Oct. 8, 1998 sees Congressional Record publish “WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT 1998”

Volume 144, No. 140 covering the 2nd Session of the 105th Congress (1997 - 1998) was published by the Congressional Record.

The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.

“WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT 1998” mentioning the Department of Interior was published in the Senate section on pages S12073-S12087 on Oct. 8, 1998.

The publication is reproduced in full below:

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT 1998

Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now turn to the consideration of Calendar No. 523, S. 2131.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 2131) 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.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill which had been reported from the Committee on Environment and Public Works, with an amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and inserting in lieu thereof the following

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water Resources Development Act of 1998''.

(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Sec. 101. Definitions.

Sec. 102. Project authorizations.

Sec. 103. Project modifications.

Sec. 104. Project deauthorizations.

Sec. 105. Studies.

Sec. 106. Flood hazard mitigation and riverine ecosystem restoration program.

Sec. 107. Shore protection.

Sec. 108. Small flood control projects.

Sec. 109. Use of non-Federal funds for compiling and disseminating information on floods and flood damages.

Sec. 110. Everglades and south Florida ecosystem restoration.

Sec. 111. Aquatic ecosystem restoration.

Sec. 112. Beneficial uses of dredged material.

Sec. 113. Voluntary contributions by States and political subdivisions.

Sec. 114. Recreation user fees.

Sec. 115. Water resources development studies for the Pacific region.

Sec. 116. Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers enhancement project.

Sec. 117. Outer Continental Shelf.

Sec. 118. Environmental dredging.

Sec. 119. Benefit of primary flood damages avoided included in benefit cost analysis.

Sec. 120. Control of aquatic plant growth.

Sec. 121. Environmental infrastructure.

Sec. 122. Watershed management, restoration, and development.

Sec. 123. Lakes program.

Sec. 124. Dredging of salt ponds in the State of Rhode Island.

Sec. 125. Upper Susquehanna River basin, Pennsylvania and New York.

Sec. 126. Repaupo Creek and Delaware River, Gloucester County, New

Jersey.

Sec. 127. Small navigation projects.

Sec. 128. Streambank protection projects.

Sec. 129. Aquatic ecosystem restoration, Springfield, Oregon.

Sec. 130. Guilford and New Haven, Connecticut.

Sec. 131. Francis Bland, Arkansas Floodway Ditch No. 5.

Sec. 132. Point Judith breakwater.

Sec. 133. Caloosahatchee River basin, Florida.

Sec. 134. Cumberland, Maryland, flood project mitigation.

Sec. 135. Sediments decontamination policy.

Sec. 136. City of Miami Beach, Florida.

Sec. 137. Small storm damage reduction projects.

Sec. 138. Sardis Reservoir, Oklahoma.

Sec. 139. Upper Mississippi River and Illinois waterway system navigation modernization.

Sec. 140. Disposal of dredged material on beaches.

Sec. 141. Fish and wildlife mitigation.

Sec. 142. Upper Mississippi River management.

Sec. 143. Reimbursement of non-Federal interest.

Sec. 144. Research and development program for Columbia and Snake

Rivers salmon survival.

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

Sec. 201. Definitions.

Sec. 202. Terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration.

Sec. 203. South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust

Fund.

Sec. 204. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and Lower Brule Sioux Tribe

Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Funds.

Sec. 205. Transfer of Federal land to State of South Dakota.

Sec. 206. Transfer of Corps of Engineers land for Indian Tribes.

Sec. 207. Administration.

Sec. 208. Authorization of appropriations.

TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

SEC. 101. DEFINITIONS.

In this title, the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the Army.

SEC. 102. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

(a) Projects With 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 section:

(1) American river watershed, california.--

(A) In general.--The project for flood damage reduction described as the Folsom Stepped Release Plan in the United States Army Corps of Engineers Supplemental Information Report for the American River Watershed Project, California, dated March 1996, at a total cost of $464,600,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $302,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $162,600,000.

(B) Implementation.--

(i) In general.--Implementation of the measures by the Secretary pursuant to subparagraph (A) of this subsection shall be undertaken after completion of the levee stabilization and strengthening and flood warning features authorized in section 101(a)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3662).

(ii) Folsom dam and reservoir.--The Secretary may undertake measures at the Folsom Dam and Reservoir authorized under subparagraph (A) only after reviewing the design of such measures to determine if modifications are necessary to account for changed hydrologic conditions and any other changed conditions in the project area, including operational and construction impacts that have occurred since completion of the report referred to in subparagraph (A). The Secretary shall conduct the review and develop such modifications to the Folsom Dam and Reservoir with the full participation of the Secretary of the Interior.

(iii) Remaining downstream elements.--Implementation of the remaining downstream elements authorized pursuant to subparagraph (A) may be undertaken only after the Secretary, in consultation with affected Federal, State, regional, and local entities, has reviewed the elements to determine if modifications are necessary to address changes in the hydrologic conditions, any other changed conditions in the project area that have occurred since completion of the report referred to in subparagraph (A) and any design modifications for the Folsom Dam and Reservoir made by the Secretary in implementing the measures referred to in subparagraph (B)(ii), and has issued a report on the review. The review shall be prepared in accordance with the economic and environmental principles and guidelines for water and related land resources implementation studies, and no construction may be initiated unless the Secretary determines that the remaining downstream elements are technically sound, environmentally acceptable, and economically justified.

(2) Llagas creek, california.--The Secretary may complete the remaining reaches of the National Resources Conservation Services flood control project at Llagas Creek, California, undertaken pursuant to section 5 of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 1005) substantially in accordance with the requirements of local cooperation as specified in section 4 of that Act (16 U.S.C. 1004) at a total cost of $34,300,000, with an estimated Federal cost of

$16,600,000 and an estimated non-Federal share of

$17,700,000.

(3) Hillsboro and okeechobee aquifer storage and recovery project, florida.--The project for aquifer storage and recovery described in the United States Army 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.

(4) Baltimore harbor anchorages and channels, maryland and virginia.--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

$27,692,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $19,126,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $8,566,000.

(5) Red lake river at crookston, minnesota.--The project for flood damage reduction, Red Lake River at Crookston, Minnesota: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated April 20, 1998, at a total cost of $8,720,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $5,567,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,153,000.

(6) Park river, north dakota.--

(A) In general.--Subject to the condition stated in subparagraph (B), the project for flood control, Park River, Grafton, North Dakota, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4121) and deauthorized under section 1001(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a), is authorized to be carried out by the Secretary at a total cost of $27,300,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $17,745,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $9,555,000.

(B) Condition.--No construction may be initiated unless the Secretary determines through a general reevaluation report using current data, that the project is technically sound, environmentally acceptable, and economically justified.

(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 as approved by the Secretary, if the report of the Chief is completed not later than December 31, 1998.

(1) Hamilton airfield wetland restoration, california.--The project for environmental restoration at Hamilton Airfield, California, at a total cost of $39,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $29,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $10,000,000.

(2) Oakland, california.--

(A) In general.--The project for navigation and environmental restoration, Oakland, California, at a total cost of $202,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of

$120,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of

$82,000,000.

(B) Berthing areas and other local service facilities.--The non-Federal interests shall provide berthing areas and other local service facilities necessary for the project at an estimated cost of $43,000,000.

(3) South sacramento county streams, california.--The project for flood damage reduction, environmental restoration and recreation, South Sacramento County Streams, California at a total cost of $64,770,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $38,840,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of

$25,930,000.

(4) Upper guadalupe river, california.--The Secretary may construct 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, at a total cost of $132,836,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $42,869,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $89,967,000.

(5) Yuba river basin, california.--The project for flood damage reduction, Yuba River Basin, California at a total cost of $25,850,000 with an estimated Federal cost of

$16,775,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $9,075,000.

(6) Delaware bay coastline: delaware and new jersey-broadkill beach, delaware.--

(A) In general.--The shore protection project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Delaware Bay Coastline: Delaware and New Jersey-Broadkill Beach, Delaware at a total cost of

$8,871,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $5,593,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,278,000.

(B) Periodic nourishment.--Periodic nourishment is authorized for a 50-year period at an estimated average annual cost of $651,000, with an estimated annual Federal cost of $410,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of

$241,000.

(7) Delaware bay coastline: delaware and new jersey-port mahon, delaware.--

(A) In general.--The shore protection project for ecosystem restoration, Delaware Bay Coastline: Delaware and New Jersey-Port Mahon, Delaware at a total cost of $7,563,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $4,916,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,647,000.

(B) Periodic nourishment.--Periodic nourishment is authorized for a 50-year period at an estimated average annual cost of $238,000, with an estimated annual Federal cost of $155,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of

$83,000.

(8) Delaware bay coastline: delaware and new jersey-roosevelt inlet-lewes beach, delaware.--

(A) In general.--The shore protection project for navigation mitigation and hurricane and storm damage reduction, Delaware Bay Coastline: Delaware and New Jersey-Roosevelt Inlet-Lewes Beach, Delaware at a total cost of

$3,326,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $2,569,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,647,000.

(B) Periodic nourishment.--Periodic nourishment is authorized for a 50-year period at an estimated average annual cost of $207,000, with an estimated annual Federal cost of $159,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of

$47,600.

(9) Delaware coast from cape henelopen to fenwick island, bethany beach/south bethany beach, delaware.--

(A) In general.--The shore protection project for hurricane storm damage reduction, Delaware Coast from Cape Henelopen to Fenwick Island, Bethany Beach/South Bethany Beach, Delaware at a total cost of $22,094,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $14,361,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of

$7,773,000.

(B) Periodic nourishment.--Periodic nourishment is authorized for a 50-year period at an estimated average annual cost of $1,573,000, with an estimated annual Federal cost of $1,022,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of $551,000.

(10) Jacksonville harbor, florida.--The project for navigation, Jacksonville Harbor, Florida at a total cost of

$27,758,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $9,632,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $18,126,000.

(11) Little talbot island, duval county, florida.--The shore protection project for hurricane and storm damage prevention, Little Talbot Island, Duval County, Florida at a total cost of $5,802,000, with an estimated Federal cost of

$3,771,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,031,000.

(12) Ponce de leon inlet, volusia county, florida.--The project for navigation and recreation, Ponce de Leon Inlet, Volusia County, Florida at a total cost of $5,533,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $3,408,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,125,000.

(13) Tampa harbor-big bend channel, florida.--The project for navigation, Tampa Harbor-Big Bend Channel, Florida at a total cost of $11,348,000, with an estimated Federal cost of

$5,747,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,601,000.

(14) Brunswick harbor deepening, georgia.--The project for navigation, Brunswick Harbor Deepening, Georgia at a total cost of $49,433,000, with an estimated Federal cost of

$32,083,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $17,350,000.

(15) Savannah harbor expansion, georgia.--The project for navigation, Savannah Harbor Expansion, Georgia at a total cost of $195,302,000, with an estimated Federal cost of

$84,423,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of

$110,879,000.

(16) Grand forks, north dakota, and east grand forks, minnesota.--The project for flood damage reduction and recreation, Grand Forks, North Dakota and East Grand Forks, Minnesota at a total cost of $281,754,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $140,877,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $140,877,000.

(17) Bayou cassotte extension, pascagoula harbor, pascagoula, mississippi.--The project for navigation, Bayou Cassotte Extension, Pascagoula Harbor, Pascagoula, Mississippi at a total cost of $5,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $4,300,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $1,400,000.

(18) 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 at a total cost of $38,594,000 with an estimated Federal cost of

$22,912,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $15,682,000.

(19) Lower cape may meadows, cape may point, new jersey.--

(A) In general.--The shore protection project for navigation mitigation, ecosystem restoration and hurricane and storm damage reduction, Lower Cape May Meadows, Cape May Point, New Jersey at a total cost of $14,885,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $11,390,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,495,000.

(B) Periodic nourishment.--Periodic nourishment is authorized for a 50-year period at an estimated average annual cost of $4,565,000, with an estimated annual Federal cost of $3,674,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of $891,000.

(20) New jersey shore protection, brigantine inlet to great egg harbor, brigantine island, new jersey.--

(A) In general.--The shore protection project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, New Jersey Shore Protection, Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor, Brigantine Island, New Jersey at a total cost of $4,861,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $3,160,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $1,701,000.

(B) Periodic nourishment.--Periodic nourishment is authorized for a 50-year period at an estimated average annual cost of $2,600,000, with an estimated annual Federal cost of $1,700,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of $900,000.

