PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS. (a) Projects With Chief’s Reports.—The following projects for water resources development and conservation and other purposes are authorized to be carried out by the Secretary substantially in accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions, described in the respective reports designated in this subsection: (1) Nome harbor improvements, alaska.—The project for navigation, Nome Harbor improvements, Alaska: Report of the 113 STAT. 274Chief of Engineers dated June 8, 1999, as amended by the Chief of Engineers on August 2, 1999, at a total cost of $25,651,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $20,192,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,459,000. (2) Sand point harbor, alaska.—The project for navigation, Sand Point Harbor, Alaska: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated October 13, 1998, at a total cost of $11,760,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $6,964,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $4,796,000. (3) Seward harbor, alaska.—The project for navigation, Seward Harbor, Alaska: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated June 8, 1999, at a total cost of $12,240,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $4,089,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $8,151,000. (4) Rio salado (salt river), phoenix and tempe, arizona.—The project for flood control and environmental restoration, Rio Salado (Salt River), Phoenix and Tempe, Arizona: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated August 20, 1998, at a total cost of $88,048,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $56,355,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $31,693,000. (5) Tucson drainage area, arizona.—The project for flood damage reduction, environmental restoration, and recreation, Tucson drainage area, Arizona: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated May 20, 1998, at a total cost of $29,900,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $16,768,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $13,132,000. (6) American and sacramento rivers, california.— (A) In general.—The Folsom Dam Modification portion of the Folsom Modification Plan described in the United States Army Corps of Engineers Supplemental Information Report for the American River Watershed Project, California, dated March 1996, as modified by the report entitled “Folsom Dam Modification Report, New Outlets Plan”, dated March 1998, prepared by the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, at an estimated cost of $150,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $97,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $52,500,000. The Secretary shall coordinate with the Secretary of the Interior with respect to the design and construction of modifications at Folsom Dam authorized by this paragraph. (B) Reoperation measures.—Upon completion of the improvements to Folsom Dam authorized by subparagraph (A), the variable space allocated to flood control within the Reservoir shall be reduced from the current operating range of 400,000–670,000 acre-feet to 400,000–600,000 acre-feet. (C) Makeup of water shortages caused by flood control operation.—The Secretary of the Interior shall enter into, or modify, such agreements with the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency regarding the operation of Folsom Dam and reservoir as may be necessary in order that, notwithstanding any prior agreement or provision of law, 100 percent of the water needed to make up for any water shortage caused by variable flood control operation during any year at Folsom Dam and resulting in 113 STAT. 275a significant impact on recreation at Folsom Reservoir shall be replaced, to the extent the water is available for purchase, by the Secretary of the Interior. (D) Significant impact on recreation.—For the purposes of this paragraph, a significant impact on recreation is defined as any impact that results in a lake elevation at Folsom Reservoir below 435 feet above sea level starting on May 15 and ending on September 15 of any given year. (E) Updated flood management plan.—The Secretary, in cooperation with the Secretary of the Interior, shall update the flood management plan for Folsom Dam authorized by section 9159(f)(2) of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1993 (106 Stat. 1946), to reflect the operational capabilities created by the modification authorized by subparagraph (A) and improved weather forecasts based on the Advanced Hydrologic Prediction System of the National Weather Service. (7) Oakland harbor, california.—The project for navigation, Oakland Harbor, California: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated April 21, 1999, at a total cost of $252,290,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $128,081,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $124,209,000. (8) South sacramento county streams, california.—The project for flood control, environmental restoration and recreation, South Sacramento County streams, California: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated October 6, 1998, at a total cost of $65,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $41,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $24,300,000. (9) Upper guadalupe river, california.—Construction of the locally preferred plan for flood damage reduction and recreation, Upper Guadalupe River, California, described as the Bypass Channel Plan of the Chief of Engineers dated August 19, 1998, at a total cost of $140,328,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $44,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $96,328,000. (10) Yuba river basin, california.—The project for flood damage reduction, Yuba River Basin, California: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated November 25, 1998, at a total cost of $26,600,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $17,350,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $9,250,000. (11) Delaware bay coastline, delaware and new jersey-broadkill beach, delaware.—The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Delaware Bay coastline, Delaware and New Jersey-Broadkill Beach, Delaware: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated August 17, 1998, at a total cost of $9,049,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $5,674,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,375,000, and at an estimated average annual cost of $538,200 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated annual Federal cost of $349,800 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of $188,400. (12) Delaware bay coastline, delaware and new jersey-port mahon, delaware.—The project for ecosystem restoration, Delaware Bay coastline, Delaware and New Jersey-Port Mahon, Delaware: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated 113 STAT. 276September 28, 1998, at a total cost of $7,644,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $4,969,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,675,000, and at an estimated average annual cost of $234,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated annual Federal cost of $152,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of $82,000. (13) Delaware bay coastline, delaware and new jersey-roosevelt inlet-lewes beach, delaware.