CCLME.ORG - Water Resources Development Act of 1999

National
United States
33 USC 2201 Water Resources Development Act of 1999

[DOCID: f:publ053.106]

[[Page 113 STAT. 269]]

Public Law 106-53
106th Congress

An Act

To provide for the conservation and development of water and related
resources, to authorize the <> United
States Army Corps of Engineers to construct various projects for
improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and for other
purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress <Act of 1999. Inter- governmental relations.>> assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF <> CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water Resources
Development Act of 1999''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act is as
follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definition of <> Secretary.

TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

Sec. 101. Project authorizations.
Sec. 102. Small flood control projects.
Sec. 103. Small bank stabilization projects.
Sec. 104. Small navigation projects.
Sec. 105. Small projects for improvement of the quality of the
environment.
Sec. 106. Small aquatic ecosystem restoration projects.

TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 201. Small flood control authority.
Sec. 202. Use of non-Federal funds for compiling and disseminating
information on floods and flood damage.
Sec. 203. Contributions by States and political subdivisions.
Sec. 204. Sediment decontamination technology.
Sec. 205. Control of aquatic plants.
Sec. 206. Use of continuing contracts for construction of certain
projects.
Sec. 207. Water resources development studies for the Pacific region.
Sec. 208. Everglades and south Florida ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 209. Beneficial uses of dredged material.
Sec. 210. Aquatic ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 211. Watershed management, restoration, and development.
Sec. 212. Flood mitigation and riverine restoration program.
Sec. 213. Shore management program.
Sec. 214. Shore damage prevention or mitigation.
Sec. 215. Shore protection.
Sec. 216. Flood prevention coordination.
Sec. 217. Disposal of dredged material on beaches.
Sec. 218. Annual passes for recreation.
Sec. 219. Nonstructural flood control projects.
Sec. 220. Lakes program.
Sec. 221. Enhancement of fish and wildlife resources.
Sec. 222. Purchase of American-made equipment and products.
Sec. 223. Construction of flood control projects by non-Federal
interests.
Sec. 224. Environmental dredging.
Sec. 225. Recreation user fees.
Sec. 226. Small storm damage reduction projects.

[[Page 113 STAT. 270]]

Sec. 227. Use of private enterprises.

TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS

Sec. 301. Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway wildlife mitigation, Alabama and
Mississippi.
Sec. 302. Ouzinkie Harbor, Alaska.
Sec. 303. St. Paul Harbor, St. Paul, Alaska.
Sec. 304. Loggy Bayou, Red River below Denison Dam, Arkansas, Louisiana,
Oklahoma, and Texas.
Sec. 305. Sacramento River, Glenn-Colusa, California.
Sec. 306. San Lorenzo River, California.
Sec. 307. Terminus Dam, Kaweah River, California.
Sec. 308. Delaware River mainstem and channel deepening, Delaware, New
Jersey, and Pennsylvania.
Sec. 309. Potomac River, Washington, District of Columbia.
Sec. 310. Brevard County, Florida.
Sec. 311. Broward County and Hillsboro Inlet, Florida.
Sec. 312. Lee County, Captiva Island segment, Florida, periodic beach
nourishment.
Sec. 313. Fort Pierce, Florida.
Sec. 314. Nassau County, Florida.
Sec. 315. Miami Harbor channel, Florida.
Sec. 316. St. Augustine, St. Johns County, Florida.
Sec. 317. Milo Creek, Idaho.
Sec. 318. Lake Michigan, Illinois.
Sec. 319. Springfield, Illinois.
Sec. 320. Ogden Dunes, Indiana.
Sec. 321. Saint Joseph River, South Bend, Indiana.
Sec. 322. White River, Indiana.
Sec. 323. Dubuque, Iowa.
Sec. 324. Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana.
Sec. 325. Larose to Golden Meadow, Louisiana.
Sec. 326. Louisiana State Penitentiary Levee, Louisiana.
Sec. 327. Twelve-Mile Bayou, Caddo Parish, Louisiana.
Sec. 328. West bank of the Mississippi River (east of Harvey Canal),
Louisiana.
Sec. 329. Tolchester Channel S-Turn, Baltimore, Maryland.
Sec. 330. Sault Sainte Marie, Chippewa County, Michigan.
Sec. 331. Jackson County, Mississippi.
Sec. 332. Bois Brule Drainage and Levee District, Missouri.
Sec. 333. Meramec River Basin, Valley Park Levee, Missouri.
Sec. 334. Missouri River mitigation project, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, and
Nebraska.
Sec. 335. Wood River, Grand Island, Nebraska.
Sec. 336. Absecon Island, New Jersey.
Sec. 337. New York Harbor and Adjacent Channels, Port Jersey, New
Jersey.
Sec. 338. Arthur Kill, New York and New Jersey.
Sec. 339. Kill Van Kull and Newark Bay Channels, New York and New
Jersey.
Sec. 340. New York City watershed.
Sec. 341. New York State canal system.
Sec. 342. Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point, New York.
Sec. 343. Broken Bow Lake, Red River Basin, Oklahoma.
Sec. 344. Willamette River Temperature Control, McKenzie Subbasin,
Oregon.
Sec. 345. Curwensville Lake, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 346. Delaware River, Pennsylvania and Delaware.
Sec. 347. Mussers Dam, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 348. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 349. Nine Mile Run, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 350. Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 351. South Central Pennsylvania.
Sec. 352. Fox Point hurricane barrier, Providence, Rhode Island.
Sec. 353. Cooper River, Charleston Harbor, South Carolina.
Sec. 354. Clear Creek, Texas.
Sec. 355. Cypress Creek, Texas.
Sec. 356. Dallas Floodway Extension, Dallas, Texas.
Sec. 357. Upper Jordan River, Utah.
Sec. 358. Elizabeth River, Chesapeake, Virginia.
Sec. 359. Columbia River channel, Washington and Oregon.
Sec. 360. Greenbrier River Basin, West Virginia.
Sec. 361. Bluestone Lake, Ohio River Basin, West Virginia.
Sec. 362. Moorefield, West Virginia.
Sec. 363. West Virginia and Pennsylvania flood control.
Sec. 364. Project reauthorizations.

