CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 2796, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2000
Sponsor:
Summary:
All articles in House section
CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 2796, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2000
(House of Representatives - October 31, 2000)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
H11624-H11668]
CONFERENCE REPORT ON
S. 2796, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2000
Mr. SHUSTER submitted the following conference report and statement
on the Senate bill (
S. 2796) to provide for the conservation and
development of water and related resources, to authorize the Secretary
of the Army to construct various projects for improvements to rivers
and harbors of the United States, and for other purposes:
Conference Report (H. Rept. 106-1020)
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the House to the bill (
S.
2796), to provide for the conservation and development of
water and related resources, to authorize the Secretary of
the Army to construct various projects for improvements to
rivers and harbors of the United States, and for other
purposes, having met, after full and free conference, have
agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective
Houses as follows:
That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the
amendment of the House and agree to the same with an
amendment as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the House
amendment, insert the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water
Resources Development Act of 2000''.
(b) Table of Contents.--
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definition of Secretary.
TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS
Sec. 101. Project authorizations.
Sec. 102. Small projects for flood damage reduction.
Sec. 103. Small projects for emergency streambank protection.
Sec. 104. Small projects for navigation.
Sec. 105. Small projects for improvement of the quality of the
environment.
Sec. 106. Small projects for aquatic ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 107. Small projects for shoreline protection.
Sec. 108. Small projects for snagging and sediment removal.
Sec. 109. Small project for mitigation of shore damage.
Sec. 110. Beneficial uses of dredged material.
Sec. 111. Disposal of dredged material on beaches.
Sec. 112. Petaluma River, Petaluma, California.
TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 201. Cooperation agreements with counties.
Sec. 202. Watershed and river basin assessments.
Sec. 203. Tribal partnership program.
Sec. 204. Ability to pay.
Sec. 205. Property protection program.
Sec. 206. National recreation reservation service.
Sec. 207. Interagency and international support authority.
Sec. 208. Reburial and conveyance authority.
Sec. 209. Floodplain management requirements.
Sec. 210. Nonprofit entities.
Sec. 211. Performance of specialized or technical services.
Sec. 212. Hydroelectric power project funding.
Sec. 213. Assistance programs.
Sec. 214. Funding to process permits.
Sec. 215. Dredged material marketing and recycling.
Sec. 216. National academy of sciences study.
Sec. 217. Rehabilitation of Federal flood control levees.
Sec. 218. Maximum program expenditures for small flood control
projects.
Sec. 219. Engineering consulting services.
Sec. 220. Beach recreation.
Sec. 221. Design-build contracting.
Sec. 222. Enhanced public participation.
Sec. 223. Monitoring.
Sec. 224. Fish and wildlife mitigation.
Sec. 225. Feasibility studies and planning, engineering, and design.
Sec. 226. Administrative costs of land conveyances.
[[Page
H11625]]
Sec. 227. Flood mitigation and riverine restoration.
TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway Wildlife Mitigation Project,
Alabama and Mississippi.
Sec. 302. Nogales Wash and tributaries, Nogales, Arizona.
Sec. 303. Boydsville, Arkansas.
Sec. 304. White River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.
Sec. 305. Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel, California.
Sec. 306. Delaware River Mainstem and Channel Deepening, Delaware, New
Jersey, and Pennsylvania.
Sec. 307. Rehoboth Beach and Dewey Beach, Delaware.
Sec. 308. Fernandina Harbor, Florida.
Sec. 309. Gasparilla and Estero Islands, Florida.
Sec. 310. East Saint Louis and vicinity, Illinois.
Sec. 311. Kaskaskia River, Kaskaskia, Illinois.
Sec. 312. Waukegan Harbor, Illinois.
Sec. 313. Upper Des Plaines River and tributaries, Illinois.
Sec. 314. Cumberland, Kentucky.
Sec. 315. Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana.
Sec. 316. Red River Waterway, Louisiana.
Sec. 317. Thomaston Harbor, Georges River, Maine.
Sec. 318. Poplar Island, Maryland.
Sec. 319. William Jennings Randolph Lake, Maryland.
Sec. 320. Breckenridge, Minnesota.
Sec. 321. Duluth Harbor, Minnesota.
Sec. 322. Little Falls, Minnesota.
Sec. 323. New Madrid County, Missouri.
Sec. 324. Pemiscot County Harbor, Missouri.
Sec. 325. Fort Peck fish hatchery, Montana.
Sec. 326. Sagamore Creek, New Hampshire.
Sec. 327. Passaic River basin flood management, New Jersey.
Sec. 328. Times Beach Nature Preserve, Buffalo, New York.
Sec. 329. Rockaway Inlet to Norton Point, New York.
Sec. 330. Garrison Dam, North Dakota.
Sec. 331. Duck Creek, Ohio.
Sec. 332. John Day Pool, Oregon and Washington.
Sec. 333. Fox Point hurricane barrier, Providence, Rhode Island.
Sec. 334. Nonconnah Creek, Tennessee and Mississippi.
Sec. 335. San Antonio Channel, San Antonio, Texas.
Sec. 336. Buchanan and Dickenson Counties, Virginia.
Sec. 337. Buchanan, Dickenson, and Russell Counties, Virginia.
Sec. 338. Sandbridge Beach, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Sec. 339. Mount St. Helens, Washington.
Sec. 340. Lower Mud River, Milton, West Virginia.
Sec. 341. Fox River System, Wisconsin.
Sec. 342. Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration.
Sec. 343. Great Lakes dredging levels adjustment.
Sec. 344. Great Lakes remedial action plans and sediment remediation.
Sec. 345. Treatment of dredged material from Long Island Sound.
Sec. 346. Declaration of nonnavigability for Lake Erie, New York.
Sec. 347. Project deauthorizations.
Sec. 348. Land conveyances.
Sec. 349. Project reauthorizations.
Sec. 350. Continuation of project authorizations.
Sec. 351. Water quality projects.
TITLE IV--STUDIES
Sec. 401. Studies of completed projects.
Sec. 402. Lower Mississippi River Resource Assessment.
Sec. 403. Upper Mississippi River Basin sediment and nutrient study.
Sec. 404. Upper Mississippi River comprehensive plan.
Sec. 405. Ohio River system.
Sec. 406. Baldwin County, Alabama.
Sec. 407. Bridgeport, Alabama.
Sec. 408-409. Arkansas River navigation system.
Sec. 410. Cache Creek basin, California.
Sec. 411. Estudillo Canal, San Leandro, California.
Sec. 412. Laguna Creek, Fremont, California.
Sec. 413. Lake Merritt, Oakland, California.
Sec. 414. Lancaster, California.
Sec. 415. Oceanside, California.
Sec. 416. San Jacinto watershed, California.
Sec. 417. Suisun Marsh, California.
Sec. 418. Delaware River watershed.
Sec. 419. Brevard County, Florida.
Sec. 420. Choctawhatchee River, Florida.
Sec. 421. Egmont Key, Florida.
Sec. 422. Upper Ocklawaha River and Apopka/Palatlakaha River basins,
Florida.
Sec. 423. Lake Allatoona watershed, Georgia.
Sec. 424. Boise River, Idaho.
Sec. 425. Wood River, Idaho.
Sec. 426. Chicago, Illinois.
Sec. 427. Chicago sanitary and ship canal system, Chicago, Illinois.
Sec. 428. Long Lake, Indiana.
Sec. 429. Brush and Rock Creeks, Mission Hills and Fairway, Kansas.
Sec. 430. Atchafalaya River, Bayous Chene, Boeuf, and Black, Louisiana.
Sec. 431. Boeuf and Black, Louisiana.
Sec. 432. Iberia Port, Louisiana.
Sec. 433. Lake Pontchartrain Seawall, Louisiana.
Sec. 434. Lower Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana.
Sec. 435. St. John the Baptist Parish, Louisiana.
Sec. 436. South Louisiana.
Sec. 437. Portsmouth Harbor and Piscataqua River, Maine and New
Hampshire.
Sec. 438. Merrimack River basin, Massachusetts and New Hampshire.
Sec. 439. Wild Rice River, Minnesota.
Sec. 440. Port of Gulfport, Mississippi.
Sec. 441. Las Vegas Valley, Nevada.
Sec. 442. Upland disposal sites in New Hampshire.
Sec. 443. Southwest Valley, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Sec. 444. Buffalo Harbor, Buffalo, New York.
Sec. 445. Jamesville Reservoir, Onondaga County, New York.
Sec. 446. Bogue Banks, Carteret County, North Carolina.
Sec. 447. Duck Creek watershed, Ohio.
Sec. 448. Fremont, Ohio.
Sec. 449. Steubenville, Ohio.
Sec. 450. Grand Lake, Oklahoma.
Sec. 451. Columbia Slough, Oregon.
Sec. 452. Cliff Walk in Newport, Rhode Island.
Sec. 453. Quonset Point channel, Rhode Island.
Sec. 454. Dredged material disposal site, Rhode Island.
Sec. 455. Reedy River, Greenville, South Carolina.
Sec. 456. Chickamauga Lock and Dam, Tennessee.
Sec. 457. Germantown, Tennessee.
Sec. 458. Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec. 501. Lakes program.
Sec. 502. Restoration projects.
Sec. 503. Support of Army civil works program.
Sec. 504. Export of water from Great Lakes.
Sec. 505. Great Lakes tributary model.
Sec. 506. Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 507. New England water resources and ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 508. Visitors centers.
Sec. 509. CALFED Bay-Delta program assistance, California.
Sec. 510. Seward, Alaska.
Sec. 511. Clear Lake basin, California.
Sec. 512. Contra Costa Canal, Oakley and Knightsen, California.
Sec. 513. Huntington Beach, California.
Sec. 514. Mallard Slough, Pittsburg, California.
Sec. 515. Port Everglades, Florida.
Sec. 516. Lake Sidney Lanier, Georgia, home preservation.
Sec. 517. Ballard's Island, LaSalle County, Illinois.
Sec. 518. Lake Michigan diversion, Illinois.
Sec. 519. Illinois River basin restoration.
Sec. 520. Koontz Lake, Indiana.
Sec. 521. West View Shores, Cecil County, Maryland.
Sec. 522. Muddy River, Brookline and Boston, Massachusetts.
Sec. 523. Soo Locks, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan.
Sec. 524. Minnesota dam safety.
Sec. 525. Bruce F. Vento Unit of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area
Wilderness, Minnesota.
Sec. 526. Duluth, Minnesota, alternative technology project.
Sec. 527. Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Sec. 528. Coastal Mississippi wetlands restoration projects.
Sec. 529. Las Vegas, Nevada.
Sec. 530. Urbanized peak flood management research, New Jersey.
Sec. 531. Nepperhan River, Yonkers, New York.
Sec. 532. Upper Mohawk River basin, New York.
Sec. 533. Flood damage reduction.
Sec. 534. Cuyahoga River, Ohio.
Sec. 535. Crowder Point, Crowder, Oklahoma.
Sec. 536. Lower Columbia River and Tillamook Bay ecosystem restoration,
Oregon and Washington.
Sec. 537. Access improvements, Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 538. Upper Susquehanna River basin, Pennsylvania and New York.
Sec. 539. Charleston Harbor, South Carolina.
Sec. 540. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and
South Dakota terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration.
Sec. 541. Horn Lake Creek and tributaries, Tennessee and Mississippi.
Sec. 542. Lake Champlain watershed, Vermont and New York.
Sec. 543. Vermont dams remediation.
Sec. 544. Puget Sound and adjacent waters restoration, Washington.
Sec. 545. Willapa Bay, Washington.
Sec. 546. Wynoochee Lake, Wynoochee River, Washington.
Sec. 547. Bluestone, West Virginia.
Sec. 548. Lesage/Greenbottom Swamp, West Virginia.
Sec. 549. Tug Fork River, West Virginia.
Sec. 550. Southern West Virginia.
Sec. 551. Surfside/Sunset and Newport Beach, California.
Sec. 552. Watershed management, restoration, and development.
Sec. 553. Maintenance of navigation channels.
Sec. 554. Hydrographic survey.
Sec. 555. Columbia River treaty fishing access.
Sec. 556. Release of use restriction.
TITLE VI--COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION
Sec. 601. Comprehensive Everglades restoration plan.
Sec. 602. Sense of Congress concerning Homestead Air Force Base.
TITLE VII--MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION, NORTH DAKOTA
Sec. 701. Short title.
Sec. 702. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 703. Definitions.
Sec. 704. Missouri River Trust.
Sec. 705. Missouri River Task Force.
Sec. 706. Administration.
Sec. 707. Authorization of appropriations.
[[Page
H11626]]
TITLE VIII--WILDLIFE REFUGE ENHANCEMENT
Sec. 801. Short title.
Sec. 802. Purpose.
Sec. 803. Definitions.
Sec. 804. Conveyance of cabin sites.
Sec. 805. Rights of nonparticipating lessees.
Sec. 806. Conveyance to third parties.
Sec. 807. Use of proceeds.
Sec. 808. Administrative costs.
Sec. 809. Revocation of withdrawals.
Sec. 810. Authorization of appropriations.
TITLE IX--MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION, SOUTH DAKOTA
Sec. 901. Short title.
Sec. 902. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 903. Definitions.
Sec. 904. Missouri River Trust.
Sec. 905. Missouri River Task Force.
Sec. 906. Administration.
Sec. 907. Authorization of appropriations.
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SECRETARY.
In this Act, the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of
the Army.
TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS
SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.
(a) Projects With Chief's Reports.--The following projects
for water resources development and conservation and other
purposes are authorized to be carried out by the Secretary
substantially in accordance with the plans, and subject to
the conditions, described in the respective reports
designated in this subsection:
(1) Barnegat inlet to little egg inlet, new jersey.--The
project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Barnegat
Inlet to Little Egg Inlet, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of
Engineers dated July 26, 2000, at a total cost of
$51,203,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $33,282,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $17,921,000, and at an
estimated average annual cost of $1,751,000 for periodic
nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an
estimated annual Federal cost of $1,138,000 and an estimated
annual non-Federal cost of $613,000.
(2) Port of new york and new jersey, new york and new
jersey.--
(A) In general.--The project for navigation, Port of New
York and New Jersey, New York and New Jersey: Report of the
Chief of Engineers dated May 2, 2000, at a total cost of
$1,781,234,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$743,954,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$1,037,280,000.
(B) Non-federal share.--
(i) In general.--The non-Federal share of the costs of the
project may be provided in cash or in the form of in-kind
services or materials.
(ii) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of design
and construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest
before the date of execution of a cooperation agreement for
the project if the Secretary determines that the work is
integral to the project.
(b) Projects Subject to Final Report.--The following
projects for water resources development and conservation and
other purposes are authorized to be carried out by the
Secretary substantially in accordance with the plans, and
subject to the conditions, recommended in a final report of
the Chief of Engineers if a favorable report of the Chief is
completed not later than December 31, 2000:
(1) False pass harbor, alaska.--The project for navigation,
False Pass Harbor, Alaska, at a total cost of $15,552,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $9,374,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $6,178,000.
(2) Unalaska harbor, alaska.--The project for navigation,
Unalaska Harbor, Alaska, at a total cost of $20,000,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $12,000,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $8,000,000, except that the date for
completion of the favorable report of the Chief of Engineers
shall be December 31, 2001, instead of December 31, 2000.
(3) Rio de flag, flagstaff, arizona.--The project for flood
damage reduction, Rio de Flag, Flagstaff, Arizona, at a total
cost of $24,072,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$15,576,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $8,496,000.
(4) Tres rios, arizona.--The project for ecosystem
restoration, Tres Rios, Arizona, at a total cost of
$99,320,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $62,755,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $36,565,000.
(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.
(6) Murrieta creek, california.--The project for flood
damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, Murrieta Creek,
California, described as alternative 6, based on the District
Engineer's Murrieta Creek feasibility report and
environmental impact statement dated October 2000, at a total
cost of $89,846,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$25,556,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $64,290,000.
(7) Pine flat dam, california.--The project for ecosystem
restoration, Pine Flat Dam, California, at a total cost of
$34,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $22,000,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $12,000,000.
(8) Santa barbara streams, lower mission creek,
california.--The project for flood damage reduction, Santa
Barbara streams, Lower Mission Creek, California, at a total
cost of $18,300,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$9,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $9,100,000.
(9) Upper newport bay, california.--The project for
ecosystem restoration, Upper Newport Bay, California, at a
total cost of $32,475,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$21,109,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $11,366,000.
(10) Whitewater river basin, california.--The project for
flood damage reduction, Whitewater River basin, California,
at a total cost of $28,900,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $18,800,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$10,100,000.
(11) Delaware coast from cape henlopen to fenwick island.--
The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction,
Delaware Coast from Cape Henlopen to Fenwick Island, at a
total cost of $5,633,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$3,661,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $1,972,000,
and at an estimated average annual cost of $920,000 for
periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project,
with an estimated annual Federal cost of $460,000 and an
estimated annual non-Federal cost of $460,000.
(12) Port sutton, florida.--The project for navigation,
Port Sutton, Florida, at a total cost of $7,600,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $4,900,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $2,700,000.
(13) Barbers point harbor, hawaii.--The project for
navigation, Barbers Point Harbor, Hawaii, at a total cost of
$30,003,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $18,524,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $11,479,000.
(14) John myers lock and dam, indiana and kentucky.--The
project for navigation, John Myers Lock and Dam, Indiana and
Kentucky, at a total cost of $181,700,000. The costs of
construction of the project shall be paid \1/2\ from amounts
appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury and \1/2\
from amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust
Fund.
(15) Greenup lock and dam, kentucky and ohio.--The project
for navigation, Greenup Lock and Dam, Kentucky and Ohio, at a
total cost of $175,500,000. The costs of construction of the
project shall be paid \1/2\ from amounts appropriated from
the general fund of the Treasury and \1/2\ from amounts
appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
(16) Ohio river, kentucky, illinois, indiana, ohio,
pennsylvania, and west virginia.--
(A) In general.--Projects for ecosystem restoration, Ohio
River Mainstem, 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.
(B) Non-federal share.--
(i) In general.--The non-Federal share of the costs of any
project under this paragraph may be provided in cash or in
the form of in-kind services or materials.
(ii) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of a project under this paragraph
the cost of design and construction work carried out by the
non-Federal interest before the date of execution of a
cooperation agreement for the project if the Secretary
determines that the work is integral to the project.
(17) Morganza, louisiana, to gulf of mexico.--
(A) In general.--The project for hurricane and storm damage
reduction, Morganza, Louisiana, to the Gulf of Mexico, at a
total cost of $550,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$358,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$192,000,000.
(B) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of work
carried out by the non-Federal interest for interim flood
protection after March 31, 1989, if the Secretary determines
that the work is integral to the project.
(18) Monarch-chesterfield, missouri.--The project for flood
damage reduction, Monarch-Chesterfield, Missouri, at a total
cost of $58,090,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$37,758,500 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $20,331,500.
(19) Antelope creek, lincoln, nebraska.--The project for
flood damage reduction, Antelope Creek, Lincoln, Nebraska, at
a total cost of $46,310,000, with an estimated Federal cost
of $23,155,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$23,155,000.
(20) Sand creek watershed, wahoo, nebraska.--The project
for ecosystem restoration and flood damage reduction, Sand
Creek watershed, Wahoo, Nebraska, at a total cost of
$29,840,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $16,870,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $12,970,000.
(21) Western sarpy and clear creek, nebraska.--The project
for flood damage reduction, Western Sarpy and Clear Creek,
Nebraska, at a total cost of $15,643,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $9,518,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $6,125,000.
(22) Raritan bay and sandy hook bay, cliffwood beach, new
jersey.--The project for hurricane and storm damage
reduction, Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, Cliffwood Beach,
New Jersey, at a total cost of $5,219,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $3,392,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $1,827,000, and at an estimated average annual cost of
$110,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of
the project, with an estimated annual Federal cost of $55,000
and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of $55,000.
(23) Raritan bay and sandy hook bay, port monmouth, new
jersey.--The project for hurricane and storm damage
reduction, Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, Port Monmouth, New
Jersey, at a total cost of $32,064,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $20,842,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $11,222,000, and at an estimated average annual cost of
$173,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of
the project, with an estimated annual Federal cost of $86,500
and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of $86,500.
(24) Dare county beaches, north carolina.--The project for
hurricane and storm damage reduction, Dare County beaches,
North Carolina, at a total cost of $71,674,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $46,588,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $25,086,000, and at an
[[Page
H11627]]
estimated average annual cost of $34,990,000 for periodic
nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an
estimated annual Federal cost of $17,495,000 and an estimated
annual non-Federal cost of $17,495,000.
(25) Wolf river, memphis, tennessee.--The project for
ecosystem restoration, Wolf River, Memphis, Tennessee, at a
total cost of $9,118,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$5,849,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,269,000.
(26) Duwamish/green, washington.--The project for ecosystem
restoration, Duwamish/Green, Washington, at a total cost of
$112,860,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $73,360,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $39,500,000.
(27) Stillagumaish river basin, washington.--The project
for ecosystem restoration, Stillagumaish River basin,
Washington, at a total cost of $23,590,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $15,680,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $7,910,000.
(28) Jackson hole, wyoming.--
(A) In general.--The project for ecosystem restoration,
Jackson Hole, Wyoming, at a total cost of $52,242,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $33,957,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $18,285,000.
(B) Non-federal share.--
(i) In general.--The non-Federal share of the costs of the
project may be provided in cash or in the form of in-kind
services or materials.
(ii) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of design
and construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest
before the date of execution of a cooperation agreement for
the project if the Secretary determines that the work is
integral to the project.
SEC. 102. SMALL PROJECTS FOR FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study for
each of the following projects and, if the Secretary
determines that a project is feasible, may carry out the
project under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948
(33 U.S.C. 701s):
(1) Buffalo island, arkansas.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Buffalo Island, Arkansas.
(2) Anaverde creek, palmdale, california.--Project for
flood damage reduction, Anaverde Creek, Palmdale, California.
(3) Castaic creek, old road bridge, santa clarita,
california.--Project for flood damage reduction, Castaic
Creek, Old Road bridge, Santa Clarita, California.
(4) Santa clara river, old road bridge, santa clarita,
california.--Project for flood damage reduction, Santa Clara
River, Old Road bridge, Santa Clarita, California.
(5) Weiser river, idaho.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Weiser River, Idaho.
(6) Columbia levee, columbia, illinois.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Columbia Levee, Columbia, Illinois.
(7) East-west creek, riverton, illinois.--Project for flood
damage reduction, East-West Creek, Riverton, Illinois.
(8) Prairie du pont, illinois.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Prairie Du Pont, Illinois.
(9) Monroe county, illinois.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Monroe County, Illinois.
(10) Willow creek, meredosia, illinois.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Willow Creek, Meredosia, Illinois.
(11) Dykes branch channel, leawood, kansas.--Project for
flood damage reduction, Dykes Branch channel improvements,
Leawood, Kansas.
(12) Dykes branch tributaries, leawood, kansas.--Project
for flood damage reduction, Dykes Branch tributary
improvements, Leawood, Kansas.
(13) Kentucky river, frankfort, kentucky.--Project for
flood damage reduction, Kentucky River, Frankfort, Kentucky.
(14) Bayou tete l'ours, louisiana.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Bayou Tete L'Ours, Louisiana.
(15) Bossier city, louisiana.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Red Chute Bayou levee, Bossier City, Louisiana.
(16) Bossier parish, louisiana.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Cane Bend Subdivision, Bossier Parish, Louisiana.
(17) Braithwaite park, louisiana.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Braithwaite Park, Louisiana.
(18) Crown point, louisiana.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Crown Point, Louisiana.
(19) Donaldsonville canals, louisiana.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Donaldsonville Canals, Louisiana.
(20) Goose bayou, louisiana.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Goose Bayou, Louisiana.
(21) Gumby dam, louisiana.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Gumby Dam, Richland Parish, Louisiana.
(22) Hope canal, louisiana.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Hope Canal, Louisiana.
(23) Jean lafitte, louisiana.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Jean Lafitte, Louisiana.
