PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS. (a) Projects With Report of the Chief of Engineers.—Except as provided in this subsection, 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 the respective reports designated in this subsection: (1) Bayou la batre, Alabama.—The project for navigation for Bayou La Batre, Alabama: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated August 3, 1989, at a total cost of $16,230,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $4,490,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $11,740,000. (2) Homer spit, Alaska.—The project for storm damage prevention, Homer Spit, Alaska: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated June 28, 1990, at a total cost of $4,700,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $3,050,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $1,650,000, and an average annual cost of $242,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated annual Federal cost of $157,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of $85,000. 104 STAT. 4606 (3) Clifton, san francisco river, Arizona.—The project for flood control on the San Francisco River at Clifton, Arizona, authorized by section 401(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4130), is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project substantially in accordance with the report of the Chief of Engineers, dated September 6, 1988, at a total cost of $12,510,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $9,150,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $3,360,000. (4) Nogales wash and tributaries, Arizona.— The project for flood control, Nogales Wash and tributaries, Arizona: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated February 28, 1989, at a total cost of $11,100,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $8,300,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $2,800,000. The Secretary shall cooperate with the Government of Mexico as necessary to provide for flood warning gauges in Mexico. The Secretary may proceed with the portion of the project in the United States before an agreement is reached with the Government of Mexico with respect to the portion of the project in Mexico. (5) Coyote and berryessa creeks, California.—The project for flood control, Coyote and Berryessa Creeks, California: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated February 7, 1989, at a total cost of $56,300,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $39,000,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $17,300,000. (6) Oceanside harbor, California.—The project for navigation and storm damage reduction, Oceanside Harbor, California: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated May 21, 1990, at a total cost of $5,100,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $3,350,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $1,750,000. (7) Ventura harbor, California.—The project for navigation, Ventura Harbor, California: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated June 5, 1990, at a total cost of $6,455,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $5,175,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $1,280,000. (8) Martin county, Florida.—The project for storm damage reduction, Martin County, Florida: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated November 20, 1989, at a total first cost of $9,400,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $3,850,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $5,550,000, and an average annual cost of $472,300 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated annual Federal cost of $193,600 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of $278,700. (9) Miami harbor channel, Florida.—The project for navigation, Miami Harbor Channel, Florida: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated September 25, 1989, at a total cost of $67,100,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $42,810,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $24,290,000. (10) McAlpine lock and dam, Indiana and Kentucky.—The project for navigation, McAlpine Lock and Dam, Indiana and Kentucky: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated June 29, 1990, at a total cost of $219,600,000, with a first Federal cost of $219,600,000. The Federal share of costs of construction of the project is to be paid one-half from amounts appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury and one-half from amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. 104 STAT. 4607 (11) Fort wayne, st. mary’s and maumee rivers, Indiana.—The project for flood control, Fort Wayne, St. Mary’s and Maumee Rivers, Indiana: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated May 1, 1989, at a total cost of $35,618,400, with an estimated first Federal cost of $26,493,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $9,125,400. (12) Aloharigolette, Louisiana.—The project for flood control, AlohaRigolette Area, Louisiana: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated April 11, 1990, at a total cost of $8,283,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $6,212,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $2,071,000. (13) Boston harbor, Massachusetts.—The project for navigation, Boston Harbor, Massachusetts: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated May 11, 1989, at a total cost of $26,200,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $16,230,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $9,970,000. (14) Ecorse creek, wayne county, Michigan.—The project for flood control, Ecorse Creek, Wayne County, Michigan: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated August 8, 1989, at a total cost of $9,296,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $6,754,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $2,542,000. (15) Great lakes connecting channels and harbors, Michigan and Minnesota.