[Senate Report 109-61]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
109th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 109-61
_______________________________________________________________________
Calendar No. 93
WATER RESOURCES
DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2005
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
to accompany
S. 728
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
April 26, 2005.--Ordered to be printed
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
one hundred ninth congress
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri MAX BAUCUS, Montana
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island BARBARA BOXER, California
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
JIM DEMINT, South Carolina FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia BARACK OBAMA, Illinois
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
Andrew Wheeler Majority Staff Director
Ken Connolly, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
__________
Page
General statement................................................ 1
Water Resources Development Act of 2005.......................... 2
Section-by-section analysis...................................... 2
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents....................... 2
Sec. 2. Definition of Secretary.............................. 3
TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS
Sec. 1001. Project authorizations............................ 3
Sec. 1002. Enhanced navigation capacity improvements and
ecosystem restoration plan for the Upper Mississippi River
and Illinois Waterway System............................... 19
Sec. 1003. Louisiana coastal area ecosystem restoration,
Louisiana.................................................. 23
Sec. 1004. Small projects for flood damage reduction......... 26
Sec. 1005. Small projects for navigation..................... 26
Sec. 1006. Small projects for aquatic ecosystem restoration.. 26
TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Provisions
Sec. 2001. Credit for in-kind contributions.................. 26
Sec. 2002. Interagency and international support authority... 27
Sec. 2003. Training funds.................................... 28
Sec. 2004. Recreational areas and project sites.............. 28
Sec. 2005. Fiscal transparency report........................ 29
Sec. 2006. Planning.......................................... 30
Sec. 2007. Independent reviews............................... 32
Sec. 2008. Mitigation for fish and wildlife losses........... 34
Sec. 2009. State technical assistance........................ 35
Sec. 2010. Access to water resource data..................... 35
Sec. 2011. Construction of flood control projects by non-
Federal interests.......................................... 35
Sec. 2012. Regional sediment management...................... 36
Sec. 2013. National shoreline erosion control development
program.................................................... 37
Sec. 2014. Shore protection projects......................... 38
Sec. 2015. Cost sharing for monitoring....................... 38
Sec. 2016. Ecosystem restoration benefits.................... 38
Sec. 2017. Funding to expedite the evaluation and processing
of permits................................................. 39
Sec. 2018. Electronic submission of permit applications...... 39
Sec. 2019. Improvement of water management at Corps of
Engineers reservoirs....................................... 39
Sec. 2020. Corps of Engineers hydropower operation and
maintenance funding........................................ 40
Sec. 2021. Federal hopper dredges............................ 40
Sec. 2022. Obstruction to navigation......................... 40
Subtitle B--Continuing authorities projects
Sec. 2031. Navigation enhancements for waterbourne
transportation............................................. 40
Sec. 2032. Protection and restoration due to emergencies at
shores and streambanks..................................... 41
Sec. 2033. Restoration of the environment for protection of
aquatic and riparian ecosystems program.................... 41
Sec. 2034. Environmental modification of projects for
improvement and restoration of ecosystems program.......... 41
Sec. 2035. Projects to enhance estuaries and coastal
habitats................................................... 41
Sec. 2036. Remediation of abandoned mine sites............... 41
Sec. 2037. Small projects for the rehabilitation or removal
of dams.................................................... 41
Sec. 2038. Remote, maritime-dependent communities............ 41
Sec. 2039. Agreements for water resource projects............ 42
Sec. 2040. Program names..................................... 43
TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS
Sec. 3001. St. Herman and St. Paul Harbors, Kodiak, Alaska... 43
Sec. 3002. Sitka, Alaska..................................... 43
Sec. 3003. Black Warrior-Tombigbee Rivers, Alabama........... 43
Sec. 3004. Augusta and Clarendon, Arkansas................... 43
Sec. 3005. St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.......... 44
Sec. 3006. St. Francis Basin land transfer, Arkansas and
Missouri................................................... 44
Sec. 3007. Red-Ouachita River Basin levees, Arkansas and
Louisiana.................................................. 44
Sec. 3008. McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River navigation system,
Arkansas and Oklahoma...................................... 44
Sec. 3009. Cache Creek Basin, California..................... 44
Sec. 3010. Hamilton Airfield, California..................... 45
Sec. 3011. LA-3 dredged material ocean disposal site
designation, California.................................... 45
Sec. 3012. Larkspur Ferry Channel, California................ 45
Sec. 3013. Llagas Creek, California.......................... 45
Sec. 3014. Los Angeles Harbor, California.................... 45
Sec. 3015. Magpie Creek, California.......................... 45
Sec. 3016. Pine Flat Dam fish and wildlife habitat,
California................................................. 46
Sec. 3017. Redwood City navigation project, California....... 46
Sec. 3018. Sacramento and American Rivers flood control,
California................................................. 46
Sec. 3019. Conditional declaration of nonnavigability, Port
of San Francisco, California............................... 46
Sec. 3020. Salton Sea restoration, California................ 46
Sec. 3021. Upper Guadalupe River, California................. 47
Sec. 3022. Yuba River Basin project, California.............. 47
Sec. 3023. Charles Hervey Townshend Breakwater, New Haven
Harbor, Connecticut........................................ 47
Sec. 3024. Anchorage area, New London Harbor, Connecticut.... 47
Sec. 3025. Norwalk Harbor, Connecticut....................... 47
Sec. 3026. St. George's Bridge, Delaware..................... 47
Sec. 3027. Christina River, Wilmington, Delaware............. 47
Sec. 3028. Additional program authority, comprehensive
Everglades restoration, Florida............................ 48
Sec. 3029. Critical restoration projects, Everglades and
south Florida ecosystem restoration, Florida............... 48
Sec. 3030. Jacksonville Harbor, Florida...................... 48
Sec. 3031. Lake Okeechobee and Hillsboro Aquifer pilot
projects, comprehensive Everglades restoration, Florida.... 48
Sec. 3032. Lido Key, Sarasota County, Florida................ 49
Sec. 3033. Tampa Harbor, Cut B, Tampa, Florida............... 49
Sec. 3034. Allatoona Lake, Georgia........................... 49
Sec. 3035. Dworshak Reservoir improvements, Idaho............ 49
Sec. 3036. Little Wood River, Gooding, Idaho................. 49
Sec. 3037. Port of Lewiston, Idaho........................... 50
Sec. 3038. Cache River Levee, Illinois....................... 50
Sec. 3039. Chicago, Illinois................................. 50
Sec. 3040. Chicago River, Illinois........................... 50
Sec. 3041. Missouri and Illinois flood protection projects
reconstruction pilot program............................... 50
Sec. 3042. Spunky Bottom, Illinois........................... 51
Sec. 3043. Strawn Cemetery, John Redmond Lake, Kansas........ 51
Sec. 3044. Harry S. Truman Reservoir, Milford, Kansas........ 51
Sec. 3045. Ohio River, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and West Virginia............................ 51
Sec. 3046. Public access, Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System,
Louisiana.................................................. 51
Sec. 3047. Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana............... 52
Sec. 3048. Larose to Golden Meadow, Louisiana................ 52
Sec. 3049. East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana................ 52
Sec. 3050. Red River (J. Bennett Johnston) Waterway,
Louisiana.................................................. 52
Sec. 3051. Camp Ellis, Saco, Maine........................... 52
Sec. 3052. Union River, Maine................................ 52
Sec. 3053. Chesapeake Bay environmental restoration and
protection program, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia... 53
Sec. 3054. Cumberland, Maryland.............................. 53
Sec. 3055. Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts and Rhode Island. 53
Sec. 3056. St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair, Michigan...... 53
Sec. 3057. Duluth Harbor, Minnesota.......................... 54
Sec. 3058. Land exchange, Pike County, Missouri.............. 54
Sec. 3059. Union Lake, Missouri.............................. 54
Sec. 3060. Fort Peck Fish Hatchery, Montana.................. 54
Sec. 3061. Yellowstone River and tributaries, Montana and
North Dakota............................................... 54
Sec. 3062. Lower Truckee River, Mccarran Ranch, Nevada....... 55
Sec. 3063. Middle Rio Grande restoration, New Mexico......... 55
Sec. 3064. Long Island Sound oyster restoration, New York and
Connecticut................................................ 55
Sec. 3065. Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York.................... 55
Sec. 3066. New York Harbor, New York, New York............... 55
Sec. 3067. Onondaga Lake, New York........................... 56
Sec. 3068. Missouri River restoration, North Dakota.......... 56
Sec. 3069. Lower Girard Lake Dam, Girard, Ohio............... 56
Sec. 3070. Toussaint River navigation project, Carroll
Township, Ohio............................................. 56
Sec. 3071. Arcadia Lake, Oklahoma............................ 56
Sec. 3072. Oklahoma Lake demonstration, Oklahoma............. 56
Sec. 3073. Waurika Lake, Oklahoma............................ 57
Sec. 3074. Lookout Point, Dexter Lake project, Lowell,
Oregon..................................................... 57
Sec. 3075. Upper Willamette River Watershed ecosystem
restoration................................................ 57
Sec. 3076. Tioga Township, Pennsylvania...................... 57
Sec. 3077. Upper Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and
New York................................................... 57
Sec. 3078. Cooper River Bridge demolition, Charleston, South
Carolina................................................... 57
Sec. 3079. South Carolina Department of Commerce development
proposal at Richard B. Russell Lake, South Carolina........ 58
Sec. 3080. Missouri River restoration, South Dakota.......... 58
Sec. 3081. Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers enhancement
project.................................................... 58
Sec. 3082. Anderson Creek, Jackson and Madison Counties,
Tennessee.................................................. 58
Sec. 3083. Harris Fork Creek, Tennessee and Kentucky......... 58
Sec. 3084. Nonconnah Weir, Memphis, Tennessee................ 59
Sec. 3085. Old Hickory Lock and Dam, Cumberland River,
Tennessee.................................................. 59
Sec. 3086. Sandy Creek, Jackson County, Tennessee............ 59
Sec. 3087. Cedar Bayou, Texas................................ 59
Sec. 3088. Freeport Harbor, Texas............................ 59
Sec. 3089. Harris County, Texas.............................. 59
Sec. 3090. Dam remediation, Vermont.......................... 60
Sec. 3091. Lake Champlain eurasian milfoil, water chestnut,
and other nonnative plant control, Vermont................. 60
Sec. 3092. Upper Connecticut River Basin wetland restoration,
Vermont and New Hampshire.................................. 60
Sec. 3093. Upper Connecticut River Basin ecosystem
restoration, Vermont and New Hampshire..................... 60
Sec. 3094. Lake Champlain Watershed, Vermont and New York.... 61
Sec. 3095. Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration, Virginia and
Maryland................................................... 61
Sec. 3096. Tangier Island Seawall, Virginia.................. 61
Sec. 3097. Erosion control, Puget Island, Wahkiakum County,
Washington................................................. 61
Sec. 3098. Lower granite pool, Washington.................... 61
Sec. 3099. Mcnary Lock and Dam, Mcnary National Wildlife
Refuge, Washington and Idaho............................... 62
Sec. 3100. Snake River project, Washington and Idaho......... 62
Sec. 3101. Marmet Lock, Kanawha River, West Virginia......... 62
Sec. 3102. Lower Mud River, Milton, West Virginia............ 62
Sec. 3103. Green Bay Harbor Project, Green Bay, Wisconsin.... 62
Sec. 3104. Underwood Creek diversion facility project,
Milwaukee County, Wisconsin................................ 63
Sec. 3105. Mississippi River headwaters reservoirs........... 63
Sec. 3106. Lower Mississippi River Museum and Riverfront
Interpretive Site.......................................... 63
Sec. 3107. Pilot program, Middle Mississippi River........... 63
Sec. 3108. Upper Mississippi River system environmental
management program......................................... 63
Sec. 3109. Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem restoration
program.................................................... 63
Sec. 3110. Great Lakes remedial action plans and sediment
remediation................................................ 64
Sec. 3111. Great Lakes tributary models...................... 64
TITLE IV--STUDIES
Sec. 4001. Eurasian milfoil.................................. 64
Sec. 4002. National port study............................... 64
Sec. 4003. McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation Channel.. 65
Sec. 4004. Selenium study, Colorado.......................... 65
Sec. 4005. Nicholas Canyon, Los Angeles, California.......... 65
Sec. 4006. Oceanside, California, shoreline special study.... 65
Sec. 4007. Comprehensive flood protection project, St.
Helena, California......................................... 65
Sec. 4008. San Francisco Bay, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta,
Sherman Island, California................................. 65
Sec. 4009. South San Francisco Bay shoreline study,
California................................................. 65
Sec. 4010. San Pablo Bay Watershed restoration, California... 66
Sec. 4011. Bubbly Creek, South Fork of South Branch, Chicago,
Illinois................................................... 66
Sec. 4012. Grand and Tiger Passes and Baptiste Collette
Bayou, Louisiana........................................... 66
Sec. 4013. Lake Erie at Luna Pier, Michigan.................. 66
Sec. 4014. Middle Bass Island State Park, Middle Bass Island,
Ohio....................................................... 66
Sec. 4015. Jasper County port facility study, South Carolina. 66
Sec. 4016. Lake Champlain Canal study, Vermont and New York.. 66
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec. 5001. Lakes program..................................... 67
Sec. 5002. Estuary restoration............................... 67
Sec. 5003. Delmarva conservation corridor, Delaware and
Maryland................................................... 69
Sec. 5004. Susquehanna, Delaware, and Potomac River Basins,
Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia............. 69
Sec. 5005. Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal Barriers
project, Illinois.......................................... 69
Sec. 5006. Rio Grande environmental management program, New
Mexico..................................................... 70
Sec. 5007. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux
Tribe, and Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration, South
Dakota..................................................... 71
Sec. 5008. Connecticut River dams, Vermont................... 71
TITLE VI--PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS
Sec. 6001. Little Cove Creek, Glencoe, Alabama............... 71
Sec. 6002. Goleta and vicinity, California................... 71
Sec. 6003. Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut.................... 71
Sec. 6004. Bridgeport, Connecticut........................... 71
Sec. 6005. Hartford, Connecticut............................. 72
Sec. 6006. New Haven, Connecticut............................ 72
Sec. 6007. Inland waterway from Delaware River to Chesapeake
Bay, Part II, installation of fender protection for
bridges, Delaware and Maryland............................. 72
Sec. 6008. Central and southern Florida, Everglades National
Park, Florida.............................................. 72
Sec. 6009. Shingle Creek Basin, Florida...................... 72
Sec. 6010. Brevoort, Indiana................................. 72
Sec. 6011. Middle Wabash, Greenfield Bayou, Indiana.......... 72
Sec. 6012. Lake George, Hobart, Indiana...................... 72
Sec. 6013. Green Bay Levee and Drainage District No. 2, Iowa. 72
Sec. 6014. Muscatine Harbor, Iowa............................ 73
Sec. 6015. Big South Fork National River and Recreational
Area, Kentucky and Tennessee............................... 73
Sec. 6016. Eagle Creek Lake, Kentucky........................ 73
Sec. 6017. Hazard, Kentucky.................................. 73
Sec. 6018. West Kentucky tributaries, Kentucky............... 73
Sec. 6019. Bayou Cocodrie and tributaries, Louisiana......... 73
Sec. 6020. Bayou Lafourche and Lafourche Jump, Louisiana..... 73
Sec. 6021. Eastern Rapides and South-Central Avoyelles
Parishes, Louisiana........................................ 73
Sec. 6022. Fort Livingston, Grand Terre Island, Louisiana.... 73
Sec. 6023. Gulf Intercoastal Waterway, Lake Borgne and Chef
Menteur, Louisiana......................................... 74
Sec. 6024. Red River Waterway, Shreveport, Louisiana to
Daingerfield, Texas........................................ 74
Sec. 6025. Casco Bay, Portland, Maine........................ 74
Sec. 6026. Northeast Harbor, Maine........................... 74
Sec. 6027. Penobscot River, Bangor, Maine.................... 74
Sec. 6028. Saint John River Basin, Maine..................... 74
Sec. 6029. Tenants Harbor, Maine............................. 74
Sec. 6030. Grand Haven Harbor, Michigan...................... 74
Sec. 6031. Greenville Harbor, Mississippi.................... 74
Sec. 6032. Platte River flood and related streambank erosion
control, Nebraska.......................................... 74
Sec. 6033. Epping, New Hampshire............................. 75
Sec. 6034. Manchester, New Hampshire......................... 75
Sec. 6035. New York Harbor and adjacent channels, Claremont
Terminal, Jersey City, New Jersey.......................... 75
Sec. 6036. Eisenhower and Snell Locks, New York.............. 75
Sec. 6037. Olcott Harbor, Lake Ontario, New York............. 75
Sec. 6038. Outer Harbor, Buffalo, New York................... 75
Sec. 6039. Sugar Creek Basin, North Carolina and South
Carolina................................................... 75
Sec. 6040. Cleveland Harbor 1958 Act, Ohio................... 75
Sec. 6041. Cleveland Harbor 1960 Act, Ohio................... 75
Sec. 6042. Cleveland Harbor, uncompleted portion of Cut #4,
Ohio....................................................... 76
Sec. 6043. Columbia River, Seafarers Memorial, Hammond,
Oregon..................................................... 76
Sec. 6044. Chartiers Creek, Cannonsburg (Houston Reach Unit
2b), Pennsylvania.......................................... 76
Sec. 6045. Schuylkill River, Pennsylvania.................... 76
Sec. 6046. Tioga-Hammond Lakes, Pennsylvania................. 76
Sec. 6047. Tamaqua, Pennsylvania............................. 76
Sec. 6048. Narragansett Town Beach, Narragansett, Rhode
Island..................................................... 76
Sec. 6049. Quonset Point-Davisville, Rhode Island............ 76
Sec. 6050. Arroyo Colorado, Texas............................ 76
Sec. 6051. Cypress Creek-Structural, Texas................... 76
Sec. 6052. East Fork Channel Improvement, Increment 2, east
fork of the Trinity River, Texas........................... 77
Sec. 6053. Falfurrias, Texas................................. 77
Sec. 6054. Pecan Bayou Lake, Texas........................... 77
Sec. 6055. Lake of the Pines, Texas.......................... 77
Sec. 6056. Tennessee Colony Lake, Texas...................... 77
Sec. 6057. City Waterway, Tacoma, Washington................. 77
Sec. 6058. Kanawha River, Charleston, West Virginia.......... 77
Hearings......................................................... 77
Legislative history.............................................. 78
Rollcall votes................................................... 78
Mandates assessment.............................................. 78
Evaluation of regulatory impact.................................. 78
Cost of legislation.............................................. 79
Additional views of Senators Jeffords, Baucus, Lieberman, Boxer,
Clinton, Carper, and Lautenberg................................ 80
Additional views of Senators Jeffords, Lieberman, Boxer, Clinton,
Carper, Lautenberg, and Chafee................................. 84
Changes in existing law.......................................... 90
Calendar No. 93
109th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 109-61
======================================================================
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2005
_______
April 26, 2005.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Inhofe, from the Committee on Environment and Public Works,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[to accompany S. 728]
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
The Committee on Environment and Public Works, to which was
referred the bill (S. 728) to provide for the conservation and
development of water and related resources, to authorize the
Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for
improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and
for other purposes, and having considered the same, reports
favorably thereon, and recommends that the bill, as amended, be
reported and pass.
General Statement
In 1986, a House-Senate Conference Committee produced a
Conference Report (H. Rpt. 99-1013), which was passed by the
House and Senate and signed into law on November 17, 1986, that
was the largest and most comprehensive authorization of the
Army Corps' Civil Works Program since the Senate Public Works
Committee was created in 1947. The Water Resources Development
Act of 1986 marked the end of a 16-year deadlock between the
Congress and executive branch regarding authorization of the
civil works program. In addition to authorizing numerous
projects, the 1986 Act resolved longstanding disputes relating
to cost sharing, user fees, and environmental requirements.
Some of the major reforms included in the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 and subsequent legislation are listed
below:
Cost-sharing formulas were established for harbor
dredging (section 101), flood control (section 103), shoreline
protection (section 103), stream bank erosion control (section
603), and other projects. Project Cooperation Agreements were
required for all such projects. Projects for mitigation of fish
and wildlife resources were allowed to be carried out at up to
100 percent Federal expense under section 906 and modification
of Army Corps of Engineers projects in the interest of
environmental quality were authorized to be carried out at 75
percent Federal expense under section 1135. The Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 extended harbor cost sharing formulas
to dredged material disposal facilities, increased the non-
Federal cost share for flood control, and established cost
sharing for environmental protection and restoration.
The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, capitalized by
a new Harbor Maintenance Fee, was established to pay 40 percent
of the Federal cost of maintaining authorized deep draft
navigation channels (sections 210, 1402, and 1403), and was
subsequently increased to provide for 100 percent of the cost
under the 1990 Water Resources Development Act.
These policy changes applied to all projects
contained in the Water Resources Development Acts of 1988
(Public Law 100-676); 1990 (Public Law 101-640); 1992 (Public
Law 102-580); 1996 (Public Law 104-303); 1999 (Public Law 106-
53); and 2000 (Public Law 106-541); and will continue to apply
to all projects contained in the Water Resources Development
Act of 2005.
In reporting the Water Resources Development Act of 2005,
the committee is adhering to the policies established in the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662) and
continued in the civil works program of the Army Corps of
Engineers. This bill includes authorization for 37 new projects
for navigation, flood and coastal storm damage reduction,
ecosystem restoration and environmental remediation, and water
storage and water quality. This bill limits contingent
authorization of water resources projects to those projects
that will have final reports of the Chief of Engineers in the
same calendar year as the Water Resources Development Act under
consideration.
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2005
The Water Resources Development Act of 2005, reported by
the Committee on Environment and Public Works, resulting from
consideration of S. 728, introduced on April 6, 2005, by
Senator Bond, for himself, Senators Inhofe, Vitter, Warner,
Voinovich, Isakson, Thune, Murkowski, Obama, Landrieu,
Grassley, Harkin, Talent, Cornyn, Cochran, Domenici, and
Coleman, incorporates some of the provisions as outlined below.
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1. Short title; table of contents.
This section designates the title of the bill as ``The
Water Resources Development Act of 2005'' and lists the table
of contents.
Sec. 2. Definition of Secretary.
This section defines the term ``Secretary'' for the
purposes of the Act as the Secretary of the Army.
TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS
Sec. 1001. Project authorizations.
This section provides authority for the Secretary to carry
out 35 projects for water resources development, conservation,
and other purposes substantially in accordance with the plans
recommended in the reports referenced in the bill language.
Descriptions of the projects are as follows:
(a) Projects with Chief's Report.
Subsection (a) of section 1001 authorizes 27 projects to be
carried out by the Secretary substantially in accordance with
the plan and subject to the conditions recommended in a final
report of the Chief of Engineers.
(1) Akutan Harbor, Akutan, Alaska.
Location. Akutan, Aleutians East Borough, Alaska.
Purpose. Navigation.
Problem. There are currently no protected moorage
facilities for both large commercial fishing vessels and the
local resident fleet.
Recommended Plan. The recommended plan consists of two
rubblemound breakwaters totaling 700 feet and dredging the
entrance channel and the inner harbor area to create a 12-acre
mooring basin.
Project Costs. Total Cost $12,200,000. Federal cost
$9,800,000; non-Federal cost $2,400,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.8 to 1.
(2) Haines Small Boat Harbor, Haines, Alaska.
Location. Haines, Alaska.
Purpose. Navigation.
Problem. The existing harbor is inadequate in terms of size
and design to accommodate the needs of the existing demands of
resident and transient users.
Recommended Plan. The 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.
Project Costs. Total Cost $12,200,000. Federal cost
$9,700,000; non-Federal cost $2,500,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.2 to 1.
(3) Rillito River (El Rio Antiguo), Pima County, Arizona.
Location. Rillito River from Craycroft Rd. to Campbell Ave.
on the northern edge of the city of Tucson, Arizona.
Purpose. Ecosystem Restoration, recreation and incidental
flood damage reduction.
Problem. 90 percent of riparian areas have been lost due to
impacts from urbanization. Riparian areas in the Southwest
represent only 1 percent of the landscape, yet the survival of
75 to 90 percent of wildlife in the West is dependent on
riparian areas. The riparian areas of this reach of the Rillito
have become severely degraded.
Recommended Plan. The plan consists of restoration of
approximately 391 acres of riparian habitat, including 99 acres
of Cottonwood/willow community, 116 acres of Mesquite Bosque,
62 acres of riparian strand (desert wash), and 114 acres of
seasonal cienega. The project also will provide 8 water
harvesting retention basins at tributary confluences, terracing
of approximately 4600 feet of soil cement banks, irrigation, as
well as a passive recreation plan consisting of 7.5 miles of
multi-use trails, a pedestrian bridge, parking lots, comfort
stations and interpretive signs.
Project Costs. Total cost is $67,457,000. Federal cost
$43,421,000; non-Federal cost $24,036,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the plan is justified by
the restoration of valuable habitat.
(4) Tanque Verde Creek Project, Pima County, Arizona.
Location. Pima County, Arizona.
Purpose. Flood Control and Habitat Preservation.
Problem. The project addresses erosion along an
approximately two-mile reach of Tanque Verde Creek immediately
upstream of Rillito River at its confluence with Pantano Wash,
east of Tucson, Arizona. This segment of Tanque Verde Creek (a
tributary of the Rillito River) has an average annual rate of
bank erosion of 13 feet. About 9,500 linear feet, located along
four separate channel segments have previously been stabilized
with soil cement to prevent streambank erosion. Annual erosion
damage caused by floodflows is estimated as $714,100.
Recommended Plan. The recommended plan includes: (1)
completing bank erosion control on the southern bank with the
construction of two segments of which one is approximately
4,220 linear feet and the other 2,830 linear feet, (2) north
bank erosion control (1,550 linear feet) protecting vulnerable
public infrastructure and 5,000 feet of modified bank
protection along the mitigation preserve area, and (3) the
establishment of a 48-acre riparian habitat area for
mitigation.
Project Costs. Total cost $4,978,000. Federal cost
$3,236,000; non-Federal cost $1,742,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. 2.1 to 1.
(5) Salt River (Va Shlyay Akimel), Maricopa County,
Arizona.
Location. Salt River between Granite Reef Dam and Price
Freeway Bridge within the jurisdiction of the Salt River Pima-
Maricopa Indian Community and the city of Mesa.
Purpose. Ecosystem Restoration.
Problem. 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 groundwater 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. The riparian areas of this reach of
the Salt River have become severely degraded.
Recommended Plan. The cost of the plan is justified by the
restoration of valuable habitat.
Project Costs. Total cost is $138,968,000. Federal cost
$90,129,000; non-Federal cost $48,839,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. B/C ratio is not computed for
restoration projects; however, the cost of the recommended
environmental restoration features would be justified by the
restoration of about 1006 average annual functional capacity
units and by achieving ecosystem function increases in the most
cost effective manner.
(6) Hamilton City, California.
Location. Hamilton City, Glenn County, California.
Purpose. Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration.
Problem. The Hamilton City community has long been at risk
of flooding from the Sacramento River. Portions of Hamilton
City and the surrounding area were flooded in 1974, and
extensive flood fighting was necessary in 1983, 1986, 1995,
1997, and 1998 to avoid failure of the existing private levee.
Residents of the town were evacuated six times in the past 20
years: 1983, 1986, twice in 1995, 1997, and 1998. The existing
levee does not meet U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or any other
levee construction standards and could fail at river levels
well below the top of the levee. In addition to the existing
flood risk, native habitat and natural functions of the
Sacramento River have been altered by construction of the
private levee and conversion of the floodplain to agricultural
and rural development.
Recommended Plan. The plan, as described in the Chief's
report signed December 22, 2004, consists of construction of a
levee, which would be set back from the Sacramento River, and
for the restoration of lands waterside of the setback levee.
The recommended multi-purpose plan focuses on reconnecting the
Sacramento River with a portion of its historic floodplain by
removing the existing levee. This would restore hydrologic
functions of the floodplain while providing flood damage
reduction to the community and area landside of the setback
levee. The project area encompasses about 1,480 acres with a
6.8-mile setback levee that would begin about 2 miles north of
the community. Implementation of this plan would reduce
potential flood damages and restore ecosystem functions and
values in the area by restoring fish and wildlife habitats. The
setback levee would provide 3 distinct levels of flood
protection associated with three different average levee
heights. The recommended plan includes removal of existing
orchards in the project area, and planting of native vegetation
to restore native habitat types that have become degraded along
much of the Sacramento River.
Project Costs. Total cost is $50,600,000. Federal cost
$33,000,000; non-Federal cost $17,600,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the plan is justified by
the restoration of valuable habitat.
(7) Imperial Beach, California.
Location. Imperial Beach, San Diego County, California.
Purpose. Shore Protection.
Problem. There is a lack of adequate protection from winter
coastal storms for the Silver Shoreline, Imperial Beach,
California. The shoreline is eroding at a rate of 6 feet per
year. Many private and commercial properties along the
shoreline are susceptible to wave attack, inundation, and
failure due to erosion during coastal storm events.
Recommended Plan. This section modifies the project for
beach erosion, San Diego County California, authorized by
section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 300)
to authorize the Secretary to carry out a shore protection
project in accordance with the Report of the Chief of Engineers
dated December 30, 2003. The additional project consists of an
initial beach fill of approximately 1.6 million cubic yards of
sand. The placement will be 7,100 feet long and 105 feet wide
along the developed shorefront. Periodic nourishment of
approximately 1 million cubic yards of sand will occur on
average every 10 years over a 50-year period of Federal
participation for a total of four additional nourishments.
Project Costs. Total Cost $11,862,000. Federal cost
$7,592,000; non-Federal cost $4,270,000. Estimated total costs
of $38,004,00 for periodic nourishment over a period of 50
years, with an estimated Federal cost of $19,002,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $19,002,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.7 to 1.
(8) Matilija Dam, Ventura County, California.
Location. Ventura River, Ventura County, California.
Purpose. Ecosystem Restoration.
Problem. Matilija Dam was constructed in 1948 as a water
supply facility. The resulting reservoir has filled with
sediment and provides very little water storage; approximately
500 acre-feet, 7 percent of capacity, and decreasing. The
Matilija Dam is an impediment for fish passage, no longer
provides adequate water supply, and negatively affects
downstream and coastal sediment transport. Arundo Donax, a non-
native invasive plant, is prevalent throughout the river system
reducing the quality of habitat for a number of endangered,
listed and other species.
Recommended Plan. The recommended plan includes dam removal
to restore fish passage and sediment transport processes to the
river and beach. It also includes levees and floodwalls, bridge
modification, radial gates, a detention basin, land
acquisition, sediment slurry lines and sediment placement,
channel excavation upstream of current dam site, recreation
features and removal of invasive plant species.
Project Costs. Total cost $130,335,000. Federal cost
$78,973,000; non-Federal cost $51,362,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.
(9) Middle Creek, Lake County, California.
Location. Middle Creek, Lake County, California.
Purpose. Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration.
Problem. Considerable ecosystem degradation has taken place
in the area. Historically, the area was part of Clear Lake and
consisted of tule marsh and open water. These wetlands were
converted to agricultural fields during the last century. This
has caused loss of natural habitat, loss of ecosystem function,
and degraded water quality. The area is subject to damages to
structures and agricultural lands from overflows from Rodman
Slough. Although surrounded by levees, the area remains at risk
from flooding from both Clear Lake and Rodman Slough because of
levee settlement.
Recommended Plan. The plan is to reconnect the flood plain
of Middle Creek to the historic Robinson Lake wetland area by
breaching the existing levee system to create inlets that
direct flows into the area and providing flood damage reduction
by relocating residents from the flood plain. Implementation of
this plan would result in 765 acres of wetlands, 230 acres of
riparian, 405 acres of open water, and 250 acres of upland
habitat. As part of the authorization of this project and upon
request of the governing body of the Robinson Rancheria of Pomo
Indians, the Secretary of the Interior shall, notwithstanding
any other provision of law, accept the transfer from the tribe
to the Secretary of the tribe's interest in three parcels of
land located adjacent to Clear Lake in Lake County, California,
and hold such lands in trust for the benefit of the tribe. Such
lands shall be deemed restored lands for the tribe.
Project Costs. Total cost $41,793,000. Federal Cost
$27,256,000; non-Federal Cost $14,537,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the plan is justified by
the restoration of valuable habitat.
(10) Napa River Salt Marsh, California.
Location. Napa, Sonoma, and Solano Counties, California.
Purpose. Ecosystem Restoration.
Problem. The San Francisco Bay Region is an extensive,
complex and diverse estuary that has lost approximately 90
percent of its original tidal wetlands due to development over
the past 150 years. The degradation of fish and wildlife
resources associated with the loss of the Bay's historic
wetlands has resulted in several species being listed as
threatened or endangered. The project site, historically
dominated by tidal salt marsh, was diked and converted to
hayfields approximately 150 years ago. In the early 1950's, the
diked areas were converted to solar salt evaporation ponds.
This project will restore a portion of diked baylands to tidal
action to support endangered and special status species
recovery, improve water quality, and restore greater ecological
balance to the San Francisco Bay.
Recommended Plan. The recommended plan will use a system of
water control structures and levee breaches to reduce the
salinity of 11 former salt production ponds by using a
combination of water sources, including a recycled water
pipeline, seasonal rainfall and adjacent sloughs that will flow
through the ponds and then be discharged to the Napa River and
an adjacent slough. The recommended plan then relies on natural
sediment processes and colonization by marsh vegetation to
restore nearly 9,500 acres of tidal ponds and managed ponds.
Because the recycled water pipeline can provide non-saline
water at all times during the year, it will enable pond
desalinization to continue during the ``dry season''. Once the
ponds are desalinated, the pipeline will continue to provide
water to maintain the salinity levels in the managed ponds.
Upon desalinization, the pipeline will be transferred from the
Federal Government to the Sonoma County Water Agency at the
fully depreciated pipeline value, less the non-Federal cost-
share contribution and less the estimated value of the water
that will continue to be provided for pond salinity maintenance
purposes.
Project Costs. Total cost $100,500,000. Federal cost
$64,000,000; non-Federal cost $36,500,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.
(11) South Platte River, Denver, Colorado.
Location. Denver County Reach, South Platte River, Denver,
Colorado.
Purpose. Environmental Restoration.
Problem. The City and County of Denver has accomplished
much toward restoring the environmental assets of Denver's
South Platte River corridor. Only the Zuni to Sun Valley reach,
which includes the Zuni Power Plant and the Sun Valley housing
development, remains in a severely degraded condition.
Recommended Plan. The recommended plan consists of removal
of a low head Fabridam; construction of a 250 cubic-feet-per-
second, low-flow channel; stripping vegetation; modification of
overall channel banks; construction of a series of pool/riffle
structures and diversion jetties; relocation of existing
trails; relocation of utilities; and complete revegetation of
the project area with native species. To allow continued
operation of the existing Zuni Power Plant, construction of an
infiltration gallery and purchase of water rights as necessary
are included as just compensation for removal of the Fabridam.
Project Costs. Total cost $18,824,000. Federal cost
$12,236,000; non-Federal cost $6,588,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.
(12) Indian River Lagoon, South Florida.
Location. Martin, St Lucie and Okeechobee Counties,
Florida.
Purpose. Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration.
Problem. The southern Indian River Lagoon estuary system
has been degraded by large and frequently occurring discharges
of freshwater, and by an excessive accumulation of muck in
estuary and lagoon bottoms. Together these stressors have
reduced water clarity and exceeded the salinity tolerances of
submerged vegetation and benthic animals.
Recommended Plan. The recommended plan consists of 12,600
acres of new reservoirs for surface water storage, 8,700 acres
of storm-water treatment areas for water quality improvement,
7,900,000 cubic yards of muck removal, 92,000 acres of natural
water storage areas and 3,100 acres of floodplain wetlands.
This section also deauthorizes the C-44 storage reservoir
identified in the Comprehensive Review Study authorized for
construction in section 601 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 2000(114 Stat. 2680), the Martin County irrigation,
flood control and backflow projects authorized by section 203
of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 740) and the East
Coast Backpumping, St. Lucie-Martin County, Spillway Structure
S-311, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of
1968 (82 Stat. 740).
Project Costs. Total Cost $1,210,608,000. Federal cost
$605,304,000; non-Federal cost $605,304,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.
(13) East St. Louis and Vicinity, Illinois.
Location. East St. Louis and Vicinity, Illinois.
Purpose. Ecosystem Restoration.
Problem. The study area consisted of approximately 166
square miles (about 105,000 acres). The area has historically
experienced the loss or serious degradation of the floodplain
ecosystems and widespread interior flooding. Many aquatic
resources of national and regional significance are found in
the study area. Urban growth in the study area has led to the
increasing scarcity of aquatic habitat.
Recommended Plan. The recommended plan is an extensive
restoration of the ecosystem in the vicinity of East St. Louis,
Illinois, on the Mississippi River. 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). 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.
Project Cost. Total cost $191,158,000. Federal cost
$123,807,000; non-Federal cost $67,351,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.
(14) Peoria Riverfront, Illinois.
Location. Illinois River, Tazewell and Peoria Counties,
Illinois.
Purpose. Ecosystem Restoration.
Problem. Peoria Lake, the largest bottomland lake in the
Illinois River valley, reflects changes similar to other lakes.
Since 1903, the volume of Peoria Lake has decreased by
approximately 61 percent. This sedimentation has reduced many
of the deeper, off-channel parts of the lake from an estimated
maximum of 8 feet to 1-2 feet in recent years. These changes
have transformed Peoria Lake into a narrow navigation channel
with bordering shallow water. The loss of aquatic habitat due
to sedimentation is viewed as the greatest threat to the
Illinois River. The loss of lake depth and volume has 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.
Recommended Plan. The selected aquatic restoration plan in
Lower Peoria Lake includes off-channel dredging with island
creation. It would result in the greatest restoration of depth
diversity of any of the plans proposed. Overall, lake habitat
diversity would increase through the addition of shoreline and
terrestrial habitats associated with the islands and aquatic
structures. The dredged area would provide critical backwater
habitat and flowing side channel habitat for fish and other
aquatic species. The islands would provide resting, nesting,
and feeding areas for waterfowl and shorebirds. In addition,
the islands would reduce wind-and wake-generated waves in the
study area, helping to improve water quality by lowering
turbidity levels.
Project Cost. Total cost $16,000,000. Federal cost
$10,400,000; non-Federal cost $5,600,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.
(15) Bayou Sorrel Lock, Louisiana.
Location. Located in the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, about
half way up the Morgan City to Port Allen Alternate Route near
Bayou Sorrel, Iberville Parish, Louisiana.
Purpose. Navigation Project necessary to accommodate the
Flood Damage Reduction functionality of the FC, MR&T project.
Problem. Bayou Sorrel Lock is structurally sound; however,
the lock must be replaced for flood control purposes and is
congested due to increasing traffic and its restrictive
dimensions. The improvements allocated to navigation need to be
authorized subject to applicable requirements of section 102 of
WRDA 1986, as amended. The modification of Bayou Sorrel Lock to
safely pass the project flood in the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway
is a feature of the authorized MR&T project, and as such, no
additional implementing authority is required.
Recommended Plan. The selected plan is a new 75-ft wide by
1,200-ft long replacement lock.
Project Costs. Total cost $9,000,000. Federal cost
$4,500,000; non-Federal cost (from the Inland Waterways Trust
Fund) $4,500,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1 to 1.
(16) Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico.
Location. Houma City, Terrebonne and Lafourche Parishes,
Louisiana.
Purpose. Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction.
Problem. The area is significantly affected by tides
emanating from the Gulf of Mexico. Deterioration of coastal
marshes, as a result of saltwater intrusion, land subsidence,
and the lack of interchanges from the Mississippi River and
Tributaries (MR&T) systems has increased storm surge
inundation.
Recommended Plan. The recommended hurricane protection plan
consists of approximately 72-miles of earthen levee with 12
water control structures to allow ebb and flow through the
levee, 12 floodgate structures (proposed for the navigable
waterways), and a lock complex in the Houma Navigation Canal.
The structural features are integrated into the levee alignment
to provide flood protection, drainage, environmental benefit,
and navigational passage.
Project Costs. Total cost $788,000,000. Federal cost
$512,200,000; non-Federal cost $275,800,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.7 to 1.
(17) Smith Island, Maryland.
Location. Smith Island, Chesapeake Bay, Maryland.