(24) Lakes maurepas and pontchartrain canals, st. john the
baptist parish, louisiana.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain Canals, St. John
the Baptist Parish, Louisiana.
(25) Lockport to larose, louisiana.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Lockport to Larose, Louisiana.
(26) Lower lafitte basin, louisiana.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Lower Lafitte basin, Louisiana.
(27) Oakville to lareussite, louisiana.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Oakville to LaReussite, Louisiana.
(28) Pailet basin, louisiana.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Pailet basin, Louisiana.
(29) Pochitolawa creek, louisiana.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Pochitolawa Creek, Louisiana.
(30) Rosethorn basin, louisiana.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Rosethorn basin, Louisiana.
(31) Shreveport, louisiana.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Twelve Mile Bayou, Shreveport, Louisiana.
(32) Stephensville, louisiana.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Stephensville, Louisiana.
(33) St. john the baptist parish, louisiana.--Project for
flood damage reduction, St. John the Baptist Parish,
Louisiana.
(34) Magby creek and vernon branch, mississippi.--Project
for flood damage reduction, Magby Creek and Vernon Branch,
Lowndes County, Mississippi.
(35) Pennsville township, salem county, new jersey.--
Project for flood damage reduction, Pennsville Township,
Salem County, New Jersey.
(36) Hempstead, new york.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Hempstead, New York.
(37) Highland brook, highland falls, new york.--Project for
flood damage reduction, Highland Brook, Highland Falls, New
York.
(38) Lafayette township, ohio.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Lafayette Township, Ohio.
(39) West lafayette, ohio.--Project for flood damage
reduction, West Lafayette, Ohio.
(40) Bear creek and tributaries, medford, oregon.--Project
for flood damage reduction, Bear Creek and tributaries,
Medford, Oregon.
(41) Delaware canal and brock creek, yardley borough,
pennsylvania.--Project for flood damage reduction, Delaware
Canal and Brock Creek, Yardley Borough, Pennsylvania.
(42) Fritz landing, tennessee.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Fritz Landing, Tennessee.
(43) First creek, fountain city, knoxville, tennessee.--
Project for flood damage reduction, First Creek, Fountain
City, Knoxville, Tennessee.
(44) Mississippi river, ridgely, tennessee.--Project for
flood damage reduction, Mississippi River, Ridgely,
Tennessee.
(b) Magpie Creek, Sacramento County, California.--In
formulating the project for Magpie Creek, California,
authorized by section 102(a)(4) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 281) to be carried out
under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C.
701s), the Secretary may consider benefits from the full
utilization of existing improvements at McClellan Air Force
Base that would result from the project after conversion of
the base to civilian use.
SEC. 103. SMALL PROJECTS FOR EMERGENCY STREAMBANK
PROTECTION.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the
following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a
project is feasible, may carry out the project under section
14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r):
(1) Maumee river, fort wayne, indiana.--Project for
emergency streambank protection, Maumee River, Fort Wayne,
Indiana.
(2) Bayou des glaises, louisiana.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, Bayou des Glaises (Lee Chatelain
Road), Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana.
(3) Bayou plaquemine, louisiana.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, Highway 77, Bayou Plaquemine,
Iberville Parish, Louisiana.
(4) Bayou sorrell, iberville parish, louisiana.--Project
for emergency streambank protection, Bayou Sorrell, Iberville
Parish, Louisiana.
(5) Hammond, louisiana.--Project for emergency streambank
protection, Fagan Drive Bridge, Hammond, Louisiana.
(6) Iberville parish, louisiana.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, Iberville Parish, Louisiana.
(7) Lake arthur, louisiana.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, Parish Road 120 at Lake Arthur,
Louisiana.
(8) Lake charles, louisiana.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, Pithon Coulee, Lake Charles, Calcasieu
Parish, Louisiana.
(9) Loggy bayou, louisiana.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, Loggy Bayou, Bienville Parish,
Louisiana.
(10) Scotlandville bluff, louisiana.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, Scotlandville Bluff, East Baton Rouge
Parish, Louisiana.
SEC. 104. SMALL PROJECTS FOR NAVIGATION.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the
following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a
project is feasible, may carry out the project under section
107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577):
(1) Whittier, alaska.--Project for navigation, Whittier,
Alaska.
(2) Cape coral south spreader waterway, florida.--Project
for navigation, Cape Coral South Spreader Waterway, Lee
County, Florida.
(3) Houma navigation canal, louisiana.--Project for
navigation, Houma Navigation Canal, Terrebonne Parish,
Louisiana.
(4) Vidalia port, louisiana.--Project for navigation,
Vidalia Port, Louisiana.
(5) East two rivers, tower, minnesota.--Project for
navigation, East Two Rivers, Tower, Minnesota.
(6) Erie basin marina, buffalo, new york.--Project for
navigation, Erie Basin marina, Buffalo, New York.
(7) Lake michigan, lakeshore state park, milwaukee,
wisconsin.--Project for navigation, Lake Michigan, Lakeshore
State Park, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
(8) Saxon harbor, francis, wisconsin.--Project for
navigation, Saxon Harbor, Francis, Wisconsin.
[[Page
H11628]]
SEC. 105. SMALL PROJECTS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE QUALITY OF
THE ENVIRONMENT.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the
following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a
project is appropriate, may carry out the project under
section 1135(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a(a)):
(1) Nahant marsh, davenport, iowa.--Project for improvement
of the quality of the environment, Nahant Marsh, Davenport,
Iowa.
(2) Bayou sauvage national wildlife refuge, louisiana.--
Project for improvement of the quality of the environment,
Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge, Orleans Parish,
Louisiana.
(3) Gulf intracoastal waterway, bayou plaquemine,
louisiana.--Project for improvement of the quality of the
environment, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Bayou Plaquemine,
Iberville Parish, Louisiana.
(4) Gulf intracoastal waterway, miles 220 to 222.5,
louisiana.--Project for improvement of the quality of the
environment, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, miles 220 to 222.5,
Vermilion Parish, Louisiana.
(5) Gulf intracoastal waterway, weeks bay, louisiana.--
Project for improvement of the quality of the environment,
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Weeks Bay, Iberia Parish,
Louisiana.
(6) Lake fausse point, louisiana.--Project for improvement
of the quality of the environment, Lake Fausse Point,
Louisiana.
(7) Lake providence, louisiana.--Project for improvement of
the quality of the environment, Old River, Lake Providence,
Louisiana.
(8) New river, louisiana.--Project for improvement of the
quality of the environment, New River, Ascension Parish,
Louisiana.
(9) Erie county, ohio.--Project for improvement of the
quality of the environment, Sheldon's Marsh State Nature
Preserve, Erie County, Ohio.
(10) Muskingum county, ohio.--Project for improvement of
the quality of the environment, Dillon Reservoir watershed,
Licking River, Muskingum County, Ohio.
SEC. 106. SMALL PROJECTS FOR AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study for
each of the following projects and, if the Secretary
determines that a project is appropriate, may carry out the
project under section 206 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330):
(1) Arkansas river, pueblo, colorado.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Arkansas River, Pueblo, Colorado.
(2) Hayden diversion project, yampa river, colorado.--
Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Hayden Diversion
Project, Yampa River, Colorado.
(3) Little econlockhatchee river basin, florida.--Project
for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Little Econlockhatchee
River basin, Florida.
(4) Loxahatchee slough, palm beach county, florida.--
Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Loxahatchee
Slough, Palm Beach County, Florida.
(5) Stevenson creek estuary, florida.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Stevenson Creek estuary, Florida.
(6) Chouteau island, madison county, illinois.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Chouteau Island, Madison
County, Illinois.
(7) Braud bayou, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Braud Bayou, Spanish Lake, Ascension Parish,
Louisiana.
(8) Buras marina, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Buras Marina, Buras, Plaquemines Parish,
Louisiana.
(9) Comite river, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Comite River at Hooper Road, Louisiana.
(10) Department of energy 21-inch pipeline canal,
louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration,
Department of Energy 21-inch Pipeline Canal, St. Martin
Parish, Louisiana.
(11) Lake borgne, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, southern shores of Lake Borgne, Louisiana.
(12) Lake martin, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Lake Martin, Louisiana.
(13) Luling, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Luling Oxidation Pond, St. Charles Parish,
Louisiana.
(14) Mandeville, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Mandeville, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana.
(15) St. james, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, St. James, Louisiana.
(16) Saginaw bay, bay city, michigan.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Saginaw Bay, Bay City, Michigan.
(17) Rainwater basin, nebraska.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Rainwater Basin, Nebraska.
(18) Mines falls park, new hampshire.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Mines Falls Park, New Hampshire.
(19) North hampton, new hampshire.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Little River Salt Marsh, North
Hampton, New Hampshire.
(20) Cazenovia lake, madison county, new york.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Cazenovia Lake, Madison
County, New York, including efforts to address aquatic
invasive plant species.
(21) Chenango lake, chenango county, new york.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Chenango Lake, Chenango
County, New York, including efforts to address aquatic
invasive plant species.
(22) Eagle lake, new york.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Eagle Lake, Ticonderoga, New York.
(23) Ossining, new york.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Ossining, New York.
(24) Saratoga lake, new york.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Saratoga Lake, New York.
(25) Schroon lake, new york.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Schroon Lake, New York.
(26) Highland county, ohio.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Rocky Fork Lake, Clear Creek floodplain,
Highland County, Ohio.
(27) Hocking county, ohio.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Long Hollow Mine, Hocking County, Ohio.
(28) Middle cuyahoga river, kent, ohio.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Middle Cuyahoga River, Kent,
Ohio.
(29) Tuscarawas county, ohio.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Huff Run, Tuscarawas County, Ohio.
(30) Delta ponds, oregon.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Delta Ponds, Oregon.
(31) Central amazon creek, eugene, oregon.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Central Amazon Creek, Eugene,
Oregon.
(32) Eugene millrace, eugene, oregon.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Eugene Millrace, Eugene, Oregon.
(33) Bear creek watershed, medford, oregon.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Bear Creek watershed, Medford,
Oregon.
(34) Lone pine and lazy creeks, medford, oregon.--Project
for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Lone Pine and Lazy Creeks,
Medford, Oregon.
(35) Roslyn lake, oregon.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Roslyn Lake, Oregon.
(36) Tullytown borough, pennsylvania.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Tullytown Borough, Pennsylvania.
(b) Salmon River, Idaho.--The Secretary may credit toward
the non-Federal share of the cost of the project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Salmon River, Idaho, to be carried out
under section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330) the cost of work (consisting of
surveys, studies, and development of technical data) carried
out by the non-Federal interest if the Secretary determines
that the work is integral to the project.
SEC. 107. SMALL PROJECTS FOR SHORELINE PROTECTION.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the
following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a
project is feasible, may carry out the project under section
3 of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing Federal
participation in the cost of protecting the shores of
publicly owned property'', approved August 13, 1946 (33
U.S.C. 426g):
(1) Lake palourde, louisiana.--Project for beach
restoration and protection, Highway 70, Lake Palourde, St.
Mary and St. Martin Parishes, Louisiana.
(2) St. bernard, louisiana.--Project for beach restoration
and protection, Bayou Road, St. Bernard, Louisiana.
(3) Hudson river, dutchess county, new york.--Project for
beach restoration and protection, Hudson River, Dutchess
County, New York.
SEC. 108. SMALL PROJECTS FOR SNAGGING AND SEDIMENT REMOVAL.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the
following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a
project is feasible, the Secretary may carry out the project
under section 2 of the Flood Control Act of August 28, 1937
(33 U.S.C. 701g):
(1) Sangamon river and tributaries, riverton, illinois.--
Project for removal of snags and clearing and straightening
of channels for flood control, Sangamon River and
tributaries, Riverton, Illinois.
(2) Bayou manchac, louisiana.--Project for removal of snags
and clearing and straightening of channels for flood control,
Bayou Manchac, Ascension Parish, Louisiana.
(3) Black bayou and hippolyte coulee, louisiana.--Project
for removal of snags and clearing and straightening of
channels for flood control, Black Bayou and Hippolyte Coulee,
Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana.
SEC. 109. SMALL PROJECT FOR MITIGATION OF SHORE DAMAGE.
The Secretary shall conduct a study of shore damage at
Puget Island, Columbia River, Washington, to determine if the
damage is the result of the project for navigation, Columbia
River, Washington, authorized by the first section of the
Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act of June 13, 1902 (32
Stat. 369), and, if the Secretary determines that the damage
is the result of the project for navigation and that a
project to mitigate the damage is appropriate, the Secretary
may carry out the project to mitigate the damage under
section 111 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C.
426i).
SEC. 110. BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL.
The Secretary may carry out the following projects under
section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992
(33 U.S.C. 2326):
(1) Houma navigation canal, louisiana.--Project to make
beneficial use of dredged material from a Federal navigation
project that includes barrier island restoration at the Houma
Navigation Canal, Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana.
(2) Mississippi river gulf outlet, mile -3 to mile -9,
louisiana.--Project to make beneficial use of dredged
material from a Federal navigation project that includes
dredging of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, mile -3 to
mile -9, St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana.
(3) Mississippi river gulf outlet, mile 11 to mile 4,
louisiana.--Project to make beneficial
[[Page
H11629]]
use of dredged material from a Federal navigation project
that includes dredging of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet,
mile 11 to mile 4, St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana.
(4) Plaquemines parish, louisiana.--Project to make
beneficial use of dredged material from a Federal navigation
project that includes marsh creation at the contained
submarine maintenance dredge sediment trap, Plaquemines
Parish, Louisiana.
(5) St. louis county, minnesota.--Project to make
beneficial use of dredged material from a Federal navigation
project in St. Louis County, Minnesota.
(6) Ottawa county, ohio.--Project to make beneficial use of
dredged material from a Federal navigation to protect,
restore, and create aquatic and related habitat, East Harbor
State Park, Ottawa County, Ohio.
SEC. 111. DISPOSAL OF DREDGED MATERIAL ON BEACHES.
Section 217 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
(113 Stat. 294) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(f) Fort Canby State Park, Benson Beach, Washington.--The
Secretary may design and construct a shore protection project
at Fort Canby State Park, Benson Beach, Washington, including
beneficial use of dredged material from a Federal navigation
project under section 145 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C. 426j) or section 204 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326).''.
SEC. 112. PETALUMA RIVER, PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out the Petaluma
River project, at the city of Petaluma, Sonoma County,
California, to provide a 100-year level of flood protection
to the city in accordance with the detailed project report of
the San Francisco District Engineer, dated March 1995, at a
total cost of $32,227,000.
(b) Reimbursement.--The Secretary shall reimburse the non-
Federal interest for any project costs that the non-Federal
interest has incurred in excess of the non-Federal share of
project costs, regardless of the date on which the costs were
incurred.
(c) Cost Sharing.--For purposes of reimbursement under
subsection (b), cost sharing for work performed on the
project before the date of enactment of this Act shall be
determined in accordance with section 103(a) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(a)).
TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 201. COOPERATION AGREEMENTS WITH COUNTIES.
Section 221(a) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C.
1962d-5b(a)) is amended in the second sentence--
(1) by striking ``State legislative'';
(2) by striking ``State constitutional'' and inserting
``constitutional; and
(3) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``of the State or a political subdivision of the
State''.
SEC. 202. WATERSHED AND RIVER BASIN ASSESSMENTS.
Section 729 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(100 Stat. 4164) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 729. WATERSHED AND RIVER BASIN ASSESSMENTS.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary may assess the water
resources needs of river basins and watersheds of the United
States, including needs relating to--
``(1) ecosystem protection and restoration;
``(2) flood damage reduction;
``(3) navigation and ports;
``(4) watershed protection;
``(5) water supply; and
``(6) drought preparedness.
``(b) Cooperation.--An assessment under subsection (a)
shall be carried out in cooperation and coordination with--
``(1) the Secretary of the Interior;
``(2) the Secretary of Agriculture;
``(3) the Secretary of Commerce;
``(4) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency; and
``(5) the heads of other appropriate agencies.
``(c) Consultation.--In carrying out an assessment under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with Federal,
tribal, State, interstate, and local governmental entities.
``(d) Priority River Basins and Watersheds.--In selecting
river basins and watersheds for assessment under this
section, the Secretary shall give priority to--
``(1) the Delaware River basin;
``(2) the Kentucky River basin;
``(3) the Potomac River basin;
``(4) the Susquehanna River basin; and
``(5) the Willamette River basin.
``(e) Acceptance of Contributions.--In carrying out an
assessment under subsection (a), the Secretary may accept
contributions, in cash or in kind, from Federal, tribal,
State, interstate, and local governmental entities to the
extent that the Secretary determines that the contributions
will facilitate completion of the assessment.
``(f) Cost-Sharing Requirements.--
``(1) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the
costs of an assessment carried out under this section shall
be 50 percent.
``(2) Credit.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the
Secretary may credit toward the non-Federal share of an
assessment under this section the cost of services,
materials, supplies, or other in-kind contributions provided
by the non-Federal interests for the assessment.
``(B) Maximum amount of credit.--The credit under
subparagraph (A) may not exceed an amount equal to 25 percent
of the costs of the assessment.
``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000.''.
SEC. 203. TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.
(a) Definition of Indian Tribe.--In this section, the term
``Indian tribe'' has the meaning given the term in section 4
of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
(25 U.S.C. 450b).
(b) Program.--
(1) In general.--In cooperation with Indian tribes and the
heads of other Federal agencies, the Secretary may study and
determine the feasibility of carrying out water resources
development projects that--
(A) will substantially benefit Indian tribes; and
(B) are located primarily within Indian country (as defined
in section 1151 of title 18, United States Code) or in
proximity to Alaska Native villages.
(2) Matters to be studied.--A study conducted under
paragraph (1) may address--
(A) projects for flood damage reduction, environmental
restoration and protection, and preservation of cultural and
natural resources; and
(B) such other projects as the Secretary, in cooperation
with Indian tribes and the heads of other Federal agencies,
determines to be appropriate.
(c) Consultation and Coordination With Secretary of the
Interior.--
(1) In general.--In recognition of the unique role of the
Secretary of the Interior concerning trust responsibilities
with Indian tribes and in recognition of mutual trust
responsibilities, the Secretary shall consult with the
Secretary of the Interior concerning studies conducted under
subsection (b).
(2) Integration of activities.--The Secretary shall--
(A) integrate civil works activities of the Department of
the Army with activities of the Department of the Interior to
avoid conflicts, duplications of effort, or unanticipated
adverse effects on Indian tribes; and
(B) consider the authorities and programs of the Department
of the Interior and other Federal agencies in any
recommendations concerning carrying out projects studied
under subsection (b).
(d) Cost Sharing.--
(1) Ability to pay.--
(A) In general.--Any cost-sharing agreement for a study
under subsection (b) shall be subject to the ability of the
non-Federal interest to pay.
(B) Use of procedures.--The ability of a non-Federal
interest to pay shall be determined by the Secretary in
accordance with procedures established by the Secretary.
(2) Credit.--The Secretary may credit toward the non-
Federal share of the costs of a study under subsection (b)
the cost of services, studies, supplies, or other in-kind
contributions provided by the non-Federal interest if the
Secretary determines that the services, studies, supplies,
and other in-kind contributions will facilitate completion of
the study.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out subsection (b) $5,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2002 through 2006, of which not more
than $1,000,000 may be used with respect to any 1 Indian
tribe.
SEC. 204. ABILITY TO PAY.
Section 103(m) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--Any cost-sharing agreement under this
section for a feasibility study, or for construction of an
environmental protection and restoration project, a flood
control project, a project for navigation, storm damage
protection, shoreline erosion, hurricane protection, or
recreation, or an agricultural water supply project, shall be
subject to the ability of the non-Federal interest to pay.
``(2) Criteria and procedures.--The ability of a non-
Federal interest to pay shall be determined by the Secretary
in accordance with criteria and procedures in effect under
paragraph (3) on the day before the date of enactment of the
Water Resources Development Act of 2000; except that such
criteria and procedures shall be revised, and new criteria
and procedures shall be developed, not later than 180 days
after such date of enactment to reflect the requirements of
such paragraph (3).''; and
(2) in paragraph (3)--
(A) by inserting ``and'' after the semicolon at the end of
subparagraph (A)(ii);
(B) by striking subparagraph (B); and
(C) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (B).
SEC. 205. PROPERTY PROTECTION PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may carry out a program to
reduce vandalism and destruction of property at water
resources development projects under the jurisdiction of the
Department of the Army.
(b) Provision of Rewards.--In carrying out the program, the
Secretary may provide rewards (including cash rewards) to
individuals who provide information or evidence leading to
the arrest and prosecution of individuals causing damage to
Federal property.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $500,000 for
fiscal year 2001 and each fiscal year thereafter.
SEC. 206. NATIONAL RECREATION RESERVATION SERVICE.
Notwithstanding section 611 of the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (112 Stat. 2681-515), the
Secretary may--
(1) participate in the National Recreation Reservation
Service on an interagency basis; and
(2) pay the Department of the Army's share of the
activities required to implement, operate, and maintain the
Service.
[[Page
H11630]]
SEC. 207. INTERAGENCY AND INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT AUTHORITY.
Section 234(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (33 U.S.C. 2323a(d)) is amended--
(1) by striking the first sentence and inserting the
following: ``There is authorized to be appropriated to carry
out this section $250,000 for fiscal year 2001 and each
fiscal year thereafter.''; and
(2) in the second sentence by inserting ``out'' after
``carry''.
SEC. 208. REBURIAL AND CONVEYANCE AUTHORITY.
(a) Definition of Indian Tribe.--In this section, the term
``Indian tribe'' has the meaning given the term in section 4
of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
(25 U.S.C. 450b).
(b) Reburial.--
(1) Reburial areas.--In consultation with affected Indian
tribes, the Secretary may identify and set aside areas at
civil works projects of the Department of the Army that may
be used to rebury Native American remains that--
(A) have been discovered on project land; and
(B) have been rightfully claimed by a lineal descendant or
Indian tribe in accordance with applicable Federal law.
(2) Reburial.--In consultation with and with the consent of
the lineal descendant or the affected Indian tribe, the
Secretary may recover and rebury, at Federal expense, the
remains at the areas identified and set aside under
subsection (b)(1).
(c) Conveyance Authority.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), notwithstanding
any other provision of law, the Secretary may convey to an
Indian tribe for use as a cemetery an area at a civil works
project that is identified and set aside by the Secretary
under subsection (b)(1).
(2) Retention of necessary property interests.--In carrying
out paragraph (1), the Secretary shall retain any necessary
right-of-way, easement, or other property interest that the
Secretary determines to be necessary to carry out the
authorized purposes of the project.
SEC. 209. FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS.
(a) In General.--Section 402(c) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 701b-12(c)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence of paragraph (1) by striking
``Within 6 months after the date of the enactment of this
subsection, the'' and inserting ``The'';
(2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3);
(3) by striking ``Such guidelines shall address'' and
inserting the following:
``(2) Required elements.--The guidelines developed under
paragraph (1) shall--
``(A) address''; and
(4) in paragraph (2) (as designated by paragraph (3) of
this subsection)--
(A) by inserting ``to be undertaken by non-Federal
interests to'' after ``policies'';
(B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) address those measures to be undertaken by non-
Federal interests to preserve the level of flood protection
provided by a project to which subsection (a) applies.''.
(b) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply to any project or separable element of a project
with respect to which the Secretary and the non-Federal
interest have not entered a project cooperation agreement on
or before the date of enactment of this Act.
(c) Technical Amendments.--Section 402(b) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 701b-12(b)) is
amended--
(1) in the subsection heading by striking ``Flood Plain''
and inserting ``Floodplain''; and
(2) in the first sentence by striking ``flood plain'' and
inserting ``floodplain''.
SEC. 210. NONPROFIT ENTITIES.
(a) Environmental Dredging.--Section 312 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 1272) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(g) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221 of
the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), for any
project carried out under this section, a non-Federal sponsor
may include a nonprofit entity, with the consent of the
affected local government.''.
(b) Lakes Program.--Section 602 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4148-4149) is amended by
redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e) and by
inserting after subsection (c) the following:
``(d) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221 of
the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C.