—The project for navigation, Great Lakes Connecting Channels and Harbors, Michigan and Minnesota: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated January 30, 1990, at a total cost of $13,148,400, with an estimated first Federal cost of $8,791,700 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $4,356,700. (16) Coldwater creek, Missouri.—The project for flood control, Coldwater Creek, Missouri: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated August 9, 1988, at a total cost of $22,829,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $15,496,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $7,333,000. (17) River des peres, Missouri.—The project for flood control, River Des Peres, Missouri: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated May 23, 1989, at a total cost of $21,318,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $15,846,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $5,472,000. (18) Passaic river main stem, new jersey and new york.— (A) Flood control elements.— (i) In general.—The project for flood control, Passaic River Main Stem, New Jersey and New York: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated February 3, 1989, except that the main diversion tunnel shall be extended to include the outlet to Newark Bay, New Jersey, at a total cost of $1,200,000,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $890,000,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $310,000,000. (ii) Design and construction.—The Secretary shall design and construct the project in accordance with the Newark Bay tunnel outlet alternative described in the Phase I General Design Memorandum of the District Engineer, dated December 1987. The main diversion tunnel shall be extended approximately 6V2 miles to outlet in Newark Bay, the 9 levee systems in Bergen, East Essex, and Passaic Counties which were associated with the eliminated Third River tunnel outlet shall be excluded from the project, and no dikes or levees shall 104 STAT. 4608be constructed along the Passaic River in Bergen County in connection with the project. With respect to the Newark Bay tunnel outlet project, all acquisition, use, condemnation, or requirement for parklands or properties in connection with the excluded 9 levee systems and the eliminated Third River tunnel outlet works, and any other acquisition, use or condemnation, or requirement for parkland or properties in Bergen County in connection with the project, is prohibited. The Secretary shall certify to the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate that no detrimental flood impact will accrue in Bergen County as a result of the project. (iii) Applicability of cost sharing.—Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the total project, including the extension to Newark Bay, shall be subject to cost sharing in accordance with section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. (iv) Operation and maintenance.—The non-Federal sponsor shall maintain and operate the project after its completion in accordance with the regulations prescribed by the Secretary; except that the Secretary shall perform all measures to ensure integrity of the tunnel, including staffing of operation centers, cleaning and periodically inspecting the tunnel structure, and testing and assuring the effectiveness of mechanical equipment at gated structures and pump stations. (v) Credit for non-federal work.—In recognition of the State of New Jersey’s commitment to the project on June 28, 1984, all work completed after such date by the State or other non-Federal interests which is either compatible with or complementary to the project shall be considered as part of the project and shall be credited by the Secretary toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project. Such work shall include, but not be limited to, those activities specified in theletter of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, dated December 9, 1988, to the Office of the Chief of Engineers. However, only the portion of such work that meets the guidelines established under section 104 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 shall be considered as project costs for economic purposes. In applying such section 104 to the project, the Secretary shall likewise consider work carried out by non-Federal interests after June 28, 1984, and before the date of the enactment of this Act that otherwise meets the requirements of such section 104. (B) Streambank restoration measures.—The project shall include the construction of environmental and other streambank restoration measures (including bulkheads, recreation, greenbelt, and scenic overlook facilities) on the west bank of the Passaic River between Bridge and Jackson Streets in the city of Newark, New Jersey, at a total cost of $6,000,000. The non-Federal share of the project element authorized by this subparagraph shall be 25 percent. The value of the lands, easements, and rights-of-way provided 104 STAT. 4609by non-Federal interests shall be credited to the non-Federal share. Construction of the project element authorized by this subparagraph may be undertaken in advance of the other project features and shall not await implementation of the overall project. (C) Wetlands bank.— (i) Purposes.—The purposes of this subparagraph are to evaluate and demonstrate, for application on a national basis, the feasibility of and methods of obtaining an interim goal of no overall net loss of the Nation’s remaining wetlands base and a long-term goal to increase the quality and quantity of the Nation’s wetlands; of restoring and creating wetlands; of developing public and private initiatives to search out opportunities of restoring, preserving, and enhancing wetlands; and of improving understanding of the function of wetlands ecosystems in order to improve the effectiveness of the Nation’s wetlands program, including evaluating the functions and values of wetlands, assessing cumulative impacts and the effectiveness of protection programs, and wetlands restoration and creation techniques. (ii) Establishment.