[[Page 113 STAT. 271]]

Sec. 365. Project deauthorizations.
Sec. 366. American and Sacramento Rivers, California.
Sec. 367. Martin, Kentucky.
Sec. 368. Southern West Virginia pilot program.
Sec. 369. Black Warrior and Tombigbee Rivers, Jackson, Alabama.
Sec. 370. Tropicana Wash and Flamingo Wash, Nevada.
Sec. 371. Comite River, Louisiana.
Sec. 372. St. Marys River, Michigan.
Sec. 373. Charlevoix, Michigan.
Sec. 374. White River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.
Sec. 375. Waurika Lake, Oklahoma, water conveyance facilities.

TITLE IV--STUDIES

Sec. 401. Deep draft harbor cost sharing.
Sec. 402. Boydsville, Arkansas.
Sec. 403. Greers Ferry Lake, Arkansas.
Sec. 404. Del Norte County, California.
Sec. 405. Frazier Creek, Tulare County, California.
Sec. 406. Mare Island Strait, California.
Sec. 407. Strawberry Creek, Berkeley, California.
Sec. 408. Sweetwater Reservoir, San Diego County, California.
Sec. 409. Whitewater River basin, California.
Sec. 410. Destin-Noriega Point, Florida.
Sec. 411. Little Econlackhatchee River basin, Florida.
Sec. 412. Port Everglades, Broward County, Florida.
Sec. 413. Lake Allatoona, Etowah River, and Little River watershed,
Georgia.
Sec. 414. Boise, Idaho.
Sec. 415. Goose Creek watershed, Oakley, Idaho.
Sec. 416. Little Wood River, Gooding, Idaho.
Sec. 417. Snake River, Lewiston, Idaho.
Sec. 418. Snake River and Payette River, Idaho.
Sec. 419. Upper Des Plaines River and tributaries, Illinois and
Wisconsin.
Sec. 420. Cameron Parish west of Calcasieu River, Louisiana.
Sec. 421. Coastal Louisiana.
Sec. 422. Grand Isle and vicinity, Louisiana.
Sec. 423. Gulf Intracoastal Waterway ecosystem, Chef Menteur to Sabine
River, Louisiana.
Sec. 424. Muddy River, Brookline and Boston, Massachusetts.
Sec. 425. Westport, Massachusetts.
Sec. 426. St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair, Michigan.
Sec. 427. St. Clair Shores, Michigan.
Sec. 428. Woodtick Peninsula, Michigan, and Toledo Harbor, Ohio.
Sec. 429. Pascagoula Harbor, Mississippi.
Sec. 430. Tunica Lake weir, Mississippi.
Sec. 431. Yellowstone River, Montana.
Sec. 432. Las Vegas Valley, Nevada.
Sec. 433. Southwest Valley, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Sec. 434. Cayuga Creek, New York.
Sec. 435. Lake Champlain, New York and Vermont.
Sec. 436. Oswego River basin, New York.
Sec. 437. White Oak River, North Carolina.
Sec. 438. Arcola Creek watershed, Madison, Ohio.
Sec. 439. Cleveland harbor, Cleveland, Ohio.
Sec. 440. Toussaint River, Carroll Township, Ohio.
Sec. 441. Western Lake Erie basin, Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan.
Sec. 442. Schuylkill River, Norristown, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 443. South Carolina coastal areas.
Sec. 444. Santee Delta focus area, South Carolina.
Sec. 445. Waccamaw River, South Carolina.
Sec. 446. Day County, South Dakota.
Sec. 447. Niobrara River and Missouri River, South Dakota.
Sec. 448. Corpus Christi, Texas.
Sec. 449. Mitchell's Cut Channel (Caney Fork Cut), Texas.
Sec. 450. Mouth of Colorado River, Texas.
Sec. 451. Santa Clara River, Utah.
Sec. 452. Mount St. Helens, Washington.
Sec. 453. Kanawha River, Fayette County, West Virginia.
Sec. 454. West Virginia ports.
Sec. 455. John Glenn Great Lakes basin program.
Sec. 456. Great Lakes navigational system.
Sec. 457. Nutrient loading resulting from dredged material disposal.