Major Actions:
All articles in House section
CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 2796, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2000
(House of Representatives - October 31, 2000)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
H11624-H11668]
CONFERENCE REPORT ON
S. 2796, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2000
Mr. SHUSTER submitted the following conference report and statement
on the Senate bill (
S. 2796) to provide for the conservation and
development of water and related resources, to authorize the Secretary
of the Army to construct various projects for improvements to rivers
and harbors of the United States, and for other purposes:
Conference Report (H. Rept. 106-1020)
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the House to the bill (
S.
2796), to provide for the conservation and development of
water and related resources, to authorize the Secretary of
the Army to construct various projects for improvements to
rivers and harbors of the United States, and for other
purposes, having met, after full and free conference, have
agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective
Houses as follows:
That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the
amendment of the House and agree to the same with an
amendment as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the House
amendment, insert the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water
Resources Development Act of 2000''.
(b) Table of Contents.--
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definition of Secretary.
TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS
Sec. 101. Project authorizations.
Sec. 102. Small projects for flood damage reduction.
Sec. 103. Small projects for emergency streambank protection.
Sec. 104. Small projects for navigation.
Sec. 105. Small projects for improvement of the quality of the
environment.
Sec. 106. Small projects for aquatic ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 107. Small projects for shoreline protection.
Sec. 108. Small projects for snagging and sediment removal.
Sec. 109. Small project for mitigation of shore damage.
Sec. 110. Beneficial uses of dredged material.
Sec. 111. Disposal of dredged material on beaches.
Sec. 112. Petaluma River, Petaluma, California.
TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 201. Cooperation agreements with counties.
Sec. 202. Watershed and river basin assessments.
Sec. 203. Tribal partnership program.
Sec. 204. Ability to pay.
Sec. 205. Property protection program.
Sec. 206. National recreation reservation service.
Sec. 207. Interagency and international support authority.
Sec. 208. Reburial and conveyance authority.
Sec. 209. Floodplain management requirements.
Sec. 210. Nonprofit entities.
Sec. 211. Performance of specialized or technical services.
Sec. 212. Hydroelectric power project funding.
Sec. 213. Assistance programs.
Sec. 214. Funding to process permits.
Sec. 215. Dredged material marketing and recycling.
Sec. 216. National academy of sciences study.
Sec. 217. Rehabilitation of Federal flood control levees.
Sec. 218. Maximum program expenditures for small flood control
projects.
Sec. 219. Engineering consulting services.
Sec. 220. Beach recreation.
Sec. 221. Design-build contracting.
Sec. 222. Enhanced public participation.
Sec. 223. Monitoring.
Sec. 224. Fish and wildlife mitigation.
Sec. 225. Feasibility studies and planning, engineering, and design.
Sec. 226. Administrative costs of land conveyances.
[[Page
H11625]]
Sec. 227. Flood mitigation and riverine restoration.
TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway Wildlife Mitigation Project,
Alabama and Mississippi.
Sec. 302. Nogales Wash and tributaries, Nogales, Arizona.
Sec. 303. Boydsville, Arkansas.
Sec. 304. White River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.
Sec. 305. Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel, California.
Sec. 306. Delaware River Mainstem and Channel Deepening, Delaware, New
Jersey, and Pennsylvania.
Sec. 307. Rehoboth Beach and Dewey Beach, Delaware.
Sec. 308. Fernandina Harbor, Florida.
Sec. 309. Gasparilla and Estero Islands, Florida.
Sec. 310. East Saint Louis and vicinity, Illinois.
Sec. 311. Kaskaskia River, Kaskaskia, Illinois.
Sec. 312. Waukegan Harbor, Illinois.
Sec. 313. Upper Des Plaines River and tributaries, Illinois.
Sec. 314. Cumberland, Kentucky.
Sec. 315. Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana.
Sec. 316. Red River Waterway, Louisiana.
Sec. 317. Thomaston Harbor, Georges River, Maine.
Sec. 318. Poplar Island, Maryland.
Sec. 319. William Jennings Randolph Lake, Maryland.
Sec. 320. Breckenridge, Minnesota.
Sec. 321. Duluth Harbor, Minnesota.
Sec. 322. Little Falls, Minnesota.
Sec. 323. New Madrid County, Missouri.
Sec. 324. Pemiscot County Harbor, Missouri.
Sec. 325. Fort Peck fish hatchery, Montana.
Sec. 326. Sagamore Creek, New Hampshire.
Sec. 327. Passaic River basin flood management, New Jersey.
Sec. 328. Times Beach Nature Preserve, Buffalo, New York.
Sec. 329. Rockaway Inlet to Norton Point, New York.
Sec. 330. Garrison Dam, North Dakota.
Sec. 331. Duck Creek, Ohio.
Sec. 332. John Day Pool, Oregon and Washington.
Sec. 333. Fox Point hurricane barrier, Providence, Rhode Island.
Sec. 334. Nonconnah Creek, Tennessee and Mississippi.
Sec. 335. San Antonio Channel, San Antonio, Texas.
Sec. 336. Buchanan and Dickenson Counties, Virginia.
Sec. 337. Buchanan, Dickenson, and Russell Counties, Virginia.
Sec. 338. Sandbridge Beach, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Sec. 339. Mount St. Helens, Washington.
Sec. 340. Lower Mud River, Milton, West Virginia.
Sec. 341. Fox River System, Wisconsin.
Sec. 342. Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration.
Sec. 343. Great Lakes dredging levels adjustment.
Sec. 344. Great Lakes remedial action plans and sediment remediation.
Sec. 345. Treatment of dredged material from Long Island Sound.
Sec. 346. Declaration of nonnavigability for Lake Erie, New York.
Sec. 347. Project deauthorizations.
Sec. 348. Land conveyances.
Sec. 349. Project reauthorizations.
Sec. 350. Continuation of project authorizations.
Sec. 351. Water quality projects.
TITLE IV--STUDIES
Sec. 401. Studies of completed projects.
Sec. 402. Lower Mississippi River Resource Assessment.
Sec. 403. Upper Mississippi River Basin sediment and nutrient study.
Sec. 404. Upper Mississippi River comprehensive plan.
Sec. 405. Ohio River system.
Sec. 406. Baldwin County, Alabama.
Sec. 407. Bridgeport, Alabama.
Sec. 408-409. Arkansas River navigation system.
Sec. 410. Cache Creek basin, California.
Sec. 411. Estudillo Canal, San Leandro, California.
Sec. 412. Laguna Creek, Fremont, California.
Sec. 413. Lake Merritt, Oakland, California.
Sec. 414. Lancaster, California.
Sec. 415. Oceanside, California.
Sec. 416. San Jacinto watershed, California.
Sec. 417. Suisun Marsh, California.
Sec. 418. Delaware River watershed.
Sec. 419. Brevard County, Florida.
Sec. 420. Choctawhatchee River, Florida.
Sec. 421. Egmont Key, Florida.
Sec. 422. Upper Ocklawaha River and Apopka/Palatlakaha River basins,
Florida.
Sec. 423. Lake Allatoona watershed, Georgia.
Sec. 424. Boise River, Idaho.
Sec. 425. Wood River, Idaho.
Sec. 426. Chicago, Illinois.
Sec. 427. Chicago sanitary and ship canal system, Chicago, Illinois.
Sec. 428. Long Lake, Indiana.
Sec. 429. Brush and Rock Creeks, Mission Hills and Fairway, Kansas.
Sec. 430. Atchafalaya River, Bayous Chene, Boeuf, and Black, Louisiana.
Sec. 431. Boeuf and Black, Louisiana.
Sec. 432. Iberia Port, Louisiana.
Sec. 433. Lake Pontchartrain Seawall, Louisiana.
Sec. 434. Lower Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana.
Sec. 435. St. John the Baptist Parish, Louisiana.
Sec. 436. South Louisiana.
Sec. 437. Portsmouth Harbor and Piscataqua River, Maine and New
Hampshire.
Sec. 438. Merrimack River basin, Massachusetts and New Hampshire.
Sec. 439. Wild Rice River, Minnesota.
Sec. 440. Port of Gulfport, Mississippi.
Sec. 441. Las Vegas Valley, Nevada.
Sec. 442. Upland disposal sites in New Hampshire.
Sec. 443. Southwest Valley, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Sec. 444. Buffalo Harbor, Buffalo, New York.
Sec. 445. Jamesville Reservoir, Onondaga County, New York.
Sec. 446. Bogue Banks, Carteret County, North Carolina.
Sec. 447. Duck Creek watershed, Ohio.
Sec. 448. Fremont, Ohio.
Sec. 449. Steubenville, Ohio.
Sec. 450. Grand Lake, Oklahoma.
Sec. 451. Columbia Slough, Oregon.
Sec. 452. Cliff Walk in Newport, Rhode Island.
Sec. 453. Quonset Point channel, Rhode Island.
Sec. 454. Dredged material disposal site, Rhode Island.
Sec. 455. Reedy River, Greenville, South Carolina.
Sec. 456. Chickamauga Lock and Dam, Tennessee.
Sec. 457. Germantown, Tennessee.
Sec. 458. Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec. 501. Lakes program.
Sec. 502. Restoration projects.
Sec. 503. Support of Army civil works program.
Sec. 504. Export of water from Great Lakes.
Sec. 505. Great Lakes tributary model.
Sec. 506. Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 507. New England water resources and ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 508. Visitors centers.
Sec. 509. CALFED Bay-Delta program assistance, California.
Sec. 510. Seward, Alaska.
Sec. 511. Clear Lake basin, California.
Sec. 512. Contra Costa Canal, Oakley and Knightsen, California.
Sec. 513. Huntington Beach, California.
Sec. 514. Mallard Slough, Pittsburg, California.
Sec. 515. Port Everglades, Florida.
Sec. 516. Lake Sidney Lanier, Georgia, home preservation.
Sec. 517. Ballard's Island, LaSalle County, Illinois.
Sec. 518. Lake Michigan diversion, Illinois.
Sec. 519. Illinois River basin restoration.
Sec. 520. Koontz Lake, Indiana.
Sec. 521. West View Shores, Cecil County, Maryland.
Sec. 522. Muddy River, Brookline and Boston, Massachusetts.
Sec. 523. Soo Locks, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan.
Sec. 524. Minnesota dam safety.
Sec. 525. Bruce F. Vento Unit of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area
Wilderness, Minnesota.
Sec. 526. Duluth, Minnesota, alternative technology project.
Sec. 527. Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Sec. 528. Coastal Mississippi wetlands restoration projects.
Sec. 529. Las Vegas, Nevada.
Sec. 530. Urbanized peak flood management research, New Jersey.
Sec. 531. Nepperhan River, Yonkers, New York.
Sec. 532. Upper Mohawk River basin, New York.
Sec. 533. Flood damage reduction.
Sec. 534. Cuyahoga River, Ohio.
Sec. 535. Crowder Point, Crowder, Oklahoma.
Sec. 536. Lower Columbia River and Tillamook Bay ecosystem restoration,
Oregon and Washington.
Sec. 537. Access improvements, Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 538. Upper Susquehanna River basin, Pennsylvania and New York.
Sec. 539. Charleston Harbor, South Carolina.
Sec. 540. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and
South Dakota terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration.
Sec. 541. Horn Lake Creek and tributaries, Tennessee and Mississippi.
Sec. 542. Lake Champlain watershed, Vermont and New York.
Sec. 543. Vermont dams remediation.
Sec. 544. Puget Sound and adjacent waters restoration, Washington.
Sec. 545. Willapa Bay, Washington.
Sec. 546. Wynoochee Lake, Wynoochee River, Washington.
Sec. 547. Bluestone, West Virginia.
Sec. 548. Lesage/Greenbottom Swamp, West Virginia.
Sec. 549. Tug Fork River, West Virginia.
Sec. 550. Southern West Virginia.
Sec. 551. Surfside/Sunset and Newport Beach, California.
Sec. 552. Watershed management, restoration, and development.
Sec. 553. Maintenance of navigation channels.
Sec. 554. Hydrographic survey.
Sec. 555. Columbia River treaty fishing access.
Sec. 556. Release of use restriction.
TITLE VI--COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION
Sec. 601. Comprehensive Everglades restoration plan.
Sec. 602. Sense of Congress concerning Homestead Air Force Base.
TITLE VII--MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION, NORTH DAKOTA
Sec. 701. Short title.
Sec. 702. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 703. Definitions.
Sec. 704. Missouri River Trust.
Sec. 705. Missouri River Task Force.
Sec. 706. Administration.
Sec. 707. Authorization of appropriations.
[[Page
H11626]]
TITLE VIII--WILDLIFE REFUGE ENHANCEMENT
Sec. 801. Short title.
Sec. 802. Purpose.
Sec. 803. Definitions.
Sec. 804. Conveyance of cabin sites.
Sec. 805. Rights of nonparticipating lessees.
Sec. 806. Conveyance to third parties.
Sec. 807. Use of proceeds.
Sec. 808. Administrative costs.
Sec. 809. Revocation of withdrawals.
Sec. 810. Authorization of appropriations.
TITLE IX--MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION, SOUTH DAKOTA
Sec. 901. Short title.
Sec. 902. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 903. Definitions.
Sec. 904. Missouri River Trust.
Sec. 905. Missouri River Task Force.
Sec. 906. Administration.
Sec. 907. Authorization of appropriations.
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SECRETARY.
In this Act, the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of
the Army.
TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS
SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.
(a) Projects With Chief's Reports.--The following projects
for water resources development and conservation and other
purposes are authorized to be carried out by the Secretary
substantially in accordance with the plans, and subject to
the conditions, described in the respective reports
designated in this subsection:
(1) Barnegat inlet to little egg inlet, new jersey.--The
project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Barnegat
Inlet to Little Egg Inlet, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of
Engineers dated July 26, 2000, at a total cost of
$51,203,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $33,282,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $17,921,000, and at an
estimated average annual cost of $1,751,000 for periodic
nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an
estimated annual Federal cost of $1,138,000 and an estimated
annual non-Federal cost of $613,000.
(2) Port of new york and new jersey, new york and new
jersey.--
(A) In general.--The project for navigation, Port of New
York and New Jersey, New York and New Jersey: Report of the
Chief of Engineers dated May 2, 2000, at a total cost of
$1,781,234,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$743,954,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$1,037,280,000.
(B) Non-federal share.--
(i) In general.--The non-Federal share of the costs of the
project may be provided in cash or in the form of in-kind
services or materials.
(ii) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of design
and construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest
before the date of execution of a cooperation agreement for
the project if the Secretary determines that the work is
integral to the project.
(b) Projects Subject to Final Report.--The following
projects for water resources development and conservation and
other purposes are authorized to be carried out by the
Secretary substantially in accordance with the plans, and
subject to the conditions, recommended in a final report of
the Chief of Engineers if a favorable report of the Chief is
completed not later than December 31, 2000:
(1) False pass harbor, alaska.--The project for navigation,
False Pass Harbor, Alaska, at a total cost of $15,552,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $9,374,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $6,178,000.
(2) Unalaska harbor, alaska.--The project for navigation,
Unalaska Harbor, Alaska, at a total cost of $20,000,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $12,000,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $8,000,000, except that the date for
completion of the favorable report of the Chief of Engineers
shall be December 31, 2001, instead of December 31, 2000.
(3) Rio de flag, flagstaff, arizona.--The project for flood
damage reduction, Rio de Flag, Flagstaff, Arizona, at a total
cost of $24,072,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$15,576,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $8,496,000.
(4) Tres rios, arizona.--The project for ecosystem
restoration, Tres Rios, Arizona, at a total cost of
$99,320,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $62,755,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $36,565,000.
(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.
(6) Murrieta creek, california.--The project for flood
damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, Murrieta Creek,
California, described as alternative 6, based on the District
Engineer's Murrieta Creek feasibility report and
environmental impact statement dated October 2000, at a total
cost of $89,846,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$25,556,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $64,290,000.
(7) Pine flat dam, california.--The project for ecosystem
restoration, Pine Flat Dam, California, at a total cost of
$34,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $22,000,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $12,000,000.
(8) Santa barbara streams, lower mission creek,
california.--The project for flood damage reduction, Santa
Barbara streams, Lower Mission Creek, California, at a total
cost of $18,300,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$9,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $9,100,000.
(9) Upper newport bay, california.--The project for
ecosystem restoration, Upper Newport Bay, California, at a
total cost of $32,475,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$21,109,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $11,366,000.
(10) Whitewater river basin, california.--The project for
flood damage reduction, Whitewater River basin, California,
at a total cost of $28,900,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $18,800,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$10,100,000.
(11) Delaware coast from cape henlopen to fenwick island.--
The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction,
Delaware Coast from Cape Henlopen to Fenwick Island, at a
total cost of $5,633,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$3,661,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $1,972,000,
and at an estimated average annual cost of $920,000 for
periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project,
with an estimated annual Federal cost of $460,000 and an
estimated annual non-Federal cost of $460,000.
(12) Port sutton, florida.--The project for navigation,
Port Sutton, Florida, at a total cost of $7,600,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $4,900,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $2,700,000.
(13) Barbers point harbor, hawaii.--The project for
navigation, Barbers Point Harbor, Hawaii, at a total cost of
$30,003,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $18,524,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $11,479,000.
(14) John myers lock and dam, indiana and kentucky.--The
project for navigation, John Myers Lock and Dam, Indiana and
Kentucky, at a total cost of $181,700,000. The costs of
construction of the project shall be paid \1/2\ from amounts
appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury and \1/2\
from amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust
Fund.
(15) Greenup lock and dam, kentucky and ohio.--The project
for navigation, Greenup Lock and Dam, Kentucky and Ohio, at a
total cost of $175,500,000. The costs of construction of the
project shall be paid \1/2\ from amounts appropriated from
the general fund of the Treasury and \1/2\ from amounts
appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
(16) Ohio river, kentucky, illinois, indiana, ohio,
pennsylvania, and west virginia.--
(A) In general.--Projects for ecosystem restoration, Ohio
River Mainstem, 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.
(B) Non-federal share.--
(i) In general.--The non-Federal share of the costs of any
project under this paragraph may be provided in cash or in
the form of in-kind services or materials.
(ii) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of a project under this paragraph
the cost of design and construction work carried out by the
non-Federal interest before the date of execution of a
cooperation agreement for the project if the Secretary
determines that the work is integral to the project.
(17) Morganza, louisiana, to gulf of mexico.--
(A) In general.--The project for hurricane and storm damage
reduction, Morganza, Louisiana, to the Gulf of Mexico, at a
total cost of $550,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$358,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$192,000,000.
(B) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of work
carried out by the non-Federal interest for interim flood
protection after March 31, 1989, if the Secretary determines
that the work is integral to the project.
(18) Monarch-chesterfield, missouri.--The project for flood
damage reduction, Monarch-Chesterfield, Missouri, at a total
cost of $58,090,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$37,758,500 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $20,331,500.
(19) Antelope creek, lincoln, nebraska.--The project for
flood damage reduction, Antelope Creek, Lincoln, Nebraska, at
a total cost of $46,310,000, with an estimated Federal cost
of $23,155,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$23,155,000.
(20) Sand creek watershed, wahoo, nebraska.--The project
for ecosystem restoration and flood damage reduction, Sand
Creek watershed, Wahoo, Nebraska, at a total cost of
$29,840,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $16,870,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $12,970,000.
(21) Western sarpy and clear creek, nebraska.--The project
for flood damage reduction, Western Sarpy and Clear Creek,
Nebraska, at a total cost of $15,643,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $9,518,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $6,125,000.
(22) Raritan bay and sandy hook bay, cliffwood beach, new
jersey.--The project for hurricane and storm damage
reduction, Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, Cliffwood Beach,
New Jersey, at a total cost of $5,219,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $3,392,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $1,827,000, and at an estimated average annual cost of
$110,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of
the project, with an estimated annual Federal cost of $55,000
and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of $55,000.
(23) Raritan bay and sandy hook bay, port monmouth, new
jersey.--The project for hurricane and storm damage
reduction, Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, Port Monmouth, New
Jersey, at a total cost of $32,064,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $20,842,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $11,222,000, and at an estimated average annual cost of
$173,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of
the project, with an estimated annual Federal cost of $86,500
and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of $86,500.
(24) Dare county beaches, north carolina.--The project for
hurricane and storm damage reduction, Dare County beaches,
North Carolina, at a total cost of $71,674,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $46,588,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $25,086,000, and at an
[[Page
H11627]]
estimated average annual cost of $34,990,000 for periodic
nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an
estimated annual Federal cost of $17,495,000 and an estimated
annual non-Federal cost of $17,495,000.
(25) Wolf river, memphis, tennessee.--The project for
ecosystem restoration, Wolf River, Memphis, Tennessee, at a
total cost of $9,118,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$5,849,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,269,000.
(26) Duwamish/green, washington.--The project for ecosystem
restoration, Duwamish/Green, Washington, at a total cost of
$112,860,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $73,360,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $39,500,000.
(27) Stillagumaish river basin, washington.--The project
for ecosystem restoration, Stillagumaish River basin,
Washington, at a total cost of $23,590,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $15,680,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $7,910,000.
(28) Jackson hole, wyoming.--
(A) In general.--The project for ecosystem restoration,
Jackson Hole, Wyoming, at a total cost of $52,242,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $33,957,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $18,285,000.
(B) Non-federal share.--
(i) In general.--The non-Federal share of the costs of the
project may be provided in cash or in the form of in-kind
services or materials.
(ii) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of design
and construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest
before the date of execution of a cooperation agreement for
the project if the Secretary determines that the work is
integral to the project.
SEC. 102. SMALL PROJECTS FOR FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study for
each of the following projects and, if the Secretary
determines that a project is feasible, may carry out the
project under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948
(33 U.S.C. 701s):
(1) Buffalo island, arkansas.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Buffalo Island, Arkansas.
(2) Anaverde creek, palmdale, california.--Project for
flood damage reduction, Anaverde Creek, Palmdale, California.
(3) Castaic creek, old road bridge, santa clarita,
california.--Project for flood damage reduction, Castaic
Creek, Old Road bridge, Santa Clarita, California.
(4) Santa clara river, old road bridge, santa clarita,
california.--Project for flood damage reduction, Santa Clara
River, Old Road bridge, Santa Clarita, California.
(5) Weiser river, idaho.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Weiser River, Idaho.
(6) Columbia levee, columbia, illinois.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Columbia Levee, Columbia, Illinois.
(7) East-west creek, riverton, illinois.--Project for flood
damage reduction, East-West Creek, Riverton, Illinois.
(8) Prairie du pont, illinois.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Prairie Du Pont, Illinois.
(9) Monroe county, illinois.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Monroe County, Illinois.
(10) Willow creek, meredosia, illinois.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Willow Creek, Meredosia, Illinois.
(11) Dykes branch channel, leawood, kansas.--Project for
flood damage reduction, Dykes Branch channel improvements,
Leawood, Kansas.
(12) Dykes branch tributaries, leawood, kansas.--Project
for flood damage reduction, Dykes Branch tributary
improvements, Leawood, Kansas.
(13) Kentucky river, frankfort, kentucky.--Project for
flood damage reduction, Kentucky River, Frankfort, Kentucky.
(14) Bayou tete l'ours, louisiana.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Bayou Tete L'Ours, Louisiana.
(15) Bossier city, louisiana.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Red Chute Bayou levee, Bossier City, Louisiana.
(16) Bossier parish, louisiana.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Cane Bend Subdivision, Bossier Parish, Louisiana.
(17) Braithwaite park, louisiana.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Braithwaite Park, Louisiana.
(18) Crown point, louisiana.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Crown Point, Louisiana.
(19) Donaldsonville canals, louisiana.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Donaldsonville Canals, Louisiana.
(20) Goose bayou, louisiana.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Goose Bayou, Louisiana.
(21) Gumby dam, louisiana.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Gumby Dam, Richland Parish, Louisiana.
(22) Hope canal, louisiana.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Hope Canal, Louisiana.
(23) Jean lafitte, louisiana.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Jean Lafitte, Louisiana.
(24) Lakes maurepas and pontchartrain canals, st. john the
baptist parish, louisiana.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain Canals, St. John
the Baptist Parish, Louisiana.