Purpose. Environmental Restoration.
Problem. Valuable wetland and submerged aquatic vegetation
(SAV) habitat is being destroyed and degraded by erosion. As
the landmasses that make up Smith Island erode, there is
increased wave and current action into shallow-water areas that
were previously protected, quiescent, and suitable for SAV
growth. The eroded material also adds turbidity and nutrients
to the water column that further inhibit SAV colonization and
growth. Additionally, the landmasses themselves are extremely
high quality emergent wetlands. These wetlands are even more
valuable than most since they are part of a remote island with
little human disruption. In its entirety, Smith Island has lost
over 3,300 acres of wetlands in the last 150 years, and, in the
identified project areas alone, it lost almost 2,400 acres of
SAV between 1992 and 1998.
Recommended Plan. The recommended plan consists of
constructing over 2 miles of off-shore segmented breakwaters to
provide protection to over 2100 acres of wetlands and SAV
habitats, and reduction of sediment to the Chesapeake Bay.
Project Costs. Total cost $14,500,000. Federal cost
$9,425,000; non-Federal cost $5,075,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.
(18) Swope Park Industrial Area, Missouri.
Location. Blue River at the Swope Park Industrial Area,
Kansas City, Missouri.
Purpose. Flood Damage Reduction.
Problem. The Blue River flooded in 1961, 1977, 1984, and
1990. The most severe floods occurred in 1961 and 1990. The May
1990 flood caused an estimated $1,000,000 in damages. If left
without protection in the current condition, the Swope Park
Industrial Area will be subjected to continuing damaging
floods. Eventually, the area will fall into decline as a viable
industrial park and source of employment.
Recommended Plan. The plan consists of construction of
reinforced concrete floodwall and compacted earthen levee;
construction of an interior drainage system consisting of
reinforced concrete pipe and an interior storm water retention
pond; construction of a rolling-gate closure at the existing
75th Street entrance to the industrial park; construction of a
small park and trailhead; planting of hardwood trees along the
Blue River Parkway; and excavation for a small wetland
riverward of the levee at a location just upstream of the Swope
Park Industrial Area.
Project Costs. Total cost $15,683,000. Federal cost
$10,194,000; non-Federal cost $5,489,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.5 to 1.
(19) New Jersey Shore protection, Manasquan Inlet to
Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey.
Location. Atlantic Coast of New Jersey, Island Beach, Ocean
County, New Jersey.
Purpose. Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction.
Problem. Severe storms in recent years have caused a
reduction in the overall beach height and width along the study
area. The narrowing and lowering of the beaches and dunes along
the study area have reduced the storm protection that would
have otherwise been available. As a result, public and private
property is subject to damage from erosion, wave attack and
tidal inundation. Some storms have caused extensive damage and
even loss of life, and when evacuation was considered
necessary, families have suffered hardships and inconvenience.
Recommended Plan. The recommended plan consists of berm and
dune restoration using sand obtained from offshore borrow
sources. Periodic nourishment is expected to occur at 4-year
intervals subsequent to completion of initial construction.
Project Costs. Total cost $64,872,000. Federal cost
$42,168,000; non-Federal cost $22,704,000. Estimated total
costs of $107,990,000 for periodic nourishment over a period of
50 years, with an estimated Federal cost of $53,995,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $53,995,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. 2.1 to 1.
(20) South River, New Jersey.
Location. South River, Boroughs of South River and
Sayreville, New Jersey.
Purpose. Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction and Ecosystem
Restoration.
Problem. The main problem affecting the area is flooding
caused by periodic hurricanes and other storms. Damages are
primarily due to storm surges and associated basin runoff,
which subject these areas to significant flooding. Significant
degradation of wetlands and the surrounding ecosystem has
occurred due to urbanization resulting in tidal flow
restrictions and increased storm surge inputs of excess water
and sediments.
Recommended Plan. The recommended plan consists of a storm
surge barrier, two combined levees/floodwalls, and interior
drainage facilities including pump stations and outlets. In
addition, the project will provide for the restoration of the
structure and function of 380 acres of degraded ecosystems,
including wetlands and forest habitats.
Project Costs. Total cost $112,623,000. Federal cost
$73,205,000; non-Federal cost $39,418,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. 2.2 to 1.
(21) Southwest Valley, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Location. Southwest Valley, Albuquerque, Bernalillo County,
New Mexico.
Purpose. Flood Damage Reduction.
Problem. Portions of the Southwest Valley are subject to
flooding from a variety of sources. The runoff from the West
Mesa is 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.
Recommended Plan. The plan, as described in the Chief's
report signed November 29, 2004, involves reduction of flood
damages by modifying existing features of the Middle Rio Grande
Conservancy District's surface drain facilities. The
recommended plan includes utilizing existing easements,
widening existing drains, and providing a gravity outfall to
the Rio Grande with the opportunity for wetland enhancement.
Approximately 7.5 miles of existing 30-to 40-foot-wide drains
would be enlarged to a width of 68 feet to store and convey
flood flows on the Isleta, Armijo, and Los Padillas drains. New
access roads and trails would be installed on each side of
these drains. Existing road crossings would be rehabilitated
and/or enlarged to facilitate the proposed improvements and
additions to the drainage system. A 25-acre detention pond
would be constructed in an existing agricultural field situated
east of the Isleta Drain to detain a portion of flood flow
during large storm events. Two flood flow channels totaling
approximately 1.5 miles would be constructed to connect the
Isleta drain to the Los Padillas drain and then to the Rio
Grande levee. New access roads 15 feet wide would be placed on
each side of these drains. Floodgates 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.
Project Costs. Total cost is $19,494,000. Federal cost
$12,671,000; non-Federal cost $6,823,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. The flood damage reduction project
provides a benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.4.
(22) Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Corpus Christi, Texas.
Location. Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Corpus Christi,
Texas.
Purpose. Navigation and Ecosystem Restoration.
Problem. The depth and width of the existing Federal
navigation channel system has become restrictive due to the
increasing size of vessels in operation in the world fleet.
Beam width restrictions also cause delays for larger ships
wishing to enter Corpus Christi's port facilities.
Recommended Plan. The project consists of deepening the
navigation channel from Viola Turning Basin to the end of the
jetties in the Gulf of Mexico (approximately 34 miles) to--52
feet mean low tide (MLT); deepening of the remainder of the
channel into the Gulf of Mexico (approximately 2 miles) to--54
feet MLT; and widening of the Upper Bay and Lower Bay reaches
(approximately 20 miles) to 530 feet. Deepening would be
performed in all channel reaches, including the Entrance
Channel, Upper and Lower Bay reaches, and the Inner Harbor.
Construction of 200-foot wide, 12-foot deep MLT barge shelves
on both sides of the CCSC (approximately 10 miles).
Construction of an extension to the La Quinta Channel to--39
feet MLT. The channel would be extended approximately 1.4 miles
beyond its current limit. The channel would measure 400 feet
wide, and a second turning basin with a 1,200-foot radius would
be constructed. The existing limits of the La Quinta Channel
would remain at their existing 45-foot depth. Construction of
two ecosystem restoration features, including construction of
rock breakwaters and geo-tubes to protect 1,200 acres of high
quality marsh and 40 acres of seagrass. Both components are
adjacent to the CCSC in the Lower Bay reach of the channel.
Project Costs. Total cost $172,940,000. Federal cost
$80,086,000; non-Federal cost $92,854,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. 2.6 to 1.
(23) Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Brazos River to Port
O'Connor, Texas.
Location. Gulf Intracoastal Waterway through Matagorda Bay,
Texas.
Purpose. Inland Navigation.
Problem. The Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) through
Matagorda Bay is experiencing strong cross currents from the
interplay with the natural bay opening at Pass Cavallo and the
deep-draft Matagorda Ship Channel and its jettied entrance
channel resulting in significant vessel delays, property
damages, and high waterway maintenance costs for the existing
Matagorda Bay reach of the GIWW.
Recommended Plan. The project consists of rerouting the
existing GIWW from mile markers 460 to 472 approximately 6,000
feet north of and parallel to the existing channel. The channel
will have a depth of 12 feet and a bottom width of 125 feet,
which is the same as the existing channel. The project will
make beneficial use of dredged material to provide for the
construction of approximately 135 acres of marsh at Palacios
Point and 160 acres of marsh near Port O'Connor, and to nourish
beaches at Sundown Island, a National Audubon Society site, and
the beach at Port O'Connor.
Project Costs. Total cost $15,960,000. Federal cost
$7,980,000; non-Federal cost (from the Inland Waterways Trust
Fund) $7,890,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. 2.1 to 1.
(24) Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, High Island to Brazos
River, Texas.
Location. The project is located along the Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) from mile 318 to 400, between High
Island and the Brazos River in Texas.
Purpose. Inland Navigation.
Problem. The Navigation Users have experienced problems
along the GIWW at Rollover Pass, Sievers Cove, the Texas City
Wye, and Greens Lake due to channel width and alignment
restrictions, lack of mooring facilities, high maintenance
costs due to frequent dredging requirements and limitation on
placement areas for dredged material, and strong tidal current
affects.
Recommended Plan. The plan consists of widening and
realigning reaches of the existing GIWW channel to allow
maneuvering room to alleviate the navigation restrictions.
Project Costs. Total cost $13,104,000. Federal cost
$6,552,000; non-Federal cost (from the Inland Waterways Trust
Fund) $6,552,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. 2.4 to 1.
(25) Riverside Oxbow, Fort Worth, Texas.
Location. Riverside Oxbow Trinity River, Fort Worth, Texas.
Purpose. Ecosystem Restoration.
Problem. The Riverside Oxbow and surrounding area has
experienced both direct and indirect environmental degradation
as a result of the construction and implementation of Benbrook
Lake, Eagle Mountain Lake, Lake Worth, the Fort Worth Floodway
project, and subsequent flood control projects and development
activities.
Recommended Plan. The recommended plan consists of
restoration of 512.2 acres of floodplain lands, approximately 2
miles of Oxbow river channel, 56.5 acres of wetlands, and 112
acres of uplands. It also provides 25,700 feet of mixed surface
linear recreation trails.
Project Costs. Total cost $25,200,000. Federal cost
$10,400,000; non-Federal cost $14,800,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.
(26) Deep Creek, Chesapeake, Virginia.
Location. Chesapeake, Virginia.
Purpose. Navigation (Bridge Replacement).
Problem. The bridge, constructed in 1934, is a federally
owned and operated facility and assists in navigation. The
bridge passes over the Dismal Swamp Canal where U.S. Route 17
crosses it. The bridge is a two-lane low level swing bridge
with several intersecting side streets, none of which meet
today's highway/bridge standards. The bridge is considered
obsolete.
Recommended Plan. Low-level, 5-lane, split leaf, pit
bascule bridge, with separate 2-lane and 3-lane leafs. The new
bridge will relieve heavy traffic congestion, correct poor
alignments with connecting roads, and insure the required
safety features are brought up to standard. Further, the city
of Chesapeake will assume ownership of the bridge.
Project Costs. Total cost $35,573,000. Federal cost
$35,573,000; non-Federal cost $0.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. 8.3 to 1.
(27) Chehalis River, Centralia, Washington.
Location. Chehalis River valley at the cities of Centralia
and Chehalis in Lewis County, Washington.
Purpose. Flood Damage Reduction.
Problem. The river valley has a broad meandering channel
and a mile-wide floodplain. The average annual rainfall is
about 42 inches. Major floods occur during the October to March
period from heavy rainfall augmented by snowmelt runoff. The
cities of Centralia and Chehalis have been subject to repeated
flooding for many years. This flooding has caused extensive
damage to private and public property and periodic closure of
critical transportation routes resulting in significant
economic losses.
Recommended Plan. The plan consists of construction of a
levee system along the Chehalis River from approximately river
mile (RM) 75 to RM 64 and along most of the lower 2 miles of
both 46 Dillenbaugh Creek and Salzer Creek; construction of a
levee along the lower approximately 2 miles of Skookumchuck
River to the confluence with Coffee Creek; modification to the
existing Skookumchuck Dam to add a short gated outlet tunnel to
create flood control storage; and raising in elevation
approximately eight structures that would incur induced damages
from increased inundation as a result of the project.
Unavoidable environmental impacts will include wetland and
riparian habitat degradation and destruction resulting in the
loss of approximately 105 habitat units.
Mitigation for these losses will be accomplished through a
combination of wetland creation, revegetation of riparian
habitat, and reconnection of an isolated oxbow with the
mainstem Chehalis River.
Project Costs. Total cost $109,850,000. Federal cost
$66,425,000; non-Federal cost $43,425,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.3 to 1.
(b) Projects Subject to Final Report.
Subsection (b) of section 1001 authorizes 8 projects to be
carried out by the Secretary substantially in accordance with
the plan and subject to the conditions recommended in a final
report of the Chief of Engineers if a favorable report of the
Chief is completed not later than December 31, 2005.
(1)Miami Harbor, Miami, Florida.
Location. Miami Harbor, Miami-Dade County, Florida.
Purpose. Navigation.
Problem. Entrance channel and inner harbor widths and
depths are not adequate for safe, cost-efficient vessel
transit.
Recommended Plan. Component 1C: Widen seaward portion of
Cut-1 from 500 to 800 feet and deepen Cut-1 and Cut-2 from a
project depth of 44 to 52 feet. Component 2A: Add turn widener
at the southern intersection of Cut-3 with Fisherman's Channel
and deepen to a project depth of 50 feet. Component 3B:
Increase the Fisher Island Turning Basin from 1200 to 1500
feet, truncate the 28 northeast section of the turning basin,
deepen from a project depth of 42 feet to 50 feet. Component 4:
Realign the western end of the existing 36-foot main channel
about 250 feet to the south - no dredging require for Component
4. Component 5A: Expand the Sponsor's berthing area by 60 feet
and widen the southern edge of Fisherman's Channel (Lummus
Island Cut) about 40 feet for a 100-foot increase in total
width, reduce the Lummus Island (Middle) Turning Basin to a
1500-foot diameter from the currently authorized 1600-foot
diameter, and deepen from a project depth of 42 feet to 50
feet. Mitigation including restoration of seagrass beds and
construction of artificial reefs.
Project Costs. Total cost $121,126,000. Federal cost
$64,843,000; non-Federal cost $56,283,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.5 to 1.
(2) Picayune Strand Ecosystem Restoration, Collier County,
Florida.
Location. Collier County, Florida.
Purpose. Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration.
Problem. Canals and roads cause excessive drainage and the
reduction of many wetland communities and associated plants and
wildlife of over 59,000 acres of Picayune Strand. The drainage
also creates large discharges of freshwater to some downstream
estuaries and greatly reduces discharges to other nearby
estuaries, stressing a total of nearly 50,000 acres of estuary
habitat.
Recommended Plan. The recommended plan consists of plugging
the main canals, degrading roads, filling ditches, and
constructing spreader channels and pump stations to restore the
flows of water across the landscape and reduce damaging high
and low discharges of freshwater to the estuaries.
Project Costs. Total cost $349,422,000. Federal cost
$174,711,000; non-Federal cost $174,711,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.
(3) Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers, Des Moines Iowa.
Location. Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers, Des Moines, Polk
County, Iowa.
Purpose. Flood Damage Reduction.
Problem. During the Great Flood of 1993, Polk County
suffered more than $152 million in flood damages, mostly in the
Des Moines metropolitan area. Major portions of the city of Des
Moines' downtown and several large neighborhoods were flooded
and the city was without water service for over a week. More
than 3,000 properties were inundated.
Recommended Plan. The recommended plan includes
reconstructing 13,300 feet of levees, improving 19 closure
structures, and constructing a recreation trail on a segment of
the Birdland Park levee.
Project Costs. Total cost $10,000,000. Federal cost
$6,500,000; non-Federal cost $3,500,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. 2.5 to 1.
(4) Port of Iberia, Louisiana.
Location. Iberia and Vermilion Parishes, Louisiana.
Purpose. Navigation.
Problem. The primary problem is the depth restriction of--
12 feet of the existing access channels, Freshwater Bayou, Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway and Commercial Canal, to the Port of
Iberia. The predominant economic engines located in the study
area are large offshore rig fabricators and offshore petroleum
services firms. The primary purpose of this deepening project
is to allow for deeper draft vessels that are needed to meet
the burgeoning demands of the deepwater offshore petroleum
industry. At present the relative shallow depth does not allow
for the size vessels needed to transport the fabricated
structures used in the exploration and production in the deep
waters in the Gulf of Mexico.
Recommended Plan. The study area consists of the Port of
Iberia, Commercial Canal, GIWW (Commercial Canal to Freshwater
Bayou), and Freshwater Bayou out to the--20 foot contour in the
Gulf of Mexico. The recommended and locally preferred plan
consists of deepening and widening this access channel by
dredging the Commercial Canal, the GIWW and Freshwater Bayou to
a uniform size channel of 150 feet wide by 20 feet deep, that
will better accommodate the industry of the area and the port.
The placement of dredged material will depend on the section of
channel.
Project Costs. Total cost: $194,000,000. Federal Cost
$123,000,000; non-Federal Cost $71,000,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.03 to 1.
(5) Jamaica Bay, Marine Park and Plumb Beach, Queens and
Brooklyn, New York.
Location. Jamaica Bay, New York.
Purpose. Ecosystem Restoration.
Problem. Over the past century, the Bay's fragile ecosystem
has been degraded through human encroachment and increased
urbanization.
Recommended Plan. The recommended plan includes restoration
measures at nine sites, including measures to regrade
shorelines, revegetate grasslands, create and/or restore
additional estuarine, wetland, and upland habitats, and improve
circulation and flushing in the bay.
Project Costs. Total cost $180,000,000. Federal cost
$117,000,000; non-Federal cost $63,000,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.
(6) Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, Union Beach, New
Jersey.
Location. Union Beach, New Jersey.
Purpose. Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction.
Problem. The identified problem is coastal storm inundation
along the Raritan and Sandy Hook Bays, Chingarora Creek, Flat
Creek, and East Creek, which results in inundation of
approximately 1,000 structures from a 100-yr storm event. The
problem is caused by a combination of rainfall and coastal
storm surges, erosion, and wave attack, combined with
restrictions to channel flow in the tidal creeks.
Recommended Plan. The plan consists of a combination of
levees, floodwalls, 2 storm gates, 3 pump stations, 2 terminal
groins, beach and dune, periodic renourishment, interior
drainage structures and mitigation.
Project Costs. Total cost $105,544,000. Federal cost
$68,603,600; non-Federal cost $36,940,400. Estimated total cost
of $2,315,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of
the project, with an estimated Federal cost of $1,157,500 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $1,157,500.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.8 to 1.
(7) Montauk Point, New York.
Location. Montauk Point, New York.
Purpose. Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction.
Problem. The Montauk Point study area, including the
historic lighthouse, is located on a bluff at the eastern end
of the southern fork of Long Island, approximately 125 miles
east of New York City. The area surrounding the lighthouse is
operated as a State park. The Montauk Point Lighthouse was
commissioned by President Washington and completed in 1796. It
is included in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
Continued shoreline erosion threatens the loss of the
lighthouse complex and surrounding State park property.
Recommended Plan. The recommended plan consists of an 840-
foot long revetment with a crest width of 40 feet at an
elevation of +25 feet NGVD and 2 vertical and 1 horizontal side
slopes.
Project Costs. Total cost $12,000,000. Federal cost
$7,800,000; non-Federal cost $4,200,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.3 to 1.
(8) Hocking River Basin, Monday Creek, Ohio.
Location. Hocking River, Monday Creek, OH.
Purpose. Ecosystem Restoration.
Problem. The Monday Creek Basin ecosystem and environment
is, and continues to be, significantly impacted by abandoned
mines resulting in acid mine drainage contaminating water
system. The resultant is a near sterile aquatic ecosystem.
Recommended Plan. The sponsor of the project is the Ohio
Department of Natural Resources (ODNR). However, part of the
project is located on the Federal lands of the Wayne National
Forest, Ohio and managed by the US Forest Service. In designing
and constructing the project described, ODNR and the Secretary
will work, in cooperation with the Secretary of Agriculture, to
construct the project features on land located in the Wayne
National Forest.
The Federal (COE) share of the project will be 65 percent.
However, it is anticipated that the Federal share of the costs
of the features of the project located in the Wayne National
Forest, would be 100 percent. The Corps will be responsible for
implementation costs, while the Forest Service would provide
the lands, easements and rights of way necessary for the
project at no cost to the Department of the Army. The
operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement
of the project under subsection would be a non-Federal (ODNR)
responsibility. The operation, maintenance, repair,
rehabilitation, and replacement of the project features,
located in the Wayne National Forest, will be a U.S. Forest
Service responsibility.
Project Costs. Total cost $20,000,000. Federal cost
$13,000,000; non-Federal cost $7,000,000.
Benefit/Cost Ratio. Not applicable. Justification based on
National Ecosystem Restoration Benefits (NER).
Sec. 1002. Enhanced navigation capacity improvements and ecosystem
restoration plan for the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois
Waterway System.
This section authorizes navigation improvements and
ecosystem restoration for the Upper Mississippi River and
Illinois Waterway System. These improvements and ecosystem
restoration for the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois
Waterway System is in general conformance with the preferred
integrated plan contained in the document entitled ``Integrated
Feasibility Report and Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement for the UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility
System'' and dated September 24, 2004. The Upper Mississippi
River and Illinois Waterway System consists of the projects for
navigation and ecosystem restoration authorized by Congress for
the segment of the Mississippi River from the confluence with
the Ohio River, River Mile 0.0, to Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock
in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, River Mile 854.0 and the
Illinois Waterway from its confluence with the Mississippi
River at Grafton, Illinois, River Mile 0.0, to T.J. O'Brien
Lock in Chicago, Illinois, River Mile 327.0.
In section 1103(a) (2) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4225), Congress recognized the Upper
Mississippi River System as ``a nationally significant
ecosystem and a nationally significant commercial navigation
system'' and declared that the system ``shall be administered
and regulated in recognition of its several Purposes''.
The inland waterway transportation system moves 16 percent
of the freight in the United States for 2 percent of the cost,
including more than 100,000,000 tons on the Upper Mississippi
River System. The Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway
is a major thoroughfare for goods in the United States. The
river provides transportation for 60 percent of the corn
exports of the United States and 45 percent of the soybean
exports of the United States. It carries approximately
100,000,000 tons of products. The current 600-foot lock system
was designed for steamboats, at a time when only 4,000,000 tons
moved on the Mississippi River. The Waterway supports 400,000
full-and part-time jobs in the United States, generating over
$4,000,000,000 in income and $12,000,000,000 to $15,000,000,000
in economic activity. The Upper Mississippi River System also
provides important economic benefits from recreational and
tourist uses, resulting in the basin's receiving more visitors
annually than most National Parks, with the ecosystems and
wildlife being the main attractions.
The current capacity of the Upper Mississippi River System
is declining by 10 percent annually and the 600-foot locks at
Locks and Dam Nos. 20, 21, 22, 24, and 25 on the Upper
Mississippi River and LaGrange and Peoria on the Illinois
Waterway are operating at 80 percent utilization. The unplanned
closures of a 70-year old infrastructure reduce the potential
for sustained growth.
United States farm and trade policies work to open world
markets and promote United States exports. Keeping the cost of
transportation lower through competition between transportation
modes is the United States farmer's competitive advantage in
capturing future global growth in agricultural exports. Foreign
competitors have worked over the last 10 years to improve
foreign transportation infrastructure to compete more
effectively with United States production. The movement of
100,000,000 tons on the river system in 4,400 15-barge tows out
of harms way would require an equivalent of 4,000,000 trucks or
1,000,000 rail cars moving directly through our communities.
The Department of Transportation projects that freight
congestion on the roads and rails in the United States will
double in the next 25 years.
The Department of Agriculture projects that corn exports
will grow 44 percent over the next decade, with a 1.3 increase
in growth exported through the Gulf of Mexico. Econometric
models are useful analytic tools to provide valuable
information, but are unable to account for every market trend,
development, and public policy impact. The transportation
savings generated by the navigation improvements to the
Mississippi River Waterway are expected to provide higher
income to farmers and rural communities and to generate Federal
and State taxes to support community activities, quality of
life, and national benefits. The Army Corps of Engineers has
been studying the needs for national investments on the Upper
Mississippi River System for the last 15 years and has
completed its feasibility report dated September 24, 2004. The
construction of new 1,200-foot locks and lock extensions will
provide more than 48,000,000 man-hours of employment over 10 to
15 years. Based on the current construction schedule of new
locks and dams on the inland system, lock modernization will
need to take place over 30 years, starting immediately.
The Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers ecosystem
consists of hundreds of thousands of acres of bottomland
forests, islands, backwaters, side channels, and wetlands,
including 284,688 acres of National Wildlife Refuge land that
provides habitat and recreational opportunities. It is home to
270 species of birds, 57 species of mammals, 45 species of
amphibians and reptiles, 113 species of fish, and nearly 50
species of mussels. More than 40 percent of migratory waterfowl
and shorebirds in North America depend on the river for food,
shelter, and habitat during migration. Development since the
1930's has altered and reduced the biological diversity of the
large flood plain river systems of the Upper Mississippi and
Illinois Rivers. The annual operation of the Upper Mississippi
River Basin needs to take into consideration opportunities for
ecosystem restoration, and Congress recognizes the need for
significant Federal investment in the restoration of the Upper
Mississippi and Illinois River ecosystems.
The navigation improvements authorized for construction by
the Secretary of the Army includes small scale and
nonstructural measures and new locks.
The small scale and nonstructural measures consists of the
construction of mooring facilities at Locks 12, 14, 18, 20, 22,
24, and La Grange Lock, switch boats at Locks 20 through 25 and
the development and testing of an appointment scheduling
system. The costs of these measures are $117,500,000 in funds
from the general fund of the Treasury, to be matched in an
equal amount from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund that is paid
by private users.
New 1,200-foot locks are authorized for construction at
Locks 20, 21, 22, 24, and 25 on the Upper Mississippi River and
at LaGrange Lock and Peoria Lock on the Illinois Waterway. The
cost of the new locks is $789,500,000 in funds from the general
fund of the Treasury, with an equal matching amount provided
from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund that is paid by private
users.
The authorized plan for navigation improvements includes
mitigation for the new locks and small scale and nonstructural
measures at a cost of $108,000,000 in funds from the general
fund of the Treasury, with an equal matching amount provided
from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund which is paid by private
users.
This section also authorizes ecosystem restoration on the
Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System. First, to
ensure the environmental sustainability of the existing Upper
Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System, the Secretary
shall, consistent with requirements to avoid any adverse
effects on navigation, modify the operation of the Upper
Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System to address the
cumulative environmental impacts of operation of the system and
improve the ecological integrity of the Upper Mississippi River
and Illinois River. Second, the Secretary shall, consistent
with requirements to avoid any adverse effects on navigation,
carry out ecosystem restoration projects to attain and maintain
the sustainability of the ecosystem of the Upper Mississippi
River and Illinois River in accordance with the general
framework outlined in the Integrated Feasibility Report and
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the UMR-IWW
System Navigation Feasibility System dated September 24, 2004.
This section lists specific types of ecosystem restoration
projects that may be conducted under this authority.
The Federal share of the cost of carrying out an ecosystem
restoration project under this section shall be 100 percent if
the project is located below the ordinary high water mark or in
a connected backwater; modifies the operation or structures for
navigation; or is located on federally owned land. The Federal
share of ecosystem restoration projects not meeting these
criteria shall be 65 percent. Nongovernmental organizations
shall be eligible to contribute the non-Federal cost-sharing
requirements applicable to ecosystem restoration projects. The
Secretary of the Army may acquire land or an interest in land
for an ecosystem restoration project from a willing owner
through conveyance of fee title to the land; or a flood plain
conservation easement.
Ecosystem restoration projects shall be carried out at a
total construction cost of $1,580,000,000 of which not more
than $226,000,000 shall be available for construction of fish
passages and not more than $43,000,000 shall be available for
dam point control. Of the amounts made available under for
construction not more than $35,000,000 for each fiscal year
shall be available for land acquisition.
Before initiating the construction of any individual
ecosystem restoration project, the Secretary of the Army shall:
(i) establish ecosystem restoration goals and identify specific
performance measures designed to demonstrate ecosystem
restoration; (ii) establish the without-project condition or
baseline for each performance indicator; and (iii) for each
separable element of the ecosystem restoration identify
specific target goals for each performance indicator.
Performance measures should comprise specific measurable
environmental outcomes, such as changes in water quality,
hydrology, or the well-being of indicator species the
population and distribution of which are representative of the
abundance and diversity of ecosystem-dependent aquatic and
terrestrial species. Restoration design shall include a
monitoring plan for the performance measures including a
timeline to achieve the identified target goals and a timeline
for the demonstration of project completion.
Not later than June 30, 2008 and every 5 years thereafter,
the Secretary of the Army shall submit to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives an implementation report that includes
baselines, benchmarks, goals, and priorities for ecosystem
restoration projects and measures the progress in meeting the
goals.
The Secretary shall appoint and convene an advisory panel
to provide independent guidance in the development of each
implementation report. The panelists shall include 1
representative of each of the State resource agencies or a
designee of the Governor of the State from each of the States
of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin; 1
representative of the Department of Agriculture; 1
representative of the Department of Transportation; 1
representative of the United States Geological Survey; 1
representative of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service;
1 representative of the Environmental Protection Agency; 1
representative of affected landowners; 2 representatives of
conservation and environmental advocacy groups; and 2
representatives of agriculture and industry advocacy groups.
The Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of Interior shall
serve as co-chairpersons of the advisory panel. The Advisory
Panel shall not be considered an advisory committee under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.)
The Secretary, in consultation with the Advisory Panel,
shall develop a system to rank proposed projects. The ranking
system shall give greater weight to projects that restore
natural river processes including floodplain restoration and
water level management including dam point control. If the
Secretary determines that projects for navigation improvement
and ecosystem restoration are not moving toward completion at a
comparable rate, annual funding for the projects will be
adjusted to ensure that projects move toward completion at a
comparable rate in the future.
Sec. 1003. Louisiana coastal area ecosystem restoration, Louisiana.
This section authorizes a program for ecosystem restoration
in the Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA). The LCA contains one of
the largest expanses of coastal wetlands in the contiguous
United States and accounts for 90 percent of the total coastal
marsh loss in the Nation. Coastal Louisiana has lost more than
1.2 million acres (1,875 sq. mi.) since 1930, and it is
estimated to continue to lose land at a rate of approximately
14 square miles per year over the next 50 years.
Louisiana's coastal wetlands and barrier island system
enhances protection of an internationally significant
commercial-industrial complex from the destructive forces of
storm driven waves and tides. The system, taken as a whole with
migratory birds, fish and other species, places the coastal
wetlands of Louisiana among the nation's most productive and
important natural assets. Louisiana's coastal area is home to
more than two million people, representing 46 percent of
Louisiana's population. The State provides more than 20 percent
of the seafood consumed in the United States. An estimated 20
percent of our nation's energy is dependent upon the coastal
area of Louisiana. In 2001, offshore oil and gas production off
the coast of Louisiana provided approximately $5.1 billion to
the Federal Government, making it one of the largest revenue
sources to the U.S. Treasury. Without implementation of a
comprehensive restoration program, these resources, including
the extensive energy infrastructure network, are at risk.
In response to the degradation of the coastal area, the
State of Louisiana, in cooperation with the Corps and other
Federal agencies, developed a comprehensive plan for the
restoration of coastal Louisiana. The plan, which served as the
Corps reconnaissance report for the LCA, is known as the Coast
2050 plan. As a result of this plan, the Louisiana Coastal Area
Ecosystem Restoration program report (report of the Chief of
Engineers dated January 31, 2005) has identified an initial
phase of near-term work. The framework established in this bill
advances the initial component.
Subsection (a) authorizes the Louisiana Coastal Area
program substantially in accordance with the report of the
Chief of Engineers dated January 31, 2005. The report
identifies five major categories as follows.
1) Five Near-Term Critical Ecosystem Restoration
Features--subsection (f) includes additional language
on one of these five projects (the Mississippi River
Gulf Outlet).
2) Ten Additional Near-Term Restoration Features--
subsection (j) directs the Secretary to submit a
feasibility report on these features by July 1, 2006.
The traditional committee process would allow for
authorization of implementation of these features upon
submission to Congress of the report of the Chief of
Engineers.
3) Science and Technology Program--subsection (g)
provides additional direction on implementation of this
component of the program, including authority to use
the expertise of estuary assessment groups and
consortia with significant experience directly related
to the Louisiana Coastal Area ecosystem. Various
agencies and experts have conducted investigations into
the coastal Louisiana ecosystem over the past four
decades. Utilization of the materials and researchers
may prove to be an efficient use of funds.
4) Beneficial Use of Dredged Material--the Corps spends
millions of dollars annually to dredge navigation
channels in the program area. This program component is
designed to ensure the efficient use of tax dollars by
coordinating dredging for navigation purposes with the
restoration goals of the program.
5) Demonstration Program--Standard practice for
demonstration projects involves local entities at or
near the site of the project to be the non-Federal
partner. Therefore, each demonstration project under
this program should occur within the State of
Louisiana.
Subsection (b) establishes the priorities of the program.
Subsection (c) provides for the financial participation of
non-governmental entities for credit toward the non-Federal
share.
Subsection (d) requires the submission of a comprehensive
plan with updates every 5 years. This plan shall include a
description of the following: 1) the framework of a long-term
program to protect, conserve and restore the wetlands,
estuaries (including the Barataria-Terrebonne estuary), barrier
islands, shorelines and related lands and features; 2) the
means by which new technology or improved techniques can be
integrated into the LCA program; and 3) the role of other
Federal agencies and programs in implementing the LCA program.
Subsection (e) establishes a Task Force comprised of eight
members of the President's cabinet and three representatives of
the State. Federal participation in the Task Force shall be at
the level of assistant secretary or equivalent. In the case of
agencies where the participation of more than one assistant
secretary (or equivalent) may be appropriate, two or more
assistant secretaries (or equivalent) may participate in the
Task Force meeting, but the agency will have only one vote for
matters considered before the Task Force.
The Task Force is directed to make recommendations to the
Secretary regarding the policies, strategies, plans, programs,
projects, activities and financial participation (including
identifying funds from current agency missions and budgets and
coordination of individual agency budget requests) for
addressing conservation, protection, restoration and
maintenance of the coastal Louisiana ecosystem.
The Task Force is also authorized to establish working
groups. This program could cause potential conflicts pertaining
to maritime and surface transportation, oil and gas activities,
recreational and commercial fishing impacts. The working groups
in each of these areas established by the Task Force will
provide an opportunity to identify and address potential
conflicts between the implementation of this program and
activities in the coastal area and the OCS. The Governor's
Advisory Commission on Coastal Restoration and Conservation may
be one such appropriate working group. The Task Force and any
working groups are exempt from the Federal Advisory Committee
Act.
Subsection (f) requires the Secretary to submit to Congress
a plan for the modification of the Mississippi River Gulf
Outlet to address wetland losses attributable to the Outlet,
channel bank erosion, hurricane storm surges, saltwater
intrusion, navigation interests and environmental restoration.
The Secretary may be able to implement modifications upon
completion of this plan under existing operation and
maintenance authorities.
Subsection (g) establishes a Science and Technology program
with three purposes--1) to identify any uncertainty relating to
the physical, chemical, geological, biological and cultural
baseline conditions in coastal Louisiana; 2) to improve the
knowledge of these baseline conditions; and 3) to identify and
develop technologies, models and methods to carry out the LCA
program.
Subsection (h) authorizes the Secretary to determine that
the environmental benefits provided by the program outweigh the
disadvantage of an activity, and no further economic
justification is required if the Secretary determines that the
activity is cost-effective. However, this is not applicable to
separable elements intended to produce benefits that are
predominantly unrelated to the conservation, restoration, or
maintenance of the natural system.
Subsection (i) requires the Secretary, in consultation with
the non-Federal sponsor, to enter into a contract with the
National Academy of Sciences for a study to evaluate the impact
on ecosystem degradation in south Louisiana of activities
authorized by the Secretary. Examples of such activities
include the Mississippi River and Tributaries project and the
construction of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet. Upon
completion of this study, the Secretary is directed to review
the findings as well as the potential reduction in emergency
expenditures as a result of ecosystem restoration in the LCA in
order to identify financing alternatives for the LCA program.
In an effort to expedite implementation of the features
identified in Table 3 of the Chief's report, subsection (j)
requires the Secretary to prepare and submit a report by July
01, 2006.
Subsection (k) authorizes the Secretary to review existing
water resources projects in the program area to determine if
the projects are consistent with the goals of the LCA program
and if modifications to the projects could result in additional
contributions to achieving the goals of the LCA program. The
Secretary is authorized to implement such modifications after
providing opportunity for public notice and comment and
submitting a report to the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee and the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee. The bill authorizes $10 million to implement this
subsection.
Sec. 1004. Small projects for flood damage reduction.
This section directs the Secretary to perform the following
project under the Small Projects for Flood Damage Reduction
continuing authority program:
(1) Cache River Basin, Grubbs, Arkansas
Sec. 1005. Small projects for navigation.
This section directs the Secretary to perform the following
projects under the Small Projects for Navigation continuing
authority program:
(1) Little Rock Port, Arkansas
(2) Au Sable River, Michigan
(3) Outer Channel and Inner Harbor, Menominee Harbor,
Michigan and Wisconsin
(4) Middle Bass Island State Park, Middle Bass Island,
Ohio
(5) Outer Channel and Inner Harbor, Menominee,
Wisconsin
Sec. 1006. Small projects for aquatic ecosystem restoration.
This section directs the Secretary to perform the following
projects under the Small Projects for Aquatic Ecosystem
Restoration continuing authority program:
(1) San Diego River, California
(2)Suison Marsh, San Pablo Bay, California
(3) Blackstone River, Rhode Island
TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Provisions
Sec. 2001. Credit for in-kind contributions.
This section provides general authority for the Secretary
to provide credit for in-kind services made by the non-Federal
sponsor toward the non-Federal share of the cost of a project.
This authority applies to all authorized projects, including
projects implemented under general continuing authority. In-
kind services include: 1) the costs of planning (including data
collection), design, management, mitigation, construction, and
construction services; and 2) the value of materials or
services provided before the execution of an agreement for the
project, including efforts on constructed elements incorporated
into the project and materials and services provided after an
agreement is executed.
In all cases, credit is subject to a determination by the
Secretary that the property or service provided is integral to
the project. Credit may be provided as long as it does not
exceed the non-Federal share of the cost of the project, it
does not alter any other requirement that the non-Federal
interest provide land, easements or rights-of-way, or an area
for disposal of dredged material for the project, or it does
not exceed the actual and reasonable costs of the materials,
services, or other items provided by the non-Federal sponsor.
This section was incorporated in the Water Resources
Development Act of 2005 to ensure that a consistent crediting
policy is applied throughout the Army Corps of Engineers for
all projects undertaken. The committee recognizes that many
non-Federal sponsors have significant capability to carry out
elements of projects and studies, as described in the testimony
offered by Mr. Gregory A. Zlotnik, Director of the Santa Clara
Valley Water District in California, on March 31, 2004, at a
hearing before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and
Public Works, Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure
regarding the Water Resources Development Act of 2004, which
this credit policy is designed to encourage.
It is the intent of the committee to allow credit for in-
kind contributions for all on-going, but not completed,
projects in accordance with this section. Ongoing projects that
this crediting policy applies to include, but are not limited
to:
(1) White River Basin Comprehensive Study, Arkansas and
Missouri
(2) San Francisco Bay to Port of Stockton Channel
Deepening Project, California
(3) Pinole Creek, California
(4) Walnut Creek Channel Aquatic Restoration,
California
(5) Garyson's Creek/Murderer's Creek, California
(6) Wildcat Creek, Phase I, California
(7) Wildcat Creek, Phase II, California
(8) South Platte River Urban Watershed, Colorado
(9) Port of Miami, Florida
(10) Port of Tampa, Florida
(11) Ft. Pierce Shoreline Protection Study, Florida
(12) Gasparilla and Estero Islands Shore Protection
Project, Florida
(13) Broward County and Hillsboro Inlet Shore
Protection Project, Florida
(14) South Branch of the Wild Rice River, Minnesota
(15) Pemiscot County Harbor, Missouri
(16) Monarch Chesterfield, Missouri
(17) Sand Creek Watershed, Nebraska
(18) Watershed Management and Development, Nevada
(19) Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration
Program
(20) John Glenn Great Lakes Basin Program
(21) Alsop/Brownwood Wetlands Restoration Project,
Oregon
(22) San Antonio Channel, Texas
Sec. 2002. Interagency and international support authority.