—The project for navigation mitigation and hurricane and storm damage reduction, Delaware Bay coastline, Delaware and New Jersey-Roosevelt Inlet-Lewes Beach, Delaware: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated February 3, 1999, at a total cost of $3,393,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $2,620,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $773,000, and at an estimated average annual cost of $196,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated annual Federal cost of $152,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of $44,000. (14) Delaware bay coastline, delaware and new jersey-villas and vicinity, new jersey.—The project for shore protection and ecosystem restoration, Delaware Bay coastline, Delaware and New Jersey-Villas and vicinity, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated April 21, 1999, at a total cost of $7,520,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $4,888,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,632,000. (15) Delaware coast from cape henelopen to fenwick island, bethany beach/south bethany beach, delaware.—The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Delaware Coast from Cape Henelopen to Fenwick Island, Bethany Beach/South Bethany Beach, Delaware: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated April 21, 1999, at a total cost of $22,205,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $14,433,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $7,772,000, and at an estimated average annual cost of $1,584,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated annual Federal cost of $1,030,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of $554,000. (16) Hillsboro and okeechobee aquifer, florida.—The project for aquifer storage and recovery described in the Corps of Engineers Central and Southern Florida Water Supply Study, Florida, dated April 1989, and in House Document 369, dated July 30, 1968, at a total cost of $27,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $13,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $13,500,000. (17) Jacksonville harbor, florida.—The project for navigation, Jacksonville Harbor, Florida: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated April 21, 1999, at a total cost of $26,116,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $9,129,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $16,987,000. (18) Tampa harbor-big bend channel, florida.—The project for navigation, Tampa Harbor-Big Bend Channel, Florida: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated October 13, 1998, at a total cost of $12,356,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $6,235,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $6,121,000.113 STAT. 277 (19) Brunswick harbor, georgia.—The project for navigation, Brunswick Harbor, Georgia: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated October 6, 1998, at a total cost of $50,717,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $32,966,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $17,751,000. (20) Beargrass creek, kentucky.—The project for flood control, Beargrass Creek, Kentucky: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated May 12, 1998, at a total cost of $11,171,300, with an estimated Federal cost of $7,261,500 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,909,800. (21) Amite river and tributaries, louisiana, east baton rouge parish watershed.—The project for flood damage reduction and recreation, Amite River and Tributaries, Louisiana, East Baton Rouge Parish Watershed: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 23, 1996, at a total cost of $112,900,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $73,400,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $39,500,000. (22) Baltimore harbor anchorages and channels, maryland and virginia.— (A) In general.—The project for navigation, Baltimore Harbor Anchorages and Channels, Maryland and Virginia, Report of the Chief of Engineers dated June 8, 1998, at a total cost of $28,426,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $18,994,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $9,432,000. (B) Credit or reimbursement.—If a project cooperation agreement is entered into, the non-Federal interest shall receive credit toward, or reimbursement of, the Federal share of project costs for construction work performed by the non-Federal interest before execution of the project cooperation agreement if the Secretary finds the work to be integral to the project. (C) Study of modifications.—During the preconstruction engineering and design phase of the project, the Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of undertaking further modifications to the Dundalk Marine Terminal access channels, consisting of— (i) deepening and widening the Dundalk access channels to a depth of 50 feet and a width of 500 feet; (ii) widening the flares of the access channels; and (iii) providing a new flare on the west side of the entrance to the east access channel. (D) Report.— (i) In general.—Not later than March 1, 2000, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the study under subparagraph (C). (ii) Contents.—The report shall include a determination of— (I) the feasibility of performing the project modifications described in subparagraph (C); and (II) the appropriateness of crediting or reimbursing the Federal share of the cost of the work performed by the non-Federal interest on the project modifications.113 STAT. 278 (23) Red lake river at crookston, minnesota.—The project for flood control, Red Lake River at Crookston, Minnesota: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated April 20, 1998, at a total cost of $8,950,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $5,720,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,230,000. (24) Turkey creek basin, kansas city, missouri, and kansas city, kansas.—The project for flood damage reduction, Turkey Creek Basin, Kansas City, Missouri, and Kansas City, Kansas: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated April 21, 1999, at a total cost of $42,875,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $25,596,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $17,279,000. (25) Lower cape may meadows, cape may point, new jersey.—The project for navigation mitigation, ecosystem restoration, shore protection, and hurricane and storm damage reduction, Lower Cape May Meadows, Cape May Point, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated April 5, 1999, at a total cost of $15,952,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $12,118,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,834,000, and at an estimated average annual cost of $1,114,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated annual Federal cost of $897,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of $217,000. (26) Townsends inlet to cape may inlet, new jersey.—The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, shore protection, and ecosystem restoration, Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated September 28, 1998, at a total cost of $56,503,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $36,727,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $19,776,000, and at an estimated average annual cost of $2,000,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated annual Federal cost of $1,300,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of $700,000. (27) Guanajibo river, puerto rico.— (A) In general.—The project for flood control, Guanajibo River, Puerto Rico: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated February 27, 1996, at a total cost of $27,031,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $20,273,250 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $6,757,750. (B) Cost sharing.