(21) New jersey shore protection, townsends inlet to cape may inlet, new jersey.--

(A) In general.--The shore protection project for hurricane and storm damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, New Jersey Shore Protection, Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet, New Jersey at a total cost of $55,203,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $35,882,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $19,321,000.

(B) Periodic nourishment.--Periodic nourishment is authorized for a 50-year period at an estimated average annual cost of $6,319,000, with an estimated annual Federal cost of $4,107,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of $2,212,000.

SEC. 103. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS.

(a) Projects With Reports.--

(1) Glenn-colusa, california.--The project for flood control, Sacramento River California, authorized by section 2 of the Act entitled ``An Act to provide for the control of floods of the Mississippi River and of the Sacramento River, and for other purposes'', approved March 1, 1917 (39 Stat. 949), and modified by section 102 of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 1990 (103 Stat. 649), and further modified by section 301(b)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3709) is further modified to authorize the Secretary to carry out the portion of the project in Glenn-Colusa, California in accordance with the Corps of Engineers report dated May 22, 1998, at a total cost of $20,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $15,570,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,130,000.

(2) San lorenzo river, california.--The project for flood control, San Lorenzo River, California, authorized by section 101(a)(5) of Public Law 104-303 (110 Stat. 3663), is modified to authorize the Secretary to include as a part of the project streambank erosion control measures to be undertaken substantially in accordance with the report entitled ``Bank Stabilization Concept, Laurel Street Extension'', dated April 23, 1998, at a total cost of $4,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $2,600,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $1,400,000.

(3) Wood river, grand island, nebraska.--The project for flood control, Wood River, Grand Island, Nebraska, authorized by section 101(a)(19) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3665) is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project in accordance with the Corps of Engineers report dated June 29, 1998, at a total cost of $16,632,000, with an estimated Federal cost of

$9,508,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $7,124,000.

(4) Absecon island, new jersey.--The project for Absecon Island, New Jersey, authorized by section 101(h)(13) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3668) is amended to authorize the Secretary to reimburse the non-Federal sponsor for all work performed, consistent with the authorized project.

(5) Waurika lake, oklahoma, water conveyance facilities.--The requirement for the Waurika Project Master Conservancy District to repay the $2,900,000 in costs (including interest) resulting from the October 1991 settlement of the claim of the Travelers Insurance Company before the United States Claims Court related to construction of the water conveyance facilities authorized by Public Law 88-253 (77 Stat. 841) is waived.

(b) Projects Subject to Reports.--The following projects are modified as follows, except that no funds may be obligated to carry out work under such modifications until completion of a final report by the Chief of Engineers, as approved by the Secretary, finding that such work is technically sound, environmentally acceptable, and economically justified, as applicable:

(1) Sacramento metro area, california.--The project for flood control, Sacramento Metro Area, California authorized by section 101(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4801) is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of $32,900,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $24,700,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $8,200,000.

(2) New york harbor and adjacent channels, port jersey, new jersey.--The project for navigation, New York Harbor and Adjacent Channels, Port Jersey, New Jersey, authorized by section 202(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986

(100 Stat. 4098) is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of $100,689,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $74,998,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $25,701,000.

(3) Arthur kill, new york and new jersey.--The project for navigation, Arthur Kill, New York and New Jersey, authorized by section 202(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4098) and modified by section 301(b)(11) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3711) is further modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of $260,899,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $195,705,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $65,194,000.

(c) Beaver Lake, Arkansas, Water Supply Storage Reallocation.--The Secretary shall reallocate approximately 31,000 additional acre-feet at Beaver Lake, Arkansas, to water supply storage at no cost to the Beaver Water District or the Carroll-Boone Water District, except that at no time shall the bottom of the conservation pool be at an elevation that is less than 1,076 feet, NGVD.

(d) Tolchester Channel S-Turn, Baltimore, Maryland.--The project for navigation, Baltimore Harbor and Channels, Maryland, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 297), is modified to direct the Secretary to straighten the Tolchester Channel S-turn as part of project maintenance.

(e) Tropicana Wash and Flamingo Wash, Nevada.--Any Federal costs associated with the Tropicana and Flamingo Washes, Nevada, authorized by section 101(13) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4803), incurred by the non-Federal interest to accelerate or modify construction of the project, in cooperation with the Corps of Engineers, shall be considered to be eligible for reimbursement by the Secretary.

(f) Flood Mitigation Near Pierre, South Dakota.--

(1) In general.--

(A) Land acquisition.--To provide full operational capability to carry out the authorized purposes of the Missouri River Main Stem dams that are part of the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin Program authorized by section 9 of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing the construction of certain public works on rivers and harbors for flood control, and other purposes'' approved December 22, 1944, the Secretary may acquire from willing sellers such land and property in the vicinity of Pierre, South Dakota, or floodproof or relocate such property within the project area, as the Secretary determines is adversely affected by the full wintertime Oahe Powerplant releases.

(B) Ownership and use.--Any land that is acquired under this authority shall be kept in public ownership and will be dedicated and maintained in perpetuity for a use that is compatible with any remaining flood threat.

(i) In general.--The Secretary shall not obligate funds to implement this paragraph until the Secretary has completed a report addressing the criteria for selecting which properties are to be acquired, relocated or floodproofed, and a plan for implementing such measures and has made a determination that the measures are economically justified.

(ii) Deadline.--The report shall be completed not later than 180 days after funding is made available.

(D) Coordination and cooperation.--The report and implementation plan--

(i) shall be coordinated with the Federal Emergency Management Agency; and

(ii) shall be prepared in consultation with other Federal agencies, and State and local officials, and residents.

(E) Considerations.--Such report should take into account information from prior and ongoing studies.

(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $35,000,000.

(g) Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection, Virginia Beach, Virginia.--

(1) Acceptance of funds.--In any fiscal year that the Corps of Engineers does not receive appropriations sufficient to meet expected project expenditures for that year, the Secretary shall accept from the city of Virginia Beach, Virginia, for purposes of the project for beach erosion control and hurricane protection, Virginia Beach, Virginia, authorized by section 501(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4136), such funds as the city may advance for the project.

(2) Repayment.--Subject to the availability of appropriations, the Secretary shall repay, without interest, the amount of any advance made under paragraph (1), from appropriations that may be provided by Congress for river and harbor, flood control, shore protection, and related projects.

(h) Elizabeth River, Chesapeake, Virginia.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the date of enactment of this Act, the city of Chesapeake, Virginia, shall not be obligated to make the annual cash contribution required under paragraph 1(9) of the Local Cooperation Agreement dated December 12, 1978, between the Government and the city for the project for navigation, southern branch of Elizabeth River, Chesapeake, Virginia.

(i) Payment Option, Moorefield, West Virginia.--The Secretary may permit the non-Federal sponsor for the project for flood control, Moorefield, West Virginia, to pay without interest the remaining non-Federal cost over a period not to exceed 30 years, to be determined by the Secretary.

SEC. 104. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS.

(a) Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut.--The portion of the project for navigation, Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958

(72 Stat. 297), consisting of a 2.4-acre anchorage area 9 feet deep and an adjacent 0.60-acre anchorage 6 feet deep, located on the west side of Johnsons River, Connecticut, is not authorized after the date of enactment of this Act.

(b) Bass Harbor, Maine.--

(1) Deauthorization.--The portions of the project for navigation, Bass Harbor, Maine, authorized on May 7, 1962, under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577) described in paragraph (2) are not authorized after the date of enactment of this Act.

(2) Description.--The portions of the project referred to in paragraph (1) are described as follows:

(A) Beginning at a bend in the project, N149040.00, E538505.00, thence running easterly about 50.00 feet along the northern limit of the project to a point N149061.55, E538550.11, thence running southerly about 642.08 feet to a point, N148477.64, E538817.18, thence running southwesterly about 156.27 feet to a point on the westerly limit of the project, N148348.50, E538737.02, thence running northerly about 149.00 feet along the westerly limit of the project to a bend in the project, N148489.22, E538768.09, thence running northwesterly about 610.39 feet along the westerly limit of the project to the point of origin.

(B) Beginning at a point on the westerly limit of the project, N148118.55, E538689.05, thence running southeasterly about 91.92 feet to a point, N148041.43, E538739.07, thence running southerly about 65.00 feet to a point, N147977.86, E538725.51, thence running southwesterly about 91.92 feet to a point on the westerly limit of the project, N147927.84, E538648.39, thence running northerly about 195.00 feet along the westerly limit of the project to the point of origin.

(c) East Boothbay Harbor, Maine.--Section 364 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3731) is amended by striking paragraph (9) and inserting the following:

``(9) East boothbay harbor, maine.--The project for navigation, East Boothbay Harbor, Maine, authorized by the first section of the Act entitled ``An Act making appropriations for the construction, repair, and preservation of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes'', approved June 25, 1910 (36 Stat. 657).''.

SEC. 105. STUDIES.

(a) Baldwin County, Alabama, Watersheds.--The Secretary of the Army shall review the report of the Chief of Engineers on the Alabama Coast published as House Document 108, 90th Congress, 1st Session, and other pertinent reports with a view to determining whether modifications of the recommendations contained in the House Document are advisable at this time in the interest of flood damage reduction, environmental restoration and protection, water quality, and other purposes, with a special emphasis on determining the advisability of developing a comprehensive coordinated watershed management plan for the development, conservation, and utilization of water and related land resources in the watersheds in Baldwin County, Alabama.

(b) Escambia River, Alabama and Florida.--

(1) In general.--The Secretary shall review the report of the Chief of Engineers on the Escambia River, Alabama and Florida, published as House Document 350, 71st Congress, 2d Session, and other pertinent reports, to determine whether modifications of any of the recommendations contained in the House Document are advisable at this time with particular reference to Burnt Corn Creek and Murder Creek in the vicinity of Brewton, and East Brewton, Alabama, and the need for flood control, floodplain evacuation, flood warning and preparedness, environmental restoration and protection, and bank stabilization in those areas.

(2) Coordination.--The review shall be coordinated with plans of other local and Federal agencies.

(c) Strawberry Creek, Berkeley, California.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of restoring Strawberry Creek, Berkeley, California, to determine the Federal interest in environmental restoration, conservation of fish and wildlife resources, recreation, and water quality.

(d) West Side Storm Water Retention Facility, City of Lancaster, California.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of undertaking measures to construct the West Side Storm Water Retention Facility in the city of Lancaster, California.

(e) Apalachicola River, Florida.--The Secretary shall conduct a study for the purpose of identifying--

(1) alternatives for the management of material dredged in connection with operation and maintenance of the Apalachicola River Navigation Project; and

(2) alternatives which reduce the requirements for such dredging.

(f) Broward County, Sand Bypassing at Port Everglades, Florida.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of constructing a sand bypassing project at the Port Everglades Inlet, Florida.

(g) City of Destin-Noriega Point Breakwater, Florida.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of--

(1) restoring Noriega Point, Florida, to serve as a breakwater for Destin Harbor; and

(2) including Noriega Point as part of the East Pass, Florida navigation project.

(h) Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area, Florida.--

(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of undertaking measures to reduce the flooding problems in the vicinity of Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area, Florida.

(2) Studies and reports.--The study shall include a review and consideration of studies and reports completed by the non-Federal sponsor.

(i) Hillsborough River, Withlacoochee River Basins, Florida.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to identify appropriate measures that can be undertaken in the Green Swamp, Withlacoochee River, and the Hillsborough River, the Water Triangle of west central Florida to address comprehensive watershed planning for water conservation, water supply, restoration and protection of environmental resources, and other water resource-related problems in the area.

(j) City of Plant City, Florida.--

(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of a flood control project in the city of Plant City, Florida.

(2) Studies and reports.--In conducting the study, the Secretary shall review and consider studies and reports completed by the non-Federal sponsor.

(k) St. Lucie County, Florida, Shore Protection.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of a shore protection and hurricane and storm damage reduction project to the shoreline areas in St. Lucie County from the current project for Fort Pierce Beach, Florida southward to the Martin County line.

(l) Acadiana Navigation Channel, Louisiana.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of assuming operations and maintenance for the Acadiana Navigational Channel located in Iberia and Vermillion Parishes, Louisiana.

(m) Contraband Bayou Navigation Channel, Louisiana.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of assuming the maintenance at Contraband Bayou, Calcasieu River Ship Canal, Louisiana.

(n) Golden Meadow Lock, Louisiana.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of converting the Golden Meadow floodgate into a navigation lock to be included in the Larose to Golden Meadow Hurricane Protection project.