This section modifies the existing authority to provide
support for other Federal agencies and international
organizations. Under current law, the Secretary is authorized
to receive funds to support Federal agencies or international
organizations (after consultation with the Department of State)
to address problems of national significance to the United
States. This section allows the Secretary to also provide
support to foreign governments and it adds contracting as one
of the activities the Army Corps of Engineers may undertake
under this authority. It authorizes $1,000,000 for this purpose
for fiscal year 2005.
By changing the consultation requirement to the Department
of State, the Secretary is able to streamline the consultation
process to more quickly and effectively work directly with the
offices within the State Department that oversee the particular
support requests.
Sec. 2003. Training funds.
This section authorizes the Secretary to allow non-Federal
interests, including the private sector, to enroll in training
classes or courses offered by the Army Corps of Engineers and
to recoup expenses incurred by the Corps in providing training
for those participants. It also authorizes the Secretary to
retain the funds paid by private sector individuals who enroll
in these courses. Funds retained by the Secretary must be
credited to an appropriation or account used to pay for
training costs and shall be available without further
appropriations for use by the Secretary for training purposes.
Amounts received in excess of costs of training are required to
be credited to the U.S. Treasury. Under the current system, the
more successful the Army Corps of Engineers is in training the
private sector, the greater the financial burden on the agency.
Currently, any reimbursements collected by the Army Corps of
Engineers for training provided to private sector individuals
are sent to the U.S. Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.
Sec. 2004. Recreational areas and project sites.
This section amends section 4 of the Flood Control Act of
1944 (16 U.S.C. 460d) to establish a user funded recreation fee
program to cover the operation and maintenance associated with
recreational infrastructure at Corps facilities.
This section allows the Corps to retain 100 percent of the
recreation fees it collects. In addition, it allows the fees
collected to remain available until expended and expands the
activities for which fees may be used to include planning.
Eighty percent of the fees collected are to be made available
for expenditure by the Corps District in which they were
collected.
Fees are to be based on fees charged at comparable
recreationsites for admission or use and established at such a
level so as to maximize the long term recreational benefits of
each project.
The Secretary is authorized to use contracts, including
reasonable commissions, with public or private entities to
provide visitor services for the recreation area or site,
including taking reservations and providing information. The
Secretary is also authorized to accept volunteer services to
collect fees. The Secretary is required to charge and collect
rents for leases of project land. This section applies chapter
69, title 31, U.S.C. (payments in lieu of taxes) to land leased
to non-Federal entities. Finally, any recreation fees collected
under this section are deemed in lieu of fees charged under any
other provision of law.
The committee expects the Secretary to attempt to recover
from users the costs of operating and maintaining recreation
areas or recreation infrastructure on project land. This
section ensures that the majority of the fees stay at the site
to reinvest into visitor facilities and services. For this
reason, 80 percent of the fees are to be used to benefit the
visitors at the site of collection. While 20 percent of the
fees are available to the Secretary to utilize agency wide, the
committee strongly recommends that the Secretary utilize those
funds to establish and expand recreational opportunities at
additional Corps facilities which may be underutilized in terms
of recreational opportunities.
The committee recognizes that recreation fees are sometimes
spent in ways that may not be apparent, but would be noticed by
visitors if the investment did not occur. Recreation fees may
be spent on such services as maintaining and upgrading toilet
facilities, trails, and parking lots, for example. The
committee encourages the Secretary to communicate with the
public on how recreation fees are spent to enhance the visitor
experience.
The committee recognizes that certain recreation activities
require additional attention by agency staff or involve costs.
These extra costs should be borne by those visitors
participating in these activities and not by the general public
or by the rest of the visiting public.
While this section removes the prohibition on collecting
admission fees, it does not require that the Secretary
establish admission fees. Fees should be established in order
to cover the costs for operations and maintenance of
recreational facilities or to maximize the recreational
experience of visitors. The committee recommends the Secretary
not charge fees for locations that do not offer any services.
As demand for public recreation grows in scope and form,
the committee expects the permanent recreation fee program to
help meet these needs. The committee recognizes that sites that
attract thousands of visitors each day and tens of thousands of
visitors each year, must invest in sanitation facilities,
parking, campgrounds, shelters, boat ramps, and other
infrastructure that helps ensure access, safety, and resource
protection so the very feature that attracts the visitor
remains available for the future.
Sec. 2005. Fiscal transparency report.
This section directs the Secretary to prepare and submit to
Congress on the third Tuesday of January, beginning in 2006,
and each year thereafter, a report on the expenditures for the
preceding fiscal year and estimated expenditures for the
current fiscal year for:
(1) Construction;
(2) Operation and Maintenance of inland and
intracoastal waterways;
(3) General Investigations, reconnaissance, and
feasibility studies;
(4) Interagency and International Support Activities;
(5) Recreation Fees and Lease Payments;
(6) Hydropower and Water Supply Fees;
(7) Inland Waterway Trust Fund and Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund;
(8) Other revenues, fees and payments;
(9) Permit Application and notification processing
information; and
(10) Project backlog.
This section provides details on what is required to be
reported for each item. This information will allow Congress to
evaluate funding priorities to support the projects and
programs of the Army Corps of Engineers.
Sec. 2006. Planning.
First, this section requires the Secretary to assess each
water resource project's and project increment's cost-
effectiveness and compliance with local, State, and national
laws, regulations, and public policies. While the committee
expects that all Army Corps of Engineers projects will be fully
compliant with local, State and national laws, regulations, and
public policy, it is aware of instances where a project may
come into conflict with particular laws, regulations, or public
policies. This section ensures that such conflicts, including
the degree and severity, will be identified and assessed by the
Army Corps of Engineers and documented in the feasibility
report.
Second, the Secretary is required to establish a plan and
schedule to periodically update and revise the agency's
planning guidelines, regulations, and circulars of the Army
Corps of Engineers to improve the analysis of water resources
projects, including the integration of new and existing
analytical techniques that properly reflect the probability of
project benefits and costs. This section provides specifics on
what must be included in a cost-benefit analysis. All
feasibility studies must include an analysis of the benefits
and costs, both quantified and unquantified.
All cost benefit analyses must:
1) identify areas of risk and uncertainty in the
analysis;
2) clearly describe the degree of reliability of the
estimated benefits and costs of the effectiveness of
alternative plans, including an assessment of the
credibility of the project construction schedule as it
affects the estimated benefits and costs. Construction
delays can impact the realization of expected benefits
and costs, and therefore should be included in the cost
benefit analysis;
3) identify local, regional, and national economic
costs and benefits. The committee heard testimony (such
as that offered by Mr. Gregory A. Zlotnik, Director of
the Santa Clara Valley Water District in California, on
March 31, 2004) that local and regional benefits are
routinely disregarded when the Army Corps of Engineers
chooses between alternative plans. Because local
communities are cost-sharing significant portions of
project study, design, construction, coupled with the
fact that some local and regional input may result in
the formation of better project alternatives, the
committee believes that the exclusion of local and
regional benefits should cease;
4) identify environmental costs and benefits, including
the costs and benefits of protecting or degrading
natural systems. The committee believes that it is
important to identify and measure not just costs of
degrading natural systems, but also benefits of
protecting natural systems;
5) identify social costs and benefits, including a risk
analysis regarding potential loss of life that may
result from flooding and storm damage. The committee
believes that avoiding loss of life, while not
economically quantifiable, should be included in the
analysis; and
6) identify cultural and historical costs and benefits.
This section provides for the following planning process
improvements:
1) completion of feasibility reports within 2 years
with an extension of up to 4 years for a controversial
project, if the Secretary approves;
2) adoption of risk analysis procedures for project
cost estimation;
3) recommendations to Congress for potential amendments
to section 902 of WRDA 1986;
4) a requirement to provide a systematic framework to
manage, certify and modernize methods, models and
procedures used in water resources planning;
5) developing systems for planning technology transfer
within the Corps and sustaining the state-of-art skills
and knowledge of Corps planners; and
6) establishment of benchmarks for the discrete
elements of planning studies to improve timeliness and
effectiveness.
This section also provides guidance for the formulation of
flood damage and hurricane and storm damage reduction projects,
ecosystem restoration projects and projects that have both of
these purposes.
The committee supports the efforts of the Chief of
Engineers to strengthen the planning competency within the
Corps and therefore provides authority to establish centers of
expertise to provide specialized planning expertise for studies
and to provide internal peer review support for external peer
review panels.
The committee supports the concept that planning studies of
the Corps should follow principles of integrated water
management. If non-Federal study sponsors request and provide
the cost-share, studies should incorporate and evaluate project
alternatives without regard for whether such alternatives are
within budgetary priorities for implementation. As these
reports are primarily to provide Congress with the information
and assurances necessary to justify congressional
authorization, the Corps should not predetermine the outcome or
eliminate viable alternatives for any reasons beyond the
statutory requirements for feasibility studies.
This section also gives full responsibility to the Chief of
Engineers for the technical aspects of project development by
directing that the Chief of Engineers shall not be subject to
direction as to the contents, findings or recommendation of
reports and shall be solely responsible for the reports and any
related recommendations, including any evaluation and
recommendation for changes in law or policy that may be
appropriate and representative of the best technical solutions
to water resource needs and problems.
Finally this section provides for timely review and
submission of reports to Congress. The completion of the Chief
of Engineers reports shall not be delayed while consideration
is being given to potential changes in policy or priority for
project consideration and, after completion, shall be submitted
to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate
and to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of
the House of Representatives. The Secretary shall, within 90
days after the date of completion of a report of the Chief of
Engineers that recommends to Congress a water resource project,
review the report and provide any recommendation regarding the
project to Congress. Within 90 days of enactment of this Act,
the Secretary shall complete review of, and provide
recommendation to Congress for any report recommending to
Congress a water resource project that the Chief of Engineers
completed before the date of enactment of this Act.
Sec. 2007. Independent reviews.
The committee has considered proposals for improvements to
the Corps planning process and to assure confidence in the
recommendations that are founded on this process. In
considering these proposals, we examined testimony of witnesses
before this committee and the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee, reviewed the application of
scientific review within the programs of other Federal and non-
Federal agencies and talked with non-Federal project sponsors
and organizations that represent them.
The committee believes the application of independent peer
review to the project studies of the Corps of Engineers can add
value when appropriately structured and implemented. Among the
considerations we found important are the following:
Congress has provided policy guidance to ensure the quality
of information disseminated by the Federal Government in the
``Information Quality Act'' (Section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001
(Public Law 106-554; HR. 5658)). To establish the role of peer
review in pursuing the objectives of the Information Quality
Act, the Office of Management and Budget has published guidance
to Federal agencies in Office of Management and Budget, Revised
Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review, dated December
15, 2004. The committee believes the Corps of Engineers is
required to implement peer review and has direction from the
Executive Office of the President to do so. The committee also
believes that one standard for peer review at the agency is
appropriate.
The committee notes that Corps of Engineers project studies
are unique within the Federal Government. The Corps conducts
project studies on the ground and in partnership with non-
Federal interests who typically have a need for immediate
solutions. Corps studies are not pure research and development
projects but are conducted under guidance designed to implement
the principles of engineering, ecology and economics. As the
practice of economics, ecology and engineering improves, the
guidance for conducting Corps studies should be adjusted and
improved. But study guidance always remains a set of
conventions that apply science in a cost effective, predictable
and replicable way to determine solutions to real problems and
eligibility for Corps participation. The Corps should always
ask peer reviewers if the guidance providing for application of
science has been adhered to as well as commenting on the
overall science used in a project study. By making such a
distinction, the Corps can get even greater value from peer
review by discovering where the systematic improvement in
guidance or methods is needed. We expect a Corps feasibility
study will emphasize the timely and cost-effective solution of
a community's specific water resources problems using
established methods, models and procedures. Improvements or
advances in methods, models and procedures should be achieved
through research and development and other initiatives outside
the scope of the individual project studies.
The committee believes that the Corps of Engineers must
work to reduce, not increase, sponsor burdens in terms of time
and cost of project development and if possible, find ways to
reduce the time and cost of studies.
The committee has also sought to recognize the distinction
between the engineering, scientific or technical aspects of a
study and those that are purely a government function. The
committee believes that the economics, science and engineering
in Corps project studies can benefit from independent peer
review. However the committee also recognizes that a large
component of a Corps project study is the time and talent
expended on government functions such as weighing competing
values and policies in making decisions related to formulating
a recommended water resources project, formulating
alternatives, involving the stakeholders, developing community
consensus for a project and assessing risk and deciding how
much study, data collection or analysis are needed to make a
recommendation. The committee recognizes that the distinction
between the technical aspects of project studies and the
government functions have close relationships that will often
blur sharp distinctions. However, the two aspects of project
studies, scientific/technical vs. policy/balancing values,
require different kinds of review and evaluation. The committee
believes independent peer review applies only to the
engineering, scientific and technical work products that form
the basis for the recommendations.
The committee does not excessively legislate the procedures
and processes of peer review. Within the Department of the
Army, the Chief of Engineers is the official responsible for
the quality and adequacy of the engineering, scientific and
technical work products that form the basis for his
recommendations on implementation of water resources projects.
Therefore, the Chief of Engineers is accountable for developing
procedures for the application of peer review. This legislation
charges the Chief of Engineers with developing guidance for the
use of peer review, including external peer review, within the
Corps and directs him to complete and publish such guidance
within 1 year. This section also includes principles to govern
the Chief of Engineers in the formulation of this guidance. A
major objective in this guidance is to ensure that the Chief of
Engineers concentrates peer review activities on those elements
of information where such review will return the greatest
benefit, that peer review activities be built into the district
engineer's study and completed before the district engineer
completes his report. In all cases, peer review must be
completed before the Chief of Engineers signs his report. We
also strongly encourage the Chief of Engineers to undertake
peer review of all major scientific and engineering methods,
models, procedures and data that will be applied in multiple
planning studies. Application of peer review to basic planning
methods and models will avoid duplicative review in project
studies. An important principle of the legislation is that the
costs for undertaking all peer reviews shall be at full Federal
expense to ensure that this Federal function not be shifted
onto non-Federal sponsors.
Sec. 2008. Mitigation for fish and wildlife losses.
This section amends section 906 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986. Subsection (a) amends 906(a) to
require completion of mitigation no later than the last day of
the first fiscal year beginning after completion of the project
or separable element where such mitigation is not technically
practicable to complete by the last day of construction. It
also amends section 906(b) by authorizing the use of
consolidated mitigation where other forms of mitigation are not
practicable or are less environmentally desirable, including
mitigation banks and conservation banks. This subsection also
relieves the Secretary and non-Federal interest from
responsibility for monitoring or demonstrating mitigation
success.
This section also amends 906(d) to identify elements to be
included in a specific mitigation plan required under section
906. The plan shall include a description of the physical
action to be undertaken; justification for mitigation that is
undertaken outside the watershed; a description of the quality
and types of lands and interest in land to be used for
mitigation and as the basis for a determination that lands and
interest will be available at the time required; the type,
quantity, and characteristics of the habitat being restored;
and a plan for monitoring mitigation success, including cost
and duration of monitoring and to the extent practicable, the
entities responsible for the monitoring. In the case where it
is not practicable to identify the entity responsible for
monitoring at the time of the final report of the Chief of
Engineers or other final decision document, then the entity
shall be identified in the partnership agreement entered into
with the non-Federal interest.
This subsection also requires submission of a status report
describing the construction of projects that require mitigation
under section 906. This report shall be submitted to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works in the Senate and the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives concurrently with the President's submission of
the Civil Works appropriations request to Congress. Projects to
be included in the status report are: all projects under
construction as of the date of the report; all projects for
which the President requests funding for the next fiscal year;
and all projects that have completed construction but have not
completed mitigation.
Sec. 2009. State technical assistance.
This section amends section 22 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1974. It authorizes the Secretary, upon
request of a governmental agency or non-Federal interests, to
provide technical assistance at Federal expense. This
assistance may include hydrologic, economic and environmental
data and analyses and may not exceed $10,000,000 a year. Of the
amount authorized, $2,000,000 may be used for cooperative
agreements with nonprofit entities to provide assistance to
rural and small communities. This authority will allow the Army
Corps of Engineers to participate with State and local
governments in watershed planning. The committee does not
intend the receipt of funds by non-profit organizations and
State agencies under other Federal programs to preclude
technical assistance under this section.
In addition, this section eliminates the $500,000 State
limitations under section 22 and directs the Secretary to
submit, as part of the President's annual budget request, a
list of the individual activities proposed for funding under
this program.
The committee believes this section will better support
State, tribal, and local government for integrated water
resources management.
Sec. 2010. Access to water resources data.
Subsection (a) directs the Secretary to carry out a program
to provide public access to water resources and related water
quality data.
Subsection (b) requires that the program include access to
data generated in water resources project development and
regulation under section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act and employ geographic information system technology
and linkages to water resources models and analytical
techniques.
Subsection (c) requires the Secretary to develop
partnerships with States, tribal, and local governments and
other Federal agencies in carrying out this program.
Subsection (d) authorizes $5,000,000 to carry out the
section.
The committee is aware that the Army Corps of Engineers
collects significant amounts of water resources and related
data in the development of water resources projects and the
regulation of wetlands. This data, including models and
analytical techniques developed and maintained by Army Corps of
Engineers laboratories, are valuable to States, tribal, and
local governments and the general public, yet, in this age of
modern information technology, are not accessible. The
committee believes the program established by this section will
improve water management and save money at all levels of
government.
Sec. 2011. Construction of flood control projects by non-Federal
interests.
Subsection (a) establishes that for projects being formed
under the authority granted by section 211 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 701b), the budget
priority of those projects shall be proportionate to the
percentage of project completion or if the project is complete,
shall have the same priority as a project with a contractor
onsite.
Subsection (b) adds the following projects to the list of
demonstration projects established in section 211(f) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 701b-13):
Thornton Reservoir, Cook County, Illinois--This
section amends section 221(f) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 to include an element of the project
for flood control, Chicagoland Underflow Plan, Illinois.
St. Paul Downtown Airport (Holman Field) St.
Paul, Minnesota--This section amends section 211(f) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 to include the project
for flood damage reduction, St. Paul Airport, St. Paul,
Minnesota.
Buffalo Bayou, Texas--This section amends section
211(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 to
include the Buffalo Bayou, Texas project. The Buffalo Bayou
Texas project was authorized by the River and Harbors Act of 20
June 1938, and modified by the 1939 and 1954 Flood Control
Acts.
Halls Bayou, Texas--This section amends section
211(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 to
include the Halls Bayou project, and subject to approval by the
Secretary as provided by this section, the non-Federal
interests may design and construct an alternative to the
authorized project. The Halls Bayou project was authorized by
section 101(a)(21) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1990, Buffalo Bayou and Tributaries, Texas, Report of the Chief
of Engineers dated February 12, 1990.
Sec. 2012. Regional sediment management.
This section amends section 204 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326) to authorize the Corps
of Engineers to engage in the regional planning and
implementation of water resources and environmental restoration
projects. The committee recognizes the need for Regional
Sediment Management Plans to address in a programmatic fashion
those water resource and environmental restoration needs in
which there is, under current law, a Federal interest. The
ongoing regional planning and management of these projects will
improve the Corps' civil works program, conserve sediment, and
decrease the long-term costs of projects.
Subsection (a) authorizes the Secretary, in connection with
the construction, operation, or maintenance of a Federal water
resource project, to carry out projects for the protection,
restoration, and creation of aquatic and ecologically related
habitats, and the transport and placement of dredged material.
Subsection (b) requires that projects carried out under
subsection (a) are justified in terms of their environmental,
economic, and social costs.
Subsection (c) outlines the determination of planning and
construction costs for projects carried out under subsection
(a). Studies conducted under this section are to be at full
Federal cost to assure that no governmental entity within a
region can, by its refusal to pay its share of the cost, impede
the other non-Federal interests from partnering with the
Federal Government to prepare a plan. The non-Federal share of
the construction cost of any project with a willing and
fiscally committed non-Federal partner will be based on the
type of Federal water resource project (i.e., navigation, shore
protection, environmental restoration, etc.) to which the
regional sediment management plan is related. Total Federal
costs associated with the construction of a project may not
exceed $5,000,000 without congressional approval.
Subsection (d) authorizes the Secretary, with the consent
of the non-Federal interest, to select a placement of sediment
that is not the least-cost option if the Secretary determines
that the incremental costs of the placement are reasonable in
relation to the derived environmental benefits. The Federal
share of the incremental costs would be determined in
accordance with subsection (c).
Subsection (e) authorizes the Secretary, acting through the
Chief of Engineers, to work with State, regional and local
governments to develop plans for the regional management of
sand that may or may not result in Federal water resource
projects. In some cases, for example, the Federal Government
may be able to assist other levels of government in the
development of regional sediment management plans that the non-
Federal entity chooses to implement without Federal
construction assistance.
Subsection (f) establishes priority areas for the
development of plans identified in subsection (e).
Subsection (g) authorizes $30,000,000 annually for section
204 and reserves up to $5,000,000 of this amount for the
development of plans as provided in subsection (e).
Subsection (b) repeals section 145 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C. 426j), but does not affect
the authority to complete any on-going project under that
section.
Sec. 2013. National shoreline erosion control development program.
This section amends section 3 of the Act of August 13, 1946
(33 U.S.C. 426g) by permanently reauthorizing the National
Shoreline Erosion Control Development and Demonstration
program. This innovative program to test new technology to
combat shoreline erosion is due to expire on September 30,
2005. This section expands this program in the hope that it can
continue to develop and test technologies that will reduce the
periodic renourishment costs of beach nourishment projects.
This section places the shoreline demonstration program
under the authority for small shoreline projects. Both are
intended to provide expedited means to deal with erosion
problems along limited areas of shoreline. Although the bill
places authority for both programs within the same section of
law, it does not change current management of either program.
This section makes several amendments to the current
erosion control demonstration program. In order to assure
effective congressional oversight of this program, an annual
reporting procedure is established. This section emphasizes
that the technology or methods to be tested under this program
shall be chosen with the goal of improving the performance of
beach nourishment projects (i.e., lessen the frequency of
required periodic renourishments), therefore lowering project
costs. It also emphasizes the use of natural designs, including
the use of native and naturalized vegetation, to minimize
permanent structural alterations of shorelines.
In addition, this section authorizes the Secretary, acting
through the Chief of Engineers and at the request of a non-
Federal sponsor, to incorporate a demonstration project as a
feature of an existing, authorized Federal shore protection
project. The section authorizes the Federal Government to enter
into cost share agreements for the construction of the
demonstration project. Current law makes the construction cost
solely a Federal responsibility. The committee believes that
this will save significant time and cost involved with studying
and modifying the original authorization to incorporate the new
technology or methods.
The section also improves existing authority for this
program by permitting the Federal Government to cost share the
removal of a project that has failed to the extent that it
endangers property, infrastructure or lives. Current law places
this fiscal responsibility solely on the non-Federal sponsor of
the project.
Sec. 2014. Shore protection projects.
Subsection (a) states that it is the policy of the United
States to promote shore protection projects, including beach
restoration and periodic beach renourishment for a period of 50
years. Subsection (b) states that preference shall be given to
areas where Federal funds have been invested and areas where
Federal navigation projects or activities have caused the need
for prevention or mitigation to shores and beaches.
This section emphasizes the committee's support for the
protection, restoration and enhancement of sand beaches through
financial support of periodic beach nourishment for a period of
50 years. The committee recognizes that periodic beach
nourishment is an effective measure to prevent or mitigate
damage to shore from storms and hurricanes. Preference shall be
given to areas in which there has been a Federal investment of
funds. The committee emphasizes that through previous Water
Resources Development Acts, Congress has established the length
and Federal cost share for period beach nourishment and
renourishment.
Moreover, the written agreement entered by the Secretary
and non-Federal sponsor with respect to such projects is
legally binding in compliance with the Water Resources Planning
Act (42 U.S.C. 1962(a)-1962(a)(4)(e)).
Sec. 2015. Cost sharing for monitoring.
This section authorizes the Secretary to cost share in the
monitoring of ecosystem restoration projects identical to the
cost sharing for construction, including projects designed and
constructed under a continuing authority program for a maximum
of 10 years and not to exceed 5 percent of the construction
cost of the original project. After 10 years, the costs of
monitoring shall be 100 percent non-Federal.
Sec. 2016. Ecosystem restoration benefits.
This section directs the Secretary to use ecosystem
restoration benefits as part of developing a recommended plan
for the following projects:
(1) Grayson's Creek, California
(2) Seven Oaks, California
(3) Oxford, California
(4) Walnut Creek, California
(5) Wildcat Phase II, California
Sec. 2017. Funding to expedite the evaluation and processing of
permits.
This section amends section 214(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note; 114 Stat. 2594)
to eliminate the expiration of the program.
Sec. 2018. Electronic submission of permit applications.
This section directs the Secretary to establish procedures
to allow the electronic submission of permit applications for
permits under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Army.
Sec. 2019. Improvement of water management at Corps of Engineers
reservoirs.
This section authorizes the Secretary to carry out measures
in cooperation and coordination with States, tribal
governments, and local governments to more effectively and
efficiently meet the water resource needs in watersheds
containing reservoirs operated and maintained by the Army Corps
of Engineers. It requires that water supply revenue collected
in connection with reservoir operation for navigation, flood
control, or multi-purpose projects, be credited to the
revolving fund established under section 101 of the Civil
Functions Appropriations Act, 1954 (33 U.S.C. 701b-10). Eighty
percent of those revenues shall be available within the Corps
District in which they were generated for the purpose of
defraying costs of planning, operation, maintenance,
replacements, and upgrades of, and emergency expenditures for,
all facilities of Army Corps of Engineers projects within that
District. Twenty percent of those revenues shall be available
on an agency-wide basis for the same purposes.
Water supply storage fees at reservoirs should reflect the
opportunity cost to the project for providing that water. For
the permanent first costs of water storage, such fees shall be
the lesser of the estimated cost of purposes foregone (benefits
foregone), replacement costs, or the updated cost of storage.
The committee recognizes that this is a departure from the
current agency developed policy. In all cases the Corps should
calculate the joint use costs for the annual operation and
maintenance of each reservoir based on the allocated benefits
of water storage. In the case of a water supply that is
reallocated from another project purpose to municipal or
industrial water supply, the joint use costs for the reservoir
shall be adjusted to reflect the reallocation of project
purposes. In addition, in the case of a reallocation that
adversely affects hydropower generation, the Secretary shall
defer to the Administrator of the respective Power Marketing
Administration to calculate the impact of such a reallocation
on the rates for hydroelectric power.
Water supply and management issues are becoming
increasingly important as the demand on existing supplies
continues to grow. The Army Corps of Engineers currently
manages 383 major dams and reservoirs, providing significant
benefits to many regions of the Nation. However, some of these
reservoirs use operating plans that may no longer reflect the
best comparative net economic and environmental returns for the
Nation. The intent of this program is to ensure existing Army
Corps of Engineers reservoirs contribute to enhance economic
and ecosystem values in a cost efficient and environmentally
sustainable way as water demands continue to increase.
Sec. 2020. Corps of Engineers hydropower operation and maintenance
funding.
This section provides for the direct funding by the
Southeastern, Southwestern and Western Power Administrations of
Corps of Engineers operations and maintenance activities
attributable to hydropower generation. In the case of the
Southwestern Power Administration and under a specified
condition for the Southeastern Power Administration, amounts
credited to the Corps of Engineers may be used for capital and
non-recurring costs. In addition, the section provides for
consultation and resolution of costs appropriate for direct
funding between the Secretary and the respective power
marketing administrators.
Sec. 2021. Federal hopper dredges.
This section lifts the annual operational restrictions on
these Federal dredges to maximize the available dredging
capacity to maintain channel dimensions of West Coast Federal
navigation projects. The committee is aware that the current
restrictions on the Federal hopper dredges, YAQUINA and
ESSAYONS, do not maximize the use of these important Federal
resources.
In addition the committee is aware of the fixed and
operating costs of the Federal hopper dredge McFarland, as well
as the current capability of the private industry hopper dredge
fleet. The committee has determined that the current daily
operating costs of the McFarland compared to similar-sized
industry hopper dredges is excessive. This section directs the
Secretary to retire the hopper dredge McFarland within 1 year
of enactment of this Act.
Sec. 2022. Obstruction to navigation.
This section amends section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors
Act of 1899 by providing that nothing in the section shall be
construed as to provide for the regulation of activities or
structures on private property unless the Secretary, in
consultation with the Secretary of the department in which the
Coast Guard is operating, determines that such activity would
pose a threat to the safe transit of maritime traffic. Nothing
in this section affects the definition of navigable waters
under section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Subtitle B--Continuing Authorities Programs
Sec. 2031. Navigation enhancements for waterbourne transportation.
This section increases the per project limit from
$4,000,000 to $7,000,000 for the Navigation Enhancements for
Waterbourne Transportation (NEWT) continuing authority program
created under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960
(33 U.S.C. 577), as amended.
Sec. 2032. Protection and restoration due to emergencies at shore and
streambanks.
This section increases the annual program limit from
$15,000,000 to $20,000,000 and the per project limit from
$1,000,000 to $1,500,000 for the Protection and Restoration due
to Emergencies at Shores and Streambanks (PRESS) continuing
authority program created under section 14 of the Flood Control
Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r).
Sec. 2033. Restoration of the environment for protection of aquatic and
riparian ecosystems program.
This section increases the annual program limit from
$25,000,000 to $75,000,000 for the Restoration of the
Environment for Protection of Aquatic and Riparian Ecosystem
(REPARE) continuing authority program created under section 206
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C.
2330).
Sec. 2034. Environmental modification of projects for improvement and
restoration of ecosystems program.
This section increases the annual program limit from
$25,000,000 to $50,000,000 for the Environmental Modification
of Projects for Improvement and Restoration of Ecosystems
(EMPIRE) continuing authority program created under section
1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
2309a).
Sec. 2035. Projects to enhance estuaries and coastal habitats.
This section creates a new continuing authority program,
Projects to Enhance Estuaries and Coastal Habitats, for
improvement of the quality of the environment by performing
estuary habitat restoration, with an annual program limit of
$25,000,000 and a per project cost limit of $5,000,000.
Sec. 2036. Remediation of abandoned mine sites.
This section expands the existing Remediation of Abandoned
Mine Sites (RAMS) program into a continuing authority program,
with an annual program limit of $45,000,000, by amending
section 560 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (33
U.S.C. 2336; 113 Stat. 354-355) to authorize the Secretary to
perform construction activities associated with remediation of
abandoned mines, to cost share program features with non-profit
organizations with the consent of the affected local
government, to adjust the cost share requirement, and defines
the operation and maintenance costs as 100 percent non-Federal.
Sec. 2037. Small projects for the rehabilitation or removal of dams.
This section creates a new continuing authority program,
Small Projects for the Rehabilitation or Removal of Dams, for
improvement of the quality of the environment, with an annual
program limit of $25,000,000 and a per project cost limit of
$5,000,000.
Sec. 2038. Remote, maritime-dependent communities.
This provision gives the Secretary of the Army authority to
develop criteria for the justification of Federal participation
in remote harbors without the need to demonstrate that the
project is justified solely by National Economic Development
benefits. The remote or subsistence harbor projects would be
cost shared in accordance with section 101 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986, as amended, in the same way
other harbor projects are cost shared, but would not be
required to be economically justified solely on the basis of
National Economic Development benefits. The provision
recognizes that there are communities within the United States
and its Territories that are totally dependent on water
transportation for their subsistence. In addition to their
geographic isolation, in many cases these communities are in
economically disadvantaged areas. Conventional procedures
currently used to estimate National Economic Development
benefits do not capture water transportation economic
dependency and subsistence issues. This provision is responsive
to the particular needs of isolated economically disadvantaged
regions that depend on water transportation for their
subsistence and is responsive to the need to expand the economy
and promote growth in areas of poverty and economic need.
Sec. 2039. Agreements for water resource projects.
Subsection (a) amends section 221 of the Flood Control Act
of 1970, to rename project cooperation agreements as
partnership agreements, allow district engineers to enter into
partnership agreements, and allow partnership agreements to
provide for liquidated damages. This subsection also requires
that, if the Secretary determines that a project needs to be
continued for the purposes of public health and safety, the
non-Federal interest shall pay the increased project costs, up
to an amount equal to 20 percent of the original estimated
project costs and in accordance with the statutorily determined
cost share and the Secretary shall pay all increased costs
remaining.
Subsection (b) amends 912(b) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 to eliminate civil penalties in
partnership agreements and allow the use of liquidated damages.
Subsection (c) clarifies that these changes apply only to
partnership agreements entered into after the date of
enactment, unless the non-Federal interest requests
applicability from the district engineer and construction has
not been initiated.
Subsection (d) clarifies that cooperation agreements or
project cooperation agreements shall be partnerships agreements
or project partnership agreements, respectively and vice versa.
The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 significantly
increased the roles and responsibilities of project sponsors.
As a result of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986,
project cooperation agreements (PCAs) required under section
221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 and section 912 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 assumed significant
importance in defining non-Federal responsibilities for
providing items of local cooperation.
In testimony before the committee, non-Federal project
partners, including Mr. Gregory A. Zlotnik, Director of the
Santa Clara Valley Water District in California, expressed
frustration in the multiple layers of review and approval
imposed upon the execution of PCAs within the Department of the
Army, which produced needless delays and inefficiencies. The
committee expects these changes will address the concerns of
non-Federal interests, improve efficiency by streamlining the
process for approving partnership agreements, and foster a
culture of true partnerships that will improve projects and
their implementation.
Sec. 2040. Program names.
Subsection (a) changes the program name for the continuing
authority program created under section 3 of the Act of 1946
(33 U.S.C. 426g).
Subsection (b) changes the name for the continuing
authority program created under section 205 of the Flood
Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s).
TITLE III--PROJECT RELATED PROVISIONS
Sec. 3001. St. Herman and St. Paul Harbors, Kodiak, Alaska.
This section authorizes the Secretary to carry out, on an
emergency basis, the necessary removal of rubble, sediment, and
rock impeding the entrance to the St. Herman and St. Paul
Harbors, Kodiak, Alaska, at a Federal cost of $2,000,000.
Sec. 3002. Sitka, Alaska.
This section directs the Secretary to take such action as
is necessary to correct design deficiencies in the Thompson
Harbor element of the project for navigation, Southeast Alaska
Harbors of Refuge, Alaska, authorized by section 101 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106) Stat. 4801)
Thompson Harbor at Sitka, Alaska, at a Federal cost $6,300,000.
Sec. 3003. Black Warrior-Tombigbee Rivers, Alabama.
This section authorizes the Secretary to construct a new
project management office for the Black Warrior-Tombigbee
Rivers and Alabama River projects to be located in the vicinity
of Tuscaloosa, Alabama. To accomplish this section, the
Secretary shall acquire necessary real estate interests,
prepare required environmental documentation, design and
construct office, warehouse, shop and dock facilities, and
necessary ancillary buildings for the new project management
office. The Secretary shall sell, convey, or otherwise transfer
to the city of Tuscaloosa, Alabama, at fair market value, the
land and structures with the existing project management
office, if the city agrees to assume full responsibility and
costs associated with the demolition of the existing project
management office. There is authorized to carry out this
section $32,000,000.
Sec. 3004. Augusta and Clarendon, Arkansas.
This section modifies the project for flood control, the
Augusta to Clarendon Levee, Lower White River, Arkansas
project, authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1941 (P.L. 77-
228) and modified by the Flood Control Act of 1946 (P.L. 79-
525), to authorize the Secretary to carry out rehabilitation of
authorized and completed levees on the White River between
Augusta and Clarendon, Arkansas, at a total estimated cost of
$8,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $5,200,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $2,800,000.
Sec. 3005. St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.
This section modifies the St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and
Missouri project, authorized by the Act of June 15, 1936 (49
Stat. 1508, chapter 548), as amended, to authorize the
Secretary to undertake channel stabilization and sediment
removal measures as an integral part of original project and
not to be considered a separable element. These measures would
be provided at current project cost sharing, which is 100
percent Federal.
Sec. 3006. St. Francis Basin land transfer, Arkansas and Missouri.
This section modifies the St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and
Missouri project, authorized by the Act of June 15, 1936 (49
Stat. 1508, chapter 548), as amended, to authorize the
Secretary to transfer acquired project mitigation lands in
Arkansas directly to the State of Arkansas or its appropriate
designee, provided that certain local requirements are met.
Currently, transfer of the land is only authorized for the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
Sec. 3007. Red-Ouachita River Basin levees, Arkansas and Louisiana.
This section authorizes the Secretary to design, construct,
operate and maintain bank stabilization measures, at full
Federal expense, along the Ouachita and Black Rivers, Arkansas
and Louisiana, between mile 0 on the Black River, Louisiana, to
mile 460 on the Ouachita River, Arkansas at the outlet of
Remmel Dam.
Sec. 3008. McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River navigation system, Arkansas
and Oklahoma.
Subsection (a) directs the Secretary to continue
construction of the 12-foot channel project as authorized by
section 136 of P.L. 108-137.
Subsection (b) authorizes the Secretary to determine the
need for and construct modifications in the structures and
operations of the Arkansas River in the area of Tulsa County,
Oklahoma, specifically including the construction of low water
dams and islands to provide nesting and foraging habitat for
the interior least tern, in accordance with the study entitled,
``Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan Planning Assistance to
States.'' Such habitat will provide for mitigation for any
incidental taking relating to the McClellan-Kerr Navigation
System. The non-Federal share of the cost of a project under
this subsection shall be 35 percent. There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this subsection $12,000,000.
Sec. 3009. Cache Creek Basin, California.
This section amends section 401(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4112), and directs the
Secretary to mitigate the hydraulic impacts of the new south
levee of the Cache Creek Settling Basin on the city of
Woodland's storm drainage system capacity, including all
appurtenant features, erosion control measures, and
environmental mitigation features. This project would be a
separable element of the original project.
Sec. 3010. Hamilton Airfield, California.
This section authorizes the project for ecosystem
restoration, Hamilton Army Airfield, California, substantially
in accordance with the plan, and subject to the conditions,
recommended in the final report of the Chief of Engineers. The
project is modified to included the diked bayland parcel ``Bel
Marin Keys Unit V.'' The total Cost is $205,226,000, with a
Federal cost of $153,840,000 and a non-Federal cost of
$51,386,000.
Sec. 3011. LA-3 dredged material ocean disposal site designation,
California.
This section amends section 102(c)(4) of the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuary Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C.
1412(c)(4)) to extend the LA-3 Dredged Material Ocean Disposal
Site interim designation from January 1, 2003 to January 1,
2007. The extension is needed to allow for maintenance dredging
activities to proceed within Newport Harbor as the formal site
designation process continues to completion.
Sec. 3012. Larkspur Ferry Channel, California.
This section authorizes the Secretary to prepare a limited
reevaluation report to determine whether maintenance of the
project is feasible. If the Secretary determines that
maintenance of the project is feasible, the Secretary shall
maintain the channel.
Sec. 3013. Llagas Creek, California.
This section authorizes the Secretary to complete the
project for flood damage reduction, authorized by section
501(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113
Stat. 333), in accordance with the requirements of local
cooperation agreements as specified in section 5 of the
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (16 USC 1005) at
a total cost of $95,000,000 with a Federal cost of $55,000,000
and a non-Federal cost of $40,000,000.
Sec. 3014. Los Angeles Harbor, California.
This section authorizes the Secretary to construct the main
channel deepening project for Los Angeles Harbor, California.
The provision amends the project authorization provided by
section 101(b)(5) of the Water Resources Development Act of
2000 (114 Stat. 2577), to increase the total project cost for
the project to $222,000,000 with an estimated Federal cost of
$72,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $150,000,000.
Sec. 3015. Magpie Creek, California.
This section authorizes the Secretary to apply cost-sharing
requirements applicable to non-structural flood control under
section 103(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(100 Stat. 4085) for the portion of the project consisting of
land acquisition to preserve and enhance existing floodwater
storage. The crediting allowed under this provision shall not
exceed the non-Federal share of the cost of the project. The
Secretary is directed to utilize the in-kind contribution
authorization in section 1001 of this Act to provide a credit
to the local sponsors for the value of their in-kind
contributions made on authorized activities in the project's
scope of work if the Secretary determines the work is integral
to the project.