—Cost sharing for the project shall be determined in accordance with section 103(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(a)), as in effect on October 11, 1996. (28) Rio grande de manati, barceloneta, puerto rico.—The project for flood control, Rio Grande De Manati, Barceloneta, Puerto Rico: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated January 22, 1999, at a total cost of $13,491,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $8,785,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $4,706,000. (29) Rio nigua, salinas, puerto rico.—The project for flood control, Rio Nigua, Salinas, Puerto Rico: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated April 15, 1997, at a total cost of $13,702,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $7,645,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $6,057,000. (30) Salt creek, graham, texas.—The project for flood control, environmental restoration, and recreation, Salt Creek, 113 STAT. 279Graham, Texas: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated October 6, 1998, at a total cost of $10,080,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $6,560,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,520,000. (b) Projects Subject to a Final Report.—The following projects for water resources development and conservation and other purposes are authorized to be carried out by the Secretary substantially in accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions, recommended in a final report of the Chief of Engineers if a favorable report of the Chief is completed not later than December 31, 1999: (1) Heritage harbor, wrangell, alaska.—The project for navigation, Heritage Harbor, Wrangell, Alaska, at a total cost of $24,556,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $14,447,000 and estimated non-Federal cost of $10,109,000. (2) Arroyo pasajero, california.—The project for flood damage reduction, Arroyo Pasajero, California, at a total cost of $260,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $170,100,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $90,600,000. (3) Hamilton airfield, california.—The project for environmental restoration, Hamilton Airfield, California, at a total cost of $55,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $41,400,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $13,800,000. (4) Success dam, tule river basin, california.—The project for flood damage reduction and water supply, Success Dam, Tule River basin, California, at a total cost of $17,900,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $11,635,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $6,265,000. (5) Delaware bay coastline, delaware and new jersey: oakwood beach, new jersey.—The project for shore protection, Delaware Bay coastline, Delaware and New Jersey: Oakwood Beach, New Jersey, at a total cost of $3,360,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $2,184,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $1,176,000, and at an estimated average annual cost of $81,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated annual Federal cost of $53,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of $28,000. (6) Delaware bay coastline, delaware and new jersey: reeds beach and pierces point, new jersey.—The project for shore protection and ecosystem restoration, Delaware Bay coastline, Delaware and New Jersey: Reeds Beach and Pierces Point, New Jersey, at a total cost of $4,057,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $2,637,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $1,420,000. (7) Little talbot island, duval county, florida.—The project for hurricane and storm damage prevention and shore protection, Little Talbot Island, Duval County, Florida, at a total cost of $5,915,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $3,839,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,076,000. (8) Ponce de leon inlet, florida.—The project for navigation and related purposes, Ponce de Leon Inlet, Volusia County, Florida, at a total cost of $5,454,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $2,988,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,466,000. (9) Savannah harbor expansion, georgia.— (A) In general.—Subject to subparagraph (B), the project for navigation, Savannah Harbor expansion, 113 STAT. 280Georgia, including implementation of the mitigation plan, with such modifications as the Secretary considers appropriate, at a total cost of $230,174,000 (of which amount a portion is authorized for implementation of the mitigation plan), with an estimated Federal cost of $145,160,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $85,014,000. (B) Conditions.—The project authorized by subparagraph (A) may be carried out only after— (i) the Secretary, in consultation with affected Federal, State of Georgia, State of South Carolina, regional, and local entities, reviews and approves an environmental impact statement for the project that includes— (I) an analysis of the impacts of project depth alternatives ranging from 42 feet through 48 feet; and (II) a selected plan for navigation and an associated mitigation plan as required under section 906(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(a)); and (ii) the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Commerce, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Secretary approve the selected plan and determine that the associated mitigation plan adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the project. (C) Mitigation requirements.—The mitigation plan shall be implemented before or concurrently with construction of the project. (10) Des plaines river, illinois.—The project for flood control, Des Plaines River, Illinois, at a total cost of $48,800,000 with an estimated Federal cost of $31,700,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $17,100,000. (11) Reelfoot lake, kentucky and tennessee.—The project for ecosystem restoration, Reelfoot Lake, Kentucky and Tennessee, at a total cost of $35,287,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $23,601,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $11,686,000. (12) Brigantine inlet to great egg harbor, brigantine island, new jersey.—The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction and shore protection, Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor, Brigantine Island, New Jersey, at a total cost of $4,970,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $3,230,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $1,740,000, and at an estimated average annual cost of $465,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated annual Federal cost of $302,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of $163,000. (13) Columbia river channel, oregon and washington.—The project for navigation, Columbia River Channel, Oregon and Washington, at a total cost of $183,623,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $106,132,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $77,491,000. (14) Johnson creek, arlington, texas.—The project for flood damage reduction, environmental restoration, and recreation, Johnson Creek, Arlington, Texas, at a total cost of 113 STAT. 281$20,300,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $12,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $8,300,000. (15) Howard hanson dam, washington.—The project for water supply and ecosystem restoration, Howard Hanson Dam, Washington, at a total cost of $75,600,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $36,900,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $38,700,000.