(o) Gulf Intracoastal Waterway Ecosystem Protection, Chef Menteur to Sabine River, Louisiana.--

(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of undertaking ecosystem restoration and protection measures along the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway from Chef Menteur to Sabine River, Louisiana.

(2) Matters to be addressed.--The study shall address saltwater intrusion, tidal scour, erosion, and other water resources related problems in this area.

(p) Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, and Vicinity, St. Charles Parish Pumps.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of modifying the Lake Pontchartrain Hurricane Protection project to include the St. Charles Parish Pumps and the modification of the seawall fronting protection along Lake Pontchartrain in Orleans, Parish, from New Basin Canal on the west to the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal on the east.

(q) Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Seawall Restoration, Louisiana.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of undertaking structural modifications of that portion of the seawall fronting protection along the south shore of Lake Pontchartrain in Orleans Parish, Louisiana, extending approximately 5 miles from the new basin Canal on the west to the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal on the east as a part of the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Protection Project, authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1077).

(r) Louisiana State Penitentiary Levee.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of the impacts of crediting the non-Federal sponsor for work performed in the project area of the Louisiana State Penitentiary Levee.

(s) Tunica Lake Weir, Mississippi.--

(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of constructing an outlet weir at Tunica Lake, Tunica County, Mississippi, and Lee County, Arkansas, for the purpose of stabilizing water levels in the Lake.

(2) Economic analysis.--In carrying out the study, the Secretary shall include as a part of the economic analysis the benefits derived from recreation uses at the Lake and economic benefits associated with restoration of fish and wildlife habitat.

(t) Protective Facilities for the St. Louis, Missouri, Riverfront Area.--

(1) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the optimal plan to protect facilities that are located on the Mississippi River riverfront within the boundaries of St. Louis, Missouri.

(2) Requirements.--In conducting the study, the Secretary--

(A) shall evaluate alternatives to offer safety and security to facilities; and

(B) use state-of-the-art techniques to best evaluate the current situation, probable solutions, and estimated costs.

(3) Report.--Not later than April 15, 1999, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the results of the study.

(u) Yellowstone River, Montana.--

(1) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive study of the Yellowstone River from Gardiner, Montana to the confluence of the Missouri River to determine the hydrologic, biological, and socioeconomic cumulative impacts on the river.

(2) Consultation and coordination.--The Secretary shall conduct the study in consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the United States Geological Survey, and the Natural Resource Conservation Service and with the full participation of the State of Montana, tribal and local entities, and provide for public participation.

(3) Report.--Not later than 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a report to Congress on the results of the study.

(v) Las Vegas Valley, Nevada.--

(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive study of water resources located in the Las Vegas Valley, Nevada.

(2) Objectives.--The study shall identify problems and opportunities related to ecosystem restoration, water quality, particularly the quality of surface runoff, water supply, and flood control.

(w) Camden and Gloucester Counties, New Jersey, Streams and Watersheds.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of undertaking ecosystem restoration, floodplain management, flood control, water quality control, comprehensive watershed management, and other allied purposes along tributaries of the Delaware River, Camden County and Gloucester County, New Jersey.

(x) Oswego River Basin, New York.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of establishing a flood forecasting system within the Oswego River basin, New York.

(y) Port of New York-New Jersey Navigation Study and Environmental Restoration Study.--

(1) Navigation study.--The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive study of navigation needs at the Port of New York-New Jersey (including the South Brooklyn Marine and Red Hook Container Terminals, Staten Island, and adjacent areas) to address improvements, including deepening of existing channels to depths of 50 feet or greater, that are required to provide economically efficient and environmentally sound navigation to meet current and future requirements.

(2) Environmental remediation study.--The Secretary, acting through the Chief of Engineers, shall review the reports of the Chief of Engineers on the New York Harbor, printed in the House Management Plan of the Harbor Estuary Program, and other pertinent reports concerning the New York Harbor Region and the Port of New York-New Jersey, to determine Federal interest in advancing harbor environmental restoration.

(3) Report.--Both studies shall be completed by December, 1999, to identify opportunities to link navigation improvements with possible environmental restoration projects.

(z) Niobrara River and Missouri River Sedimentation Study, South Dakota.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of the Niobrara River watershed and the operations of Fort Randall Dam and Gavins Point Dam on the Missouri River to determine the feasibility of alleviating the bank erosion, sedimentation, and related problems in the lower Niobrara River and the Missouri River below Fort Randall Dam.

(aa) City of Ocean Shores Shore Protection Project, Washington.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of undertaking the project for beach erosion and flood control, including relocation of a primary dune and periodic nourishment, at Ocean Shores, Washington.

(bb) Alternative Water Sources Study.--

(1) In general.--The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall conduct a study of the water supply needs of States that are not currently eligible for assistance under title XVI of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 (43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.).

(2) Requirements.--The study shall--

(A) identify the water supply needs (including potable, commercial, industrial, recreational and agricultural needs) of each State described in paragraph (1) through the year 2020, making use of such State, regional, and local plans, studies, and reports as may be available;

(B) evaluate the feasibility of various alternative water source technologies such as reuse and reclamation of wastewater and stormwater (including indirect potable reuse), aquifer storage and recovery, and desalination to meet the anticipated water supply needs of the States; and

(3) Report.--The Administrator shall report to Congress on the results of the study not more than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 106. FLOOD HAZARD MITIGATION AND RIVERINE ECOSYSTEM

RESTORATION PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--

(1) Authorization.--The Secretary may undertake a program to reduce flood hazards and restore the natural functions and values of riverine ecosystems throughout the United States.

(2) Studies.--In carrying out the program, the Secretary shall conduct studies to identify appropriate flood damage reduction, conservation, and restoration measures and may design and implement watershed management and restoration projects.

(3) Participation.--The studies and projects carried out under this authority shall be conducted, to the extent practicable, with the full participation of the appropriate Federal agencies, including the Department of Agriculture, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Commerce.

(4) Nonstructural approaches.--The studies and projects shall, to the extent practicable, emphasize nonstructural approaches to preventing or reducing flood damages.

(b) Cost-Sharing Requirements.--

(1) In general.--The cost of studies conducted under subsection (a) shall be shared in accordance with section 105 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4088; 110 Stat. 3677).

(2) Payment percentage.--The non-Federal interests shall pay 35 percent of the cost of any project carried out under this section.

(3) In-kind contributions.--The non-Federal interests shall provide all land, easements, rights-of-way, dredged material disposal areas, and relocations necessary for the projects, and the value of the land, easements, rights-of-way, dredged material disposal areas, and relocations shall be credited toward the payment required under this subsection.

(4) Responsibilities of the non-federal interests.--The non-Federal interests shall be responsible for all costs associated with operating, maintaining, replacing, repairing, and rehabilitating all projects carried out under this authority.

(1) In general.--The Secretary may implement a project under this section if the Secretary determines that the project--

(A) will significantly reduce potential flood damages;

(B) will improve the quality of the environment; and

(2) Selection criteria; policies and procedures.--Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall--

(A) develop criteria for selecting and rating the projects to be carried out as a part of the program authorized by this section; and

(B) establish policies and procedures for carrying out the studies and projects undertaken under this section.

(d) Reporting Requirement.--The Secretary may not implement a project under this section until--

(1) the Secretary provides to the Committee on the Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a written notification describing the project and the determinations made under subsection (c); and

(2) a period of 21 calendar days has expired following the date on which the notification was received by the Committees.

(e) Priority Areas.--In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall examine the potential for flood damage reductions at appropriate locations, including--

(1) Saint Genevieve, Missouri;

(2) upper Delaware River basin, New York;

(3) Tillamook County, Oregon;

(4) Providence County, Rhode Island; and

(5) Willamette River basin, Oregon.

(f) Per-Project Limitation.--Not more than $25,000,000 in Army Civil Works appropriations may be expended on any single project undertaken under this section.

(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--

(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $75,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2000 and 2001.

(2) Program funding levels.--All studies and projects undertaken under this authority from Army Civil Works appropriations shall be fully funded within the program funding levels provided in this subsection.

SEC. 107. SHORE PROTECTION.

Section 103(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4085) is amended--

(1) by striking ``Costs of construction'' and inserting the following:

``(1) Construction.--Costs of construction''; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

``(2) Periodic nourishment.--In the case of a project authorized for construction after December 31, 1998, or for which a feasibility study is completed after that date, the non-Federal cost of the periodic nourishment of projects or measures for shore protection or beach erosion control shall be 50 percent, except that--

``(A) all costs assigned to benefits to privately owned shores (where use of such shores is limited to private interests) or to prevention of losses of private land shall be borne by non-Federal interests; and

``(B) all costs assigned to the protection of federally owned shores shall be borne by the United States.''.

SEC. 108. SMALL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS.

Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s) is amended--

(1) in the first sentence, by striking ``construction of small projects'' and inserting ``implementation of small structural and nonstructural projects''; and

(2) in the third sentence, by striking ``$5,000,000'' and inserting ``$7,000,000''.

SEC. 109. USE OF NON-FEDERAL FUNDS FOR COMPILING AND

DISSEMINATING INFORMATION ON FLOODS AND FLOOD

DAMAGES.

The third sentence of section 206(b) of the Flood Control Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 709a(b)) is amended by inserting before the period at the end the following: ``, but the Secretary of the Army may accept funds voluntarily contributed by such entities for the purpose of expanding the scope of the services requested by the entities''.

SEC. 110. EVERGLADES AND SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.

Subparagraphs (B) and (C)(i) of section 528(b)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3769) are amended by striking ``1999'' and inserting ``2000''.

SEC. 111. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.

Section 206(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3679) is amended--

(1) by striking ``Construction'' and inserting the following:

``(1) In general.--Construction''; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

``(2) Nonprofit entities.--Notwithstanding section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), for any project undertaken under this section, a non-Federal interest may include a nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected local government.''.

SEC. 112. BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL.

Section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992

(106 Stat. 4826; 110 Stat. 3680) 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(b)), for any project carried out under this section, a non-Federal interest may include a nonprofit entity, with the consent of the affected local government.''.

SEC. 113. VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS BY STATES AND POLITICAL

SUBDIVISIONS.

Section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1936 (33 U.S.C. 701h) is amended by inserting ``or environmental restoration'' after ``flood control''.

SEC. 114. RECREATION USER FEES.

(a) Withholding of Amounts.--

(1) In general.--During fiscal years 1999 through 2002, the Secretary may withhold from the special account established under section 4(i)(1)(A) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-6a(i)(1)(A)) 100 percent of the amount of receipts above a baseline of $34,000,000 per each fiscal year received from fees imposed at recreation sites under the administrative jurisdiction of the Department of the Army under section 4(b) of that Act (16 U.S.C. 460l-6a(b)).

(2) Use.--The amounts withheld shall be retained by the Secretary and shall be available, without further Act of appropriation, for expenditure by the Secretary in accordance with subsection (b).

(3) Availability.--The amounts withheld shall remain available until September 30, 2005.

(b) Use of Amounts Withheld.--In order to increase the quality of the visitor experience at public recreational areas and to enhance the protection of resources, the amounts withheld under subsection (a) may be used only for--

(1) repair and maintenance projects (including projects relating to health and safety);

(2) interpretation;

(3) signage;

(4) habitat or facility enhancement;

(5) resource preservation;

(6) annual operation (including fee collection);

(7) maintenance; and

(8) law enforcement related to public use.

(c) Availability.--Each amount withheld by the Secretary shall be available for expenditure, without further Act of appropriation, at the specific project from which the amount, above baseline, is collected.

SEC. 115. WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT STUDIES FOR THE PACIFIC

REGION.

Section 444 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996

(110 Stat. 3747) is amended by striking ``interest of navigation'' and inserting ``interests of water resources development (including navigation, flood damage reduction, and environmental restoration)''.

SEC. 116. MISSOURI AND MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI RIVERS ENHANCEMENT

PROJECT.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:

(1) Middle mississippi river.--The term ``middle Mississippi River'' means the reach of the Mississippi River from the mouth of the Ohio River (river mile 0, upper Mississippi River) to the mouth of the Missouri River (river mile 195).

(2) Missouri river.--The term ``Missouri River'' means the main stem and floodplain of the Missouri River (including reservoirs) from its confluence with the Mississippi River at St. Louis, Missouri, to its headwaters near Three Forks, Montana.

(3) Project.--The term ``project'' means the project authorized by this section.

(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the Army.