Sec. 3016. Pine Flat Dam fish and wildlife habitat, California.
This section authorizes the Secretary to participate with
appropriate State and local agencies in the implementation of a
cooperative program to improve and manage fisheries and aquatic
habitat conditions in the Pine Flat Reservoir and in the 14-
mile reach of Kings River immediately below the dam in
accordance with Kings River Fisheries Management Program
Framework. There is a total cost of $20,000,000, a Federal cost
$13,000,000 and a non-Federal cost of $7,000,000.
Sec. 3017. Redwood City navigation project, California.
This section authorizes the Secretary to dredge the Redwood
City Navigation Channel on an annual basis, to maintain the
authorized depth of--30 feet mean lower low water.
Sec. 3018. Sacramento and American Rivers flood control, California.
This section authorizes the Secretary to apply remaining
funds eligible for reimbursement on the Natomas Federal Plan as
a credit toward the non-Federal share of cost for future work
on any flood damage reduction project authorized before the
date of enactment of this Act that is to be paid for by the
Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency.
Sec. 3019. Conditional declaration of nonnavigability, Port of San
Francisco, California.
This section authorizes the Secretary to declare portions
of the San Francisco, California, waterfront not to be
navigable water of the United States for the purpose of section
9 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401) and the General
Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 525 et seq.). This determination
is based on proposed projects which are to be carried out by
non-Federal entities, consisting of bulkheads, fill, or
otherwise occupied by permanent structures, that will impact
the accessibility of the waterfront. If, after 20 years from
the date of the enactment of this Act, any of the portions of
the project declared to be non-navigable have not been impacted
or if work has not begun within 5 years after the date of
issuance of a permit, the declaration of nonnavigability shall
cease to be effective.
Sec. 3020. Salton Sea restoration, California.
This section authorizes a special study of pilot projects
identified in the preferred restoration concept plan approved
by the Salton Sea Authority to determine if the pilot projects
are economically justifiable, technically sound,
environmentally acceptable and meeting the objectives of the
Salton Sea Reclamation Act (Public Law 105-372). If the
Secretary makes a positive determination, the Secretary may
enter into an agreement with the Salton Sea Authority, and in
consultation with the Salton Sea Science Office, to carry out
pilot projects for improvement of the environment in the Salton
Sea. There is a total cost $26,000,000, a Federal cost of
$16,900,000 of which not more than $5,000,000 may be used for
any one pilot project and a non-Federal cost $9,100,000.
Sec. 3021. Upper Guadalupe River, California.
This section authorizes the Secretary to carry out the
project for flood damage reduction and recreation, Upper
Guadalupe River, California, authorized by section 101(a)(9) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 275), as
modified, generally in accordance with Upper Guadalupe River
Flood Damage Reduction Project, San Jose, California, Limited
Reevaluation Report, dated July, 2004, at a total cost of
$212,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $113,300,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $98,800,000.
Sec. 3022. Yuba River Basin project, California.
This section modifies the project for flood damage
reduction authorized by section 101(a)(10) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 275) by increasing
the authorized project cost from $26,600,000 to $107,000,000
with a Federal cost of $70,000,000 and a non-Federal cost of
$37,700,000. The Secretary is directed to utilize the in-kind
contribution authorization in section 1001 of this Act to
provide a credit to the local sponsors for the value of their
in-kind contributions made on authorized activities related to
the levees in the project's scope of work, if the Secretary
determines the work is integral to the project.
Sec. 3023. Charles Hervey Townshend Breakwater, New Haven Harbor,
Connecticut.
This section designates the western breakwater in New Haven
Harbor as the ``Charles Hervey Townshend Breakwater''.
Sec. 3024. Anchorage area, New London Harbor, Connecticut.
This section modifies the project for navigation, New
London Harbor, Connecticut, authorized by the Act of June 13,
1902 (32 Stat. 333), to redesignate a portion of the 23-foot
deep waterfront channel as an anchorage area.
Sec. 3025. Norwalk Harbor, Connecticut.
This section deauthorizes two small areas and authorizes
the Secretary to realign a portion of the 10-foot channel at
the northern section of the project for navigation, Norwalk
Harbor, Connecticut, authorized by the River and Harbor Act of
1919 (40 Stat. 1276).
Sec. 3026. St. George's Bridge, Delaware.
This section amends section 102(g) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4612) to direct the
Secretary to assume ownership of the State Route 1 replacement
bridge and continue to operate and maintain the existing St.
Georges Bridge unless otherwise directed by Congress.
Sec. 3027. Christina River, Wilmington, Delaware.
This section directs the Secretary to remove the
shipwrecked vessel known as the ``State of Pennsylvania,'' and
any debris associated with that vessel from the Christina River
at Wilmington, Delaware, which is substantially outside of
current Federal navigation channels maintained by either the
Corps of Engineers or the Coast Guard. The ship wreck poses a
danger to recreational traffic during high tide, when it is not
visible to boaters in the area.
Further, the section specifically exempts the Secretary
from any provisions of law that would require recovering funds
from the owner of the vessel or any other vessel. Finally the
section authorizes the appropriation of $425,000 to carry out
the removal of the shipwreck, to remain available until
expended.
Sec. 3028. Additional program authority, comprehensive Everglades
restoration, Florida.
This section applies section 902 of WRDA 1986 to the cost
limits on the Federal share, total cost, and aggregate cost of
projects pursued under CERP's programmatic authority of WRDA
2000 section 601(c).
Sec. 3029. Critical restoration projects, Everglades and south Florida
ecosystem restoration, Florida.
This section increases the Federal appropriation limit for
this program from $75,000,000 to $95,000,000 and remove
language ending the period of appropriation, which was set at
fiscal year 1999 in WRDA 1996 and at fiscal year 2003 in WRDA
1999. It would also increase the limit on Federal expenditures
for a single project from $25,000,000 to $30,000,000 only in
the case of the Seminole Water Conservation Plan, which is one
of the projects for which a Project Cooperation Agreement has
been executed. Cost estimates for the projects have increased
over time due to inflation, unexpected site conditions, design
modifications necessary to meet the project goals, and
construction bids higher than those originally estimated.
Sec. 3030. Jacksonville Harbor, Florida.
This section authorizes the Secretary to modify the project
for navigation, Jacksonville Harbor, Florida, authorized by
section 101(a)(17) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1999 (113 Stat. 276) to extend the navigation features in
accordance with the Report of the Chief of Engineers dated July
22, 2003, at an additional total cost of $14,658,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $9,636,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $5,022,000.
Sec. 3031. Lake Okeechobee and Hillsboro Aquifer pilot projects,
comprehensive Everglades restoration, Florida.
This section amends section 601(b)(2)(B) of WRDA 2000, to
include the pilot projects for aquifer storage and recovery,
Lake Okeechobee and Hillsboro Aquifer, Florida, under the cost
sharing and other provisions of the WRDA 2000. These pilot
projects shall be treated as being integral components of the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, and carried out in
accordance with the Plan, except that costs of operation and
maintenance of these projects shall remain 100 percent non-
Federal.
Sec. 3032. Lido Key, Sarasota County, Florida.
This section authorizes the Secretary to modify the project
for hurricane and storm damage reduction in Lido Key, Sarasota
County, Florida, authorized by section 354(2) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 276). The modified
project provides for initial construction and periodic
nourishment of an 80-foot-wide beach berm at elevation +5 feet
National Geodetic Vertical Datum over 1.56 miles of shoreline,
in accordance with the Report of the Chief of Engineers dated
December 22, 2004. The authorized total cost is $14,809,000
with a Federal cost of $9,088,000 and a non-Federal cost of
$5,721,000. Estimated total costs of $63,606,000 for periodic
nourishment over a period of 50 years with an estimated Federal
cost of $31,803,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$31,803,000.
Sec. 3033. Tampa Harbor, Cut B, Tampa, Florida.
This section authorizes the Secretary to modify the project
for navigation, Tampa Harbor, Florida, authorized by section
101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1818) to
construct passing lanes in an area approximately 3.5 miles long
and centered on Tampa Bay Cut B, if the Secretary determines
that the improvements are necessary for navigation safety.
Sec. 3034. Allatoona Lake, Georgia.
This section repeals the authority provided in section 325
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat.
4849), and authorizes the Secretary to exchange land at
Allatoona Lake, Georgia, by adding an alternative method
whereby the Government could sell land above 863 feet in
elevation and with the proceeds from the sales, without further
appropriations, acquire additional lands, from willing sellers,
to protect the water quality and overall environment of
Allatoona Lake. The lands available to be sold are in
accordance with the Real Estate Design Memorandum prepared by
the Mobile district engineer dated April 5, 1996, and approved
October 8, 1996.
Sec. 3035. Dworshak Reservoir improvements, Idaho.
This section authorizes the Secretary to construct
recreational facilities as well as improve existing Army Corps
of Engineers and outgranted improvements to recreation
facilities on the existing Dworshak Reservoir to allow for
operation at the lower pool elevations that are being
experienced to assist in salmon species recovery efforts. The
estimated total project cost is $5,300,000, with a Federal cost
of $3,900,000 and a non-Federal cost of $1,400,000.
Sec. 3036. Little Wood River, Gooding, Idaho.
This section modifies Public Law 75-5, the Energy
Conservation Work Program (16 U.S.C. 585 et seq.), to direct
the rehabilitation of the Gooding Idaho Channel Project for the
purpose of flood control and ecosystem restoration, if the
Secretary determines the rehabilitation and ecosystem
restoration to be feasible. The section authorizes and directs
the Secretary to plan, design and construct the project at a
total cost of $9,000,000, provides that the non-Federal share
of the cost of the project can be provided as in-kind
contributions, services, supplies and material, and provides
that non-Federal funds may come from other Federal programs if
permitted under that Federal program. This provision directs
the Secretary to consider the ability to pay provisions from
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m))
when computing the non-Federal cost share.
Sec. 3037. Port of Lewiston, Idaho.
The section extinguishes reversionary interests and use
restrictions related to industrial use purposes, the
restriction that no activity shall be permitted that will
compete with services and facilities offered by public marinas,
and the restriction on human habitation or other building
structure in which the elevation is above the standard project
flood elevation. The use of fill material to raise low areas
above the standard project flood elevation is authorized,
except in any low area constituting wetland for which a permit
under section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344) is required. This section also specifies the
deeds involved and includes a savings clause regarding other
remaining rights and interests of the Army Corps of Engineers
for authorized project purposes.
Sec. 3038. Cache River Levee, Illinois.
This section directs the Secretary to add ecosystem
restoration as a project purpose to the Cache River Levee,
Illinois, authorized under the Flood Control Act of June 28,
1938 (52 Stat. 1215, Chapter 795).
Sec. 3039. Chicago, Illinois.
This section modifies the existing authorization by
clarifying that the study includes Lake Michigan as well as the
Chicago River.
Sec. 3040. Chicago River, Illinois.
This section reduces the width of the authorized navigation
channel from between 100 and 120 to no wider than 66 feet from
100 feet downstream of the Halsted Street Bridge to 100 feet
upstream of the Division Street Bridge, Chicago, Illinois to
ensure consistency in Army Corps of Engineers records to actual
bridge size.
Sec. 3041. Missouri and Illinois flood protection projects
reconstruction pilot program.
This section directs the Secretary to reconstruct existing
flood control projects in Missouri and Illinois as needed for
proper functioning as originally authorized, so long as the
deficiencies identified are not due to lack of proper operation
and maintenance by the non-Federal interest. Costs shall be
shared in the same percentages as the original projects.
Operation, maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation of
reconstructed projects are a non-Federal responsibility. A
total of $50,000,000 is authorized for this effort. The
following critical projects are to receive priority:
(1) Clear Creek Drainage and Levee District, Illinois.
(2) Fort Chartres and Ivy Landing Drainage District,
Illinois.
(3) Wood River Drainage and Levee District, Illinois.
(4) city of St. Louis, Missouri.
(5) Missouri River Levee Drainage District, Missouri.
Sec. 3042. Spunky Bottom, Illinois.
This section directs the Secretary to add ecosystem
restoration as a project purpose to the flood control project
between Beardstown, Illinois and the mouth of the Illinois
River, authorized by section 5 of the Flood Control Act of June
22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1583, Chapter 688). In addition, it directs
that the flood control project shall remain eligible for
emergency repair assistance under the Flood Control Act of
August 18, 1941 (Public Law 77-228), as amended (33 U.S.C.
701n) without consideration of economic justification. It also
authorizes $7,500,000 in Federal funding ($500,000 of which
will be available for post-construction monitoring and adaptive
management for a period of 5 years following completion of
construction) for the project modifications carried out under
section 1135 of WRDA 1986 for the Spunky Bottoms, Illinois
project.
Sec. 3043. Strawn Cemetery, John Redmond Lake, Kansas.
This section authorizes the transfer of approximately 3
acres of Federal lands at John Redmond Lake directly to
Pleasant Township. The conveyance would be at fair market value
of undeveloped land. All costs associated with the conveyance
shall be non-Federal.
Sec. 3044. Harry S. Truman Reservoir, Milford, Kansas.
This section directs the Secretary to sell 7.4 acres of
land at Harry S. Truman Reservoir for a fire station.
Sec. 3045. Ohio River, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
and West Virginia.
This section modifies the project for ecosystem
restoration, Ohio River, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, authorized by section 101(16)
of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat.
2578), to authorize the Secretary to cost share projects with
non-profit organizations with the consent of the affected local
government, prepare an implementation plan and initiate a pilot
restoration program in the Lower Scioto Basin, Ohio.
Sec. 3046. Public access, Atchafalaya, Basin Floodway System,
Louisiana.
This section allows the Secretary to acquire an additional
20,000 acres of land from willing sellers as is consistent with
the Public Access feature. This section also addresses an
inconsistency in previous Acts pertaining to a fiscal cap
placed on Federal first cost expenditures. In section 906(f) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Congress increased
the scope of the public access feature of the project to a cost
of $66,000,000 without raising the $32,000,000 cap on
expenditures associated with this expanded scope. This section
removes the $32,000,000 cap for the acquisition of additional
lands retroactive to the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 when the project scope was expanded.
Sec. 3047. Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana.
This section modifies the project for the Calcasieu River
and Pass, Louisiana, authorized by section 101 of the River and
Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 481) to authorize the Secretary to
provide $3,000,000 for each fiscal year, in a total amount of
$15,000,000, for such rock bank protection of the Calcasieu
River from mile 5 to mile 16, as the Chief of Engineers
determines to be advisable to reduce maintenance dredging needs
and facilitate protection of valuable disposal areas for the
Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana.
Sec. 3048. Larose to Golden Meadow, Louisiana.
This section requires the Secretary to make a determination
as to the advisability of converting the floodgate in Golden
Meadow into a navigation lock when considering feasibility,
environmental and economic conditions. If the Secretary either
makes a favorable determination or fails to make a
determination within 180 days of the date of enactment of this
act, the conversion is authorized.
Sec. 3049. East Baton Rouge Parish. Louisiana.
This section modifies the project for flood damage
reduction and recreation, East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana,
authorized by section 101(a)(21) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 277), as amended by section
116 of the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (117
Stat. 140), to authorize the Secretary to carry out the project
substantially in accordance with the Report of the Chief of
Engineers dated December 23, 1996, and the subsequent Post
Authorization Change Report dated December 2004. The estimated
cost is $178,000,000.
Sec. 3050. Red River (J. Bennett Johnston) Waterway, Louisiana.
This section will allow the Secretary to purchase and
reforest lands, which have been cleared or converted to
agricultural uses for mitigation purposes. Current law
restricts land purchases to bottomland hardwood lands. There
are no additional willing sellers of bottomland hardwood lands
available. This change will increase the amount of land
available to meet the projects' mitigation requirements. There
is authorized to carry out this section $33,000,000.
Sec. 3051. Camp Ellis, Saco, Maine.
This section authorizes the Secretary to continue the
project initiated under section 111 of the River and Harbor Act
of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 426i), up to a maximum of $20,000,000 to
mitigate erosion on Camp Ellis Beach.
Sec. 3052. Union River, Maine.
This section modifies the project for navigation, Union
River, Maine, authorized by the Act of 1896 (29 Stat. 215,
Chapter 314), by redesignating the upper 6-foot turning basin
as an anchorage area.
Sec. 3053. Chesapeake Bay environmental restoration and protection
program, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.
This section amends section 510(i) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3761) to increase the total
program funding limit from $10,000,000 to $30,000,000.
Sec. 3054. Cumberland, Maryland.
This section amends section 580(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 375) to increase the total
authorized cost of the project from $15,000,000 to $25,750,000
with a Federal cost of $16,738,000 and a non-Federal cost of
$9,012,000.
Sec. 3055. Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
First, this section extends the authorization for the
project for navigation, Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts and
Rhode Island authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor
Act of 1968(82 Stat. 731) and amends the authorization to
restrict the project depth of the existing navigation project
riverward of the Charles M. Braga, Jr. Memorial Bridge, Fall
River and Somerset, Massachusetts, to not more than 35 feet in
depth. Second, this section also directs the Secretary to
conduct a study to determine the feasibility of deepening the
portion of the navigation channel of the navigation project for
Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, seaward of
the Charles M. Braga, Jr. Memorial Bridge, Fall River and
Somerset, Massachusetts. If funds are not obligated for
construction (including planning and design) of the Fall River
Harbor project within 5 years of the enactment of this act, the
original project will no longer be authorized.
Sec. 3056. St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair, Michigan.
This section provides the statutory authority for the
Secretary to establish and lead a partnership of Federal
agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
and the State of Michigan and political subdivisions of the
State and other involved parties in the management of the St.
Clair River and Lake St. Clair Watersheds, in accordance with
the St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair Comprehensive Management
Plan. The focus of this partnership would be to develop and
implement projects consistent with the management plan.
In 2001, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers initiated
development of the management plan, emphasizing broad
coordination with other public agencies and local stakeholders.
The management plan recommends that successful, locally driven
programs continue, and that larger efforts be coordinated by an
intergovernmental steering group. This provision supports both
efforts, allowing grants and other financial assistance as well
as providing for direct participation in project development
and implementation.
The section directs the Secretary, working in consultation
with the partnership, to develop a St. Clair River and Lake St.
Clair strategic implementation plan in accordance with the St.
Clair River and Lake St. Clair Management Plan; and to
supplement the management plan and the strategic implementation
plan, as needed.
Appropriations to support this provision are capped at
$10,000,000 per fiscal year. The non-Federal share for the cost
of technical assistance, planning, design, construction, and
evaluation of a project, and the development of supplementary
information, is 25 percent of the total cost of the project or
development. All operation and maintenance costs associated
with projects implemented under this provision are to be 100
percent non-Federal responsibilities.
Sec. 3057. Duluth Harbor, Minnesota.
This section authorizes the Secretary to include public
access and recreational facilities as part of the federally
cost-shared facilities for the project, authorized by section
107(b) of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577(b)).
These facilities include, but are not limited to, parking
facilities, pedestrian walkways, and boating and fishing access
facilities. This section also increases the allowable Federal
share to $9,000,000 from $6,000,000 to accommodate the
increased project scope.
Sec. 3058. Land exchange, Pike County, Missouri.
This section directs a land exchange of 42 acres between
S.S.S., Inc. and the Army Corps of Engineers within 2 years.
The Federal land includes 2 parcels of Army Corps of Engineers
land located on Buffalo Island in Pike County, Missouri. The
S.S.S., Inc. land is situated in Pike County, Missouri,
upstream and northwest, about 200 feet from Drake Island (also
known as Grimes Island).
Sec. 3059. Union Lake, Missouri.
This section directs the Secretary to offer to convey to
the State of Missouri two tracts of land totaling approximately
205.5 acres that were originally purchased for the Union Lake
Project, which was deauthorized in the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(a)).
Sec. 3060. Fort Peck Fish Hatchery, Montana.
This section amends section 325 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 (144 Stat. 2607) to increase the amount
authorized for appropriation to carry out the design and
construction of a fish hatchery and associated facilities at
Fort Peck Lake from $20,000,000 to $25,000,000.
Sec. 3061. Yellowstone River and tributaries, Montana and North Dakota.
This section authorizes the Secretary to carry out
restoration projects in the watershed of the Yellowstone River
and tributaries in Montana, Wyoming, and North Dakota. The
restoration projects would be implemented in partnership with
non-Federal sponsors, including non-profit entities with the
support of the local government. Projects would provide for a
wide range of measures in the main channel and flood plain to
accomplish restoration, creation, and preservation of fish and
wildlife habitat. Incorporation of multi-purpose features into
these projects is authorized. This section authorizes Federal
expenditure up to $30,000,000 and establishes a per project
Federal limit of $5,000,000.
Sec. 3062. Lower Truckee River, McCarran Ranch, Nevada.
This section authorizes the Secretary to construct a
project modification for environmental restoration on the
Truckee River at McCarran Ranch, Nevada, with the Federal share
of the cost in excess of the statutory $5,000,000 limit
established under section 1135 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a). The total project
cost is $7,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$5,775,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $1,725,000.
Sec. 3063. Middle Rio Grande restoration, New Mexico.
This section authorizes the Secretary to implement a
program of conducting an inventory of existing ecosystem
resources; developing a comprehensive implementation plan for
the restoration and protection of the ecosystem resources;
conducting detailed planning and design and implementing site
specific projects to restore and protect aquatic, wetland,
floodplain, and riparian areas; and appropriate recreation
features in conjunction with site specific restoration
projects; and monitoring of individual project performance for
the Middle Rio Grande and the adjacent Bosque, a riparian
forest unique to the area. The Secretary shall consult with and
consider the activities being carried out by the Middle Rio
Grande Endangered Species Act Collaborative Program and the
Bosque Improvement Group of the Middle Rio Grande Bosque
Initiative. The cost of projects carried out under this
authority will be cost-shared at a non-Federal share of 35
percent and shall include provision of necessary land,
easements, relocations, and disposal sites. The non-Federal
sponsor may, with the consent of the affected government, be a
nonprofit entity. The program is authorized for an annual
appropriation of $25,000,000.
Sec. 3064. Long Island Sound oyster restoration, New York and
Connecticut.
This section authorizes the Secretary to plan, design, and
construct projects to increase aquatic habitats within Long
Island Sound, New York and Connecticut, and adjacent waters,
including the construction and restoration of oyster beds and
related shellfish habitat. There is a total cost of $25,000,000
a Federal cost $18,750,000, and a non-Federal cost $6,250,000.
Sec. 3065. Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York.
This section amends section 554 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3781) to increase the
maximum total Federal cost of the project from $5,200,000 to
$18,200,000.
Sec. 3066. New York Harbor, New York, New York.
This section amends section 217 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2326a) which authorized the
Secretary to enter into cost-sharing agreements with one or
more non-Federal public interests for the acquisition, design,
construction, management, or operation of a dredged material
processing, treatment, decontamination, or disposal facility.
This includes any facility used to demonstrate potential
beneficial uses of dredged material. When appropriate, the
Secretary may combine portions of separate Federal projects if
the facility is used to manage dredged material from multiple
Federal projects in the same geographic area. The New York and
New Jersey Harbor Deepening Project, New York and New Jersey,
is the most likely candidate navigation project to use the
facility; however, the cost-sharing agreement may include the
management of sediments from the maintenance dredging of
Federal navigation projects that do not have partnership
agreements.
Sec. 3067. Onondaga Lake, New York.
This section amends the project for ecosystem restoration,
Onondaga Lake, New York, authorized by section 573 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 372), to increase
the authorized project cost from $10,000,000 to $30,000,000 and
to authorize the Secretary to cost share projects with non-
profit organizations with the consent of the affected local
government.
Sec. 3068. Missouri River restoration, North Dakota.
This section amends section 707(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2699) to extend the
authorization for appropriations through 2010.
Sec. 3069. Lower Girard Lake Dam, Girard, Ohio.
The section amends section 507(1) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3758) by increasing the
authorization from $2,500,000 to $5,500,000 for repair and
rehabilitation of the Lower Girard Lake Dam, which may include
lowering the crest of the Dam by not more than 12.5 feet).
Sec. 3070. Toussaint River navigation project, Carroll Township, Ohio.
This section authorizes full Federal funding for increased
operation and maintenance activities that are carried out in
accordance with section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960
(33 U.S.C. 577) and relate directly to the presence of
unexploded ordnance.
Sec. 3071. Arcadia Lake, Oklahoma.
This section directs the Secretary to eliminate the
requirement to pay accrued interest costs for the storage
following the end of the 10-year interest free period beginning
on November 30, 1996 to September 1999; the date the storage
was placed into the active status.
Sec. 3072. Oklahoma Lake demonstration, Oklahoma.
This section extinguishes each reversionary interest and
use restriction related to recreation and public parks on the
land conveyed by the Secretary to the State of Oklahoma
pursuant to the Act entitled ``An Act to authorize the sale of
certain lands to the State of Oklahoma'' (67 Stat. 62, chapter
118). Any deed of release, amended deed, or other appropriate
instrument of release needed to extinguish each reversionary
interest and use restriction, shall be filed and executed as
soon as practicable after the date of enactment of this act.
Sec. 3073. Waurika Lake, Oklahoma.
This section directs the Secretary to use the costs for
construction of the water conveyance facilities for the
projects as defined in June 1986. Any costs identified by the
Army Corps of Engineers after June 1986 are considered a
Federal cost.
Sec. 3074. Lookout Point, Dexter Lake project, Lowell, Oregon.
This section directs the Secretary to offer to convey to
the community of Lowell, Oregon one tract of land totaling
approximately 0.98 acres located in Lane County, Oregon for use
as a fire station. The conveyance shall not take place until
the Unites State Forest Service, that currently operates
structures on the property, completes and certifies that the
necessary environmental remediation has be performed and
transferred the structures to the Corps of Engineers.
Sec. 3075. Upper Willamette River Watershed ecosystem restoration.
This section authorizes the Secretary to conduct studies
and ecosystem restoration projects for the Upper Willamette
Watershed, which includes the planning, design, and
construction of ecosystem restoration projects. Habitat has
been altered or destroyed for a wide variety of plants and
animals, including fish species, such as bull trout and
Willamette spring Chinook salmon and winter steelhead, listed
as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. There is a
total cost $15,000,000, a Federal cost $9,750,000, and a non-
Federal cost $5,250,000.
Sec. 3076. Tioga Township, Pennsylvania.
This section directs the Secretary to convey by quitclaim
deed approximately 8 acres of the Tioga-Hammond Lakes Flood
Control Project property to the Tioga Township for use as
administrative offices and a road maintenance complex.
Sec. 3077. Upper Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and New York.
This section amends the project for ecosystem restoration,
Upper Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and New York,
authorized by section 567 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3787), to expand the definition of
potential non-Federal sponsors; to authorize the Secretary to
provide assistance for implementing wetland restoration
projects and soil conservation measures; and defines an
implementation strategy for carrying out the goals of the
program.
Sec. 3078. Cooper River Bridge demolition, Charleston, South Carolina.
This section authorizes the Secretary to carry out
planning, design, and construction for the demolition and
removal of the Grace and Pearman Bridges over the Cooper River,
South Carolina and to use the remnants from that demolition and
removal to develop an aquatic reef off the shore of South
Carolina. There is authorized $39,000,000 to be appropriated to
carry out this section.
Sec. 3079. South Carolina Department of Commerce development proposal
at Richard B. Russell Lake, South Carolina.
This section directs the Secretary to convey to the State
of South Carolina a portion of those lands described in Army
Lease No. DACW21-1-92-500 (Abbeville, Hester Marina and Manor
Recreation Areas) currently under lease to the South Carolina
Department of Commerce (SCDOC) for 99 years for cost-shared
recreation development pursuant to P.L. 89-72 (approximately
650 acres). This section includes provisions for the Army to
retain ownership of land that would have been acquired for
operational purposes in accordance with existing policy and
such other land as is determined to be required for project
purposes. The section eliminates the applicability of section
2696 of title 10, U.S.C. to this conveyance and allows the
Secretary to require additional terms and conditions as
appropriate to protect the interests of the United States. The
State is responsible for all costs associated with this
conveyance, is required to pay fair market value for land
conveyed, and is permitted to perform environmental or real
estate actions associated with the conveyance in lieu of
payment. This section retains the applicability of the
Shoreline Management Policy of the Army Corps of Engineers and
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
et. seq.), including public review under that Act, and other
Federal statutes.
Sec. 3080. Missouri River restoration, South Dakota.
This section amends section 707(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2699) to extend the
authorization for appropriations through 2010.
Sec. 3081. Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers enhancement project.
This section amends section 514 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 343; 117 Stat. 142) to
extend the authorization of appropriations through fiscal year
2015. For any project undertaken under this section, a non-
Federal interest may include a nonprofit entity with the
consent of the affected local government.
Sec. 3082. Anderson Creek, Jackson and Madison Counties, Tennessee.
This section authorizes the Secretary to carry out a
project for flood damage reduction at Anderson Creek,
Tennessee, under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948
(33 U.S.C. 701s) if the Secretary determines that the project
is technically sound, environmentally acceptable, and
economically justified. Anderson Creek is not to be considered
an authorized channel of the West Tennessee Tributaries
Project, nor is the flood damage reduction project to be
considered a part of the West Tennessee Tributaries Project.
Sec. 3083. Harris Fork Creek, Tennessee and Kentucky.
This section extends the authorization to be carried out by
the Secretary for a period of 7 years beginning on the date of
enactment of this Act for the project for flood control, Harris
Fork Creek, Tennessee and Kentucky, authorized by section 102
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C. 701c
note; 90 Stat. 2920).
Sec. 3084. Nonconnah Weir, Memphis, Tennessee.
This section modifies the project for flood control,
Nonconnah Creek, Tennessee and Mississippi, authorized by
section 401 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100
Stat. 4124) and modified by section 334 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2611), to authorize the
Secretary to reconstruct, at full Federal expense, the weir
originally constructed in the vicinity of the mouth of
Nonconnah Creek and to make repairs and maintain the weir in
the future so that the weir functions properly. The estimated
cost of reconstruction of the weir is $2,500,000.
Sec. 3085. Old Hickory Lock and Dam, Cumberland River, Tennessee.
This section extinguishes the reversionary interests and
use restrictions relating to recreation and camping purposes
with respect to land conveyed by the Secretary to the Tennessee
Society of Crippled Children and Adults, Incorporated (commonly
known as ``Easter Seals Tennessee'') at Old Hickory Lock and
Dam, Cumberland River, Tennessee, under section 211 of the
Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1087). The Army Corps of
Engineers retains remaining rights or interest of the Army
Corps of Engineers with respect to an authorized purpose of any
project.
Sec. 3086. Sandy Creek, Jackson County, Tennessee.
This section authorizes the Secretary to carry out a
project for flood damage reduction at Sandy Creek, Tennessee,
under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C.
701s) if the Secretary determines that the project is
technically sound, environmentally acceptable, and economically
justified. Sandy Creek is not to be considered an authorized
channel of the West Tennessee Tributaries Project, nor is the
flood damage reduction project to be considered a part of the
West Tennessee Tributaries Project.
Sec. 3087. Cedar Bayou, Texas.
This section modifies the project, authorized by section
349(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114
Stat. 2632), to authorize construction of a navigation channel
that is 10 feet by 100 feet instead of 112 feet by 125 feet.
Sec. 3088. Freeport Harbor, Texas.
This section clarifies that all costs associated as a
result of the discovery of the sunken vessel Comstock of the
Corps of Engineers are a Federal responsibility and directs the
Corps not to seek these costs or any costs associated with a
delay from the local sponsor.
Sec. 3089. Harris County, Texas.
This section modifies section 575(b) of WRDA 1996 to not
consider flood control works constructed by non-Federal
interests within the drainage area in the determination of
conditions existing prior to construction of the Upper White
Oak Bayou, Texas project authorized by section 401(a) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4125).
Sec. 3090. Dam remediation, Vermont.
This section amends section 543 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 (42 Stat. 2671) to add ecosystem
restoration, protection, and preservation as a purpose of the
dam remediation authority and identifies nine additional dams
to be evaluated under the program.
Sec. 3091. Lake Champlain eurasian milfoil, water chestnut, and other
nonnative plant control, Vermont.
This section directs the Secretary to revise the existing
General Design Memorandum prepared under the project authorized
by section 104 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (33 U.S.C.
610) to permit the use of chemical means of control, when
appropriate, of Eurasian milfoil, water chestnuts, and other
nonnative plants in the Lake Champlain basin, Vermont.
Sec. 3092. Upper Connecticut River Basin wetland restoration, Vermont
and New Hampshire.
This section authorizes the Secretary, in consultation with
Federal, State, local or non-profit agencies, to conduct a
study and develop a strategy for the use of wetland
restoration, soil and water conservation practices, and non-
structural measures in the Upper Connecticut River basin to
reduce flood damage, improve water quality, and create wildlife
habitat. It further directs the Secretary to participate in the
implementation of the strategy in cooperation with local
landowners and local government officials. The river basin
provides important habitat for Atlantic salmon, dwarf mussels,
beaver, otter, mink, bear, and moose. It is a flyway for
migratory bird species. Portions of the Connecticut River, such
as the Conte Refuge Special Focus Area, are known for its
biological diversity and an unusual concentration of species
that are disappearing from other places. It is the best dwarf
wedge mussel population in the basin and it provides summer
forage for migratory bald eagles. In addition, the Connecticut
River Rapids Macrosite includes some of the river's last
floodplain forests. There is authorized a total cost of
$5,000,000, a Federal cost of $3,250,000 and a non-Federal cost
of $1,750,000.
Sec. 3093. Upper Connecticut River Basin ecosystem restoration, Vermont
and New Hampshire.
This section directs the Secretary, in consultation with
Federal, State, local or non-profit agencies, to conduct a
study and develop a strategy for ecosystem restoration of the
Upper Connecticut River ecosystem. It further directs the
Secretary to participate in the implementation of critical
restoration projects in the Upper Connecticut River Basin
consistent with the developed strategy. The river basin
provides important habitat for Atlantic salmon, dwarf mussels,
beaver, otter, mink, bear, and moose. It is a flyway for
migratory bird species. Portions of the Connecticut River, such
as the Conte Refuge Special Focus Area, are known for its
biological diversity and an unusual concentration of species
that are disappearing from other places. It is the best dwarf
wedge mussel population in the basin and it provides summer
forage for migratory bald eagles. In addition, the Connecticut
River Rapids Macrosite includes some of the river's last
floodplain forests. There is authorized a total cost of
$20,000,000, a Federal cost of $13,000,000, and a non-Federal
cost $7,000,000.
Sec. 3094. Lake Champlain Watershed, Vermont and New York.
This section amends section 542 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 (42 Stat. 2671) to identify additional
activities that may be considered critical restoration
projects, including geographic mapping using existing technical
capacity to produce a high-resolution, multi-spectral
satellite, imagery-based land use and cover data sets; and
river corridor assessments, protection, management, and
restoration for purposes of ecosystem restoration. This section
increases the authorized project costs from $20,000,000 to
$32,000,000.
Sec. 3095. Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration, Virginia and Maryland.
This section amends section 704(b) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 22263(b)) to increase the
authorized appropriation limit for the program from $20,000,000
to $50,000,000. The provision also modifies the allowable
activities to be conducted in the Chesapeake Bay and expands
the purposes for which restoration activities may be undertaken
and defines successful restoration activities.
Sec. 3096. Tangier Island Seawall, Virginia.
This section amends section 577(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1196 (110 Stat. 3789) to increase the total
project cost from $1,200,000 to $3,000,000 with a Federal cost
of $2,400,000 and a non-Federal cost of $600,000.
Sec. 3097. Erosion control, Puget Island, Wahkiakum County, Washington.
This section modifies section 204 of the Flood Control Act
of 1950 (64 Stat. 178) for a one-time placement of dredge
material from the Columbia River channel onto the shoreline of
Puget Island, Washington, for temporary protection from erosion
of economic and environmental resources. This section
authorizes appropriations of $1,000,000 at full Federal expense
and instructs the Secretary to perform appropriate agency
coordination and ensure environmental compliance.
Sec. 3098. Lower granite pool, Washington.
This section extinguishes reversionary interests and use
restrictions related to industrial use purposes, the
restriction that no activity shall be permitted that will
compete with services and facilities offered by public marinas,
and the restriction on human habitation or other building
structure in which the elevation is above the standard project
flood elevation. The use of fill material to raise low areas
above the standard project flood elevation is authorized,
except in any low area constituting wetland for which a permit
under section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344) is required. This section also specifies the
deeds involved and includes a savings clause regarding other
remaining rights and interests of the Army Corps of Engineers
for authorized project purposes.
Sec. 3099. McNary Lock and Dam, McNary National Wildlife Refuge,
Washington and Idaho.
This section directs the transfer of administrative
jurisdiction over the land acquired for the McNary Lock and Dam
Project and managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service under
Cooperative Agreement Number DACW68-4-00-13 from the Army Corps
of Engineers to the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The land
shall continue to be managed as part of the McNary National
Wildlife Refuge. This section includes specific provisions
regarding retention of habitat unit credits at the Cummins
property. It requires the Fish and Wildlife Service to obtain
priority approval of the Washington State Department of Fish
and Wildlife for any change to the previously approved site
development plan for the Cummins property, and it requires that
the Fish and Wildlife Service continue operation of the Madame
Dorian Recreation Area for public use and boater access.
Sec. 3100. Snake River project, Washington and Idaho.
This section is a project modification for the Snake River
Project, Oregon and Washington, authorized by section 101 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2921), to
amend the Fish and Wildlife Compensation Plan for the Lower
Snake River, Washington, and Idaho. This subsection authorizes
the Secretary to conduct studies and implement aquatic and
riparian ecosystem restoration and improvements specifically
for fisheries and wildlife.
Sec. 3101. Marmet Lock, Kanawha River, West Virginia.
This section increases the authorized project costs from
$229,581,000 to $358,000,000 due to an increase in construction
costs for the project authorized by section 101(a) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3666).
Sec. 3102. Lower Mud River, Milton, West Virginia.
This section authorizes the modification of the project for
flood damage reduction, Lower Mud River, Milton, West Virginia,
substantially in accordance with the plans, and subject to the
conditions, recommended in a final report of the Chief of
Engineers at an estimated total cost of $45,500,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $34,125,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $11,375,000.
Sec. 3103. Green Bay Harbor Project, Green Bay, Wisconsin.
This section modifies the existing limits of the authorized
navigation channel of the Green Bay Harbor Project, beginning
at Station 190+00 to Station 378+00 to a width of 75 feet and a
depth of 6 feet. This modification will allow the local
entities to complete the cleanup of hazardous wastes currently
within the waterway.
Sec. 3104. Underwood Creek diversion facility project, Milwaukee
County, Wisconsin.
This section directs the Secretary to carry out planning,
engineering, and design of an adaptive ecosystem restoration,
flood damage reduction, and erosion protection project at the
Milwaukee County Grounds, Wauwatosa, Wisconsin. The Secretary
must determine that the project is a cost-effective means of
providing ecosystem restoration, flood damage reduction, and
erosion protection, and is environmentally acceptable and
technically feasible and will improve the economic conditions
of the affected area.
Sec. 3105. Mississippi River headwaters reservoirs.
This section allows the Secretary to operate headwaters
reservoirs below the minimum or above the maximum water levels
established by this section in accordance with manual developed
by the Secretary after consultation with the Governor of
Minnesota and affected tribal governments. In addition, this
section requires the Secretary to submit a notice of intent to
Congress 14 days prior to operating the headwaters reservoir
below the minimum or above the maximum water level limits. This
notice does not have to be provided in cases where the
operation is necessary to prevent the loss of life, to ensure
the safety of a dam, or in anticipation of a flood control
operation.
Sec. 3106. Lower Mississippi River Museum and Riverfront Interpretive
Site.
This section amends section 103(c)(2) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4811) to allow the
purchase of property that is not limited to being held by the
Resolution Trust Corporation.
Sec. 3107. Pilot program, Middle Mississippi River.
This section authorizes the Secretary to carry out a pilot
program over at least a 10-year period within the current
project for navigation, Mississippi River between the Ohio and
Missouri Rivers (Regulating Works), Missouri River and Illinois
to restore and protect fish and wildlife habitat in the middle
Mississippi River. Activities under this program may include
those necessary to improve navigation through the project for
navigation, Mississippi River, while restoring and protecting
fish and wildlife habitat in the middle Mississippi River
system. This section authorizes specific activities under this
program. Cost sharing shall continue to be in accordance with
the River and Harbor Acts of 1910, 1927, and 1930.