[[Page 113 STAT. 272]]

Sec. 458. Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers levees and streambanks
protection.
Sec. 459. Upper Mississippi River comprehensive plan.
Sec. 460. Susquehanna River and Upper Chesapeake Bay.

TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 501. Corps assumption of NRCS projects.
Sec. 502. Environmental infrastructure.
Sec. 503. Contaminated sediment dredging technology.
Sec. 504. Dam safety.
Sec. 505. Great Lakes remedial action plans.
Sec. 506. Projects for improvement of the environment.
Sec. 507. Maintenance of navigation channels.
Sec. 508. Measurements of Lake Michigan diversions, Illinois.
Sec. 509. Upper Mississippi River environmental management program.
Sec. 510. Atlantic Coast of New York.
Sec. 511. Water control management.
Sec. 512. Beneficial use of dredged material.
Sec. 513. Design and construction assistance.
Sec. 514. Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers enhancement project.
Sec. 515. Irrigation diversion protection and fisheries enhancement
assistance.
Sec. 516. Innovative technologies for watershed restoration.
Sec. 517. Expedited consideration of certain projects.
Sec. 518. Dog River, Alabama.
Sec. 519. Levees in Elba and Geneva, Alabama.
Sec. 520. Navajo Reservation, Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah.
Sec. 521. Beaver Lake, Arkansas, water supply storage reallocation.
Sec. 522. Beaver Lake trout production facility, Arkansas.
Sec. 523. Chino dairy preserve, California.
Sec. 524. Orange and San Diego Counties, California.
Sec. 525. Rush Creek, Novato, California.
Sec. 526. Santa Cruz Harbor, California.
Sec. 527. Lower St. Johns River basin, Florida.
Sec. 528. Mayo's Bar Lock and Dam, Coosa River, Rome, Georgia.
Sec. 529. Comprehensive flood impact response modeling system,
Coralville Reservoir and Iowa River watershed, Iowa.
Sec. 530. Additional construction assistance in Illinois.
Sec. 531. Kanopolis Lake, Kansas.
Sec. 532. Southern and Eastern Kentucky.
Sec. 533. Southeast Louisiana.
Sec. 534. Snug Harbor, Maryland.
Sec. 535. Welch Point, Elk River, Cecil County, and Chesapeake City,
Maryland.
Sec. 536. Cape Cod Canal Railroad Bridge, Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts.
Sec. 537. St. Louis, Missouri.
Sec. 538. Beaver Branch of Big Timber Creek, New Jersey.
Sec. 539. Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River water levels, New York.
Sec. 540. New York-New Jersey Harbor, New York and New Jersey.
Sec. 541. Sea Gate Reach, Coney Island, New York, New York.
Sec. 542. Woodlawn, New York.
Sec. 543. Floodplain mapping, New York.
Sec. 544. Toussaint River, Carroll Township, Ottawa County, Ohio.
Sec. 545. Sardis Reservoir, Oklahoma.
Sec. 546. Skinner Butte Park, Eugene, Oregon.
Sec. 547. Willamette River basin, Oregon.
Sec. 548. Bradford and Sullivan Counties, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 549. Erie Harbor, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 550. Point Marion Lock and Dam, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 551. Seven Points' Harbor, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 552. Southeastern Pennsylvania.
Sec. 553. Upper Susquehanna-Lackawanna, Pennsylvania, watershed
management and restoration study.
Sec. 554. Aguadilla Harbor, Puerto Rico.
Sec. 555. Oahe Dam to Lake Sharpe, South Dakota, study.
Sec. 556. North Padre Island storm damage reduction and environmental
restoration project.
Sec. 557. Northern West Virginia.
Sec. 558. Mississippi River Commission.
Sec. 559. Coastal aquatic habitat management.
Sec. 560. Abandoned and inactive noncoal mine restoration.
Sec. 561. Beneficial use of waste tire rubber.
Sec. 562. Site designation.
Sec. 563. Land conveyances.