(25) Lockport to larose, louisiana.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Lockport to Larose, Louisiana.
(26) Lower lafitte basin, louisiana.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Lower Lafitte basin, Louisiana.
(27) Oakville to lareussite, louisiana.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Oakville to LaReussite, Louisiana.
(28) Pailet basin, louisiana.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Pailet basin, Louisiana.
(29) Pochitolawa creek, louisiana.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Pochitolawa Creek, Louisiana.
(30) Rosethorn basin, louisiana.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Rosethorn basin, Louisiana.
(31) Shreveport, louisiana.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Twelve Mile Bayou, Shreveport, Louisiana.
(32) Stephensville, louisiana.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Stephensville, Louisiana.
(33) St. john the baptist parish, louisiana.--Project for
flood damage reduction, St. John the Baptist Parish,
Louisiana.
(34) Magby creek and vernon branch, mississippi.--Project
for flood damage reduction, Magby Creek and Vernon Branch,
Lowndes County, Mississippi.
(35) Pennsville township, salem county, new jersey.--
Project for flood damage reduction, Pennsville Township,
Salem County, New Jersey.
(36) Hempstead, new york.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Hempstead, New York.
(37) Highland brook, highland falls, new york.--Project for
flood damage reduction, Highland Brook, Highland Falls, New
York.
(38) Lafayette township, ohio.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Lafayette Township, Ohio.
(39) West lafayette, ohio.--Project for flood damage
reduction, West Lafayette, Ohio.
(40) Bear creek and tributaries, medford, oregon.--Project
for flood damage reduction, Bear Creek and tributaries,
Medford, Oregon.
(41) Delaware canal and brock creek, yardley borough,
pennsylvania.--Project for flood damage reduction, Delaware
Canal and Brock Creek, Yardley Borough, Pennsylvania.
(42) Fritz landing, tennessee.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Fritz Landing, Tennessee.
(43) First creek, fountain city, knoxville, tennessee.--
Project for flood damage reduction, First Creek, Fountain
City, Knoxville, Tennessee.
(44) Mississippi river, ridgely, tennessee.--Project for
flood damage reduction, Mississippi River, Ridgely,
Tennessee.
(b) Magpie Creek, Sacramento County, California.--In
formulating the project for Magpie Creek, California,
authorized by section 102(a)(4) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 281) to be carried out
under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C.
701s), the Secretary may consider benefits from the full
utilization of existing improvements at McClellan Air Force
Base that would result from the project after conversion of
the base to civilian use.
SEC. 103. SMALL PROJECTS FOR EMERGENCY STREAMBANK
PROTECTION.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the
following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a
project is feasible, may carry out the project under section
14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r):
(1) Maumee river, fort wayne, indiana.--Project for
emergency streambank protection, Maumee River, Fort Wayne,
Indiana.
(2) Bayou des glaises, louisiana.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, Bayou des Glaises (Lee Chatelain
Road), Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana.
(3) Bayou plaquemine, louisiana.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, Highway 77, Bayou Plaquemine,
Iberville Parish, Louisiana.
(4) Bayou sorrell, iberville parish, louisiana.--Project
for emergency streambank protection, Bayou Sorrell, Iberville
Parish, Louisiana.
(5) Hammond, louisiana.--Project for emergency streambank
protection, Fagan Drive Bridge, Hammond, Louisiana.
(6) Iberville parish, louisiana.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, Iberville Parish, Louisiana.
(7) Lake arthur, louisiana.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, Parish Road 120 at Lake Arthur,
Louisiana.
(8) Lake charles, louisiana.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, Pithon Coulee, Lake Charles, Calcasieu
Parish, Louisiana.
(9) Loggy bayou, louisiana.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, Loggy Bayou, Bienville Parish,
Louisiana.
(10) Scotlandville bluff, louisiana.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, Scotlandville Bluff, East Baton Rouge
Parish, Louisiana.
SEC. 104. SMALL PROJECTS FOR NAVIGATION.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the
following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a
project is feasible, may carry out the project under section
107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577):
(1) Whittier, alaska.--Project for navigation, Whittier,
Alaska.
(2) Cape coral south spreader waterway, florida.--Project
for navigation, Cape Coral South Spreader Waterway, Lee
County, Florida.
(3) Houma navigation canal, louisiana.--Project for
navigation, Houma Navigation Canal, Terrebonne Parish,
Louisiana.
(4) Vidalia port, louisiana.--Project for navigation,
Vidalia Port, Louisiana.
(5) East two rivers, tower, minnesota.--Project for
navigation, East Two Rivers, Tower, Minnesota.
(6) Erie basin marina, buffalo, new york.--Project for
navigation, Erie Basin marina, Buffalo, New York.
(7) Lake michigan, lakeshore state park, milwaukee,
wisconsin.--Project for navigation, Lake Michigan, Lakeshore
State Park, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
(8) Saxon harbor, francis, wisconsin.--Project for
navigation, Saxon Harbor, Francis, Wisconsin.
[[Page
H11628]]
SEC. 105. SMALL PROJECTS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE QUALITY OF
THE ENVIRONMENT.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the
following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a
project is appropriate, may carry out the project under
section 1135(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a(a)):
(1) Nahant marsh, davenport, iowa.--Project for improvement
of the quality of the environment, Nahant Marsh, Davenport,
Iowa.
(2) Bayou sauvage national wildlife refuge, louisiana.--
Project for improvement of the quality of the environment,
Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge, Orleans Parish,
Louisiana.
(3) Gulf intracoastal waterway, bayou plaquemine,
louisiana.--Project for improvement of the quality of the
environment, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Bayou Plaquemine,
Iberville Parish, Louisiana.
(4) Gulf intracoastal waterway, miles 220 to 222.5,
louisiana.--Project for improvement of the quality of the
environment, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, miles 220 to 222.5,
Vermilion Parish, Louisiana.
(5) Gulf intracoastal waterway, weeks bay, louisiana.--
Project for improvement of the quality of the environment,
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Weeks Bay, Iberia Parish,
Louisiana.
(6) Lake fausse point, louisiana.--Project for improvement
of the quality of the environment, Lake Fausse Point,
Louisiana.
(7) Lake providence, louisiana.--Project for improvement of
the quality of the environment, Old River, Lake Providence,
Louisiana.
(8) New river, louisiana.--Project for improvement of the
quality of the environment, New River, Ascension Parish,
Louisiana.
(9) Erie county, ohio.--Project for improvement of the
quality of the environment, Sheldon's Marsh State Nature
Preserve, Erie County, Ohio.
(10) Muskingum county, ohio.--Project for improvement of
the quality of the environment, Dillon Reservoir watershed,
Licking River, Muskingum County, Ohio.
SEC. 106. SMALL PROJECTS FOR AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study for
each of the following projects and, if the Secretary
determines that a project is appropriate, may carry out the
project under section 206 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330):
(1) Arkansas river, pueblo, colorado.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Arkansas River, Pueblo, Colorado.
(2) Hayden diversion project, yampa river, colorado.--
Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Hayden Diversion
Project, Yampa River, Colorado.
(3) Little econlockhatchee river basin, florida.--Project
for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Little Econlockhatchee
River basin, Florida.
(4) Loxahatchee slough, palm beach county, florida.--
Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Loxahatchee
Slough, Palm Beach County, Florida.
(5) Stevenson creek estuary, florida.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Stevenson Creek estuary, Florida.
(6) Chouteau island, madison county, illinois.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Chouteau Island, Madison
County, Illinois.
(7) Braud bayou, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Braud Bayou, Spanish Lake, Ascension Parish,
Louisiana.
(8) Buras marina, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Buras Marina, Buras, Plaquemines Parish,
Louisiana.
(9) Comite river, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Comite River at Hooper Road, Louisiana.
(10) Department of energy 21-inch pipeline canal,
louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration,
Department of Energy 21-inch Pipeline Canal, St. Martin
Parish, Louisiana.
(11) Lake borgne, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, southern shores of Lake Borgne, Louisiana.
(12) Lake martin, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Lake Martin, Louisiana.
(13) Luling, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Luling Oxidation Pond, St. Charles Parish,
Louisiana.
(14) Mandeville, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Mandeville, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana.
(15) St. james, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, St. James, Louisiana.
(16) Saginaw bay, bay city, michigan.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Saginaw Bay, Bay City, Michigan.
(17) Rainwater basin, nebraska.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Rainwater Basin, Nebraska.
(18) Mines falls park, new hampshire.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Mines Falls Park, New Hampshire.
(19) North hampton, new hampshire.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Little River Salt Marsh, North
Hampton, New Hampshire.
(20) Cazenovia lake, madison county, new york.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Cazenovia Lake, Madison
County, New York, including efforts to address aquatic
invasive plant species.
(21) Chenango lake, chenango county, new york.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Chenango Lake, Chenango
County, New York, including efforts to address aquatic
invasive plant species.
(22) Eagle lake, new york.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Eagle Lake, Ticonderoga, New York.
(23) Ossining, new york.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Ossining, New York.
(24) Saratoga lake, new york.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Saratoga Lake, New York.
(25) Schroon lake, new york.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Schroon Lake, New York.
(26) Highland county, ohio.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Rocky Fork Lake, Clear Creek floodplain,
Highland County, Ohio.
(27) Hocking county, ohio.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Long Hollow Mine, Hocking County, Ohio.
(28) Middle cuyahoga river, kent, ohio.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Middle Cuyahoga River, Kent,
Ohio.
(29) Tuscarawas county, ohio.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Huff Run, Tuscarawas County, Ohio.
(30) Delta ponds, oregon.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Delta Ponds, Oregon.
(31) Central amazon creek, eugene, oregon.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Central Amazon Creek, Eugene,
Oregon.
(32) Eugene millrace, eugene, oregon.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Eugene Millrace, Eugene, Oregon.
(33) Bear creek watershed, medford, oregon.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Bear Creek watershed, Medford,
Oregon.
(34) Lone pine and lazy creeks, medford, oregon.--Project
for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Lone Pine and Lazy Creeks,
Medford, Oregon.
(35) Roslyn lake, oregon.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Roslyn Lake, Oregon.
(36) Tullytown borough, pennsylvania.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Tullytown Borough, Pennsylvania.
(b) Salmon River, Idaho.--The Secretary may credit toward
the non-Federal share of the cost of the project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Salmon River, Idaho, to be carried out
under section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330) the cost of work (consisting of
surveys, studies, and development of technical data) carried
out by the non-Federal interest if the Secretary determines
that the work is integral to the project.
SEC. 107. SMALL PROJECTS FOR SHORELINE PROTECTION.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the
following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a
project is feasible, may carry out the project under section
3 of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing Federal
participation in the cost of protecting the shores of
publicly owned property'', approved August 13, 1946 (33
U.S.C. 426g):
(1) Lake palourde, louisiana.--Project for beach
restoration and protection, Highway 70, Lake Palourde, St.
Mary and St. Martin Parishes, Louisiana.
(2) St. bernard, louisiana.--Project for beach restoration
and protection, Bayou Road, St. Bernard, Louisiana.
(3) Hudson river, dutchess county, new york.--Project for
beach restoration and protection, Hudson River, Dutchess
County, New York.
SEC. 108. SMALL PROJECTS FOR SNAGGING AND SEDIMENT REMOVAL.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the
following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a
project is feasible, the Secretary may carry out the project
under section 2 of the Flood Control Act of August 28, 1937
(33 U.S.C. 701g):
(1) Sangamon river and tributaries, riverton, illinois.--
Project for removal of snags and clearing and straightening
of channels for flood control, Sangamon River and
tributaries, Riverton, Illinois.
(2) Bayou manchac, louisiana.--Project for removal of snags
and clearing and straightening of channels for flood control,
Bayou Manchac, Ascension Parish, Louisiana.
(3) Black bayou and hippolyte coulee, louisiana.--Project
for removal of snags and clearing and straightening of
channels for flood control, Black Bayou and Hippolyte Coulee,
Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana.
SEC. 109. SMALL PROJECT FOR MITIGATION OF SHORE DAMAGE.
The Secretary shall conduct a study of shore damage at
Puget Island, Columbia River, Washington, to determine if the
damage is the result of the project for navigation, Columbia
River, Washington, authorized by the first section of the
Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act of June 13, 1902 (32
Stat. 369), and, if the Secretary determines that the damage
is the result of the project for navigation and that a
project to mitigate the damage is appropriate, the Secretary
may carry out the project to mitigate the damage under
section 111 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C.
426i).
SEC. 110. BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL.
The Secretary may carry out the following projects under
section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992
(33 U.S.C. 2326):
(1) Houma navigation canal, louisiana.--Project to make
beneficial use of dredged material from a Federal navigation
project that includes barrier island restoration at the Houma
Navigation Canal, Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana.
(2) Mississippi river gulf outlet, mile -3 to mile -9,
louisiana.--Project to make beneficial use of dredged
material from a Federal navigation project that includes
dredging of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, mile -3 to
mile -9, St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana.
(3) Mississippi river gulf outlet, mile 11 to mile 4,
louisiana.--Project to make beneficial
[[Page
H11629]]
use of dredged material from a Federal navigation project
that includes dredging of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet,
mile 11 to mile 4, St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana.
(4) Plaquemines parish, louisiana.--Project to make
beneficial use of dredged material from a Federal navigation
project that includes marsh creation at the contained
submarine maintenance dredge sediment trap, Plaquemines
Parish, Louisiana.
(5) St. louis county, minnesota.--Project to make
beneficial use of dredged material from a Federal navigation
project in St. Louis County, Minnesota.
(6) Ottawa county, ohio.--Project to make beneficial use of
dredged material from a Federal navigation to protect,
restore, and create aquatic and related habitat, East Harbor
State Park, Ottawa County, Ohio.
SEC. 111. DISPOSAL OF DREDGED MATERIAL ON BEACHES.
Section 217 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
(113 Stat. 294) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(f) Fort Canby State Park, Benson Beach, Washington.--The
Secretary may design and construct a shore protection project
at Fort Canby State Park, Benson Beach, Washington, including
beneficial use of dredged material from a Federal navigation
project under section 145 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C. 426j) or section 204 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326).''.
SEC. 112. PETALUMA RIVER, PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out the Petaluma
River project, at the city of Petaluma, Sonoma County,
California, to provide a 100-year level of flood protection
to the city in accordance with the detailed project report of
the San Francisco District Engineer, dated March 1995, at a
total cost of $32,227,000.
(b) Reimbursement.--The Secretary shall reimburse the non-
Federal interest for any project costs that the non-Federal
interest has incurred in excess of the non-Federal share of
project costs, regardless of the date on which the costs were
incurred.
(c) Cost Sharing.--For purposes of reimbursement under
subsection (b), cost sharing for work performed on the
project before the date of enactment of this Act shall be
determined in accordance with section 103(a) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(a)).
TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 201. COOPERATION AGREEMENTS WITH COUNTIES.
Section 221(a) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C.
1962d-5b(a)) is amended in the second sentence--
(1) by striking ``State legislative'';
(2) by striking ``State constitutional'' and inserting
``constitutional; and
(3) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``of the State or a political subdivision of the
State''.
SEC. 202. WATERSHED AND RIVER BASIN ASSESSMENTS.
Section 729 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(100 Stat. 4164) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 729. WATERSHED AND RIVER BASIN ASSESSMENTS.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary may assess the water
resources needs of river basins and watersheds of the United
States, including needs relating to--
``(1) ecosystem protection and restoration;
``(2) flood damage reduction;
``(3) navigation and ports;
``(4) watershed protection;
``(5) water supply; and
``(6) drought preparedness.
``(b) Cooperation.--An assessment under subsection (a)
shall be carried out in cooperation and coordination with--
``(1) the Secretary of the Interior;
``(2) the Secretary of Agriculture;
``(3) the Secretary of Commerce;
``(4) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency; and
``(5) the heads of other appropriate agencies.
``(c) Consultation.--In carrying out an assessment under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with Federal,
tribal, State, interstate, and local governmental entities.
``(d) Priority River Basins and Watersheds.--In selecting
river basins and watersheds for assessment under this
section, the Secretary shall give priority to--
``(1) the Delaware River basin;
``(2) the Kentucky River basin;
``(3) the Potomac River basin;
``(4) the Susquehanna River basin; and
``(5) the Willamette River basin.
``(e) Acceptance of Contributions.--In carrying out an
assessment under subsection (a), the Secretary may accept
contributions, in cash or in kind, from Federal, tribal,
State, interstate, and local governmental entities to the
extent that the Secretary determines that the contributions
will facilitate completion of the assessment.
``(f) Cost-Sharing Requirements.--
``(1) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the
costs of an assessment carried out under this section shall
be 50 percent.
``(2) Credit.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the
Secretary may credit toward the non-Federal share of an
assessment under this section the cost of services,
materials, supplies, or other in-kind contributions provided
by the non-Federal interests for the assessment.
``(B) Maximum amount of credit.--The credit under
subparagraph (A) may not exceed an amount equal to 25 percent
of the costs of the assessment.
``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000.''.
SEC. 203. TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.
(a) Definition of Indian Tribe.--In this section, the term
``Indian tribe'' has the meaning given the term in section 4
of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
(25 U.S.C. 450b).
(b) Program.--
(1) In general.--In cooperation with Indian tribes and the
heads of other Federal agencies, the Secretary may study and
determine the feasibility of carrying out water resources
development projects that--
(A) will substantially benefit Indian tribes; and
(B) are located primarily within Indian country (as defined
in section 1151 of title 18, United States Code) or in
proximity to Alaska Native villages.
(2) Matters to be studied.--A study conducted under
paragraph (1) may address--
(A) projects for flood damage reduction, environmental
restoration and protection, and preservation of cultural and
natural resources; and
(B) such other projects as the Secretary, in cooperation
with Indian tribes and the heads of other Federal agencies,
determines to be appropriate.
(c) Consultation and Coordination With Secretary of the
Interior.--
(1) In general.--In recognition of the unique role of the
Secretary of the Interior concerning trust responsibilities
with Indian tribes and in recognition of mutual trust
responsibilities, the Secretary shall consult with the
Secretary of the Interior concerning studies conducted under
subsection (b).
(2) Integration of activities.--The Secretary shall--
(A) integrate civil works activities of the Department of
the Army with activities of the Department of the Interior to
avoid conflicts, duplications of effort, or unanticipated
adverse effects on Indian tribes; and
(B) consider the authorities and programs of the Department
of the Interior and other Federal agencies in any
recommendations concerning carrying out projects studied
under subsection (b).
(d) Cost Sharing.--
(1) Ability to pay.--
(A) In general.--Any cost-sharing agreement for a study
under subsection (b) shall be subject to the ability of the
non-Federal interest to pay.
(B) Use of procedures.--The ability of a non-Federal
interest to pay shall be determined by the Secretary in
accordance with procedures established by the Secretary.
(2) Credit.--The Secretary may credit toward the non-
Federal share of the costs of a study under subsection (b)
the cost of services, studies, supplies, or other in-kind
contributions provided by the non-Federal interest if the
Secretary determines that the services, studies, supplies,
and other in-kind contributions will facilitate completion of
the study.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out subsection (b) $5,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2002 through 2006, of which not more
than $1,000,000 may be used with respect to any 1 Indian
tribe.
SEC. 204. ABILITY TO PAY.
Section 103(m) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--Any cost-sharing agreement under this
section for a feasibility study, or for construction of an
environmental protection and restoration project, a flood
control project, a project for navigation, storm damage
protection, shoreline erosion, hurricane protection, or
recreation, or an agricultural water supply project, shall be
subject to the ability of the non-Federal interest to pay.
``(2) Criteria and procedures.--The ability of a non-
Federal interest to pay shall be determined by the Secretary
in accordance with criteria and procedures in effect under
paragraph (3) on the day before the date of enactment of the
Water Resources Development Act of 2000; except that such
criteria and procedures shall be revised, and new criteria
and procedures shall be developed, not later than 180 days
after such date of enactment to reflect the requirements of
such paragraph (3).''; and
(2) in paragraph (3)--
(A) by inserting ``and'' after the semicolon at the end of
subparagraph (A)(ii);
(B) by striking subparagraph (B); and
(C) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (B).
SEC. 205. PROPERTY PROTECTION PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may carry out a program to
reduce vandalism and destruction of property at water
resources development projects under the jurisdiction of the
Department of the Army.
(b) Provision of Rewards.--In carrying out the program, the
Secretary may provide rewards (including cash rewards) to
individuals who provide information or evidence leading to
the arrest and prosecution of individuals causing damage to
Federal property.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $500,000 for
fiscal year 2001 and each fiscal year thereafter.
SEC. 206. NATIONAL RECREATION RESERVATION SERVICE.
Notwithstanding section 611 of the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (112 Stat. 2681-515), the
Secretary may--
(1) participate in the National Recreation Reservation
Service on an interagency basis; and
(2) pay the Department of the Army's share of the
activities required to implement, operate, and maintain the
Service.
[[Page
H11630]]
SEC. 207. INTERAGENCY AND INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT AUTHORITY.
Section 234(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (33 U.S.C. 2323a(d)) is amended--
(1) by striking the first sentence and inserting the
following: ``There is authorized to be appropriated to carry
out this section $250,000 for fiscal year 2001 and each
fiscal year thereafter.''; and
(2) in the second sentence by inserting ``out'' after
``carry''.
SEC. 208. REBURIAL AND CONVEYANCE AUTHORITY.
(a) Definition of Indian Tribe.--In this section, the term
``Indian tribe'' has the meaning given the term in section 4
of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
(25 U.S.C. 450b).
(b) Reburial.--
(1) Reburial areas.--In consultation with affected Indian
tribes, the Secretary may identify and set aside areas at
civil works projects of the Department of the Army that may
be used to rebury Native American remains that--
(A) have been discovered on project land; and
(B) have been rightfully claimed by a lineal descendant or
Indian tribe in accordance with applicable Federal law.
(2) Reburial.--In consultation with and with the consent of
the lineal descendant or the affected Indian tribe, the
Secretary may recover and rebury, at Federal expense, the
remains at the areas identified and set aside under
subsection (b)(1).
(c) Conveyance Authority.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), notwithstanding
any other provision of law, the Secretary may convey to an
Indian tribe for use as a cemetery an area at a civil works
project that is identified and set aside by the Secretary
under subsection (b)(1).
(2) Retention of necessary property interests.--In carrying
out paragraph (1), the Secretary shall retain any necessary
right-of-way, easement, or other property interest that the
Secretary determines to be necessary to carry out the
authorized purposes of the project.
SEC. 209. FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS.
(a) In General.--Section 402(c) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 701b-12(c)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence of paragraph (1) by striking
``Within 6 months after the date of the enactment of this
subsection, the'' and inserting ``The'';
(2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3);
(3) by striking ``Such guidelines shall address'' and
inserting the following:
``(2) Required elements.--The guidelines developed under
paragraph (1) shall--
``(A) address''; and
(4) in paragraph (2) (as designated by paragraph (3) of
this subsection)--
(A) by inserting ``to be undertaken by non-Federal
interests to'' after ``policies'';
(B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) address those measures to be undertaken by non-
Federal interests to preserve the level of flood protection
provided by a project to which subsection (a) applies.''.
(b) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply to any project or separable element of a project
with respect to which the Secretary and the non-Federal
interest have not entered a project cooperation agreement on
or before the date of enactment of this Act.
(c) Technical Amendments.--Section 402(b) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 701b-12(b)) is
amended--
(1) in the subsection heading by striking ``Flood Plain''
and inserting ``Floodplain''; and
(2) in the first sentence by striking ``flood plain'' and
inserting ``floodplain''.
SEC. 210. NONPROFIT ENTITIES.
(a) Environmental Dredging.--Section 312 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 1272) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(g) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221 of
the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), for any
project carried out under this section, a non-Federal sponsor
may include a nonprofit entity, with the consent of the
affected local government.''.