Sec. 3108. Upper Mississippi River system environmental management
program.
This section modifies the existing authorization to allow
that 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. 3109. Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem restoration program.
This section amends the Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem
Restoration Program in section 506(c) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 by directing the Corps to carry out a
reconnaissance study before planning, design, or construction,
to identify methods of restoring fisheries, ecosystems and
beneficial uses of the Great Lakes. The Secretary shall then
make a determination as to whether the planning should proceed.
Any reconnaissance study carried out under this section shall
be at full Federal expense.
Sec. 3110. Great Lakes remedial action plans and sediment remediation.
This section amends section 401(c) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1900 by extending the authorization of the
program from 2006 to 2011.
Sec. 3111. Great Lakes tributary models.
This section amends section 506(g)(2) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 by extending the
authorization of the program from 2006 to 2011.
TITLE IV--STUDIES
Sec. 4001. Eurasian milfoil.
This section directs the Secretary to carry out a study, at
full Federal expense, to develop national protocols for the use
of the Euhrychiopsis lecontei weevil for biological control of
Eurasian milfoil in the lakes of Vermont and other northern
tier States.
Sec. 4002. National port study.
This section authorizes the Secretary to conduct a study of
the ability of coastal and deepwater port infrastructure to
meet existing and future marine transportation demands. The
committee is concerned that the rapid growth in maritime trade
has placed great pressure upon our existing port
infrastructure. Vessel sizes are increasing, and rapidly
increasing volumes of containers and cargo are creating
significant congestion to all modes of transportation serving
the coastal and deepwater ports. The committee has determined
that there is a need to understand the ability of coastal and
deepwater port infrastructure to meet current and projected
demands. Therefore, the committee requests the Secretary to
perform this study in consultation with the Secretary of
Transportation. The study needs to consider the availability of
alternate transportation destinations and modes, the impact of
larger vessels on port capacity, and practicable, cost-
effective congestion management alternatives. Particular
consideration should be given to the benefits and proximity of
proposed and existing port, harbor, waterway and other
transportation infrastructure. This section requires the
Secretary to submit a report that describes the results of the
study to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the
House of Representatives not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of this Act. The timing is important for
consideration with other pertinent studies of vital
infrastructure needs.
Sec. 4003. McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation Channel.
The committee is aware of scientific and technical concerns
with the identification and differentiation of sturgeon species
and the effects that this may have on navigation projects
operated by the Corps of Engineers. The Secretary, in
conjunction with the Oklahoma State University, is directed to
convene a panel of experts with acknowledged expertise in
wildlife biology and genetics to review the available
scientific information regarding the genetic variation of
various sturgeon species and possible hybrids.
Sec. 4004. Selenium study, Colorado.
This section authorizes the Secretary, in consultation with
State resource agencies, to conduct regional and watershed wide
studies to address selenium concentrations within the State of
Colorado. The authorized limit for this section is $5,000,000.
Sec. 4005. Nicholas Canyon, Los Angeles, California.
This section authorizes the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of bank stabilization and shore
protection for Nicholas Canyon, Los Angeles, California, under
the small project authority of section 3 of the Act of August
13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426g).
Sec. 4006. Oceanside, California, shoreline special study.
This section amends section 414 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2636) to increase by 12-
months an extension for completing the Oceanside, California
Shoreline Special Study by striking ``32 months'' and inserting
``44 months''.
Sec. 4007. Comprehensive flood protection project, St. Helena,
California.
This section authorizes the Secretary to review the project
for flood control and environmental restoration at St. Helena,
California, generally in accordance with the Enhanced Minimum
Plan A, as described in the Final Environmental Impact Report
prepared by the city of St. Helena, California and certified by
the city to be in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act. Cost sharing for the project shall in accordance
with section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(33 U.S.C. 2213).
Sec. 4008. San Francisco Bay, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Sherman
Island, California.
This section authorizes the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of using a portion of Sherman Island,
California, as a dredged material rehandling facility.
Sec. 4009. South San Francisco Bay shoreline study, California.
This section authorizes the Secretary in carrying out the
feasibility phase of the South San Francisco Bay shoreline
study to use planning and design documents prepared by the
California State Coastal Conservancy, the Santa Clara Valley
Water District, and other local interests, in cooperation with
the Army Corps of Engineers (who shall provide technical
assistance to the local interests), as the basis for
recommendations to Congress for authorization of a project to
provide for flood protection of the South San Francisco Bay
shoreline and restoration of the South San Francisco Bay salt
ponds.
Sec. 4010. San Pablo Bay Watershed restoration, California.
This section directs the Secretary to submit to Congress a
report describing the results of the San Pablo Bay watershed
study not later than March 31, 2008.
Sec. 4011. Bubbly Creek, South Fork of South Branch, Chicago, Illinois.
This section authorizes the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of a project for ecosystem
restoration and other related activities.
Sec. 4012. Grand and Tiger Passes and Baptiste Collette Bayou,
Louisiana.
This section authorizes the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of modifying the existing project for
enlargement of the navigation channel.
Sec. 4013. Lake Erie At Luna Pier, Michigan.
This section authorizes the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out storm damage
reduction, beach erosion protection and other related measures
along the shores of Lake Erie at Luna Pier, Michigan. The study
shall include consideration of replacement, repair or
modification of existing local and Federal storm damage
reduction and beach erosion protection measures.
Sec. 4014. Middle Bass Island State Park, Middle Bass Island, Ohio.
This section authorizes the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of providing a safe harbor and beach
at Middle Bass Island State Park for the navigation, storm
damage reduction, recreation and other related purposes.
Sec. 4015. Jasper County port facility study, South Carolina.
This section authorizes the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of providing improvements to the
Savannah River, Jasper County, South Carolina, for navigation
and other purposes related necessary to support locating a
container cargo and other port facilities near the entrance to
the Savannah Harbor Entrance Channel. The Secretary shall take
into consideration landside infrastructure, dredged material
disposal sites, and the results of consultation with the
Governors of the States of Georgia and South Carolina.
Sec. 4016. Lake Champlain Canal study, Vermont and New York.
This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study, at
full Federal expense, to determine the feasibility of a
dispersal barrier for control of invasive species at the Lake
Champlain Canal, Vermont and New York, and, if such project is
found to be feasible, directs the Secretary to construct,
maintain, and operate such dispersal barrier as necessary.
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec. 5001. Lakes program.
This section amends section 602(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4148; 110 Stat. 3758; 113
Stat. 295) to include additional sites in Illinois, North
Carolina, North Dakota, and Vermont to the Lakes Program.
Sec. 5002. Estuary restoration.
Subsection (a) amends section 102 of the Estuary
Restoration Act (ERA) of 2000 (the Act) (33 U.S.C. 2901) to
expand the purposes of the restoration program by including the
implementation of a coordinated Federal approach to estuary
habitat restoration activities, including the use of common
monitoring standards and a common system for tracking
restoration acreage; adding implementation to the strategy; and
adding cooperative agreements to the Federal assistance
purpose.
Subsection (b) amends section 103(6)(A) of the Act (33
U.S.C. 2902(6)(A)) by adding regional to the estuary habitat
restoration plan.
Subsection (c) amends section 104 of the Act (33 U.S.C.
2903) to allow monitoring costs to be included in the total
cost of the estuary restoration project and allows the
Secretary, on recommendation of the Estuary Council, to
delegate the implementation of projects costing less than
$1,000,000 to the Secretary of the Interior; the Under
Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere of the Department of
Commerce; the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency; or the Secretary of Agriculture. Funding for these
small projects may be funded from the responsible department or
appropriations of the agency authorized by section 109(a)(1).
Subsection (d) amends section 105(b) of the Act (33 U.S.C.
2903(b)) to direct the Council to cooperate in the
implementation of the strategy, recommend standards for
monitoring restoration projects and contribution of project
information to the data base, and use agency authorities to
carry out the Act.
Subsection (e) amends section 107(d) of the Act (33 U.S.C.
2906(d) to give the Secretary general data compilation,
coordination, and analysis responsibilities to support the
strategy.
Subsection (f) amends section 108(a) of the Act (33 U.S.C.
2908(a)) by requiring the report every sixth, eighth, and tenth
fiscal year after November 7, 2000.
Subsection (g) amends section 109(a) of the Act (33 U.S.C.
2908(a)) to establish project funding for fiscal years 2006
through 2010 as follows: $25,000,000 for the Secretary;
$2,500,000 for the Secretary of the Interior; $2,500,000 for
the Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere of the Department
of Commerce; $2,500,000 for the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency; and $2,500,000 for the
Secretary of Agriculture. In addition, this subsection extends
the monitoring authorization to 2010.
Subsection (h) amends section 110 of the Act (33 U.S.C.
2909) to allow nongovernmental organizations to enter into
cooperative agreements or contracts.
The Estuary Restoration Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-457; 33
U.S.C. 2901-2909) was enacted to promote the restoration of
estuary habitat through the development of a national estuary
habitat restoration strategy, creating and maintaining
effective estuary restoration partnerships among public
agencies and private sectors. In passing the Estuary
Restoration Act, Congress recognized the importance of this
national, strategic plan and multi-level partnerships for
effectively addressing the problems plaguing our nation's
estuaries. By setting a goal to restore one million acres of
estuary habitat by 2010, the Act encourages coordination among
all levels of government, along with engaging the unique
strengths of the public, non-profit, and private sectors. In
2002, the Estuary Council, consisting of members from several
Federal agencies including the Army Corps of Engineers and the
Department of Commerce, completed the national estuary strategy
to ensure a comprehensive and integrated approach for
implementing the Estuary Restoration Program.
Section 5002 amends sections 102, 103(6)(A), 104, 105(b),
107(d), 108(a), 109(a), and 110 of the Estuary Restoration Act
(ERA) to clarify the coordinated Federal approach and
cooperative nature of the law; to include monitoring costs as
part of the total costs of an estuary restoration project; to
provide new authorities to the Secretary for the delegation of
small estuary projects; to extend funding authority for the
Secretary; and to provide new authority for the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Department of Commerce, Environmental
Protection Agency, and Department of Agriculture to develop and
implement estuary projects.
The ERA itself is not clear regarding the mechanism by
which funding is granted under the law and the Conference
Report for P.L. 106-457 increases the uncertainty by stating
that the Secretary should not give grants, but rather should
use an expedited version of the funding process used under past
Water Resources Development Acts. Section 110(b) of the ERA
clearly stipulates that cooperative agreements are appropriate
vehicles, but the presence of multiple options has led to
confusion. This section amends section 104 to clarify that the
Secretary may carry out estuary habitat restoration projects
and provide technical assistance through the award of contracts
and cooperative agreements. Ongoing uncertainty also exists
regarding the inclusion of monitoring costs within the non-
Federal cost share. Some are interpreting the law to read that
the required monitoring is part of the ``operations and
maintenance'', which may not be included in the sponsor's
portion of the cost share agreement. The Council has released
monitoring guidelines that stipulate restoration projects
should be monitored for at least 5 years, an amount of time
that may significantly increase the burden on the project
sponsor, particularly if these costs are not included as part
of the total cost of a project. Section 104(d) is amended to
clarify that monitoring costs may be included in the total
costs of an estuary project.
To date, the ERA has received $3,500,000 in annual
appropriations for estuary projects. Authorized at $275,000,000
through fiscal year 2005, the ERA has faced a number of hurdles
since its enactment in November 2000, including the Army Corps
of Engineers' no new starts policy and the tight fiscal
situation. The law has no sunset provision, but appropriations
are defined only through fiscal year 2005. Section 109(a) of
the ERA is amended to authorize $25,000,000 annually through
fiscal year 2010 for the Secretary; $1,500,000 annually for the
Department of Commerce estuary monitoring activities; and to
grant new funding authority of $2,500,000 annually to the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Commerce,
Environmental Protection Agency, and Department of Agriculture,
respectively, for estuary projects. This new funding authority,
combined with language encouraging the Secretary to delegate
implementation of small projects with a Federal share of less
than $1,000,000, is essential to maximize the partnership model
of the Act and encourage other Federal partners to become
engaged in project implementation.
Sec. 5003. Delmarva conservation corridor, Delaware and Maryland.
This section authorizes the Secretary to provide technical
assistance to the Secretary of Agriculture for use in carrying
out the Conservation Corridor Demonstration Program established
under subtitle G of title II of the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 (16 U.S.C. 3801; 116 Stat. 275). The
Delmarva Conservation Corridor (DCC) is an attempt to integrate
and connect restoration efforts throughout the Delmarva
Peninsula. The DCC is a multi-faceted effort, designed to
preserve farmland and rural character, as well as restore
natural ecosystem through the creation of a hub and corridor
system.
Sec. 5004. Susquehanna, Delaware, and Potomac River Basins, Delaware,
Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.
This section designates that the Division Engineer, North
Atlantic Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, shall serve as
the ex-officio United States member under the Susquehanna River
Basin Compact, the Delaware River Basin Compact, and the
Potomac River Basin Compact without additional compensation,
and with the authority to designate an alternate member(s) in
accordance with the terms of the applicable compact. The
section directs the Secretary to allocate funds to the
Susquehanna River Basin Commission, the Delaware River Basin
Commission, and the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River
Basin, to fulfill the equitable funding requirements of the
applicable compacts. The section directs the Secretary to enter
into an agreement with the Susquehanna River Basin Commission,
the Delaware River Basin Commission and the Interstate
Commission on the Potomac River Basin, to provide temporary
water supply and conservation storage, during drought
emergencies.
Sec. 5005. Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal Barriers project,
Illinois.
The Chicago Ship and Sanitary Canal forms a unique, man-
made link between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River.
The Canal also provides non-indigenous aquatic nuisance species
access between the two water basins. As the non-indigenous
aquatic nuisance species move toward the Great Lakes from the
Mississippi River and vice versa, they prey on native species
and compete for food, living space and spawning areas. There is
a current demonstration barrier authorized by the Non-
Indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990
(amended through 1996) which is nearing the end of its useful
life.
Subsection (a) directs the Secretary to upgrade and make
permanent the existing dispersal barrier at full Federal
expense.
Subsection (b) directs the Secretary to construct the
dispersal barrier currently being implemented using section
1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
2309a) at full Federal expense.
Subsection (c) directs the Secretary to operate and
maintain the dispersal barriers described in subsections (a)
and (b) at full Federal expense.
Subsection (d) directs the Secretary to credit to each
State the proportion funds that the State contributed to the
dispersal barriers and allows the States to apply that credit
toward the State's interest in other existing or future Corps
projects.
Sec. 5006. Rio Grande environmental management program, New Mexico.
This section authorizes the Secretary to implement a
program for planning, design, construction and evaluation of
planning and implementation of measures for ecosystem
restoration for the Rio Chama and the Rio Grande, including all
tributaries of the Rivers, from the border between the States
of Colorado and New Mexico downstream to the border between the
States of New Mexico and Texas. The section also provides for
long-term monitoring, computerized data inventory and analyses,
and applied research and adaptive management programs for the
resources associated with the Rio Grande River basin and its
tributaries. The Secretary must ensure coordinated planning and
implementation of the program by consulting with the State of
New Mexico and other entities and by entering into an
interagency agreement with the Secretary of Interior that
provides for the transfer of funds to Interior Department
agencies for their participation in program planning, design,
implementation and monitoring. The Secretary, in consultation
with the Secretary of Interior and the State of New Mexico,
will be required to submit a report every 6 years that
evaluates and describes the accomplishments of the program, and
identifies and needed adjustments to program authorization.
This program will not preempt any State water law. This program
will comply with the Rio Grande Compact and any applicable
court decrees or State and Federal laws affecting water or
water rights in the Rio Grande system. The cost of projects
carried out under this authority will be cost-shared at a non-
Federal share of 35 percent, which may be provided through cash
contribution or in-kind services, and shall include provision
of necessary land, easements, relocations, and disposal sites.
The non-Federal sponsor, may, with the consent of the affected
government, be a nonprofit entity. The program is authorized
for an annual appropriation of $25,000,000.
Sec. 5007. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and
Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration, South Dakota.
This section amends section 602(a)(4) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 386) to direct the
Secretary of the Treasury to make funds available to the State
of South Dakota from the State of South Dakota Terrestrial
Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Fund. The prior
authorization directed the Secretary of the Army to make such
funds available to the State and the Secretary of the Treasury
to make funds available to the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and
the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe. This section also amends the
investment strategy directed in sections 603 and 604 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1999 for the State of South
Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Fund and
the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and Lower Brule Sioux
Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Fund. This
section directs the investment of funds in Treasury obligations
with differing maturities to ensure high returns while allowing
for the logical availability of funds.
Sec. 5008. Connecticut River dams, Vermont.
This section authorizes the Secretary to evaluate, design
and construct structural modifications, at full Federal
expense, for the purposes of improving the environment, to the
following Army Corps of Engineers operated dams in Vermont:
Townshend Lake, Ball Mountain Lake, North Springfield Lake,
North Hartland Lake, and Union Village Lake. There is
authorized to carry out this section $30,000,000.
TITLE VI--PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS
Sec. 6001. Little Cove Creek, Glencoe, Alabama.
This section deauthorizes the project for flood damage
reduction, Little Cove Creek, Glencoe, Alabama, authorized in
the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1985 (99 Stat. 312).
Sec. 6002. Goleta and vicinity, California.
This section deauthorizes the project for flood control,
Goleta and vicinity, California, authorized by section 201 of
the Flood Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1826).
Sec. 6003. Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut.
This section deauthorizes the Yellow Mill River portion of
the project for navigation, Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut,
authorized by the Act of July 3, 1930 (46 Stat. 919), that
consists of an 18-foot channel, 150 to 200 feet wide, extending
about a mile upstream from the 35-foot entrance channel.
Sec. 6004. Bridgeport, Connecticut.
This section deauthorizes the project for environmental
infrastructure, Bridgeport, Connecticut, authorized by section
219(f)(26) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106
Stat. 4835; 73, 113 Stat. 336).
Sec. 6005. Hartford, Connecticut.
This section deauthorizes the project for environmental
infrastructure, Hartford, Connecticut, authorized by section
219(f)(27) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106
Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336).
Sec. 6006. New Haven, Connecticut.
This section deauthorizes the project for environmental
infrastructure, New Haven, Connecticut, authorized by section
219(f)(28) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106
Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336).
Sec. 6007. Inland waterway from Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay, Part
II, installation of fender protection for bridges, Delaware and
Maryland.
This section deauthorizes the project for construction of
bridge fenders for the Summit and St. Georges Bridges over the
Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, Delaware and Maryland,
authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 1249).
Sec. 6008. Central and southern Florida, Everglades National Park,
Florida.
This section deauthorizes the project to improve water
supply, Everglades National Park, Florida, authorized by
section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 1257)
and the Flood Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 740).
Sec. 6009. Shingle Creek Basin, Florida.
This section deauthorizes the project for flood control,
Shingle Creek Basin, Florida, authorized by section 203 of the
Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1182).
Sec. 6010. Brevoort, Indiana.
This section deauthorizes the project for flood control,
Brevoort, Indiana, authorized by section 5 of the Flood Control
Act of June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1587).
Sec. 6011. Middle Wabash, Greenfield Bayou, Indiana.
This section deauthorizes the project for flood control,
Middle Wabash, Greenfield Bayou, Indiana, authorized by section
10 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 649).
Sec. 6012. Lake George, Hobart, Indiana.
This section deauthorizes the project for flood damage
reduction, Lake George, Hobart, Indiana, authorized by section
602 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat.
4148).
Sec. 6013. Green Bay Levee and Drainage District No. 2, Iowa.
This section deauthorizes the project for flood damage
reduction, Green Bay Levee and Drainage District No. 2, Iowa,
authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4115), deauthorized in fiscal year 1991,
and reauthorized by section 115(a)(1) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4821).
Sec. 6014. Muscatine Harbor, Iowa.
This section deauthorizes the project for navigation at
Muscatine Harbor on the Mississippi River at Muscatine, Iowa,
authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1950
(64 Stat. 166).
Sec. 6015. Big South Fork National River and Recreational Area,
Kentucky and Tennessee.
This section deauthorizes the uninitiated portions of the
project for recreation facilities, Big South Fork National
River and Recreational Area, Kentucky and Tennessee, authorized
by section 108 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974
(88 Stat. 43).
Sec. 6016. Eagle Creek Lake, Kentucky.
This section deauthorizes the project for flood control and
water supply, Eagle Creek Lake, Kentucky, authorized by section
203 the Flood Control Act 1962 (76 Stat. 1188).
Sec. 6017. Hazard, Kentucky.
This section deauthorizes the project for flood damage
reduction, Hazard, Kentucky, authorized by section 3 of the
Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1988 (102 Stat. 4014)
and section 108 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990
(104 Stat. 4621).
Sec. 6018. West Kentucky tributaries, Kentucky.
This section deauthorizes the project for flood control,
West Kentucky Tributaries, Kentucky, authorized by section 204
of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1081), section 201
of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1825), and section
401(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100
Stat. 4129).
Sec. 6019. Bayou Cocodrie and tributaries, Louisiana.
This section deauthorizes the project for flood damage
reduction, Bayou Cocodrie and Tributaries, Louisiana,
authorized by section 3 of the Flood Control Act of 1941 (55
Stat. 644) and section 1(a) of the Water Resources Development
of 1974 (88 Stat. 12).
Sec. 6020. Bayou LaFourche and LaFourche Jump, Louisiana.
This section deauthorizes the project for navigation
improvement for Bayou LaFourche and LaFourche Jump, Louisiana,
authorized by the Act of August 30, 1935 (49 Stat. 1033,
chapter 831) and the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat.
481).
Sec. 6021. Eastern Rapides and South-Central Avoyelles Parishes,
Louisiana.
This section deauthorizes the project for flood control,
Eastern Rapides and South-Central Avoyelles Parishes,
Louisiana, authorized by section 201 of the Flood Control Act
of 1970 (84 Stat. 1825).
Sec. 6022. Fort Livingston, Grand Terre Island, Louisiana.
This section deauthorizes the project for erosion
protection and recreation, Fort Livingston, Grande Terre
Island, Louisiana, authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1946
(33 U.S.C. 426e et seq.).
Sec. 6023. Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Lake Borgne and Chef Menteur,
Louisiana.
This section deauthorizes the project for the construction
of bulkheads and jetties at Lake Borgne and Chef Menteur,
Louisiana, as part of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway,
authorized by the first section of the River and Harbor Act of
1946 (60 Stat. 635).
Sec. 6024. Red River Waterway, Shreveport, Louisiana To Daingerfield,
Texas.
This section deauthorizes the Red River Waterway,
Shreveport, Louisiana to Dangerfield, Texas, authorized by
section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 731).
Sec. 6025. Casco Bay, Portland, Maine.
This section deauthorizes the project for environmental
infrastructure, Casco Bay, Portland, Maine, authorized by
section 307 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106
Stat. 4841).
Sec. 6026. Northeast Harbor, Maine.
This section deauthorizes the project for navigation,
Northeast Harbor, Maine, authorized by section 2 of the Act of
March 2, 1945 (59 Stat. 12, Chapter 19).
Sec. 6027. Penobscot River, Bangor, Maine.
This section deauthorizes the project for environmental
infrastructure, Penobscot River, Bangor, Maine, authorized by
section 307 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106
Stat. 4841).
Sec. 6028. Saint John River Basin, Maine.
This section deauthorizes the program for research and
demonstration of cropland irrigation and soil conservation
techniques, Saint John River Basin, Maine, authorized section
1108 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (106 Stat.
4230).
Sec. 6029. Tenants Harbor, Maine.
This section deauthorizes the project for navigation,
Tenants Harbor, Maine, authorized by the first section of the
Act of March 2, 1919 (40 Stat. 1275, Chapter 95).
Sec. 6030. Grand Haven Harbor, Michigan.
This section deauthorizes modifications to the project for
navigation, Grand Haven Harbor, Michigan, authorized by section
202(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100
Stat. 4093).
Sec. 6031. Greenville Harbor, Mississippi.
This section deauthorizes the project for navigation,
Greenville Harbor, Mississippi, authorized by section 601(a) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4142).
Sec. 6032. Platte River flood and related streambank erosion control,
Nebraska.
This section deauthorizes the project for flood damage
reduction, Platte River Flood and Related Streambank Erosion
Control, Nebraska, authorized by section 603 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4149).
Sec. 6033. Epping, New Hampshire.
This section deauthorizes the project for environmental
infrastructure, Epping, New Hampshire, authorized by section
219(c)(6) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106
Stat. 4835). No funds have been allocated to date and the
project is eligible for deauthorization.
Sec. 6034. Manchester, New Hampshire.
This section deauthorizes the project for environmental
infrastructure, Manchester, New Hampshire, authorized by
section 219(c)(7) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1992 (106 Stat. 4836).
Sec. 6035. New York Harbor and adjacent channels, Claremont Terminal,
Jersey City, New Jersey.
This section deauthorizes the project for navigation, New
York Harbor and adjacent channels, Claremont Terminal, Jersey
City, New Jersey, authorized by section 202(b) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4098).
Sec. 6036. Eisenhower and Snell Locks, New York.
This section deauthorizes the project for navigation
rehabilitation, Eisenhower and Snell Locks, New York,
authorized by section 1163 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4258).
Sec. 6037. Olcott Harbor, Lake Ontario, New York.
This section deauthorizes the project for navigation,
Olcott Harbor, New York, authorized by section 601(a) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4143).
Sec. 6038. Outer Harbor, Buffalo, New York.
This section deauthorizes the project for navigation, Outer
Harbor, Buffalo, New York, authorized by section 110 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4817).
Sec. 6039. Sugar Creek Basin, North Carolina and South Carolina.
This section deauthorizes the project for flood damage
reduction, Sugar Creek Basin, North Carolina and South
Carolina, authorized by section 401(a) of Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4121).
Sec. 6040. Cleveland Harbor 1958 Act, Ohio.
This section deauthorizes the project for navigation,
Cleveland Harbor, Ohio, project modifications, authorized by
section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 482).
Sec. 6041. Cleveland Harbor 1960 Act, Ohio.
This section deauthorizes the project for navigation,
Cleveland Harbor, Ohio, authorized by section 101 of the River
and Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 482).
Sec. 6042. Cleveland Harbor, uncompleted portion of Cut #4, Ohio.
This section deauthorizes the project for navigation,
Cleveland Harbor, Ohio, authorized by the first section of the
Act of July 24, 1946 (60 Stat. 636, chapter 595).
Sec. 6043. Columbia River, Seafarers Memorial, Hammond, Oregon.
This section deauthorizes the proposed Seafarers Memorial
at Hammond, Oregon, authorized by Title I of the Fiscal Year
1991 Energy and Water Development Act (104 Stat. 2078).
Sec. 6044. Chartiers Creek, Cannonsburg (Houston Reach Unit 2b),
Pennsylvania.
This section deauthorizes the project for flood control,
Chartiers Creek, Cannonsburg (Houston Reach Unit 2B),
Pennsylvania, authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control
Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1081).
Sec. 6045. Schuylkill River, Pennsylvania.
This section deauthorizes the 40-foot project for
navigation, Schuylkill River (Mouth to Penrose Avenue),
Pennsylvania, authorized by section 344 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3722).
Sec. 6046. Tioga-Hammond Lakes, Pennsylvania.
This section deauthorizes the project for flood control and
recreation, Tioga Hammond Lakes, Mill Creek Recreation,
Pennsylvania, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control
Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 313).
Sec. 6047. Tamaqua, Pennsylvania.
This section deauthorizes the project for flood control,
Tamaqua, Pennsylvania, authorized by section 1(a) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 14).
Sec. 6048. Narragansett Town Beach, Narragansett, Rhode Island.
This section deauthorizes the project for navigation,
Narragansett Town Beach, Rhode Island, authorized by section
361 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat.
4861).
Sec. 6049. Quonset Point-Davisville, Rhode Island.
This section deauthorizes the project for navigation,
Davisville, Quonset Point, Rhode Island, authorized by section
571 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat.
3788).
Sec. 6050. Arroyo Colorado, Texas.
This section deauthorizes project for flood damage
reduction, Arroyo Colorado, Texas, authorized by section 401(a)
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat.
4125).
Sec. 6051. Cypress Creek-Structural, Texas.
This section deauthorizes the project for flood damage
reduction, Cypress Creek Structural, Texas, authorized by
section 3(a)(13) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988
(102 Stat. 4014).
Sec. 6052. East Fork Channel Improvement, Increment 2, east fork of the
Trinity River, Texas.
This section deauthorizes the Increment II of the project
for flood damage reduction, East Fork Channel Improvement, East
Fork of the Trinity River, Texas, authorized by section 203 of
the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1185).
Sec. 6053. Falfurrias, Texas.
This section deauthorizes the project for flood damage
reduction, Falfurrias, Texas, authorized by the section
3(a)(14) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (102
Stat. 4014).
Sec. 6054. Pecan Bayou Lake, Texas.
This section deauthorizes the project for flood control,
Pecan Bayou Lake, Texas, authorized by section 203 of the Flood
Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 742).
Sec. 6055. Lake of the Pines, Texas.
This section deauthorizes the project for navigation, Lake
of the Pines, Texas for the portion of the Red River below
Fulton, Arkansas, authorized by the Act of July 13, 1892 (27
Stat. 88, chapter 158), as amended by the Act of July 24, 1946
(60 Stat. 635, chapter 595), the Act of May 17, 1950 (64 Stat.
163, chapter 188), and the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (82
Stat. 731).
Sec. 6056. Tennessee Colony Lake, Texas.
This section deauthorizes the project for navigation,
Tennessee Colony Lake, Trinity River, Texas, authorized by
section 204 of the River and Harbor Act of 1965 (79 Stat.
1091).
Sec. 6057. City Waterway, Tacoma, Washington.
This section deauthorizes the unused portion of The City
Waterway, Tacoma, Washington, consisting of the last 1,000
linear feet of the inner portion of the Waterway beginning at
Station 70+00 and ending at Station 80+00, authorized by the
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1902 (32 Stat. 347).
Sec. 6058. Kanawha River, Charleston, West Virginia.
This section deauthorizes the project for bank erosion,
Kanawha River, Charleston, West Virginia, authorized by section
603(f)(13) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100
Stat. 4153).
Hearings
On March 31, 2004, the Subcommittee on Transportation and
Infrastructure held a hearing to receive testimony on the role
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in meeting the nation's
water resource needs in the 21st century. The committee
received testimony from the Honorable John Paul Woodley,
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works); Lieutenant
General Robert B. Flowers, Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers; The Honorable John T. Myers, on behalf of the
National Waterways Conference; Mr. Derrick Crandall, President,
American Recreation Coalition; Mr. Steve Levy, County
Executive, Suffolk County, New York; Mr. Michael Leone,
Chairman, American Association of Port Authorities; Dr. William
G. Howland, Basin Program Manager, Lake Champlain Basin
Program, Vermont; Mr. Michael Cameron, Desert Rivers Program
Director, The Nature Conservancy of Nevada; Mr. Dominic Izzo,
American Society of Civil Engineers; Mr. Gregory A. Zlotnick,
Director, Santa Clara Valley Water District, California; Mr.
Ray Poupore, Executive Director, National Heavy & Highway
Alliance; Mr. Scott Faber, Environmental Defense; and testimony
was submitted for the record by Mr. George C. Grugett,
Executive Vice President, Mississippi Valley Flood Association,
Tennessee.
Legislative History
On April 6, 2005, Senator Bond, for himself, Senators
Inhofe, Vitter, Warner, Voinovich, Isakson, Thune, Murkowski,
Obama, Landrieu, Grassley, Harkin, Talent, Cornyn, Cochran,
Domenici, and Coleman, introduced the Water Resources
Development Act of 2005 (S. 728). The Committee on Environment
and Public Works met to consider S. 728 on April 13, 2005, and
reported the amended bill by voice vote.
Rollcall Votes
On April 13, 2005, the Committee on Environment and Public
Works met to consider S. 728, the Water Resources Development
Act of 2005. A Managers amendment, offered by Senators Inhofe
and Bond, as modified by a second degree amendment offered by
Senator Jeffords and a second degree amendment offered by
Senator Inhofe, was agreed to by voice vote. An amendment
offered by Senator Vitter, related to obstructions to navigable
water covered under section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of
1899, was agreed to by a vote of 12 ayes to 6 nays. Voting in
favor were Senators Baucus, Bond, Carper, DeMint, Isakson,
Jeffords, Murkowski, Thune, Vitter, Voinovich, Warner and
Inhofe. Voting against were Senators Boxer, Chafee, Clinton,
Lautenberg, Lieberman and Obama. An amendment offered by
Senator Jeffords, related to the planning and independent peer
review requirements, was disagreed to by voice vote. A modified
amendment offered by Senator Voinovich, related to the Great
Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration Program, was agreed to
by voice vote. Final passage of S. 728 was agreed to by voice
vote.
Mandates Assessment
In compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Public Law 104-4), the committee finds that this bill would
impose no Federal intergovernmental unfunded mandates on State,
local, or tribal governments. All of its governmental
directives are imposed on Federal agencies. The bill does not
directly impose any private sector mandates.
Evaluation of Regulatory Impact
Section 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the
Senate require publication in the report the committee's
estimate of the regulatory impact made by the bill as reported.
No regulatory impact is expected by the passage of the bill.
The bill will not affect the personal privacy of individuals.
Cost of Legislation
Section 403 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act
requires each report to contain a statement of the cost of a
reported bill prepared by the Congressional Budget Office.
Senate Rule XXVI paragraph 11(a)(3) allows the report to
include a statement of the reasons why compliance is
impracticable. The committee has requested this statement from
the Congressional Budget Office and will publish it in the
Congressional Record when it becomes available.
Additional Views of Senators Jeffords, Baucus, Lieberman, Boxer,
Clinton, Carper, and Lautenberg
GENERAL STATEMENT
During the last 5 years, concern has been raised about the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' internal evaluation and review
procedures of their projects. Project economics, as well as
mitigation practices have been questioned. In light of these
concerns, there have been calls for changes that would force
the Corps of Engineers to be more accountable for its actions.
Such changes include independent peer review of recommended
projects, review of the construction backlog, as well as an
improved deauthorization process, and revision of project
evaluation procedures (Principles and Guidelines) to ensure
that economic and environmental features are evaluated
appropriately.
BACKGROUND
In 1999, the National Academy of Sciences issued a report
entitled New Directions in Water Resources Planning. The report
called for greater emphasis on ecological and social goals in
project planning at the Corps of Engineers and for the
elimination of bias against non-structural solutions.
In 2000, the Washington Post published a five-part series
that revealed efforts by the Corps of Engineers to exaggerate
project benefits and underestimate environmental costs. Also in
2000, the Inspector General of the Army's Upper Mississippi
Illinois-Water Navigation Study found evidence that results of
that study were manipulated to support longer locks and there
was an institutional bias in favor of large, structural
projects.
Section 216 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000
directed the Secretary of the Army to contract with the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to study and make
recommendations relating to the independent peer review of
feasibility reports for water resources projects. The July 25,
2002, report by the Panel on Peer Review made several
recommendations. Among them are:
complex planning studies should be subjected to
independent review by objective, expert panels;
reviewers should not be selected by or employed
by the Corps of Engineers;
reviews should be overseen by an organization
independent of the Corps of Engineers;
review results should be presented to the Chief
of Engineers before a final decision on a planning study is
made;
the Chief of Engineers should either agree with a
point and explain how it will be incorporated into the planning
study or project, or the point should be rebutted with an
explanation of why the Corps is choosing to reject it;
reviews should be conducted to identify, explain,
and comment upon assumptions that underly economic,
engineering, and environmental analyses, as well as evaluate
the soundness of models and planning methods; and
reviewers should be given the flexibility to
bring important issues to the attention of decisionmakers and
evaluate whether the interpretations of analysis and the
conclusions based on analysis are reasonable.
In 2001, the NAS Inland Waterway System Planning report
called for the Corps of Engineers to use a model that
recognizes the importance of alternative grain destinations and
modes, to use real data, and to give greater consideration to
non-structural alternatives, such as scheduling.
In 2002, the General Accounting Office(GAO) looked into the
Oregon Inlet Jetty Project and found that the Corps of
Engineers overestimated the number of vessels that would use an
expanded inlet that was being proposed. In another GAO report
that same year, it was found that the Corps of Engineers
overstated the benefits of the $311 million Delaware River
Deepening Project by more than 300 percent. Also in 2002,
following review by outside engineers, the Corps of Engineers
conceded that the $90 million Chesapeake and Delaware Canal
deepening project was not economically justified. The 2002 GAO,
Assessment of Fish and Wildlife Mitigation report concluded
that the Corps of Engineers fails to mitigate for nearly 70
percent of the projects for which mitigation is required, and
found that the Corps of Engineers frequently fails to mitigate
in a timely fashion.
In 2004, the NAS did a series of four reports on U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers Water Resources Planning: A New Opportunity
for Service. The reports call for reforms in the Corps of
Engineers' planning process, including expanded focus on
ecological restoration and updated planning tools. Also in
2004, the NAS conducted a Review of the Restructured Upper
Mississippi-Illinois Water Navigation Study and found that the
Corps of Engineers still employs models that exaggerate likely
barge traffic and ignore non-structural alternatives that could
immediately reduce waterway congestion. Finally, a
Congressional Research Service report on Agriculture as Source
of Barge Demand states that the Corps of Engineers exaggerates
likely barge traffic and ignores rising demand for corn at
ethanol plants and increased rail shipments to Canada, Mexico
and West Coast ports.
In response to some of the reports cited above, legislation
has been introduced in the Senate in the 106th, 107th, 108th
and 109th Congresses to reform the Corps of Engineers. ( S.
2309, `Corps of Engineers Civil Works Independent Investigation
and Review Act', by Senator Daschle, on March 28, 2000; S.
3036, `Corps of Engineers River Stewardship Independent
Investigations and Review Act', by Senators Daschle and
Johnson, on October 3, 2002; S. 1997, `Corps of Engineers
Modernization and Improvement Act of 2002', by Senators Smith,
Feingold and McCain, on March 3, 2002; S. 2188, `Corps of
Engineers Modernization and Improvement Act of 2004', by
Senators Feingold, McCain and Daschle, on March 10, 2004; and
S. 753, `Corps of Engineers Modernization and Improvement Act
of 2005', by Senators Feingold and McCain on April 11, 2005.
June 18, 2002, the Committee on Environment and Public
Works held a hearing on water resources development issues and
heard from several witnesses on the need for reform of the
Corps of Engineers.
During development of S. 2773, the Water Resources
Development Act of 2004, the committee considered many of the
recommendations from the aforementioned reports and reviewed
the testimony presented to the committee on reforming the Corps
of Engineers. After extensive negotiations and compromise, the
committee agreed to provisions that would improve the Corps of
Engineers planning, review and mitigation programs and included
them in sections 1008, 1009, 1010, and 1111 of S. 2773, and
favorably reported the bill. S. 2773 was never considered by
the full Senate before the 108th Congress adjourned.
At the start of the 109th Congress, the committee began to
develop a Water Resources Development Act for 2005. However,
the language proposed by the majority on planning, independent
peer review and mitigation was significantly different from
what had been agreed to and passed the committee in the
previous Congress. The minority were told that these provisions
were non-negotiable.
DISCUSSION
On April 13, 2005, the committee met to consider S. 728,
the Water Resources Development Act of 2005. Senator Jeffords
offered an amendment on planning and independent peer review
which was identical to sections 1008,1009 and 1010 of S. 2773
from the previous committee passed bill. The amendment would
have required the Secretary to assess a project's compliance
with Federal, State and local regulations; required the
Secretary, in consultation with the Water Resource Planning
Council, to revise the agency's planning guidelines; provided
specifics on what must be included in a cost-benefit analysis;
required the Secretary to generally complete feasibility
studies within 2 years, but not longer than 3 years; required
the Secretary to establish a Water Resources Planning Council
to identify and review the methods, models and processes of the
Corps, as well as identifying new or additional methods or
processes which would streamline and enhance the agency's
planning process; and established an independent peer review
process within the office of the Inspector General of the Army;
directing the Inspector General to convene an independent peer
review panel prior to the submission of a project study or
report required to be submitted to Congress for authorization
and describing the panel membership and duties. In addition,
the amendment directed the Secretary to provide the panel with
sufficient information to conduct the independent peer review
and written or oral comments received from the public on the
project study or report, described the contents for a panel
report, established the requirements for the Secretary's
response to a panel report, required that independent peer
review reports be completed not later than 180 days after the
date on which the panel received the draft project study or
report, and clarified that the Secretary is not required to
conduct an independent peer review of an existing water
resources project.