(b) Protection and Enhancement Activities.--

(1) Plan.--

(A) Development.--Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop a plan for a project to protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat of the Missouri River and the middle Mississippi River.

(B) Activities.--

(i) In general.--The plan shall provide for such activities as are necessary to protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat without adversely affecting--

(I) the water-related needs of the region surrounding the Missouri River and the middle Mississippi River, including flood control, navigation, recreation, and enhancement of water supply; and

(II) private property rights.

(ii) Required activities.--The plan shall include--

(I) modification and improvement of navigation training structures to protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat;

(II) modification and creation of side channels to protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat;

(III) restoration and creation of island fish and wildlife habitat;

(IV) creation of riverine fish and wildlife habitat;

(V) establishment of criteria for prioritizing the type and sequencing of activities based on cost-effectiveness and likelihood of success; and

(VI) physical and biological monitoring for evaluating the success of the project, to be performed by the River Studies Center of the United States Geological Survey in Columbia, Missouri.

(2) Implementation of activities.--

(A) In general.--Using funds made available to carry out this section, the Secretary shall carry out the activities described in the plan.

(B) Use of existing authority for unconstructed features of the project.--Using funds made available to the Secretary under other law, the Secretary shall design and construct any feature of the project that may be carried out using the authority of the Secretary to modify an authorized project, if the Secretary determines that the design and construction will--

(i) accelerate the completion of activities to protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat of the Missouri River or the middle Mississippi River; and

(ii) be compatible with the project purposes described in this section.

(1) In general.--In carrying out the activities described in subsection (b), the Secretary shall integrate the activities with other Federal, State, and tribal activities.

(2) New authority.--Nothing in this section confers any new regulatory authority on any Federal or non-Federal entity that carries out any activity authorized by this section.

(d) Public Participation.--In developing and carrying out the plan under subsection (b) and the activities described in subsection (c), the Secretary shall provide for public review and comment in accordance with applicable Federal law, including--

(1) providing advance notice of meetings;

(2) providing adequate opportunity for public input and comment;

(3) maintaining appropriate records; and

(4) compiling a record of the proceedings of meetings.

(e) Compliance With Applicable Law.--In carrying out the activities described in subsections (b) and (c), the Secretary shall comply with any applicable Federal law, including the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).

(f) Cost Sharing.--

(1) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the cost of the project shall be 35 percent.

(2) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of any 1 activity described in subsection (b) shall not exceed

$5,000,000.

(3) Operation and maintenance.--The operation and maintenance of the project shall be a non-Federal responsibility.

(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be appropriated to pay the Federal share of the cost of carrying out activities under this section $30,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2000 and 2001.

SEC. 117. OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF.

(a) Sand, Gravel, and Shell.--Section 8(k)(2)(B) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(k)(2)(B)) is amended by inserting before the period at the end the following: ``or any other non-Federal interest subject to an agreement entered into under section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b)''.

(b) Reimbursement for Local Sponsor at Sandbridge Beach, Virginia Beach, Virginia.--Any amounts paid by the non-Federal sponsor for beach erosion control and hurricane protection, Sandbridge Beach, Virginia Beach, Virginia, as a result of an assessment under section 8(k) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(k)) shall be fully reimbursed.

SEC. 118. ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING.

Section 312(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 1272(f)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``(6) Snake Creek, Bixby, Oklahoma.''.

SEC. 119. BENEFIT OF PRIMARY FLOOD DAMAGES AVOIDED INCLUDED

IN BENEFIT COST ANALYSIS.

Section 308 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990

(33 U.S.C. 2318) is amended--

(1) in the heading of subsection (a), by striking

``Benefit-Cost Analysis'' and inserting ``Elements Excluded From Cost-Benefit Analysis'';

(2) by redesignating subsections (b) through (e) as subsections (c) through (f), respectively; and

(3) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:

``(b) Elements Included in Cost-Benefit Analysis.--The Secretary shall include primary flood damages avoided in the benefit base for justifying Federal nonstructural flood damage reduction projects.''.

SEC. 120. CONTROL OF AQUATIC PLANT GROWTH.

Section 104(a) of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (33 U.S.C. 610(a)) is amended--

(1) by inserting ``Arundo dona,'' after ``water-hyacinth,''; and

(2) by inserting ``tarmarix'' after ``melaleuca''.

SEC. 121. ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE.

Section 219(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835) is amended--

(1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (19) as paragraphs (3) through (23), respectively; and

(2) by inserting after ``as follows:'' the following:

``(1) Lake tahoe, california and nevada.--Regional water system for Lake Tahoe, California and Nevada.

``(2) Lancaster, california.--Fox Field Industrial Corridor water facilities, Lancaster, California.

``(3) San ramon, california.--San Ramon Valley recycled water project, San Ramon, California. SEC. 122. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT, RESTORATION, AND DEVELOPMENT.

Section 503(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3756) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``(14) Clear Lake watershed, California.

``(15) Fresno Slough watershed, California.

``(16) Hayward Marsh, Southern San Francisco Bay watershed, California.

``(17) Kaweah River watershed, California.

``(18) Lake Tahoe watershed, California and Nevada.

``(19) Malibu Creek watershed, California.

``(20) Truckee River basin, Nevada.

``(21) Walker River basin, Nevada.''.

SEC. 123. LAKES PROGRAM.

Section 602(a) of the Water Resources Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4148) is amended--

(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (15);

(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (16) and inserting a semicolon; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

``(17) Clear Lake, Lake County, California, removal of silt and aquatic growth and development of a sustainable weed and algae management program.

``(18) Osgood Pond, Milford, New Hampshire, removal of excessive aquatic vegetation.''.

SEC. 124. DREDGING OF SALT PONDS IN THE STATE OF RHODE

ISLAND.

The Secretary may acquire for the State of Rhode Island a dredge and associated equipment with the capacity to dredge approximately 100 cubic yards per hour for use by the State in dredging salt ponds in the State.

SEC. 125. UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN, PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW

YORK.

Section 567(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3787) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``(3) The Chemung River watershed, New York, at an estimated cost of $5,000,000.''.

SEC. 126. REPAUPO CREEK AND DELAWARE RIVER, GLOUCESTER

COUNTY, NEW JERSEY.

Section 102 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996

(110 Stat. 3668) is amended--

(1) by redesignating paragraphs (15) through (22) as paragraphs (17) through (24), respectively; and

(2) by inserting after paragraph (14) the following:

``(15) 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.

``(16) Tioga county, pennsylvania.--Project for flood control, Tioga River and Cowanesque River and their tributaries, Tioga County, Pennsylvania.''.

SEC. 127. SMALL NAVIGATION PROJECTS.

Section 104 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996

(110 Stat. 3669) is amended--

(1) by redesignating paragraphs (9) through (12) as paragraphs (10) through (13), respectively; and

(2) by inserting after paragraph (8) the following:

``(9) Fortescue inlet, delaware bay, new jersey.--Project for navigation for Fortesque Inlet, Delaware Bay, New Jersey.''.

SEC. 128. STREAMBANK PROTECTION PROJECTS.

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 (60 Stat. 653).

SEC. 129. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, SPRINGFIELD, OREGON.

(a) In General.--Under section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (100 Stat. 4251) or other applicable authority, the Secretary shall conduct measures to address water quality, flows and fish habitat restoration in the historic Springfield, Oregon, millrace through the reconfiguration of the existing millpond, if the Secretary determines that harmful impacts have occurred as the result of a previously constructed flood control project by the Army Corps of Engineers.

(b) Non-Federal Share.--The non-Federal share, excluding lands, easements, rights-of-way, dredged material disposal areas and relocations, shall be 25 percent.

SEC. 130. GUILFORD AND NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT.

The Secretary shall expeditiously complete the activities authorized under section 346 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4858), including activities associated with Sluice Creek in Guilford, Connecticut, and Lighthouse Point Park in New Haven, Connecticut.

SEC. 131. FRANCIS BLAND, ARKANSAS FLOODWAY DITCH NO. 5.

(a) Redesignation.--The project for flood control, Eight Mile Creek, Paragould, Arkansas authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4112) and known as ``Eight Mile Creek, Paragould, Arkansas'', shall be known and designated as the ``Francis Bland, Arkansas Floodway Ditch No. 5''.

(b) Legal Preferences.--Any reference in any law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United States to the project and creek referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Francis Bland, Arkansas Floodway Ditch No. 5.

SEC. 132. POINT JUDITH BREAKWATER.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall restore the integrity of the breakwater located at Point Judith, Rhode Island, authorized by the first section of the Act of March 2, 1907

(commonly known as the ``River and Harbor Appropriations Act of 1907'') (34 Stat. 1075, chapter 2509) and the first section of the Act of June 25, 1910 (commonly known as the

``River and Harbor Appropriations Act of 1910'') (36 Stat. 632, chapter 382), at a total cost of $10,000,000 with an estimated Federal cost of $6,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,500,000.

(b) Non-Federal Responsibility.--Operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation of the restored breakwater shall be a non-Federal responsibility.

SEC. 133. CALOOSAHATCHEE RIVER BASIN, FLORIDA.

Section 528(e)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3770) is amended in the first sentence by inserting before the period at the end the following: ``, including potential land acquisition in the Caloosahatchee River basin or other areas''.

SEC. 134. CUMBERLAND, MARYLAND, FLOOD PROJECT MITIGATION.

(a) In General.--The project for flood control and other purposes, Cumberland, Maryland, authorized by section 5 of the Act of June 22, 1936 (commonly known as the ``Flood Control Act of 1936'') (49 Stat. 1574, chapter 688), is modified to authorize the Secretary to undertake, as a separate part of the project, restoration of the historic Chesapeake and Ohio Canal substantially in accordance with the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historic Park, Cumberland, Maryland, Rewatering Design Analysis, dated February 1998, at a total cost of $15,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $9,750,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,250,000.

(b) In-Kind Services.--The non-Federal interest for the restoration project under subsection (a) may provide all or a portion of the non-Federal share of project costs in the form of in-kind services and shall receive credit toward the non-Federal share of project costs for design and construction work performed by the non-Federal interest before execution of a project cooperation agreement and for land, easements, and rights-of-way required for the restoration and acquired by the non-Federal interest before execution of such an agreement.

(c) Operation and Maintenance.--The operation and maintenance of the restoration project under subsection (a) shall be the full responsibility of the National Park Service.

SEC. 135. SEDIMENTS DECONTAMINATION POLICY.

(a) Project Purpose.--Section 405 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2239 note; Public Law 102-580) is amended--

(1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following:

``(4) Practical end-use products.--Technologies selected for demonstration at the pilot scale shall result in practical end-use products.

``(5) Assistance by the secretary.--The Secretary shall assist the project to ensure expeditious completion by providing sufficient quantities of contaminated dredged material to conduct the full-scale demonstrations to stated capacity.''; and

(2) in subsection (c), by striking the first sentence and inserting the following: ``There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section a total of $22,000,000 to complete technology testing, technology commercialization, and the development of full scale processing facilities within the New York-New Jersey Harbor.''.

SEC. 136. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA.

Section 5(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act of August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426h), is amended by inserting before the semicolon the following; ``, including the city of Miami Beach, Florida''.

SEC. 137. SMALL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECTS.

Section 3 of the Act of August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426g), is amended by striking ``$2,000,000'' and inserting

``$3,000,000''.

SEC. 138. SARDIS RESERVOIR, OKLAHOMA.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall accept from the State of Oklahoma or an agent of the State an amount, as determined under subsection (b), as prepayment of 100 percent of the water supply cost obligation of the State under Contract No. DACW56-74-JC-0314 for water supply storage at Sardis Reservoir, Oklahoma.

(b) Determination of Amount.--The amount to be paid by the State of Oklahoma under subsection (aa) shall be subject to adjustment in accordance with accepted discount purchase methods for Government properties as determined by an independent accounting firm designated by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

(c) Effect.--Nothing in this section shall otherwise affect any of the rights or obligations of the parties to the contract referred to in subsection (a).

