public works on rivers and harbors for navigation, flood
control, and for other purposes.
Sec. 4. The Chief of Engineers, under the supervision of the
Secretary of the Army, is authorized to construct, maintain,
and operate public park and recreational facilities at water
resource development projects under the control of the
Department of the Army, to permit the construction of such
facilities by local interests (particularly those to be
operated and maintained by such interests), and to permit the
maintenance and operation of such facilities by local
interests. The Secretary of the Army is also authorized to
grant leases of lands, including structures or facilities
thereon, at water resource development projects for such
periods, and upon such terms and for such purposes as he may
deem reasonable in the public interest: Provided, That leases
to nonprofit organizations for park or recreational purposes
may be granted at reduced or nominal considerations in
recognition of the public service to be rendered in utilizing
the leased premises: Provided further, That preference shall be
given to federally-recognized Indian tribes and Federal, State,
or local governmental agencies, and licenses or leases where
appropriate, may be granted without monetary considerations, to
such Indian tribes or agencies for the use of all or any
portion of a project area for any public purpose, when the
Secretary of the Army determines such action to be in the
public interest, and for such periods of time and upon such
conditions as he may find advisable: And provided further, That
in any such lease or license to a federally-recognized Indian
ttribe Federal, State, or local governmental agency which
involves lands to be utilized for the development and
conservation of fish and wildlife, forests, and other natural
resources, the licensee or lessee may be authorized to cut
timber and harvest crops as may be necessary to further such
beneficial uses and to collect and utilize the proceeds of any
sales of timber and crops in the development, conservation,
maintenance, and utilization of such lands. Any balance of
proceeds not so utilized shall be paid to the United States at
such time or times as the Secretary of the Army may determine
appropriate. The water areas of all such projects shall be open
to public use generally for boating, swimming, bathing,
fishing, and other recreational purposes, and ready access to
and exit from such areas along the shores of such projects
shall be maintained for general public use, when such is
determined by the Secretary of the Army not to be contrary to
the public interest, all under such rules and regulations as
the Secretary of the Army may deem necessary, including but not
limited to prohibitions of dumping and unauthorized disposal in
any manner of refuse, garbage, rubbish, trash, debris, or
litter of any kind at such water resource development projects,
either into the waters of such projects or onto any land
federally owned and administered by the Chief of Engineers. Any
violation of such rules and regulations shall be punished by a
fine of not more than $500 or imprisonment for not more than
six months, or both. Any persons charged with the violation of
such rules and regulations may be tried and sentenced in
accordance with the provisions of section 3401 of title 18 of
the United States Code. All persons designated by the Chief of
Engineers for that purpose shall have the authority to issue a
citation for violation of the regulations adopted by the
Secretary of the Army, requiring the appearance of any person
charged with violation to appear before the United States
magistrate, within whose jurisdiction the water resource
development project is located, for trial; and upon sworn
information of any competent person any United States
magistrate in the proper jurisdiction shall issue process for
the arrest of any person charged with the violation of said
regulations; but nothing herein contained shall be construed as
preventing the arrest by any officer of the United States,
without process, of any person taken in the act of violating
said regulations. No use of any area to which this section
applies shall be permitted which is inconsistent with the laws
for the protection of fish and game of the State in which such
area is situated. All moneys received by the United States for
leases or privileges shall be deposited in the Treasury of the
United Sates as miscellaneous receipts.
----------
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004
An Act Making appropriations for energy and water development for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes
(Public Law 108-137)
TITLE I
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
* * * * * * *
GENERAL PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 123. Gwynns Falls Watershed, Baltimore, Maryland. The
Secretary of the Army shall implement the project for ecosystem
restoration, Gwynns Falls, Maryland, in accordance with the
Baltimore Metropolitan Water Resources-Gwynns Falls Watershed
Feasibility Report prepared by the Corps of Engineers and the
City of Baltimore, Maryland.]
* * * * * * *
Sec. 128. American River Watershed, California. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Dam Safety Modifications at L.L. Anderson Dam.--In
determining improvements for dam safety that are necessary at
the L.L. Anderson Dam, the Secretary shall consider the
without-project condition to be the dam as it existed on
December 1, 2003.
(d) Cost Allocation.--In allocating costs for the project
authorized in subsection (a), the Secretary shall use the
project cost allocations for flood damage reduction and dam
safety that are contained in the American River Watershed,
California, long-term study final supplemental plan formulation
report dated February 2002.
* * * * * * *
----------
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1990
* * * * * * *
TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS
* * * * * * *
SEC. 107. CONTINUATION OF AUTHORIZATION OF CERTAIN PROJECTS.
(a) General Rule.--Notwithstanding section 1001(b)(1) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986, the following projects
shall remain authorized to be carried out by the Secretary:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(8) Sault sainte marie, michigan.--The second lock
for Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan, authorized by section
1149 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(100 Stat. 4254-55); except that the Secretary shall
conduct, not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act and after providing an
opportunity for notice and comment, an analysis of the
projected total tonnage of commercial cargo which will
be delivered by vessels using such lock to or from
ports in Canada and the States of Minnesota, Wisconsin,
Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
New York. Such analysis shall be based on the
Secretary's estimate, using current traffic
statistics.]