The amendment failed on a voice vote.
We believe that the provisions in sections 2006, 2007, and
2008 of S. 728 do not provide the necessary direction and
authority to provide for meaningful reform of the Corps of
Engineers. The planning provision rejects the recommendations
of the NAS studies to change the Principles and Guidelines
which promote large-scale structural solutions over non-
structural approaches, which in many cases are less harmful to
the environment. The provision also states the Chief of
Engineers shall not be subject to direction in the completion
of reports. This grants the Chief of Engineers extreme,
subjective discretion in reviewing and approving reports.
The independent review provisions do not require that
independent reviews be performed by reviewers independent of
the Corps of Engineers, gives the Chief of Engineers complete
discretion as to what projects are reviewed, and limits what
aspects of a project can be reviewed. This is not independent
peer review.
The mitigation provision will not improve the Corps of
Engineers project mitigation. No minimum standard is
established, success criteria are not proposed and there is no
publicly accessible tracking system authorized.
We believe that meaningful reform of the Corps of Engineers
in necessary in order to protect the nation's water resources
and the environment and to prevent wasteful spending on
uneconomic water resources projects. We believe these reforms
must be contained in any Water Resources Development Act
considered by the Senate.
Additional Views of Senators Jeffords, Lieberman, Boxer, Clinton,
Carper, Lautenberg, and Chafee
GENERAL STATEMENT
Section 2022 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2005
(WRDA) amends the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 to limit the
authority of the Army Corps of Engineers to regulate any
activities or structures on private property under section 10
of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 other than ``those that
the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the
department in which the Coast Guard is operating, determines
that such activity would pose a threat to the safe transit of
maritime traffic.'' This section was presented to the committee
as an amendment that sought to prevent the Corps of Engineers
from claiming jurisdiction and requiring permits for activities
and structures (house, cars, etc.) on private property behind
levees in Louisiana that are impacted by flood waters. The
amendment summary presented to the committee emphasizes that
the amendment limits section 10 applicability to obstructions
to ``maritime navigation--not on private lands where mariners
are unable to transit.''
During the Business Meeting of the Committee on Environment
and Public Works, held on April 13, 2005, we expressed concern
that the actual text of the amendment could have unintended
consequences as it is extremely broad language modifying a
century-old statute and asked that Senator Vitter (R-LA)
withdraw his amendment and work with concerned members to
resolve concerns before floor consideration of the WRDA bill.
Senator Vitter chose to proceed with a vote on his amendment
which was adopted, but agreed to work with interested members
to resolve concerns with the amendment language. We look
forward to that discussion.
Since committee action on the WRDA bill on April 13, we
have completed a more thorough analysis of the nationwide
impacts of section 2022. In summary, this section seeks to
exempt a timber company from a permit requirement in Louisiana
and purports to prevent the Corps from expanding the scope of
the definition of navigable waters to include private property
impacted by floods. However, as drafted, the amendment takes
drastic action to strip the Corps of regulatory authority it
has held since 1968 and reduces the Corps' ability to protect
navigation and the environment.
BACKGROUND
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C.
Sec. 403, prohibits the unauthorized obstruction or alteration
of any navigable water of the United States unless a permit has
been issued by the Army Corps of Engineers. This authority
covers construction, excavation, or deposition of materials in,
over, or under any navigable water of the United States, or any
work, which would affect the course, location, condition, or
capacity of those waters. Activities requiring section 10
permits include structures (e.g., piers, wharfs, breakwaters,
bulkheads, jetties, weirs, transmission lines) and work such as
dredging or disposal of dredged material, or excavation,
filling, or other modifications to the navigable waters of the
United States.
Geographic Jurisdiction of Section 10
The geographic jurisdiction of the Rivers and Harbors Act
includes all navigable waters of the United States which are
defined (33 CFR Part 329) as, ``those waters that are subject
to the ebb and flow of the tide and/or are presently used, or
have been used in the past, or may be susceptible to use to
transport interstate or foreign commerce.'' This jurisdiction
extends seaward to include all ocean waters within a zone three
nautical miles from the coastline.
In tidal waters, the shoreward limit of navigable
waters extends to the line of the shore reached by the plane
mean (average) high water.
In bays and estuaries, jurisdiction extends to
the entire surface and bed of all water bodies subject to tidal
action.
In rivers and lakes, jurisdiction extends
laterally over the entire water surface and bed of a navigable
water body, including all land and waters below the ordinary
high mark even though such waters may be extremely shallow or
obstructed by shoals or vegetation.
The definition of navigable waters for the purposes of
section 10 is different than the definition of navigable waters
for the Clean Water Act. However, both are similar in that they
are not limited to locations where boats travel. A more
thorough discussion of the fact that this section does not
affect the definition of navigable waters for the Clean Water
Act follows in the discussion section below.
Privately owned lands underlying a water body, or the lands
through which it runs, can be deemed navigable waters within
the jurisdiction of section 10. Privately constructed and
operated canals not used to transport interstate commerce, nor
used by the public, are not considered to be navigable waters
of the United States. However, a private water body, even
though not itself navigable, may affect the navigable capacity
of nearby waters as to nevertheless be subject to certain
regulatory authorities. (33 CFR Sec. 329.8(a)(3))
Application of Section 10: Public Interest Review
Until 1968, the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 was
administered to protect only navigation and the navigable
capacity of this nation's waters. In 1968, the policy for
review of permit applications with respect to sections 9 and 10
of the Rivers and Harbors Act was revised to include additional
factors besides navigation:``. . . All factors which may be
relevant to the proposal must be considered including the
cumulative effects thereof: among those are conservation,
economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns,
wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, flood
hazards, flood plain values, land use, navigation, shore
erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and
conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and
fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property
ownership and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people
. . .'' (33 CFR Sec. 320.4.) This new type of review was
identified as a ``public interest review'' that requires the
Corps to consider the practicability of alternatives to the
project and deny a permit application where a practicable
alternative exists that would have a less adverse impact on the
aquatic environment.
DISCUSSION
Section 2022 Intent.
This section was presented as a solution to two perceived
local issues. First, a timber harvesting company in Louisiana
is interested in having the ability to harvest cypress trees
growing below the ordinary high water mark in Louisiana without
obtaining a section 10 permit. Second, based on the amendment
summary provided, the experience of the timber company raised
concern among some that the Corps would seek to extend its
jurisdiction under section 10 to private property inundated by
a flooding event.
Timber Permit
The timber company is interested in harvesting cypress
trees growing below the ordinary high water mark. In order to
reach these trees, they will need to construct a road. Section
10 prohibits the construction of such structures in navigable
waters without a permit. Therefore, under normal circumstances
the timber company would apply to the Corps for a permit.
Should the permit be granted, cypress trees that currently
protect the coast of Louisiana from erosion would be harvested.
The Corps indicates that it would likely grant a permit with
some conditions designed to mitigate the environmental impact
of the construction of the road. The timber company in question
has not applied for a permit and is instead seeking an
exemption from the requirements of section 10.
Regulation of private lands inundated by floods
It appears that based on this series of events, some became
concerned that what they characterize as a recent
interpretation of section 10 authority, could lead the Corps to
seek to apply section 10 permit requirements to private
property inundated by a flooding event. The Corps refutes this
suggestion by stating that:
First, the timber company situation described
above does not represent a recent interpretation of section 10;
and
Second, as described above, section 10
jurisdiction is based on the definition of navigable waters,
which extends in general to those locations below the ordinary
high water mark or mean high water.
First, since the late 1960's, following a rulemaking, the
Corps of Engineers has regulated activities occurring within
the entire lateral extent of navigable waters--up to the mean
high water mark and the ordinary high water mark. These
regulations were affirmed in Federal court (See e.g. United
States v. Alaska, 503 U.S. 569 at 582 (1992.) Thus, the
decision to require a section 10 permit for activities located
below the ordinary high water mark does not represent a recent
interpretation of section 10.
Second, ordinary high water mark and mean high water do not
include unusually high waters or unusually high river flood
stages.
There is extensive Federal case law supporting
the fact that flood stages or peak flows are not used when
determining the ordinary high water mark. (See Oklahoma v.
Texas 260 U.S. 606, 43 S.Ct. 3221, 67 L. Ed. 428 (1923); United
States v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad
Company, et al., 312 U.S. 592, 596, 61 S.Ct. 722, 85 L.Ed. 1064
(1941) (the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) is determined``. .
. without reference to the extraordinary freshets of the winter
or spring, or the extreme droughts of the summer and autumn'');
United States v. Claridge 279 F. Supp. 87, 91 (D.C. Ariz. 1967)
aff'd 416 F. 2d 933 (9th Cir. 1969) cert. denied 397 US. 961,
90 S. Ct. 944, 25 L.Ed.2d 251 (1970); Goose Creek Hunting Club,
Inc. v. United States, 518 F. 2d 579 (Ct. Cl. 1975).
Mean high water shoreline is a line on the shore
reached by the plane of the mean daily high tides. Corps
regulations (33 CFR 329.12(a)(2)) establish one method for
establishing the precise mean high water shoreline by taking an
average of the tides over a period of 18.6 years. Practically
speaking, the mean high water shoreline is located by observing
physical markings such as lines of vegetation and debris or
changes in vegetation.
Therefore, it is clear that based both on Federal case law
and existing regulation, a flooding event would not generate a
change in the ordinary high water mark or the mean high water
shoreline. The situation anticipated by this section--Corps
regulation of private lands under section 10 following
inundation after a flooding event--would not occur.
Section 2022 Effect.
In summary, this section eliminates the ability of the Army
Corps of Engineers to regulate any activities or structures on
private property under section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act
of 1899 other than ``those that the Secretary, in consultation
with the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard
is operating, determines that such activity would pose a threat
to the safe transit of maritime traffic.''
In doing so, this section strips the Corps of regulatory
authority it has held since 1968 to protect the public interest
(including national security, environment, homeland security,
etc.) when granting permits for the construction, excavation,
or deposition or materials in, over, or under any navigable
water of the United States, or any work, which would affect the
course, location, condition, or capacity of those waters.
Eliminates Protection of Public Interest
Under the conditions of this section, the Corps would only
be allowed to consider the safe transit of maritime traffic
rather than the entire public interest when issuing permits for
activities such as construction of piers, wharfs, breakwaters,
bulkheads, jetties, weirs, transmission lines, and work such as
dredging or disposal of dredged material, or excavation,
filling, or other modifications to navigable waters. This
eliminates huge numbers of activities from regulation that
would normally be covered by section 10 because of impacts to
the environment, national security, homeland security, the
speed rather than the safe transit of maritime traffic, or any
other element of the public interest. For example, in coastal
Louisiana, the Corps would be unable to issue a section 10
permit for construction or activities that would increase the
speed of the erosion of Louisiana's coastline.
Negatively Affects Navigation
In addition, this section could negatively impact
navigation itself. First, it limits the Corps' authority to
regulate those activities that affect safe transit with no
consideration for speed. Second, it imposes a new burden on the
Corps to consult with the Coast Guard before requiring a
section 10 permit. Third, it limits Corps authority to
maritime, or sea-going, navigation, eliminating the Corps'
ability to require section 10 permits for structures or
activities on inland waterways. Therefore, the Corps would not
be able to prevent the construction on privately owned beds of
structures that would impact safe transit on an inland
waterway. Finally, this section interferes with the Federal
Government's long-standing right of navigational servitude by
excluding privately owned elements of navigable waters from its
scope, potentially interfering with navigation and generating
extensive litigation as ownership of the beds of water bodies
is determined.
Limits Federal Regulation on Navigable Waters Under Section 10
This section does not explicitly modify the definitions of
navigable waters for section 10 or for the Clean Water Act. In
addition, legislative history shows that there is no
congressional intent for this section to modify the definition
of navigable waters for the purposes of the Clean Water Act.
During committee consideration of this section, there was
extensive dialog between Senators Bond, Jeffords, Boxer,
Carper, Chafee, and Vitter regarding any potential impact of
this section on the definition of navigable waters for the
purposes of the Clean Water Act. Senators Bond and Vitter
stated that there is no impact of this language on section 404
of the Clean Water Act. These statements were supported by
majority staff.
Limits Environmental Protections
By so severely restricting the scope of the activities that
would require a section 10 permit, this section limits the
number of activities that would be subject to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act
(ESA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and other statutes whose
applicability is triggered by the section 10 permit process. In
addition, in cases where the CWA section 404 does not apply for
whatever reason, this section eliminates the potential
application of section 10 to provide wetlands protection. This
contradicts the intent of the amendment as described by Senator
Vitter at the Business Meeting where he indicated that should
the amendment have any negative effects on wetlands, he would
withdraw it from consideration.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, as currently drafted, this section has extensive
unintended consequences. Although it is clear that there is no
effect of the amendment on the definition of navigable waters
under the Clean Water Act, there are impacts on the Corps'
regulatory authority as described above. We look forward to the
opportunity to work with its sponsor prior to floor
consideration of this bill to resolve these issues.
Changes in Existing Law
In compliance with section 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing
Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill
as reported are shown as follows: Existing law proposed to be
omitted is enclosed in [black brackets], new matter is printed
in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown
in roman:
* * * * * * *
----------
[33 U.S.C. 622; 25 STAT. 423]
ACT OF AUGUST 11, 1888
* * * * * * *
SEC. 3. CONTRACTS, ETC., WITH PRIVATE INDUSTRY FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF
PROJECTS FOR IMPROVEMENTS AND DREDGING; REDUCTION
OF FEDERALLY OWNED FLEET.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Program to increase use of private hopper dredges.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(7) Limitations.--
(A) * * *
(B) Increase in assigments of dredging
work.--For each fiscal year beginning after
October 12, 1996, the Secretary shall not
assign any greater quantity of dredging work to
any Federal hopper dredge in active status than
was assigned to that vessel in the average of
the 3 prior fiscal years. This subparagraph
shall not apply to the Federal hopper dredges
Essayons and Yaquina of the Corps of Engineers.
* * * * * * *
----------
[33 U.S.C. 403]
ACT OF MARCH 3, 1899
* * * * * * *
SEC. 10. OBSTRUCTION OF NAVIGABLE WATERS GENERALLY; WHARVES; PIERS,
ETC.; EXCAVATIONS AND FILLING IN
The creation of any obstruction not affirmatively
authorized by Congress, to the navigable capacity of any of the
waters of the United States is prohibited; and it shall not be
lawful to build or commence the building of any wharf, pier,
dolphin, boom, weir, breakwater, bulkhead, jetty, or other
structures in any port, roadstead, haven, harbor, canal,
navigable river, or other water of the United States, outside
established harbor lines, or where no harbor lines have been
established, except on plans recommended by the Chief of
Engineers and authorized by the Secretary of the Army; and it
shall not be lawful to excavate or fill, or in any manner to
alter or modify the course, location, condition, or capacity
of, any port, roadstead, haven, harbor, canal, lake, harbor or
refuge, or inclosure within the limits of any breakwater, or of
the channel of any navigable water of the United States, unless
the work has been recommended by the Chief of Engineers and
authorized by the Secretary of the Army prior to beginning the
same. Nothing in this section shall be construed as to provide
for the regulation of activities or structures on private
property, unless the Secretary, in consultation with the
Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is
operating, determines that such activity would pose a threat to
the safe transit of maritime traffic.
* * * * * * *
----------
[55 STAT. 642, CHAPTER 377]
ACT OF AUGUST 18, 1941
* * * * * * *
LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER
* * * * * * *
(a) The existing engineering plan for flood control in the
alluvial valley of the Mississippi River is hereby modified so
as to provide for the construction of plan 4 as set forth in
the report of the Mississippi River Commission, dated March 7,
1941, to the Chief of Engineers, except that the levees in the
Yazoo Basin on the east bank of the Mississippi River south of
the Coahoma-Bolivar County line in said plan shall have a
three-foot freeboard over the project flood, and all levees
shall be constructed with adequate section and foundation to
conform to increased levee heights. The Boeuf Floodway in the
project adopted by the Act of May 15, 1928, and the Eudora
Floodway as well as the Northward Extension and the back
protection levee extending from the head of the said Eudora
Floodway north to the Arkansas River in the project adopted by
the Act of June 15, 1936, as amended, are hereby abandoned, and
the provisions of said Acts relating to the prosecution of work
on said floodways and extension are hereby repealed Provided,
That the Ouachita River Levees, Louisiana, authorized under the
first section of the Act of May 15, 1928 (45 Stat. 534, chapter
569) shall remain as a component of the Mississippi River and
Tributaries Project and afforded operation and maintenance
responsibilities as directed in section 3 of that Act (45 Stat.
535).
* * * * * * *
----------
[CF. 16 U.S.C. 460D]
FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1944
Sec. 460d. Construction and Operation of Public Parks and
Recreational Facilities in Water Resource Development Projects;
Lease of Lands; Preference for Use; Penalty; Application of
Section 3401 of Title 18, United States Code; Citations and
Arrests With and Without Process; Limitations; Disposition of
Receipts.--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, That any new lease granted under
this section to a nonprofit organization for park and
recreational purposes, and any new lease or license granted to
a Federal, State, or local governmental agency for any public
purpose, shall include a provision requiring that consideration
for the grant of the lease or license shall be at least
sufficient to pay the costs of administering the grant, as
determined by the Secretary of the Army: [Provided further,
That preference shall be given to Federal, State, or local
governmental agencies, and licenses or leases where
appropriate, may be granted without monetary considerations, to
such 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] Provided further, That in any such
lease or license to a 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 use 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. 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 judge, within whose
jurisdiction the water resource development project is located,
for trial; and upon sworn information of any competent person
any United States magistrate judge 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 States as miscellaneous receipts.]
Any funds received by the United States for a lease or
privilege granted under this section shall be deposited and
made available in accordance with section 210 of the Flood
Control Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 460d-3).
* * * * * * *
----------
[33 U.S.C. 701R--JUL. 24, 1946]
FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1946
* * * * * * *
SEC. 14.-- The Secretary of the Army is authorized to allot
from any appropriations heretofore or hereafter made for flood
control, not to exceed [$15,000,000] $20,000,000 per year, for
the construction, repair, restoration, and modification of
emergency streambank and shoreline protection works to prevent
damage to highways, bridge approaches, and public works,
churches, hospitals, schools, and other nonprofit public
services, when in the opinion of the Chief of Engineers such
work is advisable: Provided, That not more than [$1,000,000]
$1,500,000 shall be allotted for this purpose at any single
locality from the appropriations for any one fiscal year.
* * * * * * *
----------
[CF. 33 U.S.C. 426G, AUGUST 13, 1946]
AN ACT AUTHORIZING FEDERAL PARTICIPATION IN THE COST OF PROTECTING THE
SHORES OF PUBLICLY OWNED PROPERTY
[SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF SMALL PROJECTS NOT SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED;
EXPENDITURES; LOCAL COOPERATION; WORK TO BE
COMPLETE; EXCEPTIONS
[The Secretary is authorized to undertake construction of
small shore and beach restoration and protection projects not
specifically authorized by Congress, which otherwise comply
with section 426e of this title, 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 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 426e(c) of this title: Provided further, That
the provisions of local cooperation specified in section 426e
of this title 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 426e(c) of this title,
and as may result from the normal procedure applying to
projects authorized after submission of survey reports.]
SEC. 3. STORM AND HURRICANE RESTORATION AND IMPACT MINIMIZATION
PROGRAM.
(a) Construction of Small Shore and Beach Restoration and
Protection Projects.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may carry out
construction of small shore and beach restoration and
protection projects not specifically authorized by
Congress that otherwise comply with the first section
of this Act if the Secretary determines that such
construction is advisable.
(2) Local cooperation.--The local cooperation
requirement under the first section of this Act shall
apply to a project under this section.
(3) Completeness.--A project under this section--
(A) shall be complete; and
(B) shall not commit the United States to
any additional improvement to ensure the
successful operation of the project, except for
participation in periodic beach nourishment in
accordance with--
(i) the first section of this Act;
and
(ii) the procedure for projects
authorized after submission of a survey
report.
(b) National Shoreline Erosion Control Development and
Demonstration Program.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the
Chief of Engineers, shall conduct a national shoreline
erosion control development and demonstration program
(referred to in this section as the `program').
(2) Requirements.--
(A) In general.--The program shall include
provisions for--
(i) projects consisting of
planning, design, construction, and
adequate monitoring of prototype
engineered and native and naturalized
vegetative shoreline erosion control
devices and methods;
(ii) detailed engineering and
environmental reports on the results of
each project carried out under the
program; and
(iii) technology transfers, as
appropriate, to private property
owners, State and local entities,
nonprofit educational institutions, and
nongovernmental organizations.
(B) Determination of feasibility.--A
project under this section shall not be carried
out until the Secretary, acting through the
Chief of Engineers, determines that the project
is feasible.
(C) Emphasis.--A project carried out under
the program shall emphasize, to the maximum
extent practicable--
(i) the development and
demonstration of innovative
technologies;
(ii) efficient designs to prevent
erosion at a shoreline site, taking
into account the lifecycle cost of the
design, including cleanup, maintenance,
and amortization;
(iii) new and enhanced shore
protection project design and project
formulation tools the purposes of which
are to improve the physical
performance, and lower the lifecycle
costs, of the projects;
(iv) natural designs, including the
use of native and naturalized
vegetation or temporary structures that
minimize permanent structural
alterations to the shoreline;
(v) the avoidance of negative
impacts to adjacent shorefront
communities;
(vi) the potential for long-term
protection afforded by the technology;
and
(vii) recommendations developed
from evaluations of the program
established under the Shoreline Erosion
Control Demonstration Act of 1974 (42
U.S.C. 1962-5 note; 88 Stat. 26),
including--
(I) adequate consideration
of the subgrade;
(II) proper filtration;
(III) durable components;
(IV) adequate connection
between units; and
(V) consideration of
additional relevant
information.
(D) Sites.--
(i) In general.--Each project under
the program shall be carried out at--
(I) a privately owned site
with substantial public access;
or
(II) a publicly owned site
on open coast or in tidal
waters.
(ii) Selection.--The Secretary,
acting through the Chief of Engineers,
shall develop criteria for the
selection of sites for projects under
the program, including criteria based
on--
(I) a variety of geographic
and climatic conditions;
(II) the size of the
population that is dependent on
the beaches for recreation or
the protection of private
property or public
infrastructure;
(III) the rate of erosion;
(IV) significant natural
resources or habitats and
environmentally sensitive
areas; and
(V) significant threatened
historic structures or
landmarks.
(3) Consultation.--The Secretary, acting through
the Chief of Engineers, shall carry out the program in
consultation with--
(A) the Secretary of Agriculture,
particularly with respect to native and
naturalized vegetative means of preventing and
controlling shoreline erosion;
(B) Federal, State, and local agencies;
(C) private organizations;
(D) the Coastal Engineering Research Center
established by the first section of Public Law
88-172 (33 U.S.C. 426-1); and
(E) applicable university research
facilities.
(4) Completion of demonstration.--After carrying
out the initial construction and evaluation of the
performance and lifecycle cost of a demonstration
project under this section, the Secretary, acting
through the Chief of Engineers, may--
(A) at the request of a non-Federal
interest of the project, amend the agreement
for a federally-authorized shore protection
project in existence on the date on which
initial construction of the demonstration
project is complete to incorporate the
demonstration project as a feature of the shore
protection project, with the future cost of the
demonstration project to be determined by the
cost-sharing ratio of the shore protection
project; or
(B) transfer all interest in and
responsibility for the completed demonstration
project to the non-Federal or other Federal
agency interest of the project.
(5) Agreements.--The Secretary, acting through the
Chief of Engineers, may enter into an agreement with
the non-Federal or other Federal agency interest of a
project under this section--
(A) to share the costs of construction,
operation, maintenance, and monitoring of a
project under the program;
(B) to share the costs of removing a
project or project element constructed under
the program, if the Secretary determines that
the project or project element is detrimental
to private property, public infrastructure, or
public safety; or
(C) to specify ownership of a completed
project that the Chief of Engineers determines
will not be part of a Corps of Engineers
project.
(6) Report.--Not later than December 31 of each
year beginning after the date of enactment of this
paragraph, the Secretary shall prepare and 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
describing--
(A) the activities carried out and
accomplishments made under the program during
the preceding year; and
(B) any recommendations of the Secretary
relating to the program.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the
Secretary may expend, from any appropriations made
available to the Secretary for the purpose of carrying
out civil works, not more than $30,000,000 during any
fiscal year to pay the Federal share of the costs of
construction of small shore and beach restoration and
protection projects or small projects under the
program.
(2) Limitation.--The total amount expended for a
project under this section shall--
(A) be sufficient to pay the cost of
Federal participation in the project (including
periodic nourishment as provided for under the
first section of this Act), as determined by
the Secretary; and
(B) be not more than $3,000,000.
* * * * * * *
[SEC. 5. FEDERAL AID IN PROTECTION OF SHORES
[(a) Declaration of policy.--With the purpose of preventing
damage to the shores and beaches of the United States, its
Territories and possessions and promoting and encouraging the
healthful recreation of the people, it is declared to be the
policy of the United States, subject to sections 426e to 426h-1
of this title, to promote shore protection projects and related
research that encourage the protection, restoration, and
enhancement of sandy beaches, including beach restoration and
periodic beach nourishment, on a comprehensive and coordinated
basis by the Federal Government, States, localities, and
private enterprises. In carrying out this policy, preference
shall be given to areas in which there has been a Federal
investment of funds and 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.
[(b) Federal contribution; maximum amount; exceptions.--The
Federal contribution in the case of any project referred to in
subsection (a) of this section shall not exceed one-half of the
cost of the project, and the remainder shall be paid by the
State, municipality, or other political subdivision in which
the project is located, except that
[(1) the costs allocated to the restoration and
protection of Federal property shall be borne fully by
the Federal Government,
[(2) Federal participation in the cost of a project
for restoration and protection of State, county, and
other publicly owned shore parks and conservation areas
may be, in the discretion of the Chief of Engineers,
not more than 70 per centum of the total cost exclusive
of land costs, when such areas: Include a zone which
excludes permanent human habitation; include but are
not limited to recreational beaches; satisfy adequate
criteria for conservation and development of the
natural resources of the environment; extend landward a
sufficient distance to include, where appropriate,
protective dunes, bluffs, or other natural features
which serve to protect the uplands from damage; and
provide essentially full park facilities for
appropriate public use, all of which shall meet with
the approval of the Chief of Engineers, and
[(3) Federal participation in the cost of a project
providing hurricane protection may be, in the
discretion of the Secretary not more than 70 per centum
of the total cost exclusive of land costs.
[(c) Periodic beach nourishment; ``construction''
defined.--When in the opinion of the Chief of Engineers the
most suitable and economical remedial measures would be
provided by periodic beach nourishment, the term
``construction'' may be construed for the purposes of sections
426e to 426h-1 of this title to include the deposit of sand
fill at suitable intervals of time to furnish sand supply to
project shores for a length of time specified by the Chief of
Engineers.
[(d) Shores other than public.--Shores other than public
will be eligible for Federal assistance if there is benefit
such as that arising from public use or from the protection of
nearby public property or if the benefits to those shores are
incidental to the project, and the Federal contribution to the
project shall be adjusted in accordance with the degree of such
benefits.
[(e) Authorization of projects.--
[(1) In general.--No Federal contributions shall be
made with respect to a project under sections 426e to
426h-1 of this title unless the plan therefor shall
have been specifically adopted and authorized by
Congress after investigation and study by the Coastal
Engineering Research Center under the provisions of
section 426 of this title as amended and supplemented,
or, in the case of a small project under section 426g
or 426h of this title, unless the plan therefor has
been approved by the Chief of Engineers.
[(2) Studies.--
[(A) In general.--The Secretary shall--
[(i) recommend to Congress studies
concerning shore protection projects
that meet the criteria established
under sections 426e to 426h-1 of this
title (including subparagraph (B)(iii))
and other applicable law;
[(ii) conduct such studies as
Congress requires under applicable
laws; and
[(iii) report the results of the
studies to the Committee on Environment
and Public Works of the Senate and the
Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives.
[(B) Recommendations for shore protection
projects.--
[(i) In general.--The Secretary
shall recommend to Congress the
authorization or reauthorization of
shore protection projects based on the
studies conducted under subparagraph
(A).
[(ii) Considerations.--In making
recommendations, the Secretary shall
consider the economic and ecological
benefits of the shore protection
project.
[(C) Coordination of projects.--In
conducting studies and making recommendations
for a shore protection project under this
paragraph, the Secretary shall--
[(i) determine whether there is any
other project being carried out by the
Secretary or the head of another
Federal agency that may be
complementary to the shore protection
project; and
[(ii) if there is such a
complementary project, describe the
efforts that will be made to coordinate
the projects.
[(3) Shore protection projects.--
[(A) In general.--The Secretary shall
construct, or cause to be constructed, any
shore protection project authorized by
Congress, or separable element of such a
project, for which funds have been appropriated
by Congress.
[(B) Agreements.--
[(i) Requirement.--After
authorization by Congress, and before
commencement of construction, of a
shore protection project or separable
element, the Secretary shall enter into
a written agreement with a non-Federal
interest with respect to the project or
separable element.
[(ii) Terms.--The agreement shall--
[(I) specify the life of
the project; and
[(II) ensure that the
Federal Government and the non-
Federal interest will cooperate
in carrying out the project or
separable element.
[(C) Coordination of projects.--In
constructing a shore protection project or
separable element under this paragraph, the
Secretary shall, to the extent practicable,
coordinate the project or element with any
complementary project identified under
paragraph (2)(C).]
* * * * * * *
----------
[33 U.S.C. 701S]
FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1948
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 205. That the] * * *
SEC. 205. PROJECTS TO ENHANCE REDUCTION OF FLOODING AND OBTAIN RISK
MINIMIZATION.
The * * *
* * * * * * *
----------
[64 STAT. 170--MAY 17, 1950]
FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1950
* * * * * * *
SEC. 204. * * *
* * * * * * *
RED-OUACHITA RIVER BASIN
The project for flood protection at Calion,
Arkansas, authorized by the Act of August 18, 1941, in
accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of
Engineers in House Document Numbered 427, Seventy-sixth
Congress, first session, is hereby modified to include
additional improvements at Calion, Arkansas (including
authorization for the comprehensive flood-control
project for Ouachita River and tributaries,
incorporating in the project all flood control,
drainage, and power improvements in the basin above the
lower end of the left bank Ouachita River levee), in
accordance with plans on file in the office of the
Chief of Engineers, at an estimated cost of $430,000.
* * * * * * *
----------
[33 U.S.C. 577; PUBLIC LAW 86-645--JUL. 14, 1960]
RIVER AND HARBOR ACT OF 1960
SEC. 101. * * *
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 107. (a) That the Secretary of the Army is hereby
authorized to]
SEC. 107. NAVIGATION ENHANCEMENTS FOR WATERBOURNE TRANSPORTATION.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Army may allot from
any appropriations hereafter made for rivers and harbors not to
exceed $2,000,000 for any one fiscal year for the construction
of small river and harbor improvement projects not specifically
authorized by Congress which will result in substantial
benefits to navigation and which can be operated consistently
with appropriate and economic use of the waters of the Nation
for other purposes, when in the opinion of the Chief of
Engineers such work is advisable, if benefits are in excess of
the cost.
[(b) Not more]
(b) Allotment.--Not more than [$4,000,000] $7,000,000 shall
be allotted for the construction of a project under this
section at any single locality and the amount allotted shall be
sufficient to complete the Federal participation in the project
under this section.
[(c) Local]
(c) Local Contributions.--Local interests shall provide
without cost to the United States all necessary lands,
easements and rights-of-way for all projects to be constructed
under the authority of this section. In addition, local
interests may be required to hold and save the United States
free from damages that may result from the construction and
maintenance of the project and may be required to provide such
additional local cooperation as the Chief of Engineers deems
appropriate. A State, county, municipality or other responsible
local entity shall give assurance satisfactory to the Chief of
Engineers that such conditions of cooperation as are required
will be accomplished.
[(d) Non-Federal]
(d) Non-Federal Share.--Non-Federal interests may be
required to share in the cost of the project to the extent that
the Chief of Engineers deems that such cost should not be borne
by the Federal government in view of the recreational or
otherwise special or local nature of the project benefits.
[(e) Each]
(e) Completion.--Each project for which money is alloted
under this section shall be complete in itself and not commit
the United States to any additional improvement to insure its
successful operation, other than routine maintenance, and
except as may result from the normal procedure applying to
projects authorized after submission of survey reports, and
projects constructed under the authority of this section shall
be considered as authorized projects.
[(f) This]
(f) Applicability.--This section shall apply to, but not be
limited to, the provision of low water access navigation
channels from the existing channel of the Mississippi River to
harbor areas heretofore or now established and located along
the Mississippi River.
* * * * * * *
----------
[CF. 16 U.S.C. 460L-6A(I)(3)]
LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND ACT OF 1965
SEC. 460L-6A. ADMISSION AND SPECIAL RECREATION USE FEES
(a) * * *
(i) Covering of fees collected into special account for
agency established in Treasury; covered agencies; availability
of funds; allocation of National Park Service funds.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) [For]
(A) In general.--For agencies other than
the National Park Service, such funds shall be
made available for resource protection,
research, interpretation, and maintenance
activities related to resource protection in
areas managed by that agency at which outdoor
recreation is available. [To the extent
feasible, such funds should be used for
purposes (as provided for in this paragraph)
which are directly related to the activities
which generated the funds, including but not
limited to water-based recreational activities
and camping.]
(B) Use of funds.--To the maximum extent
practicable, funds under this subsection shall
be used for a purpose described in subparagraph
(A) that is directly related to the activity
through which the funds were generated,
including water-based recreational activities
and camping.
(C) Department of army sites.--Any funds
under this subsection may be used at a project
site of the Department of the Army to pay the
costs of--
(i) a repair or maintenance project
(including a project relating to public
health and safety);
(ii) an interpretation project;
(iii) signage;
(iv) habitat or facility
enhancement;
(v) resource preservation;
(vi) annual operation (including
collection of fees and costs of
administering grants under section 4 of
the Act of December 22, 1944 (commonly
known as the `Flood Control Act of
1944') (16 U.S.C. 460d);
(vii) law enforcement relating to
public use; and
(viii) planning.
* * * * * * *
----------
[CF. 16 U.S.C. 460D-3]
FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1968
SEC. 460D-3. RECREATIONAL USER FEES
[(a) Prohibition on admissions fees.--No entrance or
admission fees shall be collected after March 31, 1970, by any
officer or employee of the United States at public recreation
areas located at lakes and reservoirs under the jurisdiction of
the Corps of Engineers, United States Army.]
(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Army shall carry out
a recreation user fee program to recover from users of
recreation areas and project sites under the jurisdiction of
the Corps of Engineers the portion of costs associated with
operating and maintaining those recreation areas and project
sites.
(b) Admission and User Fees for use of developed recreation
sites and facilities.--
(1) Establishment and collection.--Notwithstanding
section 460l-6a(b) of this title, the Secretary of the
Army is authorized, subject to paragraphs (2) and (3),
to establish and collect fees for the use of developed
recreation sites and facilities, including campsites,
swimming beaches, and boat launching ramps [but
excluding a site or facility which includes only a boat
launch ramp and a courtesy dock.] , including fees--
(A) for admission to the recreation area or
project site of an individual or group; and
(B) for the use by an individual or group
of an outdoor recreation area, a facility, a
visitors' center, a piece of equipment, or a
service at the recreation area or project site.
(2) Amount.--The Secretary of the Army shall
determine the amount of a fee established and collected
under paragraph (1) based on the fair market value,
taking into consideration any comparable recreation fee
for admission to, or use of, the recreation area or
project site.
[(2)] (3) Exemption of certain facilities.--The
Secretary shall not establish or collect fees under
this subsection for the use or provision of drinking
water, wayside exhibits, roads, scenic drives, overlook
sites, [picnic tables], toilet facilities, [surface
water areas], undeveloped or lightly developed
shoreland, [or general visitor information] general
visitor information, or a project site or facility that
includes only a boat launch ramp and a courtesy dock.
(4) Contracts and services.--The Secretary of the
Army may--
(A) enter into a contract (including a
contract that provides for a reasonable
commission, as determined by the Secretary)
with any public or private entity to provide a
visitor service for a recreation area or
project site under this section, including the
taking of reservations and the provision of
information regarding the recreation area or
project site; and
(B) accept the services of a volunteer to
collect a fee established and collected under
paragraph (1).
(5) Deposit into treasury account.--
(A) In general.--Any fee collected under
this subsection shall--
(i) be deposited into the Treasury
account for the Corps of Engineers
established by section 4(i)(1)(A) of
the Land and Water Conservation Fund
Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-
6a(i)(1)(A)); and
(ii) be made available until
expended to the Secretary of the Army,
without further appropriation, for use
for the purposes described in section
4(i)(3) of that Act (16 U.S.C. 460l-
6a(i)(3)).
(B) Limitation.--Not more than 80 percent
of a fee established and collected at a
recreational area or project site under this
subsection shall be made available to pay the
costs of a water resources development project
under the jurisdiction of the Corps of
Engineers located at the recreational area or
project site.
(c) Other Fees.--Any fee established and collected at a
recreational area or project site under subsection (b) shall be
considered to be established and collected in lieu of a similar
fee established and collected at the recreational area or
project site under any other provision of law.
[(3) Per vehicle limit.--The fee under this
subsection for use of a site or facility (other than an
overnight camping site or facility or any other site or
facility at which a fee is charged for use of the site
or facility as of August 10, 1993) for persons entering
the site or facility by private, noncommercial vehicle
transporting not more than 8 persons (including the
driver) shall not exceed $3 per day per vehicle. Such
maximum amount may be adjusted annually by the
Secretary for changes in the Consumer Price Index of
All Urban Consumers published by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics of the Department of Labor.
[(4) Deposit into Treasury account.--All fees
collected under this subsection shall be deposited into
the Treasury account for the Corps of Engineers
established by section 460l-6a(i) of this title and,
subject to the availability of appropriations, shall be
used for the purposes specified in section 460l-
6a(i)(3) of this title at the water resources
development project at which the fees were collected.]
* * * * * * *
----------
[PUBLIC LAW 91-611--DEC. 31, 1970]
[CF. 42 U.S.C. 1962D-5B]
FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1970
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 221.]
SEC. 221. WRITTEN AGREEMENT REQUIREMENT FOR WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS.
(a) Cooperation of Non-Federal Interest.--
(1) In general.--After December 31, 1970, the
construction of any water resources project, or an
acceptable separable element thereof, by the Secretary
of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, or
by a non-Federal interest where such interest will be
reimbursed for such construction under any provision of
law, shall not be commenced until each non-Federal
interest has entered into a written partnership
agreement with the district engineer for the district
in which the project will be carried out under which
each party agrees to carry out its responsibilities and
requirements for implementation or construction of the
project 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.
(2) Liquidated damages.--An agreement described in
paragraph (1) may include a provision for liquidated
damages in the event of a failure of 1 or more parties
to perform.
(3) Obligation of future appropriations.--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.
(4) Credit for in-kind contributions.--
(A) In general.--An agreement under
paragraph (1) shall provide that the Secretary
shall credit toward the non-Federal share of
the cost of the project, including a project
implemented under general continuing authority,
the value of in-kind contributions made by the
non-Federal interest, including--
(i) the costs of planning
(including data collection), design,
management, mitigation, construction,
and construction services that are
provided by the non-Federal interest
for implementation of the project; and
(ii) the value of materials or
services provided before execution of
an agreement for the project,
including--
(I) efforts on constructed
elements incorporated into the
project; and
(II) materials and services
provided after an agreement is
executed.
(B) Condition.--The Secretary shall credit
an in-kind contribution under subparagraph (A)
if the Secretary determines that the property
or service provided as an in-kind contribution
is integral to the project.