SEC. 139. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND ILLINOIS WATERWAY

SYSTEM NAVIGATION MODERNIZATION.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--

(1) exports are necessary to ensure job creation and an improved standard of living for the people of the United States;

(2) the ability of producers of goods in the United States to compete in the international marketplace depends on a modern and efficient transportation network;

(3) a modern and efficient waterway system is a transportation option necessary to provide United States shippers a safe, reliable, and competitive means to win foreign markets in an increasingly competitive international marketplace;

(4) the need to modernize is heightened because the United States is at risk of losing its competitive edge as a result of the priority that foreign competitors are placing on modernizing their own waterway systems;

(5) growing export demand projected over the coming decades will force greater demands on waterway systems of the United States and increase the cost to the economy if the system proves inadequate to satisfy growing export opportunities;

(6) the locks and dams on the upper Mississippi River and Illinois River waterway system were built in the 1930s and have some of the highest average delays to commercial tows in the country;

(7) inland barges carry freight at the lowest unit cost while offering an alternative to truck and rail transportation that is environmentally sound, is energy efficient, is safe, causes little congestion, produces little air or noise pollution, and has minimal social impact; and

(8) it should be the policy of the Corps of Engineers to pursue aggressively modernization of the waterway system authorized by Congress to promote the relative competitive position of the United States in the international marketplace.

(b) Preconstruction Engineering and Design.--In accordance with the Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway System Navigation Study, the Secretary shall proceed immediately to prepare engineering design, plans, and specifications for extension of locks 20, 21, 22, 24, 25 on the Mississippi River and the LaGrange and Peoria Locks on the Illinois River, to provide lock chambers 110 feet in width and 1,200 feet in length, so that construction can proceed immediately upon completion of studies and authorization of projects by Congress.

SEC. 140. DISPOSAL OF DREDGED MATERIAL ON BEACHES.

Section 145 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976

(33 U.S.C. 426j) is amended in the first sentence by striking

``50'' and inserting ``35''.

SEC. 141. FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION.

Section 906(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(e)) is amended by inserting after the second sentence the following: ``Not more than 80 percent of the non-Federal share of such first costs may be in kind, including a facility, supply, or service that is necessary to carry out the enhancement project.''.

SEC. 142. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER MANAGEMENT.

Section 1103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986

(33 U.S.C. 652) is amended--

(1) in subsection (e)--

(A) by striking ``(e)'' and all that follows through the end of paragraph (2) and inserting the following:

``(e) Undertakings.--

``(1) In general.--

``(A) Authority.--The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior and the States of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin, may undertake, as identified in the master plan--

``(i) a program for the planning, construction, and evaluation of measures for fish and wildlife habitat rehabilitation and enhancement;

``(ii) implementation of a long-term resource monitoring, computerized data inventory and analysis, and applied research program; and

``(iii) for each pool and the open reach, a natural resource blueprint to guide habitat rehabilitation and long-term resource monitoring.

``(B) Requirements for projects.--Each project carried out under subparagraph (A) shall--

``(i) to the maximum extent practicable, simulate natural river processes; and

``(ii) include an outreach and education component.

``(C) Review committee.--In carrying out subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall create an independent technical review committee to review projects, monitoring plans, and blueprints.

``(D) Criteria for habitat rehabilitation.--In carrying out subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall revise criteria for habitat rehabilitation for projects to promote the simulation of natural river processes, to the maximum extent practicable.

``(E) Blueprints.--

``(i) Data.--The natural resource blueprint shall, to the maximum extent practicable, use data in existence on the date of enactment of this subparagraph.

``(ii) Timing.--The Secretary shall complete a natural resource blueprint for each pool not later than 6 years after the date of enactment of this subparagraph.

``(F) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this paragraph $350,000 for each of fiscal years 1999 through 2009.

``(2) Reports.--On December 31, 2004, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior and the States of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin, the Secretary shall prepare and submit to Congress a report that--

``(A) contains an evaluation of the programs described in paragraph (1);

``(B) describes the accomplishments of each program;

``(C) provide updates of a systemic habitat needs assessment; and

``(D) identifies any needed adjustments in the authorization under paragraph (1) or the authorized appropriations under paragraphs (3) and (4).'';

(B) in paragraph (3)--

(i) by striking ``paragraph (1)(A)'' and inserting

``paragraph (1)(A)(i); and

(ii) by striking ``Secretary not to exceed'' and all that follows and inserting ``Secretary not to exceed $22,750,000 for each of fiscal years 1999 through 2009.'';

(i) by striking ``paragraph (1)(B)'' and inserting

``paragraph (1)(A)(ii); and

(ii) by striking ``$7,680,000'' and all that follows and inserting ``$10,420,000 for each of fiscal years 1999 through 2009.'';

(D) by striking paragraphs (5) and (6) and inserting the following:

``(5) Transfer of amounts.--For each fiscal year beginning after September 30, 1992, the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior and the States of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin, may transfer appropriated amounts between the programs under subparagraphs

(A) and (B) of paragraph (1).'';

(E) by redesignating paragraphs (7) and (8) as paragraphs

(6) and (7), respectively; and

(F) in paragraph (6) (as redesignated by subparagraph

(E))--

(i) in subparagraph (A), by inserting before the period the following: ``and, in the case of any project carried out on non-Federal land, the non-Federal share of the cost of the project shall be 35 percent and the non-Federal share of the cost of operation and maintenance of the project shall be 100 percent''; and

(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``paragraphs (1)(B) and (1)(C) of this subsection'' and inserting ``paragraph

(1)(B)''; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

``(k) St. Louis Area Urban Wildlife Habitat.--The Secretary shall investigate and, if appropriate, carry out restoration of urban wildlife habitat, with a special emphasis on the establishment of greenways in St. Louis, Missouri, area and surrounding communities.''.

SEC. 143. REIMBURSEMENT OF NON-FEDERAL INTEREST.

Section 211(e)(2)(A) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3684) is amended by striking ``subject to amounts being made available in advance in appropriations Acts'' and inserting ``subject to the availability of appropriations''.

SEC. 144. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR COLUMBIA AND

SNAKE RIVERS SALMON SURVIVAL.

Section 511 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996

(16 U.S.C. 3301 note) is amended by striking subsection (a) and all that follows and inserting the following:

``(a) Salmon Survival Activities.--

``(1) In general.--In conjunction with the Secretary of Commerce and Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary shall accelerate ongoing research and development activities, and may carry out or participate in additional research and development activities, for the purpose of developing innovative methods and technologies for improving the survival of salmon, especially salmon in the Columbia/Snake River Basin.

``(2) Accelerated activities.--Accelerated research and development activities referred to in paragraph (1) may include research and development related to--

``(A) impacts from water resources projects and other impacts on salmon life cycles;

``(B) juvenile and adult salmon passage;

``(C) light and sound guidance systems;

``(D) surface-oriented collector systems;

``(E) transportation mechanisms; and

``(F) dissolved gas monitoring and abatement.

``(3) Additional activities.--Additional research and development activities referred to in paragraph (1) may include research and development related to--

``(A) studies of juvenile salmon survival in spawning and rearing areas;

``(B) estuary and near-ocean juvenile and adult salmon survival;

``(C) impacts on salmon life cycles from sources other than water resources projects;

``(D) cryopreservation of fish gametes and formation of a germ plasm repository for threatened and endangered populations of native fish; and

``(E) other innovative technologies and actions intended to improve fish survival, including the survival of resident fish.

``(4) Coordination.--The Secretary shall coordinate any activities carried out under this subsection with appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, affected Indian tribes, and the Northwest Power Planning Council.

``(5) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the research and development activities carried out under this subsection, including any recommendations of the Secretary concerning the research and development activities.

``(6) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 to carry out research and development activities under paragraph (3).

``(b) Advanced Turbine Development.--

``(1) In general.--In conjunction with the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary shall accelerate efforts toward developing and installing in Corps of Engineers operated dams innovative, efficient, and environmentally safe hydropower turbines, including design of ``fish-friendly'' turbines, for use on the Columbia/Snake River hydrosystem.

``(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized to be appropriated $35,000,000 to carry out this subsection.

``(c) Management of Predation on Columbia/Snake River System Native Fishes.--

``(1) Nesting avian predators.--In conjunction with the Secretary of Commerce and Secretary of the Interior, and consistent with a management plan to be developed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Secretary shall carry out methods to reduce nesting populations of avian predators on dredge spoil islands in the Columbia River under the jurisdiction of the Secretary.

``(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized to be appropriated $1,000,000 to carry out research and development activities under this subsection.

``(d) Implementation.--Nothing in this section affects the authority of the Secretary to implement the results of the research and development carried out under this section or any other law.''.

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

SEC. 201. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:

(1) Restoration.--The term ``restoration'' means mitigation of the habitat of wildlife.

(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Assistant Secretary for Civil Works.

(3) Terrestrial wildlife habitat.--The term ``terrestrial wildlife habitat'' means a habitat for a wildlife species

(including game and nongame species) that existed or exists on an upland habitat (including a prairie grassland, woodland, bottom land forest, scrub, or shrub) or an emergent wetland habitat.

(4) Wildlife.--The term ``wildlife'' has the meaning given the term in section 8 of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 666b).

SEC. 202. TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE HABITAT RESTORATION.

(a) Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Plans.--

(1) In general.--In accordance with this subsection and in consultation with the Secretary and the Secretary of the Interior, the State of South Dakota, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe shall, as a condition of the receipt of funds under this title, each develop a plan for the restoration of terrestrial wildlife habitat loss that occurred as a result of flooding related to the Big Bend and Oahe projects carried out as part of the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin program.

(2) Submission of plan to secretary.--On completion of a plan for terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration, the State of South Dakota, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe shall submit the plan to the Secretary.

(3) Review by secretary and submission to committees.--The Secretary shall review the plan and submit the plan, with any comments, to--

(A) the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate; and

(B) the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives.

(4) Funding for carrying out plans.--

(A) State of south dakota.--

(i) Notification.--On receipt of the plan for terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration submitted by the State of South Dakota, each of the Committees referred to in paragraph (2) shall notify the Secretary of the Treasury of the receipt of the plan.

(ii) Availability of funds.--On notification in accordance with clause (i), the Secretary of the Treasury shall make available to the State of South Dakota funds from the South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Fund established under section 203, to be used to carry out the plan for terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration submitted by the State.

(B) Cheyenne river sioux tribe and lower brule sioux tribe.--

(i) Notification.--On receipt of the plan for terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration submitted by the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, each of the Committees referred to in paragraph (2) shall notify the Secretary of the Treasury of the receipt of each of the plans.

(ii) Availability of funds.--On notification in accordance with clause (i), the Secretary of the Treasury shall make available to the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe funds from the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Fund and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Fund, respectively, established under section 204, to be used to carry out the plan for terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration submitted by the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, respectively.

(i) In general.--During the period described in clause

(ii), the Secretary shall--

(I) fund the terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration programs being carried out on the date of enactment of this Act on Oahe and Big Bend project land and the plans established under this section at a level that does not exceed the highest amount of funding that was provided for the programs during a previous fiscal year; and

(II) implement the programs.

(ii) Period.--Clause (i) shall apply during the period--

(I) beginning on the date of enactment of this Act; and

(II) ending on the earlier of--

(aa) the date on which funds are made available for use from the South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Fund under section 203(d)(3)(A)(i) and the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Fund and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Fund under section 204(d)(3)(A)(i); or

(bb) the date that is 4 years after the date of enactment of this Act.

(b) Programs for the Purchase of Wildlife Habitat Leases.--

(1) In general.--The State of South Dakota may use funds made available under section 203(d)(3)(A)(iii) to develop a program for the purchase of wildlife habitat leases that meets the requirements of this subsection.

(2) Development of a plan.--

(A) In general.--If the State of South Dakota, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, or the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe elects to conduct a program under this subsection, the State of South Dakota, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, or the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe (in consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the Secretary and with an opportunity for public comment) shall develop a plan to lease land for the protection and development of wildlife habitat, including habitat for threatened and endangered species, associated with the Missouri River ecosystem.

(B) Use for program.--The plan shall be used by the State of South Dakota, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, or the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe in carrying out the program carried out under paragraph (1).

(3) Conditions of leases.--Each lease covered under a program carried out under paragraph (1) shall specify that the owner of the property that is subject to the lease shall provide--

(A) public access for sportsmen during hunting season; and

(B) public access for other outdoor uses covered under the lease, as negotiated by the landowner and the State of South Dakota, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, or the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe.

(4) Use of assistance.--

(A) State of south dakota.--If the State of South Dakota conducts a program under this subsection, the State may use funds made available under section 203(d)(3)(A)(iii) to--

(i) acquire easements, rights-of-way, or leases for management and protection of wildlife habitat, including habitat for threatened and endangered species, and public access to wildlife on private property in the State of South Dakota;

(ii) create public access to Federal or State land through the purchase of easements or rights-of-way that traverse such private property; or

(iii) lease land for the creation or restoration of a wetland on such private property.