[[Page 113 STAT. 273]]

Sec. 564. McNary Pool, Washington.
Sec. 565. Namings.
Sec. 566. Folsom Dam and Reservoir additional storage and additional
flood control studies.
Sec. 567. Wallops Island, Virginia.
Sec. 568. Detroit River, Michigan.
Sec. 569. Northeastern Minnesota.
Sec. 570. Alaska.
Sec. 571. Central West Virginia.
Sec. 572. Sacramento Metropolitan Area watershed restoration,
California.
Sec. 573. Onondaga Lake, New York.
Sec. 574. East Lynn Lake, West Virginia.
Sec. 575. Eel River, California.
Sec. 576. North Little Rock, Arkansas.
Sec. 577. Upper Mississippi River, Mississippi Place, St. Paul,
Minnesota.
Sec. 578. Dredging of salt ponds in the State of Rhode Island.
Sec. 579. Upper Susquehanna River basin, Pennsylvania and New York.
Sec. 580. Cumberland, Maryland, flood project mitigation.
Sec. 581. City of Miami Beach, Florida.
Sec. 582. Research and development program for Columbia and Snake Rivers
salmon survival.
Sec. 583. Larkspur Ferry Channel, California.
Sec. 584. Holes Creek flood control project, Ohio.
Sec. 585. San Jacinto disposal area, Galveston, Texas.
Sec. 586. Water monitoring station.
Sec. 587. Overflow management facility, Rhode Island.
Sec. 588. Lower Chena River, Alaska.
Sec. 589. Numana Dam Fish passage, Nevada.
Sec. 590. Embrey Dam, Virginia.
Sec. 591. Environmental remediation, Front Royal, Virginia.
Sec. 592. Mississippi.
Sec. 593. Central New Mexico.
Sec. 594. Ohio.
Sec. 595. Rural Nevada and Montana.
Sec. 596. Phoenix, Arizona.
Sec. 597. National Harbor, Maryland.

TITLE VI--CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER BRULE SIOUX TRIBE, AND STATE
OF SOUTH DAKOTA TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE HABITAT RESTORATION

Sec. 601. Definitions.
Sec. 602. Terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration.
Sec. 603. South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust
Fund.
Sec. 604. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and Lower Brule Sioux Tribe
Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Funds.
Sec. 605. Transfer of Federal land to State of South Dakota.
Sec. 606. Transfer of Corps of Engineers land for Indian tribes.
Sec. 607. Administration.
Sec. 608. Study.
Sec. 609. 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) Nome harbor improvements, alaska.--The project for
navigation, Nome Harbor improvements, Alaska: Report of the

[[Page 113 STAT. 274]]

Chief of Engineers dated June 8, 1999, as amended by the Chief
of Engineers on August 2, 1999, at a total cost of $25,651,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $20,192,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $5,459,000.
(2) Sand point harbor, alaska.--The project for navigation,
Sand Point Harbor, Alaska: Report of the Chief of Engineers
dated October 13, 1998, at a total cost of $11,760,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $6,964,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $4,796,000.
(3) Seward harbor, alaska.--The project for navigation,
Seward Harbor, Alaska: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated
June 8, 1999, at a total cost of $12,240,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $4,089,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$8,151,000.
(4) Rio salado (salt river), phoenix and tempe, arizona.--
The project for flood control and environmental restoration, Rio
Salado (Salt River), Phoenix and Tempe, Arizona: Report of the
Chief of Engineers dated August 20, 1998, at a total cost of
$88,048,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $56,355,000 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $31,693,000.
(5) Tucson drainage area, arizona.--The project for flood
damage reduction, environmental restoration, and recreation,
Tucson drainage area, Arizona: Report of the Chief of Engineers
dated May 20, 1998, at a total cost of $29,900,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $16,768,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $13,132,000.
(6) American and sacramento rivers, california.--
(A) In general.--The Folsom Dam Modification portion
of the Folsom Modification Plan described in the United
States Army Corps of Engineers Supplemental Information
Report for the American River Watershed Project,
California, dated March 1996, as modified by the report
entitled ``Folsom Dam Modification Report, New Outlets
Plan'', dated March 1998, prepared by the Sacramento
Area Flood Control Agency, at an estimated cost of
$150,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$97,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$52,500,000. The Secretary shall coordinate with the
Secretary of the Interior with respect to the design and
construction of modifications at Folsom Dam authorized
by this paragraph.
(B) Reoperation measures.--Upon completion of the
improvements to Folsom Dam authorized by subparagraph
(A), the variable space allocated to flood control
within the Reservoir shall be reduced from the current
operating range of 400,000-670,000 acre-feet to 400,000-
600,000 acre-feet.
(C) Makeup of water shortages caused by flood
control operation.--The Secretary of the Interior shall
enter into, or modify, such agreements with the
Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency regarding the
operation of Folsom Dam and reservoir as may be
necessary in order that, notwithstanding any prior
agreement or provision of law, 100 percent of the water
needed to make up for any water shortage caused by
variable flood control operation during any year at
Folsom Dam and resulting in