(C) Limitations.--Credit authorized for a
project--
(i) shall not exceed the non-
Federal share of the cost of the
project;
(ii) shall not alter any other
requirement that a non-Federal interest
provide land, an easement or right-of-
way, or an area for disposal of dredged
material for the project; and
(iii) shall not exceed the actual
and reasonable costs of the materials,
services, or other things provided by
the non-Federal interest, as determined
by the Secretary.
(b) A non-Federal interest shall be a legally constituted
public body with full authority and capability to perform the
terms of its agreement and to pay damages, if necessary, in the
event of failure to perform.
(c) Every agreement entered into pursuant to this section
shall be enforcible in the appropriate district court of the
United States.
(d) After commencement of construction of a project, the
Chief of Engineers may undertake performance of those items of
cooperation necessary to the functioning of the project for its
purposes, if he has first notified the non-Federal interest of
its failure to perform the terms of its agreement and has given
such interest a reasonable time after such notification to so
perform.
(e) Public Health and Safety.--If the Secretary determines
that a project needs to be continued for the purpose of public
health and safety--
(1) the non-Federal interest shall pay the
increased projects costs, up to an amount equal to 20
percent of the original estimated project costs and in
accordance with the statutorily-determined cost share;
and
(2) notwithstanding the statutorily-determined
Federal share, the Secretary shall pay all increased
costs remaining after payment of 20 percent of the
increased costs by the non-Federal interest under
paragraph (1).
(f) Limitation.--Nothing in subsection (a) limits the
authority of the Secretary to ensure that a partnership
agreement meets the requirements of law and policies of the
Secretary in effect on the date of execution of the partnership
agreement.
[(e)] (g) The Secretary of the Army, acting through the
Chief of Engineers, shall maintain a continuing inventory of
agreements and the status of their performance, and shall
report thereon annually to the Congress.
* * * * * * *
----------
[PUBLIC LAW 92-532--OCT. 23, 1972]
[CF. 33 U.S.C. 1412(C)(4)]
MARINE PROTECTION, RESEARCH, AND SANCTUARIES ACT OF 1972
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1412. DUMPING PERMIT PROGRAM
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Designation of sites
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) General site management plan requirement;
prohibitions
After January 1, 1995, no site shall receive a
final designation unless a management plan has been
developed pursuant to this section. Beginning on
January 1, 1997, no permit for dumping pursuant to this
Act or authorization for dumping under section 1413(e)
of this title shall be issued for a site (other than
the site located off the coast of Newport Beach,
California, which is known as ``LA-3'') unless such
site has received a final designation pursuant to this
subsection or an alternative site has been selected
pursuant to section 1413(b) of this title. Beginning
[January 1, 2003] January 1, 2007, no permit for
dumping pursuant to this Act or authorization for
dumping under section 1413(e) of this title shall be
issued for the site located off the coast of Newport
Beach, California, which is known as ``LA-3'', unless
such site has received a final designation pursuant to
this subsection or an alternative site has been
selected pursuant to section 1413(b) of this title.
* * * * * * *
----------
[PUBLIC LAW 93-251--MAR. 7, 1974]
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1974
Sec. 1. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 22. (a) The Secretary]
SEC. 22. PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES.
(a) Federal State Cooperation.--
(1) Comprehensive plans.--The Secretary of the
Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, is
authorized to cooperate with any State in the
preparation of comprehensive plans for the development,
utilization, and conservation of the water and related
resources of drainage basins, watersheds, or ecosystems
located within the boundaries of such State and to
submit to Congress reports and recommendations with
respect to appropriate Federal participation in
carrying out such plans.
(2) Technical assistance.--
(A) In general.--At the request of a
governmental agency or non-Federal interest,
the Secretary may provide, at Federal expense,
technical assistance to the agency or non-
Federal interest in managing water resources.
(B) Types of assistance.--Technical
assistance under this paragraph may include
provision and integration of hydrologic,
economic, and environmental data and analyses.
(b) Fees
(1) For the purpose of recovering 50 percent of the
total cost of providing assistance pursuant to [this
section] subsection (a)(1), the Secretary of the Army
is authorized to establish appropriate fees, as
determined by the Secretary, and to collect such fees
from States and other non-Federal public bodies to whom
assistance is provided under [this section] subsection
(a)(1).
(2) [Up to 1/2 of the] the non-Federal contribution
for preparation of a plan subject to the cost sharing
program under this subsection may be made by the
provision of services, materials, supplies, or other
in-kind services necessary to prepare the plan.
(3) Fees collected under this subsection shall be
deposited into the account in the Treasury of the
United States entitled, ``Contributions and Advances,
Rivers and Harbors, Corps of Engineers (8862)'' and
shall be available until expended to carry out this
section.
[(c) There is]
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) Federal and state cooperation.--There is
authorized to be appropriated not to exceed $10,000,000
annually to carry out [the provisions of this section
except that not more than $500,000 shall be expended in
any one year in any one State.] subsection (a)(1).
(2) Technical assistance.--There is authorized to
be appropriated to carry out subsection (a)(2)
$10,000,000 for each fiscal year, of which not more
than $2,000,000 for each fiscal year may be used by the
Secretary to enter into cooperative agreements with
nonprofit organizations and State agencies to provide
assistance to rural and small communities.k
* * * * * * *
(e) Annual Submission.--For each fiscal year, based on
performance criteria developed by the Secretary, the Secretary
shall list in the annual civil works budget submitted to
Congress the individual activities proposed for funding under
subsection (a)(1) for the fiscal year.
* * * * * * *
----------
[CF. 33 U.S.C. 426J]
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1976
[SEC. 426J. PLACEMENT ON STATE BEACHES OF SAND DREDGED IN CONSTRUCTING
AND MAINTAINING NAVIGATION INLETS AND CHANNELS
ADJACENT TO SUCH BEACHES
[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 constructing 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.]
* * * * * * *
----------
[PUBLIC LAW 99-662--NOV. 17, 1986]
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1986
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act many be cited as the ``Water
Resources Development Act of 1986''.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 602. LAKES PROGRAM.
(a) Subject to section 903(a) of this Act, the Secretary
shall carry out programs for the removal of silt, aquatic
growth, and other material in the following lakes:
(1) Albert Lea Lake, Freeborn County, Minnesota,
removal of silt and aquatic growth;
(2) Lake George, Hobart, Indiana, and in that part
of Deep River upstream of such lake through Lake
Station, Indiana, removal of silt, aquatic growth, and
other material and construction of silt traps or other
devices to prevent and abate the deposit of sediment in
Lake George and such part of Deep River;
(3) Greenwood Lake and Belcher Creek, New Jersey,
removal of silt and stumps;
(4) Sauk Lake and its tributary streams in the
vicinity of Sauk Centre, Stearns County, Minnesota,
removal of silt and aquatic growth;
(5) Deal Lake, Monmouth County, New Jersey, removal
of silt and stumps and the control of pollution from
nonpoint sources;
(6) Lake Worth, Tarrant County, Texas, removal of
silt and aquatic growth, including construction of silt
traps and providing other devices or equipment to
prevent and abate the further deposit of sediment in
Lake Worth; such project shall also provide for the use
of dredged material from Lake Worth for the reclamation
of despoiled land;
(7) Hamlet City Lake, Hamlet, North Carolina,
removal of accumulated silt and debris including
construction of silt traps and providing other devices
or equipment to prevent and abate the further deposit
of sediment in Hamlet City Lake;
(8) Lake Herman, Lake County, South Dakota, removal
of excess silt;
(9) Gorton's Pond, Warwick, Rhode Island,
mitigation activities recommended in the 1982
Environmental Protection Agency diagnostic feasibility
study, including the installation of retention basins,
the dredging of inlets and outlets in recommended areas
and the disposal of dredge material, and weed
harvesting and nutrient inactivation;
(10) Wappingers Lake, New York, for removal of silt
and aquatic growth;
(11) Lake George, New York, for removal of silt and
aquatic growth, stump removal, and the control of
pollution;
(12) Goodyear Lake, Otsego County, New York,
removal of silt and aquatic growth;
(13) Otsego Lake, Otsego County, New York, removal
of silt and aquatic growth and measures to address high
nutrient concentration;
(14) Oneida Lake, Oneida County, New York, removal
of silt and aquatic growth and nutrient monitoring;
(15) Skaneateles and Owasco Lakes, New York,
removal of silt and aquatic growth and prevention of
sediment deposit;
(16) Twin Lakes, Paris, Illinois, removal of silt
and excess aquatic vegetation, including measures to
address excessive sedimentation, high nutrient
concentration, and shoreline erosion;
(17) Clear Lake, Lake County, California, removal
of silt and aquatic growth and measures to address
excessive sedimentation and high nutrient
concentration;
(18) Flints Pond, Hollis, Hillsborough County, New
Hampshire, removal of silt and aquatic growth and
measures to address excessive sedimentation; [and]
(19) Osgood Pond, Milford, Hillsborough County, New
Hampshire, removal of silt and aquatic growth and
measures to address excessive sedimentation[.] ;
(20) Kinkaid Lake, Jackson County, Illinois,
removal of silt and aquatic growth and measures to
address excessive sedimentation;
(21) Lake Sakakawea, North Dakota, removal of silt
and aquatic growth and measures to address excessive
sedimentation;
(22) Lake Morley, Vermont, removal of silt and
aquatic growth and measures to address excessive
sedimentation;
(23) Lake Fairlee, Vermont, removal of silt and
aquatic growth and measures to address excessive
sedimentation; and
(24) Lake Rodgers, Creedmoor, North Carolina,
removal of silt and excessive nutrients and restoration
of structural integrity.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 704. STUDY OF CORPS CAPABILITY TO CONSERVE FISH AND WILDLIFE.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(b) Projects
(1) In general.--The Secretary is further
authorized to conduct projects of alternative or
beneficially modified habitats for fish and wildlife,
including but not limited to man-made reefs for fish.
There is authorized to be appropriated not to exceed
[$20,000,000] $50,000,000 to carry out such projects.
[Such projects]
(2) Inclusions.--Such projects shall be developed,
and their effectiveness evaluated, in consultation with
the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Such projects
shall include--
(A) the construction of a reef for fish
habitat in Lake Erie in the vicinity of
Buffalo, New York;
(B) the construction of a reef for fish
habitat in the Atlantic Ocean in the vicinity
of Fort Lauderdale, Florida;
(C) the construction of a reef for fish
habitat in Lake Ontario in the vicinity of the
town of Newfane, New York; and
[(D) the construction of reefs and related
clean shell substrate for fish habitat,
including manmade 3-dimensional oyster reefs,
in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries in
Maryland and Virginia if the reefs are
preserved as permanent sanctuaries by the non-
Federal interests, consistent with the
recommendations of the scientific consensus
document on Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration
dated June 1999.]
(D) the restoration and rehabilitation of
habitat for fish, including native oysters, in
the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries in
Virginia and Maryland, including--
(i) the construction of oyster bars
and reefs;
(ii) the rehabilitation of existing
marginal habitat;
(iii) the use of appropriate
alternative substrate material in
oyster bar and reef construction;
(iv) the construction and upgrading
of oyster hatcheries; and
(v) activities relating to
increasing the output of native oyster
broodstock for seeding and monitoring
of restored sites to ensure ecological
success.
(3) Restoration and rehabilitation activities.--The
restoration and rehabilitation activities described in
paragraph (2)(D) shall be--
(A) for the purpose of establishing
permanent sanctuaries and harvest management
areas; and
(B) consistent with plans and strategies
for guiding the restoration of the Chesapeake
Bay oyster resource and fishery.
[(2)] (4) Cost charing
(A) In general.--The non-Federal share of
the cost of any project under this subsection
shall be 25 percent.
(B) Form.--The non-Federal share may be
provided through in-kind services, including
the provision by the non-Federal interest of
shell stock material that is determined by the
Chief of Engineers to be suitable for use in
carrying out the project.
(C) Applicability.--The non-Federal
interest shall be credited with the value of
in-kind services provided on or after October
1, 2000, for a project described in paragraph
(1) completed on or after that date, if the
Secretary determines that the work is integral
to the project.
(5) Definition of ecological success.--In this
subsection, the term `ecological success' means--
(A) achieving a tenfold increase in native
oyster biomass by the year 2010, from a 1994
baseline; and
(B) the establishment of a sustainable
fishery as determined by a broad scientific and
economic consensus.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 904. MATTERS TO BE ADDRESSED IN PLANNING.
[Enhancing]
(a) In General.--Enhancing national economic development
(including benefits to particular regions of the Nation not
involving the transfer of economic activity to such regions
from other regions), the quality of the total environment
(including preservation and enhancement of the environment),
the well-being of the people of the United States, the
prevention of loss of life, and the preservation of cultural
and historical values shall be addressed in the formulation and
evaluation of water resources projects to be carried out by the
Secretary, and the associated benefits and costs, both
quantifiable and unquantifiable, and information regarding
potential loss of human life that may be associated with
flooding and coastal storm events, shall be displayed in the
benefits and costs of such projects.
(b) Assessments.--For all feasibility reports completed
after December 31, 2005, the Secretary shall assess whether--
(1) the water resource project and each separable
element is cost-effective; and
(2) the water resource project complies with
Federal, State, and local laws (including regulations)
and public policies.
SEC. 905. FEASIBILITY REPORTS.
(a) In the case of any water resources project-related
study authorized to be undertaken by the Secretary, the
Secretary shall prepare a feasibility report, subject to
section 105 of this Act. Such feasibility report shall
describe, with reasonable certainty, the economic,
environmental, and social benefits and detriments of the
recommended plan and alternative plans considered by the
Secretary and the engineering features (including hydrologic
and geologic information), the public acceptability, and the
purposes, scope, and scale of the recommended plan. The
feasibility report shall also include the views of other
Federal agencies and non-Federal agencies with regard to the
recommended plan, a description of a nonstructural alternative
to the recommended plan when such plan does not have
significant nonstructural features, and a description of the
Federal and non-Federal participation in such plan, and shall
demonstrate that States, other non-Federal interests, and
Federal agencies have been consulted in the development of the
recommended plan. The Secretary shall establish a plan and
schedule to periodically update and revise the planning
guidelines, regulations, and circulars of the Corps of
Engineers to improve the analysis of water resource projects,
including the integration of new and existing analytical
techniques that properly reflect the probability of project
benefits and costs, as the Secretary determines appropriate.
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.
* * * * * * *
[(c) For purposes of studies undertaken pursuant to this
section, the Secretary is authorized to consider benefits which
may accrue to Indian tribes as a result of a project resulting
from such a study.]
(c) Cost-Benefit Analysis.--Recommendation of a feasibility
study shall be based on an analysis of the benefits and costs,
both quantified and unquantified, that--
(1) identifies areas of risk and uncertainty in the
analysis;
(2) clearly describes the degree of reliability of
the estimated benefits and costs of the effectiveness
of alternative plans, including an assessment of the
credibility of the physical project construction
schedule as the schedule affects the estimated benefits
and costs;
(3) identifies national, regional, and local
economic costs and benefits;
(4) identifies environmental costs and benefits,
including the costs and benefits of protecting or
degrading natural systems;
(5) identifies social costs and benefits, including
a risk analysis regarding potential loss of life that
may result from flooding and storm damage; and
(6) identifies cultural and historical costs and
benefits.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 906. FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION.
(a)(1) In the case of any water resources project which is
authorized to be constructed by the Secretary before, on, or
after the date of enactment of this Act, construction of which
has not commenced as of the date of enactment of this Act, and
which necessitates the mitigation of fish and wildlife losses,
including the acquisition of lands or interests in lands to
mitigate losses to fish and wildlife, as a result of such
project, such mitigation, including acquisition of the lands or
interests--
(A) shall be undertaken or acquired before any
construction of the project (other than such
acquisition) commences, or
(B) shall be undertaken or acquired concurrently
with lands and interests in lands for project purposes
(other than mitigation of fish and wildlife losses),
whichever the Secretary determines is appropriate, except that
any physical construction required for the purposes of
mitigation may be undertaken concurrently with the physical
construction of such project.
(2) For the purposes of this subsection, any project
authorized before the date of enactment of this Act on which
more than 50 percent of the land needed for the project,
exclusive of mitigation lands, has been acquired shall be
deemed to have commenced construction under this subsection.
(3) Completion of mitigation.--In any case in which it is
not technically practicable to complete mitigation by the last
day of construction of the project or separable element of the
project because of the nature of the mitigation to be
undertaken, the Secretary shall complete the required
mitigation as expeditiously as practicable, but in no case
later than the last day of the first fiscal year beginning
after the last day of construction of the project or separable
element of the project.
(b)(1) After consultation with appropriate Federal and non-
Federal agencies, the Secretary is authorized to mitigate
damages to fish and wildlife resulting from any water resources
project under his jurisdiction, whether completed, under
construction, or to be constructed. Such mitigation may include
the acquisition of lands, or interests therein, except that--
(A) acquisition under this paragraph shall not be
by condemnation in the case of projects completed as of
the date of enactment of this Act or on which at least
10 percent of the physical construction on the project
has been completed as of the date of enactment of this
Act; and
(B) acquisition of water, or interests therein,
under this paragraph, shall not be by condemnation.
The Secretary, shall, under the terms of this paragraph,
obligate no more than $30,000,000 in any fiscal year. With
respect to any water resources project, the authority under
this subsection shall not apply to measures that cost more than
$7,500,000 or 10 percent of the cost of the project, whichever
is greater.
(2) Whenever, after his review, the Secretary determines
that such mitigation features under this subsection are likely
to require condemnation under subparagraph (A) or (B) of
paragraph (1) of this subsection, the Secretary shall transmit
to Congress a report on such proposed modification, together
with his recommendations.
(3) Use of consolidated mitigation.--
(A) In general.--If the Secretary
determines that other forms of compensatory
mitigation are not practicable or are less
environmentally desirable, the Secretary may
purchase available credits from a mitigation
bank or conservation bank that is approved in
accordance with the Federal Guidance for the
Establishment, Use and Operation of Mitigations
Banks (60 Fed. Reg. 58605) or other applicable
Federal laws (including regulations).
(B) Service area.--To the maximum extent
practicable, the service area of the mitigation
bank or conservation bank shall be in the same
watershed as the affected habitat.
(C) Responsibility relieved.--Purchase of
credits from a mitigation bank or conservation
bank for a water resources project relieves the
Secretary and the non-Federal interest from
responsibility for monitoring or demonstrating
mitigation success.
* * * * * * *
(d) Mitigation Plans as Part of Project Proposals.--
(1) In general.--After November 17, 1986, the
Secretary shall not submit any proposal for the
authorization of any water resources project to the
Congress unless such report contains (A) a
recommendation with a specific plan to mitigate fish
and wildlife losses created by such project, or (B) a
determination by the Secretary that such project will
have negligible adverse impact on fish and wildlife.
Specific mitigation plans shall ensure that impacts to
bottomland hardwood forests are mitigated in-kind, to
the extent possible. In carrying out this subsection,
the Secretary shall consult with appropriate Federal
and non-Federal agencies.
(2) Design of mitigation projects.--The Secretary
shall design mitigation projects to reflect
contemporary understanding of the science of mitigating
the adverse environmental impacts of water resources
projects.
(3) Contents.--A mitigation plan shall include--
(A)(i) a description of the physical action
to be undertaken to achieve the mitigation
objectives in the watershed in which the losses
occur; and
(ii) 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 quantity of types
of land or interests in land that should be
acquired for mitigation and the basis for a
determination that the land are available for
acquisition;
(C) the type, quantity, and characteristics
of the habitat being restored; and
(D) 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 the 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, the entity shall be
identified in the partnership agreement entered into
with the non-Federal interest.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 912. SECTION 221 AGREEMENTS.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(b)(1) The Secretary may require compliance with any
requirements pertaining to cooperation by non-Federal interests
in carrying out any water resources project authorized before,
on, or after the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Whenever on the basis of any information available to
the Secretary, the Secretary finds that any non-Federal
interest is not providing cooperation required under subsection
(a), the Secretary [shall] may issue an order requiring such
non-Federal interest to provide such cooperation. [After notice
and opportunity for a hearing, if the Secretary finds that any
person is violating an order issued under this section, such
person shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed
$10,000 per day of such violation, except that the total amount
of civil penalties for any violation shall not exceed $50,000.]
(3) Non-Federal interests shall be liable for interest on
any payments required pursuant to section 221 of the Flood
Control Act of 1970 that may fall delinquent. The interest rate
to be charged on any such delinquent payment shall be at a
rate, to be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, equal
to 150 percent of the average bond equivalent rate of the
thirteen-week Treasury bills auctioned immediately prior to the
date on which such payment became delinquent, or auctioned
immediately prior to the beginning of each additional three-
month period if the period of delinquency exceeds three months.
(4) The Secretary may request the Attorney General to bring
a civil action for appropriate relief, including permanent or
temporary [injunction, for] injunction and payment of
liquidated damages, for any violation of an order issued under
this section, [to collect a civil penalty imposed under this
section,] to recover any cost incurred by the Secretary in
undertaking performance of any item of cooperation under
section 221(d) of the Flood Control Act of 1970, or to collect
interest for which a non-Federal interest is liable under
paragraph (3). Any action under this subsection may be brought
in the district court of the United States for the district in
which the defendant is located or resides, or is doing
businesss, and such court shall have jurisdiction to restrain
such violation, to require compliance, to require payment of
[any civil penalty imposed under this section,] any liquidated
damages, and to require payment of any costs incurred by the
Secretary in undertaking performance of any such item.
(5) The Secretary is authorized to determine that no funds
appropriated for operation and maintenance, including operation
and maintenance of the project for flood control, Mississippi
River and Tributaries, are to be used for the particular
benefit of projects within the jurisdiction of any non-Federal
interest when such non-Federal interest is in arrears for more
than twenty-four months in the payment of charges due under an
agreement entered into with the United States pursuant to
section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-
611).
* * * * * * *
[SEC. 1135. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF ENVIRONMENT.]
SEC. 1135. ENVIRONMENTAL MODIFICATION OF PROJECTS FOR IMPROVEMENT AND
RESTORATION OF ECOSYSTEMS PROGRAM.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(h) Authorization of appropriations
There is authorized to be appropriated not to exceed
[$25,000,000] $50,000,000 annually to carry out this
section.
* * * * * * *
----------
[PUBLIC LAW 100-676--NOV. 17, 1988]
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1988
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water
Resources Development Act of 1988''.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 21. MISSISSIPPI RIVER HEADWATERS RESERVOIRS.
(a) General Rule.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Secretary is directed to maintain water levels in the
Mississippi River headwaters reservoirs within the following
operating limits: Winnibigoshish 1296.94 feet--1303.14 feet;
Leech 1293.20 feet--1297.94 feet; Pokegama 1270.42 feet--
[1276.42] 1278.42 feet; Sandy 1214.31 feet--[1218.31] 1221.31
feet; Pine 1227.32 feet--[1234.82] 1235.30 feet; and Gull
1192.75 feet--1194.75 feet. Such water levels shall be measured
using the National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
[(b) Exception.--The Secretary may operate the headwaters
reservoirs below the minimum or above the maximum water levels
established in subsection (a) in accordance with a contingency
plan which the Secretary develops after consulting with the
Governor of Minnesota and affected landowners and commercial
and recreational users. The Secretary shall transmit such plan
to Congress within 6 months after the date of the enactment of
this Act. The Secretary shall report to Congress at least 14
days prior to operating any such headwaters reservoir below the
minimum or above the maximum water level limits specified in
subsection (a).]
(b) Exception.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may operate the
headwaters reservoirs below the minimum or above the
maximum water levels established under subsection (a)
in accordance with water control regulation manuals (or
revisions to those manuals) developed by the Secretary,
after consultation with the Governor of Minnesota and
affected tribal governments, landowners, and commercial
and recreational users.
(2) Effective date of manuals.--The water control
regulation manuals referred to in paragraph (1) (and
any revisions to those manuals) shall be effective as
of the date on which the Secretary submits the manuals
(or revisions) to Congress.
(3) Notification.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in
subparagraph (B), not less than 14 days before
operating any headwaters reservoir below the
minimum or above the maximum water level limits
specified in subsection (a), the Secretary
shall submit to Congress a notice of intent to
operate the headwaters reservoir.
(B) Exception.--Notice under subparagraph
(A) shall not be required in any case in
which--
(i) the operation of a headwaters
reservoir is necessary to prevent the
loss of life or to ensure the safety of
a dam; or
(ii) the drawdown of the water
level of the reservoir is in
anticipation of a flood control
operation.
* * * * * * *
----------
[PUBLIC LAW 101-640--NOV. 28, 1990]
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1990
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water
Resources Development Act of 1990''.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 102. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS.
(g) Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay, Delaware and
Maryland.--The project for navigation, inland waterway from the
Delaware River to the Chesapeake Bay, Delaware and Maryland,
authorizaed by the frist section of the Act of August 30, 1935
(49 Stat. 1030), and modified by the Act entitled ``An Act
authorizing construction of a highway bridge across the
Chesapeake and Delaware Canal at Saint Georges, Delaware'',
approved August 7, 1939 (53 Stat. 1240-1241), is modified to
direct the Secretary to replace the highway bridge on United
States Route 13 in the vicinity of St. Georges, Delaware, to
meet current and projected traffic needs, at a Federal cost of
$115,000,000. The State may carry out the bridge replacement,
the Secretary may reimburse the State for costs incurred. The
Secretary shall assume ownership responsibility for the
replacement bridge not later than the date on which the
construction of the bridge is completed and the contractors are
released of their responsibility by the State. In addition, the
Secretary may not carry out any action to close or remove the
St. George's Bridge, Delaware, without specific congressional
authorization.
* * * * * * *
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]
through 2011.
* * * * * * *
----------
[PUBLIC LAW 102-580--OCT. 31, 1992]
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1992
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water
Resources Development Act of 1992''.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 103. VISITOR CENTERS
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Lower Mississippi River Museum and Riverfront
Interpretive Site.--
(1) * * *
(2) Location of museum.--The museum shall be
located on [property currently held by the Resolution
Trust Corporation in the vicinity of the Mississippi
River Bridge] riverfront property in Vicksburg,
Mississippi. Title to the property shall be transferred
to the Secretary at no cost.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 204. BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL.
[(a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to carry out
projects for the protection, restoration, and creation of
aquatic and ecologically related habitats, including wetlands,
in connection with dredging for construction, operation, or
maintenance by the Secretary of an authorized navigation
project.
[(b) Secretarial Findings.--Subject to subsection (c) of
this section, projects for the protection, restoration, or
creation of aquatic and ecologically related habitats may be
undertaken in any case where the Secretary finds that--
[(1) the environmental, economic, and social
benefits of the project, both monetary and nonmonetary,
justify the cost thereof; and
[(2) the project would not result in environmental
degradation.
[(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.]
(a) In General.--In connection with sediment obtained
through the construction, operation, or maintenance of an
authorized Federal water resources project, the Secretary,
acting through the Chief of Engineers, shall develop Regional
Sediment Management plans and carry out projects at locations
identified in the plan prepared under subsection (e), or
identified jointly by the non-Federal interest and the
Secretary, for use in the construction, repair, modification,
or rehabilitation of projects associated with Federal water
resources projects, for--
(1) the protection of property;
(2) the protection, restoration, and creation of
aquatic and ecologically related habitats, including
wetlands; and
(3) the transport and placement of suitable
sediment
(b) Secretarial Findings.--Subject to subsection (c),
projects carried out under subsection (a) may be carried out in
any case in which the Secretary finds that--
(1) the environmental, economic, and social
benefits of the project, both monetary and nonmonetary,
justify the cost of the project; and
(2) the project would not result in environmental
degradation.
(c) Determination of Planning and Project Costs.--
(1) In general.--In consultation and cooperation
with the appropriate Federal, State, regional, and
local agencies, the Secretary, acting through the Chief
of Engineers, shall develop at Federal expense plans
and projects for regional management of sediment
obtained in conjunction with construction, operation,
and maintenance of Federal water resources projects.
(2) Costs of construction.--
(A) In general.--Costs associated with
construction of a project under this section or
identified in a Regional Sediment Management
plan 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 an
authorized Federal water resources project in
the most cost-effective way, consistent with
economic, engineering, and environmental
criteria.
(B) Cost sharing.--The determination of any
non-Federal share of the construction cost
shall be based on the cost sharing as specified
in subsections (a) through (d) of section 103
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(33 U.S.C. 2213), for the type of Federal water
resource project using the dredged resource.
(C) Total cost.--Total Federal costs
associated with construction of a project under
this section shall not exceed $5,000,000
without Congressional approval.
(3) Operation, maintenance, replacement, and
rehabilitation costs.--Operation, maintenance,
replacement, and rehabilitation costs associated with a
project are a non-Federal sponsor responsibility.
(d) Selection of Sediment Disposal Method for Environmental
Purposes.--
(1) In general.--In developing and carrying out a
Federal water resources project involving the disposal
of 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 the 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.
(2) Federal share.--The Federal share of such
incremental costs shall be determined in accordance
with subsection (c).
(e) State and Regional Plans.--The Secretary, acting
through the Chief of Engineers, may--
(1) cooperate with any State in the preparation of
a comprehensive State or regional coastal sediment
management plan within the boundaries of the State;
(2) encourage State participation in the
implementation of the plan; and
(3) submit to Congress reports and recommendations
with respect to appropriate Federal participation in
carrying out the plan.
(f) Priority Areas.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary shall give priority to regional sediment management
projects in the vicinity of--
(1) Fire Island Inlet, Suffolk County, New York;
(2) Fletcher Cove, California;
(3) Delaware River Estuary, New Jersey and
Pennsylvania; and
(4) Toledo Harbor, Lucas County, Ohio.
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $30,000,000 during
each fiscal year, to remain available until expended, for the
Federal costs identified under subsection (c), of which up to
$5,000,000 shall be used for the development of regional
sediment management plans as provided in subsection (e).
(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.
* * * * * * *
[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 land 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.]
* * * * * * *
----------
[PUBLIC LAW 104-303--OCT. 12, 1996]
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1996
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water
Resources Development Act of 1996''.
* * * * * * *
SECTION 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(31) Marmet Lock, Kanawha River, West Virginia.--
The project for navigation, Marmet Lock, Kanawha River,
West Virginia: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated
June 24, 1994, at a total cost of [$229,581,000]
$358,000,000. The costs of construction of the project
are to be paid 1/2 from amounts appropriated from the
Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
* * * * * * *
[SEC. 206. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.]
SEC. 206. RESTORATION OF THE ENVIRONMENT FOR PROTECTION OF AQUATIC AND
RIPARIAN ECOSYSTEMS PROGRAM.
(a) General Authority.--The Secretary may carry out [an
aquatic] a freshwater aquatic ecosystem restoration and
protection project if the Secretary zdetermines that the
project--
(1) will improve the quality of the environment and
is in the public interest; and
(2) is cost-effective.
* * * * * * *
(e) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this section [$25,000,000] $75,000,000 for each
fiscal year.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 211. CONSTRUCTION OF FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS BY NON-FEDERAL
INTERESTS.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) Reimbursement.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(6) Schedule and manner of reimbursement.--
(A) Budgeting.--The Secretary shall budget
and request appropriations for reimbursements
under this section on a schedule that is
consistent with a Federal construction
schedule.
(B) Commencement of reimbursements.--
Reimbursements under this section may commence
on approval of a project by the Secretary.
(C) Credit.--At the request of a non-
Federal interest, the Secretary may reimburse
the non-Federal interest by providing credit
toward future non-Federal costs of the project.
(D) Scheduling.--Nothing in this paragraph
affects the discretion of the President to
schedule new construction starts.
(E) Budget priority.--
(i) In general.--Budget priority
for projects under this section shall
be proportionate to the percentage of
project completion.
(ii) Completed project.--A
completed project shall have the same
priority as a project with a contractor
on site.
(f) Specific projects.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(9) Thornton reservoir, cook county, illinois.--An
element of the project for flood control, Chicagoland
Underflow Plan, Illinois.
(10) St. paul downtown airport (holman field), st.
paul, minnesota.--The project for flood damage
reduction, St. Paul Downtown Holman Field), St. Paul,
Minnesota.
(11) Buffalo bayou, texas.--The project for flood
control, Buffalo Bayou, Texas, authorized by the first
section of the Act of June 20, 1938 (52 Stat. 804,
chapter 535) (commonly known as the `River and Harbor
Act of 1938') and modified by section 3a of the Act of
August 11, 1939 (53 Stat. 1414, chapter 699) (commonly
known as the `Flood Control Act of 1939'), except that,
subject to the approval of the Secretary as provided by
this section, the non-Federal interest may design and
construct an alternative to such project.
(12) Halls bayou, texas.--The Halls Bayou element
of the project for flood control, Buffalo Bayou and
tributaries, Texas, authorized by section 101(a)(21) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C.
2201 note), except that, subject to the approval of the
Secretary as provided by this section, the non-Federal
interest may design and construct an alternative to
such project.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 217. DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITY PARTNERSHIPS.
(a) Additional Capacity.--
(1) Provided by secretary.--At the request of a
non-Federal interest with respect to a project, the
Secretary may provide additional capacity at a dredged
material disposal facility constructed by the Secretary
beyond the capacity that would be required for project
purposes if the non-Federal interest agrees to pay,
during the period of construction, all costs associated
with the construction of the additional capacity.
(2) Cost recovery authority.--The non-Federal
interest may recover the costs assigned to the
additional capacity through fees assessed on third
parties whose dredged material is deposited at the
facility and who enter into agreements with the non-
Federal interest for the use of the facility. The
amount of such fees may be determined by the non-
Federal interest.
(b) Non-Federal Use of Disposal Facilities.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary--
(A) may permit the use of any dredged
material disposal facility under the
jurisdiction of, or managed by, the Secretary
by a non-Federal interest if the Secretary
determines that such use will not reduce the
availability of the facility for project
purposes; and
(B) may impose fees to recover capital,
operation, and maintenance costs associated
with such use.
(2) Use of fees.--Notwithstanding section 401(c) of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1341(c)) but subject to advance appropriations, any
monies received through collection of fees under this
subsection shall be available to the Secretary, and
shall be used by the Secretary, for the operation and
maintenance of the disposal facility from which the
fees were collected.
(c) Dredged Material Facility.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may enter into cost-
sharing agreements with 1 or more non-Federal public
interests with respect to a project, or group of
projects within a geographic region, if appropriate,
for the acquisition, design, construction, management,
or operation of a dredged material processing,
treatment, contaminant reduction, or disposal facility
(including any facility used to demonstrate potential
beneficial uses of dredged material, which may include
effective sediment contaminant reduction technologies)
using funds provided in whole or in part by the Federal
Government.
(2) Performance.--One or more of the parties to the
agreement may perform the acquisition, design,
construction, management, or operation of a dredged
material processing, treatment, contaminant reduction,
or disposal facility.
(3) Multiple federal projects.--If appropriate, the
Secretary may combine portions of separate Federal
projects with appropriate combined cost-sharing between
the various projects, if the facility serves to manage
dredged material from multiple Federal projects located
in the geographic region of the facility.
(4) Public financing.--
(A) Agreements.--
(i) Specified Federal funding
sources and cost sharing.--The cost-
sharing agreement used shall clearly
specify--
(I) the Federal funding
sources and combined cost-
sharing when applicable to
multiple Federal navigation
projects; and
(II) the responsibilities
and risks of each of the
parties related to present and
future dredged material managed
by the facility.
(ii) Management of sediments.--
(I) In general.--The cost-
sharing agreement may include
the management of sediments
from the maintenance dredging
of Federal navigation projects
that do not have partnerships
agreements.
(II) Payments.--The cost-
sharing agreement may allow the
non-Federal interest to receive
reimbursable payments from the
Federal Government for
commitments made by the non-
Federal interest for disposal
or placement capacity at
dredged material treatment,
processing, contaminant
reduction, or disposal
facilities.
(iii) Credit.--The cost-sharing
agreement may allow costs incurred
prior to execution of a partnership
agreement for construction or the
purchase of equipment or capacity for
the project to be credited according to
existing cost-sharing rules.
(B) Credit.--
(i) Effect on existing
agreements.--Nothing in this subsection
supersedes or modifies an agreement in
effect on the date of enactment of this
paragraph between the Federal
Government and any other non-Federal
interest for the cost-sharing,
construction, and operation and
maintenance of a Federal navigation
project.
(ii) Credit for funds.--Subject to
the approval of the Secretary and in
accordance with law (including
regulations and policies) in effect on
the date of enactment of this
paragraph, a non-Federal public
interest of a Federal navigation
project may seek credit for funds
provided for the acquisition, design,
construction, management, or operation
of a dredged material processing,
treatment, or disposal facility to the
extent the facility is used to manage
dredged material from the Federal
navigation project.
(iii) Non-federal interest
responsibilities.--The non-Federal
interest shall--
(I) be responsible for
providing all necessary land,
easement rights-of-way, or
relocations associated with the
facility; and
(II) receive credit for
those items.
[(c)] (d) Public-Private Partnerships.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may carry out a
program to evaluate and implement opportunities for
public-private partnerships in the design,
construction, management, or operation and maintenance
of dredged material processing, treatment, or disposal
facilities in connection with construction or
maintenance of Federal navigation projects. If a non-
Federal interest is a sponsor of the project, the
Secretary shall consult with the non-Federal interest
in carrying out the program with respect to the
project.
(2) Private financing.--
(A) Agreements.--In carrying out this
subsection, the Secretary may enter into an
agreement with a non-Federal interest with
respect to a project, a private entity, or both
for the acquisition, design, construction,
management, or operation and maintenance of a
dredged material processing, treatment, or
disposal facility (including any facility used
to demonstrate potential beneficial uses of
dredged material) using funds provided in whole
or in part by the private entity.
(B) Reimbursement.--If any funds provided
by a private entity are used to carry out a
project under this subsection, the Secretary
may reimburse the private entity over a period
of time agreed to by the parties to the
agreement through the payment of subsequent
user fees. Such fees may include the payment of
a disposal or tipping fee for placement of
suitable dredged material at the facility.
(C) Amount of fees.--User fees paid
pursuant to subparagraph (B) shall be
sufficient to repay funds contributed by the
private entity plus a reasonable return on
investment approved by the Secretary in
cooperation with the non-Federal interest with
respect to the project and the private entity.
(D) Federal share.--The Federal share of
such fees shall be equal to the percentage of
the total cost that would otherwise be borne by
the Federal Government as required pursuant to
existing cost-sharing requirements, including
section 103 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213) and section 204 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33
U.S.C. 2325).
(E) Budget act compliance.--Any spending
authority (as defined in section 401(c)(2) of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C.
651(c)(2))) authorized by this section shall be
effective only to such extent and in such
amounts as are provided in appropriation Acts.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 234. INTERAGENCY AND INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT AUTHORITY.
[(a) In General.--The Secretary may engage in activities in
support of other Federal agencies or international
organizations to address problems of national significance to
the United States.]
(a) In General.--The Secretary may engage in activities
(including contracting) in support of other Federal agencies,
international organizations, or foreign governments to address
problems of national significance to the United States.
(b) Consultation.--The Secretary may engage in activities
in support of international organizations only after consulting
with the [Secretary of State] Department of State.
(c) Use of Corps' Expertise.--The Secretary may use the
technical and managerial expertise of the Corps of Engineers to
address domestic and international problems related to water
resources, infrastructure development, and environmental
protection.
(d) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this section [$250,000 for fiscal year 2001]
$1,000,000 for fiscal year 2006 and each fiscal year
thereafter. The Secretary may accept and expend additional
funds from other Federal agencies [or international
organizations] , international organizations, or foreign
governments to carry out this section.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 507. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE.
The Secretary shall provide design and construction
assistance to non-Federal interests for each of the following
projects if the Secretary determines that the project is
feasible:
(1) Repair and rehabilitation of the Lower Girard
Lake Dam, Girard, Ohio, at an estimated total cost of
[$2,500,000] $5,500,000 (which repair and
rehabilitation shall include lowering the crest of the
Dam by not more than 12.5 feet).
* * * * * * *
SEC. 510. CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND PROTECTION
PROGRAM.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section [$10,000,000]
$30,000,000.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 516. SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section
$5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1998 through 2001.
(2) Great lakes tributary model.--In addition to
amounts made available under paragraph (1), there is
authorized to be appropriated to carry out subsection
(e) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2002 [through
2006] through 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 1999.]
$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.]
(ii) Federal share.--
(I) In general.--Except as
provided in subclause (II), the
Federal share of the cost of
carrying out a project under
subparagraph (A) shall not
exceed $25,000,000.