* * * * * * *
TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. 401. GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS AND SEDIMENT REMEDIATION.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to
be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section
$10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through [2006] 2011.
* * * * * * *
----------
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.--The Secretary may operate the headwaters
reservoirs below the minimum or above the maximum water levels
established in subsection (a) in accordance with water control
regulation manuals (or revisions thereto) developed by the
Secretary, after consultation with the Governor of Minnesota
and affected tribal governments, landowners, and commercial and
recreational users. The water control regulation manuals (and
any revisions thereto) shall be effective when the Secretary
transmits them to Congress. The Secretary shall report to
Congress at least 14 days before operating any such headwaters
reservoir below the minimum or above the maximum water level
limits specified in subsection (a); except that notification is
not required for operations necessary to prevent the loss of
life or to ensure the safety of the dam or where the drawdown
of lake levels is in anticipation of flood control operations.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 30. LESAGE/GREENBOTTOM SWAMP, WEST VIRGINIA.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(d) Historic Structure.--The Secretary shall ensure the
preservation and restoration of the structure known as the
`Jenkins House' located within the Lesage/Greenbottom Swamp in
accordance with standards for sites listed on the National
Register of Historic Places.]
(d) Historic Structure.--The Secretary shall ensure the
preservation and restoration of the structure known as the
``Jenkins House'', and the reconstruction of associated
buildings and landscape features of such structure located
within the Lesage/Greenbottom Swamp in accordance with the
Secretary of the Interior's standards for the treatment of
historic properties. Amounts made available for expenditure for
the project authorized by section 301(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4110) shall be available for
the purposes of this subsection.
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 6009 OF THE EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR
DEFENSE, THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR, AND TSUNAMI RELIEF, 2005
[OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS FABRICATION PORTS
[Sec. 6009. In determining the economic justification for
navigation projects involving offshore oil and gas fabrication
ports, the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of
Engineers, is directed to measure and include in the National
Economic Development calculation the value of future energy
exploration and production fabrication contracts and
transportation cost savings that would result from larger
navigation channels.]
----------
MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
(Division B of H.R. 5666 as introduced on December 15, 2000 and enacted
into law by section 1(a)(4) of Public Law 106-554)
* * * * * * *
DIVISION B
TITLE I
* * * * * * *
Sec. 109. Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) Non-Federal Share.--
(1) * * *
(2) Credit.--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(C) Credit for work prior to execution of the
partnership agreement.--The Secretary shall
credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost
of the project (i) the cost of construction
work carried out by the non-Federal interest
before the date of the partnership agreement
for the project if the Secretary determines
that the work is integral to the project; and
(ii) the cost of land acquisition carried out
by the non-Federal interest for projects to be
carried out under this section.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 111. Perchlorate. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purposes of
carrying out this section, there is authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary [$25,000,000] $28,000,000, of
which not to exceed $8,000,000 shall be available to carry out
subsection (b)(1), not to exceed $3,000,000 shall be available
to carry out subsection (b)(2), and not to exceed [$7,000,000]
$10,000,000 shall be available to carry out subsection (b)(3).
* * * * * * *
House of Representatives,
Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC, June 22, 2005.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Rayburn HOB, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I have reviewed the text of H.R. 2864,
the Water Resources Development Act of 2005, as ordered
reported by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
and believe that the Committee on Resources has a substantial
jurisdictional interest in several provisions of this bill.
Recognizing the importance of this major piece of
legislation and the hard work you and your staff have put into
it, I will forego seeking a sequential referral of H.R. 2864.
Waiving the Committee on Resources' right to a referral in this
case does not waive the Committee's jurisdiction over any
provision in H.R. 2864 or similar provisions in other bills. In
addition, I ask that you support my request to have the
Committee on Resources represented on the conference on this
bill, if a conference is necessary. Finally, I ask that you
include this letter and your response in the report on H.R.
2864 when it is filed.
I appreciate your leadership on this bill and I look
forward to working with you on H.R. 2864.
Sincerely,
Richard W. Pombo,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC, June 23, 2005.
Hon. Richard W. Pombo,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
Longworth Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of June 22,
2005, regarding H.R. 2864, the Water Resources Development Act
of 2005, and for your willingness to waive consideration of the
provisions in the bill that fall within your Committee's
jurisdiction under House Rules.
I agree that waiving consideration of these provisions does
not waive your Committee's jurisdiction over the bill. I also
acknowledge your right to seek conferees on any provisions that
are under your Committee's jurisdiction during any House-Senate
conference on H.R. 2864 or similar legislation, and will
support your request for conferees on such provisions. .
As you request, your letter and this response will be
included in the Committee report on the legislation.
Thank you for your cooperation in moving this important
legislation to the House Floor.
Sincerely,
Don Young,
Chairman.