(B) Cheyenne river sioux tribe and lower brule sioux tribe.--If the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe or the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe conducts a program under this subsection, the Tribe may use funds made available under section 204(d)(3)(A)(iii) for the purposes described in subparagraph

(A).

(c) Federal Obligation for Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Mitigation for the Big Bend and Oahe Projects in South Dakota.--The establishment of the trust funds under sections 203 and 204 and the development and implementation of plans for terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration developed by the State of South Dakota, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe in accordance with this section shall be considered to satisfy the Federal obligation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) for terrestrial wildlife habitat mitigation for the State of South Dakota, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe for the Big Bend and Oahe projects carried out as part of the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin program.

SEC. 203. SOUTH DAKOTA TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE HABITAT

RESTORATION TRUST FUND.

(a) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury of the United States a fund to be known as the ``South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Fund''

(referred to in this section as the ``Fund'').

(b) Funding.--For the fiscal year during which this Act is enacted and each fiscal year thereafter until the aggregate amount deposited in the Fund under this subsection is equal to at least $108,000,000, the Secretary of the Treasury shall deposit in the Fund an amount equal to 15 percent of the receipts from the deposits in the Treasury of the United States for the preceding fiscal year from the power program of the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin program, administered by the Western Area Power Administration.

(c) Investments.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall invest the amounts deposited under subsection (b) only in interest-bearing obligations of the United States or in obligations guaranteed by the United States as to both principal and interest.

(d) Payments.--

(1) In general.--All amounts credited as interest under subsection (c) shall be available, without fiscal year limitation, to the State of South Dakota for use in accordance with paragraph (3).

(2) Withdrawal and transfer of funds.--Subject to section 202(a)(4)(A), the Secretary of the Treasury shall withdraw amounts credited as interest under paragraph (1) and transfer the amounts to the State of South Dakota for use as State funds in accordance with paragraph (3).

(3) Use of transferred funds.--

(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the State of South Dakota shall use the amounts transferred under paragraph (2) only to--

(i) fully fund the annually scheduled work described in the terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration plan of the State developed under section 202(a); and

(ii) with any remaining funds--

(I) protect archaeological, historical, and cultural sites located along the Missouri River on land transferred to the State;

(II) fund all costs associated with the ownership, management, operation, administration, maintenance, and development of recreation areas and other lands that are transferred to the State of South Dakota by the Secretary;

(III) purchase and administer wildlife habitat leases under section 202(b);

(IV) carry out other activities described in section 202; and

(V) develop and maintain public access to, and protect, wildlife habitat and recreation areas along the Missouri River.

(B) Prohibition.--The amounts transferred under paragraph

(2) shall not be used for the purchase of land in fee title.

(e) Transfers and Withdrawals.--Except as provided in subsection (d), the Secretary of the Treasury may not transfer or withdraw any amount deposited under subsection

(b).

(f) Administrative Expenses.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of the Treasury such sums as are necessary to pay the administrative expenses of the Fund. SEC. 204. CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE AND LOWER BRULE SIOUX

TRIBE TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE HABITAT RESTORATION

TRUST FUNDS.

(a) Establishment.--There are established in the Treasury of the United States 2 funds to be known as the ``Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Terrestrial Wildlife Restoration Trust Fund'' and the ``Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Fund'' (each of which is referred to in this section as a ``Fund'').

(b) Funding.--

(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), for the fiscal year during which this Act is enacted and each fiscal year thereafter until the aggregate amount deposited in the Funds under this subsection is equal to at least $57,400,000, the Secretary of the Treasury shall deposit in the Funds an amount equal to 10 percent of the receipts from the deposits in the Treasury of the United States for the preceding fiscal year from the power program of the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin program, administered by the Western Area Power Administration.

(2) Allocation.--Of the total amount of funds deposited into the Funds for a fiscal year, the Secretary of the Treasury shall deposit--

(A) 74 percent of the funds into the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Terrestrial Wildlife Restoration Trust Fund; and

(B) 26 percent of the funds into the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Fund.

(c) Investments.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall invest the amounts deposited under subsection (b) only in interest-bearing obligations of the United States or in obligations guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the United States.

(d) Payments.--

(1) In general.--All amounts credited as interest under subsection (c) shall be available, without fiscal year limitation, to the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe for their use in accordance with paragraph

(3).

(2) Withdrawal and transfer of funds.--Subject to section 202(a)(4)(B), the Secretary of the Treasury shall withdraw amounts credited as interest under paragraph (1) and transfer the amounts to the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe for use in accordance with paragraph (3).

(3) Use of transferred funds.--

(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe shall use the amounts transferred under paragraph (2) only to--

(i) fully fund the annually scheduled work described in the terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration plan of the respective Tribe developed under section 202(a); and

(ii) with any remaining funds--

(I) protect archaeological, historical, and cultural States located along the Missouri River on land transferred to the respective Tribe;

(III) purchase and administer wildlife habitat leases under section 202(b);

(IV) carry out other activities described in section 202;

(V) develop and maintain public access to, and protect, wildlife habitat and recreation areas along the Missouri River.

(B) Prohibition.--The amounts transferred under paragraph

(2) shall not be used for the purchase of land in fee title.

(e) Transfers and Withdrawals.--Except as provided in subsection (d), the Secretary of the Treasury may not transfer or withdraw any amount deposited under subsection

(b).

(f) Administrative Expenses.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of the Treasury such sums as are necessary to pay the administrative expenses of the Fund.

SEC. 205. TRANSFER OF FEDERAL LAND TO STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA.

(a) In General.--

(1) Transfer.--The Secretary of the Army shall transfer to the Department of Game, Fish and Parks of the State of South Dakota (referred to in this section as the ``Department'') the land and recreation areas described in subsections (b) and (c) for fish and wildlife purposes, or public recreation uses, in perpetuity.

(2) Uses.--The Department shall maintain and develop the land and recreation areas for fish and wildlife purposes in accordance with--

(A) fish and wildlife purposes in effect on the date of enactment of this Act; or

(B) a plan developed under section 202.

(3) Corps of engineers.--The transfer shall not interfere with the Corps of Engineers operation of a project under this section for an authorized purpose of the project under the Act of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 887, chapter 665; 33 U.S.C. 701-1 et seq.) or other applicable law.

(4) Secretary of the army.--The Secretary of the Army shall retain the right to inundate with water the land transferred to the Department under this section or draw down a project reservoir, as necessary to carry out an authorized purpose of a project.

(b) Land Transferred.--The land described in this subsection is land that--

(1) is located above the top of the exclusive flood pool of the Oahe Big Bend, Fort Randall, and Garvin's Point projects of the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin program;

(2) was acquired by the Secretary of the Army for the implementation of the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin program;

(3) is located outside the external boundaries of a reservation of an Indian Tribe; and

(4) is located within the State of South Dakota.

(c) Recreation Areas Transferred.--A recreation area described in this section includes the land and waters within a recreation area that--

(1) the Secretary of the Army determines, at the time of the transfer, is a recreation area classified for recreation use by the Corps of Engineers on the date of enactment of this Act;

(2) is located outside the external boundaries of a reservation of an Indian Tribe; and

(3) is located within the State of South Dakota.

(d) Map.--

(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Army, in consultation with the Department, shall prepare a map of the land and recreation areas transferred under this section.

(2) Land.--The map shall identify--

(A) land reasonably expected to be required for project purposes during the 20-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act; and

(B) dams and related structures;

which shall be retained by the Secretary.

(3) Availability.--The map shall be on file in the appropriate offices of the Secretary of the Army.

(e) Schedule for Transfer.--

(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks Department shall jointly develop a schedule for transferring the land and recreation areas under this section.

(2) Transfer deadline.--All land and recreation areas shall be transferred not later than 1 year after the full capitalization of the respective Trust Fund described in section 204.

(f) Transfer Conditions.--The land and recreation areas described in subsections (b) and (c) shall be transferred in fee title to the Department on the following conditions:

(1) Responsibility for damage.--The Secretary of the Army shall not be responsible for any damage to the land caused by flooding, sloughing, erosion, or other changes to the land caused by the operation of any project of the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin program (except as otherwise provided by Federal law).

(2) Easements, rights-of-way, leases, and cost-sharing agreements.--The Department shall maintain all easements, rights-of-way, leases, and cost-sharing agreements that are in effect as of the date of the transfer.

(g) Hunting and Fishing.--Nothing in this title affects jurisdiction over hunting and fishing on the waters of the Missouri River. The State of South Dakota, the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe shall continue to exercise the jurisdiction the State and Tribes possess on the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 206. TRANSFER OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS LAND FOR INDIAN

TRIBES.

(a) In General.--

(1) Transfer.--The Secretary of the Army shall transfer to the Secretary of the Interior the land and recreation areas described in subsections (b) and (c).

(2) Corps of engineers.--The transfer shall not interfere with the Corps of Engineers operation of a project under this section for an authorized purpose of the project under the Act of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 887, chapter 665; 33 U.S.C. 701-1 et seq.) or other applicable law.

(3) Secretary of the army.--The Secretary of the Army shall retain the right to inundate with water the land transferred to the Tribes under this section or draw down a project reservoir, as necessary to carry out an authorized purpose of a project.

(4) Trust.--The Secretary of the Interior shall hold in trust for the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe the land transferred under this section that is located within the external boundaries of the reservation of the Indian Tribes.

(b) Land Transferred.--The land described in this subsection is land that--

(1) is located above the top of the exclusive flood pool of the Big Bend and Oahe projects of the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin program;

(2) was acquired by the Secretary of the Army for the implementation of the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin program; and

(3) is located within the external boundaries of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe.

(c) Recreation Areas Transferred.--A recreation area described in this section includes the land and waters within a recreation area that--

(1) the Secretary of the Army determines, at the time of the transfer, is a recreation area classified for recreation use by the Corps of Engineers on the date of enactment of this Act;

(2) is located within the external boundaries of a reservation of an Indian Tribe; and

(3) is located within the State of South Dakota.

(d) Map.--

(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Army, in consultation with the governing bodies of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, shall prepare a map of the land transferred under this section.

(2) Land.--The map shall identify--

(A) land reasonably expected to be required for project purposes during the 20-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act; and

(B) dams and related structures;

which shall be retained by the Secretary.

(3) Availability.--The map shall be on file in the appropriate offices of the Secretary of the Army.

(e) Schedule for Transfer.--

(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Army and the Chairmen of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe shall jointly develop a schedule for transferring the land and recreation areas under this section.

(2) Transfer deadline.--All land and recreation areas shall be transferred not later than 1 year after the full capitalization of the respective Trust Fund described in section 204.

(f) Transfer Conditions.--The land and recreation areas described in subsections (b) and (c) shall be transferred to, and held in trust by, the Secretary of the Interior on the following conditions:

(2) Jurisdiction.--Nothing in this title affects jurisdiction over the land and waters below the exclusive flood pool and within the external boundaries of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and Lower Brule Sioux Tribe reservations. Jurisdiction over the land and waters shall continue in accordance with the Flood Control Act of 1944 (33 U.S.C. 701-1 et seq.). Jurisdiction over the land transferred under this section shall be the same as other land held in trust by the Secretary of the Interior on the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe reservation and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe reservation.

(3) Easements, rights-of-way, leases, and cost-sharing agreements.--

(A) Maintenance.--The Secretary of the Interior shall maintain all easements, rights-of-way, leases, and cost-sharing agreements that are in effect as of the date of the transfer.

(B) Payments to county.--The Secretary of the Interior shall pay any affected county 100 percent of the receipts from the easements, rights-of-way, leases, and cost-sharing agreements described in subparagraph (A).

SEC. 207. ADMINISTRATION.

(a) In General.--Nothing in this title diminishes or affects--

(1) any water right of an Indian Tribe;

(2) any other right of an Indian Tribe, except as specifically provided in another provision of this title;

(3) any valid, existing treaty right that is in effect on the date of enactment of this Act;

(4) any external boundary of an Indian reservation of an Indian Tribe;

(5) any authority of the State of South Dakota that relates to the protection, regulation, or management of fish, terrestrial wildlife, and cultural and archaeological resources, except as specifically provided in this title; or

(6) any authority of the Secretary, the Secretary of the Interior, or the head of any other Federal agency under a law in effect on the date of enactment of this Act, including--

(A) the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.);

(B) the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 U.S.C. 470aa et seq.);

(D) the Act entitled ``An Act for the protection of the bald eagle'', approved June 8, 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.);

(E) the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.);

(F) the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.);

(G) the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.);

(H) the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the ``Clean Water Act'') (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.);

(I) the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.); and

(J) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).