(b) Lakes Program.--Section 602 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4148-4149) is amended by
redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e) and by
inserting after subsection (c) the following:
``(d) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221 of
the Flood Control Act of 1970 (
Amendments:
Cosponsors:
CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 2796, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2000
Sponsor:
Summary:
All articles in House section
CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 2796, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2000
(House of Representatives - October 31, 2000)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
H11624-H11668]
CONFERENCE REPORT ON
S. 2796, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2000
Mr. SHUSTER submitted the following conference report and statement
on the Senate bill (
S. 2796) to provide for the conservation and
development of water and related resources, to authorize the Secretary
of the Army to construct various projects for improvements to rivers
and harbors of the United States, and for other purposes:
Conference Report (H. Rept. 106-1020)
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the House to the bill (
S.
2796), to provide for the conservation and development of
water and related resources, to authorize the Secretary of
the Army to construct various projects for improvements to
rivers and harbors of the United States, and for other
purposes, having met, after full and free conference, have
agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective
Houses as follows:
That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the
amendment of the House and agree to the same with an
amendment as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the House
amendment, insert the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water
Resources Development Act of 2000''.
(b) Table of Contents.--
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definition of Secretary.
TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS
Sec. 101. Project authorizations.
Sec. 102. Small projects for flood damage reduction.
Sec. 103. Small projects for emergency streambank protection.
Sec. 104. Small projects for navigation.
Sec. 105. Small projects for improvement of the quality of the
environment.
Sec. 106. Small projects for aquatic ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 107. Small projects for shoreline protection.
Sec. 108. Small projects for snagging and sediment removal.
Sec. 109. Small project for mitigation of shore damage.
Sec. 110. Beneficial uses of dredged material.
Sec. 111. Disposal of dredged material on beaches.
Sec. 112. Petaluma River, Petaluma, California.
TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 201. Cooperation agreements with counties.
Sec. 202. Watershed and river basin assessments.
Sec. 203. Tribal partnership program.
Sec. 204. Ability to pay.
Sec. 205. Property protection program.
Sec. 206. National recreation reservation service.
Sec. 207. Interagency and international support authority.
Sec. 208. Reburial and conveyance authority.
Sec. 209. Floodplain management requirements.
Sec. 210. Nonprofit entities.
Sec. 211. Performance of specialized or technical services.
Sec. 212. Hydroelectric power project funding.
Sec. 213. Assistance programs.
Sec. 214. Funding to process permits.
Sec. 215. Dredged material marketing and recycling.
Sec. 216. National academy of sciences study.
Sec. 217. Rehabilitation of Federal flood control levees.
Sec. 218. Maximum program expenditures for small flood control
projects.
Sec. 219. Engineering consulting services.
Sec. 220. Beach recreation.
Sec. 221. Design-build contracting.
Sec. 222. Enhanced public participation.
Sec. 223. Monitoring.
Sec. 224. Fish and wildlife mitigation.
Sec. 225. Feasibility studies and planning, engineering, and design.
Sec. 226. Administrative costs of land conveyances.
[[Page
H11625]]
Sec. 227. Flood mitigation and riverine restoration.
TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway Wildlife Mitigation Project,
Alabama and Mississippi.
Sec. 302. Nogales Wash and tributaries, Nogales, Arizona.
Sec. 303. Boydsville, Arkansas.
Sec. 304. White River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.
Sec. 305. Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel, California.
Sec. 306. Delaware River Mainstem and Channel Deepening, Delaware, New
Jersey, and Pennsylvania.
Sec. 307. Rehoboth Beach and Dewey Beach, Delaware.
Sec. 308. Fernandina Harbor, Florida.
Sec. 309. Gasparilla and Estero Islands, Florida.
Sec. 310. East Saint Louis and vicinity, Illinois.
Sec. 311. Kaskaskia River, Kaskaskia, Illinois.
Sec. 312. Waukegan Harbor, Illinois.
Sec. 313. Upper Des Plaines River and tributaries, Illinois.
Sec. 314. Cumberland, Kentucky.
Sec. 315. Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana.
Sec. 316. Red River Waterway, Louisiana.
Sec. 317. Thomaston Harbor, Georges River, Maine.
Sec. 318. Poplar Island, Maryland.
Sec. 319. William Jennings Randolph Lake, Maryland.
Sec. 320. Breckenridge, Minnesota.
Sec. 321. Duluth Harbor, Minnesota.
Sec. 322. Little Falls, Minnesota.
Sec. 323. New Madrid County, Missouri.
Sec. 324. Pemiscot County Harbor, Missouri.
Sec. 325. Fort Peck fish hatchery, Montana.
Sec. 326. Sagamore Creek, New Hampshire.
Sec. 327. Passaic River basin flood management, New Jersey.
Sec. 328. Times Beach Nature Preserve, Buffalo, New York.
Sec. 329. Rockaway Inlet to Norton Point, New York.
Sec. 330. Garrison Dam, North Dakota.
Sec. 331. Duck Creek, Ohio.
Sec. 332. John Day Pool, Oregon and Washington.
Sec. 333. Fox Point hurricane barrier, Providence, Rhode Island.
Sec. 334. Nonconnah Creek, Tennessee and Mississippi.
Sec. 335. San Antonio Channel, San Antonio, Texas.
Sec. 336. Buchanan and Dickenson Counties, Virginia.
Sec. 337. Buchanan, Dickenson, and Russell Counties, Virginia.
Sec. 338. Sandbridge Beach, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Sec. 339. Mount St. Helens, Washington.
Sec. 340. Lower Mud River, Milton, West Virginia.
Sec. 341. Fox River System, Wisconsin.
Sec. 342. Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration.
Sec. 343. Great Lakes dredging levels adjustment.
Sec. 344. Great Lakes remedial action plans and sediment remediation.
Sec. 345. Treatment of dredged material from Long Island Sound.
Sec. 346. Declaration of nonnavigability for Lake Erie, New York.
Sec. 347. Project deauthorizations.
Sec. 348. Land conveyances.
Sec. 349. Project reauthorizations.
Sec. 350. Continuation of project authorizations.
Sec. 351. Water quality projects.
TITLE IV--STUDIES
Sec. 401. Studies of completed projects.
Sec. 402. Lower Mississippi River Resource Assessment.
Sec. 403. Upper Mississippi River Basin sediment and nutrient study.
Sec. 404. Upper Mississippi River comprehensive plan.
Sec. 405. Ohio River system.
Sec. 406. Baldwin County, Alabama.
Sec. 407. Bridgeport, Alabama.
Sec. 408-409. Arkansas River navigation system.
Sec. 410. Cache Creek basin, California.
Sec. 411. Estudillo Canal, San Leandro, California.
Sec. 412. Laguna Creek, Fremont, California.
Sec. 413. Lake Merritt, Oakland, California.
Sec. 414. Lancaster, California.
Sec. 415. Oceanside, California.
Sec. 416. San Jacinto watershed, California.
Sec. 417. Suisun Marsh, California.
Sec. 418. Delaware River watershed.
Sec. 419. Brevard County, Florida.
Sec. 420. Choctawhatchee River, Florida.
Sec. 421. Egmont Key, Florida.
Sec. 422. Upper Ocklawaha River and Apopka/Palatlakaha River basins,
Florida.
Sec. 423. Lake Allatoona watershed, Georgia.
Sec. 424. Boise River, Idaho.
Sec. 425. Wood River, Idaho.
Sec. 426. Chicago, Illinois.
Sec. 427. Chicago sanitary and ship canal system, Chicago, Illinois.
Sec. 428. Long Lake, Indiana.
Sec. 429. Brush and Rock Creeks, Mission Hills and Fairway, Kansas.
Sec. 430. Atchafalaya River, Bayous Chene, Boeuf, and Black, Louisiana.
Sec. 431. Boeuf and Black, Louisiana.
Sec. 432. Iberia Port, Louisiana.
Sec. 433. Lake Pontchartrain Seawall, Louisiana.
Sec. 434. Lower Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana.
Sec. 435. St. John the Baptist Parish, Louisiana.
Sec. 436. South Louisiana.
Sec. 437. Portsmouth Harbor and Piscataqua River, Maine and New
Hampshire.
Sec. 438. Merrimack River basin, Massachusetts and New Hampshire.
Sec. 439. Wild Rice River, Minnesota.
Sec. 440. Port of Gulfport, Mississippi.
Sec. 441. Las Vegas Valley, Nevada.
Sec. 442. Upland disposal sites in New Hampshire.
Sec. 443. Southwest Valley, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Sec. 444. Buffalo Harbor, Buffalo, New York.
Sec. 445. Jamesville Reservoir, Onondaga County, New York.
Sec. 446. Bogue Banks, Carteret County, North Carolina.
Sec. 447. Duck Creek watershed, Ohio.
Sec. 448. Fremont, Ohio.
Sec. 449. Steubenville, Ohio.
Sec. 450. Grand Lake, Oklahoma.
Sec. 451. Columbia Slough, Oregon.
Sec. 452. Cliff Walk in Newport, Rhode Island.
Sec. 453. Quonset Point channel, Rhode Island.
Sec. 454. Dredged material disposal site, Rhode Island.
Sec. 455. Reedy River, Greenville, South Carolina.
Sec. 456. Chickamauga Lock and Dam, Tennessee.
Sec. 457. Germantown, Tennessee.
Sec. 458. Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec. 501. Lakes program.
Sec. 502. Restoration projects.
Sec. 503. Support of Army civil works program.
Sec. 504. Export of water from Great Lakes.
Sec. 505. Great Lakes tributary model.
Sec. 506. Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 507. New England water resources and ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 508. Visitors centers.
Sec. 509. CALFED Bay-Delta program assistance, California.
Sec. 510. Seward, Alaska.
Sec. 511. Clear Lake basin, California.
Sec. 512. Contra Costa Canal, Oakley and Knightsen, California.
Sec. 513. Huntington Beach, California.
Sec. 514. Mallard Slough, Pittsburg, California.
Sec. 515. Port Everglades, Florida.
Sec. 516. Lake Sidney Lanier, Georgia, home preservation.
Sec. 517. Ballard's Island, LaSalle County, Illinois.
Sec. 518. Lake Michigan diversion, Illinois.
Sec. 519. Illinois River basin restoration.
Sec. 520. Koontz Lake, Indiana.
Sec. 521. West View Shores, Cecil County, Maryland.
Sec. 522. Muddy River, Brookline and Boston, Massachusetts.
Sec. 523. Soo Locks, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan.
Sec. 524. Minnesota dam safety.
Sec. 525. Bruce F. Vento Unit of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area
Wilderness, Minnesota.
Sec. 526. Duluth, Minnesota, alternative technology project.
Sec. 527. Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Sec. 528. Coastal Mississippi wetlands restoration projects.
Sec. 529. Las Vegas, Nevada.
Sec. 530. Urbanized peak flood management research, New Jersey.
Sec. 531. Nepperhan River, Yonkers, New York.
Sec. 532. Upper Mohawk River basin, New York.
Sec. 533. Flood damage reduction.
Sec. 534. Cuyahoga River, Ohio.
Sec. 535. Crowder Point, Crowder, Oklahoma.
Sec. 536. Lower Columbia River and Tillamook Bay ecosystem restoration,
Oregon and Washington.
Sec. 537. Access improvements, Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 538. Upper Susquehanna River basin, Pennsylvania and New York.
Sec. 539. Charleston Harbor, South Carolina.
Sec. 540. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and
South Dakota terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration.
Sec. 541. Horn Lake Creek and tributaries, Tennessee and Mississippi.
Sec. 542. Lake Champlain watershed, Vermont and New York.
Sec. 543. Vermont dams remediation.
Sec. 544. Puget Sound and adjacent waters restoration, Washington.
Sec. 545. Willapa Bay, Washington.
Sec. 546. Wynoochee Lake, Wynoochee River, Washington.
Sec. 547. Bluestone, West Virginia.
Sec. 548. Lesage/Greenbottom Swamp, West Virginia.
Sec. 549. Tug Fork River, West Virginia.
Sec. 550. Southern West Virginia.
Sec. 551. Surfside/Sunset and Newport Beach, California.
Sec. 552. Watershed management, restoration, and development.
Sec. 553. Maintenance of navigation channels.
Sec. 554. Hydrographic survey.
Sec. 555. Columbia River treaty fishing access.
Sec. 556. Release of use restriction.
TITLE VI--COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION
Sec. 601. Comprehensive Everglades restoration plan.
Sec. 602. Sense of Congress concerning Homestead Air Force Base.
TITLE VII--MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION, NORTH DAKOTA
Sec. 701. Short title.
Sec. 702. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 703. Definitions.
Sec. 704. Missouri River Trust.
Sec. 705. Missouri River Task Force.
Sec. 706. Administration.
Sec. 707. Authorization of appropriations.
[[Page
H11626]]
TITLE VIII--WILDLIFE REFUGE ENHANCEMENT
Sec. 801. Short title.
Sec. 802. Purpose.
Sec. 803. Definitions.
Sec. 804. Conveyance of cabin sites.
Sec. 805. Rights of nonparticipating lessees.
Sec. 806. Conveyance to third parties.
Sec. 807. Use of proceeds.
Sec. 808. Administrative costs.
Sec. 809. Revocation of withdrawals.
Sec. 810. Authorization of appropriations.
TITLE IX--MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION, SOUTH DAKOTA
Sec. 901. Short title.
Sec. 902. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 903. Definitions.
Sec. 904. Missouri River Trust.
Sec. 905. Missouri River Task Force.
Sec. 906. Administration.
Sec. 907. Authorization of appropriations.
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SECRETARY.
In this Act, the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of
the Army.
TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS
SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.
(a) Projects With Chief's Reports.--The following projects
for water resources development and conservation and other
purposes are authorized to be carried out by the Secretary
substantially in accordance with the plans, and subject to
the conditions, described in the respective reports
designated in this subsection:
(1) Barnegat inlet to little egg inlet, new jersey.--The
project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Barnegat
Inlet to Little Egg Inlet, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of
Engineers dated July 26, 2000, at a total cost of
$51,203,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $33,282,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $17,921,000, and at an
estimated average annual cost of $1,751,000 for periodic
nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an
estimated annual Federal cost of $1,138,000 and an estimated
annual non-Federal cost of $613,000.
(2) Port of new york and new jersey, new york and new
jersey.--
(A) In general.--The project for navigation, Port of New
York and New Jersey, New York and New Jersey: Report of the
Chief of Engineers dated May 2, 2000, at a total cost of
$1,781,234,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$743,954,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$1,037,280,000.
(B) Non-federal share.--
(i) In general.--The non-Federal share of the costs of the
project may be provided in cash or in the form of in-kind
services or materials.
(ii) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of design
and construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest
before the date of execution of a cooperation agreement for
the project if the Secretary determines that the work is
integral to the project.
(b) Projects Subject to Final Report.--The following
projects for water resources development and conservation and
other purposes are authorized to be carried out by the
Secretary substantially in accordance with the plans, and
subject to the conditions, recommended in a final report of
the Chief of Engineers if a favorable report of the Chief is
completed not later than December 31, 2000:
(1) False pass harbor, alaska.--The project for navigation,
False Pass Harbor, Alaska, at a total cost of $15,552,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $9,374,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $6,178,000.
(2) Unalaska harbor, alaska.--The project for navigation,
Unalaska Harbor, Alaska, at a total cost of $20,000,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $12,000,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $8,000,000, except that the date for
completion of the favorable report of the Chief of Engineers
shall be December 31, 2001, instead of December 31, 2000.
(3) Rio de flag, flagstaff, arizona.--The project for flood
damage reduction, Rio de Flag, Flagstaff, Arizona, at a total
cost of $24,072,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$15,576,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $8,496,000.
(4) Tres rios, arizona.--The project for ecosystem
restoration, Tres Rios, Arizona, at a total cost of
$99,320,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $62,755,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $36,565,000.
(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.
(6) Murrieta creek, california.--The project for flood
damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, Murrieta Creek,
California, described as alternative 6, based on the District
Engineer's Murrieta Creek feasibility report and
environmental impact statement dated October 2000, at a total
cost of $89,846,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$25,556,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $64,290,000.
(7) Pine flat dam, california.--The project for ecosystem
restoration, Pine Flat Dam, California, at a total cost of
$34,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $22,000,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $12,000,000.
(8) Santa barbara streams, lower mission creek,
california.--The project for flood damage reduction, Santa
Barbara streams, Lower Mission Creek, California, at a total
cost of $18,300,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$9,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $9,100,000.
(9) Upper newport bay, california.--The project for
ecosystem restoration, Upper Newport Bay, California, at a
total cost of $32,475,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$21,109,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $11,366,000.
(10) Whitewater river basin, california.--The project for
flood damage reduction, Whitewater River basin, California,
at a total cost of $28,900,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $18,800,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$10,100,000.
(11) Delaware coast from cape henlopen to fenwick island.--
The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction,
Delaware Coast from Cape Henlopen to Fenwick Island, at a
total cost of $5,633,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$3,661,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $1,972,000,
and at an estimated average annual cost of $920,000 for
periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project,
with an estimated annual Federal cost of $460,000 and an
estimated annual non-Federal cost of $460,000.
(12) Port sutton, florida.--The project for navigation,
Port Sutton, Florida, at a total cost of $7,600,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $4,900,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $2,700,000.
(13) Barbers point harbor, hawaii.--The project for
navigation, Barbers Point Harbor, Hawaii, at a total cost of
$30,003,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $18,524,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $11,479,000.
(14) John myers lock and dam, indiana and kentucky.--The
project for navigation, John Myers Lock and Dam, Indiana and
Kentucky, at a total cost of $181,700,000. The costs of
construction of the project shall be paid \1/2\ from amounts
appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury and \1/2\
from amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust
Fund.
(15) Greenup lock and dam, kentucky and ohio.--The project
for navigation, Greenup Lock and Dam, Kentucky and Ohio, at a
total cost of $175,500,000. The costs of construction of the
project shall be paid \1/2\ from amounts appropriated from
the general fund of the Treasury and \1/2\ from amounts
appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
(16) Ohio river, kentucky, illinois, indiana, ohio,
pennsylvania, and west virginia.--
(A) In general.--Projects for ecosystem restoration, Ohio
River Mainstem, 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.
(B) Non-federal share.--
(i) In general.--The non-Federal share of the costs of any
project under this paragraph may be provided in cash or in
the form of in-kind services or materials.
(ii) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of a project under this paragraph
the cost of design and construction work carried out by the
non-Federal interest before the date of execution of a
cooperation agreement for the project if the Secretary
determines that the work is integral to the project.
(17) Morganza, louisiana, to gulf of mexico.--
(A) In general.--The project for hurricane and storm damage
reduction, Morganza, Louisiana, to the Gulf of Mexico, at a
total cost of $550,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$358,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$192,000,000.
(B) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of work
carried out by the non-Federal interest for interim flood
protection after March 31, 1989, if the Secretary determines
that the work is integral to the project.
(18) Monarch-chesterfield, missouri.--The project for flood
damage reduction, Monarch-Chesterfield, Missouri, at a total
cost of $58,090,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$37,758,500 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $20,331,500.
(19) Antelope creek, lincoln, nebraska.--The project for
flood damage reduction, Antelope Creek, Lincoln, Nebraska, at
a total cost of $46,310,000, with an estimated Federal cost
of $23,155,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$23,155,000.
(20) Sand creek watershed, wahoo, nebraska.--The project
for ecosystem restoration and flood damage reduction, Sand
Creek watershed, Wahoo, Nebraska, at a total cost of
$29,840,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $16,870,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $12,970,000.
(21) Western sarpy and clear creek, nebraska.--The project
for flood damage reduction, Western Sarpy and Clear Creek,
Nebraska, at a total cost of $15,643,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $9,518,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $6,125,000.
(22) Raritan bay and sandy hook bay, cliffwood beach, new
jersey.--The project for hurricane and storm damage
reduction, Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, Cliffwood Beach,
New Jersey, at a total cost of $5,219,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $3,392,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $1,827,000, and at an estimated average annual cost of
$110,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of
the project, with an estimated annual Federal cost of $55,000
and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of $55,000.
(23) Raritan bay and sandy hook bay, port monmouth, new
jersey.--The project for hurricane and storm damage
reduction, Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, Port Monmouth, New
Jersey, at a total cost of $32,064,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $20,842,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $11,222,000, and at an estimated average annual cost of
$173,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of
the project, with an estimated annual Federal cost of $86,500
and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of $86,500.
(24) Dare county beaches, north carolina.--The project for
hurricane and storm damage reduction, Dare County beaches,
North Carolina, at a total cost of $71,674,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $46,588,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $25,086,000, and at an
[[Page
H11627]]
estimated average annual cost of $34,990,000 for periodic
nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an
estimated annual Federal cost of $17,495,000 and an estimated
annual non-Federal cost of $17,495,000.
(25) Wolf river, memphis, tennessee.--The project for
ecosystem restoration, Wolf River, Memphis, Tennessee, at a
total cost of $9,118,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$5,849,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,269,000.
(26) Duwamish/green, washington.--The project for ecosystem
restoration, Duwamish/Green, Washington, at a total cost of
$112,860,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $73,360,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $39,500,000.
(27) Stillagumaish river basin, washington.--The project
for ecosystem restoration, Stillagumaish River basin,
Washington, at a total cost of $23,590,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $15,680,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $7,910,000.
(28) Jackson hole, wyoming.--
(A) In general.--The project for ecosystem restoration,
Jackson Hole, Wyoming, at a total cost of $52,242,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $33,957,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $18,285,000.
(B) Non-federal share.--
(i) In general.--The non-Federal share of the costs of the
project may be provided in cash or in the form of in-kind
services or materials.
(ii) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of design
and construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest
before the date of execution of a cooperation agreement for
the project if the Secretary determines that the work is
integral to the project.
SEC. 102. SMALL PROJECTS FOR FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study for
each of the following projects and, if the Secretary
determines that a project is feasible, may carry out the
project under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948
(33 U.S.C. 701s):
(1) Buffalo island, arkansas.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Buffalo Island, Arkansas.
(2) Anaverde creek, palmdale, california.--Project for
flood damage reduction, Anaverde Creek, Palmdale, California.
(3) Castaic creek, old road bridge, santa clarita,
california.--Project for flood damage reduction, Castaic
Creek, Old Road bridge, Santa Clarita, California.
(4) Santa clara river, old road bridge, santa clarita,
california.--Project for flood damage reduction, Santa Clara
River, Old Road bridge, Santa Clarita, California.
(5) Weiser river, idaho.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Weiser River, Idaho.
(6) Columbia levee, columbia, illinois.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Columbia Levee, Columbia, Illinois.
(7) East-west creek, riverton, illinois.--Project for flood
damage reduction, East-West Creek, Riverton, Illinois.
(8) Prairie du pont, illinois.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Prairie Du Pont, Illinois.
(9) Monroe county, illinois.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Monroe County, Illinois.
(10) Willow creek, meredosia, illinois.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Willow Creek, Meredosia, Illinois.
(11) Dykes branch channel, leawood, kansas.--Project for
flood damage reduction, Dykes Branch channel improvements,
Leawood, Kansas.
(12) Dykes branch tributaries, leawood, kansas.--Project
for flood damage reduction, Dykes Branch tributary
improvements, Leawood, Kansas.
(13) Kentucky river, frankfort, kentucky.--Project for
flood damage reduction, Kentucky River, Frankfort, Kentucky.
(14) Bayou tete l'ours, louisiana.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Bayou Tete L'Ours, Louisiana.
(15) Bossier city, louisiana.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Red Chute Bayou levee, Bossier City, Louisiana.
(16) Bossier parish, louisiana.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Cane Bend Subdivision, Bossier Parish, Louisiana.
(17) Braithwaite park, louisiana.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Braithwaite Park, Louisiana.
(18) Crown point, louisiana.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Crown Point, Louisiana.
(19) Donaldsonville canals, louisiana.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Donaldsonville Canals, Louisiana.
(20) Goose bayou, louisiana.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Goose Bayou, Louisiana.
(21) Gumby dam, louisiana.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Gumby Dam, Richland Parish, Louisiana.
(22) Hope canal, louisiana.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Hope Canal, Louisiana.
(23) Jean lafitte, louisiana.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Jean Lafitte, Louisiana.