[[Page 113 STAT. 275]]

a significant impact on recreation at Folsom Reservoir
shall be replaced, to the extent the water is available
for purchase, by the Secretary of the Interior.
(D) Significant impact on recreation.--For the
purposes of this paragraph, a significant impact on
recreation is defined as any impact that results in a
lake elevation at Folsom Reservoir below 435 feet above
sea level starting on May 15 and ending on September 15
of any given year.
(E) Updated flood management plan.--The Secretary,
in cooperation with the Secretary of the Interior, shall
update the flood management plan for Folsom Dam
authorized by section 9159(f)(2) of the Department of
Defense Appropriations Act, 1993 (106 Stat. 1946), to
reflect the operational capabilities created by the
modification authorized by subparagraph (A) and improved
weather forecasts based on the Advanced Hydrologic
Prediction System of the National Weather Service.
(7) Oakland harbor, california.--The project for navigation,
Oakland Harbor, California: Report of the Chief of Engineers
dated April 21, 1999, at a total cost of $252,290,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $128,081,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $124,209,000.
(8) South sacramento county streams, california.--The
project for flood control, environmental restoration and
recreation, South Sacramento County streams, California: Report
of the Chief of Engineers dated October 6, 1998, at a total cost
of $65,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $41,200,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $24,300,000.
(9) Upper guadalupe river, california.--Construction of the
locally preferred plan for flood damage reduction and
recreation, Upper Guadalupe River, California, described as the
Bypass Channel Plan of the Chief of Engineers dated August 19,
1998, at a total cost of $140,328,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $44,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$96,328,000.
(10) Yuba river basin, california.--The project for flood
damage reduction, Yuba River Basin, California: Report of the
Chief of Engineers dated November 25, 1998, at a total cost of
$26,600,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $17,350,000 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $9,250,000.
(11) Delaware bay coastline, delaware and new jersey-
broadkill beach, delaware.--The project for hurricane and storm
damage reduction, Delaware Bay coastline, Delaware and New
Jersey-Broadkill Beach, Delaware: Report of the Chief of
Engineers dated August 17, 1998, at a total cost of $9,049,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $5,674,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $3,375,000, and at an estimated average
annual cost of $538,200 for periodic nourishment over the 50-
year life of the project, with an estimated annual Federal cost
of $349,800 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of
$188,400.
(12) Delaware bay coastline, delaware and new jersey-port
mahon, delaware.--The project for ecosystem restoration,
Delaware Bay coastline, Delaware and New Jersey-Port Mahon,
Delaware: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated

[[Page 113 STAT. 276]]

September 28, 1998, at a total cost of $7,644,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $4,969,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $2,675,000, and at an estimated average annual
cost of $234,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life
of the project, with an estimated annual Federal cost of
$152,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of $82,000.
(13) Delaware bay coastline, delaware and new jersey-
roosevelt inlet-lewes beach, delaware.--The project for
navigation mitigation and hurricane and storm damage reduction,
Delaware Bay coastline, Delaware and New Jersey-Roosevelt Inlet-
Lewes Beach, Delaware: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated
February 3, 1999, at a total cost of $3,393,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $2,620,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $773,000, and at an estimated average annual
cost of $196,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life
of the project, with an estimated annual Federal cost of
$152,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of $44,000.
(14) Delaware bay coastline, delaware and new jersey-villas
and vicinity, new jersey.--The project for shore protection and
ecosystem restoration, Delaware Bay coastline, Delaware and New
Jersey-Villas and vicinity, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of
Engineers dated April 21, 1999, at a total cost of $7,520,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $4,888,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $2,632,000.
(15) Delaware coast from cape henelopen to fenwick island,
bethany beach/south bethany beach, delaware.--The project for
hurricane and storm damage reduction, Delaware Coast from Cape
Henelopen to Fenwick Island, Bethany Beach/South Bethany Beach,
Delaware: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated April 21, 1999,
at a total cost of $22,205,000, with an estimated Federal cost
of $14,433,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $7,772,000,
and at an estimated average annual cost of $1,584,000 for
periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with
an estimated annual Federal cost of $1,030,000 and an estimated
annual non-Federal cost of $554,000.
(16) Hillsboro and okeechobee aquifer, florida.--The project
for aquifer storage and recovery described in the Corps of
Engineers Central and Southern Florida Water Supply Study,
Florida, dated April 1989, and in House Document 369, dated July
30, 1968, at a total cost of $27,000,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $13,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$13,500,000.
(17) Jacksonville harbor, florida.--The project for
navigation, Jacksonville Harbor, Florida: Report of the Chief of
Engineers dated April 21, 1999, at a total cost of $26,116,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $9,129,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $16,987,000.
(18) Tampa harbor-big bend channel, florida.--The project
for navigation, Tampa Harbor-Big Bend Channel, Florida: Report
of the Chief of Engineers dated October 13, 1998, at a total
cost of $12,356,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$6,235,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $6,121,000.