(b) Power Rates.--No payment made under this title shall affect any power rate under the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin program.

(c) Federal Liability for Damage.--Nothing in this Act shall relieve the Federal Government of liability for damage to private land caused by the operation of the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin program.

(d) Flood Control.--Notwithstanding any provision of this title, the Secretary shall retain the authority to operate the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin program for purposes of meeting the requirements of the Flood Control Act of 1944 (33 U.S.C. 701-1 et seq.).

SEC. 208. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) Secretary.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary such sums as are necessary--

(1) to pay the administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary in carrying out this title; and

(2) to fund the implementation of terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration plans under section 202(a).

(b) Secretary of the Interior.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of the Interior such sums as are necessary to pay the administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of the Interior in carrying out this title.

Amendments Nos. 3798 And 3799, En Bloc

Mr. JEFFORDS. Senator Chafee has two amendments at the desk and I ask for their consideration en bloc.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will report.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords], for Mr. Chafee, proposes amendments numbered 3798 and 3799, en bloc.

(The text of the amendments is printed in today's Record under

``Amendments Submitted.'')

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today the Senate will consider S. 2131, the Water Resources Development Act of 1998. This measure, similar to water resources legislation enacted in 1986, 1988, 19990, 1992, and 1996, is comprised of water resources project and study authorizations and policy modifications for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works program.

S. 2131 was introduced on June 4 of this year and was reported by the Environment and Public Works Committee to the full Senate on August 25, 1998.

Since that time, additional project and policy requests have been presented to the Committee. Some have come from our Senate colleagues--

others have come from the administration. We have carefully reviewed each such request and include those that are consistent with the Committee's criteria in the manager's amendment being considered along with S. 2131 today. Mr. President, let me take a few moments here to discuss these criteria--that is--the criteria used by the Committee to judge project authorization requests.

On November 17, 1986, President Reagan signed into law the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. Importantly, the 1986 Act marked an end to the 16-year deadlock between Congress and the Executive branch regarding authorization of the Army Corps Civil Works program.

In addition to authorizing numerous projects, the 1986 Act resolved longstanding disputes relating to cost-sharing between the Army Corps and non-federal sponsors, waterway user fees, environmental requirements and, importantly, the types of projects in which federal involvement is appropriate and warranted.

The criteria used to develop the legislation before us are consistent with the reforms and procedures established in the landmark Water Resources Development Act of 1986.

Is a project for flood control, navigation or some other purpose cost-shared in a manner consistent with the 1986 Act?

Have all of the requisite reports and studies on economic, engineering and environmental feasibility been completed for a project?

Is a project consistent with the traditional and appropriate mission of the Army Corps?

Should the Federal Government be involved?

These, Mr. President, are the fundamental questions that we have applied to each and every project included here for authorization.

This legislation authorizes the Secretary of the Army to construct some 36 projects for flood control, navigation, and environmental restoration. The bill also modifies 43 existing Army Corps projects and authorizes 29 project studies. In total, this bill and the manager's amendment authorizes an estimated Federal cost of $2.3 billion.

Mr. President, this legislation includes other project-specific and general provisions related to Army Corps operations, as I mentioned at the outset. Among them are two provisions sought by Senator Bond and others to enhance the environment along the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. We have also included a modified version of the administration's so-called Challenge 21 initiative to encourage more non-structural flood control and environmental projects. In addition, we are recommending that the cost-sharing formula be changed for maintenance of future shoreline protection projects.

Mr. President, this legislation is vitally important for countless states and communities across the country. For economic and life-safety reasons, we must maintain our harbors, ports and inland waterways, our flood control levees and shorelines, and the environment. I strongly urge adoption of the underlying bill and manager's amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to support the adoption of S. 2131, the Water Resources Development Act of 1998. This legislation is our usual biennial authorization for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It includes authority to construct projects for navigation, flood control, hurricane and storm damage reduction, emergency streambank and shore protection, water supply storage, recreation and ecosystem restoration and protection. These projects range from harbor improvements in Nome, Alaska, to shore protection at Little Duval Island in Florida.

Since this historic Water Resources Development Act of 1986, when project cost-sharing was established, the Corps of Engineers has established a successful working relationship with the local sponsors of these projects. This partnership has proven to be beneficial for all involved, and we have continued it in this bill. This important principle, combined with technical soundness, environmental acceptability and economic justification guided the selection of projects in this legislation.

The legislation also contains several changes to the Corps' program. It established new continuing authorities program that would allow the Corps of Engineers to undertake nonstructural flood control projects. It changes the periodic beach renourishment cost-share from the current 65 percent Federal, 35 percent non-Federal, to 50 percent Federal, 50 percent non-Federal. And it allows the Corps to use recreation fees collected above the current baseline to remain at the park where they were collected to be used for maintenance.

The legislation contains 2 provisions that are very important to my State of Montana. One provision would allow the Corps of Engineers to provided needed emergency streambank stabilization in Billings, Montana. Another provision directs the Secretary of the Army, in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Natural Resource Conservation Service, the State of Montana and all local interests to conduct a comprehensive study of the cumulative impacts of activities on the Yellowstone River. This study will give us a better understanding of how the natural flow and the man-made structures can best protect the river and its habitat.

I thank Senators Chafee and Warner and all members who worked with us.

I urge the passage of this bill and swift consideration by the House in order to enact this legislation in the Congress.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the distinguished managers of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1998 have agreed to incorporate into the managers' package several provisions which I have proposed. These cover Michigan projects, Great Lakes Basin matters, and contaminated sediments. I am hopeful that the House will expedite passage of this important matter before concluding legislative business this session.

There are several specific items in the managers' package that will benefit Michigan. They include an Army Corps of Engineers' feasibility study of improvements to the Detroit River waterfront between the Belle Isle Bridge and the Ambassador Bridge, as part of the ongoing revitalization of that area. The Corps will also prepare studies for flood control projects in St. Clair Shores and along the Saginaw River in Bay City to see what types of structures will be necessary to protect shorelines and property. Similarly, the Corps will consider reconstruction of the Hamilton Dam flood control project. And, lastly, the Corps will review its denial of the city of Charlevoix's request for reimbursement of construction costs that it incurred in building a new revetment connection to the Federal navigation project at Charlevoix Harbor.

Mr. President, I would like to bring my colleagues' attention to my proposal, now in the amended bill, that the Great Lakes Basin program be named the ``John Glenn Great Lakes Basin program.'' This is a small tribute to our colleague for the hard work that he has done to promote and protect the Great Lakes Basin region. As Democratic Co-Chairman of the Senate Great Lakes Task Force and as a former Chairman and now Ranking Member of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, he has long advocated common sense and efficiency in government. He has sought to coordinate Federal research, regulatory, and conservation activities in the Great Lakes region for many years in areas as diverse as shipping and wildlife restoration. The provisions in the ``John Glenn Great Lakes Basin program'' are intended to echo his fine work and enhance coordination in Corps' programs in the region and in Federal activities relating to diversion and consumption of Great Lakes Basin waters. The specifics of the program, including a special study on the western Lake Erie watershed, are as follows:

Strategic Plans. The Army Corps of Engineers is directed to develop a framework for their activities in the Great Lakes basin to be updated biennially. Many Army Corps of Engineers divisions have developed and use such strategic plans. Development of such a strategic plan for the Great Lakes Basin has never been more important than at present, given the potential implications of the restructuring plans for the Great Lakes and Ohio River Division.

Great Lakes Biohydrological Information. The Army Corps of Engineers is directed to inventory existing information relevant to the Great Lakes biohydrological system and sustainable water use management. The Corps is then to report the results of this inventory, including recommendations on ways to improve the information base, to Congress, the International Joint Commission and the eight Great Lakes states. The report will consider and update Congress on the status of the issues and the recommendations described in two IJC reports regarding diversion and consumptive uses of Great Lakes waters and Lake levels. This information will be crucial in ongoing debate regarding the continued attempts to export or divert Great Lakes surface and ground water out of the Basin.

Great Lakes Recreational Boating. The amendment directs the Army Corps of Engineers to submit to Congress a report based on existing information detailing the economic benefits of recreational boating in the Great Lakes Basin. As many of my colleagues may know, despite Congress' repeated objections, consecutive Administrations have unwisely sought to limit the Corps' role in dredging so-called recreational harbors. Clearly, these harbors' value should and can be recognized in the cost-benefit analysis conducted in making dredging decisions.

Water Use Activities and Policies. The amendment would allow the Secretary to provide technical assistance to the Great Lakes States to develop interstate guidelines to improve the consistency and efficiency of State-level water use activities and policies in the Great Lakes Basin.

Sea Lamprey Control Barriers. The amendment clarifies that the Army Corps of Engineers may use Section 1135 funds to construct sea lamprey barriers at any site in the Great Lakes. As my colleagues may know, the invasive sea lamprey species was introduced into the Great Lakes through construction of the Welland Canal, making control of the lamprey clearly a Federal responsibility. Sea lamprey barriers are among the most cost-effective methods available for the control of lamprey in the Great Lakes and use of Corps expertise, especially in conjunction with existing projects, helps to make this management tool as effective and efficient as possible.

Study on Western Lake Erie watershed. This regional study for the western basin of Lake Erie is a pilot project for efforts in the region to understand the synergistic relationships within a natural watershed and the interplay of human economic, agricultural and commercial development with environmental quality objectives.

Mr. President, once again, I'd like to recognize Senator Glenn for his dedication and devotion to the Great Lakes region, even when it might have caused him some political difficulties at home. He was a staunch supporter of the Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative, which came under great attack from various places around the Lakes. Senator Glenn happened to have some of the most vociferous opponents in his state, but that never stopped him from advocating for uniform water quality criteria across the Basin. All of us in the Great Lakes will always be indebted to him for his support on that measure. By the way, my colleagues might be interested to know that implementation of the Great Lakes Initiative is proceeding nicely in all eight Great Lakes States.

Mr. President, the managers have incorporated another very important matter which I have been pressing them and Federal agencies on for some time. The subject is aquatic contaminated sediments and they are a potential threat to public and environmental health across the country. EPA has begun to document this problem in the National Inventory of Contaminated Sediments released earlier this year. That inventory identifies 96 areas of probable concern which Congress and the public should be concerned about and which require appropriate remedial actions.

The provisions which I requested will require the Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency to finally activate the National Contaminated Sediment Task Force that was mandated by the Water Resources Development Act of 1992. I am hopeful that convening this Task Force will encourage the Federal agencies to work together to combat this problem and create greater public awareness of the need to address contaminated sediments. And, the Task Force will be required to report to Congress on Federal actions to clean up contaminated sediments around the country. The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works has assured me by letter that the Army will support the convening of the Task Force.

As the managers may know, WRDA 92 required the creation of a Task Force to advise EPA and the Corps in implementation of the National Contaminated Sediment Assessment and Management Act, to review and comment on specific issues, including the extent and seriousness of the problem and research and development priorities, and to make recommendations on prevention and source control. WRDA 92 required the Task Force to report to Congress with findings and recommendations within two years of enactment of that Act. Though some time has elapsed, the Task Force's responsibility to comply with that reporting requirement and other statutory responsibilities has not. I fully expect to see that the Task Force complies with its statutory requirements under WRDA 92 and this Act and will be working to make that happen. I will be doing whatever I can to help the Task Force provide Congress with useful advice on contaminated sediment management in advance of reauthorization of Superfund, the Clean Water Act, RCRA and other pertinent laws.

Mr. President, contaminated sediments can pose a serious and demonstrable risk to human health and the environment. Persistent, bioaccumulative toxic substances in contaminated sediment can poison the food chain, making fish and shellfish unsafe for humans and wildlife to eat. Potential costs to society include long term health effects such as cancer and children's neurological and IQ impairment. Contamination of sediments can also interfere with recreational uses and increase the costs of and time needed for navigational dredging and subsequent disposal of dredged material.