—The State of New Jersey shall establish a Passaic River Central Basin Wetlands Bank (hereinafter in this paragraph referred to as the “Wetlands Bank”) to be comprised of lands which are acquired before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act by the State or any other non-Federal interest and which lie within the Passaic River Central Basin, New Jersey, natural storage area discussed in the report of the Chief Engineers and the Phase I General Design Memorandum. (iii) Use.—The Wetlands Bank shall be available for mitigation purposes required under Federal or State law with respect to non-Federal activities carried out in the State. (iv) Compensation.—The State may receive compensation for making lands available under clause (iii). (v) State ownership and operation.—The State shall continue to own and operate, consistent with the purposes of the project authorized by this paragraph, lands made available for mitigation purposes under clause (iii). (vi) Acquisition of additional lands.—The State or other non-Federal interests may acquire for the Wetlands Bank additional lands which are in, adjacent to, or provide drainage for runoff and streamflows into the storage area described in clause (ii) and may use funds provided by sources other than the State for such purpose. Such lands shall include transition and buffer areas adjacent to the Central Basin natural storage wetlands and other Passaic River Basin areas, including the Rockaway, Pequannock, Ramapo, and Wanaque River watershed areas. (vii) Credit.—The fair market value of lands acquired by the State or other non-Federal interests in the storage area described in clause (ii) before, on, or 104 STAT. 4610after the date of the enactment of this Act, the fair market value of lands acquired for the Wetlands Bank under clause (vi) before, on, or after such date of enactment, and the costs incurred by the State or other non-Federal interests in converting any of such lands to wetlands shall be credited to the non-Federal share of the cost of the project authorized by this paragraph. (viii) Treatment of acquired lands.—Lands acquired by the State for the Wetlands Bank shall not be treated as a project cost for purposes of economic evaluation of the project. (ix) Effect on other laws.—Nothing in this subparagraph shall be construed as affecting any requirements under section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) or section 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403). (19) Rio de la Plata, Puerto rico.—The project for flood control, Rio De La Plata, Puerto Rico: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated January 3, 1989, at a total cost of $58,968,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $35,900,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $23,068,000. (20) Myrtle beach, south Carolina.—The project for storm damage reduction, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated March 2, 1989, at a total cost of $59,730,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $38,820,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $20,910,000, and an average annual cost of $1,215,000 for period nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated annual Federal cost of $790,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of $425,000. (21) Buffalo bayou and tributaries, texas.—The project for flood control, Buffalo Bayou and tributaries, Texas: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated February 12, 1990, at a total cost of $727,364,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $403,359,500 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $324,004,500. (22) Ray Roberts lake, greenbelt, texas.—The multiple purpose project, Ray Roberts Lake, Greenbelt, Texas, authorized by section 301 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1965, is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct recreation features substantially in accordance with the Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated December 24, 1987, at a total cost of $8,503,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $3,189,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $5,314,000. (23) Upper jordan river, utah.—The project for flood control, Upper Jordan River, Utah: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated November 16, 1988, at a total cost of $7,900,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $5,200,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $2,700,000. (24) Buena vista, Virginia.—The project for flood control, Buena Vista, Virginia: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated June 27, 1990, at a total cost of $55,100,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $41,300,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $13,800,000. (25) Moorefield, west Virginia.—The project for flood control, Moorefield, West Virginia: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated July 23, 1990, at a total cost of $16,260,000, with an 104 STAT. 4611estimated first Federal cost of $11,675,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $4,585,000. (26) Petersburg, west Virginia.—The project for flood control, Petersburg, West Virginia: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated June 29, 1990, at a total cost of $17,904,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $10,044,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $7,860,000. (b) Project Subject to Favorable Report of the Chief of Engineers.—The project for flood control, Los Angeles County Drainage Area, California, at a total cost of $327,000,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $163,500,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $163,500,000, is authorized to be prosecuted by the Secretary in accordance with a final report of the Chief of Engineers and with such modifications as are recommended by the Secretary. No construction on the project may be initiated until such a report of the Chief of Engineers is issued and approved by the Secretary.