[[Page 113 STAT. 277]]

(19) Brunswick harbor, georgia.--The project for navigation,
Brunswick Harbor, Georgia: Report of the Chief of Engineers
dated October 6, 1998, at a total cost of $50,717,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $32,966,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $17,751,000.
(20) Beargrass creek, kentucky.--The project for flood
control, Beargrass Creek, Kentucky: Report of the Chief of
Engineers dated May 12, 1998, at a total cost of $11,171,300,
with an estimated Federal cost of $7,261,500 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $3,909,800.
(21) Amite river and tributaries, louisiana, east baton
rouge parish watershed.--The project for flood damage reduction
and recreation, Amite River and Tributaries, Louisiana, East
Baton Rouge Parish Watershed: Report of the Chief of Engineers
dated December 23, 1996, at a total cost of $112,900,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $73,400,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $39,500,000.
(22) Baltimore harbor anchorages and channels, maryland and
virginia.--
(A) In general.--The project for navigation,
Baltimore Harbor Anchorages and Channels, Maryland and
Virginia, Report of the Chief of Engineers dated June 8,
1998, at a total cost of $28,426,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $18,994,000 and an estimated non-Federal
cost of $9,432,000.
(B) Credit or reimbursement.--If a project
cooperation agreement is entered into, the non-Federal
interest shall receive credit toward, or reimbursement
of, the Federal share of project costs for construction
work performed by the non-Federal interest before
execution of the project cooperation agreement if the
Secretary finds the work to be integral to the project.
(C) Study of modifications.--During the
preconstruction engineering and design phase of the
project, the Secretary shall conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of undertaking further
modifications to the Dundalk Marine Terminal access
channels, consisting of--
(i) deepening and widening the Dundalk access
channels to a depth of 50 feet and a width of 500
feet;
(ii) widening the flares of the access
channels; and
(iii) providing a new flare on the west side
of the entrance to the east access channel.
(D) <> Report.--
(i) In general.--Not later than March 1, 2000,
the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on
the study under subparagraph (C).
(ii) Contents.--The report shall include a
determination of--
(I) the feasibility of performing
the project modifications described in
subparagraph (C); and
(II) the appropriateness of
crediting or reimbursing the Federal
share of the cost of the work performed
by the non-Federal interest on the
project modifications.

[[Page 113 STAT. 278]]

(23) Red lake river at crookston, minnesota.--The project
for flood control, Red Lake River at Crookston, Minnesota:
Report of the Chief of Engineers dated April 20, 1998, at a
total cost of $8,950,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$5,720,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,230,000.
(24) Turkey creek basin, kansas city, missouri, and kansas
city, kansas.--The project for flood damage reduction, Turkey
Creek Basin, Kansas City, Missouri, and Kansas City, Kansas:
Report of the Chief of Engineers dated April 21, 1999, at a
total cost of $42,875,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$25,596,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $17,279,000.
(25) Lower cape may meadows, cape may point, new jersey.--
The project for navigation mitigation, ecosystem restoration,
shore protection, and hurricane and storm damage reduction,
Lower Cape May Meadows, Cape May Point, New Jersey: Report of
the Chief of Engineers dated April 5, 1999, at a total cost of
$15,952,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $12,118,000 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,834,000, and at an estimated
average annual cost of $1,114,000 for periodic nourishment over
the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated annual
Federal cost of $897,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal
cost of $217,000.
(26) Townsends inlet to cape may inlet, new jersey.--The
project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, shore
protection, and ecosystem restoration, Townsends Inlet to Cape
May Inlet, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated
September 28, 1998, at a total cost of $56,503,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $36,727,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $19,776,000, and at an estimated average annual
cost of $2,000,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year
life of the project, with an estimated annual Federal cost of
$1,300,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of $700,000.
(27) Guanajibo river, puerto rico.--
(A) In general.--The project for flood control,
Guanajibo River, Puerto Rico: Report of the Chief of
Engineers dated February 27, 1996, at a total cost of
$27,031,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$20,273,250 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$6,757,750.
(B) Cost sharing.--Cost sharing for the project
shall be determined in accordance with section 103(a) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
2213(a)), as in effect on October 11, 1996.
(28) Rio grande de manati, barceloneta, puerto rico.--The
project for flood control, Rio Grande De Manati, Barceloneta,
Puerto Rico: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated January 22,
1999, at a total cost of $13,491,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $8,785,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$4,706,000.
(29) Rio nigua, salinas, puerto rico.--The project for flood
control, Rio Nigua, Salinas, Puerto Rico: Report of the Chief of
Engineers dated April 15, 1997, at a total cost of $13,702,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $7,645,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $6,057,000.
(30) Salt creek, graham, texas.--The project for flood
control, environmental restoration, and recreation, Salt Creek,

[[Page 113 STAT. 279]]

Graham, Texas: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated October 6,
1998, at a total cost of $10,080,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $6,560,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$3,520,000.