Since enactment of the Great Lakes Critical Program Act of 1990, and the National Contaminated Sediment Assessment and Management Act of 1992, the Nation has gained considerable experience and understanding about sediment contamination. As I have mentioned, the report on the Incidence and Severity of Sediment Contamination in Surface Waters of the United States, required under section 503 of the National Contaminated Sediment Assessment and Management Act of 1992, identified 96 areas of probable concern where contaminated sediments pose potential risks to fish and wildlife, and to people who eat fish from them

The Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) program under the Clean Water Act, and subsequent studies, have demonstrated that there are some effective tools for determining the extent and magnitude of sediment contamination, for assessing risk and modeling the changes that would result from remedial action, and for involving the public in solutions. Prompt response after discovery of sediment contamination can prevent subsequent spread through storm events and minimize environmental impacts and response costs.

Unfortunately, the resources of the Federal Government have not been brought to bear on these problems in a well coordinated fashion. That is the principle reason for pursuing the convening of the Task Force. But, we also need a better understanding of the quantities and sources of sediment contamination, to prevent subsequent recontamination and minimize the recurrence of these costs and impacts, and to get a handle on the extent of the public health threat. To that end, my provision requires the Task Force to document in a report the status of remedial action on contaminated sediments around the country, including a description of the authorities used in cleanup, the nature and sources of sediment contamination, the methods for determining the need for cleanup, the fate of dredged materials, and barriers to swift remediation.

The response to releases of contaminated sediments should reflect the risk associated with the contamination, and remedies should reflect the beneficial reuse of contaminants. To respond to the serious environmental risks that can be posed by contaminated sediment sites, the Federal Government should use funding and enforcement authorities of existing programs to help remediate these sites.

Last year, the National Research Council's Committee on Contaminated Marine Sediment published a report on Contaminated Sediments in Ports and Waterways: Cleanup Strategies and Technologies. That report highlights the problems with the existing regulatory framework for addressing sediment contamination. While the EPA has put out a

``Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy'', the regulatory issues raised by the NAS clearly go beyond the scope of the authority of any single agency.

It is likely that the Clean Water Act, Superfund, and the next biennial Water Resources Development Act will all be under consideration in the next Congress. Prompt development of an interagency strategy that addresses the problems identified by the survey and the regulatory and technological issues raised by NAS could make a substantial contribution to helping inform decisionmakers on appropriate legislative changes. It is important that the agencies and the Task Force pay close attention to the analysis and recommendations in the 1997 NAS report.

The NAS report clearly sets out the problems posed by the existing statutory and regulatory framework. It is also clear on the stakes involved, observing that: ``The presence of contaminated sediments poses a barrier to essential waterway maintenance and construction in many ports, which support approximately 95 percent of U.S. foreign trade.''

NAS identifies the ``complex and sometimes inconsistent regulatory framework'' as one of the key challenges in managing contaminated sediment, observing that ``at least six comprehensive acts of Congress, with responsibilities spread over seven Federal agencies, govern sediment remediation or dredging operations in settings that range from the open ocean to the freshwater reaches of estuaries and wetlands.'' Many of the applicable authorities were not originally designed to address contaminated sediments, and questions of risk and costs are not considered in a consistent way across the statutes.

The NAS also observes that

. . . current laws and regulations affecting contaminated sediments can impede efforts to implement the best management practices and achieve efficient, risk-based, and cost-effective solutions. This is a shortcoming of the governing statutes, not a criticism of regulatory agencies charged with implementing them. The timeliness of decision making is also an issue, given that it typically takes years to implement solutions to contaminated sediments problems. In the committee's case histories, the delay between the discovery of a problem and the implementation of a solution ranged from approximately 3 to 15 years.

However, there are no risk-based cleanup standards for underwater sediments. Insufficient attention to risks, costs, and benefits impedes efforts to reach technically sound decisions and mange sediments cost-effectively. Similar inattention to risk is evident in the permitting processes for sediment disposal.

NAS concludes that

In the committee's view, cost-effective management of contaminated marine sediments will require a multifaceted campaign as well as a willingness to innovate.

The Task Force is set up to involve different agencies and levels of government, including States that have pioneered innovative approaches for intergovernmental collaboration.

The NAS report did not actually make specific recommendations for statutory language changes. That would be the function of the Task Force and would require the participation and input of the affected Federal agencies on the Task Force and the representatives on the Task Force from the States, public interest groups with a demonstrated interest in the matter, and from the ports, agriculture or manufacturing sectors. Also, the existence and advice of the Task Force should help eliminate Congress' perennial need to deal with contaminated sediments in minute detail for individual watersheds.

Mr. President, I want to be clear that convening the Task Force should not provide an excuse for delay or more inaction. The NAS has already spoken against delay. The report observes that: . . . there is no reason to delay urgent projects in anticipation of new technological solutions; decision makers should continue to try to make incremental improvements in the overall management process,. . .'' and that, ``The need to meet these challenges [posed by contaminated sediment management] is urgent.''

I appreciate my colleagues assistance in incorporating this and the other matters I have discussed into the managers' amendment to S. 2131. I look forward to working with them to get these important provisions signed into law.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 2131, the Water Resources Development Act of 1998, and the Committee amendment, which provide for the development and improvement of our Nation's water resources infrastructure. This legislation authorizes water resource projects of vital importance to our nation's and our states' economy and maritime industry as well as our environment.

I am particularly pleased that the measure includes a number of provisions for which I have fought to ensure the future health of the Port of Baltimore and of Maryland's environment.

First the bill authorizes nearly $28 million for needed improvements to Baltimore Harbor Anchorages and Channels. Many of the existing anchorages and branch channels within Baltimore Harbor were built in the first half of this century and are no longer deep enough, wide enough or long enough to accommodate the vessels now calling on the Port of Baltimore. Many of the larger ships must now anchor some 25 miles south of Baltimore in naturally deep water, resulting in delays and increased costs to the shipping industry. Also, the narrow widths of some of the branch channels result in additional time for the pilots to maneuver safely to and from their docking berths. In June 1998 the Chief of Engineers approved a report which recommended a number of improvements including: 1) widening and deepening Federal anchorages 3 and 4; 2) widening and providing flared corners for state-owned East Dundalk, Seagirt, Connecting and West Dundalk branch Channels; 3) dredging a new branch channel at South Locust Point; and 4) dredging a turning basin at the head of the Fort McHenry Channel. The report identified the project as ``technically sound, economically justified and environmentally and socially acceptable.'' This project has been a top priority of mine, of the Maryland Port Administration and of the shipping community for many years and I am delighted that this legislation will enable us to move forward with this important project.

Second, the legislation directs the Corps of Engineers to make critically needed safety improvements to the Tolchester Channel in the Chesapeake Bay. The Tolchester Channel is a vital link in the Baltimore Port system. It was authorized in the River and Harbor Act of 1958 and aligned to take advantage of the naturally deep water in the Chesapeake Bay, along Maryland's Eastern Shore. This alignment, which is shaped like an ``S,'' has posed a serious navigation problem and safety risks for vessels. Ships must change course five times within three miles, often beginning a new turn, sometimes in the opposite direction, before completing a first turn. With vessels nearly 1,000 feet in length, it is difficult to safely navigate the channel, particularly in poor weather conditions. The U.S. Coast Guard and the Maryland Pilots Association have expressed serious concerns over the safety of the area and have long recommended straightening of the channel due to the grounding and ``near misses'' which have occurred in the area. The cost for straightening the Tolchester ``S-turn'' is estimated at $12.6 million with $1.3 million coming from non-federal sources. This authorization enables the Corps to proceed expeditiously with these improvements and address the serious concerns of those who must navigate the treacherous channel.

Mr. President, the Port of Baltimore is one of the great ports of the world and one of Maryland's most important economic assets. The Port generates $2 billion in annual economic activity, provides for an estimated 62,000 jobs, and over $500 million a year in State and local tax revenues and customs receipts. These two projects will help assure the continued vitality of the Port of Baltimore into the 21st Century.

In addition to port development and improvement projects, the measure contains a provision which will help significantly to enhance Maryland's environment and quality of life and help achieve the goals and vision of the Potomac American Heritage River designation.

It authorizes $15 million for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to modify the existing flood protection project at Cumberland, Maryland to restore features of the historic Chesapeake and Ohio Canal adversely affected by construction and operation of the project. Mr. President, the C&O Canal is widely regarded as the Nation's finest relic of America's canal building era. It was begun in 1828 as a transportation route between commercial centers in the East and frontier resources of the West. It reached Cumberland in 1850 and continued operating until 1924 when it succumbed to floods and financial failure. In the early 1950's, a section of the Canal and turning basin at its Cumberland terminus was filled in by the Corps of Engineers during construction of a local flood protection project. Portions of the Canal were proclaimed a national monument in 1961 and it was officially established as a national historical park in 1971. Justice Douglas described the park

``. . . not yet marred by the roar of wheels and the sound of horns . .

. The stretch of 185 miles of country from Washington to Cumberland, Maryland, is one of the most fascinating and picturesque in the Nation.''

The National Park Service, as part of its General Management Plan for the Park, has long sought to rebuild and re-water the Canal at its Cumberland terminus. The NPS entered into a Memorandum of Agreement

(MOA) with the Corps to undertake a study of the feasibility of reconstructing the last 2200 feet of the canal to the terminus, through and adjacent to the Corps' flood protection project. The Corps completed this study in July 1995 and determined that ``it is feasible to re-water the canal successfully; the canal and flood protection levee can co-exist on the site without compromising the flood protection for the City of Cumberland; re-construction and partial operation of the locks is feasible; and, based on the as-built information available, underground utility impacts can be mitigated at reasonable cost to allow construction of the canal and turning basin in basically the same alignment and configuration as the original canal.'' A subsequent Rewatering Design Analysis estimated the total project cost at $15 million. This authorization will enable the Corps to proceed with restoring a 1.1 mile stretch of the C&O Canal and revitalize the area as a major hub for tourism and economic development.

I want to compliment the distinguished Chairmen of the Committee and the Subcommittee, Senators Chafee and Warner, and the ranking member, Senator Baucus, for their leadership in crafting this legislation and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure.

Savannah Harbor Deepening Project

Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I rise to request that the Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee help me to clarify the intent of the Savannah Harbor Expansion Project authorization that appears in Section 102 of the 1998 Water Resources Development Authorization Act. It is my understanding that this legislation authorizes a project to deepen the Savannah River channel to a depth of up to 48 feet subject to a favorable report by the Chief of Engineers and a favorable recommendation of the Secretary by December 31, 1998.

Mr. CHAFFEE. The senior Senator from Georgia is correct.

Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, it is my understanding as well, that both the Chief of Engineer's Tier I Environmental Impact Statement and Feasibility Report provide for the establishment of a stakeholders' evaluation group which will have early and consistent involvement in the project, and as part of the process, the EIS requires the development of a mitigation plan to fully and adequately address predicted and potential adverse impacts on, among other things, the Savannah National Wildlife Refuge; striped base population; short-nose sturgeon; salt water and fresh water wetlands; chloride levels; dissolved oxygen levels; erosion; and historical resources. Is that correct?

Mr. CHAFFEE. That is correct.

Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, it is my further understanding that before this project is carried out, the Secretary, in consultation with affected Federal and non-Federal entities, must develop a mitigation plan addressing adverse project impacts and that the plan must be implemented in advance of or concurrent with project construction and must ensure that the project cost estimates are sufficient to address all potential mitigation alternatives. Is that correct?

Mr. CHAFFEE. That is correct.

Mr. COVERDELL. I thank the Chairman for his assistance and look forward to working with him on this important matter.

Mr. CLELAND. Would the Chairman yield for two additional questions on this project?

Mr. CHAFFEE. I would be happy to answer any questions the Senator may have.

Mr. CLELAND. It is my understanding that the authorization language provides that neither the Secretary nor the Georgia Ports Authority will proceed with the design or construction of the project until the respective department heads concur on an appropriate implementation plan and mitigation plan. Is that correct?

Mr. CHAFFEE. That is correct.

Mr. CLELAND. Any funds to be appropriated by Congress for the project must be allocated in a manner that ensures that project impacts are fully and adequately mitigated and are otherwise consistent with the mitigation plan developed by the Secretary and the stakeholder evaluation group. Is that correct?

Mr. CHAFFEE. That is correct.

Mr. CLELAND. I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to clarify these understandings.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be agreed to en bloc, the committee substitute be agreed to, the bill be considered read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The amendments (Nos. 3798 and 3799) were agreed to.

The committee substitute, as amended, was agreed to.

The bill (S. 2131), as amended, was passed.

[The bill was not available for printing. It will appear in a future issue of the Record.]

____________________

SOURCE: Congressional Record Vol. 144, No. 140