(24) Lakes maurepas and pontchartrain canals, st. john the
baptist parish, louisiana.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain Canals, St. John
the Baptist Parish, Louisiana.
(25) Lockport to larose, louisiana.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Lockport to Larose, Louisiana.
(26) Lower lafitte basin, louisiana.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Lower Lafitte basin, Louisiana.
(27) Oakville to lareussite, louisiana.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Oakville to LaReussite, Louisiana.
(28) Pailet basin, louisiana.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Pailet basin, Louisiana.
(29) Pochitolawa creek, louisiana.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Pochitolawa Creek, Louisiana.
(30) Rosethorn basin, louisiana.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Rosethorn basin, Louisiana.
(31) Shreveport, louisiana.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Twelve Mile Bayou, Shreveport, Louisiana.
(32) Stephensville, louisiana.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Stephensville, Louisiana.
(33) St. john the baptist parish, louisiana.--Project for
flood damage reduction, St. John the Baptist Parish,
Louisiana.
(34) Magby creek and vernon branch, mississippi.--Project
for flood damage reduction, Magby Creek and Vernon Branch,
Lowndes County, Mississippi.
(35) Pennsville township, salem county, new jersey.--
Project for flood damage reduction, Pennsville Township,
Salem County, New Jersey.
(36) Hempstead, new york.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Hempstead, New York.
(37) Highland brook, highland falls, new york.--Project for
flood damage reduction, Highland Brook, Highland Falls, New
York.
(38) Lafayette township, ohio.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Lafayette Township, Ohio.
(39) West lafayette, ohio.--Project for flood damage
reduction, West Lafayette, Ohio.
(40) Bear creek and tributaries, medford, oregon.--Project
for flood damage reduction, Bear Creek and tributaries,
Medford, Oregon.
(41) Delaware canal and brock creek, yardley borough,
pennsylvania.--Project for flood damage reduction, Delaware
Canal and Brock Creek, Yardley Borough, Pennsylvania.
(42) Fritz landing, tennessee.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Fritz Landing, Tennessee.
(43) First creek, fountain city, knoxville, tennessee.--
Project for flood damage reduction, First Creek, Fountain
City, Knoxville, Tennessee.
(44) Mississippi river, ridgely, tennessee.--Project for
flood damage reduction, Mississippi River, Ridgely,
Tennessee.
(b) Magpie Creek, Sacramento County, California.--In
formulating the project for Magpie Creek, California,
authorized by section 102(a)(4) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 281) to be carried out
under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C.
701s), the Secretary may consider benefits from the full
utilization of existing improvements at McClellan Air Force
Base that would result from the project after conversion of
the base to civilian use.
SEC. 103. SMALL PROJECTS FOR EMERGENCY STREAMBANK
PROTECTION.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the
following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a
project is feasible, may carry out the project under section
14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r):
(1) Maumee river, fort wayne, indiana.--Project for
emergency streambank protection, Maumee River, Fort Wayne,
Indiana.
(2) Bayou des glaises, louisiana.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, Bayou des Glaises (Lee Chatelain
Road), Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana.
(3) Bayou plaquemine, louisiana.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, Highway 77, Bayou Plaquemine,
Iberville Parish, Louisiana.
(4) Bayou sorrell, iberville parish, louisiana.--Project
for emergency streambank protection, Bayou Sorrell, Iberville
Parish, Louisiana.
(5) Hammond, louisiana.--Project for emergency streambank
protection, Fagan Drive Bridge, Hammond, Louisiana.
(6) Iberville parish, louisiana.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, Iberville Parish, Louisiana.
(7) Lake arthur, louisiana.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, Parish Road 120 at Lake Arthur,
Louisiana.
(8) Lake charles, louisiana.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, Pithon Coulee, Lake Charles, Calcasieu
Parish, Louisiana.
(9) Loggy bayou, louisiana.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, Loggy Bayou, Bienville Parish,
Louisiana.
(10) Scotlandville bluff, louisiana.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, Scotlandville Bluff, East Baton Rouge
Parish, Louisiana.
SEC. 104. SMALL PROJECTS FOR NAVIGATION.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the
following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a
project is feasible, may carry out the project under section
107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577):
(1) Whittier, alaska.--Project for navigation, Whittier,
Alaska.
(2) Cape coral south spreader waterway, florida.--Project
for navigation, Cape Coral South Spreader Waterway, Lee
County, Florida.
(3) Houma navigation canal, louisiana.--Project for
navigation, Houma Navigation Canal, Terrebonne Parish,
Louisiana.
(4) Vidalia port, louisiana.--Project for navigation,
Vidalia Port, Louisiana.
(5) East two rivers, tower, minnesota.--Project for
navigation, East Two Rivers, Tower, Minnesota.
(6) Erie basin marina, buffalo, new york.--Project for
navigation, Erie Basin marina, Buffalo, New York.
(7) Lake michigan, lakeshore state park, milwaukee,
wisconsin.--Project for navigation, Lake Michigan, Lakeshore
State Park, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
(8) Saxon harbor, francis, wisconsin.--Project for
navigation, Saxon Harbor, Francis, Wisconsin.
[[Page
H11628]]
SEC. 105. SMALL PROJECTS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE QUALITY OF
THE ENVIRONMENT.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the
following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a
project is appropriate, may carry out the project under
section 1135(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a(a)):
(1) Nahant marsh, davenport, iowa.--Project for improvement
of the quality of the environment, Nahant Marsh, Davenport,
Iowa.
(2) Bayou sauvage national wildlife refuge, louisiana.--
Project for improvement of the quality of the environment,
Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge, Orleans Parish,
Louisiana.
(3) Gulf intracoastal waterway, bayou plaquemine,
louisiana.--Project for improvement of the quality of the
environment, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Bayou Plaquemine,
Iberville Parish, Louisiana.
(4) Gulf intracoastal waterway, miles 220 to 222.5,
louisiana.--Project for improvement of the quality of the
environment, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, miles 220 to 222.5,
Vermilion Parish, Louisiana.
(5) Gulf intracoastal waterway, weeks bay, louisiana.--
Project for improvement of the quality of the environment,
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Weeks Bay, Iberia Parish,
Louisiana.
(6) Lake fausse point, louisiana.--Project for improvement
of the quality of the environment, Lake Fausse Point,
Louisiana.
(7) Lake providence, louisiana.--Project for improvement of
the quality of the environment, Old River, Lake Providence,
Louisiana.
(8) New river, louisiana.--Project for improvement of the
quality of the environment, New River, Ascension Parish,
Louisiana.
(9) Erie county, ohio.--Project for improvement of the
quality of the environment, Sheldon's Marsh State Nature
Preserve, Erie County, Ohio.
(10) Muskingum county, ohio.--Project for improvement of
the quality of the environment, Dillon Reservoir watershed,
Licking River, Muskingum County, Ohio.
SEC. 106. SMALL PROJECTS FOR AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study for
each of the following projects and, if the Secretary
determines that a project is appropriate, may carry out the
project under section 206 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330):
(1) Arkansas river, pueblo, colorado.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Arkansas River, Pueblo, Colorado.
(2) Hayden diversion project, yampa river, colorado.--
Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Hayden Diversion
Project, Yampa River, Colorado.
(3) Little econlockhatchee river basin, florida.--Project
for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Little Econlockhatchee
River basin, Florida.
(4) Loxahatchee slough, palm beach county, florida.--
Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Loxahatchee
Slough, Palm Beach County, Florida.
(5) Stevenson creek estuary, florida.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Stevenson Creek estuary, Florida.
(6) Chouteau island, madison county, illinois.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Chouteau Island, Madison
County, Illinois.
(7) Braud bayou, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Braud Bayou, Spanish Lake, Ascension Parish,
Louisiana.
(8) Buras marina, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Buras Marina, Buras, Plaquemines Parish,
Louisiana.
(9) Comite river, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Comite River at Hooper Road, Louisiana.
(10) Department of energy 21-inch pipeline canal,
louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration,
Department of Energy 21-inch Pipeline Canal, St. Martin
Parish, Louisiana.
(11) Lake borgne, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, southern shores of Lake Borgne, Louisiana.
(12) Lake martin, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Lake Martin, Louisiana.
(13) Luling, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Luling Oxidation Pond, St. Charles Parish,
Louisiana.
(14) Mandeville, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Mandeville, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana.
(15) St. james, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, St. James, Louisiana.
(16) Saginaw bay, bay city, michigan.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Saginaw Bay, Bay City, Michigan.
(17) Rainwater basin, nebraska.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Rainwater Basin, Nebraska.
(18) Mines falls park, new hampshire.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Mines Falls Park, New Hampshire.
(19) North hampton, new hampshire.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Little River Salt Marsh, North
Hampton, New Hampshire.
(20) Cazenovia lake, madison county, new york.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Cazenovia Lake, Madison
County, New York, including efforts to address aquatic
invasive plant species.
(21) Chenango lake, chenango county, new york.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Chenango Lake, Chenango
County, New York, including efforts to address aquatic
invasive plant species.
(22) Eagle lake, new york.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Eagle Lake, Ticonderoga, New York.
(23) Ossining, new york.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Ossining, New York.
(24) Saratoga lake, new york.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Saratoga Lake, New York.
(25) Schroon lake, new york.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Schroon Lake, New York.
(26) Highland county, ohio.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Rocky Fork Lake, Clear Creek floodplain,
Highland County, Ohio.
(27) Hocking county, ohio.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Long Hollow Mine, Hocking County, Ohio.
(28) Middle cuyahoga river, kent, ohio.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Middle Cuyahoga River, Kent,
Ohio.
(29) Tuscarawas county, ohio.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Huff Run, Tuscarawas County, Ohio.
(30) Delta ponds, oregon.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Delta Ponds, Oregon.
(31) Central amazon creek, eugene, oregon.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Central Amazon Creek, Eugene,
Oregon.
(32) Eugene millrace, eugene, oregon.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Eugene Millrace, Eugene, Oregon.
(33) Bear creek watershed, medford, oregon.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Bear Creek watershed, Medford,
Oregon.
(34) Lone pine and lazy creeks, medford, oregon.--Project
for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Lone Pine and Lazy Creeks,
Medford, Oregon.
(35) Roslyn lake, oregon.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Roslyn Lake, Oregon.
(36) Tullytown borough, pennsylvania.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Tullytown Borough, Pennsylvania.
(b) Salmon River, Idaho.--The Secretary may credit toward
the non-Federal share of the cost of the project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Salmon River, Idaho, to be carried out
under section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330) the cost of work (consisting of
surveys, studies, and development of technical data) carried
out by the non-Federal interest if the Secretary determines
that the work is integral to the project.
SEC. 107. SMALL PROJECTS FOR SHORELINE PROTECTION.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the
following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a
project is feasible, may carry out the project under section
3 of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing Federal
participation in the cost of protecting the shores of
publicly owned property'', approved August 13, 1946 (33
U.S.C. 426g):
(1) Lake palourde, louisiana.--Project for beach
restoration and protection, Highway 70, Lake Palourde, St.
Mary and St. Martin Parishes, Louisiana.
(2) St. bernard, louisiana.--Project for beach restoration
and protection, Bayou Road, St. Bernard, Louisiana.
(3) Hudson river, dutchess county, new york.--Project for
beach restoration and protection, Hudson River, Dutchess
County, New York.
SEC. 108. SMALL PROJECTS FOR SNAGGING AND SEDIMENT REMOVAL.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the
following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a
project is feasible, the Secretary may carry out the project
under section 2 of the Flood Control Act of August 28, 1937
(33 U.S.C. 701g):
(1) Sangamon river and tributaries, riverton, illinois.--
Project for removal of snags and clearing and straightening
of channels for flood control, Sangamon River and
tributaries, Riverton, Illinois.
(2) Bayou manchac, louisiana.--Project for removal of snags
and clearing and straightening of channels for flood control,
Bayou Manchac, Ascension Parish, Louisiana.
(3) Black bayou and hippolyte coulee, louisiana.--Project
for removal of snags and clearing and straightening of
channels for flood control, Black Bayou and Hippolyte Coulee,
Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana.
SEC. 109. SMALL PROJECT FOR MITIGATION OF SHORE DAMAGE.
The Secretary shall conduct a study of shore damage at
Puget Island, Columbia River, Washington, to determine if the
damage is the result of the project for navigation, Columbia
River, Washington, authorized by the first section of the
Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act of June 13, 1902 (32
Stat. 369), and, if the Secretary determines that the damage
is the result of the project for navigation and that a
project to mitigate the damage is appropriate, the Secretary
may carry out the project to mitigate the damage under
section 111 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C.
426i).
SEC. 110. BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL.
The Secretary may carry out the following projects under
section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992
(33 U.S.C. 2326):
(1) Houma navigation canal, louisiana.--Project to make
beneficial use of dredged material from a Federal navigation
project that includes barrier island restoration at the Houma
Navigation Canal, Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana.
(2) Mississippi river gulf outlet, mile -3 to mile -9,
louisiana.--Project to make beneficial use of dredged
material from a Federal navigation project that includes
dredging of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, mile -3 to
mile -9, St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana.
(3) Mississippi river gulf outlet, mile 11 to mile 4,
louisiana.--Project to make beneficial
[[Page
H11629]]
use of dredged material from a Federal navigation project
that includes dredging of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet,
mile 11 to mile 4, St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana.
(4) Plaquemines parish, louisiana.--Project to make
beneficial use of dredged material from a Federal navigation
project that includes marsh creation at the contained
submarine maintenance dredge sediment trap, Plaquemines
Parish, Louisiana.
(5) St. louis county, minnesota.--Project to make
beneficial use of dredged material from a Federal navigation
project in St. Louis County, Minnesota.
(6) Ottawa county, ohio.--Project to make beneficial use of
dredged material from a Federal navigation to protect,
restore, and create aquatic and related habitat, East Harbor
State Park, Ottawa County, Ohio.
SEC. 111. DISPOSAL OF DREDGED MATERIAL ON BEACHES.
Section 217 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
(113 Stat. 294) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(f) Fort Canby State Park, Benson Beach, Washington.--The
Secretary may design and construct a shore protection project
at Fort Canby State Park, Benson Beach, Washington, including
beneficial use of dredged material from a Federal navigation
project under section 145 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C. 426j) or section 204 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326).''.
SEC. 112. PETALUMA RIVER, PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out the Petaluma
River project, at the city of Petaluma, Sonoma County,
California, to provide a 100-year level of flood protection
to the city in accordance with the detailed project report of
the San Francisco District Engineer, dated March 1995, at a
total cost of $32,227,000.
(b) Reimbursement.--The Secretary shall reimburse the non-
Federal interest for any project costs that the non-Federal
interest has incurred in excess of the non-Federal share of
project costs, regardless of the date on which the costs were
incurred.
(c) Cost Sharing.--For purposes of reimbursement under
subsection (b), cost sharing for work performed on the
project before the date of enactment of this Act shall be
determined in accordance with section 103(a) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(a)).
TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 201. COOPERATION AGREEMENTS WITH COUNTIES.
Section 221(a) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C.
1962d-5b(a)) is amended in the second sentence--
(1) by striking ``State legislative'';
(2) by striking ``State constitutional'' and inserting
``constitutional; and
(3) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``of the State or a political subdivision of the
State''.
SEC. 202. WATERSHED AND RIVER BASIN ASSESSMENTS.
Section 729 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(100 Stat. 4164) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 729. WATERSHED AND RIVER BASIN ASSESSMENTS.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary may assess the water
resources needs of river basins and watersheds of the United
States, including needs relating to--
``(1) ecosystem protection and restoration;
``(2) flood damage reduction;
``(3) navigation and ports;
``(4) watershed protection;
``(5) water supply; and
``(6) drought preparedness.
``(b) Cooperation.--An assessment under subsection (a)
shall be carried out in cooperation and coordination with--
``(1) the Secretary of the Interior;
``(2) the Secretary of Agriculture;
``(3) the Secretary of Commerce;
``(4) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency; and
``(5) the heads of other appropriate agencies.
``(c) Consultation.--In carrying out an assessment under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with Federal,
tribal, State, interstate, and local governmental entities.
``(d) Priority River Basins and Watersheds.--In selecting
river basins and watersheds for assessment under this
section, the Secretary shall give priority to--
``(1) the Delaware River basin;
``(2) the Kentucky River basin;
``(3) the Potomac River basin;
``(4) the Susquehanna River basin; and
``(5) the Willamette River basin.
``(e) Acceptance of Contributions.--In carrying out an
assessment under subsection (a), the Secretary may accept
contributions, in cash or in kind, from Federal, tribal,
State, interstate, and local governmental entities to the
extent that the Secretary determines that the contributions
will facilitate completion of the assessment.
``(f) Cost-Sharing Requirements.--
``(1) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the
costs of an assessment carried out under this section shall
be 50 percent.
``(2) Credit.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the
Secretary may credit toward the non-Federal share of an
assessment under this section the cost of services,
materials, supplies, or other in-kind contributions provided
by the non-Federal interests for the assessment.
``(B) Maximum amount of credit.--The credit under
subparagraph (A) may not exceed an amount equal to 25 percent
of the costs of the assessment.
``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000.''.
SEC. 203. TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.
(a) Definition of Indian Tribe.--In this section, the term
``Indian tribe'' has the meaning given the term in section 4
of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
(25 U.S.C. 450b).
(b) Program.--
(1) In general.--In cooperation with Indian tribes and the
heads of other Federal agencies, the Secretary may study and
determine the feasibility of carrying out water resources
development projects that--
(A) will substantially benefit Indian tribes; and
(B) are located primarily within Indian country (as defined
in section 1151 of title 18, United States Code) or in
proximity to Alaska Native villages.
(2) Matters to be studied.--A study conducted under
paragraph (1) may address--
(A) projects for flood damage reduction, environmental
restoration and protection, and preservation of cultural and
natural resources; and
(B) such other projects as the Secretary, in cooperation
with Indian tribes and the heads of other Federal agencies,
determines to be appropriate.
(c) Consultation and Coordination With Secretary of the
Interior.--
(1) In general.--In recognition of the unique role of the
Secretary of the Interior concerning trust responsibilities
with Indian tribes and in recognition of mutual trust
responsibilities, the Secretary shall consult with the
Secretary of the Interior concerning studies conducted under
subsection (b).
(2) Integration of activities.--The Secretary shall--
(A) integrate civil works activities of the Department of
the Army with activities of the Department of the Interior to
avoid conflicts, duplications of effort, or unanticipated
adverse effects on Indian tribes; and
(B) consider the authorities and programs of the Department
of the Interior and other Federal agencies in any
recommendations concerning carrying out projects studied
under subsection (b).
(d) Cost Sharing.--
(1) Ability to pay.--
(A) In general.--Any cost-sharing agreement for a study
under subsection (b) shall be subject to the ability of the
non-Federal interest to pay.
(B) Use of procedures.--The ability of a non-Federal
interest to pay shall be determined by the Secretary in
accordance with procedures established by the Secretary.
(2) Credit.--The Secretary may credit toward the non-
Federal share of the costs of a study under subsection (b)
the cost of services, studies, supplies, or other in-kind
contributions provided by the non-Federal interest if the
Secretary determines that the services, studies, supplies,
and other in-kind contributions will facilitate completion of
the study.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out subsection (b) $5,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2002 through 2006, of which not more
than $1,000,000 may be used with respect to any 1 Indian
tribe.
SEC. 204. ABILITY TO PAY.
Section 103(m) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--Any cost-sharing agreement under this
section for a feasibility study, or for construction of an
environmental protection and restoration project, a flood
control project, a project for navigation, storm damage
protection, shoreline erosion, hurricane protection, or
recreation, or an agricultural water supply project, shall be
subject to the ability of the non-Federal interest to pay.
``(2) Criteria and procedures.--The ability of a non-
Federal interest to pay shall be determined by the Secretary
in accordance with criteria and procedures in effect under
paragraph (3) on the day before the date of enactment of the
Water Resources Development Act of 2000; except that such
criteria and procedures shall be revised, and new criteria
and procedures shall be developed, not later than 180 days
after such date of enactment to reflect the requirements of
such paragraph (3).''; and
(2) in paragraph (3)--
(A) by inserting ``and'' after the semicolon at the end of
subparagraph (A)(ii);
(B) by striking subparagraph (B); and
(C) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (B).
SEC. 205. PROPERTY PROTECTION PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may carry out a program to
reduce vandalism and destruction of property at water
resources development projects under the jurisdiction of the
Department of the Army.
(b) Provision of Rewards.--In carrying out the program, the
Secretary may provide rewards (including cash rewards) to
individuals who provide information or evidence leading to
the arrest and prosecution of individuals causing damage to
Federal property.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $500,000 for
fiscal year 2001 and each fiscal year thereafter.
SEC. 206. NATIONAL RECREATION RESERVATION SERVICE.
Notwithstanding section 611 of the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (112 Stat. 2681-515), the
Secretary may--
(1) participate in the National Recreation Reservation
Service on an interagency basis; and
(2) pay the Department of the Army's share of the
activities required to implement, operate, and maintain the
Service.
[[Page
H11630]]
SEC. 207. INTERAGENCY AND INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT AUTHORITY.
Section 234(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (33 U.S.C. 2323a(d)) is amended--
(1) by striking the first sentence and inserting the
following: ``There is authorized to be appropriated to carry
out this section $250,000 for fiscal year 2001 and each
fiscal year thereafter.''; and
(2) in the second sentence by inserting ``out'' after
``carry''.
SEC. 208. REBURIAL AND CONVEYANCE AUTHORITY.
(a) Definition of Indian Tribe.--In this section, the term
``Indian tribe'' has the meaning given the term in section 4
of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
(25 U.S.C. 450b).
(b) Reburial.--
(1) Reburial areas.--In consultation with affected Indian
tribes, the Secretary may identify and set aside areas at
civil works projects of the Department of the Army that may
be used to rebury Native American remains that--
(A) have been discovered on project land; and
(B) have been rightfully claimed by a lineal descendant or
Indian tribe in accordance with applicable Federal law.
(2) Reburial.--In consultation with and with the consent of
the lineal descendant or the affected Indian tribe, the
Secretary may recover and rebury, at Federal expense, the
remains at the areas identified and set aside under
subsection (b)(1).
(c) Conveyance Authority.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), notwithstanding
any other provision of law, the Secretary may convey to an
Indian tribe for use as a cemetery an area at a civil works
project that is identified and set aside by the Secretary
under subsection (b)(1).
(2) Retention of necessary property interests.--In carrying
out paragraph (1), the Secretary shall retain any necessary
right-of-way, easement, or other property interest that the
Secretary determines to be necessary to carry out the
authorized purposes of the project.
SEC. 209. FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS.
(a) In General.--Section 402(c) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 701b-12(c)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence of paragraph (1) by striking
``Within 6 months after the date of the enactment of this
subsection, the'' and inserting ``The'';
(2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3);
(3) by striking ``Such guidelines shall address'' and
inserting the following:
``(2) Required elements.--The guidelines developed under
paragraph (1) shall--
``(A) address''; and
(4) in paragraph (2) (as designated by paragraph (3) of
this subsection)--
(A) by inserting ``to be undertaken by non-Federal
interests to'' after ``policies'';
(B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) address those measures to be undertaken by non-
Federal interests to preserve the level of flood protection
provided by a project to which subsection (a) applies.''.
(b) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply to any project or separable element of a project
with respect to which the Secretary and the non-Federal
interest have not entered a project cooperation agreement on
or before the date of enactment of this Act.
(c) Technical Amendments.--Section 402(b) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 701b-12(b)) is
amended--
(1) in the subsection heading by striking ``Flood Plain''
and inserting ``Floodplain''; and
(2) in the first sentence by striking ``flood plain'' and
inserting ``floodplain''.
SEC. 210. NONPROFIT ENTITIES.
(a) Environmental Dredging.--Section 312 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 1272) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(g) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221 of
the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), for any
project carried out under this section, a non-Federal sponsor
may include a nonprofit entity, with the consent of the
affected local government.''.
(b) Lakes Program.--Section 602 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4148-4149) is amended by
redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e) and by
inserting after subsection (c) the following:
``(d) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221 of
the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C.