(b) Projects Subject to a 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, 1999:
(1) Heritage harbor, wrangell, alaska.--The project for
navigation, Heritage Harbor, Wrangell, Alaska, at a total cost
of $24,556,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $14,447,000
and estimated non-Federal cost of $10,109,000.
(2) Arroyo pasajero, california.--The project for flood
damage reduction, Arroyo Pasajero, California, at a total cost
of $260,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $170,100,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $90,600,000.
(3) Hamilton airfield, california.--The project for
environmental restoration, Hamilton Airfield, California, at a
total cost of $55,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$41,400,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $13,800,000.
(4) Success dam, tule river basin, california.--The project
for flood damage reduction and water supply, Success Dam, Tule
River basin, California, at a total cost of $17,900,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $11,635,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $6,265,000.
(5) Delaware bay coastline, delaware and new jersey: oakwood
beach, new jersey.--The project for shore protection, Delaware
Bay coastline, Delaware and New Jersey: Oakwood Beach, New
Jersey, at a total cost of $3,360,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $2,184,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$1,176,000, and at an estimated average annual cost of $81,000
for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project,
with an estimated annual Federal cost of $53,000 and an
estimated annual non-Federal cost of $28,000.
(6) Delaware bay coastline, delaware and new jersey: reeds
beach and pierces point, new jersey.--The project for shore
protection and ecosystem restoration, Delaware Bay coastline,
Delaware and New Jersey: Reeds Beach and Pierces Point, New
Jersey, at a total cost of $4,057,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $2,637,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$1,420,000.
(7) Little talbot island, duval county, florida.--The
project for hurricane and storm damage prevention and shore
protection, Little Talbot Island, Duval County, Florida, at a
total cost of $5,915,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$3,839,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,076,000.
(8) Ponce de leon inlet, florida.--The project for
navigation and related purposes, Ponce de Leon Inlet, Volusia
County, Florida, at a total cost of $5,454,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $2,988,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $2,466,000.
(9) Savannah harbor expansion, georgia.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the
project for navigation, Savannah Harbor expansion,

[[Page 113 STAT. 280]]

Georgia, including implementation of the mitigation
plan, with such modifications as the Secretary considers
appropriate, at a total cost of $230,174,000 (of which
amount a portion is authorized for implementation of the
mitigation plan), with an estimated Federal cost of
$145,160,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$85,014,000.
(B) Conditions.--The project authorized by
subparagraph (A) may be carried out only after--
(i) the Secretary, in consultation with
affected Federal, State of Georgia, State of South
Carolina, regional, and local entities, reviews
and approves an environmental impact statement for
the project that includes--
(I) an analysis of the impacts of
project depth alternatives ranging from
42 feet through 48 feet; and
(II) a selected plan for navigation
and an associated mitigation plan as
required under section 906(a) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(33 U.S.C. 2283(a)); and
(ii) the Secretary of the Interior, the
Secretary of Commerce, the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, and the Secretary
approve the selected plan and determine that the
associated mitigation plan adequately addresses
the potential environmental impacts of the
project.
(C) Mitigation requirements.--The mitigation plan
shall be implemented before or concurrently with
construction of the project.
(10) Des plaines river, illinois.--The project for flood
control, Des Plaines River, Illinois, at a total cost of
$48,800,000 with an estimated Federal cost of $31,700,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $17,100,000.
(11) Reelfoot lake, kentucky and tennessee.--The project for
ecosystem restoration, Reelfoot Lake, Kentucky and Tennessee, at
a total cost of $35,287,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$23,601,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $11,686,000.
(12) Brigantine inlet to great egg harbor, brigantine
island, new jersey.--The project for hurricane and storm damage
reduction and shore protection, Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg
Harbor, Brigantine Island, New Jersey, at a total cost of
$4,970,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $3,230,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $1,740,000, and at an estimated
average annual cost of $465,000 for periodic nourishment over
the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated annual
Federal cost of $302,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal
cost of $163,000.
(13) Columbia river channel, oregon and washington.--The
project for navigation, Columbia River Channel, Oregon and
Washington, at a total cost of $183,623,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $106,132,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $77,491,000.
(14) Johnson creek, arlington, texas.--The project for flood
damage reduction, environmental restoration, and recreation,
Johnson Creek, Arlington, Texas, at a total cost of

[[Page 113 STAT. 281]]

$20,300,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $12,000,000 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $8,300,000.
(15) Howard hanson dam, washington.--The project for water
supply and ecosystem restoration, Howard Hanson Dam, Washington,
at a total cost of $75,600,000, with an estimated Federal cost
of $36,900,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $38,700,000.

SEC. 102. SMALL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS.