(II) Seminole water
conservation plan.--The Federal
share of the cost of carrying
out the Seminole Water
Conservation Plan shall not
exceed $30,000,000.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 554. ORCHARD BEACH, BRONX, NEW YORK.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for a project for
shoreline protection, Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York, and, if
the Secretary determines that the project is feasible, may
carry out the project, at a maximum Federal cost of
[$5,200,000] $18,200,000.
* * * * * * *
[SEC. 563. HOPPER DREDGE MCFARLAND.
[(a) Project Authorization.--
[(1) Determination.--The Secretary shall determine
the advisability and necessity of making modernization
and efficiency improvements to the hopper dredge
McFarland. In making such determination, the Secretary
shall--
[(A) assess the need for returning the
dredge to active service;
[(B) determine whether the McFarland should
be returned to active service or the reserve
fleet after the potential improvements are
completed and paid for; and
[(C) establish minimum standards of
dredging service to be met in areas served by
the McFarland while the dredge is undergoing
improvements.
[(2) Authorization.--If the Secretary determines
under paragraph (1) that such modernization and
efficiency improvements are advisable and necessary,
the Secretary may carry out the modernization and
efficiency improvements. The Secretary may carry out
such improvements only at the Philadelphia Naval
Shipyard, Pennsylvania.
[(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000.]
SEC. 563. HOPPER DREDGE MCFARLAND.
Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the
Water Resources Development Act of 2005, the Secretary shall
promulgate such regulations and take such actions as the
Secretary determines to be necessary to decommission the
Federal hopper dredge Mcfarland.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 567. UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN, PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW YORK.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(c) Cooperation Agreements.--In conducting the study and
developing the strategy under this section, the Secretary may
enter into cooperation agreements to provide financial
assistance to appropriate Federal, State, and local government
agencies, including assistance for the implementation of
wetland restoration projects and soil and water conservation
measures.]
(c) Cooperation Agreements.--
(1) In general.--In conducting the study and
implementing the strategy under this section, the
Secretary shall enter into cost-sharing and project
cooperation agreements with the Federal Government,
State and local governments (with the consent of the
State and local governments), land trusts, or
nonprofit, nongovernmental organizations with expertise
in wetland restoration.
(2) Financial assistance.--Under the cooperation
agreement, the Secretary may provide assistance for
implementation of wetland restoration projects and soil
and water conservation measures.
[(d) Implementation.--The Secretary shall undertake
development and implementation of the strategy authorized by
this section in cooperation with local landowners and local
government officials.]
(d) Implementation of Strategy.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out the
development, demonstration, and implementation of the
strategy under this section in cooperation with local
landowners, local government officials, and land
trusts.
(2) Goals of projects.--Projects to implement the
strategy under this subsection shall be designed to
take advantage of ongoing or planned actions by other
agencies, local municipalities, or nonprofit,
nongovernmental organizations with expertise in wetland
restoration that would increase the effectiveness or
decrease the overall cost of implementing recommended
projects.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 575. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS.
(a) * * *
(b) Specific Projects.--The projects to which subsection
(a) apply are--
(1) the project for flood control, Buffalo Bayou
Basin, Texas, authorized by section 203 of the Flood
Control Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 1258);
(2) the project for flood control, Buffalo Bayou
and tributaries, Texas, authorized by section 101(a) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat.
4610); [and]
(3) the project for flood control, Cypress Creek,
Texas, authorized by section 3(a)(13) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4014);
[and]
(4) the project for flood control, Clear Creek,
Texas, authorized by section 203 of 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
$2,400,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $600,000.
* * * * * * *
----------
[PUBLIC LAW 106-53--AUG. 17, 1999]
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1999
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act many be cited as the ``Water
Resources Development Act of 1999''.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 212. FLOOD MITIGATION AND RIVERINE RESTORATION PROGRAM.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) Priority Areas.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary shall examine appropriate locations, including--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(22) Shenandoah River, Virginia; [and]
(23) Lincoln Creek, Wisconsin[.] ; and
(24) Underwood Creek Diversion Facility Project
(County Grounds), Milwaukee County, Wisconsin.
* * * * * * *
[SEC. 225. RECREATION USER FEES.
[(a) Withholding of Amounts.--
[(1) In general.--During fiscal years 1999 through
2002, 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 per each fiscal year
received from fees imposed at recreation sites under
the administrative jurisdiction of the Department of
the Army under section 4(b) of that Act (16 U.S.C.
4601-6a(b)).
[(2) Use.--The amounts withheld shall be retained
by the Secretary and shall be available , without
further Act of appropriation, for expenditure by the
Secretary in accordance with subsection (b).
[(3) Availability.--The amounts withheld shall
remain available until September 30, 2005.
[(b) Use of Amounts Withheld.--In order to increase the
quality of the visitor experience at public recreational areas
and to enhance the protection of resources, the amounts
withheld under subsection (a) may be used only for--
[(1) repair and maintenance projects (including
projects relating to health and safety);
[(2) interpretation;
[(3) signage;
[(4) habitat or facility enhancement;
[(5) resource preservation;
[(6) annual operation (including fee collection);
[(7) maintenance; and
[(8) law enforcement related to public use.
[(c) Availability.--Each amount withheld by the Secretary
shall be available for expenditure, without further Act of
appropriation, at the specific project from which the amount,
above baseline, is collected.]
* * * * * * *
SEC. 514. MISSOURI AND MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI RIVERS ENHANCEMENT PROJECT.
(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 undertaken under this section, a non-Federal interest
may include a nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected
local government.
(g) Cost Limitation.--Not more than $5,000,000 in Federal
funds may be allotted under this section for a project at any
single locality.
[(f)] (h) Cost Sharing.--
[(1) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of
the cost of the project shall be 35 percent.]
(1) Non-federal share.--
(A) In general.--The non-Federal share of
the cost of projects may be provided--
(i) in cash;
(ii) by the provision of land,
easements, rights-of-way, relocations,
or disposal areas;
(iii) by in-kind services to
implement the project; or
(iv) by any combination of the
foregoing.
(B) Private ownership.--Land needed for a
project under this authority may remain in
private ownership subject to easements that
are--
(i) satisfactory to the Secretary;
and
(ii) necessary to assure
achievement of the project purposes.
(2) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost
of any 1 activity described in subsection (b) shall not
exceed $5,000,000.
(3) Operation and maintenance.--The operation and
maintenance of the project shall be a non-Federal
responsibility.
[(g)] (i) 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 2000 and 2001.] per year, and that authority
shall extend until Federal fiscal year 2015.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 560. ABANDONED AND INACTIVE NONCOAL MINE RESTORATION.
(a) Definition of Non-Federal Interest.--In this section,
the term `non-Federal interest' includes, with the consent of
the affected local government, nonprofit entities,
notwithstanding section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970
(42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b).
[(a)] (b) In General.-- The Secretary may provide
technical, planning, and design, and construction assistance to
Federal and non-Federal interests, including, with the consent
of the affected local government, nonprofit entities, for
carrying out projects to address water quality problems caused
by drainage and related activities from abandoned and inactive
noncoal mines.
[(b)] (c) Specific Measures.--Assistance provided under
subsection (a) may be in support of projects for the purpose
of--
(1) managing drainage from abandoned and inactive
noncoal mines;
(2) restoring and protecting streams, rivers,
wetlands, other waterbodies, and riparian areas
degraded by drainage from abandoned and inactive
noncoal mines; and
(3) demonstrating management practices and
innovative and alternative treatment technologies to
minimize or eliminate adverse physical hazards and
environmental effects associated with [drainage from]
abandoned and inactive noncoal mines.
[(c)] (d) Non-Federal Share.--The non-Federal share of the
cost of assistance under subsection (a) shall be [50] 25
percent, except that the Federal share with respect to projects
located on land owned by the United States shall be 100
percent.
[(d)] (e) Effect on Authority of Secretary of the
Interior.--Nothing in this section affects the authority of the
Secretary of the Interior under title IV of the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1231 et seq.).
[(e)] (f) Technology Database for Reclamation of Abandoned
Mines.--The Secretary may provide assistance to non-Federal and
nonprofit entities to develop, manage, and maintain a database
of conventional and innovative, cost-effective technologies for
reclamation of abandoned and inactive noncoal mine sites. Such
assistance shall be provided through the Rehabilitation of
Abandoned Mine Sites Program managed by the Sacramento District
Office of the Corps of Engineers.
[(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000.]
(g) Operation and Maintenance.--The non-Federal share of
the costs of operation and maintenance for a project carried
out under this section shall be 100 percent.
(h) No Effect on Liability.--The provision of assistance
under this section shall not relieve from liability any person
that would otherwise be liable under Federal or State law for
damages, response costs, natural resource damages, restitution,
equitable relief, or any other relief.
(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section for each fiscal
year $45,000,000, to remain available until expended.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 573. ONONDAGA LAKE, NEW YORK.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(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. 580. CUMBERLAND, MARYLAND, FLOOD PROJECT MITIGATION.
(a) In General.--The project for flood control and other
purposes, Cumberland, Maryland, authorized by section 5 of the
Act of June 22, 1936 (commonly known as the ``Flood Control Act
of 1936'') (49 Stat. 1574, chapter 688), is modified to
authorize the Secretary to undertake, as a separate part of the
project, restoration of the historic Chesapeake and Ohio Canal
substantially in accordance with the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal
National Historic Park, Cumberland, Maryland, Rewatering Design
Analysis, dated February 1998, at a total cost of [$15,000,000]
$25,750,000, with an estimated Federal cost of [$9,750,000]
$16,738,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of [$5,250,000]
$9,012,000.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 602. TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE HABITAT RESTORATION.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) Funding for carrying out plans.--
(A) State of south dakota.--
(i) Notification.--On receipt of
the plan for terrestrial wildlife
habitat restoration submitted by the
State of South Dakota, each of the
committees referred to in paragraph (3)
shall notify the Secretary and the
Secretary of the Treasury of the
receipt of the plan.
[(ii) Availability of funds.--On
notification in accordance with clause
(i), the Secretary shall make available
to the State of South Dakota funds from
the South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife
Habitat Restoration Trust Fund
established under section 603, to be
used to carry out the plan for
terrestrial wildlife habitat
restoration submitted by the State and
only after the Trust Fund is fully
capitalized.]
(ii) Availability of funds.--On
notification in accordance with clause
(i), the Secretary of the Treasury
shall make available to the State of
South Dakota funds from the State of
South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife
Habitat Restoration Trust Fund
established under section 603, to be
used to carry out the plan for
terrestrial wildlife habitat
restoration submitted by the State of
South Dakota after the State certifies
to the Secretary of the Treasury that
the funds to be disbursed will be used
in accordance with section 603(d)(3)
and only after the Trust Fund is fully
capitalized.
(B) Cheyenne river sioux tribe and lower
brule sioux tribe.--
(i) Notification.--On receipt of
the plan for terrestrial wildlife
habitat restoration submitted by the
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the
Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, each of the
committees referred to in paragraph (3)
shall notify the Secretary of the
Treasury of the receipt of each of the
plans.
[(ii) Availability of funds.--On
notification in accordance with clause
(i), the Secretary of the Treasury
shall make available to the Cheyenne
River Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule
Sioux Tribe funds from the Cheyenne
River Sioux Tribe Terrestrial Wildlife
Habitat Restoration Trust Fund and the
Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Terrestrial
Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust
Fund, respectively, established under
section 604, to be used to carry out
the plan for terrestrial wildlife
habitat restoration submitted by the
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the
Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, respectively,
and only after the Trust Fund is fully
capitalized.]
(ii) Availability of funds.--On
notification in accordance with clause
(i), the Secretary of the Treasury
shall make available to the Cheyenne
River Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule
Sioux Tribe funds from the Cheyenne
River Sioux Terrestrial Wildlife
Habitat Restoration Trust Fund and the
Lower Brule Sioux Terrestrial Wildlife
Habitat Restoration Trust Fund,
respectively, established under section
604, to be used to carry out the plans
for terrestrial wildlife habitat
restoration submitted by the Cheyenne
River Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule
Sioux Tribe, respectively, after the
respective tribe certifies to the
Secretary of the Treasury that the
funds to be disbursed will be used in
accordance with section 604(d)(3) and
only after the Trust Fund is fully
capitalized.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 603. SOUTH DAKOTA TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE HABITAT RESTORATION TRUST
FUND.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(c) Investments.--
[(1) In general.--At the request of the Secretary,
the Secretary of the Treasury shall invest the amounts
deposited under subsection (b) only in interest-bearing
obligations of the United States or in obligations
guaranteed by the United States as to both principal
and interest.
[(2) Interest rate.--The Secretary of the Treasury
shall invest amounts in the fund in obligations that
carry the highest rate of interest among available
obligations of the required maturity.]
(c) Investments.--
(1) Eligible obligations.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, the Secretary of the Treasury
shall invest the amounts deposited under subsection (b)
and the interest earned on those amounts only in
interest-bearing obligations of the United States
issued directly to the Fund.
(2) Investment requirements.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary of the
Treasury shall invest the Fund in accordance
with all of the requirements of this paragraph.
(B) Separate investments of principal and
interest.--
(i) Principal account.--The amounts
deposited in the Fund under subsection
(b) shall be credited to an account
within the Fund (referred to in this
paragraph as the `principal account')
and invested as provided in
subparagraph (C).
(ii) Interest account.--The
interest earned from investing amounts
in the principal account of the Fund
shall be transferred to a separate
account within the Fund (referred to in
this paragraph as the `interest
account') and invested as provided in
subparagraph (D).
(iii) Crediting.--The interest
earned from investing amounts in the
interest account of the Fund shall be
credited to the interest account.
(C) Investment of principal account.--
(i) Initial investment.--Each
amount deposited in the principal
account of the Fund shall be invested
initially in eligible obligations
having the shortest maturity then
available until the date on which the
amount is divided into 3 substantially
equal portions and those portions are
invested in eligible obligations that
are identical (except for
transferability) to the next-issued
publicly issued Treasury obligations
having a 2-year maturity, a 5-year
maturity, and a 10-year maturity,
respectively.
(ii) Subsequent investment.--As
each 2-year, 5-year, and 10-year
eligible obligation matures, the
principal of the maturing eligible
obligation shall also be invested
initially in the shortest-maturity
eligible obligation then available
until the principal is reinvested
substantially equally in the eligible
obligations that are identical (except
for transferability) to the next-issued
publicly issued Treasury obligations
having 2-year, 5-year, and 10-year
maturities.
(iii) Discontinuance of issuance of
obligations.--If the Department of the
Treasury discontinues issuing to the
public obligations having 2-year, 5-
year, or 10-year maturities, the
principal of any maturing eligible
obligation shall be reinvested
substantially equally in eligible
obligations that are identical (except
for transferability) to the next-issued
publicly issued Treasury obligations of
the maturities longer than 1 year then
available.
(D) Investment of interest account.--
(i) Before full capitalization.--
Until the date on which the Fund is
fully capitalized, amounts in the
interest account of the Fund shall be
invested in eligible obligations that
are identical (except for
transferability) to publicly issued
Treasury obligations that have
maturities that coincide, to the
maximum extent practicable, with the
date on which the Fund is expected to
be fully capitalized.
(ii) After full capitalization.--On
and after the date on which the Fund is
fully capitalized, amounts in the
interest account of the Fund shall be
invested and reinvested in eligible
obligations having the shortest
maturity then available until the
amounts are withdrawn and transferred
to fund the activities authorized under
subsection (d)(3).
(E) Par purchase price.--The price to be
paid for eligible obligations purchased as
investments of the principal account shall not
exceed the par value of the obligations so that
the amount of the principal account shall be
preserved in perpetuity.
(F) Highest yield.--Among eligible
obligations having the same maturity and
purchase price, the obligation to be purchased
shall be the obligation having the highest
yield.
(G) Holding to maturity.--Eligible
obligations purchased shall generally be held
to their maturities.
(3) Annual review of investment activities.--Not
less frequently than once each calendar year, the
Secretary of the Treasury shall review with the State
of South Dakota the results of the investment
activities and financial status of the Fund during the
preceding 12-month period.
* * * * * * *
(d) Payments.--
(1) * * *
(2) Withdrawal and transfer of funds.--Subject to
section 602(a)(4)(A), the Secretary of the Treasury
shall withdraw amounts credited as interest under
paragraph (1) and transfer the amounts to the State of
South Dakota for use as State funds in accordance with
paragraph (3) after the Fund has been fully
capitalized.
* * * * * * *
[(f) Administrative Expenses.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary of the Treasury such sums as are
necessary to pay the administrative expenses of the Fund.]
(f) Administrative Expenses.--There are authorized to be
appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, to the Secretary of the Treasury, to pay expenses
associated with investing the Fund and auditing the uses of
amounts withdrawn from the Fund--
(1) up to $500,000 for each of fiscal years 2006
and 2007; and
(2) such sums as are necessary for each subsequent
fiscal year.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 604. CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE AND LOWER BRULE SIOUX TRIBE
TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE HABITAT RESTORATION TRUST
FUNDS.
(a) * * *
[(c) Investments.--
[(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury
shall invest the amounts deposited under subsection (b)
only in interest-bearing obligations of the United
States or in obligations guaranteed as to both
principal and interest by the United States.
[(2) Interest rate.--The Secretary of the Treasury
shall invest amounts in the Funds in obligations that
carry the highest rate of interest among available
obligations of the required maturity.]
(c) Investments.--
(1) Eligible obligations.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, the Secretary of the Treasury
shall invest the amounts deposited under subsection (b)
and the interest earned on those amounts only in
interest-bearing obligations of the United States
issued directly to the Funds.
(2) Investment requirements.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary of the
Treasury shall invest each of the Funds in
accordance with all of the requirements of this
paragraph.
(B) Separate investments of principal and
interest.--
(i) Principal account.--The amounts
deposited in each Fund under subsection
(b) shall be credited to an account
within the Fund (referred to in this
paragraph as the `principal account')
and invested as provided in
subparagraph (C).
(ii) Interest account.--The
interest earned from investing amounts
in the principal account of each Fund
shall be transferred to a separate
account within the Fund (referred to in
this paragraph as the `interest
account') and invested as provided in
subparagraph (D).
(iii) Crediting.--The interest
earned from investing amounts in the
interest account of each Fund shall be
credited to the interest account.
(C) Investment of principal account.--
(i) Initial investment.--Each
amount deposited in the principal
account of each Fund shall be invested
initially in eligible obligations
having the shortest maturity then
available until the date on which the
amount is divided into 3 substantially
equal portions and those portions are
invested in eligible obligations that
are identical (except for
transferability) to the next-issued
publicly issued Treasury obligations
having a 2-year maturity, a 5-year
maturity, and a 10-year maturity,
respectively.
(ii) Subsequent investment.--As
each 2-year, 5-year, and 10-year
eligible obligation matures, the
principal of the maturing eligible
obligation shall also be invested
initially in the shortest-maturity
eligible obligation then available
until the principal is reinvested
substantially equally in the eligible
obligations that are identical (except
for transferability) to the next-issued
publicly issued Treasury obligations
having 2-year, 5-year, and 10-year
maturities.
(iii) Discontinuation of issuance
of obligations.--If the Department of
the Treasury discontinues issuing to
the public obligations having 2-year,
5-year, or 10-year maturities, the
principal of any maturing eligible
obligation shall be reinvested
substantially equally in eligible
obligations that are identical (except
for transferability) to the next-issued
publicly issued Treasury obligations of
the maturities longer than 1 year then
available.
(D) Investment of the interest account.--
(i) Before full capitalization.--
Until the date on which each Fund is
fully capitalized, amounts in the
interest account of the Fund shall be
invested in eligible obligations that
are identical (except for
transferability) to publicly issued
Treasury obligations that have
maturities that coincide, to the
maximum extent practicable, with the
date on which the Fund is expected to
be fully capitalized.
(ii) After full capitalization.--On
and after the date on which each Fund
is fully capitalized, amounts in the
interest account of the Fund shall be
invested and reinvested in eligible
obligations having the shortest
maturity then available until the
amounts are withdrawn and transferred
to fund the activities authorized under
subsection (d)(3).
(E) Par purchase price.--The price to be
paid for eligible obligations purchased as
investments of the principal account shall not
exceed the par value of the obligations so that
the amount of the principal account shall be
preserved in perpetuity.
(F) Highest yield.--Among eligible
obligations having the same maturity and
purchase price, the obligation to be purchased
shall be the obligation having the highest
yield.
(G) Holding to maturity.--Eligible
obligations purchased shall generally be held
to their maturities.
(3) Annual review of investment activities.--Not
less frequently than once each calendar year, the
Secretary of the Treasury shall review with the
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule Sioux
Tribe the results of the investment activities and
financial status of the Funds during the preceding 12-
month period.
* * * * * * *
[(f) Administrative Expenses.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary of the Treasury such sums as are
necessary to pay the administrative expenses of the Fund.]
(f) Administrative Expenses.--There are authorized to be
appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, to the Secretary of the Treasury to pay expenses
associated with investing the Funds and auditing the uses of
amounts withdrawn from the Funds--
(1) up to $500,000 for each of fiscal years 2006
and 2007; and
(2) such sums as are necessary for each subsequent
fiscal year.
* * * * * * *
----------
[33 U.S.C. 2901--NOV 7, 2000]
ESTUARY RESTORATION ACT OF 2000
SEC. 101. * * *
* * * * * * *
SEC. 102. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this title are--
(1) to promote the restoration of estuary
habitat by implementing a coordinated Federal
approach to estuary habitat restoration
activities, including the use of common
monitoring standards and a common system for
tracking restoration acreage;
(2) to develop and implement a national
estuary habitat restoration strategy for
creating and maintaining effective estuary
habitat restoration partnerships among public
agencies at all levels of government and to
establish new partnerships between the public
and private sectors;
(3) to provide Federal assistance for
estuary habitat restoration projects through
cooperative agreements and to promote efficient
financing of such projects; and
* * * * * * *
SEC. 103. DEFINITIONS.
In this title, the following definitions apply:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(6) Estuary habitat restoration plan.--
(A) In general.--The term ``estuary
habitat restoration plan'' means any
[Federal or State] Federal, State, or
regional plan for restoration of
degraded estuary habitat that was
developed with the substantial
participation of appropriate public and
private stakeholders.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 104. ESTUARY HABITAT RESTORATION PROGRAM.
(a) Establishment.--There is established an estuary habitat
restoration program under which the Secretary may carry out
estuary habitat restoration projects and provide technical
assistance through the award of contracts and cooperative
agreements in accordance with the requirements of this title.
(b) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Selection of projects.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) Factors for selection of projects.--In
selecting an estuary habitat restoration project, the
Secretary shall consider the following factors:
(A) Whether the project is part of an
approved Federal or State estuary management or
habitat restoration plan.
* * * * * * *
(4) Priority.--In selecting estuary habitat
restoration projects to be carried out under this
title, the Secretary shall give priority consideration
to a project if, in addition to meriting selection
based on the factors under paragraph (3)--
(A) * * *
(B) the project includes pilot testing of
or a demonstration of an innovative technology
or approach having the potential for improved
cost-effectiveness in estuary habitat
restoration.
(d) Cost Sharing.--
(1) Federal share.--[Except]
(i) In general.--Except as provided
in paragraph (2) and subsection (e)(2),
the Federal share of the cost of an
estuary habitat restoration project
(other than the cost of operation and
maintenance of the project) carried out
under this title shall not exceed 65
percent of such cost.
(ii) Monitoring.--
(I) Costs.--The costs of
monitoring an estuary habitat
restoration project funded
under this title may be
included in the total cost of
the estuary habitat restoration
project.
(II) Goals.--The goals of
the monitoring are--
(aa) to measure the
effectiveness of the
restoration project;
and
(bb) to allow
adaptive management to
ensure project success.
(2) Innovative technology costs.--The Federal share
of the incremental additional cost of including in a
project pilot testing of or a demonstration of an
innovative technology or approach described in
subsection (c)(4)(B) of this section shall be 85
percent.
(3) Non-Federal share.--The non-Federal share of
the cost of an estuary habitat restoration project
carried out under this chapter shall include lands,
easements, rights-of-way, and relocations and may
include services (including monitoring), or any other
form of in-kind contribution determined by the
Secretary to be an appropriate contribution equivalent
to the monetary amount required for the non-Federal
share of the activity.
* * * * * * *
(f) Cooperation of non-Federal interests.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may not carry out an
estuary habitat restoration project until a non-Federal
interest has entered into a written agreement with the
Secretary in which the non-Federal interest agrees to--
(A) provide all lands, easements, rights-
of-way, and relocations and any other elements
the Secretary determines appropriate under
subsection (d)(3) of this section; and
(B) provide for long-term maintenance and
monitoring of the project.
(2) Nongovernmental organizations.--Notwithstanding
section 1962d-5b(b) of title 42, for any project to be
undertaken under this chapter, the Secretary, in
consultation and coordination with appropriate State
and local governmental agencies and Indian tribes, may
allow a nongovernmental organization to serve as the
non-Federal interest for the project.
(g) Delegation of project implementation.--[In carrying]
(1) In general.--In carrying out this chapter, the
Secretary may delegate project implementation to
another Federal department or agency on a reimbursable
basis if the Secretary, upon the recommendation of the
Council, determines such delegation is appropriate.
(2) Small projects.--
(A) Definition.--Small projects carried out
under this Act shall have a Federal share of
less than $1,000,000.
(B) Delegation of project implementation.--
In carrying out this section, the Secretary, on
recommendation of the Council, shall consider
delegating implementation of the small project
to--
(i) the Secretary of the Interior
(acting through the Director of the
United States Fish and Wildlife
Service);
(ii) the Under Secretary for Oceans
and Atmosphere of the Department of
Commerce;
(iii) the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency; or
(iv) the Secretary of Agriculture.
(C) Funding.--Small projects delegated to
another Federal department or agency may be
funded from the responsible department or
appropriations of the agency authorized by
section 109(a)(1).
(D) Agreements.--The Federal department or
agency to which a small project is delegated
shall enter into an agreement with the non-
Federal interest generally in conformance with
the criteria in sections 104(d) and 104(e).
Cooperative agreements may be used for any
delegated project.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 105. ESTABLISHMENT OF ESTUARY HABITAT RESTORATION COUNCIL.
(a) Council.--There is established a council to be known as
the ``Estuary Habitat Restoration Council''.
(b) Duties.--The Council shall be responsible for--
(1) soliciting, reviewing, and evaluating project
proposals and developing recommendations concerning
such proposals based on the factors specified in
section 2903(c)(3) of this title;
(2) submitting to the Secretary a list of
recommended projects, including a recommended priority
order and any recommendation as to whether a project
should be carried out by the Secretary or by another
Federal department or agency under section 2903(g) of
this title;
(3) developing and transmitting to Congress a
national strategy for restoration of estuary habitat;
(4) periodically reviewing the effectiveness of the
national strategy in meeting the purposes of this
chapter and, as necessary, updating the national
strategy; [and]
(5) providing advice on the development of the
database, monitoring standards, and report required
under sections 2906 and 2907 of this title[.] ;
(6) cooperating in the implementation of the
strategy developed under section 106;
(7) recommending standards for monitoring for
restoration projects and contribution of project
information to the database developed under section
107; and
(8) otherwise using the respective agency
authorities of the Council members to carry out this
title.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 107. MONITORING OF ESTUARY HABITAT RESTORATION PROJECTS.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Coordination of data.--The Under Secretary shall
[compile] have general data compilation, coordination, and
analysis responsibilities to carry out this title and in
support of the strategy developed under section 107, including
compilation of information that pertains to estuary habitat
restoration projects from other Federal, State, and local
sources and that meets the quality control requirements and
data standards established under this section.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 108. REPORTING.
(a) In general.--At the end of the [third and fifth] sixth,
eighth, and tenth fiscal years following November 7, 2000, the
Secretary, after considering the advice and recommendations of
the Council, shall transmit to Congress a report on the results
of activities carried out under this chapter.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 109. FUNDING.
(a) Authorization of appropriations.--
(1) Estuary habitat restoration projects.--There is
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for
carrying out and providing technical assistance for
estuary habitat restoration projects--
[(A) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;
[(B) $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2002 and 2003;
[(C) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; and
[(D) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2005.]
(A) to the Secretary, $25,000,000 for each
of fiscal years 2006 through 2010;
(B) to the Secretary of the Interior
(acting through the Director of the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service), $2,500,000
for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010;
(C) to the Under Secretary for Oceans and
Atmosphere of the Department of Commerce,
$2,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2006
through 2010;
(D) to the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, $2,500,000 for
each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010; and
(E) to the Secretary of Agriculture,
$2,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2006
through 2010.
Such sums shall remain available until expended.
(2) Monitoring.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to the Under Secretary for Oceans and
Atmosphere of the Department of Commerce for the
acquisition, maintenance, and management of monitoring
data on restoration projects carried out under this
title and other information compiled under section 107,
$1,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through [2005]
2010. Such sums shall remain available until expended.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 110. GENERAL PROVISIONS.
(a) Agency consultation and coordination.--In carrying out
this chapter, the Secretary shall, as necessary, consult with,
cooperate with, and coordinate its activities with the
activities of other Federal departments and agencies.
(b) Cooperative agreements; memoranda of understanding.--In
carrying out this chapter, the Secretary may--
(1) enter into cooperative agreements or
contractswith Federal, State, and local government
agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and other
entities; and
(2) execute such memoranda of understanding as are
necessary to reflect the agreements.
(c) Federal agency facilities and personnel.--Federal
agencies may cooperate in carrying out scientific and other
programs necessary to carry out this chapter, and may provide
facilities and personnel, for the purpose of assisting the
Council in carrying out its duties under this chapter.
[(d) Identification and mapping of dredged material
disposal sites.--In consultation with appropriate Federal and
non-Federal public entities, the Secretary shall undertake, and
update as warranted by changed conditions, surveys to identify
and map sites appropriate for beneficial uses of dredged
material for the protection, restoration, and creation of
aquatic and ecologically related habitats, including wetlands,
in order to further the purposes of this chapter.
[(e) Study of bioremediation technology.--
[(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after
November 7, 2000, the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, with the participation
of the estuarine scientific community, shall begin a 2-
year study on the efficacy of bioremediation products.
[(2) Requirements.--The study shall--
[(A) evaluate and assess bioremediation
technology--
[(i) on low-level petroleum
hydrocarbon contamination from
recreational boat bilges;
[(ii) on low-level petroleum
hydrocarbon contamination from
stormwater discharges;
[(iii) on nonpoint petroleum
hydrocarbon discharges; and
[(iv) as a first response tool for
petroleum hydrocarbon spills; and
[(B) recommend management actions to
optimize the return of a healthy and balanced
ecosystem and make improvements in the quality
and character of estuarine waters.]
* * * * * * *
----------
[PUBLIC LAW 106-541--DEC. 11, 2000]
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2000
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act many be cited as the ``Water
Resources Development Act of 2000''.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(16) Ohio river, kentucky, illinois, indiana, ohio,
pennsylvania, and west virginia.--
[(A) In general.--Projects for ecosystem
restoration, Ohio River Mainstem]
(A) Authorization.--
(i) In general.--Projects for
ecosystem restoration, Ohio River Basin
(excluding the Tennessee and Cumberland
River Basins), Kentucky, Illinois,
Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West
Virginia, at a total cost of
$307,700,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $200,000,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $107,700,000.
(ii) Nonprofit entity.--For any
ecosystem restoration project carried
out under this paragraph, with the
consent of the affected local
government, a nonprofit entity may be
considered to be a non-Federal
interest.
(iii) Program implementation
plan.--There is authorized to be
developed a program implementation plan
of the Ohio River Basin (excluding the
Tennessee and Cumberland River Basins)
at full Federal expense.
(iv) Pilot program.--There is
authorized to be initiated a completed
pilot program in Lower Scioto Basin,
Ohio.
* * * * * * *
(b) Projects Subject to Final Report.-- * * *
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(5) Los Angeles Harbor, California.--The project
for navigation, Los Angeles Harbor, California, at a
total cost of [$153,313,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $43,735,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $109,578,000] $222,000,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $72,000,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $150,000,000.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 214. FUNDING TO PROCESS PERMITS.
(a) In General.--[In fiscal years 2001 through 2003, the]
The Secretary, after public notice, may accept and expend funds
contributed by non-Federal public entities to expedite the
evaluation of permits under the jurisdiction of the Department
of the Army.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 321. DULUTH HARBOR, MINNESOTA.
The project for navigation, Duluth Harbor, Minnesota,
carried out under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of
1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), is modified to include the relocation of
Scenic Highway 61, including any required bridge construction,
and to provide public access and recreational facilities.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 325. FORT PECK FISH HATCHERY, MONTANA.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There are authorized to be
appropriated--
(A) [$20,000,000] $25,000,000 to carry out
this section (other than subsection (e)(2)(B));
and
* * * * * * *
SEC. 349. PROJECT REAUTHORIZATIONS.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(2) Cedar Bayou, Texas.--The project for
navigation, Cedar Bayou, Texas, authorized by the first
section of the Act entitled ``An Act making
appropriations for the construction, repair, and
preservation of certain public works on rivers and
harbors, and for other purposes'', approved September
19, 1890 (26 Stat. 444), and modified by the first
section of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing the
contruction, repair, and preservation of certain public
works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes'',
approved July 3, 1930 (46 Stat. 926), and deauthorized
by section 1002 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1986 (100 Stat, 4219), [except that the project is
authorized only for construction of a navaigation
channel 12 feet deep by 125 feet wide] except that the
project is authorized for construction of a navigation
channel that is 10 feet deep by 100 feet wide from mile
-2.5 (at the junction with the Houston Ship Channel) to
mile 11.0 on Cedar Bayou.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 414. OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA.
Not later than [32 months] 44 months after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall conduct a
study, at Federal expense, of plans--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
SEC. 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.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 506. GREAT LAKES FISHERY AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration.--
(1) * * *
(2) Reconnaissance studies.--Before planning,
designing, or constructing a project under paragraph
(3), the Secretary shall carry out a reconnaissance
study--
(A) to identify methods of restoring the
fishery, ecosystem, and beneficial uses of the
Great Lakes; and
(B) to determine whether planning of a
project under paragraph (3) should proceed.
[(2)] (3) Projects.--The Secretary shall plan,
design, and construct projects to support the
restoration of the fishery, ecosystem, and beneficial
uses of the Great Lakes.
[(3)] (4) Evaluation program.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall
develop a program to evaluate the success of
the projects carried out under [paragraph (2)]
paragraph (3) in meeting fishery and ecosystem
restoration goals.
(B) Studies.--Evaluations under
subparagraph (A) shall be conducted in
consultation with the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission and appropriate Federal, State, and
local agencies.
* * * * * * *
(f) Cost Sharing.--
(1) Development of plan.--The Federal share of the
cost of development of the plan under subsection (c)(1)
shall be 65 percent.
(2) Reconnaissance studies.--Any reconnaissance
study under subsection (c)(2) shall be carried out at
full Federal expense.
[(2)] (3) Project planning, design, construction,
and evaluation.--The Federal share of the cost of
planning, design, construction, and evaluation of a
project under paragraph [(2) or (3)] (3) or (4) of
subsection (c) shall be 65 percent.
[(3)] (4) Non-federal share.--
(A) Credit for land, easements, and rights-
of-way.--The Secretary shall credit the non-
Federal interest for the value of any land,
easement, right-of-way, dredged material
disposal area, or relocation provided for
carrying out a project under [subsection
(c)(2)] subsection (c)(3).
(B) Form.--The non-Federal interest may
provide up to 50 percent of the non-Federal
share required under paragraphs (1) and (2) in
the form of services, materials, supplies, or
other in-kind contributions.
[(4)] (5) Operation and maintenance.--The
operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and
replacement of projects carried out under this section
shall be a non-Federal responsibility.
[(5)] (6) Non-federal interests.--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 private
interest and a nonprofit entity.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 542. LAKE CHAMPLAIN WATERSHED, VERMONT AND NEW YORK.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(b) Critical Restoration Projects.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may participate in
critical restoration projects in the Lake Champlain
watershed.
(2) Types of projects.--A critical restoration
project shall be eligible for assistance under this
section if the critical restoration project consists of
--
(A) implementation of an intergovernmental
agreement for coordinating regulatory and
management responsibilities with respect to the
Lake Champlain watershed;
(B) acceleration of whole farm planning to
implement best management practices to maintain
or enhance water quality and to promote
agricultural land use in the Lake Champlain
watershed;
(C) acceleration of whole community
planning to promote intergovernmental
cooperation in the regulation and management of
activities consistent with the goal of
maintaining or enhancing water quality in the
Lake Champlain watershed;
(D) natural resource stewardship activities
on public or private land to promote land uses
that--
(i) preserve and enhance the
economic and social character of the
communities in the Lake Champlain
watershed; and
(ii) protect and enhance water
quality; [or]
(E) river corridor assessment, protection,
management, and restoration for the purposes of
ecosystem restoration;
(F) geographic mapping conducted by the
Secretary using existing technical capacity to
produce a high-resolution, multispectral
satellite imagery-based land use and cover data
set; or
[(E)] (G) any other activity determined by
the Secretary to be appropriate.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 543. VERMONT DAMS REMEDIATION.
(a) In General.--The Secretary--
(1) shall conduct a study to evaluate the
structural integrity and need for modification or
removal of each dam located in the State of Vermont and
described in subsection (b);
(2) shall provide to the non-Federal interest
design analysis, plans and specifications, and cost
estimates for repair, restoration, modification, and
removal of each dam described in subsection (b); [and]
(3) may carry out measures to prevent or mitigate
against such risk if the Secretary determines that a
dam described in subsection (b) presents an imminent
and substantial risk to public safety[.] ; and
(4) may carry out measures to restore, protect, and
preserve an ecosystem affected by a dam described in
subsection (b).
(b) Dams To Be Evaluated.--The dams referred to in
subsection (a) are the following:
(1) East Barre Dam, Barre Town.
(2) Wrightsville Dam, Middlesex-Montpelier.
(3) Lake Sadawga Dam, Whitingham.
(4) Dufresne Pond Dam, Manchester.
(5) Knapp Brook Site 1 Dam, Cavendish.
(6) Lake Bomoseen Dam, Castleton.
(7) Little Hosmer Dam, Craftsbury.
(8) Colby Pond Dam, Plymouth.
(9) Silver Lake Dam, Barnard.
(10) Gale Meadows Dam, Londonderry.
(11) Camp Wapanacki, Hardwick.
(12) Star Lake Dam, Mt. Holly.
(13) Curtis Pond, Calais.
(14) Weathersfield Reservoir, Springfield.
(15) Burr Pond, Sudbury.
(16) Maidstone Lake, Guildhall.
(17) Upper and Lower Hurricane Dam.
(18) Lake Fairlee.
(19) West Charleston Dam.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 601. COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(b) Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(2) Specific Authorizations.--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(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, with an estimated
Federal cost of $34,500,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $34,500,000:
(i) * * *
* * * * * * *
(v) Hillsboro and okeechobee
aquifer, florida.--The pilot projects
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 the purposes
of this section as being in the Plan
and carried out in accordance with this
section, except that costs of operation
and maintenance of those projects shall
remain 100 percent non-Federal.
* * * * * * *
(c) Additional Program Authority.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) Funding.--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(C) Maximum cost of program authority.--
Section 902 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2280) shall apply to the
individual project funding limits in
subparagraph (A) and the aggregate cost limits
in subparagraph (B).
* * * * * * *
SEC. 707. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
the Secretary to carry out this title $5,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 2001 through [2005] 2010. Such sums shall remain
available until expended.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 904. MISSOURI RIVER TRUST.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(b) Membership.--The Trust shall be composed of 25 members
to be appointed by the Secretary, including--
(1) 15 members recommended by the Governor of South
Dakota that--
(A) represent equally the various interests
of the public; and
(B) include representatives of--
(i)the South Dakota Department of
Environment and Natural Resources;
(ii)the South Dakota Department of
Game, Fish, and Parks;
(iii)environmental groups;
(iv)the hydroelectric power
industry;
(v)local governments;
(vi)recreation user groups;
(vii)agricultural groups; [and]
(viii) rural water systems; and
[(viii)] (ix)other appropriate
interests;
* * * * * * *
SEC. 907. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
the Secretary to carry out this title $10,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 2001 through [2005] 2010. Such sums shall remain
available until expended.
* * * * * * *