Major Actions:
All articles in House section
CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 2796, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2000
(House of Representatives - October 31, 2000)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
H11624-H11668]
CONFERENCE REPORT ON
S. 2796, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2000
Mr. SHUSTER submitted the following conference report and statement
on the Senate bill (
S. 2796) to provide for the conservation and
development of water and related resources, to authorize the Secretary
of the Army to construct various projects for improvements to rivers
and harbors of the United States, and for other purposes:
Conference Report (H. Rept. 106-1020)
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the House to the bill (
S.
2796), to provide for the conservation and development of
water and related resources, to authorize the Secretary of
the Army to construct various projects for improvements to
rivers and harbors of the United States, and for other
purposes, having met, after full and free conference, have
agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective
Houses as follows:
That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the
amendment of the House and agree to the same with an
amendment as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the House
amendment, insert the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water
Resources Development Act of 2000''.
(b) Table of Contents.--
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definition of Secretary.
TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS
Sec. 101. Project authorizations.
Sec. 102. Small projects for flood damage reduction.
Sec. 103. Small projects for emergency streambank protection.
Sec. 104. Small projects for navigation.
Sec. 105. Small projects for improvement of the quality of the
environment.
Sec. 106. Small projects for aquatic ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 107. Small projects for shoreline protection.
Sec. 108. Small projects for snagging and sediment removal.
Sec. 109. Small project for mitigation of shore damage.
Sec. 110. Beneficial uses of dredged material.
Sec. 111. Disposal of dredged material on beaches.
Sec. 112. Petaluma River, Petaluma, California.
TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 201. Cooperation agreements with counties.
Sec. 202. Watershed and river basin assessments.
Sec. 203. Tribal partnership program.
Sec. 204. Ability to pay.
Sec. 205. Property protection program.
Sec. 206. National recreation reservation service.
Sec. 207. Interagency and international support authority.
Sec. 208. Reburial and conveyance authority.
Sec. 209. Floodplain management requirements.
Sec. 210. Nonprofit entities.
Sec. 211. Performance of specialized or technical services.
Sec. 212. Hydroelectric power project funding.
Sec. 213. Assistance programs.
Sec. 214. Funding to process permits.
Sec. 215. Dredged material marketing and recycling.
Sec. 216. National academy of sciences study.
Sec. 217. Rehabilitation of Federal flood control levees.
Sec. 218. Maximum program expenditures for small flood control
projects.
Sec. 219. Engineering consulting services.
Sec. 220. Beach recreation.
Sec. 221. Design-build contracting.
Sec. 222. Enhanced public participation.
Sec. 223. Monitoring.
Sec. 224. Fish and wildlife mitigation.
Sec. 225. Feasibility studies and planning, engineering, and design.
Sec. 226. Administrative costs of land conveyances.
[[Page
H11625]]
Sec. 227. Flood mitigation and riverine restoration.
TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway Wildlife Mitigation Project,
Alabama and Mississippi.
Sec. 302. Nogales Wash and tributaries, Nogales, Arizona.
Sec. 303. Boydsville, Arkansas.
Sec. 304. White River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.
Sec. 305. Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel, California.
Sec. 306. Delaware River Mainstem and Channel Deepening, Delaware, New
Jersey, and Pennsylvania.
Sec. 307. Rehoboth Beach and Dewey Beach, Delaware.
Sec. 308. Fernandina Harbor, Florida.
Sec. 309. Gasparilla and Estero Islands, Florida.
Sec. 310. East Saint Louis and vicinity, Illinois.
Sec. 311. Kaskaskia River, Kaskaskia, Illinois.
Sec. 312. Waukegan Harbor, Illinois.
Sec. 313. Upper Des Plaines River and tributaries, Illinois.
Sec. 314. Cumberland, Kentucky.
Sec. 315. Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana.
Sec. 316. Red River Waterway, Louisiana.
Sec. 317. Thomaston Harbor, Georges River, Maine.
Sec. 318. Poplar Island, Maryland.
Sec. 319. William Jennings Randolph Lake, Maryland.
Sec. 320. Breckenridge, Minnesota.
Sec. 321. Duluth Harbor, Minnesota.
Sec. 322. Little Falls, Minnesota.
Sec. 323. New Madrid County, Missouri.
Sec. 324. Pemiscot County Harbor, Missouri.
Sec. 325. Fort Peck fish hatchery, Montana.
Sec. 326. Sagamore Creek, New Hampshire.
Sec. 327. Passaic River basin flood management, New Jersey.
Sec. 328. Times Beach Nature Preserve, Buffalo, New York.
Sec. 329. Rockaway Inlet to Norton Point, New York.
Sec. 330. Garrison Dam, North Dakota.
Sec. 331. Duck Creek, Ohio.
Sec. 332. John Day Pool, Oregon and Washington.
Sec. 333. Fox Point hurricane barrier, Providence, Rhode Island.
Sec. 334. Nonconnah Creek, Tennessee and Mississippi.
Sec. 335. San Antonio Channel, San Antonio, Texas.
Sec. 336. Buchanan and Dickenson Counties, Virginia.
Sec. 337. Buchanan, Dickenson, and Russell Counties, Virginia.
Sec. 338. Sandbridge Beach, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Sec. 339. Mount St. Helens, Washington.
Sec. 340. Lower Mud River, Milton, West Virginia.
Sec. 341. Fox River System, Wisconsin.
Sec. 342. Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration.
Sec. 343. Great Lakes dredging levels adjustment.
Sec. 344. Great Lakes remedial action plans and sediment remediation.
Sec. 345. Treatment of dredged material from Long Island Sound.
Sec. 346. Declaration of nonnavigability for Lake Erie, New York.
Sec. 347. Project deauthorizations.
Sec. 348. Land conveyances.
Sec. 349. Project reauthorizations.
Sec. 350. Continuation of project authorizations.
Sec. 351. Water quality projects.
TITLE IV--STUDIES
Sec. 401. Studies of completed projects.
Sec. 402. Lower Mississippi River Resource Assessment.
Sec. 403. Upper Mississippi River Basin sediment and nutrient study.
Sec. 404. Upper Mississippi River comprehensive plan.
Sec. 405. Ohio River system.
Sec. 406. Baldwin County, Alabama.
Sec. 407. Bridgeport, Alabama.
Sec. 408-409. Arkansas River navigation system.
Sec. 410. Cache Creek basin, California.
Sec. 411. Estudillo Canal, San Leandro, California.
Sec. 412. Laguna Creek, Fremont, California.
Sec. 413. Lake Merritt, Oakland, California.
Sec. 414. Lancaster, California.
Sec. 415. Oceanside, California.
Sec. 416. San Jacinto watershed, California.
Sec. 417. Suisun Marsh, California.
Sec. 418. Delaware River watershed.
Sec. 419. Brevard County, Florida.
Sec. 420. Choctawhatchee River, Florida.
Sec. 421. Egmont Key, Florida.
Sec. 422. Upper Ocklawaha River and Apopka/Palatlakaha River basins,
Florida.
Sec. 423. Lake Allatoona watershed, Georgia.
Sec. 424. Boise River, Idaho.
Sec. 425. Wood River, Idaho.
Sec. 426. Chicago, Illinois.
Sec. 427. Chicago sanitary and ship canal system, Chicago, Illinois.
Sec. 428. Long Lake, Indiana.
Sec. 429. Brush and Rock Creeks, Mission Hills and Fairway, Kansas.
Sec. 430. Atchafalaya River, Bayous Chene, Boeuf, and Black, Louisiana.
Sec. 431. Boeuf and Black, Louisiana.
Sec. 432. Iberia Port, Louisiana.
Sec. 433. Lake Pontchartrain Seawall, Louisiana.
Sec. 434. Lower Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana.
Sec. 435. St. John the Baptist Parish, Louisiana.
Sec. 436. South Louisiana.
Sec. 437. Portsmouth Harbor and Piscataqua River, Maine and New
Hampshire.
Sec. 438. Merrimack River basin, Massachusetts and New Hampshire.
Sec. 439. Wild Rice River, Minnesota.
Sec. 440. Port of Gulfport, Mississippi.
Sec. 441. Las Vegas Valley, Nevada.
Sec. 442. Upland disposal sites in New Hampshire.
Sec. 443. Southwest Valley, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Sec. 444. Buffalo Harbor, Buffalo, New York.
Sec. 445. Jamesville Reservoir, Onondaga County, New York.
Sec. 446. Bogue Banks, Carteret County, North Carolina.
Sec. 447. Duck Creek watershed, Ohio.
Sec. 448. Fremont, Ohio.
Sec. 449. Steubenville, Ohio.
Sec. 450. Grand Lake, Oklahoma.
Sec. 451. Columbia Slough, Oregon.
Sec. 452. Cliff Walk in Newport, Rhode Island.
Sec. 453. Quonset Point channel, Rhode Island.
Sec. 454. Dredged material disposal site, Rhode Island.
Sec. 455. Reedy River, Greenville, South Carolina.
Sec. 456. Chickamauga Lock and Dam, Tennessee.
Sec. 457. Germantown, Tennessee.
Sec. 458. Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec. 501. Lakes program.
Sec. 502. Restoration projects.
Sec. 503. Support of Army civil works program.
Sec. 504. Export of water from Great Lakes.
Sec. 505. Great Lakes tributary model.
Sec. 506. Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 507. New England water resources and ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 508. Visitors centers.
Sec. 509. CALFED Bay-Delta program assistance, California.
Sec. 510. Seward, Alaska.
Sec. 511. Clear Lake basin, California.
Sec. 512. Contra Costa Canal, Oakley and Knightsen, California.
Sec. 513. Huntington Beach, California.
Sec. 514. Mallard Slough, Pittsburg, California.
Sec. 515. Port Everglades, Florida.
Sec. 516. Lake Sidney Lanier, Georgia, home preservation.
Sec. 517. Ballard's Island, LaSalle County, Illinois.
Sec. 518. Lake Michigan diversion, Illinois.
Sec. 519. Illinois River basin restoration.
Sec. 520. Koontz Lake, Indiana.
Sec. 521. West View Shores, Cecil County, Maryland.
Sec. 522. Muddy River, Brookline and Boston, Massachusetts.
Sec. 523. Soo Locks, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan.
Sec. 524. Minnesota dam safety.
Sec. 525. Bruce F. Vento Unit of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area
Wilderness, Minnesota.
Sec. 526. Duluth, Minnesota, alternative technology project.
Sec. 527. Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Sec. 528. Coastal Mississippi wetlands restoration projects.
Sec. 529. Las Vegas, Nevada.
Sec. 530. Urbanized peak flood management research, New Jersey.
Sec. 531. Nepperhan River, Yonkers, New York.
Sec. 532. Upper Mohawk River basin, New York.
Sec. 533. Flood damage reduction.
Sec. 534. Cuyahoga River, Ohio.
Sec. 535. Crowder Point, Crowder, Oklahoma.
Sec. 536. Lower Columbia River and Tillamook Bay ecosystem restoration,
Oregon and Washington.
Sec. 537. Access improvements, Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 538. Upper Susquehanna River basin, Pennsylvania and New York.
Sec. 539. Charleston Harbor, South Carolina.
Sec. 540. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and
South Dakota terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration.
Sec. 541. Horn Lake Creek and tributaries, Tennessee and Mississippi.
Sec. 542. Lake Champlain watershed, Vermont and New York.
Sec. 543. Vermont dams remediation.
Sec. 544. Puget Sound and adjacent waters restoration, Washington.
Sec. 545. Willapa Bay, Washington.
Sec. 546. Wynoochee Lake, Wynoochee River, Washington.
Sec. 547. Bluestone, West Virginia.
Sec. 548. Lesage/Greenbottom Swamp, West Virginia.
Sec. 549. Tug Fork River, West Virginia.
Sec. 550. Southern West Virginia.
Sec. 551. Surfside/Sunset and Newport Beach, California.
Sec. 552. Watershed management, restoration, and development.
Sec. 553. Maintenance of navigation channels.
Sec. 554. Hydrographic survey.
Sec. 555. Columbia River treaty fishing access.
Sec. 556. Release of use restriction.
TITLE VI--COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION
Sec. 601. Comprehensive Everglades restoration plan.
Sec. 602. Sense of Congress concerning Homestead Air Force Base.
TITLE VII--MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION, NORTH DAKOTA
Sec. 701. Short title.
Sec. 702. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 703. Definitions.
Sec. 704. Missouri River Trust.
Sec. 705. Missouri River Task Force.
Sec. 706. Administration.
Sec. 707. Authorization of appropriations.
[[Page
H11626]]
TITLE VIII--WILDLIFE REFUGE ENHANCEMENT
Sec. 801. Short title.
Sec. 802. Purpose.
Sec. 803. Definitions.
Sec. 804. Conveyance of cabin sites.
Sec. 805. Rights of nonparticipating lessees.
Sec. 806. Conveyance to third parties.
Sec. 807. Use of proceeds.
Sec. 808. Administrative costs.
Sec. 809. Revocation of withdrawals.
Sec. 810. Authorization of appropriations.
TITLE IX--MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION, SOUTH DAKOTA
Sec. 901. Short title.
Sec. 902. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 903. Definitions.
Sec. 904. Missouri River Trust.
Sec. 905. Missouri River Task Force.
Sec. 906. Administration.
Sec. 907. Authorization of appropriations.
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SECRETARY.
In this Act, the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of
the Army.
TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS
SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.
(a) Projects With Chief's Reports.--The following projects
for water resources development and conservation and other
purposes are authorized to be carried out by the Secretary
substantially in accordance with the plans, and subject to
the conditions, described in the respective reports
designated in this subsection:
(1) Barnegat inlet to little egg inlet, new jersey.--The
project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Barnegat
Inlet to Little Egg Inlet, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of
Engineers dated July 26, 2000, at a total cost of
$51,203,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $33,282,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $17,921,000, and at an
estimated average annual cost of $1,751,000 for periodic
nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an
estimated annual Federal cost of $1,138,000 and an estimated
annual non-Federal cost of $613,000.
(2) Port of new york and new jersey, new york and new
jersey.--
(A) In general.--The project for navigation, Port of New
York and New Jersey, New York and New Jersey: Report of the
Chief of Engineers dated May 2, 2000, at a total cost of
$1,781,234,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$743,954,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$1,037,280,000.
(B) Non-federal share.--
(i) In general.--The non-Federal share of the costs of the
project may be provided in cash or in the form of in-kind
services or materials.
(ii) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of design
and construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest
before the date of execution of a cooperation agreement for
the project if the Secretary determines that the work is
integral to the project.
(b) Projects Subject to Final Report.--The following
projects for water resources development and conservation and
other purposes are authorized to be carried out by the
Secretary substantially in accordance with the plans, and
subject to the conditions, recommended in a final report of
the Chief of Engineers if a favorable report of the Chief is
completed not later than December 31, 2000:
(1) False pass harbor, alaska.--The project for navigation,
False Pass Harbor, Alaska, at a total cost of $15,552,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $9,374,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $6,178,000.
(2) Unalaska harbor, alaska.--The project for navigation,
Unalaska Harbor, Alaska, at a total cost of $20,000,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $12,000,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $8,000,000, except that the date for
completion of the favorable report of the Chief of Engineers
shall be December 31, 2001, instead of December 31, 2000.
(3) Rio de flag, flagstaff, arizona.--The project for flood
damage reduction, Rio de Flag, Flagstaff, Arizona, at a total
cost of $24,072,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$15,576,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $8,496,000.
(4) Tres rios, arizona.--The project for ecosystem
restoration, Tres Rios, Arizona, at a total cost of
$99,320,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $62,755,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $36,565,000.
(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.
(6) Murrieta creek, california.--The project for flood
damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, Murrieta Creek,
California, described as alternative 6, based on the District
Engineer's Murrieta Creek feasibility report and
environmental impact statement dated October 2000, at a total
cost of $89,846,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$25,556,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $64,290,000.
(7) Pine flat dam, california.--The project for ecosystem
restoration, Pine Flat Dam, California, at a total cost of
$34,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $22,000,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $12,000,000.
(8) Santa barbara streams, lower mission creek,
california.--The project for flood damage reduction, Santa
Barbara streams, Lower Mission Creek, California, at a total
cost of $18,300,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$9,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $9,100,000.
(9) Upper newport bay, california.--The project for
ecosystem restoration, Upper Newport Bay, California, at a
total cost of $32,475,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$21,109,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $11,366,000.
(10) Whitewater river basin, california.--The project for
flood damage reduction, Whitewater River basin, California,
at a total cost of $28,900,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $18,800,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$10,100,000.
(11) Delaware coast from cape henlopen to fenwick island.--
The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction,
Delaware Coast from Cape Henlopen to Fenwick Island, at a
total cost of $5,633,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$3,661,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $1,972,000,
and at an estimated average annual cost of $920,000 for
periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project,
with an estimated annual Federal cost of $460,000 and an
estimated annual non-Federal cost of $460,000.
(12) Port sutton, florida.--The project for navigation,
Port Sutton, Florida, at a total cost of $7,600,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $4,900,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $2,700,000.
(13) Barbers point harbor, hawaii.--The project for
navigation, Barbers Point Harbor, Hawaii, at a total cost of
$30,003,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $18,524,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $11,479,000.
(14) John myers lock and dam, indiana and kentucky.--The
project for navigation, John Myers Lock and Dam, Indiana and
Kentucky, at a total cost of $181,700,000. The costs of
construction of the project shall be paid \1/2\ from amounts
appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury and \1/2\
from amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust
Fund.
(15) Greenup lock and dam, kentucky and ohio.--The project
for navigation, Greenup Lock and Dam, Kentucky and Ohio, at a
total cost of $175,500,000. The costs of construction of the
project shall be paid \1/2\ from amounts appropriated from
the general fund of the Treasury and \1/2\ from amounts
appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
(16) Ohio river, kentucky, illinois, indiana, ohio,
pennsylvania, and west virginia.--
(A) In general.--Projects for ecosystem restoration, Ohio
River Mainstem, 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.
(B) Non-federal share.--
(i) In general.--The non-Federal share of the costs of any
project under this paragraph may be provided in cash or in
the form of in-kind services or materials.
(ii) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of a project under this paragraph
the cost of design and construction work carried out by the
non-Federal interest before the date of execution of a
cooperation agreement for the project if the Secretary
determines that the work is integral to the project.
(17) Morganza, louisiana, to gulf of mexico.--
(A) In general.--The project for hurricane and storm damage
reduction, Morganza, Louisiana, to the Gulf of Mexico, at a
total cost of $550,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$358,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$192,000,000.
(B) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of work
carried out by the non-Federal interest for interim flood
protection after March 31, 1989, if the Secretary determines
that the work is integral to the project.
(18) Monarch-chesterfield, missouri.--The project for flood
damage reduction, Monarch-Chesterfield, Missouri, at a total
cost of $58,090,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$37,758,500 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $20,331,500.
(19) Antelope creek, lincoln, nebraska.--The project for
flood damage reduction, Antelope Creek, Lincoln, Nebraska, at
a total cost of $46,310,000, with an estimated Federal cost
of $23,155,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$23,155,000.
(20) Sand creek watershed, wahoo, nebraska.--The project
for ecosystem restoration and flood damage reduction, Sand
Creek watershed, Wahoo, Nebraska, at a total cost of
$29,840,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $16,870,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $12,970,000.
(21) Western sarpy and clear creek, nebraska.--The project
for flood damage reduction, Western Sarpy and Clear Creek,
Nebraska, at a total cost of $15,643,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $9,518,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $6,125,000.
(22) Raritan bay and sandy hook bay, cliffwood beach, new
jersey.--The project for hurricane and storm damage
reduction, Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, Cliffwood Beach,
New Jersey, at a total cost of $5,219,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $3,392,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $1,827,000, and at an estimated average annual cost of
$110,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of
the project, with an estimated annual Federal cost of $55,000
and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of $55,000.
(23) Raritan bay and sandy hook bay, port monmouth, new
jersey.--The project for hurricane and storm damage
reduction, Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, Port Monmouth, New
Jersey, at a total cost of $32,064,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $20,842,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $11,222,000, and at an estimated average annual cost of
$173,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of
the project, with an estimated annual Federal cost of $86,500
and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of $86,500.
(24) Dare county beaches, north carolina.--The project for
hurricane and storm damage reduction, Dare County beaches,
North Carolina, at a total cost of $71,674,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $46,588,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $25,086,000, and at an
[[Page
H11627]]
estimated average annual cost of $34,990,000 for periodic
nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an
estimated annual Federal cost of $17,495,000 and an estimated
annual non-Federal cost of $17,495,000.
(25) Wolf river, memphis, tennessee.--The project for
ecosystem restoration, Wolf River, Memphis, Tennessee, at a
total cost of $9,118,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$5,849,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,269,000.
(26) Duwamish/green, washington.--The project for ecosystem
restoration, Duwamish/Green, Washington, at a total cost of
$112,860,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $73,360,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $39,500,000.
(27) Stillagumaish river basin, washington.--The project
for ecosystem restoration, Stillagumaish River basin,
Washington, at a total cost of $23,590,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $15,680,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $7,910,000.
(28) Jackson hole, wyoming.--
(A) In general.--The project for ecosystem restoration,
Jackson Hole, Wyoming, at a total cost of $52,242,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $33,957,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $18,285,000.
(B) Non-federal share.--
(i) In general.--The non-Federal share of the costs of the
project may be provided in cash or in the form of in-kind
services or materials.
(ii) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of design
and construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest
before the date of execution of a cooperation agreement for
the project if the Secretary determines that the work is
integral to the project.
SEC. 102. SMALL PROJECTS FOR FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study for
each of the following projects and, if the Secretary
determines that a project is feasible, may carry out the
project under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948
(33 U.S.C. 701s):
(1) Buffalo island, arkansas.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Buffalo Island, Arkansas.
(2) Anaverde creek, palmdale, california.--Project for
flood damage reduction, Anaverde Creek, Palmdale, California.
(3) Castaic creek, old road bridge, santa clarita,
california.--Project for flood damage reduction, Castaic
Creek, Old Road bridge, Santa Clarita, California.
(4) Santa clara river, old road bridge, santa clarita,
california.--Project for flood damage reduction, Santa Clara
River, Old Road bridge, Santa Clarita, California.
(5) Weiser river, idaho.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Weiser River, Idaho.
(6) Columbia levee, columbia, illinois.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Columbia Levee, Columbia, Illinois.
(7) East-west creek, riverton, illinois.--Project for flood
damage reduction, East-West Creek, Riverton, Illinois.
(8) Prairie du pont, illinois.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Prairie Du Pont, Illinois.
(9) Monroe county, illinois.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Monroe County, Illinois.
(10) Willow creek, meredosia, illinois.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Willow Creek, Meredosia, Illinois.
(11) Dykes branch channel, leawood, kansas.--Project for
flood damage reduction, Dykes Branch channel improvements,
Leawood, Kansas.
(12) Dykes branch tributaries, leawood, kansas.--Project
for flood damage reduction, Dykes Branch tributary
improvements, Leawood, Kansas.
(13) Kentucky river, frankfort, kentucky.--Project for
flood damage reduction, Kentucky River, Frankfort, Kentucky.
(14) Bayou tete l'ours, louisiana.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Bayou Tete L'Ours, Louisiana.
(15) Bossier city, louisiana.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Red Chute Bayou levee, Bossier City, Louisiana.
(16) Bossier parish, louisiana.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Cane Bend Subdivision, Bossier Parish, Louisiana.
(17) Braithwaite park, louisiana.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Braithwaite Park, Louisiana.
(18) Crown point, louisiana.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Crown Point, Louisiana.
(19) Donaldsonville canals, louisiana.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Donaldsonville Canals, Louisiana.
(20) Goose bayou, louisiana.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Goose Bayou, Louisiana.
(21) Gumby dam, louisiana.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Gumby Dam, Richland Parish, Louisiana.
(22) Hope canal, louisiana.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Hope Canal, Louisiana.
(23) Jean lafitte, louisiana.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Jean Lafitte, Louisiana.
(24) Lakes maurepas and pontchartrain canals, st. john the
baptist parish, louisiana.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain Canals, St. John
the Baptist Parish, Louisiana.