(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) Eyak river, cordova, alaska.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Eyak River, Cordova, Alaska.
(2) Salcha river and piledriver slough, fairbanks, alaska.--
Project for flood damage reduction to protect against surface
water flooding, lower Salcha River and Piledriver Slough from
its headwaters at the mouth of the Salcha River to the Chena
Lakes Flood Control Project, Fairbanks, Alaska.
(3) Lancaster, california.--Project for flood control,
Lancaster, California, westside stormwater retention facility.
(4) Magpie creek, california.--Project for flood control,
Magpie Creek, California, located within the boundaries of
McClellan Air Force Base.
(5) Gateway triangle area, florida.--Project for flood
control, Gateway Triangle area, Collier County, Florida.
(6) Plant city, florida.--Project for flood control, Plant
City, Florida.
(7) Stone island, lake monroe, florida.--Project for flood
control, Stone Island, Lake Monroe, Florida.
(8) Ohio river, illinois.--Project for flood control, Ohio
River, Illinois.
(9) Hamilton dam, michigan.--Project for flood control,
Hamilton Dam, Michigan.
(10) Repaupo creek and delaware river, gloucester county,
new jersey.--Project for tidegate and levee improvements for
Repaupo Creek and the Delaware River, Gloucester County, New
Jersey.
(11) Irondequoit creek, new york.--Project for flood
control, Irondequoit Creek watershed, New York.
(12) Owasco lake seawall, new york.--Project for flood
control, Owasco Lake seawall, New York.
(13) Port clinton, ohio.--Project for flood control, Port
Clinton, Ohio.
(14) Abington township, pennsylvania.--Project for flood
control, Baeder and Wanamaker Roads, Abington Township,
Pennsylvania.
(15) Port indian, west norriton township, montgomery county,
pennsylvania.--Project for flood control, Port Indian, West
Norriton Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.
(16) Port providence, upper providence township,
pennsylvania.--Project for flood control, Port Providence, Upper
Providence Township, Pennsylvania.
(17) Springfield township, montgomery county,
pennsylvania.--Project for flood control, Springfield Township,
Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.

[[Page 113 STAT. 282]]

(18) Tawney run creek, pennsylvania.--Project for flood
control, Tawney Run Creek, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
(19) Wissahickon watershed, pennsylvania.--Project for flood
control, Wissahickon watershed, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
(20) Tioga county, pennsylvania.--Project for flood control,
Tioga River and Cowanesque River and their tributaries, Tioga
County, Pennsylvania.
(21) First creek, knoxville, tennessee.--Project for flood
control, First Creek, Knoxville, Tennessee.
(22) Metro center levee, cumberland river, nashville,
tennessee.--Project for flood control, Metro Center Levee,
Cumberland River, Nashville, Tennessee.

(b) Festus and Crystal City, Missouri.--
(1) Maximum federal expenditure.--The maximum amount of
Federal funds that may be expended for the project for flood
control, Festus and Crystal City, Missouri, is $10,000,000.
(2) Revision of project cooperation agreement.--The
Secretary shall revise the project cooperation agreement for the
project described in paragraph (1) to take into account the
change in the Federal participation in the project under
paragraph (1).

SEC. 103. SMALL BANK STABILIZATION PROJECTS.

(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 14 of the Flood
Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r):
(1) Arctic ocean, barrow, alaska.--Project for storm damage
reduction and coastal erosion, Barrow, Alaska.
(2) Saint joseph river, indiana.--Project for streambank
erosion control, Saint Joseph River, Indiana.
(3) Saginaw river, bay city, michigan.--Project for
streambank erosion control, Saginaw River, Bay City, Michigan.
(4) Big timber creek, new jersey.--Project for streambank
erosion control, Big Timber Creek, New Jersey.
(5) Lake shore road, athol springs, new york.--Project for
streambank erosion control, Lake Shore Road, Athol Springs, New
York.
(6) Marist college, poughkeepsie, new york.--Project for
streambank erosion control, Marist College, Poughkeepsie, New
York.
(7) Monroe county, ohio.--Project for streambank erosion
control, Monroe County, Ohio.
(8) Green valley, west virginia.--Project for streambank
erosion control, Green Valley, West Virginia.

(b) Yellowstone River, Billings, Montana.--The streambank protection
project at Coulson Park, along the Yellowstone River, Billings, Montana,
shall be eligible for assistance under section 14 of the Flood Control
Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r).

SEC. 104. SMALL NAVIGATION PROJECTS.

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).

[[Page 113 STAT. 283]]

(1) Grand marais, arkansas.--Project for navigation, Grand
Marais, Arkansas.
(2) Fields landing channel, humboldt harbor, california.--
Project for navigation, Fields Landing Channel, Humboldt Harbor,
California.
(3) San mateo (pillar point harbor), california.--Project
for navigation, San Mateo (Pillar Point Harbor), California.
(4) Agana marina, guam.--Project for navigation, Agana
Marina, Guam.
(5) Agat marina, guam.--Project for navigation, Agat Marina,
Guam.
(6) Apra harbor fuel piers, guam.--Project for navigation,
Apra Harbor Fuel Piers, Guam.
(7) Apra harbor pier f-6, guam.--Project for navigation,
Apra Harbor Pier F-6, Guam.
(8) Apra harbor seawall, guam.--Project for navigation
including a seawall, Apra Harbor, Guam.
(9) Guam harbor, guam.--Project for navigation, Guam Harbor,
Guam.
(10) Illinois river near chautauqua park, illinois.--Project
for navigation, Illinois River near Chautauqua Park, Illinois. (continued)