(25) Lockport to larose, louisiana.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Lockport to Larose, Louisiana.
(26) Lower lafitte basin, louisiana.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Lower Lafitte basin, Louisiana.
(27) Oakville to lareussite, louisiana.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Oakville to LaReussite, Louisiana.
(28) Pailet basin, louisiana.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Pailet basin, Louisiana.
(29) Pochitolawa creek, louisiana.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Pochitolawa Creek, Louisiana.
(30) Rosethorn basin, louisiana.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Rosethorn basin, Louisiana.
(31) Shreveport, louisiana.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Twelve Mile Bayou, Shreveport, Louisiana.
(32) Stephensville, louisiana.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Stephensville, Louisiana.
(33) St. john the baptist parish, louisiana.--Project for
flood damage reduction, St. John the Baptist Parish,
Louisiana.
(34) Magby creek and vernon branch, mississippi.--Project
for flood damage reduction, Magby Creek and Vernon Branch,
Lowndes County, Mississippi.
(35) Pennsville township, salem county, new jersey.--
Project for flood damage reduction, Pennsville Township,
Salem County, New Jersey.
(36) Hempstead, new york.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Hempstead, New York.
(37) Highland brook, highland falls, new york.--Project for
flood damage reduction, Highland Brook, Highland Falls, New
York.
(38) Lafayette township, ohio.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Lafayette Township, Ohio.
(39) West lafayette, ohio.--Project for flood damage
reduction, West Lafayette, Ohio.
(40) Bear creek and tributaries, medford, oregon.--Project
for flood damage reduction, Bear Creek and tributaries,
Medford, Oregon.
(41) Delaware canal and brock creek, yardley borough,
pennsylvania.--Project for flood damage reduction, Delaware
Canal and Brock Creek, Yardley Borough, Pennsylvania.
(42) Fritz landing, tennessee.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Fritz Landing, Tennessee.
(43) First creek, fountain city, knoxville, tennessee.--
Project for flood damage reduction, First Creek, Fountain
City, Knoxville, Tennessee.
(44) Mississippi river, ridgely, tennessee.--Project for
flood damage reduction, Mississippi River, Ridgely,
Tennessee.
(b) Magpie Creek, Sacramento County, California.--In
formulating the project for Magpie Creek, California,
authorized by section 102(a)(4) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 281) to be carried out
under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C.
701s), the Secretary may consider benefits from the full
utilization of existing improvements at McClellan Air Force
Base that would result from the project after conversion of
the base to civilian use.
SEC. 103. SMALL PROJECTS FOR EMERGENCY STREAMBANK
PROTECTION.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the
following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a
project is feasible, may carry out the project under section
14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r):
(1) Maumee river, fort wayne, indiana.--Project for
emergency streambank protection, Maumee River, Fort Wayne,
Indiana.
(2) Bayou des glaises, louisiana.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, Bayou des Glaises (Lee Chatelain
Road), Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana.
(3) Bayou plaquemine, louisiana.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, Highway 77, Bayou Plaquemine,
Iberville Parish, Louisiana.
(4) Bayou sorrell, iberville parish, louisiana.--Project
for emergency streambank protection, Bayou Sorrell, Iberville
Parish, Louisiana.
(5) Hammond, louisiana.--Project for emergency streambank
protection, Fagan Drive Bridge, Hammond, Louisiana.
(6) Iberville parish, louisiana.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, Iberville Parish, Louisiana.
(7) Lake arthur, louisiana.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, Parish Road 120 at Lake Arthur,
Louisiana.
(8) Lake charles, louisiana.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, Pithon Coulee, Lake Charles, Calcasieu
Parish, Louisiana.
(9) Loggy bayou, louisiana.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, Loggy Bayou, Bienville Parish,
Louisiana.
(10) Scotlandville bluff, louisiana.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, Scotlandville Bluff, East Baton Rouge
Parish, Louisiana.
SEC. 104. SMALL PROJECTS FOR NAVIGATION.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the
following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a
project is feasible, may carry out the project under section
107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577):
(1) Whittier, alaska.--Project for navigation, Whittier,
Alaska.
(2) Cape coral south spreader waterway, florida.--Project
for navigation, Cape Coral South Spreader Waterway, Lee
County, Florida.
(3) Houma navigation canal, louisiana.--Project for
navigation, Houma Navigation Canal, Terrebonne Parish,
Louisiana.
(4) Vidalia port, louisiana.--Project for navigation,
Vidalia Port, Louisiana.
(5) East two rivers, tower, minnesota.--Project for
navigation, East Two Rivers, Tower, Minnesota.
(6) Erie basin marina, buffalo, new york.--Project for
navigation, Erie Basin marina, Buffalo, New York.
(7) Lake michigan, lakeshore state park, milwaukee,
wisconsin.--Project for navigation, Lake Michigan, Lakeshore
State Park, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
(8) Saxon harbor, francis, wisconsin.--Project for
navigation, Saxon Harbor, Francis, Wisconsin.
[[Page
H11628]]
SEC. 105. SMALL PROJECTS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE QUALITY OF
THE ENVIRONMENT.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the
following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a
project is appropriate, may carry out the project under
section 1135(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a(a)):
(1) Nahant marsh, davenport, iowa.--Project for improvement
of the quality of the environment, Nahant Marsh, Davenport,
Iowa.
(2) Bayou sauvage national wildlife refuge, louisiana.--
Project for improvement of the quality of the environment,
Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge, Orleans Parish,
Louisiana.
(3) Gulf intracoastal waterway, bayou plaquemine,
louisiana.--Project for improvement of the quality of the
environment, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Bayou Plaquemine,
Iberville Parish, Louisiana.
(4) Gulf intracoastal waterway, miles 220 to 222.5,
louisiana.--Project for improvement of the quality of the
environment, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, miles 220 to 222.5,
Vermilion Parish, Louisiana.
(5) Gulf intracoastal waterway, weeks bay, louisiana.--
Project for improvement of the quality of the environment,
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Weeks Bay, Iberia Parish,
Louisiana.
(6) Lake fausse point, louisiana.--Project for improvement
of the quality of the environment, Lake Fausse Point,
Louisiana.
(7) Lake providence, louisiana.--Project for improvement of
the quality of the environment, Old River, Lake Providence,
Louisiana.
(8) New river, louisiana.--Project for improvement of the
quality of the environment, New River, Ascension Parish,
Louisiana.
(9) Erie county, ohio.--Project for improvement of the
quality of the environment, Sheldon's Marsh State Nature
Preserve, Erie County, Ohio.
(10) Muskingum county, ohio.--Project for improvement of
the quality of the environment, Dillon Reservoir watershed,
Licking River, Muskingum County, Ohio.
SEC. 106. SMALL PROJECTS FOR AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study for
each of the following projects and, if the Secretary
determines that a project is appropriate, may carry out the
project under section 206 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330):
(1) Arkansas river, pueblo, colorado.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Arkansas River, Pueblo, Colorado.
(2) Hayden diversion project, yampa river, colorado.--
Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Hayden Diversion
Project, Yampa River, Colorado.
(3) Little econlockhatchee river basin, florida.--Project
for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Little Econlockhatchee
River basin, Florida.
(4) Loxahatchee slough, palm beach county, florida.--
Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Loxahatchee
Slough, Palm Beach County, Florida.
(5) Stevenson creek estuary, florida.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Stevenson Creek estuary, Florida.
(6) Chouteau island, madison county, illinois.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Chouteau Island, Madison
County, Illinois.
(7) Braud bayou, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Braud Bayou, Spanish Lake, Ascension Parish,
Louisiana.
(8) Buras marina, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Buras Marina, Buras, Plaquemines Parish,
Louisiana.
(9) Comite river, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Comite River at Hooper Road, Louisiana.
(10) Department of energy 21-inch pipeline canal,
louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration,
Department of Energy 21-inch Pipeline Canal, St. Martin
Parish, Louisiana.
(11) Lake borgne, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, southern shores of Lake Borgne, Louisiana.
(12) Lake martin, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Lake Martin, Louisiana.
(13) Luling, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Luling Oxidation Pond, St. Charles Parish,
Louisiana.
(14) Mandeville, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Mandeville, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana.
(15) St. james, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, St. James, Louisiana.
(16) Saginaw bay, bay city, michigan.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Saginaw Bay, Bay City, Michigan.
(17) Rainwater basin, nebraska.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Rainwater Basin, Nebraska.
(18) Mines falls park, new hampshire.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Mines Falls Park, New Hampshire.
(19) North hampton, new hampshire.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Little River Salt Marsh, North
Hampton, New Hampshire.
(20) Cazenovia lake, madison county, new york.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Cazenovia Lake, Madison
County, New York, including efforts to address aquatic
invasive plant species.
(21) Chenango lake, chenango county, new york.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Chenango Lake, Chenango
County, New York, including efforts to address aquatic
invasive plant species.
(22) Eagle lake, new york.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Eagle Lake, Ticonderoga, New York.
(23) Ossining, new york.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Ossining, New York.
(24) Saratoga lake, new york.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Saratoga Lake, New York.
(25) Schroon lake, new york.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Schroon Lake, New York.
(26) Highland county, ohio.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Rocky Fork Lake, Clear Creek floodplain,
Highland County, Ohio.
(27) Hocking county, ohio.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Long Hollow Mine, Hocking County, Ohio.
(28) Middle cuyahoga river, kent, ohio.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Middle Cuyahoga River, Kent,
Ohio.
(29) Tuscarawas county, ohio.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Huff Run, Tuscarawas County, Ohio.
(30) Delta ponds, oregon.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Delta Ponds, Oregon.
(31) Central amazon creek, eugene, oregon.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Central Amazon Creek, Eugene,
Oregon.
(32) Eugene millrace, eugene, oregon.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Eugene Millrace, Eugene, Oregon.
(33) Bear creek watershed, medford, oregon.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Bear Creek watershed, Medford,
Oregon.
(34) Lone pine and lazy creeks, medford, oregon.--Project
for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Lone Pine and Lazy Creeks,
Medford, Oregon.
(35) Roslyn lake, oregon.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Roslyn Lake, Oregon.
(36) Tullytown borough, pennsylvania.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Tullytown Borough, Pennsylvania.
(b) Salmon River, Idaho.--The Secretary may credit toward
the non-Federal share of the cost of the project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Salmon River, Idaho, to be carried out
under section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330) the cost of work (consisting of
surveys, studies, and development of technical data) carried
out by the non-Federal interest if the Secretary determines
that the work is integral to the project.
SEC. 107. SMALL PROJECTS FOR SHORELINE PROTECTION.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the
following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a
project is feasible, may carry out the project under section
3 of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing Federal
participation in the cost of protecting the shores of
publicly owned property'', approved August 13, 1946 (33
U.S.C. 426g):
(1) Lake palourde, louisiana.--Project for beach
restoration and protection, Highway 70, Lake Palourde, St.
Mary and St. Martin Parishes, Louisiana.
(2) St. bernard, louisiana.--Project for beach restoration
and protection, Bayou Road, St. Bernard, Louisiana.
(3) Hudson river, dutchess county, new york.--Project for
beach restoration and protection, Hudson River, Dutchess
County, New York.
SEC. 108. SMALL PROJECTS FOR SNAGGING AND SEDIMENT REMOVAL.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the
following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a
project is feasible, the Secretary may carry out the project
under section 2 of the Flood Control Act of August 28, 1937
(33 U.S.C. 701g):
(1) Sangamon river and tributaries, riverton, illinois.--
Project for removal of snags and clearing and straightening
of channels for flood control, Sangamon River and
tributaries, Riverton, Illinois.
(2) Bayou manchac, louisiana.--Project for removal of snags
and clearing and straightening of channels for flood control,
Bayou Manchac, Ascension Parish, Louisiana.
(3) Black bayou and hippolyte coulee, louisiana.--Project
for removal of snags and clearing and straightening of
channels for flood control, Black Bayou and Hippolyte Coulee,
Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana.
SEC. 109. SMALL PROJECT FOR MITIGATION OF SHORE DAMAGE.
The Secretary shall conduct a study of shore damage at
Puget Island, Columbia River, Washington, to determine if the
damage is the result of the project for navigation, Columbia
River, Washington, authorized by the first section of the
Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act of June 13, 1902 (32
Stat. 369), and, if the Secretary determines that the damage
is the result of the project for navigation and that a
project to mitigate the damage is appropriate, the Secretary
may carry out the project to mitigate the damage under
section 111 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C.
426i).
SEC. 110. BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL.
The Secretary may carry out the following projects under
section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992
(33 U.S.C. 2326):
(1) Houma navigation canal, louisiana.--Project to make
beneficial use of dredged material from a Federal navigation
project that includes barrier island restoration at the Houma
Navigation Canal, Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana.
(2) Mississippi river gulf outlet, mile -3 to mile -9,
louisiana.--Project to make beneficial use of dredged
material from a Federal navigation project that includes
dredging of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, mile -3 to
mile -9, St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana.
(3) Mississippi river gulf outlet, mile 11 to mile 4,
louisiana.--Project to make beneficial
[[Page
H11629]]
use of dredged material from a Federal navigation project
that includes dredging of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet,
mile 11 to mile 4, St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana.
(4) Plaquemines parish, louisiana.--Project to make
beneficial use of dredged material from a Federal navigation
project that includes marsh creation at the contained
submarine maintenance dredge sediment trap, Plaquemines
Parish, Louisiana.
(5) St. louis county, minnesota.--Project to make
beneficial use of dredged material from a Federal navigation
project in St. Louis County, Minnesota.
(6) Ottawa county, ohio.--Project to make beneficial use of
dredged material from a Federal navigation to protect,
restore, and create aquatic and related habitat, East Harbor
State Park, Ottawa County, Ohio.
SEC. 111. DISPOSAL OF DREDGED MATERIAL ON BEACHES.
Section 217 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
(113 Stat. 294) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(f) Fort Canby State Park, Benson Beach, Washington.--The
Secretary may design and construct a shore protection project
at Fort Canby State Park, Benson Beach, Washington, including
beneficial use of dredged material from a Federal navigation
project under section 145 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C. 426j) or section 204 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326).''.
SEC. 112. PETALUMA RIVER, PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out the Petaluma
River project, at the city of Petaluma, Sonoma County,
California, to provide a 100-year level of flood protection
to the city in accordance with the detailed project report of
the San Francisco District Engineer, dated March 1995, at a
total cost of $32,227,000.
(b) Reimbursement.--The Secretary shall reimburse the non-
Federal interest for any project costs that the non-Federal
interest has incurred in excess of the non-Federal share of
project costs, regardless of the date on which the costs were
incurred.
(c) Cost Sharing.--For purposes of reimbursement under
subsection (b), cost sharing for work performed on the
project before the date of enactment of this Act shall be
determined in accordance with section 103(a) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(a)).
TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 201. COOPERATION AGREEMENTS WITH COUNTIES.
Section 221(a) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C.
1962d-5b(a)) is amended in the second sentence--
(1) by striking ``State legislative'';
(2) by striking ``State constitutional'' and inserting
``constitutional; and
(3) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``of the State or a political subdivision of the
State''.
SEC. 202. WATERSHED AND RIVER BASIN ASSESSMENTS.
Section 729 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(100 Stat. 4164) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 729. WATERSHED AND RIVER BASIN ASSESSMENTS.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary may assess the water
resources needs of river basins and watersheds of the United
States, including needs relating to--
``(1) ecosystem protection and restoration;
``(2) flood damage reduction;
``(3) navigation and ports;
``(4) watershed protection;
``(5) water supply; and
``(6) drought preparedness.
``(b) Cooperation.--An assessment under subsection (a)
shall be carried out in cooperation and coordination with--
``(1) the Secretary of the Interior;
``(2) the Secretary of Agriculture;
``(3) the Secretary of Commerce;
``(4) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency; and
``(5) the heads of other appropriate agencies.
``(c) Consultation.--In carrying out an assessment under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with Federal,
tribal, State, interstate, and local governmental entities.
``(d) Priority River Basins and Watersheds.--In selecting
river basins and watersheds for assessment under this
section, the Secretary shall give priority to--
``(1) the Delaware River basin;
``(2) the Kentucky River basin;
``(3) the Potomac River basin;
``(4) the Susquehanna River basin; and
``(5) the Willamette River basin.
``(e) Acceptance of Contributions.--In carrying out an
assessment under subsection (a), the Secretary may accept
contributions, in cash or in kind, from Federal, tribal,
State, interstate, and local governmental entities to the
extent that the Secretary determines that the contributions
will facilitate completion of the assessment.
``(f) Cost-Sharing Requirements.--
``(1) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the
costs of an assessment carried out under this section shall
be 50 percent.
``(2) Credit.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the
Secretary may credit toward the non-Federal share of an
assessment under this section the cost of services,
materials, supplies, or other in-kind contributions provided
by the non-Federal interests for the assessment.
``(B) Maximum amount of credit.--The credit under
subparagraph (A) may not exceed an amount equal to 25 percent
of the costs of the assessment.
``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000.''.
SEC. 203. TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.
(a) Definition of Indian Tribe.--In this section, the term
``Indian tribe'' has the meaning given the term in section 4
of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
(25 U.S.C. 450b).
(b) Program.--
(1) In general.--In cooperation with Indian tribes and the
heads of other Federal agencies, the Secretary may study and
determine the feasibility of carrying out water resources
development projects that--
(A) will substantially benefit Indian tribes; and
(B) are located primarily within Indian country (as defined
in section 1151 of title 18, United States Code) or in
proximity to Alaska Native villages.
(2) Matters to be studied.--A study conducted under
paragraph (1) may address--
(A) projects for flood damage reduction, environmental
restoration and protection, and preservation of cultural and
natural resources; and
(B) such other projects as the Secretary, in cooperation
with Indian tribes and the heads of other Federal agencies,
determines to be appropriate.
(c) Consultation and Coordination With Secretary of the
Interior.--
(1) In general.--In recognition of the unique role of the
Secretary of the Interior concerning trust responsibilities
with Indian tribes and in recognition of mutual trust
responsibilities, the Secretary shall consult with the
Secretary of the Interior concerning studies conducted under
subsection (b).
(2) Integration of activities.--The Secretary shall--
(A) integrate civil works activities of the Department of
the Army with activities of the Department of the Interior to
avoid conflicts, duplications of effort, or unanticipated
adverse effects on Indian tribes; and
(B) consider the authorities and programs of the Department
of the Interior and other Federal agencies in any
recommendations concerning carrying out projects studied
under subsection (b).
(d) Cost Sharing.--
(1) Ability to pay.--
(A) In general.--Any cost-sharing agreement for a study
under subsection (b) shall be subject to the ability of the
non-Federal interest to pay.
(B) Use of procedures.--The ability of a non-Federal
interest to pay shall be determined by the Secretary in
accordance with procedures established by the Secretary.
(2) Credit.--The Secretary may credit toward the non-
Federal share of the costs of a study under subsection (b)
the cost of services, studies, supplies, or other in-kind
contributions provided by the non-Federal interest if the
Secretary determines that the services, studies, supplies,
and other in-kind contributions will facilitate completion of
the study.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out subsection (b) $5,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2002 through 2006, of which not more
than $1,000,000 may be used with respect to any 1 Indian
tribe.
SEC. 204. ABILITY TO PAY.
Section 103(m) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--Any cost-sharing agreement under this
section for a feasibility study, or for construction of an
environmental protection and restoration project, a flood
control project, a project for navigation, storm damage
protection, shoreline erosion, hurricane protection, or
recreation, or an agricultural water supply project, shall be
subject to the ability of the non-Federal interest to pay.
``(2) Criteria and procedures.--The ability of a non-
Federal interest to pay shall be determined by the Secretary
in accordance with criteria and procedures in effect under
paragraph (3) on the day before the date of enactment of the
Water Resources Development Act of 2000; except that such
criteria and procedures shall be revised, and new criteria
and procedures shall be developed, not later than 180 days
after such date of enactment to reflect the requirements of
such paragraph (3).''; and
(2) in paragraph (3)--
(A) by inserting ``and'' after the semicolon at the end of
subparagraph (A)(ii);
(B) by striking subparagraph (B); and
(C) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (B).
SEC. 205. PROPERTY PROTECTION PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may carry out a program to
reduce vandalism and destruction of property at water
resources development projects under the jurisdiction of the
Department of the Army.
(b) Provision of Rewards.--In carrying out the program, the
Secretary may provide rewards (including cash rewards) to
individuals who provide information or evidence leading to
the arrest and prosecution of individuals causing damage to
Federal property.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $500,000 for
fiscal year 2001 and each fiscal year thereafter.
SEC. 206. NATIONAL RECREATION RESERVATION SERVICE.
Notwithstanding section 611 of the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (112 Stat. 2681-515), the
Secretary may--
(1) participate in the National Recreation Reservation
Service on an interagency basis; and
(2) pay the Department of the Army's share of the
activities required to implement, operate, and maintain the
Service.
[[Page
H11630]]
SEC. 207. INTERAGENCY AND INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT AUTHORITY.
Section 234(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (33 U.S.C. 2323a(d)) is amended--
(1) by striking the first sentence and inserting the
following: ``There is authorized to be appropriated to carry
out this section $250,000 for fiscal year 2001 and each
fiscal year thereafter.''; and
(2) in the second sentence by inserting ``out'' after
``carry''.
SEC. 208. REBURIAL AND CONVEYANCE AUTHORITY.
(a) Definition of Indian Tribe.--In this section, the term
``Indian tribe'' has the meaning given the term in section 4
of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
(25 U.S.C. 450b).
(b) Reburial.--
(1) Reburial areas.--In consultation with affected Indian
tribes, the Secretary may identify and set aside areas at
civil works projects of the Department of the Army that may
be used to rebury Native American remains that--
(A) have been discovered on project land; and
(B) have been rightfully claimed by a lineal descendant or
Indian tribe in accordance with applicable Federal law.
(2) Reburial.--In consultation with and with the consent of
the lineal descendant or the affected Indian tribe, the
Secretary may recover and rebury, at Federal expense, the
remains at the areas identified and set aside under
subsection (b)(1).
(c) Conveyance Authority.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), notwithstanding
any other provision of law, the Secretary may convey to an
Indian tribe for use as a cemetery an area at a civil works
project that is identified and set aside by the Secretary
under subsection (b)(1).
(2) Retention of necessary property interests.--In carrying
out paragraph (1), the Secretary shall retain any necessary
right-of-way, easement, or other property interest that the
Secretary determines to be necessary to carry out the
authorized purposes of the project.
SEC. 209. FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS.
(a) In General.--Section 402(c) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 701b-12(c)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence of paragraph (1) by striking
``Within 6 months after the date of the enactment of this
subsection, the'' and inserting ``The'';
(2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3);
(3) by striking ``Such guidelines shall address'' and
inserting the following:
``(2) Required elements.--The guidelines developed under
paragraph (1) shall--
``(A) address''; and
(4) in paragraph (2) (as designated by paragraph (3) of
this subsection)--
(A) by inserting ``to be undertaken by non-Federal
interests to'' after ``policies'';
(B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) address those measures to be undertaken by non-
Federal interests to preserve the level of flood protection
provided by a project to which subsection (a) applies.''.
(b) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply to any project or separable element of a project
with respect to which the Secretary and the non-Federal
interest have not entered a project cooperation agreement on
or before the date of enactment of this Act.
(c) Technical Amendments.--Section 402(b) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 701b-12(b)) is
amended--
(1) in the subsection heading by striking ``Flood Plain''
and inserting ``Floodplain''; and
(2) in the first sentence by striking ``flood plain'' and
inserting ``floodplain''.
SEC. 210. NONPROFIT ENTITIES.
(a) Environmental Dredging.--Section 312 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 1272) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(g) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221 of
the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), for any
project carried out under this section, a non-Federal sponsor
may include a nonprofit entity, with the consent of the
affected local government.''.
(b) Lakes Program.--Section 602 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4148-4149) is amended by
redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e) and by
inserting after subsection (c) the following:
``(d) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221 of
the Flood Control Act of 1970 (
Amendments:
Cosponsors:
